Enforcing judgments during bankruptcy

1. Does the Supremacy Clause permit a state court to avoid the self-executing effect of a Federal Bankruptcy Discharge by ruling that federal filings are not "automatically impugned" to state proceedings? (Appendix T-2-B, 165a). 2. Whether a state court violates the Supremacy Clause and the "no fair ground of doubt" standard established in *Taggart v. Lorenzen*, 587 U.S. 554, 561 (2019), by refusing to vacate judgments rendered in undisputed violation of the federal automatic stay, and permitting enforcement of a judgment concealed from the bankruptcy court, based on a determination that federal bankruptcy law is "inapplicable" to state court proceedings. (Appendices C, 14a; T-l-A, 154a). 3. Whether the "objective reasonableness" standard for civil contempt established in *Taggart*, 587 U.S. at 561, is defeated when a party commits fraud on the court by maintaining contradictory evidence across jurisdictions — dismissed by the trial court as merely saying different things in different courts — to enforce a judgment rendered in undisputed violation of the federal automatic stay. (Appendices I, 63a; T-l-D, 157a; T-l-B, 156a; T-3, 170a). 4. Whether a state court violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by summarily rejecting a meritorious defense of judgment voidness and denying a meaningful forum for relief against a debt predicated on a party’s intentional concealment of a bankruptcy filing. (Appendices H, 49a; M, 96a; N, 100a).