1. Should this matter been allowed to progress to a civil commitment trial since the Respondent incarcerated the Petitioner for exercising his Constitutional Right to practice his chosen religion?

2. Does the denial of the circnit court to allow the Petitioner to present evidence in his behalf rise to the level of a Constitutional Due Process error or is it "harmless error as the Virginia Supreme Court states?

3. Was the Virginia Supreme Court's decision, of harmless error," erroneausly applied in these matters, when the court's own decision states that the Petitner had the right to present his witnessststimonyand evidence, but he was denied that right by the cirenit court's mis application and misunderstanding of the statutes 537.2-9obti) and $37.2-907(A)?

4. If the Petitioner was allowed to present his expert evidence and testimopy alongside that of the Commonwenlth's expert, af the circnit court trial, can it truly and definitively be stated that the jury would have reached the same decision ard that the outcome would have beer the same as the Virginia Supreme Court stated?

Should the petitioner's matter have been allowed to progress to a court-ordered trial since the respondent was incarcerated for exercising his constitutional right to practice his chosen religion?