« Bottom Feeders II: Despite Controversy, FDA Approves Lexapro For Kids | Main | The CPSIA and How “Tort Reform” Groups Sold Small Businesses Down the River »

March 25, 2009


CPT Michael C. Goncalves (SC) USAR

Can't sue the Military Because of the FERES DOCTRINE? Oh REALLY?!!! Well don't tell me that because I just filed papers with the Army Claims Office and looking for counsel(You should see my evidence---I have Law Case Files from OTJAG having the IG advise them not to respond to me because 'we screwed up and he's going to sue us') and don't tell the BROOKS family because they sued the Army AND WON!!! See BROOKS V. United States 337 U.S. 49 (1949).

What you MEANT to say is that "IF" you were on ACTIVE DUTY ORDERS at the time of your harms (Feres Tenate #1) "AND" your harms were the result of some moron's Negligence (#2) "AND" your harm was incidental to Military Service (Feres Tenate #3) T-H-E-N you are precluded from filing redress under the FTCA(1950) See: FERES, Executrix, v. United States, Jefferson v. United States and United States v. Griggs, Executrix, CONSOLIDATED; 340 U.S. 135, 715.ct. 153; 95L Ed. 152; 1950 (04DEC1950) US Lexis 1352.

ALL THREE of the tenates MUST BE in play else the ENTIRE FERES Challenge Crashes and Burns!!! HEY, aren't you guys lawyers---Lawyers L-I-V-E for nuiance and gramatica errors---like in in my Accounting Course where Corporate Lawyers duked it out between the meaning of words 'Shall' and 'Should'. CPTG

The comments to this entry are closed.



  • Google



Got a News Tip?

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

  • All opinions expressed on this blog are those of the authors only. Any disputes should be addressed to the authors or commentators. The Pop Tort invites comment to further the debate on issues addressed, but we reserve the right to deny or remove any post or comment.
Related Posts Widget for Blogs by LinkWithin