Bankruptcy-jurisdiction-and-procedure

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . , This case presents original and exclusive jurisdic| tional and core proceeding questions for this Court arising under Federal Bankruptcy Codes 28 U.S.C. § 1334, 11 U.S.C. § 362, 11 US.C. § 521, 11 US.C. § 541, 28 U.S.C. § 157, and the United States Constitution: 1. Why is it not mandatory that Kentucky State Courts follow Federal Bankruptcy Laws? | 2. Clearly, under the United States Bankruptcy | Code, the United States Bankruptcy Court held | original and exclusive jurisdiction over Respond| ent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334, Petitioner’s Lien pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(K), and the core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). What jurisdiction did the Kentucky State Court hold? 8. How did the Kentucky State Court, during the time that the Bankruptcy Court held original and exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334, retroactively retain jurisdiction to a time when the Bankruptcy Court held original and exclusive jurisdiction? 4. Is Respondent judicially estopped from her claims against Petitioner since her Bankruptcy Plan was accepted by the United State Bankruptcy Court under 11 U.S.C. § 521? 5. Was the ownership issue of Petitioner’s cattle seized by the Jefferson County District Court, where Petitioner obtained an order for the return of his property, within the jurisdictional purview and venue of the Shelby County Circuit Court to decide (res judicata)? i a ! ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued 6. Were Petitioner’s Constitutional Rights violated when the Shelby County Kentucky State Court deprived him of property via an Ex Parte verbal motion, without a hearing, that was not within the Shelby County State Court’s jurisdictional purview or venue? 7. Does fraud upon the court void all orders and judgments of the Court? 8. Do constitutional due process violations void or| ders and judgments of the Court? | ili ) '