Illegal Eviction Various Motions I come across
Link to this blogpost:
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.
Comments