1. Whether the District Court Judge Joseph Hardy, Jr., erred when considering the Findings of Fact, Conclusion of law order and Final Judgment.

2. Whether structural error occurs when a Judge abandons judicial neutrality and engages in Judicial Misconduct that effectively sabotaged the petitioner's ability to present their case, in violation of fundamental fairness guaranteed by the Constitution.

3. Whether a Petitioner is denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when a District Court Judge engages in Judicial Misconduct during an evidentiary hearing, such as soon after the Evidentiary Hearing started July 27,2023. The Judge said to Petitioner are you making faces to him, and answered no, he made the entire Evidentiary Hearing to difficult He made accusations of interruptions, was not doing this or meant to. Petitioner's evidence was not properly considered. His mean attitude and inappropriate conduct affected the Petitioner's substantial right to a fair hearing.

4. Issues Presented of Order and Final Judgment Appendix B. Whether the Judge acted Prejudice against Petitioner during the day long Evidentiary Hearing. Had difficulty to present evidence at the hearing, the Judge's court room behavior, vocal tone, and Statement's such as when he asked rudely are you making faces at him, and was not appropriate to say. The Judge was not assisting Petitioner at the hearing, and could not ask him questions without a issue of Respondent's Attorney making a Statement. This Courts treatment is wrongfill to a in Pro per, from out of State. The Court of Appeals, and the District Courts findings are incorrect, and clearly erroneous.

5. Issues Presented of Order of Affirmance Appendix A. The Order of Affirmance issued by the Appellate court contains multiple erroneous findings that materially misstate facts presented by Petitioner. These Errors include it states Petitioner filed a Motion for Service by Publication. It is being incorrectly used against Petitioner by the Respondent's Attorney, and how it does not Accurately state Judge Herndon had "Sua Sponte" decided to have Petitioner do Service of the Complaint by Publication. The Respondent's Attorney had purposely confused Petitioner's evidence, and she did not serve prior to the hearing her evidence she used, and confused Petitioner and the evidence doing this.The Court of Appeals Order of Affirmance has incorrect, erroneous findings. Petitioner has not done what accusations have been made by Respondent's Attorney has wrongfully made up incorrect reasons and are falsely implied that Petitioner had not done.

Such as Extrinsic Fraud, false statements in the Motion attacking the Petitioner's Default Judgment That should not be set aside, Petitioner's Personal Belongings should not be kept by Respondent The Belongings were granted for return by Judge Herndon, taking it away is Judicial Misconduct. Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law other than review by this Court. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari should be granted to correct the record and ensure that justice is not denied by flawed judicial findings.

6. Issues Presented of Order Reversing in Part, Vacating in Part and Remanding Appendix E. Even though there was a Court of Appeals Remand and that the Court had found something wrong with Judge Ronald J Israel's reasons being insufficient or not a enough information to grant the Motion to set aside Default Judgment, or Per the Rule 60(B) reasons, and Rule 60(C) Timing rule. Petitioner alleges

Whether a District Court Judge committed structural error by abandoning judicial neutrality and violating fundamental fairness during an evidentiary hearing