Wisconsin GOP Targets Madison City Police, Citizens

GOP's nightmare

Wisconsin's counter-offensive against GOP-Tea Party attacks on the working class has provoked the Wisconsin Republican Party to declare political war against anyone, including now the city of Madison police who remain committed to the First Amendment and Article 1 rights of Wisconsinites protesting the Koch brothers and the GOP

The echos of the pioneering civil rights activist and Madison Police Chief David Couper [Marine, Chief of Police in Madison from 1972-1993] live on in current Madison Police Chief Noble Wray to the consternation of the GOP.

The GOP cannot stand any challenge to what it views as its authority over the public. No protests. Close the capitol. Police must enforce the will of the Party.

People assemble and make their voices known. Nein, nein, nein!

To understand the GOP mind, consider the reaction to Wisconsinites gathering together to express their discontent with the Scott Walker regime this year:

GOP Locks Capitol Down, U.S. Rep Obey (1969-2011) denied entry into capitol



Contra the Madison police and Dane County Sheriff's office who refused to be Walker's palace guard, Wisconsin capitol police chief, Charles Tubbs, dishonored his office, catering to the Department of Administration Walker lackeys in closing the capitol on orders form the Party.

After Scott Walker "dropped the bomb" on Wisconsin citizens, a stark image from March is of a Wisconsin legislator [Nick Milroy (D-South Grange)] being tackled to the ground for trying to get to his office as Walker unlawfully closed down the capitol.



Republicans are so hostile to the idea of a democratic republic that a judge had to order the Wisconsin capitol open to the public in early March.

Other examples of GOP hostility to democracy abound today.

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s office threatened constituents with arrest and investigation.

Now, Wisconsin Republicans are declaring open war on Madison police leadership with a racial slap at Police Chief Noble Wray.

Chief Noble Wray told a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter that questions about his department's conduct during the protests constitute "almost a slap in the face."

As John Peterson writes, "The myth of violence, vandalism and thuggery during the protests is the lie their pushing, repeating and burning into the mind of Wisconsinites who weren’t there. It’s like George W. Bush said, 'catapulting the propaganda.'"

There is a clear choice, and the fight against anti-democratic forces is worth joining.

Normandy - 65 Years

Update: Obama marks D-Day's 65th anniversary at Omaha Beach, France. "Don't forget ... ."

Today is June 6.

My girlfriend still talks about her late father and his service in World War II to defeat Nazis and fascists.

And from both of our parents (my father was a veteran recruited by the CIA but he went to grad school instead and had me), we grew up hearing of the society-wide, shared sacrifice.

War profiteers, they were a pariah. Not like when they were protected by the Bush administration.

Not like the Bush-Cheney-Rove-Lieberman-Neocon crowd doing their big con as 1o,000s come home dead, wounded, traumatized - different people - all for the lies of the policymakers; and Lieberman crowing for years that Iraq is "...the test of our generation." What a lying coward.

I post some World War II artifacts above that my girlfriend and her family treasure. Somehow, looking at them brings forth the truth of the World War II sacrifice and honor by mostly scared kids, in opposition to the imbecility and cowardice of the crowd of warmakers and liars, mostly but not exclusively in the Republican Party.

No one had the swagger and casualness of George W. Bush when it came time to ask for the ultimate sacrifice of real people and their loved ones.

Jailed Wisconsin Veteran Awaits Court Decision, in Fed Prison for Claiming PTSD Benefits

via mal contends -
Madison, Wisconsin - Keith Roberts awaits the decision of his appeal before a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as he sits in a federal prison in Minnesota because the United States government said he did not tell the truth about his service in the Navy.

Veterans are assumed under the Veterans Judicial Review Act of 1989 to be (as they often are) in an diminished capacity to tell the full truth of the circumstances they encountered that contributed to their suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

The many stressors that would lead to the granting of disability benefit payments need to rigorously documented to the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs' (VA) satisfaction, thus the VA claims process propagated under administrative rules is non-adversarial and paternalistic for the veterans.

And that’s why obtaining VA benefits is a claimant-friendly, non-adversarial system. It’s more paternalistic than the Social Security benefits adjudication system (per the Veterans Judicial Review Act). But ask any veteran and he/she will tell you it does not work out that way.

Wisconsin Navy veteran Keith Roberts (1968-71) remains in a federal prison (since 2007), effectively fined $100,000s, for allegedly not telling the whole truth about about the circumstances in which his fellow Navy Airman was crushed to death by a C-54 aircraft in 1969.

Roberts was charged with wire fraud for receiving VA disability benefits by electronic deposit, as all vets are mandated to receive payments.

The government, in the agency of United States Attorney Stephen Biskupic and the VA, admitting that the Navy Airman worked together at the same airbase, says the fraud is predicated upon what they determine is not a close friendship that existed between the two (a ludicrous allegation) and an exaggeration of Roberts' role in the attempt to save his friend from being crushed to death, though Roberts was on line duty at the time of the death and the base equivalent of a general quarters alarm was sounding.

United States Attorney Stephen Biskupic spoke at oral arguments in October 2007 in the case of the United States v. Keith A. Roberts (07-1546) before a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, calling the Roberts’ affair “a simple, straight-forward” case.

Biskupic said at oral arguments: “You (veterans) have to be truthful,” and claimed that Roberts was not truthful.

Roberts' attorney Roberts Walsh attacked the “lack of intent” by the veteran Roberts.

Intent is needed to prove fraud. Walsh pointed out that Roberts was diagnosed by numerous medical professionals with PTSD.

Walsh attacked the prosecution’s relying on the statements of the veterans when VA procedures require documentation and not personal recollection as the dispositive factor in deciding PTSD cases.

The VA needs a medical diagnosis and verifiable stressor and not a recollection, and a recollection is virtually irrelevant in the VA's deciding PTSD cases.

Thus personal recollection, often imperfect, ought not cause a veteran to be accused of fraud, asserted Walsh.

But Keith Roberts is a cautionary tale.

There is a huge backlog of some 600,000 VA cases (AlterNet: The Army Times, 2007), and the VA and US Atty Biskupic decided to go after the innocent Roberts because Roberts upset some VA folks by "tenaciously pursuing a claim for benefits," and US Atty Biskupic was eager to do the bidding of the Bush administration and it peculiar ideas on veterans' benefits that adopt the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI)/Dr. Sally Satel ethos that veterans need to just get over it, and not be enabled in a 'culture of trauma'.

Look here for a decision to be reported in the coming months.

The Iraq Lie

via mal contends

Comes up every once in a while. My girlfriend so proud of her dad talking about what she knew of her late father's service in World War II to defeat some pig NAZIs and fascists.

And from both of our parents (my father was a veteran recruited by the CIA but he went to grad school instead to have me), we hear of the society-wide, shared sacrifice.

War profiteers, they were a pariah. Not like today when they are protected by the Bush DOJ.

It's not like the Bush-Cheney-Rove-Lieberman-Neocon crowd doing their big con as 1o,000s come home dead, wounded, traumatized - different people, all for the lies of the policymakers; and Lieberman has the gall to crow for years that Iraq is "...the test of our generation." What a lying coward.

Makes one pretty sick.

I post some World War II artifacts above that my girlfriend and her family treasure. Somehow, looking at them brings forth the truth of the World War II sacrifice and honor by mostly scared kids, in opposition to the imbecility and cowardice of the crowd of Bush policymakers that we have today.

No one had the swagger and casualness of George W. Bush when it came time to ask for the ultimate sacrifice of real people and their loved ones.

More Evidence Clears Innocent Jailed Wisconsin Veteran

by Michael Leon

Madison, Wisconsin - This is no misunderstanding.

The VA and DoJ know what they did.

The VA and DoJ indicted and convicted an innocent Wisconsin Navy veteran who blew the whistle, in arguably obnoxious tones of voice, on the VA engaging in one instance of fraud, and the VA's general bureaucratic stall-and-let-the-veterans-die-before-collecting-on-their-claims-policy.

Now comes the latest exculpatory evidence on U.S. Navy Airman Keith Roberts (1968–71), a Wisconsin citizen who became a political and legal VA target because he would not keep his mouth shut.

While seeking a claim for his diagnosed PTSD condition, the honorably discharged veteran ultimately received a criminal conviction (on wire fraud) courtesy of the efforts of the U.S. Dept of Justice, through the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stephen Biskupic, that Roberts lied about his relationship with and his actions pertaining to a fellow Navy airman's, Gary Holland, death, crushed by a C-54 transport aircraft in a Feb. 1969 accident at a Naval airbase in Naples, Italy.

That's a thin reed on which to base a prosecution, but is typical of the basis of numerous U.S. Atty Biskupic's prosecutions.

Scott Horton, acclaimed human rights attorney of Harper's magazine, writes:

The prosecution smacks of retaliation and a plan to suppress veterans claims—Roberts was prosecuted for tenaciously pursuing a claim for benefits, which VA resisted and which is still in the benefits review process.

More corroborating evidence received here that Roberts, on line duty in 1969, a military position guiding flights on the ground, at the time that Airman Gary Holland was killed, further disconfirms the prosecution's case, a thin case already already discredited.

This new evidence comes from a veteran, and a distant relative of Roberts' in an e-mail, reading:

By the way, Keith had talked to me about the death of (Airman) Gary (Holland) a number of times in 1970 and 1971 when are Navy careers caused us to cross paths in Naples, Italy and in Norfolk, VA. Keith is my brother-in-law's nephew. I never thought this BS from the VA and the US attorney could have every actually led to a conviction and prison time.

Roberts has never varied from his account from 1969 of his actions during which a friend was killed (not even the Navy, VA and DoJ can deny the existence of a corpse), according to numerous intimates and relatives; though their testimony was never introduced at Roberts' 2006 trial.

Other veterans at the Italy airbase corroborate Roberts' account, but their accounts conflict with the government's, and therefore are narratives in which the VA and DoJ maintain an abiding disinterest.

The case remains under appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at which oral arguments were addressed Oct. 25.; and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), fully briefed.

Do not look for U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stephen Biskupic, to admit his travesty of justice in the Roberts' affair, anymore than he admitted his error in the prosecution of the innocent and decent Wisconsin woman, Georgia Thompson, whom he prosecuted for his selfish and appalling political motives.

Radio News: - Listen to the Lee Rayburn radio show for a full hour discussing the veteran Keith Roberts obscene prosecution by the U.S. government. [Give the radio show's file some time to load, long show.]

###

Innocent Jailed Wisconsin Navy Vet's Plight on Radio

- Lee Rayburn for a full hour discussing the Keith Roberts obscenity - [Give the show's file some time to load, long show.]

Madison, Wisconsin — Navy Airman Keith Roberts (1969-71) sits in a federal penitentiary in Minnesota, serving a 48-month sentence since March, awaiting news from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit of his appeal for his conviction on federal wire fraud.

The honorably discharged veteran’s criminal conviction is based upon the U.S. Dept of Justice’s assertions, made through the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stephen Biskupic, that Roberts lied about his relationship with and his actions pertaining to a fellow Navy airman who was crushed to death by a C-54 transport aircraft in a Feb. 1969 accident at a Naval airbase in Naples, Italy.

The Lee Rayburn show on Madison's The MIC (92.1 F.M., Madison, Wisconsin) has covered the case thoroughly.

Listen to Lee Rayburn for a full hour discussing the Keith Roberts obscenity.

- Listen to Wisconsin Public Radio News (May 10, 2007).

Oral Arguments in U.S. v. Roberts
Access oral arguments held Oct. 25, 2007. [Enter 07-1546 in the Case Number's fields by entering 07 in the "Year," and entering 1546 in the "Year Fragment's" field. Give the file some 45 seconds at least to load.]

###

DoJ Memo Conflicts with Biskupic at Oral Arguments

A U.S. Department of Justice memo (Page one pictured at right) (Nov, 16, 2006) contradicts U.S. Attorney's Stephen's Biskupic's statements made at oral arguments in the case of the United States v. Keith A. Roberts ( 07-1546) before a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit last week.

Keith Roberts, a Wisconsin Navy veteran (1968-71), while in the middle of adjudicating his claim for PTSD-related disability benefits with the VA, was in an extraordinary turn of events investigated, charged and convicted of wire fraud by U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic (Eastern District of Wisconsin) after Roberts had phoned the VA Inspector General’s office at Hines, Illinois, in December 2003 and complained to Special Agent Raymond Vasil that Roberts believed that the VA was engaging in “fraud”-- (in altering a transcript at a local hearing in the VA Regional Office in Milwaukee, as the VA was in the process of determining the date from which Roberts' retroactive PTSD-related disability pay was to become effective, among other benefit issues).

Roberts’ benefits claim, related to his PTSD, 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, and was granted at the 100 percent disability level in 1999.

That award of benefits was then illegally rescinded and that action by the VA is now under review by U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims (CAVC).

At oral arguments, Biskupic stated "There was evidence from the people that were (at the Naples, Italy air base) there in 1969 that this defendant lied about what his role was, and there was testimony that those lies were relied on by the government in awarding (his disability benefits) ... ," said Biskupic.

[Accessing oral arguments. [Enter 07-1546 in the Case Number's fields by entering 07 in the "Year," and entering 1546 in the "Year Fragment's" field. Give the file some 45 seconds at least to load.] ]

The 2006 government memo tells a different story. There was no such evidence presented by the mentioned veterans that the "defendant lied," about his role.

In fact, those veterans could not even say either way whether Roberts was even at the scene (a likely occurrence in recall as the Navy air base equivalent of a general quarters alarm was sounding and the scene was chaotic as an air man was being crushed to death by the C-54 aircraft), according to the prosecution's own memo.

Memorandom
Date: November, 16, 2006
Subject: Prosecution Version of the Offense
United States v. Keith A. Roberts
Case No: 05-CR-118
TO: Mitchell Fara, U.S. Probation Officer
Jeffrey Jensen, Attorney for Keith A. Roberts
FROM: Timothy W. Funnell, Assistant U.S. Attorney

The U.S. Attorney's memo reads (p.8) :

"To prove that Roberts misrepresented his role in the Holland rescue attempt, the government produced eight Navy veterans, seven of whom were at the scene of Holland's accident and one of whom was Holland's close friend on the base. The seven veterans on the scene could not say whether Roberts was at the scene or not ... "

At Orals, Biskupic told the Court: You have to be truthful, that’s what this case is about.

At Orals, Biskupic describes the testimony of the seven veterans (who could not say (recall) as the memo points out): "There was evidence from the people (the veterans) that were there (at the Naples air base) in 1969 that this defendant (Roberts) lied about what his role was ... "

Biskupic referenced the veterans' testimony again during orals in response to a Judge's question.

But, as the memo says, the vets said they did not know and could not recall, certainly not the basis for presenting testimony as evidence in this matter, as Biskupic did.

What lies did Roberts tell that the veterans' (who could not recall) testimony pointed to?

Some 35 years after a chaotic event where someone was killed, Biskupic would have the Seventh Circuit believe that there was evidence presented by the veterans that Roberts lied about being present at and what he did at the scene (though Roberts was on line duty and received a “Special Enlisted Personnel Performance Evaluation” (the military equivalent of a pat on the back for the then-young airman) two days after the death of Airman Holland), though his own memo shows the prosecution's witnesses, the veterans, could not recall.

No veteran could place Roberts anywhere else than beyond where he was assigned on line duty.

That's not a truthful address to the Seventh Circuit by Biskupic.

E-mail records obtained by the defense show that top VA officials planned this extraordinary prosecution with Biskupic, though the VA claims process is supposed to be claimant-friendly and non-adversarial, per the federal Veterans Judicial Review Act.

To recap: Biskupic told the Seventh Circuit's panel of the seven Navy veterans who could not recall seeing Roberts at a chaotic scene (contra the prosecution's memo that reads "...seven veterans on the scene could not say whether Roberts was at the scene or not...") that the veterans' testimony placed Roberts somewhere else beyond the death scene, by virtue of Biskupic's contention that Roberts lied about where Roberts said he was.

Said Roberts' attorney Robert Walsh at Orals:

Now, the VA adjudicated this, with all the King's horses and all the King's men for about 10 years. They conclude that this man has . They grant the award. And now they decide, after he's a whistle blower and he complains to VAIG (Department of Veterans Affairs Inspector General) (in November 2003).

Now they decide that they are inconsistencies in the record. I submit to you that they are inconsistencies in every veteran's record, combat or peacetime. And that Congress has recognized that.

And that’s why VA benefits is a very paternalistic, claimant-friendly, non-adversarial system. It’s even more paternalistic that the Social Security benefits adjudication system (per the Veterans Judicial Review Act.

So, where’s the intent (for fraud)?

Good question.
###

Jailed Wisconsin Navy Veteran May Get Win

- Accessing oral arguments. [Enter 07-1546 in the Case Number's fields by entering 07 in the "Year," and entering 1546 in the "Year Fragment's" field. Give the file some 45 seconds at least to load.]

Navy veteran Keith Roberts (1968-71) is serving a four-year sentance for wire fraud for trying to help 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 government says he lied, and that his diagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is based on lies.

Roberts is appealing.

Using one’s perceptions of the ideology, judicial integrity and past rulings of a three-judge panel as a means of predicting a ruling on a criminal appeals case is akin to a 16-year-old guy guessing the outcome of a first date with a 16-year-old girl: Conjecture seems a useless enterprise, and surprises and unpredictability are the rule.

But I’ve learned a lot about women and judges since being a teenager.

In the matter of Keith Roberts v. United States (case number 07-1546) appearing for oral arguments before a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit yesterday, I am cautiously optimistic that the conviction of the Wisconsin Navy veteran on five counts of wire fraud in 2006 will not stand.

One could offer a multitude of qualifications, but based on my reading of the briefs and the relevant administrative, case (cited by government and defendant briefs) and statutory law, Roberts has a strong case. [I ought to state my bias here against U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic who argued the Roberts case himself at oral arguments, for whom I harbor ill feelings for his obscene prosecutions of the innocent Georgia Thompson and the ridiculous voter fraud cases. In fairness, Biskupic is known by many in the legal field as a gentleman, although one who had a bit too much time on his hands at the office where ambition appears to have overtaken discretion.]

The defendant's case before the three-judge panel was argued by attorney Robert Walsh, a former VA staff attorney, who is also the attorney arguing Roberts' case involving the same transactions and occurrences before the Washington D.C.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims (CAVC).
A decision favorable to the defense would represent a stunning blow to the Bush administration’s policy on veteran’s PTSD benefits, that has sought to marginalize veterans contending that veterans are to some extent responsible for their own conditions in that they had pre-existing personality disorders and, some administration figures have asserted, a lack of faith in God that would have assisted coping with PTSD.
A favorable defense decision would also likely draw the attention of the House Committee on the Judiciary that has been investigating selective and politically motivated prosecutions by the Bush Department of Justice.
Roberts was diagnosed by numerous government and private medical professionals as suffering from PTSD, for which the stressor event is contended by Biskupic to have been fabricated, constituting fraud.
Frustration with the VA drove Keith Roberts to phone the VA Inspector General’s office at Hines, Illinois, in November 2003 at which time Roberts spoke with Special Agent Raymond Vasil.
Roberts accused the VA of “fraud” in altering a transcript at a local hearing in the VA Regional Office in Milwaukee as the VA was in the process of determining the date from which his retroactive disability pay was to become effective, among other benefit issues.
At oral arguments Walsh knocked down that government's contention of fraud, arguing a lack of intent and asserted that only after Roberts' complaint of fraud was made did the VA look for inconsistencies in the veteran Roberts' VA claim file.
Walsh also asserted a cover-up of negligent conditions at the Navy air base that caused Airman Gary Holland to be crushed to death by a C-54 aircraft.
Following is an extended excerpt from Walsh's address yesterday that was interrupted just once with a question pertaining to Roberts' state of mind.
Look back here for an analysis of U.S. Attorney's Biskupic's address on Monday.
Said Walsh:

Nothing that a veteran says is going to be the basis of a PTSD award of benefits by the VA. They need a medical diagnosis and they need a verified stressor, and I have never seen, it's a total distortion (of VA adjudication procedures) in this (and made at the trial court) record, and any suggestion that any veteran can (hypothetically) just walk into the VA, file a claim and say, you know peace-time veteran, that 'I was here in the states and I was sexually assaulted and it's stressful and give me money'. And the answer is did you tell the Chaplin? Did you go the hospital? Did you confide in a family member? Do you have a contemporaneous letter? Do you have documentation?
‘No, I was embarrassed’. Then, the claim fails. Your own statement, no matter how compelling the argument and how tragic the circumstances is not going to be the basis of an award of PTSD.
Now, the VA adjudicated this, with all the King's horses and all the King's men for about 10 years. They conclude that this man has PTSD. They grant the award. And now they decide, after he's a whistle blower and he complains to VAIG (Department of Veterans Affairs Inspector General) (in November 2003). Now they decide that they are inconsistencies in the record. I submit to you that they are inconsistencies in every veteran's record, combat or peacetime. And that Congress has recognized that.
And that’s why VA benefits is a very paternalistic, claimant-friendly, non-adversarial system. It’s even more paternalistic that the Social Security benefits adjudication system (per the Veterans Judicial Review Act).
So, where’s the intent (for fraud)? The intent is to get some benefits because the man (the veteran) can’t work. Now, as far as wire fraud, when Congress changed the law and suggested that electronic funds transfer would be a permissible vehicle for pain (disability) benefits across the government, they made it elective. In the Social Security administration it was elective … VA general counsel in 1997 issued a(n) … opinion … (mandating) that everyone is going to have electronic funds transfer. ... every VA beneficiary … (is compelled to receive benefits electronically). …

This (case) is a remarkable event because we have the interposition of the Department of Justice right square in the middle of a VA benefits dispute, and effectively they (the DoJ) are litigating in the district court the same transaction and occurrence (as the VA).

And they (the DOJ) (said) ‘no, we’re not going to do that’ (at trial). The judge’s pre-trial motions and pre-trial conference were all predicated on the fact that I am not going to relitigate the veteran's (VA) benefit case. And then they proceed at trial, after they’ve denied many of the witnesses that Mr. Roberts attempted to call, they proceed to relitigate the 1969 events.

Now, they (the prosecution) also call for their witnesses, the individuals, the officers, the non-commissioned officers, who were in charge of the maintenance of that aircraft and who negligently removed the jacks, creating a situation which led to the unnecessary and accidental death of airman Holland.

And now to bring those people in, by the way who then retired from the military. So they have pecuniary (direct financial interest because of pension and other VA benefits) interest in the outcome of this case, having been subpoenaed in the court; they have to stick to their story that Mr. Holland caused his own death. He did not. (Prosecutor’s witness) Chief Stewart testified that the airplane was safe.

Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), the aircraft was not safe; it collapsed and killed a young man.
###

Oral Arguments Today for Jailed Wisconsin Veteran

Access oral arguments. [Just enter 07-1546 in the Case Number's fields by entering 07 in the "Year," and entering 1546 in the "Year Fragment's" field. Give the file some 45 seconds at least to load.]

Update VI: Walsh attacked the “lack of intent” by Roberts. Intent is needed to prove fraud.

Walsh also pointed out that Roberts was diagnosed by numerous medical professionals with PTSD.

Walsh attacked the prosecution’s relying on the statements of the veterans when VA procedure stresses documentation and not personal recollection as the dispositive factor in deciding cases.

The VA needs a medical diagnosis and verifiable stressor and not a recollection, and a recollection is virtually irrelevant in the VA's deciding PTSD cases.

Thus personal recollection, often imperfect, ought not cause a veteran to be accused of fraud, asserted Walsh.

Walsh also objected to the DoJ injecting itself into the VA claim processing as a claim was still being processed. Argued Walsh: “This is a remarkable event because we have the interposition of the Department of Justice right square in the middle of a VA benefits dispute, and effectively they (the DoJ) are litigating in the district court the same transaction and occurrence.

"And they (the DOJ) say ‘no, we’re not going to do that.’ The judge’s pre-trial motions and pre-trial conference were all predicated on the fact that I am not going to litigate the veteran's benefits case. (And the the DOJ proceeds to do exactly that.)”

Update IV: U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic himself argued the case before the panel. Biskupic is under heavy heat for the Georgia Thompson travesty, and a slew of ill-advised voter fraud prosecutions, and he trusts no one else on this case that is becoming the focus of increasing national attention.

Update III: The case before the three-judge panel was argued by attorney Robert Walsh, a former VA staff attorney, who is also the attorney arguing Roberts' case involving the same transactions and occurrences before the Washington D.C.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims (CAVC).

See http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?dname=arg to access oral arguments; case number is: 07-1546.

Update II: Oral arguments are now available, thanks to the efficient work of the Clerk of Courts personnel for the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. See below.

Update: Court clerk said oral arguments in U.S. v. Roberts (07-1546) have been completed this morning in Chicago.

Internet access is expected at approximately (2:30 central time) at:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?dname=arg

Just enter 07-1546 in the Case Number's fields by entering 07 in the "Year," and entering 1546 in the "Year Fragment's" field. Check back more updates as I hear from observers.
-
Oral arguments will be held today appealing the criminal conviction for wire fraud of Navy veteran Keith Roberts (1968-71) before a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Roberts simultaneously awaits the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ (CAVC) decision on his VA disability case, litigating the same set of facts before two judicial forums.

As Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) claims skyrocket, if Roberts’ criminal conviction and denial and reduction of benefits stand, veterans who have PTSD disability cases pending in the VA are theoretically in legal jeopardy, if they cannot prove all aspects of their claims. [Though the previous statement ought to be qualified that not all U.S. Attorneys would dare prosecute veterans in the same circumstances as U.S. Atty Stephen Biskupic (Eastern District of Wisconsin) did, to the disbelief of much of the veterans' community.]

Roberts’ argument for reversing his conviction will likely be lack of evidence presented at trial to convict, and the following as quoted from his reply brief.

The District Court Erred in Denying the Appellant's Motions to Dismiss, as the Court's Exercise of Jurisdiction Constituted a Denial of the Appellant's Right to Due Process, Due to the Pending Appeal Before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Translated, the argument contends that the VA regulations ought to have been followed before a criminal indictment was even contemplated, and that administrative law processes ought to have been exhausted.

This is identical to the argument made in Roberts' brief to the Washington D.C.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims (CAVC)

In the CAVC brief, Roberts argues:

The Secretary has caused a criminal prosecution in Federal District Court to be initiated against the Appellant while he was still before this Court (CAVC) litigating the same facts, transactions and occurrences. The VA regulation for initiating criminal charges against a veteran was not followed, (Title) 38
C.F.R. § 14.561.

Roberts’ VA 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 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. A previously published piece on that analysis is posted below this piece.]

Title 38
The Title "38" reference in Roberts' brief pertains to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 38, “Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans Relief, administrative law regulations regarding veterans’ benefits which have the legal force of federal law.

The VA insulates and protects veterans by establishing a layer of procedures before a veteran can be denied VA benefits, much less criminally prosecuted for fraud in seeking benefits.

For example, the government's failure to abide by Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 3.905 (a) Jurisdiction will likely be argued by Roberts.

The Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, section 3.905 (a) Jurisdiction regulation reads: “At the regional office level … the Regional Counsel is authorized to determine whether the evidence warrants formal consideration as to forfeiture.”

Robert Walsh, the CAVC attorney for Roberts and a former VA staff attorney, had blasted in a brief (some months earlier) the criminal prosecution as well as the VA denial of benefits for its lack of review by the VA Regional counsel, per Title 38.

The local VA Inspector General going directly to the U.S. Attorney without any review by VA attorneys appears to be unprecedented and is a violation of Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, section 3.905. ... The U.S. Attorney prosecuting a case such as this without a proper investigation by the
F.B.I. or U.S. Treasury is outrageous. It is contrary to the Department of Justice guidelines for such cases. Failure to follow those well-thought out procedures is unwise. So we arrive at this bizarre outcome.

When Congress passed the Veterans Judicial Review Act, which became law in 1988, they created a special court to review disputes over veterans’ benefits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).No other court was given jurisdiction over these claims, and that court has not yet ruled on the reduction of benefits suffered by Mr. Roberts.

If the CAVC rules in favor of Mr. Roberts, he will be in prison convicted of fraud for accepting benefits payments that he is fully and legally entitled to.

Biskupic has not spoken publicly on why his office had not awaited the adjudication of the benefits process before seeking indictments for alleged fraudulent statements made by Roberts in his claims, and why Biskupic avoided the charge of Veteran’s fraud, and indicted on mail fraud and then wire fraud instead.

Nor has Biskupic’s office offered any explanation for why he sought indictments absent review and referral by VA attorneys, per Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, section 3.905 and why as Roberts’ VA claims continued tobe adjudicated under the veterans’ courts, Biskupic decided to step in and indict without investigation by the Postal Inspector’s office, the FBI, or the U.S. Treasury department.

Veterans’ groups allege that Biskupic’s extraordinary prosecution was consonant with Bush administration priorities to discourage VA disability benefits claims and served to curry favor with the AEI/Bush VA priorities, helping to keep Biskupic’s endangered position as U.S. Atty in Bush’s politicized DoJ.

Below is an earlier piece ripping the government's indictment that pointed Roberts' having fabricated his friendship with Gary Holland, an unusual contention in a wire fraud indictment.

More Dismantlement of Case Against Jailed Wisconsin Veteran

Madison, Wisconsin—An analysis reveals more corroboration of the account of a Vietnam-era airman who witnessed a colleague's death in a gruesome C-54 aircraft accident in 1969 at a Naval Air Facility in Naples, Italy and is now imprisoned for wire fraud.

The crushing death of Airman Gary Holland in the wheel well of the C-54 set in motion a chain of events that 36 years later led the US Veterans Administration (VA) and the US Atty for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in 2006 to indict and convict a veteran, Airman Keith Roberts (1968-71), diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), on charges of wire fraud, arguing that Roberts fabricated his role at the death scene and his relationship with Holland, defrauding the VA.Roberts is currently is serving 48 months in federal prison.

The U.S. v. Keith A. Roberts indictment on mail fraud (April 26, 2005) and later superseded by an indictment on wire fraud alleges in part that Roberts in his “(s)cheme to (d)efraud” the VA “falsely represented material information to the VA” including “that Roberts and airman Gary (Holland) were close friends and roommates.”

In fact, an analysis obtained from Roberts wife, Deloris Roberts, of the service histories 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.

Holland and Roberts:

- Took two weeks-long classes together while stationed together in Memphis, Tennessee in 1968

- Were quartered in the same barracks at Lakehurst, NJ where they also trained together for weeks

- Went into the Naval Air Force base in Naples, Italy together as two young airman

- Slept in close quarters (feet away from each other) while at Naval Air Station base in Naples, Italy

- Worked in the same and only base air hangar together

- Took an advancement test together on the morning of the day Holland was killed on Feb. 4, 1969

“I’d say there was a pretty good chance that Keith Roberts and Gary Holland were friends,” said Deloris Roberts. “The prosecution must know this fact.”

Very little exculpatory information was introduced at Roberts’ trial by his court-appointed attorney, and much exculpatory information was not introduced.

VA Policy Under Bush

After being diagnosed with PTSD and granted disability benefits, Roberts had no idea that political and bureaucratic forces allied with VA Secretary Jim Nicholson in 2004-05 were determined to adopt the policies of the rightwing think tank, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), ultimately resulting in Roberts’ prosecution after Roberts phoned the VA and complained that the VA were engaging in fraud in processing his PTSD disability claim.

Roberts's phone call and accusation of VA fraud sounded the alarm bells at the VA.

Under the Bush administration, the VA is using propaganda to defend a reduction in benefits to veterans with PTSD, and redirect blame towards the troops themselves, often dismissing the PTSD as a mere pre-existing personality disorder, not requiring VA disability benefits, as 100,000s of troops return home form Iraq and Afghanistan damaged and forgotten.

Roberts’ benefits were ultimately cut after his phone call, and U.S. Atty Stephen Biskupic's office used the VA benefits-severed administrative fact as a means of prosecuting Roberts in a criminal process.

Biskupic (was) the enforcer of a new VA policy adopted from the AEI that veterans suffering from PTSD wallow in a "culture of trauma" and do not deserve "entitlements;" and what Roberts attorney calls "a VA culture of claims denial that has turned into a criminalization of the disability claims process."

Roberts remains a warning to other Vietnam-era veterans suffering from PTSD to not file for PTSD benefits.

###

Jailed Wisconsin Vet's Appeal to be Heard October 25

An innocent Gillett, Wisconsin veteran, Navy Airman Keith Roberts (1968-71), sits in federal prison serving a four-year sentence for wire fraud since March, on appeal.

Roberts' criminal appeal will be heard on Oct. 25 before a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Roberts simultaneously awaits the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ (CAVC) decision on his VA disability case, litigating the same set of facts before two judicial forums.

If Roberts’ criminal conviction and denial and reduction of benefits stand, every veteran who has a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) disability case pending in the VA is theoretically in legal jeopardy, as PTSD claims skyrocket.

Roberts’ VA claim for his diagnosed PTSD is related to 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.

Roberts became the central figure in an Alice-in-Wonderland tale, after U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic of Wisconsin and top VA officials schemed to convict Roberts’ of fraudulently receiving VA benefits (by wire transfer as the VA requires).

Frustration drove Roberts to phone the VA Inspector General’s office in Illinois in Nov. 2003, accusing the VA of “fraud” in altering a VA transcript.

The angered VA retaliated and investigated Roberts, flying around the country asking veterans who did not know Roberts during his service if 30-some years later they could place Roberts at the scene of the death of Airman Holland on whom the Navy tried, in a heavily criticized investigation, to pin the blame of his own death, to the disgust of Roberts.

The vets' failure to name Roberts led top officials of the VA to convince U.S. Atty Biskupic to pursue fraud charges against Roberts, in accordance with administration policy that discourages PTSD disability claims.

On Aug. 16, 2004, the VA halted Roberts’ benefits based upon a biased investigation. Roberts appealed on Sept. 14, 2004, and was indicted seven months later.

Roberts fired off a letter to the VA on Nov. 22, 2004, and claimed a violation of his Constitutional due process rights by the VA Inspector General's office.

Roberts case is supported by a long list of veterans’ advocates—including Veterans for Common Sense’ Paul Sullivan and Vietnam Army veteran and attorney Robert Walsh.

The case has also drawn the attention of Harper's magazine contributor and human rights attorney, Scott Horton:

(T)ake a look at another prosecution brought in Wisconsin against a wounded vet, whose claims for benefits was turned into a criminal prosecution for wire fraud. As Wisconsin Public Radio reports, Keith Roberts, a Navy veteran got into the U.S. attorney’s crosshairs by filing a claim for benefits related to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosed as occurring because he witnessed and tried to prevent his friend from being crushed to death by a C-54 airplane while stationed at a Naval air base in Naples, Italy 1969, and unrelated assault by the Navy Shore Patrol—granted and then denied, has not yet been decided by the CAVC.

But the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) after being accused of fraud in 2003 by Roberts ignored the CAVC process and investigated and asked that Roberts be prosecuted for fraud by the US Attorney’s office.

The prosecution smacks of retaliation and a plan to suppress veterans claims—Roberts was prosecuted for tenaciously pursuing a claim for benefits, which VA resisted and which is still in the benefits review process. It may be that the veteran is making claims which shouldn’t be granted, but the decision to resist them by a criminal complaint is very heavy handed. What happens if the Veterans’ Appeals process rules for Roberts? As I read these papers, that seems possible. And if it happens, (U.S. Attorney Stephen) Biskupic will have egg on his face a second
time.

Veterans' advocates ask that you please contact the following members of Congress expressing your objection that Roberts was:

- Singled out by the VA and prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney because he spoke out against the fraudulent and slow VA

- Was prosecuted for wire fraud while his VA disability benefits claim was and is still being adjudicated in the VA claims process

Rep. John Conyers, Jr
Chair, House Committee on the Judiciary
E-mail: John.Conyers@mail.house.gov
(Phone) (313) 961-5670
(Fax) (313) 226-2085

Rep. Tammy Baldwin
Member, House Committee on the Judiciary
E-mail: Field: http://tammybaldwin.house.gov/get_address.html
(Phone) (608) 258-9800
(Fax) (608) 258-9808

Contributions can be sent to:
Keith A. Roberts Defense Fund, Inc.
c/o Kentucky Neighborhood Bank
201 E. Lincoln Trail Blvd.
Radcliff, KY 40160

###

Law Firms Rushing to Veterans' Aid

The U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs (VA) is infamous for its culture of claim denial (like a particularly mean health insurance company) and its systemic bureaucratic hostility to veterans.

But increasing numbers of civilian attorneys are stepping up to the plate to assist veterans.

"The need is staggering," said Gordon Erspamer, a Morrison and Foerster attorney in Walnut Creek, Calif., who has worked on veterans' cases since the 1970s. (Lynne Marek, The National Law Journal)

Morrison and Foerster is engaged in an unprecedented, class action, pro bono case on behalf of 100,000s of vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Lynne Marek of The National Law Journal has a great piece on attorneys battling the VA on behalf of veterans.

Reports Marek:

Veterans who had some kind of representation got $6,225 more annually, on average, than those who didn't, according to a 2005 Veterans Affairs Inspector General report. That principle held true in the first case resolved by the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law clinic, begun this month. The clinic helped a Vietnam War veteran increase his monthly disability compensation to $2,600 from $350 by helping him apply for a benefit related to his inability to work, said professor Joon Sung.

Another example is Michigan attorney Robert Walsh, who is an ex-VA staff attorney now working with veterans to keep them from being shortchanged by the VA.

Walsh, a gruff Army Vietnam veteran, maintains an informal network of attorneys who know what is becoming common knowledge on Capital Hill: That the VA is systemically operating to deny returning veterans aid and benefits.

"To understand how the VA operates is to see a culture of denial. There are regulations in place to protect veterans, and they ought to be followed, " said Walsh.

Walsh is representing Wisconsin Navy veteran Keith Roberts who is a victim of VA retaliation against Roberts for Roberts' repeatedly criticizing the VA as fraudulent and incompetent. In the middle of Roberts' claim, the VA ignored VA regulations and went straight to U.S. Atty Stephen Biskupic to indict and convict Roberts on federal wire fraud on the merits of his disputed VA benefits claim.

In one of the many ironies of the Bush administration, those most opposed to assisting veterans are those most dedicated to making and sustaining war.

If a small fraction of the Vietnam war veterans still suffering from PTSD were to file for disability benefits, the federal government would be forced to pay the costs roughly equal to what is spent in two months sustaining the war in Iraq.

But many rightwingers pooh pooh the notion that Vietnam-era veterans, for example, might still suffer today from the effects of their service. [Author's note: If you are going to make this argument, do it from the safe confines of plush D.C. think tanks, and don't tell veterans this crap to their faces.]

Paul Sullivan of Veterans for Common Sense is another veteran (and former VA project manager) who now helps other veterans obtain the respect and the benefits to which they are entitled against the Bush administration taking its cues from the veterans’ benefits-hostile American Enterprise Institute scholar, Dr. Sally Satel.

Writes Sullivan is his blog: "Our 4,077 U.S. military deaths in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are the worst possible consequence of military service. Yet what about our 250,000 wounded, injured, and ill combat survivors and their families who suffer for a lifetime?"

As the veterans criminal and civil cases increasingly land in federal court and the backlogs of veterans cases pile up at the VA, some observers see major revisions coming of the Veterans Judicial Review Act, the legislation intended to streamline the process for veterans of obtaining their needed and deserved treatment and benefits.
###

Vets for Common Sense Group Blasts Prosecution of Wisconsin Veteran

Wisconsin Public Radio runs a piece today on Wisconsin Navy veteran, Keith Roberts (1968-71), who ran afoul of the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the U.S. Attorney’s office by filing a claim for disability benefits.

Now, Roberts who has been forced to fight in two courts simultaneously (the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh District) has picked up the support of Paul Sullivan and the national Veterans for Common Sense, among other veterans' groups.

Roberts has been serving a 48-month sentence since March on wire fraud for, in essence, not documenting his claim to the VA's satisfaction and upsetting the VA by accusing the agency of fraud.

Wisconsin Public Radio reports:

A national veterans organization has taken up the cause of Wisconsin Navy veteran convicted of wire fraud for falsely claiming veterans benefits for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or P-T-S-D. The group Veterans for Common Sense says Keith Roberts conviction is part of larger strategy to discourage veterans from filing P-T-S-D claims.

Gil Halsted has the story.

The criminal case is scheduled to be heard before a three-member panel on Oct. 25, and is pending and briefed before the veterans' court, CAVC.

Legal questions and legal comments can be e-mailed to Robert Walsh at rpwalsh@sbcglobal.net.

###