Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 3.905 (b) Fraud
The VA is also required, by federal statute, to notify a veteran if he or she is declared to be fraudulently presenting information to the VA.
The Fraud statute reads:
(b) Fraud or treasonable acts. Forfeiture of benefits under §3.901 or §3.902 will not be declared until the person has been notified by the Regional Counsel … of the right to present a defense. Such notice shall consist of a written statement sent to the person's latest address of record setting forth the following:
(1) The specific charges against the person;
(2) A detailed statement of the evidence supporting the charges, subject to regulatory limitations on disclosure of information;
(3) Citation and discussion of the applicable statute …
Roberts was never notified by the Regional Counsel that he was suspected or accused of engaging in fraud.
Roberts was caught in a situation where he angered the VA Inspector General’s office which knew that Roberts could never be convicted of VA fraud, so they summarily denied his benefits, and then somehow communicated the case circumstances to US Atty Biskupic who charged Roberts with postal fraud and then with wire fraud using the denial of benefits (under appeal per federal statute) as evidence of criminal fraud.
So before and after Special Agent Vasil was scheming to charge Roberts with fraudulently presenting his VA claim, and Roberts’ liberty became endangered, the VA never notified Roberts through the Regional Counsel or otherwise that his forfeiture was asserted by the VA Inspector General to be based upon fraud.
US Atty Biskupic never addressed the statutory imperative that Roberts should have been so notified by the VA Regional Counsel during the investigation, the indictment and prosecution.
This would appear to raise serious due process considerations that may result in the overturning of Roberts’ conviction by the Seventh Circuit, known for its intellectual heft, though leaning to the right, aside from the fact that Roberts is innocent of not being at the scene of his friend Holland’s death.
Criminal Trial
The criminal proceedings included the misrepresentation of the laws and regulations governing veterans’ disability benefits claims procedures and the military service of Roberts to the jury.
The defense claims that the government withheld hundreds of photographs and documents in their possession from the defense which would have proven that Mr. Roberts did not commit fraud.
Roberts was forced to defend himself in federal court by proving that he was present at his duty station on the flight line in Naples, Italy on February 4, 1969 when Airman Gary Holland was killed while performing maintenance on a C-54 aircraft.
The prosecution produced no witness who testified that Mr. Roberts was not present for duty on that day.
The prosecution produced no witness or document which refuted that the aircraft hanger where Holland was killed was Roberts’ duty station.
Several witnesses testified that general quarters was sounded, as Roberts claimed. The prosecution produced no evidence that Roberts failed to respond to general quarters.
In fact, Roberts received a “Special Enlisted Personnel Performance Evaluation” (the military equivalent of a pat on the back for the then-young airman) two days after the death of airman Holland.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
