Whether it was error to give preclusive effect to an earlier in rem orphans' court Estate matter with 'special limited jurisdiction' that could not bring subsequent post-commencement claims for civil rights violations

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Petition presents three separate but related questions: : : 1. Whether it was error to give preclusive effect to an earlier in rem orphans’ court Estate matter : with “special limited jurisdiction” that included only claim available at time of filing and subsequent post-commencement claims for civil rights violations could not be brought or sought, . in violation of Hailey v. Waller, 363 F.Supp.3d 605 (Md. 2019). 2. Whether it was error to give preclusive effect to ; earlier in rem orphans’ court adjudication of Petitioner’s “lack of standing” when it was not a final adjudication “on the merits” for purposes of res judicata and state court would deny preclusion. 8. Whether it was error to sua sponte resurrect a waived affirmative defense that Respondents had the burden of pleading and proving, where ; USDC had not expended any resources to decide earlier Estate matter, and without providing an opportunity to oppose, in violation of Arizona v. California, 530 US 392 (2000) and Due Process. The Fourth Circuit answered each question in the negative. : “ 1 ii