MOTION FOR EXT OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION
Link to this blogpost:
https://publiusroots.blogspot.com/2026/09/motion-for-ext-of-time-to-file-petition.html
Link to more info on this case nightmare:
https://motherearthtoo2022.blogspot.com/2026/06/statement-for-argument-ac48416.html?m=1
I will paste the 15-page statement I made. It got longer and longer due to cyber criminals pissing me off! The form was typed AND saved as a pdf THREE TIMES. Unfortunately, I failed to do a print request when I was online elsewhere.
I ended up writing the form out by hand.
My landlord has completely blocked me from using wifi in my apartment and the building. People have been so nice to me through all this crap.
Looks like there are no changes through cyber crime from looking this over quickly:
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Continued from the form attached - NOTARIZED STATEMENT)
I, the appellant motion for extension of time on AC48416, to the standard 20 days to secure my rights to filing a Petition for Certification without interference of more abuse of procedure, with a Motion To Terminate Stay by the nondiligent Appellee. It may be I may have to request a further extension due to the immense load of getting frauded briefs substituted. I am still doing this as a matter of jurisprudence, since I informed the court I would be and since the briefs on record are NOT what I submitted, altered through cyber crime.
1. Neither Appellee consents to this motion.
2. Appellant has the right to file a Petition for Certification within 20 days of ruling of Motion for Reconsideration En Banc
3. Significant to this attachment is the fact that the Appellant had typed the Motion For Extension of Time TWICE online, comprising of an accumulated total of 1 1/2 hours - both times of which the saved files were remotely deleted by cyber crime. Thus, Appellant will make the following facts, which were indicated on the form:
a) Neither AC48416 or AC48452 are valid briefs on the court record. They were altered by cyber crime. Appellant noted that problem in her Motions for Reconsideration En Banc and informed the court that she is preparing Motions to Substitute. And now she also has to prepare a Petition For Certification to the Supreme Court after discovering on 9/22/2026 that a ruling took place on 9/16/2026, which was the day after Appellant realized that this illegal landlord has blocked her from all wifi - in her apartment and in the lobby. The concierge only said that the wifi is working for her and that
###########
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Continued from the form attached)
is all that concerned her fully knowing this landlord rewards the employees and Section 8 tenants for helping them breach the HAP contract. That includes telling all tenants that they have to reapply for Section 8 when there
is no requirement to reapply for Section 8. Section 8 renewals are processed every 3 years. Appellant claims this failure to administer the law is continuous. If there is a new owner to the property, they have to show the property documentation and be approved by HUD - not the local politicians wheeling and dealing, but HUD. That includes showing HUD they have a $2.6 billion building, getting a free tax break from the city, having their agent of service be the Government of Connecticut, despite being a for-profit business, and enjoying an $89 BILLION mortgage using the same insurance as MEPT Chapel and Bozzutos had since it has not changed in property documents. MEPT Chapel publicized they were a nonprofit business and part of the church community, having satanic images throughout the common areas. Those images are no longer in the common areas.
b) The court ruled on the defective Motion For Reconsideration En Banc, which the Appellant replaced with a Motion To Substitute.
i. The Court denied the Motion to Substitute with no reason
ii. Someone removed the Certification Page of the Motion To Substitute through cyber crime, yet the wordcount validates that page was included.
4. The Appellate Court deliberately ruled DENIED on the defective motion, which was frauded by cyber crime, and denied the motion to substitute it.
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Continued from the form attached)
DUE TO CYBER CRIMINALS HACKING MY LAPTOP AS I PREPARE AND FINISH THIS, THIS SPACE CANNOT BE USED AND I HAVE TO ENTER THIS TO PREVENT FRAUDING.
a) Substituted Motion on Court Record was altered, removing the certification page.
i. Total Word Count reflected Certification Page was included.
b) The Court did not reject this Motion to Substitute; yet denied it without the Certification Page. Appellees were served, as stated in Certification of Motion To Substitute.
c) Attached is the full motion which should have been substituted due to cyber crime. Appendix A
d) The court deviated from its duties, claiming the case was disposed while case manager was not in the office, attaching this notation to the rejected Motion To Terminate Stay, when it was an AUTOMATIC STAY, and of which the trial court should have rejected since the trial court has no jurisdiction to rule on an Appellate Rule, as applied to the motion, and no automatic stay of execution can be terminated. Additionally, there is no legal term for “disposed” and it cannot be used a wildcard for the court to evade its duties. There is no room for wordplay in the lawful administration of justice.
5. Motion For Extension of Time is being submitted to preserve Appellant’s right to prepare and submit a Petition for Certification without disruption of the
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Continued from the form attached)
nondiligent Appellees Hoops & Associates and Langhammer Law Office. Hoops & Associates ineptly filed a Motion to Terminate Stay into trial court only, No. 180.00, 7/9/2026 - the same time Appellant was paying rent into court, which
Appellant claims to be a DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD tactic - one of continuous tactics throughout this case. Attorney Pitt was seeking to refuse payment. Appellant looked at the case information on her phone, suspecting foul play, which had changed just after she arrived at the Housing Clerk’s Office to pay her court-ordered, court-increased rent, which she has stated on record is unlawful. This trial court motion was applying an Appellate Rule, which is another reason of many which makes that motion irrelevant. The motion was uploaded OVER TWO MONTHS AGO. Objection to that motion was entered by me, the Appellant promptly, which disrupted my work on Motion For Reconsideration En Banc as well as preparing Motions to Substitute. Three had to be prepared. One of which was on the prior Motion For Reconsideration En Banc due to being frauded by cyber crime in the court record. It was not what was submitted and this was fully proven. Neither the motion or my objection, No. 182.00, 7/15/2026, was heard despite the fact this trial court rules on motions without allowing proper time to be heard. Now, it is exaggerating procedure by doing just the opposite, carrying on with a “We can do what we want and when we want” dynamic, rather than abiding by laws and practices. The conditions fail to even fit the trial court to be able to rule on it, and thus should have been rejected or marked as “No Action Necessary”. I submitted a Motion To Rule “No Action Necessary”187.00, which the chief clerk marked as a
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Continued from the form attached)
NOTICE when it was NOT a notice and the appellee attorneys were notified. This additional interference and unfair work on the Appellant was made in order to get
closure on that motion, which Alayna Stone is ineptly does not rule on despite her failing to hear motions on a continuous basis - even a Motion to Open, which she granted the fee waiver for and simultaneously denied without hearing it.
a) Additionally, it is important to point out that the trial court did not have any CASEFLOW request when I, the Appellant, submitted my Motion To Rule No Action Necessary on August 26. Yet the court backdated my motion to August 26 when it was uploaded on the docket, which is validation that it also backdated the CASEFLOW request to August 24, 2026.
i. Case Information at Appendix B covers the August 27, 2026 printing - there is no uploaded Motion To Rule No Action Necessary, though that motion was taken in on 8/26/2026 and NOT UPLOADED
1. Motion To Rule No Action Necessary, without the pages in Appendix - is at Appendix E. Trial court ineptly described it as a NOTICE.
ii. Case Information at Appendix C, dated September 22, shows the court backdated upload to August 26 since it was NOT on the Appendix B Case Information, dated August 27. Thus, it is evidence to indicate that the court backdated the Caseflow Request to get it on the docket before Appellant’s Motion. This is deliberately a fraudulent action. The court
clerks have uploaded pleadings dated on a different day and marked
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Continued from the form attached)
the day it is uploaded. Therefore it is conceivable that an override must occur to backdate. Someone who has authority to do such trickery would have to be a court official; namely the Chief Clerk or assigned judge, who would be Alayna Stone and is probably a paid actor rather than an attorney.
iii. There is an additional finding, which reflects the Appellant’s payments into court.
1. Appendix B shows Notice of Motion Hearings, not trial
a) The court ineptly had a trial, schedulin hearings, not trial. 12/27/2025, No. 124.00. This was immediately entered after Appellant Motioned to pay Rent into Court, No. 123.00, as she had when her prior landlord Corey Spruill of 38 Arch Street, served her a Notice To Quit due to Lapse of Time on the Lease - which indicated the lease continued as such unless it was replaced with another written lease, and if landlord wishes to end the lease, it may if a 60-day notice was given. Therefore, the Notice To Quit was invalid. Appellant paid rent into court. The landlord began making an illegal drug to make money to pay his mortgages. The Court had a copy of the lease, submitted by Appellant, who was Corey Spruill’s tenant. Yet, once again, dishonesty rules. The court, namely Judge Abrams, refused to
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Continued from the form attached)
acknowledge her submission and would not upload it to the case, with the chief clerk just saying “We have it on file”. The lease was again submitted in a pleading. The court erroneously ruled in Corey Spruill’s favor, claiming only a month to month tenancy existed (which mirrors Alayana Stone’s trick of describing the HAP contract as a month to month which is a deliberate lie, since she failed to admit there was a HAP Contract and should have at the least requested it from the landlord since burden of proof is on the plaintiff.)
i. Appellant was not prepared for trial since the court deceived her indicating they were hearings; yet emphasized the fact that the burden of proof was on the Plaintiff-Appellee; which was not fulfilled and in some ways was self-incriminating since they were ordered to remove almost $14,000 in charges.
ii. It is the right of the Appellant to bring up situations such as this since the court fails to be transparent with its rulings, provides no Memorandum of Decision, and thus there is no apple to bite.
BLANK AREA DUE TO CYBER CRIME
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Continued from the form attached)
iii. APPENDIX F. Efforts To Continue to Accept Fair Use And Value Into Court, AC48452. Doc No. 133.00, APPEAL FORM WAS NOT UPLOADED WITH THE FEE WAIVER, Doc No. 131.00. THEY WERE SUBMITTED SIMULTANEOUSLY. Fee waiver granted 11/21/2024, yet this form was altered; deceptively only allowing transcript. Req for Exemption to E-file was pending. Application was for all costs. 12/6/2024, Document No. 133.00; AC48452. Request to pay fair use and value in court was denied, Alayna Stone claiming there was no appeal.
There were other motions on AC48452 which were deliberately not heard; some of which were ruled on, yet others, such as Motion For Discovery, were NEVER ruled on despite my going to great pains to serve that motion to all defendants in AC48452 - all of which failed to Answer my Complaint, causing DEFAULT and failed to have any legitamate appearance at the hearing of October 31, 2024!
(b) Motion to Remove Judicial Authority was submitted 12/31/2024. The trial court and failed to issue a Memorandum of Decision on the housing complaint case of AC48452. Preliminary Statement of Damages which the Appellant had submitted on the Housing Complaint was therefore updated by the Appellant since the trial court failed to issue its Memorandum of Decision, yet she proved she knows what one is by issuing on on aforesaid case.
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Continued from the form attached)
(c) Motion for Change of Venue was submitted 1/3/2025. Both were denied.
Trial Court deliberately evaded from applying Section 8 laws, to include forcing the Appellant to pay more for rent than what she should pay, according to 42USC Section 1437 (f). Appellee Hoops never submitted any opposition to what Appellant recorded as the rent she had been paying. There was not even a real attorney at the hearing on October 31, 2024 and Alayna Stone allowed someone to impersonate her!
6. I, the Appellant, submitted my motion to rule No Action Necessary, which is at Appendix E, excluding the documents as listed in the Appendix. Malfeasance is also reflected when a court allows a motion to stay in the books without Due Process, waiting for conditions to match the motion, rather than rule on the conditions at the time it was entered. It is known as another DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD TRICK. There are no conditions which would lawfully allow the trial court to rule termination of an automatic stay of execution. The supporting case information entered by the Appellee-Plaintiff, simply put, is more legal malpractice since there is no application of the law. The case information is not relevant to housing, let alone housing Section 8. They failed to even use annotations published on the PB Rule to argue automatic stay of execution, which is not arguable! PB 71-5, possibly PB 71-6.
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Continued from the form attached)
This case has been nothing but a criminal wash and waste of taxpayer money since the Appellee Ansonia State Street was ordered not to even serve me a Summons while my housing complaint is active. They served the Summons when it was not paid also! That is illegal! The court failed to mark it paid until October 30, 2024 - the day before my first and only hearing of the Housing Complaint, which Alayna Stone allowed someone to impersonate her, claiming she was Alayna Stone! That
associated case was appealed as AC48452 and the court scheduled argument of them together for June 1, 2026.
Trial Court also refused to take my rent into court in December on the Housing Complaint which is AC48452, appealed - despite diligent efforts to obtain exemption from e-filing due to physical disability from being almost killed by a 20 truck that slammed into me, unreliable internet in my apartment as well as cyber crime using the court computer - this court gives permission for exemption to others who have the same difficulty or less than myself, the appellant, in using the courthouse computer. I submitted a NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL on 11/25/2024. Yet my payment was rejected for December, January, and February. It was obvious Alayna Stone was trying to set me up for the Housing Authority, Elm City Communities, to stop HAP payments. I went to the management office to pay December rent. Kyle Huckle said he was ordered to refuse it. I set the check on the
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Continued from the form attached)
desk and walked out. I had my own copies and submitted those copies along with my statement into court. This disrupted the trial court’s nefarious plan of getting HAP payments stopped, rather than complying with DUE PROCESS OF LAW. It was abuse of process which disrupted my ability to appeal promptly, causing the appeal period to be expired prior to issuance of a decision: Judgment for IMMEDIATE POSSESSION (on Section 8 apartment which I lawfully and timely paid rent on every month, despite the fact the amount of my portion was unlawful since I have a federal poverty level income) was entered 1/24/2025. The trial court uploaded this judgment after 2 pm on a Friday, indicating that the upload was at 10 am, which was false. I checked the case information, which most likely their IT could monitor and know if I had. It was another DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD TRICK, to keep me from taking action that Friday, using Friday as Day One, Saturday as Day Two, and Sunday as Day Three. Fee waiver for appeal was granted Monday morning, 11/27/2024. Ruling of the case hitched an IMMEDIATE EVICTION and therefore I did not have the standard 10 days to issue an appeal form and thereafter another 10 days to submit appeal documents. 20 days from the court’s alleged dated ruling covers the date payment into court was due. Motion to Continue to Pay Rent into court was denied.
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Continued from the form attached)
DESPITE THE FACT THE NON-DILIGENT APPELLEE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY OPPOSITION TO THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE COURT, ALAYNA STONE WAS AGAIN CONSPIRING WITH THE APPELLEE; NAMELY HOOPS & ASSCOCIATES WHICH REPRESENTED THE APPELLEE ANSONIA STATE STREET. THIS ASSIGNED TRIAL JUDGE, WHO BEHAVES LIKE A PAID ACTOR, INCREASED THE RENT TO PAY INTO COURT--DESPITE APPELLEE’S failing to adhere to any of its duties as an appearing attorney in the Appellate Court case. They did absolutely nothing, which only intensified their DEFAULTS in trial court, to include a young man who appeared at the hearing of October 31, 2024, saying he was Attorney Peter Hoops, when he was not even an attorney, let alone an attorney who entered the BAR in 1987! He was not even born yet!
I could not motion the Appellate Court for Extension of time to Appeal on associated case, AC48452, due to the Appellate Court’s refusal to take my motion UNLESS I USE INTERNET, which should be an optional choice - since it is unconstitutional to require people to use internet for court cases, particularly since internet is run by organized criminals who became multi-billionaires from cheating people in the USA.
7. Attached are case informations, Appendix B & C (on AC48416), and D (on AC48452) printed to validate that the trial court did NOT enter my motion to rule No Action Necessary until AFTER 8/27 yet backdated it to 8/26, which is what they did
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Continued from the form attached)
with the caseflow request, to fraudulently reflect that the Appellee had entered it just a few days prior. Failing to serve me copy is an additional tactic to deceive the record and take action which is outside of Due Process of Law. It was NOT on the case information on 8/26/2026.
8. The Appellate Court’s claim that my case is “disposed” is an unlawful reason to not hear or act on my motions. They fail also to issue a Memorandum of Decision yet order the Case Manager to indicate that they issued an Opinion, which is false. They only issued an order to remand my case back to trial court. An Opinion is a Memorandum of Decision, which is legally structured to respond to what was appealed. The Memorandum of Decision by the trial court was comprised of false information on aforesaid appeal; and Alayna Stone failed to even issue a Memorandum of Decision on trial court of AC48452, the housing complaint, which was actually prior to the illegal eviction case. I have already stated that and it is obviously another violation of DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Alayna Stone claimed I had a month to month lease when I am a Section 8 tenant and they continue to receive HAP payments on my apartment. They were also ordered by a court to remove the almost $14,000 in charges right on the ledger they had the audacity to submit as evidence at trial of AC48416, trial court. Alayna Stone was once again, showing a type of conspiracy with the Appellee, rather than independently administering the law - which is included on the many reasons why she must not be an attorney and just a paid actor. They also failed to submit the HAP Contract, which
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Continued from the form attached)
figuring I had no proof that I can submit I paid the rent, yet I had scanned it in and printed it - and they vandalized my scanner so I am unable to use it and have to go to Tyco printing to get all my documents submitted. Meantime, they continue to be non-diligent expecting the court to get them off from an apparent backdoor agreement. Where is the transparency in that? The governor of Connecticut promised to the public in a New Haven Register article that the Appellate Court would be transparent. The Appellate Court fails to provide reason for denials, and yet they pop them out like candy without being accountable as to why. The Appellate Court denied my motion for Opinion, which is a structured Memorandum of Law, as fully described in the motion, which they may not have even read since they label this case and the associated case as DISPOSED as if it is some magic reason for them to evade from their duties. They also have the case manager, Attorney Keane, to mark the case as having an opinion, despite it being the “one-liner ruling” which is an ORDER, not Opinion, and falling short of DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Logically, one does not file a case and work so diligently as I, the Appellant, has, only to have NO RESPONSE FROM THE APPELLATE COURT.
This concludes my notarized statement of 15 pages, along with referred attachments.
Attachments
A - Substitute Motion For Reconsideration En Banc
B - Case Information AC48416 Printed 8/27/2026
C - Case Information AC48416 Printed 9/22/2026
D - Case Information on AC48452 printed 9/22/2026
AC48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE M. BRADLEY : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Continued from the form attached)
E- Trial Court Motion To Rule “No Action Necessary” stamped in 8/26/2026
yet not entered that day and backdated on record.
F - Motion to Reargue, No. 133.00 (docketed on wrong case! No error-correction by the court!)
_____________________
IllegalEviction2024
Anne M. Bradley Pro Se
Appellant-Defendant
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
203-508-0858
Comments