Appellant's Objection to Appellee Motion to Terminate Stay
Link to this blogpost:
https://publiusroots.blogspot.com/2026/07/appellants-objection-to-appellee-motion.html
It's not like I don't have enough problems! They just enter bullshit motions to disrupt my ability to get my Motions for Reconsideration submitted timely.
This is my objection - I submitted it with an unfinished Appendix due to abuse of procedure and outright criminal activity within the court system!
My notation on the motion: Appendix to this objection is not complete and will be resubmitted by close of day July 14 due to heart problems.
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE
STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : JULY 13, 2026
OBJECTION TO APPELLEE’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
AUTOMATIC STAY OF EXECUTION
Pursuant to PB 71-5 and PB 71-6, Appellant objects to the non-diligent Appellee’s motion to Terminate Automatic Stay of Execution.
HISTORY
Appellant has been working on two motions for Reconsideration, which are due July 16, 2026. She is once again harassed and abused by an illegal pleading. This time it is a pleading to TERMINATE STAY, by Hoops & Associates, which has not pleaded in the Appellate Court at all yet oddly remains on the record as the Appellee, applies an Appellate Rule and yet claims the trial court has jurisdiction to rule on it.
Appellant is objected to its motion with “Memorandum of Law forthwith” on Thursday, July 9. Thereafter, she had problems with her blood pressure and other heart problems, needing to rest. Motions For Extension of Time on
AC 48416 and AC 48452 were submitted Friday, July 10, due to continuous heart problems and need to work on this Objection to this illegal motion which the trial court fails to reject.
FACTS
1. Alayna Stone in trial court has a history of illegal rulings, to include failing to hear motions. Motion To Terminate Stay, dated 7/8/2026, is objectionable; and therefore deliberately offensive. There was no change to the Motion to Terminate dated 6/30/2026, as ordered by Appellate Court. Seven days had expired, as ordered by Appellate Court. Appendix C includes both motions, which are identical except for change in date. Appendix A is the Order of “Returned by Appellate Court”, which indicates the motion is to be returned to the Appellate Clerk within 7 days in the paragraphing at the end; yet someone oddly entered “wrong court” at the top which contradicts Appellate Court order at the end as well as the fact that Appellant has been granted Motion For Extension of Time to 7/16/2026 to submit Motion For Reconsideration. Motion for Extension of Time for a second extension due to this abuse and need to file an Objection has been submitted to the court.
a) Nevertheless, the Appellee, who has shown no diligence whatsoever on this case, submitted this duplicated motion EIGHT DAYS AFTER THE APPELLATE COURT ORDER of SEVEN DAYS ONLY to submit, with no exceptions allowed.
2. PB 61-11, Appendix B, specifies an automatic stay takes place when a Motion For Reconsideration is timely submitted to the Appellate Court.
a) Automatic Stay is an extrajudicial order which cannot be overturned.
b) Appellant has been diligent and forthright through this agonizing time, since the illegal Summary Process was docketed EIGHT DAYS AFTER THE SUMMONS WAS SERVED, which was, among several other issues, against the court order to initiate (Appendix D).
3. PB RULES 71-5 AND 71-6 - APPENDIX B, LAWS
a) This is NOT a case which involves any dissolution of marriage, nor does it reflect any of the cases which are listed in PB 61-11(d) which Appellee had the audacity to cite.
b) This case qualifies for an AUTOMATIC STAY
4. Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration is due by July 16, 2026, yet Appellant has submitted another extension of time due to this legal malpractice by Appellee and trial court, which is a Modus Operandi by both. Trial court should have rejected the motion.
a) As lawless as this motion is and should have been rejected by trial court - instead the trial court was attempting to refuse the Appellant’s payment into court and simultaneously accepting upload of the Appellee’s Motion To Terminate Stay - since the Appellee wedged-in this motion after Appellant checked the status of the case in the morning of July 8. A simple call to the Appellate Clerk by Attorney Pitt, would verify the motion is past the 7 days. The fact it is not relevant and another form of abuse is secondary to the fact it is past the timeframe. That alone is reason enough to reject it. Yet once again, the trial court uses its position as a weapon rather than administer justice, administer the law.
b) As already stated, Alayna Stone is probably a paid actor, not even an attorney. As an example, she cited a Public Act as reason to allow Appellant’s appeal and payment into court on this case, despite the fact an Act becomes a Bill, and THEN becomes a law - and she failed to cite the law as a matter of practice. Acts and Bills are only parts of argument in determining a disputed meaning of a law.
i. Notice of Intent to Appeal prior to the trial was entered by the Appellant, yet Alayna Stone failed to acknowledge or define or recognize its legal perameters on a case which has no merit - continuously attempting to fit their self-serving square pegs in round holes.
c) PB 61-11: Should the Appellee wish to file a Motion to Terminate Stay after judgment, they are REQUIRED to file through the Appellate Court. A simple reading of the law/Rule of Court is all that is required.
i. NO MOTION TO TERMINATE AUTOMATIC STAY may be entered when the Appellant is motioning for Reconsideration! PB 71-5 and 71-6.
ii. The suggestion that the Motion To Terminate Stay has to be entered to the trial court is yet another form of legal malpractice, most likely by cyber crime for the Appellate Court, since the case manager was not at work when it was changed. This issue is something federal authorities will hopefully sort out. Appellant is a Pro Se, greatly harmed and abused by malfeasence by the court for this corrupted landlord-collaboration (listed in AC48452) on an illegal eviction case which for all intense purposes MUST be dismissed and expunged due to the numerous violations deliberately caused by both the Appellee and all Appellees listed in AC48452, which Appellant titled as Anne Bradley vs Bozzuto Management, et al, yet Attorney Pitt, chief clerk, insisted on renaming it and refused to take the typed Notice of Suit form which Appellant meticulously typed to submit to the court. She typed another one and submitted that, requesting it to replace the inept hand-written one which had defects, thus impairing justice.
d) PB 61-11: This case has the right for Automatic Stay due to NOT being one of those listed which do NOT qualify for Stays of Execution, such as when a woman is attacked or severely abused by her significant other, since this state began saturating its communications with being a state that is against VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, as well as the Housing Authority - though they did nothing after the maintenance manager in this apartment building smashed in her door while she was taking a bath and her screaming for him to stay out only gave him more motive to illegally enter. There was no emergency. That took place July 2, 2024 - which relates to the scheming of an illegal eviction to be served by a marshal the Appellee had living in the building. Yet as with EVERYTHING brought forth to the court, there is no response and only false statements in the Memorandum of Decision on aforesaid case, Appendix E, which also proves that Alayna Stone is well aware of the requirement yet deliberately evaded from issuing a Memorandum of Decision on AC48452, which is a reflection of a paid actor doing what their handler tells them to do - not any real judge who is supposed to be an attorney.
e) There is no change in the motion from June 30 to July 8; which is another reflection that they obsessed about timing the upload on the case to when Appellant was going to make the court-ordered payment. It was all planned. The motion could have been submitted to the trial court the next day if they wanted to. This was a tactical move to deceive and corrupt the process; for Attorney Pitt to say, “Gee I can’t take her payment. This motion just came in” as if he did not know about it. Their scheming failed. This was not a situation where Attorney Pitt corrected himself. Someone ELSE other than the Appellant Anne Bradley, contacted him. At that point, he SHOULD have corrected himself and rejected the motion, yet he seems to think that he can muster up more tricks to make it valid, as did Alayna Stone claiming that the Summary Process was valid, that the Notice to Quit was “spelled right” and therefore valid. Completely disregarding her own order of the court, and now using attorneys in current cases to make nonsense claims such as a “Notice to Quit is also a Pretermination Notice” which is idiopathic wordsmithing, since a Notice To Quit is a TERMINATION, and a Pretermination is a PRE-TERMINATION.
f) Real litigation involves administration of the law, not schemes or tactics or fraud - all of which are the only things which abound in this case.
5. Appellant is disabled and has been traumatized repeatedly by the landlord who owns 360 State Street, New Haven, CT after purchasing it at 4/65ths ($160 million) of the actual value ($2.6 billion) and yet enjoying an illegal mortgage of $89 billion with a LIMITED WARRANTY and thus proving that the alleged owner would not be able to sell the building because the title would not be cleared for a typical real estate sale. Appellant has had heart problems due to all of this stress and is finding more food poisoned in her kitchen - such as a foul taste of an industrial chemical on potatoes and cabbage - neither of which were purchased at the same store. As stated in her Statement of Damages on Case AC48452, she had been severely poisoned twice and had to be on CIPRO for ten days, the second time she was way too sick to even see her doctor who thoroughly spoke to her on the phone and concluded it was indeed food poisoning again and perscribed the medicine, telling her to make an appointment if she was not improving due to having more severe symptoms at that point. The Appellant had not eaten at any restaurant. Her food at home was poisoned. Appellant learned that she has lesions on her spleen and has a mild pleural effusion when she was at the ER for a severe case of cellulitis and a cyst which was life-threatening.
6. The court is also ganging up on the Appellant as indicated thereof:
a) The case has no merit. The Appellee-Plaintiff was ordered by the court not to serve her with a Summary Process. (Appendix D)
i. Additionally, Alayna Stone cannot administer an Appellate Rule to Terminate Stay. She is allegedly a trial court judge.
b) The Notice To Quit was fraudulent and illegally served, as thoroughly explained why to the courts as well as in this motion in a few areas, to make it more difficult to fraud this document. The Subject Matter Jurisdiction of a Summons, if one should be served, can only be limited to the Notice To Quit. The Notice To Quit AND Summons only indicated lies: Non-payment of rent for August and September 2024; and the falsehood of being a month-to-month tenancy when it was already proven that this apartment has a HAP contract and though the Housing Authority greatly fall short in administering it, they continue to pay the HAP portion to the Appellee who allegedly is Ansonia State Street, yet they failed to issue an addendum to the lease indicating so. The trial court did not respond to Appellant’s claim that Alayna Stone allowed a woman to impersonate her at the first hearing on October 31, 2024 - which exceeded the court rules in scheduling a hearing by more than one week. (The hearing was supposed to be marked no more than 2 weeks from the date it was docketed, and ANSWERS to the Complaint are mandatory, yet none of the defendants Answered or made legal appearances. Only a young man from Hoops & Associates appeared, saying he was Attorney Peter Hoops, which was FRAUD - associated case, NHH-CV-245006875). Alayna Stone failed to respond to why the court order that the Appellee cannot initiate a Summary Process, and yet allow Appellee to initiate Summary Process, indicates the Apple had not even been bitten once!
c) Rent was paid. The Appellee proferred a fraudulent letter as Evidence at trial dated in 2024, claiming Appellant’s rent was due two years prior to that. Not only was it outside of the Subject Matter Jurisdiction, it was a clear indication that they had no intent of being honest or forthright. Appellant claimed in court they were only framing themselves. Alayna Stone accepted it as evidence in court despite the fraud, and despite the fact Appellant claimed that Hoops & Associates also had fraudulent appearances, and she refused to validate if the man who said he was Attorney Peter Hoops at trial really was since the prior younger man, in his 20’s also claimed he was Attorney Peter Hoops, and even though the real Attorney Peter Hoops entered the BAR in 1987, which would make him about 70 years old - not in his 20’s or 40’s. Alayna Stone refused to clear that matter up as a matter of judicial prudence, allowing evidence which for all intense purposes only self-incriminated the Appellee, particularly since no HAP contract was even entered and the ledger proved they received HAP payments. No addendum to the lease indicating that Ansonia State Street was the new owner was even entered. It’s just another indication that Alayna Stone showed no regard for the law and was just doing what her handler was telling her to do, completely removed from the consequences.
d) Appellee proferred a ledger which only proved fraudulent billing and the court order for them to remove almost $14,000 of fraudulent charges. They refuse to produce the court order and once again Alayna Stone defended Appellee with fraudulent appearances rather than performs judicial duties. Appendix G. She additionally covered this up by having the court record that it was “Attorney St. Rock” who appeared, which was a lie. He never appeared in court at all on either case, which is why he was one of the people Appellant attempted to subpoena as proof to the court ON RECORD.
e) Appendix B is a copy of the Motion For Judicial Notice, which Appellant was told the Appellate court never denies. The court denied it anyway as if none of this evidence existed, etc. Once again, the Apple is returned to the tree and is never bitten!
f) There is no Memorandum of Decision by the Appellate Court on AC48416 or AC48452 - which violates Due Process, among other things. Appendix I was refused by the trial court. The Appellate Court failed to respond why they break their own Rules of Court.
i. The Appellate Court received TWO motions for Opinion, Appendix H, on the same day: For aforesaid case and for AC48452. They have ruled a denial on AC 48452 and have tactically delayed a ruling on aforesaid case.
7. As a matter of showing Modus Operandi in Court Operations, Appellant has relayed the TWO illegal arrests and cases against her at Appendix J.
a) One of which took place at the premesis of 360 State Street, by stalking state police, waiting over 40 minutes for the landlord to tell police when the Appellant was leaving her apartment.
b) The other case is regarding another illegal arrest involving malicious and vexatious prosecution at the Milford Court.
8. Number of pages in this motion: 11; Number of words: 2,985
LAW
Appendix B
PB 61-11, PB 71-5, PB 71-6 and more
CASELAWS as cited by Appellee
SUMMARY
As a citizen in this state of Connecticut, Appellant has been hit with so much hate by the officials who abuse power and greatly lack in accountability. This eviction case is lawless. And now, both courts are scheming together to cover up the lawlessness with even more lawlessness. The motion wasn’t even timely. It should have been rejected. Had it been a motion entered by the Appellant, the court would indeed scrutinize the daylights out of it and apply lawless opinions. Appellant is sick of this corruption. As much as she has tried to be understanding, both courts have abused power and abused the process to keep harming the appellant who has always paid Section 8 rent on time, and for 13 years has been violated in being allowed a hearing, particularly in regard to the numerous breaches of contract and the fact she has a federal poverty level income and should only be paying 10% of the fair use and value of the rent - which, in fact has not changed for 13 years and should not change - yet they abuse the daylights out of the Appellant, seemingly to exploit her to get others to give them money on her behalf. This has nothing to do with administration of justice!
WHEREFORE, Appellant Objects to the Appellee’s motion to Terminate Automatic Stay of Execution of Appellant.
APPENDIX ATTACHED
Prepared and Submitted,
THE APPELLANT, PRO SE
_______________________
Anne M. Bradley
IllegalEviction2024
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 0652
Phone: 203-508-0858
CERTIFICATION
THIS Objection to Motion To Terminate Automatic Stay of Execution, COMPRISES OF 11 PAGES, ALONG WITH AN APPENDIX AS DESCRIBED. It is Pursuant to P.B. §§ 62-7 and 66-3, it is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing was sent electronically or by USPS mail this 13th 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
Appearance is illegal as Pro Hac Vice
LAW OFFICES OF LLOYD L. LANGHAMMER, LLC
18A Granite Street
New London, CT 06320
860-440-3340 NO FAX NUMBER FOUND ON RECORD
HOOPS & ASSOCIATES
19A THAMES STREET
GROTON, CT 06340
PHONE: 860-445-8911
FAX: 860-445-8919
___Illegal Eviction 2024
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE
STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : JULY 13, 2026
APPENDIX
OBJECTION TO APPELLEE’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
AUTOMATIC STAY OF EXECUTION
LETTER DESCRIP PAGE NUMBER
A Order of Return on Motion to Terminate Stay 1
B LAWS and CASELAWS __
PB 61-11 (annotated)
PB 71-5 (annotated)
PB 71-6 (annotated)
C Motions To Terminate Stay, 6/30, 7/8 __
D Court Order To Not Initiate Summary Process __
E Memorandum of Decision by Trial Court __
F Statement of Noncompliance __
G Motion For Judicial Notice __
H Motion For Opinion __
I Motion For Memorandum of Decision on AC48452 __
J APPEAL DOCUMENTS ON AC48452 11/21/2024 __
NO MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
K MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME __
ON AC48452 AND AC48416
L RECEIPT FOR COURT-ORDERED PAYMENT __
7/8/2026
_________________________
Comments