Found some information.

Utilized Q's A=1, B=2 etc.

Given the current state of affairs with Veterans and how they are treated (as compared to illegals or foreign nationals by the current Admin) and their ability to receive appropriate and timely care/benefits thru the Veterans Affairs Office, it appears that some changes could potentially be on the table in the future.

-ReadGEORGE v McDonough/VETERAN ASSOCIATION https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-234/217762/20220304154739775_George.pdf

-Short version: George joined the military with a preexisting medical issue which was ultimately the cause of his medical discharge. He filed for Veterans Benefits and was denied due to it being a preexisting condition. He appealed and lost. Years later, the VA “amended verbiage” surrounding CLEAR and UNMISTAKEABLE EVIDENCE (CUE), and George reopened his complaint based on that verbiage change and was eventually again denied, and the case was closed. The premises of “Presumption of sound condition,” preexisting conditions”, and “aggravated while on active duty” were all in play in his 30+ year battle with the VA.. Note the EXACT 4 year DELTA between the court case and the HELLO GEORGE Qdrop, and that the docket number can be derived from within the Q drop.

B1-3are comments/dissents at the conclusion of the case document I believe. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-234/217762/20220304154739775_George.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-234_2b8e.pdf

38 USC 1111 Section 1111 - Presumption of sound condition

For the purposes of section 1110 of this title, every veteran shall be taken to have been in sound condition when examined, accepted, and enrolled for service, except as to defects, infirmities, or disorders noted at the time of the examination, acceptance, and enrollment, or where clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrates that the injury or disease existed before acceptance and enrollment and was not aggravated by such service.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title38-section1111&num=0&edition=prelim

>>19995578 PB shows that todays Date also resembles 1111. Qdrop 907 states “IT’S BEEN CORRECTED”. This was taken from a then-President Trump tweet, and Q responds to the post with 11:11, which coincides with 38 USC 1111. I may be wrong, but I am interpreting this to mean that Veterans Issues have been corrected (will come into play at a later point). Maybe that's what Q meant with "Class Action suits…Don't quote me on that though!

Q359, Code 299 SEC:F19-A, can be found onPage 299of Title 10, CH 36, and pertains specifically to “Eligibility for consideration for promotion: designation as joint qualified officer required before promotion to general or flag grade; exceptions”. It’s important to read the exceptions as we navigate exceptional waters right now with a lack of officers, officers retiring, and potentially more officers leaving/being removed from office. And then there’s Option C hanging out there all quiet like. (?!?!)

• I am not a militaryfag and would not presume to understand how, when or why these exceptions may come into play(now or future) for those currently active, or those who may be called up (Remember your oath- Qdrop). I can say that after reading George v Veterans Affairs and all the accompanying rebuttals and comments, it does appear to ask for future changes to the VA system that would better benefit our military personnel who have offered to put their lives on the line. I hope this is so. I also hope that, possibly, Veterans who were previously denied said benefits may be able to reopen their cases under the new (future) changes, and that subsequent Veterans filing for new benefits will have a speedy and accurate assessment of their personal benefits, without having to wait years for a yes or no. Many many Veterans have been affected by actions of the VA. Class Action lawsuits are very effective.

https://docs.uscode.justia.com/2008/title10/%20USCODE-2008-title10/pdf/USCODE-2008-title10-subtitleA-partII-chap36-subchapII-sec619a.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-234/204540/20211208161913747_21-234%20George%20opp.pdf (Separate comments at end)