THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSAttn: Robert N. Davis, Chief Judge625 Indiana Avenue, NW Suite 900Washington, DC 20004-2950

June 6, 2011

RE: Chauncey L. Robinson, No. 11-0474May 23, 2011

RE: Amended letterfor the one faxed on June 3, 2011

RE: LEGAL Opinion. and Clarification Requested

Chief Judge Davis,

The purpose of my letter is in reference to your May 23, 2011 decision denying my writ ofmandamus, and the mention of an Equitable Relief (JJ.R)before the Secretary of VeteransAffairs.

On April 7, 2011, the Office of General Counsel answered my petition dated February 9, 2011.In the OffICeof General Counsel answer to the USCACV court they made mention of myrequest for Equitable Relief (ER) submitted to Secretary Shinseki of Veterans Affairs onFebruary 8,2011 and March 10,2011. In my writ of mandamus dated February 9, 2011, neverdid I make mention of my request for Equitable Relief (ER) matter because it is not aUSCAVC court issue at all. My only concern was the destruction or spoliation ofdocumentation regarding my eighteen year disability claim with the VA. By using 38 U.S.C.Section 503 (a), I was seeking redress for the many ERRORS committed by VApersonnel. Ionly submitted copies of my requests for Equitable Relief (ER) TO THE Court because itshowed the Court I was attempting tofollow the administrative procedure process and thatSecretary Shinseki and his employees were consistently violating the Administrative ProcedureAct!

Chief Judge Davis, it is alarming to me, and others, that the Office of General Counselnotified this USCAVC court of an Equitable Relief (ER) matter, when in fact I did not makethis subject an issue in my writ of mandamus to this USCA VC Court

1, the under signed, Chauncey L. Robinson, hereby believe that the Office of General Counselshould have never mentioned to this Court the Equitable Relief (ER) matter. Moreover, Ibelieve this raises a set of fairness issues, and I hereby request some legal clarificationregarding the injection of the Equitable Relief (ER) matter into the writ of mandamus. Ifirmlybelieve your opinion or decision of May 23, 2011 was tainted by the Office of General Counselregarding the Equitable Relief (ER) matter. "And also can you please explain what does theOffice of General Counsel mean when they say in their answer to my petition on April 7, 2011,on page 5Petitioner filed his petition for extraordinary relief and his supplemental petitionwith the Court on February 9,2011, and February 17,2011 respectively." Is there such a termas "supplemental petition?"

It is hereby requested, that a written response beforthcoming to veteran Chauncey L.Robinson on this legal clarification matter regarding the Office of General Counselinterference with this Court.

Your response to this legal clarification would be highly appreciated.

Sincerely,

/la. .. L~Mr. Chauncey L. Rob' sonPetitioner

CC: United States SenateCommittee on JudiciaryAttn: Chairman Patrick Leahy224 Dirksen Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510

United States SenateMember, Committee on JudiciarySenator Charles SchumerAttn: Caroline Wexalbaum757 Third AvenueNew York, New York 10017

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSAttn: Robert N. Davis, Chief Judge625 Indiana Avenue, NW Suite 900Washington, DC 20004--2950

June 3, 2011

RE: Chauncey L Robinson, 11-0474May 23, 2011

RE: Legal Opinion. and Clarification Requested

Chief Judge Robert N. Davis,

The purpose of my letter to you is in response to your May 23, 2011 decision denying my writof mandamus, and the mention of an equitable relief claim fER) before the Secretary ofVeterans Affairs.

On April 7, 2011, the Office of General Counsel answered my petition dated February 9, 2011.In the Office of General Counsel answer to the USCA VC court they made mention of myrequest for Equitable Relief (ER) submitted to Secretary Shinseki of Veterans Affairs datedFebruary 8, 2011 and March 10,2011. In my writ of mandamus dated February 9,2011, neverdid I make mention of my request for Equitable Relief (ER), because it is not a USCAVC courtissue at all My only concern was the destruction or spoliation of documentation regarding myeighteen year disability claim with the VA. By using 38 U.S.e. Section 503 (a), I was seekingredress for the many ERRORS committed by VA personnel: I only submitted copies of myrequests for Equitable Relief (ER) to the Court because it showed the Court I was attemptingto follow the administrative remedy process and that Secretary Shinseki and his employeeswere consistently violating the Administrative Procedure Act!

Chief Judge Davis, it is alarming to me, and others, that the Office of General Counselnotified this USCAVC court of an Equitable Relief (ER), when in fact I did not make thissubject an issue in my writ of mandamus to this Court.

I, the under signed, Chauncey L. Robinson, hereby believe that the Office of General Counselshould have never mentioned to this Court the Equitable Relief matter. Moreover, I believethis raises a set of fairness issues, and I hereby request some legal clarification regarding theinjection of the Equitable Relief matter into the writ of mandamus. I firmly the believe youropinion or decision of May 23, 2011 was tainted by the Office of General Counsel regardingthe Equitable Relief matter.

It is hereby requested, that a written response be forthcoming to veteran Chauncey L.Robinson on this legal clarification matter regarding the Office of General Counselinterference with this Court.

Your response to this legal clarification would be highly appreciated

Sincerely,

IYlJt& U U,..L.U..JI~ J.~0, j)c ~Mr. Chauncey L. Robins u~Petitioner

CC: United States SenateCommittee on Judiciary

Attn: Chairman Patrick Leahy224 Dirksen Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510

United States SenateMember, Committee on JudiciarySenator Charles SchumerAttn: Caroline Wexalbaum757 Third AvenueNew York, New York 10017

HP Officejet 4500 G510n-z AII-in-One series Fax Log forPoint Man Ministries Of A518 813 4457Jun 03 2011 2:46PM

Last Transaction

Date Time Type Station 10 Duration Pages Result

Jun 3 2:44PM Fax Sent 12025015848 1:46 3 OK

Note:Image on Fax Send Report is set to Off

An image of page 1 will appear here for faxes that are sent as Scan and Fax.