Where a state court can contradict a federal agency's final and conclusive decision on veterans' disability benefits

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Where the federal agency with “exclusive jurisdiction” over “all questions of law and fact” concerning a dependent’s claim for a portion of a veterans disability benefits concludes that the dependents are not entitled to any portion of said benefits, and such decision is, by federal statute, “final and conclusive” as to such claims, and “may not be reviewed by any official or by any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise,” can a state court contradict such a decision, and order a disabled veteran to use these restricted disability benefits for payment of a dependent’s support in state domestic relations proceedings? See 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) (first and second sentence) and 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a)(1). 2. Where Congress has not affirmatively granted the state authority to treat veterans’ benefits received by a permanently and totally disabled service member as income for purposes of state-imposed child support obligations, and, in fact, excludes such benefits from being considered income subject to garnishment by the Child Support Enforcement Act (CSEA), 42 U.S.C. § 659(h)(1)(B)Gii), and further affirmatively protects these benefits from “any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt” by the veteran beneficiary, see 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a)(1), is Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619; 107 S. Ct. 2029; 95 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1987), which ruled that the state could consider such benefits as an available asset for purposes of calculating a disabled veteran’s support obligations in state court divorce proceedings, a legitimate basis for the State of Colorado to usurp ii the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2, and, in direct conflict with positive federal law, order Petitioner, under threat of contempt, to have included these monies as “income” available for purposes of calculating domestic support obligations in a state court divorce proceeding? 3. Because federal law absolutely preempts all state law concerning the disposition of veterans’ disability benefits in state court proceedings (unless Congress provides otherwise), see Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. 214; 1387 S. Ct. 1400, 1401-1406; 197 L. Ed. 2d 781 (2017), and because Congress has given the VA exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether dependents are entitled to these restricted benefits, 38 USC § 511(a), and because the states have no sovereignty or jurisdiction in these premises, Torres v. Texas Dep’t of Public Safety, 142 S. Ct. 2455; 213 L. Ed. 2d 808 (2022), can the state legitimately raise state law doctrines of judicial convenience and equity such as “waiver,” “res judicata,” or “collateral estoppel,” to prevent an aggrieved veteran from reclaiming his rights and entitlements to his disability benefits?