court would be required to correct its own mistake through the use of its equitable powers granted by 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). See id. at 632-33. Isaaeman has been read narrowly by the courts of this circuit which, like the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Ohio, have concluded that Isaaeman carved out one minor exception to the widely-accepted rule that Rule 4007(c)’s Bar Date can be enlarged only pursuant to a motion filed by a party in interest prior to its expiration. This exception has been very narrowly applied, and only in situations where the court itself made an error that resulted in the untimely action of a creditor. In re Gorrell, 260 B.R. 848, 851 (Bankr. S.D.Ohio 2001); accord Peerless Ins. Co. v. Miller (In re Miller), 228 B.R. 399, 402 (6th Cir. BAP 1999) (<HOLDING>); In re Lufkin, 256 B.R. 876, 880 (Bankr.
holding that the sixth circuit erred by following its own precedent rather than that of the supreme court in determining what is clearly established federal law recognizing that the sixth amendment is not violated every time the public is excluded from a courtroom an unjustified closure may on its facts be so trivial as not to violate the sixth amendment guarantee holding that the sixth circuit erred in finding that the state courts jury instructions were contrary to clearly established federal law holding that the sixth circuit restricted isaaeman to its facts holding that the court lacks jurisdiction over sixth amendment claims because the sixth amendment is not moneymandating