under section 153. To hold otherwise would allow trustees, custodians, and others charged with assets of an estate to act with apparent impunity after confirmation of a plan, subject only to the restraints of moral and state law. Because Congress has given the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction in bankruptcy, we cannot support the thesis that we must rely on state law or the vicissitudes of conscience to further the policies of a confirmed plan. Given the circumstances of this case, the federal court properly exercised jurisdiction under section 153. Notwithstanding the analysis above, a defendant may not allege the absence of an element of the crime to question the jurisdiction of the court once he pleads guilty. See Bartholomew v. United States, 286 F.2d 779, 781 (8th Cir.1961) (<HOLDING>). Property of the estate under section 153 is
holding that when defendants plead not guilty the government is required to prove all elements of charged offenses including intent holding that guilty plea admits all elements of offense holding that by pleading guiltya defendant is deemed to have admitted the essential elements of the crime charged and thereby waives all nonjurisdictional defects including alleged preplea constitutional violations holding that plea of guilty admits all facts well pleaded and sentence imposed and is not subject to collateral attack on ground that as factual matter accused was not guilty of the offense charged holding defendant by pleading guilty admits all essential elements of offense charged