Morganrogh & Morganroth v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.C., 331 F.3d 406 (3d Cir. (N.J.) 2002)

MEMORANDUM
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
As per Local Rule 28: Honorable George B. Daniels S.D.N.Y. District Judge ruled on Petitioner/non Removant's letter and/or Sua Sponte Dismissing a Notice of Removal (case # 08 Civ. 02431(GBD)(KNF)) from Defendant/Removant. Removant is appealing this final decision as well as Denied Motion to Renew/Reargue before said Judge. Original "Decision And Order" was filed on July 1, 2008 and timely appeal to the Second Circuit on July 30, 2008. Removant requests to inform the Court that instant case was Not Remanded by Judge Daniel's Order, but Dismissed (see Title 28 § 1447, requirements of Remand).
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Tenant, Respondent/Removant pro-se, brought this action pursuant to Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 89, § 1441(a)-(f). The state (New York) case removed was #071507/07, Kenmore v. Tenant. A decision only on the warrantee of habitability defense was decided by state jury, resulting in 62% abatement. The outstanding counterclaims and twenty five other defenses, for the most part federal, are waiting to be heard in district court. There was no final judgement as that decision was appealed to the Appellate Term, as advised in court by Judge Daniels. The Notice of Removal was served and filed well before the voir dire or the jury trial and the district court was informed by letter of the upcoming trial.
Mitskovski v. Buffalo and Fort Eire Public Bridge Authority
Removant requests review of dismissed removal, Kenmore v. Tenant with regard to Binding Precedent of Mitskovski v. Buffalo 435 F.3d 127, 2005 US App (2nd) 353. The Precedential Desision was argued on Friday, the 23rd of September, 2005 and Decided on January 11, 2006. The Jurisdiction was the Second Circuit. Sitting for the Court were Honorable Appellate Justices Jon O. Newman and Sonia Sotomayor and sitting by designation was Honorable George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Respondent/Removant acknowledges that instant case involves Dismissal, with no reference to Statute Authority or Common Law, nevertheless issues of timeliness of Sua Sponte and by motion Remands are most similar and precedential. Due to the Dismissal, no Remand, this case is by definition and without controversy appealable, unlike in Mitskovski v. Buffalo or James G. Hamilton, v. AETNA LIFE and Casualty Company 5 F.3d 642, 1993 US App (2nd) 390 under 28 U.S.C. .§ 1447(d). As for statement by the Court in Memorandum Decision and Order 08 Civ. 2431(GBD), " This Court neither has jurisdiction over this matter nor was the notice of removal timely filled", Removant understand this is the Courts reference to Respondent's contention in all legal papers to lack of personal jurisdiction over defendant. There was no Traverse hearing and this issue admittedly remains, but no subject matter jurisdiction lack was mentioned in dismissal, logically because of the infinite degree of federal subject matter jurisdiction. To start with, the subject property is owned by the People of the United States- please review UNITED STATES of America v.ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY AND
APPURTENANCES, thereto known as 143-147 East 23rd Street, New York, New York, Listed as Block 879, Lot 27, which includes the Kenmore Hotel, Defendants, Jude Hotel Corporation, Claimant-Appellant.77 F.3d 648. This issue was decided by Honorable Second Circuit Judges Van Graafeiland, Kearse and Miner, granting "All Right, Title and Interest" in subject property to the People, including Land Patents. Please review "A patent is the highest evidence of title and is conclusive as against the government and all claiming under junior patents or titles” U.S. v. Stone 2 US 525. The land patents remain with the People, which is without dispute, and an ongoing attempt to fraudulently convey "color of title" through un-notarized deed without consideration is a 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States offense. See also Morganrogh & Morganroth v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.C., 331 F.3d 406 (3d Cir. (N.J.) 2002), wherein Petitioners (RICO) were convicted of unlawful attempt to convey property "color of title" in order to defraud and evade Court Order.
"Synopsis: This is by far the most egregious case of civil conspiracy in the body of law. This case really illustrates the fine line between an attorney giving counsel to a client, and the attorney’s outright illegal and unethical participation. In the case at bar, the plaintiffs, Morganroth & Morganroth, a Michigan law firm, and Mayer Morganroth, sued John DeLorean in a federal court in Michigan for legal services rendered over approximately ten years. The plaintiffs brought the instant suit against Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.C., a New Jersey law firm, as well as Victor S. Elgort and Daniel R. Guadalupe its employees or affiliates, who represent DeLorean. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that they actively, knowingly, and intentionally participated in their client's unlawful efforts to avoid execution on his property. In order to be successful under a claim for civil conspiracy one must look to see if there is an underlying tort to support the conspiracy claim. Mere agreement to do a wrongful act can never alone amount to a tort, whether or not it may be a crime. However, the court in this case held that the behavior of defendant law firm was so egregious that it did rise to the level of conspiracy."
TIMELINESS
Respondent filled Notice of Removal on March 10, 2008, significantly more than 30 days after Plaintiff filled case # 071507/07, as can be seen by the case number itself. It was even less timely regarding the still current Res Judicata, same cause of action and parties, case # 52851/06, which respondent is requesting be joined with instant case. It was also filed well prior to state jury trial and not "after final judgement was entered against the pro se defendant", which was appealed and thus not final. Defendant informed Court by letter sufficiently prior to said jury trial requesting action (removal to District Court). This letter was not acted upon. Judge Daniels signed appealed Order on June 26, 2008, 108 days after served and filled Notice of Removal, thus also untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Please review Mitskovski v. Buffalo and Hamilton, v. AETNA or Air-Shields, Inc. v. Fullam, 891 F.2d 63, 65 (3d Cir.1989).
MOTION
There was no motion or motions filled in District Court in the instant case

by Plaintiff. See Mitskovski v. Buffalo "a motion asserting a procedural defect must be . . . made within 30 days of removal, and a court of appeals may not delay the litigation by reviewing the grant of such a motion. In the same vein, a district court may not act to remand on its own motion more than 30 days after removal in the absence of a party's timely remand motion, and if it does so, a court of appeals may review and correct the improper remand.
The court did not state in appealed order(s) whether or not they were Sua Sponte.
CONCLUSION
While the innumerable Federal Subject Matter issues are admittedly complex, a competent Federal District Jury is requested. The issues before the Court today are simpler. Respondent/Removant is requesting review and reversal of Judge Daniel's Order. This will ensure defendant's Constitutional (Seventh Amendment) and Due Process rights. Reversal will not violate any Statute (see above) or Res Judicata as the District Civil Jury Trial should cover all non warrantee of habitability issues, including substantial counterclaims, non of which have been heard or tried by Triers of Fact. Respondent requests joining of actual Res Judicata, two identical cases filled by the RICO Enterprise, # 071507/07 and #52851/06, which is not dismissed. And for all other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. All rights reserved without prejudice U.C.C. § 1-308.

Dated: December 5, 2008 _________________________
Petitioners counsel: Tenant, Removant Pro se
Dean M. Roberts 145 east 23rd street
Norris Mclaughlin & Marcus New York, NY 10010
875 Third avenue Fl 18
New York, NY 10022