AC48416 - BRIEF OF APPELLANT

 FILED UNDER THE ELECTRONIC BRIEFING RULES WITH EXCEPTION TO DEVIATE GRANTED BY THE COURT

APPELLATE COURT

OF THE

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

A. C. 48416

______________________________________________________

ANSONIA STATE STREET. LLC

VS

ANNE M. BRADLEY

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT-DEFENDANT

 

SIMILARLY SITUATED CASE:

A.C. 48452

 

BY THE APPELLANT-DEFENDANT, PRO SE

ANNE M BRADLEY

PO BOX 206514

NEW HAVEN, CT 206514

PHONE: 203-508-0858

IllegalEviction2024

IllegalEviction2024@aol.com

 

 

 

To Be Argued By: TOTAL WORDS IN TEXT: 13,397

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

IV STATEMENT OF THE FACTS……………………………………13

V ARGUMENT………………………………………………………..17

A. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………..17

B. CLERK’S APPENDIX ……………………………………..22

VI. Transcript…Appendix Q

VII Transcript…Appendix R

VIII Transcript…Appendix S

IX Transcript…Appendix W

Conclusion.………………………………………………………………….45

Certification ………………………………………………………………..,51

Appendix ……………………………………………………………………52

X LAST PAGE……………………………………………………….340

 

 

I. 
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

(As stated on the Preliminary Statement of Issues submitted 2/15/2025 APPENDIX U)

1. Whether the Court failed in its duties to oath as attorneys as well as oaths to office, to include ensuring Due Process of Law has taken place, emphasizing honesty and integrity.

a) EMPHASIS: FRAUDING DOCUMENTS, PARTICULARLY SINCE THE SO-CALLED SECURITY AT THE FEDERAL BUILDING STOLE DEFENDANT’S e-files of the case to manipulate it by reprinting and stamping different dates to make it appear that Defendant never checks the status, etc.  The documents are now manipulated to reflect that.  A motion dated yet not stamped in for four days is contrary to what the Defendant submitted.  She lives right down the street from the courthouse.  

2. Whether the court may claim Notice To Quit and Summons to be valid despite fraudulent reason for service (since rent was paid for August and September 2024) and deliberately evading LEGAL EFFICACY.

a) Emphasis:  Court-ordered Appellee Plaintiff not  to initiate Summary Process right on the Summons they were served by Appellant-Defendant on AC48452

b) The incompetency of alleged Judge Alayna Stone reflects the following:

i. She is not an attorney

ii. She is a fraud; even allowing someone 20 years older than her to preside over hearing of October 31, 2024; stating she was Alayna Stone

iii. She uses secret technology to involve others who are not party to this case - to tell her what to say and do  

iv. She completely disregards her duties to office, which includes enforcing the order for all named defendants to not initiate a Summary Process Action.  This is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.  

3. Whether the court may deliberately, knowingly allow a fraudulent RETURN DATE on the Summons, which is required to be 3 days after service by marshal is made.

a) Emphasis:  This same court deliberately failed to sign the original Notice of Lawsuit against the 8 defendants listed on AC48452, as shown recently on Page 18 of Appendix to Motion to Set Aside Final Order on November 16, 2025. It just so happened that the Appellant-Defendant resented his ordering her to hand-write everything which she had meticulously typed; and therefore she typed this form and submitted it to the court, prior to service by the marshal (chief clerk refused to allow Appellant-Defendant to mail them with certified return reciept)

4. Regarding Judge Slader’s Ruling:  Whether a judge may claim whatever another judge rules is okay by him, and thus reflects failure to abide by his own oath of duties of office.

5. Whether the case was sufficiantly litigated as apposed to being a matter of “Ends Justifies Means” with intentuon to evict Defendant even though it was aware Defendant paid her rent as she had been doing for over 12 years, always timely, and completely ignoring the HUD laws as part of its Ends Justifies Means agenda.  

6. Whether it is proper or even human for a judge to completely ignore the fact this Plaintiff’s maintenance manager almost attacked her, using violence to force his way in her apartment when taking a bath July 2, 2024, which was the same day and month of her APPEARANCE on their attempt to evict her in 2019, to collect fraudulent billing arrearage using a housing mediator who only conspired with them.  

7. Whether it was additional proof of Ends Justifies Means behavior, for the court to fully understand that this Plaintiff deliberately withheld the HAP contract, which is the controlling lease, yet entered the Lease as evidence when the rent amount on the lease was only $171; Appendix K and also submitted a letter dated 2024 which claimed a different amount for the rent due by the Defendant, backdated to 2022; and refused to produce an original letter they may have AT THE JUDGE’S PERMISSION.

8. Whether this judge may preside on this case when she took part in allowing someone who was obviously in her 60’s to claim she was Alayna Stone and preside on the Housing Complaint Case, impersonating Judge Stone, yet Judge Stone ruled on the case to dismiss it when she knew all defendants defaulted in ANSWERING and more.

 

 

 

 

II. 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Appellant-Defendant may Motion to Supplement This Shortly due to deterrences on Internet damaging her efforts in preparing this brief ____

 

Terminology

Fraud (using cell phone; despite the “AI Overview” which is generated by algorithms which Mark Zuckerberg has lined it with and disrupts internet searches by not allowing people to remove AI Overview, which is not an Overview, it is a ME-view for the Technocracy) Source:  Merriam Webster:  Deceit, trickery.  An act, expression, omission, or cancealment calculated to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.  

Juris - an adjective Pertaining to legal rights, law

Pro Hac Vice - - (Latin) “for this occasion”; in a legal proceeding by an attorney not licensed in the jurisdiction  

Obstruction of Justice - the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process.  

Wordsmith - a person who works with words;; a skillful writer

Due to CYBER CRIME:  1) Appellant-Defendant was unable to do searches on her laptop - the landlord cut her off internet, which is typical after spying and finding out she is searching on Juris and Pro Hac Vice, etc.  2) Microsoft has sporadically cyber-hijacked many features including printing, scanning, and even access on internet 3) The courts rely on Microsoft to support their activities.  [A clever and witty 10minute video on the way wordsmithing breaks the barriers of even understanding itself. Channel name is @RamsesThePigeon and title of video is: Wordsmithing 101:  “Setup” or  set up?  The lesson is REASON - The function is DICTION in which we can rely on books such as Black’s Law Dictionary to avoid wordsmithing in court]

The wordsmiting by court officials has become an immense congestion with administration of law; which in effect creates a DIVIDE AND CONQUER circumstance.  Rather than Justice - it is Just Us.  Entertainment alluding “ignorance is bliss” is being brought into the court system, which impedes justice and for those of us who are there for the purpose, is immensely annoying and brings disrepute to the bench, to the court.  

 

Federal Laws on SECTION 8

Pretermination Notice (emphasized)

     If there is no HAP contract, there is no lease; the lease cannot make any demands which are not compliant with Section 8 Law.  It is indicated right on the contract and HAP lease addendum.  Appendix L, Appendix

 

CFR 247.4 Termination Notice

  THIS IS A PRETERMINATION NOTICE, they altered it which manipulates tenants’ rights.  Simply searching caselaw on Pretermination Notice for Section 8 tenants proves this was wordsmithed. Regulations/Codes are not necessarily consistent with the laws.

Additionally, the Housing Authority is required to allow a hearing

 

CFR 247.3 (a)(1) & (2)

42 US Code 1437f SE/CTION 8 LAWS

42 US Code 1437d

24 Code of Fed Regulations. Emphasis Part 982

 

CaseLaws

239 Supp 2d 593 - NOTICE TO QUIT

SC20043 - Presidential Estates vs Tanya ….et al  

 

 

State Laws

(though Pro Se Appellant-Defendant considers the HUD laws to take precedence: pertaining to 30-day Pretermination Notice: yet the court ordered the Appellee not to commence with a Summary Process on Housing Complaint Case Appendix N  - this was violated and the court did not even enforce its own approved order; instead assisted Appellee with evading the law; not paying for the Summons; not docketing the summons prior to being served)

Court has the  responsibility in validating documents before docketing case

(aka 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

47a-15a -nonpayment of rent within the grace period provided for residential property (cited on Notice to Quit Form)

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 38-7 FALSE INFORMATION AND LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE

CPB 2-16 (Pro Hac Vice; Attorneys out of state)

a) A fee of $620 must be paid to the clerk of the Superior Court. This fee is separate from the Client Security Fund fee.

 

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”

 

SIMILARLY-SITUATED CASE

AC48452 Anne M. Bradley vs Ansonia State Street, et al

Summons can only mirror what was on the Notice To Quit

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.  

 

 

________________________
 III. STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS

 

1. On September 18, the Appellant-Defendant heard someone at her door crumbling something in her door frame.  She called the concierge and requested a security check.  No response was provided her.  She was too sick to leave her apartment.  

2. She discovered this crumbled paper was a NOTICE TO QUIT when she left her apartment on 9/20/2024 at which time she went to the courthouse and said she wanted to file a countersuit, claiming the NOTICE TO QUIT WAS ILLEGAL; she paid the rent for August and September; and the marshal improperly served the Notice To Quit. Additionally, the landlord was ordered by the court not to proceed with a Summary Process Action while the Housing Complaint case Appendix N remained active.   The clerk checked with the chief clerk and responded to her that she was unable to countersue and in addition she would have to wait for a Summary Process to be served on her.  

3. Appellant-Defendant researched her rights and discovered she had a right to file a housing complaint.  She typed a complaint and submitted it on September 27, 2024. The chief clerk refused to take it in; claiming it was not complying with their process.  

4. Appellant returned on October 3 and presented modified documents.  The Chief Clerk claimed she could not enter the addresses of the defendants; she had to enter the Agents-of-record names, despite the fact there was no instruction for this and she had every intention of mailing the complaint packets to them, including the Appendix of 245 pages and her Motion to Pay Fair Use and Value Into Court, which she resalized had to be heard with opportunity of the defendants of responding.

a) The Documents were prepared while in their office that day due to her concern more delay tactics will be used to interfere with her rights.  

b) Complaint documents including the Appendix of 245 pages, which has already been professionally scanned in, were submitted to the court for fee waiver approval.  

c) The Chief Clerk  marked the RETURN DATE as October 3 and marked it as paid with the date on the Housing Complaint form, Appendix N  and uploaded it the same day yet refused to allow the Appellant-Defendant to mail the complaint packets CERTIFIED WITH RETURN RECEIPT on Friday, October 4.  He said he wanted a marshal to serve them and he would make the copies, she also could not print the scanned Complaint packet, which she was prepared to do at her apartment.  

d) The Chief Clerk refused to accept Appellant’s MOTION TO PAY FAIR USE AND VALUE and said it was her automatic right to pay fair use and value into court AT THE TIME THE HOUSING COMPLAINT Appendix N and Appendix C WAS CONSIDERED WITH MERIT by the court and proof that there was no VALID Notice to Quit Served on her.  She included this Notice To Quit as one of the first documents in the Complaint and proved it was invalid, without LEGAL EFFICACY.

i. This “allowed” the Chief Clerk opportunity to fraud the rent amount and other facts of the case, by refusing to submit this to the alleged judge to grant or deny.  If granted, the court would not be able to fraud circumstances thereafter - to include the rent amount.   

e) The court granted her fee waiver and thus determined the case to be with merit.  They permitted her to pay fair use and value into court.  Though the the only signed agreement of rent was for $171; Appellant-Defendant indicated the rent to be $198 since she had been paying that to avoid wrongful eviction proceedings as this landlord did to her in 2019. She won the case due to the fact they were fraudulently billing her and they also failed to issue a PRETERMINATION NOTICE; which again they failed to do before crumbling a Notice To Quit in her door with only an advertisement for attorneys attached.

5. This Housing Complaint Appendix N was finally served by a marshal on October 8, yet the marshal would not provide the return of service for over two weeks, causing the Appellant-Defendant to motion the court to order her to do so.  

a) The marshal charged the State of Connecticut almost $3,000 for just handing over 4 complaint packets at the same office at 142 Temple Street, one packet to defendant City Of New Haven, Livable City Initiative Department, and to defendant Elm CityCommunities - both of which were located a few blocks from 142 Temple Street, New Haven.  The other two Agents were in Hartford and East Hartford.  Additional information regarding this inept service of process were indicated in AC 48452.

6. Despite the Defendant Ansonia State Street receiving the court order they may not proceed with a Summary Process on the Appellant-Defendant, they violated the court order, and they also failed to Answer the Complaint.  

7. Summons and Complaint were illegally placed hanging on Appellant-Defendant’s doorknob, which is part of the common area, despite the marshal could have simply knocked on her door.  He also added more drama to it  by knocking on the door of her neighbor asking her neighbor where Appellant-Defendant was. Her neighbor informed Appellant-Defendant of this; at which time the Appellant-Defendant assured her that what he did was very unfair to her, dragging her into a court matter and not to be worried about it. She apparently realized the marshal lived on the premises which seemed to her to be logical he would ask.  

a) This marshal, Sandillo, was ordered to leave the premisis and he moved out immediately, having violated the court order that no summons may be served on the Appellant-Defendant. Conspiring with the Plaintiff Ansonia State Street.

i. Ansonia State Street is NOT the owner of 360 State Street.  They do NOT have the legal right to sell this property.  They do   not have the Title to this property.

8. Despite the fact that no Answers were made to the Summons and Complaint served on Ansonia State Street, et al - and the fact they violated the Court Order not to initiate any summons process against her; Judge Stone proceeded with the aforesaid eviction case.  

a) Apellant-Defendant is of the belief that this woman, Alayna Stone, is not even an attorney and is an illegally-appointed judge and only does what she is told by others who are not party to this case.  She failed to appear in the Houisng Complaint Case on October 31, 2024 yet ruled on it fully knowing the woman who fraudulently impersonated her was there instead.  

9. First hearing on this aforesaid eviction case took place on December 3, 2024.  Trial took place on January 1,2025.  Though no hearing on Fair Use and Value for the Housing Case was required by this alleged judge, and she not only allowed Appellant-Defendant to pay $198/month; this judge contradicted her order permitting this, having a hearing which only proved that the rent was even less, since the last agreed upon rent was $171 and the Appellant Defendant emphasized her income was federal poverty level and according to the statute which is even cited in the Section 8 papers, the Housing Authority should only be charging her 10% of the approved rent amount for her apartment - which did not even have a required inspection prior to her moving in it.  

10. Trial took place, with Alayna Stone refusing to allow any of the case documents which had previously been entered on the case - stating this at trial, not prior to trial.  Alayna Stone ruled in the favor of the fake owner Ansonia State Street, whih uses the same Agent Of Service as Bozzuto Management Company used - the State of Connecticut Secretary of State, which seems illegal to do so.  

a) Hoops & Associates, which had illegally appeared on October 31 hearing and also DEFAULTED on the Housing Complaint, Appendix N  and also violated the Court Order to not proceed with a Summary Process, submitted alleged “evidence” to support their illegal eviction.  

i. They submitted a Ledger which proved their fraudulent billing, to include the court order for them to remove almost $14,000 in charges which took place after Ansonia State Street began leasing this property, valued at $2.2 billion, for $160 million.

ii. They submitted  property information which validated that Ansonia State Street were NOT the owner of 360 State Street

iii. They submitted a strange letter from the Housing Authority, dated in 2024, claiming the Section 8 rent for tenant’s portion was increased over two years prior to that.  Appendix P

iv.  “Judge” Stone allowed this NOTICE OF RENT INCREASE as evidence, and neither she or the REAL Hoops Attorney, who entered his appearance on the Summons and also signed the federal notice to quit, Peter Hoops, cared nothing about obtaining any other information to support this letter. Appellant-Defendant said she had no objection to it, for it only proves they are frauds all the more.  The mailing address was indicated as the residency of the Appellant-Defendant, yet she stopped getting mail at the residency since 2019 due to her suspicions that the landlord did tamper with her mail by catching an employee doing that.  That employee, named Margaret, was just doing what she was told, not having any idea that it was Appellant-Defendant’s mailbox.  She was prepared to take all her mail to the office.  

1. Appellant-Defendant emphasized her address was no longer used there in 2019, the same year these people tried to evict her previously, which is another reason the letter was defective and rigged.  

2. There was no legal notification sent to the Appellant-Defendant regarding her rent increase.  The Housing Authority failed to grant any hearing when in fact for 12+ years she had requested this.  

3. Most significantly was the fact, as Appellant-Defendant stated, the court was covering matters outside the jurisdiction of the case since the Notice To Quit determines the jurisdiction of the case.  They were again practicing legal malpractice without ‘batting an eylash’ regarding any sensitivity to following the law, let alone showing any ability to administer it.  

11. Despite the Pro Se Appellant-Defendant’s continous efforts to have a fair hearing and trial, the court had already made up its mind to evict her and depended on frauding records and cyber crime to suppoort their lack of administering the law.

12.   “Judge” Alayna Stone strategically waited until Friday Afternoon to have Attorney Pitt upload her 10am ruling for an eviction in 5 days, using Friday as Day One, without even calling the Appellant-Defendant in order for her to continue to defend herself as a matter of right.  She was fortunate enough to re-check the case information after checking it at about 11a.m. and not seeing any change.  Yet the courthouse was closed and they entered the time of her order at 10 a.m.

13. Appellant-Defendant proceeded with aforesaid appeal,which she had already submitted her Notice of Intent to Appeal prior to the trial,  motioning for the court to allow her to continue  paying rent into court, which was abruptly denied.  

IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

 

1. Motion to Set aside final due date of November 17 was submitted on November 16 due to becoming ill from receiving a letter from Attorney Langhammer indicating he would forego even more diligence by not responding to the brief on AC 48452.  He is also the representing Attorney on aforesaid case and most likely will pull the same trick.  

2. Trial Court Judge ORDER:  Paragraph 7 of Notice of Suit, Housing Code Enforcement, Form JD-HM-10, dated 3Oct2024/amended form dated 8Oct2025:

a) 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.  The tenant must deposit rent with the court according to the following schedule:  $198 monthly

3.  Trial Court has only committed several counts of LACK OF DUE PROCESS, ABUSE OF PROCEDURE, FRAUDING RECORDS, AND MISMANAGING RECORDS TO SERVE THEIR WANTS. - This has to do wtth the operations of the Chief Clerk and Judge, not the clerks who work in the office and interact with the public for filing documents, making payments, etc.  

4. This eviction case has had no merit EVER and should not have been docketed.  

5. Appellant-Defendant realizes that the Appellate Court has the power to not only compel the trial court yet also review the very basic facts that the federal notice, Notice To Quit, was illegal, that the Summons was illegal, and yet this court denied the Appellant-Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss this wrongful eviction, causing her to much suffering in having to create a brief despite her efforts in emphasizing what an enormous waste of government money this all was - just to serve elites’ wants to continut to harm her.  

6. Numerous incidences prove that this case was administered with malice and forethought.  

7. It is easily proven that this landlord Ansonia State Street has breached the Section 8 contract, which the Appellant-Defendant included in its entirety in her complaint documents as well as in motions thereafter, due to nefarious Due Process of Law by this Housing Court.  

8. The Juris Number of Alayna Stone does not exist when it is searched on the Juris Lookup data.

9. Alayna Stone deliberately engaged in fraudulent activity in the Housing Complaint Appendix N which she failed to appear in, allowed someone to impersonate her, and yet she ruled on the hearing which the complaint was not even covered as required by law, which defendants defaulted on.   Appelland-Defendant’s lawsuit was justworthy and she deserved her rights and still does, as stated in her brief recently submitted.  

10. Hoops & Associates has a MODUS OPERANDI of being frauds in Housing Court and getting away with it.  The Cares Act form is fraudulent.  The Cares Act was dissolved more than 3 years ago.  

11. A NOTICE TO QUIT is a federal order, not state.  It is a termination of the lease; yet this alleged landlord, Ansonia State Street, continued to receive HAP payments from the Housing Authority.  They also withheld the HAP Contract and Addendum to lease at trial - both of which take precedence over the lease itself.  In fact the lease is not enforceable, nor can it have any agreement in it which contradicts the HAP contract or Lease Addendum created by the Housing Authority.   Not all Notice To Quits have a SUMMARY PROCESS therafter for numerous reasons Additionally, a Notice To Quit is a landlord’s declaration that the lease has expired.  They should not enjoy Housing Assistance payments, particularly since they failed to abide by the required PreTermination Letter. In fact, just recently, about November 18, a FAKE LETTER was planted in with Appellant-Defendant’s papers in her cart when she ran a few errands (post office, bank, store) which is at Appendix E along with an affidavit.  Alayna Stone’s declaration that it is a Pretermination Letter is FALSE, deliberately FRAUDULENT.   

12.   If Alayna Stone is a real attorney, she has only proven she should be disbarred for using her position to Obstruct Justice rather than administer it.  She has no juris number in the Juris lookup.

13. Appellant-Plaintiff paid the rent.  She had paid the same amount, $198/month since 2016.  She has had a federal poverty level income since she moved to 360 State Street.  The only increases to her Social Security were COLA increases.  COLA is supposed to reflect COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE - not a raise! This Cost of Living is calculated on what has already taken place, not anticipated increases in Section 8 rent, Medicare, and so forth.

14. LANDLORD RETALIATION.  Ansonia State Street has retailiated on the Appellant-Defendant due to the fact they, along with Bozzutos, have breached the Section 8 Contract on numerous counts, the most traumatic was having the maintenance manager violently smashing her door, breaking her locks when she was taking a bath yelling at him to stay out, yet he would not.

a) There is no real Violence Against Women Act - it is just for show.

b) This maintenance manager also deficated and urinated in Appellant-Defendant’s bathroom trashcan.  

i. Appellant-Defendant has reported the illegal entries to include numerous thefts, vandalizing, poisoning her food and even taking much of her underwear and painting the vaginal areas black! They also cut all the zipties holding her wooden crates together and caused them to collapse.  Had they fallen on her when she was in her bed, this could have killed her.  Her shoes have been stolen also.  She has to have a lift on one of the shoes and it is costly, over $100.   

c) BBB COMPLAINT #20806940, Appendix T (transferred to Washington, DC - there was no disciplinary action which Appellant is aware of; Bozzuto began leasing this building to Ansonia State Street; erroneously claiming they are the new owner despite not having any legal right to sell the property)   

d) FAILURE OF LCI TO DO ANYTHING  Appendix J

e) FAILURE OF HOUSING AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING  Appendix J

f) BREACH OF CONTRACT BY LANDLORD, Appendix J

15. TRANSCRIPTS.  The court and the Appellee-Plaintiff have approved the transcripts for this appeal.  The trial court had ordered the Appellee-Plaintiff dismissal of her case on AC49452 Appendix Q and on appeal,  if she failed to provide a Certificate of Transcript, the case would be dismissed.  Her attempts to get the trial court to remove the malware they use to alter the recorded hearings and allow the court reporter to type what actually took place.  Therefore, the Appellant-Defendant did not want to enter them into court as evidence, which resulted in a Notice by the Case Manager on AC48452.  

16. Appellant-Plaintiff had to pay for the transcripts of hearing of October 31, 2024 Appendix Q on AC48452 and hearing of December 3 on AC48416 Appendix R.  Receipt for $168 has been presented to the court with her brief on AC48452.  Yet the court altered the denial into an approval. There was no approval at the time she obtained the transcripts.  It was a denial.  Therefore, it has now been discovered the court frauded the fee waiver and show that Alayna Stone has granted the non-appeal fee waiver, despite having actually denied it indicating that no appeal was in place, though Appellant-Defendant had actually motioned for extension of time to appeal and she denied it.  Appeal on her Motion To Open was submitted, which was the only appeal which the Appellant-Defendant made on the Housing Complaint Case, Appendix N AC 48452.  The Case information on both cases has been frauded to reflect the frauded changes to documents, including creating documents, such as an appeal form and fee waiver on AC48452 when there was no appeal at that point. Appellant-Defendant, as Plaintiff in that case, had no time to issue one.  Her appeal papers were not complete. She submitted a Motion for Extension of Time To Appeal and was denied.  Therefore the appeal document on Case AC48452,   Is frauded.  They replaced a document which she issued to insert it.  The Appellate Court has thereafter created an appeal case which was promptly disposed though Appellant did not issue anything and believes it should have been erased from the record.   (AC 48440)

V. ARGUMENT

STRUCTURED BY THE CLERK’S APPENDIX AFTER INTRODUCTION

A. INTRODUCTION

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.

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 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. 

Appellant-Plaintiff notices there is no emphasis on administering the law; or anything else regarding following the law.  

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.”

https://www.nhregister.com/connecticut/article/Milford-s-State-s-Attorney-Kevin-D-Lawlor-to-be-11371667.php

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 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. Kevin Lawlor 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 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.

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.

 

B.  ARGUMENT - CLERK’S APPENDIX

a) CASE DETAIL, #1

i. Summons was illegal, deliberate disobeying the court order that this Plaintiff had on Housing Complaint Case (Appendix N) which the court accepted and determined the Appellant-Defendant was to pay into court $198; determining that the rent was current! 

1. THE COURT IS OBLIGATED TO VALIDATE AND DETERMINE THIS INFORMATION BEFORE IT ACCEPTS THE HOUSING COMPLAINT CASE AND ALLOWS THE TENANT TO PAY RENT INTO COURT.

2. Date of Summons:  was deceptively entered on the case as 10/30; yet the Plaintiff claimed they served a week prior to that, right on the transcript which was was in the Appendix of AC48452.  

3. RETURN DATE IS SUPPOSED TO BE SET THREE DAYS AFTER THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS, UPON THE COURT’S APPROVAL OF THE SUMMONS.  PAYMENT OF THE SUMMONS TAKES PLACE AND A DOCKET NUMBER IS ISSUED PRIOR TO THE SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS.  

a) RETURN DATE ON THE CASE INFORMATION (NOVEMBER 4, 2024) IS ILLEGAL - Appendix A

b) RETURN DATE ON THE THE  ACTUAL SUMMONS IS ILLEGAL (NOVEMBER 12, 2024) - Appendix A

c) Even when this was brought up to the Chief Clerk, he ignored it; he defended it.  Thereafter he assisted this fraudulent plaintiff by concocting a form with no cited law, for compliance - just as fraudulent as the CARES ACT FORM.  No action was taken on it.  

ii. The motions were NOT HEARD. In most circumstances, the alleged judge ruled on them without waiting for any opposition. In fact, Judge Alayna Stone GRANTED fee waiver for MOTION TO OPEN, on AC 48452, then immediately with the same stroke, denied the motion.  This is not only illogical, but deliberate legal malpractice.  The many times she did this reflects deliberate OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and reflects there is no legitamate supervision of the HOUSING COURT.  This MODUS OPERANDI only reflects she was serving the wants of the Plaintiff and the Chief Court Administrator, et al.  Not administering the law!  

1. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WAS COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW AND EXPECTATIONS OF COURT PROCEEDINGS.  Yet this so-called Attorney who did not even have an appearance on the aforesaid case,  filed an inept Objection on 11/7/2024, along with REPLY TO SPECIAL DEFENSES. Located in Clerk’s Appendix.

a) This also validates this  Plaintiff is well aware of the process yet deliberately defaulted on the Housing Complaint Case (Appendix N) by not answering a well-prepared Complaint with numbered paragraphs (AC48452)  

b) Appellant-Defendant submitted a Motion To Strike on  11/12/2024 arguing in its Memorandum of Law on 11/15/2024 that  it cannot be sufficiently argued when they submit an inept Objection which fails to comply with demands of a licensed to practice attorney. Judge Alayna Stone ineptly denied the Motion To Strike prior to receiving the Memorandum; and thus prior to giving opportunity to this Plaintiff, which enjoys not being diligent or practicing law, to argue.  

i. There was no hearing on the Motion To Strike Objection on aforesaid case.  Appellant-Defendant was also prepared to argue the fact that Plaintiff disobeyed the court order not to proceed with a Summary Process.   

ii. The Plaintiff would have had opportunity to amend its objection.

iii. Appellant-Defendant is providing all Transcripts in Appendix due to this  continuous failure to adminster the law, allow frauded recordings of hearings to be transcribed,  and abide by the oaths of office.   

iv. The Plaintiff’s misinformation was also a very significant hindrance to argue.  

1. This activity and with the showness of confidence that whatever they say or do and whatever documents they submit will be “fixed by fraud” could not have been more obvious at the trial of January 13, 2025.  Appendix S

iii. Hoops & Associates (Juris 4204021) have an illegal appearance as a Pro Hac Vice Attorney - which means his business is out of state; this also means the court was in direct collaboration, which is illegal.  Appendix G

iv. Alayna Stone uses a Juris Number which does not exist in the Juris Lookup.  She fails to enter that Juris Number, which identifies her, in Westlaw 2025 WL 314658 which should be identical to Document 134.00 of 1/24/2025; Decision #NH-1014 Appendix B

v. The original Appendix to the Complaint in Trial Court on AC 48452 -  is not consistent with what is now on the case information; there was no indication that it was Corrected due to Cyber Crime or other reasons.  The Typed Appendix was never uploaded to the Complaint on the case by this same court in which aforesaid case exists.

1. Appellant-Defendant considers this circumstance substantiated reason to not have confidence in the court officials who run the system to ensure that transcripts and orders are not altered at whims.  It is also concerning that the Wiggin & Dana and possibly other law offices actually publicly teach appellants not to submit the very documents which give cause to appeal:  such as the Judge’s order and proceedings at hearings/trial.  

vi. Motion to Remove JA was submitted 12/31/2025 due to the lack of Due Process and in addition to the judge claiming that illogical statements such as a Notice To Quit does not have to be valid in a Housing Complaint Case, Appendix N which completely evades the law on Housing Complaint Cases, as even cited on the forms authorized by the court. Provided in AC48452 brief.also.   This motion was denied by Judge Spader only three days after it was submitted one day which was a holiday, New Year’s Day) - therefore not heard.    

1. Judge Spader used Pro Hac Vice appearances before he was appointed to be a judge by the Governor of Connecticut.  

2. Appellant-Defendant Abruptly submitted a Motion To Change Venue.    

b) NOTICE TO QUIT, #2

i. The Notice To Quit this Section 8 Tenant (Appellant-Plaintiff) had no proof that any arrearage letter was sent to her, emailed to her, mailed to her, placed under her door.  The HUD LAW for Section 8 tenants requires a 30-day PRETERMINATION LETTER, neither of which were attached to he Notice To Quit - nor was the fraud who said he was Attorney Peter Hoops at the October 31 hearing of AC48452 even concerned with this.  Oddly, Attorney Peter Hoops was also not concerned with this requirement and only. Appellant-Defendant does not have easy access to Westlaw to prove this, as a Pro Se and inundated by continuous illegal entries, she has to bring all her documents in a cart whenever she leaves leaves her apartment to decrease the likelihood of them tampering and/or stealing documents.  This is a very stressful task and her cart has been damaged at least three times; two of which were not repairable and she had to purchase new carts and also pay for taxis in order to proceed with her rights, to include meeting with Dale DiBenedetto at the Housing Authority, also known as Elm City Communities.  

1. The State Law indicates that the arrearage letter is mandatory for ANY tenant, and should be submitted to the tenant at least 10 days prior to proceeding with a Summary Process.  

2. The Federal Law covering Section 8 tenants requires a 30-day day PRETERMINATION LETTER.  Oddly, alleged Attorney-Judge Allayna Stone defined the Pretermination Letter as a Notice To Quit when they are completely different and the court has a form for Notice To Quits; thus requiring compliance with the process before allowing a Summons to even be served.  A Summons has to be paid to the court prior to service, at which time the court is required to enter a docket number.  Appendix A provides receipt information on summons for AC48452 versus no receipt information on the Summons Form for AC48416.  For Attorney Pitt not to sign that form was abuse of process.

 

c) COMPLAINT, #3

i. This “landlord” claims the Defendant is responsible for $932 in rent which is false.

ii. Defendant is a Section 8 tenant; The HAP contract and tenancy addendum take precedence and if there is no addendum, there is no lease!  Appendix O, which is Appendix T in associated case, which was referred to in the appeal documents yet this court has separated them as if they are not associated.  

iii. The plaintiff did not PURCHASE THE PROPERTY.  They have no legal right to sell the property. They do not have the Title to the property.  

iv. The Defendant paid the same amount for July as she did for August and September, as proven.  Appendix A The Plaintiff failed to deposit the August and September 2024 checks.  They cashed the checks!

1. July - marked as paid on

a) Bank of America Check No. 702 0021173 017 ]

Broadway Branch, New Haven

2. August - marked as paid on

a) Bank of America Check No. 794 0021173 056

Broadway Branch, New Haven

3. September - marked as paid on

a) Bank of America Check No. 0003 0021173 0010 Broadway Branch, New Haven .

d) ANSWER AND SPECIAL DEFENSES, #4

i. Defendant completed the form - yet the Plaintiff claimed the Defendant “used her age as a special defense” - as a distraction from the very fact that she paid her portion of the rent; in fact her rent is overpaid since the LAST AGREED UPON RENT WAS $171.  The failure of the Housing Authority to provide hearings and fraud records has created a massive problem, which they have been doing since she moved to the premesis, by not even having an initial inspection and claiming the Defendant had to wait for the inspection, throughout the month - yet Dragana LaCore assured her the inspection would be in a few days, which caused the Defendant to provide a 30 day notice to the prior landlord, Tudor Terrace, which is owned by  COLONIAL FOUNTAIN MANAGEMENT, which also had own the building which the Agent of Service for 4 of the 8 defendants in AC48452 is located, on Temple Street, New Haven - and what is puzzling is that 360 State Street, LLC was marked as active by the Secretary of State; the marshal served it to Gideon Friedman’s Agent even though it was owned by Becker & Becker Law Office in Fairfield, CT - and was changed to being “dissolved” with a backdate after it was served to the wrong agent, who should not have accepted it. And the marshal was able to validate that prior to service, even claiming her charge of almost $3,000 was to cover for her “validating”, which made no sense. All copies and company information were prepared.   The City of New Haven now have records changed showing Yale University, rather than Colonial Fountain Management,  owns that building on Temple Street.  Defendant is does not have the resources to determine if this is true.  She is a Pro Se, being constantly bullied by the inept landlord of the premises, to include breaching the contract on a continuous basis, which is why the housing complaint Appendix N was entered in court; AND ACCEPTED IN COURT - the same court which this aforesaid case was processed.  

e) REPLY TO SPECIAL DEFENSES, #5

i. The plaintiff says it denies all rent has been paid to the defendant landlord yet fail to state any amount EVER.  

1. The  Appellee-Plaintiff has no subject matter jurisdiction on this issue since it failed to indicate anything in the Notice To Quit and Summons, which has to mirror the Notice To Quit.  They dug their own hole, which is a common result when corrupted activity is relied upon to build a court case.

2. Significant to this is, as with the attempt to evict in 2019, using fraudulent tactics which show Modus Operandi, for they did the same thing, not stating any arrearage in the Complaint; not issuing a PRETERMINATION LETTER.  (SC20043)

a) Significant to SC20043 regarding Presidential Suites, owned by the son of Toni Harp, who was not a decent senator and abused power, is the basic premise that the tenant apparently admitted to owing rent according to whoever represented her, as stated in the judicial opinions.  This admittance should take precedence over  an acclaimed amount, SINCE she admitted she owed rent. According to the case opinion.  Nevertheless both courts agreed that a Pretermination Notice was mandatory and one apparently was acknowledged as being issued, which is the argument for this case.  It is curious how they define this Pretermination Notice as a 10-day notice rather than as a 30-day Notice, which is the LAW for Section 8 tenants.  Only when 180 days have lapsed is when HAP contract is terminated, according to CFR 982.455. Yet there was no involvement by the Housing Authority, which the Appellant-Defendant considers wrongful and costly since that issue and others like it can be settled through the intervention of the Housing Authority.  

b) The Plaintiff did not deposit the rent money, as discovered by the Defendant.  The rent money was cashed! They keep fraudulent ledgers and were even ordered by the court to remove almost $14,000 in fraudulent arrearage on the Defendant’s Section 8 account, which they commercialize.   

3. The Plaintiff further reflects its incompetency by “admitting that the defendant lives in a building with 5 or more units and is age 62 or over” which has no relevence to the underlying laws regarding senior citizens and residence in an apartment complex.  

4. Nowhere in this REPLY to Answer and Special Defenses does the Plaintiff indicate how much arrearage exists. No where in the Complaint does the Plaintiff indicate how much arrearage exists. The Plaintiff and the the court have no subject matter jurisdiction to hash it over, yet they did; which the Appellant-Defendant considers judicial malpractice.  The case has never had any merit and should have not been allowed to be docketed.  The nonsense by the chief clerk saying, “Attorney Hoops is a commissioner of the court; he can do whatever he wants” is corrupted on its face!  All attorneys are commissioners of the court.  

a) Defendant has discovered that there is a completely inept system of determining who is and isn’t an attorney; and many attorneys who advertise they are registered in Connecticut nefariously use Pro Hac Vice Juris Numbers in Connecticut.  The BAR Association claim they are not at liberty to validate anyone as an attorney.  Some judges have Juris numbers; some do not.   Alayna Stone, does NOT have a Juris number!  

b) The REPLY is simply more reflection of fraud by the Plaintiff and yet the trial court has conspired and the Defendant is remiss in why the Appellate Court has not dismissed the case and ruled in the favor of the abused and harmed Defendant, due to the many breaches of the HAP contract and Addendum to lease  both of which were included in the Complaint issued by the Defendant, over 200 pages, which has now been frauded on record. For instance references to the first 34 pages including the HAP Contract and Lease prove the record has been frauded.  

c) Defendant’s electronic files (flash drives and sd cards) were stolen by inept, dishonest security in the federal building when she had to go there to order replacements for her social security card and Medicare card since they were stolen out of her purse when she was at the courthouse using the public computer.  The courthouse does not provide security in that area, claiming it interferes with the internet service.  Defendant does not believe this reasoning.   

f) MOTION TO DISMISS, #6

i. Note, the chief clerk failed to upload or process payment of the Summons on this case for over a week.  He claimed it was the responsibility of the Plaintiff.  This is the LEGAL PROCESS:

1. Plaintiff is required to pay for the Summary process prior to service.  Proof of payment should be on Summons.

2. Upon payment of the Summons, the chief clerk is required to assign a docket number.  

3. The Docket Number is supposed to be on the Summons at the time it is served!  

ii. There was no proof of payment, no Docket Number for over a week!  As a Pro Se who was shocked by such dishonest practices, she did all she could to address this to the court, including on October 31, 2024, since the Plaintiff deliberately violated the court order to not issue a Summary Process!   This was stated yet taken out of the transcript, which covered only 12 minutes of the hearing!  Appendix Q

iii. Page 16, which is Page 2 of the Motion: Paragraph 5; where it says “FM-35 amended form cannot be located” was added in by cyber crime. It is neither applicable or logical.  There is no FM-35.  There was no missing form at the time this housing complaint (Appendix N) was finally delivered by a marshal - since the chief clerk refused to allow the Appellant - Defendant to mail the 8 packets certified with return receipt, as documented in the process for Housing Law Suites.

iv. Page 2, Insufficiency of Process:    “If rent had not been paid for two months and they have demanded the rent as part of the preliminary requirements to serving a Notice To Quit”…The Housing Authority is required to stop payments after three months of nonpayment of a Section 8 tenant.  If this was a valid Notice To Quit, they would have dated the move-out sooner….

v. MOST SIGNIFICANT:  THE LANDLORD VIOLATED THE COURT ORDER TO NOT PROCEED WITH A SUMMARY PROCESS and the Chief Clerk conspired rather than administer the law, thus violating his oath of office - which occurred frequently!  

vi. Defendant claims this is just a “witch hunt” against her by the corrupted officials who abuse power on a continuous basis in Connecticut!  

vii. The CARES ACT was dissolved in 2022!  The use of a CARES ACT form in court is illegal!  Appendix M

viii. INSUFFICIENCY OF PROCESS includes the Appellee-Plaintiff violating the judicial order to not proceed with a summary process!  The chief clerk conspired with this, fully knowing what the form indicated!  Additionally, they would be noted in their system to not be allowed to proceed with a summary process!  The Appellee-Plaintiff violated the judicial order and the court permitted it! The chief clerk’s disability should not be used as a “blank check” for him to do wrong.  

ix. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISIDICTION was additionally emphasized.  This motion has bolded lettering by cyber crime, since the Defendant’s files were all stolen by the federal so-called security contracted by Homeland Security, Appendix U, which should be shut down since it was ordered by GW Bush in response to September 11 - when he along with about 125 planners caused September 11 attack in New York City using military explosives (as scientifically confirmed by Steve Jones, phD physicist in collaboration with the chemist at BYU in Oregon)  and detonating the World Trade Center Buildings and also hitting the Pentagon with a missile.  There was no plane crash in Shanksville, PA - it was faked and even a common citizen could see that it was faked.  

x. “WHEREFORE, Defendant motions this court to Dismiss Aforesaid case for all intense purposes and asks for the court to warn aforesaid Plaintiff they will be fined for committing such fraud in the future, to deter this abuse on the Defendant.”

1. DENIED

xi. Defendant submitted her appearance the very same day which she found the Summons in the common area, on her door handle, October 24, 2025 with only the Notice To Quit attached.  THE COURT FAILED TO SHOW THE CASE INFORMATION, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS.  THE CHIEF CLERK REFUSED TO PROVIDE A DOCKET NUMBER, WHICH IS REQUIRED AT THE TIME A SUMMONS IS PAID FOR. YET THE CHIEF CLERK ARRANGED FOR THIS CASE NOT TO BE UPLOADED WITH AN ASSIGNED DOCKET NUMBER FOR A WEEK - ONE DAY PRIOR TO THE OCTOBER 31 HEARING ON THE HOUSING COMPLAINT Appendix N WHICH NOT ONE DEFENDANT ANSWERED, CREATING DEFAULT; AND THE ONLY ONE WHO SHOWED UP FOR COURT WAS A YOUNG MAN WHO FAKED BEING ATTORNEY PETER HOOPS WHO ENTERED THE BAR BEFORE HE WAS OBVIOUSLY BORN.  AND, FOR EMPHASIS, THE WOMAN PRESIDING WAS NOT ALAYNA STONE, SHE APPEARED TO BE 20 YEARS OLDER AND YET CLAIMED TO BE ALAYNA STONE.  PRO SE DEFENDANT WAS SUSPICIOUS AND SEARCHED ONLINE AFTER THIS POORLY-CONDUCTED HEARING WHICH VIOLATED HER RIGHTS, DISRUPTED DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  

xii. REPLY TO ANSWER AND SPECIAL DEFENSES HAD NO VALID REFERENCES. THERE WERE ONLY TWO PARAGRAPHS:  1.  RENT WAS PAID; 2. INSUFFICIENCY OF PROCESS.  An attached Affidavit by Appellant-Defendant was for emphasis on the lack of due process and legal malpractice which these officials frequently commit.  This reply made no remark which carried any weight.  In essence, it could have been applied to almost any Special Answer and Defenses

g) OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, #7

i. The Objecttion to Motion To Dismiss was ineptly prepared, thus disrupting the Defendant’s ability to respond to their non-compliant document, which allegedly was prepared by an attorney who did not have an appearance on this case.  Defendant motioned to strike it in order to remedy the process.  They could have submitted an amended Motion to be compliant with the law.    This Plaintiff’s reliance on bolded words only reflects the cyber crime -  bolding selected words as a form of word-smithing, despite the fact the complete PB Rule is cited and should not be ignored.  

ii. This was a sloppy, inept Objection which includes a request for a cited law as if they only want to play “Catch Me If You Can” when they are the attorneys.  They have the burden of proof.  They know and deliberately broke many laws. They only cited caselaws which in fact, have no relevance to the case - which is no doubt reason why they failed to print any section of them, underlining the quoted material in the opposition.  The only thing which resonates on this case is legal malpractice!  The “judge” denying this along with her inept MEMORANDUM OF LAW, citing only an UNPUBLISHED OPINION - only furthers the corruption which this court makes as common practice.  Using their jobs as a weapon rather than administering the law.  

h) MEMORANDUM OF LAW BY APPELLEE-PLAINTIFF, #8

i. First, it is important for the Appellant-Defendant to convey that the court ORDERED THE APPELLEE-PLAINTIFF NOT TO AT INITIATE A SUMMARY PROCESS.  THE CHIEF CLERK ALLOWED IT, WHICH WAS ILLEGAL.  THE JUDGE ASSIGNED WAS NOT EVEN AT THE HEARING AND YET RULED ON THE HEARING ON AC48452, WHICH IS A SIMILARLY-SITUATED CASE!  

ii. Emphasis #10: Pages 31.  Defendant submitted a Notice of Intent to Appeal on November 25, 2024; yet the court disregarded this and defined the case fraudulently.  There was no affidavit seeking relitigation of cases, which Judge Spader documented (Page 36). This must be why he did not refer to the Document Number.   Emphasis on the modus operandi of abuse of the court.  For this alleged judge to fraud what was presented is  typical of the housing trial court’s abuse of power and frauding.  It thus reflects a continuous pattern of judicial malpractice.  Judge Spader used a Pro Hac Vice Appearance when he was an attorney.  That is illegal.  Yet at least he was probably a licensed attorney.  There is no informaiton to prove that Alayna Stone was ever a licensed attorney.  The New Haven BAR Association claims they are not at liberty to inform such secret information. MOTION TO REMOVE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES are also included in the Clerk’s Appendix, #11.  No affidavit was attached.

iii. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AFTER TRIAL #13;  (Appendix I) Right to begin with this alleged judge claims “Plaintiff, Ansonia State Street, LLC brought a summary process action for nonpayment of rent against Defendant”  - this reflects willful misconduct by the judge, the chief clerk, and the Plaintiff.  Appendix A is the Summons which the Court approved and signed, indicating in paragraph 7 the COURT ORDER THAT NO SUMMARY PROCESS ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT, WHO IS THE PLAINTIFF IN THE HOUSING COMPLAINT CASE.Appendix N  They allowed it anyway, playing a catch-me-if-you-can dynamic rather than administering the law!  By frauding the recordings of hearings and then REQUIRING  TRANSCRIPTS OF THESE FRAUDED RECORDINGS TO APPEAL ONLY VALIDATES THE NEFARIOUS WILLS OF COURT OFFICIALS AS APPOSED TO THE LAW.

1. The  defendant raised the special defense of payment!

a) There was nothing indicating the response of the court regarding the proof submitted even in the housing complaint case,Appendix N to prove the Notice To Quit was invalid!  The judge defended the Plaintiff by claiming the Notice to Quit did not have to be valid for the housing complaint case!  All of this has been prepared in a brief recently submitted by the aforesaid Defendant in AC 48452. Due to cyber crime, she had to prepare one all over again due to a cyber criminal deleting it!  It does not cover up the truth!  It only strengthens the defense of the Defendant, showing this is a pathetic group of people who abuse power to feed their greed for money and power.  They have marked the Defendant and continue to abuse the Defendant - whose apartment has had no maintenance since 2022 - when the maintenance manager used violence to smash in her door while she was taking a bath and the manager Kyle Huckle defended this abusive attack, obviously told to act that way by whoever tells him what to do using technology.  He doesn’t think for himself; he is part of a beehive technology that tells him what to say and do, as he did at the trial. “It’s above my paygrade” he said when he was asked by the defendant why they requested her to reapply for Section 8 when  an alleged new landlord is the one who is supposed to apply for approval through HUD! 69 pages of law were emailed to Chris Robinson, who forwarded it to Kyle, who would not give out his email address, since communication requires for him to check with his “beehive technology” to determine what to do next.  This email was deleted out of Appellant-Defendant’s gmail account.  Since her electronic files have been stolen by Homeland Security, which are more like NAZIs, she is unable to recover that law of over 60 pages.  The Technocracy has manhandled searches to deprive access to this information again.  

b) The so-called “evidence” submitted by the property manager would only frame themselves and any reasonable judge would have determined that - particularly since they refused to obtain an original letter from the Housing Authority and submitted a 2024 letter stating the rent had increased RECENTLY to $264 yet dated it in 2022!  

c) The Ledger proves they were ordered by the court to remove fraudulent charges

d) They refused to submit the HAP Contract or the Lease Addendum and only submit a landlord lease which has no enforceability.  They have been receiving HAP Assistance to this day.  

e) There was no PURCHASE.  It was a lease.  The Limited Warantee Deed was even submitted as evidence.  Anyone holding a Limited Warantee Deed  has no right to sell the property and therefore they are not the owner.  

f) Again, this judge nefariously uses laws which are not relevant since this is a Section 8 contract and she is limited to the SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION yet continues to add-on to the case despite dismissing the the housing complaint (Appendix N)  for LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.   The landlord-appellee-plaintiff  pulled the same fraud in 2019, failing to issue a Pretermination Letter to allow the Appellant-Defendant to challenge their claim.  Again, they failed also to state an amount of arrearage and Appellant-Defendant paid her rent timely every month.    

g) Although Peter Hoops was the one who appeared on this case, signed by the Summons and Notice To Quit, they changed to a different attorney who may not even exist, who has never appeared in court and has no appearance on file in this case:  Joseph St Rock, who signed the Memo in Opposition and was argued by the real Attorney Peter Hoops who identified himself as Attorney Peter Hoops at the trial on January 13, 2025. Is Joseph St. Rock like a “Where’s Waldo” character - non-existant?  

i) ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS, #9

i. The judge uses more legal malpractice by claiming an UNPUBLISHED forfeiture case to have the same laws as a Section HAP case. Appendix B  is the caselaw which Judge Stone cited.  This is so disgraceful that such deliberate incompetency is used as an advantage to fit the whims of such unlawful Plaintiff who does not even meet the standards of HUD regulations.  Nevertheless, THE RENT WAS PAID.  THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN.  THE COPY OF THE CHECKS HAVE BEEN VALIDATED.  THE COURT HAS THE OBLIGATION TO VALIDATE THEM ALSO.  YET JUDGE STONE DOES NOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THE RENT WAS PAID; AND NO ARREARAGE WAS INDICATED ON THIS CASE; NO PRETERMINATION LETTER WAS SUBMITTED TO THE DEFENDANT.  

j) NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL, #10

i. The Notice is dated 25Nov2025 since it was obvious this case was being run very unlawfully.

k) MOTION TO REMOVE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, #11

i. This Appendix is showing that the Pro Se Appellant=Defendant has diligently defended her rights yet another example of the non-diligent Plaintiff expecting the court to “get them off”.  There was no objection and the motion was not properly heard.  It was promptly denied.  

l) ORDER ON MOTION TO REMOVE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, #12 As stated above, promptly denied; not heard.

m) MEMORANDUM OF DECISION, #13

i. Contrary to Judge Spader’s opinion, the Appellant-Defendant did not request to seek to re-litigate prior cases which may have been in the affidavit.  The court fails to indicate the Document No. And obviously washes it away with false information.  RESUME Here

n) APPLICATION OF STAY OF EXECUTION #14

i. The court rejects motions and applications to evade igranting them.  This Should have been granted.  Appendix F Any error made by the Pro Se Party on any form which the court takes in is the court’s responsibility to correct.  In fact, the chief clerk took  it upon himself to alter the name of the housing complaint case, to remove Bozzuto since the chief administrative judge is a Bozzuto and has the power to fire him.  In lay terms, it was “kissing up”.  

o) ORDER ON APPLICATION OF STAY OF EXECUTION #15

i. As Stated above, the affidavit attached to the form provided the court what it needed, as throughout the case, the Defendant has claimed that the rent was paid in full, providing the court the checks to prove it.  The court was evading from the law, rather than administering it.  Most likely it was checked off at the time it was submitted and stamped in.  Former Prosecutor in Milford, CT proved that he could successfully use a chemical to remove ink on a continuous basis and successfully embezzle checks for years.  He was there for 19 years and was protected by the Middletown Court from having more investigation by State Police despite having stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars that way.  He was arrested in 2007 and continued to practice law for Norman Pattis, though his license was revoked, which had little meaning anyway since no one can validate whether a person who claims to be an attorney is really an attorney.  

p) APPEAL #16

i. NonPayment of rent for August and September is false; rent was paid; landlord CASHED the checks

ii. Application For Stay of Execution  submitted Previously - nefariously rejected by the court #14 Clerk’s Appendix and Appendix F emphasis that it was wrongfully rejected as a means of DEVILS CHESSBOARD trick since obviously the nefarious order of execution has been stayed.  

q) DOCKETING STATEMENT #17

 

Transcripts include affidavits.  

 

CONCLUSION

As a Pro Se who has paid rent timely for thirteen years and is constantly bullied by a landlord who engages in corruption, this experience has only one value:  causing harm to the Appellant-Defendant.  This case never had any merit; all based on lies and unlawfulness!  

The stage for kabookie theater is set, rather than Due Process of Law.  Despite this case having no merit in trial court, the trial court held onto it like a script they were already paid to carry out like masters of reality.  As a Section 8 tenant who paid rent every month and has even overpaid rent to this landlord, and complained about this since she has a federal poverty level income and is a Title 19 recipient, this court failed to meet its duties.  In fact, the court ordered this fake landlord not to file a summary process Appendix A but but they did before the hearing on October 31!  The Chief Clerk conspired rather than abide by the duties of his position - delaying the upload of the case for a week after the summons was served!  Upon payment of cases, the court stamps them as paid WITH the docket number on the summons - or provide a receipt for record purposes. The docket number is issued at the time of payment and the summons cannot be served until it is paid for.  Yet the court did not do this; they deliberately evaded its own process.  

A Notice To Quit is the one and only document which defines what the prosecution is and cannot waiver in service as well as legitamacy of the party prosecuting!  Appellant-Defendant has diligently defended her rights and demanded the court to be on-point, claiming the court was abusing its power in making add-ons to the case, such as how much SHE feels the rent should be!  It was not part of the case!  In fact, the rent amount was agreed upon on the Housing  Case AC48452 - no hearing was ordered by the court, yet they could have done so.  Yet The “real” Judge Alayna Stone was not even there on October 31 and allowed a woman to impersonate her, claiming she was Alayna Stone, listening obviously to a device in her ear, which she frequently adjusted.  THAT IS ILLEGAL!  The trial court failed to meet its duties!  In fact, the court ordered this fake landlord, who does not have title to the property, NOT to file a summary process right in the court-approved Summons and Complaint, and the court approved payments into court to be $198 on the associated Housing Complaint! Appendix N The Chief Clerk conspired rather than abide by the duties of his position!  

A Notice To Quit is the one and only document which defines what the prosection / subject matter is, and cannot waiver in service as well as legitamacy of the party prosecuting.  It is a FEDERAL ORDER issued by the landlord, telling the tenant they are expiring the lease.  This does not mean they have a right to do so and the tenant has a right to defend their rights.  The fact that this landlord, Ansonia State Street, failed to issue a 30-day notice for a Pretermination Appendix L (or any notice at all, which in fact is required for just an average tenant, to have a ten-day notice in which the landlord provides opportunity for the tenant to pay arrears or work out whatever that needs to be worked out so the landlord does not bring a summary process action against them.  

The laws are cited right on the Section 8 contract;  yet this landlord, whose responsibility is to prove the case, instead failed to prove the case!  The Appellant-defendant paid the rent for August and September 2024 and proved it!  The case should not have even been docketed!  Appellant-Defendant submitted all the papers of the Section 8 HAP Contract, the Lease Addendum, the landlord Lease, and associated laws right in the complaint she submitted with a voluminous Appendix.  She always believed the Appendix was over 300 pages yet when the court returned it to her approved, they made it 264 pages, which was similar to the actual address (564 Prospect Street)  she had prior to moving in 360 State Street - Yet Dragana LaCore had the Section 8 form frauded indicating 38 Arch Street, which was where the Appellant-Defendant lived in 2009, when she submitted her application for this Section 8 voucher housing at 360 State Street.  This landlord illegitamately bypassed her application for three years!  Someone obviously put pressure on them to abide by the law.  Many of the the initial 50 people who have received Section 8 at 360 State Street submitted their applications much later than the Appellant-Defendant, and still were accepted.  Only a few of that group remain here.

Did this so-called attorney-judge Alayna Stone even stick with the subject matter jurisdiction? In fact Alayna Stone ordered this Plaintiff not to proceed with a Summary Process, yet they did anyway and the chief Clerk allowed them to not pay for it!  There is no receipt on the Summons and there was no receipt and docket number attached to it obviously - it is not in the case information.  Appellant-Defendant was not even able to promptly motion a dismissal due to this fraudulent abuse of process!

 The fact the landlord gave Appellant-Defendant receipt for the rent each month and deposited her checks reflected the landlord and the court had no subject matter jurisdiction on this case.    The fact they not only knew the requirement of a Pretermination Letter as a Section 8 Landlord, but even attempted to evict this Appellant-Defendant in 2019 for the same thing - and that judge, Cordiani,  was called to his chambers and obviously told to do his job and stop conspiring with the landlord.  The judge had to rule in favor of the Appellant-Defendant due to the fact that there was No 30-day Pretermination letter - no Pretermination Letter of any sort - No letter of arrearage - issued to the Appellant-Defendant!  The judge saying nonsense about the Appellant-Defendant failing to make an address change with the Housing Authority, failing to view their records to see that she indeed submitted the address change in 2019 as well as on at least one more occasion, and they could clearly see the Housing Authority used her PO Box in both 2020 and 2021!  After sending the Appellant-Defendant their exhorbitant 65-page  RECERTIFICATION form, giving the Appellant-Defendant only 3 days with a threat they would end her Section 8 Assistance - they took the completed recertification form and THEREAFTER informed her they sent it in error, not wanting to apply the expenses from the abusive illegal eviction as well as the prior abusive illegal arrest, using the state troopers to conspire, to include stalking her in the lobby, waiting for her to leave her apartment to catch her in the halls and try to get her to run back to her apartment so they could shoot her - which Officer Jon Naples was  known for, shooting unarmed people on the job and killing them!  This time, his tactic did not work because Appellant-Defendant did not even know they were stalking her, and she took her trash out and waited for the elevator to go to the 6^th floor computer room..  She, in fact, is unable to run, due to the severe injuries to her legs caused by a sander truck driver who filled his truck up with sand, 20 tons, and  tried to kill her “on a sunny day when the roads were bare” - which the attorney her mother hired tormented her about, “Why didn’t you get out of his way” when it was clearly his fault; he was ticketed by State Police; and the insurance report indicated it was his fault - all covered up by the attorney, whose brother paid a hitman to kill the President of Chile just because he refused to sell Pepsi in his country in the 1970’s.  

This constant corruption is like an unravelling of dominos - by organized crime that continue to target a harmless patriot to her country, who does not agree with corruption and will not take part in it.  Appellant-Defendant is one who believes in the Power of Oath, who faithfully pledged allegiance to the American Flag, and will not waiver from abiding by the law and expecting others she associates with to do the same.  

Today, November 17, 2025 - the Appellant-Defendant has followed up with a request from the landlord to provide her any letter sent to her from July to October 2024. They still have not done so.  Appendix _____

The Appellee-Plaintiff has shown little, if any, diligence on this case and thus reflects its dependency on corruption to fulfill its wants to win what is clearly unlawful.  The very mechanism for which this is all seemingly covered up by is CYBER CRIME.  Transcripts were altered by CYBER CRIME.  Additionally, the chief court reporter REFUSED to provide the transcript of the hearing on Fair Use And Value, even if the Appellant-Defendant paid for it herself.  She stated that the housing court would not allow it!   Appellant-Defendant had already paid $168 for the hearing of October 31 and December 3 (the second date which covers this case directly) The court accepted them and refused to have the hearing recording changed back to its original and actual hearing.  They used malware to alter the recording and it is a common practice of the New Haven Superior Court to do this, having no accountability.  The so-called Judge (Alayna Stone)  presided over this case when she had just committed a significant act of fraud by allowing a woman 20 years older than her to preside in the associated housing complaint case, Appendix N which Ansonia State Street along with other companies were part of  since it was unknown who actually had the title to the property and she considered it fraud to claim that Ansonia State Street could be the owner just because the media report that, just because the media report the completely illogical sale of a $2.2 billion property for $160 million, WITH NO TITLE AND ONLY A LIMITED WARANTEE DEED.  They are in fact, just leasing it and this is completely an illegitamate operation since asset management is obviously not considered as well as insurance costs and assessment, which the city actually changed to $0 so they would not have to pay any taxes.  And the attorneys on this aforesaid matter as well as the Housing Complaint Appendix N have for the most part filed Pro Hac Vice Appearances, which is fraud and bars them also for doing anything on these cases, and thereby additional reason for Appellant-Defendant to prevail in both cases!  

 

Prepared and Submitted,

 

APPELLANT-DEFENDANT, PRO SE

 

_______________________________

CERTIFICATION

November 21, 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.

a) LLOYD LANGHAMMER, JURIS 428410

18A GRANITE STREET, NEW LONDON, CT 06320

860-440-3340

llanghammer@hotmail.com

 

b) PETER HOOPS, JURIS 424021

     19A THAMES STREET, GROTON, CT 06340

      PHONE: 860-445-8911

FAX: 860-445-8919

phoops@hoopslaw.com

 

(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 13,397 words; and

(6) Deviation from hyperlinks and bookmarks were granted.

(7) Exemption from filing hard copies to the court was granted.

 

________________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se - IllegalEviction2024

PO Box 206514, New Haven, CT 06520

APPENDIX TO APPELLANT’S BRIEF

AC 48452

 

APPENDIX LETTER     DESCRIPTION PAGE NUMBER

A Notice of Suit 1

Summons

First Pages of Case Information AC48416 &

AC48452

B UNPUBLISHED OPINION - cited by the court 8

In Memorandum of Law, Appendix H &  I

 

Trial court case informations to Compare Activity

C NHH-CV24-5006875-S/AC48452 13

D NHH-CV24 -6024196-S/AC48416 19

 

E FRAUDULENT LETTER, AFFIDAVIT 26

F MOTON FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL 32

REJECTED BY COURT? DENIED BY COURT?

G PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCES 40

JURIS NUMBERS OF LANGHAMMER, HOOPS

H` FINAL ORDER OF DELINQUENCY BRIEF DUE 43

NLT 11/24/2025

I MEMORANDUM OF DECISION FROM TRIAL COURT 45

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION OBTAINED FROM

WESTLAW IN AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER 2024

J VARIOUS EFFORTS REQUESTING ENFORCEMENT 57

*AFFIDAVIT REGARDING SECTION 8 CONTRACT

*BREACH OF CONTRACT  *FAILURE TO INSPECT

*PRIOR RESIDENCE WAS 564 PROSPECT, NOT 38 ARCH STREET AS NEFARIOUSLY FRAUDED ON SECTION 8 DOCUMENTS: TUDOR TERRACE/COLONIAL FOUNTAIN MANAGEMENT WAS LANDLORD

*VIOLENT BREAK-IN OF APARTMENT WHEN

TENANT-APPELLANT WAS TAKING A BATH   

*NUMEROUS ILLEGAL ENTRIES - VANDALISM, THEFT

THIS IS NOT ALL OF THE COMMUNICATIONS, SPANNING

OVER 13 YEARS.

K AFFIDAVIT AND SECTION 8 WORKSHEET 89

RENT DOCUMENTED AS $171./MONTH

L PRETERMINATION NOTICE - AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN 92

ADVANCE - AFFIDAVIT - PLAINTIFF’S PRELIM STATEMENT-ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS  

M CARES ACT FORM; THERE IS NO CARES ACT 115

N HOUSING COMPLAINT, INITIAL DOCUMENTS 118

CHIEF CLERK REJECTED SEP 27 DOCUMENTS

O SECTION 8 HAP, LEASE ADDENDUM, ETC. 131

DUPLICATION OF APPENDIX T IN AC48452

P EXHIBITS OF TRIAL 188

Q TRANSCRIPT OF OCTOBER 31, 2024 AC48452 214

R TRANSCRIPT OF DECEMBER 3, 2024 229

S TRANSCRIPT OF JANUARY 13, 2025 257

T BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU COMPLAINT 334

#20806940  11/9/2023

U COMPLAINT ON 340

HOMELAND SECURITY CONTRACTORS-THEFT

V PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF ISSUES 347

LAST PAGE………………………………………………………………. 349