Dead Veterans and Chickenhawks

Robert Walsh: Attorney, veteran, and "combat infantryman
in Vietnam with the fabled 101st Airborne Division," 
fights, for veterans, reports the Toledo Blade.

Joe Biden budget for the War Dept is larger than Trump's.

Chickenhawk Joe is selling out hard.

Veterans and all of us will get the shaft.

"After George W. Bush was elected president and started the Iraq War, (attorney) Robert Walsh said, 'Karl Rove and Dick Cheney declared war on PTSD. They wanted to deny there was any such thing," reports Jack Lessenberry in the Toledo Blade and Lessenberry Link.

The war against veterans who filed for PTSD disability generated a lot of casualties, notes Walsh elsewhere, guys who froze "to death on the streets or blow their brains out in the garage."

Reading journalist Lessenberry's work on Robert Walsh, veterans and the VA bureaucrats who hate them is needed tonic as the DoD budget keeps rising, and veterans keep dying.

Happy Memorial Day.

Toledo Blade Column Recalls Story of Wrongfully Convicted Wisconsin Vietnam Veteran — Keith Roberts

Robert Walsh: Attorney, veteran, and "combat infantryman
in Vietnam with the fabled 101st Airborne Division," 
fights, for veterans, reports the Toledo Blade.

"After George W. Bush was elected president and started the Iraq War, (attorney) Robert Walsh said, 'Karl Rove and Dick Cheney declared war on PTSD. They wanted to deny there was any such thing," reports Jack Lessenberry in the Toledo Blade and Lessenberry Link.

The war against veterans who filed for PTSD disability generated a lot of casualties, notes Walsh elsewhere, guys who froze "to death on the streets or blow their brains out in the garage."

Reading journalist Lessenberry's work on Robert Walsh, veterans and the VA bureaucrats who hate them is needed tonic as the DoD budget keeps rising, and veterans keep dying.

Wisconsin Veteran Was Awarded 70 Percent of Benefits for Which He Was Criminally Convicted of Receiving

Updated - "Despotism is a plan alone, without law and without rule, leading all its will and caprices," wrote Montesquieu, an Enlightenment political philosopher preceding the American Revolution.

The wrongfully convicted Navy veteran, Keith Roberts, is the victim of caprice and an orchestrated scheme to criminally target this veteran for fraud though Roberts' Claims file or C-file abundantly documents his claim for disability benefits for his diagnosed PTSD condition.

A legal argument advanced by Roberts concerns the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Dept of Justice's disregard of laws and rules that govern the conduct of federal agencies towards citizens applying for services and benefits, such as military veterans.

Laws and rules in place guide the adjudication of claims, though these legal processes are superseded by the caprice of men and women, in Roberts case.

Like 100,000s of veterans, Roberts engaged in the convoluted process of the VA bureaucracy seeking disability benefits in what is supposed to be a non-adversarial process under the Veterans' Judicial Review Act (1988) that empowers veterans the right to judicial review of decisions involving their benefits under the exclusive authority of the legislatively created VA adjudication procedures.

Roberts’ benefits claim — related to his PTSD that was diagnosed as occurring because of the in-service stressor event of witnessing and trying to prevent his friend (Airman Gary Holland) from being crushed to death by a C-54 airplane while stationed at a Naval air base in Naples, Italy in 1969, and an unrelated assault by the Navy Shore Patrol — was granted at the 100 percent disability level in May 1999.

But Roberts became a target when the VA and U.S. DoJ hatched their plan to probe and prosecute Roberts, as indicated in emails obtained by Roberts' attorney, Bob Walsh.

Former VA General Counsel attorney and VA national Director of Compensation and Pension Services, Renee L. Szybala, authored the VA’s response to a Robert's letter to the VA, and, evidence suggests, engineered the 2005-06 prosecution of Roberts by U.S. Atty Biskupic.

As Roberts’ attorney Robert Walsh states in his CAVC (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims) Supplemental brief filed in July 2007: "Ms. Renee Szybala, who responded to the letter for the Secretary, then appears to have had a direct involvement in orchestrating the efforts to commence criminal proceedings against the appellant in Federal District Court when she knew his appeals were pending at either the BVA (Board of Veterans' Appeals) or this Court (the CAVC)."

Szybala, who moved on from her position as VA Director of Compensation and Pension Services, was responsible for managing the network of VA Regional Offices across the country.

In an e-mail of January 27, 2005 from Debi Bevins, Special Assistant to the (VA) Secretary Jim Nicholson, Bevins asked Szybala: "Is there any truth to what Keith Roberts alleges in this e-mail?" referring to Roberts’ allegations of fraud and violations of his due process rights, and Roberts' declarations of his rightful entitlement pertaining to his experiencing what the VA calls "stressors."

In the same e-mail, Bevins asks: "Have we heard any news on the prosecution of Keith Roberts?"

Szybala replies in part in an e-mail dated January 27, 2005 that: "Of course not (there is no truth to Roberts’ allegations). But he (Roberts) may be confused and believe it. I have known of and been dealing with Mr. Roberts’ complaints for several years now, dating to my time at OGC (VA Office of the General Counsel) as explained in the message below. … In the interest of full disclosure, I also have a letter on this case from the American Legion, dated October 15, 2004 (asking for Vasil’s report), to which I have not yet responded. The fraud for which Mr. Roberts’ service connection was severed was uncovered, investigated, and reported by the OIG (Office of the Inspector General). To respond to the Legion’s letter, we need to confer with the OIG and have had trouble connecting. When we do we’ll ask them the question about the prosecution, too. My guess is, however, that this case would not interest a U.S. Attorney … ."

Several points made in this and subsequent e-mails obtained by the defense and not presented at the criminal trial by a young attorney (though successfully made part of the record of appeal at CAVC (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims) after efforts by Roberts' subsequent atty, Robert Walsh) are critical and raise questions about the propriety of the prosecution instigated by the VA.

No testimony or evidence was presented at Roberts’ trial pertaining to Ms. Szybala’s statement that Szybala had been dealing with Roberts’ allegations and complaints for several years and that Szybala stated that "… he (Roberts) may be confused and believe it."

This is significant because if Roberts believed the VA claim that he was pursuing and Szybala assumed Roberts’ believed his claim, this discredits the principal allegation of the government’s criminal case that Roberts devised a "scheme" to formulate misrepresentations with the intent of defrauding the VA, the alleged crime for which Roberts was imprisoned for almost four years.

[In fact, the government in the person of Barbra Nehls of the Milwaukee VA Regional office wrongly claimed at trial that Roberts’ benefits were reduced based upon the VA’s determination that Roberts’ statements of facts from 1969 formed the basis of the VA decision to grant or deny benefits. This is a material misrepresentation of VA procedure: The determination of PTSD-related benefits relies upon medical evidence (such as being diagnosed by five different medical professionals that a vet has PTSD) and the existence of an in-service stressor (such as the reality that a man was crushed to death by a C-54 aircraft while an Airman was on duty), per 38 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 3.304(f). All a veteran has to achieve in first-person testimony is corroboration, not verification. The Code defines Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder; (PTSD) requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 CFR 4.125(a); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred (38 CFR 3.304(f))].

Officials from the Milwaukee Regional Office and Special Agent Raymond Vasil’s Inspector General’s (OIG) office were included in the series of e-mails including one e-mail from the OIG's Vasil dated January 27, 2005, stating: "The U.S. Attorney is interested in prosecuting. He is not 100% yet and wanted me to interview any additional persons I could find that were present when the original accident happened in 1969 … ."

Commander Robert Don Hathaway (USN) and officer-in-charge was present when the original accident happened, and was not interviewed by the Inspector General’s (OIG) office.

Seems they wouldn't have liked what Comd Hathaway had to say. After a four-hour deposition conducted in early 2019 by atty Walsh, Hathaway's April 2019 affidavit is an exoneration of Keith Roberts from the ludicrous indictment that Roberts lied about his role trying to save his friend from being crushed to death.

Everyone near the C-54 acted to save a man being crushed to death, some more effectively than others.

The engineering of the prosecution evident from the e-mails and the rushed, extraordinary prosecution itself were challenged in Roberts’ supplemental brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) in July 2007.

"As detailed in the brief, the conduct of the (VA) Secretary has been contrary to law, in bad faith, highly adversarial. There is an inference of impropriety by any number of senior officials in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs," reads the brief filed by attorney Robert Walsh.

And it bears repeating from the brief: "Ms. Renee Szybala, who responded to the letter for the Secretary, then appears to have had a direct involvement in orchestrating the efforts to commence criminal proceedings against the appellant in Federal District Court when she knew his appeals were pending at either the BVA (Board of Veterans' Appeals) or this Court (the CAVC)."

Two VA e-mails include.

• VA Emails Reveal VA Officials Plotting A. - Sept 2007 
• VA Emails Reveal VA Officials Plotting B. - Sept 2007

A reader following this story may have noted the jumping back and forth between Roberts' VA claim and Roberts' fight against his criminal prosecution.

Reads Roberts’ Court of Appeals for Veterans claims (CAVC) July 2007 brief:

The referral of this case directly from the VA OIG’s Chicago office to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for criminal proceedings is contrary to law, justice, equity, and fair play.

When the Court rules to restore the benefits of the Appellant, we shall have arrived at an absurd 'Alice in Wonderland' result. A veteran will sit in prison for accepting the wire transfer of funds to which he was legally entitled. … This extraordinary rendition of a veteran from a VA administrative dispute directly into Federal District Court on criminal charges is unprecedented.

We are here; it is Alice in Wonderland.

Keith Roberts is now back to receiving 70 percent of his 100 percent VA benefits, and his new start date is two years earlier than it had been awarded previously.

Perhaps Keith Roberts can have 70 percent of his days in prison back?

Roberts' next step is to get this 2006 criminal conviction vacated or overturned.

Veterans' advocates estimate there have been some 5,000 cases where the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) or other VA officials have targeted veterans with criminal prosecutions while the VA is still adjudicating claims.

One problem is the OIG does not probe VA employees who ignore the law and regulations to target innocent veterans. Rather, the OIG is simply a hammer used to pound veterans into submission.

But Roberts and his attorney, Bob Walsh, will not give up as they push for full benefits restoration as prelude to vindication and exoneration.

Other attorneys in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims bar agreee a time of reckoning is upon us.

Kisor v. Wilkie 139 S.Ct. 2400 (2019), and Monk v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2017) may provide the legal precedent to end the abuse of veterans accused of benefits fraud.

Walsh's March 4, 2019 letter to U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs General Counsel, Mr. James M. Byrne is reproduced below.
--
March 4, 2019


U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. James M. Byrne
General Counsel
810 Vermont A venue, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20420

Re: Demand for a Hearing in accordance with 38 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-42.47 (1988)
Keith A. Roberts, VA Claim Number C 28 353 461

Dear Mr. Byrne:

In 2005 I was asked to assist Mr. Keith A. Roberts in the adjudication of the allegation of benefits fraud made against him by employees of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General. Fourteen years later a final agency decision has still not been made in that dispute.

By a letter dated October 15, 2004, Mr. Phillip R. Wilkerson of the
American Legion wrote to the Director of the Compensation and Pension Service
of the Veterans Benefits Administration demanding a hearing regarding the
benefits fraud allegations made against him in accordance with 38 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-
42.47 (1988). (Exhibit 1.) That hearing has never been provided.
During the pendency of his recent appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims in docket 16-1219 a motion to intervene as amicus curia was
filed on behalf of Veterans for Due Process, Inc., (Mr. Philip Cushman). (Exhibit
2
Congressional mandated due process protections set forth in 38 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-
42.47 and the unlawful policy of the Veterans Administration (now U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs) to circumvent them since 1986 is highly relevant
to this demand.
Keith A. Roberts, 38 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-42.47
In 1986 Congress completed an extensive effort aimed at improving
contract and benefits fraud adjudications by the federal government. See United
States. Cong. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Overview of False Claims and
Fraud Legislation. Hearing, Jun. 17, 1986. 99th Cong. 2nd Sess. Washington:
GPO, 1987. A copy of the legislative history is attached. (Exhibit 3.)
The Congressional effort was to end the Balkanized procedures found
throughout the federal government so as to protect the rights of those accused of
benefits fraud and also to protect the interests of the taxpayers.
The Veterans Administration promulgated regulations in accordance with
the 1986 legislation. The regulations were amended in 1988 to reflect the creation
of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and have not been amended since.
See 38 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-42.47 (1988).
In 2005 I made requests to your agency under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA). The responses supported my conclusion that the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs has never complied with the regulations for benefits fraud
adjudications. The Veterans Benefits Administration and the Office ofinspector
General make use of an ad hoc system which deprives veterans and other
beneficiaries of proper notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and any
opportunity to confront evidence being used against them. Not only is the current
procedure devoid of fundamental fairness and due process, but unfounded
allegations of benefits fraud are placed in the veterans benefits claims file.
Thousands of employees of the Veterans Benefits Administration can lawfully
access the computerized claims file. The response to a recent FOIA request dated
August 10, 2018, indicates that since May 11, 1988, 4,163 VA benefits fraud cases
had been referred to the U.S. Department of Justice. These cases have been
referred by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General
(VA OIG) directly to United States Attorneys around the country. (Exhibits 4.)
A response from your office confirms that the due process protections found in 38
C.F.R. §§ 42.1-42.47 have never been afforded to any of these veterans accused of
benefits fraud.
Page 2 of 6
Keith A. Roberts, 38 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-42.47
One of the most troubling aspects of my involvement in the adjudication of
benefits fraud allegations by your agency has been the litigation position adopted
by your office. In Roberts v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 416 (20 1 0), counsel for the
Secretary argued in supplemental briefing that your office had no role to play in
the adjudication of benefits fraud matters. During oral argument before the three
judge panel and later the en bane Court the position of the Secretary was that the
Office of General Counsel had no role to play in the adjudication ofbenefits fraud.
Counsel further stated that the reference to claims in 38 C.F.R. § 14.561 only
referred to claims by or against contractors. Since the agency had over 1 million
active claims for disability benefits pending at that time I found that position to be
rather remarkable. The ad hoc process employed by the VA OIG is devoid of due
process, fundamental fairness, and any reasonable degree of competence.
Veterans are denied access to the procedural due process afforded the recipients of
other federal benefits accused of fraud. The review of fraud allegations by your
office found in the regulations along with the preparation of a detailed complaint
to be served on the accused would have resulted in hundreds of the cases referred
to the United States Attorneys for prosecution being resolved administratively.
The recent case of U.S. v. Monkemeyer, 2:17-cr-10-PLM, U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Michigan, is illustrative of the hazards inherent
with the current "sand lot" procedures used to process benefits fraud allegations
by your agency. Mr. Monkemeyer was accused of altering his DD-214 by
employees of the VA Regional Office (RO) in Detroit, Michigan. His benefits
claims had been adjudicated by employees of the RO in West Virginia. His
unemployability determination was made by the Maine RO. Several years later he
was accused of benefits fraud. His disability compensation benefits were severed
and that decision is pending review by the BV A. He was indicted for theft of
government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. After months of motions, discovery
and investigation a three day jury trial was held in 2018. Mr. Monkemeyer was
acquitted. His disability benefits have not been restored, nor had the damage to
his reputation. In addition, the unfounded allegations against him can still be
found in his VA benefits file. The economic harm to the taxpayers and Mr.
Monkemeyer have been significant. The personal damage to Mr. Monkemeyer has
been even more egregious. Had Mr. Monkemeyer been afforded his due process
rights under 38 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-42.47 much of the harm could have been avoided.
Page 3 of 6
Keith A. Roberts, 38 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-42.47
The United States Supreme Court raised the standard for fraud pleading in
civil matters in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955
(2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). Mr. Roberts
was deprived of any meaningful notice of the allegations against him. The VA
refused to provide Mr. Roberts or his American Legion representative a copy of
the report of the VA OIG which made allegations of benefits fraud against him.
That report had been placed in his benefits claims file. Both he and his American
Legion representatives were also denied access to his VA benefits claims file at
his hearing in Washington D.C. before the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) in
2005. It has since been determined that his appeal was adjudicated using an
incomplete photocopy of his claims file as the original was in the possession of the
employees of the VA OIG Chicago office.
As a former staff attorney for your agency I find the adjudication of a quasicriminal
allegation in what was intended by Congress to be a non-adversarial and
claimant friendly benefits system to an affront to logic and contrary to common
sense. As discussed in the amicus curia brief attached, an allegation of benefits
fraud should be closely held. Such an allegation is the province of the Office of
Inspector General and the Office of General Counsel. Unfounded allegations of
fraud have no place in a veterans benefits claims file. With the new national work
queue hundreds if not thousands of employees of the Veterans Benefits
Administration can access a file and review allegations that may or may not have
any basis in fact.
In the event a veteran is found innocent of any wrongdoing there is no
process or procedure available to remove fraud allegations from a benefits file.
Such allegations and related evidence should be restricted to files maintained by
your office and the Office of Inspector General in accordance with the procedures
mandated by 38 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-42.47. This is the exact issue now confronting
Mr. Monkemeyer. How do you un-ring a bell?
Some insight into the convoluted and unlawful procedures now being
followed by the VA OIG are set forth in the affidavit of Mr. Roberts dated March
9, 2007. (Exhibit 5.)
Page 4 of 6
Keith A. Roberts, 38 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-42.47
Since 1986 veterans and their family members accused of benefits fraud by
your agency have been deprived of due process of law that the recipients of
benefits administered by other departments of the government are routinely
afforded. In many cases veterans and other beneficiaries have been subjected to
premature criminal prosecutions and federal collection efforts without ever having
been afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard as mandated by the
Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, 701-706, 1305,3105, 3344,
4301(2)(E), 5335(a)(B), 5372, and 7521.
In this case Renee Szybala, then the director of compensation and pension
service of the Veterans Benefits Administration, was actively participating in the
effort to have Mr. Roberts indicted. At the same time she was assuring both Mr.
Roberts and his American Legion representative that his appeal was being
processed. Documents obtained in criminal discovery indicate that she had
authored the response to a letter sent by Mr. Roberts to then Secretary of Veterans
Affairs Principi concerning the loss of his benefits and the allegations against him.
Even more disconcerting is the questionable practice of employees of the
Office of Inspector General taking cases where allegations of benefits fraud are
being actively adjudicated by the Veterans Benefits Administration directly to
United States Attorneys for prosecution. The absurd outcome from this practice is
that a federal criminal conviction is obtained, a sentence served, damages
specified by the trial court are being collected, and then years later the benefits in
question are restored. That is what has happened in this case. Mr. Roberts has
had 30 percent of his benefits restored. And that decision is on appeal. So after
more than a decade a final agency decision as to benefits and damages has never
been issued.
Page 5 of 6
Keith A. Roberts, 38 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-42.47
We demand that the disability benefits of Mr. Roberts be restored in full. In
the alternative we request that a proper review of the file be made by your office
and that a complaint issue and proceedings before an administrative law judge be
convened in accordance with 38 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-42.47.
Sincerely, ~
PI'~
Robert P. Walsh
Enclosures: Exhibit 1., Letter, American Legion, Philip B. Wilkerson, to Renee
Szybala, Director of Compensation and Pension Service, October 15, 2004, 6
pages; Exhibit 2., Motion and Brief Amicus of Phillip Cushman, Roberts v.
Wilkie, CAVC 16-1219, motion to intervene denied by order dated October 27,
2017, 57 pages; Exhibit 3., United States. Cong. Senate Committee on the
Judiciary. Overview of False Claims and Fraud Legislation. Hearing, Jun. 17,
1986. 99th Cong. 2nd Sess. Washington: GPO, 1987, 176 pages; Exhibit 4.,
Freedom of Information Act response, August 10, 2018, 3 pages; Exhibit 5.,
Affidavit of Mr. Keith A. Roberts, March 9, 2007, 12 pages.
Page 6 of 6
#

Keith Roberts Wrongful Prosecution Is Part of Pattern of U.S. Government Bureaucrats Targeting Veterans

Men of honor have come forward to speak the truth
about the 2007 prosecution of Wisconsin's Keith
Roberts for fraud, a crusade that has netted the
lives of many military veterans. Commander,
United States Navy (ret), Robert Don Hathaway
has set the record straight, as bureaucrats crawl
back under the rocks where they live and work.

Navy Commander has come forward 50 years after a horrific death on a Naval air base to speak the truth and clear an innocent veteran wrongfully convicted by the VA and U.S. Dept of Justice

Updated - In 2010, the New York Times reported new U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs regulations ending a requirement that "specific events like bomb blasts, firefights or mortar attacks" be documented as "stressors" for PTSD disability claims in a rare win for military veterans. 

A related consequential victory, it appeared, was the V.A. and U.S. Dept of Justice halting in its search-and-destroy mission of seeking out veterans with PTSD and prosecuting them for fraud for any or no reason.

This related victory for veterans was misreported here.

A malicious bureaucratic scheme implemented by the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General continued after 2010.

Figures obtained by Robert P. Walsh, a Vietnam War combat veteran and a Michigan attorney who fights now for veterans, show that there have been 3,403 criminal arrests of veterans for fraud between 1986 and 2018, according to an Aug 10, 2018 letter to Walsh from the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General.

One of those veterans is Wisconsin's Keith Roberts; another is Karl F. W. Monkemeyer, two men who served their country only to come home to be accused of fraud and wrongfully prosecuted by federal bureaucrats feasting on our veterans like jackals.

There is no due process that is observed for veterans who upset bureaucrats.

There is federal law that is supposed to protect veterans, but this law, 38 C.F.R.§§ 42.1-42.47 (1988), is falsely regarded as advisory by VA staff, for example, who disregard its protective mandates and procedures in their lust to justify their own bureaucratic importance.

Keith Roberts

Roberts’ VA disability claim for his diagnosed PTSD is related to his trying to save his buddy, Florida native Airman Gary Holland, from being crushed to death by a C-54 airplane while stationed at a Naval air base in Naples, Italy in 1969.

The VA and U.S. Attorney claim that Roberts lied about his role at the death scene (though he was stationed there and was on duty) and that he lied about being friends with Holland, though the two trained and arrived in Naples together. [An analysis obtained from Roberts wife, Deloris Roberts, of the service histories of Gary Holland and Keith Roberts reveals parallel military careers that would make it unlikely that Holland and Roberts were not at least friendly in their relationship, and that contradicts the prosecution’s indictment and trial statements.]

Commander Robert Don Hathaway

Roberts' attorney, Bob Walsh, located Roberts' officer-in-charge, Robert Don Hathaway, who was stationed at the Naples air base and conducted a four-hour deposition.

Hathaway, Commander, United States Navy (ret), is described as a no-nonsense Navy officer who reacted with surprise at news of the Roberts affair.

Hathaway's April 12, 2019 affidavit in sum corroborates Roberts' recollection of the death scene and utterly disconfirms the United States Dept of Justice's ridiculous indictment that Roberts misled the VA about his actions.

Roberts has testified under oath and in numerous documents submitted to the VA that he was on line duty, ordered (perhaps in bad form) several officers to help with the rescue of Holland, until ordered away.

Reads Mr. Hathaway's affidavit in part: "It is my considered professional opinion as a career U.S. Navy aviator of 30 years and a Navy Aviation Safety Officer for 10 years that the removal of the jacks from VC-54Q (Navy R5D) Aircraft Bureau Number (BUNO) 050878 on Saturday, February 1, 1969, was the most significant event in the chain of events which would culminate in the death of Gary D. Holland on February 5, 1969."

Put another way, the death of Holland was negligence, and those personnel who called off Roberts in his efforts and later testified against him were protecting an old crime that was dug up inadvertently by the VA.

"The death of Gary D. Holland was not an 'accident', it was the direct consequence of negligent conduct by officers and non-commissioned officers at NAF Naples, Italy," reads Hathaway's affidavit. "Some of these same individuals testified against Keith A. Roberts at his trial for criminal benefits fraud."

Roberts took it hard in 1969, watching a young man get crushed to death, and he bore ill will towards some of the people whom he believed were responsible.

Concludes Hathaway: "Gary D. Holland died during the Vietnam war. War is by definition productive of death and injury. But Gary D. Holland died tragically and avoidably in a place and at a time when he had every reason to feel safe."

Commander Robert Don Hathaway, USN, (Ret) has come
forward 50 years after a horrific death on a Naval air base
to speak the truth and clear an innocent veteran wrongfully
convicted by the VA and U.S. Dept of Justice.

Hathaway's April 12, 2019 affidavit is reproduced below; exhibits and images are referenced, but not shown:

AFFIDAVIT AND SWORN DECLARATION
ROBERT DON HATHAWAY
COMMANDER, USN, RETIRED

I, Robert Don Hathaway, being first duly cautioned and sworn, state that the
following information is true and correct based upon my personal knowledge.

PERSONAL INFORMATION
1. My name is Robert Don Hathaway, my date of birth is February 1,
1944. [personal info deleted here]
3. I attended Northeastern State University and received a Bachelor of
Science degree.
4. I joined the U.S. Navy in March of 1966 under an aviation officer
candidate program. I received my wings in June of 1968 and retired
in 1993.
5. I am a Naval aviator qualified in a number of fixed wing, rotary wing,
and jet powered aircraft.
6. I accrued over 1 ,000 hours flying C-54 aircraft during my Navy
career.
7. I graduated il-om the Naval Safety Officer Course at the Naval Post
Graduate School, Monterey, California in 1972/73.
8. This affidavit is prepared on behalf of Keith A. Roberts. A photo of
Keith A. Roberts is attached and marked as Exhibit A.
9. At no time has any employee of the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs or other U.S. government agency contacted me to discuss the
events of Tuesday, February 4, 1969, in which Gary D. Holland was
fatally injured.
10. As detailed below, Keith A. Roberts was under my command and was
on duty at the transient line office in Hanger 2, Naval Air Facility
Naples, Italy, on Tuesday, February 4, 1969, when Gary D. Holland
was fatally injured. A photograph of Gary D. Holland is attached and
marked as Exhibit B.
11. Keith A. Roberts was in pay grade E-3 on February 4, 1969, and was
designated as an ADJAN, Aviation Machinist's Mate (Jet Engine
Mechanic).
Naval Air Facility Naples, Italy (NAF Naples)
12. My first duty station in the U.S. Navy was Naval Air Facility Naples,
Italy (NAF Naples). I reported for duty there in August of 1968.
13. I was an ensign (0-1) when I arrived, and had been promoted to
Lieutenant Junior Grade (LTJG) by February of 1969.
14. Captain R. M. Frye, USN, was the commander, NAF Naples, in
February of 1969.
15. LCDR Jerry L. Fuchs, USN, was the Assistant Aircraft Maintenance
Officer at NAF Naples in February of 1969.
16. LCDR Harold R. Truesdale, USN, was the Operations Maintenance
Division Officer in February of 1969.
17. NAF Naples had two hangars in 1969. Hangar 1 was occupied by
Squadron VR-24. Hangar 2 housed the maintenance operations and
the Transient Line Division office, or line shack. A photo of the
hangars and ramp area circa 1959 is attached and marked as Exhibit
C. By 1969 a number of structures had been added near the hangars,
but the hangars were as shown in 1969.

The Transient Line Division
18. In addition to my flying duties I was the Division Officer in charge of
the Transient Line Division in February of 1969.
19. In my absence LT. Paul W. Solomon was the officer supervising the
Transient Line.
20. I reported to LCDR Harold R. Truesdale, USN.
21. LCDR Truesdale had been on the U.S.S. Forrestal on July 29, 1967,
in the Gulf of Tonkin when a Zuni rocket discharged prematurely and
caused a massive fire on the flight deck killing 134 sailors. This is
the same fire that John McCain survived.
22. LCDR Truesdale was deeply involved in the investigation of that
incident which he perceived had threatened to end his Navy career.
23. Because of the Forrestal incident in his recent past LCDR Truesdale
was extremely risk averse and micro-managed all of those reporting
to him at NAF Naples.
24. The senior non-commissioned officer in the Transient Line was Chief
George Hill, Jr. When I arrived in Naples in August of 1968 he was a
First Class Petty Officer (E-6). He was promoted to Chief Petty
Officer in January of 1969.
25. In February of 1969 Chief Hill had over 20 years of service in naval
aviation.
26. To the best of my knowledge Chief Hill passed away in 2009.
27. Keith A. Roberts, who was called "Robby", was an ADJAN, E-3, in
February of 1969.
28. He had reported for duty at NAF Naples in November of 1968.
Naples was his first duty assignment.
29. He was assigned to the Transient Line. A photo of Roberts in the
Naples Line Shack is attached as Exhibits D. A photo of Roberts
circa 1969 is attached as Exhibit E.
30. The Transient Line Division was responsible for all aircraft
movement on the base. That included the movement of aircraft
assigned to VR-24, the Fleet Air Logistics Squadron, which occupied
hangar 1.
31. Transient Line personnel were also responsible for placing aircraft on
jacks and removing them.
32. The Transient Line operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365
days a year. The Division consisted of 2 officers, 1 Chief Petty
Officer, 4 Petty Officers and 6 men ofE-3 grade. The manpower of
the transient line was supplemented as needed. Approximately 11
enlisted men were assigned to the Transient Line in February of 1969.
33. The Transient Line office or "shack" was located in Hangar 2 and had
windows to the outside so that the runway, taxiways, and ramps could
be observed. There were also large windows so the hangar floor
could be observed.
34. The Transient Line Office had hot line telephones to the aircraft
control tower and to the fire station crash crew.
35. The actuator switch for the hangar Alarm Bell was located
approximately 6 feet from the transient line shack door that opened
out into the hangar.
36. The alarm bell was sounded if their was an emergency, or any time
aircraft were being moved in the hangar, and when equipment was
being moved on the hangar floor.
37. Tugs, forklifts and other equipment were stored outside and adjacent
to the hangar.
38. All of the enlisted men assigned to the transient line held aviation
rates.

VC-54Q (Navy R5D) Aircraft Bureau Number (BUNO) 050878
39. A number of Navy R5D (C-54) aircraft were either based or
maintained at NAF Naples in February of 1969.
40. A photo of a VR-24 C-54 circa 1960 is attached and marked as
Exhibit F.
41. Some of the C-54 aircraft were in a combination passenger and cargo
configuration for use by the senior commands.
42. VC-54Q BUNO 050878 (0878) was one of the combination executive
aircraft and was assigned to the Commander, Middle East Forces and
was based on Bahrain Island.
Friday, January 31, 1969
43. On Friday, January 31, 1969, (0878) had been in hangar 2 at NAF
Naples for periodic maintenance for approximately two weeks.
44. On January 23, 1969, Floyd M. Morris had determined that the nose
strut needed to be changed. See Investigative Report
69, (Exhibit J.), enclosure 14.
45. The aircraft had been placed on aircraft jacks by Transient Line
personnel.
46. A drawing depicting the jacking and lifting points for the C-54 is
attached and marked as Exhibit G.
47. A drawing depicting the aircraft jacks used for a C-54 aircraft is
attached and marked as Exhibit H.
48. The aircraft was positioned nose first in the hangar with the tail
section extending out over the ramp. A photo circa 1960 depicts a C-
54 in a similar position is marked as Exhibit I.
49. A new nose strut was being installed on C-54 (0878). All related
work had not been completed. See paragraphs 17-20, 20 FEB 69
investigative report (Exhibit J.) at page 4.
50. A drawing of the front main landing gear (nose gear) of a C-54
aircraft is attached and marked as Exhibit K.
51. On Friday, January 31, 1969, LCDR
capacity as the Assistant Aircraft Maintenance Officer at NAF
Naples, approach Chief George Hill, Jr. and requested that (0878) be
taken off the aircraft jacks.
52. The rationale set forth for this request by LCDR Fuchs was that the
removal of the jacks would facilitate movement out of the hangar in
the event of a fire and that under normal maintenance standards the
aircraft was not required to be on jacks. See paragraphs 19, 20, 20
FEB 69 investigative report (Exhibit J.) at page 4.
53. Chief George Hill, Jr. informed LCDR Fuchs that it was his opinion
that (0878) was not in proper maintenance status for removal of the
jacks and that they would be removed at a later time when the
necessary work was completed. Saturday, February 1, 1969
54. The new front main landing gear strut had been installed on Saturday,
February 1, 1969. See 20 FEB 69 investigative report (Exh. J.),
enclosure 14.
55. Enclosure 14 clearly indicates that critical components of the front
main landing gear assembly were missing on Saturday, February 2,
1969, when (0878) was taken off jacks by maintenance personnel.
See 20 FEB 69 investigative report (Exh. J.), enclosure 14.
Monday, February 3, 1969
56. Chief Steward, Gary D. Holland and other maintenance personnel
were involved in the installation of rigging and steering gear
associated with the front main landing gear. See 20 FEB 69
investigative report (Exh. J.), enclosure 14.
Tuesday, February 4, 1969
57. I reviewed my flight log which indicates that on Tuesday, February 4,
1969, I flew a mission in a C-117 Delta aircraft to the Naval Air
Station, Sigonella, Italy, then to Malta and returned to Naples. I
departed Naples early in the morning and had returned a short time
after Gary D. Holland had been evacuated by helicopter to the Navy
Hospital in Naples.
58. On Tuesday, February 4, 1969, written testing was conducted for
advancement from grade E-3 to E-4 in the morning. See the
announcement in the Capo News & Views base newsletter dated
January 8, 1969, and attached as Exhibit L., and see also 20 FEB 69
investigative report (Exh. J.), enclosure 14, confirming that Gary D.
Holland did not return to the hangar until 12:00 after completing the
test and eating lunch.
59. Keith A. Roberts along with other E-3's that worked in the hangar
were required to take the test. They were just returning to hangar 2 at
12:00.
60. After Chief Hill declined to remove the jacks from (0878)
maintenance division personnel had removed them as detailed above.
61. By the morning of Tuesday, February 4, 1969, (0878) was off jacks.
62. My recollection is clear that Keith A. Roberts was on duty at the
Transient Line Shack on Tuesday, February 4, 1969.
63. He was present upon my arrival at hangar 2 in the early afternoon of
February 4, 1969.
64. Keith A. Roberts participated in the after action debrief conducted by
Chief Hill and myself for all Transient Line Division personnel
during the afternoon of February 4, 1969.
65. The nose gear of (0878) collapsed trapping Gary D. Holland at 12:40.
See 20 FEB 69 investigative report (Exh. J.) Enclosure 15.
66. There was confusion and delay during the rescue effort.
67. Gary D. Holland was freed from the nose gear at 13:05. See 20 FEB
69 investigative report (Exh. J.), enclosure 5.
68. Gary D. Holland had been evacuated by helicopter to the U.S. Naval
Hospital, Naples, and arrived there at 13:20. See 20 FEB 69
investigative report (Exh. J.), enclosure 5.
69. Gary D. Holland was first seen by a medical officer at 13:30 on 04
FEB 69. See 20 FEB 69 investigative report (Exh. J.), page 2.
70. I had landed at Naples, taxied the aircraft, and was securing it when
Chief Hill came on board.
71. This would be the only time Chief Hill met me on an aircraft during
the entire time we served together.
72. The time was approximately 14:00.
73. Chief Hill briefed me on the collapse of the nose gear on (0878) and
the rescue efforts that had just concluded.
74. Chief Hill informed me that there were delays in the rescue efforts
and that in his opinion had the original efforts been allowed to
proceed Gary D. Holland would have had a good chance of survival.
75. Chief Hill stated that LCDR Harold B. Truesdale, USN, had ordered
the men attempting to use the fork lift to raise to nose of the aircraft
to stop as they might "further damage the aircraft".
76. There was a circus atmosphere in Hangar 2 when I arrived.
77. LCDR Truesdale was hollering instructions, ordering everyone to
return to duty and clear the hangar.
78. Some individuals responded that they did not work for him and
refused to leave.
79. At the time I arrived at Hangar 2 there were still at least 100 men and
women present.
80. Chief Hill and I gathered the Transient Line Division personnel and
had them each prepare a hand written statement regarding the incident
with (0878), the injury to Gary D. Holland, and what they had
observed or done as part of the rescue efforts.
81. Those hand written statements were then copied to the Transient Line
logbook to preserve them.
82. That evening I was present when there was a heated argument in the
Officers Mess regarding the incident, the rescue efforts, and what
many present believed to be unnecessary delay in freeing Gary D.
Holland.
Wednesday, February 5, 1969
83. Gary D. Holland died at 11:20 on 05 FEB 1969 at the U.S. Navy
Hospital, Naples, Italy. See 20 FEB 69 investigative report (Exh. J.)
at page 3.
84. LCDR Jerry L. Fuchs, USN, was appointed to conduct the
investigation by an order dated 05 FEB 1969. 20 FEB 69
investigative report (Exh. J.) enclosure 1.
The Reenactment of the Incident of February 4, 1969
85. LCDR Jerry L. Fuchs, USN, supervised a staged reenactment of the
incident in which Gary Holland was killed on Wednesday, February
5, 1969.
86. LCDR Fuchs prepared a statement in which he describes entering the
nose wheel well of (0878) on February 5, 1969. At this time the
aircraft jacks had been reinstalled.
87. LCDR Fuchs states that with his "left leg in position underneath the
down lock linkage, similar to the position depicted in enclosure (32),
I reached for the hydraulic line top connection, enclosure ( 15), which
the party was to secure, and as a result raised the down lock linkage
with my thigh. The lifting of the down lock linkage out of the lock
position required no intentional effort on my part. The process of
repositioning my body in any way caused sufficient force to be
applied to the down lock linkage to lift it out of the overcenter
position, which in turn would have allowed the nose wheel to
collapse if the aircraft had not been supported by jacks. "
20 FEB 69 investigative report (Exh. J.) enclosure 17, dated 5
February 1969.
88. Keith A. Roberts has informed me that he participated in another
reenactment identical to the one described above. Roberts states that
he was not able to move the linkage with his body no matter how hard
he tried. He further states that a color photograph of the reenactment
he participated in was offered as an exhibit at his criminal trial.

Investigation Report of 20 February 1969
89. The initial investigation of the fatal incident of February 4, 1969,
was conducted by LCDR Jerry L. Fuchs, USN. The report is dated 20
February 1969 and consists ed of71 pages. A copy is attached and
marked as Exhibit J.
90. LCDR Jerry L. Fuchs, USN, in his capacity as the Assistant Aircraft
Maintenance Officer at NAF Naples, was directly involved in the
decisions and actions that resulted in the death of Gary D. Holland.
91. LCDR Jerry L. Fuchs, USN, should have recused himself from any
role in the investigation of the incident other than as a witness.
92. The report dated February 20, 1969, is a preliminary report. This type
of report is also referred to as a "line of duty" report. The primary
purpose of these reports is to confirm that the death of the individual
involved was in the line of duty so that veterans benefits and Navy
final pay and benefits can be authorized.
93. The more comprehensive official U.S. Navy Safety Report has not
been available for my review. Access to those reports is restricted.
They are not subject to release via the Freedom of Information Act
and are for official use only.
94. It is my considered professional opinion as a career U.S. Navy aviator
of 30 years and a Navy Aviation Safety Officer for 10 years that the
removal of the jacks from VC-54Q (Navy R5D) Aircraft Bureau
Number (BUNO) 050878 on Saturday, February 1, 1969, was the
most significant event in the chain of events which would culminate
in the death of Gary D. Holland on February 5, 1969.
95. LCDR Jerry L. Fuchs, USN, testified in Federal District Court in the
trial of Keith A. Roberts that he could not think of any situation in
which an enlisted person would give an officer an order. That is
absurd. Military aviators routinely take orders from enlisted
personnel. The enlisted personnel serving on the Transient Line
directing aircraft give orders to the officers operating the aircraft on a
daily basis. Many military air traffic controllers are enlisted
personnel. The instructions they give to aircraft are orders.
96. Keith A. Roberts believed that as the individual manning the
Transient Line shack on February 4, 1969, when Gary D. Holland was
injured he should not have been impeded in his effort to rapidly raise
the nose of the aircraft with the fork lift.
97. That is inconsistent with the facts in the case, as clearly senior men
had arrived on scene that were more qualified to direct the rescue
efforts.
98. Keith A. Roberts and others who served with Gary D. Holland have
been troubled by his death.
99. The death of Gary D. Holland was not an "accident", it was the direct
consequence of negligent conduct by officers and non-commissioned
officers at NAF Naples, Italy.
100. Some of these same individuals testified against Keith A. Roberts at
his trial for criminal benefits fraud.
101. Gary D. Holland died during the Vietnam war. War is by definition
productive of death and injury. But Gary D. Holland died tragically
and avoidably in a place and at a time when he had every reason to
feel safe.
End of Statement

AFFIDAVIT AND SWORN DECLARATION OF
ROBERT DON HATHAWAY
COMMANDER, USN, RETIRED
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date Signed
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF OKLAHOMA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF CHEROKEE )
On this \l_lliday of ~(',· \ , 2019, Mr. Robert Don
Hathaway came before me and signed this affidavit after being first duly cautioned
and sworn and acknowledging it to be true to the best of his personal knowledge.
~/~~
, Certified Notary Pubhc
Cherokee County, Oklahoma
My Commission Expires: 0 8: J 0 3 Jz L.

AFFIDAVIT AND SWORN DECLARATION
ROBERT DON HATHAWAY
COMMANDER, USN, RETIRED
LIST OF EXHIBITS
A. Photo of Keith A. Roberts circa 1968.
B. Photograph of Gary D. Holland circa 1968.
C. Photo of the hangars and ramp area, NAF Naples, Italy, circa 1959.
D. Photo of Keith A. Roberts in the NAF Naples Transient Line Shack circa 1969.
E. Photo ofKeith A. Roberts at the NAF Naples circa 1969.
F. Photo of a VR-24 R-5-D, C-54 aircraft circa 1960.
G. Drawing depicting the jacking and lifting points for the C-54 aircraft.
H. Drawing depicting the aircraft jacks used for a C-54 aircraft.
I. Photo circa 1960, C-54 nose first in a hangar at NAF Naples similar to the
position of(0878) on February 4, 1969.
J. U.S. Navy report of the investigation into the circumstances connected with the
death of AMSAN Gary D. Holland, as a result of an accident on 4 February
1969, dated 20 FEB 69, 71 pages.
K. Drawing depicting the front main landing gear (nose gear) of a C-54 aircraft.
L. Capo News & Views base newsletter dated January 8, 1969, announcing the
E-3 to E-4 written examination for the morning of Tuesday, February 4, 1969.
End of Exhibit
#

Televangelist Who Denies PTSD Speaks at Military Prayer Event

PTSD and Fundies

There is a large group of chickenhawks, Christian Dominionists and rightwingers who deny PTSD, work to minimize and prevent military veterans and contractors from receiving PTSD disability benefits, (Boston Review), while always calling for more war.

PTSD is not functional to the war-making enterprise, so many less-than-sophisticated religious fundamentalists say, pray it away.

Even better god loves war, so praying as a weapon in the long tradition of killing for Christ continues for young servicemembers in training. See Trump to ask for $716 billion in defense spending in 2019 budget as Trump works for a war with Iran. It's what god wants.

One really nutty religious fundie coming next week to Fort Jackson, Feb. 1, to give the troops the word epitomizes our religious-military-industrial complex.

From Hemant Mehta at Patheos:

Now that he has a new private jet, televangelist Kenneth Copeland is heading to Fort Jackson, South Carolina — to the nation’s largest training installation — to headline a National Prayer Breakfast event.

That alone may not be a huge deal, but Chris Rodda points out that Copeland is an awful choice to speak at any military event — even a Christian one — because he’s said in the past that soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are kidding themselves because God would never let that happen.

Reading from Numbers 32: 20-22, Copeland said, 'So this is a promise — if you do this thing, if you arm yourselves before the Lord for the war … you shall return, you’re coming back, and be guiltless before the Lord and before the nation.'

'Any of you suffering from PTSD right now, you listen to me,' Copeland said as [pseudo-historian David] Barton affirmed him. 'You get rid of that right now. You don’t take drugs to get rid of it. It doesn’t take psychology. That promise right there will get rid of it.'

Video of Copeland's medical brilliance on PTSD:

Below is the text of the letter Mikey Weinstein sent to the Commanding General of Fort Jackson to work for the freedom our service-members in a secular military.
--

Dear Major General John P. “Pete” Johnson,

Sir, it is with deep respect that I earnestly write to you this morning on behalf of 56 of your U.S Army subordinates (Officers, NCOs and U.S. Army civilians), directly under your command, with an expeditious, rational and reasonable demand in your official capacity as the Commanding General of Fort Jackson, South Carolina. For the record, sir, 32 of these complainants practice the Christian faith (Protestant or Roman Catholic), 6 are Jewish, 8 are Muslims, 2 are Hindus, 1 is a Native American spiritualist and the remainder would describe themselves as nontheist, agnostic, atheist, secularist or humanist.

By way of brief introduction, sir, my name is Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein and I am the Founder and President of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF). As you may know, MRFF is a large, civil rights advocacy, nonprofit organization founded in late 2005 which vigorously protects and defends, inter alia, the Constitutional, First Amendment civil rights of DoD servicemen and women for Church/State separation in the United States armed forces. Presently, including the 56 servicemen and women mentioned above, MRFF proudly represents over 53,400 United States soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen in the active duty, reserve, national guard and civilian components of our nation’s military as well as veterans. Approximately 96% of MRFF’s total clients are devoted practitioners of many varied denominations of the Christian faith; about 3/4 of that number are from a large spectrum of Protestant sects and the bulk of the remaining 1/4 are Roman Catholic.

General Johnson, sir, please allow me to cut to the chase as I know you must be very busy as, likewise, we are at MRFF.

General, every year at this time like clockwork MRFF is usually inundated with a plethora of complaints about matters associated with the so-called “National Prayer Breakfasts” (NPBs) and “National Prayer Luncheons” (NPLs) which so many military installations hold on an annual basis. It has  been MRFF’s experience that such events, though billed as “non-mandatory” and pure-as-the-driven-snow “voluntary” are very often QUITE the opposite, in all actuality, for so very many unfortunate military subordinates who are “VOLUNTOLD” to attend by their command chains. (I will leave alone, for the moment, the array of serious issues of illicit, First Amendment breaches associated with all of these NPBs and NPLs as they are SO often misused and abused for sinister, twisted purposes of fundamentalist Christian proselytization.)

This new year of 2018 is no different from all of the prior years vis-a-vis the NPBs and NPLs and Fort Jackson’s version of the NPB is currently scheduled for a week from today on Thursday, February 1, 2018. These NPBs and NPLs always feature a special “guest speaker” and THAT, sir, is PRECISELY why I am writing to you this day with a respectful demand for your kind attention and timely help to right an absolutely egregious wrong.

General, do you have ANY idea, sir, whom your staff has selected to be the Fort Jackson special “guest speaker” at your Feb. 1, ’18 NPB?

Assuming you do not, sir, let me please advise you that it is the universally despicable, discredited, fundamentalist Christian extremist/supremacist Kenneth Copeland. Do you know ANYthing of moment about this feckless, religious bully/provocateur, General Johnson?  To aid you in your further research, please see the excerpt in red highlight below from a breaking news article publicly published this VERY morning by MRFF’s Senior Research Director, Ms. Chris Rodda (the full article will be immediately sent to you, as well, this morning for your further review):

--

“Will Kenneth Copeland Tell Soldiers at Fort Jackson Prayer Breakfast that PTSD Isn’t Real?”

He’s been investigated by the Senate for financial misconduct. He’s called himself a “Christian extremist.” His fraudulent practices have been exposed by his own employees. He’s Islamophobic, homophobic, and believes that America is a Christian nation. He needs a private jet because commercial airplanes are filled with demons.

Any one of the above things should make televangelist Kenneth Copeland an obviously inappropriate and outrageous choice to be the speaker for the National Prayer Breakfast observance at any U.S. military installation. And yet Copeland has been invited to do just that, and is scheduled to speak at the February 1 prayer breakfast at Fort Jackson, South Carolina — the U.S. Army’s largest training installation and home to the Armed Forces Army Chaplaincy School and Army’s Drill Sergeant School.

But there’s something else that makes Copeland an even more outrageous choice to speak to any military audience. He has claimed that PTSD isn’t real because it isn’t biblical, saying on a 2013 Veterans Day episode of his TV show:

“Any of you suffering from PTSD right now, you listen to me. You get rid of that right now. You don’t take drugs to get rid of it, and it doesn’t take psychology. That promise right there [referring to a Bible verse he had just read] will get rid of it.”

Copeland’s guest that day, Christian nationalist pseudo-historian David Barton, wholeheartedly agreed, adding that warriors in the Bible fighting in the name of God were “esteemed” and in the “faith hall of fame” because they “took so many people out in battle.”

---

Oh, General Johnson, there is just SO much, much more about this disgusting Copeland person which MRFF could expand upon but suffice it to say that this great homage and special invitation proffered by your command staff to honor a miserable, fundamentalist Christian wretch like Copeland as the special “guest speaker’ at Fort Jackson’s NPB is TOTALLY antithetical to the United States Army’s vaunted “7 Core Values” of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage. Indeed, General, the SHOCKING selection of such a divisive and corrosive individual/religious predator and bully to be the main speaking attraction at your NPB at Fort Jackson is nothing less than a terminal and swift cancer to the bedrock good order, morale, discipline and unit cohesion of your command at Fort Jackson.

The 56 U.S. Army personnel under your direct command, sir, at Fort Jackson who have pleaded for MRFF to intercede on their collective behalf regarding this sordid matter justly fear punitive reprisal and retribution if they try to express their outrage over Copeland’s selection via their respective chains of command or by “outting” themselves via Inspector General/Equal Employment Opportunity (IG/EEO) complaints.

Therefore, sir, on behalf of our 56 U.S.Army clients, MRFF is officially demanding that you immediately rescind this invitation to Kenneth Copeland to speak at the Fort Jackson NPB. General Johnson, sir, the good news is that there is still time to do the right thing here! Sir, please replace this hideously reprehensible fundamentalist Christian charlatan cum exclusivist bigot with another more respectable and inspiring, inclusive individual. General, please pick SOMEone else, ANYone else who, unlike Copeland who gleefully brags about being a “Christian extremist”, clearly represents and buttresses the aforementioned Army’s “7 Core Values” whilst concomitantly strengthening the “Army Strong” foundations of strength-through-diversity inextricably intertwined with supporting and enhancing good order, morale, discipline and unit cohesion.

General Johnson, I am happy to discuss this urgent matter of MRFF’s demand that you rescind Kenneth Copeland’s Fort Jackson NPB speaking invitation with you at your earliest opportunity should you have any additional queries or desire, for any other reason, to further communicate.

Sincerely and respectfully submitted with best wishes and standing by for your decision,

Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein, Esq.

Founder and President, MRFF

Veterans for Due Process Helps Wisconsin Vietnam-era Vet in Years-Long Fight

Keith Roberts, veteran betrayed by the country
he served. Fight continues at Veterans Court.

Veterans Day is when we recognize sacrifice of our armed forces.

This Veterans Day, I singled out one Wisconsin veteran, Airman Keith Roberts, who served honorably
in the Vietnam War combat era in a support capacity at a Navy Air Base in Naples, Italy.

Roberts is from the small city of Gillett in northern Wisconsin. He was honorably discharged from the Navy in 1970.

But his service, his rights, and his humanity were encroached upon by the United States government in the most cruel fashion.

For listening to his veteran service officer in Shawano County Wisconsin, who advised Roberts to seek PTSD disability benefits to the time of his discharge, Roberts and his family have been hounded, harassed, investigated and ultimately railroaded with a bogus federal criminal indictment for which Roberts spent years in federal prison. Folks at the VA and the DoJ did not want Vietnam-era veterans seeking disability benefit en masse, so they went after Roberts who claimed he was traumatized when his friend was crushed to death by a C-54 aircraft at the base.

Went after as in contrived a criminal indictment for Roberts' pursuing his disability claim.

The U.S. Dept of Justice in the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stephen Biskupic, (2001-2009), indicted this Wisconsin Vietnam-era Navy veteran, (who was diagnosed with PTSD by at least five different mental health professionals), using the power of the federal prosecutor to convict and jail him on trumped-up charges of wire fraud in 2004-2005.

I spoke with Roberts by phone numerous times this year.

Roberts will never be the same man. His family will never be the same.

At Mal Contends, I have attempted to bring this shame to light the last 10 years.

Honestly, I feel I may have been shouting at the cold in a Wisconsin winter.

There is no force of unreason as unyielding the United States government protecting a bullshit prosecution.

Except for veterans.

Veterans for Due Process, Inc. and attorney Robert P. Walsh, a Vietnam combat veteran, will not stop fighting for Keith Roberts, not until they're all dead.

Veterans for Due Process, Inc. filed a Friend of the Court brief, amicus curiae, last month at the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, (CVAC), in Keith A. Roberts v. David J. Hulkin, M.D., (No. 16-1219).

There are whistle blowers in the adjudication of veterans' claims. And then there's Walsh.

Roberts, Walsh and Veterans for Due Process, Inc want Due Process for Roberts' claim in light of the bullshit prosecution that denied Roberts fundamental Constitutional rights, specifically Due Process. That's it, that's all they want: Due Process.

Writes attorney, Christian J. Grostic, in part, (pp 5-8) in a supporting brief for Roberts:

2. The Benefits-Determination Procedures ... Do Not Provide Adequate Due Process.

The VA’s usual benefits-determination procedures do not include the necessary protections mandated by the regulations, the statute, and the Constitution to investigate or adjudicate allegedly false benefits claims. In fact, using the usual procedures in such circumstances further violates veterans’ rights.

By Congress’s direction, the usual benefits-determination procedures are “strongly and uniquely proclaimant.” Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “Congress has designed and fully intends to maintain a beneficial non-adversarial system of veterans benefits.” Id. (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 100-963, at 13 (1988)). “I[m]plicit in such a beneficial system has been an evolution of a completely exparte system of adjudication in which Congress expects [the DVA] to fully and sympathetically develop the veteran’s claim to its optimum before deciding it on the merits. Even then, [the DVA] is expected to resolve all issues by giving the claimant the benefit of any reasonable doubt.” Id. at 1362-63 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 100-963, at 13 (1988)) (alterations in Hodge).
Congress’s expectations are codified in the applicable regulations. The VA’s adjudication regulations state that “[p]roceedings before VA are ex parte in nature.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a). They notify veterans that “it is the obligation of VA to assist a claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim.” Id. They instruct that when “a reasonable doubt arises regarding service origin, the degree of disability, or any other point, such doubt will be resolved in favor the claimant.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.
Because they are designed to be ex parte and claimant-friendly, the usual benefits determination procedures do not include the due-process protections necessary in an adversarial proceeding, such as the investigation and adjudication of fraud allegations. As Congress stated, “[i]n such a beneficial structure there is no room for such adversarial concepts as cross examination, best evidence rule, hearsay evidence exclusion or strict adherence to burden of proof.” Hodge, 155 F.3d at 1362 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 100-963, at 13 (1988)). The regulations follow this principle. Although a veteran is entitled to a hearing on an issue that arises under part 3, the purpose is solely to permit him to introduce additional evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2). There is no mechanism for the veteran to obtain discovery or confront witnesses regarding the allegations against him, because such allegations are not governed by this scheme at all. There are no rules keeping separate the roles of investigating officials, prosecutors, and adjudicating officials, because those roles are not part of the claimant-friendly process.

Where the VA is truly on the veteran’s side, these procedures provide the minimum due process necessary for non-adversarial claims adjudication. But where VA staff become ad hoc investigators and prosecutors, the regulations’ minimal formal procedures allow those employees to use their access to the veteran and wide discretion to pursue and reinforce any allegations they choose, base their determinations on whatever evidentiary rules or burdens they see fit, and record their conclusions in the veteran’s file without a fair opportunity to refute them. These are the dangers of informal, ex parte proceedings, and why the procedures in part 42 are mandatory for any fraud allegations.

Moreover, the VA violates additional rights of veterans when its staff abuse the proclaimant regulations in part 3 to pursue anti-claimant allegations. Part 3 promises veterans that the VA will assist them in developing their claims, and veterans rely on that promise when they give statements, provide evidence, and otherwise cooperate with VA staff. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a). When those government employees secretly violate that promise, particularly when they pursue quasi-criminal fraud allegations, they can coerce veterans into providing evidence against themselves or making involuntary statements in violation of the Fifth Amendment. See, e.g., Hopkins v. Cockrell, 325 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 2003) (promise that conversation was confidential rendered confession involuntary); United States v. Walton, 10 F.3d 1024, 1030 (3d Cir. 1993) (government agents unconstitutionally coerced statement by promising confidentiality to suspect, who did not know he was under criminal investigation); cf. Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 534 (1963) (police unconstitutionally coerced statement by threatening that government would cut off suspect’s benefits if she did not “cooperate”). This is yet another reason why the VA must follow the procedures in part 42 if it pursues fraud allegations administratively. ...

Legally, what the DoJ and the VA did to Keith Roberts is a case that is a no-brainer; it's wholly improper and unconstitutional.

Politically, most folks don' give a shit. But stay tuned. This is the first time I felt optimistic about Keith Roberts in a long time.

VA Blog: Claims is a four-letter word for veterans

Delay, deny, and hope you die

Beyond a united front against the political-sociopathic action that the congresional Super Committee could be forced to cut health care for military service members and veterans, one aspect of policy most every veteran and advocate can agree on is the fact that the DVA claims process is terrible.

By Michael Leon

But we never read such truisms from anyone working or writing for the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs (DVA or VA).

No longer is DVA colluding with the U.S. Department of Justice to lock up Vietnam-era veterans for being too persistent in pursuing their claims, but everyone knows that America went to war(s) without consideration of what would happen to the veterans.

This is changing.

Reading today's blog from the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs (DVA), this is the FIRST and only time I have heard the claims process derided in language befitting the obscenity known as the Veterans Benefits Administration.

Gary Hicks' lede reads: "If there is one word in the English language that could be a four-letter word, it’s 'claims.' From a Veteran’s standpoint, that six-letter word can be as cringe-worthy as any four-letter word heard while wearing the uniform."

Coming atop the news of deescalation of war and talk of ending another war, the conclusion is inescapable that we are headed in the right direction.

So, I going bite my tongue and not ask: Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, why weren't the first public words out of your office two years ago, 'this claims process is one hell of a mess, and we're going to fix it.'

But I am going ask President Obama's administration to pardon Navy veteran Keith Roberts, a victim of the corrupt Bush-Cheney regime, the DVA under Bush and assorted bystanders.

Here's Hicks' piece today.

By Gary Hicks

If there is one word in the English language that could be a four-letter word, it’s “claims.” From a Veteran’s standpoint, that six-letter word can be as cringe-worthy as any four-letter word heard while wearing the uniform. At VA, we understand the claims process is a major source of contention with our Veterans.

The problem has been around a long time. If memory serves, America’s last World War I Veteran, Frank Buckles, who passed in February of this year, went a few rounds with VA over benefits in his time. And if I had to guess, issues with claims probably started shortly after Generals Grant and Lee left the service. So, the problems aren’t new.

What is fairly new is an approach in which VA is working to find creative ways to cut through the red tape; fix what is broken and find better ways of doing things. It’s called the Veterans Affairs Innovation Initiative—or VAi2 for those who prefer acronyms.

VAi2 is a program designed to tap the talent and expertise of individuals both inside and outside government to contribute new ideas that ultimately produce new, innovative solutions that advance VA’s ability to both improve and deliver benefits and services.

VAi2’s roots can be traced back to a speech President Obama gave to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August 2009 when he said:

”We’re going to challenge each of our 57 regional VA offices to come up with the best ways of doing business, of harnessing the best information technologies, of cutting red tape and breaking through the bureaucracy. And then we’re going to fund the best ideas and put them into action, all with a simple mission: cut those backlogs, slash those wait times, deliver your benefits sooner.”

Shortly after that speech, Secretary Shinseki implemented VAi2, which includes an employee competition as part of the initiative. The idea is to ask frontline employees to propose ideas and solutions to solve the problems they face every day. Who knows better than those who actually do the work?

To date, there have been four Employee Innovation Competitions – two with the Veterans Health Administration and two with the Veterans Benefits Administration, resulting in a total of 40 employee ideas being selected and funded for implementation.

The most recent competition held with VBA employees resulted in six ideas being selected. This particular competition sought ideas from employees to help Veterans with disabilities related to their military service obtain meaningful employment. VA will develop, test, and potentially implement these ideas for nationwide use in VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) Program.

As VA’s Under Secretary for Benefits Allison Hickey said recently:

“Every Veterans Benefits Administration employee who participated in VA’s 2011 Employee Innovation Competition helped to improve service to our Veterans. Through the ingenuity of our employees and their deep understanding of what today’s Veterans need to gain good-paying jobs, we have a terrific set of innovations to pursue.”

The selected innovations have the potential to significantly improve the quality of services provided to participants in VA’s VR&E Program and to reduce the cost to taxpayers of delivering those services.

Winning ideas include: a paid internship program to help Veterans gain private-sector work experience; support systems for Post-9/11 Veteran-students with a traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder; development of a mentorship program for Veterans from the employment community; providing Mental Health First Aid training to VR&E employees to increase their understanding of mental illness and enable them to provide the highest level of service to ensure successful Veteran outcomes; online verification of eligibility for VR&E services; and enhancements to the disbursement of education benefits in the form of a pre-loaded debit card for purchasing books and supplies. View a complete list and description of the winners.

Thousands of employees cast their votes online with the top vote-getters having an opportunity to pitch their ideas to senior VA leaders with an official presentation. A multiple-judge panel then thoroughly reviewed all of the finalists and selected six ideas for funding.

VAi2 Director Jonah Czerwinski also added recently:

“These are the best of the best. With this selection, we now have 16 innovations funded from the Veterans Benefits Administration employee competitions, many of which have been implemented and are positively affecting our service-delivery.”

VAi2 officially launched in spring of 2010 to identify, fund, and test new ideas and new tools that improve access, enhance quality, reduce costs, and improve Veteran satisfaction with VA services.

The Initiative invites employees, private sector companies, entrepreneurs, and academic leaders to contribute their best ideas for innovations that increase Veterans’ access to VA services, improve the quality of services delivered, enhance the performance of VA operations, and reduce or control the cost of delivering those services that Veterans and their families receive. VAi2 will identify, prioritize, fund, test, and deploy the most promising solutions to the VA’s most important challenges.

To learn more about VAi2 and what innovative approaches VA is taking to better serve our Veterans, visit the site.

New GOP National Chair Is Voter Obstruction Operative from Wisconsin

The Republican National Committee selected a new leader on Friday, Reince Priebus of Wisconsin, the NYT reports. So who is Reince Priebus? Priebus is a partisan, voter obstruction operative from Wisconsin who lost his bids to roll back Wisconsin's historically progressive tradition to open and fair elections.Priebus is the outgoing chair of Republican Party of Wisconsin and a partner with the GOP-heavy law firm, Michael Best and Friedrich (LLP), recently retained by the new GOP-led Wisconsin state legislature to redraw and gerrymander national and Wisconsin legislative districts. (The GOP legislature is not allowing democrats to have the counsel of tax-financed law firms to redraw districts.)

The Michael Best and Friedrich firm includes another partner, former Bush-Cheney, corrupt and disgraced U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Steven M. Biskupic, infamous for his prosecutions of the innocent DOJ-VA-persecuted veteran, Keith Roberts, the innocent Georgia Thompson, and several overturned voter fraud cases [see also Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals].

Voter obstruction

Priebus is known in Wisconsin political-journalistic circles for his dedicated (and so far unsuccessful) efforts to obstruct Wisconsin voters, suppressing the wrong kind of voters—black, old, and disabled. The Priebus-led voter obstruction programs are consonant with national GOP efforts to obstruct Democratically leaning voters.

In October 2008, it was reported by Mark Pitsch (Wisconsin State Journal) and WisPolitics that Priebus and Republican Wisconsin Attorney General (and McCain-Palin co-chair) J.B. Van Hollen (and Van Hollen's top aide) met before and at the 2008 National Republican Convention in St. Paul to discuss voter obstruction efforts which would be employed by the Van Hollen-headed Wisconsin Department of Justice during the late stages of 2008 presidential campaign and on election day.

GOP allegations of organized voter fraud has been shown to be a fiction, by the Brennan Center for Justice and by a Wisconsin-federal committee looking into past GOP allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 election.

After contacts with Priebus, Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen filed a lawsuit (Van Hollen v. Government Accountability Board)demanding that the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB) use the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to obstruct Wisconsin voters.

Van Hollen had denied any contacts with the Republican Party and the McCain campaign about this voting rule lawsuit, a denial that was contradicted by WisPolitics' reporting of an audio recording revealing Van Hollen promising legal action to Priebus on alleged "voter fraud" during an address at the Republican National Convention held in St. Paul.

Several civil rights and public interests groups submitted their amici curiae brief in support of the Wisconsin General Accountability Board's (GAB) successful motion to dismiss the Attorney General's legal petition. The Van Hollen-Priebus suit was subsequently tossed out of court by Dane County (Wisconsn) Judge Maryann Sumi.

In some many words, Priebus and Van Hollen lost their efforts to obstruct voters in Wisconsin in 2008.

Sumi ruled on October 23, 2008, citing precedent and federal and Wisconsin law: "'It is evident that this court has consistently placed a premium on giving effect to the will of the voter.' ... 'the will of the voter in terms of the ability to go to the polls, vested with the franchise' (to vote)." ... "Nothing in state or federal law requires that there be a data match (among bureaucratic listings of names) as a prerequisite for a citizen's right to vote." [Opinion - Order and Hearing Transcript (Case No 08CV4085)]

The GOP searches for other tools to obstruct.

2011 and on

After the GOP retook the Wisconsin legislature in 2010, one of the Party's first bills introduced in 2011 is a photo ID bill that would "mean folks without driver's licenses - disproportionately poor, minority, or elderly, would not be able to vote." (Neil Heinen, WISC TV)

Reince Priebus must be proud.