JOHN COWEN GETS REAL DESPERATE AND AUTHORIZES THE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF BROWNSVILLE BE REMOVED TO FEDERAL COURT - HE WILL FAIL 

Please understand the context of what is happening.  The COB is now paying a law firm to secure the ruling they do not have to enforce code violations.  This case is not about money as to the COB.  It is about the ability to tell homeowners you will be fined if you do not get a permit for the work. But, then COB has not duty to comply with the terms of the permit and enforce the code.  It is a con to raise money with a mandatory permit, while providing no code enforcement when the project is done.

If I were in Dallas, a law firm would jump on this and file a class action against the city for everyone who has bought a permit.  When the Dallas district clerk did the same thing with a filing fee, after the class action was filed, Dallas paid out millions in settlement.

THE REMOVAL APPROVED BY JOHN COWEN IS 100% IMPERMISSIBLE. WITH JOHN COWEN WASTING THE LIMITED RESOURCES OF THE TAXPAYER

CONTEXT:

The key issues in the case are already before the Texas Supreme Court.   For several weeks they have been working on the case. It is sanctionable beyond comprehension that a law firm would remove a case to federal court while it is pending before the Texas Supreme Court.

THERE IS NO REMOVAL AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN THE CASE IS MOSTLY IN STATE LAW

I will give you the clear and plain case law from the United States Supreme Court.

100% of the case before the Texas Supreme Court is state law; 100 % of the case against Texas Lone Star is state law; 100 % of the case against FTL is state law; 90 % of the case against the COB is state law.  The 10% or less is a § 1983.  Because the state court has concurrent jurisdiction with the federal court, under these facts it cannot be removed.

The move was pathic and an admission they fear a loss at the Texas Supreme Court level.

SO, THE CASE LAW

“Indeed, the congressionally edited version of section 1441(c), showing the deleted and added wording makes plain that a deliberate choice has been made from allowing a district court to remand "all matters not otherwise within its original  jurisdiction" to "may remand all matters in which State law predominates.

 "  Id at 50.  Whereas the district court formerly had no choice in retaining a federal claim, it now may remand an entire case, including the federal question

claim, if state law predominates.  See Maine v. Thiboutot  , 448 U.S. 1, 3 n.1, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 2503 n.1 (1980) (recognizing that federal courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate section 1983 claims, since state courts have concurrent jurisdiction (citing Martinez v. California , 444 U.S. 277, 283 84 n.7, 100 S.Ct. 553, 558 n.7 (1980)”

JOHN COWEN IS ASKING THE FEDERAL JUDGE TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE OF THE ANTI-LGBTQ+ COMMENT EFFECTIVELY MAKING GAY MARRIAGE MORE DIFFICULT, AWAY FROM THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT WHO PUT THE COMMENT IN CANON 4

    We are on the verge of ending this last vestige of anti-LGBTQ+ rules and laws, and John Cowen jumps in and demands a federal judge divest the Texas Supreme Court of its jurisdiction and delay a ruling for years.

    The questions of state law which are not subject to disputed fact are before the Texas Supreme Court.  The Texas Supreme court can effectively end this matter.  What reason does anyone have to immediately divest the Texas Supreme Court of its jurisdiction other than they know they will lose, so John Cowen agrees to forum shopping in favor of a judge more likely to play along with his con job on the residents of Brownsville?