mourning your honors may please the court darlene chapdelaine plaintiffs pro se appellant thank you for allowing me notice an opportunity to be heard today prior to my argument or my statement i respectfully request in this court to consider a case that i did not cite or discuss in either of my briefs it's the the case known in this court as sherman seven fifty two f three d five fifty four it is the case of sherman first says the town of chester docket number thirteen fifteen zero three that keyes was similar in on point with  what i've gone through that case as with the case of walter s versus the town of preston that i did cite and discuss in my brief are probably two of the cases that actually made it to a higher level that are similar in nature again i want to say thank you for this opportunity all i was asking at the lower court and before the town of use for it was the opportunity to be heard i cited cases i followed the law i studied our jurisprudence in our state and this core and with other courts seemingly the lower courts have had the procedural posture of my case which i feel is the most important of any case is how a case starts and how it comes before this panel judge shay seemingly agreed in his docket ruling on document line number sixty one when he denied mary duncan's motion to dismiss or not motion to dismiss excuse me let me myself her motion to revise and said that my complaint was properly pled and gave her notice of what my allegations were and gave her an extended amount of time to answer i refer this court to the case with sherman the court the are will judge straw described a scenario with the plaintive mr charming he described him as being called hungry joe in this court after reviewing the documents should find me to be hungry josephine known to you all today as darlene and chapter one a woman who purchased property followed each and every local state and federal law to gain all proper permits and exemptions yeah i had my land taken away through a cease and desist order that was never properly noticed or served i was never given the opportunity to be heard and under a complaint that was not properly noticed served or returned to court time yet i wast my home and was put out on the streets a home that i purchased on december ninth two thousand and fourteen with a bedridden blind paralyzed mother twelve horses and thirteen other farm animals with three days purchased two eleven east for drove through a bond for deed i was busy dealing with two ailing parents so the seller of the property took back through a bond for deed a note i had to refinance that no less than thirty days after i received a building permit and exemption to build my barn and constructed one hundred thousand dollars bond fees for it i followed all the procedural postures i have exhausted all my local state and administrative remedies which meets the williamson county rightness test where i did everything to try to get the locals to compensate me and help me the state to compensate me you don't walk into a courtroom with every federal and state agency supporting you i'm an environmental consultant well i was before all of this happened i was approved before the attorney general in the state of connecticut as an environmental expert for compliance i was all i wanted to do was care for my dying parents and have my horse business and do a little greenhouse nursery for the kids i never enjoyed one moment of peace or quiet i could not sit in my living room they held me hostage to their speech by putting yard signs all around my house that say i support mary duncan my allegations are actually a timeline of events of my life i couldn't sit in my living room i couldn't go in my kitchen i would see these big signs billboards they constructed a internet website when you talk about the tolling of the statue of limitations your honour's that website is still up and running today as i stand before you today was correct and should be affirmed as this court is aware there are other up police who submissions are being taken on the briefs and so i will confine my comments of course accordingly to the issues addressed to my clients first i would  respectfully object to the consideration of the case cited today by miss chapter lane quite frankly once again bringing in a case that existed at the time of prior filings but not bringing it to the court's attention until the eleventh hour  understood it's just simply reflective of the history of this matter with regard to some of the argument that has been heard both today and in the briefs that have been submitted behalf of the  again issues here you've heard today that the plaintiff appellant is asking for an opportunity to be heard we would submit that she's been given opportunity upon opportunity upon opportunity recognizing that time is limited today i will rely primarily on the arguments set forth in my brief however we would submit that the action taken by the district court was proper and should be affirmed that the underlying complaint the fifth amended complaint of the second generation of the federal court actions that came after the multiple state actions involving the same allegations are fraught with procedural defects so let me just ask one quick set of questions the district co been brought the latter is correct your honor in summary the the primary bases why the district court's action in dismissing the case with prejudice is appropriate and is articulated in painstaking detail i would submit by judge shay in his memorandum who again gave great indulgences to the plaintiff presumably in recognition of her pro se status there's a number of issues and this last lawsuit the ever moving target which ultimately culminated in the fifth the medic complaint sort of brings together all of those prior actions that were separate and a way that makes it difficult to follow so again focusing just on our clients there is no as the court correctly stated there's no personal jurisdiction as a number of those defendants were not served there was some effort at service made of a dismissed prior complaint but at that point the complaint had already been dismissed and therefore it was of no moment miss chapter lane raises in her brief a claim of diversity jurisdiction presumably as an alternative basis although i'm not clear but i would submit that the record is clear that diversity jurisdiction fails on its face as the majority of defendants as acknowledged by the plaintiffs are indeed connecticut residents in fact we're dealing with a municipality of municipal defendants only three of those defendants that are currently in this particular lawsuit are out of state which does not satisfy complete diversity the claims are time barred and that's addressed in detail in the memorandum of decision and the plaintiff failed despite repeated opportunities to comply with the court order and cure the defects that were identified as rule eight defects finally the inland wetlands watercourse commission is not a legal entity that can be sued separately and the judge addressed that a number of times similar to his dismissal of the actions as they related to the judges that had been sued held that those claims could not stand all of these again articulated in the memorandum of decision that's contained in our appendix starting at page one sixty one and unless there are any questions we would rely on our brief honors i do believe that my complaint again meets all the requirements of rule eight i believe seemingly the our judge shea agreed when mr duncan requests to revise my complaint he said that i adequately in his ruling which i have well we're well aware of the record as you know and under the rules as far as under section two forty two the title eighteen it makes it a crime for any person acting under the color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by it or the laws of the united states it includes all the officials that work for the town and this court knows that including judges when they act outside the scope of their authority being not properly noticed or served assistant desist order there are hundreds of cases our jurisprudence is built on notice an opportunity to be heard and i've cited those cases i don't need to educate anyone in this court room surrounding that plaintiffs who brings an action under section one thousand nine hundred three for a violation of the rights cured by the fourteenth amendment must establish violation resulted from a state action and thus meets the statutory requirements of under the color of law citing will garner edmonson oil company for fifty seven us nine twenty one b make it in force contract protection against impairment i have done i if this court takes an actual look at the procedural posture i have been treated like a class of one not only unjust in the state of connecticut look at the procedural posture and let me let me just ask the question i asked ms biota did you have no further actions going on within the connecticut state and no your honor and i would like to correct her with respect fully a lot of my issues raised in this court in this complaint have not been argued or a trust and you can read those rulings as well i what i've asked for the court to take that as part of the record i've submitted they haven't been addressed and certainly this court is very much aware i can argue in felt federal court at the same time as state court when there's been a violation of my constitutionally