Jump to content

Michael Gonzales

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations


Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Michael Gonzales

  • Rank
    E-2 Recruit
  • Birthday 05/24/1975

Profile Information

  • Military Rank
  • Location
    Was in Fleet-Anti Terrorism Team 1st platoon 3/1 Killer Kilo 1ST Marines thereafter
  • Interests
    Unsuccessful after service leaving paycheck to paycheck

Previous Fields

  • Service Connected Disability
  • Branch of Service

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Single Status Update

See all updates by Michael Gonzales

  1. Comments on unadjudicated claims.  It has been a while since I’ve checked my account, furthermore,  if I may clarify my assertion with specificity. In April of 2000 I was discharged from USMC and a pre-discharge claim was submitted  for this veteran. 1. assertion was awarded and 1. Assertion was denied. However, no NOD was submitted and 12 months thereafter this claim was finalized. To clarify, the precedence what was overlooked was the responsibility to reasonable raise all issues from the service record, either record STR, SRB to achieve a maximum plausible optiuium the DVA's expectation.  Nevertheless, when  the VCAA of 2000 became law , thereafter, every claim well grounded was to be readjucated and given applicable statutory and regulatory statute of the VCAA of 2000. This veteran claim was never addressed and based on the inferred claim doctrine , freestanding, in statutory written language of the raised claim doctrine. Thus, my CUE at the BVA currently and I preparing my argument for all (3) levels CVAF, Appeal and my theory to entitlement is sound I’m prepared to argue before the justice ( supreme court) with respect. Based on the following.
    1 My collateral attack is on the “claim” not every specific assertions the claim is unadjudicated and certain assertions have been adjudicated.
    2. My theory to entitlement agrees CUE does not apply to an adjudicated claim, however, collateral attack attempts to address issues of inferred and raised disabilities would have been raised from a liberal read of the evidence and the erred error of don’t properly adhering to the fundamental principles of our due process infrasture. Simply, they erred and because of prejudice and grace procedural error my right to be heard and treated as law declared was errounous taken from me. Every disability I’m awarded for is well documented in my records and would have been raised if due process was respected. For 17 years they would not allow my claim and it appeals to leave the regional  office. The evidence of the entire claims file is alarming and I’m addressing this matter of law by the submission  of a Writ of Relief  under Mandamus  to the 9th District Court under the APA for a pronouncement of injunctive action and the federal question for jurisdiction of subject matter pertaining to constitutional violations . Here is my opening statement: any feed back  I’m about 26 pages finished this us just raw opening  need to insert my case law and proper format to their federal pleading rule 
    Per pursuant of rule 21 of this honorable court a declaratory and injunctive relief in the nature of a Extroaditory Writ of Relief of Mandamus is sought. Furthermore, such Relief of Mandamus is plead for equal protection to emcompass an equal right to achieve equal justice as one believes equal justice is. Therefore, this petitioner Michael B. Gonzales whom is a pro-se petitioner, furthermore, as noted, seeks a declaratory and injunctive relief in the nature of a Extroaditory Writ of Relief of Mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Furthermore, relief sought is to squash the inequalities of unconstitutional deprivements, thereafter, if relief is granted such relief will enlighten the emcompassment to allow” equality of law” thus protecting ones’ pursuant for equal protection under law. Therefore, from ones' believe pertaining to equality of law, therefore, and how equality of  law in such cause is encompassed from the fundamental principles of our 14th Constitutional Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Thereafter giving the optiuium to enhance  “equality”  to enlighten ones ‘ protection under law,  as in such cause, to be given justice considered equal justice. Furthermore, to seek justice under law to grant relief for exceptional extraorditory and drastic acts. Thereforth, under 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b) and 706(l) of the Administrative Procedure Act allows this honorable court to grant relief. Thus this  petitioner agrees section 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. does not provide an independent basis for subject matter of constitutional questions of law: See Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977). Thereforth, under section 28 U.S. Code § 1331 the Federal Question this honorable court, specifically, for acts of undue delays and constitutional matters of law  and violations of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq. ("Title VI" and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Thereafter, gives thus court jurisdiction of this petition to grant relief by the order of Mandamus.
     Moreover,  from such enlightment this Court can  “compel the Department of Veteran Affairs to take appropriate action to apply statutory and regulatory statute when adjudicating petitioners’ appeals unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). Thereafter, for an equitable right from this honorable courts pronouncement if granted relief, thus and thereafter, this petitioner can achieve “justice" as this pro-se petitioner believes equal justice is. Thus, in such cause, the presumption of ones' believe of “equal” is the emcompassment to safeguard the petitioner under equal protection a fundamental core value our democracy “justice for all” see: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137. Thus, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) which can  grant this court authority per pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which allows relief of extraordinary acts considered drastic by deprivement imposed upon the petitioner see Erspamer v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 3, 7-8 (1990). 

  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines