1) Whether pre-petition probate charges/claims by a governmental unit against a real property of a debtor are treated the same as property tax charges, rendering the post-petition real estate transfer voidable under 11 USC 362?

2) Which is the overriding act or law where there is square and entrenched conflict between the Unified Fraudulent Transfers Act's statute of limitations and the asset recovery provisions of long-term Medicaid recovery by a governmental unit and 11USC Chapter 7?

3) Whether supremacy clause overrides Medicaid recovery in cases of conflict between 11 USC Chapter 7 and Medicaid Asset Recovery of a state governmental unit?

4) Whether the United States Supreme Court in its supervisory capacity is persuaded to hear cases where there is clearly a due process and civil rights violation by a state court of last resort.? (Notably: Respondent and/or Idaho State Court had already changed ownership records in State of Idaho, County of Nez Perce records in the state well before the conclusion of court proceedings, regarding: Set Aside Transfer of Asset Proceedings Hearings in State of Idaho Court (see evidence in appendix A.))

5) Whether a state governmental unit is exempt from filing claims against a probated estate for Medicaid Recovery conducted under applicable non-bankruptcy state law.

6) The False Claims Act establishes two distinct statute-of-limitations periods. Under 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(1), a False Claims Act civil action "may not be brought more than 6 years after the date" of the alleged violation. Under 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2), a False Claims Act civil action "may not be brought more than 3 years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances, but in no event more than 10 years after the date" of the alleged violation. Whether this applies to the Medicaid recovery by a state governmental unit?

7) Whether the state court of last resort in Idaho has clearly decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals.

8) § 523(a)(2)(A) "is broad enough to incorporate a fraudulent conveyance " and does "not require a misrepresentation from a debtor to a creditor." Id. at 5. "In such cases, the fraudulent conduct is not in dishonesty inducing a creditor to extend a debt. It is in the acts of concealment and hindrance. " Id. Question Presented - If the act of application for long term Medicare by the seller of Petitioner 's home could not be possibly known to the petitioner when he bought his home, by paying fair market value to the seller, pre-petition to his Chapter 7 case. Is this considered a "fraudulent transfer " of the discharged asset? And is it still subject to recovery by the Idaho State, Department of Health and Welfare for Medicare as affirmed by the Idaho Supreme Court?

There is a square and entrenched conflict between individual fraudulent transfers between the Idaho Supreme court and the 9th circuit.

9) Taggart v. Lorenzen. the issue was the legal standard for holding a creditor in civil contempt when the creditor violates the bankruptcy discharge order. Question presented - Ids the respondent Liable for acts committed prior to?

Whether pre-petition probate charges/claims by a governmental unit against a real property of a debtor are treated the same as property tax charges, rendering the post-petition real estate transfer voidable under 11 USC 362