HOME: MWPA.Army

The Cases: Forbes v. US (CFC) and former case Forbes v. US Army (USDC)

How the get to the Supreme Court if necessary. STUART R. HARROW had to do this because of DoD litigation’s likely stubbornness over a $3,000 disputed claim that has thus far taken 11 years to resolve (and ticking).

Filing a Petition for a Writ of Centiorari, US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Video Excerpt with superimposed pictures of the speakers is coming soon! Highlights the laughter on the bench and in the gallery regarding Justice Gorsuch’s comments, “Here we are in the Supreme Court of the United States over a $3,000 claim,” said Gorsuch. “I’m— I’m just wondering why the government’s making us do this.”

How an Ordinary Guy Took a $3,000 Case to the Supreme Court

the transcript is here: Harrow v. DoD, Oral Arguments transcript, Supreme Court of the US, March 25, 2024

the audio is here: Harrow v. DoD, Oral Arguments audio, Supreme Court of the US, March 25, 2024

 

Now that the corrupted separation is complete and the first attempt at judicial remediation in the US District Court in the Eastern District of North Carolina (5:24-cv-00176) failed due to the Plaintiff’s neophytic abilities at being a pro se litigant, a new and better attempt has been launched. The immediately following filings represent the current CASE in the Court of Federal Claims: 1:2024-cv-01953.

 

footnote 2, “Plaintiff misunderstands the rules[,]” in the order immediately below, even though the Defendant is the party that asserted the Default Judgment argument to apply to the Vacation of the Entry of Default.  See quote out of Motion to Vacate… below (February 5, 2025). The Plaintiff merely argued that it was reserved for Default Judgments, which evidently is not correct. I missed something! The controversy continues, see the Resources page for a new addition. How the third-party Corporation described its online DEI-affiliated tool that the Defendant may one day have to argue in support of (under Whistleblower Retaliation #1, look for bold entries).

Quote from Defendant Motion below (February 5, 2025) “The failure to timely respond was solely because of undersigned counsel’s failure to accurately calendar the correct date to respond. Thus, our failure to answer falls under the definition of Rule 60(b)(1) as excusable neglect. See Westec Co., 32 Fed. Cl. at 578 (concluding that default was not willful where attorney neglected to properly record the due date); Plus Med., LLC, 2014 WL at *3 (finding that counsel’s mistake as to the
status of a case does not rise to the level of willfulness).”

The former case (below) was filed in the US District Court of the Eastern District of North Carolina on March 18 2024, case #5:24-cv-00176. The case can be found on Pacer, but many of the key case documents can also be found below:

Forbes v. US Army Complaint (PDF download)
Forbes v. US Army Complaint (PDF download)
Forbes v. US Army, Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief (PDF download)
Forbes v. US Army, Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief (PDF download)

 

 

 

 

Forbes v. US Army, Memorandum in support of Motion (PDF download)

 

  • Defendant’s Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (available via Pacer)
    • Memorandum in support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (available via Pacer)
  • Defendant’s Response to Motion to Compel Urgent Abeyance (available via Pacer)