UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (GREENBELT DIVISION) Arnold, et. al, Plaintiffs, vs. CitiMortgage Inc., et. al.

, Defendants, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No: RWT 07-2617 MOTION FRCP § 60(b)(2) and (4) “VOID ORDERS” AND, DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE

§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ FRCP MOTION § 60(b)(2) and (4) - “VOID ORDERS” AND, DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE I. RELEVANT CASES 1) Case No. 04-0-05-000046 FC, CitiMortgage Inc. et. al., vs. Arnold and Cotten, 01/14/2005, Calvert County Circuit Court; 2) Case No. 55-06253-(bk), Docket No. 130, 06/19/2006, in Bk. Case No. 05-13246 TJC, CitiMortgage Inc. is Plaintiff Creditor, vs. Arnold and Cotten, Defendants, 2nd Illegal Complaint to Foreclose & Lift Stay Action filed by CitiMortgage; 3) Case No. 06-2056-(bk), 12/14/2006, Counter Defendant, Cotten in reply to Case No. 55-06253, Docket No. 130, 06/19/2006, Bk. Case No. 05-13246 TJC; 4) United States Federal District Court, Case No: RWT 07-2617, (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart this Motion for Relief, FRCP § 60(b); All Fraudulently removed cases relate-back to 1st. Civil Case No. 04-0-05-000046 FC, 01/14/2005, and Bk. Adversary Case No. 55-06253-(bk), Docket No. 130, 06/19/2006, and Counter-Complaint, Bk. 06-2056, 12/14/2006, Cotten and Arnold, “Original Defendants”, Bk. Case No. 05-13246 TJC.

II. CASE INDEX:NO. 1

Arnold et. al. vs. CitiMortgage Inc. et. al., for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”, Case No: RWT 07-2617, (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion)

I. RELEVANT CASES………………………………………………………………….. II. CASE INDEX No. 2…………………………………………………………… III. CASES CITED No. 1, 6………………………………………………… 2, 3, 1 4, 5, & & STATE PRELIMINARY COURTS MATERIAL

IV. FEDERAL AND LAWS……………………………………………………... V. STATEMENTS……………………………………………………

VI. JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………... VII. GENERAL FACTS…………………………………………………….

VIII. ISSUES……………………………………………………………………. IX. COURTS OF JURISDICTION……………………………………. X. COURTS WANTING JURISDICTION……………….. XI. OF SUBJECT COMPETENT MATTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURTS APPLIED LAWS UNEQUALLY AS TO AUTOMATIC STAY AND THE EFFECTS ON THE DEBTOR AND PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE AND THE RETURN TO STATUS QUO UPON DISCHARGE, DISMISSAL OR CASE CLOSURE……………………………… OF

XII.

TILA ABUSE OF DISCRETION OBJECTIONS AS TO UNEVEN APPLICATION LAWS…………………………………………………………

2

Arnold et. al. vs. CitiMortgage Inc. et. al., for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”, Case No: RWT 07-2617, (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion)

XIII. LEGAL FACTS……………………………………………………………………….. XIV. COURTS ABILITY TO REVIEW DE NOVA THE LAWS FOR ABUSE OF DISCRETION………………………………………………………………………

II. CASE INDEX:NO. 2 XV. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR MOTION TO SET ASIDE “VOID ORDERS” ON MOTION PURSUANT TO FRCP 60(b)(2)(4) ………………………………….. XVI. JURISDICTION ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………….. XVII. ARGUMENTS AND LAW…………………………………. MEMORANDUM OF

XVIII.LEGAL ACTIONS BY CASES & PARTY POSITION CHRONOLOGICAL LITIGATION HISTORY…………………………………………………………… XIX. VERIFICATION……………………………………………………………………… XX. CERTIFICATE SERVICE………………………………………………………. OF

3

Baumlin & Ernst. Arizonans for Official English v. American Fire & Casualty Co. al. 93 S. 394 n..S. M.Ct. Supp. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 702 951)… 3. 109. Inc. 43. 3. 117 S.2d 238. 1998) 5. Ltd.. 409 U. 404 F. ….. Arizona. 615. Inc. 118 S..2d 342 (1972) ………………………………………………………………………………. 2. 4 . Benson v. 901 F.S.T. (4th Cir.S. 1980) …………… 6. 1029 (6th Cir. v. v. 1055. State.Ed... Enters. Broadcast Music.. 389 Md. 145 F. California v. 695.. 700 (1999) ……………………………………………………….. Inc.Ct. Finn.. 79 (D. Bufalino v. Wormwood v. Administer Defense Servs. 520 U.. v. 78. 6. No.Gemini. v.. 34 L. (1997). al.. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) III.Ed. Batching Systems. Co. Axel Johnson.S. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. et.2d 170 . Michigan Bell Tel. Carroll Carolina Oil Co.. 242 (4th Cir... Inc. CitiMortgage Inc.1968) ……………..Arnold et. 280 (5th Cir.. 637 F. CASES CITED. 4. Ltd...2d 278.. 653 (2005).. 390. Inc.Ct. 71 S. 112 n. 1995) ……. 1 1.Id. 534.. vs. Adams v. Conn..3d 660.Ct. Inc. . 811 F.2d 1023. App.Ed. 341 U... 8. 137 L. at 101213……………………………………. 3. 1071.. LaRue. 95 L. 1987) ……. 7.. 124 Md.

2d 96. Inc. Strumpf. Christian v. Kan. 736 F. 1990) 5 . College Boulevard Nat. 892 (6th Cir. Orkin Exterminating Co. 133 L. 86— 88………………… 14.…………………………………………………………………. 13.2d 890. 313. 1049. 900 F. 126………………………………………………… 10. 608 F. 371 (D. S. F. vs. 17. 1006 2 (5th Cir. 12. III. Delgado.Supp. 1990) ………………………… Dawson v.. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 2 16. 516 U. Conway v. Edwards.. 115 S. 1992) ………………………………………………………………………………. Griffee. 1050 (D.S. 92-0905(JHG). 300. C.S. 398 U.D.. Compton v.Arnold et. 19.. Co. et. 198 F. 1999). 286.. 795 F. Ed. F. Co.Colo. Fenner. CitiMortgage Inc. CASES CITED.. No.. 74.3d 642. Judicial Council of Tenth Circuit. 1992) ……. 1992 WL 189428. …. 16.2d 403 (1995) ……………………………………………………………………. No. Central Laborer's Pension and Annuity Funds v. Coburg.. Van Noorden.2d 258 (1995) ……………………………………………………………………. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 9. 369 811………………………………………………………………….. Capron v.. 514 U..S. 1501. Citizens Bank of Maryland v. 107 (4th Cir. Carter v. al.S.Ed. al. 1493. 136 ………………………………… 11. 290. Case No: RWT 07-2617. Cranch 1998) Celotex Corporation v. 644(7th cir. Ct.C.A. 116 S. Alton ………………………….3d 1979) 18. July 21. Chandler v. Delta Am. Re Ins. 20. 131 L. 21.. Ct.3d 1000..Supp. Bank. 15. at *2 (D.. 370.

. et. 2d 84 (Ala. …………………………. 226 F.. Guas v. 26. Ex-parte McCardle.. Alamo Rent-A-Car. Inc.4 566 (9th (9th Cir. CASES CITED.2d 747. v. 871 (4th Cir. 54 S. 167 F. 270 . 1982) ……………. n. 1130 (11th Cir. Foundation Reserve Ins.Arnold et.2002) ………………. 514. Hertz Corp. 565 So. Town of Front Royal.3d 861.. M. 135……… 28.. 933 F. 30. (1868). Front Royal & Warren County Indus. 94 (4th Cir. v.S.3d 1126. 1994) ………… 32. ABM Indus.. Mktg. 1991) 1992) 29. Integrated Design & Constr.L. 700. Co. Healy v.. Inc. 578 19 . Galvez v. 7 Wall. 116 F. Florence v. 683 F.. Park Corp.Supp. Ratta. 24.. Miles Inc. ……………………………. 749 (D. 27. … Eberhardt v. 16 F. CitiMortgage Inc. 25.. L..Ct. Kuhn. vs... Amaraneni. Marshall.S.2d 331.Ed. 22. 1 264 S. 106 484………………………………………… 23. Co. 292 U. 333 (10th Cir. Fajen v. al.. 3 6 .3d 980 773. Cir.2d 775 564. al. Heyman v. …………………………………. Fisher v. 263. 1990) ………………………………………. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 1997) III.Md. …………………………. F. 703 supra part II…………………… 31. Case No: RWT 07-2617.3d 91. 506. No.. Elgin v. 1999) U.Ct. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 21.

1987) …………………….2d 1180. Kline v.C. 1188 (7th Cir. S. L. 187 (5th Cir.. 132 F. 1995) ………………………….3d 915. Co... Prudential Ins. v. v.. 34. 1996) ……………………………………………………………………………….2d 492 (1982) 456 U. 145 F.. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 33. CitiMortgage Inc. Inc.2d. Kocher v. 326-27 (5th Cir. of Ireland v. Homestead Ins. P.Ed. 102 S. 37. 346 F. 456 U.Ct. Insurance Corp..3d 320... 694. 1997) (quoting Thomasson v. 294 52 S. 106 F. 42. 702 (1982) ………. INACOM Communications. 1998) ……………………………………………………………………………………. et. International Science & Tech. 202 525 B. 694. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee. 284 Pieper. Inc.Arnold et. Metro Ford Truck Sales. Inst. 7 . 36. 1996) (D. 2099. 2003) …………………………………………………………………….Ct. Co. Kmart Corp..R.. Laughlin v. 82. 43. U.S.. 226 (1922) …………………………………………………………………………………… 38. 226. Co. al.. 521. Laughlin v. 67 L. 41. Inc. Rodgers. 50 F. 72 L. .. Burke Constr. 1230-31 (8th Cir. 825 F. 1157 (4th Cir. 79. Case No: RWT 07-2617. Ford Motor Co. 217. 219…………………………. Ionization Int'l. Matthews v. 1192 (9th Cir.3d 871.Ct. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”.S. Kelton Arms Condominium Owners Ass'n.3d 1225. Dow Chem. King v. Co. vs.. Matter of Eugene ………………………. 928 (4th Cir. Inc. 1989) ………………………… 40. 234.. Perry.Ed. 35.. 882 F.Neb.. 1997) ………………… 39. 260 U. 43 S. 873 (10th Cir. 2104. al. 702.3d 1190. 80 F.3d 1146.S. v.

1049 (11th Cir.D. 45. n.Ed. 457 S. 142 (5 th Cir.2d 851 U. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 44. 95. 50. ….3d 224. of Educ. Schwartz v. (Tenn. et.2d 409.. National Railroad Passenger Corp. al. 226 (3d Cir.W. Healthy City Sch.2d 756. al. v. Co. 465.Arnold et.. Doyle. Brown. Overby …………………………………… 49. Scott v. Mathews.. Home Assurance Co. 84 F. Texas 1991) States. vs. No. 414 (7th Cir. 1970) Powder Power Tool Corp. Ass’n v. Inc. 976 F. 568. . 571. 414 U. Rook v. Powder Actuated Tool Co. 278... 418 U.1956) ……………………………………………………………………………….2d 213. 274. Rook. 1996) ………………… 47.. 316 F. Case No: RWT 07-2617. United …………………………. (per 1992) curiam) 54. 2001). New York Life Ins. 2003) ……………………………………………………………………………………. 55. 233 …………………………… Va. 230 F. Am. 427 531………………………………………………… III. 4 48. 150 (S.. 92. Communications Services. of Railroad Passengers. v. (4th 678 Cir. CASES CITED. 524..S. v. Roxbury Condo. 453. Bd. Secretary of Navy ………………………… Avrech.Ct.3d 1040. 50 L. v. Cupo Agency.S. v.2d 471 (1977) ……………………………………………………………. v. 8 .Supp. 97 S.S. 147.3d 137. Dist. Norton v. CitiMortgage Inc. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Mt. 53. Russell Corp. 758 (1987) 52.S. 429 U. Overby v.E. 353 S. 762 F. National Assn. 51. 676 217 . 264 F. 13…………………………………………………………………… 46. Anthony S..

S. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 56. 100.. 100. 382. Permanente Med. 61 S. vs.. Ct.. Medical Examiners 389………………………………. 379.S. al. 649 (1st Cir. Communications Services. Moore v.Supp. ……………………… 94 Ca 2d 751. 1992) ………. Northwestern Nat’l Life Ins. …………………………. 305 U. 440 (1985) 49th Cong.Ed. 868.. 211 P2d SUSTAINED 473 U. Inc. 453 F. 85 L. 111 U. 447 (9th Cir. v. Service System. …. Sheets. Selective 1972………………. Inc. Swan.. No. CASES CITED. 64.Ed. 4 S.Ct. 150 (S. 147. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. 165. 1214 (1941) ……………………………………………………………………………… III.D.M. 85 L.. 17………………………………………… 67. Mansfield. v. Stuck v.. 462 (1884) ………………………………………………………………………………. 511.3d 822.Arnold et. Sylvia. et. 17172. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”.2d 815. 59 S. Snell v. CitiMortgage Inc. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 59. p. 2002) ……………………… 64. Lubben v.2d 443. 61 S. No. 28 L. Rept. Sheets. Takeda v. 868. H. 1078.Ct. 1985) ………. 134 (1938) Scott v. 316 F. Stoll v. C. 313 U. 57.S. 981 F.R.. Ed. Inc. 765 F.Ct. 313 U. 822 (9th Cir.S. Co. 1214…………………………………………………………………………………… 60. 61. 58. 432.S.3d at 819. Texas 1991) 62. 48 F. 66. 824. 826 (9th Cir. 510. 762 F. 1st Sess. & L..... Shamrock Oil and Gas Corporation v. al. 9 . Cleveland. Group. Co.2d 645. 5 63. Gottlieb.

Transamerica Ins. Watts v..1985) 77. Browning Ferris Indus. Daniels. 418. Aurora 72.S. 348…………………………………………. Wright. Inc. 95-2339-KHV..2001) ……………………… 78. vs. 404 U. Co. Tucker. 92 S. 73. CitiMortgage Inc.. City of Kansas City.. 6………………………….S. v. 1992) ……………….Kan. Kansas.Ct. 752 F. 76. 202. 6 80. 35 Md. 902 F. 139 West v. 49th Cong. 373 139. 1078. 71. III. 1st Sess. 74. Wall. 1996) ………………………………………………………. Tucker v. 410 (9th Cir. Aurora City. 30 L. No. U. 975 F.S. United States v. Augenblick. Victory Carriers.Ct.. Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 3d §3731 10 .S.S. CASES CITED. 529 U.Ed.Ed. Case No: RWT 07-2617. ……………………………. at 212.. Williams v.3d 796. Rept. 412-13 (2000) …………………………………. United States v. Pinckney. 797 (5th Cir.2d 18 16 L. 425. 212. Miller and Cooper.. 83 Victory Carriers. ………………………………….. See H.. 75. 92 S. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. (1977) 819. 69. Taylor.Arnold et. Townsell v.. 1996 WL 225194 (D. No. 1990) ……………………. 362. South. Waters v.. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 68.2d 321. City 73 710. April 12. 393 U. 1………. al. A. 79.2d 1238.. v.. 252 F. al. 404 U. Law. West v. Case No. p. 325-26 (7th Cir.. 1240 (7th Cir... 70. et. App. at 425………………………………….2d (1971)………………………………………………………………………………. supra.2d 406.

vs. al.. 82. CitiMortgage Inc. et. Von Dunser v. 364 So. § 3522. 1074 (6th Cir. al. Del. L. 2002) ………….. at 61-62……………………………………………………… 81. Supp. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) (1998) supra. Inc. 1978) ………………. Wonder v.. Southbound Records. Zoren v. 2d 598. 915 F.1990)……………………… 83..Arnold et. 11 . 602 (D. 2d 1173 (Ala. 195 F. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Genesis Energy. Aronoff.P.2d 1071. Case No: RWT 07-2617.

. Subpart B. § 455. 15 USC § 1625(B). §1446 (b). FRCP § 60(b)(2)(4) 28 U. Code § 547: 28 U. 28 U.S. PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS 12 . 15 USC § 1615. FEDERAL CONSUMER 15 U. Title 11 U. § 144 404 U. §1441(a). (§§ 101—112).4 15 USC § 1611.C. 15 USC § 1641. § 202. V.C.S.S. Title 11 U.C. CitiMortgage Inc. et.S.C. FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS FEDERAL LAWS 28 U.Arnold et. Case No: RWT 07-2617.S. § 157.§1447(c) United States Constitutional III Amendments § 1. 15 USC § 1635(b).§ 1332. 11 U.S. vs.S.(a)(b)(1) 28 U.S. 212. Z. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”.C. Maryland Rule § 7-105. al.C. §1331. Code § 101(31). §1441 (b).C. MARYLAND LAWS Maryland Constitution. Amendments 1. § 12 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY CODE Title 11 U.C.S. 5 and 14 9 U. Reg.S. Real Property. al.S. § 1607(e)(1). 5 and 14.C. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) IV.C.S. § 362(a).C.

06/19/2006 of Bk. wherein it was purported the courts possessed a wanting of subject matter jurisdiction over CFI who purportedly was in bankruptcy as of January 26. Counter-Defense Complaint.Arnold et. Cotten”.”. 04-0-05-000046 FC and Bankruptcy Adversary Complaint to Lift Stay to Foreclose. al.. Case No. and. CitiMortgage Inc. “Original Defendants. see Attached Exhibits. “Original Defendants. arising from the initial action filed in Calvert County Circuit Court. Case No. vs. filed by Arnold and Cotten. in Bk. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. did so on rushed assertions. Arnold and Cotten”. and at all times hereto. 130. 1. et. al. and. al. defendant “Congressional Funding Inc. Docket Sheets in Evidence. 2010. “Original Defendants” for removal and other legal purposes in the above captioned case. Docket No. further present reversible error and abuse of discretion of the courts in dismissal of non-diverse defendant who was properly served with summons. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) NOW COMES. “Original Defendants” to reply Adversary Case No. or. ( all attached exhibits are incorporated into this motion by reference hereafter). 05-13246 TJC. “CFI”. this case. Those relied on assertions incorrect and were incorrect the day of the hearing and caused improper dismissal of Arnold and Cottens claims against defendants “CFI”. “(CMI)” are. the “Original Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants of both Civil Case No. 2010. 55-06253. Civil Case No. 06-2056. 05-13246 TJC. The courts improperly dismissed the causes against CFI as opposed to rendering due summary judgment for defendants default in answering 13 . Case No: RWT 07-2617. 04-0-05-000046 FC. Kathleen Arnold and Timothy A. Case No. et.. in the above captioned case. The courts in error during the January 26. declare they are. CitiMortgage Inc. 12/14/2006 Counter-Complaint.

3d 796..arises out of the fraudulently removed cases by “(CMI)” and the courts refusal to remand those cases nor hold a hearing and render ruling as to the courts challenged jurisdiction that which may be reviewed because Section 1447(d) does not bar review where the remand was based on a party’s contractual waiver of removal rights.. 981 F. 2. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Browning Ferris Indus. The court failed to confirm these facts without first exercising what would have been considered the usual judicial care.. Ass’n v. CFI was never in bankruptcy at all but was merely a party to an action in the bankruptcy courts. 1992). appellate review is not barred on the issue of attorney fees awarded under § 1447(c). 316 F.. Anthony S. therefore the claims against CFI were improperly dismissed. confirm by PACER CFM Courts system. justly due to be corrected by this timely motion FRCP § 60(b)(2) and (4) as it applies to VOIDS. Cupo Agency. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) the complaint. CitiMortgage Inc.3d 224. Inc. Re Ins. Co. CFM Search of CFI). those ill proffered statements. 252 F. and is as said. In re Delta Am.2d 443. such fees were wrongfully awarded in this case. In addition. In contrast. Permanente Med. al. Group. 892 (6th Cir.2d 890. (Pacer Bk. 2001). al. see Attached Exhibits.. See Waters v.Arnold et. See e. 2003). Moore v. 797 (5th Cir. 1990). FRCP § 60(b)4 . et. 447 (9th Cir. 900 F. also an abuse of discretion. a reversible mistake and error by the courts.g. 226 (3d Cir. AND. Roxbury Condo. This Motion to Set Aside for “Void”.. Case No: RWT 07-2617. failing to at a minimum. vs. Instead the courts dismissed CFI without further proof of the bankruptcy. 14 .

Inc. L.P. see In Holmes. the initial foreclosure Complaint giving rise to this action. at 106.C. 4.S. Pursuant to the “Well Plead Complaint”. v. 313 U. A party seeking removal bears the burden of proving their right to removal. see Shamrock Oil.. CitiMortgage Inc.. Genesis Energy. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 3 “(CMI)” initiated all fraudulent removals knowing very well they were never qualifying defendants entitled to avail themselves to removal pursuant to 28 U. 1010 (3d Cir. 5. Inc. the rule does not permit a counterclaim to serve as the basis for the "arising under" federal jurisdiction §1331. “(CMI)” could never carry their burden to the courts because they were not and are still not “True Defendants” who could never remove. Zoren v. Inc. al. vs. raised no issue of federal law and was filed by original plaintiffs “(CMI)”in the state Circuit Courts. 1987). Established.S. Steel Valley Auth. see also in. based their fraudulent rights to remove upon as well as relying further on a purported “Diversity of Jurisdiction” which candidly. Am. Vornado Air Circulation Systems. al. Standard. Holmes Group. v. followed law dictates removal extends only to defendants and not to plaintiffs and that a federal counterclaims does not qualify as an action “arising under” and does not extend to those claims. never and still does not exist.. 195 F. 602 (D. et. 535 U. Union Switch & Signal Div. Supp. 2002). at the time of the removal. exactly as “(CMI)”. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 809 F. 6. 2d 598.. Del. failed to carry their burden forward to the courts. the Supreme Court reiterated the primary reasons 15 . for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”.Arnold et. By fact. “(CMI)” here. § 1441(a)(e).2d 1006.

et. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”.Supp. Communications Services. the case here and now brought correctly on this rule FCRP 60(b)4 Motion. vs." Because the right of removal is vested exclusively in true defendants. Miller and Cooper. 16 . v. Case No: RWT 07-2617. “The appropriate course [for a federal court] is to examine for subject matter jurisdiction constantly and. was barred from removal). to remand to state court if appropriate.S. The Courts reasonably found that to allow counter defendants such leave for acceptance or rejection of a state forum.. 100. The courts abused their discretion in applying the “arising under”. 7. 313 U.” Scott v. 1214.. 150 (S. it is found lacking. even to defend against the counterclaim. Texas 1991).Ed. The “wellestablished rule is that the plaintiff. 762 F. a plaintiff who has chosen to commence the action in state court cannot later remove to federal court. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) supporting the well settled rules on removal based upon federal claims contained in counterclaims and found accordingly: “Allowing a counterclaim to establish "arising under" jurisdiction would also contravene the long standing precedents.Arnold et. 147. 868 (1941)”. if. See 14C Wright. Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 3d §3731 (1998). CitiMortgage Inc. or otherwise dismiss.Ct. is bound by that choice and may not remove the case.D. would in fact make the counter defendants and would confer a power upon the defendant that would radically expand the "due regard for the rightful independence of state governments" Corp. 61 S. 109. 85 L. Inc. (though “(CMI)”. al. al. Sheets. who chooses the forum.

al.Arnold et. Delgado. (the case here in Arnold and Cottens case matters). 145 F. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 8. Inc.S. 1995) wherein they held ("It is axiomatic that in the usual case. the Circuit Courts of Calvert County. like Arnold and Cotten. § 1441(a)”. Guardian Life Ins. July 21. vs. 375. “A Defendant may remove a case which has originally been filed in state court to a federal district court pursuant to 28 U. 326-27 (5th Cir. removal can be achieved only by a defendant.") and. 78.”.. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and may only exercise that power prescribed to them by the Constitution or the United States Congress. “(CMI)” could never avail themselves to removal relief from a counterclaim regardless even if pleading a Federal Matter Question raised as a counterclaim.. 1998)..C. Administer Defense Servs. 377 (1994). e. at *2 (D. Inc.g. See. Conn..C. 901 F. 511 U. et. 9. The courts abused their discretion in overlooking the fact A Plaintiff is the “Master of the Claim”. see Adams v. in the alternative. CitiMortgage Inc. 92-0905(JHG). of America.…. By law and fact.the district court has original jurisdiction over the 17 . The “well pleaded”. Kokkonen v. who is by implication a party to the state-court action. 1992 WL 189428. C. al. if. This removal was ‘improvident as is the case here in this instant matter and without jurisdiction. v. Supp.S.. “(CMI)” when deciding to foreclose fraudulently against Arnold and Cottens home were at all times “the masters of their claims” and were bound to the courts they had selected. Case No: RWT 07-2617. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Co. No. Conway v. 1992) (concluding that the parties seeking removal from state court did not have standing to remove a case in which they were not defendants).. those being. 79 (D. Metro Ford Truck Sales.3d 320..D. Ford Motor Co.A. “(CMI)” did not have the right to remove.

clearly relating them back to their Initial Counter-Claims Defensive Claims.Arnold et. al. the first affirmative action case. 12. 10. Calvert County Circuit Courts). and should have. 13. inferences and other reasonable investigations into“(CMI)”purported removal rights. “(CMI)”. “(CMI)” were never “True and Original Defendants” in the 2 Initial Foreclosure Cases” and are not a party who may avail themselves to removal options. properly concluded the case was not one that could be removed. “(CMI)” knew by fact and law they were prohibited and barred from removal because they first. the removing party. The courts abused their discretion upon failing to conclude these facts based on pleadings. causing unreasonable reliance on these deceptive forms by the 18 . CitiMortgage Inc. (though they were barred). vs. waived their rights in failing to remove then. All actions arouse out of “(CMI)” fraudulent foreclosure actions against Arnold and Cottens property. al. 11. Original Plaintiff” and was never vested with removal rights as narrowly granted by law. 03/20/2007. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) matter“(CMI)” is not a defendant and never was a defendant but is the “True. the courts would have. 04C07000353. deceptively omitted the “Related Cases” from their Case Removal Intake Forms. et. Repeatedly Arnold and Cotten stated these case facts. doing so with the expressed intent of misleading the courts as these omissions clearly did mislead the. Case No: RWT 07-2617. to carry their burden onto the courts at the outset of the case and the behest of Arnold and Cottens objections. no matter when nor how or if Arnold and Cottens counter-claims are ones raising Federal Question.. (5th Case No. Had the courts not abused their discretion in failing to burden “(CMI)”.

CitiMortgage Inc. Had the courts known of those two initial foreclosure cases in which“(CMI)” was at all times. deceptively omitted from all removal forms their two fraudulent foreclosure actions that started “the purported plethora of lawsuits”. and for the benefit of “(CMI)”. al. 15. 14.. not Arnold and Cotten as the courts 19 . therefore the courts abused their discretion in drawing these unfounded conclusions wrongfully and in error. Had the Intake forms been filled out correctly by “(CMI)”. notably the Courts Admonished and flogged Arnold and Cotten in one of their “Orders” “indicating the parties had closed on a loan and then Arnold and Cotten filed a “plethora of lawsuits”. just randomly and devoid of cause sued “(CMI)”. The courts admonishments were that Arnold and Cotten. By fact this was a false and prejudicial assumption drawn directly by the courts from the “(CMI)” removal case intake forms. In fact. the fraudulently removed cases would have been remanded and sanctions should have been rightfully imposed by the courts for such deliberate deception and fraud onto the courts. the courts may not have been prejudiced but instead would have realized Arnold and Cotten were defendants and may have valid claims due redress by way of counter-claims for the injuries sustained by “(CMI)” and. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) courts and is an unmistakable knowing fraud onto the courts by “(CMI)” and their legal agents. the true and Original Plaintiffs. out of the blue sky. as provided by law.Arnold et. et. Case No: RWT 07-2617. To the detriment of Arnold and Cotten. these omissions made by “(CMI)” damaged Arnold and Cotten and grossly prejudiced them to the courts. 16. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. vs. al. “(CMI)”.

v. Case No: RWT 07-2617.C. an action must be “fit for federal adjudication when the case is removed. 17. these facts would have been known from the outset and removal would have and should have been denied. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) wrongfully found. “(CMI)” could not justify any right to remove and in answering the removal case intake forms factually and honestly. Co. al. 1991) (defects in jurisdiction can be raised sua sponte. had they been. because in providing the required information. § 1441(a). 316 F. Under 28 U. Galvez v. et... for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 775 n. CitiMortgage Inc.Arnold et. 824.C. The Court must sua sponte review all removed actions to confirm that federal jurisdiction is proper. Inc.3d 822. sua sponte.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that a “court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction.3d 1190. 346 F. 1192 (9th Cir.S. Arnold and Cotten contend the “Original Related Cases”. Snell v. “(CMI)” left these “related cases” off of the removal forms intentionally and with the intent to deceive the courts as they so did. Homestead Ins.3d 773. an abuse of the courts discretion and is also a denial of due process alike. 826 (9th Cir.S. § 1446(c)(4) (stating that the “district court in which such a notice [of removal] is filed shall examine the notice promptly”). See Kelton Arms Condominium Owners Ass'n. in contrast to the court's ability to remand sua sponte for procedural defects upon removal. vs. 2003) (holding that district courts have no authority to remand a case sua sponte for procedural defects). whether the parties raise the issue or not). Cleveland. 28 U. thus amounting to further. al. 933 F. Kuhn. Inc.. notable however the court took no action and the wrong action refusing all motions to remand and refusing to substantiate their subject matter jurisdiction challenges made by Arnold and Cotten. 20 . at any time”).

These courts who possessed a binding duty to examine and verify removal case information to ensure that it was legally and accurately petitioned with those courts and the courts having a greater due diligence duty in the removal of cases with that diligence extending well beyond the superficial misrepresentations stated by “(CMI)” on the Removal Case Intake Forms provided by the removing party.. al.Supp. Bank. It is established law.Arnold et.Supp. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 370. 736 F. 18. as stated and evidenced on the removal forms as clearly had any search been performed. “(CMI)”. 795 F. CitiMortgage Inc. by way of possibly searching a general civil litigant parties search in the courts public records inquiry. 1050 21 . See Christian v. in their fraudulent attempts to illegally retain the federal courts jurisdiction. 371 (D.. is not all to blame however for the abusive and overreaching of the United States District Courts of Beltsville into legal matters in which they had no jurisdiction authority to preside over. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) accurately. 1992). had the District Courts conducted any… reasonable due diligence as mandated in executing their standing orders of removal. the burden of proof lies with the party seeking removal and that party is charged with the burden of proving the grounds necessary to support removal. or.. al. it would have revealed the incomplete Removal Intake Forms and the extent of the omissions. Kan. such searches justly would have contradicted the frauds being perpetrated onto the courts by “(CMI)”. including compliance with procedural requirements. 1049. honestly and candidly disclosed by being listed on the Removal Case Intake Forms. College Boulevard Nat. Dawson v. vs. Orkin Exterminating Co. et. “(CMI)”. Inc. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. clearly lacking here in this case now on motion.

(All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) (D. was properly served with the complaint. Not even the courts erroneous dismissal of defendant CFI. to mislead the courts and trick an entry of dismissal. al. 20. and could never remove the TILA counter claims of Arnold and Cotten). The courts abused their discretion in refusing to force “(CMI)” to carry their burden forward onto the courts. information patently wrong. doing so during the hearing as oppose to merely accepting false and unsubstantiated proffered information. Prudential Ins. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 1989). Co. et. Maryland. Laughlin v. 1990). vs. and the erroneous entry of the courts Order dismissing the case. presented with the sole intent. due diligence would prevail and the courts would have at least performed a PACER Courts System case search. 21. 22. al. The courts err in dismissing the case against CFI in what could appear to be an 22 . CitiMortgage Inc. based on an erroneously purported bankruptcy filings by CFI. (immaterial here however because “(CMI)” are plaintiffs.Arnold et. Defendants CFI was never in Bankruptcy and in fact. public bankruptcy case search shows CFI was never in Bankruptcy as of the hearing on January 26. Arnold and Cotten could not address this surprise revelation during the hearing but did expect that at a minimum. CFI failed to appear nor answer the complaint with a default judgment due to be granted not an order of dismissal. just as it did. 19. Arnold and Cotten noticed the courts repeatedly they lacked jurisdiction and that there was no diversity of citizens at the time of removal because CFI and Martin Dennis both resided in the forum state of Arnold and Cotten. still could never grant onto the courts complete diversity of jurisdiction. 187 (5th Cir. 2010.2d. A PACER Court System CFM. Case No: RWT 07-2617.Colo.. 882 F..

Arnold et. al. vs. CitiMortgage Inc. et. al., for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”, Case No: RWT 07-2617, (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion)

attempt to wrongfully extend jurisdiction to the courts, (noting this very notion is flawed if it were legally factual but, by fact, wrongfully dismissing CFI, still never entitled “(CMI)” to fraudulently remove any of the cases because they are the true, original plaintiffs who have been subjected to counter claims and are otherwise not defendants and are barred from removal. 23. Had the federal courts functioned as statutorily mandated in removal matters,

being courts of limited jurisdiction, they would have demanded the case Removal Intake Forms be completely and correctly filled out and that “(CMI)” be forced to carry their burden of right to remove onto the courts, with the courts abusing their discretion in failing to enforce these statutory mandates and the Removal Statutes be Strictly Applied. Because there is a presumption against removal jurisdiction, the court must strictly construe the federal removal statute and resolve all doubt in favor of remand. Fajen v. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 331, 333 (10th Cir. 1982). The courts abused their discretion in failing and refusing to remand as doubt was correctly raised with legitimate and timely challenges to the courts standing and “(CMI)” being barred from removing their counterclaims. 24. The District courts abused their discretion in refusing to ensure accuracy in the

removal forms, as mere superficial recitals of statutes and conclusions are not sufficient reasons do confer nor act to establish legal authority and rights to removal that grant the Federal Courts Subject Matter Jurisdiction, what was lacking at the entry of the courts orders in these grave matters and is still lacking and that must be corrected by this motion
23

Arnold et. al. vs. CitiMortgage Inc. et. al., for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”, Case No: RWT 07-2617, (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion)

to “Void and Set Aside”. 25. All Case Removal Intake Forms failed to join all parties to the removing

complaint as mandated and, the courts refused to accept these challenges in error when they overlooked all of Arnold and Cottens timely, technical and subject matter jurisdictions challenges to removal; the lacking of complete diversity of citizens of the removing parties also, see Attached Exhibits, Case Dockets, Arnold and Cottens timely removal objections to technical removal fatalities with the removals being fraudulent as correctly and rightfully alleged. See Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1049, (11th Cir. 2001) and Guas v. Miles Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The court refused to remand and refused to defend subject matter jurisdiction therefore review is permitted. 26. The courts violated Arnold and Cottens “Due Process Rights”, a right to be heard

and to receive redress of their claims in a forum which the law provides, that being their State Courts; plaintiffs “(CMI)” are barred from removal to federal courts and were the masters of their complaints. “(CMI)”sued in the Circuit Courts of Calvert County and were not allowed to remove their counter complaints to the federal courts regardless of their being named as defendants. The courts abused their discretion in not drawing

reasonable inferences from these facts that were contained in Arnold and Cottens pleadings, motions and many and timely demands for remand. 27. Fact is, all of these things collectively should have put the U.S. Federal District

Courts of Beltsville on a more then reasonable Notice the removals were fraudulent and
24

Arnold et. al. vs. CitiMortgage Inc. et. al., for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”, Case No: RWT 07-2617, (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion)

defective and that this created doubts that were real and that the courts had a duty to question, abusing their discretion in refusing to exercise such diligence and definitely when failing to resolve the matters by remand with the presumption against removal jurisdiction, the court must strictly construe the federal removal statute and resolve all doubt in favor of remand. Fajen v. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 331, 333 (10th Cir. 1982). 28. The courts had to conclude at some time and point “(CMI)” was not a defendant

who could avail themselves to removal relief therefore these federal District Courts at all times lack subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 29. Leaving out the above errors with the removal case intake form and the

illegitimacy of the fraudulent removals, once the court read the complaint, it would have become apparent beyond doubt through inferences made in the well plead complaint, the removing parties “(CMI)”, were not in fact “Defendants” vested with right to remove because “(CMI)”, was at all times relevant thereto, and is, for removal purposes, the “Original Plaintiffs”; these party facts, underscore the motivational causes and considerations for “(CMI)” to fraudulently and knowingly by intention, omit their two previous illegal foreclosure cases wherein they are the “Original Plaintiffs”, see Attached Chronology of Cases. 30. Arnold and Cotten present correctly on this motion, in this motion to “Void and

Set Aside” the courts void orders for wanting at all times of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, plaintiffs may not remove and “(CMI)”, are the true
25

Arnold et. for the courts wanting of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. cases fraudulently removed. arises from all Fraudulently removed Cases from the Circuit Courts of Calvert County by “Original Plaintiffs” “(CMI)”. v. §1447(c). Sua sponte remand for procedural defects is also permissible in Kansas. 341 U.C. Arnold and Cotten. See Laughlin v.”).3d 871. April 12. 6. 71 S.S.S. This Motion to Set Aside. 50 F. Co. al. Arnold and Cotten are the “Original Defendants” as defined by law for Removal Purposes. 31. did these courts obtain or possess jurisdictional authority and lack subject matter jurisdiction causing this courts orders to be “Void Orders” and are. al. ab initio. Arnold and Cotten seek a Demand for Orders of Remand from these Courts because at no time ever.. 32. CitiMortgage Inc. are the “Original Defendants”. as such. 28 U. sua spontra. et. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) plaintiffs with no counter claim changing these facts whatsoever.. 1996). “Voids” and “Nullities”. the court can. see Attached Exhibits. and should raise lack of subject matter jurisdiction on its own motion. 1995) (“If the parties fail to raise the question of the existence of jurisdiction. 873 (10th Cir. Void and Remand. vs. See Townsell v. Case No: RWT 07-2617. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. and at all times relevant thereto. 26 . By law and fact.Kan. In addition. 1996 WL 225194 (D. the federal court has the duty to raise and resolve the matter. Finn. This motion to “Void and Set Aside is made Pursuant to FRCP § 60(b)4.Ct. Arnold and Cotten should have been granted remand of their American Fire & Cas. Kmart Corp. Case No. City of Kansas City. 95-2339-KHV. Kansas. Arnold and Cotten are seeking due and just relief from this Courts Wrongful Orders and that they be declared “VOIDS”. at inceptions. 534 (1951).

These Honorable District Courts had no authority to preside over the fraudulently removed cases and abused their discretion in so doing therefore making of their orders as “Void Orders” that are “Legal Nullities” for the Federal District Courts wanting of “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” in all Removed Cases and hearing because Arnold and Cotten are the “Original Defendants” therefore.Arnold et. et. lacked 27 . 2011. in Bk. This court entered its Order on January 26. 06-2056. 36. Case by Arnold and Cotten. Plaintiffs “(CMI)”. less then one year and as soon as practical. 05-13246 TJC and Counter-Defense Complaint. 35. vs. Docket No. Case No. 0513246 TJC.. 04-0-05-000046 FC. removal was clearly barred. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 06/19/2006. Civil Case No. VI. beyond doubt. 2010 and this Motion is being filed on January 10. “(CMI)”. in Bk. knew. regardless of counterclaims raising federal questions. exhausting all other relief. 130. therefore “(CMI)”. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Arnold and Cotten “framed-up” and initiated their counter-defenses against “(CMI)”. al. desired to escape liability from Arnold and Cottens State Courts. Case No. Jurisdiction is as correct as can be for this motion in as much as this motion is dealing with the intrusion of the Federal Courts into Arnold and Cottens matters without jurisdiction to have done so. Bankruptcy Complaint to Lift Stay to Foreclose. Case No. at all times they were never a defendant party who could remove the case to federal courts. 55-06253. Case No. CitiMortgage Inc. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) Calvert County Circuit Court. and. 12/14/2006 Counter-Complaint in Bk. al. 33. COURTS JURISDICTION 34.

(all cases). for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. al. The serious problems with “Subject Matter Jurisdiction”. 38. the counterclaims fraudulently removed to federal courts. cannot serve as the basis for invoking federal jurisdiction. 37. cause them harm. as it did. 28 U.2d 815. frustration and denial of redress and due process and in the forum of their choosing. Case No: RWT 07-2617. undue delay. Co. to remove a case “arising under” federal law. Northwestern Nat’l Life Ins. based on the pleadings. in the first instance.C. Therefore. al. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) authority to ever legitimately remove any case from the state courts even though they were characterized as defendants in the counter claims filed by Arnold and Cotten.”). CitiMortgage Inc. See also Takeda v. Arnold and Cottens counterclaims could never form the basis for invoking removal to federal court. as provided by law.. 39.S.S. “(CMI)”. although in their counterclaim Arnold and Cotten assert that Plaintiff “(CMI)” violated federal law. 28 U. time and time again from their state courts with the intention to.Arnold et. vs. 1985) (“The federal question defendants raise in their counterclaims does not provide a basis for removal. 822 (9th Cir. deceptively and fraudulently removed Arnold and Cottens cases.C. § 1331. be removable: Foreclosure was the first case filed by “(CMI)” in the Circuit Courts of Calvert County and would not have been removable ever by “(CMI)”. et. “(CMI)”knew they were “not the sort of defendant permitted to avail themselves to removal”. 765 F. the courts should have recognized their abuse of discretion at some time and immediately 28 . only “True Defendants are allowed to remove” thus defendants cannot bring their counterclaims to federal court.. § 1446(b) provides that the case stated by the initial pleading must.

.Ed. “Quoted further from the Court's opinion in the Shamrock case at page 108 of 313 U. by saving the right of a plaintiff. No. al.. 1st Sess.. Sheets.Arnold et.S. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) remanded the cases to State court for failure of the complaint to constitute a suit that may be removed under the 12th Section of the Judicial Act. 41. 61 S. 73 U. 85 L. vs.. 17. Aurora City.S. this applies here and must be applied. Ct. 85 L. 18 L. 49th Cong. Case No: RWT 07-2617. et. see See H. to remove the cause upon the filing of a counterclaim praying an affirmative judgment against him. may be restricted only by the action of Congress in conformity to the 29 . the Supreme Court held that the filing by the defendant in a suit in a State court of a counterclaim setting up an independent cause of action does not confer upon the plaintiff the right of removal. al. 1214”: "Not only does the language of the Act of 1887 evidence the Congressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal. we can hardly suppose that it would have failed to use some appropriate language to express that intention.. p. at page 872 of 61 S. Appellant courts are to look to the supreme courts words. CitiMortgage Inc. 313 U. but the policy of the successive acts of Congress regulating the jurisdiction of federal courts is one calling for the strict construction of such legislation. 6 Wall. in reenacting in substance the pertinent provisions of 12 of the Judiciary Act.” 40. 819. 1078. Ed. December Term. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. In Shamrock Oil and Gas Corporation v.. 139 West v.. 1867. in any case or to any extent. Rept. 1214. Ed.S. 139. The power reserved to the states under the Constitution to provide for the determination of controversies in their courts. Ct. see. Congress intended to restrict the operation of those provisions or to reject the construction which this Court had placed upon them. “If. 868. 100.

S. The evidence is plead in the Complaint and Evidence Submitted by both parties and is a part of the record. Arnold and Cotten maintain also these courts misapplied the laws and TILA statutes even going against settled law of this very court. the courts need not look any further.Arnold et. the interest rate. requires that they scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise limits which the statute has defined . which should actuate federal courts. While this honorable courts orders are “Void” due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and cannot make a finding as to these matters. vs. et. 109].. CitiMortgage Inc. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. al. 'Due regard for the rightful independence of state governments. al. 100." 42. 43. under the Constitution to provide for the determination of controversies in their courts. Arnold and Cotten exercised their extended right to rescind the loan for material disclosure violations affecting the amount financed. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 2 fraudulent foreclosure actions. and may be restricted only by the action of Congress in conformity to the Judiciary Articles of the Constitution. These Courts abused their discretion in presiding over and exercising jurisdiction The power they could not gain legally in all illegally and fraudulently removed cases. reserved to the states [313 U. therefore the case was not one that the federal District Courts would have had initial jurisdiction over. The record reveals there are unresolved controversies and technical violations of the “Act” affecting Arnold and Cottens extended rights to rescission with summary judgment issued in error and not supported by the case file facts and exhibits entered thereto that clearly support rescission for material disclosure violations was 30 . the total of payments and the cost of the credit disclosures. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) Judiciary Articles of the Constitution. Arnold and Cottens injuries arouse from “(CMI)”.

§ 12.. a remedy that well exceeds the three-year statute of limitations under “TILA”. an enforcement action may ensue up to one year from the date of default of the offending creditor thus making the latest time 31 . there was no default of mortgage payments. 9 U. Consumers have an ongoing right to rescind as an affirmative defense and may seek redress far past the three-year statute of limitations by equitable remedy of recoupment. Notably Arnold and Cotten issued rescission within……the three year extended right to rescind.C. misapplication of the law that of which is contained in the case file and is free and independent of the case history that is not needed to draw the same inferences and conclusions of law that will support these assertions the District Courts misapplied the laws unequally. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Importantly.S.C. equitable tolling is to be applied unless a statute expressly prohibits the tolling of a specific statute. 46. 1641. al. The equitable provisions under TILA allow that rescission may be used as a bases of counter defense and can be issued in counter-defense of a foreclosure action as Arnold and Cottens rescission was so issued in counter-defense of “(CMI)”.S.Arnold et. 45. vs. 44. a statute of repose. et. rescission being timely at all times therefore Arnold and Cotten take issue with the uneven. al. no prohibition exist for a consumer to exercise their extended rights to rescission for material loan disclosure violations as detailed in the appellants 4th amended complaint. in response to their illegal foreclosure actions. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) proper and timely issued. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 47. CitiMortgage Inc. Pursuant to TILA Violations 15 U. 48.

vs. were willing.. 2007. et. CitiMortgage Inc. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) appellants could have brought their affirmative counterclaims defense lawsuit being far later then August 27. 51. Arnold and Cotten at all times relevant thereto the rescission. The District Courts undermine all faith Arnold and Cotten would hold in the federal courts based on their unconstitutional behavior in administering their fraudulently removed cases and eschewing of the laws just in the removal matters alone yet. Arnold and Cotten have been oppressed and denied additionally their due process and access to 32 . for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. even though “(CMI)” had destroyed their credit with fraudulent reporting and illegal collection of a debt not due and owed nor was ever in default. 50. al. These Federal courts have abused their discretion when failing to apply the laws equally and fairly in all matters before the District Courts. ready and poised to tender. reiterating this was 2006 and mortgage loans were still readily available to Arnold and Cotten. the “Act”. 49. requesting time and again repeatedly payoff statements reflecting the effects of the rescission. The courts error in applying case relation back requirements and TILA criminal liability statutes to an offending creditor for refusing to rescind the loan and application of legal remedy requirements available to the offending creditor to seek out an injunctive order within the same 20 days they are allowed to complete the acts of rescission. al.Arnold et. Case No: RWT 07-2617. The courts have misapplied the laws in the fraudulent removals alone. 53. 52. the wrongful application of BK Stay on Legal Claims of the Estate and legal mutilation of the strict technical requirements of the courts under TILA.

54. al. Arnold and Cotten are being detained further by these courts in that not only may Arnold and Cotten seek relief under Rule 60(b)4. et. al. Because the “Order is Void” as a matter of law. intentionally disrupted Arnold and Cottens state case and their litigation. The courts should have been well able to infer from the case record Arnold and Cotten were met with any bar in brining their TILA Violation Cause case.. the Plaintiffs “(CMI)”. 56. the Federal Courts have traveled well beyond their jurisdictional territory with all “Orders being Nullities” and “Voids” ab initio. 57. Case No: RWT 07-2617. those being Maryland State Courts. VII. the District Court never had jurisdiction over the cases and could not gain authority because “(CMI)”. seems to have willfully engaged 33 . for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. was the sort of defendant barred from removal. The U. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) redress in the Courts of their forum.S. GENERAL MATERIAL FACTS 58.Arnold et. District Courts of Maryland. so can the violating defendants should ever they have such whim or need and therefore such void “Orders” have create uncertainty and undermine the judiciary system. vs. 55. The courts further abused their discretion in their continuing to preside over non- removable State Law Claims and when allowing parties not restrained by strict mandatory statutes to remove cases to Federal Courts. Beltsville. Arnold and Cotten were never met by bar to seek out redress for creditor violations of “TILA” with no case and record evidencing any such legal facts. CitiMortgage Inc. In the Courts allowing the fraudulently removed cases.”.

Equal Access and Equal Application of the Peoples Laws. “(CMI)”. Court Case Intakes Forms wherein. (Cotten and Arnold are the defendants in these actions). 04-0- 05-000046 FC. knowingly Omitted from the Case Removal Forms all “Related Case Information”.Arnold et. These District Federal Courts have neglectfully mishandled all fraudulent removals of Arnold and Cottens cases from their Circuit Courts of Calvert County by litigants. purported to grant right to remove by “(CMI)” yet not proven to sufficiently grant removal jurisdiction and. most importantly. al. removal frauds rest on the Removal Forms. 01/14/2005 and closed on 01/9/2007. “(CMI)”. al. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 61. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) in a method. al. that is contrary to those orders to the Court Mandating Due Process. Arnold and Cotten. “(CMI)”.. No Diversity of Parties. “a Plaintiff is barred from removal relief”. CitiMortgage Inc. sought dismissal of “(CMI)”. 60. and Federal Question. 34 . Arnold and Cotten contend “(CMI)”. either freely or for other Political and Judicial Agendas. who failed at all times to meet removal defendant criteria established by Supreme Courts Removal Dictum. fraudulent removals under the guise of “arising under” federal question jurisdiction as asserted by “(CMI)”... vs. et. et. Case No. vs. 59. a plaintiffs counter claims brought by defendants are not removable. CitiMortgage Inc. the state court foreclosure claims expanding far and well over one year after the case was filed therefore another reason as to fraudulent removal. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. those which include their two illegal foreclosure actions and Arnold and Cottens Counter-Claims and Adversary Complaint.

As a direct and proximate result thereto. al. that in their proceeding without defending first their challenged jurisdiction. and continue to cause.. 63. they not only exercised powers well beyond their judicial authority and traveled beyond the courts boundaries. frustration. Fajen v. The District Courts after being put on notice there were more then legitimate disputes and causes to Arnold and Cottens objections to the fraudulent removals of all cases by “(CMI)”. Arnold and Cotten in these federal courts. and that the courts were on guard. these courts and “Original Plaintiffs” “(CMI)” have caused. Foundation Reserve Ins. disruption. 333 (10th Cir.Arnold et. severe harm. Because there is a presumption against removal jurisdiction. there was no mistake in these actions whatsoever. These District Federal Courts exhibited extreme and severe abuses of discretion in their prejudicial treatment of Arnold and Cotten. when refusing to afford the same and equal applications of the laws as guaranteed them under law and decidedly gave preferential treatment of the law “(CMI)” they were not judicially due to receive because they had knowingly and fraudulently removed the cases. al. 683 F. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 64. and insuperable barriers to justice. Case No: RWT 07-2617. those which cause further Delay and Loss of Opportunities 35 .2d 331. CitiMortgage Inc. denying them from seeking their due redress in the forum of their choosing. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 62. the court must strictly construe the federal removal statute and resolve all doubt in favor of remand.. acting to detain by force and restraint. et. vs. the courts ignored their statutory mandates that the Removal Statutes be Strictly Applied. Co. 1982). The courts refused to uphold their judicial mandates here in these matters.

in their state forum to which Arnold and Cotten have right to choose. Congress expressly limited Federal Courts Jurisdictional Powers and especially so in Removed Cases. District Courts discretion in the Fraudulently Removed Cases is Justly Concerning. 67. and did so choose their State Courts to bring their counterclaims in the forum where the claims arouse out of free of harassment. Calvert County Circuit Court Case and is the Originating Case that began all ensuing litigation. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) justly due the “Original Defendants”. Case No. al. realizing the harm that could come out of wrongfully and fraudulently removed cases from state courts. vs. The Federal Courts would not have had ever “Original Jurisdiction” if the originating foreclosure case could be or were filed in the U. District Courts of Beltsville. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 04-0-05-000046 FC. Questioned and Challenged by Arnold and Cotten as these courts proceeded to knowingly trespass on the law by courts who lacked capacity at all times over the Issues and Parties of the fraudulently removed cases. delay and upset and have reasonable right to rely on equal applications of these laws to their ends. MD. The Competence of the U. 68.. Congress has long perceived these fraudulently removed cases would acquire a most grave threat.S. just as Arnold and Cotten have been wittingly frustrated. 66. Prince Georges County: The Foreclosure case is an Action by Plaintiffs “(CMI)”. delayed and harmed by this uneven and wrongful application of clear law. 65.Arnold et. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 01/14/2005. CitiMortgage Inc.S. Arnold and Cotten. et. al. and that federal courts would usurp state courts' residual jurisdiction 36 .

et. lacked necessary subject matter jurisdiction to preside over these matters. The Federal Courts abused their discretion in failing to examine continuously their right to jurisdiction as had they removed political persuasions and discretion and applied the laws as the courts are charged with such duty with strictness in removal and jurisdictional disputes. or. how did these Federal Courts get this so very wrong. Arnold and Cotten were complaining of injuries sustained at the hands of “(CMI)” and their two illegal foreclosure actions and that logically speaking. Case No: RWT 07-2617. “(CMI)” could not be a Defendant accorded the legal right to removal ever. the courts would have had to identify. Why were Arnold and Cottens motions never answered and they not afforded an opportunity to be heard with the courts prejudicially treating them with a lesser regard then their adversaries “(CMI)”? 71. vs. al.Arnold et. which is clear however. as it had to have become apparent in one of their four amended complaints.. as a result thereto. The District Courts further abused their discretion in failing to recuse. as it is 37 . sua spontra. a threat that is very real and is precisely what has occurred here in these instant matters in which relief from these “Void and Null Orders” is justly being sought out by Arnold and Cotten in this FRCP 60(b)4 Motion. 70. at some point and time over the three year plus long period the District Courts wrongfully detained Arnold and Cottens case and in which Arnold and Cotten were oppressed by the courts abuse of discretion and detained by the overreaching of these federal courts. CitiMortgage Inc. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. why did they? The courts clearly abused their discretion in getting these facts wrong. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) authority. al. 69.

. al. the courts denied Arnold and Cotten equal treatment of the law. recitals of statutes. refusing to venture beyond the exterior. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. violating their protected constitutional rights of due process in so doing. it appears the courts shrugged off their duty to investigate. CitiMortgage Inc. al. The courts possessed a much greater burden upon removal. something these courts possessed a binding duty to ensure care be exercised in removals based on superficial proffers and incomplete forms. 73. a duty to go beyond the superficial surface of words. that would guide them to journey to the ends necessary to establish their jurisdiction beyond doubt. as such. and equal access to the courts. shallow and superficial surface of “(CMI)”. conclusions of law on the Case Removal Intake Form and were to exercise judicial prudence and due diligence. due process. the courts failed to investigate omitted facts by the removing party 38 . vs. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) apparent these courts have acted in a prejudicial manner when favoring one party so much that they refuse the duties of their position and refuse to treat parties and laws equally and fairly in administration upon refusing to defend subject matter jurisdiction as the courts were required. 72. those which mandate a greater care of handling by the courts.Arnold et. The courts abused their discretion in determining their Subject Matter Jurisdiction as for fact and in particular to Removed cases. Arnold and Cotten here in these matters. Case No: RWT 07-2617. This type of judicial abuse and overreaching is exactly what Congress sought out to stem and protect their citizens against. redress. all justly challenged by Arnold and Cotten timely pleads in addition to their pleads to wanting of Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Courts. et. Case Intake Forms.

al. was never a defendant who could remove and in their omitting the related cases and foreclosure cases. one may reasonably infer by their actions contrary in the law. the removals were fraudulent because “(CMI)” was not a defendant who could avail themselves to Removal Remedies that raises questions as to exactly why “(CMI)” and their legal agents not know these material facts and how did the courts miss case inferences as to these facts plead? 77. Case No: RWT 07-2617. the nexus of Arnold and Cottens injuries as do their TILA injuries and other well plead consumer injuries alike. 74. These grave material facts then must rationally draw into question exactly what the federal courts are attempting to accomplish in their acts of judicial defiance as to established black letter law. words and statements of proffered entitlement to remove. 75. 76. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. by actions of these frauds. gained access to the Federal Courts they otherwise did not have right to admittance. al. the two foreclosure cases that are. and remain. the Federal Courts may possess other agendas such as political and judicial agendas that decidedly happen to rest outside the alignments with the Maryland and United States Supreme Courts Laws governing Removals and Mandated Limitations placed on Federal 39 . vs. “(CMI)”. “(CMI)”. Had the courts read the complaints in the proper light and examined the case records. and accepted in error these recitals of statutes. clearly did not carry their burden to remove onto the courts and the courts clearly ignored “(CMI)” infirmed removal statements as legal facts. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) “(CMI)”.. CitiMortgage Inc. et. None of the deficient Removal Forms identifies the cases related.Arnold et. it would have concluded some three years sooner.

al. 5 and 14 and have exercised a jurisdiction denied those federal courts by the clear and unambiguous Supreme Courts Removal Case Laws followed to date in Shamrock Oil. 81. had they afforded Arnold and Cottens motioned hearings. 40 . 79. Aurora and Holmes. the cause of their valid Motion to Void and Set Aside the courts orders. Arnold and Cotten have justly challenged the federal courts lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that. and. these challenges have gone unanswered to this very day and in stark contrast of exactly what is not suppose to happen in cases that are fraudulently removed and in which a party justly challenges the courts Standing Orders of Removals as Cotten and Arnold so did repeatedly and do now yet still. The District Courts have acted in a manner so as deny constitutional redress rights and have burdened Arnold and Cottens fundamental rights under their constitutional Amendments 1. West vs. et.Arnold et. al. vs. it is thought jurisdictional issues could have been resolved three years sooner and at a far less cost to Arnold and Cotten. CitiMortgage Inc. 78.. Throughout the whole of these matters and thru even the appeal process. 80. Case No: RWT 07-2617. The District Courts pushed their jurisdiction onto Arnold and Cotten when by law and fact they had no right to exercise any jurisdiction at all over the parties and the issues raised in the fraudulently removed cases and had they not abused their discretion. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. The courts must sustain constitutional protections and equal application of the laws of the land. all. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) Courts Jurisdiction.

Arnold et. and the Fraudulent Removals. as does in TILA. Park Corp. 1998) (citations omitted).3d 275. alter and exceed judicial rights these courts never possessed by clear. al. see Front Royal & Warren County Indus. Arnold and Cotten are under consumer protection classification of citizens and maintain the federal courts must sustain those laws as opposed to flouting these laws and mandates when acting without authority in attempting to modify. (Arnold and Cotten are Consumers). SUSTAINED 473 U. Such a classification of Citizen. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. applied and followed law. vs. which presumes the Consumer protection and debtors rights under the laws enacted by government legislation and are to be valid so long as "the classification. CitiMortgage Inc. 86." 85. 48 F. pushing them onto states and their citizens for who they do not have such authority or right over. 84.3d at 819.S. Bk. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 82. al. 83. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 135 F. The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction for very good concern of federalism that which is real and present when a court attempts to further agendas whether those be political and or judicial agenda matters. The legislation must be sustained "if there is any reasonably conceivable state of 41 . See Sylvia. Town of Front Royal. may appear on the face of the legislation or may be demonstrated by the plaintiff to have been intentionally utilized in the government's administration of the law. The federal courts in their overreaching have overlooked the applied rational basis of scrutiny. v. and are rationally related to a legitimate state interest. 290 (4th Cir. 432. 440 (1985) (citations omitted).. exactly what has occurred in this instant case at bar. et.

et. 106 F. Arnold and Cotten declare their rights to obtain redress and a rendering of due process of their claims and injuries sustained at the hands of the offending removing plaintiffs and as a proximate result. the District Courts never had and could never have acquired jurisdiction due to the removing party. Contained No Supporting Proof as to the Courts Meeting their Jurisdictional Duty to Removal and Subject Matter Jurisdictional Challenges.. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. “(CMI)”. INACOM Communications. See Case Chronology of Cases and Parties. Perry. 928 (4th Cir. Inst. Case No: RWT 07-2617.3d 1146. 89. VIII. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification. 80 F. not being a class of “Original Defendant” allowed to avail themselves by law to removal relief. see Attached Exhibit. as such. failing to ever carry the courts burden forward in proving jurisdiction explanations upon refusing to establish proof of subject matter jurisdiction. Inc. have a right to expect these claims will be heard by an impartial and unbiased court of law. CitiMortgage Inc. and by a fact finder who is disinterested and possesses free of conflicts all and any duties owed to either party. 1997) (quoting Thomasson v. The District Courts September 12. In eschewing the Federal Courts duties as to just challenges to Jurisdiction.3d 915.Arnold et. XVIII. ISSUES 87. 88.. vs. 1157 (4th Cir." International Science & Tech. the 42 . 2008 Multiple Case Disposition Order. al. 1996)). These mandates were ignored. the courts abused their discretion in refusing to hear and ignoring these legal facts. pushed to the side and and overlooked by these federal courts. v. al.

(All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) courts. expensive disruption to the litigation. those which congress has vowed to protect citizens against in limiting those federal courts powers and jurisdiction as they so did in removal jurisdiction. Federal courts are known to seat themselves in matters in which they lack jurisdiction in doing so in direct contravention as to schemes rooted not in due process and the doing of the peoples work but in the courts own agendas.. Fraudulent Removals wrongly convey jurisdiction to Federal Courts they otherwise would not have and could not have attained by any legal means. 91. traveling beyond their granted boundaries. al. vs. just as they have done in these very same matters regarding Arnold and Cotten and the fraudulent removals by “(CMI)”. 93. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Case No: RWT 07-2617. al. et. 1) failed to apply the law fairly and equally as guaranteed by law. A watchful eye must be lent at all times to protect against those Federal Courts of limited jurisdiction from their overreaching tentacles. 3) denied equal access to the courts and 4) abused its discretion in so doing all. 92. with which resulted in misapplication of Established Laws of the Supreme Court Removal Rulings and Dictum and Consumer Laws alike. 2) denied Arnold and Cotten their right to redress of their injuries in the forum of their state court and dong so free from vexatious. CitiMortgage Inc. 90. The Federal Courts have acted in a manner consistent with overreaching.Arnold et. doing so One must infer the courts cause and interest in 43 without legal compass nor sight. what has occurred here and must be corrected by an “Order to Set Aside as Voids and Remand of All Cases Fraudulently Removed”. .

S. or for like purposes however remarkably. is. al. the federal courts lacked capacity to ever 44 . 95. District Court Case No. sadly what has occurred in this instant case. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) proceeding in matters in which they lack clear jurisdiction is not one associated to the works of those courts citizens. the people. and. exactly. District Federal Courts of Beltsville. The U.. Case No: RWT 07-2617. and thus.S.Arnold et. 94. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. vs. al. limiting federalism. 97. These limitations were put in place by congress to protect citizens from a courts political and or other like judicial agendas which do not embody the laws and United States and Maryland Constitutional protections as to the most fundamental of rights to Due Process and Legal Redress under the 1st. in exercising power over people and property they are not entitled to. Arnold and Cotten maintain the District Courts have overstepped their judicial boundaries as is the case with the U. Congress intended to protect the public from Federal Courts with Overreaching Political and Judicial Agendas by enacting the limiting powers of federal courts. Arnold and Cotten make a more persuasive augment in favor of the appearance that these Federal Courts are operating in a more Political and Judicial manner then one that is Just and Legal in these matters. RWT 07-2617 was by far not the first civil case fraudulently removed and should not have been regarded in the determining of any bar dates. et. CitiMortgage Inc. 5th and 14th Constitutional Amendment Rights. exactly why Congress restricted the powers of federal Courts as to jurisdictions. for fear they could wrongfully attempt to exercise for political and or other judicial agendas such as “Tort Reform by Force”. 96.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction. instituted by “(CMI)” in their state court actions as plaintiffs.. The Federal Courts never could have had. the undue exercise of restraint caused onto Arnold and Cottens personal jurisdiction that could not be otherwise attained by those federal courts because “(CMI)” was and could never be a defendant who could remove and was not allowed to escape liability of Arnold and Cotten in their state court forum for injuries exacted against Arnold and Cotten in their fraudulent foreclosure actions. 100. Calvert County Circuit Court. The federal courts lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction over state law counterclaims and cases. that which is. the initial foreclosure action of Plaintiffs “(CMI)”.Arnold et. 99. 98. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) make any findings of merit because they are not courts of competent jurisdiction for wanting of subject matter jurisdiction and therefore are trespassers on the law. Case No. and could not attain by any means except fraud and oppression. 01/14/2005. et. a court eschewing Subject Matter Jurisdictional challenges may not ignore correct challenges in an attempt to exercise personal jurisdiction first. Case No: RWT 07-2617. “(CMI)” is not being the type of defendant vested with the rights to remove. the supreme courts have found consistently to date. The federal courts in their abusive overreaching have disrupted the otherwise 45 . and forever remains dependant first on the courts Subject Matter Jurisdiction. al. therefore acting at all times beyond their powers in their continued attempt to enforce the “Void Orders” and. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. CitiMortgage Inc. those being. al. 04-0-05-000046 FC. As evidenced in a long line of Supreme Court Cases. the originating cases along with the subsequent affirmative counter claims defense actions. (exactly what occurred here). vs.

Foundation Reserve Ins. al. Co. Fajen v. 102. et. vs. COURTS OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION 101. 1982). Decidedly correct because. 333 (10th Cir.. A court of competent jurisdiction is a court that does the work of its people and applies the laws of the land equally and fairly. the court must strictly construe the federal removal statute and resolve all doubt in favor of remand. another Court would not have reached the same conclusions of law as did the District Federal Courts in these matters when getting it so wrong upon eschewing justly challenged objections to the courts Standing Orders of Removals. The U. IX.Arnold et. Federal District Courts have proven themselves incompetent courts of jurisdiction in these matters upon presiding over matters in which reasonably their jurisdiction was properly.2d 331. (technical objections were timely and made. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. by statutory mandates. Because there is a presumption against removal jurisdiction. al. CitiMortgage Inc. Case No: RWT 07-2617.. the court refused to remand). timely and continuously challenged but yet never defended against by the court. 683 F. Subject Matter Jurisdiction can never be waived and must be promptly defended by the court who is challenged. The courts abused their discretion in refusing to remand and therefore may be reviewed.S. the Removal Statutes are to be Strictly Applied. and in allowing the fraudulent removals to remain in their courts when they had to know the removals were illegal and fraudulent as 46 . (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) efficient administration of the state courts and Arnold and Cottens case and while technicalities in removal procedure can be waived if not challenged.

What is worse. the legal ends and conclusions of the Federal Courts overreaching is that they are trespassers onto jurisdictions. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) per the case pleadings in objection and the courts refusal to defend and account vigorously against challenges to the Federal Courts Subject Matter Jurisdiction and resolve all disputes by an order of remand as mandated.. even though it flies in the face of well established removal law that dictates precisely. why were they granted removal rights wrongfully by these courts and allowed to upset. only a defendant may remove a case to federal courts. In fact. COURTS WANTING OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 104. et. The courts feed into “(CMI)” deceptions and even attacked Arnold and Cotten accordingly in their admonishments as to Arnold and Cottens purports to “filing a Plethora of lawsuits”. defendants such as those like “(CMI)” are not “Defendants” who may avail themselves to removal. vs. 103. CitiMortgage Inc.Arnold et. Arnold and Cotten are the true Defendants who filed their Counterclaims in the state courts and had right to expect they would not be disturbed by vexatious litigants fraudulently removing their cases in order to seek preferential treatment wrongfully attained in pretending to be the unfortunately attacked defendants they were not. al. “(CMI)” was allowed to 47 . Case No: RWT 07-2617. It appears the District Federal Courts have taken the notion Subject Matter Jurisdiction may be waived. disrupt and interfere with Arnold and Cottens Affirmative Defense Actions in their state courts? X. laws and parties for want of “Subject Matter Jurisdiction”. implying that “(CMI)” were victims when in fact the opposite was fact. al.

341 U.Ct. The Federal District Courts had no legal right to proceed first to the findings on merits and will be denied all illegal takings of authority exercised in traveling well beyond their boundaries of jurisdiction. acting beyond their power. and the federal district court enters judgment. 1074 (6th Cir. Von Dunser v. 109.Ed. 72 L. 390.S. who became counterclaim defendants. vs. 102 S.Ct.2d at 1074."). 394 n. 34 L. See.2d 1071. al.. California v. by any party or even sua sponte by the court itself.S.Ed. Unlike other issues not involving the merits of a case.g. 107. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 915 F. Case No: RWT 07-2617. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee. 95 L. 2099. CitiMortgage Inc. 534. al. v. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) continue these fraudulent removals at the objection and expense of Arnold and Cotten. Finn. American Fire & Casualty Co. 702 (1951) (principles of estoppel may not be used to confer subject-matter jurisdiction on a court that would otherwise lack it). Aronoff. Fact remains. 6. the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction is cognizable upon appeal. 106.2d 342 (1972) (parties may not confer subjectmatter jurisdiction upon the court by consent). the District Court was without authority and jurisdiction when it entered its “Void Orders”. of Ireland v. 694. 702. the appeals court evaded their duty alike to find correctly Original Plaintiffs. 93 S.Arnold et. 112 n. 409 U. 2104.2d 492 (1982) ("[N]o action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court. 71 S.1990). subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. By established and followed Supreme Court Law and Cases involving removal challenges to “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” are accorded a unique status.S. 915 F. e.Ed. “(CMI)”. et.. 456 U. 3. Von Dunser. Wherein a case is purportedly tried on the merits. 105. Insurance Corp. LaRue. 3.Ct. were not defendants 48 .

the district courts wrongly applied established bankruptcy law when looking past the fact “a bankruptcy filing automatically stays ‘any legal act to obtain possession of property of the estate or exercise control over property of the estate. Because this federal court refused to remand and refused to accept timely challenges to all fraudulent removals and subject matter jurisdiction.Arnold et. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. DISMISSAL OR CASE CLOSURE 110.S. 109..’ 49 . therefore dismissals was in error and must be reversed and all cases be remanded to state courts. this court has authority to review under abuse of discretion De Novo for the courts refusal to remand and accept the authority of their position. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) permitted to remove and who in no way could avail themselves to the remedy relief of removal. 2010. XI. and new evidence CFI was never in bankruptcy at the time of the hearing on January 26. While these matters are moot because the federal courts lacked jurisdiction to entertain their orders. (though removal not permitted. The other jurisdictional challenges were bar for failure to remove. U. et. vs. DISTRICT COURTS APPLIED LAWS UNEQUALLY AS TO AUTOMATIC STAY AND THE EFFECTS ON THE DEBTOR AND PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE AND THE RETURN TO STATUS QUO UPON DISCHARGE. facts also alleged by Arnold and Cotten yet ignored by the District courts. for the lack of diversity jurisdiction. 108. but must be “Set Aside as Voids” and “Legal Nullities”. al. al. CitiMortgage Inc. that which does not lend validity to actions and hearings that were “Voids” “ab initio” and cannot be corrected by an “Order” nunc pro tunc. Case No: RWT 07-2617. “(CMI)” did not remove timely also).

et. § 78(a)(3)). including the issuance or employment of process. vs. perfect.S. 290. 116 S.2d 258 (1995). against the debtor or against property of the estate. or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title.C. 516 U. or enforce against property of the debtor any lien to the extent that such lien secures a claim that arose before the commencement of the case under this title. (3) any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate. or 303 of this title. assess. or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title. applicable to all entities. (4) any act to create. Dismissal. al. P. The debtor and or creditor will be returned as much as possible to “Status Quo” upon either three events.]’” Citizens Bank of Maryland v.R. Strumpf.Arnold et. 202 B. 286.. 50 . and (8) the commencement or continuation of a proceeding before the United States Tax Court concerning the debtor. 294 (D.. of a judgment obtained before the commencement of the case under this title. of a judicial. assess. of (1) the commencement or continuation. Pieper. 1996). (not an order of Discharge). operates as a stay. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) and ‘any act to collect. 133 L.S. a petition filed under section 301. or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title.C. CitiMortgage Inc. or enforce any lien against property of the estate. 21. administrative.Ed. until one of these events occurs. Discharge or Closure of Case. or an application filed under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (15 U. (6) any act to collect. (5) any act to create. al. 111. 16.S. or recover a claim against the debtor which arose before the commencement of the case[. Case No: RWT 07-2617. Ct. 302. (2) the enforcement.1 The automatic stay is triggered by the act of filing a bankruptcy petition and the “Order for Relief” by the court. perfect. (7) the setoff of any debt owing to the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title against any claim against the debtor. see Matter of Eugene L. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”.Neb.C. the United States Bankruptcy Court maintains complete control of the 1The automatic stay provision of 11 U. § 362(a) provides: (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

Default under the “Act” by the offending Creditor in which the injured consumer may file a complaint for violation of the “Act” TILA. 2006. CitiMortgage Inc. vs. In this instance the violating creditor. A creditor who does not abide by these requirements waives in complete to preserve any creditor defense a creditor may mount at a later time.Arnold et. how and why did the courts get this so wrong? 113. The court misapplied the law regarding consumer actions against TILA Violations of the “Act”. the courts ignored these facts and all indications pointing to “(CMI)” not being a defendant allowed to remove their counter claim defenses to federal courts. motions. The courts were apprised as the record was replete with these facts by way of pleadings. the bases for their denial 51 . “(CMI)”. Bk Docket evidencing Plaintiffs “(CMI)”. see Attached Exhibits. the complaint yet. in the alternative. the filing of their second fraudulent foreclosure and Motion to Lift Stay and Cottens answer wherein Cotten filed his Counterclaim Adversary Complaint and framed up and executed his “Defensive Defendant Complaints”. “(CMI)” violated the “Act” in their refusal to rescind and while they sent a boiler plate letter of denial to Arnold and Cotten on August 23. 2006 Adversary Complaint against Plaintiff Creditors. seek out an immediate Injunctive Order of Determination by the offending creditor. The District Courts wrongly applied none Bk. al. et. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 112. (“(CMI)”). “(CMI)”. the timely Counterclaims filed by Arnold and Cotten by way of their December 14. 114. al. law statute of limitations as to claims of the estate. refusing to rescind the loan or. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) property of the estate.. Arnold and Cotten had one year from the date of creditor.

permitting the relating back to the initial action filed within one year of the violation. 118. § 157. Case No: RWT 07-2617. the date of “(CMI)” unfounded Denial Letter. laws of tolling: Arnold entered Bk on 2/14/2005 . The courts make no distinction between three years and one year right to bring the action for violation of the “Act”. Bk. Applying the none bk. 2007. The record shows three actions were filed.all defenses and legal actions vested to the estate controlled by the courts pursuant to the estate created and managed by the courts pursuant to 28 U. “(CMI)” violated the “Act” on August 23.. see Attached Exhibits. 2007 and the third on August 6. Estate Matters. Cotten and Arnold filed their first Defensive Counterclaim complaint just over 52 . (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) was patently frivolous and misplaced as properly rebutted presumptions to these facts were properly plead in Arnold and Cottens 4th Amended Affirmative Defense Complaint that sustained these defenses. docket sheets. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. al. The Bk. 115. 2006. 2007. 2007 to file their Violation of TILA action and would be barred after May 29. CitiMortgage Inc. al. et. 117. TILA expressly applies equitable tolling statutes in enforcement actions..S. the second on March 20. case was closed on May 29.C. 2006 upon refusing to rescind. 119. the first on December 14. All actions timely filed and all amended complaints should have as plead in the complaints relate back to these dates as for bar questions and dates are concerned. vs. Cotten and Arnold had one year from May 29. 2008. The Bk and Maryland Court Records uphold Arnold and Cotten timely filed their violation actions immediately upon “(CMI)”. 116.Arnold et. 2006. defaulting on rescission on August 23.

al. no fact finding was conducted and the prima fascia evidence as to “Material Disclosure Violations” submitted with the complaint supports. al. at 362-34 (15th ed.D. § 362(b). In re Scott. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) three months later on December 14. more then well within one year of the violation with public evidence in contradiction the courts misapplication of the law. Case.Ala. Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 362. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 738 (M. et. interest. this is not a grant to removal rights to the “Original and True Plaintiffs”. Case No: RWT 07-2617. CitiMortgage Inc. and same findings also found in the case records as this was a summary judgment hearing. did not press on with their fraudulent foreclosure actions after being served with Arnold and Cottens Counterclaims. The automatic stay is broad in scope and applies to almost every formal and informal action against the debtor or property of the debtor.. 2006.S. 121. 2006 Affirmative Defense Adversary Complaint filed in the Bk. except as set forth under 11 U. All amended complaint actions related back to “(CMI)” initial fraudulent foreclosure actions and again to Cottens December 14. King. The court acted without authority in refusing to find the non-disclosure of PMI was a material violation affecting interest charges. and were barred from ever removing. 53 . 1996). 120. vs.R. 24 B.. 2 Lawrence P. 1982). Just because “(CMI)”.04.C. “(CMI)” is the Plaintiff for removal purposes and were never a qualifying defendants under established removal case law. The stay is effective upon the filing of the petition even though the parties have no notice of its existence.Arnold et. amount financed and total of payments as was the failure to properly disclose the payment schedules was also a Material Disclosure Violation with the courts rulings being without merit and law. et al.

2007 Final Dispositional Order closing Arnolds Bk. Case No: RWT 07-2617. The courts refused to apply TILA law in bringing of the action and instead applied Maryland general statute of limitation rules wrongfully. 124. Cottens interest alike. et. and therefore was tolled until the case was dismissed in May of 2007. there was no need to toll the statute of repose requiring Arnold and Cotten rescind within the 3 years allowed them. this uneven application of established law is in error because all statute of limitations that are non-bankruptcy law statute of limitations were merely paused during the pending Bk case (except for Tila Rescission. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 122. February 8. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. because their interest was at all times joint and because Cotten was also a creditor under Title 11. Arnold and Cotten did not have to bring their first enforcement action against Plaintiffs “(CMI)”. al.. 123.Arnold et. the action of rescinding is a statute of repose and was timely exercised. they clearly rescinded timely so. Rescission was Timely and not the issue). vs. and resumed upon the May 29. (though none need be applied as Arnold and Cotten were well within their bar dates). 2005 and the Closing of the Case on May 29. because 5-103 is a none bankruptcy statute subject to the stay while Arnold was in Bk. Applying the tolling statutes in accord to followed settled federal law that equitable tolling will be read into every statute unless the law specifically states contrary. The Federal District Courts declined to apply equitable tolling statutes. 2007. 54 . case with the courts release of the debtors estate property. until at the very earliest. to the filing of the bankruptcy on February 14. the only tolling that was not applied was the general limitations period and as presented in the 4th Amended Complaint and in the record accord. al. CitiMortgage Inc.

Truth in Lending Series. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 2003 and Cotten rescinded on August 7. see Supra. National Consumer Law Center.. al. the loan closed on September 15. Arnold and Cotten. framed up and executed Counterclaims as true defendants that could not be removed to Federal Courts as they fraudulently were. with these cases and the initial foreclosure actions of “(CMI)”. Arnold and Cotten have TILA claims in Recoupment. vs. failed to seek out an injunctive order to determine the validity of their objections to the rescission therefore is estopped from any such creditor defenses. XII. 2007. 2006. second illegal foreclosure action with notice of rescission issued by Arnold and Cotten for “Material Disclosure Violations” as plead in Arnold and Cottens 4th Amended Complaint for TILA Violations. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 5th Edition. 2006 and again on March 20.as Relation Back to Cases. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 2008. CitiMortgage Inc. et. in defense to “(CMI)”. “(CMI)”. they brought their Counterclaim complaints first on December 14. 129. 127. 126. Arnold and Cotten timely rescinded within the extended three year statute of limitations. al. The 55 . TILA ABUSE OF DISCRETION OBJECTIONS AS TO UNEVEN APPLICATION OF LAWS 128. what did the court miss here and how did they grossly misapply the law substantially to Arnold and Cottens detriment? 125.Arnold et. and in which the federal courts have presided over said matters without jurisdictional authority and right. The District Courts wrongfully applied the laws in contradiction to settled law cases to the contrary in both TILA and BK case matters as well as removal matters as plead. Worse case scenario. emphasis added.

these very disclosures were never given. Bk. Arnold and Cotten provided prima fascia evidence of fraud and deed forgery and 56 . 135. 130.Arnold et. Plaintiffs “(CMI)”.. Arnold and Cotten argue the courts wrongfully applied TILA Criminal Statute Violations for Willful and Knowingly Violating TILA. 12/14/2006 Counterclaim in Bk. 133. has no defense protections due them nor exemptions to be granted. refusal to rescind and issuing and giving misleading material disclosures constitutes knowing and willful violations of the “Act” pursuant to 15 U. 131. 06-2056. never sought out an order of injunction pursuant to 15 U. 05-13246 TJC. The Courts abused their discretion in application of the law as there was never a bar to Arnold and Cotten bringing their Counterclaims timely and within statute. al. plaintiffs “(CMI)”. are in knowing violation of “TILA The Act” and the substantive consumer protections afforded consumers relief thereto and remain in violation to this very day unabated. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. The courts erred in refusing to apply TILA technical requirements to violations of the “Act”.C. Case No. 132. see Case No. 1625(b) and therefore. Case No: RWT 07-2617. et. vs. “True Original Defendants” Adversary. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) Consumer Credit and Sales Legal Practice Series. 1611 and 1615. Case by Arnold and Cotten.S. and knowing reliance on materially defective disclosures they knew were materially altered and forged as they had altered and forged these documents themselves and thus. and their willful refusal to rescind. 134.C. 1607.S. al. reminding the Court. Plaintiffs “(CMI)”. CitiMortgage Inc.

total cost of credit and payment schedules and contradicting documents and disclosures thereto that had been forged post closing and without their knowing or consent. et. The courts have acted in direct contradiction of their subsequent rulings of these very courts and of the Supreme Courts with the District courts refusing to apply established TILA and BK laws as this case record clearly and establishes and proves with the laws being applied unevenly and unfairly in this case and these matters. Another court most assuredly would have recognized as plead in the 4th Amended. CitiMortgage Inc. 2 illegal foreclosures disclosed loan terms that were in direct contradiction to sums disclosed and paid “(CMI)”.Arnold et. vs. Because “(CMI)”. al. yet and the courts abused their discretion when ignoring these case facts. The District Court abused their discretion in allowing any such arguments under the strict mandates of “TILA” and the creditors mandatory compliance mandates as to rescission. 57 . and their two illegal foreclosure attempts. Case No: RWT 07-2617. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Arnold and Cotten were forced to rescind the loan in a defensive action in reply to “(CMI)”. and their illegal misapplication of more then timely mortgage payments. respectively the violating creditor is supposed to be unable to avail themselves to any such creditor defenses whatsoever. amount financed. al. Well Plead Complaint. 2006 as to “Material Disclosure Violations” affecting interest rate. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) fraudulent knowing of disclosure violations yet the courts ignored these facts also. The facts are sufficient enough to establish a knowing admittance of “(CMI)”. Arnold and Cotten rescinded when they discovered their TILA material disclosure violations on or about August 7. 136.. 137.

for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 2006. Enforcement actions for violations of the “Act” make no distinction in calculating the year statute in 1 year or 3 year actions because it is the creditors actions or inactions that causes “the violation of the “Act” with the action beginning to accrue for the first time upon the creditors violations. et. Supra 6. al.5.1 Vesting of Ownership in the Consumer If the Creditor Does Not Accept Tender. 140. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 138. Truth in Lending Series. 141. 142. 139. Subpart B and fair credit and billing act. “(CMI)”. Another Court would clearly recognize Arnold and Cottens rights by mandate to avail themselves to remedies of rescission when a creditor is attempting to fraudulently foreclose and. Hence. in particularly. anytime a creditor violates the Act or continues to violate the Act. The offending Creditor pursuant to National Consumer Law Center. facts in Arnold and Cottens case.. 5th Edition. Regulation Z. for material disclosure violations correctly plead in Arnold and Cottens 4th Amended Complaints and that those causes relate back to the foreclosures and Counterclaims that were filed timely. al.Arnold et. under TILA. Arnold and Cotten had a three-year extended right to rescind until September 15. The Consumer Credit and Sales Legal Practice Series. CitiMortgage Inc. vs.9. when a creditor is claiming interest. loan alterations and charges and a default not legally due and owed. the consumers right is ongoing and any creditor who refuses to uphold the “Act” is in violation of the “Act”. Case No: RWT 07-2617. only needed to provide a payoff balance 58 . so how did the Federal District Courts get this so wrong also? The complaint contained well plead facts in support of these facts and TILA Material Disclosure Violations.

for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. such creditor is therefore denied and estopped from making those counter-defenses in a consumer brought actions for violation of the “Act”. Subpart B. “(CMI)”. these were voluntary solutions the credit industry sought out as opposed to more extensive and stringent regulation and government control and oversight of the industry. 143. 145. as detailed above and herein. 144. fact. The District Courts instead attempted to hide behind a purported bar statute that further fails in law.. of “the Act”. CitiMortgage Inc. misleading and deceptive as they relate to the true cost of the loans interest. Case No: RWT 07-2617. payments and amount financed. al. et. cost. The District Courts ignored the well plead violations and prima fascia evidence of material violations contained in the 4th Amended Complaint and contained in the Exhibits with there being more than sufficient evidence disclosures were materially deficient. these laws were meant to deter creditors from Knowingly and Willfully violating the “Act”. was estopped and not allowed to make any defenses yet the courts failed to apply the law equally and fairly noting that even the slightest technical violation of the “Act” is met with harsh an severe consequences to the offending creditor. al. not encourage and enable them as is the case here in these very sad and grave matters. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) reflecting the affects of rescission and therefore is a creditor who refuses to knowingly and willingly carry out any section or provision under Regulation Z.Arnold et. All subsequent actions flowed from the initial foreclosure 59 . vs. TILA is self regulating and to force consumers into court to attain redress due by the violating creditors was never envisioned by congress because creditors are mandated and expected to comply with all provisions of the “Act”. argument and merit.

5 Creditors Defense Not Expressly Provided by TILA affects of rescission and therefore “Material Violations” were correctly plead by Arnold and Cotten with specific enough detail in the 4th Amended Complaint as well as there was sufficient evidence to prove Arnold and Cotten.e. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. al. 5th Edition.. The Consumer Credit and Sales Legal Practice Series. they still were able to locate a refinance loan programs in 20052007. for just cause of “(CMI)”. A violating creditor of the “Act” comes with no defenses in hand. refusal to rescind and refusing yet further Arnold and Cottens many attempts to Tender while refinance mortgages were readily available even though “(CMI)”. 147. 146. Case No: RWT 07-2617. i. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) actions and Arnold and Cotten were and are the “True. rescinded the loan within the three year extended right period also and did so in Counterclaim of “(CMI)”. had destroyed their credit fraudulently. The offending Creditor pursuant to National Consumer Law Center. Original Defendants” who brought their initial Counterclaim complaint in just over three months of the offending creditors violation of the “Act” pursuant to 15 U. 1640. Supra 7.S. The federal courts overlooked the fact Cotten and Arnold stated and correctly plead their action that was for “Violation of “TILA” the “Act” and offered sufficient evidence in support. the charging of PMI that was never disclosed on the Good Faith Estimates or HUD-1 and all violations plead in the 4th Amended Complaint 60 . al.C. Truth in Lending Series. the four first payment letters documenting conflicting disclosures of the first payment amounts due.Arnold et. vs. et. in reply to their 2nd fraudulent foreclosure actions. CitiMortgage Inc.

148. al. Arnold and Cotten framed up their Counter-Affirmative Defenses in both illegal foreclosure cases. (no prohibitions exist in Creditor Violation Actions Under 15 U.Arnold et.unless expressly prohibited otherwise by law. therefore Violating TILA. in this instant case the “Misleading and Defective Material Disclosure Violations”.. vs. 1640). al. was entitled to protections of the District Courts.C. To the extent tolling is to be applied to the federal mandates requiring the liberal reading of Equitable Tolling into every federal statute……. in fact. et. but their refusal to carry out the acts of rescission those plead in detail in Arnold and Cottens 4th Amended Complaint pursuant the Well Plead Complaint. Disturbingly there was a finding that the TILA violating creditors who refused to rescind a timely issued extended right to rescission. the case evidences contrary. The loan transaction was one wherein Arnold and Cotten relied to their detriment on false and misleading disclosures causing them to cancel an already closed loan to accept the “better loan terms proffered” but not honored by the Loan Originator. not the matter on which the violations were based. CitiMortgage Inc. Case No: RWT 07-2617. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 151. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) that either were or lead to “Material Disclosure Violations”.S. 149. exhibiting “(CMI)”. with no distinction given to an action brought in one year or three years or upon creditor default as was and is the case here in these case matters for violation of the Act as it is the act of the Creditor Refusal to Carry Out their mandates in Knowingly Violating the Act by refusing to uphold TILA mandates. creditor defying the “Act” Knowingly and Willingly in refusing to seek out an injunctive order within the 61 . 150. “the Act”.

. has by fact waived any right to a Creditors Defense. Truth in Lending. refused to provide a payoff statement reflecting the effects of the Rescission. see Supra. amounts payments and cost. al.5 National Consumer Law Center. 20 days by law. “(CMI)”. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) rescission period time allotted the creditor. 154. Professional Law Practice. CitiMortgage Inc.Arnold et. because the disclosures clearly were deceptive at all times failing to disclose the real loan offered and the true interest rate. how did the courts get this wrong and why did they get it so wrong? 152. A rebuttal presumption was clearly plead in the complaint wherein Arnold and Cotten alleged they did not receive the disclosures and that the signatures had been applied by forgery post closing of the loan and not by their hand. vs. al. Arnold and Cotten sought out an adjusted payoff statement reflecting the effects of the rescission so they could obtain loans they had secured in ready to tender however “(CMI)”. 153. 155. Arnold and Cotten were always able to establish detrimental reliance on the loan disclosures. in which the consumers correctly moved to cancel the loan in response to “Material Loan Disclosure Violations” discovered on or about August 7. therefore these creditors were in knowing violation at all times hereto and remain in violation of the “Act” refusing to rescind and file the canceling documents as they were mandated to do. or to carry out their duty to Rescind the Loan and Tender the Mandated Sums by way of the payoff statement. Case No: RWT 07-2617. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. these facts which are clearly laid out and are legitimate and correct presumptive rebuttal arguments were clearly made in the well plead complaint. as plead in the complaint. 62 . 7. et.

it violates the fundamental constitutional precept of limited federal 63 . 158. is not a Defendant that may be availed to removal relief. no liberal application mandates evident here by these courts. vs. not that it applies here at all because “(CMI)”. 159. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. al. the United States Federal District Courts of Beltsville trespass upon the Law and Act this Courts Jurisdictional Powers with Knowing Usurp of the Maryland State Courts Powers and these limited jurisdictional federal courts powers in this court acting in a manner that is beyond their powers and contrary to established rulings regarding Removals. et. and Government Mandates under Req. by law and fact. In summary. Case No: RWT 07-2617. Z.. This unwarranted dismissal appears to be a possible cure to the supposed diversity of citizen defect. fraudulent removals. This sustains Arnold and Cottens timely challenges to “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” and correctly placed opposition to the Plaintiffs “(CMI)”. CitiMortgage Inc. al. 156. 157. CFI’s agent never appeared in the Summary Judgment hearing and the courts did not verify CFI was in fact bankrupt when. they were and remain in willful and knowing violation of TILA mandates as is also this court is also in their refusal to administer and apply these laws as intended by congress.Arnold et. Subpart B. CFI was not bankrupt and happened to be a party only in two actions before the Bk courts. When a federal court acts outside their statutory rights of “Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. TILA and Bk laws of the Supreme Court Rulings Contrary said. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 2006 when they issued their Extended Right of Rescission Notice to “(CMI)” who patently refused to Rescind as mandated under law.

Third and Fourth cases prove “(CMI)” was at all times hereto the 64 . “Original Case Plaintiffs” “(CMI)”. Case. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) power”. 05-13246 TJC. et. in Bk. “True. 06-2056. 55-06253. Calvert County Circuit Court and “(CMI)” Motion to Lift Stay to Foreclose. AND. Docket No.. Arnold and Cotten have always maintained they were never in default of their mortgage payments and can still prove those facts today. Bk. XIII. TILA and Illegal Collection of a Debt and other related claims. “(CMI)” became Counter-Defendants when Arnold and Cotten filed their second defensive counterclaim complaint in their Circuit Courts of Calvert County.Arnold et. the First. is Plaintiff Creditor. al. 06/19/2006. for “(CMI)” Illegal Foreclosure Actions. 12/14/2006 in Bk. This case wrongfully found its way to the United States Federal District Court of Beltsville by way of Fraudulent Removals by offending. 01/14/2005. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. “(CMI)”. vs. LEGAL FACTS 160. Arnold and Cotten framed up their Counter-Affirmative Defenses in both illegal foreclosure cases. Case No. see Attached Exhibit. 162. Case No. 05-13246 TJC. Upon fraudulent removal of all cases contained in this motion. Case No. 161. 130. see case Chronology. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 164. Foreclosure Case History and Bk Docket reflecting Plaintiffs “(CMI)” Notice to Foreclose and Motion for Relief From Stay Case No. al. Original Defendants” Adversary Counterclaim to Illegal Foreclosures and TILA claims”. Case No. Arnold and Cotten. 04-0-05-000046 FC. CitiMortgage Inc. 163.

165. C. The rule that a court first addresses its jurisdiction is so fundamental that "the 65 ." Mansfield.. 19 L. and when it ceases to exist. Swan. 462 (1884). 264 (1868).M.. 7 Wall. & L. 168. 169. 28 L. the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.Arnold et. The Supreme Court has declined to endorse such a misplaced approach because it carries the courts beyond the bounds of authorized judicial action and thus offends fundamental principles of separation of powers. "Without Jurisdiction the Court Cannot Proceed at All in Any Cause”. CitiMortgage Inc. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 506. 514. vs. 111 U. 166. who. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) “Original Plaintiffs”. al. 379. This conclusion should come as no surprise to those Federal Courts. et.Ct. in the face of jurisdictional objections.Ed.R. v.. since it is reflected in a long and venerable line of court cases. 511. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. The supreme court has time and time again rejected courts who elude “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” questions by attempting to proceed immediately to the merits question. withdrew their complaints to foreclose.S. 382. al.Ed. at “(CMI)”." Ex-parte McCardle. Co. as is the case here in these matters and constitutes an abuse of discretion of the courts in exercising a discretion when is permitted. Arnold and Cottens claims belonged in their State Courts where they had filed them as Counter Defendants.. own behest. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law. 4 S. The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter "spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States" and is "inflexible and without exception. 167. 510.

2104.2d 492 (1982). Arnold and Cotten ask these Honorable Courts to Void and Set Aside All Orders. XIV. vs. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) courts are obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of federal jurisdiction. or by conduct. 694.g.Ct. v. Doyle. 571.Ed. Case No: RWT 07-2617. Dist.. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee.Ct. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Subject Matter Jurisdiction cannot be waived or consented to. 171.2d 471 (1977) (citations omitted). MARYLAND HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ABILITY TO REVIEW DE NOVA THE LAWS FOR ABUSE OF DISCRETION 172. where genuine concern for overreaching of federal courts remains a real and viable apprehension for every state court. 97 S. These Courts cannot dispute a Federal District court must determine its jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of the case. 170. 568. CitiMortgage Inc. 50 L. § 3522. of Ireland." 13 WRIGHT ET AL. 2099. al. Bd. particularly in Removal cases. 274.Ed. "The general rule is that the parties cannot confer on a federal court jurisdiction that has not been vested in that court by the Constitution and Congress”. 456 U. et." Mt. 102 S. v. see. It contests only the proposition that the federal court must reach the issue of “Subject-Matter Jurisdiction before reaching a challenge to personal jurisdiction.S. or even by estoppel. Insurance Corp. supra. of Educ. 429 U. 66 . 72 L. This means that the parties cannot waive lack of [subject-matter] jurisdiction by express consent. 702. Healthy City Sch. the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts is too basic a concern to the judicial system to be left to the whims and tactical concerns of the litigants.. Ltd.S. al. e. at 66-68 (citations omitted). 278.Arnold et..

vs.. 124 Md. The existence of a factual predicate of fraud. 615. 178. mistake. Wormwood v. these acts constitute denial of due process and are an abuse of the courts discretion because a court is without discretion in matters regarding “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” of a court and is correctly addressed by this “FRCP 60(b)(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside and Void”’. 176. 700 (1999). It appears clear these Federal Courts have exhibited a gross abuse of the courts discretion in all these matters now stated in this Motion to Set Aside and “Void” all Orders.. MD have interfered with legally protected due process and right to redress rights and have denied these right to Maryland Citizens doing so against established Supreme Court Removal Laws and Constitutional Rights. al. the Order was a “Void” § 67 . CitiMortgage Inc. Case No: RWT 07-2617. al. et. Inc. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. necessary to support vacating a judgment under § FRAP 60(b)(1)(2)(3) or. Plaintiffs preserved technical arguments from the fraudulently removed cases in support of “(CMI)” fraudulent removals and because the District Courts refusal to apply the laws of the land equally and due all United States. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 173.Arnold et. or irregularity. Benson v. 653 (2005). 177. are “True Original Plaintiffs” and cannot remove. 389 Md. 695. The District Courts of Beltsville. App. A trial court’s ruling on a motion to alter or amend falls under a review for abuse of discretion. Batching Systems. Maryland Citizens. State. 174. 175. “(CMI)”. There is no evidence the District Federal Courts would ever have jurisdiction over Arnold and Cottens Counterclaims because the removal laws are clear on qualifying defendant criteria that only “True Original Defendants” may remove.

al.5 (1997). vs.2d 16 (1977). 04-0-05-000046 FC. In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 182. “Original Plaintiffs”. 130. 180. the “Order” is a “Void” and “Nullity” “ab initio”. and must be set aside for what they are.: 344 Md. 458. hence. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 475. Id. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 93321055/CAD. that be known now onto these Courts. n.(filed by “(CMI)” Docket No. Motion to these courts as a matter of law and fact. et. Civil Case No.Arnold et. 180. 179. No. al. Tucker. a Courts Lacking of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is the making of “Void Orders”. 710. At 475. 373 A. and still are. “(CMI)” are “(CMI)” is again the Plaintiff in their second Illegal Complaint to Foreclose and Lift Stay. 35 Md. Arnold and Cotten assert and maintain such predicate exist as a matter of fact and law in these matters now before these honorable courts. just as Arnold and Cotten have discovered. Arnold and Cotten are “Original Defendants” to this initial illegal action on which all subsequent actions are predicated on with the counterclaim lawsuits being barred from removal. see Tucker v. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) FRAP 60(b)4. that are a question of law. If the factual predicate exists. nullities at inception for the courts wanting at all times of “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” over both “Issues and Parties”.. the court’s decision on the motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. In the above captioned Civil Cases. “(CMI)” sought to foreclose were. App. 55-06253 of Bk). The courts could never attain personal jurisdiction over Arnold and Cottens claims because they had a binding right to litigate their claims in their state courts forum where the actions started out and because they were and are the “True Original Defendants” for 68 . CitiMortgage Inc. 181.

94 (4th Cir. 188. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) the purpose of all related removal actions. Here in this motion to vacate the courts “Orders”. 1997). abuse of that courts discretion and violation of due process.. M. 187. CitiMortgage Inc. See Heyman v.3d 91. 1997).3d 91.L. Mktg. 116 F. 183. Mktg. al. al. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR MOTION TO SET ASIDE “VOID ORDERS” ON MOTION PURSUANT TO FRCP 60(b)4 185. Co. XV.Arnold et. vs. in that these courts dismissed defendant CFI wrongfully and § 60(b)(2) Void has also been reasonably brought. this court is vested with the just authority to Set Aside and Vacate the “Orders as Nullities and Voids” because they are just that. the “Orders” Collectively are 69 . 116 F. 186. Subject Matter Jurisdiction May not Be Waived Nor Estopped and has been Wrongfully Conferred to the District Federal Courts by “(CMI) acts of Fraud in the procurement of judgment. Arnold and Cotten assert these Honorable Courts possess full authority vested to review a motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) for lack of a courts jurisdictional authority. “(CMI)” is and was the “Original Plaintiffs” and not allowed to remove.. M.. On Motion to set aside and void. Motion to Void FRCP § 60(b)(2)(4). for Mistake and for Void is properly before these honorable Courts by motion that is being made before the expiration of one year as this statute applies to FRCP § 60(b)(2) Mistake.L. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. See Heyman v. pursuant to Rule § 60(b)(4). Case No: RWT 07-2617. et. Co. 94 (4th Cir. "Voids" for both Courts Wanting of Jurisdiction.

Inc. Case No: RWT 07-2617. vs. for abuse of discretions. See Broadcast Music. 1979) (stating..2d 96.3d 137. abuse of the courts discretion and violations of due process in refusing to apply the laws equally and fairly as they are due to be applied. motions "under FRCP § 60(b)(4) are reviewed for abuse of discretion. any court of law may relieve a party from a final judgment or order that is a “Void or a Nullity”. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. but to decline jurisdiction not due this court over the fraudulently removed cases as the courts would have due notice and warning. Enters. 192. This court has the authority to review de novo. v. al. Under FRCP § 60(b)(4). remand for lack of jurisdiction of these Federal Courts. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) clearly “Void Orders” under Rule 60(b)(4) and are due to receive the relief requested in this motion for lack of the courts jurisdictional authority. Alton S.S. “(CMI)” fraudulently removed the cases detailed in the case Chronology contained in this Motion to Set Aside and Void and did so with the intent to mislead the courts as had they listed all related cases. aside from those warnings provided the courts by Arnold and Cotten. that of which must also be considered in this case as well as FRCP § 60(b)(4)). al. et.T.. See Compton v. Co. 191. 84 F. 189. 280 (5th Cir. v. 811 F..S. Brown. M. as is the same now.. 1996). 608 F. 190. 70 .Arnold et. Inc. A movant claiming relief under Rule 60(b)(4) need not establish a meritorious defense. Arnold and Cotten justly are seeking this honorable courts relief. Co. the courts long ago would have had no choice. 107 (4th Cir.2d 278. 142 (5th Cir. CitiMortgage Inc. see also New York Life Ins.

and the Court had a duty which requires they examine jurisdiction continuously and sua sponta. Ltd. those facts clearly laid out now and proven herein and now. It is clear discretion has no place where “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” is concerned. et. a judgment may be vacated for voidness under Rule § 60(b)(4) only if the rendering court lacked Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction.Integrated Design & Constr. These Orders may not be held to be Orders that are “Void” merely because it is or may be erroneous.. 637 F.. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 1987). 196. Relief under Rule § 60(b)(4) remains an extraordinary remedy resting exclusively in the concept giving rise to the fact that a "Void Judgment” arises out of and from the assumption there has been an abuse in its discretion by those Courts. all is exactly what happened in these matters at bar.2d 238.. 194.3d 861. al.. CitiMortgage Inc. 71 . 195. Inc. 1999). the courts clearly abused their discretion and employed discretion in considering the objections to “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” claims in this instant action at bar. the case facts must convey jurisdiction. it is clear nothing can save these “Orders” that are “Voids and Legal Nullities”. 167 F. that which cannot be ignored.Arnold et. In so much as the Orders of this Courts are Voids ab initio. Case No: RWT 07-2617. vs.Gemini. Ltd. v." Baumlin & Ernst. 242 (4th Cir. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. parties cannot and did not agree to jurisdiction trespasses of the fraudulent removals that extend no authority to these courts because “(CMI)” are the “True and Original plaintiffs for who cannot remove to federal courts nor can they remove counterclaims either. 1980). 193. Instead. See Eberhardt v. al. 871 (4th Cir.

" Baumlin & Ernst. 198. in Bk.. Ltd. 1980). et. 06-2056. JURISDICTION ARGUMENTS 199. XVI. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Case No. 976 F. Docket No. Case by Arnold and Cotten. 06/19/2006.2d at 241 (4th Cir. courts “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” may not be granted by a few parties. al. 04-0-05-000046 FC and. accomplishing the removal by their acts of fraud. 0513246 TJC. 637 F. specifically. The courts may not dodge Subject Matter Jurisdiction requirements of the court’s hence resulting in the judgment being a "complete nullity and without legal effect.Arnold et. Case No. CitiMortgage Inc. al. 197. 05-13246 TJC: The courts violated due process when ignoring Arnold and Cottens many demands for remand and objections to the fraudulent removals. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) Schwartz v. This court made a clear error in their jurisdictional authority and abused their discretion in continuing to preside over matters when it was without doubt they had usurped Congress and the Bankruptcy courts Authority and Power when refusing to carry 72 . Plaintiffs “(CMI)” never had the authority to remove and achieved removal by deceptively failing to record all related cases. Case No. as the District “Orders” wrongfully imply and these courts order must be set aside on all fraudulently removed cases. Case No: RWT 07-2617. Civil Case No. 55-06253. and Bk. vs. “Original Defendants” Adversary Counterclaims by “Original Defendants Arnold and Cotten”... 130. v. Bk. United States. Gemini. 217 (4th Cir.2d 213. Ltd. Bankruptcy Complaint to Lift Stay to Foreclose. Case No. 12/14/2006 Counterclaims in Bk. 1992). all of these events have occurred in these instant matters before the courts now on this motion. 200.

514 U. CitiMortgage Inc. Ionization Int'l. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Case No: RWT 07-2617. vesting further all legal rights thereto of the fraudulently removed cases and Order Remand..” Celotex Corporation v. 1987). 115 S. 1501. al." E. et. Ct. 825 F. Original Defendants” Arnold and Cotten. 1240 (7th Cir.. The only proper office of a Nunc Pro Tunc order is to correct a mistake in the records. al. 902 F. Lack of jurisdiction cannot be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc as evidenced here in this instant case. Daniels. that which must further include Court Cost and Sanctions for All Fraudulent Removals. the “Status Quo” of all their Fraudulently Removed Cases.g. 313. 325-26 (7th Cir. Inc. 644(7th cir. United States v. WHEREFORE PLAINTIFFS PREY FOR RELIEF.2d 403 (1995). King v. 1999).. 1990). 131 L. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) out the laws mandates and must be corrected as to permitting courts to act in such a conflicting capacity as such actions. _______________________________ 73 . “seriously undercuts the orderly process of the law.Arnold et. 300.S. 1493.2d 1180.2d 1238. Edwards. Vacating All Orders and to grant all and any other relief these honorable courts deem just and due. v. South. Transamerica Ins. 975 F. 1188 (7th Cir.3d 642. Ed. 201. properly and justly compel these Honorable Courts to “Order and DECREE “Void” this Courts “Orders” as “Nullities” and restore onto “True. Griffee. 1992). it cannot be used to rewrite history. vs.2d 321. And Central Laborer's Pension and Annuity Funds v. Respectfully Submitted. 198 F. Co.

et.. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) Kathleen Arnold & Timothy A. CitiMortgage Inc. Case No: RWT 07-2617. Md 20736 (410) 257-5283 74 . al. al. Cotten.Arnold et. Pro Se Defendants 9543 North Side Drive Owings. vs.

al.. al. Plaintiffs. al. or otherwise dismiss. Defendants. if. a plaintiff who has chosen to commence the action in state court cannot later 75 . for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. to remand to state court if appropriate. al. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (GREENBELT DIVISION) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Arnold. CitiMortgage Inc.“VOID ORDERS” AND. it is found lacking. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ FRCP MOTION § 60(b)(2) and (4) .. et. “The appropriate course [for a federal court] is to examine for subject matter jurisdiction constantly and. Case No: RWT 07-2617 MOTION FRCP § 60(b)(2) and (4) “VOID ORDERS” AND. et. CitiMortgage Inc. Case No: RWT 07-2617.. vs. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE XVII. et. vs." Because the right of removal is vested exclusively in a true defendant.Arnold et. ARGUMENTS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW 1.

as here in this instant case at bar. 147. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. is bound by that choice and may not remove the case. See 14C Wright. Inc. As those District Federal Courts have cause to know. motions and objections. therefore the question must be presented and addressed as to exactly why did these courts ignore “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” challenges by Arnold and Cotten in these matters? 4. 'Due regard for the rightful independence of state governments. 762 F. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) remove to federal court. which should 76 . even to defend against the counterclaim. al. Arnold and Cotten contend the courts had and continue to have a duty to reconcile Scott v. see Attached Exhibit. the Federal Courts patently ignored Arnold and Cottens just challenges and therefore abused their discretion in so doing. Case No: RWT 07-2617. and the District Courts refusal to account for the courts Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Texas 1991). vs. (those belonging to the State of Maryland). The “well-established rule is that the plaintiff.. who chose the forum.Arnold et.D. denying and dismissing all motions for hearings on the fraudulently removed cases and claims. 2008 Order made under Case No. al. Miller and Cooper. et. Arnold and Cotten contend the courts September 12. the conflicting rights to removal by parties and therefore had a binding obligation to immediately defend challenges made to the courts Subject Matter Jurisdiction raised repeatedly by Arnold and Cotten. Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 3d §3731 (1998). “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” may not be waived or Estopped.” Communications Services. 3. 150 (S.Supp.. 2. Despite the pleadings. CitiMortgage Inc. both constitute severe abuses of discretion and denial of due process and redress. 8:07-cv-02722-RWT.

234 S. 284 U.Ct. requires that they scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise limits which the statute has defined'. The Federal Courts never defended as the are mandated to. “(CMI)”. 263. 484. 703.R. 233 . their Subject Matter Jurisdiction Challenges. Case No: RWT 07-2617. al..S.S. noting this court did not even have personal jurisdiction over removing defendants “(CMI)” because they were “True. 24 A. 217. failing to defend and prove their challenged Subject Matter Jurisdiction that which they could not prove and had no legal authority or right to waive these mandatory procedures in their proceeding with restraining Arnold and Cotten in their courts illegally. these cases are not cases eligible to be removed as the Supreme Court has held repeatedly. Burke Construction Co. 700. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Marshall. Rodgers. vs. Elgin v. cf. et. as Counterclaim Defendants. 43 S.. Ratta. that it was evident all cases evolved from the “Plaintiffs” “(CMI)” two foreclosure actions. pleadings and motions. 226.. 525 . al. Origional Plaintiffs not allowed to remove. 292 U. therefore eliminating “(CMI)” all together as a defendant charged with the right permitted to remove under established removal law as only “Defendants” may remove. At some time and point this District Federal Court had to realize in reading Arnold and Cottens 4th Amended Complaint and subsequent complaints.Ct. 82.S. 1 S.Arnold et. 5. 578 .L. 106 U. 6. 260 U. Arnold and Cotten are the true defendants and they never removed nor filed their counterclaim causes in these Federal District Courts. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) actuate federal courts. 219.S. 270 . Healy v. 54 S. and their Legal Agents knew this and had cause to know this 77 . 521. with it being clear “(CMI)” is and always was the “Plaintiff” and. Matthews v. CitiMortgage Inc. 1077.Ct. 52 S. see Kline v. 79.Ct.

Arnold et. al. vs. CitiMortgage Inc. et. al., for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”, Case No: RWT 07-2617, (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion)

upon executing the all fraudulent removals. 7. Had these District Courts accepted their mandatory charges to challenges to

subject matter jurisdiction and the fraudulent removal allegations, they would have discovered promptly, some three years earlier, their courts lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction to hear the fraudulently removed cases. 8. Removing true Plaintiffs “(CMI)” made intentional Omissions on the Case

Removal Court Intake Forms, see Attached Exhibits. 9. The honorable courts were content in not scratching the surface and refused to

look beyond the superficial case removal intake forms, and apparently negating to ever conduct an independent removal analysis as required of Federal Courts in Removal Cases, and especially those in which the removals are contested as here. 10. These courts had a duty to strictly construe removal statutes that dictates Removal

Statute are Strictly Applied. Because there is a presumption against removal jurisdiction, the court must strictly construe the federal removal statute and resolve all doubt in favor of remand. Fajen v. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 331, 333 (10th Cir. 1982). 11. These Courts illegally restrained and detained Arnold and Cotten holding them in

a court without authority to enter any “Order” because Subject Matter Jurisdiction cannot be waived or acquiesced, and is only granted the courts by strict following of the Removal Laws. Clearly here in this case, there was never any legal bases for this court to proceed first to the merits of the case and particularly in light of Arnold and Cottens
78

Arnold et. al. vs. CitiMortgage Inc. et. al., for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”, Case No: RWT 07-2617, (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion)

urging onto the courts to examine the removals and demand for the courts to defend their misplaced claim of rights to a jurisdiction they simply never had and doing so independent of the removing parties notably infirmed pleadings……to which all these actions or inactions, resulted in this court abusing their discretion. 12. Had the District courts exercised proper discretion and conducted an independent

case search as mandated, they would have more then concluded the fraudulently removed cases were not cases subject to removal because the removing Defendants, “(CMI)” were not the “True Original Defendants” but are and were the “True Original Plaintiffs” therefore a reasonable diligent investigation beneath “(CMI)” removal case intake forms combined with Arnold and Cottens timely motions for remand, these contrary facts should have been obvious to the courts and the courts should have forced “(CMI)” to carry their burden and ruled in favor of remand to resolve these discrepancies as the courts are mandated to act in accord. 13. The courts could have spared Arnold and Cotten of these undue delays in their

case by fully defending their right to preside over the wrongfully and fraudulently removed cases, as it stands now, because the courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction Arnold and Cotten are left still waiting for justice because by law and fact, this courts orders lacked legal standing and are voids. 14. The courts never defended their challenges to jurisdiction but yet, had a binding

duty to first decide Subject Matter Jurisdiction when confronted with challenges in removal of cases in which the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is reasonably
79

Arnold et. al. vs. CitiMortgage Inc. et. al., for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”, Case No: RWT 07-2617, (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion)

questioned as clearly here in these matters at bar. It was and continues to be reasonably questioned by Arnold and Cotten repeatedly throughout the past three years and now again formally in this motion to Set Aside and Void for Fraud and Mistake, the Mistake being this court dismissal of CFI without just cause because CFI was never in Bankruptcy as of the hearing on January 26, 2010, nor could plaintiffs remove cases to federal courts, even if they become counterdefendants, plaintiffs cannot not remove. 15. Arnold and Cotten argue that the court should have as they are bound by Supreme were to consider the issues first of subject-matter jurisdiction as

Court dictum,

challenged by Arnold and Cotten justly, prior to this court proceeding to address matters in the case they never had and could not gain authority to preside over said matters because Plaintiffs cannot remove cases to federal courts even if they become counterdefendants, a plaintiff is the master of their complaint. 16. There be never a reason for this Federal Court to exercise a power and authority it

merely never had when ignoring black letter law that has already been decided for this district court and has been already described, Article III envisions state courts as the default for all claims, based in both state and federal law. See Healy, 292 U.S. at 270, 54 S.Ct. at 703; supra part II. 17. Where Congress has not extended federal subject-matter jurisdiction, the courts

should respect the Article III default of residual state court jurisdiction. See, e.g., 13 Wright, Miller & Cooper, supra, § 3522, at 61-62. Therefore, although the ultimate issue might prove to be one of federal law, a federal court may not deprive state courts
80

CitiMortgage Inc. al. 81 . 19. “(CMI)” was at all times relevant thereto the “Original Plaintiffs”. the Two Subsequent Foreclosure Actions they had taken. Fraudulent Foreclosure Actions. We stand to remind these Honorable Courts of the limited extent of the Federal courts jurisdictional powers over claims that arouse under the state courts of Maryland. 20. et. therefore making CitiMortgages Inc. this is where Arnold and Cottens claims arouse pursuant to Plaintiffs “(CMI)”. and in which Arnold and Cotten had clearly framed up and executed their Affirmative Defense Countercomplaint lawsuits. al. et.. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) of their authority. This District court has attempted to decide personal subject matters prior to first identifying they even possessed at all times a right that at all times was not existent. (all cases were fraudulently removed and consolidated were non-removal cases). al. see Attached Exhibits. regardless of consideration to a complaint raising federal question. “(CMI)” “Omitted All Related Foreclosure Cases”. see Cases and Party Chronicle in this complaint. vs. 18. Case No: RWT 07-2617. Arnold and Cottens claims arouse in their state of Maryland and while the “Original Plaintiffs”.Arnold et. claims that which do not change the fact that Arnold and Cotten are and remain. Removals Fraudulent as Alleged by Arnold and Cotten and as to the Removal Case Intake Forms Exhibits. to which no removal was permitted and is exactly why Arnold and Cotten contend they Omitted time and time again. “(CMI)” were in fact named as Defendants in Arnold and Cottens CounterDefense Adversary complaints. on a total of 5 Fraudulent Removals. and as is consistent with recent Supreme Court Rulings. the “Original Defendants”. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”.

The United States District Courts of Beltsville have acted beyond the powers vested onto them. 24. Case No: RWT 07-2617. et. 85 L. these courts would have timely discovered. al. Although the Court acknowledged that. 22. CitiMortgage Inc.” id. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 21. v.Ct. "Only the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is derived directly from the Constitution. if they did not know. under the statutory predecessor to § 1441(a).Ed. the removal statute allowed “either party” to remove the suit to federal court.Ct. which provided that an action “may be removed by the defendant or defendants therein to the district court of the United States for the proper district. 1. vs. this court at all times thereto Abused their Discretion in Refusing to Resolve these matters properly Raised by Arnold and Cotten as the record reflects.Ct..Ct. id.Arnold et. 61 S. granted and allowed Arnold and Cottens many timely motions for hearings on the courts wanting for Subject Matter Jurisdiction. at 104-05. Fact is. between 1875 and 1887. proceeding beyond their judicial powers in forcing upon Arnold and Cotten a jurisdiction not conferred to these courts by law. 100. al. Sheets. 1214 (1941). In Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. the Supreme Court considered the question of “whether the suit in which [a] counterclaim is filed is one removable by the [original] plaintiff to the federal district court ․. 61 S. 313 U. 61 S. 868. the Court 82 . they lacked jurisdiction over the case. 868. The Technical Removal Violations were also asserted timely upon each fraudulent removal.S. 23. 868. at 105 n. 868. quoting from Shamrock holding. at 103. Had this District Court dug this out of the state court case history or.” id. 61 S.

61 S.Ct. 25. see also Florence v. al. 868. 61 S. defendants in the traditional sense of parties against whom the [original] plaintiff asserts claims. 83 .Arnold et. vs. 226 F. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) concluded that Congress “narrow[ed] the federal jurisdiction on removal” by amending the statute in 1887 to allow removal only “by the ‘defendant or defendants' in the suit. Congress has noted.” id.”). cross claims. at 107.2002) (“[I]n adopting the current language [of the removal statute]. Congress intended to restrict removal jurisdiction solely to the defendant to the main claim.. provided it not be extended beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution. Curry.. Counterclaims. 301 F.3d 456.2002) (noting that the American Law Institute has recommended that Congress “make clear what the present law merely implies: the right of removal applies only to the action as framed by the pleading that commences the action.Ct.2d 747.Md. Case No: RWT 07-2617.” First Nat'l Bank of Pulaski v. Arnold and Cotten are clearly the defendants to the main claim of “(CMI)” foreclosure actions. Every other federal court . al. That body may give. CitiMortgage Inc. the Court thus held that the original plaintiff against whom the original defendant had filed a counterclaim could not remove the case to federal court under § 1441(a)'s predecessor. 462-63 (6th Cir... withhold or restrict such jurisdiction at its discretion. 749 (D. ABM Indus. derives its jurisdiction wholly from the authority of Congress.” id. et." Kline v. at 108. and third-party claims cannot be the basis for removal [under § 1441(a) ]”). 25. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 868. Noting that interpretation of removal statutes “call[ed] for ․ strict construction.Supp.

al.Arnold et. 43 S. 260 U. et.Ct. 418. " 'Due regard for the rightful independence of state governments. requires that they scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise limits which a federal statute has defined. 27.Ct. 67 L. Where Congress has given the lower federal courts jurisdiction over certain controversies. 202. 29. 28. CitiMortgage Inc. Victory Carriers. 92 S. "When Federal questions arise in cases pending in the state courts such as “Original Defendants”. 404 U. Under our federal constitutional scheme. e. and it is their duty." Id. Inc. 79...Ct. Law. at 190-91. at 49. which should actuate federal courts. 226. the state courts are assumed to be equally capable of deciding state and federal issues.2d 383 (1971). To the extent that Congress elects to confer only limited jurisdiction on the federal courts. to decide them. 92 S.Ed. 26.S. "courts should proceed with caution in construing constitutional and statutory provisions dealing with the jurisdiction of the federal courts.Ct. at 212. Cf. vs. 30 L. 226 (1922). at 425. state courts become the sole vehicle for obtaining initial review of some federal and state claims. 425. Accordingly." Victory Carriers.. al. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) Burke Constr. Arnold and Cottens Affirmative Defensive counterclaims against “(CMI)” “those state courts are competent. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 82. v. and because the Constitution leaves Congress the policy choice concerning how far the federal courts' jurisdiction should extend.' " Id. The Supreme Courts and federal courts have stated repeatedly they know of nothing in the intervening years to cause these courts to doubt the state court's ability to apply federal law”. (quoting 84 . 404 U.Ed. Co. 234.g. 212.S. 22 S.S..

(All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) Healy v. given weight and due consideration to those courts uneven application of decided removal case law by the 85 . would have a tendency to allow a court to abuse its jurisdictional privileges. Ratta. CitiMortgage Inc. al. The supreme courts have reached these decisions the same time and time again and has ruled in allowing a court unfettered access to Personal Jurisdiction under the appearance of Federal Question. 270. 78 L. vs. Arnold and Cotten have pause for alarm based over this Federal Courts mishandling of the fraudulent removals of their state Cases.Ed.S. 700. 292 U. Intervention of the District Courts without expressed authority has resulted in “Void Orders” because this federal court has and is exceeding their authority in their failure to defend subject matter jurisdiction before deciding personal jurisdictional matters the court had a duty in which to apply the law fairly and equally. 263.Arnold et. 703. they have failed to do so in these matters with it being unfair for the courts to deny proper. if allowed.Ct.. et. 1248 (1934)). have proven they lack the desire and or ability to apply the laws fairly and evenly as evidenced alone in their severe abuses of discretion exhibited in the Fraudulent Removals of Arnold and Cottens cases from the Circuit Courts of Calvert County and the jurisdictional challenges timely mounted by Arnold and Cotten but yet eschewed by this court. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 54 S. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 31. 32. which are limited by congress for reasons to prevent the courts from exceeding their jurisdiction authority and as they have so done in these matters. 33. al. 30. timely remands to state courts that were at all times legally due. The Federal Courts in these grave matters.

all cases affirmatively denied a defendant subjected to counterclaims any right to remove. CitiMortgage Inc. vs." 28 U. et." Williams v. Case No: RWT 07-2617. Aurora holdings. This federal court has refused to defend against wrongful removals and subject matter jurisdiction that goes against judicial guidance and rules of settled Supreme Court Law in removal cases similar to this case such as Shamrock Oil v. Steel. Taylor.Arnold et. District Courts arrived at a wrongful decision when eschewing Subject Matter Jurisdiction challenges "contrary to" clearly established federal law that "if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently from [the Supreme] Court on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Palisades and West v. 34. “(CMI)” falls under this category of defendants who are barred from removal therefore these courts never could achieve personal jurisdiction to enter their void orders.C. This Federal Court has arrived at decidedly contrary and different conclusions of law in this courts flawed misapplication of the law that which is profoundly inconsistent to established Supreme Court Rulings over the same removal and case matters.. al. resulting in decisions clearly contrary to established laws. 35. 36. 412-13 (2000). for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. The "unreasonable application" are grounds for granting the writ and applies "if 86 . that has caused an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal laws by the Supreme Courts of the United States. 529 U. 362. al. The U. § 2254(d)(1). (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) Supreme Courts of the United States regarding removals.S.S. and. this very courts decisions to ostensibly ignore Subject Matter Jurisdiction challenges.S.

531. n. 418 U. 398 U.. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 524.. Arizonans for Official English v.S.S. 414 U. Secretary of Navy v. See also Bell: 37. of Railroad Passengers. without proper jurisdiction. It should be noted here that as in this case at bar. 39." Williams. supra. Hood. 529 U. Avrech. 348 . 678 (per curiam).S. See. at 412-13. Judicial Council of Tenth Circuit. Arizona. Norton v. 676 .S. CitiMortgage Inc. et. 465. United States v.S. 393 U. 87 .. Bell v. which it finds void for lack of jurisdiction. 348 . 8—17. IN AN ESTEEMED LINE OF SUPREME COURT CASES. a court cannot proceed at all. 43. vs. distinguished. 427 U. 13. “Void” or Legal Nullity”. Watts v. 393 U. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme Court's] decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case. For a court to pronounce upon a law’s meaning or constitutionality when it has no jurisdiction to do so is. al. 86—88. Capron v.Arnold et.. The judgment here must be set aside for it is. If the judgment is void it must be set aside . 2d at 87. Case No: RWT 07-2617. the Supreme Court has held that. Van Noorden. an ultra vires act. and Chandler v. National Assn. United States v. Augenblick. 520 U. A court considering a motion to vacate a judgment.. 453. Augenblick. 74." Fisher. 565 So. e. has no discretion to hold that the judgment should not be set aside. discretion has no place for operation. Mathews. National Railroad Passenger Corp.S. 2 Cranch 126. but can only note the jurisdictional defect and dismiss the suit. al.S. by very definition. a Rule 60(b)(4) motion involves a different standard of review than the other Rule 60(b) subsections since the court held "[w]hen the grant or denial turns on the validity of the judgment.S. v. 38. Pp.g.

on its own motion. The judgment was set aside for lack of personal jurisdiction based on improper service by publication. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. "The consequences of an act beyond the court's jurisdiction in the fundamental sense differs from the consequences of an act in excess of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs cannot be a removing party to federal courts. In contrast.. an act in excess of jurisdiction is valid until set aside. al. 43.1985). Case No: RWT 07-2617. 410 (9th Cir.. 3d 746 (1997). the en banc court held that. 752 F. in removed cases. al. vs. Amaraneni. In a 9-to-7 decision. as motioned by Arnold and Cotten. 41. is justly employed to attack void judgment. Inc. Estoppel. 42. 565 So. 40. 1978))." Id. a reaching of beyond the District Courts Jurisdiction. 1990). or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. A Rule 60(b)(4). This is the case here at bar and subject this correctly motioned request for due Rule § 60(b)(2)(4) relief. 364 So. Southbound Records. et. granted rehearing en banc. it may be set-aside at any time and no valid rights can accrue there under. An act beyond a court's jurisdiction in the fundamental sense is “void”. and parties may be precluded from setting it aside by such things as waiver. see Fisher v. and is proper and must be applied. district courts must decide issues of subject-matter 88 . at 86 (citing Wonder v. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) Pinckney.Arnold et. 2d 1173 (Ala. 2d 84 (Ala.2d 406. or the passage of time". See 129 F. The court defined a judgment as void "only if the court rendering it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter or of the parties. none of these elements apply here and are not relevant as this was not an excess of jurisdiction but clearly no doubt. thereby vacating the panel decision. CitiMortgage Inc. In the Fifth Circuit.

145 F. Accordingly. at 94 ). §1447(c) (1994 ed. Rule Civ. "represents a restriction on judicial power .' " 145 F. Therefore. Proc. 28 U.. C. See Steel Co. at 219. 12(h)(1) (defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person 89 ."). even at the highest level....Arnold et. Supp. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee. “jurisdiction cannot be assumed. at 218. or he may forgo that right. a party may insist that the limitation be observed. at 94 -95. state courts' residual jurisdiction. S. Fed. 523 U. the Court of Appeals derived from that decision "counsel against" recognition of judicial discretion to proceed directly to personal jurisdiction. on the other hand.. Case No: RWT 07-2617. effectively consenting to the court's exercise of adjudicatory authority.. 12(h)(3) ("Whenever it appears . . at 217 (quoting 523 U. The court limited its holding to removed cases. S." 145 F.. as a matter of individual liberty. 211 P2d 389. S. 694."). CitiMortgage Inc. that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter. the court shall dismiss the action. of Ireland v. 3d. 456 U. Arnold and Cotten correctly argue. it perceived in those cases the most grave threat that federal courts would "usur[p] ." Insurance Corp. See Fed." Stuck v. at 214. 's instruction that subject-matter jurisdiction must be " `established as a threshold matter. S. et. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. the case shall be remanded. Personal jurisdiction. vs. III) ("If at any time before final judgment [in a removed case] it appears that the district court lacks “Subject Matter Jurisdiction.. 44. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 3d. .. Rule Civ. 3d. Proc. al. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) jurisdiction first. 702 (1982).. reaching issues of personal jurisdiction "only if subject-matter jurisdiction is found to exist. subject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative. Noting Steel Co. it must be proved to exist. "Once Challenged”." Id. al.

165. All “Orders” in Arnold and Cottens fraudulently removed cases are “Voids” and as a matter of law and fact and must be set aside for the courts wanting of subject matter jurisdiction. notably. the case here brought by original Subject Matter Jurisdictional challenges to both Courts and all removed cases and the resulting orders at bar. Arnold and Cotten never agreed to jurisdiction as the case is replete with evidence to such facts. from its inception. et. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) waivable). Lubben v. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. CitiMortgage Inc. Kocher v. 305 U.S.")."). al. 171.Ct. 1972) ("A void judgment is to be distinguished from an erroneous one. 1997) (as long as there is an "arguable basis" for subject matter jurisdiction. vs. al. 132 F. Case No: RWT 07-2617. emphasis added. 46.72. was a complete nullity and without legal effect.Arnold et. in that the latter is subject only to direct attack”). Co. 1230-31 (8th Cir. of Ireland . Selective Service System. 456 U. al. 45. 47.. this court either abused their discretion and or made error in 90 . 134 (1938) ("Every court in rendering a judgment tacitly. See. 649 (1st Cir. A void judgment is one which.. if not expressly. “No arguable basis for subject matter jurisdiction exist” because CitiMortgage Inc. 59 S. 48.3d 1225. determines its jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. is not defined under law as a “true defendant” entitled to avail themselves to removal therefore making the removal “Orders Void” and all Orders therein and after “Voids”.. Dow Chem.. In Stoll v. et.2d 645. a judgment is not void but merely voidable”. S. 453 F. Insurance Corp. at 703 (same). Gottlieb. these Judgments are “Voids and are subject to direct attach”.

. al.. and Arnold and Cotten are justly seeking to escape these “Void Orders” and “Legal Nullities”. (4th Cir. Carroll Carolina Oil Co. Axel Johnson. As strictly applies in these cases before these honorable courts. 353 S.E. e. A void judgment is a nullity and may be vacated at any time. 145 F.. that. 49. 50. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) their determinations. What is more. (requiring of jurisdictional facts).W. 1970). As applies here in this instant action before these courts." Rook v. vs. 92.2d 851 (Tenn. The exact case here at bar. CitiMortgage Inc. at 862. A judgment obtained without jurisdiction over a party is void. Overby ." 261 Kan. Case No: RWT 07-2617. Inc. "A judgment is void if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. 457 S..Arnold et. they are entitled to escape the effects of these “Void Orders”. When jurisdiction is challenged. Inc. justly seek to set aside. 91 .3d 660. "A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties. those of which resulted in the “Void Orders” “at inception”. Plaintiff to state a substantial federal claim and declining to base jurisdiction upon an allegation that his employer violated “his constitutional rights”). 95. 52. Coburg. v. are by law and fact. 51. Overby v. Rook.3d 811. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. ab initio. 233 Va. 369 F. 758 (1987). courts generally do not accept the carte blanche naked allegations of diverse citizenship or bald assertions See. to which true and original defendants Arnold and Cotten.2d 756.1998) (declining to accept conclusory allegations of residence as prima facie proof of citizenship for diversity purposes and collecting cases on similar points). et. al.g.

et. In Steel Co. rejected a doctrine. Powder Actuated Tool Co. 24 S.Ed. (“Jurisdiction is not conferred on a federal court in a non-diversity case by mere conclusory allegations that one's constitutional or civil rights have been violated. Edwards. Jensen. Indeed. 1029 (6th Cir. v.” Penteco. Roebuck & Co. “[w]here the pleadings are found wanting.Ed.S. Citizens for Better Environment. Powder Power Tool Corp. reiterated: "The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter . 377.2d at 1521 (citing Sun Printing  & Publ'g Ass'n v. 178.. at 93. 230 F. 194 U. and (2) the prevailing party on the merits would be the same as the prevailing party were jurisdiction denied. is merely not sufficient and that the burden is upon  the plaintiff to substantiate its allegation.1956) (“The rule is firmly settled that the mere allegation of the jurisdictional amount when challenged as it was here.. 414 (7th Cir.. an appellate court may also review the record for evidence that diversity does exist. 83 (1998). 80 L..2d 160 (10th Cir.”). General Motors Acceptance Corp.1963). 780. v. once approved by several Courts of Appeals. Steel Co. 929 F. 298 U. 1027 (1904)). 56 S. 1135 (1936).Ct.1968).Ct. al. 337 F. Buell v. 54. Sears. 321 F.. 382. the Courts adhered to the rule that a federal court may not hypothesize subject-matter jurisdiction for the purpose of deciding the merits. Co. Co.” (citation omitted)).Arnold et. Case No: RWT 07-2617. ." id. . al. 53. Steel Co. 48 L. vs.2d 409. CitiMortgage Inc. v. Michigan Bell Tel.2d 468 (10th Cir.S. F & S Constr.1964). at 94. 523 U. Recalling "a long and venerable line of our cases. is 92 ." Id. S. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) Bufalino v... 404 F. see also McNutt v. which allowed federal tribunals to predetermine jurisdictional objections "where (1) the merits question is more readily resolved. 696.2d 1023.

a court cannot proceed at all. v.S. 524. 393 U. and Justice O'Connor . United States v. joined the majority on the understanding that the Court's opinion did not catalog "an exhaustive list of circumstances" in which exceptions to the solid rule were appropriate. Hood. In a respected line of the Supreme Court cases wherein they held that. nor can one be made because the federal question “arising under” requirements of 1331 never applied and could not be met. Arizonans for Official English v. Norton v. S.' " id. at 110. at 94-95 (quoting Mansfield. 506. 13. 56.. acknowledged that "the absolute purity" of the jurisdiction-first rule had been diluted in a few extraordinary cases. but can only note the jurisdictional defect and dismiss the suit. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) `inflexible and without exception. Swan. 465. al. 7 Wall. at 101 .S. S. Philbrook v. National Assn. Augenblick. Glodgett. Arnold and Cottens claims belonged to their state of Maryland therefore the Federal Courts had no just bases ever for any jurisdictional argument. 2 Cranch 126.g.S. R. See. Bell v. 520 U. 43.S. e. for "[j]urisdiction is power to declare the law. 427 U. of Railroad Passengers. The Court. id. CitiMortgage Inc. at 94 (quoting Ex parte McCardle. 348 . 531. 523 U.S. supra. . al.' " 523 U. . Van Noorden. Co. 514 (1869)). Secretary of Navy v. 414 U. v. Case No: RWT 07-2617. S." and " `[w]ithout jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 111 U. National Railroad Passenger Corp. without proper jurisdiction. in Steel Co.. No exceptions here in these matters before the this Court that could acquire personal jurisdiction either. vs.. 418 U. 678 (per curiam).. 382 (1884)).Arnold et. 55. 421 93 . Mathews. C.. n. Capron v. 676 . 379. joined by Justice Kennedy . & L. et. Arizona. Avrech. M. 453.

v. Case No: RWT 07-2617. C. The Fifth Circuit noted the same concern for abuse. et. or will balk at applying. Arnold and Cotten have noted in “Marathon” posit. they suggest. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) U. frustration and delay. the rules on removal Congress has prescribed. “we have recently observed”. 86—88. vs. distinguished.. 721. confusion. Judicial Council of Tenth Circuit.. 519 U. an ultra vires act. by very definition. 8—17. This case lay wasting for almost three years in these Federal Courts with no action and a conclusion that has ended decidedly in “Void Orders”. . FRCP 60(b)(2)(4).. 57. See 145 F. For a court to pronounce upon a law’s meaning or constitutionality when it has no jurisdiction to do so is. WHEREFORE MOVANTS ARNOLD AND COTTEN JUSTLY REQUEST RELIEF DUE PURSUANT TO THIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND VOID ORDERS.Arnold et. These courts looked to a discretionary rule. convoluted federal subject-matter theories designed to wrench cases from state court. 3d. Lewis. CitiMortgage Inc. 61. "rests on an assumption we do not indulge--that district courts generally will not comprehend. S. will foresee the likely outcome of an unwarranted removal--a swift and non-reviewable remand order. and Chandler v.. at 219. This specter of unwarranted removal. Arnold and Cotten contend “(CMI)” abused the removal laws and did so at all times to cause expense. 707. S.S. (d). 74. 77-78 (1996). will encourage manufactured." Caterpillar Inc. 398 U. the state-court defendants will abuse the federal system with opportunistic removals. al. from this District Federal Courts “Void Orders” and 94 . harm. al. attended by the displeasure of a district court whose authority has been improperly invoked.. Pp. §§1447(c). The well-advised defendant . for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. see 28 U.S.

_______________________________ Kathleen Arnold & Timothy A. this Court “Void Orders” be Decreed as “Voids ab inito”. CitiMortgage Inc. for wanting of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and ORDER all other relief these courts deem just. ORDER NOW AND FOREVER THEREAFTER. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) Decree ALL “Orders Null and Void” and is to be applied to All Fraudulently Removed Cases to the United States Federal District Courts of Beltsville.Arnold et. Case No: RWT 07-2617. al. Md 20736 (410) 257-5283 95 . Respectfully Submitted. Cotten Pro Se Defendants 9543 North Side Drive Owings. al. vs. due and proper as such. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. et..

2nd Illegal Complaint to Foreclose & Lift Stay Action filed by “(CMI)”.Arnold et. Counterclaim as “Original Defendants” for Removal Purposes in 96 . for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Case No. United States Bankruptcy Courts. Arnold and Cotten file 3rd. 2nd Case No.. 05-13246 TJC. 55-06253. Case No.. and cannot remove”.Bk court abused discretion when refusing their motion for remand of Adversary Counterclaim case and forces “Original Defendants Arnold and Cotton” to File New Affirmative Defense Counterclaim in State Courts Plaintiffs “(CMI)”. Arnold & Cotten are “Original Defendants”. Affirmative Defense Adversary Proceedings.. First Case Illegal Foreclosure Initiated by “(CMI)”. 04C07000353. 3rd. “(CMI)” Plaintiff Creditor. 01/14/2005. 04C07001044. Case No. Arnold. BK. TILA. Retain “Original Defendant Status for Removal Purposes” in their 2nd Affirmative Defense Counterclaim. the Foreclosure. CitiMortgage Inc. 6th Case No.. Arnold. 04-0-05-000046 FC. Arnold is Debtor. in Bk. Counterclaim. pursuant to removal. their Foreclosure Lawyers in Arnolds Bk. al. 05-13246 TJC. al. 06-2056. who is an “Original Defendant” in this Adversary Counterclaims by “Original Defendants” Arnold and Cotten”. Cotten and Arnold Are “Original Defendants” and “(CMI)” remain “Original Plaintiffs. All cases also relate back to this complaint and 1st. Case. vs. 01/14/2005. al. “(CMI)”. Case No. Against “(CMI)”. “(CMI)”. for Filing Purposes Only). Remains “Original Plaintiffs for Removal Purposes. 02/14/05. vs. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) XVIII. “(CMI)”. Arnold and Cotten. “(CMI)” is Plaintiff Creditor in. Case No. to this Action. 5th Case No. 08/06/2007. Bk. ” Calvert County Circuit Courts. 06/19/2006. 12/14/2006 Counter-Defendants in Arnold Bk. Docket No. continue as “Original Defendants” . in Executing First Fraudulent Removal. “Original Plaintiffs”. “Arnold & Cotten”(Plaintiffs. Case No: RWT 07-2617. “(CMI)”. For Removal Purposes. Action filed by Defendant Creditor Cotten. TILA and BK. 04-0-05-000046 FC. Calvert County Circuit Courts. Subsequent Foreclosure Cases”: “(CMI)” though Listed as Defendants for Purposes of filing the Counterclaim. Arnold et. 4th Case No. All cases relate back to this complaint pursuant to removal rights. and Cotten Creditor Defendant. legal claims. were Served this initial Counterclaim complaint thru their Legal Agents. 03/20/2007. Arnold is Debtor. Cotten files 1st. 05-13246 TJC. et. Calvert County Circuit Courts. and are “Original Plaintiffs. Refused to Identify all Related Cases as Listed Above. 130. LEGAL ACTIONS BY CASES & PARTY POSITION CHRONOLOGICAL LITIGATION HISTORY 1st.

Case No. yet removed to U. 08/06/2007. these omissions made by “(CMI)” were acts intended to. Foreclosure Case No. 1st. “(CMI)”. those that were never answered. Barred From Removal. al. 01/14/2005. Docket No. et.. 2 Illegal Foreclosures and this 1st Fraudulent Removal by “(CMI)” who are Original Plaintiffs”. FRAUDULENT REMOVAL ARGUMENTS .S. i.Arnold et. deceive at all times the Courts when leaving the cases out so that the removals appeared legitimate on superficial evidence provided the courts or on their face. “Original Defendants Arnold and Cotten” to just Disappear”.. 04-0-05000046 FC. Aside from knowing they were not entitled to removal relief and did so fraudulently because they were never the “Original Defendants by Law”. when Arnold and Cotten were never. Arnold and Cotten were Defendants at All Times with “(CMI)” having No Right to Remove because they were not “Original Defendants as Defined for Removal Purposes. who at all times are the “Original Plaintiffs. “Original Plaintiffs”.Complainants Demand to Remand 97 . 01/14/2005.e. 1st. (though there were other technical errors the courts overlooked too). therefore the reasons “(CMI)” left out the above two foreclosure cases and adversary affirmative defense complaints filed by “Original Defendants Cotten and Arnold”. These preliminary motions were made within the statutory Laches Time of Rights. and may not be waived. al. Case No. 040-05-000046 FC. Foreclosure Case No. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) Affirmative Defense to “(CMI)”. 04C07000353 on 03/20/2007. 24. and did. and closed by Plaintiffs “(CMI)” on 01/11/2007. 04C07001044. the Original Foreclosure Case Remained Open for Over one Year. “(CMI)”: the Courts Eschewed their Duties of Office when Ignoring Motions for Demand of Remand and Request for Hearings on Removal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Courts to preside over the cases fraudulently removed with proper objections made. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 30 Days after Illegal Removal as Prescribed by Law and Evidenced in attached Exhibit. But Are and Were “Original Plaintiffs” for removal purposes and were barred from removal at all times and is. therefore Claims May Not be Barred or Subject to Waiver in Removal Cases and may not be barred by Waiver or Laches. 130 on 06/19/2006. and the Courts Allowed this to suffice for burden of proof to remove: “(CMI)”. (a litany of denials in one super large Order is not sufficient showing of the courts jurisdiction and right to preside over fraudulently removed cases. 10/30/2007 . Plaintiffs “(CMI)” Failed to Join all Parties and Notice the Two Foreclosure Cases on the Removal Intake Forms. Original Case. vs. Docket Sheets and Docket Entries No. 55-06253. Just because “(CMI)” Dismissed their First Foreclosure Action in Attempts to Avoid Liability they could not just dismiss or withdraw their Counterclaim actions and force the true Defendants. District Courts. left out the fact they were the “Original Plaintiffs” and did so at All Times Subject First Fraudulent Removal. 06-2056 on 12/14/2006. 08:07-CV-2722 RWT 10/10/2007”: Fraud in Removal “(CMI)”.The above 6th Case No. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Case No. CitiMortgage Inc. failed to State Specifically the Reasons for Removal Avoiding the Question. Removal Barred by Removing Party “(CMI)”. Arnold and Cotten timely raised Technical Removal Motions. opened on. And Case No.

Case No. once onto the creditor plaintiffs “(CMI)”. 37 on 1/23/2008 Motion to Compel Hearing on Demand to Remand. see Docket No.Arnold et. The Honorable Courts Went Beyond their Boundaries of the Court Allowing the Removal of Affirmative Defense Counterclaim filed by Arnold and Cotten from Circuit Court. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Case No. in the Calvert County Circuit Courts. see Docket No. Remains “Original Plaintiffs” for Removal Purposes. “(CMI)”. al. see Docket No. “(CMI)”. Given nor Waived.S.Demand Remand to. 10/05/2007: Again “Original Plaintiffs “(CMI)” Omitted the Above Related Cases on Removal Intake Form and did so with Intent to Deceive Courts to gain Forum Advantage. CitiMortgage Inc. 04C07001179. Evidenced in attached Exhibit Docket Sheets and Docket Entries No. 7. 1/18/2008 . Case No. 8 on 2/4/2008 Motion to Compel Hearing on Demand to Remand. removal was improper at all times as Arnold and Cotten plead and cited these facts. 08:08-CV-00038 RWT. vs. 09/04/2007. 04C07001622. 41 on 3/10/2008 Demand for Remand and Demand for Hearing on Challenges to the Courts Subject Matter Jurisdiction: The Honorable Courts possessed a binding duty to account exhaustively to the challenged duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed cases.. Case No: RWT 07-2617. see Docket No. Fraudulent Removed by Original Plaintiffs. Federal District Courts. Arnold and Cotten are Plaintiffs for the purpose of filing this Affirmative Defense Counterclaim and Remain “Original Defendants” for Removal Purposes. 06-2056 filed on December 14. to the U. al. Demand for Remand and Motion for Sanctions. to District Court. 07-2617. Jurisdiction they Never Had and that Could Not be Taken. 2006 and a second time in Arnold and Cottens Calvert Circuit Courts. and removed fraudulently to the District Courts Case No. 04C07000353 filed on March 20. 7th Case No. Notably. “(CMI)”. 11/26/2007. 2nd Compulsory Affirmative Defense Complaint No. The Honorable Courts continued Eschewing timely Demand for Remand Petitioned within Laches Rights of 30 Days Prescribed by Law. Demand for Remand and Demand for Hearing on Courts Subject Matter Jurisdiction: The Honorable Courts continued to ignore challenged duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed cases when issuing a blanket Order and Denial of All Arnold and Cottens Motions for Demand. 2007. legal agent in the Bankruptcy Adversary Complaint. 8th. in Affirmative Defense to Continued Illegal Collection Actions by Plaintiff “(CMI)”. (this and 08-CV-2197 RWT-Consolidated Demand for Remand and New Demand for Remand 98 . 13 on 3/10/2008. had been served with the affirmative defense counterclaims two subsequent times. et. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) Response to the 10/5/2007 Illegal Removal. Arnold & Cotten. see Docket No. Again. 38 on 2/5/2008 once more. Failing Ever to Establish the Courts Jurisdiction. not that these arguments are needed because removing party was barred from removal all together and could never have removed.

“(CMI)” are Plaintiffs for removal purposes and were barred from removal. the 2 Illegal Foreclosures. 08-CV-2197 RWT: Removal Barred. 04C08000773. 06/30/2008. blanket Order.Demand Remand to. see Docket No. Case No: RWT 07-2617. in Circuit Court for Calvert County . were the “Original Plaintiffs” in the litigation initiating actions. as to Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim. 8 on 2/4/2008 Motion to Compel Hearing on Demand to Remand. 13 on 3/10/2008. Case No. failing to ever Reply. 7.Arnold et. Court refused to answer Challenged Subject Matter Jurisdiction. 11/ 24/ 2007.S.. as the chronology of the case history proves. 1/18/2008 . “(CMI)”. named in complaint. (Original Defendants). Case No. electing to ignore the duties of office. emphasis added. 04C07001623. vs. et. with No Declaration and Finding of Courts Jurisdiction mandated. Case No.(other then their legally insufficient Order Establishing Subject Matter Jurisdiction. the Plaintiff for removal purposes and not a defendant who could remove because they were never the true. al. 9th. Complaint filed by “Original Defendants” Arnold and Cotten in the Calvert County Circuit Courts. Demand for Remand and Demand for Hearing on Courts Subject Matter Jurisdiction that Which the Court has No Discretionary Power to Relieve them of this Requirement and Mandate to Defend Subject Matter Challenges: The Honorable Courts continued to flout their challenged duty to immediately and timely establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed cases. 08:08-CV-00038 RWT: The Honorable Courts Went Beyond The Boundaries of the Court Allowing the fraudulent Removal of Arnold and Cottens Circuit Court Case to the U. Federal District Courts wherein The Honorable Courts continued Eschewing Arnold and Cottens timely Demand for Remand Petitioned within their Laches Rights of 30 Days Prescribed by Law. AND Illegal Removal to District Court. Defined under Removal of the Illegally Removed Cases AND therefore all Removals Were Not Permitted because “(CMI)” was at all times. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) Again of All Illegally Removed Cases): While the District Courts Detained Arnold and Cotten for over two and a half years never making one declaration as to the courts authority to preside over the cases fraudulently removed. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 10th. 99 . “Original Defendants”. Evidenced in attached Exhibit Docket Sheets and Docket Entries No. Complaint filed by Arnold and Cotten. to Challenged Subject Matter Jurisdiction with this blanket Order Dismissing All Motions and was not sufficient to prove legal right and lend the courts Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the District Courts because “(CMI)” was not an “Original Defendant”. CitiMortgage Inc. al. see Docket No. The honorable Courts traveled beyond their jurisdiction at all times and acted outside of the law when proceeding because a Plaintiff may not remove.AND District Court Case No.

for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 100 . et. al. al.Arnold et.. CitiMortgage Inc. vs. Case No: RWT 07-2617.

Case No: RWT 07-2617. that they have verified all the facts set forth in the foregoing.Arnold et. Respectfully Submitted. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) XIX. et. Cotten and Kathleen Arnold knowledge and belief. “Motion to Set Aside the United States District Courts Void Orders for the Courts Wanting of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to FRCP § 60(b)(2)(4)” and those facts plead herein and so stated. Cotten and Kathleen Arnold. CitiMortgage Inc. “True and Original Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. are true and correct as to the very best of Timothy A. al. vs. al. Md 20736 (410) 257-5283 101 . VERIFICATION Timothy A. hereby swear and affirm under penalties of perjury.. Cotten Pro Se Plaintiffs 9543 North Side Drive Owings. _______________________________ Kathleen Arnold & Timothy A.

for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Postage Prepaid. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Kathleen Arnold and Timothy A. MD 21204 Attn: Bruce E. Case No: RWT 07-2617. in the year 2011: Respectfully Submitted. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) XX. last known legal counsel of record as follows and done so by first class. vs. Defendants. Cotten. United States Mail. filed in the above-captioned matter. hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above-referenced Defendants' “Motion to Set Aside Void Order and Void Appeal Order for Want of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to FRCP § 60(b)(2)(4)”. al. Sandra Vipond & Bruce E.Arnold et. CitiMortgage Inc. al. and were served upon the parties listed below. Pro Se. and Served on the Following Parties on this 13th Day of January. Covahey 102 . DC 20036 Attn: David M. Maryland 20736 (410) 257-5283 Weiner Brodsky Sidman Kider PC 1300 19th St NW Fifth Floor Washington. _______________________________ Kathleen Arnold & Timothy A. Alexander Covahey Boozer Devan and Dore PA 606 Baltimore Ave Suite 302 Towson. Souders. et.. Cotten Pro Se Defendants 9543 North Side Drive Owings. and Memorandum of Law In Support thereof.

. have proven extraordinary causes necessary to grant this Motion to Set Aside Void Orders for Want of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to FRCP § 60(b)4. Case No: RWT 07-2617. et. et. and for good cause shown. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No: RWT 07-2617 MOTION FRCP § 60(b)(2) and (4) “VOID ORDERS” AND. BY THE COURT: _____________________ J. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Pursuant to FRCP § 60(b)(2)(4)”. declaring all “ORDERS VOID” and All Fraudulently Removed Cases REMANDED to Calvert County Circuit Courts.“VOID ORDERS” AND. al. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE AND NOW ON. al.. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (GREENBELT DIVISION) Arnold.. it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion of Arnold and Cotten.Arnold et. et. Defendants. 103 . upon consideration of the Defendants “Motion to Set Aside Void Order of the United States District Court of Beltsville for Wanting of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. al. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ FRCP MOTION § 60(b)(2) and (4) . this day of . CitiMortgage Inc. Plaintiffs. GRANTED ____________. thus declaring all “Orders Void” ab initio. al. CitiMortgage Inc.2011. vs. vs.

3. al. vs. 2008 Multiple Case Disposition Order. CFI BK Pacer Searches. al. Case Extract. et. CitiMortgage Inc. 4. et. 104 ... al. Docket Sheets of Arnold and Cotten Demands for Remand and many challenges and protest to this Federal Courts Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearings. Original Foreclosure Case No. Defendants.Arnold et. BK Docket History in Support of “(CMI)” being the Plaintiff Creditor. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (GREENBELT DIVISION) Arnold. et. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE EXHIBITS 1. Case No: RWT 07-2617. Courts September 12. 5. Plaintiffs. CitiMortgage Inc.“VOID ORDERS” AND. 2. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No: RWT 07-2617 MOTION FRCP § 60(b)(2) and (4) “VOID ORDERS” AND.. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ FRCP MOTION § 60(b)(2) and (4) . vs. al.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No: RWT 07-2617 MOTION FRCP § 60(b)(2) and (4) “VOID ORDERS” AND. al. vs. 105 .“VOID ORDERS”. et. MOTION TO SET ASIDE VOID ORDERS AND REMAND FOR WANT OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND NOTICE OF COURTS PROCEEDING WITHOUT CAPACITY AND IN VIOLATION OF STRICT CONGRESSIONAL MANDATES CONCERNING REMOVAL OF ALL STATE COURT CASES TO FEDERAL COURTS 1.Arnold et. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. vs.. CitiMortgage Inc. al.. Docket Sheets of Arnold and Cotten Demands for Remand and many challenges and protest to this Federal Courts Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearings. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ FRCP MOTION § 60(b)(2) and (4) . CitiMortgage Inc. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE FRCP MOTION § 60(b)4 . (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (GREENBELT DIVISION) Arnold. et. Defendants. Case No: RWT 07-2617. et.“VOID ORDERS” AND. al. Plaintiffs.. al.

for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Case No: RWT 07-2617. §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ FRCP MOTION § 60(b)(2) and (4) . Case Extract. al. al. al. et. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE EXHIBITS 2. Plaintiffs. Original Foreclosure Case No.Arnold et. et. et.. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE Arnold. 106 . vs... Defendants. CitiMortgage Inc. al. CitiMortgage Inc. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (GREENBELT DIVISION) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No: RWT 07-2617 MOTION FRCP § 60(b)(2) and (4) “VOID ORDERS” AND. vs.“VOID ORDERS” AND.

vs. Case No: RWT 07-2617. Plaintiffs. al. Defendants.. et. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. et. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE EXHIBITS 3. CFI BK Pacer Searches. et. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ FRCP MOTION § 60(b)(2) and (4) . al. al. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No: RWT 07-2617 MOTION FRCP § 60(b)(2) and (4) “VOID ORDERS” AND.“VOID ORDERS” AND.. 107 . CitiMortgage Inc.Arnold et. CitiMortgage Inc. al.. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (GREENBELT DIVISION) Arnold. vs.

vs. et. 108 . Case No: RWT 07-2617. vs. al. BK Docket History in Support of “(CMI)” being the Plaintiff Creditor.“VOID ORDERS” AND. Plaintiffs. §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ FRCP MOTION § 60(b)(2) and (4) . for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. CitiMortgage Inc. et. et.. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE EXHIBITS 4. al. al. Defendants. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE Arnold.. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (GREENBELT DIVISION) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No: RWT 07-2617 MOTION FRCP § 60(b)(2) and (4) “VOID ORDERS” AND. al.Arnold et. CitiMortgage Inc..

. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. Plaintiffs. Courts September 12. al. 2008 Multiple Case Disposition Order. Defendants. et. et. 109 . al. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (GREENBELT DIVISION) Arnold. et. Case No: RWT 07-2617.. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE EXHIBITS 5. vs. CitiMortgage Inc. al.Arnold et. vs.. CitiMortgage Inc. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ FRCP MOTION § 60(b)(2) and (4) .“VOID ORDERS” AND. al. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No: RWT 07-2617 MOTION FRCP § 60(b)(2) and (4) “VOID ORDERS” AND.

291 U.lp. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) http://caselaw. MS Dealer Serv. pre.Ct. 478 U. per appointment by court. 77 F.S.gov/c/F2/959/959. 85 L. a case arises under federal law only if it is federal law that creates the cause of action.S. 868.. the removing party bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. 205.C." Id.com/2010/11/17/bofa-seeks-to-dodge-state-courtadjudication-in-ohio-robosigner-suit-requests-removal-to-federal-court/ 110 . See Franchise Tax Board. the "mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction. 313 U.Ct. v. 872.3d 1353. at 813 . and federal jurisdiction is lacking. 61 S.1982) (holding.+100%22& http://ftp. See Tapscott v.Ed.Ed. § 1983 action). al. that district court had no federal jurisdiction to hear malpractice case arising from defendant attorney's representation.Franchise Tax Board. of plaintiff in 42 U. 212-15 . Case No: RWT 07-2617. at 2846. at 8 -10. Sheets. 677 F. We look at the complaint. See Ray v.Ct. negligence and breach of contract under Florida law. at 13. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. 106 S. 405-06. 463 U. CitiMortgage Inc.pl?court=circs&CiRestriction= %22313+U. 1356 (11th Cir.Ct. 402. 755 (1934) (that part of state statutory scheme requires some analysis of federal law is insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction).S. 54 S. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”." Merrell Dow. No substantial question of federal law must be answered to determine plaintiff's claims.. But.wordpress. The case.89-1929. 103 S.Arnold et. 103 S. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry.S. http://foreclosureblues. (We do not hint that Diaz's claim has merit or even that he has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted under Florida law). at 3234.1996).S.com/scripts/casesearch.2d 818. 1214 (1941)..org/courts.F2d. The nature of Diaz's complaint is that Sheppard is guilty of malpractice. 100. Tennessee Valley Authority. As a general rule. The removal statute should be construed narrowly with doubt construed against removal. 825-26 (11th Cir.S.628. 78 L. Corp. See also Moore v. Co. vs. et. however.html On a motion to remand. may arise under federal law "if a well-pleaded complaint established that [the] right to relief under state law requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law in dispute between the parties. 107-09 . al. [3] The district court erred in denying Diaz's motion to remand.Ct. at 2848.findlaw.resource.

Fullin v. Martin.b for a more detailed discussion of the one-year rule. 282 U. the plaintiff must be the party to remand where the basis for remand is a defect in the removal procedure.265 A case may be remanded at any time for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.F. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS 111 . In addition.2 for a more detailed discussion of the thirty-day rule. 34 F.S. removal under § 1441(c) apply very different tests that lead to inconsistent results.Arnold et. See supra Part V. See supra Part V. 715. 725 (1966). Supp. See id. 268.F. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) http://www. section 2. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Grounds for remand Section 1447 of the United States Code governs the procedural requirements for remanding a case to state court. 267. 735 (E. 265.E. Lewis.F. 2d. 34 F.com/files/SSRN-id10734021. see also 28 U. supra note 2 (discussing the very low percentage of plaintiff win rates in removed cases. supplemental jurisdiction is only proper where the claims satisfy the “common nucleus of operative fact” test for supplemental jurisdiction articulated by the Supreme Court in United Mine Workers of America v.S. See supra Part V. The court stated that allowing a federal court to take jurisdiction over claims not textually related to the jurisdiction-conferring federal claim would be inconsistent with article III. Id.. § 1367. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 266.D. This conflict is addressed in more detail infra Part V. 519 U. which led the court to the conclusion that removal of separate and independent claims that are not textually related to the federal issue is unconstitutional. 269.C.S. et.S. 61. Supp. § 1446(a).S. Fullin. remand is also appropriate where there has been a defect in the removal process. 2d 726. § 1447 (2000). Gibbs. See 28 U. at 729– 35. al. vs.C.S. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”.abajournal. CitiMortgage Inc. 1999).C.S. at 729–35 for a detailed discussion on the historical development of § 1441(c) and accompanying analysis. section 2.C. Wis. al. § 1446(b). 91. as opposed to a significantly higher percentage of plaintiff wins in cases adjudicated in state courts or those originally brought in federal courts). 76–77 (1996). 28 U.pdf See generally Clermont & Eisenberg. See 28 U.1 for a more detailed discussion of the unanimity rule. § 1446(b). To comply with article III. See 28 U. See Caterpillar v.C.266 While the court may unilaterally remand a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.3.

2d 1061. and Sequoyah Feed & Supply Co. 816 (5th Cir. and Monmouth-Ocean Collection Serv. 417. 1984) (third-party defendants may not remove. 954 F.D. 12. with Lewis v. 2002) (unpublished memorandum opinion) (declining to extend removal under § 1441(c) to counter-defendants who although were not original plaintiffs. 487–88 (7th Cir.. 2d 385.2d 729. 94. Martin. and Fleet Bank-N. Inc. 1999) (not recognizing a right to removal under § 1441(c) at all). al. (allowing a third-party indemnity defendant to remove a case to federal court pursuant to § 1441(c)). 622 F. v.H.3d 813. See United States v. Pate.” when “they could have removed when sued alone” (if. 96. Walker. Robinson. 142 F. for example. 682 (W. 740 F. 142 F. Va.2d at 1066 (holding indemnification claims based on a separate contract are separate and independent). Walker. v. 2d 726 (E. Klor. 142 F. Shelton. at *2 (W.H. Supp. Inc. CIV. 1991) (indemnification claims based on a separate contract are separate and independent). Supp. No. see also Jones v.A. CitiMortgage Inc. 680. Ark. Supp. 34 F.7:01-CV-001164. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) Fifth Circuit courts have afforded “third-party defendants the opportunity of § 1441(c) removal to federal court. Wis.J.96 92. 1951) (holding that under a 112 . 93. who only becomes a counter-defendant after an original defendant files a counterclaim against him.3d at 816. Jan. Lafourche Parish Police Jury.”94 This application of § 1441(c) has been very rare and narrowly construed.2d 478. 2002 WL 47900.3d at 816 (allowing a third-party indemnity defendant to remove a case to federal court pursuant to § 1441(c)). vs. Engeleiter. 1980)). and Thomas v. as opposed to the original defendant).N. and Jones.”). 95. Supp. 1066 (5th Cir. 733 (8th Cir. v.95 and the other circuits that have considered the issue disagree as to whether third-party defendants may seek removal under the statute. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 419 (D. and Carl Heck..”). Windsor Door Co. Id.N. Petty-Ray Geophysical Geosource. Texas v. al. and is unavailable to an original plaintiff to the original claim. 1998) (citing Carl Heck Eng’rs v. Compare Walker. 1991) (finding that § 1441(c) was not intended to effect the removal of a suit with introduction of a third-party claim). 1999) (“[A]ny third-party claim for indemnification is not a claim ‘separate and independent’ from the main action. 101 F. were substituted as plaintiffs sometime during the proceedings)..2d 133 (5th Cir. and therefore is not removable by the third-party defendant under § 1441. 394 (D. 926 F.92 This tool is only available to true third-party defendants who are new to the suit.. 1991) (holding that Congress intended only that original defendants be able to remove pursuant to § 1441(c)). 753 F.93 To allow ordinary counter-defendants to remove in this manner “would fly in the face of the well-pleaded complaint rule where the counter-defendants were the same parties as the state court plaintiffs.D. and Fullin v.Arnold et. 46 F. et.2d at 136 (“If the third party complaint states a separate and independent claim which if sued upon alone could have been brought properly in federal court.D. the original suit had been between the plaintiff and the third-party defendant. there should be no bar to removal. 622 F. 954 F.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Section 1367 is the statute that governs supplemental jurisdiction. The third instance involves situations where the case becomes removable sometime after the initial pleading. 147 Third. al. “if.” not when the defendant was formally served.. and second. a district court may only take supplemental jurisdiction over “claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. v. 301 F.”117 The standard courts use to determine if a claim is part of the same case or controversy is whether the claims are part of a “common nucleus of operative fact. al. a. where the defendant first receives the summons. where the defendant receives the summons and the plaintiff is not required to serve the defendant with the complaint.148 Lastly.140 In Murphy Bros. initial pleading and summons Recently established parameters govern whether the pleading or summons is sufficient to start the thirty-day clock. 145 First.116 Under this section. Curry. and then receives the complaint at a later date. vs. where the complaint is filed in court before any service. see First Nat’l Bank of Pulaski v. For a related discussion dealing with how to interpret “joined” as applied to third-party claims. Inc. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. third-party defendants may not remove to federal court).Arnold et. likely precluding all third-party claims from satisfying the separate and independent requirement of § 1441(c). where the summons and complaint are served together. CitiMortgage Inc. which states that the defendant must file notice of removal thirty days after receiving the complaint “through service or otherwise. where the case involves multiple defendants served at different times. 146 Second. Michetti Pipe-Stringing. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) “strict construction” of § 1441(c). the clock will run upon the defendant’s receipt of the summons. The court adopted a narrow construction of “joined” to apply only to claims joined by the plaintiff in the original state court action. Case No: RWT 07-2617. 143 The Supreme Court reversed.” 142 The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals had held that the plain meaning of “otherwise” required that the thirty-day clock be triggered when the defendant received constructive notice of the complaint via a faxed “courtesy copy. the clock is triggered upon receipt of the complaint.14 113 . 464–66 (6th Cir. 141 the Supreme Court addressed the scope of the word “otherwise” in § 1446(b). the clock will run when the complaint is made available through filing.3d 456. holding that “mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal service” was insufficient to start the thirty-day period. et. 144 The Court also articulated a “road map” for courts to follow when determining at what point the thirty-day clock should start running. “[t]he state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. the clock starts running immediately. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& WHEN SUMMONS WAS SERVED where the court must decide whether the initial pleading or summons is sufficient to start the clock.”118 The common nucleus test can be summarized as follows: In particular. 2002).” Thus..

Supp. 526 U. 353– 54 (1999)..S. at 347–48. 125 F. 141.Arnold et. Michetti Pipe Stringing v. Am. 344.C. 344 (1999). Id. CitiMortgage Inc. Michetti Pipe Stringing. 344 (1999). rev’d. 143. et. 147.. 526 U. Case No: RWT 07-2617. Inc. 28 U. Id. 1446(b).. Md. Murphy Bros. at 354 (citing Potter v. for FRCP § 60(b(2)(4) Motion to Set Aside “Void Orders”. 149 (D. 1997). al. Murphy.. 146.S. 1960)). Telecasting. Whitaker v.S. (All Consolidated Cases as Detailed in Case and Party Chronicle Apart to this Motion) 140. 526 U. 114 . See Murphy Bros. 186 F.S. Id. 526 U. 142.3d 1396. 2001). al. v. McCauley. 1398 (11th Cir. 261 F. 146. 145. vs. 144. Inc.S.3d 196 (2d Cir.