Guadalupe Lopez, Jr. v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Judge Meredith’s order noted that the Secretary had reported that Petitioner Lopez, on March 7, 2023, filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board’s February 8, 2023 decision that had denied Lopez’s revision of the Board’s July 2020 decision. Meredith’s order determined Lopez’s March, 2023 reconsideration motion “abated the finality of the Board decision and, that [Lopez] May 2023 Notice of Appeal was premature.” (App.20a). In CAVC Case No. 24-1933, Judge Allen, in the August 4,2025 finality decision engaged in a continuing pattern of systemic, deliberate fabrication of false state­ ments and obstruction of justice, including, but not limited to, creating a false and fraudulent Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) decision ‘concealing § 5108(a) relevant material evidence’ withholding Board submit­ ted documents (copy of records before the agency) that included a copy of Chairman of the Board’s October, 2020 order grant of Lopez reconsideration to revise the Board’s July 2020 appeal that noting that the Board had denied Lopez an “effective date earlier than Jan­ uary 14, 1997, etc.”—an issue inextricably intertwined with Judge Allen’s November 2021 decision, that origi­ nally determined that the BVA’s July 2020 decision as “not clearly erroneous but based on a correct under­ standing of the governing law, and supported by an adequate statement of reasons and bases, we will affirm.” (App.lla). The Questions Presented are:

1. Whether a veteran has a First Amendment right to meaningful access to the courts and administrative agencies when the government concealed decisions issued under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a)-(d), which are subject to review under § 7292, and concealed the standards of review set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)-(d), including the requirement to take due account of the rule of pre­ judicial error; and where judges continued to cite the Circuit Court’s April 10, 2026, Per Curiam decision as a “judgment terminated on the merits” and a “legally barred CUE claim”: intertwined with the Circuit Court’s April 10, 2026 decision repeatedly denying § 372(c) and Rule 10 of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings; intertwined with the Federal Circuit decision in No. 26-1090 which was sub­ ject to the Veterans Court dated October 7, 2025. Judge(s) Per Curiam finality decision on August 4, 2025 in case No. 24-1933 wherein Judge Allen prejudicially affirmed the Board’s February 8, 2023 decision to dis­ miss Lopez’s motion to revise the BVA decision of July 24, 2020 decision, contrary to the § 5108(a) supplement­ al claim supported by CAVC Judge Meredith Case No. 23-2760 order (new & material evidence) of October 10, 2023, rehearing denied November 2, 2023, filed during Board’s February 2023 appeal adjudication.

2. Whether it is a violation of this veteran’s First and Fifth Amendment rights when the Secretary and the Court dismiss Petitioner's appeal, concluding that it did not involve the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation; and the Court concluded that Petitioner’s argument “fails as a matter of law” based on a prior Veterans Court decision on the subsumed July 2020 Board decision, which was no longer subject to revision on the merits; and the Secretary’s brief erroneously concluded: “Petitioner does not allege that there was new and material evidence that the Veterans Court failed to consider, nor does he identify any place in the record where he raised such arguments;” the Secretary used the presumption of regularity and the 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) non-review preclusion clause to redirect attention from the Chairman of the Board’s October 2020 grant of Petitioner’s BVA July 2020 CUE motion as rebuttal evidence to the Secretary’s motion to dismiss.

3. Whether a veteran has a constitutional right to a fair hearing on the merits of his disability claim, decided according to fundamentally fair procedures, and whether the initial and subsequent CAVC March and November 2023 Judge Meredith § 5108 review of the relevant former disposition of the February 2023 claim determinations has been subject to nothing but differential evidentiary review that continues with the same concealed evidence during adjudication, mis­ statements of material facts, misstatements of law, fraudulent submissions, and omissions.