Request For Proposal For Contracted Physical Therapy Services: Fill & Download for Free

Why Everyone is Hurt by Military FakersI am an honorably discharged Marine with two tours to Iraq and when I look at clowns like this I have to ask myself, "What are you thinking, dude?" I'll leave it to any Marine reading this to suppress their rage long enough to point out the numerous errors in this man's uniform, as well as his judgement. That isn't the point of this article, though. What I'm more curious about is the question posed here - “What harm do people who fake military service actually cause?” and more to my concerns, why exactly do we as veterans get so up in arms when idiots brazenly wear our uniforms to receive some false sense of recognition? While I don't disagree with many of the other answers most of us have heard, I do think there is something deeper that ought to be explored in the question. The point of this is to deal with the question, "Who does it really bother if some moron goes parading down the street pretending to be something they aren't?" At first it doesn't seem like much. Vets who have done impressive things should reasonably have enough pride in their achievements to brush off someone pretending to be something special. It would seem that way, but in truth, most veterans feel vehement about this, and for good reason. It isn't just them; the practice hurts everyone, including you.The MilitaryWhen you look upon an American warrior, be it a Marine on active duty or a veteran who long ago put away his boots, you are expected to not feel fear. The uniforms of active duty troops are clean, crisp, and tight. They aren't the rags of bloodthirsty brutes, nor of barbaric brawlers. Instead, the uniforms showcase a proud and poised warrior, displaying quiet, vigilant dignity. Their meticulously polished and perfectly aligned medals and ribbons demonstrate their vigorous attention to detail, an allusion to the care and precision they apply in their chosen profession and amplifying the impact which these decorations represent. When one looks upon such a person, they aren't meant to feel fear. Instead, when one is afforded the chance to see someone like a Marine in Dress Blues, they are meant to see the warrior for what he is, a proud civil servant and someone to be respected, admired, and appreciated for those trinkets he so precisely, and nobly wears.And then you see some dummy making the whole service look like flipping morons. The sad fact is, most people can't tell the difference between this joker and the outstanding example of a human being meticulously described previously. They don't really notice that the medals are all in the wrong places. They don't really understand the importance of one badge or other. They don't really get that... there is no way that guy is old enough to be a Sergeant Major.When they pick up women, get drunk and start a fight at some scuzzy bar, commit crimes, or just hang out at the mall to get attention, while wearing the uniform, people notice. They see these guys act unprofessionally, some of them downright atrociously, and civilians think to themselves, "Are these the people who are supposed to be protecting me and my family?"That's significant. One military idiom I learned to respect in the military goes like this, "Perception is reality." What that statement means is that the truth doesn't really matter. Most of the time, you aren't going to get a fair trial, and what people put together in the first few moments will determine your guilt or innocence in most things. It's an ugly truth. It is something that most of us can look back upon when we are wronged, and know it to be the truth.This applies to Stolen Valor cases. The actions of an idiot in a fake uniform affect the way that people view the military as a whole. The man himself may be forgotten. But people’s perception of the military will have changed for the worse.Absent that aura of the proud professional warrior and the civilized war-fighter that the properly worn uniform produces, you just have an arrogant, ignorant person who, to you, is the one going out and killing in your name. No one wants a fool to be a warrior. No one wants a moron with a gun going out and representing them overseas. No one wants to empower undeserving people. That is what they feel has happened when they see this person. They don't realize that he isn't a soldier, but just a liar in disguise.The ramifications of this are severe, though. In a ripple effect, this belief in the unfit warrior has a way of making its way into policy. It takes the form of a civilian population disenchanted with the military. They lose faith in military effectiveness, demanding cutbacks in funding and operational scope. They stop supporting troops actions and efforts overseas, sometimes pushing for dangerous reforms because faith in the military was lost. Sometimes it can result in the limitation of the liberties of warriors, making their lives just a little bit more unpleasant because of the perception that they can't be trusted. Finally, it deals the greatest blow to our legacy. People turn their kids away from joining the military and push them in other, sometimes far worse, directions, simply because they are afraid of what they believe their kids will become—killers without a sense of dignity and honor.This is the significance that the uniform has to you the civilian. We didn't design those monkey suits just to look at each other. We did that for you. We did that so that you would look at us and feel safe, not afraid. It is designed to make you proud of them. What it means to the individual warrior is something altogether different.The Uniform as a MetaphorAs I said before, you'd think that military veterans wouldn't really care that much about people impersonating them. I mean, these guys were professional warriors and the closest thing to modern day superheroes that our world has to offer... and they know it. Why would they care so much about someone pretending to be them? I know that a lot of veterans are angry that I would even ask that question, but it's OK, put away the knife-hands gentlemen. I'm about to explain.As a regular person, you might not know why the Marine pictured above is crying. You'd probably assume he is going to a funeral or about to leave home for the first time and off to war. That's because your view of him is based on stereotypes, along with just a few lies. You would be wrong.This young recruit is about to take part in a culminating event of recruit training, the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor Ceremony. The EGA is the emblem of the United States Marine Corps and only Marines are entitled to wear it. For the last three months, this recruit has been in Marine Corps Boot Camp, but he was not a Marine. He, like all the other recruits with him, aren't considered Marines until after they completed training. They were called "recruits" and suffered the hardships, trials, and indignities which come with the moniker. Once they finished Boot Camp, more properly, once they had received their EGA, only then will they have "earned the title" of United States Marine.It's a particularly religious moment for our odd little cult of warriors. For many, receiving the EGA, and by extension the honor of being Marine, is the proudest moment of their lives. It is the moment, for so many of them, which truly gave their lives meaning. Many of my friends who joined the Marines had no direction, no purpose, and no dreams for the future. They didn't have a sense of agency, the belief that their decisions mattered. They were just riding the waves. They were far more likely to end up in prison than to be looked upon with honor by their community. The Marine Corps, for many of my friends, gave them that sense of being part of something that mattered. If I were to attempt a guess, I'd say that the young man pictured above is crying because, for the first time, he is part of a community of people who matter, one which is honorable, and respected because of what they mean to the world and the citizens which they are drawn from.That said, while all members of the military may not take it as far as the fanaticism demonstrated by Marines, they all share a common bond, which is signified by their uniform. The uniform, as I made clear earlier, is an artifact and not a mere article of clothing. To many, it is the symbol that links them to a time of greater meaning in their lives. It showcases honorable ideals and virtues they are proud to see when they look upon others who wear it today. What's more? Every device, every ribbon, every medal, every shooting badge, like the uniform itself, is earned as a product of recruit training, important missions, special schools, and years of honorable service.What's more important is what it symbolizes long after service. For many veterans, upon leaving the military, there is a period of mild, or even severe depression. This can even manifest in a longing to return not just to the military, but to war itself. Sebastian Junger, an embedded journalist with an Army unit in Afghanistan and creator of the documentary Restrepo, has had much to say on the question of why would a veteran miss something like war.About a year later I invited Brendan [one of the soldiers Junger knew in Afghanistan] to a dinner party, and a woman asked him if he missed anything at all about life at the outpost. It was a good question: the platoon had endured a year without Internet, running water or hot food and had been in more combat than almost any platoon in the United States military. By any measure it was hell, but Brendan didn’t hesitate: “Ma’am,” he said, “I miss almost all of it.”Civilians are often confused, if not appalled, by that answer. The idea that a psychologically healthy person could miss war seems an affront to the idea that war is evil. Combat is supposed to feel bad because undeniably bad things happen in it, but a fully human reaction is far more complex than that. If we civilians don’t understand that complexity, we won’t do a very good job of bringing these people home and making a place for them in our society.The New York TimesJunger has his beliefs, but as someone who has also experienced much of the same feelings, I think there is more. As I said before, depression after leaving the military is a very real phenomena that unfortunately embraces the lives of far too many of us. This phenomena, in my opinion, is often misdiagnosed by society at large as PTSD, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It isn't that. Most of us never saw combat, though that isn't the only thing that can cause PTSD. Regardless of whether or not we saw combat, death, or destruction on the scales people often assume we did, most of us don't show any of the normal symptoms of PTSD at all. We are just depressed. The failure of society to recognize this distinction has caused great anguish in veterans and hasn't eased the strain on any of us.The reason so many of us are depressed during the period of our lives we had been looking forward to for years is perplexing. One would think the ease of lifestyle would help make us happy. They would be wrong. Perhaps it is the loss of community we feel, as Junger notes in a TEDx talk on the subject; or the sadness for our participation in acts our society doesn't wholly understand or approve of, a theory held by former Army Ranger and Professor of Psychology of West Point, Lt. Col Dave Grossman. A third, by a professor of Ethics at the United States Naval Academy, Shannon French, postulates that returning veterans aren't getting the cool down time WWII vets would have had while spending months in close quarters with their fellow survivors on a small ship before finally arriving home after the war. They would spend this time speaking with other members who knew well what they were enduring and going through, an important element lacking in most modern counseling programs for veterans. There is an axiom that pain shared is pain divided. The fact that sixteen hour international flights had yet to be realized for the average soldier was, in effect, a form of forced mass therapy that is overlooked today.I personally think that there is something simpler than that. Imagine that you will never be awesome again in your life. I know it sounds stupid, but imagine that the coolest thing you will ever do, the thing which the most people will praise and admire you for, you've already done. Ronald Reagan put it succinctly with his quote that “Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem.” But, what happens after you are a man in the uniformed services? Imagine a soldier who comes to this realization, whether explicitly or subconsciously, "I will never be half the person I was in Iraq."It's a depressing aspect and one that is hard to communicate. I guess you could consider it like having a midlife crisis at twenty-two. It comes with a loss of agency: you no longer feel like your decisions will ever matter again. You're now just another nobody. I think the best person I have ever heard describe this was a stockbroker friend of mine who used to be a professional athlete. He was injured early in his prime and never was able to compete again. The two of us talked about this sensation of "loss of awesome" when he talked about going from being a pro-athlete to doling out cups of coffee and the depressing state of mind that held. He even told another story about a fellow stockbroker who hit a massive pay-day - $75 million; more than the vast majority of us could even fathom. His colleague though, didn't seem as ecstatic as my friend thought he should have been. My friend left all his coworkers celebrating and asked the now multicentimillionaire why he wasn't that happy about the team's achievement. He said to my friend,"I am happy. It's just that there are other things. I am on my third wife and I have six kids, all who I don't know and who hate me."Sympathizing, he asked, "Why don't you just retire?"After a pause, the old stockbroker said, "Because if I leave here, I'm nothing."I think this the loss that warriors feel. One does not just go back to being normal after being a warrior. A part of you is forever changed, for better or worse and there is no returning to the person who isn't still, in part, a warrior. But what is a warrior without a war? To many of them, they are just has-beens. What the uniform, to these individuals, signifies is a time when their lives had value. It symbolizes a time when their choices mattered. For the lucky ones who find meaningful purpose after the military, it is still something that signifies a time in their lives they were very passionate about, a defining time, and one which has elements they will always miss. Maybe it is just nostalgia, because after time fades the emotional wounds that military service often inflicts, you're left with a great sense of pride no matter what the circumstances. Seeing the uniform abused, as is done by many, is an abuse on the warrior personally. It is an abuse on a large part of his self - that identity he had so emotionally vested into those garments and medallions. The uniform is a metaphor for so many other things that military services represents to the veteran. Many are indescribable, and seeing it worn by someone who hasn't earned the title, hasn't suffered the indignities and hardships, is a slap in the face to many who have. This is why recognition is so important, something I will be talking about in the next section.The Role of RecognitionI am very privileged to live near the city of Gainesville, Texas. There, every year, they have numerous reenactments and even play host to the annual Medal of Honor Parade. It is a celebration in honor of the 67 living Medal of Honor recipients, 16 of whom, were present at this year's parade. To those who have been, it is a spectacle like no other small town has ever endeavored to achieve. Between the recipients in era vehicles commemorating their wars from World War II to Afghanistan, to the rebuilt bombers, fighter planes, and attack helicopters buzzing California Street and the Braums Ice Cream store, it is a truly memorable day for anyone lucky enough to grace it.Parades like this have fallen out of fashion for most of America. Memorial Day is little more than a good time to go to the lake and enjoy a three day weekend. The sales are also really great, I hear. Veterans Day, more of the same with a simple nod to those guys who did stuff most people don't care to question somewhere "Over There". To veterans, though, it is a time to reflect and be rejuvenated. They get to experience that sense of community with fellows like them. They get to look back with nostalgia at that moment when they first became a Marine, or a sailor, an airman, or a soldier. Ceremonies like this renew their pride in themselves and their continued worth as individuals to society. They look at those young warriors, those marching along in their old uniforms and they see everything good about their time in service. They see those young guys and they know these are important individuals, which reminds them that they are too. They feel all this, simply because they see the uniform they once wore, marching proudly down the street.That said, I do get the temptation to attach yourself to the few moments of appreciation a year that veterans are afforded. Many of these people who go so far as to fake military achievements are pretty worthless. I'm not saying that as just a harsh attack. People like this feel very little self-worth because they truly have very little to offer to society. That's why they lie. That's really why anybody lies about anything. They've done nothing with their lives and no one appreciates them for anything. They want to feel heroic for once. They want to feel pride for once. They see people thanking us and think it must be great to feel like that. In truth, our feelings are far more complicated than that, but I can understand what they think. We all want to feel like someone we admire, but we don't cross the line to feel that way.People want to get as much of the warrior experience now-a-days as they can, without actually being warriors. They recognize certain qualities of troops and want to distill it and harness that for their own use. Yes, fraudulent people who dress in military uniforms do this, but so does everyone else. Consider how often you've heard of physical training courses. What used to be called "X-treme" is now called "Boot Camp". Housewives and office jockies attempt this training because they think two hours of strenuous exercise with a clown yelling at them is synonymous with the boot camp experience for military recruits. It's the same with programming boot camp. Is that the three month course where you are completely transformed into a new mindset and frame of reference? No - it's just an overpriced two week intensive training session on a new programming language. That's not a boot camp. I was even recently asked How do I train myself like a Navy Seal? and the details of the question:I'm not planning to join the army but I'm trying to study and adopt the mindset of those people, since they have totally mastered themselves and be able to overcome almost any situation with intense focus, dedication and discipline. If we could learn from them, we can apply the same to reach any kind of goals, dedicate ourselves to some great ideals and become a better person of values.What are the some of the practices a normal person can include in everyday life which can replicate the mind and body of a Navy SEAL? Like Mediation, Reading, Workout?I made a very clear point that if you want to be a SEAL, or a warrior in general, you pretty much have to accept the need to kill people, and endeavour to do so. All the other attributes come as secondary. After you say things like that, the air in the room changes. Still, questions like this will never stop coming. "How can I get the best version of the military experience, without actually doing all the military stuff they have to do?"Of course, then there are always those who want to capture the sense of awesome that is associated with those who do great things.It isn't that I don't understand why this sort of thing happens. People draw false comparisons, particularly among professional athletes and celebrities. Pictured above, you see 50 cent who took the short lived "military cliche" to its absolute most extreme. I say short lived, because he and dozens of other celebs were publicly accosted for the affront to military sensibilities their poor judgement brought about. Another case I remember was of an NFL commercial where a CG player dressed in a cammie jersey pattern ran through explosions and bombs dropping or some other nonsense, to reach the touchdown. That made no sense either.I feel that the real reason that there is so much "branding" going on is that these groups and individuals prize certain aspects of the military experience and want to attach themselves to the military's brand. That brand, to many if not most people, means things like "dangerous" or "aggressive", or even "killer", among other things. Such a brand really stands out to those wishing to promote those lower brain functions and gain an audience wishing to see just that. Others associate the military experience with ideas like "high achiever", "hard worker", "heroic", or "brave". Though positive at least, people want to borrow these attributes to augment their personal brands. Celebrities like 50 Cent and Justin Bieber do this by comparing themselves to "soldiers" fighting in a "war" or "battle". They want to borrow the image of dangerous men or of those who suffer to lend that image, and some fallacy of depth, to their music. Even Tom Cruise's press secretary compared the struggles he faces when making a movie "like being on a military deployment to Afghanistan." Professional athletes do it all the time by comparing a sport where the whole world stops if they twist an ankle to the battlefield.Veterans don't appreciate this. Borrowing something like the idea of the military isn't something people should do lightly, especially when it involves the wearing of the uniform. These are earned and it would be comparable to the feeling these individuals get when they get their first major contract or are accepted into a team that few people ever get to play for. Frankly, even considering this, the comparisons are actually incredibly shallow. If you are successful as a celebrity or athlete, your college or hometown will build a statue for you, a practice few in the military have enjoyed since about the time professional sports became mainstream. You pretty much have to die to get that honor in the military. Celebrities are also part of an elite group which almost no one in the general population could ever hope to be a part of because they enjoy a rather miraculous and inequitable doling out of specific talents. Veterans aren't this way. They are simply ordinary people who have elected to do extraordinary things—for mediocre compensation, I might add. Celebrities have every wish carried out by an army of support staff dedicated to ensuring that they are adequately happy enough to sign a new contract. They play a sport... a game... sing songs... or professionally play make believe. They entertain. Sometimes injuries are common in sports, but if there is ever a death it is National news. Same for if Angelina Jolie were to actually break her leg. They are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions to stand in people's way, catch or throw a ball, run, sing, act, or dance on a stage. Many of them are little more than spoiled brats with no virtue other than one single inhuman talent which has driven them to an unprecedented level of success and arrogance. This in no way compares to what a member of the military feels on virtually every level, so celebrities should just never try to aggrandize themselves further by drawing the false comparison that they are in any way comparable to a true warrior.I get that people want to be recognized. They want to appear special, and everyone, no matter how special already, wants to feel more so. One of the easiest ways to do this is to borrow something special from someone else. People can feel special by doing just about anything military like and get that sense of, "Now I'm special too." Everyone wants to be thanked for something special and everyone wants the parade to be for them. So some steal the recognition. It can be overt and explicit, such as the jokers who try to receive thank yous and recognition at parades; or it can be more pernicious and subversive, such as aggrandizing difficult training as a "boot camp", or wearing a Marine Corps jacket and calling yourself a soldier as a fashion statement to "show respect to troops" who have made it abundantly clear that they despise this form of acknowledgement. Either way, all of these diminish the role that recognition plays in our lives as veterans. It helps continue negative, or at least incorrect stereotypes about us and undervalues the worth we have. Dan Rosenthal said it marvelously in his answer to this same question.... You end up with a public that doesn't understand, nor has any concept of the daily life and routine of the average soldier. They end up thinking that every soldier is on the front lines and faces death every day, and as a result, the IT technical specialist who works from an air conditioned bunker on an air base feels devalued.When the military and veterans can't be recognized as valued individuals with unique and useful skills, mentalities, and a history of service because they don't have enough medals, or their story isn't cool enough, how can they ever rejoin their society again? How can they ever build on it, when society doesn't understand them and is always bombarded with these fake versions of valor and what it means to be a modern day warrior? This is the role of recognition. It makes warriors feel like real people again, valued, and even necessary again because they have an honored and important place in this world. If that place is diluted with false accounts of what the military experience is, than the hole that society wants them to fill will never fit, and the veterans will continue to fall through the cracks.Loss to the CitizensLastly, the citizens themselves suffer when someone falsely wears a uniform that they didn't earn. As I mentioned earlier, they are the ones whose opinions are being formed by these people, rather than real warriors. In some cases, this in the forming of negative stereotypes because of nasty individuals trying to pick up girls of loose morals and poor judgment. In other cases, however, it is people who tell the greatest stories. These people can tell you of the battles they have fought and the lives they lost. They tell you the story every man wants to be a part of and of their great, though humble, heroism. These people push the limits of what is humanly achievable. Yes, while there are truly heroic cases that exist of great valor in the armed services, there is also a flood of people who have completely blown the common understanding of what it means to be a warrior. Civilians will ask questions like "did you kill anybody?" and be disappointed when you tell them "No." Many people have no understanding of the real lives of warriors because the fakers have led them to believe in myth over reality. This robs the civilian listener more than the veteran in my opinion, because they miss out on the value of real veterans. Real ones will never live up to the legend created by the guys who just made it up.Perhaps more importantly though, is the real heart of the matter and why the Stolen Valor Act was passed, not once, but twice.The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 (Pub.L. 113–12; H.R. 258) is a United States federal law that was passed by the 113th United States Congress. The law amends the federal criminal code to make it a crime for a person to fraudulently claim having received any of a series of particular military decorations with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefit from convincing someone that he or she rightfully did receive that award.The commonly held belief is that people dressed as military people just walk around all day and collect thank yous. While this happens, as I have shown often, the majority of problems dealing with fakers surrounds people fraudulently filing for benefits they do not rate. These aren't people who ever go out in public. They are simply con-artists. Consider the state of disability among military veterans. To get a grip on how much is at stake here, in his budget proposal for fiscal year 2009, President George W. Bush requested $38.7 billion for veteran medical care alone. Most of us who were deployed rate something. I rate 10% disability for service connected back injury and hearing loss from working around guns, which gives me a small stipend every month to pay for medical care. While this is small in my case, it can be grievous in the case of others. For example, if you can produce evidence of 100% disability and that you have three dependents in your care, your compensation from the United States Department of Veteran Affairs can reach $3,447.72 a month. I am not saying that is a good thing. That level of injury is staggering, but if all you have to do is fake the paperwork... that is a free ride for life. One case I have heard of involved a Vietnam Era "Colonel" Hamilton receiving over $30,000 in undeserved VA disability compensation. It seems that he never actually served at all. This doesn't even include getting paid to receive a college education, guaranteed housing and business loans, as well as receiving discounts to various businesses and services for being a veteran. Frankly, if all you have to do is fill out the paperwork the right way, there is a lot of money to be had and that poses a tempting target for scammers. I'd like to know the exact figures, but given the bloated VA backlog and the poor resources to investigate such abuses, we are looking at a multi-billion dollar fraud industry.I'm sure at this point, I don't have to make it clearer how this hurts all of us. While somewhere around eight years ago I used to be just a lowly Corporal, mucking it up in Al Anbar Province Iraq, now my day job is as a teacher in one of the poorest regions of the country. Every day I see good kids who don't have enough books to take home and study. I see buses and facilities in disrepair and not enough teachers to cover all the classes. Leave the school and you have roads that haven't been properly repaired in years and a hospital you are afraid to go to because you might die. It isn't that anyone in the town isn't doing a good job, it is simply that we could use help. As I drive home down Main Street and look at its decay, I think about how we will never get that help because there are so many out there getting by simply from doing nothing, living off government payouts such as those I have listed. While I know that all the problems of a small town won't be solved by cutting entitlement benefits to freeloaders, and while I know that fraudulent veteran payouts only account for a small percentage of the total entitlements being paid out, there are people who need and deserve it more. I think most people, even non-veterans can see this, but many veterans especially, having already made great sacrifices for their country, view the freeloader mentality, and especially the scam artists, as a particularly abhorrent form of vermin.Veterans - What to Do About ItEvery month or so, I'll see in my feeds a new person "Getting put on blast" for getting caught faking military service. That's what we call it when a faker is caught red handed and a photo or video gets posted to social media. It's sort of the holy grail for many vets and active duty service members to find some guy pretending to be a SEAL at the bar, or a soldier in cammies at the airport, or a Marine in dress blues. They all want to be that guy who catches them on camera and for it go viral as they are humiliated for thousands... millions to see. We want to deliver that divine sense of justice to teach those nasty liars a lesson.To all the veterans out there, I really want you to take a look at this person. Please take a good, hard look at him. Not his uniform, but the man standing there.Is this not a pathetic looking human being? When you look into his eyes, I mean really look at them, does your sense of anger not subside when you realize just how miserable he had to be to do this? Does it not appear obvious that he, himself, is aware of how pathetic he is to attempt this stunt? What hole must exist in his life that he would try so desperately, so failingly, to fill it like this? How angry can you really be at a person like this?Angry enough to ruin the rest of his life? Do you think this picture is going anywhere? Do you think his name won't forever be attached to it? Should one incredibly stupid, incredibly insensitive act of jackassery, one mistake, define a person's entire life from then on? Think back on your time in service. I've dragged many a drunken Lance Corporal through the parking lots of Camp Pendleton, CA, some covered in vomit, some in their own urine. These people are now all proud veterans, but each have made incredibly stupid mistakes, all of which have been forgiven. But do we forgive others? No we don't. Finding them out and making a public spectacle of them is sort of our thing now that the wars are over.It's gotten so bad that Terminal Lance, the online comic strip put out by Marine Corps veteran Max Uriarte, famed for its abrasive, sometimes caustic satire on military and veteran life, even did a strip on how vehement we can be in this regard. It demonstrates "that guy", one we all know, making a royal jackass of himself that I would like all veterans to really think about.I'll be honest, when all of us turn into that guy, we are making a bigger show of what the military isn't than anything most of these guys have achieved. We come off as petty and self-righteous which is against our proud and humble heritage. Most of the guys who would do this are just losers who aren't worthy of our blood pressure (which, face facts, is a problem for most of us.) Putting someone on blast for being stupid isn't the answer, and in the end, only ends up doubling the number of jerks in the room. To be honest, that moment of self-satisfaction isn't worth it when you come to find out you lost that poor loser his job, or maybe that, in his shame, he ate a bullet. At the very least, no mistake should last forever, which is exactly what happens when you immortalize someone's mistake online.Seriously though, it's getting to be a problem, such a problem that many of us are nervous about speaking out online for the threat of being called out for Stolen Valor incorrectly. It happened to one Army Captain, Lindsay Lowery, who was humiliated after being called out for pretending that she took part in more action than she really did. She faced numerous insults, both as a person faking their service and, simply, for being a woman in the military. As the truth turned out, everything she said was the absolute truth and even her commissioning officer vouched to make that point known. Sadly, once the truth came out, the rebuttal didn't go nearly as viral as did the initial onslaught of hate directed her way unjustly. People like me, people who write extensively online about military experiences we've had, have taken the lesson to heart, "Perception is Reality." I keep a blacked-out DD-214, the form pretty much validating anything I need to prove, available upon request for whenever someone finally makes that jump of doubting anything I have to say to the point that I need to prove myself, before the lie goes viral. It's a sad truth, but this is what our culture, the veteran culture, is turning into.Instead, I wish more people would make fun of it. Seriously, make people aware of the phenomena in a way that educates people while not looking like a self-important jerk about it. These guys at Ranger Up, a YouTube channel put out by some Army veterans, did a great job of it. Very funny.Where it happens online, somewhere it is way too easy to fake military knowledge and experience, I think we have a case study on how to handle it. Tymon Kapelski, one of the newest contributors to Defense Quorum, Quora's military interests blog, recently posted a piece showcasing a military faker here on Quora. This person fabricated a special operations story that showcased the beauty of the human condition to come together in a time of common human suffering. The problem? It could never have possibly happened. The time tables made no sense and there has never be a conflict where these combatants would have been that close to one another for this story to have taken place. It was complete fiction. The bigger problem? It had already been upvoted more than 1,400 times and seen by many thousands of people.What Tymon, among others, did was to confront the individual separately and politely, in the comments section. They said that there were some problems with the answer that they wanted to know about the event, and more about the individual in question. Receiving push-back from the author, and eventually seeing challenging comments get deleted. Some went on the investigation and dug up evidence that this individual not only couldn't have been in the battle he said happened, but had he been, he would have been 14 at the time. Seeing that the individual wasn't budging, he made his concern public to the veteran community at Defense Quorum. From there, the concern was posted to the Top Writer's board on Facebook and the admins took care of making sure that the answer disappeared forever, as has the author who fabricated it. Nice job Tymon and the DQ. This is the second such Quora Stolen Valor case I've been a part of, the other with the help of Sam Morningstar which went pretty much the same way. Both of these cases, I would urge others to take up as examples of civil confrontations between potential stolen valor cases and the rest of the community.As for what to do if you see someone out in town doing something stupid? For all the rest of us, when and if we see one, I wish that instead of grabbing a buddy with a camera, we would instead pull the dude over (perhaps assertively so) and just say to the guy."Look, we know what you're doing and you need to stop. It is against the law to claim some of things you've done and you need to stop. Go away now or we will make it clear to everyone here that you are lying about your military service."If they fight you or resist your warning... whatever. Do what you gotta do.Thanks for reading!For more answers like this check out The Veteran Perspective by Jon Davis and follow my blog War Elephant for more new content. Everything I write is completely independent research and is supported by fan and follower pledges. Please consider showing your support directly by visiting my Patreon support page here: Jon Davis on Patreon: Help support in writing Military Novels, Articles, and Essays.

taken from Taking a Second LookSome opinions on the second opinionTwenty-eight physicians, ethicists and sociologists responded to a questionnaire on the role of the second opinion in medicine today. Their comments provide the basis for further discussion on this practice, the issues involved, and the ethical complexities in a changing health-care scenario.When a physician agrees to attend to a patient, there is an unwritten contract between the two. The patient entrusts himself to the physician and the physician agrees to do his best, at all times, for the patient. This contract disallows the patient from seeing another medical expert for opinion or advice without a referral note from his physician. It also enjoins the physician to respect the autonomy of the patient so that if the patient so desires, he will refer the patient to another physician for a second opinion.Traditionally, the concept of a second opinion is based on certain assumptions. First, that the physician has studied the patient's medical history and clinical findings; if he is the patient's family doctor, he has also over time acquired a fund of medical and socio-economic information on the patient and his family. Second, that the physician is knowledgeable about the various specialists in the town or city and their respective strengths and capabilities, and is thus qualified to advise on whom to consult for a second opinion, and provide that consultant relevant and often crucial medical infomation on the patient. Were the patient to consult another physician on his own, these benefits would be lost.However, second opinions are often not sought on these principles. Some patients move from doctor to doctor without the primary physician's knowledge. They obtain a variety of opinions, often conflicting. Without any one doctor in overall charge of their therapy, they may follow whatever advice they choose to accept. If a complication ensues, no particular doctor can be held responsible.Patients who do ask their primary physicians for a note of referral to another doctor are no better off. Such requests are often taken as a personal insult and evidence of lack of faith or trust in the doctor. Some doctors react by withholding key information, such as detailed notes on surgical operations. The result is often a general breakdown in the harmonious relationship necessary for good patient care.The problem is compounded by the absence of clear-cut guidelines on the use of the second opinion. In India, our medical councils have failed to contribute to the discussion, or to regulate the use of the second opinion in any way.It is in this context that colleagues were asked their opinions on the need for, and use of, the second opinion. By recording the views of respected academicians and medical professionals, one hopes to lay the ground for further discussion on the question. The following essay is an attempt to extract, from the responses received, considered thoughts on some aspects of this issue. Excerpts from the responses have been included to illustrate various perspectives.Is the doctor-patient relationship a contract or fiduciary relation?While several medical colleagues agree that the doctor-patient relation ship today is some sort of unwritten contract, there were many qualifying notes. Ruth Macklin raises a fundamental question: what kind of contract is it, anyway, if it is both unwritten and unstated? "A contract in which the provisions are not clearly spelled out is not really a contract at all. In a legal sense, it would be considered invalid. From an ethical point of view, how can all partiesphysicians or patients be fully aware of their obligations or, for that matter, their rights? Contracts in the strict sense of the term are (usually) written documents that spell out the provisions clearly, say what all parties are obligated to do, and also specify penalties or remedies for breach of contract. That sounds very different from the physician-patient relationship, which is perhaps better described as a fiduciary relationship".Clearly, this question needs further discussion for any systematic understanding of the issue.And in fact Thomas George holds that it makes little sense to talk of contracts and obligations in our health care system. He would support enforcing the doctor-patient contract, and expecting referral notes from every patient, if we had a structured health care system, "as, for example, in the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. Borrowing only one part of the system leads to a lot of problems for the patient. At present there is no system at all in India and the patients are completely at sea as to whom they should consult".Homi Dastur argues that patients would not accept the enforcement of such regulations. "Very few patients would be willing to observe, accept or even understand (the concept of an unwritten contract), as is evident from the frequency with which those who can afford (to pay the different consultants) will seek multiple opinions. Many patients will reveal that they are under the care of another doctor only after the consultation is over. Sometimes one becomes aware (of the earlier consultant) only after reviewing reports which mention the name of the referring doctor".Likewise, Bela Blasszauer suggests that such a contract would work only in theory, for doctor-patient relationships rarely develop in the prescribed manner. "Physician-patient encounters may take many forms. I may bump into the physician. I may have no other choice. I may be shopping for a suitable one. And so on." 'Many doctors oppose enforcing contracts because they perceive the doctor-patient relationship as unequal, and liable to be misused by unethical doctors. "I would like to spare the patient the trauma (of having to face a doctor unwilling to refer his patient for a second opinion)," writes George. Blasszauer suggests that such contracts can generally not be made binding on the patient, since the conditions under which he sought advice or treatment were heavily weighted against him.Others perceive the relationship differently. Eugene Robin and Robert McCauley suggest that the physician-patient relationship is a partnership and not a contract. "Either (patient or doctor) is free to 'terminate the relationship without cause', with the doctor having the additional burden of informing the patient when this occurs, and remaining available for such time as is reasonable for the patient to find another doctor who will assume responsibility for delivering medical care". This is generally true in the urban US, they state.Sociologist Rohit Barot suggests that the Indian situation resembles private sector health services in Britain. He has been a patient in the UK National Health Service, as also with private practitioners there, and comments that the doctor-patient contract and the rules of referral seem to apply only in the NHS.The American Medical AssociationAccording to the American Medical Association's code of medical ethics, physicians should recommend a second opinion whenever they believe it would be helpful in the patient's care. When doing so, they should explain the reasons for their recommendation and inform their patients that they are free to choose a physician on their own or with their assistance. Patients are also free to seek second opinions on their own with or without their physician's knowledge.With the patient's consent, the referring physician should provide any information that the second-opinion physician may need. The second-opinion physician should maintain the confidentiality of the evaluation and report to the first physician, if the patient has given consent. Second-opinion physicians should provide their patients with a clear understanding of the opinion, whether or not it agrees with the recommendations of the first physician.Where a patient initiates a second opinion, it is inappropriate for the primary physician to terminate the patient-physician relationship solely because of the patient's decision to obtain a second opinion.In general, second-opinion physicians are free to assume responsibility for the care of the patient. . . . By accepting second-opinion patients for treatment, physicians affirm the right of patients to free choice in the selection of their physicians.There are situations in which physicians may choose not to treat patients for whom they provide second opinions. Physicians may decide not to treat the patient in order to avoid any perceived conflict of interest or loss of objectivity in rendering the requested second opinion.Physicians must decide independently of their colleagues whether to treat second-opinion patients. Physicians may not establish an agreement or understanding among themselves that they will refuse to treat each other's patients when asked to provide a second.opinion. Such agreements compromise the ability of patients to receive care from the physicians of their choice and are therefore not only unethical but also unlawful.Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs: Code of medical ethics. _ Chicago: American Meditial Association 1997. 191 pages.A one-way obligation?Does the patient have responsibilities as well as rights in this relationship? "The doctor's duties, ethics, standards are well-known in theory and lapses from accepted norms are recognised in practice", writes Farokh Udwadia. "It is equally important (to emphasise) the patient's duties, responsibilities and obligations... It is time for this aspect to be discussed and the discussion circulated, for it must never be forgotten that the doctor-patient relationship is not a one-way street".Again, this view is a matter of debate. Jagdish Chinappa and Lawrence White argue that the two groups are very different. "The patient is the consumer who has needs based on certain beliefs and attitudes. The doctor is a service provider. Patients, under the stress of their illnesses, should be expected to behave irrationally and inconsistently". Therefore, Chinappa goes so far as to say, "honest and ethical action is therefore dependent only on the doctor and has to be decided upon the merits of every case. Certainly, the emphasis on autonomy guarantees a patient the right to ignore a doctor's advice, and to seek whatever opinions are wished. (I believe that this, even though considered a nuisance and counter-productive regarding patient care, is nonetheless a good thing.)"Likewise, White notes, "Just as it is not an equal relationship in terms of power distribution, vulnerability, etc, so it is unequal with respect to promises on either side... it is generally accepted that patients have the right to do whatever they wish, including shopping for alternative opinions, etc". This does not mean that many physicians like or accept (the practice). "However, to demand otherwise will reinforce the physician's position of power and elitist attitude, which I believe would be a regressive step".Why doctors should want a second opinionThere are a number of reasons why a second opinion may be sought. Traditionally, general physicians and patients seek specialist opinion and advice with benefit, especially when the disease is uncommon or the patient's condition serious. The patient with a hole in the heart, a brain tumour or failing kidneys will do better in the hands of specialists.In certain situations a second opinion is almost a 'must'. "Take for example a 'shadow' in the lung of undetermined aetiology", writes Farokh Udwadia. "Is it tubercle, pneumonia, cancer or a rare disease, for example, Wegener's granulomatosis? What is the patient to do about it? In fact, it would be advisable to take more than one opinion..".Christopher de Souza adds that young consultants would welcome second opinions from respected seniors — provided they were sure the patient would return to them for definitive therapy — in order to validate the line of treatment they propose. The senior consultant's concurrence would protect the younger colleague against unjust accusations and boost the patient's confidence in him.B N Colabawalla feels that a second opinion may benefit the primary physician in yet another way. "Patients are now increasingly conscious of their rights and it would be improper for any physician to deny the patient his autonomy and right to seek a second opinion. It would be in the interest of the primary physician to make the necessary reference for a second opinion."Unfortunately, requests for a second opinion from other consultants are uncommon. "The practice of referral from primary to secondary to tertiary, or from general physician to specialist remains an ideal not realised," according to M S Valiathan, who has rarely had a primary consultant seeking a second opinion from a senior consultant, or referring a patient to him. In cardio-thoracic surgery, at any rate... a senior consultant usually enters the picture only when the primary consultant fears medico-legal trouble in a given situation.That is not to say that patients aren't asking for them. One reason why seond opinons are relatively uncommon is the absence of any publicly available medical audit. "Patients approach several consultants simply because, at present, they have no way to get authentic information on the quality of services provided by a given consultant or institution", says Valiathan.Outpatients come to Anil Desai because they are dissatisfied with the information their primary physician gave them, or with the treatment's progress. "I always request a referral from the family physician, but (find that) many families do not not have a family physician".However, the hospitalised patient is unable to obtain a second opinion without permission from the admitting physician — and even discussing such permission can be a source of stress for the patient and his relatives.Is the second opinion a right?All doctors surveyed felt so, though they did not agree on whether there were any limiting condiions. Some, like BIasszauer held that patient autonomy required that it be unlimited: "The patient has a freedom of choice, and even the responsibility... to go to as many doctors as he wishes. It is his life or that of his loved one that is at stake!" This right becomes particularly important with the deteriorating physicianpatient relations."Since trust in the medical profession has been greatly eroded, it is small wonder that patients (and I, myself, too) try to find the person who is up to date in his profession and displays humane features as well. In an open market system, this is no real problem. Even where there is a national health care system it may be cheaper for the system as well, if I can find the solution".Others would limit that right, mostly to when the physician ignores the patient's wishes. Udwadia feels that the patient's right to consult another doctor (independently) is absolute when the treating physician refuses to allow another opinion in spite of the patient's request; is clearly disinclined or procrastinates unduly in granting permission to seek a second or third opinion, more so when the patient's condition is not improving or is, in fact, deteriorating; when he reacts with anger or displeasure to a request for another opinion, and the patient feels that he now no longer receives the care he expects and needs."Also, when the problem ... is of serious, unsolved diagnostic import (the patient) has an absolute right to seek as many opinions as he wishes. However, the physician should caution the patient that... too many opinions would only confuse and harm the patient".But there are limits to this right, according to Udwadia. "It would be unjustified, in bad taste and bad manners if he seeks fresh medical advice of his own accord when already under treatment for an ailment for a considerable length of time by his primary physician. He should not seek a consultation with a new practitioner without permission and a referring letter from the primary physician. If the patient is dissatisfied, for whatever reason, with the primary physician, he should have the gumption to tell him so and inform him that henceforth he proposes to get treated elsewhere. This... absolves the primary physician from further care of the patient. It is not uncommon for many patients to surreptitiously see many doctors (as if to test the primary physician's management), and then quietly go back to the primary physician without the latter even being aware of this duplicity."The General Medical Council, UKThe General Medical Council (GMC) recommends that patients should continue to see specialists only on referral from a general practitioner. The GMC has strongly defended the referral system as a proven feature of medicine in the UK. Specialists should not usually accept a patient without referral from a general practitioner. The referral system is seen as the best way of ensuring that patients see the right specialist.General Medical Council News, Spring 1997, pages 1-2.Why don't patients tell doctors that they're 'double checking'?Why do patients behave 'duplicitously'? P. K. Sethi and Colabawalla see the reason in the behaviour of most doctors. "In practice this (request by a patient for a second opinion) seldom happens because the public has an apprehension that I may be annoyed. It is we, as a profession, who should work towards dispelling this impression. We have not done so," writes Sethi. He holds that patients are justified in breaking their contracts if physicians are rude at the mention of a second opinion. And it is "morally, ethically and possibly even legally unjustifiable" for medical professionals to withhold information and case history details, either from the patient or the second opinion physician.How should it be done?Under the UK's National Health Service, only the primary physician can refer a patient for a second opinion, writes Blasszauer. The physician must make the request in writing and provide all relevant medical details. In return, he obtains in writing the diagnosis made by the consultant and his advice on treatment.But this is rarely done in India, writes Thomas George, pointing out that patients rarely go up the primary, seondary and tertiary levels of care. Samiran Nundy notes thatmost patients in India do not have a doctor they can call their primary physician.V. R. Joshi points out that even the most punctilious of consultants would find it hard to enforce such a protocol. "Patients often travel long distances from other cities or states to reach you. It is only when they reach your office that they are made aware that a referral note is required.""Having come after seeking an appointment, I cannot refuse to see them just because they have no referral note," writes P. K. Sethi. "If, however, I discover that the patient is admitted to a local hospital and has come to me without informing the treating doctor, I ask him to go back and bring a referral note I feel this is in the interest of the patient and also conforms to the code of medical ethics... The advice is often no implemented."But it is not always possible to get a letter from the first doctor, feels Arunachalam, giving the patient's side of the story. He may be unavailable, or the patient hesitates to inform him, afraid the request would spoil relations. In fact the second opinion is often most needed when the patient is in the hospital — and least able to take an opinion without the admitting doctor's co-operation. Desai has always helped patients under his care obtain a second opinion without his physical presence, giving them full access to his case notes and the help of his house physician. On the other hand, if they seek a joint consultation — something Desai may also sometimes find necessary — he reserves the option on which consultant should be called in. There are also times when he recommends a joint consultation with the patient and relatives.This is not always the practice. "We do not permit second opinions from outsiders under any condition", writes Prakash N. Tandon, arguing that the second opinion can only be used ethically within a structured format. Patients wanting such opinions must first get themselves discharged from the hospital. "Every patient discharged from our ward, either by us or at his request, is given a discharge summary with full information on the various investigations carried out, a copy of the operation note, our final diagnosis and condition on discharge. The patient is at liberty to use this information for whatever purpose he wishes." Tandon's hospital does not provide the patient copies of X-ray films and other imaging tests, but sends them directly to the consultant if asked.Tandon argues that the patient's interests are met through multiple internal opinions. "Every patient admitted to our wards has the benefit of the collective opinion of the whole team which includes several senior consultants. By tradition, every patient is jointly discussed on more than one occasion."Permitting a second opinion from outside would create administrative problems on the one hand and a difficult clinical situation." For example, he asks, what if the second opinion was at variance from the first opinion? Who would implement it?"As a corollary, we refuse to provide a second opinion on patients admitted to other hospitals unless it is formally sought by the person treating the patient and with the permission of his administration. For purely administrative reasons, this is limited to public hospitals. The opinion is given to the treating surgeon and not to the patient or the family. At times, a joint meeting held with the family is addressed by the treating surgeon and ourselves."White disagrees with such a practice. "If a doctor does this, it strikes me that there is a component of spite and petulance arising out of the doctor's own needs. Patients, particularly if seriously ill, often feel the need to validate their doctors' opinion; after all, it is their life in the balance. Further, there are often enormous pressures from friends and relatives to get 'another opinion'." In other words, the second opinion can be taken for many 'ethical' reasons.Robin and McCauley add, "If the primary physician learns that the patient is following advice not consistent with his principles of treatment, the doctor should advise the patient of the difficulty/danger as best the doctor sees it... It is the patient's choice how to proceed. The doctor can be held responsible only for his own errors, not those of others.""If the patient is already admitted to hospital under another consultant, I would under no condition see the patient unless specifically asked to do so by the treating consultant," writes Udwadia. "This would apply even if the patient concerned has been previously under my care for several years. ""In the initial stages, before starting on a course of treatment, a patient may seek multiple advice," says Mr Harsh Sethi. "But once treatment has started, then a new doctor should not accept a patient without a note of referral from the first doctor (provided he knows that the patient has been under treatment). At the last, he should speak to the first doctor, and seek concurrence."The unreferred approachWhat does one do when a patient seeks a second opinion without obtaining a note of referral from his primary physician? Macklin does not see this as a dilemma. "If a patient approaches you, seeking a medical opinion (whether it is a first or a second opin-ion), the patient is in need of diagnostic or therapeutic attention. You can decline to form a relationship ... or accept the patient in your care and thereby establish a new doctor-patient relationship."Most respondents feel that it is the duty of the second physician to see the patient even without a note of referral from the primary physician, though such a note is desirable.S. H. Advani adopts a firm stand. "I am absolutely clear in my mind regarding the patient and doctor relationship. In this relationship, the patient has the major say. It is the patient who is going to receive the treatment and he has to make sure that he receives the best treatment. I give my frank opinion to the patient (whether or not he comes with a letter from the primary physician) because I strongly believe that the patient has the right to take a second opinion..! don't want the letter from the primary physician to participate in the second opinion."Ashok Bhanage emphasises that the doctor must work at all times with the patient's interests at heart. "If I realise that I am the second consultant, I write my notes in more detail and elaborate the reasons for my decision. The patient is at liberty to show this note to the first or a third consultant."Aniruddha Malpani emphasises that the autonomy of the patient demands that a second opinion, should be provided. A letter from his primary physician is not necessary. "My relationship is with the patient and I am answerable to him, not to his primary doctor."Taking over the patientWould you take over treatment of a patient already under the care of another consultant? This is one fear physicians have when referring their patients to their colleagues.Some might argue that this is the patient's prerogative. Arunachalam notes, "If I have changed doctors, I will certainly expect the second doctor to take full responsibility in treating me. If I consult more than one doctor (for getting opinions), I will retain the right to decide by whom I should ultimately be treated."Others are unequivocal: "If I find out that the patient is under the care of another consultant, I advise him to go back to that consultant," writes Gajendra Sinh. "I do not take over treatment of these patients."On the principle that a patient has a right to autonomy over his decisions, most respondents see no difficulty in taking over the patient's management at his express request — provided such a step is in his interests.However, Homi Dastur adds, "The suggestion to take over medical care would, at no time, come from me. It would have to be broached by the patient's general practitioner, if present, and the patient himself. Acceptance would follow only when persuasion to return to the primary physician fails."Advani differs. "The patient has the absolute right to be treated by the physician of his choice. If the patient decides to be treated by me, I would not normally hesitate to accept. I may inform the primary physician, though I don't consider this obligatory".Blasszauer argues that the doctor must was incompetent, mistaken, negligent, or in some other way not acting in the best interest of the patient. Patients need physicians who seek to act in their best interest. Physicians owe more to the patient before them than they owe to other members of their profession. Even if 'physician etiquette' dictates that one doctor should not treat another doctor's patient, medical ethics demands that patients receive the best medical care. Notes of referral and reluctance to treat patients under the care of another doctor are elements of physician etiquette, not medical ethics as understood today."Barot feels that the second consultant is duty-bound to approach the primary physician for all relevant medical information on the patient.Colabawalla outlines his approach: "If I am aware that the patient has been under the care of another colleague, I will offer my opinion and leave the choice to the patient. I would not 'take over' the case by ascribing to myself the arrogance that I know better! I would then try and persuade the patient to allow me to discuss the case with the primary physician.""The difficulty arises when the patient unequivocally informs you that he does not wish to be treated by the primary physician, and requests you to take over the management. I would try to resolve that dilemma — not that any dilemma can ever be resolved — by accepting that the patient's autonomy and right to choose must be respected"."If the patient is being looked after correctly I would persuade the patient to return to his consultant". writes Udwadia. "If the patient's problem has been wrongly diagnosed and if it is critical or life-threatening (e.g. a dissecting aneurysm of the aorta or an impending myocardial infarction), I would admit him to hospital under my care, inform the primary consultant and request him to see the patient in hospital as and when he wishes, so that we can jointly look after him".The dangers of mixed therapySome patients will see several physicians to obtain a clutch of prescriptions, selectively following that advice which suits them. How can we help such patients avoid the complications that may follow?Udwadia has seen patients who have gone through half a dozen or more physicians. "This is not uncommonly revealed to me at the end of the consultation! I ask that the treatment advised be carried out under the supervision of any one doctor of the patient's choice, as I would be unable to follow-up on his problem as often as I would like to. I then write a letter to that doctor , outlining what I feel about the patient's problem and how, in my opinion, it should best be tackled. (Finally,) I tell the patient that if he wishes to see me again he will now have to get a letter from this doctor".White agrees that selectively following advice offered by several physicians is courting trouble. "These are difficult situations, and in my opinion there is no one right answer. If I have a patient who is 'mixing and matching', I gently tell him he is receiving fragmented care, and that this is dangerous. Usually I tell the patient that I wouldn't continue management without a clear mandate. I feel strongly that patients have the right to several opinions, but that one doctor must quarterback the actual care. If he should suffer a complication, which of his medical attendants would be held responsible?"And the state of the bypassed..Many feel that the primary physician is justified in terminating his relationship with the patient. Valiathan sums up this sentiment: "The primary physician is not obliged to treat a patient who consults another physician or follows another line of treatment without his knowledge. When a doctor undertakes to take care of a patient he accepts a sacred contract with obligations on both sides. I do not agree that the doctor must take care of a patient 'under any circumstance'. Even Charaka, who imposed many strict conditions on the physician, recognised situations when a physician can terminate his sacred contract."At times, the bypassed physician feels rejected and acts accordingly. Sometimes a seriously ill patient is told, "You have decided to consult X without informing me. I do not wish to have anything further to do with your medical care. Please go back to X".All our experts frowned upon such behaviour. White writes: "Under these circumstances, the doctor's behaviour would be considered patient-abandonment. I would consider it a breach of ethical standards on grounds of beneficence, non-maleficence, fidelity to patient, and respect for patient's autonomy. What would be the physician's reasons for wanting to do this? The relationship starts out unequally, with the doctor having more power. This is counterbalanced, in my opinion, by the greater responsibility of the doctor, who needs to put his needs and wants aside and honour what is both a contract and a covenant. This is a critical issue - the physician's failure to put the patient's needs ahead of his own".Colabawalla writes that the physician should "gracefully end the 'contract... in his own interest" if he feels that he has lost the patient's confidence"for whatever reason".Barot strongly feels that the primary physician must pass information about the patient to the consultant or whoever else the patient may have chosen to deal with on health matters. The underlying ethic is that the primary physician should provide all necessary information as it concerns the patient's health (potentially a question of life and death).Blasszauer agrees. "The primary physician should not shed his responsibility to the patient without clarifying his patient's motives", he writes."The physician should ... understand: he may have failed the patient; the patient may be out looking for hope, or proof that his doctor's diagnosis is right or that the recommended therapy is the only solution. If he cannot find the answer for his patient's motives, than he should sit down with the patient and have a frank discussion. If he sees that the patient had no ground whatsoever to abandon him, he may advise the patient to look for another physician, since without trust no such relationship could be beneficial. But until that moment, I believe, he does have some responsibility. The patient should not fall between two stools. The primary physician should be available till he — on acceptable grounds — terminates the relationship 'officially' . An insult to my vanity is not an acceptable ground."Gajendra Sinh concurs with the need for reform within the profession. "Unless we put our own house in order it is difficult to see how we can restore the doctor-patient relationship".Will a second opinion clinic work in India?In Australia, a group of consultants from different disciplines offer counsel on the clear understanding that they will not take over the patient's medical management. Would such a clinic work in India?"It is fairly common in the U.S., in this connection, for a patient to be referred to a second physician for a decision about, say, the desirability of hysterectomy", write Robin and McCauley." The ground rules here are that the consultant will not be involved in the surgery; is not affiliated with (preferably doesn't even know) the treating doctor; and is paid the same, whatever his opinion. As you may imagine, this system has its own flaws and a long essay could be written about the good and bad aspects of this practice".Several respondents fell that such a clinic has little chance of success. Chinappa holds that it could not work in "an unorganised health care facility like that in India. You need a high level of education in the patient and a high level of ethical and moral integrity in the medical profession for this system to work".Colabawalla adds that the idea is good, but "I doubt if it will ever be welcomed by most professional colleagues. There will always be the doubt that patients would be misappropriated". Also, most medical professionals in India think they are too good to be challenged thus.Udwadia agrees. "You require a general improvement in ethical standards for this to come about. When this does happen, specialist clinics for second opinions would be redundant."Bhanage expresses some hesitation: "It is virtually impossible to get a genuine second opinion in private practice where even the most senior doctors are very insecure and distrustful of their colleagues. A second opinion clinic will have to be manned by a senior doctor with a reputation for integrity."White sees a similar problem in the US. "Medicine here has rapidly become a market commodity (unfornately, in my opinion). A physicial income often depends on 'capturing market share' from other physicians. Thus physicians and hospitals engage in extensive marketing and advertising to 'steal' patients from others.""Can a member of the clinic reject the patient's request for treatment after he has attended the clinic?"Hemraj Chandalia feels that if a patient insists he be followed up by the new consultant, "I will not deny the patient such an option

Nothing. Mills just provided, August, 2019, the fourth item that the theory allowed to be developed, and the second item being scrutinized for procurement or lease by the USA Department of Defense."Department of Defense has a Suncell running on its premises as a licensee":by July 21, 2019:according to Navid Sadikali(CEO at The End Of Petroleum) in the first segment at time stamp 0:00 to 17:45 on a talk show at r/BrilliantLightPowerthen scroll down to "End Of Petroleum talks Hydrino Energy - Live on Freedom Talk Live July 21, 2019"UPDATE: I (Frank Acland Moderator at E-Cat World.com) have received the following message from Navid Sadikali:“Request: please modify the article. My interview stated these facts.1) The SunCell is running.2) The DOD is a licensee through ARA.3) The DOD was onsite to see the SunCell.”It is finally happening, the Suncell is being scrutinized towards being leased by a commercial or military client.I communicated with Navid, several months ago. In a radio cast, he mentions something about Brett's book about Mills: "Randell Mills and The Search for Hydrino Energy" at time stamp 2:36 "we wrote about him"..:One of several books about Mills and the Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics.I have been asked what I am doing to get GUT-CP accepted by the academics in physics. Navid is the one who might be actually doing something about that. By joining forces, that is what will break through the impasse formed by the physics community against GUT-CP and the device on Brilliant Light and Power and on sites such as Evaco LLC as well.GUT-CP is not cold fusion. CF and LENR try to explain their mechanisms using Standard Quantum Mechanics and are all full of various hypotheses that lead nowhere. GUT-CP is purely classical and has three items fully developed1)in 1986 the explanation for the DoD for how their Free Electron Laser works2) in 2007 developed process for manufacturing accordingto the predictions of GUT-CP, diamond thin film for such uses as as a scratch proof cover on cell phones or tablets and as a heat sink substrate on circuit mother board for chip components3) 2012 developed the Millsian® molecular modeller, available for free trail use by download, 100 times more accurate than any similar app made using SQMand at least 3 more items in development, one of which is the Suncell, which is being scrutinized by the USA DoD:4) finished proof of pronciple for the SUncell in 2000, and thefully functional and finely tuned and controlled version in May 2020, the Suncell the second item being considered by the DoD for procurement or lease, which item is being developed based on the predictions of GUT-CP,5) the Hydrino, fully validated in April -May 2020 is patented in many processes and devices since 2000 and is used as the mechanism that drives the Suncell:Randell L. Mills Inventions, Patents and Patent Applications6) the end point device using the Suncell’s ash, Hydrino’s or dark matter, from which indestructible plastics are being developed for us in the structure of that end point item and which end point item is to be powered by the first viable antigravity device, which is being developed by Huub Bakker of Massey University, NZ , in collaboration with Randell L. Mills, which device was patented as :FIFTH-FORCE APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROPULSIONWO1995032021A1 - Apparatus and method for providing an antigravitational force - Google Patentswhich antigravity device is mentioned in general terms in a university lecture at time stamp 00:29:08:20161019 Introduction to the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics_001What are all those patents validations and experiments and fully developed and commercially used items, if not proof or at least some indication of the accuracy of using GUT-CP and the Hydrino as a subset or prediction made since 1999, under that theory?The case for Millsian physicsNASA Takes a Flyer on Hydrinosfresno state lecture randell millsAs an update, this answer was flagged by someone hostile to the theory of Mills and tried to have this answer collapsed. This answer was eventually allowed to stay un-collapsed, since the one complaining did not provide a specific reason to have the answer censored.This attempt at censoring this answer begs the question, why? If the theory is as bad as some claim, or even a scam, why are not other, equally suspect theories not being attacked so strongly. Yet Mills theory is the only theory so singled out for strong censoring. The reason is that GUT-CP presents a threat to the some that are using SQM to make large incomes or gaining prestige, as in developing such devices and or related experiments, as controlled fusion and quantum computing. Both are dead end projects since the physics used, to develop these, is itself a dead end. In the Sun it is gravity that draws nucleons together, exactly centre on centre, very easily to very successfully attain fusion, while the nucleons in Earth based devices are pushed together, using magnetic confinement, which ends up doing something like trying to push wet noodles together; in quantum qbits, these particles always de-cohere a fraction of a second after the device starts to “compute” actually ending in non-computing anything. This is due to all devices using SQM, as a guide, which guide is based on imagined then assumed and therefore, at based are non-existant mechanism of waves. This was a mechanism that was then just a lucky guess about a seemingly viable mechanism that seemed to explain the 2 slit experiment. Then, using what was basically a wild guess, to be the base on which SQM has laid its foundation on. It seems to explain the 2 slit experiment, in the same way that square wheels might have been considered towards building a car, at at a time when wheels were an unknown. Then, finding the square wheels seemed worked ok if pushed hard enough, was decided on for use in building a car on top of that. Later, when industry was starting to get under way, cars were seen as having the potential of being developed for rapid transportation, but the cars are found to be difficult to move at the required speeds. Instead of looking back through its development, to find where the problem might be, the wheels are considered as off limits for such scrutiny and instead the motor is considered as the most likely place for finding the problem. The motor is looked at to see how to make it more and more powerful to make the car go as fast as the transportation needs require. This is similar to what is being considered currently, to find out why qbit are decohering, then using the qbits in a different, more robust way. This, as if the problem started with the qbits themselves, and not at an earlier development in SQM when waves were an assumed mechanism, that was assumed to exist in trying to explain the 2 slit experiment. The solution, in SQM, is then to attempt to make the qbits ever more robust, with current efforts ending making large complex devices that try to ensure the qbits do not decohere.This has resulted in quantum computing having purported successes in developing all of the peripheral items, such sotware, fudiciary concerns, building being funded and built for research into quantum computing, andall the rest, except for the hardware, circuit try in electronic chips that houses and makes up the q-bits themselves. It might be better to look all the way back to where the problem is known to have a big assumption involved, when waves were accepted as the best explanation for just one particular experiment. That was at the time when qbits and their use was not even dreamed of, but the waves were ok'd for use everywhere and in an inviolable way.I did all of the surveying of the topic completely independent of Mill and his associates. I read copies of all the original papers and people at the institutions where all of the original data and records and peer reviewed papers involved originate then read those papers and communicated with theose weho were closest related to those papers or who had access to the original records relating to such sources, to get at their side of the story in all this.The sources I have used are:L. A. Rozema, A. Darabi, D. H. Mahler, A. Hayat, Y. Soudagar, A. M. Steinberg, “Violation of Heisenberg’s Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 100404 – Published 6 September 2012; Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 189902 (2012)Thomas E. Stolper, mathematician and Political analyst and Author of “America’s Newton, The reception of the work of Randell Mills, in historical and contemporary context”,Herman Haus, Institute profesor of Electronic Engineering,(1986). "On the radiation from point charges". American Journal of Physics. 54 (12): 1126–1129. Bibcode:1986AmJPh..54.1126H which paper was given to Mills by Haus used to develop the same model of the electron as developed by HausThe USA Department of Defense, and physics academia which accepted the FEL explanation provided by Haus,Philip Payne, Principal Scientist, Princeton University, Physicist in charge of using the topological predictions of the Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics for use in developing the Millsian Molecular Modeller,Brett Holverstott: Science Philosopher, head of the development team of the Millsian Molecular ModellerGerrit Kroesen, Professor of Plasma Physics, Eindhoven Technologicl University, independently tested the Hydrino reaction and found no explanation for the reaction using SQM,NASA independently tested the hydrino reaction by sub contract to:Anthony J. Marchese, a mechanical engineering professor specializing in propulsion at Rowan University, with the conclusion being indeterminate of the cause of the reaction. “ From what I can tell from BlackLight's studies – and they've been pretty good about letting others outside verify their excess energy – there are some things going on that people are having trouble understanding.”Marchese, a PhD engineer from Princeton, says NASA granted him the money to study the feasibility of the BlackLight Rocket for six months. None of the NASA money will go to Mills or BlackLight Power, Marchese says, and his work will be done independently.Marchese's colleague at the Rowan College of Engineering, associate professor of electrical engineering Peter Mark Jansson, researched the BlackLight process while employed by Mills' backer Atlantic Energy, now part of the utility Conectiv.Besides Conectiv, Mills other subsidiaries using the theory are Evaco LLC, and Millsian Corp. The main company Brilliant Light and Power is growing exponentially since then.Scams just die out and disappear after getting a few million dollars and its perpetrators also disappear.Mills is still around and has all the earmarks of someone very successful, and well liked by the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, who themselves granted him a few million dollars. Chambers of commerce are made up of people who are not known to be taken in by any kind of scams, but are on the other hand always ready to promote any business that has shown great promise in producing successful goods and services to the local community, over a long period of time and which businesses are headed by equally good willed people. In the case of BrLP those people are:DAVID BENNETTMr. Bennett was appointed to the Board of Directors in 2018.Consultant – Strategic management consulting for growth businesses in aerospace, transportation and alternative energy field. Focused on startups through mid-sized firms.Mr. Bennett was CEO of Proterra electric bus startup and led the firm from prototype design through national validation and successful commercial launch. Raised funds from key investors, including Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, GM Ventures, and Mitsui & Co. Global Investment.Mr. Bennett worked with Eaton for ten years in a series of operating and corporate roles. His most recent roles were VP Business Development Industrial Sector and President Eaton’s Vehicle Group in Asia Pacific. The Vehicle Group AP business, headquartered in Shanghai, has operations in five countries providing full design, product development, production, sales and service solutions for a wide range of automotive and commercial vehicle customers.Previously, Mr. Bennett held a variety of general management positions in Europe and North America for the Truck business. He was also a general manager in Eaton Aerospace.Prior to joining Eaton in 2001, Mr. Bennett worked with Honeywell (formerly AlliedSignal) and General Electric in a variety of general management, operational, program management and technical roles for high technology aerospace and industrial businesses.Mr. Bennett holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and materials from Duke University and a master’s degree in business administration from Drexel University.Emilio Icaza ChavezMr. Icaza Chavez was appointed to the Board of Directors in 2018.Mr. Icaza Chavez is a co-founder and current Chairman of the Board of Aspel, a Mexico-based company which is the market leader in small business accounting software both in Mexico and in Colombia. Telmex bought an initial stake in Aspel in 2000; since then the relationship has evolved and Grupo Financiero Inbursa now owns a majority stake in Aspel.From 1989 to 1996, Mr. Icaza Chavez worked at GBM, one of the top brokerage houses in Mexico, where he was Co-Executive Director, in charge of Corporate Finance, Research and Investor Relations.In addition to his continued role at Aspel, Mr. Icaza Chavez co-founded Fusion de Ideas in 2008, a Private Equity investment vehicle with current investments in Energy, Software, Real Estate Development, Food, and other industries.Mr. Icaza Chavez is the main shareholder of Enextra Energía, a Mexican corporation which has signed a licensing agreement with Brilliant Light Power, Inc. to serve energy customers in certain industries within the Mexican Territory.Mr. Icaza Chavez was awarded a bachelor’s degree in business administration at Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico (ITAM) in Mexico City.JEREMY HUXMr. Hux was appointed to the Board of Directors in 2016.Mr. Hux is President of HCP Advisors, based in San Francisco, California. For nearly 20 years, he has advised Technology and Clean Technology companies on equity, debt, and strategic transactions.Prior to HCP Advisors, Mr. Hux spent nine years with Credit Suisse. He was a Managing Director and Global Head of Credit Suisse’s Clean Technology Investment Banking practice. In addition to running the Clean Technology effort at Credit Suisse, he worked extensively with semiconductor and storage companies. Mr. Hux joined Credit Suisse after approximately eight years with Morgan Stanley. At Morgan Stanley, he was Head of West Coast Clean Technology and also advised companies across the technology spectrum, including storage, networking, hardware, semiconductors, and contract design and manufacturing. Prior to Morgan Stanley, he advised Media and Entertainment companies at SG Cowen.Mr. Hux earned a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and History from Vanderbilt University, where he graduated Magna Cum Laude.DR. RANDELL L. MILLSDr. Mills, Founder and principal stockholder of Brilliant Light Power, Inc., has served as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and President since 1991.Dr. Mills has authored nine books, participated in over 50 presentations at professional meetings, and authored and co-authored over 100 papers regarding the field of energy technology that have been published in peer-reviewed journals of international repute. Dr. Mills has received patents or filed patent applications in the following areas: (1) Millsian computational chemical design technology based on a revolutionary approach to solving atomic and molecular structures; (2) magnetic resonance imaging; (3) Mossbauer cancer therapy (Nature, Hyperfine Interactions); (4) Luminide class of drug delivery molecules; (5) genomic sequencing method, and (6) artificial intelligence. A thorough description of the Company’s technology and Dr. Mills’ underlying atomic theory is published in a book entitled The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics.Dr. Mills was awarded a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Chemistry, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from Franklin & Marshall College in 1982, and a Doctor of Medicine Degree from Harvard Medical School in 1986. Following a year of graduate work in electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Mills began his research in the field of energy technology.Roger S. Ballentine – CEO Green Strategies Inc.William Beck – Managing Director and Global Head of Engineering and Sustainability Services Credit SuisseH. McIntyre Gardner – Chairman of the Board, Spirit Airlines, Inc.Dr. Ray Gogel – President, Avanti EnterprisesJim Hearty – Former Partner of Clough Capital PartnersPhil Johnson – Former SVP – Intellectual Property Policy & Strategy of Johnson & Johnson – Law Department, Former SVP and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel of Johnson & JohnsonMatt Key – Commercial Director Charge.autoBill Maurer – SVP ABM IndustriesJeffrey S. McCormick – Chairman and Managing General Partner of SaturnDavid Meredith – Chief Operations and Product Officer at Rackspace Hosting, Inc., President of Private Cloud & Managed Hosting at Rackspace Hosting, Inc.Bill Palatucci – Special Counsel Gibbons LawAmb R. James Woolsey – Former Director of the CIA under President Bill ClintonColin Bannon – Chief Architect BT Global ServicesMichael Harney – Managing Director, BTIGStan O’Neal – Formerly Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., Former Board Member of General Motors, Currently on the Board of ArconicRoger S. BallentineRoger Ballentine is the President of Green Strategies Inc., where he provides management consulting services to corporate and financial sector clients on sustainability strategy; investment and transaction evaluation and project development execution in the clean energy sector; and the integration of energy and environmental policy considerations into business strategy. He is also a Venture Partner with Arborview Capital LLC, a private equity firm making growth capital investments in the clean energy and energy efficiency sectors. Previously, Roger was a senior member of the White House staff, serving President Bill Clinton as Chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force and Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Initiatives. Prior to being named Deputy Assistant, Roger was Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs where he focused on energy and environmental issues. Before joining the White House, Roger was a partner at Patton Boggs LLP.Over the years, Roger has acquired a wealth of experience and knowledge of the energy sector, financial markets, and environmental business practices as well as the politics, players and trends in the energy and environmental space. Using his expertise and deep relationships, Roger has helped clients develop better business strategies, make better investment decisions, negotiate new business partnerships, build critical alliances with stakeholders, and devise impactful government and public affairs strategies.Roger currently serves on the Advisory Boards of the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Clean Capital LLC, 8 Rivers Capital, and the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), where he was a founding Board member in 2001. He is a member of Ingersoll Rand’s Advisory Council on Sustainability. Roger also serves on the Selection Committee for the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) Zayed Future Energy Prize and is the Co-Chair of the Aspen Institute’s Clean Energy Forum.In addition to being a frequent speaker, media commentator and writer, he has been a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School teaching in the area of energy and climate law and a Senior Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington D.C.Roger is a Magna Cum Laude graduate of the University of Connecticut and a Cum Laude graduate of the Harvard Law School. He is a member of the Connecticut, District of Columbia, and the United States Supreme Court bars.William BeckWilliam Beck is a Managing Director within the Group Business Support Services (GBSS) Department of Credit Suisse. William is the Global Head of Critical Engineering & Sustainability, based in New York. He leads a team responsible for developing and implementing strategy and governance for the Bank’s Innovation, Energy management, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing & Fire (MEPF) design, Engineering Operations Maintenance, Environmental and Sustainability integration as well as the Data Center Strategy programs. His mandate also includes the bank’s Global Energy Strategy and Procurement integration. Bill has 25+ years of experience including the strategic planning, development, design, construction and operations of mission critical and non-mission critical facilities. William is a licensed Professional Engineer, Master Electrician and Energy procurement specialist. He holds a BSEE degree and a MS degree in Management, both from Fairleigh Dickenson University.H. McIntyre GardnerMr. Gardner was the head of Merrill Lynch’s Private Client business in the Americas and also the Global Bank Group within the firm’s Global Wealth Management Group until early 2008. As head of Private Client Americas, Mac was responsible for the region’s extensive network of more than 600 advisory offices; private banking and investment services to ultra-high net worth clients; the group’s middle markets business; investment and insurance products; distribution and business development; and corporate and diversified financial services.For the Global Bank Group, Mr. Gardner was Chairman of Merrill Lynch Bank USA and responsible for Merrill Lynch’s consumer and commercial banking and cash management products. This included distribution and sales of all bank products and services primarily delivered into the marketplace through Financial Advisors. These activities encompassed retail deposit products and services, credit and debit cards, commercial cash management, residential mortgage lending, securities-based/small business/high-net-worth structured/middle-market lending, and community development lending and investing.Mr. Gardner’s 13-year career at Merrill Lynch also included roles in strategy, Finance Director for the corporation, and as an investment banker specializing in high yield finance, mergers and acquisitions and corporate restructuring.Mr. Gardner has also served as the principal of a financial advisory services firm and as the president of two consumer products companies. He has served on the Board of Directors of Spirit Airlines, Inc. since 2010 and has served as Chairman since August 2013. He also serves on the North American Strategic Advisory Board of Oliver Wyman. Mr. Gardner is a 1983 graduate of Dartmouth College, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in religion.Dr. Ray GogelDr. Ray Gogel started his career in academia, where he obtained his PhD with distinction in philosophy from Drew University after studying for four years in Germany with leading Continental philosophers. Ray’s background in philosophy has permeated the rest of his career, driving a strong and abiding interest in forward-thinking leadership and business models, as well as innovation and disruptive technology. Ray moved from academia to a career in the utility and power industry, progressing through a variety of operational, leadership and business development roles at Public Service Electric & Gas Co in New Jersey, before he left to join IBM as a solution architect, where he designed, sold and delivered IBM’s first Business Process Outsourcing transaction (PG&E Energy Services). Gogel progressed within IBM to become VP—Client Services, responsible for IBM’s largest utility customer and P&L, before joining Xcel Energy, headquartered in Minneapolis.At Xcel, Ray reported directly to the CEO as CIO and later in the expanded role of CAO and President of Customer and Enterprise Solutions, where he managed the core areas of IT, Customer Care/Marketing, Human Resources and Utility Innovation. During his tenure, Xcel received recognition as a premier IT organization in InformationWeek’s Top 500 Awards, placing in the Top 20 for 3 years and twice winning their Business Technology Optimization award. Ray was featured in ComputerWorld’s Premier 100 IT Leaders. Xcel’s unique outsourcing model and use of Strategic Advisory Boards has been the subject of various publications and an early driving force for transformational outsourcing in the utility industry. In 2006, Xcel was awarded the prestigious Edison award from the Edison Electric Institute for its ‘Utility of the Future’ initiatives in IT, as well as Utility of the Year in 2009 from EnergyBiz Magazine for its unique and pioneering ‘SmartGridCity™’ efforts.Ray left Xcel Energy to serve as President and COO of Current Group, an innovative US-based start-up Smart Grid company specializing in cutting-edge smart grid operations and analytics with clients in NA, Europe and AP. He also served as Global Head of Smart Grid for Nokia-Siemens Networks as they explored entry into the Smart Grid adjacency. Ray spent two years as a Managing Director in Accenture’s Resources Group, working as a market-maker for strategic pursuits.In 2014, Ray co-founded USGRDCO with Jay Worenklein and David Mohler and served as President and COO. USGRDCO’s objective is to upgrade the distribution systems of America’s utilities and accelerate the benefits of grid modernization through commercial microgrids and distributed energy resources, thereby offering utilities alternative paths to more efficient, reliable, resilient and secure power systems. Ray and his team pioneered a series of microgrid archetypes and designs, suitable for utilities, private communities and smart cities, which USGRDCO believes represents the future of the North American grid. Ray left his COO role at USGRDCO to found his own consulting group, Avanti Enterprises, Inc., where he provides strategic consulting and business planning to companies in the power sector.During his career, Ray has served on IBM’s Strategic Advisory Board, The World Economic Forum, the Colorado Smart Grid Task Force, EEI’s Smart Grid Workshop Group, the Board of MedicAlert International, Denver’s United Way and Goodwill.Jim HeartyGraduate of Williams College and The Advanced Management Program of the Harvard Business School.Jim began as a bond trader at First National Bank of Boston, where he eventually ran the Bond Department, (the largest underwriter of Tax Exempt Debt in New England with a significant business in US Government and Agency Securities and Money Market securities). In the early 1990’s, Jim was the Assistant Secretary of Administration and Finance for Governor Bill Weld and responsible for all Bond Financings for the Commonwealth and Agencies and Authorities where the Governor served on the Board.Over the course of his career he also served as: Board Member of the Public Securities Association and a Board Member and Chairman of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, Board Member of the Mass HFA, The Mass Industrial Finance Agency, The Massachusetts Land Bank and the Pension Reserve Investment Management Board (The State Pension System) among others. Remained on the Board of the Pension System and co-through the terms of Governors Weld, Cellucci, Swift and Romney.Working at Lehman Brothers as a banker in the Tax Exempt Division, Jim was responsible for Business in New England and grew the franchise substantially, lead managed significant issues in all New England State. Became the Head of Public Finance in 1998, and Co-Head of the Tax Exempt Division including all trading and underwriting in 2000, and grew the Business substantially.In 2002, he was the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Pension Reserve, and served for two years as ED and CIO of the $70 Billion Pension Fund. Then in 2005, Jim was a Partner of Relational Investors, one of the original “Activist” Institutional Investors, and grew the business from $1.5 Billion to $5 Billion Dollars in AUM. Significant Engagements included Home Depot, Sovereign Bancorp, Hewlett-Packard and Sprint. In 2008, he became a Partner of Clough Capital Partners and was responsible for fundraising in the Institutional Market, where he grew the AUM in our long/short fund from $500 Million to $2.0 Billion.Jim is married to Doris Blodgett since 1975, 3 sons, Resident of Boston.Phil JohnsonPhil is currently a member of the Board and Executive Committee of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (“IPO”), Co-Chapter Editor of the Sedona Conference WG10 biopharmaceutical patent litigation project, and member of the board of the Monell Chemical Senses Center. Phil recently retired as Senior Vice President – Intellectual Property Policy & Strategy of Johnson & Johnson – Law Department. Prior to April of 2014, he was Senior Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel of Johnson & Johnson where he managed a worldwide group of about 270 IP professionals, of whom over 100 were patent and trademark attorneys.Before joining Johnson & Johnson in 2000, Phil was a senior partner and co-chair of IP litigation at Woodcock Washburn in Philadelphia. During his 27 years in private practice, Phil counseled independent inventors, startups, universities and businesses of all sizes in all aspects of intellectual property law. His diverse practice pertained to advances in a wide variety of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, medical devices, consumer products, semi-conductor fabrication, automated manufacturing, materials and waste management. During his time in private practice, Phil served as trial counsel in countless IP disputes, including cases resolved by arbitration, bench trials, jury trials and appeals to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, many of which resulted in reported decisions.During his tenure at Johnson & Johnson, Phil served terms on the Medical Device & Diagnostics and Pharmaceutical Group Operating Committees responsible for managing J&J’s many businesses in these fields, while also serving on the senior management team responsible for J&J’s legal organization, which has now grown to over 450 attorneys located in 70+ locations in 35+ countries.Phil’s has previously served as the Chair of the Board of American Intellectual Property Law Education Foundation, as President of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, as President of INTERPAT, as President of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel, as President of the Intellectual Property Owners Education Foundation, as co-founder and member of the Steering Committee of the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, as Chair of PhRMA’s IP Focus Group and as Board Member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association.Phil’s has previously served as the Chair of the Board of American Intellectual Property Law Education Foundation, as President of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, as President of INTERPAT, as President of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel, as President of the Intellectual Property Owners Education Foundation, as co-founder and member of the Steering Committee of the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, as Chair of PhRMA’s IP Focus Group and as Board Member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association.Phil has frequently testified before both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees about patent law reform and, more recently, abusive patent litigation. Phil served as a member of Chief Judge Michel’s Advisory Council on Patent Reform, and was recognized in the Congressional Record as a member of the Minority Whip Jon Kyle’s “Kitchen Cabinet” for the America Invents Act (“AIA”). Thereafter, Phil served as IPO’s representative on the ABA-AIPLA-IPO committee of six experts (“COSE”) formed at Director Kappos’ request to propose regulations to the USPTO for implementing the PGR-IPR post-grant proceedings created by the AIA.Phil co-authored “Compensatory Damages Issues In Patent Infringement Cases, A Pocket Guide for Federal District Court Judges,” published by the Federal Judicial Center, and has served that Center as a faculty member on its IP-related judicial education programming. Phil was also featured in the Landslide Publication March/April 2013 issue. Most recently, Phil authored “The America Invents Act on Its Fifth Anniversary: A Promise Thus Far Only Partially Fulfilled,” published on 9/15/2016 in IP Watchdog.Phil’s awards include the Woodcock Prize for Legal Excellence (1997); the New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association’s Jefferson Medal (2013); the Philadelphia Intellectual Property Association’s Distinguished Intellectual Property Practitioner award (May, 2017), induction into the international IP Hall of Fame by the IP Hall of Fame Academy (June, 2017) and the Intellectual Property Owners Association “Carl B. Horton President’s Distinguished Service Award” (September, 2017).Phil received his Bachelor of Science degree, cum laude with distinction in biology from Bucknell University, and his J.D. degree from Harvard Law School.Matt KeyMatt has been changing business through the innovative use of technology throughout his career. He has successfully transformed how businesses approach the market and enabled the creation of repeatable and sophisticated services and solutions whilst bringing in many new clients.Prior to Everynet and now Charge (a new connected electric truck manufacturer) he ran the Global IoT Business for Vodafone and before led the Enterprise division in Cable & Wireless Worldwide. Other experience includes working for Siemens IT Solutions and Services, Capita and Barclays.Bill MaurerBill Maurer is the Senior Vice President of ABM Industries. Mr. Maurer is responsible for managing the Energy portfolio for ABM. ABM Industries is a best-in-class provider of Integrated Facility Services which include – Energy Solutions, Mechanical Service and Construction, Facility Management, Janitorial, Security, and Parking Services for building owners and operators in North America and selected international locations. ABM is one of the nation’s most successful single source providers of high value facilities management and building optimization services.Mr. Maurer has over 20 years of experience in the Energy Industry where he has held various and increasing levels of management and responsibility. Most recently, Mr. Maurer joined ABM in 2006. Under his guidance, the Energy Solutions division has maintained exponential growth year after year. To do this Mr. Maurer had to completely re-organize and re-structure the existing energy division. There were significant changes made in personnel, market focus and overall strategy towards the Energy Business. Through the changes that were made in Energy offerings, ABM is now able to offer to their clients a unique program to provide cost savings that allow them to fund needed improvements to reduce energy consumption, reduce environmental impact and comply with government regulations. Not only has the revenue increased substantially in the Energy division, but the unique solutions delivered by ABM and the markets in which were focused on has also increased dramatically.With a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Maurer’s career path began at the Systems and Services Division of Johnson Controls, an internationally renowned building technology and manufacturing leader. At Johnson Controls, he spent nearly 8 years in sales and management positions where he was a top performer with a track record of consistent top performances in growth, sales achievement, profitability and leadership.Over the past 21 years, Mr. Maurer has been involved with over $900M in Energy Saving Programs to customers. He is a recognized leader in the industry by his co-workers and competition alike. He is involved with leadership positions in multiple industry related organizations – NAESCO (Board Member), BOMA, ASHRAE (Former Treasurer) and Energy Services Coalition. Mr. Maurer has been involved in multiple speaking engagements at industry/ market events and The White House. Mr. Maurer is also involved with and holds leadership positions within 2 Cancer Fund Organizations.On a personal note, Mr. Maurer has a wife of 20 years and two children (16 old boy and 14 old girl). They have lived in Milford, MI area for the past 11 years. He enjoys playing competitive hockey, soccer and golf. He is an avid outdoorsman and enjoys hunting – specifically pheasant and duck. Reading financial, motivational and educational books is a daily practice.Jeffrey S. McCormickJeffrey is the Chairman and Managing General Partner of Saturn. He founded Saturn in 1993 and began financing early stage companies including, the extremely successful business to business e-commerce company, FreeMarkets (FMKT, acquired by ARBA); the largest U.S. biodiesel company, Twin Rivers Technologies (acquired by FELDA); email marketing company, Constant Contact (CTCT); and the extremely popular Boston Duck Tours. Saturn Partners II and III, have invested in cutting-edge technology companies in healthcare, education, energy, IT and environmental businesses.Jeffrey has over 25 years of experience as an investment banker, entrepreneur and venture capitalist. He currently serves on the boards including BioWish, Knopp Biosciences, Third Pole, and XNG Energy.Jeffrey is a graduate of Syracuse University, where he received an MBA in Finance and a BS in Biology. He was a Collegiate Scholar Athlete, first year team All-American lacrosse player, and a captain of Syracuse’s first NCAA championship lacrosse team.Jeffrey is a Vice Chair of the CitiCenter for the Performing Arts. He serves on the Dean’s Advisory Committee of the School of Management at Syracuse University and is Founding Principal Financier of the Sean McDonough Charities for Children. He is actively involved with the Trinity Church in Boston.Jeffrey is married with three children.David MeredithDavid Meredith has been Chief Operations and Product Officer at Rackspace Hosting, Inc. since January 2018. Mr. Meredith’s responsibilities include P&L oversight of the vision, operational and administrative direction of Rackspace’s product lines, operations, technology and service delivery functions. Mr. Meredith has been the President of Private Cloud & Managed Hosting at Rackspace Hosting, Inc. since June 1, 2017. Prior to joining Rackspace, Mr. Meredith served as the President of global data centers at CenturyLink. He has led international managed hosting businesses in roles including senior manager, president, Chief Executive Officer and board director. His experience spans a range of industry verticals from venture-backed firms such as NeuPals in China to business units of large public companies such as Capital One, CGI and VeriSign. He served as Senior Vice President and Global General Manager for Technology Solutions at CenturyLink, Inc. As an industry thought leader, he has provided insights for leading media outlets such as BusinessWeek, USA Today and The Washington Post. CIO Magazine, Wireless Week and The Huffington Post have published his articles. He has spoken on industry topics for NBC’s Carson Daly Show, NPR’s Morning Edition, Seoul Broadcasting System, PBS’ Nightly Business Report and at analyst forums such as Gartner, Bloomberg, Yankee and Cantor Fitzgerald. In December 2016, the respected Uptime Institute recognized his contributions to the Industry by selecting him for their Change Leader Award. He was named “Top 40 under 40 – Best and Brightest Leaders” by Georgia Trend Magazine in 2008. Mr. Meredith graduated with honors from James Madison University with a Bachelor of Business Administration in finance and he earned a Masters in IT management from the University of Virginia, where he serves on the UVA advisory board.Bill PalatucciBill Palatucci is one of the state’s most prominent and widely respected attorneys, with a reputation for strategic planning and advice regarding complex public policy and communications initiatives. He has been named among NJBIZ’s “100 Most Powerful People in New Jersey Business” every year that the issue has been published.Most recently, following the Republican National Convention through Election Day, Mr. Palatucci served as General Counsel to the Presidential Transition Committee of President Donald J. Trump. In this role, he was responsible for all legal matters related to ethics compliance and contracts and agreements between such agencies as the U.S. Department of Justice, General Services Administration, and the White House. Mr. Palatucci coordinated extensively with internal and external members assisting the transition, providing all necessary legal advice and guidance to facilitate the Transition Committee’s interactions with the Trump-Pence campaign, federal departments and agencies, local, state, and federal officials, think tanks, outside experts and consultants, and various other entities and individuals with whom the Transition Committee engaged with during the pre-Election Day time period.Mr. Palatucci also served as General Counsel to Governor Christie’s presidential campaign. In 2013, he served as Chairman of the Governor’s reelection campaign and as Co-Chair for the Governor’s Inaugural Committee.In 2010, Mr. Palatucci was elected the Republican National Committeeman for New Jersey, and, for the past 30 years, he has had a hand in some of the most important state and federal elections in New Jersey. Over this time, he has led the reelection campaigns of President Ronald Reagan, President George H. W. Bush, and Governor Tom Kean, and he served as a senior advisor to Governor George W. Bush’s presidential campaign in 2000. Mr. Palatucci was also the principal consultant for Christine Todd Whitman’s run for the U.S. Senate in 1990.Amb R. James WoolseyAmbassador R. James Woolsey was the Director of Central Intelligence for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 1993 to 1995. He’s been appointed by Presidents to positions of leadership during the administrations of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. In a town riven by partisan divisions, Ambassador Woolsey is widely respected on both sides of the aisle.A national security and energy specialist, he is the Chancellor of the Institute of World Politics and Chair of the Leadership Council of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and Chairs the United States Energy Security Council. He is also a Venture Partner with Lux Capital and chairs the Strategic Advisory Group of the Paladin Capital Group, a multi-stage private equity firm.He is a frequent contributor of articles to major publications, and gives public speeches and media interviews on the subjects of energy, foreign affairs, defense, and intelligence.This just a partial list of the high powered personnel sources I have used. Mills himself is just one of the thousands involved so far.