Whether an untimely 'Motion for Removal' by a foreign state suffices when the non-jurisdictional procedural removal defect is timely raised

QUESTIONS PRESENTED QUESTION ONE (1): Whether an untimely “Motion for Removal” by a foreign state, 28 U.S.C. 1441(d) 652 days to late suffices when the non-jurisdictional procedural removal defect permitting remand is timely raised, “Motion to Remand” 28 U.S.C. 1447(c)(2020) and cause is not shown by the foreign state. Violations of 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(1) and 1446(c)(1). See, MURPHY BROTHERS, INC. V. MICHETTI PIPE STRINGING, INC., 526 U.S. 344 (1999)(™ the removal notice ‘shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the [complaint].’” QUESTION TWO (2): Whether a foreign state defendant represented by attorneys in a removal action, who did not answer before removal, allowed to file untimely answers or present other defenses or objections in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 81(c)(2)(C) “7 days after the notice of removal is filed.” See, Willy v. Coastal Corp. et al., 503 U.S. 131, 134-135 (1992)(“Rule 81(c) specifically provides that the Rules "apply to civil actions removed to the United States district courts from the state courts and govern procedure after removal.” This expansive language contains no express exceptions”); MURPHY BROTHERS, INC. V. MICHETTI PIPE STRINGING, INC., 526 U.S. 344, 354-355 (1999)