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

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

CASE IS FAKEAPPEAL 22-2741 - There was only one Motion To appeal In Forma Pauperis!  If denied; I could not appeal! The court frauded records! 

    updated 1/2/2023.  It is 3:30 a.m. but I wanted to work on completing requirements for the Motion For Default.  the Claim For Relief is in the Unedited version but I am pasting it anyway.  I will paste it in the Temporary Folder, changing its purpose.  

I need to prepare my Letter of Errata and put together the Appendix, scan it all in and email to the court AFTER, hopefully, it is stamped in by the New Haven Court. 

posted 1/2/2023         http://www.publiusroots.com/2022/12/draft-information-for-motion-for.html

FAKE CASE that Fed District Court Created and Second Circuit Judges went along with: note, there are a few amended changes I have to submit; particularly with the paragraphing but a few words also.  It is so difficult to fix anything because they are altering the format on my device - to keep me from being able to. I will probably copy and paste the ERRATA sheet.  I didn't feel well all day today, so will have to prepare that tomorrow.  

I hope to scan in the full Appendix - and add it to the blogpost I planned to just use as temporary.  Anyone who has legal experience will understand why it is important for me to share, since I am sharing this.  

I also need to finish the CLAIM FOR RELIEF.  If I could have retained a decent attorney, I had right to sue for much more than just costs!  MALPRACTICE OF LAW IS what occurred!  DECEPTION; "The Ends Justify The Means" reasoning - it is outright illegal!  My paragraphing had to be manually entered; the format was so altered by Microsoft, I had to "roll with the punches" - they enjoyed altering the paragraphing to create a "domino effect" with the other numbers.  Instead, I changed the numbers to AVOID that because the real case manager is obviously being given a hard time; and even though the judge or chief clerk are supposed to be writing those changes in, no doubt they are telling him to.  Their system is so chaotic and mismanaged.  They have FRCP, and no where in the FRCP does it refer you to an FRAP (federal rules of appellate procedure) and those rules have such off-base statements, the whole thing should be rewritten by a COMPETENT attorney.  One which is a rarety since Obama removed them all! 

Notice how FRAP is also a Starbucks nickname for Frappuccino.  WTF 

December 4, 1967
The Supreme Court first adopted the Rules of Appellate Procedure by order dated December 4, 1967, transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1968, and effective July 1, 1968.
The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court prescribes Federal Rules of Appellate Proce- dure pursuant to section 2072 of Title 28, United States Code, as enacted by Title IV ''Rules Enabling Act'' of Pub.
--------
Fed Rules of Criminal vs Fed Rules of Civil - PROCEDURE
FRCP - is what they call it to confuse the issue! 
Why didn't the US Supreme Court step in to correct it?  They don't do their jobs! That is my impression!  Look up what they are supsupposed to be doing.  That includes assuring that Internet is run run/managed in a CONSTITUTIONAL manner.  Yet they trespass on our devices all the time! That is just one of the many violations! Michael Powell was developing protocol for internet providers to be held accountable for, as FCC Director.  Bush got rid of both Colin Powell and his son - because he wanted to DISRUPT society all the more, to cover up for the fact that he and CIA, and a total of 125 direct conspirators in the US Gov - planned the mass murder and swiping of wealth on September 11 - which is even easier to do now, because of the nefarious, unchecked powers of internet! //
Dec. 26, 1944
The original Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted by order of the Supreme Court on Dec. 26, 1944, transmitted to Congress by the Attorney General on Jan. 3, 1945, and became effective on Mar. 21, 1946.
           posted 1/1/2023

22-2817   - one was uploaded on October 20; the other uploaded on October 26 ALLEGEDLY. 

I GOT NO NOTIFICATION.  THEY BROKE THEIR OWN RULES FICTITIOUSLY

CREATING APPEAL NUMBERS WHEN MY APPEAL WAS DENIED IN FED DISTRICT COURT AND I HAD TO FILE A MOTION INTO SECOND CIRCUIT COURT!  IT'S ALL TRICKS, BECAUSE ONCE THEY UPLOAD THE DAMN APPEAL NUMBER, YOU HAVE 14 DAYS TO PRODUCE THE APPEAL FORMS, THE CLOCKS STARTS TICKING!  (posted 12/31/2022)

Additionally - and this is a big additionally, Microsoft and/or other hacking bastards changed my document after I scanned it in!  So I cannot copy and paste what I submitted today.  I have to scan in one page at a time and plop it here.  Because I had no sleep for 30 hours, except for an hour nap in my chair, I fell asleep when I submitted the motion and Appendix.  I woke about 4 hours later, which is now.  So I will scan this in later.  I need more sleep. 

(posted 12/31/2022  at 1:07 am)


Insert 12/31/2022 - I found it, so I am pasting it here.  Hopefully the courts will not use this as opportunity to FRAUD RECORDS.  WHICH, btw, the local courts are nefariously-known for. So most attorneys play along.  "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the

SECOND CIRCUIT

 

December 30, 2022

 

                      

)  Case No. 22-CV-2741

ANNE M. BRADLEY        )

       )    

  V.        )  

       )      

Superior Court - New Haven,CT  )

       )     

       )

                

Plaintiff’s REVISED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Motion For Default Judgment

 

 

FACTS/ARGUMENT

1. FRCP Rules 5 and 5.1 cover Filing and pleadings requirements.   PERMISSION TO APPEAL AS IFP is referred to as “fee waiver” which reflects Form AO239 .  Plaintiff-Appellant first sought the Federal District Court’s permission through a well-prepared Motion for Permission To Appeal Informa Paupras which was served on the DEFENDANT Superior Court of New Haven. The Federal District Court had applied and documented 28 U.S.C. Title 1915.  Though the court clerks claimed is just meant

indigency, this was false; it refers to inmates.  Thereafter,

1

plaintiff-appellent received 3 or 4 emails from inmates, blocked from marking them as spam, which is cyber abuse.

a) Permission To Appeal - In spite of denying Permission, Fed Court submitted TWO requests to file appeals, 10/20 and 10/26 which was the judge’s response in receiving courtesy copies of a few documents submitted to the US Supreme Court.  Seemingly a nefarious “revenge” abusing his position. He also ruled on the US Supreme Court copies, Doc’s 10 & 11.

i. The Federal District Court prematurely submitted two separate appeals on the ONE Case, 22-CV-1101  to the Second Circuit-- an obvious fraud to abuse power and evade its 6-pg nefarious ruling centered on Anti-Injunction Act which did not even apply to aforesaid case.  Fed Judge also RULED on COPIES OF MOTIONS SENT TO THE US SUPREME COURT, Docs 10 & 11 of the Federal Court Docket Sheet.

1. According the the FRCP, the Appellant is required to submit all appeal documents within 14 days of the CREATION of the appeal number, which she had no knowledge was even created,

2

and she, the Appellant, had to repeatedly call the Second Circuit, various numbers, to no avail, for days, to obtain their forms for IFP Pro Se Applicants.  She was, in fact, at that point, just an applicant!  Not an Appellant!  According to the FRCP, she had 60 days from the issuance of a ruling to appeal, since the defendant was the Superior Court of New Haven.  In order to retain her intentions, plaintiff-appellent first submitted her intent to plead on the opinion of the court, at which time she was not aware of it being 6 pages long, as shown in Appendix - due to the failure of the court to mail her the documents she was supposed to obtain as a matter of right, since she was not registered on CMECF and at no point had any interest to be registered due to CYBER CRIME being rampant in the US Gov. She did not have access to her own laptop for at least a month due to CYBER CRIME causing it not to upload, as it was doing to one of her devices as well.  A service remotely restored access to her laptop when she discovered them . Federal District

3

Court REMOVED Storquest as a Defendant, and made her Application for Injunction a full-blown lawsuit against the Superior Court of New Haven and refused to change the case, despite submitting a strong letter to the District Judge regarding this.  The case still stood as a lawsuit against the Superior Court of New Haven and Plaintiff-Appellant proceeded as such, since there was no response to her letter and the Federal District Court did not change the record.  They docketed activities throughout 2022 and into 2023 - which was past the date of the scheduled auctioning of her property at Storquest, a company which was not even registered in Connecticut (which the plaintiff-appellant was prepared to further explain the dynamics of in her brief, which was scheduled on the case to be due on a certain date).  Dismissal was abruptly made by the judge, impairing the litigation.

a) The threat of loss of plaintiff-appellant’s property/possessions at the unit which she rented for ten years, was the most urgent

4

reason for applying for at the least a temporary injunction order, to CEASE AND DESIST, since Storquest breached the lease on several counts, to include Terminating the lease when plaintiff-appellant was not even delinquent and adding the fraudulent charge

of insurance, which was not required on her lease, AND New Haven Superior Court nefariously allowed them to not file appearance, refusing to grant Default.

i. Storquest was assigned a new manager on or about October 2022;  she said she cancelled the auction.  Plaintiff-Appellant was impressed with her candidness and yet was not able to further discuss this legal matter with her.  The manager understood that the previous manager terminated the lease on a whim.  Therefore, nothing is resolved.  A district manager only left a voicemail claiming she just wanted plaintiff to negotiate over the

5

phone, despite realizing Storquest failed to appear on the Superior Court Case and Plaintiff-Appellant said several times by letter for them to respond in writing, including sending what MAY be their corporate office - a typed letter comprising of several pages.  It was served at their CA address and proof of delivery was entered by UPS.  This was made part of the Appendix to Motion To Appeal IFP, dated November 10, 2022.  Though requested signature was made, no one signed for it and the UPS driver only marked it as received by someone named “Karen” or the like.  

Plaintiff-Appellant claimed the cost of this case was expected to be in the area of $5,000 based on the numerous discoveries about the company, including its co-founder Warren Jeffs, being sentenced to prison for life for raping and molesting children.  Yet plaintiff-appellant claimed very likely he was not even in prison and his identity changed.  Plaintiff-Appellant realizes

6

Mark Zuckerberg is really Robert T. Morris, who destroyed tens of thousands of computers in

1989, most likely causing deaths since they involved hospital and other emergency services like police and fire departments - as well as military.  Plaintiff-Appellant was a Secretary for the Command Staff of the Division Artillery when this occurred, and was made aware of the seriousness -- all caused by the ENEMY WITHIN.  Plaintiff-Appellant considers the CEO of Cigna, by the name of DAN CORDANI, to be really Phil GIORDANO, with a few juggling of letters and plastic surgery on his eyes.  Senator Rand Paul is a CIA operative and he is an opthamologist.  Ron Paul was kicked out of Russia because they discovered he was a CIA agent, doubling as an elective official.  Getting paid Twice for the same    time, and using DECEPTION to undermine the

workings of government.  No doubt there are many more undermining the workings of the US Government.  

7

ii. Plaintiff-Appellant did NOT file any CONSTITUTIONALITY NOTICE to the

Second Circuit Court!  The real case manager informed the plaintiff-appellant that the Second Circuit Court added a new request, for her to send all the appeal documents which were already received by the New Haven Superior Court; to Michael Skold, the state’s SOLICITOR GENERAL.  Plaintiff-appellent argued that this was outside court rules, that they do not even have an appearance on record.  The real case manager assured her he would make copies and forward them to her with the request and all she needed to do was mail them to Michael Skold, who has an office at the Attorney General’s location.  Instead of this occurring, it was obvious someone intercepted the real case manager’s actions;

and instead two letters from Chief Clerk Wolfe were sent, dismissing the fake appeal number and retaining the prematurelly-entered appeal

8

number, which is on this aforesaid document.  Thereafter, the Second Circuit Court refused to verbally tell plaintiff-appellant why they wanted her to create all new documents without any judicial order, despite being outside time limits.  These are fraudulent acts by court officials partnering with the federal district court, which obviously partners with the Superior Court; and thus more reason to reflect the only solution is to default this case and order the Superior Court of New Haven to pay Plaintiff-Appellant ALL COURT COSTS, INCLUDING A FAIR AMOUNT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S TIME which is equivalent to a paralegal’s job.  Plaintiff-Appellant has only relayed a portion of her time spent on defending her rights as a customer since January 2013.  The abuse of procedure by the courts was never remedied.   Plaintiff-Appellant considers this DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD TACTICS, partnering with the

9

federal district court rather than acting like a higher court by reviewing the nefarious activity, as stated in the Motion

For Permission to Appeal In Forma Paupris.

iii. The Motion For IFP, submitted November 10, oddly was treated as already an appeal number.  Plaintiff-Appellant considered that violation of DUE PROCESS OF LAW since her IFP was NOT granted by the Federal District Court and therefore she had to create yet another motion and submit it to the Second Circuit Court.  This motion contained all information which would be in a COMPLAINT, due to the lack of confidence which the Plaintiff-Appellant had in the court system, which only wanted to “throw her under the bus”.  

2. Rule 5 Covers Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers.  Due to filing IFP, it is not required to have a marshal

serve the complaint unless the the Second Circuit Court required it, since they were granting her IFP, yet no ruling was

10

mailed to her.  It is and was the responsibility for the Superior Court of New Haven to file an appearance.  The Pro Se Plaintiff-Appellant did not need to remind them of this.  They already knew the laws governing the FRCP.  Further abuse of this procedure would be costly for the Second Circuit Court, as emphasized in the FRCP.  

a) Rule 5 (a) (2) If a Party fails to appear.  No service is required on a party who is in default for failing to appear.  But a pleading that asserts a new claim for relief against such a party must be served on that party under Rule 4.  (Refer to Appendix, Laws Section)

2. Claim For Relief is included in the Appendix of this Motion

i. The Hispanic man who impersonates the real “Markus Marshall” at the Second Circuit Court denies getting the Plaintiff-Appellant’s MOTION TO APPEAL IFP, submitted November 10; a stamped copy by the New Haven Superior Court was provided as proof they were served by the

11

indigent plaintiff-appellant, Pro Se.  The real Markus Marshall would not have said that. He was accommodating, respectful and never came close to hanging up on the

plaintiff-appellant.  Yet the Hispanic individual who menaced and impersonated would hang up on the plaintiff-appellant rather than face his own lies.  

b) Plaintiff-Appellant argued that no appeal number in the Second Circuit Court could have been entered; that they never notified her of these numbers and was only notified of ONE number just prior to submitting the MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL AS IFP ON NOVEMBER 10.  though Plaintiff Appellant promptly called the Second Circuit District on September 27 and thereafter, to seek a motion to appeal with fee waiver in their court directly.  

i. Plaintiff-Appellant’s Motion For Permission to Appeal Federal Judge’s Ruling of September 12, 2022 As an IFP, Pro Se Applicant was issued November 10, 2022. It is included in the Appendix which is submitted separately today.  Due to several fire alarms going off in the

12

apartment building which Plaintiff-Appellant resides in; as well as smoke coming out of her printer, these setbacks and more are reason that this Memorandum of Law had to be Revised yet plaintiff-appellant did the best she could based on time factor.  Severe weather resulted in her apartment windows to cake up with inch-thick ice and she had to install plastic on them -- all of which was harmful to her disabled legs and caused her much pain for a few days, symply because the landlord-owner would not turn the dehydrator back on, which is supposed to be on at all times.    

3. The Court sent Plaintiff-Appellant the forms to proceed in her appeal, including docketing deadlines.  Upon Asking the Case Manager if they granted her Motion to Appeal IFP, she was told by the case manager that was affirmative, and she was now officially a Plaintiff-Appellant, yet no ruling would be sent to her despite even requesting it.  The court is aware that she is not using Pacer or CMECF due to costly security risks.  

a) Over the past three weeks, Plaintiff-Appellant believes that there are two individuals saying they are Markus, the case manager.  One who has a Hispanic accent.  

13

b) The Hispanic individual has made statements contrary to what the real Markus has informed, such as her appeal case is dismissed.  Whereas, the real Markus has said the appeal is still active.  Today, December 27, the Hispanic Markus claimed

that the ONE appeal form, regarding Transcript, was returned defective because he claimed it was not certified to Michael Skold, who is SOLICITOR GENERAL - not Attorney General.  

i. Michael Skold has no appearance on this case.

Today, “Markus” verbally claimed that the failure to appear was a separate matter, that the Plaintiff-Appellant still had to recomplete all appeal documents, even though he claimed it was only the transcript document known as “DP” previously, and send them to Michael Skold.  It is apparent to the Plaintiff-Appellant that a Hispanic person is impersonating Markus, the original case manager, at the will of the Second Circuit Court.

This above text could not be alligned properly due to CYBER CRIME.  ADDITIONALLY, THE PAGINATIONS ALL HAVE TO BE DONE MANUALLY DUE TO CYBER CRIME.  

14

ADDITIONALLY, OVERALL, THERE WERE NUMEROUS PROBLEMS WITH FORMATTING AND ALTERING WORDS, WHICH IS NOT JUST DISRUPTIVE BUT ALSO INVASIVE HACKING IS INVOLVED - ALL DUE TO CYBER CRIME.   

3. The happhazardnous of these calls involving the impersonator have greatly hampered the processing of this case.  

4. As a Pro Se Plaintiff, Plaintiff-Appellant abided by the rules of court, proving that the New Haven Superior Court stamped in all appeal documents.  

5. Rule 4 includes Waiving Service; failure to waive wihout good cause would be an imposition on the defendant. A fee waiver, IFP, had been submitted as a combination Motion For Permission to Appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.  Since no court ruling was provided, and just a verbal “it was granted” the plaintiff-appellant claims this rule would cover for this phase of the case.  Indeed the Second Circuit court did not take any alternative action.  

6. Rule 5:  Serving of Pleadings and Other Papers.  Includes the obligation of both defendant-appellee and plaintiff-appellant to

15

file APPEARANCES. Defendant-appellee failed to do so.

7. Rule 7 indicates Pleadings Allowed; form of Motions and Other Papers - yet it fails to acknowledge the most The Brief as part of the process.  

6. CHANGED TO 7a. Rule 77:  Appearance is required to go forth with a case

7. Changed to 7b. Rule 55:  Default Judgment must be granted when defendant fails to appearance.  Any action which the plaintiff-appellant fails to make is nonsuit; yet the Second Circuit Court claimed the DP Form was defaulted because they wanted her to change it, despite it complying with the rules of court, along with the filing of the appropriate statement, as the rule dictates.  

8. The court ineptly entered a SECOND Appeal case, 2817, on October 26, 2022.  They now claim this rogue number is a “member” of the the case 2741, even though it was dismissed by the Chief Clerk - which is not compliant regarding the FRCP.  In fact, the Plaintiff-Appellant emphasized they put the cart before the horse when creating 2741, due to the fact that she did not motion for the Second Circuit Court to take her appeal as IFP until November 10.  The Court claimed the only way the unsubstantiated case number could be removed is for the Plaintiff-Appellent to submit a Motion to Remove her appeal.  Plaintiff-

16

Appellant refuses to submit such a motion; that she appealed ONE TIME ONLY; AND this abuse of process is reflecting violation of the 14th Amendement as well as outright fraud.  

9. 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

10. Title 28 USC 1915 encompasses those indigent who are charged or convicted with a crime.  The Court has a different filing for basic fee waivers and this order for her to complete such filing allows them to frame her as an assumed criminal.  In fact, despite only requesting filing as a Pro Se, the Federal District Court altered this by ordering a court-appointed attorney to be paid for by the court.  This took much effort on the Plaintiff-Appellant’s part to get the court to remove; and obviously the allusion she is an offender continues.  

11. It is the obligation of the defendant to file an appearance.  Plaintiff-Appellant has diligently produced her appearance and submits her pleadings to the Superior Court of New Haven as it is noted on record, to be the defendant.

17

a) Plaintiff-Appellant appropriately served the Defendant of Record.  In fact, Rule 15, page 24 of FRCP, indicates that if the Defendant is an officer of the United States, their officer

or agency may be served.  In the same manner, this rule would allign with the New Haven Superior Court of the Judicial Branch and the State of Connecticut.  

12. Title 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE;  Sec. 1915 - Proceedings in forma pauperis  IFP parties are described as criminally-accused, indigent parties  The Federal District Court applied this very law on plaintiff-appellant’s case!

13. Rule 26.  Duty to Disclose.  THE DEFENDANT HAS AN EMPHASIZED REASON TO DISCLOSE ITS APPEARANCE.  Though the case manager ordered plaintiff-appellant to submit all documents to Attorney Skold, who was at that time SOLICITOR GENERAL, and thereafter removed from the Bar, and then reinstated in the Bar, only justifies more the reason for DISCLOSURE AND APPEARANCE OF THE DEFENDANT.  Entering them at the courthouse makes it the responsibility of that courthouse-defendant to satisfy court requirements.  Withholding information is not acceptable in the FRCP.

14. Paragraph (d) reflects Timing and Sequence of Discovery;

18

therefore this case has not been administered properly, and shows a partnering with the lower courts to help get the wrongdoing judges a secret edge, thereby perverting justice.  

15. Rule 77 (d) emphasizes the need for appearance in order for the case to proceed.  

16. This motion as been revised to the best of plaintiff-appellant’s ability. The Appendix  will be the Laws only.  Virtually all documents mentioned have already been entered into court, other than CLAIM FOR RELIEF. This will reduce the time factor. Claim For Relief may possibly have to be submitted separately after New Year’s holiday, via email, (due to time factor) and certified as mailed or personally delivered to the New Haven Superior Court .  The most recent calculation made exceeds $5,000, of which is attached with the Laws. (Dated in October 2022 ) The notary at the Superior Court refuses to notarize anything for the plaintiff-appellant, which is dereliction of his duties yet typical of the abuse she is subject to at that court.   This causes a setback as well.

a) Internet is restored in plaintiff-appellant’s apartment for the time-being.

b) Several fire alarms were executed at this apartment building

19

over the weekend, disrupting plaintiff-appellant’s work, since everything has to be either taken with her or locked up before she leaves; due to constant illegal entries in her apartment.

c) Courthouse was closed; interfering with validation of processing appeal for the facts portion of this motion.  

d) Other matters including CYBER CRIME.  

1) Hacking the plaintiff-appellant’s laptop

2) Altering the format of plaintiff-appellant’s motions; having to manually enter page numbers, etc.  

3) Creating long-standing needs to repeatedly edit and correct altered portions which were not of the plaintiff-appellant’s doing; rather, done remotely by programmed AI or a hacker.

LAW

§ 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.

Rule 5:  Serving of Pleadings and Other Papers.  Refer to Appendix, Section on Laws

14th Amendment

20

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.

Title 28 U.S.C. 1915 provides for the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action, or proceeding without prepayment of fees and costs FOR PRISONERS, which is what the Federal District Court INSISTED on the plaintiff-appellant submitting more than once.   IT IS  PRINTED AND LOCATED IN THE

APPENDIX.

FRCP Rule 55 - PRINTED.  APPENDIX’d

SUMMARY

Plaintiff-appellant has been greatly aggrieved and victimized by abuse of procedure as a type of alliance with the Storquest first, and then with lower courts which violated its own laws and rules to help cover up wrongdoing by the company.  Wouldn’t it have made more sense to honor the plaintiff-appellant’s Motion For Injunction (Cease and Desist) at least while the case was pending - and

21

ensure the company was abiding by laws as a business?  They had no Agent of Service, even.  And the court could have corrected all this; they had the power AND obligation to satisfy the record in order to go forward with the case; yet they did not.  They relied on CYBER CRIME, means of delay, abuse of procedure, and frauding records instead of acting on the plaintiff-appellant’s Motion For Disclosure, Motion for Injunctive Order (to prevent Storquest from auctioning off the plaintiff-appellant’s possessions in her unit), and other motions issued due to the lack of the court showing any diligence on the case, particularly after Storquest failed to appear on the date set, which may have been July 27, 2022.  The day after this failure to appear, plaintiff-appellant

motioned for Default Judgment.  The court is required to wait TWO days after the appearance date is violated, before entering default.  They were therefore obligated by Law to grant the motion, yet they did not - only obsessing over their agenda in targeting the plaintiff-appellant rather than do their jobs.  Previously, these same judges conspired on the small claim against the plaintiff-appellant, in efforts to further use their jobs as a weapon rather than just do their jobs.  The Small Claim was nefariously entered as HOSPITAL BILLS; yet the complaint attached to it indicated the plaintiff-

22

appellant owed approximately $750.00 to Amazon - taking testimony from an attorney, who was representing Amazon on another case being heard by Small Claims Court.  She admitted that the balance due on or about 2013 was about $750; she admitted plaintiff-appellant paid $30 a month for three years, “and just stopped”.  Plaintiff-appellant said in that court, “Do the math.  I paid on the balance, I stopped using the card because of corrupted management of my account when the 80% of Synchrony Bank stock (owned by GE to hopefully help the company recover, as they had financed many GE appliances decades ago when they first were formed) was all sent to Wall Street by GE because Synchrony was ruining profits; and the plaintiff-appellant’s account

was frauded every month.  She stopped using the card and told them she was just paying the balance off.  Three years times $30/month far exceeds the $750 balance.  In fact Synchrony enjoyed reducing her credit limit, so it would have been impossible for her balance to be more than that.  Calling and writing Amazon was of no use; neither was it of any use sending a detailed letter, developing her own ledger since Synchrony Bank refused to provide that information EVER.  Yet still, there was no resolve, they would not remove the Small claim which was even ineptly

23

served by someone placing the Priority Mail in her mailbox, which would be an impossible circumstance by the mail clerk since they scan every one in and it would alarm them if there was no tracking information.  The bar code had no tracking information, which the plaintiff-appellant proved by printing it.  The landlord obviously  committed a federal crime by allowing an unknown person, probably from Stillman Law Firm, to place that fake envelope in her mailbox using a return address of an investigative service in Chicago.  How illegitamate can that be, regarding improper service; not made by anyone who had jurisdiction to serve her, by a law office which used out of state juris numbers - and they were closed up by the feds, I’m sure. They continue to have an office in

Michigan.  Did plaintiff-appellent win the case hands-down?  Not by a longshot because Judge Kamp only had an “Ends Justifies The Means” intent - not even when it was argued that the Small Claim had no standing because they claimed on the form that she owed hospital bills, even citing the law she owed hospital bills,  as MANY other Small Claims they prepared were - “popping them out like candy” as she described at the hearing.  Instead, they proved to have an unlawful alliance with that company owned by Johnson Company, which owned many fraudulent collections companies -

24

which the court had the power and ability to issue warnings to correct or be closed - but, no, they keep the corruption flowing.  Plaintiff-appellant said at the end of the hearing that they were not going to get a penny of her money; she doesn’t like being robbed.  And they continuously illegally enter her apartment and rob her, vandalizing her apartment - though it is obvious that the FBI agent which plaintiff-appellant had left messages for, was doing something about that.  The corruption is yet so aggressive and self-serving, including within the US Government, that these vandalizing incidents still occur, the most recent is damaging her vacuum cleaner and a new Vornado heater, and they once again took a piece off her bread machine so she has to go back to Best

Buy and get it replaced, telling them once again they removed the same piece as they had before, which remains on the machine to attach to the pan which the dough mixes in.  Her kitchen wall is leaking some kind of brown liquid.  Her windows had 1 inch thick ice on them because they turned off the dehydrator, which is supposed to be on all the time, causing her to have to put plastic back up on her windows, which was so physically hard, her legs remained very sore for days.  It really is pathetic that our government has become so depraved oftentimes.  And this case is

25

no exception.  There has been no Due Process of Law.  This is not an issue of my questioning what the law means.  It is as clear as black and white.  This is plaintiff-appellant’s allegation that the courts in her experience have violated that.  In addition, the Federal District Judge Haight lied about the case, claiming plaintiff-appellant requested a stay of proceeding, citing a law involving the Toucy Case in the US Supreme Court, which was a DEFENDANT requesting STAY OF PROCEEDINGS for nothing that was even remotely relevant to this aforesaid matter.  The plaintiff was an insurance company.   The Federal District Court attempted to allude on this aforesaid case, 22-cv-1101 in the Federal Court, that the Plaintiff-appellant was a defendant in a criminal matter, and

what better way to frame her by requiring her to file an IFP pursuant to 28 USC Title 18, which is in the Appendix on Laws.  

Appendix To be Submitted forthwith with Revised Motion - rather than the other form which simply has Fee Waiver on it.  This is all DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD tricks.  Not Due Process.  The manager of Storquest has affirmed that it appears all plaintiff-appellant’s possessions are still in tact in the same unit and they still will not negotiate by restoring the lease, causing this expense of time, materials, and postage to be racked up.  Her efforts filing a Petition

26

For Certiora failed. They returned her documents.  She was attempting to obtain an injunctive order to sustain her rights and hold the Superior Court of New Haven accountable.  Yet the Second Circuit Court took a strange, unexpected twist, with someone impersonating the case manager, as already mentioned.  Please, just grant the default and honor the Cause of Action.  Be done with it.  This has been such a horrible time, for no good reason other than to feed the Superimperialsm that has been collapsing the economy, and feeding the pockets of organized criminals.  

APPENDIX Attached

Original Motion For Default

Prior Memorandum of Law

LAWS in support of Motion

Responses to Chief Clerk 


Prepared and Submitted,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE

____________________________

Anne M. Bradley

PO Box 206514

New Haven, CT 06520

Ph. 203-909-9131

 

 

 

 

27

 


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT TO SECOND CIRCUIT

Revised/Amended Memorandum of Law

And Appendix

Anne M. Bradley Case No. 3:22-cv-2741

V

Superior Court, New Haven

 

Re:  CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE:

                     NO APPEARANCE ON FILE   

  

emailed: ExternalAffairs@jud.ct.gov


Aforesaid documents have been Mailed this day, 12/30/2022,  in person to the following Defendant on Record:  Superior Court of New Haven, 235 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510 (Stamped copy is first page of the Motion scanned and emailed to the court)

 

_________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

 

 

 

 

 




 insert <UPDATE 12/24/2022>

SUBMITTED TO 2D CIRCUIT COURT:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the

SECOND CIRCUIT

 

December 23, 2022

 

 )

)  Case No. 22-CV-1101

ANNE M. BRADLEY        )

       )    

  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 203-909-9131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

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

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

I forgot to mention the landlord/owner (who fails to admit they are still the owner and even lie about it)  using this building as a weapon and the maintenance refusing to fix anything - including a leak in my kitchen wall which is causing electric outage - I saw the electric outlet pop with a huge spark!  

The Assistant Manager does a fine job being persistent and maintaining the integrity of his employer.  

Happy Holidays. yeah, right.  

Just the kind of holiday I had year after year in the state I grew up in! Being isolated and treated like crap, unless there is some publicity to gain.

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

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


     Bradley vs Superior Court of New Haven, CT 

The court nefariously added another case - for FRAUDULENT PURPOSES!  

    * Consider the fact that Countersuits and Cross Countersuits can take place, but they have to act timely in order to proceed that way

        There has been no countersuit or cross countersuit in any of the courts! 

   *The COURT ordered the case to be this; I submitted my appeal INCLUDING Storquest.  Yet they refused to recognize them.  

       I found laws which state the defendant Superior Court of New Haven is to be held accountable should they impede justice!  

I prepared a TEMPORARY SUPPORT BLOGPOST, DRAFT OF THIS MOTION/MEMORANDUM OF LAW.

So far, I have a collection of notes.  I need to call it a day - this is so emotionally draining!  http://www.publiusroots.com/2022/12/draft-information-for-motion-for.html

       Here is my motion submitted last week, yet I have to get my Memorandum of Law submitted by TOMORROW, 12/23/2022 AND I AM OVERWHELMED, to be honest with you!  

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

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - FAILURE TO APPEAR! AND MORE...

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

copied and pasted right now, because I don't have time to scan it all in until I get my MEMORANDUM OF LAW COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the

SECOND CIRCUIT

 

November 17, 2022

 

 )

)  Case No. 22-CV-2741

ANNE M. BRADLEY        )

       )    

  V.        )  

       )      

Superior Court - New Haven,CT  )

       )     

       )

       )                

       )    

Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment

 

Pursuant to FRCP Rule 55, Plaintiff Motions This court to order Default Judgment on the defendant’s failure to appear at this juncture or junctures in lower courts.  

 

Plaintiff-Appellant entered its Motion for Appeal IFP and properly served it on the defendant, New Haven Superior Court in New Haven, CT as well as Storquest Self Storage Association, marking both parties as part of the appeal.  After this time, a case number was issued, at which point the plaintiff-appellant presumed her appeal was granted and she had to follow the court’s order that

1

only the Superior Court of New Haven was ruled as defendant.   Yet the case manager claimed no appeal was granted and the case number was “just a file number” which lead to the pro se plaintiff amending documents to coincide with the case number, including her MOTION TO APPEAL IFP.   After this time, the court issued a second case number rather than ruling on the properly submitted Motion To Appeal IFP, which the Federal District Court had previously denied, as indicated in the motion. The monetary amount set was $5,000 for legal costs, of which has been exceeded due to abuse of procedure and failure of Due Process of Law by the lower courts.  In addition, the plaintiff-appellant sought a court order to restore the Storquest Storage Facility lease, which was erroneously terminated, which is breach of the lease.  Plaintiff-Appellant also sought an order of the court to be strict on Storquest with a warning of penalties should they breach the lease again. There has been no pleading by the New Haven Superior Court, though the Federal District Court entered the application for injunction as a full-blown case against the New Haven Superior Court and never changed it.  Plaintiff-Appellant emphasized that the Federal District Court was obviously partnering with the New Haven Superior Court rather than overseeing it, abusing procedure

2

to deprive her rights to enforcement of the lease with Storquest Storage Facility.  Storquest refused to submit any negotiation in writing, nor would they meet with the plaintiff-appellant in a setting that would be on record since she had to enter a case against them and they failed to plead or even appear.  The New Haven Superior Court failed to obtain/subpoena disclosure of information on Storquest, despite the fact that the plaintiff-appellant discovered that they were not registered with the Secretary of State, did not have an Agent of Service, and did not have an account with Internal Revenue Service despite collecting taxes from customers.  Plaintiff-appellant not only presented a copy of her complaint/lawsuit in person but also sent it priority mail since they refused to stamp it in.  It was left on their counter.  Both circumstances were certified as proof of service. Additionally the complaint and pleadings thereafter were ALSO emailed to Storquest, regarding the Small Claim Lawsuit.  Plaintiff-Appellant Motioned for Default the day after the court set for their appearance to be due.  The court received it that day.  The court thereafter ineptly entered a Default Judgment and considered this reason to not grant the motion to grant the default judgment,

3

including the specified amount of $5,000 in accordance with Connecticut Rules of Court as well as the Connecticut State Law requiring them to grant default upon failure to appear.  

 

Presentation of this case has been factual and detailed to this aforesaid court, Second Circuit of Appeals.  The case manager has claimed that no granting of her motion to appeal has been entered yet he sent her all requirements in proceeding as pro se, including instructions for creating a brief, etc. on TWO cases, though plaintiff-appellant only motioned for appeal once.  

 

At no point had the New Haven Superior Court made its appearance or submit any pleading to the Federal District Court or this aforesaid court.  The Case Manager entered a docket sheet with information on a fired attorney, which had no bearing on the plaintiff-appellant due to the failure to appear by Superior Court of New Haven, CT.  Weeks later the case manager claimed that she had to create all new documentation and submit them to an attorney which THEY claimed was appearing for the Superior Court, New Haven.  Plaintiff-Appellant responded that no there was no court order for this and she wanted to speak to this

4

Attorney Michael Skold to find out why he was not filing an appearance.  Neither the Second Circuit Case Manager or the Attorney General of State Of Connecticut Office would provide Attorney Skold’s direct number.  His voicemail indicated no accountability in responding to voicemails and requested only emails.  An email was sent to him yet he did not respond.  Additionally, plaintiff-appellant discovered he was holding the office of Solicitor General, appointed by the Attorney General, though the description of a Solicitor General holds a higher position than an Attorney General, if a position is incorporated into the state’s judicial department by law.  Additionally, there was no Juris Number on this attorney and he was not listed as a member of the Bar Association.  Plaintiff-appellant submitted statements to the Second Circuit Court, to include the fact that they do not have the power to enter appearance on any party; and their creating a fictitious additional case paralleled with the Federal District Court marking the case in their court as a closed matter as if it could not be appealed.  She stated the case is now at a standstill.  The case manager told the plaintiff-appellant thereafter to NOT submit any appeal documents to this SOLICITOR GENERAL who had no Juris number on record, and to only submit them to the Attorney

5

General, Attorney Tong, who the Second Circuit Court had no registration/approval with their court to make an appearance, claiming only Michael Skold had approval to enter their court.  After this, the case manager then called the plaintiff-appellant AGAIN, changing his request for her to recreate all documents, even though they were stamped in by the New Haven Superior Court, and send them to Attorney Michael Skold.  Plaintiff-Appellant claimed the case manager has no right to be able to abuse this procedure in this manner, he needs to provide her an order from the court.  No order has been issued.  

 

Memorandum of Law is forthcoming, next week.   

 

Prepared and Submitted by,

 

For the Plaintiff-Appellant

 

_____________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se

PO Box 206514

New Haven, CT 06520

Ph 203-909-9131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT TO SECOND CIRCUIT

Anne M. Bradley Case No. 3:22-cv-2741

V

Superior Court, New Haven

 

Re:  CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE:

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

 

Sent this day in person to the following:  Superior Court of New Haven, 235 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510 (Stamped copy is first page of the Motion scanned and emailed to the court)

 

Submitted On This Day, 12/16/2022

 

_________________

Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se


The widgets are tactically removed so I cannot even place this flush with the right side.  

I will hopefully scan in a few documents so you can see the crap they come up with.  

Those scanned documents will be in this section.  

posted 1/12/2023


 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tranny Watch

SMALL CLAIMS PROCESSING AND DUE PROCESS IN CONNECTICUT

Kavanaugh