Who was that masked rater?

[FormerMember]

Have you ever wondered who came up with that gomer denial with no logical rationale? Here's how you find out who wrote it. This will help you if you wish to talk to them.

https://asknod.org/2016/05/09/varo-hide-and-seek/

[brokensoldier244th]

What is the point? You aren't going to ever deal with the person directly, unless 'you' plan to do something to that person. This practice  on the internet is known as 'doxing' (documenting the ID of someone without their knowledge, usually for negative result). What would one do with this information? The rater was assigned your file randomly. Its not some personal thing like the tone of that linked article seems to imply. 

[Tbird]

i agree with brokensoldier244th on this one. 

[FormerMember]

Brokensoldier244th,

I beg to disagree with you, I have used this process to deal directly with the individual identified. So do many attorneys, I might point out. . There is nothing easier than dealing directly with the chucklehead who screwed up something at a RO. I have walked in and asked to speak with the named fellow or gal and been granted the request several times at the Seattle Regional Office. I now have Ms. Mackey-Rivas as well as several others on my email rolodex  and correspond with them regularly to clear up discrepancies in my ratings. The relationship is not adversarial. Always remember, the Veteran is the customer, not VA. Why do you have to attribute negative motives to attaining free knowledge? I'm not outing anyone. The information is there to be had. Any tool in a Veteran's bag should be employed if it results in a grant sooner. The object of my post is to disseminate valuable knowledge. 

I helped a gal in Chicago get her WW2 dad his 100% P&T after identifying the bozo who inadvertently turned it into a pension claim. It took 21 days to straighten it out. She walked in and talked to  the director and had it fixed in less than an hour. The director called in the rater named and he immediately admitted to being "misinformed" by the VSO. 

Ah, I remember you from Peggy's Pink site now. I had to go over there and look you up. You're one of their ten-year koolaid drinkers. No offense intended but even some of my Veterans Law Judge friends used to consider Cruiser either someone who purposefully led Vets astray or was grossly uninformed on VA regulations. His grasp of Hepatitis C law and etiology was clouded by his brother's heroin addiction and subsequent death due to it. The Olde Medic was similarly deluded in his understanding of Hepatitis C and used to hand out absolutely horrible advice on the subject. Mr. "Medic" used to insist that if your Service Treatment Records (STRs) did not show evidence of HCV infection in service, your claim was doomed. Might I point out a Vietnam Veteran like myself could not possibly have a disease discovered in 1989 in his 1969 medical records? In this business, if you want to engage in discourse on a subject, it pays to have immense knowledge of what you speak. The worst thing a Veteran can do is to offer misinformation, or worse, knowingly false information while appearing to be someone who is knowledgeable on the given subject. That kind of disservice to one's fellow Veteran is beneath anyone who moderates here or at my site. If we don't know, we look it up. We don't take another hit of Bourbon and strap on an imaginary M.D. after our names.  

If you wish to see which Veterans Help sites are considered reputable by those who adjudicate VA claims at the BVA, read the following article. Don't take my word for it. Hadit.com and asknod.org are held in high esteem in the legal world by many legal circles-including NOVA. Theresa and I didn't get this far offering shoddy advice. The folks we counsel win based on a foundation of the knowledge and experience of those who came before. 

Peggy's Pink site should have  a sign out front that says "Why waste your time?. Your claim is doomed. Why even bother filing?". The article was published in no less a venue that the United States Circuit for Federal Claims Bar Journal. See page 381, footnote # 73. It seems odd they omitted old Dean and the gang from that list. Trust me. I asked them. They consider it  a " negative, unhelpful and discouraging" site to those who come looking for advice. 

I apologize if I sound rude, sir. My job is not to be popular. It is to help Vets-all Vets- regardless of their disease or injury- get what they earned. It most definitely is not to impede them from their quest. 

http://www.veteranslawlibrary.com/files/Articles/NowistheTime.pdf

 

 

[FormerMember]

I'm sorry you feel that way, Tbird. If you feel it is useless.or somehow divisive and counterproductive, feel free to remove it. Many attorneys consider it a Godsend since I put it up on my site over four years ago. To my knowledge, no one has ever abused it or tried to intimidate a rater with the knowledge gained from it. I would think any who know me here or at my site know I have to comport with the laws of VA as an Officer of the Court. I would never advocate or condone malice or misfeasance. 

[Tbird]

alex - sorry no i don't want to remove it. my concern is about abuse and intimidation. i am always cautious about those issues, i should have been clearer in my statement. I haven't read anything of yours that i would want to remove. and i should have thought about the post more and not have been as brief in my response. i think i am overly sensitive to personal identification information, i thought of that only and the not the entire picture. alas i am human and prone to mistakes and misspeak.

[FormerMember]

Theresa, (and all of you.) I tend to break some eggs occasionally. I try not to.

Privacy is utmost in my/our business. I could have a condo in every major South American city with all the SSNs and DOBs. I have never divulged a single Veteran's personal data without redaction (and permission) for teaching purposes. Those old documents illustrate what many will find in their 1960s-70s c-files. Again, no personal info but a wealth of mistakes we learn from. On the other hand, those of us who venture to the CAVC or CAFC, relinquish the right to that privacy. VA employees, by electing to get a cush government job, lose that protection as well. Any VA GS employee signs away that privilege. Your and my name, unless an appeal involving very personal information or evidence of a sexual nature, have our name published at the CAVC/CAFC Court sites. The record is open for all to view because this is America.

With that said, the purpose of the post was not to obtain a name for retribution. Nowhere in my blog did I suggest anything other than honorable reasons for obtaining this in order to facilitate a quicker resolution to the claim.  For many, time is of the essence due to finances or health. The shortest distance from A to B in this business is knowledge. VA chooses, for whatever reason, to mask their players in this game. In 1975, when I was attempting to get a VA  home loan (while still single), I'd go in to see the VA Home loan rater and see if I could get a loan but avoid marriage. The Secretary at the front said "Go on back. He's  the third desk on the left. Mr. Peterson." I had to get married to fix it. The simple point being is I knew him after three visits. I didn't have to make an appointment 3 months in advance on an 800 number. That is the drift of this post. This is 2016. You can text a message to the moon but not an email to the rater ninety miles away ?

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I used to build houses. If the truss truck was late, you did something else. Any work around that keeps your claim in motion is a valuable tool worth exploiting. Many here remember the Golden Claims era several years ago. Call up Allison or Bob and get a winner in a week. Many of us used it to success and even more (me) to an expedited SOC denial. Regardless, we used it because we could and it was there. This is no different but I should not have to make that case.Did you feel guilty about having Under Secretary Hickey's number and calling her uninvited? Were you rude? 

The gentleman felt the tenor of my blog was to gain knowledge for evil purposes. This shows a marked propensity to paint Veterans as capable of, or an  inclination, to resort to physical violence. That may or may not be a personality disorder on his part that would cause him to mention it.... but it is identical to the tenor of the help site being discussed. It's not some ugly secret that I was censored and removed for violating their "anti-VA comments" codicil. I apologize for doing it because we should all work together in harmony to promote knowledge. I failed. Defending one school of thought (VSO=God) to the mutual exclusion of even listening to others' knowledge and going so far as to suppress/censor it is their right on their site. I  firmly defend their right to do so.  

The obverse of this coin is that they should at least put up a disclaimer that the information proffered on their site is suspect, perhaps slanted against the best interests of the Vet, and  certain opinions that state otherwise  have been removed to promote peace and harmony on the site and avoid dissention. Knowledge is power. If you suppress it, you are not doing anyone any good. If you think suppressing others' thoughts is helpful, do tell us why. This isn't about who's website is cooler or who gets more hits. It never was. It's not who gets Johnny Vet his win. If it's a VSO, wonderful. If it was an attorney, then he won and you pay him. If the Vet read how to do it here, then cool beans and we all won. We. Not me. Not Theresa. Veterans won. Ken Carpenter or Bob Walsh won.  Every win is a vindication that they get 65% of your claims wrong. There will never be anything I am ashamed of writing about other than VA's propensity to shortchange us. Any tactical advantage I find, I share. It sure doesn't do any of you any good in my pocket.