Jump to content

  • veteranscrisisline-badge-chat-1.gif

  • Advertisemnt

  • Trouble Remembering? This helped me.

    I have memory problems and as some of you may know I highly recommend Evernote and have for years. Though I've found that writing helps me remember more. I ran across Tom's videos on youtube, I'm a bit geeky and I also use an IPad so if you take notes on your IPad or you are thinking of going paperless check it out. I'm really happy with it, I use it with a program called Noteshelf 2.

    Click here to purchase your digital journal. HadIt.com receives a commission on each purchase.

  • 14 Questions about VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims


    When a Veteran starts considering whether or not to file a VA Disability Claim, there are a lot of questions that he or she tends to ask. Over the last 10 years, the following are the 14 most common basic questions I am asked about ...
    Continue Reading
  • Ads

  • Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:   


  • Advertisemnt

  • VA Watchdog

  • Advertisemnt

  • Ads

  • Can a 100 percent Disabled Veteran Work and Earn an Income?

    employment 2.jpeg

    You’ve just been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Affairs. After the excitement of finally having the rating you deserve wears off, you start asking questions. One of the first questions that you might ask is this: It’s a legitimate question – rare is the Veteran that finds themselves sitting on the couch eating bon-bons … Continue reading

Sign in to follow this  

Judge Grabbing Any Law, Punishes Veteran

Recommended Posts

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 © 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. "(:rolleyes: 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.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Ads

  • Our picks

    • Tinnitus comes in two forms: subjective and objective. In subjective tinnitus, only the sufferer will hear the ringing in their own ears. In objective tinnitus, the sound can be heard by a doctor who is examining the ear canals. Objective tinnitus is extremely rare, while subjective tinnitus is by far the most common form of the disorder.

      The sounds of tinnitus may vary with the person experiencing it. Some will hear a ringing, while others will hear a buzzing. At times people may hear a chirping or whistling sound. These sounds may be constant or intermittent. They may also vary in volume and are generally more obtrusive when the sufferer is in a quiet environment. Many tinnitus sufferers find their symptoms are at their worst when they’re trying to fall asleep.

        • Like
    • Precedent Setting CAVC cases cited in the M21-1
      A couple months back before I received my decision I started preparing for the appeal I knew I would be filing.  That is how little faith I had in the VA caring about we the veteran. 

      One of the things I did is I went through the entire M21-1 and documented every CAVC precedent case that the VA cited. I did this because I wanted to see what the rater was seeing.  I could not understand for the life of me why so many obviously bad decisions were being handed down.  I think the bottom line is that the wrong type of people are hired as raters.  I think raters should have some kind of legal background.  They do not need to be lawyers but I think paralegals would be a good idea.

      There have been more than 3500 precedent setting decisions from the CAVC since 1989.  Now we need to concede that all of them are not favorable to the veteran but I have learned that in a lot of cases even though the veteran lost a case it some rules were established that assisted other veterans.

      The document I created has about 200 or so decisions cited in the M21-1.   Considering the fact that there are more than 3500 precedent cases out there I think it is safe to assume the VA purposely left out decisions that would make it almost impossible to deny veteran claims.  Case in point. I know of 14 precedent setting decisions that state the VA cannot ignore or give no weight to outside doctors without providing valid medical reasons as to why.  Most of these decision are not cited by the M21.

      It is important that we do our due diligence to make sure we do not get screwed.  I think the M21-1 is incomplete because there is too much information we veterans are finding on our own to get the benefits we deserve

      M21-1 Precedent setting decisions .docx
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 5 replies
    • Any one heard of this , I filed a claim for this secondary to hypertension, I had a echo cardiogram, that stated the diagnosis was this heart disease. my question is what is the rating for this. attached is the Echo.

      • 7 replies
    • Need your support - T-shirts Available - Please buy a mug or a membership
      if you have been thinking about subscribing to an ad-free forum or buying a mug now would a very helpful time to do that.

      Thank you for your support
      • 18 replies
    • OK everyone thanks for all the advice I need your help I called VSO complained about length of time on Wednesday of this week today I checked my E benefits and my ratings are in for my ankles that they were denying me 10% for each bilateral which makes 21% I was originally 80% now they’re still saying I’m 80% 

      I’m 50% pes planus 30% migraine headaches 20% lumbar 10% tinnitus and now bilateral 21% so 10% left and right ankle Can someone else please do the math because I come up with 86% which makes me 90 what am I missing please help and thank you
  • Ads

  • Popular Contributors

  • Ad

  • Latest News
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines