In case 2D21-2195, the Second District Court of Appeals initially issued an order that granted the appellant's former counsel's motion to amend the initial brief and appendix; however, the appellant's former counsel withdrew from the case on the due date for the filing of the amended initial brief without filing it, leaving the appellant in a difficult situation with no other option but to become a pro se appellant, and the pro se appellant quickly filed the pro se appellant's amended initial brief and appendix. However, unjustly, the Second District Court of Appeals, without honoring its own previous order, which allowed filing of the appellant's amended initial brief and appendix, failed to accept the pro se amended initial brief and issue an order stricken the appellant's amended initial brief and appendix (see Appendix Exhibits "A" and "B". Taking into account the above, please answer the following questions:

1. Does the filing of the pro se appellant's amended initial brief, after the court allowed it to be filed, which is rightfully permitted under the rule of law, be denied and stricken because the amended initial brief was not filed by the former appellant's counsel but by the pro se appellant?

2. Does the pro se appellant deserve to be awarded the same benefit that the former appellant's counsel received when he was given the benefit of amending the appellant's initial brief and appendix?

3. Does the Second District Court of Appeals Judges' interpretation and application of the law for the amendment of pleadings result in an abuse of discretion stricken the pro se appellant's amended initial brief and appendix and originated an issue of public importance because it violated and robbed the appellant, who is a US citizen, of his constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process and equal protection under the laws?

4. Does the Florida Supreme Court's order (case SC2023-0346 issued on March 9, 2023) dismissing the pro se petitioner's notice invoking the Florida Supreme Court's mandatory jurisdiction constitute a mistake of law because it issues an opinion based on the facts of a different case 2D21-2061 and contrary to the true facts of case 2D21-2195?

5. Does the Second District Court of Appeals' order elaborating a full explanation, denying and stricken the appellant's amended initial brief and appendix, have to have been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court because it supported the pro se appellant/petitioner's request for mandatory jurisdiction based on claims of the violation of the constitutional rights to equal access to the laws and due process of law that were not provided to the petitioner?

Whether the Second District Court of Appeals erred in granting the appellant's former counsel's motion to amend the initial brief and extend the deadline for filing the amended brief, and whether the court's subsequent dismissal of the appeal for failure to timely file the amended brief was an abuse of discretion