Monday, July 02, 2007
Quantas strikes again!
I had to change my flight info and depart a couple of days early. Getting that done was like pulling teeth. Had to drive out to the airport and like their American counterparts looked at my ticket like it was tainted. So it took me almost 24 hours to get back to Japan-including a 6 hour layover in Sydney. Not really enough time to do much except look out side in the lounge.
While I was out, the US Supreme Court showed that it really does not understand the concept of dealing with important cases. This one seems more important than school bussing if you aske me. Read below. Thanks to the reader who sent it to me. I am very disappointed but not surprised:
Many of you have heard by now that the US Supreme Court has declined to hear our case. We knew that this would be an uphill battle from the start and after over five years of pursuing what we still believe is a law that is unconstitutional, hundreds of thousands of military retired veterans (and a potential for over millions) who have faithfully served this country are still being victimized by a ill-conceived,illogical federal law that remains in effect and gives a State Court judge "carte blanche" to make decisions about the conduct of our armed forces and destroys those men and woman financially that have honorably served their country for the remainder of their natural live - no matter what the circumstances are for divorce.
Admittedly, in all probability we have reached the "end of the line" with our lawsuit effort. However, we are still exploring with our Legal Team options that may remain. We will continue to update our contributing members in the days ahead. We thank you for your support and believe me the managing members of the ULSG feel just as betrayed and bad as you do.
Below is a news release that has been prepared by our Legal Team. Please disseminate it far and wide to include your local newspapers, elected representatives and others you feel will need to see this.
Jack C. Crutchfield
For the Managing Members, ULSG
***********FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **********
THE REGRETTABLE SUPREME COURT DECISION
June 19, 2007, Tampa, FL – Twenty-six years afterCongress accepted its invitation in the case of McCarty v. McCarty to spell out divorce courts’ limits for dividingveterans’ retired pay, the Supreme Court declined on June 18, 2007, to review achallenge from divorced veterans that the resulting statute isunconstitutional.
Tired of unsuccessful legislative efforts against thestatute –- entitled the Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA)–- a group of divorced veterans formed the USFSPA Litigation Support Group(ULSG) to challenge the law in court. Dozens of divorced veterans affected bythe law –- men and women who served in the military’s major branches -– signedonto the lawsuit filed in 2004 in the United States District Court in Alexandria, Virginia,under the title Adkins, et al. v.Rumsfeld, which later was renamed Adkinsv. Gates, to reflect the replacement of the Secretary of Defense.
The lawsuit worked its way from the federal trial court tothe United States Court of Appeals in Richmond,with both courts refusing to grant relief against the USFSPA but also acknowledgingthat the law is not airtight against attacks by future litigants.
The divorced veterans then petitioned the United StatesSupreme Court to review the USFSPA’s constitutionality. Several months later,on June 18, the Supreme Court declined the review petition without comment.
The ULSG contends that Congress may have meant well inenacting the USFSPA, but that the law has resulted in harsh consequences todivorced veterans, many of them unanticipated and unintended. ULSG officer JackC. Crutchfield said: “Although the USFSPA was passed when most beneficiaries ofthe law were women, the tide has greatly changed since then, with countlessfemale veterans now being harmed by this law.”
In this litigation, the divorced veterans asserted thatamong the law's failings is that it does not even exempt veterans who joinedthe military before the law was ever passed. The litigants assert that thisamounts to an unconstitutionally retroactive application of the law andunconstitutional taking of property, seeing that the law was passed only afterthe Supreme Court said that veterans' retirement pay could not be divided indivorce court.
After the divorced veterans petitioned the Supreme Court toreview the USFSPA’s constitutionality, the GI-Janes and American RetireesAssociation veterans groups filed friend of the court briefs supporting theveterans’ petition. Signing onto the American Retirees Association’s brief werethe Air Force Sergeants Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, theNational Association for Uniformed Services, and the Retired EnlistedAssociation.
The divorced veterans’ lead attorney, Jonathan L. Katz said:“The Supreme Court’s decision not to review the case does not reflect theCourt’s view on the statute’s Constitutionality or flaws. The Court, having just nine justices and a mountain of annual review petitions, accepts only oneto two percent of petitions for review. We look forward to future courtchallenges against this unjust law.”
ULSG officer Jack Crutchfield said: “The USFSPA is unconstitutional,and this court challenge needed to be brought. Our excellent legal team broughtto light the serious flaws in this law. Thousands of divorced men and women whoproudly served their country are victims of this unjust law and feel itsprofound financial harm daily; the law needs to be stricken.”
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: MEDIA INQUIRIES: JonathanL. Katz, Attorney at Law Lead Counsel for ULSG, LLC Marks & Katz, LLC 1400Spring Street, Suite 410 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 495-4300 Fax:(301) 495-8815 E-mail: email@example.com
NON-MEDIAINQUIRIES ULSG, LLC PO Box 270337 Tampa, FL 33688-0337 email: Members@ULSG.ORG http://www.ULSG.org.