1% of the 1% SCOTUS Hearings?

[Lemuel]

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.

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Lemuel
add additional facts

[Vync]

I hope you are accepted. Feres doctrine is in impediment to justice.

[Lemuel]

7 hours ago, Vync said:

I hope you are accepted. Feres doctrine is in impediment to justice.

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.

[Lemuel]

Thanks, Berta and Bronco, for the links on:

 I signed up for alerts on the "Military Medical Accountability Act" Berta posted and downloaded the "due process" article from Bronco.  Just to bring you up to date:

My Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was denied on Veterans' Day.  Knew there was less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting it heard (shredder gate) as a part of my denied appeal of the 10th on the Feres Doctrine.

I'll write to my congresswoman (Cheney) who is on the Veterans Affairs Committee and ask her to amend the MMAA to allow those of us who have raised complaints in the past and who have been blocked from receiving medical evidence, should have their SOL extended to 3 years after the effective date of the MMAA.

My CAVC case, 17-2990, (link below) on the failure to provide a complete RBA to the BVA Judge, to me and my Attorney, just went to Judge Meredith on 11/08/19.  The Docket link is:

https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom

There are 27 docket items between 11/18/17 and 12/04/18 on the RBA dispute (shredder gate).  Most are delaying notices from the VA GC.  There was a Clerk's Conference which the Clerk closed not having gotten his orders to the VA GC full filled.  I immediately filed an Appeal to the CAFC and the CAVC and the CAFC failed to follow FRAP 3 (d) and their local Rule 3.

So hopefully I'll get somewhere with "shredder gate".

I now have experience with filing a SCOTUS petition for a Writ of Certiorari.  Even though a Pro Se litigant has less than a 1 in 10,000 chances of being heard at SCOTUS, the failure of the following of the rules and enforcement of orders by the CAVC and CAFC should get me a quick single judge decision from SCOTUS that would then have to be appealed by the VA once I have CAVC and CAFC decisions in hand if necessary.  I don't believe the CAFC will ignore an adverse decision from the CAVC and therefore hopeful that Judge Meredith will see things differently than the Clerk did.