Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13-12424-F - MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - STAMPED - Aug 13, 2013 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ralph Irwin
    13 views23 pages
    The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals cited two reasons for dismissing my appeal: “28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)(d)” ....and…. : “Alvarez v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 508 F.3d 639, 641 (11th Cir. 2007) (“If at any time before final judgment the district court issues an order remanding a case to state court because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, that order is not reviewable.”).” Both are faulty. “§ 1447 (c) … If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” As shown 1) subject matter jurisdiction exists; 2) the District court does not want this case; 3) case law allows remand when ONLY the entire Act (SCRA) is cited, 4) this was not the case; 5) however, to GIVE that impression the Court omits, inter alia, any reference to the specific portions of the SCRA that I, the Defendant, identified as a “cause of action,” e.g., 50 U.S.C. app. § 512(c); 6) by making it “disappear” in the order, the district federal court claims it “appears” it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Not True! The argument regarding both § 1447(d) and Alvarez citation are as shown: “§ 1447(d) - An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, EXCEPT that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of this title SHALL be reviewable by appeal or otherwise. Both Alvarez v. Uniroyal Tire Co. & § 1447(d) state nearly the same thing: Footnote 4 found within Alvarez v. Uniroyal Tire Co, 508 F.3d 639, 641 (11th Cir. 2007) - specifically states “…. except that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1443 of this title shall be reviewable….." § 1447 is more current, thus more correct. § 1442a, Members of armed forces sued or prosecuted APPLIES - as does § 1443, Civil rights cases.

    Original Title

    13-12424-F - MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - STAMPED - Aug 13, 2013.pdf

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals cited two reasons for dismissing my appeal: “28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)(d)” ....and…. : “Alvarez v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 508 F.3d 639, 641 (11th Cir. 2007) (“If at any time before final judgment the district court issues an order remanding a case to state court because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, that order is not reviewable.”).” Both are faulty. “§ 1447 (c) … If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” As shown 1) subject matter jurisdiction exists; 2) the District court does not want this case; 3) case law allows remand when ONLY the entire Act (SCRA) is cited, 4) this was not the case; 5) however, to GIVE that impression the Court omits, inter alia, any reference to the specific portions of the SCRA that I, the Defendant, identified as a “cause of action,” e.g., 50 U.S.C. app. § 512(c); 6) by making it “disappear” in the order, the district federal court claims it “appears” it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Not True! The argument regarding both § 1447(d) and Alvarez citation are as shown: “§ 1447(d) - An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, EXCEPT that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of this title SHALL be reviewable by appeal or otherwise. Both Alvarez v. Uniroyal Tire Co. & § 1447(d) state nearly the same thing: Footnote 4 found within Alvarez v. Uniroyal Tire Co, 508 F.3d 639, 641 (11th Cir. 2007) - specifically states “…. except that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1443 of this title shall be reviewable….." § 1447 is more current, thus more correct. § 1442a, Members of armed forces sued or prosecuted APPLIES - as does § 1443, Civil rights cases.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    13 views23 pages

    13-12424-F - MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - STAMPED - Aug 13, 2013 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ralph Irwin
    The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals cited two reasons for dismissing my appeal: “28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)(d)” ....and…. : “Alvarez v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 508 F.3d 639, 641 (11th Cir. 2007) (“If at any time before final judgment the district court issues an order remanding a case to state court because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, that order is not reviewable.”).” Both are faulty. “§ 1447 (c) … If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” As shown 1) subject matter jurisdiction exists; 2) the District court does not want this case; 3) case law allows remand when ONLY the entire Act (SCRA) is cited, 4) this was not the case; 5) however, to GIVE that impression the Court omits, inter alia, any reference to the specific portions of the SCRA that I, the Defendant, identified as a “cause of action,” e.g., 50 U.S.C. app. § 512(c); 6) by making it “disappear” in the order, the district federal court claims it “appears” it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Not True! The argument regarding both § 1447(d) and Alvarez citation are as shown: “§ 1447(d) - An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, EXCEPT that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of this title SHALL be reviewable by appeal or otherwise. Both Alvarez v. Uniroyal Tire Co. & § 1447(d) state nearly the same thing: Footnote 4 found within Alvarez v. Uniroyal Tire Co, 508 F.3d 639, 641 (11th Cir. 2007) - specifically states “…. except that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1443 of this title shall be reviewable….." § 1447 is more current, thus more correct. § 1442a, Members of armed forces sued or prosecuted APPLIES - as does § 1443, Civil rights cases.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 1 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 2 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 3 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 4 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 5 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 6 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 7 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 8 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 9 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 10 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 11 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 12 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 13 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 14 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 15 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 16 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 17 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 18 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 19 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 20 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 21 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 22 of 23

    Case: 13-12424

    Date Filed: 08/02/2013

    Page: 23 of 23

    You might also like