1.) IN LIGHT OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON'S ASSERTIONS IN "THE FEDERALIST PAPERS" NO. 80, IS IT THE OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CITIZENS OF FLORIDA AND THEIR JUDICIARY REGARDING THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S CLAIM THAT THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT FORCE THE JUDICIARY TO OBEY THEIR ENACTED RULES OF COURT?

2.) IS TRIAL PROCEDURAL JURISDICTION AN INSEPERABLE ASPECT OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION WHEREAS LEGISLATIVELY-ENACTED PROCEDURAL RULES OF COURT MUST BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO IN ORDER FOR A COURT TO OBTAIN JURISDICTION TO DECIDE A CASE?

3.) WAS THE APPELLATE COURT'S FINDING Mr. CORNELIUS' CHALLENGE FRIVOLOUS, AND THEN THREATENING SANCTIONS, A VIOLATION OF HIS 1st AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT TO REDRESS HIS GRIEVANCES AND 14th AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW?

CAN APPELLATE "PROCEDURAL RULE BARS" BE USED TO AVOID ADDRESSING THIS PETITIONER'S TRIAL PROCEDURAL RULE PENALTY INSTRUCTION DEPRIVATION IN LIGHT OF THE JURIES COMMENTS IN GIBSON V. STATE?

4.) WAS THE JUDICIALLY AMENDED PROCEDURE RULE 3.390(A) INVALIDATED WHEN THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE REPEALED THE STATE'S SUPERSESSION LAW F.S. 25.371 FOR VIOLATING THE NON-DELEGATION DOCTRINE?

5.) ARE FLORIDA JURY INSTRUCTIONS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO DISCOURAGE JURY MITIGATION AN ASSAULT ON JURY SOVEREIGNTY AND AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE 6th AMENDMENT RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY?

6.) WILL COUNSEL BE ASSIGNED TO ARGUE THESE MERITS BEFORE THE COURT?

Whether the U.S. Supreme Court is obligated to resolve a dispute between Florida citizens and the state judiciary regarding the legislature's authority over court rules