Whether state court proceedings and orders are void during the removal period

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case presents an important question of Federal statutes designed by Congress for minority citizens of color and ethnicity in the country to get fair and impartial justice for their federal rights by removing the case from the state court to the federal court per 28 USC § 14438. This case involves defying and defrauding Florida Statutes FS 57.105 and disobeying Congress's Statutes (Federal Statutes of jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446 (d) and 1447 (c). This case is also important for violation of the due process rights of a naturalized minority doctor who was demanded to attend the hearing outside the noticed time without the valid receipt of the remand order while working on an emergency patient with multiple injuries, 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (section one). | 1. This Court should resolve the question of the law, whether the state court’s jurisdiction continues during the removal period and whether state | court proceedings and order should be void which are entered during the removal period on a subsequent petition for removal, filed after a year on a different matter and on different grounds. Whether Judge can make an exception in following the express language of Federal Removal Statute 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (d) which explicitly states, that proceedings and orders entered by a state trial court during the removal period is "void". The question needs 7 ; ii to be resolved for the national uniformity because there are “competing views" and "conflicting cases with a split of authority in federal, out-of-state, Florida and intra-district conflicting decisions. | 2. Whether this court should resolve national, Florida, and intra-district conflicting cases on the endpoint of the transfer of the federal jurisdiction to the state court in the federal removal case. Whether an oral/endorsed order a valid remand order? What kind of order triggers the state court’s jurisdiction: | (i) oral/endorsed order which could not be mailed; | | (i) valid remand order, written and certified order mailed by the federal clerk | | to the state court; (iii) receipt of the written order by the state court clerk. National ! uniformity is much needed in the application of the express language of the Federal Statute 28 USC § 1447 (c) which should not be subject to judge-made exceptions. | 3. This court needs to resolve a question of First impression and of the great public importance of Federal law involving the fundamental constitutional rights of due process. Whether the duty of the medical doctor to take care of the emergency patient with multiple injuries on the exam table be trumped over by the demand of a judge to attend the unscheduled hearing without receipt of the valid remand order from the federal court which can risk the ii life of the patients, medical license and livelihood of the doctor with an award of award $450,000 per FS 57.105 in the absence of the Jains. The jurisprudence would affect the livelihood and medical license of the doctors and also the medical care of countless patients if a doctor would have to abruptly pause/ abandon care per the demand of a judge. 4. The Constitutionality of Federal Statute 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c) is in , question as the immediate execution of an endorsed remand order, when the order is received only by one party represented by an attorney and not by the pro se party who is forced to receive the order only by US mail after three to five days is unconstitutional. Also, merely mailing a copy of the remand order by the federal clerk to the state court clerk and execution of the order by the state court, Congress has no provision for the time required for a receipt of the remand order by pro se and lost mail and clerical errors before execution | of the remand order by the state court. The only valid ways for pro se to know the remand order are, if it is docketed in the state court after the receipt by | the state court clerk or receipt of the remand