1) May we be denied procedural due process,
including extraordinary process, guaranteed through
the Constitution?

2) May the judicial branch leave obvious
substantive due process abuses uncorrected?

3) In Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978), this
court set the bar for relief at the denial of 20 days of
statutory educational rights without the benefit of due
process and an appeal on the substance,
identified that principals and school boards were
responsible for ensuring such. UCF, Valencia State
College, and each public college and university in the
state are mandated to provide the Dual Enrollment
program which provides for eligible students to take
any level of college course and concurrently receive
high school credit. Florida Statute 1007.271 makes
clear that the unique rights and protections afforded
to all high school students are extended to Dual
Enrollment students within the post-secondary
institution in a way that traditionally matriculating
students do not enjoy, and that the boards of each are
legally responsible for upholding and executing all
legislation in compliance with law.
This question is whether the president and boards for
each public post secondary institution, equipped with a
cadre of lawyers responsible for ensuring compliance
with law, should be held to the same standard as the
nations high school principals in Piphus.

4) Given the above seems to fit the general
description of child abuse, should the judicial branch
have protected the precious, time sensitive rights of
my son and all 1.5 million naive minors through the
provision of council, especially when such had been
prayed for with specificity numerous times?

5) May the defendant illegally change contested
policy mid-trial in ways which are also directly
prohibited by the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar to
defraud the court of it's ability to deliver justice?

6) May Florida 's Supreme Court deny us the
rights granted under Gilliam v. State, 996 So.2d 956
(2008) which state that all prayers for relief are
prayers for relief in general and that their true nature
is contained in the pleadings and prayer, and
furthermore that the prayer should be acted upon in
it's intention, not it's caption?

7) Having been denied every whistleblower
route he could find, my son set about the task of
whistleblowing to the next level of authority, the
Given that my son was just attempting to
coerce a Piphus hearing as a whistleblower who was
denied this critical democratic oversight mechanism,
should the court have acted accordingly in some
meaningful way in the clear interest of justice?

8) Should that interest of justice have given rise
to extraordinary cause for the court to act sua sponte?

9) Where a student is absolutely protected by
constitutional guarantees without utterance of their
names in school-level process, as in Piphus, shouldn 't
that student likewise be protected in the same
proceedings if they need to seek a Piphus hearing in a
court of law, especially upon any issue well pressed?

10) Should BakerHostetler have been DQ 'd?

11) May a fair trial or reasonable ability to
appeal be said to be had when trial court never
discharged it's responsibility and resolved the case?

May we be denied procedural due process, including extraordinary process, guaranteed through the Constitution?