Illegal Eviction Various Motions I come across
Link to this blogpost:
https://publiusroots.blogspot.com/2025/09/illegal-eviction-various-motions-i-come.html
This motion is being submitted today on my HOUSING COMPLAINT, yet I am submitting one on this Eviction case as well, for the same purpose, because they do not have a MEMO OF DECISION on either cases!
Update 10/25/2025. The court denied it even though is it is required of them on appeals. And the Appellate Court refuses to do anything. Connecticut Practice Book 64-1. I submitted a motion for the trial judge to comply. She denied it! Supposedly I am supposed to file a NOTICE to the appellate court that she has not complied. What is wrong with that picture? They know she didn't and they know she denied the motion - #3, in fact! I prepared a drafted affidavit which I am including in my brief. I had a setback today with heart issues. https://publiusroots.blogspot.com/2025/10/brief-on-housing-complaint.html
AC 48452
NHH-CV24-5006875-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANNE BRADLEY : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, LLC, et al : September 16, 2025
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR TRIAL COURT TO ISSUE MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Pursuant to PB 64-1, Plaintiff-appellant motions the trial court to issue the required Memorandum of Decision to the Appellate Court.
HISTORY
This case was appealed after an attempt to Motion For Extension of Time to Appeal was denied; and thereafter Motion To Open was abruptly denied simultaneously with the granting of Fee Waiver to file Motion To Open. There was no hearing, as required.
Several months have transpired with diligent Motions of Extension of Time by the Appellant-Plaintiff, primarily due to to an unexpected cyst along with cellulitis. Appellant-Plaintiff had to have 24 hours of an IV with antibiotics along with a prescriptiom for 2 antibiotics to take for 7-10 days. Thereafter, Appellant remained run-down, sick and struggled with recovering. A culture was taken and for 10 days the doctor’s office indicated that the lab results were not in. On Day 13 from the day the culture was taken, the Appellant-Plaintiff was informed that the lab was “lost” which caused her to lose confidence in the medical care she was getting. At her most recent appointment, the doctor informed her he spoke to a doctor at Yale University (without her permission) and he wanted her to go to Yale. He also said as diagnosis, “You’re healed” yet she promptly asked questions regarding to the visibility of the injury. She was assured that her skin would be like that for 6 months to a year, yet she did not need to take extra measures for it because there was no more infection. He would not discuss anything about the injured spleen or mild pleural effusion. He said the primary care physician would need to address that. The primary care physician claimed she lost 1 1/2 inches of height since her last physical last year which she did not believe. Rather than address the actual problems he wanted her to have a bone density test. At this point, the Appellant-Plaintiff is seeking a new primary care doctor at the same location.
Appellant-Plaintiff was paying rent into court, claiming the Notice To Quit was invalid. The court accepted the rent yet abruptly discontinued with no order despite her efforts to appeal and thereafter submitting a Motion To Open.
Due to the Eviction Case, which is being appealed as AC48416, Appellant-Plaintiff was ordered to make payments into court leaving a gap of two months’ time in submitting rent. The landlord’s management refused to take her check yet she set it on their desk and walked out. The check was cashed.
Today, September 16, Appellant-Plaintiff is entering this motion due to the fact there has been no Memorandum of Decision on the Motion To Open and on the case, which is required in PB 64-1.
FACTS
1. This motion is for the purpose of obtaining the Memorandum of Decision on aforesaid case since several months have transpired yet the trial court has evaded its responsibility to issue this to the Appellate Court.
2. Appellant-Plaintiff, Pro Se and indigent, is fortunate to review the Appellate Rules in more detail, first relying on the detailed Appellate Procedure,which was prepared by Attorney Cichetti, who is the Chief Clerk of the Supreme and Appellate Court of Connecticut.
3. Case Manager is not in the office until September 24, 2025. Therefore the Appellant-Plaintiff left him a voicemail in regards to her intentions of submitting this motion into trial court to satisfy record purposes.
4. Records have been an extreme burden on the Appellant-Plaintiff due to the deliberate theft of her computer supplies out of her purse by Homeland Security Contractors who work for American Security Services. A prompt complaint was issued, along with a copy to the Appellate Court in May 2025, on or about the same time she submitted proof of payment to the Trial Court, as a categorized “Motion For Judicial Notice” which was an optional motion in the system; yet at some point they took this motion out. There is no PB Rule which this Appellate Court applied for this motion in order to apply a law; and therefore the Appellant-Plaintiff documented this on the motion, serving it to the Appellee-Defendant on record.
5. Defendants had all defaulted on this case in more than one circumstance: not filing appearances, not submitting Answers to the Complaint, and not appearing at the hearing of October 31, 2025. In fact, only a young man approximately 25 years old, claiming he was Attorney Peter Hoops appeared. Thereafter, Appellant realized that this young man was a fraud and not an attorney, since the real Attorney Peter Hoops had entered the BAR in 1987.
6. Appellant-Plaintiff reminds the court of these discoveries and more in the Motion To Open. This would include the fact that Alayna Stone, who is supposed to be a judge yet the Juris number she uses on her rulings does not exist in the system, and there is no proof that she is even an attorney, except for media saying she is one, which is no credible source.
7. Appellant-Plaintiff reminds this court that this is an additional violation of Court Rules and Court Procedure, to not provide this Memorandum of Decision on the Motion To Open as well as the trial court case.
8. Appellant-Plaintiff reminds the court that a fee waiver was denied by the court on 12/18; which may have been for Appeal. There is no indication in the case information and therefore will have to be verified at the courthouse only after this motion is printed.
9. The trial court must issue a statement of decision on why it promptly granted fee waiver and denied Motion To Open simultaneously - which is another indication this judge is either not an attorney, or has gained an attorney’s license and entered the BAR through defective means.
10. The BAR Association only claims they are not at liberty to assure the public that judges or attorneys are truly licensed. In addition, they have removed this proof from the law library, from Martindale Hubbel, and there is literally no source which maintains these records to validate who is actually an attorney. Though it is claimed that Alayna Stone graduated from Yale University with a Juris Doctorate, the Yale Law Library also claimed in person, that they are not at liberty to give that information out and there is no resource on campus to disclose that information.
11. PB 64-1 should be attached prior to uploading this motion. Appellant-Plaintiff is unable to retrieve it online and print it from home due to cyber crimes damaging the function of her printer and laptop; and very miniumal access to wifi on her laptop.
12. Aforesaid motion comprises of SEVEN pages along with a printout of PB 64-1.
Law
PB 64-1 - printed in full and attached
Summary
It is certainly perplexing why this court evades its duty in submitting a REQUIRD Memorandum of Decision. There is obviously a great amount of controversy on how this court got away with not presiding on the hearing of October 31, allowing someone to impersonate this judge, and then this judge entering a decision even though she had not presided. Additionally, the frauded recording caused the transcript to be defective. The fact the Homeland Security contractors at the federal building stole of Appellant-Plaintiff’s e-files, has seemingly allowed a nefarious right-of-way to further fraud documents at its will, particularly since the Appellant-Plaintiff uses a program OTHER THAN MICROSOFT on her laptop, as stated in the Request For Exemption - and all documents on the case were neither viewable or printable off her laptop due to Microsoft actually blocking them with a message “Windows does not recognize”. Appellant-Plaintiff has no choice but to assert her rights, which have been greatly wronged; first by an invalid Notice To Quit and then with an illegal Summons. The snowball effect continues. This is not rocket science to expect such a basic requirement.
WHEREFORE, Appellant-Plaintiff motions this court to promptly issues its Memorandum of Decision to the Appellate Court as well as to herself, preferably by notifying her to pick it up at the courthouse since internet is not reliable in her apartment.
Prepared and Submitted,
FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
_________________________
Anne M. Bradley
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph. 203-508-0858
CERTIFICATION
THIS MOTION FOR TRIAL COURT MEMORANDUM OF DECISION COMPRISES OF SEVEN PAGES, ALONG WITH AN ATTACHMENT OF THE PRINTED PB 64-1. It is Pursuant to P.B. §§ 62-7 and 66-3, it is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing was sent electronically this 16th day of September, 2025, to the following Attorneys who are listed by the Appellate Court:
Lloyd L. Langhammer (Appellate)
JURIS NO. Is oddly different than AC 48416 appearance
LAW OFFICES OF LLOYD L. LANGHAMMER, LLC
18A Granite Street
New London, CT 06320
860-440-3340
LTKE LAW OFFICES
52 Trumbull Street
New Haven, CT 06510
203-787-0275
Fax: 203-401-3343
Bercham Moses
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
FAX: 203-878-2235
info@bmdlaw.com email on appearance was not revised and does not go through: lstilson@berchmoses.com
HOOPS & ASSOCIATES
19A THAMES STREET
GROTON, CT 06340
PHONE: 860-445-8911
FAX: 860-445-8919
APPELLEES NON-APPEARING / NO APPEARANCE ON FILE
ALL APPELLEES FAILED TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT AT ANY TIME. A TWO-WEEK PERIOD IS SET BY LAW; DESPITE THE INEPT RETURN DATE SET BY CHIEF CLERK WILLIAM PITT.
* BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY
* BEACHWOLD RESIDENTIAL (trial court refused to correct spelling error; Appellate Court prints what the Trial Court dictates)
* LIVABLE CITY INTITIATIVE, WHICH IS PART OF THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN OFFICES, WHICH HAVE ATTORNEYS
* ELM CITY COMMUNITIES - DELINQUENT NOTICE SENT, THOUGH BERCHAM & MOSES ARE NOW LISTED; THOUGH THEY SHOW NO DILIGENCE AND USE A FRAUDULENT APPEARANCE
* MEPT CHAPEL - THEY WITHDREW THEIR REGISTRATION ONLY AFTER THEY WERE SERVED AND NEVER NOTIFIED THE APPELLANT
* 360 STATE STREET, LLC, WHICH WAS LISTED AS DISSOLVED SHORTLY AFTER SERVICE BY MARSHAL; yet Hoops & Associates thereafter altered their appearance again indicating they were representing this dissolved company. Attempt to reach the active company, 360 State Street, 100 Crown Street, New Haven, resulted in being hung up on.
______________________
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 known by 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
==================================================================================================================================================
The judge increased my rent; ordered me to pay the landlord, when the court is required to take payments!
AC 48416 /
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, LLC : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE BRADLEY : February 19, 2025
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REVIEW
TRIAL COURT’S ORDER FROM THE BENCH OF FEBRUARY 11, 2025
PAYMENTS OF FAIR USE AND VALUE INTO COURT
Pursuant to PB 66-6, Defendant-Appellant motions this court to review order from the bench by Trial Court regarding Payment of Fair Value/Apartment Rent into Court pending appeal.
HISTORY
This case arose based on the Plaintiff-Appellee accusing Defendant-Appellant of not paying rent for August and September. There was no letter of arrearage, which the Appellant admitted to. There was no Pretermination letter according to HUD Law, which the Appellant agreed to by not responding, not correcting record, and only ignoring this argument made by the Appellant in numerous circumstances at trial court, to include emphasizing caselaw emphasizes that SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IS LIMITED TO WHAT IS SET FORTH ON THE NOTICE TO QUIT.
FACTS
1. Hearing of February 11 was ordered by the court to be in compliance with Public Act 24-108, Section 8. Document No 142 of Case Information in Trial Court.
2. Plaintiff-appellee’s trial court attorney used fraudulent appearance as Pro Hac Vice, and also altered the form attaching pages on three occasions, which was argued by defendant in court with no reaction.
3. Appeal Form of Defendant-Appellant Stated the following reasons for Appeal:
a) Lack of Merit
b) Subject Matter Jurisdiction is on nonpayment of rent for August and September 2024. No demand for payment; no Pretermination Notice for Section 8 Defendant who has lived there 12 years, always timely paying rent.
c) Abuse of Procedure; lack of Due Process.
d) Plaintiff has fraudulent appearance as Pro Hac Vice.
e) Five day notice for Eviction on a 65 year old senior who is significantly disabled.
4. Defendant-appellant has only served the appearing attorney on aforesaid case, who is Lloyd Langhammer, who is also using a Pro Hac Vice Juris number yet altered his Juris number on Housing Complaint appeal A.C. 48452. The email which the trial court case used was phoops@hoopslaw.com because Peter Hoops appeared at the Eviction case. A young man who appeared to be Peter Hoops’ son claimed he was Attorney Peter Hoops, which was fraud; impersonating his father. He used his father’s juris number and after the hearing defendant-appellant discovered he entered the BAR in 1987, which would have been before the young man appearing was even born. The court entered Attorney Joseph St. Rock as the appearing individual, which is false. Joseph St. Rock never appeared at any court hearing, though he signed the Motion To Dismiss on the Housing Complaint and the young man who impersonated Attorney Peter Hoops argued that motion in court, which is against the Rules of Court and trial attorneys’ practice and procedure. .
5. Defendant’s statement, Doc No, 143.00 includes emphasis throughout this case, Plaintiff has been subsidized by HUD, which reflects the HAP Contract is still in place. This was confirmed by recently-assigned manager who replaced Tara Jones - at Elm City Communities.
6. ORDER OF THE COURT REGARDING HEARING OF FEBRUARY 11: ORDER The following order is entered in the above matter: ORDER: Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant ANNE BRADLEY appeared in-person before the Court. 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. All payments shall be made payable to the Plaintiff, ANSONIA STATE STREET, LLC and shall be tendered on or before the 10th of each month, beginning on March 10, 2025. Per oral record. Judicial Notice (JDNO) was sent regarding this order. 445561 Judge: ALAYNA M STONE
a) Defendant claims that this order is not compliant, of the following reasons:
i. Pursuant to the Public Act which the court cited:
1. Payments are to be made to the court
2. Last agreed upon rent was $198; which was what was being paid to this same court on the Housing Complaint Case
a) At no point was this amount argued by the Plaintiff, who was party to the Housing Complaint Case
b) Defendant-appellant has stated in trial court that since she meets Federal Poverty Level/Low Income Guidelines as stated in the Section 8 laws, that she should be paying 10% of the rent which is determined by the Fair Rent Commission ($93.20 since Rent is $932)
b) FOR THE RECORD: NOT ONE DEFENDANT LISTED IN THE HOUSING COMPLAINT CASE ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT SERVED ON THEM; ADDITIONALLY THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH NON-APPEARING DEFENDANTS ON THAT CASE. ADDITIONALLY, THE COURT ENTERED APPEARANCE FOR THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN, LIVABLE CITY INITIATIVE, AS SELF-REPRESENTING, WHICH THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CONSIDERS TO BE WRONGFUL, PARTICULARLY SINCE NO APPEARANCE FORM WAS ISSUED TO THE COURT. ALL 8 PARTIES WERE DEFENDANTS; TWO OF WHICH WERE AGENCIES, AS REQUIRED FOR HOUSING COMPLAINTS.
i. Motion For Rectification on the Case Information for both AC48416 and AC48452 is expected to be completed by Friday 2/21/2025.
7. Trial Court refused to provide documented order to the defendant-appellant on February 11, responding with “You have all the time in the world”; at which time defendant-appellant demanded it as soon as possible as a matter of right. This order, which was uploaded on the case information on 2/14/2025, was documented by the court as attached on the same day it was ordered in the Case Information, 2/11/2025. Defendant-appellant considers that wrongful.
a) Though transcript for this post-appeal hearing has been ordered, it is doubtful the fee waiver approval can be applied, despite the indigent defendant-appellant paying for transcripts on 10/31/2024 (HOUSING COMPLAINT) and 12/3/2024 (EVICTION CASE) hearings.
i. The court’s documented ruling is Appendixed to this motion.
b) Motion For Rectification on Case Information on aforesaid case has been prepared by the defendant-appellant and will be uploaded on or before 2/20/2025. Attached to that motion is a marked-up Case Information Sheet for reference purposes, labeled in a-z fashion.
8. Defendant-appellant claims this court frequently uses legal malpractice to serve its wants rather than administer justice. :
9. The HAP Contract is the controlling lease. A copy of both the landlord’s lease and HAP were presented to the court in the Appendix of AC48452. There are not two leases. If there was no HAP, there would be no lease. The landlord’s lease may be used as a guide to factor in what issues are important to them only, as long as they comply with HUD. For example, they cannot legally enforce that they are not responsible for the safety and security of tenants, yet that is stated in the lease and against the HAP contract.
10. 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.
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-1] in an action of summary process, [he shall, within the period allowed for taking such appeal, give a bond with surety to the 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 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) 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 after] 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 rent is 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 [his] 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, upon motion of the plaintiff and after a hearing thereon, shall order the defendant 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 the date of such order.
(b) It is with regret that defendant-appellant Pro Se is unable to spend the time to research on caselaw for this matter, as emphasis on what the court has ordered in the past.
SUMMARY
Defendant-appellant, who is indigent, has been illegally evicted by the State Of Connecticut 3 times. She has learned additional information to support her rights. It truly is a disgrace for the Housing Court to use several repeated tactics which reflect Modus Operandi in serving Elites’ wants rather than administer the law.
2003 - Managers, LLC (group of Attorneys in Fairfield, CT) vs Anne Bradley in the Town of New Britain. Defendant-appellant was poisoned by lead and other contaminants in her apartment water; resulting in a heart attack as determined by the paramedics, who reported she had a myochardal infarction; yet falsified by the hospital. She was on Atenylol for at least two years. THE CASE HAD NO MERIT.
2009 - Corey Spruill vs Anne Bradley. Lapse of Time on the lease; the lease stated that it would automatically renew unless it was replaced by another agreed upon lease; and that a 60 day notice was mandatory for the landlord or tenant to agree upon should the tenant leave the premises at the landlord or tenant’s request. THE CASE HAD NO MERIT.
2019 - landlord here at 360 State Street issued a notice to quit with no letter of arrearage; no Pretermination letter at any time prior to the notice to quit, as required by HUD for Section 8 tenants (to be issued 30 days prior to a notice to quit, which only stated “nonpayment of rent”, for a cure period and opportunity for eviction prevention. THE CASE HAD NO MERIT.
This aforesaid case is rooted in fraudulent reporting of not paying rent for August and September. She produced the checks in which she paid rent - pg 5 in Appendix on HOUSING COMPLAINT; and thereAFTER the defendant added more spin, which is illegal and which defendant argued it was illegal since the Subject Matter Jurisdiction is limited to what they entered on the Notice To Quit - which was also insufficiently processed - claiming that a 30-day notice was given as part of the “CARES ACT” which was discontinued in 2022 and the form should not even be allowed by Housing Court, only enforced at whims, if you review the housing court cases on Hoops & Associates. They then added to their Modus Operandi by serving a Summons illegally prepared, with a return date of November 12, when the law specifies that a return date has to be set at three days past the day the Summons is served when non-payment of rent is served.
Nevertheless, the rent was paid, there was no arrearage even documented - which is not only non-compliant with general housing laws but also with HUD Laws which require a Pretermination Notice. Defendant emphasized the fact she pays her rent timely each month and had a right to request a hearing with the housing authority, which she has requested with no hearing. Defendant claims that for this trial court and plaintiff to keep proceeding with an eviction when it fully knows and understands they are breaking the law is indeed a very disgraceful, abusive and harmful issue! This judge took part in allowing someone to impersonate her in the Housing Complaint case, and failed to document that even took place, let alone why. This is abuse of power, abuse of process, and most certainly reflects one who uses deception as a tool in court, which is intentionally illegal. The plaintiff began this scheme in August, refusing to give the defendant-appellant a printed ledger, as she had been requesting when she paid her monthly rent. Additionally, her mother died in August and defendant-appellant is concerned this landlord had something to do with it, figuring she would receive an inheritence they could confiscate with a fraudulent plan since she did not “disappear” on the five-year anniversary of making her appearance (7/2/2019) in the 2019 fraudulent housing case they devised and lost. That was the day the maintenance manager used violence to illegally enter her apartment when she was taking a bath despite her screams.
As a Pro Se litigant who has no aspiration to be an attorney, and is just trying to live her life as a disabled senior citizen, this has indeed caused much suffering, distress, and abuse - all to cover up the fact that the landlord at 360 State Street has breached the lease since she moved there as a HUD Section 8 tenant, with a HAP contract which is the controlling lease. If there was no HAP contract, there would be no lease and it is written right on the HAP Contract.
WHEREFORE, defendant-appellant motions this court for Review of the trial court’s ruling from the bench on February 11, 2025.
Appendix
Trial Court Ruling, Notice of Court Hearing
Copies of checks prepared intended to pay for rent; THESE CHECKS REPRESENT THE UNPAID MONTHS OF JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, since the landlord secretly cashed/deposited the rent check which defendant left on the desk in the management’s office despite the manager, Kyle Huckle, refusing to take it.
Prepared and Submitted,
FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
_________________________
Anne M. Bradley
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph. 203-508-0858
CERTIFICATION
This MOTION FOR REVIEW COMPRISES OF TEN PAGES, Pursuant to P.B. §§ 62-7 and 66-3, it is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing was sent electronically this 19th day of February, 2024, to the Attorney whose appearance on record:
Lloyd L. Langhammer (Appellate)
JURIS NO. Is oddly different than AC 48452 appearance
LAW OFFICES OF LLOYD L. LANGHAMMER, LLC
18A Granite Street
New London, CT 06320
860-440-3340
llanghammer@hotmail.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 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
She denied the motion!
===================================================================
I can only access WPS - Microsoft has blocked everything else, including PDF’s - using cyber crime to support their own cyber crime! Which is why I changed over to WPS Documents!
===================================================================================================================================================
Motion To Open trial Court Case - HOUSING COMPLAINT
I will post it when I find it....
=========================================================================
§ 1149.24 What happens if my motion to reopen is denied?
(a) You may appeal the decision denying a motion to reopen to the authority head by filing a notice of appeal with the authority head within 15 days after the ALJ denies the motion. The timely filing of a notice of appeal must stay the initial decision until the authority head decides the issue.
(b) If you file a timely notice of appeal with the authority head, the ALJ must forward the record of the proceeding to the authority head.
(c) The authority head must decide promptly, based solely on the record previously before the ALJ, whether extraordinary circumstances excuse your failure to file a timely answer.
(d) If the authority head decides that extraordinary circumstances excused your failure to file a timely answer, the authority head must remand the case to the ALJ with instructions to grant you an opportunity to answer.
(e) If the authority head decides that your failure to file a timely answer is not excused, the authority head must reinstate the initial decision of the ALJ, which becomes final and binding upon the parties 30 days after the authority head issues such a decision.
The above does not apply; that is for federal cases.
00001. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)
00002. Title 45—Public Welfare
00003. Subtitle B—Regulations Relating to Public Welfare
00004. CHAPTER XI—NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
00005. SUBCHAPTER B—NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS
00006. PART 1149—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES ACT REGULATIONS
=======================================
NOTICE TO QUIT AND SUMMONS....research on laws....
I will paste what I locate here...so don't expect this to cover everything. My laptop is all messed up. They deleted many of my files using CYBER CRIME!
Case No. NHHCV246024196-S Ansonia State Street, LLC vs Anne Bradley
SECTION ON LAWS
CARES ACT - will not print off the US Gov website, so it was copied and pasted here:
The CARES ACT funds expired on September 30, 2021
15 USC 9058: Temporary moratorium on eviction filingsText contains those laws in effect on November 7, 2024
From Title 15-COMMERCE AND TRADECHAPTER 116-CORONAVIRUS ECONOMIC STABILIZATION (CARES ACT)SUBCHAPTER III-ECONOMIC STABILIZATION AND ASSISTANCE TO SEVERELY DISTRESSED SECTORS OF THE UNITED STATES ECONOMYPart A-Coronavirus Economic Stabilization
Jump To:Source Credit
§9058. Temporary moratorium on eviction filings
(a) Definitions
In this section:
(1) Covered dwelling
The term "covered dwelling" means a dwelling that-
(i) pursuant to a residential lease; or
(ii) without a lease or with a lease terminable under State law; and
(B) is on or in a covered property.
(2) Covered property
The term "covered property" means any property that-
(i) a covered housing program (as defined in section 12491(a) of title 34); or
(ii) the rural housing voucher program under section 1490r of title 42; or
(B) has a-
(i) Federally backed mortgage loan; or
(ii) Federally backed multifamily mortgage loan.
(3) Dwelling
The term "dwelling"-
(A) has the meaning given the term in section 3602 of title 42; and
(B) includes houses and dwellings described in section 3603(b) of title 42.
(4) Federally backed mortgage loan
The term "Federally backed mortgage loan" includes any loan (other than temporary financing such as a construction loan) that-
(A) is secured by a first or subordinate lien on residential real property (including individual units of condominiums and cooperatives) designed principally for the occupancy of from 1 to 4 families, including any such secured loan, the proceeds of which are used to prepay or pay off an existing loan secured by the same property; and
(B) is made in whole or in part, or insured, guaranteed, supplemented, or assisted in any way, by any officer or agency of the Federal Government or under or in connection with a housing or urban development program administered by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or a housing or related program administered by any other such officer or agency, or is purchased or securitized by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or the Federal National Mortgage Association.
(5) Federally backed multifamily mortgage loan
The term "Federally backed multifamily mortgage loan" includes any loan (other than temporary financing such as a construction loan) that-
(A) is secured by a first or subordinate lien on residential multifamily real property designed principally for the occupancy of 5 or more families, including any such secured loan, the proceeds of which are used to prepay or pay off an existing loan secured by the same property; and
(B) is made in whole or in part, or insured, guaranteed, supplemented, or assisted in any way, by any officer or agency of the Federal Government or under or in connection with a housing or urban development program administered by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or a housing or related program administered by any other such officer or agency, or is purchased or securitized by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or the Federal National Mortgage Association.
(b) Moratorium
During the 120-day period beginning on March 27, 2020, the lessor of a covered dwelling may not-
(1) make, or cause to be made, any filing with the court of jurisdiction to initiate a legal action to recover possession of the covered dwelling from the tenant for nonpayment of rent or other fees or charges; or
(2) charge fees, penalties, or other charges to the tenant related to such nonpayment of rent.
(c) Notice
The lessor of a covered dwelling unit-
(1) may not require the tenant to vacate the covered dwelling unit before the date that is 30 days after the date on which the lessor provides the tenant with a notice to vacate; and
(2) may not issue a notice to vacate under paragraph (1) until after the expiration of the period described in subsection (b).
( Pub. L. 116–136, div. A, title IV, §4024, Mar. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 492 .)
IS THE CARES ACT STILL ACTIVE?
What is the CARES Act? Is it still in effect?
Totaling over $2 trillion, the CARES Act was the largest economic stimulus package in American history, but confusion, delays, and even fraudulent activities surrounded the process of applying for and receiving stimulus funds.
·
Updated:
Jun 24, 2024 4:02 PM ED
Original:
Sep 14, 2023
The CARES Act provided emergency stimulus to businesses, families, and unemployed workers.
cbies for iStockphoto; Canva
In just a few months in early 2020, the entire world changed.
Contents
· What were the components of the CARES Act?
· Who benefitted from the CARES Act? How equitable was it?
· Did the CARES Act help the economy?
Outbreaks of an unnamed, acute respiratory illness emerged in China at the end of 2019, and by the first few months of 2020, infections of the highly contagious virus had spread around the world.
The World Health Organization (WHO) officially named the SARS-CoV-2 virus “COVID-19” and declared a global health emergency on March 11, 2020. Within a week, U.S. government officials instituted social distancing measures in an effort to contain the virus, imposing mandatory lockdowns of businesses, schools, and nearly all other public places.
On Wall Street, the stock markets became extremely volatile—the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 37%, and the S&P 500 fell 34%, triggering a stock market crash. The airline industry petitioned the government for a $50 billion bailout, saying it would go bankrupt otherwise.
The National Restaurant Association asked for $145 billion, predicting up to 7 million employees would lose their jobs. Over 3 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits in the third week of March 2020 alone. The government needed to take quick action.
Unemployment skyrocketed at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Unemployment Rate [UNRATE], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE, September 12, 2023.
What is the CARES Act?
The CARES Act, or the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, was the U.S. government’s response to this unprecedented economic crisis spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. Congress passed the Act on March 25, 2020, and it was signed into law by President Donald Trump on March 27, 2020.
CARES was a mammoth $2.2 trillion relief package that provided direct payments to millions of American families and forgivable loans to small businesses and corporations, among other things.
What were the components of the CARES Act?
The CARES Act provided trillions of dollars of aid to millions of Americans in a variety of forms such as unemployment benefits, foreclosure assistance, student loan relief, and payroll loans:
CARES ACT Recipients | Amount |
Corporations | $454 billion |
Small businesses | $349 billion |
Households | $301 billion |
Unemployment insurance | $250 billion |
====================================================================================================================================================
= I have to sit down. Standing up her is wearing on my legs. I will resume this later.
It is much later, 10/25/2025....
MY BRIEF IS ALMOST DONE. I HAD A SETBACK AND NEEDED TO REST TODAY. I WILL RESUME WORKING ON IT TOMORROW - WELL, TODAY SINCE IT IS AFTER MIDNIGHT.
DRAFT OF MY AFFIDAVIT - due to more information I discovered.
AFFIDAVIT OF APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF
TO INCLUDE WITH BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT
October 27, 2025
1. My name is Anne M. Bradley. I am the Pro Se litigant, Appellant-Plaintiff on this aforesaid case.
2. This case had no merit since the first day I was served a Notice to Quit. I blame the Housing Authority for failing to do their jobs and apparently it pleases the Director, et al - to build such abuse on a tenant, so they can be farmed-out to the legal system, which is already highly-congested and a great waste of government money!
3. There have been a number of things this Housing Authority has wasted government money on, to include just being outright dishonest.
4. Even when I met with Dale Dibeneddeto, she claimed “We do not apply the Federal Law 42 USC; we only care about using 24 CFR” I appreciated her candid interraction with me, which in that sense I found the meeting productive. Yet she was obviously prohibited from getting the files which I asked her for. She said she would and we could meet again. Yet she was obviously told not to.
5. There is indeed a lot of passing of the hand and passing of the buck in that office by those who are in the higher positions. Possibly some of them actually are trying to legitamize their activity. My impression is that it is a complete inept system which oftentimes works outside of the HUD standards and practices. As if their “internal forms” have more value; when in fact, are probably easier to hide from the inspecto general office or possibly ombudsman if they have such a thing. There is an ignorant behavioral climate in this state, especially where I live, which involves secret allegiances and behaviors which frankly, mirror the New Order of Barbarians which Dr. Donnegan so bravely relayed to the public once Dr. Day died, since Dr. Day was a safety concern. Dr. Donnegan died early himself, only 71. His warnings live on.
6. In regards to the aforesaid appeal which I have, it is so evident that a NOTICE TO QUIT cannot be valid just because it is typed, just because a marshal serves a paper. In fact, what that marshal did to me was unlawful; even going to my next-door neighbor asking her where I was to use her a social proof that he tried to serve me but I did not answer. He neither knocked on my door or rang my doorbell. And of course, he could have called me, or had the landlord call me SINCE HE LIVED HERE. I found out he was ordered out, and certainly it would not have been the landlord here who did that. The feds must have stepped in and most likely claimed his “business relationship” with this landlord was abusive to the public and created an unlawful dynamic.
7. To focus in on this HUD form, HUD-92458, which the judge in case SC 20043 referred to, I find this is another reflection of the lack of compliance which the New Haven Housing Authority, aka Elm City Communities, has. It is apparent that they no longer can have for-profit businesses there, which is a good thing and must have taken much work by federal authorities to take place - despite the deliberate breaking of laws by government officials, etc.
8. The Housing Authority has sent me mail fraudulently, to cause it to return, and then tell me I didn’t do what they told me to do even though I did not get the mail, they did not call me, and so forth. They had my PO Box as the mailing address. They could care less about the abuse I have gone through in this so-called luxury building and certainly if someone like Dale DiBeneddeto tries to actually come up with a solution, that is just out of the question! I could have showed her several pictures proving many acts of vandalism and abuse here, which I wanted to in the follow-up hearing, which was suppressed by the ones who want to get away with their abuse of power rather than be professionals.
9. They do not use this form I mentioned.
10. There is also Notice H-2024-05 dated February 29, 2024. The title is: Budget-based Rent Adjustments for Mark-to-Market Properties. And they have a cutesy-tootsie knick name for it as if it this is company they can siphone money out of, M2M. On their website it states this 27-page document which I had to print is in compliance with the PAPER REDUCTION ACT. The last thing I consider Washington DC good at is being frugal!
11. In the case which I have read, it specifies that a NOTICE TO QUIT cannot be defective; “The trial court concluded that the defective notice deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction and rendered a judgment of dismissal.”
12. Though the Appellate Court raised fanfare about how pretty the defective Pretermination Notice and Notice To Quit were, they failed to actually define the prong of LEGAL EFFICACY, which literally stands alone as a first requirement, in my opinion.
13. “A condition precedent to a summary process action, proper notice to quit is a jurisdictional necessity” Lampasonna v Jacobs, supra 729.
14. Further this case states that the preconditions required under state summary process law were met. How can they be met if the notice to quit is not proper? They really need to get their dictionaries out, if they care to be judges. I find many judges in this state are just social tools to manipulate the process, not administer justice.
15. “The landlord can rely only on grounds that were set forth in that notice, unless the landlord had no knowledge of an additional ground at the time the pretermination notice was served.” Section 247.6(b)
16. What about unless the landlord CAUSES an additional ground by illegally entering? By vandalizing? By infesting the apartement with insects using an airgun or the like in the doorframe or any other access maintenance may have - such as the HVac ducts?
17. The Notice To Quit and Pretermination Notice have to “state the reasons for the landlord’s action with enough specificity so as to enable the tenant to prepare a defense” Section 247.4 (a)(2) “a notice stating the dollar amount of the balance due on the rent account and the date of such computation shall satisfy the requirement”
18. I didn’t even have a Pretermination Notice! And Pretermination Notices are required to be served 30 days in advance. They had plenty of time, of course; claiming I did not pay rent for August and September when I not only submitted the checks but had the bank manager’s notes on them when the landlord “cashed” them. Not deposited! They wouldn’t provide me the actual check with the information on it. And Attorney Pitt, chief clerk, claimed the check information could not be shown in court. Obviously to keep people from inquiring, especially attorneys who care about the mismanagement of money, abuse of power, and shear depravity of lifestyles, such as the ones who have gained much of the power and influence in this society. I refer to Jeffrey Epstein. Ironically, the attorney who represented this defendant, Tanya Perkins is an Epstein. The owner of this apartment complex is or was the son of the infamous Toni Harp who built her or his (obviously a transgender or transdresser) power by spinning off prior US Presidents, et al - who frankly do not deserve the time of day, particularly because they were the planners of September 11, 2001. They were the ones who bombed the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma. And I could say more, especially promotion of child trafficking because it is “big business” like the illegal drug business is; and of course all that activity ends up them “needing” the Silk Road website, whose founder is supposed to be in prison for the rest of his life but I doubt it. And after that was a bigger and better criminal website, which was the largest crime ring in history, over 160,000 storefronts: Alpha Bay - which Jeff Sessions and his foreign and domestic collaborators literally took down and they had over 20,000 sealed indictments on the Lexis Nexis website. Many who are registered on that site had shared that in social media just after the take-down. So Trump threatens Jeff Sessions to be fired if he does not resign. And Trump was impeached and yet Washington DC welcomed him back with open arms.
19. Why do I state all these things when I should be just concerned with getting them off my back on the illegal eviction and focus on accountability with my Housing Complaint case. I take seriously our pledge of allegiance to the US flag, for one thing. I have been through such hell from almost being murdered to having relatives socially-manipulated which left me with no roots. I can say more about these things but I will not. My point is, I am not the only one.
20. I am not one who enjoys the spotlight for self-gratification. I resent the narcissim that has spread in the country like a social virus. People who are at work taking upon themselves to slam the phone on others is not just unkind but illogical in every sense of the word. Yet that behavior has spread like wildfire. All to inject the wants of the Order Of Barbarians.
21. I am not finished with this affidavit, I need some rest. My heart was not beating well today and though I thought I placed my blood pressure cuff back on my stand, it was on my bed and while I was resting, I accidently knocked it off my raised bed and now have to move a lot of things to get it off the floor because it fell into a corner. I am deleting this last paragraph when I resume. I need to complete my brief. I need to scan it in. I need to test my scanner because the last time I used it, it was not working - no doubt Microsoft Windows, et al are using their cyber crime to keep me from getting my rights, And why? Because they are traitors to this country, that’s why - all the technocrats are, in my opinion. And their elite society was birthed by Washington career criminals. ######
DRAFT OF
MY
It is much later.
Comments