AC48452 BRADLEY V ANSONIA STATE STREET RESP BRIEF OF APPELLANT
LINK TO THIS BLOGPOST:
https://publiusroots.blogspot.com/2026/03/ac48452-bradley-v-ansonia-state-street.html
BRIEF DID NOT NEED APPENDIX
FILED UNDER THE ELECTRONIC BRIEFING RULES WITH EXCEPTION TO DEVIATE GRANTED BY THE COURT
APPELLATE COURT
OF THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
APPEAL NO A.C. 48452
ANNE M. BRADLEY
VS
ANSONIA STATE STREET, ET AL
BRIEF OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
BY THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, PRO SE
ANNE M BRADLEY
PO BOX 206514
NEW HAVEN, CT 206514
PHONE: 203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024
To Be Argued By: TOTAL WORDS IN TEXT: 6,308
Anne Bradley, Pro Se
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………2
I APPELLEE RESPONSE IS NOT LEGITAMATE………….….2
II COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FICTITIOUS ISSUE…………...3
III THERE ARE EIGHT NON-APPEARING DEFENDANTS..…17
IV ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………19
A. APPELLEE FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUES ON THE HOUSING COMPLAINT
a) Appellee may only represent Housing Authority issues..19
B. CONDUCT WHICH IMPEDES JUSTICE
a) BY THE TRIAL COURT………………………………19
1. Judge Alayna Stone did not preside at hearing of October 31, 2024 yet ruled on it……………....19
a) There is no Memorandum of Law……..…19
b) Motion to Open simultaneously denied with fee waiver granted………………………..…..20
c) Trial Judge’s Juris No. Doesn’t exist.……20
2. Lack of Due Process…………………..………20
V CONCLUSION………………………………………..…………21
VI CERTIFICATION…………………………………..……………24
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Reference Appellant’s Brief, Pages 5-6
I APPELLEE RESPONSE IS NOT LEGITAMATE
1. The appellee failed to enter a timely response brief
2. The appellee failed to motion to enter a timely response brief
3. The appellee failed to enter anything, yet the court ruled that the appellee may file a late brief if done within two weeks from its filing a defective pleading based on a Court Rule which REQUIRES them to enter something which would be rejected. This is judicial malpractice to allow the appellee to enter a late brief, rather than administer the law as it is supposed to do!
4. The appellee failed to appear at the hearing on October 31, 2024.
5. The appellee failed to Answer the Complaint
6. The Court determined the case had merit and approved the fee waiver along with the complaint with an Appendix of at least 245 pages. Though the court uses cyber crime to alter records, including the docket, at least the Tenancy Adendum is in the Appendix of the Complaint. (pages 190-193) The Tenancy Adendum is NOT reflecting a project-based contract. The appellee lies about 360 State Street being a Section 8 project. They play “musical apartments” which is NOT ALLOWED in project-based apartments since HUD reimburses them for repairs.
7. Trial judge is obligated to default the case when failure to Answer Complaint occurs. They did not do that. Instead, they docketed the case PAST THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF TWO WEEKS. After default ruling, the court is required to rule in plaintiff’s favor or hold a hearing in order to rule on the merits of the case. NEITHER WERE DONE! The judge was probably not even a judge; she impersonated Alayna Stone who is also probably not even an attorney. Her Juris number does not exist in the Juris Lookup! Her name does not pull up a Juris number! Merit is like probable cause. This case has a great amount of merit yet the court allowed a fraud impersonating Alayna Stone hold a hearing. The court allowed a fraud claiming he was Attorney Peter Hoops, when he was obviously his grandson and not an attorney. Juris number is pro hac vice. Appearance was also altered after they uploaded it, which reflects cyber crime. Chief Clerk Attorney Pitt claimed “they are commissioners of the court. They can upload when and what they want” seems false; it is illegal, and reflects ABUSE OF PROCESS. The appellate court should have noticed this like a black eye. It is concerning that Elizabeth Bozzuto, Administrative Judge, abused power and influence within the court system, since 360 State Street was developed and owned by the Bozzutos in reality.
II COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FICTITIOUS ISSUE
1. There is no statement of issue listed reflecting the counterstatement. In fact, Appellant claims this is deliberate by the Appellee since it fails to cite the Issue Number - because there is no Issue Number.
2. Below is what was submitted on the brief
A. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF ISSUES PROVIDED
Note, there was no preargument conference or any hearing en banc, or diligence shown by the Appellees, which therefore
causes the Appellant to remain with Preliminary Statement of Issues, as revised on 2/15/2025
as submitted to the court on record
Appendix X
1. Whether the Court was following legitamate Rules of Court, Order of Process, ensuring accuracy of records, and refusing to provide articulation of its rulings; which impedes justice.
2. Whether the Court failed to validate records submitted, foregoing the proof of rent was paid for August and September, and other matters, which again, impedes justice with its irregular and improper description of the case.
3. Whether the Court had a right to go outside SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION since the NOTICE TO QUIT claimed nonpayment of rent for August and September 2024, with no letter on arrearage, and for emphasis, failing to abide by HUD laws for Section 8 tenant.
4. Whether Judge Alayna Stone had any legal right to hear referred EVICTION (AC 48416) after October 31, 2024, in which she allowed a woman who appeared to be in her 60’s to impersonate her as the presiding judge, and a young man impersonated (who was probably his father, Attorney Peter Hoops) whose appearance was also illegal for other reasons, and argue a motion he did not write.
5. Whether the dismissal of aforesaid case without even issuing a proper judgment on record; and failing to fully litigate the case on other matters, including not hearing all motions, also impedes justice for the Appellant-Plaintiff.
6. Whether the court may permit the rent payments into court for $198, (Appendix D, Brief of Appellant) reject the Plaintiff’s Motion to Pay Rent Into Court as a perceived tactic, and later in associated EVICTION case, require a higher amount of rent to pay in court and literally skip over January and February rent despite the landlord-defendant receiving subsidies for those months - was at all proper or consistant with Due Process of Law.
7. Whether the Court may rule on a Motion To Dismiss when none of the Defendants ANSWERED the complaint as required by law, and defaulting again by not appearing at the October 31 hearing.
8. Whether the Court may ignore the defaults of the defendants and rule in their behalf when they did nothing on this case except allow fraud and illegal appearance of the Appellee-Defendant who was not even an attorney.
B. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF LISTED DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES as shown on the docket including the Plaintiff
a) LIVABLE CITY INITIATIVE
i. ENTERED AS SELF-REP YET NO MUNICIPALITY MAY BE PRO SE
b) ANSONIA STATE STREET, LLC
i. JURIS 428410 LANGHAMMER LAW OFFICE
ii. JURIS 424021 HOOPS & ASSOC
c) BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY
i. NOTHING ON RECORD
d) 360 STATE STREET, INC.
i. JURIS 434021 HOOPS & ASSOC
1. THEIR APPEARANCE WAS WRONGFULLY ALTERED TWICE. THIS COMPANY WAS DISSOLVED ACCORDING TO SECRETARY OF STATE. IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A RETAINER FOR.
e) SOUTH OXFORD, LLC
i. JURIS 424021 HOOPS & ASSOC
f) BEACHWOOD RESIDENTIAL
i. SHOULD BE BEACHWOLD RESIDENTIAL, AS TYPED ON THE $89 BILLION MORTGAGE - YET HOOPS & ASSOC ALSO SPELLED IT THIS WAY ON ALTERED APPEARANCE
ii. JURIS 424021 HOOPS & ASSOC
g) MEPT CHAPEL STREET
i. KNOWN AS “MEPT CHAPEL”
ii. NOTHING ON RECORD
h) ELM CITY COMMUNITIES
i. JURIS 034876 LTKE LAW OFFICE
1. 425029 MICHAEL ANTHONY LEONE OF LTKE LAW OFFICE
2. NO APPEARANCE BY MATTHEW POPILOWSKI OF LTKE LAW OFFICE
ii. JURIS 022801 BERCHAM & MOSES, PC
i) It is important to note that this appellee for Elm City Communities did not appose them being listed as a defendant in the Preliminary Documents.
j) This appellee, which failed to appear at the inept hearing of October 31, 2024 - was also listed as a defendant at trial court.
k) This appellee also identified itself as DEFENDANT in the only two objections which it ever acted upon.
l) Appellant requested trial court to correct the spelling of BEACHWOLD RESIDENTIAL, yet he refused and said it was no big deal. She apposed this yet she had no other recourse. The marshal’s return of service indicates its name to be BEACHWOLD. The Secretary of State’s business record indicated BEACHWOOD yet it was changed to BEACHWOLD after the business agents were served. BEACHWOLD is included in the $89 billion mortgage, which was included in the Complaint, yet the Appendix to the Complaint has been greatly altered on record. Reminder: all e-files of the Appellant, including the commercially-scanned Appendix to Complaint, were stolen by HOMELAND SECURITY contractors who apparently were under the payroll of AMERICAN SECURITY SERVICES, headquartered in Oklahoma. (Appellant’s complaint was issued right away and yet they did nothing. Their field office in Minnesota was also contacted and a typed letter along with the hand-written complaint were sent to them. Nothing was done. No response. Only more abuse occurred to the Appellant).
C. NO MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON TRIAL COURT RECORD - APPELLATE CLERK CONFIRMED IT IS NOT LISTED ON THE CASE
a) Appellant has called the case manager, Attorney Thomas, regarding the lack of Memorandum of Decision yet the case manager was not available today. MEMORANDUM OF LAW BY TRIAL COURT IS MANDATORY WHEN A PARTY APPEALS.
b) Appellant motioned the court for this and it was not acted upon.
D. APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO SUE A MUNICIPAL AGENCY
a) Cases exist in Westlaw, in which municipal agencies are sued!
E. BOTH LIVABLE CITY INITIATIVE AND ELM CITY COMMUNITIES WERE SERVED THE LAWSUIT BY MARSHAL
a) Neither party Answered, causing Default!
b) None of the defendants who were served Answered the Complaint. Two were DISSOLVED by the Secretary of State, and the altered record was backdated.
c) Chief Clerk told the Appellant she should not use the CONCORD Business Number and other identifying information on the Complaint. He said she cannot append to the form, which also seems as abuse of process, Appellant attached her original documents to the Appendix to the best of her ability. She also typed a detailed list of the documents and submitted that to the court prior to the service of the marshal. That typed list is gone. She could not reprint it before service by the marshal, due to it being deleted by cyber crime.
F. FAILURE OF APPELLEE FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY TO CITE ANY HOUSING CASES INVOLVING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
a) It is obvious this tactic is a Modus Operandi in the court system. Nevertheless, the Appellant emphasizes, her lease is a Section 8 Lease. The landlord’s lease cannot have anything which contradicts the Section 8 law. Numerous typed documents, including a Cease & Desist letter with a large appendix were submitted to the landlord as well as the housing authority - since the landlord cannot charge any on-site services to the tenant. This was clearly stated in the HUD laws, cited and also printed in the Cease & Desist letter. All of the appellant’s e-files have been stolen twice, both times worth hundreds of dollars. Once in NYC approximately 2018, and this past year at the federal building in New Haven, where the Social Security Office is located.
III COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FICTITIOUS FACTS
A. ACTUAL LAWSUIT AND COMPLAINT FORM WHICH APPELLEES WERE SERVED - NOTE APPENDIX OF AT LEAST 245 PAGES WAS ALSO ENTERED ALONG WITH THE FEE WAIVER FOR APPROVAL
a) Appellant paid Tyco Copy Center to scan in the complete appendix. Appellant wanted to print copies for each defendant from her home and meet the marshal at the courthouse to have them served - since the Chief Clerk REFUSED to allow the appellant to mail them out as a matter of right, to include requested return receipts sent to the court.
i. This tactic allowed each defendant to ignore the Complaint, which the Chief Clerk entered a return date on the same date he entered the payment, October 3, and also uploaded the case a week prior to it being served.
ii. Regarding the affiliated eviction case, which violated the court order to not issue a summary process while the case was open, and the court allowed it with a “catch me if you can” tactic, the return date (Appendix B, Page 5 of brief) was defective by the defendant on this case, Ansonia State Street, and for emphasis, it violated the court order to not issue a summary process while the housing complaint was pending.
1. Housing complaint may be submitted if the NOTICE TO QUIT was NOT VALID. That is the law. The first thing which the Appellant brought forth to the court was the INVALID NOTICE TO QUIT. The court accepted the complaint, allowed Appellant to pay rent into court, which was $198 (Exhibit B, Page 7-#107 on trial docket) and thus agreed that the Notice to Quit was not valid and that her rent portion for Section 8 was $198. Emphasis: statutory responsibilities of the chief clerk when processing cases; as well as the judicial responsibilties when granting fee waivers.
This is such elementary to their jobs - yet both the chief clerk and Alayna Stone, who Appellant does not recognize as a legitamate judge, deliberately violated their duties and abused process.
B. FALSE INFORMATION THAT “ELM CITY COMMUNITIES IS NOT LISTED AS A DEFENDANT”…THIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED CONTEMPT - PERJURY
a) Again, reminder: Municipal Agencies can be sued!
b) Elm City Communities has been listed as a defendant throughout the case and has not apposed its description as a party nor has it fulfilled its responsibilities as a defendant.
C. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
As relayed on the brief:
Housing Complaint Case NHH-CV24-5005875-5, submitted initially September 27, 2025, rejected; submitted and rectified according to the Chief Clerk’s requirements October 3, 2025, rejected, hand-written, approved, and uploaded as a case 5 days prior to service on defendants. Appellant-Plaintiff tried to pick up the approved Complaint at court to proceed with mailing certified with return receipt, The Chief Clerk said “no, this will be served by a marshal and I will make copies, you cannot make copies.” This caused a delay in service. On October 8, Tuesday, Appellant-Plaintiff submitted a replacement for Notice of Suit, (Brief, Appendix B, Pg 11) corrected the Appendix with a typed version of Inventory of Documents of Appendix of 245 pages, and another associated document to replace and correct defects. Chief Clerk would not accept them as replacements, saying the court approved the case with merit as it was when it approved the fee waiver, that he already uploaded the case on October 3, 2024 (with an inept return date of October 3, 2024) despite it not yet being served. Form JD-HM-19 was marked as “amended” ( Appendix D). Chief clerk assured her they would be served on the defendants with the “amended documents taking precedence”. Chief clerk uploaded the case a week prior to service. Marshal filed a proof of service (10/10/2024) 2 weeks after the defendants were served (10/24/2024) , charging the State of Connecticut on October 10, $2,849.36 just for delivering four complaint packets to one agent, Attorney Dan DeStefano, who was not even there despite her ability to call them beforehand. She also delivered two other local defendants, the City of New Haven’s Livable City Initiative and Elm City Communities which is the Housing Authority of New Haven. This may have taken a half hour. Additionally she went to Hartford and said that she had to give the Secretary of State the original set because they wanted a second copy. The marshal failed to ask Appellant-Plaintiff for her permission to give the original to the Secretary of State; and most certainly the Appellant-Plaintiff would have said no. Appellant-Plaintiff asked her why she did not give them her copy of the Complaint or go to a nearby copy service and make copies if it was even true the Secretary of State had to get another copy and had to be paid $50, both of which seem unlawful. The marshal wouldn’t answer and had no law or regulation she could cite to excuse her actions. She also went to East Hartford to deliver to an agent of a dissolved company, MEPT Chapel Street. The records indicated all companies listed were active, yet the Secretary of State backdated records indicating MEPT Chapel Street and 360 State Street, Inc (whose agent WAS a CPA by the last name of Saunders, whose office was closed, in the Fairfield, CT area for the firm Becker & Becker which claimed to own 360 State Street, Inc.) At Appendix N of the brief is Marshal’s Return of Service, delayed submission for two weeks, Motion for the Court to order the Marshal for Return of Service, and Timeline of Communications. On the same day she submitted the Motion for the Marshal to Return Service, October 23, Appellant-Plaintiff’s Preliminary Statement to Court’s Declaratory Judgment was stamped in. This is at Appendix M, Page 146 of the brief. The defendant Ansonia State Street served an illegal Summons on the Appellant-Plaintff on or about October 24, violating the court order on the Summons the court uploaded on October 3, and the marshal submitted a return date of October 10, 2024, which ordered them not to initiate any Summary Process. Rent was paid into court by the Appellant-Plaintiff. This reflects the court agreed that the rent was current. The court has the responsibility to validate what was presented before processing. Any defects in the form when a pro se party submits a form, is additionally a matter to be corrected by the court. Yet based on past experience with court tactics, Appellant requested both the lawsuit and the Housing Complaint form to be replaced since it had not been served yet. He refused and said it was required to amend it since he uploaded the case on the docket a week before it was even served. {Regarding the illicit eviction case, he uploaded it a week AFTER the defendant Ansonia State Street served it, which reflects more abuse of process.}
1. Appellee had opportunity to defend why the Housing Authority may break the law on USC 42-1437f yet failed to do so in its reply brief. The Housing Authority charged more for rent than lawfully required, since January 11, 2013 due to having a federal poverty level income which had not changed, and of which she had relayed in this housing complaint due to unlawful billing on the ledger:
a) USC 42 1437f states in part: The maximum monthly rent shall not exceed by more than 10 per cercentum the fair market value established by the Secretary periodically….
i. The fair market value of the Appellant’s apartment remains at $932, which is the same as when she began this Section 8 contract with the landlord. Ten percent of that is $93.20 and therefore she has paid twice as much as what she is required and though this has been brought up many times, to include request for hearing, the Housing Authority will do nothing. At one point they claimed that rent was “only for projects” which is not applicable to the law under Section 8. Yet what makes this even more absurd is the fact that they lied about the tenancy-based contract being a project-based - they just make up things that serve their wants.
2. Appellee had opportunity to respond to the caselaw cited in her brief and HUD Law regarding MANDATORY PRETERMINATION NOTICE yet there was no Pretermination Notice, nor did the Housing Authority allow a required and requested hearing. They only stated it was none of their business. A Pretermination notice does not terminate the lease like a Notice To Quit, contrary to what Alayna Stone, who failed to even preside at the hearing which lasted over an hour (yet transcript covered only about 20 minutes due to frauding of the recording) claimed a Notice To Quit was a Pretermination Notice in AC 48416 trial court. That is judicial malpractice. She deliberately failed also to issue a Memorandum of Law for this case despite the fact Appellant motioned for it even though it is a mandatory requirement. She issued an inept Memorandum of Law on AC48416, claiming, among other things, that the Lease of the Landlord was controlling lease (lie) and that it was a month to month, which was another lie since it was Section 8 contracted which renews every 2 years. The landlord continues to receive monthly payments to this day, March 23, 2026.
3. Appellee had opportunity to argue regarding Para 15 of the Tenancy Addendum, (Complaint Page 190-193) where it states Changes in Lease or Rent: MUST BE IN WRITING.
4. Appellee had opportunity to explain how Alayna Stone may determine in her mandatory Memorandum of Law for AC48416 this apartment was month to month even though it is Section 8 and why she failed to submit a mandatory Memo of Law when Appellant even motioned for it.
5. Appellee had opportunity to defend the Housing Authority’s ineptness on why no inspections were made on this apartment - except for one which was actually done around 2015. Not even an initial inspection took place; nor was the lock ever changed even though Appellant requested several times.
6. Appellee had opportunity to argue why the alleged landlord is considered the owner when they do not hold title to the property, yet they issue payments to this alleged landlord, Ansonia State Street, which purchased the property for only $160 million, when its value is at least $2.2 billion and they have an $89 billion mortgage --- all documents were included in the appendix to the complaint. Someone frauded the record!
7. Appellee had opportunity to argue why it continuously denied the Appellant hearings.
8. Appellee had opportunity to argue why it was okay with them to not receive the pretermination notice which is a federal requirement for Section 8 landlords to submit 30 days prior to issuing a Notice to Quit and thereafter, if it so chooses, to issue a Summons.
9. Appellee had opportunity to respond to the fact that the court order to not issue a summary process was violated by its client, Ansonia State Street, and argue why they did nothing about it and only said, “It’s none of our business”
10. Appellee had opportunity to explain why it continues to submit Section 8 payments to its client, Ansonia State Street, yet allows Hoops & Associates to claim that there is no Section 8 Contract and only submits the landlord-tenant lease as evidence at trial. The court already had the HAP contract as submitted by the Appellant. The trial reflected judicial misconduct.
11. Appellee had opportunity to explain why alleged judge Alayna Stone stated in the associated case, AC48416, in her Memorandum of Law, that the the Appellant was on a month-to-month tenancy for 12 years! This was a deliberate lie and obstruction of justice! The Memorandum of Law is in Trial Court case which was appealed just a few days from aforesaid case.
12. Appellee had opportunity to explain why Beverly Walton-Porter, Elm City Communities Director, was in the Business Search several times as a hired affiliate of for-profit properties, which were run/managed out of the same office, which violates her role as Director of non-profit Government Agency as HUD Housing Authority using the title of Elm City Communities.
13. Appellee had opportunity to explain why all of those records were removed from the busines directory in the past year.
14. Appellee had opportunity to explain why management were on the payroll of Bozzutos yet MEPT Chapel was listed as the owner in the Section 8 contract, which was never amended on the Section 8 contract with an addendum to indicate who the owner actually is after MEPT Dissolve
15. Appellee had opportunity to explain why 360 State Street was listed as the owner in the land records and why it was okay to quit claim it to 360 State Street for $1.
16. Appellee had opportunity to explain why this Housing Authority which it reprents does no validating or administering and why it only does what the Bozzutos want.
17. Appellee had opportunity to explain why Dragana LaCore uses different titles in the Section 8 paperwork: Agent, Assistant Property Manager, and General Manager
18. Appellee had opportunity to explain why the judge may increase rent from $198 to $264, when the actual last agreed upon rent was $171 and the legal rent to tenant should be $93.20; yet appellant had verbally agreed to the $198 despite the landlord failing to issue an addendum to the lease indicating her rent portion had been increased to and also require Appellant’s signature. This was typical deliberate failure to follow laws or regulations.
19. Appellee had opportunity to address any of the many communications sent to Elm City Communities to no avail, and why they considered it right for them to deliberately mail a recertification packet to the wrong address November 2025, have it returned, and not even contact the Appellant to pick it up or correct her address on record. Thereafter, they were able to secretly rig an inept discontinuation of the contract, which Appellant had only a few days to act upon when she hand-delivered a court document to their office. The representative at the front desk informed her of this. No one called her.
III THERE ARE EIGHT NON-APPEARING DEFENDANTS
A. ALL FAILED TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT: DEFAULT #1
a) The Secretary of State altered records on a few of these
i. Backdated Dissolved on MEPT Chapel, Inc. (they claimed to be part of the church community, having numerous Satanic displays in the building)
1. The agent had responsibility to claim on record that MEPT Chapel, LLC was dissolved - yet the agent did nothing. The marshal stated nothing. It was AFTER this that the Secretary of State backdated the record and marked it as DISSOLVED. Since the Secretary of State oddly claimed to be the agent of service for Bozzutos, they were well aware of this case most likely when the chief clerk uploaded it on the docket! There is no doubt in the Appellant’s mind that they were notified by the court, particularly since Elizabeth Bozzuto was not allowing Appellant to be exempt from filing electronically, requiring her to establish an e-services account for this purpose.
ii. Backdated DISSOLVED 360 State Street, Inc.
1. This circumstance was a Modus Operandi of the Bozzuto Company.
iii. The court accepted all defendants as part of the case, rather than validate them as existing companies, and more.
1. BEACHWOOD RESIDENTIAL was actually BEACHWOLD RESIDENTIAL. The Secretary of State altered the record. Appellant requested the marshal to correct the spelling since she made no effort after she delivered the lawsuit complaint packet to the agent of service. Who should have informed her they were dissolved. No change in the Section 8 contract was made and therefore there was no owner of record for a period of time! Who was paid by the Housing Authority?
B. APPELLEE FOR ELM CITY COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AUTHORITY, NEITHER ENTERED ANY RESPONSE TO THE PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTS - NOR OBJECTED TO BEING A DEFENDANT; EVEN REFERRING ITSELF AS A DEFENDANT -APPELLEE IN ITS ONLY 2 OBJECTIONS FOR SUBPEONA AND PRELIMINARY MOTION FOR MOTION FOR JUDGMENT FOR APPELLANT ON THIS APPEAL CASE
a) Though their documents are right on record, it is apparantly not significant to either Trial or Appellate Court; giving precedence to the wants of Elizabeth Bozzuto, et al. - who has recently resigned and no doubt will enoy a generous pension for the rest of her life despite using the position as abuse of power.
i. Appellant was refused to receive exemption from e-filing due to her computer being hacked on a continous basis; due to the fact she was disabled and had a hard time standing for more than 15 minutes, due to the fact her personal items are frequently stolen when she uses the computer at the Housing Court because they have no security video in that area, due to the fact that her documents have been altered on that computer, including case numbers etc; by hackers - who most likely work for Microsoft since Microsoft hacked her laptop; and there were more reasons. One of Judge Bozzuto’s powers was over the E-Services Unit.
ii. Appellant was refused to remove Alayna Stone from the case.
iii. Appellant was refused to have the case transferred due to obstruction of justice in the trial court.
C. Attorney Leone is at the LTKE Law firm. It is seems improper for him to use two Juris Numbers, particuhelarly since he apparently has partnership elsewhere also. It is also not consistent with his appearance. The court is required to base juris numbers on the appearances submitted.
D. The attorney who submitted its untimely brief, which should have been rejected, is also with LTKE Law Firm yet the juris number he used is not even listed on the case. His name is Matthew Popilowski and he uses Juris Number 429403. There is no appearance by him. This is ALSO a reason to reject the untimely response brief.
IV ARGUMENTS
A. APPELLEE FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUES ON THE HOUSING COMPLAINT
b) Appellee may only represent Housing Authority issues
i. Emphasis that the Appellee had no legal right to issue a late brief , and thus abuses the process since its brief is self-incriminating and thus will get thrown out since it failed to motion to accept a late brief. It is like a wild-card in court; typical Devil’s Chessboard tricks rather than justice.
B. CONDUCT WHICH IMPEDES JUSTICE
c) BY THE TRIAL COURT
1. JUDGE ALAYNA STONE DID NOT PRESIDE AT HEARING OF OCTOBER 31, 2024
a) THERE IS NO MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON RECORD, THOUGH APPELLANT EVEN MOTIONED FOR IT SINCE IT FAILED TO ISSUE ONE IN ACCORDANCE TO COURT RULES
b) Motion To Open was simultaneously denied when fee waiver was granted.
i. HEARING ON MOTION TO OPEN IS REQUIRED
ii. ANY MOTION HAS TO BE HEARD, WITH OTHER PARTY OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE
c) Trial judge’s juris number doesn’t exist in the Juris System.
i. Alayna Stone is either a paid actor/transhuman, or she is a very incompentent attorney who has complete disregard for the law and most likely is microchipped by a party which has no appearance and is telling her what to say and do.
ii. Juris Lookup online includes Juris numbers of judges.
2. DUE PROCESS WAS NOT ADMINISTERED
i. The Complaint process was not administered.
1. Fraudulent appearances
2. Numerous Defaults
3. Judge was impersonated
V. CONCLUSION
Appellant Anne Bradley has specified that reason for this appeal is due to the inept denial of Motion To Open. She never filed a DIRECT APPEAL. Someone in the Appellate Court committed fraud. There was not even an appeal form entered. She is a Pro Se, and thus subjected to continuous “catch me if you can’ dynamics in the court, which reflect the court’s failure to administer the law. Alayna Stone was not even at the hearing. A woman 20 years older than her was claiming to be her. The housing mediator claimed it was mandatory for the Appellant to meet with her. Appellant said, “My case is docketed for now. I don’t want to miss my case and why would I mediate when they had not even Answered my Complaint?” The young man claimed he was Attorney Peter Hoops and the mediator could have cared less about his lying because she lied too - claiming the case was marked off for that day - despite already being past the required two weeks to schedule. The meeting was immensely unproductive. The mediator could have cared less about the abuses of the landlord, that the building is valued at $2.2 billion, this new “landlord” claims to be the owner by purchasing it immensley undervalue, for $160 million, having only a Limited Warantee Deed and not the Title, and none of that mattered. She did not even understand who, what, and why to validate information. She only wanted to force the Appellant to pay money she did not owe them and she was seeking to be paid what they owed her for their numerous violations of the Section 8 contract - all of which the Housing Authority, Elm City Communities, claimed was “none of our business”. The complaint was explicit. The Predeterimation Notice was explicit; yet it was submitted in Trial Court on the pretense that it may be updated with additional charges upon the granting of this case in her favor. The case was instead a crap-show! No Answers, frauded records, a woman who impersonated Alayna Stone, and not even an attorney who appeared on the case - and thereafter Hoops & Associates violated the court order that they could not issue a Summary Process as the case was pending! It was a complete reflection of lawlessness and was no surprise that the recording of the hearing was more lawlessness! Just listen to it! Maybe they altered the voice of the young man also - yet the real Attorney Peter Hoops entered the BAR in 1987 - which also did not matter to this appellee, Elm City Communities, who did not even appear on the trial court hearing, which reflected failure of Due Process of Law and so many other deliberate violations of the law. What does it take to get justice in this state? The Memorandum of Law begins at page 86 of Brief. The appellee Hoops & Associates even states that they are required to file their complaint with the municipal agency - they did not, nor did they serve the Appellant a Pretermination Letter as required! Neither Livable City Initiative nor Elm City Communities would ensure the Appellant’s rights as a Section 8 tenant who always paid her rent timely, she should not have even had to file a brief. The evidence on the Trial Court record proves how unjust this case was administered and the deliberate disobediance by the Appellees. Appellant does not consider this at all any pleasant circumstance! Particularly since Ansonia State Street (owned by Gideon Friedman) had the maintenance manager violently broke down her door when she was taking a bath and despite her loud screams, they did nothing. She was only fortunate to know that most likely the FBI agent she had kept in contact with until the FBI removed his phone number - saw her comment on her blogpost, that she was in danger and the maintenance supervisor was smashing in her door! They enjoyed this escapade so much that they would not even fix the damaged locks inside! Appellant Anne Bradley had to rest for weeks from this trauma. Thereafter Elm City Communities advertised they were providing help to women, referring to “Violence Against Women” as a cover for their complete disregard over what was done to Appellant and additional “reason” to continue illegally enter her apartment and vandalize it. In fact, that occurred on July 2, 2024. It was September 2024 when they shocked her with a Notice To Quit. - backdated to September 12, yet wedged in her door like it was a bomb on or about September 18, which was the birthday of one of her sisters, who had died. They like to make satanic rituals of the harm they cause, the laws they break. They spy on everything she does and that includes her phone and laptop - her Dell laptop was destroyed by cyber crime and she had to purchase a new one months later when she could afford one on sale, which is an HP - which approximately 4-6 weeks ago stopped the Microsoft Contract due to breaches by Microsoft. Everything is established that the Appellant is the victim on a continuous basis. Legal consequences of just one illegal entry are severe. Yet despite the fact that Elm City Communities did not ensure her lock was changed in the apartment which was always used for sex and drug parties, they not only failed to ensure this basic requirement, they failed to even have an intitial inspection and caused a great loss to the already poor Appellant. The Colonial Fountain Management (owners of Tudor Terrace at 564 Prospect Street) refused to give her back her deposit, vandalizing her apartment through illegal entry and also claiming if she did not move out when she said she would be out, she would not get her deposit back. Appellant was contacted by Elm City Communities only 3 days before her move-out date. She was cheated by people she paid to help her, and the Budget Truck company did not provide her a ramp for the 17 foot truck which she rented on that Friday. They have done so much harm to her over 13 years. The BBB Complaint which she meticulously submitted only resulted in Attorney Mike Bozzutto sending a letter out to tenants that he would no longer be the managing company, MANAGING? They owned the building. Their quit claims were illegal! MEPT Chapel DISSOLVED and the Secretary of State backdated it to before Ansonia State Street AQUIRED the building. So who owns the building? The seller was fraudulent on the Deed; the deed was limited and they have no right to sell the property. This was not even argued by the Appellee for Elm City Communities, which is obligated to make LEGAL transactions and contracts! Nor did they even have the required complaint from the Section 8 landlord, represented by Hoops & Associates. Nothing was said to create a remedy; instead, they cover everything up!
VI. CERTIFICATION
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 on March 23, 2026, to each counsel of record in compliance with Section 62-7.
Lloyd L. Langhammer
JURIS NO. Is oddly different than AC 48416 appearance
LAW OFFICES OF LLOYD L. LANGHAMMER, LLC
18A Granite Street
New London, CT 06320
860-440-3340
LTKE LAW OFFICES
52 Trumbull Street
New Haven, CT 06510
203-787-0275
Fax: 203-401-3343
Bercham Moses
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
FAX: 203-878-2235
info@bmdlaw.com email on appearance was not revised and does not go through: lstilson@berchmoses.com
HOOPS & ASSOCIATES
19A THAMES STREET
GROTON, CT 06340
PHONE: 860-445-8911
FAX: 860-445-8919
Email on appearance of Summons (AC48416) does not go through
(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 response brief complies with all provisions of 67-2A;
(4) The response 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 6,308 words; and
(6) Deviation from hyperlinks and bookmarks were granted for this case.
Anne M. Bradley
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024____
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
|
Comments