Whether a federal court of appeals violates Due Process and exceeds its jurisdiction under Article III by denying an emergency stay request without acknowledging that execution was carried out while the appeal was pending and while a Rule 41(d) motion to stay the mandate remained untransmitted by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

1. Whether a federal court of appeals violates Due Process and exceeds its jurisdiction under Article III by denying an emergency stay request without acknowledging that execution was carried out while the appeal was pending and while a Rule 41(d) motion to stay the mandate remained untransmitted by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. 2. Whether a Bankruptcy Court violates the Due Process Clause by failing to provide effective notice of critical proceedings via the Debtor Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing (DeBN) system, thereby enabling foreclosure and eviction without the debtor ’s actual knowledge or opportunity to be heard. 3. Whether, under Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982), a lower court loses jurisdiction to execute a writ of possession when an 1 ii appeal and motion to stay the mandate under FRAP 41(d) are pending and unresolved.