“The question presented for review is whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by the United States Court of Federal Claims, as to call for an exercise of the Supreme Court’s supervisory power under Supreme Court Rule 10(a): the Federal Circuit grossly abused its discretion and its inherent power (and its discretion and power under Fed. R. App. P. 38) by imposing the harsh and unjustified sanction of appeal dismissal against appellant David Lee Smith for filing an alleged frivolous appeal of the unwarranted dismissal (on jurisdictional grounds) of his Complaint filed in the Court of Federal Claims alleging an unlawful judicial taking by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado of his home and personal property without due process of law or just compensation (and reducing Smith to abject poverty at now age 78), in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Federal Circuit’s Per Curiam Order dismissing Smith’s appeal was signed and filed by the Clerk without identifying the panel of Federal Circuit Judges imposing this sanction against Smith, and stated that the Order is “nonprecedential,” even though the appeal and the imposition of the sanction of appeal dismissal against Smith involved important issues of first impression in the Federal Circuit and/or issues involving conflicts with previous precedents in the Federal Circuit and in the Supreme Court of the United States. In its Per Curiam Order, the Federal Circuit failed to address Smith’s requests for relief under United States Student Aid Funds, Inc. v.Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 130 S. Ct. 1367, 176 L. Ed. 2d 158 (2010) and 28 U.S.C. § 2106—a clear abuse of discretion depriving Smith of his constitutional (First and Fifth Amendments) and federal statutory (28 U.S.C. § 1295) right to appeal and receive meaningful appellate review. The Federal Circuit arbitrarily denied Smith’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis even though Smith had demonstrated that he had been reduced to abject poverty by the unlawful judicial taking by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado of his home and personal property without due process of law or just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
