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paternalistic Civil War-era law is completely outdated.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>

[Guest frank]

Rogus

I read the DAV's statement about lawyers. They are just afraid of how bad they will look when lawyers eat their lunch. These VSO's have been sitting on their asses for years. Craig's agenda may be to weaken the VSO's by bringing lawyers into the picture. I joined DAV because they were my POA. I would not have joined otherwise. Their probably is an ulterior motive to Craig's actions. All those guys want to destroy the VA and cut back on benefits. This is the party of Lincoln. Hard to believe what the Republican Party has turned into a bunch of right wing cheap skates.

A FRIEND OF MINE HAD A LAWYER WHEN HE FILED HIS CLAIM, HIS MOTHER PAID FOR THE LAWYER SHE SIGNED THE CHECK AND HER SON HAD A LAWYER THIS IS LEGAL, ANYONE CAN PAY FOR A LAWYER, FOR ANYONE, THE ACCOUNT IS NOT IN THE PERSON,S NAME SO THE MOTHER HAS THE RIGHT TO HIRE A LAWYER IF SHE WANT,S TO AND VA CAN,T QUESTION IT,BECAUSE MY FRIEND HAD NO ACCOUNT WITH THE LAWYER HIS MOTHER DOES. FRANK

[Guest frank]

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>

A FRIEND OF MINE HAD A LAWYER WHEN HE OPENED HIS CLAIM, HIS MOTHER HIRED THE LAWYER IN HER OWN NAME HER SON,S NAME WASN,T LISTED AS A CLIENT HIS MOTHER WAS. THIS IS LEGAL AND VA CAN,T QUESTION THIS BECAUSE MY FRIEND DID NOY HAVE A ACCOUNT WITH LAWYER HIS MOTHER DID PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR YEARS FRANK

[Guest fla_viking]

Dear Fellow Veterans & Friends.

Va allowed third partie payment 3 years ago. My mother hired Joe Moore atty for me. While my case was worked on by Mr Moore. The VA changed the law not allowing third partie payee. The atty must sign an affidvate on who he recives money from. IF he says fromm a third partie. The VA will not let that lawyer proceed oj the case and could disbar the lawyer

Terry Higgins

[timetowinarace]

To the best of my knowledge, third party hired attorneys are still legal. The catch is it has to be a "disinterested" third party. Mom is not disinterested. If a third party is directly related to the veteran or a member of the household they will not be legally accepted as a disinterested party. I posted that reg a little while back.

That being the case, Someone should start a non-profit org to raise money for veterans legal services. It would be successful. I just wonder why service org don't do this already. Or do they?

Time

[jlshand]

This is an extremely complicated issue!!! Heres' my two cents

1. Senator Craig does not have a great reputation as a Veterns advocate. I wpould be real surprised to hear of any pro Vet bill he has ever sponsored or voted for before. Particular attention to his record of voting against bills for increased VA budgets /spending. WHAT IS HIS REAL MOTIVATION HERE?

2. It would of necessity take time for any lawyers to get up to speed with the intricacies of VA C&P regulations. Fair to say that at least the intial wave of Vets paying for these services might be buying increased delay and problems.

3. IMHO the real issue is with the congress's failure, whether purposeful or just due to misaligned priorities, to properly fund and supervise this huge agency which really runs out of control. This unfortunately includes an all too human tendency of multiple individuals (read raters) at multiple facilities (read VAROs) looking at the same evidence and drawing entirely different conclusions.

4. There has to be something of a hidden agenda of the present administration to "control" (read reduce) expenditures for Veterans. Just too many starts and false starts toward this end over the last six or so years.

5. Vets as a group have really failed to organize in such a way to truly affect poltical power and force change on the VA thru the Congress. We as a group are either too tired or just to trusting.

6. The VA is "out of control" with inconsistent application of regulations, consequence of error,

hiring and training of key personnel, and major variations in services from location to location. There are just too many fires to ignore this conclusion.

7. The VA has too much power and too little accountability. Any organization that can simply ignore a writ of mandamus is out of control.

For me allowing lawyers in earlier in the process at least the way things are organized at present, will simply provide for greater opportunity for delay . What is needed is change in the way congress holds the VA accountable. A bill that allows lawyers in but doesnt force the VA to immediately act upon decisons in favor of the Vet does nothing for us unless it includes provison to force the VA to immediately act on these decisons.

Just My Opinion

[Guest fla_viking]

Dear Fellow Vet4erans & Friends.

This bill will never be passed. Congress profits to much by the system stayin the way it is. Sen Craig only intridyced this bill to keep the VSO from suig over the SSDI and VA comp off set. Now the commissioin is studying SSDI and the vets groups did not sue. You watch late in the game some how the commision will slip in the SSDI off set issue and we will be screwed again.

terry HIggins