allan

fwd Controversy Builds About the Prevalence of PTSD in Vietnam Veterans Plus My Comments Article sent to me by our Veterans Advocate Paul Sutton. _http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/PTSDContinues.htm_'>http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/PTSDContinues.htm_ (http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/PTSDContinues.htm) My meeting with Congressman Filner will be on September 28 in DC. Kelley Controversy Builds About the Prevalence of PTSD in Vietnam Veterans Below is an article sent to me by our Veterans Advocate Paul Sutton. As most of you know there is a raging battle since Vietnam of what constitutes Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), is it curable, or is it only treatable with minimizing some of the effects of PTSD, is it even recognizable in its infancy, is it a life long disorder, how long does it take to diagnose, how many visits, and what is the proper methodology; and on and on. In addition, there seems to be a battle between the medical doctors and the psychologist and psychiatry in general regarding this issue. I cannot stress enough the lack of taking into consideration the neuropsychological and neuropsychiatric effects of the herbicides used in Vietnam. That is the first rule of DSM-IV. Yet, it seems it has been totally ignored because of the Veterans cost and possible incrimination of the toxic chemicals themselves. NEUROLOGICAL AND NEUROPSYCHIATRIC EFFECTS Many times, I have posted findings of Ranch Hand found neuropsychological disorders, Army Chemical Corps findings of increased mental disorders, IARC findings of personality changes when exposed to the dioxin, TCDD, Dow Chemical statements made in 1965 of neuropsychological disorders associated, Harvard medical studies, EPA has reported mental faculties disorders which I would think could be found as PTSD symptoms or at least confused as part of the diagnosis. If one looks at the reports of mental disorders found significant, not diagnosed as PTSD but found as separate issues such as mood disorders, schizophrenia, anxiety, panic attacks, depression; Ranch Hand alone found statically significant excess in - psychological disorders of depression, somatization, and severity of psychological distress. Antisocial and paranoid scores were significantly higher along with psychotic delusion. I would also add in the chemical company workers themselves sent into clean up toxic spills, forest workers, rail road workers and the increase in suicides is also part of this complicated equation. Even the CDC noted: "In the 1988 Psychosocial Characteristics part of the Vietnam Experience Study (VES), <172> the CDC found that among Vietnam veterans, certain psychological problems were significantly more prevalent, including depression (4.5% vs. 2.3%; odds ratio = 2.0; 95% C.I. = 1.3 - 1.8) and generalized anxiety (4.9% vs. 3.2%; odds ratio = 2.0; 95% C.I. = 1.1 - 2.1). About 15% of Vietnam, veterans experienced combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder at some time during their military service. Depression and anxiety were not restricted to the group of veterans having posttraumatic stress disorder. " If you took three or four of these disorders as a sum rather than individual disorders in a report could you not diagnose as PTSD; or did you miss PTSD. I think the answer is obvious and very confusing as what part is trauma and what part is a neurotoxic chemical. So yes, it is no wonder doctors have a hard time defining what is PTSD in Vietnam Veterans. Moreover, certainly this why in some cases decades after the trauma our Vietnam Veterans are diagnosed with PTSD as the toxic chemical effects manifest. Nevertheless, assuming there were no toxic chemicals; can we put a time line on as VA has done in the past with the toxic chemical damages? The answer is no. Many Veterans turned to drugs, many to alcohol or both and some turned into working themselves to death to avoid the confrontations. As they get older, they can no longer work as they once did and finally they have to admit there is an issue and have been in their life since their return from war. They have to admit that in many cases, they were wrong and it was not the world and their family that was wrong in every case. Most of these men will not have made many friends since returning from Vietnam. They may have workers at work they have to get along with or in some cases not and they lose their job. They have a few acquaintances but that is about it; as a strong indicator. Now I did not make this up. This is a result of talking to two VA mental health doctors for at least 16 weeks twice a week that run a very good program on recovery. The one thing that really disturbed me was the one doctor said in 16 years no one from VA benefits had called him to discuss a case. How VA can deny any case without talking to the treating VA doctor is about out of my capability to rationalize. Obviously, they can and do more often than not. I think from my experience with these doctors the first thing is to get to the Veteran that there is a potential problem early on in his or her life and what to look for not only by the Veteran but family members as well - then certainly they will have better quality of life. He or she is then given the tools to recognize the symptoms and then seek treatment in both counseling as well as medication, if needed. In most cases the medication and counseling go hand and hand. The Vet feeling somewhat better because of intensive counseling then goes off the medication without the doctors consultation. The two steps forward are now taken four steps back. This disorder seems to require constant diligence of observation in 'actions as well as reactions' both physical as well as mental and the tools given the veteran to identify and change those outcomes. Below is the article and this continuing saga of PTSD. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Controversy Swirls Around PTSD in Vietnam Vets Military.com | Law & Health Week | August 31, 2007 Controversy Builds About the Prevalence of PTSD in Vietnam Veterans Newswise — Controversy continues to swirl concerning the findings of a landmark study that estimated the percentage of Vietnam veterans suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Traumatic stress experts have renewed a clash over the results of the 1988 National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study (NVVRS), which originally estimated that 30.9 percent of veterans endure the effects of PTSD during their lifetime, and that 15.2 percent still suffered from PTSD more then ten years after the war. The actual prevalence of PTSD in veterans is vigorously debated among the field’s leading researchers, with long-lasting public policy implications for veterans of all U.S. wars, including the current conflict in Iraq. New opinions by several parties involved are reported in the August issue of the Journal of Traumatic Stress, published by the International Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS). Bruce P. Dohrenwend, PhD, of Columbia University, et al. conducted a recent reanalysis of the NVVRS, which found an 18.7 percent prevalence rate of lifetime war-related PTSD and 9.2 percent of current PTSD at the time of the study. The authors say that the finding of lower rates is the result only of differences in the definition of the disorder and does not represent a significantly lower total number of soldiers impacted. The key finding of their study, according to Dohrenwend et al., was that the NVVRS confirms a “strong dose/response relationship between severity of exposure to war-zone stressors and PTSD.” The more soldiers are exposed to the horrors of war, the more likely they are to suffer from posttraumatic stress. Richard J. McNally, PhD, of Harvard University, argues that the original NVVRS and the more recent Dohrenwend reanalysis overestimated the prevalence of PTSD in veterans by using faulty criteria for diagnosing the disorder. According to McNally, 5.4 percent of Vietnam veterans showed clinically significant functional impairment at the time of the NVVRS study. “Eliminating cases who exhibit no functional impairment is an important way to address a chief concern of the NVVRS’s critics,” said McNally. “Not all emotional changes wrought by serving in a war zone are symptoms of disease or disorder.” A number of experts disagree with McNally’s interpretation of the data, including the original authors of the NVVRS study. William E. Schlenger, PhD, of Duke University Medical Center, et al., claim McNally misrepresents the findings of Dohrenwend et al.’s analysis. “[McNally’s] erroneous statements and misrepresentations seem clearly to be not random,” said Schlenger et al. “Instead, they appear to have been crafted to support a specific bias that has significant policy implications, i.e. that PTSD prevalence among Vietnam veterans is a minor problem, and the real problem is veterans faking combat exposure and PTSD symptoms to qualify for service-connected disability.” According to Dean Kilpatrick, PhD, of the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center Medical University, “In my view, the reexamination by Dohrenwend and colleagues is a major contribution to this public policy debate…It confirms that most veterans of the Vietnam War were resilient, but that an important subset continued to have PTSD over a decade after the war was over.” Despite disagreements on numbers and methods, the experts concur that the government has a responsibility to adequately treat veterans with PTSD. “Regardless of [frequency], the central issue is whether resources are sufficient to meet current demand,” said McNally. “The key question is, 'If a veteran seeks mental health care, will that be able to obtain prompt access to state-of-the-art, evidence-based [care]?’ If not, then we must increase resources." The International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies is an international multidisciplinary, professional membership organization that promotes advancement and exchange of knowledge about severe stress and trauma. Copyright 2007 Military.com. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com. From the August issue of the Journal of Traumatic Stress, published by the International Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS) via Military.com. Note the disagreement with these study results by the one of the original authors of the NVVRS study, William E. Schlenger.

Military-Veterans Phone List Military Ready Reference Of Telephone Numbers Telephone numbers contained in this list were obtained in February 2002 and their accuracy is not certain. Government, Military, Veterans, Commercial & Charitable Organizations http://www.war-veterans.org/Military.htm

Hello Free, Berta & the rest of you good folks. I've been spending time going through withdrawal symptoms from the controlled release(CR), oxycodone & oxycodone HCL for break through pain, I was recieving. Family was able convince this VA Dr(?) to fill atleast the pain prescrpitions the local Wenatchee Dr prescribed. Long acting Morphine that that VA carries. So much for quility of life with this crap. Brain never gets out of slumber stage. Pain level has increased, which causes me to take more percosets, which causes me to be more sedated feeling during awakened hrs. Makes me anxious & irritable that I can't function. I've also been researching VAMC med records, looking for diagnoses & treatment dates of hypertention, diabetes, MS, Chronic pain, & urinary problems. Most are claim issues, that have been pending for fourty yrs, that this new VAMC PCP has stated I no longer have, in my records or verbally. He didn't provide "any" reasoning, medical bases or comment to support his changing these diagnoses. Seems like he just went through the list of diagnoses i've been treated for & said I don't have them. Along with a statement", that I no longer "need" opoid medications. Verbally, he keeps tossing out, "thats what you get, for going outside the VA for medical opinions & pain management". He also repeated, "it is ilegal to recieve pain medications from two different Dr's at the same time" He implied, that it was illegal to supply copies of my medical records to the local Dr for treatment of health issues. He was trying to convince me & my family, that everything I've been doing is illegal & he wasn't going to treat me, because of it. The Spokane VAMC Drs have been retaliating against me, using medications, for some time now. Last yr, I complained several times over medications being witheld for a month sometimes. Maybe thats why I found an illegal entry in my medical records by this same Dr the other day. Theres an entry in my medical records, Jan 2007 by my last VAMC Dr, that states,"patient has no deffinate dx of MS". This same facility has had a copy of Dr Bash's deffinate diagnosis of MS in their records since 2005, an award of NSC/Pension for T&P muitiple sclerosis, since 1997, a diagnosis of "Probable" multiple sclerosis, since 1994. They have a C&P examination from their examiner that "service connects" everything i'm claiming since 1997, in their administration folder. they have Social security records that find me T&P for MS since 1993. They have records that show a diagnosis of: Traumatic Brain Injury by a VA neurologist in Seattle, Two traumatic spinal taps & treatment for a severe spinal tap headache Brain Hemorage in voc-rehab records. Ischemia/blood clot disorder. Toxicosis due to prescribing to many antidepressents at one time, (for three yrs) Mental health records show treatment for Multiple Sclerosis with dementia, MS with Moodswings, chronic depression, PTSD, anger outbreaks, anxiety/panic attacks. Voc-rehab records show, an approval for ILS benefits, (pain chronically effects daily living). Spinal records show a mass so large, the rediologists thought it was an aortic mass of somekind. I guess, cervical, thoracic & lumbar stenosis/spondylosis with spurs touching the spinal cord, doesnt impress this Dr. I no longer need pain medication, with the health records I have? I have a claim in for MS & that may turn out to be the original cause of the urinary problems, but as it stands, I have a 20% SC for urinary problems, due to an inservice testicular mass. And this new PCP refuses to treat me for it. I've requested a new Dr be assigned when this new VAMC opens in Wenatchee. More than likely, i'll have to make the 8 hr trip to Spokane instead, as additional punishment for complaining. My family was able to convince this new one to finally except the prescriptions for pain, but he still refused to order an update of my spinal mri & the guards. I have a new patient advocate helping me to start with. She's nice, but doesn't know if reporting patient abuse is her responcibility & doesn't know how to help if it is. I've gone through most of these pains meds over the last fourty yrs of chronic pain and what the VA ended up prescribing a few yrs ago, has worked the best. They prescribed 20mg of oxycodone(CR, one tab every 12 hrs, because i'm intolerant to methadone & morphine according to the VA's records. And oxycodone(HCL)5mg, three tabs, three times a day for breakthrough pain. According to current, VA/DOD clinical practice guidelines for the management of opoid therapy for chronic pain. Oxycodone controlled release(CR) is recomended for patients who experience intorlerable, unmanageable adverse effects to long acting Morphine and Methadone. If the guidelines recomend prescribing this, than does it mean the VA carries this medication? If the VA prescribes it due to intoleribility of the other meds I've tried, than why is this doctor so intent on making sure I don't get it through the private Dr's as well? My last VAMC Dr just said the VA doesn't carry it. He recomended I go see a private Dr to get the oxydodone CR. My records state this last spring, The VAMC would continue to supply the breakthrough meds this new PCP is raising hell about. Pure harrasment is all I can think of. Complely unprofessional, unethicle & illegal health care practice is what I see. Put in -place to take on the new vets coming home. Lord help them If I don't see him get the justice he so much deserves. Allan

August Disability Commission Overview http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/disabilityCommissionAugOverview.htm ://http://www.2ndbattalion94thartiller...ugOverview.htm ://http://www.2ndbattalion94thartiller...ugOverview.htm Disability Commission Report Plus Hi Folks, Just got back and I am just beat to death. Just thought I would give you a quick update on my take of the commission meeting. Janeen subbing for Glenda did an "outstanding job," which gave us 10 minutes in front of the commission. Not much time but I think we got their attention again. It is a shame our VSO’s have not been there at every meeting pounding this stuff in as they get more time than I do - as just a pinhead Veteran wanting to speak in open forum. Moreover, of course, they get paid not only to do this activity but also their expenses are paid. VVA has seen their first and last 20 bucks from me. If they are fighting for us then I see little evidence of any casualties other than the Veterans and widows themselves. Now in category how I think it went and I will try to respond in depth tomorrow with some sort of plan of action and further discussions. IOM Presentation: Needless to say, I went after the IOM but after their presentations was “somewhat” pleased at their new proposals for presumptive disorders. Moreover, I told them that it was on point but I included a disclaimer that this new transparency did not go far enough. I still want quantified defined requirement not just people taking votes. I cannot fight what someone thinks that does not have to justify nor quantify the hand raising or not. On not only "inclusive disorders" but also "exclusive disorders" which is probably against all the rules of medicine, maybe even law since that now takes away the treating physicians prerogative and conclusions by a higher legal authority in this nation that applies only to Veterans. Their intent was not to discuss what had gone on in the past, which I did not find that unusual since it looks like to me there has been various VA interdictions in the past and no one wanted to admit this fact. There were some new processes discussed and the term "at least as likely as not" was used which is the first time I have seen that from IOM. I think this is from my incessant pounding on them about them being our "judge and jury" and we as victims not knowing how we are being judged by them and what the real court requirements are for every one else including the court ruling on our issues as to application of protocol presumptive assumptions. I indicated, as Veterans we liked some of what they were presenting but more needed to be done and that I would mark up their presentations taking some of the subjectivity out remembering that I am a purist in failures also. I explained to them any subjectivity would be used by the circling buzzards at the VA denying claims trying to wait out the veteran’s deathbed. I will also send this suggested mark-up to some of the commissioners. I think it is a waste sending it to the commission itself via the VA liaison. In my conversations with Catherine Bodurow discussing “how can this be” – one of the IOM panel, a doctor, who introduced himself, whom I forget, started listening to my logical and rational dissertation on p-values, order of timeline, order of dioxin causation's found and then applied to Vietnam versus non-Vietnam Veterans and order of significance on any disorder i.e. LOGIC. She turned to him and said I told you he was smart or something similar. What that meant in context I am not sure??????? Maybe some prior conversations between themselves perhaps??? Or just do not talk to this guy??????? Whether that was a positive or negative statement I do not know. Maybe my involvement now is more negative than positive for you fellows????? Anyway, I did see some signs of at least an attempt to come clean on definitions and transparency but as I said more needs to be done. And I will post that with my suggested changes from a Veterans and widows stand point and not our VSO's stand point. Ironically, that is exactly what I had stated to the commission we needed was more transparency. Low and behold IOM did clearly address this in the hopes of more openness and transparency, which we must now use to defend ourselves against the number one enemy - the VA and our White Houses and even some members of congress with lobby money conflict of interests. One of the issues discussed was more Veteran involvement so I handed her my PN challenge and told the doctor to look at studies referenced in footnote 20 and 21 (i think it was) as he told me he had never seen them. Unfortunately, I had no copy with me other than the challenge itself. I indicated to him that these studies were the only honest totally blind studies with quality assurance built in done on Vietnam Veterans that did not have our government interference. I also discussed I needed more than five minutes of IOM time when they are giving the Ranch Hand an hour to present. If I am going to address the inequalities and flaws that were recently announced of which I tried to point out to IOM in 2003 - then we need at least 50% equal time given to our enemy to dispute findings. I now look forward to more interaction and the sharing of ideas with the IOM. The Commission Reports were good! The commission charts itself were good, although I will discuss this more in depth later on, as to what I perceive as a simple philosophy flaw that really is not in their charter and is none of their concern as to what is recommended or not recommended. It is either "fair and just" or it is not. Senator Akaka had a person there which I thought was a good sign but his office was the only one. Fred briefed her during the breaks and gave her some data to review. Oh, I did find out that all the stuff I post for you folks and your groups - I also send to the commissioners on the committee through the VA liaison office. None of it is getting to the commissioners!!!!!!!!! Even my written submittal for this presentation that they guaranteed me would be in the commissioner folders were conveniently not there. I now know the commissioners were interested, as one commissioner wanted me to speak "ad lib" on another subject, if they had time. Of course, I could not stay for Friday's session and he said he hoped I would come back and speak on that. Another commissioner wanted to me to come back next time with a proposal of what I, on behalf of Veterans, wanted the commission to do. Because of the cost and such and only getting five minutes - I doubt that will happen. Nevertheless, I will create a paper and send it directly to his home - not this damn VA liaison crap. Therefore, we have at least a month to get that done. Everyone there remembered me from two years ago. I do not know whether that is a plus or “very big minus for you folks!!!!” Ha Ha Not that I did not expect it but I have seen no (zero) discussion of BVA cases where some are approved, some remanded, or some disapproved for the exact same disorders. These are almost identical in challenge and information and probably from fellows that were in the same units and served at the same time with the only difference the case file number being different. That to me is not justice but more in tune to some sort of quota or budget control. No other legal system either real or quasi can get away with that sort of inequality. VA Comp and Pen As you know the IOM had slammed the VA comp and pen processes hard in their previous review. VA comp and pen was there to give their answer to the IOM review. What a waste of time! You have never seen so many words in an hour presentation that was so non-committal, so bureaucratic, and so White House directed philosophy - in your life. Everyone, including most commissioners, made very disparaging statements regarding this so called comments on the illness of the VA system and how to correct it and get rid of this criminal VA backlog. I will get that out as soon as I can also and I would like you all to look at the BS. The bottom line folks – is congress cannot light a roman candle under the White House directed VA’s ass then all this is a waste of time even if we do get IOM presumptive disorders fixed – but we have to try. I would suggest if they cannot get it done then your congressperson and your senators must be held accountable and that simply means they have to go. Some good news as a side note – On the way up I got a call from a VA neurologist wanting some info on my research on PN. My left ear was already plugged from the mountains from a gun shot damaged tube and I do not hear so well out of my right ear. In addition, it is hard for me to hold the little phone. Therefore, Janeen asked if he could call me back after I got home or next week. He said OK – about half hour later, he called again and wanted to talk on Wed but I was presenting on Wed and did not know when so I said call on Thursday. He did as he said he would and we talked for probably an hour and half. He is also convinced that this "unusual PN nerve damage" is associated to herbicides. I warned him about going against the Avenging VA and he said facts are facts; so maybe we have an allies. I also presented to him that this PN damages is a result of CN damage with immune system involvement at the Dendrite Cell levels and he said that is very very possible even though subclinical. Anyway, he is going to pass to me his data and test results; and he wanted the studies I had found and values of association and all that. He was also shocked that I also was diagnosed with the exact same nerve disorder that he found by biopsy. I guess this will happen as long as our truthful (cough) government does not interfere. Nevertheless, do not hold your breath on that thought. Congressman Filners Office and Congressman Buyer's Office This is for Congressman Filner's and Congressman Buyer's Office (Sharon Schultze) (Jeff Phillips) as apparently some Veterans told Congressman Filner about this damn VA stalling techniques and such in delaying claims until the buzzard’s circle. I will post that as well as soon as I get time. Now BVA remanded my five year claim back to Veterans Appeals in DC > they write to me and tell me they want my social security records > while I was gone Glenda contacted the Social Security office and they said not only no; but hell no it was none of VA’s business. Now I have to find out exactly what VA wants and go to the local SS shop and after I find out what VA really wants see if they will supply that specific data. At least that was the SS office said and they said it is doubtful even the local SS shop is going to give me much of anything of value in any assessment for VA. Now mind you I sent a copy of my social security disability card to Atlanta VA years ago showing the dates of eligibility for Medicare A and B. Which by default sets my date of disability. You can picture the hamster (Veterans) about on his last leg running at every little challenge by VA with the wheel the hamster is in called the VA wheel – and then VA vultures floating overhead just waiting to say “Claim Terminated” > now the widow has to start all over - again the clock is reset > we win - we win – we win again says the VA and White House after White House. So I guess I have to work on that next week ALSO and find out just what in the hell they want and then find out if I can even get it for them > the wheel is perpetual and VA is never ending; just as individual buzzards come and go in a flock forever. More later.... Kelley

Hello Josephine, Thanks for letting me know. If you've heard nothing in 8 months, than it's sounds like another useless, piece of paperwork to me. Allan

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS No. 05-2783 Bill L. Clapper, Appellant, v. R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Before KASOLD, Judge. MEMORANDUM DECISION Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a), this action may not be cited as precedent. KASOLD, Judge: Veteran Bill L. Clapper appeals through counsel that part of a June 22, 2005, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) that denied service connection for multiple sclerosis (MS) due to herbicide exposure. Mr. Clapper argues that the Board (1) erred in requiring him to provide objective evidence of multiple sclerosis during the seven-year statutory period and in failing to apply the benefit of the doubt doctrine, (2) failed to provide him with a fair personal hearing because the hearing officer did not suggest that he obtain supplemental medical opinions, and (3) failed to provide adequate pre-adjudicatory notice. The Secretary contends that the Board's decision is plausible and supported by an adequate statement of reasons or bases. Single-judge disposition is appropriate. See Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23, 25- 26 (1990). For the reasons set forth below, that part of the Board's decision that is on appeal will be set aside and remanded. Mr. Clapper's argument that the Board erred in requiring him to produce objective evidence of MS arises out of the Board's discussion of two VA medical opinions requested by the Secretary as to whether Mr. Clapper exhibited symptoms of MS within seven years of leaving service, based on a review of his claims folder. The first opinion, dated December 2002, is described by the Board as noting a history of "some transient neurological symptoms in 1976, [but] there was no supporting documentation from any medical facility," and the conclusion that there was "no evidence to support a claim of symptoms prior to 1993." R. at 8-9; see also R. at 261. As to the second opinion, dated December 2003, the Board stated that the examiner "was requested to provide an opinion as to whether there was objective evidence of multiple sclerosis within seven years of" Mr. Clapper's leaving service. R. at 9. The Board stated the examiner's report noted a medical examination that Mr. Clapper had numbness and vertigo in March 1978 and that this may have been an early indication of symptoms of MS, but that, inter alia, this did not meet the "objective evidence criteria" and it was not likely that this symptom was the initial symptom of MS. R. at 9-10. The Board further stated that the examiner also noted that there "was no further neurological progression that occurred over the next 5 to 10 years after the veteran's March 1978 complaints." Id. The December 2002 VA medical examiner's conclusion that there was "no evidence to support a claim of symptoms prior to 1993" appears to be based on a rejection of the history of transient neurological symptoms contained in the claims on the basis that there were no medical reports in the file corroborating that history. R. at 9. Similarly, the December 2003 medical examiner appears to have rejected the March 1978 report of numbness and vertigo as the initial symptoms of MS, at least in part, because it did not meet the "objective evidence criteria." R. at 10. Thus, it appears that both doctors rendered their opinions based on the medical reports in the claims file and that other reports of symptoms were either not considered or were rejected because they were not corroborated in the medical records. This impression is fostered by the fact that there is other evidence of neurological problems prior to, as well as subsequent to, the March 1978 medical report of numbness and vertigo noted by the December 2003 examiner, to wit: lay testimony concerning Mr. Clapper's symptoms of blurry eyes in 1974, loss of equilibrium in 1977, a dragging right leg in 1979, and a numb right arm in 1984, (R. at 131), and a September 1978 medical notation stating that Mr. Clapper's "arms go to sleep." R. at 56 . Additionally, although the December 2003 examiner noted the March 1978 medical report of numbness and vertigo as the initial symptom possibly related to MS, there is a January 2000 VA outpatient report that notes Mr. Clapper's history of "blurred/double night vision" in 1976 and "difficulty with his equilibrium while walking across a barn catwalk" in 1978, which were identified in that report as the "[f]irst symptoms" of MS. R. at 196. Inasmuch as lay persons are competent to testify to symptoms they can observe or feel and such testimony cannot be rejected solely because it is not corroborated by contemporaneous medical records, see Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that the "Board cannot determine lay evidence lacks credibility merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence"), and given the apparent rejection or nonconsideration by the VA medical examiners of such reports contained in the claims file, the Board should have sought clarification from the medical examiners as to what consideration, if any, they gave to these reports, or otherwise discussed this issue. See Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 1, 12 (2001) (finding that pursuant to 38 C.F.R. 19.9(a), upon assessing medical reports, "f further evidence [ or] clarification of the evidence . . . is essential for a proper appellate decision," the Board should remand the case); see also Owens v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 429, 433 (1995) (stating that it is the responsibility of the Board to assess the weight and credibility to be given to evidence); Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 527 (1995) (holding that the Board's statement of reasons or bases "must be adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision, as well as to facilitate review in this Court"). This is particularly so where, as here, the Board assigned great weight to these VA opinions and, with regard to the December 2003 opinion, relied on the fact that the examiner " emphasized that there was no further neurological progression that occurred in the 5 to 10 years after the veteran's March 1978 complaints." R. at 11. Accordingly, remand is appropriate. See Tucker v. West, 11 Vet. App. 369, 374 (1998) ("[W]here the Board has incorrectly applied the law, failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its determinations, or where the record is otherwise inadequate, a remand is the appropriate remedy."). Mr. Clapper's argument that he did not receive a procedurally fair hearing is mooted. See Dunn v. West, 11 Vet.App. 462, 467 (1998) (remand of appellant's claim under one theory can moot other theories advanced on appeal). His notice argument may be addressed on remand. See Best v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 18, 20 (2001) ("A narrow decision preserves for the appellant an opportunity to argue those claimed errors before the Board at the readjudication, and, of course, before this Court in an appeal, should the Board rule against him."). On remand, he may present any additional evidence and argument in support of the matters remanded, and the Board must consider any evidence and argument so presented. See Kay v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 529, 534 (2002). This matter is to be provided expeditious treatment on remand. See 38 U.S.C. 7112. That part of the June 22, 2005, decision of the Board that is on appeal is SET ASIDE and REMANDED for further adjudication. DATED: March 21, 2007 Michael P. Horan, Esq. VA General Counsel (027) Source: http://search.vetapp.gov/isysquery/576ed86...691ef089/7/doc/

Hello Tank, I will be on appeal for a decade at the BVA this October I think. >If the file is not completed in that time frame that a red flag is placed on it and it must be worked immediately. Yes, I've had several. I would rather have due process. Heres something I went through last week that is odd. When I called the Appeals center, the operator said my claim has sat too long without someone working it, & that I needed to send in a signed letter to them, telling the appeals center to process it. I can't tell you how upset I was, when I heard this. I had to have my wife call them back & see if this guy was flipping me crap like i've gotten before from VA operators. But he told her the same thing. They should recieve the request tomarrow. I will post if anything happens from it. Claim has been at the Appeals center for 13 months this time around, collecting dust with absolutly, "no" action taken on it. In a "ready to wait status. When they have to work them fast, it takes hardly no time at all to deny it.

Hello John, >How did they find out about the other pain management doctor? My PCP at the Spokane clinic, said the VA doesn't carry oxycontin long acting, but he said I could get it through a local Dr. He said the VA would continue to send the breakthrough meds If thats what I didcided to do. Thats what it says in the records . The day my local Dr wrote the script, I faxed a letter to the PCP in Spokane, months before I changed to this new one, informing him of the oxycontin prescription. I also provided the Name , address, PH & fax # of the local Dr & I faxed the local Dr the name ,address, fax# of the Spokane PCP, so they could comunicate if needed. The VA & the local Dr were in sink & I recieved medications from both with no problems, untill the new PCP in Wenatchee used it to harrass me. Probably because I've been complaining to Spokane VAMC about scripts not being ordered on time by the PCP's. oxycontin Is a better medicine for pain, with far less side effects. Like I said, if it's out of line, I try to get it changed for everyone, not just me. Allan [

Hello Berta, >You would want that to go directly to Deputy Secretary Gordon Mansfield and send a copy to the General Counsel-VA- Will contact you via email & discuss it. My complaints have been over fraudulent statements in my records, prescribing three antidepressants at a time to cause a toxic state, constant errors from PCP's over medication orders, improper procedures, ethics, refusing to recognize toxic exposures of military personel or providing treatment for the illnesses veterans have from it. I complained to help set up a clinic in Seattle & Spokane to treat Vietnam Era & Desert Storm Vets with toxic exposures & the facilities records dept practice of taking three months to send medical records to patients. I've filed alot of complaints & I doubt I'll be able to control the flood of reasons shoved in my face to stop, before I leave the problems of this world behind. I promised my family I wouldn't raise hell again this time too. But this guys preoccupation with his agenda, altered my agenda. They walk away whenever I try to talk to them about VA politics or the evil within. It's, "the geezers lost it again", when I start to talk. Guess I'm the kind of vet thats better left at home like this vet. Because sister, I ain't given up this country without a fight. I don't go looking for them & I don't like being dragged into one like Vietnam. So someone better shoot me in the head & get it over with. I'm to old to change what I believe in or adapt to sticking my head in the sand until my behind ends up missing.... Do I hate going to VA for health care? YES!!!!! Do I think Va is only out to get me before the visit. Yes!!!! I've had way to many clinic visits like this Dr's, & raised the roof with my protest every time, to not expect "THE treatment". When I get someone that doesn't treat me that way, I try to be respectful. >But I am confused however by the IMO and what it would even have to do with this doctor. Good question. The only thing I can figure is Berta, He's following advice from his pimp. I asked him why he made the comment in the records, that I don't have incontinence. He said if you didn't have it during our visit, you don't have it. I said, so you mean if I don't mess my drawers right in front of you, your not going to prescribe the guards? He said you got that right & asked, what do I have that causes the incontinence. I said MS for one. Then he started in with, that DR never examined you. He made his opinion clear, "you can't get an IMO unless the VA gives you one & it means nothing without an examination. He said, on two separate visits "Thats what happens when you go outside the VA for medical opinions & pain treatment, when he was declining to fill prescriptions". Said it the same way whenever he declined to fill a prescription. Pain meds, guards or the local Dr's script for an updated spinal MRI, he said no to all of them & kept repeating this same rehersed phrase. He had a pre-conceived opinion of treating me for MS/chronic pain, Dr Bashes IMO & about me paying for it, on the first visit in June. The Spokane VAMC must have put a bug in his ear, since he just moved here from Ohio & I only saw him for a few minutes with the news crew there. When I asked the Spokane clinic to put the IMO in their records back in 2005, the Dr I had then said, I doubt it will mean anything. He said we don't have to recognize it. Since the RO's, the BVA, the Appeals center, VA health care PCP's at the Spokane VAMC & now Wenatchee VAMC, have repeatedly made it clear they don't have to and their not going to. This guy passed down what he was instructed to do & make it hurt $$$, by dropping my meds altogether. That's what I saw through all of it & my family didn't. My family loves me, yes. And I love them, but they see the smile. I see the eyes & listen for the VA politics during the health care visit. If it's all political with a, could care less about my health, mental or emotional state, diagnoses, symptoms, well being or if I'm bleeding to death in front of him attitude, then that tends to push this nerve I have thats missing a stop button to my brain. The family could support me more, by taking off the blinders and standing with me to put a stop to this once & for all. Instead, they say"well, he seems like a nice guy & they all want to help you & you don't know who Dr bash is, he could be anyone just taking your money, You need this health care, your getting worse. They say I should trust these people. And the Dr wanted me to trust him to do a prostate exam. I let them know, neither was going to happen. They are wonderful mothers, but know nothing about evil intent by some that are being planted. "You don't have to be a crazy, angry, depressed vet who's family & society fails to understand. But it sure seems to go with the territory" Political? You tell me. My eyes are feeble & so is my mind. I see mostly corruptness, needless death & suffering, Lies. I refuse to be silent about it or permit it. Has it put a wedge between me & my family over it. Oh yes, Big time. It will pass in time, lord willing. I'll keep the trust I have in Dr Bash's IMO's & it doesn't matter what anyone says. >In the OGTT test, a person's blood glucose level is measured after a fast and two hours after drinking a glucose-rich beverage. If the two-hour blood glucose level is between 140 and 199 mg/dl, the person tested has pre-diabetes. If the two-hour blood glucose level is at 200 mg/dl or higher, the person tested has diabetes" My blood glucose has a high marker on it sometimes. I've complained for yrs how my blood sugar will drop like a rock sometimes in a minute & i'll almost pass out. It's never mattered to anyone. The VA has never given the OGTT test. Only occasional blood glucose. Once, maybe twice a yr after 14 hrs of fasting & a three hr ride. Don't think they even tested it some yrs. Hyperlipidemia, Hypercolesteralemia, visual disturbances, skin problems/ fungal related disorders , HBP, CNS involvement, mood swings/ depression, hypothyroidism, swollen/painfull calves & feet, seizures, headaches. The list is so long, it overwhelms me and anyone I talk to for health care. Thank you for your kindness and guidance Berta. The truth is, we need more Dr Bash's across this country to resolve conflicting health issues for Veterans, not pay thugs to harrass vets into complying with the kingdoms demands. Im standing my ground on these issues, even if I need to stand alone. Allan

Stretch, >I was very curious about what was going on with you. A few days before all of this took place, I had divorce papers filled out & ready to sign. So things arn't doing that good. My bodys been having trouble adjusting from oxycontin, back to morphine. The wife has put more distance between us over screwing up two weeks of trying to get me set up in this new clinic. Both daughters are completely discusted with me. I'm staying to myself & taking it one day at a time.

Hello folks, Thanks for all the replies. >Allan- do you mean he is knocking an MS opinion and diagnosis from my honey? Dr. Bash-? I have something that can put this guy's underwear in a knot- I'll follow your advice Berta & send it in. However, I don't see this Dr giving any more weight to it, than he did Dr Bash's diagnoses. Spokane Dr have repeated stated they don't have to reconize any dr's opinion outside of the VA system & it's not likely to change. Their attitude is, they do what they want. My PCP is at the new clinic in Wenatchee, WA He is the only Dr there for now, but that is supposed to change this fall. This Dr demanded copies of the local Dr’s notes, justifying the prescription for long lasting Oxycontin. That took several days to be done. Than, when we stopped by the clinic after providing what he “demanded”, the clinic staff said the Dr added that we had to produce all the prescription records including costs, from all the private pharmacies we have gotten the medications filled at, over the last 90 days. We were lucky it was only two, but it took several more days to produce these records. The Dr said to make another appointment, when we delivered all of this private information at the clinic. After spending all this time & stress, at this appointment, the Dr said he was not going to prescribe any pain medication & that it is not even legal to get treatment for pain from two different doctors at the same time. The VA Dr said we would have to make the private Dr my primary care provider for pain management or pay for pain management treatment from a “pain clinic”. We set up an appointment with the local Dr & explained how expensive it was for us to continue paying out of pocket for the monthly appointment, plus the full cost of the pain prescription. Around $300 a month, on a $1200 a month total income. I said VA should be paying for all of this & asked him to prescribe a different pain medication, because the VA Dr said long acting Oxycontin was banned across the country at VA facilities. I stated, the VA is still my primary care provider & responsible for my pain management & that, I had not released the VA from this responsibility & that all the health issues in my records he claims I no longer have, are pending claim issues before the BVA. I was not aware I had previous diagnoses for diabetes. The VA has not treated me for it if I do. He later told to my daughter,(who is still furious at me for loosing control) that he moved to Wenatchee to make a change for Veterans. I totally lost control & than left the building before those nice security folks showed up & offered to say good by to me.......off the property................again. My daughter came out to the car about 15 min later. Shaking & screaming at me, she said; “don’t say a word! Just sign this *%^$*&^)thing. Betty & my daughter, both broke down over this later. It took a few days to get them to talk to me. Both are very angry with me for not being silent, while this guys acts like the new show in town. I am not going to stand by and be silent, or let another vet to be harassed. Everyone in that little clinic, (with no one else ever in the waiting room, waiting for an appointment when I show up), heard what was said. After listening to this crap & pleading with him, he was generous enough to tell her he would consider filling the prescriptions next month, since we have already paid for them this month. After getting my family to dance to his tune for a few weeks & beg for my care, he is going to consider prescribing something next month. That certainly is his choice. News story? It already has been. This Dr asked me to be in a news article on my first appointment with him, when the clinic opened back on 13 June 2007. He had the media with cameras ready in the waiting room when I showed up for the appointment. The Dr did not want me talking to the reporter. He said we needed to focus on health care, & the family was already giving me the hand signal for cut it out, so I let it drop. Although, I think the look on the Betty’s face could have meant something else. The reporter said they been there for some time & I was the third vet through the first day of the new clinic. The reporter said he was hoping to take a photo inside the clinic with a Veteran, but the others had declined. I was front page in the Wenatchee World news, on 14 June 2007. I sure would like to send a hard enough message to VA health care staff in Washington state, to put a stop to harrasing vets that get IMO's from Dr Bash. In order to do that, It will take something to make an impression strong to stop a common practice by VA staff. Allan PS…. I tried to get an appointment at mental health in Spokane. Mental health said I could call & make an appointment anytime when they saw me for MS, brain injury & PTSD a couple yrs ago. However, when I called Friday, they said I would have to pay my own way to Spokane as a walk in or see Dr Ray again & ask him to refer me. Told them I need something to keep me calm down enough before I could see the clinic Dr again. I have been getting sleep every two or three days. Allan- do you mean he is knocking an MS opinion and diagnosis from my honey? Dr. Bash-? If so email me -do you still have my email addy? I have something that can put this guy's underwear in a knot- and I agree that contacting the OIG is in order too- http://www.va.gov/oig/contacts/hotline.asp I have an idea that might work without calling the IG- but then again- you might want to anyhow. I will open my PM doo dad for you-

Hello Pete, I havn't slept much since I completely lost control at the clinic appointment. Im not sure what I should do. Betty & the girls want me to let it slide and beg this guy for help. Im way to angry for that. If I let it go, every vet in north central Washington will be stuck with this jerk. He didn't even act like a Doctor. He acted more like a Nicholson bean counter. It was easy to see, that he was already used to treating others this way. What is the OIG?

Why IMO "is" being rejected? I had a new PCP assigned recently. According to my records, a pain level of "1" was entered without asking me what level I was experiencing. "No pain" was also entered, and the Dr stated, "sustained action opoid medication no longer needed". He said I would have to get "all" my pain meds from the local Dr from now on & pay for it myself. He commented verbally, that's what happens when you go "outside" the VA for medical opinions & pain medication. He than accused me of trying to double up on two completely different pain prescrptions, in the same month, by going through two different Dr's at the same time. He accused me of not notifying the VA I was receiving a VA banned medication,(oxycontin/long lasting_20mg), and failing to sign a, "release of information" form for my private Dr to get copies of my records & prescriptions. When I told him I keep an up to date hard copy of all my VA med records & faxed what was requested to the private Dr. His reply was, "vets can alter records to say anything". (Does that sound familiar?) According to him, only VA can send VA medical records to my private Dr. He states, "thats the only way VA can be sure the records the Dr receives are authentic". Medical records by this new PCP also state, "patient does not have hypertension or diabetes as previously diagnosed." No medical bases or explanation was given. The Dr also stated, "patient has no voiding problems and no bowel problems." Than he declined to fill a prescription for guards and said, "the Dr that diagnosed me with MS didn't even examine me." My voiding problems are currently rated 20%SC for residuals of an inservice testicular mass, epididimitis/orchitis/orchalgia. This has been in effect for over 10 yrs. He states,"occasional nausea" & refilled the 24X7 prescriptions for meclizine & ducosate. He also asked if I paid for the IMO, or did the VA. He didn't like it when I said I did. Betty fought with them for over a week trying to get them to pay for it, but finally gave up & paid for the slow release & the breakthrough pain med herself. When I left the clinic, I knew I wasn't going back untill I get some medication that will keep me out of jail. I called mental health at the VA, they said I couldn't get an appointment until I speak with my PCP for a referal. So I ended up calling the patient advocate & requested a change of Dr's form. These boneheads have been treating me for MS & chronic pain, since 94' & I've had a solid diagnoses since 2005. Not sure what their trying to pull, but I bet none of it is legal. Pure harrassment. Thanks for alowing me to post this update. Allan PS....has the VA stopped treating vets diagnosed with multiple sclerosis by an IMO?

I know vets that have been in similar situations for real & have fought the VA for yrs to get their claims recognized. It's no wonder we're stuck with mental health care like Seattle's.

fwd from colonel dan PRESS RELEASE- IMMEDIATE RELEASE VA OWES A DUTY TO VETERAN’S FAMILY Army veteran Arvid Brown, while serving in Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, was bitten by "sand flies" and contracted the parasitic disease Leishmaniasis. Sand fly bites are the most common vector by which this infectious disease is transmitted to humans. Upon discharge from active duty, Mr. Brown of Flint was treated at Michigan VA hospitals for service related symptoms on over 50 visits. The VA never looked for Leishmaniasis as a cause of his symptoms, ignoring his service and medical history. Mr. Brown was finally diagnosed by a private physician in Michigan with Leishmaniasis in 1998. Mr. Brown’s wife was infected with Leishmaniasis because no one ever diagnosed Mr. Brown and told him of the infectious nature of this disease and its ability to be transmitted by sexual activity. Mrs. Brown gave birth to two children – both of whom were infected with Leishmaniasis in the womb. His wife and children sued the VA under the Federal Torts Claim Act in September 2004 because they were infected with Leishmaniasis. The Government sought to have the case dismissed claiming that the VA owed no duty to the Veteran’s family. The family claimed that VA doctors committed malpractice in not diagnosing Leishmaniasis and failing to warn the wife that the disease could be transmitted to her and the children. Judge John Corbett O’Meara of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, denied the Government’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings which claimed that the Government owed no duty to the family of a Veteran in an Order dated June 18, 2007. The Court, relying on Michigan law, concluded that VA doctors do owe family members a duty to warn of risk when patients present with symptoms of a disease that is well known to be contagious. A duty of reasonable care may arise on the part of the Government. The case against the VA will continue and the parties have agreed to try the issues of liability in the fall of 2007. Contact information: Thomas F. Campbell (313-410-0017 /mobile) Michael Viterna Fausone Bohn, LLP www.fb-firm.com Northville, Michigan (248) 380-0000 www.legalhelpforveterans.com. Dated: June 22, 2007 -END- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Viterna, Mike [mailto:mviterna@fb-firm.com] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:56 AM To: Colonel Dan Subject: Federal Tort Claim Colonel Dan, Thought this might be of some interest to you. This is a rather tragic case of a Gulf War veteran who contracted an infectious disease while deployed and later transmitted the disease to his wife who in turn transmitted it to their child in utero. The wife has since died. VA initially sought governmental immunity under the Feres Doctrine but, in an appeal by attorney Robert Walsh to the 6th Circuit, this was found to not be applicable in a claim against VA. Now a federal judge has denied the government's efforts to have the lawsuit terminated as a matter of law ruling that our case can proceed on the theory that VA doctors owe family members a duty to warn them of potential risks when the veteran has symptoms of an infectious disease. This should be tried late this year so will keep you posted. Thanks for your help on veteran's issues. Mike Michael R. Viterna Fausone Bohn, LLP Attorneys at Law 41820 West Six Mile Road, Suite 103 Northville, MI 48168 (248) 380-0000 (866) 606-8496 facsimile E-mail: mviterna@fb-firm.com Website: www.fb-firm.com **Please note my new email address and Firm website address. Please update your records accordingly.** This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and/or reply to the e-mail message. Thank you. <<Press Release 061907 Brown.pdf>> __._,_.___ "Keep on, Keepin' on" Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan" See my web site at: http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/ Change your email address when needed by signing in at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VeteranIssues/ Forward to other veterans, tell them to Sign up at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VeteranIssues/join

You can expect VA decider's to pick anything they want out of thin air and deny your claim with it. They will distort favorable comments from doctors opinions to the point it makes no since, then refer to it throughout the SOC. Anytime you have a complete, favorable claim backed by records & science, expect it to be processed by morons that will say anything in print to deny the claim, regardless of how many, "on a more probable than not basis" or "more likely than not" statements you submit. Try to put VA decider's in your mind, like doing business with a communist country . If your claim is a perfect claim throughout, expect it to get denied with nothing more than a simple lie by one of these jerks, so they can meet the quoata. Benefit of the doubt? Its tossed around like yesterdays salid, but "seldom" applied.

Berta, what are SPN codes?

Hello Steppenwolf, i've been down the same road. If you can afford it, Dr Bash will provide a complete and therough evaluation of your records. Thats something I couldn't get anyone else to do.

Copy of IOM presentation in early June to the Disability Commission Hi to all, Been working on my appeal some and down some so those that have been asking that is why nothing new. Below is a link I posted on the IOM presentation in early June to the Disability Commission. _http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/IOM.pdf_'>http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/IOM.pdf_ (http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/IOM.pdf) This pretty much confirms my initial report of the IOM slamming the VA and its internal processes hard. Now what does that mean to us in the fight? Probably not much since our own congress cannot get the VA to do what is right nor do they seemed to give a damn. I will leave it to you to review the recommendations and see how credible they are and if you think it will be anything but business as usual at the VA and its White House after White House puppet secretaries; lies, denials, and then more lies. It will be interesting to see what IOM presents at the July Disability Commission on presumptive disorders and how it applies to public law and the categories contained in the law by definition. Since they are our appointed judge and jury we shall see if it even comes close to what the law says and then what the “infamous Secretaries of Veterans Affairs” is supposed to do with the recommendation. I hope to get a few questions up with the concurrence of Paul and Mike on how this applies to the Commission before the date if I have time. I do not think the Commission has any idea of what questions to ask nor the history - no matter what is presented by IOM. Here is another prime example of government/VA/IOM propaganda. MSNBC in the link below states no cancers found in AO study. This was put out nationally by the Associated Press and everyone picked up on it. All of it on cancers nothing but government lie and congress lets it go on like nothing happened. _http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14721554/_'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14721554/_ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14721554/) As you recall a posting of other media reports, were the main DOD scientists for 14 years of the study said the study was totally flawed because of cohort assumptions and when recalculating the statistics the actual finding was a two-fold increase in cancers was found. Along with another, two term committee scientists indicating that is all cancer sites not just the few the VA and IOM has acknowledged. For your review, again I posted the real concerns and outcomes at: _http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/MediaReports.htm_'>http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/MediaReports.htm_ (http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/MediaReports.htm) I think you will find that the lead scientists for the DOD Ranch Hand Study admit the study is junk. I was going through the transcripts today for my appeal and found that statement in transcripts once again about the increase in cardiovascular issues of which they knew in 1991 there was a significant increase. That along with VA’s Dr. Kang’s new study pretty much concludes the same thing and still our congress does nothing to stop the VA lies not only in this medical disorder but others that were found by Dr. Kang as well as associated to herbicides and/or service in Vietnam such as Hepatitis. AP, MSNBC, and the national media can put out this White House/VA Bull out like it was fact. I will say it again - this sounds like Germany circa 1939, nothing but government propaganda. Best to all, Kelley

fwd from Colonel Dan US Atty Biskupic and VA Defied US Law to Convict Wisconsin Veteran News Release: Contact Michael Leon Marketing and Public Relations Consultant <http://malcontends.blogspot.com/> http://malcontends.blogspot.com/ <mailto:maleon@charter.net> maleon@charter.net <mailto:maleon64@yahoo.com> maleon64@yahoo.com (608) 270 9995 (home) (608) 658 4891 (cell) 6/24/2007 <http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2007/06/us-atty-biskupic-and-va-defied-us-l aw.html> US Atty Biskupic and VA Defied US Law to Convict Wisconsin Veteran <http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2007/06/us-atty-biskupic-and-va-defied-us-l aw.html> http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2007/06/us...va-defied-us-la w.html <http://bp1.blogger.com/_zciesOPE2zA/Rn7kVbawiII/AAAAAAAAAHQ/8Ju1Zmzz_Us/s16 00-h/Airman+Roberts+in+1970X.JPG> by Michael Leon Madison, Wisconsin-In this Karl Rove/Dick Cheney age of politics when the governmental machinery is so politicized that Richard Nixon seems a progressive reformist by comparison, it's not surprising to find the <http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View &c=LawArticle&cid=1176455062969&t=LawArticle> United States Department of Justice ravaging a Vietnam-era veteran diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). But many veterans charge the peculiar case of US v. Roberts is a disgraceful miscarriage of justice even by the contemporary swift-boating standards of the Bush administration. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) In June of 1999, Airman Keith Roberts (1968-71) was granted a disability rating by the <http://www.va.gov/> US Veterans Administration (VA) after a 12-year, excruciating benefits claim process to which the honorably discharged American veteran from the northern town of Gillett, Wisconsin was subjected. Roberts had been diagnosed with (PTSD) years after he witnessed a fellow airman killed in a gruesome C-54 aircraft crushing death of fellow Airman Gary Holland in 1969 while on "line duty" at a Naval Air Facility in Naples, Italy, and later in the same year was assaulted by the Navy Shore Patrol and forcefully hospitalized. Roberts believed that negligence caused Holland's death and that the Navy then covered it up, blaming the dead rookie Holland who could not defend himself. The Vietnam-era veteran had no idea while he was gathering evidence seeking an earlier retroactive date for his successful VA claim, per the advice of a <http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2007/05/va-document-contradicts-us-atty-in. html> Shawano (Wisconsin) Veteran's Service Officer, and jumping through hoop after hoop, that not only were his existing VA benefits in jeopardy but his very liberty was in danger. "The process of gathering evidence to prove PTSD disability is extremely time-consuming," said Sen. Barrack Obama (D-IL) on August 10, 2005 at a time when the VA was set to review 72,000 PTSD cases, but backed down under intense pressure from veterans and democrats. "It requires the compilation of medical records, military service records, and testimonies from other veterans who can attest to a person's combat exposure." In fact, the VA claims process is not just time-consuming, but can be so frustrating that many vets quit the process, or ( <http://ptsdcombat.blogspot.com/#about> especially those suffering from PTSD) are thrown into fits of rage directed at the VA itself. Anger is a euphemism for how Keith Roberts now feels about the VA. Since March of this year, Roberts has been serving a 48-month sentence (and his family financially shattered) for alleged wire fraud purportedly committed in his benefits application process with the VA in an outlandish VA-benefits-turned-criminal-charges case now before the <http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/> U.S. Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit (appellate brief due June 29) which Roberts vows to take to the US Supreme Court, if necessary. Among the main charges against Roberts are that he fabricated his role <http://www.uppitywis.org/new-evidence-in-jailed-vet-case-witness-contradict s-prosecution-> in trying to rescue Holland and lied about his <http://www.uppitywis.org/more-dismantlement-of-case-against-jailed-wisconsi n-veteran> friendship with Holland, both charges demonstrably untrue. Frustration with the 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 one Special Agent Raymond Vasil. Roberts accused the VA of "fraud" as the VA was in the process of determining the date from which his retroactive disability pay was to become effective. 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. Vasil (who has no professional law enforcement and VA benefit adjudication experience) disingenuously told Roberts 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 who was making waves at the VA amid his angry accusations. Throughout the VA investigation the Roberts family was subjected to a smirking, mocking demeanor by Vasil, the man whose investigation formed the basis of the later criminal indictment. Said one hostile veteran advocate, "A cop Vasil is not, just an idiot with a badge." VA Federal Law Veteran-advocacy groups deride the delivery of <http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070623/ap_on_he_me/coming_home_wounded_5;_ylt= AlJwh8U3PbUK9J46qM8rtAoE1vAI> health care and disability benefits to our veterans today as just another example of Bush administration incompetence in administering government services and entitlements to which it is ideologically hostile, a la FEMA and disaster relief. The VA, a large department of government growing under the <http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-06-23-wounded_N.htm> strain of war and non-existent administration planning for the consequences of war, is operating under the authority of specific federal statutes- <http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d741c52f7d5b47cff9 3ecd0ec686fc0a&amp;amp;amp;amp;rgn=div5&view=text&node=38:1.0.1.1.4&idno=38> 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. In fact, <http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d741c52f7d5b47cff9 3ecd0ec686fc0a&rgn=div5&view=text&node=38:1.0.1.1.4&idno=38#38:1.0.1.1.4.2.7 6.263> Title 38 (3.901 Fraud) also specifically defines "fraud" (what Roberts is accused of engaging in) 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 . " But Keith Roberts was never accused of committing VA fraud, per se. Roberts' voluminous C-file, or claims file, well documents Roberts "stressors" that led to his being granted disability benefits-rendering accusing Roberts of VA fraud out of the question, so the offended Special Agent Vasil swiftboated the veteran Roberts. "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 <http://www.visn12.med.va.gov/Milwaukee/> Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee who e-mailed the <http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/1822 7/podcast/MADISON-WI/WXXM-FM/Lee070607.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MADISON-WI&NG_ FORMAT=talk&SITE_ID=2104&STATION_ID=WXXM-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Madison> Lee Rayburn radio show in Madison after a broadcast of a show on Roberts. In other words, to an experienced and objective VA civil servant, Roberts' claim was an air-tight. But Roberts was to become a cautionary tale for Vietnam-era veterans who apply for PTSD disability benefits and carp about the slow and often hostile nature of the VA bureaucracy after Special Agent Vasil's investigation of Roberts in an as yet unknown manner came to the attention of the US Department of Justice and <http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/wie/> US Atty Stephen Biskupic (Eastern District of Wisconsin). Biskupic, not known for his <http://www.uppitywis.org/biskupics-target-in-georgia-thompson-case-jim-doyl e> prosecutorial discretion and hungry to augment his win/loss record, took over the case and secured criminal indictments against Roberts in 2005. Special Agent Raymond Vasil After Roberts contacted the VA Inspector General's office and spoke to Vasil, Vasil reportedly became upset with Roberts making the fraud accusations and seized Roberts' VA claims file from the VA regional office in Milwaukee, according to a document in Roberts' VA file dated Dec. 12, 2003. What appears to have transpired is that Roberts hounded the VA to distraction and when he accused the VA of outright fraud, Vasil retaliated against this Vietnam-era veteran for seeking retroactive PTSD-related disability benefits-occurrences by Vietnam-era veterans that are also politically unpopular with the <http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/20060206PTSD_pt3.html> American Enterprise Institute and the <http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/15/aei-bush-white-house/> Bush administration. It is in this context that Roberts was reportedly argumentative and insulting to the VA, accusing the VA of fraud. "[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," said the source at the <http://www.visn12.med.va.gov/Milwaukee/> Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee who e-mailed the <http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/1822 7/podcast/MADISON-WI/WXXM-FM/Lee070607.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MADISON-WI&NG_ FORMAT=talk&SITE_ID=2104&STATION_ID=WXXM-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Madison> Lee Rayburn radio show in Madison in early June about the Roberts affair. "I'd have to say that you guys are TOTALLY (uppercase in the original) right about Roberts' conviction being bullshit ..." 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. US Attorney Steven Biskupic As Roberts' appeal was being adjudicated in the VA, US Attorney Steven Biskupic stepped in and subsequently secured an indictment on mail fraud on April 26, 2005 under <http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/usc18/mailfr.htm> Title 18 United States Code 1341 (mail fraud). But the indictment on mail fraud involved no investigation from the <http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/fraud/welcome.htm> Postal Inspector's office, as is usual in mail fraud cases. "Biskupic really pissed in someone's pool when he indicted on mail fraud with no investigation from the Postal Inspector," said a source close to the Roberts' defense network. 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 <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/63/secti ons/section_1343.html> Title 18 USC 1343; this time with no input from the FBI or US Treasury Department, as is usual in wire fraud indictments. The only law enforcement agency used in the investigation was the 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 was run at the executive level by Secretary Jim Nicholson, a former Republican National Committee chairman with no veteran advocacy experience, in an administration taking its cues from the <http://www.dartcenter.org/articles/headlines/2004/2004_03_11a.html> veterans' benefits-hostile American Enterprise Institute scholar, Dr. Sally Satel. Title <http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d741c52f7d5b47cff9 3ecd0ec686fc0a&amp;amp;amp;amp;rgn=div5&view=text&node=38:1.0.1.1.4&idno=38# 38:1.0.1.1.4.2.76.267> 38 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 3.905 (a) Jurisdiction) 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. The Title <http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d741c52f7d5b47cff9 3ecd0ec686fc0a&rgn=div5&view=text&node=38:1.0.1.1.4&idno=38#38:1.0.1.1.4.2.7 6.267> 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." Robert Walsh, the 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 VA 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) <http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d741c52f7d5b47cff9 3ecd0ec686fc0a&rgn=div5&view=text&node=38:1.0.1.1.4&idno=38#38:1.0.1.1.4.2.7 6.267> 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 <http://www.vetapp.uscourts.gov/about/History.cfm> 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 Veteran Fraud, and indicted on mail fraud and then wire fraud. Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 3.905 (b) Fraud The VA is also required, by federal statute, 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. 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 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 which knew that Roberts could never be convicted of VA fraud, so they summarily denied his benefits, and then somehow communicated the case circumstances to US Atty Biskupic who charged Roberts with postal fraud and then with wire fraud using the denial of benefits (under appeal per federal statute) as evidence of criminal fraud. So before and after Special Agent Vasil was scheming to charge Roberts with fraudulently presenting his VA claim, and Roberts' liberty became endangered, the VA never notified Roberts through the Regional Counsel or otherwise that his forfeiture was asserted by the VA Inspector General to be based upon fraud. US 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. This would appear to raise serious due process considerations that may result in the overturning of Roberts' 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. Criminal Trial The criminal proceedings included the misrepresentation of the laws and regulations governing veterans' disability benefits claims procedures and the military service of Roberts to the jury. The defense claims that the government withheld hundreds of photographs and documents in their possession from the defense which would have proven that Mr. Roberts did not commit fraud. Roberts was forced to defend himself in federal court by proving that he was present at his duty station on the flight line in Naples, Italy on February 4, 1969 when Airman Gary Holland was killed while performing maintenance on a C-54 aircraft. The prosecution produced no witness who testified that Mr. Roberts was not present for duty on that day. The prosecution produced no witness or document which refuted that the aircraft hanger where Holland was killed was Roberts' duty station. Several witnesses testified that general quarters was sounded, as Roberts claimed. The prosecution produced no evidence that Roberts failed to respond to general quarters. In fact, Roberts received a " <http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2007/05/military-document-corroborates-jail ed.html> 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. The position of the VA and the US Atty Biskupic is that Mr. Roberts was not present, and therefore his VA disability claim is based on fraud. "Where were you on February 4, 1969? Can you prove it?" asks Delores Roberts, Roberts' wife. Questions for US Atty Biskupic It is clear that the VA violated its own statuary mandates, but questions remain for the US Atty's office that prosecuted Roberts. Did the Secretary of the Veteran's Administration give US Atty Biskupic authorization by delegation of authority to prosecute Keith Roberts before the exhaustion of his administrative remedies under Title 38 CFR? Did US Atty Biskupic know that the Board of Veteran's Appeals had determined in prior decisions that Roberts' statements could not be used, as a matter of law, to verify a stressor in order to grant service connection for PTSD? Did US Atty Biskupic know that the VA claim process is supposed to be non-adversarial? Where in Title 38 does it state that the DOJ can take jurisdiction away from the Veterans' Administration before the VA has completed its review of the veteran's benefits, including the review in the Court of Appeals for Veteran's Claims? With whom at the DoJ and the VA did Biskupic communicate before arriving at his decision to seek indictments? Roberts and his family await answers and justice. 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 Veterans Claims docket 05-2425 Legal questions and legal comments can be e-mailed to Robert Walsh at: rpwalsh@sbcglobal.net. ### Michael Leon Marketing and Public Relations Consultant http://malcontends.blogspot.com/ maleon@charter.net maleon64@yahoo.com (608) 270 9995 (home) (608) 658 4891 (cell)

fwd from Colonel Dan US Atty Biskupic and VA Defied US Law to Convict Wisconsin Veteran News Release: Contact Michael Leon Marketing and Public Relations Consultant <http://malcontends.blogspot.com/> http://malcontends.blogspot.com/ <mailto:maleon@charter.net> maleon@charter.net <mailto:maleon64@yahoo.com> maleon64@yahoo.com (608) 270 9995 (home) (608) 658 4891 (cell) 6/24/2007 <http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2007/06/us-atty-biskupic-and-va-defied-us-l aw.html> US Atty Biskupic and VA Defied US Law to Convict Wisconsin Veteran <http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2007/06/us-atty-biskupic-and-va-defied-us-l aw.html> http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2007/06/us...va-defied-us-la w.html <http://bp1.blogger.com/_zciesOPE2zA/Rn7kVbawiII/AAAAAAAAAHQ/8Ju1Zmzz_Us/s16 00-h/Airman+Roberts+in+1970X.JPG> by Michael Leon Madison, Wisconsin-In this Karl Rove/Dick Cheney age of politics when the governmental machinery is so politicized that Richard Nixon seems a progressive reformist by comparison, it's not surprising to find the <http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View &c=LawArticle&cid=1176455062969&t=LawArticle> United States Department of Justice ravaging a Vietnam-era veteran diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). But many veterans charge the peculiar case of US v. Roberts is a disgraceful miscarriage of justice even by the contemporary swift-boating standards of the Bush administration. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) In June of 1999, Airman Keith Roberts (1968-71) was granted a disability rating by the <http://www.va.gov/> US Veterans Administration (VA) after a 12-year, excruciating benefits claim process to which the honorably discharged American veteran from the northern town of Gillett, Wisconsin was subjected. Roberts had been diagnosed with (PTSD) years after he witnessed a fellow airman killed in a gruesome C-54 aircraft crushing death of fellow Airman Gary Holland in 1969 while on "line duty" at a Naval Air Facility in Naples, Italy, and later in the same year was assaulted by the Navy Shore Patrol and forcefully hospitalized. Roberts believed that negligence caused Holland's death and that the Navy then covered it up, blaming the dead rookie Holland who could not defend himself. The Vietnam-era veteran had no idea while he was gathering evidence seeking an earlier retroactive date for his successful VA claim, per the advice of a <http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2007/05/va-document-contradicts-us-atty-in. html> Shawano (Wisconsin) Veteran's Service Officer, and jumping through hoop after hoop, that not only were his existing VA benefits in jeopardy but his very liberty was in danger. "The process of gathering evidence to prove PTSD disability is extremely time-consuming," said Sen. Barrack Obama (D-IL) on August 10, 2005 at a time when the VA was set to review 72,000 PTSD cases, but backed down under intense pressure from veterans and democrats. "It requires the compilation of medical records, military service records, and testimonies from other veterans who can attest to a person's combat exposure." In fact, the VA claims process is not just time-consuming, but can be so frustrating that many vets quit the process, or ( <http://ptsdcombat.blogspot.com/#about> especially those suffering from PTSD) are thrown into fits of rage directed at the VA itself. Anger is a euphemism for how Keith Roberts now feels about the VA. Since March of this year, Roberts has been serving a 48-month sentence (and his family financially shattered) for alleged wire fraud purportedly committed in his benefits application process with the VA in an outlandish VA-benefits-turned-criminal-charges case now before the <http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/> U.S. Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit (appellate brief due June 29) which Roberts vows to take to the US Supreme Court, if necessary. Among the main charges against Roberts are that he fabricated his role <http://www.uppitywis.org/new-evidence-in-jailed-vet-case-witness-contradict s-prosecution-> in trying to rescue Holland and lied about his <http://www.uppitywis.org/more-dismantlement-of-case-against-jailed-wisconsi n-veteran> friendship with Holland, both charges demonstrably untrue. Frustration with the 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 one Special Agent Raymond Vasil. Roberts accused the VA of "fraud" as the VA was in the process of determining the date from which his retroactive disability pay was to become effective. 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. Vasil (who has no professional law enforcement and VA benefit adjudication experience) disingenuously told Roberts 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 who was making waves at the VA amid his angry accusations. Throughout the VA investigation the Roberts family was subjected to a smirking, mocking demeanor by Vasil, the man whose investigation formed the basis of the later criminal indictment. Said one hostile veteran advocate, "A cop Vasil is not, just an idiot with a badge." VA Federal Law Veteran-advocacy groups deride the delivery of <http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070623/ap_on_he_me/coming_home_wounded_5;_ylt= AlJwh8U3PbUK9J46qM8rtAoE1vAI> health care and disability benefits to our veterans today as just another example of Bush administration incompetence in administering government services and entitlements to which it is ideologically hostile, a la FEMA and disaster relief. The VA, a large department of government growing under the <http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-06-23-wounded_N.htm> strain of war and non-existent administration planning for the consequences of war, is operating under the authority of specific federal statutes- <http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d741c52f7d5b47cff9 3ecd0ec686fc0a&amp;amp;amp;amp;rgn=div5&view=text&node=38:1.0.1.1.4&idno=38> 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. In fact, <http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d741c52f7d5b47cff9 3ecd0ec686fc0a&rgn=div5&view=text&node=38:1.0.1.1.4&idno=38#38:1.0.1.1.4.2.7 6.263> Title 38 (3.901 Fraud) also specifically defines "fraud" (what Roberts is accused of engaging in) 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 . " But Keith Roberts was never accused of committing VA fraud, per se. Roberts' voluminous C-file, or claims file, well documents Roberts "stressors" that led to his being granted disability benefits-rendering accusing Roberts of VA fraud out of the question, so the offended Special Agent Vasil swiftboated the veteran Roberts. "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 <http://www.visn12.med.va.gov/Milwaukee/> Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee who e-mailed the <http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/1822 7/podcast/MADISON-WI/WXXM-FM/Lee070607.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MADISON-WI&NG_ FORMAT=talk&SITE_ID=2104&STATION_ID=WXXM-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Madison> Lee Rayburn radio show in Madison after a broadcast of a show on Roberts. In other words, to an experienced and objective VA civil servant, Roberts' claim was an air-tight. But Roberts was to become a cautionary tale for Vietnam-era veterans who apply for PTSD disability benefits and carp about the slow and often hostile nature of the VA bureaucracy after Special Agent Vasil's investigation of Roberts in an as yet unknown manner came to the attention of the US Department of Justice and <http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/wie/> US Atty Stephen Biskupic (Eastern District of Wisconsin). Biskupic, not known for his <http://www.uppitywis.org/biskupics-target-in-georgia-thompson-case-jim-doyl e> prosecutorial discretion and hungry to augment his win/loss record, took over the case and secured criminal indictments against Roberts in 2005. Special Agent Raymond Vasil After Roberts contacted the VA Inspector General's office and spoke to Vasil, Vasil reportedly became upset with Roberts making the fraud accusations and seized Roberts' VA claims file from the VA regional office in Milwaukee, according to a document in Roberts' VA file dated Dec. 12, 2003. What appears to have transpired is that Roberts hounded the VA to distraction and when he accused the VA of outright fraud, Vasil retaliated against this Vietnam-era veteran for seeking retroactive PTSD-related disability benefits-occurrences by Vietnam-era veterans that are also politically unpopular with the <http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/20060206PTSD_pt3.html> American Enterprise Institute and the <http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/15/aei-bush-white-house/> Bush administration. It is in this context that Roberts was reportedly argumentative and insulting to the VA, accusing the VA of fraud. "[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," said the source at the <http://www.visn12.med.va.gov/Milwaukee/> Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee who e-mailed the <http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/1822 7/podcast/MADISON-WI/WXXM-FM/Lee070607.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MADISON-WI&NG_ FORMAT=talk&SITE_ID=2104&STATION_ID=WXXM-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Madison> Lee Rayburn radio show in Madison in early June about the Roberts affair. "I'd have to say that you guys are TOTALLY (uppercase in the original) right about Roberts' conviction being bullshit ..." 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. US Attorney Steven Biskupic As Roberts' appeal was being adjudicated in the VA, US Attorney Steven Biskupic stepped in and subsequently secured an indictment on mail fraud on April 26, 2005 under <http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/usc18/mailfr.htm> Title 18 United States Code 1341 (mail fraud). But the indictment on mail fraud involved no investigation from the <http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/fraud/welcome.htm> Postal Inspector's office, as is usual in mail fraud cases. "Biskupic really pissed in someone's pool when he indicted on mail fraud with no investigation from the Postal Inspector," said a source close to the Roberts' defense network. 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 <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/63/secti ons/section_1343.html> Title 18 USC 1343; this time with no input from the FBI or US Treasury Department, as is usual in wire fraud indictments. The only law enforcement agency used in the investigation was the 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 was run at the executive level by Secretary Jim Nicholson, a former Republican National Committee chairman with no veteran advocacy experience, in an administration taking its cues from the <http://www.dartcenter.org/articles/headlines/2004/2004_03_11a.html> veterans' benefits-hostile American Enterprise Institute scholar, Dr. Sally Satel. Title <http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d741c52f7d5b47cff9 3ecd0ec686fc0a&amp;amp;amp;amp;rgn=div5&view=text&node=38:1.0.1.1.4&idno=38# 38:1.0.1.1.4.2.76.267> 38 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 3.905 (a) Jurisdiction) 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. The Title <http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d741c52f7d5b47cff9 3ecd0ec686fc0a&rgn=div5&view=text&node=38:1.0.1.1.4&idno=38#38:1.0.1.1.4.2.7 6.267> 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." Robert Walsh, the 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 VA 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) <http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d741c52f7d5b47cff9 3ecd0ec686fc0a&rgn=div5&view=text&node=38:1.0.1.1.4&idno=38#38:1.0.1.1.4.2.7 6.267> 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 <http://www.vetapp.uscourts.gov/about/History.cfm> 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 Veteran Fraud, and indicted on mail fraud and then wire fraud. Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 3.905 (b) Fraud The VA is also required, by federal statute, 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. 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 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 which knew that Roberts could never be convicted of VA fraud, so they summarily denied his benefits, and then somehow communicated the case circumstances to US Atty Biskupic who charged Roberts with postal fraud and then with wire fraud using the denial of benefits (under appeal per federal statute) as evidence of criminal fraud. So before and after Special Agent Vasil was scheming to charge Roberts with fraudulently presenting his VA claim, and Roberts' liberty became endangered, the VA never notified Roberts through the Regional Counsel or otherwise that his forfeiture was asserted by the VA Inspector General to be based upon fraud. US 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. This would appear to raise serious due process considerations that may result in the overturning of Roberts' 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. Criminal Trial The criminal proceedings included the misrepresentation of the laws and regulations governing veterans' disability benefits claims procedures and the military service of Roberts to the jury. The defense claims that the government withheld hundreds of photographs and documents in their possession from the defense which would have proven that Mr. Roberts did not commit fraud. Roberts was forced to defend himself in federal court by proving that he was present at his duty station on the flight line in Naples, Italy on February 4, 1969 when Airman Gary Holland was killed while performing maintenance on a C-54 aircraft. The prosecution produced no witness who testified that Mr. Roberts was not present for duty on that day. The prosecution produced no witness or document which refuted that the aircraft hanger where Holland was killed was Roberts' duty station. Several witnesses testified that general quarters was sounded, as Roberts claimed. The prosecution produced no evidence that Roberts failed to respond to general quarters. In fact, Roberts received a " <http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2007/05/military-document-corroborates-jail ed.html> 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. The position of the VA and the US Atty Biskupic is that Mr. Roberts was not present, and therefore his VA disability claim is based on fraud. "Where were you on February 4, 1969? Can you prove it?" asks Delores Roberts, Roberts' wife. Questions for US Atty Biskupic It is clear that the VA violated its own statuary mandates, but questions remain for the US Atty's office that prosecuted Roberts. Did the Secretary of the Veteran's Administration give US Atty Biskupic authorization by delegation of authority to prosecute Keith Roberts before the exhaustion of his administrative remedies under Title 38 CFR? Did US Atty Biskupic know that the Board of Veteran's Appeals had determined in prior decisions that Roberts' statements could not be used, as a matter of law, to verify a stressor in order to grant service connection for PTSD? Did US Atty Biskupic know that the VA claim process is supposed to be non-adversarial? Where in Title 38 does it state that the DOJ can take jurisdiction away from the Veterans' Administration before the VA has completed its review of the veteran's benefits, including the review in the Court of Appeals for Veteran's Claims? With whom at the DoJ and the VA did Biskupic communicate before arriving at his decision to seek indictments? Roberts and his family await answers and justice. 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 Veterans Claims docket 05-2425 Legal questions and legal comments can be e-mailed to Robert Walsh at: rpwalsh@sbcglobal.net. ### Michael Leon Marketing and Public Relations Consultant http://malcontends.blogspot.com/ maleon@charter.net maleon64@yahoo.com (608) 270 9995 (home) (608) 658 4891 (cell)

CHRONIC EFFECTS Excerpt:... of PB concomitantly withexposure to other chemicals, such as a low-level nerve agents, pesticides, orsolvents. (See Chapter Nine, “Interactions Between PB and Other Exposures.”)For ... Studies have evaluated effects of exposure to AChE inhibitors (predominantlyOP pesticides and nerve agents) on the EEG. Acute and chronic EEG alterationshave been reported in several ... http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports...18.2.chap14.pdf

Chapter Five: Nerve agents http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports...18.5.chap5.html

VA claims adjusters that continue to process claims according to law, shouldn't have anything to worry about or sweat over. Those who spend their day cheating disabled veterans, need to be in jail with the other con artists if you ask me. So some of you, need to worry alot. ERROR's? Get real. Try CRIMINAL activity to defraud disabled veterans. That has a different sound to it when you present evidence to, TODAYS jury, don't you think? Times, they are a changin!

>WE NEED FORM VETERAN ELECTION GROUPS FOR EVERY STATE Hello Jay, I generally vote the candidate. Whether they be Republican, Democrat or Independent. One qualification requires the candidate to actively work for the care of our troops & veterans. If they don't, whatever else they do doesn't matter. They won't receive my vote, nor would I support their campaign. If a vet can afford it, I say support as many vet groups as you can. But not if their intentions are to just collect membership fees. Maybe we can get a tax placed on corporate profits, say like haliburton or exon, to help pay for benefits? If we're going to supply their security while they profit billions, it seems fittin to me they pay a death & injury tax to support veterans benefits. 30% sounds good to me.