Did the Nebraska Supreme Court omit material facts and circumvent the petitioner's due process and equal protection rights?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. The petitioner asks this honorbale court, did, the Petitioner,;, obtain a denial from the Nebraska Supreme Court, that omitted material fact(s) on or about the 5th day of May, 2020, in Nebraska Supreme Court, Case No. A-19-1152, circumvent petitioner's (appellant's) due process and equal protection rights afforded to him pursuant to Ne. Const. Art. 1, § 3., and the United States Const. Amend. 14, § 1., and ignore it's own authority e.g. test for determining competency, STATE v. STOTT, Case No. $-92-915, August 6, 1993, 243 Neb. 967, 503 N.W.2d 822 (1993), .. . and CRIPE BAKING CO. v. CITY OF BETHANY, MO., Case No. 9500, April 3, 1933, 64 F.2d 755 (1933)? 2. The petitioner asks this honorable court, did, the Petitioner, obtain a denial from the Nebraska Supreme Court, that omitted material fact(s) on or about the 5th day of May, 2020, in Nebraska Supreme Court, Case No. A-19-1152, circumvente petitioner's (appellant's) due process and equal protection rights afforded to him pursuant to Ne. Const. Art. 1, § 3., and the U.S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1., and ignore it's own authority, e.g. ~ STATE v. STUBBS, Case NO. 95-940, May 2, 1997, 252 Neb. 420, : 562 N.W.2d 547 (1997), and CRIPE BAKING CO. v. CITY OF BETHANY, MO., Case No. 9500, April 3, 1933, 64 F.2d 755 (1933)? 3. The petitioner asks this honorable court, did, the : Petitioner, obtain a denial from the Nebraska Supreme Court, that omitted material fact(s) on or about the 5th day of May, 2020, i in the Nebraska Supreme Court, Case No. A-19-1152, circumvent petitioner's (appellant's) due process and equal protection rights afforded to him pursuant to Ne. Const. Art. 1, § 3., and the U.S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1., and ignored it's own authority, e.g. STATE v. HULSHIZER, Case No. S-93-277, February 25, 1994, 245 Neb. 244, 512 N.W.2d 372 (1994), and CRIPE BAKING CO. v. CITY OF BETHANY, MO., Case No. 9500, April 3, 1933, 64 F.2d 755, (1933)? While reviewing the record or file in it's discretion, in determining the fact(s) presented on Petition For Further Review, on: A. Court did not determine R.E. was competent, before it accepted her assertions as true, compulsory process rights; and B. Court did not determine R.E. was vulnerable adult, prior to finding petitioner guilty of abuse of vulnerable adult; and Cc. Court did not determine R.E. was sexually assaulted, was nonconsenting to the advances by the petitioner; based on the above findings; and D. Court lacked substance As<the County Attorney, did not secure, or prove those elements, in order to find petitioner guilty of crime(s) alleged; and 4. The petitioner asks this honorable court, did the Nebraska Supreme Court, act contrary to the rulings in: CRIPE BAKING CO. v. CITY OF BETHANY, MO., Case No. 9500, April 3, 1933, 64 F.2d 755 (1933), [HN 1 and 2]% ag to Rule 10 (b)? ii