good morning first and foremost i'd like to apologize for the hostile tone of my brief i have been very angry for seven years this case it has to do with the ability to reopen this case which is against jane emmons and john whalen of the state why prosecutor's office the rule sixty violation which is the ability to file a motion to open after the one year mark as you are well aware now the defense has broadened that by bringing in the divorce action prior it was irrelevant but it's all rel ammon started off as the divorce judge in my case with my husband in the railroad divorce i was railroaded to divorce never saw my husband or spoke to him in four and a half years until his death awarded not even a dime despite being married to a man worth five to claim i rang her bell and ran in the middle of the night and although the woodbridge police department determined that i had not violated they found no link to me and jane emmons doorbell and the fact that i could prove i was in manhattan on the night before my birthday the night of the ring and run my phone records proved it didn't matter i was still arrested i was facing fourteen years in jail and nine crimes at that point i was in my mid fifty's a teacher a harvard graduate graduate school and the first time offender i found myself she was she's very powerful i spoke here last year about article three section one to have her disqualified because you cannot have a sitting judge criminally framing someone for incarceration and using her power with the state prosecutor's office to stifle a political enemy and she hurt me in every possible way i was investigated for a hate crime in all kinds of st i was turned down last year by this body he said that was not just limited to you know federal courts and even though i didn't mean that in the statute the constitutional violation was written long before but then justice prevailed because for the first time in two hundred  seventy five years in connecticut i was not the only life this woman was destroying simultaneously in her eight year term she was taking kept me from my husband taking kids from their parents so all these people they put a billboard up she was not  reconfirmed it was ripple effects all over the state it was groundbreaking so justice was served not by this court but by the people and the legislature ok now i'd like to open this case the defense is going to tell you that  since i missed the time that it was beyond rule sixty and the one year to reopen the case when i tried to i was busy i was busy doing the what i described to in front of this very court so i was not idle there was a reason and justice black supreme court wrote the case law on this there are exceptions to rules sixteen i'd like to talk about that there are exceptions a they talk about a man who was sick and had all these in prison and he could not  his motion to open in a timely manner because there were a wing that oh yes i am oh i absolutely am claiming you are never able to file ma'am i would like to get to that right now please i told june eighth in theory june eighth two thousand and sixteen to file the motion to open ok while this was going on in this very case federal judge underhill and there's also the appeal to have him disqualified i filed twenty motions to disqualify please get this man off my back please at that time i had already got a federal judge on to with an injunction the only way i got my true phone records was by a federal subpoena he refused to even address and it's still open to this day i was scared to death at this point i was facing fourteen years in jail i wound up taking a plea deal for first time offenders during that time i had to wait john whalen is the most powerful man in the state he's assistant chief state's prosecutor and kevin kane who is also the person i'm trying to cite and was also to i tried to name him and that was also it's also under appeal today they knew exactly what was going on and then sent her husband or triple digit millionaires  wealthy they're very powerful even though she's not a judge at the time she was i had to wait notice when i filed the appeal january seventeenth my are which meant if they pressed any charge against me in that time during the terms of our i would have been hauled back into court and all of the fourteen charges would have come back and i would type have had to face trial in this circus atmosphere where i had already been dragged to criminal court for forty one had five minutes to argue now we're going to hear from j m and there's counsel may it please the court good afternoon my name is almost not only i represent the defendants  this matter who do you work for the connecticut attorney general's office thank you you're welcome this case was dismissed more than two years before the motion to open was filed at that time liked it not to do so it was the only issue that was or didn't apply that was the only issue left open the case against judge had been dismissed for absolute judicial immunity in regards to the divorce case and because the plaintiff had not judge in regard to prosecutor whalen when the case was dismissed it was dismissed or prosecutorial immunity and then also for younger abstention because the criminal case was still pending at the state court she was given an opportunity to file an you mean the judge was yes then in december of two thousand and seventeen she files a motion open which is the subject of this which challenges the legal reasoning for the initial dismissal which this court it already affirmed there's no basis to reopen at that point it's both untimely because it was more than one year after the dismissal all and it was not reasonable that it was brought it's challenging the same grounds that she was a ready brought here she doesn't get to file a motion to open as a second  at the apple she raises a lot of factual contentions that were not before the court in twenty seventeen and therefore does not relate to whether the court abused its discretion when it denied the motion to open and regards to the motion to cite in chief state's attorney kevin kane and the motion for the district court judge to be recused the court correctly exercised its discretion in denying those because there was no case to cite any one in two because the case had been closed for more than two years and because the case had been closed it was also moot whether to recuse the judge or not if the court does not have any further questions for the defendants i would rely on my brief and ask recently did i get the woodbridge police report that proved that the first investigative agency had found no connection to me and jane emmons doorbell and then a secondary police agency came in her friend john whalen and continued to prosecute me for two years more years causing me in total four years of salary as a teacher and to live continuously the violation of my sixth amendment rights i believed for years i was going to jail for fourteen years it was crackerjack judges who  and who hernandez would not hear a motion to dismiss would allow them because then it would prove that he had altered my phone records in his report that i just got last month i filed a new amended complaint and it was a brady violation your honor he buried the evidence to protect himself because he had criminally framed me with jane and have counsel represent you on iran or i did i had a mr gratz i spent twenty two thousand dollars on lawyers and every time he went right up to  despite being married to a man worth five million dollars we were railroaded into divorce my husband's children fraud only conveyed his portfolio during our marriage without our consent i never saw him again i fought for four and a half years i'm broke i mean i'm sorry bradley below the fighting until i get some justice please it's not fair for the warning no i mean nothing i'm an ant under their shoe i'm an ant under your shoe i'm nothing i'm nobody give me justice police thank you