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

Questions presented as follows: , 1. 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. 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 42-110a of the Connecticut General Statutes (CUTPA) when evidence has been ; presented demonstrates clear proof of fraud and i 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? » » » > . » ) ul d