Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Everett v. Department of Veterans Affairs
Supreme Court brief2000
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
C() “Tis.
991999 MAR 27 2000
NO. OPGOR QE gum CLERK
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
May 1, 2000
Johnny R. Everett Sr.
Petitioner,
V.
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
Hampton VA, Durham VA, Richmond McQuire VA.
&
The United States Congress
Respondents.
On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United
States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Johnny R. Everett Sr.
Counsel of Record For
Johnny R. Everett Sr.
697 Camp Hardee Rd.
Blount’s Creek NC 27814
(252) 975-1280
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Why was the Plaintiff, an American War Veteran, after
notifying the Courts several times of his third grade reading
level and lack of legal experience, Denied a Court Appointed
Attorney, to advise him of his legal rights, Under the 1
Amendment and USC Title 42, Section 2996?
Why was Plaintiff Denied a Court Order in order to obtain
patient medical records from the Department of Veterans’
Affairs under the Freedom of Information Act?
Why was Plaintiff Denied by the U.S. Assistant Attorney
Debra J. Prilliman a Court Ordered meeting in order to obtain
names and addresses for the purposes of witnesses and
depositions under the rules of Discovery?
How could Congress under the Rules of Discovery Deny
American Tax Payers the right to use the Institution of the
National Practitioner’s Database, and also allow the Federal
Courts to continue the practice of Mooted and Unpublished
cases, denying the American Public under the Freedom of
Information Act of any chance to pursue crucial Information
for Legal Facts?
How does the United States Congress provide the power to
the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, to confiscate an
American Veterans’ Service Connected Disability Check
without any hearing, or trial, with the Veteran?
How does the United States Congress provide the power to
the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, to Judge, Regulate, and
to manipulate the Medical care, Medical Records, Financial
care, and Life and Death decisions in whatever way that
benefits the Department of Veterans’ Affairs?
ii
7. How can the Federal Courts Justify denying a United States
American Veteran Medical Information, that is provide for by
law.
While proceeding forward with a Federal Trial that denies the
Veteran subpoenas and depositions, under rules of discovery.
While maneuvering the courts so that the Veteran is not
allowed legal counsel which is guaranteed under the First
Amendment and USC Title 42 Section 2996 and denying him
his day in court, while denying the cases to be public
knowledge by Mooting and Ordering the opinions
Unpublished?
8. What gives the Department of Veterans’ Affairs the right to use
a exam appointment to dismiss my case, while denying for
more than ten years, in person and in writing, any knowledge
of a test for silicone poisoning, other than to display the
monopoly they hold over the American Veterans and to abuse
their power and control, that was given to them by the United
States Congress?
While denying critical evidence to my suite and giving me a
referral to seek outside medical treatment, but never actually
sending me the fee-basis card or paperwork, in order for me to
escape the past Guinea Pig Experimental practices of the VA
doctors and VA hospitals.
Fee-basis outpatient medical care was approved on October |
30, 1998 by David L. Simel, MD and I have not yet received
the fee-basis card or paperwork.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ................. i-il
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITED PROFESSIONALS, INSTITUTIONS, AND OTHER
Nee i a asebuadaaaeuneduasee iv-V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Coe” Gok Ree? ESL AL, PEE ECRBCRAAINGD $cc cccccccscccccccscscsces vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR VIDEO EVIDENCE ......... Vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR AUDIO EVIDENCE ....... Viii-ix
Saba clenechcchy dheinedehtetnesdnvasensensscnexses l
RRM E GPE” MEMES SCPASES ca cncosscessnescnsscescncscccceese 2
ccs chcceu shy din edakbakdanescnesoccssaccacnesness 20
TE cic eiesitelisauscbscehncianconsachneeecsdancessesoecene infra
* THIS IS THE THIRD DRAFT OF THIS DOCUMENT *
* PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT *
iv
CITED PROFESSIONALS, INSTITUTIONS, AND OTHER
AUTHORITIES
Page
RICHARD L. WILLIAMS SENIOR JUDGE
Federal Court Judge, Fourth Circuit, Richmond Virginia ... 3
NIEMEYER, AND MICHAEL
Federal Court Judges, Fourth Circuit, Richmond Virginia .. 3
DEBRA J. PRILLIMAN
JOAN E. EVANS
Assistant U.S. Attorney’s Richmond Virginia ................. 3
MARIA DOWNS
Patient in the Hampton Virginia VA Medical Center ........ 5
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
President Of the United States. ......sscisscccscsescossecsccsevess 6
JANET RENO
Attorney General of the United States ....................2..008 6
EVA M. CLAYTON
Congresswomen for the State of North Carolina .............. 6
Page
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
WoL DIR ics ” & cccivnadie aces vacdsccucess aide debian cn ebans 6
INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS
We a. icadinnadvcpcinsacrenscenececcdecnesetiveeaebaben 6
WILLIAM COHN
Hearing Officer,
Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Washington D.C. .......... 7
PAUL WHITE
Representive for the Disable American Veterans’ ........... 7
FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION
MPN Ua: bibatie so incasdi ye sns lo lueiatcissas Gidkerksbawnies 8
BEN HANSEL
Attorney for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs
See SE SUUEIEND os sin secs ene sniins binbvnsciavscianceccenes 8
MENTOR UROLOGY
SEE NINE oiisvinsnnecenencnctsencunsdctniaieieabsose 15
vi
MEDICAL PHYSICIANS CITED IN TEXT
Page
DR. FRANK SCHULER
Hampton Virginia VA Mec cal Doctor ..................200000 10
DR. BERGER
Hampton Virginia VA Medical Doctor .....................006 12
DR. SLATER
Hampton Virginia VA Medical Doctor ....................0000 13
DR. NETTO
Hampton Virginia VA Medical Doctor ....................0008 14
DR. EVANS
Hampton Virginia VA Medical Doctor .....................0+8 15
DOUGLAS R. SHANKLIN M.D., F.R.S.M.
Professor at The University of Tennessee in Memphis ....... 16
DR. GARRETT
Richmond Virginia McQuire VA Medical Doctor ............ 16
DR. WILLIAM J. HALL JR.
Coastal ENT and Facial Surgery, North Carolina ............. 18
Vii
VIDEO TAPE EVIDENCE
VIDEO I
ie fh? =
Silicon Implant Experiments in the BloodStream.
Product Failures for men’s Silicon Prosthesis.
Food & Drug Administration Bands Silicon Implants.
Dow Corning Ask Congress for relief from legal issues on
Silicon Medical products. “
Millions of Dollars in settlements against Silicon Implants.
VIDEO II
ad
eI AAS
Chemical Warfare Unit 731.
. American Government Negotiates with Japan, a deal for
human experimental data.
The United States Government exposes thousands of citizens
with toxic bacteria by AirPlane.
Human clinical trials in 394 American Universities.
Human Experiments in Veterans’ Hospitals.
Nuclear tests fallout strikes American’s.
United States Military Experiments on American Troops.
Veteran’s Administration Hospitals Mistakes and Mishaps?
l.
2.
3.
4.
MTBE Clean Air? NO! / Deadly Water? YES!
Agent Orange Connected with Medical Problems.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Asbestosis Was it worth it?
VIDEO IV
Medical misconduct in our Hospitals.
National Practitioner’s Data Bank, Hidden from the American
-Public.
Wastelands of people and properties Used by the U.S.
Government.
GMO * American Citizens, A Guinea Pig Nation.
Medical Mutilations.
USA cuts deal, Human Bodies for Beryllium.
Vili
IO TAPE EVIDENCE
TAPE 1
>Tape 1 Side A&B ----- Tape 2 Side A
* Second Hearing First Appeal * Roanoke Regional Office
TAPE 2
>Tape 2 Side A&B
* Third Hearing Second Appeal * Washington D.C.
>Tape 2 Side B
* Dr. Netto * Hampton VA Medical Center Hampton Virginia
* Implant Manufacturer Verification *
>Tape 2 Side B ----- Tape 3 Side A
* Dr. Nabhey * McQuire VA Medical Center Richmond Virginia
TAPE
>Tape 3 Side A
* Dr. Troy Greggs * Durham VA Medical Center Durham N.C.
>Tape 3 Side A&B
* National Institutes of Health * Maryland
>Tape 3 Side B
* Attorney Ben Hansel * VA Roanoke Regional Office
>Tape 3 Side B
* Congresswomen Eva M. Clayton’s Office * Greenville N.C.
>Tape 3 Side B
* U.S. Assistant Attorney Debra J. Prilliman * Richmond Virginia
TAPE 4
>Tape 4 Side A&B
* Dr. William Meggs Office * Pitt County Hospital North Carolina
TAPE 5 \
>Tape 5 Side A
* Bill Battles * Food & Drug Administration * Greenville N.C.
>Tape 5 Side A
* Dr. William Meggs Office * Pitt County Hospital North Carolina
>Tape 5 Side A
* Bill Battles * Office Visit, Food & Drug Admin. Greenville N.C.
>Tape 5 Side A&B _
* Donald St. Peare * Food & Drug Administration
>Tape 5 Side B
* Anne Rogers * Pitt County Health Department Greenville N.C.
TAPE
>Tape 6 Side A
* Hospital Visit * Pitt County Hospital * Greenville N.C.
>Tape 6 Side B
* Dr. Oddone * Durham VA Medical Center Durham N.C.
JURISDICTION
On May 7, 1999
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
In Civil Action 3:98cv754, Senior Judge Richard L. Williams
decision was, “Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction”.
On June 11, 1999
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Johnny R. Everett Sr. ( Plaintiff ) filed In the United States Federal
Courts for the Eastern District of Virginia, Pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 60 (b) (3).
On October 6, 1999
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
I then Appealed this case to the United States Court of Appeals.
In Appeal # 99 -1849 CA- 98 -754 -3
Circuit Judges Niemeyer, Williams, and Michael.
On February 1, 2006
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Ordered
in both petitions:
No. 99-1850 CA-98-576-3 3:98CV576
No. 99-1849 CA-98-754-3 3:98CV754
Appellant has filed a petition for rehearing.
The Court denies the petition for rehearing.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Crimes Against The People
Conspiracy-Monopoly-Fraud-Incompetence-Malpractice
The Plaintiff a United States American Veteran, is filing a Law
Suit against the United States Congress and the Department of
Veterans’ Affairs for Conspiracy.
The United States Congress and the Department of Veterans’
Affairs, willfully and with foresight, behind closed doors, in order
to escape liability and damages, conspired to take Veterans’
Constitutional Rights as American born citizens.
Title 38 United States Code ~ Section 511
The Secretary [ of Veterans Affairs ] 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 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 a mandamus or otherwise.
Under Title 38 United States Code - Section 511
Congress and The Department of Veterans’ Affairs Conspired to
give The Department of Veterans’ Affairs a Monopoly over the
Health and Welfare of the Fighting Forces of America.
On May 7, 1999
In Civil Action 3:98cv754, Senior Judge Richard L. Williams
decision was, “Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction”.
On October 6, 1999
I then Appealed this case to the United States Court of Appeals.
In Appeal # 99 -1849 CA- 98 -754 -3
Circuit Judges Niemeyer, Williams, and Michael.
The Appeals Courts Decision is as follows:
“We have reviewed the record and the District
Court’s opinion and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
District Court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.”
Denying a United States Veteran his Constitutional Rights and Due
Process. ;
On June 11, 1999
Johnny R. Everett Sr. ( Plaintiff ) filed In the United States Federal
Courts for the Eastern District of Virginia, Pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 60 (b) (3), bringing Charges
against the Department of Veterans’ Affairs of Fraud and
Tampering with evidence in a Federal Court.
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs with Malice and Forethought,
passed Medical Records to their representative, an Assistant
United States Attorney Debra J. Prilliman, involving the United
States Justice Department in Fraud and Tampering with Evidence.
On July 14, 1999
Senior Judge Richard L. Williams Ordered the Following:
“The motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60 (b) (3) is DENIED. Because this
Court is without jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's
claims, this Court must deny the motion for Relief
from judgment or order pursuant to Rule 60 (b)
(3).”
On February 1, 2000
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Ordered
in both petitions:
Appellant has filed a petition for rehearing.
The Court denies the petition for rehearing.
On January 13, 1999
Plaintiff filed a Release of Information with the Department of
Veterans’ Affairs requesting:
All of his Medical Records, this release form is one of many that
the plaintiff has sent over the past twenty-plus years.
The information requested was solicited under Title 38, United
States Code.
The Evidence shows that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs
committed an act of Fraud by not Complying with this law.
On November 28, 1997 and On Marck 4, 1998
Plaintiff was scheduled for Pulmonary Function Tests.
On both occasions appointments were kept and tests were
completed.
However, Computer scheduling printouts received from the
Department of Veterans’ Affairs states; “ appointments were
canceled by patient.”
The Assistant United States Attorney Representing the Department
of Veterans’ Affairs denied that the pulmonary test taken on
November 28, 1997 existed.
The plaintiff then showed the United States Assistant Attorney the
results of the March 4, 1998 Pulmonary Function Test, which
refers in a comparison to the November 28, 1997 test.
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the Assistant United
States Attorney then within a few days forwarded the Plaintiff a
copy of the November 28, 1997 Pulmonary Function test.
This also shows evidence that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs
was Caught in the act, of committing an act of Fraud by not
complying with Title 38 of United States Code.
On February 11, 1999
In the Federal Court Building in Richmond Virginia, Assistant
United States Attorney Debra J. Prilliman handed to the plaintiff a
folder of medical files. ;
Within these medical files was a Pulmonary Function Test.
The plaintiff soon discovered that the test of March 4, 1998 had
been tampered with, the first and third pages of the test belonged to
the plaintiff.
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs had removed the second
page, containing a graph, and had replaced it with a graph
belonging to a lady named Maria Downs.
The graph of Mrs. Downs showed an increase of breathing
Capacity.
This Fraud by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs made a great
deal of difference in evidence.
This evidence shows that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs
committed an Act of fraud by Tampering with these medical
records that were to be used as evidence in a Federal Court Case.
Due to a lack of effort by the United States Federal Courts to
investigate or to Prosecute, and the Department of Veterans’
Affairs involving an Assistant United States Attorney in an
Unlawful Act of Fraud.
The plaintiff then decided to contact the following Government
Agencies:
The Justice Department Directed by Janet Reno,
Refused to investigate, knowing one of her
Assistant United States Attorneys, Debra J.
Prilliman was involved.
A United States Congressperson Eva Clayton, Has
made no effort to bring charges against the
Department of Veterans’ Affairs for Crime’s against
the people.
The Federal Bureau of Investigations refused to
bring Charges against the Department of Veterans’
Affairs, Stating lack of Jurisdiction to prosecute.
The President of the United States, William J.
Clinton As of this date of May 1, 2000 has made no
effort to investigate the charges of Fraud and
Tampering with Federal Evidence, his sworn duty
as Commander and Chief.
The Inspector General of the Department of
Veterans’ Affairs has made no effort to even
acknowledge the plaintiff's charges.
I consider the lack of interest or action from these Government
Institutions as an OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
In a Compensation Hearing with the Department of Veterans’
Affairs on September 10, 1998 in Washington DC, I was lead to
the understanding that the American Veterans’ were being
represented by legal practicing attorneys, from the organization of
the Disabled American Veterans’.
After the Washington DC appeal, I learned they were not lawyers,
but representatives, that’s when, I made my decision to appeal to
the United States Federal Courts for Justice.
Steven L. Cohn asked Mr. White to have me sign waivers for all
new evidence, waivers, which I cannot comprehend the reason.
During this hearing Steven L. Cohn ruled out all charges or cases
except for silicon poisoning, and a decision to be rendered at a
later date, and this decision was made without considering all the
evidence.
Assistant United States Attorney, Debra J. Prilliman noted in all of
her briefs to the Federal Courts, on the behalf of the Department of
Veterans’ Affairs, asking for a Dismissal stating that Mr. Everett
should look to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for Justice. - -
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs within a week of the
Decision of the United State’s Court of Appeals, sent a letter to the
plaintiff, swiftly displaying their Justice by stating:
“Entitlement to compensation under
38 U.S.C. 1151 for additional disability as a result
of Penile Implant is denied.”
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs refused my request for a
release of information, requested under Title 38 of United States
Code, requesting Product Information concerning the Prosthesis,
manufacture and chemical make up.
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs has refused to admit or
confirm the chemical make-up of the prosthesis for the past
ten-plus years.
—
I have contacted the FDA and they confirm that the Small-Carrion
prosthesis is made of silicone.
I have contacted Dr. Douglas R. Shanklin, and he has confirmed
that the Small-Carrion prosthesis is made of silicone.
A Veterans’ Administration doctor confirmed that I have silicon
exposure.
The Doctors before the operation, confirmed that the Small-
Carrion prosthesis was made of silicone.
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs says,
“PROVE IT!”
This is another Act of Fraud by the Department of Veterans’
Affairs.
Only my novice determination has kept me on the path of Justice.
When the Department of Veterans’ Affairs decided to change the
rules of law, into Fraud, I then decided that the only path to take
was to document everything on paper and on tape and to tell the
truth.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURTS
A lawyer for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Roanoke
Regional Office, by the name of Ben Hansel also made a
fraudulent statement.
He made a written and a verbal agreement with the plaintiff, he
would produce certain files, that the plaintiff had repeatedly asked
for, the very next day, if the plaintiff would consider dropping the
Federal Court Case against the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.
That was the last time I heard anything from Mr. Hansel.
DURING THE FEDERAL COURTS
Assistant United States Attorney Debra J. Prilliman, during the
period of Discovery DENIED the plaintiff a list of government
employees for the purposes of witnesses and depositions.
Mrs. Prilliman stated that she could not furnish a list, but that she
would subpoena and set up depositions as I requested.
I felt, that since, I was not a threatening force, and that I only have
a third grade reading level, with no legal advice, or background, I
decided to trust a United States Assistant Attorney to do as she had
promised.
With out any results.
The United States Federal Courts, for a years time more or less,
ignored my request on two different occasions, for a legal
document to ORDER the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, under
Title 38 of United States Code, to produce medical files as required
by law.
I feel very sad, that I have had controversial correspondence with
the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.
Over these many, many years of begging and pleading with a
Government agency, that I once thought was organized to help the
American Veterans.
Years ago, I never would have believed anything but good about
an organization that was started by my forefathers, to honor and to
protect the men and women, that where sent to war to protect this
great land.
I felt very honored to be an American, but my experience over the
past twenty-plus years has brought me a great deal of heartache.
I came back from the battle of my life; just to endure the
disappointment that I never thought would occur.
Threw a hardship, I Appealed to the Department of Veterans’
Affairs for protection and medical help.
AND MY COUNTRY HAS FORSAKEN ME,
10
My Country used my body for experiments, of new and unproved
medical products and procedures.
On May 4, 1977
I met with Doctor Frank Schuler and put my signature on a
Hospital form for treatment.
I thought, the Doctor and I had an understanding that on
May 5, 1977 that he would examine my bottom lip, which had a
brown spot on it from smoking.
A small biopsy would be taken, and examined by the lab, and if
cancer were determined, the surgeon from Portsmouth Naval
Hospital would proceed.
If the lab determined, that the brown spot was not cancerous there
would be no action taken.
When I woke up, I found that my lower face was all swollen up
and that my bottom Lip had been surgically removed.
I was frightened because that indicated to me that I had cancer.
When the Doctor made his rounds for the afternoon, I asked him
about the cancer of the lip, he explained that there was nothing to
worry about, that the lab had found no cancer.
I was surprised and asked him why my face was swollen and
bandages where on my bottom lip.
Dr. Schuler said he thought that I would appreciate the removal of
the brown spot from my lip, when I removed the bandages, I
learned that my entire bottom lip had been removed, which was not
what had been agreed on.
From the very first day that I was admitted in the Hampton VA
Hospital in Hampton Virginia, I have always told the Doctors that
Asked me to sign my name on any form, that I could not read or
comprehend what the forms were.
11
I believe that Dr. Schuler used me to enhance his knowledge and
position.
I have Just been made aware of, that on the form I signed, which is
a request for Administration of Anesthesia and for Performance of
Operation and Other Procedures form, that it states:
6- I understand that photographs and movies may
be taken of this operation, and that they may be ©
viewed by various personnel undergoing
training or indoctrination at this or other
facilities.
I consent to the taking of such pictures and
observation of the operation by authorized
personnel, subject to the following conditions:
a. The name of the patient and his/her family
is not used to identify said pictures.
b. Said pictures be used only for purposes of
medical study or research.
This action by Dr. Schuler is a clear case of actions for profit, as a
monopoly over the Veterans and incompetence as a physician.
Because of this procedure, by the Veterans Administration
Hospital, for the past twenty-plus years I have had to live with the
damage to my facial muscles, of not being able to smile, and I’ ve
spent years drooling all over myself.
These Procedures were done without my permission or consent
and with great and unnecessary risk to the patient.
12
On October 5, 1988
In the Hampton VA Hospital in Hampton Virginia, I was
scheduled an appointment to see Dr. Burger in building #37 in the
spinal cord ward, for soreness of the neck.
As I approached the room Dr. Burger was reviewing my charts, he
then reached into his right hand desk draw and removed a large
syringe and he told me to stand still.
He then shot me in three different locations in the neck and
shoulder.
I asked Dr. Burger what was in the needle that he had just shot me
with, He said Mr. Everett I’ve just shot you with steroids to
Strengthen your neck.
I believed Dr. Burger for more than ten years.
At the Second Hearing, First Appeal with The Department of
Veteran’s Affairs in Roanoke Virginia, I was asked by the Judge of
the Hearing to explain where I was shot and what was used and
how many times I was shot.
After I returned home, I could not get the questioning about these
shots off of my mind, who would know, better than the Veterans’
Administration?
I then went back to check and review the medical files on that date
and found that the substance was not steroids, but that they had
shot me with 150 ml of Nuclear Waste.
The Department of Veteran’s Affairs refuses to discuss this matter.
Dr. Burger lied about a treatment and used a product that’s not
authorized by the FDA; this is a clear case of incompetence as a
physician and mal-practice.
13
On December 13, 1988
More than two months from the date that Dr. Burger gave me the
first shots of Nuclear Waste, I was scheduled by Dr. Slater, who
was my Primary Hospital Physician, too report to the x-ray
Department.
The Scheduling Department handed me a form and asked me to go
to the x-ray department.
When I arrived at the x-ray Department, they could not find an
appointment scheduled for me.
I asked them to call Dr. Slater.
When the nurse returned she said, that, I was to go to room #21 in
the basement.
When I arrived for my appointment, the nurse brought me a form
to sign for the procedure.
As in all other times, I explained that I could not read or
comprehend the contents of the form.
She laughed and said “nothing to worry about Mr. Everett, normal
everyday Hospital routine.”
Then the nurse used a large, long, syringe and shot a liquid into the
blood stream.
Then I was told that I had to wait about forty minutes.
Then I was x-rayed completely, all over, from my fingers to my
toes.
I had finally learned that the VA had used my body again for
guinea pig experiments.
Twice, the first time with 150 ml, and the second time with 230 ml,
of Nuclear Waste.
The x-rays from 12-13-88 showed “hot spots” from the 10-05-88
shots, these hot spots were found in the Jaw and in the spinal areas.
This Act by the Veterans Administration, lying to a patient about
what type of drugs or treatments they are using.
Using Nuclear Waste in the blood stream that the FDA had not
approved then and still even today.
With out neither patient knowledge nor compensation is a crime
within its self.
More than twenty years of paying for a Government Medical
Experiment / A Crime Against Tire People.
14
On October 17, 1989
A Veterans’ Administration Hospital Doctor, at the Hampton VA
hospital, in Hampton Virginia, by the name of Dr. Netto acting as
training doctor and a Portsmouth Navy Surgeon from the
Portsmouth Naval Hospital whom was in training, performed an
experimental silicone organ prosthesis surgery on the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was not notified before the operation of the failure
rate of the prosthesis, or of the possible future complications, like
severe joint pain, memory loss, hair loss, skin rashes, silicone
migration threw out the organs in the body, or lung conditions
ect...
The plaintiff was not notified that the Hospital did not have the
correct size silicone prosthesis required.
Plaintiff was not notified that the Food and Drug Administration
have, never authorized this silicone prosthesis.
Today, it’s still not authorized by the Food and Drug
Administration and it is classed as an Experimental Device.
In the original operation report it reads as follows and I quote:
“The fit appeared to be a 1.1 x 14.5cm.
None of the Small-Carrion prosthesis of this size
were in stock.
- A 1.1 x 15.8cm was trimmed by Icm and this gave
a good fit.
There were no sharp edges on the proximal end.
The prosthesis was trimmed on the proximal side.
Each of the prosthesis and the dilators were washed
in triple antibiotic solution prior to insertion.
The corporotomy was closed with a 2-0 Vicryl
continuous suture.
Attention was turned to the left side and the same
procedure performed.
15
A 1.l1cm x 15.8cm was again trimmed to fit the
prosthesis into the penis with appropriate rigidity
and extension of the prosthesis to the mid-glans.
A 13.3cm prosthesis on both sides was noted to be
much too short.”
The surgeon’s incompetence and mal-practice in this operation put
the plaintiff at medical risk.
The surgeons by trimming the silicone rods, altering them in which
case relieved the manufacturer, Mentor Urology in Minneapolis
Minnesota from any legal responsibility or liability, leaving any
and all responsibility on the two doctors and the Department of
Veterans’ Affairs.
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs have been informed on many
occasions that the silicone prosthesis has been in questionable
condition and deteriorating within my body.
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs has never accepted the
responsibility for the silicone implant, and have denied knowing of
any test for silicone poisoning, and refused to acknowledge or treat
multiple symptoms.
In a Compensation and Pension Exam, Dr. Evan’s in the Hampton
Veterans’ Administration Hospital stated in his Exam report, and I
quote:
“ Penis implant in place.
Not Working Well.”
Also on a Medical Certificate on August 26, 1992 from the
Department of Veterans’ Affairs Hospital in Hampton Virginia, the
Certificate states:
“ Penile prosthesis ?
Causing problems.”
16
Radiology Diagnostic Report from the Veterans Administration
Medical Center Richmond, Virginia On November 4, 1997:
“ Has H/O silicon Exposure.”
On October 10, 1996 y
I received a letter from Douglas R. Shanklin, M.D., F.R.S.M., and
A Professor of Pathology and of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the
University Of Tennessee in Memphis.
Dr. Shanklin’s lab reports and letter stated And I quote:
“In your case a total of 16
auto-antibody Peptides were
found, a very high number.”
I was told that I had silicone though out my body, and needed
additional test run every six months.
The VA refused my request, saying that they knew of no test for
silicone.
My test were denied, I believe, because of the pursuit of medical
knowledge then and now.
Also to this day they are not treating me so that they may get the
results of the damages that, continues on at my expense.
Just as the Government did, in 1932, with lying to the blacks, by
having a cure of penicillin for syphilis, and would not use it in
order to obtain medical knowledge through to their deaths.
On December 24, 1997
The day that Laser surgery was done to my nose.
A procedure that I questioned the surgeon, Dr. Garrett of
Dermatology, to make sure of his experience.
To be satisfied of his qualifications and that he and he alone would
be doing the surgery on my nose.
17
I also asked Dr. Garrett to have a biopsy taken of the tumors on
both sides of my nose.
When I arrived, a young women doctor greeted me, and started
with a number of syringes, she took the first syringe and bent the
needle upwards and began to deaden my nose.
I could not help but notice, in the hand that the needle was in, was
shaking so bad that I said to her, you must have had a bad night
last night, and she said why?
Then I said, you are so nervous you can’t hold the needle still.
Then she used her other hand to steady the needle.
_ When she finished they asked me to lay on the table, and put a pair
of clear white glasses over my eyes, then she began to lay clean
white towels all over my face, except for my nose.
The surgeon came in the room, and told the women doctor, that the
towels had to be wet before she applied them to my face.
The doctor stood on the left side, and the women doctor, what I
believe to be an intern, stood on the right side of me.
The surgeon began telling the intern the fundamentals of a Co2
laser.
How to cut it on and off, how to hold it, and how to cut it up and
down.
Then the surgeon cut the laser on and began the process.
I thought that my nose was numb until that laser hit my skin, my
skin began to burn and smoke.
I had to stop breathing through my nose and start breathing
through my mouth.
There was excruciating pain and the smoke kept me from breathing
normally.
Then the doctor reached a point about half way from the top of my
nose to the bottom, and took a pair of scissors, and cut the lower
left side of my nose, where the tumors were off.
I thought, That He was doing both sides of the nose from the same
position, and then he began the right side.
I didn’t realize that the intern was now holding the laser.
She said that she had to turn it up, because it was not cutting the
area. |
She turned the laser up, and the surgeon yelling to stop, his voice
left my left side and went to my right side.
18
I presumed it was the surgeon that was examining my nose, he said
to give him the scissors, and he cut the lower right side of my nose
where the tumors were off.
Then the surgeon went back to my left side.
The intern proceeded on the right side of my nose.
With instructions from the surgeon, after the right side was
complete, the surgeon said he had to cut some more off the left
side to match the right side.
I told him that before he went any further, I needed something for
the pain, it was more than I could stand.
They began to shoot solution into the nose again, and then the
surgeon started on the left side.
Once again and after a few minutes, he said I am not going any
further and he stopped.
On the way out I stopped at the receptionist, to pick up my VA
card.
I asked has the biopsy gone to the lab?
She replied “everything had been taken care of Mr. Everett, Have a
nice day!”
When, I was released, I realized how good it looked; it had been
Cut too deep on both sides.
The right side had a hole in it, but not clean through, but it was
very obvious that it wasn’t the same as the other side.
Devastating pain and distortion of the facial features, and the only
advantage was to the doctors of the Veterans’ Administration.
On February 26, 1998
I then decided to go to an outside plastic surgeon at Coastal ENT
and Facial Surgery with Dr. William J Hall Jr. a well-known facial
surgeon for the ears, nose, and throat.
After my second appointment I was scheduled for surgery.
Dr. Hall recommended a grinding procedure called Dermabrasion
of the nose, with a cost of $1000.00.
The question was asked that if it’s a sanding procedure and there’s
a hole on the right side of the nose where the laser cut too deep,
how could this be fixed?
19
Dr. Hall said that after the Dermabrasion procedure was done, and
about three months of healing time, he could cut an opening under
the hole and fill it in with a putty type substance, that would raise
the hole up so that it would look normal.
I canceled the surgery, because I needed a total amount of cost for
the total job to repair the damages.
Dr. Halls office said they couldn’t guarantee any total amount
because they were not sure of how much time and work it would
take.
They estimated a little under another thousand dollars but would
not guarantee it.
Saying that it could cost more.
I am of the opinion that, if; solely Dr. Garrett as promised did this
laser surgery.
If the VA had not once again used me as a guinea pig to train their
interns and learning doctors.
If the same types of damages had not been done over, and over, in
the past twenty-plus years.
If the VA in the first hearing, at the Roanoke Regional Office, that
I was not invited to, had any justice involved.
If the VA in the second hearing, in Roanoke Va., that I attended
with enough evidence to prove my case, and the VA made the
decision to disallow the evidence.
In the third hearing in Washington DC.
If Mr. Cohn had considered all of the evidence, with exam notes
that they would not release to me, and books of hundreds of sheets
of evidence, and videotapes, and also audio tapes.
Now with, what I thought was the last hearing.
Over the last ten years I have cried with pain, and begged the VA
to treat me, for silicone poisoning.
20
CONCLUSION
The Veterans’ Administration has hid, and has refused, to release
crucial files of my condition.
The Congress of the United States of America has given a
Monopoly to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which relieves
the Department of Veterans’ Affairs of Judgment from any
Government Agencies, and allowing the Department of Veterans’
Affairs Supreme Power over all American Veterans and their
survivors.
Without any hearings or trials my Country confiscated many
months of Service Connected Disability checks.
When, I refuse their demands, they then confiscated my medical
supplies, eight months of Insulin and Heart medication,
prescriptions that had already been written.
With all the evidence available, my Country should have settled
these charges a long time ago, but they chose to ignore me, and use
deceit.
I am now in twenty-plus years of negotiations, with a lack of food
and medical care.
I have been denied my Constitutional Rights as an American Born
Citizen.
I am not an educated man and I cannot read or comprehend most
of the legal documents I receive in the mail, but that doesn’t
excuse the Courts for denying me Justice.
I have done my very best to obtain Legal Advice for a very
controversial case.
I have not been able to locate a competent attorney.
The Congress of the United States have created a Government
Agency that protects Medical Doctors and Medical Facilities, that
have been found guilty of sexual perversions, incompetence, mal-
practice and mis-conduct, at the tax payers expense.
21
This Agency The National Practitioners’ Database which is not
accessible to the public, along with the practice of Mooted and
Unpublished Court cases, have deprived plaintiffs access to
critical, Constitutionally provided and United States Code
provided, Discovery of evidence.
The videotapes in Evidence shows a history of many years of
guinea pig experiments, on the American public, conducted by the
Government of the United States that has killed thousands without
any consent or knowledge thereof.
In my original Civil Action in the Federal Courts, Fourth Circuit, I
was denied crucial information for Discovery by the Assistant U.S.
Attorney Debra J. Prilliman including names and addresses in
order to contact witnesses for depositions or affidavits.
On April 16, 1999 Richard L. Williams Senior District Court Judge
Ordered Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra J. Prilliman to make
contact with the plaintiff by April 20, 1999 in order to resolve this
matter. (App. 11)
On April 26, 1999 the Plaintiff realizing he only had five working
days before the trial date on April 28, 1999, and with no witnesses
for depositions or affidavits and without Medical Records
requested from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, plaintiff
decided to petition the Courts for a dismissal without prejudice in
order to pursue the matter at a later date.
Even after a Court Order to do so, Mrs. Prilliman couldn’ t find the
time to contact or meet with the plaintiff.
On April 21, 1999 the plaintiff received two packages through
Fed-Ex, from Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra J. Prilliman, old
medical records that were unrelated to the perimeters of the
plaintiffs charges against the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.
I am now asking the Supreme Court to accept this suite and to give
an American Veteran Final Justice.
22
I’m an American Veteran Appealing to the Supreme Court of the
United States of America, and to all Court Justices.
I am asking the Supreme Court to Award me Damages of
$25,000,000.00 Twelve Million Dollars.
If the Supreme Court Justices believe, that, my fight for Justice is
Sincere and Just, and that I have been unnecessarily mistreated.
If the Supreme Court Justices believe, that, The Department of
Veterans’ Affairs have not been fair in the treatment of this
Veteran.
If Punitive Damage Awards are justified, then I leave this decision
in the hands of the Supreme Court Justices along with the decision
of the proper amount.
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60 (b) (3)
States:
Fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or
extrinsic) misrepresentation, or other misconduct of
an adverse party;
Since the Federal Courts have chosen to ignore these charges, and
take no action.
I’m requesting The Supreme Court to Investigate these charges,
and to Subpoena Testimony from United States Assistant Attomey
Debra J. Prilliman.
Who with or without knowledge of the Fraud, Became an
accessory.
Mrs. Prilliman was council, for The Department of Veterans’
Affairs.
ee
fo Johnny R. Everett Sr.
23
state or (Vor + {ani
City of $B fC
ig wot Miley 7, Owe
6éfore me this aay
APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of Facts Department of Veterans’ Affairs
Medical Center Hampton VA.
CIO Fy BORE Siacaawebsdskcncisicnpedecsderesvdationes l
Statement of Medical care, Department of Veterans’ Affairs
Medical Center Durham NC.
October 30, 1998
Supplemental Statement of the Case
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
Roanoke Regional Office
Se FI IE Bidah cisonctbirdccdascddecesrdeascbavessii 4
Order of the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Virginia
Civil Action Number: 3:98CV576
April 16, 1999
Dismissal Order of the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Virginia
Civil Action Number: 3:98CV576
April 26, 1999
Order and Judgment of the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Virginia
Civil Action Number: 3:98CV576
April 26, 1999
Order to Moot of the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Virginia
Civil Action Number: 3:98CV576
SOTHO HHE HEHEHE EE
APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
App.
Page
Unpublished Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals
For the Fourth Circuit
No. 99-1850 CA-98-576-3
RE Bic WUE seca vhbesiaccssexenendansanvinsaniesceins 16
Order of the United States Court of Appeals
For the Fourth Circuit
No. 99-1850 CA-98-576-3
PUNE 1 GS vcs inbevinnsciins ann tnciasseudenatessbiaieses 18
Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals
For the Fourth Circuit
No. 99-1850 CA-98-576-3
POLY FD cicak cttnks cecakckavancbnabisiiicveseans 19
Order of the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Virginia
Civil Action Number: 3:98CV754
WD Fe Se os Ah ects ais 20
Order and Judgment of the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Virginia
Civil Action Number: 3:98CV754
SR 7, ee. (hs 22
Order of the United States District Court
For the Fastern District of Virginia
Civil Action Number: 3:98CV754
POE TG, Te Mien cds icine 23
APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
App.
Page
Unpublished Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals
For the Fourth Circuit
No. 99-1849 CA-98-754-3
CPOE Thy FUP. Larvednteinancdvedtcnconctiess aveukeuaieh 25
Order of the United States Court of Appeals
For the Fourth Circuit
No. 99-1849 CA-98-754-3
SES 0 i Be seb invetescusscotserss Dibisiasecuhiaubenes 27
Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals
For the Fourth Circuit
No. 99-1849 CA-98-754-3
PN Wa GE Wiis ca ue densescecwontaiascccansecersqusess 28
App. 1
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Medical Center
Hampton VA 23667
October 27, 1997
In Reply Refer to: 590/112
Mr. Johnny R. Everett Sr. SSN: 246 40 5684
Dear Mr. Everett:
We are writing to you on behalf of the White House, in response to
your letter dated September 5, 1997, concerning health issues that
you feel may be related to implantation of a silicone penile
prosthesis in 1989.
We have reviewed the packet of material you sent to the White
House, and reviewed our medical record of your care. You
received treatment at VAMC, Hampton until August 1992. A
review of our records reveals that Dr. Netto, Staff Urologist, gave
you the specific information you requested about the prosthesis on
September 4, 1996. It was manufactured by Mentor Heyer-Schulte
Products of Goleta, CA, and the device is called Small-Carrion
Penile Prosthesis. On July 29, 1991, When seen by Dr. Netto, he
assured you that we did not have any knowledge of any “adverse
reactions” and you were encouraged to bring in what information
you had, and Dr. Netto would contact the manufacturer for
verification. Apparently you never followed through with Dr.
Netto’s request. On your last visit August 26, 1992, you stated that
you did not want the penile implant removed.
From 1989 and even until today, we know of no definitive
diagnostic tests to be done that would support your claim of
“Poisoning by silicone disease”. From your letter, it seems that the
other “VA Medical Centers, Virginia Health Department, three
App. 2
medical school and two hospitals” that you have asked do not
know of such a test.
We are not “purposely denying” these test as you claim. To our
knowledge, they do not exist.
We are concerned when any veteran feels that his/her care is less
than optimum, and wish to assure you that we would be pleased to
-provide a full evaluation of your symptoms and any diagnostic
testing your treating physician feels is appropriate.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
Dr. Netto, Staff Urologist or Dr. Ali Farpour, Acting Director,
Surgical Services at (757) 722-9961, ext. 3620.
Sincerely,
TIMOTHY MAY
Acting Executive Vice President
App. 3
DEPARTMENT OF VERERANS AFFAIRS
Medical Center
508 Fulton Street
Durham NC 27705
October 30,1998
In Reply Refer To: 558/11C
Mr. Johnny R. Everett Sr.
Route 2 286E Lot 6
Blounts Creek, North Carolina 27814
Dear Mr. Everett;
You have been approved for fee-basis outpatient medical care for
treatment of your service connected skin condition. You will be
entitled to treatment from a private physician that is close to your
home for the disability listed on the fee-basis card. Any treatment
that you receive from a private physician other than what is listed
on the card will be at your own expense. You will receive a fee-
basis identification card from the Winston-Salem Fee-Basis
Service Office that will provide you with additional information
about your fee-basis card.
If you have questions about your card, call Ms. Ernestine Bason at
(919) 286-0411, extension 6193. If you change your decision not
to seek care at this facility call our Telephone Triage Office at 1-
888-878-6890 for an appointment.
Sincerely,
\
DAVID L. SIMEL, MD
Associate Chief of Staff for Ambulatory Care Service
App. 4
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE
10/14/99
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
ROANOKE REGIONAL OFFICE
Johnny R. Everett Sr.
VA FILE NUMBER: 16 988 528
SOCIAL SECURITY NR: 246-40-5684
ISSUE:
Entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. 1151 for additional
disability as a result of penile implant.
EVIDENCE:
e Medical records from the Hampton VA Medical Center for the
period 10/16/89 to 10/19/89.
e The claimant failed to report for a VA examination scheduled
at the Richmond VA Medical Center in July 1999. Evidence
Expected from this examination which might have been
material to the outcome of this claim could not be considered.
e Review of claims file to include multiple records, audio-tapes
And videotapes submitted by the veteran during the course of
his appeal.
ADJUDICATIVE ACTIONS: 4
9/10/98 The appeal was remanded by the Board of :
Veterans’ Appeals for additional medical evidence [|
And a VA examination ‘
10/14/99 Claim considered based on all the evidence :
of record.
App. 5
Unless otherwise indicated, the symbol “ ** “ denotes a section
from title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Pensions,
Bonuses and Veterans’ Relief. Title 38 contains the regulations of
the Department of Veterans Affairs’ which govern entitlement to
all veterans benefits.
**3.655 Failure to report for Department of Veterans Affairs
examination.
(A) General. When entitlement to continued entitlement to a
benefit cannot be established or confirmed without a current
VA examination or reexamination and a claimant, without
good cause, fails to report for such examination, or
reexamination, action shall be taken in accordance with
paragraph (b) or (c) of this section as appropriate.
Examples of good cause include, but are not limited to,
the illness or hospitalization of the claimant, death of an
immediate family member, etc. For purposes of this section,
the terms “examination” and “reexamination” include
periods of hospital observation when required by VA.
(B) Original or reopened claim, or claim for increase. When a
Claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in
conjunction with an original compensation claim, the claim
shall be rated based on the-evidence of record. When the
examination was scheduled in conjunction with any other
original claim, a reopened claim for a benefit which was
previously disallowed, or a claim for increase, the claim shall
be denied.
(c) Running award.
App. 6
(1) When a claimant fails to report for a reexamination and
the issue is continuing entitlement, VA shall issue a
predetermination notice advising the payee that
payment for the disability or disabilities for which the
reexammation was scheduled will be discontinued or, if
minimum evaluation is established in part 4 of this title
or there is an evaluation protected under **3.951 (B) of
this part, reduced to the evaluation.
Such notice shall also include the prospective date of
discontinuance or reduction, the reason therefor and a
statement of the claimant’s procedural and appellate
rights. The claimant shall be allowed 60 days to
indicate his or her willingness to report for a
reexamination or to present evidence that payment for
the disability or disabilities for which the reexamination
was scheduled should not be discontinued or reduced.
(2) If there is no response within 60 days , or if the
evidence submitted does not establish continued
entitlement, payment for such disability or disabilities
shall be discontinued or reduced as of the date indicated
in the predetermination notice or the date of last
payment, whichever is later.
(3) If notice is received that the claimant is willing to
report for a reexamination before payment has been
discontinued or reduced, action to adjust payment shall
be deferred. The reexamination shall be rescheduled
and the claimant notified that failure to report for the
rescheduled examination shall be cause for immediate
discontinuance or reduction of payment. When a
claimant fails to report for such rescheduled
examination, payment shall be reduced or discontinued
App. 7
as of the date of last payment and shall not be further
adjusted until a VA examination has been conducted
and the report reviewed.
4) If within 30 days of a predetermination notice issued
under paragraph (c) (1) of this section the claimant
request a hearing, action to adjust payment shall be
deferred as set forth in **3.105 (h)(1) of this part.
If a hearing is requested more than 30\days after such
predetermination notice but before the proposed date of
discontinuance or reduction, a hearing shall be
scheduled, but payment shall nevertheless be
discontinued or reduced as of the date proposed in the
predetermination notice or date of last payment,
whichever is later, unless information is presented
which warrants a different determination. When the
claimant has also expressed willingness to report for an
examination, however, the provisions of paragraph (Cc)
(3) of this section shall apply. ( Authority: 38 U.S.C.
501 (a))
DECISION:
Entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. 1151 for additional
disability as a result of penile implant is denied.
REASONS AND BASES:
Compensation is payable for any disability which results from VA
hospitalization, medical or surgical treatment, or vocational
rehabilitation, or as a result of having submitted to a VA medical
examination. For medical services, the evidence must show that
fault on VA’s part or an event not reasonably foreseeable
proximately caused the veteran’s additional disability. Merely
App. 8
showing that a veteran has an additional disability is not sufficient
to establish causation. Entitlement to compensation for additional
disability as a result of penile implant is denied because the
evidence fails to establish that VA medical or educational services
were the proximate cause of additional disability.
This issue is currently on remand from the Board of Veterans’
Appeals. The veteran and his representative have contended that he
developed additional disability as a result of silicone leakage from
defective penile prosthesis installed by the Department of
Veterans’ Affairs. This additional disability was allegedly
manifested by systemic problems including joint pain and
swelling, low red blood cell count, headaches and dizziness, low
grade fevers, night sweats, hair loss, rashes, shortness of breath and
chest pain, numbness of the face and head, fatigue and memory
loss.
On August 16, 1989, the veteran was admitted to the Hampton VA
Medical Center with a 12 to 15 year history of impotence which
was thought to be secondary to diabetes and hypertension with
corresponding neurovascular disease. On the second day of
hospitalization, he underwent placement of a Small-Carrion penile
prosthesis without complications. He had a Foley in-dwelling for
24 hours. Upon its removal, he voided without difficulty. His
dressing remained intact for 48 hours and was removed on the
second postoperative day. His incision was intact with minimal
edema or erythema. The veteran did experience a low-grade fever
for the initial 12 hours but this subsided and subsequently
remained normal. At the time of his discharge from the hospital on
October 19, 1989, the veteran was to his baseline in ambulating
and was also having normal bowel function and was tolerating a
regular diet.
Associated with the veteran’s claims file are numerous medical
records compiled subsequent to October 1989. They noted
App. 9
recurrent, multiple complaints which the veteran had attributed to
silicone poisoning from a leaking penile implant. Various
diagnoses were given to include arthritis of multiple joints with
undetermined cause, diabetes, hypertension and unstable angina.
In November 1995, Dr. Douglas R. Shanklin noted that blood test
had been devised to demonstrate when individuals with silicone
implants had developed and auto-immune disorder. In a
subsequent report dated October 1996, the physician noted that
laboratory testing was strongly indicative that the veteran’s penile
implant had produced both local and systemic disease.
In accordance with the remand from the Board of Veteran’s
Appeals, the veteran was scheduled for a VA examination to
ascertain whether it was likely that a chronic systemic disorder
resulted from his October 1989 penile implant and, if so, whether
such disorder was certain to result from or was intended to result
from that procedure. Unfortunately, the veteran failed to report for
this examination. :
In the absence of competent medical evidence establishing that the
veteran has a chronic disability which was the unintended result of
the October 1989 penile implant procedure, entitlement to
compensation is denied.
App. 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
JOHNNY R. EVERETT SR. ) Filed
) April 16, 1999
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action Number
V. - ) 3:98CV576
)
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’)
AFFAIRS, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on several documents filed by the
Pro se plaintiff, Mr. Everett. First, Plaintiff filed a pleading
entitled “In the United States District Court for Purposes of a Brief
Summary” filed March 30, 1999 which contains a request that the
Court appoint counsel.
Counsel need not be appointed in a Civil case unless the case
presents very complex issues or exceptional circumstances.
Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 60, 163 (4° Cir. 1984); Cook v,
Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4° Cir. 1975). In fact, the Court cannot
actually appoint counsel in civil cases, but can only request an
attorney to represent the person unable to afford counsel. This
App. 11
action presents no complex issues or exceptional circumstances.
Accordingly, the Court DEN IES the plaintiff’ s request for
counsel.
In that same document filed on March 30, and in several other
documents recently filed, plaintiff makes numerous statements
alleging that the United States Attorney’s Office has not complied
with certain request that he has made with regard to documents,
witnesses, and depositions. The Court hereby DIRECTS the United
States Attorney’s Office to attempt to communicate with the
plaintiff immediately and to file a response to the plaintiff's
numerous requests no later than Tuesday, April 20, 1999, so that it
is Clear to the Court precisely what matters are unresolved.
Plaintiff also asks the Court, in a document entitled “Brief of Fact
to be filed in the Federal Courts” filed on March 29, 1999, to
continue this case. The Court DENIES this motion, but will
reconsider it if the parties file a joint motion for a continuance that
demonstrates that there is good cause to continue this matter.
Plaintiff also asks the Court, in a document entitled “This Brief to
be Filed in the Federal Courts System,” filed on February 26, 1999,
to order a “ test of Silicone Poisoning to be done by the CDC in
Washington, D.C.” In this same document, the plaintiff asks the
Court to order an investigation by the Department of Justice.
These request are also DENIED as this Court is without
jurisdiction to order such.
Finally, in his latest pleading, entitled “Amendments to Brief
Dated February 24, 1999 and February 8, 1999 on Subpoenas and
Depositions,” filed April 13, 1999, plaintiff asks this Court to
App. 12
advise him with regard to video and audio tapes. It is not
appropriate for the Court to advise the plaintiff on how to proceed.
Moreover, there is no statutory authority authorizing the Court to
underwrite or waive plaintiff's general discovery costs. See
Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 604 (E.D. Pa. 1991); Tedder v.
Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9° Cir. 1989). The Court’s Official Court
Reporter will be present and will record stenographically all that
takes place in the courtroom, during trial or any hearings that are
held.
It is so ORDERED. =
Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and
to the plaintiff.
APR 16, 1 Richard L. Williams
DATE SENIOR UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE
App. 13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
JOHNNY R. EVERETT SR. ) Filed
) April 26, 1999
Plaintiff, )
)
V. )
) Civ. Action No.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’) 3:98CV576
AFFAIRS, )
)
Defendant. )
DISMISSAL ORDER
Upon agreement of the parties that this case should be dismissed,
without prejudice, it is hereby
ORDERED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 41 (a) that this
action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with each
party to bear its own costs and attorneys fees.
Richard L. Williams
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ENTERED: APR 26, 1999
RECEIVED APRIL 23, 1999
App. 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
occeceene Eastern------------ DISTRICT OF---------------- Virginia------
Richmond Division
JOHNNY R. EVERETT, SR.
Filed
Plaintiff, April 26, 1999
Vv.
JUDGEMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
Case number: 3:98CV576
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’
AFFAIRS,
Deféndants.
Q Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for
a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the
jury has rendered its verdict.
. 7a Decision by Court. The issues have been tried or
heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the action is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its
own costs and attorneys fees.
April 26,1999
Date Clerk
1 AOSD ILL PGE EEL PENDS DEL LP IE ND AOL LO IE GO
App. 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
AFFAIRS,
JOHNNY R. EVERETT SR. ) Filed
) May 3, 1999
Plaintiff, )
)
V. ) Civil Action Number
) 3:98CV576
)
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’)
)
)
)
Defendant.
RDER
This matter is before this Court on the plaintiffs motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 41. The Court notes that the defendant filed a
copy of the plaintiff's motion along with its response on April 23.
Thereafter, the Court granted the motion and ordered that the case
was dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, this motion is
MOOT pursuant to the Order entered on April 26, 1999.
It is so ORDERED.
Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order to all counsel of
record and to the plaintiff.
May 3, 1999 Richard L. Williams
Date SENIOR UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1850
JOHNNY R. EVERETT SR..,
Plaintiff — Appellant,
Versus
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS,
Defendant — Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-98-576-3)
Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 5, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny R. Everett Sr. Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prilliman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36 (c).
i a oa aT oR te a er eae
App. 17
PER CURIAM:
Johnny R. Everett Sr. appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Everett v.
Department of Veterans’ Affairs, No. CA-98-576-3 (E.D. Va.
Apr. 26, 1999). We deny Everett’s motion to stay and dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
App. 18
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
FILED
February 1, 2000
No. 99-1850
CA-98-576-3
JOHNNY R. EVERETT SR.
Plaintiff — Appellant
V.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Defendant — Appellee
ORDER
Appellant has filed a petition for rehearing.
The Court denies the petition for rehearing.
For the Court,
/s/_ Patricia $. Connor
CLERK -
\
App. 19
UNITED STATES COURT FOR APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Filed
February 9, 2000
No. 99 -— 1850
CA-98-576-3
Everett V. Dept. Veterans’ Affrs.
MANDATE
: The judgment of this court dated 10/6/99 takes effect today.
PATRICIA S. CONNOR
CLERK
App. 20
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT -
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
JOHNNY R. EVERETT SR., ) Filed
) May 7, 1999
Plaintiff, )
V. ) Civil Action
) Number:
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’ | ) 3:98CV754
AFFAIRS, )
Defendant. )
ORDER
This matier is before the Court on the defendant’s motion to
dismiss and the plaintiff's motion to dismiss without prejudice.
A voluntary dismissal prior to a defendant’s filing of an answer or
a motion for summary judgment is not explicitly barred by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a). Defendant has filed neither is this
case. However, the defendant has filed a motion to dismiss based
on this Court’s lack of jurisdiction over this matter, which this
Court must consider.
Plaintiff seeks review of the September 10, 1998 decision of the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals denying his claim for benefits.
However, review of the Board’s decision in this Court is barred by
Title 38, United States Code, Section 511, which provides in
pertinent part:
The Secretary [of Veterans Affairs] 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.... Subject to subsection (bj,
App. 21
the decision of the Secretary as to any 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 a mandamus or otherwise.
The exceptions to the preclusion of district court review set forth at
Title 38, Section 511 (b) do not apply to the claims brought by the
plaintiff herein.
Further, the statute does provide for review of decisions by the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals,Under Title 38, United States Code,
Section 7252, “[t] he Court of Veterans Appeals shall have
exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals.” The decisions of the Court of Veterans
Appeals may be appealed to the United States District Court for
the Federal Circuit, pursuant to Title 38, United States Code,
Section 7292.
For these reasons, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear
plaintiff's claims and the defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
Accordingly, this matter is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION. Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal is
therefore MOOT.
Plaintiff is advised that he has the right to appeal the decision of
the Court. Should he wish to do so, written notice of appeal must
be filed with the Clerk of the Court within sixty (60) days of the
date of entry hereof. Failure to file a timely notice of appeal may
result in the loss of the right to appeal.
It is sc ORDERED.
Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order to all counsel of
Record and to the plaintiff.
May 7, 1999 Rich Willi
Date SENIOR UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE
App. 22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
JOHNNY R. EVERETT SR. FILED
MAY 7,1999
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
V.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS
CASE NUMBER: 3:98CV754
. Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for
A trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the
Jury has rendered its verdict.
: 4 Decision by Court. This action came xxxxXXXXXXX
Before the Court. xxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXxx and a
Decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
The defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted; this matter is
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs motion for voluntary
dismissal is therefore moot.
May 7, 1999 NORMAN H. MEYER, JR.
Date Clerk
App. 23
\
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
JOHNNY R. EVERETT SR.., ) Filed
) July 14, 1999
Plaintiff, )
V. ) Civil Action Number
. : ) 3:98CV754
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’)
AFFAIRS, )
)
Defendant. )
RDER
By Order entered on May 7, 1999, the Court dismissed this matter
for lack of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to appeal. Since that date, the
plaintiff has filed four documents.
Two are entitled “Appeal,” one is entitled “Brief of Facts to be
entered into the Files of Civil Action # 3:98cv754,” and the latest
appears to be a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60 (b) (3).
The motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (b) (3)
is DENIED. Because this Court is without jurisdiction to hear
plaintiffs claims, this Court must deny the motion for relief from
judgment or order pursuant to Rule 60 (b) (3).
The “Brief of Facts” does not request specific relief from the
Court. Further, even if it did request specific relief, as noted in the
= > ole.
App. 24
Order entered on May 7, and restated herein, this Court is without
jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's claims.
Finally, the plaintiff has filed two documents entitled “Appeal”
Both were filed within the sixty-day period for noting an appeal.
The Court construes each of these pleadings as a notice of appeal
of the Court’s dismissal of this matter. The Court DIRECTS the
Clerk to process the pleadings accordingly.
It is so ORDERED.
Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order to all counsel of
Record and to Mr. Everett who is proceeding Pro Se.
July 14, 1999 Richard L. Williams
DATE SENIOR UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE
App. 25
BLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1849
JOHNNY R. EVERETT SR..,
Plaintiff — Appellant,
Versus
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS,
Defendant — Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-98-754-3)
Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 6, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, And MICHAEL, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny R. Everett Sr. Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prilliman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Joan Elizabeth Evans, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36 (c).
App. 26
PER CURIAM:
Johnny R. Everett Sr. appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Everett v.
Department of Veterans’ Affairs, No. CA-98-754-3 (E.D. Va.
May 7, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. =
AFFIRMED
App. 27
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
FILED
February 1, 2000
No. 99-1849
CA-98-754-3
JOHNNY R. EVERETT SR.
Plaintiff — Appellant
V.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Defendant — Appellee
ORDER
Appellant has filed a petition for rehearing.
The Court denies the petition for rehearing.
For the Court,
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
CLERK
App. 28
UNITED STATES COURT FOR APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Filed
February 9, 2000
No. 99 — 1849
CA-98-754-3
Everett V. Dept. Veterans’ Affrs.
MANDATE
The judgment of this court dated 10/6/99 takes effect today.
PATRICIA S. CONNOR
CLERK
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.