|
|
|
|
How to Win Survey Results
Branch: Navy State Court Violation Separation of Powers DISABLED VETERANS Your asking what my experience has been pursuing benefits, the property rights of disabled veterans. I’m glad you asked. The subject that I had been pursuing, began when a Georgia disabled veteran asked for help. Began 9 years ago and has been my primary interest practically every day since then. As I see it, the law is quite clear. I started out with different theories and approaches to solving this problem with state courts treatment of disabled veterans VA compensation in divorce actions. I was determined that these state court judges were not going to get away with their wordsmithing in what they are doing. Finally, about a year ago, it hit me, Separation of powers was the answer. State court judges making a medical determination as to what a disabled veteran should be compensated for, taking on the serious role of playing doctor, prescribe without medical license or knowledge VA medical compensation issues. And to this day state courts seem to be getting away with it. As I have no standing, I was hoping someone, anybody, would take this and test it in court. I’ve sent this Separation of powers theory to newspapers, columnists, journalists, states Senators, Representatives, radio TV outlets, VFW, DVA, members of Congress, Amvets, American legion, various veterans groups, law professors, lawyers, etc. Here is the amazing part. I have sent the basic message of Separation of powers as the main theme in over 8,145 emails! And what have I learned? Nobody cares! Not even disabled veterans? Perhaps, I’m expecting things too fast? Maybe 9 more years? You thought that 8,145 emails is amazing? In all these mailings what is more amazing .. I did not get one negative comment, .. NOT ONE, saying I don’t know what I am talking about. I would have quit immediately. In the less than the perhaps 25 positive comments I did get showed some interest, and many published on the web. However, I did get one smart remark from one veterans web site, only because they are in bed with two of the countries foremost divorce lawyers who go after a disabled veterans disability compensation in divorce actions. And, as I also explain below, the VA is much of the problem because they gave up on their responsibility long ago to protect a veterans VA benefits to be determined by others. Outside of the VA administration. My Separation of powers theory follows. Something the U.S. Supreme Court will not intervene in, or fight over. State court violation Separation of Powers DISABLED VETERANS State court violations of veterans VA disability compensation in disregard of State law, as well the Constitution of the United States have been forwarded (6/23/14), to all nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court, who in 2012 denied a petition on this issue by disabled Air Force veteran Peter Barclay. Justices now have stored in their court clerks file, my questions of law. Public Law 95-30 ..there is no statutory prohibition against garnishment of military retired pay. ..a veterans disability compensation can be garnished in order to pay... However, there is prohibition that I find concerning these violations. Namely, Separation of powers, Due Process, The Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause, as well, various veterans laws, the property protections of veterans benefits. The point of this mailing? This is now not something the Justices, and as well, the United States Senate and House Committee on Veterans' Affairs now have not been made aware of. What they do with this information, if anything, will tell you a great deal. The parties have been advised of the following. In State court cases involving divorce, our disabled veterans concerns are over rulings violating both state and federal law. Decades of continuing costly litigation, incurred in pursuing 14th Amendment property rights of veterans VA disability compensation being awarded to third parties in violation of federal law 38 USC 5301, 10 U.S.C. § 1408. This unlawful activity continues in all but a few state courts that do recognize its federal exempt status. Disabled veterans need to know if its true that the essential purpose of the due process clause is to prevent the government from acting arbitrarily. Divorce is, and can be complicated process. However, keeping in mind, that in each case during the courts initial property distribution rulings of alimony/support, before any conceivable consideration, in determining VA disability compensation as an award of alimony/support, first and foremost, the courts duty to the veteran, enforcement of the protections secured by the Constitution. State sovereignty is not a proper basis on which to rest jurisdiction. Instead the focus is on whether the defendants due process rights are infringed by the courts assertion of jurisdiction. Civil Procedure 4th Ed. West group. It is well established that disability benefits are a protected property interest and may not be discontinued without due process of law. See Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115, 128 (1985); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976) Oregon resident, Peter James Barclay, a disabled Air Force veteran, May 2 2012, filed with the United States Supreme Court a Petition for a writ of certiorari. ARGUMENT I. The Court Should Grant Review to Determine Whether State Courts Are Erring as a Matter of Law By Preempting Federal Law with State Law Federal Law, by Considering VA Disability Pay Divisible Under State Community or Equitable Distribution Laws. II. This Court Should Grant Review to Resolve the States Various Interpretations and Applications of Federal Law Governing Veterans Disability Benefits and State Communal and Equitable Property Laws in Favor of One Binding Precedent. On Oct 1 2012 Petition was DENIED. This decision fell on all disabled veterans when Peter Barclay was denied his Constitutional rights by Oregons State and Supreme court and refusal of the United States Supreme Court to consider his petition. All the while interestingly, permanent alimony reform continues, and has been proposed in Oregon and, as well, legislated in several states, all without one thought of the disabled veteran. I take that back. Yes, one State did think about the disabled veteran. In 1983, ..the Texas Supreme Court held that Veterans Administration disability benefits with the clear intent of Congress that these benefits be solely for the use of the disabled veteran. And as so, legislated and made part of Texas law. Although alimony reform had been on the legislative agenda, they turned their thoughts once again to the disabled veteran. The Texas legislature in 2013 amended the law. Section 154.062(b), Family Code. Sec. 8.055. AMOUNT OF MAINTENANCE. "(a-1) For purposes of this chapter, gross income: (5) all other income actually being received, including United States Department of Veterans Affairs disability benefits . The issue is VA medical disability compensation, the property rights of the disabled veteran, in what VA medical doctors, medical professionals have determined a disabled veterans injuries should be compensated for. If, and when the question is a disabled veterans VA disability compensation property rights, its time that disabled veterans voices be heard in a matter that has long concerned them. State court judges continue to ignore the disabled veteran, and the law, i.e., 38 USC 5301, 10 USC 1408. Separation of powers doctrine is mandated to end this attempt by the state court to manipulate, overlook, and circumvent the law, and manage to stick it to the disabled veteran. It is said that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Forgotten long ago are the property rights of the disabled veterans. Why? It is clear the courts have no legal right to, exercise, determine, or consider in any equitable calculation thereof, to divide federal VA disability benefits, in order to further enforce judgment arbitrarily in disregard of property rights. The separation of powers doctrine imposes the assumption that the state court, in attacking the disabled veterans legal right to claim as exempt, his or her VA disability compensation, further requires subject matter jurisdiction, which address the courts constitutional or statutory power to entertain a particular controversy. State courts have the sworn duty and responsibility to enforce federal law. The courts continued attempt to override VA administered rehabilitative medical services determinations, of disability compensation is not within the courts purview, legal right or jurisdiction to invade. Disabled veterans, and the separation of powers doctrine, both overlooked, ignored, for years, by most state court judges. Policy making outside their jurisdiction of constitutional boundaries in re-evaluating and considering long held established VA protocols, of a disabled veterans VA disability compensation for purposes other than rehabilitation and health of the veteran. Substituting their judgment for the judgment of VA doctors and medical professionals. Violating the property rights of a disabled veterans earned VA disability compensation ..once they are delivered to the veteran.., the blatant disregard of 38 USC 5301, and shall not be liable to ..or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary. and the 14th Amendment, to further degrade property rights of the disabled veteran, runs afoul of the separation of powers doctrine. Injurious, and an abuse of power to allow what is happening, was this the intent of Congress? A disabled veterans plea to the judge, I have a very severe serious back injury, I do need all of my VA disability compensation. The judge will, of course reply, Are you a doctor? The practice of medicine is a privilege and a calling, and that it combines both art and science. And yet, in these non-life threatening health issues, acting as a provider of health care, state court judges independently take on the serious role of playing doctor, prescribe without medical license or knowledge VA medical compensation issues. A practice forbidden, providing penalties by law, and border on medical negligence in maintaining its own state health practice standards. Despite a ruling by the United State court of appeals, in VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE, VETERANS UNITED FOR TRUTH, INC., v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, December 13, 2011, in refusing to exceed their jurisdiction over service-related disability compensation, state courts judges, yes purposely overlook and violate this canon of law. A States navigable streams are regulated as commerce throughout its travel, to protect against pollution, and its effect to protect its health all along its travels. This is no different from a veterans VA disability compensation benefit, navigating its way across many states, and just as well recognized as commerce, regulated. State courts failing the constitutional standards for establishing a state priority over the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, have shown no State interest to protect the health and well being, or the property interests of a disabled veteran. Realizing laws protecting VA disability compensation as exempt, state courts, therefore are unable, in any legal standing, to secure garnishment of veterans VA disability compensation. The court not satisfied, in a final move, will now consider, from any source, an equitable calculation of veterans resources, to include. the very same disability compensation the court has acknowledged as exempt in determining court awarded support. Suggesting the use of a veterans disability compensation, or go to jail! As has happened. The mere mention, innuendo, or thought of VA disability compensation to satisfy indemnity obligations as a equitable consideration in any form, thought or calculation of VA disability compensation, suggests interference, in matters identified as exempt, are beyond the State courts jurisdiction, under separation of powers doctrine. The court has the responsibility to recognize property as a due process right and the states obligation to uphold the State Constitutions "separation of powers" doctrine. A state court judge not wanting to violate federal law realizing the exempt status of VA disability compensation, so orders the veteran, that support payments shall be made from his or her VA disability compensation. In many instances the only monies available, asking (coerced) the veteran to break federal law 38 USC 5301, one that the court will refused to violate. "Payments of benefits due or to become due under any law administered by the Secretary shall not be assignable except to the extent specifically authorized by law,.. and shall not be liable to ..levy or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary. To illustrate, an ultimatum of disabled veterans experiences. As California Vietnam disabled veteran explained to me, So the court is playing the contempt of court game I am unfortunately too afraid to go to jail for any reason so I resentfully and reluctantly pay the balance. (Piner v Piner Calif.) The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution The laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. This means of course, that any federal law---even a regulation of a federal agency---trumps any conflicting state law. The federal agencys Veterans Administration Secretary knowing of these concerns remains oblivious to what is their responsibility of care to veterans is, and remains unconcerned as to exactly what their administrative duty is to protect VA disability benefits from those who freely encroach on those constitutional responsibilities that clearly belong to the Veterans Administration. I find no duty of the Secretary to surrender control of VA disability benefits so freely to the States. The issue of disabled veterans right to property is about the law, and not setting a precedent. As a veterans advocate, and a Korean era veteran, I am neither disabled or in any divorce action. The reality of law from the disabled veterans view, it's criminal. |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|