Whether the levying of a court fine against an indigent party represents a violation of constitutional Due Process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Whether the levying of a court fine against an indigent party represents a violation of constitutional Due Process. 2) Whether a finding of contempt against an indigent party for failure to pay a court-ordered levy represents a violation of constitutional Due Process. 3) Whether the trial court erred in both its finding of contempt and its levying of court fines against Petitioner. 4) Whether jurisdiction remains in federal court during the pendency of a removal. (See 28 U.S.C. § 1446.) 5) Whether a state court must cease all proceedings in a case during the pendency of a federal removal. 6) Whether the trial court acted without jurisdiction in holding proceedings in the state-court case during a pending federal removal. 7) Whether state courts and state-court judges are bound by federal law. 8) Whether judges are disqualified from Title IV-D enforcement actions in their own counties due to pecuniary conflicts of interest. . 9) Whether federal law (15 U.S.C. § 1673) prohibits state-court wage garnishment orders against indigent parties, ie. when such an order exceeds 50% of disposable income, and thus whether the trial court’s ruling violates federal law. 10) Whether the trial court’s contempt ruling violates Petitioner's First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, i.e. because the trial court’s own prior illicit actions have caused financial harm to Petitioner, forcing him to spend the bulk of his time on legal work, and thus the trial court itself is directly responsible for Petitioner's dire financial situation. i 11) Whether the trial court abused its discretion and violated Petitioner’s constitutional rights by failing to notify him of hearings, and by issuing a capias warrant as a means of debt collection. 12) Whether the trial court's Order of November 17, 2016 is unconstitutional and represents an abuse of discretion. 13) Whether the trial court judges have immunity from civil liability under 42 U.S. Code § 1983 for signing orders violative of Petitioner's rights while lacking jurisdiction. 14) Whether the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals violated Petitioner's Due Process rights by intentionally misstating material fact regarding Miller’s finances in order to support the trial court contempt ruling, and whether government officials have the right ; to lie in court cases. 15) Whether the Opinion of the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals conflicts with Texas and United States Supreme Court precedent regarding assessing fines to indigent parties. 16) Whether the trial court and Texas Fifth Court of Appeals erred by recognizing a defective service as legitimate. 17) Whether the trial court and Fifth Court of Appeals erred—and violated Petitioner's Due Process rights—by refusing to set Child Support at the amount stipulated by TEx. FAM. CODE § 154.125. 18) Whether the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals erred—and violated Petitioner's Due Process rights—by claiming that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the spurious trial court Order of November 17, 2016 and refusing to rule on it. 19) Whether the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals erred—and violated Petitioner's Due Process rights—by completely ignoring the appealed spurious trial court Order of June 7, 2018 and thus refusing to rule on it. ii 20) Whether the “best interest of the child” standard in the Texas Family Code is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment. 21) Whether the Texas Family Court system is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, because it routinely violates due process guarantees with impunity. 22) Whether the Texas appellate system is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, because it precludes any meaningful due process opportunity for redress of grievances. . (Issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 22 are briefed herein, at least in part. The remaining issues are unbriefed.) iii ;