Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in issuing orders that conflict with the Constitution, Bankruptcy Code, Supreme Court precedent, and other federal circuits

QUESTION PRESENTED In denying Petitioner’s claims, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has divorced itself, jurisprudentially speaking, from the American court system by issuing orders which are in direct conflict with the Constitution, the Bankruptcy Code, the U.S. Supreme Court and the other federal Circuits. The most conflicted decision is manifested by the Court’s failure to recognize that a judgment must be noticed to all parties, under the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such failure voids the decision a6 initio. Avoid order may be vacated at any time. While the Imputation Rule excuses failure to notice all interested parties, it does not apply if the interests of the partner with knowledge are adverse to the partnership’s interests. The Ninth Circuit also ignored Respondents’ violation of 11 U.S.C. § 521(a), which requires debtors to schedule all their assets in their bankruptcy Petition. Such unscheduled assets remain property of the estate forever, until they are administered by the Bankruptcy Court. 11 U.S.C. § 554(d). The Ninth Circuit has so far departed from accepted judicial proceedings and is in such conflict with precedent that its rulings trigger the Supreme Court Rule 10(a), which provides that a petition for writ of certiorari will be granted when a U.S. court of appeals enters a decision in conflict with the Supreme Court or courts of appeals on the same important matter. Shouldn’t such deviation from accepted judicial ii QUESTION PRESENTED Continued proceedings require the Supreme Court to exercise its supervisory power? Hence, this Petition for Writ of Certiorari. iii PARTIES AND RELATED CASES Appeal from Ninth Circuit COA Case No. 21-60056, Erde v. Irsfeld 1. Petitioner: Shmuel Erde 269 S. Beverly Drive, # 674 Beverly Hills, CA 902121 Email: 2. Respondents: Theodor Bodnar, Mary Louisa Bodnar, Bodnar Family Trust C/O Suzanne Papaian, owner Jeff Harris, CEO The Commerce Club, Inc. 6131 Telegraph Road Commerce, California 90040-2501 [Best last known address] 8. Also represented by: Richard Leonard, Esq. LEONARD, DICKER & SCHREIBER LLP 9430 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Email: rleonard@ldslaw.com 4. Respondents: James Waldorf, Esq., John Brink, Esq., Irsfeld, Irsfeld & Younger Represented By: Barry Brodsky, Esq. and Jodi Girten, Esq. Kaufman Dolowich Voluck LLP 1 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 850 Los Angeles, California 90025 bbrodsky@kdvlaw.com jgirten@kdvlaw.com iv PARTIES AND RELATED CASES -— Continued 5. Also represented by: Christopher Wong, Esq. 28620 Mount Palomar Place Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-1826 Cwong@skt.law 6. Respondents: Terrence Whelan Cooney, Esq. Cooney & Cooney 11965 Sunshine Terrace Studio City, CA 91604-3708 (In Pro Se) 7. Non-Party: The Commerce Club, Inc. Represented by: Nedy Amistoso Warren, Esq. The Commerce Club, Inc. 6131 Telegraph Road Commerce, California 90040-2501 8. Ninth Circuit COA Case No. 21-60056, Erde v. Irsfeld, judgment entered on March 17, 2023, App. 33-34, affirming App. 1-2. 8. Ninth Circuit BAP Case No. 21-1046, In re Westwood Plaza North, a California General Partnership, judgment entered Oct. 22, 2021, App. 3-12. 10. Los Angeles Bankruptcy Court Case No. 2:84-bk10894-BR, In re Westwood Plaza North, a California General Partnership, judgment entered on October 2, 1984, App. 29-32, dismiss the Partnership Bankruptcy Petition, filed May 24, 1984, App. 35-43.