Whether the South Dakota Supreme Court's dismissal order violated the Petitioners' due process and supremacy clause rights

Questions Presented i . The Questions presented below correspond to violations , of Petitioners constitutional, due process, supremacy | ‘ clause, Public Utility Regulation Policy Act (PURPA), State and Federal court precedence, therefore requiring this ' court to make a final determination and correct said violations and State and Federal confusion. : 1. The South Dakota Supreme Court dismissal | order used the motion for appeal filing fee payment date rather than the actual filing date causing the Petitioners | ‘ motion to be filed after the thirty day motion for appeal , window, was this correct or a violation of Petitioners due process and supremacy clause rights and numerous State thirty day timeline orders. 2. Did the Respondents violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and 15. U.S.C. s 2. The SD court did not ' make a determination. | 3. Did the circuit court motion for summary judgment order error when it determined that the Respondents are non regulated utilities. 4. Are non regulated utilities required to follow PURPA regarding their avoided cost determinations. 5. Did Respondents commit fraud when lower avoided rate rates were provided to Petitioners vs other . Qualifying facilities. 6. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion violating Petitioner's PURPA, due process and supremacy | clause rights when Tri-State vs Delta-Montrose 151 FERC J 61,238 was not followed. 7. Did Respondent Basin illegally interfere with Petitioners PURPA rights, rights to contract, when it took over ppa negotiation from the distribution Respondents (everyone other than Basin) and Petitioners from 2009 to ; 2016. 8. The SD Supreme court ruled that motions for a new trial, Rule 59 and Rule 60 motions are not appealable, was this ruling correct. 9. Should the circuit court have sanctioned Plaintiff Prelude Attorney Robert Lorge for his procedural : 2 i 1 A oy 3 | ‘ 1 | errors rather than dismissing the Petitioners case with | prejudice, harming the Petitioners for an attorney mistake. : 10. The circuit court did not allow Edward Dostal to read his prepared statement during the’ motion for summary judgment hearing, which was by phone, were his constitutional rights were violated. | 11. Should the Petitioners motion to dismiss of Petitioners motion for appeal have been disregarded for ‘ : being filed late. : 12. Should the S.D Circuit Court have provided pro se Petitioner Edward Dostal guidance on motion for summary judgment response requirements. There is a great deal of case precedence and due process orders, therefore this court should make a final determination. H 13. When pro se Petitioners filed their motion for appeal by email, should the clerk have informed Petitioners of what the filing fee was rather than sending the filing back by mail for a lack of filing fee payment in violation of clerk duties and a due process violation. 14. | Should the courts have ordered Respondents to pay damages for lost QF wind farms, lost developer fees, wind farm revenues lost, and lost tax benefits such as production tax credits (PTC). There are FERC PURPA, State, and US Supreme Court orders establishing why the SD courts should have granted damages, therefore this court should determine damages and order the ppa’s to be signed. 15. Did the Circuit Court and the Respondents commit ex parte violations regarding Edward Dostals motion for a new trial dismissal order development. 16. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion and violate Edward Dostals constitutional rights, State and Federal precedents when ithe court dismissed Edward Dostals motion for a new trial which was not timely contested by the Respondents. 17. Did the SD Supreme Court have jurisdiction to rule upon Petitioner's motion for sanctions, which the court dismissed for a lack of merit. 18. Should damages be paid based upon attorneys perjury and fraud. There are many State and “hes, , 3 , 4 ; federal orders based upon attorney fraud, sanctionable | events showing damages are required. ; 1