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
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.

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