I. Should a case removed to bankruptcy court proceed through three levels of federal court without proof of subject matter jurisdiction? The bankruptcy court so far departed from the usual course of judicial proceedings, and the appellate courts sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power.

II. Should the outcome of a creditor's state law claim against a guarantor be within a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction as a matter of law in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case? Because of 11 U.S.C. §509, the general rule should be just the opposite.

III. Were the courts below free to ignore the blatant bad faith filing of bankruptcy, which was nothing other than a device to create federal jurisdiction?

IV. Did parties to a case removed to bankruptcy court who objected to subject matter jurisdiction, moved for remand, abstention, and the withdrawal of reference of the case to bankruptcy court voluntarily appear to try the case before a non-Article III adjudicator, and if not, did the bankruptcy judge exceed his constitutional authority when he entered final judgment on a state law claim against a party not in bankruptcy?

Should a case removed to bankruptcy court proceed through three levels of federal court without proof of subject matter jurisdiction?