Under federal law any person who has knowledge concerning the eligibility for benefits of an SSA claimant may have a duty to advise the agency of such facts. If any facts have come to light to Akin Gump's managers since October 1991 that tend to show that I was not unfit for employment as of October 29, 1991, Akin Gump may have a duty to disclose those facts to the SSA. If any third parties have made false representations about the nature of my illness or my employment history, Akin Gump may have a duty to correct those misrepresentations of fact.
The D.C. Corporation Counsel advised the D.C. Court of Appeals that my coworkers had genuine fears that I was armed and extremely dangerous as of August 1989; and unilaterally expanded my complaint of harassment (and by implication, grossly exaggerated the severity of my illness) to include numerous incidents that I never complained of to the employer. Akin Gump was aware of the Corporation Counsel's misrepresentations and its action in grossly exaggerating the nature and severity of my mental illness. Did Akin Gump have a duty to disavow those misrepresentations? Perhaps.
The pertinent provision of Title 42 of the U.S. Code states:
(a) In general
(3) having knowledge of the occurrence of any event affecting—
(A) his or her initial or continued right to the benefits; or
conceals or fails to disclose the event with an intent fraudulently to secure the benefit either in a greater amount or quantity than is due or when no such benefit is authorized; or
shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
On January 15, 2010 I stated to the U.S. Marshal under penalty of prosecution for making false statements to a federal officer that my Social Security disability claim was a "total fraud." Did the U.S. Marshal have a duty to provide SSA a copy of the tape recording of my interview under Title 42? Did the U.S. Marshal commit a felony in failing to comply with Title 42 (see above)?