100% disabled veteran and alimony

[footballman]

Will Title 5 or 38 of U.S.C or this Florida Statute protect me from paying alimony to my soon to be ex-wife.

The 2010 Florida Statutes
Title XLIII
DOMESTIC RELATIONS Chapter 744
GUARDIANSHIP View Entire Chapter

744.626Exemption of benefits from claims of creditors.
—Except as provided by federal law, payments of benefits from the United States Department of veterans Affairs or the Social Security Administration to or for the benefit of a disabled veteran or the veteran’s surviving spouse or dependents are exempt from the claims of creditors and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after the receipt of the payments by the guardian or the beneficiary.

History.—s. 9, ch. 84-62; s. 48, ch. 93-268; s. 1121, ch. 97-102

[haiki]

38 USC 5301 is the protection of VA disability compensation against alimony awards to third parties. Although they contribute to the problem, state court judges, lawyers, and state legislators see only what they want to see. Make judgments according to precedent, the easy route, “stare decisis”, Rose v. Rose, and their misrepresentation of Administrative law, 42 USC 659. Helping this process along is the Veterans Administration policy. Rubber stamping each state court garnishment order without thought or questioning. Disregarding the rules of Compliance With Process procedure. “The governmental entity shall comply with legal process, except where the process cannot be complied with because: ..” The “because” to all this follows.
=
General counsel Department of Veterans Affairs before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. Mr. Thompson speaking on the subject at hand states , “The sole exception is that VA compensation received in lieu of waived military retired pay can be garnished in order to satisfy court-ordered child support and alimony obligations.”
=
VA compensation can be garnished only if two (2) conditions exist, to satisfy court ordered, (1) child support and (2) alimony obligations. The “sole exception” Not one(1), but two(2) conditions.
=
“The interpretation of the General Counsel on legal matters, contained in such opinions, is conclusive as to all VA officials and employees, not only in the matter at issue, but also in future adjudications and appeals involving the same legal issues, in the absence of a change in controlling statute or regulation or a superseding written legal opinion of the General Counsel.”
=
“VA monetary benefits, entitlement to which is generally based on either the veteran’s disability and wartime service (pension) or disability from service-connected injury or disease (compensation), is generally not considered remuneration for employment.”
=
42 USC Section 659. Consent by United States to income withholding,… for enforcement of child support and alimony obligations. Reading further on, worded as, “(i)(5)(B), to provide child support or make alimony payments”, “(e) child support or alimony”. Why child support or alimony? To cover all conditions of a veteran’s activity, such circumstances in retirement or employment, in order to carry out court ordered alimony judgments in garnishing retirement payments, military pay, assets, etc., classified and based ….as remuneration for employment. “Remuneration” conditions having absolutely nothing to do with a veterans’ disability compensation. A disabled veteran, having no child support issues, is receiving disability compensation not based on remuneration for employment, therefore not subject to garnishment.
=
“The test to determine if a payment is subject to garnishment is whether the payment is remuneration for employment as defined in section 459 [42 U.S.C. 659(a) and (h).“You will see that in 659 (V) they are talking about retired or retainer pay where “..the entitlement to which is based upon remuneration for employment”
=
“(h) Moneys subject to process
(1) In general
Subject to paragraph (2), moneys payable to an individual which are considered to be based upon remuneration for employment, for purposes of this section -
(V) by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as compensation for a service-connected disability paid by the Secretary to a former member of the Armed Forces who is in receipt of retired or retainer pay if the former member has waived a portion of the retired or retainer pay in order to receive such compensation;..”
=
TITLE 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL CHAPTER I--OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT PART 581
_PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT AND/OR ALIMONY --
Honoring legal process.
(a) The governmental entity shall comply with legal process, except where the process cannot be complied with because:
(2) The legal process would require the withholding of funds not deemed moneys due from, or payable by, the United States as remuneration for employment;
=
What have these laws taught us? That disability compensation is not.. retired or retainer pay. Therefore not.. remuneration for employment compensation. That the VA’s mandate ignores compliance with its legal process, and illegally continue to complying, and processing state court ordered judgments outside the guidelines of federal law.
=

[Attorney Howard Iken]

The statute you are referring to does not really apply. While certain categories of assets and income are exempt from attachment, they can still be considered by the court in an alimony award. In other words, the entire situation will be looked at as a whole.

Florida homesteads are also protected. But that does not prevent the the court from ordering a sale to satisfy a marital decree.

[haiki]

Let's try this.
=
Clear and substantial major damage

There is �clear and substantial� major damage to federal interests when state court judges make lasting decisions that seriously impact and complicate the Veterans Administration goals. Upsetting, by overruling the medical decisions, and the many hours of work that VA medical care professionals have invested in rehabilitation of disabled veterans, all this when a state court arbitrarily is allowed to take away a veterans VA disability compensation in third party alimony awards in violation of�..
38 USC 5301. Nonassignability and exempt status of benefits, and
38 USC 1155 �Authority for schedule for rating disabilities.
=
Now, �.. an argument may be, is that the veteran's disability rating has not actually been downgraded. No one has actually decreased the VA predetermined rating. In this situation, the judge is merely apportioning it after the fact.�
=
This maybe true, however, based on the fact because the rating and compensation are directly tied to each other. Sure the rating may have not gone down, but to a veteran his disability compensation payments is contingent upon what VA medical professionals determined the disabled veteran should be compensated for, forgetting for the moment, any rating system. To the veteran who loses any portion of his compensation payments, he considers his rating has been downgraded. Because, now his VA rating is meaningless. After all, a veterans health and well being are now in jeopardy. A � cause and effect� situation. We just have to stop this nonsense that�s happening in state courts.
=
Which brings up the question, how can state court judges in violating, 38 USC 5301, 42 USC 1408, arbitrarily award as alimony, a portion of a veteran�s VA disability rated compensation, and waive away, by reviewing the disability rights of veteran whose disability rating that maybe determined and factored in as critical? Judgment as if all disabilities are exactly the same. State court judges, playing doctor, border on medical negligence, overstepping those whose authority it belongs, in the practice of medicine, re-evaluation, and rehabilitation of the veteran, and VA medical professionals. In direct violation of 38 USC 1155, �Authority for schedule for rating disabilities.� "..., [I]n no event shall such a readjustment in the rating schedule cause a veteran's disability rating in effect on the effective date of the readjustment to be reduced unless an improvement in the veteran's disability is shown to have occurred.� Reduced readjustment in a rating schedule, in the taking away money�s used for the recovery and rehabilitation of disabled veterans, and handing it over to a healthy third party.
=
I now wondered, if state court judges are allowed to take away a veteran�s disability compensation without a medical license, or knowledge? How does the Board of Veterans Appeals, who are continually faced with determining a veteran�s disability compensation, or other medical claim, adjudicate these medical questions?
=
� 20.101 Rule 101. Jurisdiction of the Board.
��Medical determinations, such as determinations of the need for and appropriateness of specific types of medical care and treatment for an individual, are not adjudicative matters and are beyond the Board's jurisdiction�.�
=
Even the Social Security Administration� has medical evidence standards they must follow.
42 USC 423 �In making any determination the Commissioner of Social Security shall make every reasonable effort to obtain from the individual�s treating physician (or other treating health care provider) all medical evidence, including diagnostic tests, necessary in order to properly make such determination, prior to evaluating medical evidence obtained from any other source on a consultative basis.�
=
State court judges in awarding a veterans� VA disability compensation as �income� in a divorce, show an indifference to veterans� and their serious medical needs. The deliberate intrusion by state courts into federal issues and laws, ruling arbitrarily by awarding VA disability compensation to a third party is unwarranted. They are required to obtain advisory medical opinion from medical experts, just as required by the Board of Veterans� Appeals (BVA), and as well, as in all other civil litigation.
=
Judges, rule arbitrarily that they have the right to award VA disability compensation to third parties. The right to play doctor. Because of this, these judges have taken on the responsibilities of a medical doctor, and ruled as a doctor. Contrary to the veteran�s reliance on 38 USC 5301, and because of the disability of the veteran, they have, by their judicial proceedings determined the disabled veteran is incapable of caring for his or her own interests. Due to a veterans� disability, and their authority as judge in ruling, awarding of VA disability compensation to third parties. The reality is, the state court judge has taken on another responsibility, and became the veterans� legal guardian, his �ward�. Another disabled veterans� right, that of being able handle his or her own rehabilitation now has been taken away .
=
The legal recommendation of the VA�s own General Council in medical determinations, and questions, that are beyond the knowledge of those not in the medical field.
=
38 CFR 20.901 Rule 901. Medical opinions and opinions of the General Counsel.
�(d) Independent medical expert opinions. When, in the judgment of the Board, additional medical opinion is warranted by the medical complexity or controversy involved in an appeal, the Board may obtain an advisory medical opinion from one or more medical experts who are not employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Opinions will be secured, as requested by the Chairman of the Board, from recognized medical schools, universities, clinics, or medical institutions with which arrangements for such opinions have been made by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. An appropriate official of the institution will select the individual expert, or experts, to give an opinion.� (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7109)
=
VA Can�t Base Denial on its Own Medical Judgment Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991)
Colvin stands for a now deeply embedded and fundamental principle of veterans law�the VA may use only independent medical evidence to support its benefits decisions. The VA may not use the medical opinion or judgment of the VA rater or BVA Veterans Law Judge to support a decision
=
��before a state law governing domestic relations will be overridden, it "must do `major damage' to `clear and substantial' federal interests."
=
�Clear and substantial� major damage to federal interests occurs when, in attaching, for any reason, the VA rated disability compensation benefits of disabled veterans by judges practicing in a field where they have no expertise. The expertise that VA doctors, and VA healthcare professionals are required to have in order to determine the appropriate disability compensation in order to rehabilitate, with a medical degree of certainty, that would ensure a disabled veteran return to a healthy meaningful outlook, and enjoyment of life, and independence in daily living.
=
�Clear and substantial� major damage to federal interests occurs. When the work of the primary medical care provided by Veterans Administration medical teams to disabled veterans� has been compromised by activist state court judges. Readjusting the VA�s predetermined medical disability payment rating schedules, by court order to lower VA payout levels. Attaching these just acquired disability compensation benefit payments as alimony awards, by judges practicing in a field where they have no business practicing. Doctors do not attempt to practice law. The expertise and knowledge of VA doctors, and VA healthcare professionals are required in order to determine the appropriate medical care, and disability payment compensation in order to rehabilitate, with a medical degree of certainty, that would ensure a disabled veteran return to a healthy meaningful outlook, and enjoyment of life, and independence in daily living.
=
�In no event shall such a readjustment in the rating schedule cause a veteran's disability rating in effect on the effective date of the readjustment to be reduced unless an improvement in the veteran's disability is shown to have occurred.�