Courtesy of HumanEvents.com
Can Clay Shaw’s Former Seat 'Go West' in '08?
by John Gizzi
Two years ago, the congressman who very likely would have headed up the powerful House Ways and Means Committee had Republicans retained the House was defeated. Clay Shaw, twenty-six year U.S. House Member from Florida’s 22nd District, lost a tight contest to Democrat Ron Klein. Now, the question in the Fort Lauderdale-Palm Beach district is can Allen West overturn Klein’s win of about 8000 votes out of more than 200,000 cast?
State, national, and district Republicans seem to think so. West, retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel with stints in Iraq and Afghanistan under his belt, has scored an early coup in wrapping up the GOP nomination. In just the last few weeks, two other prospective candidates ended their bids for the district. West is thus a cinch to become one of a handful of blacks carrying the GOP standard for Congress this fall. In recognition of his stature as a formidable candidate, the much-decorated veteran and scholar of military history has addressed the Republican Conference in the House and what he called a “very positive” meeting with Rep. Tom Cole (R.-Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
“We have a strong veterans’ population in the 22nd and we tend to stick together,” West told me during a visit to Washington last week, “And they appreciate what I did” -- a reference to one incident in which his rough handling of a prisoner resulted in gaining information that almost certainly saved American lives. (West, after his army retirement, went back to Afghanistan as an advisor to help train the Afghan army. He stayed over two years.) West also noted that in ’06, massive national press attention was focused on nine veterans who ran for Congress as Democrats and only three were elected: Pennsylvania Reps. Joseph Sestak and Patrick Murphy and Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. All were elected on platforms of strong opposition to the U.S. presence in Iraq.
Times change, of course, and under General David Petraeus, the U.S. surge in Iraq has dramatically changed the situation on the ground and in public opinion polls in the U.S. Accordingly, a veteran who is foursquare in favor of the U.S. action in Iraq looks pretty good as a candidate and there is even a Veterans for Victory Committee headed by retired U.S. Air Force medic Don Lester encouraging pro-Iraq veterans to run. And there is Allen West, who has never waivered in his strong stand in favor of the U.S. strike against Saddam and mission in Iraq.
But Iraq is not the lone issue in the 22nd or the lone arrow in the quiver of West, who has so fair raised more than $80,000 eight months before the fall campaign (“This business of spending $4 million isn’t what its cracked up to be -- sometime you reach a point where voters get tired of candidates spending money”). The GOP hopeful recalled to me how criticism of Republican spending in Congress and the scandal involving Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley (who represented the neighboring district to the 22nd) probably took its toll on Shaw. West takes a no-nonsense stand on congressional ethics as well as spending, saying he would have opposed the recent economic stimulus package that Democrat Klein voted for because “what you need for stimulus is less spending by government and lower taxes, period.” West also looks forward to debating his opponent on his vote in favor of the energy bill last year (“Still more waste!”) and his pro-abortion stand (West is proudly pro-life).
The GOP nominee-in-waiting talks on a weekly basis with former Rep. Shaw and many of the former congressman’s campaign team have signed up with West. Hayes Robertson, one of Shaw’s key operatives in his last campaign, had been campaign manager for West until his sudden death last year. “And I still feel it,” West told me, “He helped get the campaign to where it is now. Now I’m going to finish the job and win it for Hayes.”
Google Searchbar
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2007
Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL) today urged his colleagues to support the Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2007 during a House Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing examining the best way to fund the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) in the future.
Hare’s bill would make VA health care a mandatory spending item within the federal budget. VA health care is currently the only major federal health program that is not funded through mandatory appropriations.
“We are now three days into Fiscal Year 2008 and America’s veterans do not yet have a new budget,” Hare said. “Such is the failure of discretionary spending.”
The VA actually ran out of money the last 2 years under the discretionary process—suffering shortfalls of $1 billion in 2005 and $2 billion in 2006.
“Our veterans—who sacrificed their lives so we can live in peace and security—should not be at the mercy of the current political climate,” Hare said.
“Funding shortfalls are more than just numbers,” he added. “They can take away our ability to provide an injured solider with a prosthetic leg or treat a Marine suffering from a traumatic brain injury.”
Hare called the current system for funding the VA a “19th century solution to a 21st century challenge.” “With our continued military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is nearly impossible to meet the growing needs of our veterans through discretionary spending.”
The Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act has 87 co-sponsors. It is supported by the American Legion, American Veterans (AMVETS), Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
Hare’s bill would make VA health care a mandatory spending item within the federal budget. VA health care is currently the only major federal health program that is not funded through mandatory appropriations.
“We are now three days into Fiscal Year 2008 and America’s veterans do not yet have a new budget,” Hare said. “Such is the failure of discretionary spending.”
The VA actually ran out of money the last 2 years under the discretionary process—suffering shortfalls of $1 billion in 2005 and $2 billion in 2006.
“Our veterans—who sacrificed their lives so we can live in peace and security—should not be at the mercy of the current political climate,” Hare said.
“Funding shortfalls are more than just numbers,” he added. “They can take away our ability to provide an injured solider with a prosthetic leg or treat a Marine suffering from a traumatic brain injury.”
Hare called the current system for funding the VA a “19th century solution to a 21st century challenge.” “With our continued military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is nearly impossible to meet the growing needs of our veterans through discretionary spending.”
The Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act has 87 co-sponsors. It is supported by the American Legion, American Veterans (AMVETS), Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
National VA Director Pushed US Atty Biskupic to Indict Wisconsin Veteran
Reposted via Michael Leon. I make no statements as to the factual nature of this article and no assertion of ownership, I am simply reposting Michael Leon's original content.
--
[Please credit Michael Leon at MAL Contends. Contact Michael Leon at maleon64@yahoo.com or maleon@charter.com for more information.]
Top VA Officials Plotted to Indict Vet in Violation of Federal VA Rules
Madison, Wisconsin—The Bush administration has refused to prosecute even one case of contractor fraud despite the multi-billion-dollar swindling and war-profiteering scandals in Iraq, but pursues a vigorous enterprise to marginalize, investigate, and prosecute veterans receiving disability benefits in an attempt to fabricate a fraud crisis among veterans who were injured and traumatized during their service to their country.
One administration initiative to investigate 72,000 cases of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was halted in 2005 after a storm of outrage from veterans’ groups and democrats.
In the PTSD case of U.S. Navy Airman Keith Roberts (1968–71) the U.S. Dept of Justice in the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stephen Biskupic, decided to indict a Wisconsin Vietnam-era Navy veteran (who was diagnosed with PTSD by at least five different mental health professionals), using the power of his office to convict and jail the vet on trumped-up charges of wire fraud in 2004-2005.
The case has potentially vast repercussions because if Roberts’ criminal conviction and denial and reduction of benefits stand, every veteran who has a disability case pending in the VA bureaucracy is theoretically in legal jeopardy.
Were the current VA administrative rules allowed to be rendered inoperative and a new standard for benefit claims to be enacted demanding that every veteran must verify beyond a reasonable doubt the circumstances surrounding his disability claim, every veteran claimant could face criminal wire fraud indictments, assuming they resided in a jurisdiction with a US Atty exercising the same lack of prosecutorial discretion as Biskupic.
Exercising an appalling lack of prosecutorial discretion, the U.S. Atty, after prodding from U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs (VA) officials, drew fire for the bizarre prosecution from veterans’ groups, such as Colonel Daniel K. Cedusky’s, AUS, (Ret.), a critic of both what he calls Bush administration “chickenhawks” and anti-war activists.
Adding insult to injury, the VA also began immediate collection actions against the veteran and his two young daughters who had received education benefits related to their father’s service in the Navy.
Who or what prompted the U.S. Atty’s office is a puzzle to many readers who have followed the case of Airman Keith Roberts who has been serving 48 months in a federal prison since last March, as well as incurring associated costs of some $500,000.
But several VA e-mails point to top officials in the VA engineering a criminal prosecution while gaming the veteran’s VA benefits adjudication, and subsequently putatively financially assaulting the veteran’s family.
Roberts is but one victim of a stacked-against-the-veteran benefits system that is now the subject of an unprecedented class action law suit by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as veterans’ PTSD claims surge.
But Keith Roberts is indisputably a major political and legal VA target.
Roberts’ difficulty began as he hounded the VA to distraction over his claim for an earlier effective date for his disability benefits. When he accused the VA of outright fraud in November 2003, one VA Special Agent Raymond Vasil of the regional Inspector General’s office in Chicago retaliated against this Vietnam-era veteran for seeking retroactive PTSD-related disability benefits [Roberts sought a new retroactive date per the advice of Roberts’ own Shawano County (Wisconsin) Veteran’s Service Officer.]
VA and Airman Keith Roberts
Like 100,000s of veterans, Roberts engaged in the convoluted process of the U.S. Dept of Vet Affairs (VA) bureaucracy seeking disability benefits in what is supposed to be a non-adversarial process under the Veterans' Judicial Review Act (1988) that empowers veterans the right to judicial review of decisions involving their benefits under the exclusive authority of the legislatively created VA adjudication procedures.
Roberts’ benefits claim—related to his PTSD was diagnosed as occurring because of the in-service stressor event of witnessing and trying to prevent his friend (Airman Gary Holland) from being crushed to death by a C-54 airplane while stationed at a Naval air base in Naples, Italy in 1969, and an unrelated assault by the Navy Shore Patrol—was granted at the 100 percent disability level.
That award of benefits was then illegally rescinded and that action by the VA is now under review by U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims (CAVC).
Roberts received a “Special Enlisted Personnel Performance Evaluation” (the military equivalent of a pat on the back for the then-young airman) two days after the death of Airman Holland.
But Roberts became the central figure in what is a cautionary, Alice-in-Wonderland tale, after U.S. Atty. Biskupic’s and the VA’s scheming resulted in Roberts being tried and convicted of receiving disability benefits from the VA (by wire transfer as the VA requires for all payments).
When the veterans’ court restores Roberts VA disability benefits, which never should have been taken from him, he will not be eligible to receive them, while he is now serving 48 months in federal prison for receiving the very same benefits
The Veterans Court can restore the benefits, but lacks authority to order Roberts released from prison. That is the argument Roberts has been making for many months: That criminal prosecution for an allegation of VA benefits fraud cannot commence until the final VA determination has been made.
One observer said, “Alice-in-Wonderland? Try Kafkaesque.”
Roberts Hits VA
Anger, panic, and frustration with the VA drove Keith Roberts to phone the VA Inspector General’s office at Hines, Illinois, in November 2003 at which time Roberts spoke with Special Agent Raymond Vasil.
Roberts accused the VA of “fraud” in altering a transcript at a local hearing in the VA Regional Office in Milwaukee as the VA was in the process of determining the date from which his retroactive disability pay was to become effective, among other benefit issues.
Adjustments and frequent remanding (sending back for reconsideration) of cases are common VA practice. It’s not hyperbole to say that many veterans have died awaiting appeal of their cases.
[From AlterNet: The Army Times reports a backlog of some 600,000 veterans' benefits claims on appeal. On average, it takes the VA 177 days to process an original claim and 657 days to process an appeal. If psychically injured veterans die with their case under appeal, the case dies with them.]
The VA’s Vasil (who has no professional law enforcement experience and no VA benefit adjudication experience) disingenuously told Roberts in November 2003 that he would look into the fraud accusation against the VA.
But Vasil appears to have had no intention of investigating the VA, but rather investigated Roberts beginning in Dec. 2003 as Roberts continued making waves with the VA Regional Office staff in Milwaukee, Wisconsin with his accusations.
Roberts had been a thorn in the side of the Milwaukee Regional VA’s office as well as the Illinois-based regional VA Inspector General’s office for insisting on his rights as a veteran to his benefits in less-than-diplomatic tones and language.
“Keith Roberts was granted a 100% compensation rate for PTSD from his date of claim. To grant PTSD, we need both a.) a current diagnosis and b.) a verified in-service stressor. We found not only a stressor, but an in-service diagnosis for Airman Roberts,” said a source at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee who e-mailed the Lee Rayburn radio show in Madison after a broadcast of a show on Roberts. “[T]he only reason Airman Roberts was ever prosecuted was because he was a ‘belligerent ass’ who kept insisting that he get paid back to discharge. He was demanding an appeal in Washington. I'd have to say that you guys are TOTALLY (uppercase in the original) right about Roberts' conviction being bullshit. ...”
As late as this spring, the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee security desk had a picture of Roberts with instructions to call the VA police if Roberts were to visit the Center, according to the anonymous VA Medical Center source who contacted the Lee Rayburn radio show in Madison.
In other words, to an experienced and objective VA civil servant, Roberts’ claim was air tight, but his indignant manner made him a target of bureaucratic retribution.
VA Hits Back
But Special Agent Vasil flew around the country on the taxpayers’ dime asking veterans who did not know Roberts during his service in Italy if 30-some years later the veterans could place Roberts at the scene of Roberts’ friend’s (Holland) death where Roberts and Holland were stationed.
Reportedly, Vasil neglected to show these men a photo of Roberts from his Naval service.
Vasil also questioned veterans (former members of Roberts’ unit) both in person and by phone asking if the veterans knew if Roberts and Holland were friends 30-some years ago. Not surprisingly, the vets could not recall.
Incredibly, the answers received by Vasil regarding the Roberts-Holland friendship and Roberts’ actions at the chaotic death scene 30-plus years in the past formed the foundation of a mail fraud indictment secured by U.S. Atty Biskupic’s office on April 26, 2005 under Title 18 United States Code 1341 (mail fraud).
But the indictment on mail fraud involved no investigation from the Postal Inspector’s office, though the Postal Inspector’s investigations usually precede mail fraud indictments.
Without explanation from Biskupic’s office, the mail fraud indictment was superseded some four months later in September 2005 when Biskupic secured an indictment on wire fraud under Title 18 USC 1343; this time with no input from the FBI or U.S. Treasury Department, as is usual in wire fraud indictments.
The only law enforcement agency used in the Grand Jury testimony securing the indictments was the regional VA Inspector General’s office, not a professional law enforcement agency, but an office that operated vindictively in the person of Special Agent Vasil and his colleagues; and was run at the executive level by soon-to-be-ex-VA Secretary Jim Nicholson, a former Republican National Committee chairman with no veteran advocacy experience, in an administration taking its cues from the veterans’ benefits-hostile American Enterprise Institute scholar, Dr. Sally Satel.
Vasil’s Grand Jury testimony demonstrates Vasil’s weak familiarity with VA adjudication processes:
Grand Jury Question: “Is that part of your training that you have to know the basics of how these (VA) programs work?”
Vasil’s Answer: “Yeah. I was briefly kind of instructed when I was hired, and then just while working for them, you have to learn it to investigate the cases.”
Roberts Fights Back
On August 16, 2004, the VA halted the benefits being paid to Roberts based upon Vasil’s investigation. Roberts appealed the decision on September 14, 2004, and was indicted seven months later. [To get an appreciation of the putative nature of the VA machinations, it is worth noting that near instantaneous collection activity was initiated by the U.S. Government against Roberts’ daughters in November 2004, though the Roberts case remained under appeal then, and remains under appeal today.]
Roberts did not take Vasil’s determination to halt Roberts’ VA payments lying down.
Roberts fired off a letter to the Secretary of the VA on November 22, 2004, and made a detailed complaint about what he claimed were the violation of his Constitutional due process rights by the VA Inspector General's office.
And an American Legion letter (among others written in October), authored by Phillip Wilkerson (dated Dec. 13, 2004), at Roberts request, took issue with the VA’s termination of benefits, and the continued withholding of information and evidence developed in the course of the VA Office of the Inspector General’s (VAOIG) fraud investigation.
Renee L. Szybala and VA Officials Plot to Take Down Roberts
“The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,“ said the felonious Dick the Butcher in Shakespeare's Henry VI.
But at the VA, lawyers and regional counsels are the good guys, the professionals who adhere to the law and administrative regulations that on paper are supposed to protect veterans from arbitrary and capricious VA personnel, the yes-men who climb the ladder in the denial-of-claims culture of today’s politicized VA.
One yes-person, former VA General Counsel attorney and VA national Director of Compensation and Pension Services, Renee L. Szybala, authored the VA’s response to Robert's letter, and evidence suggests engineered the prosecution of Roberts by US Atty Biskupic.
As a former General Counsel attorney, Szybala knew perfectly well that Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, section 3.905 (a) Jurisdiction statute reads: “At the regional office level … the Regional Counsel is authorized to determine whether the evidence warrants formal consideration as to forfeiture.”
As Roberts’ attorney Robert Walsh states in his CAVC Supplemental brief filed in July: “Ms. Renee Szybala, who responded to the letter for the Secretary, then appears to have had a direct involvement in orchestrating the efforts to commence criminal proceedings against the appellant in Federal District Court when she knew his appeals were pending at either the BVA (Board of Veterans' Appeals) or this Court (the CAVC).”
Szybala, who since has moved on from her position as Director of Compensation and Pension Services, was responsible for managing the network of VA Regional Offices across the country.
In an e-mail of January 27, 2005 from Debi Bevins, Special Assistant to the (VA) Secretary Jim Nicholson, Bevins asked Szybala: “Is there any truth to what Keith Roberts alleges in this e-mail?” referring to Roberts’ allegations of fraud and violations of his due process rights, and Roberts declarations of his rightful entitlement pertaining to his experiencing what the VA calls “stressors.”
Plotting a Prosecution
In the same e-mail, Bevins asks: “Have we heard any news on the prosecution of Keith Roberts?”
Szybala replies in part in an e-mail dated January 27, 2005 that: “Of course not (there is no truth to Roberts’ allegations). But he (Roberts) may be confused and believe it. I have known of and been dealing with Mr. Roberts’ complaints for several years now, dating to my time at OGC (VA Office of the General Counsel) as explained in the message below. … In the interest of full disclosure, I also have a letter on this case from the American Legion, dated October 15, 2004 (asking for Vasil’s report), to which I have not yet responded. The fraud for which Mr. Roberts’ service connection was severed was uncovered, investigated, and reported by the OIG (Office of the Inspector General). To respond to the Legion’s letter, we need to confer with the OIG and have had trouble connecting. When we do we’ll ask them the question about the prosecution, too. My guess is, however, that this case would not interest a U.S. Attorney. …”
Several points made in this and subsequent e-mails obtained by the defense and not presented at the criminal trial (though successfully made part of the record of appeal at CAVC after efforts by atty Robert Walsh) are critical and raise questions about the legality and propriety of the prosecution instigated by the VA.
No testimony or evidence was presented at Roberts’ trial pertaining to Ms. Szybala’s statement that Szybala had been dealing with Roberts’ allegations and complaints for several years and that Szybala stated that “… he (Roberts) may be confused and believe it.”
This is significant because if Roberts believed the VA claim that he was pursuing and Szybala assumed Roberts’ believed his claim, this discredits the principal allegation of the government’s criminal case that Roberts devised a “scheme” to formulate misrepresentations with the intent of defrauding the VA, the alleged crime for which Roberts now sits behind bars.
[In fact, the government in the person of Barbra Nehls of the Milwaukee VA Regional office wrongly claimed at trial that Roberts’ benefits were reduced based upon the VA’s determination that Roberts’ statements of facts from 1969 formed the basis of the VA decision to grant or deny benefits. This is a material misrepresentation of VA procedure: The determination of PTSD-related benefits relies upon medical evidence (such as being diagnosed by five different medical professionals that a vet has PTSD) and the existence of an in-service stressor (such as the reality that a man was crushed to death by a C-54 aircraft while an Airman was on duty), per 38 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 3.304(f). All a veteran has to achieve in first-person testimony is corroboration, not verification. The Code defines Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder; (PTSD) requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 CFR 4.125(a); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred (38 CFR 3.304(f))].
Officials from the Milwaukee Regional Office and Special Agent Raymond Vasil’s Inspector General’s (OIG) office were included in the series of e-mails including one e-mail from the OIG's Vasil dated January 27, 2005, stating: “The U.S. Attorney is interested in prosecuting. He is not 100% yet and wanted me to interview any additional persons I could find that were present when the original accident happened in 1969. … “
The engineering of the prosecution evident from the e-mails and the rushed, extraordinary prosecution itself were challenged in Roberts’ supplemental brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) in July.
“As detailed in the brief, the conduct of the (VA) Secretary has been contrary to law, in bad faith, highly adversarial. There is an inference of impropriety by any number of senior officials in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,” reads the brief filed by attorney Robert Walsh.
And it bears repeating from the brief: “Ms. Renee Szybala, who responded to the letter for the Secretary, then appears to have had a direct involvement in orchestrating the efforts to commence criminal proceedings against the appellant in Federal District Court when she knew his appeals were pending at either the BVA (Board of Veterans' Appeals) or this Court (the CAVC).”
Tw0 VA e-mails are below this post.
- http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2007/09/va-e-mails-reveal-va-officials-plotting.html
- http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2007/09/va-e-mails-reveals-va-officials.html
Roberts’ CAVC brief continues:
In this case the pursuit of the criminal conviction of this Appellant was ongoing during the entire pendency of this appeal.
The (VA) Secretary appears to have willfully and knowingly circumvented the jurisdiction of this Court (CAVC) and his employees and agents made material misrepresentations of the precedent rulings of this Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit in open court, under oath.
Had a determination of fraud actually been made, the Appellant would have still had the right to appeal that decision. … The referral of this case directly from the VA OIG’s Chicago office to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for criminal proceedings is contrary to law, justice, equity, and fair play.
When the Court rules to restore the benefits of the Appellant, we shall have arrived at an absurd “Alice in Wonderland” result. A veteran will sit in prison for accepting the wire transfer of funds to which he was legally entitled. …This extraordinary rendition of a veteran from a VA administrative dispute directly into Federal District Court on criminal charges is unprecedented.
VA Federal Law
Veteran-advocacy groups deride the delivery of health care and disability benefits to our veterans as another example of Bush administration incompetence in administering government services and entitlements to which it is ideologically hostile.
The VA, a large department of government, growing under the strain of war and non-existent administration planning for the consequences of war, is operating under the authority of specific federal regulations—the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 38, “Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans Relief.”
Title 38 specifically defines and delineates the processing and delivery of VA benefits, and several regulations that have the force of federal law were blatantly ignored by VA officials in the prosecution of Roberts.
U.S. Atty Biskupic ought to have read up on the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 38, “Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans Relief” and tossed the case off his desk after being approached by VA officials.
Title 38 (3.901 Fraud) specifically defines “fraud” (what Roberts is accused of engaging in in a sense, though the specific charge was changed from VA fraud to mail fraud to wire fraud) as a false or fraudulent act committed in trying to obtain “any claim for benefits under any of the laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.”
Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 3.905 (a) Jurisdiction
The VA insulates and protects veterans by establishing a layer of procedures before a veteran can be denied VA benefits, much less criminally prosecuted for fraud in seeking benefits.
The Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, section 3.905 (a) Jurisdiction regulation reads: “At the regional office level … the Regional Counsel is authorized to determine whether the evidence warrants formal consideration as to forfeiture.”
Robert Walsh, the VA appellate attorney for Roberts and a former VA staff attorney, blasted the criminal prosecution as well as the VA denial of benefits for its lack of review by the VA Regional counsel, per Title 38.
"The local VA Inspector General going directly to the U.S. Attorney without any review by VA attorneys appears to be unprecedented and is a violation of Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, section 3.905.
"The U.S. Attorney prosecuting a case such as this without a proper investigation by the F.B.I. or U.S. Treasury is outrageous. It is contrary to the Department of Justice guidelines for such cases. Failure to follow those well-thought out procedures is unwise. So we arrive at this bizarre outcome.
"When Congress passed the Veterans Judicial Review Act, which became law in 1988, they created a special court to review disputes over veterans’ benefits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).
"No other court was given jurisdiction over these claims, and that court has not yet ruled on the reduction of benefits suffered by Mr. Roberts.
"If the CAVC rules in favor of Mr. Roberts, he will be in prison convicted of fraud for accepting benefits payments that he is fully and legally entitled to.”
Biskupic has not spoken publicly on why his office had not awaited the adjudication of the benefits process before seeking indictments for alleged fraudulent statements made by Roberts in his claims, and why Biskupic avoided the charge of Veteran’s fraud, and indicted on mail fraud and then wire fraud instead.
Nor has Biskupic’s office offered any explanation for why he sought indictments absent review and referral by VA attorneys, per Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, section 3.905 and why as Roberts’ claims continues adjudication under the veterans’ courts, Biskupic decided to step in and indict without investigation by the Postal Inspector’s office, the FBI, or the U.S. Treasury department.
Veterans’ groups allege that Biskupic’s extraordinary prosecution was consonant with Bush administration priorities to discourage VA disability benefits claims and served to curry favor with the AEI/Bush VA priorities, helping to keep Biskupic’s endangered position as U.S. Atty in Bush’s politicized DoJ.
Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 3.905 (b) Fraud
The VA is also required, by federal regulation, to notify a veteran if he or she is declared to be fraudulently presenting information to the VA.
The Fraud statute reads:
(b) Fraud or treasonable acts. Forfeiture of benefits under §3.901 or §3.902 will not be declared until the person has been notified by the Regional Counsel … of the right to present a defense. Such notice shall consist of a written statement sent to the person's latest address of record setting forth the following:(1) The specific charges against the person;(2) A detailed statement of the evidence supporting the charges, subject to regulatory limitations on disclosure of information;(3) Citation and discussion of the applicable statute. …
Roberts was never notified by the Regional Counsel that he was suspected or accused of engaging in fraud. The reason is the VA knew that they could never prove veterans’ fraud because of Roberts’ voluminous VA file supporting Roberts claim, much of which was kept out of evidence at the wire fraud trial.
Said a source close to the defense network: “The VA statute requires the criminal justice system to stay out of the matter until a FINAL administrative agency’s decision is in place. That will not happen at the VA until Roberts is done at the Supreme Court. The VA reduction of benefits is under appeal and will be for some time. So, if they believe in the fraud, why the rush for Biskupic to jump in? Keith is not a killer posing a danger to the public; he is a veteran who simply will not be getting his benefits that he deserves.”
Roberts was caught in a situation where he angered the VA Inspector General’s office and the Milwaukee regional office that knew that Roberts could never be convicted of VA fraud, so they summarily denied his benefits, began the kangaroo investigation by Vasil and then communicated the case circumstances to U.S. Atty Biskupic who charged Roberts with postal fraud and then with wire fraud using the denial of benefits (under appeal per federal statute and administrative law regulations) and misrepresentations of VA procedure at trial as evidence of criminal fraud.
So, before and after Special Agent Vasil, Director of Compensation and Pension Services, Renee L. Szybala, and the Milwaukee regional office were scheming to charge Roberts with fraudulently presenting his VA claim, and Roberts’ liberty became endangered, the VA never formerly notified Roberts through the Regional Counsel or otherwise that his forfeiture and reductions were asserted by the VA Regional Counsel to be based upon fraud.
U.S. Atty Biskupic never addressed the statutory imperative that Roberts should have been so notified by the VA Regional Counsel during the investigation, the indictment and prosecution, and the government briefs filed with the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also refuses to address the issue.
This would appear to raise serious due process considerations that may result in the overturning of Roberts’ criminal conviction by the Seventh Circuit, known for its intellectual heft, though leaning to the right, aside from the fact that Roberts is innocent of not being at the scene of his friend Holland’s death.
Title 38 § 14.561 - Necessary Administrative or Adjudicatory Action
In the criminal case appeal, Roberts argues that “… with regard to prosecutions related to benefits claims, certain administrative measures must be taken citing CFR Title 38 § 14.561:
Title 38 § 14.561 reads: “Before a submission is made to the U.S, Attorney in cases involving personnel or claims, the … Regional Counsel at the regional office, hospital or center, if the file is in the regional office or other field facility, will first ascertain that necessary administrative or adjudicatory … action has been taken”
To translate, the Regional Counsel in this case has to ensure that the rights embodied in the administrative processes are followed (and exhausted) before sending the case off to the US Atty.
This argument is made in both Roberts’ criminal and CAVC briefs.
In the CAVC brief, Roberts argues: “The Secretary has caused a criminal prosecution in Federal District Court to be initiated against the Appellant while he was still before this Court litigating the same facts, transactions and occurrences. The VA regulation for initiating criminal charges against a veteran was not followed, 38 C.F.R. § 14.561."
The VA’s position made in their response brief is that this administrative law is obsolete (though it was never repealed) and that the VA does not need to follow the law.
In an August VA response to Roberts’ CAVC brief, the VA argues that the Office of Inspector General’s personnel like Vasil, with no legal training or law enforcement experience, and the VA police are “responsible for notifying the DOJ or the USA (US Atty) of possible criminal matters. … The authority and duty to refer criminal cases is vested in the VA police and the OIG. … it could be argued that, as it relates to criminal prosecutions, section 14.561 is obsolete.”
The VA’s convoluted argument on its not abiding by section 14.561 (Counsel assurance of necessary administrative or adjudicatory procedure) authored by Carolyn F. Washington, VA deputy asst general counsel, amounts to the VA equivalent of a Bush signing statement—we’ll obey federal law as we see fit.
The VA police authority and role has been to tend to often-disturbed and violent veterans seeking medical and psychological assistance after coming home from service. The VA police has never been charged with investigating benefit claims, much less referring claims cases in the middle of VA adjudication to the US Atty’s office.
One can only hope that the CAVC and Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ridicule this argument, and it should be noted that the US Atty’s office never put forth this argument that would undoubtedly be shredded by the Seventh Circuit’s panel slated to hear oral arguments in the coming months.
Politicalization
There are plenty of candidates for condemnation in this affair in today’s environment when whole agencies of the U.S. government have been usurped by an administration lacking in conscience and public accountability, politicizing virtually every agency in sight, including U.S. Atty Biskupic’s office.
· Special Agent Raymond Vasil of the regional VA Inspector General’s office [“A cop Vasil is not, just an idiot with a badge,” said one veteran assisting Roberts] who lied to and vocally mocked Roberts while flying around the country fabricating a case against Roberts.
· The VA benefits process that systemically wears down veterans with the apparent intention of inducing them to give up their fight for benefits [this process is being adjudicated in the unprecedented class action suit by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.] In fact, the VA claims process can be so frustrating that many vets (especially those suffering from PTSD) are thrown into fits of rage directed at the VA itself.
· The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that demeans veterans for seeking help with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in this “culture of trauma.”
· The Pentagon that blames veterans “personality disorders” and lack of faith in God for veterans suffering after service.
· Former VA national Director of Compensation and Pension Services, Renee L. Szybala, and Jon Baker, director of the Milwaukee Regional VA office, actively participated in efforts to have Roberts prosecuted, while they intentionally took steps to ensure the VA Regional Counsel did not have an opportunity to perform the mandatory legal review before the matter went to the U.S. Attorney, as required by federal regulations. Again, Szybala knew that Roberts had an appeal pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and that under VA regulations until that appeal was completed the case should not have been released for criminal or collection action.
· Barbra Nehls, formerly of the Milwaukee VA Regional office nad since promoted, who wrongly claimed at trial that Roberts’ benefits were reduced based upon the VA’s determination that Roberts’ statements of facts from 1969 formed the basis of the VA decision to grant or deny benefits. This is a material misrepresentation of VA procedure.
· And of course, Carolyn F. Washington, VA deputy asst general counsel, a woman without conscience and quintessential social climber.
Cases to be Adjudicated
· U.S. v. Roberts, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket 05-CR-118 ; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, docket number 07-1546. Briefs are filed and oral argument will likely be scheduled in the fall-winter of 2007-2008.
· U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims docket 05-2425
Seventh Circuit Appeal
Roberts’ hope is that the three-member, Seventh Circuit appellate panel in Chicago will vacate his conviction for lack of evidence (similar to the infamous Georgia Thompson case) and violation of due process, entitling Roberts to the VA disability benefits previously awarded to him, should the CAVC court rule in his favor.
The VA insulates and protects veterans by establishing a layer of procedure before a veteran can be denied VA benefits, much less criminally prosecuted for fraud in seeking benefits.
Roberts makes the argument in his criminal appeal that criminal prosecutions against veterans for allegedly committing fraud in filing for VA claim benefits need to follow the administrative rules (which have the force of federal law), and in this case the VA and U.S. Atty ignored the VA administrative rules.
Reply Brief Arguments
Roberts’ reply brief arguments are the following:
I. The District Court Erred in Denying the Appellant's Motions to Dismiss, as the Court's Exercise of Jurisdiction Constituted a Denial of the Appellant's Right to Due Process, Due to the Pending Appeal Before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
II. The Evidence Presented at Trial Was Insufficient to Sustain a Conviction for Wire Fraud.
III. The Appellant’s Right to Due Process was Violated When the Government Withheld Material Information.
IV. The District Court Erred in Applying an Enhancement to the Appellant’s Sentence, as Such Was Not Submitted for Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
Legal questions and legal comments can be e-mailed to Robert Walsh at rpwalsh@sbcglobal.net.
Media on Keith Roberts
- Wisconsin Public Radio News (May 10)
- The Lee Rayburn show (June 29)
- Keith Roberts' Atty. on the Lee Rayburn show (June 6)
- WORT Radio - A Public Affair (May 25; begins at one minute, nine seconds)
###
--
[Please credit Michael Leon at MAL Contends. Contact Michael Leon at maleon64@yahoo.com or maleon@charter.com for more information.]
Top VA Officials Plotted to Indict Vet in Violation of Federal VA Rules
Madison, Wisconsin—The Bush administration has refused to prosecute even one case of contractor fraud despite the multi-billion-dollar swindling and war-profiteering scandals in Iraq, but pursues a vigorous enterprise to marginalize, investigate, and prosecute veterans receiving disability benefits in an attempt to fabricate a fraud crisis among veterans who were injured and traumatized during their service to their country.
One administration initiative to investigate 72,000 cases of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was halted in 2005 after a storm of outrage from veterans’ groups and democrats.
In the PTSD case of U.S. Navy Airman Keith Roberts (1968–71) the U.S. Dept of Justice in the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stephen Biskupic, decided to indict a Wisconsin Vietnam-era Navy veteran (who was diagnosed with PTSD by at least five different mental health professionals), using the power of his office to convict and jail the vet on trumped-up charges of wire fraud in 2004-2005.
The case has potentially vast repercussions because if Roberts’ criminal conviction and denial and reduction of benefits stand, every veteran who has a disability case pending in the VA bureaucracy is theoretically in legal jeopardy.
Were the current VA administrative rules allowed to be rendered inoperative and a new standard for benefit claims to be enacted demanding that every veteran must verify beyond a reasonable doubt the circumstances surrounding his disability claim, every veteran claimant could face criminal wire fraud indictments, assuming they resided in a jurisdiction with a US Atty exercising the same lack of prosecutorial discretion as Biskupic.
Exercising an appalling lack of prosecutorial discretion, the U.S. Atty, after prodding from U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs (VA) officials, drew fire for the bizarre prosecution from veterans’ groups, such as Colonel Daniel K. Cedusky’s, AUS, (Ret.), a critic of both what he calls Bush administration “chickenhawks” and anti-war activists.
Adding insult to injury, the VA also began immediate collection actions against the veteran and his two young daughters who had received education benefits related to their father’s service in the Navy.
Who or what prompted the U.S. Atty’s office is a puzzle to many readers who have followed the case of Airman Keith Roberts who has been serving 48 months in a federal prison since last March, as well as incurring associated costs of some $500,000.
But several VA e-mails point to top officials in the VA engineering a criminal prosecution while gaming the veteran’s VA benefits adjudication, and subsequently putatively financially assaulting the veteran’s family.
Roberts is but one victim of a stacked-against-the-veteran benefits system that is now the subject of an unprecedented class action law suit by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as veterans’ PTSD claims surge.
But Keith Roberts is indisputably a major political and legal VA target.
Roberts’ difficulty began as he hounded the VA to distraction over his claim for an earlier effective date for his disability benefits. When he accused the VA of outright fraud in November 2003, one VA Special Agent Raymond Vasil of the regional Inspector General’s office in Chicago retaliated against this Vietnam-era veteran for seeking retroactive PTSD-related disability benefits [Roberts sought a new retroactive date per the advice of Roberts’ own Shawano County (Wisconsin) Veteran’s Service Officer.]
VA and Airman Keith Roberts
Like 100,000s of veterans, Roberts engaged in the convoluted process of the U.S. Dept of Vet Affairs (VA) bureaucracy seeking disability benefits in what is supposed to be a non-adversarial process under the Veterans' Judicial Review Act (1988) that empowers veterans the right to judicial review of decisions involving their benefits under the exclusive authority of the legislatively created VA adjudication procedures.
Roberts’ benefits claim—related to his PTSD was diagnosed as occurring because of the in-service stressor event of witnessing and trying to prevent his friend (Airman Gary Holland) from being crushed to death by a C-54 airplane while stationed at a Naval air base in Naples, Italy in 1969, and an unrelated assault by the Navy Shore Patrol—was granted at the 100 percent disability level.
That award of benefits was then illegally rescinded and that action by the VA is now under review by U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims (CAVC).
Roberts received a “Special Enlisted Personnel Performance Evaluation” (the military equivalent of a pat on the back for the then-young airman) two days after the death of Airman Holland.
But Roberts became the central figure in what is a cautionary, Alice-in-Wonderland tale, after U.S. Atty. Biskupic’s and the VA’s scheming resulted in Roberts being tried and convicted of receiving disability benefits from the VA (by wire transfer as the VA requires for all payments).
When the veterans’ court restores Roberts VA disability benefits, which never should have been taken from him, he will not be eligible to receive them, while he is now serving 48 months in federal prison for receiving the very same benefits
The Veterans Court can restore the benefits, but lacks authority to order Roberts released from prison. That is the argument Roberts has been making for many months: That criminal prosecution for an allegation of VA benefits fraud cannot commence until the final VA determination has been made.
One observer said, “Alice-in-Wonderland? Try Kafkaesque.”
Roberts Hits VA
Anger, panic, and frustration with the VA drove Keith Roberts to phone the VA Inspector General’s office at Hines, Illinois, in November 2003 at which time Roberts spoke with Special Agent Raymond Vasil.
Roberts accused the VA of “fraud” in altering a transcript at a local hearing in the VA Regional Office in Milwaukee as the VA was in the process of determining the date from which his retroactive disability pay was to become effective, among other benefit issues.
Adjustments and frequent remanding (sending back for reconsideration) of cases are common VA practice. It’s not hyperbole to say that many veterans have died awaiting appeal of their cases.
[From AlterNet: The Army Times reports a backlog of some 600,000 veterans' benefits claims on appeal. On average, it takes the VA 177 days to process an original claim and 657 days to process an appeal. If psychically injured veterans die with their case under appeal, the case dies with them.]
The VA’s Vasil (who has no professional law enforcement experience and no VA benefit adjudication experience) disingenuously told Roberts in November 2003 that he would look into the fraud accusation against the VA.
But Vasil appears to have had no intention of investigating the VA, but rather investigated Roberts beginning in Dec. 2003 as Roberts continued making waves with the VA Regional Office staff in Milwaukee, Wisconsin with his accusations.
Roberts had been a thorn in the side of the Milwaukee Regional VA’s office as well as the Illinois-based regional VA Inspector General’s office for insisting on his rights as a veteran to his benefits in less-than-diplomatic tones and language.
“Keith Roberts was granted a 100% compensation rate for PTSD from his date of claim. To grant PTSD, we need both a.) a current diagnosis and b.) a verified in-service stressor. We found not only a stressor, but an in-service diagnosis for Airman Roberts,” said a source at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee who e-mailed the Lee Rayburn radio show in Madison after a broadcast of a show on Roberts. “[T]he only reason Airman Roberts was ever prosecuted was because he was a ‘belligerent ass’ who kept insisting that he get paid back to discharge. He was demanding an appeal in Washington. I'd have to say that you guys are TOTALLY (uppercase in the original) right about Roberts' conviction being bullshit. ...”
As late as this spring, the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee security desk had a picture of Roberts with instructions to call the VA police if Roberts were to visit the Center, according to the anonymous VA Medical Center source who contacted the Lee Rayburn radio show in Madison.
In other words, to an experienced and objective VA civil servant, Roberts’ claim was air tight, but his indignant manner made him a target of bureaucratic retribution.
VA Hits Back
But Special Agent Vasil flew around the country on the taxpayers’ dime asking veterans who did not know Roberts during his service in Italy if 30-some years later the veterans could place Roberts at the scene of Roberts’ friend’s (Holland) death where Roberts and Holland were stationed.
Reportedly, Vasil neglected to show these men a photo of Roberts from his Naval service.
Vasil also questioned veterans (former members of Roberts’ unit) both in person and by phone asking if the veterans knew if Roberts and Holland were friends 30-some years ago. Not surprisingly, the vets could not recall.
Incredibly, the answers received by Vasil regarding the Roberts-Holland friendship and Roberts’ actions at the chaotic death scene 30-plus years in the past formed the foundation of a mail fraud indictment secured by U.S. Atty Biskupic’s office on April 26, 2005 under Title 18 United States Code 1341 (mail fraud).
But the indictment on mail fraud involved no investigation from the Postal Inspector’s office, though the Postal Inspector’s investigations usually precede mail fraud indictments.
Without explanation from Biskupic’s office, the mail fraud indictment was superseded some four months later in September 2005 when Biskupic secured an indictment on wire fraud under Title 18 USC 1343; this time with no input from the FBI or U.S. Treasury Department, as is usual in wire fraud indictments.
The only law enforcement agency used in the Grand Jury testimony securing the indictments was the regional VA Inspector General’s office, not a professional law enforcement agency, but an office that operated vindictively in the person of Special Agent Vasil and his colleagues; and was run at the executive level by soon-to-be-ex-VA Secretary Jim Nicholson, a former Republican National Committee chairman with no veteran advocacy experience, in an administration taking its cues from the veterans’ benefits-hostile American Enterprise Institute scholar, Dr. Sally Satel.
Vasil’s Grand Jury testimony demonstrates Vasil’s weak familiarity with VA adjudication processes:
Grand Jury Question: “Is that part of your training that you have to know the basics of how these (VA) programs work?”
Vasil’s Answer: “Yeah. I was briefly kind of instructed when I was hired, and then just while working for them, you have to learn it to investigate the cases.”
Roberts Fights Back
On August 16, 2004, the VA halted the benefits being paid to Roberts based upon Vasil’s investigation. Roberts appealed the decision on September 14, 2004, and was indicted seven months later. [To get an appreciation of the putative nature of the VA machinations, it is worth noting that near instantaneous collection activity was initiated by the U.S. Government against Roberts’ daughters in November 2004, though the Roberts case remained under appeal then, and remains under appeal today.]
Roberts did not take Vasil’s determination to halt Roberts’ VA payments lying down.
Roberts fired off a letter to the Secretary of the VA on November 22, 2004, and made a detailed complaint about what he claimed were the violation of his Constitutional due process rights by the VA Inspector General's office.
And an American Legion letter (among others written in October), authored by Phillip Wilkerson (dated Dec. 13, 2004), at Roberts request, took issue with the VA’s termination of benefits, and the continued withholding of information and evidence developed in the course of the VA Office of the Inspector General’s (VAOIG) fraud investigation.
Renee L. Szybala and VA Officials Plot to Take Down Roberts
“The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,“ said the felonious Dick the Butcher in Shakespeare's Henry VI.
But at the VA, lawyers and regional counsels are the good guys, the professionals who adhere to the law and administrative regulations that on paper are supposed to protect veterans from arbitrary and capricious VA personnel, the yes-men who climb the ladder in the denial-of-claims culture of today’s politicized VA.
One yes-person, former VA General Counsel attorney and VA national Director of Compensation and Pension Services, Renee L. Szybala, authored the VA’s response to Robert's letter, and evidence suggests engineered the prosecution of Roberts by US Atty Biskupic.
As a former General Counsel attorney, Szybala knew perfectly well that Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, section 3.905 (a) Jurisdiction statute reads: “At the regional office level … the Regional Counsel is authorized to determine whether the evidence warrants formal consideration as to forfeiture.”
As Roberts’ attorney Robert Walsh states in his CAVC Supplemental brief filed in July: “Ms. Renee Szybala, who responded to the letter for the Secretary, then appears to have had a direct involvement in orchestrating the efforts to commence criminal proceedings against the appellant in Federal District Court when she knew his appeals were pending at either the BVA (Board of Veterans' Appeals) or this Court (the CAVC).”
Szybala, who since has moved on from her position as Director of Compensation and Pension Services, was responsible for managing the network of VA Regional Offices across the country.
In an e-mail of January 27, 2005 from Debi Bevins, Special Assistant to the (VA) Secretary Jim Nicholson, Bevins asked Szybala: “Is there any truth to what Keith Roberts alleges in this e-mail?” referring to Roberts’ allegations of fraud and violations of his due process rights, and Roberts declarations of his rightful entitlement pertaining to his experiencing what the VA calls “stressors.”
Plotting a Prosecution
In the same e-mail, Bevins asks: “Have we heard any news on the prosecution of Keith Roberts?”
Szybala replies in part in an e-mail dated January 27, 2005 that: “Of course not (there is no truth to Roberts’ allegations). But he (Roberts) may be confused and believe it. I have known of and been dealing with Mr. Roberts’ complaints for several years now, dating to my time at OGC (VA Office of the General Counsel) as explained in the message below. … In the interest of full disclosure, I also have a letter on this case from the American Legion, dated October 15, 2004 (asking for Vasil’s report), to which I have not yet responded. The fraud for which Mr. Roberts’ service connection was severed was uncovered, investigated, and reported by the OIG (Office of the Inspector General). To respond to the Legion’s letter, we need to confer with the OIG and have had trouble connecting. When we do we’ll ask them the question about the prosecution, too. My guess is, however, that this case would not interest a U.S. Attorney. …”
Several points made in this and subsequent e-mails obtained by the defense and not presented at the criminal trial (though successfully made part of the record of appeal at CAVC after efforts by atty Robert Walsh) are critical and raise questions about the legality and propriety of the prosecution instigated by the VA.
No testimony or evidence was presented at Roberts’ trial pertaining to Ms. Szybala’s statement that Szybala had been dealing with Roberts’ allegations and complaints for several years and that Szybala stated that “… he (Roberts) may be confused and believe it.”
This is significant because if Roberts believed the VA claim that he was pursuing and Szybala assumed Roberts’ believed his claim, this discredits the principal allegation of the government’s criminal case that Roberts devised a “scheme” to formulate misrepresentations with the intent of defrauding the VA, the alleged crime for which Roberts now sits behind bars.
[In fact, the government in the person of Barbra Nehls of the Milwaukee VA Regional office wrongly claimed at trial that Roberts’ benefits were reduced based upon the VA’s determination that Roberts’ statements of facts from 1969 formed the basis of the VA decision to grant or deny benefits. This is a material misrepresentation of VA procedure: The determination of PTSD-related benefits relies upon medical evidence (such as being diagnosed by five different medical professionals that a vet has PTSD) and the existence of an in-service stressor (such as the reality that a man was crushed to death by a C-54 aircraft while an Airman was on duty), per 38 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 3.304(f). All a veteran has to achieve in first-person testimony is corroboration, not verification. The Code defines Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder; (PTSD) requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 CFR 4.125(a); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred (38 CFR 3.304(f))].
Officials from the Milwaukee Regional Office and Special Agent Raymond Vasil’s Inspector General’s (OIG) office were included in the series of e-mails including one e-mail from the OIG's Vasil dated January 27, 2005, stating: “The U.S. Attorney is interested in prosecuting. He is not 100% yet and wanted me to interview any additional persons I could find that were present when the original accident happened in 1969. … “
The engineering of the prosecution evident from the e-mails and the rushed, extraordinary prosecution itself were challenged in Roberts’ supplemental brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) in July.
“As detailed in the brief, the conduct of the (VA) Secretary has been contrary to law, in bad faith, highly adversarial. There is an inference of impropriety by any number of senior officials in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,” reads the brief filed by attorney Robert Walsh.
And it bears repeating from the brief: “Ms. Renee Szybala, who responded to the letter for the Secretary, then appears to have had a direct involvement in orchestrating the efforts to commence criminal proceedings against the appellant in Federal District Court when she knew his appeals were pending at either the BVA (Board of Veterans' Appeals) or this Court (the CAVC).”
Tw0 VA e-mails are below this post.
- http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2007/09/va-e-mails-reveal-va-officials-plotting.html
- http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2007/09/va-e-mails-reveals-va-officials.html
Roberts’ CAVC brief continues:
In this case the pursuit of the criminal conviction of this Appellant was ongoing during the entire pendency of this appeal.
The (VA) Secretary appears to have willfully and knowingly circumvented the jurisdiction of this Court (CAVC) and his employees and agents made material misrepresentations of the precedent rulings of this Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit in open court, under oath.
Had a determination of fraud actually been made, the Appellant would have still had the right to appeal that decision. … The referral of this case directly from the VA OIG’s Chicago office to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for criminal proceedings is contrary to law, justice, equity, and fair play.
When the Court rules to restore the benefits of the Appellant, we shall have arrived at an absurd “Alice in Wonderland” result. A veteran will sit in prison for accepting the wire transfer of funds to which he was legally entitled. …This extraordinary rendition of a veteran from a VA administrative dispute directly into Federal District Court on criminal charges is unprecedented.
VA Federal Law
Veteran-advocacy groups deride the delivery of health care and disability benefits to our veterans as another example of Bush administration incompetence in administering government services and entitlements to which it is ideologically hostile.
The VA, a large department of government, growing under the strain of war and non-existent administration planning for the consequences of war, is operating under the authority of specific federal regulations—the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 38, “Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans Relief.”
Title 38 specifically defines and delineates the processing and delivery of VA benefits, and several regulations that have the force of federal law were blatantly ignored by VA officials in the prosecution of Roberts.
U.S. Atty Biskupic ought to have read up on the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 38, “Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans Relief” and tossed the case off his desk after being approached by VA officials.
Title 38 (3.901 Fraud) specifically defines “fraud” (what Roberts is accused of engaging in in a sense, though the specific charge was changed from VA fraud to mail fraud to wire fraud) as a false or fraudulent act committed in trying to obtain “any claim for benefits under any of the laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.”
Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 3.905 (a) Jurisdiction
The VA insulates and protects veterans by establishing a layer of procedures before a veteran can be denied VA benefits, much less criminally prosecuted for fraud in seeking benefits.
The Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, section 3.905 (a) Jurisdiction regulation reads: “At the regional office level … the Regional Counsel is authorized to determine whether the evidence warrants formal consideration as to forfeiture.”
Robert Walsh, the VA appellate attorney for Roberts and a former VA staff attorney, blasted the criminal prosecution as well as the VA denial of benefits for its lack of review by the VA Regional counsel, per Title 38.
"The local VA Inspector General going directly to the U.S. Attorney without any review by VA attorneys appears to be unprecedented and is a violation of Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, section 3.905.
"The U.S. Attorney prosecuting a case such as this without a proper investigation by the F.B.I. or U.S. Treasury is outrageous. It is contrary to the Department of Justice guidelines for such cases. Failure to follow those well-thought out procedures is unwise. So we arrive at this bizarre outcome.
"When Congress passed the Veterans Judicial Review Act, which became law in 1988, they created a special court to review disputes over veterans’ benefits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).
"No other court was given jurisdiction over these claims, and that court has not yet ruled on the reduction of benefits suffered by Mr. Roberts.
"If the CAVC rules in favor of Mr. Roberts, he will be in prison convicted of fraud for accepting benefits payments that he is fully and legally entitled to.”
Biskupic has not spoken publicly on why his office had not awaited the adjudication of the benefits process before seeking indictments for alleged fraudulent statements made by Roberts in his claims, and why Biskupic avoided the charge of Veteran’s fraud, and indicted on mail fraud and then wire fraud instead.
Nor has Biskupic’s office offered any explanation for why he sought indictments absent review and referral by VA attorneys, per Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, section 3.905 and why as Roberts’ claims continues adjudication under the veterans’ courts, Biskupic decided to step in and indict without investigation by the Postal Inspector’s office, the FBI, or the U.S. Treasury department.
Veterans’ groups allege that Biskupic’s extraordinary prosecution was consonant with Bush administration priorities to discourage VA disability benefits claims and served to curry favor with the AEI/Bush VA priorities, helping to keep Biskupic’s endangered position as U.S. Atty in Bush’s politicized DoJ.
Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 3.905 (b) Fraud
The VA is also required, by federal regulation, to notify a veteran if he or she is declared to be fraudulently presenting information to the VA.
The Fraud statute reads:
(b) Fraud or treasonable acts. Forfeiture of benefits under §3.901 or §3.902 will not be declared until the person has been notified by the Regional Counsel … of the right to present a defense. Such notice shall consist of a written statement sent to the person's latest address of record setting forth the following:(1) The specific charges against the person;(2) A detailed statement of the evidence supporting the charges, subject to regulatory limitations on disclosure of information;(3) Citation and discussion of the applicable statute. …
Roberts was never notified by the Regional Counsel that he was suspected or accused of engaging in fraud. The reason is the VA knew that they could never prove veterans’ fraud because of Roberts’ voluminous VA file supporting Roberts claim, much of which was kept out of evidence at the wire fraud trial.
Said a source close to the defense network: “The VA statute requires the criminal justice system to stay out of the matter until a FINAL administrative agency’s decision is in place. That will not happen at the VA until Roberts is done at the Supreme Court. The VA reduction of benefits is under appeal and will be for some time. So, if they believe in the fraud, why the rush for Biskupic to jump in? Keith is not a killer posing a danger to the public; he is a veteran who simply will not be getting his benefits that he deserves.”
Roberts was caught in a situation where he angered the VA Inspector General’s office and the Milwaukee regional office that knew that Roberts could never be convicted of VA fraud, so they summarily denied his benefits, began the kangaroo investigation by Vasil and then communicated the case circumstances to U.S. Atty Biskupic who charged Roberts with postal fraud and then with wire fraud using the denial of benefits (under appeal per federal statute and administrative law regulations) and misrepresentations of VA procedure at trial as evidence of criminal fraud.
So, before and after Special Agent Vasil, Director of Compensation and Pension Services, Renee L. Szybala, and the Milwaukee regional office were scheming to charge Roberts with fraudulently presenting his VA claim, and Roberts’ liberty became endangered, the VA never formerly notified Roberts through the Regional Counsel or otherwise that his forfeiture and reductions were asserted by the VA Regional Counsel to be based upon fraud.
U.S. Atty Biskupic never addressed the statutory imperative that Roberts should have been so notified by the VA Regional Counsel during the investigation, the indictment and prosecution, and the government briefs filed with the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also refuses to address the issue.
This would appear to raise serious due process considerations that may result in the overturning of Roberts’ criminal conviction by the Seventh Circuit, known for its intellectual heft, though leaning to the right, aside from the fact that Roberts is innocent of not being at the scene of his friend Holland’s death.
Title 38 § 14.561 - Necessary Administrative or Adjudicatory Action
In the criminal case appeal, Roberts argues that “… with regard to prosecutions related to benefits claims, certain administrative measures must be taken citing CFR Title 38 § 14.561:
Title 38 § 14.561 reads: “Before a submission is made to the U.S, Attorney in cases involving personnel or claims, the … Regional Counsel at the regional office, hospital or center, if the file is in the regional office or other field facility, will first ascertain that necessary administrative or adjudicatory … action has been taken”
To translate, the Regional Counsel in this case has to ensure that the rights embodied in the administrative processes are followed (and exhausted) before sending the case off to the US Atty.
This argument is made in both Roberts’ criminal and CAVC briefs.
In the CAVC brief, Roberts argues: “The Secretary has caused a criminal prosecution in Federal District Court to be initiated against the Appellant while he was still before this Court litigating the same facts, transactions and occurrences. The VA regulation for initiating criminal charges against a veteran was not followed, 38 C.F.R. § 14.561."
The VA’s position made in their response brief is that this administrative law is obsolete (though it was never repealed) and that the VA does not need to follow the law.
In an August VA response to Roberts’ CAVC brief, the VA argues that the Office of Inspector General’s personnel like Vasil, with no legal training or law enforcement experience, and the VA police are “responsible for notifying the DOJ or the USA (US Atty) of possible criminal matters. … The authority and duty to refer criminal cases is vested in the VA police and the OIG. … it could be argued that, as it relates to criminal prosecutions, section 14.561 is obsolete.”
The VA’s convoluted argument on its not abiding by section 14.561 (Counsel assurance of necessary administrative or adjudicatory procedure) authored by Carolyn F. Washington, VA deputy asst general counsel, amounts to the VA equivalent of a Bush signing statement—we’ll obey federal law as we see fit.
The VA police authority and role has been to tend to often-disturbed and violent veterans seeking medical and psychological assistance after coming home from service. The VA police has never been charged with investigating benefit claims, much less referring claims cases in the middle of VA adjudication to the US Atty’s office.
One can only hope that the CAVC and Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ridicule this argument, and it should be noted that the US Atty’s office never put forth this argument that would undoubtedly be shredded by the Seventh Circuit’s panel slated to hear oral arguments in the coming months.
Politicalization
There are plenty of candidates for condemnation in this affair in today’s environment when whole agencies of the U.S. government have been usurped by an administration lacking in conscience and public accountability, politicizing virtually every agency in sight, including U.S. Atty Biskupic’s office.
· Special Agent Raymond Vasil of the regional VA Inspector General’s office [“A cop Vasil is not, just an idiot with a badge,” said one veteran assisting Roberts] who lied to and vocally mocked Roberts while flying around the country fabricating a case against Roberts.
· The VA benefits process that systemically wears down veterans with the apparent intention of inducing them to give up their fight for benefits [this process is being adjudicated in the unprecedented class action suit by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.] In fact, the VA claims process can be so frustrating that many vets (especially those suffering from PTSD) are thrown into fits of rage directed at the VA itself.
· The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that demeans veterans for seeking help with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in this “culture of trauma.”
· The Pentagon that blames veterans “personality disorders” and lack of faith in God for veterans suffering after service.
· Former VA national Director of Compensation and Pension Services, Renee L. Szybala, and Jon Baker, director of the Milwaukee Regional VA office, actively participated in efforts to have Roberts prosecuted, while they intentionally took steps to ensure the VA Regional Counsel did not have an opportunity to perform the mandatory legal review before the matter went to the U.S. Attorney, as required by federal regulations. Again, Szybala knew that Roberts had an appeal pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and that under VA regulations until that appeal was completed the case should not have been released for criminal or collection action.
· Barbra Nehls, formerly of the Milwaukee VA Regional office nad since promoted, who wrongly claimed at trial that Roberts’ benefits were reduced based upon the VA’s determination that Roberts’ statements of facts from 1969 formed the basis of the VA decision to grant or deny benefits. This is a material misrepresentation of VA procedure.
· And of course, Carolyn F. Washington, VA deputy asst general counsel, a woman without conscience and quintessential social climber.
Cases to be Adjudicated
· U.S. v. Roberts, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket 05-CR-118 ; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, docket number 07-1546. Briefs are filed and oral argument will likely be scheduled in the fall-winter of 2007-2008.
· U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims docket 05-2425
Seventh Circuit Appeal
Roberts’ hope is that the three-member, Seventh Circuit appellate panel in Chicago will vacate his conviction for lack of evidence (similar to the infamous Georgia Thompson case) and violation of due process, entitling Roberts to the VA disability benefits previously awarded to him, should the CAVC court rule in his favor.
The VA insulates and protects veterans by establishing a layer of procedure before a veteran can be denied VA benefits, much less criminally prosecuted for fraud in seeking benefits.
Roberts makes the argument in his criminal appeal that criminal prosecutions against veterans for allegedly committing fraud in filing for VA claim benefits need to follow the administrative rules (which have the force of federal law), and in this case the VA and U.S. Atty ignored the VA administrative rules.
Reply Brief Arguments
Roberts’ reply brief arguments are the following:
I. The District Court Erred in Denying the Appellant's Motions to Dismiss, as the Court's Exercise of Jurisdiction Constituted a Denial of the Appellant's Right to Due Process, Due to the Pending Appeal Before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
II. The Evidence Presented at Trial Was Insufficient to Sustain a Conviction for Wire Fraud.
III. The Appellant’s Right to Due Process was Violated When the Government Withheld Material Information.
IV. The District Court Erred in Applying an Enhancement to the Appellant’s Sentence, as Such Was Not Submitted for Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
Legal questions and legal comments can be e-mailed to Robert Walsh at rpwalsh@sbcglobal.net.
Media on Keith Roberts
- Wisconsin Public Radio News (May 10)
- The Lee Rayburn show (June 29)
- Keith Roberts' Atty. on the Lee Rayburn show (June 6)
- WORT Radio - A Public Affair (May 25; begins at one minute, nine seconds)
###
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Improving the Presumptive Disability Decision-Making Process for Veterans.
From Col. Dan...
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) published “Improving the Presumptive Disability Decision-Making Process for Veterans,” on Aug. 9, 2007. The report examined the current process of how presumptive disability decisions are made for veterans who have health conditions attributed to military service. The committee who conducted the study concluded that the presumptive disability decision-making process should be based on evidence about military exposures and veterans’ health and if a specific health condition for a specified group of veterans was at least as likely as not to have been caused by their military service. The Committee proposed a framework for the future that will be based on findings about the health of veterans that come from tracking of exposures during military service, as well as tracking of health status at entry into, during, at separation from and after military service.
go to web site for full report
http://www.iom.edu/CMS/26761/34756/45306.aspx
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) published “Improving the Presumptive Disability Decision-Making Process for Veterans,” on Aug. 9, 2007. The report examined the current process of how presumptive disability decisions are made for veterans who have health conditions attributed to military service. The committee who conducted the study concluded that the presumptive disability decision-making process should be based on evidence about military exposures and veterans’ health and if a specific health condition for a specified group of veterans was at least as likely as not to have been caused by their military service. The Committee proposed a framework for the future that will be based on findings about the health of veterans that come from tracking of exposures during military service, as well as tracking of health status at entry into, during, at separation from and after military service.
go to web site for full report
http://www.iom.edu/CMS/26761/34756/45306.aspx
Saturday, July 28, 2007
IWVO condemns Personality Disorder Discharges, Gale Pollock
In a recent article by reporter Joshua Kors, of the Nation, the Iraq War Veterans Organization lambasted the VA, Department of Defense, and Army Surgeon General Gale Pollock's deceptive efforts to keep the truth from the public regarding Personality Disorder Discharges. Kors recently testified before the House Veterans Affairs Committee about his findings.
The article from The Nation follows.
The article from The Nation follows.
Jon Town has spent the last few years fighting two battles, one against his body, the other against the US Army. Both began in October 2004 in Ramadi, Iraq. He was standing in the doorway of his battalion’s headquarters when a 107-millimeter rocket struck two feet above his head. The impact punched a piano-sized hole in the concrete facade, sparked a huge fireball and tossed the 25-year-old Army specialist to the floor, where he lay blacked out among the rubble.
“The next thing I remember is waking up on the ground.” Men from his unit had gathered around his body and were screaming his name. “They started shaking me. But I was numb all over,” he says. “And it’s weird because… because for a few minutes you feel like you’re not really there. I could see them, but I couldn’t hear them. I couldn’t hear anything. I started shaking because I thought I was dead.”
Eventually the rocket shrapnel was removed from Town’s neck and his ears stopped leaking blood. But his hearing never really recovered, and in many ways, neither has his life. A soldier honored twelve times during his seven years in uniform, Town has spent the last three struggling with deafness, memory failure and depression. By September 2006 he and the Army agreed he was no longer combat-ready.
But instead of sending Town to a medical board and discharging him because of his injuries, doctors at Fort Carson, Colorado, did something strange: They claimed Town’s wounds were actually caused by a “personality disorder.” Town was then booted from the Army and told that under a personality disorder discharge, he would never receive disability or medical benefits.
Town is not alone. A six-month investigation has uncovered multiple cases in which soldiers wounded in Iraq are suspiciously diagnosed as having a personality disorder, then prevented from collecting benefits. The conditions of their discharge have infuriated many in the military community, including the injured soldiers and their families, veterans’ rights groups, even military officials required to process these dismissals.
They say the military is purposely misdiagnosing soldiers like Town and that it’s doing so for one reason: to cheat them out of a lifetime of disability and medical benefits, thereby saving billions in expenses.
The Fine Print
In the Army’s separations manual it’s called Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-13: “Separation Because of Personality Disorder.” It’s an alluring choice for a cash-strapped military because enacting it is quick and cheap. The Department of Veterans Affairs doesn’t have to provide medical care to soldiers dismissed with personality disorder. That’s because under Chapter 5-13, personality disorder is a pre-existing condition. The VA is only required to treat wounds sustained during service.
Soldiers discharged under 5-13 can’t collect disability pay either. To receive those benefits, a soldier must be evaluated by a medical board, which must confirm that he is wounded and that his wounds stem from combat. The process takes several months, in contrast with a 5-13 discharge, which can be wrapped up in a few days.
If a soldier dismissed under 5-13 hasn’t served out his contract, he has to give back a slice of his re-enlistment bonus as well. That amount is often larger than the soldier’s final paycheck. As a result, on the day of their discharge, many injured vets learn that they owe the Army several thousand dollars.
One military official says doctors at his base are doing more than withholding this information from wounded soldiers; they’re actually telling them the opposite: that if they go along with a 5-13, they’ll get to keep their bonus and receive disability and medical benefits. The official, who demanded anonymity, handles discharge papers at a prominent Army facility. He says the soldiers he works with know they don’t have a personality disorder. “But the doctors are telling them, this will get you out quicker, and the VA will take care of you. To stay out of Iraq, a soldier will take that in a heartbeat. What they don’t realize is, those things are lies. The soldiers, they don’t read the fine print,” he says. “They don’t know to ask for a med board. They’re taking the word of the doctors. Then they sit down with me and find out what a 5-13 really means–they’re shocked.”
Russell Terry, founder of the Iraq War Veterans Organization (IWVO), says he’s watched this scenario play itself out many times. For more than a year, his veterans’ rights group has been receiving calls from distraught soldiers discharged under Chapter 5-13. Most, he says, say their military doctors pushed the personality disorder diagnosis, strained to prove that their problems existed before their service in Iraq and refused to acknowledge evidence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury and physical traumas, which would allow them to collect disability and medical benefits.
“These soldiers are coming home from Iraq with all kinds of problems,” Terry says. “They go to the VA for treatment, and they’re turned away. They’re told, ‘No, you have a pre-existing condition, something from childhood.’” That leap in logic boils Terry’s blood. “Everybody receives a psychological screening when they join the military. What I want to know is, if all these soldiers really did have a severe pre-existing condition, how did they get into the military in the first place?”
Terry says that trying to reverse a 5-13 discharge is a frustrating process. A soldier has to claw through a thicket of paperwork, appeals panels and backstage political dealing, and even with the guidance of an experienced advocate, few are successful. “The 5-13,” he says, “it’s like a scarlet letter you can’t get taken off.”
In the last six years the Army has diagnosed and discharged more than 5,600 soldiers because of personality disorder, according to the Defense Department. And the numbers keep rising: 805 cases in 2001, 980 cases in 2003, 1,086 from January to November 2006. “It’s getting worse and worse every day,” says the official who handles discharge papers. “At my office the numbers started out normal. Now it’s up to three or four soldiers each day. It’s like, suddenly everybody has a personality disorder.”
The reason is simple, he says. “They’re saving a buck. And they’re saving the VA money too. It’s all about money.”
Exactly how much money is difficult to calculate. Defense Department records show that across the entire armed forces, more than 22,500 soldiers have been dismissed due to personality disorder in the last six years. How much those soldiers would have collected in disability pay would have been determined by a medical board, which evaluates just how disabled a veteran is. A completely disabled soldier receives about $44,000 a year. In a recent study on the cost of veterans’ benefits for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Harvard professor Linda Bilmes estimates an average disability payout of $8,890 per year and a future life expectancy of forty years for soldiers returning from service.
Using those figures, by discharging soldiers under Chapter 5-13, the military could be saving upwards of $8 billion in disability pay. Add to that savings the cost of medical care over the soldiers’ lifetimes. Bilmes estimates that each year the VA spends an average of $5,000 in medical care per veteran. Applying those numbers, by discharging 22,500 soldiers because of personality disorder, the military saves $4.5 billion in medical care over their lifetimes.
Town says Fort Carson psychologist Mark Wexler assured him that he would receive disability benefits, VA medical care and that he’d get to keep his bonus–good news he discussed with Christian Fields and Brandon Murray, two soldiers in his unit at Fort Carson. “We talked about it many times,” Murray says. “Jon said the doctor there promised him benefits, and he was happy about it. Who wouldn’t be?” Town shared that excitement with his wife, Kristy, shortly after his appointment with Wexler. “He said that Wexler had explained to him that he’d get to keep his benefits,” Kristy says, “that the doctor had looked into it, and it was all coming with the chapter he was getting.”
In fact, Town would not get disability pay or receive long-term VA medical care. And he would have to give back the bulk of his $15,000 bonus. Returning that money meant Town would leave Fort Carson less than empty-handed: He now owed the Army more than $3,000. “We had this on our heads the whole way, driving home to Ohio,” says Town. Wexler made him promises, he says, about what would happen if he went along with the diagnosis. “The final day, we find out, none of it was true. It was a total shock. I felt like I’d been betrayed by the Army.”
Wexler denies discussing benefits with Town. In a statement, the psychologist writes, “I have never discussed benefits with my patients as that is not my area of expertise. The only thing I said to Spc. Town was that the Chapter 5-13 is an honorable discharge…. I assure you, after over 15 years in my position, both as active duty and now civilian, I don’t presume to know all the details about benefits and therefore do not discuss them with my patients.”
Wexler’s boss, Col. Steven Knorr, chief of the Department of Behavioral Health at Evans Army Hospital, declined to speak about Town’s case. When asked if doctors at Fort Carson were assuring patients set for a 5-13 discharge that they’ll receive disability benefits and keep their bonuses, Knorr said, “I don’t believe they’re doing that.”
Not the Man He Used to Be
Interviews with soldiers diagnosed with personality disorder suggest that the military is using the psychological condition as a catch-all diagnosis, encompassing symptoms as diverse as deafness, headaches and schizophrenic delusions. That flies in the face of the Army’s own regulations.
According to those regulations, to be classified a personality disorder, a soldier’s symptoms had to exist before he joined the military. And they have to match the “personality disorder” described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the national standard for psychiatric diagnosis. Town’s case provides a clear window into how these personality disorder diagnoses are being used because even a cursory examination of his case casts grave doubt as to whether he fits either criterion.
Town’s wife, for one, laughs in disbelief at the idea that her husband was suffering from hearing loss before he headed to Iraq. But since returning, she says, he can’t watch TV unless the volume is full-blast, can’t use the phone unless its volume is set to high. Medical papers from Fort Carson list Town as having no health problems before serving in Iraq; after, a Fort Carson audiologist documents “functional (non-organic) hearing loss.” Town says his right ear, his “good” ear, has lost 50 percent of its hearing; his left is still essentially useless.
He is more disturbed by how his memory has eroded. Since the rocket blast, he has struggled to retain new information. “Like, I’ll be driving places, and then I totally forget where I’m going,” he says. “Numbers, names, dates–unless I knew them before, I pretty much don’t remember.” When Town returned to his desk job at Fort Carson, he found himself straining to recall the Army’s regulations. “People were like, ‘What are you, dumb?’ And I’m like, ‘No, I’m probably smarter than you. I just can’t remember stuff,’” he says, his melancholy suddenly replaced by anger. “They don’t understand–I got hit by a rocket.”
Those bursts of rage mark the biggest change, says Kristy Town. She says the man she married four years ago was “a real goofball. He’d do funny voices and faces–a great Jim Carrey imitation. When the kids would get a boo-boo, he’d fall on the ground and pretend he got a boo-boo too.” Now, she says, “his emotions are all over the place. He’ll get so angry at things, and it’s not toward anybody. It’s toward himself. He blames himself for everything.” He has a hard time sleeping and doesn’t spend as much time as he used to with the kids. “They get rowdy when they play, and he just has to be alone. It’s almost like his nerves can’t handle it.”
Kristy begins to cry, pauses, before forcing herself to continue. She’s been watching him when he’s alone, she says. “He kind of… zones out, almost like he’s in a daze.”
In May 2006 Town tried to electrocute himself, dropping his wife’s hair dryer into the bathtub. The dryer short-circuited before it could electrify the water. Fort Carson officials put Town in an off-post hospital that specializes in suicidal depression. Town had been promoted to corporal after returning from Iraq; he was stripped of that rank and reduced back to specialist. “When he came back, I tried to be the same,” Kristy says. “He just can’t. He’s definitely not the man he used to be.”
Town says his dreams have changed too. They keep taking him back to Ramadi, to the death of a good friend who’d been too near an explosion, taken too much shrapnel to the face. In his dreams Town returns there night after night to soak up the blood.
He stops his description for a rare moment of levity. “Sleep didn’t use to be like that,” he says. “I used to sleep just fine.”
How the Army determined then that Town’s behavioral problems existed before his military service is unclear. Wexler, the Fort Carson psychologist who made the diagnosis, didn’t interview any of Town’s family or friends. It’s unclear whether he even questioned Town’s fellow soldiers in 2-17 Field Artillery, men like Fields, Murray and Michael Forbus, who could have testified to his stability and award-winning performance before the October 2004 rocket attack. As Forbus puts it, before the attack Town was “one of the best in our unit”; after, “the son of a gun was deaf in one ear. He seemed lost and disoriented. It just took the life out of him.”
Town finds his diagnosis especially strange because the Diagnostic Manual appears to preclude cases like his. It says that a pattern of erratic behavior cannot be labeled a “personality disorder” if it’s from a head injury. The specialist asserts that his hearing loss, headaches and anger all began with the rocket attack that knocked him unconscious.
Wexler did not reply to repeated requests seeking comment on Town’s diagnosis. But Col. Knorr of Fort Carson’s Evans hospital says he’s confident his doctors are properly diagnosing personality disorder. The colonel says there is a simple explanation as to why in so many cases the lifelong condition of personality disorder isn’t apparent until after serving in Iraq. Traumatic experiences, Knorr says, can trigger a condition that has lain dormant for years. “They may have done fine in high school and before, but it comes out during the stress of service.”
“I’ve never heard of that occurring,” says Keith Armstrong, a clinical professor with the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco. Armstrong has been counseling traumatized veterans for more than twenty years at the San Francisco VA; most recently he is the co-author of Courage After Fire: Coping Strategies for Troops Returning From Iraq and Afghanistan and Their Families. “Personality disorder is a diagnosis I’m very cautious about,” he says. “My question would be, has PTSD been ruled out? It seems to me that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, let’s see if it’s a duck before other factors are implicated.”
Knorr admits that in most cases, before making a diagnosis, his doctors only interview the soldier. But he adds that interviewing family members, untrained to recognize signs of personality disorder, would be of limited value. “The soldier’s perception and their parents’ perception is that they were fine. But maybe they didn’t or weren’t able to see that wasn’t the case.”
Armstrong takes a very different approach. He says family is a “crucial part” of the diagnosis and treatment of soldiers returning from war. The professor sees parents and wives as so important, he encourages his soldiers to invite their families into the counseling sessions. “They bring in particular information that can be helpful,” he says. “By not taking advantage of their knowledge and support, I think we’re doing soldiers a disservice.”
Knorr would not discuss the specifics of Town’s case. He did note, however, that his department treats thousands of soldiers each year and says within that population, there are bound to be a small fraction of misdiagnosed cases and dissatisfied soldiers. He adds that the soldiers he’s seen diagnosed and discharged with personality disorder are “usually quite pleased.”
The Army holds soldiers’ medical records and contact information strictly confidential. But The Nation was able to locate a half-dozen soldiers from bases across the country who were diagnosed with personality disorder. All of them rejected that diagnosis. Most said military doctors tried to force the diagnosis upon them and turned a blind eye to symptoms of PTSD and physical injury.
One such veteran, Richard Dykstra, went to the hospital at Fort Stewart, Georgia, complaining of flashbacks, anger and stomach pains. The doctor there diagnosed personality disorder. Dykstra thinks the symptoms actually stem from PTSD and a bilateral hernia he suffered in Iraq. “When I told her my symptoms, she said, ‘Oh, it looks like you’ve been reading up on PTSD.’ Then she basically said I was making it all up,” he says.
In her report on Dykstra, Col. Ana Parodi, head of Behavioral Health at Fort Stewart’s Winn Army Hospital, writes that the soldier gives a clear description of PTSD symptoms but lays them out with such detail, it’s “as if he had memorized the criteria.” She concludes that Dykstra has personality disorder, not PTSD, though her report also notes that Dykstra has had “no previous psychiatric history” and that she confirmed the validity of his symptoms with the soldier’s wife.
Parodi is currently on leave and could not be reached for comment. Speaking for Fort Stewart, Public Affairs Officer Lieut. Col. Randy Martin says that the Army’s diagnosis procedures “have been developed over time, and they are accepted as being fair.” Martin said he could not address Dykstra’s case specifically because his files have been moved to a storage facility in St. Louis.
William Wooldridge had a similar fight with the Army. The specialist was hauling missiles and tank ammunition outside Baghdad when, he says, a man standing at the side of the road grabbed hold of a young girl and pushed her in front of his truck. “The little girl,” Wooldridge says, his voice suddenly quiet, “she looked like one of my daughters.”
When he returned to Fort Polk, Louisiana, Wooldridge told his doctor that he was now hearing voices and seeing visions, hallucinations of a mangled girl who would ask him why he had killed her. His doctor told him he had personality disorder. “When I heard that, I flew off the handle because I said, ‘Hey, that ain’t me. Before I went over there, I was a happy-go-lucky kind of guy.’” Wooldridge says his psychologist, Capt. Patrick Brady of Baynes-Jones Army Community Hospital, saw him for thirty minutes before making his diagnosis. Soon after, Wooldridge was discharged from Fort Polk under Chapter 5-13.
He began to fight that discharge immediately, without success. Then in March 2005, eighteen months after Wooldridge’s dismissal, his psychiatrist at the Memphis VA filed papers rejecting Brady’s diagnosis and asserting that Wooldridge suffered from PTSD so severe, it made him “totally disabled.” Weeks later the Army Discharge Review Board voided Wooldridge’s 5-13 dismissal, but the eighteen months he’d spent lingering without benefits had already taken its toll.
“They put me out on the street to rot, and if I had left things like they were, there would have been no way I could have survived. I would have had to take myself out or had someone do it for me,” he says. The way they use personality disorder to diagnose and discharge, he says, “it’s like a mental rape. That’s the only way I can describe it.”
Captain Brady has since left Fort Polk and is now on staff at Fort Wainwright, Alaska; recently he deployed to Iraq and was unavailable for comment. In a statement, Maj. Byron Strother, chief of the Department of Behavioral Health at Baynes-Jones hospital, writes that allegations that soldiers at Fort Polk are being misdiagnosed “are not true.” Strother says diagnoses at his hospital are made “only after careful consideration of all relevant clinical observation, direct examination [and] appropriate testing.”
If there are dissatisfied soldiers, says Knorr, the Fort Carson official, “I’ll bet not a single one of them has been diagnosed with conditions that are clear-cut and makes them medically unfit, like schizophrenia.”
Linda Mosier disputes that. When her son Chris left for Iraq in 2004, he was a “normal kid,” she says, who’d call her long-distance and joke about the strange food and expensive taxis overseas. When he returned home for Christmas 2005, “he wouldn’t sit down for a meal with us. He just kept walking around. I took him to the department store for slacks, and he was inside rushing around saying, ‘Let’s go, let’s go, let’s go.’ He wouldn’t sleep, and the one time he did, he woke up screaming.”
Mosier told his mother of a breaking point in Iraq: a roadside bomb that blew up the truck in front of his. “He said his buddies were screaming. They were on fire,” she says, her voice trailing off. “He was there at the end to pick up the hands and arms.” After that Mosier started having delusions. Dr. Wexler of Fort Carson diagnosed personality disorder. Soon after, Mosier was discharged under Chapter 5-13.
Mosier returned home, still plagued by visions. In October he put a note on the front door of their Des Moines, Iowa, home saying the Iraqis were after him and he had to protect the family, then shot himself.
Mosier’s mother is furious that doctors at Fort Carson treated her son for such a brief period of time and that Wexler, citing confidentiality, refused to tell her anything about that treatment or give her family any direction on how to help Chris upon his return home. She does not believe her son had a personality disorder. “They take a normal kid, he comes back messed up, then nobody was there for him when he came back,” Linda says. “They discharged him so they didn’t have to treat him.”
Wexler did not reply to a written request seeking comment on Mosier’s case.
Thrown to the Wolves
Today Jon Town is home, in small-town Findlay, Ohio, with no job, no prospects and plenty of time to reflect on how he got there. Diagnosing him with personality disorder may have saved the Army thousands of dollars, he says, but what did Wexler have to gain?
Quite a lot, says Steve Robinson, director of veterans affairs at Veterans for America, a Washington, DC-based soldiers’ rights group. Since the Iraq War began, he says, doctors have been facing an overflow of wounded soldiers and a shortage of rooms, supplies and time to treat them. By calling PTSD a personality disorder, they usher one soldier out quickly, freeing up space for the three or four who are waiting.
Terry, the veterans’ advocate from IWVO, notes that unlike doctors in the private sector, Army doctors who give questionable diagnoses face no danger of malpractice suits due to Feres v. U.S., a 1950 Supreme Court ruling that bars soldiers from suing for negligence. To maintain that protection, Terry says, most doctors will diagnose personality disorder when prodded to do so by military officials.
That’s precisely how the system works, says one military official familiar with the discharge process. The official, who requested anonymity, is a lawyer with Trial Defense Services (TDS), a unit of the Army that guides soldiers through their 5-13 discharge. “Commanders want to get these guys out the door and get it done fast. Even if the next soldier isn’t as good, at least he’s good to go. He’s deployable. So they’re telling the docs what diagnosis to give to get what discharge.”
The lawyer says he knows this is happening because commanders have told him that they’re doing it. “Some have come to me and talked about doing this. They’re saying, ‘Give me a specific diagnosis. It’ll support a certain chapter.’”
Colonel Martin of Fort Stewart said the prospect of commanders pressuring doctors to diagnose personality disorder is “highly unlikely.” “Doctors are making these determinations themselves,” Martin says. In a statement, Col. William Statz, commander at Fort Polk’s Baynes-Jones hospital, says, “Any allegations that clinical decisions are influenced by either political considerations or command pressures, at any level, are untrue.”
But a second TDS lawyer, who also demanded anonymity, says he’s watched the same process play out at his base. “What I’ve noticed is right before a unit deploys, we see a spike in 5-13s, as if the commanders are trying to clean house, get rid of the soldiers they don’t really need,” he says. “The chain of command just wants to eliminate them and get a new body in there fast to plug up the holes.” If anyone shows even moderate signs of psychological distress, he says, “they’re kicking them to the curb instead of treating them.”
Both lawyers say that once a commander steps in and pushes for a 5-13, the diagnosis and discharge are carved in stone fairly fast. After that happens, one lawyer says he points soldiers toward the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, where a 5-13 label could be overturned, and failing that, advises them to seek redress from their representative in Congress. Town did that, contacting Republican Representative Michael Oxley of Ohio, with little success. Oxley, who has since retired, did not return calls seeking comment.
Few cases are challenged successfully or overturned later, say the TDS lawyers. The system, says one, is essentially broken. “Right now, the Army is eating its own. What I want to see is these soldiers getting the right diagnosis, so they can get the right help, not be thrown to the wolves right away. That is what they’re doing.”
Still, Town tries to remain undaunted. He got his story to Robinson of Veterans for America, who brought papers on his case to an October meeting with several top Washington officials, including Deputy Surgeon General Gale Pollock, Assistant Surgeon General Bernard DeKoning and Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri. There Robinson laid out the larger 5-13 problem and submitted a briefing specifically on Town.
“We got a very positive response,” Robinson says. “After we presented, they were almost appalled, like we are every day. They said, ‘We didn’t know this was happening.’” Robinson says the deputy surgeon general promised to look into Town’s case and the others presented to her. Senator Bond, whose son has served in Iraq, floated the idea of a Congressional hearing if the 5-13 issue isn’t resolved. The senator did not return calls seeking comment.
In the meantime, Town is doing his best to keep his head in check. He says his nightmares have been waning in recent weeks, but most of his problems persist. He’s thinking of going to a veterans support group in Toledo, forty-five miles north of Findlay. There will be guys there who have been through this, he says, vets who understand.
Town hesitates, his voice suddenly much softer. “I have my good days and my bad days,” he says. “It all depends on whether I wake up in Findlay or Iraq.”
Joshua Kors is a freelance journalist based in New York. Research support was provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute.
Friday, July 13, 2007
After 62 years, Vet gets his $14 a month disability
This is just sad. 62 years later the VA gives him $14 a month for his being a guinea pig in a dangerous program that he had no choice but to submit to.
Read the original copy here.
George Smith: Henry Baugh — Finally, after 62 years, he gets his due ...
07-11-2007
I’ve told you about Henry Baugh before ... July 31, 2005.
A quiet man, mild of nature, Henry is now 83, and home is a quiet, gentle street in east Anniston.
Before he was 83, Henry was 19, a person of “The Great Generation” that went off to World War II. For Henry, it was to Anzio, to the Maginot Line, over the Rhine into Germany, to Nuremberg and Munich, to the ovens of Dachau.
At Anzio, on a naked beach under German guns in the hills, Henry paid for the first of his two Purple Hearts. Shrapnel from an exploding shell tore into his back, into his shoulder, into his left arm. A chunk of metal remains in the arm.
By the time he reached the infamous ovens of Dachau, Henry had picked up another purple heart, two Bronze Stars, a Combat Infantryman’s badge, and five — that’s five — major battle stars.
One other thing.
While in basic, he was one of a group used to test the effect of gases such as lewisite, mustard and chlorine on the human body ... and mind.
They were not volunteers, simply picked for the tests ... and no refusing, either.
For all of that, for his disabilities — as a warrior and as a guinea pig — Henry’s government, represented by the Veterans Administration, approved disability payments of $14 per month — that’s $14 per month.
It took three years of Henry’s life to help win a World War. It has taken 62 more years of his life to win his “war” with the VA. A first check for full disability came in the mail June 30. He also has received a hefty chunk of back pay.
While Henry was — and is — a war hero, there is another hero in this story.
His name is Ron Mason, himself a disabled veteran. His war was Vietnam, and he was seriously injured in a shipboard accident. His main mode of transportation now is a motorized “scooter.”
Mason’s initial disability finding was for 30 percent. Unbeknownst to the VA, it was also wrapped in an anger Ron Mason wouldn’t turn loose.
You also met Ron in that first column and, from that, his words:
“I got mad, I got hurt; I’m an old man physically. I said I wasn’t going to let those b------s win. I started researching; it’s all public record.
He didn’t. It took long months of digging and reading and writing, but Ron Mason also has full disability.
It was while at the local VA office that Mason — who has known Baugh “all my life” — bumped into Henry and learned of his problems. He invited Henry “to come by, bring what papers you have, and let’s talk about it.”
That was in 1992.
Henry’s war with the VA became Ron Mason’s war.
“He’d only kept about 30 or 40 pieces of paper,” says Mason, “but they were very pertinent pieces of paper. We started talking and writing — I’ve got a binder of papers (correspondence) a foot and a half thick of stuff we’ve submitted to the VA.
“We just kept going and going and going, just kept hanging in there.”
Mason’s own experiences were the road map.
“I went back to school in the early 90s,” says Mason. I got a masters (from JSU) in public administration. A professor taught that the government makes entitlement programs very hard to understand, very difficult to get benefits, very easy for the potential recipient to throw up his hands, walk away, and say, ‘to hell with it.’”
Mason didn’t, and with his unstinting help, neither did Henry Baugh.
Baugh, glancing at his friend, is a little emotional with:
“I’m gonna tell you, this man is responsible for this. You won’t believe how many times we went to Birmingham. He took me over there — I don’t know how many times — to all their specialists for them to examine me. He knew them all. There was no way he was going to let them get around me.”
For the record, Mason also is involved with two other veterans at the moment.
His is a free advocacy.
“There’s nothing I wouldn’t do for a brother or sister veteran,” says Mason. “Sometimes the military wants to forget us, but, by golly, I’m gonna keep fighting it, not let ‘em get away with it.
“We gave our country the best of our youth …”
They’re not through yet, even in the older years. That, too, is pretty darn special.
About George Smith:
George Smith is The Star's senior editor. His columns appear Wednesday, Friday and Sunday.
Contact George Smith:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:
256-235-3541
256-241-1991
gsmith731@aol.com
Friday, July 6, 2007
Court Punishes Veteran, Targets his Disability Compensation
Another one from Colonel Dan.
I haven't evaulated the legal arguments presented here, but if accurate, then this is a tragic case of an activist judge using her position to punish a veteran outside the authority granted to her by law.
This is the short version. Lee County, Florida Judge Margaret O. Steinbeck, Former Military lawyer, avoided the use of a veteran's disability compensation benefits as alimony, in Fisher v. Fisher citing, " USC 38 sec. 5301 is a general statute which prohibits assignability, levy or seizure." Having avoiding conflict with federal law, using her status, and the authority of her court to inflict her punishment to the veteran, in the only other way that she could, because Mr. Fisher argued federal law precludes VA disability benefits as an award of alimony, Judge Steinbeck goes after his Social Security disability compensation.
Citing, in Fisher, her Memorandum of Law, USC 10 sec. 1408 Uniformed Services Former Spouses protection Act. (USFSPA). “We now move to a more specific law USC 10 sec. 1408 (c) which allows the court to treat retired pay as property of the member and spouse.”
Judge Steinbeck then uses, as her primary decisions of law, in the justification of awarding alimony by going after this veterans Social Security disability compensation. Citing, “Finally, we look at USC 42 sec. 659 which allows garnishment to enforce alimony obligations.”
Here is the connection Judge Steinbeck tries to make, while having nothing to do with a veterans disability compensation, to justify her Social Security ruling. “Of more importance is 659 (h)(I)(A)(ii)(V). Money subject to process which includes disability paid...to a former member...who has waived a portion of the retirement or retainer pay in order to receive such compensation which is exactly the situation of our present case.”
Being two distinct, and unrelated issues, the obvious question being, what has a Veterans’ Administration retired pay benefits have to do with Social Security disability compensation? Absolutely nothing! Except for the fact it reveals the judges thinking. Into her not letting Fisher get off that easy. And as many Judges do, will use the authority of the court to punish a veteran.
As I have just illustrated with the Judge Steinbeck ruling, I have seen many references, that state courts, indicate and refer quite readily, as you will see, when justifying an alimony award in going after a veterans' Social Security compensation, to Title 42 USC 659. As I read it, 659 is not a law used in a court proceeding determining the rightfulness of an alimony award. 659 is purely administrative, only to be used after a withholding judgment has been made. An administrative follow-up process upon the direction, and pursuant to State or local law, then administered by the Secretary of the Treasury according to 42 USC 659. As I mentioned, Judges will try any trick in the book. And this is a classic. Please read the law and see for yourself.
Here is the reference that started my thinking on the subject. From a Nigel Crum, Friend of the Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, State of Michigan. To Gordon Sutton. "You state, correctly that USCS 407 is clear in stating that these benefits cannot be garnished. However there is an exception. 42 USCS 659, which you cited in your letter, is the exception. That law consents to income withholding from SSD for the purposes of child support or alimony." Yes, 659 is the consent, upon written effective notice, to the Secretary of the Treasury, to withholding as determined only through a court of law! 659 is not the justification by legal counsel, the courts, or the Secretary of the Treasury, the consent to, or seize withholding without the proper legal arguments in the taking of a veteran’s compensation. 659 is not the legal principle of law over titles 38 USC 5301, 42 USC 407 arguments as to what is truly the law in the unfolding court room legal process. Only then, and only after the legal withholding of moneys has been determined, and upon effective written notice, administrative consent (42 USC 659) is given by the United States to the Secretary of the Treasury to process withholding.
Consent of 659 is not given to any judge. The consent role of 659 law is given to the Secretary of the Treasury. To enforcement of court proceedings. "(b) Consent to support enforcement. With respect to notice to withhold income pursuant to.. or any other order or process to enforce support obligations.. (2) Response to notice or process. If an agent.. receives notice pursuant to State procedures in effect... or is effectively served with any order, process or interrogatory, with respect to an individual's child support or alimony payment obligations, the agent shall..." And this all is explained in “(5) Legal process. The term ‘legal process’ means any writ, order, summons, or other similar process in the nature of garnishment (a) which is issued by
(i) a court or an administrative agency of competent jurisdiction in any State, territory, or possession of the United States;
(iii) an authorized official pursuant to an order of such a court or an administrative agency of competent jurisdiction or pursuant to State or local law; and
(B) which is directed to, and the purpose of which is to compel, a governmental entity which holds moneys which are otherwise payable to an individual to make payment from the moneys to another party in order to satisfy a legal obligation of the individual to provide child support or make alimony payments.”
Part (B) explains it all. Contrary to Mr. Nigel’s statement, there is no exception to 407 or 5301. 596 is a yet to be determined law that may be required in the fulfillment of a court determination that withholding is accepted.
Another example, of possibly hundreds more, in the complete misuse and mis-interpretation of 42 USC 659. See for yourself, reading 659. Here, in what follows, the court has used 42 USC 659, a Secretary of the Treasury administrative garnishment provision in repealing the LHWCA Workers Compensation Act. 659 being administrative only, but in Moyle v. OWPC, the courts had used it to repeal the LHWCA. Argued and Submitted June 2, 1998--Seattle, Washington.
Let me illustrate my point, in another way, how the court is using the wrong law in court proceedings when awarding alimony (Fisher). Let's say you were the Secretary of the Treasury, or his agent, involved in enforcing withholding matters. A judge phones, or writes you a note explaining although he had not yet finalized a ruling in an alimony award, he requests that you immediately start withholding of Social Security disability compensation, citing that his final ruling will be based on 659.
The question then being, before the finalization of a court ordered withholding judgment, would you honor the request? Your answer should be, no, I can't. Because 42 USC 659 is not a cause of action, and can be only implemented after final court judgment, and provides, "... receiving notice to state procedures in effect...or is effectively served with any order, process, or interrogatory, with respect to an individuals child support or alimony payment obligations, the agent shall..."
This is exactly what did not happen in Fisher, where the judge, arbitrarily applied an administrative law in her ruling. Here, Judge Steinbeck, finds, orders, and adjudges 659 in justifying withholding in an award of alimony. A law that comes into play, not during or before judgment ruling, but is presented, and processed only after a formal finalized court ordered writ, or similar process is presented to the Secretary of the Treasury.
William H. Heino Sr.
I haven't evaulated the legal arguments presented here, but if accurate, then this is a tragic case of an activist judge using her position to punish a veteran outside the authority granted to her by law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
FireFox Install Reference
