AVC vs VFW
Atascosa County Cause 21-
LAWSUIT
Copyright © US Veterans Council™ 2024
FRAUDULENT DISCIPLINARY ACTION
Outraged by the Publication of the Pleasanton Express Article titled “JISD a Purple Heart School”, where AVC & Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH) conducted a Purple Heart Ceremony at Jourdanton High School (Mr. Mueller's Alma Mata), Poteet Memorial Post 6970 and Atascosa County Post 4853 entered into a conspiratorial effort with the objective and goal of intentionally stifling and undermining the success and legitimacy of AVC and to erode the command ability of Steve Mueller.
CATALYSTIC EVENT
PUBLICATION OF THE 11/09/2018 PURPLE HEART CEREMONY FOR JOURDANTON ISD
Pleasanton Express Newspaper Publication "JISD a Purple Heart School" (AOR)
11/14/2018
This was first accomplished with a series of emails sent to the VFW Department of Texas Leadership by Post 4853’s Commander Jeff C. Rankin and Post 6970 Commander John E. Shipley concerning AVC’s Community Service “Projects”. Specifically, Poteet Memorial Post 6970 and Atascosa County Post 4853 were aware of AVC’s professional collaboration with the Department of Texas MOPH organization to mutually assist the MOPH in raising awareness of combat wounded veterans, by coordinating and conducting “Purple Heart Dedication Ceremonies” in Texas. Whereas AVC & MOPH had mutually sponsored three such successful ceremonies and was committed to continuing to assist the MOPH in scheduling additional ceremonies in Atascosa County. Both Post Commanders of Post 4853 and Post 6970 knew that future ceremonies would be scheduled and held in the cities of Jourdanton and Poteet, Texas and in order to disrupt these future activities, Poteet Post 6970 Commander John E. Shipley formed an alliance and engaged in a conspiracy that first began with Shipley submitting emails to Texas VFW Commander Ingeborg A. Conley, requesting “HELP” and explaining that Steve Mueller was allegedly ordering his Post to conduct “Projects” outside of the city of Pleasanton and that these “projects” (the most recent Purple Heart Ceremony held at Jourdanton High School) in some way hurt the Jourdanton Post, even though both Atascosa County Post 4853, Poteet Memorial Post 6970 members, as well as, MOPH members who had dual membership at both Post 4853 and Post 6970 were not only invited, attended, but also participated in the Jourdanton High School ceremony.
With Steve Mueller running against Roy J. Grona, or his presumptive successor Daniel L. West, Ingeborg A. Conley (a political supporter of Daniel L. West), saw an opportunity to use the disdain that Post 4853 and Post 6970 leadership had for Mueller to eliminate Mueller from being a Candidate for Texas VFW Quartermaster by using her vague interpretation of, and unsubstantiated allegation of violating, Section 214 of the VFW Manual of Procedures, as the impetus to justifying an Article IX disciplinary Action against Mueller with the intent and effect of terminating his membership with the VFW prior to the election, thereby securing a win for Daniel L. West.
Email @ 1:04 PM from Rankin to West concerning Kaiser/ Duran exchange (AOR)
11/16/2018
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
MADE BY POTEET MEMORIAL POST 6970 COMMANDER JOHN E. SHIPLEY IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE POTEET POST.
Email @ 08:21 AM titled "HELP" from Post 6970/Shipley to Dept. of Texas VFW/Conley (Post 6970 believed that the Pleasanton Post was coordinating a Purple Heart Ceremony for the city of Poteet & at Poteet ISD) (AOR)
11/15/2018
Email @ 11:32 AM from Shipley to Mueller & Pino (as the District 20 Commander) (AOR)
Email @ 12:12 AM from Rankin to West (AOR)
Letter from Conley to Mueller (AOR)
DEF_00400 (4)
Motivated by Texas VFW Commander Conley’s approach and effort to use an ambiguous interpretation of Section 214 of the VFW National Manual of Procedures, concluding that AVC’s “Immediate Geographic Area” is the city limits of the city of Pleasanton, Conley’s issuance of a certified letter to Mueller that both orders Mueller to “Cease in Desist”, but also “Defining” AVC’s “Immediate Geographic Area” to be the “city of Pleasanton”, without mentioning or defining any other Atascosa County Post geographic areas, and now knowing that Post 6970 no longer had the bourdon to negotiate a mutual agreement with AVC and/or Post 4853 to establish Areas of Responsibility (AORs), Shipley had accomplished his objective of restricting AVC and preventing future “projects” from taking place in Poteet, Texas, for, on behalf of, and in the interests of Poteet Memorial Post 6970.
2019 VFW NATIONAL BY-
“Posts shall be permitted to solicit funds or donations only as prescribed in Section 214 of the Manual of Procedure.”
2019 VFW NATIONAL MANUAL OF PROCEDURES SEC. 214 Pg. 70
“Posts may solicit funds or contributions or otherwise engage in fund-
SOLICITATION OF FUNDS
REFERENCE “AOR” ARGUMENT
Believing the AOR dispute had been solved, John E. Shipley immediately began assisting Conley (in his District 20 Commander capacity) in developing the required justification, by first requesting statements be prepared, signed and notarized by Atascosa County Post 4853 Officers for the sole purpose of being used to fulfill the first of three prerequisite for bringing an Article IX Disciplinary Action against Mueller, the “Signed Incident Report(s)” requirement.
However, none of the three signed notarized statements, published by Jeff C. Rankin, Patricia S. Hewitt or Douglas P. Edwards contain any mention of “Fundraising”, “Projects” or “Geographic Area”, despite being the justification for making such statements, but instead containing aspersion, invented by Post 4853 Officers that included numerous unsubstantiated assertions, opinions and speculation with no establishment of fact, corroborating evidence or details regarding date, time of alleged occurrence or any official documentation. Jeff C. Rankin and Patricia S. Hewitt would later testify under oath that the statements were requested by John E. Shipley (acting in his District 20 capacity) and that they believed the statements were to be used in association with the Posts (meaning AVC, Post 6970 and Post 4853) ongoing AOR dispute that had not been resolved on 10/26/2018.
CONSPIRACY
CONSPIRACY-
11/19/2018
CONSPIRACY-
DEF_00815 (68)
11/20/2018
CONSPIRACY-
11/24/2018
CONSPIRACY-
11/28/2018
CONSPIRACY
CONSPIRACY-
DA2_00663-
11/30/2018
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
DEF_00983-
On 11/30/2018, Roy Grona coordinated with Ingeborg A. Conley, Daniel L. West and John E. Shipley to conspire to bring a knowingly false and erroneous Article IX Disciplinary Action against Steve Mueller by first collaborating to intentionally prepare Charges and Specifications against Mueller, by assisting Shipley in the willful Fabrication and publication of an “Investigative Report” (an official VFW document), that gave the false appearance to having been authorized by Conley on another falsified official VFW Document (Order appointing Shipley to investigate), backdated to reflect a date of issue of 11/16/2018, in order to create the appearance that Conley had issued an Investigation order to Shipley for the purpose of contacting and questioning “all involved” including Jeff C. Rankin, Patricia S. Hewitt and Douglas P. Edwards, so their statements that had already been published on 11/19/2018 (Rankin), 11/24/2018 (Hewitt) and 11/28/2018 (Edwards) could be used to substantiate confirmation of wrongdoing by Mueller, as reflected in Shipleys fictitious “Investigative Report”.
1ST DISCIPLINARY ACTION
CONSPIRACY-
DEF_01138-
12/03/2018
EMERGENCY OFFICER MEETING-
CONSPIRACY-
DA2_00852-
12/06/2018
FABRICATED LETTER (prepared after 04/17/2019 by West and BACKDATED to “12/06/2018”)/ Directive from Conley to Grona to Prepare "Charges and Specifications" against Mueller and anyone else involved.
DEF_01102
CONSPIRACY-
12/10/2018
CONCLUSION
AVC Directors and Officers met, after the receipt of the 11/15/2018 Cease in Desist Letter from Ingeborg A. Conley, to discuss the validity of the order, the VFW National By-
Furthermore, the Directors were still uncertain if the Post was instituted properly into the VFW, if it wasn’t, then the discussion of how Section 214 would apply would be irrelevant, as the Post would not be subject to any provisions contained in the VFW National By-
It was decided to present these concerns to the Post Membership at the next Post Meeting and request authorization from the Membership to “Secure Legal Counsel to represent Pleasanton VFW Post 12162 in all current and future post franchise disputes, By-
Email from West to ALL Texas VFW Posts concerning Section 214 (AOR).
VFWP_01072-
12/20/2018
REFERENCE “AOR” ARGUMENT
Dan West contacts Pino, giving her "5 minutes" to send West the Post Minutes are he was going to kick her out of the VFW.
01/02/2019
Email @ 11:38 AM between West and Pino.
01/03/2019
VFW DEPT. OF TEXAS
BECOMES AWARE THE POST IS CONSULTING WITH AN ATTORNEY
After being instructed by Pino, with Dan West’s refusal to download the Post Meeting Minutes, and his inability to understand no physical meeting minutes were unavailable, the Texas VFW instead attempted to use John Shipley (who lived in Poteet, Texas) to physically obtain the documents, by Conley directing Shipley to conduct a Section 710 Inspection. Shipley recruited other Poteet Memorial Post 6970 members, including Post 6970’s Quartermaster to assist him in the Inspection and who witnessed Shipley contacted Steve Mueller by phone. Mueller confirmed the earlier statements made by Pino, that the Post Inspection Book, containing all of the Post’s legal documents, including the Post Business Meeting Minutes, was currently being reviewed by a legal consultant at the member’s request. Mueller informed Shipley that he could contact the Attorney directly if he wanted something specific from the minutes or he could just simply download what he needed from the Post Website. Considering West, and now Shipleys urgency to obtain the Post minutes, and much to Mueller’s surprise, Shipley refused to do either.
Conley Order to Shipley to conduct a "710 Inspection" (No Findings Report ever Published)
DEF_00402-
Shipley STATEMENT to Conley concerning interactions with Post Officers concerning "710 Inspection"
710 INSPECTION TO OBTAIN MINUTES
2019 VFW NATIONAL BY-
“The Commander-
INSPECTIONS
On 01/03/2019, Shipley was ordered to “perform an Inspection” and specifically was “authorized to look at all aspects of the operational and financial aspects of VFW Post 12162” and obtain copies of the “Post Minutes”. Shipley was also permitted to “task any other VFW member to assist”. Shipley selected four additional members to assist him in what he communicated to Mueller to be an “Audit”, that included Poteet Memorial Post 6970 Quartermaster Walter A Szulewski II (required for performing Financial Audits) and members Lindsay E. McKee, Donald H. Palmer and Larry L. Sanders.
In Shipleys statement to Conley the same day, Shipley confirmed he communicated to Mueller by phone that the State Commander had directed him “to do an AUDIT on Pleasanton Post 12162”, that Mueller instructed Shipley to contact the Posts Legal Consultant and that, as a District Commander, he would be unable to address the membership complaints and that Mueller was cooperating with the “Investigative Committee” by stating; “thanked him for his cooperation”. At no time was Conley’s order presented to Mueller, Pino or any other Director or Officer of the Post, nor did Mueller or Pino fail to assist and cooperate with Shipley or his assistants.
It was recently learned, during Depositions in 2024, that John E. Shipley, Larry L. Sanders, Andrew F. Camplen and possibly others are unable to distinguish the difference between an “Inspection” from a “Investigation” and routinely conflate the terms to mean the same thing. Although the VFW National By-
VFW DEPT. OF TEXAS
ADOPTS A PREEMPTIVE POSTURE ANTICIPATING A LAWSUIT
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
01/04/2019
After being contacted by John Shipley, who read Special Order No. 12 to Mueller over the Phone, and realizing the action was not only without merit, but also in violation of the VFW National By-
MUELLER & PINO “RELIEVED”
2019 VFW NATIONAL BY-
“Vacancies. All vacancies occurring in the elected offices of the Post shall be filled in accordance with Section 220 of the Manual of Procedure at the next regular or special meeting as prescribed in Section 203 of the Manual of Procedure.
Removal. Elected officers or elected committee members may be removed for just cause by the Post or the Department Commander as prescribed in Section 220 of the Manual of Procedure.
Any elected Post officer or committee member removed, by reason of failure to pay current dues or under the provisions of this section shall not be eligible to serve in any Post office or committee in the same administrative year in which the officer or committee member is removed.”
2019 VFW NATIONAL MANUAL OF PROCEDURES SEC. 220 Pg. 75-
“Vacancies. In the event of a vacancy in the office of Commander or Commander-
If neither the Senior nor Junior Vice Commander succeed as described herein then the Senior Vice Commander shall assume the duties of the Commander until the election of the new Commander at the next regular or special meeting called for such purpose.
Should a vacancy occur in the office of Post Quartermaster, the Post Commander may appoint a Pro Tempore Quartermaster to carry out the duties incident to that office. The appointment shall in no instance exceed more than sixty (60) days and shall be null and void upon the election of a Post Quartermaster.
Should the vacancy occur in any other elected Post office or committee, the Post shall at the next regular or special meeting, nominate and elect a member to that position.
Removal – Post. A Post may, upon motion duly passed at any meeting, propose the removal of an officer or committee member at the next regular or special meeting. The member holding such office or committee membership shall be notified at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting by certified or registered mail addressed to the member’s last known address stating the reasons for the proposed action. A copy of the notice shall be provided to the Department Commander at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
The Post, at the next regular or special meeting, may by two-
1. Absented themselves from two (2) consecutive meetings or who has
2. Failed to fulfill the duties of office specified in Section 218 of the Bylaws and Manual of Procedure.
Removal – Department. The Department Commander may, with respect to any Post within their Department, remove any Post officer for cause who fails to fulfill their duties of office as required by Section 218.
Notification of Removal. All removals require written notification. The notification shall be in the form of a Special Order and detail specifically in what manner the elected officer or elected committee member failed to perform their duties. The notification must advise the member of their right to appeal this action under Section 109 of the National Bylaws and Manual of Procedure. The Special Order shall be delivered personally or by certified or registered mail to the removed officer or committee member’s last known address.”
VACANCIES AND REMOVAL OF ELECTED OFFICERS OR COMMITTEE MEMBERS
After Shipley communicated to Conley that the Post was indeed working with a Legal consultant for the purpose of a lawsuit. Conley mistakenly assumed that the post had hired an attorney for the purpose of bringing a lawsuit against the Texas VFW and/or her, and thus Conley immediately ordered the Post “Suspended” (under Section 211), Steve Mueller and Stephanie Pino “Relieved” of their perceived VFW Officer positions and the appointment of an Administrative Committee to immediately assume control of the Post, in order to restrict payment for legal expenses being made to any Attorney’s retained by the Post.
Conley justified “Relieving” Mueller and Pino by:
1. Erroneously asserting that Pino deliberately and intentionally “failed to submit copies of the approved Post minutes for each month that VFW Post 12162 has been in existence as requested by State Commander mailed to you on December 3, 2018 by certified/ return mail to your last known address“, stating the “letter was signed for on December 14, 2018”. Ingeborg A. Conley, in an act of Negligence and incompetency and in direct violation of the VFW National By-
2. Erroneously asserting that Mueller deliberately and intentionally “failed to cooperate with an Investigative Committee that was appointed by the state commander” to make available or provide the Post Business Meeting Minutes. Ingeborg A. Conley, in an act of Negligence and incompetency and in direct violation of the VFW National By-
However, Pino never signed for any Certified letter requesting meeting minutes and only learned of the Texas VFW’s request for Meeting Minutes after Daniel L. West requested them over the phone on 01/02/2019. Furthermore, neither Mueller nor Pino were made aware of any State Commander appointed “Investigative Committee”, nor did John E. Shipley, when he contacted Mueller on 01/03/2019, identify himself as a “Investigator” or a member of an “Investigative Committee”, nor that he was conducting a “Inspection” or a “Investigation”, but instead stated he was conducting an “Audit” and required access to the Post Meeting Minutes. Both Mueller and Pino, as previously communicated to Daniel West the day before, informed Shipley that the meeting minutes were in the physical custody of a legal consultant. If time was of the essence, Shipley was encouraged to simply download the meeting minutes from the Post Website or contact the legal consultant directly to obtain the originals he required, but Shipley elected not to exercise any of these options.
01/14/2019
POST MEETING
MEETING MINUTES Transcripts
MEETING MINUTES Audio Recording
The Administrative Committee under the direction of Daniel L. West took control of the Post meeting by hostile means with Shipley opening the meeting by threatening Post membership.
JOHN E. SHIPLEY
1. Shipley stated; “I will call on you to speak”, “If any member gets out of order he will be removed”, “If you persist in out of order I will call the local law authorities and you will be removed from the premises”, “we will be recording the meeting for the purposes of generating the minutes of this meeting that will become part of the official record of this post as all post meeting are part of the official record”.
The video recording of the meeting has never been produced despite numerous requests for production. Both the audio recording (obtained from a Post Members in attendance on 01/14/2019) and the video evidence contradicts the falsified and fabricated meeting minutes published by the Administrative Committee concerning the meeting of 01/14/2019.
2. Shipley stated; “I’m not going to entertain any motions at this time”, “The only motions we will entertain tonight are whether or not the post will retain its charter and whether or not you want to elect”.
Post Membership had intended Mueller to speak on behalf of the Post and were present at the meeting in order to get answers and work toward resolution of Post grievances, however the combative tone, nature and atmosphere created by Shipley quickly projected a sense of malfeasance on the VFW’s part negating any constructive dialogue.
3. Shipley stated; “Commander Steve Mueller has been relieved and is no longer the commander. He cannot be put back into the commander’s position this year and if there are no charges filed then next year you can re-
Implying that Article IX Disciplinary charges are being developed but have not been initiated. John E. Shipley is fully aware that he had already published a “Investigative Report” on 11/30/2018, that he and Roy J. Grona, Ingeborg A, Conely and Daniel L. West collaborated to create, in an intentional conspiracy to falsify, official VFW documents allegedly conveying the completely invented and false allegations that Mueller had violated Section 214 of the Manual of Procedures by “Fundraising” or conducting “Projects” outside of AVC’s “Immediate Geographic Area”.
4. Shipley stated; “We will be here to run the meetings so you can have a meeting. Cuz without us you can run the meeting. You cannot have a meeting”, “you cannot have a formal meeting without us being involved. No. The only meetings we are going to have is when this administrative council is here”, “After we decide whether or not the post wants to remain a post we can have a motion to whether they want to do elections tonight or at the next meeting”.
Post Directors found these statements interesting, as “if” the Post was actually a “VFW Post” has been the topic of much discussion for months. The restriction of preventing the Post membership from meeting on their own is nothing more than a strategy to prevent possible legal entanglement and to isolate and control membership opinions until Mueller can be discredited by the Administrative Committee in the eyes of the Membership.
5. When asked about the request for minutes, Shipley stated, “I do not know why the state commander wanted the minutes. It’s not my question to ask why she wanted them” and when asked if there was a “complaint”, Shipley responded, “I do not know if there was a complaint”.
This is a blatant lie. John E. Shipley, acting in the best interests of Poteet Memorial Post 6970, with the intent to stifle AVC and prevent a Purple Heart Ceremony from taking place within Poteet. Shipley submitted the first “complaint” to Ingeborg A. Conley on 11/15/2018. In preparation for the sole objective of justifying the initiation of an erroneous Article IX Disciplinary Action, Shipley conspired with Atascosa County Post 4853, misusing, abusing and misrepresenting his District 20 Commander position to influence Post 4853’s leadership Jeff Rankin, Patricia S. Hewitt and Douglas P. Edwards to write unsubstantiated false, opinionated and derogatory statements concerning Mueller.
6. When asked about the Cease in Desist Letter/ Alleged Section 214 violation, Shipley stated; “Section 214 says the post shall not solicit funds or donations or otherwise engage in fundraising activity or projects outside of the immediate geographic area of the post. The post may solicit funds or donations utilizing web-
Shipley believes that Section 214 has a provision that states you can fundraise if AVC “coordinate” with the Post. Without mutually defining each Posts Geographic Area in Atascosa County, it is impossible to apply Section 214. Neither the term “immediate geographic area” nor “community of the post” is defined in the VFW National By-
7. Shipley stated; “I had a meeting with both commanders, both quartermasters, both Pleasanton and Jourdanton Posts and told them that they need to stop acting like a bunch of children and be courteous to each other. If Pleasanton wanted to go sell tickets in Jourdanton, coordinate with the other. Just call them and ask them. I sell raffle tickets for other posts. I help them fundraise. Why? Either the one they ask me or I say hey do you need help? We all supposed to help each other. But no that’s not what happens. I get a call after we all had this meeting. One of your members is selling raffle tickets in Jourdanton. So I contact them. I said; did commander Mueller talk to Commander Rankin about selling tickets. Well I don’t know? Later I get a text – well he doesn’t know I just did because I didn’t think it would hurt anybody. And that was from one individual that sat in that same meeting. Ok? So because of people’s childish actions it caused the Post to get in trouble”, “If you are over there with a sign, and a rifle and a bunch of tickets to selling tickets, yes you are in violation”.
The meeting being referenced by Shipley, took place on 10/26/2018 at Poteet Memorial Post. The meeting was requested by AVC’s Commander Steve Mueller on x, for the sole purpose of discussing the mutual adoption of Areas of Responsibility (AOR’s) for each Post in Atascosa County. Each Post sent representatives to the meeting, with Poteet Memorial Post 6970 agreeing to host the meeting, being represented by John E, Shipley, Atascosa County Post 4853 being represented by Jeff C. Rankin and Patricia S. Hewitt and AVC being represented by Steve Mueller, Stephanie Pino and Regina Renya. However, the meeting yielded no mutual agreement.
Evidence collected thus far does not substantiate that Atascosa County has ever made a formal complaint to the VFW Dept. Of Texas concerning AVC violating Section 214. The only Post that has ever complained is Poteet Memorial Post 6970 on 11/15/2018 with Post Commander John E. Shipley submitting an email titled “HELP” to VFW Dept, of Texas Commander Ingeborg A. Conley.
A review of District 20 Meeting minutes has confirmed no discussions concerning any Post within District 20 or any motions presented, votes taken, or motions passed that would authorize Shipley to engage with any post within the District, including AVC, over “immediate geographic area” or “Project” disputes or any alleged Section 214 violations.
Furthermore, none of the three (3) Signed Notarized Statements published by Atascosa County Post 4853 leadership mention any grievances concerning “Fundraising” or “Projects”, make any reference to “geographic area” or directly or indirectly imply concerns with any alleged Section 214 violations committed by Mueller.
All evidence considered, Makes it clear that it was Poteet Memorial Post 6970 Commander Shipley, acting in the best interests of Poteet Memorial Post 6970, that took issue with AVC’s alleged “Fundraising” and/or “Projects” or perceived violation of Section 214. It was Post 6970 Commander Shipley that submitted the complaint.
8. Shipley stated; “will entertain a motion from the floor to take a vote from the members on whether they want to keep the post open?”, “Now that we have got that out of the way the post must stay open we can have election of officers. Now we did hear earlier. If one member would like to take and elect officers at the next meeting so they can have time to. to get to know everybody since this is their first meeting. So. Umm. The floor is open for any motion as long as it pertains to these options”, “if at the next meeting you don’t elect officers you will lose your charter”, “You will need to elect officers at the next meeting”.
AVC Directors found this to be an interesting motion request. Keeping the Post “Open” was never something that was in question nor listed as a “cause” for Suspension in special Order No. 14. Allegedly the Post was “Suspended” because Steve Mueller and Stephanie Pino had been “Relieved” by VFW Dept. of Texas Commander Ingeborg A. Conley, as directed in special Order No. 12 & 13, under the power granted to her in Section 220 of the VFW National By-
Special Order No. 14 states; “While under Suspension, no meetings shall be held in the name of the Post, except for the sole purpose of the discussion of the causes, effect, or removal of the penalties”. Assuming the AVC was “instituted” into the VFW and a valid Post Charter was actually issued that could be Suspended, “Keeping the Post Open” is not listed as a “Cause”. The only Cause listed in Special Order No. 14 is the presumed election of a new “Post Quartermaster” and “Post Jr. Vice Commander”. With this statement, it was clear that VFW Dept. of Texas and especially John E. Shipley and Larry L. Sanders knew the Post was NOT a “VFW Post”.
9. Shipley stated; “within the next 24 hours we need all of the financial documents of this organization”, “also going to need the checkbook to this post”.
Shipley request of “financial documents of this organization” and specifically the use of the words “this organization”, further confirmed that the VFW Dept. of Texas was fully aware that AVC was not a “VFW Post” and this was, in fact, a Hostile Takeover attempt.
10. When AVC Members conveyed that Poteet and Jourdanton were “Fundraising” and conducting Community Service “Projects” in Pleasanton, Shipley responded; “What have they been doing?, Doing what?!, Well you know you need to let me know, If you tell me they are doing something over here what are the specifics?”, “You’re not on trial”, “The animosity between your commander and that post is unreal. Ok. It has not stopped since the day he left there” (meaning Atascosa County Post 4853), “He does harbor a lot of animosity towards them (meaning Mueller harbors animosity towards Atascosa County Post 4853). I see it in everything he has written. I even ask. Told him about it and he just laughs at it.”
Shipley statements indicate that the restrictive procedures outlined in Section 214 and actions taken by Conley and himself to “Define” AVC’s “immediate geographic area” or “Community of the Post” was to apply to AVC only. Both Poteet Memorial Post 6970 and Atascosa County Post 4853 would be allowed to “Fundraise” and conduct “Projects” unrestricted within Pleasanton.
DANIEL L. WEST
1. Dan West was asked about “Complaints” and why the Post meeting minutes were requested, West responded, “We did receive some complaints about this post. Specifically, about its record of community service and how the post was taken credit for community service that its members were doing when they were activated in the National Guard. Working for the Nation Guard and not out there working on behalf of the post. These came in from those members. We have received several other complaints as well. The state commander just wanted to verify that the post had approved those community service reports as the post is supposed to do at every post meeting. The adjutant refused to give us your post minutes that you approved. That’s why she was relieved. The state commander then appointed John Shipley to do a post inspection under section 710 under the National By-
West alleges the request for meeting minutes came from AVC members complaining that the Community Service Reports submitted to the VFW Dept. of Texas were, in some way, inaccurate and specifically inaccurate due to Post members being deployed in support of recovery operations. While it is true that a large portion of Post membership was indeed deployed to the Coast in support of hurricane recovery efforts between September – November of 2017, in fact the deployment actually prevented AVC from being “Instituted”, as prescribed, and in compliance with Section 210 of the VFW National By-
West stated; “The adjutant refused to give us your post minutes that you approved”, this is a lie and not supported by the evidence. Every effort was made to reacquire AVC’s Inspection Book that contained the “original physical meeting minutes” requested by West on 01/02/2019 and later by Shipley on 01/03/2019 after they refused to download them from the Post website.
West stated, “That’s why she was relieved” (meaning Pino was “Relieved” because she didn’t supply the meeting minutes to West or Shipley). Assuming AVC was a “Instituted” and that Pino was in fact elected to the position of “Post Adjutant”, an elected officer cannot be “relieved” without first being sentenced in an Article IX Disciplinary Action. According to the VFW National By-
West stated; “The state commander then appointed John Shipley to do a post inspection under section 710 under the National By-
2. When responding to AVC’s vote to engage with an attorney, West threatened the Post membership by stating: “Every single one of you here had approved hiring an attorney to sue the VFW. Which you can’t do. Try it! Watch what happens! That’s all I can tell ya! It’s an internal matter. Governed by the By-
West seemed to imply that the Post was “Suspended” and Mueller and Pino were “Relieved” due to Post determination to seek legal consultation concerning “Franchise disputes” (related to AVC’s Institution into the VFW), “By-
West attempts to intimidate and threaten Members for taking such action stating “Try it! Watch what happens!”.
West, believing he is in still in the military, compares AVC’s business related actions and the false conclusion that Mueller or Pino had in some way “disobeyed an order” effecting Mueller and Pino being improperly “Relieved” by Conley, to a Military Command Structure narrative stating; “the only thing I can equate that too is that if you are in the military and your commander says; I’m not going to listen to the general anymore! Or follow his orders! And these regulations were not going to follow them anymore! How long do you think that commander is going to be a commander? He’s not!”.
3. When responding to Mueller’s inquiry concerning alleged statements directed toward Vietnam era veterans, West stated, “We have documentation were you have made statements that anybody of the Vietnam era need to die and go away cus they are no worth to the VFW. We have that from several different people actually and we consider that disrespectful to the veterans who came before and who are that backbone of this organization. There are few other more. I’m not going to elaborate with that. Disciplinary charges will be filed against you. It will spell it all out there plus what you need to do request a hearing”.
West indicates that an Article IX Disciplinary Action is pending concerning alleged negative statements being made towards Vietnam era veterans. A Claim that is complete nonsense and false. No evidence exists that substantiates this ridiculous claim, as numerous Vietnam veterans are not only members of AVC but serve as Officers and it was also alleged in Jeff C. Rankin signed notarized statement that Mueller was allegedly actively recruiting Atascosa County Post 4853’s Vietnam era members for transferring to Pleasanton.
4. West when asked about Conleys 11/15/2018 Cease in Desist Letter submitted to Mueller, West stated; “believe what Steve is referring to is that we received a complaint from some VFW members in the city of Jourdanton that members of this post were soliciting donations for this post in the city of Jourdanton. Section 214 of the National By-
West states “we received a complaint from some VFW members in the city of Jourdanton that members of this post were soliciting donations for this post in the city of Jourdanton”, however this is a lie. The evidence substantiates that the only complaints concerning “Fundraising” or “Projects” being conducted outside of AVC’s perceived “immediate geographic area” or “Community of the Post”, came from Poteet Memorial Post 6970 Commander John E. Shipley for and in the best interests of Post 6970 and in order to preemptively eliminate AVC’s joint Purple Heart Community Service Project with the MOPH from being conducted in Poteet, Texas. None of the Signed Notarized statements published by Jeff C. Rankin on 11/19/2018, Patricia S. Hewitt on 11/24/2018 or Douglas P. Edwards on 11/28/2018 (thought to be the only “complaints” published) substantiate Wests statement.
West states; “Section 214 of the National By-
West states; “Their geographic area and then the state commander interpreted that to mean. You could only fundraise in the city limits of the city of Pleasanton and that was upheld by the National organization.” West knows this is NOT a valid argument. Ingeborg A. Conley “interpreted” Section 214 to mean “the city limits of the city of Pleasanton”. The VFW National Manual of Procedures Section 518(a)(1), that governs the duties and obligations of a Department Commander, does not permit a Department Commander to “interpret” the VFW By-
5. After being told by Mueller that Pino had physical possession of the Post’s Debit Card, West demanded and then threatened Pino by stating; “Stephanie do you have the debit card for the post account. Steve just said you did. You need to surrender it”, “I needed to turn that over to John Shipley within 24 hours or I am duty bound to call the police department”, “Don’t test me Stephanie”.
Post Directors had already agreed prior to attending the Post meeting that access would be granted to the Administrative Committee to the Post Website to allow for the review all of AVC’s documents to include all Post Meeting Minutes, Financial Documents and legal filings, however the physical possession of a financial instrument embossed with Steve Mueller’s name was not discussed. The Debit card was not available at the meeting and was routinely kept secured in a lockbox when not in use. It was decided, in the best interests of all involved and to eliminate the debit card from being fraudulently used by the Administrative Committee, it would be returned to the possession of the bank for safekeeping. Since the Post had no monthly costs for operation and to ensure that no funds were moved or used without membership approval or authorization, this was deemed the logical course of action and didn’t by anyway negate any provisions required by the Administrative Committee in Section 211.
6. West, seemingly eager to inject himself into probing the feelings of the membership with the intent to be confrontation and inspire a reaction continued stating; “comrades before we break up I just want to make sure everyone here has an understanding of why we are all here. Yes? No? If you are not clear this is the time to ask. What is this all about? Alright. This is your post. You are an equal owner in everything this post owns. But because you have said you want to be a veterans of foreign wars post there are rules that you have to follow. Those rules are spelled out in the national by-
West probed the Membership until a Vietnam member responded concerning the alleged statements made by Mueller concerning Vietnam era veterans; “I was repeating some allegations that we received from some members directed at Steve. Comments that he had made.”, “I’m not going to go into that cuz, currently because that is still being. I want to say. Investigated because disciplinary action has not been brought against Steve just yet. But there is evidence of that. Of those statements being made repeatedly and on numerous occasions”, “Then I’m going to ask you to get with Steve because I’m sure Steve is going to ask for a defense”, “and he will probably call you as a witness to these events with you with him at the post”
West confirms there is a “Investigation” being conducted into Mueller and that a “disciplinary action” is in progress but has not been initiated as of 01/14/2019.
West conveys “there is evidence” of Mueller making derogatory comments concerning “Vietnam veterans”, however the only “evidence” that implies a negative statement was made is contained in the Atascosa County Post 4853’s signed notarized statements made by Rankin, Hewitt and Edwards, however the statements are generalization that are not specifically directed at anyone and that provide no dates, times or list the name of any Vietnam veterans of whom these statements was allegedly directed to and are completely unsubstantiated. However, in Hewitts statement, Mueller is accused of allegedly attempting to “recruit” a Victor Gaydos (a Vietnam veteran) for membership transfer to Pleasanton (contrary to Rankins accusations). Hewitt then stated that Mueller believed Vietnam Veterans “were incapable of serving the newer generations of combat veteran”, but Mueller not only recruited numerous Vietnam veterans, but had Vietnam veterans serving as officers in Pleasanton. Hewitt & Edwards both stated, “7-
West implies that Mueller will require “witnesses”, as an Article IX Disciplinary Action will occur against Mueller.
8. Reacting to the laughter that erupted after West stated, “So. When that time comes please work with Steve and help him out. Alright. Because we still believe in your innocent until proven guilty. And we still need to go through that process”
West attempts to justify an Article IX Disciplinary Action against Mueller, encouraging Post members “that time comes please work with Steve and help him out”, by implying that the VFW Dept. of Texas “still believe in your innocent until proven guilty”, but even though Mueller is innocent, they “still need to go through that process” of prosecuting him.
9. West snapped at Pino in front of the membership by stating; “ok. Ya! You got removed! Again if you don’t follow the rules of the General. Your in the Army. Your in the Marines. Your in the Navy. Your in the Air force. Your in whatever service branch your in and the General says; you need to do this and you say no I’m not doing it. And it’s lawful for the General to give you that order. How long do you think you are going to stay in command? You’re Not!”.
West, in a complete disassociation with the reality and obviously exhibiting signs of mental illness, believes he is serving in a military combat unit, that Conley is a “General”, conveying that if a member doesn’t “follow the rules of the General”, that member will get “removed” from their “command” by the “General”.
10. When Post members try and correct West and remind him that he is not in the military anymore, he snaps back trying to compare the membership commitment taken for a non-
This is a True, each member took an oath to comply with the VFW National By-
AVC is not a “VFW Post”, a fact known by at least two (2) of the Administrative Committee members (John E. Shipley and Larry L. Sanders), both of whom were present for AVC’s failed Institutions on 09/02/2017 and 09/11/2017.
11. West was informed that Poteet Memorial Post 6970 and Atascosa County Post 4853 were routinely conducting operations in Pleasanton, with West responding, “I’m sorry now. Jourdanton is coming into Pleasanton and doing what?, Are they soliciting funds?, Have you complained about it?, If you complain about it I will guarantee you they will get the same letter your post got”.
West claims, that other Posts would receive the same treatment, however after being notified of this fact on 01/14/2019, neither Poteet Memorial Post 6970, nor Atascosa County Post 4853 were ever subject to or received any Cease-
Membership decided to “canvas the membership” and make a decision on 02/11/2019 (the next scheduled meeting) as to if an election was required. However, at the conclusion of the meeting, Mueller was inundated by requests from numerous Members to terminate the VFW. These requests only grew as more members listed to and reviewed the 11/15/2018 Cease-
POST MEMBERSHIP (UNAWARE OF THE BANK FRAUD) REQUEST SCHEDULING OF MEETING TO DISCUSS BY-
*DENIED BY CONLEY*
CONSPIRACY-
01/08/2019
Administrative Committee (John E. Shipley, Larry L. Sanders and Robert Martinez Jr.), in collaboration with Ingeborg A. Conley and Daniel L. West knowingly and intentionally submitted numerous fabricated and erroneous official VFW documents to Security Service Federal Credit Union (SSFCU) with the intent and effect of first; compel SSFCU to “Freeze” AVC’s accounts and then, with the production of a specific fabricated and erroneous document prepared and signed by Daniel L. West, affect the unlawful removal of Steve Mueller as the accounts signatory and replace Mueller with John E. Shipley without any approval or authorization by Mueller, Post Directors, Officers or Membership authorization. A Criminal act prescribed in 18 US Code § 371 (Conspiracy) and 18 US Code § 1344 (Bank Fraud).
01/05/2019
BANK FRAUD
POST MEMBERSHIP REQUEST SCHEDULING OF SPECIAL MEETING TO TERMINATE THE VFW.
DENIED BY SHIPLEY
01/17/2019
CONSPIRACY-
DA2_00677-
02/06/2019
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
02/11/2019
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
ROY J. GRONA
RETIRES FROM VFW DEPT. OF TEXAS
2019
Email from Mueller to Shipley conveying that Post Membership requested a Special Meeting to TERMINATE the VFW & VFW Dept. of Texas.
CONSPIRACY-
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY-
01/18/2019
After being denied multiple times by Security Service Federal Credit Union (SSFCU), The Administrative Committee (John E. Shipley, Larry L. Sanders and Robert Martinez Jr.), in collaboration with Texas VFW associates Ingeborg A. Conley and Daniel L. West, knowingly and intentionally prepared, signed and submitted additional fabricated and erroneous official appearing VFW documents to SSFCU with the intent and effect of the unlawful removal of Steve Mueller as AVC’s accounts signatory and the replacement of Mueller with John E. Shipley without any approval or authorization by Mueller, Post Directors, Officers or Membership.
Included is a document prepared and signed by Daniel L. West, specifically created to affect Bank Fraud. Additionally, a Fraudulent “VFW Articles of Incorporation” for AVC, that was never utilized in or filed with any government entity including the Texas Secretary of State in the Incorporation of AVC. These fraudulent documents were knowingly and intentionally provided to SSFCU with the goal of unlawfully taking control of and gaining access to AVC’s financial accounts in order to use the information garnered to commit additional nefarious acts. A Criminal act, prescribed in 18 US Code § 371 (Conspiracy) and 18 US Code § 1344 (Bank Fraud) and as prescribd in Texas Penal Code § 71.02 (Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity).
BANK FRAUD
With the revelation of 01/19/2019, whereas John E. Shipley illegally obtained, possessed and transmitted AVC’s Financial documents, unlawfully acquired by SSFCU, to other members of the Administrative Committee (Larry L. Sanders and Robert Martinez Jr.), the Texas VFW and fellow coconspirators Ingeborg A. Conley, Daniel L. West, Roy J. Grona and Andrew F. Camplen, it became known that AVC had an account balance of $266.35 and no real property or assets. A fact that was already documented and reflected in all five (5) of AVC’s previously filed signed Trustee Audit Reports submitted to and received by the Texas VFW between 09/11/2017 and 01/14/2019. The Texas VFW leadership, accepting the fact that the Department had expended a large amount of, what now is confirmed to be “un-
01/19/2019
USING THE POST MINUTES AND BANK STATEMENTS (UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED IN BANK FRAUD), VFW DEPT. OF TEXAS FABRICATE CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS OF FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT
PINO ADDED
The Dept of Texas elected to add additional Charges and Specifications to Mueller’s pending Article IX Disciplinary Action, that had originally begun on 11/30/2018 and dealt with “behavior” and “geographic area” and now, in addition to Mueller, erroneously Charged Stephanie Pino (as she was listed as the Post Adjutant/ Quartermaster and in charge of the Meeting Minutes and Accounts), using the Post meeting minutes, Bank statements and under the guise that these documents in some way don’t “reflect membership approval for expenditures”, as a justifying narrative that confirmed that both Mueller and Pino had intentionally and criminally “Misappropriated” Post funds.
On this basis alone, the VFW Dept. of Texas initiated an Article IX Disciplinary Action against both Mueller and Pino with the 02/06/2019 publications of Special Order No. 18 (to Mueller) and Special Order No. 19 (to Pino), accusing Mueller of Misappropriation of “$9,751.02” and Pino of Misappropriation of “$4,987.57” of Post funds, among numerous other frivolous accusations, fulfilling the first prerequisite for filing a Fraudulent Insurance Claim with the intent and purpose of affecting a maximum payout of the Posts Insurance Bond.
Later Depositions taken from John E. Shipley, Larry L. Sanders, Roy J. Grona and Andrew F. Camplen in 2024 further indicated that no “Investigation” was conducted to substantiate any allegation being made in Special Orders No’s 18 or 19, by the VFW Dept. Of Texas Adjutant(s) Roy J. Grona and/ or Daniel L. West, for “Misappropriation” of Post funds in the Disciplinary Actions. In fact, Shipley, Sanders, Grona and Camplen, all confirmed that the allegation that Mueller and Pino Misappropriated Post funds was made exclusively by Daniel L. West. AVC’s three (3) Post Trustees have all submitted signed statements confirming that; 1) the Trustees were “never contacted by the Investigative Committee made up of VFW Department of Texas Quartermaster/ Adjutant Dan West & Assistant Adjutant Andrew Camplen”, 2) the Trustees were “never contacted or questioned by the Administrative Committee made up of VFW Department of Texas District 20 & Post 6970 Commander John Shipley, VFW Department of Texas Inspector & Post 2059 Post Commander Robert Martinez Jr. or Post 12041 Post Commander Larry Sanders”, 3) that “Pleasanton VFW Post 12162 financial records are accurate and reflect transactions authorized by the members” and 4) requesting the National VFW Commander-
CONSPIRACY
Disciplinary Action against Steve Mueller:
DA-
o Does not have the “Signed Incident Report(s)” or the “Investigative Report” attached as required.
DA-
o Charge 1, Specification 1-
o Charge 2, Specification 1-
o Charge 3, Specification 1
o Charge 4, Specification 1-
o Charge 5, Specification 1-
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Charges 1 -
FACTS
*The accuser was Roy J. Grona.
*No Signed Incident Report or appropriate documentation was submitted to Ingeborg Conley by the Accuser.
*No reasonable grounds exist to believe that an offense has been committed.
*No Investigation has ever been conducted by the VFW or VFW Dept. Of Texas.
*Mueller was NOT the Post Commander of Post 4853 for the 2017-
*No Post Officer or Post Members has ever complained about Financial Misconduct by Mueller.
*None of the Post Trustees, Officers or Members have been interviewed concerning Financial Misconduct.
*Mueller is the only Post Signatory listed on any Post accounts at SSFCU.
*ALL Debit Cards issued by SSFCU are in Mueller’s name and control.
*Mueller is accused of misappropriating $9,751.02.
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
02/09/2019
CONSPIRACY
Disciplinary Action against Stephanie Pino:
DA-
o Does not have the “Signed Incident Report(s)” or the “Investigative Report” attached as required.
DA-
o Charge 1, Specification 1-
o Charge 2, Specification 1-
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Charges 1 -
FACTS
*The accuser was Roy J. Grona.
*No Signed Incident Report or appropriate documentation was submitted to Ingeborg Conley by the Accuser.
*No reasonable grounds exist to believe that an offense has been committed.
*No Investigation has ever been conducted by the VFW or VFW Dept. Of Texas.
*No Post Officer or Post Members has ever complained about Financial Misconduct by Pino.
*None of the Post Trustees, Officers or Members have been interviewed concerning Financial Misconduct.
*Pino is NOT nor has ever been listed on the Post Financial accounts at SSFCU.
*Pino has never been issued a Debit Card from SSFCU.
*Pino is accused of misappropriating $4,987.57.
At some point on or after 11/15/2018, John E. Shipley, acting deceptively under the guise of his District 20 capacity, contacted, interviewed and solicited email statements from Atascosa County Post 4853 Officers: Jeff C. Rankin, Patricia S. Hewitt and Douglas P. Edwards. Subsequently, all three complied with Shipleys request. After obtaining and sharing the emails with Dan West, Shipley, possibly acting on instructions from Dan West, Ingeborg A. Conley or Roy J. Grona, requested the statements be Signed and notarized. Believing the Statements were being used in the ongoing AOR dispute, all three Post 4853 Officers (Rankin, Hewitt and Edwards) complied, by mutually meeting together on 11/28/2018, to have their statements notarized by Sandra G. Holland (Notary Public ID 433588). According to Hewitt, within 24 to 48 hours after being notarized, the Post 4853 Officers physically delivered the Statements to John E. Shipley. Shipley stated, “I looked at them, yes. And then I forwarded them to Dan West” [p.102.L.6-
TAKEN FROM JOHN E. SHIPLEY DEPOSITION OF 04/24/2024 (Deposition Transcript)
Shipley’s comments regarding Patricia S. Hewitt's Signed Notarized Statement. (PPD_00157-
1. Did she produce that at your request?
Shipley responded; “No, sir” [p.97.L.16]
2. Do you know why she produced it?
Shipley responded; “I don't know why but I believe it was due to the interview that I had with her on Mr. Mueller about the problem with the fundraising” [p.97.L.19-
3. Your testimony is that Exhibit Number 28 (PPD_00157-
Shipley responded; “Not that I know of, no” [p.99.L.2]
4. Do you have any idea why she would put together this statement and swear to it?
Shipley responded; “No, sir, I don't” [p.99.L.6]
5. Did you receive the original of it?
Shipley responded; “Did I receive the original? Yes, sir. And I forwarded it to the department” [p.99.L.9-
6. Who at department did you send it to?
Shipley responded; “To the adjutant general, Dan West” [p.99.L.12]
7. Did he respond to you when you sent it to him?
Shipley responded; “I am sure he did respond saying that he received it” [p.99.L.14-
8. But that's it? He just received it?
Shipley responded; “As far as I know” [p.99.L.1]
Shipley’s comments regarding Post 4853’s Officers Signed Notarized Statements.
1. Let me show you what has been marked as Exhibit 29 (PPD_00155-
Shipley responded; “Yes, sir” [p.100.L.16]
2. What is that?
Shipley responded; “It is a statement by Jeff Rankin about Mr. Mueller” [p.100.L.18-
3. Was that a result of your interview with Mr. Rankin?
Shipley responded; “Not that I know of” [p.100.L.22]
4. Did you ask him to prepare this statement?
Shipley responded; “I never asked for -
5. But you received this original?
Shipley responded; “Yes, sir” [p.101.L.2]
6. Did you include it in your report to the department?
Shipley responded; “I forwarded all statements in my report to Dan West, yes” [p.101.L.5-
7. So Exhibits 28 and 29 were included in your incident report?
Shipley responded; “I'm sorry?” Yeah. You said it wasn't an incident report; right?, “No, it was a 710 inspection report that I forwarded to Mr. Dan West. These were also forwarded to Dan West” [p.101.L.12-
9. After you got these statements, Exhibits 28 (PPD_00157-
Shipley responded; “No, sir” [p.102.L.4]
10. Did you review them?
Shipley responded; “I looked at them, yes. And then I forwarded them to Dan West” [p.102.L.6-
11. In your opinion, were they relevant to your report?
Shipley responded; “My report was about instances at Post 12162 and their paperwork. So no, they were not relevant to my report” [p.102.L.11-
12. I'm sorry. What was that last part?
Shipley responded; “No, not to my report, the 710 inspection, no” [p.102.L.16]
13. But they weren't relevant to your report. Why did you include them to the package to Dan West?
Shipley responded; “Because when I received them, I put it all together and sent it to Dan West” [p.102.L.19-
However, the evidence and witness testimony confirms John E. Shipley is lying.
Shipley not only intentionally and deliberately solicited the statements from Rankin, Hewitt and Edwards, but after Hewitt and Edwards statements had been emailed to him, Shipley then requested that Rankin, Hewitt and Edwards Sign and Notarize their statements and physically deliver them to him. Again, all three Post 4853 Officers complied and all three Notarized Statements were submitted and used by John E. Shipley. Shipley’s coconspirators Ingeborg A. Conley, Roy J. Grona and Dan L. West had no other intention, other than using the statements as “Signed Incident Report(s)”. Whereas, according to Section 903 of the VFW National By-
Shipley stated in his 11/30/2018 “Investigative Report” (PPD_00150) submitted to Ingeborg A. Conley, allegedly accomplished in his District 20 Commander capacity, that he; “conducted interviews with the following members of Post 4853” and lists “Jeff Rankin”, “Doug Edwards” and “Patricia Hewitt”, along with their titles in the report. Shipley states: “I ask them to provide written statements”, and “The statements have been signed and notarized”. Shipley concluded that “After completing the interviews and from own experience with Comrade Mueller, I feel that Article IX Disciplinary Action is warranted”. Recommending a Article IX Disciplinary Action clearly indicates this report is an “Investigative Report” for a Disciplinary Proceeding.
As Patricia S. Hewitt (Deposed as an officer of Atascosa County VFW Post 4853) later stated, after being asked if she believed the statements might be used in a disciplinary proceeding; “No”, “we did not institute disciplinary actions on Mr. Mueller while he was a member of our Post”, “it would have had to have occurred, because they were actions in our Post that would have had to bring the disciplinary actions under Article 9 of the National Bylaws. We did not” and “If we instituted an Article 9 Disciplinary Action, it would have been done within our post”.
Hewitt is correct. A District Commander fulfills an administrative role only. As prescribed in Section 903 of the VFW National By-
A statement being made to a District Commander, is that. A statement. Even though Shipley requested the statements be signed and notarized, without providing a reason, in no way could be interpreted by the publisher as a request to provide a “Signed Incident Report”, or in any way elevate the act of producing the statement to satisfy Shipleys request, to level of being a “Signed Incident Report” for an Article IX Disciplinary Action. Section 903 is specific on this.
The evidence and testimony collected supports the narrative that; Shipley, acting in the best interests of Poteet Post 6970, solicited the statements from Post 4853 officers under the pretense the were needed in the ongoing AOR debate, who otherwise would have never provided them. Post 4853 Officers confirmed they had no knowledge of how the statements would be subsequently used, but in this case Shipley and others used them as the “Signed Incident Report(s)” in an article IX Disciplinary Action against Mueller. If the statements were intentionally published with the intent to be used as “Signed Incident Report(s)”, the statements would have had to been submitted to the “Post Commander” of Post 4853 (Rankin), or a “Department Commander” or the “Commander-
Shipley is the District Commander. Shipley’s solicitation of Post 4853’s statements with the intent to use them in an Article IX Disciplinary Action without Rankin, Hewitt or Edwards knowledge is deceptive and improper. The statements subsequent fraudulent use as “Signed Incident Report(s)” in an erroneous Article IX disciplinary action, was a nefarious malicious act and conspiracy, most likely entirely perpetrated by Poteet Memorial Post 6970 Commander John E. Shipley and VFW Dept. of Texas Officers Daniel L. West, Ingeborg A. Conley and Roy J. Grona, that was both intentional and deliberate, but may have also been partly influenced from their own deficient and inadequate comprehension of Article IX of the VFW National By-
ATASCOSA COUNTY POST 4853 (Patricia S. Hewitt representing)
TAKEN FROM ATASCOSA COUNTY POST 4853 DEPOSITION OF 08/27/2024 (Deposition Transcript)
On 08/27/2024, Representing Post 4853, Patricia S. Hewitt was interviewed about the signed notarized statements (PPD_00155-
When asked:
1. Did someone ask you to write up a statement?
Hewitt responded; “I already stated that I was asked for this statement by Mr. Shipley, the District Commander at the time.” [p.20.L.14-
2. In what capacity did you make this statement?
Hewitt responded; “As a officer of the Post and as a witness to several incidents that are mentioned in my sworn statement.” [p.20.L.20-
3. You said you typed that one yourself; is that correct?
Hewitt responded; “That's correct” [p.20.L.21]
4. And you said you did it at the request of Commander Shipley, right?
Hewitt responded; “Correct” [p.20.L.21]
5. At the time, he was the Commander of District 20?
Hewitt responded; “Correct” [p.21.L.12]
6. Do you know if Commander Shipley asked for a statement from Mr. Rankin?
Hewitt responded; “Yes” [p.22.L.3]
7. How do you know that?
Hewitt responded; “Because I was there when he asked for it” [p.22.L.5]
8. I'm going to show you what's been marked as Deposition Exhibit Number 30 (PPD_00160-
Hewitt responded; “This is the sworn statement of Douglas Edwards, the Quartermaster at that time” [p.22.L.19-
9. The question was, have you ever seen it before.
Hewitt responded; “Yes” [p.22.L.23]
10. ·What was the circumstances of you seeing that document before?
Hewitt responded; “We all submitted our documents at the same time” [p.23.L.1-
11. To Commander Shipley?
Hewitt responded; “Yes” [p.23.L.4]
12. But you don't recall where that was?
Hewitt responded; “We submitted them via e-
13. So, these -
Hewitt responded; “And then we also provided a paper copy because we have to sign them” [p.23.L.9-
14. How did he get the paper copy? Was he present and you handed it to him?
Hewitt responded; “How else am I su-
15. As opposed to mailing it to him is the point. You were -
Hewitt responded; “I don't recall it being a meeting, but we did hand them to him” [p.23.L.17-
16. Did Mr. Edwards and Mr. Rankin hand theirs to him at the same time you did?
Hewitt responded; “Yes” [p.23.L.21]
17. Was anybody else present at that meeting?
Hewitt responded; “I don't recall” [p.23.L.24]
18. What was your understanding of how that document was going to be used?
Hewitt responded; “I was asked for it. How it was going to be used, I had no clue” [p.24.L.4-
19. Were you given any kind of reasons from Commander Shipley as to why he wanted them?
Hewitt responded; “No” [p.24.L.8]
20. Did you ever hear from Commander Shipley again after you gave him the statement?
Hewitt responded; “No. Not with regarding to this subject” [p.24.L.11]
21. Do you have any idea how these statements got from Commander Shipley's hands, when you delivered it to him, into the hands of the Pleasanton Police Department?
Hewitt responded; “No, I do not” [p.26.L.20]
22. Do you think anybody else at the Post would -
Hewitt responded; “No, I do not” [p.26.L.24]
23. Ms. Hewitt, does each post have an area of its responsibility as opposed to other posts?
Hewitt responded; “Not really” [p.25.L.2]
24. So, Post 4853 doesn't have a geographic area that's assigned to it?
Hewitt responded; “I would say no” [p.25.L.5]
25. Were you present when that document was notarized?
Hewitt responded; “Yes” [p.31.L.10]
26. Take a look at Exhibit 29. Were you present when that one was notarized?
Hewitt responded; “Yes” [p.31.L.15]
27. Was it notarized about the same time as – as Exhibit 28 (PPD_00155-
Hewitt responded; “Yes” [p.31.L.18]
28. How about Exhibit 30, was it notarized about the same time? Were you present when that one was taken?
Hewitt responded; “Yes” [p.31.L.21]
29. Were they notarized the same time they were signed?
Hewitt responded; “Yes. They would have to be for it to be notarized.” [p.31.L.24-
30. So you and Rankin and Edwards were all in the same room when you signed them and when they were notarized, correct?
Hewitt responded; “Correct” [p.32.L.4]
31. Was Commander Shipley in the same room, as well?
Hewitt responded; “No” [p.32.L.7]
32. So how long after they were signed did you hand them to Commander Shipley?
Hewitt responded; “I'm not sure. 24 or 48 hours” [p.32.L.10]
33. Did he come to Atascosa County to collect them?
Hewitt responded; “I don't remember” [p.32.L.12]
34. Did you travel to him to deliver them?
Hewitt responded; “Possibly” [p.32.L.14]
35. Okay. So you handed those to Commander Shipley. That's what you testified to earlier, correct?
Hewitt responded; “Yes” [p.37.L.15]
36. And at the time, he was District 20 Commander, correct?
Hewitt responded; “Correct” [p.37.L.18]
37. So if Commander Shipley had told us that records from the District and the Department are sent to National, would it surprise you to know that those documents, Exhibits 28 (PPD_00155-
Hewitt responded; “I'm not sure how to -
38. Well, they're official documents of the Post. You already testified to that, correct?
Hewitt responded; “No. They were our sworn statements to the District Commander about activ-
39. When you made the statements and you handed them to Commander Shipley, what was your understanding of how they would be used?
Hewitt responded; “They asked for us; we provided. We made true statements.” [p.38.L.12-
40. My question is, what was your understanding of how the statements were going to be used and for what purpose?
Hewitt responded; “We had -
41. Did you -
Hewitt responded; “No” [p.38.L.22]
42. Why not?
Hewitt responded; “Because we did not institute disciplinary actions on Mr. Mueller while he was a member of our Post.” [p.38.L.24-
43. So in order for a disciplinary proceeding to take place that had to do with Post 4853, someone at Post 4853 would have to initiate that disciplinary action.
Hewitt responded; “To the best of my knowledge and understanding of the National Bylaws, yes” [p.39.L.9-
TAKEN FROM JEFF C RANKIN’S DEPOSITION OF 09/30/2024 (Deposition Transcript)
On 09/30/2024, Jeff C Rankin was interviewed about her signed notarized statements (PPD_00155-
When asked:
1. Speaking of Exhibit 29 (PPD_00155-
Rankin responded; “Yes, sir” [p.12.L.24]
2. Did Mr. Shipley tell you why he wanted you to prepare that statement?
Rankin responded; “Shipley discussed with us the individuals that we had -
3. Mr. Shipley was the district commander at the time; right?
Rankin responded; “Yes, sir” [p.13.L.23]
4. Okay. In that capacity you went to him with problems that you had with Mr. Mueller?
Rankin responded; “Yes, sir” [p.13.L.24-
6. And he said, "That's all well and good, but please put it in writing for me"?
Rankin responded; “Correct” [p.14.L.4]
7. Is that essentially what he said?
Rankin responded; “Yes, sir” [p.14.L.5]
8. Okay.· And this statement, Exhibit 29 (PPD_00155-
Rankin responded; “Yes, sir” [p.14.L.7-
9. Okay. When you -
Rankin responded; “Yes, sir. I did” [p.14.L.13]
10. Do you know what he did with it after that?
Rankin responded; “No, sir. I do not” [p.14.L.15]
11. What was your intent when you gave it to him?
Rankin responded; “The -
12. When you gave it to Mr. Shipley, did you hand it to him?
Rankin responded; “In person. Yes, sir” [p.15.L.9]
13. Was it right about November of 2018?
Rankin responded; “Yes, sir. It was in November of 2018. I do remember that.” [p.14.L.22-
14. Did you discuss your statement with anybody else before you typed it up and signed it?
Rankin responded; “No, sir. I did not” [p.14.L.20-
15. Did you talk to Patricia Hewitt about her statement?
Rankin responded; “No, sir. I did not” [p.14.L.12]
16. Do you talk to Doug -
Rankin responded; “No, sir. I did not” [p.14.L.15]
17. Were you aware that they made statements similar to this?
Rankin responded; “I was aware they made statements. I do not know what they put in their statements.” [p.14.L.18-
18. Were you present when they gave their statements to Mr. Shipley?
Rankin responded; “I do not recall who all was at that meeting.” [p.14.L.22]
19. Do you know what happened as a result of you making this statement to Mr. Mueller?
Rankin responded; “No, sir. I do not” [p.30.L.9]
20. Do you have any knowledge of this statement being used in any disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Mueller?
Rankin responded; “No, sir. I do not” [p.30.L.13]
21. Did you authorize it to be used in any disciplinary proceedings?
Rankin responded; “I provided the statement to John Shipley for his use for what we were doing for the county -
22. What did you expect Mr. Shipley to do with your statement?
Rankin responded; “To help draw the lines for the Pleasanton post and Jourdanton post” [p.30.L.21-
23. Was there ever a meeting subsequent to this statement to discuss that issue?
Rankin responded; “Not that I recall” [p.30.L.25]
24. Did you ever ask for one?
Rankin responded; “No, sir. I did not” [p.31.L.2]
25. Why not?
Rankin responded; “Because at that time after that the Pleasanton post was disbanded” [p.31.L.4-
26. He didn't need it then?
Rankin responded; “That is correct” [p.31.L.7]
27. is there any complaint in there about fundraising activities by the Pleasanton post?
Rankin responded; “No, sir. There is not” [p.31.L.11]
28. Did you have any complaints about Mr. Mueller about his fundraising activity?
Rankin responded; “In this written statement, no, sir” [p.31.L.14]
TAKEN FROM PATRICIA S. HEWITT’S DEPOSITION OF 10/04/2024 (Deposition Transcript)
On 10/04/2024, Patricia S. Hewitt was interviewed about her signed notarized statements (PPD_00157-
When asked:
1. When you signed and delivered Exhibit 28 (PPD_00157-
Hewitt responded; “The district 20 commander John Shipley” [p.35.L.2]
2. What was your intent in handing in that statement?
Hewitt responded; “To provide factual evidence on Mr. Mueller's conduct as a member of our post and commander.” [p.35.L.5-
3. When you signed it and handed that to Mr. Shipley, did you intend that Mr. Mueller would be the subject of an investigation that investigated your statement?
Hewitt responded; “No” [p.35.L.12]
4. Why not?
Hewitt responded; “We did not know what was being asked of us at the time. We were asked for a statement. We provided a statement” [p.35.L.14-
5. Who asked you for the statement?
Hewitt responded; “Commander Shipley” [p.35.L.18]
6. But for the request from Mr. Shipley, would you have created and signed Exhibit 28 (PPD_00157-
Hewitt responded; “No” [p.35.L.23]
7. What was his role at the time?
Hewitt responded; “He was the district commander” [p.35.L.25]
8. What were his specific instructions to you?
Hewitt responded; “I need a statement about commander – excuse me, Comrade Mueller's conduct as a member of your post and as commander” [p.36.L.2-
9. Before he made that request of you to create Exhibit 28 (PPD_00157-
Hewitt responded; “Not that I recall” [p.36.L.11]
10. How would he know that you had a complaint about Mr. Mueller if you didn't tell him?
Hewitt responded; “We had had some discussion with the prior district commander and we were given some advice. We moved on.” [p.36.L.14-
11. Who was the prior district commander?
Hewitt responded; “Jesse Dominguez” [p.36.L.18]
12. You just said we. Who's we?
Hewitt responded; “Myself, Douglas Edwards, and Jeff Rankin” [p.36.L.20]
13. What were the nature of those conversations with Mr. Dominguez?
Hewitt responded; “Concerns on handling some issues we had with Comrade Mueller at the time and what would be the best way in handling it” [p.36.L.23-
14. What kind of issues?
Hewitt responded; “As discussed in our statements” [p.37.L.1]
15. The prior discussions about Mr. Mueller with Commander Dominguez, did any of those conversations have to do with areas of responsibility from the post?
Hewitt responded; “I'm not following you on what you mean by areas of responsibility” [p.37.L.9-
16. When y'all met with Commander Dominguez – and you being Hewitt, Edwards, and Rankin -
Hewitt responded; “Yes” [p.38.L.2]
17. It was complaints about your commander at the time?
Hewitt responded; “Yes” [p.38.L.3-
18. By having that meeting, what did you hope to accomplish?
Hewitt responded; “We wanted advice on how to work out issues that we had with Commander Mueller in the best interest of the post.” [p.38.L.8-
19. Did you expect that Commander Dominguez would initiate an investigation of Comrade Mueller?
Hewitt responded; “No” [p.38.L.13]
20. Why not?
Hewitt responded; “We didn't ask for one” [p.38.L.15]
21. You had the one meeting with Commander Dominguez, correct?
Hewitt responded; “Correct” [p.38.L.18]
22. Is the next time you heard about this when Commander Shipley contacted you about creating a written statement?
Hewitt responded; “He contacted us for a written statement, yes” [p.38.L.25]
23. About how long was it between those two -
Hewitt responded; “Maybe a year if my timing is right” [p.39.L.4]
24. The statement is dated November 24th, 2018 and notarized that same -
Hewitt responded; “Yes” [p.39.L.11]
25. Did he ask you for a written statement?
Hewitt responded; “Yes” [p.39.L.16]
26. Did he say why?
Hewitt responded; “No” [p.39.L.19]
27. Before you made the statement that's listed under Exhibit 28 (PPD_00157-
Hewitt responded; “No” [p.41.L.11-
The VFW Dept. of Texas Commander Ingeborg A. Conley and her staff; Roy J. Grona and Daniel L. West conspired with Poteet Memorial Post 6970 Commander John E. Shipley to development a completely erroneous narrative, including knowingly and intentionally preparing, signing and ordering others (Jeff C Rankin, Patricia S. Hewitt and Douglas P. Edwards) to prepare, sign and submit statements later used, without their knowledge or consent, in a Fraudulent Article IX Disciplinary Action against Steve Mueller and Stephanie Pino. Specifically, Ingeborg A. Conley, Roy J. Grona, Daniel L. West and John E. Shipley conspired and collaborated to use Atascosa County Post 4853 officers Jeff C. Rankin, Patricia S. Hewitt and Douglas P. Edwards signed notarized statements, prepared, signed and submitted upon the request of John E. Shipley, as the initiating documents or the “Signed Incident Report(s)” that justified Conley’s to appoint Shipley to “Investigate” the very allegations and Claims made in the statements.
The evidence and witness testimony in 2024 confirms that;
1. The statements published by Jeff C. Rankin, Patricia S. Hewitt and Douglas P. Edwards were;
a. Not produced or intended to be used in Article IX Disciplinary Action.
b. Not “Signed Incident Report(s)”
c. Never submitted to a Department Commander or Commander-
d. Were specifically solicited by John E. Shipley
e. Believed to be requested for purposes related to the ongoing AOR debate between Post 4858, 6970 and AVC (aka Post 12162).
2. That there was NO justification or “reasonable grounds” for Ingeborg A. Conley to conclude that an offense had occurred that warranted the appointment of a “Investigator” or an “Investigative Report”.
3. That the Special-
4. That a conspiracy existed between Ingeborg A. Conley, Roy J. Grona, Daniel L. West and John E. Shipley to create the required documents to justify a fraudulent and erroneous Article IX Disciplinary Action against Mueller and Pino.
As prescribed in Section 903 of the VFW National By-
1. the “accuser(s)” is defined as member(s) that have submitted a “Signed Incident Report(s)” to either a Post Commander, Department Commander or the VFW National Commander-
The “Accuser(s)”:
a. Is NOT asked or requested by anyone to be the “accuser”.
b. is NOT “appointed by a Commander” to investigate their own allegations.
c. does NOT act as the “Investigator”.
d. does NOT review evidence.
e. does NOT prepare, publish or submit an “Investigative Report”.
f. does NOT recommend if a “Article IX Disciplinary Action is warranted” to any Commander.
g. does NOT prepare the “Charges and Specifications (DA-
h. does NOT sign the “Charges and Specifications (DA-
i. HAS Personal Knowledge of the allegations being made in the “Signed Incident Report(s)”.
ACCUSER
Roy J. Grona was NOT the “accuser” in special-
1. The evidence and witness testimony clearly confirms that Roy J. Grona never submitted a “Signed Incident Report” to VFW Dept. of Texas Commander Ingeborg A. Conley regarding any of the Charges or Specifications listed on Special Order No. 18 or 19. This action is mandatory and required by Section 903 of the VFW National By-
2. Concerning the Charges and Specifications listed in Special-
3. Grona stated that he had personal knowledge of Charge 1 Specifications 1-
4. Grona stated that he had personal knowledge of Charge 2 Specifications 1-
a. Grona does have personal knowledge of a geographic area dispute, as he attested to Conley’s order of 11/15/2018, that fraudulently attempted to “define” it as the city limits of Pleasanton. However, if we are to assume that the 11/15/2018 letter was valid and actually defined the “geographic area of VFW Post 12162”, and assuming a Department Commander is permitted to “Define” a Posts “geographic area”, and also assuming Post 12162 existed as a VFW Post and was subject to the managerial control of a Department Commander or VFW National By-
5. When asked if Grona had personal knowledge of Charge 3, Grona stated; “I didn't have personal knowledge of that one. No”. When asked if Grona had personal knowledge of Charge 4, Grona stated; “I had no personal knowledge of those”. When asked if Grona had personal knowledge of Charge 5, Grona stated; “I did not have personal knowledge on any of those”.
a. Charge 5 contained 119 Specifications taken directly from AVC’s Bank statements. Grona did confirm he received “About 200 pages worth of stuff” from “Dan West” and only Dan West and stated that Dan West “called me and asked me to take a look at all the evidence and sign as the accuser” and when asked what Dan West sent him, Grona stated; “There was about -
If Roy J. Grona wasn’t the “accuser”, then who was?
We now know that the Jeff C. Rankin, Patricia S. Hewitt and Douglas P. Edwards are not the “accusers”, as they stated the Signed notarized statements they published were; 1) solicited by John E. Shipley, 2) submitted to John E. Shipley and 3) created for the on going AOR Dispute. Rankin, Hewitt and Edwards would have had to create the documents for the purpose of being used in a Article IX Disciplinary Action and would have to have had submitted the documents directly to a Department Commander for them to be considered or used as the “Signed Incident Reports”.
So, if neither Roy J. Grona, nor Rankin, Hewitt or Edwards was the “accuser”. Was John E. Shipley the “accuser”?
Shipley submitted an email to Ingeborg A. Conley on 11/15/2018 titled “HELP” (PPD_00080-
Grona seems to be aware of the steps in a Disciplinary Process, as he stated, “Basically an incident report is if you have something that happens in your post or district, you normally do an incident report. The basis of most investigations start with an incident report, where somebody reported a violation of the bylaws or it could even be like a canteen issue or a bar issue or somebody got rowdy, well, the bartender will do an incident report stating what that was. So, it's basically the first form you use to initiate that type of action. If you're going to do a formal action against a VFW member, you have to start with an incident report”, but when considering Grona’s actions in this case, does not seem to understand that it is the “Accuser” that submits the initial “Signed Incident Report” to the “Initiating Officer”. In this case to VFW Department of Texas Commander Ingeborg A. Conley, who was the “Initiating Officer” in the Disciplinary Actions against Mueller and Pino. If neither Grona nor Shipley are the “accusers”, and it would have been a requirement for an accuser to submit a “Signed Incident Report” to Ingeborg A. Conley to “to initiate that type of action”, then who is the “accuser” concerning Special Order No. 18 and 19?
Furthermore, The VFW National By-
As Prescribed in Section 903(b) of the Manual of Procedures, “How To Initiate. Charges and Specifications shall be signed by the Initiating Officer and attested to by the Adjutant and shall include a copy of the incident report”. There is no requirement for the “Accuser” to sign Form DA-
Grona was asked if Dan West was the “Investigator” for Special Order No. 18 and 19 and Grona responded; “No. He was the adjutant quartermaster. He needed somebody to sign the charges and specifications as an accuser. Okay? Normally the accuser was the adjutant quartermaster, but in this case Dan was involved in it so much, he thought it would be better if he had a disinterested party basically sign as the accuser. But the accuser can be anybody. Doesn't have to be a VFW officer”. While it is true, the “accuser” can be any VFW member, there is no requirement for the “to sign the charges and specifications”. That action is improper. When asked who the Investigator was, Grona stated; “John Shipley I believe was the investigator”. Grona stated; “Because I know the people and I know Dan West. They're not liars. They sent me the stuff. I looked at it. I had knowledge on some of them, knowledge on some others I did not. But I had enough faith in the officers of the VFW that -
CONSPIRACY
Indeed, Grona was a party to the Conspiracy to bring a Fraudulent Disciplinary Action against Mueller, ever sense Mueller had announced his candidacy for Department Quartermaster. A decision that was discussed with both Grona on 07/17/2018 (VFWP_00846-
On 11/30/2018, the coconspirators at Poteet Memorial VFW Post 6970 (led by John E. Shipley) and the VFW Department of Texas (Ingeborg A. Conley, Roy J. Grona & Daniel L. West) decided to collaborate on “digging up evidence” to justify an Article IX Disciplinary Action against Mueller, at first using the ongoing AOR dispute, but later expanding to imply additional malicious and false allegations, completely invented by Conley, West, Shipley and Grona.
In an email exchange on 11/30/2018 (DA2_00945) it is clear that no “Signed Incident Reports” were submitted to the VFW Department of Texas Ingeborg A. Conley that justified the appointment of Shipley as an investigator, nor was an investigation conducted. Instead, Conley, Shipley, Grona and West all conspired to knowingly and intentionally and prepare and sign an erroneous Appointment Letter from Conley to Shipley and a falsified Investigative Report. With the Appointment Letter (), being backdated to allow for the unauthorized use of Post 4853 Officer’s signed notarized statements of Rankin, Hewitt and Edwards. Statements solicited by Shipley under the guise of being used in the ongoing AOR dispute. Under Gronas’s guidance and advice, Grona falsified and backdated Conley’s Appointment letter to reflect the erroneous issue date of “11/16/2018” in order to make it appear that the appointment letter was issued in response to Rankin, Hewitt’s and Edwards signed notarized statements. With the intentional backdating of the appointment letter (PPD_00083) being necessary so a fake narrative could be invented to justify a Article IX disciplinary Action, specifically for the appointment of an Investigator (Shipley) and publication of Shipleys erroneous, malicious and Fake “Investigative Report” (PPD_00150).
When confronted with overwhelming prove that Grona conspired with West, Conley and Shipley to knowingly and intentionally falsified and fabricated official VFW Documents in connection with the initiation of an Article IX Disciplinary action against Mueller, Grona first instinct was to deny he backdated Conley’s Appointment letter by stating; “If it does not have the adjutant's signature on it, it's not an official document”. Implying that if its not signed by the Adjutant (and he didn’t sign it), it “was not an official document”. When asked to confirm that was indeed his testimony, that the Appointment Letter dated 11/16/2018, was indeed a “unofficial” VFW document, Grona responded in frustration “I typed that letter; okay? I don't recall it. You know, a lot of our state commanders, they don't do any of the admin work. They just tell the adjutant what they want, type a letter and send it to them. So, I don't recall specifically that letter, but it was probably me that wrote it.”. When asked even though it's on -
CONCLUSION
The evidence and witness testimony confirms that VFW Dept. of Texas Ingeborg A. Conley NEVER received any “Signed Incident Report(s)” from anyone concerning any complaints regarding Steve Mueller.
That the Appointment Letter from Conley to Shipley (believed to be in response to complaints received from Rankin, Hewitt and Edwards) was issued on 11/16/2018 and according to Grona, who prepared it, stated it is NOT an “official” document of the VFW.
That Shipley, after being instructed by Conley to do so, upon receipt of this “unofficial” VFW document authored by Grona, conducted an Investigation as it directions him to do, into the allegations apparently made by Rankin, Hewitt and Edwards (the alleged “accusers”), by interviewing them and requesting they submit signed notarized statements concerning their allegations.
And That Shipley then published an “Investigation Report”, that specifically recommended an Article IX Disciplinary Action be initiated against Steve Mueller.
There NEVER was a legitimate complaint. There NEVER was an “Accuser”. Conley NEVER received any “Signed Incident Reports(s)”. The Appointment Letter of 11/16/2018, prepared by Grona, submitted from Conley to Shipley was NOT an “official” document of the VFW, making the subsequent “Investigative Report”, published by Shipley, a knowingly intentional falsified report made in connection with and for the sole purpose of justifying the erroneous initiation of a fraudulent Article IX Disciplinary Action against Steve Mueller.
TAKEN FROM ROY J. GRONA DEPOSITION OF 10/05/2024 (Deposition Transcript)
10/17/2017
ACCUSATION-
1. Have you ever seen that e-
Grona responded; “Yes, I remember that” [p.12.L.5]
2. What's the nature of that e-
Grona responded; “Well, I had a call late one night, basically, from a Special Forces retired warrant officer in San Antonio that told me one of our state officers was on Facebook, making disrespectful comments towards the 10th Special Forces Group” [p.12.L.8-
3. Who allegedly made those statements?
Grona responded; “Allegedly, it was Steve Mueller” [p.12.L.14]
4. Did you inquire about the nature of the allegation?
Grona responded; “I talked to Steve, asked him what was going on. He told me he was intoxicated on Facebook and he made that remark” [p.12.L.17-
5. Go ahead and read that sentence that you wrote in that e-
Grona responded; “It says, "I just went on his Facebook page and I can find no material that was disrespectful” [p.13.L.3-
6. Did that end the complaint?
Grona responded; “No, because he had -
7. Was there a VFW post that was involved or just a Special Forces?
Grona responded; “No, just the Special Forces. There was -
8. So, were these Special Forces people part of the VFW?
Grona responded; “No” [p.13.L.19], “Some of them -
9. So, they didn't make the complaints as a VFW member?
Grona responded; “No. They made them as 10th Special Forces Group” [p.13.L.25]
10. Okay. See this page here? Where it says Mueller Exhibit 1 and you got Charge 1, Charge 2, Charge 3; you see that?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.14.L.5]
11. Have you ever seen that document before?
Grona responded; “No” [p.14.L.7]
12. And this appears to be a -
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.14.L.14]
13. Is that part of that same conversation?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.14.L.16]
14. What was the result of the complaint? Was there an actual formal proceeding brought against Mr. Mueller?
Grona responded; “No. Mr. Mueller was at that time I believe the state membership chairman, so the state commander appoints -
15. I see. In this one page on page three it shows in the subject line, Steve Mueller, State VFW future concepts chairman; you see that?
Grona responded; “Yeah, okay. I wasn't sure which chairman. I know he was a chairman, so -
16. Is that the appointed position you were just referring to?
Grona responded; “Yes, Future Concepts. Yeah. I remember that part now. Yeah” [p.15.L.10-
17. Okay. Other than being removed as Future Concepts Chairman, was any other administrative action taken against Mr. Mueller for this?
Grona responded; “Not that I'm aware of.” [p.15.L.15]
18. So, as far as you know, there wasn't -
Grona responded; “We didn't really need an investigation. I mean it was printed and all we did was remove him from an appointed position. If he would have been a state officer, we would have had to gone a different route with it. But as an appointed officer, the state commander has every right to remove any appointed officer for whatever reason he deems necessary” [p.16.L.6-
The “Initiation” of Special-
Furthermore, Both DA-
There is little doubt that Special Order No. 18 or 19 followed any accepted and prescribed VFW policy or procedures. During the Deposition of Mueller and Pino’s “accuser”, Roy J. Grona, who obviously does not have a very good understanding of the VFW National By-
HOW THIS BEGAN
Prior to AVC’s submittal of a “Application of Post Charter” to the VFW Dept. of Texas, AVC director Mueller met with VFW Leadership on 07/01/2017 to discuss the establishment of Areas of Responsibility (AOR’s) for each Post in Atascosa County. In attendance at this lunch meeting was the VFW Dept. of Texas Commander Edward C. Torres and his Chief of Staff Larry L. Sanders. Mueller was concerned that once AVC came online in the Atascosa County community, that the other VFW Posts would have difficulty. The Posts Mueller was most concerned for was his previous Post Atascosa County Post 4853 in Jourdanton and Poteet Memorial Post 6970 in Poteet. Both Posts rely heavily on access to resources in the city of Pleasanton. So, it was not logical to restrict them to the city boundaries. Anticipating issues and with the intent to put in action a mitigation plan to encourage continuity of mutual benefit, Mueller proposed that the Department Commander assist in identifying each Posts AOR’s, projects and programs by proclamation. This approach would be beneficial for all Posts, but especially to Pleasanton during and immediately after AVC’s start-
AVC began operating using the “Pleasanton VFW Post 12162” title on 09/11/2017. The Post became the most youthful and active Post in Atascosa County, quickly eclipsing Post 4853 & 6970 in visibility. This visibility, influenced heavily by a series of published articles in the Pleasanton Express Newspaper, garnered substantial support from the public and businesses. AVC’s programs centered around the “Veteran Family unit” as a whole, contrasting with typical VFW Posts, that primarily catered to the “Veteran” only. By adopting this approach, AVC was able to quickly establish and build support for Family based Community Service Programs and Projects. One of the Community Service Projects that interested AVC members was Christmas programs, specifically, associated with Toy collection and distribution for youth. In 2017, It was decided to support our fellow Post 4853 Toys for Tots’ collection effort. The toys for Tots program hosted by Post 4853, established Post 4853 as the regional collection point for numerous counties in the area that supported the main collection operation based in San Antonio. However, after requesting assistance from Post sponsors, AVC was inundated with a massive response and surge in toy donations, without a physical location to store these toys, it was decided, in addition to Post 4853, AVC would also support local Police Departments Blue Santa programs and donate county programs such as Child Protective Services as well. This action had an unintentional, but predictable outcome. It confused the public. On 11/18/2017, Jourdanton Chief of Police Erik Kaiser was the first to formally inquire as to the proper “protocol” in dealing with separate VFW Posts, by submitting an email to then District 20 Commander Jose Duran. Jourdanton PD received a toy donation from the Pleasanton Post in support of their Blue Santa program, as did other Atascosa County police departments.
This email was inevitable at some point, and since AOR’s had not been and could not be established by proclamation, they would now need to be adopted by mutual agreement. None of the Atascosa County VFW Posts had previously identified their “Immediate geographic area” or “community of the Post”. Nowhere in the VFW National By-
In response, on 11/28/2017, Mueller requested a meeting between all Atascosa County Posts for the purpose of discussing the establishment of AOR’s. None of the Posts responded to Mueller’s request.
By August of 2018, AVC’s had become well established in the Atascosa County, with Post Community Service Projects regularity featured in weekly publications of the Pleasanton Express Newspaper including youth projects, Food Drives and public remembrance ceremonies, sometimes in collaboration with other entities such as the Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH), Municipalities, School Districts, Businesses, other non-
One Community Service Project, in particular, seemed to draw the most contempt from other Atascosa County Posts, that was AVC’s mutual collaboration with the MOPH. Another Veteran Service Organization (VSO), not affiliated with the VFW. AVC’s involvement with MOPH organization was to mutually collaborate to assist in coordinating and scheduling of “Purple Heart Ceremonies” for entities, municipalities and School districts in Atascosa County to bring awareness to the sacrifices of our combat wounded.
For some reason, instead of inspiring the other Posts to join AVC’s efforts for mutual benefit, these programs and projects resulted in festering envy and jealously communicated by Poteet Memorial Post 6970 Commander John E. Shipley, who routinely voiced aversion to the point, that on 10/01/2018, Mueller attempted once again request a meeting of all Atascosa County Post for the purpose of adopting AOR’s and defining each Post unique Community Service Projects. Poteet Memorial Posy 6970 agreed to host the meeting on 10/26/2018. (Reference AOR).
With the 10/26/2018 meeting yielding no movement toward the adoption of AOR’s, AVC continued its operations as scheduled and on _. The ceremony was attended by representatives of the MOPH organization, including their Department Sr. Vice Commander and members of all Atascosa County VFW Posts, including Post 6970 (Poteet) and Post 4853 (Jourdanton). On 11/14/2018, the project was published in the Pleasanton Express Newspaper.
11/14/2018
Outraged by the Publication of the Pleasanton Express Article titled “JISD a Purple Heart School”, where AVC & Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH) conducted a Purple Heart Ceremony at the Jourdanton High School (Mr. Mueller's Alma Mata), Poteet Memorial Post 6970 and Atascosa County Post 4853 formed a collaboration and entered into a conspiracy to intentionally stifle and undermine the success and legitimacy of AVC and erode the command presence and credibility of Steve Mueller.
11/15/2018
This was first accomplished with a series of emails sent to the VFW Department of Texas Leadership by Post 4853’s Commander Jeff C. Rankin and Post 6970 Commander John E. Shipley concerning AVC’s Community Service “Projects”. Specifically, Poteet Memorial Post 6970 and Atascosa County Post 4853 were aware of AVC’s professional collaboration with the Department of Texas MOPH organization to mutually assist the MOPH in raising awareness of combat wounded, by coordinating and conducting “Purple Heart Dedication Ceremonies” in Texas. Whereas AVC & MOPH had mutually collaborated on three (3) such successful ceremonies and was committed to continuing to assist the MOPH in scheduling additional ceremonies in Atascosa County. Both Post Commanders of Post 4853 and Post 6970 knew that future ceremonies would be scheduled and held for the municipalities of Jourdanton and Poteet, Texas and in order to disrupt these future activities, Poteet Post 6970 Commander John E. Shipley formed an alliance and engaged in a conspiracy that first began with Shipley submitting emails to VFW Department of Texas Commander Ingeborg A. Conley, requesting “HELP” and explaining that Steve Mueller was allegedly ordering his Post to conduct “Projects” outside of the city of Pleasanton and that these “projects” (the most recent Purple Heart Ceremony at Jourdanton High School). Conley responded by implying that Mueller’s actions violated Section 214. (Reference AOR).
OPPORTUNITY
With Steve Mueller running against Roy J. Grona or his presumptive successor Daniel L. West in the upcoming Department Elections; Ingeborg A. Conley (a political supporter of Daniel L. West), saw an opportunity to use the disdain that Post 4853 and Post 6970 leadership had for Mueller to eliminate Mueller from the running for Department Quartermaster by using her vague interpretation of and unsubstantiated allegation of violating Section 214 of the VFW Manual of Procedures, as the impetus to justify building a case for an Article IX disciplinary Action against Mueller to affect his termination of membership with the VFW, thereby securing a win for Daniel L. West.
To this point, neither the “Immediate Geographic Area” or the “Community of the Post” had been established for any Atascosa County Post.
As prescribed in Section 518 (a)(1), the VFW National By-
Even if a Department Commander could “Define” a “Immediate Geographic Area” or the “Community” of a Post, specifically the Pleasanton Posts on 11/15/2018, without this distinction being established prior to any alleged deviation from it, can an act be considered a violation of it.
On 11/15/2018, VFW Department of Texas Commander Ingeborg A. Conley issued a “Cease-
11/16/2018
Motivated by VFW Department of Texas Commander Ingeborg A. Conley’s approach and effort to use an ambiguous interpretation of the VFW National Manual of Procedures Section 214, concluding that AVC’s “Immediate Geographic Area” is the city limits of the city of Pleasanton, Conley’s issuance of a certified letter to Mueller that both orders Mueller to “Cease in Desist”, but also “Defining” AVC’s “Immediate Geographic Area” to be the “city of Pleasanton”, without mentioning or defining any other Atascosa County Post operational areas, and now knowing that Post 6970 no longer had to negotiate a mutual agreement with AVC and/or Post 4853 to establish Areas of Responsibility (AORs), John E. Shipley immediately began assisting Conley (using his District 20 Commander capacity) in developing the required justification, by first requesting statements be prepared, signed and notarized by Atascosa County Post 4853 Officers for the sole purpose of being used to fulfill the first of three prerequisite for bringing an Article IX Disciplinary Action against Mueller, the “Signed Incident Report(s)” requirement.
STATEMENTS (erroneously used as the “Signed Incident Report(s)”)
None of the three (3) signed notarized statements, published by Jeff C. Rankin, Patricia S. Hewitt or Douglas P. Edwards contain any mention of “Fundraising”, “Projects” or “Geographic Area”, despite being the alleged justification for making such statements, but instead containing aspersions, invented by Post 4853 Officers that included numerous unsubstantiated false assertions, mere opinions and speculation with no establishment of fact, corroborating evidence or details regarding date, time of alleged occurrence or any proof. Jeff C. Rankin and Patricia S. Hewitt would later testify under oath that the statements were requested by John E. Shipley (acting in his District 20 capacity) and that they believed the statements were to be used in association with the Posts (meaning AVC, Post 6970 and Post 4853) ongoing AOR dispute that had not been resolved on 10/26/2018.
ARTICLE IX DISCIPLINARY ACTION
The Initiation of an Article IX Disciplinary Action requires four (4) Prerequisites be met:
1. A “Signed Incident Report(s)”.
2. If determined the Incident Report(s) have merit, an “Appointment of an Individual or Investigative Committee” to investigate the claims alleged in the “Signed Incident Report(s)”.
3. An “Investigative Report”, prepared by the Investigator or Investigative Committee, reflecting findings that justify an Article IX Disciplinary Action against any accused and thus a recommendation for a Disciplinary Action.
4. Decision by the “Instituting Officer” to “Initiate” an Article IX Disciplinary Action.
2019 VFW NATIONAL BY-
“Disciplinary actions shall be initiated only when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has been committed by the person charged and a signed incident report or appropriate documentation is submitted by the accuser to the appropriate commander (i.e., Post, Department, Commander-
Prior to the initiation of disciplinary action, a Post or Department or its respective Commander or the Commander-
Who May Initiate:
1. A Post may, acting by two-
2. A Department Commander may initiate such action with respect to any member within the Department.
3. The Department Convention or Department Council of Administration may, by two-
4. The Commander-
5. The National Convention or the National Council of Administration may, by two thirds vote, instruct the Commander-
6. If the respective Commander fails or refuses to initiate a disciplinary action after being instructed to do so, another member may be instructed to initiate the action.
7. If the Commander is the accused, action must be initiated by higher authority
How to Initiate: Disciplinary Actions must be initiated by the preparation and delivery of written Charges and Specifications to the accused member.
Charges and Specifications – How prepared and Delivered: Charges and Specifications must be prepared and delivered in the manner described and authorized in the Manual of Procedure.
Hearing Requested. If the accused member desires a Disciplinary Hearing, such member must within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of the Charges and Specifications, request the hearing. Such request shall be made in the manner prescribed in the Manual of Procedure.
No Hearing Requested. In the event that the accused member does not properly request a Disciplinary Hearing within fifteen (15) days or, prior to the expiration of the fifteen (15) day period, advises the Commander or the designated member initiating the action that a hearing is not desired, the Commander or the designated member initiating the charges, may take such action as is deemed appropriate including the ordering of any penalties prescribed in Section 907 of these bylaws.
1. If initiated at the Post, the Commander or the designated member initiating the charges, must have concurrence by majority vote of the Post to order any penalties prescribed in Section 907 of these bylaws.
2. If initiated by the Department Commander, the Department Commander may order any penalties prescribed in Section 907 of these bylaws.
3. The Department Council of Administration or the Department Convention causing the Charges to be initiated shall, by majority vote, order any penalties prescribed in Section 907 of these bylaws.
4. If initiated by the Commander-
5. The National Council of Administration or the National Convention causing the Charges to be initiated shall, by majority vote, order any penalties prescribed in Section 907 of these bylaws.
Any action taken must be in writing and delivered by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the last known address of the accused member. Such action shall include notification of appellate rights. A copy thereof must also be forwarded to the next higher authority.”
PROCEDURE FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
2019 VFW NATIONAL MANUAL OF PROCEDURES SEC. 903 Pg. 101-
a. Who May Initiate. (See Section 903 of the Bylaws.)
b. How To Initiate. Charges and Specifications shall be signed by the Initiating Officer and attested to by the Adjutant and shall include a copy of the incident report.
c. Charges and Specifications. Initiation of a Disciplinary Action requires delivery to each accused of written Charges and Specifications. The charges shall identify the subsection of By-
d. How To Prepare. The Commander or the designated member initiating a disciplinary action should do so by issuing a Special Order (Form DA-
e. How To Deliver. Charges and Specifications shall be delivered personally or by registered or certified mail return receipt requested to the accused member’s last known address. Documentation of delivery shall be retained by the Adjutant.
f. How Hearings Are to Be Requested. A request (Form DA-
g. Procedure Where a Hearing is Not Requested. (See Section 903 of the Bylaws.)
h. Procedure — Disciplinary Hearing Requested. In the event that the accused member requests a Disciplinary Hearing within fifteen (15) days and in the manner prescribed above, the following procedures apply:
1. Appointment of Panel. If the action is initiated at the Post level, the Department Commander will appoint the disciplinary panel members, date, time and location by issuance of an order (Form DA-
In the event that the Department Commander initiating the disciplinary action is the accuser, the Commander-
If the Commander initiating the disciplinary action or appointing the panel expects to be a witness with respect to factual matters, the Commander should request that the order appointing the panel be issued by higher authority. That request will be in writing.
Only members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States in good standing may sit on a Disciplinary Hearing Panel. No blood relative of the accused or any accuser or witness for the prosecution shall be appointed to the panel.
The same panel may be appointed to hear more than one case. Related cases may be heard at the same time, provided that the Recording Officer maintains a complete and separate record for each accused.
In the event that appointees are unable to serve or the time or place of a hearing must be changed, a supplemental order may be issued.
a. President. The panel President is the presiding officer over the panel and hearing process and not subject to challenge. The duties of the President shall commence upon the issuance of the Special Order. The President shall be acquainted with the hearing procedures, maintain order and give the necessary directions for the conduct of the proceedings. The President shall rule upon all questions concerning the admissibility of evidence, the competency of witnesses, continuances, adjournments, recesses, motions, challenges and orders, the propriety of any argument or statement of counsel and on any other matter deemed appropriate for the official and efficient conduct of the hearing. The president of the panel shall take notes or cause notes to be taken that summarize the substance of the testimony of the witnesses and exhibits, the arguments of counsel, the objections and rulings on matters brought to the attention of the panel and other matters of significance occurring in the course of the proceedings. The Panel President shall not discuss the merits of the case with members of the panel prior to the Hearing.
b. Prosecutor. Shall present the evidence supporting the Charges and Specifications. The Prosecutor shall not be a member of the panel. The Prosecutor should not be a witness with respect to disputed factual matters. They may, however, provide evidence concerning procedural matters.
c. Defense Counsel. The accused shall select their own professional or lay counsel. The accused may employ or select a private lawyer at their own expense. Defense Counsel shall not be a member of the panel nor an accuser. Defense Counsel should not be a witness with respect to disputed factual matters. They may, however, provide evidence concerning procedural matters.
2. Continuance. The President may, for reasonable cause, postpone and/or reschedule the hearing. A party desiring that the President postpone or reschedule the hearing shall make such request in writing, stating the reasons for such request. All parties and panel members shall be advised in writing of the rescheduled date.
3. Recording Officer. The Recording Officer shall record all the proceedings and the recordings shall be retained and included as record. The recording officer should take reasonable steps to assure that all testimony is recorded and that all speakers and exhibits are adequately identified in the record. Any notes taken by the President shall be retained with the record of the proceedings. A complete record should include copies of:
1. Special Order advising of the initiation of a disciplinary action. (Form DA-
2. Charges and Specifications. (Form DA-
3. The written statement that the Charges and Specifications have been personally served or mailed to the accused in accordance with Section 903(e).
4. The request for the Disciplinary Hearing made by the accused. (Form DA-
5. The order appointing the Panel. (Form DA-
6. The tape recording or videotape of the proceedings.
7. The President’s notes of the proceedings.
8. Any exhibits admitted into evidence.
9. The record of disciplinary action. (Form DA-
10. The findings and sentence. (Form DA-
11. The record shall be delivered to and maintained by the Adjutant.
i. Procedure at Hearing. In the event that a Disciplinary Hearing is requested, the procedure for conducting such hearing shall be as follows:
1. Selection of the Panel – Challenges. The entire panel shall initially be seated. Each side may challenge any member or members, but those members may be removed only for good cause. Good cause includes, but is not limited to, prejudice for or against a party, financial or other interest in the outcome or inability to afford an impartial hearing. The challenging party shall state the reasons upon which that party believes good cause exists. When a member of the panel is challenged for cause, the President of the panel will decide on the question. No further panel member may be excused for cause when the effect is to reduce the number of panel members below three. Members of the panel shall swear or affirm that they will judge the case fairly and impartially.
2. Plea to the Charges. After the panel is confirmed, the Charges and Specifications shall be read to the accused by the President unless the accused advises the panel that the accused has read the charges and they need not be read. The accused will plead guilty or not guilty to each charge and specification separately. The plea will be recorded on the Form of Record of Disciplinary Action (DA-
3. Objections. If there have been procedural errors in initiating the disciplinary action, preparing or delivering the Charges or Specifications, appointing the panel, scheduling the time and place of the hearing or any other matter occurring prior to the hearing, Defense Counsel or the accused must make their objections known to the panel before the opening statements are given and evidence heard. Similarly, objections must be made to errors in procedure or in the admission of evidence occurring during the course of the hearing at the time of the error. Unless objections are timely made, the alleged error will not be considered in the event of an appeal.
4. Opening Statement. The prosecutor, followed by the Defense Counsel, shall be permitted to make opening statements which outline for the panel what each believes the issues to be and what each expects to show by the evidence to be introduced.
5. Order of Presentation. The prosecutor introduces their evidence first followed by the defense. The prosecutor may then present evidence to rebut such evidence as may have been presented by the defense and the defense shall be given an opportunity to rebut any rebuttal evidence presented by the prosecution. Counsel for both sides shall have the opportunity to cross-
6. Rules Concerning Evidence. Evidence may be testimonial or documentary. Testimonial evidence is evidence given in the form of testimony by wit-
7. Documentary Evidence. Includes items presented in the form of exhibits which show or demonstrate factual matters. An adequate showing of authenticity (i.e., that the document is an original or a true and correct copy of the original) must be made with respect to documentary evidence. A Disciplinary Hearing Panel may base its decision on either direct or circumstantial evidence.
Direct evidence consists of testimony or documents which, if believed, would directly prove or disprove facts.
Circumstantial evidence consists of testimony or documents which, if true,
would prove or disprove facts or circumstances from which, either alone or in
connection with other facts, the existence or nonexistence of a fact in issue could
be inferred.
Hearsay evidence consists of testimony based upon the out-
Books of account or business records are generally admissible. Evidence must be relevant and material. Evidence is not relevant or material when it does not tend to prove or disprove an issue in the case or the President rules that it’s not material to the issue at hand
The panel will exclude improper evidence to which an objection is sufficiently made. It may, on its own initiative, exclude other improper evidence. Excluded evidence should not be considered by the Hearing Panel. The President should note any evidence which was offered but excluded, giving the reason therefore, and any instances where objection was made but the evidence was admitted over such objection, noting the objection.
The panel should protect every witness from insulting or improper questions, harsh or insulting treatment and unnecessary inquiries into private affairs. It should also forbid any inquiries into irrelevant matters intended to merely annoy witnesses or other pertinent parties.
8. Closing Arguments. After both sides have rested, the prosecution commences its closing arguments. The defense follows and the prosecution closes with rebuttal argument.
9. Deliberations of the Panel. The panel sits in closed session during the deliberation on the findings and sentence. This should include full and free discussion of the evidence at hand. The panel must consider each charge and specification separately and make a determination whether the accused is guilty or not guilty on each charge and specification.
In deciding the case, the sentence should be commensurate with the offense committed. In any event, each case shall be decided on its own merits and the panel shall give due regard to all of the circumstances.
a. Reasonable doubt. In order to convict the accused of an offense, the panel must be reasonably satisfied that the accused is guilty of the offense.
b. Two-
10. Findings and Sentence (DA-
11. Record of Hearing of Disciplinary Action (DA-
CONSPIRACY
DEFAMATION
Shortly after notification by Larry L. Sanders on or about 10/15/2017, who informed Mueller that the VFW Department of Texas was in possession of a picture of a Facebook statement concerning derogatory comments, allegedly made by Mueller, Mueller was also contacted by UDC employees concerning a voice mail received threatening Mueller’s over the same alleged statements. Upon closer inspection of the picture sent to Mueller by Sanders, it was clear that it was a mosaic of several statements taken out of context and from numerous separate Facebook publications months apart and concerning a variety subjects that had been woven together in a poorly photo shopped picture, that falsely conveyed it was created by Mueller (in a single posting and directed at a specific audience) on Mueller’s personal Facebook. Mueller contacted the VFW Dept. of Texas and demanded all the evidence collected and specifically the names of the persons who had made the erroneous accusation. The VFW Dept. of Texas refused to cooperate and shortly thereafter, Department Commander Torres “Removed” Mueller and dissolved the committee all together.
FUTURE CONCEPTS CHAIRMAN
The Future Concepts Committee was created by Edward Torres to analysis and review the VFW Dept. of Texas administrative processes and policies, identify deficiencies and uncommonly with normal business operations and recommend corrective actions and mitigation strategies to improve upon them. Mueller was the second appointee to lead the Committee. The process of analyzing the Department s policy and procedures was problematic at the start, as both Daniel L. West and Roy J. Grona were stubbornly resistant to allowing unfettered access to Department files, not by denying access directly, but ensuring they were not available upon the dates and time Mueller scheduled in advance to view the Department documents.
CONSPIRACY
PUNISHED FOR FUTURE POSSIBILITIES
Quite laughable, unbelievably Grona asserts that Mueller is Guilty of violating something in the VFW National By-
Furthermore, Grona “assumes” a great many things from these statements. All of whitch he, as usual, get s wrong. Any Member or any non-
CONSPIRACY
GEOGRAPHIC AREA
An on-
Conley’s “Cease-
Even with this question being answered or not, if we are assume it can and given the facts that Mueller complied with the order and halted all projects and programs. How is it, that an accusation be made that Mueller violated Section 214, if the “immediate geographic area or community of the post” was not “Defined” and known until 11/15/2018?
APPEAL FINDING
The National VFW, agreed with Mueller and Pino stating; “the action was not properly initiated; therefore, the indicated penalty is declared invalid, the subsequent appeal vacated, and the disciplinary action remanded back to the Department of Texas, VFW, for proper initiation pursuant to Section 903” thereby instructing Conley to provide the “Signed Incident Report” and the “Investigative Report” to Mueller and Pino. To date, this has never occurred. Instead, the VFW Dept. of Texas “initiated” a new Disciplinary Action against Mueller and Pino.
2ND DISCIPLINARY ACTION
CONSPIRACY
VFW Dept. of Texas Commander Ingeborg A. Conley both her Adjutant/ Quartermaster Daniel L. West and her Assistant Adjutant Andrew F. Camplen, conspired and collaborated with the National VFW Adjutant General Kevin Jones and Director of Administrative Operations David Prohaska to bring another 2nd Disciplinary Action by coordinating and approving the issuing of a “NEW”; 1) False “Signed Incident Report” that was knowingly and intentionally prepared and signed by Daniel West, 2) A “Special Order No. 26”, that was knowingly and intentionally prepared by Daniel West and signed by Ingeborg A. Conley, and 3) a subsequent “Investigative Report” that was knowingly and intentionally prepared and signed by Andrew F. Camplen, all three documents being intentionally backdated prior to the VFW National Commander-
CONSPIRACY
FABRICATED A NEW ARTICLE 9 DISCIPLINARY ACTION:
VFW Dept. Of Texas elects not to comply with the National VFW and issue a amended DA-
CONSPIRACY-
DEF_00853-
04/19/2019
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
04/18/2019
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
NEW FALSIFIED-
DA2_01528 (73)
NEW FALSIFIED-
DA2_01525 (77)
CONSPIRACY/ FRAUDULENT DISCIPLINARY ACTION
NEW FALSIFIED-
DEF_00489-
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT (Version 3)
CONSPIRACY
The FABRICATION of an additional “Signed Incident Report(s)” is not necessary if Special Order #18 & 19 were initiated complaint with provisions prescribed in Article 9 of the VFW National By-
Since the VFW Dept. Of Texas had already Filed a FALSE POLICE REPORT (TPC § 37.08) and submitted numerous FRAUDULENT and TAMPERED WITH AND FABRICATED EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09), prepared for the sole purpose to convey that Mueller and Pino were Guilty of MISAPPROPRIATION OF FIDUCIARY PROPERTY (TPC § 32.45) with the Pleasanton Police Department on 03/13/2019 (Incident #1900277) and since the allegation of Financial misconduct was never investigated by anyone at the VFW Dept. Of Texas: It became necessary for the FABRICATION of a NEW “Signed Incident Report” (DA2_01525), “Order appointing an Investigator” (DA2_01528) and “Investigative Report” (DEF_00489-
This FRAUDULENT and UNLAWFUL action to knowingly Conspired to Prepare and sign a FALSE official document(s) of the VFW, was, not only condoned by the National VFW, but encourage by assigning David Prohaska to assist and Collaborate in its accomplishment.
With the Shipley’s original “Investigative Report” now discarded and the fabricated reports now titled “Report of Investigation”, backdated dated to reflect an erroneous publication date of “03/20/2019”, being one of numerous versions, that now asserts that Mueller and Pino now have Misappropriated $10,741.18, instead of the previous claim of “$9,748.02” that each Mueller and Pino misappropriated on 01/04/2019, or the “$9,721.02” (contained in Special Order #18 for Mueller), or “$4,957.57” (contained in Special Order #19 for Pino), or the “$10,101.05” (as reported to the Pleasanton Police Report in the specifically created “Texas VFW Investigative Report/ Prosecution Guide” on 03/13/2019.
In fact, a total of eleven (11) erroneous and completely fabricated variants and versions of the required “Investigative Report” were published by the VFW Dept. Of Texas, prepared and signed by John E. Shipley, Daniel L. West and/or Andrew F. Camplen between 11/30/2018 and 04/23/2019 that reflect different dates and alleged misappropriated amounts.
However, None of these “Investigative Reports” are consentient with the alleged Misapplied amounts reflected in Special Order No. 18, received by Mueller on or about 02/10/2019, or Special Order No. 19, received by Pino on or about 02/12/2019, or Special Order No. 27, received by Mueller on or about 04/23/2019 or Special Order No. 28, received by Pino on or about 04/23/2019.
Collectively, these numerous erroneous documents reflect an inconsistent and Fraudulent alleged Misappropriation amounts ranging between $4,987.57 and $10,741.18. A difference of more than $5,753.61. Leaving little doubt that allegations are FALSE and the documents were obviously intentionally and knowingly fabricated in a deliberate conspiracy by a group of incompetent Fuck-
NEW FALSIFIED-
NEW FALSIFIED-
CONSPIRACY
NEW Disciplinary Action against Stephanie Pino:
DA-
o Does not have the “Signed Incident Report(s)” attached as required.
DA-
o Modified. Charge 2, Specification 1-
o (NEW) Charge 3, Specification 1
o (NEW) Charge 4, Specification 1
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Charges 1 -
Charges 3 -
FACTS
*The NEW accuser is Daniel L. West.
*A NEW “Signed Incident Report” was prepared and signed by Dan West.
*Dan West’s NEW fraudulent “Signed Incident Report” was submitted to Ingeborg A. Conley.
*A NEW “appointment letter” was submitted to Andrew F. Camplen by Ingeborg A. Conley to Investigate.
*Camplen published a NEW “Investigative Report” dated 04/15/2019.
*Camplens “Investigative Report” was Tampered with/ backdated to reflect a publication date of “03/20/2019”
*No “NEW” reasonable grounds exist to believe that any offense has been committed.
*No Investigation has ever been conducted by the VFW or VFW Dept. Of Texas.
*No Post Officer or Post Members has ever complained about Financial Misconduct by Pino.
*None of the Post Trustees, Officers or Members have been interviewed concerning Financial Misconduct.
*Pino is NOT nor has ever been listed on the Post Financial accounts at SSFCU.
*Pino has never been issued a Debit Card from SSFCU.
*Pino is accused of misappropriating $4,987.57.
04/23/2019
NEW FALSIFIED-
NEW FALSIFIED-
CONSPIRACY
NEW Disciplinary Action against Steve Mueller:
DA-
o Does not have the “Signed Incident Report(s)” or the “Investigative Report” attached as required.
DA-
o Modified. Charge 1, Specification 1-
o Modified. Charge 2, Specification 1-
o Modified. Charge 3, Specification 1
o Modified. Charge 4, Specification 1-
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Charges 1 -
FACTS
*The NEW accuser is Daniel L. West.
*A NEW “Signed Incident Report” was prepared and signed by Dan West.
*Dan West’s NEW fraudulent “Signed Incident Report” was submitted to Ingeborg A. Conley.
*A NEW “appointment letter” was submitted to Andrew F. Camplen by Ingeborg A. Conley to Investigate.
*Camplen published a NEW “Investigative Report” dated 04/15/2019.
*Camplens “Investigative Report” was Tampered with/ backdated to reflect a publication date of “03/20/2019”
*No “NEW” reasonable grounds exist to believe that any offense has been committed.
*No Investigation has ever been conducted by the VFW or VFW Dept. Of Texas.
*Mueller was NOT the Post Commander of Post 4853 for the 2017-
*No Post Officer or Post Members has ever complained about Financial Misconduct by Mueller.
*None of the Post Trustees, Officers or Members have been interviewed concerning Financial Misconduct.
*Mueller is the only Post Signatory listed on any Post accounts at SSFCU.
*ALL Debit Cards issued by SSFCU are in Mueller’s name and control.
*Charge 2, Specifications 5-
*Charge 5 (dealing with Financial misconduct) was completely REMOVED from Special Order #27.
*”New” No allegation of any Financial Misconduct.
*Mueller is accused of misappropriating $0.
Attachment 1 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 2 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 3 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 4 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 5 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 6 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 7 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 8 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 9 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 10 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 11 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 12 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 13 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 14 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 15 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 16 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 17 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 18 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 19 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 20 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 21 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 22 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 23 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 24 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 25 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 26 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 27 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 28 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 29 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 30 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 31 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 32 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 33 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 34 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 35 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 36 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 37 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 38 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 39 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 40 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
Attachment 41 [TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE (TPC § 37.09)]
NEW FALSIFIED-
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT (Version 11)
Email W. Laurence to West/ Camplen-
04/25/2019
Mueller (DA-
04/26/2019
Pino (DA-
In a email, Dan West (the “accuser”) Selects who he wants to serve on the Disciplinary Hearing Panel, who the President of Panel will be, who the Prosecutor will be, the Date, the Time and the location of the hearing.
05/03/2019
05/10/2019
DEADLINE TO APPOINT HEARING PANEL (David Prohaska)
CONSPIRACY-
05/13/2019
Email from Pino to VFW National 1 § 109 MEMBER COMPLAINT
Email from Pino to VFW National 2 § 109 MEMBER COMPLAINT
Email from Pino to VFW National 3 § 109 MEMBER COMPLAINT
Email from VFW National to Pino containing National Special Order 207, VFW National state; "We do not have an email address for Steve Mueller" and "could you pass this on to him so that he can have time to prepare a defense" § 109 MEMBER COMPLAINT
05/14/2019
CONSPIRACY-
DEF_00067 (79)
Email from VFW National to Pino § 109 MEMBER COMPLAINT
Email from Pino to VFW National § 109 MEMBER COMPLAINT
Email from Pino to VFW National requesting CLARIFICATION of procedures § 109 MEMBER COMPLAINT
05/15/2019
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
Email from Pino to VFW National § 109 MEMBER COMPLAINT
Email from Pino to VFW National "attendance required?" § 109 MEMBER COMPLAINT
05/17/2019
Email from VFW National to Pino Response to "attendance required" § 109 MEMBER COMPLAINT
CONSPIRACY-
DEFENSE HAS BEEN DENIED THE “SIGNED INCIDENT REPORT(S)”, AS REQUIRED BY Sec. 903(d) of Manual of Procedures leaving no other options but to request a continuance to obtain the missing documents.
CONSPIRACY
Section 903(h)(1) of the VFW National Manual of Procedures states, “In the event that the Department Commander initiating the disciplinary action is the accuser, the Commander-
The email submitted by Daniel L. West to David Prohaska does not “request” that the “order appointing the panel be issued by higher authority”. The email does not “request” anything. It is not submitted by the “Department Commander initiating the disciplinary action”, nor does Conley “expect to be a witness with respect to factual matters”. The letter clearly indicates Daniel L. West’s (the apparent “Accuser”) selections for the makeup of the Disciplinary Panel, who his choices are for the “Panel President”, the “Prosecutor” and West’s choices for the date, time and location of the Hearing.
05/21/2019
CONTINUANCE REQUEST
Email @ 9:36 AM from Mueller to VFW National REQUEST CONTINUANCE § 109 MEMBER COMPLAINT
Email @ 10:16 AM from Pino to VFW National "Trustees never consulted" § 109 MEMBER COMPLAINT
Email @ 10:54 AM from Pino to VFW National CONTINUANCE
Email @ 11:26 AM from VFW National to Pino concerning DISCIPLINARY HEARING
Email @ 12:46 PM from VFW National to Pino response to CLARIFICATION
Email @ 13:00 PM from VFW National to Pino, Velasquez concerning CONTINUANCE REQUEST
Email @ 13:09 PM from Pino to VFW National concerning "Panel of my Peers" § 109 MEMBER COMPLAINT
Email @ 13:13 PM from VFW National to Pino concerning CLARIFICATION
Email @ 14:36 PM internally circulated within VFW National concerning REQUEST CONTINUANCE
Email @ 15:47 PM from VFW National to Pino concerning DISCIPLINARY HEARING
Email @ 15:55 PM from Panel President to Dan West (accuser) and Ingeborg Conley CONTINUANCE REQUEST
Email @ 15:55 PM from Panel President to VFW National CONTINUANCE
Email @ 16:21 PM from VFW National to Pino, Mueller and Velasquez concerning CONTINUANCE REQUEST
Email @ 16:51 PM from Pino to VFW National concerning CONTINUANCE REQUEST
Email @ 16:21 PM from VFW National to Pino concerning CONTINUANCE REQUEST
Email @ 16:38 PM from VFW National to Pino concerning CONTINUANCE REQUEST
Email @ 16:56 PM from VFW National to Pino CONTINUANCE DECISION SENT
DEFENSE HAS BEEN DENIED A CONTINUANCE AND WITH NO OTHER OPTIONS TO OBTAIN THE “SIGNED INCIDENT REPORT(S)”, THE DEFENSE HAD NO CHOICE BY TO FILE AN OBJECTION TO THE PROCEEDING
05/22/2019
OBJECTION
Mueller & Pino File an OBJECTION FOR RECORD/ Never received the "Signed Incident Reports" as required by Sec. 903(d) of the Manuel of Procedure.
DA-
DA2_01054 (82)
05/23/2019
DISCIPLINARY HEARING
Disciplinary Hearing Panel Introductory Statement
Disciplinary Hearing Panel President Outline
DISCIPLINARY HEARING AUDIO RECORDING Part 1
DISCIPLINARY HEARING AUDIO RECORDING Part 2
DISCIPLINARY HEARING AUDIO RECORDING Part 3
DISCIPLINARY HEARING AUDIO RECORDING Part 4
DA-
DA-
DA-
CONTINUANCE
As with Special Order No. 18 & 19, with the initiation of Special-
OBJECTION
Without obtaining the “Signed Incident Report(s)”, the denial of their Request for Continuance, Mueller and Pino had no choice but to file an OBJECTION on “procedural errors in initiating the disciplinary
action, preparing or delivering the Charges or Specifications” with the Hearing Panel, specifically identifying violations knowingly and intentionally committed by VFW Department of Texas Commander Ingeborg A. Conley and her incompetent staff, prescribed in Section 903 of the VFW National By-
05/24/2019
Email from W. Laurence to Camplen (recordings for Disciplinary Actions-
Note to "Go to the Pleasanton PD" between 05/28/2019 and 05/31/2019 for Sworn STATEMENT
05/28/2019
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
05/29/2019
CONSPIRACY/ FABRICATED-
DEF_00975-
CONSPIRACY
Section 903(i)(10) of the VFW National Manual of Procedures states, “In the event
the accused or their counsel was not present at the hearing” requires “a copy of the
Findings and Sentence (Form DA-
within seven days after the hearing”.
Mueller did NOT attend any Disciplinary Hearings on 05/22/2019 or 05/23/2019.
Mueller’s DA-
Since Mueller never received the DA-
Email from W. Laurence to VFW National concerning RESULTS DISCIPLINARY HEARING-
07/17/2019
Email from Pino to National VFW concerning Members Complaints
Receipt Confirmation for Mueller & Pino Demand Letter for Retraction. Amsberry Law F
Email-
Email To Mueller Response to APPEAL DECISION BEING PREMATURE
VFW NATIONAL-
Pleasanton Express, "Duo arrested for alleged embezzlement"
VFW NATIONAL-
06/22/2019
CONSPIRACY
Membership complaints were received by the National VFW, specifically David Prohaska, Kevin Jones and Vincent BJ Lawrence, however they were ignored, as no action to date has ever been initiated by the National VFW to investigate the complaints made by the Members, nor has any excuse been given by the VFW National Commander-
CONSPIRACY/ FABRICATED-
06/27/2019
CONSPIRACY-
APPEAL Special Order #27 (Mueller)
06/28/2019
APPEAL Special Order #28 (Pino)
APPEAL USPS Certified Mail Receipt
Email from National VFW to Pino
Email from Pino to National VFW
Email from Mueller to National VFW
CIVIL ACTION
Believing that the National VFW and Dept. Of Texas had no desire or intent to assist AVC, Mueller or Pino (Plaintiffs) with an administrative solution and in order to correct the public record, the Plaintiffs had no choice but to entertain a legal remedy addressing the FALSE and Defamatory statements that had known to have been made by the VFW Dept. Of Texas Commander Ingeborg A. Conley, Adjutant/ Quartermaster Roy J. Grona & Daniel L. West, Andrew F. Camplen, Post 6970 Commander John E. Shipley and Post 4853 Commander Jeff C. Rankin, Adjutant Patricia S. Hewitt and Douglas Edwards.
APPEAL
Without obtaining the “Form DA-
SIGNED INCIDENT REPORTS
William "Willy" Yapp
SIGNED REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Steve Mueller "Signed Incident Report" submitted to National VFW
Stephanie Pino "Signed Incident Report" submitted to National VFW
Mike Sharp "Signed Incident Report" submitted to National VFW
VFWP_01533 (43)
Sharon Sharp "Signed Incident Report" submitted to National VFW
VFWP_01534 (44)
William Yapp "Signed Incident Report" submitted to National VFW
VFWP_01535 (45)
Regina Reyna "Signed Incident Report" submitted to National VFW
Douglas Shreve "Signed Incident Report" submitted to National VFW
Mike Sharp
Sharon Sharp
Alex Kight Member ID 10465601
Arthur Carreon Jr. ID 11004323
Cody Warren Member ID 11259042
David Killen Member ID 10957660
David Martinez Member ID 10957656
Debra Beck Member ID 10995880
Douglas Shreve Member ID 109572292
Elisia Correa Member ID 10579013
Freddie Kight Jr. Member ID 10628407
Freddie Kight Sr. Member ID 10628406
Gerald Greenfield Member ID 10918055
Gerardo Lugo Member ID 10926878
Henry Fojtik Member ID 5794594
James Singleton Member ID 10995894
John Garza Member ID 10995658
Johnny Rogers Member ID 10957658
Jose Lopez Member ID 10926877
Kevin Beck Member ID 10995881
Kevin Osby Member ID 10926881
Laurence Rosen Member ID 10926884
Lloyd Loftin Member ID 10926876
Marquita Johnson Bailey Member ID 10957663
Meghan Hobbs Member ID 10926875
Michael Gabel Member ID 10995913
Neal Gray Member ID 10926870
Patrick Pino Member ID 10359732
Regina Reyna Member ID 11004334
Rene Martinez Member ID 11257565
Robert Anderson Member ID 9446621
Seth Setterberg Member ID 10610754
Stephen Arrington Member ID 10926867
Tahne Arrington Member ID 10926868
Steve Jaksik Member ID 10587278
Thomas Plaster Member ID 10926882
Trevor McCrea Member ID 10957852
William Bossert Member ID 10995893
Valarie Rice Member ID 10995914
Debra Phenix Member ID 10995888
Meghan Hobbs Member ID 10926875
Jessica McLane Member ID 10995885
Vincent Vita Member ID 5495728
(Section 901)
FORMAL COMPLAINT
MADE BY VFW MEMBERSHIP
Retainer for Legal Representation
06/30/2019
07/01/2019
Email from Mueller to National VFW “Fix this now!”
National VFW Read Receipt-
National VFW Read Receipt-
National VFW Read Receipt-
DROPBOX File titled “Request for Investigation into VFW Dept. Of Texas”
DROPBOX File titled “Request for Investigation into VFW Dept. Of Texas”
DROPBOX File titled “Request for Investigation into VFW Dept. Of Texas”
Email from Pino to National VFW concerning Member complaints
07/06/2019
DEMAND LETTER
DEF_00516-
07/12/2019
AVC, Mueller and Pino gave the VFW, VFW Dept. Of Texas and all of the coconspirators the opportunity to retract their false statements, but with the Malicious Criminal Prosecution obviously going forward and knowing that no Financial Misconduct occurred at AVC and thus unaware of what False and Fabricated information had been submitted to the Pleasanton Police Department that could have possibly be used to support probable cause of a crime. Mueller and Pino DEMANDED the retraction of ALL false statements made that they had become aware of to this point in time.
MUELLER RETAINS CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY PAUL SMITH
Email from Pino to National VFW concerning Members Complaints
FALSE ARREST
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
07/10/2019
PUBLIC SHAMING
EMBARRASSMENT & DEFAMATION
Public Defamation
TAKEN FROM ANDREW F. CAMPLEN DEPOSITION OF 09/03/2024 (Deposition Transcript)
01/14/2019
Exhibit 72-
1. The question was, have you ever seen that document before?
Camplen Responded; “Some of them I have and some of them I can't say that I have.” [p.13.L.6-
2. Which ones have you seen before?
Camplen Responded; “The ones in the back that are marked and date from the Texas VFW” [p.13.L.9-
3. At the bottom right-
Camplen Responded; “I have seen VFWP 02582 through VFWP 02589” [p.13.L.15]
4. You've seen all of them, except for the first two pages?
Camplen Responded; “That's correct”, “I can't say that I've seen the first two pages because they're not signed or dated” [p.13.L.18]
5. You see that on the first page it shows that you were introduced at the meeting; you see that?
Camplen Responded; “Yes” [p.13.L.24]
6. Were you at that time the state assistant adjutant?
Camplen Responded; “Yes, I was.” [p.14.L.2]
7. You testified earlier that that was your employed position with the VFW at the time; is that right?
Camplen Responded; “That's correct” [p.14.L.6]
8. And the date of this document is January 14th of 2019. Is that an accurate date, you think?
Camplen Responded; “I'm not sure about the date” [p.14.L.10]
9. on that date employed as a state assistant adjutant with the VFW?
Camplen Responded; “Yes, I was” [p.14.L.15]
10. Do you recall being present at the meeting?
Camplen Responded; “I do” [p.14.L.17]
11. Does the -
Camplen Responded; “They reflect some of the things that happened at the meeting, but I can't say that absolutely everything that happened in the meeting is in these minutes” [p.15.L.5-
12. Do you recall anything that happened at the meeting that is not in the minutes?
Camplen Responded; “I know there were some arguing and different noises and interruptions going on. I don't know why. I was videographer for the meeting” [p.15.L.10-
13. You videotaped the meeting?
Camplen Responded; “I did” [p.15.L.14]
14. Do you still have a copy of the videotape?
Camplen Responded; “I don't maintain any files for the Texas VFW”, “After the meeting was over, I turned the video over to the state quartermaster” [p.15.L.16-
15. And who was that at the time?
Camplen Responded; “Dan West” [p.15.L.20]
16. Who authorized you or instructed you to videotape the meeting?
Camplen Responded; “Dan West, state quartermaster” [p.15.L.23]
17. Once you turned the video over to Dan West, any idea what happened to it after that?
Camplen Responded; “No” [p.16.L.1]
18. You were the videographer and at the time you were the state assistant adjutant; correct?
Camplen Responded; “Correct” [p.16.L.22]
19. Did you have any other roles at the meeting?
Camplen Responded; “No” [p.16.L.25]
20. So, you were not a part of the investigative committee, then?
Camplen Responded; “Not that I remember, no” [p.17.L.3]
21. Is there a chance you were and you don't remember it?
Camplen Responded; “Well, at the meeting I wasn't part of the investigative committee” [p.17.L.6-
Camplen Responded; “But at a later time, I can't remember what they asked me to do or whatever” [p.17.L.9-
22. So, you were asked to be part of the investigative committee after the meeting?
Camplen Responded; “I don't think I was ever assigned to a committee, but I don't remember that” [p.17.L.13-
23. Okay. Were you involved in an investigation -
Camplen Responded; “For involved in investigation” [p.17.L.19]
24. Were you ever involved in an investigation of Steve Mueller?
Camplen Responded; “An investigation of him? You know, I don't know if it was an official investigation or if I was just asked to do certain things and I did them” [p.17.L.22-
25. Okay. Like what?
Camplen Responded; “Like reviewed statements from different people and –" [p.18.L.1-
26. Do you recall statements from whom?
Camplen Responded; “It was two people from a neighboring post” [p.18.L.4]
27. Would it have been Patricia Hewitt or Jeff Rankin?
Camplen Responded; “Those names, yes. Yeah” [p.18.L.7]
28. So, if they -
Camplen Responded; “It was either a statement or an e-
Camplen Responded; “But, yeah, I read over some of the stuff that –” [p.18.L.12]
29. Did you ever interview either of them personally?
Camplen Responded; “No” [p.18.L.15]
30. Or on the phone?
Camplen Responded; “Maybe I talked to them on the phone” [p.18.L.17]
31. Why would you have talked to them on the phone?
Camplen Responded; “Asking for something, to send the e-
32. Do you recall anybody else you might have talked to about Steve Mueller?
Camplen Responded; “No” [p.18.L.24]
33. Did you ever talk to Steve Mueller as part of that investigation?
Camplen Responded; “I don't remember” [p.19.L.2]
04/12/2019
Exhibit 73/ DA2_01528 (Special Order No. 26)
34. have you ever seen that document before?
Camplen Responded; “I don't recall ever seeing this document” [p.19.L.16]
35. It's addressed to you, though; correct?
Camplen Responded; “It is” [p.19.L.18]
36. You just simply don't recall receiving it?
Camplen Responded; “I don't recall receiving the document, but I recall receiving instructions from my supervisor, Dan West, to conduct a -
37. Some things meaning what?
Camplen Responded; “Specifically the Pleasanton VFW post” [p.19.L.24]
38. Any particular issues that you were asked to look into or the whole post?
Camplen Responded; “The statements made by Hewitt and the other name you mentioned” [p.20.L.2-
39. Jeff Rankin?
Camplen Responded; “Okay. Yeah, Jeff Rankin, and then other things involving that post” [p.20.L.5-
40. Like what?
Camplen Responded; “The whole reason we're here. Money that was used without post permission. Just allegations of a bunch of different bylaws violations that were occurring in the post” [p.20.L.8-
41. Other than this letter that you don't recall receiving or seeing before and possibly some phone conversations you referred to earlier, what were your specific instructions from Dan West as to this investigation?
Camplen Responded; “To look into what was going on in the post and follow up on what people were saying occurred there” [p.20.L.17-
42. Specifically, what?
Camplen Responded; “You know, I wrote a report about all this” [p.20.L.20]
43. Really. Who did you send it to?
Camplen Responded; “Dan West” [p.20.L.22]
44. Okay. Do you recall the date of the report?
Camplen Responded; “No, I don't” [p.20.L.24]
45. The date of Exhibit 73 -
Camplen Responded; “No idea” [p.21.L.5]
46. Okay As far as you know, that's an accurate date, though?
Camplen Responded; “I have no idea on its accuracy” [p.21.L.8]
47. Do you have any personal e-
Camplen Responded; “Don't have -
48. Did you send any e-
Camplen Responded; “I would imagine I did through the Texas VFW e-
49. Okay. What was your VFW e-
Camplen Responded; “Andrew at TexasVFW.org” [p.21.L.19]
50. Is Texas spelled out in that?
Camplen Responded; “I believe so” [p.21.L.21]
51. In doing your investigation of Mr. Mueller, did you also -
Camplen Responded; “She came up in the investigation, but I don't remember specifically on her name being mentioned or told to investigate her specifically” [p.22.L.8-
52. Take a look at Exhibit 73, the second paragraph.
Camplen Responded; “Ah, that's what this letter says” [p.22.L.12]
53. Does that refresh your recollection now?
Camplen Responded; “That's what the letter says. But again, I didn't get this letter or I don't remember getting it. As an employee in Texas VFW headquarters, I was asked to look into the matter at Pleasanton or Jourdanton, whichever one it was and that's what I did” [p.22.L.14-
54. Is that sort of order for investigation normally done simply by phone? There's not an official communication to you to commence an investigation?
Camplen Responded; “We were in the same office. So, it would be like, "Hey, I've got this going on and I need you to look into it." And then, I guess it was followed up with paperwork that I don't recall seeing, but likely could have seen” [p.22.L.23-
55. In your experience as being employed as a state assistant adjutant, is that – was that the normal course of business -
Camplen Responded; “What the normal course of business?” [p.23.L.8]
56. For an investigation to be started with a conversation?
Camplen Responded; “I think -
57. But it might possibly? Like this one looks like it was -
Camplen Responded; “Yeah, something as serious as that would be followed up with a special order issued by the state commander” [p.23.L.20-
58. Do you recall who you talked to as part of your investigation?
Camplen Responded; “No, I don't” [p.24.L.1]
59. Did you talk to Steve Mueller?
Camplen Responded; “I don't recall” [p.24.L.3]
60. Did you talk to Stephanie Pino?
Camplen Responded; “I don't recall. That would be in the report I wrote” [p.24.L.5-
61. We'll get to that. I'm trying to figure out if you remember anything about the investigation; okay? Did you talk to the credit union where the post had its bank account?
Camplen Responded; “I don't believe so” [p.24.L.11]
62. That would have been Security Service Federal Credit Union.
Camplen Responded; “I don't remember that. I'd have to have the report in front of me and refresh my memory” [p.24.L.14-
04/15/2019
Exhibit 74/ DEF_00489-
63. I'll hand that to you and ask you if you've seen that before. And is that the report you were just referring to?
Camplen Responded; “Yes. That's my report” [p.24.L.24]
64. Do you recall making that report?
Camplen Responded; “I do” [p.25.L.2]
65. Is that your signature on the front?
Camplen Responded; “It is” [p.25.L.4]
66. What's the date of that report?
Camplen Responded; “Don't see a date on it” [p.25.L.6]
67. Middle of the first page.
Camplen Responded; “April 15th, 2019”
68. Do you recall whether that's an accurate date?
“I don't” [p.25.L.10]
69. But you would not have prepared the report before you finished your investigation; is that correct?
Camplen Responded; “That's correct” [p.25.L.14]
70. So, by April 15th you would have finished your investigation?
Camplen Responded; “Yes” [p.25.L.20]
71. Okay. When did you start your investigation?
Camplen Responded; “I don't recall” [p.25.L.22]
72. Says your investigation shall commence on April 12th. Do you see that? Third paragraph?
Camplen Responded; “You said second paragraph?” [p.26.L.2]
73. First sentence of the third paragraph.
Camplen Responded; “Third paragraph. Okay. Yeah. I see that” [p.26.L.5]
74. Okay. Does that refresh your recollection about when your investigation started?
Camplen Responded; “It doesn't” [p.25.L.8]
75. Is it possible your investigation started before that?
Camplen Responded; “It's possible” [p.26.L.11]
76. Why?
Camplen Responded; “Because I may have been asked to do it before that” [p.26.L.14-
77. In that conversation with Dan West?
Camplen Responded; “As an employee there, yes” [p.26.L.19]
78. Did you travel to Pleasanton to conduct your investigation?
Camplen Responded; “No” [p.26.L.22]
79. How many post members of Post 12162 did you talk to as part of your investigation?
Camplen Responded; “I don't think they're listed as post members in my report and there are some names listed in there and I don't recall or see any reference to whether they're post members or not” [p.26.L.25], [p.27.L.1-
80. Where did you go to review the minutes of the post meetings?
Camplen Responded; “I don't recall specifically, but likely my office at Texas VFW headquarters” [p.27.L.6-
81. Is that where the post minutes for Post 12162 were housed?
Camplen Responded; “I don't remember the post minutes ever being submitted in due form as required by the VFW bylaws” [p.27.L.10-
82. Then how did you review minutes?
Camplen Responded; “I don't know. They were provided to me by somebody” [p.27.L.13-
83. But you don't recall who?
Camplen Responded; “I don't recall who” [p.27.L.16]
84. Other than Stephanie Pino and Steve Mueller, if you did -
Camplen Responded; “I don't recall” [p.27.L.21]
85. Did you talk to Stephanie Pino as part of your investigation?
Camplen Responded; “I don't recall” [p.27.L.25]
86. Did you talk to any other members of the Post 12162 as part of your investigation?
Camplen Responded; “I don't know if any of these people listed in my report are post members or not. I remember talking to these people listed in my report, but I don't remember talking to any other post members” [p.28.L.4-
87. Which members are you talking about?
Camplen Responded; “It would be on DEF 00492, three quarters of the way down the page, it says, "Rankin, Jeff, Hewitt" – no -
88. Okay. It says in that -
Camplen Responded; “I do” [p.28.L.17]
89. Did you actually talk to any of them?
Camplen Responded; “I don't recall that” [p.28.L.20]
90. And you already testified, I believe, that you didn't talk to any other members of that post?
Camplen Responded; “I don't recall talking to any other members of the post or even who the members of the post are” [p.28.L.25]
91. You don't recall where you got the minutes from the post?
Camplen Responded; “I don't” [p.29.L.5]
92. How many minutes -
Camplen Responded; “I don't remember and I don't see it listed in this report” [p.29.L.10-
93. Okay The top of the second page, it's got a Bates number on it of DEF 00490. The top paragraph says -
Camplen Responded; “I do see that” [p.29.L.21]
94. All right. How did you come to the conclusion that disbursements by Mueller and Pino were without post authorization or approval?
Camplen Responded; “Because I would have reviewed the minutes and seen that the permission voted on by the post didn't give them permission to make the expenses. But I don't remember which minutes I reviewed or didn't review because I didn't list them in my report” [p.29.L.25]
95. And you don't know who prepared the minutes?
Camplen Responded; “No” [p.30.L.6]
96. Back to the report, though, and your investigation. You've already said you didn't talk to any other members of Post 12162; correct?
Camplen Responded; “I said I don't recall who the members were and I didn't document who the members were” [p.31.L.1-
97. Do you recall whether Jeff Rankin was a member of Post 12162?
Camplen Responded; “I don't recall” [p.31.L.6]
98. Do you recall whether Patricia Hewitt was a member of Post 12162?
Camplen Responded; “I don't recall” [p.31.L.10]
99. Do you recall whether Doug Edward -
Camplen Responded; “I do not” [p.31.L.13]
100. So, how do you come to the conclusion that expenditures were without post authorization or approval when you didn't talk to any members of the post?
Camplen Responded; “Because all the business and authorized expenditures by bylaws of the VFW are supposed to be documented and approved in the minutes” [p.31.L.18-
Camplen Responded; “And if they weren't, then they weren't approved expenditures” [p.31.L.22-
101. Even if the members say they were approved?
Camplen Responded; “That would have to be backed up by official minutes” [p.32.L.1-
Camplen Responded; “Voted on, read at a meeting after that meeting and approved by the membership” [p.32.L.4-
102. Do you have any idea whether that happened?
Camplen Responded; “No, I don't” [p.32.L.9]
103. And other than the minutes that you looked at, you don't know if there are any other minutes that existed; correct?
Camplen Responded; “Well, each meeting would have been recorded by the post adjutant in the minutes. And then, the next meeting, those minutes would be read and approved by the membership by a majority vote. And so, the minutes I reviewed, as reflected in the report here, didn't match the expenditures on the bank accounts. So, bank transactions were made without post approval” [p.32.L.13-
104. Did you look at bank statements as part of your investigation?
Camplen Responded; “Yes” [p.32.L.22]
105. What bank statements did you look at?
Camplen Responded; “It says here the post bank account” [p.32.L.24]
106. Where does it say that? On the second page?
Camplen Responded; “Second page, second paragraph” [p.33.L.1]
ACCUSATION-
1. I'm going to ask you if you've ever seen that before?
Grona responded; “Can't recall, but it was addressed to me, so I'm sure I got it, but you have to understand how many pieces of paper came across my desk” [p.22.L.6-
2. Okay. So, this talks about membership and things that Mr. Mueller had originally e-
Grona responded; “I do recall -
3. What generally do you remember about it?
Grona responded; “Oh, I remember that he had talked about that he -
4. Did you consider it a fairly aggressive plan?
Grona responded; “I considered it against the bylaws of the Veterans of Foreign Wars” [p.23.L.4-
5. Why is that?
Grona responded; “Well, because the members decide who the leaders are, not somebody else” [p.23.L.7-
6. How does -
Grona responded; “Yeah. I have no -
7. And you took that to mean that Mr. Mueller would appoint the leader, then the membership would not elect them; is that what you're saying?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.23.L.18-
11/15/2018
AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY (AOR) ONGOING DISPUTE/ ALLEGED “VIOLATION OF SECTION 214”
1. Okay. Was there some discussion between Mr. Mueller and the leader of the post, the Poteet Post, 6970, and the Jourdanton Post, 4853, about areas of responsibility; do you recall?
Grona responded; “The only thing I recall is there was questions about soliciting within the area. Okay? And I remember I had talked to Mr. Mueller about the soliciting” [p.24.L.18-
2. What did you tell him; do you remember?
Grona responded; “I told him what the bylaws said. The bylaws said that it's restricted to the general area of the post” [p.24.L.11-
3. Were there specific boundaries that each post had to stay within?
Grona responded; “The boundaries, according to National – and this is from years of post arguing who had -
4. So, the city limits would be the boundary?
Grona responded; “Yes, basically” [p.24.L.25]
5. What about the areas of the county that aren't within the city limit?
Grona responded; “That's the -
6. Then how would the post decide where the boundary is?
Grona responded; “Normally very good at talking with each other and setting the boundaries on their own without a big hassle or anything. We had that problem in San Antonio with the number of posts we have in that city” [p.25.L.11-
7. Do the San Antonio posts have geographic boundaries?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.25.L.17]
8. Do the posts agree to that amongst themselves?
Grona responded; “The ones I dealt with did, yes” [p.25.L.21]
9. Does the Department of Texas have the authority under the bylaws to dictate what the area of responsibility is, what the boundary is?
Grona responded; “Sure. National does and they will put that out. Like I said, their geographical area, and that's the big issue is how do you define geographical area. So, they left that up to most of the departments to interpret geographical area” [p.26.L.1-
10. So, do you recall whether the posts in Atascosa County were able to agree on their boundaries?
Grona responded; “No” [p.26.L.9]
11. You don't remember or they didn't agree?
Grona responded; “I don't remember” [p.26.L.13]
11/30/2018
CONSPIRACY EMAIL
1. Take a look at this letter. At the time you were the state adjutant quartermaster; is that right?
Grona responded; “No. I can't tell you I did because I – any letter that went out under the state commander's name was done by the adjutant, anything; okay? So, obviously I've seen that letter before. I just can't recall it, so -
2. Okay. We discussed that you did remember a little bit about the discussions and the dispute about fundraising in areas of responsibility within Atascosa County; is that correct? Grona responded;
“Yes, sir” [p.28.L.9]
3. Okay. Do you know how that was resolved or if it was resolved?
Grona responded; “I can't remember” [p.28.L.12]
4. If you'll look at the next page, it's got underscore DA2 under -
Grona responded; “Can you scroll down further, please?, I don't recall, but again, any letter that went out of that headquarters was done by myself.” [p.28.L.21-
5. Okay. We're going to show you what's been previously marked as Deposition Exhibit Number 31. It's got Bates label number on the bottom of it of DA2 underscore 00663 (DA2_00663-
Grona responded; “Again, yeah. It's got my stuff on it, but I can't recall that letter” [p.30.L.7-
6. Take a look at that last page and read what you wrote there in that e-
Grona responded; “It doesn't hit me on my recollection, but obviously again it was my e-
7. The initial e-
Grona responded; “Yeah. I would say yes” [p.30.L.18]
8. And the date of that e-
Grona responded; “If you can go back up? Yeah. Yes” [p.30.L.21]
9. Okay.· And then, his e-
Grona responded; “According to that, yes” [p.30.L.24]
10. And then, the next message is from you back to John Shipley on that same day a few minutes later. You see that?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.31.L.5]
11. At the bottom of that screen there, it shows a message from John -
Grona responded; “Where's that at?” [p.31.L.10], “Okay. "Roy, here's a first draft of my letter. You might have to change the date on Inge's letter as the earliest date on the motorized" -
12. Do you recall what notarized statements he was talking about?
Grona responded; “I do not” [p.31.L.20]
13. All right. And then, go back and look at your response to that right above that, where it says, "Thanks, John." You see that? Read that in the record, please.
Grona responded; “Thanks, John. Changing Inge's letter to 11/16/2018” [p.31.L.25], [p.32.L.1]
14. Okay. At the time you were the state adjutant –
Grona responded; “At that time -
15. -
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.32.L.6]
16. Okay. Is it your habit to backdate official documents?
Grona responded; “I don't know what official document I was backdating” [p.32.L.10-
17. A letter from the state commander is not an official document?
Grona responded; “If it does not have the adjutant's signature on it, it's not an official document” [p.32.L.15-
18. All right. So, is it your personal habit then to backdate documents?
Grona responded; “No” [p.32.L.20]
19. Then why did you backdate the document here?
Grona responded; “Because that was not an official document. Somebody got their dates mixed up and we corrected it” [p.32.L.23]
20. The first e-
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.33.L.8]
21. All right. You said you would date it the 22nd about an investigation. So, a letter about an investigation's not an official document; is that your testimony?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.34.L.14]
22. Okay. And then, the letter got changed because notarized statements were dated November 19. So, you couldn't date the letter -
Grona responded; “I can't recall exactly how that went” [p.34.L.22], [p.34.L.25]
23. On the screen you've got a letter dated November 16, 2018 to John Shipley, Commander of District 20 -
Grona responded; “I typed that letter; okay? I don't recall it. You know, a lot of our state commanders, they don't do any of the admin work. They just tell the adjutant what they want, type a letter and send it to them. So, I don't recall specifically that letter, but it was probably me that wrote it.” [p.34.L.17-
24. You typed it and then Commander Conley signed it?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.34.L.25]
25. Okay. And it's copied to the state senior vice commander, state junior vice commander, the state chief of staff, and the district, and it's addressed to the district commander; is that accurate to say?
Grona responded; “Go back up top so I can see the address. Yes, that's accurate” [p.35.L.6], [p.35.L.8]
26. All right. And so, even though it's on -
Grona responded; “If you want the definition of an official document, you can go into the VFW file -
27. My question is, is it still your testimony that this is not an official document of the VFW?
Grona responded; “Yes. That is my testimony” [p.36.L.2]
28. We're going to show you a document that's been Bates labeled DEF underscore 00985 to 00986 (DEF_00985-
Grona responded; “Once again, no, not that I recall” [p.36.L.10]
29. Do you recall who Ms. Laurence was?
Grona responded; “She's a secretary, department secretary” [p.36.L.12]
30. Okay. What does a department secretary do normally?
Grona responded; “She normally types everything. And make – and files. That's about it” [p.36.L.15-
CONLEY’S APPOINTMENT LETTER TO SHIPLEY (PREPARED BY GRONA) (BACKDATED TO 11/16/2018)
31. The first question is, have you ever seen it before?
Grona responded; “Scroll down, please. I don't recall it. But, again, if it was – got the department letterhead on it, it went through our office” [p.82.L.9]
32. Is there a chance you typed the letter for Ms. Conley?
Grona responded; “No. I normally handwrote the letters and I would give them to Wyonda, the secretary, and she would type the letters” [p.82.L.14-
33. Do you recall ever handwriting this letter?
Grona responded; “I don't recall” [p.82.L.18]
34. And the first -
Grona responded; “No, I don't” [p.82.L.22]
SHIPLEYS INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
35. we're going to show you what's previously been marked as Deposition Exhibit Number 27 (PPD_00150) and ask if you've ever seen that document before.
Grona responded; “I don't recall” [p.83.L.2]
36. You don't recall ever seeing it before?
Grona responded; “I might have some memory, but I don't recall the specifics of that letter. There was a lot of letters coming in at that time” [p.83.L.6-
37. Take a look at it and see if it refreshes your recollection.
Grona responded; “No” [p.83.L.11]
INCIDENT REPORT
38. Do you know who John Shipley is?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.17.L.17]
39. In 2018 what was his position with the Department of Texas?
Grona responded; “I have no idea or no remembrance of what position he had. I know he was a district commander, District 20. What dates I'm not sure, so -
40. Okay. Was he a post commander too; do you know?
Grona responded; “He was at one time. He had been involved in the Poteet Post.” [p.18.L.1-
41. Do you know what an incident report is, Mr. Grona?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.19.L.14]
42. What is it under the VFW bylaws?
Grona responded; “Basically an incident report is if you have something that happens in your post or district, you normally do an incident report. The basis of most investigations start with an incident report, where somebody reported a violation of the bylaws or it could even be like a canteen issue or a bar issue or somebody got rowdy, well, the bartender will do an incident report stating what that was. So, it's basically the first form you use to initiate that type of action. If you're going to do a formal action against a VFW member, you have to start with an incident report” [p.19.L.17-
43. Is there a particular form for the incident report to take?
Grona responded; “No. It can take any form. It can be written; can be e-
44. It appears to be an e-
Grona responded; “Okay. In my opinion that would not be an incident report” [p.21.L.1-
45. Okay. Why not?
Grona responded; “It doesn't state -
INVESTIGATION
46. Do you know if there was an investigation of this particular subject matter?
Grona responded; “I cannot answer that. I don't know if there was an investigation. I know that Commander Conley sent me a letter, but that was right when I was out-
47. When was that letter?
Grona responded; “Like December 6 or somewhere in that neighborhood, 5th or 6th” [p.21.L.17-
48. And you said that's about -
Grona responded; “That's about the time I was going out on terminal leave prior to my retirement” [p.21.L.23-
CONSPIRACY
CONSPIRACY TO INVENT A ERRONEOUS JUSTIFICATION AND FALSIFY AND FABRICATE OFFICIAL VFW DOCUMENTS IN ORDER TO BRING A FRAUDULENT ARTICLE IX DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST MUELLER
12/06/2018
CONLEY’S LETTER TO GRONA (PREPARED BY GRONA) ORDERING GRONA TO PREPARE CHARGES
1. The first question is, have you ever seen that document?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.83.L.17]
2. Do you recall it or you're just saying that because it's got your name on it as the addressee?
Grona responded; “I recall it” [p.83.L.20]
3. What's the purpose of and the substance of the letter, please?
Grona responded; “Apparently the state commander wanted me and my staff to review and confirm the findings of Commander Shipley” [p.83.L.23-
4. Did you do that?
Grona responded; “I probably passed on to Dan West at that time. That was about a week before I was moving out of Austin. So, I had a lot going on. So, most of that stuff that came in in December was passed on to Dan because Dan was going to be the new adjutant” [p.84.L.2-
5. So, you didn't review anything in response to this. You handed it off to Dan West; is that accurate to say?
Grona responded; “Yes. As I recall, I had passed that on” [p.84.L.11]
6. Did you talk to Commander Conley about that and tell her that you did that?
Grona responded; “No” [p.84.L.14]
7. Why not?
Grona responded; “Had no reason to” [p.84.L.17]
8. So, even though she directed you to do something and you handed it off to somebody else, you weren't required to tell her that you'd done that?
Grona responded; “No, I handed it off to my staff. Dan was my staff at that time, and so we followed her instructions” [p.84.L.23, 25]
9. What was his title at the time?
Grona responded; “Assistant adjutant” [p.85.L.3]
10. Did you become the adjutant after that?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.85.L.5]
11. You said earlier I think he was the acting quartermaster as well; is that right?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.85.L.9]
12. For department?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.85.L.11]
01/04/2019
SPECIAL ORDER NO. 18 (MUELLER)
1. Okay. Mr. Grona, before we broke, you had testified I believe that your last date with VFW Department of Texas was around December 15th of 2018; is that correct?
Grona responded; “Yes, sir” [p.46.L.7].
2. Did you do anything for the department after that date?
Grona responded; “Well, they called me to ask questions basically, but -
3. Did you do any investigations?
Grona responded; “I did not do an investigation, no” [p.46.L.14]
4. But you did inspections?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.46.L.16]
5. Did the VFW Department pay you to do that?
Grona responded; “They paid me mileage and hotel expenses, but no salary”
6. Okay. As part of those duties, did you sign inspection reports?
Grona responded; “I didn't sign any report that I did not do myself, so, no” [p.46.L.22-
7. I thought you -
Grona responded; “If they asked me to, yes. If I did the inspection, I would sign it, but that's the only time I-
8. Okay. I'm talking about just what you did and what you signed.
Grona responded; “After I left the VFW? After I left as an officer of VFW?”, “If they asked me to go do inspections, yes, I would, and I would sign it, but I didn't know -
9. A year later in 2019?
Grona responded; “Would have been June of 2019” [p.47.L.20]
10. So, you left in December of 2018 and you were appointed as an officer in June of 2019?
Grona responded; “That's correct” [p.47.L.23]
11. What officer position were you appointed to?
Grona responded; “I was the state inspector” [p.48.L.1]
12. So, between December of 2018 and June of 2019 you didn't do anything in an official capacity with the VFW, Department of Texas?
Grona responded; “I answered any ques -
13. Did you sign any documents as an officer of the Department of Texas VFW after December of 2018?
Grona responded; “Not specifically as an officer, no.” [p.48.L.15]
14. Other than as an inspector, signing an inspection report, did you sign any documents between December of '18 and June of 2019 on behalf of Department of Texas VFW?
Grona responded; “Yes, I -
15. And on what did you base that?
Grona responded; “On the stuff the -
16. Who sent you the evidence?
Grona responded; “Dan West” [p.49.L.9]
17. Anybody else?
Grona responded; “No. He sent me -
18. Was he the investigator?
Grona responded; “No. He was the adjutant quartermaster. He needed somebody to sign the charges and specifications as an accuser. Okay? Normally the accuser was the adjutant quartermaster, but in this case Dan was involved in it so much, he thought it would be better if he had a disinterested party basically sign as the accuser. But the accuser can be anybody. Doesn't have to be a VFW officer” [p.49.L.13-
19. Okay. So, you've already testified you were not the investigator; correct?
Grona responded; “No, I was not the investigator” [p.49.L.23]
20. Did you have any personal knowledge of the accusation?
Grona responded; “Of course I did. I mean, even before I left, there was all the other stuff that was going on. So, I had some personal knowledge, you know.” [p.50.L.1-
21. Can you be more specific as to all the other stuff that was going on you just mentioned?
Grona responded; “Well, I had knowledge of the Special Forces deal when he was relieved as the chairman. I had knowledge of the issues concerning the geographical locations, solicitations. I had knowledge of some of the – and vaguely -
22. How did you have personal knowledge of the accusations against Mr. Mueller?
Grona responded; “Well, a lot of stuff happened before I left. And then, the investigations had just started when I left, so I did not have any knowledge of the stuff involving the checking account and things of that nature” [p.50.L.17-
23. Okay. We're going to show you what's been -
Grona responded; “I have” [p.51.L.5]
24. What's your understanding of that document?
Grona responded; “It's charges and specifications”, “Yeah. It's charges and specifications” [p.51.L.7]
25. So, is it your testimony that as the accuser, you don't have to have personal knowledge of all of the charges and specifications in the document that you signed?
Grona responded; “They sent me -
26. What I asked you, Mr. Grona, was, is it your testimony that you don't have to have personal knowledge of the charges and specifications, even though you signed it as the accuser?
Grona responded; “I had -
27. They being Dan West?
Grona responded; “Correct” [p.52.L.6]
28. What did he send you?
Grona responded; “About 200 pages worth of stuff” [p.52.L.8]
29. Did it include the information about the bank account?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.52.L.9-
30. Did you have any prior knowledge of the stuff that he sent you before he sent it to you?
Grona responded; “Just the things I discussed today” [p.52.L.15]
31. The Special Forces allegations and the area of responsibility issues?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.52.L.18]
32. Anything else?
Grona responded; “Other things that would come up on Steve Mueller. I don't recall everything” [p.52.L.20-
33. Is there anything in the charges and specifications -
Grona responded; “Once again, I had personal knowledge of everything. They sent me everything they had that was the basis of the Article IX” [p.53.L.5-
34. I'm sorry. My question wasn't very clear. Prior to the time that you got the package from Dan West and other than the Special Forces allegations and the area of responsibility issues we've talked about previously, did you have any personal knowledge of any of the other accusations against Mr. Mueller before you got the package from Dan West?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.53.L.16]
35. Okay. Well, what did you have personal knowledge of?
Grona responded; “I don't recall everything” [p.53.L.19-
36. The first charge says, "Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or conduct unbecoming a member in their relations to the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States or other members." You see that charge number one?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.54.L.6]
37. Is there any specifications listed under charge number one of which you did not have personal knowledge before you got the package from Dan West?
Grona responded; “Specification 7 I did not know. Specification 8, I had heard that. I never saw anything that actually proved that” [p.54.L.14-
38. So, the Specifications 1 through 6, your testimony is you had personal knowledge of?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.54.L.23]
39. How did you have personal knowledge of those?
Grona responded; “From e-
40. At the time these accusations were made, was Mr. Mueller the commander of Post 4853?
Grona responded; “I don't recall” [p.55.L.4]
41. Charge Number 2 says, "Disobedience or disregard of the provisions of the congressional charter, bylaws at all levels, manual procedure, ritual, general orders or any other laws and usages of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States or any order of the Commander-
Grona responded; “Okay. I don't -
42. Charge Number 3 says, "A violation of Section 902, paragraph 2, by failing to fulfill the obligations taken at time of application and admission or obligations taken upon installation of any office."
Grona responded; “didn't have personal knowledge of that one. That's kind of general” [p.53.L.1-
43. Did you have personal knowledge of the specifications under that charge?
Grona responded; “No” [p.56.L.10]
44. Okay. Charge Number 4 says, "A violation of Section 902, paragraph 8, by preparing or signing any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document of or concerning the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, knowing it to be false or making any other false statements with intent to deceive." Did you have personal knowledge of any of the specifications under that charge?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.56.L.20]
45. Okay. Which one – which specifications under that charge did you not have personal knowledge of, if any?
Grona responded; “I had no personal knowledge of those” [p.56.L.25]
46. When you received the packet from Dan West, did it include an investigation report?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.57.L.1-
47. Who signed it?
Grona responded; “I don't recall” [p.57.L.5]
48. Is an investigation report normally signed by an investigator?
Grona responded; “Normally it is. I don't recall who it was” [p.57.L.8]
49. Okay. Could the packet also include an incident report?
Grona responded; “I don't recall” [p.57.L.11]
50. Should it?
Grona responded; “Not necessarily. All I'm attesting to is the charges and specifications.” [p.57.L.14-
51. Okay. Charge Number 5 says, "A violation of Section 902, paragraph 9, by selling or otherwise disposing of money or property without proper authority or willfully or negligently damaging, destroying or losing any such money or property belonging to the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States or any post, county, council, district or department." How many, if any, of the specifications under that charge did you not have personal knowledge of?
Grona responded; “I did not have personal knowledge on any of those.” [p.58.L.3-
52. Did you ask anybody any questions before you signed this document as the accuser?
Grona responded; “No” [p.58.L.6-
53. Did you ask any questions of Dan West or the investigator about any of the accusations or the documents that purported to show these charges or support these charges?
Grona responded; “No” [p.58.L.14]
54. Why not?
Grona responded; “Because I know the people and I know Dan West. They're not liars. They sent me the stuff. I looked at it. I had knowledge on some of them, knowledge on some others I did not. But I had enough faith in the officers of the VFW that -
55. Okay. So, it says that -
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.59.L.6]
56. And then you signed it as the accuser?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.59.L.8]
57. Right?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.59.L.10]
58. Okay. You formed that reasonable belief based on either your personal knowledge on the ones that the you test -
Grona responded; “Correct” [p.59.L.19]
59. Did you talk to anybody else about the packet besides Dan West?
Grona responded; “I don't recall” [p.59.L.24]
60. Is there a chance you talked to somebody else?
Grona responded; “Could be. Yes” [p.60.L.2,4]
61. Do you know if the investigator was named in the packet?
Grona responded; “John Shipley I believe was the investigator” [p.60.L.8]
62. Did you know John Shipley before you got the packet?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.60.L.11]
63. But you didn't talk to -
Grona responded; “I don't recall” [p.60.L.15]
64. Did you ever have occasion to talk to Andrew Camplen about it?
Grona responded; “No” [p.60.L.19]
65. Did you have any conversations with Dan West about it -
Grona responded; “We had many conversations” [p.60.L.22]
66. What were the substance of the conversations?
Grona responded; “Just basically when he called me and asked me to take a look at all the evidence and sign as the accuser. So, I saw all the evidence and he called me back now and then and asked me -
02/06/2019
SPECIAL ORDER NO. 19 (PINO)
1. Okay. Mr. Grona, is that your signature on that page?
Grona responded; “Yeah, it is, on the charges and specifications” [p.61.L.20]
2. So, is it your testimony you've not seen the cover letter?
Grona responded; “I would not see that cover letter as the accuser.” [p.61.L.25]
3. Okay. Why were you the accuser on this document?
Grona responded; “The department asked me to look at the evidence, and if I would, sign as the accuser” [p.62.L.5-
4. Who at the department asked you to do that?
Grona responded; “Dan West” [p.62.L.9]
5. Anybody else?
Grona responded; “No” [p.62.L.11]
6. At the time, what was Dan West's position with the Department of Texas VFW?
Grona responded; “He was the adjutant and quartermaster, pro tem” [p.62.L.14]
7. Take a look at the second page. Who are these charges and specifications against? “Pardon?” Who were they against?
Grona responded; “They were against Stephanie Pino” [p.62.L.22]
8. Had you ever met Ms. Pino?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.62.L.24]
9. When's the first time you met her?
Grona responded; “I don't recall” [p.63.L.1]
10. Did you meet her before these charges and specifications were signed by you as an accuser?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.63.L.4]
11. Okay. Take a look at the first charge says, "Violation of Section 902, paragraph 4, disobedience or disregard of the provisions of the congressional charter, bylaws at all levels, manual of procedure, ritual, general orders or other laws and usages of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States or any order of the commander-
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.63.L.13]
12. There's several specifications under that. And my question to you is, which of those specifications, if any, did you not have personal knowledge of when you signed this document as the accuser?
Grona responded; “Okay. The only one I can see that I had a little bit of knowledge was the statement about the post attorney has not authorized it. That's the only one” [p.63.L.19-
13. Which specification is that?
Grona responded; “Two” [p.63.L.23]
14. You had knowledge of that one, but not any of the rest of them; is that correct?
Grona responded; “That's correct” [p.64.L.2]
15. What was your knowledge of that statement?
Grona responded; “It was not anything written or anything, but I had been told that. I knew that. I had heard that, but not anything written or anything. Just by people calling me.” [p.64.L.6-
16. So, you knew the post had an attorney that they'd hired?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.64.L.13]
17. Is that right?
Grona responded; “Yes. I knew they had an attorney” [p.64.L.15]
18. Charge Number 2 says, "A violation of Section 902, paragraph 9, by selling or otherwise disposing of money or property without proper authority or willfully or negligently damaging, destroying or losing any such money or property belonging to the Veterans of Foreign War of the United States, or any post, county, council, district or department." See that charge?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.65.L.1]
19. Okay. My question is, which of the specifications under that charge, if any, did you not have personal knowledge of?
Grona responded; “I had no personal knowledge of any of those” [p.65.L.5]
20. And so, then you signed the same oath that we talked about before, that you had a reasonable belief that the above act or acts have been committed? And for the ones that you didn't have personal knowledge of, how did you form that reasonable belief that those acts had been committed?
Grona responded; “Because they sent me the evidence” [p.65.L.16]
21. They who?
Grona responded; “Dan West” [p.65.L.18]
22. Okay. Anybody else?
Grona responded; “No” [p.65.L.20]
23. Did you talk to anybody else about Ms. Pino and the charges against her?
Grona responded; “No” [p.65.L.23]
24. Ingeborg Conley signed not only the cover letter, but also the charges and specifications. Did you talk to her about it?
Grona responded; “No” [p.66.L.2]
25. Were you paid to act as the accuser?
Grona responded; “No” [p.66.L.4]
26. Did you have to travel anywhere to testify about those?
Grona responded; “No” [p.66.L.7]
27. Did you attend the disciplinary proceeding?
Grona responded; “No” [p.66.L.9]
28. Did you testify at the disciplinary proceeding?
Grona responded; “No” [p.66.L.11]
29. let me make sure I'm clarifying my question. The disciplinary proceeding of Ms. Pino or Mr. Mueller?
Grona responded; “No” [p.66.L.15]
30. You didn't attend either one?
Grona responded; “No” [p.66.L.17]
31. Okay. Did you talk to Mr. West about these charges and specifications against Ms. Mueller -
Grona responded; “No” [p.66.L.22]
32. In your mind what was the purpose of you signing the document as the accuser?
Grona responded; “They have to have an accuser, so they asked me to do it.” [p.67.L.1]
33. Who has to have the accuser?
Grona responded; “No. You have to have an accuser. At that time the bylaws required an accuser.” [p.67.L.4]
34. Tell me again why Dan West picked you?
Grona responded; “I have -
35. Why didn't Dan West sign as the accuser; do you know?
Grona responded; “I have no idea why he didn't” [p.67.L.14]
36. Did he tell you why he wasn't going to sign it as the accuser?
Grona responded; “No. He just asked me to review the documents and sign as the accuser if I felt it was warranted” [p.67.L.17-
37. Did he tell you that he had personal knowledge of the specifications in each document?
Grona responded; “No” [p.67.L.21]
38. Do you know who prepared the document?
Grona responded; “I'm pretty sure that Dan West wrote up the charges and specifications” [p.67.L.23-
39. Was that -
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.68.L.4]
40. Did Dan West tell you that?
Grona responded; “No” [p.68.L.6]
41. You just presumed that he prepared the documents?
Grona responded; “Normally that's the adjutant's job to prepare the charges and specifications” [p.68.L.9-
42. We're going to show you what's been previously marked as Deposition Exhibit 84. It's got a Bates label number on the bottom of it of PPD underscore 00100 through 00117 (PPD_00100-
Grona responded; “No” [p.68.L.21]
43. Have you ever seen these charges and specifications against Mr. Mueller before?
Grona responded; “Yeah. That's the -
44. Is that your signature at the bottom?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p69.L.8]
45. Why did you sign that document?
Grona responded; “Because I reasonably believed that the infractions had occurred” [p69.L.10-
46. And you formed that belief how?
Grona responded; “By looking at the evidence” [p69.L.13]
47. Where did you obtain the evidence?
Grona responded; “From Dan West” [p69.L.15]
48. Other than the charges and specifications page, this type that you signed, what other documents did you review to form that reasonable belief?
Grona responded; “There was about -
49. Before you signed this document, Exhibit 84, did you try to contact anybody at the post?
Grona responded; “No” [p69.L.21]
50. Did you try to talk to any of the trustees at the post?
Grona responded; “No” [p.70L.2]
51. What's your understanding of the role of a trustee of a post?
Grona responded; “Trustee of the post is basically responsible to look at the paperwork for the adjutant and the quartermaster and make sure it's all done. And on the quartermaster's side, make sure that the expenditures that were made were authorized by VFW bylaws” [p.70L.6-
52. I'm sorry. You said the expenditures made by the post?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p70.L.13]
53. Okay. So, if some of the specifications and the charges were about money being spent by officers of the post that weren't authorized, why wouldn't you talk to the trustee or the trustees of the post to see if it would have been authorized?
Grona responded; “Didn't need to” [p.70.L.20]
54. Why not?
Grona responded; “Because they sent the minutes and the minutes didn't have any approval for any of those expenditures as required by the bylaws” [p.70.L.22-
55. How do you know it wasn't a paper snafu and not stolen money?
Grona responded; “Because it happened -
56. What do the rules say about that?
Grona responded; “Post members have to approve all expenditures” [p.71.L.9]
57. And the only way you know they didn't is because it wasn't in the minutes; is that correct?
Grona responded; “Well -
58. Did you ask Dan West if he had talked to the trustees?
Grona responded; “No” [p.71.L.18]
59. Why not?
Grona responded; “Not my business. He was the adjutant then” [p.71.L.21]
60. Take a look at Exhibit 84. The first charge, Charge Number 1, says, "Violation of Section 902, paragraph 6, conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline or conduct unbecoming a member in their relations to the Veterans of Foreign War for the United States or other members." You see that?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.72.L.6]
61. My question is, how many of the specifications under that charge did you not have personal knowledge of when you signed this document?
Grona responded; “Didn't I already give -
62. On the Charge Number 1 there are a few specifications. Specification Number 2, Specification Number 4, for example, that deal with Patricia Hewitt. Do you see those?
Grona responded; “Yes” [p.73.L.12]
63. My question is, why wouldn't Patricia Hewitt be the accuser?, Do you know?
Grona responded; “Again, I don't know why they -
64. They being Dan West?
Grona responded; “No”, “being the state commander and Dan West as the adjutant. Normally the state commander wouldn't be involved. The adjutant would say, "I'm going to let so and so look at the evidence and be the accuser." Normally, the accuser was the adjutant quartermaster” [p.73.L.20, 22-
65. And you signed both Exhibit 83 and 84, at least the last page of each one of those, after you had been an officer with the Department of Texas; right?
Grona responded; “I was still technically being paid, but I was on terminal leave. I was using up my vacation time” [p.74.L.7-
66. I misunderstood that. I thought earlier you said you weren't being paid a salary?
Grona responded; “No. That was when you asked me a question about February. I was on the payroll of the Department of Texas until the end of January 2019” [p.74.L.12-
67. Okay. Well, you signed on February 6th of 2019?
Grona responded; “That's correct. I was not -
68. So, you signed these even though you weren't an officer of department and you weren't being paid by the department?
Grona responded; “I was receiving -
the bylaws of the organization” [p.14.L.20-
15. I see. In this one page on page three it shows in the subject line, Steve Mueller, State VFW future concepts chairman; you see that?
Grona responded; “Yeah, okay. I wasn't sure which chairman. I know he was a chairman, so -
16. Is that the appointed position you were just referring to?
Grona responded; “Yes, Future Concepts. Yeah. I remember that part now. Yeah” [p.15.L.10-
17. Okay. Other than being removed as Future Concepts Chairman, was any other administrative action taken against Mr. Mueller for this?
Grona responded; “Not that I'm aware of.” [p.15.L.15]
18. So, as far as you know, there wasn't -
Grona responded; “We didn't really need an investigation. I mean it was printed and all we did was remove him from an appointed position. If he would have been a state officer, we would have had to gone a different route with it. But as an appointed officer, the state commander has every right to remove any appointed officer for whatever reason he deems necessary” [p.16.L.6-
CONSPIRACY-
04/15/2019
CONSPIRACY
CONSPIRACY-
04/17/2019
CONSPIRACY-
ABANDON SPECIAL ORDER #18 WITHOUT FINAL ADJUDICATION
VFW Dept. Of Texas never issued a amended DA-
ABANDON SPECIAL ORDER #19 WITHOUT FINAL ADJUDICATION
VFW Dept. Of Texas never issued a amended DA-
Documents Justifying Article 9 Disciplinary Action (As required by Article 9 of the VFW National By-
1. SIGNED INCIDENT REPORT
- Jeff Rankin 11/16/2018 Signed notarized Statement (PPD_00155-
00156 ) - Patricia S. Hewitt 11/24/2018 Signed notarized Statement (PPD_00157-
00159 ) - Douglas Edwards 11/28/2018 Signed notarized Statement (PPD_00160-
00161 )
2. ORDER APPOINTING A INVESTIGATOR/ INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE
- Ingeborg A. Conley (backdated) 11/16/2018 Order to John E. Shipley (PPD_00083)
3. INVESTIGATIVE REPORT (Investigator Findings & Disciplinary Recommendation)
- John E. Shipley Investigative Report of 11/30/2018 Order to Ingeborg A. Conley recommending Disciplinary Action (PPD_00150)
APPEAL
Steve Mueller and Stephanie Pino file an APPEAL to the results of Disciplinary Action brought against them, contained in Special Order No. 18 & 19, dated 02/06/2018. Specifically Appealing the decision contained in Conley’s Special Order No. 27 & 28 as being erroneous due to Conley and her staff not following Section 903 of the VFW National By-
CONSPIRACY-
03/15/2019
CONSPIRACY-
03/17/2019
APPEAL (Mueller) to Special Order 23 & Formal Complaint-
03/29/2019
APPEAL (Pino) to Special Order 24 & Formal Complaint-
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
CONSPIRACY-
03/07/2019
CONSPIRACY TO BRING A FRAUDULENT DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST MUELLER
The evidence overwhelmingly substantiates that there was no “accuser”, nor did any “accuser” submit a “Signed Incident Report” to VFW Department of Texas Ingeborg A. Conley. No Investigation took place, nor could have, since there was no “Signed Incident Report” by which to base any investigation on. Grona’s backdated and fabricated a “Appointment Letter”, allegedly coming from Conley to Shipley, prepared by Grona himself, was allegedly generated after the receipt of Shipleys fraudulent “Investigative Report” and, according to Grona’s testimony, is a “unofficial VFW Document”. Grona acknowledges that he received “About 200 pages worth of stuff” from Dan West, who at the time, was the VFW Department of Texas Adjutant. Grona claims these documents submitted by Dan West contained the “Bank Statements” and an “Investigative Report”. Grona claimed that John E. Shipley was the “Investigator”. Grona claims he has never conducted an “Investigation” himself. Grona claims he was asked by Dan West to be the “accuser” and it was West that requested that Grona sign the Charges and Specifications (DA-
1st Scenario of Events
First and foremost, if Conley’s Appointment letter of 11/16/2018 was NOT an official VFW Document, a document that specifically instructed John E. Shipley to conduct an investigation into Mueller, then Shipleys findings reflected in his published “Investigative Report” is invalid. Furthermore, then 12/06/2018, letter ordering Grona to confirm Shipleys findings is also invalid along with any conclusions drawn from Shipleys “Investigative Report”. Therefore, any Special Orders associated with the initiation of any Article IX Disciplinary Actions that came as a result of any finding contained in Shipleys “Investigative Report” is invalid and improper.
2nd Scenario of Events
Second, assuming the Appointment letter is actually an “official” VFW Document. Then Grona knowingly and intentionally prepared a fabricated and falsified official VFW document by backdating the document to give the erroneous appearance that it was the result of, and after receiving a “Signed Incident Report”. That allowed Shipley to Investigate Mueller and publish an “Investigative Report” that recommended Disciplinary Action be taken against Mueller. Perhaps under the misguided belief that Rankin, Hewitt and Edwards statements would be used as the “Signed Incident Report”?
Assuming that both scenarios are valid:
Grona confirmed that he was the “Accuser” and that Dan West sent him the Charges and Specifications (DA-
1. If Grona is indeed the “accuser”, why then is Grona signing the DA-
2. If Grona is indeed the “accuser”, why hadn’t Grona submitted a “Signed Incident Report” to Conley at some point predating Conley’s Appointment Letter to Shipley on 11/16/2018.
3. If Grona is indeed the “accuser”, Why didn’t Shipley talk to Grona about what Grona had personal knowledge of and alleged about Mueller in his “Signed Incident Report”?
4. If Grona is indeed the “accuser”, why doesn’t Shipleys “Investigative Report” to Conley confirm Shipley talked to Grona?
5. If Grona was indeed the “accuser”, then why does Shipleys “Investigative Report” convey Shipley only spoke with Jeff Rankin, Patricia S. Hewitt and Douglas P. Edwards?
Patricia S. Hewitt stated that Atascosa County Post 4853 officer submitted statements at District 20 Commander John E. Shipley’s request, believing it to be related to the ongoing AOR dispute. When asked about the purpose, both Hewitt and Rankin confirmed that Shipley solicited the statements and directed them to sign and notarize them, without specifically providing a reason. Both Rankin and Hewitt confirmed the statements were not meant to be used in a Disciplinary Action against Mueller, however, have no mention of AOR’s, Projects, Fundraising or Programs.
1. If Rankin, Hewitt and Edwards signed notarized statements are, in fact the “Signed Incident Report” that began the Article IX Disciplinary Action against Mueller, then why were they submitted to a District Commander and not a Department Commander or Commander-
Who was the “Accuser” that submitted the “Signed Incident Report” to VFW Department of Texas Ingeborg A. Conley on or before 11/16/2018, that justified the appointment of John E. Shipley as the Investigator, subsequently being tasked to investigate Mueller concerning this allegations and publish a “Investigative Report” that substantiate claims made in the “Signed Incident Report” that Mueller’s actions indeed violated the VFW National By-
Grona stated; “Basically an incident report is if you have something that happens in your post or district, you normally do an incident report. The basis of most investigations start with an incident report, where somebody reported a violation of the bylaws or it could even be like a canteen issue or a bar issue or somebody got rowdy, well, the bartender will do an incident report stating what that was. So, it's basically the first form you use to initiate that type of action. If you're going to do a formal action against a VFW member, you have to start with an incident report”.
Who submitted the “Signed Incident Report” to Conley that justified Special Order No. 18 and 19?
Where is it?
Grona’s deposition statements regarding the “About 200 pages worth of stuff” submitted to him by Dan West was that he was asked to “to take a look at some charges and specifications on Mueller” and found that he believed that “these events warrant Article IX proceedings”. Grona claims he “was not the investigator”.
1. If Grona is indeed the “accuser”, then why is he being permitted to review the evidence and render an opinion to the Department Adjutant?
2. If Grona is indeed the “accuser”, what is the reason he is signing the DA-
The only person that is supposed to review evidence and render an opinion in the form of an “Investigative Report” is the Investigator. The only person that is supposed to “recommend an Article IX Disciplinary Actions” is an investigator. Was Grona an additional Investigator, if so, when was he appointed by Conley?
During Deposition, Grona was specifically asked questions about both Form DA-
After being presented the 01/4/2019 Form DA-
CONSPIRACY