In a poker game, you don’t want to scare them off with a superior hand, but rather inveigle them to see you and raise yet again. We’re playing VA poker here so I want to convey the futility of further bets but let Mr. McNabb depart with his dignity and his pocket watch and fob. He is free to fold gracefully-as he should. I firmly believe he is at liberty to do this and is not being pressured to hold the line by higher ups. By the same token, he has delegated far too much authority to the Seattle RO and little people like VSCM AynMarie Lofgren.
The CAVC is an august body who is legitimately head and shoulders above the legal riff raff in Seattle as well as the OGC. They will not take lightly the stance of a Veterans Service Center Manager telling Veterans they will get their c-file when it is damn well “ripe for copying”. Nor will they cotton to a condescending attitude of “semi-compliance” after a dilatory twenty two year lesson in how not to adjudicate claims. As for Mr. McDuff’s belief that a score and two years hardly meets the threshold of a refusal to act, I look forward to Judge Davis’ opinion.
Miz Lofgren has been hung out to dry by Mr. McDuff’s inattention to law business. He allowed her to use hangman’s language in her affidavit. She could have correctly stated it based on “information, knowledge and belief “instead of the much higher standard of a stack of Bibles with her right hand raised. She has been fed the OGC Koolaid and inadvertently perjured herself in the offing. Bummer, Ayn. Did they promise you a performance bonus?
Tomorrow the sun will rise in Seattle but Ms. Lofgren will be busy seeking legal counsel to extricate herself from her falsehoods. Mr. McDuff will be looking at his hole cards and making plans to either bluff again or fold. I never thought it would come to this to be truthful. But then I miscalculated VA’s entrenched intransigence.
I take no pleasure in wreaking havoc on these folks. I have given them ample time, in my view, to comply. Their recalcitrance is incomprehensible in light of the weight of evidence against them, yet they refuse to chieu hoi. What part of non adversarial was lost in this twenty two year dialogue? What did I say or do to offend them? Unless I am mistaken, ’tis I who is the aggrieved party.