[ Post a Response | Vipers Vietnam Veteran Message Board ]
Posted by haiki --Previous Message-- Written statement of, William H. Heino Sr. All these laws, even state statutes are meaningless, when many veterans’ are faced with contempt, and jail time, for their belief in following, and upholding these very same laws, that the veteran supposedly thought he has working for him. Federal law, United States Supreme Court rulings, VA laws, state law. As you will see, these did not work for disabled Vietnam veteran Calvin Murphy. Working on behalf of these veterans’ who find themselves being bullied by state judges, I have searched the internet for state laws that run contrary to the judgment handed down in these Veterans Administration disability compensation alimony awards. What have I found? In state after state, you will find many statutes, using similar language as in federal veterans’ law (38 USC 5301), which exempts municipality or local law plans and pension’s “..shall not be subject to execution or attachment or to any legal process whatsoever and shall be unassignable.” Have your staff pick any outstanding veterans’ divorce case, in any state, involving Veterans Administration disability compensation being awarded as alimony. Searching state statutes, you will come up with what is wrong with the system. I’ll give you one excellent example of exactly what you will find. In Michigan, the unassignable clause is good for everybody in America, and any purpose, except when it comes to honoring the United States veteran for his service. Those references posted earlier, Michigan statutes regarding non-assignability of benefits. This did not help Bear Lake, Michigan, disabled Vietnam veteran Calvin Murphy. He was sent to jail for contempt. Contempt for following the law, the not assignable clause, and not paying alimony claims from his Veterans Administration, and Social Security disability benefits. Non-assignable, is good for anything, and everybody else, but not Calvin Murphy. Although this next case is not about the subject at hand but illustrates why Calvin Murphy was sent to jail, and suggests a solution is needed to enforce veterans‘ rights, and why federal law must protect veterans against abusive state judges. They rule, as did judge Batzer, not according to law, but their personal bias. Last June (2005) in a landmark decision, Halbert v. Michigan, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 1999 Michigan law that barred judges from appointing attorneys to help poor people who have pled guilty to appeal their sentences. Despite the Halbert case, Kent County Circuit Court Judge Dennis C. Kolenda has denied appellate counsel to several poor people and stated that he has no obligation or intention of following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the future and characterized the ruling as “incorrect” and “illogical.” In addition, the Michigan Supreme Court has issued a series of orders in order to implement and follow the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Halbert, but Judge Kolenda has also chosen to defy the Michigan Supreme Court." How can veteran, a disabled veteran Calvin Murphy, win in Michigan? He can't. After being interviewed by a local newspaper, after contacting newspapers and Radio-TV stations across Michigan, absolutely not one item printed, or broadcast. No one cares. After your considering what you have just read, and going through the motion, veterans’, along with Calvin Murphy expect nothing to happen which will change the status quo of veterans’ disability awards. Veterans have become accustomed to being ignored. I just hope I do not have to list your Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission as to what’s wrong in America. :
on 3/10/2006, 3:43 pm, in reply to "Re: Vietnam vet jailed"
172.149.121.116
: :
: --Previous Message--
: Thursday, February 23, 2006
: This is with regard to Veterans
: Administration disability compensation being
: awarded in divorce, as alimony, in violation
: of law. What follows is a perfect example of
: the injustice that is happening in utter
: defiance of Supreme Court rulings, Federal
: law, and the State of Michigan’s policies,
: set in state statutes, spelling out the
: non-assignability, or subject to
: garnishment, attachment.
:
: To have a complete understanding of the
: United States position on how Congress took
: explicit care to insure that the sums it has
: so carefully specified are preserved for the
: support of the disabled veteran, every
: veteran should read the only reference you
: will ever need, the Supreme Court ruling in
: Rose v. Rose., 1986. The web address for
: this........
:
: http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1986/sg860452.txt
: .
:
: In Michigan, Calvin Murphy was sent to jail,
: just long enough to show what Michigan does
: to veteran’s that follow, and uphold the
: laws of the United States, in defense of
: veterans rights. This is not only the
: sentencing Chief judge in Michigan’s 19th
: Circuit Court, Judge Batzer, to justify, but
: the State of Michigan.
:
: MICHIGAN’S KOREAN VETERANS' MILITARY PAY
: FUND ACT OF 1955 (EXCERPT) Act 8 of 1955.
: 35.977 Korean veterans' military pay fund;
: creation; payment procedure;
: nonassignability of claims; rejection of
: claim; notice; appeal. Sec. 7. (1) Upon
: submission to the adjutant general of
: satisfactory proof that the applicant is
: entitled to payment under this act,
: ,,,,Provided, That no claim for payment
: under this act shall be assignable, or
: subject to garnishment, attachment, or levy
: of execution.
:
: MICHIGAN‘S VIETNAM VETERAN ERA BONUS
: ACT(excerpt) 370 of 1974. 38.1027. “Payment
: of claims; claim not assignable or subject
: to garnishment, attachment, or levy of
: execution; rejection of claim,, notice;
: appeals; certification of record; order
: allowing or denying claim; return of files
: and records; reapplication for benefits.”
:
: DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
: MICHIGAN ARMY AND AIR NATIONAL GUARD
: HANDBOOK FOR RETIREES
: (INFORMATION AND BENEFITS UPON RETIREMENT)
: March 1, 2005
: 42
: CHAPTER 12: UNIFORMED SERVICES FORMER
: SPOUSES’ PROTECTION ACT
: 12-4. General Information and Facts
: pertaining to the Act
: a. Depending on the court order, disposable
: retired pay is defined as retired pay to
: which a
: member is entitled less amounts:· Owed to
: the United States for previous overpayments
: of retired pay and for forfeiture required
: by law resulting from entitlement to retired
: pay.
: · Deducted from the retired pay as a result
: of forfeitures of retired pay ordered by a
: court martial or as a result of a waiver of
: retired pay required by law in order to
: receive compensation under Title 5 or Title
: 38.
:
: You will find this same Act and language
: under 38 USC 5301 which he mentioned to
: Judge Batzer just before he was led away in
: handcuffs.
:
: In compliance with Supreme Court rulings, a
: Michigan judgment in North v. North (2001)
: by Judge Donald Miller (Macomb County).
: Judgment was reversed Nov. 3, 2004.
: Ruling,.. that it was a blatant violation of
: veterans benefits Title 38 USC 5301. Judge
: Switalski refers to wording in Supreme Court
: ruling Mansel v. Mansel as the convincing
: basis for the reversal decision in the North
: v. North divorce case.
:
: In a news article in the Manistee News
: Advocate, Judge Batzer mentioned there where
: some differences between Rose v. Rose, and
: Calvin Murphy V. Karen Murphy. I wrote
: asking him asking, exactly what these
: differences are? Would you like to know? You
: can write to Chief Justice, Judge Betzer at
: 19th Circuit Court, 415 3rd St. Manistee,
: Michigan 49660.
:
: Or ask the Michigan Governor, “what’s going
: on?” Governor Jennifer M. Granholm, P.O. Box
: 30013, Lansing, Michigan 48909. Fax:
: 517-355-6863.
:
: Upon first learning of Calvin Murphy being
: handcuffed and sent to jail, veterans
: responded to Jere Beery’s “fire for effect”.
: Veteran’s responded, extra help had to be
: put on, and the fax machine in the sheriff’s
: office broke.
:
: Let's "Fire for effect"
: ============================================
The Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission is traveling around the country to various cities getting input. They may not hit your town, but if you have something you wish that they know, visit their website at www. va.gov/vetscommission There you will find out exactly the input, and format they need, and their e-mail address. I forwarded them the following including those statutes in my earlier message, and which I will not repeat here.
Presented to the
Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission 3/10/06
When it comes to veterans, there is no law of the United States, from federal laws on down, VA law, state law, that protects the disabled veteran, The United States, as reported in the media lately, has abandon the veteran, along with everything else veteran. As a veterans’ advocate, I have found, they are right. State courts, having ruled, awarding as alimony, VA disability compensation, not by the law, but on the personal whim of judges. Although United States law, being quite clear on the subject, an so stated in federal law, and eloquently stated in the Supreme Court ruling in Rose v. Rose (1986). But as veterans have found, federal laws, or Supreme Court rulings do not protect the disabled veteran in divorce court.
:
:
:
:
Message Thread:
« Back to thread