volunteer well it doesn't matter the whole purpose was to get people to come forward and serve willingly and that's exactly what happened here and it's what happens every time a person fills out a grand jury questionnaire this case should begin and end with the application of the plain meaning rule the statute reads today the same straightforward  did on ambiguous tax passed by congress seventy two years ago except for this case the government has always understood what it meant and complied with its court leave mandate opinions of the controller general o p s website o p m civilian personnel law manual all support court leave law as the text reads significantly the claims court did not find any both years require consent to serve and those are provided by the respective grand jury when they sign the questionnaire they consent to serve at that time you ate sexual question  california where he was serving it's grand jury service five days a week you know it but sometimes it can even run well in the case of the foreman which was my client that weekend ok but it was five days a week it's not because in some jurisdictions that discovered that it's only one or two or if you're in d c already days a week it's a full retirement just wondering because if she was only serving three days a week and she wasn't working the other two would raise questions about you know pain that's not an issue there is no evidence that when congress passed the statute in one thousand nine hundred eighty that it intended the words to have any different import than their ordinary meaning there's also no evidence that congress intended to impose a one year time limit on jury service which is what the claims court has done presiding judge clark advised mrs hall that federal employees had served two year terms and been paid by the government the entire time but what it was relying on there your honor was with regard to witness lee it found nothing in the ninety nine statute pardon me they're in the same stature of juries and witnesses it covers jers and it covers  witnesses might come to court and hang around and use that as an excuse to take time off and to avoid that kind of an abuse they required that they be summut well i'm going to land only the government's witness lines court stated that members of the house expressed a concern over volunteering as a witness in order to get out of work for a few days this is to me it's voluntary she volunteered but they were concerned your honor with witnesses that were not going to be that has been boiled down to the fact that summons means what it says it's a call it's a it's a it's an order by the court to control the the juror or the witness and interestingly enough the summons plays such an important role in both instances that even if it's service late as when the for example witness appears in court that satisfies the requirements for entitlement the court said g a o found the employees were not entitled courtly even though they had  summons requirement in there to make it compulsory regardless of whether or not they had before that volunteer while she was still serving on the grand jury three months later the government terminated her and in the meantime o p m deliberately delayed another seven more months before they issued any kind of an opinion and cases already within the claims court's jurisdiction why because the remand act was enacted to put an end to endless litigation to provide as its sense and entire remedy as a matter of plain meaning in the remand act it authorizes the claims court once primary jurisdiction was a stablish by this court to provide an entire remedy and removal our position is is is but a derivative of the prime objective here courtly pay removal is the sequel it's not the source of this litigation because it  jurisdiction is with the claims court in the clear language of the remand act and it should be given the effect that it says making a haul hole for the claims courts agree just issue and that did not happen in connection with parents in the claims court or on the first appeal and they were unnecessary to the decision on the first appeal decreeing jurisdiction based on a monetary mandate of sixty three twenty two purposes of the statute statute here matal should not be considered to be within the statute because she received the document entitled the summons only because she engineered the receipt at that time and specifically she went to jury services asked for an application actually multiple times and then applied for jury service and it which point with voluntary jury service and in the words of the presiding court judge she could have gotten out of that service at any time so a lawyer contacts someone and says i going to testify and they say you're going to have those you know retail that's the same thing as far as you're concerned your honor we send that witness service a slightly different than jury service however as court is noted there are exceptions to what it means to be summoned in the jury context and start in the witness context specifically a witness is unlikely to be summoned for more than a few hours or even more than a few days whereas this jury service was for an extended period of time o has said that it doesn't always mean that you are summoned just because you receive a summons for example they look at examples from juvenile detention court rep errant child was called into juvenile court and the parent received a summons however they said that wasn't because the child was a party to the proceeding to summon wasn't the president of being summoned for the statute fair fair enough so so it looks to me like you conceded the point expense so i suppose my question to you is when the next time the courts print the information for federal grand jurors should we include a little quote that says if you are you willing to say it's just a two year vacation is that the government's position when you're asking people to do that again i'm not precisely sure i understand the court's question jury duty a vacation jury duty if it is grand jury duty a vacation yes or no it depends on the circumstances really because i think it's a heroic effort of citizenship you think it's vacation your honor the facts of this case demonstrate that ms howe very clearly did not want to go to work she led her employers to believe that she was going to come work in washington d c she did not tell them until the first day that she showed up for jury duty that she was going to be serving a year on the grand jury at that point the government made it clear they were displeased with her were seeking the service and voluntary and for it without telling them and then even though she knew the government did not want them to continue service you volunteered again and didn't tell the government about it until june twenty eighth or next year this is an employee who clearly was seeking to avoid work i'm not sure what the precise circumstances are for being selected as a grand jury baboy to work via root canal that doesn't make it vacation however your honor we would contend that if might have interpreted some that they haven't done that have i don't believe so your honor and if you lose this case we will reverse then isn't it urging an overbroad reading of the word summons one that would allow for potentially limitless jury service but the state of california is a two year limit is it not is there any state in the united states that has limitless one now but  associated with compulsory jury service and that's simply not what we're looking at here we're looking at an employee who had suffered no hardship because she was participating in an entirely voluntary system like why wait a minute now i'm now i'm going to draw r definition here is disturbing and i certainly don't mean to say that as you mentioned there are separate laws governing military service and actually i believe they require when they're serving an extended period of time such as we're talking about here require actually resigning from their job so that someone else could actually fill that position they are entitled to it when they come back here or the employer was that was actually the employer that suffered a hardship because they did not have anyone to actually fill that position and could not honor my understanding under the uniform service employment reemployment act is that they are not considered filling that position and that someone is permitted to be hired under the law to fill that position in the in the meantime while they're on the service members still entitled to fill that position to their job when they come back or an equivalent job that i believe they might question as the government really require them to resign and not precisely familiar with what the statute is for the uniformed service em the trial court level we filed a motion to dismiss an assault pre removal and post removal claims and the court granted our mission to dismiss came up on appeal here and this court held that it agreed with the trial court that it lack jurisdiction over this halt claims for post removal back pay and reinstatement the court said went on to elaborate upon examples for how this could have been resolved if ms hall had gone to an s t d without a ruling held since the decision united states versus fast in the passage of the civil service reform act the sport has never held that the court of federal claims is entitled to reinstated a civilian employee the one example that ms hull cited was i believe the war the she filed twice with m s p b and it's in our state of the sox once while she was on the grand jury and then thirteen days after she was removed she never abandoned that matter before the m s p b she got this opinion letter and was told in the opinion letter your remedy now is to go through proper united states court our position is your honor that there is no jurisdiction  m s p b because this thing derives from court leet entitlement and m s p b as previously declined jurisdiction over that very issue the comment about grand jury duty being an excuse to get away from work take a vacation is clearly no vacation is in the statement of facts undisputed presiding judge bruce clark prevailed upon mrs hall about two thirds of the way through her first year of service to serve a second year she had intended to serve only one year  intending eventually to go to washington but she was still caring for her very very ill mother so i took two or three approaches and then judge carr convinced you're the only person qualified to serve as foreman of this grand jury and we need you to tell you the vital work you're doing and so she was persuaded and agreed and signed a second question are consenting to serve and it turned out to be very very challenging work which she fulfilled faithfully as a patriotic citizen and out of a sense of duty and commitment to the court and yet there are issues and yet you mention her very ill mother i'm sorry your honor and yet you mention her very  mother which is what the government implies are all alternative reason there is incidentally in the record your honor not a scintilla of evidence that she was ever trying to get out of work with the government this is the woman who when the department of justice prevailed upon her to help them with a case that had been in limbo for years on a target's contract situation off the pacific coast agreed to help them pro bono depositions discovery all sorts of work and computer technology input and as a result the government got a fifteen million dollar return on that and she got personal commendations from the department of justice for her oic service she has rendered and it's uncontested twenty years of exemplary service with the naval investigative services and the logistics department the absurdity doctrine does not apply here because what the claims court suggested was an absolute impossibility infinite jury service and no state incidentally has more than two years of service and south carolina's is in the