Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Rufus Jones, Petitioner v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, et al.

NO.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

RUFUS JONES PRO SE

PETITIONER

VS.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

MONROE COUNTY DEPT. HUMAN SERVICE-RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

UNTITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIRARI

RUFUS JONES PRO SE

150 VANAUKER ST. APT 6E

ROCHESTER NEW YORK 14608

(585)414-4895

CEIVED

P-52018

F

E OF THE CLERK

EME COURT U.S.

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

Does Social Security claimants, pursuant to Title 11 42 USC 423 entitled to be

paid all back payments, free from garnishments or attachments by the County or

the state except child support in reference to 42 USC 407 (a). (wage earner)?

Does the state and County welfare departments have the legal writ to attach

or garnish claimants Title II Social Security Benefits.?

Is all Judicial officers bound by oath to support and enforce the U.S.

Constitution?

Does the Court of Appeals, District Court have to Respect the Supremacy

Clause pursuant to Article VI Section (2) of the U.S. Constitution?

Do the Court of Appeals and The District Court,' quoting Federal codes

of conduct for U.S. Judges cannon 2(A); must respect and comply with the law

Federal law, Decisional law, court rules, and codes of federal regulations?

Is approved Social Security Benefits a protected Characteristic against

Discrimination in reference to the Equality Act of 2010?

Does violations of the Equality Act effects the entire Country?

Are Title II Social Security Benefits proteóted by the 5th Amendment

to the U.S. Constitution? See (MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE).

Does the District Court Retain Jurisdiction, after Federal Court Remand

Pursuant to 42 USC 405 (g) Sentence (6)?

page-IV

LIST OF PARTIES

{X} All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

{} All list of all do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgement is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

United States District Court Western District Of New York

Commissioner of Social Security

Monroe County Department of Human Services

PAGE-V

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW ------------------------------------------------------------ 1.

4cA— LIST OF ALL

JURISDICTION ------------------------------------------------------------------ X

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STAUTORY PTO VISIONS INVOLVED-------XI

INDEX TO APENDICIES-------------------------------------------------------------XII

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ----------------------------------------------------------- XII

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ----------------------------------------- XIII-A, B,

CONCLUSIONS---------------------------------------------------------------------------- XIIII-A

PROOF OF SERVICE----------------------------------------------------------------------XV

INFORMA PAUPERIS MOTION ATTACHED-------------------------------------XVI

SECOND PROOF OF SERVICE OF CORRECTIONS ---------------------------- XVII-2

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A United States Court of Appeals for The Second Circuit

Court Decision With docket sheet.

APPENDIX B United States District Court Western District Of New York

Court Decision With Docket Sheet

APPENDIX C Social Security Information Correcting Benefits from SSI TO SSDI.

APPENDIX E a Partial Copy of Social Security ALJ Decision Dated April 12, 2016

APPENDIX F Partial Copy of Magistrate Feldman Decision Dated January 12, 2016.

APPENDIX G a Copy of Garnishment by Monroe County Department of Human

Services of Rufus Jones Title II Benefits.

APPENDIX H New Rule Passed by U.S. Congress in May 2011 Garnishment

Prevention of All Social Security Benefits Prohibited Except Child Support, All Federal

Benefits Are Protected from Creditors.

APPENDIX I A Copy of Appellant Brief filed in the Court of Appeals. P-V

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

to

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

; or,

[1 reported at

{ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

PO

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

; or,

II] reported at

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ 11 is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

to the petition and is

Appendix

; or,

{ ] reported at

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the

appears at Appendix

_____________________________________________

to the petition and is

; or,

[ ] reported at

[1 has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

1.

court

to

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United,..States Court of Appeals decided my case

was

72-\ 25 .

I?4No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

, and a copy of the

Appeals on the following date:

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including

(date) on ____________________ (date)

in Application No. .A______

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[

.An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

(date) on

(date) in

to and including

Application No.

A_______

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

CASES

BENNENT V. ARKANSAS

485, U.S. 395, (1988)

BLUVBAND V. HECKLER

730 F2d 22, (2nd Cir. 1984)

JACKSON V. CRATER

3d. 1086, 1095, (11th Cir. 1996)

PHILPOTT V. ESSEX COUNTY WELFARE BOARD

409, U.S. 413 (1973)

MATHEWS V. ELDRIGE

442, U.S. 319, (1976)

PULLMAN STANDARD V. SWINT

456. U.S. 273 (1982)

RICHARDSON V. PERALES

402, U.S. 389, (1971)

SHALALA V. SHAEFER

509, U.S. 292 (1993)

STATUES AND RULES

42 Usc 423 Title II Insurance law (Wage Earner) Americans

that work paid into the system is legally entitled to all payments.

42 Usc 407 (a) Garnishment Prevention of All Social Security Benefits law

and all Federal Benefits Employee Retirement, Railroad Retirement,

5TH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DUE PROCESS

Federal Rule Civil Procedure 52 Findings of FACTS and Conclusions of law

Supremacy Clause Article VI Section (2) of the U.S. Constitution

5 USC 7311 OATH OF OFFICE

EQUALITY ACT OF 2010

Vifi

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

January 14, 2015 Rufus Jones Pro se Filed a complaint against the

Commissioner of Social Security for Denial of Title II Insurance Benefits;

January 12, 2016 Magistrate Feldman Remanded the case to the Commissioner

of Social Security to provide Claimant Due Process and a fair Hearing. February 12,

2016 claimant had a hearing with Social Security AU, and was awarded Benefits

April 12, 2016 for Heart Disease, Kidney Disease, and Severe Hypertension. The

Commissioner staff local Team 108 mailed Rufus Jones a letter stating the award of

Benefits, also stating that 9,838.18 Dollars will be sent to Monroe Count Dept.(A-G)

of Human Services. I Rufus Jones quickly filed objections to Monroe County

claim, because according to my research, pursuant to 42 USC 407 (a) the County

and the state is not a statutory beneficiary of Title II Benefits see Supreme Court

case law BENNETT V. ARKANSAS 485, U.S. 395, (1988)" quoting the State

of Arkansas violated the Supremacy Clause, there is no implied exceptions the

the express language of 42 USC 405 (a), and it is the clear intent of U.S.

Congress that Social Security Benefits not be attachable, because the State

is not a Statutory Beneficiary? See MA THE WS V. ELDRIGE 442, U.S. 319, (1976),

"quoting Social Security Benefits Are Statutory created property rights protected

by the 5th Amendment to the U.S. constitution. My objections fell on deaf ears

by the Appeals Council, District Court, And the Court ofAppeals.

xl'

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

If the District Court and the Court of Appeals would respect

the U.S. Constitution we would not be here. All too often court cases fall

deaf ears and violations of the Constitution because lower courts think

that they are above the law. Every time the court of Appeals does not follow

U.S. Supreme Court Case Laws and Federal law, there promoting Tyranny

and it is a threat to everyone in this Country. 42 USC 407 (a) are Federal

protected Benefits that all Americans work for pursuant 42 USC 423,

(WAGE EARNER); the benefits are protected by the Rule of law and

the U.S. Constitution. Monroe County Department of Human Service

has no Statutory Right to Rufus Jones Title II Benefits of 9,838.18, in fact?

no creditors have the right to Garnish Federal Protected Benefits except

child support which makes sense. See Appendix (H) Congress passed new

laws in May of 2011 quoting "new Federal rule protecting benefits from

Garnishment; what stands out to me, most is Federal retirement benefits this

applies to all 9 Justices of the Supreme Court with all due respect, what

courts are saying is that creditors can take your money when Federal

employees retire, same law applies, different Type of payment. Rufus

Jones prove with clear convincing evidence that Social Security Benefits

are exempt from garnishment and there are no implied exceptions. See

(Bennett v. Arkansas) Respectfully request the court to grant petition, this

may apply to you or anyone in this Country one day, Americans cannot

work for ever and because of my health I was forced to retire early.

X-III-A

REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION

U.S. District Judge Charles Siragusa is setting a precedent(A-2)

that it is ok to Violate 42 USC 407 (a) and this precedent is confirmed

by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Congress passed the

new laws for a reason because; local welfare agencies get paid Millions(A-H)

of Dollars every year from Taxes paid by hard working people

like myself, and now Monroe County Department of Human Services

Garnishing Federal Benefits, getting paid twice which is clearly fraud.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals needs a wakeup call,

because they consistently dismiss Appeals without citing Findings of facts

or Conclusions of Law Pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 52; they

probably feel like most petition to the U.S. Supreme Court will not

be granted; taking advantage of abusing the U.S. Supreme Court

process. Rule 52 requires the Courts to cite legal principles of lawfulness

words spoken by Justice Clarence Thomas, violation of legal principle is

a violation of Due Process which should be the Court of Appeals and

the District Court Job Description. If this injustice stands it will effect a lot

of people (Disparate Impact) which it already has, see (Pullman standard

v. Swint). This Issue is clearly discrimination against people Disability

Insurance Retirement Funds, a protected Characteristic pursuant to the

Equality Act of 2010, and 42 USC 407 (a).

XIII-B

CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals for The Second Circuit and the District

Court is in Violation of (BLUVBAND V. HECKLER) this case law instructs

the Courts to make sure that plaintiff pro se Rights are adequately protected

from abuse. The Commissioner Attorney failed to file a response to a properly

served summons and complaint, Monroe County Attorney failed to file a response

in the Court of Appeals for The Second Circuit; both Defendants Defaulted in

this case because they know that they are wrong. Pursuant to Federal Rule Civil

Procedure 55 Plaintiff requested Default Judgement in the District court it fell on

deaf ears. The District Court and The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in

clear in violation of plaintiff Due Process Rights in Federal Court. The Court Of

Appeals and the District Court ,Partial to the Defendants promoting fraud in the

Court system without any evidence to support their actions; taking Federal

protected, Exempt Benefits, should be a crime, Thank you for your Considerations.

OATH OF OFFICE 5 USC 7311

1. United states of America are a nation of laws, every Citizen whether an

individual private citizen or citizen who has been placed in a position to

Represent any District or any populace of citizen local or national are

equally bound by the limits of the exact same laws. 2." The United states

Constitution is the Supreme law of the land, meaning the entire United

States as well as each and every citizen residing within the boundaries

of the United States are equally subject to the laws in compliance with

the Supreme law of the land." 3. U. S. District Court precedent with the

the support of the Court of Appeal must not stand, because it will

encourage various District Courts that Federal Protected Benefits can

be garnished defying U.S. Congress Intent that is supported by the

Supreme Court. See (Bennett v. Arkansas). Article VI Section (2). U.S.

Constitution. 4. Respectfully request that the U.S. Supreme Court set a

new precedent in Reference to 42 USC 407 (a) Supreme Court in the

past Ruled that violating Federal Protected Benefits violates the,

Supremacy Clause stated in the above Constitution Article VI also

violates Oath of Office, Thank you. Respectfully.

11

XIII'

CONCLUSIONS

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals is in clear conflict with the

11th Circuit Case law JACKSONV. CHATER 3d, 1086, 1095, (11th Cir. 1996),

U.S. Supreme case law SHALALA V. SHAEFER 509 U.S.292, (1993), Social Security

regulation, Programs Operation Manual System (POMS), GN 03106.036 Court

Remand orders because the decision by the ALJ was partially favorable (A-E)

to claimant" quoting The District Court Retains Jurisdiction over those cases

Remanded under sentence 6"; in cases where the new and final decision of the

Commissioner is either partially favorable or unfavorable to the claimant. "The

main reason for dismissal of this complaint and Appeal is Jurisdiction. This is

in reference to District Court Docket Number 15-CV-6022, the beginning of this

case. See 42 USC 405 (g) sentence (6). Thank you. Respectfully.

CONCLUSION

The petition for writ of certiorari should be granted

Respectfully Submitted,

Date

XIIII-A