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?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented are: ; 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). . qa)