Agreement on August 23, 2004 to include the 03-203A issues for simultaneous trial. However, no mention is ever made of a jury trial right again by the defendants until counsel’s feigned surprise on day one of the five-day trial. Because no jury demand was made in adversary proceeding 04-0386A, the court finds no right to a jury trial in this proceeding. Furthermore, even if a jury demand was somehow properly asserted through the 03-203A Answer, the court finds such demand was waived for all of the reasons stated above. Furthermore, Dr. Robert R. Holcomb, a named defendant, has filed a proof of claim against the debtor thereby submitting himself to the bankruptcy claims process and waiving any jury trial rights. Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42, 44, 111 S.Ct. 330, 112 L.Ed.2d 343 (1990), (<HOLDING>). Thus, the court finds no jury trial right,
holding in regards to an untimely claim that the contracting officer may be deemed to have waived untimeliness by considering the claim on the merits holding that state waived its immunity by filing proofs of claim holding that a party filing a proof of claim is deemed to have waived a jury trial by placing the dispute into the arena of public rights holding that the selection of the jury constitutes part of a public trial holding that party waived arbitration by filing multiple lawsuits