AC48416 Motion For Reconsideration En Banc
link to this blogpost:
https://publiusroots.blogspot.com/2026/07/aac48416-motion-for-reconsideration-en.html
I don't have the appendix done yet and will share that after I get it submitted because I am greatly lacking in time!
I completed it - rushed to the printshop since my scanner was vandalized 6 months ago - and - they scanned it and I went to the nearest place to upload - they f'king removed my case!
This what shows! The FAKE case they uploaded, then changed the date on to cover up they uploaded it when Attorney Pitt nefariously sent them my granted fee waiver to start the clock ticking without my knowing! I was waiting for approval from exemption to e-file since the wifi was even shut off in my apartment at that time!
They are such crooked bastards! AC48416 is the case it needed to be uploaded to! They only prove filing with e-services is bullshit - they enjoy so much internet corruption! My motion was due today, it was uploaded today! I uploaded it on the wrong case and left word for both case managers. - it is 6:45 pm 7/16/2026
wth! All three show now!!!
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
===============================================================
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE
STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : JULY 16, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC
Pursuant to PB 71-5, Appellant motions this court for Reconsideration on final judgment, issued June 16, 2026.
HISTORY
Prior to trial in trial court, Appellant emphasized the many ways the case had no merit, to include violating the court order to not initiate a Summary Process - - - - filed by the court in prior docketed Housing Complaint, 10/3/2026 - which took 3 weeks to get Attorney Pitt’s cooperation. This housing case was still active when illegally served a Summons. Appellant was paying rent into court, having suffered great financial burden and safety and security [illegal entries, vandalism, theft, CYBER CRIME ON THE BUILDING WiFi, failure to do maintenance work, fraudulent billing, and other breaches of the HAP contract, which is the controlling lease] caused by the landlord (which is not legitamately established by HUD and the local Housing Authority attempts to cover up by allowing them to break laws and require all Section 8 tenants to reapply for Section 8 rather than issue addendums on the already-approved Section 8 tenants, since the new owner of the building is the one who has to be approved - not the tenants.) Appellant relayed this abuse of power and procedure is the only virus that has existed in this state of Connecticut. She emphasized the COVID -19 agenda pushed by Donald Trump, reflected the death rates were not even higher than birth rates, yet he pushed the lies anyway. Appellant also issed a BBB complaint on the Bozzutos during this declared COVID pandemic. Tenants received a notice from the Bozzuto Management, Inc. that they would no longer take part in day-to-day operations, which was perplexing to the Appellant, since they paid all employees and there was no validation that they were no longer going to manage employees’ payrolls and why.
Gideon Freedman created a new company named Ansonia State Street and used that name specifically to “purchase” this $2.6 billion building for 4/65 of its value, which was $160 million. On the business record, it was recorded that Ansonia Apartments were affiliated as a Principal or other position, despite the fact that Ansonia Apartments was not a registered company although the Housing Court allowed this fictitious company to evict people. Attorney Pitt told the Appellant it was not his fault, that Commissioners of the Court may do what they want.
Trial court, Alayna Stone, issued a ruling in favor of Ansonia State Street, despite Appellant’s several claims that the case had no merit, she paid the rent for August and September 2024 as she had for July 2024, there was no Pretermination Letter, and the apartment was not a month-to-month tenancy and was also stated in the Summons and Complaint. Appellant Appealed, while her appeal on the previous associated case, a Housing Complaint, was SUPPOSED to be processed. Fee waiver was granted. Appeal document was issued with the fee waiver. Motion to Appeal was also submitted to further validate the abuse which the Appellant experienced in the trial court, rather than having Due Process of Law.
Appellate Court permitted Appellees to show no diligence, which continued this cycle of default and abuse of power, abuse of proceedings. They, being Hoops & Associates and Langhammer Law Office, were allowed not to respond to any preliminary documents, allowed not to file response briefs, and allowed not to argue the case on June 1, 2026. Appellate Court refused the Appellant any more time than 20 minutes, did not inform her she may request more time, and also caused the Appellant to “ARGUE” with no opposition, and yet ruled against her. Appellant claimed this was an ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS dynamic, not Due Process.
FACTS
1. GROUNDS FOR EN BANC: As stated throughout, the Appellant considers continuous abuse of procedure to take precedence, to include the failure to even submit a MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.
2. Appellant claims she should have the right to issue a modification of this motion since her case manager was not replaced while he was out of the office for over a week, with no notification to the appellant that he would be out of the office, which was unlike his typical routine.
a) Appellant is aggrieved by the Appellate Court failing to have someone take his place in order to preserve her rights as a Pro Se who is far more diligent than the Appellees, who have been giving the court money and then being allowed to not respond to the Preliminary Documents, not issue response Briefs, and not appear at argument.
i. This dynamic reflects they were assured by an Appellate Court judge they would win the case, they do not have to do anything!
ii. That judge, possibly Melanie Cradle, was closely affiliated with career criminal Lawrence Mark Hurley for at least EIGHT YEARS, and also collaborated with Kevin Russo’s legal malpractice by threatening the Appellant that if she did not agree to Accelerated Rehabilitation, she would face a very terrible time from the court. Refer to the Objection to Motion To Terminate Stay, as Appendixed.
1. The case was past the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor charge, and as already relayed, the Appellant has been repeatedly abused by these officials on a case that had no probable cause, getting the fire department to destroy the paperweight that the school had for over three days, since it was sent priority mail and the Appellant knew when they received it. Appellant spoke to Allington Fire Chief Sanpietro, who said he hoped the court would do the just thing and throw out the case. Instead, the court obsessed over a hate against this appellant, who is only guilty for considering the TRUTH to be the first thing important in life, as so stated in detail in her Supplement to the Objection of Motion To Terminate Stay, also included in Appendix to this motion.
2. Orders on this case reflect a manipulation rather than due process. For instance, over 10 actions alone reflect Appellant’s attempt to obtain and submit “All proceedings” “all hearings” from trial court, as so stated in the court forms. Practice Book Rules are convoluted and inconsistent with court actions. In fact, her Motion to Amend was finally granted, when all along they only had to allow Due Process of obtaining these transcripts. Appellant viewed this as submission to the Appellate Clerk, who submits it to the court reporter. She was told to directly submit it to the court reporter, who did not complete the form, and who also claimed that special documentation that she had fees paid were required even though she selected everything pertaining to the Appeal in the fee waiver. This caused more delay and disruption to the Appellant, who does not believe the court even read the transcripts or applied logic to the fact that the recordings were frauded. The name of Joseph St. Rock was FALSE. The person who appeared was a man in his 40’s who claimed to be Attorney Peter Hoops, yet the real Attorney Peter Hoops entered the BAR in 1987. Due to Abuse of Power by the Appellate Court, most likely at the order of Chief Judge Melanie Cradle, this Motion For Reconsideration was not issued an Extension of Time, yet on AC48452, Appellant has been previously granted an extension of time to 7/26/2026, due to heart problems and further abuse of procedure by Hoops & Associates ineptly motioning to Terminate Stay of Execution, as if it was not an Automatic Stay - anticipating Appellant would not successfully submit her Motion For Reconsideration on this case, as they successfully pull off more abuse of procedure.
b) Appellant has not wanted to mention the fact that Melanie Cradle was a prosecutor who conspired with Kevin Russo at the Milford Court, after prosecutor supervisor, Lawrence Mark Hurley was finally caught for his criminal activity, embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from the courts as well as the prosecutor’s union in just a three-year period of time, with the judge in the Middletown Court refusing to grant a further audit by state police despite the obvious malfeasance as probable cause for more years he did this.
i. This illegal activity should have been recognized by the States Attorney who who oversaw all operations of the court. His name was Kevin Lawlor at the time. It simply has to do with a checks-and-balances concept of accountability.
1. It is therefore the Appellant’s conclusion that several prosecutors were violating their oaths as attorneys and further violating their oaths of office.
2. Appellant was illicitly arrested when she simply wanted to pick up her book she had already purchased on the phone, for her first class the following day, a Saturday. She has relayed this circumstance in her Supplement to the Objection to non-diligent Appellant Hoops & Associates’ Motion to Terminate Stay of Execution, which is an Automatic Stay.
3. They showed no real purpose yet abuse of procedure. They had never motioned the court for a termination of stay of execution before or after judgment of trial court.
a) Additionally, the trial court has made several violations of the rules of court and even state laws and the general law of Due Process. Appellant has already relayed this in her Objection, which disrupted her efforts in working on this aforesaid Motion For Reconsideration En Banc.
b) Appellant again emphasizes this is further abuse of procedure and power, to harm her, who is the only victim - particularly since the maintenance manager had terrorized her July 2, 2024.
3. There is no “One Bite At the Apple” situation here, since the Apple has not even been bitten. The Court has failed to issue a Memorandum of Decsion AS REQUIRED. The Court denied the Appellant’s Motion For Memorandum of Decision/Opinion, which it states in the docket as “Motion For Opinion” which deflates the purpose of the motion, since Appellant has been violated by lack of Due Process of Law.
a) Alayna Stone has deliberately lied about the case. The Trial Court Memorandum of Decision was so obviously false. There was no month-to-month tenancy. She knew that there was a HAP Contract and even at trial, the Appellant stated, “Sure, let them enter those as evidence. They frame themselves…the letter stating the “new tenant rent” was dated 2024, yet claimed it to be a notice indicating the rent would be increased in 2022. The evidence was therefore a lie; let them enter their lies; they frame themselves. The burden of proof is on them. The ledger had noted court order for them to REMOVE all fraudulent charges, almost $14,000. This also has been emphasized by the Appellant.
i. This Motion For Reconsideration has to be entered now due to the Appellate Court’s abuse of power and ineptly strategizing this abuse to evade from being held accountable for the continuance of malfeasance.
ii. The Appellate Court showed no recognition of Appellants diligence in relaying why, and REFUSING to interract with the Appellant at the Argument has culminated the dynamic of “catch me if me you can” rather than serving the public with distinction as judges who are obligated to administer the law, not wants of certain elites and elite groups who abuse power.
iii. Appellant does not recognize Alayna Stone as an attorney, who has no valid Juris Number and seems to be a paid actor since she even allowed a woman in her 60’s to impersonate her in the Housing Complaint Case at the Hearing of October 31, 2024.
4. Contrary to the Appellee’s way of doing things, by only issuing ONE motion in Appellate Court and failing to provide printouts of motions and caselaws it is supposed to be providing for immediate access and support of its argument, the Appellant is doing just that as she has diligently done in a consistent manner throughout this case - printing out the laws and any caselaws which she may discover.
a) Due to the abuse to her on time, and having a heart condition which reflects a current blood pressure of 132/92 with a pulse of 92 (normal is 90/60!) Appellant is of the opinion that certain ones in the court system will not be satisfied until she is dead! This is Modus Operandi!
5. PB 71-5 as Shown in Appendix.
a) Definition of Motion For Reconsideration as shown in Appendix.
b) PB 71-6 as Shown in Appendix.
6. Concept of Writ of Error vs Vexatious and Malicious Administering
a) Circumstances in which the court has “erred”
i. This is a Direct Appeal; both courts are obligated to treat it as such, yet is instead just doing what it wants, to include frauds representing Hoops & Associates. And a fraud impersonating Alayna Stone at hearing of October 31, 2024 in the Housing Complaint.
7. Motion For Extension of Time was simultaneously submitted on AC48416 and AC48452.
a) AC48416 was not acted upon until Attorney Keane returned, which he stated could not be accepted as such, despite AC48452 accepting that motion.
i. Extension of time on AC48452 haas been granted to requested date, 7/26/2026
ii. Extension of time on AC48416 has been delayed by the court. Case manager was obviously told to delay it by ten days despite the fact they had a “no consent” to the original Motion For Extension Of Time, which the court did not return until Attorney Keane returned from being out of the office since at least July 2, 2026.
1. Appellate Court Rules - any Rules of Court - cannot be altered to fit whims of any judge who is obsessed with abusing power and targeting the Appellant. The rules which were in place at the time of appeal are required to be applied only. The very fact this Appellate Court violates its own rules of procedure to further abuse the Appellant, who PAID HER RENT, WHO HAS A HAP CONTRACT AND NEVER HAD A MONTH-TO-MONTH TENANCY, only reflects that laws do not matter and is a disgrace to the implementation of justice, lacking jurisprudence and reflecting malfeasance.
iii. Attorney’s Oath
iv. The Court would have this knowledge
1. Notice To Quit was Unlawful
2. Due Process was violated by Trial Court
3. There is no Merit to The Trial Court Case; thus reason for appealing
4. The Apellate Court is NOT transparent yet it may be cured with an Opinion as so described by law.
v. What is the Intent of the Appellate Court?
1. Appellant had no opportunity to interract with the Appellate Judges at scheduled “Argument” in which the court allowed Appellees not to show when they had not even responded to the Preliminary Documents or brief - on June 1, 2026
2. The Appellate Court failed to issue any Memorandum of Decision which reflects Alayna Stone’s refusal to issue a Memorandum of Decision pursuant to PB 64-1; and when Statement of Noncompliance was uploaded to the associated case, AC48452, to the best of Pro Se’s ability, since there was no option for issuing a statement on the selections of uploads, this same group of judges issued a DENIAL on the statement, telling the case manager that it was PERCEIVING it as a motion - which reflects they were neither interested in reading it, let alone responding to it. It should have been rejected rather than reflecting the court’s WRIT OF ERROR by ruling on the statement as a motion.
3. Not once has the court been transparent with its rulings on motions, not even on judgment of the case, which is lacking in jurisprudence.
8. Concept of One Bite At The Apple
a) Requires a law that the court ruled on but there is no law; there is no opinion! There is no Apple!
i. Motion for Opinion has been submitted, yet was ineptly denied.
ii. CT Law Journal specifies that section to be “Memorandum of Decision” yet only a ruling is entered - see definition of “opinion/Memorandum of Decision”. It is irrelevant to the Pro Se Appellant how many times this Appellate Court rules on orders with, as the Appellate Clerk’s office defines as “one-liners”. Hopefully law-abiding attorneys may address this Modus Operandi to the court.
1. Located in the printed annotated Rules in the Appendix to the Motion, are judicial notes how it is important to dissallow the one-liner rulings which are orders, not Memorandums of Decision/Opions.
1. LEGAL Definitions
a) Notice to Quit: A landlord’s written notice demanding that a tenant surrender and vacate the leased property, thereby terminating the tenancy.
b) Summons: a writ directing a defendant to appear in court, providing case information to the defendant.
c) Lease: A contract involving real estate
d) A Housing Contract is a Lease and is stated right in the HAP contract that it is the controlling lease; and the fact that the Appellee deliberately failed to present that as evidence was more proof they were incriminating themselves, particularly since this Appellee at trial was obviously not Attorney Peter Hoops as he so-said, and the trial court covered up for by altering the record that he was Attorney St. Rock.
2. Code of Judicial Conduct
a) Rule 2.4
b) Rule 3.19 Extrajudicial Activities
i. (3) participate in activities that would appear to a reasonable person
Person to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality
c) Rule 3.4: A judge shall not accept appointment to a governmental committee, board, commission, or other government position unless it is oe that concerns the law, the legal system or admin of justice
i. In other words, the judge MAY participate in activities that would undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality by altering rules and laws which would favor its wants in current cases?
d) Rule 3.7: Participation in Educational, Religious, Charitable, fraternal, or civic organizations and activities - all not for profit activities
i. Don’t adjunct professors get paid? (Melanie Cradle is an adjunct professor at Quinnipiac Univ)
3. Appellee Hoops & Associates (ONLY Appellee, not Langhammer, who has done absolutely nothing as an Appellee) submission of Motion To Terminate Stay of Execution, entered on case on June 30, 2026 - seen by Appellant at 12:58 am on July 1, and remained accepted in the system. Yet upon Calling the Appellate Court, she discovered that there was a “return” backdated to June 30. She had no opportunity to discuss this with Attorney Peter Keane. He was out of the office.
a) Inept format of motion should have been immediately rejected
i. This was just the reason Appellant submitted a Motion To Strike on the Appellee’s trial court motion on associated case AC48452
1. The woman impersonating Alayna Stone on October 31, 2024 failed to hear the Complaint and gave every impression that she would be scheduling another hearing. She may have even said this yet the recording of the transcript was frauded by cyber criminals who obviously work for the court under color of the law.
b) Appellate Court backdated a RETURN on July 2 or July 3
c) Appellant viewed this motion as active at 11:58 pm on July 1. It was saved to her own records to ensure the individual record was not changed and adequate for review.
d) Appellee Hoops & Associates should have been removed from the case due to their lack of diligence; failure to respond to the Preliminary Documents, failure to issue a response brief, failure to respond to pleadings. The Appellate Court continues to allow them the freedom to do whatever they want despite violating Rules of Court as well as Statutes and thus reflecting the complete neglect of Due Process of Law; particulary since a fraud was in court, claiming he was Attorney Peter Hoops who entered the BAR in 1987 when he was only in his 40’s. Though it was requested at trial to validate him, Alayna Stone failed and even refused to do so.
i. On repeated occasions as well as in the Memorandum of Decision, Alayna Stone was acting as the Appellee’s attorney, when most likely she is not an attorney herself and has not followed the Rules of Court, etc.
LAW
PB 71-5
PB 71-6
More laws provided and printed in Appendix
SUMMARY
The Rules of Court allow no more words on this motion.
WHEREFORE, Appellant motions this court for Reconsideration en banc.
Appendix Attached.
Prepared and Submitted,
THE APPELLANT, PRO SE
___IllegalEviction2024______
Anne M. Bradley
IllegalEviction2024
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 0652
Phone: 203-508-0858
CERTIFICATION
THIS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, DATED July 16, 2026, COMPRISES OF 11 PAGES, ALONG WITH APPENDIX. 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 16th day of July, 2026, to the following Attorneys who are listed by the Appellate Court:
Lloyd L. Langhammer (Appellate)
JURIS NO. Is oddly different than older trial case of AC 48416 appearance
LAW OFFICES OF LLOYD L. LANGHAMMER, LLC
18A Granite Street
New London, CT 06320
860-440-3340 NO FAX NUMBER ON FILE
HOOPS & ASSOCIATES
19A THAMES STREET
GROTON, CT 06340
PHONE: 860-445-8911
FAX: 860-445-8919
Attorney St. Rock has NEVER appeared in court on this case or the housing complaint case, which was docketed before this case. The trial record is FALSE.
__IllegalEviction2024__
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
I
Comments