20241231Appeal of ISC Opinion.pdf

Electronically Filed
12/31/2024 6:28 PM
Idaho Supreme Court
Melanie Gagnepain,Clerk of the Court
By:Melanie Gagnepain,Clerk
Attorney for Respondent PacifiCorp d/b/a Sherry Cole
Rocky Mountain Power Company Petitioner Pro Se
Joseph Dallas, senior Attorney Rocky Mountain Power, 350 S 12th W.#14 Saint Anthony
825 NE Multnomah, STE 2000, Portland, OR 97232 Idaho 83345
Attorney for respondent IPUC
Raul Labrador,Idaho AG
Michael Duval ISB# 11714,
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd.
Building 8, Suite 201-A,Boise Idaho 83704
Idaho Supreme Court
Sherry Cole
V
Rocky MountainPower, IPUC
Appeal in the matter of case number: 51148-2023 decided 12/20/2024
From Idaho Public Utilities Commission Tribunal PAC-E-2023-12, Final decision made August
22.2023
........... ........ .....
1 Pugs

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1:Table of authorities pg 3
2:Issues presented on appeal pg 4-6
3: Concluding remarks pg 7
4:Certificate of Service 8-9
.. _ : ....... .......... . .......
2 Page

Table of Authorities
l;Clause 39 of the Magna Carta in 1215
2: Idaho Constitution Article I Sections I(Protecting property)
3: Idaho Constitution Article 1 section 13(Due Process Clause)
4:Idaho Constitution Article 1 Sections 7 (Trial by Jury)(The right of trial by.Jury shall remain
inviolate.)
5:SEC&Exch.Comm. V Jarkesy Exch.Comm.34,4th,446[2022]
6:Sec.&Exch.Comm.v Jarkesy 603 U.S.[2024]
7:U.S. Constitution 5Amendment(Due Process clause)
8:U.SConstitution 7 Arnendment(Trial by Jury clause)
9:U.S, Constitution 14Amendment(Due Process clause)
...................................................:................_.........................................................................................................................................................................:........................................:..........,.......:.......... ............. ..:................:..:..........
3 Page

Comes now Sherry Cole ,petitioner to appeal the recent decision by this court ,reference case
#51148-2023.
The reasons will be on constitutional deprivations concerning the 5th and 14th
Constitutional Amendments, which entrust the petitioner the right to a trial of her peers, when
the property in question is in excess of the amount of 20.00, as stated within the 7th US
Constitutional Amendment.
The Idaho Supreme Court rightly points out that the Idaho Public Commission(Commission)
does not have the Jurisdiction to adjudicate constitutional matters[pp5,opinion] and therefore the
decision of the Idaho Supreme Court to defer to that commission's findings ,without regard to
petitioners Private rights, must be held in error as the due process clause is an inherent protection
of the People, and was not afforded petitioner in case at bar.
This protection is also found within the 14th amendment of The United States Constitution as
well. as in Article 1 Sections 7 of the Idaho Constitution.In addition, as in Article l section 1 of
the Idaho Constitution. It explicitly states that the protection of ones property is an inalienable
right, far be it from this Court to deny petitioner all potential avenues to utilize.
The Court's decision which was based on the merits, is NOT the issue here. However, stipulated
factual evidence must be adhered too. So I can point out the deprivations of petitioners private
rights, including the prescribed proper adjudication process so recognized within the 7th
amendment of the US Constitution .
......... ._...... ........... . . ...
4 Page

1.RMP(Rocky Mountain Power)did in fact admit the meters were crossed ,in writing, which was
Produced into evidence, but not mentioned in the opinion of this court.
2.RMP did in fact give the petitioner a credit amount far exceeding the 20.00
minimum limit as per the 7th amendment,as shown on the subsequent power bill.
3.Without any written notice RMP did take/withdraw/confiscate which money previously
credited to petitioners account Without affording petitioner."due process of law".
As stated within the 5th and 14th amendments (Due process of law clause) Amendments of the
U.S Constitution, as well as the Idaho Constitution(Article 1 section 13)
It is the inherent solemn duty of the justices to see that Constitutional deprivations do not occur
in any circumstances, but in this case,it seems this Court has justified the violating said
aforementioned rights because of Petitioner's lack of ability to cite supporting case law,
authority.
Petitioner, being a pro se litigant ,believes that the justices are well aware of the Constitutions
and relevant amendments and sections concerning Case at bar
Petitioner will now provide the court by citing two recent cases.
First the term, due process,must be fleshed out .What does it really mean?
Due process is a course of legal action designed to protect an individual's' private rights'. From `
within Clause 39 of the Magna Carta in 1215 under King John,"judgment by one's peers" has
. . -
5 Page

been the hallmark protection people could rely upon to thwart the will of an oppressive
government or a rogue judiciary.
In keeping with that tradition our founders in 1791 enshrined the"due process Clause"
within the 5th amendment of the US Constitution, in our present day national constitution, and
again in 1868 the `due process clause" was ingrained within the 14th amendment
Next let's turn our attention to supporting case law:
A 5th circuit case lays the groundwork, SEC.Exch. V Jarkesy
Exch.Comm.3 4,4th,446[2022] ,while instructive as to the right of a Trial by jury.
Chief Justice Roberts in Sec.& Exch.Comm.v Jarkesy 603 U.S.[2024] is more specific and
within paragraph 2,pp6 of the opinion of the Court states that"it is well established that common
law claims must be heard by a jury'
Petitioner believes she has such a claim and is entitled to judgment by her peers ,and not an in
House biased tribunal which is incapable of taking up constitutional claims as stated in this
Courts opinion concerning the case at bar.
. .......... ...... ............................................................................. .......
6] Pa g e

In conclusion, Petitioner asks this court to remand the case to a lower Court whereby , "due
process" of law in regards to, "judgment of her peers" ,as prescribed in both the Idaho and the
United States Constitution, can be obtained and resolve this issue ,once and for all!
................. ......... ........ ........ ......... . .........
7 Page

CERTIFICATE of SERVICE
I certify that on the /+O- day of , 20v I served true and accurate copies
of the foregoing document on the following persons, either by deposit in the U.S. Mail,
addressed as follows and with the correct first-class postage affixed thereto, or be deposit in the.
designated courthouse mailbox, or by hand-delivery,as indicated below.
Name: Michael Duval
Served by:
[ ] Eland-delivery
[ ] Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
[�] Electronic submission via Icourt portal file and serve
[ ] email
Name: Joseph Dallas
Served by:
[ Hand-delivery
[ J Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
] Electronic submission via Icourt portal file and serve
....................:.......................................................................................................:...........:.._..................................................................:......................_........................._........:.,..,......,...........:................
8 JP a g'e

[ ] email
Name: Raul Labrador
Served by:
[ ] Hand-delivery -
[ ] Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
[ ] Electronic submission via Icourt portal file and serve
[�(] email
Name: Idaho Supreme Court
Served by:
[ ] Hand-delivery
[ ] Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
p�J Electronic submission via Icourt portal file and serve-
[ } email
......... .......... . ............................................. ............... .... .
9 €gage