Draft 6 Oct 2025
UPDATED DRAFT 10/13/2025
HOPEFULLY, THE FINAL WILL BE POSTED ON THE 15TH.
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:
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I STATEMENT OF ISUES
II TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
III STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff brought this HOUSING COMPLAINT against the defendants on October 3, 2024, due to longstanding suffering of breach of HAP Contract, abuse, disregard for safety and security, fraudulent billing, and MODUS OPERANDI on attempts to evict, which they lost in 2019 due to failure to submit a Pretermination Letter. The fraudulent billing was inconsequential to the judge, who only exercised abuse of power to evict. This judge was called to his chamber and thereafter he ruled in favor of the plaintiff, who was defendant in that case. The Memorandum of Law was entered, reflecting some of the breaches by the landlord and the very fact there was no pretermnation letter as required by law and stated in the HAP contract. Yet thereafter this memorandum of law was altered into voluminous pages of a combination of irrelevent and nonfactual statements, though the admittance of the landlord failing to issue a pretermination letter was stated. Plaintiff’s Statement of Predetermination was submitted to trial court demanding $________ and claiming that the Plaintiff should not have to pay for rent for the remainder of time she lives at 360 State Street due to all of the breaches and violations, abuse experienced at this property. Emphasis: The landlord should be abated. Plaintiff was given permission by the court to pay rent of $198.00 into court. The court has secretly removed this predetermination, dated_______ Page ____ of Appellant’s Appendix. Plaintiff motioned the court for Extension of Time to Appeal on aforesaid case; there was no objection, Yet the trial court denied extension of time. Plaintiff Motioned to Open with application for fee waiver. Fee waiver was granted simultaneously with denial of Motion To Open - never hearing the motion. Plaintiff claimed, among other issues, that this reflected deliberate lack of Due Process in her Motion for Reconsideration, which was also abruptly denied. Appeal is now taking place.
A. NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
1. DEFENDANT ANSONIA STATE STREET WAS ORDERED BY THE COURT NOT TO START A SUMMARY PROCESS RIGHT ON THE SUMMONS THE COURT ORDERED AND UPLOADED AS A CASE ON OCTOBER 3, 2025.
i. The trial court failed to enforce this deliberate disobedience, which took place on ____ which had followed an invalid NOTICE TO QUIT, which in fact, the trial court was aware of at the time this complaint was submitted and determined that the rent was current and allowed plaintiff to pay rent into court.
ii. The trial court failed to permit the Plaintiff-Appellant to make copies and mail all defendants in according to process by law. The Chief Clerk caused excessive costs to the state (namely a $3,000 charge by the marshal just for serving local offices in New Haven and giving the Secretary of State the original complaint rather than to the plaintiff, and used means of delay and in addition prematurely uploaded the case prior to service on the Defendants, obviously having spoken to the defendants regarding this case due to the chief clerk’s duties as stated by law and provided in Table of Authorities.
1. Note, the Chief Clerk allowed Defendant Ansonia State Street to illegally serve a summons on the plaintiff despite orders that they cannot do so, and to delay uploading their summary process for a full week, which was more abuse of process and deliberately denying Due Process of Law.
i. Although Ansonia State Street claims to be owner of the $2.2 billion, 32-story, 360 State Street, they advertised they purchased it for $160 million and have no title on the property and the deed is a Limited Warrantee Deed, which means they have no right to sell the property. Thus, being the reason for including several defendants as a means of discovery since several companies claimed ownership of the property; yet it is the Plaintiff-Appellant’s finding that Bozzutos, who were the developer, and paid salaries for MEPT Chapel employees as well as others who said they were Bozzuto employees (including maintenance) were technically the owners. MEPT Chapel was registered as a non-profit organization which also caused more convoluted process since they claimed they were the landlord-owner at the time which Plaintiff became a tenant at this property and of which they stated on record at the time which Plaintiff became a tenant. Alternatively, Dragana LaCore, of MEPT yet a paid employee of Bozzuto, ordered the Plaintiff to make her checks out to “360 State Street, Inc.” and she has not changed that since there was never an addendum to the lease and HAP contract. Additionally, the City of New Haven sold this property to Bozzutos for $1 and an inept property sales took place thereafter; which Bozzutos “sold” this property to “360 State Street”, c/o Becker Law Firm in Fairfield, for only $1; and thereafter was sold to acclaimed NON-PROFIT MEPT CHAPEL for only $1; and therefter allegedly sold to “SOM LIVING” (owner Gideon Friedman) yet this transaction does not show in the City Clerk’s office and the Limited Deed was entered for Ansonia State Street (owner Gideon Friedman), which also includes an $89 billion mortgage, which is completely illegal. A full set of copies the trial court case along with supplemented material is Appendixed due to deliberate fraud and abuse of process.
2. Plaintiff-Appellant told the Chief Clerk he was obviously conspiring with not only Ansonia State Street but also Bozzuto Management, since he would not allow her to title aforesaid case with Bozzuto Management, et al - which was on the Fee Waiver; typed documents which she had already prepared were rejected by the Chief Clerk, claiming all defendants had to have the addresses of agents on the forms, which was not consistent with the form requirements.
3. Plaintiff-Appellant told the Chief Clerk her attached typed supplement to the form not only had addresses but also had the Business ID’s and additional detail. He told her that the supplement was “not needed” yet she insisted it to be attached to the form he ordered her re-write and he changed the name of the case.
2. HEARING OF OCTOBER 31, 2024
i. Defective Transcript of 14 pages ineptly covering the hearing which was twice as long.
1. Motions for the court to correct transcripts
a) Trial Judge denied three times with no reason
ii. Judge Alayna Stone did NOT preside at this hearing yet a woman who appeared 20 years older impersonated her, claiming she was Judge Alayna Stone, was allowed by Judge Alayna Stone.
iii. Defaults by all defendants; failing to answer
iv. Fraudulent appearance by a non-attorney who claimed he was Attorney Peter Hoops, yet was obviously only 25 years old - appearing to have just graduated - and later plaintiff discovered the real Attorney Peter Hoops entered the BAR 1987, and the young man was obviously his son, who is not an attorney.
v. Defective Case Information; disappearance of PreDisposition submitted by Plaintiff in Trial Court; replaced with Appeal form
1. Plaintiff did not submit any appeal document until she appealed the Motion To Open. Plaintiff is aware that a party cannot appeal twice, yet the case information was frauded to reflect she had appealed the ruling twice and the Motion To Open once. The court would have to order Plaintiff to Motion the Appellate Court to accept late appeal
vi Plaintiff’s Motion To Open with Fee Waiver
1. Fee Waiver granted, simultaneously with denial of Motion To Open; reflecting more incompetence by the court
2. Plaintiff’s Appeal and fee waiver
a) Granted by Trial Court
b) No hearing on Motion to Open which violates Rules; particularly since fee waiver was granted
IV. ARGUMENT
ISSUES AS BROUGHT FORTH
As they apply to MOTION TO OPEN APPEAL
MOTION FOR EXT OF TIME TO APPEAL WAS DENIED PREVIOUSLY (EMPHASIS: THE CASE INFORMATION WAS FRAUDED; ONLY the Motion For Extension of Time was submitted; no Appeal form. Missing: Appellant’s Predetermination which was a specified list of numerous breaches which greatly harmed Appellant as well as were costly losses)
1. Whether the Court was following legitamate Rules of Court, Order of Process, Due Process of Law, ensuring accuracy of records, and this judge on record WAS NOT the person who presided; instead impersonated.
a) This information was brought forth to the court after the hearing in efforts to determine LEGAL EFFICACY. The court refused to respond to the allegations of LACK OF DUE PROCESS.
i. Ref: Laws Regarding order of process for complaints
ii. Ref: Laws Regarding it is mandatory for the judge presiding to be the judge who issues its order on the hearing
iii. Laws regarding if a judge is replaced, the one who replaces the judge is required to identify itself
iv. Caselaws regarding Summons and orders of the court have to be adhered to
v. Caselaws and laws regarding the responsibiity of the chief clerk and judge to not allow a Summary Process to take place as ordered by the court and the case should not have been docketed
vi. Caselaws and laws regardi;ng the return date on the Summons form and complaint must be the proper date and the chief clerk had another reason to not docket the case
1. Attorney Pitt stated it was not up to him, that Hoops & Associates were Commissioners of The Court; which had no logic since every attorney is automatically allowed to be a Commissioner of the Court and thus is automatically obligated to follow the Rules Of The Court, not go Outside Of the Laws, as has been repeatedly done in this case
2. Whether the Court failed to validate records submitted, foregoing the proof of rent was paid for August and September 2024, which made the Notice To Quit INVALID due to lack of LEGAL EFFICACY, giving right to the aforesaid HOUSING COMPLAINT.
a) Ref: Laws and caselaws regarding the Chief Clerk is to validate whether rent is current and not allow payment of rent if rent is not current.
b) “Judge” Alayna Stone, who did not preside in the October 31 hearing, ruled that the Notice To Quit was Valid because it was typed with no errors. Transcript: Page _____ Lines _______. The very fact that the rent was paid and they claimed nonpayment of rent for August and September to be nonconsequential. Plaintiff claimed it was fraudulent. After filing her Motion to Open, which was abruptly denied with no hearing, plaintiff became aware that this alleged judge was obviously not even an attorney and in addition was committing Obstruction of Justice deliberately, along with the Chief Clerk and Judge ________ who denied Motion to Remove Judge Alayna Stone and denied Motion to Change Venue since there was no Due Process in the court and officials were breaking the law.
c) Judge Alayna Stone said the ruling had no effect on the eviction case, which is illegal since a Summons was served when they were ordered by the court not to serve any Summary Process and in addition the Return date was FALSE, showing deliberate intent to “entrap” the plaintiff in the illegal eviction case since they entered a date of November 4 on the case information and entered November 12 on the fraudulent and illegal Notice To Quit, as a means to get the Plaintiff to delay a response. Several times the Chief Clerk said to Plaintiff, “Don’t worry, you have till November 12” yet plaintiff submitted her Answer and Special Defenses along with Appearance on a case which the court did not even docket, nor even cared when they docketed even though they prematurely docketed this aforesaid Housing Complaint, a week before it was served by the marshal since the chief clerk would not allow the Plaintiff to mail them herself in accordance with the court regulations.
3. Whether it was proper or legitamate for this court to enter aforesaid HOUSING COMPLAINT, fully knowing argument on Notice To Quit being invalid was issued at time of Fee Waiver approval, refusal of Chief Clerk to replace complaint saiying that the court had already seen the unserved complaint and it was made part of record and uploaded one week before it was even served.
a) Appellant-Plaintiff is not inferring that her Housing Complaint is not valid; she did her best to state this Preliminary Issue as factual as possible. The fact that the court ordered Ansonia State Street to not issue a Summons and yet allow them to serve a Summons is beyond incompetence, yet incompentence of this judge is a matter of fact. This judge also allowed the Appellant-Plaintiff to pay rent into court, which can only be done when the court determines that no rent is due, that rent is current. The fact that the court had allow these situations, barred the court from even docketing an eviction case until the Housing Case was PROPERLY disposed - with the judge on record presiding, with a judge who is a qualified attorney --- neither of which had taken place. The court did not even issue any correction to their actions, which reflect malicious and vexatious processing.
b) Examples of cases which were not docketed; laws and caselaws on the court’s refusal to docket cases which do not comply with court requirements, including merit of the case.
c) Determination that after Appellant-Plaintiff’s Motion To Open was entered, that her Appendix to the Complaint was frauded on court record. Documents she entered were no longer there and replaced with irrelevant pages. Appellant-Plaintiff was unable to create a detailed list of the Appendix due to cyber crime on her computer interfering with her ability to complete virtually any document. Similar circumstances existed at the courthouse as well, including Microsoft even turning off the computer with no notice and destroying what was typed.
4. Whether the court ignored the fact that the landlord retaliated on the numerous complaints issued and shown to the court in the 246-page Appendix; even showing acts so aggressive that the maintenance manager violently broke in her apartment while plaintiff-appellant was taking a bath on 7/2/2024 and yet the court made no effort to consider this event as criminal.
a) Cite all abuses as brought forth to the court to the best of my ability since the Appendix was frauded. These abuses were already brought forth in the Predetermination of Plaintiff yet the court fraudulently removed it and replaced it with fake appeal documents.
b) Emphasize my motions were not even objected to; that Hoops did not even challenge Due Process of Law; yet they in fact altered their appearance at least twic to add more defendants and meantime my apartment was continuously illegally entered and they stole documents which I printed in order to fraud the record and get away with it.
5. Whether Judge Alayna Stone had any right to preside over EVICTION case thereafter because she allowed someone to impersonate her on 10/31/2024 and showed prejudice since she ruled this Notice To Quit was VALID after ruling it was invalid by approving the fee waiver and docketing the case and approving the Plaintiff to submit payments of rent into court.
a) Emphasize Common Sense
b) Look up Judicial Conduct laws/regulations and anything else which supports the fact that no judge can allow someone to impersonate them and they don’t rule on the hearing; the judge that was supposed to attend did.
c) Judges can only be considered if they are first qualified attorneys. Alayna Stone has no juris number. The number which she enters in her rulings is not valid. It does not exist in the Juris Lookup.
d) Even an average attorney would understand that when defendants fail to answer the complaint, it is automatic default. Yet this court also allowed Hoops & Associates to reupload/alter its own appearance, which is in fact illegal, fraudulent.
6. Whether the trial court may forego Due Ptocess of Law, allowing defendants to DEFAULT BY NOT APPEARING AND/OR NOT ANSWERING COMPLAINT, yet ruling in their favor.
a) Laws and caselaws on DEFAULT, Failure to Appear, fraudulent appearance to include Pro Hac Vice
b) Laws and caselaws regarding it to be mandatory to Answer Complaint
c) Reminder that no one can be a judge if they are not first a qualified attorney. This judge, Alayna Stone, who failed to preside on October 31 and allowed a fraud 20 years older than her to say she was Alayna Stone is beyond anyone’s logic, whether they have a law degree or not. No court has a right to fraud records, allow impersonations, or lie. These are included in both the attorney’s oath as well as the oath which a judge is required to take.
d) Due Process of Law was deliberately evaded.
e) As a Pro Se Appellant, this issue was stated with intention to be forthright, honest, and reflect Due Process of Law. Any defects by the Appellant-Plaintiff when this appeal was taken, would be responded to by the Appellate Court.
f) Perversion of Justice and Obstruction of Justice by the Trial Court; and it is puzzling that this Appellate Court denied a well-prepared Motion To Rule in Favor of the Appellant-Plaintiff, with not even an objection by the non-dilgent Appellees-Defendants.
g) This Legal Malpractice also includes the fact that the defendants were not diligent; a young man who was not even an attorney appeared at the hearing of October 31, identifying himself at the required hearing with a housing mediator, as Attorney Peter Hoops. The housing mediator also began the meeting with a lie, saying that no hearing would take place, that it was marked off despite the fact it was on the docket for that day. Thus, she destroyed any ability to mediate. Appellant-Plaintiff went to the housing office to affirm that they did not mark off the hearing. She was assured that it was still on the docket. Appellant-Plaintiff told that trial housing court office that it was obvious that this mediator considered it a win-win situation to lie to her since if Appellant-Plaintiff failed to appear, they could automatically rule in the Defendant’s favor despite their defaulting on the case - which makes no sense yet is typical of the legal malpractice that goes on in the New Haven Courts.
SUMMARY
Will any of this matter? Will the court continue to get away with legal malpractice, deliberately obstructing justice, in order to fit the round peg in the square hole and get away with it? It is quite obvious they will use whatever abuse they can, to include politicians who should have no right to even be attorneys to evade justice as a matter of practice.
The appellant-plaintiff brought this housing complaint against this landlord after many efforts in having her complaints with Housing failed. She attempted to file a complaint in 2019 when this landlord attempted to illicitly evict her, failing also to issue a Pretermination Letter and failing to prove that she owed rent for approximately 6 months since she paid timely her portion of rent. At that time, Attorney Pitt refused to allow her to submit a Housing Complaint. On this matter, Appellant-Plaintiff had more knowledge of her rights and demanded her complaint to be processed. Abuse of Process took place, to include refusing to allow Appellant-Plaintiff to simply make copies of the Complaint and Appendix herself and mail them certified with return receipt to all defendants, which is according to the law. This delay tactic also included a marshal’s charge of almost $3,000 when all she had to do was pick up the copies which the Chief Clerk insisted on making and which the Chief Clerk claimed were all validated, and which only had to be served on local defendants except for two which were located in Hartford and East Hartford. Additionally, why can any company use the Secretary of State as their agent? Attorney Pitt claimed it was due to a death of a principal of the company, which was FALSE. No marshal should have any right to retain her copy and give the original to the Secretary of State, when in fact, she had the required copies to provide an agent of Bozzuto Management, Inc. So much of this activity is under color of the law, as a matter of daily routine! Despite the landlord’s portion of subsidy dropping by a small amount, it was conceivable that they were abated due to the numerous abuses - to include fraudulent billing and breaches of the lease, which only made the appellant-plaintiff’s attempts to get her rights as a harmed tenant, even more difficult. It was just a bandaid on a gaping wound, so to speak. This Housing Complaint provided the court all that was necessary to further hear and allow argument. Yet instead, Alayna Stone (who most likley is not even an attorney because she has no clue in what the order of process is and is unable to explain herself according to law) allowed a woman 20 years older than her to hear the one and only one hearing, without having any regard over the fact that defendants were not even in the courtroom as they were ordered to be on the Summons; and she allowed a young man who identified himself as Attorney Peter Hoops, when it was later discovered by Appellant-Plaintiff that this young man was obviously not even born yet when she looked up the attorney’s juris number and discovered he entered the BAR in 1987. The New Haven BAR Association only claims they are not at liberty to confirm whether a person is an attorney or not. Maybe they can share a chocolate cake recipe to validate their existence! As a Pro Se who is well aware of the fraud that goes on in the court, Appellant-Plaintiff was careful not to speak out of turn and focused on the main issue, which was this case had merit; and that the Summary Process which was initiated violated the court’s order on aforesaid case that they were not to begin a Summary Process against the Appellant-Plaintiff. This condition of legal malpractice on many counts in trial court was inevitably the very reason the Appellant-Plaintiff found it necessary to appeal in order to get her rights. The trial court undermines justice by relying on cyber crime and other fraudulent means to serve one thing: their means; rather than administering the law. This alleged judge failed to even hear the Motion To Open, simultaneously ruling the fee waiver to be granted and yet denied the motion which was not even heard. There was no solution to seek a retrial since there was not even a trial and since the court refused both change of venue and change of judge. The Pro Se Appellant-Plaintiff has presented this fragmented case to the Appellate Court, showing only one party being diligent, which was the Appellant-Plaintiff. Submitting a brief should not have even been necessary due to defaults by the defendants, fraud by the judge and the young man who was probably Peter Hoops’ son, who claimed he was Attorney Peter Hoops. The pancaked lies were so obvious; which is why
For it to be denied with no objection by the Appellee-defendants, was quite puzzling and abusive to the Appellant-Plaintiff.
My laptop is being hacked - they disconnected the mousepad and it is no too late to further draft this.
I doubt the spacing is 100% correct. There should be one side-margin to allow for notes by the judge since they granted motion to deviate. I will therefore include an electronic file when I submit it to the court. Maybe I will try to type more…
============================================================================================================================
AC48452
PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff brought this HOUSING COMPLAINT against the defendants due to longstanding suffering of breach of HAP Contract, abuse, disregard for safety and security, fraudulent billing, and MODUS OPERANDI on attempts to evict. A Statement of ________ was submitted to trial court demanding $________ and ________ Plaintiff motioned the court for Extension of Time to Appeal; there was no objection, yet the trial court denied this time. Plaintiff Motioned to Open with application for fee waiver. Fee waiver was granted simultaneously with Motion To Open. Plaintiff claimed, among other issues, that this reflected deliberate lack of Due Process; Motioned for Reconsideration, which was also abruptly denied. Appeal is now taking place.
ISSUES AS BROUGHT FORTH
As they apply to MOTION TO OPEN APPEAL
1. Whether the Court was following legitamate Rules of Court, Order of Process, Due Process of Law, ensuring accuracy of records, and this judge on record WAS NOT the person who presided; instead impersonated.
a) This information was brought forth to the court after the hearing in efforts to determine LEGAL EFFICACY. The court refused to respond to the allegations of LACK OF DUE PROCESS.
i. Ref: Laws Regarding order of process for complaints
ii. Ref: Laws Regarding it is mandatory for the judge presiding to be the judge who issues its order on the hearing
iii. Laws regarding if a judge is replaced, the one who replaces the judge is required to identify itself
iv. Caselaws regarding Summons and orders of the court have to be adhered to
v. Caselaws and laws regarding the responsibiity of the chief clerk and judge to not allow a Summary Process to take place as ordered by the court and the case should not have been docketed
vi. Caselaws and laws regardi;ng the return date on the Summons form and complaint must be the proper date and the chief clerk had another reason to not docket the case
1. Attorney Pitt stated it was not up to him, that Hoops & Associates were Commissioners of The Court; which had no logic since every attorney is automatically allowed to be a Commissioner of the Court and thus is automatically obligated to follow the Rules Of The Court, not go Outside Of the Laws, as has been repeatedly done in this case
2. Whether the Court failed to validate records submitted, foregoing the proof of rent was paid for August and September 2024, which made the Notice To Quit INVALID due to lack of LEGAL EFFICACY, giving right to the aforesaid HOUSING COMPLAINT.
a) Ref: Laws and caselaws regarding the Chief Clerk is to validate whether rent is current and not allow payment of rent if rent is not current.
3. Whether it was proper or legitamate for this court to enter aforesaid HOUSING COMPLAINT, fully knowing argument on Notice To Quit being invalid was issued at time of Fee Waiver approval, refusal of Chief Clerk to replace complaint saiying that the court had already seen the unserved complaint and it was made part of record and uploaded one week before it was even served.
a) Examples of cases which were not docketed; laws and caselaws on the court’s refusal to docket cases which do not comply with court requirements, including merit of the case.
b) Determination that after Appellant-Plaintiff’s Motion To Open was entered, that her Appendix to the Complaint was frauded on court record. Documents she entered were no longer there and replaced with irrelevant pages.
4. Whether the court ignored the fact that the landlord retaliated on the numerous complaints issued and shown to the court in the 246-page Appendix; even showing acts so aggressive that the maintenance manager violently broke in her apartment while plaintiff-appellant was taking a bath on 7/2/2024 and yet the court made no effort to consider this event as criminal.
a) Cite all abuses as brought forth to the court to the best of my ability since the Appendix was frauded.
b) Emphasize my motions were not even objected to; that Hoops did not even challenge Due Process of Law; yet they in fact altered their appearance at least twic to add more defendants and meantime my apartment was continuously illegally entered and they stole documents which I printed in order to fraud the record and get away with it.
5. Whether Judge Alayna Stone had any right to preside over EVICTION case thereafter because she allowed someone to impersonate her on 10/31/2024 and showed prejudice since she ruled this Notice To Quit was VALID.
a) Emphasize Common Sense
b) Look up Judicial Conduct laws/regulations and anything else which supports the fact that no judge can allow someone to impersonate them and they don’t rule on the hearing; the judge that was supposed to attend did.
6. Whether the trial court may forego Due Ptocess of Law, allowing defendants to DEFAULT BY NOT APPEARING AND/OR NOT ANSWERING COMPLAINT, yet ruling in their favor.
a) Laws and caselaws on DEFAULT, Failure to Appear, fraudulent appearance to include Pro Hac Vice
b) Laws and caselaws regarding it to be mandatory to Answer Complaint
7. Whether this case may be recoverable to appeal since Due Process of Law was deliberately evaded.
a) As a Pro Se Appellant, this issue was stated with intention to be forthright, honest, and reflect Due Process of Law. Should this case be deemed not recoverable, when appeal was taken, it most certainly reflects Perversion of Justice and Obstruction of Justice by the Trial Court; and it is puzzling that this Appellate Court denied a well-prepared Motion To Rule in Favor of the Appellant-Plaintiff, with not even an objection by the non-dilgent Appellees-Defendants.
SUMMARY
The appellant-plaintiff brought this housing complaint against this landlord after many efforts in having her complaints with Housing failed. She attempted to file a complaint in 2019 when this landlord attempted to illicitly evict her, failing also to issue a Pretermination Letter and failing to prove that she owed rent for approximately 6 months since she paid timely her portion of rent. At that time, Attorney Pitt refused to allow her to submit a Housing Complaint. On this matter, Appellant-Plaintiff had more knowledge of her rights and demanded her complaint to be processed. Abuse of Process took place, to include refusing to allow Appellant-Plaintiff to simply make copies of the Complaint and Appendix herself and mail them certified with return receipt to all defendants, which is according to the law. This delay tactic also included a marshal’s charge of almost $3,000 when all she had to do was pick up the copies which the Chief Clerk insisted on making and which the Chief Clerk claimed were all validated, and which only had to be served on local defendants except for two which were located in Hartford and East Hartford. Despite the landlord’s portion of subsidy dropping by a small amount, it was conceivable that they were abated due to the numerous abuses and breaches of the lease, which only made the appellant-plaintiff’s attempts to get her rights as a harmed tenant, even more difficult. It was just a bandaid on a gaping wound, so to speak. This Housing Complaint provided the court all that was necessary to further hear and allow argument. Yet instead, Alayna Stone (who most likley is not even an attorney because she has no clue in what the order of process is and is unable to explain herself according to law) allowed a woman 20 years older than her to hear the one and only one hearing, without having any regard over the fact that defendants were not even in the courtroom as they were ordered to be on the Summons; and she allowed a young man who identified himself as Attorney Peter Hoops, when it was later discovered by Appellant-Plaintiff that this young man was obviously not even born yet when she looked up the attorney’s juris number and discovered he entered the BAR in 1987. As a Pro Se who is well aware of the fraud that goes on in the court, Appellant-Plaintiff was careful not to speak out of turn and focused on the main issue, which was this case had merit; and that the Summary Process which was initiated violated the court’s order on aforesaid case that they were not to begin a Summary Process against the Appellant-Plaintiff. This condition of legal malpractice on many counts in trial court was inevitably the very reason the Appellant-Plaintiff found it necessary to appeal in order to get her rights. This alleged judge failed to even hear the Motion To Open, simultaneously ruling the fee waiver to be granted and yet denied the motion which was not even heard. There was no solution to seek a retrial since there was not even a trial and since the court refused both change of venue and change of judge. The Pro Se Appellant-Plaintiff has presented this fragmented case to the Appellate Court, showing only one party being diligent, which was the Appellant-Plaintiff. Submitting a brief should not have even been necessary due to defaults by the defendants, fraud by the judge and the young man who was probably Peter Hoops’ son, who claimed he was Attorney Peter Hoops. The pancaked lies were so obvious; which is why
For it to be denied with no objection by the Appellee-defendants, was quite puzziling.
My laptop is being hacked - Microsoft popped up a message claiming that my storage exceeded their ability to do a current update and I had to delete items or they will delete them themselves - which is obviously cyber crime.
I have to end this due to their cyber crime. This is only 4 pages. I doubt the spacing is 100% correct. There should be one side-margin to allow for notes by the judge since they granted motion to deviate. I will therefore include an electronic file when I submit it to the court. Maybe I will try to type more…
Comments