VERPA FERES CHALLENGE

a LOGICAL challenge on the ‘FERES doctrine’ (FERES); Department of defense collusion and the resulting effects on the united states Veterans past, PRESENT, and future.

this portion of the FERES challenge is PRIMARILY REFERENCED TO the VIETNAM VETERANS Toxic chemical herbicides legacy - 1962 to present

Should Americas’ Sons and Daughters that served in the military past, present, and future take to heart that our government meant exactly what Henry Kissenger as Secretary of State and a leader in the Executive Branch of many Presidential White Houses stated in 1979 when he let the “real governmental Military/Veteran philosophy” out of the preverbal biased government conspiratorial bag:

“Military men are dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy.”

Should the military of our nation with the above statement now also conclude; with the additional treatment by the United States Government Executive Branch over the past five decades in their “authorized DOD lab rat usage”(See Attachment 1) afforded the DOD by the Congressionally adopted Feres Doctrine; or what can only be described as government collusions and scientific misconduct against those that proudly served in Vietnam as Toxic Chemical Victims; or those that performed admirably during Gulf War 1 and returned dying and disabled; this is what Congress wants for the Nations most Noble of all citizens?

It seems the congressional touting of our Veterans and the “Appreciation of Their Service” is only so much official election propaganda and is the direct opposite of the MOTTO of one our honorable serving Army Artillery Battalions (8/4).

Discussions and challenges on the following high level Mass Veterans’ Issues is presented by Charles W. Kelley, Vietnam Veteran and author of “Vietnam’s Rain; Agents Orange, White, and Blue (Weapons of Mass Destruction)”

1. Unconstitutionality of a “Legislative/Executive Branch” working doctrine (defacto laws and defacto legal system) and philosophy created and used against any one segment of United States Citizens.

2. The combinational unconstitutional effects of the FERES Doctrine; United States Code (USC) 38, paragraph 511; and the legal system (Board of Veterans Appeals) established to directly stem the onslaught of Veterans and Veterans Widows claims for toxic chemical mortality and morbidity caused by the United States Government. A combination of unconstitutional government control which by default, removes the Veteran and his family from the guaranteed constitutional demanded and mandated “Legal Justice for All.”

3. Impacts of government caused toxic chemical damages to the Vietnam Era Veteran and the Veterans family.

1. The DOD authority to use Veterans as human lab rats reiterated in a DOD memo in 1953.

REFERENCE: DOD Secretary 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiments Memo pgs. 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992)

1. Unconstitutionality of a Legislative/Executive Branch working doctrine and philosophy created and used against any one segment of United States Citizens.

In 1946, the Congress established legislation known as: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The purpose of the FTCA was to shift the burden from Congress to the Federal Courts to examine tort claims against the Government.

Under FTCA “The United States was no longer responsible for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces.”

What should be a “limited and clearly defined sovereign immunity” from such activities assumes “United States Government Integrity” in the application of the FTCA.

FTCA’s author, Representative Emmanuel Celler is quoted in the 1949 Yale Law Review:

"I am the author of the (Federal Tort Claims Act) ... I never intended to preclude a suit by a soldier.”

FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT - The FTCA provides a limited waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity when its employees are negligent within the scope of their employment. Under the FTCA, the government can only be sued 'under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.’ 28 U.S.C. S 1346(b). Thus, the FTCA does not apply to conduct that is uniquely governmental, that is, incapable of performance by a private individual.

28 U.S.C. S 2680(h) provides that the government is not liable when any of its agents commits the torts of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights. However, it also provides an exception. The government is liable if a law enforcement officer commits assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution. The government is not liable if the claim against law enforcement officers is for libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract. Congress has not waived the government's sovereign immunity against all law enforcement acts or omissions.

Furthermore, the FTCA is limited by a number of exceptions pursuant to which the government is not subject to suit, even if a private employer could be liable under the same circumstances. These exceptions include the discretionary function exception, which bars a claim 'based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be ABUSED.’ 28 U.S.C. S 2680(a).

In order to determine whether conduct falls within the discretionary function exception, the courts must apply a two-part test established in Berkovitz v. U.S., 486 U.S. 531, 536 ('88). See Kennewick Irrigation Dist. v. U.S., 880 F.2d 1018, 1025 (9th Cir.'89). First, the question must be asked whether the conduct involved 'an element of judgment or choice.’ U.S. v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 322 ('91). This requirement is not satisfied if a 'federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow.’ Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536. Once the element of judgment is established, the next inquiry must be 'whether that judgment is of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield' in that, it involves considerations of 'social, economic, and political policy.’ Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 322-23.

Absent specific statutes or regulations, where the particular conduct is discretionary, the failure of the government properly to train its employees who engage in that conduct is also discretionary. See, e.g., Flynn v. U.S., 902 F.2d 1524 (10th Cir.'90) (failure of National Park Service to train its employees as to proper use of emergency equipment was discretionary).

The FTCA specifies that the liability of the U.S. is to be determined 'in accordance with the law of the place where the [allegedly tortuous] act or omission occurred.’ 28 U.S.C. S 1346(b). In an action under the FTCA, a court must apply the law the state courts would apply in the analogous tort action, including federal law. See Caban v. U.S., 728 F.2d 68, 72 (2d Cir.'84); see also Richards v. U.S., 369 U.S. 1, 11-13 ('62).

Under California law, a California court would apply federal law to determine whether an arrest by a federal officer was legally justified and hence privileged. See Trenouth v. U.S., 764 F.2d 1305, 1307 (9th Cir.'85) (applying federal law in an FTCA action for false imprisonment to determine legality of arrest by Department of Defense officers in California); cf. Gasho v. U.S., 39 F.3d 1420, 1427-32 (9th Cir.'94) (applying federal law in FTCA false imprisonment action against federal customs officials to determine if probable cause justified arrest in Arizona).

A plaintiff cannot bring an FTCA claim against the United States based solely on conduct that violates the Constitution because such conduct may violate only federal, and not state, law. See FDIC v. Meyer, 114 S.Ct. 996, 1001 ('94).

The substitution provision of the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act (FELRTCA) provides that upon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose . . . the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant.’ 28 U.S.C. S 2679(d)(1). The purpose of this amendment to the Federal Tort Claims Act was to 'remove the potential personal liability of Federal employees for common law torts committed within the scope of their employment, and . . . instead provide that the exclusive remedy for such torts is through an action against the United States under the FTCA.’ H.R. Rep. No. 700, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1988)

Under the FTCA, the U.S. is subject to liability for the negligence of an independent contractor only if it can be shown that the government had authority to control the detailed physical performance of the contractor and exercised substantial supervision over its day-to-day activities. See U.S. v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814-15 ('76); Letnes v. U.S., 820 F.2d 1517, 1519 (9th Cir.'87).

On December 4, 1950, the United States Supreme Court engaged in the most devastating unconstitutional act in our Nation’s history by creating “judicial-legislation” known as the “FERES Doctrine.”

Since that day in infamy, all American service members, veterans and their families have been stripped of, without their knowledge or consent, their inalienable Constitutional Rights to petition our government for redress of grievances arising “incident to service” in our military. This Doctrine: as well as other government biased definitions and rules given to these executive branch agencies; has resulted in a long-train of human, constitutional, and systemic intentional abuses by the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Justice (DoJ), Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), and their appointed “Executive Branch agencies in maintaining a YEARLY mandated Veterans budget control in lieu of CONSTITUTIONAL justice for Americas Veterans and their families.

The logical person in the military, especially those that served in a combat environment, realize the intent of FTCA to protect those in such things as indicated:

Indicated: {A dereliction or refusal of duty by an individual that caused a death or injury, friendly fire death and injuries, incompetence under fire of the person in command, etc, the Federal Government cannot be held responsible.}

The adopted FERES Doctrine has and continues to do so, assumes “United States Government Integrity” and lack of biases by the Executive Branch and various federal agencies that deal with Veterans (Department of Defense) and Veterans Issues (Department of Veterans Affairs) in the application of the doctrine and its IMPLIED philosophy.

Instead, a history of government protectionism application to escape the ramifications of Executive Branch government mistakes, crimes, mass government created deaths, and mass government created disabilities has taken place. Taken place in generic high-level mass issues as well as specific cases to avoid financial responsibility for such government decisions and actions that resulted in death and disability of our Nations; now government considered “Obsolete Assets” segment of our society – “The United States Veteran.”

Many federal judges, scholars, lawyers, doctors, veterans and their families argue that the FERES Doctrine is unconstitutional since it violates the “due process, equal protection and separation of powers” clauses of the Constitution.

The most significant dissenter in modern times is sitting Supreme Court Justice Scalia as cited in the case of United States v. Johnson, (1987):

“FERES was wrongly decided and heartily deserves the widespread, almost universal criticism it has received.” Furthermore, “Congress's inaction regarding this doctrine and its doing little, if anything in the way of modifying it to prevent Constitutional claims is clearly unjust and irrational. Again, allowing such power to military leaders can and does result in abuse therefore, where are the checks and balances on the military.”

The issues of combat related injuries arising from combat issues are not in question here.

The FERES Doctrine is “judicial-legislation,” which under our Nations constitution is illegal.

With the protection of the FTCA and the FERES Doctrine afforded by this judicial-legislation to those engaged in decision-making process at the highest levels of government there has been little if any regard given to the long-term effects of those serving in the military with respect to areas of unknowns that even a slight risk of mortality or disability is in question. No one in government can be held accountable and are considered totally “sovereign immunity decision-making bodies.”

These decisions therefore are then “carelessly and irresponsibly” made at many levels of our government in its application of issues associated to the Military men and women. (See Attachment 1 on the DOD Secretary allowing the radiation, chemical, and biological testing done on our Veterans.)

This doctrine would also assume no (zero) incompetence at any level of our government or its employees that caused death or disability (feigned and/or government directed).

Since the passing of this judicial-legislation, there has been a consistent and continuous Department of Defense history (Executive Branch) of abuses of the military men and women in such issues as: Mustard Gas and Toxins testing, Nuclear Testing, LSD Testing, Project 112 and SHAD Biological Chemical Warfare testing, Edgewood Arsenal Testing, the use of toxic chemical herbicides (plural) at unprecedented toxicity and dose levels, and the possible mortality and morbidity impacts of thousands of rounds of Depleted Uranium in one concentrated area of the battlefield or other issues associated with the returning Gulf War Veterans who were sick, disabled, and dying.

It is argued that if the FERES Doctrine were abolished the federal laws on the books to remedy fraud, waste, abuse, government entity collaborations and/or collusion, or dangers to the public health and welfare would be enforced, thus compelling the Government to prosecute rather than defend crimes. Including those government crimes that go on for decades in denial of even taking place or when finally admitted to, when denial is no longer plausible and the evidence has been leaked to the point of demanding admittance of such facts.

Examples below document recent congressional attempts at getting the information from the DoD on behalf of those dying and disabled Veterans knowingly “and unknowingly” used as “Lab Rats for the Department of Defense.”

Congressional leaders and staffers please note the media uncovered, “decade long DoD denials were all lies”. Please also note the continued denials by the Department of Veterans Affairs that these events took place denying the Veterans not only service connected medical health care but also service connected disability, as well as DIC payments for the Veteran’s surviving widow and offspring. These stalling tactics and denials also prevent the Veteran from his state disability benefits that the Veteran earned in service to the nation as being “service connected disabled.”

In addition, congressional leaders and staffers take note of the continued years of DoD stalling of critical life saving information even though the events were documented and even begrudgingly admitted to by the government perpetrators.

Should members of Congress consider in the context of legally denying such events even took place for decades and then legally delaying the data from such “finally admitted to events” attributed to or contributed to the death, disability, and disgrace of the Veteran and/or family? The answer for even the most illogical approach must be YES.

Is this then “our government’s reward” for military service to this nation?

If a civilian entity did such things to a segment of our society, the congress would no doubt and deservedly so be outraged at causing or attributing to death and disability of tens of thousands of citizens. “Government accountability” for outrageous and inhumane behavior would the election cry of many of our campaigning politician if it concerned civilian constituents.

Yet, for our Nations Veterans there is not even an eyebrow raised in concern of these events or how the Executive Branch can even consider these actions legal and not consider these actions inhumane treatment of Veterans.

Exampled BELOW by the stalling of any pertinent data from congressional investigations that may have had an impact on the Veterans health, medical well-being, disability, and mortality

“A California congressman is calling for an investigation into the Pentagon's failure to investigate thoroughly the after effects of ocean- and land-based chemical and biological warfare tests conducted on military personnel in the 1960s and 1970s.

“U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-California, has for several years been pressuring the Department of Defense to disclose all that it knows about chemical and biological tests on military personnel involved then. He has renewed his efforts following release Friday of a General Accounting Office report critical of the department.

“The report shows that the defense department continues to keep life or death information from veterans who may have been the subject of these tests, Thompson said in a statement released Tuesday. These veterans have the right to know what agents they were exposed to. There has been no disclosure about how many service members and civilians might have become sick from the tests.

“Maj. Sandra Burr, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said Tuesday the department was not prepared to comment on Thompson's legislative proposal.

“The congressman said he would introduce legislation in early June that would establish a panel of independent investigators, composed, in part, of military veterans and those with medical and investigative experience, to ensure information regarding all chemical and biological tests are brought to light.

“No current defense department employees will be allowed on the panel, said Matt Gerien, a spokesman for the congressman.

“The GAO report cites the defense department's inability to find records that would identify those service members involved in 21 land-based tests. Is this just another government attack of convenient amnesia? Although the defense department estimates some 350 U.S. and foreign civilians may have been exposed, it did not seek to identify the hazardous substances they may have been exposed to.

”The report notes the department limited its investigation of specific exposures to identifying former military personnel that could be eligible for medical services from the Department of Veterans Affairs, said the GAO. Finally, the GAO said, the Pentagon did not pursue all possible sources of information during its investigation.

Between 1962 and 1974, the defense department conducted a classified chemical and biological warfare test program, named Project 112, which exposed service members and civilians to chemical or biological agents. The Pentagon has said the tests included spraying of chemical and biological stimulants and release of the deadly saran and VX gases.

“The ocean-going tests, known as Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD), were "to identify U.S. warships' vulnerabilities to attacks with chemical or biological warfare agents," said Pentagon officials. The land-based tests, said officials, were aimed at learning "more about how chemical or biological agents behave under a variety of climatic, environmental and use conditions."

“The Desert Test Center, based at Fort Douglas, Utah, conducted the tests.

“In October 2001, after seven years of inquiries from veterans, Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Pentagon finally confirmed that thousands of sailors were present during a decade-long series of classified tests to determine the vulnerability of U.S. warships to attack by chemical and biological warfare. With more urging from veterans and their advocates, still other ocean- and land-based tests around the world were identified.”

“WASHINGTON — It may have sounded awful when the Pentagon reported last year that nearly 6,000 soldiers may have been unwittingly exposed to germ and chemical weapons in 50 tests conducted worldwide from 1962 and 1974 by Army scientists based in Utah.

“However, congressional investigators said Friday that figure was just the tip of the iceberg.

“The U.S. General Accounting Office, a research arm of Congress, said those Pentagon-reported numbers were just for one series of experiments, called Project 112 or Project SHAD. We have determined that hundreds of such classified tests and research projects were conducted outside Project 112,’ GAO officials said in a new report released Friday.

“In fact, the GAO said it quickly found that at least 100 secret germ and chemical experiments were conducted at Utah's Dugway Proving Ground alone, or more than double the number of tests conducted under Project 112 during the same time period. The report said hundreds more secret tests were conducted in the 48 contiguous states.

“So the GAO said the Pentagon, which declared last June that its work in identifying potential chemical and germ arms victims for Project 112 was complete, should continue probing further now to try to identify soldiers and civilians possibly exposed in all those other tests. In response, the Pentagon said it is planning to try to do so.

“The Deseret Morning News has shown through the years, through documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, that thousands of open-air trials occurred in Utah with chemical, biological and radiological weapons, often upwind from populated areas.

“The newspaper also first reported the Project SHAD and Project 112 tests, many of which were conducted at sea. Some sailors had sought the newspaper's help, complaining they were suffering from cancer and nervous system ills they blamed on the tests. However, The Department Of Veterans Affairs denied claims because the Army said the tests never occurred.

“Despite the newspaper obtaining reports and plans of some of those tests, the Pentagon continued for years to deny they occurred.

“However, after pressure from the national media, members of Congress, the VA and sailors, the Pentagon finally admitted in May 2002, that some initial research showed that such tests happened. It said in June 2003 that it had identified all the places and the names of veterans likely involved.

“The new GAO study was ordered to measure the adequacy of that recent Pentagon work. The GAO said the Pentagon generally did a good job of identifying all Project 112 tests and most of the veterans involved. However, it said a few veterans and many civilian workers were likely missed because records of some tests have yet to be found.

“The Pentagon has entirely ignored other series of tests that may have exposed more people than Project 112, the report says.

“While there is no database that contains information concerning the biological and chemical tests that have been conducted, we determined that hundreds of such classified tests and research projects were conducted outside Project 112," the GAO wrote.

“In addition, information from various sources shows that personnel from all services were involved in chemical and biological testing," it said. Many were designed by the old Deseret Test Center, which originally was at Fort Douglas and later relocated to Dugway before disbanding.

“A former Deseret Test Center scientist estimated that the number of chemical and biological tests conducted at just one location — Dugway Proving Ground, Utah was over 100, or more than double the number of tests conducted under Project 112," the GAO reported. GAO said it found one old study that listed biological field tests conducted at locations including Dugway, Fort Bragg N.C., Fort Detrick Md., and Edwards Air Force Base CA. The GAO noted that its office and others also previously reported, "Hundreds of radiological, chemical and biological tests were conducted in which hundreds of thousands of people were used as test subjects.” Also, it previously reported that the Army Chemical Corps conducted classified research on incapacitating agents that used at least 7,120 volunteers.

“The GAO said that amid its probe, the Pentagon in February 2004 "began preparing a plan to identify tests outside Project 112 that might have exposed service members," and civilians.

"However, that office has not yet completed its plan for doing this," the GAO wrote.

“The GAO called for finalization and implementation of that plan. It said the Pentagon "concurred with our report findings and recommendations and agreed to implement our recommendations."

Our brave men in SOG teams that went on Special Operations into Laos and Cambodia clearly stated they were sprayed in those countries, back when the United States Government demanded the Veteran prove exposures. The United States Government Executive Branch/DoD denied any such spraying occurred in those countries. The DoD/VA called our Honorable Veterans nothing but liars. Our teams died from cancers with no acknowledgment or government support or even service connection.

Yet, we find an Air Force report called Corona Harvest ‘Defoliation Operations in Southeast Asia (A Special Report) that clearly states the Defoliation Operations were indeed taking place in both Laos and Cambodia as early as 1964!

Who has the honor here? Those men that bravely served or the lying government DOD representatives?

Someone in the Executive Branch knew these missions were taking place in Laos and Cambodia as they prepared the Corona Harvest report published in 1970!

Yet, this Government and our Executive Branch want Americas Sons and Daughters to risk their lives for them and they themselves have neither honor nor integrity.

Should it make a difference to our congress if it is a private company or a government agency and/or agencies involved? If the perpetrators are civilian or government, know they have harmed someone, or by not coming forward continue to harm someone, and they continue to let both happen then are not both guilty of misconduct resulting in death and/or disability? The logical person would conclude that it should not make a difference if it is a government entity or government worker or not.

If it does make a difference; then our government is now violating the constitutional intent of the separation of powers in stopping any form of collusion within a government agency or between government agencies against any one segment of society.

With the FERES Doctrine, congress agrees that only civilian companies/individuals should be held accountable for death and disablement. Even as a direct result of decisions made by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs all working for the Executive Branch of government knowing full well with FERES they are not to be held accountable for crimes against humanity when it involves the “Veterans of our Nation.” They in essence then become less than human.

Clearly, the usage of the FERES Doctrine as it is presently being applied; was not and is not intended to be used in the manner and for the actions the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, (“Executive Branch”) currently uses this Congressional accepted doctrine. A doctrine used in many venues against the United States Veteran/Veteran’s Family. A congressional accepted doctrine that does not ensure “Equal Justice under the Law.” Equal justice under the Law that is a “constitutional guarantee” and “constitutional mandate.”

The high court did state in its decision that if they misinterpreted Congress’ intention to not afford service members equal protection of the FTCA, then the Congress held the “ready remedy” to correct their decision.

Is this then the way Congress intended this despicable doctrine to be used in Executive Branch denial, collusions, and stalling tactics as Veterans die from Executive Branch causations? Is this then their government reward for honorable and even valorous service to the nation?

Who then is to be held accountable for the crimes against humanity and our Constitution that continue to this very day due to the many misuses of the FERES Doctrine by White House/DOD/VA.

The Presidents of the United States, Congresses, and the Federal Judiciary should be held accountable; when in fact no one is held accountable.

If the American people were aware of the constitutional and systemic abuses by the Department Of Defense (DOD) and Department Of Justice (DOJ), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) {Executive Branch} would they agree that this abuse was fair or good for our National Security and in the best interests of our country, its’ military, and veterans?

If the American people were aware of the constitutional and systemic abuses thus then supported by our own elected officials, would they agree with the present application and of those that they elected?

Do these men and women of our Armed Forces (past, present, and future) not have the right to know how our own congress has totally abandoned an entire segment of society and not protected this “government created” segment of society from the lack of separation of powers demanded by our constitution that this government created segment of society swore to protect with their lives?

As a minimum, “those currently serving and those that will serve in the future” must be informed of this government injustice. They must be informed before they volunteer to give their life for a government that once they have honorably and even valorously served; the entire congress will not protect them from Executive Branch and possible legislative branch collaborations and injustice.

The one thing congress is mandated to do is to make sure that no one person or segment of society is subject to Executive Branch Tyranny.

For the Veteran and his family with the FTCA and the FERES Doctrine this unconstitutional injustice by our Department of Defense/Executive Branch is the norm, not the exception.

The unconstitutionality of the FTCA and the FERES Doctrine gives the Department of Defense/Department of Justice/Department of Veterans Affairs unfettered and unchallengeable ability for collaboration and conspiracy against the Veteran and his family creating death, disability, and despair.

With this total created “government legal control” of the Veterans claims processes and even outside the constitutional courts definitions of “what is evidentiary and evidentiary weights to be considered;” you now have a complete circle of government deceit, stalling, denying, and collaboration at the highest levels of the Executive Branch with no (zero) ramifications for any decisions made when it comes to our “Nations Most Noble of all Citizens.”

When the Veteran or Veterans family member, after decades of fighting the DoD and the VA finally achieves a day in a real court of constitutional law, the first defense is always DoD/DVA invoking the FTCA and FERES Doctrine and the Veteran or family member does not have that right of a day in a real unbiased constitutional court.

The real court then states because of these discussed issues are not even entitled to hear such cases as they have no power or directed power over the Secretary of the VA in Veterans Issues as a result of USC 38 Paragraph 511; that clearly states mandamus actions do not apply to the VA Secretary regarding anything associated to the Nations Veterans and by default their widows or orphans.

Is this what our congress considers, as educated men and women, constitutional justice?

One of the most despicable rulings in a long line of biased rulings is The Right to Know Act.

In the denial of one part of a claim by the government of the Veterans Claim, the rest of the claim, no matter how many parts, is similarly denied and no one by law has to notify the claimant of such denial – the Veteran or the Widow of such other denials and the biased clock starts with no notification. When the clock stops, it has serious ramifications as to how evidence and what level it must meet after the clock stopping to be even introduced. Is this a justice system or what? Of course not!

Contrary to this ruling; the Secretary of Veterans Affairs goes before congress and professes the reason why (excuses) the Veterans’ cases take so long, years and even decades, is there are many parts and they all have to be decided before the claim is finalized.

When the congress asks about performance of the federal agency the Secretary then crows the agency has handled or processed so many thousands of claims. What congress does not address or even ask, since they really do not want to know, is what does that mean; “handled or processed.” How many are in what level of denial, how many are in appeal, how many have been sitting for over two years waiting for the Secretary’s Agency to do something?

In the year, 2000 just a short seven years ago before Congressional oversight committee and under oath, it was testified that out of an estimated on the ground troops in Vietnam of three million men and women only 7,585 Veterans were drawing compensations for Agent Orange Exposures.

While that fact did raise a few eyebrows, nothing was really said about demanding to know why by the Congress. Why did only 7,585 qualify for Agent Orange damages when in fact the herbicides were used nation wide by the millions of gallons and there were only .0025% of the entire “boots on the ground Veterans” effected and actually drawing compensation for such toxic chemical damages.

By sciences own admission the most carcinogenic manmade toxic dioxin isomer created used in unprecedented toxicity formulas and unprecedented application rates in the millions of gallons and only .0025% of those exposed to these conditions qualify for compensations in the VA and BVA legal system set aside for only Veterans.

A President once said, “When you create the Veteran you do not lay aside the citizen.” Yet, it seems in this case that is exactly what our government, with the help of our elected officials in Congress has done. Set aside for government mandated yearly Veterans budget control.

At the Behest of the White House and Congress, the VA and BVA tries in its court, the same identical case 10,000 times rather than one case and arrive at 10,000 rulings within an hour. Instead, the same case, with the same evidence, the same contentions, the same circumstances with the only difference being the name and rank is tried and ruled on differently ad infinitum. No legal precedence is used as our real legal system does to speed up legal decisions and legal matters in our nation. Therefore, the entire premise of the VA and BVA legal system seems to border on nothing but government budget control; not justice.

Senators Specter and Frist go on the floor of the senate and state the asbestos lawsuits had become nothing but a litigation lottery. How is that different from the lottery created by Congress for the Veterans if the entire legal system is not based on precedence? Veterans and widows wait their turn in the yearly mandated budget control lottery tool – the governments’ legal system set-aside for Veterans and their widows.

One of the most recent examples of these total Veterans legal biases afforded the government by these insidious “Acts, Doctrines and Codes” versus the rest of the nation is the tragic development on September 11, 2002 when a cowardly enemy attacked our nation.

Yet, in comparison of how the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch handled this NATIONAL TRAGEDY event versus our Government Created Vietnam Veterans Toxic Chemicals (plural) Legacy in history is the difference between night and day – black and white; “justice or injustice.”

3. Impacts of government caused toxic chemical damages to the Vietnam Era Veteran and the Veterans family.

Attachment 2 documents many of the government issues of what has gone on the last 40 years. Not in Justice for America’s Veterans and/or their surviving widows and orphans but a controlled legalized stalling of an admittance of guilt.

The Veterans and their doctors were not warned of what the Veteran medically faced the rest of his or her life. Outreach has and continues to be minimum at best, for obvious monetary reasons.

Veterans struck down by government caused degenerating disorders and the very adversarial system set up to delay and deny service connection in the form of medical treatments and/or compensations were and are forced into disability early in life. The results in some cases were catastrophic not only in life long savings lost but in family assets such as homes or even families were and are being lost.

Widows are forced into this battle for their dead heroes as they made bedside promises. Bedside promises to not let this government get away with what has gone on the last 40 years as spouses died in much pain. Spouses forced into a battle that they should have remembered the sacrifice with honor and dignity. Instead, the memories of the fight against our own government and the despicable way the heroes of their life were treated by an ungrateful Nation and Government loom ever so amplified as they see how the promises are still made to those present Sons and Daughters that do not understand how our government will treat them next in their mandated budgets. Protecting from the media and the rest of the nation the real cost of war and White House mistakes.

Some of these Veterans and their families end up on the streets or living in cars. Yet, when one finally gets a government official to see what has happened in the individual case by the VA and BVA the widow is awarded a positive ruling within weeks and the an apology takes place; too late to prevent the loss of home or a life’s worth of partnering together to build a life and family and too late to save a lifetime of building dignity and personal responsibility.

This then is our Governments reward for Veterans sacrifice. Not what is portrayed in campaign speeches and broken promises and in an adversarial system set up only to deny and stall the help needed.

· The lack of logic or even common sense in only recognizing .0025% of those Veterans that were exposed were effected by the most carcinogenic man made isomer yet to date in our history.

· Thus, the regulation promulgated by the VA established an overly burdensome standard by incorporating the causal relationship test within the text of the regulation itself. 38 C.F.R. 1 3.311(d) ("(s] ound scientific and medical evidence does not establish a cause and effect relationship between dioxin exposure" and any diseases…

Sound scientific and medical evidence does not establish --- What court or judge in our land today can make that pronouncement that sound scientific and medical evidence does not prove a case. Only in a Veterans Court can this statement stand up.

· Unfortunately, political interference in government-sponsored studies associated with Agent Orange has been the norm, not the exception. There is a documented systematic effort to suppress critical data or alter results to meet preconceived notions of what alleged scientific studies were meant to find.

· In 2000, a few scientists came forward, under oath, and stated the data flow of what was being found was not being brought forward.

· In 2007, even more Ranch Hand Scientists came forward and indicating the Ranch Hand cohort exposure assumptions have greatly flawed the studies conclusions.

"It spoils everything," Michalek told The News. "It's as if you're running a clinical trial on a new medication, and you found out some of the people who were in your placebo group were actually taking meds. That would spoil your whole study. And that's what's going on here in this study."

· Birth defects, miscarriages, and stillborn effects have been greatly minimized.

· Paternal exposure birth defect outcomes have been not only minimized but also covered up as far back as 1984.

These Honorable Veterans did nothing wrong in their life except trust a government that when it comes to Veterans Issues can no longer be trusted with this legalized form of Government tyranny granted to Executive Branch by our Congress.

Certainly the spouses and orphans and the damaged offspring did nothing wrong against this government. Yet, they are also treated as if they were an enemy of our nation.

One day in the near future this nation is going to need all its Sons and Daughters to come to the government’s aide.

Who could blame them with all that has gone on if they just said NO! While our nation does deserve to be protected and defended, our government officials and our government no longer fit that category.

The price is too high for Veterans and their families to pay to survive the enemy and then face the government collaborations, conspiracy, collusions, and White House edicts/memos/tactics not to find associations to wartime service and mortality and/or disability because of the cost of supporting the Veterans and their families would be too high a price to pay.

Freedom and the SACRIFICE for that freedom now has a government price tag associated with it!

Memorandum for the Secretary of the Army Secretary of the Navy Secretary of the Air Force

TOP SECRET

1. Based upon a recommendation of the Armed Forces Medical Policy Council, that human subjects be employed, under recognized safeguards, as the only feasible means for realistic evaluation and/or development of effective preventive measures of defense against atomic, biological or chemical agents, the policy set forth below will govern the use of human volunteers by the Department of Defense in experimental research in the fields of atomic, biological and/or chemical warfare.

2. By reason of the basic medical responsibility in connection with the development of defense of all types against atomic, biological and/or chemical warfare agents, Armed Services personnel and/or civilians on duty at installations engaged in such research shall be permitted to actively participate in all phases of the program, such participation shall be subject to the following conditions:

a. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. (1) This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

(2) The consent of the human subject shall be in writing, his signature shall be affixed to a written instrument setting forth substantially the aforementioned requirements and shall be signed in the presence of at least one witness who shall attest to such signature in writing.

(a) In experiments where personnel from more than one Service are involved the Secretary of the Service which is exercising primary responsibility for conducting the experiment is designated to prepare such an instrument and coordinate it for use by all the Services having human volunteers involved in the experiment.

(3) The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility, which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

b. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

c. The number of volunteers used shall be kept at a minimum consistent with item b., above.

d. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

e. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

f. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.

g. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

h. Proper preparation should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

i. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

j. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

k. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

1. The established policy, which prohibits the use of prisoners of war in human experimentation, is continued and they will not be used under any circumstances.

3. The Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force are authorized to conduct experiments in connection with the development of defenses of all types against atomic, biological and/or chemical warfare agents involving the use of human subjects within the limits prescribed above.

4. In each instance in which an experiment is proposed pursuant to this memorandum, the nature and purpose of the proposed experiment and the name of the person who will be in charge of such experiment shall be submitted for approval to the Secretary of the military department in which the proposed experiment is to be conducted. No such experiment shall be undertaken until such Secretary has approved in writing the experiment proposed, the person who will be in charge of conducting it, as well as informing the Secretary of Defense.

5. The addresses will be responsible for insuring compliance with the provisions of this memorandum within their respective Services.

22 Aug 75

CERTAINLY, gives pause about supporting the government by serving in the MILITARY.

Comparisons

· Immediately millions of dollars per victim went to the < 3,000 families of that attack by our enemy.

· Investigations launched as to how this event occurred.

For our Nations’ Toxic Chemical Veteran “Victims,” ALSO A NATIONAL TRAGEDY, slowly killed or disabled by our own government and its government decisions - the efforts by our Executive Branch and Legislative Branch has been to make sure the “VETERAN Victims are held accountable;” not the United States Government and its government contracted TOXIC chemical herbicide companies.

The differences characterized below, is part and parcel to what tragic impact the FERES Doctrine and United States Code (USC) 38, paragraph 511, and Board of Veterans Appeals has had on the Vietnam Veteran and the Veteran’s family by allowing government and government entities; collaboration, conspiratorial actions, use of command influence, changing of scientific drafts, changing of cleared for publication medical impacts and scientific findings, 100’s of millions of dollars in studies meant to assist the Veteran (at congressional face value anyway) controlled to the point of very little intellectual or scientific integrity and value was left associated with the studies; at least in the governments redacted and published reports.

Studies in fact only done to protect our government as well as its allies, the chemical companies themselves.

· As returning Vietnam Veterans reported developing ischemic medical disorders that were common among the Nations returning warriors; the first government response was to distance the medical disorders from being “service connected” and/or “caused by government actions of the use of herbicides.” Government denial that these significant medical disorders even existed was of utmost importance rather than government investigational actions.

· The VA, at the behest of our government, denied 10’s of thousands of Veterans claims for service connection mortality or morbidity in our returning Veterans. Veterans who by all definitions were killed or disabled by our own government in combat service to our Nation against its enemies.

· As data became more evident and DoD denial was no longer plausible that the Veterans and their families had every reason to be concerned. The Veterans Administration (VA) on behalf of the White House took the lead in distancing our government from the causations of such reported strange mortality and morbidity disorders in our young returning military. Concerns from the men and women military as well as their concerned parents and spouses regarding the many forms of government herbicides, insecticides, malaria medication surfaced and questions began to rise.

· As the data became numerous and more validity was found that these increased mortality and morbidity concerns were legitimate and did exist, the VA’s first response was to meet with Government contracted chemical company medical directors and chief scientists behind closed doors.

· When honest VA workers, with actual integrity, realized the Veterans were all recanting the same story, many of the medical issues were similar, and the discovery that the government was using unprecedented dose rates and toxicity toxic chemicals; they poured over maps of Vietnam marking areas that had been indicated by the Veterans. They found and uncovered the “common threads” connection. They in turn contacted the manufactures and began asking questions regarding the toxic chemicals and any testing they had done. As soon as VA management discovered this, the VA employees in their attempt to help the sick and dying Vietnam Veterans were told to “cease and desist.”

· One disgusted VA worker, Ms. Maude DeVictor, actually going outside the VA mandates of the “cease and desist command.” Instead choosing with integrity to take the gathered data to the media. Aired on March 23, 1978 “Agent Orange: Vietnam’s Deadly Fog” reported the issues and our governments’ total disregard for Vietnam’s returning toxic chemical damaged War Veterans. Horrified at the public airing VA mounted a propaganda challenge that this was just media sensationalism. VA did not address the findings.&