Whether the court of appeals erred in declining to allow evidence, witness and expert testimony at trial on the Settlement Agreement

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This appeal involves questions of exceptional importance, involving a dischargeability of the Petitioner, which is known as the “ultimate Bankruptcy capital punishment”. Contrary to statutory right guaranteed by the Congress to substantively review any claim, including the Settlement Agreement releasing claims deemed non-dischargeable under the Bankrupt: cy Code, and contrary to decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, its own circuit and others and long-standing precedent of Texas Supreme Court, the reviewing panel declined to substantively review any dates, facts and rulings on the Settlement Agreement that impacts Claims pertaining to Petitioner’s discharge, contrary to preserving strong public policy of just due process, ; respecting private settlements, encouraging litigant parties to settle matters, preserving judicial economy. Accordingly, the questions presented are the : following: . 1. Where the court of appeals did not allow evidence, witness and expert testimony at trial on the Settlement Agreement, should this Court summarily grant, vacate, and remand with instructions to the ; _ trial court to allow it at trial? 2. Where the court of appeals declined to substan: tively review various dates, facts and rulings in determination of release of Petitioner’s Claims impacting his discharge by the Settlement Agreement, should this Court summarily grant, vacate, and remand with instructions to perform a full review of that evidence? . ii