Seeking Justice

When we (the injured) try to seek justice for our injuries through the courts, we are told that our case has no standing because of the Statute of Limitations, Feres Doctrine, and/or the sovereign immunity clause of the Federal Torts Claim Act (FTCA).

• How can the DOJ/DOD argue that the Statute of Limitations has expired when rogue employees within the DOD conspired to and did conceal the true nature and extent of the contamination?
• How can the DOJ/DOD argue that the Feres Doctrine bars service members from collecting damages from the United States Government for personal injuries when rogue employees conspired to and did conceal the true nature and extent of the contamination?
• How can the DOJ/DOD argue that the Federal Torts Claim Act’s (FTCA) sovereign immunity clause prohibits suing the US government and/or its rogue employees who conspired to and did conceal the true nature and extent of the contamination?

Thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of men, women, children, and fetuses are sick, dying, or dead because of the cover-up. When are we going to get justice?

Because there is no Statute of Limitations for murder or manslaughter, when are those involved in the cover-up going to be prosecuted and/or court-martialed for the deaths that they have caused?

The Senate VA Subcommittee’s own recommendations at “G” in the “Rockefeller Report” confirms the Feres doctrine is the vehicle wherein criminal acts committed “incident to service” in the United States Armed Forces are being dismissed based upon the unconstitutional grant of “sovereign immunity.” If human experimentation can be brushed under the carpet due to the Feres doctrine; the reasonable American must then ask what else is being covered up?  The Rockefeller Report (PDF 3.36 MB)

Are DOD employees culpable for the deaths of American men, women, and children that could have been easily prevented? Yes

Culpable: Blameworthy; involving the commission of a fault or the breach of a duty imposed by law.

Culpability generally implies that an act performed is wrong but does not involve any evil intent by the wrongdoer. The connotation of the term is fault rather than malice or a guilty purpose. It has limited significance in Criminal Law except in cases of reckless Homicide in which a person acts negligently or demonstrates a reckless disregard for life, which results in another person’s death. In general, however, culpability has milder connotations. It is used to mean reprehensible rather than wantonly or grossly negligent behavior. Culpable conduct may be wrong but it is not necessarily criminal.

Culpable ignorance is the lack of knowledge or understanding that results from the omission of ordinary care to acquire such knowledge or understanding.

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. S.v. “culpable.” Retrieved January 18, 2016, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/culpable 

Contamination at U.S. Military Bases: Profiles and Responses
Stanford Environmental Law Journal (SELJ)
June 2016 – 35 Stan.Envtl.L.J. 223

John W. Hamilton
JD/MBA Candidate, Stanford University, Class of 2017

There is an epidemic of toxic contamination at U.S. military bases. Toxins arise from a combination of military-affiliated operations, industrial sources, and natural causes. Pathways for recovery through litigation are particularly limited for veterans who bring suit against the federal government because of judicial interpretations of the Federal Tort Claims Act that preserve sovereign immunity. Benefits offered through the Department of Veteran Affairs are available to veterans who demonstrate a connection between their illness and military service. These benefits are insufficient or unavailable in most cases. A reexamination of presumed medical connection policies is needed for veterans exposed to toxic chemicals, and a new policy framework is proposed.
Contamination at U.S. Military Bases: Profiles and Responses (PDF 422 KB)