Whether the Iowa District Court had proper subject matter jurisdiction and authority to preside over a case involving alleged constitutional rights violations and potential judicial misconduct

No question identified. : . ~ . ao. tat FEDERAL QUESTIONS (Rule 14{1 }(a)) 1. As anatural-living woman, personal jurisdiction falls under Natural Rights orfederal common law, which is within the purview of federal law under the US Supreme Court, and regarding subject matter jurisdiction, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution declares: "In all cases involving Ambassadors, other public Ministars and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shail have original Jurisdiction." Additionally. the issue of lack of subject malter jurisdiction can be raised at any stage and in any foam during the proceedings, as affiumed in Lloyd v. State. 251 N.W.2d 55} (owa 1977), which challenged the lowa district court's jurisdiction over the case. lowa Rule 1.281 app lies to expedited civil actions when the total damages claimed arc $75,000 or less, cnsuring jurisdiction remains in the district court. Claims surpassing this amount are typically not subject to this rule. The U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence 201 are applicable. 2. Inaddition to thepattern of events alleged in this case, reports show that there have becn many others with sometimes, similar allegations resulting in scrious injurics. Reports suggest that since 2013, there have been around 119 police-involved deaths in Towa, with 94-95 involving poople of color, the youngest being 1 6 years old; numerous reports allege excessive force, with the youngest case reportedty being a 13-year-old girl mishandled by a male officer; and racial profiting regarding People with brown or darker skin tones, If, as reported, Towa attomey general had not prosecuted any officer in force-related cases since 2004, this raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and a lack of public official diligence in holdingalleged perpetrators accountable, and could be perceived as injustices, as a result, the State and Govemor had been added to the case. 3. Did the lowa District Court have the authority to presided over the case once consent, which is required by 5 U.S.C. 556(6)(7), was revoked by way of requests for Motion to Change Venue/Surisdiction and due to lack of jurisdiction and possible vested interest, allegedly; where original and concurrent jurisdiction is presumed tobe in the Supreme Count (Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2), and identity (Fed Rule 26), Jury Trial (5th, 6th, 7th, and 14th amendments). Injunctive Relief, among others. were allegedly denied when requested by the Plaintiff. Although video footage o f the apparent home invasion and the date/time of the incident were submitted to the Police Deparmmemt/OPS, and forwarded, presunubly, to the egal department; however, the principal defendants remain unidemificd, and the case was prematuicly proved on the 73rd day afer submission to court, although 90 days plus an , extension is allowed according to the plain language of the Iowa Rule 1.302(5), and thare was no catificate of service in accomance with Iowa Court Rule 1.442(7). 4. While both the U.S. Constitution and the Towa State Constitution claim to bethe supreme law of the land, the Supremacy Clause in Article VI seems to give federal law precedence over state law, as seen in United Staes v. Hermis, 79 M.J. 370, This case affirms that the Constitution ensures criminal defendants have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. Moreover, "The right of access is founded on the Due Process Clause and Bilarantees the right to present to a court of law allegations conceming the violation of constitutional rights," as established in Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940 at 947 (1 Oth Cir,1 990). Given that the defendants have constitutional rights and a guaranteed present their allegations, shouldn't the exculpable be afforded the same guarantees when violations are presumed lo have occurred? 5. As il relates Lo the previous question If the Supreme Court has determined certain actions to be criminal and punishable by | aw in previous cases, it c