• FBI, VA, HHS, BATFE collude on scheme to steal guns from veterans.
By Ronald L. Ray —
In an effort to disarm millions of United States citizens without due process of law, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Veteran Affairs (VA) are unconstitutionally employing Mafia-type tactics to keep wide segments of society from purchasing or owning guns, in spite of the Constitution’s protections. But no old scrap of parchment ever held back an army of bureaucratic bandoleros. Soon the Social Security Administration (SSA) will join the gang of thugs.
According to reports by conservative news and opinion website The Daily Caller on April 21, 2015 and July 21, 2015, although the VA supposedly does not reveal veterans’ medical records without their consent, the agency has been colluding at least since February 2012 in a duplicitous FBI scheme to take guns away from a significant segment of the country’s more than 21.8 million veterans, who swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Apparently that “domestic” part worries the tyrants in Washington.
Approximately 9 million veterans are enrolled in the VA healthcare system, and all of them are at risk of losing their firearms. It only takes one little admission to a VA employee that one is feeling a little down, for instance, or mentioning that one’s spouse handles the finances, and the veteran can then be reported to the FBI as an alleged danger to society because of “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease.”
All of this happens in the bureaucratic shadows and nearly never as a result of a judicial or administrative hearing, violating the right to due process of law. Those veterans and their relatives fortunate enough to receive notice of the impending theft of their rights must then try to prove that they are competent. But not all are notified—and they nevertheless are judged guilty until proven innocent.
Still, the VA has a heart for those who have fought and bled in wars fomented by predatory international banksters and mass-murdering defense contractors. A veteran can “buy back” his gun rights by surrendering the VA benefits he
earned through military service to his country.
“This is simply unbelievable,” writes U.S. Army veteran and Constitutional attorney Michael Connelly, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation. “On the one hand the VA and the FBI have found veterans to be mentally ill and too dangerous to be allowed to own firearms, while on the other hand allowing these allegedly dangerous people to buy their firearm rights back. This is illegal and is called extortion.”
Some 177,000 veterans in the VA system have been entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and are prevented from purchasing firearms. Even if they appeal successfully, the FBI apparently rarely removes them from the list of prohibited persons.
Worse, the FBI and BATFE can threaten veterans and their families with armed invasion of their homes if they do not voluntarily surrender their guns and ammunition. The BATFE, which was heavily involved in the government-run false-flag operations at Waco and Oklahoma City, also colludes with the FBI to suppress public knowledge of these vicious attacks on Americans’ rights by claiming that “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters” are somehow exempt from disclosure, unless another federal agency sues for the information.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the SSA is also now entering the gun confiscation business. Approximately 2.7 million Americans are on Social Security due to some form of mental illness. Even if they are not a risk to public safety, they face loss of their rights and property without a trial.
Like the VA, HHS, following an executive order from Obama, violates the HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) law, which protects the privacy of individuals’ medical records.
Connelly writes: “It is releasing the records to the FBI of anyone who has ever told their physician they were feeling depressed, even if never treated, and anyone who has taken certain drugs for things like PTSD, ADD or ADHD, among others.”
Moreover, he adds, “[BATFE] is issuing new regulations” to take away gun rights forever from anyone, even children, “ever sent by a judge to be examined by a psychiatrist or psychologist.”
But small pockets of resistance are forming against the jackbooted federales. In Priest River, Idaho, approximately 100 people, including state Representative Heather Scott and Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler, protested publicly against the VA’s declaration to veteran John Arnold that he allegedly now cannot legally purchase or own firearms.
Let us be clear. The federal government’s Stalinist gun confiscation programs are not about public safety and are not tied only to Democrat administrations. No mere election will ever stop them. They are about disarming the public, in order to ensure the New World Order’s reign of terror. What will you do to keep that from happening?
Ronald L. Ray is a freelance author and an assistant editor of THE BARNES REVIEW. He is a descendant of several patriots of the American War for Independence.
When veterans’ are effected by federal agency proclamations that run counter to legislative intent and the best interest of the veteran it is up to every veteran, and veteran’s organizations to call out those who want to do harm by rewriting law and publishing inconsistencies and falsehoods as fact.
From the Office of the VA General Counsel, a “Summary of Law” dated April 2015. “Garnishment of VA benefits” STATUTORY PROVISIONS, “..Congress created an exception to 38 USC 5301(a)..” Specifically, suggesting 42 USC 659, (based on remuneration for employment,) as the Child Enforcement Act. “.. authorizes VA . . . to withhold, or garnish.. for alimony or child support. The statute does not require VA beneficiaries.. be employees of VA in order for garnishment..”
A Congressional enactment, Child Enforcement Act (42 USC 651). “This part is popularly known as the Child Support Enforcement Act. Authorization of appropriations.”
42 USC 659 gives ‘consent’ . . . by the United States to income withholding, garnishment and similar proceedings for availability of federal compensation funds.
42 USC 651 Authorization of ‘appropriations’ . . . required for enforcement.
Both are administrative laws.
With proper legal consent, and appropriations, enforcement possible only with proper subject-matter jurisdiction in response to a legal State court order supported with the proper service of legal process.
VA Summary of Law “Although section 5301(a)(1) generally prohibits garnishment of VA benefits, the Supreme Court in ‘Rose v Rose’ held that state courts may enforce support orders against VA compensation payments under certain circumstances after a Veteran receives them.”
“Under the ‘Rose’ decision, state courts may consider the availability of VA benefits in determining the amount of a child support obligations and that, . . . because VA disability compensation is intended to benefit both the Veteran and his or her dependents, ..”
The VA Office of the General Counsel’s (2015) ‘Summary of Law’ directive communicates 42 USC 659 as the Child Enforcement Act purposely to mislead and confuse veterans into submission. The Department of Health and Human Services, Child Support Enforcement Agency (since perhaps beyond 1998), as well, intentionally publishes these false and misleading directives on a imaginative legal theory, a selective distortion of law using “apportionment” of VA disability benefits in enforcement proceedings of alimony/support. Happened in the 1987 United States Supreme Court Rose decision, applying “apportionment” throughout 37 times. And it worked! VA Summary of Law, “Under the Rose decision, state courts may consider the availability of VA benefits in determining the amount of a child support obligations . . . and that, because VA disability compensation is intended to benefit both the Veteran and his or her dependents, ..”
The VA General Counsel’s “Summary of Law” directive in brief lists 3 areas of veterans’ law, STATUTORY PROVISIONS, ROSE V ROSE, and APPORTIONMENT. A summary prepared with intentionally brief and carefully crafted false and misleading information, causing much anguish, and uncertainty among veterans as well as the public. Setting the stage for every activist state court judge in the country to bolster state court rulings unjustly in garnishing VA disability compensation benefits. Justice.. as administered, based on distortion and misrepresentations of law. An intentional crossing the line approach by a Federal agency to purposely trample veterans into obedience by a fabrication of law. Lost forever are the veteran’s rights protections to their earned VA disability benefits, to fair and equal justice, by irresponsibly and falsely accusing veterans by suggesting “the veteran is not reasonably discharging his or her responsibility for the spouse’s or children’s support,” (42 USC 651).
VA General Counsel’s Summary of Law is a deliberate attempt to browbeat veterans by publishing very questionable and inaccurate law theories, and the constitutional jurisdictional questions it brings. Victimizing veterans of their legal rights to VA benefits. It was the General Counsel’s reliance on 42 USC 659 “..an exception to 38 USC 5301.,” referenced by the “Summary of Law” that this reliance turned instead, from “..an exception” to “apportionment.”
“Summary of law” Footnote 7, “Apportion” 38 USC 5307 referencing only the reasons that apportion of VA compensation takes place. However, purposely left out, failed to explain.. under what conditions before the reasons for General Counsel’s “apportionment” can take place? Leaving the impression “reasons” to any reader, without history analysis, as the final definitive legal enforcement regulation.
The conditions. “Apportionment” is a Department of Veterans Affairs administrative law (38 USC 5307), “. . . as may be prescribed by the Secretary.” Apportionment of benefits takes place and occurs when a disabled veteran is institutionalized, hospitalized, incompetent or unable for whatever reason to make decisions personally. The inability to function, restricted in discharging his or her normal personal business, household, daily responsibilities. Therefore, any pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation may be apportioned, not by any court, but “.. as prescribed by the Secretary.” Having absolutely nothing whatsoever of being in a courtroom, or an issue of garnishment. Administrative law adjudications are not part of enforcement. Under the “apportionment” statute since there is no divorce, there is no enforcement, only administration. The entire “Summary of Law” is based on divorce in order to get at a veteran’s disability compensation by implementing “apportionment.”
However, if the concern of the VA General Counsel was truly a support issue under (38 USC 5307) ‘apportionment’ a provision by statute is provided, namely 38 USC 1115 “Additional compensation for dependents.”
Both, VA Office of the General Counsel “Summary of Law” and Rose v Rose, referred 42 USC 659 as a Child Enforcement Act, intentionally deceptive, added for effect. However, the Rose court determined that 42 USC 659, “ . . . specifically exclude VA disability benefits..” (entitlement to which is based on remuneration for employment). Therefore, the Rose court administered judgment applying “apportionment,” introduced 37 times, . . . and it worked! Apportionment, (38 U.S.C. 5307) which has nothing to do with garnishment, is not mentioned in 42 USC 659 referred by General Counsel as the Child Enforcement Act.
Along with misfeasance, there is a obvious conflict with the VA General Counsel’s “Summary of law” stating, “..created an exception to 38 USC 5301” by implication of 42 USC 659. Until, the VA General Counsel’s legal opinion of “apportionment,” is published in the Federal register adjudication remains suspect.
Federal Register. September 28, 1999 Volume 64, Number 187 ‘Summary of Precedent Opinions of the General Counsel.’ “The General Counsel’s interpretations on legal matters, contained in such opinions, are conclusive as to all VA officials and employees not only in the matter at issue but also in future adjudications and appeals, in the absence of a change in controlling statute or regulation or a superseding written legal opinion of the General Counsel.”
Federal Register: April 1, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 62)
a. May the action of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office withholding a portion of a veteran’s compensation and paying it to the veteran’s former spouse pursuant to a state-court support order be considered an apportionment under 38 U.S.C. 5307?
b. Does the Board of Veterans” Appeals (Board) have jurisdiction to review a VA regional office decision to withhold a portion of a veteran’s compensation benefits pursuant to a state-court support order and 5 C.F.R. 581.103 and 581.402?
a. The action of a VA regional office withholding a portion of a veteran’s compensation and paying it to the veteran’s former spouse, which was based on a state-court support order which the regional office misconstrued as requiring garnishment of the veteran’s benefits, may not be considered an apportionment action under 38 U.S.C. 5307.
This has been a VA “Summary of Law” directive based on a purposely false, sloppy, inaccurate information (apportionment), deliberately to mislead disabled veterans and their attorneys, and setting the stage to partnership with every overbearing activist state court judge in the country to administer their justice. This is similar in precisely the same deceptive logic and wording and the position taken by U.S. Department of Health and Human services, Office of Child Support Enforcement.
The VA General Counsel has distorted the reading and intermingling law, using “apportionment” purposely to get what the law will not give up. Let’s not let what our United States Supreme Court and the State of Tennessee did to Charlie Wayne Rose, a severely disabled veteran, ever happen again by the same tactics as described, and published by VA Office of the General Counsel, highly imaginative “Summary of Law.” Let’s leave “apportionment” where it belongs, as “prescribed by the Secretary.”
As a veteran’s advocate, a Korean era veteran, I am neither disabled or in any divorce action. The reality of law from the disabled veteran’s view . . . it’s criminal.
William Heino Sr.