AC48452 Motion For Reconsideration En Banc
link to this blogpost:
https://publiusroots.blogspot.com/2026/07/ac48452-motion-for-reconsideration-en.html
for androids: https://publiusroots.blogspot.com/2026/07/ac48452-motion-for-reconsideration-en?m=1
UPDATE 9/24/2026
My motion was uploaded successfully; yet it was frauded by cyber crime thereafter. I had to submit a Motion to Substitute - to include proof it was altered YET my efile was DELETED BY A CYBER CRIMINAL, PROBABLY MICROSOFT SINCE I had to sign in to use this laptop yet refused to update anything and do not use EDGE ever, even when I bought the laptop. It was the only one I could afford. I uploaded Google Chrome right away.
Google is compromised by Trump Admin crimes! Trump authorized payment for the creation of AI Overview (Mark Zuckerberg, who is obviously Robert T Morris who destroyed all computers but Apple products in Dec 1988 - to help Reagan rollout the destruction of Soviet Union's economy and Michael Powell survived what I consider an attempted murder - CPT in US Army in Germany, part of the 60,000 troops which Colin Powell oversaw - Colin Powell was ordered to go back to USA. He did that with little hesitation despite his commitment to PEACE, because Michael Powell was in ICU, and thereafter had 16 surgeries all together! I met Colin Powell but the Colonel didn't want me talking to him. The major was obviously a CIA man, calling the Whitehouse and Whitehouse ordered GENERAL Powell to not talk to me. He was going to have more of a conversation. I wanted to at least get his mailing address. He said he was going to talk more after they have their meeting. I came out and told him that I believed they were trying to murder his son, to disrupt his life and get rid of an upstanding officer. His jeep rolled down a cliff! As I recall, his driver died! Colin Powell was surprised with my forwardness yet I read enough about him and knew how much he was loved by military.
I try to follow Michael Powell, but he doesn't make public appearances very often. He is just so much like his dad and even looks like him. He is happily married, great wife and kids raised - obviously grandparents now.
Annie Powell was his daughter. So beautiful like her mom and such a kind but strong spirit.
Back to this update: My motion to substitute was denied and despite my claim that it was frauded and I showed proof with other versions I still had saved in my flashdrive - the cyber criminals weren't successful deleting them all. - the court ruled on the frauded one and denied substituting even though the nondiligent appellees - never filed opposition. They do all their wheeling and dealing behind closed doors! And it seems obvious to me that BAR ROCK Obama is in on the scheming! If you think he is even an attorney, you're crazy. He didn't attend classes. He was up to CIA no-good, such as helping Bill Aires bomb the WTC! It may have been a practice run for 9/11/2001.
I just submitted a MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. I can only share my 15-page statement. Upload on the trial court case is supposed to take place.
I am making a new blogpost now. - 9/24/2026
https://publiusroots.blogspot.com/
If that doesn't work: go to the motherearthtoo2022 blog link below
https://motherearthtoo2022.blogspot.com
AC 48452
Associated Case AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANNE M. BRADLEY : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, ET AL : August 26, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC ON
RULING/ ORDER OF JUNE 1, 2026 Argument, Brief, etc
Pursuant to PB 71-5, Appellant motions this court for Reconsideration En Banc on Ruling of June 16, 2026 which was not a MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.
HISTORY
The actual brief of Appellant has now been altered on court record and the file which covered the restructured brief (for clarity) with a CONCLUSION of only one-half page has been deleted and all documents saved relating to that work have all been changed to the same document, which is the altered brief on record, supposedly uploaded on November 12, 2025. That file was deleted from Appellant’s laptop on August 19, 2026 upon realizing that the brief of record has been altered.
This case arose due to an illegal Notice To Quit placed in Appellant’s door, on September 13, 2024, which claimed nonpayment of rent for August and September 2024, which was false.
Appellant returned the Notice To Quit by filing aforesaid Housing Complaint, listing 8 defendants due to violations by the companies which have investments on this property with no legitamate landlord on record since Ansonia State Street claims to own it by purchasing this $2.2 (now allegedly valued at $2.6 billion) property for 4/65 of its value - $160 million, has not proven its legal ownership, to include a vesting order since they arranged his so-called ownership outside of the law, to include having an $89 BILLION mortgage.
The Housing Court determined that Appellant’s rent was current and allowed her to pay the last agreed upon rent into court, which was $198.
Appellee-Defendant Ansonia State Street violated the court order in Paragraph 7 on October 24, 2024, dated October 23, 2024 - which was a week prior to the hearing of October 31, 2024.
An illegitamate Summary Process was placed on the Appellant’s door handle on October 24, 2024.
Hearing of October 31, 2024, included a woman who impersonated Alayna Stone, who claimed the case would be continued. Alayna Stone, dismissed this housing case when SHE had not even presided on the case, the Complaint had not been heard, motions were not all heard or ruled on, and all defendants defaulted by failing to answer and submit legitamate appearances.
Alayna Stone failed to administer the law regarding these defaults, yet she had not even presided at the hearing on October 31, 2024, fooling the Appellant-Plaintiff since the one who had appeared claimed she was Alayna Stone and the court indicated on record she was Alayna Stone.
Appellant attempted to have this assigned judge removed and also requested transfer to a different court. Both were denied. Case was dismissed. Appellant Appealed due to lack of due process, abuse of process and obstruction of justice, to include emphasis the Appellant was illegally served both a Notice To Quit and a Summons over a week past the return date of the illegal Notice To Quit, which was a week prior to the hearing of October 31, 2024 on aforesaid case.
FACTS
A. GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION:
a) Laws and Rules of Process (A) have not been adhered to, which violate Appellant’s right to Due Process. Appellate Court’s primary duty is to ensure the trial court adhered to Due Process of Law. This case seems like a situation of rushing an eviction case; and thereafter, to evade accountability, since it is a tradition by the courts to mark any pleading as moot if the tenant was evicted, which is a Devil’s Chessboard trick.
b) There is no transparency by the court. Denials of pleadings provide no reason, many of which have not even been heard (B).
i. Appellant is aggrieved by the lack of transparency - particularly since the Governor assured the public, as reported by the New Haven Register, that they would do their jobs and be transparent. Mentioned in the court record of Appellant’s Brief in the ARGUMENT, Section B where it begins with Oath For Judges. The article was issued July 2023 and can be easily found by Googling it.
1. Though this version of the Appellant’s brief is clearly defective and not the one which Appellant submitted, her electronic file on the one which she had submitted was deleted today by an unknown cyber criminal.
a) Appellant is submitting a notarized statement along with a few pages which she had printed prior to the hacker deleting the real motion which was submitted.
b) This version of Appellant’s brief includes a CONCLUSION OF 3 or 4 pages - yet Appellant submitted a CONCLUSION of one-half page, which she was fortunate enough to print prior to the e-file being replaced by this court version. In fact, all saved versions at different times of creating the brief have all been altered by cyber crime to reflect only the court version.
c) The real brief was enumerated electronically, by computer, as part of the service of TYCO Printing. The Appendix reflected the paginations beginning with the page number after the last page of the brief. The brief was not paginated as “1 of 48”. It was simply paginated as Page 1, Page 2, etc. A notarized statement at the beginning of the Appendix had to be inserted unexpectedly, since the Appellant was unaware that the real brief she had successfully uploaded right after she received the scanned pdf file from TYCO Printing was altered by cyber crime.
B. Appellant, Pro Se’s, Appeal of Ruling (C) was intercepted by delay tactics of the Judicial Branch which processed her request for exemption to e-file. Appellant, Pro Se, had to Motion To Open (D) to sustain her rights. Appellees showed no diligence, had fraudulent appearances (E) or failed to appear at all, such as LCI of the City of New Haven and Bercham Moses, who failed to appear at hearing (E) Trial Court Chief Clerk entered “self representing” for LCI’s Attorney-Director and Bozzuto Management was marked as non-appearing yet the court failed to enter DEFAULT as warned by court order on the form (O). This violated due process. This case has no Memorandum of Decision, from the Trial Court or from the Appellate Court, which also violates Rules of Court and Due Process of Law. (H & I) Therefore, there is no “Apple To Bite”. Motions For Memorandum of Decision at Trial Court and Appellate Court were denied. Right for extension of time to Appeal should have been automatic since there was no Memorandum of Decision, (I) yet the trial court ineptly denied Motion For Extension of Time to appeal right after the dismissal, disrupting the Appellant Pro Se’s diligent efforts. This is not a legitmate strategy; it is deliberate ABUSE OF PROCESS.
C. Argument on June 1, 2026 had no participation from the judges, which disturbed the Appellant’s rights.
a) Appellant learned later that the judges may speak and it would not interfere with a 20-minute time limit. In fact, she noticed a number of cases well-exceeded 20 minutes and she encouraged the judges to interrupt her at the beginning of at least one of two statements, since the court scheduled both cases together.
b) Appellees were allowed not to respond to Preliminary Documents, not to file response briefs and not to appear for Argument; having paid the court money which was labled as a “sanction” when they relayed their intent to break the rules of court. (J)
c) One appearing Appellee, LTKE Law Office, which was one of 3 or 4 attorney firms which represented the Housing Authority was allowed to submit a late response brief, (K) which the Appellant responded to (L). Their response brief had no relevance, making a counterstatement of an issue which did not even exist in the Brief, along with not responding to the HUD housing matters which Appellant relayed. They only represented the Housing Authority and could only argue on issues of HUD laws, yet failed to do so. Appellant was unaware they intended to show up for argument on June 1, and wanted the hearing rescheduled if the appellee was permitted to argue.
d) This motion is limited to 3,500 words. Malware by invasive Microsoft is disrupting actual word count, among other things, though this is a WPS document yet the laptop originally required a Microsoft Edge signin when it was the only purchase she could afford, six months after her Dell computer was destroyed by cyber criminals.
D. Appellant is submitting Questions, since the Apple to bite does not even exist. Suspension of Rules, PB 60-3, is not a free pass for the Appellate Court to serve its own wants; yet may on the interest of Justice, which for all purposes, is to support the rights of the parties WHICH HAVE LAWFUL APPEARANCES on the case, to include transparency on this court’s rulings. This has not occurred. Appellate Court has not been transparent. (M)
1. Did the Appellate Court Review the trial Court Case - to include the Appellant’s diligence in filing an APPEAL on Dismissal (C)? Is it fair for the Chief Administrative Judge, Elizabeth Bozzuto, to abuse power to disrupt her filing with exemption to e-file? Wasn’t Judge Bozzuto showing prejudice since the apartment building Appellant lives in since January 2013, was erected and managed by Bozzutos? Appellant is a disabled person, having been run into head-on by a 20 ton SANDer truck years ago, as indicated on the Request Form.
a) DID THE APPELLATE COURT IGNORE APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR MEMORANDUM OF DECISION BY TRIAL COURT, IN COMPLIANCE WITH PB 64-1 (H) submitted in September 2025? Why did the Appellate Court DENY her Statement of Noncompliance to PB 64-1, treating it as a Motion For Opinion when there was no motion on it?
2. Did the Appellate Court consider that Alayna Stone allowed someone to impersonate her at the only hearing held, October 31, 2024? (N)
3. Why is there neither a trial court Memorandum of Decision, nor an Appellate Court Memorandum of Decision - both of which are legal requirements and violate Due Process of Law? (H) (A)
4. Does the Appellate Court understand that a Motion To Open (A) (D) may resolve judgments of nonsuit (in favor of defendants) and review of the trial court case would uncover many fraudulent tactics to serve wants of the court rather than administer the law?
5. Didn’t Appellate Court find it unlawful:
a) No hearing on the Complaint even took place? (A)
b) Appellee violated the judicial order that they may not initiate a Summary Process while the case is pending? (O)
i. Why can trial court fraud the October 3 HM-19, which Appellant REPLACED prior to service as a cure, yet the Chief Clerk refused to allow Appellant to replace it; ordering her to mark it “AMENDED”? Why was Appellant denied by chief clerk to serve the complaints via USPS and make her own copies? Why did he mark the return date the same date as approval of the fee waiver? Why did he remove his own signature and the rent amount to pay each month on the form? Why was the fee waiver and Complaint granted, yet Chief Clerk refused to replace the defective HM-19 and yet allow Appellee Ansonia State Street to alter documents of the eviction case?
c) Why did the tial court further allow abuse of process by not rightfully throwing out the Eviction Case due to violating court order and lack of subject matter jurisdiction since proof the rent was paid for August and September?
i. And make matters worse by not uploading the docket for a week, when the Accused for nonpayment of rent only has three days from service to submit an appearance? (A)
ii. How can the Summons include add-on accusations when the subject matter jurisdiction is limited to what is on the Notice to Quit? (Q) (R).
1. This is a HAP Contract. (S) Why is the Court allowing this fraud? Why did the trial Court issue a Memo of Decision on the illegal eviction case and not on this one?
d) How can trial court enter the Appellant’s Appearance and Motion To Dismiss (W) on the illegal eviction case (trial court of AC48416) to be 6 days PRIOR to the ILLEGAL upload of that illegal case (P)? (Q) (A)?
e) Isn’t the Summons illegal if no case is docketed the same day it is served? (Let alone a week!) (A)
6. Did the Appellate Court understand that the diligent Appellant made sure to the best of her ability that all Appellees marked as active by the Secretary of State were served on aforesaid case yet the Secretary of State altered some of those records thereafter?
a) How can the marshal just hand over the original Complaint Packet to the Secretary of State without permission from the Appellant-Plaintiff, when she had her own copy she could give them IF it was even true they require another packet to be Agent of Service for Bozzutos, a for-profit company and also enjoyed Elizabeth Bozzuto’s abuse of power as Chief Administrative Judge?
b) Cited is CGS 47a-14h: (A) Was it proper for Attorney Pitt to reject typed original JD-HM-19, claiming that all addresses had to be the address of the Agent of Service, contrary to other cases in which this Housing Lawsuit form is used and only permitted by Housing Court; as discovered by the Appellant when viewing cases?
1. The form indicates they are being sued; that they are required to appear in court; that they are REQUIRED to complete an appearance form JD-CL-12, and if they do not appear, they may be defaulted (Y) and orders will be against them; and “you may not commence a Summary Process eviction for nonpayment of rent while this case is pending, so long as the tenant continues to deposit the rent with the court”.
7. Does the Appellate Court consider the trial court judge to have the power to change the subject matter jurisdiction of the case? (A)
a) Docket Number is automatically issued at the time of processed payment for Summary Process. (Z) How does an IOU stand up in court?
1. Fee Waiver (O) for the complaint stated the title of the case to be Anne M. Bradley vs Bozzuto Management, Inc, et al. It was granted by Alayna Stone. Why does the Chief Clerk change the name and cover up for Bozzutos?
2. Why was the illegal Summons delayed to October 24, with a return date of November 12, when it is supposed to be October 27?
3. Why isn’t trial court held accountable for allowing no Pretermination of Lease letter as required by HUD, and then claiming a Termination of Lease (Notice To Quit) was equivalent? Is Alayna Stone even an attorney or is she a paid actor?
4. Why is the court ignoring the fact that Bank Of America determined and hand-noted right on the bank checks checks (S) that they were cashed, not deposited, by an unknown person authorized to accept checks for “360 State Street” which is what Appellant was told to only make her Section 8 rent checks out to?
5. Why does the court allow BEACHWOLD RESIDENTIAL to be deliberately spelled wrong as BEACHWOOD, and trial court refused to change it?
6. How can the marshal serve Complaints to INACTIVE OR WITHDRAWN companies since the Secretary of State changed and backdated records?
8. Why is it that The Appellate Court fails to follow its own rules (A) and then refuses to issue a Memorandum of Decision to mirror trial court’s violation?
9. Isn’t it wrongful to make up a Request to Conform form to cover up a defective return date which the Appellee-Defendant Ansonia State Street caused on the AC48416 eviction case, which began by service of a Summons (Q) - which violated court orders on aforesaid case, to not proceed with a Summary Process?
10. Why would Alayna Stone allow someone to impersonate her at the hearing of October 31, 2024? Why does her Juris number not exist in Juris lookup?
11. The Appellate Court published on its website that they are required to review proceedings from trial court (A); and that the Supreme Court is required only to review issues of law (A). Why is this not adhered to on aforesaid case?
12. Why has the court ignored all the breaches of contract made by the Appellees as so-stated in a Preliminary Statement of Issues (A-1) as well as Predetermination of Declaratory Judgment/Statement of Damages (B-1) ?
13. Is it justiciable action for Alayna Stone, William Pitt, et al to use means of delay to counteract the Appellant’s ability to submit a timely APPEAL on Dismissal in aforesaid matter, fully knowing that a Memorandum of Decision is FIRST required before an Appeal is timely required? (A)
14. Were the simultaneous granting of fee waiver for Motion to Open and Denying the Motion impeding Due Process of Law?
LAWS
Appendix A
SUMMARY
As Appellant, Pro Se was working on both AC48416 and aforesaid case Motions For Reconsideration, the Appellee once again uses abuse of procedure by submitting an inept Motion To Terminate Stay of Execution on AC48416, which the Appellate Court rejected since Stay of Execution was automatic - yet thereafter the rejection was altered by someone at Appellate Court, indicating it was in the wrong court (C-1) - no it was not! (A) Whoever altered the rejection also ordered the Appellee to submit it in trial court. Appellee literally waited a week to do so, timing it to be simultaneous with payment into court, to give the Chief Clerk at Trial Court a “reason” to reject trial court-ordered monthly payment, which is over the rent of $198, into court despite having an automatic stay and the Chief Clerk should have rejected the Motion To Terminate Stay of Execution (D-1) (A). The Devil’s Chessboard Tricks just never end - which began with the fraudulent Notice To Quit! Trial Court even placed a prior reason for rejecting the Appellant’s motion in court was due to “Stay of Execution is Automatic” so they know what automatic is and they know how to reject motions!
There is no bite at the apple because there is no apple; the Appellant has had to ask questions because it cannot argue what does not exist. The lack of transparency has caused a great defect in this case, particularly since the trial court had no subject matter jurisdiction to further harm the Appellant by allowing the Appellee Ansonia State Street to violate the court order to not proceed with a Summary Process, yet they did a week before the one-and-only hearing on this aforesaid case, not even hearing the Complaint!
Appellate Court has not ascertained that Due Process was implemented, which is one of the first steps in determining decisions on cases (A) which they decide upon. Is it too much to ask to administer the law? There is not even a Memorandum of Decision from either Trial or Appellate Court. Alayna Stone is apparently a paid actor. She failed to use a Juris number on her Memorandum of Decision of AC48416. She allowed Appellee Ansonia State Street to violate Order not to proceed with Summary Process without even making any statement on record as to why. The BAR Assoc. Claims Juris Registrations are not public information.
Did the Appellate Court decide to follow suit by also not issuing a Memorandum of Decision/Opinion on the case, even though it is the law that they do so? Can this lack of administering justice be cured - or is the court just going to say what the heck, we will just illegally evict her again and get away with it because no matter what is submitted afterward, it will be deemed as moot by the courts, even the US Supreme Court. It’s all fixed.
WHEREFORE, Appellant-Plaintiff Motions this court for Reconsideration En Banc on its Order, since they have not and will not issue an Opinion/Memorandum of Law, thus there is no apple to bite. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED.
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 EN BANC OF THE JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED ON ARGUMENT OF JUNE 1, 2026, TO INCLUDE APPELLANT’S BRIEF, AND ALL OF APPELLANT’S DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED ON RECORD OF AFORESAID CASE, COMPRISES OF 14 PAGES along with a thorough Appendix referencing documents already submitted in to court, as emphasis. 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 21st day of August, 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 NO FAX NUMBER PROVIDED ON RECORD
HOOPS & ASSOCIATES
19A THAMES STREET
GROTON, CT 06340
PHONE: 860-445-8911
FAX: 860-445-8919
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
__IllegalEviction2024_
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
42USC(1437(f) - doesn't seem to be accessible anymore. THEY PROBABLY CHARGE A FEE!
HERE IS THE LINK NOW: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title42/chapter8&edition=prelim 8/1/2026
The damn tool bar is removed - I have to update and go back in. They use cyber crime constantly! http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=prelim@title42/chapter8&edition=prelim THIS IS NO ACCESSIBLE
You may need to paste it into your browser. I don't activate the link of the blogpost I am on. I learned the cyber criminals have an easy way of hacking that way.
It is 7/19/2026 - MOTION IS DUE TO BE SUBMITTED NLT 7/27/2026 - Motion for Ext of Time - case manager said Tuesday he expects to grant it to August 12
I'll be back...
updatr - there were problems with the "final version".
- I cant even see the damn screen here. I will post what I copied and close out of this.
AC 48452
Associated Case AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANNE M. BRADLEY : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, ET AL : August 21, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC ON
RULING/ ORDER OF JUNE 1, 2026 Argument, Brief, etc
Pursuant to PB 71-5, Appellant motions this court for Reconsideration En Banc on Ruling of June 16, 2026 which was an ORDER, not a MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.
HISTORY
The actual brief of Appellant has now been altered on court record and the file which covered the restructured brief (for clarity) with a CONCLUSION of only one-half page has been deleted and all documents saved relating to that work have all been changed to the same document, which is the altered brief on record, supposedly uploaded on November 12, 2025. That file was deleted from Appellant’s laptop on August 19, 2026 upon realizing that the brief of record has been altered.
This case arose due to an illegal Notice To Quit placed in Appellant’s door, on September 13, 2024, which claimed nonpayment of rent for August and September 2024, which was false.
Appellant returned the Notice To Quit by filing aforesaid Housing Complaint, listing 8 defendants due to violations by the companies which have investments on this property with no legitamate landlord on record since Ansonia State Street claims to own it by purchasing this $2.2 (now allegedly valued at $2.6 billion) property for 4/65 of its value - $160 million, has not proven its legal ownership, to include a vesting order since they arranged his so-called ownership outside of the law, to include having an $89 BILLION mortgage.
The Housing Court determined that Appellant’s rent was current and allowed her to pay the last agreed upon rent into court, which was $198.
Appellee-Defendant Ansonia State Street violated the court order in Paragraph 7 on October 24, 2024, dated October 23, 2024 - which was a week prior to the hearing of October 31, 2024.
An illegitamate Summary Process was placed on the Appellant’s door handle on October 24, 2024.
Hearing of October 31, 2024, included a woman who impersonated Alayna Stone, who claimed the case would be continued. Alayna Stone, dismissed this housing case when SHE had not even presided on the case, the Complaint had not been heard, motions were not all heard or ruled on, and all defendants defaulted by failing to answer and submit legitamate appearances.
Alayna Stone failed to administer the law regarding these defaults, yet she had not even presided at the hearing on October 31, 2024, fooling the Appellant-Plaintiff since the one who had appeared claimed she was Alayna Stone and the court indicated on record she was Alayna Stone.
Appellant attempted to have this assigned judge removed and also requested transfer to a different court. Both were denied. Case was dismissed. Appellant Appealed due to lack of due process, abuse of process and obstruction of justice, to include emphasis the Appellant was illegally served both a Notice To Quit and a Summons over a week past the return date of the illegal Notice To Quit, which was a week prior to the hearing of October 31, 2024 on aforesaid case.
FACTS
A. GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION:
a) Laws and Rules of Process (A) have not been adhered to, which violate Appellant’s right to Due Process. Appellate Court’s primary duty is to ensure the trial court adhered to Due Process of Law. This case seems like a situation of rushing an eviction case; and thereafter, to evade accountability, since it is a tradition by the courts to mark any pleading as moot if the tenant was evicted, which is a Devil’s Chessboard trick.
b) There is no transparency by the court. Denials of pleadings provide no reason, many of which have not even been heard (B).
i. Appellant is aggrieved by the lack of transparency - particularly since the Governor assured the public, as reported by the New Haven Register, that they would do their jobs and be transparent. Mentioned in the court record of Appellant’s Brief in the ARGUMENT, Section B where it begins with Oath For Judges. The article was issued July 2023 and can be easily found by Googling it.
1. Though this version of the Appellant’s brief is clearly defective and not the one which Appellant submitted, her electronic file on the one which she had submitted was deleted today by an unknown cyber criminal.
a) Appellant is submitting a notarized statement along with a few pages which she had printed prior to the hacker deleting the real motion which was submitted.
b) This version of Appellant’s brief includes a CONCLUSION OF 3 or 4 pages - yet Appellant submitted a CONCLUSION of one-half page, which she was fortunate enough to print prior to the e-file being replaced by this court version. In fact, all saved versions at different times of creating the brief have all been altered by cyber crime to reflect only the court version.
c) The real brief was enumerated electronically, by computer, as part of the service of TYCO Printing. The Appendix reflected the paginations beginning with the page number after the last page of the brief. The brief was not paginated as “1 of 48”. It was simply paginated as Page 1, Page 2, etc. A notarized statement at the beginning of the Appendix had to be inserted unexpectedly, since the Appellant was unaware that the real brief she had successfully uploaded right after she received the scanned pdf file from TYCO Printing was altered by cyber crime.
B. Appellant, Pro Se’s, Appeal of Ruling (C) was intercepted by delay tactics of the Judicial Branch which processed her request for exemption to e-file. Appellant, Pro Se, had to Motion To Open (D) to sustain her rights. Appellees showed no diligence, had fraudulent appearances (E) or failed to appear at all, such as LCI of the City of New Haven and Bercham Moses, who failed to appear at hearing (E) Trial Court Chief Clerk entered “self representing” for LCI’s Attorney-Director and Bozzuto Management was marked as non-appearing yet the court failed to enter DEFAULT as warned by court order on the form (O). This violated due process. This case has no Memorandum of Decision, from the Trial Court or from the Appellate Court, which also violates Rules of Court and Due Process of Law. (H & I) Therefore, there is no “Apple To Bite”. Motions For Memorandum of Decision at Trial Court and Appellate Court were denied. Right for extension of time to Appeal should have been automatic since there was no Memorandum of Decision, (I) yet the trial court ineptly denied Motion For Extension of Time to appeal right after the dismissal, disrupting the Appellant Pro Se’s diligent efforts. This is not a legitmate strategy; it is deliberate ABUSE OF PROCESS.
C. Argument on June 1, 2026 had no participation from the judges, which disturbed the Appellant’s rights.
a) Appellant learned later that the judges may speak and it would not interfere with a 20-minute time limit. In fact, she noticed a number of cases well-exceeded 20 minutes and she encouraged the judges to interrupt her at the beginning of at least one of two statements, since the court scheduled both cases together.
b) Appellees were allowed not to respond to Preliminary Documents, not to file response briefs and not to appear for Argument; having paid the court money which was labled as a “sanction” when they relayed their intent to break the rules of court. (J)
c) One appearing Appellee, LTKE Law Office, which was one of 3 or 4 attorney firms which represented the Housing Authority was allowed to submit a late response brief, (K) which the Appellant responded to (L). Their response brief had no relevance, making a counterstatement of an issue which did not even exist in the Brief, along with not responding to the HUD housing matters which Appellant relayed. They only represented the Housing Authority and could only argue on issues of HUD laws, yet failed to do so. Appellant was unaware they intended to show up for argument on June 1, and wanted the hearing rescheduled if the appellee was permitted to argue.
d) This motion is limited to 3,500 words. Malware by invasive Microsoft is disrupting actual word count, among other things, though this is a WPS document yet the laptop originally required a Microsoft Edge signin when it was the only purchase she could afford, six months after her Dell computer was destroyed by cyber criminals.
D. Appellant is submitting Questions, since the Apple to bite does not even exist. Suspension of Rules, PB 60-3, is not a free pass for the Appellate Court to serve its own wants; yet may on the interest of Justice, which for all purposes, is to support the rights of the parties WHICH HAVE LAWFUL APPEARANCES on the case, to include transparency on this court’s rulings. This has not occurred. Appellate Court has not been transparent. (M)
1. Did the Appellate Court Review the trial Court Case - to include the Appellant’s diligence in filing an APPEAL on Dismissal (C)? Is it fair for the Chief Administrative Judge, Elizabeth Bozzuto, to abuse power to disrupt her filing with exemption to e-file? Wasn’t Judge Bozzuto showing prejudice since the apartment building Appellant lives in since January 2013, was erected and managed by Bozzutos? Appellant is a disabled person, having been run into head-on by a 20 ton SANDer truck years ago, as indicated on the Request Form.
a) DID THE APPELLATE COURT IGNORE APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR MEMORANDUM OF DECISION BY TRIAL COURT, IN COMPLIANCE WITH PB 64-1 (H) submitted in September 2025? Why did the Appellate Court DENY her Statement of Noncompliance to PB 64-1, treating it as a Motion For Opinion when there was no motion on it?
2. Did the Appellate Court consider that Alayna Stone allowed someone to impersonate her at the only hearing held, October 31, 2024? (N)
3. Why is there neither a trial court Memorandum of Decision, nor an Appellate Court Memorandum of Decision - both of which are legal requirements and violate Due Process of Law? (H) (A)
4. Does the Appellate Court understand that a Motion To Open (A) (D) may resolve judgments of nonsuit (in favor of defendants) and review of the trial court case would uncover many fraudulent tactics to serve wants of the court rather than administer the law?
5. Didn’t Appellate Court find it unlawful:
a) No hearing on the Complaint even took place? (A)
b) Appellee violated the judicial order that they may not initiate a Summary Process while the case is pending? (O)
i. Why can trial court fraud the October 3 HM-19, which Appellant REPLACED prior to service as a cure, yet the Chief Clerk refused to allow Appellant to replace it; ordering her to mark it “AMENDED”? Why was Appellant denied by chief clerk to serve the complaints via USPS and make her own copies? Why did he mark the return date the same date as approval of the fee waiver? Why did he remove his own signature and the rent amount to pay each month on the form? Why was the fee waiver and Complaint granted, yet Chief Clerk refused to replace the defective HM-19 and yet allow Appellee Ansonia State Street to alter documents of the eviction case?
c) Why did the tial court further allow abuse of process by not rightfully throwing out the Eviction Case due to violating court order and lack of subject matter jurisdiction since proof the rent was paid for August and September?
i. And make matters worse by not uploading the docket for a week, when the Accused for nonpayment of rent only has three days from service to submit an appearance? (A)
ii. How can the Summons include add-on accusations when the subject matter jurisdiction is limited to what is on the Notice to Quit? (Q) (R).
1. This is a HAP Contract. (S) Why is the Court allowing this fraud? Why did the trial Court issue a Memo of Decision on the illegal eviction case and not on this one?
d) How can trial court enter the Appellant’s Appearance and Motion To Dismiss (W) on the illegal eviction case (trial court of AC48416) to be 6 days PRIOR to the ILLEGAL upload of that illegal case (P)? (Q) (A)?
e) Isn’t the Summons illegal if no case is docketed the same day it is served? (Let alone a week!) (A)
6. Did the Appellate Court understand that the diligent Appellant made sure to the best of her ability that all Appellees marked as active by the Secretary of State were served on aforesaid case yet the Secretary of State altered some of those records thereafter?
a) How can the marshal just hand over the original Complaint Packet to the Secretary of State without permission from the Appellant-Plaintiff, when she had her own copy she could give them IF it was even true they require another packet to be Agent of Service for Bozzutos, a for-profit company and also enjoyed Elizabeth Bozzuto’s abuse of power as Chief Administrative Judge?
b) Cited is CGS 47a-14h: (A) Was it proper for Attorney Pitt to reject typed original JD-HM-19, claiming that all addresses had to be the address of the Agent of Service, contrary to other cases in which this Housing Lawsuit form is used and only permitted by Housing Court; as discovered by the Appellant when viewing cases?
1. The form indicates they are being sued; that they are required to appear in court; that they are REQUIRED to complete an appearance form JD-CL-12, and if they do not appear, they may be defaulted (Y) and orders will be against them; and “you may not commence a Summary Process eviction for nonpayment of rent while this case is pending, so long as the tenant continues to deposit the rent with the court”.
7. Does the Appellate Court consider the trial court judge to have the power to change the subject matter jurisdiction of the case? (A)
a) Docket Number is automatically issued at the time of processed payment for Summary Process. (Z) How does an IOU stand up in court?
1. Fee Waiver (O) for the complaint stated the title of the case to be Anne M. Bradley vs Bozzuto Management, Inc, et al. It was granted by Alayna Stone. Why does the Chief Clerk change the name and cover up for Bozzutos?
2. Why was the illegal Summons delayed to October 24, with a return date of November 12, when it is supposed to be October 27?
3. Why isn’t trial court held accountable for allowing no Pretermination of Lease letter as required by HUD, and then claiming a Termination of Lease (Notice To Quit) was equivalent? Is Alayna Stone even an attorney or is she a paid actor?
4. Why is the court ignoring the fact that Bank Of America determined and hand-noted right on the bank checks checks (S) that they were cashed, not deposited, by an unknown person authorized to accept checks for “360 State Street” which is what Appellant was told to only make her Section 8 rent checks out to?
5. Why does the court allow BEACHWOLD RESIDENTIAL to be deliberately spelled wrong as BEACHWOOD, and trial court refused to change it?
6. How can the marshal serve Complaints to INACTIVE OR WITHDRAWN companies since the Secretary of State changed and backdated records?
8. Why is it that The Appellate Court fails to follow its own rules (A) and then refuses to issue a Memorandum of Decision to mirror trial court’s violation?
9. Isn’t it wrongful to make up a Request to Conform form to cover up a defective return date which the Appellee-Defendant Ansonia State Street caused on the AC48416 eviction case, which began by service of a Summons (Q) - which violated court orders on aforesaid case, to not proceed with a Summary Process?
10. Why would Alayna Stone allow someone to impersonate her at the hearing of October 31, 2024? Why does her Juris number not exist in Juris lookup?
11. The Appellate Court published on its website that they are required to review proceedings from trial court (A); and that the Supreme Court is required only to review issues of law (A). Why is this not adhered to on aforesaid case?
12. Why has the court ignored all the breaches of contract made by the Appellees as so-stated in a Preliminary Statement of Issues (A-1) as well as Predetermination of Declaratory Judgment/Statement of Damages (B-1) ?
13. Is it justiciable action for Alayna Stone, William Pitt, et al to use means of delay to counteract the Appellant’s ability to submit a timely APPEAL on Dismissal in aforesaid matter, fully knowing that a Memorandum of Decision is FIRST required before an Appeal is timely required? (A)
14. Were the simultaneous granting of fee waiver for Motion to Open and Denying the Motion impeding Due Process of Law?
LAWS
Appendix A
SUMMARY
As Appellant, Pro Se was working on both AC48416 and aforesaid case Motions For Reconsideration, the Appellee once again uses abuse of procedure by submitting an inept Motion To Terminate Stay of Execution on AC48416, which the Appellate Court rejected since Stay of Execution was automatic - yet thereafter the rejection was altered by someone at Appellate Court, indicating it was in the wrong court (C-1) - no it was not! (A) Whoever altered the rejection also ordered the Appellee to submit it in trial court. Appellee literally waited a week to do so, timing it to be simultaneous with payment into court, to give the Chief Clerk at Trial Court a “reason” to reject trial court-ordered monthly payment, which is over the rent of $198, into court despite having an automatic stay and the Chief Clerk should have rejected the Motion To Terminate Stay of Execution (D-1) (A). The Devil’s Chessboard Tricks just never end - which began with the fraudulent Notice To Quit! Trial Court even placed a prior reason for rejecting the Appellant’s motion in court was due to “Stay of Execution is Automatic” so they know what automatic is and they know how to reject motions!
There is no bite at the apple because there is no apple; the Appellant has had to ask questions because it cannot argue what does not exist. The lack of transparency has caused a great defect in this case, particularly since the trial court had no subject matter jurisdiction to further harm the Appellant by allowing the Appellee Ansonia State Street to violate the court order to not proceed with a Summary Process, yet they did a week before the one-and-only hearing on this aforesaid case, not even hearing the Complaint!
Appellate Court has not ascertained that Due Process was implemented, which is one of the first steps in determining decisions on cases (A) which they decide upon. Is it too much to ask to administer the law? There is not even a Memorandum of Decision from either Trial or Appellate Court. Alayna Stone is apparently a paid actor. She failed to use a Juris number on her Memorandum of Decision of AC48416. She allowed Appellee Ansonia State Street to violate Order not to proceed with Summary Process without even making any statement on record as to why. The BAR Assoc. Claims Juris Registrations are not public information.
Did the Appellate Court decide to follow suit by also not issuing a Memorandum of Decision/Opinion on the case, even though it is the law that they do so? Can this lack of administering justice be cured - or is the court just going to say what the heck, we will just illegally evict her again and get away with it because no matter what is submitted afterward, it will be deemed as moot by the courts, even the US Supreme Court. It’s all fixed.
WHEREFORE, Appellant-Plaintiff Motions this court for Reconsideration En Banc on its Order, since they have not and will not issue an Opinion/Memorandum of Law, thus there is no apple to bite. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED.
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 EN BANC OF THE JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED ON ARGUMENT OF JUNE 1, 2026, TO INCLUDE APPELLANT’S BRIEF, AND ALL OF APPELLANT’S DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED ON RECORD OF AFORESAID CASE, COMPRISES OF 14 PAGES along with a thorough Appendix referencing documents already submitted in to court, as emphasis. 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 21st day of August, 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 NO FAX NUMBER PROVIDED ON RECORD
HOOPS & ASSOCIATES
19A THAMES STREET
GROTON, CT 06340
PHONE: 860-445-8911
FAX: 860-445-8919
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
__IllegalEviction2024_
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
Today, this is th final version
This is my FINAL version. I need to create an appendix so it has not been submitted yet: - posted 30July2026
AC 48452
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANNE M. BRADLEY : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, ET AL : not submitted on the case yet. Appendix_not finished
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC ON
RULING OF JUNE 1, 2026 Argument, Brief, etc
Pursuant to PB 71-5, Appellant motions this court for Reconsideration En Banc on Ruling of June 16, 2026.
HISTORY
This case arose due to an illegal Notice To Quit placed in Appellant’s door, which claimed nonpayment of rent for August and September 2024, which was false. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Appellant submitted aforesaid Housing Lawsuit in September 2024 culminating over 13 years. It was rejected. Lawsuit emphasized invalid Notice To Quit. Appellant relayed breaches of contract by Appellees, referencing illegal eviction process in 2019 - which was won due to failure in issuing a Pretermination Notice and no arrearage by the Appellant Anne M. Bradley. Another was submitted October 1, 2024, and was granted. The Chief Clerk made Appellant re-create a Notice of Suit, JD-HM-19. It was hand-written and defective for several reasons. Appellant was not allowed to mail the complaints and the chief clerk claimed HE had to make copies and he took a week doing so, which nefarious delay of the case since he had already docketed it. Defendants were ordered by the COURT not to issue a Summary Process against the Appellant-Plaintiff in Paragraph 7 of the Notice of Suit. The marshal, who was also a tenant on the same premises, neither knocked on her door nor called her or notified the management he was serving the paper, as required when a marshal lives in the building. Instead, he went to one of her Section 8 neighbors, who is also an alumnus of SCSU as he was, and told her that he didn’t know where Appellant was and he wanted to know if she knew. Appellant claimed in her housing complaint that this Marshal (SANDillo, as shown on the proof of service) was not only abusive, it was reflective of his deliberate illegal service and misinforming the disabled neighbor, as an opportunity to spread lies. Appellant was sick with the flu for a number of days, telling the Concierge on September 12 that she was unable to pick up her Home Depot order and to please store it since she did not expect to be able to leave for at least a week. The neighbor heard her leave her apartment on or about September 20, and told her the marshal went to her door. Appellant told the neighber that he had no right to bother her. He was supposed to go to management. An illegitamate Summary Process was placed on the Appellant’s door handle on October 22, prior to the hearing of aforesaid case, dated October 31, 2024. Appellant went to the courthouse to have a statement notarized and to submit to the housing office. The woman who impersonated Alayna Stone alluded to or directly stated she would continue the case. Alayna Stone, who did not even preside at the hearing yet allowed a fraud to, dismissed this housing case when the Complaint had not been heard, motions were not all ruled on, and all defendants defaulted by failing to answer and submit legitamate appearances. Appellant attempted to have this judge removed for her fraudulent behavior on aforesaid case of AC48452, since her Complaint was not even heard and the woman who was there was not even Alayna Stone yet she claimed she was. The young man (in his mid or late 20’s) who was there on October 31, 2024, was not verified by the court and was definitely not an attorney. He claimed he was Attorney Peter Hoops. At the trial on associated case, AC48416, the man who showed up also claimed he was was Attorney Peter Hoops, yet he was in his 40’s. Appellant considered him to be another fake attorney, yet Alayna Stone would not verify if he was even an attorney or not even though Appellant emphasized the real Attorney Peter Hoops entered the BAR in 1987 (which would make him about 70 years old). The case was appealed on 11/21/2024 based on deliberate lack of Due Process and deliberate FRAUD. Fee waiver and appeal were granted. Appellant was waiting for request for exemption to e-file to be granted. The Court delayed processing. Ten days expired and Appellant considered there was no solution to further her rights in a Direct Appeal yet discovered later if she had called the Appellate Court, she would have been informed that she could have pursued filing a late direct appeal. Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal was issued to the court, on 12/6/2024, due to setbacks in processing the Request for Exemption to e-file. This motion was denied three days later on 12/9/2024. The court refused to take 12/6/2024 payment into court prior to ruling on that motion. Appellant filed a Motion To Open on 1/16/2025 to sustain her rights since her appeal documents expired and she was not provided information on her right to file a late appeal. Request for exemption to e-file was denied twice. Fee waiver for the Motion to Open was granted and simultaneously denied, without hearing the motion. Motion for a hearing to argue thereafter was denied 1/31/2025.
Although the court failed to issue Memorandum of Decision, Appeal on Motion To Open was submitted on 2/6/2025.
Motion For Memorandum of Decision was submitted on this case in September 2025, which was denied. Trial Court claimed an order was all they would provide. Extension of Time to prepare this Motion for Reconsideration En Banc has been granted from July 27, 2026 to August 12, 2026, although the Appellant is hoping to submit this prior to due date despite setbacks with cyber crime, illegal entries and vandalizing, and currently struggling with a presumed stomach ulcer, yet possibly it was food poisoning since it has resolved after a few days.
FACTS
A. Appellant’s Direct Appeal was intercepted by delay tactics of the Judicial Branch which processed her request for exemption to e-file. Appellant, Pro Se, had to Motion To Open to sustain her rights. Appellees showed no diligence, had fraudulent appearances or failed to appear at all, such as LCI of the City of New Haven. Trial Court Chief Clerk entered “self representing” for LCI’s Attorney-Director and Bozzuto Management was marked as non-appearing. This violated due process.
B. This case has no Memorandum of Decision, from the Trial Court or from the Appellate Court, which violates Rules of Court and Due Process of Law. Therefore, there is no “Apple To Bite”. Motion For Memorandums of Decision were denied.
C. Argument on June 1, 2026 had no participation from the judges, which disturbed the Appellant’s rights.
a) Appellees were allowed not to file response briefs and were allowed not to appear for Argument; having paid the court money which was labled as a “sanction” when they relayed their intent to break the rules of court.
b) One appearing Appellee which was one of 3 or 4 attorney firms which represented the Housing Authority, was allowed by the court to submit a late response brief, which the Appellant responded to, to the best of her ability. Their response brief had no relevance, making a counterstatement of an issue which did not even exist in the Brief, along with not responding to the housing matters which Appellant relayed. They only represented the Housing Authority and could only argue on issues of HUD laws, yet failed to do so. Appellant was unaware they intended to show up for argument on June 1, and wanted the hearing rescheduled if the appellee was permitted to argue.
c) This motion is limited to 3,500 words, Appendix is structured to reflect this motion chronologically.
D. Therefore, Appellant is submitting Questions, since the Apple to bite does not even exist. Suspension of Rules, PB 60-3, is not a free pass for the Appellate Court to serve its own wants; yet may on the interest of Justice, which for all purposes, is to support the rights of the parties WHICH HAVE LAWFUL APPEARANCES on the case, to include articulation as to why this court would suspend the rules. This has not occurred. Appellate Court has not been transparent.
1. Did the Appellate Court Review the trial Court Case - to include the Appellant’s diligence in filing a DIRECT APPEAL, yet the Chief Administrative Judge, Elizabeth Bozzuto, abused power to disrupt her filing with exemption to e-file since the apartment building she lives in since January 2013, was erected and managed by Bozzutos, which delayed the application requesting exemption, which is exacerbated by the fact the Appellant is a disabled person, having been run into head-on by a 20 ton SANDer truck years ago.
a) PB 60-2: Supervision Procedure. Appellate Court may, on its own motion or motion of any party, modify or vacate any order made by the trial court, or a judge thereof, in relation to the prosecution of an appeal.
i. Order a judge to take any action necessary to complete the trial court record for the proper presentation of the appeal
1. DID THE APPELLATE COURT IGNORE APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR MEMORANDUM OF DECISION BY TRIAL COURT, IN COMPLIANCE WITH PB 64-1, submitted in September 2025?
2. Did the Appellate Court consider that Alayna Stone allowed someone to impersonate her at the only hearing held, October 31, 2024?
3. Why is there neither a trial court Memorandum of Decision, nor an Appellate Court Memorandum of Decision - both of which are legal requirements and violate Due Process of Law?
a) Why was Appellant’s Motion For Memorandum of Decision, which is defined on record to be “Motion For Opinion”, denied?
4. Does the Appellate Court understand that a Motion To Open may resolve judgments of nonsuit (in favor of defendants) as well as judgments of default (in favor of plaintiff due to fraudulent or non-appearance of defendant or defendants)?
5. Didn’t Appellate Court find it unlawful:
a) No hearing on the Complaint even took place?
b) Appellee violated the judicial order that they may not initiate a Summary Process while the case is pending?
c) Appellee Ansonia State Street/Trial Court failed to upload the docket when the illegal Summons was placed on Appellant’s door handle prior to the hearing of aforesaid case?
d) Allow the Appellant’s Appearance on the illegal eviction case (trial court of AC48416) to be 6 days PRIOR to the upload of that illegal case? How is that even possible in the system to accept, since the Summons should have had the case information on it?
e) Was it fair for the Housing Court to REFUSE the Appellant’s appearance on the illegal eviction case for two days, saying “The case hasn’t been docketed yet” which would make the Summons illegal since the case information is required to be part of the Summons and there is a mandate for the court to docket the case upon a prompt return by the marshal.
f) Is the Appellate Court aware of the fact that the return date on non-payment of rent cases has to be three days from the service of the Summons - yet the trial court chief clerk delayed upload of the case to abuse process and stretch out the automatic date to 4Nov2024 since the case SHOULD have been uploaded on the day the marshal served the Summons, 22Oct2024?
6. Did the Appellate Court understand that the diligent Appellant made sure to the best of her ability that all Appellees marked as active by the Secretary of State were served on aforesaid case?
a) Secretary of State took the original Complaint packet, which is another indicator of frauding records and the marshal’s breaking protocol - to serve wants of the Bozzutos who use the Secretary of State as their Agent for their FOR PROFIT BUSINESS - and also enjoy the Elizabeth Bozzuto’s abuse of power as Chief Administrative Judge.
b) Cited is CGS 47a-14h: Appellant typed a JD-HM-19; which was rejected by Attorney Pitt, who unlawfully claimed that all addresses had to be the address of the Agent of Service, contrary to other cases in which this form is used; as discovered by the Appellant when viewing cases.
1. The form indicates they are being sued; that they are required to appear in court; that they are REQUIRED to complete an appearance form JD-CL-12, and if they do not appear, they may be defaulted and orders will be against them; and “you may not commence a Summary Process eviction for nonpayment of rent while this case is pending, so long as the tenant continues to deposit the rent with the court”.
7. Does the Appellate Court consider the trial court judge to have the power to change the subject matter jurisdiction of the case?
a) Docket Number is automatically issued at the time of processed payment for Summary Process.
1. Fee Waiver stated the title of the case to be Anne M. Bradley vs Bozzuto Management, Inc, et al. It was granted by Alayna Stone.
8. Why was it legitmate for Attorney Pitt changed the title of the case?
a) Attorney Pitt docketed the aforesaid case the same day a receipt was processed yet would not allow the Appellant to print all complaint packets and mail them Priority Mail/Return receipt as indicated by law. He held onto this case for a week, disrupting Due Process of Law.
1. October 18 was the return date of the Notice To Quit - yet no Summons was served until October 22, with a return date of November 12, despite the return date being required BY LAW to be three days after service, for cases involving accusation of non-payment of rent.
a) The case was not uploaded for 8 days from the service of the Summons, which made the Summons additionally illegal, along with the fact the rent was paid and there was no month-to-month tenancy since the Section 8, tenant-based contract was regulated by a HAP contract through HUD.
2. No indication of any arrearage; yet claimed August and September rent were not paid. Bank Of America determined those checks were cashed yet not deposited to an account!
3. Signature of Chief Clerk of Superior Court, was nefariously removed on the form; causing the form to be defective.
4. The form also has wrong spelling of BEACHWOLD RESIDENTIAL - causing it to be defective.
5. The form has companies which the Secretary of State backdated as no longer active, despite the fact the marshal served them to Agents who said nothing about them being inactive.
9. Why is it that The Appellate Court fails to follow its own rules and then refuses to issue a Memorandum of Decision as well on aforesaid case which the Appellant has been very diligent with in order to get her rights?
10. Isn’t it wrongful to make up a Request to Conform form to cover up a defective return date which the Appellee-Defendant Ansonia State Street caused of the illegal eviction case, which began by service of a Summons - which violated court orders on aforesaid case, to not proceed with a Summary Process?
11. Why would Alayna Stone allow someone to impersonate her at the hearing of October 31, 2024? Why does her Juris number not exist in Juris lookup?
12. The Appellate Court published on its website that they are required to review proceedings from trial court; and that the Supreme Court is required only to review issues of law. Why is this recently removed from the website?
13. Why has the court completely ignored all the breaches of contract made by the Appellees as so-stated in a Preliminary Statement of Issues as well as Predetermination of Declaratory Judgment/Statement of Damages?
14. Is it justiciable action for Alayna Stone, William Pitt, et al to use means of delay to counteract the Appellant’s ability to submit a timely DIRECT APPEAL on aforesaid matter, resulting in a need to Motion To Open, which the fee waiver was granted simultaneously with a denial of the motion, thereby further manipulating the proceedinngs and impeding Due Process of Law?
LAWS
See Appendix Section on Laws
SUMMARY
There is no bite at the apple because there is no apple; the Appellant has had to ask questions because it cannot argue what does not exist. The lack of transparency has caused a great defect in this case, particularly since the trial court had no subject matter jurisdiction to further harm the Appellant by allowing the Appellee Ansonia State Street to violate the court order to not proceed with a Summary Process, yet they did a week before the one-and-only hearing on this aforesaid case, yet Attorney Pitt conspired to help cover that up on record, delaying the upload - as he nefariously uploaded this aforesaid case and delayed the service of process.
Section 8 tenants said they did not want to be kicked out for not filling out the Section 8 application forms, which the city alder person apparently forced them to complete in a meeting, which the Appellant was not invited to. The real property information is bizarre and seemingly illegal on its face due to selling a $2.6 billion building for only $160 million,4/65 of the real estate value. There is only a Limited Warranty Deed, and the Appellee Ansonia State Street had the audacity to include that as evidence, which also refers to BEACHWOLD RESIDENTIAL - this property would not clear for selling, and thus ownership is questioned since a legitamate owner would have the power to sell the property. Kyle Huckle, who has worked at this apartment building for over 13 years, claimed the reason they were able to have an $89 billion mortgage on this $2.6 billion building is “the tenants are collateral”. At trial on the illegal eviction case, Kyle Huckle would say “that’s above my pay grade” when he did not want to respond to a question, as simple as “Why is there a court order for your company to remove almost $14,000 in fraudulent charges on my HAP apartment ledger?” The abuse of illegal entries, stealing and tampering with her USPS mail, and somehow intibating her on two different occasions for over a day and trashing her apartment, poisoning her food, and frauding the billing - contribute to the reason for Reconsideration. The Appellate Court has not ascertained that Due Process was at all implemented, which is one of the first steps in determining decisions on cases which they decide upon. Is it too much to ask to administer the law? There is not even a Memorandum of Decision from trial court and Alayna Stone refuses to issue one even when motioned to do so. She is seemingly so removed from administering the law, it is apparent she is a paid actor. Did the Appellate Court decide to follow suit by also not issuing a Memorandum of Decision/Opinion on the case, even though it is the law that they do so? She failed to use a Juris number when her Memorandum of Decision was issued on the associated case, which the court accepted despite the fact this same court ordered the landlord not to serve any Summons while the case was active. They did anyway and she allowed it without even making any statement on record as to why. Can this lack of administering justice be cured - or is the court just going to say what the heck, we will just illegally evict her again and get away with it because no matter what is submitted afterward, it will be deemed as moot by the courts, even the US Supreme Court. It’s all fixed.
WHEREFORE, Appellant-Plaintiff Motions this court for Reconsideration En Banc on its Order, since they have not and will not issue an Opinion/Memorandum of Law, thus there is no apple to bite. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED.
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 CONSIDERATION EN BANC OF THE JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED ON ARGUMENT OF JUNE 1, 2026, TO INCLUDE APPELLANT’S BRIEF, AND ALL OF APPELLANT’S DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED ON RECORD OF AFORESAID CASE, COMPRISES OF 13 PAGES along with a thorough Appendix of documents already submitted in to court, as emphasis. 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 12th day of August, 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 NO FAX NUMBER PROVIDED ON RECORD
HOOPS & ASSOCIATES
19A THAMES STREET
GROTON, CT 06340
PHONE: 860-445-8911
FAX: 860-445-8919
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
__IllegalEviction2024_
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PRIOR NOTES BELOW:
Update on elevators 7/21/2026...Don't worry, we have just one broken...WTF...obviously not finished....Is it worth the risk of using? I got on the elevator and it was literally stopped between floors! Using any emergency device is just an opportunity for them to make matters worse here. Fortunately, it resumed after 3 -5 minutes, which seemed like forever. The concierge is not the regular one on . Maybe he is on vacation. She said, "What elevators?" WTF They are supposed to do building checks using the elevators. Whatever.
So I checked my email to see if they have an update:
| 3:06 PM (4 hours ago) | |||
| ||||
Dear Residents, We are pleased to share some good news regarding the elevator situation at 360 State. As of today, three of our four elevators are now fully operational, and reservations for the freight elevator have resumed. You may schedule a reservation through the resident portal or by contacting the Concierge Desk at 214.603.9994. We know the past several days have been difficult. Waiting for elevators, adjusting your daily routines, and dealing with the uncertainty has been frustrating. We truly appreciate the patience, understanding, and grace so many of you have shown throughout this process. While we are not back to normal just yet, we are grateful to be able to share this progress with our community. Our management team has remained in close communication with KONE throughout this event and will continue working closely with them until the final elevator is restored to service. On behalf of our entire team, thank you again for your patience, understanding, and cooperation during this challenging time. We sincerely appreciate your support and look forward to having all four elevators back in service as soon as possible. Sincerely, |
Groovy. Elevators are down. Will they cause a building fire or worse now?
This blogpost is brought to you by:
https://motherearthtoo2022.blogspot.com/2026/06/david-wheeler-and-sandy-hook-shooting.html?m-1
https://motherearthtoo2022.blogspot.com
a cyber criminal is blocking my tool to activate the link above. I will keep trying.
| Jul 18, 2026, 4:20 PM (1 day ago) |
|
| |
| ||||
Dear Residents, We wanted to provide you with an update regarding the elevator situation. At this time, we have only one elevator in operation. We understand how frustrating and inconvenient this has been, especially for those traveling to and from higher floors, and we sincerely apologize for the continued disruption. Unfortunately, we do not expect to have any additional updates until Monday, as our elevator vendor continues to work toward identifying and resolving the issue. As soon as we receive new information, we will share it with the community immediately. In the meantime, we kindly ask that you continue to plan for extra travel time when leaving and returning home. We also ask that residents be courteous to their neighbors and limit elevator occupancy to no more than six riders per trip whenever possible to help improve service for everyone. We truly appreciate your patience, understanding, and cooperation as we work through this challenging situation. Thank you for bearing with us while our ownership team, management, and the vendor continue working toward a resolution. Sincerely, 360 State Management It is now 7/20/2026. They submitted backdated emails saying on 7/18 to limit capacity to 6 in each elevator - wtf. Six is also a Satanic number and they still have something up their sleeves and are probably being held accountable! A BACKDATED email.... Elevator Update – Please Limit Elevator CapacityInbox
| ||||||||||
Comments