AC48452 - STATEMENT FOR ARGUMENT
Link to this blogpost: https://publiusroots.blogspot.com/2026/05/ac48452-statement-for-argument.html
DRAFT FORM * DRAFT FORM
AC 48452
NHH-CV24-5006875-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANNE BRADLEY : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, LLC, et al : May 25, 2026
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT
JUNE 1, 2026
1. It is necessary to clarify argument on certain circumstances due the following primary matters I will do this throughout this Argument on June 1, 2026 in which all of the Appellees on this case and the associated case , AC48416, are permitted by the court not to attend even though it is supposed to be a legal requirement. A contributing factor is that the Appellate Court issued a ruling to Appellees that they have two weeks to correct a document which had not even been uploaded on the case and a violation of the Practice Book Rule with regards to allowing two weeks to submit a correction, which ineptly gave time to submit response briefs to my brief. Only one responded, who represented Elm City Communities/aka Housing Authority. The response was in essence, foolish. The other appearing attorneys only claimed they would not be responding or just not respond which is additional proof of how greatly lacking in administering the law, abuse of Due Process, which the trial court was only ‘good’ at in my opinion.
2. I realize the Judges who preside here may stop me in order to say something to me as a matter of practice, since I have seen a few cases in person. I hope to have time to listen to a few as well, yet it is very difficult to access wifi in my apartment and I can only do it for short periods since I have to be standing up by my entrance door, which is the only means of egress to my apartment. It is hard on my legs and if there is an emergency, I must be able to leave if the fire alarm does not go off. They are always a false alarm so far, for 13 years - except for when someone lights a fire in the trash can they keep near the the alarm system apparently on the first floor of the building, as explained by one of the maintenance crew in 2014. This fire occurs sporadically,
3. MOTION TO OPEN JUDGMENT IS PURSUANT TO THE SAME LAWS AS MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT yet the court uses separate forms which I was unaware of. I searched on the the court computer for this. I prepared JD-CV-51; and yet it may have been JD-CV-107 which should have been submitted yet I was not told. I had previously motioned for change of venue, removal of Alayna Stone, due to deliberate lack of Due Process. I had no trial-Alayna Stone was not even at the hearing. Someone else was impersonating her! Yet apparently JD-CV-107 is not only for vacating jtudgment yet asking for a new trial. Who views these motions? Elizabeth Bozzuto (who was recently replaced) Does the trial court? How is that justice when the trial court is what caused LACK OF DUE PROCESS, and so much more to deprive my rights. Though JD-CV-107 is a CIVIL MATTER,
a) what AI Overview pulls up are criminal convictions requesting vacating judgment. AI Overview is nothing more than malware which Donald Trump hijacked onto Google Chrome - obviously using blackmailing threats, “Do it or else”. It was created by Mark Zuckerburg, who is really Robert T Morris, who distributed the Morris Worm in 1989, to destroy tens of thousands of computers except for Apple devices - just before the Soviet Union was economically crushed by USA - after Coling Powell was ordered to leave his command of 60,000 troops by Ronald Reagan and yet forced to retain the title of Commanding General, and also forced to be the NSA. Colin Powell publishued he was receiving two paychecks and basically scratching his head, and also having to visit his son who was a Captain at that post because he was almost killed by a jeep that the driver lost control over. I told then-General/NSA Powell that they probably cut the brakes to the jeep. Based on my experience, which they most likely cut the brakes to my vehicle when a 20-ton sander truck slammed into me. My then-attorney, who my mother retained without conferring with my father, tormented me, saying, “Why didn’t you get out of his way? It was a sunny day out and the roads were bare!” I said, “Why was he out on the road, and I know he was working a second shift and I was told by one of the rescuers that he deliberately went to the yard to fill the truck up all the way with sand? Was he trying to kill me?” A state trooper had told me he was issued a ticket and my attorney Frederick Kendall must have thrown it out. Additionally, at the first and only pretrial hearing the driver who almost killed me was there and began laughing/smirking and I got angry and asked him if he was trying to kill me - and my attorney told me to shut up, defending the driver who almost tried to kill me rather than represent me. And they fraudulently used insurance that had to do with machinery, not vehicles, applying the No-Fault law despite the fact the insurance report indicated it was At-Fault. I did not get those records for many years. My father did for me. He knew that was the case. The attorney frauded me, abused power, and enjoyed every minute of it and thereafter I had always been cheated by attorneys on the East Coast. And that includes the son of Judge Bruce Levin, who had no right to preside over a trial by jury over a case that only involved a misdemeanor I was not even guilty of. This was their revenge when Prosecutor Lawrence Mark Hurley got caught for forging checks right there at the courthouse. Everyone was silent about it and obviously rewarded, including Kevin Lawlor. The state police motioned to audit more years and were denied by the judge, who changed over 100 counts of embezzlement to one count forgery and one count larceny - which were misdemeanors. He was there for 19 years and obviously stole a whole lot more, enriching himself and others and who knows what else since he had a chemical that could remove ink and removed signatures on the checks and no doubt frauded records in the courthouse. The professional State Troopers were leaving their jobs. And it is now a situation that the law does not matter as an everyday occurrence from what I see. I am targeted. They wanted me to die because I called a stalking sex trafficker he was pig and to leave me alone. They erected a restaurant named Pig’s Ear right where he tried to kill me. But this will be made a movie out of after a successful “soft murder” of me - probable poisoning me or causing another “accident” that is this time fool-proof. And the ones who profit are the same ones who corrupt this country. After all, we have a free country, which is one where certain lawless people can do what they want when they want if they have the money. Reward the lawless - that number of lawless people has greatly increased due to the lawless technocracy - abusing power, perverting the law, frauding the truth. Targeting innocent people like myself, because I believe in doing an honest job. I consider war a crime. I consider war just a means to reduce the population and profit for the elites. The highest casualty rate at the Kuwait INVASION, which neither Colin Powell or Norman Schwarzkopf agreed to yet dutifully followed the Commander In Chief Orders, was Americans killing Americans. A bomber pilot hit the Division Artillery barracks - because his plane was calibrated for that. Obviously a deliberate act of mass murder. GHW Bush was President. It was not like the bomb missed the target or went in a field somewhere. It was specifically aimed at the 10th Mountain Division Field Artillery barracks and that was the highest casualty loss which both Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf made sure the military knew exactly what happened so the elites could not use it as a means for more war, blaming the Middle East. Both Norman Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell had untimely deaths! Healthy one day, and sick the next. And Yes, September 11 was one which they achieved that for a while, and yet this society learned the truth and for the most part can’t handle it. What does that say about our government’s structure? It is a plutocracy, it is allowing NAZISM to rule; it is an aristocrocy; it is socialism - take your pick.
4. Attorneys who appear on a case, particularly Appellate Matter, are legally obligated to show diligence, yet in this case as well as AC48416, they have not done so! The least they could have done ethically was to agree to a settlement outside of court yet they showed no interest in that. The least they could have done in AC48416 is to drop their illegal eviction case. Yet they showed no interest in that. Their spinning on false information even when it was immediately proven they were lying, made no difference to the court. In both cases, it was an Ends Justifies the Means approach. Nothing reflective of administering the law.
a) Trial Court failed to issue DEFAULT on the defendants since they failed to Answer the Complaint.
b) Trial Court failed to issue DEFAULT on the City of New Haven’s Livable City Initiative Department since they did not file an appearance yet the chief clerk frauded the case indicating they were self-representing without complying with its own rules and laws.
c) Trial Court failed to validate the existence of defendants, the altering of records by the Secretary of State, and also defending the marshal for giving the Secretary of State the original complaint without my permission, when she could have just given them her copy.
i. It is my opinion I was lied to about the Secretary of State requiring two copies and also that the marshal said she had to give the Secretary of State $50 with no cited law indicating that was a requirement either. I apposed this in my pleadings and nothing was done.
ii. The only motive was an Ends Justifies Means. Get me evicted and all these crimes the court has committed will go away because the higher court will say it is moot! They have done this to me before! Yet in 2019 they did not get away with it due to the intervention of one or more government officials who cared about administering the law. That is why the trial court judge stated a voluminous inept Memorandum of Law, because he was disrupted in stating I owed almost $14,000 on the ledger only. They failed to state what I owed. They failed to issue a Pretermination Notice. The Housing Authority failed to allow a hearing though I requested it when I was served an illegal notice to quit in 2019, which I did not have to e-file!
iii. In this case, they again broke the laws and rules and yet the Appellate Court sees all this. I wonder why I, as a Pro Se, even had to file briefs - everything was issued in my 246 paged Appendix, including the Opinion of comprising of 8 pages from 2019, which I also typed/itemized along with submitting corrected forms due to deliberate defective information caused by the chief clerk, obviously serving Elizabeth Bozzuto’s wants. The Appendix was frauded, and the Secretary of State frauded my Complaint by keeping the original! If they just spent their time in complying and administering the law, this state would not be in such a bankrupted economic circumstance!
5. The Appellate Court has the power to overturn a trial ruling on motion that this case be treated as an appeal, including the Motion For Extension Of Tine to Appeal, since trial court had no legal right to rule on it since the Appellate Court uploaded a Docket and Case yet failed to upload the Appeal Document. The Appellate Court has the power to dismiss a Motion To Open by Pro Se, due to the Abuse of Procedure by the trial court, as explained in this argument. First, the Appellate Court may issue its own motion at any time of the appeal. That is part of the Appellate Process. Cases have been disposed of prior to briefing. Second, the Appellate Court claims it may use its own descretion over the lower court, which is the trial court. A trial court may not have any right to DICTATE to the Appellate Court. It is a lower court. Not a partner. The Appellate Court is required to OVERSEE its operations. That is why the judges get paid more money.
6. Attorney’s Oath has been relayed in full in my brief.
a) Doesn’t the Appellate Court have a duty to acknowledge fraudulent activity of the trial court? Whether the Court treats this case as an appeal or a Motion To Open - the Attorney’s Oath remains the same. I do not know what the Judicial Oath states because the state fails to publish it the last time I checked. I checked several times throughout the course of my appeal.
i. There is nothing to prove that Alayna Stone is an attorney and she has no valid juris number, which I looked up based on her reference on her orders. Alayna Stone allowed fake attorneys to represent Hoops & Associates. Alayna Stone was appointed as Housing Judge by either the Governor of Connectict, with advice by Elizabeth Bozzuto, or by Elizabeth Bozzuto herself.
ii. Hoops & Associates was represented by frauds who both claimed they were Attorney Peter Hoops when neither were attorneys. I addressed this fraud in person in court as well as in the documents I submitted. No one near the age of 70 appeared as Peter Hoops, who entered the BAR in 1987.
iii. Can the Appellate Court use an Appeal of Motion to Open as reason to deprive this greatly harmed Appellant’s rights? Limiting its own jurisdiction, when in fact the Appellate Court may issue its own motion rather than give me the impression of “Catch me if you can” when I am not even an attorney or paralegal? Additionally, I have relayed most of the harm done to me by submitting the Statement of Damages, which I am modifying or have modified and uploaded as a Motion For Judicial Notice by the time this Oral Argument is read on June 1, 2026.
iv. Does the Appellate Court not notice that no response or objections to my Preliminary Documents were issued? And that would include the untimely appearances of more nondiligent Appellees on this case AFTER the Docket was submitted to the court with no request to revise it. Why does the Appellee even have a right to add more attorneys after the Docket is issued without at least entering a motion to accept?
v. Can’t the Appellate Court overturn the trial court’s abusive denial of Motion For Extension of Time to Appeal since the trial court nefariously ruled on it, fully knowing it should be submitted to the Appellate Court since the Appellate Court created an Appeal File Number yet failed to upload the appeal form which may or may not exist since: 1) The trial court may have taken the original and claimed they submitted it to the Appellate Court along with the granted fee waiver; or 2) The trial court chief clerk may have ordered the Appellant not to submit an appeal document, lying about it not being required (Note: When Appellant appealed AC48416, both appeal document and fee waiver were submitted simultaneously AS REQUIRED). Abuse of Procedure is common practice, to include fraudulent activity such as uploading a motion on the wrong case, then blaming someone else for it. ie, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reargue dated January 23, 2025, for prior Housing Complaint Case titled Anne Bradley v Ansonia State Street, et al - which the court docketed as 133.00 on the wrong case at some point in time)
vi. Is the trial court not committing fraud and/or illegal activities such as rejecting a completely legal motion, prepared on a court form (Stay of Execution) Yet uploaded on the case, which means it is required to be heard, since rejected documents are supposed to be returned without a date stamp? (This lack of due process, abuse of process, and deliberately breaking rules of court and laws is consistent in both cases)
b) Is a Memorandum of Law required when a Motion to Open is Denied?
i. Isn’t a Motion To Open supposed to be heard before it is denied?
ii. Aren’t all motions submitted supposed to be heard or rejected and not placed on the Docket?
iii. The motion which was submitted in court on September 16, 2025, was for a Memorandum of Law on the case. There was no Memorandun of Law. The Chief Clerk claimed that an order was sufficient - namely the order of Denied on Motion To Open - which is not true and he knows better. There was no Memorandum of Law by the court on the Motion To Dismiss. And certainly, it would be interesting how Alayna Stone could issue one when she was not even at the hearing of October 31, 2026.
c) Is it not consistently a requirement to submit the accompanying document for which a fee waiver is requested? (namely in this case, the Complaint, the Motion To Open, the Direct Appeal of Dismissal, and Appeal of Denial of Motion To Open)
d) When was the Memorandum of Law on the Dismissal of the Case really issued for record purposes, to satisfy Rules of Court; namely in this matter Pursuant to PB 64-1?
i. There was no Memorandum of Law on the case when I motioned the court for a Memorandum of Law on Dismissal Pursuant to PB 64-1 on September 16, 2025 - a year after I originally submitted my Housing Complaint to the Housing Court of New Haven, whose Chief Clerk, William Pitt, emphasized he was the Chief Housing Clerk for the State of Connecticut as well. His boss was Elizabeth Bozzuto until she retired and was replaced only recently in the past 4 months. The Court’s response to my Motion For Memorandum of Law on Dismissal and/or Denial of Motion To Open in order to appeal was the Trial Court referencing an order only: in Document 138.10 of Trial Court Case NHH-CV24-5006875-S was sufficient. Notice the Memorandum of Law by ONE of the non-appearing Appellees is at Document 115.00 - which is dated PRIOR to the hearing of October 31, 2024, which was when the Motion to Dismiss was heard. As inept as the transcript is due to the frauded recording of the hearing, it is quite clear that that the court marked that hearing for Motion To Dismiss, completely evading its duty to hear the Complaint first. Additionally failing to issue its own Memorandum of Law, as required by PB 64-1, and thus inferring - that this inept Memorandum of Law, which I motioned to strike so they would issue a coherent and lawfully structured one for me to respond to - is inferred as agreed upon by the court. That inference is only a matter of framing the court; not indicating in any way that the trial court’s wrongdoing of deliberately not issuing a Memorandum was at all proper or even legitamate. Yet the Appellate Court has done nothing to ensure the trial court complies. This, along with a number of deliberate illegalities as brought forth to the trial court would all be common sense by the judges to rule in its own motion in my favor. The record is frauded at the will of certain officials who abuse power. Additionally, Alayna Stone failed to admit that she had not even presided over the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss which was marked at her will. Though I should have a right to waive any housing mediation, I was told by the mediator, a non-attorney, that the case would be dismissed if I did not attend the mediation. Additionally, she claimed that Alayna Stone marked the case off which another lie. The Housing Court office assured Appellant the case was not marked off. So I attended the inept housing mediation and referred to it at the hearing, emphasizing that the mediator obviously wanted me to not show up by lying and saying it was marked off. I recently called the Housing Court and was transferred to the state’s Central Processing yet was allowed to select a housing case expert, which I did. She checked the records and affirmed that there is no record of my seeing a Housing Specialist in this case or in trial court case of AC48416, which is another fraudulent record. The young man in his 20’s fraudulently claimed he was Attorney Peter Hoops at the mediation as well as in court. He was, by my conclusion, a deliberate fraud who has done this many times in collaboration with Hoops & Associates - and has no regard over the law. The trial court allows this as a Modus Operandi, which is another conclusion made by me. In lay terms, it is continuous Devil’s Chessboard tricks, which the CIA is greatly noted for disrupting the country with, as traitors to the country rather than patriots.
ii. I have observed that document numbers on the Docket remain the same yet the documents have been changed on occasions. I have claimed to the housing court that if the court officials want to change documents, they should amend the record, not just override what is there and switch documents. The Chief Clerk has no standing when he blames such activity on the administrative clerks in the office. Lisa, Courtney, and I think the other one was Yvonne (I tended to call her the wrong name and she did not correct me, which was only reflective of her devotion to serving diligently and kindly reducing my stress, as the other two did yet I was able to recall their names more easily and only made that error on a few occasions) - they were all diligent and devoted to serving in their capacities under the guise of Chief Clerk William Pitt. I never see the Deputy Chief Clerk in the office when I have gone there in the past 6 months. There was plenty of staff to ensure accuracy AND compliance on cases! The excess time in officials frauding records is their problem, not mine, in my opinion.
iii. A trial court MEMORANDUM OF LAW, which is a legal requirement yet was not issued, would have STRENGTHENED MY ARGUMENT regarding my Motion For Extension of Time to Appeal. I was not informed I had a case manager with the Appellate Court - I was told I had no case with Appellate Court because I did not e-file my appeal form. The appeal form should have been submitted when the fee waiver for appeal was submitted and most likely it was yet it is now missing from the record - and yet the Appellate Court created an Appeal number from nothing I had submitted since I was seeking Exemption To e-file and I could not submit any appeal documents due to this deliberate abuse of procedure. The trial court once again failed to hear my motion for Extension of Time to Appeal properly for two reasons: a) They were the wrong court since unknown to me, I had an Appeal Number; and b) It was not heard and was ruled on in 3 days without any response of any of the defendants who did not even appear on the trial court case or Answer the Complaint. I remain aggrieved significantly, not getting my rights in court, allowing the trial court to obviously and deliberately violate Due Process of Law, having many things wrong with my apartment due to illegal entries, vandalism, and more as listed incidences of theft in my court-issued document . I am submitting a modification of my Predetermination Notice, of which the prior one modestly covers over $25, 000 loss for the past 13+ years, Docket Number ___ in trial court.
7. The Motion To Open was submitted to the best of my ability, still waiting to be able to appeal. My emphasis included the fact Alayna Stone was impersonated at the hearing of October 31, 2024. There was no response to Hoops & Associates Memorandum of Law at the time I submitted my fee waiver and accompanying documents to appeal on the case. My reasons for striking were justifiable and certainly an opportunity for this inept firm to correct itself. Little did I know that there would be no cure - no Answers to the Complaint and illegal appearances. No Memorandum of Law by the court on the aforesaid case was submitted as a cure. I gave up trying to seek e-service exemption due to the continuous abuse of procedure. It is difficult enough to prepare anything due to cyber crime on my computer, cyber crime using the wifi where I live; as well as cyber crime on the public court computer and frauding of records by court officials. I obtained approval for an e-services account, and my Motion To Open was diligently submitted and still, there was no Memorandum of Law to respond to and cite in my motion. Otherwise, it would have been attached to the Motion to Open.
a) I had every intention to file a Direct Appeal and exercise my full rights to the law since I have been deprived of my rights at this apartment for several years - as clearly shown in the complaints I submitted in the Appendix of 246 pages. Appellee MEPT Chapel and thereafter Ansonia State Street was even ordered by a court of law to remove almost $14,000 in fraudulent charges on my tenant ledger yet refuse to provide the court order. I do all I can to find it in the system, yet with the court not publishing at-will and the fact I am not an attorney, it is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Since Bozzutos are headquartered in Washington, and the so-called financing and managing office named NEW TOWER TRUST in the mortgage is located near Washington, DC (in Maryland) - it is very likely a Washington DC court issued the order. Note, in the 2019 inept and illegal eviction case against me by these same people (Dragana LaCore, Kyle Huckle, and others who were employed by Bozzutos and show up and disappear in the management office) the trial court ruling removed the almost $14,000 which they apparently expected to swipe from me after my mother conveniently died and they expected I would get an inheritence or they could use their technocratic power to convince my estranged relatives I would be evicted if I did not pay it so they could steal money that way. It was obviously at that time which a court would have ordered the removal of those charges - yet most likely they appealed it and lost. The fraudulent charges were removed in November 2022. The Housing Authority told me I had to reapply for Section 8 WHICH WAS DELIBERATELY ILLEGAL. They wanted to change this building from a portability situation (as tenant-based) to a project-based, which would open more free HUD money to this landlord for repairing apartments THEY claim are project-based. There is also the issue of stipends which they may give tenants at-will when tenants do something for them. This dynamic is illegal and created by dishonest politicians to keep the corruption going and reward tenants for conspiring with a landlord, in my opinion as a Pro Se litigant. Additionally, Kyle Huckle, who has worked at this location since I moved to 360 State Street January 13, 2013, stated in court, “We removed the $14,000 to give her a clean slate” which was a lie and I claimed it was perjury in court yet Alayna Stone refused to do anything in AC48416 trial of the trial court. I referenced it in this aforesaid case. It is not in the 14-page transcript of this case, which is AC48452 which they obviously seemed to have humored themselves to be reduced to 14 (mirroring the $14,000 in excessive charges) from over a 45-minute hearing on aforesaid case. I further pointed it out right in the evidence that this landlord-owner submitted in court. It was only then that Kyle Huckle admitted it was a court order during the illegal eviction trial based on nonpayment of rent for August and September when I proved I paid my rent. This company cashed my checks rather than deposited them. The bank branch manager told me that even though I pay $15 for bank checks each month, for years due to the dishonest practices of this management office, I can no longer obtain the cancelled checks. TD Bank was my previous account, which I also used Bank Checks for. I obtained a few of those cancelled bank checks and discovered they deposited my rent payments to various accounts and not one account consistently despite this being a HAP Contract tenancy and their need to be accountable for management of this money. The Housing Authority cared nothing about this and the state Housing Agency only fed into the corruption when I sent them a well-prepared letter regarding their abuse of power, evading HUD laws, etc. The claimed their state laws took precedence over the federal - and thus created a dynamic which was not negotiable and even resulting in more harm to me. Appellant-Plaintiff requested the order. She was refused and again, Alayna Stone did nothing despite being her job to administer law. It is apparent she doesn’t even know the law, except what is spoon-fed her to use on cases. Additionally It is LAW that a Motion To Open based on fraud may be submitted at any time. Nevertheless, the Appellant-Plaintiff, Pro Se, submitted the Motion To Open in lieu of an inept denial of Extension of Time to Appeal. She was not using anything as a means of delay.
b) The Appeal Form would be required at the time the fee waiver is submitted. It was either destroyed or the Chief Clerk claimed no appeal form was required, which would reflect a complete reversal on Due Process since they always require the document for which the fee waiver is for. In fact, Attorney Pitt claimed that the reason the original complaint on this case could not be replaced before it was served was because he claimed the fee waiver was granted and the complaint submitted was what the court would use and he uploaded it a week before it was even served on the defendants. It is the court’s responsibility to correct errors of Pro Se litigants. It is also their responsibility to administer the law regarding Due Process. He also demanded that the case be served by a marshal rather than be mailed, though mailing was a matter of right and it would have been received timely with no manipulations by the marshal, who was approved of billing the state nearly $3,000 and claimed it was okay for her to leave the original with the Secretary of State, when in fact, the original should have been given to the Appellant at the time the marshal picked up the copies. The chief clerk REFUSED to allow the Appellant to take her copy at that point. She argued, “Nobody else can have this original, so why are you telling me that?” He made some sort of excuse about abiding by a process. He previously demanded that he make all the copies and she could not have the original back despite the fact he said the court granted it. Due to the delay in service and making copies, Appellant created “Amended Copies” of her original complaint forms, not the Appendix which comprised of 246 pages. The purpose was to correct all defective information, to include, for instance, the spelling of Beachwold Residential - which Appellant had BeachWOOD Residential based on the Secretary of State’s record, which was thereafter corrected. That was one example of the tug-of-war on information. Beachwold was a significant title since it was included in the $89 BILLION mortgage on this $2.2 BILLION property, which now has two or three different addresses for the same structure, as allowed by the City of New Haven, which gave Bozzutos this property for only $1, and thereafter, the Obama Administration gave them millions of dollars of free money to build this for-profit building.
c) The laws and rules on a Motion To Open are seemingly a “Do as I say; not say as I do” type of legal dynamic. The law library defines it as having a prequisite of a defendant’s defaulting and thereafter they say only the defendant may Motion To Open the case. This is in contrast to the written law, which is similarly-situated with Motion to Reopen, Motion to Set Aside, and Motion to Vacate Judgment - they are all combined in the same law. An adjudicative process is supposed to be clear, suscinct, transparent in order for the court and those in the case to essentially be on the same page. Yet the Appellant, Pro Se, claims the laws and rules reflecting “Motion to Open and the like” appear to be like a legal “wild card” that can be made to fit as the court sees fit. Caselaws are limited to publications, not actual history -- although attorneys have more access to unpublished caselaws. Appellant-Plaintiff is remiss in what the actual application entails yet considers any motion unconstitutional if only one party/side may have the right to motion the court. The form has on it “Motion to Open” yet the laws cited refer to other-named motions. The chief clerk of Housing Court claimed her Motion To Open was abruptly denied because only defaulting defendants can enter that motion. She asked him why the fee waiver was granted then. He would not respond. Due to the fact she intended to appeal and yet was intercepted by lack of due process by the court, it is conceivable what best fits her circumstances is MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT; and hopefully that will not cause her more anguish in the courts by forcing a retrial and using the other case, which is the unlawful eviction, to actually be allowed, even though they were ordered by the court not to issue a Summary Process, yet the trial court allowed them to anyway. They were also ordered by law to answer the complaint, yet the court failed to default any of them, and allowed fraudulent appearance of unconfirmed defendants on October 31, 2024 - even when a young man who was not an attorney was the only appearing person, fraudulently claimed he was Attorney Peter Hoops when the real Attorney Peter Hoops entered the BAR before he was obviously born. These are all matters which should be the court’s responsibility to ensure no fraud takes place, and yet they allow it to occur anyway. Appellant even stated in a later court hearing that the real Attorney Peter Hoops entered the BAR in 1987; and yet there was no recess called, this was a Modus Operandi which the court allows over and over again, to include the fraudulent Pro Hac Vice appearance when Hoops & Associates is located in the State of Connecticut.
d) The Hearing lasted more than 40 minutes; the transcription only covered 14 minutes. Each page reflects an estimated one minute, as stated by the court reporters’ office.
e) When a Complaint is issued, the Complaint must be heard. Any motion thereafter may be heard. The Complaint was not heard; there were not Answers by any of the served defendants, which is also significant violations which were never remedied despite the fact that the Appellant brought this up; to include in her Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss, which was so inept, Appellant did not believe an attorney wrote that motion. Her Motion to Strike was denied despite the very fact the writer of this motion failed to structure it with History, Facts, Law, and Summary. The woman who was sitting in place of Alayna Stone kept holding her right ear and most likely she was allowing a third party to be involved, which would make at least TWO people who had no appearance on record for this case.
f) I, the Appellant-Plaintiff, Pro Se, was in a great amount of pain due to hamstring injuries in both legs on May 22. They were injured when she went to Hartford, CT the day before to sit in on Appellate Court Cases at 75 Elm Street, Hartford. I did the best I could Friday, May 22, 2026, to complete and submit my Statement of NonCompliance - since the trial court claimed that their order, Docketed at 138.10, was sufficient - and thereafter a Memorandum of Law was seen at Docket 115.00.
g) As a Pro Se, she claims she was taken advantage of by the trial court using Abuse of Procedure and frauding records; which is consistent behavior in both this case and the illegal eviction case of AC48416.
i. The fact that Appellant was already granted a fee waiver to appeal reflected the Trial Court had no right to rule on Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal.
1. Appellant’s efforts in securing exemption to file electronically were wrongfully delayed and a significant abuse of procedure circumstance. The Appellate Case manager was not known to her until it was too late. Appellant could not fax or mail the Appeal form. They would not allow it; they would not ensure her rights for expediting the request for exemption, which was properly submitted. She was ineptly denied and which only served personal wants, not administration of the law, which is justice. This case has been longstanding and abuse to the Appellant. Though Appellee unlawfully terminated the lease, Appellee not only receives the rent from the HAP contract, but also the trial court took it upon itself to increase the rent which is another violation of the law (and as a reminder Alayna Stone’s juris number does not exist and she has only proven to be an actor for the court, doing what she is told by a third party through a remote device or prior to the court hearings) The Appellee continues to fail to respond to any maintenance needs and illegally enters the Appellant’s apartment on a continuous basis - and even breaking in her apartment and terrorizing her when she was taking a bath!
h) Appellant-Plaintiff continues to be of the opinion that Alayna Stone is not an attorney, and therefore not a legitamate judge and additionally engages in fraudulent practices as an everyday occurrence. She is completely desentized to feeling remorse or need to correct herself. Attorney Pitt, at the least, makes no effort to advise her on matters that the court is frauding. This circumstance, along with the cyber crime on the court computer as well as her own has greatly interfered and caused additional stress in her efforts to affirm her rights and deliberate abuses by the trial court, which granted her fee waiver, approving the case to be with merit and hearable by Alayna Stone, who allowed a different woman to appear as her which is deliberate fraud and violation of Due Process of Law. Additionally, Appellant had the setback of the seller’s failure to provide any instructions on using her laptop at the time it was purchased after her prior laptop was destroyed by cyber crime. These circumstances were all brought up when she motioned for Exemption from e-filing. The use of delay tactics and the Appellant’s need to continue to appeal, suffering both physically and emotionally from the stress,, was clearly abuse of procedure.
i. This is why Appellant forgot how much work she put in submitting a timely appeal along with suffering from an unlawful eviction case which had no merit and additionally, was violating the trial court order to not issue any Summary Process as the case was pending. The court again was abusing process, figuring that the Appellant-Plaintiff was unaware of the law and they considered a “catch me if you can” dynamic to be their way to get her illegally evicted and get away with it as long as they act fast because once she is forced out, any higher court will just rule that it is moot since she was forced out of her apartment and they refuse to reinstate illegally-evicted tenants as a matter of practice.
8. Either upload a Motion For Judicial Notice on Modification of
9. Response to TRANSCRIPT - emphasis on what has already been stated in my brief
10. Case Laws at the end of this “oral argument”
a) Search on cases that have Hoops & Associates
b) Search on cases when judgment is vacated by appellate court
c) Search on cases using the same cited laws for Motion To Open Forms
d) Search on cases for “Motion to Open” to see if any were denied without a hearing
Comments