“As a matter of statutory construction and application, is petitioner entitled to the exercise of the authority of the United States Federal Court of Claims under 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(2) to a remand of the review of petitioner’s general court martial conviction to OJAG USN with further order to OJAG USN to exercise its authority under 28 U.S.C. §869(d)(1) to refer petitioner’s general court martial conviction to the NMCCA for further judicial appellate review?”
“Under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, is petitioner entitled to have his general court martial conviction vacated in the case of United States v. West?”
“Can the Court of Federal Claims issue a protective order placing the record under a partial seal preventing the disclosure of the names of petitioner’s sexual assault/sexual harassment accusers in his general court martial, whereby the validity of the conviction in said general court martial is the subject of the dispute in the proceedings before the Court of Federal Claims?”
“Does the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, impose upon the petitioner (and by extension his counsel) the duty to protect information regarding the identity of petitioner’s sexual assault/sexual harassment accusers at petitioner’s public court martial?”
“If the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, can be interpreted to impose such a duty upon the petitioner (and by extension his counsel), does the imposition of that duty violate petitioner’s rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?”
“Does the doctrine of Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel) apply to bar petitioner from litigating in the proceedings below the issue of whether the sexual assault/sexual harassment accusations against him were false where: a) a court in an earlier proceeding found that plaintiff failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that the allegations were false; b) the prior proceeding was a Westfall Act certification challenge and the findings on the merits regarding the falsity of the sexual assault/sexual harassment allegations was made pursuant to Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007); c) the finding of the court in the prior proceeding was that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over petitioner’s claims; and d) the opposing parties did not explicitly deny defendant’s allegations that the sexual assault/sexual harassment allegations were false (either by affidavit, answer, or other responsive pleading)?”
