DRAFT INFORMATION FOR MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

 1/25/2023.  Note, a hacker deleted this note from many blogposts and I just noticed.  The hacker was either someone affiliated with the owner of this 32 floor apt bldg or a TECHNOCRAT.  There have been several incidences because of dishonest employees here.  The ultimate was when the maintenance supervisor took a dump in my trash can in my bathroom.  Even now, they remotely turn the washer on and off to humor themselves.   It is filled with clothes I am washing and I can't access it because the ba$tards take control of it when they use remote.  This is what I think has caused several plane crashes over the years also.  

Some blogposts are altered; for the most part they deleted information.  Either to puff themselves up for discovering something or just to be a menace, or both.  I have a hard time creating backup notes on this laptop.  Microsoft Word alters the notes.  

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.

https://thunderflower2021.blogspot.com/2021/10/table-of-contents.html?m=1 

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

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

THIS IS A TEMPORARY BLOGPOST 

I changed my mind....

NOTE, THE COURT WOULD NOT HAVE DOCKETED THE CASE IF THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT SERVED.  

      THEY ARE NOW MAKING UP SHIT ABOUT THE DEFENDANT NOT BEING SERVED "TO THE RIGHT ADDRESS"  - WHICH IS DEFENDING THE DEFENDANT!  I SERVICED IT IN PERSON TO THE COURT, WHICH IS MY LEGAL RIGHT.  IF THEY WANTED A DIFFERENT ADDRESS, THEY SHOULD HAVE FILED AN APPEARANCE, BUT THEY DID NOT!  I HAVE ARGUED THIS REPEATEDLY, THAT THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT CANNOT DEFEND EITHER PARTY; NAMELY ONE REPRESENTING THE GOVERNMENT.  Posted 1/25/2023

Unedited version of 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the

SECOND CIRCUIT

 

JANUARY 2, 2023

 

 )

)  Case No. 22-CV-2741

ANNE M. BRADLEY        )

       )    

  V.        )  

       )      

Superior Court - New Haven,CT  )

       )     

       )

             

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Motion For Default Judgment

 

 

STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS

 

1. Plaintiff-appellant submitted her motion for permission to Appeal In Forma Paupris diligently

2. The Court did not provide its ruling; yet pulled up a backdated appeal number and claimed it was being processed

3. The Court provided with instruction for the plaintiff-appellant to PROCEED, issuing dates for brief, etc in its DOCKET SHEET.

4. All appeal forms were completed IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES, stamped in by the non-appearing DEFENDANT, and submitted to the court through email since plaintiff-appellant is not registered on CMECF or PACER, as she so-wanted due to lack of confidence that cyber crime would not occur.

a.  This includes Plaintiff-appellant’s Form D-P along with the suggested/optional statement when no transcript is available

b. The Chief Clerk marked this document as defective, when it met all requirements.

a) The case manager (real one or fake one, not sure) claimed the reason it was defective was because it was not served on Michael Skold, who has no filed appearance on this case and never received any documents from the plaintiff-appellant. Plaintiff-appellant found this inconsistent with the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, as well as what they use as Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

b) Copy of this Form D-P and the Statement which accompanied it are attached for record purposes. These are what was already submitted to the court. There was no “DEFAULT by Plaintiff” as stated by the Chief Clerk.  In fact, it would most likely be deemed as nonsuit, since DEFAULT refers to the Defendant-Appellee. As a Pro Se, plaintiff-appellant does her best to adhere to orders that are substantiated by the rules; and considers other orders DEFICIENT, particularly not documented by the court, which shows DECEPTIVE TACTICS, not administration of the law.

 

 

PLEADER IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF

 

1.  Nonappearance of a DEFENDANT disrupts a case proceedings, and caused DEFAULT

2. The Modus Operandi in this is reflective of the very same thing which occurred in the Superior Court, which was never cured - not even by an order of the court for the Defendant to appear or face consequences.  The case had merit; the fee waiver was granted.  The files were frauded on record.  

a) No judge has any right to abuse power; make up rules as they go along.  Ordering a receipt for a Priority Mail of a pleading which only needed to be mailed US First Class is abuse - particularly when that receipt was attached just before mailing to the court.  They removed it.  Nevertheless, it was common knowledge that Storquest had the motion and this judge made this frivolous order on August 11, as apposed to when the court received the motion. Even if priority mailing was required, which it isn’t, IT WAS MOOT.  THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO APPEAR.  

3. The Defendant Storquest in the Superior Court Case:

a) Breached the lease

i. Terminated the lease when the rent was not even delinquent

ii. Added nefarious charge of insurance, which is not required on the lease, which was initiated January 2013

iii. Nefariously scheduled the disabled pro se plaintiff-appellant’s possessions for auction, when they had no right to her possessions

4.  THROUGHOUGHT THESE PROCEEDINGS IN LOWER COURTS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT HAS EMPHASIZED RELIEF SOUGHT:

a) Injunctive Order to Restore Lease

b) Reimburse for LEGAL EXPENSES, including time which has been modestly reported by the plaintiff-appellant

c) Issue Warning to this company that severe penalties would take place if they do not make remedy.

i. Storquest has not even been registered as a company or with IRS (And has no Agent of Service) when it was collecting taxes from customers; and the co-founder of the company which alleges to own them (William Warren Group, a member of the Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce, which has entered MANY company names it represents, EXCLUDING Storquest) - a company co-founded by Warren Jeffs who is a polygamist and sentenced to life imprisonment for raping and molesting children. Whether he is actually in prison or not remains to be seen.

5. The Superiour Court of New Haven only reflected MALPRACTICE OF LAW.  They, in fact, could have granted the motions which were with the Small Claim Form, resolved the case swiftly so the plaintiff-appellant would have her rights as a legitimate customer at that facility for almost ten years (since January 2013):  1.  Motion For Injunctive Order to Cease & Desist; and 2. Motion For Disclosure, to determine the corporate offices of Storquest, to determine their agent of service, since not even the Secretary of State cared about their records being ineptly managed, and

 

DEMAND FOR RELIEF SOUGHT PURSUANT TO FRCP 8 (3)

 

1. LEGAL EXPENSES - exceeding $5,000 (attached affidavit)

2. ORDER RESTORE LEASE WITH STORQUEST, WHICH WAS ILLEGALLY TERMINATED

3. ORDER WARNING TO STORQUEST THAT FURTHER BREACHES WILL RESULT IN STIFFER OUTCOMES AGAINST THEM

 

APPARENTLY according Rule 8, the non-appearing defendant may have the right to dispute CLAIM FOR RELIEF.  Apparently the Effect of Failing to Deny - is automatic presumption for the defendant, which is unconstitutional, indicating the following:  If a responsive pleading is not required, an ellegation is considered denied or avoided.  This rule is oddly-written as if you can have it both ways. There was no court order stating a responsive pleading was not required.  Had there been, plaintiff-petitioner would have apposed that.  They whole point in entering a case is to have BOTH PARTIES ACTIVELY ARGUING.  

As a COURT RULE, when a party pleads, the apposing party is expected to respond.  Their lack thereof is reflective of default on a pleading.

THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE.  If the defendant fails to respond, it is evidence only that they have no standing and defaulted.  

 

SUMMARY

Plaintiff-appellant has gone through much abuse by the courts, as stated in her Motion For Default Judgment.  This case could have simply been resolved by the court by granting the two motions and holding the defendant Storquest accountable for the breaches of lease.  Instead, they used means of delay with plaintiff-appellant’s landlord ganging up on her to help the courts further harm her.  The landlord attempted to set up a case to evict plaintiff-appellant, on multiple occassions.  They violated her mail for the last time, since she filed a full request to forward all mail to her Post Office Box.  They, in fact, had no right to invade her privacy, yet they continuously invade it, including illegal entries.  There may be remedy taking place with the landlord management yet there is no validated structure at this time.  

 

The supervising judge of the civil cases in New Haven, CT is John Abrams.  He illegally evicted the plaintiff-appellant in 2010, on a housing matter which did not have merit to begin with, and was proven by the plaintiff-appellant.  The landlord issued a Notice To Quit without following the lease agreement, that the lease would automatically continue and if the landlord chose to end the lease, he was required first to provide a 60-day notice.  The court did not even request the lease from him.  This was all deliberate actions to break laws and rules-to target the plaintiff-appellant.  Judge Abrams once again enjoyed conspiring to harm her through MALPRACTICE OF LAW, by helping Public Storage steal her possessions while she was a full time student at Southern CT State University.  A civil case was entered by the plaintiff-appellant.  The judge obviously got the marshall to promise to serve the Summons, yet sabatoged her by REFUSING thereafter.  The documents were not stapled to help the marshal make whatever copies he needed to make.  He yelled at the plaintiff-appellant, delaying mailing back the Summons and Complaint, to disrupt her ability to go forward with her rights, which she had been trying to do for months, BEFORE Public Storage stole her possessions, nefariously claiming she owed $250 in “late charges” which was fraudulent billing. Additionally, the court was well aware that Public Storage never paid the plaintiff-appellant for the $450 she won in a small claim against them.  The court ordered the plaintiff-appellant to AMEND her civil lawsuit against them as a means of delay, at which time they stole her possessions and auctioned them off, claiming she was issued a notice in the mail.  They never called her.  They never emailed her, though they knew her email address.  She was a customer for 9 years.  

 

So this is about MODUS OPERANDI.  As a Pro Se Litigant who never cared to be caught up in all this abuse by the courts again, she spent a great amount of time just trying to get Storquest to be responsible, to no avail.  They now have a new manager who seems to be quite reliable.  Yet she said she could not get involved with this legal matter, that their legal department should contact her - yet they have not done anything.  They have not called, or emailed, or sent her a letter.  This lack of diligence should have been recognized by the Superior Court of New Haven as ANOTHER reason to grant her motion for default, which is, in fact, a state law.  

 

The Federal Court’s Ruling was deliberately inept.  They also did what they could to frame the plaintiff-appellant as a criminal, invoking 28 U.S.C. section 1915 as reason to grant her IFP.  Though they granted it for the Federal case, which they docketed as 22-1101, they disrupted their own orders by Dismissing the case, rather than make remedy on it by giving attention to the Motion for Injunction, Cease and Desist.  There was no trial, no hearings, nothing.  Yet he ruled as reason to dismiss using the Anti-Injunction Act which has absolutely no relevance and yet he furthered by making false statements in the opinion - ending it with plaintiff-appellant’s right to appeal the small claim; when SMALL CLAIMS CANNOT BE APPEALED.  This was complete abuse and malpractice of law.  It is plaintiff-appellant’s opinion that the burden of costs now lie with the Superior Court Of New Haven, being that they disrupted the case deliberately through malpractice of law and frauding the case record.  An immediate reimbursement is sought, due to the extreme hardship on the plaintiff-appellant as a disabled, indigent person, who expected that the court would hear and rule on the two motions she submitted when she submitted the small claim for processing upon granting the fee waiver.  Though they are supposed to process fee waivers within 48 hours, they waited nearly a week, obviously hoping the delay would be time to further harm plaintiff-appellant in her personal life, which is typical of their DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD TACTICS.  

 

According to the State of Connecticut, Michael Skold was Solicitor General, not Attorney General.  Should there have been a CONSTITUTIONALITY STATEMENT made by the plaintiff-appellant, which there was not, it would have been required for her to send a copy to the Attorney General.  NO COPIES OF EITHER WAS THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S REQUIREMENT.  ADDITIONALLY, THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO ENTER THE APPEARANCE FOR ANY PARTY.  

 

Wherefore, the plaintiff-appellant concludes that it should be her legal right to have full refund of legal expenses exceeding $5,000 at this point and for the other two issues to be administered regarding Breach of Lease.  

 

Appendix

 A - Plaintiff-Appellant’s Motion For Permission to Appeal IFP - to the Federal Court (already submitted yet apparently not given attention)

B - Form D-P and Statement; appropriately prepared and timely submitted

 

Prepared and Submitted,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE

 

______________________

Anne M. Bradley 



My blogpost is being hacked right now - I just posted some notes and someone deleted everything - so I had to NOT SAVE the blogpost to at least retain what was here (posted 12/31/2022)  Sometimes they hack through BLUETOOTH but it is off now.  Most likely it a Bill Gates shill... All feeding the BEAST, which is CIA.  


First, I will post my notes collected, not in any certain order....I will then review the history of the case, as I had written it, in order to prepare facts/argument in the same order as written.  

I will also include facts such as the inept court procedure shooting from the seat of their pants!  If you could see these documents!  Including falsely proceeding with a secret case to FRAUD RECORDS, use as a WILD CARD, to call it a counterclaim or other lies.  I have to get the RECORD which the federal district court has prepared and the 2d Circuit Court has received for the real case and the fake case!  

There is no f*king basis for it, yet they spin it like it was yarn!  

Also, their demanding I file IFP as if it is a criminal case was deliberately nefarious!  Their telling me I had to file for an attorney also deliberately nefarious!  I questioned it all because I was filing an application for injunction/Order for the lower court to grant the Motion for Default as required by state law as well as federal law and court rules.  I cited it!  This organized crime has to be stopped!  I filed the small claim estimating the court costs to be at the least $5,000 - in fact they have a backpocket rule that helps their friends get more money because the small claim can exceed that amount with good cause shown that legal expenses were more.   I have to prepare that affidavit as well, because they play their own damn games.  Supposedly, once it is ruled in your favor in Superior Court, or you file a Motion For Default Judgment, they are supposed to have a hearing!  

I need to stop for the evening, as anxious as I am to get this completed, submitted - it HAS to be tomorrow.  

********************************************************************

********************************************************************

Memorandum of Law

Motion For Default Judgment

 

HEARING REQUESTED? 

 

 

§ 2073. Rules of procedure and evidence; method of prescribing (a)(1) The Judicial Conference shall prescribe and publish the procedures for the consideration of proposed rules under this section.

 

No Master should have been appointed on this case because Plaintiff Appellant has not been notified

 

(e) MASTER’S REPORTS. A master must report to the court as required by the appointing order. The master must file the report and promp

 

COMMENCING AN ACTION

Rule 1. Scope and Purpose These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81. They should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.

 

The court ineptly entered a SECOND Appeal case, which is obviously a wild card for the State of Connecticut to use as a COUNTERCLAIM.  THEY HAVE NOT EVEN APPEARED ON THE CASE.

 

THE COURT DOCKETED THE CASE ON THE MOTION TO PROCEED IFP; AND THEREFORE HAD SHOWN ITS APPROVAL OF IFP. UPON ASKING FOR THE RULING, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT WAS ASSURED IT WAS GRANTED.

 

Title 28 U.S.C. 1915 for INMATES!  provides for the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action, or proceeding without prepayment of fees and costs. Witnesses shall attend as in other cases.

 

·        Citation: 28 CFR 21.6 copy 

· URL: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-28/chapter-I/part-21/section-21.6 copy 

Part 21

Authority: 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 1821-1825, 5 U.S.C. 301.

Source: 51 FR 16171, May 1, 1986, unless otherwise noted.

 

 

Is 28 USC 1915 Ghost Law?  There is no citation of the law!  A wild card?  

 

RULE 4, SUMMONS  

(c) SERVICE. (1) In General. A summons must be served with a copy of the complaint. The plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service. (2) By Whom. Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a summons and complaint. (3) By a Marshal or Someone Specially Appointed. At the plaintiff’s request, the court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court. The court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. § 1916.

 

Publication Title

United States Code, 2012 Edition, Supplement 2, Title 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

Category

Bills and Statutes

Collection

United States Code

SuDoc Class Number

Y 1.2/5:

Contained Within

Title 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
PART V - PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 123 - FEES AND COSTS
Sec. 1915 - Proceedings in forma pauperis / FOR INMATES! 

Contains

section 1915

Date

2014

Laws In Effect As Of Date

January 5, 2015

Positive Law

Yes

Disposition

standard

Source Credit

June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 954; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §98, 63 Stat. 104; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, §51(b), (c), 65 Stat. 727; Pub. L. 86-320, Sept. 21, 1959, 73 Stat. 590; Pub. L. 96-82, §6, Oct. 10, 1979, 93 Stat. 645; Pub. L. 101-650, title III, §321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117; Pub. L. 104-134, title I, §101[(a)] [title VIII, §804(a), (c)-(e)], Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-73 to 1321-75; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 104-140, §1(a), May 2, 1996, 110 Stat. 1327.

Statutes at Large References

27 Stat. 252
36 Stat. 866
42 Stat. 666
45 Stat. 54
58 Stat. 5
62 Stat. 954
63 Stat. 104
65 Stat. 727
73 Stat. 590
93 Stat. 645
104 Stat. 5117
110 Stat. 1321, 1327

Public Law References

Public Law 86-320, Public Law 96-82, Public Law 101-650, Public Law 104-134, Public Law 104-140

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) provides, “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (West Supp. 1998). 

 

 

(d) WAIVING SERVICE. (1) Requesting a Waiver. An individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service under Rule 4(e), (f), or (h) has a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons. The plaintiff may notify such a defendant that an action has been commenced and request that the defendant waive service of a summons. The notice and request must: (A) be in writing and be addressed: (i) to the individual defendant; or (ii) for a defendant subject to service under Rule 4(h), to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process; (B) name the court where the complaint was filed; (C) be accompanied by a copy of the complaint, 2 copies of the waiver form appended to this Rule 4, and a prepaid means for returning the form; (D) inform the defendant, using the form appended to this Rule 4, of the consequences of waiving and not waiving service; (E) state the date when the request is sent; (F) give the defendant a reasonable time of at least 30 days after the request was sent—or at least 60 days if sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of the United States—to return the waiver; and (G) be sent by first-class mail or other reliable means. (2) Failure to Waive. If a defendant located within the United States fails, without good cause, to sign and return a waiver requested by a plaintiff located within the United States, the court must impose on the defendant: (A) the expenses later incurred in making service; and (B) the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, of any motion required to collect those service expenses.

 

SUMMONS

(b) ISSUANCE. On or after filing the complaint, the plaintiff may present a summons to the clerk for signature and seal. If the summons is properly completed, the clerk must sign, seal, and issue it to the plaintiff for service on the defendant. A summons—or a copy of a summons that is addressed to multiple defendants—must be issued for each defendant to be served.

 

 

LACK OF DUE PROCESS!

 MISSIUNG WORDS BELOW!  28USC 1915 IS USED FOR INMATES!  I do the best I can, but my blogposts get altered through CYBER CRIME. A ruling was documented; and as usual, I was never served the ruling! I only got an email notification.    

     The Court failed to document ruling on Motion For IFP; thisI was nefariously used as a WILD CARD, partnering with the Federal District Court tactic doing a similar thing:  DOCKETING THE CASE, yet failing DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY HEARING AND RULING ON MOTION FOR IFP.  In both circumstances, they have now framed themselves as having OPENLY GRANTED THE MOTION FOR IFP, AND THEREFORE DETERMINED THE CASE HAS MERIT.  

 TRUE - THE BELOW CASE WAS BASED ON 

FRAUDULENT RECORDS CREATED BY THE COURT! 

NO MOTION FOR IFP WAS EVER ISSUED ON 22-2817 - IT WAS FRAUDULENTLY ISSUED ON RECORD, BY ORDER OF JUDGE HAIGHT AT THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEW HAVEN!  

 

IT IS A GENERALLY-KNOWN BELIEF THAT IFP refers to people charged with crimes who cannot afford to pay. The Fed District Court says otherwise, citing 18 USC Title 1915 - which is for inmates! 

Pretty damn disgusting they tell you to fill out forms that are for inmates!

They abuse procedure further by telling the plaintiff-appellant that she has to file IFP, when in fact, they have an alternate Fee Waiver process for what the court claims are law-abiding citizens who have low incomes.  This, too was addressed to the court as well as the Supreme Court, which rejected her Petition for Certiorari yet most likely racked her up as a financial statistic to obtain more money in their budget.  

 

 

THE COURT FAVORS REAL SEX OFFENDERS AND WILL DO WHAT THEY CAN TO GET THOSE WHO ARE THE FARTHEST THING FROM THAT - TO BE ENTRAPPED, CONVICTED!  

 This freaking blogpost was altered by a hacker - considering the fact I do not seek to entrap anyone!  Only a psychopath would state something like this. 

    It is like saying, "I am going to rob the bank now" - they are entrapping themselves!  See my point?  The technocrats caused the huge bubble in the FEDERAL RESERVE, NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND LI'L OL' $80 TRILLION!  

 The Court is getting inmates to send me emails - AND GETTING THE TECHNOCRATS TO BLOCK MY ABILITY FROM SPAMMING THEIR EMAILS - they contract criminals to commit more crimes...especially murder. I. t was easily arranged on Alpha Bay, created in he DEEP WEB, which Edward Snowden disclosed how to access, along with about a million other files - which Obama claims he is a hero for.  WTF.

So his being in Russia keeps him from doing it again!

(posted 12/31/2022)


ALL MY WIDGETS ARE REMOVED FROM THIS BLOGPOST AND I HAVE TO SAVE IT/ THEN CAREFULLY USE THEM BECAUSE THE F*KHEADS MAKE THEM DISAPPEAR AGAIN.  

INTERNET IS NOT A REALITY SPACE BECAUSE IT IS RUN BY ORGANIZED CRIME.  REMIND YOURSELF OF THIS! 

         (posted 12/31/2022 1:17 a.m.)


     THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY A REAL SEX OFFENDER, IN MY OPINION:

 

Daniel C. Medberry is an inmate in the Florida Department of Corrections who is serving a 27 year prison sentence for sexual battery. Upon arriving at the Everglades Correctional Institute on August 22, 1996, Medberry informed the prison officials of his concern of being placed in the prison's general population. Specifically, Medberry advised the prison officials that because his offense of conviction was considered to be "repugnant" by the other inmates, he feared for his physical safety if he were to be placed in the prison's general population.

 

My suspicion:  MOST LIKELY THE DOC officers accused were probably fingered to get rid of  because they got in their organized crime way

 

After exhausting all of his administrative remedies, Medberry filed suit on February 6, 1997, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against four prison officials, Joe Butler, J. Johnson, R. Ashley, and Carl Berry, in their individual and official capacities, alleging that these four individuals acted with deliberate indifference for his safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment by placing him in the prison's general population. Medberry also alleged that he had been in administrative confinement since December 6, 1996. Along with his Complaint, Medberry filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.

 

          IMMINENT DANGER SUPERSEDES THE BASEBALL RULE/THREE STRIKES…..

Anyone else wonder why Dr. Petit claimed he was hit with a BASEBALL BAT when he lacerated his forehead and had to have stitches - the Petit mom and daughters were kidnapped, tortured, raped and ALL burned alive, including the mother.  The media lied about her being strangled to death.  She was still breathing because smoke was in her lungs!  I was at the trial, I know! I wanted justice for the ones murdered!  Her father was a retired minister!  I met the Hawks and they were the most loving people and wrote to me in between times they went to Connecticut from their Pennsylvania home.  ILLEGAL INTRUDERS STOLE THEIR ADDRESS, YANKED IT OUT OF MY ADDRESS BOOK, WHICH I ACCIDENTALLY LEFT IN MY SUPPOSED-TO-BE-SECURE APARTMENT!  NOT ONE DAMN APARTMENT IN THIS STATE WAS SECURE!  

 

      APPARENTLY HIS MOTION WENT THROUGH ENOUGH HANDS TO RESULT IN JUSTICE Therefore, the district court's decision to deny Medberry in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) is AFFIRMED.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act became effective on April 26, 1996. 

 

THE COURTS MADE INDIGENCY ITSELF A SELF-SERVING BUSINESS, LINING A LOT OF POCKETS!   https://www.pdffiller.com/5505366-fillable-middle-district-of-fl-indigent-form-flmd-uscourts 

 

 

What is a 42 USC 1983 claim?

Section 1983 provides an individual the right to sue state government employees and others acting "under color of state law" for civil rights violations. Section 1983 does not provide civil rights; it is a means to enforce civil rights that already exist.

 

 

 

42 USC 1915 (a)

(a)(1) Subject to subsection (b), any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. ?Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress.   

 

(3)  An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.

 

 

FORM TO APPLY FOR A FEE WAIVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE AO 239 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS (LONG FORM)

 

      YET IT IS Significant to say that the description “without prepaying” is an opportunity to deceive and even further harm people by burglarizing their homes, as the Connecticut Bar Association has supported through Statewide Grievance or another legal entity.  All they need is a party to make a claim - any claim, a false claim is fine.  And upon the judge ruling the false claim is valid, they will steal your possessions!  I read this myself as I was looking for other things - because my flashdrives were stolen when I was in NYC - I cannot access the actual source!  All completely illegal, and it is common practice for judges to rule in favor of FALSE CLAIMS, INEPT SMALL CLAIMS FORMS, UNJUSTIFIED - AS PART OF AN UNDERGROUND ORGANIZED CRIME!  

 

 

Civil defendants in federal court are obliged to waive service.  All of them, with the notable exception of various governments.  I give you Rule 4(d)(1):

An individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service under Rule 4(e), (f), or (h) has a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons.*

FEDERAL COURT RULED THAT ONLY DEFENDANT WAS SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAVEN,

WHICH HAS REPEATEDLY FAILED TO ABIDE BY THE LAW REGARDING FEE WAIVERS AS WELL AS FAILURE TO APPEAR CAUSING DEFAULT, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  

 

If a defendant located within the United States fails, without good cause, to sign and return a waiver requested by a plaintiff located within the United States, the court must impose on the defendant:

(A) the expenses later incurred in making service; and

(B) the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, of any motion required to collect those service expenses.

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

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

UPDATE 12/24/2022

This was submitted:  

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the

SECOND CIRCUIT

 

December 23, 2022

 

 )

)  Case No. 22-CV-1101

ANNE M. BRADLEY        )

       )     FED DIST COURT FILE ALSO NOTED 22-CV-1101

  V.        ) corrected to 22-cv-2741 before

       )      submission

Superior Court - New Haven,CT  )

       )     

       )

       )                

       )    

 

Plaintiff-Appellant’s Statement regarding Memorandum Of Law and Appendix for

Motion For Default Judgment

 

Due to closure of both the Federal District Court and the State Superior Court, plaintiff-appellant was not able to complete the Memorandum of Law by today, Friday, December 23, 2022.

Documents were needed to obtain from the Federal District Court; namely the two RECORDs which the Federal District Court failed to submit to the plaintiff-appellant although the Second Circuit Court has them.  One Record would be for aforesaid case, and the other for a case which the Federal District Court made up, which Pro Se Plaintiff-Appellant considers to be FRAUD.

 

Regarding the Superior Court, Plaintiff-Appellant intended to stamp in this MEMORANDUM OF LAW as a matter of record; and request they fax it to the alleged attorney who represents them, though no appearance has been made.  

This Statement will be included in appendix to the Motion For Default Judgment and at the time the motion is served on the DEFENDANT it will be made available.  

 

Prepared and Submitted,

 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

 

_________________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

PO Box 206514

New Haven, CT 06520

 

PH xxx xxx xxxx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2


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

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

UPDATE 1/12/2023

I prepared a number of documents, which go along with more documents, based on a multiple-mailing coming from Second Circuit Court: 

1. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the

SECOND CIRCUIT

 

January 12, 2023

 

 )

)  Case No. 22-CV-2741

ANNE M. BRADLEY        )

       )    

  V.        )  

       )      

Superior Court - New Haven,CT  )

       )     

       )

             

Plaintiff-Appellant’s Notice

Second Circuit Court’s

DEFECTIVE FILING AND

ABUSE OF PROCEDURE

 

DEFECTIVE FILING  AND ABUSE OF PROCEDURE

 

1.  Appeal as Informa Pauperus was motioned by plaintiff-appellant on the Second Circuit Court due to the Denial of the Federal District Court.

a) Abuse of Procedure/Fraudulent Records:  The Federal District Court ineptly conspired with the Second Circuit Court to SECRETLY CREATE an Appeal Numbers 22-cv-2817 and 22-cv-2741 - ON THE SAME APPEAL OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT CASE 22-01101 - which would ineptly cause the time-watch of 14 days to submit appeal documents to initiate and therefore intercept the plaintiff-appellant’s right to appeal.  

i. There was NO APPEAL NUMBER ON THE INEPT DENIAL OF APPEALING BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT!  

 

1

2. Appeal Documents as well as Motion To Appeal were all served on the Defendant Superior Court of New Haven, CT, in person, as a matter of right by the plaintiff-appellant.  

a) Court Rules regarding service of documents have been cited as a reminder in plaintiff-appellant’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT (due to failure to appear by defendant) as well as in CLAIM FOR RELIEF, which oddly, the Second Circuit Court Rules ALLOW non-appearing defendant to respond to as if it was a motion and as if defendant was appearing on the case.  

 

3.  Second Circuit Court ENTERED APPEAL DOCUMENTS AS PART OF THE RECORD

a) Yet, the court thereafter sent a rejection, which makes absolutely no sense at all

b) The Appeal is ACTIVE

c) There is only ONE CASE NUMBER, 22-CV-2741

 

4.  Case No. 22-cv-2817 is FRAUDULENT

a) Not one document which the Court has entered on this FAKE CASE has any relevance and never did the appellant-plaintiff submit appeal TWICE.  Had the Pro Se Plaintiff done so, it is the court’s obligation to CORRECT THE ERROR MADE BY A PRO SE PLAINTIFF.  In this case, this is clearly a circumstance of FRAUDULENT RECORDS.  

b) In a letter by non-appearing Timothy J. Holzman, Special Litigation with the State of Connecticut Attorney General’s office, he states:  The District Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice pursuant to the Anti-Injunction Act; See Bradley v. Superior Court of New Haven, No. 22-01101-CSH, ECF No. 6.  

i. Additionally, this attorney claims “Defendant was never served with process”  WHICH IS FALSE

ii. Had the court recognized the defendant not being served with process, the court would have dismissed the case on that issue ALONE.  In fact, at no point in an inept SIX PAGE RULING which ABRUPTLY STOPPED PROCEEDINGS FOR NO LAWFUL REASON, there was not even mention of the Defendant not being served!  

iii. Defendant failed to enter appearance!  

 

2

iv. The Court docketed the case and scheduled out the case for when briefings and hearings were scheduled!  

v. The unlawful and abrupt OPINION OF DISMISSAL had NOTHING TO REFLECT DUE PROCESS OF LAW! It was deliberate MALPRACTICE OF LAW, PARTNERING WITH THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAVEN.  

 

 

5.  Plaintiff-Appellant emailed the non-appearing court, using the email address which is made PUBLIC RECORD, ExternalAffairs@jud.ct.gov

a) Though they were served both MOTION FOR DEFAULT AND CLAIM FOR RELIEF DOCUMENTS in this manner, plaintiff-appellant presented them in person on January 11, having paid over $60 for the printing of them, to the court.  

i. The court, defendant-appellee, ineptly REFUSED to take them, telling plaintiff-appellant to have a marshal serve these pleadings.

ii. The court also used TWO MARSHALS TO FORCE HER TO LEAVE, despite showing no intent to refuse to leave on her own accord; only seeking to have a conversation with an employee who would not be aggressive with her as the unknown female clerk was, not an attorney - just someone ordered to defy the court rules and say “too bad; we don’t care what the rules say”  

1. TWO armed MARSHALS acted like two gang members to threaten harm to the plaintiff-appellant.  

2. One of the marshals went in the elevator, expecting the plaintiff-appellant to enter, which she refused to do, saying she considered them as a harmful threat and attempted to take another elevator, which they intercepted.  Once the marshal got out of the elevator, the plaintiff-appellant entered it.  

3. This should be visible on surveillance video, as long as it is not technocratically-manipulated, as the court does as MODUS OPERANDI on many records.  

 

6. As shown in the Accompanied documents, which are paginated, the Federal Express mailing of both the MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND CLAIM FOR RELIEF - BOTH WITH APPENDICES - is due to be served on the DEFENDANT Superior

 

3

Court of New Haven, CT - TODAY, JANUARY 12, 2023.  ELECTRONIC VERSIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED, AS PROVIDED IN THE ACCOMPANIED DOCUMENTS.  

 

7. It is the obligation of the SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO ADMINISTER THE LAW AND NOT PARTNER WITH LOWER COURTS TO FURTHER THE CORRUPTION WHICH ALREADY OBVIOUSLY EXISTS.  

 

8. Aforesaid case is rooted in a company which has deliberately broken laws, including BREACH OF CONTRACT.  A simple granting of MOTION FOR CEASE AND DESIST/INJUNCTIVE ORDER would have most likely resolved the matter.  A temporary one could be issued from the bench WITHOUT HEARING.  A permanent one could be marked for hearing.  The court failed to do either.  

a) It is obvious the Defendant-Appellee Superior Court of New Haven, CT partnered with the Defendant Storequest to COVER UP THE FACT THAT STORQUEST WAS NOT A REGISTERED COMPANY, THAT THEY DID NOT EVEN HAVE AN AGENT OF SERVICE, AND MORE.  

b) The fact that Superior Court of New Haven only implemented MALPRACTICE OF LAW AND FAILED TO APPLY DUE PROCESS OF LAW is not only intentional, but UNCHECKED, UNACCOUNTED FOR - FAVORING THE PARTY AT FAULT.  

 

9. TIMOTHY J. HOLZMAN is not a registered/approved attorney to practice in the Second Circuit Court.  Plaintiff-Appellant is aware of this because the REAL case manager, Markus, informed her that the only Connecticut attorney who has registration in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, through the Attorney General’s office, is Michael Skold, who was appointed as SOLICITOR GENERAL, which in fact would disqualify him from representing the state on aforesaid Second Circuit Appeal since Solicitor Generals deal with US Supreme Court Cases only.  ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS NO APPEARANCE!  

 

10.  This case has nothing to do with a criminal case. Both the Federal District Court and the Second District Court ineptly allowed an unlawful processing, which they requested, not the indigent Pro

 

4

Se plaintiff-appellant, of IFP Pursuant to a law for inmates!  28 USC 1915!  This is another DELIBERATE inept MALPRACTICE OF LAW.  

 

11. The Second Circuit Court has no right to FRAUD RECORDS, CLAIMING THAT APPEAL DOCUMENTS MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT ARE DEFECTIVE; further claiming them to be defective for Proof of Service - when in fact, the Motion for Appeal In Forma Pauperus was served the same way, and all other pleadings, on the non-appearing defendant.  For Attorney Holzman to provide a letter claiming the Attorney General failed to appear because they consider the case without merit, as if they were the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant - is additional MALPRACTICE OF LAW.  They have no power to retract their appearance as defendant on the case - and the letter by yet another non-appearing attorney, using the fraudulent case of 22-2817 - is only reflecting more corruption, more partnering, as apposed to ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  

 

 This concludes this court document, comprising of SIX PAGES along with paginated supporting documents, of which is titled Plaintiff-Appellant’s Notice

Second Circuit Court’s

DEFECTIVE FILING AND

ABUSE OF PROCEDURE

 

____________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

PO BOX 206514

NEW HAVEN, CT 06520

PH. 203-909-9131

 

 

 

5

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

 

Plaintiff-Appellant’s Notice

Second Circuit Court’s

DEFECTIVE FILING AND

ABUSE OF PROCEDURE

 

With Supporting Documents

 

Prepared 1/12/2023

 

Aforesaid document has been emailed this day, 1/12/2023 to the non-appearing defendant:

 

externalaffairs@jud.ct.gov

 

There has been no rejection of the email and proof of email is attached as last page of this scanned pdf to the Second Circuit Court.  

 

__________________  

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

PO Box 206514

New Haven, CT 06520

Ph. 203-909-9131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the

SECOND CIRCUIT

 

January 12, 2023

 

 )

)  Case No. 22-CV-2741

ANNE M. BRADLEY        )

       )    

  V.        )  

       )      

Superior Court - New Haven,CT  )

       )     

       )

NO STRUCTURE ON SOLICITOR GENERAL

 

The following pages is a section reflecting the Plaintiff-Appellant’s efforts in determining the duties and legal structure of the Office of Solicitor General.  

 

FINDINGS

 

1. Solicitor General is Appointed by the Attorney General; to be in Charge of the Appeals Cases

a) Found:  Appeal Case with no mention of Solicitor General; copies provided - Included in this segment of documents.  

b) Found:  Special Litigation and Charities Section has not listed SOLICITOR GENERAL as part of this activity.  Yet stated:  “The section also plays a LEADING role in the preparation of appeals….”

 

2. Michael Skold did NOT have a Juris number or Title for an unknown length of time, which has already been presented to the Second Circuit Court

 

3. As Deputy Solicitor General, supposedly the State claims that office is in charge of all appeals, which is found NOT to be the case; and attorneys file appearances on those cases.

1

a) The Second Circuit Court filed a rogue “fiat” appearance, which is by force, claiming that Attorney Skold has appearance yet there is no appearance form submitted, when the plaintiff-appellant has filed her appearance form.

b) As already mentioned, Motion To Appeal In Forma Pauperus cannot be split up, as the Federal District Judge nefariously did through conspiring with the Second Circuit Court, which secretly issued an appeal number PRIOR to Federal District Judge’s ruling/opinion - which did not record this secret appeal number, 22-cv-7841.  

c}  Upon filing Motion To Appeal In Forma Pauperus to the Second Circuit Court, Plaintiff-Appellant was VERBALLY told to use that appeal number on her documents, when there was no appeal submitted.  No documented order was issued; therefore Plaintiff-Appellant referred to both numbers.  

i. These tactics disrupt DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

 

4. CONCLUSION;  There is no structure on the Office of Solicitor General.  There is no structure in the Appeal Process. There is no transparency by the State of Connecticut.  They do what they feel like doing as apposed to abiding by the law, administering the law.  

a) For an attorney to even admit that he/The Office of the Attorney General, “Special Litigations” that he failed to appear because HE decided the case had no merit, failing to file any pleading, is ILLEGAL ON ITS FACE.  Only a counsel for a PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, OR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT may have that liberty.  Yet they get paid six figure incomes and nobody cares that they do not administer the law; they are only obsessed with “feeding the beast” which is a corrupted company, co-founded by a man who was sentenced to life in prison for raping and molesting his victims, including children; and is probably enjoying an identity change and not even in prison! (Warren Jeffs is probably Clark Porter, or another individual)

i. MODUS OPERANDI:  Phil Giordano, former mayor of Waterbury, CT is obviously multimillionaire Dan Cordani, who became CEO of CIGNA a month after Giordano was sentenced - time enough to get plastic surgery on his eyes and possibly mouth to alter his appearance, yet enjoy fooling the public even though he states to be from

 

2

Waterbury, to be the same age, and so forth.  If anyone has come forward to state this need to investigate, they may have been harmed as a consequence.  

 

5.  All appeal forms were properly prepared and submitted. If they were not, the court is obligated to return them; instead the court devised a “reason” to claim they were defective; using false information, since the Superior Court had been served those forms in person by the Pro Se plaintiff-appellant as a matter of right.

 

6. Rules and laws have been diligently cited by the plaintiff-appellant in the Motion For Default and CLAIM FOR RELIEF.  

a) Considering the psychopathic behavior of courts partnering with corrupted businesses, plaintiff-appellant emphasizes that when the maintenance supervisor entered her apartment this week, responding to a maintenance work order request submitted months ago (to change the lint filter in the dryer) he literally RELIEVED HIMSELF IN PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S GARBAGE CAN WHICH WAS FACING THE DRYER.  

 

This is such a disgusting reflection of the organized crime which oftentimes takes place in the courts, with no accountability required - only using it as a nefarious message to those who seek their legal rights - they could harm them more if they don’t “back off”, which is simply expecting administration of the law.  

 

A corrupted business could have been corrected - and those employees who just care about doing good jobs could have their own self-worth restored as well as assurance that good service prevails; not organized crime.  All that was needed was a CEASE AND DESIST ORDER SINCE THEY BREACHED THE CONTRACT and had to be corrected.  

 

As one who has been through the mill with corruption from attorneys, including a married judge who made passes at her, which she rejected, this plaintiff-appellant Pro Se will not put up with the continuous dishonesty, fraud, and more which the courts often use as part of their activity.  May this be a public notice that the Second Circuit Court needs to correct itself in its failure to administer the law.  Failure to Appear is in fact a deliberate, illegal act.  Telling a pro se litigant that they have to file a fee waiver

3

pursuant to a law created for inmates is not only fraudulent, but defamation of character and creating a nefarious reason to dismiss a case.  It is also an indicator of MANY, which the courts have stooped to, rather than administer the law, which includes abiding by the US Constitution; namely DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  

 

THE CLAIM FOR RELIEF STILL STANDS.  This document is to emphasize “the elephant in the room”.  

 

Prepared and Submitted,

 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE

 

_____________________

Anne M. Bradley

PO Box 306514

New Haven, CT 06520

Ph. 203-909-9131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

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


BTW, the maintenance supervisor took HIS "claim for relief" literally in my garbage can in my bathroom, facing the dryer, which he was supposed to change the filter on - instead vandalized it and went to the bathroom in the garbage can!  My suspiscion: they hypnotized him to do that.  He was a cook at the casino before he became maintenance supervisor for a 32-floor apartment building.  WTF -- they probably microchipped him as part of their transhumanism tactics.  

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the

SECOND CIRCUIT

 

January 3, 2023

 

 )

)  Case No. 22-CV-2741

ANNE M. BRADLEY        )

       )    

  V.        )  

       )      

Superior Court - New Haven,CT  )

       )     

       )

             

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Motion For Default Judgment

 

 

STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS

 

1. Plaintiff-appellant submitted her motion for permission to Appeal In Forma Paupris diligently

2. The Court did not provide its ruling; yet pulled up a backdated appeal number and claimed it was being processed

3. The Court provided with instruction for the plaintiff-appellant to PROCEED, issuing dates for brief, etc in its DOCKET SHEET.

4. All appeal forms were completed IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES, stamped in by the non-appearing DEFENDANT, and

submitted to the court through email since plaintiff-appellant is not

1

registered on CMECF or PACER, as she so-wanted due to expectation that cyber crime would not occur.

a.  This includes Plaintiff-appellant’s Form D-P along with the suggested/optional statement when no transcript is available

b. The Chief Clerk marked this document as defective, when it met all requirements.

a) The case manager (real one or fake one, not sure) claimed the reason it was defective was because it was not served on Michael Skold, who has no filed appearance on this case and never received any documents from the plaintiff-appellant. Plaintiff-appellant found this inconsistent with the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, as well as what they use as Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

b) Copy of this Form D-P and the Statement which accompanied it are attached for record purposes. These are what was already submitted to the court. There was no “DEFAULT by Plaintiff” - as stated by the Chief Clerk in a letter.  In fact, any failure to do something by the plaintiff (which has NOT occurred)  would most likely be deemed as nonsuit, since

2

DEFAULT refers to the Defendant-Appellee. As a Pro Se, plaintiff-appellant does her best to adhere to orders that are substantiated by the rules; and considers other orders DEFICIENT, particularly not documented by the court, which shows DECEPTIVE TACTICS, not administration of the law.

 

PLEADER IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF

1.  Nonappearance of a DEFENDANT disrupts a case proceedings, and caused DEFAULT.

2. The Modus Operandi in this is reflective of the very same thing which occurred in the Superior Court, which was never cured - not even by an order of the court for the Defendant to appear or face consequences.  The case had merit; the fee waiver was granted.  The files were frauded on record.  

a) No judge has any right to abuse power; make up rules as they go along.  Ordering a receipt for a Priority Mail of a pleading which only needed to be mailed US First Class is abuse - particularly when that receipt was attached just before mailing to the court.  They removed it.  Nevertheless, it was common knowledge that Storquest had the motion

3

and this judge made this frivolous order on August 11, as apposed to when the court received this motion as well as Motion For Disclosure with Small Claim and Complaint in June 2022. Even if priority mailing was required, which it isn’t, IT WAS MOOT.  THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO APPEAR.  

3. The Defendant Storquest in the Superior Court Case:

a) Breached the lease

i. Terminated the lease when the rent was not even delinquent

ii. Added nefarious charge of insurance, which is not required on the lease, which was initiated January 2013

iii. Nefariously scheduled the disabled pro se plaintiff-appellant’s possessions for auction, when they had no right to her possessions

4.  THROUGHOUGHT THESE PROCEEDINGS IN LOWER COURTS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT HAS EMPHASIZED RELIEF SOUGHT:

a) Injunctive Order to Restore Lease

b) Reimburse for LEGAL EXPENSES, including time which has been modestly reported by the plaintiff-appellant

c) Issue Warning to this company that severe penalties would

4

 

take place if they do not make remedy.

i. Storquest has not even been registered as a company or with IRS (And has no Agent of Service) when it was collecting taxes from customers; and the co-founder of the company which alleges to own them (William Warren Group, a member of the Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce, which has entered MANY company names it represents, EXCLUDING Storquest) - a company co-founded by Warren Jeffs who is a polygamist and sentenced to life imprisonment for raping and molesting children. Whether he is actually in prison or not remains to be seen. Plaintiff-appellant opines that most likely Warren Jeffs is now “Clark Porter”, who appeared when he disappeared.  

5. The Superior Court of New Haven only reflected MALPRACTICE OF LAW.  They, in fact, could have granted the motions which were with the Small Claim Form, resolved the case swiftly so the plaintiff-appellant would have her rights as a legitamate customer at that facility for almost ten years (since January 2013):  1.  Motion For Injunctive Order to Cease & Desist;

5

and 2. Motion For Disclosure, to determine the corporate offices of Storquest, to determine their agent of service, since not even the Secretary of State cared about their records being ineptly managed, and refused to enforce business laws.  

 

DEMAND FOR RELIEF SOUGHT PURSUANT TO FRCP 8 (3)

1. LEGAL EXPENSES - exceeding $5,000 (attached affidavit)

2. ORDER RESTORE LEASE WITH STORQUEST, WHICH WAS ILLEGALLY TERMINATED

3. ORDER WARNING TO STORQUEST THAT FURTHER BREACHES WILL RESULT IN STIFFER OUTCOMES AGAINST THEM

APPARENTLY according Rule 8, the non-appearing defendant may have the right to dispute CLAIM FOR RELIEF.  Apparently the Effect of Failing to Deny - is automatic presumption for the defendant, which is unconstitutional, indicating the following:  If a responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is considered denied or avoided.  This rule is oddly-written as if you can have it both ways. As a COURT RULE, when a party pleads, the apposing party is expected to respond.  Their lack thereof is reflective of

6

default on a pleading.

THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE.  If the defendant fails to respond, it is evidence only that they have no standing and defaulted.

Rule No. 8 seems to reflect leverage for the court to have power to CREATE a case as without merit AFTER it is determined to have merit for Pro Se indigent filers who file “Motion To Appeal In Forma Pauperus” - which would reflect a DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD tactic, rather than upholding the law.  

  

SUMMARY

Plaintiff-appellant has gone through much abuse by the courts, as stated in her Motion For Default Judgment.  This case could have simply been resolved by the court by granting the two motions and holding the defendant Storquest accountable for the breaches of lease.  Instead, they used means of delay with plaintiff-appellant’s landlord ganging up on her to help the courts further harm her.  The landlord attempted to set up a case to evict plaintiff-appellant, on multiple occassions.  They violated her mail for the last time, since she filed a full request to forward all mail to her Post Office Box.  They, in fact, had no right to invade her privacy, yet they

7

continuously invade it, including illegal entries.  There may be remedy taking place with the landlord management yet there is no validated structure at this time.  

The supervising judge of the civil cases in New Haven, CT is John Abrams.  He illegally evicted the plaintiff-appellant in 2010, on a housing matter which did not have merit to begin with, and was proven by the plaintiff-appellant.  The landlord issued a Notice To Quit without following the lease agreement, that the lease would automatically continue and if the landlord chose to end the lease, he was required first to provide a 60-day notice.  The court did not even request the lease from him.  This was all deliberate actions to break laws and rules-to target the plaintiff-appellant.  Judge Abrams once again enjoyed conspiring to harm her through MALPRACTICE OF LAW, by helping Public Storage steal her possessions while she was a full time student at Southern CT State University.  A civil case was entered by the plaintiff-appellant.  The judge obviously got the marshal to promise to serve the Summons, yet sabatoged her by REFUSING thereafter.  The documents were not stapled to help the marshal make whatever copies he needed to make.  He yelled at the plaintiff-appellant, delaying mailing back the Summons and Complaint, to disrupt her

8

ability to go forward with her rights, which she had been trying to do for months, BEFORE Public Storage stole her possessions, nefariously claiming she owed $250 in “late charges” which was fraudulent billing. Additionally, the court was well aware that Public Storage never paid the plaintiff-appellant for the $450 she won in a small claim against them.  The court ordered the plaintiff-appellant to AMEND her civil lawsuit against them as a means of delay, at which time they stole her possessions and auctioned them off, claiming she was issued a notice in the mail.  They never called her.  They never emailed her, though they knew her email address.  She was a customer for 9 years.  

Southern Connecticut State University “kicked her off campus” when there was no incident!  They refused to allow her legal right to hearing and ordered her teachers not to allow makeups for midterm exams she could not take due to abusive university police - namely Chief Mark Delieto, whose father was a prior mayor of New Haven, which implements is government as SOCIALISM.  Plaintiff-appellant filed a lawsuit including Delieto as a defendant yet the court abused procedure and dismissed the case.

These proceedings reflects a MODUS OPERANDI.  As a Pro Se Litigant who never cared to be caught up in all this abuse by the

9

courts again, she spent a great amount of time just trying to get Storquest to be responsible, to no avail.  Storquest now has a new manager at the New Haven facility who seems to be quite reliable.  Yet she said she could not get involved with this legal matter, that their legal department should contact her - yet they have not done anything.  They have not called, or emailed, or sent her a letter.  This lack of diligence should have been recognized by the Superior Court of New Haven as ANOTHER reason to grant her motion for default, which is, in fact, a state law.  

The Federal District Court’s Ruling (located in Appendix) was deliberately inept, as fully described by the plaintiff-appellant in her Motion for Permission To Appeal In Forma Pauperus.  They also did what they could to frame the plaintiff-appellant as a criminal, invoking 28 U.S.C. section 1915 as reason to grant her IFP.  Though they granted it for the Federal case, which they docketed as 22-1101, they disrupted their own orders by Dismissing the case, rather than make remedy on it by proceeding as a lawsuit case as ordered, with scheduled dates docketed.  There was no trial, no hearings, nothing.  Yet he ruled as reason to dismiss using the Anti-Injunction Act which has absolutely no relevance (based on cases heard with Due Process of Law, not “shoved under the

10

bus” like aforesaid case and there was no relevance, even remotely like aforesaid case.  A plaintiff would not ask the court to stay its own proceedings. Defendants motion this) and yet he furthered by making false statements in the opinion - ending it with plaintiff-appellant’s right to appeal the small claim; when SMALL CLAIMS CANNOT BE APPEALED.  This was complete abuse and malpractice of law.  It is plaintiff-appellant’s opinion that the burden of costs now lie with the Superior Court Of New Haven, being that they disrupted the case deliberately through malpractice of law and frauding the case record.  An immediate reimbursement is sought, due to the extreme hardship on the plaintiff-appellant as a disabled, indigent person, who expected that the court would hear and rule on the two motions she submitted when she submitted the small claim for processing upon granting the fee waiver.  Though they are supposed to process fee waivers within 48 hours, they waited nearly a week, obviously hoping the delay would be time to further harm plaintiff-appellant in her personal life, which is typical of their DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD TACTICS.  

According to the State of Connecticut, Michael Skold was Solicitor General, not Attorney General. The Second Circuit Court altered the Docket Sheet (located in Appendix) rather than issuing it as a

11

REVISION, indicating William Tong, AG of Connecticut, was terminated, which is false.  Should there have been a CONSTITUTIONALITY STATEMENT made by the plaintiff-appellant, which there was not, it would have been required for her to send a copy to the Attorney General.  NO COPIES OF EITHER WAS THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S REQUIREMENT.  ADDITIONALLY, THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO ENTER THE APPEARANCE FOR ANY PARTY.  

Wherefore, the plaintiff-appellant concludes that it should be her legal right to have full refund of legal expenses with a running Total as of today, of  $9, 688.88;  and for the other two issues to be administered regarding Breach of Lease.  

Appendix

 A - Plaintiff-Appellant’s Motion For Permission to Appeal IFP - to the Federal Court (already submitted yet apparently not given attention) Page 1

B - Form D-P and Statement; appropriately prepared and timely submitted; Appearance Form also/proof of submission Page 24

C- Affidavit of October 2022 and current updated statement

12

of costs to supplement CLAIM FOR RELIEF.  Page 34

D- Motion For Leave To Proceed IFP, 8/31/2022 Pursuant to 28 USC 1915, AS REQUESTED BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Pro Se Plaintiff-Appellant TO COMPLETE   Page 39

E- Pro Se Applicant’s Request For Immediate Return of File Due to Lack of Litigation - satisfied by the Federal District Court with no response. Also, revised MEMORANDUM OF LAW, MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, 12/30/2022  Page 95

F- Federal District Judge’s Opinions/Orders   Page 130

G- Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to Plead, 9/16/2022, and shortly thereafter, after discovering 6-page Opinion (never served on the Plaintiff-appellant);  Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to Appeal, 9/19/2022

H- Federal Case Docketed - Court of Appeals   Page 164

I- Lease with Storquest which originated by New Haven Self Storage when they owned the facility; continued by Storquest  Page 180

J- Letter to Chief Clerk Wolfe with attachments   Page 182

K- Emails on Court Actions (incomplete) from the Federal District Court to Pro Se Plaintiff, who never registered on CMECF, and never indicated she would. Documents 1020 referenced  Page 206

13

L-  December 2022 updates:  Statement of Certificate of Service 12/6/2022 at Page 226; Request For Court Order, Records 12/9/2022 at Page 232; Letter to Fed District Court 9/8/2022 at Page 235; Emergency Motion For Temporary Injunction to US Supreme Court 10/6/2022 at Page 239; Affidavit Accompanying Motion For Permission To Appeal In Forma Pauperis, 11/10/2022 at Page 241; Docket Sheet on Case 22-2817, 10/31/2022 at Page 244; General Docket for Case 22-2817, 12/9/2022 at Page 245; Procedures to Reinstate Appeal Dismissed on Default (Default is caused by defendant, not plaintiff so this is so bizarre! Plaintiff causes non-suit!)  Page 247; Appendix: Length Limits Stated in the FRCP   Page 248; Distribution of Instructions and Forms for Pro Se Parties in US and Private Civil Cases at Page 249; Case Query at Page 250; Letter as Supplement to Clerk of the Court, 1/5/2023 at Page 252.  EMAIL CONFIRMATIONS TO externalaffairs@judct.gov - Superior Court New Haven at Page 255 ####

This concludes Plaintiff-Appellant’s CLAIM FOR RELIEF of 14 pages, on January 4, 2023.  Appendix  is attached, comprising of  

Prepared and Submitted,

 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE

 

______________________

Anne M. Bradley

PO Box 206514

New Haven, CT 06520

Ph 203-909-9131

 

14

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S CLAIM FOR RELIEF

WITH APPENDIX

 

Prepared 1/5/2023

 

Aforesaid document has been emailed this day, 1/6/2023 to the non-appearing defendant:

 

externalaffairs@jud.ct.gov

 

In the near future, plaintiff-appellant will verify in person with that court to ensure they have this document.  There has been no rejection of the email and proof of email is attached as last page of this scanned pdf to the Second Circuit Court.  

 

__________________  

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

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

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

This is the last I will share - I hope to post a few scanned documents, probably in the other blogpost titled MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT.  TOMORROW OR IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS.  

Anne M. Bradley

Pro Se, Indigent Plaintiff-Appellant

Case No 22-2741

PO Box 206514

New Haven, CT 06520

January 5, 2023

 

 

Catherine Hagan-Wolfe

Clerk of the Court

United States Court of Appeals

Second Circuit

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse

40 Foley Square

New York City, NY

 

Dear Attorney Wolfe:

 

This letter is to supplement the letter I have written on January 2, which is at Page 183 of my Appendix on CLAIM FOR RELIEF, submitted today.  This letter is also being made part of the APPENDIX.  

 

There are additional issues I want to emphasize:

 

1. It has been very stressful for me to prepare these documents as a Pro Se - and in addition to repeatedly claim the court has been incorrect.  

2. No court may separate a motion as if it was filed as a Part A and a Part B.  I filed a Motion For Permission To appeal In Forma Pauperis. The court seemed to be pulling constant tricks, to trip me up, and create a dynamic to use as excuse to dismiss this case, despite obvious abuse of procedure.  As I have also referred to this, DEVIL’s CHESSBOARD tactics.  Very likely it is to make me give up.  Particularly the abuse of procedure.

3. September 6, I sent a letter to the Federal District Court, as a follow-up of my efforts to get an Application For Injunction processed.  I was direct with my issues because it was obviously considered my efforts as some kind of joke; that is my impression.  I rightfully won the Superior Court Case due to failure to appear by the defendant and by law, the clerk of the court is obligated to grant my Motion for Default.  See pages 234-237.

4. I filed an Emergency Motion to the US Supreme Court after the Federal District Judge not only dismissed the case but ordered it to be

1

closed and he refused to take any further pleadings.  It is right in his opinion, which is so far from being lawful that I had little ability to get my rights.  For them to docket the case and schedule it out - then inadvertently dismiss it and deny my motion was completely nefarious.  

5. I requested the return of my original documents since the case was not litigated - rather the rug was pulled out from my feet, AGAINST COURT RULES OF PRACTICE.  That was abusive to me and as I stated, it backed me into a corner - having a very difficult time to just get my rights.  

6. I filed a Petition of Certiorari and submitted nothing more to the Federal District Court (except my appeal when the US Supreme Court rejected my Petition) The court documents, 7-18 on Case No. 22-cv-1101 in the Federal District Court were nefariously and fraudulently placed on record to allude I was still entering documents.  THAT IS FRAUD.  I am concerned someone at the US Supreme Court put them up to doing that.  The District Court Judge even nefariously ruled on copies of documents which I sent to the Supreme Court, motioned the Supreme Court.  There was no mandate issued to remand it to their court.  Obviously I had told the US Supreme Court that I considered it wrongful for the Federal District Court not to grant the Petition for Injunctive Relief, particularly since the Superior Court undermined my right to DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  

7. The constant need for me to unravel this abuse of process is even more difficult than actually representing myself.  No court should be allowed to break laws and rules to fit whims of bureaucrats.  

8. This Storquest case has similar circumstances to what Public Storage did to me - and I lost valuable keepsake property as well as very important documents, which were also stolen.  Thereafter the manager claimed he set the documents aside, WITHOUT TELLING ME, OF COURSE BECAUSE HE WAS LYING.  Storquest got the help from Judge Abrams to get away with their criminal acts.  Even though he knew that Storquest owed me $450; and Storquest was auctioning off my posessions EVEN THOUGH THEY GOT MY RENT EVERY MONTH AND WERE FRAUDULENTLY BILLING ME, saying I owed them $250!  They never paid for the $450 and the court was well aware of that, only telling me that my complaint was not accepted the judge - Abrams - requested I amend it!  The same judge who illicitly evicted me and the US Supreme Court REFUSED to hear my Emergency motion, which is a matter of right!  The eviction case had no merit to begin with!  The lease clearly indicated it would automatically continue and if the landlord so chose to end it, he would have to BEGIN with sending a 60-day notice to me!  The court was well aware of that because I, not the landlord,

2

provided the lease.  The court should not have even docketed the case without the landlord proving the case!  Instead, they got the landlord to enter a Small Claim against me - another very illegal sideline, which the Small Claims even went along with despite the fact they knew I was paying my rent into court!  

9. The law seems to have no relevance!  Pages 241 and 242 are examples of the appeal documents I submitted on November 10, 2022 - it is obvious the case number was changed.  I WAS TOLD TO CHANGE IT FROM THE FEDERAL DISTRICT CASE NUMBER, AS SO-TITLED ON THE FORM, to the backdated case number which was inadvertently processed secretly, with no notifcation to me AND YOUR OFFICE FAILED TO SEND ME ANYTHING IN THE MAIL, TO INCLUDE THESE APPEAL FORMS required!  It was a deliberate fraudulent attempt to keep me from being able to appeal, since the appellant has 14 days to produce the appeal forms, from the date the appeal/case is entered!  

10. I had to call the Appellate Court many times to get anyone just to find out what the process was since my Petition for Certiorari was rejected and it proved to be more deprivation of my rights.  

11. Petitions are not arguable by an apposing party.  So why is it this case was marked with “Answer in Opposition” and why was the Second Circuit Court secret with their duty to certify mail to the defendant on this aforesaid case, REFUSING to provide me that certification of mailing?  They did not even appear, that’s why!  And your court has no legal right to file an appearance for them.  See Page 247.

12. As I have emphasized over and over, “There is no appearance by Defendant”, Page 248.

13. If there was justice, I would not have gone through such hell on cases that were ineptly dismissed, reflecting continuous MALPRACTICE OF LAW.  I was illegally evicted, poisoned with lead in my water, which caused me to have a heart attack,  illegally arrested twice, and forced out of school as a matriculated student, denied my rights to appeal or have a hearing - when there was no incident!  Only lying police who served wants of corrupted, spineless officials who evade responsibility, accountability.  Pages 249-250.  

14. An attorney does not have a license to break laws.  

 

Prepared and Submitted,

 

  PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, PRO SE

 

____________________

Anne M. Bradley

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tranny Watch

SMALL CLAIMS PROCESSING AND DUE PROCESS IN CONNECTICUT

Kavanaugh