Aside from the Fort McClellan advocacy
that I took to Washington earlier
this week, I also took another 15
handout books on the Vets for Justice
advocacy both for Free Lawyers for
Veterans AND the development of a
misconduct process for VA Raters at
the VARO and BVA levels.

While the BVA already has an Ombudsman
office, I have found that less than
satisfactory because there does not
seem to be an statusing or "after
reporting" back to the Veteran after
they file their complaints.

Using the patterns of the Judicial
Misconduct process found in most
courts, including the Court of Veterans
Appeals and the Federal Circuit Appeals
Court, I was able to shop this around
to the House Veterans Committee,
the Senate Committee, and the VA
Secretary's Office. CEO Billy Ray
Kidwell was a personal supporter
of this trip, and was glad to see this
get done with his own eyes.

I received no Opposition remarks
by any of the 3 addresses that I
went into meetings with to deliver
these papers. The VA Secretary's
Office was intrigued by the advocacy
and thought it to be well timed
given to other things they are
discussing internally about how
to set up the all new Comp and Pen
system and remedy the national claims
backlog. The Senate attorney that
I talked really had no comment until
she had time to read over our papers
in detail. The House was receptive
and thoughtful on the issue.

They were given a list of 16 different
techniques which are used by VA Raters
to sabotage and obliterate Veterans
claims with: verified techniques we
have seen over and over again through
the years. I will list these techniques
below using cut and paste from the
original handout document.

The VSO's have been FORCING
Veterans to reprocess these
papers, when the truth is, they are
fully dismissable and there is no
lawful requirement to even answer to
them. This is where many of us are so
very put off by the BlowHard chest
beating that the VSO's like to do when
they are grandstanding all over the
place in the faces of the very people
who are in the backlog.

Activists should proceed full steam
ahead in supporting and backing the
idea of a judicial misconduct process
for VA Raters. Generally these involve
either an Administrative Law Judge
or a Committee, to receive and investigate
complaints against the way the process
is handled by the VA Raters. The
complainant is usually allowed to
file papers, and sometimes attend
an agency level hearing in person,
and then will receive a statusing
report back on what was done on their
complaints. Sometimes an appeal process
is also on board in these kinds of
procedings.

This does not guarantee to Veterans
that the Misconduct process itself
is free from corruption, but it certainly
does render it viable for House or
Senate intervention if it becomes
necessary by the Veterans.

On the Free Lawyers side of the
advocacy, there was a single
Opposition voiced at the Senate,
but for the record right now, I
find that Opposition totally defeatable.
When I got to the remaining other
2 meeting addresses, nobody else
chimed in with this same Opposition
and even disagreed and offered
to book a meeting with the Senate
on it.

The Opposition may have been just
a glib and off the cuff reaction,
and was definitely prior to reading
our handout book.

A Senate attorney, who was also a
former Legal Aid Society lawyer for
many years, raised the issue that
lawyers are bound by duty to pick
and choose their cases based on
the facts and merits of each individual
case. She also raised her concerns
about frivolous claims
coming from the Veterans
themselves. (meaning that frivolous
disability claims puts licensed lawyers
in an awkward position forcing them
to perhaps refuse to accept the case
for representation.)

So for the sharing of Activists who
want to get behind this issue for
the 2008 legislative session, and
would like a ready defeat to this
Opposition which may come popping
out at any time, I offer up this
assessment to you and it's something
you can walk with.

It seems to me, the only time
lawyers are concerned with "frivolous"
cases is when it involves the fair
and equal representation of Veterans.
Personal Injury lawyers are bankrupting
this country based on "frivolous
cases", with perhaps the best known
one in the news media about the
old lady out west who spilled hot
coffee all over herself and then
sued McDonalds for millions of
dollars and actually won that case.

The problem here is one that is
internal to the lawyers themselves,
and it is not for them to push
this problem into OUR faces when
the entire civilian universe around
us is making out like a bandit.
Personal Injury lawyers could care
less about "frivolous", but then
all of a sudden Disability
Lawyers do. The disparities
and inequalities of how Personal
Injury law is practiced, and then
how Disability Law is practiced,
is NOT the problem of Veterans ---
it is the problem of lawyers themselves.

Yes I know all about Joe Moron-Vet
who will actually file a Comp claim
for ingrown toenails and try to
get a service connection rating for it.
However, there are no rules to
date prohibiting such a filing,
and until then, it is fair play
for the Veterans to file for whatever
they can get while being tortured,
deprived, and harrassed by the
existing system. As in the Ty
Ziegle case up in our Human
Torture FORUM on this web page,
he filed for the obvious and then
got rated for the secondary. And
who among us would dare to say
that anything at all that he suffered
was "frivolous".

In disability claims at the VA,
"frivolous" is not even holding a
law definition so this attorney
is putting something out there
where no real statutory boundaries
exist. We don't really know where
the line crosses from "secondary"
to "frivolous" so who exactly
decides that in the absence of
no statutory law definition???

The advocacy which was given to
them calls for an entry-point layer
of claims representitives, competent,
trained, and oversighted to then
hand off to the lawyers if the
case is more complicated beyond
their skills. This is urgently needed
right now because of the chemical
and hazardous exposure population.
This kind of litigation is BRUTAL
even with experienced attorneys
and here this system has been
crawling along with non-legal VSO's
to handle such matters. This is
why the entire system is swimming
in a RatHole.

You should know that I was also
told at 2 out of the 3 places where
I had meetings, that an all new
Bill is coming forward in this 2008
congressional session which will
impose controls and higher mandated
standards on VSO's. This is one
of the reasons I was viewed as
arriving "well-timed" with this
advocacy on behalf of Vets For Justice.
We brought in our own story on this,
they do love that, and it has
added a new dimension into what
they were already talking about
behind closed doors so far. We
will be scouting around for that
new VSO Bill to emerge for the rest
of the year and will have it posted
here at Vets For Justice.

The 16 Techniques of how VA Raters
manage to sabotage Vet cases pretty
much speaks for itself, and the
Administration can go into their
systems any day of the week and
like and find that it's all true.
We are perfectly in line with what
the VDBC Commission has said, along
with the Center For Naval Analysis
who did the national VA Raters and
VSO's survey during the VDBC hearings
schedule.

I am still following up with my
contacts that I met with this
past week, but these 2 VFJ issues
for the most part, DID fly and are
in the system for review and discussion
and may very well appear later on
as a conditions clause or new
standalone Bill in this up and
coming 2008 congressional administration.


_______________________________

THE 16 TECHNIQUES VA RATERS USE
TO SABOTAGE VETERANS DISABILITY
CLAIMS. SUBMITTED ON ARGUMENTS
JANUARY 8, 2008 IN WASHINGTON DC.
_______________________________


Here are the techniques used by VA Raters
to deliberately falsify fake and phoney ruling
documents in Veterans disability cases:

1. First list all of the evidence documents submitted by the Veteran, and then turn around and deny the case based on "no evidence". This includes refusing to answer to a DA 664 Form normally issued at a military discharge exam when the Veteran fails that exam.

2. Relentlessly list out only parts of the evidence which has been submitted by the Veteran and then deny the case based on the missing parts of the evidence which is still sitting in the C File box but omitted by the
VA Rater.

3. Issuing denials based on medical conditions not claimed by the Veteran. I submitted claim for "PCB" exposure, and
received a VA denial back
for "steriods" exposure. I believe this was done
deliberately and intentionally by the VA Rater.

4. Refusing to read the Veterans symptoms as an entire BLOCK of conditions for a single diagnosis. In chemical exposure cases, the entirety of the claim has to be viewed as a Block of evidence all by itself as proof of chemical exposure: skin, respiratory,
gastrointestinal, mobility, and ob-gyn. The VA
Raters are too incompetent to comprehend this point.

5. Raters are altering the outcomes of what licensed doctors and practitioners have said. VA Raters have the power to "rewrite" physical medicine cases into psychiatric cases among other things -- Did you know?

6. A Veteran submits a VA Form 9 Appeal at the VARO level only to have the VARO turn around and refuse to process the VA Form 9. Instead they insert the VA Form into the evidence block of a NEW denial of the claim based on the objections contained in the VA Form 9. Then refusing to send it to the BVA.

We see this as Patient Abuse, ridiculing and tormenting
the patient by way of legal hate process.

10. The VA Raters write 26 pages in a huge long narrative containing falsity, screwups, bungles, and misinterpretations of the Veterans life story, and then the claim is denied based on the VA Raters very own screwups. Claims are denied by reason of screwed up life story, and has nothing to do with evidence. Then the
VETERAN is forced by the VSO's to "process" those screwups. We want a full a complete END to narratives on VA Rating documents and to limit the raters to transcript processing (which means forcing the VA Raters to only and exclusively enter a POINTS system on the quality of evidence documents; and to leave out
all the "rewriting" and the Blah, Blah, Blah by the VA Raters.)

11. Phoney Remand Orders --- remanded for
new evidence that was already in the pile of evidences at the time the remand is
issued. Again speaking to VA Rater bungling. Or how about this one ---- remanded for doctors who are known to be DEAD and no longer alive. We want this ended immediately.

12. The VA Rater issues a VCAA Notice Response Form --- the Veteran replies. Then the VA Rater issues a 2nd VCAA Response Form, and then a 3rd.
Because the Veteran has already responded to the first one, the 2nd and 3rd one is ignored. Then the VA Rater turns around and denies the case based on failure to respond to the 2nd and 3rd Response Form. Yes this is true.
These are fake, phoney, and fabricated VA claims
denials.

13. The VA Raters are too dumb to know when
a Veteran is submitting a "nexus statement" in the form of medical treatises for conditions. VARO has been denying veterans cases based on "articles" (this is what the VA Raters
calls the Treatises) submitted by the
Veterans instead of properly characterizing
the submissions as "medical treatises" or "nexus statements". Yes it's true.

14. The VA Raters insist and insist on separating documents which are bound together by the Veterans on submission. Then they wait a year or so to do anything on the case. Then when the Rater gets back to the
case, the papers are separated and screwed up. When I receive the Rating Determinations back in the mail, the evidences have all been separated out and misapplied to the wrong claims. No matter how many times I submit
my evidence papers in a neatly bound package,
the Rating determinations all come back to me royally screwed up and not applied to the right VA diagnostic code because the Raters themselves separated the bound papers and confused the evidences. Yes it's true.

15. The VA Raters are too dumb to comprehend
the concept of "delayed onset diseases" within
the chemical and hazardous exposure arena.
When we flag something as a "delayed onset"
medical condition, we are accused of being
liars.

16. Refusing to give the Veterans personal hearings so they can bypass the incompetent VA Raters and talk to the judges directly to expose all the document falsification in
their cases.


_________________________________________

These 16 techniques are not everything
we know about the existing Comp system:
these are just quick and easy highlights
that were listed out which they
could retrieve internally and prove
out the easiest on their systems.

________________________________________


UPDATE NOTE:
Just 1 week out from my trip to
Washington last week, the Associated
Press has kicked in and magically
dropped this bomb in the mainstream
news. No, this is NOT a coincidence.
I have managed to shake loose this
topic for debate now. Legal Aid
has built in oversight and accountability
features which the VSO's do NOT
have. So on the heels of this AP
release below, I say to you: Watch
from this point on for something
to shake loose on the issue of
Free lawyers for Veterans in claims.


________________________________________

Jan 17, 5:49 PM EST

Legal aid programs spend money on perks

By LARRY MARGASAK
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Legal aid programs serving poor people spent federal money on booze, interest-free loans for staff, late charges on overdue bills and even lobby registration fees.

The parent organization that distributes grants to programs in all 50 states, Legal Services Corp., failed to monitor how the money was spent by state and local legal aid officials, according to congressional investigators in a new report. It did not specify how much money was misspent but questioned use of more than $1 million in payments.

The new report, obtained by The Associated Press, was based on examination of spending at 14 of 138 legal aid programs financed by the Washington-based Legal Services Corp.

The top officials of the Legal Services Corp. responded, "We have no tolerance for any spending of grantee funds outside the law or the regulations of the LSC, and have formally referred all potential violations noted in the report to our Office of Inspector General."

"We will take whatever actions are warranted when all of the facts are known," said corporation President Helaine Barnett and Board Chairman Frank Strickland.

Among the organizations whose activities were questioned in the report: Nevada Legal Services Inc.; California Indian Legal Services Inc.; Legal Aid and Defender Association of Detroit; Legal Services for New York City; Philadelphia Legal Assistance Center; Wyoming Legal Services; and Laurel Legal Services Inc. of Greensburg, Pa.

Some of those groups were not identified in the GAO report, but congressional offices disclosed they were among the ones targeted by GAO investigators.

After an April 2006 visit to the Las Vegas office of Nevada Legal Services, the GAO cited the conclusion of inspectors' checking the program's performance: "Overall, this program is in very good shape. Its delivery structure is sound, its management is excellent, and its case handling staff are performing at a high level."

But less than one year later, during a February 2007 visit by compliance inspectors and congressional investigators, federal officials decided to investigate questionable transactions, including a complex $3.6 million real-estate deal.

The Legal Services Corp., a nonprofit corporation that is funded by Congress, distributes grants to legal aid groups in all 50 states. The state and local groups help poor people involved in civil cases, including domestic violence, child custody, housing foreclosures, veterans and Social Security benefits, consumer problems and health issues. Three of four clients are women, mostly mothers.

Congress gave the group $348.6 million for the last fiscal year.

The Associated Press previously reported on extravagant spending on hotels, meals, limousines and other perks by the corporation's presidentially appointed board of directors and top staff in the Washington headquarters.

The latest report angered two lawmakers who have been monitoring the program's problems.

"It is not acceptable to Congress or the taxpayers for scarce funds to be spent on the enrichment of others instead of on legal services," said Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., senior Republican of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said the findings were "more documentation of abusive and wasteful spending that is jeopardizing the ability of the Legal Services Corporation to provide legal assistance to people in need."

Among the findings:

-The New York City, Detroit and California Indian Legal Services programs used federal money to buy liquor. Federal guidance for nonprofit corporations states that costs of alcohol are unallowable with no exceptions.

The New York officials did not return telephone messages by the AP requesting interviews. An official in Detroit declined to comment.

The California program didn't violate any rules, its executive director, Devon Lomayesva, told the AP. She said her group was willing to discuss the matter with the parent corporation's inspector general.

The GAO said the Detroit executive director acknowledged her program paid another organization for beer and wine costs for a reception.

The New York City executive director told GAO investigators, "LSC funds are no longer used to purchase alcohol."

-In Detroit, a contractor was paid far more than staff members, about $750,000 between 2004 and 2006, to operate computer servers and maintain the computer network. When asked by investigators why he was not an employee, with a commensurately lower salary, "he stated that there were benefits to being an independent contractor," the GAO said. The GAO said there appeared to be little distinction between the contractor and other legal aid employees in the same office.

-The Philadelphia office gave employees the perk of interest-free loans, which were used for college tuition, downpayments on homes and purchases of personal computers. The GAO said there are no rules that would permit such loans.

The Philadelphia office did not return telephone messages left by the AP.

-In New York, the group used grant money to pay for lobbyist registration fees. With only limited exceptions, recipients cannot use grant money for lobbying. Each payment was only $50, but the executive director there agreed the payments violated its rules and promised it will not happen again, the report said.

-California Indian Legal Services, the New York City program and Wyoming Legal Services used funds to pay late fees on overdue accounts. In Wyoming, a vendor who was angry over unpaid office rent "threatened to place a lien against the goods in the unit and sell them at a public auction," the GAO said.

Wendy Owens, executive director of the Wyoming organization, told the AP, "Those late payments occurred under the tenure of a previous executive director and we have long since corrected those issues."

The GAO said all three executive directors agreed there was no excuse for failure to make payments on time.

-In Greensburg, Pa., the executive director as questioned by GAO about a $30,000 payment to another organization. The director "stated that the previous executive director entered into the agreement and that she did not know anything about the agreement, other than the fact that she continued to pay the bill every year," the GAO said.

The executive director, Cynthia Sheehan of Laurel Legal Services Inc., disputed the investigators' conclusion, saying the money went to a bar association's free legal help program.

"I can assure you I did know what it was and that the Legal Services Corporation approved the contract every year," she told the AP.

-The Las Vegas office purchased its building with federal and non-federal funds and then agreed to sell it to a developer for $3.6 million, the GAO found.

When the sale fell through, the organization was able to keep $280,000 that the developer placed in an escrow account as "earnest money."

However, the $280,000 was placed in an account that was immune from any controls by the Legal Services Corp.

Investigators described the deal as an "unusual transaction." Legal Services officials eventually concluded the funds should have gone to a restricted account and kept under their scrutiny.

Nevada Legal Services officials declined to comment.

END OF AP WIRE
__________________________________________

This message has been edited. Last edited by: McClellanVet,

REPLY TO BETTY:

This is exactly why WE do the assessments
here on these issues, and not everybody
else, Betty so please pay attention
closely to what I say next.

What you have described in your "theory"
is hit-and-miss at best. It does NOT
work for all veterans uniformly as
a system. Only a handful of "lucky" cases
gets through and more often than that,
it only happens with combat cases and
not the non-combat cases.

Lawyers are ABSOLUTELY need for
chemical exposure cases and for
other complicated cases which you
yourself has no knowledge of. My
own case is one of them. If you
knew the details of what happened
to me personally, then it would
become crystal clear to you that
Veterans absolutely DO need access
to FREE lawyers and NOT creepy
VSO "volunteers".

The current system is a "lottery"
at best. and we have defined it as
such to the Dept. of Justice in
2 separate Civil Rights filings
currently pending in the system.

We are pursuing a system that
serves ALL veterans cases and not
just a few of the lucky who manage
to skate through either by region
or combat status.

Thanks for your thoughts though.
This was a good issue to bring up.

I only post, this reply,as what, I feel Is right,and what I would did, for my husband,s claim,please, do not,use my judgement, as, correct for you. I feel, no veteran needs a lawyer,or s/o. I did feel at one time a s/o or lawyer,would be best, I was wrong. The point Is,have no s/o, give no POA,. learn the cfr 3-4-. the trick, Is to ger It ,out of varo hands, once BVA, ,AND YOU HAVE NO poa, YOU MUST RECEIVE, THE DESISION,FROM BVA. I read,a post, from a veteran, he was from Tampa Fla, he had his claim, after 20 years,granted, at 100%, he disagreed, with the bva,AND GOT INTO THE COURT OF APPEALS,He had no lawyer,he had proof,and a lot of you,do to. The, cfr. 38.3105a,Is a were good place to start.I do think,ROGIS,can apply. to 38 3105a,that states,IT IS noted that,38 cfr 3105 A,indicatates,previous,dererminations,which are final and binding, Including decisions,of service connected,degee of disabitity,age,marriage,relationship,service,dependency,In the line of duty,AND,OTHER iSSUES,WILL BE ACCEPTED,AS CORRECT In,the absenenoe,of CLEAR UNMISAKABLE ERROR, wHERE EVIDENCE ESTABLISISHES,SUCH ERROR,, THE PROIR, DECISION WILLBE REVISED OR AMENEDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORIZING BENIFITS,AND OTHER ADJUDICATIVE,DESISION,WHICH,CONSITUTES,A REVERSAL OF THE PRIOR DECISION,ON THE GROUNDS,OF UNMISTAKABLE ERROR,HAS THE SAME EFFECT AS IF THE CORRECT,DECISION HAD BEEN,MADE,ON THE DATE OF REVERSED, FAX NUMBER TO BVA,202-565-5587, I hope this reply, will help,you I used 3105a, are hospitalreports support In The Line Of Duty,t HIS EVIDENCE WAS SENT TO VA, In 1978, I filed a claim, for Air Force,for 6 months In hospital, ,va sent back NO RECORDS FOUND,THIS IS DATED AND STAMPED BY VA IN 1978, my point Is write, your own checkes. You can do It. Betty Priam