My father Peter Iannaccone was a WWII Veteran used for psycho-active drug torture experiments while involuntarily confined to the Canandaigua VA Hospital in 1948. He passed away 4/20/92. Four days prior, I was first informed by the SSA he was eligible for Husband’s Ins., Medicare and that an application was made for him 11/76. Since 1983 the SSA misinformed me he was not entitled to Medicare since he was eligible for V.A. care nor any SSA benefits. I filed application (appl.) on 4/23/92. Payments were provided from 10/1/91 ($4,814). I appealed. The ALJ decision of 8/18/94 deemed the appl. filed 1/25/84 based upon my letter to SSA 1/25/84 stating my father was widowed since 10/15/78. Payments ($66,795.) were made 7/83 to 9/92 pursuant to 202 (j) (5) of the SSA Act. The ALJ failed to develop the record to include the appl(s). made, yet claimed when my mother’s 10/76 SSA Disability appl. was filed it failed to seek benefits for my father. And, when my father’s appl. was made 11/76, at age 65, it was filed incorrectly on his own account for Retirement Ins. And, when a lump-sum death benefit was made after 10/15/78 no appl. was made for Widower’s Ins. The ALJ erroneously determined that my father was not financially dependent upon my mother in 11/76 as required at that time for entitlement as my mother’s spouse. However, the SSA record shows my father’s income of 100% VA Disability since 1945 was never reported to SSA. I filed a Complaint in USDC 95-CV-555 (S) on 7/11/95 to have the SSA record fully developed to include the 1976 SSA appl(s) and soon after 10/78. I argued if the SSA appl(s) were produced it would prove they were filed correctly and payments were made from 1976 for my father to Marie Law who converted the funds for her own use and failed to account for such payments when asked to do so under oath during her deposition of 1/8/85 as former Executrix of the Est. of Mamie Iannaccone. SSA in response filed a Dispository Motion for Judgment of the Pleadings 3/5/96 contending the ALJ Determination was supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed. I filed Repliant Motion for Non-Affirmance 8/12/96. District Court Judge Skretney issued Order of 11/14/96 that Plaintiff-Administrator obtains counsel to represent the Est. of Peter Iannaccone by 1/15/97. District Court Judge Skretney issued Order of 1/24/97, with Judgment, dismissing my Complaint without prejudice since Plaintiff-Administrator did not obtain counsel by 1/15/97. I filed a timely appeal and submitted my brief to the USCA 2nd Cir. # 97-6045. The USCA issued their opinion on 4/27/98 recorded at Iannaccone V. Law, 142 F. 3D 533 (2D Cir. 1998) which remanded the action for further proceedings in the District Court. USCA found I was the party in interest since my appl. was filed after my father passed away. The USCA stated, “Having decided that plaintiff may properly appear on his own behalf without counsel in this proceeding, we decline to address plaintiff’s arguments regarding the merits, including the failure of the ALJ to fully develop the record and the issue of whether Law was a proper defendant in this case, because these issues are not properly before us.” On 3/31/00 USDC Justice Skretney issued his Decision and Order stating in part, “ …Plaintiff’s arguments and demands for discovery are premised upon the mistaken belief that he may still pursue a claim pro se against Marie Law for this alleged misuse, to the extent that one could be asserted, belonged to the Est., which Plaintiff may not represent pro se.” I filed a timely appeal, submitted my brief to the USCA #00-6185 and on 1/10/01 presented oral argument before the tribunal. On 1/17/01 the USCA issued their Summary Order not to be published in the Fed. Reporter and not to be cited as authority. It stated “Subsequent to the filing of Iannaccone’s brief on this appeal, the Commissioner has taken the position that Iannaccone’s claim for underpayments should be granted, and has confirmed that the ‘Commissioner agrees to calculate and pay spouse’s and widower’s benefits to William Iannaccone, as survivor of Peter Iannaccone, for the months from 10/76 to 1/84 ($32,698.80).’… Accordingly, Iannaccone’s claim for underpayments has become moot, and we vacate so much of the judgment as dismissed that claim…” Also stated, “In addition, although a successful pro se litigant is not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, see generally Kay V. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (1991). Iannaccone is entitled to an award of costs, both with respect to his appeal…and with respect to the proceedings in the district court…” ($1,769.63). And, “We affirm so much of the judgment as denied Iannaccone’s request to reinstate his claim against Law. The district court dismissal of the claims against Law was affirmed in Iannaccone, 142 F.3rd at 560.” My Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc were denied 3/3/01. On 8/1/01 I filed a writ of certiorari with the US Sup. Ct. # 01-191 in an attempt to be the first pro se in US history to be compensated for pro se legal-work as the prevailing party in a case against a government agency by overturning Kay V. Ehrler, 449 US 432 (1991). My writ of certiorari was denied on 10/1/01. On 10/25/01 I filed a Petition for Rehearing and Motion for Production of the SSA Records. On 1/18/02 both were denied.
Posted on: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 00:46:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015