Patrick O'Carroll, Social Security's Inspector General, and Carolyn Colvin, Social Security's Acting Commissioner, will be testifying at today's hearing before the House Social Security Subcommittee on the alleged disability fraud ring in New York city.
The Chairman of the Subcommittee is planning to call for a review of Social Security's management structure. That may be a good idea but I have no idea what it has to do with the fraud allegations.Such a review would make more sense after a new Commissioner is nominated and confirmed.
By the way, I hope someone asks the Inspector General why these cases aren't being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney. I think that subject deserves exploration. It's certainly surprising and raises questions about the strength of these criminal cases.
9 comments:
Here's a question: why hasn't anything been done to Eric Conn?
Very good question. At the very least, his name should appear on the list of sanctioned representatives.
USAO's generally don't get involved until they think there's enough money involved. There's enough money here, but the Manhattan DA probably has more at stake given the NYC pension funds involved. Seems to me, if the cops hadn't gotten greedy in getting SSDI, they would never have been caught and NYC would still be paying millions in pensions to these fraudsters.
I'm baffled at Conn's ability to retain his right to represent clients, as we type, before the administration.
Are you really? You are talking about an agency that will let a disbarred attorney appear as a non-attorney representative.
Also, unlike NY and possibly Puerto Rico, upper levels of management knew about the improper behavior of ALJ Daugherty and questionable relationship with Conn for years before anything was down.
Maybe it's the fact that no evidence of collusion has been produced? Maybe it's the fact that all that's been proven is that Daugherty made large deposits to his bank account but there is no evidence tying them to Conn? Maybe it's the fact that the DOJ refused to get involved in the qui tam suit, likely due to lack of sufficient evidence? Just theories.
1:32
good to see you're still enjoying some free time, Eric.
5:24, why are you afraid to address my arguments? I am not Mr. Conn, but even if I were, my arguments stand. In fact, according to http://www.bigsandynews.com, the plaintiffs have moved to dismiss the suit. Must have lacked sufficient evidence after all...
I think you meant the defendants moved to dismiss. Still, based on the motion, I am inclined to agree with Conn here. Fraud has to be pled with specificity, and Carver/Griffith have failed to do that so far.
Post a Comment