http://vawatchdog.org/07/nf07/nfFEB07/nf021407-1.htm

Also please read the statements from former Judge Nebezer-

some of you might recall how he was quick to chastise the VA under Jessie Brown's regime-

The DAV statement in question was from Joe Violante, National Legislative Director of the DAV.

He said:

"The DAV believes that each veteran who is awarded compensation is entitled to full payment, and that no disabled veteran should be forced to obtain a private attorney to secure an accurate and humane disability rating from VA."

Whoever said 'forced'- this is a bill of Choice-
if the DAV and many other major vet orgs had better vet reps over the years- veterans would not even need a right to this choice.

A big bug up my rear is due to the factor that many vet orgs like the DAV are chartered by Congress- yet that charter provides no oversight-andthey fail-in many situations- to honor their mission statements.

The DAV is a wonderful veterans org-I am a supporter of them- their service department however-(only one facet of the DAV) has caused their image to become
contaminated.

Lets face it- the DAV could have lets say- 20 great vet reps in the southern tier of NY-
but if only one of them is a dope-that single lousy rep could have messed up many many claims-
and who do vets often talk about the most? the vet reps who did not provide them adequate help-the good ones are so overwhelemed that they probably have to refer claims to the dopey ones and when you meet a vet rep or NSO they never wear a sign that says they are good or they are lousy.Without a vet having some idea of the regs that control their claim- a vet rep can act like they know it all but might really only know limited regs and then mess up the claim.

How can these vet orgs allow these VCAA violation remands to occur?
I get angry when I read BVA decisions that contain obvious VCAA violations-
It tells me they do not even attempt to see if the VCAA notice was legal-
or they do notice- but a VCAA violation sets up a long wait at the BVA only to be remanded again-while they can sit back and breathe a sign of relief that there is one more claim out of their hair for years-

It is interesting to me that the DAV would even suggest this new attorney reg would make it mandatory for a vet to hire a lawyer-
who are they kidding-then again-how many vets has the DAV told this false statement to?

Dear Fellow Veterans & Friends

When the VSO disablity commisson meets in Tampa in March. I will testify to the cost of VSO representaton in vets claims. It cost me over $300K over 22 years to have VSO's represent me and commit the errors which now the VA refuses 16 years of back pay on. Paying lawyers is allot cheaper for the vet than free VSO representaton.

Terry Higgins

Terry, that would be 13,136.00 per year or 1094.00 per month. Wow thats a pretty big retainer.

I don't think a Lawyer is the right road for every Vet but I think that it is unconscionable that Veterans have been denied the right to an Attorney

I have to agree with Terry, Terry sign me up and I will go with you. The DAV also cost me about 100K in Retro.

Fwd from: COLONEL DAN

**************************************************************

Mark is with the DAV Chapt 3 in ND... as far as my memory goes... send him
your thoughts

I get no respect..ha!

_____

From: Mark Landis [mailto:mark.landis@bis.midco.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 6:29 PM
To: 'Colonel Dan'
Subject: RE: DAV MISLEADS CONGRESS WITH FALSE TESTIMONY



Colonel Dan,



I don't know if you're a retired colonel, a Kentucky colonel, or just like
the title of colonel. I do know one thing: I am a veteran, and you don't
speak for me.



You and the rest of your uneducated, sanctimonious crowd should try to learn
something about an issue before taking a position, especially a belligerent
position.



Yes, I understand the concept of presenting people with choices. It's
usually a good thing. It works well in restaurants, for example. In this
case, however, the benefit is imaginary.



The current system of advocacy works well, and will not be improved by
getting more attorneys involved in the process. Attorneys don't learn about
veterans laws in law school. Most of them have vastly inferior experience
and expertise in veterans issues, compared to professional advocates.
What's the harm, you say? I don't like seeing veterans misled. That's
despicable. And you're one of the voices leading veterans into believing
they'll get a better deal by hiring a lawyer. It's pure baloney.



Novice lawyers will provide comparable service at best, and probably
inferior service, compared to advocates. They will also charge veterans for
a service they now get for free. That's right, veterans get equal or better
service for free from advocates.



If the current law stays in place, the system of advocacy will eventually
return to the professional advocates. Veterans will abandon attorneys
(except when they need representation to the CAVC, which has always been
allowed) in favor of the professional advocates. Then we can all have a
good laugh about what a dumb idea it was to involve attorneys in the
advocacy process. Wait a minute, the veterans who paid all those legal fees
for inferior service won't be laughing.but we'll conveniently gloss over
that little detail, won't we?



Please remove me from your mailing list. And please stop misleading
veterans.







_____

From: Colonel Dan [mailto:colonel-dan@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:29 PM
To: Veteran Issues by Colonel Dan
Cc: senator@dorgan.senate.gov
Subject: DAV MISLEADS CONGRESS WITH FALSE TESTIMONY



Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat, North Dakota, DAV, a few Republican Leaders
& Whitehouse,
and some of the Big veteran Service orgs just won't give up, they are trying
to repeal the new law/rules that allow veterans
to hire an attorney for their VA claims...Veteran's won't stand for it.. We
want the choice, and we want the VA to get busy
getting the rules rewritten. VA is dragging their feet hoping for an
overturn... let your Senator & Vet org Know.

Dorgan, Byron L. < <http://dorgan.senate.gov/> http://dorgan.senate.gov/> -
(D - ND)
<http://dorgan.senate.gov/contact/> http://dorgan.senate.gov/contact/

322 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2551
E-mail: <[email="senator%40dorgan.senate.gov"]mailto:senator%40dorgan.senate.gov[/email]> senator@dorgan.senate.gov

<java script:void(printSpecial())>

Where does Sen Kent Conrad , ND, stand on this?

<http://conrad.senate.gov/> http://conrad.senate.gov/ Veteran's in North
Dakota need to get his attention...

we don't want this bill repealed.. we want the VA to get it implemented ASAP

Pass this TO your contacts in ND. I have heard from several veterans that
they have dropped their membership in DAV over this. Hiring a lawyer is
only an option, and doesn not take away

from the work that many dedicated VSO's do.

http://www.vawatchdog.org/07/nf07/nfFEB07/nf021407-1.htm

DAV MISLEADS CONGRESS WITH FALSE TESTIMONY --

Misrepresents "Attorney for Veterans" legislation by

telling Senate Vets' Committee that veterans will

be "forced" to hire an attorney.

"Attorneys for Veterans" legislation passed in the 109th Congress. This
would give veterans the "choice" to hire an attorney after they receive a
denial of a claim from the VA.

As soon as it was passed, a "repealer" bill was written and will be
introduced in the 110th Congress. The DAV lobbied hard to have this
"repealer" written. They do NOT want this legislation to go into effect.

Complete background on all of this here...includes backlinks...
http://www.vawatchdog.org/07/nf07/nfJAN07/nf012207-1.htm

The prepared testimony below comes from Joe Violante, National Legislative
Director of the DAV.

It is not only misleading...it is an outright lie.

Veterans will NOT be forced to hire an attorney if this legislation stands
as passed. They will just be given a choice.

The DAV, and especially Mr. Violante, should be ashamed of such tactics.

Mr. Violante notes the VBA thinks this is a bad idea. Here's who thinks
it's a good idea...the former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
Veterans' Claims, Frank Q. Nebeker. Story here...
http://www.vawatchdog.org/
<http://www.vawatchdog.org/old%20newsflashe...flash08-24-2006-
1.htm>
old%20newsflashes%20AUG%2006/newsflash08-24-2006-1.htm
<http://www.vawatchdog.org/old%20newsflashe...flash08-24-2006-
1.htm>

Mr. Violante also says that the work of the DAV would be compromised by this
legislation. That's code for: Veterans will have the choice to use a legal
professional instead of a Service Officer.

It's time for the DAV to stop hindering veterans in the VA claims process
and let this legislation stand.

Testimony here... http://veterans.senate.gov/
<http://veterans.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseA...Hearings&rI
D=905&hID=243>
index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.
<http://veterans.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseA...Hearings&rI
D=905&hID=243>
CurrentHearings
<http://veterans.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseA...Hearings&rI
D=905&hID=243> &rID=905&hID=243

Testimony below (emphasis is mine):

Note: Only the "Attorneys for Veterans" portion of the DAV testimony is
printed below.

---------------

Attorneys in VA Claims

Mr. Chairman, my final concern today is a serious one of DAV and also of
some of our sister organizations, but in deference to some that take an
alternate view, it is not a major issue in the Independent Budget. As
directed by law, VA has a duty to assist veterans in developing and
presenting their claims for disability. Congress established the Federal
Court discussed above to hear disputes that arise after VA adjudicates those
claims, and veterans possess the right by law to appeal their disagreements
with decisions and to redress their grievances to a unique Board of Veterans
Appeals. That self-checking, unique, system exists because national veterans
organizations, including the IBVSOs, have insisted historically that
veterans' war injuries and other service-related health problems be dealt
with in a humane manner, and without friction or rancor to the greatest
extent practicable. Despite the problems we encounter in VBA decision-making
and operations as related above, we believe that design works, although not
as well as intended. The question before the Senate is resources to empower
those mechanisms to work better and additional oversight to ensure it works
as intended.

The DAV believes that each veteran who is awarded compensation is entitled
to full payment, and that no disabled veteran should be forced to obtain a
private attorney to secure an accurate and humane disability rating from VA.
Nevertheless, against the advice of the DAV and others, last year in Public
Law 109-461 Congress authorized private attorneys and agents to engage for
pay in veterans' disability claims representation duties, opening the way
for significantly altering the foundations of the disability claims
adjudication system--a system that has been in place since the founding of
the Nation. We at DAV continue to believe this was an unwise action and ask
for its repeal.

Mr. Chairman, on adoption of a motion by Representative Stevenson Archer of
Maryland, on December 22, 1813, the House of Representatives established the
predecessor to its current Committee on Veterans Affairs, for the following
stated purpose: "to take into consideration all such petitions, and matters,
or things, touching military pensions, and, also claims and demands
originating in the Revolutionary War, or arising therefrom, as shall be
presented, or shall or may come in question, and be referred to them by the
House; and to report their opinion thereupon together with such propositions
for relief therein, as to them shall seem expedient." [Emphasis added.] What
this history demonstrates, Mr. Chairman, is that almost 200 years ago
Congress, then playing a primitive executive role, intended to provide
disabled Revolutionary veterans their rightful relief-and with expediency.
While throughout our history that goal has never flagged, your 21st century
injection of private attorneys into that non-adversarial process may serve
to change it now.

We at DAV do not believe private attorneys will ease resolution of veterans'
claims, reduce the claims backlog, nor get these claims resolved on an
expedient basis--the historical intent of Congress. We have been advised by
professionals in VBA that your adding attorneys to the claims system will
only complicate, lengthen and make more fractious the resolution of
veterans' disability claims. As an organization that furnishes 260 National
Service Officers to aid veterans with their claims, we believe our own work
at DAV will be compromised and made much more expensive once private lawyers
enter in. How such an inevitably contentious new direction will actually
help sick and disabled veterans receive their just compensation, pension and
survivor benefits, we cannot foretell, but we know it will not be easy. We
ask the Committee to take legislative action to repeal this measure at the
earliest date possible.

---------------

Larry Scott --



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]