Victor P. Kearney v. Unsecured Creditors Committee, et al.

I. When does a lower district court have the sole dis­ cretion to influence, lead, dictate, supersede, deny, or nullify the jurisdiction of the higher federal bank­ ruptcy court’s actions or decision(s) by circumventing the appointment of an independent and impartial bankruptcy trustee, that is a requirement of trust law, in a liquidation of an estate trust’s assets; thus, disal­ lowing an appellants 14th amendment rights to fair and impartial due process? II. If a district or federal court judge and/or co-trustees in their capacity make a determination that a spendthrift trust beneficiary is incapable of managing his or her finances as a result of a behavioral pattern, then isn’t it incumbent upon the judicial system to re­ quire, mandate, or obligate the district or federal court judge(s) or co-trustees to seek and obtain independent outside opinion(s) from financial and mental health ex­ perts prior to administering a final decision? Are the courts considered omniscient in the absence of outside experts? A court cannot commit a person to an institu­ tion unless a psychiatrist determines that person is harmful to themselves or society. III. When a district court has already admitted that the design of a trust has inherent language leading to conflict, how can the court claim the settlers couldn’t have anticipated the acrimony, vitriol, and legal bat­ tles? Current trust law acknowledges that remain­ derman should not and cannot be allowed to act as