In the United States District Court

For the XXXX District of XXXXX

Citibank, (South Dakota)n.a. §

§
plaintiff, §
§
v. § No. ____________________
§
Sue Bear Rue, §
§
defendant. §

DEFENDANT’S FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 60(b)(4)

MOTION TO VACATE THE COURT’ SUA SPONTE ORDER OF REMAND (or denial
of the removal or whatever)

Notice to the court of proper handling of a jurisdictional challenge

1. A challenge to the court’s jurisdiction is never untimely or inappropriate.

2. A challenge to the court’s jurisdiction is purely an administrative proceeding
depriving the court of judicial discretion.
3. When jurisdiction is challenged, it is incumbent on the party asserting that the
court had jurisdiction to show, on the record that the court had jurisdiction.
4. The court is powerless to, sua sponte determine that the court had jurisdiction
but must “sit administratively” and for failure of the plaintiff to demonstrate, on the
record, wherein there are no jurisdictional defects, the order, ruling, or determination of
the court is void and the court has a non-discretionary duty to vacate the offending order,
ruling, or determination.

Brief in support of the motion to vacate

5. The court, in ruling sua sponte that the tolling of time for removal was based on
an underlying judgment claimed by Citibank, (South Dakota)n.a. and not on the
subsequent in rem proceeding, exhibited prejudice to the substantive due process rights
of Sue Bear Rue by presuming facts not in evidence.

Conclusion
The Rule of Law requires, Citibank, (South Dakota)n.a. and not this court to cite
the statute, rule, or common law authority proffered, on the record, by Citibank, (South
Dakota)n.a. to inform this court of this court’s authority to value the timeliness of the
removal to underlying proceedings and not the in rem proceeding. Determination by this
court that Citibank, (South Dakota)n.a. has failed or refused to show, on the record, that
Citibank, (South Dakota)n.a. proffered the statute, rule, or common law authority for this
court’s use of the original proceeding and not the second suit for collection as the basis
for the tolling of time for removal, this court has a non-discretionary duty to vacate the
December 17th order of remand(denial – whatever) and swiftly administer the motion to
vacate erroneously determined by this court to be moot.

Prepared and submitted by: __________________________

Sue Bear Rue

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I, Sue Bear Rue, herby certify that on _____ day of December 2004, that a copy
of the DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE was mailed via first class mail, postage
prepaid to:

Attorney or law firm

Address
City, State, zip
________________________
Sue Bear Rue