Did the Social Security Administration abuse its discretion holding that plaintiff is ineligible for Social Security disability benefits after claimant provided sufficient evidence proving that he is disabled with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Gerd?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Did the Social Security Administration abuse its discretion holding that plaintiff is ineligible for Social Security disability benefits after claimant provided sufficient evidence proving that he is disabled with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Gerd ? Suggested Answer: Yes : Did the Department of Human Services abuse its discretion by arbitrarily denying petitioner interim cash assistance pending Social Security disability review? Suggested Answer: Yes : Did The Commonwealth Court make a clear error of law holding that Article VIII Section II (b)(ii) of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not provide residents with property tax exemption that have a disability and or are economically burdened by . poverty ? Suggested Answer: Yes Did the Common Wealth Court abuse its discretion by not finding that the trial court judge failed to Test the sufficiency of the cause for action for defendants motion of a demurrer which is confined to whether the complaint as alleged fails to state a cause of action? Suggested Answer: Yes Did the Berks County Pleas court abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to recuse where plaintiff averred a clear violation of his due process right which deprived plaintiff of being heard on the merits of the case? Suggested Answer: Yes . Did the Eastern district court judge abuse his discretion by not affording petitioner : a evidentiary hearing seeking an Order to show cause for property tax exemption before dismissing Plaintiffs lawsuit with prejudice? Suggested Answer: Yes Did the district court judge in a abuse of his discretion commit a clear error of law holding that res judicta bars petitioners property tax clams in federal court whereas I was deprived of being heard on the merits in the state courts and such State remedy was therefore not plain, speedy and efficient ? Suggested Answer : Yes 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST FOR GILBERT M. MARTINEZ Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.4(a) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Petitioner Gilbert Martinez certifies the following identification of corporate parents, subsidiaries and affiliates: NONE The names of all law firms and defendants that have an interest in these cases but have not yet appeared are listed below: Tax Claims Bureau Deasey, Mahoney & Valentini LTD. Christopher C. Negrete 103 Chesley drive. Suite 101. Media , PA 19063 , Department of Human Service Office of General Counsel West Health & Welfare Bldg. P.O. Box 2675 3" fl. Harrisburg, PA 17120 ; United States Attorney Social Security Administration Region II P.O. Box 4177 Philadelphia, PA 19101 ; (215)597-1838 . 3 d