Whether the unauthorized practice of law by an out-of-state attorney, including the removal of a case to federal court without proper authorization, warrants dismissal of the case with prejudice

Question(s) Presented This case originated as a “adverse employment actions” event, which included a termination of employment, where Mr. Carter (hereinafter : “Carter”), was terminated on September 25, 2020, for an allegation of mishandling a loss telephone. This termination gave rise to Carter filing a civil complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland (hereinafter “Circuit Court”), on November 16, 2020. The defendants, after being properly and timely served (November 20, 2020), had until December 21, 2020, to file their response to the civil complaint. On December 21, 2020, Nathaniel M. Glasser, Esq., (hereinafter “Glasser”), an out-of-state attorney (Washington, DC), filed a 197-pages Notice of Removal in the U.S. District Court for Maryland, which attest to his on and before December 21, 2020, was the lead attorney for the state defendants, in the state case, joining the state defendants, devising a strategy to proceed with the state case, taking control and possession of all state records and ultimately using these state court records to prepare and file the resulting 197-pages Removal Notice (Legal Document), in the U.S. District Court for Maryland, with his sole signature, and paying the $402.00 filing fees. Mr. Glasser was not the attorney of record, never filed a notice of appearance, did not apply for pro hac vice until June 7, 2021, six months later, after the case was remanded back to state court, used knowingly disingenuous reasoning for removal (Diverse Jurisdiction), and did not notify the petitioner of this removal until January 4, 2021. Md. R. Att’y Rule 19-305.5: Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law (5.5); 28 U.S.C. § 1446: Procedures for Removal; and 18 U.S.C. § 1001: Statements or Entries Generally. ; The State notification of removal to the Circuit Court was electronically submitted.on December 21, 2020, at 3:28 pm., by an unknown entity with the name John S. Linehan, Esq. affixed. This four-pages, one paragraph narrative Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal, with Mr. Linehan’s name affixed to it also attest to his being the sole attorney for all defendants. This is the only filing that Mr. Linehan has submitted in this two-years old . case and Linehan has never filed a notice of appearance, never sponsored pe Glasser for pro hac vice, he is not a defendant in this case, and never appeared in this case or submitted any other legal documents from this cases inception to date (December 4, 2022). Mr. Linehan was never an active participant in this case and has never appeared in any Maryland court in reference to the Carter v. Gardaworld matter, all in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1446: Procedures for Removal; 18 U.S.C. § 1001: Statements or Entries Generally; and 28 U.S.C. § 1441: The Forum Defendant Rule. ! This case was remanded from the U.S. District Court of Maryland (May 20, 2021), back to the Circuit Court and on June 4, 2021, Glasser and Christopher S. Smith, Esq. filed a Motion to Dismiss, well-over six months after the original complaint was filed. On June 7, 2021, this Petitioner filed a Motion in Opposition of Dismissal and Request for Summary Judgment. Also on June 7, 2021, Glasser applied for pro hac vice, with Christopher S. Smith, Esq. as his sponsor. In this pro hac vice application Glasser attest to his being an “out-of-state attorney who is a member in good standing of the Bars of the District of Columbus, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia,” not Maryland. Accompanying this application Glasser submits an affidavit disingenuously attesting to his not practicing law in Maryland for the previous 12 months. 18 U.S.C. § 1001: Statement or Entries Generally. The Circuit Court erroneously struck this Petitioners’ timely and properly filed Summary Judgment Motion, with this striking being ordered struck, after Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Noting that the Defendant’s non-response to the Summary Judgment Motion went ignored by the Circuit