A Note About Us, US Vet Blood Money

This website is operated by those who believe in protecting those who have traded their quality of life serving as the ‘face’ of America in war battles around the world.  In exchange for those who have served in the best interest of our country, we have promised to provide the needs of those who lose the ability to do it for themselves, whatever they are (health, financial etc.).

We are military, we are civilians, we are college educated, we are average ‘Joe’s’, we are officers, we are able bodied, we are disabled due to the war, we are spouses, we are former spouses, we are active duty, we are retired, we are old, we are young, we are located all over the world. Oh, and we are Attorneys and Law Makers, some of us who have the moral conviction to stand up, support and fight the battles that our injured men and women may not be able to do on their own.

We are a coalition of patriots understanding that the promise we made as a country to the young men and women putting their lives serving under the most important document ever put forth by a group of citizens, is far more important than the time it takes out of our day to stand up together in unison and educate the masses on this subject.  We are here, we are going to keep talking. There are many battles going on behind the scenes, and we are fully engaged. We understand the fragile state that occurs during transition when a service member returns home.  That transition can include injuries (debilitating physical injuries, TBI etc.),  financial issues, relationship issues (divorce) and many more issues.

It is our duty as American’s to protect our war-torn veterans.  It is our duty to make sure that NOBODY can find a gap and take advantage of the compromise situation our veterans are most times when they return home and sometimes for the rest of their lives.  Coming home from the land of the enemy should be a joyous time-period in the lives of our veterans.  Sadly, they return home and find themselves in unfortunate situations at the mercy of enemy’s preying on their vulnerabilities, enemy’s disguising themselves as champions of the down trodden.  All the while they are gutting the very ones who fought to protect their rights to do it. Those preying on these injured veterans have strategically planned the attack,  systematically dismantling any financial security these veterans need to survive.  Not thrive, but literally survive.  Susceptible and in need of being protected and respectfully cared for due to the huge sacrifices made, we have let them down over and over and over.  Many times their disability benefit is all they have left.  When that is stripped away and they can’t provide shelter and food for themselves you should take note, this is a very proud, strong segment of the population. The suicide rate is a reflection of their choosing death over the humiliation of total defeat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfIRqZYYahI

You can contact us at usvetbloodmoney@tormail.org if you have questions.

38 USC § 5301 and PHILIP E. CUSHMAN, v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, August 12, 2009

A VERY INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE LEFT IN THE COMMENT SECTION OF THIS ARTICLE:  http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/05/23/will-justices-review-how-states-treat-veterans-disability-pay

A disabled veteran when returning home may face one of their toughest battles, facing a judge in divorce court trying to keep his or her VA disability compensation from being awarded as alimony. I’ve been at this very problem for many years in finding a solution. I joined in when a disabled veteran who put out a mayday call to veterans for help in protecting his VA disability compensation.

The statute which disabled veterans’ rely on is 38 USC 5301.  Nonassignability and exempt status of benefits. “Payments of benefits due or to become due under any law administered by the Secretary shall not be assignable except to the extent specifically authorized by law,.. a beneficiary shall be exempt from taxation, shall be exempt from the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary.

As read, 5301 it is quite clear. But when a disabled veteran appears before a divorce court judge and the opposing attorneys, they will try every interpretation possible to win judgment and secure as alimony a veteran’s disability compensation. You are probably thinking, what about child support? Should the veteran be responsible for that? Yes, I thought. But early on, I understood their argument because of what the law states. However, I was not getting into the child support issue, did not see any solution. My focus was those veterans” not having child support as an issue.

Opposing lawyers, activist state court judges and the ex-spouse, their arguments rely on states rights, stare decisis, forum shopping, contract law, etc., and finally almost in all of these cases, the courts, will rely on Rose v. Rose. A disabled triple amputee veteran, blind in one eye, requiring constant care, Charlie Wayne Rose, was sent to jail for failing to pay alimony and child support. Released after a short period when he agreed to relinquish his disability compensation for child support. 

However, in support of alimony only, having no child support issues, divorce courts, judges, lawyers, most always refer to Rose v. Rose, a child and alimony support case, because it’s available, convenient and will prevail. New Hampshire, Brownell v Brownell, “Lower courts have repeatedly implemented Rose, and an “overwhelming majority of courts” have held that veterans’ disability payments may be considered as income in awarding alimony.” Brownell was not a child support issue, but you did notice, the opposing lawyer managed to bring up Rose v Rose which was a child support issue. Brownell, of course lost a portion of his disability compensation as alimony.

But this is not how the VA General Council John Thompson had interpreted the Rose case. 8/4/98 testimony of Congressional and Legislative Affairs statement of John Thompson, acting General counsel Department of Veterans Affairs before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. Mr. Thompson speaking on the subject, disability compensation may be attached. In clarifying for the VA, its legal definition, stating, “The sole exception is that VA compensation received in lieu of waived military retired pay can be garnished in order to satisfy court-ordered child support and alimony obligations.”

Mr. Thompson then states, “VA benefits, including even disability compensation received in lieu of retired pay, are also protected by Federal law from court-ordered divisions of property upon veterans’ divorces. However, The United States Supreme Court ruled in Rose v. Rose 481 U.S. 6219(1987) that state courts are not precluded from setting child support obligations at such levels that veterans would necessarily have to use some of their disability compensation to meet them.”

Veterans Administration counsel Mr. Thompson’s explanation of “sole exception” is exactly what it is, which involves two (2) conditions… before “VA compensation received in lieu of waived military retired pay can be garnished in order to satisfy court-ordered child support and alimony obligations.” Two (2) conditions, child support and alimony.  For those disabled veterans’ having no child support issues, this is not that “sole exception.” The courts in many cases do not make any exceptions .

For those cases not involved with child support, I recently suggested a defense of the disabled veteran’s compensation issue. Two disabled veteran’s have had enough and asked for help. They made this very claim. One in a letter to VA Secretary Shinseki, 3/29/12. As well mentioning other claims, which as you read exposes the VA’s lack of oversight of the it’s rules and regulations and exposes the illegal state court rulings interfering with VA medical procedures regarding disability compensation which has led to “clear and substantial” major damage to federal interests. A second veterans’ letter 5/25/12 was to the ACLU.

State court rulings awarding disability compensation are routinely processed by the VA, the governmental entity, in spite of 38 USC 5301, and VA General councils precedential interpretations, VA regulations, laws on the books, and the many years of disabled veterans complaints.

“Clear and substantial” major damage to federal interests occurs when state court activist judges make lasting decisions, partly based on Rose v. Rose,  that seriously impact disabled veterans’ rated compensation and complicate Veterans Administration goals. Upsetting, by overruling VA medical compensation decisions, which involve many hours of work that VA medical professionals have invested in the medical care, control, follow-up, and rehabilitation of disabled veterans. All this happens with VA complicity, when a state court, arbitrarily is allowed to take away a veterans VA disability compensation in third party alimony awards in violation of….. 38 USC 5301. Nonassignability and exempt status of benefits, and…. 38 USC 1155 Authority for schedule for rating disabilities. “However, in no event shall such a readjustment in the rating schedule cause a veteran’s disability rating in effect on the effective date of the readjustment to be reduced unless an improvement in the veteran’s disability is shown to have occurred.” 42 USC § 407 – Assignment of benefits, carries similar language.

Reduction in disability compensation cannot be “reduced unless an improvement in the veteran’s disability is shown to have occurred.” When processing a reduction order, the VA would be violating the regulation 38 CFR 3.105 (e) when no medical evaluation has been ordered showing any physical improvement.

To a veteran his total disability compensation payments is contingent upon what VA medical professionals determined the disabled veteran injuries should be compensated for. Forgetting for the moment, any rating system, to the veteran who loses any portion of his disability compensation payments, he has been downgraded and now any disability rating is totally meaningless. What happens to a veteran’s health and well being are now in jeopardy to many, many disabled veterans‘. A “cause and effect” situation.

A question presented to Secretary Shinseki, where is it written, the VA authority, when a state judge can arbitrarily overrule the VA, the VA medical doctors and other medical professionals’ that determine a veterans’ medical rating? His future now without the compensation that was by law assured?

Which brings up other questions, how is it that state court judges can arbitrarily and capriciously award as alimony, waive away a portion of a veteran’s VA disability rated compensation, moneys in the form of disability compensation, the disability rights of a veteran whose disability rating, that maybe determined and factored in as critical?  Judgment as if all disabilities are exactly the same? Activist state court judges, are in reality, playing doctor, without medical license or knowledge .. a practice forbidden, providing penalties by law , and border on medical negligence. All without any input, or approval from the Veterans Administration, overstepping those whose authority it belongs, the dedicated VA medical professionals, in the practice of medicine, re-evaluation, and rehabilitation of the veteran. While at the same time violating federal law, 38 USC 5301, 42 USC 1408.

State court judges may have adjudicated divorce support having “due process” in the distribution of  income, however, this is only one part of two (2) separate “due process” issues in divorce proceedings. This is not just a one “due process” fits all situations, as state court judges may want to think. When a veterans disability compensation is court ordered as part of any alimony distribution, before the “consideration” of service connected disability compensation, as part of any alimony award, there is a separate “due process” right, to fair adjudication of a veterans’ claim for disability compensation benefits. This has not been done. Entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause. To let this happen, was it the intent of Congress that state court judges substitute their judgment for the judgment of VA doctors and medical professionals? I don’t think so!

As you can surmise from what you have read, this is an issue involving veterans’ from every state, and the solution to this problem can only be solved on a federal level. The consequence of “due process” is, that it takes in the issue of child support, and the reality that disability compensation is then exempt in both alimony and child support. Perhaps’ that’s the way Congress had intended it to be? After all 38 USC 5301 is quite clear as to its meaning.

PHILIP E. CUSHMAN, v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, August 12, 2009.

http://linehanpc.com/vadisabilityclaim/cushmanvshinseki.html

“It is well established that disability benefits are a protected property interest and may not be discontinued without due process of law. See Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115, 128 (1985); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976)”

Just to be clear, many states do observe and respect federal law 38 USC 5301. Two cases not involving child support. California, Piner v. Piner, the judge had respected federal law and disallowed the use of a veteran’s disability compensation to be used as alimony. However, the judge gave him an ultimatum, forcing the veteran having to use his disability compensation in alimony support, by a set-off or assignment  … or go to jail! To put it in prospective, the state court judge refused to violate federal law, but expects the veteran to violate that same law. New Hampshire, if Ronald Brownell, should refuse to hand over his disability compensation as ordered by the court, the judge would hold him in contempt of court, and can be ordered to jail. If, instead Brownell was forced to pay alimony reluctantly by the threat of jail time, he too, will violate federal law 38 USC5301, “Nonasignability and exempt status of benefits.”

In conclusion, our disabled men and women veterans, both returning and those having served in Afghanistan, Iraq, and past wars endure facing both the emotional and physical issues of unemployment, future uncertainty, suicide, PTSD, and  rehabilitation. For many, are years of facing a far greater emotionally charged setting, a divorce court battle. Financially and psychologically draining, fighting for the right to keep their earned VA disability compensation, against court room rulings that fail in their duty to advise and observe its duty to procedures of due process rights, and the court’s proper place in a medical decision over the rights due a disabled veteran.

AMERICAN RETIREES ASSOCIATION Georgia jurisdiction military divorce action near tragedy:

This U.S. Army veteran survived not one but THREE IED attacks in Iraq.  He suffers with both severe PTSD and TBI.  He has so much body pain that he takes a cocktail of pain killers, and he doesn’t sleep – even with meds. Because of his TBI, he can’t
even think rationally.  He is fearful at every turn, and he can hardly even speak a coherent sentence.  This veteran and his wife asked the court to accommodate his severe
disabilities, but they did nothing for him.  His now-ex wife left him when he returned from Iraq, primarily because of his inability to manage himself or his life with these disabilities.  She left him, then went to court to get her share of his retirement.  Problem is, because
he is so-disabled, he has no disposable retirement pay to divide with her.
This hero was dragged into a family courtroom IN HANDCUFFS.  He
was denied a court-appointed attorney.  The judge refused to allow his current
wife to participate or speak for him.  He had the book thrown at him, and
the judge awarded his wife alimony in order to make up for the retainer pay
that was eliminated pursuant to his disabilities.  The court then entered an order forcing this man to pay his ex-wife’s attorney’s fees.  It was that point he snapped.
He was then hauled off to jail, and it was in jail that he attempted to
overdose on morphine.  From there, he was taken to a psych ward and pinned
down and medicated, to keep him from killing himself.  That is where we are
today.Indemnification is a method courts use to circumvent the federal prohibition against diverting a veteran’s VA disability compensation.  Las Vegas attorney Marshal Willick, a well-known proponent of indemnification, in his 2007 paper titled “Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases: Secrets to Getting the Retirement Share Your Client Deserves”, writes the following:  “Cautious practitionersensure that property settlement agreements and divorce decrees are so crafted as to allow a later reviewing court to transcend any kind of recharacterization of the benefits addressed, whether anticipated (or even conceived of) at the time of divorce, or not. The tools for doing so are explicit indemnification and constructive trust language, and explicit reservations of jurisdiction, either generally, or to
award spousal support, or both.” Id, pg. 46. One of the most aggregious suppositions by reviewing courts is that veterans voluntarily agree to indemnify their former spouse.  For example, in the Minnesota case (in RE Gatfield, 682 N.W.2d 632 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)), the court writes:“Neither the Supreme Court’s holding in Mansell nor the Uniformed Services Former Spouses ProtectionAct precludes a veteran from voluntarily entering into a contract whereby he or she agrees not to waive retirement pay in favor of disability benefits and to indemnify a former spouse for any loss the spouse might incur should the veteran choose to waive any portion of retirement pay” [ emphasis mine].Thus, from a reviewing court’s perspective, the disabled veteran here
in Georgia (Tom Smith) apparently “voluntarily” agreed to this nonsense.  I would argue that his recent attempts to kill himself over this matter says
otherwise.Quite frankly, the judge here in Muscogee County, Georgia has forced
upon this severely disabled soldier a requirement to divide his disability
compensation with his ex-wife (who, by the way left him when he returned
from Iraq).  The judge “repackaged” the disability by calling it “alimony”,
as clearly the condition to pay alimony is based upon the disabled soldier’s
receipt of disability compensation.  Thus, this court has done indirectly
what it cannot do directly.  Sadly, we may unnecessarily lose a decorated
combat-wounded veteran, all as a result of a family court judge abusing
his discretion.Congress clearly intends that VA disability compensation inure wholly
to and only to the disabled veteran and his dependents.  Once a divorce
is final, the former spouse is no longer a part of the veteran’s family.  So, neither should he or she share in any benefits of the community.  An excellent description of this was written
in a special-concurrence opinion in a 1970s Arizona appellate case, Flowers v Flowers, 118 Ariz . 577 (1978).“In my opinion, the holding that
pure disability benefits, after divorce, are the separate property of the disabled
party can be sustained on grounds other than their similarity to personal injury
payment, that is, then are not the result of onerous title. Rather. workman’s compensation benefits and service connected disability payments are received, not as the result of past labors, and thus “earned”, but rather by society’s decision, through the legislative
process, that work related injuries and their results are a societal responsibility, rather than an individual responsibility. In this sense they are acquired by lucrative title rather than onerous title and as such are separate property. During the term of the marriage, since these payments represent earning capacity and loss of wages (labor) they are properly considered community property. See Dawson v. McNaney, 71 Ariz. 79, 223 P .2d 907 (1950); Guerrero v. Guerrero, supra. However, once the marriage is terminated, the right of the community to share in the labors of the parties is likewise terminated and since one spouse has no right to the future earnings of the other after divorce, so no right should exist to payments representing those earnings, provided the entitlement to those payments is based on lucrative rather than onerous title. Being acquired by lucrative title, after divorce, I would hold such payments to be separate property” [emphasis mine]. VA disability compensation is not earned income -rather, it represents lost earning capacity.  Title 38 CFR §4.1 states explicitly that  “The percentage ratings represent as far as can practicably be determined the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civil occupations.” See 38 CFR §4.1. As a side note, had the Oklahoma State Legislature enacted SB 928 in the last session, this tragedy would not have taken place.  I hope the OK legislators and attorneys who worked so hard to kill Sen. Steve Russell’s bill can now see what happens when you allow family court judges and attorneys to carve up an injured veteran.
Mark W. Beres, Maj., USAF (ret).Tucson, AZ (520) 818-8997

Nevada State Health Division report cites financial stress as contributing to the suicide rate among Nevada veterans (almost four times the national rate)

The first-ever study on suicide mortality among Nevada’s military veterans found that between 2008 and 2010, veterans died by suicide at a rate that was 2.5 times the state rate and almost four times the national rate. According to Nick Clough, suicide prevention coordinator with the Veterans Health Administration in the Las Vegas area, there are many factors that contribute to the high suicide rate among Nevada veterans, including high unemployment and foreclosure rates in the area. The report points to a number of issues that can prevent returning veterans from receiving help for stress-related issues, including limited outreach by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the complexities of negotiating the Veteran’s Health Administration. The report calls for a veteran-focused suicide prevention system in which community organizations collaborate to make sure that veterans are provided effective, timely services and that formal processes for tracking and following up on veterans with identified suicide risk are in place.
Date: Mar 8, 2012

http://suicideprevention.osu.edu/2012/08/20/report-paints-grim-picture-of-suicide-rate-among-nevada-veterans/

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

The state of Nevada has consistently ranked in the top 5 for the
highest suicide rates in the nation.

Suicide is an action often taken by individuals who feel isolated and hopeless, with high levels of emotional pain, physical pain, family and personal problems, and financial stress.  Nevada’s military veterans, particularly younger veterans, are dying from suicide at alarming rates above the state’s already high rate.  The finding of suicide rates so much higher than expected fits the definition of an epidemic.

As a society, we must fulfill our responsibility to those who have carried our freedom and
interests into battle.  If we fail to acknowledge their pain and allow death to occur at their own hand in the very communities they fought to protect, is to render their service and sacrifices meaningless.  Further, current veteran suicide rates in Nevada compromise the health and wellbeing of our entire society
This report stands as a “Call to Action” for every community, healthcare provider, university, college, job-training program, employer, supervisor, co-worker, family, friends, and individual to notice, helping these veterans survive and thrive, after the parade, after the homecoming.

REPORT:  http://health.nv.gov/Publications/2008-2010_Suicide_Nevada_Veterans.pdf

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

MORE SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

In Nevada, a recent state study found, the highest rates among 373 veteran suicides in 2008-2010 were among males in their 20s and early 30s.  Yet, a much smaller number of female veterans committed suicide “at more than triple the overall rate for females statewide and nearly six times the national rate for females,” KLAS-TV in Las Vegas reported in March. “Nevada male veterans had a suicide rate 62 percent higher than the statewide rate for males and 152 percent higher than the national rate for males.”

***********

Nevada’s report on veterans’ suicides in that state suggests it may be due in part to the region’s high unemployment. It also calls attention to the effect of military service: “Some become stronger with self-discipline, goal orientation, and confidence. Some are left with the confusion and aftermath of experiencing personal violence and abuse at the hands of their fellow unit members. Others return home with wounded bodies and minds that impact the rest of their lives.”

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

Among the worrisome welter of suicide statistics is that the majority who killed themselves while on active duty were not in combat. This suggests that something in military culture is a big part of the problem, regardless of where one serves. As the Nevada report on veteran suicides states: “Individuals in uniform yet not deployed into actual war zones may experience continuous training for performing a wartime mission, longer assignments to other hot regions, delayed discharges, emotional turmoil of friends who are injured or killed, and guilt for ‘not being there to help.’”

Wartime military culture also drums into soldiers that the solution to seemingly intractable problems is to shoot or blow something up and kill somebody. Indeed, the most frequent form of self-destruction by veterans is shooting themselves, the Nevada and New Jersey reports show.

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

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/07/1129113/-Military-Suicide-Watch

FROM THE MILITARY SUICIDE REPORT- HISTORY REPEATS: Soldiers Coming Home From Civil War Struggled With Suicide, Divorce, Debt … and Stigma

AMERICA, THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION.

Those taking advantage of a compromised combat veteran should be held accountable for driving them to suicide.  This includes law makers and attorneys.

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

Posted on April 4, 2012 by The Military Suicide Report

Moments of Despair
Suicide, Divorce, and Debt in Civil War Era North Carolina

“Her husband began drinking heavily soon after their wedding, often returning home drunk and abusive. On their second wedding anniversary, an intoxicated Francis stumbled home and began verbally abusing his wife and infant son, breaking furniture, and throwing the fragments at his terrified spouse, who shielded their baby in her arms. Luckily for Addie, Francis’s drunkenness impaired his aim, and she fled the house, running to her mother’s with Francis pursuing them “with an unsheathed bowie knife in his hand.” — excerpt from Moments of Despair

Book Review
by Angela Esco Elder
Oct. 10, 2011

Pills stalled their hearts, bullets tore their brains, and knives sliced their wrists when men refused to live another day. Farmers fought and survived the bloodiest war in American history only to return home to pregnant wives, but not by their seed. Other wives came to court battered and beaten, begging for release from their marriages because for their husbands, war was not over.

Meanwhile, debt shackled families across the South, clasping white and black North Carolinians alike into a form of economic enslavement in a land supposedly free from slavery. Suicide, divorce, and debt— this was the legacy of the American Civil War and is the topic of David Silkenat’s new book Moments of Despair: Suicide, Divorce, & Debt in Civil War Era North Carolina.

Read the rest of this review:

http://southernroundtable.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/a-review-of-david-silkenats-moments-of-despair-suicide-divorce-and-debt-in-civil-war-era-north-carolina-by-angela-

https://themilitarysuicidereport.wordpress.com/

CENTER FOR DEPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGY: Legal and Financial Problems are Top Stressors for Service Members Regarding Suicide

Suicide in the Military

By Augusto Ruiz, PsyD
Deployment Behavioral Health Psychologist

Suicide in the military is a very serious problem. Historically the suicide rates have been lower in the military than those rates found in the general population. However, with the continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, military suicide rates have been increasing and surpassing the rates for society at large.

The Army has had the highest proportional number of suicides compared to the other services. However, Admiral Mullen noted that the rates in all the services have been creeping upwards (Knight Ridder Washington Bureau, 2010). Wiebe et al 2006 examined the rates of suicide from 1993-2002 and found that suicide was the first leading cause of death for female veterans and the second leading cause of death for male veterans.  Kaplan et al 2009 found that military veterans were twice as likely to die of suicide compared to male non-veterans in the general population.  In addition, the researchers found that individuals who were White, had greater than 12 years of education, and had activity limitations were at a greater risk for suicide completion. Other studies have also identified that failed intimate relationships, occupational, legal, financial, and psychiatric problems are top stressors for Service members. Therefore, it is important to become aware of these risk factors and proactively intervene to help Service members that are having difficulty coping.

The Department of Defense has taken steps to increase suicide prevention efforts. They have ordered command stand downs, mandated classes on suicide prevention, created videos, and encouraged leadership to ensure that all commanders are taking care of the Service members under their care.

What are some other strategies that can be used to help Service members who are struggling with suicidal thoughts?  The first strategy is to work on increasing protective factors as early as possible. This means intervening during and right after boot camp. It is important to have clear goals that the Service members are striving to meet. An example of some goals would include obtaining further education, developing technical skills, travelling, and getting promoted. These goals would be instrumental in creating hope and future oriented thinking for our Service members. The second strategy that can be used to help Service members is to create an environment where there is no stigma associated with receiving services for mental health problems. Offering mandatory counseling to units that have been involved in intense combat situations may alleviate the stigma of each soldier having to ask permission for counseling. In addition, it is important to have well trained and adequate numbers of staff available to work with our Service members when they are ready for treatment. If a Service member is having fleeting suicidal thoughts today, it may not be helpful to get an appointment in three weeks. The third strategy we can use to help service members struggling with suicidal thoughts is to ask the difficult questions that will help one determine the Service member’s risk for suicide.

You may want to ask the following questions:

• Are you currently having any thoughts of hurting yourself?
• Do you currently have any desire to kill yourself?
• Do you currently have any specific plan to kill yourself?

It is important to note that a suicide assessment is not a one time screen, but rather should be regularly used especially if there is a significant change in symptoms. Service members should also be asked about their access to fire arms and recommendations should be made for removal of weapons while they are experiencing suicidal ideation.

The fourth strategy that we can use to prevent suicide with Service members is to have clear knowledge of how everyone at the command will act when faced with a potentially suicidal Service member. There should be a clear plan of action of who to contact and how to react. For example, suicide notes should be immediately reported up the chain of command and taken very seriously. Medical teams should be contacted to intervene as soon as possible.

One of the most important things we can offer a Service member with suicidal thoughts is a safety plan. This plan should be collaboratively developed by both the Service member and his/her clinician. This plan should include the Service member’s specific warning signs that he/she is feeling worse, strategies that the Service member will use to cope with their suicidal thoughts, telephone numbers of friends or family that the Service member can call for support, and the telephone numbers for emergency contacts such as the clinic number, suicide hotline number, nearest hospital and 911.  It is important to take every suicide threat seriously.  Not taking a threat seriously can lead to an exacerbation of symptoms or a possible accidental suicide. Regardless of the type of suicide behavior, it is important to try to understand the meaning behind that behavior.

http://deploymentpsych.org/topics-disorders/suicide

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NY TIMES and IAVA’s Paul Rieckhoff Acknowledge Financial Issues Linked to Veteran Suicide

Suicides Outpacing War Deaths for Troops

By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS

Published: June 8, 2012

The suicide rate among the nation’s active-duty military personnel has spiked this year, eclipsing the number of troops dying in battle and on pace to set a record annual high since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more than a decade ago, the Pentagon said Friday.

Suicides have increased even as the United States military has withdrawn from Iraq and stepped up efforts to provide mental health, drug and alcohol, and financial counseling services.

The military said Friday that there had been 154 suicides among active-duty troops through Thursday, a rate of nearly one each day this year. The figures were first reported this week by The Associated Press.

That number represents an 18 percent increase over the 130 active-duty military suicides for the same period in 2011. There were 123 suicides from January to early June in 2010, and 133 during that period in 2009, the Pentagon said.

By contrast, there were 124 American military fatalities in Afghanistan as of June 1 this year, according to the Pentagon.

Suicide rates of military personnel and combat veterans have risen sharply since 2005, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan intensified. Recently, the Pentagon established a Defense Suicide Prevention Office.

On Friday, Cynthia Smith, a Defense Department spokeswoman, said the Pentagon had sought to remind commanders that those who seek counseling should not be stigmatized.

“This is a troubling issue, and we are committed to getting our service members the help they need,” she said. “I want to emphasize that getting help is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign of strength.”

In a letter to military commanders last month, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said that “suicide prevention is a leadership responsibility,” and added, “Commanders and supervisors cannot tolerate any actions that belittle, haze, humiliate or ostracize any individual, especially those who require or are responsibly seeking professional services.”

But veterans’ groups said Friday that the Pentagon had not done enough to moderate the tremendous stress under which combat troops live, including coping with multiple deployments.

“It is clear that the military, at the level of the platoon, the company and the battalion, that these things are not being addressed on a compassionate and understanding basis,” said Bruce Parry, chairman of the Coalition of Veterans Organizations, a group based in Illinois. “They need to understand on a much deeper level the trauma the troops are facing.”

Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, called suicides among active-duty military personnel “the tip of the iceberg.” He cited a survey the group conducted this year among its 160,000 members that found that 37 percent knew someone who had committed suicide.

Mr. Rieckhoff attributed the rise in military suicides to too few qualified mental health professionals, aggravated by the stigma of receiving counseling and further compounded by family stresses and financial problems. The unemployment rate among military families is a particular problem, he said.

“They are thinking about combat, yeah, but they are also thinking about their wives and kids back home,” he said.

Thom Shanker contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/us/suicides-eclipse-war-deaths-for-us-troops.html?_r=0

 

VA backed Veterans Crisis Line reports relationship problems, financial or legal issues as stemming crisis leading to suicide

COMBAT VETERANS (25% of the 2.4 million veterans of the current war are rated under Service Connection, Disability) come home to:

1. relationship issues

2. health issues (combat injuries etc)

3. TBI- (this injury has been described by vets who suffer it as ‘having a brand new brain put in your head, you are no longer you, and are forced to learn who you are all over’- all the way down to how food tastes) many vets (diagnosed and professionally predicted a very large volume of undiagnosed) with varying degrees of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) have reading difficulties or cannot read at all due the nature of blast trauma affecting the connection between the brain & eyes, cognitive issues, blinding headaches and many other associated side effects

4. medication/over medicated- pain meds, psych meds (the list is never-ending) impair judgement and the over all well-being of the person to whom they are prescribed

5. PTSD

6. financial issues exacerbated many times by all of the above

7. Embarrassment and being overwhelmed by all the above issues leads to isolation.  Isolation leads to loss of the very much needed support of friends, family and local community, especially during a veteran’s transition. The “road to recovery” more often than not, is during a very unstable time period in the vets life which creates feelings of despair, hopelessness & helplessness, creating desperation in seeking whatever relief can be found.  Drinking, drugs and other vices become a lifestyle to drown-out the .  The currently sky-rocketing suicide rate shows over and over and over, statistically we are not providing the support and protection that is needed for these wounded American’s to heal and move into the next phase of their life.

FROM: Veterans Crisis Line

In 2007, the Veterans Crisis Line was established as a partnership among VA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. In 2009, VA added an online chat option to the Veterans Crisis Line hotline, and a text messaging service was launched in 2011.

Since its launch in 2007, the Veterans Crisis Line has answered more than 650,000 calls and made more than 23,000 life-saving rescues. In 2009, VA added the anonymous online chat that has since helped more than 65,000 people.

In 2011, the National Veterans Suicide Prevention Hotline was renamed the Veterans Crisis Line.

Even if there is no immediate danger, the Veterans Crisis Line is here for you. Crisis feels different for everybody and can stem from a wide range of situations. Some Veterans are coping with aging, stress, relationship problems, financial or legal issues, or lingering effects stemming from their military service, which were never addressed. Some Veterans have difficulty with their relationships or the transition back to civilian life.

Whatever’s got you down—chronic pain, anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, anger, or even homelessness—a Veterans Crisis Line responder can provide support, day or night.

http://veteranscrisisline.net/Default.aspx

Attorney Marshal S. Willick, accused of malice and with an intent to defame

This document describes the alleged actions of Attorney Marshal Willick and Willick Law Group and their impact to the life of R. Scotlund Vaile for almost a decade after Mr. Willick did not prevail in court.  This is a copy of the document filed by Mr. Vaile. The link depicts the case that is was eventually settled out of court. 

Plaintiff: Mr. Vaile \ Defendant: Mr. Marshal Willick

Plaintiff argues in his motion that Defendants published false statements in a series of
letters sent to Washington & Lee University School of Law and the American Bar Association that they knew to be untrue and that the letters were sent in malice and with an intent to defame.

For the reasons that follow, the Court will GRANT in PART Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because the letters are defamatory per se, but will DENY in PART because the letters may be privileged depending on whether the letters materially departed from the information within the judicial opinion of the Nevada District Court.  The Court will also GRANT in PART Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress as Plaintiff has not offered any evidence to support his claim, but will DENY in PART because the issue of whether Defendants’ letters were privileged is an issue for a jury to decide.

At the time of the Nevada litigation, Vaile was a student at Washington & Lee University
School of Law (“W&L”) and subsequently graduated in May 2007.  On March 24, 2006, Willick sent a letter to W&L that advised that Vaile had been “found guilty of multiple violations of State and Federal law, including kidnaping, passport fraud, felony non-support of children, and violation of RICO.”  Willick concluded that W&L must be unaware of Vaile’s “history” because “[i]t would be astounding if your institution would willingly countenance association with such an individual.”Willick attached Judge Hunt’s March 13, 2006 decision to his letter and urged W&L to “reconsider [Vaile’s] fitness for continued enrollment.” He further advised that “no form of federal state, or private money should be used for the support or aid of this individual.”W&L seemingly took no action and, as a result, Crane sent a letter to the American Bar Association (“ABA”) to inform it of W&L’s recalcitrance.  Crane advised the ABA that Vaile was enrolled at W&L and that “[i]t baffled [the Willick Law Group] that a law school would admit a student found to have committed multiple violation [sic] of State and Federal law, including kidnaping, passport fraud, felony non-support of children, and violation of RICO.”  Crane attached Judge Hunt’s March 13, 2006 decision to his letter, as well as the March 24, 2006 letter to W&L, and called for the ABA to rescind W&L’s accreditation because it “knowingly admit[s] students with Mr. Vaile’s credentials” and “seem[s] to have little concern” of his conduct  because he “is still a student at the school.” Vaile filed this action on March 30, 2007, and alleged, among other things, that Willick’s letter to W&L was false and defamatory and that Willick and Crane sent the letters to inflict severe emotional distress upon him.  Vaile later added a second claim for defamation because of Crane’s letter to the ABA.  Vaile also alleged that Willick and Crane violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., by their conduct and that Willick and Crane conspired to injure his professional and business interests under the Virginia Business Conspiracy Act, Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-499, -500, but these claims were dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Vaile filed the pending motion for summary judgment and argues that Willick and Crane sent the letters to W&L and the ABA with malice and an intent to defame.  Vaile further argues that he has never been found guilty of any state or federal laws, and, therefore, the statements in the letters
are false and defamatory because they suggest he has been convicted of criminal offenses.  In response, Willick and Crane argue that the letters are true or, at worst, substantially true, and do not necessarily suggest a criminal conviction.

THIS DOCUMENT COVERS MUCH MORE, WE WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT PART OF IT.  PLEASE GO TO THE LINK BELOW TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENT IN FULL.

**All information has been gathered from public information.

ORIGINAL COURT DOCUMENT: https://usvetbloodmoney.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/6-7cv11vaillev-willicksj.pdf

COMPLETE CASE: http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=1691356

ORIGINAL VAILE CASE:  http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2000/Oct-27-Fri-2000/news/14680447.html

ATTENTION GOV NATHAN DEAL/Georgia, A Judge in your court system is circumventing the Federal Law on Veterans Disability

Mr. Smith is a severely injured war veteran who among other things suffers from Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI).  The stress of the jail time Honorable Judge William C. Rumer has sentenced him to, the cognitive challenges, the challenge of an impaired ability to speak and being told repeatedly he cannot have his current wife (Official VA Caregiver) with him during court to help him recall dates etc has driven Mr. Smith to attempting suicide more than once.  The former able bodied spouse earns over $40 per hour as a trauma nurse, and over $60 an hour on overtime, which she regularly has worked.

The exact wording from the final official document of the Honorable Judge William C. Rumer decision to give the former spouse 1/2 of Mr. Smith’s disability:

“If and only if Husband receives Veterans Disability that is offset against his military retirement, then Husband shall pay as alimony to Wife, until the death of either party or Wife’s remarriage, dollar for dollar any reduction in his retirement because said retirement pay has been reduced by the award of any Veterans Administration Disability.” (see below for court document)

Click to access 20110329-smith-v-smith-division-of-disability-benefits.pdf