Preview
Appellate EFiing https://appellateetie.eservices.Jud.ct.gov/raymentC onfirmation.aspx :U,
3) sje Ouyuicastatial
(Wel oel wate aol
LY ! Np dslbiro ssi Contos oe sl ibetes
Logged-In User : Annette Washington (dental13) 5 TT 05°.
You have selected this case:
Docket Number: Name of Case:
HHD-CV-17-6076206-S NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC. v. ANNETTE L. WASHINGTON ET AL.
You have successfully E-Filed!
View/S ave/P rint Pre Appeal Motion form here: BB
Print Confirmation of E-Filing here
Confirmation of E-Filing
For questions regarding this payment: Contact Us.
Pre Appeal Motion Number: MOT SC 230148
Trial Court Docket Number: HHD-CV-17-6076206-S
Type of Transaction: MOTION FOR REVIEW
Fee Amount: $0.00
Service Fee: $0.00
Total Transaction Amount: $0.00
Date Filed: 01/12/2024
Filed By: dental13 - Annette Washington
Date & Time of Transaction: 01/12/2024 12:13 PM
430432-PRE APPEAL MOTION
Documents Filed:
430433-PRE APPEAL MOTION
Payment Confirmation Number:
Back to E-Filing Menu Logout
Copyright © 2024, State of Connecticut J udicial Branch
1of1 1/12/24, 12:14 PM
Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved
Supreme Court State of Connecticut
Supreme Court Docket No. SC ----------- Superior Court
J udicial District of Hartford
Appellate Docket No. AC 47163 Transferred
from SC 20948 (at Hartford)
Docket No. HHD-CV-6076206-S
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC
Vv
ANNETTE L. WASHINGTON January 11, 2024
WRITTEN TESTIMONY BY:
Basil-Clifton: Washington and Annette-Lois: Washington
FILED: On or about 12 Day month ofJ anuary year 2024
Competent Witness Hereafter the Petitioner
APPELLANT(S) - DEFENDANT(S) ANNETTE LOIS
WASHINGTON’S AND BASIL CLIFTON WASHINGTON’S
MOTION FOR REVIEW BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE
PREMATURELY GRANTING OF APPELLANT’(S’)
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION REQUEST AS A FINAL
ORDER WITHOUTJ URISDICTION BY THE CLERK ON
THE DIRECTIVE OF HIS SUPERVISOR(S) ON J ANUARY
3° 2024
&
MOTION FOR ORDER OF OTHER RELIEF THAT IS J UST
AND PROPER. WITH ATTACHED APPENDIX OF
EXHIBITS INSUPPORT
Page 1 of 16
Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved
Now Comes the Affiants Non-Attorneys, non-bar members, pro per Appellants and
Defendants Basil Clifton Washington and Annette Lois Washington (the “Washingtons”,
“We”, “Us”, “Our’) jointly, a man and a woman of faith and the creation of Living “El Elyon”
the “Most High” and we are joined by a marriage union and covenant with ceremony and
“No Man or Woman” can undo the work(s) of our inheritance, holy covenant and heritage
as loyal and humble servants of ADONAI “Elohim” (“Lord God”) as was witnessed by
“Amen”. Whereas, | Basil Clifton am the Son and | Annette Lois am the Daughter of
‘Tetragrammaton” and is under the protection of “Tetragrammaton”
as it is written and we
are “One of We the People” in the territory of the connecticuter republic, and;
Affiants state that: we squarely stand before this Court on the grounds of
being the “Victims” of what appears to and or surmounts to be “| udicial Apartheid”
by the Trial Court J.D. at Hartford located at 95 Washington Street, Housing Court
Session located at 80 Washington and also the Appellate Court as inferior courts
and the systemic practice of discrimination against a “Class” of pro se litigants. We
like to quote one of our historic indigenous ancestors Fannie Lou Hamer who delivered a
speech with el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X) another historic indigenous
ancestors at a rally at the Williams Institutional CME Church in Harlem New York on
December 20°, 1964 who said the following: “... And you can always hear this long sob story:
“You know it takes time.” F or three hundred years, we’ ve given them time. And I’ve been tired so
long, now I am sick and tired of being sick and tired, and we want a change”., and;
Affiants state that: we squarely affirm that this Motion for Review is brought before
the Connecticut Supreme Court as an original court of “Equitable Jurisdiction” based upon
“Good Faith” and “Just Cause” and hereby seeks relief to set aside and reverse the
premature granting on January 3", 2024 without jurisdiction and being aggrieved by the
Page
2 of 16
Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved
actions of the Case manager Attorney Peter Keane’. Whereas, ruling on the Appellant(s’)
Motion for an Extension of Time to respond and or reply to the Motion to Dismiss filed on
December 14", 2023 with our Extension Request being filed on or around December 26",
2023 attached hereto as Appendix ExhibitA (E-1 thru E-13 is Appellant(s’) motion) and
attached hereto as Appendix Exhibit B (E-14 thru E-17 is the docket case detail as of
01/05/2024).
Affiants state that: a previously e-filed Motion for Review was filed on December
15", 2023 and docketed as SC-230130 that contained errors and omissions due to various
technical difficulties and due to time constraints we were unable to access J udicial Staffing
resulting with the refilling as another e-filing on December 18", 2023 with the correction of
all errors and omissions as SC-230231. A Motion to Consolidate was e-filed in both dockets
on J anuary 8", 2024 after Appellant Basil Clifton’s conversation on J anuary 5", 2024 with
Case manager Attorney Peter Keane. Both e-filings were returned and per the instructions
of the returns were then refiled and e-filed on J anuary 10", 2024 as SC-230146 attached
as Appendix ExhibitC (E-18 thru E-19 is the receipt of the refiled e-filing).
Affiants state that: our Motion for Extension specifically sought relief from the
Appellate Court only if applicable after the ruling on the Motion for Review SC-230131 of
the transfer order of December 5", 2023 by the Chief Clerk Carl D. Cicchetti without
Affiants’ “Power of Attorney” and or “Consent” was decided. If anything the extension
request should have been transferred to be decided by this Court since jurisdiction rested
with this Supreme Court at the time of granting. As our Motion for Review SC-230131 that
1 Acting on and under the directive of his supervisor(s) Deputy Chief Clerk and Attorney René L. Robertson and
or Chief Clerk Attorney Carl D. Cicchetti, whereas it is believed his hands were tied to comply with his
supervisor(s) despite lack of jurisdiction to rule rather than face insubordination.
Page 3 of 16
Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved
corrects SC-230130, and our Preargument Conference Statement purpose is to further
state as well as to demonstrate why this appeal should be heard before the Connecticut
Supreme Court: (1) as a Constitutional Right, (2) based upon the denial of due process and
the (3) deprivation of rights by Attorneys, Bar Members, Individuals impersonating a
“Connecticut Lawyer”, an Attorney using an alias and J udicial Officers and the conspiracy
thereof which are violations pursuant to: (a) 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 245, (b) 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and (c) C.G.S. §§ 53-37, 53-37b, 52-568, 52-571a, and 52-571c. It is also the
Affiants’ belief that Deputy Chief Clerk and Attorney René L. Robertson with an adverse
history with the affiant Basil Clifton since and based upon his 1% encounter with her
stemming back from May 19", 2015 based upon an appeal that was docketed as AC-
37950 which is unrelated to the underlining foreclosure action. At that time she was
assigned as the case manager to the case, and;
Affiants state that: | Basil in my 2015 interactions with Attorney René L. Robertson
| found her to what| believe was very disrespectful, hostile, uncooperative and committing
acts unbecoming of a public servant that would lead to show cause to a personal bias and
it is the Affiants’ belief that she had a key role and influenced the transfer from SC 20948 to
AC 47163 based upon her implicit biases. Deputy Chief Clerk René L. Robertson's
manipulation of the record that we believe is based upon her personal bias and prejudices
and the record shows her actions of her personal biases and conspiracy to influence the
outcome of our cases and filings based upon using her authority to manipulate the record
demonstrated in the examples and points that is in our affidavit in support seen on pages 3
thru 12 94 1 thru 17 in SC-230131, and;
Page
4 of 16
Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved
Affiants state that: whereas, the relief that is sought from this Supreme Court of
Connecticut as a Court of Original J urisdiction for redress of grievances and this is based
upon being aggrieved by the actions of the Appellate Clerk regarding the premature ruling
on our Extension Request that was not ripe for adjudication, nor was there Appellate Court
jurisdiction that existed. The real problem is that if Attorney Keane or any other Case
Manager is unable to handle a request based upon a limited purview or a matter on his or
her own volition without the interference of Deputy Chief Clerk René L. Robertson and or
Chief Clerk Carl D. Cicchetti who both have a conflict of interest. Whereas the Affiants are
further aggrieved by the implicit biases directed towards Affiant Basil Clifton based upon his
beliefs and practices and “Anti-Satanic Stance”, “Anti-Tyranny Stance”, etc, and;
Affiants state that: filing a direct appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court as well
as this Motion for Review is Just and proper based upon the Appellate Court J udges’
implicit biases led by the Hon. William H. Bright, Jr. Chief
J udge and the deprivation of
rights and the belief that we will not receive just and proper relief based upon fairness and
impartiality from the Appellate Court of Connecticut. As the Connecticut Supreme Court's
“Independence” and supervisory powers of any order relating to perfecting the record, or
the procedure of prosecuting or defending against the appeal and that this Court's ability for
review is sought, and;
Affiants further state that: this Motion for Review is being filed in this Supreme
Court as a Court of original jurisdiction of and for the “People” and as a Court of equitable
jurisdiction under “Niles v. Williams” 24 Conn 279, 283 (1855), also this Motion for
Review is being filed under “Micek-Holt”, 326 Conn. at 920 footnote 2, 163 A.3d at 1203
footnote 2 based upon the fact that there has been numerous bad faith actions, including
fraudulent occurrences, conspiracies and wrongdoings by Attorneys claiming to represent
Page 5 of 16
Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved
the Plaintiff, including judicial officers as coconspirators for the violations of: (1) 11 U.S.
Code § 524(a)(1), (2) the unfulfillment and failure to comply with a Complaint filed withouta
fully executed AFFIDAVIT Federal Loss Mitigation Programs, form |D-CL-114 as
required pursuant to Mortgage Foreclosure Standing Order - Federal Loss Mitigation
Programs J D-CV-117 Rev. 8/10 and (3) the unfulfillment of the EMAP notice provision in §
8-265ee as well as the filing a fraudulent Affidavit of Compliance with EMAP in the Trial
Court at docket entry# 108.00 and;
Affiants state that: “We are one the people” in Propria Persona Sui J uris. The
Washingtons are high school graduates, and we have no training in the law and hereby
invoke Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972). Appellants have taken our appeal to seek
review as a matter of our due process rights based on a “Null and Void” final judgment and
the various modifications of that judgment
that are “subject to defeasance”, and;
Affiants state that: this Motion for Review is “squarely” based on a legitimate “Good
Cause” falling under Practice Book§ 66-1(c) based upon the following: (1) a direct appeal
was filed on 12/01/2023 and as amended on December 26", 2023 based upon a secure
Constitutional Right under the provisions established in the 1818 Constitution of
Connecticut Article 1 Section 12 attached hereto as Appendix Exhibit D (E-20 thru E-46
is a Certified Copy from the Connecticut State Library of the 1818 Constitution). (2) the
granting of the extensions absent Appellate Court Jurisdiction and relief was requested
after the ruling on SC-230131 and (3) the continued deprivation and denial of rights
including due process and procedural due process rights to date and conspiracy thereof
Violation Warning—18 U.S.C. §242; 18 U.S.C. §245; 42 U.S.C. §1983. Pursuant to
Practice Book§ 61-10, itis the responsibility of the appellant
to provide an adequate record
for review. Also relevant is pursuant to Practice Book § 60-5 Review by the Court; Plain
Error; Preservation of Claims, and;
Page
6 of 16
Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved
Affiants state that: there has been the use of fraud to create a constructive trust via
the State Court System. Appellants have first hand knowledge of the facts, and for the
Court to takeJ udicial Notice as the Appellants affirm and represent
as follows:
I URISDICTION
Affiants state that: Relief is sought from this Supreme Court pursuant to: (a) Article
1 § 12 of the 1818 Connecticut Constitution at common law; (b) Article 5 of the Connecticut
Constitution at common law; (c) C.G.S. §§ 51-51j, 52-471(a), 53-37, 53-37b, 52-568, 52-
571la, and 52-571c ; (d) also the Rules 1.2, 2.1, 2.5, 2.6, 2.11, 2.14, 2.15 of the Rules of
J udicial Conduct; (e) also under its Supervisory Powers pursuant
to Practice Book §§ 60-1,
60-2, 60-3, 60-5, 60-6, and 66-6 in accordance with Practice Book§ 66-2 and (f) the Courts
ability to remove, suspend, censure, discipline and or reprimand any judge. (g) our due
process right to be heard and seek redress for any grievances before a Court of competent
jurisdiction, and;
IL UDICIAL NOTICE
Affiants state that: to see Constitutional Notice uploaded December 11", 2023 with
attachment Exhibits and as Amended on January 5", 2024 as part of our preliminary
papers filed in Appellate Docket No. AC 47163 Transferred from SC 20948 and the
Appellants seek to protect their rights by invoking the fair use doctrine pursuant to
17 U.S.C. § 107 see Campbell, aka Skyywalker, etal. v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510
U.S. 599 (1994) and provisions from Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972), and
Platsky v. CIA 953 F.2d 26 (1991) and further state that we do not consent knowingly
or unknowingly and do not acquiesce in the Courts’ handling of the matters before the
Courts, and;
I. FACTUAL GROUNDS AND BRIEF HISTORY FOR MOTION FOR REVIEW.
Page 7 of 16
Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved
1. Affiants state that: e-filed docket entry# 108.00 Affidavit of Compliance with EMAP
was not by complied with specifically, with subsection (b) of §8-265ee which requires the
mortgagee to file an affidavit with the court stating that the notice provisions of subsection
(a) have been complied with and that the relevant time period has expired. Only after the
mortgagee files such an affidavit may the foreclosure suit continue. The purported affiant in
this instance who is purportedly a Paralegal at Bendett & McHugh, P.C. by the name of
“Amanda J. Fountain” who is not the mortgagee attesting on page 1 {| 2 that upon
information and belief, the Plaintiff has complied with the provisions of Connecticut
General Statutes Section 8-265ee(a) also known as Public Act 08-176, §7. This affidavit
was subscribed and sworn before “Aza E. Gray” “Commissioner of the Superior Court”
on May 24", 2017, as this failure of fulfillment and act of fraud deprives the Court of
jurisdiction upon which relief can be granted, and;
2. Affiants state that: who is “Connecticut Lawyer” “Aza E. Gray” “Commissioner of
the Superior Court” using Bendett & McHugh P.C.’s Juris No. 102892 who filed the
“Granted” e-filed Motion forJ udgment of Strict Foreclosure docket entry# 107.00 (granted
twice by the now-late Kevin Gene Dubay 107.86 on 12/18/2017 and 107.87 on 02/19/2019)
among other motions, as no such “Connecticut Lawyer” exists, upon checking web
achieves as early as November 16", 2016 it was found and published whereas from the
2016 till present 12/10/2023 from the website page from the ConnecticutJ udicial Branch
E-Services page under the tab E-File FAQs, Attorney/Law Firms states on page 2 45
Which juris number should | use to log in to E-Services? as follows:
“Note: Regardless of the number that is used to log in to E-Services, you are
required to use your individual juris number to sign e-filed documents.” , and;
3. Affiants state that: in docket entry# 412.00 submitted by Attorney Jeffrey M.
Knickerbocker in the Objection to Motion filed on September 22", 2023 re: Motion to Strike
Appearance docket entry# 411.00 states on page 1 44.1 and 2 as follows:
Page
8 of 16
Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document - All Rights Reserved
“Defendant claims on page 16 of 201, that the law “forbids one
who has not passed the bar from practicing law.””
2. “Each of the attorneys in this matter have passed the bar, which
is a fact this court may take judicial notice of as the status of each
attorney may be verified simply by reviewing the attorney look up
on the judicial web site.”
As this criteria requirement had not occurred in any of the pleadings of and by Aza E. Gray
and 98% of all the pleadings submitted by the various attorneys that have filed a pleading
in the trial court to date, and
4. Appellants state that: Recently discovered evidence as of November 29", 2023
shows as a pattern of practice of misrepresentation and fraud after going to the judicial
website on November 29", 2023 we could not find any records for an Attorney named “Aza
ray” as no verified status exists such as: (i) Retired, (ii) Suspended, (iii) Disbarred, (iv)
Deceased, (v) Pro Hac Vice, (vi) a juris no., and or (vii) admitted to practice date. However
what was found were other motions including summonses, complaints, motions for default
and motions for judgment by “Aza E. Gray”. It further demonstrates the pattern of receiving
relief by the now late Honorable Kevin G. Dubay and possibly other judges as well. These
facts shows the unconstitutionally of depriving a large number of: (a) the hard working and
good people of the State of Connecticut as well as (b) the hard working and good Citizens
of the State of Connecticut from their properties as demonstrated and seen in SC-230131
Affidavit in Support pages 12 thru 17 4 18 thru 21 of the EMAP Affidavit filings other
motions and pleadings in other Docket Nos., which deprives the Court of jurisdiction upon
which relief can be granted. Whereas, the original judgment (judgment of strict foreclosure
docket entry# 107.87 (Dubay, J )) is “void ab initio” and the modification orders of the trial
courts: (a) (Taylor's, }) of (Dubay’s, J ) at docket entry# 356.86, (b) (Baio’s, J .) ) of (Taylor's,
J) at docket entry# 390.86 and (Vatti’s, J) of (Baio’s, J .)) at docket entry# 416.86 all are
‘void ab initio” and are “subject
to defeasance” as seen in SC-230131 Affidavitin Support
Page
9 of 16
Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved
pages 20 thru 25 {1 26 thru 33 as these issues was brought to the attention of the
presiding judge in our Caseflow Request (J D-CV-116) docket entry# 446.00 filed on
December 1°, 2023 denied on December 4", 2023 by the Hon. Susan Cobb the request’s
Title was “Motion for Intervention by the Presiding J udge and Demand for Competent
J udicial Authority in the Interest ofJ ustice via Caseflow and Objection and Exception - Re:
Hon. Neeta M. Vatti & Demand for Proof ofJ urisdiction to Appear on the Record”, and;
5. Affiants state that: the Trial Court judgement foreclosure is voids under 11 U.S.
Code § 524 and the Plaintiff-Appellee is in violation of the bankruptcy court discharge order
and the permanent injunctions by filing this foreclosure action Docket No. HHD-CV-
6076206-S. Clearly when their claim has been discharged under the bankruptcy court
discharge order see Case No. 15-21428 filed in 2015, and;
IV. LEGAL GROUNDS RELIED UPON FOR MOTION FOR REVIEW
a. Pursuantto the United States Constitution
Amendments 4, 5, 7, 9 and Amendment 14
b. Pursuantto the Constitution of the State of Connecticut
ARTICLE FIRST. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS -
(1) SEC. 10. [Sec 12 of the 1818 Connecticut Constitution] “All courts shall be open,
and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have
remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or
delay”. As this Constitutional provision empowers this Supreme Court of Errors to issue
injunctive relief as well as this same provision also empowers the Appellate Court
(2) SEC. 20. “No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to
segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his civil or political rights
because of religion, race, color, ancestry or national origin”.
ARTICLE TENTH. - GENERAL PROVISIONS. [of the 1818 Connecticut Constitution]
Sec. 1. “Members of the General Assembly, and all officers, executive and judicial, shall
before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take the following oath or
affirmation, to wit": “You do solemnly swear .............+. to the best of your abilities.
So help you God”.
c. Pursuant to Practice Book§ 66-6(b
Motion for Review; In General
Page 10 of 16
Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved
(b), relating to the perfecting of the record for an appeal or the procedure of prosecuting or
defending against an appeal; any order concerning a stay of execution in a case on appeal;
d. Pursuantto Practice Book§ 61-10
Responsibility of AppellantTo Provide Adequate Record for Review.
e. Pursuantto Practice Book§ 60-5
Review by the Court; Plain Error; Preservation of Claims
V. SPECIFIC FACTS RELIED UPON FOR MOTION FOR REVIEW
1. The actions of the Appellate Court Clerk were made prematurely absent of
jurisdiction while a matter was pending before the Connecticut Supreme Court.
2. The late-) udge Kevin Gene Dubay Trier of facts did everything in his power and
influence to deny Appellants’ due process rights and Appellants have been injured and still
are suffering and continued to feel the impact by the Estate of the late-] udge Dubay. See
Simms v Seaman 308 Conn. 523 (2013) in Justice Palmer's dissent concluding and
establishing that: “the majority's decision rightly will be viewed-by nonlawyers especially as
nduly protectionist of attorneys” id. at 585.
3. The failure to comply with the EMAP mandate Nationstar Mortgage LLC has failed to
satisfy a mandatory condition precedent and, therefore, has failed to allege a claim on
which relief can be granted.
Vi. CONCLUSION
Wherefore, based upon the reasons stated herein the undersigned affiants and
appellants seek and requests that this Supreme Court of Errors grant review, set aside and
reverse the premature granting order as a final order of the Clerk of the Appellate Court
under the direction of his Supervisor(s) and seta new extension date if necessary after our
Motion for Review SC-230131 is decided and or any other relief deemed just and proper.
Page 11 of 16
Authentic Wet Ink under Seal Document — All Rights Reserved
1, (We) declare signed below under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America that the foregoing Motion for Review is true and correct, and is not
intended to mislead 28 U.S. Code § 1746(1).
Executed on this Dated the 11 day of January AD 2024:
ON BEHALF OF AND BY:// THE PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANT(S) & Respectfully and
Sincerely Submitted, by the Appellants/Defendants
BASIL WASHINGTON (INTERVENING), basil washington, basil clifton: washington, and
clifton basil washington; and ANNETTE L. WASHINGTON, annette washington, annette-
lois: washington, and lois annette Washington;
LAW DAY: 12/04/2023; and APPELLATE COURT DOCKET # 47163 Transferred from SC
20948, Amended Appeal AC-47163A01
The Defendant and Affiant, The Defendant and Affiant,
BASIL WASHINGTON (INTERVENING) ANNETTE L. WASHINGTON
Basil Washington Annette Washington
Basil Clifton Washington Annette Lois Washington
Baul Cifon anette Lois
1-11-2024
/s/ jahslaw613__ 1-11-2024 /s/ dental13
Basil Washington Annette Washington
Basil Clifton Washington Annette Lois Washington
141 Weston Street 141 Weston Street
c/o United States Post Office c/o United States Post Office
Box# 2133, Hartford, Connecticut near Box# 2133, Hartford, Connecticut near
[06145] non-domestic [06145] non-domestic
autograph under thumb seal and in service, autograph under thumb seal and in service,
all rights reserved without waiver of any all rights reserved without waiver of any
defense*. defense”.
Thumb Print Thumb Print
Ml
2 All Constitutional Rights Invoked and None are Waived
3 All Constitutional Rights Invoked and None are Waived
Page 12 of 16
Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved
ORDER
The foregoing having been heard; itis hereby ORDERED that the MOTION FOR REVIEW
is hereby: GRANTED
/ DENIED
BY THE COURT
—-----
Judge
Page 13 of 16
Authentic Wet Ink under Seal Document — All Rights Reserved
Using a Notary or Commissioner of the Court on this document does not create an
adhesion contract with the State, nor does it alter my (our) status in any manner, but is
used only for identification purposes and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.
Certification and Attestation: | (We) Hereby Certify That the Facts Recited Herein Are True
and Correct. | (We) Understand That the City Clerk, County Clerk or Clerk of Court on
Those Recitations in Indexing the Attached Instruments. The clerk of records Have Been
Notified BY the filing on the Public Record, Rule 11: Fax /E-Mail Service/ Hand Delivery / E-
Filing/ U.S.P.S. Services of: First Class, Priority Mail, Certified Mail, under UCC-1-207.
JURAT/ACKNOWLEDGMENT
As done this lat day of
2
+ AH 4a“) in the year
2024, and we do hereby affirm that the contents of this Declaration-Affidavit with
attachments as testimony that contains the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
and solemnly affirm that this truth is binding upon our conscience under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the United States of America.
on
Autograp! hed,/Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the pi rese e of:
oN jotary or 0. Commissioner of the Court and or itnessed by:,
Voc Sov @ To ts ME ale
Witness# 1: (Print) Witness# 2: (Print)
Gg
Witness# 1: (Signature) Witnés; 2: (Signature)
Autograph: —— — Autog!
By: Washington, Annette L By: W:
Autograph: Autograph
By: Annette Lois Was ington By: Basil Cc
Thumb Print Thumb Print
>
‘l
‘,
Page 14 of 16
Authentic Wet Ink under Seal Document — All Rights Reserved
Duly sworn (or affirmed) this lA day of) GuetrtY 2024
STATE OF
ied
COUNTY OF Hard 5 Sworn (or affirmed) before me the
undersigned, a 0 Notary or 0 Commissioner of the Superior Court, acting within and for the
County of Bs UE a = and State of Oclicrc on
this jo! day Ja , 2024, personally
appeared and known to me - OR proved-to Ine on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be
the person whose names is subscribed to the within instrument, to be the identical Woman
Annette Lois Washington/Washington Annette L. and Man Basil Clifton
WashingtonWashington Basil C, who being duly sworn and or affirmed before me
declared the above matters contained in foregoing document and or complaint and of
Affidavit/Declaration to be true, correct, and not meant to mislead, to the best of his and or
her firsthand knowledge, understanding, and belief, by his and or her free will and voluntary
act and deed by his and or her signature and seal on the foregoing document and or
as
Affidavit/Declaration and or lai int, execu the within instrument. Given under my
(our) hand and seal this _/- day of Atrivh uf 2024
{ ane ( ohoolZ
Notary or o Commissioner
of the Superior Court, Signature Seal
| Pescara Peel ee
Printed Name of o-NoOtary or o Commissioner of the Superior Court, 2
an He dy,
3/3 [203K os an
My commission expires and or Juris Number WS Rg,
soe OTAR AEs
== = -— st 7
By, % PUBLIC gse
As
sae
% “Ok
M4 i ON
Page 15 of 16
Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND COMPLIANCE
We the undersigned are non-attorneys and non-bar members and state that the
following: All Constitutional Rights are Invoked and that None are Waived and hereby
certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via first class mail on or around the date of its
filing to the following parties of record and or carbon copy (cc:) to additional parties, and
that it complies with the applicable rules of Appellate Procedure set forth in Practice Book
§66-2, §62-7 and that all personal and individually identifying information required to be
redacted by Practice Book Section, Statute or other applicable rule has been redacted in
compliance with PB § § 66-3, 66-5 and 67-2 (to the best of our knowledge):
ATTORNEY BENDETT & MCHUGH, P.C. JURIS# 102892 » 270 FARMINGTON AVE, » SUITE 151
FARMINGTON, CT 06032 « 860-677-2868
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, « c/o Attorney MCCALLA RAYMER LEIBERT PIERCE LLC JURIS #
101589 « 50 Weston Street Hartford, CT 06120 » 860-241-1639
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, e C/O ATTORNEY BROCK AND SCOTT PLLC
J URIS# 439942 e 5431 OLEANDER DRIVE, e SUITE 200 WILMINGTON, NC 28403-
5847 e 844-856-6646 e Via: United States Post Office - U.S. Mail
CC: TO THE ESTATE OF HONORABLE KEVIN GENE. DUBAY, TO THE CHAMBERS’ OF THE
HONORABLE MARK H. TAYLOR, THE HONORABLE CLAUDA A. BIAO AND THE HONORABLE NEETA M.
VATTI| C/O OFFICE OF THE CLERK HARTFORD SUPERIOR COURT - 2ND FLOOR « 95 WASHINGTON
STREET HARTFORD, CT 06106 - HARTFORD COUNTY * ATTN: ] UDGE’S SECRETARY
CC: OFFICE OF THE CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM TONG «55 ELM STREET
HARTFORD, CT 06106 IN HARTFORD COUNTY « EMAIL: ATTORNEY GENERAL@CT.GOV PHONE: (860)
808-5318
Cc: Office of the United States Attorney, e 157 Church Street 17%, Floor New Haven, CT 06510
Lanett Lois Yishington
____/s/iahslaw613__ 1-12-2024 a /s/ dentall3
_PLestitalss 1-12-2024
Basil Washington Annette Washington
141 Weston Street c/o United States Post Office, Box# 2133, RFD Hartford, Connecticut
near [06145] non-domestic
Page 16 of 16
Preview
Appellate EFiing https://appellateetie.eservices.Jud.ct.gov/raymentC onfirmation.aspx :U, 3) sje Ouyuicastatial (Wel oel wate aol LY ! Np dslbiro ssi Contos oe sl ibetes Logged-In User : Annette Washington (dental13) 5 TT 05°. You have selected this case: Docket Number: Name of Case: HHD-CV-17-6076206-S NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC. v. ANNETTE L. WASHINGTON ET AL. You have successfully E-Filed! View/S ave/P rint Pre Appeal Motion form here: BB Print Confirmation of E-Filing here Confirmation of E-Filing For questions regarding this payment: Contact Us. Pre Appeal Motion Number: MOT SC 230148 Trial Court Docket Number: HHD-CV-17-6076206-S Type of Transaction: MOTION FOR REVIEW Fee Amount: $0.00 Service Fee: $0.00 Total Transaction Amount: $0.00 Date Filed: 01/12/2024 Filed By: dental13 - Annette Washington Date & Time of Transaction: 01/12/2024 12:13 PM 430432-PRE APPEAL MOTION Documents Filed: 430433-PRE APPEAL MOTION Payment Confirmation Number: Back to E-Filing Menu Logout Copyright © 2024, State of Connecticut J udicial Branch 1of1 1/12/24, 12:14 PM Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved Supreme Court State of Connecticut Supreme Court Docket No. SC ----------- Superior Court J udicial District of Hartford Appellate Docket No. AC 47163 Transferred from SC 20948 (at Hartford) Docket No. HHD-CV-6076206-S NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC Vv ANNETTE L. WASHINGTON January 11, 2024 WRITTEN TESTIMONY BY: Basil-Clifton: Washington and Annette-Lois: Washington FILED: On or about 12 Day month ofJ anuary year 2024 Competent Witness Hereafter the Petitioner APPELLANT(S) - DEFENDANT(S) ANNETTE LOIS WASHINGTON’S AND BASIL CLIFTON WASHINGTON’S MOTION FOR REVIEW BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE PREMATURELY GRANTING OF APPELLANT’(S’) MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION REQUEST AS A FINAL ORDER WITHOUTJ URISDICTION BY THE CLERK ON THE DIRECTIVE OF HIS SUPERVISOR(S) ON J ANUARY 3° 2024 & MOTION FOR ORDER OF OTHER RELIEF THAT IS J UST AND PROPER. WITH ATTACHED APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS INSUPPORT Page 1 of 16 Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved Now Comes the Affiants Non-Attorneys, non-bar members, pro per Appellants and Defendants Basil Clifton Washington and Annette Lois Washington (the “Washingtons”, “We”, “Us”, “Our’) jointly, a man and a woman of faith and the creation of Living “El Elyon” the “Most High” and we are joined by a marriage union and covenant with ceremony and “No Man or Woman” can undo the work(s) of our inheritance, holy covenant and heritage as loyal and humble servants of ADONAI “Elohim” (“Lord God”) as was witnessed by “Amen”. Whereas, | Basil Clifton am the Son and | Annette Lois am the Daughter of ‘Tetragrammaton” and is under the protection of “Tetragrammaton” as it is written and we are “One of We the People” in the territory of the connecticuter republic, and; Affiants state that: we squarely stand before this Court on the grounds of being the “Victims” of what appears to and or surmounts to be “| udicial Apartheid” by the Trial Court J.D. at Hartford located at 95 Washington Street, Housing Court Session located at 80 Washington and also the Appellate Court as inferior courts and the systemic practice of discrimination against a “Class” of pro se litigants. We like to quote one of our historic indigenous ancestors Fannie Lou Hamer who delivered a speech with el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X) another historic indigenous ancestors at a rally at the Williams Institutional CME Church in Harlem New York on December 20°, 1964 who said the following: “... And you can always hear this long sob story: “You know it takes time.” F or three hundred years, we’ ve given them time. And I’ve been tired so long, now I am sick and tired of being sick and tired, and we want a change”., and; Affiants state that: we squarely affirm that this Motion for Review is brought before the Connecticut Supreme Court as an original court of “Equitable Jurisdiction” based upon “Good Faith” and “Just Cause” and hereby seeks relief to set aside and reverse the premature granting on January 3", 2024 without jurisdiction and being aggrieved by the Page 2 of 16 Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved actions of the Case manager Attorney Peter Keane’. Whereas, ruling on the Appellant(s’) Motion for an Extension of Time to respond and or reply to the Motion to Dismiss filed on December 14", 2023 with our Extension Request being filed on or around December 26", 2023 attached hereto as Appendix ExhibitA (E-1 thru E-13 is Appellant(s’) motion) and attached hereto as Appendix Exhibit B (E-14 thru E-17 is the docket case detail as of 01/05/2024). Affiants state that: a previously e-filed Motion for Review was filed on December 15", 2023 and docketed as SC-230130 that contained errors and omissions due to various technical difficulties and due to time constraints we were unable to access J udicial Staffing resulting with the refilling as another e-filing on December 18", 2023 with the correction of all errors and omissions as SC-230231. A Motion to Consolidate was e-filed in both dockets on J anuary 8", 2024 after Appellant Basil Clifton’s conversation on J anuary 5", 2024 with Case manager Attorney Peter Keane. Both e-filings were returned and per the instructions of the returns were then refiled and e-filed on J anuary 10", 2024 as SC-230146 attached as Appendix ExhibitC (E-18 thru E-19 is the receipt of the refiled e-filing). Affiants state that: our Motion for Extension specifically sought relief from the Appellate Court only if applicable after the ruling on the Motion for Review SC-230131 of the transfer order of December 5", 2023 by the Chief Clerk Carl D. Cicchetti without Affiants’ “Power of Attorney” and or “Consent” was decided. If anything the extension request should have been transferred to be decided by this Court since jurisdiction rested with this Supreme Court at the time of granting. As our Motion for Review SC-230131 that 1 Acting on and under the directive of his supervisor(s) Deputy Chief Clerk and Attorney René L. Robertson and or Chief Clerk Attorney Carl D. Cicchetti, whereas it is believed his hands were tied to comply with his supervisor(s) despite lack of jurisdiction to rule rather than face insubordination. Page 3 of 16 Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved corrects SC-230130, and our Preargument Conference Statement purpose is to further state as well as to demonstrate why this appeal should be heard before the Connecticut Supreme Court: (1) as a Constitutional Right, (2) based upon the denial of due process and the (3) deprivation of rights by Attorneys, Bar Members, Individuals impersonating a “Connecticut Lawyer”, an Attorney using an alias and J udicial Officers and the conspiracy thereof which are violations pursuant to: (a) 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 245, (b) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and (c) C.G.S. §§ 53-37, 53-37b, 52-568, 52-571a, and 52-571c. It is also the Affiants’ belief that Deputy Chief Clerk and Attorney René L. Robertson with an adverse history with the affiant Basil Clifton since and based upon his 1% encounter with her stemming back from May 19", 2015 based upon an appeal that was docketed as AC- 37950 which is unrelated to the underlining foreclosure action. At that time she was assigned as the case manager to the case, and; Affiants state that: | Basil in my 2015 interactions with Attorney René L. Robertson | found her to what| believe was very disrespectful, hostile, uncooperative and committing acts unbecoming of a public servant that would lead to show cause to a personal bias and it is the Affiants’ belief that she had a key role and influenced the transfer from SC 20948 to AC 47163 based upon her implicit biases. Deputy Chief Clerk René L. Robertson's manipulation of the record that we believe is based upon her personal bias and prejudices and the record shows her actions of her personal biases and conspiracy to influence the outcome of our cases and filings based upon using her authority to manipulate the record demonstrated in the examples and points that is in our affidavit in support seen on pages 3 thru 12 94 1 thru 17 in SC-230131, and; Page 4 of 16 Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved Affiants state that: whereas, the relief that is sought from this Supreme Court of Connecticut as a Court of Original J urisdiction for redress of grievances and this is based upon being aggrieved by the actions of the Appellate Clerk regarding the premature ruling on our Extension Request that was not ripe for adjudication, nor was there Appellate Court jurisdiction that existed. The real problem is that if Attorney Keane or any other Case Manager is unable to handle a request based upon a limited purview or a matter on his or her own volition without the interference of Deputy Chief Clerk René L. Robertson and or Chief Clerk Carl D. Cicchetti who both have a conflict of interest. Whereas the Affiants are further aggrieved by the implicit biases directed towards Affiant Basil Clifton based upon his beliefs and practices and “Anti-Satanic Stance”, “Anti-Tyranny Stance”, etc, and; Affiants state that: filing a direct appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court as well as this Motion for Review is Just and proper based upon the Appellate Court J udges’ implicit biases led by the Hon. William H. Bright, Jr. Chief J udge and the deprivation of rights and the belief that we will not receive just and proper relief based upon fairness and impartiality from the Appellate Court of Connecticut. As the Connecticut Supreme Court's “Independence” and supervisory powers of any order relating to perfecting the record, or the procedure of prosecuting or defending against the appeal and that this Court's ability for review is sought, and; Affiants further state that: this Motion for Review is being filed in this Supreme Court as a Court of original jurisdiction of and for the “People” and as a Court of equitable jurisdiction under “Niles v. Williams” 24 Conn 279, 283 (1855), also this Motion for Review is being filed under “Micek-Holt”, 326 Conn. at 920 footnote 2, 163 A.3d at 1203 footnote 2 based upon the fact that there has been numerous bad faith actions, including fraudulent occurrences, conspiracies and wrongdoings by Attorneys claiming to represent Page 5 of 16 Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved the Plaintiff, including judicial officers as coconspirators for the violations of: (1) 11 U.S. Code § 524(a)(1), (2) the unfulfillment and failure to comply with a Complaint filed withouta fully executed AFFIDAVIT Federal Loss Mitigation Programs, form |D-CL-114 as required pursuant to Mortgage Foreclosure Standing Order - Federal Loss Mitigation Programs J D-CV-117 Rev. 8/10 and (3) the unfulfillment of the EMAP notice provision in § 8-265ee as well as the filing a fraudulent Affidavit of Compliance with EMAP in the Trial Court at docket entry# 108.00 and; Affiants state that: “We are one the people” in Propria Persona Sui J uris. The Washingtons are high school graduates, and we have no training in the law and hereby invoke Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972). Appellants have taken our appeal to seek review as a matter of our due process rights based on a “Null and Void” final judgment and the various modifications of that judgment that are “subject to defeasance”, and; Affiants state that: this Motion for Review is “squarely” based on a legitimate “Good Cause” falling under Practice Book§ 66-1(c) based upon the following: (1) a direct appeal was filed on 12/01/2023 and as amended on December 26", 2023 based upon a secure Constitutional Right under the provisions established in the 1818 Constitution of Connecticut Article 1 Section 12 attached hereto as Appendix Exhibit D (E-20 thru E-46 is a Certified Copy from the Connecticut State Library of the 1818 Constitution). (2) the granting of the extensions absent Appellate Court Jurisdiction and relief was requested after the ruling on SC-230131 and (3) the continued deprivation and denial of rights including due process and procedural due process rights to date and conspiracy thereof Violation Warning—18 U.S.C. §242; 18 U.S.C. §245; 42 U.S.C. §1983. Pursuant to Practice Book§ 61-10, itis the responsibility of the appellant to provide an adequate record for review. Also relevant is pursuant to Practice Book § 60-5 Review by the Court; Plain Error; Preservation of Claims, and; Page 6 of 16 Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved Affiants state that: there has been the use of fraud to create a constructive trust via the State Court System. Appellants have first hand knowledge of the facts, and for the Court to takeJ udicial Notice as the Appellants affirm and represent as follows: I URISDICTION Affiants state that: Relief is sought from this Supreme Court pursuant to: (a) Article 1 § 12 of the 1818 Connecticut Constitution at common law; (b) Article 5 of the Connecticut Constitution at common law; (c) C.G.S. §§ 51-51j, 52-471(a), 53-37, 53-37b, 52-568, 52- 571la, and 52-571c ; (d) also the Rules 1.2, 2.1, 2.5, 2.6, 2.11, 2.14, 2.15 of the Rules of J udicial Conduct; (e) also under its Supervisory Powers pursuant to Practice Book §§ 60-1, 60-2, 60-3, 60-5, 60-6, and 66-6 in accordance with Practice Book§ 66-2 and (f) the Courts ability to remove, suspend, censure, discipline and or reprimand any judge. (g) our due process right to be heard and seek redress for any grievances before a Court of competent jurisdiction, and; IL UDICIAL NOTICE Affiants state that: to see Constitutional Notice uploaded December 11", 2023 with attachment Exhibits and as Amended on January 5", 2024 as part of our preliminary papers filed in Appellate Docket No. AC 47163 Transferred from SC 20948 and the Appellants seek to protect their rights by invoking the fair use doctrine pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 107 see Campbell, aka Skyywalker, etal. v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 U.S. 599 (1994) and provisions from Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972), and Platsky v. CIA 953 F.2d 26 (1991) and further state that we do not consent knowingly or unknowingly and do not acquiesce in the Courts’ handling of the matters before the Courts, and; I. FACTUAL GROUNDS AND BRIEF HISTORY FOR MOTION FOR REVIEW. Page 7 of 16 Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved 1. Affiants state that: e-filed docket entry# 108.00 Affidavit of Compliance with EMAP was not by complied with specifically, with subsection (b) of §8-265ee which requires the mortgagee to file an affidavit with the court stating that the notice provisions of subsection (a) have been complied with and that the relevant time period has expired. Only after the mortgagee files such an affidavit may the foreclosure suit continue. The purported affiant in this instance who is purportedly a Paralegal at Bendett & McHugh, P.C. by the name of “Amanda J. Fountain” who is not the mortgagee attesting on page 1 {| 2 that upon information and belief, the Plaintiff has complied with the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes Section 8-265ee(a) also known as Public Act 08-176, §7. This affidavit was subscribed and sworn before “Aza E. Gray” “Commissioner of the Superior Court” on May 24", 2017, as this failure of fulfillment and act of fraud deprives the Court of jurisdiction upon which relief can be granted, and; 2. Affiants state that: who is “Connecticut Lawyer” “Aza E. Gray” “Commissioner of the Superior Court” using Bendett & McHugh P.C.’s Juris No. 102892 who filed the “Granted” e-filed Motion forJ udgment of Strict Foreclosure docket entry# 107.00 (granted twice by the now-late Kevin Gene Dubay 107.86 on 12/18/2017 and 107.87 on 02/19/2019) among other motions, as no such “Connecticut Lawyer” exists, upon checking web achieves as early as November 16", 2016 it was found and published whereas from the 2016 till present 12/10/2023 from the website page from the ConnecticutJ udicial Branch E-Services page under the tab E-File FAQs, Attorney/Law Firms states on page 2 45 Which juris number should | use to log in to E-Services? as follows: “Note: Regardless of the number that is used to log in to E-Services, you are required to use your individual juris number to sign e-filed documents.” , and; 3. Affiants state that: in docket entry# 412.00 submitted by Attorney Jeffrey M. Knickerbocker in the Objection to Motion filed on September 22", 2023 re: Motion to Strike Appearance docket entry# 411.00 states on page 1 44.1 and 2 as follows: Page 8 of 16 Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document - All Rights Reserved “Defendant claims on page 16 of 201, that the law “forbids one who has not passed the bar from practicing law.”” 2. “Each of the attorneys in this matter have passed the bar, which is a fact this court may take judicial notice of as the status of each attorney may be verified simply by reviewing the attorney look up on the judicial web site.” As this criteria requirement had not occurred in any of the pleadings of and by Aza E. Gray and 98% of all the pleadings submitted by the various attorneys that have filed a pleading in the trial court to date, and 4. Appellants state that: Recently discovered evidence as of November 29", 2023 shows as a pattern of practice of misrepresentation and fraud after going to the judicial website on November 29", 2023 we could not find any records for an Attorney named “Aza ray” as no verified status exists such as: (i) Retired, (ii) Suspended, (iii) Disbarred, (iv) Deceased, (v) Pro Hac Vice, (vi) a juris no., and or (vii) admitted to practice date. However what was found were other motions including summonses, complaints, motions for default and motions for judgment by “Aza E. Gray”. It further demonstrates the pattern of receiving relief by the now late Honorable Kevin G. Dubay and possibly other judges as well. These facts shows the unconstitutionally of depriving a large number of: (a) the hard working and good people of the State of Connecticut as well as (b) the hard working and good Citizens of the State of Connecticut from their properties as demonstrated and seen in SC-230131 Affidavit in Support pages 12 thru 17 4 18 thru 21 of the EMAP Affidavit filings other motions and pleadings in other Docket Nos., which deprives the Court of jurisdiction upon which relief can be granted. Whereas, the original judgment (judgment of strict foreclosure docket entry# 107.87 (Dubay, J )) is “void ab initio” and the modification orders of the trial courts: (a) (Taylor's, }) of (Dubay’s, J ) at docket entry# 356.86, (b) (Baio’s, J .) ) of (Taylor's, J) at docket entry# 390.86 and (Vatti’s, J) of (Baio’s, J .)) at docket entry# 416.86 all are ‘void ab initio” and are “subject to defeasance” as seen in SC-230131 Affidavitin Support Page 9 of 16 Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved pages 20 thru 25 {1 26 thru 33 as these issues was brought to the attention of the presiding judge in our Caseflow Request (J D-CV-116) docket entry# 446.00 filed on December 1°, 2023 denied on December 4", 2023 by the Hon. Susan Cobb the request’s Title was “Motion for Intervention by the Presiding J udge and Demand for Competent J udicial Authority in the Interest ofJ ustice via Caseflow and Objection and Exception - Re: Hon. Neeta M. Vatti & Demand for Proof ofJ urisdiction to Appear on the Record”, and; 5. Affiants state that: the Trial Court judgement foreclosure is voids under 11 U.S. Code § 524 and the Plaintiff-Appellee is in violation of the bankruptcy court discharge order and the permanent injunctions by filing this foreclosure action Docket No. HHD-CV- 6076206-S. Clearly when their claim has been discharged under the bankruptcy court discharge order see Case No. 15-21428 filed in 2015, and; IV. LEGAL GROUNDS RELIED UPON FOR MOTION FOR REVIEW a. Pursuantto the United States Constitution Amendments 4, 5, 7, 9 and Amendment 14 b. Pursuantto the Constitution of the State of Connecticut ARTICLE FIRST. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS - (1) SEC. 10. [Sec 12 of the 1818 Connecticut Constitution] “All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay”. As this Constitutional provision empowers this Supreme Court of Errors to issue injunctive relief as well as this same provision also empowers the Appellate Court (2) SEC. 20. “No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry or national origin”. ARTICLE TENTH. - GENERAL PROVISIONS. [of the 1818 Connecticut Constitution] Sec. 1. “Members of the General Assembly, and all officers, executive and judicial, shall before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take the following oath or affirmation, to wit": “You do solemnly swear .............+. to the best of your abilities. So help you God”. c. Pursuant to Practice Book§ 66-6(b Motion for Review; In General Page 10 of 16 Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved (b), relating to the perfecting of the record for an appeal or the procedure of prosecuting or defending against an appeal; any order concerning a stay of execution in a case on appeal; d. Pursuantto Practice Book§ 61-10 Responsibility of AppellantTo Provide Adequate Record for Review. e. Pursuantto Practice Book§ 60-5 Review by the Court; Plain Error; Preservation of Claims V. SPECIFIC FACTS RELIED UPON FOR MOTION FOR REVIEW 1. The actions of the Appellate Court Clerk were made prematurely absent of jurisdiction while a matter was pending before the Connecticut Supreme Court. 2. The late-) udge Kevin Gene Dubay Trier of facts did everything in his power and influence to deny Appellants’ due process rights and Appellants have been injured and still are suffering and continued to feel the impact by the Estate of the late-] udge Dubay. See Simms v Seaman 308 Conn. 523 (2013) in Justice Palmer's dissent concluding and establishing that: “the majority's decision rightly will be viewed-by nonlawyers especially as nduly protectionist of attorneys” id. at 585. 3. The failure to comply with the EMAP mandate Nationstar Mortgage LLC has failed to satisfy a mandatory condition precedent and, therefore, has failed to allege a claim on which relief can be granted. Vi. CONCLUSION Wherefore, based upon the reasons stated herein the undersigned affiants and appellants seek and requests that this Supreme Court of Errors grant review, set aside and reverse the premature granting order as a final order of the Clerk of the Appellate Court under the direction of his Supervisor(s) and seta new extension date if necessary after our Motion for Review SC-230131 is decided and or any other relief deemed just and proper. Page 11 of 16 Authentic Wet Ink under Seal Document — All Rights Reserved 1, (We) declare signed below under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing Motion for Review is true and correct, and is not intended to mislead 28 U.S. Code § 1746(1). Executed on this Dated the 11 day of January AD 2024: ON BEHALF OF AND BY:// THE PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANT(S) & Respectfully and Sincerely Submitted, by the Appellants/Defendants BASIL WASHINGTON (INTERVENING), basil washington, basil clifton: washington, and clifton basil washington; and ANNETTE L. WASHINGTON, annette washington, annette- lois: washington, and lois annette Washington; LAW DAY: 12/04/2023; and APPELLATE COURT DOCKET # 47163 Transferred from SC 20948, Amended Appeal AC-47163A01 The Defendant and Affiant, The Defendant and Affiant, BASIL WASHINGTON (INTERVENING) ANNETTE L. WASHINGTON Basil Washington Annette Washington Basil Clifton Washington Annette Lois Washington Baul Cifon anette Lois 1-11-2024 /s/ jahslaw613__ 1-11-2024 /s/ dental13 Basil Washington Annette Washington Basil Clifton Washington Annette Lois Washington 141 Weston Street 141 Weston Street c/o United States Post Office c/o United States Post Office Box# 2133, Hartford, Connecticut near Box# 2133, Hartford, Connecticut near [06145] non-domestic [06145] non-domestic autograph under thumb seal and in service, autograph under thumb seal and in service, all rights reserved without waiver of any all rights reserved without waiver of any defense*. defense”. Thumb Print Thumb Print Ml 2 All Constitutional Rights Invoked and None are Waived 3 All Constitutional Rights Invoked and None are Waived Page 12 of 16 Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved ORDER The foregoing having been heard; itis hereby ORDERED that the MOTION FOR REVIEW is hereby: GRANTED / DENIED BY THE COURT —----- Judge Page 13 of 16 Authentic Wet Ink under Seal Document — All Rights Reserved Using a Notary or Commissioner of the Court on this document does not create an adhesion contract with the State, nor does it alter my (our) status in any manner, but is used only for identification purposes and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction. Certification and Attestation: | (We) Hereby Certify That the Facts Recited Herein Are True and Correct. | (We) Understand That the City Clerk, County Clerk or Clerk of Court on Those Recitations in Indexing the Attached Instruments. The clerk of records Have Been Notified BY the filing on the Public Record, Rule 11: Fax /E-Mail Service/ Hand Delivery / E- Filing/ U.S.P.S. Services of: First Class, Priority Mail, Certified Mail, under UCC-1-207. JURAT/ACKNOWLEDGMENT As done this lat day of 2 + AH 4a“) in the year 2024, and we do hereby affirm that the contents of this Declaration-Affidavit with attachments as testimony that contains the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and solemnly affirm that this truth is binding upon our conscience under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America. on Autograp! hed,/Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the pi rese e of: oN jotary or 0. Commissioner of the Court and or itnessed by:, Voc Sov @ To ts ME ale Witness# 1: (Print) Witness# 2: (Print) Gg Witness# 1: (Signature) Witnés; 2: (Signature) Autograph: —— — Autog! By: Washington, Annette L By: W: Autograph: Autograph By: Annette Lois Was ington By: Basil Cc Thumb Print Thumb Print > ‘l ‘, Page 14 of 16 Authentic Wet Ink under Seal Document — All Rights Reserved Duly sworn (or affirmed) this lA day of) GuetrtY 2024 STATE OF ied COUNTY OF Hard 5 Sworn (or affirmed) before me the undersigned, a 0 Notary or 0 Commissioner of the Superior Court, acting within and for the County of Bs UE a = and State of Oclicrc on this jo! day Ja , 2024, personally appeared and known to me - OR proved-to Ine on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose names is subscribed to the within instrument, to be the identical Woman Annette Lois Washington/Washington Annette L. and Man Basil Clifton WashingtonWashington Basil C, who being duly sworn and or affirmed before me declared the above matters contained in foregoing document and or complaint and of Affidavit/Declaration to be true, correct, and not meant to mislead, to the best of his and or her firsthand knowledge, understanding, and belief, by his and or her free will and voluntary act and deed by his and or her signature and seal on the foregoing document and or as Affidavit/Declaration and or lai int, execu the within instrument. Given under my (our) hand and seal this _/- day of Atrivh uf 2024 { ane ( ohoolZ Notary or o Commissioner of the Superior Court, Signature Seal | Pescara Peel ee Printed Name of o-NoOtary or o Commissioner of the Superior Court, 2 an He dy, 3/3 [203K os an My commission expires and or Juris Number WS Rg, soe OTAR AEs == = -— st 7 By, % PUBLIC gse As sae % “Ok M4 i ON Page 15 of 16 Authentic W et Ink under Seal Document- All Rights Reserved CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND COMPLIANCE We the undersigned are non-attorneys and non-bar members and state that the following: All Constitutional Rights are Invoked and that None are Waived and hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via first class mail on or around the date of its filing to the following parties of record and or carbon copy (cc:) to additional parties, and that it complies with the applicable rules of Appellate Procedure set forth in Practice Book §66-2, §62-7 and that all personal and individually identifying information required to be redacted by Practice Book Section, Statute or other applicable rule has been redacted in compliance with PB § § 66-3, 66-5 and 67-2 (to the best of our knowledge): ATTORNEY BENDETT & MCHUGH, P.C. JURIS# 102892 » 270 FARMINGTON AVE, » SUITE 151 FARMINGTON, CT 06032 « 860-677-2868 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, « c/o Attorney MCCALLA RAYMER LEIBERT PIERCE LLC JURIS # 101589 « 50 Weston Street Hartford, CT 06120 » 860-241-1639 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, e C/O ATTORNEY BROCK AND SCOTT PLLC J URIS# 439942 e 5431 OLEANDER DRIVE, e SUITE 200 WILMINGTON, NC 28403- 5847 e 844-856-6646 e Via: United States Post Office - U.S. Mail CC: TO THE ESTATE OF HONORABLE KEVIN GENE. DUBAY, TO THE CHAMBERS’ OF THE HONORABLE MARK H. TAYLOR, THE HONORABLE CLAUDA A. BIAO AND THE HONORABLE NEETA M. VATTI| C/O OFFICE OF THE CLERK HARTFORD SUPERIOR COURT - 2ND FLOOR « 95 WASHINGTON STREET HARTFORD, CT 06106 - HARTFORD COUNTY * ATTN: ] UDGE’S SECRETARY CC: OFFICE OF THE CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM TONG «55 ELM STREET HARTFORD, CT 06106 IN HARTFORD COUNTY « EMAIL: ATTORNEY GENERAL@CT.GOV PHONE: (860) 808-5318 Cc: Office of the United States Attorney, e 157 Church Street 17%, Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Lanett Lois Yishington ____/s/iahslaw613__ 1-12-2024 a /s/ dentall3 _PLestitalss 1-12-2024 Basil Washington Annette Washington 141 Weston Street c/o United States Post Office, Box# 2133, RFD Hartford, Connecticut near [06145] non-domestic Page 16 of 16