To play, press and hold the enter key. To stop, release the enter key.

Former Army S/SGT M. Plante takes you through the corrupt process for his service-connected disability claim. A twenty-four-year fight to victory, with a retroactive payment.

This book addresses many issues that may help veterans in their claim, including benefits veterans and family members may not be aware of.


He will take you through the corrupt adversarial process, altering his medical records, removing and destroying legal documents, obvious ways the VA delayed his case, and many eye-opening issues.

The service-connected disability process is no longer about veterans. Did you know that 70 to 90 percent of claims filed in our court (CAVC) are for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act?

Unjustly enriches attorneys at the expense of veterans and taxpayers. Since 2007 attorneys can receive 20 percent of veterans past-due benefits even if they had nothing to do with the veteran winning the claim.

Current Action

April 2021

I have informed all thirty members in the House and 18 members on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on the Attorneys Fees Issue and the corrupt process for some Veterans obtaining their benefits. 

I also enclosed the eye-opening opinions of two Federal Judges from our Veterans Court (CAVC) that agree that Congress needs to address the attorney fee issue.

In 2017 the Court made decisions in 2,882 cases for attorney's fees granted 2,874 under the Equal Access to Justice Act. I will keep you informed on what Members responded.


In May 2021,  I receive a response from Senator Tillis (NC). I am disappointed in his response because he did not address anything in my letter.

I do not expect to hear from any other Members, it is clear that they only respond to their constituents, even though they are on the VAC, and most likely their DC staff did not forward my information to the Member.

The following was taken as is, with words in bold, from the Court's website.

However, I just found out that it has been removed from their website in this format.                           

To review now, Go to the Courts home page click on decisions type in the search box 16.2057 click on View. Go to page 23 paragraph 3, then to page 25 paragraph 2, then page 27 for the rest.

No 16.2057 eaja  Judge Falvey and Judge Pietsch wrote an opinion.


Congress required an offset for" same work. "But under the majority's rule, rather than

offsetting for the same work, attorneys are guaranteed to be paid twice for it.

Worse still, the majority's rule will allow attorneys who continue to represent the veteran after a Court remand to receive a fee of 20% of the veteran's past-due benefits no matter how little work they perform to represent the client before the agency the attorney need only enter an appearance after a remand from this Court without doing any work to retain both the full EAJA fees and be engorged by 20% of the veteran's past-due benefits . Here, even a cursory review of Mr. Ravin's work done before the Board after the Court

remand should give us pause. First, he received $5,787 in EAJA  fees for obtaining a reasons-or-bases remand at the Court, Then before the agency, Mr. Ravin got $17,239.40 which represented 20% of the veteran's past-due benefits.($23,126.40

less $5,787 to offset the EAJA fees yes, and less a $100 administrative fee charged by VA under a section 5904(d) representation agreement). And now he wants $5,787, which would otherwise be paid to the veteran.

Now, it is true that there may be a good reason for not devoting more adjudicative resources to reviewing attorney billing. It is also true that we as a Court are poorly equipped to make policy determinations that juggle VA resources used on reviewing fees on top of a significant claim backlog.

("Congress is an institution better equipped to amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data bearing on such an issue.") But that is precisely why I would leave this issue to Congress to address,.

In conclusion, I would affirm the Board's decision. I would do so because, despite ample opportunity to correct any perceived flaws in our Carpenter decision, Congress has let the decision stand. In the 18 years since Carpenter, the number of cases handled by attorneys before the agency has risen to an all-time high. If our Carpenter decision had such a negative impact, all parties quickly shrugged it off. Even so, the majority adopts a new rule that refuses to look at the work performed when considering what constitutes the "same work" and so potentially unjustly enriches attorneys at the expense of veterans.

Agent Orange exposure and VA disability compensation



Former Construction Company Owner Indicted for Defrauding Federal Program Intended for Service-Disabled Veterans-Owned Small Business.

Click Here

Corruption and Fraud 


Former VA Employee Charged with Stealing $8.2 million worth of HIV medication. 

Click Here


Home Health Aide Charged with Stealing Money for Disabled Veteran 

Click Here