Did a Wisconsin Supreme Court clerk ignore the plus 3-day mailing self-represented rule given to pro-se mailing filer Petitioner Tony Hernandez when he/she rejected the case review saying it was 1 day late on July 20, 2018?

Questions Presented . 2 1a) The Wisconsin Supreme Court sent by request to Petitioner Tony Hemandez a guide to 3 Appellate procedure for the self-represented, that also states on the cover of that pro-se Guide: 4 Clerk of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. revised 8/2015: (see exhibits P29, 5 P28, P cover), also see exhibit P29 the guidelines state: plus 3 days if petition for review mailed. 6 7 1b) The due date was July 19 2018, the clerk recognized that the petition was dated and mailed i 8 on July 18 2018, the clerk recognized that the petition was received by mail on July 20, 2018. 9 10 1c) The Wisconsin supreme court clerk rejected the Wisconsin Supreme Court pro-se guideline 11 rule on page 29 of “plus 3 days if petition for review if mailed: justifying the rejection as that only 12 pertains to a response. Plus 3 days if petition for review is mailed: by rule it's due July 22 2018 13 14 Qt) Did a Wisconsin Supreme Court clerk ignore the plus 3-day mailing selfrepresented 15 rule given to pro-se mailing filer Petitioner Tony Hernandez when he/she rejected the 16 Case review saying it was 1 day late on July 20%, 2018? 17 : 18 2a) Petitioner Tony Hernandez needs the entire 90 days given by Rule 13 to create a Petition 19 fora Writ of Certiorari and to find hidden United States of America Constitutional and U.S. Civil 20 Right statutes and applicable laws to include into this Petition for Certiorari & cannot risk losing 21 _ this case over a technicality as the United States Supreme Court rule 13 is confusing and a . 22 Motion for clarification to the U.S Supreme Court Clerk was returned without an answer as to: 23 . 24 25 Q2a) Is the final Wisconsin Supreme Court Ruling of August 15 2018 for Petitioner 26 Tony Hernandez’ Motion for rule reconsideration the start of the 90 days per Rule 137 27 28 Q2b) Is my United States Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari due 11 12, 18? 29 : . 30 Q2c) Can | change a Petition for Certiorari & refile if my due date is not 10 18 2018? 31 32 Page 2\ Z 1 Continued Questions Presented . 2 __ This case was not allowed to go forward to two conflicting Wisconsin statutes: First one Per 3 Honorable Judge Colon Ruling: a Milwaukee County statute rule, a case against Milwaukee 4 County agencies must commence within six months of the violation which conflicts with 5 Wisconsin statute rule that: a Workman’s compensation case must conclude before an action 6 against Milwaukee County can go forward, even for issues not governed by a workman's 7 compensation case. 8 9 inthe first circuit court action against Milwaukee County by this Petitioner Tony Hernandez the 10 Honorable Judge Colon dismissed the case without prejudiced and verbaily ruled in court that 11. the case was dismissed as the workman’s compensation case must conclude before the action 12 against Milwaukee County can go forward and the Petitioner Plaintiff Tony Hernandez had 12 43 months to bring the action back. 14 15 Q3a) Does the two Wisconsin conflicting statutes that prohibit this civil case from going 16 forward that governs issues and damages outside of a Workman’s compensation case 17 “trump” Petitioner Tony Hernandez United States of America Constitutional Right to life, : 18 liberty and the pursuit of happiness: including just compensation for pain and suffering, 19 including his right to confront his attacker in court, including the unequal treatment and 20 discrimination and coverup of damages to a Milwaukee County minority officer Tony 21. +Hernandez by the Respondent Defendant Milwaukee County Agencies? 22 23 In the second reopening of the circuit court action against Milwaukee County by this Petitioner 24 Tony Hernandez within the 12 months: the Honorable Judge Murry dismiss the case, even 25 though Petitioner Plaintiff Tony Hernandez had motioned for a stay of the case as the 26 workman’s compensation case had not been resolved and defendant Milwaukee County 27 agencies corporate council were not trying