II. DISCUSSION Whatever may have been the injustices visited upon these plaintiffs, first by the forces of Japan and, arguably, later by a home government whose expression of gratitude in dollar terms is thought to be less than adequate, the narrow issue presented in this appeal is whether plaintiffs’ suit against the United States, based on the 1951 Treaty provisions, is barred by the statute of limitations. For purposes of the government’s motion to dismiss, we must assume that plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations of fact are true. Additionally, although we are not required to do so, for purposes of evaluating whether the statute of limitations bars plaintiffs’ claim here, we will accept plaintiffs’ legal conclusion that the act of the United States in effectively barrin 1996) (<HOLDING>). Whenever the facts permit, counsel for the
holding that section 1397k should be read to preserve state law claims holding that requirement that fee be paid to preserve unpatented mining claims was not a taking holding that screening requirement applied to inmate who paid filing fee to commence action holding that only the actual recording fee paid to a public official was properly excluded from the finance charge holding that a prohibition on mining activities that was withdrawn after six years was a temporary taking and rejecting the governments argument that because the taking was allegedly intended at the outset to be irreversible and for all time it was permanent