Social Security Appeals Council
Office of Hearings and Appeals
5107 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3255
Request For Clarification Your
Recent Letter-Operational Impediment #4
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:31:11 -0800 (PST)
From: "Chris Walters"
chrissaidthanks2002@yahoo.com
Subject: Request Clarification your clients
request-Social Security
Addressed Too The Honorable:
Johnny K Sutton USA
601 NW Loop 410, Suite 600
San Antonio, TX 78216
glenn.mactaggart@usdoj.gov
john.paniszczyn@usdoj.gov
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
My friend Alan Hartman email me he received and opened a letter addressed too me
from San Antonio Office of Hearings and Appeals. The attached Appeals Council ORDER
12-14-2005 explains Social Security impeached their Washington State representatives & 3
consultative exams and Washington DSHS realizing it cannot get compensated by Social Security
canceled my welfare; medical coupon; and canceled all the doctors appointments.
I typed up and mailed this very nice letter to Office of Hearings & Appeals and asked them to clarify
whatever it is exactly they wanted since I voluntarily withdrew my appeal in writing 1-20-2006:
Kindest Regards
Chris Walters
Appellate Counsel
US Circuit Court of Appeals
Question Right To Attend Hearings
Title 18 USC 242 Deprivation of rights under
color of law Citation #2 2006
Chris Walters was not invited to or permitted to attend the Administrative Law Hearing before Judge Karen McCoy. 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.
4. 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.
Report to 107th Congress
Exhibit #269 The National Survey On
Social Services & Social Security
Author Chris Walters
chrissaidthanks2002@yahoo.com
PO Box 1209
Vancouver, WA 98666
Thursday, December 8,2005
US Senator Gordon Smith
Chairman Special Committee on Aging
One World Trade Center
121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1250
Portland, OR 97204
503.326.3386
Fax: 503.326.2900
RE: National Survey on Social Security
Question of Substantial Program Savings
Dear Senator Gordon Smith:
The enclosed CD-Rom contains an extensive survey and operational audit of the Social
Security disability process between 1997-2005. In reviewing a possible $500,000 loss in the Social
Security process we asked if substantial savings to the program might be realized by dealing with:
1. If you explained to a private insurer such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield that
you are disabled and needed financial support based on your inability to work their
represenative would rush you to a doctor and try to fix what was broke.
2. The national survey on Social Security suggest the process squanders vast sums of public monies
trying to deny the problem exist; while fostering institutional 3rd party tampering; and other
problems which defy common sense and increase the cost of dealing with treatable medical disabilities.
3. Exhibit A Brief to Appeals Council: The Social Security Administration has appeared in several civil actions Walters v. Miller, Crownover SA-97-1313
; Walters V Apel USDC, WDT Civil A:99CA0156SS; and Walters V Apel USDC DC CA 99-CV-0668; and Bradshaw V Odom, and Walters
in North Carolina Superior Court #04CVS2674 claiming the right to amend Title 42 Sec 423 (d)(5)(b)Disability Determinations
with the approval of Congress
4. Exhibit A Brief to Appeals Council: The Social Security Administration claims the right to throw away or discard claimants medical records and
a right to compel claimants to move to venues where they do not reside.
5. Exhibit C: Chris Walters 155 doctors which Social Security declines to be submitted into
record or evidenc.
Satan Made Me Do It?
Briefs By Social Security Administration
1. Exhibit B: Brief filed On Behalf of Social Security: The Social Security Adminstration appears in various civil
actions and claim that US Supreme Court Justice Scalia has authorized any type of criminal activities the Social
Security Administration wishes to facilitate.
2. Some of the demands appear to violate United Nations standards for Crimes Against Humanity
3. We asked if Social Security officials are taking Justice Scalia's opinions out of contest or to places
the US Supreme Court never authorized
The questions of law were removed from various US Circuits to the 107th US
Congress and UNHCHR. As Ad Hoc counsel to a Foreign government I am not permitted
to receive or answer questions related to US Statutes:
1. Exhibit C: CD-Rom file 107thcongress/USDA/index.html Texas State has made a very
clever attempt to modify the food stamp program which I am not authorized to receive and
was able to divert back to the Chairman of House Agriculture Committee
2. Administrative Law Judge William Herbert of Social Security Appeals Office in San Antonio, TX is
currently misdirecting the US Mail to prevent the Appeals Council from providing me a copy of their findings
like he did with his own Order
3. Administrative Law Judge William Herbert's question is best asked to my SSI Attorney
Tom Moseley
If I can be of any additional service or provide any additional information please have your
staff contact me or my Social Security Attorney.
Attorney Tom Moseley
112 Villita On The Riverwalk
San Antonio, TX 78205
Press On Image To Enlarge
US Congressman Lamar Smith
Guaranty Bank Building
1100 NE Loop 410
Suite 640
San Antonio, TX 78209
Reciept For National Survey
Social Security Process AlJ Ruling April, 2006
This link reviews the questions
removed to Congessional Committees and the actions of the Appeals Council based on
failure of Administrative Law Judge Herbert to complete the SSI record on April 30, 2006.
|
Office of Hearings & Appeals
Trinity Building, Suite 100
4204 Woodcock Drive
San Antonio,TX 78228-1323
Lack of Prima Facie Evidence
Of Social Security Process
As I explained to my attorney there is not evidence of an actual Social Security process.
In 2 years the Social Security Administration has simply sent me a few small letters
explaining I exist and I have a social security claim. There is no apparent evidence
that Social Security actually processed or evaluated the clain as is
described by Social Security Administrations own rules the Hallex
Appeals Council ORDER
Basis For Appeal To Commissioner
1. Copies of my medical records & consultatative exams where send by US Senator
Gordon F. Smith's office to the Appeals Council 12-8-2005
2. The ORDER of the Appeals Council contains the materials lie that I have declined to
take a "consultative exam".
3. These folks are real gluttons for punishment and have
just jumped from frying pan into the fire.... The request for "consultative exams"
and medical evidence violates the several Federal Court rulings that Social Security
has won to process a social security claim without medical records.
4. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will not reconsider the matter. The deliver of the document was delayed
and I had to travel 2,000 miles on Greyhound to actually see this document.
5. I met with the Social Security staff in Olympia, WA in November, 2005 who declined to accept new
medical evidence
6. The 3 consultative exams completed by Washington State and other records were mailed to the San Antonio
Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Citation of Authority Question Violation
Title 18 USC 1509 Obstruction of Court Order
Citation #3 2006
1. The Social Security Administration has secured several ORDERS that it will process an SSI claim without documentation;
medical records...and in requesting documentation is in contempt of it'S own ORDER
2. Title 18 Sec 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
Congress Addresses 5th Circuit Court
-Question on Social Security
Many thanks for your Judicial staff having dropped by over the last 9 years and filing legal briefs in Walters V Apfel A 99CA0156SS USDC, WDT....et all explaining
you had amended Title 42 Sec 423 (d)(5)(b)Disability Determinations as cited below:
"In making any determination with respect to whether an individual is under a disability or continues to be
under a disability, the Commissioner of Social Security shall consider all evidence available in such individuals
case record, and shall develop a complete medical history of at least the preceding twelve months for any case in
which a determination is made that the individual is not under a disability. In making any determination the
Commissioner of Social Security shall make every reasonable effort to obtain from the individuals treating
physician (or other treating health care provider) all medical evidence, including diagnostic tests, necessary
in order to properly make such determination, prior to evaluating medical evidence obtained from any other source
on a consultative basis.
The proposed changes would permit the Commissioner of Social Security too throw away claimants medical records; hold
hearings thousand of miles from where applicants reside; and change course of medical treatment
to treatments where the agency receives financial incentives. The House and Senate have reviewed
your request through the 107th; 108th; and the 109th Congress and President Bush even supported
reform last year. During the Congressional Committee process for instance Congressman Bob Goodlatte
on October 16th, 2001 and Congressman Lamar Smith 1-18-2005 of the House Judiciary Committee
in charge of the courts agreed to review the matters.
Unfortunately, as you have probally heard the Congress has declined to accept your proposal to amend the statute requested by Social
Security in the 5th US Circuit or US District Court, Western District of Texas. US Senator Gordon F. Smith-Chairman of the
US Senate Committee on Aging which oversights the Social Security
Administration reviewed the process and questions on 12-7-2005 and instructed the Social Security Appeals Council to
return the SSI claim to Office of Hearings and Appeals in San Antonio, TX. The Committee also
apparently corrected the defect whereby obscure and minor social security represenatives fielded
legions of moronic, idiotic, and fantastic legal questions to Chris Walters and his San Antonio
Attorney Tom Moseley. Who can forget the immortal words of US Senator John Kyl (2005) who explained he has been a loyal Republican for
decades but if he voted for the Bush Agenda he could not return to his home state of Arizona. The concept of Jus Litigum means that the question asked was answered and the discussion is closed.
Question Of Congressional Sanctions
During the course of the discussion members of the House Judiciary Committee on
The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security has voiced concerns about
the quality of Justice; large number of officials being regularily indicted by federal
grand juries; improper actions by federal Judges or the Federal Bar Association.
1. It is a violation of Title 18 USC 1505 Obstruction of proceedings before departments,
agencies, and committees or "Treason" to attempt to amend or create a US Statute without the matter being brought before Committees
of Congress; or to attempt to vend, dispense or pratice law before Congress (unless your a member); or to
review matters submitted into Congressional Records...
2. It is a violation Title 18 USC 402 Contempt for any person who is not a member of the Federal bar to vend, dispense
or pratice federal law or having the specific permission of an authority such as a US Magistrate and a violation of
Title 18 USC 913 Impersonator Making Arrest for any person to "arrest another citizen who is not a specially
appointed federal officer.
3. It is a violation of Title 18 USC 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law to
attempt to vend, dispense, or pratice law or secret counsels legal papers as you probally remember when 40 some odd government officials each earned 5 years in federal prison in US V. Haldeman, Erlichman, and Dean and US Attorney General John Mitchell.
4. The number of persons in the Western District of Texas who appear to be praticing federal law without any license appears to draw into question the need for reforming the San Antonio
Federal Bar Association possibly by replacing the current leadership.
Discussions On Texans Being
Above The Law & On Well of Souls
It is 1993 and the Dallas Police Officer in Texas v. Walters ex rel BNO935054616 has Mr.
Walters arrested and in jail for "stealing his resume book" consisting of testimonials from
US Senators; Congressmen; Governors; and many others for years of public service work. The
Officer called the Chairman of the US Senate Appropropriations Committee; explained he had
arrested Mr. Walters and asked him why he passed a law on behalf of Mr. Walters a person of
low social standing? Senator Mark O Hatfield reportedly explained he was having a problem
understanding the question and was going to fly down to Dallas and have his Secret Service
detail hold the policeman over his desk and sexually review the question until the answer became more clear.
The policeman gave Mr. Walters his resume back; threw him out of jail; and told him to get out
of town and never return. Most folks have the good sense to stay away from the "Well of the Souls" or Committees of
Congress. Unless you are on good terms with the Almighty or the snakes like our intrepid hero Indiana Jones and his pal Sala you will probally not emerge
unscathed without many and numerous deadly snake bites all in vital places.
Today we hear a lot of the Bush Administration being "Above The Law" and suffering serious losses
on all fronts apparently believing we are from Texas and can do anything we want. Scandals such
as Enron; The Tom Delay indictment; possibly the conviction of Jack Abrahamoff; and today's comments
from the Senate Judiciary Committee on domestic spying all suggest-nobody is above the law. The recent
attempts of minor Social Security officials and federal Judges to amend federal statutes calls like
a beacon to Congressional Investigators to apply the wrath of those who indeed have "soverign
immunity". If you have any additional questions
please feel free to contact Congress and as Indy's side kick Sala would say-"Asps very dangerous you go first":
Chris Walters, Appellate Counsel Pro Se
c/o 7334 Ritchie Drive
Austin,TX 788724
|
Request For Clarification
Your Recent Letter-Operational Impediment #5
Mr. Chris Walters
chrissaidthanks2002@yahoo.com
c/o Dr. Robert Canon
7335 Ritchie Drive
Austin,TX 78724
Saturday, February 11th, 2006
Office of Hearings & Appeals
Trinity Building, Suite 100
4204 Woodcock Drive
San Antonio,TX 78228-1323
(210-731-3301)
Fax 210-731-3325
RE: Hearing Notice 261-90-6357 Received via Mr. Alan Hartman-
Your Request Attorney-Was Fired Or Sacked:
Dear Office of Hearings and Appeals:
Mr. Alan Hartman sent me an email he had opened a letter addressed to me from your office and
gave notice that a hearing would be held at some point in the future and indicated you intended to
contact my former Attorney Tom Moseley:
1. When I returned to San Antonio, TX and learned Tom Moseley had in 6 months not secured copies
of my medical records I fired him or and claims he quit voluntarily (given his qualifications maybe he could
find work as an SSI intake worker-jolly jest).
2. Your official represenatives in Washington State DSHS who did the 3 consultative exams
by your doctors Eric Strandberg; Dr. Shane Dunaway; and Dr. Pinon understood the Appeals Council ORDER
12-24-2005 has declined to accept and acknowledge their work. Understanding they can't get compensated they
closed the GAU benefits case; canceled the remaining appointments; and canceled the medical insurance so it
appears nothing can be done to follow through with the disability determinations.
3. Dr. Robert Canon my computer instructor who volunteered to hold my mail received the
Appeals Council ORDER 12-14-2005 and declined to either sent it to me or email the contents. Too
review a copy of the ORDER I had to travel 2,000 miles on a bus which under the circumstances is an actual hardship.
4. The legions of fantastic and incredible request made by obscure and minor represenatives of
social security & various state agencies were deferred to the Honorable US Senator Gordon Smith and others
and something both myself and my former Attorney Tom Moseley both agreed we could not answer. If your staff
is interested in reviewing what was send to congress it has a website http://www.geocities.com/tulipsthorns
Questions Based On Your Letter?
Since I notified your office of my voluntarily withdrawl from the Appeal Process I to assume your staff
intends to complete the appeal and has answers to the following questions I am not able to answer:
1. If you review the case history back to 1997 you should be able to see I always withdraw an
SSI claim when it goes to Office of Hearings and Appeals because I either don't have or can't get qualified legal
counsel and don't understand the process well enough at your level to participate actively. Renown Attorney Ben
Mattlock also retired from SSI cases which have already been in US Circuit Courts of Appeals or before Congress.
2. Since the folks who did the Reconsideration didn't review my 160 doctors findings which are
online http://www.geocities.com/chrissaidthanks2003 I would be fascinated to know how you intend to operate under
operation of evidence, fact, and law?
3. Your agencies and organizations you work with operate special target programs we have briefly
discussed which might include mental health; Veterans; substance abuse; prison programs; programs soliciting bondage or peonage....
I have graciously declined to accept treatment for any program for a medical condition I don't have simply based on
special financial incentives and actually suggested to Congress this process be investigated by a Federal Grand Jury.
4. Your Office might have extra ordinary problems contacting me given the number of 3rd parties who
open or delay your correspondence. Even if I received Notice to Appear say through my email address I might not have
financial means to travel to San Antonio, Texas.
With Kindest Regards
Chris Walters
PS: Your staff must have the patience of Job. If Florida State or North Carolina had sent me that Initial
finding or reconsideration saying Chris Walters only had 2 doctors I would have sent it right back to their office
and told them to complete the work they should have done 2 years ago.
Mailed Sunday, February 11th, 2006 From Downtown Post Office, SA, TX 78205
Press On Image To Enlarge
Social Security Appeals Council
Office of Hearings and Appeals
5107 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3255
Question Right To Attend Hearings
Title 18 USC 242 Deprivation of rights under
color of law Citation #4 2006
Chris Walters was not invited to or permitted to attend the Administrative Law Hearing before Judge Karen McCoy. 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.
4. 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.
|