Were the Defendants' due-process rights violated?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Were the Defendants’ due process rights violated when they were not given notice of the foreclosure proceeding? Were the Defendants’ due process rights violated when the foreclosing party did not have possession of the mortgage promissory note, and for secondary evidence, relied on a fraudulent assignment of mortgage? Can a foreclosure be allowed where serious doubt has been raised concerning standing of the Plaintiff? Is it incumbent on a Trial Court Justice to make further inquiry when post-trial, new and material evidence has been brought to the Court’s i attention, irrespective of whether the new evidence has been brought according to proper procedural protocol? Did the Trial Court err when it allowed the testimony of the Caliber witness—-a witness with no personal knowledge of the mortgage loan, the note, or relevant events? [Caliber is the loan servicer on the subject mortgage]. PARTIES TO PROCEEDING AND RELATED CASES Kathleen M. O’Brien, 114 Wetmore Avenue, Winsted, CT 06098 Thomas J. O’Brien, 114 Wetmore Avenue, Winsted, CT 06098 : ii RELATED CASES Connecticut Superior Court LLICV166014383-S ; U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for LSF9 Master Trust v. O’Brien, Mark E. et al. Summary Judgment Motion by Plaintiff denied. 6/4/2018. “There is a genuine issue of material fast as to whether notice of default and the intent to accelerate was properly given.” [John David Moore, Jj. Summary Judgment Motion by Plaintiff denied. 12/7/2017. “...the Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that is the holder of the promissory note.” [John Pickard, J]. Order of Strict Foreclosure. 5/20/2019. [John Pickard, Jj.