Ever notice how it's so easy to give trillions to those who are rich beyond their skill level, they do a bad job and are called talented....yet your working poor in America can't seem to catch a break with a higher minimum wage. No they must suffer...
And all the while I thought Lincoln freed the slaves....hmmmm....things that make you go, "Hmm?"
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
ACTIVE MILITARY AND MILITARY RETIREES THIS WAY......
Divorce ... Military Style
Order in the court! Twenty years after its inception, the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act needs to have some of its glaring inequities corrected, one of the most obvious being the treatment of military retired pay as property that can be divided in advance.
Staff Sergeant James J. LoCorto served with the Marine Corps during Desert Storm. Upon returning to his duty station at Twentynine Palms, California, with plans to retire after 20 years of honorable military service, he found his wife of 19 years cohabitating with another man. In May 1991, she abandoned LoCorto and their three children and filed for a no-fault divorce in California. The divorce became final in January 1992, and she received half the property of the marriage plus 47.5% per month of LoCorto's military retirement pay. Payments will continue until his death or hers, even if she remarries.
LoCorto and tens of thousands of other military veterans over the past two decades have been blindsided by a law that their military leadership neglected to tell them about. The Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA) was enacted by Congress in September 1982 (with an effective date of 1 February 1983), ostensibly to protect deserving, divorced spouses of military members, but it has too often victimized military retirees and their current families. The USFSPA strips military veterans of their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
Prior to the USFSPA, the states had no federal authority to dismember any part of the military compensation system. The USFSPA now cedes to the states the responsibility of the federal government for determining the amount of pay retired military members receive for fulfilling their obligations to the federal government. Conversely, the USFSPA inserts the federal government into a legal process -- divorce -- historically reserved to the states.
BACKGROUND
On 26 June 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in McCarty v. McCarty, that "the military retirement system confers no entitlement to retired pay upon retired member's spouses and does not embody even a limited community property concept." The court further opined that, "the application of community property principles to military retired pay threatens grave harm to clear and substantial Federal interests." The McCarty court recognized, however, that the situation of an ex-spouse of a retired military member could sometimes be a serious one, possibly resulting in destitution or some other unfair predicament, and invited Congress to legislatively review the situation. Congress attempted to do this by inserting the USFSPA as a rider to the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1983.
The USFSPA circumvented -- but did not supersede -- the McCarty ruling by providing that "a [state] court may treat disposable retired pay payable to a [military] member for pay periods beginning after June 25, 1981, either as property solely of the member or as property of the member and his spouse in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction of such court."
The most common misconception of military retired pay is that it is a pension and, therefore, property that can be divided. However, federal statutes and case law have historically and consistently regarded military retired pay as reduced compensation for reduced services, with no attributes of a pension. The Comptroller General, the Department of Defense, the Internal Revenue Service, and U.S. Bankruptcy courts have also taken this position. A serious and, possibly, litigious anomaly exists in that military members and their ex-spouses are required to pay federal and state income taxes on pay legally reclassified by the USFSPA, as property.
Although it was not the intent of Congress that the USFSPA be applied retroactively, thousands of divorces finalized prior to 1 February 1983 were reopened. This imposed severe hardships on the affected military retirees and their second families who were suddenly faced with unexpected requirements for commencing USFSPA payments as well as payments of substantial arrearages. Congressional intent vis-à-vis retroactive applications was not codified into law until November 1990. Even then, the amendment applied only to divorces prior to McCarty and required the continuation of payments for two more years: until 5 November 1992. This requirement was unreasonable and discriminatory because it provided no relief for military members divorced between McCarty (26 June 1981) and the effective date of the USFSPA, and because military retirees were given no comparable adjustment period with the USFSPA was originally enacted.
In addition, the USFSPA had no grandfather clause; this deficiency changed the military retirement compensation system retroactively. Military members already retired, or eligible for retirement, were caught off guard by a law that they had no reason to anticipate. The failure to grandfather denied equal property protection under the law to divorced military veterans, whose lives in retirement were devastated without prior notice and without compensatory relief. The USFSPA does, in fact, constitute the "unjust taking" in violation of rights provided by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The most invidious aspect of the USFSPA is that the reclassification of pay as property permits payments to the benefiting ex-spouse for life -- whether or not he/she remarries. This is inconsistent -- both with the traditional treatment of alimony in the application of domestic relations law and with:
The former-spouse programs for the U.S. Foreign Service and Central Intelligence Agency
DoD's Serviceman's Benefit Program (SBP)
DoD's widows' pension benefit program
That section of the USFSPA itself that deals with government payments of retirement pay to abused military dependents.
All of these programs provide for the termination of payments upon remarriage of the beneficiary. The abused military-dependents provisions of the USFSPA are discriminatory because government payments stop when the ex-spouse remarries, but payments by ordinary citizens (military retirees), specified elsewhere in the USFSPA, do not.
The law contains another inconsistency. The military veteran making USFSPA payments is subject to recall to active duty, continuing compliance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and constraints on employment, travel, etc. Yet, the ex-spouse, drawing from the same retirement pay, has no obligations to the government.
The USFSPA's implementation in the states has been contradictory and confusing -- often contrary to the intent of Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the USFSPA itself. The USFSPA's stipulation that a court "may treat the disposable retired pay ... " has emerged, in practice, as shall. Moreover, courts frequently make contemporaneous awards of military retired pay, alimony, child support, and other assets of marriage. In addition, an ex-spouse may be eligible for social security benefits deriving from the military member's entitlement. Part of the pre-USFSPA lore was that some needy military spouses always have had the same full range of remedies in divorce court as any other spouses in America. In addition, military spouses have long enjoyed the power of garnishment of military member's pay. Congress could have resolved the dilemma of the U.S. Supreme Court's "McCarty fence" around military retired pay simply by enacting legislation that would have rendered it a source of alimony in a divorce proceeding, but as pay, not property. Most members of Congress probably were oblivious to the "payments until death" implications of reclassifying pay as property. There are hidden time bombs in the USFSPA:
The USFSPA permits an ex-spouse to receive "windfall benefits," meaning that retirement payments may be based on the rate of pay extant at the time of retirement of the military member, not at the time of divorce. This happens frequently when divorce occurs during active duty and USFSPA payments do not commence until retirement. As a result, the ex-spouse receives benefits based on in-service advancements for which they cannot conceivably claim any credit.
The USFSPA does not stipulate any limits on the time permitted for an ex-spouse to enter a claim for payments. Consequently, the divorced military member can be doomed to a life in retirement waiting for "the other show to drop."
The USFSPA provides that disability pay being received under Chapter 61 of USC 10 1201 et seq. is not to be included in the calculation of "disposable pay." This decision was reinforced in 1989 by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Mansel v. Mansel. Despite this, divorce courts frequently include disability pay in the calculation of disposable pay under the USFSPA. Since USFSPA victims usually do not have the financial resources required to seek remedies for this in the courts, further legislative relief is required to ensure equal protection under the law.
Although the USFSPA manifestly applies only to military retirement pay, decisions of divorce courts since 1982 clearly indicate the need for further protection of active-duty military personnel to prevent:
Involuntary, court-ordered retirements in order to commence USFSPA payments.
Distributions of active-duty pay pursuant to court orders under the USFSPA.
USFSPA payments after recall of retired military members to active duty.
Despite the fact that many military members already have been impacted by the USFSPA, DoD does not brief its personnel on the law.
Finally, although the USFSPA's congressional sponsors claimed that the law applies equally to both male and female military members, the only pronoun in the law itself if "his." This may partially explain why the prestigious Defense Advisory Council on Women in the Service (DACOWITS) steadfastly maintained that the USFSPA is of no consequence to women in the service and is, therefore, not on the DACOWITS agenda.
RESTORING FAIRNESS TO THE MILITARY DIVORCE PROCESS
Most people would agree that both members of a military marriage that ends in divorce should be treated fairly and equitably in the courts. Even in this era of no-fault divorces, there is no legal prohibition against basing divorce settlements on merit, need, and ability to pay. Unfortunately, a review of court experience with the USFSPA since 1982 shows that it has operated in theory as an option, but has operated in practice as a mandate.
An overwhelming majority of the national community of military veterans organizations, with an aggregate membership of more than 10,000,000, supports reform of the USFSPA to resolve inequities. Some (e.g., the American Legion) even advocate its repeal. After twenty years, the egregious impact of the USFSPA is in plain view. Moreover, the status of the military spouse of the early 1980s has undergone revolutionary social, economic, and cultural changes, which have moderated the climate in which the USFSPA was conceived.
Considering the recorded reluctance of Congress to repeal any legislation, once enacted, repeal of this law is an unlikely alternative. Moreover, attempts to repeal would not only raise the political ire of the USFSPA voting bloc but would again raise all the questions that followed the McCarty decision regarding treatment of military retirement pay in divorce proceedings. Most fair-minded people would agree that under certain circumstances some equitable division of military retirement pay can and should be made. One extreme case would be if retirement pay was the only existing asset of a military marriage ending in divorce. Therefore, reform of the USFSPA to resolve its manifested inequities is a more reasonably attainable goal.
The leading proponent of reform is the American Retirees Association (ARA), a California-based nonprofit organization of active duty, reserve and retired members, both male and female. The ARA was formed in 1984 for the exclusive purpose of curing the inequities in the USFSPA. This single-minded objective is pursued closely with the other military veterans' organizations whose broader agendas include USFSPA reform or repeal. These groups agree that the following would go far toward restoring fairness and equity to the military divorce process:
Terminate USFSPA payments upon the remarriage of the benefiting ex-spouse, while ending current payments to remarried former spouses not more than 180 days from the date of enactment of the amendment. This provision could be softened by providing that it would not apply to ex-spouses who had remarried but were subsequently widowed or divorce and are currently unmarried.
Restrict awards under the USFSPA to correspond to the military retiree's length of service and pay grade at the time of divorce, not at the time of retirement. USFSPA payments would, however, be adjusted to existing pay scales at the time of retirement.
Establish a statute of limitations giving former spouses two years from the date of a final divorce to seek a division of military retirement pay under the USFSPA.
Reinforce the provision of the USFSPA that precludes the inclusion of disability pay in the calculation of disposable pay. Consider, however, including disability pay wherever military retired pay is the only asset of marriage.
Provide specific wording to protect active-duty military personnel by precluding: involuntary, court-ordered retirements in order to commence USFSPA payments; distribution of active-duty pay pursuant to court orders under the USFSPA; and USFSPA payments after recall of retired military members to active duty.
Preclude retroactive application of the USFSPA for any divorce finalized prior to 1 February 1983. Public Law 101-510 of 5 November 1990 prohibits retroactive opening of divorces finalized on and before 25 June 1981 -- one day before the U.S. Supreme Court's McCarty decision. This denies relief for those divorced during the gap between McCarty and the effective date of the USFSPA. The failure to grandfather the USFSPA was a manifest injustice to military people who had served honorably prior to 1 February 1983 and were peremptorily deprived of their matured right to full retirement pay.
Require the leadership of the uniformed services to brief their personnel on the existence and significance of the USFSPA.
BOTTOM LINE
Honorable military veterans have never subscribed to the theory of the "throwaway wife" vociferously espoused by feminist-interests during the time the USFSPA was being considered by Congress. Neither do they conform to the stereotypical military member then represented as quintessential, devil-may-care, madcap playboy who roams the earth seeking adulterous relationships while leaving at home a faithful wife and children who can be abandoned at will. This law, as it stands, is manifestly unfair. Somehow, military veterans must convince their "new millennium" contemporaries that they are not looking for a win in the divorce court -- just a tie.
This was copied from the ARA sites..
Personal notes: Yes it does include female military personnel...check out the G.I Janes that have formed a group to have USFSPA repealed.
The feminist failed to realize that legislating the looting and gold digging of our Military Men would also legislate it for their military daughters as well. Both Women and Men have been hurt by this legislation.
Order in the court! Twenty years after its inception, the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act needs to have some of its glaring inequities corrected, one of the most obvious being the treatment of military retired pay as property that can be divided in advance.
Staff Sergeant James J. LoCorto served with the Marine Corps during Desert Storm. Upon returning to his duty station at Twentynine Palms, California, with plans to retire after 20 years of honorable military service, he found his wife of 19 years cohabitating with another man. In May 1991, she abandoned LoCorto and their three children and filed for a no-fault divorce in California. The divorce became final in January 1992, and she received half the property of the marriage plus 47.5% per month of LoCorto's military retirement pay. Payments will continue until his death or hers, even if she remarries.
LoCorto and tens of thousands of other military veterans over the past two decades have been blindsided by a law that their military leadership neglected to tell them about. The Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA) was enacted by Congress in September 1982 (with an effective date of 1 February 1983), ostensibly to protect deserving, divorced spouses of military members, but it has too often victimized military retirees and their current families. The USFSPA strips military veterans of their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
Prior to the USFSPA, the states had no federal authority to dismember any part of the military compensation system. The USFSPA now cedes to the states the responsibility of the federal government for determining the amount of pay retired military members receive for fulfilling their obligations to the federal government. Conversely, the USFSPA inserts the federal government into a legal process -- divorce -- historically reserved to the states.
BACKGROUND
On 26 June 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in McCarty v. McCarty, that "the military retirement system confers no entitlement to retired pay upon retired member's spouses and does not embody even a limited community property concept." The court further opined that, "the application of community property principles to military retired pay threatens grave harm to clear and substantial Federal interests." The McCarty court recognized, however, that the situation of an ex-spouse of a retired military member could sometimes be a serious one, possibly resulting in destitution or some other unfair predicament, and invited Congress to legislatively review the situation. Congress attempted to do this by inserting the USFSPA as a rider to the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1983.
The USFSPA circumvented -- but did not supersede -- the McCarty ruling by providing that "a [state] court may treat disposable retired pay payable to a [military] member for pay periods beginning after June 25, 1981, either as property solely of the member or as property of the member and his spouse in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction of such court."
The most common misconception of military retired pay is that it is a pension and, therefore, property that can be divided. However, federal statutes and case law have historically and consistently regarded military retired pay as reduced compensation for reduced services, with no attributes of a pension. The Comptroller General, the Department of Defense, the Internal Revenue Service, and U.S. Bankruptcy courts have also taken this position. A serious and, possibly, litigious anomaly exists in that military members and their ex-spouses are required to pay federal and state income taxes on pay legally reclassified by the USFSPA, as property.
Although it was not the intent of Congress that the USFSPA be applied retroactively, thousands of divorces finalized prior to 1 February 1983 were reopened. This imposed severe hardships on the affected military retirees and their second families who were suddenly faced with unexpected requirements for commencing USFSPA payments as well as payments of substantial arrearages. Congressional intent vis-à-vis retroactive applications was not codified into law until November 1990. Even then, the amendment applied only to divorces prior to McCarty and required the continuation of payments for two more years: until 5 November 1992. This requirement was unreasonable and discriminatory because it provided no relief for military members divorced between McCarty (26 June 1981) and the effective date of the USFSPA, and because military retirees were given no comparable adjustment period with the USFSPA was originally enacted.
In addition, the USFSPA had no grandfather clause; this deficiency changed the military retirement compensation system retroactively. Military members already retired, or eligible for retirement, were caught off guard by a law that they had no reason to anticipate. The failure to grandfather denied equal property protection under the law to divorced military veterans, whose lives in retirement were devastated without prior notice and without compensatory relief. The USFSPA does, in fact, constitute the "unjust taking" in violation of rights provided by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The most invidious aspect of the USFSPA is that the reclassification of pay as property permits payments to the benefiting ex-spouse for life -- whether or not he/she remarries. This is inconsistent -- both with the traditional treatment of alimony in the application of domestic relations law and with:
The former-spouse programs for the U.S. Foreign Service and Central Intelligence Agency
DoD's Serviceman's Benefit Program (SBP)
DoD's widows' pension benefit program
That section of the USFSPA itself that deals with government payments of retirement pay to abused military dependents.
All of these programs provide for the termination of payments upon remarriage of the beneficiary. The abused military-dependents provisions of the USFSPA are discriminatory because government payments stop when the ex-spouse remarries, but payments by ordinary citizens (military retirees), specified elsewhere in the USFSPA, do not.
The law contains another inconsistency. The military veteran making USFSPA payments is subject to recall to active duty, continuing compliance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and constraints on employment, travel, etc. Yet, the ex-spouse, drawing from the same retirement pay, has no obligations to the government.
The USFSPA's implementation in the states has been contradictory and confusing -- often contrary to the intent of Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the USFSPA itself. The USFSPA's stipulation that a court "may treat the disposable retired pay ... " has emerged, in practice, as shall. Moreover, courts frequently make contemporaneous awards of military retired pay, alimony, child support, and other assets of marriage. In addition, an ex-spouse may be eligible for social security benefits deriving from the military member's entitlement. Part of the pre-USFSPA lore was that some needy military spouses always have had the same full range of remedies in divorce court as any other spouses in America. In addition, military spouses have long enjoyed the power of garnishment of military member's pay. Congress could have resolved the dilemma of the U.S. Supreme Court's "McCarty fence" around military retired pay simply by enacting legislation that would have rendered it a source of alimony in a divorce proceeding, but as pay, not property. Most members of Congress probably were oblivious to the "payments until death" implications of reclassifying pay as property. There are hidden time bombs in the USFSPA:
The USFSPA permits an ex-spouse to receive "windfall benefits," meaning that retirement payments may be based on the rate of pay extant at the time of retirement of the military member, not at the time of divorce. This happens frequently when divorce occurs during active duty and USFSPA payments do not commence until retirement. As a result, the ex-spouse receives benefits based on in-service advancements for which they cannot conceivably claim any credit.
The USFSPA does not stipulate any limits on the time permitted for an ex-spouse to enter a claim for payments. Consequently, the divorced military member can be doomed to a life in retirement waiting for "the other show to drop."
The USFSPA provides that disability pay being received under Chapter 61 of USC 10 1201 et seq. is not to be included in the calculation of "disposable pay." This decision was reinforced in 1989 by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Mansel v. Mansel. Despite this, divorce courts frequently include disability pay in the calculation of disposable pay under the USFSPA. Since USFSPA victims usually do not have the financial resources required to seek remedies for this in the courts, further legislative relief is required to ensure equal protection under the law.
Although the USFSPA manifestly applies only to military retirement pay, decisions of divorce courts since 1982 clearly indicate the need for further protection of active-duty military personnel to prevent:
Involuntary, court-ordered retirements in order to commence USFSPA payments.
Distributions of active-duty pay pursuant to court orders under the USFSPA.
USFSPA payments after recall of retired military members to active duty.
Despite the fact that many military members already have been impacted by the USFSPA, DoD does not brief its personnel on the law.
Finally, although the USFSPA's congressional sponsors claimed that the law applies equally to both male and female military members, the only pronoun in the law itself if "his." This may partially explain why the prestigious Defense Advisory Council on Women in the Service (DACOWITS) steadfastly maintained that the USFSPA is of no consequence to women in the service and is, therefore, not on the DACOWITS agenda.
RESTORING FAIRNESS TO THE MILITARY DIVORCE PROCESS
Most people would agree that both members of a military marriage that ends in divorce should be treated fairly and equitably in the courts. Even in this era of no-fault divorces, there is no legal prohibition against basing divorce settlements on merit, need, and ability to pay. Unfortunately, a review of court experience with the USFSPA since 1982 shows that it has operated in theory as an option, but has operated in practice as a mandate.
An overwhelming majority of the national community of military veterans organizations, with an aggregate membership of more than 10,000,000, supports reform of the USFSPA to resolve inequities. Some (e.g., the American Legion) even advocate its repeal. After twenty years, the egregious impact of the USFSPA is in plain view. Moreover, the status of the military spouse of the early 1980s has undergone revolutionary social, economic, and cultural changes, which have moderated the climate in which the USFSPA was conceived.
Considering the recorded reluctance of Congress to repeal any legislation, once enacted, repeal of this law is an unlikely alternative. Moreover, attempts to repeal would not only raise the political ire of the USFSPA voting bloc but would again raise all the questions that followed the McCarty decision regarding treatment of military retirement pay in divorce proceedings. Most fair-minded people would agree that under certain circumstances some equitable division of military retirement pay can and should be made. One extreme case would be if retirement pay was the only existing asset of a military marriage ending in divorce. Therefore, reform of the USFSPA to resolve its manifested inequities is a more reasonably attainable goal.
The leading proponent of reform is the American Retirees Association (ARA), a California-based nonprofit organization of active duty, reserve and retired members, both male and female. The ARA was formed in 1984 for the exclusive purpose of curing the inequities in the USFSPA. This single-minded objective is pursued closely with the other military veterans' organizations whose broader agendas include USFSPA reform or repeal. These groups agree that the following would go far toward restoring fairness and equity to the military divorce process:
Terminate USFSPA payments upon the remarriage of the benefiting ex-spouse, while ending current payments to remarried former spouses not more than 180 days from the date of enactment of the amendment. This provision could be softened by providing that it would not apply to ex-spouses who had remarried but were subsequently widowed or divorce and are currently unmarried.
Restrict awards under the USFSPA to correspond to the military retiree's length of service and pay grade at the time of divorce, not at the time of retirement. USFSPA payments would, however, be adjusted to existing pay scales at the time of retirement.
Establish a statute of limitations giving former spouses two years from the date of a final divorce to seek a division of military retirement pay under the USFSPA.
Reinforce the provision of the USFSPA that precludes the inclusion of disability pay in the calculation of disposable pay. Consider, however, including disability pay wherever military retired pay is the only asset of marriage.
Provide specific wording to protect active-duty military personnel by precluding: involuntary, court-ordered retirements in order to commence USFSPA payments; distribution of active-duty pay pursuant to court orders under the USFSPA; and USFSPA payments after recall of retired military members to active duty.
Preclude retroactive application of the USFSPA for any divorce finalized prior to 1 February 1983. Public Law 101-510 of 5 November 1990 prohibits retroactive opening of divorces finalized on and before 25 June 1981 -- one day before the U.S. Supreme Court's McCarty decision. This denies relief for those divorced during the gap between McCarty and the effective date of the USFSPA. The failure to grandfather the USFSPA was a manifest injustice to military people who had served honorably prior to 1 February 1983 and were peremptorily deprived of their matured right to full retirement pay.
Require the leadership of the uniformed services to brief their personnel on the existence and significance of the USFSPA.
BOTTOM LINE
Honorable military veterans have never subscribed to the theory of the "throwaway wife" vociferously espoused by feminist-interests during the time the USFSPA was being considered by Congress. Neither do they conform to the stereotypical military member then represented as quintessential, devil-may-care, madcap playboy who roams the earth seeking adulterous relationships while leaving at home a faithful wife and children who can be abandoned at will. This law, as it stands, is manifestly unfair. Somehow, military veterans must convince their "new millennium" contemporaries that they are not looking for a win in the divorce court -- just a tie.
This was copied from the ARA sites..
Personal notes: Yes it does include female military personnel...check out the G.I Janes that have formed a group to have USFSPA repealed.
The feminist failed to realize that legislating the looting and gold digging of our Military Men would also legislate it for their military daughters as well. Both Women and Men have been hurt by this legislation.
Friday, June 5, 2009
HOW TO WIN IN A DEPRESSION......
Okay so we're in a depression and many have had things stolen from us....there are banks going belly up and taking money. We have lost faith and pride in what it means to be an American and to buy American.
So I have an idea to get my neighbors together and I suggest we can all do this. Gather the information about who has what skills and start your very own market places. Exchange goods, purchase goods from one another at decent prices. Get together with your local farmers and start buy in programs like we have here. No more pesticides! No more food coming from God knows where.
We have local organic growers who will let us all buy in for a decent price and deliver boxes of vegetables to us. If you don't have local growers become one! Even if you only have a limited amount of space or if you must invest in a mobile garden. Plant herbs and veggies in wheel barrels or other mobile units you can row out on a deck and bring in at night...something to look into. Even if for your own use.
I read that there are several cities in Canada that are making it legal for people to have hens in city limits. This way you can raise your own eggs and or meat. At the very least you have eggs and you have wonderful entertaining companians! They are wonderful barn animals to have around and the feathers can be used for all sorts of projects. They will shed loads of feathers every year and you can collect them up.
Whatever your choice but pulling together as smaller communities and putting each other to work with and for one another could turn out to be profitable for everyone involved. Get the local seamstess to make wonderful clothing that people can then purchase for cheaper prices than purchasing name brands at the store. Renew the art of bartering with one another.
No one else is going to look out for us. It's God and all of us as communities pulling together and taking care of one another.
Haven't we learned that strangers in our midst simply don't care about us despite what their advertisements say. We are more than consumers. We are spiritual beings all invested with talents and abilities we can put to use for ourselves and others and our lots will be plentiful.
God Bless all of you...
So I have an idea to get my neighbors together and I suggest we can all do this. Gather the information about who has what skills and start your very own market places. Exchange goods, purchase goods from one another at decent prices. Get together with your local farmers and start buy in programs like we have here. No more pesticides! No more food coming from God knows where.
We have local organic growers who will let us all buy in for a decent price and deliver boxes of vegetables to us. If you don't have local growers become one! Even if you only have a limited amount of space or if you must invest in a mobile garden. Plant herbs and veggies in wheel barrels or other mobile units you can row out on a deck and bring in at night...something to look into. Even if for your own use.
I read that there are several cities in Canada that are making it legal for people to have hens in city limits. This way you can raise your own eggs and or meat. At the very least you have eggs and you have wonderful entertaining companians! They are wonderful barn animals to have around and the feathers can be used for all sorts of projects. They will shed loads of feathers every year and you can collect them up.
Whatever your choice but pulling together as smaller communities and putting each other to work with and for one another could turn out to be profitable for everyone involved. Get the local seamstess to make wonderful clothing that people can then purchase for cheaper prices than purchasing name brands at the store. Renew the art of bartering with one another.
No one else is going to look out for us. It's God and all of us as communities pulling together and taking care of one another.
Haven't we learned that strangers in our midst simply don't care about us despite what their advertisements say. We are more than consumers. We are spiritual beings all invested with talents and abilities we can put to use for ourselves and others and our lots will be plentiful.
God Bless all of you...
Thursday, June 4, 2009
WE NEED OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS....
Without our Freedoms this would not be America. I was recently disturbed to learn about the new proposed taxation of Soda then I listen to the rhetoric of how certain countries dictate how women should dress.
Maybe it's just me but it seems as though the rhetoric is being delivered with a bit of a forked tongue. If we tax items so they are unaffordable for individuals isn't this in essence a backdoor approach to dictating what Americans should drink, whether they should smoke cigarettes etc.
I wonder how this will affect the Soda manufacturers and their employees. I'm not a big fan of too much soda or smoking but that's my choice and I would like for these choices to remain just that for all American Citizens.
May God deliver us from those that would oppress us.
Maybe it's just me but it seems as though the rhetoric is being delivered with a bit of a forked tongue. If we tax items so they are unaffordable for individuals isn't this in essence a backdoor approach to dictating what Americans should drink, whether they should smoke cigarettes etc.
I wonder how this will affect the Soda manufacturers and their employees. I'm not a big fan of too much soda or smoking but that's my choice and I would like for these choices to remain just that for all American Citizens.
May God deliver us from those that would oppress us.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
LAND OF BROKEN PROMISES.....
The Red Man, The Black Man, The White Man now have a common bonding thread....broken promises, busted dreams and dwindling hopes.....
What did it mean, "Yes we can", when they didn't...the homeowners were drowning 55 feet out in the water and were thrown a line 45 feet long ten feet short and they lost their dreams. But Large corporations were drowning 5000 feet out and were thrown lines 10,000 feet long and extra 5000 feet just in case....
We are the endentured servants subject to the ruling class of idiots...Now we have God to rely on.
Perhaps if we all pray real hard the Great Blue Kachina will come to dance amongst us and we will see a dawn of a new day. Where we will have dreams of prosperity and no ruling class systematically stomping out our dreams, hopes, efforts and hard work.
Imagine what it would be like to be FREE......
Long Chain of Abuses
Broken Treaties
© Jeffrey R Gudzune Mar 31, 2007
Since 1787, over 750 land cessions have been authorized by supposed mutual compacts. History demostrates there was little that was mutual about these "treaties."
The long series of land usurpations that would gradually erode Native American territory began with the slash of a quill pen upon parchment; a seemingly innocuous sound, but one masking a hidden motive. Though the United States would employ the resources of its vast military in an effort to enforce its policy of containing the numerous tribes, each land cession was made "legal" by a simple piece of paper--a treaty. This was the weapon employed by a growing nation as it sought the most expedient means of securing its swelling boarders. The American government offered recompense, resettlement, and even trade to the states with which it was dealing in exchange for the lands it intended to occupy. To many Native Americans, however, selling the land was an alien concept. The land was elemental; it was as essential to life as air and could not be owned by anyone. To agree to "give up" all or even a percentage of the land seemed as absurd as selling the air. It was, however, through the treaty that the plight of the Native American began.
In theory, a treaty is a mutual compact between two nations. In practice, there was nothing mutual about the treaties authorizing land cessions--and all too often the recompensatory provisions of such treaties were mitigated before the ink could dry. The treaty system dates to the colonial period. Native American nations signed compacts with the English, French, and Dutch settlers and eventually with the permanent colonies in the years before the American Revolution. After the French and Indian War, the English government sought to control colonial expansion into territories west of the Appalachian watershed. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was meant to define the boarders of colonial America, but it only alienated the colonists. When the colonies declared independence, they adopted a departmental system to deal with their Indian neighbors--three superintendencies that answered to Congress.
To the United States, Native American nations were only de facto states. In the implementation of its diplomatic policy toward the Native American population, the United States assumed the role of an empire over a protectorate. This opened the door for segregation and near decimation of the Native American population. With its first treaty with an Indian state in 1778 (with the Lenni Lenape, or Delaware Indians) through the Treaty of Echota of 1835 (with the Cherokee in Georgia) the only policy has been removal. This is not to say that the treaties were one sided. In fact, the American government did provide recompensatory provisions in exchange for title to Indian lands. Often a relocation allowance and future payments were given, as in the case of the controversial Treaty of Echota. However, subsequent acts of Congress and shifting political winds demuted many such provisions. Why then were these treaties signed?
Examining the major land cessions from 1784 to 1894, it is clear that nearly all of these treaties were forced on Native American nations. Most were negotiated after wars; as in the case of the Treaty of Greenville (1795), the Treaty of Fort Jackson (1814), and the Treaty of Fort Armstrong (1832). These wars were started by white settlers encroaching on Indian lands. Other treaties were brought about by the demands of the individual states, as with the Treaty of Echota. This treaty removed the Cherokee from thier territory and resettled them in a designated Indian Territoy in Oklahoma. They were forced out in a march that killed over 4000 Cherokee. Following the Civil War, those nations that had allied with the Confederacy (such as the Cherokee and Creek) were forced to give up more territory.
By 1890, nearly every Native American nation was reduced to a reservation. Those that were not relegated to this state were all but extinct. The consolodation of land was complete. Reservation life did have its degree of success. Many prospered. It was a hard road, but they managed to endure. Many more nations suffered for want of funds, suitable agricultural opportunities, and good leadership. Constant legal battles to retain what little lands that remained occupied the Cherokee, Comanche, and Creek nations. The forces of change were gathering strength, however. The last gasp of those seeking to destroy the Indian way of life was the Dawes General Allotment Act of 1887--which proposed to break up reservations into 160 acre plots. The motivation behind this legislation was the end of the concept of Native American states as nations and thier assimilation into American culture. Those tribes that accepted this provision faced thier own legal issues when the Curtis Act of 1898 attemtped to dissolve thier governments. Native sovereignty would have dissapeared were it not for the efforts of John Collier, who, as Commissioner of Indian Affiars, brought pressure on Congress to pass legislation that enumerated the rights of Native Americans. The result was the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, the provisions of which restored native lands, provided better medical services to reservations, and encouraged the development of business opportunities. This sins of the past were not wiped clean, but finally the Native American nation was secured under the laws of the United States. With a renewed status, many nations went about the task of rebuilding a proud heritage that is so much a part of this nation...this nation of many nations.Read more: "Long Chain of Abuses: Broken Treaties Suite101.com" - http://nativeamericanfirstnationshistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/long_chain_of_abuses#ixzz0HOHlVx1Q&A
When will the Broken Promises Stop???
What did it mean, "Yes we can", when they didn't...the homeowners were drowning 55 feet out in the water and were thrown a line 45 feet long ten feet short and they lost their dreams. But Large corporations were drowning 5000 feet out and were thrown lines 10,000 feet long and extra 5000 feet just in case....
We are the endentured servants subject to the ruling class of idiots...Now we have God to rely on.
Perhaps if we all pray real hard the Great Blue Kachina will come to dance amongst us and we will see a dawn of a new day. Where we will have dreams of prosperity and no ruling class systematically stomping out our dreams, hopes, efforts and hard work.
Imagine what it would be like to be FREE......
Long Chain of Abuses
Broken Treaties
© Jeffrey R Gudzune Mar 31, 2007
Since 1787, over 750 land cessions have been authorized by supposed mutual compacts. History demostrates there was little that was mutual about these "treaties."
The long series of land usurpations that would gradually erode Native American territory began with the slash of a quill pen upon parchment; a seemingly innocuous sound, but one masking a hidden motive. Though the United States would employ the resources of its vast military in an effort to enforce its policy of containing the numerous tribes, each land cession was made "legal" by a simple piece of paper--a treaty. This was the weapon employed by a growing nation as it sought the most expedient means of securing its swelling boarders. The American government offered recompense, resettlement, and even trade to the states with which it was dealing in exchange for the lands it intended to occupy. To many Native Americans, however, selling the land was an alien concept. The land was elemental; it was as essential to life as air and could not be owned by anyone. To agree to "give up" all or even a percentage of the land seemed as absurd as selling the air. It was, however, through the treaty that the plight of the Native American began.
In theory, a treaty is a mutual compact between two nations. In practice, there was nothing mutual about the treaties authorizing land cessions--and all too often the recompensatory provisions of such treaties were mitigated before the ink could dry. The treaty system dates to the colonial period. Native American nations signed compacts with the English, French, and Dutch settlers and eventually with the permanent colonies in the years before the American Revolution. After the French and Indian War, the English government sought to control colonial expansion into territories west of the Appalachian watershed. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was meant to define the boarders of colonial America, but it only alienated the colonists. When the colonies declared independence, they adopted a departmental system to deal with their Indian neighbors--three superintendencies that answered to Congress.
To the United States, Native American nations were only de facto states. In the implementation of its diplomatic policy toward the Native American population, the United States assumed the role of an empire over a protectorate. This opened the door for segregation and near decimation of the Native American population. With its first treaty with an Indian state in 1778 (with the Lenni Lenape, or Delaware Indians) through the Treaty of Echota of 1835 (with the Cherokee in Georgia) the only policy has been removal. This is not to say that the treaties were one sided. In fact, the American government did provide recompensatory provisions in exchange for title to Indian lands. Often a relocation allowance and future payments were given, as in the case of the controversial Treaty of Echota. However, subsequent acts of Congress and shifting political winds demuted many such provisions. Why then were these treaties signed?
Examining the major land cessions from 1784 to 1894, it is clear that nearly all of these treaties were forced on Native American nations. Most were negotiated after wars; as in the case of the Treaty of Greenville (1795), the Treaty of Fort Jackson (1814), and the Treaty of Fort Armstrong (1832). These wars were started by white settlers encroaching on Indian lands. Other treaties were brought about by the demands of the individual states, as with the Treaty of Echota. This treaty removed the Cherokee from thier territory and resettled them in a designated Indian Territoy in Oklahoma. They were forced out in a march that killed over 4000 Cherokee. Following the Civil War, those nations that had allied with the Confederacy (such as the Cherokee and Creek) were forced to give up more territory.
By 1890, nearly every Native American nation was reduced to a reservation. Those that were not relegated to this state were all but extinct. The consolodation of land was complete. Reservation life did have its degree of success. Many prospered. It was a hard road, but they managed to endure. Many more nations suffered for want of funds, suitable agricultural opportunities, and good leadership. Constant legal battles to retain what little lands that remained occupied the Cherokee, Comanche, and Creek nations. The forces of change were gathering strength, however. The last gasp of those seeking to destroy the Indian way of life was the Dawes General Allotment Act of 1887--which proposed to break up reservations into 160 acre plots. The motivation behind this legislation was the end of the concept of Native American states as nations and thier assimilation into American culture. Those tribes that accepted this provision faced thier own legal issues when the Curtis Act of 1898 attemtped to dissolve thier governments. Native sovereignty would have dissapeared were it not for the efforts of John Collier, who, as Commissioner of Indian Affiars, brought pressure on Congress to pass legislation that enumerated the rights of Native Americans. The result was the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, the provisions of which restored native lands, provided better medical services to reservations, and encouraged the development of business opportunities. This sins of the past were not wiped clean, but finally the Native American nation was secured under the laws of the United States. With a renewed status, many nations went about the task of rebuilding a proud heritage that is so much a part of this nation...this nation of many nations.Read more: "Long Chain of Abuses: Broken Treaties Suite101.com" - http://nativeamericanfirstnationshistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/long_chain_of_abuses#ixzz0HOHlVx1Q&A
When will the Broken Promises Stop???
THIS SHOULD MATTER TO EVERY AMERICAN
Think about all the people who lost their lives on 9/11....Can we really afford to lose our national security and swindle the people that devote and sacrafice so much to make this a safer place?
Are we really going to just sit down and let Congress treat our Military like old used up ragdolls. Anyone of us would have to keep our contractual agreements and yet the promises and contracts made with our Military Members are being breached in unthinkable ways.....This is a national disgrace.
Just read this:
THE RETIRED MILITARY ADVOCATE,Floyd Sears, MSGT, USAF, 1951 to 1971, retired,tells the greatest military retiree swindle story of all time here. Remember this... if you don't tell Congress otherwise they will think everything is OK.Click here to get Congressional contact information. Click here to record your attempts to educate the Congress.
E-mail the webmaster... Join the MRGRG-MS e-mail list... Join the MRGRG-MS-TALK discussion group.This web page is dedicated to the Military Retiree Grass Roots Group of military retirees and dependents that have been lobbying the Congress since 1995 trying to regain the medical care they were promised, while they were on active duty, which was to take affect after retirement.
Consider this:
What would you do if you made payments on a house for 20 years under what you thought was a contract only to discover that the contract wasn't authorized and the house isn't yours? What would you do if the people that sold you the house closed the house and told you that you could not live there anymore?
Would you fight for what is yours, or would you just roll over and play dead? Now consider this:
What would you do if you served for 20 or more years in the military being told that if you served until retirement you would receive free medical care for yourself and your eligible dependents at military treatment facilities for as long as you or they lived only to discover, via a court ruling, that the promise wasn't authorized and the government reneges on the promise?
What would you do if you were told that you could not use the military treatment facility where you had been receiving medical care for years, and you had to go on Medicare and pay for Medicare part B just like the average citizen that never served a day in the military?
Would you fight for what is yours, or would you just roll over and play dead? From WWII until the early 1990's military personnel in positions of authority acting as agents of the United States Government promised the active duty military that if they served for 20 or more years in the military and retired they would receive free medical care for themselves and their eligible dependents at military treatment facilities for as long as they lived. This medical care promise has been broken and has been swept under the rug by the Congress, the Courts, and the Congressional Research Service.
Analyze the content of this web site and then you be the judge.Was the military retiree community cheated out of the medical care they were promised?
Use the links below and take a close look at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisionsin the WILLIAM O. SCHISM and ROBERT L. REINLIE lawsuit introduced by...
Medal of Honor recipient Colonel George Day (retired)
As you look at these court decisions... note that one group of judges said that military retirees had a contract and another group of judges, on appeal, admits that a promise of full free health care was made in good faith and relied upon, but it was not authorized by the Congress. This is double talk. The United States Armed Forces, an agency of the United States Government, made the medical care promise. A contract was formed when the promise was made and accepted. The military retirees fulfilled their part of the contract, but the United States Government has not.
Click here to see a court decision in favor of military retirees.Click here to see what happened when the Government appealed that decision.Click here to see what the dissenting Judges had to say about the decision against the military retirees.
Click here to look at and listen to a full web page version of the greatest swindle of all time story.Click here to see a YouTube scaled down version video of the Military Retiree swindle story. Click here to see a full video version of the greatest swindle of all time story.Click here to listen to the greatest swindle of all time story.Click here or here to see a 2003 USA Today article.Click here and here to see a Jayme Evan's article.
In 1951 - Floyd Sears solemnly swore that he would bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America; that he would serve honestly and faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever; and that he would obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over him, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In 1951 - Floyd Sears was a gullible and naive young man that believed what he was being told, as he was suppose to according to the oath he took, when the information came from an official source. He believed that he and his dependents would receive full free health care for life after he retired.
Now Floyd Sears is an old military retiree that served his country for 20 years with the understanding that when he retired he and his dependents would receive full free health care for life. The court has said, much to the delight of the United States Congress, "that the promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon". The court went on to say... "However, because no authority existed [for the military] to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, they have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim. Based on a court's decision, Floyd Sears now realizes that he and millions like himself have been swindled out of the medical care they were promised by the country they swore to serve honestly and faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever.
NOTE: You will see references to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit often as the greatest swindle of all time story is told.
This is the situation military retirees are faced with. From WWII to the middle 1990's the United States Military Hierarchy, acting as agents of the United States Government, authorized the making of a promise to provide free medical care to those active duty personnel that would serve in the military until retirement. The government says the promise was not authorized by the Congress and has reneged on the promise.
You might think that the Congress would be outraged by this situation, but they wave their flags and make speeches concerning how much they appreciate what the military retirees have done for their nation on national holidays and other occasions, but when the flag waving and the speech making is done the military retirees that served them faithfully are forgotten. Out of sight out of mind.
This military retiree medical care broken promise issue is the greatest swindle of all time... it's a broken contract with America's military retirees.
A medical care promise was made and the order to make the medical care promise came down from the highest levels of the military hierarchy.QUOTE FROM http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm : "I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher- ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service." : General Smedley Butler. USMC (Ret.)
General Smedley was not making reference to the military retiree medical care broken promise issue, but I think his words "My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher- ups" describes very well how people in the military handled the making of the medical care promise and other orders received from the highest levels of the military hierarchy.
The Congress had to know that the promise of medical care after retirement was being made and probably knew that the promise would not be kept, but they allowed the promise to be made anyway.
The medical care promise was used to entice people to re-enlist. It was serving a purpose and it was working. Why stop it?
The role of the re-enlistment counselor in the USAF was not a wishie-washie operation. It was well organized and official. Click here to see a testimonial of a former Unit Retention Counselor.
This is part of a court's conclusion rendered in a lawsuit brought by military retirees against the government for breach of contract. It is also a good description of a swindle. "They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim."
The court also said... "Perhaps Congress will consider using its legal power to address the moral claims raised by Schism and Reinlie on their own behalf, and indirectly for other affected retirees.", but the congress has done nothing. To verify this quote click here.
A swindle is... an intentional false representation to obtain money or any other thing of value, where deception is accomplished through the victim's belief in the validity of some statement or object presented by the offender.
The military personnel that were making the promise had no reason to believe that the promise being made was invalid. People on active duty in the military have an obligation and a duty to believe what they are being told when it comes from an official source, and they had no reason to believe that the medical care promise being made was invalid anymore than an order to charge up a hill under fire was invalid.
The offer of free medical care after retirement was made by the military hierarchy, understood and accepted by military personnel, and a contract was formed. The military retirees fulfilled their part of the contract, but the government reneged on the promised of free medical care.
So, all is forgotten, all is forgiven, we just write it off, and the military retirees who depended on this promise for medical care get swindled.We fought hard in the Congress and in the Courts to regain the medical care we were promised, but we were overwhelmed and defeated by the unlimited resources of the United States Government Justice System. We simply could not compete with the government's unlimited resources.One of the big questions concerning the medical care promise is... did the Congress ratify or acquiesce to the military retiree medical care promise? Did the Congress Know that the medical care promise was being made? Read what the dissenting judges had to say at ..."Promises of lifetime medical care were made to military officers by military officials for more than 50 years. Likewise Congress knew, or certainly should be charged with knowing, how the billions of dollars it appropriated for military medical care were allocated and that the amounts it appropriated for military pay were diminished by the imputed value of medical care on active duty and after retirement. Congress is presumed to know the terrain against which it legislates. To suggest it was oblivious, that it did not know military officials were promising medical care in accordance with its appropriations is pure sophistry. If it were otherwise, if Congress can appropriate billions for this aspect of national defense and not know how it is accounted for, then God save the Republic. Of course Congress knew; of course the service secretaries authorized promises in return for service; of course these military officers served until retirement in reliance; and of course there is a moral obligation to these men: it is called honoring the contract the United States made with them and which they performed in full. Because the court countenances the government’s breach of the implied contracts and its taking of the rights vested in these retired servicemen, I dissent." and you be the judge.
The author of this web page believes that the Congress knew the medical care promise was being made. The author of this web page believes that the infamous "subject to the availability of space and facilities and the capabilities of the medical and dental staff" words were added to the U.S. Code to make it legal to close bases where the medical care promise was suppose to be kept. If the government had intended to keep the medical care promise then why was it necessary to add those words to the U.S. Code? The mere fact that those words were added to the U.S. Code is a clear indication that the Congress knew the medical care promise was being made and they needed to start taking actions such that the promise would not have to be kept. If the space and facilities were reduced or removed where the promise was suppose to be kept then the medical care promise would be null and void. All of this was justified under the standard guise of saving tax payer dollars.
How can the Congress look at what the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has said... "We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim." ... and not see that America's military retirees have been swindled?
Why didn't the Congress stop the making of the unauthorized medical care promise right after it started? Why didn't the Congressional Research Service investigate this matter and report that an unauthorized promise was being made to potential career military men and women? They did not stop the promise of medical care after retirement because it was working as a (what turned out to be) deceptive incentive to get the experienced military personnel to reenlist.
The military hierarchy authorized the making of this medical care promise in good faith starting back in World War II, but according to a 2002 court decision they were not authorized to make the promise. I can not believe that the military hierarchy would authorize a promise of such magnitude knowing that it was illegal.
The Congressional Research Service Reports for Congresson"Military Health Care: The Issue of 'Promised' Benefits"andthe part that was not reported to the CongressAll of the legal mumbo jumbo contained in the following Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports to the Congress does not change the fact that military retirees were promised free medical care after retirement and have been cheated out of what they were promised. The elements of a contract were set when the active duty military entered into an agreement with the Armed Forces of the United States. And, all of the legal mumbo jumbo contained in the following CRS reports to the Congress does not change the fact that military retirees were swindled out of what they were promised. Somebody or some agency needs to be held accountable. If it isn't the United States Government then who is it?The following CRS Reports for Congress on "Military Health Care: The Issue of 'Promised' Benefits" played a major role in the processes that bought about the 18 Nov 2002 defeat of the Schism and Reinlie lawsuit brought by Medal of Honor recipient Colonel George Day (retired). The Schism and Reinlie lawsuit was designed to regain the medical care that was promised to military retirees.
21 Dec 1998 Report16 Jan 2001 Report 21 Nov 2002 Report 12 Aug 2003 Report 19 Jan 2006 Report
The author of this web page is intrigued by this one sentence in the History and Mission of the CRS. "Indeed, the sole mission of CRS is to serve the United States Congress.". Running the risk of this being taken out of context... I feel it is reasonable to assume that this means the CRS had no particular obligation to serve the interest of the military retirees seeking justice within the justice system. Click here to see the History and Mission of the CRS.
This is a rebuttal to the CRS Reports for Congress on..."Military Health Care: The Issue of 'Promised' Benefits".
Although the comments of the dissenting judges Chief Judge Mayer, Circuit Judge Newman, Senior Circuit Judge Plager, and Circuit Judge Gajarsa, click here, rebut these CRS Reports for Congress very well I feel that it is proper and reasonable for a military retiree to also rebut these CRS Reports for Congress on "Military Health Care: The Issue of 'Promised' Benefits". I have no official way of presenting this web page to the Congress, but it needs to be presented to the Congress because the minds of the Congress have been set in concrete by an incomplete CRS Report. However, on the off chance that some Senator or Representative may wander this way... here is a rebuttal to this CRS Report for Congress by one military retiree.Obviously I can not rebut every word of the 5 documents listed above. Therefore I will rebut the SUMMARY paragraph of the 19 Jan 2006 Report for Congress. I have numbered each sentence of the SUMMARY paragraph to facilitate my rebuttal. My rebuttal follows the SUMMARY.Let it be clearly understood that the author of this rebuttal is not saying that these CRS reports are false, but let it also be clearly understood that the author of this rebuttal is saying that these reports are incomplete. These Reports for Congress tell one side of the story and makes the manner in which the medical care promise was made to the active duty military appear to be insignificant, and unimportant. Did Congress acquiesce to this medical care after retirement promise? Whether they did or did not is unimportant to the author of this rebuttal because the Congress never promised me anything. In my case, ranking members of the USAF made the medical care promise to me over a 20 year period. In their defense I do not believe that they knowingly made an unauthorized promise. The court agrees with my belief. The court said, "The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon." Click here to see reference material. If the Armed Forces of the United States was making an unauthorized promise then why didn't the Congress take the necessary actions to stop the making of the promise? Why didn't the CRS step in and make a report to the Congress that unauthorized promises were being made? Let it be understood that members of the United States Armed Forces are trained to believe, and had to believe what they were being told when it came from an official source. And, let it be understood that military personnel did not have personal lawyers to advise them whether they should or should not believe what they were being told. In the early 1950's, at Carswell AFB, the squadron I was assigned to was marched to the base theater on a weekly basis to watch films such as "Victory At Sea", and other WWII documentaries. At these military briefings we were told many things that we had to believe, including the promise of free medical care for life if we served for 20 or more years in the military and retired.Can you imagine what would happen to a low ranking person if he/she challenged their Commanding Officer in reference to whether or not he/she was making an unauthorized statement/promise? If the military hierarchy was making an unauthorized promise then it should have been stopped as soon as it started. It should not have been allowed to go on over a person's 20 to 30 year career. This SUMMARY paragraph was extracted from http://mrgrg-ms.org/crs1006e-the-issue-of-promised-benefits.pdf
1). Many military health care beneficiaries, particularly military retirees, their dependents, and those representing their interests, state that they were promised “free health care for life at military facilities” as part of their “contractual agreement” when they entered the armed forces.
2). Efforts to locate authoritative documentation of such promises have not been successful.
3). Congressional report language and recent court decisions have rejected retiree claims seeking ‘free care at military facilities’ as a right or entitlement.
4). These have held that the current medical benefit structure made up of military health care facilities, Tricare and Medicare provide lifetime health care to military members, retirees and their respective dependents.
5). Nevertheless, claims continue to be made, particularly by those seeking additional benefits from the Department of Defense, or attempting to prevent an actual or perceived reduction in benefits. THE REBUTAL:Item 1). Many military health care beneficiaries, particularly military retirees, their dependents, and those representing their interests, state that they were promised “free health care for life at military facilities” as part of their “contractual agreement” when they entered the armed forces.Rebuttal: The "Many" word should be changed to "Millions of". The "many" word tends to mislead someone (like Senators, Representatives, and their staff members) that knows nothing about how the promise was made to believe that the promise was made to just a few, but not all members of the active duty military. In reference to, "when they entered the armed forces". This statement is very misleading because it makes it appear that the promise of medical care was made only by recruiters to new recruits. Anyone who has been through the trauma associated with the induction into the Armed Forces knows that the last thing a recruit is thinking about is something that may happen 20 years down the road. The new recruit is thinking about how he/she will make it through the next few hours or the next few days. As I will explain later, what the recruiter said during the recruiting process is relatively unimportant. The military indoctrination and training processes that happens over a 20 to 30 year period on active duty in reference to medical care after retirement is very important. To place blame on a recruiter for misleading recruits in reference to the medical care promise is ridiculous. The recruiters followed approved procedures to get people into the military. The active duty supervisors, 1st sergeants, commanding officers, and re-enlistment counselors did what was necessary to keep people in the military.Item 2). Efforts to locate authoritative documentation of such promises have not been successful.Rebuttal: I have a problem with the "Efforts" word. What was the extent of the effort to locate authoritative documentation. What kind of authoritative documents was the CRS Report for Congress looking for. Was the report looking for the check lists that members of the military signed to indicate that they understood the medical care promise that was being made during re-enlistment briefings? Click here for more information. If the CRS Report was looking for that documentation then it certainly could not be found because those check lists were either destroyed or given to the service member on his retirement. Did the CRS Report for Congress try to find military retirees that may have kept that kind of documentation? Most military retirees would not have kept that kind of documentation because there was no need to keep documents like that. After all a promise had been made by the most honorable Armed Forces in the world acting as an agent of the United States government the most honorable government in the world. Why would a person need to prove that a valid promise was made. If one would reason that a retiring member of the military should have made copies of certain documents then one should remember that we didn't have copying machines back in the days in question. Then one could ask that if the check lists were found would they be authoritative documentation that the medical care promise was made by military personal acting in their official capacity under orders as agents of the United States government. The re-enlistment check lists were official authoritative documentation. Click here for more information.In their efforts to locate authoritative documentation that the medical care promise was made, how many military retirees did the CRS Report for Congress interview? One hundred? One Thousand? One million? Did the CRS Report for Congress take any actions to get sworn statements from military retirees concern the intensity of how the medical care promise was made. The author of this rebuttal believes that the CRS Report for Congress found what it wanted to find to make the case against the military retirees and nothing more.Item 3). Congressional report language and recent court decisions have rejected retiree claims seeking ‘free care at military facilities’ as a right or entitlement.Rebuttal: By rejecting the retiree claims, is the CRS Report for Congress putting it self on the same level as a court? If this is true then there was no point in having a trial. Or, is the CRS report setting itself up as being Biblical in nature where it's finding are indisputable. What about the language of the millions of military retirees that are being swindled out of the medical care they were promised. Does their word mean nothing? It is important to note that not all courts rejected the retiree claims. The CRS Report for Congress failed to mention the 8 Feb 2001 court decision where the court said, "The retirees entered active duty in the armed forces and completed at least twenty years service on the good faith belief that the government would fulfill its promises. The terms of the contract were set when the retirees entered the service and fulfilled their obligation. The government cannot unilaterally amend the contract terms now." Click here to see reference material. In my opinion this court decision was excluded from the summary because it would have been counter productive in reference to the case the CRS Report for Congress was trying to make.Item 4). These have held that the current medical benefit structure made up of military health care facilities, Tricare and Medicare provide lifetime health care to military members, retirees and their respective dependents.Rebuttal: Has the CRS Report for Congress considered what will happen if the current cuts to Medicare continue and Doctors reach the point where they can not afford to take Medicare patients. In this regard we are no different than a person that never spent a day in the military. If we can not find Doctors that will take Medicare then Tricare for life is worthless.Item 5). Nevertheless, claims continue to be made, particularly by those seeking additional benefits from the Department of Defense, or attempting to prevent an actual or perceived reduction in benefits.Rebuttal: The military retiree community is not seeking additional benefits. We only seek those benefits that were promised. We are not a cheap bunch of thugs trying to get something for free. We paid for what we were promised with, sweat, blood, and tears. We fulfilled our part of the medical care contract and we respectfully demand that the United States Government fulfill their part of the contract. The dissenting judges in the 18 Nov 2002 court findings state our position very well: "Promises of lifetime medical care were made to military officers by military officials for more than 50 years. Likewise Congress knew, or certainly should be charged with knowing, how the billions of dollars it appropriated for military medical care were allocated and that the amounts it appropriated for military pay were diminished by the imputed value of medical care on active duty and after retirement. Congress is presumed to know the terrain against which it legislates. To suggest it was oblivious, that it did not know military officials were promising medical care in accordance with its appropriations is pure sophistry. If it were otherwise, if Congress can appropriate billions for this aspect of national defense and not know how it is accounted for, then God save the Republic." Click here to see reference material.The Congressional Research Service Reports for Congress on "Military Health Care: The Issue of 'Promised' Benefits" tends to play up the role of the military recruiter as people that would have gone to any extreme to make a quota and play down the role of the active duty supervisors, 1st sergeants, commanding officers, and re-enlistment counselors all doing their job as ordered. The military recruiters and the active duty military did their jobs in an honorable manner as directed by the military hierarchy.If the CRS Report for Congress was looking for the whole truth concerning how the medical care promise was made they could have found a million stories similar to this:
In November of 1951, because of the military draft, I had to make a choice. I could volunteer to join or be drafted into the military. At that time I did talk to a military recruiter and I volunteered to join the military. I was told by the military recruiter that medical care would be provided for me and my wife while I was on active duty, and medical care after retirement was mentioned. I was very interested in the immediate medical care since I could not afford insurance based on what I would be paid. In November of 1951 I was not concerned about medical care after retirement because I had no interest in a military career, but because of medical care promises I changed my mind. That's the way it was suppose to work.
Much has been said concerning the recruiter's role in the making of the medical care promise. Based on my experience, too much emphasis is placed on the recruiters promise and this emphasis has creating a grave misunderstanding in the Congress. The Congress must understand that prior to joining the military I talked to a recruiter for about 30 minutes to fill out forms, and again when he gave me a bus ticket. I never talked to a recruiter again.
Think about this... it is not very likely that I would have remembered the medical care after retirement promise for 20 years if I had only heard the promise made once by a recruiter.My decision to stay in the military, and retire, was not based a recruiters promise. My decision was based on the promises made during my first four years in the military from 1951 to 1955. During this period the United States Air Force was engaged in an all-out campaign to get military personnel to reenlist. The campaign was very intense and very well organized. The medical care after retirement promise was made continuously. The promise was made to me by my Supervisors (on an almost daily basis), my 1st Sergeant (on a weekly basis), my Commanding Officer (at monthly briefings - commanders call), and Reenlistment Counselors (several times during the last 3 to 4 months of my first enlistment). The medical care after retirement promise was made openly, officially, and continuously to encourage me and other trained and experienced military personnel to remain in the military. The making of the medical care after retirement promise did not stop after my first enlistment. The promise was made to me throughout my 20 years in the Air Force.
In a few short years none of this will matter because all of the military retirees who are affected by this swindle will be dead and the swindle story will die with them. However, many of us will go on fighting for what we were promised until that final day will come for each of us. We were taught many things by the United States Military, but we were never taught how to quit.
Each of us wonders if there a set of rules in place today that protects the men and women who are fighting today's wars from being swindled out of what they are being promised, just like the greatest generation of military retirees are being swindled?
The military retiree medical care broken promise issue is the greatest swindle of all time. The medical care promise was made and a contract was formed. "A contract is any "legally-enforceable" promise or set of promises made by one party to another and, as such, reflects the policies represented by freedom of contract. In the civil law, contracts are considered to be part of the general law of obligations". How can it be fairly decided if any contract is "legally-enforceable" when one party involved in the contract is also the Judge?
It should be noted that while the military retirees were on active duty they had no way of knowing that the medical care after retirement promise being made by the military was invalid..... military retirees thought they were serving under the terms of a valid contract. We had no way of knowing that later in retirement we would be swindled out of the medical care that was being promised..... I am quite sure that the court recognized that the military retirees had been cheated and were victims of a swindle and this is why the court said, "Perhaps Congress will consider using its legal power to address the moral claims raised by Schism and Reinlie on their own behalf, and indirectly for other affected retirees". We have been waiting for the Congress to act on the courts suggestion. It's our last hope because the justice system has abandoned us.
I want to end this rebuttal to the CRS Report for Congress by taking a look at page CRS-4 of the 19 Jan 2006 CRS Report for Congress and a comment that make active duty military people look like idiots.The CRS wrote: "The end results appears to be that, regardless of the lack of statutory entitlements, many active duty personnel and their dependents, and retirees and their dependents, erroneously came to believe that they were guaranteed free health care in military facilities for life". This is the most insulting and ridiculous statement I have ever seen written by what is suppose to be a respectable and responsible government agency. I did not erroneously come to believe that I was guaranteed free health care in military facilities for life. I came to believe because; the leaders appointed over me made the medical care promise in good faith; the leaders that I would be required to follow into hell if necessary in defense of the United States of America told me so; the leaders I would give my life for if necessary told me so; the leaders that were like Gods to me told me so; the leaders I was suppose to believe told me so; the leaders that I trusted with my life told me so; the leaders sitting across the desk from me at re-enlistment time told me so; my Commander at Commanders call told me so; and as a result a contract was formed. I took an oath to obey the orders of the officers appointed over me and I believed what they told me. I came to believe that the medical care promise being made was as valid as an order to charge up a hill under fire.
========> That's how I came to believe! <======== Active duty military personnel did not erroneously come to believe. They came to believe because that's the way the military system works. One is told what to believe and they believe. A military person does not look for a lack of statutory entitlements when officers appointed over him/her passes out official information or gives an order. I came to believe because that is what I was required to do.
Wake up America else reports like this CRS Report for Congress will have every junior military person on active duty disbelieving or questioning what their superiors tell them. Active duty men and women must believe what they are told when it comes from an official source. That's the way the military system works. The United States Government has an obligation to pay and they should have paid this medical care bill when it was due because if this CRS Report for Congress, that brought us proud military retirees to our knees, continues unchallenged then the government and the American people will surely pay later.
I'm sure there are thousands of military retirees, military retiree spouses, and military retiree survivors, that have been lobbying the United States Congress, in great frustration, to regain the medical care they were promised now have "Anger PTSD". Anger is a strong emotion; a feeling that is oriented toward some real or supposed grievance. PTSD is a psychological reaction to a traumatic event or events. Being swindled out of the medical care military retirees were promised for 20 to 30 years of work and service to their country is certainly a traumatic event, and is just cause for anger. Prolonged anger has clear health consequences. Prolonged anger can lead to many deadly health issues, such as the many unexplained medical problems that military retirees suffer from. I have no way of determining what the breaking of the medical care promise has cost the American tax payers as a result of Anger PTSD, but it may be equal to what the government thinks they saved by breaking the medical care promise.The American people and the United States Congress must never forget that which is owed to its military retirees, military veterans, active duty military, and their eligible dependents. Ignoring events such as this medical care broken promise issue is slowly eroding the moral foundation of this nation. The United States was once a great nation that could be trusted to keep its promises yet now it's willing to cheat its military retirees out of the medical care they were promised, while on active duty, in retirement. From the 1940's to the 1990's, when people on active duty made the decision to serve until retirement, the rest of their life was centered on the medical care promise. I would not have served until retirement if there was no promise of medical care after retirement. In 1971, when I retired, a retirement check of $326 per month before taxes was certainly not an incentive to serve until retirement. There had to be something more and that something more was the promise of medical care. The medical care after retirement was referred to as "deferred compensation" and was used to justify the low pay of the active duty personnel. The government and the military hierarchy cut the active duty military pay short because it was said that they would make it up to them later in retirement "with the free medical care". This was just one more of the dirty tricks used to get the active duty personal to reenlist and serve until retirement.
May God help those that are responsible for this grave injusticeTHE GREATEST SWINDLE OF ALL TIME live with their conscience.
So, what can military retirees do?The first thing they must do is...
Second, they must try to hold onto what has been gained!As it stands Medicare payments to Doctors will be cut by about 10% on 1 July 08.If this happens then we will have a problem trying to find a Doctor that will accept us underMedicare and our Tricare for Life supplement will be worthless.Click here to see a plan for lobbying the Congress to stop cuts to Medicare payments.In addition to holding onto what we have gained we need to get the whole truth concerning themilitary retiree medical care broken promise issue out to the: United States Congress, theAmerican People, other Military Retirees, other Military Retiree Widows, and anyone elseinterested in justice and fair play.
We need to keep each other informed in reference to what we are doing.Click here to see a system for keeping each other informed.Click here to see a list of MRGRG lobbying participants.Click here to add your name to the MRGRG participant list. Click here to look at and listen to the greatest swindle of all time story.Click here to listen only to the greatest swindle of all time story - 11 minutes.
From here down is the original Retired Military Advocate web page that was introduced on the Internet on 17 Sept 1999 - encouraging Military Retirees to participate in a letter writing campaign to the U.S. Congress Demanding Restoration of Promised Medical Care, and to the American people via the news media asking for support. The following is another version of the greatest swindle of all time story which has been told above. If you have read to this point then you know the greatest swindle of all time story and the author of this web page thanks you.
THE RETIRED MILITARY ADVOCATE
"They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life.......... The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon.......... Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim.".......... United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, case number 99-1402, November 18, 2002.......... Of the thirteen Judges sitting en banc,......... nine found for the government and four found for the military retirees.......... This is part of a court's conclusion rendered in a lawsuit bought by military retirees against the government for breach of contract.......... However, it is also a good description of a swindle.......... The military hierarchy authorized the making of this medical care promise starting back in WWII, but according to this 2002 court decision they were not authorized to make the promise.......... So, all is forgotten,......... all is forgiven,......... we just write it off,......... and the military retirees that depended on that promise for medical care get swindled.......... What if you made payments on a house for 20 years under what you thought was a contract only to discover that the contract wasn't authorized and the house isn't yours?......... Would you fight for what you think is yours,......... or would you just roll over and play dead?......... Is there a set of rules in place today that protects the men and women that are fighting today’s wars from being swindled out of what they are being promised,......... just like the greatest generation of military retirees are being swindled?......... In a few short years it will not matter because all of the military retirees that are affected by this swindle will be dead and the swindle story will die with them..........
If you can not follow the above scrolling then click here.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said, "We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim." More...
After they serve their country for 20 or more years would you cheat and swindle the American military men and women who are fighting today's wars of what they are being promised? I don't think you would.
And, I don't think you would cheat the greatest generation of military retirees of the medical care they were promised if you knew the real story.
From WWII until the early 1990's military personnel in positions of authority acting as agents of the United States Government promised the active duty military that if they served for 20 or more years in the military and retired they would receive free medical care for themselves and their eligible dependents at military treatment facilities for as long as they lived.
Want proof of that promise? Want to see what the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has said? If so, click here to see a three judge ruling that we had a medical care contract. Click here to see an appeals ruling where nine judge admitted that the medical care promise was made, but pointed out that the Congress never ratified or acquiesced to the promise. Then click here to see what four dissenting judges had to say.
THIS MEDICAL CARE PROMISE HAS BEEN BROKEN.
Click here to look at and listen to a web page version of the true story.Click here to understand the difference between a military retiree and a military veteran.Click here to look at and listen to a PowerPoint Presentation of the true story.After the PowerPoint Presentation loads do a manual start.Click on "Slide Show" and "View Show".
THIS IS WHAT SOME MILITARY RETIREES ARE DOING
Members of the Military Retiree Grass Roots Group are lobbying the Congress in an effort to regain the medical care we were promised and to get cosponsors for HR1222 and HR1223. Previous lobbying got us Tricare for Life. Click here to see some of the history of that effort.
THIS IS THE CURRENT LOBBYING EFFORTClick here to see the current plan.After you send your message to the Congress...Click here to update the Educate the Congress Tracking System.After you update the Tracking System you will see a contact history data base...Then click here to see the Tracking System Activity file.This file will show you who is contacting who in the Congress...
Click here to e-mail the webmaster.
This web page is changed often.To insure that you have the latest information do a refresh or reload at your browser.
Links:----------------------------------------
MRGRG web page index My MRGRG HistoryMy LettersMy Talking PointsMy E-mail-listMyYahoo-PhotosMyYahoo-BriefcaseThe Laurel, MS, Summit Meeting Minutes of the Laurel Meeting The Greatest Swindle StoryRetirees-vs-VeteransSwindle Power PointSwindle Sound Track OnlyAdvertiseThe SwindleThe Billboard ProjectProclamationsRetiree/Veteran BriefingMRGRG-MS-TALKBrown-Bag-Project-Talk Lone Star GroupMRGRG e-mail network THOMAS-look-up BillsTRICARE-New-Web-SiteContact The CongressWrite Your RepSun HeraldSenate ListHouse ListMRGRG List Get Involved Do Not Quit A message to the CongressWrite MRGRG Record Book Read MRGRG Record BookLetters of AppreciationMRGRG-Survey
Lawsuit Rulings:8 Feb 01 Court Decision13 Jun 01 Appeal 18 Nov 02 Court Decision2 Jun 2003 Supreme CourtCAG Lawsuit Summary
Silly Stuff:Man eating bearMRGRG movenent Good bye tricare
Looking for Justice:----------------------------------------
Can you imagine one court's conclusion that says this... "The retirees entered active duty in the armed forces and completed at least twenty years service on the good faith belief that the government would fulfill its promises. The terms of the contract were set when the retirees entered the service and fulfilled their obligation. The government cannot unilaterally amend the contract terms now." Click here for more.
And, a second court's conclusion that starts like this..."We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon."
Would end like this... "Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim." Click here for more.
Click here to get acquainted with the military retiree medical care broken promise issue, and the greatest swindle of all time... a broken contract with America's military retirees.
Looking for Leadership:----------------------------------------
On 28 Feb 2007 Representatives Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Chet Edwards (D-TX), Jeff Miller (R-FL) and Walter Jones (R-NC) introduced two bills in Congress:a revised version of the Keep Our Promise to America’s Military Retirees Act - HR 1222 - click here to see cosponsors.and a new bill, the Keeping Faith with the Greatest Generation Military Retirees Act - HR 1223 - click here to see cosponsors.Click here to see a summary of HR 1222 and HR 1223
CRS Reports for Congress:
Military Health Care: The Issue of "Promised" Benefits
The 21 Dec 1998 ReportThe 16 Jan 2001 ReportThe 21 Nov 2002 ReportThe 12 Aug 2003 ReportThe 19 Jan 2006 ReportThe CRS Mission
Congress will accept the CRS reports as the unbiased truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, unless you intervene and tell the Congress otherwise.
The CRS has direct access to and can easily influence every Senator, every Representative, and every Congressional Staff member. You don't! You must work just a little bit harder to educate the Congress, but it can be done using information from this web site.
Educate the Congress:----------------------------------------
Send a letter, send a FAX, make a phone call, send an e-mail, or send a web form message.
Record your actions:
Click here to record your contacts in the MRGRG Tracking System.
Click here to look at the Tracking System data base.
Click here to leave your personal comments in the MRGRG Record Book.
Click here to look at the MRGRG Record Book.
Click here to see the MRGRG Tracking System Activity Monitor
The American people and the United States Congress must never forget that which is owed to its military retirees, military veterans, active duty military, and their eligible dependents.
Military retirees should always be ready to do whatever is right about whatever is wrong.
More Links:
----------------------------------------
BGen Bob ClementsBGen Bob - Lucky Phil-Alperson-Unsung-HeroRay-Boyden's-web-site TREA-letters-etcMark-Olanoff Whittington-Ink-SalesJim Whittington-SpeechesJim Whittington AwardGOOGLE Web SearchTHOMAS Bills SearchThe Online CampaignHarry-Riley's-BLOGFiring For EffectSave My TricareDaveylee Web SiteDavid PerkinsCAG-12-Feb-03-DC-March Gifford McCargarDonald WaterworthFrank CookPentagonMaverick
Bills to Watch in the110th Congress----------------------------------------
HR 579 - Military Retirees Health Care Protection Act - This Edwards-Jones bill would prohibit DoD from increasing TRICARE fees, specifying that theauthority to increase TRICARE fees exists only in Congress.
HR 1222 - a revised version of the Keep Our Promise to America’s Military Retirees Act.
HR 1223 - and a new bill, the Keeping Faith with the Greatest Generation Military Retirees Act.
Code of Conductfor Military Retirees:----------------------------------------
I am a retired American military fighting man. I served in the Armed Forces which guarded our country and our way of life. I was prepared to give my life in my country's defense. I will never forget that I was an American military fighting man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will continue to trust in my God and in the United States of America, and I will continue the fight (verbally and in writing) to regain the medical care that was promised to the American Military Retirees before their retirement for as long as I live.
Get Involved!
----------------------------------------
Keep the military retiree medical care broken promise issue alive:
Encourage your Representatives to support the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act.
Write letters to the editor of your local newspapers.
Get other military retirees involved.
Click here to get involved.
HR 1222 - Summary - Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act" (HR 1222) -- Fulfills promises to young recruits that quality health care would be available to them when they retired after a career in uniformed service to their country.
Allows Military Retirees to opt out of the Tricare military health system and enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefit (FEHB) plan if Tricare does not provide them adequate health care.
Maintains and improves access to the military pharmacy benefit for Military Retirees who opt out of Tricare and enroll in FEHB.
HR 1223 - Summary - Keeping Faith with the Greatest Generation Military Retirees Act'' (HR 1223) -- Addresses a specific obligation Congress has to military retirees who entered the uniformed services prior to 1956. They joined the service under one set of rules but retired under a different set of rules that stripped them of health care that had been provided routinely to them. In 2002, a Federal Appeals Court called on Congress to use its legal authority to address the "moral claims" of this class of military retirees.
Waives Medicare Part B Premiums for Military Retirees who entered the uniformed services prior to December 7, 1956, because they entered the service under one set of rules but retired under a different set of rules that stripped them of promised and earned health care.
The Military Retiree Grass Roots Group (MRGRG) is a group of "individuals" with a common goal of regaining the medical care benefits promised to military retirees after their retirement. We influence, support, and communicate with each other via the Internet (e-mail and web pages), but each individual is responsible for his/her own actions. If you have taken any action(s) via e-mails, letters, FAXes, phone calls, etc, to influence the Congress, in reference to our common goal, then you are a member of the MRGRG. The MRGRG is not an organization.
Click here to add your name to the Military Retiree Grass Roots Group (MRGRG) e-mail list.Click here to contact the Retired Military Advocate web master.
To educate the Congress on military retiree issues, do this...Send your message to the Congress using, regularmail, FAX, e-mail, web forms, or telephone.Click here to learn about the greatest swindle of all time... a broken contract with America's military retirees.
To tell other military retirees what you are doing, do this...Click here to record your contacts in theEducate the Congress Tracking System, and to enteryour comments in the MRGRG Educate the Congress Record Book.To see more on "recording your actions" click here.
Floyd Sears and WXXV-TV at the raising of a billboard, near Pascagoula, MS, which was designed to keep the military retiree medical care broken promise issue alive.
Keep the military retiree medical care broken promise issue alive,
This caricature, designed by Shirley DuBey, and drawn by Jack Dempsey, was extracted from a billboard which was designed to advertise the military retiree medical care broken promise issue.
until the promise is kept for all military retirees.
The greatest swindle of all time
Click here to look at and listen to a web page version of the greatest swindle of all time
Click here to download a narrated PowerPoint version of the greatest swindle of all time
Click here to download the PowerPoint Viewer 2003
Click here to listen to the greatest swindle of all time narration onlyClick here to listen to the difference between a military retiree and a military veteran narration only
My name is Floyd Sears. I am a military retiree and a military veteran. I served the United States of America in the United States Air Force for 20 years from 1951 to 1971.
Please allow me to tell you about...
The greatest swindle of all time...a broken contract with America's military retirees.
This is my story, but any one of the other 1.8 million military retirees affected by this swindle could tell you the same story.
As we examine this issue think about the words
"fraud" and "swindle".
Fraud: Is a deliberate deception for unfair or unlawful gain. A trick.To Swindle: Is to cheat or defraud of money or property.
Also think about the definition of a contract, with the most basic elements being the offer and the acceptance of the offer.
The contractual offer
From WWII to the early 1990's, agents of the United States Government made this offer.
Serve for 20 years in the military and retire, and you will receive full free medical care for yourself and your eligible dependents, at military treatment facilities, for as long as you and your eligible dependents live.
Events have proven that this promise was the greatest gimmick, promotional stratagem, and swindle of all time, and the active duty military believed it as they were suppose to.
It is important to note that this promise did not indicate that a military retiree would have to use and pay for a medical care plan such as Medicare, and a Medicare supplement, when he or she reached age 65. It did not indicate that a military retiree would have to use and make copays to an HMO type medical care plan, such as Tricare. And, it did not indicate that the promise applied to non military retiree veterans. One had to serve for at least 20 years and retire in order to be eligible for the promised medical care.
This promise was made initially by Military Recruiters.
Then over a 20 to 30 year period by, Basic Training Instructors, line level Supervisors, 1st Sergeants, Commanding Officers, and Reenlistment Counselors, all agents of the United States government, as directed by publications received from the highest level of the military hierarchy.
The military hierarchy authorized the making of the promise, because it was the law. Prior to 7 June 1956, TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART II, CHAPTER 55, Section. 1074, (b) of the U.S. Code stated...
Under joint regulations to be prescribed by the administering Secretaries, a member or former member of a uniformed service who is entitled to retired or retainer pay, or equivalent pay shall, upon request, be given medical and dental care in any facility of any uniformed service.
The promise was made to encourage the trained and experienced military personnel to remain in the military. The prime reason for making the promise was to save the American taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars by not having to train replacements every two to four years. It was all about money.
On 7 June 1956, Congress changed TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART II, CHAPTER 55, Section. 1074, (b) of the U.S. Code as follows.
Under joint regulations to be prescribed by the administering Secretaries, a member or former member of a uniformed service who is entitled to retired or retainer pay, or equivalent pay may, upon request, be given medical and dental care in any facility of any uniformed service, subject to the availability of space and facilities and the capabilities of the medical and dental staff. See US Code
Congress altered the US Code to change the word "shall" to "may", added the words “subject to the availability of space and facilities and the capabilities of the medical and dental staff”, and the stage was set for military base closures, the breaking of the medical care promise, and the greatest swindle of all time.
THE GOVERNMENT/MILITARY
There was no fanfare or warning given to the active duty military concerning this major change to the law that would drastically affect their lives, later in retirement, and the military establishment continued to make the same medical care promise.
The medical care promise was still being made as late as 1991.
The content of the poster amplified.
Superb Health Care. Health care is provided to you and your family members while you are in the Army, and for the rest of your life if you serve a minimum of 20 years of Federal service to earn your retirement.
Take a close look at this health care promise that was being made as late as 1991. Not only does it promise health care, but it promises "superb health care". It clearly indicates that health care is promised to you (the service member), and also to your family members while in the Army and for the rest of your life if you earn retirement. Note the numbers in the boxes. Note that the poster was printed in the United States Government Printing Office (U.S.G.P.O.1992 643-711) on (RPI 909 NOVEMBER 1991).
Click here to see other Famous Pentagon Quotes on Recruiting.
In the late 1980s, Congress and the Department of Defense started the process of closing military bases and medical facilities where the medical care promise was supposed to be kept.
As a result the space, facilities, and the capabilities of the medical staff were substantially reduced, the Military Health Care System had to change, and TRICARE was born.
In 1995, TRICARE came to Keesler AFB, where I had been receiving medical care since 1961, I turned 65, was not eligible to enroll in Tricare Prime, had to leave Keesler AFB, go on Medicare, pay for Medicare Part B and a Medicare supplement, and the medical care promise was broken for the author of this web page, and millions like him that were over 65.
The medical care promise was also broken for millions of other military retirees, including those under age 65, because they had to start paying for their medical care. The government reneged on their promise.
It was all about money when the promise was made and it's all about money now.
It's the greatest swindle of all time. It's a broken contract with America's military retirees.
The acceptance of the offer
From 1951 to 1971 - Floyd Sears, and millions like him, accepted the offer (believed the promise) and took a similar oath:
I do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America; that I will serve honestly and faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
I made a promise and I kept my promise. I would have died if necessary to keep my promise. The fact is I had no choice. I went where I was suppose to go (no matter what the hardship), I did what I was ordered to do (with no choice in the matter), and I obey orders (without question).
Military personnel must believe what they are told, when it comes from an official source. They have no choice. It's required by military law. I had to believe what I was being told. I had to believe the medical care promise.
The military person is trained, from day one, to trust their leaders and believe what they are being told. In the military, believing what one is told is the first step in obeying orders. If a military person is told that they must kill the enemy in combat and is also told that if they serve for 20 years in the military and retires they will receive free medical care for themselves and their eligible dependents at military treatment facilities for as long as they and their eligible dependents live, should they believe the one thing they are told and disbelieve the other?
I trusted and respected my military and elected leaders. I believed what I was told and I believed what I was promised. They, my leaders, could and did depend on me. I never let them down. I never reneged on my promise.
Let me tell you about the lawsuit seeking justice.
Colonel (retired) George E. Day
In July 1996: A lawsuit was filed on behalf of William O. Schism and Robert L. Reinlie (plaintiffs) by Colonel (retired) George E. Day, of Fort Walton Beach, Florida, seeking monetary damages, in the Federal District Court of Pensacola, Florida, charging age discrimination, 5th amendment taking of property, and breach of contract.
In June 1997: The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim of age discrimination, but agreed to hear further argument on their 5th amendment taking of property and breach-of-contract theories.
In August 1998: The District Court denied plaintiffs’ entire petition.
In December 1998: The Plaintiffs appealed to US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Washington, D.C.
In March 2000: The Federal court heard oral arguments of both parties.
In February 2001: A three judge panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Washington, DC, overturned the Pensacola, Florida, Federal District Court's decision, and finds that military retirees, who entered service before 7 June 1956, had been promised free lifetime health care in return for a career of military service and were due compensation of up to $10,000 each for the government’s failure to live up to that promise. This decision was appealed by the United States Government.
In June 2001: The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Washington, DC, agrees to a rehearing before the full (en banc) court.
On 6 March 2002: The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Washington, DC, heard oral argument from both sides in the case.
On 18 November 2002: The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Washington, DC, made a ruling which affirmed the US Government's position that military retirees have no legal standing to receive the medical care promised. This decision was appealed by the plaintiffs.
On 24 January 2003: A Petition for a writ of Certiorari was filed in the Supreme Court of the United States.
On 2 June 2003: The Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.
The author of this web page is somewhat confused concerning the court's decision.
Think about this.
You agree to make 20 payments to purchase an automobile. The dealer receives and makes full use of your 20 payments. Now the car is yours, right? Wrong! The dealer says you can not have the car because the salesman who sold it to you was not authorized to make the contract. You say that this is ridiculous, and of course you are right because you had a contract. There was an offer and an acceptance of the offer and you fulfilled your part of the contract.
What if you are made this offer: Serve for 20 years in the military, and retire, and you will receive free medical care for yourself and your eligible dependents, at military treatment facilities, for as long as you and your eligible dependents live, and you accept. Is that a contract? Yes it is, but beware. The US Court of Appeals for the federal circuit has said, in the WILLIAM O. SCHISM and ROBERT L. REINLIE v. the UNITED STATES case, “We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim”.
So, we have the military hierarchy making a promise from the early 1940’s to the early 1990’s they were not authorized to make, and we have the greatest swindle of all time… a broken contract with America's military retirees.
In their 18 November 2002 ruling the court said that "Perhaps Congress will consider using its legal power to address the moral claims raised by Schism and Reinlie on their own behalf, and indirectly for other affected retirees." The Congress claims that the United States of America can not afford to keep the medical care promise made by the military, and we have a stand-off. The Congress will not comply with the Court's recommendation.
This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.
There was an important job to be done and Everybody was asked to do it. Everybody was sure Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.
Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.
~ More MRGRG-MS.ORG Web Pages ~
Rep Chris Van Hollen #1
MRGRG Lobbying Activities Information Board
The Governor Haley Barbour proclamation in support of military retiree medical care
The GREATEST SWINDLE of all time
ADVERTISING the greatest swindle of all time
Military retiree medical care broken promise issue BRIEFING GUIDE
Military retiree medical care broken promise issue BRIEFING GUIDE (.pdf format)
A HISTORY of the MRGRG effort to regain promised medical care
The Military Retiree Medical Care Broken Promise Issue TALKING POINTS
A Military Retiree Grass Roots Group (MRGRG)
Admiral Stockdale and Colonel Day at the 22 Sep 1998 CONVENTION to EDUCATE CONGRESS
Minutes of a MILITARY RETIREE SUMMIT meeting held in Laurel Mississippi on 27 March 1999
Military Retiree Medical Care RESOLUTIONS and PROCLAMATIONS
LETTERS to The Sun Herald Editor - by Floyd Sears, MSGT, USAF, 1951 to 1971 (Ret).
EDITORIALS by: The Sun Herald, Biloxi, MS
HISTORY of the MRGRG BILLBOARD project - Jack Hollinsworth - manager
A Donald Waterworth - American Military Retiree Association - MOBILE BILLBOARD
CAG - The military retiree medical care Class Action Lawsuit HISTORY
CAG - The Colonel Day - William O. Schism and Robert L. Reinlie lawsuit - 8 Feb 2001 ruling
CAG - The Colonel Day - William O. Schism and Robert L. Reinlie lawsuit - 13 Jun 2001 ruling
CAG - The Colonel Day - William O. Schism and Robert L. Reinlie lawsuit - 18 Nov 2002 ruling
CAG - United States Supreme Court REJECTS Col Bud Day's military retiree medical care case
CAG - McCain, deeply CONCERNED by Supreme Court action on veterans health care
CAG - Comments on the 18 November 2002 ruling
CAG - PHOTOS of the Class Act Group 12 Feb 2003 Washington DC Rally
CAG- Class Act Group march for PROMISED health benefits on 12 Feb 2003 - by David Perkins
CAG- More information on the Colonel Day - William O. Schism and Robert L. Reinlie lawsuit
CAG - Colonel George (Bud) Day BIOGRAPHY
Military Retirees by State
Military Retirees by State - as of 30 Sep 2002 - by Charlie Revie
BACK TO THE BASICS - NAUS had it right in 1997
Bob Clements, BGen, USAF (ret) - The LUCKIEST PEOPLE alive
Congressman Gene Taylor - in support of keeping the medical care promise
See and hear Congressman Gene Taylor in support of keeping the medical care promise (.mpg file)
Ollie F. (Frank) Cook's - "BRAC" Page
Ollie F. (Frank) Cook, USAF (Ret.) - Remembers Ankara
LETTERS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - 1 May 1998
A Letter To The American People via The News Media - 1 May 1998
* http://mrgrg-ms.org/doc09.html ????
* http://mrgrg-ms.org/doc12.html ???
* http://mrgrg-ms.org/doc98.html ???
Gifford D. McCargar - personal web page
Jim Whittington - Beckie Thrash at the 27 March 1999 Laurel, MS, meeting
Jim Whittington - DAR Community Service Award
Jim Whittington - MRGRG auto tag
THE GATHERING - a regional MRGRG Summit Meeting held in Lawton Oklahoma
HR 2966 - The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act - introduced - 28 Sep 1999
HR 3573 - The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act - introduced - 02 Feb 2000
HR 58 ---- The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act - introduced - 07 Jan 2003
HR 3474 - The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act - introduced - 06 Nov 2003
H.R. 58 and H.R. 3474 - The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act (Comparison)
The Retired Military Advocate letter to the United States Congress - sent on or about June 1997
Robert (Bob) Thompson - PROJECT ONWARD
Morrie B - Military Health Care: The Issue of "Promised" Benefits
MRGRG - State Level Discussion Groups - Organization
News media e-mail addresses put together by the Class Act Group
What Military Retirees Must Do To Regain Benefits They Were Promised!
MRGRG- PICKET by POST CARD
* Mississippi Gulf Coast - MILITARY RETIREE PICKET
* Mississippi Gulf Coast - MILITARY RETIREE PICKET
* Picket goal
* Proposed Resolution for the Great State of Mississippi
* A Summary of the Mississippi Gulf Coast MILITARY RETIREE PICKET
Pink slip
RONNIE SHOWS - The 1st Annual Appreciation Luncheon
RONNIE SHOWS - A Letter of Appreciation - Part 1
RONNIE SHOWS - A Letter of Appreciation - Part 2
RONNIE SHOWS - The Presentation of a Letter of Appreciation
RONNIE SHOWS - Talk Show - Sundays - 4pm to 5pm - click on - Live Streaming Broadcast
When you see the old guys image... click here
Operation TELL-EM
TRICARE Town Meetings In Mississippi
USA Nationwide MILITARY RETIREE PICKET PLAN
Legislative Update 107th Congress December 2001
WPG - The MRGR Group WHITE PAPER Introduction Document
WPG - The White Paper
WPG - Statement to the Committee on Armed Services
WPG - More information on the White paper
Links to Class Act Lawsuit Information
8 Feb 2001 Ruling
13 July 2001 Ruling
18 Nov 2002 Ruling
Comments on Ruling
CAG History
12 Feb 2003 Rally photos
The White Paper on Military Health Care Sequence of Events
The White Paper on Military Health Care Story... (more)
White Paper posted on the Internet... (more)
Downloadable copies of White Paper posted on the Internet... (more)
Three page White Paper Introduction Document released... (more)
White Paper Delivered to the Senate and House... (more)
Operation TELL-EM initiated... (more)
David Vann's White Paper testimony to the HASC... (more)
For The Record
The Retired Military Advocate web site went on-line on 17 September 1997 to assist the military retirees regain the medical care they were promised before their retirement.
On 12 Oct 2000, with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (HR 4205) which was signed into law on 30 Oct 2000 as Public Law 106-398, an entitlement called Tricare For Life (TFL) was established. See http://www.tricare.osd.mil/ndaa/fast_facts.htm. TFL became effective on 1 Oct 2001.
This TFL entitlement came about as the result of Congressional lobbying by various Veterans Service Organizations in Washington and by a group of military retirees working at the grass roots level that came to be known as the Class Act Group (CAG), and the Military Retiree Grass Roots Group (MRGRG). This web site is dedicated to the individuals of these two groups.
The CAG and the MRGRG is not an organization, it is group of individuals with a common goal of regaining the benefits promised to military retirees before their retirement. They influence, support, and communicate with each other via the Internet, but each individual is responsible for his/her own actions.
The efforts at the grass roots level to regain the medical care that was promised to military retirees before their retirement focused on educating the American people via letters to the editor, pickets, demonstrations, and billboards. The efforts to educate and influence the Congress was accomplished via e-mails, letters, FAXes, phone calls, group meetings, and one-on-one meetings.
If you were involved in any of these activities to influence the Congress then you are a member of the CAG and the MRGRG and this web site is dedicated to you.
The American people and the United States Congress must never forget that which is owed to its military retirees, military veterans, active duty military, and their eligible dependents.
Code of Conduct for Military RetireesDeveloped on 12 March 1998,byFloyd H. Sears, MSGT, USAF, 1951-1971, (Retired)using words fromthe Code of Conduct for The Armed Forces of The United States.
I am a retired American military fighting person. I served in the Armed Forces which guarded our country and our way of life. I was prepared to give my life in my country's defense. I will never forget that I was an American military fighting person, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will continue to trust in my God and in the United States of America, and I will continue the fight (verbally and in writing) to regain the medical care that was promised to the American Military Retirees before their retirement for as long as I live.
The United States Military taught me many things,but never taught me how to give-up and quit.
The United States Military Retiree Creed, 3 June 2007: (By Floyd Sears using the United States Air Force Creed as a guide)
I am a United States Military Retiree.I am a tested warrior.For 20 or more years I answered my nation's call.
I am a United States Military Retiree.My mission is to stay active in retirement, fight for the medical care we were promised, and win. I am faithful to a proud heritage, a tradition of honor, and a legacy of valor.
I am a United States Military Retiree.Guardian of our freedom and justice in the nation's courts, my nation's sword and shield, its sentry and avenger.I defended my country with my life.
I am a United States Military Retiree:a companion, leader, and warrior.I will never leave a United States Military Retiree behind, I will never falter, and I will not fail.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America,and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible,With Liberty and Justice for all.
Are we really going to just sit down and let Congress treat our Military like old used up ragdolls. Anyone of us would have to keep our contractual agreements and yet the promises and contracts made with our Military Members are being breached in unthinkable ways.....This is a national disgrace.
Just read this:
THE RETIRED MILITARY ADVOCATE,Floyd Sears, MSGT, USAF, 1951 to 1971, retired,tells the greatest military retiree swindle story of all time here. Remember this... if you don't tell Congress otherwise they will think everything is OK.Click here to get Congressional contact information. Click here to record your attempts to educate the Congress.
E-mail the webmaster... Join the MRGRG-MS e-mail list... Join the MRGRG-MS-TALK discussion group.This web page is dedicated to the Military Retiree Grass Roots Group of military retirees and dependents that have been lobbying the Congress since 1995 trying to regain the medical care they were promised, while they were on active duty, which was to take affect after retirement.
Consider this:
What would you do if you made payments on a house for 20 years under what you thought was a contract only to discover that the contract wasn't authorized and the house isn't yours? What would you do if the people that sold you the house closed the house and told you that you could not live there anymore?
Would you fight for what is yours, or would you just roll over and play dead? Now consider this:
What would you do if you served for 20 or more years in the military being told that if you served until retirement you would receive free medical care for yourself and your eligible dependents at military treatment facilities for as long as you or they lived only to discover, via a court ruling, that the promise wasn't authorized and the government reneges on the promise?
What would you do if you were told that you could not use the military treatment facility where you had been receiving medical care for years, and you had to go on Medicare and pay for Medicare part B just like the average citizen that never served a day in the military?
Would you fight for what is yours, or would you just roll over and play dead? From WWII until the early 1990's military personnel in positions of authority acting as agents of the United States Government promised the active duty military that if they served for 20 or more years in the military and retired they would receive free medical care for themselves and their eligible dependents at military treatment facilities for as long as they lived. This medical care promise has been broken and has been swept under the rug by the Congress, the Courts, and the Congressional Research Service.
Analyze the content of this web site and then you be the judge.Was the military retiree community cheated out of the medical care they were promised?
Use the links below and take a close look at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisionsin the WILLIAM O. SCHISM and ROBERT L. REINLIE lawsuit introduced by...
Medal of Honor recipient Colonel George Day (retired)
As you look at these court decisions... note that one group of judges said that military retirees had a contract and another group of judges, on appeal, admits that a promise of full free health care was made in good faith and relied upon, but it was not authorized by the Congress. This is double talk. The United States Armed Forces, an agency of the United States Government, made the medical care promise. A contract was formed when the promise was made and accepted. The military retirees fulfilled their part of the contract, but the United States Government has not.
Click here to see a court decision in favor of military retirees.Click here to see what happened when the Government appealed that decision.Click here to see what the dissenting Judges had to say about the decision against the military retirees.
Click here to look at and listen to a full web page version of the greatest swindle of all time story.Click here to see a YouTube scaled down version video of the Military Retiree swindle story. Click here to see a full video version of the greatest swindle of all time story.Click here to listen to the greatest swindle of all time story.Click here or here to see a 2003 USA Today article.Click here and here to see a Jayme Evan's article.
In 1951 - Floyd Sears solemnly swore that he would bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America; that he would serve honestly and faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever; and that he would obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over him, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In 1951 - Floyd Sears was a gullible and naive young man that believed what he was being told, as he was suppose to according to the oath he took, when the information came from an official source. He believed that he and his dependents would receive full free health care for life after he retired.
Now Floyd Sears is an old military retiree that served his country for 20 years with the understanding that when he retired he and his dependents would receive full free health care for life. The court has said, much to the delight of the United States Congress, "that the promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon". The court went on to say... "However, because no authority existed [for the military] to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, they have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim. Based on a court's decision, Floyd Sears now realizes that he and millions like himself have been swindled out of the medical care they were promised by the country they swore to serve honestly and faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever.
NOTE: You will see references to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit often as the greatest swindle of all time story is told.
This is the situation military retirees are faced with. From WWII to the middle 1990's the United States Military Hierarchy, acting as agents of the United States Government, authorized the making of a promise to provide free medical care to those active duty personnel that would serve in the military until retirement. The government says the promise was not authorized by the Congress and has reneged on the promise.
You might think that the Congress would be outraged by this situation, but they wave their flags and make speeches concerning how much they appreciate what the military retirees have done for their nation on national holidays and other occasions, but when the flag waving and the speech making is done the military retirees that served them faithfully are forgotten. Out of sight out of mind.
This military retiree medical care broken promise issue is the greatest swindle of all time... it's a broken contract with America's military retirees.
A medical care promise was made and the order to make the medical care promise came down from the highest levels of the military hierarchy.QUOTE FROM http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm : "I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher- ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service." : General Smedley Butler. USMC (Ret.)
General Smedley was not making reference to the military retiree medical care broken promise issue, but I think his words "My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher- ups" describes very well how people in the military handled the making of the medical care promise and other orders received from the highest levels of the military hierarchy.
The Congress had to know that the promise of medical care after retirement was being made and probably knew that the promise would not be kept, but they allowed the promise to be made anyway.
The medical care promise was used to entice people to re-enlist. It was serving a purpose and it was working. Why stop it?
The role of the re-enlistment counselor in the USAF was not a wishie-washie operation. It was well organized and official. Click here to see a testimonial of a former Unit Retention Counselor.
This is part of a court's conclusion rendered in a lawsuit brought by military retirees against the government for breach of contract. It is also a good description of a swindle. "They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim."
The court also said... "Perhaps Congress will consider using its legal power to address the moral claims raised by Schism and Reinlie on their own behalf, and indirectly for other affected retirees.", but the congress has done nothing. To verify this quote click here.
A swindle is... an intentional false representation to obtain money or any other thing of value, where deception is accomplished through the victim's belief in the validity of some statement or object presented by the offender.
The military personnel that were making the promise had no reason to believe that the promise being made was invalid. People on active duty in the military have an obligation and a duty to believe what they are being told when it comes from an official source, and they had no reason to believe that the medical care promise being made was invalid anymore than an order to charge up a hill under fire was invalid.
The offer of free medical care after retirement was made by the military hierarchy, understood and accepted by military personnel, and a contract was formed. The military retirees fulfilled their part of the contract, but the government reneged on the promised of free medical care.
So, all is forgotten, all is forgiven, we just write it off, and the military retirees who depended on this promise for medical care get swindled.We fought hard in the Congress and in the Courts to regain the medical care we were promised, but we were overwhelmed and defeated by the unlimited resources of the United States Government Justice System. We simply could not compete with the government's unlimited resources.One of the big questions concerning the medical care promise is... did the Congress ratify or acquiesce to the military retiree medical care promise? Did the Congress Know that the medical care promise was being made? Read what the dissenting judges had to say at ..."Promises of lifetime medical care were made to military officers by military officials for more than 50 years. Likewise Congress knew, or certainly should be charged with knowing, how the billions of dollars it appropriated for military medical care were allocated and that the amounts it appropriated for military pay were diminished by the imputed value of medical care on active duty and after retirement. Congress is presumed to know the terrain against which it legislates. To suggest it was oblivious, that it did not know military officials were promising medical care in accordance with its appropriations is pure sophistry. If it were otherwise, if Congress can appropriate billions for this aspect of national defense and not know how it is accounted for, then God save the Republic. Of course Congress knew; of course the service secretaries authorized promises in return for service; of course these military officers served until retirement in reliance; and of course there is a moral obligation to these men: it is called honoring the contract the United States made with them and which they performed in full. Because the court countenances the government’s breach of the implied contracts and its taking of the rights vested in these retired servicemen, I dissent." and you be the judge.
The author of this web page believes that the Congress knew the medical care promise was being made. The author of this web page believes that the infamous "subject to the availability of space and facilities and the capabilities of the medical and dental staff" words were added to the U.S. Code to make it legal to close bases where the medical care promise was suppose to be kept. If the government had intended to keep the medical care promise then why was it necessary to add those words to the U.S. Code? The mere fact that those words were added to the U.S. Code is a clear indication that the Congress knew the medical care promise was being made and they needed to start taking actions such that the promise would not have to be kept. If the space and facilities were reduced or removed where the promise was suppose to be kept then the medical care promise would be null and void. All of this was justified under the standard guise of saving tax payer dollars.
How can the Congress look at what the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has said... "We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim." ... and not see that America's military retirees have been swindled?
Why didn't the Congress stop the making of the unauthorized medical care promise right after it started? Why didn't the Congressional Research Service investigate this matter and report that an unauthorized promise was being made to potential career military men and women? They did not stop the promise of medical care after retirement because it was working as a (what turned out to be) deceptive incentive to get the experienced military personnel to reenlist.
The military hierarchy authorized the making of this medical care promise in good faith starting back in World War II, but according to a 2002 court decision they were not authorized to make the promise. I can not believe that the military hierarchy would authorize a promise of such magnitude knowing that it was illegal.
The Congressional Research Service Reports for Congresson"Military Health Care: The Issue of 'Promised' Benefits"andthe part that was not reported to the CongressAll of the legal mumbo jumbo contained in the following Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports to the Congress does not change the fact that military retirees were promised free medical care after retirement and have been cheated out of what they were promised. The elements of a contract were set when the active duty military entered into an agreement with the Armed Forces of the United States. And, all of the legal mumbo jumbo contained in the following CRS reports to the Congress does not change the fact that military retirees were swindled out of what they were promised. Somebody or some agency needs to be held accountable. If it isn't the United States Government then who is it?The following CRS Reports for Congress on "Military Health Care: The Issue of 'Promised' Benefits" played a major role in the processes that bought about the 18 Nov 2002 defeat of the Schism and Reinlie lawsuit brought by Medal of Honor recipient Colonel George Day (retired). The Schism and Reinlie lawsuit was designed to regain the medical care that was promised to military retirees.
21 Dec 1998 Report16 Jan 2001 Report 21 Nov 2002 Report 12 Aug 2003 Report 19 Jan 2006 Report
The author of this web page is intrigued by this one sentence in the History and Mission of the CRS. "Indeed, the sole mission of CRS is to serve the United States Congress.". Running the risk of this being taken out of context... I feel it is reasonable to assume that this means the CRS had no particular obligation to serve the interest of the military retirees seeking justice within the justice system. Click here to see the History and Mission of the CRS.
This is a rebuttal to the CRS Reports for Congress on..."Military Health Care: The Issue of 'Promised' Benefits".
Although the comments of the dissenting judges Chief Judge Mayer, Circuit Judge Newman, Senior Circuit Judge Plager, and Circuit Judge Gajarsa, click here, rebut these CRS Reports for Congress very well I feel that it is proper and reasonable for a military retiree to also rebut these CRS Reports for Congress on "Military Health Care: The Issue of 'Promised' Benefits". I have no official way of presenting this web page to the Congress, but it needs to be presented to the Congress because the minds of the Congress have been set in concrete by an incomplete CRS Report. However, on the off chance that some Senator or Representative may wander this way... here is a rebuttal to this CRS Report for Congress by one military retiree.Obviously I can not rebut every word of the 5 documents listed above. Therefore I will rebut the SUMMARY paragraph of the 19 Jan 2006 Report for Congress. I have numbered each sentence of the SUMMARY paragraph to facilitate my rebuttal. My rebuttal follows the SUMMARY.Let it be clearly understood that the author of this rebuttal is not saying that these CRS reports are false, but let it also be clearly understood that the author of this rebuttal is saying that these reports are incomplete. These Reports for Congress tell one side of the story and makes the manner in which the medical care promise was made to the active duty military appear to be insignificant, and unimportant. Did Congress acquiesce to this medical care after retirement promise? Whether they did or did not is unimportant to the author of this rebuttal because the Congress never promised me anything. In my case, ranking members of the USAF made the medical care promise to me over a 20 year period. In their defense I do not believe that they knowingly made an unauthorized promise. The court agrees with my belief. The court said, "The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon." Click here to see reference material. If the Armed Forces of the United States was making an unauthorized promise then why didn't the Congress take the necessary actions to stop the making of the promise? Why didn't the CRS step in and make a report to the Congress that unauthorized promises were being made? Let it be understood that members of the United States Armed Forces are trained to believe, and had to believe what they were being told when it came from an official source. And, let it be understood that military personnel did not have personal lawyers to advise them whether they should or should not believe what they were being told. In the early 1950's, at Carswell AFB, the squadron I was assigned to was marched to the base theater on a weekly basis to watch films such as "Victory At Sea", and other WWII documentaries. At these military briefings we were told many things that we had to believe, including the promise of free medical care for life if we served for 20 or more years in the military and retired.Can you imagine what would happen to a low ranking person if he/she challenged their Commanding Officer in reference to whether or not he/she was making an unauthorized statement/promise? If the military hierarchy was making an unauthorized promise then it should have been stopped as soon as it started. It should not have been allowed to go on over a person's 20 to 30 year career. This SUMMARY paragraph was extracted from http://mrgrg-ms.org/crs1006e-the-issue-of-promised-benefits.pdf
1). Many military health care beneficiaries, particularly military retirees, their dependents, and those representing their interests, state that they were promised “free health care for life at military facilities” as part of their “contractual agreement” when they entered the armed forces.
2). Efforts to locate authoritative documentation of such promises have not been successful.
3). Congressional report language and recent court decisions have rejected retiree claims seeking ‘free care at military facilities’ as a right or entitlement.
4). These have held that the current medical benefit structure made up of military health care facilities, Tricare and Medicare provide lifetime health care to military members, retirees and their respective dependents.
5). Nevertheless, claims continue to be made, particularly by those seeking additional benefits from the Department of Defense, or attempting to prevent an actual or perceived reduction in benefits. THE REBUTAL:Item 1). Many military health care beneficiaries, particularly military retirees, their dependents, and those representing their interests, state that they were promised “free health care for life at military facilities” as part of their “contractual agreement” when they entered the armed forces.Rebuttal: The "Many" word should be changed to "Millions of". The "many" word tends to mislead someone (like Senators, Representatives, and their staff members) that knows nothing about how the promise was made to believe that the promise was made to just a few, but not all members of the active duty military. In reference to, "when they entered the armed forces". This statement is very misleading because it makes it appear that the promise of medical care was made only by recruiters to new recruits. Anyone who has been through the trauma associated with the induction into the Armed Forces knows that the last thing a recruit is thinking about is something that may happen 20 years down the road. The new recruit is thinking about how he/she will make it through the next few hours or the next few days. As I will explain later, what the recruiter said during the recruiting process is relatively unimportant. The military indoctrination and training processes that happens over a 20 to 30 year period on active duty in reference to medical care after retirement is very important. To place blame on a recruiter for misleading recruits in reference to the medical care promise is ridiculous. The recruiters followed approved procedures to get people into the military. The active duty supervisors, 1st sergeants, commanding officers, and re-enlistment counselors did what was necessary to keep people in the military.Item 2). Efforts to locate authoritative documentation of such promises have not been successful.Rebuttal: I have a problem with the "Efforts" word. What was the extent of the effort to locate authoritative documentation. What kind of authoritative documents was the CRS Report for Congress looking for. Was the report looking for the check lists that members of the military signed to indicate that they understood the medical care promise that was being made during re-enlistment briefings? Click here for more information. If the CRS Report was looking for that documentation then it certainly could not be found because those check lists were either destroyed or given to the service member on his retirement. Did the CRS Report for Congress try to find military retirees that may have kept that kind of documentation? Most military retirees would not have kept that kind of documentation because there was no need to keep documents like that. After all a promise had been made by the most honorable Armed Forces in the world acting as an agent of the United States government the most honorable government in the world. Why would a person need to prove that a valid promise was made. If one would reason that a retiring member of the military should have made copies of certain documents then one should remember that we didn't have copying machines back in the days in question. Then one could ask that if the check lists were found would they be authoritative documentation that the medical care promise was made by military personal acting in their official capacity under orders as agents of the United States government. The re-enlistment check lists were official authoritative documentation. Click here for more information.In their efforts to locate authoritative documentation that the medical care promise was made, how many military retirees did the CRS Report for Congress interview? One hundred? One Thousand? One million? Did the CRS Report for Congress take any actions to get sworn statements from military retirees concern the intensity of how the medical care promise was made. The author of this rebuttal believes that the CRS Report for Congress found what it wanted to find to make the case against the military retirees and nothing more.Item 3). Congressional report language and recent court decisions have rejected retiree claims seeking ‘free care at military facilities’ as a right or entitlement.Rebuttal: By rejecting the retiree claims, is the CRS Report for Congress putting it self on the same level as a court? If this is true then there was no point in having a trial. Or, is the CRS report setting itself up as being Biblical in nature where it's finding are indisputable. What about the language of the millions of military retirees that are being swindled out of the medical care they were promised. Does their word mean nothing? It is important to note that not all courts rejected the retiree claims. The CRS Report for Congress failed to mention the 8 Feb 2001 court decision where the court said, "The retirees entered active duty in the armed forces and completed at least twenty years service on the good faith belief that the government would fulfill its promises. The terms of the contract were set when the retirees entered the service and fulfilled their obligation. The government cannot unilaterally amend the contract terms now." Click here to see reference material. In my opinion this court decision was excluded from the summary because it would have been counter productive in reference to the case the CRS Report for Congress was trying to make.Item 4). These have held that the current medical benefit structure made up of military health care facilities, Tricare and Medicare provide lifetime health care to military members, retirees and their respective dependents.Rebuttal: Has the CRS Report for Congress considered what will happen if the current cuts to Medicare continue and Doctors reach the point where they can not afford to take Medicare patients. In this regard we are no different than a person that never spent a day in the military. If we can not find Doctors that will take Medicare then Tricare for life is worthless.Item 5). Nevertheless, claims continue to be made, particularly by those seeking additional benefits from the Department of Defense, or attempting to prevent an actual or perceived reduction in benefits.Rebuttal: The military retiree community is not seeking additional benefits. We only seek those benefits that were promised. We are not a cheap bunch of thugs trying to get something for free. We paid for what we were promised with, sweat, blood, and tears. We fulfilled our part of the medical care contract and we respectfully demand that the United States Government fulfill their part of the contract. The dissenting judges in the 18 Nov 2002 court findings state our position very well: "Promises of lifetime medical care were made to military officers by military officials for more than 50 years. Likewise Congress knew, or certainly should be charged with knowing, how the billions of dollars it appropriated for military medical care were allocated and that the amounts it appropriated for military pay were diminished by the imputed value of medical care on active duty and after retirement. Congress is presumed to know the terrain against which it legislates. To suggest it was oblivious, that it did not know military officials were promising medical care in accordance with its appropriations is pure sophistry. If it were otherwise, if Congress can appropriate billions for this aspect of national defense and not know how it is accounted for, then God save the Republic." Click here to see reference material.The Congressional Research Service Reports for Congress on "Military Health Care: The Issue of 'Promised' Benefits" tends to play up the role of the military recruiter as people that would have gone to any extreme to make a quota and play down the role of the active duty supervisors, 1st sergeants, commanding officers, and re-enlistment counselors all doing their job as ordered. The military recruiters and the active duty military did their jobs in an honorable manner as directed by the military hierarchy.If the CRS Report for Congress was looking for the whole truth concerning how the medical care promise was made they could have found a million stories similar to this:
In November of 1951, because of the military draft, I had to make a choice. I could volunteer to join or be drafted into the military. At that time I did talk to a military recruiter and I volunteered to join the military. I was told by the military recruiter that medical care would be provided for me and my wife while I was on active duty, and medical care after retirement was mentioned. I was very interested in the immediate medical care since I could not afford insurance based on what I would be paid. In November of 1951 I was not concerned about medical care after retirement because I had no interest in a military career, but because of medical care promises I changed my mind. That's the way it was suppose to work.
Much has been said concerning the recruiter's role in the making of the medical care promise. Based on my experience, too much emphasis is placed on the recruiters promise and this emphasis has creating a grave misunderstanding in the Congress. The Congress must understand that prior to joining the military I talked to a recruiter for about 30 minutes to fill out forms, and again when he gave me a bus ticket. I never talked to a recruiter again.
Think about this... it is not very likely that I would have remembered the medical care after retirement promise for 20 years if I had only heard the promise made once by a recruiter.My decision to stay in the military, and retire, was not based a recruiters promise. My decision was based on the promises made during my first four years in the military from 1951 to 1955. During this period the United States Air Force was engaged in an all-out campaign to get military personnel to reenlist. The campaign was very intense and very well organized. The medical care after retirement promise was made continuously. The promise was made to me by my Supervisors (on an almost daily basis), my 1st Sergeant (on a weekly basis), my Commanding Officer (at monthly briefings - commanders call), and Reenlistment Counselors (several times during the last 3 to 4 months of my first enlistment). The medical care after retirement promise was made openly, officially, and continuously to encourage me and other trained and experienced military personnel to remain in the military. The making of the medical care after retirement promise did not stop after my first enlistment. The promise was made to me throughout my 20 years in the Air Force.
In a few short years none of this will matter because all of the military retirees who are affected by this swindle will be dead and the swindle story will die with them. However, many of us will go on fighting for what we were promised until that final day will come for each of us. We were taught many things by the United States Military, but we were never taught how to quit.
Each of us wonders if there a set of rules in place today that protects the men and women who are fighting today's wars from being swindled out of what they are being promised, just like the greatest generation of military retirees are being swindled?
The military retiree medical care broken promise issue is the greatest swindle of all time. The medical care promise was made and a contract was formed. "A contract is any "legally-enforceable" promise or set of promises made by one party to another and, as such, reflects the policies represented by freedom of contract. In the civil law, contracts are considered to be part of the general law of obligations". How can it be fairly decided if any contract is "legally-enforceable" when one party involved in the contract is also the Judge?
It should be noted that while the military retirees were on active duty they had no way of knowing that the medical care after retirement promise being made by the military was invalid..... military retirees thought they were serving under the terms of a valid contract. We had no way of knowing that later in retirement we would be swindled out of the medical care that was being promised..... I am quite sure that the court recognized that the military retirees had been cheated and were victims of a swindle and this is why the court said, "Perhaps Congress will consider using its legal power to address the moral claims raised by Schism and Reinlie on their own behalf, and indirectly for other affected retirees". We have been waiting for the Congress to act on the courts suggestion. It's our last hope because the justice system has abandoned us.
I want to end this rebuttal to the CRS Report for Congress by taking a look at page CRS-4 of the 19 Jan 2006 CRS Report for Congress and a comment that make active duty military people look like idiots.The CRS wrote: "The end results appears to be that, regardless of the lack of statutory entitlements, many active duty personnel and their dependents, and retirees and their dependents, erroneously came to believe that they were guaranteed free health care in military facilities for life". This is the most insulting and ridiculous statement I have ever seen written by what is suppose to be a respectable and responsible government agency. I did not erroneously come to believe that I was guaranteed free health care in military facilities for life. I came to believe because; the leaders appointed over me made the medical care promise in good faith; the leaders that I would be required to follow into hell if necessary in defense of the United States of America told me so; the leaders I would give my life for if necessary told me so; the leaders that were like Gods to me told me so; the leaders I was suppose to believe told me so; the leaders that I trusted with my life told me so; the leaders sitting across the desk from me at re-enlistment time told me so; my Commander at Commanders call told me so; and as a result a contract was formed. I took an oath to obey the orders of the officers appointed over me and I believed what they told me. I came to believe that the medical care promise being made was as valid as an order to charge up a hill under fire.
========> That's how I came to believe! <======== Active duty military personnel did not erroneously come to believe. They came to believe because that's the way the military system works. One is told what to believe and they believe. A military person does not look for a lack of statutory entitlements when officers appointed over him/her passes out official information or gives an order. I came to believe because that is what I was required to do.
Wake up America else reports like this CRS Report for Congress will have every junior military person on active duty disbelieving or questioning what their superiors tell them. Active duty men and women must believe what they are told when it comes from an official source. That's the way the military system works. The United States Government has an obligation to pay and they should have paid this medical care bill when it was due because if this CRS Report for Congress, that brought us proud military retirees to our knees, continues unchallenged then the government and the American people will surely pay later.
I'm sure there are thousands of military retirees, military retiree spouses, and military retiree survivors, that have been lobbying the United States Congress, in great frustration, to regain the medical care they were promised now have "Anger PTSD". Anger is a strong emotion; a feeling that is oriented toward some real or supposed grievance. PTSD is a psychological reaction to a traumatic event or events. Being swindled out of the medical care military retirees were promised for 20 to 30 years of work and service to their country is certainly a traumatic event, and is just cause for anger. Prolonged anger has clear health consequences. Prolonged anger can lead to many deadly health issues, such as the many unexplained medical problems that military retirees suffer from. I have no way of determining what the breaking of the medical care promise has cost the American tax payers as a result of Anger PTSD, but it may be equal to what the government thinks they saved by breaking the medical care promise.The American people and the United States Congress must never forget that which is owed to its military retirees, military veterans, active duty military, and their eligible dependents. Ignoring events such as this medical care broken promise issue is slowly eroding the moral foundation of this nation. The United States was once a great nation that could be trusted to keep its promises yet now it's willing to cheat its military retirees out of the medical care they were promised, while on active duty, in retirement. From the 1940's to the 1990's, when people on active duty made the decision to serve until retirement, the rest of their life was centered on the medical care promise. I would not have served until retirement if there was no promise of medical care after retirement. In 1971, when I retired, a retirement check of $326 per month before taxes was certainly not an incentive to serve until retirement. There had to be something more and that something more was the promise of medical care. The medical care after retirement was referred to as "deferred compensation" and was used to justify the low pay of the active duty personnel. The government and the military hierarchy cut the active duty military pay short because it was said that they would make it up to them later in retirement "with the free medical care". This was just one more of the dirty tricks used to get the active duty personal to reenlist and serve until retirement.
May God help those that are responsible for this grave injusticeTHE GREATEST SWINDLE OF ALL TIME live with their conscience.
So, what can military retirees do?The first thing they must do is...
Second, they must try to hold onto what has been gained!As it stands Medicare payments to Doctors will be cut by about 10% on 1 July 08.If this happens then we will have a problem trying to find a Doctor that will accept us underMedicare and our Tricare for Life supplement will be worthless.Click here to see a plan for lobbying the Congress to stop cuts to Medicare payments.In addition to holding onto what we have gained we need to get the whole truth concerning themilitary retiree medical care broken promise issue out to the: United States Congress, theAmerican People, other Military Retirees, other Military Retiree Widows, and anyone elseinterested in justice and fair play.
We need to keep each other informed in reference to what we are doing.Click here to see a system for keeping each other informed.Click here to see a list of MRGRG lobbying participants.Click here to add your name to the MRGRG participant list. Click here to look at and listen to the greatest swindle of all time story.Click here to listen only to the greatest swindle of all time story - 11 minutes.
From here down is the original Retired Military Advocate web page that was introduced on the Internet on 17 Sept 1999 - encouraging Military Retirees to participate in a letter writing campaign to the U.S. Congress Demanding Restoration of Promised Medical Care, and to the American people via the news media asking for support. The following is another version of the greatest swindle of all time story which has been told above. If you have read to this point then you know the greatest swindle of all time story and the author of this web page thanks you.
THE RETIRED MILITARY ADVOCATE
"They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life.......... The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon.......... Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim.".......... United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, case number 99-1402, November 18, 2002.......... Of the thirteen Judges sitting en banc,......... nine found for the government and four found for the military retirees.......... This is part of a court's conclusion rendered in a lawsuit bought by military retirees against the government for breach of contract.......... However, it is also a good description of a swindle.......... The military hierarchy authorized the making of this medical care promise starting back in WWII, but according to this 2002 court decision they were not authorized to make the promise.......... So, all is forgotten,......... all is forgiven,......... we just write it off,......... and the military retirees that depended on that promise for medical care get swindled.......... What if you made payments on a house for 20 years under what you thought was a contract only to discover that the contract wasn't authorized and the house isn't yours?......... Would you fight for what you think is yours,......... or would you just roll over and play dead?......... Is there a set of rules in place today that protects the men and women that are fighting today’s wars from being swindled out of what they are being promised,......... just like the greatest generation of military retirees are being swindled?......... In a few short years it will not matter because all of the military retirees that are affected by this swindle will be dead and the swindle story will die with them..........
If you can not follow the above scrolling then click here.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said, "We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim." More...
After they serve their country for 20 or more years would you cheat and swindle the American military men and women who are fighting today's wars of what they are being promised? I don't think you would.
And, I don't think you would cheat the greatest generation of military retirees of the medical care they were promised if you knew the real story.
From WWII until the early 1990's military personnel in positions of authority acting as agents of the United States Government promised the active duty military that if they served for 20 or more years in the military and retired they would receive free medical care for themselves and their eligible dependents at military treatment facilities for as long as they lived.
Want proof of that promise? Want to see what the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has said? If so, click here to see a three judge ruling that we had a medical care contract. Click here to see an appeals ruling where nine judge admitted that the medical care promise was made, but pointed out that the Congress never ratified or acquiesced to the promise. Then click here to see what four dissenting judges had to say.
THIS MEDICAL CARE PROMISE HAS BEEN BROKEN.
Click here to look at and listen to a web page version of the true story.Click here to understand the difference between a military retiree and a military veteran.Click here to look at and listen to a PowerPoint Presentation of the true story.After the PowerPoint Presentation loads do a manual start.Click on "Slide Show" and "View Show".
THIS IS WHAT SOME MILITARY RETIREES ARE DOING
Members of the Military Retiree Grass Roots Group are lobbying the Congress in an effort to regain the medical care we were promised and to get cosponsors for HR1222 and HR1223. Previous lobbying got us Tricare for Life. Click here to see some of the history of that effort.
THIS IS THE CURRENT LOBBYING EFFORTClick here to see the current plan.After you send your message to the Congress...Click here to update the Educate the Congress Tracking System.After you update the Tracking System you will see a contact history data base...Then click here to see the Tracking System Activity file.This file will show you who is contacting who in the Congress...
Click here to e-mail the webmaster.
This web page is changed often.To insure that you have the latest information do a refresh or reload at your browser.
Links:----------------------------------------
MRGRG web page index My MRGRG HistoryMy LettersMy Talking PointsMy E-mail-listMyYahoo-PhotosMyYahoo-BriefcaseThe Laurel, MS, Summit Meeting Minutes of the Laurel Meeting The Greatest Swindle StoryRetirees-vs-VeteransSwindle Power PointSwindle Sound Track OnlyAdvertiseThe SwindleThe Billboard ProjectProclamationsRetiree/Veteran BriefingMRGRG-MS-TALKBrown-Bag-Project-Talk Lone Star GroupMRGRG e-mail network THOMAS-look-up BillsTRICARE-New-Web-SiteContact The CongressWrite Your RepSun HeraldSenate ListHouse ListMRGRG List Get Involved Do Not Quit A message to the CongressWrite MRGRG Record Book Read MRGRG Record BookLetters of AppreciationMRGRG-Survey
Lawsuit Rulings:8 Feb 01 Court Decision13 Jun 01 Appeal 18 Nov 02 Court Decision2 Jun 2003 Supreme CourtCAG Lawsuit Summary
Silly Stuff:Man eating bearMRGRG movenent Good bye tricare
Looking for Justice:----------------------------------------
Can you imagine one court's conclusion that says this... "The retirees entered active duty in the armed forces and completed at least twenty years service on the good faith belief that the government would fulfill its promises. The terms of the contract were set when the retirees entered the service and fulfilled their obligation. The government cannot unilaterally amend the contract terms now." Click here for more.
And, a second court's conclusion that starts like this..."We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon."
Would end like this... "Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim." Click here for more.
Click here to get acquainted with the military retiree medical care broken promise issue, and the greatest swindle of all time... a broken contract with America's military retirees.
Looking for Leadership:----------------------------------------
On 28 Feb 2007 Representatives Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Chet Edwards (D-TX), Jeff Miller (R-FL) and Walter Jones (R-NC) introduced two bills in Congress:a revised version of the Keep Our Promise to America’s Military Retirees Act - HR 1222 - click here to see cosponsors.and a new bill, the Keeping Faith with the Greatest Generation Military Retirees Act - HR 1223 - click here to see cosponsors.Click here to see a summary of HR 1222 and HR 1223
CRS Reports for Congress:
Military Health Care: The Issue of "Promised" Benefits
The 21 Dec 1998 ReportThe 16 Jan 2001 ReportThe 21 Nov 2002 ReportThe 12 Aug 2003 ReportThe 19 Jan 2006 ReportThe CRS Mission
Congress will accept the CRS reports as the unbiased truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, unless you intervene and tell the Congress otherwise.
The CRS has direct access to and can easily influence every Senator, every Representative, and every Congressional Staff member. You don't! You must work just a little bit harder to educate the Congress, but it can be done using information from this web site.
Educate the Congress:----------------------------------------
Send a letter, send a FAX, make a phone call, send an e-mail, or send a web form message.
Record your actions:
Click here to record your contacts in the MRGRG Tracking System.
Click here to look at the Tracking System data base.
Click here to leave your personal comments in the MRGRG Record Book.
Click here to look at the MRGRG Record Book.
Click here to see the MRGRG Tracking System Activity Monitor
The American people and the United States Congress must never forget that which is owed to its military retirees, military veterans, active duty military, and their eligible dependents.
Military retirees should always be ready to do whatever is right about whatever is wrong.
More Links:
----------------------------------------
BGen Bob ClementsBGen Bob - Lucky Phil-Alperson-Unsung-HeroRay-Boyden's-web-site TREA-letters-etcMark-Olanoff Whittington-Ink-SalesJim Whittington-SpeechesJim Whittington AwardGOOGLE Web SearchTHOMAS Bills SearchThe Online CampaignHarry-Riley's-BLOGFiring For EffectSave My TricareDaveylee Web SiteDavid PerkinsCAG-12-Feb-03-DC-March Gifford McCargarDonald WaterworthFrank CookPentagonMaverick
Bills to Watch in the110th Congress----------------------------------------
HR 579 - Military Retirees Health Care Protection Act - This Edwards-Jones bill would prohibit DoD from increasing TRICARE fees, specifying that theauthority to increase TRICARE fees exists only in Congress.
HR 1222 - a revised version of the Keep Our Promise to America’s Military Retirees Act.
HR 1223 - and a new bill, the Keeping Faith with the Greatest Generation Military Retirees Act.
Code of Conductfor Military Retirees:----------------------------------------
I am a retired American military fighting man. I served in the Armed Forces which guarded our country and our way of life. I was prepared to give my life in my country's defense. I will never forget that I was an American military fighting man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will continue to trust in my God and in the United States of America, and I will continue the fight (verbally and in writing) to regain the medical care that was promised to the American Military Retirees before their retirement for as long as I live.
Get Involved!
----------------------------------------
Keep the military retiree medical care broken promise issue alive:
Encourage your Representatives to support the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act.
Write letters to the editor of your local newspapers.
Get other military retirees involved.
Click here to get involved.
HR 1222 - Summary - Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act" (HR 1222) -- Fulfills promises to young recruits that quality health care would be available to them when they retired after a career in uniformed service to their country.
Allows Military Retirees to opt out of the Tricare military health system and enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefit (FEHB) plan if Tricare does not provide them adequate health care.
Maintains and improves access to the military pharmacy benefit for Military Retirees who opt out of Tricare and enroll in FEHB.
HR 1223 - Summary - Keeping Faith with the Greatest Generation Military Retirees Act'' (HR 1223) -- Addresses a specific obligation Congress has to military retirees who entered the uniformed services prior to 1956. They joined the service under one set of rules but retired under a different set of rules that stripped them of health care that had been provided routinely to them. In 2002, a Federal Appeals Court called on Congress to use its legal authority to address the "moral claims" of this class of military retirees.
Waives Medicare Part B Premiums for Military Retirees who entered the uniformed services prior to December 7, 1956, because they entered the service under one set of rules but retired under a different set of rules that stripped them of promised and earned health care.
The Military Retiree Grass Roots Group (MRGRG) is a group of "individuals" with a common goal of regaining the medical care benefits promised to military retirees after their retirement. We influence, support, and communicate with each other via the Internet (e-mail and web pages), but each individual is responsible for his/her own actions. If you have taken any action(s) via e-mails, letters, FAXes, phone calls, etc, to influence the Congress, in reference to our common goal, then you are a member of the MRGRG. The MRGRG is not an organization.
Click here to add your name to the Military Retiree Grass Roots Group (MRGRG) e-mail list.Click here to contact the Retired Military Advocate web master.
To educate the Congress on military retiree issues, do this...Send your message to the Congress using, regularmail, FAX, e-mail, web forms, or telephone.Click here to learn about the greatest swindle of all time... a broken contract with America's military retirees.
To tell other military retirees what you are doing, do this...Click here to record your contacts in theEducate the Congress Tracking System, and to enteryour comments in the MRGRG Educate the Congress Record Book.To see more on "recording your actions" click here.
Floyd Sears and WXXV-TV at the raising of a billboard, near Pascagoula, MS, which was designed to keep the military retiree medical care broken promise issue alive.
Keep the military retiree medical care broken promise issue alive,
This caricature, designed by Shirley DuBey, and drawn by Jack Dempsey, was extracted from a billboard which was designed to advertise the military retiree medical care broken promise issue.
until the promise is kept for all military retirees.
The greatest swindle of all time
Click here to look at and listen to a web page version of the greatest swindle of all time
Click here to download a narrated PowerPoint version of the greatest swindle of all time
Click here to download the PowerPoint Viewer 2003
Click here to listen to the greatest swindle of all time narration onlyClick here to listen to the difference between a military retiree and a military veteran narration only
My name is Floyd Sears. I am a military retiree and a military veteran. I served the United States of America in the United States Air Force for 20 years from 1951 to 1971.
Please allow me to tell you about...
The greatest swindle of all time...a broken contract with America's military retirees.
This is my story, but any one of the other 1.8 million military retirees affected by this swindle could tell you the same story.
As we examine this issue think about the words
"fraud" and "swindle".
Fraud: Is a deliberate deception for unfair or unlawful gain. A trick.To Swindle: Is to cheat or defraud of money or property.
Also think about the definition of a contract, with the most basic elements being the offer and the acceptance of the offer.
The contractual offer
From WWII to the early 1990's, agents of the United States Government made this offer.
Serve for 20 years in the military and retire, and you will receive full free medical care for yourself and your eligible dependents, at military treatment facilities, for as long as you and your eligible dependents live.
Events have proven that this promise was the greatest gimmick, promotional stratagem, and swindle of all time, and the active duty military believed it as they were suppose to.
It is important to note that this promise did not indicate that a military retiree would have to use and pay for a medical care plan such as Medicare, and a Medicare supplement, when he or she reached age 65. It did not indicate that a military retiree would have to use and make copays to an HMO type medical care plan, such as Tricare. And, it did not indicate that the promise applied to non military retiree veterans. One had to serve for at least 20 years and retire in order to be eligible for the promised medical care.
This promise was made initially by Military Recruiters.
Then over a 20 to 30 year period by, Basic Training Instructors, line level Supervisors, 1st Sergeants, Commanding Officers, and Reenlistment Counselors, all agents of the United States government, as directed by publications received from the highest level of the military hierarchy.
The military hierarchy authorized the making of the promise, because it was the law. Prior to 7 June 1956, TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART II, CHAPTER 55, Section. 1074, (b) of the U.S. Code stated...
Under joint regulations to be prescribed by the administering Secretaries, a member or former member of a uniformed service who is entitled to retired or retainer pay, or equivalent pay shall, upon request, be given medical and dental care in any facility of any uniformed service.
The promise was made to encourage the trained and experienced military personnel to remain in the military. The prime reason for making the promise was to save the American taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars by not having to train replacements every two to four years. It was all about money.
On 7 June 1956, Congress changed TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART II, CHAPTER 55, Section. 1074, (b) of the U.S. Code as follows.
Under joint regulations to be prescribed by the administering Secretaries, a member or former member of a uniformed service who is entitled to retired or retainer pay, or equivalent pay may, upon request, be given medical and dental care in any facility of any uniformed service, subject to the availability of space and facilities and the capabilities of the medical and dental staff. See US Code
Congress altered the US Code to change the word "shall" to "may", added the words “subject to the availability of space and facilities and the capabilities of the medical and dental staff”, and the stage was set for military base closures, the breaking of the medical care promise, and the greatest swindle of all time.
THE GOVERNMENT/MILITARY
There was no fanfare or warning given to the active duty military concerning this major change to the law that would drastically affect their lives, later in retirement, and the military establishment continued to make the same medical care promise.
The medical care promise was still being made as late as 1991.
The content of the poster amplified.
Superb Health Care. Health care is provided to you and your family members while you are in the Army, and for the rest of your life if you serve a minimum of 20 years of Federal service to earn your retirement.
Take a close look at this health care promise that was being made as late as 1991. Not only does it promise health care, but it promises "superb health care". It clearly indicates that health care is promised to you (the service member), and also to your family members while in the Army and for the rest of your life if you earn retirement. Note the numbers in the boxes. Note that the poster was printed in the United States Government Printing Office (U.S.G.P.O.1992 643-711) on (RPI 909 NOVEMBER 1991).
Click here to see other Famous Pentagon Quotes on Recruiting.
In the late 1980s, Congress and the Department of Defense started the process of closing military bases and medical facilities where the medical care promise was supposed to be kept.
As a result the space, facilities, and the capabilities of the medical staff were substantially reduced, the Military Health Care System had to change, and TRICARE was born.
In 1995, TRICARE came to Keesler AFB, where I had been receiving medical care since 1961, I turned 65, was not eligible to enroll in Tricare Prime, had to leave Keesler AFB, go on Medicare, pay for Medicare Part B and a Medicare supplement, and the medical care promise was broken for the author of this web page, and millions like him that were over 65.
The medical care promise was also broken for millions of other military retirees, including those under age 65, because they had to start paying for their medical care. The government reneged on their promise.
It was all about money when the promise was made and it's all about money now.
It's the greatest swindle of all time. It's a broken contract with America's military retirees.
The acceptance of the offer
From 1951 to 1971 - Floyd Sears, and millions like him, accepted the offer (believed the promise) and took a similar oath:
I do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America; that I will serve honestly and faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
I made a promise and I kept my promise. I would have died if necessary to keep my promise. The fact is I had no choice. I went where I was suppose to go (no matter what the hardship), I did what I was ordered to do (with no choice in the matter), and I obey orders (without question).
Military personnel must believe what they are told, when it comes from an official source. They have no choice. It's required by military law. I had to believe what I was being told. I had to believe the medical care promise.
The military person is trained, from day one, to trust their leaders and believe what they are being told. In the military, believing what one is told is the first step in obeying orders. If a military person is told that they must kill the enemy in combat and is also told that if they serve for 20 years in the military and retires they will receive free medical care for themselves and their eligible dependents at military treatment facilities for as long as they and their eligible dependents live, should they believe the one thing they are told and disbelieve the other?
I trusted and respected my military and elected leaders. I believed what I was told and I believed what I was promised. They, my leaders, could and did depend on me. I never let them down. I never reneged on my promise.
Let me tell you about the lawsuit seeking justice.
Colonel (retired) George E. Day
In July 1996: A lawsuit was filed on behalf of William O. Schism and Robert L. Reinlie (plaintiffs) by Colonel (retired) George E. Day, of Fort Walton Beach, Florida, seeking monetary damages, in the Federal District Court of Pensacola, Florida, charging age discrimination, 5th amendment taking of property, and breach of contract.
In June 1997: The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim of age discrimination, but agreed to hear further argument on their 5th amendment taking of property and breach-of-contract theories.
In August 1998: The District Court denied plaintiffs’ entire petition.
In December 1998: The Plaintiffs appealed to US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Washington, D.C.
In March 2000: The Federal court heard oral arguments of both parties.
In February 2001: A three judge panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Washington, DC, overturned the Pensacola, Florida, Federal District Court's decision, and finds that military retirees, who entered service before 7 June 1956, had been promised free lifetime health care in return for a career of military service and were due compensation of up to $10,000 each for the government’s failure to live up to that promise. This decision was appealed by the United States Government.
In June 2001: The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Washington, DC, agrees to a rehearing before the full (en banc) court.
On 6 March 2002: The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Washington, DC, heard oral argument from both sides in the case.
On 18 November 2002: The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Washington, DC, made a ruling which affirmed the US Government's position that military retirees have no legal standing to receive the medical care promised. This decision was appealed by the plaintiffs.
On 24 January 2003: A Petition for a writ of Certiorari was filed in the Supreme Court of the United States.
On 2 June 2003: The Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.
The author of this web page is somewhat confused concerning the court's decision.
Think about this.
You agree to make 20 payments to purchase an automobile. The dealer receives and makes full use of your 20 payments. Now the car is yours, right? Wrong! The dealer says you can not have the car because the salesman who sold it to you was not authorized to make the contract. You say that this is ridiculous, and of course you are right because you had a contract. There was an offer and an acceptance of the offer and you fulfilled your part of the contract.
What if you are made this offer: Serve for 20 years in the military, and retire, and you will receive free medical care for yourself and your eligible dependents, at military treatment facilities, for as long as you and your eligible dependents live, and you accept. Is that a contract? Yes it is, but beware. The US Court of Appeals for the federal circuit has said, in the WILLIAM O. SCHISM and ROBERT L. REINLIE v. the UNITED STATES case, “We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim”.
So, we have the military hierarchy making a promise from the early 1940’s to the early 1990’s they were not authorized to make, and we have the greatest swindle of all time… a broken contract with America's military retirees.
In their 18 November 2002 ruling the court said that "Perhaps Congress will consider using its legal power to address the moral claims raised by Schism and Reinlie on their own behalf, and indirectly for other affected retirees." The Congress claims that the United States of America can not afford to keep the medical care promise made by the military, and we have a stand-off. The Congress will not comply with the Court's recommendation.
This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.
There was an important job to be done and Everybody was asked to do it. Everybody was sure Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.
Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.
~ More MRGRG-MS.ORG Web Pages ~
Rep Chris Van Hollen #1
MRGRG Lobbying Activities Information Board
The Governor Haley Barbour proclamation in support of military retiree medical care
The GREATEST SWINDLE of all time
ADVERTISING the greatest swindle of all time
Military retiree medical care broken promise issue BRIEFING GUIDE
Military retiree medical care broken promise issue BRIEFING GUIDE (.pdf format)
A HISTORY of the MRGRG effort to regain promised medical care
The Military Retiree Medical Care Broken Promise Issue TALKING POINTS
A Military Retiree Grass Roots Group (MRGRG)
Admiral Stockdale and Colonel Day at the 22 Sep 1998 CONVENTION to EDUCATE CONGRESS
Minutes of a MILITARY RETIREE SUMMIT meeting held in Laurel Mississippi on 27 March 1999
Military Retiree Medical Care RESOLUTIONS and PROCLAMATIONS
LETTERS to The Sun Herald Editor - by Floyd Sears, MSGT, USAF, 1951 to 1971 (Ret).
EDITORIALS by: The Sun Herald, Biloxi, MS
HISTORY of the MRGRG BILLBOARD project - Jack Hollinsworth - manager
A Donald Waterworth - American Military Retiree Association - MOBILE BILLBOARD
CAG - The military retiree medical care Class Action Lawsuit HISTORY
CAG - The Colonel Day - William O. Schism and Robert L. Reinlie lawsuit - 8 Feb 2001 ruling
CAG - The Colonel Day - William O. Schism and Robert L. Reinlie lawsuit - 13 Jun 2001 ruling
CAG - The Colonel Day - William O. Schism and Robert L. Reinlie lawsuit - 18 Nov 2002 ruling
CAG - United States Supreme Court REJECTS Col Bud Day's military retiree medical care case
CAG - McCain, deeply CONCERNED by Supreme Court action on veterans health care
CAG - Comments on the 18 November 2002 ruling
CAG - PHOTOS of the Class Act Group 12 Feb 2003 Washington DC Rally
CAG- Class Act Group march for PROMISED health benefits on 12 Feb 2003 - by David Perkins
CAG- More information on the Colonel Day - William O. Schism and Robert L. Reinlie lawsuit
CAG - Colonel George (Bud) Day BIOGRAPHY
Military Retirees by State
Military Retirees by State - as of 30 Sep 2002 - by Charlie Revie
BACK TO THE BASICS - NAUS had it right in 1997
Bob Clements, BGen, USAF (ret) - The LUCKIEST PEOPLE alive
Congressman Gene Taylor - in support of keeping the medical care promise
See and hear Congressman Gene Taylor in support of keeping the medical care promise (.mpg file)
Ollie F. (Frank) Cook's - "BRAC" Page
Ollie F. (Frank) Cook, USAF (Ret.) - Remembers Ankara
LETTERS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - 1 May 1998
A Letter To The American People via The News Media - 1 May 1998
* http://mrgrg-ms.org/doc09.html ????
* http://mrgrg-ms.org/doc12.html ???
* http://mrgrg-ms.org/doc98.html ???
Gifford D. McCargar - personal web page
Jim Whittington - Beckie Thrash at the 27 March 1999 Laurel, MS, meeting
Jim Whittington - DAR Community Service Award
Jim Whittington - MRGRG auto tag
THE GATHERING - a regional MRGRG Summit Meeting held in Lawton Oklahoma
HR 2966 - The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act - introduced - 28 Sep 1999
HR 3573 - The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act - introduced - 02 Feb 2000
HR 58 ---- The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act - introduced - 07 Jan 2003
HR 3474 - The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act - introduced - 06 Nov 2003
H.R. 58 and H.R. 3474 - The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act (Comparison)
The Retired Military Advocate letter to the United States Congress - sent on or about June 1997
Robert (Bob) Thompson - PROJECT ONWARD
Morrie B - Military Health Care: The Issue of "Promised" Benefits
MRGRG - State Level Discussion Groups - Organization
News media e-mail addresses put together by the Class Act Group
What Military Retirees Must Do To Regain Benefits They Were Promised!
MRGRG- PICKET by POST CARD
* Mississippi Gulf Coast - MILITARY RETIREE PICKET
* Mississippi Gulf Coast - MILITARY RETIREE PICKET
* Picket goal
* Proposed Resolution for the Great State of Mississippi
* A Summary of the Mississippi Gulf Coast MILITARY RETIREE PICKET
Pink slip
RONNIE SHOWS - The 1st Annual Appreciation Luncheon
RONNIE SHOWS - A Letter of Appreciation - Part 1
RONNIE SHOWS - A Letter of Appreciation - Part 2
RONNIE SHOWS - The Presentation of a Letter of Appreciation
RONNIE SHOWS - Talk Show - Sundays - 4pm to 5pm - click on - Live Streaming Broadcast
When you see the old guys image... click here
Operation TELL-EM
TRICARE Town Meetings In Mississippi
USA Nationwide MILITARY RETIREE PICKET PLAN
Legislative Update 107th Congress December 2001
WPG - The MRGR Group WHITE PAPER Introduction Document
WPG - The White Paper
WPG - Statement to the Committee on Armed Services
WPG - More information on the White paper
Links to Class Act Lawsuit Information
8 Feb 2001 Ruling
13 July 2001 Ruling
18 Nov 2002 Ruling
Comments on Ruling
CAG History
12 Feb 2003 Rally photos
The White Paper on Military Health Care Sequence of Events
The White Paper on Military Health Care Story... (more)
White Paper posted on the Internet... (more)
Downloadable copies of White Paper posted on the Internet... (more)
Three page White Paper Introduction Document released... (more)
White Paper Delivered to the Senate and House... (more)
Operation TELL-EM initiated... (more)
David Vann's White Paper testimony to the HASC... (more)
For The Record
The Retired Military Advocate web site went on-line on 17 September 1997 to assist the military retirees regain the medical care they were promised before their retirement.
On 12 Oct 2000, with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (HR 4205) which was signed into law on 30 Oct 2000 as Public Law 106-398, an entitlement called Tricare For Life (TFL) was established. See http://www.tricare.osd.mil/ndaa/fast_facts.htm. TFL became effective on 1 Oct 2001.
This TFL entitlement came about as the result of Congressional lobbying by various Veterans Service Organizations in Washington and by a group of military retirees working at the grass roots level that came to be known as the Class Act Group (CAG), and the Military Retiree Grass Roots Group (MRGRG). This web site is dedicated to the individuals of these two groups.
The CAG and the MRGRG is not an organization, it is group of individuals with a common goal of regaining the benefits promised to military retirees before their retirement. They influence, support, and communicate with each other via the Internet, but each individual is responsible for his/her own actions.
The efforts at the grass roots level to regain the medical care that was promised to military retirees before their retirement focused on educating the American people via letters to the editor, pickets, demonstrations, and billboards. The efforts to educate and influence the Congress was accomplished via e-mails, letters, FAXes, phone calls, group meetings, and one-on-one meetings.
If you were involved in any of these activities to influence the Congress then you are a member of the CAG and the MRGRG and this web site is dedicated to you.
The American people and the United States Congress must never forget that which is owed to its military retirees, military veterans, active duty military, and their eligible dependents.
Code of Conduct for Military RetireesDeveloped on 12 March 1998,byFloyd H. Sears, MSGT, USAF, 1951-1971, (Retired)using words fromthe Code of Conduct for The Armed Forces of The United States.
I am a retired American military fighting person. I served in the Armed Forces which guarded our country and our way of life. I was prepared to give my life in my country's defense. I will never forget that I was an American military fighting person, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will continue to trust in my God and in the United States of America, and I will continue the fight (verbally and in writing) to regain the medical care that was promised to the American Military Retirees before their retirement for as long as I live.
The United States Military taught me many things,but never taught me how to give-up and quit.
The United States Military Retiree Creed, 3 June 2007: (By Floyd Sears using the United States Air Force Creed as a guide)
I am a United States Military Retiree.I am a tested warrior.For 20 or more years I answered my nation's call.
I am a United States Military Retiree.My mission is to stay active in retirement, fight for the medical care we were promised, and win. I am faithful to a proud heritage, a tradition of honor, and a legacy of valor.
I am a United States Military Retiree.Guardian of our freedom and justice in the nation's courts, my nation's sword and shield, its sentry and avenger.I defended my country with my life.
I am a United States Military Retiree:a companion, leader, and warrior.I will never leave a United States Military Retiree behind, I will never falter, and I will not fail.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America,and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible,With Liberty and Justice for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)