Appeal to Second Circuit

COMBINED TABLE OF CONTENTS are not monitized or monitored; copy what you want. This is a hobby. Make it your own statement. Thank you for taking part in being a patriot. I am not up to date with this TOC. I had some personal setbacks to take the time, but you can navigate on the blogs by using the back arrow at the top left inside the blog.

WTF - I AM   APPEALING - SOMEONE HACKED THIS BLOG...I AM NOT APPEALING A HOUSING CASE; THERE IS NO HOUSING CASE.  They have illegally evicted me in the past.  They requested a nefarious housing inspection recently and disrupted my efforts in filing my appeal documents prior to the day due.  No inspection, big HOAX.  Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a hoax! They wil lie and lie and lie!  Frauding elections is commonplace also.  I will change the color of this text but the depraved technocrats remove my blog widgets if I just type something like here.  posted 11/13/2022   The below statement is FAKE - not me!  

lf they don't successfully evict me on lies again, that is....Yes, this is MODUS OPERANDI in a State that is in deep need of an overhaul. 


Link for this blog, please share: 

I keep placing these three scans here and they are deleted! 

11/25/2022: My point is that my landlord is doing all they can to harm me again, because they have a collaboration with Storquest Self-Storage Association. #FollowTheMoney


Posted 11/3/2022

             U P D A T E   5 DECEMBER 2022

                                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the



December 2, 2022

REVISED December 5, 2022



)  Case No. 22-CV-2741

ANNE M. BRADLEY        )


  V.        )  


Superior Court - New Haven,CT  )




Plaintiff-Appellant’s  Statement


Certification Of Service To Defendant

Has already been satisfied


Emphasis:  This aforesaid statement was prepared to submit with court documents which the case manager informed plaintiff-appellant would be sent to her, requesting she mail them to an attorney in Hartford, CT.  They were NOT enclosed and instead the Second Circuit Court ordered plaintiff to create new documents, refusing to return what she had submitted already with a “finders keepers losers weepers” type of response, rather than adhere to any sound regulations or laws.  The Certification of mailing which the plaintiff-appellant had sent previously in order to appeal was ACCEPTED.  The court docketed the case.  In fact, the court docketed a “ghost case appeal” as well.

Plaintiff-Appellant claims she has satisfied court requirements and that includes providing the Second Circuit Court stamped copies of the documents which were submitted to the DEFENDANT ON RECORD - SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAVEN.  THERE WAS NO MENTION OF AN IMPROPER DEFENDANT; and in fact the Federal District Court set the case up that way!  


The Second Circuit Court also received certification of mailing on her appeal documents and accepted them as proper.  There is no validation of what it claims is improper; their refusal to return copies is beyond absurd, considering they provided plaintiff-appellant a copy of a case example for her to prepare her brief.  


This case has come to a complete standstill and at no point is their an order for continuance by the court when the court is actually causing the delay!  


If this court wants a new case created, it must justify why and also return all documents on aforesaid case!    


This aforesaid statement was created to complete in hand-writing and go to Tyco Copy Center a few blocks from the post office, make copies and then return to the post office and mail to the attorney which the Second Circuit Court claimed should be mailed to, as illogical as it seemed to the plaintiff-appellant.  


The Superior Court is obligated to provide that inormation!  


The Second Circuit Court should not be acting in defense of the Superior Court!


Though Markus or someone else in the Second Circuit Court mailed these envelopes, post-dated November 23, they did not arrive in plaintiff-appellant’s  mail until the following week.  She checked her mail on Friday,  December 2, prepared to include her Statement of Service with  the returned documents.  Plaintiff-Appellant left 2 voicemails to the case manager Markus, informing him she did not receive the returned documents and she was going to the federal district court to print documents.  After this, the plaintiff-appellant again called Markus and they spoke. He explained he was not in the office that day but would be happy to speak to Plaintiff Monday after he views the email she sent him through the email to prose cases.  Attached are printings of emails.  


Plaintiff-Appellant discovered “Appeal Closed” when printing the case information and planned to return to the federal district court today to discuss this and other matters with “Fre” yet the need to prepare this statement took precedence.  


A “Missing Information Statement, T-080” (common game term used on AMAZON, which sooths consciences) is NOT even a part of the list provided in one copy of NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING, yet in the same envelope this form was submitted again, inferring RECORDS FRAUD, since it was altered.  There is no FRAP 27.10, which was cited!  There is only a FRAP 27!  It is regarding motions.  There was no mention of the Petition for appeal and motion for IFP as prepared improperly!  Plaintiff-Appellant had valid reason to claim it was absurd and abuse of procedure to consider a motion for IFP to be arguable and Petition to Appeal not arguable.  There is only a 30 CFR 27.10 - that involves the CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, REFLECTING CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATIONS.  What relevance does that have to do with a Pro Se case which was very explicit on the purpose of the harmed Pro Se, what she was seeking:  1.  Restore the lease which the defendant Storquest breached; 2. Reimburse the $5,000+ to the plaintiff-appellant for court costs; and 3. Ensure no more breaches occur.  She is NOT AN ATTORNEY.  She cannot prosecute criminal activity, though the criminal activity is obvious!  


The assigned attorney by the Second Circuit is a SOLICITOR GENERAL.  THIS IS UNLAWFUL FOR ATTORNEY SKOLD TO REPRESENT THE SUPERIOR COURT ON THIS MATTER.  He should have sent a letter to the plaintiff-appellant informing her and why he was.  


The Case Manager told plaintiff-appellant that Attorney Skold was the only attorney in the Attorney General’s Office, who is registered at the Second Circuit Court.  He was appointed SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS PAST YEAR AND HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO BE REGISTERED IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT.  In fact, he should have taken it upon himself to withdraw his registration and be replaced by another attorney!  Why this state only has one person in the Attorney General’s office to be registered in the Second Circuit Court only reflects backdoor dealings - a common practice in the State of Connecticut!  

This is NOT a case of nonsuit, which involves voluntary dismissal of a case by the plaintiff for failure to comply.  It is a case involving Default Judgment and malpractice of law by the Superior Court of New Haven, which plaintiff claims the Federal District Court partnered with.  Motion for Injunctive Relief due to the deliberate failure to abide with even the US Constitution; namely the 14th Amendment of Due Process of Law and other matters was entered in the higher court, Federal District Court (since Small Claims Cases cannot be appealed),  Injunctive relief  sought was similarly-situtated with the motion entered in Superior Court:  CEASE AND DESIST.  Additionally, Superior Court failed to process Motion For Disclosure to establish the record satisfied for administering the

law, since Storquest had no Agent of Record and was not a registered company in the state of Connecticut.  

PLEASE REVIEW THE APPEAL DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN STAMPED IN BY THE SUPERIOR COURT, yet they failed to inform the Plaintiff, Pro Se, of any attorney contact, including filing its appearance.  Today, December 2, 2022, the Plaintiff expects the Second Circuit has returned these documents to be forwarded to an attorney in Hartford, CT, along with completion of Certificate of Service Forms, which they are providing.  REVISED: SINCE TODAY IS DECEMBER 5, 2022.


The continuous violation of Rules Of Court, Abuse of Power and Procedure, and targeting the aforementioned Plaintiff, Pro Se, is why the Plaintiff, Pro Se has had to appeal to get her lawful rights.  


The Superior Court Case was to attain SWIFT remedy on fraudulent practices, including breaches of contract, by Storquest.  Instead, the court enjoyed abuse of procedure, violation of the 14th Amendment, and more - to aid and abet Storquest and Target the Plaintiff, as this state does on a continuous basis.  


Plaintiff approached the Federal District Court in order for aggrieved and physically-disabled Plaintiff-Appellant to:


1. RESTORE HER LEASE, which Storquest terminated, and retain her storage unit, ensuring her possessions have not been tampered with.


2. Reimburse Plaintiff-Appellant for over $5,000 incurred in legal fees, and


3. Ensure that Storquest cannot get away with any further breaches of the lease.


The following Documents are enclosed today, December 2: NONE


REVISED 12/5/2022:  there were none.  As provided in this revised statement, the plaintiff-appellant  did not receive any of the documents where were referred to by the case manager, by whoever prepared the mailing.  



This abuse of procedure is absolutely ludicrous!  Judges break laws and conspire with a criminally-run, multibillion dollar company, Storquest, which was founded in part by Warren Jeffs, who is in prison for life for raping and molesting children, yet his church, Fundamentalist MORMON Latter Day Saints, still supports him and allows him to lead them from his prison cell!  He is also a polygamist, which automatically categorizes him as a DEPRAVED sexual abuser!  Is he even in prison - or a fugitive from justice like former Waterbury, CT, Phillip Giordano, who was originally sentenced to life in prison for the same thing, even assaulting children right in his office of the mayor! He is obviously the multimillionaire CEO of CIGNA!  Not because he deserved it, but FORCE by organized crime caused this!  And all around him, he was protected, just like September 11 when Americans mass murdered Americans and got away with over 3,000 counts of murder and thousands of victims of injury, destruction of property, and massive financial fraud!  Does someone need to rub the Attorney General’s and Superior Court’s judges’ noses in it, to give this attention?  This is so disgraceful!  Plaintiff-appellant has done all she can to just continue to be a Storquest customer and get them to stop breaching the contract!  Having to file a lawsuit was nothing she even cared to do, yet the Superior Court could have remedied the case probably, just by granting the Motion For Cease & Desist Injunctive Order!  They would not even hear the motion for over a month!  And denied ALL motions the same day, August 11, to make it as difficult as they could for the plaintiff-appellant! HIGHER COURTS WERE MADE FOR A REASON!  And the main reason is to oversee the lower courts!  Remove the criminal activity, and be a court!  This is just beyond any logic - and this organized crime must be stopped once and for all in the US Government!  


Aforesaid statement of NINE pages has been prepared by the plaintiff-appellant in aforesaid appeal - all documents of which she has satisfied LEGALLY, in the eyes of the court.  The failure of appearance by the defendant only results in another DEFAULT, of which this court is obligated by law to grant upon the motion of Default by the plaintiff-appellant; thereby satisfying the three requests:  1. Restore the Storquest Lease on Record; 2. REIMBURSE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT THE LEGAL EXPENSES IN PROCEDING WITH THIS CASE WHICH WAS COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE, AND 3. ENSURE STORQUEST IS WARNED A HEAVY PENALTY SHOULD THEY BREACH THE LEASE AGAIN.  




Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

PO Box 206514

New Haven, CT 06520

Ph.  203-909-9131













Plaintiff-Appellant’s  Statement


Certification Of Service To Defendant


I, Anne M. Bradley, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on 12/5/2022, I served a copy of this aforesaid Statement of 9 pages, by email (Michael Skold, SOLICITOR GENERAL, who refuses to respond to voicemails and tells people in his voicemail to email him at and PERSONAL DELIVERY on the

 Superior Court of the State of Connecticut, 235 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510


ATTORNEY (no appearance) contact information as presented by Second Circuit Court rather than the Defendant:  

Attorney Michael Skold

Juris No. 429487 A

Juris No. 431228 G

Suite 5000

165 Capital Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

Using the receptionist number as his office number:  860-808-5020

At which time the receptionist REFUSES to give out his number and transfers to his extension, at which time he says in voicemail that he is not answering calls and to only send him an email.  


_12/2/2022___ _________________________

Today’s Date Signature




For the



November 10, 2022



) Case No. 22-CV-1101

ANNE M. BRADLEY        )

       )   11/13/2022 for blog:  The case

  V.        )

       )      number is 22-cv-2741

Superior Court - New Haven,CT  )

       )     a hacker altered the number



       )     I manually corrected it before

                                                             scanning it, serving it

Plaintiff-Appellant’s  Motion For Permission to Appeal

Federal Judge’s Ruling of September 12, 2022

As an IFP, Pro Se Appellant



1.  Plaintiff -Applicant, Pro Se, filed COMPLAINT, as instructed by the court clerks at the Clerk’s Office, along with an IFP and TITLED it as an Application For Injunction.



2. The Federal District Court thereafter entered this Application as a Lawsuit and docketed it along with scheduling when briefs and other documents were due.

a) It was obvious the IFP was granted although the court failed to provide its approval from a magistrate

b) The Clerk’s Office told the Applicant-plaintiff that her case had to be treated as a lawsuit; there was no other action she could take. Documents were completed and submitted.

3.  Thereafter, Applicant-Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Chief Judge of Federal District Court, Hon. Stefan Underhill.  Though there was no answer from that office to her, the District Judge who was assigned to this docketed lawsuit dismissed her case for lack of merit.  

a) The IFP was obviously granted since they docketed the case

b) They scheduled future hearings and due dates

i. There was no service of papers as a summons

ii. There was no Due Process Of Law

iii. Plaintiff was “backed into a corner”, unable to take action since no case should be managed in this way

4. The emailed dismissal was brief and provided no information


 that there was a 6-page ruling electronically

a) Plaintiff submitted a Notice of Intent to further plead on September 14, 2022.  The Clerk’s office closed early with no explanation and plaintiff had to file this notice in the document box where the federal police station is, along with stamping it in using their date-stamping machine.

5. The next time which the plaintiff went to the Clerk’s Office, most likely Thursday 9/15/2022, she sought to print the court information on this aforesaid matter.  She had to pay for it.  At that time she discovered that a 6-page ruling was issued, which she had no knowledge of.  

6. Plaintiff discovered she was unable to Motion For Review to the 2d Circuit Court; they only allowed reviews of agency decisions.  

7. Plaintiff filed a Petition For Writ of Certiorari to the US Supreme Court along with IFP, yet this Certiorari needs to be amended prior to resubmission.   

8. Though plaintiff continues to communicate with US Supreme Court,  she is still pursuing for them to review this matter, which was emphasized as a public importance with special emphasis on FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  



9. Applicant-Plaintiff submitted Notice of Intent to Appeal to New Haven Superior Court and Federal District Court on 10/16/2022, which was two days after she read the 6-page decision by the Federal Court, which was not sent to her and printed off the Federal Court’s computer.  She considers this reflective of Abuse Of Process; a tactic commonly used by the judges in New Haven Superior Court.



1. This appeal is within the 60-day limit. US Officials are involved.

2. Entering individual names of the court infers they are to be treated as ordinary citizens when it is determined these certain ones listed acted under color of the law; even applying an unconstitutional law - as so stated in a US Supreme Court Ruling.  

3. There are no specific names on this case for the following reasons:

a) Pro Se Plaintiff is not in a position to personally prosecute a criminal matter involving under color of law,  violation of the 14th Amendment though she has been harmed by this activity and other related activity, which she considers to be under color of the law.


i. Though the US Supreme Court has claimed that judges are determined to be private citizens in cases where they have administered an unconstitutional law; plaintiff considers this illogical since no law should be unconstitutional.  If it is, the lawmaker is at fault and will not pass any constitutionality test before it is passed. As a Pro Se, Plaintiff-Appellant is aware there would be exceptions in which circumstances arise which may reflect a law is unconstitutional when applied.  Yet the law itself is most likely constitutional.  In addition, Plaintiff-Appellant considers Executive Orders are not laws, do not necessarily have to be carried out,  and are disposed when the President leaves office.  

4.  Plaintiff-Appellant is still harmed by Storquest demands that she has to remove her possessions from the unit which she had rented for nearly ten years and they have costed her over $5,000 in legal fees as a Pro Se, doing work equivalent to a Paralegal.  Plaintiff-Appellant expects to be reimbursed for these costs and has been keeping track of them. She has nothing on record on Storquest - a company which is not even registered or legitamate on many issues including not having an Agent Of Service, are all


unresolved despite the direct efforts by the Plaintiff-Appellant  to resolve it quickly by motioning for disclosure and motioning for Injunctive Relief:  Cease & Desist - neither of which the Superior Court even filed or ruled on for over a month.  This therefore created an even more stressful situation which Applicant-Plaintiff had to file more motions since the court was not acting on anything.

a) The Superior Court has the power to remand Small Claims Cases to a regular Civil Docket should they consider a hearing necessary before issuing a TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.  Yet by law, no hearing is required for a Temporary Injunction, which may in itself resolve the matter.

i. The Superior Court did nothing.  Their rulings were frivolous and failed to show legitamate reasons for their rulings - which were all grouped on the same day, August 12, Should be August 11 (11/25/2022) with no phone call to the plaintiff to let her know what they did.  

1. Appellant-Plaintiff’s impression was the court was not administering the law; they were being deceitful and unlawful, acting under color of the law.

2. While Appellant-Plaintiff was waiting for a clear


determination of proceedings on the Federal Level, she filed a Motion For Compliance into the Superior Court, which the Court nefariously entered five times.  

3. Upon the ruling of the Federal Judge, he described her pleading as FIVE separate requests rather than acknowledging the deliberate records fraud that took place throughout that case, as one of the issues which was brought up in the Application for Injunction/Complaint with Requested Relief for Injunction due to failure of Due Process of Law

4. Additional Records Fraud:

a) Superior Court Failed to upload documents in order, as paginated by the plaintiff

b) Superior Court replaced documents with those entered in the Federal Court or elsewhere.  i.e.,

c) Motion For Disclosure, entered 6/16/2022 -

altered (last page has a note it was recertified 7/30/2022 - that note was either forged, copied and the word is "or"; not "and" (posted here 11/25/2022) scanned from another document, taken from plaintiff’s home since it was obviously not


intended for the court, or cleverly written by a forger. This along with no date stamp invalidates the motion on record, which is obstruction of justice by the Superior Court.  

d) Plaintiff made an arduous attempt to disclose the court’s nefarious document-altering activity in her Petition Of Writ of Certiorari, which needs to be resubmitted after being corrected.  She has discovered that the scanned file which she meticulously validated page by page, has been altered and she will be scanning this again before she submits her corrected Petition For Writ of Certiorari.  This has to be worked on during the midst of landlord problems detaining her from being able to work on aforesaid material, such as fake inspection notifications - never showing up.  Defendants listed in the Petition For Writ of Certiorari are the same for aforesaid appeal.  Plaintiff-Appellant is motioning this court separately to include Storquest and Federal District Court as Defendants. Again, technocratically altered - CYBER CRIME - there is one defendant on this case:  New Haven Superior Court (posted 11/25/2022)


5. Storquest failed to even appear on the case.  This is,

by law, an automatic DEFAULT in the favor of Applicant-Plaintiff yet the Superior Court deliberately broke the law, denying her rights.   (Should be OMITTED! CYBER CRIME! This was fixed before submitting to 2d Circuit Court, yet may have to be submitted as an Errata or Amended Motion due to this cyber crime! posted 11/25/2022)






5. Cyber Crime disabled plaintiff’s notebook/laptop for over a month. Though the store she purchased it at told her she had to get a new one, she could not afford it and had to use the facilities at Tyco Copy Center and pay for them and also go to Milford Court Service Center when she could.  The Court Service Center was rude to her and the notary refused to notarize anything - an obvious tactic that was devised with the court clerk, regarding a document on the nefarious bill collection case,  reflective of more MODUS OPERANDI by the Superior Court in New Haven - on MEDICAL BILLS which Judge Kamp at that Superior Court ruled in LVNV’s favor even though in the trial they confirmed that she owed for Amazon, which was also a lie and unsubstantiated with since they used several blank pages and claimed they “had to” redact information. They also created other illegal dynamics, such as filing Pro Hac Vice when they were in-state attorneys.  Additionally,


Stillman Law unlawfully mailed  the small claim - which was a federal offense, placing a Priority Mail envelope in her mailbox when it had no tracking history.  No mail clerk would have been able to do that since their scan machine would alarm them. They were  all reasons NOT to docket the case, LVNV Funding, LLC vs Anne M. Bradley,  as one with merit. The judge was John Kamp, who has also taken part in approving the Fee Waiver on this matter at the Superior Court  juncture. The Fee Waiver Application in Superior Court appears to be frauded, though eventually was approved after about two weeks, rather than the standard 48-hour window, which is a regulation of the court. 


1. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of legal costs

2. Plaintiff seeks court order to ensure that Storquest will not breach the lease again

3. Plaintiff seeks to restore the lease which Storquest unlawfully terminated,  remain as a customer; and assurance they have not tampered with or stolen any of her possessions since they began this fraudulent billing in June 2022.  



This concludes this Motion for Appeal. IFP Affidavit is

simultaneously presented, as required.

The Federal District Court previously denied Plaintiff-Appellant’s Motion to Appeal, which should be included in the Record which the Clerk in Federal Court is required to create.  This violates Due Process of Law since the opposing party is to have time to respond/object as they so wish.  Plaintiff was not able to serve the Superior Court the day it was presented to the Federal Court, as planned.  Yet the Federal Court ruled on it before It was going to be delivered to the Superior Court the following day which Plaintiff-Appellant considers wrongful and leaving her in a serious state of aggrievement - all based on a storage facility that fraudulently billed her and further breached the lease by terminating it when the rent was not even delinquent, refusing to correct their actions.    

Wherefore, Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se and Indigent,  seeks approval to proceed with her appeal through the Second Circuit Court.    

Appendix Attached

Prepared and Submitted,




Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

PO Box 206514

New Haven, CT 06520



This Statement is a supplement to Form D-P since there is no transcript I can order. Hopefully Microsoft or some other dirtbag TECHNOCRAT has not corrupted the document as I am pasting it - it is late and I will verify from another device.  A quick go-over appears they have not corrupted it: 


For the



November 17, 2022



)  Case No. 22-CV-2741

ANNE M. BRADLEY        )


  V.        )  


Superior Court - New Haven,CT  )





Plaintiff-Appellant’s  Statement  of Evidence

When The Proceedings Were Not Recorded

Form D-P Referenced


Aggrieved and physically-disabled Plaintiff-Appellant seeks:


1. RESTORE HER LEASE, which Storquest terminated, and retain her storage unit, ensuring her possessions have not been tampered with.


2. Reimburse Plaintiff-Appellant for over $5,000 incurred in legal fees, and


3. Ensure that Storquest cannot get away with any further breaches of the lease.


FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, Case No. (written in)

1. Superior Court Case, NNH-CV-22-50540919-S, (Case Type S25, Contracts) was NOT a case of nonsuit.  It was a case of DEFAULT by the DEFENDANT for failure to either appear or plead on the Small Claim Lawsuit.  Additional Lack of Proceedings by the court existed.

a) Connecticut Practice Book 17-20 (d)  

b) Superior Court failed to conduct a hearing on the DEFAULT to determine the total owed by Storquest, as required

i. Superior Court attempted to order Plaintiff to NOT enter any documents of proof; that they will view them at the hearing. Plaintiff claimed it was her matter of right; they could not order that.

1. There was no hearing

2. Court further abused procedure by claiming they did not have enough proof to allow DEFAULT

3. This is another proof of malpractice of Law

2. THERE IS NO OFFICIAL ADDRESS OF RECORD OF THE DEFENDANT; they do not have an Agent of Service.  The Federal Court did not issue remedy despite the obvious violation of Due Process of Law by Superior Court.

a) The Small Claims Form was frauded by the Superior Court.  A hand-written “x” was entered. Plaintiff said she could not mark off anything and stated why in the form.

b) Numerous documents on record were either frauded or removed, or uploaded on the wrong pleading

i. The fraud is so obvious in some circumstances that any lay person would notice it; due to the dates of the documents and entering a pleading in with documents dated BEYOND the pleading date/date of entry

ii. A number of documents lacked the stamped date, which the plaintiff claims in almost all circumstances the documents were altered/frauded.

3. Plaintiff sought INJUNCTIVE RELIEF since the Superior Court violated Due Process of Law, deliberately malpracticing law.  

a) ORDER Superior Court to issue Granting of MOTION OF DEFAULT; JUDGMENT OF DEFAULT.  Superior Court failed to proceed on:

i. Cease & Desist unlawful billing and auction of plaintiff-appellant’s possessions

ii. Order Storquest to stop breaching the lease

iii. Order Storquest to reimburse Plaintiff-Appellant for all legal fees and expenses

1. Federal Law 28 U.S. Code, Section 1655

2. CPB 17-20(d)

a) FRCP Rule 55

3. 28 US Code Section 1655

4. Lease Contract which was on record at Storquest

4. The Federal District Court Ordered the case to be a lawsuit against Superior Court of New Haven, disregarding the very fact that Storquest scheduled to unlawfully auction off Plaintiff-Appellant’s possessions, which in fact is the very basis of aggrievement.  

a) There was no service process on Superior Court, New Haven; the Federal Court neither ordered it or granted a fee waiver for it.

b) Aforesaid Federal Case was docketed and scheduled pleadings were made for October and in 2023

5.  The Federal District Judge inadvertently dismissed the case; failed to correct any schedulings of the case

a) The six page ruling was not presented to the Plaintiff-Appellee; only an email indicating that the case was dismissed with a brief statement was sent to the Plaintiff-Appellee; not knowing there was a 6-page dismissal.  She was not using the CMECF system and considered it to be even more of a threat to her security; having to be without her own laptop for over a month due to CYBER CRIME.  

b) The six page ruling falsely described the case and ruled on a law which had no relevance, of which the Plaintiff will further go into in her brief.  Caselaws cited also had no relevance.  THERE WAS NO STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.  The fact that the Superior Court Failed to proceed is certainly no motion for Stay of proceedings!

c) The six page ruling was a complete mockery of the Plaintiff’s efforts to get her rights from unlawful billing, and other breaches of contract, to include literal theft of her property.  There is no cure for any of these issues on record, though for the time-being the auction has been cancelled.

This concludes this 4-page Statement of Evidence and Facts to supplement Form D-P, to the best of my ability as Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se, IFP-applicant, on this day, November 17, 2022.



Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

PO Box 206514, New Haven, CT 06520 / phone: 203-909-9131

posted 11/18/2022 















For the



November 10, 2022



) Case No. 22-CV-1101

ANNE M. BRADLEY        )


  V.        )


Superior Court - New Haven,CT  )






Plaintiff-Appellant’s  Motion For Permission to Appeal

Federal Judge’s Ruling of September 12, 2022

As an IFP, Pro Se Appellant


Attachments     PAGE

A Affidavit Accompanying Motion For Permission To 1

Appeal In Forma Pauperis &

Notice of Appeal, Form 1B



B Ruling of Federal District Court on aforesaid case 10

C Applicant’s Request For Immediate Return of File    17

D Default Order -  not uploaded by Superior Court   24

E      Court Order, 8/11/2022: MOTION FOR CEASE AND    DESIST 26

F MOTION FOR CEASE AND DESIST, entered 6/16/2022  28

G Court Order, 8/11/2022 - Motion For Default Judgment,     

 File No. 105.10 38

H Motion For Default Judgment, 40

submitted July 29, 2022 - stamped by the court with date of 7/28/2022 (as appeared on fax); typed using the copy center’s

public computer which was obviously hacked by Microsoft or Apple since the date is July 31, 2022 - which is a Sunday.  Certification of Mailing, date was not altered, July 29, 2022. This was typed swiftly due to concern with hacking and other matters.

Fraudulent Notice of Insurance Cancellation


Notice to Plaintiff of File date - three weeks after the small

claim was submitted (6/16/2022)

Fax Cover Sheet, 7/29/2022

Attempt to submit Motion For Default Form - Search was

 unsuccessful - printed search - oddly stamped by court 7/28/2022

I Order, 9/15/2022, JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL - 49

for failing to abide by an unlawful order of the court. All motions had valid proofs of service.  In fact, due to the fact that defendant

had not filed appearance, no proof of service was even

required by law. This was a very expensive and time-consuming attempt to obtain lawful rights by the plaintiff, Anne M. Bradley.

J Order, No. 102.10, dated 8/11/2022 - MOTION FOR           DISCLOSURE 51

K MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE, entered in court on             53

6/16/2022 yet this document was frauded since there is a note dated 6/30/2022.  Either documents submitted in the Federal District Court were stolen out of Plaintiff-Appellant Anne M.


Bradley’s apartment, or Federal District Court partnered with  

Superior Court to fraud records  Paginated as pages 39, 40, 41, 42 - most likely from the Federal Case seeking INJUNCTIVE ORDER.  

Prepared And Submitted,

For Applicant-Plaintiff, Pro Se


Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se














PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. Section 1915



Anne M. Bradley Case No. 3:22-cv-011-CSH

 should be ONLY Superior Court, New Haven!

Federal District Court, New Haven

Superior Court, New Haven

Storquest Self Storage Association - I strike through it and thanks to TECHNOCRACY MANIPULATING, it does not show!  I submitted the revised document and had such a hell of a time submitting documents into Superior Court that I am literally traumatized by their in-your-face corruption!  They took my documents and left for 20 minutes, altering them!  Returning and saying I did not have them in order, which I did, and lying about other dynamics - WHICH THEY CREATED.  



Aforesaid Motion For Permission To Appeal In Forma Pauperis  has been served in person on the  Superior Court of New Haven, CT on November 10, 2022.  


Anne M. Bradley



I entered ERRATAS; the court took them and messed with the documents for 20 minutes and said "You made a mistake; why did you give us two of everything?" and more ....I made copies for myself, telling them to attach the STAMPED COPY TO MY COPIES, WHICH WERE ALL IDENTIFIED WITH POST-IT-NOTES!  

They just couldn't put up with that neat-and-tidy submission!  

I am returning there tomorrow.  I could not take another day of such trauma from their fraud! 


 An inmate from SOMEWHERE wants me to connect?  WTF

It is probably a set-up.  No mention where that inmate is located. 



CorrLinks <>Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 5:21 PM
This is a system generated message informing you that the above-named person is a federal prisoner who seeks to add you to his/her contact list for exchanging electronic messages.  There is no message from the prisoner at this time.

You can ACCEPT this prisoner's request or BLOCK this individual or all federal prisoners from contacting you via electronic messaging at  To register with CorrLinks you must enter the email address that received this notice along with the identification code below.

Email Address:
Identification Code: 6G4Y487K
This identification code will expire in 10 days.

By approving electronic correspondence with federal prisoners, you consent to have the Bureau of Prisons staff monitor the content of all electronic messages exchanged.

Once you have registered with CorrLinks and approved the prisoner for correspondence, the prisoner will be notified electronically.

For additional information related to this program, please visit the FAQ page.


They do not tell what the conviction is - knowing this system, they probably consider that too personal! 

Register Number: 14268-035
Age: 47
Race: Black
Sex: Male
Located at: Coleman Low FCI
Release Date: 02/14/2025

I do not know what Coleman Low FCI is
I just found it is at Fort Sumter, Florida.  I am marking the email as spam! 

posted 11/22/2022:

This bald man is not Agent Aldenburg!  Agent Aldenburg has a full head of hair, is thinner and probably taller than this shit head fraud!  Obama stole over a trillian dollars from the economy from the Sandy Hook Shooting Fraud!  AND Susan Biesewycz, Lt Gov only by FRAUDULENT ELECTIONS WHICH SHE RIGGED was a main player, from UConn; that is why she went to UConn AS A TEACHER AFTER LEAVING AS SECRETARY OF STATE!
my Tweet may have not been sent because Twitter did not confirm, rather put this shit on my screen!  


@KingCharlesIII_ @KremlinRussia_E @EbrahimRaisi2
Ex-FBI Agent Gets Emotional on Stand While Recalling Search of Sandy Hoo... via @YouTube

2. This f*king fake DAVID WHEELER is NOT Agent Aldenburg!!! You have ORGANIZED CRIME MANAGING THE COURTS! I'll be damned if I will let you bastard - traitors take over our country! Obama gave Wheeler over a million dollars, new house and he also acted as one of the parents who lost a fictitious child! THEY WERE FAKE PARENTS EXCEPT FOR ONE - all caskets were closed! 11/25/2022

Additional Reference is curent blogpost on

I will try to activate the link but have to reopen this blogpost because they keep removing the widgets!

 Additional blogpost to reference:





Popular posts from this blog

Tranny Watch