Whether the trial court abused its discretion, whether its fact findings are clearly erroneous, whether it erred in formulating or applying a legal precept, whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the order or decision of the court, whether the agency's action, findings and conclusions should be held unlawful and set aside, and whether the judicial dynamics of the 'deliberative thought process' violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Article 17, in regards to integrity and ethics

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ®] A HETHER THe TREAL CouRT ABUSED ITS DLSCRETION. BH NHETHER ITs FACT FINDINGS AGE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. © WiteTH#ER TT ERRED IN FoRmMLLATING OR APPLYING A LEGAL FRECEPT, IN witrcH case RevrEw IS PLENARY. © WHETHER ow APPEAL OR feTzTION FoR Review OF An! AGENCY AcTtow , THERE TS SUAsTAWT£EAL EVEDEWCE Tw THE RECORD AS A Wel To SuflPoRT THE ODER. OR DECISEow oF THE (Couer. OwreTHeR THE AGEWCY'S AcrroW, FENDINES And Cowclustows Stout bE HEetd UvlawFul. Awd SeT ASEDE PeR THE Censons SET ForTH4 Iw G ttes-c § Tow Cad. t ©OWHEHER THe Tuaceral DY¥WamMres of Tite (RETUDATIVE THOLGHT feocess" VIOLATED C THe LUVIVER SAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN EreuTs — AeTrcle 71), IW REGARDS To INTEGELTY AW ETHICS THe CloIMAky TSSue Ts Te Kevekse THE DECLStor oF THe Lower CoekTs Arle Te CEMA THES CASE Back To ThE U.S. Drs TercT Couer For Tite WESTER DISTRICT oF TEXAS. THe " VER ~ Suevelliar CE “TARE Welle AssesT THE TIAL Couel i EXod Eenttde Adds AC QuCTT WE OF MLL Hae bes