Yes or No Questions

All questions start with:  Did the former and current National Adjutant General Kevin Jones and Dan West, along with former National Commanders Fritz Mihelcic—who is a long-time member of the bar and an established attorney—and Al Lipphardt, and the National Council of Administration intentionally and for no legitimate purpose engage in a known course of conduct that was likely to cause harm to the defendant due to:

1)Terminating the defendant’s life membership without proving any wrongful acts or convicting him of alleged crimes?

2) Acting outside the scope of their authority, violating federal and state laws, as well as Article IX – Discipline, Sections 903-904 – Procedures for Disciplinary Actions outlined in the 2019 VFW Congressional Charter Bylaws Manual of Procedure? 

3) Displaying behavior included violating ethical obligations and failing to remain neutral by circumventing Article IX – Discipline, Sections 903-904 – Procedure for Disciplinary Actions, as outlined in the 2019 VFW Congressional Charter Bylaws Manual of Procedure and Ritual?

4) Disregarding Jones’s creation and issuing a covert Remand Order while concealing this illicit order from the defendant, thus violating the law?

5) The acceptance of a fictitious underlying letter, which was annexed in Burke’s first rebuttal on February 2, 2021?

6) Intentional avoidance of answering all questions related to Burke’s fictitious 1 Nov 2020 letter and other important requested documents? 

7) Allowing and participating in “Brady” violations without any legitimate purpose?

8) Disregarding the 2014 decision made by former National Adjutant General John E. Hamilton, “the sequence of [Section 903] guarantees that there is a reasonable basis for any charges. It also prevents the presentation of inflammatory charges that lack a solid foundation.”?  In the legal system, charges must be based on specific allegations and substantiated by proof. This principle is fundamental to due process and ensures a fair legal system.

9) Allowing a facially insufficient accusatory instrument?  This was done without the mandatory investigation or incident reports for each charge, violating Article IX – Discipline, Sections 903-904, which outline the procedure for disciplinary actions according to the 2019 VFW Congressional Charter Bylaws Manual of Procedure and Ritual.

10) Conduct that included retaliatory actions against the defendant for exposing criminal acts committed by VFW members?

11) Violating the Federal Cares Act, Section 15002?

12) Allowing donations to enrich VFW members’ pensions financially?

13) Violating “Whistleblower” protection laws with no legitimate purpose?

14) Allowing a fraudulent signature to be falsely signed on multiple official financial documents without his knowledge, consent, or power of attorney authorization? By law, twenty (20) documents constitute more than a bald assertion; it is legally significant.

15) Neglecting decisive evidence of falsified financial documents? 

16) Disregarding or overlooking falsified financial documents, which violates New York Penal Law § 175.35, on First Degree Offering a False Instrument for Filing?   **NY Penal Law 175.35: First Degree Offering a False Instrument for Filing** You are guilty of violating Penal Law 175.35 if you knowingly possess any written document or instrument that contains a false statement or information. This includes making or using any false writing or document while being aware that it contains any materially fraudulent, false, or fictitious statement or entry. This crime is elevated to a felony when you present a false written instrument intending to defraud.

17) Without providing any legitimate legal grounds to justify the termination of a life member?

18) Excusing the absence of mandatory incident reports for each charge?

19) Neglecting to include the required compulsory investigation reports for each charge? 

20) Allowing jurisdictionally defective and facially insufficient documents, which are not authorized in Article IX – Discipline, Sections 903 and 904 – Procedure for Disciplinary Actions of the 2019 VFW Congressional Charter Bylaws Manual of Procedure Ritual?

21) Unlawfully excluding and denying fundamental Due Process rights afforded to all accused individuals? Even though advanced notice of the defendant’s unavailability on December 18, 2020, was known to all parties involved. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) states that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures that, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” We have determined that the Fourteenth Amendment requires this guarantee to be applied to the states. One of the fundamental rights protected by the Confrontation Clause is the accused person’s right to be present in the courtroom at every trial stage (see “Allen,” SCOTUS, Wells v. Indiana, 2021).

22) His religious background?

23) Supporting the Department Adjutant’s handling of the appeal instead of the prosecutor, which was blatantly biased and demonstrated a legal error?

24) Both West and the National Council of Administrators acknowledged and conceded the issues related to the post, the department, and Jones did not adhere to federal or state laws and failed to follow Article IX – Discipline, Section 903 – regarding the Procedure for Disciplinary Action as outlined in the 2019 VFW Congressional Charter Bylaws Manual of Procedure? This raises questions about the lawfulness of the defendant’s termination.

25) Preventing an in-person trial at all costs to avoid corrupt members from testifying?