I. WHETHER THE STATE DISTRICT-COURT JUDGE VIOLATED
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 'S PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES CLAUSE AS WELL AS THE FIFTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS ' DUE PROCESS GUARANTEE
THAT A CAUSE SHALL BE HEARD BY A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL
TRIBUNAL VIA THE JUDGE ACTING IN A MANNER
TANTAMOUNT TO PARTISAN ADVOCACY?

II. WHETHER THE STATE OF IOWA VIOLATED THE UNITED
STATES FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHEN THE IOWA
COURT OF APPEALS REFUSED TO APPLY CLEARLY
ESTABLISHED AND WELL-SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF
STATE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT MATTER IN
ORDER TO CONVERT A NONJURISDICTIONAL CLAIM
PROCESSING RULE INTO A RULE WITH JURISDICTIONAL
CONSEQUENCES?

III. WHETHER THIS COURT 'S DECISIONS DEFINING THE LEGAL
AND THE TERM "SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION "
CORRESPONDING AUBURN BRIGHT LINE TEST
CONCERNING NONJURISDICTIONAL STATUTORY TIME
LIMITS AND CLAIMS PROCESSING RULES
ENFORCEABLE UPON THE STATES VIA THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION 'S SUPREMACY CLAUSE, FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE,
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, AND THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT 'S PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES, EQUAL
PROTECTION, AND DUE PROCESS PROVISIONS?ARE

Whether the state district-court judge violated the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges and immunities clause as well as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' due process guarantee