[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
OK, the next argued case is number 16, 1591, Edmondson against Snyder.

[00:00:07] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:00:07] Speaker 02:
Mystician.

[00:00:18] Speaker 03:
Please, the court.

[00:00:19] Speaker 03:
My name is Barbara Mystician.

[00:00:21] Speaker 03:
I'm here representing the appellant, Margaret Edmondson, who is the surviving spouse of the veteran Cecil Edmondson.

[00:00:30] Speaker 03:
I'm here.

[00:00:32] Speaker 03:
This is a constitutional question, specifically procedural due process.

[00:00:37] Speaker 03:
And we are arguing that because the veteran here did not get a fair hearing because we're arguing that the outcome of this proceeding was essentially predetermined because... So is there no equal protection claim on the table?

[00:00:58] Speaker 03:
No, not at all.

[00:01:00] Speaker 03:
But the requirement of actual exposure is so difficult to prove, given the nature of Agent Orange, that it combines with the soil, it combines with the water, and it goes through the food chain, and it's a dioxin so it doesn't break down.

[00:01:29] Speaker 03:
So we can stay in the soil for decades.

[00:01:32] Speaker 03:
And it's further complicated in this case because this veteran was on a covert mission.

[00:01:45] Speaker 03:
Prior to 65, which is what was covered by the Buckingham article, that's when the Air Force came in.

[00:01:53] Speaker 03:
Prior to that, the CIA was there.

[00:01:57] Speaker 03:
with their covert mission, which was Air America.

[00:02:03] Speaker 03:
And they would have the records for what happened there then, but those records are not discoverable.

[00:02:15] Speaker 03:
They're exempt from FOIA.

[00:02:16] Speaker 04:
I understand that the facts are such.

[00:02:21] Speaker 04:
poses difficulties.

[00:02:22] Speaker 04:
But I need to focus a little bit on what legal issues we have in front of us.

[00:02:27] Speaker 04:
So we don't have an equal protection challenge.

[00:02:29] Speaker 04:
You're not making a facial challenge to the statute that gives a presumption to those who actually served in Vietnam, are you?

[00:02:41] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:02:42] Speaker 03:
What I'm challenging is the way it's applied to the veterans

[00:02:51] Speaker 04:
So it's really more what you're saying is that putting aside the statute, the fact that there is any really urgent proof with respect to this connection to herbicide, that that's the problem because the proofs are unattainable.

[00:03:09] Speaker 03:
Well, my argument is more that veterans such as the veteran here

[00:03:17] Speaker 03:
should get the benefit of the rebuttable presumption.

[00:03:22] Speaker 04:
But again, you're not really saying that he should get it because those in Vietnam get it.

[00:03:32] Speaker 04:
You're just saying that he shouldn't have to have this separate burden because it is an impossible burden to satisfy.

[00:03:40] Speaker 03:
Is that what you're saying?

[00:03:41] Speaker 03:
That's it.

[00:03:42] Speaker 03:
And part of the reason for that, especially in this case,

[00:03:46] Speaker 03:
that the records that would be necessary to establish his case are in the possession of the government and cannot be released for however justified the reasoning.

[00:04:01] Speaker 03:
And our argument is that if they're in possession of the records that would establish his case and cannot or will not release them, the financial consequences of that

[00:04:15] Speaker 03:
should be on the government, not on the veteran.

[00:04:18] Speaker 02:
These are records of herbicide use during this period in Laos that you say are not available?

[00:04:27] Speaker 03:
There are articles which I submitted and which I referenced.

[00:04:34] Speaker 03:
There's public documents that talk about, yes, there was spraying.

[00:04:39] Speaker 03:
But the actual documentation of it would be in the possession of the CIA, because they were the ones who oversaw the spraying there.

[00:04:51] Speaker 03:
And those documents would be part of operational procedures, and those are exempt from FOIA.

[00:04:58] Speaker 03:
So the problem is where if this were just somebody within the Republic of Vietnam, say,

[00:05:08] Speaker 03:
that veteran would just have to present his service records.

[00:05:11] Speaker 03:
And that would say, OK, you were stationed in Vietnam.

[00:05:16] Speaker 03:
Everything's fine.

[00:05:18] Speaker 03:
But when you have somebody who is outside Vietnam, it's not enough for him to get his service records or her service records.

[00:05:25] Speaker 03:
They also need the records within the possession of the government to show where and when spraying was.

[00:05:33] Speaker 04:
Because those are your saying that there's

[00:05:37] Speaker 04:
the application of the government's regulation that it applies to everybody that served outside of Vietnam.

[00:05:45] Speaker 04:
But the application of that regulation is a due process violation to the extent that they're purporting to apply it to those veterans who served in Laos because of this covert.

[00:05:57] Speaker 03:
Well, for that reason, for the records.

[00:05:59] Speaker 03:
But also the actual exposure element of it is basically impossible to

[00:06:07] Speaker 03:
to prove.

[00:06:08] Speaker 03:
And that's basically, that's also illustrated by the fact that I couldn't find any cases where it was actually established.

[00:06:17] Speaker 03:
There were a few where there was a remand, but I couldn't find any cases out there where they actually found actual exposure.

[00:06:27] Speaker 03:
And the fact that, I mean, the statute clearly indicates or sort of intends or

[00:06:35] Speaker 03:
anticipates that some people outside Vietnam should get these benefits.

[00:06:42] Speaker 03:
But I couldn't find any.

[00:06:44] Speaker 03:
And so the fact that over this long period of time, no one has been able to establish actual exposure means it's a daunting and virtually impossible standard.

[00:06:57] Speaker 03:
And I think that if the actual exposure were given a more

[00:07:05] Speaker 03:
broader or a more, a less impossible, more like... Well, as I understand what

[00:07:19] Speaker 04:
the Veterans Court found is that even if we were to conclude that certain people who served in Laos at certain periods of time, that the regulation of putting a burden of proof on them would be problematic because there was clear evidence of spraying during that period of time, that the time frame that you're focused on, that there is no factual predicate for even making that due process argument.

[00:07:49] Speaker 03:
The factual predicate meaning there was no spraying during that time?

[00:07:53] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:07:54] Speaker 03:
But there is.

[00:07:55] Speaker 03:
Because we have the statements from the veteran.

[00:08:01] Speaker 03:
We also have numerous articles that I cited too that talk about there having been spraying during that time by the CIA.

[00:08:12] Speaker 03:
And the one article that I cited actually

[00:08:19] Speaker 03:
dealt with the Buckingham article saying that Major Buckingham was aware of the spraying and wasn't allowed to talk about it.

[00:08:29] Speaker 03:
Let me see if I have that here.

[00:08:39] Speaker 03:
That is on JA57.

[00:08:43] Speaker 03:
It says Air Force Historian William Buckingham

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
of the 1982 report Operation Branch Hand had access to Laos and Cambodia data but was not allowed to disclose it.

[00:08:56] Speaker 03:
Maps of spraying missions released for Vietnam research show many flights extending to the borders of Laos and Cambodia where the lines abruptly stop.

[00:09:05] Speaker 03:
So there is evidence out there.

[00:09:09] Speaker 03:
There is a factual predicate to support that there was spraying prior to the 1965.

[00:09:16] Speaker 03:
And so that bolsters the veterans' statements that there was spraying prior to that.

[00:09:27] Speaker 03:
So there is sufficient evidence here that would permit reaching the further step of evaluating the actual exposure component of it, which is

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
which would require allowing or would necessitate applying a more lenient or more general definition of what would satisfy actual exposure, because it's just too narrow given the properties of Agent Orange.

[00:10:08] Speaker 03:
Let's see.

[00:10:19] Speaker 02:
I think there is an absence of a factual predicate here.

[00:10:40] Speaker 00:
The military that Mr. Edmondson was working with, the military

[00:10:49] Speaker 00:
The MAG, Military Assistance Advisory Group, put him in Laos in 61 to 62.

[00:10:55] Speaker 00:
And he left in August of 62 or October of 62, sometime there.

[00:10:59] Speaker 00:
The first evidence of spraying in Vietnam is this court and the court below in this case.

[00:11:06] Speaker 00:
But this court also in Haas, when going through 1116 and the challenge of the appellants in that case to the definition of what was covered with respect to the presumption,

[00:11:18] Speaker 02:
This is what's troubling.

[00:11:23] Speaker 02:
The statute is clear.

[00:11:24] Speaker 02:
It says Vietnam.

[00:11:25] Speaker 02:
Let's set aside, let's assume for the purpose of my question that exposure is not disputed, except that it wasn't in Vietnam.

[00:11:36] Speaker 00:
Well, if Mr. Edmondson had evidence of direct exposure, he wouldn't need the presumption.

[00:11:41] Speaker 00:
He would be service-connected.

[00:11:43] Speaker 00:
That would be like any other veteran with any other claim.

[00:11:45] Speaker 00:
If they had evidence of direct service connection,

[00:11:48] Speaker 00:
In other words, if they had the sufficient evidence that showed that they were actually subject to or in an area where there was spraying, he would be able to establish direct service connection.

[00:11:57] Speaker 02:
Well, we have to assume because I remember at the time that this presumption was enacted how many difficulties were encountered by veterans to establish in Vietnam, set aside Laos.

[00:12:11] Speaker 00:
And so what this court said in Haas in actually doing a rational basis review,

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
particularly with respect to trying to find the correct definition of Republic of Vietnam and its inland waterways.

[00:12:23] Speaker 00:
This court held that the line that was drawn, in other words, within the Republic of Vietnam and its inland waterways, was a rational line, given that Congress was trying to figure out how it could basically benefit the great majority of folks who may have been exposed to herbicides, but not to extend it to those folks who

[00:12:45] Speaker 00:
for the most part, were not exposed to herbicides.

[00:12:48] Speaker 00:
And that would include, and the issues there were, in Haas, folks who were off the shore of Vietnam a couple of miles or even within, not even within a mile, on these boats that couldn't go into the harbors.

[00:13:00] Speaker 00:
Here we have the same question, an individual who was in Laos.

[00:13:04] Speaker 00:
But more so, what we have is an absence of a factual predicate in that, in this case, unlike those folks who would be able to demonstrate

[00:13:15] Speaker 00:
probably be able to demonstrate some exposure.

[00:13:17] Speaker 00:
If they were in Laos in December 1965 and after when the United States started bombing Ho Chi Minh trail and dropping herbicides down to clear the leaves, this individual was

[00:13:31] Speaker 00:
no longer in Laos when that happened.

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
He left in 1962.

[00:13:34] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:13:34] Speaker 04:
But the crux of his argument is that, OK, we get the fact that if we were in Laos after 65, we'd have a different showing that we could make because that's what was happening.

[00:13:45] Speaker 04:
But the point is that in 61 and 62, he says it was the CIA who was secretly doing this, and there's no way to prove it because all of those are classified documents.

[00:13:56] Speaker 00:
First of all,

[00:13:57] Speaker 00:
He was with the MAGs.

[00:13:59] Speaker 00:
He was a uniformed individual.

[00:14:02] Speaker 00:
And history shows that they were there until 1962 when the United States entered into the Geneva Accords.

[00:14:09] Speaker 00:
And the United States agreed to pull its military personnel out of places like Laos in exchange for the Chinese and the Russians to do the same.

[00:14:18] Speaker 00:
What happened next, which was after Mr. Edmonton left, is when the CIA came in.

[00:14:23] Speaker 00:
Because when the Chinese and the Russians didn't pull out, the United States

[00:14:28] Speaker 00:
stayed there in the form of the CIA, but not in the form of military individuals.

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
Mr. Edmondson didn't transfer to the CIA like some of his colleagues did.

[00:14:37] Speaker 00:
Mr. Edmondson left and went back to the United States.

[00:14:40] Speaker 00:
So he's not even there.

[00:14:42] Speaker 00:
In fact, actually, he's not part of the CIA operation that took place between or after 1965 when MAG pulled out.

[00:14:48] Speaker 00:
But again, the question isn't even what was MAG.

[00:14:51] Speaker 00:
The question is, has the United States, and we think it has, starting in the late 70s, even continuing until today,

[00:14:58] Speaker 00:
in the form of the Congress, in the form of the VA, in the form of the military service organizations, have been trying to grapple with the effects of using herbicides during the Vietnam era.

[00:15:09] Speaker 00:
And they've come up with detailed statutes and regulations to address that situation.

[00:15:16] Speaker 00:
And the VA has actually gone, and as we say in the footnote, I believe it's six in our brief, gone, and where you as an individual don't meet the requirements of

[00:15:25] Speaker 00:
1116's presumption, you may still get effectively the benefits of such a presumption if you can show that you were in an area outside of Vietnam, which has been recognized by the United States military as being an area where herbicides were used.

[00:15:41] Speaker 00:
That would include Laos, but after December 1965.

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
But the requirement of the presumption is minimal.

[00:15:50] Speaker 02:
That's the reason for the presumption.

[00:15:51] Speaker 00:
And in this case, the guidance that the

[00:15:56] Speaker 00:
regional offices and boards follow, Your Honor, is basically consistent with the presumption for those folks outside of Vietnam, but within the recognized areas where herbicides were used in the area, in greater southeastern.

[00:16:12] Speaker 02:
I thought your argument was that if you're not subject to the presumption because you're outside of Vietnam, the presumption doesn't apply.

[00:16:21] Speaker 02:
You have to go back to

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
That's the legal answer, Your Honor.

[00:16:26] Speaker 00:
You're correct.

[00:16:27] Speaker 02:
That's the legal answer.

[00:16:28] Speaker 02:
But isn't that curious?

[00:16:30] Speaker 02:
Can that have been the legislative intent, or was it just more that all of the cases which were arising were flowing from service in Vietnam?

[00:16:41] Speaker 00:
It was clearly both.

[00:16:42] Speaker 00:
The legislative intent was to draw the line around the Republic of Vietnam based upon the fact that the evidence showed that everybody

[00:16:52] Speaker 00:
All scientific evidence at that time showed that those within the landmass of Vietnam were those most likely to be exposed and therefore could suffer consequences.

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
Congress, based on that science, did not extend the presumption beyond service in Vietnam during a particular time period.

[00:17:11] Speaker 00:
What the VA has done with its practices is recognize that in the course of defining what 1116 should be,

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
The military's contribution to that analysis was to identify where they used herbicides.

[00:17:26] Speaker 00:
And it includes not in the era of 61, 62, but after that, when herbicides became more prevalent in the 65, 66, and especially 67 through 68 time period, they recognized that there were missions that were flown, as referenced by counsel, into Laos and Cambodia.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
And the Laos particularly, with respect to the operation

[00:17:50] Speaker 00:
ranch hang, which is described, and that was the defoliation to support the attack on the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

[00:17:58] Speaker 00:
And what the VA has done is, although it's not required under 1116 to do this, it has provided a sort of pathway forward for folks who can establish that they were in those areas.

[00:18:13] Speaker 00:
In other words, as the Court knows, the basic tenets of trying to establish the in-service event prong for service connections

[00:18:20] Speaker 00:
places, time, and circumstances.

[00:18:23] Speaker 00:
I was at a place at a particular time, and this is what I was doing.

[00:18:27] Speaker 00:
And people make those arguments with facts to try to support that they can meet the in-service prong of the service connection question.

[00:18:36] Speaker 04:
If we decide that there is no factual predicate for the due process claim here, do we need to work our way through the jurisdictional hoops?

[00:18:49] Speaker 00:
No, I think.

[00:18:51] Speaker 00:
I think the court is free, obviously, through exercising its discretion to ignore all these jurisdictional hoops that are raised in the beginning.

[00:18:58] Speaker 00:
But we raised them because we thought that the court should be aware that we were thinking about them.

[00:19:04] Speaker 04:
Clearly, even if- But I guess my problem is, don't we have to assess our own jurisdiction?

[00:19:08] Speaker 04:
I mean, how do we get to there's no factual predicate?

[00:19:11] Speaker 04:
So- This is as I, based on my questions of your friend on the other side, what I'm understanding is this is not really an attack on the statute.

[00:19:20] Speaker 04:
So this would get to the point of whether or not there was waiver, and that would depend on whether or not the lower court had the authority to pass on the constitutionality of rules and regulations, right?

[00:19:35] Speaker 00:
Or the court could understand the question to be an attack on an application of law or a dispute about facts and find that on that basis, under 7292,

[00:19:44] Speaker 00:
D, it doesn't have jurisdiction over the case in that to the extent there's a due process question, it's a question in name only, which would allow the court to not address whether or not certain questions were waived.

[00:19:58] Speaker 00:
If the court was inclined to discuss the waiver question, as we suggested, we think that to the extent there was a facial challenge, which doesn't seem to be the case, that would implicate whether or not the Veterans Court had jurisdiction to entertain a facial challenge, but because

[00:20:14] Speaker 00:
If it didn't have that jurisdiction, it wouldn't matter because raising it would have been futile.

[00:20:18] Speaker 00:
So this court could then look at the question.

[00:20:20] Speaker 00:
If we look at it more as an application question or just a general fairness question, it would seem that the Veterans Court probably does have jurisdiction to consider those kinds of questions.

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
And so this court could then review it as more of a standard challenge to due process, in which then this court could find that, despite the label, what's just being argued here is that

[00:20:44] Speaker 00:
constitutionally firm structure.

[00:20:46] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:20:49] Speaker 02:
What's troubling is that I don't recall ever seeing anything in the statute which says that on identical facts, this statute applies in Vietnam and explicitly does not apply in Laos or Cambodia, for example.

[00:21:07] Speaker 00:
I'm not sure there's been a case like that, but in Haas.

[00:21:09] Speaker 02:
Or a case or in the legislative history or whatever.

[00:21:12] Speaker 02:
I mean, this is sort of where

[00:21:14] Speaker 02:
the perhaps some kind of due process arises, whether it identified Vietnam because there were a lot of cases arising from Vietnam and others hadn't arisen or weren't raised, I don't know.

[00:21:30] Speaker 02:
And that's really my question.

[00:21:32] Speaker 00:
I clearly am not the expert within this group here today.

[00:21:37] Speaker 00:
But I might suggest that one of the reasons why you may not see a lot of cases

[00:21:42] Speaker 00:
involving folks who were in Laos and Cambodia while spraying was going on.

[00:21:46] Speaker 00:
Those folks probably entered Laos or Cambodia from Vietnam and so therefore there would be no question about their already being covered by the presumption of 1116.

[00:21:58] Speaker 00:
Here what we have is a situation in which an individual was in Laos prior to the real hostilities as we know them in Vietnam and was removed

[00:22:11] Speaker 00:
again, prior to those hostilities really being ratcheted up.

[00:22:15] Speaker 00:
So those folks who had reason to be in Laos or Cambodia in the 65 through 68 time period probably traveled there across the Ho Chi Minh Trail from Vietnam.

[00:22:26] Speaker 00:
And therefore, you wouldn't have these kinds of examples.

[00:22:30] Speaker 01:
You mentioned earlier about the VA's expansion of the statute.

[00:22:37] Speaker 01:
beyond its terms to allow people from Dallas, Cambodia, and other places to receive these benefits.

[00:22:46] Speaker 01:
Does that also include the ships offshore that were held in the cost case?

[00:22:53] Speaker 00:
No, they do not.

[00:22:55] Speaker 00:
What we refer to in what Your Honor is questioning is in the last footnote of our brief in the

[00:23:07] Speaker 00:
VA guidance and the VA manuals, we identify specific areas where herbicides were used, including Laos, including Cambodia, including Thailand.

[00:23:19] Speaker 00:
And if you were in one of those areas and can establish that you were exposed, although you don't receive the 1116 presumption, you do receive what I'll call evidentiary treatment as part of your direct service claim.

[00:23:36] Speaker 01:
I don't... It could be very similar in effect.

[00:23:42] Speaker 00:
It could be very similar in effect.

[00:23:45] Speaker 00:
But again, the folks in the Blue Water outside of Vietnam, that was what Haas was all about.

[00:23:52] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:23:53] Speaker 01:
But I was wondering if that could be... Because as a matter of fact, they were exposed.

[00:23:59] Speaker 00:
I understand.

[00:24:03] Speaker 00:
Earlier in your recall, Your Honor, I admitted I'm not the expert of the group that's sitting here today.

[00:24:10] Speaker 00:
And I recognize that.

[00:24:13] Speaker 00:
But here, I don't believe we have either a basis to extend 1116 or to extend even what VA has been doing, as referenced in our briefs.

[00:24:24] Speaker 00:
Mr. Edmondson, as we noted,

[00:24:26] Speaker 00:
provided excellent service to his country but he was removed before the United States was involved in using herbicides and certainly before they were using them in Laos.

[00:24:38] Speaker 00:
Are there any questions?

[00:24:40] Speaker 02:
Any more questions?

[00:24:43] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:24:45] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:24:47] Speaker 02:
You have some rebuttal time.

[00:24:56] Speaker 03:
I disagree with opposing counsel on the issue of the factual predicate.

[00:25:02] Speaker 03:
I think, as I stated before, we have provided ample documentary evidence that the CIA was present in Laos during Mr. Ed Vinson's tour of duty.

[00:25:19] Speaker 03:
And although he was assigned to MAG during that time,

[00:25:25] Speaker 03:
He was still part of the general operation which was overseen by the CIA and Air America.

[00:25:33] Speaker 03:
So there, and the problem facing him being on this secret mission was that these records, because the overall mission was overseen by the CIA, this is part of general operations and those records are not discoverable.

[00:25:53] Speaker 04:
There's no dispute that he was not ever in Vietnam, right?

[00:25:58] Speaker 03:
That's not a dispute.

[00:25:59] Speaker 03:
That's not in dispute at all.

[00:26:05] Speaker 03:
Operation Branch Hand is clearly just, that's Air Force.

[00:26:10] Speaker 03:
And the Buckingham article speaks only to the Air Force's mission there.

[00:26:16] Speaker 03:
That article of which the Veterans Court, the Board of Veterans Appeals, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims took judicial notice of, it was a whole different project.

[00:26:32] Speaker 03:
It was overseen by the Air Force.

[00:26:35] Speaker 04:
What's your response to the point that Mr. Harkin says that the CIA, to the extent you claim there was this covert operation, didn't even come in until after 62?

[00:26:46] Speaker 03:
But they did.

[00:26:47] Speaker 03:
They were there.

[00:26:48] Speaker 03:
And the articles that I included in the appendix, they vouch for that.

[00:26:57] Speaker 03:
They say that they were there as early as starting in 1960.

[00:27:04] Speaker 03:
They were there.

[00:27:08] Speaker 03:
It was more obvious, perhaps, after a certain point.

[00:27:15] Speaker 03:
But they were, according to this, they were there from 1960.

[00:27:20] Speaker 02:
Was it established that there was herbicide spraying at that time?

[00:27:26] Speaker 03:
According to this article, yes.

[00:27:27] Speaker 03:
And then there was a notation on J-60, which talks about the above findings are clearly only a partial record herbicide use in Laos and Cambodia.

[00:27:40] Speaker 03:
Many additional sources remain to be examined, many of them classified.

[00:27:45] Speaker 03:
among these are any and all CIA records.

[00:27:52] Speaker 03:
So it seems like here again that the veteran here is having to shoulder the financial consequences of the government's decision not to release records.

[00:28:07] Speaker 03:
Even though that decision is justified to withhold those records, it shouldn't be

[00:28:13] Speaker 03:
it shouldn't be on the veteran's shoulders to lose out on benefits because of that.

[00:28:20] Speaker 03:
And certainly, I think we've provided enough information here to set up a factual predicate to enable this court to reach the due process argument here.

[00:28:37] Speaker 02:
Did you, in the course of your preparation for argument, come across any

[00:28:42] Speaker 02:
reason or discussion in the legislative record or anyplace else about why the presumption was specific only to Vietnam?

[00:28:52] Speaker 03:
Well, I've seen I've seen articles I saw in looking at the legislative intent for 1154 was sort of talked about combat situations.

[00:29:06] Speaker 03:
That's not technically about the Vietnam, but it sort of goes to

[00:29:11] Speaker 03:
why certain combat types and records would be released.

[00:29:15] Speaker 03:
And they're talking about how records would be lost and how records wouldn't be kept.

[00:29:20] Speaker 03:
And that sort of goes along with what we're arguing here.

[00:29:24] Speaker 03:
As far as the reasoning behind why they chose Vietnam as opposed to outside Vietnam, I suppose the reasoning from what I got is that that's where the most pervasive spraying was.

[00:29:41] Speaker 03:
But again, that doesn't mean that that's where the only spraying was.

[00:29:45] Speaker 03:
And I think where we have provided documentation of spraying in Laos, and this is an area of law that's supposed to be, you know, 50-50, it's supposed to go to the veterans.

[00:30:02] Speaker 03:
So we have, you have the veterans statement saying, yes, there was spraying here.

[00:30:08] Speaker 03:
And we have articles saying, yes, there was spraying there during the time he was there.

[00:30:13] Speaker 03:
If we have 50-50, it should go in favor of the veteran.

[00:30:17] Speaker 03:
So we have a factual predicate set here that there was spraying there.

[00:30:23] Speaker 03:
And we have the government saying, there's records, but we're not going to give them to you.

[00:30:30] Speaker 03:
So I just think that the argument here is that,

[00:30:33] Speaker 03:
if they have the records, because they oversaw this project.

[00:30:37] Speaker 03:
So they're going to have the records just like the Air Force has the records of spraying in Operation Ranch Inn, the CIA is going to have records on Air America.

[00:30:50] Speaker 03:
But they're not releasing them.

[00:30:52] Speaker 03:
And all that falls on the veteran who did, he served.

[00:30:56] Speaker 03:
He served his country.

[00:30:57] Speaker 03:
And he shouldn't be penalized because the mission to which he was assigned was covert.

[00:31:05] Speaker 02:
Okay, any more questions?

[00:31:08] Speaker 02:
Any more questions?

[00:31:10] Speaker 02:
Okay, thank you.

[00:31:12] Speaker 02:
Thank you.