in or related to a case under title 11” to the Bankruptcy Court. § 157(a). In A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994 (4th Cir.1986), the Fourth Circuit defined “related to” jurisdiction under § 1334(b): An action is related to bankruptcy if the outcome could alter the debtor’s rights, liabilities, options or freedom of action (either positively or negatively) and which in any way impacts upon the handling and administration of the bankrupt estate. Id. at 1002 n. 11 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3d Cir.1984)). Subsequent decisions have clarified that “related to” jurisdiction is to be broadly interpreted. See, e.g., In re Johnson, 960 F.2d 396, 403 (4th Cir.1992); In re A.H. Robins Co., 182 B.R. 128, 133 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1995) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 86 F.3d 364 (4th Cir.1996). As Judge
holding that pro se pleadings will be liberally construed holding that pleadings under the rico act are to be liberally construed holding that  1334b is to be liberally construed especially where the question at hand involves the interpretation of a plan of reorganization holding that coas should be construed liberally holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed