Search the Community
Showing results for tags '38 cft 3.154'.
Found 1 result
Can't get "Answer Question" to come up on this post so will edit to add at the end. Editing to thank Berta for her Post. today is March 21, 2018. Still waiting for the response from the Judge to my rebuttal brief to the motion to dismiss by the U S Attorney. Attaching my objection and brief filed March 6, 2018. I'm attaching my Pro Se Complaint filed in U S District Court on December 15, 2017. Also the U S Attorney's motion to dismiss. I would like to hear any suggestions of U S Code and CFR articles that should be challenged under Sec (4)(d) of the 14th Amendment which was ratified on July 9, 1968. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void." For one, I would like to challenge the payment of back payments in rates that have been raised via COLA increases. My challenge is the Amendment was ratified under the gold standard. While there were variances across the land in how much gold it took to buy a good horse, the price of a good horse did not vary the way inflation affects the price today. The dollar we receive in past benefits should buy the same basket of groceries it would buy at the time the debt by the government to us is recognized. We need to challenge the Feres doctrine again now that the Sec (4)(d) is recognized in the Appeals Court process. From 1968 until the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was established Sec (4)(d) was essentially written out of the 14th Amendment by refusal to hear or by decisions such as the 1955 Feres decision. There were no cases in annotated texts of Appeals decisions under Sec (4)(d) when I first attempted to address the problem of the minimization of organic brain syndromes including damage by mild to moderately severe TBI, diseases, and other exposures such as oxygen supply interruption. I'm also requesting assistance in researching case law to counter the U S Attorney's response. I will be doing research via Fastcase.com and will post for any of the problems listed by others with their claims that I have read that I happen on to. I also have a pending Appeal to the CAVC which I will update on this thread. Presently the VA has made 5 form letter responses to the CAVC saying my dispute with the RBA remains open. No detail required by the Clerk's Order has been provided regarding the attempt to resolve the dispute. I have received no personal contact from the two attorneys assigned to handle the case. One for the case and the other for the disputed RBA. Can't get "Answer Question" to come up on this post so will edit to add. To Challenge under 14th Sec (4)(d): 1: Limitations of effective dates to other than evidence of onset of disability and evidence of increase. (look up U.S.C 38 AND 38 CFR) 2: "Closure of Claims" by VA without consent of Veteran. (look up U.S.C 38 AND 38 CFR) 20171215 Court complaint.pdf 20171215 Court complaint tolling.pdf 20180103 POS Rebuttal CM-EF Reg.pdf 20180103 Rebuttal obj eq tolling.pdf 20180109 DCDW denial Motion Eq Toll.pdf 20180213 U S Motion to dismiss.pdf 20180306 Objection to Dismiss.pdf 20180306 Objection to Dismiss Brief.pdf