UPDATE 9/27/2022. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS BEING WORKED ON AND HOPEFULLY READY TO COPY ON A SEPARATE BLOGPOST DUE TO ITS SIZE.

EXPECTED TO FINISH 9/28/2022 - POSTED 9/27/2022

Here is the link: http://www.publiusroots.com/2022/09/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari.html

This blogpost link can be shared:

http://www.publiusroots.com/2022/06/storquest-lawsuit-2022.html

ADDITIONAL BLOGPOST ON THIS MATTER:

https://thunderflower2021.blogspot.com/2022/09/storquest-lawsuit-continued.html?m=1

Note, this had to be created since they nefariously used CYBER CRIME TO disable my connection to iternet on this notebook. From September 15 - September 20

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF ALL BLOGPOSTS: https://thunderflower2021.bl onogspot.com/2021/10/table-of-contents.html?m=1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the

District of New Haven

Connecticut Division

)

) Case No. 3:22-cv-01101-CSH

ANNE M. BRADLEY )

)

V. )

)

SUPERIOR COURT OF )

NEW HAVEN )

)

IN THE MATTER OF )

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se )

V )

Storquest Storage Association )

PRO SE APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE RETURN OF FILE DUE TO LACK OF LITIGATION

1. Pro Se Applicant entered its APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF as a matter of emergency, yet spent full days preparing this application, along with providing the court the most genuine copies which she had, displaying trust that court would fully litigate this application in a timely manner.

2. The Appendix comprised of 277 pages.

3. Irreperable Harm was fully explained.

4. IFP was granted, which reflects the application has merit.

5. The Court issued the following orders:

a) Notice of Electronic Filing (Though I specifically informed them I would not use a PACER account; they told me they would email me their rulings and could access them that way, which are not provided in full, as realized today, September 20, 2022, since there is no indication for me to click on an underlined number, at which time it requires me to login to PACER, which I made very clear I would not do)

b) Order on Pretrial Deadlines

i. Amended Pleadings due by 10/30/2022

ii. Dispositive Motions by 4/6/2023

iii. Discovery Due by 3/2/2023

Specifically:

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

Docket Text:
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 10/30/2022 Discovery due by 3/2/2023 Dispositive Motions due by 4/6/2023
Signed by Clerk on 8/31/2022.(Chartier, AnnMarie)

3:22-cv-01101-CSH Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Anne M. Bradley bradley.annemarie@gmail.com

c) DISMISSAL, even though the case was ordered to be active, which reflects that the IFP was granted

U.S. District Court

District of Connecticut

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 9/12/2022 at 5:00 PM EDT and filed on 9/12/2022

Case Name:	Bradley v. Superior Court of New Haven
Case Number:	3:22-cv-01101-CSH
Filer:
Document Number:	6

Docket Text:
RULING (see attached) on [1] Complaint -- Request for Injunction. Pursuant to the "Anti-Injunction Act," 28 U.S.C. § 2283, Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief against the Connecticut Superior Court is DENIED. Her Complaint against that entity is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on September 12, 2022. (Dorais, L.)

3:22-cv-01101-CSH Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Anne M. Bradley bradley.annemarie@gmail.com

3:22-cv-01101-CSH Notice has been delivered by other means to:

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

NOTE, THERE WERE NO OTHER DOCUMENTS ATTACHED AND “THE ENTIRE MESSAGE” WAS THE SAME AS THE EMAIL.

Document description:Main Document
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1034868047 [Date=9/12/2022] [FileNumber=7209186-0
] [b2006fb9ee2d7770a3c9fdfa8519f917d001cf909aa000ce690ebbf65efea6aba5e
09f4197c24b3b53e8a644569da30515091f2bfee0f8a9d2edb2afb082d242]]

…

[Message clipped] View entire message

Anne Bradley <bradley.annemarie@gmail.com>

Sep 13, 2022, 2:52 AM (7 days ag

“ENTIRE MESSAGE” COPIED AND PASTED BELOW:

Activity in Case 3:22-cv-01101-CSH Bradley v. Superior Court of New Haven Order Dismissing Case

CMECF@ctd.uscourts.gov <CMECF@ctd.uscourts.gov>

Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 5:00 PM

To: CMECF@ctd.uscourts.gov

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** There is no charge for viewing opinions.

U.S. District Court

District of Connecticut

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 9/12/2022 at 5:00 PM EDT and filed on 9/12/2022

Case Name:	Bradley v. Superior Court of New Haven
Case Number:	3:22-cv-01101-CSH
Filer:
Document Number:	6

3:22-cv-01101-CSH Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Anne M. Bradley bradley.annemarie@gmail.com

3:22-cv-01101-CSH Notice has been delivered by other means to:

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

IN SUMMARY OF THIS REQUEST:

PRO SE APPLICANT REQUIRES THE COMPLETE FILE RETURNED TO HER SINCE THIS APPLICATION WAS NOT FULLY LITIGATED AND DUE PROCESS WAS NOT ADHERED TO. DISMISSING A CASE FOR LACK OF MERIT WHEN IFP WAS GRANTED IS ABUSE OF PROCEDURE, NEFARIOUS - particularly on a URGENT MATTER involving obvious criminal activity, including the illegal denial of Motion For Default by the Superior Court.

ABUSE OF PROCEDURE INCLUDES USING TECHNOLOGY AS A WEAPON AND MORE. On the 15^th, Applicant was not able to connect her notebook to internet. On the 15^th Applicant ate food out of her refrigerator for breakfast and threw it all up, indicative of FOOD POISONING, which has happened to her before. She was quite sick for a full day, yet checked the status of the superior court case which has aggrieved her due to LACK OF DUE PROCESS, ABUSE OF PROCEDURE, FAILURE TO ADMINISTER LAW, and more - and the status of the case did not change that day or the following day, Friday, the 16^th of September. It would obviously be the case which this aforesaid federal court would follow!

The Federal Court closed its Clerk’s office on the 16^th with no reason, at which time this Applicant submitted NOTICE OF INTENT by date-stamping and placing it in the document box.

On Monday, September 19^th, which was when Queen Elizabeth’s funeral took place, the Superior Court uploaded its BACKDATED ruling. They have done this before, of which this Applicant was able to prove her point. By disconnecting her from internet using ABUSE OF POWER, CYBER

CRIME, they enjoyed hiding the fact that their backdated order of September 15^th was not uploaded in the system until the 19^th!

AS REMINDER, THIS AGGRIEVED APPLICANT, WHO CLAIMS IT IS ILLEGAL FOR THE NON-APPEARING DEFENDANT, STORQUEST, TO STEAL HER POSSESSIONS AND IN ADDITION CAUSE HER TO SUFFER GREATLY FROM MONTHS OF THIS LITIGATING WITHOUT LEGITMATE RECIPROCATION BY THE SUPERIOR COURT, OF WHICH THIS FRAUDULENT COMPANY IS STILL INTENDING TO AUCTION OFF HER POSSESSIONS WHEN THEY HAVE NO LEGITAMATE OWNERSHIP! THE AUCTION WAS SET FOR 9/13/2022. It was only when this applicant prepared a detailed letter to Hon. Stefan Underhill, Chief Judge of the Federal Court, that this auction did not take place, yet this court continued to aggrieve applicant by refusing to issue the injunctive order, WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW CITED BY JUDGE HAIGHT IN HIS INEPT ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF MERIT! HAD THE CASE LACKED MERIT, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROCEDED FORWARD ON THE DOCKET, WHICH REFLECTS THE IFP WAS GRANTED.

A FULL RETURN OF THIS APPLICATION IS NECESSARY. APPLICANT WILL PICK IT UP AND CAN BE CONTACTED BY PHONE AS INDICATED ON RECORD.

PREPARED AND SUBMITTED,

FOR THE APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF

__________________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se 9/20/2022

203-909-9131

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!
MY WORDS ARE BEING ALTERD BY HACKERS!
CLAIMING THEY HAVE A NO RIGHT TO ENTER MY UNIT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE WHENEVER THEY DAMN WELL WANT!

A different company owned this facility when I began renting a unit there!

UPDATE 9/13/2022
Three Orders

1. Case Assignment

2. IFP Granted - Notice of Electronic Filing

They only grant IFP's if case has merit

3. Dismissed for lack of Merit using unapplicable law regarding LAWSUITS ON STATE and more unapplicable circumstances

This was a Pro Se filing of

APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION ONLY

I will show the orders...stand by...

I k - IS IT NOT MORE OBVIOUS THAT THE WORKINGS OF THE COURT ARE DISHONIST BY NATURE I keep uploading the other two and I am BLOCKED

UPDATE 9/11/2022

Anne M. Bradley

PO Box 206514

New Haven, CT 06520

September 12, 2022

Federal District Court

141 Church Street

New Haven, CT 06510

Attn: Thomas V. O’Keefe Jr.

To New Haven District Court

Copy: Hon. Stefan J. Underhill FAX: Chambers 203-579-5704

RE: 3:22-cv-01101-CSH

APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE ORDER

THIS SHOULD NOT REQUIRE ARGUMENT BY ANY OTHER PARTY SINCE THIS IS AN APPLICATION

Dear Hon. O’Keefe:

As already made very clear to the court, Storquest is stealing my possessions and set them to auction off on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2022. THAT IS TOMORROW! I DID NOT GET MY RIGHTS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAVEN AND PREPARED A 277 page APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE ORDER, MARKED EMERGENCY.

I noticed some technocrat rigged my dental insurance payment so it did not get paid on the 28^th of August. Someone deliberately did not process it. WAS THAT FOR SOMEONE TO PROVE I DID NOT QUALIFY FOR IFP? I realize now Delta Dental is also a member of Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce. That is a contributing factor to this “tangled web”.

IN FACT, MY IFP SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE MY INCOME IS FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL THAT ALONE QUALIFIES ME. I can’t file annual tax forms because Barack

Obama ordered for the IRS to stop allowing their employees to process them for anyone whose income is below $30,000. Rather than REDUCE the qualifying people, he just cut the whole thing off, which allowed RECORDS FRAUD. He framed himself with his nefarious tactics.

Nevertheless, my income is only $13,000 a year, meeting FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL. There should be no delay in qualifyig my IFP.

I NEED YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION NOW, SINCE STORQUEST CONFIDENTLY IGNORED ALL PLEADINGS I SENT THEM THROUGH PRIORITY MAIL; THEY IGNORED THE CEASE AND DESIST LETTER I METICULOUSLY PREPARED AND PROVIDED YOUR COURT A COPY IN MY 277-PAGE APPLICATION.

IRREPARABLE HARM IS OBVIOUS. THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW.

I stated the following in my follow-up letter to you on the 6^th, hand-carried to your office:

Please assign this letter to whom this should be presented to in order for my emergency request for injunctive relief to be attended to.

I have gone through months of great hardship - physically, emotionally, and financially - over an issue that should have never had to be resolved through court - FRAUDULENT BILLING. A similar situation traumatically arose regarding Public Storage in Berlin, CT. I lived in New Haven but had lived in New Britain and needed to keep my possessions stored in New Britain. I did not have the money or wherewithall to do otherwise. I brought up a case against them due to their obvious illegal attempt to auction off my property, denying they received my money order which I mailed the same way for years. I told them I paid for it, my obvious intent to pay and ability to pay existed; and because I had a very low income and could not afford to pay twice for the same month (which they have done to me before, without telling me, cashing both the check they said they could not find and the replacement check) I said I would continue to pay my rent yet they

would have to wait for the replacement check for that month, which took 60 days. Instead, they heaped unbelievable charges, I had to prepare court documents to bring up a case against them, and when the marshal was supposed to serve the summons, he abruptly said he changed his mind when he

obtained my SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT. He complained that I included an Appendix, which he even was aware I would be presenting before that, yet it was my right. He was mean to me on the phone and said he would not serve the Appendix and was returning my Summons and Complaint. Meantime, my property was auctioned off and I was DEPRIVED OFMY RIGHTS. I was attending school full time and also attempting to transition from my apartment on Prospect Street to my current SECTION 8 apartment, as an indigent person with Federal Poverty Level Income. My possessions were auctioned off and despite no incident taking place at SCSU, I was abruptly removed from campus when I went to the student center seeking help to access Lois Law on campus in order to get court documents prepared as well as get my own schoolwork done. My internet was disrupted where I lived, though it was a Sprint-paid service - someone obviously used a device to disrupt it in my apartment and I would have to go outside and do my homework at 10 pm at night. I pointed out the fact to Sprint that my laptop was working fine and WHO DID IT and ENSURE THIS WAS REMEDIED. They would not remedy it. I had to do my work at school, contending with disruptions with insufficient computer lab circumstances - the computers did not work and the lab was even shut down at times (which was one of the main reasons why I transferreed from Albertus Magnus School to SCSU, yet I had other main reasons due to lack of administrattion overseeing rights of night school students)

The struggles I have had in this state have been enormous - and I am disabled from being slammed into by a 20 ton truck driver that was trying to kill me, and the attorney who represented my case could have cared less about my rights - he normally represented the insurance company and it was conflict of interest. He isolated my mother and got her to sign papers when I was in a coma.

AS ALSO MENTIONED:

Our U.S. Constitution is supposed to protect our rights to our property, life, and liberty. What I presented to the court was just that. As a Pro Se litigant, I was and am seeking my rights to my own property and to continue renting the storage unit - now, requesting the offset of costs which this company, Storquest, has nefariously caused on me, even breaching the lease on more than two issues: erroneously charging me insurance which was never required for the past 9 years and 7+ months and ending the lease at their whim, which was and is illegal.

My Motion for Default should have been granted by the court clerk as I had submitted it, according to both state and federal laws. Yet they did not do that, which impeaded justice.

As a Pro Se Litigant, I am only interested in keeping what little posessions I have in tact! I sought to APPLY FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. I searched on internet for the proper way. Your office did not instruct me otherwise. I emphasized I am applying, this is an urgent matter.

All of the documentation is overwhelming proof that I have a right to my property and to continue renting from Storquest. They caused me such harm, I claim right to relief of $,000 - which I have proven in the Worksheet far exceeded that as far as time and expenses.

THEREFORE, I am seeking whatever it takes, WITHOUT A HEARING:

EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

(one of the three above)

It was wrongful for the New Haven Court to deprive me of hearing pretrial motions and other factors reflecting lack of Due Process.

For your court to treat this as a lawsuit when I made it very clear what I was seeking, is creating a situation they can claim mootness, even though the irreparable harm has been fully explained!

STORQUEST DID NOT EVEN APPEAR ON THE LAWSUIT I BROUGHT UP AGAINST THEM AND THEY HAVE SCHEDULED MY POSSESSIONS TO BE AUCTIONED OFF SEPTEMBER 13, 2022. YOUR COURT’S TELLING ME THAT I HAVE UNTIL OCTOBER TO SUBMIT ERRATAS ON THIS “CASE” IS COMPLETELY FOREGOING THE VERY EMERGENCY AT HAND.

In summary, I did my best to find out what action I needed to bring up to the federal court for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, contending with cyber crime on my laptop and more.

I am seeking this attention for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. It is an emergency. My rights are being deprived. This letter is four pages, and prepared and submitted by me, the Applicant/Plaintiff, Pro Se. I made the font 14 due to it being VERY difficult to see at a smaller font on my laptop. Indeed the difficulties I have just getting my rights are intercepted by internet crimes and fraud. It makes it no less “right” to be deprived of my rights. As I perceive it, I am being ganged up on despite the fact I am simply seeking to retain my rights as a law-abiding storage customer who always paid my rent. Storquest disrupted this; not me. They have no right to ownership of my possessions in my unit. They erroneously vacated the lease when I was not even past due, June 9, which was in the 10-day period of making payment - which I had diligently attempted to no avail because they refused to remove the unlawful insurance charge.

I have severe leg problems. I have back and neck problems. I have feet problems. In fact, my orthopedic shoes have been vandalized or stolen in my apartment. I had a heart attack in 2002 after my landlord leached lead in my water over a period of time, causing me to have heart problems. When I told my part-time (second job) employer that I

had heart problems and needed to be sure where I worked was safe as far as being air conditioned and they had water to drink on the premises, he deliberately sent me to inventory a store which turned off their A/C on a very hot day, and also deprived me of anything to drink - not even a machine which I can pay for anything to drink. I had a heart attack the following day. I only have one pair of shoes that I can wear comfortably, since I need a one-inch lift on one side due to the injuries from being nearly killed by a 20-ton sander truck. I resent being exploited for political gain. I am only seeking what is rightfully mine and find this all so reflective of LACK OF DUE PROCESS. This obviously also includes my right to the $5,000 lawsuit claim I made - which only covers a portion of the time and expense I have had to work on this - all stemming from FRAUDULENT BILLING.

Thank you for time and attention. Should you decide not to hear my APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, I request for all documentation to be returned to me as promptly as possible - DUE TO URGENCY AND IRREPARABLE HARM. I was traumatized by the literal theft of my possessions by Public Storage. This, as I perceive, is MODUS OPERANDI, particularly since the same judge is involved. Nevertheless, all I seek in the eyes of the court is my rights as so-stated in the Application for Injunctive Relief.

Respectfully,

FOR THE APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF

__________________________

Anne M. Bradley

Update 9/6/2022
TWO LETTERS

Anne M. Bradley

PO Box 206514

New Haven, CT 06520

September 6, 2022

Hon. Stefan Underhill

Chief Judge

United States Courthouse
915 Lafayette Boulevard
Suite 411
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604

Bridgeport, CT 06604

Chambers Fax, 203-579-5704

Dear Hon. Underhill:

Re: Pro Se Litigant SEEKING EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE ORDER DUE TO IRREPARABLE HARM

This letter includes the 25-page ‘TAKE PAPERS ONLY” REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION as well as my four-page letter today, to Hon. O’Keefe.

My immediate emphasis is LACK OF DUE PROCESS in the New Haven Court. It is my opinion I am being deprived of my rights as a means for the New Haven Court to serve the party at fault - Storquest, which claims WITHOUT PROOF, that they are owned by William Warren Group, its co-founder Warren Jeffs was sentenced to prison for life for raping and molesting children, with “love” as his defense, being the leader of the FLDS, Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints Church.

I cared nothing about discovering this as well as the fact that the companies are not properly registered in Connecticut - nor do they have an Agent of Service.

I AM A PRO SE LITIGANT. I DON’T WANT THEM STEALING MY POSSESSIONS. They continue to operate their storage facility and have every lawful obligation to continue to allow me to be a customer BY

LAWFUL RIGHT. And now, they have caused this immense harm to me by threatening to auction off my possessions - including thousands and thousands of papers reflecting court documents - none of which can be replaced since my flash drive case was stolen from me when I was in New York City for doctor appointments in February 2022. The offices informed me they did all they could to locate the missing flashdrive case and nothing turned up. Those efforts were also made by the USPS and Metro North and the MTA subway service. Those were monetarily worth hundreds of dollars, one being a 1Terrabyte drive. And as mentionned, my personal documents were all saved on those flash drives.

Is this another case where I am being a victim of crime right in plain sight?

I have diligently saught a remedy and so far have been deprived of my rights to DUE PROCESS and the very application of law when it comes to the fact that Storquest did not even file an appearance on the case. I motioned for Default Judgement and was DENIED by Magistrate Beardsley, who works under Judge Abrams - the same judge who illicitly evicted me in New Haven in 2010 on a housing case that was brought up that had no merit even on its face, since the lease I had with the landlord required a 60-day notice if he chose to end the lease for LAPSE OF TIME. Inspite of my even arguing that, Judge Abrams would not even request the landlord’s copy of the lease and proceeded to keep the case active for year of literal hell that I had to go through, and having Marshal Miller smash in my door and accessing my ADT system with a code - which proved his ability to burglarize homes and get away with it.

It is not even lawful to deny a Motion For Default Judgement when the defendant fails to appear. This court backdated an order of Default Judgement, which was also inept, to allude they made that order before I promptly submitted my Motion For Default, applying a CT Rule which had no baring on the case.

And now I struggle more, having to rely on internet as my only source for information when applying for injunctive relief. I did my best to determine the best action to remit to your court. I did not seek a hearing. I am overwhelmed by what I claim to be abuse of power and lack of Due Process. I should have the right to continue renting that storage unit for as long as I have to live in Connecticut. I cannot afford to leave Connecticut; otherwise I would. I am a law-abiding citizen who has been trampled on by corruption in this state.

I seek your attention on this matter. The Appendix was approximately 277 pages - way more than necessary to prove the wrongdoings by Storquest and my right to the $5,000 small claim as well as remain a customer at at that facility.

This Three-page letter was prepared by me, the Applicant/Plaintiff/Pro Se litigant. I had to manually enter the page numbers because Microsoft deprives that feature on my laptop.

Prepared and Submitted,

FOR THE APPLICANT, PRO SE

__________________

Anne M. Bradley

Attached

Letter to Hon. O’Keefe

5-page Application For Injunctive Relief - TAKE PAPERS ONLY

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

Anne M. Bradley

PO Box 206514

New Haven, CT 06520

September 6, 2022

Federal District Court

141 Church Street

New Haven, CT 06510

Attn: Thomas V. O’Keefe Jr.

To New Haven District Court

Copy: Hon. Stefan J. Underhill

Dear Hon. O’Keefe:

Please assign this letter to whom this should be presented to in order for my emergency request for injunctive relief to be attended to.

My Motion for Default should have been granted by the court clerk as I had submitted it, according to both state and federal laws. Yet they did not do that, which impeaded justice.

THEREFORE, I am seeking whatever it takes, WITHOUT A HEARING:

EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

It was wrongful for the New Haven Court to deprive me of hearing pretrial motions and other factors reflecting lack of Due Process.

For your court to treat this as a lawsuit when I made it very clear what I was seeking, is creating a situation they can claim mootness, even though the irreparable harm has been fully explained!

In summary, I did my best to find out what action I needed to bring up to the federal court for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, contending with cyber crime on my laptop and more.

I have severe leg problems. I have back and neck problems. I have feet problems. In fact, my orthopedic shoes have been vandalized or stolen in my apartment. I only have one pair of shoes that I can wear comfortably, since I need a one-inch lift on one side due to the injuries from being nearly killed by a 20-ton sander truck. I resent being exploited for political gain. I am only seeking what is rightfully mine and find this all so reflective of LACK OF DUE PROCESS.

Thank you for time and attention. Should you decide not to hear my APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, I request for all documentation to be returned to me as promptly as possible - DUE TO URGENCY AND IRREPARABLE HARM. I was traumatized by the literal theft of my possessions by Public Storage. This, as I perceive, is MODUS OPERANDI. Nevertheless, all I seek in the eyes of the court is my rights as so-stated in the Application for Injunctive Relief.

Respectfully,

FOR THE APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF

__________________________

Anne M. Bradley

Update 9/5/2022. Happy Memorial Day holiday.

I notice I did not share my CEASE & DESIST LETTER.

ALSO I submitted MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE

AND
The court's lame Default Order

PASTED IN ABOVE ORDER

Anne M. Bradley

PO Box 206514

New Haven, CT 06520

August 23, 2022

STORQUEST STORAGE ASSOCIATION

CORPORATE OFFICE

201 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 102

SANTA MONICA, CA 90401

PHONE: 424-835-9925/310451-2130

FAX:

CLARK PORTER, Executive Officer

(replaced Warren Jeffs)

WILLIAM HOBIT, Executive Officer

(partner to Warren Jeffs, who may or may not be in prison for life, though he was sentenced to life for raping and molesting several children)

STORQUEST STORAGE ASSOCIATION

aka

1. 1033 Denton Sp, LLC

2. 10317 Shady Trail Sp, LLC

3. American Storage Partners, LLC

4. Jose G. Rivera Refresqueria & Pateteria El Paraiso (Probably related to Jeremy Rivera, who EVICTED my storage unit, WTF, and ended my lease when I wasn’t even past due anything, June 9, 2022)

5. 2300 Bay Area Sp, LLC

6. Adrian Sandoval and Joshua Ortiz

7. Adrian Ross Sandoval

8. Boomers Fireqorks, LLC

9. Ironman Manufacturing, LLC

10. Adolfo Balderas

11. Balderas USED FURNITURE

PO BOX 2034

SANTA MONICA, CA 90406

Copy:

Storquest Storage Association Facility

140 Ferry Street

New Haven, CT 06513

FAX: 203-772-4054

Email: newhaven02@storquest.com

Re: CEASE AND DESIST LETTER

CERTIFIED WITH RETURN RECEIPT

Case: Anne M. Bradley vs Storquest NNH-CV-22-5054051

Copy: Submitted to be uploaded on aforesaid case, which your company

never filed appearance on; let alone ANSWER

Due to the lack of transparency and the New Haven Court’s deliberate refusal to obtain Disclosure on your company, I am therefore forced to send this to your office in Santa Monica as well as your local facility - WHICH IS NOT EVEN REGISTERED AS A BUSINESS IN CONNECTICUT THOUGH THEY COLLECT TAXES FROM CUSTOMERS SUCH AS MYSELF.

Rent was withheld - and I filed a small claim before 30 days lapsed, even before 15 days lapsed but the court took its own sweet time processing me because I AM A TARGETED PERSON. That is what motivates this court to evade justice and fit whims.

FAILURE TO APPEAR

RESULTS IN GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

CPB 17-20 (d)

The New Haven Superior Court is unbelievably corrupted. I continue to defend my rights and am submitting an application for injunctive order to the federal court. Possibly my informing you of this will result in rigging a certain judge to hear my application so they can deny it, as illegitamate that would be.

We don’t have a US Supreme Court that really does their job - their duties are unchecked, and what it boils down to is THE LACK OF JUSTICE AND THE OVERABUNDANCE OF “JUST US”.

Your company blocked my paying rent by including a nefarious insurance charge and not removing it from phone pay. I expected it to be a simple thing to resolve/correct, since I have had my unit for nearly 10 years and have been a legitamate customer.

There is more BREACH OF CONTRACT ALSO: Sending me a notice that the lease is no longer honored when I was not even late on my rent! (June 9, 2022)

The lease indicates this:

To the extend occupant does not maintain such insurance, occupant shall be deemed to have “self insured”

Insurance is NOT mandatory by lease or law!

Using more technocratic tricks only reflects criminal intent!

I demand in writing that this nonsense is corrected immediately, and I can continue my lease at your facility! I am disabled! I cannot just jump when someone decides to harm me!

In the matter of Case No. NNH-CV-22-5054091-S, YOUR COMPANY FAILED TO APPEAR. That establishes LACK OF DILIGENCE. YOUR COMPANY’S LACK OF EVEN APPEARING ALSO ESTABLISHES GUILT! HAD YOU APPEARED AND ARGUED A MOTION TO DISMISS, THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST SOME CLOUT BUILT. CPB 17-20 (d)

Yet it is obvious that the New Haven Court judges are just conspiring with your company - after all the New Haven Chamber Of Commerce is built on fraud and most likely organized crime as well. I notice the judge who nefariously ruled on my pre-trial and post-Answer Date motions clumped them all together to make it nearly impossible for me to respond to. Her husband is an attorney yet it is unclear what he does for profit since his name does not show up on court cases based on my searches. Nor has he established himself as a corporate attorney. His name is Tom Sansone and I find it more than suspicious that his wife has their residence on record as her place of business, yet further advertises herself as having an office at 900 Chapel Street, New Haven, associated with the Trotta Law firm, WHICH IS FAKE. RIGHT IN PLAIN SIGHT. There

is more: regarding the Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce and the obligation to oath by attorneys - which means they cannot allow anyone to commit crimes they know of and they cannot take part in crimes. Upon doing a search of the William Warren Group with this Chamber Of Commerce, it is evident that frauding records is commonplace - being that 36 business names come up, most or all of which are probably not even registered in the State of Connecticut - not that the Secretary of State cares, of course. The former Secretary of State encouraged women at the Permanent Commission of Status of Women to place their underage kids as the owners of their businesses TO EVADE TAXES.

According to an excerpt on the Cornell University Website:

Even though a cease-and-desist letter is a non-binding letter and does not have a legal effect, it is primarily sent to the

wrongdoer so that it may later be used as evidence in litigation against the wrongdoer if the alleged misconduct is not stopped.

I was informed that September 13 was the set auction date of MY belongings in MY unit, using an illegal Lien as reason, which this state doesn’t care about, which is literally obstruction of justice, since our U.S. Constitution is based on LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY.

September 13 is how many days after your company blocked me from paying my rent? 45? 60? How many days Regrettably, due to your company’s failure to correct a wrong, I had to submit the small claim before the New Haven Court. They delayed processing my fee waiver for as long as they could because this is all about tricks, not law!

How is that particular date so fascinating to your company? CONTRACTS MATTER, NO MATTER HOW WEAK THE LEASE LAW IS. After all, the lease law on storage facilities and liens, which only is written for the facility and not the customer’s right - IS CLEARLY DEFECTIVE. It indicates the following:

Source: https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_743.htm

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 42a-9-333 such lien shall not have priority over a lien or security interest which has attached or been perfected prior to such default.

My security interest has to do with your facilty breaching the lease! I filed a court action against your company! You don’t even have an agent of record! I motioned for disclosure! They protect Storquest because William Warran Group claims to own Storquest - yet Storquest claims to own William Warren Group! This law fails to actually set forth the rights of the customer and wedges this in the law, most likely as a way to overlook or devalue it in court when it arises!

The lease has been breached several times! Your failure to appear is an automatic granting of my Motion For Default Judgment! Many staff at the New Haven Court should face justice themselves! Especially the dishonest judges!

1. First, there is the issue of the back of the lease. On the front which I signed, it specifies

AGREEMENT READ

COPY RECEIVED

AND INCORPORATION OF PROVISIONS ON REVERSE SIDE - which reflects language of the Statutes on Storage Facilities.

My point is the dishonesty of your company altering records is a MODUS OPERANDI. The issues on the lease are not disputed for this case. The fact that I indeed agreed that I was self-insured and have no descrepancy with the front page WHICH I SIGNED should have resulted in your company promptly curing the wrong to avoid a court case!

ALLOWED REASONS FOR SMALL CLAIMS FILING

· back rent;

· return of security deposit;

· broken or damaged property;

· unpaid claims;

· motor vehicle accidents;

· breach of a written or verbal contract;

· doctor/hospital bills for medical treatment;

2. The OCCUPANT, not the facility manager, is the one who gives the 7 days’ notice prior to the month vacating - THAT IS WHAT I AGREED UPON; IT IS ON THE FIRST PAGE! That can be found in Section 3 of TERMS.

3. I have already relayed Section 4 of INSURANCE! I do not need to purchase insurance and frankly I consider it a scam since all commercial storage facilities have to be BONDED. That includes its employees as well.

4. Regarding section 5, RELEASE AND OWNER’S LIABILITY is an issue that can only be taken up in court upon a circumstance where a customer claims the storage facility has illegally entered their unit, etc. OR if a customer has dangerous chemicals or flamable material which may destroy their possessions and there is a dispute who caused it. In that circumstance, the facility may have damage, yet no one should ever be storing any HAZMATS in their unit and any reasonable insurance carrier would have them certify they do not have them! Yet this dynamic

is obviously one which dirty politicians have mucked up in order to steal people’s property! Additionally, New Haven Storage said that no one other than the owner may go to the unit; though the owner may be accompanied.

5. Now, I will respond to the “reverse side” which, first of all, is LONGER THAN 9 1/2 by 11” paper so it is NOT THE ORIGINAL REVERSE SIDE, YET YOUR COMPANY FAILED TO AMEND THE COMPANY INFORMATION SINCE NEW HAVEN SELF STORAGE IS NO LONGER THE COMPANY.

6. Should your company have amended the lease, it is required for me to sign the Amended lease in order for it to be binding. PARAGRAPHS, 6-23 obviously would not fit on the back side of the 9 1/2 by 11 inch page.

7. PARTIES AND DATE provided logical Incorporation of Provisions.

8. RENT is actually late not 5 days but 10 days past the due date, due to laws that came out after this lease was signed. The employees told ME when New Haven Self Storage still owned the property. RENT IS NOT DELINQUENT UNTIL IT IS OUTSIDE THE TEN-DAY WINDOW OF PAYING.

a) Jeremy, your employee, BREACHED THE LEASE BY SENDING ME A NOTIFICATION THAT THE LEASE HAD ENDED ON JUNE 9, 2022. the fact I called your customer service line so many times, many days, many hours, shows just how nefarious your company is structured - particularly since they refused to provide me the address of the corporate offices! A few mentioned Santa Monica, so I will use the address I found AND PRINTED from Open Corporates website BEFORE THEY NEFARIOUSLY BLOCKED ME - ALL RIGGED TO HELP CRIME OBVIOUSLY!

b) Your company cannot even send me a notice of intent to lien unless the rent is deliberately not paid for 30 days! In this circumstance, I HAD TO FILE A LAWSUIT, AS I HAD WARNED YOUR COMPANY SINCE YOU BLOCKED MY ABILITY TO PAY THE DAMN RENT!

i. “Occupant’s property may become subject to a lien if rent remains unpaid for 30 days or longer”

ii. (b) A statement that the occupant's right to use the storage space will terminate on a specified date (not less than 14 days after the mailing of the notice) unless all sums due are paid by the occupant prior to the specified date.I WAS NOT DELINQUENT! There was no statement to that affect, and significant to this is the very fact STORQUEST FAILED TO EVEN APPEAR ON THE CASE I BROUGHT AGAINST THEM DUE TO UNLAWFUL BILLING.

9. The New Haven Superior Court was informed that rent was withheld, that the rent was in my bank account! And your company has that statement as well in the court documentation! I certified that I had the money set aside TO SHOW MY DILEGENCE, YET YOUR COMPANY SHOWS NO DILIGENCE AT ALL!

10. Legally, the contract was breached by Jeremy on June 9 and he just kept breaching even though he said the contract ended! There is no rent to pay because of that! The fact your facility breached the contract is UNLAWFUL! Look up Chapter 900 of the statutes: They cover order of court proceedings!

11. It has been 11 weeks as of August 24 - that your company fails to correct itself and the New Haven Court obstructs justice by depriving me of my rights DELIBERATELY. Almost 14 weeks from breaching the lease on June 9, your company claims the self-serving right to steal my prosessions and auction them off. They may have started stealing already. I can’t even access my own unit to find out!

12. This is a case of theft by your company! This is a case of conspiring with judges who even denied a motion for default even though your company defaulted!

13. I have had to prepare a Motion To Argue for every damn denial dated August 11, which they failed to even mail me as a trick to keep me from being aware, knowing and probably involved with the cyber attack of my notebook, to keep me from continuing to defend myself in this cesspool of corruption! August 12, I not only get CERTIFIED MAIL FROM YOUR FACILITY WHICH I REJECTED SINCE IT WAS THE WRONG ADDRESS, BUT THE LANDLORD, WHO RECEIVED THAT CERTIFIED MAIL, ALSO SENT ME A NOTICE MY RENT WAS NOT PAID! They did not cash my check! They have played the

Public Storage routine several times before. This time, I could not call the FBI agent I have relied on to hold their office accountable. This time, they enjoyed the ganging-up on me as a demented experience of satisfaction!

14. How discusting this all is! It is inhuman to put me through all this suffering! I was able to find a company that remotely restored my notebook just a few days ago and have worked very hard on creating the Application for Federal Injunctive Order and these motions for argument as well as the FORM for Motion For Default since it is barcoded and the court likes to play “catch me if you can” and therefore I prepared that form, as defective as it is - since MILITARY AFFIDAVITS ARE NOT MANDATORY, THEY ARE CLEARLY THE CHOICE OF THE PARTY WHO WISHES TO USE IT AS A DEFENSE ON A CASE.

15. A CONTRACT HAS THREE BASIC REQUIREMENTS:

OFFER

CONSIDERATION

ACCEPTANCE

The fact that your company frauded records by removing the contract I signed with Storquest (which had the same language as New Haven Storage did) is not my problem! I still rent a unit there. There is an offer, consideration, and acceptance! The lease with New Haven Self Storage is actually legitamate since your company purchased my account, and have the obligation to continue it.

The lease indicated that I would not even get statements, yet your office kept sending them to me by email and I told them to stop. Nevertheless, those statements did not have any insurance charge! And they did stop when I told them to.

The problem is, there has been no administration of justice with the small claims case against you! I told you I would include charging for the numerous hours and days I had to to spend that lead up to the filing of a small claim! I not only sent you the small claim form and complaint and Appendix via email, but also handcarried it, which was a matter of right, and sent it Priority Mail because the New Haven Superior Court Clerk lied about my not having the right to hand-deliver it!

FRAUDING AND PLAYING “CATCH ME IF YOU CAN” IS What the New Haven Court does! Being members of the Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce should be a call to duty, a call to accountability. It is not - it is an opportunity to conspire, instead!

16. I greatly suggest your company take responsibilty on this matter and it has to be in writing. You have no legal right to my possessions. Your company did NOT overlock my door because of a delinquent account! This is probably some kind of nefarious game you are conspiring with the Bozzuto Company! They placed a lock over mine several months ago because my keys were stolen out of my apartment, they illegally forced their way into my apartment the night before elections took place last November! I was drugged up and could not go anywhere! Most likely raped by even more than one man! Like a gang-rape, as they did to me after I was illicitly arrested in 2006! How convenient for my landlord to refuse to abide by the law by NOT changing my door lock before I move in it! Telling me, “We don’t have to do that; you can trust us” right in the housing court - And I responded:

“You’re trying to illegally evict me and you tell me I can trust you?”

at which time the judge snapped back, “I’m striking that statement” acting as defense for the defense attorney of the case! Which is more than improper, it is illegal! I won that case, yet the landlord nefariously continues to implement a ledger with thousands of dollars in arrears,

which is FRAUDULENT. I am a Section 8 tenant and all onsite charges are to be processed through the New Haven Housing Authority ACCORDING TO HUD LAWS, NOT THEIR WHIMS. And they are a member of the GREATER NEW HAVEN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

17. The problem is YOUR COMPANY, whoever the hell you are since you fail to be transparent - and the court is helping you - stay secret.

18. YOU CANNOT STEAL MY POSSESSIONS. A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO YOUR COMPANY BY THE NEW HAVEN SUPERIOR COURT SINCE I MOTIONED FOR A CEASE AND DESIST, ALONG WITH

DISCLOSURE. YOU CANNOT USE YOUR BUSINESS TO TARGET ME. IN FACT, TARGETING A PERSON IS A CRIME.

Prepared and Submitted

PRIORITY MAIL REQUIRING SIGNATURE

__________________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se /NOTARIZED

Enclosures:

N0! LOOK UP THE CASE THROUGH THE JUDICIAL WEBSITE OF CONNECTICUT

___________________________________________

Case No. NNH-22-5054091 : SUPERIOR COURT

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

VS : AT New Haven, CT

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: August 24. 2022

MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to PB Chapter 13-14, plaintiff motions this court for ORDER OF COMPLIANCE due to the defendant failing to Answer or appear, and fails to disclose its business information. COMPLIANCE specifically to be cured by Enter of Default against Storquest; release of lien, order defendant to pay this small claim of $5,000 and order a fair date for plaintiff to resume paying storage rent WITHOUT INSURANCE, since this matter in dispute has given her cause to withhold rent (which she justifiably does not need to pay at this point) and save it in her bank account as proof of her diligence. - despite having a FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL INCOME and having expenses to support this case.

HISTORY

This aforesaid court failed to hear any of the pre-trial motions and failed to respond to any pretrial action, except for a fee waiver which they delayed processing. Recently the court uploaded a clumped response to all motions, which plaintiff claimed AGAIN violated the Order of Due Process of Law.

Defendant assured the plaintiff that the erroneous insurance charge would be removed for this month’s rent yet it was not removed. Plaintiff legitamately claimed again, she could not pay the bill until they adjust it back to what she owed. Additionally, the defendant mailed plaintiff a fraudulent INSURANCE CANCELLATION NOTICE, when there was no insurance.

Defendant breached the lease by submitting a discontinuance of the lease dated June 9, during the payment period, and ordered the disabled plaintiff to go get her possessions in the unit or they will keep her belongings for themselves, which defendant said is outright THEFT. No lien was given to the plaintiff EVER. Plaintiff was informed by Jeremy Rivera he created one on or about August 10, 2022. He did not mail it to her PO Box as he said he would. Certified letter to her residency was refused. Yet the apartment management deceptively held onto that letter rather than give it back to the postal clerk on August 13, 2022. They also marked it as a new mailing, which was fraudulent. This will be presented in an Appendix, to be proffered on August 25, 2022, due to the continuous need to re-edit this motion due to someone hacking and changing information. Defendant emphasized the lease contract indicates that no cancellation notice may be implemented until she was 30 days past due. She was not even past due, attempting to get this company to correct their wrongdoing - which cost her much time in communications, research - expenses which were first added to this aforesaid lawsuit, and continue to this day.

It was therefore necessary to file this aforesaid lawsuit to motion the court first to order CEASE AND DESIST on Storquest; and further motion DISCLOSURE OF COMPANY INFORMATION since this company has not registered its business and has committed several other fraudulent actions, yet to be clear, this plaintiff, Pro Se, has personally been seeking her rights as a customer, to retain this unit, and for the court to uphold the lease, and since it got to this point, to be reimbursed for time and cost getting this company to abide by the law.

Thereafter, the defendant failed to appear, failed to answer. Plaintiff Motioned for Default as a Matter of Right, according to PB 17-20 (d) yet the court failed to Order Default iaw the law.

Additionally, the court lumped all motions of the plaintiff together and denied each one, backdating to August 11. They were not in the plaintiff’s mail until AFTER August 15, 2022. They were post-dated August 13 on the envelopes.

Plaintiff’s notebook was cyber attacked in July, causing her to be without her own computer for a month. This was fixed remotely on August 16, 2022, after which time plaintiff prepared an Application For Federal Injunctive Order, affidavits, and more to the best of her ability as a Pro Se litigant. She prepared a separate affidavit regarding the unjust Rules of Connecticut Court, particularly since in this case, the Rules only cover the issue of money disputes for Small Claims.

Plaintiff mailed a Cease and Desist letter to the defendant on 8/23/2022 since the court failed to order a Cease And Desist.

This Cease and Desist Letter is being attached to this motion as Appendix A. Remainder of Appendix will be proferred on August 25, due to great loss of time in re-editing this altered motion because hackers frequently altered it.

FACTS

1. Since the court is failing in its obligations to administer the law, including the plaintiff’s constitutional, 14^th Amendment right to Due Process, the plaintiff had to do as much research as possible regarding Attorney Ruth L. Beardsley, who seems to enjoy conspiring with the other two judges (namely Kampf and Abrams) rather than administer the law.

a. This information along with additional documentation, is Appendixed to the Federal Court Application For Injunctive Relief, which has caused more cost and tremendous amount of time in preparing these documents. Preliminary Copy of this Application (only, without Appendix) shall be proferred in Court August 25, 2022.

b. The Small Claims Writ and Complaint Form is DEFECTIVE. One way plaintiff cured defectiveness was to prepare an appearance. THE COURT DESTROYED THE APPEARANCE FORM RATHER THAN RETURN IT TO PLAINTIFF WITH REASON WHY IT REFUSED TO UPLOAD IT ON THE CASE.

a) Plaintiff considers that the New Haven Court carries-out DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD tricks, since they wanted to help Storquest, which is unlawful.

c. LIMITING A SMALL CLAIM is unlawful. Small Claims are heard by all states and the reasons and purposes are and should be documented for the same purpose.

d. Only two laws are cited on the form: CGS 51-15 and CGS 51-345 (g) which only reflects the intent of the form being used by the Judicial Department is nefarious. Their claim for immunity to the law is preposterous. In fact, Judges and law-makers should have an even more obligation to abide by the law since they know the law better than the average citizen.

e. There is no transparency on processes for SMALL CLAIMS. Judicial Rulings should be substantive and supported with law.

f. The State Laws are not consistent with Rules of Practice and vice-versa.

g. THE COURT ACCEPTED THIS AFOREMENTIONED CASE ON ITS MERITS. THEY HAD THE WRIT AND COMPLAINT. THEY ALTERED THE UPLOADING OF THE WRIT AND COMPLAINT - NOT UPLOADING THE APPENDIX AS IT WAS SUBMITTED AND PAGINATED, AND THE REVISED COMPLAINT ENTERED BEFORE OFFICIALLY BEING UPLOADED AND STAMPED IN - IS FLAWED ON RECORD.

a) The Court thereafter ruled the merits of the case are not acceptable by claiming it can only be for disputed sums of money.

b) There are categories for a reason! If all cases were only for sums of money, they would not need to be categorized!

c) THIS AFOREMENTIONED CASE IS JUSTIFIABLY ENTERED FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, coded as S-25 on the Small Claim Form. Yet it appears the court never cured its altering the form when it

cured numerous mix-ups of the upload, re-uploading the case. The Court is obligated to ensure completeness of the form at the time it is taken in, which was when the plaintiff submitted the fee waiver. Supporting Documents thereafter revised had nothing to do with the Form or the Complaint. They remained unchanged.

2. MOTION FOR DEFAULT SHALL BE - not MAY BE - ORDERED GRANTED BY THE CLERK on parties who fail to appear! This is clearly issued in PB 17-20 (d), as emphasized in the Application For Injunctive Order. That rule is part of the ORDERS OF PROCEDURE !

a) This case is not involving a contract to pay a definite sum.

b) This case is not involving a promise to pay liquidated damages

c) This case in not involving ORDER FOR WEEKLY PAYENTS

d) The CPB emphasizes that DEFAULTS ARE ENTERED IMMEDIATELY ON PARTIES WHO FAIL TO APPEAR; to include the Court Clerk’s obligation to GRANT in this case, plaintiff’s Motion For Judgment. CPB 17-20 and CPB 17-28

e) PB 17-30 (b) If the defendant in a summary process action appears but does not plead within two days after the return day or within three days after the filing of the preceding pleading or motion, the plaintiff may file a motion for judgment for FAILURE TO PLEAD, ….the judicial authority shall forthwith enter judgment that the plaintiff recover possession or occupancy WITH COSTS.

i. This small claims case is on the SHORT CALENDAR, which is where SUMMARY PROCESS cases are docketed.

ii. No Rule can be made to target whoever the court chooses to target. Obviously it is clear that the court is required to uphold the failure to appear/plead with one

iii. cure only: GRANT MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT.

iv. Plaintiff emphasizes that in her Emergency Application for Injunctive Order, to be entered in Federal Court tomorrow, August 25, she argued that Judge John Abrams, who is made the Senior Judge of Civil Case matters in the New Haven Superior Court, has greatly harmed her in the past, including an unlawful eviction and aiding and abetting Public Storage to steal her possessions through fraudulent billing. This was brought up in her Emergency Motion To Transfer Venue, as well as other supporting matters.

3. Pretrial motions were issued yet the court failed to act on them in Due Process Order:

a) Motion for Disclosure, entered as document 102.00. Dated 6/16/2022; the aforesaid company is not registered as a business in Connecticut. In fact plaintiff has spent full days in researching this matter, including checking with the city records department on the owner of the building. This had been relayed in that motion. For the court to fail to determine who the ACTUAL defendant is before uploading this case, is an act of FRAUD at the least.

i. Magistrate Ruth L. Beardsley denied the motion claiming there was no proof of delivery, despite the fact it was certified to the defendant as well as emailed and mailed. According the Rules of Practice, it only had to be sent First Class Mail and certified. This judge’s ruling is malicious and vexatious. In fact, they all are, which is argued in these facts.

b) Motion To Cease and Desist, which was eventually uploaded as Document 103.00 of this case. 6/16/2022; Yet Magistrate Beardsley denied it, backdating the order to August 11, 2022 and enjoying the fact that the plaintiff did not have use of her notebook since it was cyber attacked approximately a month before.

i. The defendant has no right to force a new charge of insurance on plaintiff when the lease clearly establishes that NO INSURANCE IS REQUIRED TO BE RETAINED, PLAINTIFF IS SELF-INSURED, which is

defined as ongoing until such a time when either party breaches contract/lease or customer notifies the the storage facility that she would be moving her possessions out, providing sufficient notice. Neither has occurred until June, when Storquest breached the lease by blocking her monthly payment AND discontinuing the lease when the rent was not even past due. No Storage Facility may take it upon themselves to just tell a lease-abiding customer they have to empty their unit. It is a violation of the contract. They have to show cause. There is no cause. The defendant broke the lease/contract. Aforesaid Small Claim is defined by this court as a CONTRACT. The state laws governing storage units are written only to favor the storage facility, not addressing any rights of the customers.

c) It is the right of the plaintiff to submit a Small Claim due to BREACH OF CONTRACT, S-25. The State of Connecticut’s failure to provide rules to cover this circumstance is defective by the state. Plaintiff considers the court REFUSING ARGUMENT altogether is also defective. Argument on papers is a matter of right! That is the whole point of entering a case to begin with. The case was taken in thus reflecting the merits of the case existed!

i. For the Court Clerk, an Attorney, to refuse to grant the MOTION FOR DEFAULT when the defendant failed to even appear, let alone answer, is on its face, ILLEGAL. PB 17-20 (d)

ii. The Judiciary Committee cannot twist the the laws governing small claims to fit its whims, as it had done on many aspects of law when former State Representative Mike Lawlor was enjoying the power of being the leader of this committee. He was very unliked and considered to be an extreme narcissist - behavior which disables the assurance of justice from a person who chooses to be this way. Through much effort of the Town Of East Haven residents, they

achieved their goal, intercepting rigged elections and Representative Lawlor was “out of a job”.

iii. Yet Representative Lawor enjoyed being a law teacher at the University of New Haven, where plaintiff was illicitly arrested in 2006 while a matriculated student. She got no rights as a matriculated student, thereby reflecting this so-called law teacher failing to even assure what goes on around him to be legitamate. The case was continued past the statute of limitations, at which time the plaintiff motioned AGAIN for dismissal - this time on the very fact the Statute of Limitations was reason, along with reminding the court the case had no merit. The court’s denial of this motion was illegal since it was ONE YEAR PAST STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. Presenting this problem to then Attorney General Richard Blumenthal created an even bigger problem, for he sabatoged her and allowed the court to adduce charges, thus violating the laws even more, including Double Jeopardy, charging her twice for Breach of Peace when she was never even near the the Office of President of University of New Haven, who they claimed to be victim, who was the boss of a church member, the same church plaintiff attended, who lied to her and those lies were not realized until she appeared at trial. (Lucy Wendland) The state’s attorney in that court was Mike Lawlor’s brother. The supervising prosecutor was Lawrence Mark Hurley, who was arrested for so many counts of embezzlement that he would have been put in prison for the rest of his life for fraud - removing signatures using a chemical he kept either on his person or even right in his office and then forging signatures and depositing these checks into his secret bank accounts. The officiating judge in Middletown only limited the state police to audit for three years, yet it was clearly evident that there was plenty of probable cause to allow more of an audit, yet they were refused by the court. In fact, the court changed these federal charges to misdemeanors - only

making them one count forgery, and one count larceny - despite the fact that MANY counts existed.

d) This case has evolved into creating more of a platform of corruption by the court of New Haven and an obvious illegitamate defendant. Their membership in the GREATER NEW HAVEN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE seems to be “promise of assurance” they would never lose any case brought against them, similar to what the mafia promise to its members.

FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS,

FAILURE TO ESTABLISH ACTUAL IDENTITY OF THE DEFENDANT;

FAILURE TO ENSURE THE STATE IS NOT FRAUDING RECORDS;

AND NOT COMPELLING THIS DEFENDANT-COMPANY TO DISCLOSE ITS COMPANY INFORMATION AS WELL AS CEASE AND DESIST.

e) This aforesaid court is serving its wants, not administering the law.

i. ALL OF PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS WERE WRONGFULLY DENIED

1. MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE: denied for “failure to attach Proof of Delivery”

a) This judge is making up rules to fit whims and wants obviously directed by the GREATER NEW HAVEN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

b) The motion was Certified as being mailed to the defendant, as well as emailed. ADDITIONALLY, THE MOTION WAS ENCLOSED WITH THE COMPLAINT, SENT PRIORITY MAIL, AND PROOF OF DELIVERY WAS PROVIDED TO THE COURT!

c) MOTION FOR CEASE AND DESIST: Denied with no reason. Court claims the issues will be raised at trial, a deliberate deceptive tactic to

evade its duties to administer law, since it knew there would be no trial!

d) MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE: Deinied as “improper” despite the court not only being improper but ILLEGAL IN ITS PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES.

e) MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT: Magistgrate Beardsley DENIED this, YET IT IS THE COURT CLERK’S OBLIGATION TO GRANT IT. Additionally, the court’s inept reference to “see order regarding Motion to Disclose or Accept Service” is not only admittance of MODUS OPERANDI, but most certainly its complete disregard to hear motions individually and respond to them.

f) UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

In order for a commercial code to be applied, there has to be commerce. This is not a commercial circumstance. Plaintiff never stored her personal property as a business.

She stored personal property. Plaintiff’s current landlord, since January 2013, made her move in a small studio apartment despite allowing other single Section 8 tenants to have one-bedroom apartments. Additionally, the UCC, Article 7, cannot be found in its entirety to print, online. The sources are flooded with advertisements, opinions, and extractions.

(f) Though the the court had properly uploaded this case, with all paginations in order, the court has disrupted all documents AFTER the download was created; which means this court record was frauded on MANY COUNTS yet this record seems to have been reversed back to what it was when they uploaded it after the fee waiver was finally approved, just prior to when plaintiff’s notebook/laptop was cyber attacked and she was unable to use it for a month. Total pages should be over 150 pages. Currently, the Appendix is in tact, yet defined as “Exhibits”. The plaintiff saw no missing documents at the time the

record was corrected as it was first uploaded.

i. To date, the plaintiff has noticed that the COURT CLERK’S ORDER OF DEFAULT, as inept as it is, is not uploaded on this case.

ii. To date, the plaintiff has also noticed the court’s failure to upload the plaintiff’s appearance, which was submitted on the apparance form along with the complaint and Small Claims Writ - the court has no right to throw out signed documents, yet it was even

witnessed as being done when the plaintiff submitted her Fee Waiver with the Small Claim in person. The clerk crumbled up pages of the 5-page GOVERNMENT-ISSUED FORM, which was illegal, despite the defectiveness of the form itself - which was cured in part by submitting a separate appearance form upon the court’s delayed granting of fee waiver

iii. To date, the plaintiff emphasizes the Small Claim Form, which was completed by the court, .

when it was first uploaded, now has missing information, including the Case Type.

(g) WHATEVER THIS COMPANY’S IDENTITY IS, THE COURT FAILS TO SATISFY AS A REQUIREMENT OF A VALID CASE. This deceptive trick has impaired justice on this case. Yet it is also reflecting deliberate intent by the court to impair justice. The defendant did not have an agent of service, was not registered as a company in Connecticut; and upon calling the Secretary of State, they treated this as “What we don’t know is not our problem” circumstance, despite the fact the Secretary of State is probably an attorney herself, as was her predecessor, who is now Lt. Governor - Susan Biesywiecz (unsure of spelling).

(h) The lease is double-sided; ONE PAGE; signed at the bottom by the plaintiff-customer. And the BACK PAGE had limited paragraphs which the plaintiff- customer initialed off on. This problem is secondary

to the very fact that Storquest is breaching the lease

by trying to force the plaintiff to pay for insurance which she never wanted these past TEN YEARS, and never paid for because it was clearly an option only.

(i) The fact that there are alterations to the lease is not the issue in this case since the lease continues to show that the plaintiff is self-insured and is not required to purchase any storage facility insurance. She personally considers that as a business scam.

(j) The court clerks issued notes on the documents plaintiff has submitted as the APPENDIX - they returned them to her in the mail and ordered her to just bring them at the hearing - which of course, the

court had no intention of conducting. THEY ARE MADE PART OF RECORD NOW FOR 2 REASONS: VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW and to substantiate the deliberate, malicious and vexatious violation of the defendant in complying with the lease that has been on record for nearly ten years! Plaintiff emphasizes the court administers its duties using a DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD agenda, not application of the law.

(k) Although the RETURN DATE of defendant is set at July 27, the defendant has not RETURNED ANYTHING, NOT EVEN ITS APPEARANCE - yet the New Haven Court is failing to administer the law even a month later. Date of this motion: August 24, 2022.

(l) Time added to workload in proceding with plaintiff’s rights, preparing aforesaid motion and also studying the current fraudulent case documents re-uploaded in their system: 8 hours/ 1full day.

29.36 x 8 = $234.88

(m) Additional time due to cyber hacking and need for further updating information: 16 hrs x $29.36 = $496.76

Running Total of the Cost of this case exceeds $5,000 and more than justifies this small claim - to include

CEASE AND DESIST

ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE

WAIVE COSTS FOR RENT DURING THIS CASE

LAW

CPB 17-20 (d) (as stated in Facts)

CPB 13-14: “If any party has failed to answer….the judicial authority may order (1) Entry of nonsuit or default against the party failing to comply; (2) the award to the discovering

party of the costs of the motion, including a reasonable attorney’s fee; (3) the entry of an order….

Due Process of Law, 14^th Amendment

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

CGS Chapter 743, Section 42

Sec. 42-159. Definitions.

Sec. 42-160. Owner's lien upon defaulting occupant's property. Regulations.

Sec. 42-161. Satisfaction of lien. Notice to occupant and holders of security interest.

Sec. 42-162. Contents of notice.

Sec. 42-163. Sale or disposition of property; where held.

Sec. 42-164. Advertisement of, and time for sale. Allocation of proceeds.

Sec. 42-165. Redemption of property by occupant or holder of security interest.

Sec. 42-166. Rights of purchaser in good faith.

Sec. 42-167. Disposition of balance of proceeds following satisfaction of lien.

Sec. 42-168. Other remedies of parties not impaired.

Sec. 42-169. Reserved

In the Definition Section, “Self-Service Storage Facility”

42a-1-201, for the personal property stored, the owner and the occupant are subject to the provisions of article 7 of the Uniform Commercial Code and the provisions of this chapter do not apply.

LEASE: First Page is issue in dispute: CUSTOMER IS CONSIDERED SELF-INSURED IF THEY ELECT NOT TO PURCHASE INSURANCE.

SUMMARY

Had the court just ordered a Cease And Desist due to fraudulent billing, this case would have been promptly resolved and disposed of. Yet rather, they kept it going, to keep causing harm to the plaintiff. No court has a right to impede the law! Just as a convicted paedophile being sentenced to life imprisonment has no right to become a fugitive from justice, even living among society with an altered identity.

No lien that has no validation on it, no signature, no date, AND NOT EVEN SENT TO THE PLAINTIFF (The plaintiff instead went to the office when Jeremy Rivera was not there, and picked up a printed copy, which was all the company retained. The employee, Frankie, another Assistant Manager, did not feel comfortable Signing it.)

Former Summary - to consider since the file was altered:

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 responsibilility for their nefarious actions by adjusting the balance. The manager promised they would remove the insurance charge. It is on plaintiff’s voicemail. Yet he also retracted it and that is also on recording, as referenced to the court. There will be no Due Process in this current court due to their frequent abuse of procedure and now, the ultimate, frauding the upload of the file.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff moves this court to order COMPLIANCE of the lease by Storquest this case, which includes prohibiting them from seizing her property and auctioning it, and to continue to abide by the lease which they have on file. Costs affected by this exceed $5,000 - which is an obligation for Storquest to pay. And all rent during these proceedings should be waived as a matter of right since an escrow was created to show diligence.

Appendix was proferred on August 26, 2022.

Prepared and Submitted

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

F E D E R A L C O U R T C O P Y

__________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

CERTIFICATION OF MAILING

Made on August 24, 2022

Aforesaid Motion has been duly served USPS First Class Mail, to NON-APPEARING DEFENDANT, who legally lost its right to even obtain copies yet New Haven Superior Court makes up its rules to fit whims.

ERRATAS OF AUGUST 29, 2022 emailed to non-appearing Defendant below

No Agent of Service On Record

Storquest Storage Facility

140 Ferry Street

New Haven, CT 06513

FAX: 203-772-4054

NewHaven02@storquest.com _____________________

ORDER

THE AFORESAID MOTION HAVING BEEN HEARD, IS GRANTED/DENIED

___________________

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

MICROSOFT IS MESSING WITH THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ORDER, TO KEEP ME FROM SHARING!

CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT ANNE M. BRADLEY

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN PO BOX 206514

235 CHURCH STREET NEW HAVEN, CT 06520

NEW HAVEN, CT 06510

Docket Number: NNH-CV-22-5054091-S Notice Issued: 7/28/2022

Case Caption: BRADLEY, ANNE M. V STORQUEST SELF STORAGE ASSOCIATION

(SSA)

JDNO NOTICE Sequence #: 1

This copy is retyping of actual order, for ease in viewing

7/29/2022

A default has entered against the non-responsive defendant (s), because the defendant (s) has not filed an Answer by the Answer Date. This means that a judge/magistrate may enter a judgment against the defendant (s).

A judge/magistrate will review the file; if the claim comes under Section 24-24 of the Connecticut Practice Book, meaning it is a claim based on an express or implied promise to pay a definite sum of money (a promise to pay a specific amount of money) and it asks only for liquidated damages (an amount agreed to by the parties at the time the promise to pay was made, that would be be paid as damages), and if the affidavits required by Section 24-24 have been filed, the magistrates/judge may enter judgment against the defendant (s) without a hearing. If the affidavit requirements are not met, the clerk will schedule a hearing and the magistrate/judge will require the plaintiff or plaintiff’s representative to come to the hearing. If the defendant (s) files an Answer at any time before a judgment is made in the case, including if the defendant (s) files an Answer at the time of hearing, the default entered against the defendant (s) will be canceled automatically. If the Answer is filed at the time of a hearing, the judicial authority will postpone the hearing if the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s representative asks for it.

NOTICE RE: MILITARY AFFIDAVIT: This matter will be reviewed in about 7-10 days from this date. If the military affidavit will be more than 45 days old at review, plaintiff should immediately file an updated military affidavit.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: To view your case, visit the judicial website at JUD.CT.GOV (select “Case Lookup)

For help with forms, please contact the Court Service Center at 203-503-6819. For small claims, please contact the clerk’s office (203-503-6800)

For directions to the courthouse, pleaase visit the judicial website at JUD.CT.GOV (select PUBLIC, then select DIRECTIONS TO COURTS AND FACILITIES)

THEY DIDN'T SUCCEED...THEY TRIED TO SAVE OVER THE DOCUMENT

TO MAKE ME LOSE IT ON FILE

I QUICKLY SAID NO TO "DO YOU WANT TO SAVE CHANGES"

________________________________________________________

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

I REDUCED THIS RANT TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE APPLICATION I AM PASTING

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!

PLEASE TREAT THIS AS AN EMERGENCY APPLICATION 8/29/2022

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the

District of New Haven

Connecticut Division

)

) Case No. __________________ )

ANNE M. BRADLEY )

)

V. )

)

SUPERIOR COURT OF )

NEW HAVEN )

)

IN THE MATTER OF )

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se )

V )

Storquest Storage Association )

COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION

APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE ORDER

August 29, 2022

I. The Parties To This Complaint

A. The Plaintiff(s)

Anne M. Bradley

Mailing: PO Box 206514

New Haven, CT 06510

PHONE: 203-909-9131

Email address: bradley.annemarie@gmail.com

B. The Defendant(s)

a) SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT

NEW HAVEN COURTHOUSE

235 CHURCH STREET

NEW HAVEN, CT 06510

II. Basis For Jurisdiction

a) FEDERAL QUESTION

i. FEDERAL STATUTES

1. 27 U.S. Code Section 122a -

Injunctive Relief In Federal District Court

2. Contract Law

a) Laws Printed, in Appendix

b) Source: Cornell University website

3. Due Process - 14^TH Amendment

4. Failure to Appear on Case

a) As Stated on Cornell Univ website

5. Judicial Misconduct

a) As stated in Rules of Professional Conduct

b) IRREPERABLE HARM

(1) There is no adequate remedy at the NEW HAVEN SUPERIOR COURT level due to repeated, deliberate LACK OF DUE PROCESS, use of court clerk to implement unlawful orders, and more

(2) Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction; LOSS OF HER POSSESSIONS; CAUSED BY STORQUEST STORAGE ASSOCIATION BREACHING LEASE CONTRACT

(3) Plaintiff claims she should prevail on the merits of this Application

(4) The balance of the equities tips in Plaintiff’s favor.

III. RELIEF SOUGHT BY INJUNCTIVE ORDER

Superior Court of New Haven must order

1. Storquest to CEASE & DESIST (Pre-Trial motion submitted with served Complaint, along with Certified Mailing Prepared - Motion FOR COMPLIANCE has been entered on Superior Court’s DenialS of all plaintiff’s motions, entered at the same time, August 12, 2022, which plaintiff considers to be inept)

a. Fraudulent Billing

b. Remove Charge of Insurance

c. Insurance NOT REQUIRED

a) Lease says:

To the extent occupant does not maintain such insurance, occupant shall be deemed to have ‘self insured’ totally

d. DISABLED PLAINTIFF TO CONTINUE AS A STORAGE CUSTOMER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LEASE ON RECORD.

AND

2. For this Federal District Court to Order New Haven Superior Court to order DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS MOTIONED BY PLAINTIFF, PRO SE, IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, ANNE M. BRADLEY, DUE TO LACK OF DILIGENCE BY STORQUEST - INCLUDING NON-APPEARANCE AND FAILURE TO ANSWER ON THE CASE. (Motion to Argue has been entered on Superior Court’s Denial of Motion For Default Judgment, which plaintiff considers to be inept)

AND

3. ORDER New Haven Superior Court to act on MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE; due to the very fact Storquest was not registered as a business in the State of Connecticut, has no agent of service, is NOT a member of the local Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce, is not in the database of the Better Business Bureau, provides no physical address of its corporate office on its website, and refuses to provide plaintiff this public information which is NOT public.

IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIM/HISTORY

1. Storquest Storage Facility (which has an undefined business structure) added an insurance charge to the plaintiff’s account, which intercepted her phone-pay payment in June 2022, which is successfully used each month.

a) The payment of autopay through her bank, issuing checks became a great burden AFTER Storquest took over New Haven Self Storage Facility in New Haven, CT in 2017. Plaintiff’s purse and/or wallet was stolen on several occasions after Storquest took over. This caused changes to her account and need to re-request BILL PAY online when also her Dell laptop was being hacked and even destruction of her hardware, which created long periods of time before she could use it again. In fact, her Dell laptop was cyber attacked in 2019, and she was without a computer for six months or more. Since then, her notebook was also attacked and her bank blocks her from being able to use online banking due to high cyber security risks, which was reasonable.

2. Insurance is NOT required on the lease. PLAINTIFF IS DEFINED AS SELF-INSURED.

3. Plaintiff emphasized the lease and emphasized the company was blocking her from processing her $142.51 monthly payment by adding a $15 insurance charge. She requested they remove charge so she can pay her storage rent.

4. Though employee, Jeremy Rivera, said he would remove the charge, he did not. He actually reversed what he said with no explanation, only saying, “You’re not going to like this” in a voicemail. Plaintiff directed the court to saved recordings - all pinned to her Twitter account, @AnneBra64578737 - an account name nefariously devised by Twitter despite a more appropriate and easier to remember name was ACCEPTED prior to that.

a) Note, those audios were posted, yet they have been technocratically altered - for the most part, they were layered on each other, so sounds and some dialogue are out of place. This is a situation which reflects: The absence of evidence is evidence of absence; due to altering videos to ELIMINATE WHAT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED.

b) There was no objection by Storquest. In fact, Storquest failed to show any diligence, clearly knowing this case existed since they received the court documents electronically, by Priority Mail, and the SMALL CLAIM WRIT AND COMPLAINT with the two pre-trial motions were ALSO hand-carried to Storquest’s office, which is a matter of right, contrary to what the New Haven Superior Court Clerk told her was not legitmate. Plaintiff argued that the Rules Of Court allow it. Nevertheless, these documents were all sent Priority Mail and by email. ONLY FIRST CLASS MAIL is required for pleadings, yet the issue of dishonesty by Storquest was evident, costing the plaintiff more money to assert her rights, retaining proof of service as well as providing the court certification of service.

5. Plaintiff warned both Storquest employee as well as Storquest customer service, that she would file a Small Claim if they do not comply with the lease, since she has paid rent timely for 9 years and 7 months.

a) Small Claim was entered due to BREACH OF CONTRACT, which is a legitimate reason, as shown in Appendix G on Laws

6. Storquest District Manager in New York said the lease was insignificant and that she demanded plaintiff to pay insurance. Plaintiff said, “No, remove the charge or I will have to file a lawsuit in court.” The corporate office address and other contact information, which should be public, was being withheld, and it is not provided in the Storquest.com website.

7. Throughout the last two weeks in June and the first week in July, the New Haven Courthouse used means of delay as well as misinforming the plaintiff regarding her rights. Plaintiff had to cite laws and regulations demanding her rights and told them she was not putting up with their DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD TRICKS. For instance they ordered her NOT to submit supporting documents and to take them to trial. Certainly a trick, since they had no intent of ordering the defendant Storquest to file an appearance or Answer.

8. Plaintiff discovered that the New Haven Superior Court was altering uploaded records. Though they reversed their activity to a good degree.

9. Default Order was entered by the court at APPENDIX A. This Judgment was never uploaded on the case. The court BACKDATED this judgment to July 28, ONE DAY AFTER ANSWER DATE, which plaintiff considers to be another DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD TRICK, SINCE DEFENDANT HAS TWO DAYS FROM ANSWER DATE TO FILE PLEADING. This judgment cited the following:

a) CPB 24-24. WHEN (and only when) A CASE IS BASED ON EXPRESS PROMISE TO PAY…..Plaintiff claims this Practice Book Rule does not apply!

i. The court did not indicate at any time it was an error of the court.

ii. If the case’s merit had to reflect a PROMISE TO PAY, THE COURT WAS OBLIGATED TO DISMISS THE CASE ON LACK OF MERIT. Of course, this case has merit.

iii. This DEFAULT ORDER was NEVER UPLOADED ON THE CASE, Plaintiff has claimed in her Emergency Motion For Transfer of Venue that this court issued a deliberately defective Default Order,

iv. In fact, the Court Clerk is obligated to grant plaintiff’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT, entered on August 29, 2022, two days after Answer Date.

1. CPB 17-20(d)

v. Five or more days thereafter, another BACKDATED document was sent to the plaintiff, Appendix B. “NOTICE OF INSURANCE CANCELLATION”, dated July 18, 2022, which the plaintiff NEVER even suggested pursuing. She continued to emphasize that she was self-insured and the office had to abide by the lease on record.

1. On August 17, 2022, plaintiff called the alleged insurance company, Xercor Insurance Services, LLC, allegedly located in Indianapolis, IN, as provided at Appendix B. They told the plaintiff they did not have any insurance file on the plaintiff, that Storquest was the keeper of their insurance files. Plaintiff claimed to that alleged representative that at no point could Storquest retain such a document since they were a separate company and plaintiff claimed they were lying anyway because she never completed any insurance document, always maintaining insurance was not required and they were breaching the lease if they attempt to FORCE her to get insurance. Emails to and from Storquest, 2022, Appendix L. She told them to drop this issue or she would have to file a lawsuit against them. They dropped this issue in 2018 and never was there any charge for insurance or any inference they would be charging her. The Storquest Lease had the same language and she signed it; yet Storquest removed that lease from record. Lease with New Haven Self Storage, at the same facility, was signed January 2013. Storquest did not amend the lease with its company information.

a) This proof was presented to the Superior Court of New Haven, showing prior statements from StorQuest.

b) Yet in June 2022, they added the insurance charge which plaintiff presumed to be an error, yet later determined it was deliberate fraud due to the continuous lies and fraudulent behavior by a Jeremy Rivera, the Assistant Manager, along with customer service only relaying what they are told to relay by Storquest Management, including an “It’s none of your business what our corporate address is” as an answer to a request for public information. Yet a few representatives did mention the Corporate Office is at Santa Monica and Plaintiff discovered an address at that city under Storquest using opencorporates.com - which thereafter technocratically blocked the plaintiff; and plaintiff claims that is at the least, fraud, abuse of power.

10. During this time in which Storquest fully understood plaintiff has legally disputed their unlawful insurance charge, the Superior Court of New Haven literally allowed this storage facility to proceed with an unlawful lien, despite the fact the Plaintiff reported this to the court, also emphasizing this in her EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE.

11. Storquest claims that they will take her possessions, and just use a LIEN (that has no validation), Appendix E, on the possessions of the plaintiff belonging to them. This unlawful behavior is very similar to what Public Storage did to the plaintiff, who issued a case against them for their fraudulent billing. Judge John Abrams presided - the same judge who illicitly evicted plaintiff in a housing case that had no merit (2009 NOTICE TO QUIT without merit; case continued to 2010) The lease indicated the landlord was required to provide a 60-day notice. Additionally, disabled tenants who remained current on rent, are supposed to be relocated by the landlord or the city of New Haven, according to Housing regulations which were cited by the plaintiff. Thereafter, this Housing Judge was moved to Civil Court and the Judicial Review Counsel excused his deliberate dishonest actions there, on the Public Storage Case as: “Well, he only has had experience in Housing issues” - refusing to respond to the fact that this judge ILLEGALLY EVICTED THE PLAINTIFF, to include not even waiting the number of days to issue an order, which plaintiff claimed was motivated to intercept her emergency motion into the US Supreme Court, which strategically ruled thereafter that it was moot because she was illegally evicted, which made no sense at all to the plaintiff; and thereafter she motioned to be reinstated in her apartment, yet her motion was ignored by the court which John Abrams presided. Compliance is replaced by Alliance in these courts - an “Everybody’s Doing It” agenda, as is the argument of the applicant/plaintiff in this application.

12. Regarding the Public Storage case, Judge Abrams’ nefarious involvement with that included getting the marshal to refuse to serve the summons and complaint in 2012, Appendix J; Abrams - 4 and all others marked “Abrams”, which was mailed to him by the plaintiff, to Public Storage and despite knowing this case was submitted on record, the judge allowed Public Storage to auction off her possessions, many of which had sentimental value, from her childhood, since she was forced to live in a studio apartment that was as small as the current SECTION 8 studio she lives in now - despite this management providing one-bedrooms with living rooms to other single-SECTION 8 tenants. (Yet one Section 8 tenant has married this year, which probably helped Housing Authority and this Landlord, owned by a weather altering service, to change demographics) Judge John Abrams was clearly aware that Public Storage never paid the plaintiff $450 which they owed her from the prior small claim settlement; additionally their billing was nefarious, lying about not receiving her rent payment, at which time she proved to the court that it was sent by providing them a copy, which seemed to instigate this “need” to throw out the case by getting the marshall not to serve what was appropriately mailed to him. Thereafter, plaintiff needed to work on packing and moving to her current residence, January 2013, and was unable to further work on a case which had a judge who she had no confidence in due to his deliberate abuse of power and intent for being malicious and vexatious.

13. Plaintiff went to the Storquest office on August 13, Saturday. She explained to Frankie, the office employee, who has the title of Assistant Manager now, that a certified letter was sent to her residence and she refused it. The evening concierge entered a refusal on record, which was intercepted by the lead concierge, who works days (wife to Jose, who was promoted to the management office and thereafter his wife took his place after the lead concierge named Fabian left employment for unknown reasons. They frequently devise “kabitzing” circumstances of deceit, which the plaintiff has experienced.) Plaintiff looked up the tracking information and realized it came from Storquest. Appendix E. Jeremy Rivera knew that they could only send her mail to her Post Office Box well in advance of this. They also knew they could email her. She never told them to stop email after her notebook was cyber attacked. Yet Jeremy would not send her an attachment of the lien despite sending her the “Eviction Notice” in the same manner. StorQuest breached the lease by telling her they were cancelling the lease when in fact, the plaintiff was not even delinquent. Storquest failed to remedy this billing problem - resulting in the plaintiff having to file a small claim lawsuit against them. STORQUEST SHOWED NO DILIGENCE ON THE SMALL CLAIM CASE AGAINST THEM.

a) Frankie, the STORQUEST employee in the office at the time plaintiff went there in person, provided a printout of the lien document, not signed, on August 12, 2022. It is NOT dated, it is NOT requring a date due for payment, and it is not signed by anyone. Frankie would not sign it. He also acknowledged that Jeremy ORDERED for the plaintiff to not be allowed in the office, which is also what Jeremy said to her when she demanded documentation to validate their fraudulent billing. There is no authority, there is no validation. They just claim they can steal the plaintiff’s possessions.

b) The overlock on the unit had been there since November 2021. The day prior to elections at the city office building, Plaintiff’s keys were stolen, her apartment was burglarized, and she was drugged, unable to do anything for a day, which they had done to her twice before, even having severe contusions on her back from obvious assault. This most recent occurrence resulted in a severe vaginal infection which lead to a bladder/kidney infection. She had to have an urgent visit with her doctor at which time the nurse practitioner ordered a strange antibiotic, which caused very discomforting side effects, yet did cure the severe infection, which caused her to have a temperature of 91 degrees.

i. Plaintiff Anne Bradley asked him where a copy of the signed document is because she wanted to know what authority approved such action, particularly since Storquest failed to show any diligence on the case. Frankie said, “Jeremy just signs them and sends them out. We don’t keep any signed copies that I know of.” Frankie provided a printed, unsigned copy, which is included as Appendix E.

ii. Jeremy Rivera sent something to the plaintiff CERTIFIED on August 12, at which time it was refused by Applicant/Plaintiff AND that was when plaintiff called the office, and Jeremy refused to give her any documentation, and said she was not allowed to go in their office. Plaintiff then went to the office since he did not use the mailing address which he was told to use and Jeremy refused to provide her a copy of what he sent. Significant to this is no indication why they removed the insurance charge, which Jeremy Rivera has insisted to date by phone that she still had to pay. There is nothing this form corrects. It was not even sent to the plaintiff. In fact, Jeremy continues to instigate plaintiff, calling her on August 21, lying about her getting his CERTIFIED MAIL, when he knew it was refused. FRAUDING AND ABUSE WOULD describe his behavior, which STORQUEST is rewarding him for.

V. FACTS/ARGUMENT

a) STORQUEST BREACHED THE LEASE CONTRACT

i. Plaintiff is self-insured and has the right to be self-insured

1. Storquest actually prepared a lease which had the same lease agreement, which plaintiff signed; yet Storquest fraudulently removed that contract from its file yet kept the original and altered it by adding paragraphs which were not signed for by the plaintiff.

a) Original Lease contract went up to Paragraph 8, possibly as high as 10, as Plaintiff recalls. No more. In fact, all added paragraphing cannot fit on the back of the lease. Plaintiff’s apartment is frequently illegally entered and her documents are oftentimes stolen, as well as her apartment being vandalized. This Section 8 Landlord never changed her door lock, nor did Housing Court order them to even though it was brought up by the plaintiff when this landlord was attempting to illicitly evict her, which they failed to do since pressure was placed on the judge to do his job rather than assist this landlord, as he was doing.

ii. Storquest broke the lease during the payment period allowed, on June 9, 2022 - REFUSING A CURE. THIS IS ALSO BREACH OF CONTRACT.

1. Plaintiff affirms that her rent was not past due legally, since a 10-day period is allowed to pay rent.

2. Storquest BLOCKED her ability to pay by phone, by unlawfully imposing an insurance charge which she would not allow, as a customer for almost 10 years at that facility, never having to pay for insurance, as according to the lease contract.

b) NEW HAVEN SUPERIOR COURT fails to administer laws or rules and even breaks them to fit their whims.

i. IN CONSIDERING INTENTIONS, PLAINTIFF is sharing discoveries and experiences

ii. JUDGE ABRAMS, CHIEF CIVIL JUDGE

1. As already emphasized

a) Judge Abrams illicitly evicted the plaintiff from her home in 2010. He also released a full year’s of rent which she paid into court, emphasizing the case had no merit; AFTER HE UNLAWFULLY ORDERED THE MARSHAL TO SMASH IN HER DOOR AND USE A SECRET CODE TO TURN OFF HER ADT SYSTEM. Plaintiff ended up in an out of state hospital, left word with the court that she would be released in a few days and had every intent to sustain her rights. In turn, they had the Psyche Manager of the psyche unit at that hospital dress as an orderly and deceive her that he was taking her to the medical unit as the ICU doctor relayed. Instead, he kidnapped her and locked her in the unit. And Judge Abrams released the money to Corey Spruill when she was unable to defend herself. Note, no rent could be paid into court if she was behind on rent. Yet they got Corey Spruill to play their DEVILS CHESSBOARD and illegally file a small claim, accusing her of not paying her rent. This judge could have had that small claim expunged from record because he knew it had no merit. Instead, Judge Abrams used the nefarious small claim accusing plaintiff of owing rent as a “wild card” to keep the case going yet plaintiff continued to pay her rent into court, having proved the rent was current! She always paid timely rent and even gave that landlord, Corey Spruill, two additional months in advance because he was short on money and she was able to provide that after getting ONLY A SMALL PORTION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY SHE QUALIFIED FOR, since she applied in 2006; and they were required to make it retroactive, yet only provided her a few months’ of social security disability in 2008 - qualified due to deterioration of injuries sustained when she was hit head-on by a 20 ton sander truck after telling a stalking sex trafficker in that town to leave her alone, he was a pig. They also erected a restaurant where she was almost killed, to mock what she said. They named it “Pig’s Ear”.

i. The Housing Court/Judge Abrams also nefariously had that small claims/housing case heard in the city offices - not court. Plaintiff considered it to be unlawful. Yet plaintiff was threatened with default of her COUNTERCLAIM as well as the claim by Corey Spruill, if she did not show up. All documents she previously entered as pre-trial documents were NOT uploaded for public view and most likely fraudulently removed from record, since the court refused to produce them when plaintiff requested the file in person. This violates all procedure for short calendar cases.

b) Judge Abrams intercepted plaintiff’s rights regarding Public Storage, when he was transferred to New Britain Court. See Appendix J, Abrams 1-9.(Plaintiff is unable to share prior housing case/illicit eviction due to records being in her storage unit) Plaintiff told the Judicial Review Counsel it was her impression they rewarded his corruption by transferring Judge Abrams to New Britain since Public Storage lied that they did not get her rent money order and she proved she paid for it so they would have to wait for it to clear and the USPS would give them a check. Meantime, she continued to pay her rent to Public Storage, yet they nefariously added $250 in charges,

i. Details on this Superior Court Case against Public Storage have been entered in Superior Court Case against Storquest - particularly due to obvious MODUS OPERANDI of Judge Abrams.

iii. Judge Kampf

1. Plaintiff claims that this judge poorly held a small claims case against her by LVNV Funding. Appendix J, Kamp 1-21. They had no merit; it should have been dismissed. Yet this court continued to assist THEM to carry out the case, issuing orders, denying pretrial motions which were valid, etc. Additionally, Judge Kampf allowed an attorney to testify, which is illegal. Additionally, this attorney admitted that balance owed was $750 and “she paid $30/month for three years and just stopped”. Even when plaintiff emphasized that was over $1,000 and she stopped using the account which Synchrony bought from GE, spinning off from GE Money, this judge had no regard for the facts of the case. Plaintiff’s pretrial motion for a ledger was denied. There was never a ledger of payments and purchases produced on the case and plaintiff claimed that the case had no merit to begin with. Yet this judge nefariously ruled in LVNV’s favor despite the fact they had no case established. Plaintiff claims this judge was abusing power and using his job as a weapon.

2. This nefarious ruling in LVNV’s favor may also turn into more of a fiasco by secretly entering a lien, as a nefarious excuse to steal the plaintiff’s possessions - having already been robbed by the Judicial Branch / Judge Abrams conspiring with Public Storage in 2012; being a victim of Attorney abuse since she was almost murdered January of 1978; at which time a multimillionaire took her case when she was in ICU in a coma and thereafter had her sign documents she did not understand while in isolation from having a severe head injury. That isolation lasted a full month. She continued to be hospitalized due to being in traction totalling 3 1/2 months. She never got her rights, not even reimbursement for her car - as a victim in a case that should have been treated as at-fault; yet this attorney nefariously made it No-Fault to help the Town since he usually represented the Insurance Company, which is conflict of interest. Additionally, his brother hired a hitman to kill the President of Chile just because he refused to sell Pepsi in his country. He was close to his brother, Donald Kendall. Which is also the same last name of the Captain who sank the Empress of Ireland in the St. Lawrence River and most likely enjoyed much increase in wealth as when Bruce Ismay and JP Morgan sank the Titanic; and when Americans mass murdered Americans on September 11, 2001.

iv. Attorney Ruth L. Beardsley

1. Rather than rule on pretrial motions in the order they were submitted, and motions thereafter, this magistrate ruled on them all at once, as DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD approach - common tricks by the New Haven Court. This creates a two week window for the plaintiff to act on each order, all of which are nefarious and more reason why plaintiff motioned to Transfer this short calendar docket to Milford Court. This court would not even upload her motion, which was served on the defendant Storquest. Significant to this is the fact her notebook was cyber attacked, which caused her even more stuggle to sustain her rights, since she did not have use of it for at least three weeks. Her notebook was fixed a month after it was cyber attacked, on 8/16/2022. Plaintiff claims that this court has had malicious and vexatious intent. The same day they got STORQUEST to send a CERTIFIED LETTER to plaintiff using her residency when her appearance has only her PO Box (and STORQUEST ERRONEOUSLY ENDED THE LEASE WITH NO CURE ON JUNE 9, 2022) - - this same day, plaintiff’s Apartment Management claimed they did not get her rent check when she asked them why they didn’t deposit it, which has happened several times before. Appendix C, “Eviction Notice” Plaintiff’s storage rent was not even past-due at that point, let alone be 30 days past-due, at which time Storquest would have to give her opportunity to pay - NOT END THE LEASE, AS THEY DID ON JUNE 9, WITH NO CURE.

a) Significant to this is the very fact this fraudulent billing was disputed in New Haven Superior Court, having legal precedence over bill payments - which were certified as withheld and placed in escrow by the plaintiff until this aforesaid case is resolved. Defendant did not oppose this. There was not even an appearance filed by the defendant Storquest.

b) DISCOVERIES

i. Ruth Beardsley ruled on all pleadings at the SAME TIME, dated August 11, 2022 - none of which had been received in the mail as of August 16. Juris Number data refers to her home address in Bethany, CT as place of business, as shown in Appendix J. Note, this was the date- day before the erroneous certified letter was sent to plaintiff’s apartment building and refused by plaintiff; and same day the management responded to plaintiff that they never got her rent check. Can it not be more obvious they were conspiring with each other?

ii. Ruth Beardsley’s husband, Attorney Tom Sansone, received high honors by the Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce. a Business Organization Alliance, which also allows WILLIAM WARREN GROUP to have 36 companies listed as their companies, including New Haven Housing Authority, which is the plaintiff’s Section 8 Administrator, upon doing a search. Also at Appendix J

1. William Warren Group claims to own Storquest

2. Storquest Storage Association is NOT a member of the Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce; not listed with any of the 36 businesses falling under William Warren Group.

3. Doing a spot-check of businesses listed as belonging to William Warren Group, it is evident that they are not registered as a business with the state of Connecticut.

4. Though Tom Sansone, who is Attorney/Magistrate Beardsley’s husband, has a juris number, nothing turns up in court case lookups, performed several ways. Yet he claims that he is involved with court cases “to help businesses” - businesses of which are in fact, representing a failing economy in Connecticut.

5. Ruth L. Beardsley has her place of business listed on internet as 900 Chapel Street, New Haven, referring to the Trotta Law Firm.

6. Upon doing a Juris Search it indicates that this firm DOES NOT EXIST.

7. No judge has a right to deny a small claims pleading by claiming that the Certification of Service was not enough, that proof of delivery was mandatory. This is fraudulent. All pleadings are only required to be sent through First Class Mail. Yet plaintiff sent all pleadings except for the last one (due to the cyber attack on her notebook) electronically as well as through PRIORITY or UPS MAIL. These costs have been referred to and the cost of preparing this Application For Injunctive Order includes 20 hours of personal time and materials expense, including getting her notebook fixed - all of which EXCEED the $5,000 of the small claim, totaling

$29 x 20 = $580

Materials = $25

Mailing = $15

Tech Support = $65

$685

8. Additional rulings by Ruth Beardsley reflect deceptive intent as well - which is why plaintiff provides this court with MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE at Appendix N.

VI. CERTIFICATION AND CLOSING

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that this complaint:

(1) Is not being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) Is supported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law;

(3) The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) The complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule 11.

(5) Please note, cyber crime has caused immense hardship on Applicant/Plaintiff - to include altering her documents as she types them and causing re-editing.

A. For Parties Without an Attorney

I agree to provide the Clerk’s Office with any changes to my address where case-related papers may be served. I understand that my failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk’s Office may result in the dismissal of the Case.

APPENDIX PROVIDED

COPY OF THIS APPLICATION AND APPENDIX ARE BEING ENTERED ON CASE

Anne Bradley V Storquest

WITH MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE DUE TO THE SUPERIOR COURT DENIAL OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE AND MOTIONS TO REARGUE EACH DENIED MOTION BY RUTH BEARDSLEY.

Date of signing:

___________________

Signature of Plaintiff:

____________________

Printed Name of Plaintiff:

Anne M. Bradley

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

A. Plaintiff’s possessions located at her unit, 1103, located at 140 Ferry Street, New Haven, CT - which she has rented for almost 10 years.

B. Cost of the Small Claim: $5,000

a) This includes the legal time and expenses of supplies both prior to and after the Small Claim was entered - being she did all she could to get Storquest to comply with the lease contract, which only is set to end upon a BREACH or notification to the storage facility that customer is moving her possessions out, 45 days prior to actually doing so.

b) Plaintiff emphasizes that her costs far exceed $5,000 due to the numerous hours and days which she has had to work on this; to include setbacks such as the cyber attack of her notebook in mid-July, 2022, having to take time to go to Best Buy for repair, yet repair was unsuccessful. Plaintiff was able to find a business which fixed her problem and restored her notebook for use at home on August 16,2022. She is now able to type documents, do limited research, and print documents. She has been working on this Application For Injunctive Order August 17-August 28; and expects to have it completed to submit to the Federal District Court on August 29, including submitting a copy to the local Superior Court, New Haven after submitting it to the District Court. And all current Superior Court pleadings will be stamped in prior to submitting them to the Federal Court. Appendix M

c) Emails from and to Storquest have been printed and submitted in Appendix L as supporting documents.

C. Waived storage rent for June, July, August and thereafter if this case is continued; Approval of CEASE & DESIST Motion for Order; reinstatement to her unit, continuance of lease contract.

a) As mentioned in the plaintiff’s pleadings, the rent of the Storquest unit has been REFUSED unless plaintiff pays for insurance which she affirms is not on the lease agreement because she is considered self-insured, as stated right on the face of the lease, which was signed by plaintiff.

b) A prepared lien may have been sent to the plaintiff on August 12, yet plaintiff refused to accept it since Storquest clearly knew that address of record for plaintiff is her PO Box. As emphasis, the lead concierge intercepted the evening concierge’s entering of refusal. Plaintiff called that concierge with her identity showing on the screen, Yet the lead concierge held onto that certified mail and then marked it as picked up and another piece was sent to Storquest. Please see Appendix L on Emails, and also Appendix E, for validation of the certified mail search, which SHOULD include the mail being returned due to refusal of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has submitted a request to Yale-New Haven Post Office, to forward all mail going to her residency to her PO Box, as she considers this “the icing on the cake” regarding her landlord tampering with her mail.

c) Plaintiff’s apartment management also told her on August 12, 2022, the reason they did not deposit her rent check was due to not receiving it. Plaintiff emphasized she was sick of their tricks, not being able to call FBI Agent William Aldenburg again, as she had several times before when they did this - and thereafter “found” the check. Due to this, she had to ask her Bank to cancel the check which the bank provably printed and mailed as they have for almost 10 years, and the bank cut her a bank check, which was handed to the apartment management. Appendix E.

This aforesaid Application is slightly different than the intended one, which was submitted to Superior Court as proof of diligence. Certain areas needed clarity. The intended meaning remains the same - AMB

Prepared and Submitted by:

FOR THE APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF, PRO SE

_______________________________________

Anne M. Bradley 8/29/2022 (notarized signature)

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

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

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

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 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

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.

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.

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

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: _________________________

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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,

______________________

Update
Update
================================

UPDATE 7/7/2022

The Small claim has been entered in the case lookup system of Connecticut.

Answer date: 7/27/2022

UPDATE
25 JULY 2022

IT'S 4:30 A.M. AND I AM EXHAUSTED.

THIS MOTION MAY NEED TO BE EDITED, BUT HERE IT IS. I ALSO NEED TO COMPLETE THE APPENDIX.

Case No. 5054091 : SUPERIOR COURT

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

VS : AT New Haven, CT

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE

(SSA) : DATE: July 26, 2022

MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

Pursuant to PB Chapter 24-5, 14^th Amendment, AND CONNECTICUT State Law 1, plaintiff motions this court to transfer aforesaid courtcase to the Milford, CT court.

HISTORY

This aforesaid court has failed to hear any of the pre-trial motions and has failed to respond to any pretrial action, except for a fee waiver which they delayed processing. Therefore all information which had been relayed in other motions will be relayed in this one due to the failure of the court to acknowledge anything.

Defendant has now stopped the lease and ordered the disabled plaintiff to go get her property or they will keep her belongings for themselves, which defendant said is outright THEFT.

It is therefore necessary to file this aforesaid lawsuit to recover and be compensated for the time and expense, reimbursement of all rent paid for the past 9 years, and any other damages for which this facility has knowingly and willingly caused on the plaintiff, who is disabled and has a federal poverty level income.

FACTS

1. Pretrial motions were issued yet the court has failed to act on them:

a) Motion for Disclosure, beginning on Page 39. Dated 6/16/2022; since the aforesaid company is not registered as Storquest. In fact plaintiff has spent full days in researching this matter, including checking with the city records department on the owner of the building. This had been relayed in that motion. For the court to fail to determine who the ACTUAL defendant is before uploading this case, it is an act of FRAUD at the least.

b) Motion To Cease and Desist, beginning on Page 43 of this case. 6/16/2022; as the defendant has no right to force a new charge on her when the lease clearly establishes that defendant broke the lease, which is defined as ongoing until such a time when customer either breaks the contract/lease or notifies the the storage facility that she would be moving her possessions out, providing sufficient notice. Neither has occurred. No Storage Facility may take it upon themselves to just tell a lease-abiding customer they have to leave. They have to show cause. There is no cause. The defendant broke the lease/contract. Aforesaid Small Claim is defined by this court as a CONTRACT. Artcicle 7 is referenced in the state laws governing storage units, which is the closest reference to asserting the customer’s rights.

c) This therefore creates a FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS, FAILURE TO ESTABLISH ACTUAL IDENTITY OF THE DEFENDANT; AND FAILURE TO ENSURE THE STATE IS NOT FRAUDING RECORDS; AND NOT ALLOWING THIS COMPANY, WHICH CLAIMS TO BE OWNED BY THE MORMON CHURCH IN UTAH AND SENDS ITS MAILINGS FROM UTAH, AND MORE MATTERS.

d) This aforesaid court is serving its wants, not administering the law.

e) UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

Plaintiff claims that in order for a commercial code to be applied, there has to be commerce. This is not a commercial circumstance. Plaintiff never stored her personal property as a business means. She has only stored her property to RETAIN it, since her curent landlord since January 2013 made her move in a very small studio apartment despite allowing other single Section 8 tenants to have one-bedroom apartments. Additionally, the UCC, Article 7, cannot be found in its entirety to print, online. The sources are flooded with advertisements, opinions, and extractions claiming it is the writer’s opinion they are not necessary for the public to be aware of.

To this pro-se plaintiff’s surprise, there is not one law in Chapter 743 which covers the right of the customer, WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

(f) Though the the court has properly uploaded this case, with all paginations in order, the court has disrupted all documents AFTER the download was created; which means this court record was frauded on MANY COUNTS since none of the pages are no longer in the order they were paginated and documents are obviously missing. Total pages should be over 150 pages. The total pages on what exists on record today is:

(g) WHATEVER THIS COMPANY’S IDENTITY IS, THE COURT FAILS TO SATISFY AS A REQUIREMENT OF A VALID CASE.

(h) The lease is ONE PAGE; signed at the bottom by the plaintiff-customer.

(i) THIS IS COMPLETELY FALSE: DEFENDANT CLAIMED ADDITIONAL PAGES WHICH IT ATTACHED TO THE LEASE ARE ARE ALSO LEGITIMATE,THEY ARE PRESENTED TO THE COURT DUE TO THE NEED TO REFLECT ON INTENTIONAL FRAUD, WHICH IS VEXATIOUS AND MALITIOUS.

(j) Plaintiff claims for the court clerks to issue notes on the documents she has submitted as PROOF, cannot be returned to her and order her to just bring them at the hearing. THEY ARE MADE PART OF RECORD NOW FOR A REASON: DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

(k) Although the RETURN DATE of defendant is set at July 27, the defendant has not RETURNED ANYTHING, NOT EVEN ITS APPEARANCE AS OF TODAY, 6/26/2022.

(l) Time added to workload in proceding with plaintiff’s rights, preparing aforesaid motion and also studying the current fraudulent case documents re-uploaded in their system: 24 hours/ 3 full days. 29.36 x 24 = $704.64

The following facts have to remain on aforesaid motion due to the lack of the court hearing the two pretrial motions; and therefore reflects the court is not acknowledging any facts of this case:

1. There is no lease signed by the plaintiff, which states that the plaintiff has to get insurance for the unit she has rented since January 2013. Copy of lease record is Appendix G. Additionally, Copy of Payment Ledger is Appendix H.

2. When Storquest purchased New Haven Self Storage, they provided her the same kind of lease with the same language as the lease which she signed with New Haven Self Storage. She signed it. STORQUEST HAS RECENTLY REMOVED IT FROM THEIR FILES.

3. Plaintiff claims RECORDS FRAUD is caused by them, not her. And it is harmful to her.

4. A lock was placed on the plaintiff’s unit at the plaintiff’s request, due to the landlord frequently entering her apartment and on at least two occasions BURGLARIZING WHILE SHE WAS IN HER APARTMENT, at which times she was drugged and was not conscious for a full day or more. The landlord has not only admitted they never installed a new lock on her door when she moved in, but they REFUSED to, which is a direct violation of her rights as a tenant, yet the housing judge refused to order them to install a new lock for her own safety. Plaintiff claimed that was criminal intent right in housing court. They refused to grant her fee waiver for transcripts on that case, despite the fact she was obviously indigent.

5. Plaintiff was grateful that the female Storquest employee did this for her to prevent the landlord from helping themselves to her property, as they do in her apartment on a continuous basis, particularly including VANDALISM.

6. Storquest said they could not adjust her monthly charges to pay for the lock and she could not give them her card number to pay for the lock. She could only do it in person. Plaintiff has not had the time or the wherewithall to go to that facility to take care of that and have her lock cut, which they said they would not do until she got there. Every time plaintiff leaves her apartment, she is well aware of the fact that the landlord will get someone to illegally enter despite the reminder she has placed on her door for at the least two years. She posted a note prominently on her wall in her apartment for discretionary purposes - reminding them. They have become so aggressive and claim they are not security whenever it is reported, that she posted it right on the outside of her door.

7. The charge which Storquest added on top of rent is for insurance which she never signed for and refuses to purchase, as her legal right. They have no insurance document which she signed. THIS IS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

8. Plaintiff has made exhaustive researches on this matter since the State of Connecticut does not even have Storquest registered as a company, even though plaintiff pays for TAXES,making them payable to STORQUEST with no dba noted.

9. Time that has been spent on this FRAUDULENT billing far exceeds 80 hours. There is also additional expense of preparing documents, emails, etc. Exhibit A totaling as of this day, $2,348.80

10. An average wage of a paralegal in Connecticut is at the rate of $29.36 per hour, Exhibit B

11. Cost of administrative expenses: $100.00 (to date)

12. Plaintiff has suffered from ulcer attacks and complete exhaustion, as well as sleepless nights because of this deliberate billing fraud, including Storquest erroneously ending the lease 7 days after the official due date, which they set as the first of the month - yet plaintiff can never pay it until the 4^th of the month because that is when she gets her Social Security deposited in her account.

13. Exhibit C - Emails from Storquest, including EVICTION NOTICE which is outright bizarre since EVICTIONS ARE ACTIONS OF TENANT-LANDLORD CASES.

14. Plaintiff’s landlord sent her an eviction warning to pay her rent when they had already deposited her rent payment two days prior to that - obviously to “echo” - help aid in the abuse she was subjected to with Storquest. Exhibit D

15. It is common practice to gangstalk targeted people in Connecticut because this state has so much organized crime.

16. Storquest company information on opencorporates fails to include their Connecticut facility and therefore is admitting they are in the state of Connecticut ILLEGITAMATELY. Exhibit E includes OpenCorporates.com printout as well as the fact that the Secretary of State fails to register Storquest despite the haphazzard information discovered, as noted in plaintiff’s affidavit, Exhibit F.

17. Plaintiff claims that the Defendant has no legal right to take possession of her belongings and if this court denies continuance of her renting a unit there, claims that this facility should be ordered to move her belongings to another facility at their cost due to the illegal breaking of the lease.

18. Plaintinff did not default on payment. Storquest REFUSED to take her payment unless she pay for insurance she never 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 defendant that the only lease which they have on record is the lease which she signed when New Haven Self Storage retained. Plaintiff claimed to them as well as to this court that 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 makes this a dynamic which results in no solution.

21. This Motion comprises of NINE pages, referencing the Appendix prepared for all motions on this case.

LAW

CPB 24-5

The venue for Small Claims shall be in accordance with the General Statutes

Due Process of Law, 14^th Amendment

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

CGS Chapter 743, Section 42

Sec. 42-159. Definitions.

Sec. 42-160. Owner's lien upon defaulting occupant's property. Regulations.

Sec. 42-161. Satisfaction of lien. Notice to occupant and holders of security interest.

Sec. 42-162. Contents of notice.

Sec. 42-163. Sale or disposition of property; where held.

Sec. 42-164. Advertisement of, and time for sale. Allocation of proceeds.

Sec. 42-165. Redemption of property by occupant or holder of security interest.

Sec. 42-166. Rights of purchaser in good faith.

Sec. 42-167. Disposition of balance of proceeds following satisfaction of lien.

Sec. 42-168. Other remedies of parties not impaired.

Sec. 42-169. Reserved

In the Definition Section, “Self-Service Storage Facility”

42a-1-201, for the personal property stored, the owner and the occupant are subject to the provisions of article 7 of the Uniform Commercial Code and the provisions of this chapter do not apply.

CPB 11-1

Sec. 11-1. Form of Motion and Request other than the first page, except that this require (a) Every motion, request, application or objec- ment shall not apply to forms supplied by the Judition directed to pleading or procedure, unless cial Branch or generated by the electronic filing relating to procedure in the course of a trial, shall system. be in writing. A motion to extend time to plead, (P.B. 1978-1997, Sec. 196.) (Amended June 20, 2011, to take effect Jan. 1, 2012; amended June 15, 2012, to take respond to written discovery, object to written dis- effect Jan. 1, 2013; amended June 13, 2014, to take effect covery, or respond to requests for admissions Jan. 1, 2015; amended June 24, 2016, to take effect Jan. shall state the date of the certification of service 1, 2017.) of the document for which an extension is sought and the date through which the moving party is Sec. 11-2. Definition of ‘‘Motion’’ and seeking the extension. ‘‘Request’’ (b) (1) For civil matters, with the exception of As used in these rules, the term ‘‘motion’’ housing, family and small claims matters, when means any application to the court for an order, any motion, application or objection is filed either which application is to be acted upon by the court electronically or on paper, no order page should or any judge thereof; and the term ‘‘request’’ be filed unless an order of notice and citation means any application to the court which shall be is necessary. granted by the clerk by operation of these rules (2) For family, juvenile, housing and small unless timely objection is filed. claims matters, when any motion, application or (P.B. 1978-1997, Sec. 197.) objection is filed in paper format. an order shall be annexed to the filing until such cases are incorporated into such electronic filing system, no order page should be filed unless an order of notice and citation is necessary. ( c ) Whether filed under subsection (a) or (b), such motion, request, application or objection shall be served on all parties as provided in Sections 10-12 through 10-17 and, when filed, the fact of such service shall be endorsed thereon. Any such motion, request, application or objection, as well as any supporting brief or memorandum, shall include a page number on each page other than the first page, except that this requirement shall not apply to forms supplied by the Judicial Branch or generated by the electronic filing system.

LEASE: One Page ONLY. Signed by the plaintiff. Anything which the defendant presents contrary to this is FRAUD.

SUMMARY

WHEREFORE, plaintiff moves this court to order of

TRANSFER this case to Milford Court.

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

Additional Appendix exclusive to the motion is attached.

Prepared and Submitted

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

__________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

CERTIFICATION OF MAILING

July 26, 2022

Aforesaid Motion has been duly served, In Person, to Defendant which claims their name is Storquest Storage Association Facility located at 140 Ferry Street, New Haven, CT 06511.

TRACKING NUMBER: __________________________

They claim they have no fax number.

Email address is newhaven02@storquest.com, which plaintiff has also emailed to them and proof is attached to this motion.

________________________

THE AFORESAID MOTION, HAVING BEEN HEARD, IS

GRANTED/DENIED

______________________

My laptop was attacked - cyber crime - when I was typing the affidavit to the Motin For Default Judgment

I am using a compure right now and have to hurryt.

Case No NNH-CV-22-5054091 : SUPERIOR COURT

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

Vs : New Haven, CT

STORQUEST SELF STORAGE ASSOC. : August 3, 2022

(SSA)

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

Pursuant to PB 11-17, Plaintiff motions this court to transfer venue to Milford Court IMMEDIATELY due to unconstitutionality of the New Haven Court; Failure of Due Process of Law.

HISTORY

Plaintiff attempted to file a small claim for weeks, to no avail, due to abuse of procedure by New Haven Superior Court. She was finally able to get her small claim processed.

No appearance, no Answer, no counterclaim was made by Storquest.

No legitimate lien on plaintiff has been made yet the State of Connecticut Law has indicated that “lienholder” who has NOT ESTABLISHED THEMSELVES AS SUCH AND BY LAW, can send a lien by email to the party and if that email has been opened IT IS ASSUMED that lien is confirmed as received and accepted by that party. Plaintiff determined THIS LAW IS ILLEGITAMATE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It provides a tactical and deceitful means for an alleged lienholder to FRAUD. NO ONE IS EVEN REQUIRED TO HAVE INTERNET. IF THEY ARE, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PAY FOR THEIR COMPUTERS AND ENSURE THEY ARE UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION.

Plaintiff entered Motion For Default on July 29, 2022.

The court failed to upload this motion for a number of days. Today, 8/2/2022, Plaintiff has found in her mail a BACKDATED ORDER FROM THE COURT, DATED 7/28/2022, which was not uploaded to the case and plaintiff considers it as a fraudulent tactic – particularly since she called the court yesterday 8/2/2022 with no cooperation from them as she asked them two main questions: Why isn’t my Motion For Default Judgment Uploaded; and How does the court grant liens to those who claim to be lienholders of storage units. NEITHER QUESTION WAS ADDRESSED. There was only personal attacks on the plaintiff and refusal to do their jobs.

One defense that a court clerk made was “You didn’t file an EMERGENCY MOTION, so we don’t have to upload it right away.” Plaintiff emphasized that the uploads are supposed to occur within 24 hours of receipt. They could have easily uploaded it the day they received it, Friday, July 29, 2022 due to its fundamentality and proof of service on the defendant, which was over and above court requirements, yet plaintiff knew that the defendant would lie that they did not receive it, even though DEFENDANT FAILED TO APPEAR; DEFENDANT FAILED TO ANSWER; AND THIS COURT HAS BEEN REWARDING DEFENDANT’S LACK OF DILIGENCE.

FACTS

1. Today the attached default order was in plaintiff’s mail, with not one person’s name to validate who ordered it. Plaintiff considers this a fraudulent, tactical act, since no one had mentioned this when she called yesterday. Most of those calls were recorded by the plaintiff and shared publically, angry about the deliberate FRAUD by the Court as well as Storquest. It is her conclusion that the court has cut a deal with Storquest, NOT TO DO ANYTHING, WE’LL TAKE CARE OF IT – rather than administer the law!

a. Storquest Fraud 8/2/2022 A

i. https://anchor.fm/terra-cotta/episodes/Storquest-FRAUD-2Aug2022-A-e1m1af7

b. Storquest Fraud 8/2/2022 B

i. https://anchor.fm/terra-cotta/episodes/Storquest-Fraud-2Aug2022-B-e1m1fu2

2. On August 2, the court clerk claimed they don’t have to upload what they receive on cases for days, after all, you didn’t file an EMERGENCY MOTION, which plaintiff claims is false. Motion For Default Judgment and Motion To Transfer were properly prepared at a local copy and printing center, Tyco, and faxed at 1p.m. in the afternoon on Friday, July 29, 2022 – having worked all night to prepare this action since her laptop/notebook was destroyed or damaged by a cyber attack WHILE SHE WAS TYPING AN AFFIDAVIT TO HER MOTION FOR DEFAULT.

3. Destruction of plaintiff’s laptop disabled her access to her gmail account and this was obviously cyber crime to aid and abet the court of New Haven. It may be possible the laptop will be fixed where she purchased it, yet it is out of warrantee and too time consuming and costly for the indigent plaintiff to attend to, due to the nefarious tactics, aka DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD, which this court causes and plaintiff has had to endure and respond to.

4. It is common practice for corrupted court officials in the New Haven Court, to enjoin themselves to bureaucrats such as Storquest and its owner, William Warren Group, to fraud records using cyber criminals to do their dirty work.

5. No law should ever be considered legitimate if it states an email that is opened is assumed to be seen and understood by the party it alludes to. There is too much unchecked CYBER CRIME.

6. This court altered the uploaded record on this case and switched all the pages, made it out of order and removed pages – to completely and nefariously disrupt DUE PROCESS OF LAW through fraudulent actions. Plaintiff shared this with a number of people and it was corrected. To date, the plaintiff is not sure that they have once again altered the aforesaid case on its website, for this court serves its whims and is rewarded for it by unjust, corrupted politicians.

7. The defendant had opportunity to countersue. Their failure to do so, along with failing to appear or answer is affirmation they have no merit in this action – and it was a gangstalking ploy to harm the plaintiff – including helping LVNV place a SECRET LIEN to enforce, which is completely illegal, yet it is obvious that is what this court is aiding and abetting with.

8. The laws on Storage Facility rentals are one-sided in the State of Connecticut. They provide no rights to the customer and therefore are unconstitutional. This court attempted to alter this small claim as a different category other than S25 – CONTRACT LAW; yet this case is still categorized as CONTRACT LAW – having nothing to do with the nefarious backdated Default Order by the New Haven Superior Court, describing this as the following:

a. A judge/magistrate will review the file; if the claim comes under Section 24-24 of the Connecticut Practice Book, meaning it is a claim based on an express or implied promise to pay a definite sum of money (a promise to to pay a specific amount of money) and it askes only for liquidated damages (an amount agreed to by the parties at the time the promist to pay was made, that would be paid as damages), and if the affidavits required by Section 24-24 have been filed, the magistrates/judge may enter judgment against the defendant(s) without a hearing. If the affidavit requirements are not met, the clerk will schedule a hearing and the magistrate/judge will require the plaintiff or plaintiff’s representative to come to the hearing. If the defendant (s) files an Answer at any time before a judgment is made in the case, including if the defendant (s) files an Answer at the time of a hearing, the default entered against the defendant (s) will be cancelled automatically. If the Answer is filed at the time of a hearing, the judicial authority will postpone the hearing if the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s representative asks for it.

i. THIS ORDER IS ILLEGITAMATE ON MANY COUNTS! The court has an obligation to administer the law, not aid and abet obvious frauds who do not even have their business registered in Connecticut and are owned by a company co-founded by a child molester and rapist (Warren Jeffs of WWG) who is SUPPOSED to be in prison for the rest of his life yet very likely at large as a FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE like the former Mayor of Waterbury, CT is (Phil Giordano – became the CEO of CIGNA a month after he was sentenced to life in prison for raping and molesting; yet the court reduced it to 37 years before he supposedly was taken to prison in 2007, with a new identity likely with CIA’s help, Dan Cordani)

ii. NO MILITARY AFFIDAVIT IS MANDATORY. THE COURT HAS NO RIGHT TO REQUIRE IT. IT IS USED AS A MEANS OF DEFENSE BY A PARTY WHO CHOOSES TO USE IT. Ie, if they have TDY and will be out of town.

iii. Oddly this “Order” is not uploaded on this aforementioned case yet the court now has technocratic help to prevent people from printing the case information on the website unless they copy and paste it into a separate document; THUS CAUSING LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

9. This small claim is marked as a contract case, S-25. Therefore, the fact that plaintiff has not carried any commercial insurance for 9 years and 7 months is proof there was no agreement she had to have insurance. The store manager marked her as self-insured at the time she began renting the unit in January 2013. Additionally, she is NOT a former military or other fraudulent change to the lease document! She didn’t state she was, nor was there no mark to acknowledge “no refunds” – which this fraudulent defendant rigged to allude she got refunds.

10. No lease may counteract the law, which includes a requirement for insurance. Nevertheless, the manager marked it as “insurance requirement satisfied; customer is self-insured”

11. Judge Kampf granted the fee waiver, which was delayed in processing.

12. No one can EVER be required to have internet. It is the choice of the person and also since it is costly, circumstances may change to deprive a person of internet. Their device or computer, as in the plaintiff’s case, may have been CYBER ATTACKED.

13. Case regarding LVNV vs Anne M. Bradley, ruled in favor of LVNV despite the overwhelming evidence of FRAUD by LVNV, and a hearing which was held illegally – such as the attorney who appeared as LVNV’s attorney was allowed also allowed to testify, WHICH IS UNLAWFUL. There was no ledger produced despite the constant diligence of the plaintiff Anne M. Bradley to motion for proof. In fact, the court failed to hear any of the pretrial motions, which is deprivation of justice, LACK OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW with criminal intent to aid and abet a very fraudulent company, owned by another fraudulent company, Sherman Companies, whose owner Pamela Sherman also nefariously signs documents with a different last name despite the fact she is an attorney. The Affidavit they produced was signed by a notary in Greenville NC who plaintiff found out WORKED AT THE HOTEL which Pamela Whatever-her-name-is frequented. She also claims to be the “Urban Outlaw” which is certainly out of character of an attorney who is supposed to not only abide by the law, but administer the law – neither of which she does. The attorney who testified for LVNV claimed Anne M. Bradley owed Synchrony Bank $750 in 2014, paid $30/month, and “then just stopped paying”. Despite the fact that plaintiff pointed out that since Synchrony spun off General Electric, Credit Card Division (GE owned 80% of their stock, trying to help Synchrony as a business payback for Synchrony (founded by Jack ThayerIV, whose father, Jack Thayer III, and grandfather, Jack Thayer II are suspected of taking part in the JP Morgan and Bruce Ismay wealth heist – of up to trillions of dollars due to the setup of most wealthy people relying on one person to control all of their accounts, and more circumstances – as they sank the Titanic deliberately (and thereafter WW2 arose, with Hitler having been funded for the NAZIs as an attempt to take over the world and cause a huge genocide of 11 million people), just as September 11 was caused by US citizens – to enrich themselves and incite a world war as an Illuminati agenda.

a. Owing $750 in 2014; making her Amazon purchases with her personal bank card and telling Synchrony Bank enough is enough of their fraud and she would pay off the balance, never using the card again. $30/month times three years, 36 months far exceeds $750 and therefore Anne M. Bradley overpaid, forgetting to make calculations to determine the exact date she would be paid in full. Yet this judge Kampf agreed that Anne M. Bradley still owed $800 as an obvious abuse of power and gangstalking a forthright citizen who expects accountability in this US Government as well as society. CRIMINALIZING THE COURTS provides no justice!

Attached is the copied and pasted case; since now the court blocks anyone from copying cases to get away with their court crimes.

b. Stillman Law Firm had an illegal appearance of “F” which means a Pro Hac Vice, ONE TIME ONLY, yet the second attorney who was representing Synchrony Bank, a male who questioned the female attorney as the witness of record, is a citizen of Connecticut, living in Storrs, CT. THIS WAS A FRAUDULENT APPEARANCE. STILLMAN LAW FIRM IN CONNECTICUT HAS SINCE BEEN SHUT DOWN IN CONNECTICUT – despite the New Haven Court aiding and abeting their fraud.

14. At this point, plaintiff has no confidence in the New Haven Superior Court. They frame themselves. They will continue to pull underhanded tricks and refuse to do their jobs. Their clerks using the phrase “You’re being mean to me” is simply a cop-out excuse not to do their jobs and be part of the problem rather the solution.

15. DUE PROCESS is supposed to be a matter of right, yet this court treats it as “catch me if you can”

16. Plaintiff has not been notified of any lien against her. Her email which is referred to on the Storquest Lease is temporarily inaccessible since her laptop was cyber attacked. The Secretary of State has no legal right to file unsubstantiated liens on personal property without making that information public! There is no public resource to determine who is on that list. Additionally, the Secretary of State does not even care that Storquest is NOT REGISTERED AS A BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT AND HAS NO AGENT OF SERVICE.

17. The court of New Haven also, conspires with the Secretary of State in this nefarious dynamic.

18. Though electronic filing would have been plaintiff’s preference AND A MATTER OF RIGHT, pursuant to CPB 24-3 and 4-4; plaintiff’s e-filing as defendant in the case of LVNV vs Anne Bradley was NEFARIOUSLY INTERCEPTED BY THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT – at which time they required her to go to their office in person with an ID or she could not efile. THIS WAS COMPLETE FRAUD, ABUSE OF PROCEDURE. NOT A REQUIREMENT! They only wanted to make it as difficult as possible for the plaintiff to defend herself in this small claims case THAT HAD NO MERIT AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE EVEN BEEN DOCKETED.

19. Though there has been no certified letter to the plaintiff’s address of record regarding Storquest entering a lien,they sent her a text message telling her they were entering a lien against her and DO WHAT WE WANT YOU TO DO.

20. CHANGE OF VENUE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER OF RIGHT TO PURSUE IN SHORT CASES ON CIVIL COURT, when the case is proven to be defectively processed as abuse of power, preconceived to conspire with defendant/bureaucrat and deprive plaintiff’s rights, and further abuse of procedure by ordering plaintiff NOT to submit supporting documents and take them to the hearing – which they obviously were rigging NOT TO EVEN HAVE! This reflects conspiracy to fraud and other crimes right in plain sight!

21. REMINDER: THIS CASE IS ON THE SHORT CALENDER. Plaintiff has rights of DUE PROCESS OF LAW for this short calendar case.

22. ADDITIONAL COST FOR PREPARING AND PAYING FOR THE COMPUTER AND FAX OF THIS MOTION EXCEEDS two day’s work, 16 hours, including communications on the phone as an attempt to get information on separate action liens and the court’s failure to enter the motions faxed on July 29, 2022.

23. There has been no validation of records; namely the fact that plaintiff all this time has emphasized the lease was frauded by Storquest AND they removed the lease which she signed with them, that did not require insurance. They removed it due to her insistence on her rights and she would be forced to file a lawsuit should they not comply.

24. MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE SHOULD BE MERGED WITH THIS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE.

25. Storquest sent plaintiff a FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CANCELLATION, WHICH MOST LIKELY THEY EXPECTED HER NOT TO OBTAIN IN TIME TO TAKE ACTION ON IT. THERE WAS NO INSURANCE EVER.

26. This aforesaid motion comprises of EIGHT PAGES, along with attachments: Backdated order received today, “Sequence #1”, Case Info on LVNV vs Anne Bradley (7 pages), Case Information on Anne M. Bradley vs Storquest (3 pages) which shows THE FRAUDULENT BACKDATED ORDER WAS NOT UPLOADED ON THIS CASE. Total pages with FAX Cover Sheet : 19; Fax to 203-503-6885.

LAW

CPB 24-24: Judgments in Small Claims: When Presence of the Plaintiff or Representative is NOT REQUIRED for Entry of Judgment.

This alone describes a circumstance which the court has not required an Answer. And it also defines it only applies to actions that are based on an express or implied promise to pay.

For the court to use this law in its backdated ORDER OF DEFAULT IS NEFARIOUS AND DELIBERATELY LACKING IN ADMINISTERING THE LAW; showing criminal intent to go along with the OBVIOUS FRAUD OF STORQUEST.

CPB 11-17: TRANSFERS ON SHORT CALENDAR. Matters on the short calendar list may, by written stipulation of the parties and consent of the judge, be heard and disposed of by any judge in any judicial district, who shall certify the decision to the clerk of the court in which the action is pending, who shall thereupon enter the decision as the order of judgment of the court.

SUMMARY

This case will not have a chance being heard honestly, legitimately, professionally – unless the venue is transferred to Milford Court. The very fact that the defendant deliberately failed to appear, failed to Answer, failed to countersue – are all proofs of THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. They are frauds and the New Haven Court is aiding and abeting frauds, just as Judge Kampf aided and abetted LVNV frauds. There was even affidavit signed by a Notary in Greenville NC which claimed that it only applied to North Carolina and possibly South Carolina residents – all submitted to this court which frauds records to serve wants of the rich and corrupted.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF enters the EMERGENCY MOTION OF TRANSFER OF VENUE today, for immediate action.

Documents attached as stated

Prepared and Submitted,

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

Appearance on Record!

ORDER

THIS MOTION, HAVING BEEN HEARD IS HEREBY ORDERED:

GRANTED/DENIED

________________

THE COURT

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

August 3, 2022

Aforesaid Motion has been duly mailed, USPS, to defendant, whih claims its business name to be Storquest Storage Association, facility located at 140 Ferry Street. New Haven, CT 06511. Storquest claims they have no fax number, which is undoubtedly a lie.

Anne M. Bradley

Update 17Aug2022

COMPANIES ARE NOT REGISTERING THEIR BUSINESSES - MOST LIKELY TO EVADE TAXES! and more!

TAKE FOR INSTANCE, storage treasures - THEY PROBABLY AIUCTION OFF STOLEN PROPERTY! THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY! rOBERT cHITTIU cHITTI bANG bANG IS THE OWNDEFOUNDER 0 BUT WHO OWNS THEM? alliance tech!

https://www.google.com/search?q=images+robert+chiti&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS952US952&sxsrf=ALiCzsavkrd-rjYNbJvHxbjYAeAKETet-g:1660787818568&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjP_-PfpM_5AhUxF2IAHaszDC0Q_AUoAnoECAEQBA&biw=854&bih=347&dpr=1.6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the

District of New Haven

Connecticut Division

)

) Case No. __________________

ANNE M. BRADLEY )

)

V. )

)

SUPERIOR COURT OF )

NEW HAVEN )

)

IN THE MATTER OF )

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se )

V )

Storquest Storage Association )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the

District of New Haven

Connecticut Division

)

) Case No. __________________

ANNE M. BRADLEY )

)

V. )

)

SUPERIOR COURT OF )

NEW HAVEN )

)

IN THE MATTER OF )

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

Search This Blog

Is it Justice or Just Us?

Storquest Lawsuit 2022

And now it is 7/1/2022

UPDATE
25 JULY 2022

Storquest Lawsuit 2022

And now it is 7/1/2022

UPDATE 25 JULY 2022

UPDATE
25 JULY 2022