“departs from the general rule that each party to a lawsuit pays his or her own legal fees,” Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401, 404-05, 124 S.Ct. 1856, 158 L.Ed.2d 674 (2004), and requires that a trial court award attorney fees, where: “(i) the claimant is a prevailing party; (ii) the government’s position was not substantially justified; (iii) no special circumstances make an award unjust; and (iv) the fee application is timely submitted and supported by an itemized statement.” Libas, Ltd. v. United States, 314 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2003) (citations omitted). If a plaintiff establishes status as a “prevailing party,” the burden of proof then shifts to the Government to demonstrate that its position was “substantially justified.” See Scarborough, 541 U.S. at 414, 124 S.Ct. 1856 (<HOLDING>); see also RAMCOR Servs. Group v. United
holding that the contracts clause article i section 10 clause 1 to the united states constitution does not apply to the actions of the federal government holding that section 2412d1a of the eaja requires proof that the position of the united states was substantially justified be shouldered by the government holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states holding that the commandant of the united states disciplinary barracks and the united states are identical parties holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states