View Single Post
Old September 22nd 15, 03:39 PM
haiki haiki is offline
Junior Member
First recorded activity by ParentingBanter: Mar 2011
Posts: 5

Originally Posted by haiki View Post
Observance to law and our disabled veterans..
A flawed disabled veterans federal agency directive

For decades, a flawed federal agency directive have cost disabled veterans their benefits.

September 25, 1998.
SUBJECT: Obtaining financial support for children from benefits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
BACKGROUND: Section 459 [42 USC 659] “Consent By The United States to income withholding, garnishment.. for enforcement of child support.. ], of the Social Security Act, as amended provides for the garnishment of certain Federal payments for the enforcement of child support and alimony obligations…”

Directive enforcement based on Example #2. Department of veterans Affairs… Pursuant to 38 USC 5307 [Apportionment], and 38 CFR 3.450(a)(1)(ii), “provide that, if the veteran is not residing with his or her spouse, or if the veteran's children are not residing with the veteran and the veteran is not reasonably discharging his or her responsibility for the spouse's or children's support.”

The Department of Health and Human Services Child Support Enforcement agency reasoned, 38 USC 5307 “apportionment” as an enforcement issue under their directive to State agencies. SUBJECT: “Obtaining financial support for children from benefits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

38 USC 5307 is a Dept. of Veterans Affairs internal administrative law. Apportionment is “as may be prescribed by the Secretary,” having absolutely nothing what-so-ever of being in a court room, or an issue of garnishment. Administrative law adjudications are not part of enforcement. Under the “apportionment” statute “as maybe prescribed by the Secretary” there is no enforcement, only administration.

As anybody taking the time reading the statute, 38 USC Sec. 5307 Apportionment of Benefits, it concerns a disabled veteran that is institutionalized, hospitalized, incompetent or unable for what-ever reason to make decisions personally. The inability to function, restricted in discharging his or her normal personal business, household, daily responsibilities. Therefore, any pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation may be apportioned, not by any court, but as “prescribed by the Secretary.”

Since 1998, and most likely, beyond, lawyers, activist state court judges, and plaintiffs refer to this United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Child Support Enforcement directive for guidance and preparation. A directive based on a purposely false, sloppy, inaccurate information (apportionment), deliberately to mislead disabled veterans and their attorneys, and setting the stage to partnership with every overbearing activist state court judge in the country to administer their justice.

Disabled veteran, Charlie Wayne Rose (1987) was done in by the United States Supreme Court, State of Tennessee, Dept. of Health and Human Services Office of Child Support agency, and Congressional Act 38 CFR 3.450 (a)(1)(ii) “The regulations broadly authorize apportionment if "the veteran is not reasonably discharging his or her responsibility for the . . . children's support." Rose, a disabled veteran, triple amputee, blind in one eye, requiring constant care, was jailed, lost his appeal in 38 USC 5301 protections of his VA disability compensation claim. It was this agency, Office of Child Support Enforcement, that provided highly inaccurate, false, and misleading information in a very questionable and inaccurate directive. “Apportionment” was used in the U.S. Supreme Court argument Rose v Rose 37 times. And it worked!

If this directive wasn’t a sloppy careless preparation of regulation law, it was then intentional, in order to mislead. Lost forever is veterans rights in protection of VA disability benefits, to fair and equal justice, by a regulation rewritten to falsely accuse and irresponsibly suggesting, “the veteran is not reasonably discharging his or her responsibility for the spouse’s or children’s support .”

Although “apportionment” has only one special meaning through the Congressional legislative intent in United States Code (38 USC 5307), however, the court in redefining it‘s special specific purpose, in order to force judgment, lacking was the compulsory constitutionally required legislative intent by Congress! Due process requires judicial review.Invoking 38 USC 7292, review by United States Court of Appeals.

Regretfully, it took this issue of a groundless, manufactured directive to reveal another means of the further undoing of veterans benefits by clever creative regulatory writing. This is not about child support, as there are other legal remedies available. It’s about the illegal expropriation of VA benefits and protections of the 14th Amendment.

As a veteran of the Korean conflict era, I am neither disabled nor divorced.