1. WHETHER the County Court abused its Discretion and violated Due Process Under the
Fourteenth Amendment and Rule 13, Tex. Rule of Civil Procedure; and Chapter 10,
Tex. Civil Practice and Remedies Code in Awarding Sanction and Attorney Fees
against Petitioner, "WHERE THE COURT WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO AWARD
THE SANCTION " And said Action was Frivolous, Unreasonable, without Foundation,
with "NO EVIDENCE " support. Further Constitute a Violation of Equal Protection
Clause.

2. WHETHER The County Court Abused its Discretion and Violated Due Process Under
the 14Th. Amend, where it Displayed deep-seated Favoritism or Antagonism toward
Respondent And Displayed Clear Evidence of Bias and Prejudice against Petitioner
During Proceeding That Recusal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455 (a & b) and Sec. 144 were
required. Such Source Factors made Fair Judgment Impossible and Unreliable
Requiring the Sanction to be Vacated And VOIDED. Because such Constituted a Violation
of the Equal Protection clause also.

3. WHETHER the County Court Grossly Abused its Discretion and violated Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment when it assessed Sanction
and Attorney Fees Against Petitioner where the Court was without Jurisdiction under
Rule 13 and Chapter 10, In Violation of MANTRIV. BERGMAN, 153 S.W. 3d 715 (Tex.
App. 2005) and MARTIN V. Tex. Dept, of Family & Protective Servs. , 176 S.W. 3d 390
(Tex.App. 2004).

Whether the lower court erred in its interpretation of the relevant civil-rights statutes and constitutional provisions