Whether Rooker-Feldman bars a collateral attack on a void ab initio state court judgment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Rooker-~Feldman (1) Before applying Rooker~Feldman, whether a federal court must first determine whether the state court had jurisdiction to render its judgment? (2) Whether Rooker-Feldman barres a collateral attack on a void ab initio state court judgment? Specifically, can a federal court review a state court record to determine whether the state court had jurisdiction to render its judgment? (3) After determining that the state court judgment is void under the law of the rendering state, whether a federal court can declare the state court judgment void ab initio and refuse to give it credit and validity? (4) Whether Rooker-Feldman barres a collateral attack on a void ab initio state court judgment that was rendered before the commencement of the federal action? Specifically, can a "state court loser" bring a collateral attack on a void ab initio state court judgment in the federal court? (5) Whether Rooker-Feldman is a Supreme Court created doctrine that prohibits the lower courts from "carving out" exceptions? (6) Whether there are "exceptions" to Rooker-Feldman? And, if so, whether there is an "exception" when the state court judgment was rendered without subject matter jurisdiction? (7) Whether there is a difference between an "Appellate Review" and a "Collateral Attack Review"? Specifically, whether 28 USC 1257 barres a federal court from inquiring whether a state court had jurisdiction to render its judgment? (8) When a federal court dismisses a collateral attack on a state court judgment under Rooker-Feldman, without any determination on whether the state court had jurisdiction to render its judgment; Does Rooker-Feldman effectually give the state court judgment more effect than state law allows? Preisner (9) When a state inmate brings a section 1983 action, outside of the core of habeas corpus, whether the state inmate can challenge the constitutionality of a state criminal statute when a favorable ruling would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and such declaration is critical for determining whether the state court civil judgment against him is void ab initio. . Heck (10) When a section 1983 plaintiff does not seek "injuries" from his conviction or confinement, whether Heck barres his challenge to the instigation of a criminal action. Res Judicata & Rooker-Feldman (11) After determining .that Rooker-Feldman barres an action, whether the federal court retains jurisdiction to determine further issues, such as, whether res judicata is applicable? Standing (12) Whether a plaintiff has standing to litigate whether a state court judgment against another party is void ab initio, when such finding directly effects the validity of the state court judgment rendered against him. Ashcroft . (13) Whether a complaint is "too conclusory" when it contains sufficient factual matter that is consistent with a defendant's liability, even thoug the complaint also contains the elements. RELATED CASES Kerr v Lenz, et al., No 3:22-CV-01054, US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Judgment entered March 21, 2023. Rule 59(e) motion denied May 3, 2023. Kerr v Lenz, et al., No 2023-3479, US Court of Appeals for ; the Sixth Circuit. Judgment entered September 19, 2023. Petition for Rehearing en banc denied on December 12, 2023,