1. WHETHER THE MOST HONORABLE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WILL DEFINE THE ELEMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS' ADEQUATE CIVIL DETAINEE TREATMENT PROGRAM. SE HOWE VS MOLT 2018 WL 648305WHICH EFFECTS TWENTY STATES "SVP" PROGRAMS).

2. WHETHER THE COURT MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE PLAINTIFF' S MENTAL AND PSYCHO-LOGICAL HISTORY AND THE M'GITUDE OF THE CASE. THE COURT MUST CONSISTENTLY REEVALUATE THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AT EVERY STAGE OF LITIGATION. SEE WALKER VS PRICE 900 F3d 933,2018 WL 3967298(7thCi.)

3. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHERE THE PLAINTIFF(PRO-SE)P.-RESENTED aA.GENUINE DISPUTE OF MATERIAL FACT OWHETHER PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN DENIED ADEQUATE MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT FOR HIS DIAGNOSIS OF "OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER "NONCONSENT". BY MINIMAL INADEOUATE AMOUNT OF TIME ,BY UNLICENSED THERAPISTS AND RETALIATED 'AGAINST BY FILING CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIONS AND GRIEVANCES BY DENYING THE PLAINTIFF ADVANCEMENT AND TREATMENT FOR HIS DISGNOSIS IN THIS FIVE PHASEPROGRAM IN VIOLATION OF THE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Whether the Supreme Court should define the elements of the Constitution's adequate civil detainee treatment program