____________________________________

ParrotNewsReport.com/cj (Citizen Journalist Blog)

ParrotNewsReport.com (All the news at at glance)


Friday, April 13, 2012

Removal jurisdiction Takes Away States Rights Under 10th Amendment

Removal jurisdictionTakes away States 10th ammendment rights

About 30 years ago the Federal government quietly took away a little more of the states’ sovereignty by changing the rules related to cases being "removed” from state courts.

This rule change gave any defense attorney unfettered authority to take any case away from any state court without asking permission from any judge simply by notifying both courts.


.................................................

Removal Jurisdiction

In the United States, removal jurisdiction refers to the right of a defendant to move a lawsuit filed in state court to the federal district court for the federal judicial district in which the state court sits. This is a general exception to the usual American rule giving the plaintiff the right to make the decision on the proper forum. Removal occurs when a defendant files a "notice of removal" in the state court where the lawsuit is presently filed and the federal court which the defendant would like to remove the case to.

Removal is governed by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. With rare exceptions, a case may be removed only if, at the time of removal, the case could be filed in federal court. Removal requires an independent ground for subject-matter jurisdiction such as diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. A case must be removed to the federal district court that encompasses the state court where the action was initiated.

Once removed, the case can be transferred to, or consolidated in, another federal court, despite the plaintiff's original intended venue.

Ordinarily, defendants face no difficulty removing claims based on federal law if every defendant desires removal (the unanimity rule). Removal of claims under state law, even when a federal court indisputably has diversity jurisdiction, is more restricted. Except in certain class actions governed by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), a plaintiff can successfully object to removal in diversity actions if any defendant is a citizen of the forum state where the suit is taking place.

........................................

(If I am reading and understanding this rule correctly the federal government says "we don't need no stikin state court to hear any case law."

This rule takes away any states right to hear and decide on a state level something that the federal government has nothing to do with.

This rule has been in effect for 30 years. For 30 years the federal courts have been hearing and deciding what states can and cannot do. Is there no 10th ammendment? Do the states have no right to hear cases that any defendent simply wishes the federal court to hear and decide.

Wow!

Its not just the "state run media" its the all powerful federal government "state" that has been deciding cases the states should have been deciding for years.

No wonder Leo Donofrio just decided to stop practing law and turn his law license in.
What good is it? There is no justice in state courts when the federal courts can take state cases and rule on state matters. We truly are living in a "police state"!!!!!)
Story Reports

Removal jurisdictionTakes away States 10th ammendment rights

No comments: