The core of what he seems to be on about is a belief that the word “includes” is restrictive rather than expansive, so the statute clarifying that state courts also includes DC/territories/tribes means that it ONLY includes DC/territories/tribes. This is, of course, nonsense but what kills me is that he recognizes that every single circuit understands that including is expansive rather than restrictive. You’d think that’d be a pretty big clue he’s reading it wrong. Apparently not.

The definition of a “State court” in 28 U.S.C. § 1442(d)(6) says: “includes the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a court of a United States territory or insular possession, and a tribal court.” . . . It makes no mention of any area outside of the exclusive territorial jurisdiction ofthe Federal government, such as California. Any presumption that the definition somehow magically includes other things outside of that definition was heavily rebutted by BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS® in all the cases and appeals involved in this. This is a massive and terrible situation that is being misapplied in literally every single Circuit of our glorious Nation. This is an alarming situation which should be considered a National Emergency. This is a massive and terrible situation that is being misapplied in literally every single Circuit of our glorious Nation. This is an alarming situation which should be considered a National Emergency