Jump to content

foolish

Members
  • Content Count

    1,062
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About foolish

  • Rank
    Diamond Contributor

Recent Profile Visitors

2,446 profile views
  1. No, I understand that that Court considered the ''the state of things on the day the complaint is filed in the Claims Court'', that's the point that I am struggling with its a complete waste of everybody's time by having refile these claims all over again and start anew. . . ([my inner thoughts ]this would have never gone on this long, had I not been deprived of the copy of the transcripts to those proceedings despite my timely countless of request, I was set-up for failure from day one, because otherwise they would have lost automatically had the transcripts seen the light of day..]). Thanks for the help.
  2. the complaint was dismissed on the latter, I understand that the court would lack jurisdiction over the case when their a similar pending case. Drawing the exception to this case by reversing its order or judgment where new evidence was proffered that the pending case dismissal order was based voluntarily dismissal was granted to clear the jurisdictional bar. (FRAP 42(b)). I am reading the interpretation of Keene Corp, 508 U.S. 200, 219-22 (dissent).
  3. I admit I typed some obvious mistakes for example (1) I cited 1915(d) which should have been subparagraph (e)(2) of sect. 1915: (2) I also placed "all" before the federal court of federal. That mistake was obvious in that there is only one court of federal claims which is national. But they were obvious to studied person in the practice of law. The remarks are for primarily for effect, but unnecessary, but I do appreciate positive input. Actually the screening aspect of the complaint as I experienced is to weed out defects in the complaint and allowing the plaintiff to correct any procedural or jurisdictional defect found in the complaint before serving the defendants, as my understanding pro se litigants are given an opportunity to correct any defects in the complaint that are correctable, if so The real question is this does 28 U.S.C sec. 1500 bar a court of federal claims from granting a rule 59e and or rule 60(b)(6) motion after the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction? I see no bar in the language used in sec. 1500. Am I wrong?.
  4. Does 28 U.S.C 1915(d) require all court of federal claims to screen complaints ? If so are pro se litigants moving informa pauperis given a chance to amend their complaint to correct any ''procedural'' or ''jurisdictional'' defect found in the complaint that is correctable?
  5. I understand that it was patent case, I was just beating my head against the wall, and I think it helped because I found 25 F.3d 1021, 1030, a FCL case stating that a rule 60(b) is to be liberally construed to do substantial justice. Hopefully I find something better in google scholar. case by case page by page.
  6. I must have though I cited the right case. The correct citation is 198 F.3d 1363, 1370, its a patent case where the plaintiff filed a belated Rule 60(b) motion, the Circuit Court for the Federal Circuit found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. The rule is the same but the circumstances are different, the motion was timely and supported grounds relief under the extraordinary circumstances catch all rule. But its not a district court case.
  7. To remain on solid ground, I need confirmation or correction. Does the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case law equally apply to Federal Court of Claims when its an appeal from a denial of FRCP Rule 60(b)(6) catch all motion. see e.g., 138 F.3d 1363, 1370. I ask this question because according to 28 US.C 1346(a) vests both Courts with Tucker jurisdiction.
  8. What statute properly invokes the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with jurisdiction to review of a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim. See e.g., 28 USC §1292(c), and §1295. Is there any statute or statutes that definitively invokes the courts of appeals for the Federal Circuit jurisdiction over an order appealed from the Federal Court of Claims.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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?
  14. 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?
  15. 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)"?
×
×
  • Create New...