To deny a plaintiff's constitutional right to due process and prohibit suit against a particular set of defendants who it wishes to shield from liability, may the lower court: a) confer Art. III powers of United States courts on an Art. I court of limited jurisdiction; b) sanction 'Barton injunctions' that prohibit plaintiffs from bringing 'non-core' claims (including pendant state claims) in courts of competent jurisdiction and prohibit state courts from reviewing their own state-court interlocutory orders or , entering any judgments related to those orders; c) refuse to proceed on the assumption that factual allegations in a complaint are true; d) extend quasi-judicial immunity to defendants who are not 'government officials' nor agents of 'government officials' entitled to 'derivative' immunity; e) extend 'retroactive' 'derivative' quasi-judicial immunity to defendants who, after engaging in a pattern of tortious and criminal misconduct for 3 years, were . subsequently employed by their Co-Defendant/U.S. trustee so that, as 'courtappointed' officers, they could assert his affirmative defense of qualified immunity; f) hold that qualified immunity shields defendants from liability for blatant violations of clearly established law; and g) refuse plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaints before subjecting them to prejudicial (and sua sponte) dismissal?

QUESTION PRESENTED ~ Petitioner filed two suits against “well-connected” Defendants who the bankruptcy court wished to “protect.” The first was a “non-core” action for damages caused by Defendants’ constitutional violations, torts, and crimes (including pendant state claims). The second was a “core-proceeding” seeking damages under 11 U.S.C. §362(k) for Defendants’ willful violations of the automatic bankruptcy stay. The bankruptcy court dismissed both suits with prejudice (the “core-proceeding” was dismissed sua sponte) and enjoined Petitioner from raising his claims in a court of competent jurisdiction. On appeal, the suits were consolidated. Upholding dismissal, the 5th Circuit crafted an opinion that appears to conform to established law and legal precedent. However, if one scratches the surface, the ruling evidences just how far federal courts willdepart ° from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanction such departures, to shield a particular set of (preferred) defendants from liability. The question presented is: To deny a plaintiff's constitutional right to due process and prohibit suit against a particular set of defendants who it wishes to shield from liability, may the lower court: a) confer Art. III powers of United States courts on an Art. I court of limited jurisdiction; b) sanction “Barton injunctions” that prohibit plaintiffs from bringing “non-core” claims (including pendant state claims) in courts of competent jurisdiction and prohibit state courts from reviewing their own state-court interlocutory orders or , entering any judgments related to those orders; c) refuse to proceed on the assumption that factual allegations in a complaint are true; d) extend quasi-judicial immunity to defendants who are not “government officials” nor agents of “government officials” entitled to “derivative” immunity; e) extend “retroactive” “derivative” quasi-judicial immunity to defendants who, after engaging in a pattern of tortious and criminal misconduct for 3 years, were . subsequently employed by their Co-Defendant/U.S. trustee so that, as “courtappointed” officers, they could assert his affirmative defense of qualified immunity; f) hold that qualified immunity shields defendants from liability for blatant violations of clearly established law; and g) refuse plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaints before subjecting them to prejudicial (and sua sponte) dismissal? ii PARTIES TO THIS PROCEEDING John L. Howell, pro se Elise LaMartina, pro se David V. Adler, U.S. Trustee Adler ’s David J. Messina, Fernand L. Laudumiey IV Chaffe McCall, L.L.P. Gordon, Arata, Montgomery, Barnett, McCollam, Duplantis, & Eagan, LLC, Leslie S. Bolner, Glen R. Galbraith, Seale & Ross, PLC. David J. Messina, pro se Fernand L. Laudumiey IV, pro se Glen R. Galbraith, pro se Leslie S. Bolner, pro se Gordon, Arata, Montgomery, Barnett, McCollam, Duplantis, & Eagan, LLC Its Counsel: C. Peck Hayne Jr. Chaffe McCall, L.L.P. Its Counsel: David J. Messina, Fernand L. Laudumiey IV Seale & Ross, PLC Its Counsel: Glen R. Galbraith, Leslie S. Bolner ; Lake Villas Number 2 Homeowners Association, Inc. Its Counsel: Glen R. Galbraith, Lesli S. Bolner, Seal & Ross, PLC Donald H. Grodsky, pro se Office of United States Trustee Its Counsel: US. Attorney, Peter G. Strasser Assistant U.S. Attorney, Glenn K. Schreiber