Shlomit Ruttkamp v. Bank of New York Mellon, fka The Bank of New York

as follows: I. Whether subject matter jurisdiction should be waived when the book of law and the rules of law claim to the contrary. Whether, on the face of the record and based on the new evidence presented in the motion to dismiss filed Janu­ ary 29,2020, the trial court is without jurisdic­ tion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Caruso v. Bridgeport, 285 Conn. 618, 627, 941 A.2d 266 (2008). II. Whether the Connecticut courts of appeals cor­ rectly applied the law and could have reasona­ bly reached the conclusion that they did granting the Plaintiff-Appellee’s motion to dis­ miss appeal and denying petition for certifica­ tion for review from the Connecticut Supreme Court, even though in the light of the new evi­ dence (docket entry no. 247.00) presented in the motion to dismiss filed January 29, 2020, the trial court is without jurisdiction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Caruso v. Bridgeport, 285 Conn. 618,627, 941 A.2d 266 (2008). II. A judicial officer cannot constitutionally take a real property of a homeowner based upon fore­ closure mortgage to which the homeowner was not an obligor/mortgagor, and the note ruled unenforceable as a matter of law, without a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article First, Section 10 of the Connecticut Constitution. (See: Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1,14 (1948).