• Report: #259863
Complaint Review:

Florida Lee County Judge Margaret O. Steinbeck

  • Submitted: Tue, July 10, 2007
  • Updated: Tue, February 23, 2010

  • Reported By:Frankfort Illinois
Florida Lee County Judge Margaret O. Steinbeck
1700 Monroe St. Fort Myers, Florida U.S.A.

Florida Lee County Judge Margaret O. Steinbeck Judge grabbing any law, punishes veteran Fort Myers Florida

*Author of original report: A further research reveals

*Consumer Comment: Veterans are scorned

REBUTTAL BOX™ | Respond to this Report! | Consumer Comment

What's this?
Corporate Advocacy Program

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

Set the record straight:
Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

Judge grabbing any law, punishes veteran.

This is the short version. Lee County, Florida Judge Margaret O. Steinbeck, Former Military lawyer, avoided the use of a veteran's disability compensation benefits as alimony, in Fisher v. Fisher citing, " USC 38 sec. 5301 is a general statute which prohibits assignability, levy or seizure." Having avoiding conflict with federal law, using her status, and the authority of her court to inflict her punishment to the veteran, in the only other way that she could, because Mr. Fisher argued federal law precludes VA disability benefits as an award of alimony, Judge Steinbeck goes after his Social Security disability compensation.

Citing, in Fisher, her Memorandum of Law, USC 10 sec. 1408 Uniformed Services Former Spouses protection Act. (USFSPA).We now move to a more specific law USC 10 sec. 1408 (c) which allows the court to treat retired pay as property of the member and spouse.

Judge Steinbeck then uses, as her primary decisions of law, in the justification of awarding alimony by going after this veterans Social Security disability compensation. Citing, Finally, we look at USC 42 sec. 659 which allows garnishment to enforce alimony obligations.

Here is the connection Judge Steinbeck tries to make, while having nothing to do with a veterans disability compensation, to justify her Social Security ruling. Of more importance is 659 (h)(I)(A)(ii)(V). Money subject to process which includes disability paid...to a former member...who has waived a portion of the retirement or retainer pay in order to receive such compensation which is exactly the situation of our present case.

Being two distinct, and unrelated issues, the obvious question being, what has a Veterans Administration retired pay benefits have to do with Social Security disability compensation? Absolutely nothing! Except for the fact it reveals the judges thinking. Into her not letting Fisher get off that easy. And as many Judges do, will use the authority of the court to punish a veteran.

As I have just illustrated with the Judge Steinbeck ruling, I have seen many references, that state courts, indicate and refer quite readily, as you will see, when justifying an alimony award in going after a veterans' Social Security compensation, to Title 42 USC 659. As I read it, 659 is not a law used in a court proceeding determining the rightfulness of an alimony award. 659 is purely administrative, only to be used after a withholding judgment has been made.

An administrative follow-up process upon the direction, and pursuant to State or local law, then administered by the Secretary of the Treasury according to 42 USC 659. As I mentioned, Judges will try any trick in the book. And this is a classic. Please read the law and see for yourself.

Here is the reference that started my thinking on the subject. From a Nigel Crum, Friend of the Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, State of Michigan. To Gordon Sutton. "You state, correctly that USCS 407 is clear in stating that these benefits cannot be garnished. However there is an exception. 42 USCS 659, which you cited in your letter, is the exception. That law consents to income withholding from SSD for the purposes of child support or alimony." Yes, 659 is the consent, upon written effective notice, to the Secretary of the Treasury, to withholding as determined only through a court of law! 659 is not the justification by legal counsel, the courts, or the Secretary of the Treasury, the consent to, or seize withholding without the proper legal arguments in the taking of a veteran's compensation. 659 is not the legal principle of law over titles 38 USC 5301, 42 USC 407 arguments as to what is truly the law in the unfolding court room legal process. Only then, and only after the legal withholding of moneys has been determined, and upon effective written notice, administrative consent (42 USC 659) is given by the United States to the Secretary of the Treasury to process withholding.

Consent of 659 is not given to any judge. The consent role of 659 law is given to the Secretary of the Treasury. To enforcement of court proceedings. "(b) Consent to support enforcement. With respect to notice to withhold income pursuant to.. or any other order or process to enforce support obligations.. (2) Response to notice or process.

If an agent.. receives notice pursuant to State procedures in effect... or is effectively served with any order, process or interrogatory, with respect to an individual's child support or alimony payment obligations, the agent shall..." And this all is explained in (5) Legal process. The term legal process means any writ, order, summons, or other similar process in the nature of garnishment (a) which is issued by
(i) a court or an administrative agency of competent jurisdiction in any State, territory, or possession of the United States;

(iii) an authorized official pursuant to an order of such a court or an administrative agency of competent jurisdiction or pursuant to State or local law; and
(B) which is directed to, and the purpose of which is to compel, a governmental entity which holds moneys which are otherwise payable to an individual to make payment from the moneys to another party in order to satisfy a legal obligation of the individual to provide child support or make alimony payments

Part (B) explains it all. Contrary to Mr. Nigel's statement, there is no exception to 407 or 5301. 596 is a yet to be determined law that may be required in the fulfillment of a court determination that withholding is accepted.

Another example, of possibly hundreds more, in the complete misuse and mis-interpretation of 42 USC 659. See for yourself, reading 659. Here, in what follows, the court has used 42 USC 659, a Secretary of the Treasury administrative garnishment provision in repealing the LHWCA Workers Compensation Act. 659 being administrative only, but in Moyle v. OWPC, the courts had used it to repeal the LHWCA. Argued and Submitted June 2, 1998--Seattle, Washington.

Let me illustrate my point, in another way, how the court is using the wrong law in court proceedings when awarding alimony (Fisher). Let's say you were the Secretary of the Treasury, or his agent, involved in enforcing withholding matters. A judge phones, or writes you a note explaining although he had not yet finalized a ruling in an alimony award, he requests that you immediately start withholding of Social Security disability compensation, citing that his final ruling will be based on 659.

The question then being, before the finalization of a court ordered withholding judgment, would you honor the request? Your answer should be, no, I can't. Because 42 USC 659 is not a cause of action, and can be only implemented after final court judgment, and provides, "... receiving notice to state procedures in effect...or is effectively served with any order, process, or interrogatory, with respect to an individuals child support or alimony payment obligations, the agent shall..."

This is exactly what did not happen in Fisher, where the judge, arbitrarily applied an administrative law in her ruling. Here, Judge Steinbeck, finds, orders, and adjudges 659 in justifying withholding in an award of alimony. A law that comes into play, not during or before judgment ruling, but is presented, and processed only after a formal finalized court ordered writ, or similar process is presented to the Secretary of the Treasury.

Frankfort, Illinois

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 07/10/2007 11:07 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/florida-lee-county-judge-margaret-o-steinbeck/fort-myers-florida/florida-lee-county-judge-margaret-o-steinbeck-judge-grabbing-any-law-punishes-veteran-fo-259863. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Florida Lee County Judge Margaret O. Steinbeck

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
1Author 1Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Author of original report

A further research reveals

AUTHOR: William - (U.S.A.)

Lets try this! The law which you consider supreme over any other in enforcing 38 USC 5301? and shall not be liable to attachments, levy, or service by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary.

How for decades the Veterans Administration, in processing State court orders, administratively garnish a veterans disability compensation as alimony. In doing so, refer to VA guidelines that supersede and override the linchpin of the Constitution, The Supremacy Clause, Article VI of the United States Constitution. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


Yes, this you know. However! The key word here is, notwithstanding which means, in spite of, despite. [N]otwithstanding also appears where State courts go to direct the VA by court order, the consent to enforcement and justify the taking of your, as well as thousands upon thousands veterans disability compensation as alimony awards. Using that exact same word, and then reference 5301 in order to make it quite clear any such waiver is not possible. Notwithstanding is found in Title 42 USC 659. Consent by the United States to income withholding, garnishment, and similar proceedings for enforcement of child support and alimony obligations.


Briefly; 42 USC 659(a) Consent to enforcement.

Nothwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 407 of this title and section 5301 of title 38)moneys.. due from, or payable by, the United Statesto any individual, including members of the Armed Forces of the United States, shall be subjectto withholding in accordance with State lawto enforce the legal obligation of the individual to provide child support or alimony.


(h)(V) By the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as compensation for a service-connected disability paid by the Secretary to a former member of the Armed Forces who is receipt of retired or retainer pay if the former member has waived a portion of the retired or retainer pay in order to receive such compensation.


I went to a law professor looking for an answer to this question. I asked, I think I know the answer, however, I cannot pinpoint it to any particular reference of law other than the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution. I would like your opinion on the Article VI notwithstanding and the use of Notwithstanding any other provision of law found elsewhere in the United States Code.. I would think Article VI prevails, would you agree? He replied, Yes, the US Constitution always trumps any other form of law.


Here, your question is, or should be, which is it going to be? Either the United States Constitution Article VI notwithstanding or the 42 USC 659 administrative law notwithstanding? Here there is the legal certainty. Which is it going to be?

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

Veterans are scorned

AUTHOR: Jean - (U.S.A.)

This article was written for a person that feels he was wronged. Indeed, this person is a veteran that was married to the same person for 34 years, had an affair( one of many)and walked out of his marriage like a coward. Judge Steinbeck did nothing more than follow the law. Never has anyone tried to attach this Veterans disability pay, but the same song and dance has been played over and over again trying to make someone, anyone feel sorry for the veteran. Social Security law states that payments can be attached for spousal and child support. That seems only right, why should the person that was at fault be the one to carry on as though nothing has happened?
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?