F ARRT01538; Gehrig Dep. at 10:19-22; 32:9-14. 5 . ARRT asserts that the aptitude to conduct the ethics investigations does not require any specialized knowledge, education, or training. ARRT further asserts the skills necessary to conduct the ethics investigations are typically learned on the job because no prior training or experience in investigations is required pri- or to employment. Therefore, ARRT concludes, the investigations cannot inform the basis for a determination that credentialing is a professional service. This line of reasoning is unpersuasive for three reasons. First, ARRT incorrectly argues that an individual is required to have formal training prior to rendering a professional service. See Ocean Acc. & Guarantee Corp. v. Herzberg's, Inc., 100 F.2d 171 (8th Cir.1938) (<HOLDING>). Second, the Supervisor and Assistant
holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of a petition challenging a removal order or to stay a removal order where the petitioner was not specifically challenging his physical detention holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service holding that a cosmeticians use of a hair removal machine was a professional service despite the cosmeticians testimony that she lacked any specialized training to operate the machine holding that the defendants motion to amend their notice of removal was proper due to plaintiffs waived objections to the sufficiency of the notice of removal by failing to seek remand within thirty days of removal