This web page is dedicated to the Military Retiree Grass Roots Group of military retirees and dependents that have been lobbying the Congress since 1995 trying to regain the medical care they were promised, while they were on active duty, which was to take affect in retirement.

Click here to e-mail the webmaster, Floyd Sears, MSGT, USAF, 1951 to 1971 (retired).

Analyze the content of this web site and then you be the judge.
Was the military retiree community cheated out of the medical care they were promised?

 Medal of Honor recipient Colonel George Day (retired) 

As you look at these court decisions... note that one group of judges said that military retirees had a contract and another group of judges, on appeal, admits that a promise of full free health care was made in good faith and relied upon, but it was not authorized by the Congress. This is double talk. The United States Armed Forces, an agency of the United States Government, made the medical care promise. A contract was formed when the promise was made and accepted. The military retirees fulfilled their part of the contract, but the United States Government did not.

Click here to see a court decision in favor of military retirees.
Click here to see what happened when the Government appealed that decision.
Click here to see what the dissenting Judges had to say about the decision against the military retirees.

Click here to look at and listen to a web page version of the greatest swindle of all time story.
Click here to see a power point version of the greatest swindle of all time story.
Click here to just listen to the greatest swindle of all time story - 11 minutes.

In 1951 - Floyd Sears solemnly swore that he would bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America; that he would serve honestly and faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever; and that he would obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over him, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In 1951 - Floyd Sears was a gullible and naive young man that believed what he was being told, as he was suppose to according to the oath he took, when the information came from an official source. He believed that he and his dependents would receive full free health care for life after he retired.

Now Floyd Sears is an old military retiree that served his country for 20 years with the understanding that when he retired he and his dependents would receive full free health care for life. The court has said, much to the delight of the United States Congress, "that the promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon". The court went on to say... "However, because no authority existed [for the military] to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, they have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim. Floyd Sears now realizes that he has been swindled out of the medical care he was promised by the country he swore he would serve honestly and faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever.

NOTE: You will see references to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit often as the greatest swindle of all time story is told.

This is the situation military retirees are faced with. From WWII to the middle 1990's the United States Military Hierarchy, acting as agents of the United States Government, authorized the making of a promise to provide free medical care to those active duty personnel that would serve in the military until retirement. The government says the promise was not authorized by the Congress and has reneged on the promise.

You might think that the Congress would be outraged by this situation, but they wave their flags and make speeches concerning how much they appreciate what the military retirees have done for their nation on national holidays and other occasions, but when the flag waving and the speech making is done the military retirees that served them faithfully are forgotten. Out of sight out of mind.

This military retiree medical care broken promise issue is the greatest swindle of all time... it's a broken contract with America's military retirees.

A medical care promise was made and the order to make the medical care promise came down from the highest levels of the military hierarchy. The Congress had to know that the promise of medical care after retirement was being made and probably knew that the promise would not be kept, but they allowed the promise to be made anyway.

The medical care promise was used to entice people to re-enlist. It was serving a purpose and it was working. Why stop it?

The role of the re-enlistment counselor in the USAF was not a wishie-washie operation. It was well organized and official. Click here to see a testimonial of a former Unit Retention Counselor.

This is part of a court's conclusion rendered in a lawsuit brought by military retirees against the government for breach of contract. It is also a good description of a swindle. "They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim."

The court also said... "Perhaps Congress will consider using its legal power to address the moral claims raised by Schism and Reinlie on their own behalf, and indirectly for other affected retirees.", but the congress has done nothing. To verify this quote click here.

A swindle is... an intentional false representation to obtain money or any other thing of value, where deception is accomplished through the victim's belief in the validity of some statement or object presented by the offender.

The military personnel that were making the promise had no reason to believe that the promise being made was invalid. People on active duty in the military have an obligation and a duty to believe what they are being told when it comes from an official source, and they had no reason to believe that the medical care promise being made was invalid anymore than an order to charge up a hill under fire was invalid.

The offer of free medical care after retirement was made by the military hierarchy, understood and accepted by military personnel, and a contract was formed. The military retirees fulfilled their part of the contract, but the government reneged on the promised of free medical care.

So, all is forgotten, all is forgiven, we just write it off, and the military retirees who depended on this promise for medical care get swindled.

We fought hard in the Congress and in the Courts to regain the medical care we were promised, but we were overwhelmed and defeated by the unlimited resources of the United States Government Justice System. We simply could not compete with the government's unlimited resources.

One of the big questions concerning the medical care promise is... did the Congress ratify or acquiesce to the military retiree medical care promise? Did the Congress Know that the medical care promise was being made? Read what the dissenting judges had to say at ..."Promises of lifetime medical care were made to military officers by military officials for more than 50 years. Likewise Congress knew, or certainly should be charged with knowing, how the billions of dollars it appropriated for military medical care were allocated and that the amounts it appropriated for military pay were diminished by the imputed value of medical care on active duty and after retirement. Congress is presumed to know the terrain against which it legislates. To suggest it was oblivious, that it did not know military officials were promising medical care in accordance with its appropriations is pure sophistry. If it were otherwise, if Congress can appropriate billions for this aspect of national defense and not know how it is accounted for, then God save the Republic. Of course Congress knew; of course the service secretaries authorized promises in return for service; of course these military officers served until retirement in reliance; and of course there is a moral obligation to these men: it is called honoring the contract the United States made with them and which they performed in full. Because the court countenances the government’s breach of the implied contracts and its taking of the rights vested in these retired servicemen, I dissent." and  you be the judge.

The author of this web page believes that the Congress knew the medical care promise was being made. The author of this web page believes that the infamous "subject to the availability of space and facilities and the capabilities of the medical and dental staff" words were added to the U.S. Code to make it legal to close bases where the medical care promise was suppose to be kept. If the government had intended to keep the medical care  promise then why was it necessary to add those words to the U.S. Code? The mere fact that those words were added to the U.S. Code is a clear indication that the Congress knew the medical care promise was being made and they needed to start taking actions such that the promise would not have to be kept. If the space and facilities were reduced or removed where the promise was suppose to be kept then the medical care promise would be null and void.  All of this was justified under the standard guise of saving tax payer dollars.

How can the Congress look at what the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has said...  "We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim." ... and not see that America's military retirees have been swindled?

Why didn't the Congress stop the making of the unauthorized medical care promise right after it started? Why didn't the Congressional Research Service investigate this matter and report that an unauthorized promise was being made to potential career military men and women? They did not stop the promise of medical care after retirement because it was working as a (what turned out to be) deceptive incentive to get the experienced military personnel to reenlist.

The military hierarchy authorized the making of this medical care promise in good faith starting back in World War II, but according to a 2002 court decision they were not authorized to make the promise. I can not believe that the military hierarchy would authorize a promise of such magnitude knowing that it was illegal.

---

The Congressional Research Service Reports for Congress
on
"Military Health Care: The Issue of 'Promised' Benefits"
and
the part that was not reported to the Congress

All of the legal mumbo jumbo contained in the following Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports to the Congress does not change the fact that military retirees were promised free medical care after retirement and have been cheated out of what they were promised. The elements of a contract were set when the active duty  military entered into an agreement with the Armed Forces of the United States. And, all of the legal mumbo jumbo contained in the following CRS reports to the Congress does not change the fact that military retirees were swindled out of what they were promised. Somebody or some agency needs to be held accountable. If it isn't the United States Government then who is it?

The following CRS Reports for Congress on "Military Health Care: The Issue of 'Promised' Benefits" played a major role in the processes that bought about the 18 Nov 2002 defeat of the Schism and Reinlie lawsuit brought by Medal of Honor recipient Colonel George Day (retired). The Schism and Reinlie lawsuit was designed to regain the medical care that was promised to military retirees.

21 Dec 1998 Report
16 Jan 2001 Report
 21 Nov 2002 Report
 12 Aug 2003 Report
 19 Jan 2006 Report

The author of this web page is intrigued by this one sentence in the History and Mission of the CRS. "Indeed, the sole mission of CRS is to serve the United States Congress.". Running the risk of this being taken out of context... I feel it is reasonable to assume that this means the CRS had no particular obligation to serve the interest of the military retirees seeking justice within the justice system. Click here to see the History and Mission of the CRS.

This is a rebuttal to the CRS Reports for Congress on...
"Military Health Care: The Issue of 'Promised' Benefits".

Although the comments of the dissenting judges Chief Judge Mayer, Circuit Judge Newman, Senior Circuit Judge Plager, and Circuit Judge Gajarsa, click  here, rebut these CRS Reports for Congress very well I feel that it is proper and reasonable for a military retiree to also rebut  these CRS Reports for Congress on "Military Health Care: The Issue of 'Promised' Benefits".

I have no official way of presenting this web page to the Congress, but it needs to be presented to the Congress because the minds of the Congress have been set in concrete by an incomplete CRS Report. However, on the off chance that some Senator or Representative may wander this way... here is a rebuttal to this CRS Report for Congress by one military retiree.

Obviously I can not rebut every word of the 5 documents listed above. Therefore I will rebut the SUMMARY paragraph of the 19 Jan 2006 Report for Congress. I have numbered each sentence of the SUMMARY paragraph to facilitate my rebuttal. My rebuttal follows the SUMMARY.

Let it be clearly understood that the author of this rebuttal is not saying that these CRS reports are false, but let it also be clearly understood that the author of this rebuttal is saying that these reports are incomplete. These Reports for Congress tell one side of the story and makes the manner in which the medical care promise was made to the active duty military appear to be insignificant, and unimportant.

Did Congress acquiesce to this medical care after retirement promise? Whether they did or did not is unimportant to the author of this rebuttal because the Congress never promised me anything. In my case, ranking members of the USAF made the medical care promise to me over a 20 year period. In their defense I do not believe that they knowingly made an unauthorized promise. The court agrees with my belief. The court said, "The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon." Click here to see reference material.

If the Armed Forces of the United States was making an unauthorized promise then why didn't the Congress take the necessary actions to stop the making of the promise? Why didn't the CRS step in and make a report to the Congress that unauthorized promises were being made?

Let it be understood that members of the United States Armed Forces are trained to believe, and had to believe what they were being told when it came from an official source. And, let it be understood that military personnel did not have personal lawyers to advise them whether they should or should not believe what they were being told. In the early 1950's, at Carswell AFB, the squadron I was assigned to was marched to the base theater on a weekly basis to watch films such as "Victory At Sea", and other WWII documentaries. At these military briefings we were told many things that we had to believe, including the promise of free medical care for life if we served for 20 or more years in the military and retired.

Can you imagine what would happen to a low ranking person if he/she challenged their Commanding Officer in reference to whether or not he/she was making an unauthorized statement/promise? If the military hierarchy was making an unauthorized promise then it should have been stopped as soon as it started. It should not have been allowed to go on over a person's 20 to 30 year career.

This SUMMARY paragraph was extracted from http://mrgrg-ms.org/crs1006e-the-issue-of-promised-benefits.pdf

• 1). Many military health care beneficiaries, particularly military retirees, their dependents, and those representing their interests, state that they were promised “free health care for life at military facilities” as part of their “contractual agreement” when they entered the armed forces.
  

• 2). Efforts to locate authoritative documentation of such promises have not been successful.
  

• 3). Congressional report language and recent court decisions have rejected retiree claims seeking ‘free care at military facilities’ as a right or entitlement.
  

• 4). These have held that the current medical benefit structure made up of military health care facilities, Tricare and Medicare provide lifetime health care to military members, retirees and their respective dependents.
  

• 5). Nevertheless, claims continue to be made, particularly by those seeking additional benefits from the Department of Defense, or attempting to prevent an actual or perceived reduction in benefits.

THE REBUTAL:

Item 1). Many military health care beneficiaries, particularly military retirees, their dependents, and those representing their interests, state that they were promised “free health care for life at military facilities” as part of their “contractual agreement” when they entered the armed forces.

Rebuttal: The "Many" word should be changed to "Millions of". The "many" word tends to mislead someone (like Senators, Representatives, and their staff members) that knows nothing about how the promise was made to believe that the promise was made to just a few, but not all members of the active duty military. In reference to, "when they entered the armed forces". This statement is very misleading because it makes it appear that the promise of medical care was made only by recruiters to new recruits.

Anyone who has been through the trauma associated with the induction into the Armed Forces knows that the last thing a recruit is thinking about is something that may happen 20 years down the road. The new recruit is thinking about how he/she will make it through the next few hours or the next few days. As I will explain later, what the recruiter said during the recruiting process is relatively unimportant. The military indoctrination and training processes that  happens over a 20 to 30 year period on active duty in reference to medical care after retirement is very important. To place blame on a recruiter for misleading recruits in reference to the medical care promise is ridiculous. The recruiters followed approved procedures to get people into the military. The active duty supervisors, 1st sergeants, commanding officers, and re-enlistment counselors did what was necessary to keep people in the military.

Item 2). Efforts to locate authoritative documentation of such promises have not been successful.

Rebuttal: I have a problem with the "Efforts" word. What was the extent of the effort to locate authoritative documentation. What kind of authoritative documents was the CRS Report for Congress looking for. Was the report looking for the check lists that members of the military signed to indicate that they understood the medical care promise that was being made during re-enlistment briefings? Click here for more information. If the CRS Report was looking for that documentation then it certainly could not be found because those check lists were either destroyed or given to the service member on his retirement.

Did the CRS Report for Congress try to find military retirees that may have kept that kind of documentation? Most military retirees would not have kept that kind of documentation because there was no need to keep documents like that. After all a promise had been made by the most honorable Armed Forces in the world acting as an agent of the United States government the most honorable government in the world.

Why would a person need to prove that a valid promise was made. If one would reason that a retiring member of the military should have made copies of certain documents then one should remember that we didn't have copying machines back in the days in question. Then one could ask that if the check lists were found would they be authoritative documentation that the medical care promise was made by military personal acting in their official capacity under orders as agents of the United States government. The re-enlistment check lists were official authoritative documentation. Click here for more information.

In their efforts to locate authoritative documentation that the medical care promise was made, how many military retirees did the CRS Report for Congress interview? One hundred? One Thousand? One million? Did the CRS Report for Congress take any actions to get sworn statements from military retirees concern the intensity of how the medical care promise was made. The author of this rebuttal believes that the CRS Report for Congress found what it wanted to find to make the case against the military retirees and nothing more.

Item 3). Congressional report language and recent court decisions have rejected retiree claims seeking ‘free care at military facilities’ as a right or entitlement.

Rebuttal: By rejecting the retiree claims, is the CRS Report for Congress putting it self on the same level as a court? If this is true then there was no point in having a trial. Or, is the CRS report setting itself up as being Biblical in nature where it's finding are indisputable. What about the language of the millions of military retirees that are being swindled out of the medical care they were promised. Does their word mean nothing? It is important to note that not all courts rejected the retiree claims. The CRS Report for Congress failed to mention the 8 Feb 2001 court decision where the court said, "The retirees entered active duty in the armed forces and completed at least twenty years service on the good faith belief that the government would fulfill its promises.  The terms of the contract were set when the retirees entered the service and fulfilled their obligation.  The government cannot unilaterally amend the contract terms now." Click here to see reference material. In my opinion this court decision was excluded from the summary because it would have been counter productive in reference to the case the CRS Report for Congress was trying to make.

Item 4). These have held that the current medical benefit structure made up of military health care facilities, Tricare and Medicare provide lifetime health care to military members, retirees and their respective dependents.

Rebuttal: Has the CRS Report for Congress considered what will happen if the current cuts to Medicare continue and Doctors reach the point where they can not afford to take Medicare patients. In this regard we are no different than a person that never spent a day in the military. If we can not find Doctors that will take Medicare then Tricare for life is worthless.

Item 5). Nevertheless, claims continue to be made, particularly by those seeking additional benefits from the Department of Defense, or attempting to prevent an actual or perceived reduction in benefits.

Rebuttal: The military retiree community is not seeking additional benefits. We only seek those benefits that were promised. We are not a cheap bunch of thugs trying to get something for free. We paid for what we were promised with, sweat, blood, and tears. We fulfilled our part of the medical care contract and we respectfully demand that the United States Government fulfill their part of the contract. The dissenting judges in the 18 Nov 2002 court findings state our position very well: "Promises of lifetime medical care were made to military officers by military officials for more than 50 years. Likewise Congress knew, or certainly should be charged with knowing, how the billions of dollars it appropriated for military medical care were allocated and that the amounts it appropriated for military pay were diminished by the imputed value of medical care on active duty and after retirement. Congress is presumed to know the terrain against which it legislates. To suggest it was oblivious, that it did not know military officials were promising medical care in accordance with its appropriations is pure sophistry. If it were otherwise, if Congress can appropriate billions for this aspect of national defense and not know how it is accounted for, then God save the Republic." Click here to see reference material.

The Congressional Research Service Reports for Congress on "Military Health Care: The Issue of 'Promised' Benefits" tends to play up the role of the military recruiter as people that would have gone to any extreme to make a quota and play down the role of the active duty supervisors, 1st sergeants, commanding officers, and re-enlistment counselors all doing their job as ordered. The military recruiters and the active duty military did their jobs in an honorable manner as directed by the military hierarchy.

If the CRS Report for Congress was looking for the whole truth concerning how the medical care promise was made they could have found a million stories similar to this:

In November of 1951, because of the military draft, I had to make a choice. I could volunteer to join or be drafted into the military. At that time I did talk to a military recruiter and I volunteered to join the military. I was told by the military recruiter that medical care would be provided for me and my wife while I was on active duty, and medical care after retirement was mentioned. I was very interested in the immediate medical care since I could not afford insurance based on what I would be paid. In November of 1951 I was not concerned about medical care after retirement because I had no interest in a military career, but because of medical care promises I changed my mind. That's the way it was suppose to work.

Much has been said concerning the recruiter's role in the making of the medical care promise. Based on my experience, too much emphasis is placed on the recruiters promise and this emphasis has creating a grave misunderstanding in the Congress. The Congress must understand that prior to joining the military I talked to a recruiter for about 30 minutes to fill out forms, and again when he gave me a bus ticket. I never talked to a recruiter again.

Think about this... it is not very likely that I would have remembered the medical care after retirement promise for 20 years if I had only heard the promise made once by a recruiter.

My decision to stay in the military, and retire, was not based a recruiters promise. My decision was based on the promises made during my first four years in the military from 1951 to 1955. During this period the United States Air Force was engaged in an all-out campaign to get military personnel to reenlist. The campaign was very intense and very well organized. The medical care after retirement promise was made continuously. The promise was made to me by my Supervisors (on an almost daily basis), my 1st Sergeant (on a weekly basis), my Commanding Officer (at monthly briefings - commanders call), and Reenlistment Counselors (several times during the last 3 to 4 months of my first enlistment). The medical care after retirement promise was made openly, officially, and continuously to encourage me and other trained and experienced military personnel to remain in the military. The making of the medical care after retirement promise did not stop after my first enlistment. The promise was made to me throughout my 20 years in the Air Force.

In a few short years none of this will matter because all of the military retirees who are affected by this swindle will be dead and the swindle story will die with them. However, many of us will go on fighting for what we were promised until that final day will come for each of us. We were taught many things by the United States Military, but we were never taught how to quit.

Each of us wonders if there a set of rules in place today that protects the men and women who are fighting today's wars from being swindled out of what they are being promised, just like the greatest generation of military retirees are being swindled?

The military retiree medical care broken promise issue is the greatest swindle of all time. The medical care promise was made and a contract was formed. "A contract is any "legally-enforceable" promise or set of promises made by one party to another and, as such, reflects the policies represented by freedom of contract. In the civil law, contracts are considered to be part of the general law of obligations". How can it be fairly decided if any contract is "legally-enforceable" when one party involved in the contract is also the Judge?

It should be noted that while the military retirees were on active duty they had no way of knowing that the medical care after retirement promise being made by the military was invalid..... military retirees thought they were serving under the terms of a valid contract. We had no way of knowing that later in retirement we would be swindled out of the medical care that was being promised..... I am quite sure that the court recognized that the military retirees had been cheated and were victims of a swindle and this is why the court said, "Perhaps Congress will consider using its legal power to address the moral claims raised by Schism and Reinlie on their own behalf, and indirectly for other affected retirees". We have been waiting for the Congress to act on the courts suggestion. It's our last hope because the justice system has abandoned us.

I want to end this rebuttal to the CRS Report for Congress by taking a look at page CRS-4 of the 19 Jan 2006 CRS Report for Congress and a comment that make active duty military people look like idiots. The CRS wrote: "The end results appears to be that, regardless of the lack of statutory entitlements, many active duty personnel and their dependents, and retirees and their dependents, erroneously came to believe that they were guaranteed free health care in military facilities for life". This is the most insulting and ridiculous statement I have ever seen written by what is suppose to be a respectable and responsible government agency. I did not erroneously come to believe that I was guaranteed free health care in military facilities for life. I came to believe because; the leaders appointed over me made the medical care promise in good faith; the leaders that I would be required to follow into hell if necessary in defense of the United States of America told me so;  the leaders I would give my life for if necessary told me so; the leaders that were like Gods to me told me so; the leaders I was suppose to believe told me so; the leaders that I trusted with my life told me so; the leaders sitting across the desk from me at re-enlistment time told me so; my Commander at Commanders call told me so; and as a result a contract was formed. I took an oath to obey the orders of the officers appointed over me and I believed what they told me. I came to believe that the medical care promise being made was as valid as an order to charge up a hill under fire.   ========> That's how I came to believe!  <======== Active duty military personnel did not erroneously come to believe. They came to believe because that's the way the military system works. One is told what to believe and they believe. A military person does not look for a lack of statutory entitlements when officers appointed over him/her passes out official information or gives an order. I came to believe because that is what I was required to do.

---

Wake up America else reports like this CRS Report for Congress will have every junior military person on active duty disbelieving or questioning what their superiors tell them. Active duty men and women must believe what they are told when it comes from an official source. That's the way the military system works.

The United States Government has an obligation to pay and they should have paid this medical care bill when it was due because if this CRS Report for Congress, that brought us proud military retirees to our knees, continues unchallenged then the government and the American people will surely pay later.

I'm sure there are thousands of military retirees, military retiree spouses, and military retiree survivors, that have been lobbying the United States Congress, in great frustration, to regain the medical care they were promised now have "Anger PTSD". Anger is a strong emotion; a feeling that is oriented toward some real or supposed grievance. PTSD is a psychological reaction to a traumatic event or events. Being swindled out of the medical care military retirees were promised for 20 to 30 years of work and service to their country is certainly a traumatic event, and is just cause for anger. Prolonged anger has clear health consequences. Prolonged anger can lead to many deadly health issues, such as the many unexplained medical problems that military retirees suffer from. I have no way of determining what the breaking of the medical care promise has cost the American tax payers as a result of Anger PTSD, but  it may be equal to what the government thinks they saved by breaking the medical care promise.

The American people and the United States Congress must never forget that which is owed to its military retirees, military veterans, active duty military, and their eligible dependents. Ignoring events such as this medical care broken promise issue is slowly eroding the moral foundation of this nation. The United States was once a great nation that could be trusted to keep its promises yet now it's willing to cheat its military retirees out of the medical care they were promised, while on active duty, in retirement. From the 1940's to the 1990's, when people on active duty made the decision to serve until retirement, the rest of their life was centered on the medical care promise. I would not have served until retirement if there was no promise of medical care after retirement. In 1971, when I retired, a retirement check of $326 per month before taxes was certainly not an incentive to serve until retirement. There had to be something more and that something more was the promise of medical care. The medical care after retirement was referred to as "deferred compensation" and was used to justify the low pay of the active duty personnel. The government and the military hierarchy cut the active duty military pay short because it  was said that they would make it up to them later in retirement "with the free medical care". This was just one more of the dirty tricks used to get the active duty personal to reenlist and serve until retirement.

May God help those that are responsible for this grave injustice
THE GREATEST SWINDLE OF ALL TIME
  live with their conscience.