Does a violation of choice-of-law create a quasi-in-rem-action that reverses itself to preclude any relief as to title or equity despite mutual and explicit comity in any forum due to federal contracts on the subject property?

QUESTION PRESENTED Does a violation of “choice of law” [retrocession, in 2013] create a quasi in rem action: which ultimately reverses itself {retrocession, in 2019] to preclude any relief as to title or equity — despite mutual and explicit comity [cession, since 2013] — in any forum whatsoever, due to the last of two federal contracts on the subject property [first since 2007, last in 2019]? ; This is in stark contrast to the relief available to some citizens, pursuant to Rafaeli, LLC, decided on July 17, 2020, Michigan Supreme Court, to those similarly situated in tax foreclosure, whom — irrespective of bankruptcy (11 U.S.C.) and despite non-bankruptcy exemptions, granted by the State and/or 11 U.S.C. alike — had their tax foreclosed properties auctioned publicly, to provide relief, not available to Petitioner nor properties not auctioned. Note: There is an international comity case scheduled to be argued on December 7, 2020. This Petition might be suited to it, as the domestic version of comity. See Federal Republic of Germany v. Alan Phillips et al , Case No. 19-351, on this Court’s website. ea “at