I am a junior, and my father is a senior. Over the years we have on occassion had instances where our identities crossed tracks relative to credit, criminal records, etc... Three years ago an arrest warrant was issued in my name in CT, my home state. I had been living in TX since December. The warrant has only an extradition provision for the tri-state area of CT, NY, NJ. Because of the warrent, my benefoits were cut off as I was classified as "on the lamb" or running from the law. The offense named occurred years after I had moved to TX. I am in no way running from anything. I have been on disability for a number of years and barely survived a near fatal 2 month hospitalization in late 2000. I have been without an income since January. The only way I can take care of this matteris to go to CT (which I cannot afford to do) and deal with it in court. The charge is such that even if I were convicted, I would likely get a year of probation at best. I have tried calling the prosecuting attorney in CT, but they will not give me the time of day by phone and don't care that this matter has ct off all of my living. I have NEVER had such a hard time in my life as I have had since all this happenned. I cannot afford an attorney and cannot afford to travel to CT to deal with this matter. My understanding is that Pres Bush (W) created this new rule relative to cutting off benefits for people with warrants. A warrant is in effect an accusation, NOT A CONVICTION!!! How can someone be cut off from their benefits because someone accuses them of a crime, which they may well have not committed? It saves the SSA lots of money, but at what cost to citizens?
0 comments