Epstein Secrets

ought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citi

ourt where one has that right, and should be equally vigilant to protect the right to proceed in the Federal court.'" Lea, 428 F.3d at 1325 (citing Wecker v. Nat'l Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176, 186 (1907)). See also id. (observing that "Congress `did not extend [to defendants a right of removal] with one hand, and with the o

ought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citi

urt where one has that right, and should be equally vigilant to protect the right to proceed in the Federal court."' Legg, 428 F.3d at 1325 (citing Wecker v. Nat'l Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176, 186 (1907)). See also id. (observing that "Congress `did not extend [to defendants a right of removal] with one hand, and with the o

ought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co.'. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citin

urt where one has that right, and should be equally vigilant to protect the right to proceed in the Federal court.'" Legg, 428 F.3d at 1325 (citing Wecker v. Nat'l Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176, 186 (1907)). See also id. (observing that "Congress 'did not extend [to defendants a right of removal] with one hand, and with the o