New math pension formula from IBEW LOCAL 332 Pension Trust A

The latest court opinions have been issued for cases close to my case number. I think the Federal Appeals Court web site shows my appeal is getting closer to its hearing. There really is no exact way to tell when the hearing will be. The December projection still looks good.

I have done a little research about my constitutional right to a trial and found an answer in the 7th amendment. Part of the bill of rights guaranties trials for civil errors that cause injury. Here is part of my case.

#1 Fact
Stated in the Plan SAMPLE QDRO explanation.

“The following sample QDRO divides the community property portion of the benefits equally between spouses.”

#2 Fact
Lehman v. Lehman, which the Plan sites as their authority for QDRO formulas stated:

“Results must be reasonable and fairly representative of the relative contributions of the community and separate estates.”

#3 Fact
The Plan pension calculation divided the account benefit of $325 into the following;

SPOUSE $560.00
Electrician; Negative <$235.00>
Total $325.00
When the Plan decides the spouse is to receive more than the account balance, even an electrician can figure out whom the plan is really representing.

One more time:
The Pension Benefit account during the years of my first marriage totaled $325.
My spouse was awarded by your trustees $560 for those marital years.
$235 more than the total amount in the account. Your trustees sited the California Supreme Court case of Lehman v. Lehman as their authority. Lehman v. Lehman, Gray v. Gray, and all the information of the appeal are public knowledge. The trustees are allowed to answer any questions you ask them. I hope you will ask any trustee how this happened.

Another hopeful fact:

The Plan did not dispute the appeal charge that they mislead the judge. The trustee’s delegate (mouth-piece) told the judge that a state CAN qualify a domestic relations order. Truth is: Qualification is only the Plan’s (ERISA) duty. A Federal Judge can also qualify a DRO if the participant finds an error the Plan refuses to correct. (see above calculation) But a state court domestic relations order is subject to only the Plan’s qualification and the qualification of a federal judge if disputed.

In 2005 the Plan was informed there was a problem with my benefit. In 2007 the state court ruled that the Plan’s domestic relations order was incorrect. The Plan claims to have used the SAMPLE QDRO as their quide. They have yet to change the Sample QDRO. Today is October 12, 2011 about four years since the court ruling.

That means every divorced electrician’s benefit, that was calculated by the Plan, is suspect. And the ones after 2007 are beyond any reasonable excuse. It only takes one formula exception to make the whole process invalid.

The Trustees do not have a set meeting date but were scheduled to meet this month.

“A remark generally hurts in proportion to its truth" Will Rogers

Happy Trails