knoxville daily sun

knoxville news knoxville daily sun lifestyle business knoxville sports travel knoxville classifieds knoxville jobs knoxville legal notices knoxville yellow pages smoky mountains contact facebook twitter linkedin rss entertainment knoxville advertising
Opinion > State court violation

State court violation: Separation of Powers: Disabled Veterans
By William Heino Sr.
Korean era veteran

Despite the ruling by 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, Tennessee courts have no problem.

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 veteran's injuries should be compensated for. If, and when the question is a disabled veteran’s VA disability compensation property rights, now that alimony/support 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.

U.S. Supreme Court ROSE v. ROSE, 481 U.S. 619 (1987) 481 U.S. 619
No. 85-1206. Decided May 18, 1987

“The State Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting appellant's contention that the Veterans' Administration (VA) has exclusive jurisdiction to specify payments of child support from the disability benefits ... The Tennessee statute, as construed …. to authorize an award of disability benefits as child support, is not pre-empted under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI since it does not conflict with federal law.”

“(d) Provisions of the Child Support Enforcement Act, … provide that monies payable by the Government … are subject to child support enforcement proceedings (42 U.S.C. 659(a)), but which specifically exclude VA disability benefits, do not establish a congressional intent to exempt such benefits from legal process…. Thus, although veterans' disability benefits may be exempt from attachment … once they are delivered to the veteran a state court can require that they be used to satisfy a child support order."


Disabled veterans and the “separation of powers” doctrine both overlooked, ignored, for years, by Tennessee and most state court judges, acting like doctors, holding themselves as qualified, as a provider of VA health care. Policy making outside their jurisdiction of constitutional boundaries in re-evaluating and considering, long held established VA medical protocols, of a disabled veteran’s VA disability compensation for purposes other than rehabilitation and health of the veteran. Substituting their judgment for the judgment of VA doctors and medical professionals, and violating the property rights of a disabled veteran’s earned VA disability compensation, “..once they are delivered to the veteran..,” the blatant disregard of the 14th Amendment. Does the “separation of powers” doctrine meet the U.S. Supreme Court Rose v Rose, “..establish a Congressional intent to exempt such benefits.."? An abuse of power to allow what is happening. Injurious, and major damage to clear and substantial federal interest.

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 court awarded support. Suggesting the use of a veteran’s disability compensation, or go to jail! As had happened to Charlie Wayne Rose. The mere mention, innuendo, or thought of VA disability compensation to satisfy 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.

Constitution Of The State Of Tennessee
ARTICLE II. Distribution of Powers.
Section 1. “The powers of the government shall be divided into three distinct departments: legislative, executive, and judicial.”
Section 2. “No person or persons belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in the cases herein directed or permitted.”

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 degrade the property rights of the disabled veteran. 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, Tennessee 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, ..”

Does any of this mean anything? Which leaves the question, ANY reform of a disabled veteran’s property rights when is that going to happen? Support for disabled veterans is all that is needed.

Published May 13, 2014

Share |

The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the writer and not necessarily the opinions of the Knoxville Daily Sun.


knoxville daily sun Knoxville Daily Sun
2014 Image Builders
User Agreement | Privacy Policy