Can a federal district court judge grant attorneys fees in federal district court in a federal removal proceeding from Ohio state courts for defamation wherein attorneys fees are not permitted in the Ohio state laws for defamation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. CAN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GRANT ATTORNEYS FEES IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN A FEDERAL REMOVAL PROCEEDING FROM OHIO STATE COURTS FOR DEFAMATION WHEREIN ATTORNEYS FEES ARE NOT PERMITTED IN THE OHIO STATE LAWS FOR DEFAMATION; AND/OR, THE ATTORNEYS FEES ARE IMPROPERLY AWARDED UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 54 BY THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE; AND/OR, CAN ATTORNEYS FEES BE AWARDED UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 54 BASED UPON FRAUDULENT AND ILLEGAL AFFIDAVITS TO SUPPORT THE FEES FILED BY THE ATTORNEYS? 2. CAN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE LOSE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE ATTORNEYS FEES WHICH WERE BASED UPON ILLEGAL AND i FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVITS; WERE NOT FILED WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS; AND BY THE JUDGES FAILURE TO RULE ON THE OBJECTIONS; AND HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT? 3. DOES A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE HAVE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE ATTORNEYS FEES AGAINST A DEFENDANT IN A CIVIL LAWSUIT, DIVERSITY CASE, APPROXIMATELY THIRTEEN MONTHS AFTER THE JURY AWARD, WITHOUT CAUSE; WHEREIN THE BILLING WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE JUDGE'S OWN ORDER FOR SPECIFICITY IN BILLING? 4. WAS THE PETITIONER DENIED THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES TO THE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNDER DUE PROCESS GUARANTEES ii OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT; IN PARTICULAR WHEN THE APPEALS COURT REFUSED TO ADDRESS HIS ISSUES? 5. WAS THE PETITIONER DENIED HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL THE AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES BY THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ON THE BASIS THAT THEY WERE NOT PROPERLY BRIEFED; AFTER THEY HAD REFUSED TO ALLOW HIM TO FILE AN OVERSIZED BRIEF DESPITE THE NUMBER OF PARTIES AND NUMEROUS ERRORS BY THE TRIAL COURT; AFTER THEY WERE BRIEFED IN MOTIONS IN THE TRIAL COURT AND CITED IN THE APPEAL? ili LIST OF ALL PARTIES Vilma Swartz, sister of Henry M. Di Carlo, Sr.; ToniMarie Swartz daughter of Vilma Swartz; James R. Swartz, son of Vilma Swartz; Attorney Stephen Komarjanksi, Third Party Defendant; Aultman Health Foundation, Third Party Defendant; Emeritus Sr. Living, Third Party Defendant. Mark A. Di Carlo, son of Henry M. Di Carlo, Sr. Defendant, and Petitioner before the United States Supreme Court. iv LIST OF PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURT No. 13-3971, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Document 27-1, Filed: 06/04/2014. The Sixth Circuit Orders that Respondent Di Carlo’s counterclaims action against the Plaintiffs James R. Swartz, Jr.; Tonimarie Swartz; Vilma Swartz in an action for defamation be dismissed as the “order appealed from disposed of fewer than all claims and parties involved in the action and did not direct entry of a final appealable judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).” No. 14-4092, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Case: 14-4092, Document: 4-1, Filed 11/24/2014. Respondent Di Carlo’s counterclaims against James Swartz; Tonimarie Swartz; and, Vilma Swartz are dismissed, in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as Respondent’s action did not direct v entry of a final, appealable judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 (b). vi