Does "PUBLIC INTEREST" AND "JUSTICE SO REQUIRE" IMPANELING OF A "SPECIAL GRAND JURY", WHEN TRIAL PROSECUTORS COMMIT "MULTIFARIOUS FRAUD" ON THE JURORS, WHEN ALL REMEDIES HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED TO CORRECT THE "FRAUD" WITH NO RESOLUTION?

Does "PUBLIC INTEREST" AND "JUSTICE SO REQUIRE" NOTIFICATION BE SENT AD JURORS AS VICTIMS OF PROSECUTORS "MULTIFARIOUS FRAUD" AND "OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE"?

Did "THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT" WITH THE U.S. DEPUTY CLERK, VIOLATE PETITIONERS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO THE COURT, BY REFUSING TO FILE PETITIONERS... "WRIT TO IMPANEL A "SPECIAL GRAND JURY"?

Did THE 11TH CIR. COA CHIEF JUDGE VIOLATE PETITIONERS DUE PROCESS AND ACCESS TO THE COURT, BY TRANSFORMING PETITIONERS COMPLAINT FOR WRIT TO IMPANEL A "SPECIAL GRAND JURY" HIMSELF TO A FRIVOLOUS MANDAMUS, WHEN HE HAD JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY TO IMPANEL THE SPECIAL GRAND JURY HIMSELF?

Is THE KIDNAPPING STATUE (167.01.10. (3)) AS STATED IN PETITIONERS AMENDED 2254 DOCKET (413 *33.*43 zp *3H NON CONSTITUTIONAL?

Did THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT VIOLATE PETITIONERS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS, BY NOT PROCESSING OR ADDRESSING PETITIONERS CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO KIDNAPPING STATUE 767.01 (4 (3) WHEN ALL PARTIES WERE NOTIFIED, AND HAD OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO THEM CHALLENGE AND DIDNT?

WAS THERE INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE KIDNAPPING IF THE (167.01. 14 (3)) STATUE IS CONSTITUTIONAL IN PETITIONERS CASE?

DOES THIS COURT AGREE WITH THE REASONING AND LAW AND LOGIC IN THE CONNER -VS- STATE CASE #19. 80. 3D. 1117), REGARDING THE REASON THERE APPLICATION TO PETITIONERS CASE?

IS THE CONNER -VS- STATE CASE * (19. 80. 3D. 1117) IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH PETITIONERS CASE AND IF SO, WILL THIS COURT RESOLVE THIS CONFLICT?

IF PETITIONER WAS ADJUDICATED INCOMPETENT IN DEC. 2006, CASE * 3066-3701, AND NO WRITTEN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE HIM COMPETENT, IS PETITIONER CONSIDERED INCOMPETENT UNTIL A WRITTEN ORDER ISSUES?

WAS IT REVERSABLE ERROR, WHEN THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATE, MADE A FINDING IN (DOCKET *40) @ROUND (*7)( PAGE 53 OF 91) THAT THE STATE INTRODUCED THE INJUNCTION (CASE *2006-DR004182) THAT WAS SEVERED BY THE COURT FOR PREJUDICE AS IT WAS A FEATURE AT TRIAL, CHANGING THE OUTCOME?

WAS PETITIONER PLACED IN "DOUBLE JEOPARDY" VIOLATING HIS 5TH AND 4TH AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S. CONST. AS EXPLAINED IN GROUND *

Issue being raised