Jump to content


First Class Petty Officer
  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Lemuel last won the day on August 10 2018

Lemuel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

18 Good

1 Follower

About Lemuel

  • Rank
    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

Profile Information

  • Military Rank
    E-6 Hospital Corpsman 1rst Class
  • Location
    Disabled at home
  • Interests
    Organic Brain Syndrome activist since 1987

Previous Fields

  • Service Connected Disability
  • Branch of Service
  • Hobby
    Activist for Organic Brain Syndromes

Recent Profile Visitors

796 profile views
  1. I feel I have a possibility. The 10th gave me a good start on my petition in their decision quoting other decisions that stated the Feres Doctrine should be reviewed but could only be reviewed by SCOTUS. The 10th didn't go as far as the quoted decisions only stating that the decision could only be reviewed by SCOTUS. But their quotes said what they didn't say. And they didn't make any decision quotes that were outright in support of the Feres Doctrine.
  2. The question is; Will I be among the less than 1% Pro Se Petitioners to SCOTUS of the 1% over all Petitioners for a Writ of Certiorari that will be heard by SCOTUS. The Petition is Bray v United States Docket No. 18-9532 Re: "The Feres Doctrine" with 15 related constitutional questions. The documents can be downloaded from the Supreme Court of the United States, (SCOTUS), web site here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-9532.html The answer will come sometime after the 40 copies have been distributed to the Justices and their Clerks for the November 8, 2019 Conference. Only 1% are granted a hearing before SCOTUS. Will the Feres Doctrine continue to stand up as Constitutional continuing a 69+ year old precedence that prevents you from filing a Tort case for your mistreatment and failure to be compensated for subtle but employability disabling temporal lobe seizures ignored by the military and the VA to reduce entitlements? Some relief was granted in 2008 for TBI victims. Those who had TBI claims from 2007 on will be fully compensated. Those of us from previous wars have been stiffed until we were allowed to file our claims after receiving the 2008 letter.
  3. The brief I submitted to the CAVC with the help of a legal research specialists is at: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=ShowDoc&dls_id=01205833436&caseId=95961&dktType=dktPublic Notice the more recent Jones v. Wilkie, No. 2017-2120 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2019, decision. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2120.Opinion.3-13-2019.pdf Even with the Jones presidential decision, it still goes back to an RO who may be under administrative pressure to reduce his award amounts by a VARO Director creating a bias. The RO is a VA employee and not a "trier of fact jury" as guaranteed by the 7th Amendment. (hope I have that one right -- didn't look it up) The brief I submitted was rejected as too long even though I submitted a previous motion to exceed the page limitation. I chopped the brief to 15 pages and resubmitted per the Clerk's Order. Subsequently, I received a call, apparently from a Judge's clerk, saying I needed to put in writing which reply brief I wanted to use. I responded with a motion to rule favorable for the request for an extended brief and use the brief cited above. That went in Saturday, so don't know if they will accept that brief or the chopped down to 15 pages brief.
  4. Thanks for the input, Bronco. If I get my petition certified, please come on board with an Amicus Curia brief explaining your circumstances. Chances are low. Berta's post has more chance. Thanks for the info, Berta. I seem to be in the "shredder gate" situation. Missing probative evidence. Cannot say for sure who disappeared it of if it got lost during the RO-File Room shuffle before the c-files were digitalized. Whether deliberate or accidental failure of competence it has the same effect. My Petition focuses on so much reoccurring errors and lost documents that I claimed "whistle blower" retaliation on an applicant at the CAVC including collusion between the CAVC clerk and the GC attorney at a hearing. Should have been recorded but if it was I'll bet the voice recording is "lost." The Clerk wrote an outcome and order stating we had resolved the Rules RBA dispute. But that wasn't the case and I filed a NOA with fee to the CAFC on the order. The check was returned to me with a letter from the "Operations Manager" stating that we were not yet in a place for an NOA. FRAP 3 (d) and CAVC Rule 3 both say "orders" are appealable and I cited them in my NOA. So my Petition for a Writ includes a question on the duty of the Clerks and Operation managers to follow the FRAP and Local rules. This one is so obvious a 5th, due process, violation that I hope if none of the other questions get certified at least it will.
  5. I just filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari to SCOTUS on the "Feres Doctrine" which is used to deny veterans access to evidence and tort claims. No jury trier of fact. The BVA is unable to order evidence be made available to claimants. The DVA thumbs its nose, as it did in my case, at the RBA disputes lodged under the rules to obtain evidence. The Circuit Courts won't get involved because of the Feres Doctrine while expressing concerns about the Feres Doctrine's Constitutionality. Petition was mailed Saturday. Don't know how long it will take to get an answer but only 1% get heard by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Have a much better chance at it this time than when I attempted in 1989. I shelled out more than $1,000.00 in printing and mailing 45 copies (143 pg.) to SCOTUS and 1 copy each to 10 interest parties this time. Big gamble on my part. Need to publicize it. Is there a Journalist on board? Search Bray v United States at SCOTUS (new petition) in a week or so. Bray v United states at the 10th Circuit, #18-8051, in a couple of days should have the SCOTUS petition posted on PACER. Also submitted a pre-decision copy to the Court of Veterans Claims (CAVC) which should post to the docket of Bray v Wilkie, #17-2990. Is anyone interested in joining? Does anyone know a law school that might take it up? I'm self represented because it is extremely difficult to get an attorney because of the Feres Doctrine.
  6. An open response box! Leroy, there are recent CAFC precedence opinions that put you in good light for going for even CUE under your circumstances connected to diabetes. The adjudicator only looked at the one exam to make the decision. The CAVC or BVA shouldn't side with the adjudicator given the recent decisions. I'll look through my file and come back and attach the decisions on an edit if I can get the box back open. Didn't fin the one I was looking for but these may help with your decision of which way to go. 17-2120.Opinion.3-13-2019 relevant med records.pdf 18-1344.Opinion.3-13-2019 relevant diagnosis.pdf 18-1484.Opinion.2-14-2019.pdf
  7. How to get rid of the "download banner" overlaying the "Answer Box". Sign out and resign in. Problem solved. For those who want more to understand immunoexcitotoxicity use this link. Long difficult read from NIH: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157093/
  8. Now I have a dialog box that isn't covered by an upload banner. Thanks Bronco. I did try a phd but not a neurobehavioral psychologist and couldn't get one to do it because they weren't qualified or were prevented by VA Regulations from doing anything that would smell like an "expert witness. But your post brought to mind a solution. Now that I can afford it I can look for an "expert witness" to provide me with an affidavit to present to the court in my TBI/medical malpractice case to show VA intent. Tried to contact Nils R. Varney, who is no longer connected to the VA but didn't get a response. Might have to travel to his office in Iowa. I know, from his testimony, that he would tear it apart. Might try that next month when the snow flies go into hibernation.
  9. Psychological_Testing_of_Cerebral_Malaria_Patients.4.pdf
  10. I'll edit the last and this as soon as I have time to put them in more readable form. This was in columns and the columns didn't follow properly. And the font of column 1 is different than column 2. The link above will only get the summary without paying $35.00 for the article. The attached is the article quoted by DR. Boos in the above post with testimony at the House Subcommittee on VA Benefits in 1998. There is an article by DR. Blocker on that "20th patient" meaning dropping him from the study required dropping one more from the other group from the study. Suspect he was actually in the B group until he went into late delirium. Like the delayed unconsciousness from a concussion. This should be enough to help anyone who wants to wade through it and come out screaming. I'm deleting the cut and paste and attaching the article. Should be easier to read. Psychological_Testing_of_Cerebral_Malaria_Patients.4.pdf
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines