1. Did Florida 's Supreme Court err in denying the application for a writ of
habeas corpus and/or mandamus without first dealing with the
constitutional issues or due process, representation, and protection of
fair and equal access to the courts?

2. Whether Florida courts violate the Constitution when it fails to strictly
adhere to its statutory procedures under the Baker Act as outlined in
the Supreme Court ruling under O'Conner v. Donaldson , 422 U.S. 563
(1975) and refuses to adjudicate the matter properly before it.

3. Whether an appeal challenging a civil commitment order under section
394.467, Florida Statutes ("the Baker Act"), is mooted solely because the
person was released after eight (8) days of illegal confinement, without
due process, when the petitioner faces collateral legal consequences of
the Baker Act.

4. Whether the District of Columbia Court of Appeals violated the
Petitioner 's rights under the Due Process by denying the Petitioner
access to her character and fitness report, notice, or a hearing when the
report was used in the Committee 's determination as to whether the
Petitioner was qualified for admission to the D.C. Bar.

5. Whether D.C. Court of Appeals violated the Petitioner 's rights under the
Due Process Clause by failing to adhere to Rule 46 and Rule 49 of the
D.C. R. App. Ct. regarding notice and a hearing to successful and
unsuccessful applicants as well as this Court 's precedent in Schware v.
Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957); Konigsberg v. State Bar
of California, 353 U.S. 252 (1957); and Willner v. Committee on
Character and Fitness, 373 U.S. 96, 102 (1963).

Did Florida's Supreme Court err in denying the application for a writ of habeas corpus and/or mandamus without first dealing with the constitutional issues or due process, representation, and protection of fair and equal access to the courts?