This Court should resolve the question of the law, whether the state court's jurisdiction continues during the removal period and whether state court proceedings and order should be void which are entered during the removal period on a subsequent petition for removal, filed after a year on a different matter and on different grounds. Whether Judge can make an exception in following the express language of Federal Removal Statute 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (d) which explicitly states, that proceedings and orders entered by a state trial court during the removal period is "void". The question needs to be resolved for the national uniformity because there are "competing views" and "conflicting cases with a split of authority in federal, out-of-state Florida and intra-district conflicting decisions.

2. Whether this court should resolve national, Florida, and intra-district conflicting cases on the endpoint of the transfer of the federal jurisdiction to the state court in the federal removal case. Whether an oral/endorsed order a valid remand order? What kind of order triggers the state court's jurisdiction: (i) oral/endorsed order which could not be mailed; (ii) valid remand order, written and certified order mailed by the federal clerk to the state court; (iii) receipt of the written order by the state court clerk. National uniformity is much needed in the application of the express language of the Federal Statute 28 USC § 1447 (c) which should not be subject to judge-made exceptions.

3. This court needs to resolve a question of First impression and of the great public importance of Federal law involving the fundamental constitutional rights of due process. Whether the duty of the medical doctor to take care of the emergency patient with multiple injuries on the exam table be trumped by the demand of a judge to attend the unscheduled hearing without receipt of the valid remand order from the federal court which can risk the life of the patients, medical license and livelihood of the doctor with an award of award $450,000 per FS 57.105 in the absence of the Jains. The jurisprudence would affect the livelihood and medical license of the doctors and also the medical care of countless patients if a doctor would have to abruptly pause/ abandon care per the demand of a judge.

4. The Constitutionality of Federal Statute 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c) is in question as the immediate execution of an endorsed remand order, when the order is received only by one party represented by an attorney and not by the pro se party who is forced to receive the order only by US mail after three to five days is unconstitutional. Also, merely mailing a copy of the remand order by the federal clerk to the state court clerk and execution of the order by the state court, Congress has no provision for the time required for a receipt of the remand order by pro se and lost mail and clerical errors before execution of the remand order by the state court. The only valid ways for pro se to know the remand order are, if it is docketed in the state court after the receipt by the state court clerk or receipt of the remand order by pro se via US Mail.

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