Whether the Supreme Court should compel the Third D.C.A. to overturn Judge Garcia's Order filed July 8, 2024, that it be disannulled, and that an evidentiary hearing date be reset, so that Petitioners will have a chance to be heard in their entirety in the Sixteenth Circuit and/or Third D.C.A. ("3rd D.C.A.").

2. Whether Judge Garcia using fraudulent documents in order to incorrectly deny that the State has imposed damages on Mr. King, and to pardon just about everybody involved concerning damages in his July 8, 2024 order, violates State laws entitling Petitioners to damages.

3. Whether the State, Sixteenth Circuit Court, and Petitioners' attorney were in misconduct to take exactly two full years (rather than 120 days) after the unlawful arrest (November 31, 2021) of Mr. King, in order to accomplish Mr. King's trial and full acquittal for the same and/or closely related conduct that underlies the criminal and misdemeanour charges.

Whether the state and Sixteenth Circuit were in misconduct to attempt to run out certain statutes of limitations for Petitioners to file for malicious prosecution, especially after Mr. King's arresting officer was found to be doing favours for a group of Landlords: a well-known, wealthy drug runner, his wife, and adult daughter (the "Chico Enterprises"), who all three were found falsely, maliciously alleging heinous crimes against Mr. King in court.

4. Whether Mr. King should be able to charge the State for not receiving a speedy trial, and for nearly two or more unnecessary additional years of such continuing damages on Mr. King and his family after the case and all charges should have been dropped completely and closed as soon as the unlawful arresting officer was dismissed, known to the State.

5. Whether police officers' and any others' video and audio devices' recordings from the date of the arrest, November 31, 2021, are still within the statute(s) of limitations for Mr. King to use in court for purposes regarding damages.

6. Whether abused tenants acting in good faith should have right to warrants for the arrest of harassing Landlords.

7. Whether the State Attorney Office of Monroe County is using fully acquitted cases, such as Mr. King's, to indemnify other men's crimes, specifically, for such as the case number, 20-CF-59-AP of another man, Juan Gonzalez, issued wrongly to Mr. King, filed on legal record January 9, 2023, as a drop to county court from the No. 21-CF-310-A-P, months after Mr. King's arresting officer was dismissed (in or about November 2022). The corrected number used for later acquittal was 2023'MM'59\AP.

8. Whether Mr. King has a right to claim damages against the State for this wrong 20-CF-59-AP felony issuance showing on Mr. King's record for about 2 years now, inhibiting his ability to get jobs,' and whether it should be erased by court order from Mr. King's record, which was clean for 62 years with security-clearances and a NASA engineering job offer.

9. Whether Mr. King has a right to claim damages for his cases, which upon dismissal of the arresting officer, charges were not fully dropped due to the unlawful arrest, nor was Mr. King notified by anyone (the State, the Judges,

Whether the Supreme Court should compel the Third D.C.A. to overturn Judge Garcia's Order and reset an evidentiary hearing date for Petitioners