Whether the Florida Statute for Adverse Possession without Color of Title section 95.18 is unconstitutionally vague

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Whether the Florida Statute for Adverse Possession without Color of Title section 95.18 is unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied because it has encouraged arbitrary enforcement in failing to describe with sufficient particularity what an individual must do in order to satisfy the statute. 2. Whether an adverse possessor while satisfying the statute of limitations of actions holding period has a right to bring an action in the nature of mandamus to compel a law enforcement officer, governmental agency or employee thereof to perform its ministerial, non discretionary duty owed with respect to its enforcement and adherence to Florida Statute 95.18. 3. Whether expiration of the limitation of actions holding period serves to escheat a new title converting possession to ownership or the right then to adverse possession as declared and affirmed by the lower and district courts. 4. Whether an Adverse Possessor has the right to obtain construction building permits in order to cultivate, maintain, and/or improve the possessed property in a usual manner as required by state statute. 5. Whether it is unconstitutional for a citizen to be arrested for trespass or theft when adversely possessing real property despite Florida Statute 95.18(9) and (10) explaining they only apply when one fails to make the required return. 6. Whether a per curiam “affirmed” decision without opinion or reason provided by a Court of Appeal is unconstitutional. LIST OF RELATED CASES 1. Civil Mandamus Case No. 18000518CA is the originating action 2. First District Court of Appeal Case No. 1D-19-165 is the appeal 3. Criminal Circuit Case No. 19000866CFMA was initiated by the respondent in retaliation to a written complaint submitted to the agency and is ongoing 4. Florida Supreme Court Case No. SC20-99 is comprised of an extraordinary petition requesting relief which was denied according to the Supreme Courts “Logan Rule” refusing pleadings from pro se petitioners when “represented” 5. Florida Supreme Court Case No. SC20-752 is comprised of an extraordinary petition requesting relief from a capias issued by the criminal court after refusing to acknowledge the Notice of Waiver of Presence filed to which was denied according to the Supreme Courts “Logan Rule” despite petitioner seeking to discharge counsel and proceed pro se Case No. In the Supreme Court of the United States STEVEN COOPER Petitioner, v. BAY COUNTY FLORIDA BAY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE : DEPUTY NICHOLAS MACIAS CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER KATHI ASHMAN SHARON M. WOOSLEY , Respondents, PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, 1DCA NO.1D19-165 Petitioner, Steven Cooper, humbly and respectfully asks that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment and opinion of the Florida First District Court of Appeal, IDCA# 1D19-165, filed on March 27, 2020, and Rehearing Motion denial filed on May 12, 2020, regarding the trespassing and arrest of an adverse possessor after establishing his right to adversely possess real property in compliance with the statutory right provided by Florida Statute 95.18. OPINION BELOW The per curiam affirmed decision without opinion by the First District Court . of Appeal was issued on March 27, 2020. An April 13, 2020, “Motion for Rehearing/Rehearing En Banc, Motion for Written Opinion and Clarification and Alternative Motion for Certification” was denied on May 12, 2020 followed by the Mandate and West Publishing filed on June 2, 2020. An appeal to The Florida Supreme Court was not submitted given it does not have jurisdiction to review one word per curiam affirmed decisions without opinion. JURISDICTION The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). The decision for which petitioner seeks review was issued on March 27, 2020. This petition is filed within 90 days of the Florida First District Court of Appeal denying the Rehearing Motion on May 12, 2020, for discretionary review under Rul