HOME: MWPA.Army

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

NEW! NEW! NEW!

Here is a cover of the Simon and Garfunkel 1964 (before I was born) classic. This was inspired by the Disturbed 2024 remake (Cyril remix) and powered by Suno, LTX Studio (free) and FlexClip (free). This only feature parts of the story (DEI, the assault, the video erasure, and personal phones it turns out they were encouraging Soldiers to bring into the secret headquarters facility) with the hidden capstone (found in the court case) being that I did the Colonel’s job. I found the appropriate oversight sub-agency and engaged them. That action likely resulted in the brand-new policy published on July 18, 2024, that prevents this from happening in the future. It emplaced stop-gaps for Commanders attempting to do research and ensured the mandatory informed consent processing by JAGs; in other words, it covered all of my concerns about the unlawful orders. Yet this horrendous separation of my service, with 17 years, 9 months and 19 days of unblemished service, is brought to you by the hubris of a few Army Officers. All of this over a 60 second conversation where I asked for information they unlawfully withheld from me. Enjoy this song! Just remember, exposed corruption spreads pain to everyone involved, not just on the target of the corruption. For a complete story or more information, see Docket file #28 of the case. (CASE #: 1:24-cv-01953, CFC) or put “MWPA.Army” in your browser for more.

The Bounds of Guidance – A Tale of an Army SFC – Michael J. Forbes, 6/7/2025

Cover of The Sound of Silence by Simon and Garfunkel, 1964; inspired by remake by Disturbed (Cyril remix), 2024; powered by Suno.com, LTX Studio, and FlexClip; lyrics by Michael J. Forbes; story compliments of the U.S. Army; cited case#: 1:24-cv-01953 in the Court of Federal Claims.

 

Check out the Comic Strip “Fruit from the Poisonous Tree” below. CLICK THE LINK!!!

Fruit from Poisonous Tree Comic

 

How to 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. READ Docket 28 below if you want to know how corrupted Administrative Separations are in our military.

If their case was so airtight (one might wonder), ‘why would the Army need more time? Why didn’t they produce every decision to uphold the Brigade Commander’s recommendation in the Administrative Record?’ Remember, ‘Spin cycle’ on a modern washing machine is automatic. Read below (Docket 28) if you want to see how the Army makes their sausage when they violate laws and then hunt the whistleblower (it is broken down by theme).

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)