Modification of Preliminary Statement
Link to this blogpost:
https://publiusroots.blogspot.com/2026/06/modification-of-preliminary-statement.html
There may be a few changes/corrections but for the most part it is the final submission
Copy: AC 48452
NHH-CV24-5006875-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANNE BRADLEY : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, LLC, et al : JUNE 8, 2026
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S MODIFICATION OF
Preliminary Statement To Court’s Declaratory Judgment
(Statement of Damages)
1. Definition of Declaratory Judgment: A binding adjudication that established the rights and other legal relations of the parties without providing for or ordering enforcement.
a) Upon cooperatiom of the court to administer such judgment (either trial court or Appellate Court) Appellant Pro Se will request and assurance of provisional enforcement since she is a Pro Se litigant.
2. Appellate Court Treated Statement of Noncompliance to PB 64-1 as a motion, which was very wrong to do; and denying it. This Statement is attached. (A)
3. Trial court has failed to enter its Declaratory Judgment/Memorandum Of Law pursuant to PB 64-1.
4. This Modification is to Update and Supp lement the Preliminary Statement Of Court’s Declaratory Judgment, which is attached to this Modification as a matter of right.
5. Extension Of Time To Appeal was disrupted after it secretly forwarded fee waiver and appeal form to the Appellate Court, thus creating a time-sensitive case. The motion should have been forwarded to Appellate Court.
6. Total Damages from prior Declaratory Judgment is $26,298, which covers in part (excluding warranted reimbursements for numerous illegal entries from 2013 to October 22, 2024, which is the date of the Preliminary Declaratory Judgment/Statement of Damages)
7. RECOMMENDED SETTLEMENT IS SUMMARIZED BELOW
LIST OF DAMAGES
From 10/23/2024 to 6/8/2026
ILLEGAL ENTRIES
1. Illegal Entries are frequent. At least twice a week.
a) Damages saught: Appellant requests $0 to be her obligation for rent as a means of agreement. She also refers to this Modus Operandi of fraudulent billing to also, which should be Zero in her balance. This is more than a fair deal to this landlord who claims to be owner.and the Housing Authority who administers the HAP Contract. This should be made an addendum to the HAP Contract to ensure it remains as such for the duration she lives at 360 State Street, New Haven, CT Apt 719.
i. Appellant-Plaintiff has been terrorized, as already explained. Demand for her lock to be changed with assurance nobody has access to a copy unless she has made an agreement for appointment by maintenance - either at her request or their request by email and phone notification.
ii. The one situation when the maintenance Supervisor illegally entered Appellant’s apartment and particularly terrorized her while taking a bath should be a separate matter of which Appellant deserves compensation for, and is further discussed.
b) Those who illegally enter steal, vandalize. This also includes using Appellant’s apartment for “spare parts” for other apartments. She had discussions with maintenance in the past. She would say, “Who broke” “Who took” (appliance parts, faucets in the bathroom, broiler pan, etc.) They were more receptive in the past and would say, “Isn’t that a coincidence? Apt such-and-such just requested that for their apartment” They took the plastic pieces used to hold up a cupboard shelf in her kitchen, below the counter. She has not been able to use that shelf ever since, for years. They vandalized her shelving to cause it to lean forward - a tactic they have done with other furniture, such as her bed, in attempts to cause it to collapse yet allude they had nothing to do with it. Appellant’s stacked wooden crates which stabilized her bed collapsed due to someone cutting all the zipties; and had she been on her bed when that occurred, she very likely would have been killed. Upon setting up that shelving again, she used light possessions, such as craft supplies and clothes, to store in the shelves incase they did that to her again - cutting all of the zipties without her knowing) The illegal intruders stole the information on the back of her antique dresser, which proved it was made in VietNam and was an antique. Illegal intruders damaged the surface of her antique dresser. She has spent time trying to remove it using Goo-gone, linseed oil, and other products since they obviously used her art supply which was a finishing agent - and also permanently damaged the stovetop with it. There have been so many more incidences over the years. Recently they moved a pole which has been standing securely in front of her window, used to place items such as stationary supplies. They jammed the pole several times into the ceiling, denting it and also shoved it against the window sill so the curtain did not fall correctly, and was bunched up on the window sill. The expensive curtains, which contains silver and is made of 100% cotton, used to block radio waves, valued at a minimum of $250, was also vandalized on numerous occasions - heavily stained and holes are punctured in it. Both windows need these type of curtains yet Appellant has not been able to afford them and attempted to get these expenses and more included in her Section 8 rent calculations yet the Housing Authority refused, continuously saying “You don’t have kids”, which makes no more sense than when the Food Stamps administrators abused her with, despite the fact that people with twice as much income as she has get qualified for twice as much foodstamps. A professioal economist would clearly determine the ratios to be unbalanced and poorly managed. Much has been itemized in the original Preliminary Statement of Damages, which is attached and was stamped in by the court on October 22, 2024 - which was the same day which the marshal placed an illegal Summons on her door. Which she discussed to the chief clerk when she got there. Though the chief clerk knew it was a direct disobediance to the court order that they could not serve a Summons on her, he did nothing about that and only attempted to use legal malpractice to cover it up so they could get away with this illegitamate order) This comprises of only a fraction of the incidences over the past 13+ years!
FRAUDULENT BILLING and COURT COSTS
1. Defendant Ansonia State Street took on responsibilities of the “prior owner” which conceivably they are actually leasing from due to the transaction of $160 million and only having a LIMITED WARRANTEE DEED.
a) Court Order for this owner to remove all fraudulent billing is right on the ledger which they submitted as evidence - which the fake attorney Peter Hoops obviously had no understanding what he was doing and was ignorant of what the Appellant Anne M. Bradley said in court during the trial of the illegal eviction case. This man was obviously wired being told what to say and do, using no logic and relying on frauds to “make everything disappear - particularly relating to the recording which would need to be transcribed. Appellant submitted a preliminary NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL on trial court of AC48416. She had little opportunity on aforesaid case since legal malpractice corrupted it. Nevertheless, despite the appellant even saying in court that they were framing themselves since the court order to remove the $14,000 was on that ledger, proof they had a HAP contract, and more, they made no response, expecting the document would be frauded for them after it was entered as evidence and also expecting the recording would be altered to fit their wants. Instead, the transcript was haphazzard and the court reporter typed it efficiently, placing dashes in numerous sections, which made no sense. It is apparent that the cyber criminals who were altering the recording were either interrupted or the malware they used was partially unlayered by antimalware/antivirus programs which they didn’t expect.
b) They resumed this fraudulent billing thereafter.
c) Appellent has paid the tenant portion of rent, which reflects THE LAST AGREED AMOUNT FOR RENT. Housing Authority continuously denied her right to a fair hearing at their office, which would have to be recorded on record and be available for review by HUD authorities in Washington, DC.
d) There was no demand for payment, no Pretermination Letter, and even though Hoops & Associates are fully aware of this requirement, they left it off from this case. It is evident in other cases, which are found by searching on their illegal Pro Hac Vice Juris Number, that they have stated exact amount their client claims is owed, which is a requirement when a tenant is accused of nonpayment of rent. Instead, in court, the man who illegally stated he was Attorney Peter Hoops, claimed that the only lease was their lease, etc. EVEN THOUGH THE LEDGER VALIDATED HE WAS LYING. It didn’t matter to Alayna Stone that he was lying, because she was obviously in her own little technocratic world in which she was being a puppet also.
e) COST OF LEGAL EFFORTS include many hours, days and weeks and even months accumulated of time; supplies, copy and computer services, and regarding the illicit arrest, a $1,5000 bail bond since the court refused to allow her to be reimbursed on this corrupted case. The Appellant, Anne Bradley, refused again to plea due to no probable cause, and even deliberate lying by the prosecution and state police. The judge illegally entered a Nolle. after longstanding abuse by the court. A Nolle cannot be entered if the accused refuses to plea. It was just another circumstance where the court considers itself above the law and thus celebrating its lawlessness. Serving corrupted elites; namely those who profit from 360 State Street.
f)
ASSAULT, BURGLARY
1. The maintenance manger burglarized Appellant’s apartment on July 2, 2024, when she was screaming to stay out, smashing in her latches, etc - was probably arrested. [Appellant Anne M. Bradley is in no emotional shape to take part in the prosecution due to numerous traumas she has had, and suffering every day from the physical harm to her body when a driver of a sander truck he filled with sand just before he tried to kill her on the highway in January of 1978 - 6 months after she graduated from highschool and two months after her parents moved to the neighboring town. She was in ICU for 2 1/2 weeks and in the hospital for a total of 3 1/2 months. And on crutches for additional 3 months, refused orthopedic physical therapy. She only had a $50/week income due to a corrupted attorney who was sabatoging her and sided with the driver at fault, who even laughed at the first preliminary trial hearing, at which time she told him to shut up and asked him if he was trying to kill her. Her attorney told HER to shut up and yet cared nothing about defending her when she was the victim. He made the case a No Fault case, claiming the insurance requested it, which was a lie. They reported the sander truck driver was at fault.] The maiutenance manager was obviously arrested and ordered by a federal agent to get out immediately since he had to stop and made a complete reversal just as he was about to attack her.
2. As already stated, Appellant has relayed she was anesthetized twice and lost conscienciousness for over 24 hours each time. Assault was particularly evident from having a large purple bruise on her lower back. A public friend said it appeared she was kicked by whoever illegally entered.
3. Appellant has a “V” shape over her left eye, like a permanent welt - most likely a process that tatoo artists use on people who want their skin raised. Nevertheless it is a mark they assaulted her with when she was unconcious. It is most likely a Satanic marking. The V shape is half of an “X” and has some kind of depraved satanic meaning. The “X” could also be viewed as having 4-V’s in it and most likely the numbers have some weird meaning. Six sounds like “X”. There are so many secret innuendos - all of which support corruption and terrorism. A prime example are the NAZI’s, which do secretly exist to this day. They are based on Satanism. Hitler was 40% Jewish.
4. State police conspired with management in 2016, by stalking the appellant in the lobby for 45 minutes, at which time their concierge named Karem, watched the video of the hallway cameras to catch the appellant when she was leaving her apartment so they could get away with harming her without her calling FBI Agent William Aldenburg, as she had when police went to her door. They were ordered to leave. This time they figured they had the perfect scheme to illicitly arrest and assault her. She screamed in pain when her shoulder, which already had tendonitis in it, was impinged by Trooper Jon Naples (who was the trooper who had shot at least two unarmed people, killing them, while he was on the job) This also resulted in unlawful detainment, unlawful imprisonment for 6 days - on a case the court did not even go over any probable cause, and on a police report of lies, to include lying about the court service center clerk in Milford, named Lori Semrau, that she had called the state police requesting them to arrest Appellant Anne Bradley. A complete lie. Lori was unaware of their scheming since they withheld information for public access and the judge issued a court order to “stay away from the victim Lori Semrau” who never once complained yet the corrupted court refused to include her at any of the hearings. And there was no letter of complaint issued by Lori. It is against all procedures for a court service center clerk to just cold-call the state police and tell them to arrest someone from a different location. Any email she had received from Anne Bradley was considered completely out of character and that would affirm the phone conversation she had just had with Anne Bradley inlcuding the voicemail Anne Bradley left her - none of which the inept prosecutor would investigate and produce. He obviously heard it already and knew it was something he had to cover up, which is on many counts, VIOLATING THE ATTORNEY’S OATH AS WELL AS HIS OATH TO OFFICE. The name of that prosecutor is unsure by the Appellant - possibly Sandero. It was strange and typically satanic because it seems his name had the word “sand” in it.
APPELLANT’S RECOMMENDED SETTLEMENT
Despite the numerous harms, Abuses in using Court and Law Enforcement to serve elites - as a weapon rather than administer justice, Appellant-Plaintiff is willing to currently accept the following as long as they promptly accept this:
1. Windows and frames are greatly damaged due to excess water caused by maintenance turning off the dehydrator which is required to run 24 hours/7 days a week.
2. FULL PAYMENT OF THE ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT, Preliminary Declaratory Judgment/Statement of Damages, TOTALLING $26,298,
3. COMPLETE INSPECTION REPORT ON THE APARTMENT AND ASSURANCE THAT ALL DAMAGES HAVE BEEN REPAIRED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF SUBMISSION OF THAT REPORT. This would include:
a) Replace refrigerator. They have damaged it several times, including destroying the ice machine, which actually produced plastic in with the ice, as discovered by the Appellant when allowing it to melt and observing.
b) Turn the washing machine back on remotely or replace it. It was turned off remotely. Appellant was in her bathroom when they turned it off. She has a load of clothes still in the washing machine. They did this twice. It has not operated for 5 years, which means this apartment would have not passed inspection prior to when this alleged “new owner” Ansonia State Street took over. It was never inspected. Only one inspection on this apartment was ever done!
i. That took place around 2016. No repairs were made. Not even the toilet seat was repaired, which never was secure since she moved in the apartment. Appellant reported the many damages to housing court in 2019, which the judge considered irrelevent. She proved she paid her rent; which was also irrelevant to the judge. What WAS relevant to this judge who cared nothing about his oath to office and as an attorney was a call from a federal official, which he had to take in his chambers and call for a recess. Thereafter the case was ruled in Appellant’s favor and the judge’s inept satanic memorandum of law of EIGHT pages for the Section EIGHT tenant did not include any owing of $14,000. This memorandum was thereafter frauded using nefarious footnotes, which some anonymous attorneys in this state have commented they consider them as tools for the court to fraud. Their basic personal rule was to take care of disputes outside of court due to Lack of Due Process.
c) Reinstall the faucets in the bathroom, which they removed during illegal entries years ago.
d) Replace the tub drain; return the drain which had a trap in it, which the Appellant kept clean. They illegally entered and placed a drain with no trap and had sensors on it, which are spy devices. Those devices were obviously disabled through the intervention of FBI Agent Aldenburg. That is the Appellant’s firm opinion. She has not had direct communication with him for a long time due to her not wanting to be an interference with his investigations.
e) Install appropriate supporting orthopedic apparatus for Appellant to safely get in and out of the tub when she takes a bath, due to her leg disabilities.
f) REPLACE THE STOVE WHICH WAS DAMAGED BY ILLEGAL INTRUDERS.
i. The stovetop was permanently damaged by Appellant’s art resin, which the illegal intruders literally emptied almost the whole bottle on, slopping it also on the antique dresser and destroying the finish.
ii. The back left burner was remotely electricuted. Appellant saw it when it happened. It was not even on. It no longer works. This occurred over five years ago. Several appliances have been destroyed this way - such as a bread machine, a mixer, recently her crock pot, fans and more.
iii. Gas has come out of the oven when it is opened - huge amounts of smoke - and bread never rises in it when Appellant places her bread dough in it.
iv. There is no assurance that the smoke alarm or carbon monoxide alarm work. Particularly the carbon monoxide alarm. The maintenance crew claim it is HER responsibility, HER problem. She said that was against HUD laws and have asked what the landlord is really up to by not checking alarms yet obsessed about having someone just change an ant trap the size of a thumb under the sink, WHEN TENANTS ARE NOT IN THEIR APARTMENTS. Three people are involved for this “pest control” operation. Appellant always makes it a point to remain in her apartment when they do this - either every year or twice a year. They have illegally entered just shortly before they have the “pest control” to enter, and this past year they vandalized the cupboard under the sink when they illegally entered - contaminating everything with unknown brown substance, which literally took hours for the Appellant to clean and sanitize - obviously figuring they could get away with framing her as a slob, figuring she would not notice what they did before the pest control arrived. All of this was done by ILLEGAL INTRUDERS.
v. IMMEDIATE REPLACEMENT OF DOOR LOCK DUE TO CONTINUOUS ILLEGAL ENTRIES MADE BY ORGANIZED CRIME.
vi. Replace the upper blade which was taken out of the Appellant’s dishwasher; stolen by illegal intruders, again using her apartment for “spare parts” for other apartments.
vii. Thorough inspection of the fire sprinkler system since they cause the sprinkler system to leak water at their will, and it is disconnected from the alarm system when they vandalize it. The sprinkler system should not go off unless the fire alarm also goes off simultaneously. Most recent circumstance took place this past month.
1. Appellant woke at 4am and went to her kitchen sink, at which time water was dripping on her head and the ceiling was bubbling from saturation. Had she continued to sleep, the ceiling would have likely collapsed, as what occurred at her apartment at 38 Arch Street.
a) The city placed no pressure on Corey Spruill to fix, telling Corey to try to collect insurance from Appellant, for water damage which was caused by the upper floor, which involved the neighbor Terrance leaving his toilet running for hours, blaming his two-year old, greatly damaging the structure of the building. This was probably a scheme suggested by the LCI, secretly to Corey Spruill, to use as a collection on insurance. Appellant refused to submit an insurance claim to her insurance for such an obvious crime. Terrance, the tenant above, was not ordered to leave and the repair took weeks even though this caused her toilet not to function due to the complete collapse of the ceiling and Appellant had to use the toilet of her neighbor, which she had to give gifts of appreciation to, as they were very poor and the city was doing nothing about the cockroach infestation in their building. They did not engage in criminal activity.
b) Appellant Anne Bradley filed a housing complaint yet withdrew it because Corey Spruill fixed the repair. Corey was a young, disabled man who lost an eye from being shot by someone. His intentions were all good yet he became very desperate financially and allowed the corrupted city officials to control him rather than submit his own complaint since LCI guaranteed he had three apartments, and potential income from three apartments, with certificate of occupancy for all three. They also assured Appellant Anne Bradley that the basement apartment had a Certificate of Occupancy when she called them, to make sure history did not repeat itself since her prior apartment, which she secured from a real estate broker, did NOT have a Certificate of Occupancy and when she reached out to LCI for longstanding problems, they failed to tell her there was no Certificate of Occupancy, which is their obligation to do. Instead the inspector was unusually nice to her.
c) Appellant Anne Bradley contacted a few people she had trust in, telling them of this corruption and the obvious divide-and-conquer tactics used by LCI in order to make them not accountable for cheating Corey Spruill as well as her. LCI had a $160,000 looming debt due to their corruption. It is unknown what their debt is today. Corey Spruill lost all of his Social Security retroactive pay and had to file bankruptcy. Appellant was illicitly evicted on Lapse of Time, despite the fact Corey Spruill violated the lease, which indicated two things: 1) The lease continues if no lease replaces it, 2) A 60-day notice is required to end the lease, for either the tenant or landlord. Additionally, since the Appellant is disabled, there were laws and regulations in place which indicated that the landlord had to be responsible for finding her place to move into and moving her; and if he could not afford that the city had to. The only thing the court did was terrorize her, which included the city. A marshal smashed in her door using a sledge hammer. Her ADT system went off and he used a code to disable it, which reflected he was illegally entering her apartment and the cats she had rescued and was waiting for a cat rescue to pick them up, were killed or horribly tortured and greatly suffering from tasers. Most likely police tasers.
2. This was a neighborhood which Police Lieutenant White was getting kickbacks for criminal activity and set up a man to shoot Officer Fumiatti in the head as he was the first to get out of the unmarked van while doing a raid. Arnold Bell was not known to be an expert shooter, yet was a willing participant so he stood very close to the van, raising his gun on queue before Officer Fumiatti had full control of his weapon. Arnold Bell and anyone else in the area, where drug dealing was common, were not supposed to know that this van was a SWAT team, yet obviously were well aware.
3. Most likely the city of New Haven was also getting enrichment of this crime money. Officer Fumiatti was a dedicated police officer who served the community, and was a professional in every sense of the word - much contrary to Lt White.
4. This was known as the “Hill Area” where Appellant lived and attended a Catholic Church which was primarily of Italian families. The priest was the same priest who was leader of the Italian Church which the Appellant attended in Syracuse, NY (Fr. Moffo) yet he passed away after Yale-New Haven Hospital diagnosed him with cancer - after the Appellant was illicitly arrested at the University of New Haven. The arresting officer charged her for Risk Of Injury, which is a charge of endangerment to a child. It should have been thrown out. Yet these inept and abusive officers told her they would take her home so they kidnap her to the Yale-New Haven Emergency Psyche Room at which time she was further abused by the doctor who was there, most likely all pre-planned since they knew she had to pick up her book for her class the next day. This Doctor Lieberman was related to Senator Joseph Lieberman, and the last thing he cared about was being professional. This was a scheme. She was committed to the Yale Psyche Dept. at which time Dr. Helen Savage was seeking to get her permanently committed and taken away. Appellant was drugged up and assaulted, most likely raped in that psyche ward, as “punishement” for calling someone who she knew and trusted in law enforcement, telling his voicemail that a young man who said he was suicidal was mimicked by Dr. Savage and told he just wanted to stay there longer. He went into the bathroom and smashed the mirror and used the glass to slash both arms and lied in his bed in a pool of blood. Someone screamed from seeing it and it was quickly discovered what happened. Despite the severity of his wounds,they snuck him out in the elevator to evade accountability.
5. She was illicitly prosecuted by Lawrence Mark Hurley, who altered the charge from Risk of Injury to Reckless Endangerment, never covering probable cause, which Appellant had no knowledge of her rights at that point. Lori Semrau provided her much assistance through the court service center. Attorney Jerald Barber offered to file a lawsuit against the West Haven police and theUniversity of New Haven, taking all of her worker’s comp settlement from a locked shoulder injury which she did not fully recover from. He was removed from the case due to his lies at the first hearing. She told him to give her back her $2300 and he refused. She filed a lawsuit. He failed to appear and yet the Superior Court of New Haven cared nothing about Due Process and dismissed the case abruptly. Also the Social Security she applied for did not give her retroactive pay which would cover two years. They only said, “Talk to your attorney” which was a clue that it was stolen by Attorney Jerald Barber, who later filed bankruptcy and she was listed as a creditor, at which time she was notified of the Creditor’s heaing. She was criticized for attending. The court officials claimed “nobody ever attends these hearings” and the judge, who was very rude and disrespectful, removed her as a creditor.
6. The case was two years old, having a misdemeanor charge of Reckless Endangerment, which the Appellant refused to plea on since there was no probable cause. Appellant had a discussion with the Chief of the Allingtown Fire Department. It was a pleasant experience, after which the West Haven mayor removed him from office and forced an early retirement before the court arranged a trial by a jury of six, as rigged by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal as well as prosecutors as REVENGE for Lawrence Mark Hurley, since upon discovering that Hurley was arrested, Appellant claimed he was such a liar that he was obviously altering court records on people the same way he embezzled checks and stated so. They had to “silence” her any way they could since Lawrence Mark Hurley’s father was former Governor of Connecticut. Appellant emphasized, they frame themselves. She took no part in the prosecution of these dishonest officials, most of whom were actually not prosecuted and continued their career criminal behavior, to include being rewarded and advanced in their “careers”.
7. APPELLANT SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY ANY TENANT’S PORTION OF RENT FOR THE DURATION OF HER STAY IN THIS BUILDING - BASED ON THE HOUSING SECTION 8 CONTRACT, WHICH IS NEFARIOUSLY ADMINISTERED.
a) ADDITIONALLY, THE TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR MONETARY RELIEF SHOULD BE $60,000 AND MAY BE IN THE FORM OF A TEN-YEAR ANNUITY IF PROMPTLY AGREED UPON.
4. A proper inspection of this apartment would indicate more needs to repair. The best solution would be to remove legal ties of all defendants to this building. To hold the Secretary of State accountable for their fraudulent activity. This reflects replacing ownership with a credible, upstanding landlord who is willing to take on the burden of inspecting and fixing what they broke. Should this take place in the near future, this Agreement Proposal should be addressed by them, which would include a waiver offered for the Appellant to sign after consideration. The monetary relief should still be the accountability of this current landlord, or whoever the insured is of this property, since this is a very convoluted circumstance. Should the insurance be deemed as illegitamately managed, a full compensation of $60,000 is demanded, along with the HAP contract modification and the repairs to the apartment caused by numerous illegal entries.
This Concludes Appellant’s Preliminary Declaratory Judgment which is timely submitted since there is no Declaratory Judgment or Memorandum of Law on this case by trial court, which violates PB 64-1. This is not a motion! This should not be treated as a motion! It is being served on Appellees as a matter of procedure only. as was the Statement of Noncompliance to PB 64-1 which the trial court failed to upload on trial court case of AC48452,
Prepared and Submitted,
FOR THE APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF
IllegalEviction2024____________
Anne M. Bradley
Illegal Eviction 2024
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph. 203-508-0858
CERTIFICATION
THIS MODIFICATION TO PRELIMINARY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT COMPRISES OF 19 PAGES WITH 3 ADDITIONAL PAGES FOR CERTIFICATION, MAKING A TOTAL OF 22 PAGES.. It is Pursuant to P.B. §§ 62-7 and 66-3, it is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing was sent electronically this 8th Day of June, 2026, to the following Attorneys who are listed by the Appellate Court:
Lloyd L. Langhammer (Appellate)
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
APPELLEES NON-APPEARING / NO APPEARANCE ON FILE
ALL APPELLEES FAILED TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT AT ANY TIME. A TWO-WEEK PERIOD FOR A HEARING IS SET BY LAW; DESPITE THE INEPT RETURN DATE SET BY CHIEF CLERK WILLIAM PITT.
* BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY
* BEACHWOLD RESIDENTIAL (trial court refused to correct spelling error; Appellate Court prints what the Trial Court dictates)
* LIVABLE CITY INTITIATIVE, WHICH IS PART OF THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN OFFICES, WHICH HAVE ATTORNEYS
* ELM CITY COMMUNITIES - THOUGH BERCHAM & MOSES ARE NOW LISTED; THEY SHOW NO DILIGENCE AND USE A FRAUDULENT APPEARANCE; THEREAFTER ADDING LTKE LAW OFFICE.
HOOPS & ASSOCIATES ALTERED ITS APPEARANCE IN TRIAL COURT ADDING DEFENDANTS WHO WERE NON-APPEARING, INCLUDING REFERRING TO BEACHWOLD RESIDENTIAL AS “BEACHWOOD RESIDENTIAL” AND ALSO REFERRING TO MEPT CHAPEL, WHICH THE SECRETARY OF STATE REPORTED IT HAD DISSOLVED OR WITHDREW ITS REGISTRATION IN CONNECTICUT; AND INCLUDING 360 STATE STREET, LLC, WHICH WAS ALSO DISSOLVED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE (AFTER MARSHAL’S SERVICE) A YEAR OR MORE PRIOR TO THE UPLOADING OF THIS CASE - OBVIOUSLY HAVING NO RETAINER ON ANY OF THEM.
* MEPT CHAPEL - MARKED INACTIVE BY SECRETARY OF STATE YET AGENT OF SERVICE FAILED TO REPORT THIS TO MARSHAL
* 360 STATE STREET, LLC, WHICH WAS LISTED AS DISSOLVED SHORTLY AFTER SERVICE BY MARSHAL; Attempt to reach the active company, 360 State Street, 100 Crown Street, New Haven, resulted in being hung up on. Appellant typed a letter to the owner, Mr. Goldstein, to inform him that he may like to know that Hoops & Associates claims they are representing his company since the other “360 State Street” company no longer existed. They did not respond to her.
_Illegal Eviction2024____
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024
It is also certified that this document has been redacted or does not contain any names or other personal identifying information that is known by appellant to be prohibited from disclosure by rule, statute, court order, or case law. It is also certified that this document complies with all applicable rules of appellate procedure.
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
Illegal Eviction 2024__
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024 IllegalEviction2024@aol.com
Comments