Servs., Inc., 376 F.3d 501, 504-06 (5th Cir.2004) (noting that waiver of removal rights must be “clear and unequivocal,” but interpreting forum selec tion provision in accordance with ordinary contract principles and construing ambiguity in forum selection provision against the drafter); Milk ‘N’ More, Inc. v. Beavert, 963 F.2d 1342, 1346 (10th Cir.1992) (noting that “a waiver of one’s statutory right to remove a case from a state to a federal court must be ‘clear and unequivocal,’” and finding that contract clause stating that “venue shall be proper under this agreement in Johnson County, Kansas” constituted a waiver because the agreement “seems reasonably clear and the wording strongly points to the state court of that county”); Weltman v. Silna, 879 F.2d 425, 427 (8th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Other courts, including the Third and
holding that the tribal defendants removal of the case amounted to a clear and unequivocal waiver of immunity in federal court holding that wjaiver of the right to remove must be clear and unequivocal  and that standard was not met by an agreement in which defendants consented to filing of suit in state court but which did not address removal holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence