Dear Mr. Gorin, I am the disabled veteran constituent who…

MR. Gorin - you are wrong, completely wrong, on many fronts. Here are a few things for you to think about. First, let's talk about venom. Venom is an ex-wife leaving a soldier for the neighbor or whoever else, while he is away fighting a war, then this vet getting shot to hell on the battlefield and coming home to find that not only has he been left, but he is now out of the service and forced to hand over half of his disability pay to the ex wife. THAT is venom, Mr. Gorin. Venom is watching an ex-wife "cash in" on your suffering - marrying a Scottsdale millionaire and telling you how much she appreciates your combat injuries, which were used to get her a new set of reast implants with your disability pay. THAT, Mr. Gorin, is venom. Now, let's talk philosophy.

Veterans serve the nation. If a soldier is injured in combat, then the nation bears a burden to care for them. I suggest you read Abraham Lincoln's 2nd Inaugral Address, where he clearly establishes the obligation. I think we agree on that. Then I ask you this - what exempts an injured soldier's former spouse from that obligation? Why is he or she so special, that he or she doesn't incur a burden to care for the wounded? You see, my point is that disability compensation is NOT a reward for service, Mr. Gorin. It is paid to a veteran to care for them, in whole or part, in degree to the nature & extent of the injury. Are you seeing it yet? Therefore, if the amount of care is diminished through one of your attorney tricks (such as (1) indemnification at the time of divorce or (2) awarding alimony to "make up" for the court's not being allowed to divide the disability as property), then the veteran is by-definition not fully-cared for. Thus - I hope you see, that Congress doesn't dispense veterans disability compensation to provision the injured veteran's former spouse ... rather, the funds are a measure of the nation's obligation to care for the wounded, and they are deliberately made so. That is WHY 38 USC 5301 (a) was enacted originally in 1828.

So, I challenge you to step out of your lawyer shoes, and shake off the brainwashing of Willick & Sullivan, and think like a human being, not a legal machine. And, if you don't think Congress intended veteran's disability benefits to be off limits, Mr. Gorin, I suggest you get online and read 10 USC 1408 (a)(4)(B), (a)(4)(C), 38 USC 5301 (a) and (a)(3)(A). For, in 2003, the Congress went so far as to CLARIFY 38 USC 5301 (a), by adding (a)(3)(A) to explicitly prohibit the disability funds from even going into a joint checking account for crying out loud. How is it that you, Willick and the rest keep thinking that Congress intends otherwise? E-mail me at [email protected], and I will gladly send you the many statements OF members of Congress who have stated in no uncertain terms that they FULLY intend VA disability benefits to be and REMAIN the sole & separate property of the disabled veteran.

Regarding indemnification, it is an immoral practice and I am thankful it has been abolished here in Arizona. How can you in good conscience think it is an acceptable thing to do to get an unknowing able-bodied military serviceperson to "waive" all their federal protections in the event they later become disabled? And if you think Congress intended that this be so, again, go read 10 USC 1408 (a)(4)(B) and (a)(4)(C). Without an indemnity clause in a decree, these section Title 10 would stop you lawyers from plundering injured veterans. In none of the caselaw do courts applaud the apportionment of disability pay. To the contrary, they express it in terms of enforcing the desires of the parties through a previously stipulated property settlement agreement.

America has an obligation to care for her wounded sons & daughters. VA disability compensation is not to be divided "under any legal process whatever." That sounds pretty clear to me, Mr. Gorin. Further, the states have a right to determine their own property laws. HB 2348 was a case where the state of Arizona executed its authority to determine its own property laws. The bill had dozens of co-sponsors, Mr. Gorin - so it's disingenuous and insulting for you to suggest to people that it was the action of a
lone legislaror" at the request of a "lone constituent." There were tens of thousands of Arizona veterans standing with me in those legislative hearings, in spirit and intent.

A last word to you, Mr. Gorin. Last April, a friend of mine named Doug Joyner in Sierra Vista, Arizona, walked into the living room where his wife was reading and put a .45-caliber bullet through his brain, right in front of her. In his suicide note, he wrote that the only thing that could stop his ex-wife from getting half of his disability compensation was his or her death, so he chose to kill himself to make a point. This honorable man who had served his nation in two wars, who had been shot and suffered from terrible wounds in his back and legs, lived of life of misery, and was made moreso by the humiliation he suffered in seeing his ex-wife cash in on his suffering. I ask you to think about that for a while, Mr. Gorin.

There is no legal, ethical or moral justification for the plundering of a wounded soldier.

Mark Beres,

Tucson, AZ

Mr. Gorin,

Thanks for the dialogue. As much as I disagree with your views, it is indeed both interesting and a priveledge to have this discussion with "the other side".

Your entire position is based on a false premise. You write the following: "... Congress ... authorized divorce courts to treat disposable retired pay as a marital property asset ...". This is not wholly accurate. The actual law, at 10 USC 1408 (c)(1), states the following: "[A] court may treat disposable retired pay ... either as property solely of the member or as property of the member and his spouse in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction of such court." Thus, courts may treat MRP either as community property OR as the sole & separate property of the veteran entitled to receive it. It is popular in America today that Congress compelled the division you speak of. They did not - and it is incorrect to say or even suggest that the USFSPA took us back to "pre McCarty" status regarding MRP. But more importantly, the USFSPA stated that a state court was bound to "... the law of the jurisdiction of such court." Thus, it is really for the state legislatures to decide how they wish to handle and.or characterize MRP. The USFSPA merely defines the rules by which the states may do so. But, regardless, marital & community property laws are the realm of states and not the federal government. The USFSPA is a rare exception that, quite honestly, befuddles me.

So, the false premise I spoke of was that division of MRP is somehow a "given". It is not. Additionally, your position assumes that it is primarily a federal matter. This too is false - it is primarily a STATE matter.

I bring this up because you made some reference to me being "misguided" because I sought to effect a change in state law vice federal law. I am wiser than you give me credit for, Mr. Gorin - the issues at hand regarding family court apportionments of VA disability are state matters. Thus, state law is the place to correct the problems.

Strangley enough, and if I understand your position correctly, you are condoning the practice of indemnification based on the belief that it must be okay since "Congress has ... enacted no law that precludes [it]." This is an example of you thinking mechanically, not as a reasonable person. Congress CLEARLY, Mr. Gorin, intended VA disability benefits to be the sole & separate property of the veteran when they included 10 USC 1408 (a)(4)(B) in the USFSPA legislation. I am really mystified how you miss this point, even when the law is so explicitly clear about it. I am entirely confident that indemnfication was never even thought of when the USFSPA was drafted. It makes no sense to any reasonable person that Congress would put 10 USC 1408 (a)(4)(B) into the USFSPA and then deliberately-omit a prohibition of indemnification.

I would bet you a steak dinner that 99% of all divorcing able-bodied military service personnel have no clue what an "indemnification clause" is, what it means or what it's consequences are should he or she later succumb to battlefield injuries. You are smart enough, Mr. Gorin, to know full-well that an indemnification clause is the court's way of ensuring that the former spouse of a divorcing veteran cannot realize a loss in his or her MRP apportion should his or her former military husband or wife later be injured in the course of their service and be in a position to have to waive MRP in order to receive VA disability compensation. Am I right?

Most of us who experience the indemnification injustice have no clue what has happened. But one thing is clear - indemnification functionally amounts to a military person waiving all of their federal protections against a court or former spouse invading post-decree on their entitlement to receive VA disability compensation. You, Willick & Sullivan see it exclusively from the former spouse's viewpoint. As an injured veteran myself, I see it from a different perspective.

You see, the big thing you guys miss is that it makes no logical sense whatsoever that a court can divide a "fixed" division of property at the time of divorce, when the "property" being divided may in fact change significantly post-decree. Your indemnity clauses fix the former spouse's "property" and force the veteran - who is likely subject to post-decree conditions beyond his or her control - to bear 100% of the burden for becoming injured. You in effect create a legal means for the former spouse to enjoy the cash associated with becoming injured, yet excuse them from bearing any burden for the injuries. How fair is that, Mr. Gorin? Are you seeing the light yet, my friend?

It is sad indeed that we live in a day and age where legal tricks can be used to plunder our injured soldiers. In all seriousness, I very respectfully XXXXX XXXXX to think about what it is you are propogating here. Have you ever held a wounded soldier in your arms, Mr. Gorin? Have you ever seen a man die on the battlefield, or held the hand of a veteran with no legs at the VA hospital? Have you ever hugged the spouse of a man who shot himself in the head on account of being plundered by a family court?

Think about it, Mr. Gorin.

Mark Beres

Tucson, AZ

(1) By your own statements, you condone the corrupt & unethical practice of indemnification. Indemnification can (and often does) result in an injured veteran being forced to share VA disability compensation with a former spouse.

(2) By your own statements, you condone the practice of courts considering a wounded soldier's receipt of VA disability compensation as "income" to which a support obligation can be established, augmented or the like. It is simply fact that requiring a wounded soldier to pay support out of (or in consideration of) these disability funds BY_DEFINITION means the degree of care/compensation going to wounded soldier is diminished. Consider the common case where a wounded soldier is 100%-disabled and has no income apart from his or her disability - i.e., they are "unemployable". If a court considers their disability compensation as income, and then awards a former spouse support in consideration thereof, the wounded soldier will & by-definition MUST satisfy the obligation by paying the former spouse out of those disability funds. Thus, the degree of care Congress appropriates to care for the wounded soldier is diminished. No matter how you slice it, a court considering VA disability compensation as income for the purpose of awarding spousal support is a court dividing INdirectly what federal (and in the case of Arizona, state) statute prohibits them from doing DIrectly. N'est-ce pas?

Your positions on these issues are shameful, Mr. Gorin, and I am genuinely sorry if that is offensive to you. I enjoy this dialogue, because it is simply shocking to me to watch a trained attorney advise former spouses of injured veterans as to the legal means they need to employ to divert to THEMselves a portion of their now-injured former veteran spouse's disability compensation. It ethically-wrong, Mr. Gorin, for you and the other common names associated with this kind of thing (we both know you take your cues from Las Vegas).

For far too long, attorneys have had free-license to plunder wounded soldiers - who, in all honesty, are the ones least-able to even defend themselves in court. Our soldiers are coming back from the wars with messed-up heads, mangled bodies and depressed spirits. They come home to broken homes, depression and in some cases suicide. In Maricopa county, Arizona, the divorce rate is 72%. I don't know what it is in Oregon, but it's probably high. Regardless, it is inconceivable to me as an American citizen to think that we would do such harm to those least-able to defend themselves in the courtroom. When indemnification or alimony comes to play, the wounded veteran doesn't know what hit them.

I am not making personal attacks, Mr. Gorin. Someone needs to speak directly to your humanity, so that you can pause and see what it is your legal theories are doing to real people. In these cases, you are securing the plundering of our wounded soldiers - honorable Americans who have given of themselves in service to this nation. Anyone who propogates these harmful legal theories deserves nothing less than intellectual shame.

Mark

Mr. Gorin - we disagree on a lot of things. I'm not attacking the legal profession, and I am well-aware of the basic fact that an attorney's job is to zealously advocate for their client. I am sure you do that.

My issue is with fundamental right & wrong - moral & immoral. Public policy ought to reflect our nation's values. If we focus in on caring for the wounded servicemen & women who have worn our nation's uniform - THAT issue alone, then I think we both agree on the fundamental premise. That is, that America has an obligation to "care for him who shall have borne the battle".

It's encouraging to see that as-to-values, you agree with me that indemnification - while legal everywhere except Arizona, is immoral. Or, if you won't take ownership of that word, then at least agree with me that it is unjust to the injured soldier. I take issue with your premise that the veteran knowingly entered into the indemnification contract. I don't think most divorcing military people have a clue that in their divorce decree is a simply-worded clause that amounts to them having waived all federal protections to their disability compensation should they ever be injured in the course of their service. Further, I doubt seriously that most family law attorneys representing them understand it, either. Most decrees of divorcing military people are boilerplate, at least with respect to the division of future military entitlements. Many veterans, including myself, have urged congressional leaders to require the DoD to brief all military personal as to the landmines that you, Marshal Willick & Mark Sullivan have laid for them out there in the legal landscape. They won't do it, and I understand why. If the majority of military servicemen actually knew how badly the courts are aligned against them in this area of the law, not a one of them would join, stay in to retirement or, for that matter get married without a carefully & deliberately worded prenuptual agreement.

Mr. Gorin, if you agree with me so much on the philosophy of these issues, why then did you call HB 2348 "misguided", and, in fact encourage the question-asker to challenge it in court? I believe your words to her were, "YOU GO GIRL!" And, if indeed you agree that the Arizona legislature has taken the steps necessary to stop indemnification, then why would you imply that it is not constitutionally-sound?

A few things for you to consider, and perhaps pass on to Willick, Sullivan & McCarthy. When the USFSPA was enacted, it was indeed the act of a lone consituent named Doris Mosely. Doris worked with a lone legislator, Patricia Schroeder of Colorado. The USFSPA was passed in the middle of the night at 3A. At the time the USFSPA was passed, the nation's military was 2.8% female. Today, the nation's military is just shy of 20% female, and the percentage is growing. I personally know of five (5) women who have been devasted by the USFSPA, and I am sure there are many, many more.

The USFSPA was passed in 1982, yet retro-actively was statutorily applied to June 25, 1981. How is it possible that Congress can make a law retroactively applicable? I am genuinely curious what your thoughts are on that.

Mr. Gorin, I do not receive MRP because I did not serve for 20 years, and so I am not impacted by the USFSPA. I receive disability compensation. A peer of yours name Michael McCarthy wrote an absurd recommendation to a court in Maricopa county, citing the USFSPA & state law as bases for apportioning my disability compensation to my former spouse. The judge ignored my well-reasoned objections to Gen. McCarthy's nonsense and rubber-stamped his recommendations, apportioning a full 33.06% of my disability compensation to my former spouse - a pampered princess in a Scottsdale mansion who hardly needed it, but for the plastic surgery and payment on the Jaguar.

I appealed that judge's order, and after two years of work representing myself in the Arizona Court of Appeals, I got that order vacated and the opinion was published ... you can read it by going to the appellate court website, or searching for "Davies v. Beres" on Google. I learned the law, and as I read the law and the court's opinion, I got pissed off, and I devoted my time to helping disabled veterans.

America has an obligation to care for her wounded sons & daughters.

Mr. Gorin - I don't know if this one has come to your desk yet. Another victory for your side - a 100% disabled veteran is again plundered and made a perpetual financial slave to his former spouse.

Go to leagle.com and look up Provencio v. Leding (2011 Ark. App. 53, No. CA10-312).

Aren't we a wonderful nation in how we treat our wounded soldiers? Isn't indemnification a great, honorable and truly profitable thing!

I hope this 100%-disabled soldier's misfortune weighs on your conscience, as it does on mine and every American with a heart.

Mark

Mr. Gorin,

Well, after all this discussion, we have finally come to at least the same sheet of paper with respect to the issues.

First, indemnification is beneficial to the former spouse and detrimental to the veteran. I think we both can agree on that (to use your profession's lingo, let's "take judicial notice" of these ...)

Second, notwithstanding Arizona - there is no federal or state statute that prohibits it. I think we agree on that, too.

Third, the calculus with respect to MRP & VA disability compensation is vexing to the courts. That was your word, and I agree with you.

Now, let me throw out some thoughts based on what you wrote.

First & forement, let me state what you elluded to - courts do not make law, legislatures do. When any court reads a cited statute, it is bound to look at the "plain meaning" of it. A good discussion on this may be found in Ariz. State Bd. for Charter Sch. v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 464 F.3d 1003 (9^th Cir.2006). I think if you took an honest look at HB 2348, you'd agree the statutes placed therfrom are plain and unambiguous. In my opinion, a "natural reading" of both 38 U.S.C. §5301, 10 USC 1408 (a)(4)(B) & A.R.S. 25-318.01 & 12-1539 makes abundantly clear that both the United States Congress and Arizona legislature provide protection from diversion to third parties those funds appropriated to care for America's wounded military servicepersons. When courts conduct their analyses, they are NOT vested with the power to rewrite the statutes, but rather must "construe what Congress has written". Further, it is not for a Court "to ascertain-neither to add nor to subtract, neither to delete nor to distort."  Id., citing 62 Cases, More or Less, Each Containing Six Jars of Jam v. United States, 340 U.S. 593, 596, 71 S.Ct. 515, 95 L.Ed. 566 (1951); Xi v. INS, 298 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir.2002) ("[A] decision to rearrange or rewrite [a] statute falls within the legislative, not the judicial, prerogative.").

So judges are interpreters, not law makers. I am not treatising you, either - I know you know this, but I think it's worthwhile to underscore it in the context of this discussion.

So a rhetorical question to you is - what then do judges do in the absence of legislation? The answer is - they guide themselves. Few states have enacted any legislation to address these "vexing" issues, and thus the courts have guided themselves for nearing 30 years now.

So, if I understand you correctly - you go "both ways" depending on whom you are representing. Ok, fine, Mr. Gorin. But when it comes to disability compensation and the entitlement to it, former spouses and wounded soldiers are not equal.

I hear your argument regarding "vested interest" and indeed, the courts see this matter as enforcing a property settlement that they assert was "agreed to" by two parties. I strongly disagree with the "agreed to" part. Regarding the vested interest, I have to ask you, Mr. Gorin - how can a former spouse's property interest be fixed at decree, when the amount of disposable retired pay the former spouse may be entitled to receive depends on uncertain events POST decree that are beyond the control of the veteran? How is it that her property is set in stone, but the veteran's is not?

I would argue to you that ONE CANNOT fix the former spouse's interest at decree AT ALL, because the actual amount she may receive can and likely will change post-decree. Indemnification is grossly unfair, because it allows a former spouse to have a fixed property interest, and it places the burden of paying the variables exclusively on the veteran. NOT TO MENTION that it is the veteran - NOT the former spouse who bears the lifetime burden of the injury.

Mr. Gorin, indemnfiication is wrong, and it is now illegal in the state of Arizona. Thank God.

Mr. Gorin, let's talk child support. I'll call it "CS" for short. I will admit to you up front that it is the CS argument that causes people to pause, and rightfully-so. We all care for & love our children, and so it is this argument that is arguably most-important.

A child support obligation is based upon a person's productive capacity to earn the money necessary to meet the obligation. Let me digress for a moment and share a personal story with you. Trust me - I will circle back to the issue at-hand.

Years ago when I was stationed in NW Florida, I was going to have my son (who at the time was 6 or 7, I believe) come stay with me for the summer. But, I needed to work during the day, so I went to the on-base childcare facility to secure a reservation for my son to stay there while I was working during the day. Like anybody, I first inquired about the cost. The first question out of the childcare facility manager's mouth to me was, "what is your rank?" I quite-rightly responded, "what does that have to do with my son's childcare cost?" I then continued, asking the lady if "my son receive more care, or required more supervision than a lower ranking member's child? Or, perhaps my child ate more Nilla wafers than lower ranking members' children did, or maybe my son drank mre Kool-aid than their children?" She answered, "no sir, your child's care cost is a function of your rank, so what is your rank?"

This incident has always stuck with me, and I remember it like it happened 10 minutes ago. I found it odd that my CHILD's daycare cost was a function of MY rank. It was clear, I was subject to the age-old dictum, that "FROM each according to his means, and TO each according to their needs." This philosophy, if you will - or call it "values", is the fundamental basis of all child support obligations. Think about it - why is it that a rich person's child secures more child support than a poor person's? I know you know the answer, as do I. The CS obligation is determined by one's earning capacity. Now, I personally think that's bogus, but that's not relevant. What is relevant is the word, "earning".

Now, let me circle back, Mr. Gorin. Disability compensation is not earned income. I think you agree with me on that, irrespective of our stark differences with respect to these discussions. A wounded soldier doesn't "earn" their disability compensation - they incur the injury and are compensated based upon that event and its ensuing consequences as pertains to the injured soldier's LOST degree of earning capacity. I invite you to read the Appellate decision in my own case, where the court states this emphatically. See Davies v. Beres, at http://www.azfamilylawblog.com/uploads/file/Davies%20v%20Beres.pdf. Go to paragraph 17, and look at the last sentence ("reduced earning capacity of a spouse becomes the separate loss of the disabled spouse"). Also, go to page 14 (paragraph 18), and look at the discussion regarding the basis for Worker's Compensation ("Computation of Worker's Compensation is based on lost earning capacity").

My point with this is to emphasize that disability compensation is not earned income, nor is it a function of a wounded veteran's earning capacity.

Thus, because a CS obligation is exclusively based upon one's earning capacity, disability compensation is EXCLUDED from consideration when that obligation is determined. That said, let's go to your question:

"If a divorced military retiree is under a divorce court order to pay child support ... and waives all of his retired pay in order to receive VA disability compensation ... can the divorce court ... compel him to pay the previously ordered child support obligation ... ?"

The answer to this form a statutory standpoint is "yes". Take a look at A.R.S. 12-1539 (B). This was also included in HB 2348. Our statute here in Arizona does allow this, which is consistent with federal law at 42 USC 659 (h)(1)(A)(ii)(V). In the case of a veteran entitled to receive MRP, who has subsequently waived MRP to receive VA disability compensation, who then subsequently becomes in-arrears in a child support obligation, the VA disability compensation may be garnished up to the amount that was waived with proper application to the VA.

I hope this helps.

Mark

Mr. Gorin - you are missing the obvious. A former spouse is NOT part of the disabled veteran's family. That is the answer to your leading questions. In sharp contrast, however, one cannot "divorce" one's children (maybe they can do that in California, who knows nowadays). So children are always a part of the disabled veteran's family.

A good explanation of this can be found in the Flowers case here in Arizona, in teh Special Concurrence section written by judge Jacobsen (see Flowers v. Flowers, 188 Ariz. 577, 578 P.2d 1006). I will cut-n-paste the part I am talking about for you:

"In my opinion, the holding that pure disability benefits, after divorce, are the separate property of the disabled party can be sustained on grounds other than their similarity to personal injury payment, that is, then are not the result of onerous title. Rather, workmen's compensation benefits and service-connected disability payments are received, not as the result of past labors, and thus "earned", but rather by society's decision, through the legislative process, that work related injuries and their results are a societal responsibility, rather than an individual responsibility. In this sense they are acquired by lucrative title rather than onerous title and as such are separate property. During the term of the marriage, since these payments represent earning capacity and loss of wages (labor) they are properly considered community property. See

Dawson v. McNaney, 71 Ariz. 79, 223 P .2d 907 (1950); Guerrero v. Guerrero, supra. However, once the marriage is terminated, the right of the conimunity to share in the labors of the parties is likewise terminated and since one spouse has no right to the future earnings of the other after divorce, so no right should exist to payments representing those earnings, provided the entitlement to those payments is based on lucrative rather than onerous title. Being acquired by lucrative title, after divorce, I would hold such payments to be separate property."

So, the color of the money is a moot point, and wholly irrelevant. Once the decree is entered, the former spouse may be entitled to alimony, but he or she is not entitled to share in any future earnings or monies that represent lost earning capacity resulting from service-connected injuries.

A very weak argument is repeatedly made by attorneys that a child support obligation is akin to alimony. This isn't the first time I've heard that point made, and like those times before, the whole premise is false from the get-go.

Mark

PS - did I tell you that I was an Oregon resident for nearly 20 years ... in Bend?

Larry - all understood. Up front, let me apologize for offending you. You know your stuff and seem to have a heart - you're just drunk on Marshal Willick's kool-aid. That's not an insult, either - you are one of many, including Mark Sullivan (who actually touts himself as a veteran), who practice law and don't seem to think twice about the ethical underpinnings of your actions. Please think about this ... just because something is not statutorily "illegal" doesn't mean it is right. If I were an attorney, out of a strong sense of duty & right, I could not facilitate an indemnification agreement for a client. No way, man.

I am really stunned that you think a state is "out-of-bounds" when it legislatively prohibits indemnification. I read your words carefully, and the only legitimate "basis" you cite is that Congress hasn't done so itself. Do you understand how nonsensical your position is?

Here's why - if Congress meant to, I assume, 'implicity' condone the practice, as you suggest - then why do they so consistently EXPLICITLY state that disability compensation is the sole & separate entitlement of the wounded soldier? Let's circle back to the law - look at 38 USC 5301 (a), (a)(3)(A) and 10 USC 1408 (a)(4)(B). I could on and on (for example, disabled veterans are excluded from the new "means test" in the bankruptcy code ...). If indeed Congress's intent is to sustain a legal conduit by which third parties can divert to THEMselves an apportion of a wounded soldier's disability compensation, then why on earth do these cited statutes exist?

Trust me, Mr. Gorin, I AM a rocket scientist, so I can say with authority that it doesn't take one to see that Congress has no intention other than that those funds go directly to the wounded - period, dot, end of story, sir. Granted, there are LIMITED circumstances, defined BY CONGRESS for which the disability funds may be garnished, but that's it, man.

A veteran's spouse is not an active duty soldier. They aren't standing in front of bullets on you and I's behalf. They aren't spending countless months in austere conditions in selfless service to our nation. And the ex-spouse of a wounded veteran isn't bearing the pain & suffering of the emotional & physical pain of the disability, Mr. Gorin.

I say this with due respect, but it's crazy for anyone to suggest that because Congress hasn't legisltively prohibited indemnification, it must be intentionally-kept in play. That's nonsense. Pure balderdash.

Mark