May we be denied procedural due process, including extraordinary process, guaranteed through the Constitution?

Questions Presented 1) May we be denied procedural due process, including extraordinary process, guaranteed through ' the Constitution? 2) May the judicial branch leave obvious substantive due process abuses uncorrected? 3) In Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978), this court set the bar for relief at the denial of 20 days of statutory educational rights without the benefit of due process and an appeal on the substance. It also identified that principals and school boards were responsible for ensuring such. UCF, Valencia State College, and each public college and university in the state are mandated to provide the Dual Enrollment program which provides for eligible students to take any level of college course and concurrently receive high school credit. Florida Statute 1007.271 makes clear that the unique rights and protections afforded to all high school students are extended to Dual Enrollment students within the post-secondary institution in a way that traditionally matriculating students do not enjoy, and that the boards of each are legally responsible for upholding and executing all ‘legislation in compliance withlaw. This question is whether the president and boards for each public post secondary institution, equipped with a cadre of lawyers responsible for ensuring compliance with law, should be held to the same standard as the nations high school principals in Piphus. 4) Given the above seems to fit the general ; description of child abuse, should the judicial branch : have protected the precious, time sensitive rights of my son and all 1.5 million naive minors through the i provision of council, especially when such had been prayed for with specificity numerous times? 5) May the defendant illegally change contested policy mid-trial in ways which are also directly prohibited by the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar to defraud the court of it’s ability to deliver justice? 6) May Florida’s Supreme Court deny us the rights granted under Gilliam v. State, 996 So.2d 956 (2008) which state that all prayers for relief are prayers for relief in general and that their true nature is contained in the pleadings and prayer, and furthermore that the prayer should be acted upon in it’s intention, not it’s caption? : 7) Having been denied every whistleblower route he could find, my son set about the task of whistleblowing to the next level of authority, the . courts. Given that my son was just attempting to ~ coerce a Piphus hearing as a whistleblower who was denied this critical democratic oversight mechanism, should the court have acted accordingly in some meaningful way in the clear interest of justice? 8) Should that interest of justice have given rise to extraordinary cause for the court to act sua sponte? 9) Where a student is absolutely protected by constitutional guarantees without utterance of their names in school-level process, as in Piphus, shouldn’t that student likewise be protected in the same : proceedings if they need. to seek a Piphus hearing in a court of law, especially upon any issue well pressed? 10) Should BakerHostetler have been DQ’d? 11) May a fair trial or reasonable ability to appeal be said to be had when trial court never discharged it’s responsibility and resolved the case? ik