Whether Texas 'Justice Courts' should be submitted to the rules, precedents, and guidelines 'Outside of it's Texas Statutory Guidelines

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Texas ‘Justice Courts’ should be submitted to the rules, precedents, and guidelines ‘Outside of it’s Texas Statutory Guidelines. 2. A. Whether “Actual Notice” is satisfied in this matter (Where both sets of Requirements are met). B. Whether a Trial Court has Jurisdiction to hear a case when a scenario presents itself as the following: When a Defendant (Such as The City of El Paso, Tx.) strays from it’s own guidelines Such as in : El Paso City Charter Section 1.5 Application for Remedy Prerequisite to Suit Against the City. When the City of El Paso, Tx., First Requires A Claimant to proceed and follow through with AN ALTERNATE Solution such as waiting for an El Paso Police Department Internal Affairs Investigation (To see the Outcome of the Investigation) before the Claimant is allowed to proceed with his “Filing a Claim (Application for Remedy), with the City of El Paso, Tx,, to the City Council for Disposition”. In this scenario, would the City’s right to immunity then be “waived” or “revoked” due to their action of “running out the clock” (with side distractions such as an: “Internal Affairs investigation’), on the Appellant (Petitioner)? Also, Furthermore, would that action of the City also in affect, not require the Appellant to make any mention of “Attempting to challenge the Appellee’s Immunity” (or mention of the Texas Tort Claims Act, or Article | Section 17 of Texas Constitution) in the Appellant's Original Petition)? 3. Whether the Trial Court in this matter has Jurisdiction to hear claims involving a case that adequately shows to have “Inverse Condemnation” Assertions (that would deny the “Governmental Unit”, Sovereign Immunity). 4. Whether the Trial Court in this matter has Jurisdiction to hear a case where Sovereign Immunity may not be applied, due to Satisfied Requirements of the Texas Tort Claims Act (TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE Ann. §101.001, et. seq.) 5. | Whether the Eighth Court of Appeals Erred in not granting Appellant’s “PostCase” Tunc Pro Nunc Motion to clear up a mere “Clerical Error” (That technically let a Clerical Error remain, in which it continued the error to affect their Final “Judgement” to technically still be in error). Furthermore, should that error now be corrected. 6. Whether the Eighth Court of Appeals Erred in not granting the (Appellant) Petitioner an opportunity to present an “Oral Argument” in this Case after he requested an oral argument through a “Motion of Reconsideration for Oral Argument”. 7. Whether the Petitioner’s Constitutional Rights were violated under Article I of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. 3