Veteran Issue Digest Number 1619

[admin]

Messages

1. (CBO) report "Evaluating Military Compensation,"

Posted by: "Colonel Dan" colonel-dan@sbcglobal.net coloneldan1

Fri Jul 6, 2007 9:26 am (PST)

http://www.cbo. gov/ftpdocs/ 82xx/doc8271/ 06-29-Compensati on.pdf

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report "Evaluating Military
Compensation, " on June 28, 2007. The CBO study offers an overview of
military compensation particularly that of active-duty enlisted personnel.
It considers various ways to measure military compensation and compare
military and civilian pay, as well as issues raised by such comparisons. The
study also examines the connection between the components of military
compensation and Defense Department's recruiting and retention. Finally, it
discusses options to make military compensation more efficient.

full report at web site:
http://www.cbo. gov/ftpdocs/ 82xx/doc8271/ 06-29-Compensati on.pdf

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
2. Congressional Hearing in New Orleans, July 9

Posted by: "Colonel Dan" colonel-dan@sbcglobal.net coloneldan1

Fri Jul 6, 2007 9:30 am (PST)

http://www.veterans .house.gov/ hearings/ index.html

House veterans Committee Full Committee Field Hearing

The Future of VA Health Care in South Louisiana
DATE/TIME/PLACE: July 9
(Monday) 9:30 a.m., Supreme Court Building, 400 Royal Street, 4th Floor
Courtroom, New Orleans, LA 70130


Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
3. FW: Judge grabbing any law, punishes veteran

Posted by: "Colonel Dan" colonel-dan@sbcglobal.net coloneldan1

Fri Jul 6, 2007 10:49 am (PST)



_____

From: William H. Heino Sr. [mailto:wheino92@netscape. com]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 12:39 PM
To: colonel-dan@ sbcglobal. net
Subject: Judge grabbing any law, punishes veteran

This is the short version. Lee County, Florida Judge Margaret O. Steinbeck,
Former Military lawyer, avoided the use of a veteran's disability
compensation benefits as alimony, in Fisher v. Fisher citing, " USC 38 sec.
5301 is a general statute which prohibits assignability, levy or seizure."
Having avoiding conflict with federal law, using her status, and the
authority of her court to inflict her punishment to the veteran, in the only
other way that she could, because Mr. Fisher argued federal law precludes
VA disability benefits as an award of alimony, Judge Steinbeck goes after
his Social Security disability compensation.

Citing, in Fisher, her Memorandum of Law, USC 10 sec. 1408 Uniformed
Services Former Spouses protection Act. (USFSPA). "We now move to a more
specific law USC 10 sec. 1408 (c) which allows the court to treat retired
pay as property of the member and spouse."

Judge Steinbeck then uses, as her primary decisions of law, in the
justification of awarding alimony by going after this veterans Social
Security disability compensation. Citing, "Finally, we look at USC 42 sec.
659 which allows garnishment to enforce alimony obligations. "

Here is the connection Judge Steinbeck tries to make, while having nothing
to do with a veterans disability compensation, to justify her Social
Security ruling. "Of more importance is 659 (h)(I)(A)(ii) (V). Money subject
to process which includes disability paid...to a former member...who has
waived a portion of the retirement or retainer pay in order to receive such
compensation which is exactly the situation of our present case."

Being two distinct, and unrelated issues, the obvious question being, what
has a Veterans' Administration retired pay benefits have to do with Social
Security disability compensation? Absolutely nothing! Except for the fact
it reveals the judges thinking. Into her not letting Fisher get off that
easy. And as many Judges do, will use the authority of the court to punish a
veteran.

As I have just illustrated with the Judge Steinbeck ruling, I have seen many
references, that state courts, indicate and refer quite readily, as you will
see, when justifying an alimony award in going after a veterans' Social
Security compensation, to Title 42 USC 659. As I read it, 659 is not a law
used in a court proceeding determining the rightfulness of an alimony award.
659 is purely administrative, only to be used after a withholding judgment
has been made. An administrative follow-up process upon the direction, and
pursuant to State or local law, then administered by the Secretary of the
Treasury according to 42 USC 659. As I mentioned, Judges will try any trick
in the book. And this is a classic. Please read the law and see for
yourself.

Here is the reference that started my thinking on the subject. From a Nigel
Crum, Friend of the Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, State of Michigan.
To Gordon Sutton. "You state, correctly that USCS 407 is clear in stating
that these benefits cannot be garnished. However there is an exception. 42
USCS 659, which you cited in your letter, is the exception. That law
consents to income withholding from SSD for the purposes of child support or
alimony." Yes, 659 is the consent, upon written effective notice, to the
Secretary of the Treasury, to withholding as determined only through a court
of law! 659 is not the justification by legal counsel, the courts, or the
Secretary of the Treasury, the consent to, or seize withholding without the
proper legal arguments in the taking of a veteran's compensation. 659 is not
the legal principle of law over titles 38 USC 5301, 42 USC 407 arguments as
to what is truly the law in the unfolding court room legal process. Only
then, and only after the legal withholding of moneys has been determined,
and upon effective written notice, administrative consent (42 USC 659) is
given by the United States to the Secretary of the Treasury to process
withholding.

Consent of 659 is not given to any judge. The consent role of 659 law is
given to the Secretary of the Treasury. To enforcement of court proceedings.
"(b) Consent to support enforcement. With respect to notice to withhold
income pursuant to.. or any other order or process to enforce support
obligations. . (2) Response to notice or process. If an agent.. receives
notice pursuant to State procedures in effect... or is effectively served
with any order, process or interrogatory, with respect to an individual's
child support or alimony payment obligations, the agent shall..." And this
all is explained in "(5) Legal process. The term 'legal process' means any
writ, order, summons, or other similar process in the nature of garnishment
(a) which is issued by
(i) a court or an administrative agency of competent jurisdiction in any
State, territory, or possession of the United States;
(iii) an authorized official pursuant to an order of such a court or an
administrative agency of competent jurisdiction or pursuant to State or
local law; and
(B) which is directed to, and the purpose of which is to compel, a
governmental entity which holds moneys which are otherwise payable to an
individual to make payment from the moneys to another party in order to
satisfy a legal obligation of the individual to provide child support or
make alimony payments."

Part (B) explains it all. Contrary to Mr. Nigel's statement, there is no
exception to 407 or 5301. 596 is a yet to be determined law that may be
required in the fulfillment of a court determination that withholding is
accepted.

Another example, of possibly hundreds more, in the complete misuse and
mis-interpretation of 42 USC 659. See for yourself, reading 659. Here, in
what follows, the court has used 42 USC 659, a Secretary of the Treasury
administrative garnishment provision in repealing the LHWCA Workers
Compensation Act. 659 being administrative only, but in Moyle v. OWPC, the
courts had used it to repeal the LHWCA. Argued and Submitted June 2,
1998--Seattle, Washington.

Let me illustrate my point, in another way, how the court is using the wrong
law in court proceedings when awarding alimony (Fisher). Let's say you were
the Secretary of the Treasury, or his agent, involved in enforcing
withholding matters. A judge phones, or writes you a note explaining
although he had not yet finalized a ruling in an alimony award, he requests
that you immediately start withholding of Social Security disability
compensation, citing that his final ruling will be based on 659.

The question then being, before the finalization of a court ordered
withholding judgment, would you honor the request? Your answer should be,
no, I can't. Because 42 USC 659 is not a cause of action, and can be only
implemented after final court judgment, and provides, "... receiving notice
to state procedures in effect...or is effectively served with any order,
process, or interrogatory, with respect to an individuals child support or
alimony payment obligations, the agent shall..."

This is exactly what did not happen in Fisher, where the judge, arbitrarily
applied an administrative law in her ruling. Here, Judge Steinbeck, finds,
orders, and adjudges 659 in justifying withholding in an award of alimony. A
law that comes into play, not during or before judgment ruling, but is
presented, and processed only after a formal finalized court ordered writ,
or similar process is presented to the Secretary of the Treasury.

William H. Heino Sr.