Whether respondents' appearance in Missouri state court while the bankruptcy case was still open constituted presence in Missouri for purposes of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; Under bankruptcy law, in personam jurisdiction is national. -In re Federal Fountain, 165 F.3d 600, 601, (8 Cir. 1999)(en banc)). “. . . physical presence alone constitutes due process. . .”. Id., citing Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal. 495 U.S. 604, 110 S. Ct. 2105, 109 L. Ed. 2d 631, (1990). (Emphasis added). (Alternatively, “national jurisdiction” or “National Forum”). Arkansas and Missouri, are part of United States territory, are separate venues within the ; , National Forum, and separate sovereign territories for purposes of diversity law. Under national jurisdiction, Arkansas Respondents filed a fraudulent Chapter 13 bankruptcy in Arkansas injuring Petitioner in Missouri. Petitioner sued , Respondents in Missouri state court alleging Missouri : common-law torts. While the bankruptcy case was still . open, Respondents appeared in the Missouri court, took affirmative actions, ultimately moved for dismissal:on diversity grounds which was granted, . was affirmed on appeal, and Petitioner’s application to transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court was denied. : 1. Did Respondents’ appearance in Missouri, while the bankruptcy case was still open and they were still under national jurisdiction, constitute presence in Missouri (Burnham), for purposes of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants because , Missouri is essentially just another venue in the ; National Forum? ; ( 2. Did Respondents’ physical presence in United 1 : i States territory while prosecuting the bankruptcy case in Arkansas, constitute physical presence in Missouri (also in United States territory), for purposes of due process in the state lawsuit, thus empowering the Missouri state court to adjudicate the common-law tort claims? Particularly, given that bankruptcy law does not provide for litigating common-law torts? Jnfra. 3. Does the Fourteenth Amendment — and . bankruptcy law -— contemplate that Arkansas Respondents could invoke national jurisdiction to tortiously injure Petitioner in Missouri, and then invoke diversity jurisdiction to avoid answering for . ; their tortious conduct in creditor’s home state? . Particularly, since bankruptcy law has no provision for ; adjudicating common-law torts? Infra. ( Said Differently Does the Fourteenth Amendment and bankruptcy law contemplate that after Arkansas Respondents invoked national jurisdiction to tortiously drag Missouri Petitioner into Arkansas Federal Venue to defend against the fraudulent bankruptcy claim, must : injured Missouri Petitioner now have to drag himself back to Arkansas to obtain relief under Arkansas common law which may differ from Missouri common law? : PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS The Petitioner is a retired military veteran, an octogenarian, is domiciled in Missouri, and is acting on his own behalf. . 2 Respondents are Cyril Gray the debtor below. Mare Honey, Wm. Marshall Hubbard, and Honey law firm P.A. were Mr. Gray’s bankruptcy attorneys who are all : domiciled in Arkansas.