VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES: POLITICS, RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA IN MEDICAID ET ALS

______________________________________________________________

 

                      COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

 

                       DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

 

                                                                       

                                      

                                         

                        OFUME FAMILY

                                       Appellant (Pro se & forma Pauperis)

 

                                   V.

 

                        DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES - MEDICAID

                                                                    Respondent

 _____________________________ ______________________________ _

      

                  

 

                            PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

 

Date of Application:                   October 26, 2009

 

 

Date of meeting:                         October 29, 2009

 

 

Date of denial without investigation: October 30, 2009

 

Case worker:                                 R. Butler

 

Receiving City :                                Fredericksburg , VA

 

Date written Decision received:       November 3, 2009

 

Date oral decision issued:              October 29, 2009

 

Representatives:      

 

Appellant -                                     Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume

 

Respondent -                                 Ms. Rosemary Butler  (6307)

 

 

Hearing Notice Served:                  January 14, 2010

 

______________________________________________________________________________

 

 PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT/AGENCY’S STATEMENT OF DENIAL  OF MEDICAID 

                                          Case No. 1326643

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

 

A.       OFFICIAL VERIFICATION PROCESS AND VIRGINIA  

           DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES' (DSS) PERSONAL

           INTEREST VERIFICATION PROCESS

 

 

Official Verification of alien eligibility requirements maybe approached and realized under M0220.100;  M0220.201; M0220.202; M0220.500; M0240.000; and M0240.001 for MEDICAID eligibility.

                                                            1

 

Ofume v. DSS Case No. 1326643

There is U-TURN in this case because Appellant (seven children and two parents ) is Black and hail from less preferred region of Nigeria (NIGER DELTA REGION) and lead Appellant bids for the President of Nigeria 2011.

 

 

a.  Citizenship and Naturalization versus  Immigration Status Verification - M0220.100 &  M0220.201:

 

"An alien's immigration status is verified by the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS issued by the USCIS and a comparison with the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlement (SAVE)  system."  Caseworkers must see the Original Documents or Photocopy.

 

This law requires caseworkers to verify, Resident Alien Card OR Permanent Resident Card  (Form 1-551) OR  for recent arrivals a Temporary 1-551 Stamp in a Foreign Passport OR  Form 1-94.  

 

Under personal interest process Respondent or DSS wants to see everything,  Resident Alien Card; Permanent Resident Card  (Form 1-551); for recent arrivals a Temporary 1-551 Stamp in a Foreign Passport; Form 1-94. Verification requires one choice of the multiple choice aforelisted.

 

During Appellant's research and investigation in this case, the fact finders found that cases were handled discriminatorily on basis of race, color, nationality and place of origin. As this Appeal expands, Appellants will request a ten-year disclosure of full and comprehensive case by case.

 

b. Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlement (SAVE)   -  M0220.202

 

Clearly Section 121 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) is very clear and without racist mind the plan provided to caseworkers is simple unless Alien has no documentation on hand to show caseworkers. In this case Appellant has complete ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS which automatically waives Primary Verification.

 

After seeing these original documents DSS or Respondent spent tax money in search of Computer or Internet generated documents or primary verification and further proceeded out state ( California )  to pay contractors to try another form of verification. This section further simplified verification burden on case working thus, "The alien registration number begins with 'A' and should be displayed  on alien's USCIS documents(s)"  Appellants showed over 2000 pages of USCIS documents which displayed Appellant's or Alien's A#.

 

In Appellant's case when secondary verification maybe commenced -

 

Alien has no alien number but no USCIS  documents, or the alien has no alien number

                                                            2

Ofume v. DSS Case No. 1326643

 

and no USCIS documents; discrepancies are revealed when comparing primary verification top the ORIGINAL IMMIGRATION DOCUMENT; immigration documents have no alien registration number (A-number); documents contain an A-number in the A 60 000 000 or A80 000 000 series. All the failing tests above were passed by Appellant's Alien numbers, immigration documents, etc.

 

c.    Alien Eligibility Requirements and Social Security Requirements - M0220.500; M0240.000; and M0240.001 

 

Appellant submitted to the Respondent ORIGINAL copies of Social security cards and Proof of Applications for all the members of Appellant’s family.  

 

 

  B.                          REASON FOR DENIAL  

 

   

a.   Appellants (six children and two parents) were denied MEDICAID for the following reason:

 

1.  Respondent claims INABILITY TO VERIFY APPELLANT'S ALIEN NUMBERS A# ON INTERNET TO BE COMPUTER GENERATED) which is one (1) of over twenty (20) list of Documents and Evidence submitted to the Respondent. See paragraph  C below.

 

2.  Appellants are not Citizens of the United States  - in part Appellants are  US citizens

 

3. Appellants are not eligible Alien or has no alien registration number - Appellants are eligible alien with alien numbers.

 

4.  Appellants have no Social Security numbers and Proof of Application - Appellant has Social Security numbers and Proof of Application

 

b.   Original and signed copies of all the documents listed in B below and 1 to 4 above were received by the Respondent (Ms. Rosemary Butler) and copies were made by Ms. Butler. All these documents are variable documents. For example, Social Security Proof of Application which is not always signed by the staff of the office of the Social Security Administration was signed. Appellants requested the staff of the office of the Social Security Administration to sign all the Proof of Application to be issued to Appellants.

 

 

 

 C.       LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT/AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

 

a.  Original copies of Social security card and related documents 

 

b.  Original copies of 1-94

 

                                                                        3

Ofume v. DSS Case No. 1326643

 

c.  Original copies of Birth Certificates

 

d.  Original copies of Alien Registration Numbers

 

e.   Proof of Income - signed and released by the State of Massachusetts

 

f.    Household Composition & Address Verification - signed by landlord

 

g.  Notice of personal responsibility for the TANF Program - signed by two head of family

 

h.  Notice of Intentional Program Violations and Penalties -signed by two head of family

 

i.  ADAPT Verification Checklist - 100% checked.

 

j.  Do you have a disability? - checked and signed

 

k. Application for Benefits - completed and signed

 

l.  Order of US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit See Ofume v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.  Docket No. 09-1610 - Proof of Asylee

 

m.  Certificate of Adopted Refugees issued by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) to Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume

 

 n.  Certificate of Adopted Refugees issued by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) to Mrs. Maureen Ngozi Ofume

 

 

o.  Letter recognizing and adopting all the Appellant's ALIEN NUMBERS (A#) of Mr. Tony West ( Assistant Attorney-General, Civil Litigation Division), Mr. Barry J. Pettinato (Assistant Director) and Mr. Tim Ramnitz (Attorney of Record) all of US. Department of Justice (Office of Immigration Litigation)  P. O. Box 878 , Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Tel. (202) 616-2686 Fax: (202) 305-4829 e-mail. tim.ramnit@usdoj.gov

 

p.    Copies of US Federal documents showing official  APPELLANTS' ALIEN NUMBERS A#

 

q.  Original copies of Proof of the Citizenship of the United States  of America  

 

r.  Original copies of the documents issued by the United Nations, US Courts and government, Board of Immigration Appeals and Asylum Officer to confirm that Appellants are Refugee/Asylee

 

s.  Over two thousands (2000) pages of official US Certified Administrative Record which confirmed and verified Appellants' ALIEN NUMBERS. 

 

 t.  Original copies of Appellant Social Security and Proof of Application

 

                                                            4

Ofume v. DSS Case No. 1326643

 

etc.

                                                          

 

D.                        SUMMARIZED STATEMENT OF FACT

 

a.       September 29, 2005 after ICE impounded and seized scores of Appellant unexpired Immigration and other documents they brought against Appellant trump up charge (212(a)(7) (A)(i)(I) of landing in the United States without unexpired documents but after Appellants were heard by US Immigration Officials and Asylum Officer, Appellant was granted asylum with Credible Fear  or Torture  and they were released by the Asylum Officer and allowed to complete other process relating to Application  for Asylum.

 

b.     On October 16, 2007 the government lost the charge against Appellant because during one of the proceedings (January 25, 2006) Judge Klein issued an Order of Disclosure  and Appellant’s unexpired  documents which were impounded  and seized by  ICE were in part released and the release caused Respondent (DHS) embarrassment.

 

c.    What is left in this case is adult members of the Appellant’s  family to redo their BIOMETRIC TEST and file same with the Court. On September 24, 2009 Appellant completed their Biometric Test and the test has been filed with the US COURT OF APPEALS  for the FIRST CIRCUIT see Ofume v. Eric Holder, Jr. Case No. 09-1610.

 

d.   Questions relating to reviewing and verifying federal and state documents and legislation and  state/federal relationships were presented to the State of Virginia . Appellant’s Application has dual jurisdiction. Similar to the State of Virginia , in Massachusetts Appellant’s applications for Food Stamps, Cash Benefit(TANF), Medicaids and Masshealth pending employment were made on October 20, 2005 and denied instantly because the state agency (Department of Transitional Assistance –DTA) was controlled by local and international politicians and other interest holders and groups. Per Petition for Judicial Review, Appellant filed with  The Massachusetts Superior Court Department, Lawrence Division for judicial review of the decision appealed. Before the first Motion Day, hastily Respondent (DTA) granted Food Stamps, in part Cash Benefits,  Medicaid and Masshealth. Shelter was granted Appellant in another application.

 

e.   Upon relocating to the State of Virginia, Appellant requested in writing to Massachusetts and Virginia to effect transfer and adoption of all federal applications and be  applied accordingly. Volume of TANF may reflect state budget but can not be denied because of the status (refugee/asylee) of the Appellant in  the United States and state/federal collaboration.

 

 

  E.                 MISLEADING STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT/AGENCY

                                               

                                                            5

Ofume v. DSS Case No. 1326643

 

a.     On December 22, 2009 Appellants’ representative objected hearing by telephone because of the lies told by the Respondent’s representatives and their personal interests in this case. Appellant requested his Caseworker to resign and exit  the case but Respondent continued to impose the caseworker on Appellant. Respondent’s representatives lied on December 22, 2009 and all other days. Respondent claimed that it was unable to verify one of the over twenty (20) documentary and material evidences which Appellant submitted because it censored several evidences submitted with the intention to issue denial notice against Appellant.

 

 

b.    Censorship persisted, thus on December 22, 2009 they told the hearing officer that they mailed several documents  to the Appellants whereas no documents were mailed. The hearing Officer requested them to make copies of the documents to the Appellants. They agreed to make copies but soon as the hearing officer exited the telephone discussion, they made one set of the documents which were over nine (9) sets. One set of document which they gave to Appellant was duplicated to make two set of documents. Appellant told them that he would telephone the Hearing officer or travel to Richmond to know whether one set of document which they gave to him is the only documents which they called  several set of documents. Suddenly, in part they reversed their position. They went into another type of secret discussion and came up with some few  set of  documents and they refused to release other set of documents. What are they hiding? Since December 22, 2009 lead Appellant has been telephoning Respondent’s representative and the hearing officer and all the time voice messages entered demanding expedite hearing and relief pending appeal. All  the above and others  remain unheeded.

 

 

F.              OTHER LEAD TO VERIFY APPELLANT REFUGEE/ASYLEE   STATUS  IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

      Without other documents which Respondent

 referred to in its statement and telephone discussion with the hearing officer, Appellant read Respondent’s statement dated January 13, 2010 and found scaring misinformation which also was deliberate political prowl to punish Appellants via obstruction of evidence and distortion/censorship of DUE PROCESS RIGHTS of  the Appellant. Erroneously, Respondent cited US Government source of documents which also were some of the documents appellant submitted to the Respondent’s representatives which also clearly and extensively verified the status of Appellants as Refugee/Asylee  in the United States but Respondent’s representatives were unable to understand or pretended not to understand  these documents which also contained all Appellants’ Alien numbers. Under severe forms of ignorance or censorship , Respondent directed its mind to 1-94 which also contain Alien numbers without perusing another important documents called NOTICE TO APPEAR and documents submitted by the office of The Attorney General and Secretary of Justice. These documents contain Appellant’s refugee/asylee status  (8 CFR 208.30(f)(2); 235.3(b)(5)(iv); 235(b)(1)].  NOTICE TO APPEAR which is two-page document also detailed nature of Appellant admission into the United States and supported with proper US Immigration law and documents.

 

 

G.                                         CONCLUSION

                                                6

 

Ofume v. DSS Case No. 1326643

 

Reason of the foregoing Appellant request the hearing officer to reverse Respondent’s denial appealed and all the relief (Medicaid) granted with costs.

 

 

Respectfully opposed,

 

 

 

Phillip C. Ofume, Ph.D.  Pro se (Rep. & Advocate for the Appellant)

 

cc.   Ms. Rosemary Butler – Rep. for the Respondent

 

 

 

                                                                        7