Skellchock v. Dean, et al.

Combat disabled veteran Derek Skellchock has asked the Supreme Court of the United States to confirm that state judges, like Laurie Kauzie Dean and 4 others, are required to obey Section 5301 of Title 38 because Section 511 makes it clear that they have NO Jurisdiction to extract money from VA benefits for any reason.

In April of 2024, Mr. Skellchock and VeteranHope.org filed a class action suit in the US District Court of Colorado naming Judge Laurie Kauzie Dean, Judge Susan Blanco, Magistrate Kandance Majoros, Judge Juan G. Villasenor, Magistrate Jolstad, and The State of Colorado as Defendants.

Federal Questions

Whether state judges are BOUND by Positive Law 38 U.S.C. § 511 pursuant to Article I § 8 of the Constitution, thereby REQUIRED to OBEY the federal preemption of state jurisdiction found in § 511.
Whether state judges are BOUND by Positive Law 38 U.S.C. § 5301 pursuant to Article I § 8 of the Constitution, thereby REQUIRED to OBEY § 5301 to the letter because § 511 eliminates the possibility of jurisdiction to undermine VA decisions or disobey § 5301, which is clearly intended to protect beneficiaries from the extraction of money by assignment, seizure, garnishment, harassment, contempt or jail.
Whether the Defendant Judges and Magistrates are personally liable in their Individual Capacity for violation of federal preemption that was established over 30 years ago by the Veterans Judicial Review Act (VJRA) Pub. Law 100-687 (1988) which definitively closed both of the loopholes found in 38 U.S.C. § 211 by the Supreme Court decision in Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987).
Whether the Defendant State is liable in a suit for damages because of the predatory discrimination against a disabled veteran.

Skellchock asked the Court to verify the fact that Section 511 pursuant to Article I § 8 of the Constitution fits the definition of the "supreme law of the land" specified in Article VI of the Constitution, but Rose v. Rose does not. According to the Court, it is Congress that writes the Supreme Law and establishes preemption, not the courts.

The District Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals both dismissed the case on the basis of "absolute judicial immunity" and "Rooker-Feldman doctrine" without answering the legitimate questions that were presented.

The Catch 22 problem is that both judicial immunity and Rooker-Feldman doctrine are dependent on one single criteria; Jurisdiction on the Subject Matter of the actions taken by the state judge. Skellchock is pointing out the difference between absolute federal jurisdiction on the subject matter of his rights under Title 38 and state jurisdiction on on the subject matter of divorce and child support.

The Federal Rights that Skellchock has claimed are based exclusively on the Constitution and Laws of the United States and supported by evidence of how Congress reaffirmed the preemption of state jurisdiction by amending Section 211 of Positive Law Title 38.

The District Court seemed to be stuck on the questions because the Supremacy Clause binds state judges to federal law pursuant to the Constitution, regardless of state law, but an answer of "Yes" in favor of Skellchock would upset 35+ years of standard practice undermining federal law.

On the other hand, an answer of "No" in favor of the judges would cancel the whole idea of taking federal law at face value, so the Court decided to evade the questions by dismissing the case. The result is a de facto answer of "No ... state judges are immune to the Constitution and Laws of the United States no matter what Congress intended."

You can follow his case at the US Supreme Court which is scheduled for Conference on March 20, 2026.

Looking back in time to the Revolutionary War, federal benefits provided for veterans have ALWAYS been exempt from attachment, levy or legal process of any kind. Congress has NEVER assigned jurisdiction on veteran benefits to the states, but has exercised power and intent to limit jurisdiction to a very specific line of authority beginning with the VA and ending with federal courts.

Skellchock is standing his ground on the fundamental belief that we should take the Constitution and Laws of the United States seriously and so should state judges.

Do you think state judges should obey federal preemption and do thing they should get in trouble for crossing that line?