Whether the rule that the Court of Federal Claims cannot review other courts' final orders is wrongly applied

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the rule that the Court of Federal Claims cannot review other courts’ final orders is wrongly applied when the only matter is a takings and the other court (being “reviewed”) had no Tucker Act jurisdiction to grant such takings when the damages claimed was over $10,000 (as here). Thus, whether when judicial . takings are being compensated, nothing in the other case would be overturned and review of another court is not a bar to Tucker/Takings recovery. Fed. R. Evid. § 201 (a) & (c). This has long been the Federal Circuit rule, but it was not applied here. Boise Cascade Corporation, v. United States, 296 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Whether a law license is property of such great import that, when taken by a . judge or court, must be compensated when no crime was alleged, no dishonest act was alleged, and the only grounds for taking the licenses was “incompetence.” Further, another state rejected this suspension as “a drive-by shooting” by claiming no ethical violation happened by clear and convincing evidence. In other words, whether 5 years of suspension with no fault should be sufficient property invasion to justify a 5s Amendment Taking and compensation. Ex Parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333, 379 (1867) (One does not hold a law license , merely “as.a matter of grace and favor.”); Supreme Court of N.H. v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 281 (1985) (“The opportunity to. practice law is a ‘fundamental right.”’) Scheehle v. Justices, 508 F.3d 887, 889, 891 (9th Cir. 2007) (Penn Central & Lingle regulatory takings tests govern law license takings)