Did the Supreme Court err in dismissing the Motion to Dismiss the Default Order when it had already been certified and docketed, and in mooting companion petitions of error?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Did the Supreme Court err in their (APP C) June 12, 2023 Order dismissing my Motion to Dismiss the Default Order of October 11, 2021, asserted in my first March 13, 2023 Petition of Error (PIE #1) as premature when it had already been certified and docketed on March 17, 2023? 2. Was it err then to further deny and moot my filed (APP Ca) Order on June 14, 2023 for these, as yet at the time, two unruled on Petitions, to be treated as Companion Petitions in Error as one (because no ruling had issued on March 13 PIE #1 and should have been considered first, and would be considered as held in suspense? The second PIE #2 Petition had a different main argument: and that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to have conducted that second PIE #2 hearing because the first docketed Petition PIE #1 was in suspense, and not yet ruled on at the time J. LaFortune conducted this hearing and then issued a new Order of denial to the same October 11, 2022 Mot to Dismiss in his Default Order on April 19, 2023? 3. Did the Sup Ct err when they mooted my request in my Companion Motion where | was requesting consideration of the PIE #1. Should this second PIE #2 (appealing April 19 DC Ord) and all related documents thereto be mooted because the first one was still standing and had not been ruled on when they conducted that hearing and ruling? APPEN D: "4, Did the Court of Appeals (APP D) err when not reviewing and overlooking my statements and contentions made in my PIE #2 Amended Petition in Error, Exhibit C, supported by the ROA, where | cited crucial statutes, specifically alleging irregularities rulings from the District Court, contradicting the criteria stated in: a. 2015 OK 20 see Schweigert v. Schweigert — 348 P.3d 696, under “Judgment “Requirement in rule (10) governing notice of taking default judgment of filing a motion and giving notice of default is applicable any time a *party appears before a court whether by filing a document (Petition) or physically participating in a hearing; rule (10) provides that not only that a motion must be filed and notice be given to a party who has appeared, but that the motion must be filed even if no notice was required, and even if the party fails to make an appearance.12 OK St Ann SS 651(1). 1031(3). 5. Was it further err when Judge B. Swinton and the concurring justices did not consider the evidence required in 12 Okla Stat. 2001 SS 1038 (no Motion for Default filed — therefore appellant not properly served.) The judgment roll is absent of any filed or served Motion for Default. wo ». . 6. Did the Swinton appellate court further err when they overlooked the basic controlling criteria listed in 2014 OK Stat Title 12, 2004 (Chapter 39 — under c —“Service by mail shall not be the basis for the entry of a default or a judgment by default unless the record contains a return receipt showing acceptance by Defendant — 7. Did the Swinton appellate court further err In the Opinion from