2008 Coming Soon
Inserts Eva Braun Eva's Story Paintings Targets 02-04 05-07 08-10
Xmas 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Tree Notes ISM Bar X-Targets Tax-Mice
PresViv E.Indicators SepticTank KickOutOPEC
NewLaws NewSci MostWanted Attic
January 07, 2008
|
Teen Ernst, Baby Herbert and mother fleeing
|
World War I
Herbert Had last second class seat.
|
the Russians. Within first class on the train, there were empty seats.
|
|
Senior Ernst and only child Alisa, were leisurely touring
|
1970’s
Alisa Pitied her father’s small mind. |
World Trade Towers. He said Americans ignorant of war. |
Some artistic detail was lost when I went from Word to FrontPage. However, I saved a few dollars when I took matting with an oval-cut interior, and cut the whole sheet in half. Herbert is in the top-half of the oval, my mother in the bottom. The two frames were on clearance--$3.50/each.
I served and filed the following...
|
Superior Court Housing Session of Tolland at
1.
I, Vivian Lehman, am the defendant pro se in the above-captioned
action. I am a resident of 2. On November 08, 2007, I served-and-filed a Dismissal Motion. On December 14, 2007, my opposing counsel of the law firm of Hunt, Leibert and Jacobson, served-and-filed an Objection and Supporting Memorandum. On December 24, 2007, I served-and-filed my request of the Court to Overrule the Objection. This Memorandum is a supplement. 3. The reoccurring issue in all of the afore-mentioned documents is the exact words of Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) §47a-23, and whether or not the Plaintiff correctly applied such in an eviction Action against the Defendant. Such Action was initiated by a Notice to Quit Possession. 4. According to the Plaintiff’s Objection, they are in compliance with all facets of the Statute, and henceforth, the Notice to Quit is valid. If compliance is a validation, then, according to their own argument, lack of compliance is an invalidation. 5. I am attaching as Exhibit 1 a copy of such Statute including its annotations. As Exhibit 2, I am reprinting the first two paragraphs denoted (a) and (b), with applied emphasis on the phrases cited herein. Exhibit 3 attached is a reprint of the last paragraph of the annotations, also with emphasis on the words quoted herein. 6. As Exhibit 4, I am attaching the second page of the Plaintiff’s Memorandum supporting the Objection which presents “A reading of the statute in its present form…” The Objection then provides an accurate quotation of part of paragraph (a) of the Statute. Below, I copied and pasted a larger part of such from the Judicial Branch’s website, and underlined the words borrowed in the Objection (see also Exhibits 1 and 2): “such owner or lessor, or such owner's or lessor's legal representative, or such owner's or lessor's attorney-at-law, or in-fact, shall give notice to each lessee or occupant to quit possession or occupancy of such land, building, apartment or dwelling unit, at least three days before the termination of the rental agreement or lease, if any, or before the time specified in the notice for the lessee or occupant to quit possession or occupancy.” 7. What is not mentioned in the Objection are the words of the annotation to the Statute at issue (Exhibits 1 and 3): “Period
of "at least ten days" excludes both terminal days.
Henceforth, the Plaintiff’s Notice to Quit, having provided six days excluding both the dates of service and termination, is noncompliant and invalid. 8. As Exhibit 5, I am attaching the third page of the Plaintiff’s Memorandum supporting the Objection. According to such, “The Plaintiff’s Notice to Quit provides that the defendant’s occupancy is being terminated where one “Originally had the right or privilege to occupy such premises but such right or privilege has terminated” which is the exact language of C.G.S. §47a-23(a)(3).” 9. My opposing counsel’s understanding of the Statute stops at the end of the Statute’s first paragraph denoted (a). The second paragraph, (b), of the Statute provides instructions as to the format in the Notice to Quit (see Exhibits 1 and 2): “(b) The notice shall be in writing substantially in the following form: "I (or we) hereby give you notice that you are to quit possession or occupancy of the (land, building, apartment or dwelling unit, or of any trailer or any land upon which a trailer is used or stands, as the case may be), now occupied by you at (here insert the address, including apartment number or other designation, as applicable), on or before the (here insert the date) for the following reason (here insert the reason or reasons for the notice to quit possession or occupancy using the statutory language or words of similar import, also the date and place of signing notice)…".”(emphasis supplied) 10. Paragraph (a) denotes letters to “reasons” and numbers to such categories: “(3) when one originally had the right or privilege to occupy such premises but such right or privilege has terminated” 11. One example of a reason and category is “(1) …rental agreement…” “(D) nonpayment of rent…” If my opposing counsel believes I should have given them money for any reason, and that the Plaintiff, Wells Fargo Financial, has an account such is applicable to, it would have been mentioned, with the account number, in any of the briefs prepared for this action. 12. In their attempts to evict me, they cited category #3 which is not one of the many “reasons” listed. Henceforth, the Plaintiff’s Notice to Quit is noncompliant and invalid. 13. Statute 47a-23 is the only issue my opposing counsel is concerned with. The precedents cited in the Dismissal Motion papers are not of issue. These are: Pander v. French Kurtz v. Drodz Rupwani v. Mastropietro Ruocco v. McKay Bongiovanni v Reardon WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests of the Court to consider the whole Connecticut General Statute Section 47a-23, with its annotations, as well as all five precedents, and enter a judgment in her favor overruling the Objection and dismissing the claim against her. ________________________________ January 07, 2008 Vivian Lehman, Defendant pro se 860-742-6463
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This
is to certify that on January 07, 2008, a copy of MEMORANDUM OF LAW was
mailed via
TO: Mr. Kenneth Pollock Hunt Leibert
______________________________ January 07, 2008 Vivian Lehman Defendant, pro se 860-742-6463
|
Wednesday January 09, 2008
|
Dear Mother; I received your message--a file named GrandpaBo on my computer, with two images of a rectangle. These, of course, resemble the shape of the frame I selected for representation of the book written about Grandpa's lifetime of research as a urological surgeon. I am planning on resuming work on all framing after concluding the paperwork of the trial. One of the reasons why I bought the printer/scanner was so I could work on everything during the snow storms of winter. As you already know, I had everything ready for framing, and then removed the plastic packaging only to realize that matting in front of, not behind, the glass was built-in----non-removable. I had to change the way the information is organized to achieve conformity with the circle and rectangle. I cannot use three-square-format with this $1 frame. But, nonetheless, I think its designers gave me good directive. That is probably a better way of doing it. I will try to finish it in time for Mother's Day. |
Unless this is what she wants...
|
Dr. Ernst Lehmann 1900-1976 Urological Surgeon Thesis Subject |
|
Ernst Lehmann: ‘Die Begutachtung (The investigation) Urologisher (Urological) Krankheiten’ (Diseases) Mit Beiträgen zur (with contributions to) Biobibliographie Lehmanns Inaugural-Dissertation Zur Erlangung der Docktorwürde der Medizinishen Fakultät der Bayerischen Julius-Maximiliana-Universität zu Würzburg Vergelogt von Hans- Martin Bossert aus Anabach (mfr.) (author) 1986 |
|
Beitrag (contribution) zur Pathologie Des Processus vermiformis (appendix) ______ Inaugural-Dissertation Der medicinishen Facultāt Der Kaiser-Wilhelms- Universität Strassburg Zur Erlangung der Doctorwűrde Vergelogt von Max Lehmann |
|
|
Friday January 11, 2008
Court date was today before Judge Santos.
My opposition never showed.
Claim against me is dismissed.
Counterclaim still pending.
But Frank Kibler warned me, they could try to evict me again.
Saturday January 12, 2008
This is what happened.
On Thursday I stayed home waiting for the phone call from Hunt & Leibert informing me that they were Motioning for a Continuance (i.e., postponement, continuation). Around noon, it came. I agreed.
As the last time, I awoke the following morning to check the Case Detail and saw the word "proceeding". It is better to show than not, but this time I was going to be smart. Instead of putting on an elegant outfit, I decided to wear what-I-call my upscale-rags. These are not jeans, but black slacks and a ribbed pink t-shirt with a full neck and no design on it.
And this time, I did not bring a book to read.
We all entered the Courtroom, and I did not hear that a Continuance was Motioned. Rather, I heard two cases called, and then mine. I stated my Appearance, but did not hear my opposing counsel do so. Then we exited the Courtroom and lingered in the hallway. As the Housing Specialist worked with each case in his office, I talked to a very nice female attorney who was representing landlords. She explained to me I should return to the Courtroom for the next calendar call and ask for a default judgment. I thanked her for the good advise. When I saw the Housing Specialist emerge from his office to file a settlement, I asked him. He gave the same advise. So I stood outside of the Courtroom for over half-an-hour wondering if this could really be possible.
I knew it couldn't, because the
satellites must be seeing what is going on. And any of the 20 attorneys
of the law firm could have easily jumped into their cars and arrived. It
is a short drive from
The Courtroom doors were again unlocked and we entered. First, the settlements were announced between landlords either representing themselves or by counsel, and their tenants. And then came my case. The Judge granted the Dismissal Motion.
Last night, I tried to understand what happened. This morning, when I checked the Case Detail, I learned the Motion for Continuance was denied by Judge Angelo Dos Santos.
He will always have my vote. Because he was right.
Tuesday January 15, 2008
A few weeks ago, I decided to review the
If I had accepted paperwork in this condition while I was working as a $9/hour cashier, my you-know-what would have been kicked such that I would have flown past the Moon over to Mars. I assume the land-records-clerk makes more than that.
I didn't know what to do with the document I found. I drafted many motions. My problem was that I was afraid that the Judge might think I made the hand-written corrections to the date of notarization. So I would have to send him on an errand to review the pages in the book. As far as I knew, you can't send judges on errands.
Two days before the January
My guess was that the Judge had already seen it when he denied the Motion for Continuance. While I couldn't see any such thing in the Case Detail, I could see that the Judge deemed their Motion to Strike as "arguable--yes". Everything else had been "no". I asked at the Courthouse what that means. The "yes" is if the Judge has questions before granting or denying the motion.
My opposing counsels' objective was to
convince me that the mortgage with Wells
Today I served-and-filed the
following. (I omitted the WHO because this is the signature of an
innocent executive. She has two identities: Vice President of
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems and Vice President of Countrywide. The
WHAT could not be transferred from Word to Frontpage software. But it is
the loan number. This is not a Wells
For graphics, see WhoWhatWhere
|
Superior Court Housing Session of Tolland at
1. I,
Vivian Lehman, am the defendant pro se in the above-captioned action.
I am a resident of 2. I am asking of the Court to acknowledge this MEMORANDUM OF LAW and thereby void the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Counterclaim as per the Connecticut Statutes and Codes cited herein. 3. A
copy of the Assignment of Mortgage is the only attachment to the Supporting
Memorandum of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike. A duplicate of such
Assignment of Mortgage is recorded in the Town of
4. And WHY is it that Wells Fargo, the plaintiff, never committed its signature to it? “Sec. 49-10. Assignment of mortgage... Requirements...(1)written notice of assignment signed by both the assignor and the assignee…” (emphasis supplied) 5. On December
11, 2007, I served-and-filed a Request for a Revised Complaint. I wanted a
document signed by a Wells 6. The hand-written corrections of the Assignment of Mortgage render it non-conformational to the Connecticut Code of Evidence Section 10-2 which requires reliable resemblance between originals and photocopies without the necessity to view the former. Henceforth, it is a hearsay document and I am not attaching it. 7. The
signature-date of the hearsay document is typewritten January 03, of the
manually entered year of 2007. Two days later, on January 05, 2007 it
was recorded in the 8. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and its Supporting Memorandum is signed by David W. Goldman, of counsel to Hunt, Leibert and Jacobson. This is the law firm claiming it has authorization to represent the Plaintiff. 9. In preparing these briefs, Mr. Goldman did not conform to his law firm’s practice of using the law firm’s letterhead for each page. Henceforth, the Motion to Strike and its Supporting Memorandum must also be considered hearsay as there can be future issues with the Connecticut Code of Evidence. And considering Mr. Goldman’s characterization of me, I would also like to ask of him to initial each page in his resubmission. WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests of this Court to deem the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and its Supporting Memorandum as nullities and require resubmission with 1. The original Assignment of Mortgage filed, 2. A copy served with a True-Copy-Affidavit, and 3. All pages of briefs printed on the law firm’s letterhead with Mr. Goldman’s initials on each. Defendant also respectfully requests of the Court to change the identity of the plaintiff from Wells Fargo Bank to the law firm of Hunt, Leibert and Jacobson. And Defendant requests an injunction against all future eviction activity.
________________________________ January 15, 2008 Vivian Lehman, Defendant pro se 860-742-6463
To: Kenneth J. Pollock, Attorney for Plaintiff Hunt Leibert & Jacobson, PC
SUPERIOR COURT Housing Session of Tolland at
|
