Ride for Veterans

Cycling and anything that keeps the wheels turning. Marine veteran remembering the time I served as well as looking to help others.

Veteran Chooses Jail Instead of Giving Ex-wife Half HIS Disability Pay.

Would you give your ex-wife half of your disability pay from the military or choose to go to jail?


If your name is Terry Lynn you would have picked Jail. I was just going to check my Email and head to bed today, however I stumbled across this article.  To give you the skinny on the situation, Lynn was in court Wednesday and refused to give a portion of his VA Disability to his ex-wife. To paint that picture a little clearer, she is asking for half of $1,500/month. Lynn Stated that he had already bought her a house and helped in other ways. Clearly she was the one that was injured in the military right? She obviously needs that help…RIGHT?!

Jensen Ackles Supernatural


I’ve heard of some pretty bad laws before, but again hats off to Florida for having the stupidity to pass this one. I can understand giving partial retirement pay, but to demand that a Veteran give up their compensation for a disability to someone no longer in their life is asinine.

Many states have passed laws in order to protect veterans from situations like this. Florida has yet to grasp the idea. In most cases the money that is received by these veterans is applied to bills and other medical expenses. Just to give a short back and forth description as to why I’ll share this:

Under USFPA, disposable retirement pay is subject to allocation by the courts. Disposable
retirement pay is calculated prior to deduction of federal, state and local income tax and is
essentially the gross amount the service member is receiving.
What about disability retirement pay?
Disability retirement pay is not subject to division or apportionment to the spouse under the
USFSPA. The U.S. Supreme Court in Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989) held that
veteran’s disability pay was not divisible by state courts. The First DCA in Florida held that
USFSPA only empowers state courts to divide disposable retired pay. McMahon v. McMahon,
567 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In McMahon the court reversed a separation agreement that
allowed the wife to receive retirement pension derived from the husband’s disability and
remanded for a determination of what portion of his retirement was not compensation for the
disability. The Florida Supreme Court went on further to say that a property settlement
agreement for division of military disability benefits is unenforceable (division of non-disability
military retirement pay is still enforceable. Abernethy v. Fishkin, 699 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1997).

For further reading on this check out http://menonlyfamilylawonly.com/legal-lesson-%E2%80%93military-retirement/


I applaud Lynn for his efforts to stand up and make some noise about this issue.

Credit ABC7 My Suncoast

Credit ABC7 My Suncoast


How would you take it if you were in this situation? Would you willingly fork over the money you desperately depend on to keep a normal lifestyle or get hauled away in handcuffs. Apparently some people like Lynn’s ex-wife will abuse the system and steal what is clearly not owed to them.

Leave comments below! Don’t forget to check out my FB and Twitter pages on the right hand side. Thanks for reading!



  1. Uh oh!

    The feminazis are going to have a hissy fit on this. You just lost all your liberal, sensitive, girly man, cred with them!

  2. Disabled Florida Charlotte County veteran Terry Lynn elected going to jail rather than breaking a federal law. For what?

    State court violation Separation of Powers DISABLED VETERANS

    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, 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,.. veterans seeking the prompt provision of the health care and benefits to which they are entitled by law, as judges we may not exceed our jurisdiction.” Florida’s activist court judges as well, are not in any legal position to exceed their jurisdiction. However, this does not stop Florida’s court judges, they have no problem when it comes to “service related disability compensation.” And despite the law, it continues.

    Veteran chooses jail over giving his disability money to ex-wife.

    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 veterans injuries should be compensated for. Now that alimony 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.

    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, and not wanting to break federal law, will expect the veteran, in a final move will now consider, an equitable calculation of veteran’s resources, to include in many cases, the only money’s available, the very same disability compensation the court recognizes and acknowledges as exempt, in determining, for purposes of establishing alimony/support. The court then, exceeding their jurisdiction, order the use of a veteran’s disability compensation as alimony, or go to jail! As has happened. The mere mention, innuendo, or thought of VA disability compensation to satisfy indemnity 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.

    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 enhance martial property. 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.

    SECTION 3. Branches of government.—“The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.”

    Disabled veteran’s, and the “separation of powers” doctrine, both overlooked, ignored, for years, by Florida legislators and most state court judges, acting like doctors, holding themselves as qualified, as a provider of health care, policy making outside their jurisdiction. Substituting their judgment for the judgment of VA doctors and medical professionals, awarding as alimony, a disabled veteran’s earned VA disability compensation. Acting outside of constitutional boundaries of long held established VA medical protocols, in considering and re-evaluating a disabled veteran’s disability compensation in order to further degrade property rights of the disabled veteran, runs afoul of the “separation of powers” doctrine. Injurious, and an abuse of power to allow what is happening, was this the intent of Congress?

    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,..”

    “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, ..”

    As a veterans advocate, a Korean era veteran, I am neither disabled or in any divorce action. The reality of law from the disabled veteran’s view,… it’s criminal.

    William Heino Sr.

  3. A closer look, Rose v. Rose U. S. Supreme Court hack job .

    Divorce and how to separate veteran from earned VA disability compensation. It worked! It’s because of U.S. Supfreme Court set a standard in Rose v Rose courts confirming that the veteran has no rights.

    In 1987 the United States Supreme Court joined with the State of Tennessee in a landmark decision to creatively make new law, against a disabled veteran, ROSE v. ROSE, 481 U.S. 619. Based on one specific reference clause (ii), of the apportionment law,38 CFR 3.450; Pension, Compensation, and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, (a)(1) (ii).(1986). “The regulations broadly authorize apportionment if ‘… the veteran is not reasonably discharging his or her responsibility for the . . . children’s support.’ 38 CFR 3.450 (1986) (a)(1)(ii) .”

    The Rose court continuing with their assault to re-enforce their vision of law, bent over backwards, advancing their principal claim of “apportionment”. Misrepresenting “apportionment” 37 times, inexact law, when nothing else works, the now standard legal justification for apportionment against all disabled veterans.

    As anybody taking the time reading apportionment law 38 USC Sec. 5307, it concerns a disabled veteran that is institutionalized, hospitalized, incompetent or unable for what-ever reason to make decisions for himself. 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. A Veterans Administration procedure handled within the agency.

    Disabled veteran Charlie Wayne Rose was done in by the United States Supreme Court and Congressional Act 38 CFR 3.450 (a)(1)(ii). Statute construction is, if read, in it’s entirety, and to understand what purposely was overlooked, excluded, and glossed over, the most important, and significant previous section (a)(1)(i), “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.” With purpose, and intentional deceit, skipped over because of it’s reference to a spouse. A spouse, which this infers, means a husband, and perhaps children. Divorce once finalized by law, no longer would there be a spouse. “Apportionment” is about a spouse. As the CAVC held.

    Minter v Shinseki. Ms. Minter, divorced in 1992, claimed apportionment in 2003. The UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS (CAVC) ruled against her. The problem seemed to be that she was… divorced. “Accordingly, the Board’s determination that Ms. Minter is not entitled, by law, to an apportionment of VA benefits…” The ruling being, veteran’s benefits cannot be apportioned because she is not the spouse of a veteran.

    The VA General Counsel answers this “apportionment” question.
    Date: January 22, 1997 VAOPGCPREC 4-97
    From: General Counsel (022)
    Subj: Board of Veterans’ Appeals Jurisdiction in Matters Pertaining to Garnishment of Benefits.

    a. May the action of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office withholding a portion of a veteran’s compensation and paying it to the veteran’s former spouse pursuant to a state-court support order be considered an apportionment under 38 U.S.C. § 5307?….. “We conclude that the regional office decision was not an apportionment action under section 5307.”

    “Apportionment”, was mentioned in Rose v Rose approximately 37 times, their only argument, and applied as the controlling legal process. This, even though reference to 38 CFR 3.458 (Veteran’s benefits not apportion able) was made several times. Because of this United States Supreme Court decision, every state court activist judge in the country will use the Rose v Rose decision, purposely incorrectly stating the law “..the veteran is not reasonably discharging his or her responsibility for the . . . children’s support.“ in seizing a veteran’s disability compensation in divorce actions, as many disabled veterans have found out.

    However, as pointed out in Rose v Rose, judges and lawyers will pick out meaningless references of law and have them twisted, manipulated, and applied against disabled veterans. While practicing law the United States Supreme Court did a job on a disabled, but severely injured veteran, in a ruling which unfortunately now effects all veterans.

    As a veterans advocate, and a Korean era veteran, I am neither disabled or in any divorce action.

    William H. Heino Sr.

  4. More on the Rose v Rose hack job. These guys are slick.

    Another intentional misleading reference by the court, Rose v Rose, “Moreover, the legislative history establishes that disability benefits are intended to provide compensation for disabled veterans and their families.” In order to manipulate this veterans rights to fair and equal justice by misapplying law and falsely suggesting, that a disabled veterans disability compensation, (38 USC 1110 the basic entitlement to disability compensation), as applied in Rose, is to “provide for the family.”

    Their mentioning “legislative history establishes that disability benefits are intended ..,” yes, this is true, but while the court referencing pertinent other law, purposely to mislead, failed mentioning this particular “legislative history” 38 USC 1115. A provision which makes available and purposely supports all family members of disabled veterans with compensation. However, a separate issue from Rose entirely.

    In reading 38 USC 1115, not unlike the “apportionment“ issue, it also has to do with the issue of supporting the family unit of a disabled veteran. As misrepresented by the Rose court, a veterans disability compensation “providing for the family” has nothing to do with a divorce action. However, this is what they do, one way or the other.

  5. Disabled veteran’s disability compensation belongs to the veteran.
    Due to the dedication of one, of many disabled veterans, the strangle hold over illegal state court rulings, the court seizure of federally funded VA disability compensation benefits used illegally as alimony/support rulings in violation of 38 USC 5301 has finally been broken.

    The specifics provided by disabled veteran LTJG Greg Parsons, as detailed below. helped Illinois disabled veteran Antoine Smith succeed in court. Smith commenting. “I wanted to take the time to say a BIG THANKS to Greg for giving me the tools to succeed…the judge was stunned to see the information and the points I made about my compensation benefits..due to me being 100 percent from the VA and VA compensation cannot be garnished or used as income.”

    Why was this judge stunned? Because Antonie Smith went to court prepared. Presented the judge his case in an affidavit form, stating his case and the specific applicable laws that apply. Presenting state court judges with something they have never seen or want to see.

    It seemed, winning exempt VA disability benefits for many disabled veterans out of reach and impossible, facing a state court system that is sustaining, overwhelming and manipulative against veterans in a perceived standard in application of law. A legal system in what is a competitive and highly lucrative source of income for both lawyers and their clients in attacking federal jurisdiction of a veterans “nonassignability and exempt status of benefits” United State Code 38 USC 5301.

    100% disabled marine G. Michael Worthington went prepared, commenting, “Thank you Greg Parsons for educating me on what my rights are and thank you for motivating me to keep on fighting. #semerfi #fathersrights.”

    Disabled veterans facing divorce/child support issues need to fight the injustice of state courts control over their earned VA disability compensation. If you have, or you know of a disabled veteran facing an issue of divorce/child support, the protections against seizure of earned VA disability compensation by state courts, the following link has the tools and Parsons Due Process Affidavit (PDPA), the help you need to get you started.


    A state court overriding Federal law 38 USC 5301 exemptions violates the intent of Congress’ jurisdiction whenever, over civil action arising under the Constitution, as explained further under 31 CFR 212 Federal Benefits payments.

    So, let’s get started. First and foremost VeteranChildSupportGroup are not either attorneys or lawyers. They only provide the research, written strategies that are been proven in winning, given by non-professionals, personal opinions on the Constitution and State law as free exchange of information under the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    Only you can prepare yourself for those eventual unknowns. Protect what belongs to every veteran from those that want to take away your right to your earned VA disability compensation.

    For any veteran, those seeking support to question, we all could learn a few words of wisdom from an American Legion field representative. Who, on an unrelated issue, did not wish to enter my battle, said this… “I would not venture to tell you what battles to enter. We as veterans have at least earned the right to individually pick and choose which skirmishes we wish to take part in. What I will ask you is to keep fighting. Again, I thank you for your efforts…”

    As a Korean era Navy veteran I am not a disabled veteran or in any divorce child support issue.

    William Heino Sr.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>