VetLikeMe Weekly May 29, 2014

0
678

shinsekiVA Secretary Shinseki resigned just after noon on Friday, May 30. VetLikeMe is providing below the Executive Summary of the IG Report (Review of Wait Times, Scheduling Practices, and Alleged Patient Deaths at the Phoenix Health Care System) to keep readers abreast of recent developments. Mr. Sloan Gibson will serve as interim director of the Department.

The report was released last Tuesday, May 27,2014.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This interim report provides an overview of our ongoing review at the Phoenix Health Care System (HCS), identifies the allegations we have substantiated to date, and provides recommendations that VA should implement immediately. Allegations at the Phoenix HCS include gross mismanagement of VA resources and criminal misconduct by VA senior hospital leadership, creating systemic patient safety issues and possible wrongful deaths. While our work is not complete, we have substantiated that significant delays in access to care negatively impacted the quality of care at this medical facility.

Phoenix Veteran’s Administration Hospital

The issues identified in current allegations are not new. Since 2005, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued 18 reports that identified, at both the national and local levels, deficiencies in scheduling resulting in lengthy waiting times  and the negative impact on patient care. As required by the Inspector General Act of 1978, each of the reports listed was issued to the VA Secretary and the Congress and is publicly available on the VA OIG website. These reports are identified in Appendix D.

We initiated this review in response to allegations first reported to the OIG Hotline and expanded it at the request of the VA Secretary and the Chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee (HVAC) following an HVAC hearing on April 9, 2014, on delays in VA medical care and preventable veteran deaths. Since receiving those requests we have received other congressional requests including those submitted by the Chair and Ranking Members of the following Committees and Subcommittees: HVAC Ranking Member; HVAC Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations; House Appropriations Committee; House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies; Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee; Senate Appropriations Committee; and Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies. In addition, we received requests from Senators John McCain, Jeff Flake, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Grassley, Tom Udall, and Michael Bennet; and Representatives Kyrsten Sinema and Jack Kingston. We also have requests from a number of Texas House members specific to facilities in Texas.

Due to the multitude and broad range of issues, we are conducting a comprehensive review requiring an in-depth examination of many sources of information necessitating access to records and personnel, both within and external to VA. We are using our combined expertise in audit, healthcare inspections, and criminal investigations, along with our institutional knowledge of VA programs and operations and legal authority to conduct a review of this nature and scope.

A detailed assessment of the information obtained from Phoenix HCS’ medical records and its business practices requires a full understanding of VA’s current and historical policies and procedures as well as the current practices, facts, and circumstances relating to these serious allegations. We have and will continue to conduct comprehensive interviews of numerous individuals to evaluate the many allegations, determine their validity, and if appropriate, assign individual accountability. Despite the number of allegations, each individual allegation is nothing more than an allegation. We are charged with reviewing the merits of these allegations and determining whether sufficient, credible factual evidence exists to meet the standards required by applicable laws and regulations to hold VA, or specific individuals accountable on the basis of criminal, civil, or administrative law and regulations.

In late April, the OIG assembled a multidisciplinary team comprised of board-certified physicians, special agents, auditors, and healthcare inspectors from across the country to address numerous allegations at this and other VA medical facilities. Since the Phoenix HCS story broke in the national media, we have received allegations of similar issues regarding manipulated waiting times at other Veteran Health Administration (VHA) medical facilities through the OIG Hotline, from members of Congress, VA employees, veterans and their families, and the media.

In response, we have opened reviews at other VHA medical facilities to determine whether scheduling practices are and/or were in use that did not comply with VHA’s scheduling policies and procedures. Clearly, there are national implications associated with inappropriate and non-compliant scheduling practices, including the impact on patient care and a lack of data integrity. Veterans who utilize the VA health care system deserve quality care in a timely manner. Therefore, it is necessary that information relied upon to make mission-critical management decisions regarding the demand for vital health care services must be based on reliable and complete data throughout VA’s health care networks. It is important to note that the information in this interim report is dynamic and changes may occur as our review progresses. I have directed our teams to focus on two fundamental questions:
(1)  Did the facility’s electronic wait list (EWL) purposely omit the names of veterans waiting for care and, if so, at whose direction?
(2)  Were the deaths of any of these veterans related to delays in care?

To address the allegations received thus far and remain prepared to address new allegations at medical facilities throughout VA, we are deploying Rapid Response Teams. We are not providing VA medical facilities advance notice of our visits to reduce the risk of destruction of evidence, manipulation of data, and coaching staff on how to respond to our interview questions. To date, we have ongoing or scheduled work at 42 VA medical facilities and have identified instances of manipulation of VA data that distort the legitimacy of reported waiting times. When sufficient credible evidence is identified supporting a potential violation of criminal and/or civil law, we have contacted and are coordinating our efforts with the Department of Justice.

Our review at the Phoenix HCS includes the following actions:

Interviewing staff with direct knowledge of patient scheduling practices and policies, including scheduling clerks, supervisors, patient care providers, management staff, and
whistleblowers who have stepped forward to report allegations of wrongdoing. Collecting and analyzing voluminous reports and documents from VHA information technology systems related to patient scheduling and enrollment.

Obtaining and reviewing VA and non-VA medical records of patients whose death occurred while on a waiting list, or is alleged to be related to a delay in care.

Reviewing performance standards, ratings, and awards of senior facility staff.

Reviewing past and new complaints to the OIG Hotline on delays in care, as well as those complaints shared with us by members of Congress or reported by the media.

Reviewing other documents and reports relevant to these allegations, including administrative boards of investigations or reports of reviews conducted by VHA’s Office of
the Medical Inspector.

Reviewing over 550,000 email messages and documents, extracted from over 50 gigabytes of collected email. In addition, imaging and reviewing 10 encrypted computers and/or
devices, and over 140,000 network files.

Our reviews at a growing number of VA medical facilities have thus far provided insight into the current extent of these inappropriate scheduling issues throughout the VA health care system and have confirmed that inappropriate scheduling practices are systemic throughout VHA. One challenge in these reviews is to determine whether these practices exist currently or were used in the past and subsequently corrected by VA managers.

To date, our work has substantiated serious conditions at the Phoenix HCS. We identified about 1,400 veterans who did not have a primary care appointment but were appropriately included on the Phoenix HCS’ EWLs. However, we identified an additional 1,700 veterans who were waiting for a primary care appointment but were not on the EWL. Until that happens, the reported wait time for these veterans has not started. Most importantly, these veterans were and continue to be at risk of being forgotten or lost in Phoenix HCS’s convoluted scheduling process. As a result, these veterans may never obtain a requested or required clinical appointment. A direct consequence of not appropriately placing veterans on EWLs is that the Phoenix HCS leadership significantly understated the time new patients waited for their primary care appointment in their FY 2013 performance appraisal accomplishments, which is one of the factors considered for awards and salary increases.

To review the new patient wait times for primary care in FY 2013, we reviewed a statistical sample of 226 Phoenix HCS appointments. VA national data, which was reported by Phoenix HCS, showed these 226 veterans waited on average 24 days for their first primary care appointment and only 43 percent waited more than 14 days. However, our review showed these 226 veterans waited on average 115 days for their first primary care appointment with approximately 84 percent waiting more than 14 days. At this time, we believe that most of the waiting time discrepancies occurred because of delays between the veteran’s requested appointment date and the date the appointment was created. However, we found that in at least 25 percent of the 226 appointments reviewed, evidence, in veterans’ medical records, indicates that these veterans received some level of care in the Phoenix HCS, such as treatment in the emergency room, walk in clinics, or mental health clinics.

Our reviews have identified multiple types of scheduling practices that are not in compliance with VHA policy. Since the multiple lists we found were something other than the official EWL, these additional lists may be the basis for allegations of creating “secret” wait lists. We are not reporting the results of our clinical reviews in this interim report on whether any delay in scheduling a primary care appointment resulted in a delay in diagnosis or treatment, particularly for those veterans who died while on a waiting list. The assessments needed to draw any conclusions require analysis of VA and non-VA medical records, death certificates, and autopsy results. We have made requests to appropriate state agencies and have issued subpoenas to obtain non-VA medical records. All of these records will require a detailed review by our clinical teams.

Lastly, while conducting our work at the Phoenix HCS our on-site OIG staff and OIG Hotline received numerous allegations daily of mismanagement, inappropriate hiring decisions, sexual harassment, and bullying behavior by mid- and senior-level managers at this facility. We are assessing the validity of these complaints and if true, the impact to the facility’s senior leadership’s ability to make effective improvements to patients’ access to care.

We will make recommendations in our final report and ask the VA Secretary to submit target dates and implementation plans. However, to ensure all veterans receive appropriate care, we submit to the VA Secretary the following recommendations for his immediate implementation. We will address the sufficiency of the VA Secretary’s action to implement the following recommendations in our final report.

1. We recommend the VA Secretary take immediate action to review and provide appropriate health care to the 1,700 veterans we identified as not being on any existing wait list.

2. We recommend the VA Secretary review all existing wait lists at the Phoenix Health Care System to identify veterans who may be at greatest risk because of a delay in the delivery of health care (for example, those veterans who would be new patients to a specialty clinic) and provide the appropriate medical care.

3. We recommend the VA Secretary initiate a nationwide review of veterans on wait lists to ensure that veterans are seen in an appropriate time, given their clinical condition.

4. We recommend the VA Secretary direct the Health Eligibility Center to run a nationwide New Enrollee Appointment Request report by facility of all newly enrolled veterans and direct facility leadership to ensure all veterans have received appropriate care or are shown on the facility’s electronic waiting list.

We will provide VA with the list of the 1,700 veterans we identified as not being on any wait list so that VA can mitigate any further access delays to health care services, and deliver higher quality of health care.

RICHARD J. GRIFFIN
Acting Inspector General

complete report:gibson

http://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-14-02603-178.pdf

The Senate confirmed Gibson as the VA’s No. 2 in February. He previously led the United Services Organizations, which supports troops and their families. He is a 1975 graduate of the United States Military Academy who served as an infantry officer in the Army, in addition to earning airborne and ranger qualifications.

 

In the Secretary’s Defense

 

May 28, 2014 by Hardy Stone Filed Under: All Articles, Editorials, VetLikeMe Weekly

One of the first maxims we were taught as we went through that grueling first summer was:  “A leader is responsible for all their unit does or fails to do.” We came to realize later in advanced training for a commission at West Point not to step too hard on subordinates, and here’s why: There are situations in a battle environment that you cannot predict or control. The leader is rudderless in a thick jungle spiked with landmines and a camouflaged enemy in trees…reliance on fellow soldiers is all you’ve got.  The leader MUST trust the warriors under his charge–and the soldiers must be devoted to the mission.

That is the Gordian knot Secretary Shinseki is trapped in. On one hand, the leader is responsible for everything. On the other, he must trust his well-trained staff to carry out the mission as directed. His staff failed him in the fatal Phoenix imbroglio, from top to bottom. With many exceptions, he did not have the devotion of his senior staff. Based on my experience in the VA system, there has never been a culture of devotion to duty in the VA;  not because of incompetence or laziness by the staff, but by the sheer numbers. Sheer numbers of employees and patients needing health care.

It’s not easy to be fired up about anything when you’re overwhelmed. Like taking a sip of water from a fire hydrant.

Being the colossal bureaucratic empire that is the VA, Shinseki relied too much on subordinates, most of whom never shined a shoe or cleaned a weapon. Subordinates who never served dominate the VA employee roster.  It’s preposterous to imagine such a massive agency staffed completely by former soldiers. It’s also preposterous to imagine ANY mammoth job environment staffed primarily by people with an undying devotion to the mission.

I think Shinseki should stay on as Secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs for several reasons. You don’t get to be called General without a massive amount of courage, strength of conviction and integrity. You don’t get to wear four stars if you can’t speak truth-to power. Remember when President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld spurned Shinseki when he differed with them about troop levels in Iraq?

As Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki testified to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that “something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers” would probably be required for postwar Iraq. This was an estimate far higher than the figure being proposed by Secretary Rumsfeld in his invasion plan, and it was rejected in strong language by both Rumsfeld and his Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, who was another chief planner of the invasion and occupation. From then on, Shinseki’s influence on the Joint Chiefs of Staff waned. Critics of the Bush Administration alleged that Shinseki was forced into early retirement as Army Chief of Staff because of his comments on troop levels.

When the insurgency took hold in postwar Iraq, Shinseki’s comments and the Bush Administration’s public rejection by the civilian leadership are often cited by many that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz deployed too few troops to Iraq. On November 15, 2006, in testimony before Congress, CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid said that General Shinseki had been correct that far more troops were needed. But Bush and Rumsfeld did not value or respect the 35-year career soldier, the expert. We know how the fiasco in Iraq turned out.

It’s cruel irony that the troops sent to Iraq by the Bush cabal were deployed for a phony, made-up war. Many of the same soldiers now need health care from the VA. General Shinseki’s expert guidance would have saved many lives and life-changing injuries.

Secretary Shinseki has also been poorly staffed in the SDVOSB/VOSB arena. At several business conferences hosted by the VA, Shinseki has delivered lack-luster speeches that made him appear ill-informed and out-of-touch. “Veterans are first — fully first — when it comes to business opportunities” (at the VA). These words came after GAO ruled on a dozen occasions that VA was not adhering to its “Veterans-First” policy (PL 109-461).  Shinseki is not the problem…the problem is career civil servants and senior executive staff embedded in the system who skirt their responsibilities — like Jan Frye, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Logistics.

Yes, Shinseki is a West Pointer who was exposed to the truth I mentioned in the first sentence…it’s the second bit of managerial wisdom that’s failing him:  not stepping hard enough on senior subordinates…

Getting rid of Chief-of-Staff John Gingrich last year may be a new day for the VA. Now let’s hope that he puts the hammer down on all senior staff that don’t perform.  Let’s hope.

Sack Shinseki! But Wait…Then What?

May 28, 2014 by Sarah Schauerte Filed Under: All Articles, VetLikeMe Weekly

By Sarah Schauerte (Legal Meets Practical, LLC)

AboutMeLegal

Last Thursday, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Eric Shinseki, testified before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee to address the recent scandals within the VA health care system.

This hearing was highly anticipated by the public. As CNN and other news stations have lamented, Shinseki is an elusive fellow to interview about – well, anything.

So how was the hearing? Did Shinseki convince us that he shouldn’t resign, as the American Legion and others have called for him to do? (This is the first time in 30 years that the American Legion has called for the VA Secretary to resign).

To be perfectly honest, prior to the hearing I had no solidified opinion regarding whether Shinseki should resign.

Obviously (as I have a working brain and conscience), I think it’s figuratively (and in some cases, literally) criminal how our veterans are being treated. At the same time, I acknowledge that someone at the absolute top like Shinseki isn’t responsible for everything. How is he supposed to prevent fudging the numbers at an individual health care center? Or a single Regional Office from having a particularly high error rate in resolving disability claims?

And while Shinseki might dodge CNN interviews or give general answers to burning questions, that might not be his choice.

Now I’m inclined to side with the American Legion. Even though Shinseki testified (absolutely stone-faced) that he is “mad as hell” about the VA’s shenanigans, I didn’t get the sense from his testimony that change will come with him at the helm. Instead, we’ll get reports and memos.

Here’s why the testimony convinced me of this:

First, on a basic level, Shinseki’s common answer to important questions was “I was not aware of that.” And at his level, he should have been aware. For example:

Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) asked whether Shinseki was aware of an April 26, 2010, memo by William Schoenhard, former deputy undersecretary for health for operations and management, sent to all 21 VA service regions titled “Inappropriate Scheduling Practices.”

“Paragraph two begins, “It has come to my attention that in order to improve scores on assorted access measures, certain facilities have adopted the use of inappropriate scheduling practices, sometimes referred to as gaming strategies.”

A listing of inappropriate scheduling practices was attached to the memo, which noted that the extensive list was “not a full description of all current possibilities of inappropriate scheduling practices that need to be addressed.”

This memo was sent to all 21 VA service regions. By the deputy undersecretary. Four years ago. Confirming, in writing, inappropriate scheduling practices (ie, “fudging the numbers”). Now Mr. Secretary, I know you’re busy, but no one clued you in?

Shinseki also responded that he “didn’t know” or was “unaware” of other instances or facts with a significant impact on the VA and/or our veterans. As the Secretary, it’s his high-paid (with taxpayer dollars) job to know.

Second, Shinseki was evasive when it came to concrete plans for change. When asked whether there would be a change in the management team given systematic failure over a period of years, he gave a non-answer referencing the pending Inspector General (IG) report. He also dodged the question of how veterans can believe that positive change in the VA health care will occur. Nor did he give a straight answer on whether employees who engaged in wrongdoing at individual facilities would be disciplined or terminated (as opposed to being “reassigned” or given administrative leave).

In general, Shinseki’s testimony was soft, leaving no one to believe that change is going to come. Even though Shinseki has ordered an IG investigation, national review of the Veterans Health Administration, and has asked President Obama for assistance in reviewing the allegations, the issue is that this doesn’t do anything, at least not yet. As Senator Jerry Moran, one of the senators calling for Shinseki’s resignation, said after the testimony, “the last thing we need is another report.”

I couldn’t agree more. We don’t need another report with “recommendations.” We need some pink slips and some serious overhaul of a broken system.

But once we clean house, where do we begin? And if Shinseki is shown the door, what can we expect of his replacement? Even if Shinseki should resign, he’s only one piece of a very, very big problem.

Access the hearing before the Senate Veterans Committee at: http://www.c-span.org/video/?319302-1/veterans

 

Aren’t Veteran Issues Bipartisan? Really?

 

May 28, 2014 by Hardy Stone Filed Under: All Articles, Editorials, VetLikeMe Weekly

 

BURLINGTON, Vt., May 23 – U.S. Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders said today thathe will introduce legislation to increase accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs and reintroduce comprehensive legislation – which Senate Republicans blocked last winter – to improve veterans’ health care, education, job-training and other benefits.Sanders (I-Vt.) is working with the White House on a VA accountability bill that will be filed as soon as Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess. The chairman also announced that a hearing will be held on June 5 to address that bill and other legislation.

Senator Bernie Sanders

“In recent years, as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 1.5 million more veterans have entered

the VA health care system,” Sanders said. “Congress must do everything possible to make certain that

the VA has the financial resources and administrative accountability to provide the high-quality health

care and timely access to care that our veterans earned and deserve.”

The broader measure that Sanders intends to revive also would restore a 1 percent cut in annual

cost-of-living adjustments for military pensions. The comprehensive bill is backed by the American

Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of

America and many other organizations. The measure was sidetracked last Feb. 27 when only two

Republican senators voted with 54 Democrats and independents to advance the measure.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) complained about the $21 billion, 10-year cost of the comprehensive bill.

In a contentious exchange with Rubio, Sanders remarked: “If you think it’s too expensive to take

care of our veterans, then don’t send them to war.”

The new accountability measure that Sanders will introduce would grant VA secretaries the power to

remove senior executives because of poor job performance. Under current law, officials in what the

federal government calls the Senior Executive Service may be dismissed or demoted, with rare exception

only for misconduct.

Sanders’ legislation also would maintain the VA’s ability to be competitive in recruiting and retaining

top-notch leaders and managers by ensuring expedited due-process protections for senior executives

facing removal or demotion for poor performance.

Unlike a bill that the House passed on Thursday, the Sanders measure would avoid politicization of the

VA by preventing any new administration from discharging hundreds of high-level civil servants

without due process for political reasons.

Back Talk May 29, 2014

May 28, 2014 by Hardy Stone Filed Under: All Articles, News, VetLikeMe Weekly

 

When VLM began publication, we regularly included reader’s comments. We stopped publishing them

when we were overwhelmed with emails.

Because of news and editorial especially pertinent to SDVOSB/VOSB, we drummed the section up again. Identifiers are redacted.

A new comment on the post “Why Shinseki Should Resign”

http://vetlikeme.org/why-shinseki-should-resign/

Comment:
I’m not totally sure he should be fired.  Many times we are too quick to get rid of one problem only to bring

in another.  This problem was there long before he got there.  I do agree that the help that veterans get is pretty

sad.  I have submitted a complaint at the VAMC in Hampton, VA.  I don’t know if they have a secret list but I

do know they were doing the bait and switch for appointment and thought years ago it was to meet their goals.

I would call they would schedule me an appointment then the day before almost every time they would cancel.

Let’s look a little deeper at the dis-service that veteran business receive from CVE.  How about the red tape a

business has to go through when they know you are a veteran business.  They don’t hire people that really

want to help veterans.  It is just lip service and downright fraud in some cases.  Just try calling someone at the

VA.  No one wants to give you their last name or email.  If you don’t know who they are they will deny ever

talking to you.  I asked if I could help them with the problem but they continue to give opportunities to people

that don’t care but just want the money.

I do know that wasting time answering questions at Congress doesn’t save any lives.  I got some suggestions

but they never ask the right people.  They go right to the same talking heads that worked very little in life.

May 21, 2014 at 11:05 am (Edit)

something should be done about the fact that Shinseki has directed the entire purchasing staff throughout the

VHA system to stop purchasing from small veteran owned and SDVOSB owned companies and buy directly

from huge Prime Vendors. this ultimately will force all of the smaller businesses out of business who have

depended and are depending on the VA for business.

5/24/2014 from email:

Guys do you ever think those in Congress will have get off of their dead asses and have the SBA take over the

program instead of giving the Veteran community the usual lip service.  Below it says the bill will include

asking the GAO to perform another study, excuse me is this stupid or not, GAO has conducted 2 investigations,

one prior to the verification program being put in place.  In the first GAO report of the 10 firms identified one

firm is back as a verified SDVOSB(sad), this guy even thumbed his nose at the SBA OHA, a few others are

finally in jail.

The VA OIG Office has conducted 2 investigation’s pointing out all the problems, my question is how many

more investigations do we need before those in power take action to fix this mess.

Not a day goes by that I don’t find a contract award by the VA to a firm that’s verified as a SDVOSB

misrepresenting themselves as either pass through for another business or as we like to call them Rent-A-Vet’s

selling their disability status.

Here’s what I’ve heard and yes I find it stupid the VA verification program is now in the hands of firms

contracted by the VA, who have no blanking clue what their doing.

This is status quo for Govt officials.

Email in response to:

“Wounded Warriors” Parts I & II

To All,

Wounded Warrior Project sued me for defamation along with Criminal Deception and 4 other charges.

I told the truth about them and that got me sued.

Here are the facts:

Steve Nardizzi (CEO for WWP) refused to appear for a deposition scheduled this morning at 9 am.

He also filed a Protective order against me. Really! How ridiculous…

Wounded Warrior Project sent me a box full of every document under the sun for discovery (the box

was too heavy for me to move) and none of the documents were what I requested in my request. I

guess this is not a serious case because they are sure having fun with it.

Steve Nardizzi (CEO for WWP) has never served in the military and is an attorney. Why is he heading the

largest non-profit for veterans? Why did he testify in one of his Declaration’s he started WWP? When John

Melia (The real founder) actually hired  Nardizzi and Nardizzi used the board to kick Melia out of his company.

Is lying on a sworn declaration treated like committing perjury?

Steve Nardizzi sued me, I am a disabled Iraq Veteran and this would qualify me for help from them right?

No, they sued me. Why? Because I told the truth about what they do with their donations.

I believe the reason they sued me is because I am unable to afford the suit, if they were to win the

Lawsuit (they would sue anyone who ever speaks negatively about them) it would set a very stifling

effect across the nation for first amendment rights.

How did I get my facts about them for my statements? From former employees, their own tax documents

and Wounded Warrior Project Commercials on Fox News.

Why doesn’t Fox stop running their commercials?

Why am I speaking out on Memorial Day Weekend? Because many of my Brothers and Sisters gave their

lives and deserve all the monies donated in their names to go directly to our Veterans.

Independence Fund is the perfect example of a Non-Profit for Veterans that has all volunteers, no

commercials and gives 99% of donations directly back to Wounded Veterans. Thank You Steve

Luker! I highly recommend you donate to Independence Fund.

Why am I representing myself in the case? Because no attorney wants to fight WWP because they have

hundreds of millions of dollars to spend pounding me in the ground. John… (The lead attorney for WWP) is

compensated handsomely using donated monies destined for Veterans. How do I know this? Because their

990 form shows it

Many Heroes went to Iraq and fought for the freedoms we enjoy, is WWP entitled to shut me up? My

personal feeling is No, only the Judge can decide the answer.

How do you personally feel about Wounded Warrior Project Suing me? ———————————-.

Do you think donor monies should be used? Or do you think Naddizzi should use his personal funds like I

have to?

1)      My Grandmother (God Rest Her Soul) said “Sticks and Stones may Break my Bones but names will

2)       Never hurt me. I never knew that exposing information for donors can get you sued. I guess whistle

3)      blowers in Civil court get sued rather than their right to voice an opinion.

14) Many of the Attorneys who are representing Nardizzi and suing me are CC’d in this email. Once you view

the WWP 990 maybe you can ask them “What are they doing suing me?” Oh there are 4 attorneys listed to

represent Nardizzi and zero attorneys for me. Why is this important? Because Nardizzi made nearly $400,000

last year here is proof.

15) If you knew your donation may not go to help individuals it is destined for, what would you do?

 

ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy