Update On Appeal 6March2025
This has updates of both appeals
AC48416 and A48452 - my laptop is being hacked! I have to get off!
My Motion For Rectification was FILED 2/20....I wanted to modify it due to a few altered phrases by Cyber Crime! The case manager did not kick it back to me.
Yet my Motion To Amend it was kicked back! There also was not objection, no motion to dismiss my appeal, no nothing! This is such a shit show!
My words are being altered by hackers. Yes, I was upset but not at the case manager. And not for this reason. I am deprived of my rights. That is why. The case has no merit.
The motion to Amend was entered.
I SUBMITTED A MOTION REFLECTING THE BELOW.
Pursuant to Public Act 24-108, the trial court judge HAD to take my payments into court yet she altered the records! I was paying 198; she increased my rent, which is outright criminal because she alters things all the time and she did not even appear let alone preside my hearing on October 31 yet the woman who was there claimed she was Alayna Stone, and also allowed this judge Alayna Stone to rule on the motion! they use so many fake names and rely on cyber crime to fix things for them!
I motioned for a Review, once I got the judicial order on payments! They had no intention of giving me the written order - to deprive my rights in submitting a Motion For Review. Someone put pressure on them to do their damn jobs and I got it days later, after constantly going there and asking for it and telling the chief clerk I don't give a crap about your claiming I have all the time in the world, You are abusing process!
I submitted my Emergency Motion Today since the Appellate Court would not rule on my Motion For Review submitted 3 damn weeks ago! Feb 19!
The rent has to be paid by March 10 or they will evict me. They claim I have to pay more, they increased my rent! Here I am the one aggrieved, to include the violent break-in in my apartment when I was taking a bath!
I also will paste the document I typed on the Motion For Review.
That is all I am taking time to share today. I was up all night working on the Motion For Review and it took an hour to scan in the 75 pages! My scanner only does one page at a time.
Microsoft is blocking access to my documents, so I had to try another way.
THIS IS MY EMERGENCY MOTION WHICH IS THE COVER OF THE PAPERWORK:
AC 48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, LLC : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE BRADLEY : March 6, 2025
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION DUE TO
NO RULING ON MOTION FOR FOR REVIEW
Pursuant to PB 60-3 and any other rule or law which may coincide, Defendant-Appellant motions this court to rule on Motion For Review.
HISTORY
Defendant-Appellant is appealing what she claims to be a very wrongful eviction due to a fraudulent Notice To Quit and fraudulent Summons and many more defects and frauds which took place on the case. The trial court issued a ruling to pay rent into court, skipping over two months and also ruled for defendant-appellant to pay directly to the landlord, which is NOT a government, NOT an arm of the court AND against thev very law which was cited by the court as reason, Public Act 24-108. Defendant-Appellant struggled to get the court to provide her a documented ruling to submit a Motion For Review. One was provided to her days later and she promptly prepared and submitted “DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REVIEW TRIAL COURT’S ORDER FROM THE BENCH OF FEBRUARY 11, 2025”. There has been no ruling yet Defendant-Appellant has diligently called about this throughout this time.
FACTS
1. The payment into court pursuant to Public Act 24-108 is required by the 10th of March, which is only 3 1/2 days from now.
2. IMMEDIATE ATTENTION TO THAT MOTION IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, TO THE APPELLATE COURT.
3. The motion was submitted over three weeks ago.
4. Defendant-appellant printed the motion from the case information at 3pm today, 3/6/2025, and noticed it was somewhat compromised by someone switching the ruling of February 11 to a ruling in December.
5. This “error” which the defendant-appellant considers as cyber crime, can be easily determined as the wrong ruling and the court can see for itself the documented ruling of February 11.
6. Appellant-Defendant is uploading the motion as the court has it on record, along with the appropriate ruling of February 11.
7. Appellant claims it is wrongful for the trial judge to skip over two months, and the attorneys who have filed appearances on this case and AC48452 are DEBT COLLECTORS, not certified appellate attorneys.
8. Attorneys used to be required to have permission and expertise to approach the Appellate Court in Connecticut; as a Pro Se, defendant-appellant has the impression there is seemingly an unravelling of requirements, which makes it more difficult for Pro Se litigants as well.
9. PAYMENT INTO COURT IS DUE BY THE 10TH OF MARCH. FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO GO OVER THE LAW AND MAKE SUCH A RULING TO PAY THE LANDLORD, WHO IS OBVIOUSLY NOT EVEN THE OWNDER OF THIS PREMISES AND HAS NO OFFICIAL PERMISSION FROM HUD, CAUSES MORE DISRUPTION ON THIS CASE.
10. It is the defendant-appellant’s opinion that the Bozzuto Management Firm continues to own this property. For them to use the Secretary of State as its agent seems wrongful, yet they were served, which caused much disruption on the trial court case.
11. This is a $2.2 billion building at 360 State Street. The assessors recently changed the value to $0. The owner does not have to pay taxes. Gideon Friedman has a mortgage on this building far exceeding its value, totalling $89 billion.
12. What is at stake is the defendant-appellant’s rights, which she has been very diligent with.
13. This motion is being scanned and will be promptly submitted to the plaintiff-appellee.
14. All motions have been accepted by the court by sending to the attorney on file, Langhammer Law Office.
15. This motion comprises of FIVE pages, and appendixed is Feb 11 Ruling of Trial Court along with tiral court history and original motion for review: DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REVIEW TRIAL COURT’S ORDER FROM THE BENCH OF FEBRUARY 11, 2025
LAW
PB 60-3
SUMMARY
This is an emergency motion and defendant-appellant respectfully requests for it to be treated as such. The trial court issued a ruling which is CONTRARY to the very law it cited regarding making payments into court, which is due no later than March 10. It is now March 6, 4:12pm. Defendant-appellant needs to scan pages one by one in her apartment and hopes to access internet, which she does by going by her door and selecting GUEST since the landlord cut off her wifi over two years ago, right after she complained that the maintenance manager defecated in her bathroom trash can when he was in it supposedly changing the filter. She has suffered much from poor maintenance, abuse. Including the same maintenance manager using violent force to access her apartment on July 2, 2024. This plan did not work and they resorted to rigging an eviction. She only asks the court for her rights to pay rent to the court as the law states. It is hopeful this motion will be successfully uploaded by 5 pm; oftentimes gets kicked out of wifi by this management.
Prepared and Submitted,
FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
_________________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph. 203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024
CERTIFICATION
This EMERGENCY MOTION ON PAYING RENT INTO COURT, DUE TO THE NEED TO CORRECT TRIAL COURT’S RULING is Pursuant to P.B. §§ 62-7 and 66-3, it is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing was MAILED, USPS, DUE TO THE CYBER CRIME ONHER EMAIL AND DISRUPTING ACCESS, to the Attorney whose appearance, which is fraudulently indicating Pro Hac Vice appearance, on record:
Lloyd L. Langhammer (Appellee)
JURIS NO AC 48452 appearance
LAW OFFICES OF LLOYD L. LANGHAMMER, LLC
18A Granite Street
New London, CT 06320
860-440-3340
llanghammer@hotmail.com
Hoops & Associates - as ordered by the court, yet no appearance is on Appellate Record
FAX:860-445-8919
============================================================
I HAD TO PREPARE THIS BECAUSE THE HOUSING COURT WOULD NOT GIVE ME A HARD COPY OF THE JUDGE'S ORDER! I REQUESTED IT ON THE 12TH, AND PREPARED THIS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A MODUS OPERANDI OF BEING FRAUDS!
_____________________________________________________
ANSONIA STATE STREET, LLC : J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : February 13, 2025
Defendant-Appellant’s Request for Trial Court to Document Judge’s Ruling from the Bench on February 11 and also issue Ruling on Motion For Stay Pending Appeal
Defendant is requesting the aforesaid by the end of today, February 13; otherwise will order and have to pay for an Expedited Transcript from the court reporter in order to proceed with a TIMELY Motion For Review by Appellate Court since it is required to be submitted within 10 days of issuance of such order, which was issued from the bench on February 11, 2024.
It is expected to include specifics, which the judge did not relay and did not provide defendant-appellant opportunity to respond to obtain specifics; and though the courtroom was full of people, she left the court for an unknown length of time.
Specifics would include:
1. REASON FOR INCREASE IN FAIR USE AND VALUE SINCE THE COURT HAD BEEN ALREADY RECEIVING $198
a) Defendant-Appellant issued a Statement to prepare for this hearing, which is Entry No. 143.00
2. How much the court orders the Defendant-Appellant to pay as first payment and thereafter, beginning on what date.
3. Confirmation of PAYABLE TO WHOM and why
Aforesaid Request, Case Information, Landlord’s current email demanding rent with Defendant’s response, and Entry No. 143.00 shall be attached to a Motion For Injunctive Order should one be necessary in order to proceed with a timely Motion For Review.
Upon requesting this order from the chief clerk, he emphasized “You have all the time in the world”. Defendant-Appellant disagrees and reminds the court that delay tactics only reflect more abuse of procedure.
There is nothing pleasant about this abusive case, according to the Defendant-Appellant.
1
Aforesaid REQUEST comprises of TWO PAGES.
Prepared and Submitted by:
FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
_____________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
203-508-0858
CERTIFICATION OF MAILING/SERVICE TO PLAINTIFF
February 13, 2025
Aforesaid statement has been faxed to the following Defendant on this case:
Hoops & Associates
FAX: 860-445-8919
__________________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
___________________________________________________
REMINDER: This is where ENRON went down; and anyone who has read about that, will know just how damned crooked they were!
And Blackwater runs THEIR company the same way - worse even! Find out what Whitney Webb says about them!
THIS HEARING of Feb 11 WAS FOR PAYMENTS INTO COURT -
SHE CHANGED IT TO PAYMENTS TO THE LANDLORD, WHICH IS ILLEGAL. PUBLIC ACT 24-SECTION 108...i THINK THAT IS WHAT IT IS. I have to hurry because they kick me off wifi when I am even able to get on it and it is very difficult to type now.
ANSONIA STATE STREET, LLC : J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : February 13, 2025
Defendant-Appellant’s Request for Trial Court to Document Judge’s Ruling from the Bench on February 11 and also issue Ruling on Motion For Stay Pending Appeal
Defendant is requesting the aforesaid by the end of today, February 13; otherwise will order and have to pay for an Expedited Transcript from the court reporter in order to proceed with a TIMELY Motion For Review by Appellate Court since it is required to be submitted within 10 days of issuance of such order, which was issued from the bench on February 11, 2024.
It is expected to include specifics, which the judge did not relay and did not provide defendant-appellant opportunity to respond to obtain specifics; and though the courtroom was full of people, she left the court for an unknown length of time.
Specifics would include:
1. REASON FOR INCREASE IN FAIR USE AND VALUE SINCE THE COURT HAD BEEN ALREADY RECEIVING $198
a) Defendant-Appellant issued a Statement to prepare for this hearing, which is Entry No. 143.00
2. How much the court orders the Defendant-Appellant to pay as first payment and thereafter, beginning on what date.
3. Confirmation of PAYABLE TO WHOM and why
Aforesaid Request, Case Information, Landlord’s current email demanding rent with Defendant’s response, and Entry No. 143.00 shall be attached to a Motion For Injunctive Order should one be necessary in order to proceed with a timely Motion For Review.
Upon requesting this order from the chief clerk, he emphasized “You have all the time in the world”. Defendant-Appellant disagrees and reminds the court that delay tactics only reflect more abuse of procedure.
There is nothing pleasant about this abusive case, according to the Defendant-Appellant.
1
Aforesaid REQUEST comprises of TWO PAGES.
Prepared and Submitted by:
FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
_____________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
203-508-0858
CERTIFICATION OF MAILING/SERVICE TO PLAINTIFF
February 13, 2025
Aforesaid statement has been faxed to the following Defendant on this case:
Hoops & Associates
FAX: 860-445-8919
__________________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
I was in a hurry that day and didn't have time to enter the case number but figured I would when it was submitted in court - the chief clerk decided to give me the damn order instead, as I recall. I submitted my motion very quickly yet these records reflect I did not for about 4 days.
YOU CANNOT TRUST INTERNET! MY INFORMATION HERE MOST LIKELY WILL BE ALTERED - so understand what we are dealing with!
===================================================
Other motions have to be opened before I get on internet due to cyber corruption by Microsoft indicating popup messages that "Windows cannot find you file" ......
==================================================
posted 3/6/2025
PS - speaking of appearances - and most of them fraud their appearances!
THIS IS MY HOUSING COMPLAINT
AC 48452
NHH-CV24-5006875-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANNE BRADLEY : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, LLC : March 5, 2025
APPENDIX E
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
RULING FOR PLAINTIFF
STATEMENT OF APPEARANCES ON CASE
DATE OF THIS APPEAL:
NO APPEARANCE ON RECORD:
Yet According to PB 62-8, they claim right to appear yet have taken no stand on the appeal:
THEY DID NOT FILE OBJECTION PURSUANT TO CT PB
1. HOOPS & ASSOCIATES
19A Thames Street
Groton, CT 06340
Juris No. Pro Hac Vice [fraudulently indicates he is out-of-state]
FAX: 860-445-8911
Email: phoops@hoopslaw.com
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
2. Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
IllegalEviction2024
Ph. 203-508-0858
APPEARANCES SUBMITTED ON CASE
(As showin is Appendix B)
3. LAW OFFICES OF LLOYD LANGHAMMER
2/13/2025
Juris 428410
ALL APPELLEES ON CASE
18A Granite Street
New London, CT 06320
Ph: 860-440-3340
Fax: NOT PROVIDED, LEFT BLANK
4. LAW OFFICES OF LLOYD LANGHAMMER
2/20/2025
Juris Number 428410
Juris No. Pro Hac Vice [fraudulently indicates he is out-of-state]
ALLEGED CLIENTS:
Ansonia State Street, LLC
360 State Street, Inc
South Oxford, LLC
Beachwood Residential
They fail to enter correct spelling which is BEACHWOLD RESIDENTIAL, AS IN THE COMPLAINT; THE APPEARANCE IS PROBABLY FAKE; PARTICULARLY SINCE 360 State Street DISSOLVED also
18A Granite Street
New London, CT 06320
Ph. 860-440-3340
FAX: 203-401-3343
5. Michael A. Leone, Esq
2/20/2025
Juris No. 034876
Representing
ELM CITY COMMUNITIES ONLY
NOTE! BERCHEM MOSES WAS SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTING ELM CITY COMMUNITIES. THEY NEVER WITHDREW APPEARANCE, THOUGH IT WAS FRAUDULANT AS PRO HAC VICE
APPEARANCE IS NOT MARKED REPLACING ANOTHER ATTORNEY
Juris No. Pro Hac Vice [fraudulently indicates he is out-of-state]
Lynch, Traub, Keefe and Errante - LTKE
52 Trumbull Street
New Haven, CT 08510
Ph: 203-787-0275
FAX: 203-401-3343
APPEARANCE PROCEDURE DOES NOT GIVE AN ATTORNEY THE RIGHT TO JUST SUBMIT ANOTHER APPEARANCE OVER AN APPEARANCE. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO ASK PERMISSION, AND ACCORDING TO THE STATED PROCEDURE, REQUIRED TO HAVE A HEARING.
6. Michael A. Leone
3/5/2025
JURIS NO. 034876 - HE CHANGED HIS JURIS NUMBER!
ALL APPELLEES
YET oddly refers to Elm City Communities “in place of appearance” which is his own appearance yet he did not check “This appearance is in addition to an appearance on file”
Lynch, Traub, Keefe and Errante - LTKE
52 Trumbull Street
New Haven, CT 08510
Ph: 203-787-0275
FAX: 203-401-3343
DEFENDANTS NOT REPRESENTED
1. BEACHWOLD RESIDENTIAL
2. BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY
3. LIVABLE CITY INIATIATVE
4. IF ELM CITY COMMUNITIES WAS ACTUALLY REPRESENTED, WHY DID THE CASE MANAGER HAVE TO SEND THEM A DELINQUENT NOTICE? (Included with this Appendix)
I have prepared this to the best of my ability and stand by aforesaid information taken from aforesaid case.
___________________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
Plaintiff-Appellant
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph. 203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- some cyber asshole seems to be outside in the hallway to hack my computer I will upload one more thing and close out. They deleted the 11 page docketing statement and made a three page one! This is why I attached what I uploaded since this underworld relies on cyber crime to fit their wants - THERE IS LITTLE JUSTICE IN THIS COUNTRY and the biggest problem is that others just go along with it! The hacker in the hallway was probably the one who altered the docketing statement!
3/6/2025
UPDATE 7MARCH2025
Why did they do that? I just copied the motion - I'm leaving it since China is being the world leader in peace righ now! And BRICS has become the largest global economic group. They don't like to use the word "power" because they are not the oligarchs. They are not the plutocracy. USA is.
AC 48452
NHH-CV24-5006875-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANNE BRADLEY : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, LLC : March 6, 2025
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
RULING FOR PLAINTIFF
Pursuant to PB 60-3, the Plaintiff-Appellant motions this court for DEFAULT Judgment in her favor due to abuses in procedure, fraudulent appearances by defendants, failure to appear by defendants.
HISTORY
Aforesaid case was ACCEPTED in trial court with granted fee waiver. The typed Housing Complaint, etc were initially rejected by trial court chief clerk and plaintiff-appellant was told to write them out in order to submit right away. The Chief Clerk claimed they do not accept added pages to their court forms, that everything has to be on the form itself. Plaintiff-Appellant’s typed fee waiver stating the case to be “Bradley vs Bozzuto Management, et al” was not challenged. Plaintiff submitted replacement forms which were typed with all accurate information, as according to the records of the Secretary of State, prior to service of these defendants. The chief clerk claimed that the housing complaint could not be replaced; it had to be amended, since the judge had seen it and approved it as it was and he prematurely uploaded it as a case a week before it was served. The Chief Clerk said the service had to be made by a marshal only, that mailing was not acceptable. He also claimed that he had to do all the copying despite the plaintiff having an accurately-scanned file of the 246 page appendix, which he claimed was 264 pages.The marshal who served the 4 defendants (one which was titled 360 State Street, which the Secretary of State later claimed the business was expired; yet the Agent of Service failed to inform the marshal or the plaintiff that their company was dissolved) at the same address on Temple Street, New Haven, and the 2 local defendants who were part of the city government, and the Secretary of State as strangely acting Agent for Bozzuto Management for over 12 years, and CT Corp for MEPT Chapel (which thereafter withdrew its record, yet the Secretary of State beame its agent, and failed to inform plaintiff or Trial Court apparently. MEPT CHAPEL remained to be the OWNER of 360 State Street on plaintiff’s lease, which was actually based on the $1 QUIT CLAIM from Bozzuto Management.. They also quit claimed this $2.2 billion property which was not even re-surveyed to remove Pitkin Plaza let alone have a closure on, to an attorney in New Haven). The marshal billed nearly $3,000 for this service process, to the shock of the plaintiff, yet the chief clerk claimed that was acceptable. There was no trial and several defendants failed to appear -yet thereafter Hoops & Associates altered its appearance at least twice, claiming they were representing all the non-appearing defendants, adding additional pages when there was room on the appearance itself had it been a valid appearance. There was no separate appearance for each party. The transcript does not have the young man’s statement of appearance in court and who he was representing due to the recording being altered. This young man who claimed he was Attorney Hoops said he represented Ansonia State Street only. All defendants failed to Answer the Complaint. The court did not schedule a trial; only a hearing of dismissal, at which time, on October 31, 2024, Judge Alayna Stone was impersonated by someone else who failed to make an appearance under her name, claiming she was Alayna Stone. Additionally, the young man who claimed to be Attorney Peter Hoops was NOT, and again, the court hid his identity. He was not an attorney, as plaintiff-appellant discovered. Despite this, Judge Alayna Stone ruled a dismissal on the case, claiming that the Notice To Quit was valid with no articulation. Motions for articulation and reargument were submitted, since the hearing was not properly adjudicated and even fraudulent by the court itself. They were promptly denied with no hearing. No objection was made by any of the appearing or non-appearing defendants. Fee Waiver for Appeal was submitted and granted, yet plaintiff-appellant had to motion for extension of time, which also was not objected to. The court denied the motion. Appeal was entered when plaintiff’s Motion To Open was denied simultaneously when the judge granted fee waiver. On March 5, the plaintiff-appellant discovered on her phone that the case manager rejected motion to amend motion for rectification a second time. There was no objection to it. .The Court claimed that the plaintiff-appellant failed to Certifity Service to Appellee on Record, though it cannot be uploaded to the court until that is done. Plaintiff-appellant’s case manager has not been in the office yet this week and these actions are being done by someone else, possibly the Chief Appellate Clerk, Carl Cicchetti.
FACTS
1, Plaintiff has been diligently seeking her rights as a greatly harmed tenant who was even terrorized by the maintenance manager on July 2, 2024 when he used violence to force his way in her apartment despite her telling him he could not enter and he would have to make an appointment. He was obviously ordered out by higher authorities in law enforcement because the manager Kyle Huckle did nothing about this or anything because as he stated, “I was told to not talk to you”.
2. Thereafter, this landlord began conspiring a way to get rid of the plaintiff since THAT plan did not work.
3. Plaintiff paid her rent in August, timely, as she always does. She also asked for a printout of the ledger, as she always does. They refused that time. They said the manager told them they could not print it for her.
4. Plaintiff paid her rent in September, timely, as she always does. She also asked for a printout of the ledger, as she always does. They again refused to provide her a printout and her appartment was aggressively vandalized, including trashing her cupboard under her kitchen sink, more theft, causing her food to be spoiled, and vandalizing her refrigerator, and more.
5. Signs on the Plaintiff’s door, that no one has permission to enter unless previously arranged AND only when plaintiff is in her apartment - were repeatedly torn off her door. Various defendant-landlord’s employees said that it was a common area and they probably wanted to maintain uniformity.
a) Yet they had a marshal curl a defective Summons to Evict under the door knob in that common area! The Summons had an illegal Return Date which was brought up repeatedly to the chief clerk, who did nothing yet use abuse of procedure to aid and abet this landlord, who is obviously Bozzuto Management - since they are the ones who were given the property by the city, for $1, and were the developers/builders of it. The quit claims that they issued to first 360 State Street, located in Fairfield, and then to MEPT Chapel Street were illegal and just a way to hide from accountability. It should be a situation they would want to take pride in this accomplishment.
6. On March 5, the appellate court rejected her Motion To Amend Motion For Rectification for a second time. She certified it the same way as she had the first time. Appendix F The court indicated the first time that she had to actually prepare a motion despite no Rule for a Motion To Amend and yet the Appellate court provides an upload for a Motion to Amend. On that motion, she indicated it was amended and changes that were made were bracketed. This was rejected by the court claiming only that it required an actual motion to amend even though there was no rule for it.
7. Upon discovering there is no rule and other matters on the case, plaintiff-appellant was realizing this was one-sided since the defendants failed to appear in the trial court, failed to answer her complaint in the trial court, and yet the appellate court seemed to be giving them all a clean slate.
APPEARANCES/FAILURE TO APPEAR
8. THE APPEARANCE FORM ITSELF FAILS TO NOTE PB 62-8 AND for the most part, the rules cited have little or nothing to do with procedure on appearances. This seems like a catch-me-if-you can process.
9. PB 62-8 indicates in part
a) The trial court attorney shall be deemed to appear on the case
b) Yet no appearance to that affect is in the appellate court record of appearances.
c) Order from the court that they have permission to withdraw appearance is supposed to be granted by the court according to PB 62-8
d) Yet in PB 62-9, it says the appearance is automatically withdrawn when they are replaced
e) Attorney Langhammer is playing Devil’s Chessboard with this and the Appellate Court is allowing this - seemingly as a delay tactic to evade administration of the law.
f) Attorney Langhammer’s appearance includes a fraudulent Juris Number, which is Pro Hac Vice as if he is out of state.
g) Attorney Hoops of Hoops & Associates was the trial court attorney. Yet a young man who was probably related to him claimed HE was Attorney Peter Hoops, when in fact he would not have even been born yet when he entered the BAR.
h) Hoops & Associates, with Attorney Peter Hoops as alleged Proprietor, altered their appearance on record at least three times, adding pages to the appearance, reuploading the same appearance, using the same date and frauding the record.
i) THAT IS A FRAUDULENT APPEARANCE ON SEVERAL COUNTS
10. This court did not validate the legitamacy of this trial court attorney’s appearance.
11. This court allowed Attorney Langhammer to appear for all parties, then secretly retract that WEEKS LATER, AS AN OBVIOUS TACTIC RATHER THAN CORRECTING THE RECORD. Nothing was served on plaintiff-appellent. Her email record is included in Appendix B.
12. The process of attorneys appearing is very specific and published in the Rules of Court. Attorneys have to have a hearing should they want to change their appearance.
13. In this circumstance, this was all done secretly. Plaintiff was never served any order from the court that Attorney Hoops was the appearing attorney. Attorney St. Rock of Hoops Associates never attended any hearing. The court’s record on this is fraudulent. Whoever ordered their name to be placed on record is the cause of the fraud. Considering the fact that Judge Alayna Stone was not even at the hearing of October 31 and yet ruled on the hearing, etc - was most likely the one who ordered the name-change. After all, the the young man who appeared as Attorney Peter Hoops was not only NOT Attorney Peter Hoops but he was not even an attorney.
14. THE DOCKET SHEET PLACED ON RECORD IS ELEVEN PAGES AND EXPLAINS ALL THESE ILLEGALITIES.
15. THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY OBJECTION ON THIS CASE; NOR ANY MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL!
16. DEFENDANTS NOT APPEARING, DOCKET SHEET AND ALSO PLACED IN APPENDIX TO THIS MOTION:
17. Livable City Initiative. THERE IS NO APPEARANCE FORM FROM THEM ON RECORD. THE CHIEF CLERK HAS NO RIGHT TO ENTER AN APPEARANCE JUST BECASE “THEY SAY SO” . They also failed to Answer the Complaint!
18. Ansonia State Street. Represented by Hoops & Associates. As stated in the docket sheet and above, their appearance is FRAUDULENT. They furthered this by lying in court; and yet nevertheless the very fact their NOTICE TO QUIT WAS FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMING THE THE RENT FOR AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2024 WERE NOT PAID WHEN IT WAS, was indeed obvious. The non-appearing judge who ruled on the case was illegal doing just that.
19. BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY is obviously the actual owner of this apartment building, yet the Appellate Court removed them with no court order doing so, in order to allow the plaintiff-appellant to submit a motion in opposition! The fact they use the SECRETARY OF STATE as Agent of Service is abuse of power,and they they have been doing that for years,since this property was turned over to them by the City of New Haven for only one dollar, and they also got millions of dollars from the Obama Administration and have hidden on record the legal agreement made regarding what they would use and manage this building for. Plaintiff had all those records and so much more, yet they were stolen from her when she went to a doctor appointment in New York City. Ref also, the Docket Sheet.
20. NO OTHER DEFENDANTS APPEARED AT THAT HEARING. The Chief Clerk, William Pitt, told the plaintiff Anne M. Bradley, that “They don’t have to. These THINGS are informal. Nobody has to attend.”
21. South Oxford LLC was not allegedly retained by Hoops & Associates until after the hearing and at which time the plaintiff submitted in her pleadings of their non-appearances. They removed much from recordings, including what this young man was appearing for and who he even was! His voice was probably altered to sound like Attorney St. Rock and for some reason that segment, as well as many others, was intercepted by cyber crime using malware.
22. Beachwood Residential, LLC was claimed to be the new owner after South Oxford was claimed to be the new owner - these notices were sent to residents yet they are easily removed and NONE of them can ever be printed. They have it encrypted.
23. They are also used as Agent of Service despite having the same owner, Gideon Friedman. They did not appear or answer the complaint!
24. MEPT CHAPEL STREET, which actually claimed to be owner on the lease as well as the CONTROLLING LEASE, which is the HAP contract, did not even have the decency to Answer the complaint or appear on the case. Langhammer Law Office was entererd as their attorney, yet the Appellate Court removed him only on that defendant, on February 20, 2025, which was probably due to the plaintiff telling the court that this company was removed from the Secretary of State’s registered companies and was listed as DISSOLVED.
25. MEPT’s failure to appear at trial court was reason alone for DEFAULT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR.
26. ELM CITY COMMUNITIES appeared through Bercham Moses Law Firm which used a Pro Hac Vice Appearance and failed to show at the October 31, 2024 hearing.
LAW
PB 60-3, PB 62-8. PB 62-9
DUE PROCESS OF LAW
SUMMARY
As a Pro Se Plaintiff, tenant, Anne M. Bradley, who has been greatly harmed from living and surviving as a Section 8 Tenant at 360 State Street. She attended one Christmas party, 2013. It was obviously rigged for her to win a $100 gift certificate. She purchased winter gloves, which were greatly needed, with a $40 balance from that store owned by a single person who is/was a tenant at this premises. The gloves were stolen out of her apartment when she was probably using the computer room or checking mail, etc. She suffered greatly from a torn hamstring, grade 4, abused by the SUPERVISING ER doctor at Yale. He said she just had a contusion despite her inability to walk on it and I was in severe pain. For three weeks she suffered with that and met a concierge who left Yale as a nurse. He noticed her leg because she was wearing coulottes, and said it was obviously a grade 4 hamstring tear. It took three weeks to see another doctor at Yale due to his frauded record. She refused to have surgery when she was told an hour after the MRI she had to. The alternative therapy she obtained was from a doctor outside of Yale. She has been illicitly arrested here by a state trooper who also assaulted her. She suffered much from that. This company has fraudulently billed her over the years, despite the fact she paid the Section 8 rent which she agreed to pay. Nevertheless, they consider themselves above the law. Complaints to them, to Livable City Initiative, and to Elm City Communities produced no results. This case should in fact be DEFAULTED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND PROCEED WITH GRANTING THE FOLLOWING TO REFLECT HER PLEADINGS:
1. Stay out when she is not in her apartment; maintenance calls should be pre-arranged with a confirmation from the plaintiff.
2. Maintain her apartment as they are required in the HAP Contract. Fix everything that is wrong, which are many now.
3. Decide on the Predetermination Notice, which Plaintiff-appellant requests the right to update upon ruling in favor of this motion, to submit to the court.
ADDITIONALLY, SINCE THIS CASE INVOLVES THE SAME PEOPLE, the plaintiff-appellant claims the Defendant should be ordered to withdraw its invalid eviction proceedings and/or dismiss the Eviction Case for all purposes, AC 48452.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff-appellant moves this court to DEFAULT this case in favor of the plaintiff-appellant as so-stated.
APPENDIX INCLUDED
Prepared and Submitted,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
________________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
ORDER
THE AFORESAID MOTION HAVING BEEN HEARD, IS GRANTED/DENIED
___________________
THE COURT
CERTIFICATION
This MOTION TO DEFAULT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT COMPRISES OF ELEVEN PAGES, WITH CERTIFICATIONS, AND APPENDIX AS REFERRED TO IN THE MOTION. It is prepared Pursuant to P.B. §§ 62-7 and 66-3, it is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing was sent electronically this 1st day of March, 2025.to the same appearing party as was the Motion For Rectification of Case Information, which the court accepted.
LTKE LAW OFFICES
Thru: KAREN PEMBERTON
52 Trumbull Street
New Haven, CT 06510
203-787-0275, Ext 227
Fax: 203-401-3343
Email: KPemberton@LTKE.com
______________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024
It is also certified that this document has been redacted or does not contain any names or other personal identifying information that is perceived by the Pro Se Appellant to be prohibited from disclosure by rule, statute, court order, or case law. It is also certified that this document complies with all applicable rules of appellate procedure.
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
______________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024
AC 48452
NHH-CV24-5006875-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANNE BRADLEY : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, LLC : March 6, 2025
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
RULING FOR PLAINTIFF
APPENDIX
DESCRIPTION PAGE NUMBER
A LAWS CITED 1
B APPEARANCE INFORMATION ON CASE 10
C DOCKETING STATEMENT 22
D CASE INFORMATION 30
E PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT STATEMENT OF 33
APPEARANCES ON THE CASE
F PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S MOTION , AC 243665 38
END PAGE 69
________________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
AC 48452
NHH-CV24-5006875-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANNE BRADLEY : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, LLC, et al : March 7, 2025
ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATION AS ORDERED BY COURT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
RULING FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
This motion For Default Judgment in Favor of the Plaintiff-Appellant comprises of ELEVEN PAGES, with certifications and APPENDIX referred to in the motion, totalling 81 pages plus this certification. It is prepared pursuant to PB Sections 62-7 and 66-3, it is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing was sent electronically this 7th day of March, 2025, to all listed parties as on Pages 10-11 of the motion along with the following, though they remain INACTIVE ON THE CASE, and have a fraudulent appearance as Pro Hac Vice.
Bercham Moses
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
FAX: 203-878-2235
__________________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se Appellant
38a - INSERTED IN THE APPENDIX3
NEXT, I NEED TO FINISH MY MOTION HEARING FOR RECTIFICATION ON THE JAN 13 COURT DATE ....MAYBE TOMORROW....
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN MY FAVOR WAS SUBMITTED.
======================================
==========================
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, LLC : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE BRADLEY : MARCH 10, 2025
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S
MOTION FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE
Pursuant to PB 60-3, along with the Appellate e-filing accepting aforesaid titled motion, Defendant-Appellant motions this court to take Judicial Notice on Issues in Facts.
HISTORY
This case was appealed from an EVICTION case which was initiated by Ansonia State Street, LLC, which claims to be the owner of 360 State Street yet that ownership has not been validated since the Limited Deed does not give them seller’s rights and the transaction was only $160 million, which reflects a type of leasing, not ownership. There was no closing on the property.
SIMILARLY SITUATED CASE:
Defendant-appellant brought a Housing Complaint case (NHH-CV24-5006875-S) against the aforesaid Plaintiff and other named defendants which take part in the management responsibilities of the building. The court accepted and granted fee waiver for this HOUSING COMPLAINT, pursuant laws cited on the form, and also permitted her to pay rent into court yet REJECTED her MOTION TO PAY RENT/FAIR USE AND VALUE, TO RECEIVER OF RENT prior to that, which will be brought up in the upcoming Brief. The primary issues were numerous breaches by the landlord and the fraudulent Notice To Quit, fraudulently claiming nonpayment of rent for August and September 2024, which validated her to enter this HOUSING COMPLAINT. (The court is obligated to reject cases in which a VALID Notice To Quit is served.) Additionally, defendant-appellant emphasized no Pretermination Letter was issued by the plaintiff-appellee, adding more reason to determine the Notice To Quit was INVALID . The court accepted these documents, including an Appendix of 246 pages, for legal efficacy and permitted the case to be heard.
In aforesaid case, defendant-appellant first claimed as argument that the Notice To Quit is INVALID and additionally the Summons and Complaint with illegal RETURN DATE were invalid. They were allegedly served on October 23, yet not uploaded as a case a week AFTER it was served - October 30; both having no LEGAL EFFICACY. The Defendant-appellant in trial court case NHH-CV24-5006875-S claimed in court that Bozzuto Management issued a letter in November 2022, which did not indicate any sale of the apartment building took place - yet that Bozzuto Management would no longer be overseeing day-to-day operations, which will be discussed and proven in the Brief. (Note, Pitkin Plaza will also be referenced, since it was cleared to be all one piece of property which the City Of New Haven gave to the Bozzuto Companies for $1 and will also be discussed in the brief) Defendant-appellant claimed in court as well as in pleadings that the deed which exists in the City Clerk’s Property Records is one which is defective for purchasing property, and the property records showed no record of the property being cleared for sale. The Appendix on this Housing Complaint Case included both the HAP Contract and the mortgage, as well as a current copy of the landlord lease, obtained from the landlord, Ansonia State Street after they served her a Notice To Quit. They had not submitted an adendum to the lease claiming they were the owner. (This was stated by the defendant-appellant in court on both cases). That complaint was uploaded prematurely, prior to service on defendants, and the court refused to allow any revision to replace the original which had not been served, claiming it had reviewed the complaint and Appendix at the time the fee waiver was submitted simultaneously and took it upon themselves to upload it as a case a week before it was served, against the defendant-appellant’s wishes, which most likely are also against Due Process of Law. Additionally, as stated in other pleadings and Preliminary Documents, the housing complaint, NHH-CV24-5006875-S) has a lease referring to MEPT Chapel, which was recently dissolved. No addendum to the lease to correct information was provided or recorded by the landlord. This issue and more will be included in the Brief.
A Summons on aforesaid case was served with a DEFECTIVE RETURN DATE, WHICH THE CHIEF CLERK WOULD NOT CORRECT EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE CHIEF CLERK’S DUTY TO according to the state law on duties of the chief clerk. Defendant-appellant mentioned this several times, as well as the fact they failed to attach a letter of arrearage and/or Pretermination Letter as required by HUD law, and only added an Appendix A as advertisement for attorneys. Defendant-Appellant also proved she paid the rent for August and September.
Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se, claims the lack of Due Process and ABUSE OF PROCEDURE in trial court and has appealed. Trial court’s order from the bench on February 11 was not entered as a document for a number of days, yet defendant[appellant requested it on February 12 and thereafter for her to proceed with her rights. Motion For Review was submitted to the Appellate Court on February 19, 2025, upon obtaining the trial judge’s order. Transcript of this hearing was also attempted at the same time, yet refused by the Chief Court Reporter.
FACTS
1. Motion for Review, submitted February 19, 2025, has not been acted upon by the Appellate Court.
2. Emergency Motion, motioning the Appellate Court to act on the Motion For Review has also not been acted upon by the Appellate Court.
3. Trial Court Order, Appendix A, uploaded on the case five days after the order from the bench, yet dated on February 11, indicates the following:
a) After hearing the testimony of the Defendant and the argument of counsel, the Court hereby orders the defendant to make MONTHLY use and occupancy payments of $264.00 during the pendency of the appeal.
b) All payments shall be made payable to the Plaintiff, ANSONIA STATE STREET, LLC, and shall be tendered on or before the 10th of the month BEGINNING MARCH 10, 2025.
c) Though it states “per oral record” this is not what was said by Judge Stone on February 11.
d) The hearing was held pursuant to Public Act 24-108, as cited in the Section on LAW.
4. As stated in the Motion For Review: PROPOSED AMOUNT OF'BOND: FAIR USE AND VALUE FOR JANUARY AND FEBRUARY (198.00 x 2) and thereafter by the 10th of every month, beginning in March 2025, to pay $198.00 which was an undisputed amount paid for October and November 2024 in Housing Complaint Case (which is now being appealed) A.C.48452) And thereafter until disposition of this aforesaid case; at which time all money received by the court/s will be remitted in accordance with the law; following a hearing with both parties attending defendant-appellant emphasizes that the Plaintiff, at the least, has shown to be not credible; has never motioned for the payments to go to them; and is seemingly treating this case like it was a game or movie, rather than a court case.
5. The court has no right to order defendant to pay to the landlord; it is against the very law which she admittadly cited as reason for the hearing.
6. The court has no right to increase the rent paid.
7. The court has no right to change the name of the recipient of rent, which alters records and is acting outside of the law. This aforesaid case’s subject matter had to do only with non-payment of rent. In fact Appendix B provides the ledger which was issued to the the defendant on August 7, 2023, when she paid her rent. The balance is ZERO as of October 2022. The monthly rent for the indigent tenant with Federal Poverty Level Income, was AND STILL IS $198. They only provided that ledger to her, cutting off the remaining time, not explaining why and oddly indicating the lease was only to January 31, 2021, yet they continue to get subsidy from the HAP Contract, which remains in place.
8. Two checks were produced to the court in effort to validate the defendant-appellant’s attempt to pay rent. She showed one check to the Receiver of Rents in Trial Court, for December 2024. They refused to take it despite receiving this rent of $198.00 for October and November of 2024. There was no arrearage; otherwise the trial court is required not to accept payment into court. Those checks are copied again, and produced in Appendix C.
9. Defendant-appellant is submitting a copy of the check for today, March 10, made payable to 360 STATE STREET due to the fact that they have never submitted an addendum to the lease stating otherwise and this is how she has made her checks out for rent.
10. Today’s check is for $264. which is an illegal order by the trial court judge since the rent has always been $198; and even the lease they produced as an exhibit indicated the rent to be $171. Defendant-appellant is making it payable to 360 State Street since that has been what she has always made her checks out to and there is no change in the lease.
11. Several incidences in that trial on January 13, 2025 resulted in no responses by the plaintiff and yet they were not held in contempt.
12. Despite having hearings on Motion To Change Venue and Motion to Pay Fair Use and Value into Court on January 13, the court had already marked the case for trial, which means they had no intent to legitamately hear the Motion To Change Venue; the judge already made up her mind to deny it before the hearing was even conducted.
13. Defendant-appellant still seeks the ruling of the Appellate Court on Motion For Review since she is still aggrieved by this trial court’s order.
14. Defendant-appellant has motioned for DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN HER FAVOR on the Housing Complaint appeal, to include ordering a ruling in her favor on the Eviction appeal due to the overwhelming evidence that the case had no merit to begin with.
15. The ledger which was entered as an exhibit by the plaintiff, as fraudulent as it is, actually shows that it continues to accept subsidy payments from the housing authority, which validates that a lease DOES exist, despite their lying about it. The trial court judge obviously is aware of all this, yet is acting outside the law.
16. The amount equal to the tenant’s last-agreed upon portion is $198.00 - not $264.
17. Appendix D provides a reminder of the checks which were produced to the trial court to prove that defendant-appellant paid her rent for August and September.
18. Appendix E provides the Exhibited Ledger by the landlord on January 13, which validates they continue to receive housing subsidy.
19. Appendix F is a printout from the Housing Authority reflecting the subsidy payouts to 360 State Street.
20. Since the Housing Authority subsidizes the rent, the defandant-appellant’s portion is to be paid into court, not to the plaintiff. A letter to the plaintiff, requesting they hold the check until the hearing of Motion For Review has been included with payment. Appendix G
LAW
PUBLIC ACT 24-108, SECTION 8 (AS CITED BY THE COURT)
(a) When any appeal is taken by the defendant occupying a dwelling unit
[as defined in section 47a-I in an action of summary process, [he shall, within the period allowed for taking such appeal, give a bond with surety to the i" adverse party]
the chief clerk of the Appellate Court, or the chief clerk's designee, shall transmit notice of the pendency of the appeal.to the Superior Court that rendered the judgment that is the subject of the appeal. Upon receipt of the notice of the pendency of such appeal, the Superior Court shall schedule ' and conduct a hearing to guarantee Substitute Senate Bill No. 426 Public Act No. 24-108 payment for all rents that may accrue during the pendency of such ii ,i i' .,i '^Y u,,f appeal. The Superior Court shall schedule and conduct such hearing not later than fourteen days after the date of receiving notice of the pendency of such appeal. After conducting such hearing the Superior Court may order the defendant to deposit with the court
(1) an amount equal to the defendant's portion of the last-agreed upon rent, or
(2) [,] (2) where no lease had existed, [for] an amount equal to the reasonable value for such use and occupancy that may so accrue. [; provided the court shall upon motion by the defendant and afterl After hearing thereon, the court shall order the defendant to deposit with the court payments for the reasonable fair rental value of the use and occupancy of the premises during the pendency of such appeal accruing from the date of such order. Such order shall permit the payment of such amount in monthly installments, as it becomes due. [, and compliance with such order shall be a substitute for any bond required by this section.] If all or a portion of the defendant's rents being paid to the plaintiff by a housing authority, municipality, state agency or similar entity, this requirement shall be satisfied if the defendant deposits with the court an amount equal to [hisl the defendant's portion of the rent. (b) In any other appeal the court on its own motion or on motion of the parties, may fix a sufficient bond with surety to the adverse party in such amount as it may determine. (c) When any appeal is taken by a plaintiff in an action of summary process, the court, upo[; motion of the plaintiff and after a hearing thereon, shall order the defendanti to deposit with the court payments in monthly installments, as each payment becomes due, for the reasonable fair rental value of the use and occupancy of the premises during the pendency of the appeal accruing from 'l the date of such order.
SUMMARY
Statements made by the defendant-appellant are inclusive in the FACTS and LAW of this motion.
Appendix as stated
PREPARED AND SUBMITTED,
FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
________________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
ORDER
THE AFORESAID MOTION HAVING BEEN HEARD, IS GRANTED/DENIED
___________________
THE COURT
CERTIFICATION
This MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE COMPRISES OF 10 PAGES and APPENDIX. It is prepared Pursuant to P.B. §§ 62-7 and 66-3, it is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing was sent electronically this 10th day of March, 2025,
By Verbal Order of Court
Fraudulent Appearance of Hoops & Associates at Trial Court
Pro Hac Vice; also altered appearance without changing dates; to add defendants who failed to appear and failed to Answer the Complaint
No appearance info on record at Apellate Court
Email: phoops@hoopslaw.com Fails to take part in the appeal
Fraudulent appearance as Pro Hac Vice
First claimed he was appearing on behalf of all plaintiffs, which automatically removed Attorney Langhammer llanghammer@hotmail.clm
Then conveniently altered appearance without following any procedure to allude that Attorney Langhammer was still appearing yet oddly nothing from Langhammer was presented and nothing from the court was presented. Only a call from a private phone which stated they are required to remain on the case despite these noncompliant and even fraudulent issues.
Altered appearance without following Rules on Appearances of Attorneys, and
Failure to submit any notification/copy to defendant-appellant
Thru: KAREN PEMBERTON
52 Trumbull Street
New Haven, CT 06510
203-787-0275, Ext 227
Fax: 203-401-3343
Email: KPemberton@LTKE.com
______________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024
It is also certified that this document has been redacted or does not contain any names or other personal identifying information that is perceived by the Pro Se Appellant to be prohibited from disclosure by rule, statute, court order, or case law. It is also certified that this document complies with all applicable rules of appellate procedure.
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
______________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024
==========================================================================================================
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, LLC : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE BRADLEY, PRO SE : MARCH 17, 2025
MOTION (En Banc) TO RULE IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Pursuant to PB 60-3, PB 61-10, 42 USC 1437F, and 24 CFR Part 982, Defendant-Appellant motions this court to Rule in her favor.
HISTORY
This is a housing case in which the plaintiff entered a prosecution of eviction based on false circumstances, that defendant did not pay rent for August and September 2024. These cancelled/deposited rent checks were produced to the trial court prior to a Summons; after the court GRANTED her HOUSING COMPLAINT, since the Notice To Quit was invalid. Trial Judge Alayna Stone ordered a 5-day-notice of eviction on a Friday 10:30 am, which was not uploaded to the case until some time in the afternoon, and the chief clerk never called defendant to inform her of this action. Yet Friday was Day One, Saturday was Day Two, and Sunday was Day Three. Defendant has appealed and submitted all preliminary documents as well as motions for rectification, which she recently discovered was submitted to the trial court. Trial Court ruled a denial in amending the defective caselaw of this aforementioned case.
Defendant-appellant has submitted a Motion For Default in her favor in the Housing Complaint Appeal, AC 48452, including referencing aforesaid case since one of the defendants is the attorney representing the alleged owner of the building, Ansonia State Street, which has no power to resell the building since it is cannot be cleared using a Limited Deed and more. Defendant recently submitted a Motion For Judicial Notice, since she was able to locate a ledger printout she obtained from the landlord in 2023 when she paid her rent in August 2023. This ledger was contrary to the ledgers she obtained when she paid her rent. This one stopped months prior to that and also indicated she had a zero balance as of October 31, 2023. It was presumed by the defendant-appellant that the landlord stole it out of her apartment since they illegally enter and vandalize and steal all the time and give this no attention, even though they never changed her door lock when she moved in January 2013. Defendant-appellent did not realize she had it scanned in her computer, which oftentimes is hacked, vandalized, etc.
FACTS
1. Defendant-appellant is a Pro Se litigant and has no ability or desire to be a paralegal, let alone an attorney. She is impoverished, with an income that is essentially Federal Poverty Level. It is stated as such due to odd changes in the Title 19 requirements and determinations of Federal Poverty Level. Nevertheless, she is only a few hundred dollars from meeting that standard and has always had one income, which is social security disability. She was cheated in receiving retroactive Social Security benefits of over two years during the Obama administration, which turned around and GAVE a brother of hers AND his wife, $500,000 to expand the business which they breached payment agreement to our father on. She has had no contact with relatives since a brother of hers forced their father to die; bragging he lied about helping her get him into a decent nursing home so he could make him die since “Dad is not useful to us anymore”. That event was extremely traumatic to her and one which she will never recover from. She was almost killed by a 20-ton sander truck, severely injured. Her socially-gullable mother retained an untrustworthy attorney when her father was not around and she was in ICU in a coma. This set the wheels in motion which disrupted her whole life, without any support from siblings for her to get justice.
Defendant-appellant is tapped out. She saves as much money as she can and enjoys infrequent opportunities to give affordable gifts to others she thinks well of.
2. This case is built on FRAUD. The Notice To Quit indicates that only that defendant-appellant did not pay rent for August and September 2024. She proved she did in the approved HOUSING COMPLAINT, entered in court after the invalid Notice To Quit was crumpled in her door frame, with no lettter of arrearage, no copy of a Pretermination letter, just an advertisement for attorneys. This was just like what they did to her in 2019, in which THAT Notice to Quit only indicated “nonpayment of rent” with no months or amounts on it, no letter of arrearage, no pretermination letter.
3. Defendant-appellant claims that the trial court should have not allowed the case to be uploaded due to this fraud; and secondary to the fraud is the insufficient processing including improper service.
4. Upon viewing other cases which the Hoops & Associates prosecutes (Most of which are for the same person, Gideon Friedman, who owns several companies) they have a Modus Operandi of using a fraudulent appearance (Pro Hac Vice), submitting a fraudulent form for the CARES ACT, which was discontinued in 2022, and more, which no doubt this court can determine.
5. Defendant has provided a great number of caselaws in her Motion To Change Venue, which is over 100 pages long, to include HUD laws which required Pretermination Notices, and noncompliance with 42 US Code 1437f and 24 CFR Part 982 as cited on the HAP Contract and Tenancy Addendum to the lease, which has “Bozzuto Companies” on it and does not have an addendum indicating this new alleged owner, Ansonia State Street.
6. Motion To Change Venue was submitted due to the denial of the Motion To Remove Judicial Authority, who fails to support any ruling, the first of which was an erroneous ruling of dismissal on the housing complaint matter, when SHE, Alayna Stone, was not even the judge who presided. And the judge who did preside lied about being Alayna Stone. She was a woman who appeared to be in her 60’s and had no appearance.
7. Judge Spader ruled that anything that Alayna Stone ruled on was okay with him, which in fact is egregious, and bars the very implementation of a judicial system. He also emphasized that several judges were involved with her decisions when no other appearances were on either the eviction case or the housing complaint case, which is against the landlord as well as others who acted as proxy to the landlord and/or claimed they owned the building. Note, defendant-appellant has a new case manager who is attentive and competent; though she is unable to get permission to take any action on this case, despite there was no Pretermination Letter submitted to them, which would then obligate them to provide a hearing at defendant-appellant’s request.
8. There is no case here. The rent was paid. The ledger attached to the Motion For Judicial Notice recently indicates significant proof that this landlord is a fraud.
9. The Housing Authority has provided proof of the subsidy payments issued to the landlord; yet this plaintiff-appellee has stated in court that there is no lease and even the judge went along with that despite fully knowing that they were getting subsidized. It appears this judge may not even be an attorney and just a puppet for others who are attorneys, playing with cyber power, remotely and secretly participating all in secret, with no appearances.
10. This court has all the proof it needs to rule in defendant-appellant’s favor now.
11. The Housing Complaint Case should have been served through the US Mail, as the law states, as cited even on the complaint form itself. The trial court wasted $3,000 for a marshal to serve 6 local locations documents which were already copied. were already verified by the defendant, every single page. For the marshal to claim she charged so much due to her verification, only came after she delivered one set to the Secretary of State. She claimed she had to give the ORIGINAL to the Secretary of State because she failed to make a second set despite claiming she was meticulous in verifying. Additionally, she could have simply given them her copy, since a copy was made for her as well. This seems to be a very suspicious tactic and thereafter defendant-appellant’s computer was frequently hacked, her documents were hacked and the recordings of hearings were frauded by cyber crime.
12. The proceedings of January 13 were indeed reflecting failed justice, failed due process, failed procedure, and a frauded recording which frames themselves even more. What began at 2pm and lasted to 4:30, with only a 15-minute recess, only resulted in a 69-page transcription, when in fact it should have been at least 120 pages. Motions for Rectification have been submitted on the hearing of December 3 of this case and the hearing of October 31, 2024 on the housing complaint case. Due to defendant-appellant, Pro Se, realizing these motions are not resulting in injunctive orders coming from this higher court, and yet only sent to trial court - she has considered Withdrawal of the other motions for rectification. It is obvious that “Judge Stone” or whoever she is, since her Juris number does not exist in the Juris lookup, has some kind of outside-the-law power. Defendant-appellant perceives her appeal is in part treated as an act of submitting to a lower court since it issues no injunctive order and allows it to rule on a motion of her APPEAL. She is appealing for a reason; claiming the trial court was unjust.
13. Defendant-appellant will not be submitting a Motion For Rectification on transcript of Janauary 13. She had prepared one yet cyber crime disrupted the whole document and it takes too much time to unravel, with the likelihood they will disrupt it again. It seems quite obvious that Judge Stone will promptly deny a Motion For Rectification on the Transcripts of January 13, 2025, since it is remanded to the trial court which has participated in these inept records. Defendant-appellant is working on an Affidavit, which she hopes can be submitted this week. There is no promise in that since so many bad things happen to her.
14. Practice Book Rule 61-10 clearly states it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the Appellant to provide an Adequate Record For Review. How can this be done if the trial court frauds records and disrupts justice, abuses power?
15. Many caselaws in the Motion For Change of Venue, over 100 pages, validates one thing: this trial court case had no merit to begin with. Actions of the trial court officials are considered to be despicable.
16. Defendant-appellant was unaware that she could Motion to Stay Briefing Obligations until it was too late; pursuant to PB 63-1 (2) (d) and PB 67-12. Defendant-appellant relies on the 2016 version of the Connecticut Rules of Court and has infrequent access to wifi.
17. Plaintiff-appellee failed to Motion To Dismiss Appeal pursuant to PB 66-8 and has greatly lacked any diligence on aforesaid case.
18. Defendant-appellant, Pro Se, is highly doubtful she will successfully find caselaws which cover appealed cases, which were ruled on prior to a submitted brief. The state is paying for these proceedings.
19. This motion comprises of NINE PAGES and has been prepared to the best of defendant-appellant’s ability, including due diligence.
LAW
PB 60-3
PB 60-5
PB 61-10
PB 62-9
PB 64-1
PB 66-2
PB-66-4
42 USC 1437f - Low Income Housing; cited on the HAP Contract
24CFR, Part 982
24 Public Act, Section 108 - Payments made on appeal; HUD-subsidized landlords require payments into court.
SUMMARY
Defendant-appellant is exhausted and has found this constant stress and expense in time and supplies an immense burden. For this case to drag out as it has must turn heads of justices who actually apply the law. Nonpayment of rent is usually a very quick matter. This case is based on FRAUD by the plaintiff and defendant-appellant seeks a proper and immediate ruling in her favor. It must be noted also, that not once did they object to her appealing as well as other motions entered. They ineptly refer to her as only “defendant” in this court, yet she is clearly the appellant. She has done her best to define herself and includes “defendant-appellant” for clarity, not knowing what is allowed by the court and certainly seeing no consistency or professionalism coming from the plaintiff’s motions, etc. This case is an appeal of an unjust eviction. The order of the trial judge even on making payments (No. 24-188) was unlawful, and this alleged judge cited the Public Act which even defines the requirement when a landlord who received HUD subsidy, the payment is made to the court, not them. It didn’t matter to her and she explains nothing, she validates nothing -- which only contributes to the suspicion that she is just doing what she is told to by an unseen, hidden individual or individuals. The other circumstances of fraud, etc. are for a prosecutor to prosecute; including the death of her mother taking place at the same time this landlord began scheming an illegal eviction. The rent payments for August and September 2024 were cashed, not deposited, and the court has the ability to validate that. Defendant-appellant just wants to have her life back and to go forward with whatever time she has left on this world. Life has been very unfair due to social engineering she cannot control, to include their efforts to isolate her by encouraging almost all others not to like or trust her, as well as abuse power whenever they can.
WHEREFORE, the defendant-appellant motions this court to immediately rule in her favor, absent of submission of a brief; providing a hearing as necessary.
En Banc
PREPARED AND SUBMITTED,
FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
________________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
ORDER
THE AFORESAID MOTION HAVING BEEN HEARD, IS GRANTED/DENIED ___________________
THE COURT
CERTIFICATION
This MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE COMPRISES OF NINE PAGES. It is prepared Pursuant to P.B. §§ 62-7 and 66-3, it is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing was sent electronically this 17th day of March, 2025,
By Verbal Order of Court (on the Housing Case; and so which she will certify to the Hoops firm on aforesaid case for precautionary reasons)
Fraudulent Appearance of Hoops & Associates at Trial Court
Pro Hac Vice; also altered appearance without changing dates; to add
defendants who failed to appear and failed to Answer the Complaint
No appearance info on record at Apellate Court
Email: phoops@hoopslaw.com Fails to take part in the appeal
Fraudulent appearance as Pro Hac Vice
First claimed he was appearing on behalf of all plaintiffs, which automatically removed Attorney Langhammer llanghammer@hotmail.com
Threafter conveniently altered appearance without following any procedure on attorney appearances to allude that Attorney Langhammer was still appearing yet oddly nothing from Langhammer was presented and nothing from the court was presented. (This is based on a verbal order which stated they are required to remain on the case despite these noncompliant and even fraudulent issues. Most likely neither case manager, both of which defendant-appellant has sincere and intentional respect for, of this eviction case or housing complaint case appeals - may be allowed to submit her work unless she does this, yet that was not indicated to her.)
Altered appearance without following Rules on Appearances of Attorneys, and
Failure to submit any notification/copy to defendant-appellant
Thru: KAREN PEMBERTON
52 Trumbull Street
New Haven, CT 06510
203-787-0275, Ext 227
Fax: 203-401-3343
Email: KPemberton@LTKE.com
______________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024 / IllegalEviction2024@aol.com
It is also certified that this document has been redacted or does not contain any names or other personal identifying information that is perceived by the Pro Se Appellant to be prohibited from disclosure by rule, statute, court order, or case law. It is also certified that this document complies with all applicable rules of appellate procedure.
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
______________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024 / IllegalEviction2024@aol.com
So the hackers do this so I cannot get off my laptop even though the documents are uploaded! They want time to ALTER, FRAUD!
I try to show the screenshot and Google interferes tiwth "Allow Google to do something with cookies" - internet is so damned corrupted!
3/14/2025
.png)
Comments