Keith Roberts Petition to U.S. Supreme Court

I still can’t get over the fact that Vietnam-era veteran, Keith Roberts was targeted by the U.S. Dept of Veteran Affairs (DVA), convicted and then jailed in 2005 for receiving PTSD disability benefits.

By Michael Leon

His crime? According to the U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stephen Biskupic (2001-08), Roberts did not know his fellow airman, Gary Holland,  [an absurd suggestion] who was crushed to death by a C-54 airplane at a U.S. base in Naples, Italy in 1969, and that Roberts who was on line duty exaggerated his efforts to save his friend’s life.

Furthermore, Roberts was wrong to follow the advice of his Veteran’s Service Officer (Shawano County (Wisconsin)) who had determined that Keith Roberts was entitled to an earlier effective date for his diagnosed PTSD.

Roberts hates the VA, and rightfully so.

In fact, Roberts had been a thorn in the side of the Milwaukee Regional VA’s office as well as the Illinois-based regional VA Inspector General’s office for insisting on his rights as a veteran to his benefits in less-than-diplomatic tones and language.

“Keith Roberts was granted a 100% compensation rate for PTSD from his date of claim. To grant PTSD, we need both a.) a current diagnosis and b.) a verified in-service stressor. We found not only a stressor, but an in-service diagnosis for Airman Roberts,” said a source at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee who e-mailed the Lee Rayburn radio show in Madison after a broadcast of a show on Roberts. “[T]he only reason Airman Roberts was ever prosecuted was because he was a ‘belligerent ass’ who kept insisting that he get paid back to discharge. He was demanding an appeal in Washington. I’d have to say that you guys are TOTALLY (uppercase in the original) right about Roberts’ conviction being bullshit. …”

So, in response the former VA General Counsel attorney and VA national Director of Compensation and Pension Services, Renee L. Szybala, pushed U.S. Atty Biskupic to indict Roberts of mail [wire] fraud, predicating the indictment, it bears repeating, upon the ludicrous notion that Roberts and Holland did not know each other, and that Roberts exaggerated his reported efforts to keep his friend from being crushed to death.

For the record:

Holland and Roberts were both on line duty when Holland was killed:

• - 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

Roberts is basing his U.S. Supreme Court petition for a writ of cert upon the fact that he was denied his fundamental right to due process and was deprived of both liberty and property.

Roberts’ 200-plus appeal gets legal and complicated after that.

But as someone who has reported on this case from the beginning, let me break down what happened.

As readers of Uppity Wisconsin may notice there is a comment from a veteran posted some years ago about Roberts, who corroborates Roberts’ narrative.

But the wronged Navy Airman Keith Roberts (1968-71) had POed off the wrong people and a corrupt U.S. Attorney [see U.S. Attorneys Scandal–Milwaukee] saw to it that an innocent man was wrongfully imprisoned for “tenaciously pursuing a claim for VA disability benefits” when the neocons were in charge of the U.S. DVA and U.S. DoJ.

To give you an idea who Biskupic is, see:

• The proven-innocent Georgia Thompson
• Biskupic tried to ‘squeeze’ Georgia Thompson
• Voter fraud cases
• Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals

Roberts and his family are still fighting to get their lives together.

As for Biskupic, he seamlessly moved from corrupt, Bush-era U.S. Attorney to defender of the corrupt Scott Walker campaign in Wisconsin.

Well, this regime is gone.

But the damage remains from this bunch, a fact worth noting in conclusion.

Politicalization of public officials – shocker

There are plenty of candidates for condemnation in this affair in today’s environment when whole agencies of the U.S. government have been usurped by an administration lacking in conscience and public accountability, politicizing virtually every agency in sight, including U.S. Atty Biskupic’s office.

· Special Agent Raymond Vasil of the regional VA Inspector General’s office [“A cop Vasil is not, just an idiot with a badge,” said one veteran assisting Roberts] who lied to and vocally mocked Roberts while flying around the country fabricating a case against Roberts.

· The VA benefits process that systemically wears down veterans with the apparent intention of inducing them to give up their fight for benefits [this process is being adjudicated in the unprecedented class action suit by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.] In fact, the VA claims process can be so frustrating that many vets (especially those suffering from PTSD) are thrown into fits of rage directed at the VA itself.

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that demeans veterans for seeking help with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in this “culture of trauma.”

· The Pentagon that blames veterans “personality disorders” and lack of faith in God for veterans suffering after service.

· Former VA national Director of Compensation and Pension Services, Renee L. Szybala, and Jon Baker, director of the Milwaukee Regional VA office actively participated in efforts to have Roberts prosecuted, while they intentionally took steps to ensure the VA Regional Counsel did not have an opportunity to perform the mandatory legal review before the matter went to the U.S. Attorney, as required by federal regulations. Again, Szybala knew that Roberts had an appeal pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and that under VA regulations until that appeal was completed the case should not have been released for criminal or collection action.

· Barbra Nehls, formerly of the Milwaukee VA Regional office, who 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.

· And of course, Carolyn F. Washington, VA deputy asst general counsel, a woman without conscience and quintessential social climber.

(Los Angeles)- A federal court has ruled that the Veterans Administration (VA) violated the free speech rights of a veteran who protested the agency’s failure to use part of its property in west Los Angeles for the benefit and care of veterans, particularly those who are homeless.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles in March 2010 on behalf of Robert Rosebrock. The 69-year-old Vietnam-era Veteran has protested the VA’s land-use policies every Sunday since 2008, along with other veterans. During the protests, Rosebrock often displays the American flag upside down on a fence outside VA property in west Los Angeles as a distress symbol to draw attention to the group’s cause. Police demanded that he remove the flag, and when Rosebrock refused, the police removed it themselves. Previously, VA police had allowed Rosebrock to display the flag right side up at the same site.

“Hanging the flag upside down was an important and necessary message for Mr. Rosebrock,” said Peter Eliasberg, ACLU/SC legal director. “He fought to defend the First Amendment, and the Court decided correctly that the very right he fought for was violated.”

For 66 weeks in a row, Rosebrock hung the flag right side up without any interference from the VA police. However, after he started hanging the flag upside down in June 2009, he was quickly cited six times for “unauthorized demonstration or service in a national cemetery or on other VA property.” Rosebrock also received an e-mail from Lynn Carrier, associate director of the

Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, which said in part that he and his fellow demonstrators “may not attach the American flag, upside down, in VA property including our perimeter gates.”
The VA eventually dismissed the citations against Rosebrock, but the action of the VA police in removing a flag that Rosebrock had hung upside down made clear the agency’s unconstitutional policy of denying him his free speech rights.
The VA complex was specifically deeded to the United States in 1888 as a home for disabled veterans. Rosebrock and his fellow veterans demonstrated in front of a portion of the complex that the VA is planning to lease for use as a public park. Another portion of the land is now leased to a nearby private school for tennis courts, which veterans are not allowed to access.

Other buildings on the land are leased for use as theaters. Rosebrock was particularly incensed last year when the VA allowed a “celebrity carnival” to take place on the property, at a time when there are more than 6,500 homeless veterans in Los Angeles, including some who sleep on the sidewalk adjacent to the VA land that has been leased to build a public park.

“On this Memorial Day weekend, it’s good to know that the courts recognize the right to free speech that veterans have fought and died to defend,” said Robert Rosebrock. “This land was deeded for the use and care of veterans and is being stolen away and leased to private, special interest groups with no transparency or accountability for the money generated. The Flag Code allows for the flag to be displayed upside down when property is in danger. It’s clear to us that this property is in danger, and has been for a long time.”

By Pete Kasperowicz - 05/23/11 07:08 PM ET

The House on Monday approved four non-controversial bills related to the treatment of veterans, with little debate.

By voice vote, the House approved H.R. 1407, which would increase the cost of living adjustment for veterans with service-related disabilities. This bill also extends the Veterans' Administration's ability to provide special housing assistance to veterans.

By a 380-0 vote, the House approved H.R. 1627, which sets out new conditions for placing monuments in Arlington National Cemetery. This bill specifically calls for a memorial to Jewish chaplains who served in the U.S. military, and prevents the practice of reserving burial plots.

The House also approved H.R. 1383, which would increase a cap on tuition and fees paid by the government for private education. Members believed this cap, which was set in 2010, needed to be increased from $17,500 to $27,000 to cover veterans already enrolled in private educational institutions that had costs above the $17,500 cap. This bill was approved in a 389-0 vote.

Finally, the House approved H.R. 1657, which calls for tougher penalties against companies that misrepresent themselves as owned or operated by veterans. Under this will, companies found to be claiming this incorrectly would be disbarred from contracting with the Veterans' Administration for five years. This bill passed by a 385-1 vote; only Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) voted against the bill.

Courtesy of Military.com Week of May 09, 2011

Courtesy of VeteranBenefitGroup.com

Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget amendment that, if enacted into law, would essentially invoke a seven-month moratorium on payment of all legal fees by the government to those who successfully litigate a matter against it. Such payments are currently authorized under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

In 1980, Congress established EAJA in response to its concern that people may be deterred from seeking review of, or defending against, unreasonable governmental action because of the expense involved in suing the government to vindicate their rights. Congress expressly made payment of legal fees under the EAJA available to veterans and their dependents who hire private attorneys to represent them at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and if they win the case against the government in that court.

If the budget amendment becomes law, EAJA fees would be temporarily suspended. Because there does not appear to be a distinction between those people who would be affected by the broad moratorium, veterans and their dependents would likely suffer because attorneys rely on reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees under EAJA in order to provide low or no cost services. If the attorneys are not awarded attorney fees in successful appeals, it is unlikely that they would agree to represent veterans and their dependents before the court. This will negatively affect those who have been unfairly denied benefits by VA and need the expertise of an attorney skilled in the area of veteran’s benefits law to litigate the matter at the Court.

To see the EAJA deliberations, check out http://www.scribd.com/doc/49535676/EAJA-Deliberations

Courtesy of VeteranBenefitGroup.com

The United States Supreme Court does not often hear cases from the veterans claims system, but it recently issued a decision in Henderson v. Shinseki that was favorable to veterans, though the claimant in this case is not completely out of the woods.

All appellate systems have prescribed periods for appealing to a higher court. In many instances the filing of a document to initiate the appeal, a notice of appeal (NOA), is “jurisdictional,” meaning that failure to file it properly deprives the court of the power to hear the appeal. The issue for the Supreme Court was whether Mr. Henderson’s claim had suffered this fatal blow when, because of a paranoid schizophrenic episode, he missed the filing deadline for his appeal to the Veterans Court. That court and the Federal Circuit above it held that this failure required dismissal of the claim.

The Supreme Court reversed, however. It recognized that veterans’ appeals are part of a unique administrative scheme, and it said that the statute containing the appeal deadline indicated Congressional concern for veterans, such that Congress would not have intended the deadline to be jurisdictional.

The high court noted that the deadline was an important rule, however, and it sent the case back for further consideration as to whether there was any exception that should be applied. There is a principle called “equitable tolling” that may allow the court to hear the appeal if it is found that ultimate fairness and justice so requires.

While it is a victory for veterans that the court allowed for the possibility of some exceptions to the strict deadline, there is no assurance in advance that an exception would apply. This reinforces the crucial importance of filing a notice of appeal on time and in the proper place.

To appeal to the Veterans Court from the agency (Board of Veterans’ Appeals), the notice must be filed within 120 days of the Board’s decision and it is filed with (sent to) the Veterans Court itself, not the agency. To appeal from the Veterans Court to the Federal Circuit, one has 60 days from the entry of judgment by the Veterans Court (usually about 21-22 days after the decision), but the filing is made with the Veterans Court, not the Federal Circuit.

By Kate Hoit March 30, 2011 at 4:27 pm Courtesy of VA.gov

When a Veteran returns home from war, they trade adrenaline-soaked firefights for mall shopping and combat patrols for classrooms. When life screeches to a relative halt, there tends to be a common question among Vets: Now what? The false sense that life will fall perfectly back in place, coupled with the idea of what is supposed to come next and the realization that the rush felt during deployment is gone forever can lead some Vets to go heavy on alcohol and drugs, ultimately catapulting them into a legal system that, until recently, was unable to adequately deal with the unique challenges faced by Vets.

As Kurt Vonnegut wrote in Slaughterhouse-Five, in war, “absolutely everybody gets a little something.” For Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans, unfortunately, that can mean coming home with post-traumatic stress, an increased risk for homelessness, and—in a tiny minority of cases—a temper that can lead to problems. For these reasons, Veterans Treatment Courts became a phenomenon. The idea was brought to life in 2008 in western New York by Judge Robert Russell, who based the idea on making a hybrid court—one that took aspects of popular drug and mental health courts already established across the U.S. By early 2010, there were 24 operational Veterans courts—from Buffalo to Los Angeles with another 40 in development across the United States.

With the growing number of Veterans Treatment Courts, VA required justice-focused action at the medical center level, hence the Veterans Justice Outreach Initiative was created to educate the legal system, law enforcement, and jails on unique issues facing today’s Veterans. Once Veterans enter the legal system, VJO specialists help them avoid unnecessary incarceration through integration into VA substance and mental health treatment programs.

According to Chris Woods, a Veterans Justice Outreach Specialist with the Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, most of the arrests he has seen among young Iraq and Afghanistan Vets are for driving under the influence, simple assaults, public intoxication, resisting arrest, and possession of drugs. Woods says the Veterans he works with do not typically have a history of violence or drug use. This makes it even more critical to get those eligible into VA treatment instead of behind bars.

To be eligible for treatment services, Veterans need an honorable discharge and two or more years of active duty service. However, with the ongoing conflicts, the two-year requirement is often waived if the Veteran has been deployed. If a Vet has an other-than-honorable discharge, he or she can file an appeal. For those with a dishonorable discharge, Woods will refer them to a Wounded Warrior program which will work with a Veteran regardless of discharge status.

Sean Clark, the National Coordinator of Veterans Justice Outreach in the Office of Mental Health Services here at VA, believes the success of the treatment courts is due to “connecting Vets with VA services at the earliest possible point.” And the first encounter for the Vet is usually with law enforcement.

The law enforcement personnel who participate in the program are trained to deal with PTSD, crisis intervention, and how to interact with someone who has mental health issues. They also receive information about VA substance and mental health programs. Law enforcement has been trained to remain calm and simply ask if the person they’re encountering is a Veteran.

“Law enforcement is receptive to the training,” said Woods. “A lot of them are Veterans themselves.”

Woods has introduced himself to a handful of courts and jails and personally links up with 40 – 50 courts and 21 jails in 43 counties and eight cities. He educates the courts on what VA services are available and how VA can be used to help the troubled Veteran. While VJO specialists identify appropriate VA services, the court ultimately decides if the program is suitable for the Veteran.

“I have not had a judge or court turn down VA services or resources yet,” said Woods.

Once a Veteran has accepted VJO services the court can pair them with a mentor, usually a Veteran, who provides peer support. The Veteran must also identify and actively pursue personal goals, which include employment and educational opportunities.

If a Veteran has landed in jail, VJO specialists still have an opportunity to reach them prior to their release. Veterans are identified by prison mental health staff and connected with a specialist. However, the biggest challenge Woods sees is that Veterans don’t actually know they are a Veteran and qualify for VA services.

“They don’t see themselves as Veterans,” said Woods. “They automatically think of old people as being Vets. . .not young people.”

Woods estimates he has helped between 50 – 100 Veterans during his year and a half on the job. His time on each case varies from simply writing up a court report to months of dedicated in order to help a Veteran succeed. But the reaction he receives is typically the same: positive and grateful.

Veteran Treatment Courts continue to spread across the country, welcomed by communities for their efforts to help Vets in need. No one who deploys anticipates returning home to life in a jail cell. With the help of Veterans Justice Outreach Specialists and Veteran Treatment Courts, Vets are being given a second chance.

“Someone in crisis doesn’t belong in jail but deserves some help,” said Clark.

Learn more about the Veterans Justice Outreach Initiative.

North County Times - The Californian | Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011