Whether the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals exercised its discretion in err

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals exercised its discretion in err by not “safeguarding not only ongoing , proceedings, but potential future proceedings,” Klay, 376 F.3d at 1099, as well as to “protect or effectuate” their prior orders and judgments as to a “Moot” Mandate made in conflict with judicial over reach in abuse and premature when it presided over the Barry S Mittelberg, Barry Steven Mittelberg and BARRY S MITTELBERG P.A., untimely Proof of claims that were forfeited through judicial estoppel “proverbial strangers” when he filed a Bankruptcy petition and did not disclose the Petitioner’s real and personal Property on his asset and schedules and is he entitle to receive “any relief’ without pleading and defending while under the 11th Circuit Court of Appellate Review in conflict with 11 U.S.C. §521 Section 1306, Section 541(a)(7), and Bankruptcy Rule 1007 citing Martineau v. Wier, 934 F.3d 385 (4th Cir. 2019), Coastal Plains, 179 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1999) and US Bankruptcy Court of Florida Southern Division Local Rule 2090-1(D)(E), in err citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), Neidich v. Salas 783 F.3d 1215, 1216 (11th Cir. 2015) and Chanbers v. NASCO, Inc, 501 U.S. 32, 45 (1991),.