Whether the lower courts erred in disregarding the mandatory requirements of 28 USC § 157(c) and in exhibiting irrational bias against the pro se petitioner

Questions Presented 9 10 Petitioner presents his contentions relating to the trial court, the District 11 || Court and the Court of Appeals’ failures properly to apply 28 USC § 157(¢) to 12 || Petitioner’s claims. Thereby Petitioner was harmed, because his claims in the 13 ||}amount of $260,000 against Appellee were dismissed and deprived a trial. 14 i The events are these: Petitioner was awarded $12,000 of sanctions. The Bankruptcy judge who made that award then retired. The successor, second judge, m immediately made procedural decisions which were intensely adverse and hostile v to pro se Petitioner (who also contends those procedural decisions were irrational). 18 19 Then, the remaining substantive portion of the case was dismissed based 20 || on the theory that the sanctions award was res judicata to all of Petitioner’s claims. 21 These are the harmful error events presented now. 23 Petitioner is elderly and terminally ill. Petitioner’s time and ability to 24 || prepare this brief were constrained by 4 weeks hospitalization with the Covid 25 || virus. Other health issues have also made preparation herein difficult. Petitioner 26 || would pray additional time further to develop and refine this certiorari petition. a7 Petition for Certiorari 6-5-2020 — pg. 2 28 1 ; a. Disregard of Mandatory Rule 28 USC § 157(c) 3 4 The first question for review is that contrary to 28 USC § 157(c) there was 5 |Ino final judgment entered by the District Court to cause any res judicata finality 6 regarding the substance and merits of Petitioner’s claims. Thus, the decisions by 7 ||the Bankruptcy Court, the reviewing District Court and the Court of Appeals all ‘ , {| disregarded the fact that Petitioner’s $12,000 sanctions award could not have been! 9 || any final judgment on the merits, because the mandatory provision that “any fina 19 || oder or judgment Shall be entered by the district judge” was not complied with a (28 USC § 157(c)): lack of District court judgment means a lack of finality. 12 13 14 b. Irrational Bias Towards Pro Se Petitioner 15 16 There were two trial judges. During the first three years of Appellee’s 17 || Bankruptcy, Petitioner and the first trial judge dealt with each other professionally. ig || Matters in the first judge’s Bankruptcy Court proceeded in conformance with law, 19 || without any pro se litigant bias. Petitioner was given the dignity, decorum and 29 || tespect afforded litigants in most courts in the United States of America. * The second trial judge immediately demonstrated immense and palpable *° bias towards pro se Petitioner. That bias took the form of denial of equal protection 28 of the laws as to important and significant procedural aspects of the adversarial *4 || case. Petitioner contends the second trial judge’s depravations inflicted upon him 25 |i were blatantly improper and obviously irrational to any unbiased observer. 26 27 Petition for Certiorari 6-5-2020 —pg. 3 28 1 2 Petitioner contends that the second trial judge’s clear denial of access to 3 |) due process of law as to procedural matters regarding Petitioner provides obvious 4 || and direct evidence the second trial judge had the requisite malicious intent of 5 || mind purposefully to disregard the 28 USC § 157(c) law to Petitioner’s detriment. 6 7 As such Petitioner contends that the actual disregard of 28 USC § 157(c) " g || can be easily understood as further intentional depravation of equal protection 9 || So that the second trial judge could purposefully inflict even further and more 19 || focused intentional malicious harm upon Petitioner. 41 12 c. Summary 13 14 Thereupon, Petitioner seeks reversal of the various lower court decisions 15 || which were based on denial of due process of law influenced by the improper and 1¢ || €froneous intent to inflict disparity of treatment upon pro se Petitioner. 17 18 19 2, MEMORANDUM 20 21 ‘ 22 a. Two Substantial and Significant Depravations of Law 23 24 The disregarded law which has created