Correspondence To The Court

 Link to this blogpost: 

https://motherearthtoo2022.blogspot.com/2026/11/correspondence-to-court.html?m=1

Reference:

https://motherearthtoo2022.blogspot.com/2026/11/ct-supreme-and-appellate-court-justices.html?m=1

Correspondence to the Appellate Court of Connecticut 

There may be some revisions before I upload it on the case. If so, I will type those in red and provide a copy of the PRINTED letter. 

Anne M. Bradley 

Appellant of AC48452 and AC48416 

PO Box 206514

New Haven, CT 06520 

November 8, 2026 

Correspondence to Appellate Court 

AC48416

AC48452 

231 Capital Avenue 

Hartford, CT  06106

To Whom It May Concern: 

There is an obvious "exoskeleton" telling the Appellate Court what to do rather than just ensuring public trust that they abide by their own rules, and if they make exceptions they should explain why, rather than "shooting from the hip". 

I wasn't informed that judges were changed, that the Chief judge even  had changed. 

My appeal was for a reason - not so I submit well prepared documents, with no diligence by the Appellees, who do have an obligation in the court as an appearing appellee. instead, the Appellate Court allows them to not be diligent as long as they pay an undisclosed amount to the court, as an alleged "sanction", which the court fails to be transparent on. 

The fact that I appeal is to get feedback, both from the court and the non-diligent appellee. My Housing Complaint first emphasized an illegal Notice To Quit, which was the straw that broke the camel's back.  The court finally accepted after several tries, and was accepted into court on October 1, 2024. My Fee waiver stated the case was titled "Anne Bradley v Bozzuto Management, et al" yet Attorney Pitt changed the title AFTER the fee waiver was granted! 

This court is not supposed to be run with an "Ends Justifies Means " mentality. It defeats the whole purpose of Justice, replacing it with the personal "wills" of judges instead - to satisfy an "exoskeleton" - a political cell which in my case (and probably others) dictates what they want as the outcome, rather than apply the law. Even my Statement of Noncompliance (since Alayna Stone failed to enter a Memorandum of Decision on this case, and only a Decision despite it being heard by her co-conspirator-impersonator, not her on October 31, 2024) was treated as a motion - even though it wasn't even formatted as one (History, Facts, Law, Summary) nor was it certified as a motion - was entered - and denied,  nefariously treated as a motion, which I later found out was denied by Judge Suarez AFTER I made my prepared statement to the court, being told that I only had 20 minutes despite my viewing for myself in prior cases that the arguments of the Appellant well exceeded those times and I found out later that when a judge speaks,  the time is not counted.. 

That is not transparency, which was promised by the Connecticut Governor in a New Haven Register article. That is deception. 

The very fact my housing complaint, AC58452, was accepted into court, succeeded the threshold of merit. That's where housing complaints are heard. The Summons and Notice of Suit forms were HOUSING forms. The court had jurisdiction. I paid $198 for rent into court, though claimed in my complaint it I should have been paying $93.20 due to my indigency and USC 42 Section 1437 (f) . USC 42 covers SECTION 8 LAW. 

I have relayed much to support the wrongfulness and abuse of process - yet this court has allowed the trial court to DICTATE its wants to the Appellate Court - in so much as even order the non-diligent appellee to submit its Motion To Terminate Automatic Stay, applying the Appellate Rules of Court, to the trial court, which has no jurisdiction and automatic stays cannot be challenged, which is why my case manager rejected the motion. He didn't just return it.  Yet this malfeasance disrupted my efforts to submit two timely Motions To Substitute and My Motions for Reconsideration En Banc! I had to work on just one of them. I had to instead, prepare an objection to an illegal motion just because the will of the court refused to reject it by applying the law. Was my Objection heard? Of course not. Was my motion two months later, to rule "Action Not Necessary" on a motion which Alayna Stone, who is obviously just a paid actor, refuses to act upon, even ruled on? Was it objected to by the non-diligent appellee who has fakes appear, who are not even attorneys - yet the trial court welcomed the fakes even though I submitted pleadings and documents regarding that - how is this even justice? There wasn't even any Answers to the Complaints that the trial court ordered to be served by a marshal AFTER Attorney Pitt made copies when I disputed that and said I had the right to print the copies; I had it scanned in at TYCO Printing. I had the legal right to mail them as stated in the law, but no, Attorney Pitt needed to use further means of delay to disrupt that also. Rather than let me mail it on October 3 or 4, Attorney Pitt uploaded the case, withheld the complaint packet, and delayed service for a week! Had I not daily checked in this, it would have been much longer, while Attorney Pitt used continuous deception. 

TACTICS by the court are unconstitutional to say the least. It only reflects malicious and vexatious intent rather than professionalism; rather than justice. 

My Petition for Certification on AC48416 has emphasized this problem and so will my Petition for Certification on AC4852, which the Appellees did not submit objection to my Motion For Extension of Time - even though they nefariously did on AC48416 - not because it was justiciable; it was only to deviate from justice and coincide with the wills of people who are supposed to be abiding by The Attorney's Oath yet rather they only abide by Attorney's Will - which violates the whole process in court and is a disgraceful reflection on the absence of Law. 

I am a Pro Se litigant, a Section 8 tenant, who has a federal poverty level income - which this court has treated as one who they can shove under the rug, in order to keep allowing the corruption of Housing Court to continue. 

My respect lies within the confines of Justice; not malfeasance. Not cyber crime on my submitted documents, which favors the wants of justices in this court. Deliberately denying a Motion To Substitute Motion For Reconsideration En Banc - when it was proven that the one I submitted was FRAUDED after I submitted it, is a current example of where the intent of the court lies - which is relying on lies to carry out a Plan rather than apply the law that is published. 

Respectfully, 

Anne M Bradley 

e-services Account: IllegalEviction2024 

PO Box 206514

New Haven, CT 06520 

Ph.--------