Claims Court, there is no jurisdiction, period, even if the conflicting claim is no longer pending ...” (emphasis added)); cf. Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 661-62, 127 S.Ct. 2518, 168 L.Ed.2d 467 (2007) (collecting cases that note Congress’s use of “shall” indicates a mandatory requirement void of judicial discretion). The predecessor statute confirms that § 1500 bars jurisdiction over a Claims Court action initiated during the prohibited period. That statute (which has changed in phraseology only) states that “no person shall file ... any claim ... for or in respect to which he ... has pending any suit or process in any other court.” Act of Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 154, 36 Stat. 1138 (emphasis added); see Keene, 508 U.S. at 209, 113 S.Ct. 2035 (<HOLDING>). Together, the plain language of the statute
holding amending of shall file or prosecute to shall not have jurisdiction was not substantive holding that where a trial court directs a defendant to file a concise statement pursuant to parap 1925 any issues not raised in that statement shall be waived holding that upon the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence the trial court shall state its essential findings holding that the workmens compensation act section  834 which states that neither the board nor the referee shall be bound by the common law or statutory rules of evidence in conducting a hearing or investigation but all findings of fact shall be based upon sufficient competent evidence permits an informationgathering process which favors admitting all offered evidence into the record holding that a notice of appeal which is prematurely filed shall not be subject to dismissal but rather the notice shall exist in a state of limbo until judgment is rendered at which time the notice of appeal shall mature and shall vest jurisdiction in the appellate court