Was the district court correct to adversely rule on Sprunt's summary judgment motion when there were so many legitimate contested issues?

No question identified. : . V il) QUESTIONS 1In this caseWas the district court correct to adversely rule on Sprunt’s summery judgment motion when there were so many legitimate contested issues? 2Was district court allowed to instruct Kruskal to file an amended complaint, (leading Kruskal to believe that she was helping a pro se litigant and) then rule against Kruskal summarily, and then also forbid him from filing a motion to reconsider? © 3Should Kruskal now be allowed bring in additional documents (and arguments) that he was unable to get into the court record when precluded from filing a motion to reconsider. This would include a document in Sprunts possession stating the obligations of the pond. And testimony from the State engineer stating that Kruskal owns Both stored water rights, and surface water rights. 4Did Kruskal lose his stored water rights (or surface water right) because of issue preclusion from the 2009 case. Does Distreet hive ve iden} 2 where. dad’ S’ssed sveh that kryvs kad can explain cankept e 5In the 2009 caseDid Sprunt ever make any arguments to support claims that he owned any (or all) of the stored water rights? 6In the 2009 case, did district court have the authority to rule on ownership of either stored or surface water rights? 7In this caseDid Kruskal lose his surface water rights? And if so was it because. A) They were not specifically mentioned on the warranty deed? IX B) Because Kruskal allegedly did not pay his association ditch fees? C) — The surface water rights were also lost because of issue preclusion from the 2009 case? 8In this very case, did district court have the authority to rule on ownership of either stored or surface water rights? 9Was the New Mexico Supreme court allowed to refuse filing the motion to clarify timely signed for on 10/9/2018? And was it OK to “conceal” this from Kruskal until putting it in the mail on 11/20/2018 EX. “C” and “D” 10Will Sprunt be unjustly enriched when he permits the pond, claiming all the stored water for himself, because the courts have ruled that Kruskal can not contest any such claims. 11Was the district court correct to rule that Kruakal may no longer represent himself pro se? 12Was district court correct to allow into evidence documents that have nothing to do with this case, used to sanction Kruskal such that he can no longer represent himself? 13Was district court correct to sanction Kruskal? 14Are there special federal, and constitution, laws (and rights) regarding taking away property rights that were not properly followed.