Letter: Veteran Speaks Out About Vet Who Chose Jail Over Alimony

Editor’s note: This letter was written in response to the Sept. 18 article “Disabled Veteran Chooses Jail Over Paying Alimony.”

Disabled veteran Terry Lynn elected going to jail rather than breaking a federal law.

For what?

State court violation Separation of Powers DISABLED VETERANS

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, ruled,

“As much as we may wish for expeditious improvement in the way the VA handles mental health care and service-related disability compensation, we cannot exceed our jurisdiction to accomplish it,.. veterans seeking the prompt provision of the health care and benefits to which they are entitled by law, as judges we may not exceed our jurisdiction.” Florida’s activist court judges as well, are not in any legal position to exceed their jurisdiction. However, this does not stop Florida’s court judges, they have no problem when it comes to “service related disability compensation.”

And despite the law, it continues. Veteran chooses jail over giving his disability money to ex-wife.

“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. Now that alimony reform has surfaced in many state legislatures, it’s 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, 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 their disregard of disabled veterans.

Realizing laws protecting VA disability compensation as exempt, the courts, therefore are unable, in any legal standing, to secure garnishment of veteran’s disability compensation. The court not satisfied, and not wanting to break federal law, will expect the veteran in a final move, will now consider, an equitable calculation of veteran’s resources, to include in many cases, the only money’s available, the very same disability compensation the court recognizes and acknowledges as exempt, in determining, “for purposes of establishing” alimony/support. The court then, exceeding their jurisdiction, order the use of a veteran’s disability compensation as alimony, 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 courts jurisdiction, under “separation of powers” doctrine. The court has the responsibility and the obligation to uphold the State Constitution’s “separation of powers” doctrine.

Forgotten are the rights of the disabled veterans. It is clear the court’s have no legal right to, exercise, determine, consider in any equitable calculation thereof, or divide federal VA disability benefits, in order to further enhance martial property. The improper, intrusive practice by state court judges in administration and governing over VA medical rehabilitative disability compensation. 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, requires subject matter jurisdiction. The court has the sworn duty and responsibility to enforce federal law. The court’s continued attempt to override VA administered rehabilitative services, of disability compensation is not within the courts purview, legal right or jurisdiction to invade.

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

ARTICLE II GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 3. Branches of government.—“The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.”

Disabled veteran’s, and the “separation of powers” doctrine, both overlooked, ignored, for years, by Florida Legislators and most state court judges, acting like doctors, holding themselves as qualified, as a provider of health care, policy making outside their jurisdiction. Substituting their judgment for the judgment of VA doctors and medical professionals, awarding as alimony, a disabled veteran’s earned VA disability compensation. Acting outside of constitutional boundaries of long held established VA medical protocols, in considering and re-evaluating a disabled veteran’s disability compensation in order 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?

42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or ..causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States …within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,…secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law,.. or other proper proceeding for redress,..”

“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)”

14th Amendment. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, with due process of law, ..”

As a veterans advocate, a Korean era veteran, I am neither disabled or in any divorce action. The reality of law from the disabled veteran’s view,... it’s criminal.

William Heino Sr.