0 Was -Hoe. 4ppella+e Commissioner j^sA-Ted i*\ hM/mj defied
apphecchin -&r Appellate Cou.r+ -Ah^ fees —00 dhe basi5 of
y/... given otll dbe CAreum stances, mctuding ■ dhe number o( civil app
eals wbicM Wa\Ae been filed bj appellant only do be dlsmisled by
AAe Cou/'b 'fer various reasons and laeK of any colorable claim
of error here... ?

^ \Mai) dhe 4-ppeHade Commissioner justified in dismissing
Pe-Udumec's appeal Ono dbe jurisdicdionul ycou/nds of need ■fo-n Seruire
of 4he filed mrhce of appeal upon ail adverse par-fies — when, as
feVitioner made iA clear 1n fheic filed no+iee of appeal , and
as tA>a$ -kue, based an dbe facd~ of Respond en-t-5 nod being
adverse^ dheuy never Haviwg appeared
CovlC'V proceedings (+bece Wing
never Waving been Served crC Summoned (dWe lower
CVCCaV-V Ce^rV Case having been dismissed for wan+ of
prosecution, &r lacfc of Servlce^^c appearance of
Respondent}? upon

Z) VIas 4d\e Oregon Supreme £Wr+" justified in fedusmg
fo ^ramV review —even dlaoug h dbe Appellate Commissioner s
dismissal was completely arbitrary unjustified by
fWe law ?PeArHimer's
lovA^er CaC60U-+- any
held}, nor in the ease none
ad all

Was the Appellate Commissioner justified in denying the application for appellate court filing fees?