Aug. 2008 BCMR Case includes SPN/SPD Code Issue

 

Recently filed BCMR case/complaint re;  SPN/SPD coding.

Admin Error; Equitable Relief

This is the section of law vets use to get monetary relief for VA Employees screwing up claim, destroying documents, etc   TITLE 38 Section 503A

Powers and duties

(a) It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation.

(b) Whenever the district court determines that the volume of business of the special grand jury exceeds the capacity of the grand jury to discharge its obligations, the district court may order an additional special grand jury for that district to be impaneled.

source: ” http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003332—-000-.html

This is letter from 2 lawyers asking for ” Special Grand Jury ” to investigate ” massive FRAUD ” being conducted against veterans.

Koltz letter submitted to Federal Judge re: massive fraud

Download document here.

BCMR’S SERIOUSLY FAILING THEIR MANDATE TO VETERANS

VA Frustration By Edwin Crosby for Veterans Today

As veterans are aware,  there is only one place they can turn to correct errors on their DD-214’s,  or,  there military records.  Each branch of the military has what is known as a  “ BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS “.  The law governing said BOARDS is TITLE 10, Section 1552.

Something unique happened in 1985 to help assist ALL veterans who had been given a false & stigmatizing secret coded number on their DD-214 known as a  SPN, SDN, or SPD code.   A case from a BCMR went to the U.S. Federal Claims Court, CASEY  v.  U.S.  argued by an attorney by the name of ALAN THIELE, now of Houston, Tx.   CASEY  won,  and JUDGE YOCK in his decision from page 15-18 talked about  “ STIGMA DISCHARGES “.    He said  ANY veteran with one of these false and stigmatizing coded numbers should have had a  DUE PROCESS HEARING before discharge.  Over the year,  this veteran NEVER even heard about this case !

In 1999, this writer, Edwin Crosby III, submitted a claim to the USAF BCMR.  Claim can be read at www.veterancourtcodes.com under the word pages,  BCMR CASE.  Absolutely NO one EVER told me I had a BAD or false and stigmatizing code, and by LEGAL PRECEDENT  they, the BOARD must correct all errors, and pay for an injustice.  The USAF BCMR failed to follow legal precedent !   In fact,  so have the other BCMR’S,  Army & Navy.

LEGAL PRECEDENT,  is an existing legal ruling, which come from case law or past judicial decisions and cases. The United States Court System has a strong respect for precedent.  The legal doctrine of  “stare decisis“  dictates that precedent will be followed in future court cases.  Stare decisis means,  “ to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled “.

It now has come to light, that the BCMR’S from the respective branches of the military have been cheating veterans out of  JUSTICE FOR ALL !   They have failed to follow their mandate as given by Congress under the law, and ruined tens of thousand of lives of this nations military veterans.  A veteran by the name of Jeffery Trueman who went to court to try and overturn the FERRIS DOCTRINE,  found out he had a BAD coded number and NO ONE on the BCMR told him about this matter.  He is very upset to say the least, and is ready to re-join the fight for Liberty.

ANY veteran who had a false and stigmatizing coded number who went before one of these military BOARDS from 1986 to 2010 and WAS NOT told he/she had a BAD code,  needs to resubmit your claim immediately.  Tell them they did not follow LEGAL PRECEDENT, and quote the CASEY case.

DD214 SECRET CODES

In fact,  attached to this story are four (4) questions which can be submitted to anyone of the BCMR’S.   Just change the name from Army to Navy, or to USAF.  Send said questions to your U.S. Senator or Congressman at their State office, use CERTIFIED MAIL, no green return receipt needed,  do not sent to Washington Offices.  Request that the 4 questions be answered as veterans believe the BCMR’S are NOT following Congressional Mandate or Legal Precedent, and you yourself may have to use the BCMR’S and you want a FAIR playing field.

You should get a form letter back from your Senator/Congressman saying they received your request and will forward for answers.   If you do not hear anything within 3 weeks,  call and ask what happened.   This is a GREAT OUTRAGE that when asking for Justice at BCMR’S,  veterans are further stabbed in the back by those wearing a military uniform of the U.S.   Stand up and be counted veterans !

FOUR QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWEREDBY ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTIONOF MILITARY RECORDS

QUESTION  ONE:

How many cases have come before your ARMY BCMR since 1986 in which a veteran had a “ false & stigmatizing coded number “, known as a SPN, SDN, SPD code, and said veteran was advised by LEGAL PRECEDENT, CASEY  v.  U.S. 8 Fed Cl.Ct. (1985) that he or she was entitled to a “ DUE PROCESS OF LAW HEARING UPON DISCHARGE “.

QUESTION  TWO:

Upon determining the veteran was given a false & stigmatizing coded number,  how was the veteran “ redressed or compensated “ for the injustice, which is a requirement of the law governing BCMR’S  i.e.  Give examples of how payment was forthcoming.

QUESTION THREE:

When a BCMR discovers that SPOLIATION has taken place, and a party who destroys a document with knowledge that it is RELEVANT to litigation is likely to have been threatened by the document, and that party is one of the military branches, how does SPOLIATION effect a veterans claim.   Do lawyers in the litigation office notify Justice Department Officials of the crime committed ?

QUESTION FOUR:

Once a BCMR has determined a veteran has a STIGMA discharge, and the BCMR’S must CORRECT the INJUSTICE, what guidelines are you following to locate ALL places the coded reason for discharge has been disseminated to.  Please provide copy of those guidelines.

EDWIN H. CROSBY  III

source: “ http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/09/29/edwin-crosby-bcmrs-failing-veterans/


On this day, August 18, 2011, U.S. Senator Clair McCaskill’s Office in St. Louis, Mo. called me. A staffers informed me that the U.S. Air Force will NOT answer the question of whether they are bound by legal precedent when making BCMR Decisions. This mockery of how our system works by so called military personnel wearing the uniform of a soldier of the United States is outrageous. By the “ Administrative Procedures Act “, and U.S. Court Decisions are you supposed to follow legal precedent or not ?? YES or NO. A simple question of which, they should answer, or be in violation of the U.C.M.J. and/or laws of the United States. Enough is enough.

THE NEW G.I. BILL IS TOO LATE FOR SOME

Recently, this website owner and Nationally known Vietnam Veteran posted up a story on a vets website called, VA Watchdogtoday . org.  That story had to due with the Board For Correction of Military Records ( BCMR’S )  and there FAILURE to uphold their mandate given to them by Congress.  That story was CENSORED by watchdogtoday web owner Jim Strickland.  There were NO foul words, no naming names or finger-pointing.  There was mentioned that in a place called Nazi Germany people were branded with a number.  Seems, that’s what got me CENSORED, in a land where there is to be FREE SPEECH, FREE PRESS.  I removed vawatchdog as a LINK from this website, as blacklisting a story regarding extremely important information for veterans is outrageous.  I spoke the truth,  hey Jim,  the truth shall set you free.

-Ed Crosby

Download document here.

This letter was written on the Generals personal stationary and talks about SPN CODES.

Download the document here.

AUGUST 3, 2011

UNITED STATES SENATOR

HON. CLAIR McCASKILL

5850 DELMAR BLVD.

SUITE A

ST. LOUIS, MO. 63112

ATTN; MICHELLE SHEROD

RE: SECRETARY USAF LETTER DATED

JULY 26, 2011

SENATOR McCASKILL,

First, please note the address change, I thought I notified your Office of my new address:

Edwin H. Crosby III

2835 S. Fort Ave

Apt. 1308

Springfield, Mo. 65807

Secondly, your letter of July 27, 2011, stating, “…regret that this matter could not be resolved in your favor “, is clearly not correct.

You Senator McCaskill were asked to have the Secretary of the United States Air Force answer a letter sent to him dated November 29, 2010. Once again, I am attaching a copy of this letter for you. Once you read that 11-29-2010 letter, do you see anything in the July 26,2011, letter signed by a Kelly L. Goggin regarding any mention of the following;

1. The CASEY v. U.S. 8 Cl.Ct. 234 (1985) case in which the Judge stated that any veteran with a stigma discharge, i.e. the assignment of a false & stigmatizing coded number was entitled to a “ Due Process of Law “ hearing. Moreover, by legal precedent, the USAF BCMR should have followed that very same legal precedent and the claim settled. That’s called “ arbitrary and capricious, abuse of discretion and injustice “. Those terms are required for a BCMR to correct a previous bad Decision.

2. Do you see any mention of WILHELMUS v. GEREN, civil action NO: 09-662, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIX 75020, decided JULY 13, 2011 ?? In fact Senator McCaskill, I sent your St. Louis Office a copy of that Decision PROVING what I have been saying, and WHY you have been asked to seek an HONEST reply to my 11-29-2010 letter to the Secretary. This DECISION shot holes in the BCMR’S claim that they are a Board of equity. Moreover, “ fundamental norm of administrative procedure requires an agency to treat like cases alike “. That is to say, they must follow LEGAL PRECEDENT, and if you’ll notice, Col. Goggin made absolutely NO mention of this recent court Decision, WHY ??

3. In Col. Goggin’s letter, 3rd paragraph, he makes mention of additional requests for reconsideration from Mr. Crosby and gives dates. I am unfamiliar with those dates, perhaps you might request from Col. Goggin those additional requests he speaks about. I would like to see them, wouldn’t you Senator McCaskill.

4. In that same 3rd paragraph, he speaks about, “….does not meet the criteria for reconsideration. Reconsideration is authorized only where newly discovered relevant evidence is presented “. THIS IS NOT TRUE. “ Arbitrary and capricious, matter of law, abuse of discretion, and injustice “. The fact USAF BCMR did not follow legal precedent is clearly newly discovered evidence, moreover, the citing of a court case, CASEY v. U.S. of which the USAF BCMR failed to follow legal precedent, is newly discovered evidence. The SPOLIATION of a legal transcript submitted to any “ federal court clerk “, is newly discovered evidence. It appears the USAF BCMR failed to take any of those issues into consideration.

5. Where is the letter I requested from USAF Secretary Donley in which “ his “ litigation office notified the U.S. Justice Department of the spoliation of relevant evidence, i.e. that legal transcript submitted to any federal court clerk. On page 2 of the 11-29-2010 letter to USAF Secretary I ask for a copy of that letter. That was not forthcoming.

Senator McCaskill, what is so difficult in obtaining the information that I requested your Office seek ? I am attaching for your information, two (2) letters sent to your Offices, one (1) to Springfield, and one (1) to St. Louis. The dates are 01-25-2011 and 02-28-2011. I do not see where Col. Goggin even came close to answering my concerns, and what clearly should be your concerns as well Senator McCaskill.

Shall we try again to get an answer from USAF SECRETARY DONLEY. I say we do, and mention the two (2) court cases listed above, and please don’t forget to ask why the Secretaries BCMR is NOT following legal precedent as the courts have instructed.

If I were in your shoes Senator McCaskill, I would not be happy with the response given to you by Col. Goggin. Bet he is laughing at not answering anything or speaking of “ this nation is governed by the rule of law “, something Washington, D.C. officials are fond of repeating to the general public. Clearly, they, USAF BCMR are not following the RULE OF LAW now are they.

Any and all assistance to get proper answers to the original request would be highly appreciated Senator McCaskill. I find it hard to believe you do not support the Veterans of the State of Missouri. The only place a veteran can really go to correct a record, fix an injustice is those Board For Correction of Military Records ( BCMR ). You are allowing them to literally get away with murder. ASK the right questions, PLEASE.

EDWIN H. CROSBY III

2835 S. FORT AVE

APT. 1308

SPRINGFIELD, MO. 65807

Suit alleges banks and mortgage companies cheated veterans and U.S. taxpayers

By Steve Vogel, Published: October 4

Some of the nation’s biggest banks and mortgage companies have defrauded veterans and taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars by disguising illegal fees in veterans’ home refinancing loans, according to a whistleblower suit unsealed in federal court in Atlanta.

The suit accuses the companies, including Wells Fargo, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase and GMAC Mortgage, of engaging in “a brazen scheme to defraud both our nation’s veterans and the United States treasury” of millions of dollars in connection with home loans guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

“This is a massive fraud on the American taxpayers and American veterans,” James E. Butler Jr., one of the lawyers bringing the suit, said Tuesday.

Tens of thousands of the VA loans have gone into default or resulted in foreclosures, resulting in “massive damages” to the U.S. government, the suit alleges. The faulty loans will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, with the costs rising as more VA loans go into default, according to the suit.

The two mortgage brokers who brought the suit said in an interview that they were instructed by the lenders not to show attorney’s fees on their estimates, but to add them to the title examination fee.

Under VA rules, lenders can charge veterans for recording fees and taxes, credit reports and other customary fees, but they are not allowed to charge attorney’s fees or settlement closing fees. “It was gut-wrenching to us, seeing the brazenness” of the lenders, broker Victor E. Bibby said.

The case involves refinanced loans that are available to retired or active-duty veterans on homes they already own. The program is aimed at giving veterans the opportunity to lower their interest rates or shorten the terms of existing home mortgages.

The whistleblower suit, which was unsealed Monday, seeks to recover damages and civil penalties on behalf of the U.S. government. The Justice Department has notified the U.S. District Court that it is not taking over the case but is reserving the right to intervene at a later date, according to court papers.

“The government has not yet made a decision about whether to intervene in this case,” Sally Quillian Yates, United States attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, said Tuesday. “As the case develops, we will continue to evaluate the merits of the case, and we will consider intervening .?.?. if it becomes appropriate to do so.”

“This is a very significant case,” Patrick Burns, spokesman for the nonprofit Taxpayers Against Fraud, said Tuesday. “It deals with widespread fraud from veterans who were personally pickpocketed for hundreds if not thousands of dollars, and the liability has been shoved on the federal government.”

During the past decade, more than 1.2 million of the refinanced loans have been made to veterans and their families, and up to 90 percent may have been affected by the alleged fraud, according to attorneys for the plaintiffs.

“The banks collected hundreds of millions of dollars in hidden fees from veterans, and they obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees they otherwise wouldn’t have received,” said Mary Louise Cohen, a Washington attorney who is also representing the whistleblowers.

The case has been brought under the False Claims Act by two mortgage brokers in Georgia, and has been under federal seal since it was filed in 2006 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Cases brought under the act often remain under seal for years while they are investigated.

Three of the companies named in the suit — Wells Fargo, Bank of America and SunTrust Mortgage — declined to comment.

Speaking on background, representatives of two banks said the government’s decision to not intervene yet means the Justice Department does not think it’s a strong case. But Burns, whose organization monitors whistleblower cases, said the government’s decision to allow private law firms to take the lead was not unusual given limited resources for investigating alleged fraud.

“God help any bank that takes this case to trial,” Burns said. “A jury’s only question is going to be ‘How much do they have?’?”

The suit includes as an exhibit a loan document in which Wells Fargo reported a $950 title examination rather than “a reasonable and customary fee” of between $125 and $200. Banks collected anywhere from $300 to $1,000 per loan in hidden fees by adding the prohibited charges to the allowable fees, according to the suit.

Bibby, one of the plaintiffs, is president and chief executive of U.S. Financial Services, a Georgia-based corporation that provides mortgage services in seven states. As brokers, Bibby and the company’s vice president of operations, Brian J. Donnelly, helped veterans choose lenders and complete the application forms. Since 2001, their company has helped set up thousands of the veterans’ refinancing loans, according to the suit.

In 2005, Donnelly said he read the rules in a VA handbook governing the fees that could be charged for the transactions, which are known as Interest Rate Reduction Refinancing Loans, or IRRRL loans.

Donnelly, who served three years in the Army, did further research and said became convinced that the charges were fraudulent. “We knew it was wrong,” he said.

“We started putting two and two together,” Bibby said. “It was kind of like a coconut hitting us on the head. They’re hiding it intentionally.”

Bibby and Donnelly said they approached the lenders, who insisted they were doing nothing wrong. The brokers reported their allegations to the U.S. government, providing copies of hundreds of “fradulent transactions.” Upon filing the whistleblower lawsuit, the court ordered the case sealed.

Earlier this year, Wells Fargo agreed to a $10 million settlement in a separate class-action lawsuit that alleged it improperly added attorney’s fees to about 60,000 refinancing loans for veterans.

Other companies named as defendants include CitiMortgage, Washington Mutual Bank, PNC Bank (which acquired National City Mortgage), Countrywide Home Loans, Mortgage Investors, First Tennessee Bank (which acquired First Horizon Home Loan), Irwin Mortgage and New Freedom Mortgage.

Staff writer Lisa Rein contributed to this report.

source: ” http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/suit-alleges-banks-and-mortgage-companies-cheated-veterans-and-us-taxpayers/2011/10/04/gIQATp4RLL_story.html

View part one of this two part document here.

View part two here.

 

 

Neil C. Wilhelmus, Plaintiff, v. Pete Geren, Defendant.

 

View document here.

Vets swell Occupy ranks after injury.

 

View document here.

Download document here.

BUFFALO, N.Y. — Vietnam War-era veterans exposed to Agent Orange appear to have significantly more Graves’ disease, a thyroid disorder, than veterans with no exposure, a new study by endocrinologists at the University at Buffalo has shown.

Ajay Varanasi, MD, an endocrinology fellow in the UB Department of Medicine and first author on the study, garnered first prize in the oral presentation category for this research at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists annual meeting held in Boston in April.

“Our findings show that Vietnam veterans who came in contact with Agent Orange are more likely to develop Graves’ disease than those who avoided exposure,” says Varanasi.

“The autoimmune disorder was three times more prevalent among veterans who encountered the dioxin-containing chemical. We also looked at other thyroid diagnoses, but we didn’t find any significant differences in thyroid cancer or nodules.”

Agent Orange is a defoliant that was used in Vietnam to destroy crops and reduce jungle foliage that could shelter enemy combatants. The herbicide contains dioxin, which has chemical properties similar to the thyroid hormones.

Graves’ disease is an autoimmune disease associated with overactivity of the thyroid gland. This gland releases the hormones thyroxine (T4) and triiodothyronine (T3), which control body metabolism and are critical for regulating mood, weight, and mental and physical energy levels.

Varanasi and colleagues assessed the prevalence of major thyroid diagnoses in the Veterans Administration electronic medical record database for upstate New York veterans born between 1925 and 1953, the age group that would have been eligible for military service during the Vietnam era. They conducted the research at the Buffalo VA Medical Center.

They compared the frequency of diagnoses of thyroid cancer, nodules, hypothyroidism and Graves’ disease in veterans who identified themselves as being exposed to Agent Orange (23,939) or not exposed to Agent Orange (200,109).

“Analyzing data on thyroid conditions, we found no difference in the prevalence of thyroid nodules or cancers between the exposed and non-exposed groups,” says Varanasi. “Graves’ disease, however, was three times more prevalent in the exposed group.

“Interestingly, hypothyroidism [lower than normal thyroid] was less common in the exposed group.”

Varanasi says that in view of the known effects of dioxin on the immune system, further research should be conducted on the increased prevalence of Graves’ disease in Vietnam veterans. His research group is planning to continue this investigation either in vitro or in animal models.

###
Additional authors on the study are Toufic Abdo, MD, David Kasinski, Amy O’Donnell, MD, and Stephen Spaulding, MD, all associated with UB.

The University at Buffalo is a premier research-intensive public university, a flagship institution in the State University of New York system and its largest and most comprehensive campus. UB’s more than 28,000 students pursue their academic interests through more than 300 undergraduate, graduate and professional degree programs. Founded in 1846, the University at Buffalo is a member of the Association of American Universities.

Contact: Lois Baker
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
716-645-4606
University at Buffalo

source: ” http://www.breakthroughdigest.com/medical-news/agent-orange-exposure-linked-to-graves-disease-in-vietnam-veterans-ub-study-finds

Download document here.