IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS
|
TOMMY L. HUBBERT,
Petitioner,
v.
ANTHONY PRINCIPI , Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent.
and
WILLIAM STINGER, Regional Director of the St. Petersburg, Florida Department of Veterans Affairs, Respondent
|
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
PRO SE PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
Comes the Petitioner, TOMMY L. HUBBERT, Pro Se, pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. Rule 21, and he petitions this Court for extraordinary relief in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, directed to Respondent(s), Anthony Principi, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in Washington, D.C., and William Stinger, Regional Director of the Saint Petersburg, Florida Department of Veterans Affairs, and their employees and agents in the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; specifically the Saint Petersburg Florida Regional Office Service Center Manager, B. J. Harker.
This action seeks to compel the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in Washington, D.C., and the Regional Director, and the Service Center Manager of the Saint Petersburg Regional Office of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Florida who have been violating clear, and indisputable, rights of the Petitioner, to stop their illegal conduct and to merely “Obey the Law”.
Several factors should be noted in this case.
1. That the Petitioner, Tommy L. Hubbert, is proceeding Pro Se due to his poverty, and being unable to afford counsel. Therefore, in the interest of justice, a very liberal construction should be given to this petition in accordance with the doctrine set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 1972 as to Pro Se Litigants.
2. That the petitioner has used every means available to him to resolve the issues presented in this Petition for Mandamus Relief, however the respondents refuse to answer letters sent to them from the petitioner, or respond in any way to contact with the Petitioner.
3. That Petitioner has exhausted all Administrative Remedies available to him.
4. That the Regional Director of the Saint Petersburg, Florida Department of Veterans Affairs Office, and his Service Center Manager, are violating clear, and indisputable, rights of the Petitioner by refusing to abide by, and follow the Orders, and Decision, of the Board of Veterans Affairs in this Case, and therefore the Petitioner has no remedy available to him other then this extraordinary writ.
5. That if the Petitioner did have any type of Administrative Remedy available to him, that he is unaware of, that said “remedy” would be frivolous, since the Respondents refuse to abide by, and follow, Judgments, and Orders, of the Board of Veterans Appeals.
6. That the Respondents have been “sitting” on the Pro Se Petitioner’s Non-Service Pension Claim for some two years now, in direct violation of the Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, the VBA’s Adjudication Procedure Manual, and the Decision of the Board of Veterans Appeals dated July 21, 1999 that the Saint Petersburg Regional Office absolutely refuses to follow. [That decision not only ORDERED the expeditious handling of the Petitioner’s case, but the decision had underlined, for emphasis, the statement “This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO”. ]
7. That in addition, the respondents have blatantly violated many of Petitioner’s Other Statutory, and Constitutional Rights, as described herein, in a manor that denies the Petitioner both “Due Process of Law”, and “Access to any Administrative Remedy” to contest, or address, the abuses.
1. Petitioner, Tommy L. Hubbert, is a totally, and permanently, disabled former serviceman trying to support himself, and his wife on a meager Social Security Check. His address is :
Tommy L. Hubbert
5064 Silver Bell Drive
Port Charlotte, FL. 33948
2. Respondent, Anthony Principi, is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and is named herein in his Official Capacity.
3. Respondent, William Stinger, is the Regional Director of the Saint Petersburg, Florida Department of Veterans Affairs, and is named herein in his Official Capacity.
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under the All-Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), the general supervisory authority of the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals over the VA and Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) conferred by the Veteran's Judicial Review Act of 1988, Public Law 100-687, 102 Stat. 4105 (11/18/88), 38 U.S.C. § 7251-7292, as amended, and in aid of the Court's potential jurisdiction over the Petitioner's future claims, 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252, 7261(a). Erspamer v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 3 (1990).
Title 38 Section 5303 (a) bars benefits for AWOL unless there are “compelling circumstances” to warrant such absence. [Emphasis Added].
The Petitioner, Tommy L. Hubbert, was born in a Kentucky family that was so poor they often didn’t have rent money, and had to cut firewood for the pot bellied stove, for heat. There were no food stamps then, and the family lived off of meager foodstuffs given to the poor by the government, such as dried rice, cornmeal, flour, etc., and pop bottles they picked up along the highways to cash in for food. But hunger was a constant companion.
It was from this extremely unstable background, of an extremely poor Kentucky Farm Family that was actually starving in America, that the young Petitioner enlisted into the United States Army, wanting to serve his country, and help his family. [Petitioner was a seventeen (17) year old kid when he enlisted in the Army].
But in addition to the unstable environment described above, the young Petitioner discovered when he enlisted in the Army that he had been raised with a different name then his own. That he had been raised believing his last name was Kidwell, when in reality it was Hubbert.
Army records prove that the Petitioner’s unstable family background, the extreme hardships of his family, and the shock of finding he had a different name then he was raised with, all contributed to adjustment problems in the Army.
In addition to all of the above, the Petitioner was informed that the man who had raised him. The man that he knew as his father. Was dying with cancer.
This young kid from this extremely unstable background, constantly worried about his family’s financial condition, if they had rent money, if they had food, etc., while trying to cope with the shock of finding the name he had been called, and raised with, was not his own, was now given the new shock of finding the man he knew as his father was dying.
This was simply too much for a young kid to bear and he could not adjust to Army life.
So the Petitioner went AWOL numerous times in various attempts to go home and help his starving family.
The Army did a psychiatric review of the Petitioner, after he was confined for the AWOL’s, and found the Petitioner had serious psychiatric problems. Yet the Army provided no medical care, whatsoever, for the problems they discovered.
The Army received letters from the young Petitioner’s family telling about the hardships, and family problems described herein, yet the Army failed to provide any counseling, or medical care for the Petitioner’s problems.
The Army was fully aware of Petitioner’s severe mental, and emotional problems, yet provided no medical care, whatsoever, for those problems. Problems Officially Diagnosed by professional Army doctors.
All this resulted in the petitioner being unable to conform to military life, and receiving an “Other then Honorable” Army Discharge.
Petitioner has a Clear and Indisputable Right pursuant to Title 38 Section 5303 (a) for any bar to benefits resulting from his AWOL’s in the Army to be lifted, due to the “Compelling Circumstances” of his case.
In fact, with less severe circumstances then there are in the Petitioner’s Case it is “Normal” to receive an “Honorable Army Hardship Discharge”.
It is well documented, and not contested, that the Petitioner was a young 17-year-old kid that enlisted to serve his country. That the 17-year-old Petitioner came from an extremely unstable environment with his mother, brothers, and sisters, actually starving and walking miles along the highways picking up pop bottles to cash in for food.
The above paragraph is all the hardship it has taken for thousands of Americans to receive Honorable Hardship Discharges, and Benefits from the Bureau of Veterans Affairs. But the Petitioner had many additional hardship factors in his case. And those factors make his case even stronger.
It was discovered by Army Medical Experts during Petitioner’s Army Service that he had “Moderate Mental and Emotional Problems”, and Petitioner’s Official Army Records clearly document that these “Moderate Mental and Emotional Problems” were never treated. That the young 17-year-old Petitioner never received medical care of any kind for his problems.
As any Psychologist can testify to, “Moderate Mental and Emotional Problems” are Severe when they are not treated. The well-documented history of untreated “Moderate Mental and Emotional Problems” alone should have lifted the Bar to Benefits pursuant to Title 38 Section 5303 (a) and explained Petitioner’s Army Adjustment Problems.
Then there was the fact that this unstable young kid suffering from “Untreated” Moderate Mental and Emotional Problems, with an unstable family history of a starving mother, brothers, and sisters, had just found that the name he had believed to be his for 17 years, was not his, and that his father was dying.
No Reasonable Person could believe that any individual could qualify more for Veterans Benefits pursuant to Title 38 Section 5303 (a) then the Petitioner.
Title 38 Section 5303 (a) is intended by Congress to provide benefits when there are “Compelling Circumstances” for the AWOL.
The instant case goes far beyond what Any Reasonable Person would consider “Compelling Circumstances”.
Under the circumstances of the instant case, many of the “Compelling Circumstances” were caused by the United States Army failing in it’s duty to provide medical care, to a 17-year-old kid in dire need of medical care, and this should weigh strongly in the Veteran’s favor.
Given these circumstances, Any Reasonable Person, would agree that the Petitioner has a Clear and Indisputable Right pursuant to Title 38 Section 5303 (a) for any bar to benefits resulting from his AWOL’s in the Army to be lifted, due to the extremely “Compelling Circumstances” of his case.
Yet the Regional Office has failed in its statutory duty to give any “Meaningful” consideration to Petitioner’s Statutory Rights pursuant to Title 38 Section 5303 (a).
It should be noted that the Board of Veterans Appeals did address this issue somewhat, even though it ignored testimony given under oath at Petitioner’s Hearing, and ignored Official Army Records submitted by the Respondent proving “Compelling Circumstances” for his Army Adjustment Problems.
As a result the Board ORDERED the Regional Office to develop this area in an expeditious manor. [At the Petitioner’s hearing there was testimony as to the hardships, and Petitioner’s V.A. Claim File has an abundance of evidence, as does Petitioner’s Army Records, of the facts described herein].
The Regional Office refuses to OBEY said ORDER from the Board and has been “Sitting” on the Petitioner’s Case for some two years now.
No Reasonable Person could believe that “Sitting” on the Petitioner’s Case some two years now, and refusing to answer letters from the Petitioner, is even close to complying with the ORDER of the Board.
Especially in light of the Board’s Specific Order that this Claim be Afforded Expeditious Treatment.
And given that the law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans Appeals are handled in an expeditious manner.
Given these facts Petitioner has Clear and Indisputable Rights that are being violated by the Respondents.
Petitioner has no remedy, Administrative, or Otherwise, to stop the violation(s) of his Clear, and Indisputable Rights, by the Respondents, as described above. Other then the instant Mandamus Action.
Petitioner sends letters to the Regional Office. They do not answer, or respond.
Petitioner applied for a review of his Army Discharge on April 22, 1977 and the Army Discharge Review Board noted the strong well-documented evidence in Petitioner’s Official Army Records proving Petitioner had suffered extreme hardship.
Official Army Records also clearly documented that the Petitioner had severe mental, and emotional problems that the Army had failed to provide any type of treatment for.
Taking the hardship factors, the untreated medical problems, Petitioner’s young age, minuscule education, and other factors into consideration the board changed Petitioner’s Army Discharge to an Honorable.
Petitioner received a letter dated July 27, 1977 from the United States Army Adjutant General stating his Army Discharge had been upgraded to “Under Honorable Conditions”. [See Exhibit A attached hereto].
The Official Army Letter stated that if the petitioner, Tommy Hubbert, did not fill out an enclosed form appealing their decision within 30 days that the petitioner’s case became FINAL under the program. [Emphasis added].
Petitioner agreed with his upgraded Honorable Discharge and did not send in any form therefore, according to Exhibit A, which is a letter from the Army Adjutant General, the Petitioner’s Honorable Discharge was FINAL. [Emphasis added].
Petitioner spent the next twenty (20), or so, years believing that his Army Discharge was HONORABLE, and FINAL. [Emphasis added.]
After all, he had an Official Army Letter from the United States Army Adjutant General stating those exact facts. [See Exhibit A].
Petitioner spent twenty some years being a very productive member of society. He worked hard, raising a family, paying his taxes, and even helping the public by being a volunteer with the fire department.
Some twenty years later when the Petitioner became disabled with heart, and other medical problems, and could no longer work, he applied for a non-service V.A. pension.
It was at this time the V.A. sprung on him that that there was a “Secret” Review of his Discharge some twenty (20) years earlier. That without his knowledge, and after receiving the Official Army Letter firmly stating that his Honorable Discharge was FINAL, the board had secretly taken his discharge, and had a Preliminary Review where the Honorable Discharge was not affirmed.
This is what is so shocking and hard to understand in this Case.
The word “Final” doesn’t not have a lot of different meanings. It means Concluded. Closed. Ended. Absolutely Over. Done Forever.
So Government Officials give the Petitioner an Official United States Army Document from the highest level in the Army, the Office of the Adjutant General, and this document clearly states that the Petitioner’s Army Discharge has been changed to an Honorable, and shall remain under Honorable Conditions FOREVER! [Emphasis Added].
That the issue of the type of discharge is Final, Concluded, Closed, Ended, Done, ABSOLUTELY OVER!
Then some twenty (20) years later V.A. Officials tell the Petitioner “Oh we had a SECRET hearing on your Army discharge some twenty years ago and forgot to tell you. You lost your benefits.”
What kind of a Con Game is this?
And how can any Court in good conscience let such corrupt Government Officials get away with a Con Game like this?
There should be no way that the Petitioner’s Army Discharge can be anything but Honorable under the circumstances of the instant case.
But if there could be a Second Review AFTER the Veteran is Firmly Told by the Government that his Army Discharge is FINAL the Veteran has specific Due Process Rights.
And the V.A. had failed in its duty pursuant to Title 38 Section 5303 to afford the Petitioner even the “minimum” Due Process Rights.
A. Petitioner was not notified of any review.
B. Petitioner was not allowed to present evidence in his behalf. And there was an abundance of evidence, since Official Army Records clearly document his severe mental, and emotional problems. The lack of medical care. And contain letters from witnesses.
C. Petitioner was not allowed to present witnesses or have a hearing. And he had many family witnesses that are witnesses to facts regarding the hardships.
D. Petitioner was not allowed to have an attorney, or service group such as the DAV, represent him.
In fact, all of the Petitioner’s Due Process Rights, pursuant to Title 38 Section 5303 were violated by the Bureau of Veterans Affairs. [A copy of Title 38 Section 5303 is attached as Exhibit B].
And Petitioner’s Due Process Rights pursuant to Title 10 Section 1553 were violated by both the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the United States Army. [A copy of Title 10 Section 1553 is attached as Exhibit C].
The Petitioner had never been told there would be a review of any kind, but rather had an Official Army Letter stating that his Army Discharge was Honorable, and FINAL. [Emphasis added].
Then some twenty (20) years later the Petitioner was informed by the V.A. that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs had the “Board” sneak the Petitioner’s discharge before it for a “secret” second review.
That under the pretext of seeking to comply with Title 38 Section 5303 by having a second review, the Secretary in reality violated not only the letter of Title 38 Section 5303 by violating all of Petitioner’s Due Process Rights, but violated the very intent of that statute.
Congress didn’t just want an arbitrary second review. But they wanted a fair review. An honest review. That is why Congress had Due Process Rights clearly spelled out in the statute.
The Saint Petersburg V.A. Regional Director William Stinger used the illegal Second Review, that is marked as Preliminary in the Army Records, as proof of Petitioner’s Army Service, and ignored the violations of Title 38 Section 5303, and Title 10 Section 1553, by the Secretary.
Petitioner appealed and sought a hearing before the Regional Office. The Regional Office refused to abide by it’s own rules, and federal statutes, and refused to give Petitioner a hearing.
Petitioner appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals, and requested a hearing before them.
Meanwhile, the Petitioner found a statute that stated that when the second review was a Preliminary Review, and not final, that the V.A. must pay benefits until the second review is final.
Petitioner was granted a hearing by the Board of Veterans Appeals and was assisted by his brother who submitted a copy of the statute as an exhibit stating that the V.A. must pay benefits when the second review is Preliminary (as is clearly marked on Petitioner’s Army Records) and not final.
The hearing officer was given a copy of the statute described in the paragraph above and Petitioner’s Army Records that are marked “Preliminary”. The hearing officer agreed that the statute clearly stated that the Petitioner should be paid benefits, and said she would forward the statute to the board.
But the Bureau of Veterans Affairs is not much for obeying statutes, and not only continued to refuse benefits to the Petitioner, but refused to even address the statute requiring them to pay the Petitioner until the alleged review was final.
Petitioner also contested the Bureau of Veterans Affairs relying on the illegal Second Review, where he was never notified, and where he was denied his Due Process, and Statutory Rights pursuant to Title 38 Section 5303, and Title 10 Section 1553.
Petitioner contested the use of the illegal second review at both his hearing before the board, and on his Formal Appeal to the Board of Veterans Appeals.
Petitioner waited, and waited, and never heard anything until he received the July 21, 1999 decision of the board. The statute described in the paragraphs above was not discussed in their decision, and to date the Petitioner has not received any benefits from the V.A. . [The Board of Veterans Appeals Decision of July 21, 1999 is attached as Exhibit D].
The Board of Veterans Appeals also refused to address the illegal second review, and the blatant violations of Title 38 Section 5303, and Title 10 Section 1553 by the Secretary.
The Board of Veterans Appeals issued a Decision on July 21, 1999.
The Board of Veterans Appeals Decision of July 21, 1999 contained specific ORDERS for the Regional Office.
1. The Regional Office was instructed to see if the Petitioner still wanted the hearing before the Regional Office.
Almost two years ago the Petitioner sent a letter to the Regional Office advising that he still wanted the hearing.
There has been no response from the Regional Office.
2. The Board of Veterans Appeals Decision of July 21, 1999 specifically ORDERED the Regional Office to AFFORD PETITIONER’S CLAIM EXPEDITIOUS TREATMENT. [Emphasis added].
Not only has the Regional Office refused to expedite the Petitioner’s claim, but the Regional Office has purposefully been “Sitting” on Petitioner’s claim and even refuses to respond to the many letters sent to the Regional Office by the Petitioner inquiring as to his case. [See group of Attached Affidavits marked as Exhibit E].
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the Regional Director of the Bureau of Veterans Affairs in Saint Petersburg, Florida, absolutely refuse to abide by the Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, and Title 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101, that require that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans Appeals for additional development, or other appropriate action, must be handled in an expeditious manner.
Petitioner has exhausted all Administrative Remedies that are available to him.
Petitioner has no remedy, whatsoever, other then this Court by means of the instant Mandamus Action.
However, if there was another remedy of some type with the Respondents it would be frivolous since the Bureau of Veterans Affairs absolutely refuses to answer correspondence from the Petitioner.
The Bureau of Veterans Affairs refuses to abide by it’s own rules, and statutes passed by Congress to govern it’s conduct.
The Bureau of Veterans Affairs refuses to abide by Petitioner’s Constitutional, and/or, Statutory Rights.
These facts, demonstrate that the Petitioner has no remedy available to him, other then the instant Mandamus Action.
Petitioner admits that a Writ of Mandamus is a drastic remedy, and one to be invoked in only extraordinary circumstances.
However, Petitioner after spending a great deal of time researching case law, can find no case as drastic, or as extraordinary, and appalling, as the instant case.
None!
What the Respondents did. What the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has done. Is no different, in theory, then if the F.B.I. were to drag the judges of this Court to jail, without a trial.
And when the judges of this Court, demanded their rights. Demanded a trial. Imagine if they are told by the F.B.I. that their Statutory, and Constitutional Rights, don’t mean squat to the government.
This is almost exactly what has happened to the Petitioner in this case. But it gets even worst, and more appalling!
Imagine that these judges are told that some twenty (20) years ago government officials had “secretly” went into a dark closet, and had a “secret” trial, and found the judges guilty of some frivolous charge.
And when the judges of this Court protest and point out that the United States Constitution gives them specific Due Process Rights the government (In this case the Bureau of Veterans Affairs) ignores them.
And when the judges of this Court protest and point out that certain Statutes give them specific Due Process Rights (In this case Title 38 Section 5303 and Title 10 Section 1553) the government still ignores them.
Imagine these judges protest and state that there are witnesses. Documents. And an abundance of evidence to prove that they are innocent. That they could present this evidence, and prove their Case. If only they had a trial.
Imagine the judges of this Court are still ignored. And denied any type of trial.
Imagine that the government officials not only ignore them. But treat the illegal trial as being valid.
And use the judgment of that illegal, “Secret”, closet trial to cause grave harm to both the Judges of this Court, and their families!
That is exactly what has happened in the instant case.
The Petitioner has been told that he is bared from V.A. Benefits because of a “Secret” trial that took place some twenty (20) years ago without his knowledge.
Petitioner complains that he has Constitutional Rights. That specific Statutes state that he had a right to be notified. To present evidence. To be represented.
But the Bureau of Veterans Affairs ignores him. Makes it clear that the United States Constitution, and Veterans Statutes do not mean squat to it.
All the Bureau of Veterans Affairs cares about is keeping its budget within limits by cheating Veterans. A policy that is well documented.
Petitioner has been harmed just as much as the parable about the judges of this Court being illegally arrested without trial.
The Petitioner, and his family, are suffering extreme hardship, because the Respondents want to cheat the Petitioner, out of benefits he is legally entitled to.
And these government officials are using an illegal, unconstitutional, alleged Second Review of the Petitioner’s Honorable Army Discharge as their frivolous excuse for their illegal conduct.
These corrupt government officials ignore an Official Army Document from the Adjutant General of the Army that clearly states the Petitioner’s Army Discharge is an Honorable Discharge. And that the Honorable Discharge is FINAL. [Emphasis added].
These corrupt government officials ignore any evidence, any statute, any legal issue that is favorable to the Petitioner, because they do not want to pay him the benefits that he is legally entitled to.
And they don’t care squat about the Petitioner’s Rights.
Or about the hardships they illegally impose on his family. Or simple right and wrong.
They merely want to save money. By cheating veterans.
And they have a long history, and pattern of doing this. [Petitioner’s own brother, a highly decorated 100% Service-Connected Disabled Vietnam Combat Veteran caught V.A. lawyers stealing medical records from his V.A. file. This is well documented.]
A pattern of V.A. corruption has been exposed on national television shows such as 60 minutes. [three (3) times now 60 minutes has had shows on V.A. corruption, and the last show on 60 minutes about the V.A. was specifically about corruption in the Saint Petersburg Regional Office that the Petitioner is complaining about!]
And it has been written about in numerous articles. [Petitioner’s own brother was the subject of a Newspaper Article in Tampa titled “Veterans Get Endless Runaround”. It took over thirty (30) years for the V.A. to process the Petitioner’s brother’s claim, and after some thirty (30) years of stealing evidence from his file, and committing just about any illegal act, or using any delaying tactic to cheat him, the V.A. finally admitted that he was 100% Service-Connected from Combat in Vietnam. This clearly demonstrates the attitude of this Regional Office towards America’s Veterans.]
Such conduct, and beliefs, may have a place in Nazi Germany, or Russia. But they have no place in America. And it is the duty of this Court to protect veterans when they are the victims of such abuse by government officials.
And it is clear that the Regional Office in Saint Petersburg intends to continue violating statutes, ignoring Decisions, and Orders, of the Board of Veterans Appeals, and violating the rights of America’s Veterans until this Court forces them to obey the law.
That is why this Case is far more important then an Individual seeking Mandamus Relief.
If this Court fails to act, in a case like this, where some twenty (20) years ago government officials sneaked into a room and had an illegal “secret” trial on the Petitioner’s Army Discharge. And they knew the “secret” trial would greatly affect the Petitioner’s life, and future V.A. benefits.
If this Court does not issue a Mandamus and demand that the Respondents obey the law, then how can any Veteran ever respect this Court?
It is the duty of this Court to protect the rights of Veterans in cases such as this.
And if this Court fails in its duty, or uses some frivolous technical excuse to shirk its duty, it will cause grave harm to the public’s faith in the judicial system.
The Respondents knew they were required by statute to afford the Petitioner “Due Process of Law”. Yet they kept the trial secret for some twenty (20) years, and didn’t ever notify the Petitioner.
Or allow the Petitioner to present any evidence. Or witnesses. Or testify himself. Or even be represented.
As wild, as appalling, as illegal as the parable in this document is, where it describes, and asks, how this Court would feel if the judges of this Court were arrested without a trial, what has happened to the Petitioner is no different.
If this Court fails to act under the appalling circumstances of the instant case then how can any veteran ever have any faith in this Court?
It would appear to the public that the Court of Veterans Appeals is a farce.
That this Court is intended to cover up illegal conduct of government officials. And it would cause grave harm to the judicial system. At least in the eyes of veterans.
So in the instant case, not only has the Petitioner demonstrated many indisputable rights, that have been violated by the Respondents.
Not only has the Petitioner demonstrated that he has exhausted all Administrative Remedies Available to him, and has no remedy, other then Mandamus relief.
Not only has the Petitioner demonstrated an indisputable Right to Mandamus Relief.
But the Petitioner has proven that a Writ of Mandamus should be issued, Pro Bono Publico, FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD.
And Petitioner has proven that a failure by this Court to Grant Mandamus Relief, under the extremely appalling circumstances of the instant case, would cause grave harm to the view of this Court by Veterans.
And it would encourage the Respondents to continue their illegal conduct towards America’s Veterans.
And it is for these reasons that a Writ of Mandamus MUST be issued.
HOME |
VET HELP |
HALL OF SHAME |
PETITION | LINKS |
GUESTBOOK |
JOIN/HELP OUT |
CONTACT
Copyright 2003 Vets For Justice, Inc.