No. 21-1582

In Re Jack R. Finnegan

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2022-06-23
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: 28-usc-455 bankruptcy-procedure bias-and-prejudice constitution-questions-and-federal-laws constitutional-taking due-process federal-jurisdiction inferior-officer judicial-bias liteky-v-united-states rule-22(a)
Key Terms:
DueProcess FourthAmendment Takings FirstAmendment Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-09-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Why is the Inferior Officer who was disqualified in June, 2018, for Bias and Prejudice, allowed to be in defiance to the order of the United States Supreme Court, in, Liteky v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994), defiance to 28 USC 8455, and defiance to the Ninth Circuit General Order #224(4), Bankruptcy Rule 5004(a), governed by 28 USC 8455, and pursuant, to 11 USC 8102(1)(A), when Legislative Statements of 8102, states, shall not be permitted to act on his own or to continue his Bias and Prejudice and non-judicial behavior?

Question Presented (from Petition)

No question identified. : ; CONSTITUTION QUESTIONS AND FEDERAL LAWS, RULE 22(a) : Why is the Inferior Officer who was disqualified in June, 2018, for Bias and Prejudice, allowed to be in defiance to the order of the United States Supreme Court, in, Liteky v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994), defiance to 28 USC 8455, and defiance to the Ninth Circuit General Order #224(4), Bankruptcy Rule 5004(a), governed by 28 USC 8455, and pursuant. , to 11 USC 8102(1)(A), when Legislative Statements of 8102, states, shall not be permitted to act on his own or to continue his Bias and Prejudice and non-judicial behavior? If all orders by a disqualified (Inferior Officer) . are void, then the order for appointment of a trustee in Chapter 11, was not only an act of Bias and Prejudice, it was also insubordinate to the Federal Bankruptcy Code, of the above quoted sections and in particular 11 USC 8348(e) how is it possible for Marshack to claim that he was legally appointed without committing perjury and fraud? If Bankruptcy Judges are Inferior Officers pursuant to 28 USC 8157(b)(1), and can only hear and determine issues of core proceedings under Title 11 USC, how is it possible for an Inferior Officer to order an illegal Constitutional Taking of a property valued over $7 million, in violation of the 5 and 14th ; Amendments? Does filing for Individual Reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 Reorganization, under the 7 Bankruptcy Code, paying the Clerk of the Bankruptcy ~ Court a fee of $1,717.00, in Leu of $335.00 for Chapter 3 7, complying with 11 USC §102(1)(A), Legislative +: Statements of 1978, and 88102, 103(g), 1978 Acts 88103, 301(a)(b), 1978 Acts of 86301, 303(f), 348(e), 1107(a), 1978 Acts 881107, 1112(a)(b)(1) 1112(b)(2), 1978 Acts §81112, 1112(f), 1978 Acts, and Legislative Statements of 881112, 1115(b), and Local Rules 1017-1(a)(3), 9013-1, 9014-1, 9029-1, constitute a valid Petition for Chapter 11? If 11 USC 8105(a), requires the court to obey all of 11 USC Bankruptcy Code, “The court may issue any . order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title” why was the Inferior Officer allowed to disobey with obvious bias and Prejudice so many sections of the Code? . Why if 28 USC 8157(b)(1), does not allow the Inferior Officer to make determinations on non-core or non-existing sections, when there existed no authority in 11 USC was a grant for a State court case of Conservatorship? Where pursuant to Title 11 USC §1112(a) and local rule LBR 1017-1(a)(8) which states, “Conversion from chapter 11 to another Chapter. A debtor must request conversion under 11 USC §1112(a) by a motion tiled and served as required by FRBP 90138,” §1112(b)(3) clearly states that, “there must be a motion filed by a party in interest before the court can take any action regarding converting a case or dismissing a case under this section of the code,” 81112(©) states, “The court may not convert... (d)... (e) reinforces section $109 by prohibiting conversion of a chapter 11 case to a case under another chapter proceeding under which the debtor is not permitted to ; proceed. Senate Report No. 95-989,” §1112( states, “Notwithstanding, any other provision of this section, si : a case may not be converted to a case under another chapter of this title unless the debtor may be a debtor : under such chapter? Does Title 11 USC 8558, Defenses of the Estate states, “The estate shall have the benefit of any defense available to the debtor as against any entity other than the estate, including statutes of limitation, ‘ statutes of frauds, usury, and other defenses”? , Does Title 11 USC 81107, Gives the Debtor in possession all rights and becomes the representative of the estate and may sue or be sued? Does Bankruptcy Rule 6009 of Title 11 USC, Prosecution and Defense... state, “With or without court approval, the trustee or debtor in possession . may prosecute or may enter an appearance and defend any pending acti

Docket Entries

2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-08-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-08-03
Brief of respondent Richard A. Marshack, Chapter 7 Trustee in opposition filed. (Aug. 17, 2022)
2022-08-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including August 5, 2022.
2022-08-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 1, 2022 to August 5, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-07-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 1, 2022.
2022-07-25
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 25, 2022 to August 1, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-06-21
Petition for a writ of mandamus filed. (Response due July 25, 2022)

Attorneys

In Re Jack R. Finnegan
Jack R. Finnegan — Petitioner
Jack R. Finnegan — Petitioner
Richard A. Marshack, Chapter 7 Trustee
David Edward HaysMarshack Hays LLP, Respondent
David Edward HaysMarshack Hays LLP, Respondent