1. Two Questions Presented

a. Disregard of Mandatory Rule 28 USC § 157(c)

The first question for review is that contrary to 28 USC § 157(c) there was no final judgment entered by the District Court to cause any res judicata finality regarding the substance and merits of Petitioner's claims. Thus, the decisions by the Bankruptcy Court, the reviewing District Court and the Court of Appeals all disregarded the fact that Petitioner's $12,000 sanctions award could not have been any final judgment on the merits, because the mandatory provision that "any final order or judgment shall be entered by the district judge" was not complied with (28 USC § 157(c)): lack of District court judgment means a lack of finality.

b. Irrational Bias Towards Pro Se Petitioner

There were two trial judges. During the first three years of Appellee's Bankruptcy, Petitioner and the first trial judge dealt with each other professionally. Matters in the first judge's Bankruptcy Court proceeded in conformance with law, without any pro se litigant bias. Petitioner was given the dignity, decorum and respect afforded litigants in most courts in the United States of America.

The second trial judge immediately demonstrated immense and palpable bias towards pro se Petitioner. That bias took the form of denial of equal protection of the laws as to important and significant procedural aspects of the adversarial case. Petitioner contends the second trial judge's depravations inflicted upon him were blatantly improper and obviously irrational to any unbiased observer.

Whether the lower courts erred in disregarding the mandatory requirements of 28 USC § 157(c) and in exhibiting irrational bias against the pro se petitioner