Case: 23-1363 Document: 71 Page: 1 Filed: 09/13/2024
`
`THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR
`THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`RECEIVED
`
`EDGAR ABLAN, ET AL.,
`Plaintiffs
`
`,,
`Linited States Court of Appeals
`CHRISTINA BANKER, TODD BANKER,
`Plaintiffs-Appellees
`
`'3 2024'
`
`V.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellant
`
`2023-1363
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. l:17-cv-01409-CFL,
`1:17-cv-09001-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.
`
`SANDRA ABDOU, ET AL.,
`Plaintiffs
`
`ELIZABETH BURNHAM,
`Plaintiff-Appellee
`
`V.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellant
`
`2023-1365
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. l:17-cv-01786-CFL,
`1:17-cv-09001-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR
`THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`RECEIVED
`
`EDGAR ABLAN, ET AL.,
`Plaintiffs
`
`,,
`Linited States Court of Appeals
`CHRISTINA BANKER, TODD BANKER,
`Plaintiffs-Appellees
`
`'3 2024'
`
`V.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellant
`
`2023-1363
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. l:17-cv-01409-CFL,
`1:17-cv-09001-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.
`
`SANDRA ABDOU, ET AL.,
`Plaintiffs
`
`ELIZABETH BURNHAM,
`Plaintiff-Appellee
`
`V.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellant
`
`2023-1365
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. l:17-cv-01786-CFL,
`1:17-cv-09001-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.
`
`
`
`Case: 23-1363 Document: 71 Page: 2 Filed: 09/13/2024
`
`CHRISTINA MICU, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SCOTT
`HOLLAND, CATHERINE POPOVICI, KULWANT SIDHU,
`Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants
`
`ELISIO SCARES, SANDRA GARZA RODRIGUEZ, ERICH SCHROEDER,
`MARINA AGEYEVA, GLENN PETERS, VIRGINIA HOLCOMB,
`Plaintiffs
`
`V.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellant
`
`2023-1366, 2023-1412
`
`Appeals from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. l:17-cv-01277-CFL,
`1:17-cv-09001-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.
`
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
`
`Zheng Lug
`
`pro se plaintiff of related case
`
`Civil Engineer
`
`Oversea licensed attorney
`
`(713)739-8295
`
`CO in verso@hotmai 1. com
`
`
`
`Case: 23-1363 Document: 71 Page: 3 Filed: 09/13/2024
`
`Amicus respectfully moves pursuant to Rule 29(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of
`
`Appellate Procedure for leave to file the attached amicus curiae brief in opposition of
`
`both parties in this case. After amicus required the parties' opinion for this brief, the
`
`United States, defendant-appellant replied that although the request for leave to file
`
`the amicus brief is untimely, the United States takes no position on the motion,
`
`subject to the general rules governing briefs filed out of time. See Fed. R. App. P.
`
`29(a)(6) ("A court may grant leave for later filing, specifying the time within which
`
`an opposing party may answer."); the co-leader counsels, plaintiffs-appellee and
`
`plaintiffs-cross-appellant also stated that "Plaintiffs take no position on whether or
`
`not the Court should allow its untimely submission".
`
`Amicus is a pro se plaintiff of the Harvey case pending before the U.S. Court
`
`of Federal Claims, Case No. l:17-cv-01868-CFL, l:17-cv-09001-CFL.
`
`Since amicus has participated in the construction and operation of large scale
`
`drainage and flood control and disaster reduction projects in foreign metropolitan
`
`areas, and has participated in the investigation and settlement of construction
`
`accidents and disputes as a licensed attorney and judicial appraiser oversea, therefore,
`
`he believes that his brief will be helpful to this court's decision on this appeal.
`
`First, amicus provided information' and opinion not found or expounded upon
`
`in the parties briefs. Second, amicus brief pointed out the trial court's findings based
`
`' Although some of the information that amicus provided is not in the appellate record,
`but they can be judicial noticed, amicus will provided the internet link.
`
`
`
`Case: 23-1363 Document: 71 Page: 4 Filed: 09/13/2024
`
`on Corps witnesses' false statements. Third, amicus brief provides explanation from
`
`the view of engineering regarding the Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries Project, such as
`
`the practice of land acquisition, the reason and consequence of the change of
`
`operation. Finally, amicus brief lays out several legal reasons regarding: why this
`
`case should not be decided as a precedent, and why a class action cannot be launched
`
`by the current co-lead counsels of this case.
`
`The US Supreme Court has recognized, "[N]o magic formula enables a court
`
`to judge, in every case, whether a given government interference with property is a
`
`taking." Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States, 568 US. 24, 31 (2012),
`
`the inquiry into whether a taking has occurred ultimately is a question of law based
`
`on factual underpinnings, Caquelin, 140 Fed. Cl at 572, requiring the court to
`
`engage in "ad hoc, factual inquiries," Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164,
`
`175 (1979). Therefore, in this case, the weight of the factual investigation is more
`
`important than the application of law, and the law can only be correctly applied when
`
`the facts are fully and objectively ascertained. Any decision based on trimmed facts,
`
`false statements and concealment of the truth will not stand the test of time.
`
`As a pro se plaintiff of Harvey case, amicus always believed that "This is a
`
`case involving a considerable amount of engineering technology. Only with the basis
`
`of full knowledge of engineering technology, could the defendant's liability, nature
`
`of liability and responsibilities be correctly determined. Without full
`
`acknowledgement of the engineering technology, fancy sophisticated litigation skills
`
`
`
`Case: 23-1363 Document: 71 Page: 5 Filed: 09/13/2024
`
`will only make the litigation into a prolonged litigation, or a parallel litigation, or
`
`even a vexatious litigation." In re Upstream Addicks & Barker Reservoirs, l:}7-cv-
`
`09001-CFL, ECF95, at 3.
`
`Furthermore, as a Harvey victim, amicus and his family experienced the
`
`suffering and privation themselves brought by flooded, which cannot be evaluated in
`
`monetary terms; therefore, amicus and his family hope that such man-made disasters
`
`will not be occur again.
`
`Finally, this appeal involves reviewing a trial court's ruling of setting a
`
`permanent flowage easement in the large, mature residential community in a
`
`metropolis area, which is the first times in the history of the United States even the
`
`world, and therefore requires both administrative and judicial more caution.
`
`For these reasons, amicus respectfully request that this court grant him leave to
`
`file the attached amicus curiae brief.
`
`Dated: September 11, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Zheng Luo
`
`(713)739-8295
`
`coinverso@hotmail.com
`
`
`
`Allan too OT reucA
`Case: 23-1363 Document: 71 Page: 6 Filed: 09/13/2024
`ORIGIN ID:NaiA (713) 739-0295
`ZHENG LUO
`
`SHIP DATES 11SEP24
`ACTWGTs 0.6S LB
`CADS e932493/SSF02541
`
`3411 PEOERNftLES TRAILS LN
`il'' KATV-. TX 7745Cr
`UNITED STATES US
`
`BILL THIRD PARTY
`
`T" US COURT OF FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`CLERK CTFFrCE.US COURT OF FEDERAL Ci
`717 MADISON PL NW
`
`WASHIN
`(000) 000-0000
`
`FedEx
`Express
`
`FRI - 13 SEP 5:00P
`2DAY **
`
`**
`
`20439
`DC-US IAD
`
`)e
`
`IWL
`
`10201^ 2793 9344 7714
`
`SS VJIA
`
`le.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
