Login | Become a Member

ATTENTION MR. BILL O’REILLY. Las Vegas Attorney sues BLIND veteran and others for TEN MILLION dollars and wins a judgement. By Senior Chief Geoff Ross USN (Ret.)

                                                                                                 www.livinglifephoto.com.

Senior Chief,
   We really need to get the word out about what is happening in Nevada. This guy will not be happy until he ruins all 11 of us. He claims that he has never hurt a veteran, but his actions say different. He already has a $10 million default judgement against me. My credit is ruined for the rest of my life.
 
Thanks for the support. We need the veterans nationwide to get involved in this fight.  Have you read his law suit yet? If not, here is the link.
 

Best regards Jere,

Responce and action by Geoff Ross: (Personal friend of Bill O Reilly) 

(IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF THIS IS PICKED UP IN THE NATIONAL MEDIA?!  OR NOT!!   Fred Brownbill)
Dear Mr. O’Reilly,  

   My friend Jere Berre a highly decorated Vietnam Veteran has just had a ten million dollar judgment leveled against him resulting from a law suit from Attorney at Law Marshall S. Willick.  Please if you get time review this E mail and see if its news worthy for your show.   Why would an attorney sue a combat injured and a blind Vietnam vet is  beyond me. 

 

 

 

Attention Patriots, 

 

    Two highly decorated Disabled Vietnam Combat Veterans appealed to me for help.  8 veterans one of whom is blind has been  allegedly sued for ten million dollars and a judgment levied against them by an attorney / judge in Las Vegas. The $10 million judgment against them is the result of malicious prosecution; they and 7 other Veterans were standing peacefully on a public street corner with signs (not on private property), calling attention to the fact that Disabled Veterans pensions were being attached by an attorney who makes his living in a practice that goes after Veteran’s pensions in litigation. 

 

 

 

The attorney was so upset with their demonstration against his practice, that he sued them and in so doing, misrepresented facts in his pleadings with regard to the date, the location of the demonstration, and their actions during the demonstration (one police officer was present and saw no misconduct).  Then the attorney in question obtained a judgment against them in Las Vegas when they didn’t appear on the court date (an error on their part).  They live in New York and didn’t have the funds to travel to Las Vegas a second time to appear at the court arraignment; one of them is blind.

 

 

 

 

 

Here is the law form in question that allegedly did this to our veterans.   

 

 

 

Attorney at Law

 

MARSHAL S. WILLICK

 

3591 E. Bonanza Rd.

 

Suite 200

 

Las Vegas, NV  89110-2101

 

702-438-4100

 

 

 

More information: 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 9, 2012

 

On May 15th, OFFE members and supporters from across the country held a rally in Freedom Park in Las Vegas. The purpose of the rally was to draw media and public attention to the epidemic of veteran suicides across the country. Nevada has a suicide rate among veterans which far exceeds the national average.

 

On May 16th OFFE conducted a peaceful, dignified, proactive sidewalk rally near the Willick Law Firm office building. The purpose of this rally was to show public support for the total protection of veteran’s disability compensation from third party awards in divorce settlements. Both events were properly permitted and event insurance policies had been acquired. OFFE Inc., and VFVC Inc., are both 501c19 non-profit veterans service organizations.

 

Attorney Marshall Willick is a Las Vegas based divorce lawyer who specializes in representing the ex-spouses of military retirees and disabled veterans.

 

At the heart of the debate is that Mr. Willick claims VA disability compensation awarded to our combat disabled veterans belongs to the veteran’s entire family, including former spouses. Willick also claims VA disability compensation is income, and in a divorce the ex-spouse is entitled to as much as half of that income as alimony.

On May 14th Willick filed a defamation law suit against Operation Firing For Effect, Inc. (OFFE), Veterans For Veterans Connection, Inc. (VFVC), Veterans Today – Military & Foreign Journal, Gene Simes, Jere Beery, Georgia Attorney at Law, Fred Jones and 4 other defendants.

 

Jere Beery and Gene Simes were served with the law suit on public property (sidewalk) during the sidewalk rally on May 16th. This fact contradicts a sworn affidavit signed by process server, Rebecca D. Godwin, which states Beery and Simes were served on private property (parking lot). The affidavit also states that the rally was held in front of the Willick Law Firm building. Once again, this is incorrect. The rally was held adjacent some 300 feet to the right side of the Willick building. Apparently, Ms. Godwin was somewhat confused about her whereabouts.

 

The Summons and Complaint for Damages stated that Beery, Simes, OFFE, and VFVC had 20 days to respond, or they would default and Willick would be awarded the full amount of his claim.

On July 31st, the Clark County, NV, District Court ruled that Jere Beery, VFVC Inc., OFFE Inc., were all in default and awarded Marshal Willick $10 million from these organizations and defendant. There was no trial, no jury, no evidence presented, and no testimony by any of the defendants. This is apparently what the Nevada legal system calls “due process of law”.

 

Gene Simes, representing himself Pro Se and both non-profit organizations, included Jere Beery, as additional defendants in his response to the court in early June, but to date the court has refused to acknowledge Simes submission. Beery has been Vice President of both OFFE and VFVC for many years.

 

In order to properly understand how this lawsuit and $10 million judgment came to be, some historical foundation should be provided.

 

In December of 2011, OFFE obtained a document titled “A Legal Note from Marshal Willick”. Within the 7 pages of Willick’s “Note” were numerous references to the work Operation Firing For Effect has been involved in for the past 10 years. Willick focused his efforts on misrepresenting the group’s efforts to protect veteran’s disability compensation from third party awards in a divorce. In his writing, Mr. Willick called OFFE a “so-called veteran support group seeking to pervert family law for their own personal enrichment”, “nut-jobs”, “fringe militants”, “and wackos with their own political agenda”. The entire rant can be read via the link:

 

http://www.anamericanpromise.org/legal/legalnote2.pdf

 

Approximately a month later, Willick released another “Legal Note” in which he taunted the disabled veterans yet again. This time Willick referred to members of OFFE as “Jihadists” and “Fanatics”. Bare in mind these were highly decorated combat disabled veterans. Both Jere Beery and Gene Simes have been awarded the Purple Heart Medal for wounds in combat. Beery’s service record reflects 3 Purple Hearts and 1 Bronze Star w/”V” for Valor. Needless to say both combat disabled veterans were incensed by Willick’s degrading and belittling insults.

 

In his lawsuit, Willick cited quotes in several articles written by Jere Beery and published by the online military and foreign affairs journal Veterans Today. Willick referred to the articles as slanderous and claimed the writings have cost him millions of dollars in lost business. Willick claimed his good name and reputation had been severely damaged by misleading and false information contained in the VT articles. In the same suit, Willick also claimed that he had received a number of death threats from the above mentioned veterans and groups. The entire lawsuit can be read via the link:

 

http://www.anamericanpromise.org/virtual/gene_lawsuit.pdf

 

According to Willick, sorting out how much of a veteran’s disability compensation is awarded to an ex-spouse is in the sole jurisdiction of state divorce courts. Willick also wrote that combat military service is no more dangerous than the work of zoo keepers and construction workers. Simes and Beery say nothing could be further from the truth, and believe Willick has obviously never served in a war zone. Both of these Willick quotes can be found in his ‘Legal Note’ link above.

 

OFFE National Chairman, Gene D. Simes says Marshal Willick was the first to slander and defame us OFFE. Everything contained in Jere Beery’s articled s are based on truth and fact. We never lowered ourselves to calling Willick names, only reporting the facts as we knew them. According to Simes, Willick is an opportunist attempting to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. If Willick truly thought he had received legitimate death threats, he would have filed a complaint with Las Vegas law enforcement, but he did not. Simes and others cited in Willick’s suit have been in contact with the LVPD, Clark County Sheriff’s Department, the FBI, and Office of Homeland Security. None of these law enforcement agencies have any record of Mr. Willick filing a complaint against any of the OFFE or VFVC personnel. Additionally, no criminal or civil charges have been brought against any of these individuals or organizations.

 

According to Gene Simes, Willick’s lawsuit is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to silence those who disagree with him and stop them from publicly criticizing him and his attempts to strip our disabled veterans of their earned disability compensation. Both Simes and Beery consider Willick’s law suit to be an attack on their Constitutional 1st Amendment rights of free speech. Both men also believe that Willick’s suit was filed in retaliation for formal complaints they filed against Willick with the Nevada State Bar in January of this year.

 

Another notable point made by Simes is that Willick filed his notarized lawsuit on May 14th, and in his complaint he described in detail events that took place during the May 16th rally an event that had not happened yet! The rally didn’t occur until 2 days after Willick filed his suit. Simes legitimately asks how someone can file a complaint, predict future events and swear those facts to be true. In any rationale analysis, this single factor must cast doubt on Willick’s entire suit and cause one to ask if it is nothing more than another heavily embellished lie?

 

The defendants and Mr. Willick have been engaged in an on-going, sometimes heated, debate over the rights of states to order certain payments in a divorce settlement from veteran’s disability compensation. Mr. Simes and Mr. Beery say that such orders are in violation of federal law, specifically 38 USC 5301, 10 USC 1408, as well as the 1989 Supreme Court decision in Mansell v. Mansell.

At the heart of the debate is that Mr. Willick claims VA disability compensation awarded to our combat disabled veterans belongs to the veteran’s entire family, including former spouses. Willick also claims VA disability compensation is income, and in a divorce the ex-spouse is entitled to as much as half of that income as alimony.

 

Lawyers advising Simes and Beery have reviewed Willick’s lawsuit and feel it is a classic example of a SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) suit – a type of aggressive legal action designed to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Although many states have outlawed such suits and allow for defendants to have them quickly adjudicated and be reimbursed for their costs, the legislation in Nevada is weak on this subject, providing only limited protection (NRS 41.635 to 41.670).

OFFE research analyst, Simon Alvarado says Willick’s law suit is a perfect example of “malicious prosecution” and should have been thrown out of court on day one. As for the suit itself, Willick’s complaint contains no claims that the research OFFE has concluded is in dispute, rather attacking the character of the veterans groups. One thing seems clear that Constitutional issues are in question, Alvarado added.

 

Inquiries should be directed to: Gene Simes at; (315) 986-7322, gdsusa@rochester.rr.com

 

, , , ,

5 Responses to ATTENTION MR. BILL O’REILLY. Las Vegas Attorney sues BLIND veteran and others for TEN MILLION dollars and wins a judgement. By Senior Chief Geoff Ross USN (Ret.)

  1. Hank March 27, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

    There are those who consider disabled veterans that ask for their rights, free speech rights, guaranteed under the Constitution, rights of “due process,” in protection of their earned VA disability compensation, are categorized as whack-jobs, and part of a fringe group. Whack job veterans’ who have fought, and sacrificed for these rights, and as a result, many now disabled. This unfair character description of disabled veterans comes from those in the legal profession that has never served a day in military service. Instead, now facing veterans outrage at exposing the court room maneuvering of this win-at-all-costs weaver of the social process by attacking veterans through the courts. Under state ethics codes, a lawyer (an officer of the court) is directly prohibited from bringing a frivolous lawsuit, whose primary purpose is to harass or intimidate others, one that has no genuine legal basis.

    Court room maneuvering through their vision of, “Divorcing the Military: How to Attack, How to Defend.” The.. what, who, when and how, the law should be applied. And disabled veterans’ not just the few, but all disabled veterans. are just to sit, and expected to do nothing?

    Contempt for anybody daring to ask for justice and due process, especially those “whack job” disabled veterans. For exposing a practice of law that they have occupied for years, and now finally drawing to and end.

    As a lawyer that has never served in the military, confirmed by letting it be known, that in the employ are two 30 year career military veterans. Is this meant somehow to qualify for service or knowledge of the military?

    Laws for the protection of a veterans disability compensation

    38 US 5301,“Nonassignability and exempt status of benefits”?

    14th Amendment, “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United states: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protect of the laws.”

    Is it understood. “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)”

    38 USC 1155 Authority for schedule for rating disabilities
    “…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.”

    38 CFR 3.105 (e),
    (e) Reduction in evaluation—compensation. Where the reduction in evaluation of a service-connected disability or employability status is considered warranted and the lower evaluation would result in a reduction or discontinuance of compensation payments currently being made, a rating proposing the reduction or discontinuance will
    be prepared setting forth all material facts and reasons.

    NEVADA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
    Rule 8.4. Misconduct. It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
    (d) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
    (f) Knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.

    THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
    Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    From those that should know better, suggesting a veteran‘s right to disability compensation,… as “larceny.” In other words, a disabled veteran asking for a “due process” right is labeled a “thief” wanting “special treatment.” When it comes to veteran’s VA disability compensation, asking the court to apply the law, this is not “special treatment,” as every American knows. Disabled veterans did not make the law in determining past rulings, which are detrimental to the disabled veteran in most state court divorce settlements. This is why it is an issue. Most state courts have ignored those references and had to live by the unfair ruling as determined by state court judges acting as doctors.

  2. William heino Sr. August 14, 2013 at 4:08 pm #

    Nevada court violation DISABLED VETERANS
    =
    (Thursday, April 18th, 2013)
    “Nevada Legislatures turns its back on Disabled Veteran Issues.” Published reports, confirming once again, the Nevada legislative inaction, through the efforts of Assemblyman Jason Frierson (D), Judiciary Committee Chairman, who chose to deny the Committee the opportunity to bring Assembly Bill 271 up for a vote. And so, succeeded not only in denying veteran’s their rights, to liberty, and the equality as promised in the Nevada State Constitution, but thereby denying veteran’s VA disability compensation to comply with Federal Law.
    =
    THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    =
    ARTICLE. 1. – Declaration of Rights.
    Section. 1. Inalienable rights. “All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness[.]”
    =
    Sec: 2. “Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States.”
    =
    Sec. 8. “Rights of accused in criminal prosecutions; jeopardy; rights of victims of crime; due process of law; eminent domain.”
    =
    5. “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
    =
    Sec: 9. “Liberty of speech and the press. “Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the Jury; and if it shall appear to the Jury that the matter charged as libelous is true and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated.”
    =
    Sec: 10. Right to assemble and to petition. “The people shall have the right freely to assemble together to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives and to petition the Legislature for redress of Grievances.”
    =
    As confirmed by Nevada’s legislature’s recent feelings about disabled veterans these rights do not apply.
    =
    In practice, how do the inalienable rights as stated in the Nevada Constitution work? Rights, as protecting property, enjoying and defending life and liberty; and happiness, liberty of speech and the press. Rights that, every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech work when applied?
    =
    An example. 1n 2012 a United States Viet-Nam service connected disabled veteran, while in Las Vegas’ Freedom Park, applied Nevada’s Constitutional inalienable rights theory, of free speech, right to assemble, in order to voice wrongs to protect veteran’s VA disability compensation from being awarded as alimony by the Nevada court system. What did he get for his pursuit of these rights? A lawsuit filed against him claiming defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, false light, business disparagement, harassment, concert of action, civil conspiracy, racketeering (RICO) allegations!
    =
    Clearly, a Nevada disabled veteran when returning home will be faced with one of their toughest battles. Having to explain to a judge in divorce court, what you are about to learn, in order to keep his or her VA disability compensation from being awarded as alimony. This happens, even though both Nevada and federal law is quite clear as to the legal issues involved.
    =
    38 USC 5301 Nonassignability and exempt status of benefits. “Payments of benefits due or to become due under any law administered by the Secretary shall not be assignable except to the extent specifically authorized by law,.. a beneficiary shall be exempt from taxation, shall be exempt from the claim 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 receipt by the beneficiary.”
    =
    The question being, how is it, that state court judges can arbitrarily and capriciously award as alimony, with the mere wave of a hand, waive away a portion of a veteran’s VA disability rated compensation? Moneys in the form of disability compensation, as well as the disability rights of a veteran, whose privileged medical disability and rating that maybe determined and factored in as critical. The impropriety, conduct that violates the law, of making medical judgments as if all disabilities are exactly the same.
    =
    Those who initiated the lawsuit acknowledge, “Specifically, where the military member in a military marriage has an existing VA disability at the time of divorce, they are expressly non-divisible under federal law,…While a court cannot divide those benefits, they “may be considered as a resource for purposes of determining [one’s] ability to pay alimony.” Here, clarifying and admitting, benefits may be considered.. for the purposes of determining [one’s] ability to pay alimony.
    =
    Clausen v. Clausen (Alaska). “In arriving at an equitable distribution of marital assets, courts should only consider a party’s military disability benefits as they affect the financial circumstances of both parties. Disability benefits should not, either in form or substance, be treated as marital property subject to division upon the dissolution of marriage.” 831 P.2d at 1264. ”
    =
    In other words, to consider, or rather, to think about carefully….to take into account especially with regard to taking some action, as in, awarding of alimony. The law does not mean “the actual taking” of a disabled veteran’s VA disability compensation. “While a court cannot divide those benefits,” but it is merely used as a factor to determine overall final alimony payments from other sources.
    =
    A disabled veteran’s plead to the judge, “I have a very severe serious back injury, I do need all of my VA disability compensation.” The judge will reply, “Are you a doctor?” The practice of medicine is a privilege and a calling, and that it combines both art and science. And yet, in these non-life threatening health issues, acting as a provider of health care, Nevada court judges independently take on the serious role of playing doctor, prescribe without medical license or knowledge .. a practice forbidden, providing penalties by law, and border on medical negligence. A judgment made without any input, or approval from the Veterans Administration. Overstepping those whose authority it belongs, the dedicated VA medical professionals, in the practice of medicine, medical re-evaluation, and rehabilitation of the veteran. While at the same time violating federal law, 38 USC 5301, 42 USC 1408, 42 USC 1983, and the 14th Amendment?
    =
    Unlawful Practice.
    NRS 630.160 Requirements for license to practice medicine;
    1. “Every person desiring to practice medicine must, before beginning to practice, procure from the Board a license authorizing the person to practice.”
    (b) “Has received the degree of doctor of medicine from a medical school:..”
    =
    Where is it written? The VA authority, when a Nevada state court judge can hold oneself out as qualified, and arbitrarily overrule the VA, the VA medical doctors and other medical professionals’ that determine a veterans’ medical rating and disability compensation? His future now without the compensation that was by law assured? Tax payer monies mandated by Congress purposely, as veterans service compensation for injuries received, life altering as they are, now being diverted purposely by state courts to healthy third parties in many cases, in a determined and engaging violation of the law. To allow what has been happening, was this the intent of Congress? That state court judges substitute their judgment for the judgment of VA doctors and medical professionals? I don’t think so!
    =
    “Clear and substantial” major damage to federal interests occurs when state court judges make lasting decisions, partly based on Rose v. Rose, and stare decisis, forum shopping, etc. Judgments that seriously impact disabled veterans’ rated compensation and complicate Veterans Administration goals, and responsibilities. Upsetting, by overruling VA medical compensation decisions, which involve many hours of work that VA medical professionals have invested in the medical care, control, follow-up, and rehabilitation of disabled veterans. All this happens with VA complicity, 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.
    =
    38 USC 1155 Authority for schedule for rating disabilities. “However, 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.” 42 USC § 407 – Assignment of benefits, carries similar language.
    =
    Reduction in disability compensation payments cannot be “reduced unless an improvement in the veteran’s disability is shown to have occurred.” When processing a reduction order, the VA would be violating the regulation 38 CFR 3.105 (e) when no medical evaluation has been ordered showing any physical improvement.
    =
    To a veteran his total disability compensation payments is contingent upon what VA medical professionals determined the disabled veteran injuries should be compensated for. Forgetting for the moment, any rating system. To the veteran who loses any portion of his VA disability compensation payments by the courts, he has been unlawfully downgraded and now any disability rating is totally meaningless. What happens to a disabled veteran’s health, piece of mind, overall well being that the courts now have put in jeopardy? Contributing to the never ending psychological and devastating consequences, altering the standard of care now not being followed, in what the courts had dealt, affecting thousands of disabled veterans? A “cause and effect” situation. Where is this written?
    =
    The laws protecting disability compensation are very clear. However, Nevada court judges reason, that “due process” property rights do not apply to disabled veterans? This is something disabled veterans’, despite all efforts at law, over many years have tried, as a matter of law, to correct.
    =
    The law being clear as to a veteran’s rights and are being violated by Nevada’s civil court’s improper judicial authority in denying protections that are guaranteed.
    =
    How are Nevada judges allowed the discretion to act as a provider of medicine? To award as alimony, VA disability compensation based on ‘statutory’ awards? Which are not predicated directly on the average reduction in earning capacity, but primarily upon consideration of non-economic factors such as personal inconvenience, social inadaptability, or the profound nature of the disability. The purpose of the statutory award for loss or loss of use of a creative organ is to account for psychological factors.
    =
    Ninth Circuit Says Congress, Not Courts, Have Say Over VA Health Care.
    VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE v. SHINSEKI December 13, 2011
    =
    “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)”
    =
    However, Nevada state court judges, and now legislators blatantly disregard the “due process” property rights of disabled veterans. “Due process” is not only about a disabled veteran’s 14th Amendment property rights, but “due process” involving the improper conduct of state court judges activity, interference, and tampering in VA medical administration policies and decisions effecting the medical recovery and rehabilitation of disabled veterans.
    =
    PART VI. REVISED NEVADA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT.
    PREAMBLE
    “…Thus, the judiciary plays a central role in preserving the principles of justice and the rule of law. Inherent in all the Rules contained in this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system.”
    =
    Nevada. Rule 1.1. Compliance With the Law. “A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.”
    =
    Alimony settlements in divorce proceedings are not just a one “due process” fits all situations, as state court judges believe. When a veterans disability compensation is court ordered as part of any support distribution, before that “consideration” of any VA connected disability compensation, as part of any alimony award, there is a separate and distinct right to “due process” to fair adjudication of a veterans’ claim for disability compensation benefits. Something that has never been done. Entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the “..nor shall any State deprive..” due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    =
    Just to be clear several states have observed and respected federal law 38 USC 5301. These judges had disallowed the use of a veteran’s disability compensation to be used as alimony. However, there is an ultimatum. Judges have made it clear to a disabled veteran that they will go to jail if they do not use their VA disability compensation in alimony support. Many disabled veteran’s have gone and continue to serve jail time. Here, the state court judge refused to violate federal law, but now expects the veteran to violate that same federal law. Or go to jail!
    =
    The Veterans’ Administration, as is their duty by law, has administratively respected state court judgments and processed illegal state court ordered judgments in awarding a veteran’s VA disability compensation as alimony child support. Under the circumstances of law as described, it is now up to state courts, state court judges, and the Veterans Administration to uphold their sworn obedience and respect for the law and the property rights of the disabled veteran. Now that you have this information, it is hoped disabled veterans’ get the respect that they sacrificed, fought for and deserve.
    =
    One can only wonder, does the Nevada Legislature and Constitution, and laws stand for anything? Doing the right thing by recognizing a disabled veterans “due process” rights would forever settle once-and-for-all something that disabled veterans have been waiting for many years to confirm, 38 USC 5301 means what it says.
    =

  3. William heino Sr. September 12, 2013 at 6:27 pm #

    The “separation of powers” doctrine is completely ignored by Nevada and most state court judges, acting like doctors, holding themselves as qualified, as a provider of health care, outside their jurisdiction. Substituting their judgment for the judgment of VA doctors and medical professionals awarding as alimony a disabled veteran’s VA disability compensation. To allow what has been happening, was this the intent of Congress?
    =
    Nevada Constitution Article 3 Section 1 subsection 1
    “The powers of the Government of the State of Nevada shall be divided into three separate departments,—the Legislative,—the Executive and the Judicial; and…”
    =
    If the United State court of appeals, in VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE, VETERANS UNITED FOR TRUTH, INC., v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, December 13, 2011, refuses, “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,” then, Nevada courts are in no legal position to do so. Despite the law, it continues.

  4. homepage October 26, 2013 at 3:18 am #

    There are numerous agencies that would be involved if marijuana was declared legal, for medicinal purposes.
    Current marijuana use decreased 28 per cent among 8th graders
    (from 9. That’s why there are countries that forbid the use of such plant to prevent psychological effects to
    become abundant.

  5. William Heino Sr. March 21, 2014 at 10:44 pm #

    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. If, and when the question is a disabled veteran’s VA disability compensation as alimony/support, 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.

    Disabled veteran’s, and the “separation of powers” doctrine, both overlooked, ignored, for years, by Nevada 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?

    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, in a final move, will now consider, from any source, an equitable calculation of veteran’s resources, to include…. the very same disability compensation the court has acknowledged as exempt in determining alimony/support. Suggesting 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.

    Nevada Constitution Article 3 Section 1 subsection 1
    “The powers of the Government of the State of Nevada shall be divided into three separate departments,—the Legislative,—the Executive and the Judicial; and…”

    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.

    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,..”

    The United State court of appeals, in VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE, VETERANS UNITED FOR TRUTH, INC., v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, December 13, 2011, 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,..” As well, Nevada is not in any legal position to do so. Bush v. Schiavo, 885 So. 2d 321, (Fla. 2004). Despite the law, it continues.

    “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, ..”

    Which leaves the question, ANY alimony reform for disabled veterans when is that going to happen? Support for disabled veterans is all that is needed.

    William Heino Sr.

Leave a Reply


*