Whether the trial court falsified the trial docket, whether the trial was illegal, whether the plaintiff was denied the right to present evidence, whether the plaintiff was denied the right to have an attorney, whether the plaintiff's due process rights were violated, whether the trial court should have ruled against the defendant and awarded more damages to the plaintiff, whether the appeals court failed to review the trial court's ruling, whether the plaintiff filed a meritorious motion in support of jurisdiction, whether the plaintiff's claims have been ignored, whether the Supreme Court should hear this case

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 2 Dy PLAT. GALEY FAIL To Seaye DSET. P06, yroy THe ConPlaintr per avin. YESKe O16, WAS THE TRIAL Docker FALSIFIED? Poss 16Le, — Qe NV LOILAR Lota? Count) Come as, —WAS TRIAL Ie Ley? No 5 WAS PoBIN fen RELE TO GWE ANswE22 NO] WRS Rokissod PRESENT Fe ANY freceED wes $ Nos = Din Ao@wiGon) HAVE AN RITDRNEY Riper ON Ws CeHALe e YB “Sas Thar AFTURNIEY ANILUEL DhE Com PLAnc? NOT T RB rabsesS KyroWOLEDUE . ~ WAS Has Duk Phoce VioLATED (YES ~ SHOup HE TRIAL Count Herve RuLéd AGRON Sr RowwSos And AWA ED Mone TREY ay PhitinT.7 Rp. — DUD THE 47% Dist, Cover of APPERLS FrIL To BEview Tus TAAL Cotr 20 Croll 708 978 Dir. Dyes Dit) RobinSay FUE & ESE) — WAS & MEUGRAND Am IN SUPPORT OF SRISDICIOM Ars To HRS (wuar of Olhn’? Yes ~ Has THE are of bino 16NoRED My AREtnduss ? VES. Ey) ~ HRS THES UNITED Srases SUMLEME Csr sec. (CY fare ean SSS VES — Whar The Poin OF RECONSIDERATION S.cFfieAc.-R, 190% Ayo OPOL pLbimenr IF IT 1S Seino TD never Gears frtust Br Codusnle HERBERT BAon Niaz SKS ar Coppa s Wer Roeauu oN ChLyrR RiRE& odb> PBS Nesp. ite Mare LG of (ntokrant |SSues Suctt AS THESE, (Ny Of YN lol