Wenger v. Warren
A 36 year Marine Donald Wenger has asked the Supreme Court of the United States whether state Judge James Warren and his appointee Richard Muir are bound by the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA) and the Veterans Judicial Review Act (VJRA), thereby Required to Obey the strict definition of "disposable retired pay" found in 10 U.S.C. § 1408 and the Complete Federal Preemption expressed in 38 U.S.C. § 511.
These are simple constitutional questions that have been hidden by 3 decades of predatory discrimination and fraud.
According to the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, state judges are automatically bound by federal law pursuant to the Constitution, so it should be easy for the Court to answer the Questions presented as;
- 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).
- 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.
- Whether the Defendants are Personally Liable in their Individual Capacity for their violations of Positive Law 10 U.S.C. § 1408 and Positive Law 38 U.S.C. § 511 in the complete absence of all Jurisdiction on the Subject Matters of Title 10 and Title 38.
The Wenger v. Warren case also recalls other veteran cases that were appealed to SCOTUS from state courts. The questions in those appeals are presented differently, but all of them can be settled by an answer to the Questions presented above.
This has been going on for many years. Wenger filed his original federal Complaint against Warren and Muir back in October of 2024, but it was dismissed by the US District Court of Central California under "judicial immunity" and Rooker-Feldman doctrine. He appealed to the Ninth Circuit, but filed under Supreme Court Rule 11 for a ruling on the Questions above because this and ALL of the other cases would be settled by a precedent answer.
According to Wenger, lawyers and judges have been weaseling their way around the core issue by the semantic frauds noted in Howell v. Howell. None of them has ever had the integrity to acknowledge the FACT that exclusive federal jurisdiction on the Subject Matter of Title 38 veteran benefits is separate and distinct from exclusive federal jurisdiction the Subject Matter of Title 10 Armed Forces of the United States. None of them seem to comprehend the simple FACT that federal preemption noted in McCarty, Mansell and Howell still stands in the plain and precise language of the USFSPA. State jurisdiction on divorce does NOT happen to cancel federal preemption on Title 10 or Title 38.
Obviously the supreme laws controlling jurisdiction on these federal subject matters have always been intended to protect service members, veterans, retirees AND their families from the predatory corruption of law and profiteering by lawyers.
State judges have been getting away with crossing the line of federal preemption for years, but doing something illegal for a long time does not happen to make it become legal. Year after year of predatory discrimination and fraud does not change the laws that say veteran benefits are exempt from state jurisdiction.
"Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right." McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. 894 (2020)