Whether state court jurisdiction halts during the pendency of a federal removal

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Whether state court jurisdiction halts during the pendency of a federal removal. 2) Whether any state court proceedings conducted during the pendency of a federal removal are void. 3) Whether Andrea Plumlee acted without jurisdiction and thus has no judicial immunity from suit and damages. 4) Whether Res Judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply because the issue of jurisdiction regarding Plumlee’s purported “Order” of November 17, 2016 has never been adjudicated in any court. 5) Whether the 330th Family District Court had no “continuing jurisdiction” over Plumlee’s purported “Order” because it was fraudulent and not issued as part of any legitimate court case. 6) Whether Petitioner had standing to bring suit in the trial court. 7) Whether the trial court tortious acts fall within the statute of limitations. 8) Whether Miller was suing under a criminal statute. (He was not). 9) Whether constitutional claims are valid. 10) Whether Plumlee’s arguments regarding jurisdiction are intentionally misleading and therefore represent a fraud upon the court and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of Due Process. 11) Whether judges lack immunity from suit for declaratory and injunctive relief. 12) Whether the trial court erred in its ruling granting Plaintiff’s/ Petitioner's plea to the jurisdiction. i (Issues 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, & 12 are briefed herein. The remaining issues are unbriefed.)