Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals infringed the ex-post-facto-clause, depriving Petitioner's right of remedy sustaining no due-process at all ever existed

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals infringed the ex post facto clause, depriving -Petitioner’s right.of remedy sustaining no. due process at. all ever existed. below and up to above, by applying the amended rule eff. 12/1/2017 retrospectively : to affirm the appeal and not. instead applying the rule that. was under review the pre-amended rule from proceeding in 2016. ; : . Whether the Court .as “original jurisdiction” to review the Courts. of Appeal sO noncompliance with this Court’s directives on the application of amend/new rule to _ the Federal Rules.of Bankruptcy Procedure. ; _ On April 27%, 2017, pursuant to 28 USC 2075, this Court directed all courts below , on the application .of amended Fed. R. Bankr. P. 30020; “shall take effective on. . 12/1/2017 governing bankruptcy cases thereafter and pending if practicable”.. The amended rule. provides: “a proof of claim is. timely filed if it.is filed. not. later than. 70 | days of the order of relief .” The Court. of Appeals. affirmed the appeal concluding “the bankruptcy court. did. not deprived Soler’s of due process by the closing the case when it did because her | proof claim. on. behalf of the creditor’s came. too late was not filed. within 30-days after 70-days from petition filing date” although the rule under review was the pre. amended rule from proceeding in 2016 which was. “within 30-days after 90 days §§ . | ; from first set 341 meeting of creditor date” . Had the Court. of Appeals. applied FRBP 3002© of 2016, the rule that. was. under review-the pre-amended rule, Petitioner's appeal would have been reversed. i PARTIES TO PROCEEDING = The caption hereto correctly identifies all the