Does the bankruptcy court have subject matter jurisdiction over the petitioner's Florida counterclaims?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This is the second time the court has seen this case. The issue to be considered is subject matter jurisdiction, and did it ever exist in this long running case, and this singular issue making its way once again before this Court. On September 21, 2016, oral arguments confirmed the lack of jurisdiction by the bankruptcy Court over two law suits filed during the pendency of Bankruptcy. On March 3, 2017, subject matter jurisdiction was raised and challenged by petitioners.! The result of the jurisdictional challenge was a denial of the petitioners’ rights to due process, and protections of those rights. The Bankruptcy Court failed to direct the Bankruptcy Trustee, who asserted jurisdiction in 2013, to prove subject matter jurisdiction after it was challenged. Petitioners’ efforts to invoke Bankruptcy Rule 5011-1, Withdrawal of Reference, seeking a neutral de novo review of subject matter jurisdiction, were blocked by the Bankruptcy Court. Petitioners’ motions seeking a review of jurisdiction were ordered, struck from the record. Petitioners, sought/seek the de novo review of subject matter jurisdiction, regarding two Florida counterclaims, filed during the 180 day pendency of bankruptcy. The counterclaims sought to revoke the latest of two legally valid, original Wills and Trusts, and reinstate a previous Will containing Trust. The Counterclaims were, alleged to be an asset, after the Bankruptcy Trustee on urisdiction can be raised at any time, even at appeal, Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 7 a was contacted by the Respondents in the two counterclaims. The Florida Respondents offered compensation to the Trustee in exchange for a settlement of the Florida counterclaims in their favor, using the Trustee’s position in the Bankruptcy Court. The question of the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction over the Petitioners Florida counterclaims can be established by a reading and de novo review of both original Wills and Trusts of Seale A. Moorer Sr., along with the Petitioner’s two Florida counterclaims. These five (5) documents speak clearly for themselves. Jurisdiction did not exist because the only possible outcome of the Florida cases is a testate outcome, and neither testate outcome of the testate estate of Moorer Sr., could ever under either Will and/or Trust could legally, augment the Petitioners’ | bankruptcy estate. Having been denied the basic right and right to expect the Bankruptcy : court to establish jurisdiction before proceeding further, Petitioners, seeking to find a way to escape control of the Estate of Seale A. Moorer Sr., by the Bankruptcy Court though the issue of lack of jurisdiction, seek and sought a neutral court, to review the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court/Trustee over the Petitioner's Florida counterclaims, Petitioners discovered Bankruptcy Rules 5011-3(a)(b) and 5011-1 which are coupled and set forth the right of any interested party to remove an issue from the bankruptcy court, to the United States District Court for review. The Bankruptcy clerk, under orders of the bankruptcy court, refused first to follow Bankruptcy Rule 5011-3(a)(b), Transfer of Proceeding, and then fourteen (14) days later, the Bankruptcy Court Clerk, under orders of the Bankruptcy Court, refused to follow Bankruptcy Rule 5011-1, Withdrawal of Reference. This Court has ruled that subject matter jurisdiction, once raised cannot be assumed, and must be proven. Further, the court claiming jurisdiction cannot rule on its own jurisdiction. As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872), ‘[wlhere there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.’ In preparation for Court review, Petitioners sought the opinions of multiple experienced counsel to review the two original Wills and Trusts of Seale A. Moorer Sr., to tell them what, if anything petitioner Scott was entitled to