Chris Walters
Plaintiff

Civil Case Number A:99CA0156SS

Kenneth Apfel Commissioner
Social Security Admin
Defendant

NOW COMES the Plaintiff Pro Se Chris Walters on this 11th day of October, 1999 to give Notice of Removal to the United National High Commission on Human Rights as suggested in Attached Exhibits 1 & 2 from Circuit Courts of Appeals:

1. Chris Walters has completed a move out of Texas to Idaho and is unaware of:

a. Any ruling by Judge Sparks on Motion For Summary Judgement or Defendants Motions as of 10-11-1999.

2. Related Case in Washington D.C. has been moved by Order of Judge Roberston to to Northern District of Florida where Chris Walters does not live, where the case materials do not reside, and where no venue can exist.

3. The Court might consider the issues at law mute and resolved as the Circuit Courts have submitted the issues are international in nature is if a jurisdiction exist it belongs to an international tribunal.

Chris Walters
PO Box 291634
Kerrville, TX 78029

I Chris Walters, the Plaintiff in the Above styled cause do affair and state that I have delivered a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Removal :

1. United States Attorney General Janet Reno,US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsyvania Ave, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

2. Commissioner Kenneth Apfel, Social Security Administratio, 6401 Security Bvd, Baltimore, MD 21235

3. Assistant US Attorney Gary Anderson, 601 NW Loop 410, Suite 600, San Antonio, Tx 78216-5597.

Done and Executed By Chris Walters, Dated 10-11-1999

Reciept Fro m Kinko Copies
Kinko's
(208-331-5100)
691 S Capitol Blvd
Boise, ID 83702

Total Costs $3.50
cw 277tr 1009549 rg 4 10/11/99 12:48

Chris Walters
Plaintiff

Civil Case Number A:99CA0156SS

Kenneth Apfel Commissioner
Social Security Admin
Defendant

Now Comes The Plaintiff Chris Walters before the Honorable United States District Court, Western District of Texas in this Action At Law and Complaint to Wit:

Jurisdiction: United States District Court jurisdiction is found under Title 42 USC 1985 and Civil Rights and elective franchise.

Cause of Action: Social Security Commissioner Kenneth Apfel, his agents, and represenatives acting under color of laws of the Social Security Administrations in July, 1998 enaged in a conspiracy to deny Chris Walters the due process of law guaranteed under both the 5th and 14th Amendments in a Social Security Reconsideration in July 1998.

Relief Sought: The Plaintiff Chris Walters Prays for Award of Damages for violation of 5th and 14 Amendment rights from the Defendant Commissioner Kenneth Apfel as explained more fully in the Attached Memorandum of Law.

Respectfully Submitted By
Chris Walters,Plaintiff Pro Se
PO Box 1634
Kerrville, TX 78029
(830-896-8850)

Chris Walters
Plaintiff

Civil Case Number A:99CA0156SS

Kenneth Apfel Commissioner
Social Security Admin
Defendant

United States District Court jurisdiction for civil rights actions is found under Title 42 USC 1985 and 28 USC 1343 Civil Rights and elective franchise. (a) The district court shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:

(1) To recover damages for injury to his personor property, or becuase of deprivation of any right or priviledge of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in Section 1985 of Title 42;

(2) To recover damages from any person who failed to prevent or to aid inpreventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 or Title 42 which he had knowledge where about to occur and power to prevent.

(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, usage, of any right, priviledge, or immunity secured the Consitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for the equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States,

(4) To recover damages or so secure equitable or other relief under any Act of

Congress providing for protection of civil rights including the right to vote. Specific Rights Defined By United States Supreme Court Rulings. The United States Supreme Court has established precedents which defines the right of parties to attend hearings to which they are parties of interest as a matter of due process:

1. Fundamental request of due process is opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in meaningful manner. Matthews v. Eldridge VA 1976 96 S.Ct 893, 424 US 319. 47 L.Ed.2d.18

2. The absolute fundamentals of due process of law; are jurisdiction,adequate notice, and a fair hearing US v Certain Parcels of Land in Price George County Md. D.C. Md 1941, 40 F Supp 436

3. Fair Play is the essence of due process Galveston vs.Press Ca1954,74S Ct 737,347 U.S. 522.98 Led.911.

Chris Walters
Plaintiff

Civil Case Number A:99CA0156SS

Kenneth Apfel Commissioner
Social Security Admin
Defendant

1. Exhibit A: July 27th, 1998 letter from Social Security Administration office in Kerrville, Texas that Chris Walters SSI resonciedation is being moved to Stockton, CA where Chris Walters does not reside.

2. Exhibit B: August 21, 1998 ruling from State of California Department of Social Services Disability and Adult Program Division states ' Your case was transferred to the Texas Social Security Office then you moved back to California"

3. Exhibit B : Makes no reference to the 30 odd doctors statements recieved by the Social Security Administratin: "Since no additional evidence was submitted the reports listed on our previous notcie were used to decide your claim".

4. Exhibit C are some of the medical 30 odd doctors reports recieved by the Social Security Administration.

5. Chris Walters right to due process of law to attend the "reconsideration" and participate in the process of administrative law was violated by Defendant Keennth Apfel, his agents, and represenatives operating under color of the Social Securty Act by moving the case so far away as Texas Represenative Mike Ballard explained that Chris Walters could not possibly attend.

6. Officials were so prejudicial in their determination to deny Chris Walters due process, a fair hearing, and equity that they disposed of or threw away medical records already recieved by the Social Security Administration.

7. Commissioner Kenneth Apfel is the party responsible to see that the Social Security Administration operates within the framework of the law set by Congress and governed by the United States Courts.

The United States freely admits it embezzled "trillions of dollars" from the Social Security Fund and in fact most recently wanted to "borrow" a billion or so to send to Nicaragua. The Defendant by and through his agents and represenatives has found new and innovative methods to deny American citizens their civil rights and benefits as demonstrated by the exhibits at hand. Mike Ballard Texas State employee handling the claim in question called Chris Walters in July, 1998 to explain he was moving the case to another state to make sure it was so far away Chris Walters could not attending hearings. The employee went on to explain that when Chris Walters failed to appear at the hearing which was apparently held 2,000 miles away in California the next day officials would give the case the worst possible rating for reconsideration. Chris Walters a person who is medically indigent had to walk 2,000 miles to California which Social Security Officials demanded and refused to provide transportation to the hearing or back.

In denying Chri s Walters the right to due process, a fair and equitable hearing, Kenneth Apfel, his agents, and represenatives were not satisified simply to hold hearings in a state where Chris Walters did not reside but went on to dispose or or throw away all the 30 doctors reports and records of medical treatment which occured between May, 1997 and August, 1998.

The Court might ask exactly how far is the Social Security Administration and State of Texas willing to go to obstruct due process of law? The United States District Court, WDT at San Antonio ruled in Irma Villareal v Mosbacher 89-cv1214 that medically indigent persons cannot be compelled to provide third party statements to receive food stamps. The court found such pratices unconstitutional and in violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment in this action brought in Title 42 USC 1983 and placed Texas Food Stamps program under it's direct control for 10 years. Subsequently Texas State took the Court Order off the walls of various food stamp offices and reinstituted the pratice which requires indigent persons to produce medical proof of disability where neither the applicant nor the State can afford to pay for such medical determinations. Texas State denied Chris Walters food stamps (prescribed course of medical treatment to controlled diet for GI problems) as the food stamp worker in Big Spring, Texas explained in September, 1998. The worker found that 30 doctors statements, several disability statements,... were inadequate proof as required by the State's use of collateral statements which has already been found unconstitutional.

The Social Securty Administration states persons applying for Social Security have a "right" to apply for and receive food stamps pending final determination of their case. The Court may be a little fuzzy on the general concept of disrespect for judicial process which was illuminated by Texas Assistant Attorney General Morgan in related cause before USDC, WDB: Walters v. Miller, Crownover SA-CV-1313-97. To paraphrase: Texas explained it is soverign, and immune and can violate the laws of the law whenever it wishes.

Chris Walters
Plaintiff

Civil Case Number A:99CA0156SS

Kenneth Apfel Commissioner
Social Security Admin
Defendant

The Plaintiff Chris Walters Prays for Award of Damages for violation of 5th and 14 Amendment rights from the Defendant Commissioner Kenneth Apfel as the Court might deem meritorious:

1. Damages for violating Chris Walters rights to due process by moving the case to California where he did not reside as part of a conspiracy to deny access to hearings process.

2. Damages for violating Chris Walters rights to due process by holding proceedings in a state where Chris Walters did not reside and thereby denying Chris Walters right to attending the proceedings in question.

3. Damages for violating Chris Walters rights to due process by throwing away or losing medical records to enable California to make a fair and equitable disability determination.

4. Damages for violating Chris Walters rights to due process of law by use of "third party collateral statements" to deny Chris Walters food stamps.

5. Damages for sending the fraud back to Chris Walters in the form of an official letter of denial from the State of California.

Respectfully Submitted By
Chris Walters
PO Box 1634
Kerrville, TX 78029-1634
(830-896-3030)

Chris Walters
Plaintiff

Civil Case Number A:99CA0156SS

Kenneth Apfel Commissioner
Social Security Admin
Defendant

Now Comes the Plaintiff Pro Se Chris Walters before the United States District Court, with these

1. Exhibit A: Letter from Social Security Administration at Kerrville, TX dated July, 1998 that the claim is being moved to Stockton, CA.

2. Exhibit B: Disability determination by California State.

3. Exhibit C: Some of the medical records which were thrown away or discharged by Social Security Administration.

Prepared By Chris Walters
Plaintiff Pro Se
Po Box 1634
Kerrville,TX 78029-1634
(830-896-8850)

United States Attorney General Janet Reno
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Return Reciept Article # Z325 685 478
Received March 23th, 1999

Commissioner Kenneth Apfel
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Blvd
Baltimore, MD 21235
Return Receipt Article #Z 325 685 477
Received March 22th, 1999

United States Attorney
Ms. Vernell Everett Civil Clerk
601 NW Loop 410 Suite 600
San Antonio, TX 78216-5597
Return Receipt Article #Z325 685 479
Received March 19, 1999

1. Mrs. Paula Allen
Address: U.S. District Clerk's Office
200 West 8th St., Room 130
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: (512) 916-5896

Chris Walters
Plaintiff

Civil Case Number A:99CA0156SS

Kenneth Apfel Commissioner
Social Security Admin
Defendant

NOW COMES The Plaintiff Pro Se Chris Walters to enter this Motion for Summary Judgement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (a) For Claimant to Wit:

1. Defendant has appeared by counsel and sought and was granted reasonable extension of time and pending creation of a "transcript".

2. Social Security Administration has destroyied part or all of the record during"reconsideration" of July 28,1999 and states no medical records exist.

3. A question exist as to wheather the "transcript" is itself a fraud, hoax, or sham and the Plaintiff questions Summary Judgement or other special relief from the Court.

As explained more fully in the Attached Proposed Order and Finding for the Presiding Judge Sam Sparks

Respectfully Submitted By
Chris Walters,
Plaintiff Pro Se
PO Box 1634
Kerrville, TX 78029-1634

I Chris Walters, the Plaintiff in the Above styled cause do affair and state that I have delivered a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Strike and Objection to Magistrate Recommendation and Exhibits to the parties:

1. United States Attorney General Janet Reno, US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsyvania Ave, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

2. Commissioner Kenneth Apfel, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Blvd, Baltimore, MD 21235

3. Assistant US Attorney Gary Anderson, 601 NW Loop 410, Suite 600, San Antonio, Tx 78216-5597.

Done and Executed By Chris Walters, Dated 7-9-1999

Certified Mail:Z405 023 100 July 9th,1999

Chris Walters
Plaintiff

Civil Case Number A:99CA0156SS

Kenneth Apfel Commissioner
Social Security Admin
Defendant

THE COURT ORDERS, FINDES, AND RULES on Plaintiff Chris Walters Motion For Summary Judgement based on question of hoaxes, frauds, and shams and their impact on the "transcript" which is scheduled to be delivered by the Defendant on or before July 18, 1999. To avoid Award of Summary Judgement to Plaintiff at this time, to avoid placing the Social Security Administration into control of a special master, or having to declare the Act unconstitutional the Court Order this Petition for Writ of Mandamus in keeping with US Supreme Court rulings cited in Plaintiff's Complaint and a reasonable extension of time if for Defendant to comply with the Order to Wit that the "transcript" will include from following enclosed Exhibits:

1. 1993 finding of Las Vegas Plasma Center and American Red Cross of Dothan, Al that Chris Walters has been placed on national list of person known to carry Hepatitis C.

2. The precedent set in USDC Walters v. McColl USDC, NDF Presiding Judge William Stafford (97) expressed no problem with Chris Walters being required to "slap a police officer upside of the head to get something to eat" and being sent to work at a restaurant as a carrier of Hepatitis (Exhibit A).

3. A Dr. Williams of Tallahassee, Florida found a "melanoma" on Chris Walters and Ordered surgery in 1997.

4. Because of costs, lack of shelter, and delays surgery was subsequently proposed but not preformed by Dr. Harris of Cooper Green Hospital, Nursey McCarty of Merician, MS, Dr Foster of Longview, TX.

5. Surgery for Melanoma was preformed by Dr. Steph who subsequently removed a tumor Chris Walters groin which Chris Walters claimed made it impossible to bend over. Dr. Steph preformed this work in Tyler, Texas 5-23-1997.

6. A referral to Dr. Mark Fleisher of Tyler, Texas was made for "colonoscopy" and evaluation and treatment for longstanding colon problems and placed Chris Walters on medication Librax or Clindex which Chris Walters claims has debilitating side effects.

7. Dr. Hilda Thompson of Tyler,Texas made referral for treatment of melanomas on 8-29-97.

8. The Social Security Administration held a hearing in Tallahassee, Florida while Chris Walters was on "leave of medical absence" and after Attorney Clark of Birmingham had requested the case be transfered to his office.

9. The question of a civil rights violation of the venue of USDC, DC 99-cv-0668 Judge Robertson presiding.

10. University Health System of San Antonio, TX found on 9-26-1997 that Chris Walters was physically disabled and needed treatment for "Malignant Melanoma" and GI evaluation pending".

11. Dr. Gay Evans of El Rio Clinic reported to Arizona State Department of Economic Security on 12-8-1997 that Chris Walters was disabled and required evaluation by GI specialist and "colonoscopy"

12. Referrals for GI exam and colonoscopy were also made 4-7-98 by Cowlitz Family Health Center; Dr. Singer in Roseburg, Orgon; and by medical authorities in Olympia, WA.

13. Referral by Dr. Radilis for GI evaluation; and Travis County canceled exam and evaluation by Dr. Fred Bieberdorf 6-1998.

14. Referral for GI evaluation, coloscopy on 10-12-1998 by Helping Hands Clinic of Gainesville, Florida and Shands Hospital with housing being denied by Major Kent of Salvation Army.

15. Additional records should also reflect treatment at Ocala, Lakeland, and Vero Beach, Florida by competent medical authorities.

16. The Court also notes the medical record from DCH Hospital in Tucsaloosa, Al 7-5-97 with attending Dr. Ordering Chris Walters to stay out of the sun.

17. The transcript will also contain records from Florida State on 10-14-97 and 10-26- 1997 that Chris Walters was not employable and declined to make referral to employier.

18. The transcript will also contain record that Starmark and Blue Cross and Blue Shield Insurance have declined to sell Mr. Walters health coverage in 1999 as an apparent risk.

19. The transcript will also contain Mr. Walters pleadings to Administrative Law Judge and family medical records submitted in 1999.

20. The transcript will also cite Walters v. Miller, Crownver USDC,WDT SA-CV-1313(97) an Amicus Curiea which sought to provide missing records and other information to the SSA Inspector General. The Honorable Fred Biery dismissed the cause at request of US and Texas which appeared and pleaded that the parties are "Soverign and Immune" apparently involking the divine right of Kings and stating they could violate the law whenever they wished.

21. The transcript will show that SSI Officials in Kerrville, TX acting under color of the ruling acted on July 27,1998 to move his claim to Stockton, CA where he did not reside.

22. The transcript will show that SSI officials required Chris Walters to appear on July 28, 1998 in Stockton, CA at a hearing where all medical records were missing, lost, destoyied, ....

23. The transcript will show that in Janurary, 1999 Chris Walters opened a small business on internet which is licensed in Texas, has made some minor amount of money, and may or may not demonstrate arguments for employability.

24. The transcript will show that on or about June 21, 1999 Chris Walters objected to an apparent suggestion of Administrative Law Judge McCoy that his claim be moved to Oregon simply because he was temporarily in Oregon.

In a civil action where a question exist of an extensive and ongoing "conspiracy" involving the Defendant, his agents, employees, and represenatives; legal counsel has requested an extension of time to present a "transcript". Under Supreme Court rulings which require fairness and equity particularily in "official hearings" it is essential that the "transcript" and other process are as complete and accurate as possible and not lend the Court itself to victimization of previous tampering with the record. It is therefore Ordered that the "transcript" shall include the enclosures cited by the Court and either party may appeal or petition for amending the "transcript" and an extension of time is Granted to Defendant upon Motion by Plaintiff too appear, plead, and present the transcript until August 18th, 1999

DONE AND SO ORDERED BY_____________________Judge Sam Sparks this

______day of ________, 1999.

Chris Walters
Plaintiff

Civil Case Number A:99CA0156SS

Kenneth Apfel Commissioner
Social Security Admin
Defendant

Comes now Kenneth S Apfel, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, the Defendant in the above-entitled and numbered cause, acting by and through the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas, and hereby moves the court to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint on the grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action and becuase the Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

As hereiafter explained, Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his claim for benefits and therefore, there has been no "final decision" of the Commissioner as contemplated by Section 1631 (c)(3) of Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1381(3) which incorporated Section 205 (g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 405 (g). Thus, this Court is without jurisdiction over the subject matter of this claim.

The declaration of the office of hearings and Appeals, Social Security Administration, attached hereto, sets forth the procedural history in this matter.

On September 14, 1998, The Plaintiff filed a request for review before the Appeals Council. On March 16, 1999, Plaintiff filed the instant civil action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

A hearing was sehceuled for Tuesday, June 22, 1999 at 11:00 AM in Room 100, 4204 Woodcock, San Antonio,Texas. Plaintiff was sent notification of the hearing date at this address, 40 West Sunset Drive, Kerrville, Texas 78029-1634, on May 20, 1999 Exhibit 1 of Declaration). In a letter dated June 21, 1999, Plaintiff advised Administrative Law Judge McCoy that he would be absend and requested a hearing "on the record and exhibits".

Judicial review of cases arising under title XVI of the Social Security Act is provided in, and expressly limited by, Sections 205(g) and(h) of the Act, 42 U.s.C. 405(g) and (h). The remedy provided there is exclusive. It is well settled that the United States is immune from suit execpt as it specificially consents to besued and that the terms of such consent define the jurisdictionof any court in which such suit properly can be brought. United States v. Sherwood 312 U.S. 584 (1941). Where a right is a creature of statute, herein the right to sue, and the statute provides a special remedy, as Section 205(g), infra provides, that remedy is exclusive. United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328 (1919) Secton 205(g) reads in pertinent part that follows:

Any individual, after any final decison of of the Commissioner made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in convtroversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner may allow...As part of his answer the Commissioner shall file a certified copy of the transcript of the record including the evidence upon which the findings and decision and complained of are based. The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcripts of the record, a judgement affirming, modifying or reversing the decision of the Commissioner with or without remanding the case for a rehearing. The finding of the Commissioner as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence shall be conclusive... Section 205(H). reads in pertinent part as follows:

...No findings of fact or decision by the Commissioner shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or government agency except as herein provided. No action against the United States, the Commissioner or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under Section of 1331 or 1346 of Title 28,United States Code, to recover on any claim arising under this subchaper.

It is therefore, apparent that the only judicial remedy available to an individual on a claim arising under title XVI of the Act is by a civil action brought against the Commissioer of the Social Security Administration under Sectin 205(g). supra, and that such an action can be brought only in a case in which (1) the individual was a part to a hearing before the Commissioner, i.e. (2) the Commissioner has made a "final decision" on that claim, and (3) the individual timely commenced a civil action in the proper district court.

Social Security Administration Regulation NO.16 sets forth the adminstrative procedures by which a claimant for benefits under the Act may obtain a "final decision" of the Commissioner. Following the initial determination on his claim, a dissatisified claimant may obtain reconsideration thereof. 20 CFR 416.1409. After reconsideration he may request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, and in certain specific instances and upon timely request therefor, has an absolute right to such hearing. 20 C.F.R. 416.1433, 416.1436.416.1455.

Under certain circumstances, the Administrative Law Judge may dismiss a request for such a haring. 20 C.F.R. 416.1456, 416,1459. Such dismissal is final and finding, 20 C.F.R. unless vacated by Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration, either on it's own motion within 60 days after the Administrative Law Judge's Order of dismissal or upon request by the Plaintiff of the Appeals Council made within 60 days of the dismissal order. ...

NOTE

This is where plaintiff's laptop computer died. Completion of Defendant's pleading is pending.

Chris Walters
Plaintiff

Civil Case Number A:99CA0156SS

Kenneth Apfel Commissioner
Social Security Admin
Defendant

TO: THE HONORABLE SAM SPARKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Magistrate Court submits this Report and Recommedation to the United States District court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Rule 1(e) of Appendix C of the Local court Rules of the United States District court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules For the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judges, effective Janurary 1, 1994 as subsequently amended.

Before this Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (clerk Doc. No 9). This Court recommeds the following:

This is a suit for judicial review of the Defendant Commissioner's administrative determination of non-disability pursuant to 42 U.S.C 405 (g). Plaintiff filed this action on March 16, 1999. The Administratvie hearing was schedles for June 22nd, 1999, months after he filed the lawsuit. Furthermore, in a letter dated June 21, 1999, the Plaintiff notified the Administrative Law Judge McCoy that he was to be absent but requested that the hearing proceed "on the record and evidence".

Judicial Review of cases arising under title XVI of the Social Security Act is provided in, and expressly limited, Sections 205(g) and (h) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(g)(g). Section 205(g) reads:

Any individual after any final decison of the Commissioner made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by any civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such furtehr time as the commissioner may allow (Emphasis Added).

Under the applicable regulations and pratice, there is a "final decison" of the Commissioner if the Appeals Council grants a request for review of the Administrative Law Judge's decision made after a hearing and renders a decision thereon, or if the Appeals Council denies a timely request for review of any Administrative Law Judge's decision made after a hearing therby constituting the Administrative Law Judge's decision the "final decison" of of the Commissioner. Only after a request is made of the Appeals Council to review the decision of the Administrative Law Judge made after a hearing and such request has been acted upon by the Appeals Council as set forth above can there be a "final decision" of the Commissioner subject to judicial review within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 205, 42 U.S.C. 405 (g) incorporated under Section XVI at 1631(c)(3), 42 USC 1383(c)(3), 20 CFt 416 ..

Plaintiff request for judicial review in this case is premature. Plaintiff failed to pursue and exhaust his administrative remedies as provided by the Act. At the time this case was filed, there has been no hearing before Administrative Law Judge and no final decision of the Commissioner. Thus there is no decision subject to judicial review pursuant to Section 205(g) of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) Harper v. Bowden, 813 F.@. 737, 739 (5th cir. 1987). A court should not review the Commissioner's decison unless the claimant has exhausted his administrative remedies. McQueen v. Apfel, 168 F. 3d 152, 155(5th Cir 1999)see also Paul v. Shalala 29 F. 3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 1994) Since failure to exhaust administrative remedies is jurisdictional, The Court is without jurisdiction to review this case. Only claims for benefits which are pursued through the initial, reconsideration, hearing, and appeal Council levels in a timely fashion and have received a final decision of the Commssioner are subject to judicial review as described by Sectin 205(g) of the Act. Harper.813 F.2d at 739 (5th Cir.1987)

Chris Walters
Plaintiff

Civil Case Number A:99CA0156SS

Kenneth Apfel Commissioner
Social Security Admin
Defendant

The Magistrate Court finds that Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies as set for by the Act in that there has been no final decision by the Commission. Therefore, this Court recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Granted and Plaintiff's cause of action be Dismissed Without Prejudice.

The parties may file written objections of recommendation made in this report, and said objections must be made within (10) days from the date of the reciept of this recommendation. A party filing objectios must specificially identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. The district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objection. See Battle v. US ParoleCommission, 834 F.@nd 419 (5th Cir 1987) Nettles v. Wainwright 677 f2.d 404, 410 (5th Cir 1982)

Failure to file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in this report within the ten day period shall bar an aggrieved party from receiving a de novo, review by the district court of the findings and recommendations in this report, see 28 U.S.C. 636....However a failure to object does not limit the appellate court review of legal conclusions made in this report. Douglas, 65 F.3dat 457; ...The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of the instant recommendations to all parties by certified mail return reciept requested.

Signed this 15th day of July, 1999

Alan Albright United States Magistrate Judge

Chris Walters
Plaintiff

Civil Case Number A:99CA0156SS

Kenneth Apfel Commissioner
Social Security Admin
Defendant

Now Comes the Plaintiff Pro Se Chris Walters on this 22nd day of July 1999 to enter this Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion, Reconsideration and Motion for Summary Judgement:

1. The Plaintiff has traveled 1500 miles on an emergency basis under great inconvience to secure copies of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss... and Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge of July 15, 1999.

2. The Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court to allow the entry of this Amended Motion to Strike, Reconsideration, and Motion for Summary Judgement.

As explained more fully in the attached Memorandum of Law In Support of Complaint

Respectfully Submitted By
Chris Walters
PO Box 1634
Kerrville, TX 78029-1634

Chris Walters
Plaintiff

Civil Case Number A:99CA0156SS

Kenneth Apfel Commissioner
Social Security Admin
Defendant

Now Comes the Plaintiff Pro Se Chris Walters on this 22nd day of July, 199 to enter this Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion, Reconsideration, and Motion for Summary Judgement:

1. The Plaintiff has traveled 1,500 miles on an emergency basis under great inconvinece to secure copies of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss..and Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge of July 15, 1999.

2. The Plaintiff has copies Defendant's Motion to Plainitff's Complaint... filed July 12, 1999 and Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge of July 15, 1999 and voluntarily waives services of process of both documents by the Defendants and the Court.

3. The Plaintiff's Complaint enclosed Exhibit A filed march 16, 1999 seeks relief pursuant to Title 42 USC 1985 and Title 28 USC 1343 Civil rights and elective franchise relief for violation of his civil rights and due process as permitted by US Supreme Court precedents Matthews v.Eldridge VA 1976 96 S Ct. 893, 424 US 319, 47 L.Ed 2d18.

4. The Plaintiff is unaware of any civil action mentioned by the Defendant Kenneth Apfel or Magistrate filed pursuant to Title 42 USc 405(g) and moves the Court to set aside such pleadings as irrevalent to the Complaint until or if such time as the Plaintiff files such an action.

5. The US Supreme court rules in William Jefferson Clinton v. Paula Jones and numerous other rulings that officers of the United States are not immune to suit and Plaintiff does not require the permission of the Defendant to seek relief from violations of his civil rights.

6. The pleadings and actions of the Defendant are so far outside of the bounds set by United States Supreme Court as requiring fairness and equity in official proceedings that the Plaintiff moves for Summary Judgement and seeks an Order of Finding that 42 USC 1383 is unconstitutional or to certify the question to the US Supremd Court.

Chris Walters
Plaintiff

Civil Case Number A:99CA0156SS

Kenneth Apfel Commissioner
Social Security Admin
Defendant

The Defendant by and through his agents and represenatives have engages in an extensive ongoing conspiracy to challenge Chris Walters right to appear at 2 hearings in states where he did not reside, threw wawy or destroyied 30 so odd medical reports, destroyied disability statements from Florida State. Exhibit B is a Request for Hearings by Administrative Law Judge filed 9/14/1998 in Stockton, Ca in which Chris Walters exercised his legal right by checking the block:

"I do not wish to appear and I request that a decision be made based on evidence in my case"
The Defendant's pleading include a "Notice of Hearings" from Karen Mccoy which states"

If you do not appear at the scheduled hearing and I find that you do not have
good cause for not appears, I may dismiss you request for hearings without further notice"
That the Defendant would attempt to violate Chris Walters civil rights in court making the Court a willing partner and particiapte is consistant with the Defendant's previous statement that it is "soverign and immune" and has carte blanch to violate the law whenever he wishes.

Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Court entered a finding and Order that the Social Security Act is unconstitutional and in violation of Supreme Court rulings on due process, equity, and fairness. Alternately Chris Walters has asked the UN High Commission on Human Rights to consider placing the Social Security Administration into the control of a "special master".

Respectfully Submitted By Chris Walters
PO Box 1634
Kerrville, TX 78029

History of Electronic Warfare attacks apparently by the United States against domestic and foreign interest led to creation of USA Freedom Act of 2015

Chris Walters

vs 2:13-cv-00001-TOR

Hon. Michael Horowitz
US Department of Justice
Inspector General

Exhibit Page Question of Constitutionality of US Patriot Act based on serial stalking; computer hacking...creation of fictious convictions...

Strange I thought medical professionals were supposed to be healers who resolved medical problems instead of dragging them out for years and years to increase profits 10 Doctors 5 years to do minor surgery for cancer in office. 45 Doctors took 15 years to do colon exam. 160 Doctors treated chronic blood clots and 4-5 hospitalizations a year at $400,000 until 1 doctor prescribed Xarelto-a pill a day..131 Doctors Treat Chronic Infection 1 doctor solves problem with hospital visit. Primary Care Physicians prescribe assisted living as needed for hip replacement...., how many years will pass before this occurs

You are looking at part of Exhibit C a United States source document submitted as Evidence and Testimony to the several committees of the United States Congress since 1986. The survey data is occassionally used for creation of federal statutes; considering possible improvements in operation of federal programs; and study of operational field impediments. Because of the Separation of Powers found in US Constitution and various Rules of Congress it not possible to serve summons, subponeas; or other court process on Capitol Hill and persons attempting to can be detained and arrested by Capitol Police or otherwise sanctioned. Obviously the only legal reviews which can occur would require permission of the Chairman of a Congressional Committee reviewing the matters at public hearings

Beginning in 1997 the Social Security Administration issued an Executive ORDER or Fia before a USDC, WDT link restricting legal discussions to places and times authorized by statute and have successfully defended their statutory rights from a over 500 challenges A small host of poor bastards who appear to have challenged the Sovereign rights of the Social Security Administration or Congress appear to have been thrown down the political 5 ton wood chipper and the confirmed kill list appears to include at least 1 or 2 federal judges; maybe a couple of cabinet level officers; a bunch of US Attorneys and a many more lesser persons. Whispered in the background are the strange, sacred, and holy legal incantations muttered by federal officials including Title 18 USC 402 Contempt; Title 18 USC 1509 Obstruction Court Order; tampering with federal agency, Contempt of Congress...

1. Title 18 USC 402 Contempt might include practicing, vending, or dispensing federal law without license or actual contempt of Court

2. Title 18 USC 1509 Obstruction of Court ORDER; Whoever, by threats or force, willfully prevents, obstructs, impedes, or interferes with, or willfully attempts to prevent, obstruct, impede, or interfere with, the due exercise of rights or the performance of duties under any order, judgment, or decree of a court of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. No injunctive or other civil relief against the conduct made criminal by this section shall be denied on the ground that such conduct is a crime

3. Title 18 USC 913 Impersonator Making Arrest Whoever falsely represents himself to be an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, and in such assumed character arrests or detains any person or in any manner searches the person, buildings, or other property of any person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

4. Title 18 USC 371 Conspiracy to Committ an Offense To defraud the United States If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

5. Title 18 USC 1701 Obstruction of Mail Generally Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

7. Title 18 USC 1512 Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to— (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; (2) cause or induce any person to— (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; (C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or (D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

7. Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

1 The Political Patronage Systems controls the government and prevents normal protections to entire classes of citizens aiding acts of genocide, criminal activities; terrorist activities... A large number of 3rd party casualties appear to have gone to meet Jesus or lesser sections while trying to explain to those who run they country they merited no respect. Title 18 USC 1505 Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees concerns acts such as Contempt of Congress while Chapter 115-Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities

2. Home of Federal Grand Jury 2002-2006 San Antonio city, local and federal persons form a permanent line of convictions to federal grand jury and prison while working hard to block my medical work

3. This link concerns Congressional Investigations of Haliburgon where it was discovered the company former owned by VP Dick Cheney was over charging the US DOD for billions of dollars.

4. Human Rights Violations 1997 Social Security claims "Divine Right Of Kings" to violate human and civil rights of it's own citizens

5. Fictious conviction 1993-1996 attempt to create and maintain a conviction without trial; judge; jury or any record of court proceedings

6. Local Church 1999 steals $10,000 from me and my interestate business.The San Antonio Metropolitan Ministries and others joined forces to destroy Chris Walters business 1999 which was licensed here in San Antonio in 2001 False Credit History 1999 defeated in 198th Judicial District Court of Texas

7. You Buy Your Dope In Church? 2009 San Antonio has extensive history of using social service agencies to traffick drugs.

8. Attempt to Block Medical Treatment 2009 San Antonio Rescue Mission tells Baptist Hospital I can recover at their shelter and then denies me services for life

9. Dain Kunzler 2011 self professed terrorist explaines in great deal he has been threatening various persons, groups and organizations I receive services from in front a a US District court no less

10. Tyler Texas Blocks Medical Treatment 2012 under new Governor Rick Perry new Rules to prevent seniors from receiving Medicaid

11. Texas Attempts Overturn Rulings 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals has attempted to Quash 4 US Circuit Court of Appeals & USSC.

12. Pastor John Hagee SA possible attempt to acquired nuclear weapons access in Montana.