VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICE: TODAY (1/25/10) INT. NGOs OPEN INVESTIGATION ON DISCRIMINATION IN SERVICE DELIVERY - 10-YEAR BACK

___________________________________________________________________

                     COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                       DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

                        OFUME FAMILY

                                       Appellant (Pro se & forma Pauperis)

                                   V.

                        DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

                                                                    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)

Failed Hearing:                              December 22, 2009

Representative:

Dr. Phillip C. Ofume                         for the Appellant

Ms. Rosemary Butler                        for the Respondent

______________________________________________________________________________

 PETITIONER’S_OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT/AGENCY’S STATEMENT OF DENIAL  OF FOOD STAMPS, TANF AND MEDICAID 

                                          Case No. 1326643

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

  A.                          REASON DENIAL ENTERED

                                                            1

Ofume v. DSS  Case No. 1326643

Respondent gave one reason for denying Appellant's Application for Benefits (Food Stamp, Medicaid,  and TANF) - UNABLE TO VERIFY APPELLANT'S ALIEN NUMBERS A# ON INTERNET TO BE COMPUTER GENERATED) which is one (1) of over fifteen (15) list of Documents and Evidence submitted to the Respondent. See paragraph  B below particularly supara B(o).

 B.       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

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

etc.

                                                            2

Ofume v. DSS  Case No. 1326643

C.                        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 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 appealed to 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 relating 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.

  D.                 MISLEADING STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT/AGENCY

                                                3

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 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 fifteen (15) 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.

E.              OTHER LEAD TO VERIFY APPELLANT REFUGEE/ASYLEE      

                  STATUS  IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

      Without other documents which Respondents referred to in its statement and telephone discussion with the hearing officer, Appellant read Respondent’s statement dated November 3, 2009 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. Also 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 to the United States and supported with proper US Immigration law.

F.                                         CONCLUSION

Reason of the foregoing Appellant request the hearing officer to reverse Respondent’s denial

                                                            4

Ofume v. DSS  Case No. 1326643

appealed and all the relief (food stamps, TANF, 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

                                                            5