Did the lower courts infringe on relator's fundamental right of substantive due process

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : I. Did the lower courts infringe on relator's fundamental right: of substantive due procedd by failing to treat relators’with fundam. ° ental fairness by neglecting to apply procedural rights required by justice to preclude forfeiture of estate of a private citizen by an "executor de son tort"? II..Did the lower courts deny relator civilian due process while conducting a process in a pre-judicial manner under the “Administrative Procedures Act"? ; III. Does relator's claim against the HENNEPIN COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE MUNICIPALITY for exceeding the scope of their authority create a claim against respondents Public Hazard Bonds for "criminal malpractice & barratry"? IV. Did the lower courts neglect to ascertain the precise nature of the government function involved, as well as the private interest that has been affected by the government action without attempting to procedurally deter relator from exercising his constitutional right of seeking his liberty interest? Vv. Did respondent's actions in the lower courts constitute an unlawful conversion of case no. 27-CR-07-022594 from equity to commercial administrative law, or vexatious litigation for the benefit of profit? VI. Did the State Judiciary violate the Separation of Powers Clause by adding, attaching any exceptions, procedures, or conditions to Minn. Stat. § 589.01-Habeas Corpus Remedy in order to deny relator's right to substantive due process? VII. Did relator's petition for writ of habeas corpus satisfy § 589.01 requirements in plain unambiguous language where his claims submitted alleged relator is illegally restraineddenied his liberty interests, and that relator seeks immediate release or reduction of his term of imprisonment?