Craig's "choice Of Representation" For Veterans Bill Picks Up Support

[Guest allanopie]

NEWS FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS

CRAIG'S "CHOICE OF REPRESENTATION" FOR VETERANS BILL PICKS UP SUPPORT --

Legislation seeks to overturn 150 year-old prohibition on hiring lawyers

Craig's legislation seeks to change a policy prohibiting attorneys from

representing veterans -- a policy which began during the Civil War.

Image courtesy the U.S. Social Security Administration

June 8, 2006

Media contact: Jeff Schrade (202)224-9093

(Washington, DC) Legislation to allow veterans to hire an attorney as

they seek benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs picked up

strong support Thursday. The positive reaction came during a hearing of

the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

The legislation (S. 2694), sponsored by Chairman Larry Craig (R-Idaho),

seeks to overturn a policy begun during the Civil War.

Under current law, all 24 million living veterans are prohibited from

hiring legal counsel to help them navigate the Veterans Affairs system.

It is only after a veteran has spent months and even years exhausting

the extensive VA administrative process that the veteran then may retain

a lawyer - a process that often takes 3 or more years to complete.

"Particularly for veterans of today's All-Volunteer Force, the current

paternalistic Civil War-era law is completely outdated. These

highly-trained, highly skilled veterans have the ability - and should

have the right - to decide for themselves whether to hire a lawyer,"

Craig said.

The Idaho Republican noted that many veterans have written in support of

the bill, including one from New Jersey, a decorated disabled military

retiree who served in Vietnam. He wrote:

"Murderers, rapists and pedophiles can hire an attorney; why are

veterans treated as third, yes third class citizens?"

Among those who spoke out Thursday in favor of changing the law was

former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans

Claims, Donald Ivers, as well as Rick Weidman of the Vietnam Veterans of

America and Barton F. Stichman of the National Veterans Legal Services

Program.

"Freedom to seek counsel of one's choice has long been a hallmark of

this nation's system of justice. That those who have given much in

defense of that system are denied that freedom in pursuing claims

arising out of their service is, at best, highly contradictory," Judge

Ivers said.

Under current federal laws and court rulings, criminal defendants,

illegal aliens, and enemy combatants have the right to have legal

counsel. Veterans are the only group which does not enjoy that

privilege.

"It makes no rational sense to deny them this right," Stichman said.

That sentiment was shared by Rick Weidman, who spoke to the committee on

behalf of those in his organization.

"Vietnam Veterans of America strongly and unreservedly supports S.2694

by convention resolution," Weidman said. "We urge its endorsement by

this committee and passage by both houses of Congress."

In the House of Representatives, two bills similar to Sen. Craig's have

been introduced, one (H.R. 5549) by Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman of a

subcommittee of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and (H.R.

4914) Rep. Lane Evans, the top Democrat on that same committee.

Despite the strong support Craig's legislation has received, the

Department of Veterans Affairs voiced opposition to the bill during the

hearing. That drew a strong rebuke from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who

is co-sponsoring the bill with Sen. Craig.

Other co-sponsors of the bill include Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX),

who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee on the Military Construction

and Veterans Affairs, Jim Jeffords (I-VT), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

#####

See this story on-line at: http://veterans.senate.gov

<http://veterans.senate.gov/>

If you want to send Chairman Craig a message, click on: Contact the

Veterans' Affairs Committee

<http://veterans.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home>

[SLEDGE]

"an ex parte, non-adversarial system, with VA being obligated to provide all benefits allowable under the law."

Well, that's a joke.

The DAV should pull their heads out.

sledge

[Stretch]

Here is another angle. §§§§

The Genevase effect was discovered when 38 people each watched the murder of a young New Jersey woman being stabbed repeatedly to dead. Nobody did anything.

Experiments revealed that one person witnessing an event would assume responsibility and do something; that when more than one person was involved nothing was done. This was because there was shared responsibility.

Oh, I didn't do it, he did it or somebody else did it.

VARO

BVA

BAV

VHA

AME

CAVC

C&P

Primary Care

Urgent Care

Mental Health

MRI

Nexus

Current Diagnosis

Stressor

SMR

MOS

NEC

DOD

FOIA

VSO's

VSR's

NPRC (St. Louis-sombody smell smoke)

Identity Theft

What do these all have in common? They all share in the responsibility of a Single Veterans Claims. Probably left a few out. Lawyer is one of them.

This sounds like the Genvase Effect in reverse. All of these, with little screw-ups in the transitions, against or for, one Veteran.

[Guest fla_viking]

Dear Fellow Veterans & Friends.

In my brief i will complain to the court about the American Legion representig me without my knowleg or consultaton. This would be illegal in teh civ9ilan world. Unless us vets start raising hell about these standard pratices. we will continue to be 3rd class citizens.

Terry Higgins

[john999]

Sledge

That comment from the DAV was on the joke page of their magazine. No one could actually believe such a statement was made in a serious manner, ha, ha I get it, what a punch line. Non-adversarial...he,he, ha, ha boy that's a good one.

[rogus]

Strectch makes a very good point about watching and not doing anything. My hat is off to Terry and anyone else on this site who has the ambition to take the VA to court.

For some of us this is the only place we can vent our frustations to people that actually have "been there, done that", and that's fine.

However, if we as a group actually want to change things we have to take some kind of action - we can fight within the system - but we already know from experience that the system is broken (otherwise we wouldn't have anything to complain about).

What we really need to do is come up with a plan as a group to challenge the law that allows the VA to get away with this. I plan on contacting the ACLU later this month. If anyone has any other ideas please let me know.

Robert

[Guest fla_viking]

Dear Robert

You hit the nail on the head. I have been preaching for years the 1933 Economy act that took away our acess to the courts is is unconstitutional and violates our civil rights. Until veterans treat the lack of acess to courts the same way blacks treated jim crow and the voteing rights issue. We will continue to be 3 rd rate citizzens.

The VA hides behind the laws that keep effective review of its screwed up system. However 2 years ago when the ajudicators changed my direct deposit bank # loosing my chefck and refusing to fix it. I had 3 days to eviction and I threaten my congressman, VA lawyers If I lost my home or the lights turned off. I was going to surrender to a Fed Jury trial in progress. I would then be arrested and have my own day in court where i will tell every one of the VA criminal acts. 4 days latter I had my check in the mail box

Every veteran right now who is at risk of family harm or loosing there home has the right to warn the VA of a pending jury trial if things dont change quick.. IF the VA belives you will really go to a jury. They will pay up.

Terry Higgins