A Note About Us, US Vet Blood Money

This website is operated by those who believe in protecting those who have traded their quality of life serving as the ‘face’ of America in war battles around the world.  In exchange for those who have served in the best interest of our country, we have promised to provide the needs of those who lose the ability to do it for themselves, whatever they are (health, financial etc.).

We are military, we are civilians, we are college educated, we are average ‘Joe’s’, we are officers, we are able bodied, we are disabled due to the war, we are spouses, we are former spouses, we are active duty, we are retired, we are old, we are young, we are located all over the world. Oh, and we are Attorneys and Law Makers, some of us who have the moral conviction to stand up, support and fight the battles that our injured men and women may not be able to do on their own.

We are a coalition of patriots understanding that the promise we made as a country to the young men and women putting their lives serving under the most important document ever put forth by a group of citizens, is far more important than the time it takes out of our day to stand up together in unison and educate the masses on this subject.  We are here, we are going to keep talking. There are many battles going on behind the scenes, and we are fully engaged. We understand the fragile state that occurs during transition when a service member returns home.  That transition can include injuries (debilitating physical injuries, TBI etc.),  financial issues, relationship issues (divorce) and many more issues.

It is our duty as American’s to protect our war-torn veterans.  It is our duty to make sure that NOBODY can find a gap and take advantage of the compromise situation our veterans are most times when they return home and sometimes for the rest of their lives.  Coming home from the land of the enemy should be a joyous time-period in the lives of our veterans.  Sadly, they return home and find themselves in unfortunate situations at the mercy of enemy’s preying on their vulnerabilities, enemy’s disguising themselves as champions of the down trodden.  All the while they are gutting the very ones who fought to protect their rights to do it. Those preying on these injured veterans have strategically planned the attack,  systematically dismantling any financial security these veterans need to survive.  Not thrive, but literally survive.  Susceptible and in need of being protected and respectfully cared for due to the huge sacrifices made, we have let them down over and over and over.  Many times their disability benefit is all they have left.  When that is stripped away and they can’t provide shelter and food for themselves you should take note, this is a very proud, strong segment of the population. The suicide rate is a reflection of their choosing death over the humiliation of total defeat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfIRqZYYahI

You can contact us at usvetbloodmoney@tormail.org if you have questions.

Attorney Marshal Willick’s own words:

A legal note from Marshal Willick about developments – good, bad, and ugly – in the application of family law to cases involving military personnel (part two).

“In the 30 years I’ve done military divorces, I’ve seen plenty of bad
behavior on both sides, including a shocking number of military marriages
involving unforgivable recurring physical abuse by members against their spouses
and children.”

“The single most advantaged group of retirees in the United States has no cause whatsoever to complain about it.”

“Zoo keepers “put their lives on the line,” as do construction workers, cops,
fire-fighters, and a host of others. The sort of entitlement mentality
exhibited by the military groups is not (usually) seen from any of those
workers, and neither would or should be tolerated if it was tried. Besides,
whether a career is risky is irrelevant.”

It should not be assumed that the nut-jobs who cannot focus beyond their own
predispositional focus are all located elsewhere. One local member of the
military-obsessed fraternity – a lawyer! – actually wrote in, protesting the
last legal note (No. 46, “Military allowances for child/spousal support,” posted
at http://www.willicklawgroup.com/newsletters), and suggesting that garnishing
military pay was some kind of illicit money-making scheme.

“Military retirement benefits are just like every other bit of property accrued during a marriage, and belong to both parties. This remains true when one party attempts to
convert the form of the benefits to disability after divorce, and thereby steal property already adjudged to belong to somebody else.”

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

“Eventually, these nuts will reach Nevada, and it can only be hoped that there is
both a high-enough IQ, and sufficient common-sense resistance to absurdity, to
prevent anyone here from drinking their kool-aid.”

“When a flag-wrapped militant shows up, demanding special privilege in the form of
financially victimizing his wife and children, he should be shunned as the
opportunistic reprobate that he is.”

“They seem to have a nearly universal “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”
mindset, unable to comprehend the possibility that informed, honorable people
might disagree with them.”

“The proponents of the fringe-group positions being sold to State legislatures
are entirely fixated, unconcerned with any opinion but their own, and have no
concept of equal justice under law, equity, reciprocation, spousal or child
rights, or anything else that does not mesh with their particular branch of
jihad. Trying to have a rational discussion with them is the oratorical
equivalent of stepping in bubble gum.”

“The point is the utterly shameless hypocrisy and over-reaching of these groups in adopting whatever rationale leads to the conclusion that they get more –…………”

“Despite all the advantages handed to them, however, some military members just
can’t resist the temptation to ask for even more special treatment.”

“a certain segment of the military community has decided that its members are so “special” that they should be exempt from the laws governing everyone else –………”

“Military members are the single most favored group of retirees in any retirement
system in the United States.”

“They routinely portray themselves as “victims” of the law-……….”

“The groups in question, pretending to be large organizations and operating under
important-sounding names such as “Veterans for Justice,” have persuaded
themselves that they are so “special” that they deserve to be treated
differently than everyone else under the law.”

“It is an ugly but altogether too-often-seen self-delusion.”

“But the fringe military-retiree groups are even more self-impressed, and
self-obsessed.”

“And some of them have gone beyond rationalizing that they deserve superior
rights as a matter of “patriotism,” to believing that a higher power gives some
theoretical foundation for their greed.”

“In other words, they are whack-jobs. But they are persistent.”

“The Arizona statute effectively nullified decades of solid and
nationally-respected case law. (If and when a measure of sanity is returned to
the Arizona legislature, repeal of that measure should be the first matter of
business.)”

**************************************************************************************

AND TO WRAP UP THIS ENTRY, WHAT A PROFESSIONAL THINKS OF MR. WILLICK:

C.  “THEY WALK AMONG US”
It should not be assumed that the nut-jobs who cannot focus beyond their own predispositional focus are all located elsewhere. “One local member ofthemilitary-obsessed fraternity– a lawyer! – actually wrote in, protesting the last legal note (No. 46, “Military allowances for child/spousal support,” posted at http://www.willicklawgroup.com/newsletters), and suggesting that garnishing military pay was some kind of illicit money-making scheme. The inane note ignored, of course, that if garnishment has been ordered, it is because the obligor has ignored his duty to make court-ordered child and spousal support, and that the sum garnished goes to the spouse and children who have been left unsupported.  The point is that there are some members of the Nevada Bar who just shouldn’t be.”

Gov Terry Branstad/Iowa, your courts are detrimental to injured military service members and are circumventing the law meant to protect them:

In 2009, (HOUSE FILE 170) was introduced in Iowa.  Iowa Legislature Unanimously Passed the Bill to Protect Veterans’ Disability Compensation from Attachment.  This legislation was then it was STOPPED in its tracks.  HOW?

SOME INTERESTING DATA:

(HOUSE FILE 170) WAS OPPOSED BY THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:

Ray Zirkelbach (D) is Iowa State Representative for District 3

(HOUSE FILE 170) WAS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:

Iowa General Assembly unanimously

Representatives Brian Quirk, John Beard, Mckinnley Bailey

Senators Mary Jo Wilhelm and Daryl Beall,

Vincent Reefer, IA Dept of Public Defense

Kent Hartwig, IA Dept of Veterans Affairs

Laverne Schroeder, IA American Legion

(HOUSE FILE 170) WAS UNDECIDED BY THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:

Julie Fleming, IA Dept of Human Services

Molly Kottmeyer, IA Dept of Human Services

SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNED TO HF 170:

Veterans Affairs:  Bailey, Chair; Whitead and Windschitl

****************************************************************

House File 170 - Introduced 

                                       HOUSE FILE       
                                       BY  QUIRK
    Passed House, Date               Passed Senate, Date             
    Vote:  Ayes        Nays           Vote:  Ayes        Nays         
                 Approved                            
                                      A BILL FOR
  1 An Act relating to the exclusion of veterans' disability
  2    compensation in calculating property disposition and support
  3    obligations.
  4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
  5 TLSB 1900HH 83
  6 pf/nh/14

PAG LIN

  1  1    Section 1.  Section 252B.7A, Code 2009, is amended by
  1  2 adding the following new subsection:
  1  3    NEW SUBSECTION.  1A.  Disability compensation received by a
  1  4 party from the United States department of veterans' affairs
  1  5 for service=related injuries shall not be considered income
  1  6 for the purposes of determining a parent's income under this
  1  7 section.
  1  8    Sec. 2.  Section 598.11, Code 2009, is amended by adding
  1  9 the following new subsection:
  1 10    NEW SUBSECTION.  4.  The court shall not consider
  1 11 disability compensation received by a party from the United
  1 12 States department of veterans' affairs for service=related
  1 13 injuries in determining the amount of temporary support
  1 14 awarded under this section.
  1 15    Sec. 3.  Section 598.13, Code 2009, is amended by adding
  1 16 the following new subsection:
  1 17    NEW SUBSECTION.  3.  Disability compensation received by a
  1 18 party from the United States department of veterans' affairs
  1 19 for service=related injuries shall not be considered income or
  1 20 property for the purposes of disclosing the financial status
  1 21 of such party.
  1 22    Sec. 4.  Section 598.21, Code 2009, is amended by adding
  1 23 the following new subsection:
  1 24    NEW SUBSECTION.  6A.  VETERANS' DISABILITY COMPENSATION.
  1 25 Disability compensation received by a party from the United
  1 26 States department of veterans' affairs for service=related
  1 27 injuries shall not be considered property for the purposes of
  1 28 this section.
  1 29    Sec. 5.  Section 598.21A, Code 2009, is amended by adding
  1 30 the following new subsection:
  1 31    NEW SUBSECTION.  3.  VETERANS' DISABILITY COMPENSATION.
  1 32 Disability compensation received by a party from the United
  1 33 States department of veterans' affairs for service=related
  1 34 injuries shall not be considered income for the purposes of
  1 35 this section.
  2  1    Sec. 6.  Section 598.21B, subsection 2, paragraph b, Code
  2  2 2009, is amended by adding the following new subparagraph:
  2  3    NEW SUBPARAGRAPH.  (4)  For purposes of calculating a
  2  4 support obligation under this section, disability compensation
  2  5 received by a party from the United States department of
  2  6 veterans' affairs for service=related injuries shall not be
  2  7 considered income.
  2  8    Sec. 7.  Section 598.21C, Code 2009, is amended by adding
  2  9 the following new subsection:
  2 10    NEW SUBSECTION.  1A.  VETERANS' DISABILITY COMPENSATION.
  2 11 Changes in the amount of disability compensation received by a
  2 12 party from the United States department of veterans' affairs
  2 13 for service=related injuries shall not be considered a
  2 14 substantial change in circumstances for the purposes of this
  2 15 section.
  2 16                           EXPLANATION
  2 17    This bill excludes from the calculation of property
  2 18 disposition and support obligations under dissolution of
  2 19 marriage and child support determinations, disability
  2 20 compensation received by a party from the United States
  2 21 department of veterans' affairs for service=related injuries.
  2 22 United States department of veterans' affairs disability
  2 23 compensation, in general, is a benefit paid to a veteran due
  2 24 to injuries or diseases that were incurred in or aggravated by
  2 25 military service.
  2 26 LSB 1900HH 83
  2 27 pf/nh/14

http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&ga=83&hbill=HF170

************************************************************************

FROM ARMY TIMES ON THIS MATTER:

U.S. Military (Ret.): Veterans claim disability pay exempt in divorce cases

By Alex Keenan Posted : Thursday Oct 7, 2010 17:01:19 EDT

The responses to my last two columns on the Former Spouses’ Protection Act show this is a hot-button issue for many retirees.

I’ll close this topic out for now with one response that stood out for slightly different reasons, from a disabled retiree who went to battle with the Iowa state court system and was held in contempt and jailed.

Jerry Bohr, a longtime veterans service officer for the Iowa Department of Veterans Affairs, has many years of experience dealing with the needs of veterans.

He is also active in the grassroots groups Operation Firing for Effect (www.offe.org) and the 5301 Club, named for the section of the U.S. Code that deals with attachment of veterans benefits in legal cases.

The groups have been trying to get state legislatures to reinforce a federal law that they say exempts veterans disability payments from being considered as income in divorce settlements.

Bohr, who said he shares custody of his two minor children with his ex-spouse, was ordered to court for refusing to comply with a previous child support order stemming from his divorce decree, which declared his disability pay to be a divisible asset. Bohr claimed the Iowa court lacked jurisdiction or standing under federal law to attach his disability pay.

Judge Richard Stochl of the 1st Judicial District Court of Iowa held Bohr in contempt and had him jailed, with work release, for 30 days starting Sept. 4.

Title 38, Section 5301 of the U.S. Code — a law that dates to the early 1800s — reads in part:

“Payments of benefits due or to become due under any law administered by the Secretary [of Veterans Affairs] shall not be assignable [in court cases] except to the extent specifically authorized by law, and such payments made to, or on account of, 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.”

Bohr and many other disabled retirees see that wording as an unequivocal declaration that veterans disability compensation cannot be considered as divisible income in divorce, alimony or child support rulings.

Clearly, Stochl thinks differently. And he’s not alone — courts in other states are ordering the division of disability compensation. This is similar to what’s going on with the Former Spouses’ Protection Act — a federal law interpreted in a variety of ways by state courts.

It’s time for Congress to clarify the intent of Section 5301 for our disabled retirees.

—Retired Command Master Chief Alex Keenan served 28 years in the Coast Guard. E-mail him at retired@atpco.com.

http://www.armytimes.com/money/retirement/mil-offduty_retired_101110p/