1. Whether the Florida Statute for Adverse Possession without Color of Title section 95.18 is unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied because it has encouraged arbitrary enforcement in failing to describe with sufficient particularity what an individual must do in order to satisfy the statute.

2. Whether an adverse possessor - while satisfying the statute of limitations of actions holding period - has a right to bring an action in the nature of mandamus to compel a law enforcement officer, governmental agency or employee thereof to perform its ministerial, non discretionary duty owed with respect to its enforcement and adherence to Florida Statute 95.18.

3. Whether expiration of the limitation of actions holding period serves to escheat a new title converting possession to ownership or the right then to adverse possession as declared and affirmed by the lower and district courts.

4. Whether an Adverse Possessor has the right to obtain construction building permits in order to cultivate, maintain, and/or improve the possessed property in a usual manner as required by state statute.

5. Whether it is unconstitutional for a citizen to be arrested for trespass or theft when adversely possessing real property despite Florida Statute 95.18(9) and (10) explaining they only apply when one fails to make the required return.

6. Whether a per curiam "affirmed " decision without opinion or reason provided by a Court of Appeal is unconstitutional.

Whether the Florida Statute for Adverse Possession without Color of Title section 95.18 is unconstitutionally vague