Brief on Housing Complaint
Link to this blogpost
https://publiusroots.blogspot.com/2025/10/brief-on-housing-complaint.html
FILED UNDER THE ELECTRONIC BRIEFING RULES WITH EXCEPTION TO DEVIATE GRANTED BY THE COURT
APPELLATE COURT
OF THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
APPEAL NO A.C. 48452
ANNE M. BRADLEY
VS
ANSONIA STATE STREET, ET AL
BRIEF OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
BY THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, PRO SE
ANNE M BRADLEY
PO BOX 206514
NEW HAVEN, CT 206514
PHONE: 203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024
To Be Argued By: TOTAL WORDS IN TEXT: 13, 228
Anne Bradley, Pro Se
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I STATEMENT OF ISUES …………………………………………3
II TABLE OF AUTHORITIES TO INCLUDE LEGAL TERMS……5
III STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS…………………………,7
III STATEMENT OF THE FACTS…………………………………..,10
IV ARGUMENT………………………………………………………12
A. Oath for Attorneys………………………………………………12
B. Oath for Judges…………………………………………………..12
C. Oath for all other persons ………………………………………..17
D. Transcript of hearing,10/31/2024 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17
V Conclusion……………………………………………………………45
Certification …………………………………………………………………48
VI Appendix …………………………………………………………….49
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Note, there was no preargument conference or any hearing en banc, or diligence shown by the Appellees, THEREFORE Statement of Issues remains as has been already submitted to the court
Appendix X
1. Whether the Court was following legitamate Rules of Court, Order of Process, ensuring accuracy of records, and refusing to provide articulation of its rulings; which impedes justice.
2. Whether the Court failed to validate records submitted, foregoing the proof of rent was paid for August and September, and other matters, which again, impedes justice with its irregular and improper description of the case.
3. Whether the Court had a right to go outside SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION since the NOTICE TO QUIT claimed nonpayment of rent for August and September 2024, with no letter on arrearage, and for emphasis, failing to abide by HUD laws for Section 8 tenant.
4. Whether Judge Alayna Stone had any legal right to hear referred EVICTION (AC 48416) after October 31, 2024, in which she allowed a woman who appeared to be in her 60’s to impersonate her as the presiding judge, and a young man impersonated (who was probably his father, Attorney Peter Hoops) whose appearance was also illegal for other reasons, and argue a motion he did not write.
5. Whether the dismissal of aforesaid case without even issuing a proper judgment on record; and failing to fully litigate the case on other matters, including not hearing all motions, also impedes justice for the Appellant-Plaintiff.
6. Whether the court may permit the rent payments into court for $198, reject the Plaintiff’s Motion to Pay Rent Into Court as a perceived tactic, and later in associated EVICTION case, require a higher amount of rent to pay in court and literally skip over January and February rent despite the landlord-defendant receiving subsidies for those months - was at all proper or consistant with Due Process of Law.
7. Whether the Court may rule on a Motion To Dismiss when none of the Defendants ANSWERED the complaint as required by law, and defaulting again by not appearing at the October 31 hearing.
8. Whether the Court may ignore the defaults of the defendants and rule in their behalf when they did nothing on this case except allow fraud and illegal appearance of the Appellee-Defendant who was not even an attorney.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Terminology
Fraud
Juris
Pro Hac Vice
Federal Laws on SECTION 8
If there is no HAP contract, there is no lease; the lease cannot make any demands which are not compliant with Section 8 Law
42 US Code 1437f SECTION 8 LAWS
42 US Code 1437d
24 Code of Fed Regulations. Emphasis Part 982
CaseLaws
239 Supp 2d 593 - NOTICE TO QUIT
Pretermination Notice
Summons can only mirror what was on the Notice To Quit
State Laws
Court’s responsibility in validating documents before docketing case
Ensure the LEGAL EFFICACY of case
CGS Title 47a, Chapter 832
CGS 52-259b - granting appeals/merits
CGS Title 47a-23 Pages 174-181 of Appendix to Complaint
Notice To Quit is a federal order, not state
Notice To Quit is defined as a Federal Termination Of Lease Notice
Pretermination Notice is NOT a termination of lease
PA 82-274 - Notice To Quit has to contain reason for termination of the lease. This reason is the subject matter jurisdiction of the case if a summary process is initiated after return date.
47a-15a -nonpayment of rent within the grace period provided for residential property
In Notice to Quit…FAILS TO SHOW THAT TENANT WAS A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED IN 47a-23c
2024 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 47a - Landlord and Tenant
Chapter 832 - Summary Process
Section 47a-23c. - Prohibition on eviction of certain tenants except for good cause.
Court Rules and Regulations
CPB 2-16 (Pro Hac Vice; Attorneys out of state)
CPB 8-2 (Fee Waivers; emphasis the court must determine merit on the case)
“the granting of such application” cannot “constitute a flagrant misuse of Judicial Branch resources”
STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
1. A lawful complaint was issued to the court which included numerous breaches and crimes by the Appellees, yet the court unlawfully dismissed the case, not even appearing at the hearing, yet deceiving the Appellant-Plaintiff and expecting to get away with it.
2. The chief clerk had the case documents for 5-7 days after fee waiver approval, saying there was a delay in copying, still refusing to allow the Appellant-Plaintiff to copy or mail it which is part of the process in Housing Summary Processes Against a Landlord. In this case, the property records fail to indicate who the true owner of the property is. It is unlawful to quit claim a $2.2 billion property for $1; and also unlawful to sell a $2.2 billion property for $160 million when the “owner” does not even have title to the property and has an $89 billion mortgage - all of these property documents and Section 8/HAP documents were stubmitted with the complaint and the Appendix was frauded by trail court.
3. Rent Payments to Court, commencing October 2024, were made by Appellant-Plaintiff, which cannot be accepted if the rent is in arrears according to the laws stated right on the Complaint, along with other laws and regulations, such as the responsibilities of the Chief Clerk.
4. Despite this involving the HAP Section 8 Contract, which is unavailable to the Appellant-Plaintiff to produce since her e-files were stolen and many of her hard copies were either stolen or frauded, the local Housing Authority once again refuses to “get involved” even though they are obligated to have a hearing with the Appellant-Plaintiff and validate that there was a Pretermination Notice. At No point was a Pretermination Notice served on the Plaintiff-Appellant as required by Law, as cited in Table Of Authorities, federal law. For further emphasis the federal order, Notice To Quit, which terminates the lease, was invalid due to this as well as the fact the rent for August and September 2024 was paid by the Appellant and those checks have been submitted to the court several times including in aforesaid Appendix at Appendix A, with Notice To Quit.
5. All defendants were ordered not to proceed with a Summary Process on the face of the Summons, served on October 8, 2024. Appendix R
6. Not only did Ansonia State Street violate the court order above by commencing with a Summary Process, serving a Summons on October 24, but the trial court went along with it; which is legal malpractice.
7. The first and only hearing was inept and violates Due Process of Law on several counts:
a) Judge Alayna Stone did not preside; instead a woman falsifying that she was Judge Alayna Stone impersonated her.
b) Judge Alayna Stone, thereafter ruled on the case she did not preside in.
c) There was no hearing of the Complaint.
d) There were no Answers were submitted on the Complaint by the defendants.
e) Alayna Stone, who does not even seem to be a qualified attorney, and is just a puppet for unknown people who have no appearance on the case, granted the dismissal of the case she did not even hear.
f) Alayna Stone failed to hear Motion To Open by the Appellant-Plaintiff, yet granted the fee waiver.
i. No court may publish lawfully that a Motion To Open is only the right of a defendant to submit in court.
ii. No court may publish lawfully that a Motion To Strike can only be used by a defendant and can only apply to complaints.
iii. It is the automatic right of both parties to submit motions of the same title in defense of their own arguments.
iv. Judges strike what is said during court proceedings, by stating aloud that they are striking something which is said, including a motion. It is therefore the right of a party to motion the judge to strike it.
v. It is unlawful for the court to grant a fee waiver on a motion and deliberately not hear it, denying the motion immediately thereafter.
vi. It is unlawful for the court to not allow arguments of any motions and immediately deny them. This infers conspiring with the wants of the apposing party, for one thing; therefore impeding justice
g) Alayna Stone REFUSED TO ISSUE A MEMORANDUM OF LAW for appeal purposes, which another violation of Due Process.
8. Appearances were fraudulent. Some defendants failed to file appearances. Hoops & Associates altered its appearance after it was uploaded, to include they appeared for Elm City Communities on a separate paper, and then altering it to they served Elm City Communities, which the form had plenty of space for them to include in the certification of service section. Berchem & Moses appeared for defendant Elm City Communities yet failed to show up at the hearing of October 31, 2024 and used a Pro Hac Vice Juris Number. [Note, there was no indication in the court transcript of who the defendant attorney was appearing for; a typical “blank check” for them to alter records thereafter; despite this being a mandatory requirement for the court to proceed with the hearing] It is standard procedure to tell the court who the attorney is representing yet this is not in the transcript.
9. This does not include all of the violations by the trial court yet it provides the Appellate Court a good idea of the malicious and vexatious intentional activity by the housing trial court.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Housing Complaint Case NHH-CV24-5005875-5, submitted initially September 27, 2025, rejected; submitted and rectified according to the Chief Clerk’s requirements October 3, 2025, approved, and uploaded as a case prior to service on defendants. Appellant-Plaintiff tried to pick up the approved Complaint at court to proceed with mailing certified with return receipt, The Chief Clerk said “no, this will be served by a marshal and I will make copies, you cannot make copies.” This caused a delay in service. On October 8, Monday, Appellant-Plaintiff submitted a replacement for Notice of Suit, corrected the Appendix with a typed version of Inventory of Documents of Appendix of 245 pages, and another associated document to replace and correct defects. Chief Clerk would not accept them as replacements, saying the court approved the case with merit as it was when it approved the fee waiver, that he already uploaded the case on October 3, 2024 (with an inept return date of October 3, 2024) despite it not yet being served. These documents were marked as “amended” ( Appendix D, lacking the amended Inventory of Documents of Complaint Appendix due to theft of files and the court removing that document from record and thereafter frauding the Appendix). Chief clerk assured her they would be served on the defendants with the “amended documents taking precedence. Chief clerk uploaded the case a week prior to service. Marshal filed a defective proof of service (10/10/2024) 2 weeks after the defendants were served (10/24/2024) , charging the State of Connecticut on October 10, $2,849.36 just for delivering four complaint packets to one agent, Attorney Dan DeStefano, who was not even there despite her ability to call them beforehand. She also delivered two other local entities, the City of New Haven’s Livable City Initiative and Elm City Communities which is the Housing Authority of New Haven. This may have taken a half hour. Additionally she went to Hartford and said when she returned that she had to give the Secretary of State the original set because they wanted a second copy. The marshal failed to ask Appellant-Plaintiff for her permission to give the original to the Secretary of State; and most certainly the Appellant-Plaintiff would have said no. Appellant-Plaintiff asked her why she did not give them her copy of the Complaint or go to a nearby copy service and make copies if it was even true the Secretary of State had to get another copy and had to be paid $50, both of which seem unlawful. The marshal wouldn’t answer and had no law or regulation she could cite to excuse her actions. She also went to East Hartford to deliver to an agent of a dissolved company, MEPT Chapel Street, either not calling or conspiring. The records indicated all companies listed were active, yet the Secretary of State backdated records indicating MEPT Chapel Street and 360 State Street, Inc (whose agent WAS a CPA by the last name of Saunders, whose office was closed, in the Fairfield, CT area for the firm Becker & Becker which claimed to own 360 State Street, Inc.) At Appendix N is Marshal’s Return of Service, delayed submission for two weeks, Motion for the Court to order the Marshal for Return of Service, and Timeline of Communications. On the same day she submitted the Motion for the Marshal to Return Service, October 23, Appellant-Plaintiff’s Preliminary Statement to Court’s Declaratory Judgment was stamped in. This is at Appendix M. The defendant Ansonia State Street served an illegal Summons on the Appellant-Plaintff on October 24, violating the court order on the Summons they received on October 10, which ordered them not to initiate any Summary Process. Rent was paid into court by the Appellant-Plaintiff.
ARGUMENT
A. OATH FOR ATTORNEYS.
You solemnly swear or solemnly and sincerely affirm, as the case may be, that you will do nothing dishonest, and will not knowingly allow anything dishonest to be done in court, and that you will inform the court of any dishonesty of which you have knowledge; that you will not knowingly maintain or assist in maintaining any cause of action that is false or unlawful; that you will not obstruct any cause of action for personal gain or malice; but that you will exercise the office of attorney, in any court in which you may practice, according to the best of your learning and judgment, faithfully, to both your client and the court; so help you God or upon penalty of perjury.
B. OATH FOR JUDGES
Sec 1-25
You solemnly swear or solemnly and sincerely affirm, as the case may be, that you will faithfully discharge, according to law, your duties as ….to the best of your abilities, so help you God or upon penalty of perjury.
There is no actual published oath for judges which can be found in the State of Connecticut references. Possibly the oath is a secret one. When affirmation may be used: When any person, required to take an oath, from scruples of conscience declines to take it in the usual form or when the court is satiusfied that any person called as a witness does not believe in the existence of a Supreme Being, a solemn affirmation may be administered to him in the form of the oath prescribed, except that instead the word “swear” the words “solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare” shall be used and instead of the words “so help you God” the words “upon the pains and penalties of perjury or false statement” shall be used.
Ref: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2021/pub/chap_004.htm
This statutory reference leaves out the judge’s oath.
Last known assignment of judges:
Article dated July 2023: Twenty new Superior Court judges, including three former state legislators, and two family support magistrates all took the oath of office on Tuesday during a swearing-in ceremony at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.
The new class of judicial officials were approved by the state legislature after being nominated by Gov. Ned Lamont in March. Lamont, who addressed the group prior to administering the oath, urged the new judges and magistrates to consider both the law and the perspectives of the residents who will appear in their courtrooms.
“In this complicated day and age it’s more important than ever that we don’t just rule but we explain why we rule, why it’s important and why we make the decisions that we make,” the governor said.
The group of new Superior Court judges includes three former legislators: Paul Doyle, a Wethersfield Democrat who served several terms in both the House and Senate, Dan Fox, a Stamford Democrat who served in the House from 2011 until he was appointed this year, and Jason Welch, a Bristol Republican who served two terms in the Senate before working as legal counsel for the Senate Republican caucus.
The class also includes a former executive branch chief, Thomas Saadi, who served as the commissioner of the Department of Veterans Affairs until his nomination in March.
In remarks before the new officials and a conference room crowded with their family and friends, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Robinson advised the judges and magistrates to accept help and stay grounded. “Family and friends keep us humble and never let us forget where we came from,” Robinson said. “They also will provide refuge from the storm when — not if — you make a controversial or unpopular decision.”
Despite not being formally sworn in until Tuesday, Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto, the state’s chief court administrator, said the new class had been serving on the bench for about a month after they completed a four-week training course.
Lamont said the addition of new judges and magistrates would help Connecticut courts tackle a lingering backlog of cases brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We’re catching up but we can’t catch up without each and every one of you doing what you know is right,” the governor said. [portion of article]
Appellant-Plaintiff notices there is no emphasis on administering the law; or anything else regarding following the law, emphasizing allegiance to each other instead.
[article resumed] While each of the officials sworn in Tuesday received approval from state lawmakers during this year’s legislative session, the governor’s nomination to fill a vacancy on the state Supreme Court, federal prosecutor Sandra Slack Glover, withdrew herself from consideration in May due to resistance from lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee.
Following Tuesday’s ceremony, the governor told reporters that he would likely wait until the legislature comes back into session next year before nominating another candidate for the Supreme Court.
“I think we’re going to take our time,” Lamont said. “I’m told that in the meantime a Superior Court judge can step up and make sure that we don’t miss a beat in the Supreme Court. I think a lot of the folks we’ve talked to want to make sure that the legislature’s in session.” [end of article]
Kevin Lawlor of North Haven, CT (whose wife Ann Lawlor had also been a state prosecutor) whose brother taught law (and was a State Representative for a number of years) at the University of New Haven when Appellant-Plaintiff was illicitly arrested 6/6/2006 at the University of New Haven for mailing a harmless paperweight to the University President approximately a week prior to that, The university police had the evidence destroyed and minutes later arrested the Appellant-Plaintiff when she went to the campus just to pick up a book she purchased from the bookstore. This case was personally prosecuted by Lawrence Mark Hurley. The case was past the statute of limitations by a year, yet despite the Motions To Dismiss the court refused to dismiss the one charge of a misdemeanor. They instead conspired more after Appellant-Plaintiff made the grave mistake of mailing a letter to the Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, asking for his assistance to get the case dismissed since it was past statute of limitations, the arrest was unlawful, and she had been bullied for two years, to include Jerald S. Barber stealing her $2300 retainer and not doing anything he promised on the case. She removed him in less than two weeks and demanded her money back. He refused to give her money back and the complaint made to Statewide Grievance Committee was just a waste of her time, as with complaints she made on judges were. Attorney Blumenthal conspired with the State’s Attorney and allowed a jury of 6 to preside at a trial, to justify the threat of Judge Sequino, who the Appellant-Plaintiff complained about, wasting her time. They also arranged for Judge Levin, from a different district, to preside over the unlawful trial. Judge Levin is father of the attorney who Appellant-Plaintiff removed from an injury case because he treated her disrespectfully and did not help her with a workers comp claim or even her rights when she had a concussion from a man who worked for a multi-billion dollar medical company and was going to training for work, who ran into her car on her way to work, pushing her car into traffic. She lost consciousness for an unknown length of time. This man who was at-fault was accusing her of not getting out of his way, and the ambulance refused to take her to the hospital when her forehead had a large contusion. Having had a severe head injury in the past, in which she almost died and was in isolation for over 6 weeks, to include ICU, this was indeed a very traumatic circumstance which she hoped to secure an attorney who would defend her. Instead, he was a greedy self-serving person who cared nothing about her injury, her need for medical care, and refused to help her get workers compensation. She removed him quickly.
Judge Levin adduced two more charges during Voire Dire, which is completely illegal yet had the blessings of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and his conspirators who showed malice and forethought on this law-abiding Appellant-Plaintiff.
Kevin Lawlor and obviously other prosecutors allowed Prosecutor Supervisor Lawrence Mark Hurley to embezzle money from the Courthouse. The judge in Middletown refused state police from further audits despite in three years time they uncovered hundreds of thousands of dollars which Lawrence Mark Hurley stole from the Milford Courthouse as well as the Prosecutor’s Union, by using a chemical to remove signatures and placing his own signature on them and depositing them into his secret bank accounts. NOT ONCE DID THAT COURTHOUSE BALANCE ITS BOOKS OR, MOST LIKELY, ALLOWED THE CRIMES TO CONTINUE TO COVER THEM UP.
His wife is Ann Lawlor
· Ann F. Lawlor of North Haven: Lawlor graduated from Providence College and New England Law School. She was a Supervisory Assistant State’s Attorney, Fairfield JD at geographical area #2 in Bridgeport. She worked in private practice for a few years before joining the Division of Criminal Justice in 1999. Since then, she has worked as an Assistant State’s Attorney, the last nine years of which have been in Bridgeport, serving for seven years in Part A and Supervisory Assistant State’s Attorney at GA #2 since 2021.
C. OATH FOR ALL OTHER PERSONS OF WHOM AN OATH IS REQUIRED.
You solemnly swear or solemnly and sincerely affirm, as the case may be, that you will faithfully discharge, according to law, your duties as .... to the best of your abilities; so help you God or upon penalty of perjury.
D. TRANSCRIPT OF OCTOBER 31, 2024 HEARING - APPENDIX H Note: Attendees at this hearing were NOT what this transcript record shows. There was no “Attorney Joseph St. Rock”
a) PAGE 1
Lines 5-6. Reminder: Attorney St. Rock was not the appearing party. The fraud who claimed he was Attorney Hoops did not say this; he actually told the Plaintiff-Appellant to come to the stand - which was not his right to do. Plaintiff-Appellant said she was not going up there until called by (what was presumed to be) Judge Alayna Stone, as so-stated by the Court and agreed by her. Both the fraud who said he was Attorney Peter Hoops and the fraud who said she was Judge Alayna Stone appeared to be microchipped or wired some other way, being told what to say and do by non-appearing secret persons or person - similar to how movies are made. Line 13-14. Plaintiff-Appellant did not identify herself like a James Bond movie. She simply stated her name at the request of the alleged judge. The repeated “all right” in the transcript did not exist at the hearing. Not once did that woman who claimed she was Alayna Stone say “all right”. That is hype added to the recording. Line 22-23. The alleged judge actually said she would hear all motions at the same time. The recorded hearing was frauded. This should be noted by the Appellant-Plaintiff in her motions to correct/rectify the transcript. It is very likely those documents have been frauded by the court also, since Appellant’s Social Security Card and Medicare Card were stolen from her while she was using the computer at the courthouse located at 121 Elm Street. The Court Services Clerk explained that area has no security camera on it because the court officials claim it interferes with the functioning of the computer. Since Elizabeth Bozzuto’s office denied Appellant-Plaintiff’s motion for exemption to e-file primarily due to the fact that the Bozzuto Management team had cut off wifi in her apartment after the maintenance manager violently smashed his way in while Appellant-Plaintiff was taking a bath and Appellant-Plaintiff complained with only retaliation. Lines 24-27 prove that the judge completely skipped over hearing the complaint, which is deliberate lack of Due Process of Law and/or incompetency; most likely resulting from hearing what she is told to do next, since she frequently held onto her right ear. The alleged judge also failed to ensure all defendants were appearing or why they were not appearing. Why would it even matter to someone who was sitting at the bench, frauding/impersonating Alayna Stone, who was assigned the case? Instead, this woman sitting on the judge’s bench, oddly, among other things, states she wants the Appellant-Plaintiff to state “whether or not the motion to Dismiss should be granted or not” which is the judge’s job and most likely she repeated what she was being told through nefarious spy equipment and made a mistake regarding what they were telling her; which is obviously reflecting she was impersonating Alayna Stone, who was obviously in agreement with the scam. It would have behooved the Appellee-Defendant for Ansonia State Street to object yet only professional attorneys care about Due Process. This young man who was obviously born after 1987, when the real Peter Hoops entered the BAR, was just making this a criminal game of fraud, obstructing justice.
b) PAGE 2
Though Lines 11-17 were altered, the Appellant-Plaintiff emphasizes that she argued Legal Efficacy is what determines validity for court matters - not whether it is spelled right, which is foolish. No one may use any legal process to simply abuse people, yet this is common practice in the state of Connecticut. The Appellee-Defendant lied about the rent for August and September 2024 was not paid. Appellant-Plaintiff proved the rent was paid for July, August and September - showing she paid the same amount - all before the 10th of the month. An additional point which needs to be re-emphasized is Attorney Pitt, Chief Clerk, would not allow the case to be titled “Anne Bradley vs Bozzuto Management, Inc”. There were 8 listed Defendants - none of which were even acknowledged by the court/acting judge, except for Ansonia State Street, which had a fraud appearing as Attorney Peter Hoops, who is co-owner of Hoops & Associates, who did not even write the motion. Also, Appendix I is the Section 8 rent amount along with communications to Dale DiBeneddeto at Elm City Communities, which the Housing Authority (aka Elm City Communities) provided the Appellant-Plaintiff and therefore proves she overpaid rent since it was set at $171.00/month and remained so since January 2013, which was the only signed agreement for rent and therefore the last agreed-upon rent. Also, the Section 8 landlord is the one who submits information to Social Services regarding monthly rent cost. The landlord informed Social Services that Appellant-Plaintiff’s rent paid was $93.20, which disrupted her benefits and they reduced what little she already gets and she has had to pay twice that amount for rent. At some point Social Services corrected this. Appendix J has various Social Services Information. Line 21-23 was so obviously cut off. The court reporter added dashes. Line 27 indicates September 18th was the day which the crumpled up Notice To Quit with no copy of a Letter of Arrearage which was supposed to have been served 2 weeks prior; and no copy of a Pretermination Letter which according to HUD Laws was supposed to have been served at least 30 days prior, but was not, were not attached. Only an advertisement for attorneys was attached. This date was not even objected to by the fraud who said he was Attorney Peter Hoops,
c) PAGE 3
Dialogue of the Appellant-Plaintiff is missing, which disrupts the what she stated in court. They obviously used the malware and cut out sentencing successfully to prevent unfinished sentences. The constant cyber crime which goes on in the court is criminal. What is important to convey is that the crumpled up Notice To Quit appeared to be a possible bomb or other something else destructive since someone crumpled it up and stuck it in her door frame, not using her doorbell or knocking on her door. Appellant-Plaintiff heard someont at her door on the 18th tamper with her door, which may have been a return visit to alter the Notice To Quit. She didn’t know. This marshal lives on the premises and he actually went to Cindy’s apartment and asked where Appellant-Defendant was in order to hype up his tactics, fully knowing that Appellant-Defendant was in her apartment and not even making any attempt to knock or use the doorbell. As stated in Line 13-20, emphasis was on the dishonest practice of this marshal, who actually lived here yet after this was abruptly ordered out of the building. She knows nothing more than this. The improper service is just another reason why the Notice To Quit is invalid. Appellant-Plaintiff paid her rent for August and September of 2024- proving also there was no Legal Efficacy, thus making The Notice To Quit invalid and thus giving cause to enter a housing complaint. This hearing had more of a discussion on the non-compliant Motion To Dismiss, which even the Appellate Court would reject, as they have so published in their instructions for Pro Se litigants. So for a so-called attorney to slop a request together and fashion it to his liking, takes away from anyone’s ability to have it litigated properly in court. A Motion To Dismiss is an inference that his motion had proper structure. His only defense was something a five year old would say. In fact, the young man who was there was claiming he wrote the motion, which was another lie. Lines 24-27 he says: “Just regarding the formatting, I think I complied with the Practice Book that the motion is very short and to the point, and there is a memorandum of law citing statutory case law.” This was complete foolishness coming out of a fraudulent young man in his 20’s who may have even been on a psychotropic drug. An attorney would justify his experience and and accreditations, not say such foolishness that has no value.
d) PAGE 4
There are several lines showing again, malware used to alter the recording - with many dashes where unfinished sentences are, with just “it is valid” dialogue and the like. (For emphasis, the Appellant-Plaintiff also reiterated what was in the Motion To Strike, Appendix C). The Notice To Quit establishes the subject matter jurisidiction of the case. (Table of Authorities) The judge cannot alter the subject matter jurisdiction. It is, in essence, psychopathic by those involved: for this Appellee-Defendant Ansonia State Street, who defaulted by not answering the complaint, who initiated a fraudulent eviction case violating even the order of the court, to use subject matter jurisdiction as a reason to dismiss aforesaid case; and thus validating his incompetency and deliberate impersonation of an attorney which the court covered up by changing the name to “Attorney St. Rock” who is most likely a cyber-frauded name with fraudulent cyber history to reflect he exists yet neither the BAR or Martindale Hubble allow ANY PICTURE OF ANY ALLEGED LICENSED ATTORNEYS in their registries to validate identies! Appellant-Plaintiff’s hard copies of records were stolen as well as e-filing of records were stolen by the Homeland Security contractor at the Federal Building - obviously all using some type of beehive technology to conspire their crimes with. Appellant-Plaintiff submitted to the Appellate Court her hand-written letter of complaint due to the fact her connector for her mouse was also stolen in the case which the (American Security Systems, headquartered in Oklahoma) security officer took out of her purse while the other security officer was abusing her not only as a distraction but as a means of humoring himself, causing her to be in pain and also telling her to spread her legs so he could wand her, telling her again to do the same thing when turning around, inferring the wand was his penis.
e) PAGE 5
As most-likely expressed in prior Motions For Rectification, Correcting this recorded hearing by removing malware, it is obvious that the Motion to Dismiss was combined with Motion To Strike and not once was the issues of the Complaint even addressed, which should have come first.
Again, the foolishness of the argument plays out when at the hearing of December 3, Appendix Y, the Appellee-Defendant, who which this court record claims was St. Rock; when he identified himself as the real Attorney Peter Hoops. Apppellant-Plaintiff emphasizes she has no idea what Attorney St. Rock looks like or if that is even a real person! Attorney Peter Hoops makes the following statements on Page 2, Lines 11-19: I--I think Ms. Bradley is just confusing the issues. The Housing Court Enforcement case was dismissed because the plaintiff, my client, had served the Notice To Quit. Whether the Notice To Quit is valid and --and sufficient to actually evict her is something that would be heard here.
The Housing Law is specific when it indicates that the Notice to Quit has to be valid or otherwise the housing complaint case is valid. Validity is LEGAL EFFICACY, not because it is spelled rigtht and served by a marshal who had no legal right to even serve it since the rent was paid. The complete perversion of Due Process of Law is evident here, since the Housing Court accepted the case, approved the case and took payments for rent which reflects they agreed she was current with the rent. They cannot just undo everything by lying about the case. They issued an order to all Appellee-defendants that they could NOT commence a summary process against the Appellant-Plaintiff but they did and more legal malpractice occurred by conspiring with eachother rather than upholding the law - all as an attempt to bully the already harmed Appellant-Plaintiff who would leave this state in a heartbeat if she could afford it, due to all the deliberate corruption and having little quality of life, having to barricade her door because of violent people who try to enter - even when she took a bath the maintenance manager violently forced his way in and yet the management didn’t care. And the management use the excuse that this $2.2 billion building has an $89 billion mortgage because the tenants are collateral!
PAGES 7-13
This is more of the same - false dialogue, missing dialogue, and continuous acts of the court impeding justice. This brief has limited words and thus, the Appellant-Plaintiff will underline all the sections in the transcript which are clearly defective showing a frauded recording and none of which was apposed by the fraud who said he was Attorney Peter Hoops.
1. Transcript of Dec 3, 2024 Appendix H-2 on the illegal eviction matter, which in fact was served on the Appellant-Plaintiff illegally for a number reasons, as already stated; including the fact they were Summoned on this aforesaid case and the summons order itself, Appendix R which states that they are being sued by the Appellant-Plaintiff and in Paragraph 7, it states: You may NOT commence a summary process (eviction) action for nonpayment of rent while this case is pending, so long as the tenant continues to deposit the rent with the court. It is legal malpractice that has gained the footage on this case - not justice!
Appellant-Plaintiff must first bring to the court’s attention that all of her e-files and other computer supplies (totalling at least $500 in cost) were stolen from her at the Federal Courthouse when she had to go there to get replacements for her stolen Social Security Card and Medicare Card - both stolen while she was using the computer at the Housing Court on 121 Elm Street. The Appellate Court has received a copy of the complaint letter (Appendix K) issued to the Homeland Security Contractor, American Security Systems. Since there was no action taken by the local contractor, Appellant-Plaintiff also contacted their headquarters after confirming they were the headquarters office in Oklahoma. Her hand-written complaint was also faxed to them with no action taken. On Page 3 of Appendix Y, the December 3 hearing, the so-called judge even haphazzardly states in Lines 12-14: So--the issue in the Housing Code Enforcement case was whther there waas a Notice to Quit that was served, not the validity of it.
Alayna Stone must not be an attorney to use such backtalk when the law states it has be to be valid. She wasn’t even at the hearing of October 31, yet ruled on it!
What a disgrace the trial court is, enjoying such abuse to someone who not only pays her rent every month but pays more than she should. Elm City Communties blocked any chance of resolving the issue by getting Dale DiBenedetto to stop all communication. There is no other case manager. She took over and she dropped all responsibility and now they are waiting for the Appellant-Plaintiff to go away. Just as Attorney - now Senator - Richard Blumenthal has done to her. It truly is pathetic and inhuman!
The Appellee-Defendant Ansonia State Street claimed as argument that the Notice to Quit had been served, and therefore was valid. This Notice To Quit was included in the complaint and proved that it was invalid - stated by the Appellant-Plaintiff as a reminder in Court. The Notice to Quit is a federal order and cannot be valid in one court and invalid in another. The judge has completely flip-flopped what justice is and yet is obviously supported by many other corrupted officials who care nothing about the law.
Page 6 of December 3 hearing: . Additionally the illegal Summons was referenced since the illegal Summons was served after the Appellee-Defendants were ordered not to proceed with a Summons. Appellant-Plaintiff made the following statement in Lines 14-25: Nine hundred thirty-two dollars is the fair use and value of my 150-square foot appartment. (Try surviving in a 10 feet by 15 feet apartment which has to have room for closets and a bathroom, and no bedroom. With never any maintenance just because they enjoy illegally entering and stealing and vandalizing what little she has!) The HUD Lease Addendum takes precedence over the lease. There are two parts, thue contract with the landlord (HAP contract), the tenant addendum which I fulfull. The Notice to Quit is invalid. I was not even issued a letter demanding any payment prior to the Notice To Quit nor was the Housing Authority notified with the copy of that letter. The judge, in 2019 (because they did the same thing to me, same landlord, they did this nonpayment of rent accusation in 2019) They based this as reason to rule in my favor. Page 7, Lines 4-11: Instead, the plaintiff who identified himself as Attorney Hoops responded in (Housing Complaint Court on October 31, 2025) with “show me the law that requires this. I mean he’s-- (this segment was deleted because Appellant-Plaintiff emphasized they were the ones who illegally served the Notice To Quit and thereafter before the October 31 Hearing violated the court order telling all defendants they cannot bring any summary process against the Plaintiff-Defendant.) he’s an expert? ---more dialogue omitted in the corrupted taped hearing. --supposedly expert in landlord-tenant law Why does he tell me to show me the law like, you know, catch-me-if-you-can kind of dynamic? If he is an expert, he would know the law. (Additionally emphasized is the fact they brought up the process against the Appellant-Plaintiff and then ask the Appellant-Plaintiff to explain the eviction laws; which they ineptly pump out like candy using fake Cares Act forms, a fraudulent appearance, and more falsehoods. They are nothing but a menace in the eyes of Justice)
2. The Appellant-Plaintiff began paying rent into court, which was affirmation by the court that the rent was current, since it is the chief clerk’s responsibility to validate Appellant-Plaintiff’s submission that rent was current; contrary to the defective Notice to Quit, before taking rent into court. It was quite foolish, to say the least, that this fraud who claimed he was Attorney Peter Hoops used subject matter jurisdiction as a reason to dismiss the case, when in fact it was reason to proceed with it. He obviously did not know what he was talking about and was just saying what he was told by a non-appearing person or persons talking to him through internet or some other electronic device. He made his rabbit hole deeper by failing to even align himself with the Motion To Dismiss signed by Attorney St. Rock. If it was Attorney Peter Hoops who had appeared, he would have had the legal right to argue Attorney St. Rock’s motion, since he now claims to be owner or partner of Hoops & Associates. But he was not Attorney Hoops, and probably Attorney St. Rock is a fake person as well yet Appellant-Plaintiff would not know since he did not attend the hearings or the trial of the illegal eviction case, Additionally, the fraud who said he was Attorney Peter Hoops had emphasized his Cares Act form was being enforced, further deepening his rabbit hole since the Cares Act was dissolved in 2023 and Attorney Pitt deliberately kept it in the case information knowing that. Attorney Hoops has repeatedly entered his appearances as Pro Hac Vice, used Cares Act forms and caused more legal malpractice as a Modus Operandi yet seems to be untouchable with breaking the law, which is a disgusting way to run a court. All of his nefarious actions sticks out like a sore thumb, so obviously Elizabeth Bozzuto is at the least well aware of this and these tactics may have even been her idea since the payments for Pro Hac Vice appearance is given to the Superior Court.
a) She asked the court service center clerk at 121 Elm Street, New Haven, if there was surveillance in the computer area. He said No. They claim that it would interfere with the operation of the computers. An area where people are most vulnerable, working on their cases, and there is no surveillance. The theft of her Social Security Card and Medicare card resulted in the the theft of her computer supplies and all e-files to aforesaid case, including her electronic file of the Complaint, which has since been altered on record.
b) All Defendants defaulted on the case, not submitting any Answer to the Complaint.
i. Trial Court failed to enter defaults; Attorney Pitt excused them, claiming this case was informal; yet he rejected the original complaint claiming that only the addresses of the Agents of Record could be referred to, saying “We have a process here” yet the form did not require it. The original form typed with Anne Bradley vs Bozzuto Management, et al was discarded and due to the time factor, was hand-written for submission, yet Appellant-Plaintiff retyped it over the weekend satisfying Attorney Pitt’s requirement of changing the case name to Anne Bradley vs Ansonia State Street because he said it would match the landlord’s case against her - which had not even been docketed.
c) The Marshal who served defendants did not say any of them were dissolved.
i. The Secretary of State thereafter backdated records of both MEPT Chapel Street, MEPT QALCOM, and 360 State Street, Inc as dissolved
ii. The Secretary of State was listed as Agent of Service for Bozzuto Management, and thus served, yet Bozzuto Management never made an appearance, which was the primary defendant of the case and indicated as so in the Fee Waiver Form, Appendix C
iii. The transcript of hearing on October 31, 2024 was altered from 15 pages to 13 pages. Emphasis: Recording of that hearing is claimed by the Appellant-Plaintiff to be frauded. The Trial Court denied three motions to correct the transcript. Much detail was provided to support the problems listed on the transcript.
3. CLERK APPENDIX
a) Page 3, Trial Court detail. Exhibits A-D have been altered on record. In particular, the Table of Contents of the Appendix was not uploaded on the case. The property records are not found in these court-titled Exhibits, despite they comprise of ONE APPENDIX to the COMPLAINT. The Lease, the Section 8 Addendum, the HAP Contract are additionally missing from what the Appellant-Plaintiff used as primary documents. Other documents are also missing, replaced with irrelevant papers which have no value in supporting the complaint, such as Plaintiff’s Preliminary Statement To Court’s Declaratory Judgment, stamped received by the court on October 23, 2024, Appendix M.
b) Page 7, Complaint - the “amended complaint” is not provided. Appellant-Plaintiff was sick at the time this was uploaded by the clerk and therefore was unable to view it since Wifi was strategically cut off in her apartment by the landlord. (At this point, wifi may be available for a time yet someone affiliated with the landlord takes her off wifi when they know she is using it) The Amended Complaint was an original document, served on the defendants and as Appellant-Plaintiff has pointed out, should have been her legal right to REPLACE due to DEFECTIVE INFORMATION AND THE CASE HAD NOT BEEN SERVED. Attorney Pitt, the Chief Clerk of Housing, claimed he had already uploaded it and therefore she had to mark it amended. Plaintiff-Appellant claimed that should be illegal for him to upload a case that has not even been served yet, particularly since the court is required to call and validate information such as RENT IS CURRENT and last agreed-upon rent paid; and validate business information of defendants, to include whether they were registered, dissolved, or the like. All information is required for the court to affirm, particularly since a fee waiver was involved and the court is obligated to determine that the case has merit to go foreward, avoiding frivolous lawsuits. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT DOCUMENTS, which were actually served as original documents, are at Appendix D. Yet it is important to point out that Appellant-Plaintiff’s e-files included the Table of Contents to the Appendix, and amended information such as BEACHWOLD,rather than BEACHWOOD, were stolen. Hard copies of originals were either stolen or altered by illegal entries. The Secretary of State’s CONCORD record had indicated misinformation at the time the Complaint was rewritten since the original was rejected by Attorney Pitt. The Secretary of State’s CONCORD record also indicated misinformation thereafter; and failed to mark anything as “corrected”. On Paragraph 11, Page 13, Appellant-Plaintiff stated: Appendix to this complaint of 7 pages (6 pages attached) will have to be submitted forthwith - and this was done on the following Monday - three days after submission of the Housing Complaint.
c) Page 15, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss only has the Motion, not the Memorandum of Law, which is non-compliant with standards and practices. This missing part of the motion is at Appendix E, yet there is the likelihood of it being altered on record, since all e-files of the Appellant-Plaintiff were stolen from her. Additionally, the Motion itself is noncompliant since the alleged attorney who signed it, Joseph St. Rock, failed to apply a law. That is is a REQUIREMENT, and no matter how many instructions are now altered to claim otherwise, since Barack Obama has hijacked the legal system, it is still a lawful and a logical requirement. This is a primary aspect which differentiates a motion from a request. Motions are argued. Appellant-Plaintiff has been very grateful to the law librarians, the court clerks, and court service center clerks - especially Lori Semrau who was at the Milford Courthouse for several years yet was oddly transferred to Waterbury. She has provided me the knowledge I have needed to proceed in my defenses as a Pro Se litigant.
d) Page 16, Judicial Order of granting the Motion To Dismiss, signed by a judge who may not even be an attorney, and just doing what she is told to do, failing to even preside at the hearing, allowing someone who appeared to be 20 years older than her, to impersonate her, which did more than pervert justice due to the deliberate fraudulent actions, failing to abide by Due Process on submissions of complaints, hearing the complaint and Answers as well as any other motion submitted. In fact, the court failed to hear other motions of the Appellant-Plaintiff such as Motion For Disclosure by defendant Livable City Initiative, City of New Haven. Memorandum of Law of the Defendant Ansonia State Street is provided in Appendix E.
e) Page 17, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reargue, dated November 14, 2024, without the Memorandum of Law which includes History, Facts, Summary. This is provided at Appendix F
f) Page 18, Order of Court, dated November 14, 2024 - the same day the Motion To Reargue was submitted to the court and served on the appearing Defendants - including the dissolved companies which Hoops & Associates claimed to be representing! This is deliberate denial of Due Process of Law, legal malpractice!
g) Page 19, Plaintiff’s Motion For Articulation - This was a Motion For Articulation on the denied Motion to Strike, entered in court the same day as the Motion For Reargument (though, in fact, there was no arugument, it was blocked by the court, which the Appellant-Plaintiff claims is legal malpractice; yet it is significant to note that there was nothing stated by Hoops & Associates to challenge the lack of Due Process of Law.) This complete motion was entered in the Clerk’s Appendix. It substantiates the fact that Hoops & Associates illegally appeared on the case as Pro Hac Vice, thereafter altering its uploaded appearance, with only the chief clerk saying, “They are commissioners of the court. The do what they want.”
h) Page 25, Denial of Motion of Articulation one day after it was submitted to the court and served on the defendants - again, this was deliberate legal malpractice, supporting the Appellant-Defendant’s theory that Alayna Stone is not even an attorney and a fraud who was selected to be an employee of the State of Connecticut.
i) Page 26, Motion to Open Judgment - This motion was prepared by the Appellant-Plaintiff under extremely fraudulent circumstances involving cyber crime. She had to complete it on the court computer due to this, which is why page 2 of 5 is only partially typed. Nevertheless, it was typed to the best of her ability, relaying discoveries she made which additionally proved the case was administered fraudulently. The fact that there is no court-stamped date is additionally a deliberate abuse of procedure. Yet the court has in the case information, oddly, “last updated 1/16/2025” and again, prove they commit legal malpractice by issuing a denial on (that day) the day after the motion was submitted in trial court.
i. The very fact this motion was not heard interferes with the Appellant-Plaintiff’s ability to fully argue in this appeal and thus reminds this court of the following:
1. There was no objection, nor did any defendant claim this was lack of due process
2. Appellant-Plaintiff motioned for extension of time to file an appeal, having a difficult time securing her rights on the eviction case which was, as she claims, a completely illegal case administered even though there was no merit and they were ordered by the court to not to proceed with a Summary Process. They did anyway and Alayna Stone, et al in the Housing Court was more than happy to continue this fraudulent behavior. Appendix G is Plaintiff’s Unfinished Appeal Documents dated November 21, 2024.
ii. On Page 6 of the case information, the Appellant-Plaintiff claims the case information was defective, again serving the wants of malicious and vexatious officials in the housing court. Appellant-Plaintiff emphasizes she only appealed once on the case and had she tried to appeal twice, Appellant-Plaintiff believes the law states that the trial court would have been obligated to order the Appellant-Plaintiff to file it directly to the Appellate Court. This defective case information indicates a granted appeal the first time. There was only ONE appeal submitted, and that was when the Motion to Open (Appendix S) was denied after the Motion for Reargument was denied. She was unable to complete the Appeal documents which are necessary in filing a fee waiver for appeal, (Appendix T) just as supporting documents are necessary for any other similarly-situated fee waiver.
iii. Because the unheard MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME was abruptly denied, the Appellant-Plaintiff furthered her rights with a Motion To Open, which was unheard and abruptly denied.
j) Page 32, Denial of Motion To Open, the same day it was submitted to the court and served on the defendants
k) Page 33, Plaintiff’s Motion To Reargue
i. Emphasis that the Appellant-Plaintiff claims the Housing Authority was conspiring with this alleged landlord Ansonia State Street, which has no legal right to sell the property.
1. Though the Housing Authority, Elm City Communities, has defaulted on this case, and fail to abide by its duties of office, there is nothing shown by the court to affirm that this housing complaint case should indeed be ruled in the favor of the Appellant-plaintiff and her Motion For Default dated March 6, 2025, comprising of 69 pages with the Appendix, should have been ruled in her favor. Note, the Appellant-Plaintiff only has a hard copy of the Motion To Default, which was obviously frauded and does not even reflect the Table of Contents/Inventory of Documents of the Appendix, particularly at Page 35 and thereafter. There was no objection by any Appellee, which is typical of their lack of diligence, and their delusional confidence that frauding records will cover for them. On Page 40 of the Clerk’s Appendix, the Appellant-Plaintiff had emphasized that the Housing Authority nefariously attempted to stop the Section 8 of Appellant-Defendant, claiming she never responded to mail they deliberately sent to the wrong address and received back! Although Dale Dibeneddeto got involved with this abuse, and assured Appellant-Plaintiff that she could drop off the 65 page renewal packet form the following Monday, and she would not lose Section 8, she has later disrupted communications and failed to schedule a promised follow up appointment to include providing the Appellant-Defendant certified copies of the HAP contract, the lease and other documentation. Appendix I includes Section 8 rent amount ($171.00) and emails to Dale DiBeneddeto. She did provide the payment history to the landlord to validate that they were and still are receiving government money on the apartment which the Appellant-Plaintiff has been renting since January 2013. Hoops & Associates lied about the Appellant-Plaintiff being solely responsible for $932 in rent every month only in court, which Appellant-Plaintiff argued they did not even have a right to discuss what her monthly rent amount was since the case is only on the subject matter jurisdiction of the Notice To Quit with no letter of arrearage and no Pretermination Letter. (AC48416) Again, as in aforesaid case, the recording of the hearings and trial were frauded. Two hours of court time reduced to one hour or less in volume, as well as using malware to alter what was said.
l) Page 57, Denial of Motion to Argue the same day the motion was submitted to the court! It was not heard, which is a Modus Operandi of this court.
m) Page 58, Appeal of Motion To Open, 2/7/2025
i. There was no opposition to the appeal made by Defendant/s on the case
ii. This case was administered under color of the law. There was no administration of the law.
n) Lastly, the Clerk Appendix provides only the Docketing Statement and not the other Preliminary Documents. Preliminary Statement of Issues is typed on this Brief, titled as “Statement of Issues”.
4. The following DEFENDANTS were served the housing complaint which was processed through TRIAL COURT, as ordered by chief housing clerk William Pitt, despite the fact housing complaints are required to be mailed certified with return receipt by the complainant and the complainant was prepared to do so. TOA-1, which can be found by the reviewing judge by using the ctrl f/search- find function. An electronic file of the complaint was stolen, including the Appellant-Plaintiff’s replacements intended for the Summons, the Complaint, and Appendix to the Complaint - dated October 8, 2024 due to seemingly-defective information which Attorney Pitt required. The original typed forms should have been discarded since the case was not served to the defendants, yet instead, Attorney Pitt ordered the Appellant-Plaintiff to mark them as Amended since he uploaded the case on October 3, when it was approved by the court. The Docket Number should have been entered on the served copies. The Appendix Table of Contents is not on record, which covered all 245 documents which were in it, such as the Lease Agreement, the HAP contract (which indicates if there is no HAP, there is no lease and nothing in the lease may contradict the Section 8 HAP or Lease Addendum, which was also included. Additionally included was property records of 360 State Street - to include Bozzutos allegedly “purchasing” it for $1; selling it to 360 State Street Inc for $1 (which is one of the dissolved companies on the defendant list), which allegedly sold it to MEPT Chapel for $1, which allegedly sold it to MEPT QUALCOM FOR $1. Appendix W includes whatever property records which the Appellant-Plaintiff may have at her disposal. Most likely it will not be all of the property documents submitted with the Complaint. Dragana LaCore told the Appellant-Plaintiff to make her payments to “360 State Street”. At no point thereafter did the landlord tell the Plaintiff-Appellant to write her checks to anyone else, despite claiming Ansonia State Street was the new owner, refusing to prove that they were HUD-approved and the $160 million transaction on a $2.2 billion building was even valid since Ansonia State Street does not have the title to the property and does not have the legal right to sell the property. MEPT Chapel Street was listed as a non-profit and marketed as part of the church community and they solicited for donations, despite being documented on the Section 8 documents as the owner. These records which took a great deal of time for Appellant-Plaintiff to collect - are all missing from Appellant- Plaintiff’s possession due to illegal entries, and theft of her documents as well as e-files.
i. Emphasis: This above information and all information contained in this brief had already been relayed to the trial court in pleadings and affidavits.
a) Source: 10/18/2025 Plaintiff’s Request For Marshal’s Return of Service
i. THE COURT ENTERED A COPY OF THIS REQUEST IN CASE INFORMATION AS STAMPED RECEIVED 10/23/2024 despite receiving it on 10/18/2024 - ten days after the marshal said she served the DEFENDANTS yet failed to submit her proof of service. Note, eviction case was not docketed for a week AFTER the Summons was illegally served on or about October 23, Appendix B
ii. The court apparently substituted Plaintiff’s Preliminary Statement To Court’s Declaritory Judgment (Remedy for Compensating Plaintiff Notarized) dated 10/22/2024 and RECEIVED on 10/23/2024 yet it is not in the CASE INFORMATION.
b) BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY CT-BER-2638596
c) 360 STATE STREET, INC CT-BER-0944781
i. Thereafter, the Secretary of State BACKDATED this company was dissolved. Agent of Service and Marshal failed to indicate they were dissolved and not servable
d) ANSONIA STATE STREET, CT-BER-2623295
i. Agent of Service is Dan DeStefano at 142 Temple Street. Though the marshal could have called arranged for him to be there when she served him FOUR of the EIGHT defendants, she did not and said the Agent was not there, additionally adding congestion to the merits of a housing complaint case being served on an agent who was not even there to explain Beachwold Residential was dissolved, etc. The marshal served two more defendants locally in New Haven; and served two in Hartford and East Hartford - billing the state almost $3,000 even though she violated process by giving the Secretary of State the original copy, saying they needed two copies (at which time she could have given them her copy, not the original) and in fact they could have just printed what was already uploaded in the system by Attorney Pitt.
e) SOUTH OXFORD MANAGEMENT LIVING, CT-BER-1220772
i. This was another company owned by Gideon Freidman, owner of Ansonia State Street; agent of Service was Dan DeStefano of 142 Temple Street, New Haven, CT (the office building is owned by COLONIAL FOUNTAIN MANAGEMENT, previous landlord of Appellant-Plaintiff who frauded her out of her $1600 deposit when she left that apartment building. They vandalized her bathtub and the kitchen sink. The hired maintenance rigged the sink repair, which had nothing to do with her, to half-finish it and claim they were going to make entry when she was not there; at which time she refused to allow them to do since they were illegally entering her apartment and even made the alarm go off when she was taking a shower; yet the alarm startled that person and he left. Additionally, Colonial Fountain Management was not represented by a credible person, but a comic Barry Weintraub, who was not an officer of the company and refused to validate his credentials which the magistrate said was none of the Appellant-Plaintiff’s business and ruled in their favor with no justification.)
f) BEACHWOOD PROPERTIES, CT-BER-7073924
i. BEACHWOLD PROPERTIES, CORRECTED IN REPLACEMENT SUMMONS, AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, WHICH THE CHIEF CLERK ORDERED COMPLAINANT TO TITLE AS “AMENDED” SINCE HE PREMATURELY UPLOADED THE CASE A WEEK BEFORE IT WAS SERVED AND WOULD NOT ALLOW APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF TO SERVE IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH COURT REGULATIONS AND LAWS IN SERVING HOUSING COMPLAINTS (CERTIFIED WITH RETURN RECEIPT) THIS CAUSED A WEEK’S DELAY FROM THE DAY THE COMPLAINT WAS SUBMITTED, 9/27/2024. CT-BER-1098860 (Established 2013) Agent of Service Dan DeStefano, 142 Temple Street, New Haven, CT (which is where the marshal served it)
1. Although the chief clerk said he was doing Appellant-Plaintiff a favor by having a marshal serve these documents, to avoid their failure to confirm they received the documents, this tactic only congested the case with agents of service taking anything the marshal gave them; with the marshal nefariously handing over the original to the Secretary of State deliberately, on October 10 (which was already 2 weeks past the day the complaint was issued to the court) which allowed them to alter the document on record, and the marshal claiming the Secretary of State also required an additional $50 fee which is not even in the regulations for serving a housing complaint certified with returned receipt. Whether they return the receipt or not is either their lack of diligence or the lack of diligence by the chief clerk in processing mail. The case was already known to these affiliated DEFENDANTS, since Attorney Pitt made a public file at least 5 days prior,setting a defective return date for the day after he uploaded it. If the chief clerk did his job to validate information which is a requirement, these defendants would have already known they were made part of housing complaint lawsuit. Whether he delegated that requirement or not is up to him. It is still a preliminary requirement to validate information.
g) MEPT Chapel Street, LLC
i. Listed as active in Secretary of State’s website yet they altered it on record, allowing the marshal to get paid for service to a non-existent company to the agent which she said she called beforehand to ensure they were the agent of service.
h) Livable City Initiative
i. City of New Haven, Connecticut
ii. There is no appearance on record; chief clerk’s entry is fraudulent, claiming that the LCI Director is self-representing when their department is part of the city and there is no form validating any appearance. This defendant is marked as defaulted by the Appellate Clerk as shown in Appendix ___.
i) Elm City Communities
i. Represented by Chesson Law Firm
ii. The Appellate Court takes in all appearances from trial court as “automatic” Appearance is illegal, as Pro Hac Vice. Thus violating CPB 2-16 on Pro Hac Vice Appearances. Table of Authorites #
1. This defendant is marked as defaulted by the Appellate Clerk, shown in Appendix ____ The case manager explained what he had done to the Appellant at one point,while she was recovering from a severe skin infection.
a) Appellant-Plaintiff claimed this infection was nothing she ever had before and obviously caused by one of the illegal intruders who enter her apartment, contaminating her toilet. Appellant-Plaintiff had a prior severe internal infection about a year prior to that, which the lab report indicated numerous and various bacteria. Appellant-Plaintiff told the nurse practitioner she was probably raped when they drugged her since she lost consciousness for at least a full day. Her temperature was 91 degrees)
5. Appellant-Plaintiff proved that the Notice To Quit was invalid since she paid rent for August and September 2025 and proved July 2024 rent was the same amount, paid timely, emphasizing the ledgers show she had been paying this same amount for five years or more. This Notice to Quit was included in the Complaint which was attached to the Summons served on all defendants, yet two defendants dissolved their businesses: MEPT Chapel and 360 State Street. The Secretary of State indicated they were both active at the time the Complaint was prepared, yet the records backdated these companies discontinuances to prior service of the Summons. Agents of Service did not inform the marshal they were discontinued. Appendix A, page _______ Validity has to do with LEGAL EFFICACY in court; as apposed to Hoops & Associates personally claiming it was typed with no grammatical errors, in their Motion To Dismiss which Appellant-Plaintiff Motioned to strike since their motion was non-compliant with standards and practices of licensed attorneys, failing to even apply any law to it in the motion. Additionally, they ignored the law prior to this hearing by serving a Summons when in fact the Summons on aforesaid case ordered them to not initiate a Summary Process, which begins with a Summons, though a prerequisite is for a Notice to Quit, and if it is nonpayment on even a non-section 8 apartment, the landlord is legally required to deliver a letter at least 14 days prior to the Notice To Quit with a Demand for Payment and justification. Neither this was done or a Pretermination Letter was done. Table of Authorities #
6. Court is obligated to Decide on Merits of Case before docketing the Case.
a) Fee Waiver for aforesaid case/housing complaint was determined valid; otherwise the court cannot grant it due to the requirement of ruling out any flagrant misuse of Judicial Resources, as stated in CPB 8-2.
i. This court denied fee waiver for transcript of hearing on October 31, 2024 and transcript of December 3, 2024; though Motion For Extension of Time To Appeal was pending. The Court denied the motion and denied motions thereafter - for articulation and review. Thus, THE COURT DETERMINED THE FEE WAIVER TO BE INVALID because it had no legal efficacy, not because it was typed with no spelling errors or improperly submitted to the court.
b) Notice to Quit determines the subject matter jurisdiction of the case. It is a federal order by the landlord. A VALID Notice To Quit is pursuant to a law, reflecting LEGAL EFFICACY. It is not a letter by the landlord saying, “We don’t like you, get out”. Only an attorney with a PRO HAC VICE appearance signed it the Notice To Quit on this record, not citing a law, and falsely claiming the Appellant-Plaintiff did not pay rent in August and September. Appellant-Plaintiff proved that she did pay rent in August and September; and proved she paid the same in July, and June and for approximately 2 years had paid that amount, which was in the ledger, Page , the Complaint, served on the defendants.
c) According to Elm City Communities The last agreed-upon rent was actually $171 - Appendix B, which Dale Dibenedetto left for the Appellant-Plaintiff to pick up at the Housing Authority Office. It is Page 2 of the worksheet. A copy of another worksheet, Page 1 is provided for an example. Elm City Communities will not communicate anymore with the Section 8 tenant who is the Plaintiff-Appellant. The housing representive, Dale Dibenedetto promised to schedule a follow-up appointment in September 2025 to provide Appellant-Plaintiff the documents required by her (her office’s copy of the HAP contract which indicates she has a portable section 8 voucher and this was not a project-based location based on the HUD form used; her office’s copy of the landlord’s addendum to the lease; her office’s copy of the alleged letter sent to them by the Appellee-Defendant Ansonia State Street, which shows no right to claim ANSONIA STATE STREET(owner Gideon Friedman) is owner of the building since they do not have the Title to the building, and proof they received the Complaint of 245 pages, The Housing Authority does not respond to Appellant-Plaintiff’s calls, nor did Dale Dibenedetto ever tell the Appellant-Plaintiff to contact their attorney. The Housing Authority continues to pay the HAP subsidies to the landlord, who is NOT the owner, who does not have the title to the property. And which has obviously been mildly abated for its fraudulent billing and breaches of HAP contract, receiving less money for rent.
d) No Pretermination Letter was served 30 days prior to the Notice To Quit, as required by law. There was no Pretermination Letter ever; nor was there a Notice of Arrearage, which is in fact required by law by any landlord who claims nonpayment of rent. Pretermination Letter is even listed on the Answer to Summons. Table of Authorities, #
a) Appellee-Defendants knew that the Appellant-Plaintiff is a LEGITAMATE Section 8 tenant and they have a LEGITAMATE HAP contract on file. They are instead, perverting justice by frauding documentation, claiming this portable unit is now a project-based unit despite the Housing Authority switching apartments frequently when in fact project-based units have to remain the same allocated apartments since HUD actually funds the landlord for repairs to those apartments. By switching them, they are most likely getting fraudulent funding, repairing apartments which have nothing to do with project-based apartments - yet this is not a project-based location. It was neither indicated so in the agreement with the Obama Administration and the HAP contract and Addendum to lease are HUD forms for portable Section 8 tenants. If there is no HAP, there is no lease. The landlord’s lease cannot indicate anything which is against the HAP Contract or Laws of Section 8. The Appellee-Defendant Ansonia State Street even entered the BOZZUTO LEASE as evidence in the associated case, which is an illegal eviction case; Summary Process was ordered by this court to not take place due to this Housing Case. The order is right on the summons served to them, which Attorney Pitt, the chief Housing Clerk, used nefarious means of delay to serve it, refusing to return the stamped complaint back to the Appellant-Plaintiff so she may mail it to the defendants of the case, as cited by law. Table of Authorities #
b) Judge Stone has DENIED fee waivers claiming they did not comply with the Rules of Court
c) Emphasis: The real owner is not on record. Bozzuto Company is most likely the real owner with the title to the property, yet it is conceivable that the City Of New Haven holds this title to the property since they “sold” the property to Bozzuto for only a dollar. It was then passed on to 360 State Street, Inc. Of Fairfield, CT (c/o Becker & Becker Law Firm) and thereafter they “sold” the property to MEPT Chapel (which claimed to be a nonprofit and part of the church community, with satanic images scattered throughout the lobby and in other common areas such as the clubroom, which years later were removed); and thereafter MEPT Chapel “sold” this $2.2 billion building to Ansonia State Street, which also does not have the title to the property, has a limited warantee deed and has no right to sell the property and therefore is not the legal owner) tState Street fraudulently claims to be the owner, which is also fraudulently claimed by the Housing Authority, which titles itself as Elm City Communities and also uses their premises to make profits through side organizations with Beverly Walton-Porter to be principle and/or agent of.
a) Attorney Pitt, chief housing clerk, told the Appellant-Plaintiff she cannot title the case as Bradley vs Bozzuto, Inc. And he changed the name of the case, prematurely uploading it before the summons was served; despite waiting a WEEK to upload the illegal eviction case against aforesaid Appellant-Plaintiff, who claims this reflects more “Devil’s Chessboard tactics” and not administration of the law.
7. Payments into Court by the housing complainant/plaintiff must be validated by the court prior to acceptance
8. Answer to the Complaint by defendants is mandatory prior to the hearing yet none of the defendants answered.
5 Defendants were Ordered by the court to NOT to proceed with Summary Process against Plaintiff right on the Summons, yet the court failed to even enforce its own order.
6. Complaint must first have a hearing based on the merits. That is the order of process. The court is obligated to address the Answers by defendants. There were no answers! They defaulted and the court did nothing, The woman who was presiding as the judge claimed she was Alayna Stone and was NOT Alayna Stone - later discovered by Anne Bradley, the Appellant-Plaintiff, Pro Se. This was nothing the court admitted, nor would it acknowledge what they did when Appellant-Plaintiff submitted documents indicating this - fully aware that transcripts are frauded as a matter of routine in the New Haven courts due to unlawful recordings submitted to the court reporters to type. Transcript of aforesaid case is only 14 pages. Using logic, how can 15 minutes comprise of a case which is required to determine presence of the defendants, validate the person or persons who appear, etc and fully litigate the complaint itself before litigating any Motion To Dismiss? Table of Authorities, Order of Process of Complaints, #
7. No One can preside on the case except for Judge Assigned
It is fraud to claim the one presiding is the one assigned but is NOT the one assigned. As an already-suffering Pro Se Appellant-Plaintiff, it is difficult to locate this law-logic yet she will make every effort to do so since she is afforded more time to submit a late brief.
It is fraud for the one assigned to rule on the hearing when they did not even preside in the hearing. Table of Authorities #
9. It is fraud for in-state attorneys to use Pro Hac Vice Appearances; and worse yet, refuse to remedy the fraudulent appearances
It is fraud when a young man, who was probably son of the real Attorney Peter Hoops, to appear on case claiming he was Attorney Peter Hoops. He was the only person present at the hearing.
10. It is the legal obligation for the court to verify all attendees of a court hearing
11. All Defendants defaulted by failing to Answer Complaint; by failing to appear at the hearing of October 31, 2024
12. The recording of the transcript is fraudulent. This has nothing to do with the court reporter. She or he types what they hear.
a) Appellant-Plaintiff requested the Transcript to be Corrected in a detailed motion in trial court. The alleged “judge”, who is probably not even an attorney, denied all motions pertaining to this, to include motion coming from aforesaid Appellate Court case . Additionally, the Eviction Case transcript was also defective/fraudulent due to frauded recording which the trial court judge Alayna Stone, denied rectification on.
i. Motions in Trial Court:
ii. Motion through Appellate Court:
CONCLUSION
The aforesaid trial court case was not properly disposed, this was deliberate use of obstructing justice to serve wants of court officials (one in particular who has the ability to fire the Chief Housing Clerk) and other elites who are affiliated with companies attached to 360 State Street - a massive conglomerate of companies. And at this point one can only say, “Will the real owner please stand up?” Amidst this cesspool of corruption, the aforesaid Appellant-Plaintiff requests her rights. She paid the rent; the same rent paid the month before, and as shown in particular at Appendix M, the landlord has only been consistent with breaching the HAP contract and Tenancy Addendum. Over the years, their continuous deliberate failure to abide by these laws and abuse their own power, has worn greatly on the Appellant-Plaintiff. She never provoked anyone, she lives privately, and is only guilty of trusting the same people who continuously harm her to date, often socially engineering other Section 8 tenants to instigate and disrupt and also find out more by asking them what she has mentioned. Why not just stop the illegal entries, the vandalism, and abuse of technology, used as a weapon - and be accountable, which is the best solution. Most likely the law will continually not matter to anyone and as in the past, the Appellant-Plaintiff will be illegally evicted.
PREPARED AND SUBMITTED
APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF, PRO SE
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se Litigant
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024
CERTIFICATION
October 24, 2025
The undersigned Pro Se Litigant hereby certifies, pursuant to Connectict Practice Book Section 67-2A, that:
(1) A copy of the brief has been sent electronically to each counsel of record in compliance with Section 62-7.
(2) The brief being filed with the Appellate Clerk is a true copy of the brief that was submitted electronically pursuant to subsection (f) of 67-2A;
(3) The brief complies with all provisions of 67-2A;
(4) The brief 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 caselaw;
(5) This brief contains 13, 023 words; and
(6) Deviation from hyperlinks and bookmarks were granted.
Anne M. Bradley
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
203-508-0858
________________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
Comments