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

    • Yes 

      After a PTSD/Unspecific MDD Diagnose From the VA Dr's

      The gold standard for diagnosing PTSD is a structured clinical interview such as the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-5). When necessary, the PCL-5 can be scored to provide a provisional PTSD DSM 5 diagnosis.

      Any clinical clinician such as MD ,Psychiatrist even a L.C.S.W. (Certified)can perform the Diagnostics Evaluation Employed by the the VA

      ...They just need to figure out your symptoms and put together a list of your symptom's that you possess or show from the evaluation...I am not 100% Sure just how they do this ?

      being I am not a Dr or clinical clinician 

      Once a Diagnoses of PTSD is given they try to set you up with a Therapist to help with your New dx And how to adjust or cope with the Anxiety and Depression the PTSD can cause.

        you learn the tools to cope with and depending how severe your symptoms are ? 

       They test /screen you with phychoeducational type therapy treatment usually at first.

       Warning  some of this therapy can be very rough on a Veteran  from holding on to guilt  from the trauma its self or you maybe in a  ''stuck point''from memories and guilt or from the stressor's or anything that reminds you of the trauma you endured.

      The therapy works  even if we think it don't,  I recommend Therapy for all PTSD Veterans  it could very well save your life once the correct therapy is in place and the Veteran makes all his Clinical Appointments.

      I still have Combat PTSD it probably will never be cured completely but we can learn the tools it takes to cope with this horrible diseases 

      even learning breathing techniques  Helps tremendously during a panic attact.

      I have guilt from the war in Vietnam  ( I ask my self what could I have done to make a better outcome/difference?..and also I am in what the therapist calls stuck points. working on that at present once a week for 90 minutes.  I am very fortunate to have the help the VA gives me and I am lucky I have not turned to alcohol or drugs to mask my problem.

      But I have put my family through a living hell with my angers of burst.and they all stood by me the whole time years and years of my family life was disrupted because of me and my children &spouse  never deserved it one bit.

      That's all I want to say about that.

      At least I am still around. and plan to be tell my old age dying day.
    • No timeframe gotta love that answer it’s even better when you ask 1800 people or call the board directly they’ll say you’ll know sooner then later. I had mine advanced and it was about 2 months later until I had the decision in my hand which seems forever but in the present system in 2016 lightning fast...
        • Thanks
    • I am serviced connected for ankylosing spondylitis back in 1985. I had a C&P exam on 7-7-19 since I am asking for an increase in my cervical, thoracic, and lumbosacral ratings. After speaking with the DAV to find out progress and info on my exam, the Rep. noted sort of what I expected. Radiculopathy was noted and ROM was 0-15 for cervical, and 0-25 for back. I am currently rated as Cervical 30%, Thoracic 10%, and Lumbosacral 40%. The main question that I have is relating to the thoracic 10% and lumbosacral 40%. I am confused on these two. Is Lumbosacral separate from the thoracic/others ? Since my back ROM is at 0-25, does this mean that my thoracic might increase from the 10% to a higher rating ? I am confused how they break down my ratings from cervical at 30%, Thoracic at 10%, and Lumbosacral at 40%. Also, with the radiculopathy, is this something that they will rate also ? I am currently at 90% total combined for all my disabilities. I hope this helps for someone to give me advice/answers.
      • 4 replies
    • Thank you @GeekySquid for your reply. 


      I have redacted personal information for my documents listed below. 

      I look forward to your reply. 

      HEADACHE STR 2006 copy_Redacted.pdf


      Pages from Original Denial-Grant Reasons_Redacted.pdf
    • Hello Defenders of freedom!

      I have a question pertaining to this denial for headaches. The decision letter is quoted below. 


      3. Service connection for headaches.

      "We may grant service connection for a disability which began in military service or was caused by some event or experience in service.

      Your STRs are negative for any treatment of or diagnosis of headaches. On your post-deployment exam in 2005 you denied any headaches. On separation, you denied any headaches. VA treatment records are negative for any treatment of or diagnosis of headaches. On VA exam, the examiner stated there was no evidence of any residuals of a traumatic brain injury.

      We have denied service connection for headaches because the evidence of record fails to show this disability was incurred in or caused by military service."

      From my understanding these 3 points must be overturned to successfully win a CUE case:

       (1) either the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the adjudicator or the statutory or regulatory provisions in existence at that time were incorrectly applied; 

      (2) the error must be undebatable and of the sort which, had it not been made, would have manifestly changed the outcome at the time of the prior determination

      and (3) a determination that there was CUE must be based on the record and law that existed at the time of the prior adjudication in question.  

      @Berta, or veterans out here who have knowledge/experience, tell me what facts you think would be needed to prove this denial for headaches was an error? 
      • 14 replies
  • Ads

  • Popular Contributors

  • Ad

  • Latest News
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines