PRESS RELEASE #25
Remember Pearl Harbor
Tennessee Newspaper Questions Accusations against
Judge Muriel Robinson
By Staff Writer: Rick Townsend
12/07/04
In a recent telephone interview with veteran’s rights activist Jere Beery, Mr. Christian Bottorff, a reporter from the Tennessean newspaper in Nashville Tennessee, questioned the public charges being leveled against 3rd Circuit Court Judge Muriel Robinson by Vietnam combat disabled veteran Dale Van Luven and others within the national veteran’s community. Van Luven was just released Saturday from the Correctional Work Center jail after serving 30 days for contempt of court charges related to non-payment of court ordered alimony.
Mr. Bottorff expressed his concerns that Judge Robinson was being wrongfully targeted as a violator of veteran’s benefits - that on November 3rd she did in fact rule on a contempt of court charge, not alimony. Bottorff went on to imply that judge Robinson bears no direct responsibility for Mr. Van Luven’s incarceration, as he chose to plead guilty to the contempt charges and was jailed.
Van Luven’s future step daughter Terri Henderson tells a slightly different story about the court hearing. According to Ms. Henderson, Van Luven pleaded guilty under duress to avoid additional jail time. And he did state in open court that he felt Judge Robinson’s ruling in his original divorce hearing violated this federally protected veteran’s benefits. “Dale even quoted U.S.C., Title 38 to the judge. Judge Robinson told Dale to stop acting like a lawyer and go to jail,” Henderson stated. “She didn’t want to hear about his veteran’s benefits,” Henderson added. Van Luven was represented by Nashville attorney at law Ray Galbreath. According to Ms. Henderson, Mr. Galbreath told Dale to plead his own case to Judge Robinson. "He made Dale do all the talking," Ms. Henderson stated.
The Beery and Van Luven stories have touched off a firestorm of controversy nationwide. Many concerned veterans and supporters have written, faxed, or called Judge Robinson’s office to voice their objections to her rulings in the Van Luven case. In addition, Georgia Superior Court Alan Keeble has also taken criticism for a similar ruling in the 2004 Beery divorce case. Apparently some of the correspondences these two judges have received borders on hate mail. “I have no control over how this story affects others, but I discourage anyone from overreacting negatively about something many judges across the country are guilty of doing,” Beery stated.
Jere Beery thinks Mr. Botterff’s defense of Judge Robinson is based on semantics, or a play on words. “Whether Judge Robinson wants to admit it or not, she is a big part of this story. In 2003, Judge Robinson was the judge that ordered Van Luven to pay alimony based heavily on his VA disability compensation. Judge Robinson bears direct responsibility for Van Luven’s incarceration,” Beery claimed. “She has been involved in the entire Van Luven divorce case,” He added.
A recent article published by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, (PVA) supports the Beery and Van Luven claim VA disability compensation is being diverted to third parties by means of alimony awards. The PVA document charges - through interpretation of the law to suit their own ends, the courts have nullified plain provisions protecting veterans’ benefits against claims of former spouses in divorce actions. <Quote>“While as a general rule an individual’s income and assets should rightfully be subject to legal claims of others, the special purposes and special status of veterans’ benefits trump the rights of all other except liabilities to the United States Government. Veterans cannot voluntarily alienate their rights to veterans’ benefits. The justification for this principle in public policy is one that can never obsolesce with the passage of time or changes in societal circumstances”<Unquote>.
The entire PVA article can be accessed at this link, page 19. http://www.pva.org/independentbudget/pdf/IB_05_benefits.pdf
Bottorff argues that Judge Robinson never directly attached to Van Luven’s VA disability compensation check; therefore, she is guilty of nothing. Beery adamantly disagrees, “Judges cannot just pick an arbitrary amount out of the air and order a person to pay it. They have to consider a person’s source for paying alimony. Then, a percentage of that person’s ability to pay is used to calculate a figure to be paid. In the Van Luven case, VA disability and Social Security disability account for over 80% of Van Luven’s ability to pay alimony. This violates the letter and intent of law contained within U.S.C., Title 38 and Title 42,” Beery stated. Beery also points out another problem people are having understanding this issue. “Attachment and garnishment is not the same thing. The word “attach” means; “to connect to”. Van Luven’s veteran’s benefits were “connected to” by mathematical calculation well in advanced of him receiving them, five years in advance to be precise, and that is a violation of federal law,” Beery claimed.
Mr. Bottorff also stated that the original divorce decree was written by the attorneys involved in the case and agreed to by Mr. Van Luven, and only approved and signed by Judge Robinson, therefore she committed no violation. Beery responded by asking Mr. Bottorff if the judge had any idea what the contents of the court orders were, or if she just signed them without reading them? “Her job is to insure that the divorce agreement is legal, that’s why she is there. Dale was unaware at the time his rights were being violated. Judge Robinson should have picked up on this violation of Mr. Van Luven’s veteran’s benefits protection,” Beery stated.
In the 2004 Beery v. Beery divorce case in Georgia; Superior Court Judge Alan Keeble only had one source to consider when determining Beery’s ability to pay alimony, as Beery’s only means of livelihood is his VA disability compensation. “My case dramatically illustrates what state judges are doing,” Beery said. “The Van Luven case is a bit more complex, yet another example of exactly the same infraction committed by a state judge,” He added.
Beery summed it up this way, “A reasonable and intelligent person’s understanding of U.S.C. 38, §5301(a) and U.S.C. 42, §659 can only draw one logical and just conclusion. Veteran’s benefits belong solely to the veteran and should never be mentioned/considered in any manner in a veteran’s divorce decree. It is up to the judge to ensure the orders they sign are legal.”
In a related development, a number of national veterans’ service organizations have joined the movement to enforce federal laws established to protect veteran’s benefits. Paralyzed Veteran’s of America, Fleet Reserve Association, Retired Officers Association, American Legion, Veterans of Foreign War, Disabled American Veterans, AmVets, National Reserve Association, are just a few of the organizations that have show more than a passing interest in this issue. A Proposed Resolution is circulating among the groups calling for immediate Congressional attention to, and action on this problem. If you would like to learn more about the details, contact your local VSO and donate your assistance and support. You will find a copy of the Proposed Resolution below.
For the entire story, visit: WWW.JEREBEERY.COM
Jere Beery – jerebeery@aol.com
Dale Van Luven – vietna467@aol.com
Christian Bottorff - cbottorff@tennessean.com
The Tennessean Newspaper - letters@tennessean.com
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Restoration of Exemption from Court-Ordered Awards to Former Spouses
WHEREAS: Through interpretation of the law to suit their own ends, the courts have nullified plain provisions protecting veterans’ benefits against claims of former spouses in divorce actions.
&
WHEREAS: Congress has enacted laws to ensure veterans; benefits serve their intended purposes by prohibiting their diversion to third parties. To shield these benefits from the clutch of others who might try to obtain them by a wide variety of devices or legal processes, Congress fashioned broad and sweeping statutory language. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §5302(a), “[Payment 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, 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.]”
&
WHEREAS: While as a general rule an individual’s income and assets should rightfully be subject to legal claims of others, the special purposes and special status of veterans’ benefits trump the rights of all other except liabilities to the United States Government. Veterans cannot voluntarily alienate their rights to veterans’ benefits. The justification for this principle in public policy is one that can never obsolesce with the passage of time or changes in societal circumstances.
&
WHEREAS: Unappreciative of the special character and superior status of veterans’ rights and benefits, the courts have supplanted the will and plain language of Congress with their own expedient views of what the public policy should be and their own convenient interpretations of the law. The courts have chiseled away at the protections in 5301 until this plain and forceful language has, in essence, become meaningless.
&
WHEREAS: Various courts have shown no hesitation to force disabled veterans to surrender their disability compensation and sole source of sustenance to able-bodied former spouses as alimony awards, although divorced spouses are entitled to no veterans’ benefits under veterans’ law. The welfare of ex-spouses has never been a purpose for dispensing veterans’ benefits.
&
WHEREAS: We should never lose sight of the fact that it is the veteran who, in addition to a loss in earning power, suffers the pain, limitations in the routine activities of daily life, and the other social and lifestyle constraints that result from disability. The needs and well-being of the veteran should always be primary, foremost, and overriding concern when considering claims against a veteran’s disability compensation. Disability compensation is a personal entitlement of the veteran, without whom there could never be any secondary entitlement to compensation by dependent family members. Therefore Federal law should place strict limits on access to veterans’ benefits by third parties to ensure compensation goes mainly to support veterans disabled in the service of their country. Congress should enact legislation to override judicial interpretation and leave no doubt about the exempt status of veterans’ benefits.
Therefore
BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Congress should amend 38 U.S.C §5301(a) to make its exemption of veterans’ benefits from the claims of others applicable “notwithstanding any other provision of law” and to clarify that veterans’ benefits shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever “for any purpose.”
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: A certified copy of this duly adopted “call to action” will be forwarded to our:
· National Legislative Committee Chairman
· U.S. Congress and State Legislature elected representatives
Signature:___________________________________Title:_____________
Organization:________________________________Date:_____________
Click Here For "VAN LUVEN Defense Fund" Information
All questions, comments and suggestions about this web sight should be submitted to: JERE BEERY