Whether the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 protects the spousal rights of spouses of government retirement system members, including teachers, military personnel, and government employees

No question identified. : Questions Please keep in mind that I am a pro se attorney. I have no law firm to do research and no clerical support. My background is in mathematical proof. : I have discovered a cancer in the USA that is wrecking the lives of Americans that have earned a retirement. It needs to be eradicated. PSRS in Missouri is damaging . the lives of thousands of Missourians. : I am appealing the U.S. district court decision that said that since I was married to : someone that was on a government retirerient system — Missouri Public Schools Retirement System (PSRS) that a spouse’s retirement was not protected. I was . deprived of the retirement that was earned. I supported my wife for 47 years her : entire adult life, paying for her education and helping at her work. The judge ruled that no spouses of members of governmental retirement, systems . are entitled to retirement rights. That would include the spouses of teachers, military personnel, and government employees. This implies that nationally millions of spouses are at risk of losing their retirement. That is a violation of federal law (supreme law) — the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 (House vote 413-0). This is now part of ERISA and is the product of Geraldine Ferraro and President Reagan. The theft of a spouse’s retirement is a gross injustice at a national level. : PSRS has been sued thousands of times over this issue. PSRS (Missouri’s Public Schools Retirement System) tells their retirees that they are allowed to give their retirement to someone other than the spouse. In a worst; case scenario, a homemaker wife could support her husband for 50 years (my wife and I were married 47 years) and find out at the time of his death that he has given the retirement away. When she contacts PSRS, they will refuse to tell her anything . because her retirement was given away to someone else. My wife did not turn ina , required beneficiary form (I was the automatic beneficiary) and PSRS gave my retirement away. PSRS may be profiting from this policy of giving away retirements. They don’t require any waivers to be signed. Neither me nor my wife would sign beneficiary waiver forms and give up beneficiary rights. There is no other way to give up spousal rights to earned retirement. I also argue that this policy is robbing the spouse, destroying families, and probably generating suicides. At the time of my wife’s death, PSRS immediately kept 50% of the retirement she earned and then did not distribute all of the remainder. PSRS probably kept 75% of the retirement. I believe by violating federal law PSRS made over an extra $100,000. One could also argue that the PSRS policy creates a new form of slavery and discrimination in the United States. : 2 The public was told by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 that defined benefit plans, like PSRS, must protect the spouse and that each member of a marriage has contributed to the retirement (REA 1984). Each spouse is a joint owner of the retirement earned during their marriage. The decision by the U.S. District court in K.C. implies that millions of spouses (of . : ~ teachers, military personnel, government employees) are at risk. Thousands of ; spouses will lose their retirements in the future, many families will be destroyed and many suicides will occur. The Supreme Court should find in my favor since PSRS is violating a Federal Law — The Retirement Equity act of 1984 and PSRS should be instructed to change their policy and stop damaging the lives of widows and widowers that are married to their members. All governmental retirement systems should do the same. _ [have spent over 2 years (since March 2018) fighting for my retirement and the rights of thousands of Americans that have encountered a retirement system like PSRS. These people are old, invisible, and scattered across our nation. They spent . their lives trusting a retirement system that failed them and the US courts that failed them. Now they have no retirement at an old