Question not identified.

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : , XS Ch. 14, FLA. STATS, ANO ART. 1Sec.4% FLA. CONST. INCONSISTENT WITH THE. DETERRENT POLICY OF Sec. 1483 AND THE Hizb AND iYTh AMENDMENTS. PROTECTION OF. LIFE AND LIBERTY, THEREBY CN EFFECT, MAKING IN~ FERIOR CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS AND RIGHTS WHICH UNDER your JURISPRUDENCE. ARE TENTENPED TO BE PARAMOUNT AND SUPREME 7? X-EN ARBLTRARY AND ERRONEOUSLY “DENYING _AS. PROCEDURALLY BARRED” ZAMMIELLO'S HABEAS PETIFION, DID THE STALE _COURTAT NTERFERE WITHAND DEPRIVE ZAMMIELLO OF HIS FEDERALLYPROTECTED DUE PROCESS RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS WHICH LS PROTECTED BY SEcrLONs 1965(2) aup (3) ANDTHE 14th AMENDMENT, WHERE THE TOUCHSTONE OF DUE PROCESS rs [My] pRo TECTION_AGALNST ARBITRARY ACTION OF THE FLORIDA GOVERNMENT” ?? 3. WAS_DUE_ PROCESS VIOLATED, WHERE THE FACT-FINDING PROCEDURE ARBITRARY. EMPLOYED BY THE FLOREDA SUPREME COURT DID Nor ADEQUATELY PROVIDE A FULL AND FAIR ~ HEARING. WHEN MY HABEAS CLAIMS HAS “A REASONABLE BASIS IN FAcT OR LAW ” ?? de WAS TTA “ srRUCTURAL. ERROR” FOR THE STATE SUPREME COURT To ARBITRARY GRANT SUMMARY Ce a _ wn TUDGMENT, 1a Cn “DENYING AS PROCEDURALIY. a BARRED.” My HABEAS PETITION, FOR THE owen RESPONDENT(S) ON QUALLELED COMMUNITY ——-___ GROUNDS, “WHERE GENUTNE IFSSUES OF MAYERTAL _ —_—__,FACT_EXIST wIrH RESPECT TO ZAMMIELLO'S HABEAS CLAIMS” AND THE ERROR WAS NOT wo HARMLESS CP —--, 8. -EN_ARBITRARY SDENYING AS PROCEDURALLY BARRED” _ ae IZAMMIELLO'S STATE HABEAS PETITION, DID THe anon STATE SUPREME COURT "DEPRIVE ME OF 11 BERTY aang WETHOUT DUE PROCESS BY INDEFINITELY CONTEN= (Juric my FALSE TMP RISOMMENT AND COnTENUOUS ——-[ELLEGAL DETEMTION? WITHOUT PROBABLE OR NUE ——f PROCESS AND THEREBY, DISCRIMIMATED AGALNST __ a: en a a a Fe ed ee oe