Did the state court lose subject matter jurisdiction by violating state and federal laws and committing obstruction of justice?

Questions Presented: Statement of each legal argument: A State District Court and State Appellate Courts have decided important questions of federal law in a way that conflicts with important relevant previous decisions of this court — Nobody is above the law. Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10 Cir.). 1. Did the Honorable Joseph R. Klein lose Subject Matter Jurisdiction by violating State and Federal laws; committing obstruction of justice and other frauds upon the court by aiding in sanitizing a crime committed by Respondents? Appellant respectfully requests that this court finds that Subject Matter Jurisdiction was a contributing factor in this case, therefore all orders are void as a matter of law and Fearing is awarded a Summary Judgement on all Respondents. 2. Were Appellant’s right to constitutional due process denied? Appellant respectfully requests that this court finds that based on the evidentiary support, the following violations occurred. Violations of “Rule of Law and U.S. Constitution” — (a) Fourteenth Amendment-Section 1. (b) HIPAA Rules relative to destruction and spoliation of patient medical records. (b)Title 18 U.S.C., Section 241 — Conspiracy Against Rights. (c) Title 18 U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law and (d) Violation of Due Process by denial of a trial by jury which Appellant paid for in advance. 3. Are Minn. Civ. Statutes 5.25 and 4.03 proper Services upon a Minnesota Corporate Medical Facility sufficient to establish a personal judicial jurisdiction? Hennepin County Court Judge, the Honorable Joseph R. Klein says “no” in his order of October 18, 2021.That is contrary to the evidence and the rule of law. All U of M Medical facilities and the Mayo Clinic were properly served on May 3, 2021, (Ct. Ind. # 2, #3) Therefore, Personal jurisdiction was established, MHealth Fairview a/k/a University of Minnesota Medical Clinic a/k/a UMMC defaulted by not answering the Summons and Complaint. University of Minnesota Physicians aka “UMP” aka “UMP Physicians” aka “UMP Corporation” did not respond with an answer and filed a motion to dismiss, based on their own manufactured false facts without any evidentiary support. Appellant respectfully requests that this court finds that based on the evidentiary support Personal Jurisdiction was established on all Defendants. 4, Did Appellant present a Prima Facie Case of Medical Malpractice? Appellant respectfully requests that this court finds that a Prima Facie Case was established and no need for expert based on Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, (assault and battery) speaks for itself and therefore Loquitur causation is self-evident.” And so are expert opinions made by defendant Mayo’s own Physicians who cared for and diagnosed Ms. Fearing’s condition. A Plaintiff in a malpractice action may establish their claim with expert testimony by using findings and diagnoses solely from the defendant’s doctors. (Mayo Clinic See: e.g. Anderson V. Florence, 288 Minn. 351,360-361, 181 N.W. 2d 873, 879 (1970). (App. Brief, Add. #5) Mayo Chronology listed in body of Complaint filed on May 3, 2021, with doctor notes. . l