The Second Circuit Court Justice should reminisce whether in the 21st Century the rules of law and the books of law should be compromised and violated for the sake of foreclosure liability, and whether the courts of Connecticut should turn a blind eye to the use of fraudulent evidence barred by the multi-trillion dollar company that filed foreclosure documents with recklessness and carelessness and neglect to obtain the equitable relief of foreclosure and in the process deprive citizens of their Fourteenth Amendment to due process of law. Also, reminisce if a judge whom an aggrieved party who appeals an order by that particular judge should have the right to terminate appellate stay. Is such a right is in conflict with the Appellate Court's rules of law and in conflict with the individual's First and Fourteenth Amendments to due process of law

1. Whether the court of Connecticut has acted unreasonably and in clear abuse of its discretion when it violated the Defendant-Appellant's Fourteenth Amendment to due process of law and concluded that the appeal was frivolous.

2. Whether the court of Connecticut acted within its discretion when it granted the Plaintiff the motion to dismiss as the appeal was frivolous when United States Common Law of fraud, civil conspiracy, and racketeering, Activity Act § 53-396 and in violation of Section 42-1 10a of the Connecticut General Statutes (CUTPA) when evidence has been presented demonstrates clear proof of fraud and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, presented in 10 years of litigation.

3. Whether, on the face of the record, this foreclosure action is without jurisdiction. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Caruso v. Bridgeport, 285 Conn. 618, 627, 941 A.2d 266 (2008). Is the court of appeal in conflict with their own ruling related to subject matter jurisdiction is subject matter jurisdiction should be waived when the book of law and the rules of law claim to the contrary?

Whether the court of Connecticut has acted unreasonably and in clear abuse of its discretion when it violated the Fourteenth Amendment to due process of law and concluded that the appeal was frivolous