Uppity Wisconsin - Public Corruption

Doyle’s Gone, Good Riddance

mal contends — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:51:06 +0000

People all over Wisconsin were happy Monday to see Gov. Jim Doyle announce his intention to not seek reelection.

One thing that progressive Democrats and rightwing Republicans agree on is that Jim Doyle is a liar, a vindictive and corrupt politician.

That’s who he is as governor. A lot of Democrats cannot stand the guy on a personal level. And Republicans are sad to see him go as Doyle would have given them a clear shot at the governor’s office.

That’s not really news and it’s not entirely clear how this reality fits into Doyle’ decision to not seek reelection.

According to Doyle, he reached his decision some seven to 10 days ago [WisPolitics], coming around to his belief that he claims to have held since being first elected governor in 2002: He will only serve two terms, the “norm” for governors.

"I think this national norm serves good purpose. It keeps the political world from becoming stagnant. It allows new leaders to develop. It gives the voters more choices,” said Doyle Monday.

Why then did Doyle raise more than $2 million for reelection?

Republicans are demanding that Doyle return the campaign money, but he’ll likely give it to a worthy cause to polish his legacy.

In the face of declining poll numbers, a few weeks before the time that Doyle says he was deciding not to run again Doyle announced the appointment of an over-the-top, former anti-drug prosecutor as a finalist to a Dane County Judgeship, Amy Smith.

Smith was rejected by a judicial advisory selection committee but inserted by Doyle as a finalist though Smith was “rebuked for dishonesty on two separate occasions by appellate court judges” during her tenure as an anti-drug prosecutor.

“His judicial selection process … was besmirched by his decision to add the name of a longtime aide and campaign donor to the list of finalists for a Dane County judgeship -- and then to appoint the woman [Amy Smith],” reads the Capital Times editorial reacting to Doyle's announcement, Memo to would-be governors: Embrace real reform.

On July 8, Doyle announced the appointment of Smith.

Doyle is corrupt to the bone and his legacy will be remembered as politics as usual, dishonest and self-serving.

At least he’s leaving now. Memo to would-be governors: Don’t be Jim Doyle.

Pardon Jailed Wisconsin Veteran

mal contends — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:53:33 +0000

President-elect Barack Obama has tremendously more on his plate than reinventing government and restoring some semblance of accountability to Americans.

Ensuring that the world does not enter into a second depression, halting a war or two, saving the environment, formulating an industrial policy on alternative energy, one can go on; all are problems of a massive scale.

But readers of Uppity Wisconsin may notice a comment from a veteran posted this week about another veteran who is serving a four-year sentence in federal prison.

That jailed veteran is Navy Airman Keith Roberts (1968-71), a Vietnam-era veteran, [see Wisconsin Navy Airman Keith Roberts and U.S. Attorneys Scandal–Milwaukee] from Gillett, Wisconsin; and he’s an innocent man wrongfully imprisoned.

Roberts was convicted on five counts of wire fraud for receiving U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits after the national VA office launched a vendetta against Roberts for being a pain to the VA regional office in “tenaciously pursuing a claim for VA benefits" (Harper’s).

U.S. Atty Stephen Biskupic's office took up the VA’s case that resulted in the 2006 conviction.

In sum, Roberts served his country and was railroaded by a corrupt VA and an appalling U.S. DOJ.

President-elect Obama should grant an extraordinary pardon that will not only serve the cause of justice but will also repudiate a VA that has become outright hostile to veterans.

U.S. v. Roberts

The title of the case is fitting for this honorably discharged veteran diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

The crux of the case against Roberts is that Roberts was not friends with his fellow Navy airman (Gary Holland) when both the men were on line duty at a Naval base in Naples, Italy on February 5, 1969 when Holland was crushed to death by a C-54 aircraft.

The prosecution also says that Roberts exaggerated his efforts to save Holland, which constituted fraud for which Roberts was convicted by a jury in northern Wisconsin. And that Roberts therefore lied about the friendship and the effort to save Holland.

Holland and Roberts did not have a friendship, and Roberts exaggerated his efforts to save Holland. That’s the alleged fraud, that’s the intent to engage in fraud? Yes.

In fact, the two men had parallel service histories that would make it unlikely that Holland and Roberts were not at least friendly in their relationship, and that contradicts the prosecution’s indictment and trial statements.

So what happened, why the prosecution on such a slender reed?

"[T]he only reason Airman Roberts was ever prosecuted was because he was a ‘belligerent ass’ who kept insisting that he get paid back to discharge. He was demanding an appeal in Washington," said a background source at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee who e-mailed the Lee Rayburn radio show in Madison in early June 2007 after a program about the Roberts case, and asked to remain anonymous out of fear of losing his job. "I'd have to say that you guys are TOTALLY (uppercase in the original) right about Roberts' conviction being bullshit ... ."

Said Roberts’ attorney Robert Walsh, a combat Vietnam Army veteran, at the oral arguments in October 2007 before the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, referencing this VA standard for judging any first-person account by veterans of what happened to them during their service:

… I submit to you that they are inconsistencies in every veteran's record, combat or peacetime. And that Congress has recognized that. And that’s why VA benefits is a very paternalistic, claimant-friendly, non-adversarial system. It’s even more paternalistic that the Social Security benefits adjudication system (per the Veterans Judicial Review Act). So, where’s the intent (for fraud)?

Good question.

Roberts criminal case is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (U.S. v. Roberts, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin) where Roberts is seeking an en banc hearing, and his benefits case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).

A three-member panel for the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in July found that, "The record might also have supported a jury determination that Mr. Roberts sincerely believed that his statements were true and that he had no intention to defraud the Government ... (but) (i)t is beyond our authority to disturb (a guilty) finding on appeal (in this case)."

As for the comment by the veteran who served with Roberts in Italy, it corroborates what Roberts has claimed for decades had occurred:

James W. Ervin PH3 (not verified) on Tue, 12/16/2008 - 4:13pm. I was stationed @ NAF (Naples), Italy at the time of this "incident". July 1968 thru Nov.1969 . I also remember the young sailor be trapped / crushed up inside the wheel well (nose) of the aircraft inside the hangar of NAF naples,Italy. I do remember someone wanting to drive a forklift into the side of the aircraft ; but an officer or someone of authority would not let them do that....so what they did was have men climb up into the plane & go to the rear of the plane to put weight in the rear of the plane to let the nose come up to release the trapped sailor. (Unfortunately) that process was too slow to save the sailor from death. I also remember taking photographs of the " Pin " that was in the nose gear at the time. I remember it as being a homemade looking pin without a locking clip to keep it from being removed without unlocking the device. As for the names of the people involved , I don't remember ; but there definitely was someone there who wanted to use the (fork) lift to rescue the sailor from the collapsed nose wheel and was ordered NOT to use the fork lift. Sincerely ,

Roberts' family and fellow veterans supporting him in his case remain hopeful, but desperate.

President-elect Obama should grant this family a full pardon and make things right.

via mal contends

Biskupic Leaving in Disgrace

mal contends — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:23:59 +0000

Stephen Biskupic, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (2002 - present) has announced that he is resigning in January before the new administration takes office.

Good riddance, though Biskupic allowed that he has amassed a good "track record."

Many Wisconsin Democrats and allies would agree with that positive performance assessment.

But I doubt that Biskupic is sending a Christmas card to the proven-innocent Georgia Thompson this year [see also Biskupic tried to 'squeeze' Georgia Thompson, and Investigate Biskupic].

As Biskupic has played the partisan prosecutor for the Republican "voter fraud" myth during his tenure, one wonders how seriously Biskupic reflects on the several overturned voter fraud cases [see also Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals].

Or how about that Vietnam-era veteran, Wisconsin Navy Airman Keith Roberts, [see also U.S. Attorneys Scandal–Milwaukee] who was convicted for receiving VA benefits after the national VA office launched a vendetta against Roberts for being a pain in their bureaucratic butt, [as the VA followed the policy advice of the benefits-hostile American Enterprise Institute scholar, Dr. Sally Satel on benefits for Vietnam-era vets who as a group were not always enthusiastic about that particular bullshit war.]?

Some parting words for Biskupic from the late US Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson:

"Any prosecutor who risks his day-to-day professional name for fair dealing to build up statistics of success has a perverted sense of practical values, as well as defects of character. ... he can have no better asset than to have his profession recognize that his attitude toward those who feel his power has been dispassionate, reasonable and just."
- Attorney General Robert H. Jackson, April 1, 1940.

Biskupic fails miserably on that score of being reasonable and just.

Let's hope the next US Atty for the Eastern District amasses a better track record.

And if the US Dept of Justice ever again becomes as politicized and corrupt as it has under the Bush administration, the US Attys should leave the DOJ en masse with their integrity in tact and no judicial victims from corrupt prosecutions.

CT: Wisc AG Van Hollen hosts McCain 'victory' party

mal contends — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:47:58 +0000

From the Capital Times (Madison, Wis), John Nichols reports:

VAN HOLLEN TO HOST McCAIN "VICTORY" PARTY
After claiming for weeks that there was nothing partisan about his ambitious election season regimen of suing the Government Accountability Board and dispatching attorneys and special agents to polling places where high Democratic turnouts might reasonably be expected, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen comes out of the closet Tuesday night.
He's co-hosting the 'Wisconsin GOP Election Night Party' -- where supporters of John McCain and Sarah Palin will toast their successes or drown their sorrows -- at a Waukesha hotel.
Van Hollen, a McCain campaign co-chair, will be joined by other non-partisan good government activists like Republican congressmen Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner.

Wisconsin is in the bag folks, no one is complacent here. We'll handle Van Hollen and the pricks.

But Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada and even Pennsylvania, any obstruction problems voting there (or here), go the polls prepared:

- 1-866-OUR-VOTE Hotline (1-866-687-8683)
- Find your local Obama office and vote prepared to call them, http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
- Find your local paper's office and prepare to call them

On CNN, Van Hollen Admits to GOP Lawsuit Collusion

mal contends — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:23:52 +0000

Update: Video link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzxPDZN1dd8

More evidence that Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is a liar, and corrupt partisan.

From the Wisconsin Democratic Party:

Van Hollen says GOP 'may have asked lawyers in my office to file the lawsuit.'

In a recent interview with CNN, Attorney General JB Van Hollen finally admitted to what we’ve known all along, that his hyper-partisan lawsuit against the GAB was brought in collusion with his Republican Party bosses.

Van Hollen doesn’t have a very good poker face. Watch his eyes wandering nervously when the reporter presses him on whether or not the GOP personally asked him to file the lawsuit. Maybe he’s nervous because he lost his lawsuit and now his web of cover-ups and deceit at the DOJ is finally unraveling.

Remember, this is the same guy who made the following statements to reporters last month:

“There was no discussion with anybody involved in leadership with the Republican Party (or the McCain Campaign) about this lawsuit before it was brought." - Attorney General JB Van Hollen (Source: MJS, 9.18.08)

(Van Hollen) said he had “no reason to believe” any of his aides discussed the case with the GOP or the McCain campaign. (Source: MJS, 9.19.08)

"This should be about as nonpartisan an issue as there is. … Once again, I don’t know who is making this a partisan issue. Our decision to sue is non-partisan as well." - Attorney General JB Van Hollen (Source, WPR, Joy Cardin, 9.18.08)

Jailed Wisconsin Vet Loses Appeal, VA Claim Still Pending

mal contends — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:35:24 +0000

via mal contends
In a unanimous opinion (07-1546) a three-member panel for the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed the controversial conviction on fraud of Wisconsin Navy veteran, Keith Roberts.

The Roberts family is planning on filing a motion for an en banc hearing, a hearing before the full appellate court.

U.S. Atty Stephen Biskupic's office had convinced a jury that Roberts and a deceased Navy airman (Gary Holland) did not have a friendship, and Roberts who was on line duty at a Naval base in Naples, Italy on February 5, 1969 at the time that Holland was crushed to death by a C-54 aircraft, exaggerated his efforts to save Holland, which constituted fraud for which he was convicted in November 2006 by a jury in northern Wisconsin.

Weak grounds for a federal prosecution? These are the grounds on which the government successfully pursued a prosecution against this honorably discharged Navy veteran who served during a combat era.

The Roberts decision is the second blow for veterans' advocates for treatment of veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), following the dismissal of a class-action suit filed by Veterans for Common Sense and Morrison and Foerster, and other parties.

In theory, any veteran both claiming PTSD and unable to verify the circumstances of stressor events is vulnerable to federal prosecution if the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA) and a U.S. Atty decide to proceed in that fashion, though the VA under the Bush administration has been brushed back as its hostile posture against veterans has become public and is seen by veterans advocates as morphing into negligence and incompetence.

Affirming the July 2006 conviction of Roberts, the decision stated that "the criminal prosecution is independent of the administrative review process," rejecting a key argument by Roberts who is concerned that he can continue to serve in prison for receiving VA benefits that the he is legally entitled to receive.

In an administrative development, the day after the Seventh Circuit's opinion was issued, July 7, 2008, Roberts on July 8 was granted his motion for oral arguments of his VA claim before a three-judge administrative panel of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), over (VA) objection.

The Seventh Circuit's decision recognizes the weakness of the government argument of the intent of Roberts to allegedly devise a scheme and defraud the VA.

"The record might also have supported a jury determination that Mr. Roberts sincerely believed that his statements were true and that he had no intention to defraud the Government," reads the opinion by Justice Kenneth Ripple. But Ripple notes of the guilty verdict, that, "It is beyond our authority to disturb such a finding on appeal."

The hurdle for an appellate court to overturn the judgement of a jury is high.

"The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence challenges is necessarily 'a daunting one,' ... We shall not 'weigh the evidence or second-guess the jury’s credibility determinations' on appeal,'" reads the opinion, citing legal precedent.

The opinion implies the United States government in the agent of the VA failed to follow VA administrative rules, as Roberts claims, but notes that this legal issue was not raised at the sufficient time by Roberts.

In his reply brief, Mr. Roberts for the first time mentions 38 C.F.R. § 14.561, which provides that “[b]efore a submission is made to the U.S. Attorney in cases involving personnel or claims, the General Counsel . . . or the Regional Counsel . . . will first ascertain that necessary administrative or adjudicatory (forfeiture (see Pub.L. 86-222; 73 Stat. 452), etc.), action has been taken; except that in urgent cases such as breaches of the peace, disorderly conduct, trespass, robbery, or where the evidence may be lost by delay, or prosecution barred by the statute of limitations, submission to the U.S. Attorney will be made immediately.” Even if this regulation gave Mr. Roberts some cognizable right to prevent early deferral, arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived.

At the jury trial, Roberts was faced with knocking down the arguments and investigations of the United States Attorney's office and top VA officials who were determined to get Roberts, as veterans' advocates have said since the inception of the Roberts criminal proceedings.

"[T]he only reason Airman Roberts was ever prosecuted was because he was a ‘belligerent ass’ who kept insisting that he get paid back to discharge. He was demanding an appeal in Washington," said a background source at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee who e-mailed the Lee Rayburn radio show in Madison in early June 2007 about the Roberts affair, and asked to remain anonymous out of fear of losing his job. "I'd have to say that you guys are TOTALLY (uppercase in the original) right about Roberts' conviction being bullshit ..."

The power of the United States government to legally and financially ruin a veteran's family in northern Wisconsin for "tenaciously pursuing a claim for VA benefits" has been confirmed.

Jailed Wisconsin Veteran Awaits Court Decision, in Fed Prison for Claiming PTSD Benefits

mal contends — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:01:06 +0000

via mal contends -
Madison, Wisconsin - Keith Roberts awaits the decision of his appeal before a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as he sits in a federal prison in Minnesota because the United States government said he did not tell the truth about his service in the Navy.

Veterans are assumed under the Veterans Judicial Review Act of 1989 to be (as they often are) in an diminished capacity to tell the full truth of the circumstances they encountered that contributed to their suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

The many stressors that would lead to the granting of disability benefit payments need to be rigorously documented to the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs' (VA) satisfaction, thus the VA claims process propagated under administrative rules is non-adversarial and paternalistic for the veterans.

And that’s why obtaining VA benefits is a claimant-friendly system. It’s more paternalistic than the Social Security benefits adjudication system (per the Veterans Judicial Review Act). But ask any veteran and he/she will tell you it does not work out that way.

Wisconsin Navy veteran Keith Roberts (1968-71) remains in a federal prison (since 2007), effectively fined $100,000s, for allegedly not telling the whole truth about about the circumstances in which his fellow Navy Airman was crushed to death by a C-54 aircraft in 1969.

Roberts was charged with wire fraud for receiving VA disability benefits by electronic deposit, as all vets are mandated to receive payments.

The government, in the agency of United States Attorney Stephen Biskupic and the VA, admitting that the Navy Airman worked together at the same airbase, says the fraud is predicated upon what they determine is not a close friendship that existed between the two (a ludicrous allegation) and an exaggeration of Roberts' role in the attempt to save his friend from being crushed to death, though Roberts was on line duty at the time of the death and the base equivalent of a general quarters alarm was sounding.

United States Attorney Stephen Biskupic spoke at oral arguments in October 2007 in the case of the United States v. Keith A. Roberts (07-1546) before a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, calling the Roberts’ affair “a simple, straight-forward” case.

Biskupic said at oral arguments: “You (veterans) have to be truthful,” and claimed that Roberts was not truthful.

Roberts' attorney, Roberts Walsh, attacked the “lack of intent” by the veteran Roberts.

Intent is needed to prove fraud. Walsh pointed out that Roberts was diagnosed by numerous medical professionals with PTSD.

Walsh attacked the prosecution’s relying on the statements of the veterans when VA procedures require documentation and not personal recollection as the dispositive factor in deciding PTSD cases.

The VA needs a medical diagnosis and verifiable stressor and not a recollection, and a recollection is virtually irrelevant in the VA's deciding PTSD cases.

Thus personal recollection, often imperfect, ought not cause a veteran to be accused of fraud, asserted Walsh.

But Keith Roberts is a cautionary tale.

There is a huge backlog of some 600,000 VA cases (AlterNet: The Army Times, 2007), and the VA and US Atty Biskupic decided to go after the innocent Roberts because Roberts upset some VA folks by "tenaciously pursuing a claim for benefits," and US Atty Biskupic was eager to do the bidding of the Bush administration and it peculiar ideas on veterans' benefits that adopt the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI)/Dr. Sally Satel ethos that veterans need to just get over it, and not be enabled in a 'culture of trauma'.

Look here for a decision to be reported in the coming months.

Weakening US Criminal Case, VA Turns Down Jailed Wisc Vet’s PTSD Claim

mal contends — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:41:08 +0000

by Michael Leon (via mal contends)

Madison, Wisconsin —Vietnam-era Navy veteran Keith Roberts (1968-71) is an honorably discharged Navy airman who feels betrayed by his government, specifically the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the U.S. Dept of Justice, for its self-conscious and successful efforts to financially ruin and imprison him.

Last month in April, the Gillette, Wisconsin native received word from the Milwaukee VA Regional Office that his VA disability claim for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) retroactive to his discharge was denied—a development not unexpected from a hostile VA, but under the circumstances farcical as he sits in a federal prison in Minnesota for applying for the same benefits.

Now, the VA says he does not have PTSD, a position contradicted by several medical professionals and Roberts' extensive documentary record.

More significantly for the imprisoned Roberts is that the VA decision corroborates Roberts' case that he never had any intent to defraud the VA, the alleged crime for which he is now imprisoned.

Roberts makes two lack-of-intent arguments in his appeal brief to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit filed last year: “The Evidence Offered at Trial did not Establish, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the Alleged Misrepresentations were Made with the Intent to Defraud., “ and in “The Evidence Offered at Trial did not Establish, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the Appellant Intentionally Misrepresented Facts to the VA.”

The alleged wire fraud is composed of the main allegations against Roberts by the US DoJ that he fabricated his role in trying to rescue fellow Airman Gary Holland, crushed to death in a gruesome C-54 aircraft accident in 1969, and lied about his friendship with Holland.

Both charges are demonstrably untrue and are charges on which US Atty Stephen Biskupic (not known for his prosecutorial discretion and hungry to augment his win/loss record and curry favor with the administration during this period) secured criminal indictments against Roberts and won a conviction in 2006.

Diagnosed as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by several private and public doctors during the 1990s, Roberts had been granted a 100 percent disability rating in June 1999 by the US Veterans Administration (VA) after a 12-year benefits claim process.

But not before Roberts, angered and frustrated with the VA, upset the wrong people in the government that he served.

"…The prosecution smacks of retaliation and a plan to suppress veterans claims—Roberts was prosecuted for tenaciously pursuing a claim for benefits, which VA resisted and which is still in the benefits review process," wrote former Harper’s magazine columnist and human rights attorney, Scott Horton, last year.

An experienced and objective VA civil servant knowledgeable about the specifics of Roberts claim agreed.

April 2008 VA Decision

The significance of the April VA decision lies in the fact that Roberts’ previously successful VA claim was severed because of an "unverified stressor," and the VA omits anything about Roberts committing fraud.

This is because “when a stressor is not related to combat, a veteran's testimony alone does not qualify as ‘credible supporting evidence’ of an occurrence of an in-service stressor," (p. 13 Dept of VA, Milwaukee VA Regional Office; 04/14/2008, Statement of the Case) because a veteran’s recollection as conveyed in his/her testimony is not reliable.

Said Roberts’ attorney Robert Walsh at the oral arguments last October before the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, referencing this VA standard:

… I submit to you that they are inconsistencies in every veteran's record, combat or peacetime. And that Congress has recognized that. And that’s why VA benefits is a very paternalistic, claimant-friendly, non-adversarial system. It’s even more paternalistic that the Social Security benefits adjudication system (per the Veterans Judicial Review Act). So, where’s the intent (for fraud)?

In other words, veterans' testimonies are not sufficient to establish a fact base for obtaining a VA disability claim, but are sufficient for a criminal indictment of fraud, according to US Atty Biskupic.

Charges of fraud are precisely what the VA convinced US Atty Biskupic to pursue at a jury trial where misrepresentation of VA practices and standards were made in several instances.

Stated Atty Robert Walsh at oral arguments last October:

... (I)t's a total distortion in this record, and any suggestion that any veteran can just walk into the V.A., file a claim and say, you know, a peace time Veteran, that I was here in the states and I was sexually assaulted, and it's stressful, give me money. And the (VA’s) answer is, did you tell the chaplain, did you go to the hospital, did you confide in a family member, do you have a contemporaneous letter, do you have documentation? ‘No, I was embarrassed’. Then the claim fails. Your own statement, no matter how compelling the argument, how tragic the circumstances, is not going to be the basis of an award of PTSD.

The practice of demanding supporting documentation, and not taking a veteran's testimony as dispositive in VA claims is common knowledge among VA claim adjudication personnel, attorneys in the bar who argue cases at the D.C.-based Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), and veterans’ advocates around the country.

The main allegations against Roberts are that he fabricated, with intent, his role in trying to rescue Holland and lied about his friendship with Holland in his testimony in his VA claims.

The US Atty’s office convinced the jury that the fellow airman Holland was not Roberts’ friend, though the VA April decision acknowledges that Roberts had at least a working relationship with Holland while stationed at the same Navy airbase in Italy.

The Roberts support network and family see this VA acknowledgement as a “giant step in the right direction,” asserting CAVC judicial doctrine recognizes the veteran claimant does not have to prove every detail surrounding his claim, and as Atty Roberts has argued, the VA claim process is supposed to “paternalistic” and not “adversarial”.

“In our opinion VA has now put it in writing (in its April 2008) that can be understood by everyone that Keith did not commit fraud, that this (VA) Statement of the Case is their way of weaseling out of what they have done to Keith by admitting that he did not commit fraud,” e-mailed Deloris Roberts, wife of Keith Roberts.

"In our opinion a Motion for Leave to Amend the Record should be made to the 7th Cir. informing that there is new evidence that tends to exonerate the Appellant-Defendant.”

The cases that remain to be adjudicated are:

- U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) (Roberts v. Secretary of the VA (05-2425)

- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (U.S. v. Roberts, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket 05-CR-118).

VA Gets Mean

Roberts had hounded the VA to distraction and irritation when he accused the VA of outright fraud in 2003 in arguing for an earlier retroactive date for his benefits.

One VA Special Agent Raymond Vasil, of the Regional Inspector General’s office in Illinois, took point in retaliating against this Vietnam-era veteran for seeking an earlier retroactive date for his diagnosed PTSD-related disability benefits—administrative events by Vietnam-era veterans that are politically unpopular with the American Enterprise Institute and the Bush administration.

It is in this context that Roberts was reportedly often argumentative and insulting to the VA.

On August 16, 2004, the VA halted the benefits being paid to Roberts based upon Special Agent Vasil’s investigation; Roberts appealed the decision on September 14, 2004.

Just months later Roberts was indicted on fraud charges, in March (mail fraud) and September 2005 (a superseding indictment of wire fraud) .

Roberts has been serving a four-year sentence since March 2007 for seeking help by applying for VA health care benefits—actions the U.S. government subsequently contended to part to be of a fraudulent scheme for which Roberts was prosecuted and convicted in November 2006 by U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic, who had previously been on Karl Rove’s list of endangered U.S. Attys.

After the Roberts case and some other highly suspect cases, Biskupic name disappeared off the list.

Roberts is now fighting in both a criminal appellate court (U.S. Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit) and the administrative veterans’ claims court (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims (CAVC) the same factual and legal disputes.

Roberts’ family and elderly parents say they worry about ever seeing him again as the 60-year-old Vietnam-era vet awaits decisions from the two courts.

Political Environment

Roberts was targeted by the US Dept of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 2003-05, and became the central figure in this Alice-in-Wonderland tale, after U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic of Wisconsin and top VA officials schemed to convict Roberts’ of fraudulently receiving VA benefits (by wire transfer as the VA requires).

Veterans’ advocates see Roberts as a victim of a vigorous attempt to marginalize, investigate, and prosecute veterans receiving disability benefits in an aborted attempt to fabricate a fraud crisis among veterans who were injured and traumatized during their service to their country.

As the Iraq and Afghanistan wars produce 100,000s more wounded veterans—a phenomenon that is now the subject of an unprecedented class action law suit by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan against the VA—advocates allege that Roberts’ extraordinary prosecution was part of the Bush administration’s priorities to discourage VA disability benefits claims, especially among Vietnam-era veterans, serving to carry out the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)/Bush policy that demeans veterans for seeking help with PTSD in what the AEI derisively brands a “culture of trauma.”

The Pentagon has gone so far as to blame veterans “personality disorders” and lack of faith in God for veterans suffering after service.

One administration initiative to investigate 72,000 cases of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was halted in 2005 after a storm of outrage from veterans’ groups and democrats.

In the current environment with the Bush administration under a heavy assault for its incompetence and hostility to veterans in an election year, and the DoJ under political fire for political prosecutions, it is doubtful that even US Atty Biskupic would cook up the same prosecution against Roberts.

Media Attention

The Roberts case drawn the attention and denunciations on Wisconsin Public Radio, the Madison Air America-formatted radio station’s Lee Rayburn, Harper’s magazine, and numerous progressive blogs and veterans’ journals, but had been shut out in the traditional print media before a piece by Josh Coffman was published in the daily News-Enterprise (Kentucky) in April on Roberts’ sister’s efforts to free her brother as administrator of the Keith A. Roberts Defense Fund, Inc.

The Roberts family remains shocked to this day by the hostility of the DoJ and VA.

“I am embarrassed by and disappointed in my government. So much talks in lofty circles about support for vets; about acknowledging PTSD (for the first time); we should be doing all we can for these guys without question. This is a Bush railroad if I ever saw one,” e-mailed Karen Ruyle of Colorado Springs Colorado, cousin of Roberts and wife of an Army veteran. “I now live right near Ft Carson and hear lots of talk, etc about veterans, their treatment, etc. I am really disgusted with what comes out of Washington. I really thought Bob Gates would have stepped in and looked at the veteran issue but I guess he's pretty engaged with Iraq/Iran.”

Arguments

Reads Roberts' appellate motion (that was granted last year to supplement the record) before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC):

The plain reading of the statutes as found in Title 38 of the United States Code and their related regulations leave no doubt that the intent of Congress was that veterans not be forced to defend themselves simultaneously in two federal judicial forums. … As a result of the failure of the Secretary to comply with his own rules and regulations Mr. Roberts was prosecuted for wire fraud for receiving electronic fund transfers of his monthly VA payments for service connected disability. As detailed in the brief supporting this motion, the conduct of the Secretary has been contrary to law, in bad faith, highly adversarial and raises the inference of impropriety by a number of senior officials in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. ... The Appellant was subjected to administrative actions artfully tailored to deny him due process in the loss of a property right, his disability benefits. He did not realize that the was also being dragged into a vortex of VA action for which he could, and did, suffer a loss of liberty.

Said a member of Roberts’ defense team: “We do not believe that Congress intended that a veteran defend himself in two forums at the same time. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will have to sort out the mess the VA and the Department of Justice have created here.”

The criminal case is entitled No. 07-1546 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KEITH A. ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant, (On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin).

The criminal appellate brief makes due process and insufficient-evidence arguments.

The listed arguments include:

I. The District Court Erred in Denying the Appellant's Motions to Dismiss, as the Court's Exercise of Jurisdiction Constituted a Denial of the Appellant's Right to Due Process, Due to the Pending Appeal Before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
II. The Evidence Presented at Trial Was Insufficient to Sustain a Conviction for Wire Fraud.
A. The Evidence Offered at Trial did not Establish, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, that More than a Minor Portion of the Appellant’s Account of the Incident was Misrepresented to the VA.
B. The Evidence Offered at Trial did not Establish, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the Appellant Intentionally Misrepresented Facts to the VA.
C. The Evidence Offered at Trial did not Establish, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the Alleged Misrepresentations were Material.
D. The Evidence Offered at Trial did not Establish, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the Alleged Misrepresentations were Made with the Intent to Defraud.
III. The Appellant’s Right to Due Process was Violated When the Government Withheld Material Information.
IV. The District Court Erred in Applying an Enhancement to the Appellant’s Sentence, as Such Was Not Submitted for Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

CONCLUSION

The Appellant submits that his constitutional rights were violated in this case, and that he was unjustly convicted and sentenced. The Appellant asks that this court look at the facts of this matter, and apply the correct standards of review, to reach a reasonable and fair conclusion in which the Appellant’s convictions and sentence are vacated. In the alternative, the Appellant requests that this Court remand the case for re-trial, pending the conclusion of the Appellant’s administrative appellate measures.

[Accessing oral arguments. Enter 07-1546 in the Case Number's fields by entering 07 in the "Year," and entering 1546 in the "Year Fragment's" field. Give the file some 45 seconds at least to load.]

[Note: Much of the latter portion of this text has been previously published; and since published has undergone minor editing.]

Kentucky Paper Runs Piece on Jailed Wisconsin Veteran

mal contends — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:29:27 +0000

The Kentucky News-Enterprise has a piece this week on jailed Wisconsin veteran, Keith Roberts.

Sister takes up brother’s fight for freedom

By JOSHUA COFFMAN

RADCLIFF —Sally Harrod is crunching numbers that stretch beyond her job as an accountant. She oversees a legal fund for her brother in two legal cases regarding benefits he sought as a Navy veteran.

Keith Roberts, 60, is in a Minnesota federal prison, convicted of fraudulently receiving electronic funds from the department of Veterans Affairs. ...

Harrod, her family members and other veterans’ advocates ... fear the VA sought retribution against Roberts for seeking decades of back pay for post-traumatic stress disorder and criticizing the agency’s slow response to approve or deny his medical claims. ...

And, once it is all settled, she hopes her family can help veterans in similar situations.

“It’s unbelievable to all of them,” she said. “If they can do it to my brother, they can do it to anyone at any time.”

House Judiciary Comm Demands Action on Political Prosecutions, Including US Atty Biskupic's

mal contends — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:40:42 +0000

via MAL Contends

The House Judiciary Committee is proceeding in investigating the Bush administration's political prosecutions.

Press Release from April 17

(Washington, DC)- Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Committee Members Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Artur Davis (D-AL), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) announced three critical actions in the Committee's investigation into allegations of selective or poltiically-motivated prosecution in the Justice Department.

The Members today invited Karl Rove to testify before the committee; urged the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate those allegations; and demanded that Attorney General Michael Mukasey provide additional documents on this subject.

Today's actions result from the Committee's majority staff report, also released today, which details the cases, interviews and documents they have reviewed since the Committee began its investigation last year.

"There continue to be numerous complaints of selective or politically motivated prosecution since our investigation began last year," Conyers said. "The actions we are taking today, including calling Karl Rove to testify, are an effort to get to the bottom of this matter."

Today's announcement stems from the Committee's 2007 oversight hearing on selective prosecution, during which testimony was heard and documents were entered into the record regarding cases from Alabama, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

Since the hearing, majority committee staff has continued its investigation with interviews and document collection about additional cases across the country.

"While this report is extensive and significant progress has been made in our investigation, many facts remain unknown," Conyers said. "The Justice Department has simply not been forthcoming and I feel the only way to move this investigation forward is to seek further independent investigation and testimony from Karl Rove, who appears to be the missing link in a chain from the White House to the Justice Department."

Selective Prosecution: Majority Staff Report and Additional Letters

- Majority Staff Report on Allegations of Selective Prosecution and Additional Documents (April 17, 2008) - US Atty Biskupic's political persecution of the innocent Georgia Thompson, pp 19-23 -

- Letter to Justice Department OIG/OPR (April 17, 2008)

- Letter to Karl Rove (April 17, 2008)

- Letter to AG Mukasey (April 17, 2008)