Is a per se taking when Rule 9011 and Constitutions were violated, where a paid off home was taken in violation of § 524(a) and O.R.C. § 2329 and Rule 9011?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The questions presented for review are: i) Isn’t a per se taking when Rule 9011 and Constitutions were violated, when an invalid Supplemental Final Judicial Report was left for the U.S. Supreme Court to block it, where a paid off home was per se taken in a violation of § 524(a) and O.R.C. § 2329 and Rule 9011? ii) Isn’t the public great interest in rights to home ownership affected should Courts ignore existing laws to allow a taking of a home and collection of discharged debt using a Supplemental Final Judicial Report in violation of § 524 and Rule 9011? Isn’t a taking? iti) Is U.S. Constitution violated when unsecured creditor gets an in rem right that survives Bankruptcy in violation of state laws & Rule 9011? Based on Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 84 (1991) shortfall, isn’t the public great interest affected should this Court fails establishing under state laws a test for an action in rem, which survives Bankruptcy? iii