the Estate.” ECF No. 13, ¶ 34. But simply because a plaintiff demands money from the estate does not mean the proceeding is a core proceeding and is within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. Instead, “[c]ore proceedings are actions by or against the debtor that arise under the Bankruptcy Code in the strong sense, that the Code itself is the souree of the claimant’s right or remedy, rather than just the procedural vehicle for the assertion of a right conferred by some other body of law, normally state law.” Matter of U.S. Brass Corp., 110 F.3d 1261, 1268 (7th Cir.1997); In re Repository Techs., Inc., 601 F.3d 710, 719 (7th Cir. 2010) (“A proceeding ‘arises in’ bankruptcy only if it has ‘no existence outside of the bankruptcy’ ”); Barnett v. Stern, 909 F.2d 973, 981 (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Here, state law, and not the bankruptcy code,
holding that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaims asserted by the bankruptcy estate against a creditor where the claim is a state law action independent of the federal bankruptcy law and not necessarily resolvable by a ruling on the creditors proof of claim in the bankruptcy emphasis added holding civil rico claim stemming from diversion of trust funds noncore because the claim does not invoke a substantive right created by federal bankruptcy law and this is a claim that could exist outside of the bankruptcy context holding that each state law claim was a noncore proceeding in part because no claim invoked a substantive right created by bankruptcy law and each claim could arise outside of bankruptcy law holding that a proceeding that by its nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case is a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court holding that the question of whether an interest is a claim for bankruptcy purposes is to be resolved by reference to the text history and purpose of the bankruptcy code