1. Does a court of law violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause when the issuance of a permanent protective order relies on the Petitioner's violation of conditions and terms from a prior temporary protective judicial order that is effectively facially unenforceable, void, invalid, and legally inoperative?

2. Whether federal firearm prohibitions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) constitutionally apply—consistent with the Second Amendment as interpreted in United States v. Rahimi—when the underlying permanent protective order was predicated on an alleged violation of terms and conditions of unenforceable, void, and invalid prior TPO judicial order and was not lawfully and constitutionally issued?

3. Does a state court violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause when it summarily denies a motion to dismiss a permanent protective order within three days—which restricts permanent freedom rights, parental rights and triggers federal firearm prohibitions—without granting a hearing, considering newly discovered evidence, or providing findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its decision?

4. Whether the Equal Protection Clause is violated where a petitioner is the only one subjected to a procedurally defective, unenforceable, invalid, and void temporary protective order, and whether enforcement of such defective order, which was also rejected by the (Fulton County District office State of Georgia, violates the Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine under the Due Process Clause?

Does a court of law violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause when the issuance of a permanent protective order relies on an allegedly unenforceable temporary protective order?