| Subject: Viet Nam Vet Jailed for trying to hold on benefits- |
Author:
Shelley Murphy
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/ 4/06 9:02am
We need some help; see below-this is my brother and he will go back to jail in July. Any input would be appreciated. His lawyer is worthless, but all he has at the time. If anyone knows of a good attorney that can take his case there are more across the US. We have no money or anything to sell to obtain a good attorney. The judge is awarding my brothers PTSD benefits to his wife which appears to violate federal law.
Reported Thursday, February 23, 2006
This is with regard to Veterans Administration disability compensation being awarded in divorce, as alimony, in violation of law. What follows is a perfect example of the injustice that is happening in utter defiance of Supreme Court rulings, Federal law, and the State of Michigan’s policies, set in state statutes, spelling out the non-assignability, or subject to garnishment, attachment.
To have a complete understanding of the United States position on how Congress took explicit care to insure that the sums it has so carefully specified are preserved for the support of the disabled veteran, every veteran should read the only reference you will ever need, the Supreme Court ruling in Rose v. Rose., 1986. The web address for this........ http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1986/sg860452.txt .
In Michigan, Calvin Murphy was sent to jail, just long enough to show what Michigan does to veteran’s that follow, and uphold the laws of the United States, in defense of veterans rights. This is not only the sentencing Chief judge in Michigan’s 19th Circuit Court, Judge Batzer, to justify, but the State of Michigan.
MICHIGAN’S KOREAN VETERANS' MILITARY PAY FUND ACT OF 1955 (EXCERPT) Act 8 of 1955. 35.977 Korean veterans' military pay fund; creation; payment procedure; nonassignability of claims; rejection of claim; notice; appeal. Sec. 7. (1) Upon submission to the adjutant general of satisfactory proof that the applicant is entitled to payment under this act, ,,,,Provided, That no claim for payment under this act shall be assignable, or subject to garnishment, attachment, or levy of execution.
MICHIGAN‘S VIETNAM VETERAN ERA BONUS ACT(excerpt) 370 of 1974. 38.1027. “Payment of claims; claim not assignable or subject to garnishment, attachment, or levy of execution; rejection of claim,, notice; appeals; certification of record; order allowing or denying claim; return of files and records; reapplication for benefits.”
You will find this same language under 38 USC 5301, which he mentioned to Judge Batzer just before he was led away in handcuffs.
In compliance with Supreme Court rulings, a Michigan judgment in North v. North (2001) by Judge Donald Miller (Macomb County). Judgment was reversed Nov. 3, 2004. Ruling,.. that it was a blatant violation of veterans benefits Title 38 USC 5301. Judge Switalski refers to wording in Supreme Court ruling Mansel v. Mansel as the convincing basis for the reversal decision in the North v. North divorce case.
In a news article in the Manistee News Advocate, Judge Batzer mentioned there where some differences between Rose v. Rose, and Calvin Murphy V. Karen Murphy. I wrote asking him asking, exactly what these differences are? Would you like to know? You can write to Chief Justice, Judge Betzer at 19th Circuit Court, 415 3rd St. Manistee, Michigan 49660.
Or ask the Michigan Governor, “what’s going on?” Governor Jennifer M. Granholm, P.O. Box 30013, Lansing, Michigan 48909. Fax: 517-355-6863.
Upon first learning of Calvin Murphy being handcuffed and sent to jail, veterans responded to Jere Beery’s “fire for effect”. Veteran’s responded, extra help had to be put on, and the fax machine in the sheriff’s office broke.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 