Fraudulent Collections Hearing

 (Needs updating for this past year but I recently found this working since Blumenthal, et al abused power and disabled it)  

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THIS BLOG;  https://www.publiusroots.com/2018/04/table-of-contents.html 

This blogpost has been updated 5/27/2021...new replacement MOTION TO OPEN is pasted here after the Document  descriptions on the Docket Sheet - FYI 

It is now 6/11/2021. I prepared a separate blogpost on my Affidavit because it was long.  I wanted to copy and paste the Small Claims Law, Chapter 24 of the Connecticut Practice Book - yet it is devised now to distort copying using the columns as opportunity to erroneously interfere with it.  If I can find time, I will type the whole damn thing, 6 pages.  They cannot get away with this illegal activity!     I need to get my affidavit to the courthouse yet. I made some changes to the Appendix and fixed a few errors in the motion.  I will finish and take it over today, definitely. I will fax a copy to the slimeballs at Stillman Law Office.    

 It is now 6/9/2021 - I will paste the TIMELINE, which is very significant to this case.  But first, I need to finish my Affidavit and get it submitted into court.  I will post the AFFIDAVIT  before the Motion To Open; yet will post the TIMELINE after the Motion To Open.  Time now is 3:45pm on 9 June 2021.  So it may not all happen today. 

      It is now 6/10/2021 - I completed my affidavit but made it a separate blogpost, my recent blogpost so there is only a need to go to publiusroots.com until I add another blogpost.  FYI. 


      THE STILLMAN LAW FIRM IS NO LONGER REGISTERED IN CONNECTICUT!  A HUGE "MINOR DETAIL" WHICH THE IDIOT WHO CONDUCTED MY SMALL CLAIM HEARING DID NOT BRING UP! HE DIDN'T EVEN REVIEW THE CASE, SO IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME.  

I created a separate blog post on what Pro Hac Vice is.  It takes up a significant amount of space - I copied and pasted what the ABA linked to as "proof" of Connecticut's legislation on attorneys entering the Connecticut jurisdiction - THERE IS NONE!  WELCOME TO LAWLESSNESS! 

It is now May 25, 2021 

anchor.fm/terra-cotta  - AUDIO HERE ON THE COURT HEARING FROM THURSDAY, MAY 20

Hopefully I can download the documents on this fraudulent case. I downloaded many, saved them but they are all missing now.  

Let me just emphasize, I am very uncomfortable sharing all this to the public.  But Colin Powell said we need to push the envelope when those occasions arise - it is the cost of citizenship.  I met Colin Powell. He would have been the best US President ever.  Get his books!  

You may have to live in Connecticut to see this link:  http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=NNHCV206105010S 


            COURT DOCUMENTS OFF                            DOCKET SHEET 

               Titled with REAL purposes

        My computer is being hacked and I cannot make these links accessible so you can tap on them.  I will have to do it from my phone and hope it works. 

file:///D:/FRAUDULENT%20COLLECTIONS/A%20-%20DEFENDANTS%20APPEARANCE%209JULY2021.pdf

A - DEFENDANTS APPEARANCE 9JULY2021

    

 Note, appearance by plaintiff is illegal, fraudulent- using Michigan address, illegal Pro Hac Vice appearance, CT email and attorneys are not registered in Michigan! 

B - PLAINTIFF SMALL CLAIM SIGNED 5MAY2020_NOT STAMPED IN BY COURT_ENTERED 18JUNE2020 - yet signed and dated 5/5/2021, which is illegal processing! 

    file:///D:/FRAUDULENT%20COLLECTIONS/B%20-%20PLAINTIFF%20SMALL%20CLAIM%20SIGNED%205MAY2020_NOT%20STAMPED%20IN%20BY%20COURT_ENTERED%2018JUNE2020.pdf 

C - PLAINTIFF'S FRAUDULENT PROOF OF SERVICE_15JUNE2020 

     Not from Michigan, from ILLINOIS - there are so many more reasons reflecting this dirtbag frauded Federal Mail! No Proof of service! They typed up false in formation! 

    file:///D:/FRAUDULENT%20COLLECTIONS/C%20-%20PLAINTIFF'S%20FRAUDULENT%20PROOF%20OF%20SERVICE_15jUNE2020.pdf 

D - PLAINTIFF'S ILLEGAL MILITARY AFFIDAVIT ON DEFENDANT_5MAY2020_FILED 18JUNE2020 

     Not once did they even ask permission! 

    file:///D:/FRAUDULENT%20COLLECTIONS/D%20-%20PLAINTIFF'S%20ILLEGAL%20MILITARY%20AFFIDAVIT%20ON%20DEFENDANT_5MAY2020_FILED%2018JUNE2020.pdf 

E = PLAINTIFF'S PURCHASE OF FAKE ACCT FEB2019_PAID OFF IN 2017 

    file:///D:/FRAUDULENT%20COLLECTIONS/E%20=%20PLAINTIFF'S%20PURCHASE%20OF%20FAKE%20ACCT%20FEB2018_PAID%20OFF%20IN%202017.pdf 

F -  23APR DOCUMENT USED IN 18JUNE FILING _NEVER SERVED ON DEFENDANT_USING SAME DATE AS MY SISTER DIED WHICH IS SOCIOPATHIC 

    NOTE!!!  MY SISTER LIVED IN GREENVILLE, NC! She died in 2018! I think she was poisoned over a certain period of time! 

        Being a sociopath is a behavior of choice almost all of the time!  In this case, it most certainly is one of choice!  They are the Satanic Underground which Dr. Ted Gunderson was trying to get help to eradicate!  John DeCamp was a traitor to Dr. Gunderson and to this country as a CIA man! Dr. Gunderson was poisoned with arsenic! 

    file:///D:/FRAUDULENT%20COLLECTIONS/F%20-%20%2023APR%20DOCUMENT%20USED%20IN%2018JUNE%20FILING%20_NEVERR%20SERVED%20ON%20DEFENDANT_USING%20SAME%20DATE%20AS%20MY%20SISTER%20DIED%20WHICH%20IS%20SOCIOPATHIC.pdf 

    also - PLAINTIFF'S FRAUDULENT APRIL 2020 NOTICE WHICH IT CLAIMS WAS SENT TO DEFENDANT WITH NO PROOF_DEF CLAIMS THEY ARE FRAUDS

G - DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT REGARDING THE COURT ABUSE OF PROCEDURE_FAILURE TO ENTER DOCUMENTS TIMELY AND MORE 

    file:///D:/FRAUDULENT%20COLLECTIONS/G%20-%20DEFENDANT'S%20STATEMENT%20REGARDING%20THE%20COURT%20ABUSE%20OF%20PROCEDURE_FAILURE%20TO%20ENTER%20DOCUMENTS%20TIMELY%20AND%20MORE.pdf 

H - DEFENDANT S ANSWER, SPECIAL DEFENSES AND SEPARATE COUNTERCLAIM CLUMPED TOGETHER AND NOT ENTERED FOR OVER 2 WEEKS_ABUSE OF PROCEDURE 

    The Court should not have entered anything until my Answer was entered - but they're all frauds! 

    file:///D:/FRAUDULENT%20COLLECTIONS/H%20-%20DEFENDANT%20S%20ANSWER,%20SPECIAL%20DEFENSES%20AND%20SEPARATE%20COUNTERCLAIM%20CLUMPED%20TOGETHER%20AND%20NOT%20ENTERED%20FOR%20OVER%202%20WEEKS_ABUSE%20OF%20PROCEDURE.pdf 

I - FRAUDULENT ENTRY BY COURT, TAKING PAGE SEVEN OF APPENDIX IN H TO TITLE IT AS AMENDED CLAIM TO EVADE FROM JUSTICE AND NOT REFER TO APPENDIX_TOTAL FRAUD BY COURT 

    file:///D:/FRAUDULENT%20COLLECTIONS/I%20-%20FRAUDULENT%20ENTRY%20BY%20COURT,%20TAKING%20PAGE%20SEVEN%20OF%20APPENDIX%20IN%20H%20TO%20TITLE%20IT%20AS%20AMENDED%20CLAIM%20TO%20EVADE%20FROM%20JUSTICE%20AND%20NOT%20REFER%20TO%20APPENDIX_TOTAL%20FRAUD%20BY%20COURT.pdf 

J - DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT DUE TO PLAINTIFF'S LACK OF DILIGENCE INCL AND ESPECIALLY

    NO ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 

    - But the court frauded more records to cover up for this idiot attorney who can barely write his name, obviously cheated his way through school - covers up his incompetency with fraud, lies. He committed perjury and the ocorrupted judge went along with it! 

K - MOTION FOR COURT TO FIX RECORDS THEY ALTERED YET THEY CONTINUE THE FRAUD INSTEAD 

    -

L - DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENT TO ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM_ 

Due to court's failure to do its job! 

    -

LAME ORDER FRAUDED DUE TO TWO SEPARATE DOCUMENTS ENTERED AS 108.10 AND 118 (LAST DOCUMENT) TO ALLUDE IT WAS DOCKETED TIMELY WHICH IT WASN'T _EQUALS MORE FRAUD, CRIMINAL COLLABORATION 

    -

M - FRAUDULENT ANSWER FORM TO COUNTERCLAIM, ISSUED ONLY AFTER MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED DUE TO LACK OF DILIGENCE, CASE WITHOUT MERIT 

    - 

MM - FRAUDULENT ENTRY INCONSISTENT WITH ACTUAL FILING_WEDGED IN AS ENTRY NO 108.10 AS A TRICK TO ALLUDE JUDGE HAD ENTERED IT TIMELY WHICH IS FALSE 

    - 

N - DEFENDANT AFFIDAVIT ON RECORDS FRAUD_COURT ONLY ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER COUNTERCLAIM AFTER DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT EQUALIS DELIBERATE RECORDS FRAUD, CORRUPTION 

    - 

O - DETAILED LETTER 6 PAGES REMINDING THE COURT OF LACK OF DUE PROCESS AND DELIBERATE ABUSE OF PROCEDURE, FRAUD 

    - 

P - COURT ORDER -ORIGINAL MISSING _FRAUDULENTLY REPLACING ORIG RATHER THAN  REVISE; CLAIMING AN OATH BY PHONE IS NOW REASON FOR TRIAL JUDGE TO DISMISS - WHEN HEARINGS BY PHONE ARE ALLOWED!_ORIG PERMITTED Trial Judge to order dismissal on WHIM: 

   The court grants request for phone hearing yet leaves it for trial judge to dismiss 

   Talk about crooked!

    - 

Q = DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR TRIAL BY TELEPHONE DUE TO ERRNEOUS COURT ORDER STATING TRIAL JUDGE COULD REVERSE COURTS ORDER YET COURT FRAUDED RECORDS AND ALTERED THE ORDER 

    - 

R - RULING ON MOT FOR ORDER WITH NO ACTION NECESSARY_BECAUSE THE COURT FRAUDED THE FIRST ORDER_NO LONGER SAYING TRIAL JUDGE COULD REVERSE COURT ORDER BUT STUPIDLY SAY OATH BY PHONE MAY BE REASON TO DISMISS 

     I even submitted a notarized oath to the court and the plaintiff had it hours before hearing, yet followed their script, saying I failed to be sworn in! 

   Duh! I don't swear myself in! 

    - 

S - PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM TEN MONTHS LATER_INSUFFICIENT  ONE PAGE MOTION WITH NOTHING TO ARGUE YET COURT MARKS IT ARGUABLE WHEN ARG WASN'T EVEN REQUESTED 

    Motion To Dismiss has to be entered 30-60 days from filing! I filed counterclaim on July 9, 2020! Last year! 

    _

T - COURT DENIED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE HE IS AN IDIOT TELLING ME HE WAS DENYING MY MOTION TO DISMISS WHEN I DIDN'T MOTION TO DISMISS_ COUNTERCLAIM_OPERATION STUPID FRAUD 

    - 

U - FRAUDULENT EXHIBIT BY PLAINTIFF ENTERED AFTER DEF OBJECTION TO ITS LAME MOTION TO DISMISS YET THE DAMN JUDGE ALLOWS IT WHEN HE DENIED MOT TO DISMISS _ALL CAUGHT UP IN ITS BED OF LIES 

    - 

V - DEFENDANT;S OBJECTION TO LAME MOTION TO DISMISS YET COURT WEDGED IN ONE EXHIBIT WHICH WAS NOT THERE WHEN OBJECTION WAS FILED INTO COURT 

    -

W - DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE THE FRAUDULENT PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT AFTER DISCONVERING THEY ENTERED IT WITHOUT SERVING HER AND DOCUMENTS ARE FRAUDULENT_NO OBJECTION BUT JUDGE DENIED WITHOUT HEARING ING 

    -

X - DEFENDANTS APPEND TO MOTION TO STRIKE ENTRY NO 113 

                  

Y - LETTER OF ERATA ON MOTION TO STRIKE ENTRY NO 113 

    -

Z - DEFENDANTS STATEMENT ON COURTS NEFARIOUS ENTRY OF NO 104 

    -

ZZ - DEFENDANTS STATEMENT ON PLAINTIFF'S COLLECTIONS IN FRAUD 

    

UPDATE 5/27/2021 - DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REPLACE 5/21/2021 MOTION TO OPEN WITH 5/27/2021 MOTION TO OPEN...AND HERE IS THE 5/27 MOTION TO OPEN: 

Case No. NNH-CV-20-6105010-S : State of Connecticut

LVNV Funding, LLC : Superior Court

Vs : Court of New Haven

Anne M. Bradley : May 27, 2021


DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO OPEN

Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book 24-31, Defendant, Pro Se motions to open aforesaid matter due to the immediate ruling at the hearing of May 20, 2021. 

History

1. Small Claim against the Defendant was issued by Plaintiff-Attorney based on MEDICAL EXPENSES, invoking CGS 37-3a, along with numerous other INFORMATION which Defendant Anne M. Bradley said was against Connecticut Rules of Practice, primarily due to:

  FRAUDULENT APPEARANCE

FRAUDULENT MILITARY AFFIDAVIT ON DEFENDANT

THE PLAINTIFF LOCATED IN GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA HAD NO JURISDICTION IN CONNECTICUT 

THE ATTORNEY FIRM IN MICHIGAN HAS NO JURISDICTION IN CONNECTICUT 

FRAUDULENT SERVICE OF MAILING ALLEGED SMALL CLAIM NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT 

* Untimely, not following the Rules Of Court

* No true validation of mailing; plaintiff created a proof of mailing rather than just print what USPS had for that tracking number

**Defendant discovered that there was NO TRACKING INFORMATION ON THIS PACKAGE COMING FROM ILLINOIS - NOT MICHIGAN - ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY ENTERED AS RETURN ADDRESS.  THIS HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY DISPUTED IN DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM, WITH EMPHASIS OF FEDERAL CRIME, FRAUDULENT MAILING. COPIES OF ATTEMPT TO GET TRACKING INFORMATION ON THE TRACKING NUMBER, ALSO COPIED, ARE IN THE ORIGINAL APPENDIX WHICH Defendant entered into court on July 8, 2020 - yet the court nefariously waited two weeks to scan in! 

*** Defendant's computer was destroyed by CYBER CRIME thereafter and had to wait several months to purchase a replacement due to being indigent.  She had to use the court service center computers, which were strategically shut off only when they were the only resource and tool to complete documents on this case.  A hand-written motion had to be prepared (Motion for Trial by Telephone) due to the court's response to her letter-request for a trial by phone, indicating that they will not only grant it but allow the trial judge to reverse its decision, which is a deliberate failure of DUE PROCESS OF LAW, causing defendant to submit her request in the form of a motion - at which time the judge's prior ruling was altered on record and the few copies defendant had were switched.  

Defendant Anne M. Bradley claimed this was legal basis for the court to refuse to even docket the case, yet they docketed it anyway. 

2. As Defendant has relayed, Plaintiff gave no legal attention to the defendant's TIMELY ANSWER AND SPECIAL DEFENSES AS WELL AS COUNTERCLAIM, despite the fact the plaintiff was served mailed copies either by Priority Mail or Federal Express, as required by the Connecticut Rules of Practice for parties who cannot e-file - on July 8, 2020, the same day they were submitted into court.  

a. Though Defendant successfully registered for e-filing, the WETHERSFIELD OFFICE, which is the vicinity of Attorney Moylan of the Stillman Lawfirm in Connecticut (not Michigan), was technocratically- intercepted by an attorney at that office, blocking her entry without calling the defendant, without emailing the defendant - both of which were required and freely provided when registering.  Defendant had to call that office and ask what the trouble was.  This took a long time over the course of three or four calls - resulting in the Court Operations attorney claiming that the defendant could not register unless defendant hand-carried her picture ID, aka driver's license, to their office for identification purposes - nothing which was required for registering.  This baseless trick kept defendant from being able to e-file, which defendant claimed was Abuse of Procedure.  Obviously the local Courthouse could identify Defendant.

b. The Court allowed the plaintiff THREE MONTHS to Answer to Counterclaim, setting that date ONLY AFTER THE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED HER MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT THREE MONTHS AFTER SUBMITTING COUNTERCLAIM (October 2020). This motion was neither objected to or heard by the court.

3. At the May 20th hearing, Judge Kamp refused to identify himself as well as the two attorneys who represented LVNV.  These unidentified attorneys brought with them a woman who could not legally be used as a witness to the case, based on numerous reasons; namely that she had no knowledge of the case. Defendant claimed this witness was just prepared to testify previously dictated answers.

a. This witness did not even have the purchase and payment history, nor could she legally testify to late-entry EXHIBITS entered by the defendant, uncertified,  through e-filing due to the hearing marked to cover Defendant's two MOTIONS TO STRIKE - neither of which were heard.

b. This witness did not indicate she was a former OPERATIONS MANAGER at AMAZON, which would give her easy access to purchases made on Amazon, as well as payment history by the issuer, GE Money - which was sold to Synchrony Bank in 2011 or 2012, before the fake Shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  

4. Judge Kamp, a Fairfield Judge, ruled in favor of the plaintiff at the time of the hearing, which was stated by the Defendant, Pro Se in attached Affidavit, signed and notarized on May 21, 2021.  

a. Judge Kamp acknowledged no Purchasing/Payment History.  

b. Judge Kamp did not dispute that this was argued by the defendant in her Answer and Counterclaim nearly one year before, and the plaintiff failed to do anything about it, including responding to Defendant's detailed Answer.  

FACTS

1.  DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS A MATTER OF RIGHT - yet this court has deprived Due Process of Law at every juncture.  

2. This case is not just wrongful, it is reflective of criminal intent and reflects fraud.  

3. There was no just hearing!  

4. This case had no merit at the time it was filed; yet the court blocked Defendant's e-filing appearance and favored the Plaintiff to e-file so it could manipulate when it entered the Defendant's documents on the trial docket. Another reflection of LACK OF DUE PROCESS, as well as ABUSE OF PROCEDURE.

5. Court is reminded this Motion To Open automatically stays any collection attempts. Additional matters are empnasized in the Attached Affidavit by Defendant, prepared May 20, 2021, signed and submitted with this motion on May 21, 2021. Defendant has discovered to this day, May 27, 2021, that the submitted Motion To Open was not entered/scanned in, and is therefore asking the court to treat this one as an ORIGINAL. A Motion to Replace the previously entered Motion is being prepared incase the court refuses to allow her to enter this copy as an ORIGINAL copy.  Defendant is once again faxing copies to the plaintiff at the two fax numbers showing on internet for that same office suit, since the plaintiff provides no fax number on this case, and its office refuses to provide defendant a fax number.  Defendant will also send a copy through, at the least, first class mail, USPS. 

6. Plaintiff was notified by email on 5/21 that Defendant filed this MOTION TO OPEN.  Plaintiff has received the defendant's previously submitted MOTION TO OPEN.  There was no court-stamp on it.  Nor does the defendant have a court-stamped copy since it was submitted in the document slot of their door while the building was still open.  

7. According to PB 24-31, there may or may not be filing costs.  Should it fit the Whims of the court to require a fee, Defendant is Including a pre-prepared fee waiver to this motion.

8. Plaintiff was not diligent or honest throughout this case; did not even Object to COUNTERCLAIM, and submitted a non-arguable, one-page document for its MOTION TO DISMISS, which had no legitamate structure (History, Facts, Law, Summary), signed by the plaintiff-attorney Bardos, who apparently appeared on the case yet would not identify himself or place of business. 

a. Defendant claimed throughout that the plaintiff has an UNLAWFUL APPEARANCE ON THE CASE. It is very apparent that Attorney Bardos has no grasp on the law or how to litigate it, despite apparently being on the Honor Roll at Quinnipiac University, according to his bio online.  Defendant considers it outright absurd since he cannot even prepare a structured motion, let alone a sound one. 

b. Plaintiff-attorney at the hearing, who only referred to herself as "me" was never identified and when defendant requested it, the judge refused to relay who she was and most likely was an actor instead - and may have also been acting as the alleged "expert witness" who had no information on the account, who could not certify information on the account, who probably doesn't even understand what certifying any records entails, let alone knows how to do it.  

9. Defendant has been subjected to CYBER CRIME.  This motion never had a "grey lettering" problem, nor did Defendant make that a FACT.

a. It is obvious that internet is being used as a weapon by frauds  who claim litigation powers, "by a click of the button", which is not only a crime, but uterly pathetic.  "The absence of evidence is evidence of absence" - rather than just be responsible and admit their fraud, even as just an error, they use internet tools to alter information on this case as if it will just go away if they get rid of it.   

10. Stillman Law Office or SLO is a law firm based in Michigan that specializes in third-party debt collection. SLO has received consumer complaints alleging ......

a. Note, Synchrony Bank also uses an SLO-type acronym describing itself as that when they, not the issuer (as fraudulently claimed by plaintiff) SOLD this alleged account to LVNV Funding, LLC - without any validation that the account actually exists - yet this acclaimed "expert witness" said she took part in the transaction, involving also her "colleague" who she failed to admit was an attorney, Pamela Johnson.  

1) Defendant was unable to question witness on this matter and others because of the haphazzard way the judge was conducting the hearing, obviously to help the plaintiff win the case.    

11. Plaintiff failed to serve defendant its documents and pleadings, except for its delayed answer to Counterclaim (Over a week AFTER it received its served copy of Defendant's  Motion For Default Judgment), which was absurd, elementary.

a.  Though Defendant argued this at the May 20th hearing, plaintiff failed to respond and thereby admitted it indeed failed to serve the defendant on many counts; with emphasis on the EXHIBITS.  

12. This motion comprises of 13 pages along with an Affidavit of 8 pages; and total Appendix of 28 pages, to include a current status of the case. 

a. Defendant's Affidavit of 8 pages (Page 8 reprinted today, 5/27/2021) - which had Page 7 MISSING since Defendant switched the original for the copies which she mistakingly submitted to court in the door slot on 5/21. Defendant claims this may be to apparently mimick its removal and replacement of Appendix Page 7 from Entry No. 103.

LAW 

It is unknown why there are sections of this Rule altered in format; Defendant can only presume they were altered online, which is her only resource for currently-published rules or laws.  In fact, this was not even available for her access online until these recent months.  

Sec. 24-31. —Opening Judgment; Costs

(a) The judicial authority may, upon motion, and

after such notice by mail, or otherwise as it may

order, open any judgment rendered under this

procedure for lack of actual notice to a party, or,

within four months from the date thereof, for any

other cause that the judicial authority may deem

sufficient, and may stay and supersede execution;

except that the judicial authority may, for the reasons indicated above, open any judgment rendered by default at any time within four months

succeeding the date upon which an execution was

levied. The judicial authority may also order the

repayment of any sum collected under such judgment and may render judgment and issue execution therefor. Costs in an amount fixed by the

judicial authority and not exceeding $100 may be

awarded, in the discretion of the judicial authority,

for or against either party to a motion to open the

judgment, and judgment may be rendered and

execution may be issued therefor; and any action

by the judicial authority may be conditioned upon

the payment of such costs or the performance of

any proper condition.

(b) When a judgment has been rendered after

a contested hearing on the merits, a motion to

open shall be scheduled for hearing only upon

order of the judicial authority.

(P.B. 1978-1997, Sec. 584.) (Amended June 26, 2000, to

take effect Jan. 1, 2001; amended June 21, 2010, to take

effect Jan. 1, 2011.)

SUMMARY

This is a case which should never have been docketed due to the deliberate nefarious actions of the plaintiff in FRAUDING the Small Claim form on many counts.  The court kept the spin going, placing corruption as precedence.  DEFENDANT SEEKS THE COURT TO FIX ITSELF and REMEDY ITS OWN DISHONEST PRACTICES, DEFENDANT CLAIMS SHE HAS EASILY PROVEN:

There is no merit to the case.  Defendant claimed she stopped making purchases in 2014 using the GE Money/Amazon card and at every juncture emphasized if the plaintiff was cooperative in providing records to the contrary, she would discuss it with them.  Yet the plaintiff deliberately refused to cooperate.  Defendant claimed the woman who was promoted to manage these accounts by GE Capital was fraudulently billing her and it worsened when SYNCHRONY BANK (which existed for at least 15 years in the United States) PURCHASED these accounts from GE Money, which at the time owned over 80% of the stock of Synchrony, obviously to help a business that convinced them they were just in need of some temporary support to get back on its feet.  

Defendant discovered, from researching facts on this case, that this same woman became a NEW EMPLOYEE of Synchrony Bank and continued the fraudulent billing.  Defendant stopped using the card and said she would only pay what she owed - and not allow them to fraud her billing any longer.  Defendant was refused a Purchase/Payment History by Synchrony and therefore had to take time to create one herself, comprising of 39 pages - of which no response was made to Defendant by the two Synchrony addresses or by Amazon - which in fact, was obviously the prior employer of the so-called "Expert Witness" at the hearing on 5/21/2021, by the name of Victoria, aka "Vicki", Mason.  Plaintiff obviously deliberately mimicked the page numbers (to include using several blank pages on record, which also provides opportunity to further fraud the record on this case by replacing blank pages with more fraudulent information when the defendant is unaware - 

a common trick by the courts when Lois Law was implemented, and defendant obtained proof of this when printing court documentation off microfiche. The court's solution on this was to destroy the evidence of fraud, taking down Lois Law AND having all court libraries purged of information on cases, only providing the Opinion of the Court, which oftentimes reflects lies on the cases; ie, housing case of Young vs Young or possibly Jones vs Jones; defendant is not sure yet addressed this matter and others promptly, particularly when she discovered it was even appealed and the attorney representing the appealing party was a former FBI agent, located in Bridgeport, CT.  The mother entered NOTICE TO QUIT A FULL YEAR BEFORE THE COURT ACTED ON IT, and the court falsified information on the case.  The Notice To Quit was on Microfiche.  This could not have even occurred without argument that it was illegal due to statute of limitations, etc. - additionally, the home was Quit-claimed to the son for $1; the son was not renting the home; yet the courts used this case over and over in unrelated matters to fit their whims. Many cases were like this.) 

in its fake information which it referred to as EXHIBITS (Entry No. 113 and Entry No. 116), entered just days before the hearing, yet claimed they had them all along. 

Defendant made Amazon Purchases using her bank account card only thereafter, as emphasized at the hearing as well as pretrial pleadings which were not heard.  Though Defendant attempted several times to obtain printouts which were stolen out of her apartment, from her bank branch, for at least three months this year, she did not obtain timely copies. Defendant, therefore, had to request them from the bank's phone Customer Service thereafter, which takes as long as a month due the QUARANTINE (which defendant claims became a fake agenda when intelligence in China obviously intercepted the mass bio-weapon brought to Wuhan from a North Carolina lab, and replaced it with a placebo, Coronavirus, which is the common cold or flu)  

The fact that the court blocked the disabled Defendant's e-filing account, which was successfully created - to force her to mail all documents to the plaintiff, as well as hand-carry copies to the court to be entered - is not just ABUSE OF PROCEDURE, IT IS ABUSE OF A DISABLED PERSON, WHO ALMOST LOST HER LEGS FROM BEING DELIBERATELY HIT HEAD ON BY A 20-TON TOWN SANDER TRUCK WHICH HAD A PLOW ATTACHMENT, USING A SPOTTER. - after she told a sex trafficker in that town to leave her alone, he was a pig!  

Defendant's cost for mailing every pleading to the plaintiff averaged $15 each time, along with the time and copying costs spent in mailing.  

Defendant claims that the plaintiff should bear all costs of the court as well as pay Defendant the $5,000 which is duly deserved, reflected in the COUNTERCLAIM.

 WHEREFORE, Defendant motions this court to Open judgment which the arbitrator-judge issued on record during hearing of May 20, 2021.  

Appendix

1. Defendant's Affidavit of 7 pages 

8. Search on "expert witness" Victoria Mason (with page 8b) 

9. Search on Michael Kamp, Superior Court Judge of Fairfield, one page  

10-30 Superior Court Case Look-ups for 5/20/21 to 5/2/27/2021 

(Unpaginated) Fee Waiver for Filing along with separate affidavit prepared, notarized on May 21, 2021.

Prepared and Submitted,

FOR THE DEFENDANT, PRO SE

__________________________

Anne M. Bradley 

ORDER

THE COURT HAVING HEARD AFORESAID MOTION TO OPEN IS GRANTED/DENIED

_____________________

CERTIFIED MAILING

MAY 27, 2021

A copy of this MOTION TO OPEN, has been FAXED and mailed to the following: 

Stillman Law Office

alias:  Stillman, PC

30057 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 200, Farmington Hills, MI 48334 

FAX NUMBERS FOUND ONLINE: 

 Fax: 443-588-0417

Note, their website fails to provide a fax number: 

Stillman Law Office

Orchard Lake Road, Suite 200, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334, United States

(888) 286-5001

info@stillmanlaw.com

Note, plaintiff-owner has its building for sale:

Office Property For Sale, Office Building, Farmington Hills, Michigan: 40371 SF, listed by: Kevin Jappaya, CCIM - KJ Commercial. ... 30057 Orchard Lake Road, Farmington Hills, MI 48334 ... Contact Listing Agent ... Total Number of Buildings: 1.

FAX: (248) 851-6029

___________________ 

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se - Defendant 


HERE IS THE DEFENDANT'S AFFIDAVIT, ATTACHED TO MOTION TO OPEN: 

Case No. NNH-CV-2-6105010-S : State of Connecticut

LVNV Funding, LLC : Superior Court

Vs : Court of New Haven

Anne M. Bradley : May 20, 2021

DEFENDANT'S 

Affidavit to Attach to Small Claim Action

ACTION TAKEN:  MOTION TO OPEN

BASED ON ARBITRATOR'S VERBAL RULING

1. My oath is already on file for this case and redundant to repeat.

1) The court used ABUSE OF PROCESS by not informing me of this Small Claim until THREE DAYS FROM THE ANSWER DATE.  The Deputy Clerk argued he couldn't help it, that is what the computer sets - despite the fact the COURT BROKE THE RULES BY ALLOWING THE PLAINTIFF THREE MONTHS TO SUBMIT AN ANSWER TO THE COUNTERCLAIM ONLY AFTER THE PLAINTIFF ANSWERED, WHICH HAD ABSOLUTELY NO SUBSTANCE, DID NOT RESPOND TO ANYTHING IN MY COUNTERCLAIM.  YET I RESPONDED TO THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, INCLUDING PROVIDING SPECIFIC PROOF THAT THIS BEHAVIOUR IS REFLECTIVE OF ME BEING A TARGETED PERSON IN THIS STATE SINCE I MOVED HERE.  

1) I filed a proper and timely COUNTERCLAIM demanding $5,000 for costs, according to PB 24-19,  despite the deliberate insufficiency of court forms. 

a) The arbitrator at this hearing stated MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED; I, the Defendant, emphasized that the only one who motioned to dismiss was the plaintiff, on COUNTERCLAIM, and neither that motion or the MOTIONS TO STRIKE WERE NOT EVEN HEARD. 

b) The arbitrator nefariously entered "Judgment for Plaintiff" without even properly hearing this case, resenting the fact that I, the Defendant, relayed many valid of what I had already documented in this case, that this case had absolutely NO MERIT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE EVEN BEEN DOCKETED due to fraudulent claims in its complaint, fraudulent documents such as the MILITARY AFFIDAVIT, AND fraudulent appearance by the plaintiff!  The fraudulent spin only increased the reasons to rule in my favor thereafter! 

2. Today, at 3:45, aforesaid case was heard.  Those Present: 

1) Arbitrator who would not relay his name

2) Female attorney who only described herself as "me" and again would not relay her name for appearance purposes and the arbitrator allowed this dynamic on this and other issues.

3) Male attorney who would also not relay his name but I, the defendant, presumed it was Matthew Bardos since he admitted to creating the Small Claim Form and more.  

4) Victoria Mason, acclaimed witness who had not submitted any document on this case.  Employed by Resurgent, not LVNV 

a) Yet she claims to be Records Administrator for LVNV

b) I, the Defendant was not given opportunity to question about this and other matters due to the happhazzard way the arbitrator conducted the case, including allowing her to testify on Exhibits which were part of my, the defendant's,  MOTION TO STRIKE. This was not corrected even though I, the Defendant, claimed it was wrong and violated Due Process.  

5) Judge allowed "witness" to testify on documents she had with her, which violated the case proceedings.  For the judge to ask the witness to read what he can read right on record for this case was absurd and  illogical - ONLY asking to verify the my, the Defendant's, address!   I, the Defendant, emphasized it was irrelevant to verify her residence over and over.  I, the Defendant, emphasized, "How can she be witness to contested documents?" The arbitrator ignored defendant's insistence that no document can be discussed until MOTIONS TO STRIKE  was heard.  NEITHER MOTION TO STRIKE were heard.  Nor was the Plaintiff's MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM heard - yet I, the Defendant, made sure I stated that the Motion to Dismiss could only be argued upon what he already submitted - WHICH WAS NOTHING - a frivolous motion that even a highschool student would do better creating.  No Facts, No History, No Law, No Summary!  Even the motion itself was haphazzard. Arguing this motion was like expecting a car with flat tires to go down the highway at 55 mph!  

6) Witness described Pamela Johnson as her "co-worker" yet I, the defendant, did not get a chance to ask her more about this since Pamela Johnson is an actor and attorney so would be this witness an actor or attorney IF THEY REALLY WERE CO-WORKERS; and also where did they work together, etc.  

7) I, the Defendant, emphasized this case is based on a haphazzard complaint which DICTATES what they are allowed to argue in court, including claiming I, the Defendant, owed MEDICAL BALANCE, invoking CGS 37-3a.

8) No matter how matter-of-fact that I, the Defendant, argued, this arbitrator paid no attention to what she was saying and changed the subject. 

a) I, the Defendant, claimed in pleadings as well as at this poorly-managed hearing that I paid for my purchases; I stopped making purchases due to the fraudulent billing activity; that I obviously paid $30 a month for three years with only a $710 allowed credit due to the nefarious reduction on my balance by Synchrony Bank Manager who was is a fraud.  I, the Defendant, emphasized the August 2017 letter I sent to Amazon referring to a 39 page Ledger of Purchases, Payments, and Running Balance resulting in ZERO BALANCE BY THE TIME I MADE THE LAST PAYMENT

  - EVEN INCLUDING THE NEPHARIOUS CHARGES BY SYNCHRONY EVEN THOUGH I DID NOT EXCEED THE CREDIT LIMIT, YET THEY WOULD REDUCE THE CREDIT LIMIT UNDER WHAT I PURCHASED TO ADD MORE CHARGES FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN FRAUD -  

that I created since Synchrony failed to cooperate with one due to their fraudulent activity.  I, the Defendant, emphasized 36 months time of making payments of $30 is over $1,000 yet they reduced the credit to $710, cheating me out of over $300.  

b) The arbItrator interfered with my, the Defendant,  speaking; the arbitrator ignored the facts, the arbitrator did not hold a fair hearing DELIBERATELY.  

9) I, the Defendant, emphasized the following, having to be very firm because the arbitrator and the male attorney of LVNV were interrupting me: 

a) The witness is not even a proven witness on the case 

b) The case began with FALSE INFORMATION; the arbitrator only kept saying, "You purchased things from Amazon, didn't you?....Where do you live?" 

c) ARBITRATOR FAILED TO PREPARE FOR THIS CASE!. I, the Defendant, relayed what I had documented (which obviously the arbitrator did not even read) - about the illegal appearances of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff failed to abide by the credit agreement that GE Money had, they were frauding accounts and not giving revolving credit as GE Money gave, Not even serving me, the defendant, their haphazzard and untimely EXHIBITS which this arbitrator gave as precedence even though a Motion To Strike was issued for each one by the plaintiff and THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT OBJECT TO THE MOTIONS TO STRIKE; I, the Defendant, also emphasized the fraudulent Military Affidavit is illegal because the plaintiff had no legal right to enter an affidavit on defendant as if they were her attorney (being chief, cook, and bottle washer) No Motion To Strike was heard; and more.  There were many more arguments made by me, the Defendant, which this arbitrator did not hear nor did he obviously prepare for because the agenda was to TARGET ANNE BRADLEY, as she has relayed, and they only proved with their ignorant lack of doing their jobs, placing corruption as first and foremost.   

3. This was no hearing. It was reflective of "The Ends Justify The Means" - a Devil's Chessboard of false information and doing everything in their power to suppress the HARMED DEFENDANT, myself!  

1) Despite the fact plaintiff, female attorney who did not say her name, complained that I, the defendant, was not sworn in - as a last minute trick while the judge was ruling in the plaintiff's favor, they even had the Oath which I took and had notarized.  The court's deliberate failure to upload those documents is secondary to the fact that I did mail them via Federal Express, which were GUARANTEED TO BE RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE HEARING ON MAY 20.  Yet the arbitrator would do nothing and not allow me, the defendant to speak.  In fact, MANY TIMES I WAS INTERRUPTED BY THE RUDE PLAINTIFF OR ARBITRATOR - WHO HAD NO INTENT OF ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK AT ALL IF HE COULD HELP IT! 

4. I have been greatly violated!  I deserve way more than the $5,000 in the COUNTERCLAIM because of all of this corruption and having to defend myself on a case without merit, arguing fraudulent plaintiffs who have shown no allegience to the Law, let alone administer it!

5. The documents which this plaintiff claimed validated this witness were moved to be stricken since they FIRST were not served on the defendant, myself, they were only documents of fraud.  The witness only worked for LVNV for 3 years, not showing her job history or any accreditations.  In Fact, she was probable "Vicki Mason" who was an Operations Manager of AMAZON - of all places, NEVADA - the hotbed of CIA corruption.  Dr. Ted Gunderson, retired FBI Section Chief, moved there, leaving his family BECAUSE HE SERVED A HIGHER PURPOSE AND WANTED HIS FAMILY TO BE PROUD OF HIM - and that was to eradicate the Satanic Underground that was sex trafficking children, murdering people, FRAUDING, EMBEZZLING, and all other crimes relating to RACKETEERING. I, the Defendant, could not question the witness in a proper way. The arbitrator only allowed me to ask her one question and he obviously resented that because his mission was to help them win, not hear the case!  The arbitrator scheduled me for last so he could evade from justice, and rule in plaintiff's favor, who I suspect he probably has nefarious deals with since Sherman Companies is at the least as crooked as ENRON was.  

6. ATTACHED TO THIS MOTION TO OPEN ALSO are printed case information on aforesaid case for 5/20/2021 at 5:56 pm and10:52 pm; and now for 5/21/2021 at 11;09 am. NO DISPOSITION HAS BEEN ENTERED DESPITE WHAT THE ARBITRATOR SAID IN COURT. 


Prepared and Submitted, 

            FOR THE DEFENDANT

__________________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se  5/21/2021

PO Box 206514

New Haven, CT 06520

Ph.  203-909-9131

Notarized:  



CERTIFIED MAILING

PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN NOTIFIED BY EMAIL THAT MOTION TO OPEN IS BEING ENTERED TODAY IN COURT, AS WITH OTHER PRIOR PLEADINGS IN THE PAST TEN DAYS.  COPIES OF EMAILS ARE PROVIDED.  THE SEARCH ON LVN IN DEFENDANT'S EMAIL ALSO PROVES THAT THE ATTORNEY FOR LVNV WAS LYING ABOUT PROOF OF SERVICE, NOTHING OF WHICH WAS EVEN PROFERED TO COURT ANYWAY, YET THE ARBITRATOR SIDED WITH THE LYING PLAINTIFF. 

A copy of this aforesaid DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT, to be entered into court,  dated May 21, 2021, has been mailed to the following: 

Stillman Law Office

alias:  Stillman, PC

30057 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 200, Farmington Hills, MI 48334 


___________________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se Defendant 

 




                          MOTION TO OPEN 

                                IN A TIMELY OR HONEST MANNER 



            I need to resume this later...including fixing all links to the documents so they can be accessed by at least people in Connecticut - this really drains me! 

    



All I can do right now.  Oh, here is my Motion To Open: 

Case No. NNH-CV-20-6105010-S : State of Connecticut

LVNV Funding, LLC : Superior Court

Vs : Court of New Haven

Anne M. Bradley : May 21, 2021


                                        DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO OPEN

Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book 24-31, Defendant, Pro Se motions to open aforesaid matter due to the nefarious ruling of the arbitrator,who Defendant was just informed was a judge, by the last name of Kamp, appointed by former Governor Malloy, who not only covered up the SANDY HOOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SHOOTING FRAUD BUT WASTED MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS COVERING IT UP. NOBODY DIED AND ADAM LANZA WAS NOT EVEN A REAL PERSON. 

History

1. Small Claim against the Defendant was issued by Plaintiff-Attorney based on MEDICAL EXPENSES, invoking CGS 37-3a, along with numerous other OBVIOUSLY- FALSE INFORMATION INCLUDING

  FRAUDULENT APPEARANCE

FRAUDULENT MILITARY AFFIDAVIT ON DEFENDANT

THE PLAINTIFF LOCATED IN GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA HAD NO JURISDICTION IN CONNECTICUT 

THE ATTORNEY FIRM IN MICHIGAN HAS NO JURISDICTION IN CONNECTICUT 

which the defendant Anne M. Bradley claimed was legal basis for the court to refuse to docket the case.

2. Rather than give this attention and other matters as stated in defendant's TIMELY ANSWER AND SPECIAL DEFENSES AS WELL AS COUNTERCLAIM, the court kept spin on the case, including allowing the plaintiff THREE MONTHS to Answer to Counterclaim, setting that date ONLY AFTER THE COUNTERCLAIM WAS ANSWERED BY THE PLAINTIFF.  

     5/26/2021: Note! The plaintiff took three months to answer the counterclaim

    The court set the due date AFTER the defendant entered Motion For Default Judgment! 

     I proofed this and know what I typed! I am not finished reading what the court gave back to me, in exchange for the original. Which I had kept in error. 

     Stillman Law had received this already and no doubt took part altering the document! 

(9pm EST)

3. Regarding the lack of credibility of this aforesaid arbitrator-judge,by the name of Michael Kamp, located in Fairfield

(which was residence of William Dong, who was unlawfully arrested at the University of New Haven, based on a homeless women claiming he pointed his gun at her and was given a $23,000 bribe the university since the case was not disposed and Mr. Dong pleaded NOT GUILTY, yet the abusive court forced this young man who was never arrested in his life - to prison and made him stay there for over a year and caused his parents to remortgage their home and sell their restaurants in New York City to pay attorney's fees even though the attorney was deliberately and nefariously insufficiently representing him. It didn't matter that the homeless woman did not know William Dong and her testimony altered and they enjoyed not entering a letter of complaint into court to further help along fraud) 

refused to identify himself as well as the two attorneys who represented LVNV - neither identified for the hearing, who brought with them a woman who could not legally be used as a witness to the case, based on numerous reasons; namely that she had no knowledge of the case and was just prepared to be a puppet saying what they scripted her to say; she did not even have the purchase and payment history, nor could she legally testify to contested documents since defendant issued MOTIONS TO STRIKE - neither of which were heard even though they were set to be heard on the case for that day. 

4. Despite the deliberate and fraudulent managing of this hearing by Kamp, this arbitrator-judge illegitamately ruled in favor of the plaintiff, which was stated by the Defendant, Pro Se in attached Affidavit.  


FACTS

1.  DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS A MATTER OF RIGHT - yet this court has deprived Due Process of Law at every juncture.  

2. This case is not just wrongful, it is reflective of criminal intent and reflects fraud.  

3. There was no just hearing!  

4. This case had no merit at the time it was filed; yet the court blocked Defendant's e-filing appearance and favored the Plaintiff to e-file so it could manipulate when it entered the Defendant's documents on the trial docket. Another reflection of LACK OF DUE PROCESS, as well as ABUSE OF PROCEDURE.

5. Additional matters are empnasized in the Attached Affidavit by Defendant, prepared May 20, 2021, signed and submitted with this motion on May 21, 2021. 

6. Plaintiff has been notified that Defendant is filing this MOTION TO OPEN.  

7. According to PB 24-31, there may or may not be filing costs.  Should it fit the Whims of the court to require a fee, Defendant is Including a fee waiver to this motion.

8. Plaintiff was not diligent or honest throughout this case; did not even Object to COUNTERCLAIM, and submitted a one-page document for its MOTION TO DISMISS, which had no legitamate structure (History, Facts, Law, Summary), signed by the plaintiff-attorney who apparently appeared on the case yet would not identify himself or place of business - since he has an UNLAWFUL APPEARANCE ON THE CASE. 


Note! Stillman Law Firm and/or the court got someone to  got someone to erase what I typed, and insert a paragraph from a different motion! How stupid! It was obviously inserted! 5/26/2021 9:12pm 

9. Due to nefarious hacking by MICROSOFT  or the like, Defendant has had to bold all lettering since all lettering was altered to a gray appearance, as they did when Defendant was using the Federal Express Computer for a Motion For Clarification - which turned into an Objection to the Plaintiff's inept Motion To Dismiss before it was entered into court.  


LAW 

Copied and pasted onto this pleading; apparently some sections were altered at some point: 

Sec. 24-31. —Opening Judgment; Costs

(a) The judicial authority may, upon motion, and

after such notice by mail, or otherwise as it may

order, open any judgment rendered under this

procedure for lack of actual notice to a party, or,

within four months from the date thereof, for any

other cause that the judicial authority may deem

sufficient, and may stay and supersede execution;

except that the judicial authority may, for the reasons indicated above, open any judgment rendered by default at any time within four months

succeeding the date upon which an execution was

levied. The judicial authority may also order the

repayment of any sum collected under such judgment and may render judgment and issue execution therefor. Costs in an amount fixed by the

judicial authority and not exceeding $100 may be

awarded, in the discretion of the judicial authority,

for or against either party to a motion to open the

judgment, and judgment may be rendered and

execution may be issued therefor; and any action

by the judicial authority may be conditioned upon

the payment of such costs or the performance of

any proper condition.

(b) When a judgment has been rendered after

a contested hearing on the merits, a motion to

open shall be scheduled for hearing only upon

order of the judicial authority.

(P.B. 1978-1997, Sec. 584.) (Amended June 26, 2000, to

take effect Jan. 1, 2001; amended June 21, 2010, to take

effect Jan. 1, 2011.)


SUMMARY

This is a case which should never have been docketed due to the deliberate nefarious actions of the plaintiff in FRAUDING the Small Claim form on many counts.  The court kept the spin going, placing corruption as precedence.  DEFENDANT SEEKS THE COURT TO FIX ITSELF and REMEDY ITS OWN DISHONEST PRACTICES, DEFENDANT CLAIMS SHE HAS EASILY PROVEN:

There is no merit to the case.  Defendant stopped making purchases in 2014 using the GE Money/Amazon card.  Defendant claimed the woman who was promoted to manage these accounts by GE Capital was fraudulently billing her and it worsened when SYNCHRONY BANK (which existed for at least 15 years in the United States) PURCHASED these accounts from GE Money.  Defendant discovered, from researching facts on this case, that that same woman became a NEW EMPLOYEE of Synchrony Bank and continued the fraudulent billing.  Therefore Defendant stopped using the card and said she would only pay what she owed - and not allow them to fraud her billing any longer.  Defendant was refused a Purchase/Payment History by Synchrony and therefore had to take time to create one herself, comprising of 39 pages - of which no response was made to Defendant by the two Synchrony addresses or by Amazon - which in fact, was obviously the prior employer of the so-called "Expert Witness" at the hearing yesterday, by the name of Victoria, aka "Vicki", Mason.  

Defendant made Amazon Purchases using her bank account card only thereafter.  Though Defendant attempted several times to obtain printouts which were stolen out of her apartment, from her bank branch, for at least three months this year, it was obvious she was not going to be given them and therefore had to request them from Customer Service.  

The fact that the court blocked the disabled Defendant's e-filing account, which was successfully created - to force her to mail all documents to the plaintiff, as well as hand-carry copies to the court to be entered - is not just ABUSE OF PROCEDURE, IT IS ABUSE OF A DISABLED PERSON, WHO ALMOST LOST HER LEGS FROM BEING DELIBERATELY HIT HEAD ON BY A 20-TON TOWN SANDER TRUCK WHICH HAD A PLOW ATTACHMENT, USING A SPOTTER. - after she told a sex trafficker in that town to leave her alone, he was a pig!  

Defendant's cost for mailing every pleading to the plaintiff averaged $12 each time, along with the time spent in mailing.  

Defendant claims that the plaintiff should bear all costs of the court as well as pay Defendant the $5,000 which is duly deserved, reflected in the COUNTERCLAIM.

 WHEREFORE, Defendant motions this court to Open judgment which the arbitrator-judge issued on record during hearing of May 20, 2021.  

Appendix

1. Defendant's Affidavit of 8 pages 

9. Search on Michael Kamp, Superior Court Judge of Fairfield, one page 

10. Superior Court Case Look-ups for 5/20/21 and 5/21/2021

12 pages 

23. Fee Waiver for Filing 

Prepared and Submitted,

FOR THE DEFENDANT, PRO SE

__________________________

Anne M. Bradley 

ORDER

THE COURT HAVING HEARD AFORESAID MOTION TO OPEN IS GRANTED/DENIED

_____________________


CERTIFIED MAILING

MAY 21, 2021

A copy of this MOTION TO OPEN, has been mailed to the following: 

Stillman Law Office

alias:  Stillman, PC

30057 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 200, Farmington Hills, MI 48334 


___________________ 

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se - Defendant 


5/26/2021 - I also submitted an Affidavit. I may include here tomorrow. I emphasize: 

    I specifically know I referred to the Motion For Default Judgment as being entered into court - and THEN the court altered records by allowing plaintiff three months to submit Answer to the Counterclaim, despite the fact I served the Counterclaim to the plaintiff PLUS it was scanned into court! They had my Counterclaim for ten months and knew damn well the Answer is required in 30 days! I didn't even get 30 days, which is against the Rules of practice,yet the court will just say, this is Small Claims, we do as we please. 

    This is a continuous operation of corruption there - and most of Connecticut Courts are like this! 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tranny Watch

Pitstop of Information July 2018

SMALL CLAIMS PROCESSING AND DUE PROCESS IN CONNECTICUT