PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION ON AC48416, ILLEGAL EVICTION
Link to this blogpost: https://publiusroots.blogspot.com/2026/10/petition-for-certification-on-ac48416.html
Well, this is the typed portion. I included an Appendix. I didn't ask for a link to be made.
PSC_______ AC 48416 : SUPREME COURT
ANSONIA STATE STREET : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V :
ANNE M. BRADLEY : DATE: October 6, 2026
PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Practice Book 84-1, et seq, the defendant-appellant petitions the Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut to appeal from the ORDER of the Appellate Court entered in this case on 8/16/2026, and reported at ___ Conn. App.___ (2026), and attached hereto at Appendix Page A1
Order as stated:
Context for Statement of the questions for review:
There are no rulings which provide why a denial is issued. All rulings of the court have been denials, yet there is no context of rulings or even a Memorandum Of Decision, which is obviously the reason for which Appellant has appealed. Appellant will provide the circumstances of the case in its Brief History Of The Case.
II. STATEMENT OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Did Appellate Court err by Reviewing the Appeal and Reviewing the Trial Court and yet fail to issue a Memorandum of Decision, Deny a Motion To Submit a Memorandum of Decision, which is synonmous with Opinion according to Black’s Law Dictionary, which is necessary to satisfy requirements of PB 84-1, issuing just an order remanding the case back to trial court without responding to the Appellant’s Appeal of the following:
a) Summons was illegal
b) FRAUDULENT APPEARANCE BY PLAINTIFF
2. How can Due Process be implemented if the indigent, disabled Appellant-defendant is REQUIRED to have access to internet, refused Exemption to e-filing, and unable to motion anything (such as New Trial or Extension of Time) because the Appellate Court claimed she had to have access to internet when her landlord had cut her off internet, as her appeal form even indicated?
3. Why is the Appellate Court not being transparent? Not issuing reasons for denials? Not even speaking to the Appellant, Pro Se, at the Arguments on June 1, 2026 - when the whole point of being there was to engage in conversation, despite the court allowing the Appellee-Defendants not to appear for argument as they so-stated they did not want to appear, when they could have been ordered to reply to the briefs and appear since it is part of Due Process for appearance requirements and so forth?
4. Why has the court allowed Hoops & Associates to use an illegal appearance - both physically and on documentation - and also continue to be listed as an Appellee when they have done absolutely nothing in this appeal?
5. Should the Rules of Court from 2024 be applied, since the trial court cases (Housing Complaint first, and Summary Process second) was initiated in 2024?
III. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CASE
Trial Court: Two associated cases which were both appealed as AC48452 and AC48416.
AC48452 was the first trial court case involving the Appellant-Defendant’s Housing Complaint, which Appellant titled as “Anne Bradley vs Bozzuto Management, Inc. Et al” on the fee waiver, dated October 1, 2024. Ansonia State Street was listed as one of the defendants and all were ordered not to serve the Appellant a Summary Process while case was pending. Complaint was not heard. There were no Answers to the Complaint as required. The hearing transcript only covered 15 minutes which was fraudulent. The woman who presided said the case would be continued, yet it was not. Alayna Stone ruled a dismissal despite not being the one who presided over the one and only one hearing on the case. Appellant appealed yet was disrupted by abuse of process. Her request for Exemption to E-File was delayed and not decided upon until expiration of the appeal period. They were aware her appeal and waiver had been granted, which required submission of Preliminary Documents in ten days unless an Extension of Time was granted. She was unable to submit an Extension of Time due to the requirement of using internet and registering with e-services, which Appellant claimed was unfair and unconstitutional since she is disabled. Request for Exemption to e-file resulted in expiration of appeal period. Appellant appealed after fee waiver on Motion To Open was granted simultaneously with denial of Motion To Open. It was not heard, as many of the motions on this trial court case.
AC48416 involves Ansonia State Street vs Anne Bradley, having illegally served Appellant Summons on September 23, 2024 when they were ordered they could not while housing complaint was pending. Housing Court refused to enforce its own order, further convincing the Appellant that Alayna Stone must be a paid actor. Trial took place with a man claiming he was Attorney Peter Hoops yet he was only in his 40’s yet was identical to the young man who appeared at the Housing Complaint hearing who also claimed he was Attorney Peter Hoops. Both had lied. Neither were attorneys. The real Attorney Peter Hoops image is at Appendix ___ All three are so identical they appeared to be clones. Nevertheless they each had 20 years difference from one another. Despite the unlawful appearance and illegal summons, Alayna Stone ruled an eviction. Appellant carried out her Notice of Intent to Appeal.
Appellate Court has allowed the Appellees not to be diligent, thereby violating obligations of appearances. Appellate Court has denied all of the Appellant’s motions, except motions for extension of time. Not once did they articulate reasons. Motions for articulation were denied. Appellate Court allowed the Appellees in both cases not to object, not respond to the Preliminary Documents or Briefs, and not to be present at the Argument, which they combined the cases, acknowledging they were associated, on June 1, 2026. None of the judges engaged in any conversation with the Appellant, who read a pre-prepared statement since there was no one appearing to argue. No Memorandum of Decision was provided. Only an order to remand to Trial Court, which does not have the lawful right to issue a FINAL DECISION.
It is the understanding of the Appellant, Pro Se, that the functions of the Supreme Court involve the application of law only, yet the Chief Justice was interviewed by the New Haven Register, at which time he included a promise to also examine all FACTS presented on the case.
IV. ARGUMENT
A. It is important to note first that both briefs on aforesaid case and associated case have been altered by cyber crime and Appellant has every intention of still submitting a Motion To Substitute despite the Appellate Court’s denial with no reason on Appellant’s Motion to Substitue Motion For Reconsideration En Banc (there was no Motion For Reconsideration AND Motion For Reconsideration En Banc, as the Appellate Case indicates. It was only Motion For Reconsideration En Banc). since it was frauded by cyber crime. Appellant proved that the motion had been altered by cyber crime. For the Appellate Court to rule on a frauded document and refuse to state why is deprivation of Due Process. It truly has supported what they have set the tone of the platform for the case., USING INTERNET TO AN ADVANTAGE OF WILL RATHER THAN APPLICATION OF THE LAW.
a) Appellant is therefore arguing the above Questions For Review, coinciding with the numbers listed in Part II of this Petition:
1. There is no apple to bite; there is no Memorandum of Decision by Appellate Court, despite Trial Court’s Memorandum of Decision to evade the fact the Appellant was a Section 8 tenant and therefore the HAP Contract takes precedence, that the Appellee Ansonia State Street continues to receive HAP payments to this day, falsely stating that Appellant had a month to month contract along with a number of other false statements in the Memorandum of Decision, which the Appellate Court should have responded to on Appeal.
a) SUMMONS WAS ILLEGAL - Appendix ____
i. Trial court ordered the Appellee-Plaintiff could not serve a summons during pendancy of the housing complaint case. Appendix ____ Signature of Attorney Pitt was REMOVED before or after uploading the case, and other defective information caused the Appellant-Defendant to submit a replacement of the form, JD-HM-__ . Emphasis, it is the court’s responsibility to cure defects when the litigant is a pro se yet they refused to.
1. One of the three attorney firms representing Elm City Communities was allowed to submit portions of the defective HM-35 (Appendix ___) rather than using the legitamate one (Appendix ___) yet, as stated by Appellant that assigned attorney was completely out of bounds due the fact he was limited to arguing on matters of HUD laws, since he was representing the Housing Authority on AC48452 and submitted the only response brief of both cases, which was also late, which the Appellant claimed was wrongful since he failed to respond to the Preliminary Documents prior to that.
ii. Appellant was accused of non-payment of rent for August and September of 2024. She proved she paid the rent for July, August, and September of 2024 - all same amounts - in her housing complaint which the court made active prior to the Summary Process.
a) FRAUDULENT APPEARANCE BY PLAINTIFF
i. The real Attorney Peter Hoops, who would be about 70 years of age, had never appeared in court, though signed the Summons. The Appellant saw his image in a September 11, 2001 film and has included it in the Appendix at ___ since Martindale Hubbel refuses to provide images of attorneys any more and the BAR Association refuses to even respond to any confirmation/validation of Attorney Peter Hoops, though they are a public entity and have a responsibility to informing the public. The image of the real Peter Hoops in 2001 is from an OFFICIAL video, which has also been clocked with real time showing. YouTube video title: ______ Channel: _____ Location of images of Attorney Peter Hoops: ____min
1. The real Attorney Peter Hoops would have been a member of the Connecticut BAR Association for 14 years at the time he appeared at the World Trade Center, which would make him about the age of the man who appeared at trial, who was NOT even an attorney. He never appeared on this case yet signed the Summons as an appearance, using a fraudulent Juris Number.
a) The person who appeared claimed to be Attorney Peter Hoops. Yet the Housing Court altered it to Attorney St. Rock. Attorney St. Rock has never appeared on this case, nor had he appeared on the associated case, the Housing Complaint, NHH-CV24-5____
i. A younger man who appeared to be in his late 20’s, claimed he was Attorney Peter Hoops on October 31, 2024. Appellant discovered right after that hearing that he was neither the Attorney Peter Hoops who entered the BAR in 1987, nor was he even an attorney. Appellant also discovered after that hearing that the woman who was obviously in her 60’s, claiming to be Alayna Stone, was not Alayna Stone. Appellant realizes how common practice it is to alter transcripts and therefore documented these circumstances in her pleadings and notarized statements.
ii. Appearance Form indicates this attorney appears as a Pro Hac Vice (F), which reflects he is from a different state/jurisdiction which is unlawful. Case Information, Appearance Form, and printed description of what that Juris Number is, is provided at Appendix ___.
iii. Appearance of this attorney was reuploaded on the case for NHH-CV24------, Housing Complaint, using the same date, not indicating it was AMENDED, not following the procedure to amend an attorney’s appearance, and adding more defendants - despite the fact that those defendants were thereafter indicated by the Secretary Of State that they were INACTIVE COMPANIES prior to service by marshal. Appendix ___. This information was thoroughly relayed in the Appellant’s Brief, though the text of the brief itself has been frauded since it was uploaded on the case, as was the Appellant’s Motion For Reconsideration En Banc, which a Motion To Substitute was submitted yet denied and the Appellate Court ruled on the frauded motion denying the Motion To Substitute.
iv. The trial court had no jurisdiction to adjucate this case. Rent was was even overpaid since it should have been $93.20 for these 14+ years according to the Federal Law on Section 8: 42USC (1437f) This has been firmly stated to the Trial Court and Appellate Court. Predetermination of Declaratory Judgment, Statement of Damages, was revised due to no judgment issued on the Housing Case, which was entered before the eviction case, titled as Anne M. Bradley vs Bozzuto Management, Inc et al with eight defendants - yet the chief clerk changed the case name despite the fee granted fee waiver having that title, which disrupted the efforts of the court reporters to obtain payments for transcripts and more. Appendix ___
b) The trial court had no jurisdiction and should have enforced its own order to not serve Appellant-Defendant a Summons; the case had no merit. Appellate Court combined the cases to be heard in an Argument on June 1, 2026. There was no Argument. There was no Appellee who attended. Judges would not speak to the Appellant at the hearing regarding the case.
2. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. The rights of the Appellant-defendant Pro Se should not be based on JUDICIAL DISCRETION. Appellant-Defendant, Pro Se, notices the repealing of Rights of the Parties, PB 34, and sees no replacement of them, which seems like an unmanageable LACK OF DUE PROCESS which cannot be cured by JUDICIAL DISCRETION since the Appellate Court has lawful obligations of which it is supposed to be required to reflect the rights of individuals in the US CONSTITUTION and elsewhere regarding laws of the court. Any exception to those laws would be JUDICIAL DISCRETION at which time the judge is supposed to articulate why it has excepted a law or rule. This is not what takes place in this case.
a) Appellant-Defendant is Pro Se, and also disabled from being hit head-on by a 20 ton sander truck years ago, not yielding her right of way. What court has any right to proceed a case with a “catch me if you can” behavior? Particularly allowing fraud, evasion of duties, and not even enforcing its own order on the REQUIRED HOUSING FORM, JD-HM-35.
i. Alayna Stone, failed to enforce her MANDATORY ORDER, Paragraph 7 of the JD-HM-35. Appendix ____
ii. Another reflection of abuse of procedure: Chief Clerk Attorney Pitt claimed the JD-CV-1 is NEVER ALLOWED IN HOUSING COURT, that only the JD-HM-35 is. Yet thereafter the court allowed an attorney to submit a JD-HM-35 as seemingly “proof” that the housing court “forgot” to enforce the very orders listed on the Housing Form which is required - not that civil form. Appendix ____
iii. Alayna Stone has no valid Juris Number on record, yet she used a Juris Number on her Orders. Appendix ___ She may not even be a real attorney, and she allowed a woman 20 years older than she to preside over the housing complaint case, JD-CV-50_____, submitted on October 1, granted October 3, 2024, previous to this case. Appendix ___
3. APPELLATE COURT WAS NOT TRANSPARENT ON THIS CASE. Internet is a power which is abused and allowed by the court in this case. A cyber criminal deliberately frauded documents, etc. Appellant identified the fraud by stating that the briefs she had submitted are now frauded and thereafter her Motion For Reconsideration En Banc was greatly frauded by CYBER CRIME so she submitted a Motion to Substitute. Appellant-Defendant’s e-files were deleted by cyber crime and she had no hard copies of the scanned version which she submitted on the case. Lack of Due Process includes the Appellate Court ruling on the fraudulent copy of her Motion For Reconsideration En Banc, and denying her Motion To Substitute it. There was no objection issued by the Appellee. The Appellee has been nondiligent throughout the case. The Appellate Court fails to explain why it denies any pleadings and to make matters worse, fails to issue a Memorandum of Decision/Opinion as so-defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, and as so-required on cases it hears.
a) Reasons for denials should be an automatic requirement
b) Memorandums of Decision are an automatic requirement as part of DUE PROCESS OF LAW
i. Instructions which indicate otherwise, such as in the SAMPLE where it says “Attach Opinion or Order of the Appellate Court here” is contrary to Due Process of Law, since Memorandums of Decision only are supposed to be published on Appellate cases. Not Orders, which reflect pleadings not concurrence of cases.
ii. For the Appellate Court to mark aforesaid case as “DISPOSED” has no legal value, and should not be allowed to describe the status of the case, since pleadings were still open and seems to be a wild card for them to ignore the pleadings of the Appellant-Defendant when there was NO DUE PROCESS OF LAW, which is the Appellate Court’s automatic obligation to ascertain when a party appeals, and consideration of a Pro Se litigant, particularly who is indigent and has been greatly harmed in a case which has no merit.
4. ILLEGAL APPEARANCE OF PLAINTIFF in Trial Court and Appellate Court. Why would Appellate Court allow the plaintiff Hoops & Associates to automatically appear as Appellant in aforesaid case with illegal appearances - both on the appearance form (as Pro Hac Vice) and phsysically in court - since the man who appeared was in his 40’s. Appellant even raised this issue and need to identify/prove since he was obviously too young to have entered the BAR in 1987. Yet Alayna Stone would do nothing about it AT before, during, or after TRIAL; and the Appellate Court had enough probable cause to look into it. Does the Hoops & Associates firm, which was formed in 2004 - 3 years after September 11, which the real Attorney Peter Hoops had been seen at with Attorney Bartinik, who he worked for - have some kind of unlawful immunity? Appendix ___ If so, why are they allowed in court since all cases are supposed to be treated by the same laws, the same rules. They don’t even prepare their pleadings as required by the Rules of Court, which is why Appellant, Pro Se, moved to strike their Motion To Dismiss in the Housing Complaint, thoroughly explaining why - so if the motion was titled incorrectly, the court should have corrected it rather than state a Motion To Strike is only allowed against Complaints. Judges make it a common practice to strike whatever they want. This was an opportunity for them to correct their Motion To Dismiss so it is hearable and arguable. It was not. And the person who was present to argue was a young man who claimed he was Attorney Peter Hoops, yet the court frauded the record thereafter claiming he was Attorney St. Rock, who has never appeared in court on either case.
b) Pro Hac Vice is an illegal appearance if an in-state attorney enters that Juris number as its appearance on the Summons, which Attorney Peter Hoops did - not only on this case but on over 900 cases which is a Modus Operandi and has more effect on the malfeasance which has occurred.
c) The real Attorney Peter Hoops has not made any appearance in court and the court has frauded records to cover for that since two different men - who are IDENTICAL to Attorney Peter Hoops yet are obviously son and grandson, have appeared on this case and the associated housing complaint case - as Attorney Peter Hoops. The Court thereafter has frauded the record claiming Attorney St. Rock has been the one who has appeared yet he has not ever appeared in court - not even to argue Motion To Dismiss, which he submitted on the Housing Complaint, which the trial court failed to even hear the complaint, yet indicated the case would be continued, yet it was not. Alayna Stone dismissed it even though she had not presided.
5. SHOULD THE RULES OF COURT FROM 2024 BE APPLIED AS A MATTER OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW? Trial Court Judgment was ineffective, fraudulent, unlawful; thus reflecting lack of Due Process. Appellant seeks to abide by Due Process. None of the Preliminary Questions, which were the basis of the brief, were responded to by the court or the Appellees (Hoops & Associates and Law Office of Lloyd Langhammer), which has been non-diligent throughout, only issuing scant objections to motions for extension of time, even after failing to respond to Preliminary documents and failing to issue a reply brief, thus failing to appear at the Argument of June 1, 2026.
B. LAWS - Appendix ____
a) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES IN BRIEF, Appendix ____
b) LAWS, cited from substitued Motion For Reconsideration En Banc
c) CPB CHAPTER 84, Appendix ____
V. CONCLUSION
Appellant’s liberty is at stake. On July 2, 2024, the maintenance manager violently smashed in her door while she was taking a bath. This was very traumatic for her and despite her screems he continued to move toward her. Apparently a federal agent ordered him to leave before he could harm her. She has been violated by the eight defendants in associated case, as shown in the Preliminary Statement of Damages, which was updated since there was no Memorandum of Decision made on NHH-CV24-___ as required yet this same judge, who may not even be an attorney, yet the BAR Association refuses to validate, had no regard to validate the Plaintiff’s counsel despite the Appellant-Defendant challenging his identity by claiming he was not old enough to enter the BAR in 1987. Additionally, the judge had no regard over the fact that she, in fact authorized the Housing Complaint and ordered the Plaintiff Ansonia State Street to not serve a Summons on the Appellant-Defendant while the Housing Complaint was pending. Though the woman who claimed to be Alayna Stone on October 31, indicated the case would be continued, it was not and ruled on by this appointed judge who did not even preside on the case. This Petition has been extremely hard for the Appellant-Defendant, Pro Se, to create due to the landlord, Ansonia State Street, cutting off wifi in her apartment, which she has had since January 2013. Her router was stolen by illegal intruders and thereafter she found out that the public wifi was available and accessible from her apartment. As one who has a Federal Poverty Level income and has been overcharged rent since she moved here, based on USC 42 (1437) with the Housing Authority refusing to allow any hearing despite numerous requests for over 14 years, along with their violating her right to have one for this illegal eviction as well as the illegal eviction of 2019, which she won unexpectedly, since the trial judge denied her Motion To Dismiss. It is conceivable to perceive that the lack of Due Process is a Modus Operandi and there is indeed a need for the Supreme Court of Connecticut to review all of these acts of malfeasance, which the Appellant Pro Se, claims has occurred. Total word count is 3,993.
For the reasons stated therein, Appellant-Defendant respectfully requests that this PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION be granted.
APPELLANT-DEFENDANT
_______________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
IllegalEviction2024: e-services acct
PO BOX 206514
NEW HAVEN, CT 06520
203-508-0858
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to PB Sections 62-7 and 84-5, it is hereby certified that a copy of the forgoing was sent electronically this 6th day of October 2026 to: Attorney Lloyd Langhammer, llanghammer@hotmail.com and Attorney Peter Hoops, info@hoopslaw.net and phoops@hoopslaw.com as placed on the Summons WHICH WAS NOT PAID FOR, NOR WAS THE CASE DOCKETED FOR A FULL WEEK AFTER THE SUMMONS WAS SERVED, which is illegal. Attorney St. Rock has never appeared in court. Only the man who nefariously claimed to be Attorney Peter Hoops despite Appellant-Defendant’s challenging the legitamacy of his appearance, saying, “how could he have entered the BAR in 1987?” with no action taken by Alayna Stone. Juris Number is illegal, as Pro Hac Vice, yet Appellant-Defendant has been required to continue to serve this Appellee’s attorney, which she claims to be an unlawful order.
By: _________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
IllegalEviction2024: e-services acct
PO BOX 206514
NEW HAVEN, CT 06520
203-508-0858
Comments