Sent to various email addresses by Max Ball National President of the Vietnam Veterans Association Australia, vice-president of the Defence Force Welfare Association (WA Branch) and additional commentary provided by Richard Usher OAM, President of the Defence Force Welfare Association of Australia (WA Branch).
The first E-Mail here below is from an ex-soldier named [NAME REDACTED], from 5/7RAR. He has fallen victim of a fraudulent fellow who said he was doing welfare work. His name is “Jay Devereaux”. The E-Mail is followed by other E-Mails of support. Let us hope that this fellow never interferes with a veteran ever again! .
19 January 2021.
G’day, I’m [NAME REDACTED]. Ex 5/7RAR veteran.
I am writing to inform you of a fraud involving Veterans.
I was recently in hospital due to a suicide attempt after the sudden loss of my wife. The grief and PTSD was just to much.
We can confirm this veteran was admitted to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital on 28 July 2020, having reportedly attempted suicide. We understand from medical records his partner died in March 2020, from an overdose.
The veteran was referred to V360 by medical staff at the Mental Health Observation Area (MHOA), who reported he needed accommodation, support to find a specialist psychiatrist and drug/alcohol rehabilitation services.
I was approached by man called Jay Devereaux from V360/ Veterans 360 whilst in hospital.
The veteran was asked by his treating doctor if he wanted to be referred to and seen by Mr Devereux. The veteran agreed to the referral and the ensuing visit, which took place later that day.There was no unsolicited approach by V360 or Mr Devereux.
To cut a long story short Jay befriended me and offered me assistance at my most vulnerable time.
Mr Devereux denies ever “befriending” this veteran, but agrees certain offers of assistance consistent with V360’s mission to assist veterans experiencing crisis were made.
Mr Devereux states this veteran claimed he was previously a member of the Rebels Motorcycle Club. The veteran told numerous tales about his time as a “patched member.” He also related to Mr Devereux activities and events of a criminal nature that he undertook as a member of that organisation. These disclosures concerned Mr Devereux and it was noted these statements may have resulted from his intoxication caused by his substance abuse and medications used by his doctor to sedate him.
In accordance with V360 policies, Mr Devereux ended the conversation and advised the veteran that any disclosure of past or present criminal or unlawful behaviours or related activities were subject to mandatory reporting. He was formally told not to discuss events from his time with that organisation while being assisted by V360.
Disclosure: Mr Devereux has over the years had an affiliation with the Veterans Motorcycle Club. That organisation is a registered not-for-profit organisation in WA and is not considered a 1% or Organised Motorcycle Gang.
He not only failed to help me but also made my life almost unbearable.
Upon being contacted by medical staff, Mr Devereux attended the hospital the same day and spoke with clinicians, then met with the veteran. During this initial discussion Mr Devereux was provided with specific information from the veteran regarding his military history, life experiences, substance and alcohol abuse, the duration of that addiction, his diagnosed medical and mental health conditions and other information relevant to assessing how to best assist the veteran.
Mr Devereux set about arranging a bed for the veteran in a private hospital contracted to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) because remaining in the mental health ward is never considered the best option for veterans once they are stabilised. The closest hospital to Sir Charles Gairdner that admitted DVA clients refused to admit the veteran due to the nature of the substance and his recent use of the same.
Having encountered this situation on other occasions (while trying to gain admissions for veteran addicts) Mr Devereux successfully brokered an admission to another facility (by speaking with the bed manager and making certain undertakings should the veteran become unmanageable).
In arranging this admission Mr Devereux fulfilled his offer to provide access to a specialist psychiatrist as requested by the treating doctor.
During the admission period at this private facility, Mr Devereux completed an application and obtained supporting information, documents and referrals for the veteran to be admitted to a specialist addiction clinic in Adelaide, South Australia.
Mr Devereux worked with the clinic and DVA in processing this application and assisted in arranging necessary travel between the hospital and Adelaide. He also arranged for a team member of the specialist clinic to meet the veteran upon arrival at the terminal.
The veteran was made aware that during his time in the rehabilitation facility he would be expected to focus on his rehabilitation. He was also advised that some aspects of his financial situation would have to wait until he completed the initial live-in component (about four months of the program) as outside distractions often impede the recovery process.
The veteran decided to leave treatment against the advice of clinicians and likely experienced difficulties in his life. That was his choice to make and only the veteran can be responsible for his outcomes.
Accordingly, Mr Devereux denies that he failed the veteran and contends the veteran was told he ‘is the major stakeholder’ as far as his life is concerned and only the veteran could make the changes needed to gain an improvement in his life. If indeed his life is unbearable, he has detailed knowledge of appropriate mental health and medical professionals able to offer him clinical support.
He offered an array of services, Including financial support, housing assistance and advocacy.
Mr Devereux did offer to assist the veteran to access financial support, housing and advocacy. The veteran was made aware that accommodation upon his return to WA would be considered (providing there was a position vacant) and if the veteran worked with Mr Devereux closer to the time of completing the program in Adelaide, this would be discussed further.
Mr Devereux provided the veteran with an application for the WA Poppy Fund (a shortened name) and advised the veteran that while he was not a resident in WA, the application could not be considered. He was further advised that upon his return to WA, said application would be submitted for consideration.
He offered to manage my affairs as I was going to be a inpatient for several months in hospital.
Mr Devereux did not offer to “…manage…affairs…” but rather agreed to assist in making specific applications and deal with limited matters while the veteran was undertaking the rehabilitation program.
Specifically, those matters were:
- Arrange to establish the whereabouts and status of the veteran’s motor vehicle, last known to be in the long-term parking facility at Sydney airport;
- If the vehicle (that had been parked there for several months by that time) was still on site and recoverable, Mr Devereux undertook to negotiate with the parking authority and source funds for its release;
- If the above were completed, Mr Devereux undertook to arrange relocation of the vehicle to a safe property, where it would be held without charge until such time as the veteran could collect it.
- Mr Devereux would advise on any matters that were raised with him by creditors;
- An application to a suitable veteran welfare fund would be made upon the veteran’s completion of the drug and alcohol rehabilitation program.
The veteran was not going to be an inpatient in hospital, he was going to a rehabilitation clinic in the CBD of Adelaide.
In that location he had access to daily clinical counselling, a psychiatrist and other mental health professionals to assist with his state of mind – provided he engaged. He also had the option to engage with other services as per the clinic’s regime, something Mr Devereux cannot influence.
He was going to call the banks and my landlord and freeze everything and even attempt to have some things payed for me. He did nothing.
The veteran makes statements here that are general in nature, but once again not reflective of the facts. Banks do not take or engage in detailed financial discussions about their clients with third parties per telephone.
Mr Devereux has kept all email and text message correspondence between the veteran and himself and refers to the following SMS exchange on 21 August 2020:
Veteran to Mr Devereux:
“Hey mate got a email about the rental debit I have, cc’d you on the e-mail. Hope that’s okay. They seem like good people.”
Mr Devereux to veteran:
“Cheers will read it when it arrives.”
Veteran to Mr Devereux:
“That’s absolutely everything now, it’s been a good exercise getting everything together. At least I know what’s what now. Thanks for your help mate. Anything you can do is greatly appreciated. I should be able to knock it over once I get back to work and see what I get from the insurance (partner’s life insurance). But yeah any help is awesome thanks mate”
Mr Devereux is in receipt of several emails from the veteran, some of which had been sent as ‘carbon copies’ of emails the veteran sent to his creditors. As this correspondence shows, there were some discussions surrounding the veteran’s financial position, but there was no agreement that Mr Devereux would be entirely responsible for their settlement or arranging for settlements in a specified period of time or by a particular means.
Two of these emails contained permission for Mr Devereux to assist the veteran by way of him advocating for the veteran regarding the negotiation of parking fees, payment of those fees, an application to a veteran welfare fund (one completed for a fund of which he was not then eligible) and a real estate agency.
One such email from the veteran to his former real estate agent reads:
“Thanks very much for that, I’m in hospital now and am transferring to a treatment centre on Monday and won’t have my phone or email access for a few months. It’s a pretty intense program I’m doing.
I have a guy helping me out with finances and treatment. His name is Jay Devereux from Veterans360. Could you please make contact with him and send him copys of my account. I have authorised him to act on my behalf while I’m in treatment. His contact details are, [DETAILS REDACTED].
I’m not sure what Jay can or cannot do in regards to the debit but I will be contactable by December and hopefully returning to work shortly thereafter so we can arrange a payment plan or my wife’s life insurance should be in by then and I can get things sorted. Sorry for the long delay with this, it’s been a terrible year.”
We say these quotes provide perfect clarity that the veteran’s claims are not as they appear in the disseminated email correspondence. In fact, this is one of many mendacities this veteran has written, spoken and caused to be published in recent times that has no basis in fact.
I called him several times when I had the opportunity and he informed me he was onto it and things were looking good.
The veteran called and text Mr Devereux several times while engaged in his rehabilitation program and was consistently advised he needed to focus on himself and his recovery as the other matters would be actioned at the appropriate time.
These calls became so regular and at inopportune times that Mr Devereux contacted the rehabilitation provider and asked for the veteran’s communication to be limited to urgent matters until he was further advanced in his recovery. (This is an accepted protocol in recovery clinics to ensure participants are able to engage in their program without distractions from outside matters.)
He lied continuously.
Mr Devereux denies ever lying to the veteran.
I am now in serious financial trouble and have a bad rental record. But thankfully the RSL has stepped in and helped.
At the time of becoming a client of V360, the veteran had reported being already in debt to an amount of more than $39,000. His rental property was already back in the hands of the real estate and the veteran had been residing (for some time) at his mother’s unit in a Perth suburb.
The veteran had been talking about receiving a life insurance payout regarding the death of his partner. He mentioned there was a sister who sought to benefit from that policy and reported being relieved when he was advised he would receive a benefit of more than $50,000 late in 2020.
The veteran was also in receipt of a Centrelink benefit (with a significant COVID-19 supplement) and had no accommodation or food expenses during the entire time of his engagement with V360.
The veteran was fully aware that while he was undertaking treatment his application to the WA Poppy Fund would not be submitted. This was because he was residing outside WA (making him ineligible). Later in the timeframe the veteran mused about traveling to Queensland post-treatment, which would disqualify him entirely from this fund.
The veteran was advised there are multiple funds available that would take applications, but none of that was able to proceed until he had completed his live-in rehabilitation component. We are pleased the veteran has found someone to assist in this process. We hope this false and divisive narrative did not aid in his receipt of funds.
He attempted to take ownership of my vehicle whilst I was in hospital and attempted to sell it.
Mr Devereux denies this allegation and has a thorough record of emails and text messages to validate the position of all involved. Mr Devereux has never seen the vehicle or had any control over it other than that agreed once V360 negotiated a settlement and paid for the parking fees, then arranging for the vehicle to be collected.
He did this knowing my wife’s belongings were in the vehicle and it meant a great deal to me.
There was discussion of his deceased partner’s belongings being in the vehicle, but when our agent collected the vehicle from Sydney Airport, he reported a significant number of syringes and drug injecting paraphernalia throughout the vehicle. Our agent refused to do more than convey the vehicle to his address and store it until arrangements were made to collect it. Any property inside the vehicle was still there upon its collection by the veteran’s agent.
He gave/sold the vehicle to a third party.
Again, Mr Devereux denies this allegation and we refer to the above statements.
We managed through the police to recover the vehicle.
The vehicle was recovered from V360’s agent by a friend of the veteran with no direct police action or involvement.
The veteran was advised on 15 December 2020 that he was to provide 24-hours’ notice to collect the vehicle, as well as full name and details of the agent collecting it.
The veteran sent various text messages and emails to Mr Devereux and vice versa, regarding the collection of the vehicle, which was to take place on 23 December 2020.
The veteran provided two names of men who were to arrive ‘in the afternoon’ to collect the vehicle.
Said parties did not arrive until later that night (after 8PM EDST) at which time the caretaker had left his address for a social engagement. The veteran made abusive calls and sent messages. He was told not to call again unless he was prepared to behave like an adult.
About an hour later Mr Devereux took a call from a Constable at Campbelltown police station. The constable inquired as to the facts surrounding the vehicle and how it came to be located where it was.
The arrangement was explained to the officer’s satisfaction and an offer to forward the email thread was made. The conditions under which the veteran could recover the vehicle was also discussed. During these exchanges, the caretaker and the veteran’s agent communicated by telephone. The keys were located (as they had been securely stored near the vehicle) and the vehicle was taken into the veteran’s agent’s care.
It had accident damage and the tires were destroyed from what i assume were burnouts
At the time of collection a full around the vehicle video was taken before the vehicle was entered or moved (including damage that our agent had to tape up in order to drive the vehicle). This evidence is held pending dispute. Any tire wear or other aspects of use regarding the vehicle happened while in the veteran’s care or prior to our agent collecting the vehicle.
He defrauded my mother or $1000 dollars when he told her he was a ex soldier and worked for DVA and even attempted to extort money from my father who is also a Vietnam Veteran and a TPI. [NAME REDACTED], 6 Battalion.
The veteran’s mother made several calls to Mr Devereux throughout the course of the veteran’s time in rehabilitation. The veteran had specifically forbidden Mr Devereux from answering any questions put to him by the veteran’s mother.
However, the mother having spoken on numerous occasions to Mr Devereux decided to make an unsolicited donation to V360. When contacted about the donation, the mother did not require a tax receipt.
On 23 January 2021, the mother was contacted and asked if she had felt Mr Devereux or the organisation had defrauded her in any way. She was told that of the $1,000 donation she gifted, $800 was used to satisfy the negotiated payment of the long-term parking and $200 was otherwise absorbed by the organisation.
The veteran’s mother was adamant that the money was gifted for the organisation to use as they deemed fit and stated she had no idea of the allegation made by her son. The mother remarked that she was somewhat taken-aback by the gravity of the allegation.
The veteran’s father also contacted Mr Devereux and sought to ask details of the veteran’s situation, both previously and presently. The veteran had instructed Mr Devereux to tell his father the reason for his rehabilitation was only alcohol and not to mention drugs. Mr Devereux was clear with the veteran that if asked a direct question (as the father was his nominated next of kin) he would not tell a lie.
The father also offered an apology for his son’s recent behaviour and upon hearing that the costs of his son’s car were met by the organisation, he offered a humble donation. This offer was refused and it was explained to him that we do this work without any expectation of remuneration from families.
The father was apologetic and stated his concern that his reputation was tarnished by the behaviours of his son. It was explained we held no such belief and assured him not to be concerned.
Mr Devereux has never asserted to have served in the Australian Defence Force and has always included this as a disclosure (albeit irrelevant) in any description of himself.
During Mr Devereux’s 20-minute keynote speech to open the Inaugural Veteran Ministers Roundtable in November 2016, he disclosed his entire background, including having been drug addicted, been engaged with the criminal justice system and homeless. These historical experiences were a primary motivator for him starting this work in April 2015, when he learned of homeless veterans living on the streets of Australia.
V360 have held four (4) contracts over a period of four (4) years with DVA. These contracts included consultancy, policy writing and the delivery of critical services to veterans all over Australia. Anyone who disputes this fact can make their inquiries accordingly.
He told my father I owed him money and was a criminal and he could sort things out if my father contributed to his charity.
Mr Devereux denies this allegation and refers to the statements above regarding the payment of the parking fees from the mother’s donation and the veteran’s involvement with the Rebels Motorcycle Club. At no time was money solicited or received from the veteran’s father nor was the veteran referred to as a criminal.
He is now I believe under investigation by several organisations and the police.
At the time of writing this statement, no police investigation is known to exist and the so-called ‘several organisations’ that have become involved, did so as a result of this slanderous email and have no authority to conduct investigations into other agencies. These sorts of statements are often used by people to offer an element of legitimacy to their outright lies and distortions.
I wanted as many people to know and be aware of who this predator really is.
There is no need to comment about this statement at this point. However, all parties should be aware we reserve our rights at this time.
In summary, the veteran has produced a fanciful and thrilling tale of self-indulgence, malfeasance, manipulation, vitriol and lies to suit himself and satisfy his desire to create as much trouble as he can.
He has been aided in this endeavour by several presidents of veteran organisations who seem to take on board even the most outrageous allegations without seeking to verify or validate any of the same, before then mass publishing the information with their own additions and warnings. That is behaviour of particular interest at this juncture.
It is worth asking how these particular individuals can be considered responsible enough to preside over large numbers (tens of thousands) of member veterans, when they are prepared to recklessly and without any regard for any clarification of truth, spread and publish extraordinary stories of one person’s account of alleged events, having made no efforts to qualify or contextualise the details.
Even more ludicrous is the editorial Mr Ball and Mr Usher – both men being men who it appears have shaped their stories to suit the narrative – have sent out and encouraged to be further distributed as far and wide as possible, information and details which to any reasonable person is obviously questionable, if not completely unbelievable.
The addition of their own saltiness to cap off the seemingly perfect attempted assassination of Mr Devereux’s character is noteworthy.
We hear a lot of talk surrounding fake news in contemporary social media, but complete disregard for the truth and a failure to seek to confirm even some facts, let alone salient aspects of one person’s story as has been totally and wilfully overlooked in this case. Not only is this an utter disgrace for those involved and the associations they claim to represent, but it isn’t too long of a bow to draw suggesting their behaviour borders on criminal.
We will deal with the illegitimate claims made by Mr Ball and Mr Usher in separate correspondence.
Mr Ball’s and Mr Usher’s emails are reproduced below:
The next E-Mail is from Max Ball – President of the VVAA, who forwarded this E-Mail to all the state branches of the VVAA. His reply to [NAME REDACTED] is:
21 January 2021. Dear [NAME REDACTED],
Thanks for your email below and I am deeply sorry for your bad experiences with Jay Devereaux.
I have taken the liberty of copying this email to the Presidents of our State Branches and other members of the National Executive as I agree that the antics of this man need to be publicised widely.
FYI, some only a few years ago Jay approached the WA branch of the Defence Force Welfare Association (of which I am a member) and introduced himself as representing V360. He was very persuasive and initially we were inclined to assist him.
However, and my memory has lost the detail, his stories did not add up and we parted company. Our experience was not all in the same league as yours and we have heard little or nothing of him since that time.
The next E-Mail is from Richard Usher OAM, who is President of the Defence Force Welfare Association – WA Branch. His comment is:
21 January 2021. Dear [NAME REDACTED],
I can confirm what Max Ball has said, and I too am very sorry that you have fallen victim to Jay Deveraux. He was active in WA for a while but I had heard that he had moved to Qld. Is that where you live?
Jay Deveraux has NEVER served in the ADF and does NOT work for or with DVA. I believe he has been in prison in South Australia, but unfortunately I have lost the detail of that and what he was convicted for. I agree that every veteran and ESO should steer well clear of this vindictive man who uses a so-called charity (V360) for his own ends. [NAME REDACTED], I am more than sorry for what this man has done to you, and I do sincerely hope the police prosecute him and get him out of the clutches of vulnerable veterans.
Kind regards, and my best wishes to you
Richard Usher OAM
Defence Force Welfare Association, WA Branch, Inc
Mobile 0404 979 XXX