Did the Chapter 7 Trustee fail to provide transparency and observe its fiduciary duties to Debtor, all as allowed by the Bankruptcy Court?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This matter concerns the purported settlement of legal causes of action allegedly owned by a debtor as part of a bankruptcy estate. Petitioner asks this Court to review the following questions: (i) Did the Chapter 7 Trustee fail to provide transparency and observe its fiduciary duties to Debtor, all as allowed by the Bankruptcy Court? (ii) Did the Bankruptcy Court further violate Debtor’s due process rights in approving the Settlement? (iii) Was the Settlement ordered outside legitimate bankruptcy purpose under the ; Code and contrary to the law of Stern v. Marshall? (iv) Was the accompanying Bar Order also overbroad and unconstitutional? (v) Did the District Court fail to abide by the mandate of 28 U.S.C. 455(a) and also fail to address Debtor’s appeal? In the Petitioner’s view, the so-called “Wilmington Settlement” was prepared by a Chapter 7 Trustee on a desperate pecuniary quest operating without regard to transparency or its fiduciary duties, and was imposed by a bankruptcy court, which in a fog of bias acted as a shadow prosecutor and violated Petitioner’s fundamental constitutional due process. The Bankruptcy Court approved not only a sham compromise over which it had no final jurisdiction _ under Stern v. Marshall or legitimate bankruptcy interest but which also included an unconstitutional ; overbroad bar order unrelated to bankruptcy purpose. (ii) Along the way in the so-called appellate ; process, a compromised District Court refused to : ; recuse itself under the clear mandate of 28 U.S.C. §455(a) and failed egregiously as well to consider the merits of Debtor’s actual appeal. The importance of the Supreme Court accepting this review is also argued below in Reasons To Grant the Petition. This Petition is the fourth effort for a writ of certiorari by Debtor in his bankruptcy litigation. The first petition was filed September 28, 2020 (No. 201117) seeking a determination that the invocation of equitable mootness was unconstitutional and that the failure to apply equitable jurisprudence to procedural matters determining conversion of the original Chapter 11 reorganization filing to a Chapter 7 liquidation was erroneous. The second petition was filed on February 1, 2021 (No. 20-1096) challenging the application of preliminary jurisdictional principles to prevent an appeal on the merits of disqualifying a Disclosure Plan by the Bankruptcy Court. The third petition was recently filed on February 22, 2022 (No. 21-1177), where Petitioner challenges the failures to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455(a). (iii)