A
AskerofQuestion
Guest
please read it all before commenting I am not trying to argue here.
most but not all:
Premise: Okay I asked earlier why is it that lawyers are convincing judges to make judgements that are contrary to the federal law protecting veteran disability payments from all legal and equitable processes of all kinds. The federal law can be found here for those of you who want to look. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/5301
Statement: If you notice it states 38 U.S. Code � 5301(a)1 "and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary." The last half of what I have quoted here is ignored by nearly all lawyers that are versed on the subject. I have bolded the area that is ignored. Once again refer to the link in the premise.
For those of you who consider this a rant. It is not. honestly would like to discuss this without attacks from anyone.
Anyway if you go to the VA and ask them "hey can I take Veteran A's money for his ex spouse?" They will say "no" because the federal law specifically states that all jurisdiction is in the hands of the VA. And the VA's polices state that the monies of a disabled Veteran receiving Veterans Disability can in no way be used in any legal ruling or consideration.
Now I know that many of you will state that "we have case law" and "hey look at this affidavit it says that the funds are not considered xyz in the case of dependents and children." For one the affidavit that is mentioned and passed around isn't actually legal law. It is a affidavit of a counsel of discussion. Not actually legal law in either state or federal. So it is not valid in arguing that they can be used. Also the question here isn't about taking care of ones dependents. many people when they read this automatically think upon reading the first line "oh here we go again with another Vet not wanting to take care of his family!" that isn't the question here. The funds are specifically allowed to be taken IF YOU GO to the VA for children and dependents that are in a the immediate family and house hold of biological or adopted or married family. However it's not meant for those who are not family. When someone goes through a divorce the two people are no longer married nor family regardless if they have children with each other or not. so they do not legally fall into the category of "immediate family and house hold of biological or adopted or married family"
Question: So with those things stated, why is it that lawyers when they go to court in situations with a soon to be ex spouse whether male or female present state cases where other judges have used the disability benefits (wrongfully) and then miss quote rose v rose or other cases before hand of that one which are not actually valid anymore and do not follow the actual written letter of the law? (many of you may say "durp this isn't a question." too me this is a question or questions. And I don't play the "lets word it a specific way then it is a question" game. it is a question because grammatically it's correctly written "why" "how" "Who?" and other words define a question.) Please give .gov posted evidences please. Thanks and lets have a good discussion.
Before you fire off your fingers of refute and disagreement or to answer. Consider this first please. 1) Rose V Rose was decided May 18, 1987. These were based on the current laws that were available at that immediate time of 1987 and prior. After the ruling of Rose v Rose did you know that The house and The Senate "deleted" the old law that that case was decided under? They re wrote it as Title 38 U.S. Code � 5301. So the Rose v Rose ruling whether understood by most lawyers or not regardless is not valid any longer because the ruling was made based off the older law that is no longer in the books. So Rose v Rose can not be cited as a authoritative reading of the current law because there has been no case on it. Now you may say Mansell v. Mansell well this too was before the current law that is in the federal books. So it too is not valid.
Would like to say one more thing before you answer or try to refute. We are talking about Federal laws here. Not state. These two are not the same. So if you are going to speak about laws and so forth and so on, 'case law' is not actual law. It's only rulings that someone has made or a group of people have done. so that doesn't count either. I am speaking specifically of the written federal law and has nothing to do with state law.
last note, I consider this legal ethics and malpractice of lawyers and I believe the law does to and the state bar because lawyers are not supposed to miss represent the written laws in any way shape or form regardless of 'case law' or common consensus.
EDIT ADDITION: I forgot to mention Judges and Lawyers aren't supposed to do certain things. But that doesn't mean that they don't violate the laws governing their office in order to rule or convince (lawyers job) the judge.
most but not all:
Premise: Okay I asked earlier why is it that lawyers are convincing judges to make judgements that are contrary to the federal law protecting veteran disability payments from all legal and equitable processes of all kinds. The federal law can be found here for those of you who want to look. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/5301
Statement: If you notice it states 38 U.S. Code � 5301(a)1 "and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary." The last half of what I have quoted here is ignored by nearly all lawyers that are versed on the subject. I have bolded the area that is ignored. Once again refer to the link in the premise.
For those of you who consider this a rant. It is not. honestly would like to discuss this without attacks from anyone.
Anyway if you go to the VA and ask them "hey can I take Veteran A's money for his ex spouse?" They will say "no" because the federal law specifically states that all jurisdiction is in the hands of the VA. And the VA's polices state that the monies of a disabled Veteran receiving Veterans Disability can in no way be used in any legal ruling or consideration.
Now I know that many of you will state that "we have case law" and "hey look at this affidavit it says that the funds are not considered xyz in the case of dependents and children." For one the affidavit that is mentioned and passed around isn't actually legal law. It is a affidavit of a counsel of discussion. Not actually legal law in either state or federal. So it is not valid in arguing that they can be used. Also the question here isn't about taking care of ones dependents. many people when they read this automatically think upon reading the first line "oh here we go again with another Vet not wanting to take care of his family!" that isn't the question here. The funds are specifically allowed to be taken IF YOU GO to the VA for children and dependents that are in a the immediate family and house hold of biological or adopted or married family. However it's not meant for those who are not family. When someone goes through a divorce the two people are no longer married nor family regardless if they have children with each other or not. so they do not legally fall into the category of "immediate family and house hold of biological or adopted or married family"
Question: So with those things stated, why is it that lawyers when they go to court in situations with a soon to be ex spouse whether male or female present state cases where other judges have used the disability benefits (wrongfully) and then miss quote rose v rose or other cases before hand of that one which are not actually valid anymore and do not follow the actual written letter of the law? (many of you may say "durp this isn't a question." too me this is a question or questions. And I don't play the "lets word it a specific way then it is a question" game. it is a question because grammatically it's correctly written "why" "how" "Who?" and other words define a question.) Please give .gov posted evidences please. Thanks and lets have a good discussion.
Before you fire off your fingers of refute and disagreement or to answer. Consider this first please. 1) Rose V Rose was decided May 18, 1987. These were based on the current laws that were available at that immediate time of 1987 and prior. After the ruling of Rose v Rose did you know that The house and The Senate "deleted" the old law that that case was decided under? They re wrote it as Title 38 U.S. Code � 5301. So the Rose v Rose ruling whether understood by most lawyers or not regardless is not valid any longer because the ruling was made based off the older law that is no longer in the books. So Rose v Rose can not be cited as a authoritative reading of the current law because there has been no case on it. Now you may say Mansell v. Mansell well this too was before the current law that is in the federal books. So it too is not valid.
Would like to say one more thing before you answer or try to refute. We are talking about Federal laws here. Not state. These two are not the same. So if you are going to speak about laws and so forth and so on, 'case law' is not actual law. It's only rulings that someone has made or a group of people have done. so that doesn't count either. I am speaking specifically of the written federal law and has nothing to do with state law.
last note, I consider this legal ethics and malpractice of lawyers and I believe the law does to and the state bar because lawyers are not supposed to miss represent the written laws in any way shape or form regardless of 'case law' or common consensus.
EDIT ADDITION: I forgot to mention Judges and Lawyers aren't supposed to do certain things. But that doesn't mean that they don't violate the laws governing their office in order to rule or convince (lawyers job) the judge.
Last edited:
