Despite the tags you post, your question is more about civil procedure than about breach of contract. The latter merely underlies the procedural issues about which you are asking.
Its been almost two years and Im waiting to sue for fraud. The action is fraud. Is there another way to sue and get to a higher court.
Once a court decides a matter, it is not possible to sue again the same party for the same set of facts. The matter becomes what is called res judicata. But the losing party may file a claim of appeal, thereby triggering a process in which --in theory-- an upper court is supposed to review whether the judge made material errors when ruling the case.
The deadline for filing a claim of appeal and all the required documentation is specified in the rules of civil procedure (aka court rules) of the jurisdiction where the matter was litigated.
In an appellate process, the appellant may advance only the arguments that were raised in lower court(s). Any other arguments are typically considered "waived" and treated as such if brought on appeal.
From your description it appears that you only brought the "legal theory" or count of breach of contract but now you want to sue for fraud. Generally speaking, there is a significant overlap between the elements of breach of contract and the prima facie elements of fraud. However, you might have waived the count of fraud for the reason explained in the second paragraph of this answer (res judicata).
The reason why I wrote "in theory" in the second paragraph is that many judges in upper courts are as corrupt and incompetent as their colleagues from lower courts (I'm actually surprised that a lawyer somehow admitted it when you asked here). Thus, it is doubtful that an appellate panel will reverse the trial judge's irregularities unless (1) you hire a lawyer who is buddies with the appellate judges, (2) the adversary's lawyer got under those judges' skin, or (3) you are lucky enough to have your case reviewed by judges who are competent (morally and otherwise). Some users here on LawSE typically downvote when I bring this up, but it is important for you to know this and assess whether you can take it.
Although I typically encourage pro se litigation, three indicators prompt me not to do so under your particularly disadvantageous circumstances. First, you mention that you are already in bankruptcy proceedings, which entails greater complexity and demands more coordination & legal research.
Second, the heart attack that you suffered suggests that your health condition is likelier to worsen due to the recurrent disappointments from dealing with inept judges.
Third, the misspellings in your inquiry indicate that you would have to undergo a steeper learning curve than the average pro se litigant. For instance, when you mention the "motion of Lemmie", it appears that you refer to "motion in limine". There is no dismissal "with prejustice", but "with prejudice". By "trail" you obviously mean "trial". Altogether these inaccuracies suggest that gaps in your knowledge of legal concepts might be preventing you from using the full potential of --and highlighting-- the merits of your legal position.