Tort Claim in U S District Court

[Lemuel]

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

Edited March 21, 2018 by Lemuel
correct spelling, additions because "Answer Question" box not appearing

[broncovet]

I never did figure out how VA loans charge one Veteran interest to borrow money on a home, but somehow the VA gets away without paying us interest when the delays (sometimes for decades)  are through no fault of our own.  

[JR Reihs]

I commend your effort, but before you go for anything related to the gold standard, best to check how uncle sucker rates gold as of today. Gold holds it own as it comes to inflation, always has and always will unless you are the gooberment.  The CPI was changed under Clinton to skewer and screw those that depended on it, and it ain't gonna change.

[Berta]

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20130117f04

One of our new members mentioned this case and I thought it would be a good example of how involved many FTCA issues can become, to put into this forum.

The veteran filed in a Federal District  Court after one of two things happened- either his FTCA was denied by OGC or he refused their offer of settlement.(probably the latter reason)

He was awarded quite a tidy sum of cash by the Fed District Court. 

One reason he succeeded in what- at first glance would be a very difficult case to win, is with the Timeline he provided of how VA had been negligent with primarily their administration of  improper medications that resulted in negligently treating his PTSD.He also had a superb expert opinion.

"We award the plaintiffs the following damages:

Stanley P. Laskowski, III's Past Lost Earnings and Lost Earning Capacity: $214,582.00

Stanley P. Laskowski, III's Future Loss of Earnings and Lost Earning Capacity: $2,144,803.00

Stanley P. Laskowski, III's Past Non-Economic Damages in a lump sum, including pain and suffering, embarrassment and humiliation and loss of the ability to enjoy the pleasures of life: $500,000.00

Stanley P. Laskowski, III's Future Non-Economic Damages in a lump sum, including pain and suffering, embarrassment and humiliation and loss of the ability to enjoy the pleasures of life: $700,000.00

Marisol Laskowski's past, present and future loss of her husband's services to her and the past, present, and future loss of companionship of her husband, including her spouse's company, society, cooperation, affection, aid in the marital relationship, support, comfort, assistance, association, and the loss of ability to engage in sexual relations: $140,615.00"

Anyone considering  pursuing a FTCA matter in a Federal Circuit Court should study this case carefully.

The court notes that there was a "preponderance" of evidence.... meaning these cases -whether settled at the VA General Counsel level or filed after  a OGC denial or refusal of a settlement by the plaintiff, have to go  much further , with evidence, than a traditional award of any other VA claim -that is based on Benefit of Doubt.....

to raise to the level of a Preponderance of Evidence against the VA.