court has jurisdiction over four kinds of title 11 matters: (1) cases under title 11; (2) proceedings arising under title 11; (3) proceedings arising in title 11; and (4) proceedings related to title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (1988). Proceedings “arising in” and “arising under” title 11 are core proceedings per 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Torkelsen v. Maggio (In re The Guild and Gallery Plus, Inc.), 72 F.3d 1171, 1178 (3d Cir.), reh’g en banc denied (Feb. 5, 1996). Proceedings which are “related to” title 11 are non-core per 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). Id. The court has previously determined that it may conduct a jury trial in a core proceeding in which the case was filed before the effective date of the 1994 Amendments. See Michaels v. Lomax (In re Skil-Aire Corp.), 142 B.R. 692, 698 (Bankr.D.N.J.1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Dailey v. First Peoples Bank of New
holding that the bankruptcy court has constitutional and implied statutory authority to conduct jury trials in core proceedings holding that stem does not change bankruptcy courts authority to decide fundamental core procedures of bankruptcy court holding that after stem bankruptcy judges have the authority to enter interlocutory orders in noncore proceedings and in core proceedings as to which the bankruptcy court may not enter final orders or judgment consistent with article iii absent consent holding that bankruptcy judges may hear and enter final judgments in core proceedings holding that bankruptcy court may issue proposed findings and conclusions in a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court does not have constitutional authority