<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Size of the Washington Tea Party Crowd?  Congress knows</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mindyourowndamnbusinesspolitics.com/wordpress/2009/09/16/size-of-the-washington-tea-party-crowd-congress-knows/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mindyourowndamnbusinesspolitics.com/wordpress/2009/09/16/size-of-the-washington-tea-party-crowd-congress-knows/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=size-of-the-washington-tea-party-crowd-congress-knows</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:23:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Marshall</title>
		<link>http://mindyourowndamnbusinesspolitics.com/wordpress/2009/09/16/size-of-the-washington-tea-party-crowd-congress-knows/comment-page-1/#comment-3648</link>
		<dc:creator>David Marshall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:32:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mindyourowndamnbusinesspolitics.com/wordpress/?p=1492#comment-3648</guid>
		<description>In 1994 the Chief Judge of Congress’s 1988 established Court of Veterans Appeals stated that the, &quot;Constitution, Statutes and Regulations&quot; are &quot;policy freely ignored&quot; by both the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and &quot;The Veterans Health Administration&quot; (VHA), i.e., the &quot;STATE OF COURT&quot; transcript PARAGRAPH 9 with Congress’s law of the land U.S. CODE, TITLE 38, SECTIONS (§) 511 and § 7252. Decisions of the Secretary; finality; REFERENCES [1], [2] &amp; [3]. This is a no teeth Congressional Branch LEGISLATIVE Court. Its Chief Judge describes veterans captured within, an out of control Executive Branch DVA health care process. Lost is a before military service right to a with teeth, holding accountable (independent from Congress and the DVA) Judicial Branch Court. Fifteen (15) years after the Chief Judge&#039;s statements the Secretary of the DVA and his laymen &quot;initial adjudicators&quot; still are not held responsible for their &quot;freely ignored&quot; and medically brainless &quot;Schedule of Ratings for Disabilities&quot; decisions. 

 

A couple of examples of the &quot;initial adjudicators&quot; to date &quot;freely ignored&quot; are this veterans 1957 DVA Physician’s resultant USAF Physician&#039;s, &quot;MPerR PERMANENT&quot; &quot;SURGEON HQ ARRC JUN 25 ‘58 MEDICALLY DISQUALIFIED FOR MILITARY SERVICE&quot; (1952 to 1956)! Then the layman adjudicator’s brainless 6/27/96 Supplemental Statement Of Case (SSOC) no &quot;...competent medical evidence...&quot;. After an ongoing 19 years in the DVA administrative process the veteran receives a 100% disability. To date there is still no recognition of their 1957 DVA physician’s resultant 1958 USAF physician &quot;disqualified&quot;! 

 

REFERENCES (Emphasis added throughout) with comments: 

 

[1] &quot;STATE OF COURT, CHIEF JUDGE FRANK Q. NEBEKER, STATE OF THE COURT, FOR PRESENTATION TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS THIRD JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 17-18, 1994 {as it appears in Veterans Appeals Reporter}&quot;

--------------------PARAGRAPH 9 of 16 in &quot;STATE OF COURT&quot; TRANSCRIPT records DVA laymen ignoring medical opinion without veteran recourse.----------------------------- 

 

&quot;I believe my message is clear. There is, I suggest, no system with judicial review which has within it a component part free to function in its own way, in its own time and with one message to those it disappoints -- take an appeal. That is, I am afraid, what we have today in many of the Department&#039;s Agencies of Original Jurisdiction -- that is AOJs -- around the country. Neither the Court, through the Board, the Board, nor the General Counsel has direct and meaningful control over the Agencies of Original Jurisdiction. Indeed, it is also clear that the VHA -- the Veterans Health Administration -- ignores specific directives to provide medical opinions as directed. And this is resulting in unconscionable delays. Let us examine judicial review. Remember, the Court and the Board do not make policy, the Secretary and Congress do. The Court simply identifies error made below by a failure to adhere, in individual cases, to the Constitution, statutes, and regulations which themselves reflect policy -- policy freely ignored by many initial adjudicators whose attitude is, &quot;I haven&#039;t been told by my boss to change. If you don&#039;t like it -- appeal it.&quot; The complete 16 paragraph &quot;STATE OF COURT&quot; transcript is available on request. Previously at, and now missing from the Chief Judges and state_of_court sites: www.goodnet.com/~heads/nebeker &amp; www.firebase.net/state_of_court_brief.htm 

 

The top medically ignorant &quot;boss&quot; is Congress’s confirmed &quot;Secretary&quot; of the DVA. 

 

AND THE CONGRESS’S &quot;policy freely ignored&quot; UNITED STATES CODE law of the land, take away from Veterans: 

 

[2] UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 38 &gt; PART I &gt; CHAPTER 5 &gt; SUBCHAPTER I &gt; 
§ 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...11----000-.html

&quot;(a) The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject to subsection (b), THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY AS TO ANY SUCH QUESTION SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND MAY NOT BE REVIEWED BY ANY OTHER OFFICIAL OR BY ANY COURT, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.&quot; 

 

THEREFORE, NO COURT REVIEW OF THE MEDICALLY UNTRAINED DVA laymen and &quot;Secretary&quot; &quot;schedule of ratings for disabilities&quot; decisions as proven by: 

 

[3] UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 38 PART V &gt; CHAPTER 72 &gt; SUBCHAPTER I &gt; 

§ 7252. Jurisdiction; finality of decisions 

 

&quot;(b) Review in the Court shall be on the record of proceedings before the Secretary and the Board. The extent of the review shall be limited to the scope provided in section 7261 of this title. THE COURT MAY NOT REVIEW THE SCHEDULE OF RATINGS FOR DISABILITIES adopted under section 1155 of this title or any action of the Secretary in adopting or revising that schedule.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In 1994 the Chief Judge of Congress’s 1988 established Court of Veterans Appeals stated that the, &#8220;Constitution, Statutes and Regulations&#8221; are &#8220;policy freely ignored&#8221; by both the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and &#8220;The Veterans Health Administration&#8221; (VHA), i.e., the &#8220;STATE OF COURT&#8221; transcript PARAGRAPH 9 with Congress’s law of the land U.S. CODE, TITLE 38, SECTIONS (§) 511 and § 7252. Decisions of the Secretary; finality; REFERENCES [1], [2] &amp; [3]. This is a no teeth Congressional Branch LEGISLATIVE Court. Its Chief Judge describes veterans captured within, an out of control Executive Branch DVA health care process. Lost is a before military service right to a with teeth, holding accountable (independent from Congress and the DVA) Judicial Branch Court. Fifteen (15) years after the Chief Judge&#8217;s statements the Secretary of the DVA and his laymen &#8220;initial adjudicators&#8221; still are not held responsible for their &#8220;freely ignored&#8221; and medically brainless &#8220;Schedule of Ratings for Disabilities&#8221; decisions. </p>
<p>A couple of examples of the &#8220;initial adjudicators&#8221; to date &#8220;freely ignored&#8221; are this veterans 1957 DVA Physician’s resultant USAF Physician&#8217;s, &#8220;MPerR PERMANENT&#8221; &#8220;SURGEON HQ ARRC JUN 25 ‘58 MEDICALLY DISQUALIFIED FOR MILITARY SERVICE&#8221; (1952 to 1956)! Then the layman adjudicator’s brainless 6/27/96 Supplemental Statement Of Case (SSOC) no &#8220;&#8230;competent medical evidence&#8230;&#8221;. After an ongoing 19 years in the DVA administrative process the veteran receives a 100% disability. To date there is still no recognition of their 1957 DVA physician’s resultant 1958 USAF physician &#8220;disqualified&#8221;! </p>
<p>REFERENCES (Emphasis added throughout) with comments: </p>
<p>[1] &#8220;STATE OF COURT, CHIEF JUDGE FRANK Q. NEBEKER, STATE OF THE COURT, FOR PRESENTATION TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS THIRD JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 17-18, 1994 {as it appears in Veterans Appeals Reporter}&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;PARAGRAPH 9 of 16 in &#8220;STATE OF COURT&#8221; TRANSCRIPT records DVA laymen ignoring medical opinion without veteran recourse.&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; </p>
<p>&#8220;I believe my message is clear. There is, I suggest, no system with judicial review which has within it a component part free to function in its own way, in its own time and with one message to those it disappoints &#8212; take an appeal. That is, I am afraid, what we have today in many of the Department&#8217;s Agencies of Original Jurisdiction &#8212; that is AOJs &#8212; around the country. Neither the Court, through the Board, the Board, nor the General Counsel has direct and meaningful control over the Agencies of Original Jurisdiction. Indeed, it is also clear that the VHA &#8212; the Veterans Health Administration &#8212; ignores specific directives to provide medical opinions as directed. And this is resulting in unconscionable delays. Let us examine judicial review. Remember, the Court and the Board do not make policy, the Secretary and Congress do. The Court simply identifies error made below by a failure to adhere, in individual cases, to the Constitution, statutes, and regulations which themselves reflect policy &#8212; policy freely ignored by many initial adjudicators whose attitude is, &#8220;I haven&#8217;t been told by my boss to change. If you don&#8217;t like it &#8212; appeal it.&#8221; The complete 16 paragraph &#8220;STATE OF COURT&#8221; transcript is available on request. Previously at, and now missing from the Chief Judges and state_of_court sites: <a href="http://www.goodnet.com/~heads/nebeker" rel="nofollow">http://www.goodnet.com/~heads/nebeker</a> &amp; <a href="http://www.firebase.net/state_of_court_brief.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.firebase.net/state_of_court_brief.htm</a> </p>
<p>The top medically ignorant &#8220;boss&#8221; is Congress’s confirmed &#8220;Secretary&#8221; of the DVA. </p>
<p>AND THE CONGRESS’S &#8220;policy freely ignored&#8221; UNITED STATES CODE law of the land, take away from Veterans: </p>
<p>[2] UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 38 &gt; PART I &gt; CHAPTER 5 &gt; SUBCHAPTER I &gt;<br />
§ 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality<br />
<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...11----000-.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc&#8230;11&#8212;-000-.html</a></p>
<p>&#8220;(a) The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject to subsection (b), THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY AS TO ANY SUCH QUESTION SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND MAY NOT BE REVIEWED BY ANY OTHER OFFICIAL OR BY ANY COURT, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.&#8221; </p>
<p>THEREFORE, NO COURT REVIEW OF THE MEDICALLY UNTRAINED DVA laymen and &#8220;Secretary&#8221; &#8220;schedule of ratings for disabilities&#8221; decisions as proven by: </p>
<p>[3] UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 38 PART V &gt; CHAPTER 72 &gt; SUBCHAPTER I &gt; </p>
<p>§ 7252. Jurisdiction; finality of decisions </p>
<p>&#8220;(b) Review in the Court shall be on the record of proceedings before the Secretary and the Board. The extent of the review shall be limited to the scope provided in section 7261 of this title. THE COURT MAY NOT REVIEW THE SCHEDULE OF RATINGS FOR DISABILITIES adopted under section 1155 of this title or any action of the Secretary in adopting or revising that schedule.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nancy Evans</title>
		<link>http://mindyourowndamnbusinesspolitics.com/wordpress/2009/09/16/size-of-the-washington-tea-party-crowd-congress-knows/comment-page-1/#comment-2954</link>
		<dc:creator>Nancy Evans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:22:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mindyourowndamnbusinesspolitics.com/wordpress/?p=1492#comment-2954</guid>
		<description>I hate liars of all kinds. For a fake photo to have been put out there diminishes the taxpayer march and gives the left ammunition.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hate liars of all kinds. For a fake photo to have been put out there diminishes the taxpayer march and gives the left ammunition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

