Storquest Lawsuit 2022

 

THEY BRAG ABOUT HAVING 
NO TOUCH RENTALS
YET PRODUCED FRAUDULENT ADD-ONS TO MY ORIGINAL ONE-PAGE LEASE I HAD ENTERED INTO WITH NEW HAVEN SELF STORAGE
"We can enter your unit whenever the hell we want to and too bad"
- NOT THEM.  THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO CONTINUE IT AS THE NEW OWNERS OR PAY ME FOR TAKING MY BELONGINGS ELSEWHERE!  
I will try to scan and enter those documents but I am really tired right now from all the work I have had to do moppimg up the frauded records THEY caused using TECHNOCRATIC CRIMES!  

CLAIMING THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO ENTER MY UNIT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE WHENEVER THEY DAMN WELL WANT! 

I HAD TO ENTER A LAWSUIT INTO COURT ON THURSDAY, 6/16/2022 

They have the audacity to have an "ambassador" who is disabled to give them a clean image!  https://www.storquest.com/jesse-billauer 

This blog is being manipulated to enter anything

The court clerk's office stole my flashdrive case the day I entered the lawsuit - distracting me from my things with nonsense!  I discovered this when I got home 

I went nowhere - that would give cause for anyone to have opportunity to access my belongings in my cart - it was only at the courthouse.  

That reflects loss of hundreds of files!  

I was just recovering from the theft of my flashdrive case in NYC when I had two doctor appointments! The most likely place it was stolen was at the USPS - they transferred my report of missing flashdrive case to HARTFORD, CT - they may as well have said it was a CIA job!  Just like the dentist that shaved my tooth half its size and and then added a restoration fee of $400 for his assaulting me!  All I needed was a crown!  CIGNA let my 4 Feb 2022 complaint go on for over two months  - then sent me a letter saying it would take longer because that dentist did not have a tax ID!  IN OTHER WORDS, HE WAS A CIA OPERATIVE, A FAKE, WHO ASSAULTED ME DELIBERATELY AND PUT SOMETHING IN MY JAW, referring to them as posts yet they do not show up in xray!  AND HE CHARGED ME FOR HIS HARMING ME!  HE ALSO STOLE MY TABLET!  I left a voicemail for an FBI agent I have kept in touch with for years.  Yet after this, the FBI shut down his phone and would not tell me where he is!  I have nightmares that the AG sent a hitman to his office and shot him!  That is just how this US Gov runs!  He was supervisory agent for Sandy Hook Shooting FRAUD - and he reported the truth!  Nobody died!  Adam Lanza did not exist!  His report was suppressed and they fraudulently entered a lawsuit against (CIA operative) Alex Jones (most likely he is mind controlled and was a truther journalist Bill --- I can't think of his last name...and CIA kidnapped him and mind controlled him! They wipe out memories and go from there!) accusing Alex Jones of showing no respect for the families who lost family members etc AND THE LOCAL FBI AGENT IN CHARGE OF THE NEW HAVEN BRANCH ERRONEOUSLY ADDED AGENT ALDENBURG'S NAME TO IT, yet he signed nothing!  

I am limited with what documents I can share unless I copy them one by one - because the ones who stole my flashdrive case also got Microsoft to wipe out the Word Files I had on my notebook!  

Yet I had to REVISE my lawsuit because they frauded records using cyber crime.  

This is one of my documents: understand, this is piecemeal information.  Once they upload my lawsuit on the CASE INFORMATION CONNECTICUT website, you shoiuld be able to see all documents unless they alter the records, which they have commonly done!  

Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022

 

LETTER OF ERRATA

 

Document:

COMPLAINT

 

Page: 6

Replaiced with Pages 6, 7

 

Document:  

MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE

 

Page 1    “FACTS”

Where it says:  plaintiff has get insurance

Change to:       plaintiff has to get insurance

 

Page 4  CERTIFICATION OF MAILING

Where it says:   Associationo

Change to: Association

 

Document:

MOTION FOR ORDER CEASE AND DESIST

 

Page 1 HISTORY

Where it says:   expens

Change to: expense

 

Page 1: FACTS

Where it says: plaintiff has get insurance

Change to: plaintiff has to get insurance

 

 

 

1.

 

Document:

APPENDIX

Where it says:   Exhibit D

Include: Page reflecting email from plaintiff’s landlord echoing the “your evicted” agenda by threatening to evict when they had already deposited her rent

 

 

 

Document:

DEFENDANT RECEIPT OF LAWSUIT

Where it says: 1. Small Claims Writ. JD-CV-40

Include: 5 pages

 

 

 

Document

MOTION FOR ORDER CEASE AND DESIST

Page 1 FACTS

Where it says:   1. There is no lease signed by the plaintiff, which sates that

the plaintiff has get insurance

Change to: the plaintiff has to get insurance

 

Page 4 20.

Where it says:  informed the defendant

Change BACK to: informed the plaintiff (obvious CYBER CRIME!)

 

Where it says:  When New Haven Self Storage retained

Change BACK to: when New Haven Self Storage was owner of 140 Ferry Street (CYBER CRIME IS CAUSE OF MOST OR ALL OF THESE changes)

 

Where it says: makes this a dynamic

Change BACK to: creates a dynamic

 

Page 4 WHEREFORE

Where it says:

Plaintiff moves this court to either order of CEASE AND DESIST ON plaintiff’s property as well as discontinuance of the lease WHICH THEY ACKNOWLEDGE EXISTS ON RECORD AND DOES NOT REQUIRE INSURANCE

2.

Change BACK to (this is obviously reflective of cyber crime)

Plaintiff moves this court to order CEASE AND DESIST the breaking of lease agreement for her unit, #`1103 located at 130 Ferry Street, New Haven, CT

 

APPENDIX

EDITED, RETYPED DUE TO CYBER CRIME, THEFT OF PLAINTIFF’S FLASHDRIVE CASE AT THE NEW HAVEN COURT CLERK’S OFFICE ON FRIDAY, JUNE 16, 2022

 

WORKSHEET

UPDATED, RETYPED - DUE TO MUCH ADDITIONAL WORK FROM CYBER CRIME ON DOCUMENTS, THREFT OF PLAINTIFF’S FLASHDRIVE CASE, AND DISCONNECTION OF HER PRINTER  TO HER NOTEBOOK - WHILE SHE WAS OUT OF HER APARTMENT ON FRIDAY, JUNE 16 - WHICH HAD TO BE RESTORED.  THE ONES COMMITTING CYBER CRIME GOT HEWLETT PACKARD, aka HP, to UPDATE HER APP TO FORCE HER TO HAVE A PRINTER THAT REQUIRED BLUETOOTH CONNECTION, WHICH WAS INDEED NEFARIOUS INTENT AS WELL AS DELIBERATELY PERFORMED IN A CRIMINAL MATTER.

 

ADDITIONAL TIME REQUIRED ON THIS CASE:  20 HOURS

 

Prepared and Submitted,

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

 

__________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.

 

 

Edited page iaw LETTER OF ERRATA 20 June 2022 

 

agreed to, She has not paid for insurance for her unit for over 9 years.

19. Therefore, DEFENDANT is the one who has defaulted on the lease agreement.

20. Storquest employee informed the plaintiff that the only lease which they have on record is the lease which she signed when New Haven Self Storage was owner of 140 Ferry Street.  

Plaintiff claimed to them as well as to this Court, this is records fraud, being that she signed a lease with Storquest and was not required to have insurance.  Thereafter, Storquest attempted to change the lease and required insurance.  Plaintiff told Storquest if they continued to harass her about this, she would file a lawsuit.  The office stopped bothering her on this issue until recently.  Their aggressiveness and ignorance of the law creates a dynamic which results in no solution.

21. This Motion Comprises of FIVE pages, referencing Appendix prepared for all motions on this case.

 

LAW

Due Process of Law, CPB 11-1, CGS Chapter 743, Section 42

 

SUMMARY

It is most unfortunate and stressful that the indigent and disabled plaintiff has exhausted all attempts to get Storquest to right a wrong, yet they refuse to take responsibility for their nefarious actions by adjusting the balance.  The manager promised they would remove the insurance charge.  It is on plaintiff’s voicemail.

 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff moves this court to order CEASE AND DESIST the breaking of lease agreement for her unit, #`1103 located at 130 Ferry Street, New Haven, CT

 

Appendix Attached As Stated to be applied to all motions and COMPLAINT.

PREPARED AND SUBMITTED,

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

__________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

 

Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022

 

APPENDIX

Page No.

 

1. Exhibit A - Worksheet 1

2. Exhibit B - Paralegal Ave Pay/hr 2

3. Exhibit C - Emails as Stated 3-13

4. Exhibit D - EVICTION NOTICE 14-15

a) NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE OF LEASE

5. Exhibit E - Business Searches

a) Storquest has fraudulent records 16-38

6. Exhibit F - Plaintiff’s Affidavit F1-F4

7. Exhibit G - Ledger of Payments G1-G6

a) Plaintiff’s Proof of Running Balance G7-G0

8. Exhibit H - Lease on Storquest Record H1

a) Fraudulent additional Pages H2-H3

i. Unapproved by plaintiff -

1. frauded by Storquest

 

PREPARED AND SUBMITTED,

 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

___________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

 

Certification of Mailing

June 20, 2022

Aforesaid  Appendix has been duly served via email and First Class USPS Postage, to Storquest Storage Association (SSA)  located at 140 Ferry Street, New Haven, CT 06513.

 newhaven02@storquest.com 

A complete scanned copy of this lawsuit with edited pages is presendted to the New Haven Court as well as emailed to Storquest.  

____________________

Edited Page to Appendix 6/20/2022 

Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022

 

WORKSHEET

APPENDIX A

COSTS AS OF 6/20/2022

 

80 HOURS SPENT ON PHONE, PAPERWORK, RESEARCH,

EDITING, ETC. …………………………………… 2,248.60

 

COST OF MATERIALS…………………………..    100.00

Note:  plaintiff’s 4 toner cartridges were stolen out of

Her apartment this past week!       40.00      

20 HOURS WEEKEND OF 6/18-6/19/2022 ………..      587.20

 

PRIORITY MAIL COST:         8.95

ADMIN FEE        15.00

 

SUBTOTAL TO DATE: ………………………………… 3,000.75

 

PROJECTED COSTS TO CARRY OUT SUIT….. ….  2,000.25

 

NOTE:  Plaintiff claims that if Storquest is allowed by the court to end the lease, that they should move the plaintiff’s belongings to the facility of her choice at their expense.

 

Plaintiff also claims that if this lease is ended, it is therefore violation of contract and leasing laws and all rent paid to the facility shold be reimbursed to the plaintiff in full along with interest charges.

Prepared and Siubmitted,

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

__________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

 Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022

 

DEFENDANT RECEIPT OF LAWSUIT

 

The following documents have been prepared by the plaintiff, pro se and are emailed to the defendant as courtesy copy of edited pages on June 20, 2022:

 

1.  Small Claims Writ And Notice of Suit, JD-CV-40 5 pages

2. COMPLAINT 7 pages

3. Motion for Disclosure 4 pages

4. Motion For Order CEASE & DESIST 5 pages

5. Appendix         42 pages

a) Exhibit G - Ledger and Proof of Running Balance 8 pages

b) Exhibit H - Lease, Order to Vacate, Breaking Lease 4 pages

 

 

Prepared and Submittted,

 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

 

___________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

 

 

STORQUEST EMPLOYEE REFUSES TO SIGN FOR THIS

 

 

Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022

 

AGENT OF SERVICE

STORQUEST

STATEMENT BY PLAINTIFF

 

1. There is no Agent of Service on Record for Storquest in Connecticut and the Secretary Of State is disconcerned that they are even not registered  

 

2. California’s Agent of service has the name of Clark Porter.  He also is a Branch Manager for Storquest-Stauson in Los Angeles, and holds positions of CFO, Chief IT, President, and a number of other titles.  

 

3.  Plaintiff considers this a fraudulent set-up and wonders if Clark Porter is even a real person.  There was a Sally Lou Clark Porter, 82, who died in Colorado 10/17/2017. Colorado has listed 603 MISSING PERSONS.  

 

4. There is no record of residency to be found, yet it is presumed he wold have to be living in California in order to be a Branch Manager and hold several other titles for the Headquarters, Storquest.  

 

 

Prepared and Submitted,

 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

 

_____________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

 

 Here is one other document, which had to create yesterday, to replace what was altered: 

Replacement Document 6/20/2022

 

Website being unreliable in this circumstance, it is imperative to get this issue of “Who Gets Served The Lawsuit” resolved.  Motion For Disclosure is included in this lawsuit packet.

Nevertheless this Complaint is made in good faith and it is not the fault of the plaintiff that the State Of Connecticut has fraudulent records and cares nothing about maintaining valid records even on companies that collect state taxes.  For the court to refuse to act on ordering both the defendant and the state to be accountable for these fraudulent records would be another violation.  Service of process was made in person by the plaintiff of this case, as well as by Priority Mail, Tracking Number  9505 5124 5063 2167 5475 66, as provided in the email of confirmation, printed and attached.  

 

Appendix on this case is separately filed as a document and certainly applies to this aforesaid Complaint.  

 

Prepared and Submitted,

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

________________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

CERTIFICATION OF MAILING

REPLACEMENT PAGE 6 OF COMPLAINT 6/20/2022

 

Aforesaid COMPLAINT has been duly served by First Class Mail and email to Storquest Storage Association Facility located at 140 Ferry Street, New Haven, CT 06511.  They claim they have no fax number.  

Email address is newhaven02@storquest.com

_____________________

Anne M. Bradley

 

The Aforesaid COMPLAINT, having been heard, is granted/denied:

 

_______________  

The Court

 

 

And now it is 7/1/2022  I served a THIRD lawsuit package on Storquest.   I will share the Word documents here and see if I have more posted in my Thunderflower blog - if you are curious.  Not tonight, sometime this weekend.  I got so sick to my stomach, worried I had poisoning.  Then yesterday I sweated all day.  I did my best to cleanse my system with celery juice, beets, etc.  Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT   Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven   Vs : At New Haven, CT   STORQUEST SELF STORAGE (SSA) : DATE: 6/27/2022   DEMAND FOR COMPLETION OF RETURN OF SMALL CLAIM FILE IMMEDIATELY   Facts   1.  Plaintiff submitted at least 64 pages on June 16, 2022.  The court REFUSED TO STAMP IN THE SMALL CLAIM DOCUMENTS AND ONLY AGREED TO STAMP IN THE FEE WAIVER, WHICH IT FAILED TO ENSURE ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED WAS ON IT - WHICH IS ILLEGAL WHEN PROCESSING PRO SE FEE WAIVERS.   2. Plaintiff had a very difficult time just ensuring the court would process the fee waiver and gave them the Small Claims documents to save time and aggravation with their nefarious system of “doing what they feel like doing” rather than abide by the laws and Rules Of Court. 3. At the time a document is stamped in, the court is acknowledging that all information required is on it.   4. On Monday, June 20, plaintiff attempted to send a revised set of documents to the court through USPS. The Post Office Recognized it as a racial rights holiday, naming it Juneteenth; which was apparently when pro-slavery Texas got its independence from anti-slavery Mexico and also did NOT want to join the United States Of America.  A most-baffling holiday yet it gives federal employees another paid holiday not to work unless they work for the Army or other military, and not pay anything either,unless they got caught, which was the experience of the plaintiff.   5. The court clerk REFUSED to stamp in documents yet they took them. The clerk stamped in the fee waiver on page 1 of 5 WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE ENTERED THE MISSING INFORMATION. 2.   6. THE FEE WAIVER WAS NOT STAMPED IN AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE ON THE 5-PAGE FORM.   7. The court REFUSED TO TAKE PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE, which is needed to assert her rights since the court does not comply with plaintiff’s rights.   8. June 16th should have been opportunity to file the small claim AND fee waiver.  The court just needed to validate that she could only have the case at that courthouse.  Plaintiff did NOT want it heard there since she never gets her rights and they violate the law.   9. The New Haven Superior Court failed to provide a cover sheet indicating they were returning a partial package of the Small Claim, 104 pages.  The court received 64 pages, then 95 pages - along with the faxes which the plaintiff had to pay for because she had no place to fax them in a timely manner. The court service clerks at the New Haven Courthouse are oftentimes deliberately mean and the notary refuses to notarize anything claiming that a fee waiver which plaintiff attempted to get notarized was the wrong fee waiver for civil matters, which was an error - she just took the form off their display in their office; it was not signed, she completed the civil waiver AND he signed it.  How is that reason for him not to do his job by notarizing her documents? It was obviously more abuse of power as he was instructed by judges who abuse the law rather than administer it.   10. THE TOTAL PAGES SHOULD BE 159 along with the faxes sent to the court on June 20.   11. The Court has no legal right to throw out documents, yet the clerk even crumbled up pages of the Small Claim Form, saying “You shouldn’t have submitted those pages”.  Plaintiff said, “THEY ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE FORM; OTHERWISE IT IS RECORDS FRAUD. 12. There are at least 55 pages which the court has taken upon themselves to not return to the plaintiff!   13. THIS IS AFFIRMATION OF DEMAND FOR RETURN OF ALL DOCUMENTS TO THE PLAINTIFF IMMEDIATELY! 14. PLAINTIFF HAS SUBMITTED THREE CERTIFICATIONS OF MAILING ON THE DEFENDANT - NONE OF WHICH WERE EVEN REQUIRED AT THIS JUNCTURE FOR PROCESSING THE FEE WAIVER! a) PRIORITY MAIL b) DELIVERED IN PERSON c) EMAILED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT ACCORDING TO APPEARANCE 15. This completes this THREE-PAGE NOTICE OF DEMAND FOR RETURN OF ALL DOCUMENTS ON THIS CASE, WHICH THIS COURT IS FAILING TO ADMINISTER. Paginations have to made manually due to abuse of Microsoft Word on Plaintiff’s device.     16. Plaintiff considers these actions as illegal, malicious and vexatious.  Therefore they impair Due Process of Law and in fact deliberately do so, favoring Storquest, which has also done nothing legitamately.     Prepared and Submitted, FOR THE PLAINTIFF   __________________ Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se PREPARED AND SUBMITTED, FOR THE PLAINTIFF __________________ Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se     Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT   Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven   Vs : At New Haven, CT   STORQUEST SELF STORAGE (SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022   APPENDIX Page No.   1. Exhibit A - Worksheet 1 2. Exhibit B - Paralegal Ave Pay/hr 2 3. Exhibit C - Emails as Stated 3-13 4. Exhibit D - EVICTION NOTICE 14-15 a) NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE OF LEASE 5. Exhibit E - Business Searches a) Storquest has fraudulent records 16-38 6. Exhibit F - Plaintiff’s Affidavit F1-F4 7. Exhibit G - Ledger of Payments G1-G6 a) Plaintiff’s Proof of Running Balance G7-G0 8. Exhibit H - Lease on Storquest Record H1 a) Fraudulent additional Pages H2-H3 i. Unapproved by plaintiff - 1. frauded by Storquest   PREPARED AND SUBMITTED,   FOR THE PLAINTIFF ___________________ Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se   Certification of Mailing June 20, 2022 Aforesaid  Appendix has been duly served via email and First Class USPS Postage, to Storquest Storage Association (SSA)  located at 140 Ferry Street, New Haven, CT 06513.  newhaven02@storquest.com  A complete scanned copy of this lawsuit with edited pages is presendted to the New Haven Court as well as emailed to Storquest.   ____________________ Edited Page to Appendix 6/20/2022  Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT   Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven   Vs : At New Haven, CT   STORQUEST SELF STORAGE (SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022   WORKSHEET APPENDIX A COSTS AS OF 6/20/2022   80 HOURS SPENT ON PHONE, PAPERWORK, RESEARCH, EDITING, ETC. …………………………………… 2,248.60   COST OF MATERIALS…………………………..    100.00 Note:  plaintiff’s 4 toner cartridges were stolen out of Her apartment this past week!       40.00       20 HOURS WEEKEND OF 6/18-6/19/2022 ………..      587.20   PRIORITY MAIL COST:         8.95 ADMIN FEE        15.00   SUBTOTAL TO DATE: ………………………………… 3,000.75   PROJECTED COSTS TO CARRY OUT SUIT….. ….  2,000.25   NOTE:  Plaintiff claims that if Storquest is allowed by the court to end the lease, that they should move the plaintiff’s belongings to the facility of her choice at their expense.   Plaintiff also claims that if this lease is ended, it is therefore violation of contract and leasing laws and all rent paid to the facility shold be reimbursed to the plaintiff in full along with interest charges. Prepared and Siubmitted, FOR THE PLAINTIFF __________________ Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se    Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT   Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven   Vs : At New Haven, CT   STORQUEST SELF STORAGE (SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022   DEFENDANT RECEIPT OF LAWSUIT   The following documents have been prepared by the plaintiff, pro se and are emailed to the defendant as courtesy copy of edited pages on June 20, 2022:   1.  Small Claims Writ And Notice of Suit, JD-CV-40 5 pages 2. COMPLAINT 7 pages 3. Motion for Disclosure 4 pages 4. Motion For Order CEASE & DESIST 5 pages 5. Appendix         42 pages a) Exhibit G - Ledger and Proof of Running Balance 8 pages b) Exhibit H - Lease, Order to Vacate, Breaking Lease 4 pages     Prepared and Submittted,   FOR THE PLAINTIFF   ___________________ Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se                   STORQUEST EMPLOYEE REFUSES TO SIGN FOR THIS     Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT   Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven   Vs : At New Haven, CT   STORQUEST SELF STORAGE (SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022   AGENT OF SERVICE STORQUEST STATEMENT BY PLAINTIFF   1. There is no Agent of Service on Record for Storquest in Connecticut and the Secretary Of State is disconcerned that they are even not registered     2. California’s Agent of service has the name of Clark Porter.  He also is a Branch Manager for Storquest-Stauson in Los Angeles, and holds positions of CFO, Chief IT, President, and a number of other titles.     3.  Plaintiff considers this a fraudulent set-up and wonders if Clark Porter is even a real person.  There was a Sally Lou Clark Porter, 82, who died in Colorado 10/17/2017. Colorado has listed 603 MISSING PERSONS.     4. There is no record of residency to be found, yet it is presumed he wold have to be living in California in order to be a Branch Manager and hold several other titles for the Headquarters, Storquest.       Prepared and Submitted,   FOR THE PLAINTIFF   _____________________ Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se     Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT   Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven   Vs : At New Haven, CT   STORQUEST SELF STORAGE (SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022   FAX TO COURT CLERK OFFICE FAX NUMBER:   203-509-6885 AND 203-789-6424   A replacement set of the aforesaid SMALL CLAIM LAWSUIT is being mailed Priority Mail today, Tracking No.     DO NOT UPLOAD WHAT YOUR OFFICE HAS NOT STAMPED IN.  DO NOT STAMP IT IN.  RETURN ALL DOCUMENTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE. I HAVE MARKED THIS REPLACEMENT WHERE ORIGINAL. SIGNATURES SHOULD BE FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE.     PLEASE RETURN TO ME THE DOCUMENTS YOU HAVE RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY.  CONFIRMATION OF MY MAILING ADDRESS IS ON THE PRIORTY RETURN AS WELL AS ON THE APPEARANCE FORM ENCLOSED.   Because the Small Claims forms have become even more insufficient, I am making the following statements: a. I have prepared an Appearance Form since appearance is not defined on the Small Claim Form, and options which the appearance has are also not on the Small Claim Form.  That Form is included in Priority Mail. b. The repeat pages of the claim, Pages 2 through 5 are nefarious in nature and intent.  This gives opportunity for fraud by the court system, which is commonly practiced .As a legal form, it has to be submitted in its entirety.  Otherwise, the court may alter the case.     ___________________ Anne M. Bradley ============================================== Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT   Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven   Vs : At New Haven, CT   STORQUEST SELF STORAGE (SSA) : DATE: 6/29/2022   THIRD SUBMISSION OF SMALL CLAIM DUE TO ABUSE OF PROCEDURE BY THE COURT   The Following is a current statement of facts on this case, to serve on defendant June 29, 2022. TOTAL:  7 PAGES   Priority Mail Tracking Number: _________________________   1.  Plaintiff submitted at least 64 pages on June 16, 2022.  The court REFUSED TO STAMP IN THE SMALL CLAIM DOCUMENTS AND ONLY AGREED TO STAMP IN THE FEE WAIVER, WHICH IT FAILED TO ENSURE ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED WAS ON IT - WHICH IS ILLEGAL WHEN PROCESSING COURT FORMS FOR PRO SE PARTIES. 2. Plaintiff had a very difficult time just ensuring the court would process the fee waiver and gave them the Small Claims documents to save time and aggravation with their nefarious system of “doing what they feel like doing” rather than abide by the laws and Rules Of Court. 3. At the time a document is stamped in, the court is acknowledging that all information required is on it.   4. On Monday, June 20, plaintiff attempted to send a revised set of documents to the court through USPS. The Post Office Recognized it as a racial rights holiday, naming it Juneteenth; 1 which was apparently when pro-slavery Texas got its independence from anti-slavery Mexico and also Texas did NOT want to join the United States Of America.  A most-baffling holiday yet it gives federal employees another paid holiday not to work unless they work for the Army or other military, and not pay anything either,unless they got caught, which was the experience of the plaintiff.   5. The court clerk REFUSED to stamp in Small Claim documents yet they took them. The clerk stamped in the fee waiver on page 1 of 5 WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE ENTERED THE MISSING INFORMATION. 6. THE FEE WAIVER WAS NOT STAMPED IN AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE ON THE 5-PAGE FORM.   7. The court REFUSED TO TAKE PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE, which is needed to assert her rights since the court does not comply with plaintiff’s rights.   8. June 16th should have been opportunity to file the small claim AND fee waiver.  The court just needed to validate that she could only have the case at that courthouse.  Plaintiff did NOT want it heard there since she never gets her rights and they violate the law, to include records fraud.   9. The New Haven Superior Court failed to provide a cover sh eet indicating they were returning a partial package of the Small Claim, 104 pages. Post Date of one envelope  June 21 and the Yale Post Office marked it as delivered on June 23; Post Date of envelope containing granted fee waiver is June 27, 2022.  The court received 64 pages from the plaintiff in person, then 95 pages - along with the 2, one page faxes which the plaintiff had to pay for 2 because she had no other place to fax them in a timely manner due to the Juneteenth holiday and the abusive court service center clerks in New Haven, CT cause the plaintiff to go to the out of town Milford Court for assistance.  Lori Semrau is the court service center clerk there.  She signed the fee waiver.  She advised plaintiff to enter the New Haven Courthouse address and the case type (S/90) on the small claim form if she does not submit it in person and mails it. a)  The court service clerks at the New Haven Courthouse are oftentimes deliberately mean and the notary refuses to notarize anything claiming that a fee waiver which plaintiff attempted to get notarized was the wrong fee waiver for civil matters, which was an error - she just took the form off their display in their office; it was not signed, she completed the civil waiver AND he signed it.  How is that reason for him not to do his job by notarizing her documents? It was obviously more abuse of power as he was instructed by judges who abuse the law rather than administer it.   10. THE ACCUMULATED TOTAL PAGES SUBMITTED TO THE COURT SHOULD BE 159 along with the faxes sent to the court on June 20.  The court is obligated to either make them part of record or return them to plaintiff. 11. The Court has no legal right to throw out documents, yet the clerk even crumbled up pages of the Small Claim Form, saying “You shouldn’t have submitted those pages”.when plaintiff submitted this case originally.   3  Plaintiff said, “THEY ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE FORM; OTHERWISE IT IS RECORDS FRAUD. 12. There were at least 55 pages which the court had taken upon themselves to not return to the plaintiff in the envelope delivered by Yale Post Office on June 23, 2022.  This reflects the court picking out what suits THEM ONLY, rather than implement any document control, etc.   13. NOTE:   a) Fee Waiver and original documents were submitted in person on June 16,2022 i. Fee waiver was denied, returned incomplete post dated on June 21, received in mail June 23 No explanation why it mixed up documents from original submission and returned those selected documents and retained a portion of what was UPS’d with no explanation. b) Plaintiff submitted REVISED SMALL CLAIM through UPS on June 20. The courthouse received a faxed notification at BOTH phone numbers on June 20, that the revised documents were being mailed.  Date they were scheduled to receive them from UPS:  June 21. UPS Tracking No. 1ZA6916A0362425720 c) Received by Yale Post Office June 27, 2022:   The court returned the remaining documents and submitted a backdated granted fee waiver, dated June 18 - obviously to cover up its refusal to process the fee waiver in the prior mailing.   4  Attached small claim documents of the aforesaid returned mailing by the court  are NOT THE REVISED SMALL CLAIM WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT AND CERTIFIED AS SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT. The court erroneously refused to take in appearance form, erroneously indicated on another form that $95 cost of service is required and more abuses. 14. PLAINTIFF HAS SUBMITTED THREE CERTIFICATIONS OF MAILING ON THE DEFENDANT - NONE OF WHICH WERE EVEN REQUIRED AT THIS JUNCTURE FOR PROCESSING THE FEE WAIVER! a) PRIORITY MAIL b) DELIVERED IN PERSON c) EMAILED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT ACCORDING TO APPEARANCE PRACTICES FOR SMALL CLAIMS i. The primary purpose was to get Storquest to drop their unlawful billing abuse and allow plaintiff to pay regular rent amount as agreed upon in terms of lease. ii. This is very abusive by Storquest to ignore all documents, fail to act on them, and further abuse plaintiff using technological tricks to help cover up their fraud.    15. This completes this TEN-PAGE APPENDED STATEMENT TO SMALL CLAIM, 1 1/2 SPACED, WHICH THIS COURT IS FAILING TO ADMINISTER.DUE PROCESS ON.   Paginations have to be typed or hand-written manually due to abuse of Microsoft Word on Plaintiff’s device.     5 16. Plaintiff considers these actions by the Superior Court of New Haven as illegal, malicious and vexatious.  Therefore they impair Due Process of Law and in fact deliberately do so, favoring Storquest, which has also done nothing legitamately.   17. APPENDIX AND REVISED SMALL CLAIM PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL GRANTING OF FEE WAIVER IS BEING SERVED A SECOND TIME ON THE DEFENDANT ALONG WITH THE COURT. 18. The New Haven Superior Court also failed to rule on pre-trial motions, including the very motion for disclosure, since the defendant Storquest, which payments by plaintiff go through by calling their phone service at 203-772-4050 (the automated system confirms balance and allows customer to pay when using the phone number it recognizes - which is always the same number as on record for this case),  is not registered as a company in the State of Connecticut, the Town/City of New Haven, CT.   19. Plaintiff has established a temporary accrual account with TD Bank TO PROVE DILIGENCE.  Rent could have been paid timely; the defendant frauded billing deliberately and even after they promised to remove the insurance charge, they did not, so she was unable to pay by phone.  (proof attached to this statement) a) Pinned on Twitter Account by @AnneBra64578737:   @StorQuest @Truthstreamnews @mediamonarchy @bobforgovernor @reallygraceful 6 Follow up on #FraudulentBilling #Storquest Videos are enumerated Part 1 of 9 @storquest_sucks   The above Twitter thread contains all 9 segments, which are limited to 2 minutes on the plaintiff’s phone, which she considers unfailr and manipulative by Apple. 20. Plaintiff’s posessions were all stolen by Public Storage!  A few copies to validate her efforts are attached to this statement.  This was BILLING FRAUD by Public Storage - they did not process the payment she mailed, which was always mailed the same way, by Postal Money Order, since they had “lost” her personal checks and told her to replace them and they would cash both.  The Postal Money Order proved the payment was made immediately.  They began charging an unfair amount using phone pay, so she stopped using it.  Public Storage never satisfied the $400 owed from a prior case never paid on a COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF WON. The CLAIM WAS THROWN OUT in the Manchester Court. Public Storage billed Plaintiff for a payment they received already. She proved she paid for it. She continued to pay her rent yet said there is a 60-day delay getting the replacement check from the Post Office, to ensure the money order was not cashed by anyone.  PUBLIC STORAGE STOLE HER BELONGINGS OUT OF HER UNIT AND AUCTIONED   7 THEM OFF EVEN THOUGH THEY GOT THE REPLACEMENT CHECK and timely rent payments. The court in New Britain, CT used ABUSE OF PROCEDURE to HELP PUBLIC STORAGE GET AWAY WITH THESE CRIMES, INCLUDING THE MARSHAL REFUSING TO SERVE PUBLIC STORAGE ONLY AFTER HE RECEIVED THE DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING A COPY FOR HIMSELF.  The State Court Judge who assigns judges actually transferred the housing judge to civil court - who ILLEGALLY EVICTED PLAINTIFF AND TOOK THE RENT SHE WAS PAYING INTO COURT, GIVING  ALL 12 MONTHS’ RENT TO THE NEFARIOUS LANDLORD, AFTER ascerting and citing laws that this landlord could not evict her on a whim, claiming lapse of time on the lease which had continued as the lease agreement stated, unless it was changed or  there was no 60 day notice - neither of which were abided by!  The court even removed the lease from the file, which the plaintiff submitted to prove no merit to the case. RECORDS FRAUD. And any disabled tenant who has a lease in good standing has to be moved by the landlord or city AT THEIR COST according to the laws and regulations - if the landlord wants to take possession of the apartment.  The court ABUSED POWER, DEPRIVED HER OF DUE PROCESS, AND ALLOWED PUBLIC STORAGE TO STEAL HER PROPERTY AND GET AWAY WITH IT, EVEN THOUGH SHE HAD RENTED THAT UNIT FOR TEN YEARS.   (a) Plaintiff considers this circumstance a possible MODUS OPERANDI to steal her possessions again, when in fact, Storquest should conceivably REIMBURSE ALL RENT DUE TO THEIR DELIBERATE VIOLATION OF THE LEASE.  POLITICIANS 8 ONLY CAPTURE THE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES IN BACKDOOR DEALS WHEN THEY ARE APPROACHED TO ASCERT HER RIGHTS.  THEY ARE SELF-SERVING IN   CONNECTICUT-- IT IS NOT LIKE THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT TRIED TO GET HER RIGHTS! On another matter which plaintiff is struggling with, the former mayor of Waterbury was obviously not imprisoned for molesting children, yet was made CEO OF CIGNA, with Barack Obama and other crooked politicians’ help!  ( Phil Giordano is obviously fraudulently posing as David Corderi!) Most likely his eyes had plastic surgery by CIA-man Rand Paul, an OPTHOMOLOGIST, who enjoys the pay as being Senator in Kentucky for DECADES as well!   His father, Ron Paul, has been a lifetime CIA agent!  That matter is another very stressful matter due to dental billing fraud and even assault by the dentist who was supposed to only take impressions for a crown on a well-structured tooth.  The also charged plaintiff  out-of-network when both Cigna and their office assured plaintiff  wae dentist was in-network. They frauded plaintiff’s Cigna autopay by stopping it without her permission.  The office did not even say anything was wrong with her insurance status.  Had it not been for a Cigna employee bringing it up when she called to complain about that dental treatment - this scheme of harming the plaintiff would have been deemed NO ACTION NECESSARY even though THEY frauded her billing and stopped autopay.,.   The dentist who CIGNA claims has no valid ID shaved half of plaintiff’s tooth down without her knowing and also put unknowns in her jaw, which he charged her for as posts - and cannot be detected by x-ray!   9 21. The point of this statement is to assure the plaintiff is not going to be deprived of her rights again by the court - breaking laws, rules, regulations in obvious pay-to-play schemes.     Prepared and Submitted,     FOR THE PLAINTIFF   __________________ Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se PREPARED AND SUBMITTED,     CERTIFICATION OF MAILING IS PROVIDED IN THIS PACKET NOTE, THIS IS AT LEAST THE THIRD CERTIFICATION SUBMITTED DUE TO THE COURT’S FAILURE TO ABIDE TO DUE PROCESS.                                       10 Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT   Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven   Vs : At New Haven, CT   STORQUEST SELF STORAGE (SSA) : DATE: 6/29/2022   DOCUMENT CONTROL   INVENTORY OF DOCUMENTS Attach to Certification of Service Pursuant to PB 24-10              PAGE NUMBER   1.  Small Claims Writ And Notice of Suit, JD-CV-40 5 pages Statement, 6/29/2022,  9 pages 1 -9  attachments as stated 10-29 2. COMPLAINT 7 pages 30-36 3. Statement Regarding Email 37-38 4. Motion for Disclosure  4 pages 39-42 5. Motion For Order CEASE & DESIST 42-47 a) 5 pages 6. Statement Regarding Email 48-49 7. AGENT OF SERVICE Statement 50 8. PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE FORM 51 9. FAX TO COURT 6/20/2022 52 10. Appendix 42 pages TO INCLUDE: A=1 - A-2 Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT   Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven   Vs : At New Haven, CT   STORQUEST SELF STORAGE (SSA) : DATE: 6/29/2022     Certification of Mailing June 29, 2022     Aforesaid  Small Claim  has been duly served via email and First Class USPS Postage, to Storquest Storage Association (SSA)  located at 140 Ferry Street, New Haven, CT 06513.  newhaven02@storquest.com    And to the Superior Court of New Haven, which ordered her to get a Marshal when it is not a legal requirement.  Priorit Mail service is a MATTER OF RIGHT.   A complete scanned copy of this lawsuit with edited pages is presented to the New Haven Court as well as emailed to Storquest.       ____________________   Edited Page to Appendix 6/20/2022  Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT   Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven   Vs : At New Haven, CT   STORQUEST SELF STORAGE (SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022   WORKSHEET APPENDIX A COSTS AS OF 6/20/2022   80 HOURS SPENT ON PHONE, PAPERWORK, RESEARCH, EDITING, ETC. …………………………………… 2,248.60   COST OF MATERIALS…………………………..    100.00 Note:  plaintiff’s 4 toner cartridges were stolen out of Her apartment this past week!       40.00       20 HOURS WEEKEND OF 6/18-6/19/2022 ………..      587.20   PRIORITY MAIL COST:         8.95 ADMIN FEE        15.00   SUBTOTAL TO DATE: ………………………………… 3,000.75   PROJECTED COSTS TO CARRY OUT SUIT….. ….  2,000.25   NOTE:  Plaintiff claims that if Storquest is allowed by the court to end the lease, that they should move the plaintiff’s belongings to the facility of her choice at their expense.   Plaintiff also claims that if this lease is ended, it is therefore violation of contract and leasing laws and all rent paid to the facility shold be reimbursed to the plaintiff in full along with interest charges. REPRINTED 6/29/2022 Prepared and Siubmitted, FOR THE PLAINTIFF __________________ Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se Edited Page to Appendix 6/20/2022  Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT   Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven   Vs : At New Haven, CT   STORQUEST SELF STORAGE (SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022   WORKSHEET APPENDIX A COSTS AS OF 6/29/2022   80 HOURS SPENT ON PHONE, PAPERWORK, RESEARCH, EDITING, ETC. …………………………………… 2,248.60   COST OF MATERIALS…………………………..    100.00 Note:  plaintiff’s 4 toner cartridges were stolen out of Her apartment this past week!       40.00       20 HOURS WEEKEND OF 6/18-6/19/2022 ………..      587.20   20 Hours due to documents all mixed up; court      Returned ALL documents; failed to process……..      587.20   PRIORITY MAIL COST: 6/16/2022         8.95   ADMIN FEE        15.00   FAXES 6/20/2022 $3/PAGE 6.00   UPS MAIL COST         6/20/2022 8.95   ADMIN FEE 15.00   PRIORITY MAIL COST ESTIMATED 6/30/2022      Recipients:  Superior Court, Defendant Storquest    No Agent Of Record; company is not registered            20.00                                                          ADMIN FEE 15.00     SUBTOTAL TO DATE: ………………………………… 3,651.30   PROJECTED COSTS TO CARRY OUT SUIT….. ….  1,348.70   NOTE:  Plaintiff claims that if Storquest is allowed by the court to end the lease, that they should move the plaintiff’s belongings to the facility of her choice at their expense.   Plaintiff also claims that if this lease is ended, it is therefore violation of contract and leasing laws and all rent paid to the facility shold be reimbursed to the plaintiff in full along with interest charges. Prepared and Siubmitted, FOR THE PLAINTIFF __________________ Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se    Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT   Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven   Vs : At New Haven, CT   STORQUEST SELF STORAGE (SSA) : DATE: 6/29/2022   DEFENDANT RECEIPT OF LAWSUIT   The following documents have been prepared by the plaintiff, pro se and are emailed A SECOND TIME to the defendant as courtesy copy of edited pages on June 29, 2022: DEFENDANT USES EMAIL TO COMMUNICATE TO PLAINTIFF AND EMAILING IS A MATTER OF RIGHT ON PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE. NEVERTHELESS THIS IS ALSO BEING SENT PRIORITY MAIL, AS INDICATED AS PROOF OF SERVICE - FOR THE THIRD TIME DUE TO THE ABUSE OF PROCESS AND RECORDS FRAUD BY NEW HAVEN SUPERIOR COURT.        Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT   Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven   Vs : At New Haven, CT   STORQUEST SELF STORAGE (SSA) : DATE: 6/30/2022   APPENDIX AS NOTED:  THIS APPLIES TO THE PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS AS WELL AS THE OVERALL CASE                      PAGE NUMBERS   EXHIBIT A - WORKSHEET A-3 EXHIBIT B  - PARALEGAL AVE PAY A-5 EXHIBIT C -  Emails as Stated          A-6 EXHIBIT D -  INVOICE OF STORQUEST 2018        A-16 EXHIBIT E -  RESEARCH ON STOROTQUEST A-21 EXHIBIT F - EVICTION NOTICE A-47 EXHIBIT G - RENTAL LEDGER A-51 EXHIBIT H - RENTAL LEASE A-59 EXHIBIT I - STORQUEST PARAGRAPHS 6-23 NEVER SENT TO PLAINTIFF TO SIGN A-61 EXHIBIT J - RUNNING BALANCE OVER 152.41 A=63 EXHIBIT K - REPLACE “D-1” REF IN MOTIONS A-65 EXHIBIT L - AFFIDAVIT DATED 6/10/2022 A-66   Aforesaid Appendix, to be applied to all motions of aforesaid case:   Prepared and Submittted,   FOR THE PLAINTIFF ___________________ Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se           STORQUEST EMPLOYEE REFUSES TO SIGN FOR THIS     Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT   Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven   Vs : At New Haven, CT   STORQUEST SELF STORAGE (SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022   AGENT OF SERVICE STORQUEST STATEMENT BY PLAINTIFF   1. There is no Agent of Service on Record for Storquest in Connecticut and the Secretary Of State is disconcerned that they are even not registered     2. California’s Agent of service has the name of Clark Porter.  He also is a Branch Manager for Storquest-Stauson in Los Angeles, and holds positions of CFO, Chief IT, President, and a number of other titles.     3.  Plaintiff considers this a fraudulent set-up and wonders if Clark Porter is even a real person.  There was a Sally Lou Clark Porter, 82, who died in Colorado 10/17/2017. Colorado has listed 603 MISSING PERSONS.     4. There is no record of residency to be found, yet it is presumed he wold have to be living in California in order to be a Branch Manager and hold several other titles for the Headquarters, Storquest.       Prepared and Submitted,   FOR THE PLAINTIFF REPRINTED 6/29/2022 _____________________ Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se     Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT   Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven   Vs : At New Haven, CT   STORQUEST SELF STORAGE (SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022   FAX TO COURT CLERK OFFICE FAX NUMBER:   203-509-6885 AND 203-789-6424   A replacement set of the aforesaid SMALL CLAIM LAWSUIT is being mailed Priority Mail today, Tracking No.     DO NOT UPLOAD WHAT YOUR OFFICE HAS NOT STAMPED IN.  DO NOT STAMP IT IN.  RETURN ALL DOCUMENTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE. I HAVE MARKED THIS REPLACEMENT WHERE ORIGINAL. SIGNATURES SHOULD BE FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE.     PLEASE RETURN TO ME THE DOCUMENTS YOU HAVE RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY.  CONFIRMATION OF MY MAILING ADDRESS IS ON THE PRIORTY RETURN AS WELL AS ON THE APPEARANCE FORM ENCLOSED.   Because the Small Claims forms have become even more insufficient, I am making the following statements: a. I have prepared an Appearance Form since appearance is not defined on the Small Claim Form, and options which the appearance has are also not on the Small Claim Form.  That Form is included in Priority Mail. b. The repeat pages of the claim, Pages 2 through 5 are nefarious in nature and intent.  This gives opportunity for fraud by the court system, which is commonly practiced .As a legal form, it has to be submitted in its entirety.  Otherwise, the court may alter the case.   REPRINTED 6/29/2022 ___________________ Anne M. Bradley ============================================= one more:  Fax Memorandum Attention:  New Haven Superior Court Re:  Small Claims Case   Re:  Anne M. Bradley vs Storquest    Fax: 203-509-6885 203-789-6424   Date: 7/30/2022   I have sent yet a THIRD “small claim with writ” lawsuit on the same matter to Storquest Faciility since your court fails to act on my pretrial motions which were served on Storquest.   I sent a copy of this to your office, including the originial fee waiver (granted supposedly on June 18, yet not mailewd for 9 days) which I did not know was granted until June 27.  No one from your office even called me.  They didn’t mail it for a week, or most likely backdated it since on June 26 I got 104 pages of my ORIGNAL AND REVISED claims (64 pages and 95 pages consecutively) - a PARTIAL - papers all mixed up with notes denying my rights:  to file an appearance form, to serve the defendant by Priority mail, and so many more falicies!   The Small Claim Form was taken in by the court!  I left the address blank when Lori Semrau signed it because I wasn’t sure if I could have the case heard in Milford.  She said as a general rule it could not be heard there since I live in New Haven.  She also advised me the case type was S/90.  I forgot to enter those, yet wanted to ask the clerk there what I need to do to have the case heard in Milford.  Your office SCHEMES.  Following rules is not the priority.  Aiding and abetting companies with money are the priority!  You have caused me so much trouble, inconvenience, and stress - to the point I get literally sick.  It isn’t bad enough I have to contend with food poisoning and constant vandalism of my apartment.   I have made modifications to this THIRD submission and additionally point out the following:   YOU CANNOT ORDER ME TO GET A MARSHAL TO SERVE THIS SMALL CLAIM. IT IS BEING SENT THE SAME WAY - PRIORITY MAIL, AS A MATTER OF RIGHT!     ANY FORM PREPARED BY A PRO SE PARTY, WHICH IS TAKEN IN BY THE COURT, IS THE COURT’S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THE FORM IS COMPLETED, NOT MINE!  I EXPECT ALL PAPERS TO BE UPLOADED ON THIS CASE!  THAT IS MY RIGHT!     I refuse to go to your office.  I have to mail everything because their is no solution when I go to your office, just abuse of procedure and aggravation.     Prepared, and Submitted,         ______________________ Attorneys | Case Look-up | Courts | Directories | EducationalResources | E-Services | FAQ's | Juror Information | News & Updates | Opinions | Opportunities | Self-Help | Home Common Legal Terms | Contact Us | Site Map | Website Policies Copyright © 2022, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch

 

And now it is 7/1/2022 

I served a THIRD lawsuit package on Storquest.  

I will share the Word documents here and see if I have more posted in my Thunderflower blog - if you are curious.  Not tonight, sometime this weekend.  I got so sick to my stomach, worried I had poisoning.  Then yesterday I sweated all day.  I did my best to cleanse my system with celery juice, beets, etc. 

Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/27/2022

 

DEMAND FOR COMPLETION

OF RETURN OF SMALL CLAIM FILE

IMMEDIATELY

 

Facts

 

1.  Plaintiff submitted at least 64 pages on June 16, 2022.  The court REFUSED TO STAMP IN THE SMALL CLAIM DOCUMENTS AND ONLY AGREED TO STAMP IN THE FEE WAIVER, WHICH IT FAILED TO ENSURE ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED WAS ON IT - WHICH IS ILLEGAL WHEN PROCESSING PRO SE FEE WAIVERS.  

2. Plaintiff had a very difficult time just ensuring the court would process the fee waiver and gave them the Small Claims documents to save time and aggravation with their nefarious system of “doing what they feel like doing” rather than abide by the laws and Rules Of Court.

3. At the time a document is stamped in, the court is acknowledging that all information required is on it.  

4. On Monday, June 20, plaintiff attempted to send a revised set of documents to the court through USPS. The Post Office Recognized it as a racial rights holiday, naming it Juneteenth; which was apparently when pro-slavery Texas got its independence from anti-slavery Mexico and also did NOT want to join the United States Of America.  A most-baffling holiday yet it gives federal employees another paid holiday not to work unless they work for the Army or other military, and not pay anything either,unless they got caught, which was the experience of the plaintiff.  

5. The court clerk REFUSED to stamp in documents yet they took them. The clerk stamped in the fee waiver on page 1 of 5 WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE ENTERED THE MISSING INFORMATION.

2.

 

6. THE FEE WAIVER WAS NOT STAMPED IN AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE ON THE 5-PAGE FORM.  

7. The court REFUSED TO TAKE PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE, which is needed to assert her rights since the court does not comply with plaintiff’s rights.  

8. June 16^th should have been opportunity to file the small claim AND fee waiver.  The court just needed to validate that she could only have the case at that courthouse.  Plaintiff did NOT want it heard there since she never gets her rights and they violate the law.  

9. The New Haven Superior Court failed to provide a cover sheet indicating they were returning a partial package of the Small Claim, 104 pages.  The court received 64 pages, then 95 pages - along with the faxes which the plaintiff had to pay for because she had no place to fax them in a timely manner. The court service clerks at the New Haven Courthouse are oftentimes deliberately mean and the notary refuses to notarize anything claiming that a fee waiver which plaintiff attempted to get notarized was the wrong fee waiver for civil matters, which was an error - she just took the form off their display in their office; it was not signed, she completed the civil waiver AND he signed it.  How is that reason for him not to do his job by notarizing her documents? It was obviously more abuse of power as he was instructed by judges who abuse the law rather than administer it.  

10. THE TOTAL PAGES SHOULD BE 159 along with the faxes sent to the court on June 20.  

11. The Court has no legal right to throw out documents, yet the clerk even crumbled up pages of the Small Claim Form, saying “You shouldn’t have submitted those pages”.  Plaintiff said, “THEY ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE FORM; OTHERWISE IT IS RECORDS FRAUD.

12. There are at least 55 pages which the court has taken upon themselves to not return to the plaintiff!  

13. THIS IS AFFIRMATION OF DEMAND FOR RETURN OF ALL DOCUMENTS TO THE PLAINTIFF IMMEDIATELY!

14. PLAINTIFF HAS SUBMITTED THREE CERTIFICATIONS OF MAILING ON THE DEFENDANT - NONE OF WHICH WERE EVEN REQUIRED AT THIS JUNCTURE FOR PROCESSING THE FEE WAIVER!

a) PRIORITY MAIL

b) DELIVERED IN PERSON

c) EMAILED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT ACCORDING TO APPEARANCE

15. This completes this THREE-PAGE NOTICE OF DEMAND FOR RETURN OF ALL DOCUMENTS ON THIS CASE, WHICH THIS COURT IS FAILING TO ADMINISTER. Paginations have to made manually due to abuse of Microsoft Word on Plaintiff’s device.    

16. Plaintiff considers these actions as illegal, malicious and vexatious.  Therefore they impair Due Process of Law and in fact deliberately do so, favoring Storquest, which has also done nothing legitamately.  

 

Prepared and Submitted,

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

 

__________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

PREPARED AND SUBMITTED,

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

__________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

 

 

Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022

 

APPENDIX

Page No.

 

1. Exhibit A - Worksheet 1

2. Exhibit B - Paralegal Ave Pay/hr 2

3. Exhibit C - Emails as Stated 3-13

4. Exhibit D - EVICTION NOTICE 14-15

a) NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE OF LEASE

5. Exhibit E - Business Searches

a) Storquest has fraudulent records 16-38

6. Exhibit F - Plaintiff’s Affidavit F1-F4

7. Exhibit G - Ledger of Payments G1-G6

a) Plaintiff’s Proof of Running Balance G7-G0

8. Exhibit H - Lease on Storquest Record H1

a) Fraudulent additional Pages H2-H3

i. Unapproved by plaintiff -

1. frauded by Storquest

 

PREPARED AND SUBMITTED,

 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

___________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

 

Certification of Mailing

June 20, 2022

Aforesaid  Appendix has been duly served via email and First Class USPS Postage, to Storquest Storage Association (SSA)  located at 140 Ferry Street, New Haven, CT 06513.

 newhaven02@storquest.com 

A complete scanned copy of this lawsuit with edited pages is presendted to the New Haven Court as well as emailed to Storquest.  

____________________

Edited Page to Appendix 6/20/2022 

Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022

 

WORKSHEET

APPENDIX A

COSTS AS OF 6/20/2022

 

80 HOURS SPENT ON PHONE, PAPERWORK, RESEARCH,

EDITING, ETC. …………………………………… 2,248.60

 

COST OF MATERIALS…………………………..    100.00

Note:  plaintiff’s 4 toner cartridges were stolen out of

Her apartment this past week!       40.00      

20 HOURS WEEKEND OF 6/18-6/19/2022 ………..      587.20

 

PRIORITY MAIL COST:         8.95

ADMIN FEE        15.00

 

SUBTOTAL TO DATE: ………………………………… 3,000.75

 

PROJECTED COSTS TO CARRY OUT SUIT….. ….  2,000.25

 

NOTE:  Plaintiff claims that if Storquest is allowed by the court to end the lease, that they should move the plaintiff’s belongings to the facility of her choice at their expense.

 

Plaintiff also claims that if this lease is ended, it is therefore violation of contract and leasing laws and all rent paid to the facility shold be reimbursed to the plaintiff in full along with interest charges.

Prepared and Siubmitted,

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

__________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

 

 Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022

 

DEFENDANT RECEIPT OF LAWSUIT

 

The following documents have been prepared by the plaintiff, pro se and are emailed to the defendant as courtesy copy of edited pages on June 20, 2022:

 

1.  Small Claims Writ And Notice of Suit, JD-CV-40 5 pages

2. COMPLAINT 7 pages

3. Motion for Disclosure 4 pages

4. Motion For Order CEASE & DESIST 5 pages

5. Appendix         42 pages

a) Exhibit G - Ledger and Proof of Running Balance 8 pages

b) Exhibit H - Lease, Order to Vacate, Breaking Lease 4 pages

 

 

Prepared and Submittted,

 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

 

___________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STORQUEST EMPLOYEE REFUSES TO SIGN FOR THIS

 

 

Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022

 

AGENT OF SERVICE

STORQUEST

STATEMENT BY PLAINTIFF

 

1. There is no Agent of Service on Record for Storquest in Connecticut and the Secretary Of State is disconcerned that they are even not registered  

 

2. California’s Agent of service has the name of Clark Porter.  He also is a Branch Manager for Storquest-Stauson in Los Angeles, and holds positions of CFO, Chief IT, President, and a number of other titles.  

 

3.  Plaintiff considers this a fraudulent set-up and wonders if Clark Porter is even a real person.  There was a Sally Lou Clark Porter, 82, who died in Colorado 10/17/2017. Colorado has listed 603 MISSING PERSONS.  

 

4. There is no record of residency to be found, yet it is presumed he wold have to be living in California in order to be a Branch Manager and hold several other titles for the Headquarters, Storquest.  

 

 

Prepared and Submitted,

 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

 

_____________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

 

 

Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022

 

FAX TO COURT CLERK OFFICE

FAX NUMBER:  

203-509-6885 AND

203-789-6424

 

A replacement set of the aforesaid SMALL CLAIM LAWSUIT is being mailed Priority Mail today, Tracking No.

 

 

DO NOT UPLOAD WHAT YOUR OFFICE HAS NOT STAMPED IN.  DO NOT STAMP IT IN.  RETURN ALL DOCUMENTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE. I HAVE MARKED THIS REPLACEMENT WHERE ORIGINAL. SIGNATURES SHOULD BE FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE.  

 

PLEASE RETURN TO ME THE DOCUMENTS YOU HAVE RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY.  CONFIRMATION OF MY MAILING ADDRESS IS ON THE PRIORTY RETURN AS WELL AS ON THE APPEARANCE FORM ENCLOSED.

 

Because the Small Claims forms have become even more insufficient, I am making the following statements:

a. I have prepared an Appearance Form since appearance is not defined on the Small Claim Form, and options which the appearance has are also not on the Small Claim Form.  That Form is included in Priority Mail.

b. The repeat pages of the claim, Pages 2 through 5 are nefarious in nature and intent.  This gives opportunity for fraud by the court system, which is commonly practiced .As a legal form, it has to be submitted in its entirety.  Otherwise, the court may alter the case.  

 

___________________

Anne M. Bradley

==============================================

Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/29/2022

 

THIRD SUBMISSION OF SMALL CLAIM DUE TO ABUSE OF PROCEDURE BY THE COURT

 

The Following is a current statement of facts on this case, to serve on defendant June 29, 2022. TOTAL:  7 PAGES

 

Priority Mail Tracking Number: _________________________

 

1.  Plaintiff submitted at least 64 pages on June 16, 2022.  The court REFUSED TO STAMP IN THE SMALL CLAIM DOCUMENTS AND ONLY AGREED TO STAMP IN THE FEE WAIVER, WHICH IT FAILED TO ENSURE ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED WAS ON IT - WHICH IS ILLEGAL WHEN PROCESSING COURT FORMS FOR PRO SE PARTIES.

2. Plaintiff had a very difficult time just ensuring the court would process the fee waiver and gave them the Small Claims documents to save time and aggravation with their nefarious system of “doing what they feel like doing” rather than abide by the laws and Rules Of Court.

3. At the time a document is stamped in, the court is acknowledging that all information required is on it.  

4. On Monday, June 20, plaintiff attempted to send a revised set of documents to the court through USPS. The Post Office Recognized it as a racial rights holiday, naming it Juneteenth;

1

which was apparently when pro-slavery Texas got its independence from anti-slavery Mexico and also Texas did NOT want to join the United States Of America.  A most-baffling holiday yet it gives federal employees another paid holiday not to work unless they work for the Army or other military, and not pay anything either,unless they got caught, which was the experience of the plaintiff.  

5. The court clerk REFUSED to stamp in Small Claim documents yet they took them. The clerk stamped in the fee waiver on page 1 of 5 WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE ENTERED THE MISSING INFORMATION.

6. THE FEE WAIVER WAS NOT STAMPED IN AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE ON THE 5-PAGE FORM.  

7. The court REFUSED TO TAKE PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE, which is needed to assert her rights since the court does not comply with plaintiff’s rights.  

8. June 16^th should have been opportunity to file the small claim AND fee waiver.  The court just needed to validate that she could only have the case at that courthouse.  Plaintiff did NOT want it heard there since she never gets her rights and they violate the law, to include records fraud.  

9. The New Haven Superior Court failed to provide a cover sh eet indicating they were returning a partial package of the Small Claim, 104 pages. Post Date of one envelope  June 21 and the Yale Post Office marked it as delivered on June 23; Post Date of envelope containing granted fee waiver is June 27, 2022.  The court received 64 pages from the plaintiff in person, then 95 pages - along with the 2, one page faxes which the plaintiff had to pay for

2

because she had no other place to fax them in a timely manner due to the Juneteenth holiday and the abusive court service center clerks in New Haven, CT cause the plaintiff to go to the out of town Milford Court for assistance.  Lori Semrau is the court service center clerk there.  She signed the fee waiver.  She advised plaintiff to enter the New Haven Courthouse address and the case type (S/90) on the small claim form if she does not submit it in person and mails it.

a)  The court service clerks at the New Haven Courthouse are oftentimes deliberately mean and the notary refuses to notarize anything claiming that a fee waiver which plaintiff attempted to get notarized was the wrong fee waiver for civil matters, which was an error - she just took the form off their display in their office; it was not signed, she completed the civil waiver AND he signed it.  How is that reason for him not to do his job by notarizing her documents? It was obviously more abuse of power as he was instructed by judges who abuse the law rather than administer it.  

10. THE ACCUMULATED TOTAL PAGES SUBMITTED TO THE COURT SHOULD BE 159 along with the faxes sent to the court on June 20.  The court is obligated to either make them part of record or return them to plaintiff.

11. The Court has no legal right to throw out documents, yet the clerk even crumbled up pages of the Small Claim Form, saying “You shouldn’t have submitted those pages”.when plaintiff submitted this case originally.

 

3

 Plaintiff said, “THEY ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE FORM; OTHERWISE IT IS RECORDS FRAUD.

12. There were at least 55 pages which the court had taken upon themselves to not return to the plaintiff in the envelope delivered by Yale Post Office on June 23, 2022.  This reflects the court picking out what suits THEM ONLY, rather than implement any document control, etc.  

13. NOTE:  

a) Fee Waiver and original documents were submitted in person on June 16,2022

i. Fee waiver was denied, returned incomplete post dated on June 21, received in mail June 23 No explanation why it mixed up documents from original submission and returned those selected documents and retained a portion of what was UPS’d with no explanation.

b) Plaintiff submitted REVISED SMALL CLAIM through UPS on June 20. The courthouse received a faxed notification at BOTH phone numbers on June 20, that the revised documents were being mailed.  Date they were scheduled to receive them from UPS:  June 21.

UPS Tracking No. 1ZA6916A0362425720

c) Received by Yale Post Office June 27, 2022:  

The court returned the remaining documents and submitted a backdated granted fee waiver, dated June 18 - obviously to cover up its refusal to process the fee waiver in the prior mailing.

 

4

 Attached small claim documents of the aforesaid returned mailing by the court  are NOT THE REVISED SMALL CLAIM WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT AND CERTIFIED AS SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT. The court erroneously refused to take in appearance form, erroneously indicated on another form that $95 cost of service is required and more abuses.

14. PLAINTIFF HAS SUBMITTED THREE CERTIFICATIONS OF MAILING ON THE DEFENDANT - NONE OF WHICH WERE EVEN REQUIRED AT THIS JUNCTURE FOR PROCESSING THE FEE WAIVER!

a) PRIORITY MAIL

b) DELIVERED IN PERSON

c) EMAILED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT ACCORDING TO APPEARANCE PRACTICES FOR SMALL CLAIMS

i. The primary purpose was to get Storquest to drop their unlawful billing abuse and allow plaintiff to pay regular rent amount as agreed upon in terms of lease.

ii. This is very abusive by Storquest to ignore all documents, fail to act on them, and further abuse plaintiff using technological tricks to help cover up their fraud.   

15. This completes this TEN-PAGE APPENDED STATEMENT TO SMALL CLAIM, 1 1/2 SPACED, WHICH THIS COURT IS FAILING TO ADMINISTER.DUE PROCESS ON.   Paginations have to be typed or hand-written manually due to abuse of Microsoft Word on Plaintiff’s device.  

 

5

16. Plaintiff considers these actions by the Superior Court of New Haven as illegal, malicious and vexatious.  Therefore they impair Due Process of Law and in fact deliberately do so, favoring Storquest, which has also done nothing legitamately.  

17. APPENDIX AND REVISED SMALL CLAIM PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL GRANTING OF FEE WAIVER IS BEING SERVED A SECOND TIME ON THE DEFENDANT ALONG WITH THE COURT.

18. The New Haven Superior Court also failed to rule on pre-trial motions, including the very motion for disclosure, since the defendant Storquest, which payments by plaintiff go through by calling their phone service at 203-772-4050 (the automated system confirms balance and allows customer to pay when using the phone number it recognizes - which is always the same number as on record for this case),  is not registered as a company in the State of Connecticut, the Town/City of New Haven, CT.  

19. Plaintiff has established a temporary accrual account with TD Bank TO PROVE DILIGENCE.  Rent could have been paid timely; the defendant frauded billing deliberately and even after they promised to remove the insurance charge, they did not, so she was unable to pay by phone.  (proof attached to this statement)

a) Pinned on Twitter Account by @AnneBra64578737:  

@StorQuest

@Truthstreamnews

@mediamonarchy

@bobforgovernor

@reallygraceful

6

Follow up on

#FraudulentBilling

#Storquest

Videos are enumerated

Part 1 of 9

@storquest_sucks

 

The above Twitter thread contains all 9 segments, which are limited to 2 minutes on the plaintiff’s phone, which she considers unfailr and manipulative by Apple.

20. Plaintiff’s posessions were all stolen by Public Storage!  A few copies to validate her efforts are attached to this statement.  This was BILLING FRAUD by Public Storage - they did not process the payment she mailed, which was always mailed the same way, by Postal Money Order, since they had “lost” her personal checks and told her to replace them and they would cash both.  The Postal Money Order proved the payment was made immediately.  They began charging an unfair amount using phone pay, so she stopped using it.  Public Storage never satisfied the $400 owed from a prior case never paid on a COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF WON. The CLAIM WAS THROWN OUT in the Manchester Court. Public Storage billed Plaintiff for a payment they received already. She proved she paid for it. She continued to pay her rent yet said there is a 60-day delay getting the replacement check from the Post Office, to ensure the money order was not cashed by anyone.  PUBLIC STORAGE STOLE HER BELONGINGS OUT OF HER UNIT AND AUCTIONED

 

7

THEM OFF EVEN THOUGH THEY GOT THE REPLACEMENT CHECK and timely rent payments. The court in New Britain, CT used ABUSE OF PROCEDURE to HELP PUBLIC STORAGE GET AWAY WITH THESE CRIMES, INCLUDING THE MARSHAL

REFUSING TO SERVE PUBLIC STORAGE ONLY AFTER HE RECEIVED THE DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING A COPY FOR HIMSELF.  The State Court Judge who assigns judges actually transferred the housing judge to civil court - who ILLEGALLY EVICTED PLAINTIFF AND TOOK THE RENT SHE WAS PAYING INTO COURT, GIVING  ALL 12 MONTHS’ RENT TO THE NEFARIOUS LANDLORD, AFTER ascerting and citing laws that this landlord could not evict her on a whim, claiming lapse of time on the lease which had continued as the lease agreement stated, unless it was changed or  there was no 60 day notice - neither of which were abided by!  The court even removed the lease from the file, which the plaintiff submitted to prove no merit to the case. RECORDS FRAUD. And any disabled tenant who has a lease in good standing has to be moved by the landlord or city AT THEIR COST according to the laws and regulations - if the landlord wants to take possession of the apartment.  The court ABUSED POWER, DEPRIVED HER OF DUE PROCESS, AND ALLOWED PUBLIC STORAGE TO STEAL HER PROPERTY AND GET AWAY WITH IT, EVEN THOUGH SHE HAD RENTED THAT UNIT FOR TEN YEARS.  

(a) Plaintiff considers this circumstance a possible MODUS OPERANDI to steal her possessions again, when in fact, Storquest should conceivably REIMBURSE ALL RENT DUE TO THEIR DELIBERATE VIOLATION OF THE LEASE.  POLITICIANS

8

ONLY CAPTURE THE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES IN BACKDOOR DEALS WHEN THEY ARE APPROACHED TO ASCERT HER RIGHTS.  THEY ARE SELF-SERVING IN  

CONNECTICUT-- IT IS NOT LIKE THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT TRIED TO GET HER RIGHTS! On another matter which plaintiff is struggling with, the former mayor of Waterbury was obviously not imprisoned for molesting children, yet was made CEO OF CIGNA,

with Barack Obama and other crooked politicians’ help!  ( Phil Giordano is obviously fraudulently posing as David Corderi!) Most likely his eyes had plastic surgery by CIA-man Rand Paul, an OPTHOMOLOGIST, who enjoys the pay as being Senator in Kentucky for DECADES as well!   His father, Ron Paul, has been a lifetime CIA agent!  That matter is another very stressful matter due to dental billing fraud and even assault by the dentist who was supposed to only take impressions for a crown on a well-structured tooth.  The also charged plaintiff  out-of-network when both Cigna and their office assured plaintiff  wae dentist was in-network. They frauded plaintiff’s Cigna autopay by stopping it without her permission.  The office did not even say anything was wrong with her insurance status.  Had it not been for a Cigna employee bringing it up when she called to complain about that dental treatment - this scheme of harming the plaintiff would have been deemed NO ACTION NECESSARY even though THEY frauded her billing and stopped autopay.,.  

The dentist who CIGNA claims has no valid ID shaved half of plaintiff’s tooth down without her knowing and also put unknowns in her jaw, which he charged her for as posts - and cannot be detected by x-ray!  

9

21. The point of this statement is to assure the plaintiff is not going to be deprived of her rights again by the court - breaking laws, rules, regulations in obvious pay-to-play schemes.  

 

Prepared and Submitted,

 

 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

 

__________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

PREPARED AND SUBMITTED,

 

 

CERTIFICATION OF MAILING IS PROVIDED IN THIS PACKET

NOTE, THIS IS AT LEAST THE THIRD CERTIFICATION SUBMITTED DUE TO THE COURT’S FAILURE TO ABIDE TO DUE PROCESS.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/29/2022

 

DOCUMENT CONTROL  

INVENTORY OF DOCUMENTS

Attach to Certification of Service

Pursuant to PB 24-10

             PAGE NUMBER

 

1.  Small Claims Writ And Notice of Suit,

JD-CV-40 5 pages

Statement, 6/29/2022,  9 pages 1 -9

 attachments as stated 10-29

2. COMPLAINT 7 pages 30-36

3. Statement Regarding Email 37-38

4. Motion for Disclosure  4 pages 39-42

5. Motion For Order CEASE & DESIST 42-47

a) 5 pages

6. Statement Regarding Email 48-49

7. AGENT OF SERVICE Statement 50

8. PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE FORM 51

9. FAX TO COURT 6/20/2022 52

10. Appendix 42 pages TO INCLUDE: A=1 - A-2

Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/29/2022

 

 

Certification of Mailing

June 29, 2022

 

 

Aforesaid  Small Claim  has been duly served via email and First Class USPS Postage, to Storquest Storage Association (SSA)  located at 140 Ferry Street, New Haven, CT 06513.

 newhaven02@storquest.com 

 

And to the Superior Court of New Haven, which ordered her to get a Marshal when it is not a legal requirement.  Priorit Mail service is a MATTER OF RIGHT.

 

A complete scanned copy of this lawsuit with edited pages is presented to the New Haven Court as well as emailed to Storquest.  

 

 

____________________

 

Edited Page to Appendix 6/20/2022 

Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022

 

WORKSHEET

APPENDIX A

COSTS AS OF 6/20/2022

 

80 HOURS SPENT ON PHONE, PAPERWORK, RESEARCH,

EDITING, ETC. …………………………………… 2,248.60

 

COST OF MATERIALS…………………………..    100.00

Note:  plaintiff’s 4 toner cartridges were stolen out of

Her apartment this past week!       40.00      

20 HOURS WEEKEND OF 6/18-6/19/2022 ………..      587.20

 

PRIORITY MAIL COST:         8.95

ADMIN FEE        15.00

 

SUBTOTAL TO DATE: ………………………………… 3,000.75

 

PROJECTED COSTS TO CARRY OUT SUIT….. ….  2,000.25

 

NOTE:  Plaintiff claims that if Storquest is allowed by the court to end the lease, that they should move the plaintiff’s belongings to the facility of her choice at their expense.

 

Plaintiff also claims that if this lease is ended, it is therefore violation of contract and leasing laws and all rent paid to the facility shold be reimbursed to the plaintiff in full along with interest charges. REPRINTED 6/29/2022

Prepared and Siubmitted,

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

__________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

Edited Page to Appendix 6/20/2022 

Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022

 

WORKSHEET

APPENDIX A

COSTS AS OF 6/29/2022

 

80 HOURS SPENT ON PHONE, PAPERWORK, RESEARCH,

EDITING, ETC. …………………………………… 2,248.60

 

COST OF MATERIALS…………………………..    100.00

Note:  plaintiff’s 4 toner cartridges were stolen out of

Her apartment this past week!       40.00      

20 HOURS WEEKEND OF 6/18-6/19/2022 ………..      587.20

 

20 Hours due to documents all mixed up; court

     Returned ALL documents; failed to process……..      587.20

 

PRIORITY MAIL COST: 6/16/2022         8.95

 

ADMIN FEE        15.00

 

FAXES 6/20/2022 $3/PAGE 6.00

 

UPS MAIL COST         6/20/2022 8.95

 

ADMIN FEE 15.00

 

PRIORITY MAIL COST ESTIMATED 6/30/2022

     Recipients:  Superior Court, Defendant Storquest

   No Agent Of Record; company is not registered            20.00

                                                    

    ADMIN FEE 15.00

 

 

SUBTOTAL TO DATE: ………………………………… 3,651.30

 

PROJECTED COSTS TO CARRY OUT SUIT….. ….  1,348.70

 

NOTE:  Plaintiff claims that if Storquest is allowed by the court to end the lease, that they should move the plaintiff’s belongings to the facility of her choice at their expense.

 

Plaintiff also claims that if this lease is ended, it is therefore violation of contract and leasing laws and all rent paid to the facility shold be reimbursed to the plaintiff in full along with interest charges.

Prepared and Siubmitted,

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

__________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

 

 Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/29/2022

 

DEFENDANT RECEIPT OF LAWSUIT

 

The following documents have been prepared by the plaintiff, pro se and are emailed A SECOND TIME to the defendant as courtesy copy of edited pages on June 29, 2022: DEFENDANT USES EMAIL TO COMMUNICATE TO PLAINTIFF AND EMAILING IS A MATTER OF RIGHT ON PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE. NEVERTHELESS THIS IS ALSO BEING SENT PRIORITY MAIL, AS INDICATED AS PROOF OF SERVICE - FOR THE THIRD TIME DUE TO THE ABUSE OF PROCESS AND RECORDS FRAUD BY NEW HAVEN SUPERIOR COURT.  

 

 

 Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/30/2022

 

APPENDIX

AS NOTED:  THIS APPLIES TO THE PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS

AS WELL AS THE OVERALL CASE

 

                   PAGE NUMBERS

 

EXHIBIT A - WORKSHEET A-3

EXHIBIT B  - PARALEGAL AVE PAY A-5

EXHIBIT C -  Emails as Stated          A-6

EXHIBIT D -  INVOICE OF STORQUEST 2018        A-16

EXHIBIT E -  RESEARCH ON STOROTQUEST A-21

EXHIBIT F - EVICTION NOTICE A-47

EXHIBIT G - RENTAL LEDGER A-51

EXHIBIT H - RENTAL LEASE A-59

EXHIBIT I - STORQUEST PARAGRAPHS 6-23

NEVER SENT TO PLAINTIFF TO SIGN A-61

EXHIBIT J - RUNNING BALANCE OVER 152.41 A=63

EXHIBIT K - REPLACE “D-1” REF IN MOTIONS A-65

EXHIBIT L - AFFIDAVIT DATED 6/10/2022 A-66

 

Aforesaid Appendix, to be applied to all motions of aforesaid case:

 

Prepared and Submittted,

 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

___________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

 

 

 

 

 

STORQUEST EMPLOYEE REFUSES TO SIGN FOR THIS

 

 

Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022

 

AGENT OF SERVICE

STORQUEST

STATEMENT BY PLAINTIFF

 

1. There is no Agent of Service on Record for Storquest in Connecticut and the Secretary Of State is disconcerned that they are even not registered  

 

2. California’s Agent of service has the name of Clark Porter.  He also is a Branch Manager for Storquest-Stauson in Los Angeles, and holds positions of CFO, Chief IT, President, and a number of other titles.  

 

3.  Plaintiff considers this a fraudulent set-up and wonders if Clark Porter is even a real person.  There was a Sally Lou Clark Porter, 82, who died in Colorado 10/17/2017. Colorado has listed 603 MISSING PERSONS.  

 

4. There is no record of residency to be found, yet it is presumed he wold have to be living in California in order to be a Branch Manager and hold several other titles for the Headquarters, Storquest.  

 

 

Prepared and Submitted,

 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

REPRINTED 6/29/2022

_____________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

 

 

Case No. : SUPERIOR COURT

 

Anne M. Bradley : J.D. of New Haven

 

Vs : At New Haven, CT

 

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: 6/20/2022

 

FAX TO COURT CLERK OFFICE

FAX NUMBER:  

203-509-6885 AND

203-789-6424

 

A replacement set of the aforesaid SMALL CLAIM LAWSUIT is being mailed Priority Mail today, Tracking No.

 

 

DO NOT UPLOAD WHAT YOUR OFFICE HAS NOT STAMPED IN.  DO NOT STAMP IT IN.  RETURN ALL DOCUMENTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE. I HAVE MARKED THIS REPLACEMENT WHERE ORIGINAL. SIGNATURES SHOULD BE FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE.  

 

PLEASE RETURN TO ME THE DOCUMENTS YOU HAVE RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY.  CONFIRMATION OF MY MAILING ADDRESS IS ON THE PRIORTY RETURN AS WELL AS ON THE APPEARANCE FORM ENCLOSED.

 

Because the Small Claims forms have become even more insufficient, I am making the following statements:

a. I have prepared an Appearance Form since appearance is not defined on the Small Claim Form, and options which the appearance has are also not on the Small Claim Form.  That Form is included in Priority Mail.

b. The repeat pages of the claim, Pages 2 through 5 are nefarious in nature and intent.  This gives opportunity for fraud by the court system, which is commonly practiced .As a legal form, it has to be submitted in its entirety.  Otherwise, the court may alter the case.  

REPRINTED 6/29/2022

___________________

Anne M. Bradley

=============================================

one more: 

Fax Memorandum

Attention:  New Haven Superior Court

Re:  Small Claims Case

 

Re:  Anne M. Bradley vs Storquest

 

 Fax: 203-509-6885

203-789-6424

 

Date: 7/30/2022

 

I have sent yet a THIRD “small claim with writ” lawsuit on the same matter to Storquest Faciility since your court fails to act on my pretrial motions which were served on Storquest.

 

I sent a copy of this to your office, including the originial fee waiver (granted supposedly on June 18, yet not mailewd for 9 days) which I did not know was granted until June 27.  No one from your office even called me.  They didn’t mail it for a week, or most likely backdated it since on June 26 I got 104 pages of my ORIGNAL AND REVISED claims (64 pages and 95 pages consecutively) - a PARTIAL - papers all mixed up with notes denying my rights:  to file an appearance form, to serve the defendant by Priority mail, and so many more falicies!

 

The Small Claim Form was taken in by the court!  I left the address blank when Lori Semrau signed it because I wasn’t sure if I could have the case heard in Milford.  She said as a general rule it could not be heard there since I live in New Haven.  She also advised me the case type was S/90.  I forgot to enter those, yet wanted to ask the clerk there what I need to do to have the case heard in Milford.  Your office SCHEMES.  Following rules is not the priority.  Aiding and abetting companies with money are the priority!  You have caused me so much trouble, inconvenience, and stress - to the point I get literally sick.  It isn’t bad enough I have to contend with food poisoning and constant vandalism of my apartment.

 

I have made modifications to this THIRD submission and additionally point out the following:

 

YOU CANNOT ORDER ME TO GET A MARSHAL TO SERVE THIS SMALL CLAIM. IT IS BEING SENT THE SAME WAY - PRIORITY MAIL, AS A MATTER OF RIGHT!  

 

ANY FORM PREPARED BY A PRO SE PARTY, WHICH IS TAKEN IN BY THE COURT, IS THE COURT’S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THE FORM IS COMPLETED, NOT MINE!  I EXPECT ALL PAPERS TO BE UPLOADED ON THIS CASE!  THAT IS MY RIGHT!  

 

I refuse to go to your office.  I have to mail everything because their is no solution when I go to your office, just abuse of procedure and aggravation.  

 

Prepared, and Submitted,

 

      ______________________

Attorneys | Case Look-up | Courts | Directories | EducationalResources | E-Services | FAQ's | Juror Information | News & Updates | Opinions | Opportunities | Self-Help | Home Common Legal Terms | Contact Us | Site Map | Website Policies Copyright © 2022, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch

Attorneys | Case Look-up | Courts | Directories | EducationalResources | E-Services | FAQ's | Juror Information | News & Updates | Opinions | Opportunities | Self-Help | Home Common Legal Terms | Contact Us | Site Map | Website Policies Copyright © 2022, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch

Attorneys | Case Look-up | Courts | Directories | EducationalResources | E-Services | FAQ's | Juror Information | News & Updates | Opinions | Opportunities | Self-Help | Home

Common Legal Terms | Contact Us | Site Map | Website Policies

Copyright © 2022, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch