Question not identified

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. That substantial rights of the Petitioner have been prejudiced because of the Lower Courts and Department's findings, inferences, conclusions and/or decisions being: a. In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; and/or b. In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; and/or c. Made upon unlawful procedure; and/or d. Affected by other error or law; and/or . e. Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; and/or f. Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. 2. Did Trooper Kevin Provost have reasonable ground to believe Justin Weible was _ driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while he was under the influence of alcohol? 3. After never being informed by Kevin Provost that his license, permit, or privilige to drive would be revoked if he fail to submit to an evidentiary test, did Justin Weible fail to submit to an evidentiary test or did Kevin Provost violate the IV, V, VII and XIV Amendment of the United States of America Constitution? , 4. Did Kevin Provost, Richard Nelson Jr., City of Henderson, City of Las Vegas,’ Henderson Police Department, Nevada Highway Patrol, Clark County, and Melanie Andress-Tobiasson cause substantial harm to Justin Weible by assault, battery, excessive force, unlawful search and arrest, crue! and unusual punishment, and negligently withdraw blood by an invasive non-consensual blood withdraw under color of law, in violation of the United States Constitution of America and the IV, V, VI, and XIV amendment that supports it. 5. Did Thomas Conner make an unlawful decision under the United States constitution by judicating and prosecuting a Department of Motor Vehicle's revocation hearing and/or appeal at the same time? 6. That the Department was in error in issuing the Order revoking Petitioner's driving Privileges, and that Petitioner has been substantially prejudiced because of this action and that the conduct and the decision of the Department. The Department's Order represents an infringement of Petitioner's rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America and under the statutory provisions of the State of Nevada, and said decision is clearly erroneous and is arbitrary and capricious? 7. Did petioners private retained lawyers Damian Sheets, Kelsey Bernstein, Alexis Minichini, Bailey Hellman, Erik Zentz and Robert Zentz commit legal malpractice by never acting in Justin Weible's best interest, good faith and with care, using due care in civil and criminal legal cases, missing deadlines, negligenence, : and submitting motions to withdraw from criminal cases that were eventually dismissed with public defenders on the record