1. Whether the intent of Congress in enacting 11 U.S.C. §522(1)
and Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4003(b) as interpreted by this Court 's
precedential and controlling decision in Taylor v. Freeland &
Kronz , 503 U.S. 638 (1992) (Thomas, J.) applies to all "secured "
and unsecured creditors and parties-in-interest. who "forfeit "
their purported assets and interests, for failing to protect
them by "fatally " failing to timely file an objection ?
"We reject Taylor 's argument. Davis claimed the lawsuit
proceeds as exempt on a list filed with the Bankruptcy
Court. Section 522(1), to repeat, says that [ujnless a party
in interest objects, the property claimed as exempt on such
list is exempt. Rule 4003(b) gives the trustee and creditors
30 days from the initial creditors ' meeting to object. By
negative implication,_the rule indicates that creditors may
not object after 30 days, "unless, within such period, further
time is granted by the court. " The Bankruptcy Court did not
extend the 30-day period. Section 522(11 therefore has made
the property exempt . Taylor cannot contest the exemption
at this time whether or not Davis had a colorable statutory
basis for claiming it." (emphasis and underscoring added)
"DEADLINES may lead to unwelcome results, but they
prompt the parties to act and they produce FINALITY. "

2. Whether Respondents, an Article I Bankruptcy Judge and
Chapter 13 Trustee, who respectively took "oaths " of office and
swore allegiance to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution
of the United States, the integrity of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
and its process, and to render fair and impartial justice equally
to the rich and poor, can with impunity, contuma ciouslv
disregard their duties of "mandatory obedience " to the "rule of
law " and "stare, decisis " -specifically "thumbing their noses "
at this Court 's precedential and controlling decisions in Taylor
v. Freeland & Kronz , 503 U.S. 638, Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S.415,
and Taggart v. Lorenzen , 587 U.S. _ ; and "deny, deprive and
defraud " Petitioner of the most fundamental "self-executing "
statutory "homestead " exemp tion provisions and protections
embodied within the underlying rehabilitative purposes and
goals of the Bankruptcy Code 's "fresh start " policy : and
unconscionably disregard the protections of the Permanent
Federal Discha rge Injunction pursuant to 11 U.S.C. S 524/a)(2) T
and the principles of "res judicata " and "collateral estoppel; "
and "shred " debtor/Petitioner 's guaranteed and protected
Constitutional rights to procedural and substantive "due
process " and the "equal protection " of the law under the 5th and
14th Amendments ...
. . . and when challenged to account for their respective

Whether the intent of Congress in enacting 11 U.S.C. §522(1) and Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4003(b) as interpreted by this Court's precedential and controlling decision in Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U.S. 638 (1992) (Thomas, J.) applies to all 'secured' and unsecured creditors and who 'forfeit' their purported assets and interests, for failing to protect them by 'fatally' failing to timely file an objection