The military retiree medical care broken promise issue,
and
the greatest swindle of all time...
a broken contract with America's military retirees.

No precise legal definition of fraud exists. In the public service, the term is used to describe such acts as deception, bribery, forgery, extortion, corruption, theft, conspiracy, embezzlement, misappropriation, false representation, concealment of material facts and collusion.

For practical purposes fraud may be defined as the use of deception with the intention of obtaining an unfair advantage, avoiding an obligation or causing loss to another party.

Attempted fraud is as serious an offence as accomplished fraud and all references to fraud in this Statement should be deemed to include attempted fraud. Fraud can be perpetrated by persons both inside and outside the organisation (e.g. by staff or by clients/contractors).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 99-1402, WILLIAM O. SCHISM and ROBERT REINLIE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, DECIDED: November 18, 2002,

"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.

Federal judges have a duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws, even if that means making unpleasant or unpopular decisions. Congress, on the other hand, has the power to make law, not simply to interpret and apply it. As our predecessor court said:

Congress has the power and authority under the Constitution to establish a system for the payment of retired pay [for military service members] and to change the system from time to time. . . . We understand and appreciate the dissatisfaction of the plaintiffs with the change in the retirement pay system, as they have rendered long and faithful service to our country in time of peace and war. However, if they are to get any relief, it must come from Congress, as this is not within [a court's] jurisdiction.

Abbott v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 384, 390 (1973). 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."