Affidavit after Motion To Open
Ref: FRAUDULENT COLLECTIONS
Look for the skunk pictures - all on same topic - which is a Small Claim against me on Fraudulent Collections ...this is my experience. Maybe it will help some people. The courts where I live are a swamp of corruption!
You can toggle back and forth this way on your phone. It should work on a computer also. I need test it. 8/1/2021
My new post on TRANSCRIPT of the May 20 Hearing is yet to be added to the TOC - FYI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
POSSIBLY FOR COMPUTER ONLY
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THIS BLOG; https://www.publiusroots.com/2018/04/table-of-contents.html
Re: LVNV Funding, LLC vs Anne M. Bradley
F R A U D U L E N T
C O L L E C T I O N S
I filed a Petition2Congress.gov
REMOVE TRUMP NOW
(Trump had purchased tons of laser weapons 5 months before he pulverized Paradise, CA! His uncle made lasers for CIA and other black operations his whole career!)
May 20: hearing
May 25: birthday of a relative's daughter
May 29: My relative's home was blown up, that daughter was killed along with her grandfather!
I just found out in an anonymous letter, from "me", which is how the crooked female attorney who also erroneously testified (which is illegal) at my hearing identified herself! No mention of that relative's surviving brother, as if to allude he's next!
2 - I made some significant changes - mainly additional info.
1 - I created this new blogpost because this affidavit is over 20 pages. Also, I will attach Chapter 24 of the Connecticut Practice Book - word for word - after this affidavit.
6/13/2021 UPDATE. What I saw is NOT what I got. Differences are menial
My printed copy is NOT like this and I need to aside a few hours to type in all the problems - hopefully in red if this thing cooperates.
In the good ol' days...we could type a document without interference. It takes MUCH LONGER TODAY- to complete a real project due to technocratic setbacks, aka corruption.
FINAL COPY, TO BE SUBMITTED TO COURT
Case No. NNH-CV-20-6105010-S : State of Connecticut
LVNV Funding, LLC : Superior Court
Vs : Court of New Haven
Anne M. Bradley : June 12, 2021
DEFENDANT'S AFFIDAVIT - MOTION TO OPEN 5/21/2021
1. My name is Anne M. Bradley and I am defendant on aforesaid case.
a. THERE IS ONLY ONE MOTION TO OPEN. The clerk refused to apply my fee waiver to the replacement of this same motion. The first fee waiver.should have been voided. But they didn't and are processing both, which is wrongful. They took Page 7 out of my Appendix and CREATED a fraudulent AMENDED Answer & Counterclaim IN FILE NO 103, which should only be an AMENDED TIMELINE.
b. I placed my MOTION TO OPEN in the document door slot of the clerk's office on May 21, 2021, On May 24, Monday, I returned to the court with a proper fee waiver to replace the other one. The clerk allowed me to replace the prior fee waiver I submitted on May 21. I said she would be updating the motion as well, but to "please take this one to show my efforts in getting my rights, since I have already served it on the plaintiff." The replacement was promptly submitted after being served on the defendant.
c.The Motion To Open was CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY and since it was not scanned into court, I, the defendant requested to withdraw or replace it; yet they refused and also requested a separate fee waiver even though it was for the same motion.
d. I, the Defendant, was told by the clerk's office on June 8 that BOTH motions would be marked for a hearing. I said that was ridiculous, that there was only one motion and the court should have replaced it. The plaintiff was served both copies. The call was useless, having contended with someone who was obviously told what to say rather than adhere to the law. Number of business days since serving and filing: 14,
e. Plaintiff has not motioned for Extension of Time to submit its objection. It has not objected to any of my pleadings and illegally submitted its Answer to Counterclaim several months past the 45 day limit according to Rules of Court.
2. I have repeatedly claimed this case is solely an action of fraud, that it even had no merit to be docketed. I REPEATEDLY CLAIMED THAT MY COUNTERCLAIM IS MORE THAN VALID AND I SHOULD WIN THE COUNTERCLAIM, DESERVING TO BE COMPENSATED FOR FIGHTING THIS CORRUPTION. My affidavit of May 21, 2021 emphasizes this. The hearing was on May 20, 2021. It was badly litigated by a court which only cared about helping the plaintiff, who prepared this case to serve the wants of Donald Trump, et al - since I am a targeted person and Trump resented my publically claiming he murdered General Soleimani, he murdered many in Paradise, CA using the Boeing laser weapons which he purchased 5 months prior to the torching of Paradise, CA. Blackstone Intelligence on YouTube timely-reported that purchase.
3, As an update of this case, the court only covers up the obvious proofs that this case has no merit and I deserve to be fully compensated in my counterclaim,
The attorneys who appeared at the hearing of May 20, 2021:
a. She just said she was "me" and the presider of this hearing, who the court claimed thereafter was "Judge Kamp" (Appendix Page 1-7; Note, his Juris number is NOT FOUND; dates of orders are frauded on court records) claimed that she did not need to identify herself, it was not necessary
b. Attorney Bardos - WHO LIVES AND WORKS IN CONNECTICUT, NOT MICHIGAN AND HAS NO MICHIGAN membership of their Bar Association, appeared for the hearing from a separate location (Appendix Page 8-10)
i. I conclude Attorney Bardos is has no competency. For him to attain "Honor Roll" status at Quinnipiac University only reflects one thing: HE CHEATED ON HIS HOMEWORK AND EXAMS. Frankly, I consider him to be a complete idiot who can barely write his name.
c. Neither attorney identified where they were located
d. STILLMAN LAW OFFICE IS NO LONGER REGISTERED IN CONNECTICUT (Appendix Page 11)
i. I conclude that these two attorneys, one which failed to make her appearance and was just there as "me", as well as illegally testifying as an expert witness - had absolutley no legal right to be on this case and their designed plan was with MALICE AND FORETHOUGHT.
e. PRO HAC VICE appearance was completely, deliberately illegal. Not only is it clearly defined in the Black's Law Dictionary, it has been acknowledged as a "one time only" appearance for out of state attorneys who are not registered in Connecticut -
Attorney Bardos was not even registered at a bar of another state, let alone be able to claim he was in good standing. It is illegal for him to use a Pro Hac Vice appearance.
As emphasized in documentation as well as at the hearing, the Juris Number was ILLEGITAMATELY ISSUED. IT IS FRAUDULENTLY USED BY A CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY.
Sec. 2-16. ATTORNEY APPEARING PRO HAC VICE
An attorney who is in good standing at the bar of another state, the District of Columbia, or the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, may, upon special and infrequent occasion and for good cause shown upon written application presented by a member of the bar of this state, be permitted in the discretion of the court to participate to such extent as the court may prescribe in the presentation of a cause or appeal in any state court or a proceeding before any municipal or state agency, commission, board or tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘proceeding’’) in this state; provided, however, that
(1) such application shall be accompanied by the affidavit of the applicant (a) certifying whether such applicant has a grievance pending against him or her in any other jurisdiction, has ever been reprimanded, suspended, placed on inactive status, disbarred, or otherwise disciplined, or has ever resigned from the practice of law and, if so, setting forth the circumstances concerning such action, (b) certifying that the applicant has paid the client security fund fee due for the calendar year in which the application has been made,
(c) designating the chief clerk of the superior court for the judicial district in which the attorney will be appearing as his or her agent upon whom process and service of notice may be served,
(d) agreeing to register with the statewide grievance committee in accordance with the provisions of this chapter while appearing in the matter in this state and for two years after the completion of the matter in which the attorney appeared, and to notify the statewide grievance committee of the expiration of the two year period, (e) identifying the number of times the attorney has appeared pro hac vice in the superior court or in any other proceedings of this state since the attorney first appeared pro hac vice in this state, listing each such case or proceeding by name and docket number, as applicable, and (f) providing any previously assigned juris number and
The applicant has to be accompanied by a member of the bar of this state! They cannot be a member themselves! Stillman Law Office is no longer registered in Connecticut. (Appendix, Page 12-13)
The applicant has to disclose OTHER PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCES! THEY ARE AN APPLICANT FOR ONE TIME APPEARANCE! THAT IS WHAT PRO HAC VICE MEANS IN LATIN! (Appendix Page 14-18)
(2) unless excused by the judicial authority, a member of the bar of this state must be present at all proceedings, including depositions in a proceeding, and must sign all pleadings, briefs and other papers filed with the court, local or state administrative agency, commission, board or tribunal, and assume full responsibility for them and for the conduct of the cause or proceeding and of the attorney to whom such privilege is accorded. Any such application shall be made on a form prescribed by the chief court administrator. Where feasible, the application shall be made to the judge before whom such case is likely to be tried. If not feasible, or if no case is pending before the superior court, the application shall be made to the administrative judge in the judicial district where the matter is to be tried or the proceeding is to be conducted. Good cause for according such privilege shall be limited to facts or circumstances affecting the personal or financial welfare of the client and not the attorney. Such facts may include a showing that by reason of a longstanding attorney-client relationship predating the cause of action or subject matter of the litigation at bar, or proceeding, the attorney has acquired a specialized skill or knowledge with respect to the client’s affairs important to the trial of the cause or presentation of the proceeding, or that the litigant is unable to secure the services of Connecticut counsel. Upon the granting of an application to appear pro hac vice, the clerk of the court in which the application is granted shall immediately notify the statewide grievance committee of such action. Any person granted permission to appear in a cause, appeal or proceeding pursuant to this section shall comply with the requirements of Sections 2-68 and 2-70 (Appendix Page 19-20) and shall pay such fee when due as prescribed by those sections for each year such person appears in the matter. If the clerk for the judicial district or appellate court in which the matter is pending is notified that such person has failed to pay the fee as required by this section, the court shall determine after a hearing the appropriate sanction, which may include termination of the privilege of appearing in the cause, appeal or proceeding.
ii. CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW: Volume 36, Winter 2004, Number 2: Connecticut Unauthorized Practice Laws and Some Options For Their Reform by Quintin Johnstone, who is now deceased, who had serve the Bush Administration and was on a pricing agency attached to FEMA, to dictate/control price gouging. That agency was removed in a few years at which time pricing escalated grately, and no doubt made the rich-richer, poor-poorer.
Sec. 2-68. Client Security Fund Established
Note, the following is all that pastes upon copying the online version of 2-68 to 2-70. MORE TECHNOCRATIC TRICKS WHICH ARE FRAUDULENT, DECEPTIVE, MANIPULATIVE! (Appendix Page 19-20)
a) A client security fund is hereby established
the attorney has been admitted to the bar of this to promote public confidence in the judicial system
and the integrity of the legal profession by reim- state, has registered with the statewide grievance
bursing clients, to the extent provided for by these committee in compliance with Section 2-27 (d),
rules, for losses resulting from the dishonest con- and is not under suspension, on inactive status, duct of attorneys practicing law in this state in the disbarred, or resigned from the bar.
course of the attorney-client relationship and by (P.B. 1978-1997, Sec. 46C.) providing crisis intervention and referral assisSec. 2-66. Practice by Court Officials tance to attorneys admitted to the practice of law
in this state who suffer from alcohol or other sub- (a) No lawyer who is a judge of the supreme stance abuse problems or gambling problems, or court, appellate court or superior court shall prac- who have behavioral health problems. tice law in any state or federal court. (b) It is the obligation of all attorneys admitted
(b) The chief public defender, the deputy chief to the practice of law in this state to participate in
public defender, public defenders, assistant public the collective effort to reimburse clients who have
defenders, deputy assistant public defenders, the lost money or property as the result of the unethichief state’s attorney, the deputy chief state’s cal and dishonest conduct of other attorneys and
attorney, state’s attorneys, assistant state’s attor- to provide crisis intervention and referral assisneys and deputy assistant state’s attorneys who tance to attorneys admitted to the practice of law
have been appointed on a full-time basis will in this state who suffer from alcohol or other subdevote their full time to the duties of their offices, stance abuse problems or gambling problems, or
will not engage in the private practice of law, either who have behavioral health problems.
civil or criminal, and will not be connected in any (c) The client security fund is provided as a
way with any attorney or law firm engaged in the public service to persons using the legal services
private practice of law. of attorneys practicing in this state and as a means
of providing crisis intervention and referral assis- (c) No state’s attorney or assistant state’s attortance to impaired attorneys. All moneys and ney, no partner or associate of a law firm of which
assets of the fund shall constitute a trust. any of the aforementioned court officials is a part- (d) The establishment, administration and oper- ner or associate, shall appear as counsel in any ation of the fund shall not impose or create any criminal case in behalf of any accused in any state obligation, expectation of recovery from or liability or federal court. of the fund to any claimant or attorney, and all (d) No chief clerk, deputy chief clerk, clerk, dep- reimbursements therefrom shall be a matter of
uty clerk or assistant clerk who has been grace and not of right.
appointed on a full-time basis shall appear as (Adopted June 29, 1998, to take effect Jan. 1, 1999;
counsel in any civil or criminal case in any state amended May 3, 2005, to take effect May 17, 2005.)
or federal court. Such persons may otherwise Sec. 2-68A. —Crisis Intervention and Referengage in the practice of law as permitted by ral Assistance
established judicial branch policy. (a) The chief court administrator may enter into (e) No chief public defender, deputy chief public any contracts and take such other action as may
defender, public defender, assistant public be reasonably necessary to provide for crisis interdefender or deputy assistant public defender shall vention and referral assistance to attorneys admitappear in behalf of the state in any criminal case. ted to the practice of law in this state who suffer
(P.B. 1978-1997, Sec. 47.) from alcohol or other substance abuse problems
or gambling problems, or who have behavioral Sec. 2-67. Payment of Attorneys by Bank health problems. and Trust Companies (b) The crisis intervention and referral assis-
(a) No attorney shall directly or indirectly receive tance shall be provided with the assistance of an
payment from any bank or trust company for legal advisory committee appointed by the chief court
services rendered to others in the preparation of administrator that shall include one or more
wills, codicils or drafts of such behavioral health professionals. instruments or for
(Adopted May 3, 2005, to take effect May 17, 2005.) advising others as to legal rights under existing
or proposed instruments of that character. Sec. 2-69. —Definition of Dishonest
(b) The violation of this section by an attorney Conduct
may be cause for grievance proceedings. (a) As used in Sections 2-68 through 2-81, inclu-
(P.B. 1978-1997, Sec. 48.) sive, ‘‘dishonest conduct’’ means wrongful acts
-----WHICH IS OMITTED WHEN THE SECTION IS COPIED TO PASTE! THUS REFLECTING MORE ABUSE OF PROCEDURE, USING TECHNOCRATIC TRICKS AS AN ASSIST TO FRAUD, DEPRIVE RIGHTS.
ATTACHED IS THE PRINTOUT OF SECTIONS 2-68 AND 2-70 (Appendix Page 19-20) THEY ARE NOT EVEN LISTED IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH WEBSITE YET ARE ALLUDED TO BEING SIGNIFICANT IN QUALIFYING FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE. THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH QUALIFYING! IT IS JUST THE ALLOCATION OF THE FEE THEY PAY UPON QUALIFYING. THIS CLIENT SECURITY FUND IS FAKE, MANIPULATED TO SERVE WHIMS - NOT TO ABIDE BY LAWS OF PRACTICE! I know all too well, since Jerald S. Barber stole my $2300 for a retainer! I removed him from the case before the second hearing took place! He violated my trust! He said he would make sure to Motion To Dismiss the case, that the case had no merit - plus he would file a lawsuit against the arresting police department in West Haven, CT. He did NOTHING and also was a key figure in intercepting my employment with the IRS! I was hired! After retaining Barber, they said they withdrew their hiring me! I mentioned the fraud of Jerald Barber in my Timeline. Yet it is conceivable that this court fails to review documents and just says, "It is not significant to this case" when indeed it is! I have been a targeted person in Connecticut since I moved here! It is the same dynamic as I had in Upstate New York, which I never wanted to return to when I left in 1994!
Copyrighted by the Secretary of the State of the Sta te of Connecticut
Sec. 2-69 SUPERIOR COURT—GENERAL PROVISIONS
committed by an attorney, in an attorney-client Nov. 17, 1999, on an interim basis pursuant to Section 1-9
(c), to take effect Jan.1, 2000, and amendment adopted June relationship or in a fiduciary capacity arising out
26, 2000, to take effect Jan. 1, 2001; amended June 21, 2004, of an attorney-client relationship, in the nature of to take effect July 13, 2004; amended May 3, 2005, to take theft or embezzlement of money or the wrongful effect May 17, 2005; amended June 20, 2005, to take effect taking or conversion of money, property, or other Jan. 1, 2006.)
things of value, including, but not limited to refusal
to refund unearned fees received in advance as Sec. 2-71. —Eligible Claims
required by Rule 1.16 (d) of the Rules of Profes- (a) A claim for reimbursement of a loss must be
sional Conduct. based upon the dishonest conduct of an attorney
(b) ‘‘Dishonest conduct’’ does not include such who, in connection with the defalcation upon
wrongful acts committed in connection with the which the claim is based, was a member of the
provision of investment services to the claimant Connecticut bar and engaged in the practice of by the attorney. law in this state. (Adopted June 29, 1998, to take effect Jan. 1, 1999.) (b) The claim shall not be eligible for reimburseSec. 2-70. —Client Security Fund Fee ment unless:
(a) The judges of the superior court shall assess (1) the attorney was acting as an attorney or
an annual fee in an amount adequate for the fiduciary in the matter in which the loss arose;
proper payment of claims and the provision of (2) the attorney has died, been adjudged incacrisis intervention and referral assistance under pable, not competent or insane, been disbarred
these rules and the costs of administering the or suspended from the practice of law in Connecticlient security fund. Such fee, which the judges cut, been placed on probation or inactive status
of the superior court have set at $110, shall be by a Connecticut court, resigned from the Conpaid by each attorney admitted to the practice of necticut bar, or become the judgment debtor of
law in this state and each judge, judge trial referee, the claimant with respect to such claim; and
state referee, family support magistrate, family (3) the claim is presented within four years of
support referee and workers’ compensation com- the time when the claimant discovered or first
missioner in this state. Notwithstanding the above, reasonably should have discovered the dishonest
an attorney who is disbarred, retired, resigned, or acts and the resulting losses or the claim was serving on active duty with the armed forces of pending before the Connecticut Bar Association’s the United States for more than six months in client security fund committee as of the effective such year shall be exempt from payment of the date of this rule. fee, and an attorney who does not engage in the (c) Except as provided by subsection (d) of this practice of law as an occupation and receives less section, the following losses shall not be eligible than $450 in legal fees or other compensation for for reimbursement: services involving the practice of law during the (1) losses incurred by spouses, children, par- calendar year shall be obligated to pay one-half
ents, grandparents, siblings, partners, associates of such fee. No attorney who is disbarred, retired
and employees of the attorney causing the losses; or resigned shall be reinstated pursuant to Sections 2-53 or 2-55 until such time as the attorney (2) losses covered by any bond, surety
has paid agreement, or insurance contract to the extent the fee due for the year in which the
attorney retired, resigned or was disbarred. covered thereby, including any loss to which any
(b) An attorney or family support referee who bonding agent, surety or insurer is subrogated, to
fails to pay the client security fund fee in accord- the extent of that subrogated interest;
ance with this section shall be administratively (3) losses incurred by any financial institution
suspended from the practice of law in this state which are recoverable under a ‘‘banker’s blanket
pursuant to Section 2-79 of these rules until such bond’’ or similar commonly available insurance or
payment has been made. An attorney or family surety contract;
support referee who is under suspension for (4) losses incurred by any business entity conanother reason at the time he or she fails to pay trolled by the attorney, any person or entity
the fee, shall be the subject of an additional sus- described in subdivisions (c) (1), (2), or (3) herein; pension which shall continue until the fee is paid. (5) losses incurred by any governmental entity (c) A judge, judge trial referee, state referee, or agency. family support magistrate or workers’ compensa- (d) In cases of extreme hardship or special and tion commissioner who fails to pay the client secu- unusual circumstances, the client security fund rity fund fee in accordance with this section shall
be referred to the judicial review council. committee may, in its discretion, consider a claim
(Adopted June 29, 1998, to take effect Jan. 1, 1999; eligible for reimbursement which would otherwise
amended June 28, 1999, to take effect Jan.1, 2000; amended
Attorney Quintin Johnstone never published any opposition or even the harm caused by the removal of the office he worked in. He was employed at locations well known to be hotbeds for COMMUNISM: Chicago - Kansas - Washington; just like Barack Obama and others who were particularly linked to CIA operations. My impression is that he was "just there for the ride" and most likely member to one or more SECRET SOCIETY and/or CIA, which often control and dictate the activity of the United States Government.
This is an obituary covering Quintin Johnstone - and maybe that wasn't even his real name since there are many tricks that the Satanic Underground use to manipulate, excuse, and use MIND CONTROL methods. Johnson and Stone are two known names of families deeply embedded in the NAZI movement/government takeover plans.
Born at home in Chicago, Illinois, in 1915, Johnstone grew up in the Hyde Park area of Chicago, and attended the University of Chicago from kindergarten (at the Lab school) through Law School. He spent the WWII years as an Enforcement Attorney in the U.S. Office of Price Administration, supervising a large team of “secret shoppers” to ensure that businesses were adhering to war time laws, and prosecuting those that were not. He began his law teaching career in 1947 at Willamette University Law School, moved on to the University of Kansas Law School, finally arriving at Yale Law School as a visiting professor in 1955. The following year he began his full-time career at Yale where he remained for the rest of his life. From 1985 to 2000, he also was a professor at New York Law School and became professor emeritus in 2000. His academic influence reached across the globe to Ethiopia where for two years he was Dean at the Haile Selassie I University Law School (now Addis Ababa University School of Law). He was also very active in recruiting foreign students to apply to Yale, and visited law schools around the world encouraging exchange and cooperation. Johnstone served on the editorial board of Connecticut Law Tribune’s editorial board for many years, and was an active long-time member of both the Connecticut Bar Association (CBA) and the Connecticut Bar Foundation (CBF), winning awards for his leadership and contributions. An academic remembrance can be found on the Yale Law School Web site at: http://www.law.yale.edu/news/18560.htm A life-long athlete, he was captain of both high school and college teams, and kept active throughout his life. Johnstone was predeceased by his wife, Nancy. He is survived by two children, Robert Dale Johnstone and Katherine Mary Johnstone. A graveside service will be held at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 10th at Grove Street Cemetery, 227 Grove St, New Haven, CT 06511 (across the street from Yale Law School). In lieu of flowers, memorial donations may be directed to the Quintin Johnstone Scholarship Fund and mailed to: Yale Law School Fund, P.O. Box 208341, New Haven, CT 06520-8341. To sign the online guestbook please visit hawleylincolnmemorial.com.
WexLaw fails to even clarify what Pro Hac Vice is, in order to fit their whims - yet they are not the be-all, end-all of law or diction:
Pro hac vice is a legal term for adding an attorney to a case in a jurisdiction in which he or she is not licensed to practice in such a way that the attorney does not commit unauthorized practice of law.
Pro hac vice | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu
Black's Law Dictionary CURRENTLY states this:
According to Black's Law Dictionary, a Pro Hac Vice motion is a motion requesting permission for a lawyer to appear in a jurisdiction wherein he/she is not a licensed attorney. The Latin translation is: “for this turn; for this one particular occasion.”Sep 17, 2020
Yet TWO ATTORNEYS, ONE WHICH TESTIFIED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS, WHICH IS ILLEGAL FOR A RETAINED ATTORNEY TO DO, USE A PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE WHICH IS ILLEGAL!
The NAZI-Communists gravitate to Connecticut to attain their plan of a GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER, since Connecticut is where the US Constitution was signed.
i. Source: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_5_5_unauthorized_practice_of_law_multijurisdictional_practice_of_law/
(a) A lawyer shall not practice law
in a jurisdiction
in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction
or assist another in doing so.....
NO ATTORNEY CAN PRACTICE LAW IN A JURISDICTION OF WHICH HE OR SHE IS NOT REGISTERED - EXCEPT WHEN THEY RECEIVE ONE-TIME PERMISSION FROM THE COURT OF THAT JURISDICTION - SO WHY IS THIS RULE SO SEGMENTED, DISTORTED NOW? SO IT CANNOT BE LITIGATED? THERE IS NOT ONE MENTION OF THE PRO HAC VICE TERM IN THE RULE!
ii. Source: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/prohac_admin_rules.pdf
Rules of the Superior Court Regulating Admission to the Bar: Sec. 2-16. Appearing
Pro Hac Vice
NOTE, THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS SECTION WHICH COVERS Pro Hac Vice Appearances by Attorneys from other jurisdictions in the USA. This is completely nefarious what the Bar Association is allowing or turning a Blind Eye to!
4. MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON COUNTERSUIT - No Objection submitting by the Plaintiff. Instead, THE COURT AGAIN FRAUDED RECORDS BY SENDING A CRAFTED ANSWER REQUEST ILLEGALLY DELAYED TO HELP THE PLAINTIFF BE RECORDED IN COMPLIANCE, thus violating the Rule Of Court which states exactly how long the plaintiff has in Answering the Counterclaim - no longer than 45 days from issuance of the Counterclaim, which was served timely on the plaintiff even though they have an insufficient appearance (Appendix Page 29-32)
a. Note, a few typographical errors exist, yet this motion was never heard or argued. Page 1/29: omit "the"; Page 2/30: insert (Marshall) Robert Miller; Page 3/31: insert "to"; Page 4/32: "lesser" should OBVIOUSLY be "greater" )
b. Note, Defendant's Statement, Hearing by Phone Instructions, was NOT ENTERED on record! (Appendix Page 33-44)
5. As I have already stated, THIS CASE HAS NO MERIT. THE COURT aNEFARIOUSLY ADJUDICATED AN UNLAWFUL SMALL CLAIM FORM.. Below is a summary and attached is the Small Claim Form marked with reference numbers
(Appendix Page 21-27; Chapter 24 of Connecticut Practice Book, Small Claims)
REFERANCE NUMBERS 1 - 15
Appendix Page 45- 58
1. The Small Claims Writ is required to abide by CGS 51-16, 51-345 - which are both cited on the form. They fail to cite the very practice rule book, Chapter 24, which is obviously for nefarious purposes - like changing a rule after the the small claim was initiated by a fraudulent attorney, to cover for the fraudulent attorney.
More fraud! Though these forms are reprinted on a regular basis, they left the cited laws the same even though:
2016 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 51 - Courts
Chapter 870 - Judicial Department
Section 51-16 - Transferred
Universal Citation: CT Gen Stat § 51-16 (2016)
Transferred to Chapter 883b, Sec. 51-216a.
yet the law has NO RELEVANCE TO THE FORM! IT IS SIMPLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE LAW, WITHIN THE COURT SYSTEM, NOT PROCESSING THE FORM!
Sec. 51-216a. (Formerly Sec. 51-16). Commission on Official Legal Publications. Publications. Copyrights. (a) The Commission on Official Legal Publications shall be an agency of the Judicial Branch and shall be composed of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall be chairperson, ex officio; the Chief Court Administrator, ex officio; a judge or former judge of the Supreme Court and a state referee, both of whom shall be appointed by the Chief Justice; the Reporter of Judicial Decisions; and one other employee of the Judicial Branch appointed by the Chief Justice.
(b) The commission shall acquire, publish, distribute and maintain for the benefit of the state a sufficient supply of the official legal publications, which shall consist of: (1) The Connecticut Reports consisting of the reports of cases determined by the Supreme Court as prepared for publication by the Reporter of Judicial Decisions, (2) reports of cases determined by the Appellate Court as prepared for publication by the Reporter of Judicial Decisions, (3) the Connecticut Law Journal, (4) the Connecticut Practice Book and cumulative supplements thereto, and (5) such additional publications pertaining to the state Judicial Branch, the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court, the Superior Court and the practice of law as may be assigned to the commission. The commission may publish, maintain and distribute the official legal publications in available alternative formats. An alternative format includes an electronic format and may be the sole method for the publication, maintenance and distribution of all official legal publications and all archived official legal publications.
(c) The commission shall publish in the Connecticut Law Journal except as they may be incorporated into any revision of the Connecticut Practice Book: (1) Rules adopted by the judges of the Supreme Court, including, but not limited to, the rules adopted by the Supreme Court for the courts of probate, (2) the rules of the Appellate Court, and (3) the rules of the Superior Court.
(d) The commission may publish in the Connecticut Law Journal, or prepare for separate publication and publish, such other documents and information as in its opinion are proper or of sufficient importance to warrant publication.
(e) The commission may establish an electronic bulletin board to provide information to members of the public upon such terms as it deems to be in the best interest of the state.
(f) The commission shall, to the extent it finds it desirable to do so, cause official legal publications to be copyrighted in the name of the Secretary of the State for the benefit of the people of the state.
(g) If printed, all official legal publications published by the commission pursuant to this section shall be printed on paper that meets or exceeds the American National Standards Institute standards for permanent paper, unless such paper is not available.
ANOTHER FRAUDULENT CITING!
2005 Connecticut Code - Chapter 890 — Judicial Districts, Geographical Areas, Civil andCriminal Venue, Filing and Designation of Court Location (contains Secs. 51-342 to 51-353b)
Sec. 51-342. (Formerly Sec. 51-140). County construed as judicial district for purpose of venue.
Sec. 51-343. Definitions.
Sec. 51-344. Judicial districts established.
Sec. 51-344a. Term "judicial district of Hartford-New Britain" deemed to refer to "judicial district of Hartford" on and after September 1, 1998.
Sec. 51-344b. Term "judicial district of New Britain" substituted for "judicial district of Hartford", when.
Sec. 51-345. (Formerly Sec. 52-42). Venue in civil actions. Return of civil process.
2005 Connecticut Code - Sec. 51-345. (Formerly Sec. 52-42). Venue in civil actions. Return of civil process.
Sec. 51-345. (Formerly Sec. 52-42). Venue in civil actions. Return of civil process. (a) Actions in general. Except as provided in section 51-348 and subsections (b) to (g), inclusive, of this section, all civil process shall be made returnable to a judicial district, as follows:
(1) If all the parties reside outside this state, to the judicial district where (A) the injury occurred, (B) the transaction occurred, or (C) the property is located or lawfully attached.
(2) If the defendant is not a resident, to the judicial district where the attached property is located.
(3) If either or both the plaintiff or defendant are residents of this state, to the judicial district where either the plaintiff or defendant resides, except:
(A) If either the plaintiff or the defendant resides in the town of Manchester, East Windsor, South Windsor or Enfield, the action may be made returnable at the option of the plaintiff to either the judicial district of Hartford or the judicial district of Tolland.
(B) If either the plaintiff or the defendant resides in the town of Plymouth, the action may be made returnable at the option of the plaintiff to either the judicial district of New Britain or the judicial district of Waterbury.
(C) If either the plaintiff or the defendant resides in the town of Bethany, Milford, West Haven or Woodbridge, the action may be made returnable at the option of the plaintiff to either the judicial district of New Haven or the judicial district of Ansonia-Milford.
In fact, the plaintiff on this case failed to even present proof of service to the court and pay the fee - IN PERSON, as required! As I have already stated, THE COURT ALLOWS THEM TO POP THESE FRAUDULENT COLLECTIONS OUT LIKE CANDY! THE SMALL CLAIM FORM IS NOT EVEN STAMPED IN! AT THE LEAST, THEY SHOULD HAVE MAILED IT TO THE COURT WITH PAYMENT, TO STAMP IN AND ENTER AS A CASE! BECAUSE ATTY MOYL'S ADDRESS IS RIGHT BY THE COURT OPERATIONS CENTER IN WETHERSFIELD, THEY CONSPIRED WITH MOYLAN, WHO NEFARIOUSLY SIGNED PROOF OF SERVICE COMING FROM ILLINOISHE - NOT MICHIGAN - WHICH IS THE SKIRT THEY HIDE BEHIND! THE WEATHERSFIELD OFFICE CHOSE TO HELP THEM STEAL MONEY FROM ME! THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES ABOVE THE LAW! THEY BLOCKED MY E-FILING EVEN THOUGH I WAS REGISTERED - TELLING ME I HAD TO PHYSICALLY GO TO THEIR OFFICE IN WETHERSFIELD AND PROVIDE MY ID - DURING QUARANTINE! THIS IS NOT EVEN A REQUIREMENT WHEN THERE WAS NO QUARANTINE!
Sec. 51-345a. (Formerly Sec. 52-17). Land lying in two or more judicial districts.
Sec. 51-345b. Venue in actions involving administrative decisions of municipal agencies.
Sec. 51-346. (Formerly Sec. 52-24). Location in judicial district where civil process may be made returnable. Trial locations.
Sec. 51-346a. Jury trial in the judicial district of Ansonia-Milford.
Sec. 51-347. (Formerly Sec. 52-47). Where writs may be filed.
Sec. 51-347a. (Formerly Sec. 52-30). Transfer of jury causes to other judicial districts.
Sec. 51-347b. (Formerly Sec. 52-31). Transfer of causes by court, motion or agreement. Transfer by Chief Court Administrator.
Sec. 51-347c. Last day for filing next business day if clerk's office closed.
Sec. 51-348. Geographical areas. Venue. Courthouse use. Housing docket. Hearing of infractions and violations by magistrate.
Sec. 51-348a. (Formerly Sec. 54-27). Prosecution for nonsupport in geographical area.
Sec. 51-349. Where actions commenced in geographical areas.
Sec. 51-350. Filing in a geographical area.
Sec. 51-351. Return to improper locations.
Sec. 51-351a. (Formerly Sec. 52-32a). Failure to state proper forum.
Sec. 51-351b. Short title: Uniform Transboundary Pollution Reciprocal Access Act.
Sec. 51-352. (Formerly Sec. 54-77). Venue in criminal actions.
Sec. 51-352a. (Formerly Sec. 54-77b). Venue for offenses committed prior to April 22, 1975.
Sec. 51-352b. (Formerly Sec. 54-28). Jurisdiction of crimes committed on water.
Sec. 51-352c. (Formerly Sec. 54-41). Jurisdiction of various offenses.
Sec. 51-353. (Formerly Sec. 54-78). Change of venue in criminal case.
Sec. 51-353a. (Formerly Sec. 54-18). Transfer of criminal cases between and within judicial districts.
Sec. 51-353b. (Formerly Sec. 54-79). Files in transferred cases.
2. No address of the court! The court should have refused it as insufficient!
3. No physical address OR phone number of the Plaintiff!
4. LISTED AS A CORPORATION, YET REPEATEDLY CLAIMED THEY WERE LLC, FULLY KNOWING THEY WERE INDEED LIABLE FOR FRAUD AND BREAKING NUMEROUS FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS - NONE OF WHICH THE NEW HAVEN COURTHOUSE LITIGATED, AND ONLY CONSPIRED!
5. Out-of-State Office with ILLEGAL PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE! THEY HAD NO JURISDICTION! THEY USED STILLMAN LAW OFFICE IN CONNECTICUT AS CONTACT INFORMATION, TELLING ME TO CALL THE LOCAL OFFICE, TO EMAIL THE LOCAL OFFICE - IT IS ALSO RIGHT IN THE PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTATION WHCH THEY OBVIOUSLY FAILED TO SUBMIT TO THE COURT AND HAVE STAMPED IN, RATHER PULL STRINGS WITH WETHERSFIELD TO MAKE IT A CASE! A LOT OF PEOPLE SHOULD BE ARRESTED WITHIN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH IN CONNECTICUT! THOSE FEW WHO REALLY WORK DILIGENTLY TO HELP PEOPLE GET THEIR RIGHTS HAVE GREAT STRUGGLES, PERSONALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY!
6. ATTORNEY JURIS NUMBER IS ILLEGAL! FRAUDULENT!
7. The plaintiff's motive in documenting my, the defendant's, address as my physical address was to EXPLOIT ME, to frame me - yet they frame themselves as frauds - they fraudulently placed a Priority Mail envelope in my mailbox using a return address of Illinois - this is all presented in my Answer and Special Defenses and Counterclaim! For the one who presided over this hearing, who failed to identify himself, and allowed the female attorney to just identify herself as "ME" - to deliberately evade from the law on such obvious matters - is only reflective of CRIMINAL INTENT! THEY HAVE CERTAINLY HARMED ME FOR MANY YEARS, RUNNING THIS STATE AS A CRIMINAL OPERATION!
8. Their claim that "Defendant's last payment was 7/5/2017" was because the account was MORE THAN PAID IN FULL. AS STATED AT THE HEARING - I PAID OVER $1,000 JUST FROM 2014 TO 2017 AND YET THEY REDUCED MY CREDIT TO $710! They only relied on FORCE AND ABUSE OF PROCEDURE TO HELP THEM WIN THIS MERITLESS CASE!
9. THERE WAS NO MAILING ON 3/16/2020 - AND THEY PROOF OF SERVICE WAS CLEARLY FRAUDULENT, REFLECTIVE OF FEDERAL CRIME, SINCE THE POSTAL CLERK WOULD HAVE NEVER PLACED IT IN MY MAILBOX BEFORE SCANNING AND UPON SCANNING WITH NO TRACKING INFORMATION, THE POSTAL CLERK WOULD HAVE RETURNED IT TO THE POSTAL BRANCH, UNDELIVERED DUE TO INSUFFICIENCIES!
10. THE AMOUNT CLAIMED WAS CONCOCTED, NOT SUPPORTED WITH ANY INFORMATION EVEN THOUGH MY ANSWER, SPECIAL DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIM WERE VERY CLEAR THIS CASE HAS NO MERIT. THEY HAD A YEAR TO PRODUCE RECORDS! THE LETTER COMPRISING OF 39 PAGES SENT TO AMAZON, GE MONEY, AND SYNCHRONY BANK WAS A LEDGER I HAD TO CREATE SINCE SYNCHRONY BANK FAILED TO! THOUGH SYNCHRONY GREATLY DAMAGED GENERAL ELECTRIC WITH THEIR FRAUDULENT MANAGEMENT OF ACCOUNTS, MOST LIKELY GE TOLD THEM TO DROP THEIR NEFARIOUS ATTEMPT TO STEAL MONEY FROM ME! THREE YEARS LATER, THEY CLAIM THE RIGHT TO ABUSE POWER, FRAUD - ALL BECAUSE I CLAIMED TRUMP IS A CAREER CRIMINAL, MURDERING GENERAL SOLEIMANI IN IRAN, AND SO MUCH MORE, INCLUDING ERRONEOUSLY FIRING GREAT PEOPLE IN HIS CABINET YET PROTECTING THE CROOKS LIKE ROD ROSENSTEIN, SON OF HEINRICH HIMLER, EVEN THOUGH HE COMPLAINED THAT THE DEPT OF JUSTICE CREATED A RUSSIAN COLLUSION CASE AGAINST HIM. President Putin knows what a pathetic liar he is, and it is indeed an expectation of a US President, among many other deep violations of the law. Yet President Putin, siding with Iran, has emphasized, if the USA doesn't fix itself, he will not have to do anything, they will implode on themselves!
11. The very fact that this stated complaint is popped out like candy - even word-for-word on other cases, which are probably on fake people, or people who are in such obvious distress like having cancer treatment, they congratulate themselves for being absolutle bullying criminals and getting away with it! I have provided a printout of an example of a Small Claims Writ, even on a case mentioned that very same day during that very same call! They commit crimes right in plain sight and just figure their "muscle" will enforce their crimes!
12. Attorney Bardos apparently signed this, failing to appropriately type his name, title - does he even have a law degree from Quinnipiac University? If so, he most certainly cheated his way through school, resulting in a complete bafoon who deserves nothing but being charged for his crimes!
13. The small claim form was signed 5/5/2020 - IT IS ILLEGAL ON ITS FACE! It was obviously backdated in an effort to "prove" that they had been working on this all along - rather than targeting me to help Trump cause me harm whatever way they can! After all, the avulsion injury to my knee was not successful in taking me out of society! The erroneous arrests and other attacks, including poisoning and badly tearing my hamstring - were all unsuccessful, and result only in framing themselves, along with harming me for being a law-abiding person! According to Practice Book Chapter 24, the small claim has to be properly prepared, signed, and submitted TIMELY - nothing of which was obviously done!
14. This form was supposed to have been stamped in before it was uploaded as a c
15. The Commissioner of the New Haven Superior Court failed to identify his or herself and no doubt this signature is a forgery - a common practice of Lawrence Mark Hurley and most likely many others in this state, since the JUDGES CONSPIRED WITH CAREER CRIMINAL LAWRENCE MARK HURLEY!
In conclusion, the above has already been presented to the court, but I have to continue submitting documents and reminding them just how criminal this case is, since they only care about covering up the crimes and aiding and abetting!
1-2 Order on ? "Judgment for Plaintiff" dated 5/20/2021
a. 4 SAME ORDER, DIFFERENT DATE 5/25/2021
3 Search on Judge Kamp's Juris Number - NOT FOUND!
5 Order on "reply to special defenses and counterclaim"
Judgment for the counterclaim defendant dated 5/20/2021
6 Order: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS - DENIED 5/20/2021
7 Order: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS - DENIED 5/25/2021
8 JURIS NO OF ATTORNEY BARDOS IS 435165/CONNECTICUT ONLY
JURIS TYPE: A
9-10 SEARCH ON BARDOS IN MICHIGAN BAR ASSOC. - NOT FOUND!
11 WHAT IS JURIS NO. 438732 IN CONNECTICUT? BAR ASSOC ALLOWS A MICHIGAN ADDRESS TO DEFINE STILLMAN LAW OFFICE - WTF
12-13 STATUS OF STILLMAN LAW OFFICE: WITHDRAWN IN CONNECTICUT
14-18 PRO HAC VICE INFO
19-29 SEC 68-70 COVERING CLIENT SECURITY FUND
21-27 CHAPTER 24, CONNECTICUT PRACTICE BOOK, ON SMALL CLAIMS
28 PLAINTIFF'S INEPT APPEARANCE ON NOTICE 1/7/2021
ILLEGALLY USING BOTH CONNECTICUT AND MICHIGAN CONTACT INFO
29-32 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
33-44 DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT WAS STAMPED IN YET NOT UPLOADED TO CASE
45 SMALL CLAIM FORM ON AFOREMENTIONED CASE WITH MARKINGS FOR ELABORATION IN AFFIDAVIT
46 SMALL CLAIM FORM ON PASCARELLI CASE; EXACT SAME JARGON AS ACTION TAKEN AGAINST ME, DEFENDANT ON AFOREMENTIONED CASE, WORD FOR WORD, IN COMPLAINT! amt: $2130.09
46a - JUDGE KAMPF SIGNED ORDER, JURIS NUMBER IS INACTIVE
47. ANSWER ON PASCARELLI SMALL CLAIM CASE - HE IS BEING TREATED FOR DIAGNOSED CANCER
47a Order dated 5/20 judgment Amount $2238.24
48. FLORIDA Affidavit, submitted as plaintiff's "evidence". Signed by a Media representative with no address or other contact information. Notary, Efrain Sanchez - employee of Synchrony Bank. NOTE: THIS AFFIDAVIT WAS CREATED AFTER THE SMALL CLAIMS CASE WAS FILED BY PLAINTIFF. 27th Day of August 2020; stating the following:
BEFORE ME, on the day and date set forth below, the undersigned Notary, being qualified and commissioned in and for the county and state aforesaid, personally came and appeared Candy Hernandez, who being duly swron, did depose and say:
Affiant is an Affidavit Documentation Specialist at Synchrony Bank formerly known as GE Capital Retail Bank.
On June 2, 2014, GE Capital Retail Bank formeally changed its name to Synchrony Bank ("Bank") 9034 (the "Account") made by ANNE BRADLEY (the "Debtor") made payable to Synchrony
Bank is the issuer of the relevant consumer transaction/credit card
I have reviewed the information below regarding the debt 9034 (the "Account) made by ANNE BRADLEY (the "Debtor") made payable to Synchrony Bank and subsequently sold to Sherman Originator, LLC
The amount owed on the account on 2/22/2019, $875.90, was sold to Sherman Originator III LLC and is reflected in the system of Synchrony Bank formerly known as GE Capital Retail Bank
The following statement pertains if the debtor referenced above is a state of California resident. I certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is rue and correct.
Executed this 27th day of August, 2020
Signed by CANDY HERNANDEZ, DESCRIBING HERSELF ONLY AS A MEDIA REPRESENTATIVE WITH NO CONTACT INFORMATION.
SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
NOTARY PUBLIC: EFRAIN SANCHES, #GG 293154
49 Last page of Defendant's original TIMELINE, page 20 with statement: Due to abuse of procedure and restraint of time the court has issued on this fraudulent collection of debt, defendant reserves the right to amend this document if necessary. 7/9/2020
50-58 The court's fraudulent entry of AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM, which I never submitted. They mashed documents together to alter the case!
Prepared and Submitted,
FOR THE DEFENDANT
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
Faxed to fraudulent, out of state, Plaintiff, Stillman Law Firm, Michigan address
Anne M. Bradley