Addressed to the Appeals Council

My name is Christopher A. Walters (261-90-6357) and I am requesting a review of Judge William Herbert's Order of Dismissal July 7, 2005.

1. I wanted to thank the staff of the Social Security Administration for appearing in various civil actions at law in several US District Courts and a state Court over the last 7 years and formally waiving your legal right to medical evidence; hearings; and making the ongoing suggestions Social Security wishes to proceed to regular hearings in the US District Courts as cited below:

2. Exhibit A letter of May 10,2004 from 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the Social Security Administrations legal position/right as cited in 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 to refuse to permit me to submit medical evidence in support of my claim of disability.

3. Your staff has claimed the right to amend Title 42 Sec 423 (d)(5)(b)Disability Determinations to permit Social Security the right to discard medical evidence; move my claim to venues thousands of miles from where I reside; and occassionally claimed the right to change the course of medical treatment authorized by my 140 doctors and other authorities to a course of medical treatment selected by your staff.

4. Mr. David Bradshaw sued myself and your represenatives in North Carolina Superior Court #04CVS2674 claiming he was infected and hospitalized twice due to your organizationns negiligence your represenatives.

5. Your North Carolina represenatives and legal counsel again affirmed their legal right to declined to accept medical evidence; explained Social Security can violate the law whenever it wishes; and offered to neuter the Superior Court Judge if he challenged your legal position previously described as the "Divine Right of Kings".

6. Social Security Administration's legal question of amending Title 42 Sec 423 (d)(5)(b)Disability Determinations was removed with the permission of the US Circuit Court of Appeals to Committees of Congress pursuant to Article 1 Section 1 Of The Constitution and Title 5 Part 1 Chapter 8 Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking and Title 2 USC Sec. 190d. Legislative review by standing to the US House.

7. Exhibit B: While members of Congress have for 7 years considered the merits of amending Title 42 Sec 423 (d)(5)(b)Disability determinations and the Congress has declined to amend the law as your organization requested as of July, 2005

8. My previous Attorney John Heard's staff explained Administrative Law Judge William Herbert had waived a hearing based on "hardship" and received most of medical reports for 8 doctors treating congestive heart failure;45 doctors treating loss of bowel control; 78 doctors treating chronic infections; and 10 doctors treating cancer.

9. Judge William Herbert was apparently unable to continue the hardship hearing based on medical evidence which waived Chris Walters appearance and reach a legal determination because of legal constrains previously specified in various courts.

Your organizations ongoing efforts and request to move the issues to a federal court means we will be reviewing the known facts of the case:

1. Judge William Herbert was unable to complete the hardship determination to reach a conclusion based on prima facia evidence and fact and law because of limitations imposed by previous legal rulings in the case.

2. Your organization has apparently discarded my 140+ doctors statement; disability admissions by several states; 3rd party information; extensive vocational training; employment efforts; and background information which I provided to your organization on CR-Rom.

3. Your legal staff has explained to 4 federal judges; 3 US Circuit Court Judges; the 5th and DC US Circuit Courts of Appeals; and a Superior Court in North Carolina that social security will process a disability claim without medical records or evidence.

4. As I have to travel extensively to seek indigent health care I am attempting to secure qualified legal counsel for your organization to interact with.

With Kindest Regards
Chris Walters, Appellant
Attorney Tom Moseley
112 Villita On The Riverwalk
San Antonio,TX 78205

I hired Attorney Tom Moseley to represent me during the hearings before the Appeals Council and this guy was so slack I actually had to file the appeal myself. The slacker would not order copies of my medical records and I had to give him copies of whatever records I could come by. The file of papers his assistant showed me in Janurary, 2006 were an unorganized mess and I'm sure he couldn't win a case if his life depended on it.

It appears the Appeals Council and Officer of Hearings and Appeals have assigned the SSI claim in San Antonio, Texas where the proper venue in Texas for my Austin address is Dallas, Texas. Since I am a legal resident of Oregon State receiving disability benefits in Washington the proper venue would be in Portland, Oregon

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Addressed to the:
Honorable David R. Wurm
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Office of Hearings & Appeals
San Antonio, HO, SSA
Trinity Building, Suite 100
4204 Woodcock Drive
San Antonio, TX 78228-1323

RE: Christopher Walters-legal resident Oregon State
Medical Evidence in Portland OR/Southern Washington:

Your Honor Chief Administrative Law Judge David R. Wurm:

Today is February 22nd, 2006 and I have just received your letter February 3, 2006 which was mailed too Reverend Alan Hartman here in San Antonio, Texas addressed to my former Attorney Tom Moseley which appears to be occurring in the wrong venue:

1. I am currently a legal resident of Oregon State and most of the recent medical evidence & testimony which Office of Hearings and Appeals would consider are located in either Portland, Oregon or across the river in Vancouver, Washington.

2. My efforts to achieve residence here last year were defeated by local medical providers who for instance refused to permit me to participate in indigent care programs such as Care link and for instance I currently have an unfilled prescription for Clindaymacin from Christus Santa Rosa which I cannot get filled.

3. My former Attorneys John Heard and Tom Moseley were unable to provide adequate representation because of local 3rd party tampering with the US Mail and inability to practice law in Oregon or Washington where most of the current medical evidence resides.
Question of Transferring
Appeal to Portland, Oregon
Given the current lack of workable resources or options I might suggest the Office of Hearings and Appeals move the claim from San Antonio, TX to Portland, Oregon. My US Senator Gordon Smith of Portland, Oregon is aware of some of the problems of the SSI claim and his staff has been quite generous in volunteering to resolve any additional legalities.

With Kindest Regards
Chris Walters, Pro Se

PS While I do have mail drops in various locations around the country I do not claim legal residence simply based on the ability to deliver a letter.

Mailed February 2006 From Downtown Post Office, SA, TX 78205

Mr. Chris Walters
c/o 7335 Ritchie Drive
Austin, TX 78724
Thursday, February 2, 2006
Washington State DSHS
Columbia River CSO S53-1
PO Box 8989
Vancouver, WA 98663
(360)896-5128

RE: Voluntary Withdrawl GAU 3491348
Social Security Appeals Council Challenged Your Findings:

Dear Washington State DSHS:

On 12-14-2005 the Social Security Administration Appeals Council returned the SSI Claim 261-90-6357 to the Office of Hearings and Appeals here in San Antonio, Texas for further consideration and work by the Administrative Law Judges. Unfortunately the Order explains that the Appeals Council did not acknowledge or permit the inclusion your consultative exam of 10-25-2005 or the follow up consultative exam by Dr. Pinon and had challenged your rights to be compensated for payments made to me and medical work done. Washington State DSHS is the social security represenative which preforms such exams in Washington State. I am therefore voluntarily withdrawing from the DSHS program effective 12-17-2006.

Ruling Challenges Fair Shake for DSHS
Normally your agency would be entitled to repayment of GAU monies and medical cost from Social Security as their official represenative and I did send copies of your work to the San Antonio OHA where the case resides. As you can see from the enclosed legal brief previously filed by Social Security in other states the agency maintains the right to impeach or challenge any medical finding and the Courts have been unwilling to take remedial action until the matter is removed to a US District Court. While I have questioned the fairness of this pratice with Chairman & Senator Gordon Smith of Senate Aging Committee it is unlikely the Congress will address the matter in the near future. While your agency could continue providing me financial and medical services you would not have any fair chance for repayment which is why I am withdrawing my GAU claim.

If you feel that my actions are not fair or reasonable you can leave a message for me with Dr. Robert Canon (512-471-9653) of UT School of Social Work who can contact me via email.

With Kindest Regards
Chris Walters
cc: US Attorney San Antonio, TX
Mailed Thursday, February 2, 2006 from Austin, Texas

From Christopher Alan Walters
chrissaidthanks2002@yahoo.com
Temporary Address c/o
110 N McCullough
San Antonio, TX 78205

Addressed to the Honorable David R. Wurm
Administrative Law Judge
Office of Hearings & Appeals
San Antonio, HO, SSA
Trinity Building, Suite 100
4204 Woodcock Drive
San Antonio, TX 78228-1323

Washington State DSHS
PO Box 8985
Vancouver, WA 98661
(360-759-2926)
(Fax 360-750-6936

RE: Complainance with Hallex Submission of Evidence:
Request Rescheduling Medical Appointments DSHS Claim 3491348

Your Honor Chief Administrative Law Judge David R. Wurm:

Today is March 1st, 2006 and I have upon review of your letter Feburary 3, 2006 been given to understand I can submit medical documentation and other evidence within the framework of the Hallex even though I don't have an attorney and both . The consultative exams Washington State did are enclosed as well as others:

1. Dr. Eric Strandberg
US Health Works
1151 Denny Way
Seattle, WA 98109
(206-682-7418)
Fax 206-623-0884)

2. Dr. Jose Pinon
Family Physicians Group
100 East 33rd Street, Suite 100
Vancouver,WA 98663
360-735-8100
Fax 360-735-3596

3. Dr. Shaun Harper
Cascade Heart
200 NE Mother Joseph Place, Sutie 400
Vancouver, WA 98664
(360-256-2640)

4. Dr. Mark Greelee MD
333 North Santa Rosa Street
San Antonio, TX 78207
(210-704-2880

5. Medical Records are on CD-Rom:
E://ssi/access/index.html
E://ssi/access/herbertb.htm
Washington States latest finding

Titel 18 USC 1702. Obstruction of correspondence 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

Link Return To Seattle I believe I had enough money from my DSHS Debit Card to return to Seattle, WA