Whether the appellate court violated Porter's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional Rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; ; 1. Whether the appellate court violated Porter's Fifth , and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional Rights, by denying her right of appeal and due process of law : when it dismissed her appeal for want of prosecution. Porter substantially complied with the court’s briefing rules and, if not, was due additional time and attempts to comply under the court’s rule for substantive defects, and the court made multiple errors in their assessment of her brief. 2. Whether the appellate court violated Porter’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional Rights, ; when it failed to accept Porter’s brief in “another 7 form”, which the interests of justice required, given . that she was Pro Se and not trained as a lawyer. See rule 9.4. The court has allowed briefs in noncompliant form submitted by prisoners, for example, and has allowed other appellants more attempts and longer times to conform to the court’s briefing rules. 3. Whether the Appellate Court violated Porter’s : Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights, when it , failed to invoke the remedies available to it under rule 39.9(b) for substantive defects, but instead applied . the harsh remedies set out under rule 38.9(a) for formal defects. As both formal and substantive defects in the brief were cited by the Court, the less harsh ; ; remedies for substantive defects should have been afforded Porter before the harsh to protect her right of appeal and to afford her due process of law. i