I. Whether four orders issued by the chancery court, when the court did not have jurisdiction over the Petitioners, should be held as void and vacated pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4).

II. Whether the sustaining of a motion in limine, essentially disposing of all claims and the petitioners' entire case, denying the right to ever be heard before a fair tribunal and present the facts as contemplated by state and federal rules of evidence as well as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is a clear violation in due process rights, an abuse of discretion, manifestly wrong and should be reversed.

III. Whether the Chancellor should have recused herself and granted a new trial after Petitioners filed their 1st Amended Motion for New Trial with Impartial Tribunal or in Alternative to Alter or Amend Judgement, instead of continuing to show prejudice, bias and advocacy for the Plaintiffs, depriving Petitioners of their due process rights.

IV. Whether the Petitioners were denied equal protection of law and due process of law when the Mississippi Court of Appeals' Opinion provided all the case law and argument on behalf the Respondents, twisting, changing and ignoring the facts in order to benefit the Respondents and supported the chancery court ruling.

Whether four orders issued by the chancery court, when the court did not have jurisdiction over the Petitioners, should be held as void and vacated pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4)