Jump to content

foolish

Members
  • Content Count

    1,054
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About foolish

  • Rank
    Diamond Contributor

Recent Profile Visitors

2,323 profile views
  1. foolish

    OPTIONS

    I am a lawful permanent resident ('LPR') that had his LPR revoked, this revocation was litigated and eventually my LPR status was returned by the BIA. Basically, It held that my presence outside the U.S. was involuntary. Thus, comes need for information so that I weigh the legal options I might have open to me, my LPR status '[albeit] legally returned the LPR card was never returned to me. I have researched various options from boarding foils, the returning resident (sb-1) visa. ( https://visaguide.world/us-visa/immigrant/sb-1/) My question is would I qualify for not paying for the not paying for the renewal of the LPR card at filing fees in paragraph (B) of the reasons for the application (https://www.uscis.gov/i-90) since my LPR card was confiscated but never returned when my LPR status was reinstated? Let me explain a bit there continues to be circumstances beyond my control that has kept me from taking these steps in returning to the US. I could not have taken these any time sooner due to financial and legal reasons, but now medical urgency will end up eclipsing those circumstances, it seems that I must return to ensure that my Dad is a senior citizen tries CBD oil for his Parkinson's and other ailments to at-least.
  2. foolish

    Hypothetical question

    I agree, tell me about complex, in my case just by simply keeping a fundamental record out of my reach, which cause this to be over decade and half old litigation that could have been resolved in one look at the one document. I wouldn't wish this no one. Its waste on time and money, its taken a toll. . . a lot of heartache. . . . .I still believe in justice . . I appreciate the help.
  3. foolish

    Hypothetical question

    I Appreciate the education on this subject. I honestly believed concurrent jurisdiction meant that a claim could be brought in both courts, let me ask the district court has the authority to entertain both the little Tucker and claims sounding in Tort, that would be the advantage right with the District Court, while CFC there is no limit on monetary damages on the breach it cant be in Tort? Then wouldn't SOL be a factor?
  4. foolish

    Hypothetical question

    Overlooking the strikethrough, I get the gist of where you going because reviewed Tohono Odham Nation and Brandit as well as others the reason why asked was because of what Keene Corp v. U.S, 500 U.S. 200 , (1993) ''the Court of Federal Claims may not adjudicate the plaintiff's claim, even though its subject matter would otherwise bring it within the court's jurisdiction'' . . .Keene basically issued a proposition that the plaintiff he may choice withdraw contract claim in one to save the other (in the dissent I believe). Is that what I am reading? The issue about the operative facts, wouldn't the operative facts sprout different outcomes from consequences of the breach that actually become independent from the original operative facts that take a life of its own. (do you follow what I am trying say) For example in commercial contract laws it doesn't imply constitutions violations when their violated while this one does and the CFC doesn't entertain claims sounding in Tort while the district court does. I would be suing not for the breach but the Tort violations.
  5. foolish

    Hypothetical question

    It sounds reasonable that it makes sense, I misread 28 U.S.C section 1346 to mean that exactly the opposite what has been explained here. In that case wouldn't been fair that the plaintiff be allowed to chose between what forum to forgo? What effect is the dismissal under 1500 to my being able to refile it in that court, say for example if I voluntarily withdrawal those claims in the other court but continue the other claims?
  6. foolish

    Hypothetical question

    Actually, the order impliedly conceded that plaintiff did state a claim upon which relief could be granted but it had to be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. 1500. My question is wouldn't that conflict with 28 U.S.C 1346(a) which permits parallel proceedings to held limited on that cause of action?
  7. foolish

    Hypothetical question

    Is it normal for a court to issue an adverse order against plaintiff before the briefing is closed for example before plaintiff's reply to defendants response to plaintiff's complaint/petition is timely filed? Wouldn't plaintiff be denied his due process right to carry his burden of litigating defending against defendants (compulsory process)"?
  8. foolish

    Case law

    Thanks
  9. foolish

    Case law

    Just a question for knowledge, can someone tell me why cases like Vargas v. United States, 114 Fed. Cl. 226 (2014), can only be accessed by fee research engines? The reason I ask is because I have ran into a lot these type of cases over the years.
  10. foolish

    Case law

    Thanks.
  11. foolish

    Case law

    Can anyone confirm if Vargas v. United States, 114 Fed. Cl. 226, 233 (2014); is the same Vargas v. United States,Fed Cl. No. 12-508C (Jan 2014)(EDK). The reason I ask because I am spending too much time and getting same results, I'e gone to different 'free' research engines which is the ones I can afford and cant get past cases that cite Vargas but not the case itself. .
  12. foolish

    Case law

    Correct me if I am wrong although District Court decisions are not binding but when Circuit Courts in some instances affirm in whole in pat the decision which that logic is cited or used in a different case on the subject matter?
  13. foolish

    Case law

    I understand that a it might not be binding the lower court would not binding on the upper court and that once denaturalized the next nature step is deportation. But that was not the pat of the read that sparked my interest. It was the counter-claim. .
  14. foolish

    Case law

    STAYING ON SAME SUBJECT DIFFERENT CASE THOUGH Can anyone tell me if United States v, Zajanckauskas 346 F. Supp 2d 251 (D, Mass. 2003) is cited outside the Ninth Circuit or Federal Court of claims,/Federal Circuit and does it remain good law in that circuit.
  15. foolish

    Case law

    As you know I am forced to juggle cases, (and this case is a proactive research that I foresee that the research will prove beneficial to my case) actually what meant by ''spot on'' is the sequence of events of how the district court treated the complaint, and I understand that from what I read of Sills, is that dismissals for frivolousness was the only option the courts had to dismiss complaint that have been granted IFP status. The similarity is that it relates to the same statute just a different (sub)paragraph and its treatment of the complaint and sequence of events is strikingly similar. But in my case I believe the merits are much stronger than Sills.
×