This Forum will provide bits, pieces,
modules, and cases for veterans to
build their government complaint
papers from. As stated in the beginning,
this page will be updated periodically
instead of separate and incremental
Forums generated on the same topic
like the rest of the Categories
throughout this page. For that reason,
do return to this page from time to
time for any updates or new entries
which are added after you read it the
first time.

This is set up to be a permanent
reference point for complaint design
and development.



________________________________________

Marbury vs. Madison
Supreme Court 1803
Any law passed by Congress can be
declared unconstitutional by the
courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

_________________________________________


A Court Case Study and Sample to Learn
from Regarding a VA Doctor Facing Misconduct
Termination. U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, 2006.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/05-3182.pdf


____________________________________________

An Internal VA Directive to Practioners
On Ethics According to Them

http://www.ethics.va.gov/ETHICS/docs/bkissues/Challenge...icts_Of_Interest.pdf

____________________________________________

This is a LINK to the VA Central
Office, Office of Human Resources page
complete with employee handbook references
at the official website.

http://www1.va.gov/ohrm/

___________________________________________

This is a cut and paste transfer from
the Court of Veterans Appeals and their
discussion on the requirements and standards
for using Recall of Mandates in your
appeal papers. Recall of Mandates essentially
overturns all prior rulings in the case
up to that point. Keep in mind, that the
VA deliberately falsifying your case in
ruling documents for delay purposes is
considered an exceptional circumstance
under the law.


We must first examine the status of the underlying case. The Secretary challenges the viability of the underlying case in his Motion to Recall Mandate. Recall of mandate is not ordinarily allowed. However, a court has the power to set aside any judgment and to recall mandate, where necessary to protect the integrity of its own processes. See Sargent v.
Columbia Forest Prods., Inc., 75 F.3d 86, 89 (2nd Cir. 1996); but see Boston and Me. Corp. v. Town of Hampton, 7 F.3d 281, 282- 83 (1st Cir. 1993) (questioning the "inherent authority" to recall a mandate). The
exercise of this power is within the discretion of the court. Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 861 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1988). However, such
discretion may be exercised only for good cause or to prevent injustice, and only when "unusual circumstances exist sufficient to justify
modification or recall of a prior judgment." Ibid. "Even if authority to recall a mandate still exists, it 'should be exercised sparingly, and only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.'" Boston and Me. Corp., 7 F.3d at 283 (citations omitted). Under the strict standards governing the
exercise of power to recall a mandate, the
mere questioning of a court's reasoning, construction, or application of the relevant law is insufficient by itself to justify the recall of a mandate. See Sargent,
75 F.3d at 90 (citing Hines v. Royal Indem. Co., 253 F.2d 111, 114 (6th Cir. 1958)); Boston and Maine Corp., supra.

Among the "exceptional circumstances" justifying a court's exercise of the power to recall a mandate are the discovery that the judgment was obtained by fraud, see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.
S. 238, 248-50 (1944), and the correction of clerical mistakes and judicial oversights, see, e.g., Patterson v. Crabb, 904 F.2d 1179, 1180 (
7th Cir. 1990) (recalling its mandate where its dismissal of petitioner's claim was based on the absence of a required final order, which had been entered but was overlooked by court); Lamb v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 586
F.2d 96, 97 (8th Cir. 1978) (recalling mandate because error in court clerk's office caused court's erroneous decision); Verrilli v. City of Concord, 557 F.2d 664, 665 (9th Cir. 1977) (recalling mandate because court simply overlooked an existing statute applicable to the case). " Another example of an 'exceptional circumstance' is where it was discovered that the petitioner had died prior to the issuance of the mandate." McNaron v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 61 (1997) (emphasis added); see Keel v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 124 (1996) (per curiam order); see also Ferrell v. Estelle, 573 F.2d 867, 868 (5th Cir. 1978). Mrs. Serra "concedes that the Court has found that the death of an appellant before
this Court has issued its decision is such an 'unusual circumstance' so as to
justify the extraordinary measure of recall."


_______________________________________________

From the federal penal code, as it pertains
to VA Raters falsifying ruling documents against
Veterans the text of 18 USCA 1035


Section 1035. False statements relating to health care matters

(a) Whoever, in any matter involving a health care benefit program, knowingly and willfully -

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; or
(2) makes any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any materially
false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care
benefits, items, or services, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) As used in this section, the term "health care benefit program" has the meaning given such term in section 24(b) of this
title.

Claims to prosecute this criminal statute
against VA Raters are to be sent to the
Dept. of Justice, Public Integrity Section
and any named congressional oversight committees
with jurisdiction over the Justice Dept.


_____________________________________________
From the federal criminal penal code,
as it pertains to VA Raters falsifying
ruling documents against veterans, the text
of 18 USCA 1018:


Section 1018. Official certificates or writings

Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other
writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing, containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a
case where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere expressly provided by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than one year, or both.


Claims to prosecute this criminal statute
against VA Raters are to be sent to the
Dept. of Justice, Public Integrity Section
and any named congressional oversight committees
with jurisdiction over the Justice Dept.


_____________________________________________

Here is the published reports page
which is a running section of all standing
prosecution or investigation reports
issued by the VA Inspector Generals Office.
There is more whining and excuses here
as to why nothing can ever be done to fix
problems than Bayer has aspirin, but now
and then something may pop up that will
help in the development of a Veterans
case so it's entered here for your quick
use and reference.


http://www.va.gov/oig/publications/reports-list.asp

Here is the LINK to current VA Inspector
General Investigations:

http://www.va.gov/oig/publications/news-list.asp



_____________________________________________


WHERE TO SERVE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
ACT DEMANDS UPON FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR
IMPORTANT PAPERS:

The Dept. of Justice has compiled a list
of FOIA delivery points for the agencies
and here it is:

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiacontacts.htm


The guidelines for issuing Freedom of
Information Act demands are located in
5 USCA 552.

_____________________________________________

HERE IS THE ON LINE ELECTRONIC VERSION
OF TITLE 38 USCA (United States Code)
FOR YOUR CASE BUILDING:

http://veterans.house.gov/documents/title38.pdf


_____________________________________________



________________________________________________

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