Whether a litigant in a non-core bankruptcy case loses Seventh Amendment rights to a jury trial by not objecting to a bankruptcy Plan, and whether such court proceedings conflict with Article III constitutional principles

Does a litigant in a non-core bankruptcy case, who does not consent to I. a non-Art-III court trial and who asks, based on his Seventh Amendment rights, to lift the automatic stay and dismiss the case to continue the proceedings in the district court where it was originally filed, and who does not object to the bankruptcy Plan, lose his Seventh Amendment rights to a jury trial for not objecting to the Plan? Based on the hidden assumption that bankruptcy courts can decide II. non-core cases, the DE Bankruptcy Court decided the present case, the DE District Court reviewed the case for "abuse of discretion," and the Panel for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals sanctioned both decisions with its affirmance. Does that ruling conflict with Article III of the Constitution, statute 157(c)(1), and Supreme Court's precedents? Can a court apply wrongly its own precedents, those of its supervising III. courts, including the Supreme Court, by depriving a litigant of his property, his right to a jury trial, and enforce the law unequally against him without violating the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments? Respondents claimed that they sold "substantially all their assets" and IV. implied that they discharged their debts with this litigant. By statute Respondents had to do both things in the context of an "adversary proceeding." Can Respondents sell "substantially all their assets," without asking by motion for an "adversary proceeding"?