Whether the military pay and records correction case involves issues of wrongful discharge, forged documents, and conflict of interest

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . ; This is a Military Corrections of records 10 U.S.C. § 1552, and Military Pay and entitlement case 37 U.S. Code _ § 204. In this case, the petitioner believes a precedent is being set, since there has been no case of this magnitude : before the court; there are numerous cases with similar : claims, but none that have exceeded, and most have been : ; dismissed for being untimely. The petitioner was framed by his commanding general and discharged from the Army erroneously. Petitioner followed the Army’s grievance procedures strictly, but ; they were ignored, so he filed a lawsuit for wrongful discharge. Upon clearing Petitioner’s record by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, the Army Human Resource Command published the orders that : would have restored his status. As Petitioner refused to , : drop the case before being made whole, an Army litigation attorney and a government attorney forged a ABCMR : recommendation to appear to be a Secretary of the Army directive. Petitioners filed several motions under rule 60 and rule 60(@)(8) the Court ignored the evidence and : , motions. Assisting the government became a priority for the Court. Due to the forged document, the government ; ‘ won an unjust victory in the case. ; ; ; This Petition requests review, based on the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissal for “lack of subject matter jurisdiction”, the Army/Army Board for Correction of Military Records final action/decision of “partial relief”, compared to the government’s recommendation of full relief, both versions are in conflicting conflict and have caused extreme harm to Petitioner’s career and monies owed to Petitioner. Also, , a a review of the United States Court of Federal Claims : dismissal for “[relief from judgement will not be granted : if substantial rights of the party have not been harmed by the judgement.” Both court orders were obtained through fraud. Answers to the following three questions are crucial. I. Whether, in a military pay and records correction ; case, when the Secretary of the Army publishesafinal decision by directive following their investigation, and the US Army Human Resources Command publishes the official payment orders, is it possible . for an unauthorized person or department within the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) to refuse them, and deny pay? Is that action reviewable ; under the “arbitrary and capricious” APA standard? : II. Are there any limitations on a Federal Judge’s precedence in cases of conflict of interest? Does Lo absolute immunity apply when a judge acts criminally under the color of law and without jurisdiction? Are administrative actions taken to influence cases in favor of the government included in this definition? IiI. In the process of recusal under 28 U.S.C. §455(a) would it be reasonable to question a federal judge’s : impartiality? When he not only allows an unauthorized ; attorney to forge an official document but fabricates court orders based on the forge document in relation to the proceeding pending before him.