Trudel v. Williams, et al

Combat disabled retiree Brandon Trudel has asked the US District Court of Michigan to verify and confirm that state judges and officials like Scott Williams, Michael J Lafave, Karen McDonald and Tonya M Schagel are Required to Obey the precise definition of "disposable retired pay" in the USFSPA and the Complete Federal Preemption expressed in 38 USC 511.

He also pointed out that three decades of predatory corruption and profiteering is causing veterans undue hardship and death by suicide which is certainly “major damage to significant federal interests.”

The questions he presented are easy to read and understand, so they should be very easy to answer, but that would upset the status quo by disrupting over 35 years of state judges breaking federal law. Even though due process of law does not take anything away from our children, it would interfere with lawyer paychecks and protect children from being stripped of their loving parents.

Here are the Federal Questions Trudel has asked the US District Court to answer;

1. Whether state judges are BOUND by the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (USFSPA) Pub. Law 97-252 (1982) pursuant to Article I § 8 of the Constitution, thereby REQUIRED to OBEY the precise definition of "disposable retired pay" expressed in the plain text of positive law 10 U.S.C. § 1408(a)(4).
2. Whether state judges are BOUND by the Veterans Judicial Review Act (VJRA) Pub. Law 100-687 (1988) pursuant to Article I § 8 of the Constitution, thereby REQUIRED to OBEY the Complete Federal Preemption expressed in the plain text of positive law 38 U.S.C. § 511.
3. Whether the Defendants are all Personally Liable jointly and severally in their Individual Capacity for their violation of 10 U.S.C. § 1408 and 38 U.S.C. § 511 in the complete absence of all Jurisdiction on the Subject Matter of Positive Law Title 10 and Title 38.

So far the federal Magistrate Judge has refused to sign the Summons documents or answer the questions because she knows that it would be absurd to say that "judges are immune to the Constitution and Laws of the United States." She seems to be concerned that answering the exclusively Federal Questions correctly would somehow interfere with legitimate state authority.

Trudel has filed an objection to the Magistrate's recommendation based on the simple idea that Federal Question Jurisdiction is already proven by the "plain and precise language" of positive law and multiple Supreme Court decisions. There is no reason to consider looking at state court orders and the federal court has not been asked to overturn state court orders, only to verify and confirm the strict boundaries of state jurisdiction and hold the state actors accountable for crossing those boundaries.

According to Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) as quoted by Trudel, there is a very clear difference between a state judge reaching in excess of his jurisdiction and a judge acting in the complete absence of all possibility of jurisdiction on the Subject Matter of the Rights he is violating.

The Case is available on PACER and may be available on other internet sites that follow federal cases, but you can read his Complaint in (PDF) or (HTML) right here. We will post updates as they come.