From: North, Jim <Jim.North@cambridge-na.com>
To: gymgemjim@comcast.net
Sent: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 18:08:31 -0500
Subject: All Volunteer Forces vs. Mandatory Draft

all_retirees_mobilize101405.pdf

The All Volunteer Forces

What is an Incentive? - something that incites or has a tendency to incite to determination or action. Motive - something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act.

And.that's why Americans have a choice to sign up or not sign up to join the military. Many individuals are incited to join the military because not only can they serve their country, they are also promised incentives if they decide to make a career out of the military, this is called the "All Volunteer Forces" The "All Volunteer Forces" have eliminated the mandatory draft, completely. Individuals who have joined the All Volunteer Forces, to include our currently retired military, have kept many individuals and parents children who preferred not to join the military, from being drafted.

What are the All Volunteer Forces and what is Retainer Pay? Since most Americans prefer to have a choice whether or not to join the military and not be automatically drafted upon graduating from high school or college, the "All Volunteer Forces" was initiated. One of the All Volunteer Forces incentives was to enlist and maintain career minded individuals into the Armed Forces by promising them a reduced amount of pay after serving 20 or more years of active duty. This is called "retainer pay." As part of the agreement to join the "All Volunteer Forces", each new military applicant signed an enlistment contract stating that they understood the provisions of the All Volunteer Forces. Once retired with 20 or more years of active service, the All Volunteer Forces individuals are placed into a reserve/retired status and are still in the military and can be recalled or they can volunteer to go back on active duty, many have been and currently are. This incentive along with other incentives has helped maintained the "All Volunteer Forces" throughout the years and has eliminated the mandatory draft, completely. As far as Ms. Mozley's (Chair, Committee for Equality and Justice for the Military Wife) remark on the below link, about a Colonel with 30 years of service doing nothing, let me explain, that's because this Colonel agreed to join the All Volunteer Forces with the understanding he/she would receive a reduced amount of pay after completing 20 of more years of active duty with the understanding that he/she may be recalled back to active duty. By having this Colonel in a standby status (what Ms. Mozley called "doing nothing") has eliminated individuals from being drafted into the Armed Forces by maintaining a incentive for career minded individuals to stay in the military and having a pool of individuals to recall from, if needed. This Colonel along with many other All Volunteer Forces individuals, currently retired, have kept many parents children from being drafted into the military, for example, like Ms. Mozley's two lawyer children, maybe some of your lawmaker children to include the President's daughters, News Media children and many other individuals who believe the military is not for them or their children.

What is a Military Retiree? Glad you asked, maybe this is the problem, not many people really know? Individuals who are confused about what exactly is the difference between a retired and non-retired military veteran, let me help you out. Service members who complete one or more contracts in the military but do not complete at least 20 years of active duty are not retired. Some Service members can become medically retired before 20 years of active service. Service members who complete at least 20 or more years of honorable active service are considered to have meet the qualifications and contractual agreements of the All Volunteer Forces and may begin to receive a reduced amount of pay called "retainer pay". In addition to receiving retainer pay, these retired individuals fall under Title 10, Section 688 of the U.S. Code which says that retired active-duty members "may be ordered to active duty.at any time.

Additionally, military retirees continue to fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and they must all be prepared to mobilized in accordance with the Defense Department Directive 1352.1 which states "that it is DoD policy that military retirees be ordered to active duty as needed to perform such duties as the (service) secretary concerned considers necessary in the interests of national defense.

Following is what is expected of military retirees who are currently receiving retainer pay:
- <![endif]>The Defense Department "shall plan to use as many retirees as necessary to meet national security needs."
- <![endif]>Retirees can be used "to fill shortages or to augment deployed or deploying units and activities or units in the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii supporting deployed units."
- <![endif]>Retirees can be used "to release other military members for deployment oversees."
- <![endif]>Subject to legal restrictions, retirees can "fill civilian workforce shortages" for the federal government.
- <![endif]>Mobilized retirees would receive full active-duty pay and benefits for their services.

Why does Doris Mozley want Retainer Pay?
That's a good question. I'm not sure why she does, but it's obvious she has not qualified to receive a monthly retainer paycheck by any rules or regulations, but Congress has misled her into attacking all retired veteran's benefits and military retainer pay when they overrode the Supreme Court ruling McCarty v. McCarty (which states retainer pay cannot be divided to a former spouse in a divorce proceeding) by establishing a law (USFSPA) that reverses this Supreme Court's ruling and then backdates this law one day before the Supreme Court's ruling?

This is why Doris Mozley says she want's Retainer Pay.

Mozley's letter to the editor:

http://epilot2.hamptonroads.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VmlyZ2luaWFuUGlsb3QvMjAwNS8xMC8zMSNBcjAyMjAz (See MSgt North's remarks to this letter below)

Why is the "All Volunteer Forces" Incentives Unjustly Attacked and Taken Away?

Because the 97th Congress enacted a law that has misled former military spouses into attacking their former husband's veteran's benefits and military retainer pay by overriding the Supreme Court ruling McCarty v. McCarty (states retainer pay cannot be divided to a former spouse in a divorce proceeding) by establishing a law (USFSPA) that reverses this Supreme Court's ruling and then backdates this law one day before the Supreme Court's ruling? See details here: http://www.usfspa-lawsuit.info/ActiveDutyAlert.htm

It would be interesting to see Doris Mozely's husband (or some other retired divorcee) volunteer his/her services and request to return to active duty. Any volunteers out there?

How would our DoD's DFAS handle the All Volunteer Forces incentive/retainer pay that is presently being paid to Ms. Mozley and another 220,000 former military spouses by the American tax payers?

By reading the attached DoD 1352.1 directive, you will find that it specifically states in par. 4.4 that all military retirees returning back to active duty would receive full pay and allowances?

That would mean, all those fraudulent State Court Divorce Orders which awarded retired veterans retainer pay to former spouses would become null because retainer pay stops and full active duty pay begins, upon entering active duty. Unless the Government plans to continue to pay the non-qualified former spouses retainer pay anyways, and full pay and allowances to the returning service member?

Or, maybe not, maybe the USFSPA is just a floating law that changes to meet someone's needs in Washington? Maybe since Ms. Mozely was awarded a portion of the All Volunteer Forces incentive/retainer pay, but never joined the "All Volunteer Forces" with the understanding that she must complete at least 20 years of active duty service and is subject to recall, she'll have to give all that money back, due to fraudulent claims against the U.S. Government? Or, maybe Ms. Doris Mozley will be called upon to serve on Active Duty (after completing basic training of course), since she has been receiving retainer pay without qualify for this pay? Interesting, so then the retainer pay that the Judges have been awarding as property to our former spouses for life, "magically" is taking back away from these spouses when a retiree returns back to active duty because it's not really their property in the first place, they were just borrowing it for a while.? I see..

And.judges are just kidding when they award retainer pay to a former spouse for life. because it's not really for "life" because in the event the retired service member is recall to active duty, DFAS takes the property back away from the awardees.? Surprise former spouses..it's not for real... Now. I understand. And.I thought the Judicial branch and the Legislative branches of Government were just conveniently trading places .? Oh, wait?... I think they are conveniently trading places..? It this the "American Way" of Justice now-a-days.?

Is the Constitution the Supreme Law of the USA?: "The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 - No (Bill of Attainder) or ex post facto law shall be passed", explaining that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the USA and it was written in the mid-late 1700's. When the 97th Congress enacted (Sep 1982) the USFSPA and sent it to then-President Reagan for signature, with the provision in the first sentence of its paragraph ©(1) that states, "beginning after June 25, 1981", the 97th Congress violated the prohibition of Art 1, Sec 9. Furthermore, in presenting an ex post facto act for Executive Signature, the 97th Congress became an accessory and abettor to causing the President to violate one of the requirements of his Oath of Office, also specified in the Constitution (Art 2, Sec 1: " ...., and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution...."). Notwithstanding, each and every President since "Ronald Regan" has also violated their Oath of Office by allowing the unconstitutional USFSPA to remain in statute!

MSgt James T. North is U.S. Marines, Retained, Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, Category II, Deployable and promotes www.usfspa-lawsuit.info. You can read more details at See more details: http://www.usfspa-lawsuit.info/ActiveDutyAlert.htm

MSgt North can be reached by email at Jim.North@cambridge-na.com

Mozley - Ex-military wives' battle goes on

North - Only because Congress has misled them into attacking their former husband's veteran's benefits and military retainer pay by overriding the Supreme Court ruling McCarty v. McCarty (states retainer pay cannot be divided to a former spouse in a divorce proceeding) by establishing a law (USFSPA) that reverses this Supreme Court's ruling and then backdates this law one day before the Supreme Court's ruling. What about former military husband's? Do you support former military husbands?

Mozley - It has now been more than two decades that military wives have been fighting to hang on to the weak Former Spouses Protection Act that allows state domestic relations courts to divide a jointly earned military retired pay.

North - Consider yourself lucky that unscrupulous lawyers and judges have also been misleading you by entertaining a law that overrides and then backdates one day before the Supreme Court's McCarty v. McCarty decision for those two decades, in your favor.

Mozley - A small group of divorced military members have made interesting claims in their quest to be the only men in our society immune from pension-sharing in case of divorce.

North - More than a small group, it's 220,000 individuals affected by the unjust USFSPA and the numbers are presently growing rapidly. And, it's more than just men, women are also affected by the unjust law. Read LTC Patricia M. Pownall (formerly Larrabee) prepared statement http://www.usfspa-lawsuit.info/DACOWITS.htm to the DoD Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) http://www.dtic.mil/dacowits/tableabout_subpage.html. It's not a pension, it's reduced pay for agreeing (by contract) to serve in the All Volunteer Forces for a period of 20 or more years with the understanding that we will continue to stay in the military in a reserve/retired status and can be recalled to active duty. Retainer pay is a type of incentive that ensures the recruitment and retention of career minded individuals in the All Volunteer Forces and avoids a mandatory draft into the military.

Mozley - Some of their arguments and stratagems would be amusing if the issue were not so serious. In the early days, they claimed that their retired pay was not a pension at all but "retainer'' pay that they received to stand by in case they were recalled to active duty. No one bought that one. Imagine a retired colonel with 30 years' service receiving $50,000 a year for doing nothing.

North - Let me help clarify this for you. Since most Americans prefer to have a choice whether or not to join the military and not be automatically drafted upon graduating from high school or college, the "All Volunteer Forces" was initiated. One of the All Volunteer Forces incentives was to enlist and maintain career minded individuals into the Armed Forces by promising them a reduced amount of pay after serving 20 or more years of active duty. This is called "retainer pay." As part of the agreement to join the "All Volunteer Forces", each new military applicant signed an enlistment contract stating that they understood the provisions of the All Volunteer Forces. Once retired with 20 or more years of active service, the All Volunteer Forces individuals are placed into a reserve/retired status and are still in the military and can be recalled or they can volunteer to go back on active duty, many have been and currently are. This incentive along with other incentives has helped maintained the "All Volunteer Forces" throughout the years and has eliminated the mandatory draft, completely. As far as your mean remark about a Colonel with 30 years of service doing nothing, again let me explain, that's because this Colonel agreed to join the All Volunteer Forces with the understanding he/she would receive a reduced amount of pay after completing 20 of more years of active duty with the understanding that he/she may be recalled back to active duty. By having this Colonel in a standby status (what you call "doing nothing") has eliminated individuals from being drafted into the Armed Forces by maintaining a incentive for career minded individuals to stay in the military and having a pool of individuals to recall from, if needed. This Colonel along with many other All Volunteer Forces individuals, currently retired, have kept many parents children from being drafted into the military, for example, like your two lawyer children, lawmakers children to include the President's daughters and all those unscrupulous lawyers and judges children.

Mozley - The Military Officers of America went along with this charade for a while but, in an about-face, announced it was switching from calling military retired pay "retainer'' pay to calling it deferred compensation. This change made it a pension and therefore divisible as community property in case of divorce.

North - What this group went along with does not justify what's right or wrong, it's an opinion that has no legal authority.

Mozley - In another case, Fern v. the United States, divorced retirees sought to have the United States reimburse them for amounts awarded their ex-wives in a divorce court. They claimed it was ''unjust taking'' of their pensions, which is their separate property.

North - This case does not justify your position at all?

Mozley - Again, they lost out with that silly argument. The judge explained that nothing was taken or diminished from the amount of military retired pay that a retiree was entitled to under federal law. In its simplest terms, the judge said, Col. Fern was asking taxpayers to pay retirees up to a pension and a half.

North - Again, this case does not justify your position at all?

Mozley - But they don't give up. Some retirees recently banded together yet again to sue in federal court to have the Former Spouse Protection Act declared unconstitutional. They have won on one of their claims, that of procedural due process, but have lost on three others. They plan to appeal, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. And they have raised quite a treasury with which to fight.

North - That's because, it is unconstitutional.

Mozley - We ex-military wives feel like David battling Goliath. We have few financial resources, no friends in high places, just absolute faith that what we are fighting for - equality of women in the military marriage - is just. That means if the marriage breaks up, a wife deserves her pro rata share of the only asset that most military couples have, the jointly earned military pension.

North - Why just ex-military wives? Do you not help ex-military husbands?

Appears your group has plenty of friends in high places for the last 25 years, to include the Department of Defense and Donald Rumsfeld. Even Congress made a law that changed a Supreme Court ruling and backdated the law one day before the Supreme Court ruling in your favor. It's not a pension, again, it's an incentive pay check to maintain a career force in the All Volunteer Forces and it's called "retainer pay".

Mozley - I have been advocating equity for military wives in divorce for 25 years and have just published a history of the Former Spouses Protection Act. To learn more, go to www.divorcemilitarystyle.org.

North - Sorry, but Congress has misled you into attacking your former husband's veteran's benefits and military retainer pay when they unjustly overruled the Supreme Court ruling McCarty v. McCarty (states retainer pay cannot be divided to a former spouse in a divorce proceeding) by establishing a law (USFSPA) that reverses this Supreme Court's ruling and then backdates this law one day before the Supreme Court's ruling. Can you name of any occurrences in which Congress has reversed a Supreme Court's decision and then made a law retroactive to one day before that Supreme Court's decision?
North - "The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 - No (Bill of Attainder) or ex post facto law shall be passed", explaining that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the USA and it was written in the mid-late 1700's. When the 97th Congress enacted (Sep 1982) the USFSPA and sent it to then-President Reagan for signature, with the provision in the first sentence of its paragraph ©(1) that states, "beginning after June 25, 1981", the 97th Congress violated the prohibition of Art 1, Sec 9. Furthermore, in presenting an ex post facto act for Executive Signature, the 97th Congress became an accessory and abettor to causing the President to violate one of the requirements of his Oath of Office, also specified in the Constitution (Art 2, Sec 1: " ...., and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution...."). Notwithstanding, each and every President since "Ronald Regan" has also violated their Oath of Office by allowing the unconstitutional USFSPA to remain in statute!

Mozely - Doris Mozley
Chair, Committee for Equality
and Justice for the Military Wife

North - MSgt James T. North is U.S. Marines, Retained, Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, Category II, Deployable and promotes www.usfspa-lawsuit.info. You can read more details at See more details: http://www.usfspa-lawsuit.info/ActiveDutyAlert.htm

MSgt North can be reached by email at Jim.North@cambridge-na.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS

BEWARE! State Judges and Attorneys completely disregard Federal Statues that completely protects disabled veterans disability pay. See details: http://www.veteranvoice.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000036.html

BEWARE! Have the Judicial branch and the Legislative branches of Government traded places. Read Judge Edith Jones' article below:

MassNews.com
American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition
Thu Oct 27, 2005 17:37
64.140.158.3

Read here: http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/3_March/030703_mn_american_legal_system_corrupt.shtml