Out of the Void

Searching for Meaning and Truth

About Me

brown dragonMy most treasured value is my freedom. It is one I have been willing to die for. Without freedom, my life is not my own. Why should I live a life not my own?

I served 6 years active duty in the U.S. Army. I served between two wars – Vietnam and Desert Storm.

I have spent most of my life seeking truth. I am still looking and suspect I always will be…

I have a vision of this blog being a place where I can explore the “Devil’s Advocate” position on various topics and share my opinions (and where I get them). My hope is to help myself and others to develop skill in critical thinking.

I am not a scholar. If you are looking for scholarly debates and dissertations, please look elsewhere. I am merely a middle-aged woman on a quest. If you are interested in following my thinking, welcome.

Sometimes I make mistakes. I even make dumb ones at times. So, if you catch me in one, please do point it out. That is how I learn. If you find yourself with an opinion different from mine, by all means, tell me about it and explain why you think the way you do. That way, we can all learn.

In the interest of making fewer mistakes,  Logic and Fallacies – Constructing a Logical Argument is a great resource.

It may take me awhile to find my voice, but this is a journey, right?

2 Comments »

  1. Welcome and great start!

    Thanks for linking to me as well.

    Michelle
    ideas from free minds

    Comment by Miche | July 6, 2007 | Reply

  2. Underlying all, the 1950 U.S. Supreme Court’s FERES DOCTRINE holds the the federal government harmless for no matter the cause, injuries to active duty personnel.[1] On 26 February 1953 was the DOD Secretary’s NO non-consensual, human experiment’s Memo.[2] Thereby an after order disobeyed dereliction of duty demonstrated by the GAO and U.S. Senate in [3] & [7]! In 1988 the U.S. Congress’s Veteran’s Judicial Review Act created the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals (COVA).
    This is a U.S. Congressional no teeth inferior LEGISLATIVE, NOT a Judicial Branch Court. It can not hold the DOD & DVA responsible for the underlying facts of a case. Its Chief Judge describes veterans captured within an out of control, DVA health care process. Lost is a before military service right to a facts of the case reviewing and precedence setting, superior Judicial Branch Court. All veterans are captured within the “freely ignored” “Constitution, statutes and regulations” Executive Branch. To date the DOD Secretary’s disobeyed order, the GAO, Veterans Court Chief Judge and U.S. Senate noted violations have not been corrected! Now gone for both active U.S. Service Personnel and U.S. Veterans are the check and balances between our branches of government, i.e., the Legislative (U.S. House and Senate), the Executive (e.g., Departments of Defense [DOD] and Veterans Affairs [DVA]) and the Judicial.

    Despite the efforts of some, in 2009 it is fifteen (15) years later without the U.S. Congress’s then known DOD violations corrected; REFERENCES [3] thru [7]: A. In Sept. 1994 there was the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) Military “Human Experimentation” “Testimony” on injured DOD personnel.[3] B. In Oct. 1994 the Chief Judge of Congress’s 1988 established inferior U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals stated that the, “Constitution, statutes and regulations” are “policy freely ignored” by both the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and “The Veterans Health Administration” (VHA). Also there is the, “The” Veterans Appeals “court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the schedule.”[4] That is the herein “STATE OF COURT” transcript PARAGRAPH 9 with Congress’s law of the land, no allowed Court review U.S. CODE, TITLE 38, SECTIONS (§) 511 and § 7252. Decisions of the Secretary; finality; [5] & [6]. and C. The 54 page Dec. 94 U.S. Senate’s “hundreds of thousands” of military guinea pigs acknowledgment plus its, “The Feres Doctrine should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate human experimentation when informed consent has not been given.”[7] The established DOD experimentation caused issues can not be addressed by COVA or by any other U.S. Court! Accordingly, do not these DOD & DVA violations now continue?

    REFERENCES (Emphasis added throughout) with comments:

    [1] The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1950, in Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S. Ct. 153, 95 L. Ed. 152, that the federal government could not be held liable under the statute known as the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C.A. Sections 1291, 1346(b), (c), 1402(b), 2401(b), 2402, 2671-80) for injuries to members of the armed forces arising from activities incident to military service. A doctrine that bars claims against the federal by members of the armed forces and their families for injuries arising from or in the course of activities incident to military service. Sourse:
    FeresDoctrine

    [2] 26 February 1953, DOD Secretary’s NO non-consensual, human experiment’s Memo. Pages 343-345 of “The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation” by George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin. (Oxford University Press, 1992).

    [3] September 28, 1994 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) Military “Human Experimentation” “Testimony”. GAO/T-NSIAD-94-266

    [4] “STATE OF COURT, CHIEF JUDGE FRANK Q. NEBEKER, STATE OF THE COURT, FOR PRESENTATION TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS THIRD JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 17-18, 1994 {as it appears in Veterans Appeals Reporter}”

    ——————–PARAGRAPH 9 of 16 in “STATE OF COURT” TRANSCRIPT records DVA laymen ignoring medical opinion without veteran recourse.—————————–

    “I believe my message is clear. There is, I suggest, no system with judicial review which has within it a component part free to function in its own way, in its own time and with one message to those it disappoints — take an appeal. That is, I am afraid, what we have today in many of the Department’s Agencies of Original Jurisdiction — that is AOJs — around the country. Neither the Court, through the Board, the Board, nor the General Counsel has direct and meaningful control over the Agencies of Original Jurisdiction. Indeed, it is also clear that the VHA — the Veterans Health Administration — ignores specific directives to provide medical opinions as directed. And this is resulting in unconscionable delays. Let us examine judicial review. Remember, the Court and the Board do not make policy, the Secretary and Congress do. The Court simply identifies error made below by a failure to adhere, in individual cases, to the Constitution, statutes, and regulations which themselves reflect policy — policy freely ignored by many initial adjudicators whose attitude is, “I haven’t been told by my boss to change. If you don’t like it — appeal it.” The complete 16 paragraph “STATE OF COURT” transcript is available on request. Previously at, and now missing from the Chief Judges and state_of_court sites: http://www.goodnet.com/~heads/nebeker & http://www.firebase.net/state_of_court_brief.htm The legal-dictionary source “http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/federal+court”>Federal Courts notes in part: “The court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the schedule.”

    The top medically ignorant “boss” is Congress’s confirmed “Secretary” of the DVA.

    AND THE CONGRESS’S “policy freely ignored” UNITED STATES CODE law of the land, take away from Veterans:

    [5] UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 38 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc…11—-000-.html

    “(a) The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject to subsection (b), THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY AS TO ANY SUCH QUESTION SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND MAY NOT BE REVIEWED BY ANY OTHER OFFICIAL OR BY ANY COURT, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.”

    THEREFORE, NO COURT REVIEW OF THE MEDICALLY UNTRAINED DVA laymen and “Secretary” “schedule of ratings for disabilities” decisions as proven by:

    [6] UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 38 PART V > CHAPTER 72 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 7252. Jurisdiction; finality of decisions

    “(b) Review in the Court shall be on the record of proceedings before the Secretary and the Board. The extent of the review shall be limited to the scope provided in section 7261 of this title. THE COURT MAY NOT REVIEW THE SCHEDULE OF RATINGS FOR DISABILITIES adopted under section 1155 of this title or any action of the Secretary in adopting or revising that schedule.”

    [7] December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 “Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century.” Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session. With NOTES 1 to 170.

    Comment by David Marshall | November 6, 2009 | Reply


Leave a comment