Joseph G. Edwards v. Scott R. Frakes, Director, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services
1. The petitioner asks this honorbale court, did, the Petitioner;, obtain a denial from the Nebraska Supreme Court, that omitted material fact(s) on or about the 5th day of May, 2020, in Nebraska Supreme Court, Case No. A-19-1152, circumvent petitioner's (appellant's) due process and equal protection rights afforded to him pursuant to Ne. Const. Art. 1, S 3., and the United States Const. Amend. 14, S 1., and ignore it's own authority e.g. test for determining competency, STATE v. STOTT, Case No. S-92-915, August 6, 1993, 243 Neb. 967, 503 N.W.2d 822 (1993), i: and CRIPE BAKING CO. V. CITY OF BETHANY, .MO., CaSe NO. 9500, April 3, 1933, 64 F.2d 755 (1933)?
The petitioner asks this honorable court, did, the Petitioner, obtain a denial from the Nebraska Supreme Court, that omitted material fact(s) on or about the 5th day of May, 2020, in Nebraska Supreme Court, Case No. A-19-1152, circumventi: petitioner's (appellant's) due process and equal protection rights afforded to him pursuant to Ne. Const. Art. 1, S 3., and the U.S. Const. Amend. 14, S 1., and ignore it's own authority, e.g. STATE v. STUBBS, CaSe N0. 95-940, May 2, 1997, 252 Neb. 420, 562 N.W.2d 547 (1997), and CRIPE BAKING CO. V. CITY OF BETHANY, MO., Case No. 9500, April 3, 1933, 64 F.2d 755 (1933)?
The petitioner asks this honorable court, did, the Petitioner, obtain a denial from the Nebraska Supreme Court, that omitted material fact(s) on or about the 5th day of May, 2020, in the Nebraska Supreme Court, Case No. A-19-1152, circumvent petitioner's (appellant's) due process and equal protection rights afforded to him pursuant to Ne. Const. Art. 1, S 3., and the U.s. Const. Amend. 14, $ 1., and ignored it's own authority, e.g. STATE v. HULSHIZER, Case No. S-93-277, February 25, 1994, 245 Neb. 244, 512 N.W.2d 372 (1994), and CRIPE BAKING C0. V. CITY OF BETHANY, MO., CaSe No. 9500, April 3, 1933, 64 F.2d 755, (1933)?
While reviewing the record or file in it's discretion, in determining the fact(s) presented on Petition For Further Review, on:
A. Court did not determine R.E. was competent, before it accepted her assertions as true, circumventingppetitioner's compulsory process rights; and
B. Court did not determine R.E. was vulnerable adult, prior to finding petitioner guilty of
Did the Nebraska Supreme Court omit material facts and circumvent the petitioner's due process and equal protection rights?