Did the Iowa District Court have the authority to presided over the case once consent, which is required by 5 U.S.C. 556(6)(7), was revoked by way of requests for Morion to Change Venue/Jurisdiction and due to lack of jurisdiction and possible vested interest, allegedly, where original and concurrent jurisdiction is presumed to be in the Supreme Court (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 whenrequested by the Plaintiff. Although video footage of the apparent home invasion and the dateftime of the incident were submitted to the PoliceDepartment/OPS. and forwarded, presumably, to the legal department; however; the principal defendants remain unidentified, and the case was prematurely proved onthc 73 rd day after submission to court, although 90 days plus an extension is allowed according to the plain language of the Iowa Rule 1.302(5), and there was no certificate of service in accordance with Iowa Court Rule 1.442(7).

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