Lawsuit On Impostor Phone Calls

     From a press release (emphasis added):

The Department of Justice filed civil actions for temporary restraining orders today in two landmark cases against five companies and three individuals allegedly responsible for carrying hundreds of millions of fraudulent robocalls to American consumers, the Department of Justice announced.  The Department of Justice alleges that the companies were warned numerous times that they were carrying fraudulent robocalls — including government- and business-imposter calls — and yet continued to carry those calls and facilitate foreign-based fraud schemes targeting Americans.  The calls, most of which originated in India, led to massive financial losses to elderly and vulnerable victims across the nation. ...

The two cases announced today contain similar allegations.  The defendants in one case are Ecommerce National LLC d/b/a TollFreeDeals.com; SIP Retail d/b/a sipretail.com; and their owner/operators, Nicholas Palumbo, 38, and Natasha Palumbo, 33, of Scottsdale, Arizona.  The defendants in the other case include Global Voicecom Inc., Global Telecommunication Services Inc., KAT Telecom Inc., aka IP Dish, and their owner/operator, Jon Kahen, 45, of Great Neck, New York.  In each case, the Department of Justice sought an order immediately halting the defendants’ transmission of unlawful robocall traffic.  A federal court has entered a temporary restraining order against the Global Voicecom defendants. ...

In the cases announced today, the United States alleges that the defendants operated voice over internet protocol (VoIP) carriers, which use an internet connection rather than traditional copper phone lines to carry telephone calls.  Numerous foreign-based criminal organizations are alleged to have used the defendants’ VoIP carrier services to pass fraudulent government- and business-imposter fraud robocalls to American victims.  The complaints filed in the cases specifically allege that defendants served as “gateway carriers,” making them the entry point for foreign-initiated calls into the U.S. telecommunications system.  The defendants carried astronomical numbers of robocalls.  For example, the complaint against the owners/operators of Ecommerce National d/b/a TollFreeDeals.com alleges that the defendants carried 720 million calls during a sample 23-day period, and that more than 425 million of those calls lasted less than one second, indicating that they were robocalls.  The complaint further alleges that many of the 720 million calls were fraudulent and used spoofed (i.e., fake) caller ID numbers.  The calls facilitated by the defendants falsely threatened victims with a variety of catastrophic government actions, including termination of social security benefits, imminent arrest for alleged tax fraud and deportation for supposed failure to fill out immigration forms correctly. ...

     So, why aren't they indicting the U.S. residents in this case? It makes you wonder about the strength of the evidence.

Opposition To CDR Speedup Spreads

     From Newsweek:

More than 140 lawmakers in the House and Senate have signed open letters hitting out at a "harmful and unjustified" Trump administration proposal that could see thousands of Americans lose their disability benefits.

Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were among those who put their names to the letters calling on the administration to scrap its proposed rule change, which would increase the frequency of disability reviews faced by some benefits recipients if it comes into effect.

The Senate letter was signed by a total of 41 senators. Newsweek understands that more than 100 signatures have been collected on the House letter so far, with more to come. ...

Further Telework Cuts

     From Government Executive:

The Social Security Administration on Monday informed employees of its various subcomponents that it will move forward with new cuts to telework policies, a move quickly decried by union officials who said they were left out of the notification process. ...

Rich Couture, who serves both as a spokesman for the American Federation of Government Employees’ general committee representing Social Security employees and president of AFGE Council 215, which represents workers at the agency’s hearings and appeals offices, said management similarly rejected his own efforts to learn about the changes, and that he spent much of his afternoon in meetings and working with fellow union representatives to cobble together a list of the reforms across the agency.

“I’ve got to tell you, the depth of disrespect and disregard for AFGE with the rollout of this announcement, where the press found out before the union and the union found out at the last minute through a bare-bones notice . . . this basically illustrates to me that there’s no relationship anymore between SSA and AFGE,” Couture said. “There was no advance notice to the local reps that these meetings were to be held, and we have a statutory right to advance notice. This is part of a consistent trend along those lines that this was entirely deliberate.”

According to reports from various union officials, the telework cuts vary by agency subcomponent. In the most drastic instance, legal assistants who do pre- and post-hearing case development work for administrative law judges will only be able to work remotely one day per two-week pay period, down from the current policy allowing employees to telework up to three days per week.

Workers in the Office of Quality Review, which has had telework for nearly 20 years, will all see their existing telework agreements slashed by one day per week. And although there is no policy change for attorneys who do decision-writing for administrative law judges in the Office of Hearings and Appeals, each employee with an existing telework agreement must file paperwork to apply for a new one by February 7 or lose the ability to work remotely altogether. ...

Social Security’s actions appear to defy the spirit of a congressional mandate enacted last month as part of the fiscal 2020 appropriations bills, which instructed the agency to come up with a plan to restore telework to employees in its operations divisions within 60 days. ...

Union Asks "Where Is Saul?"

     Below are two graphics that the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), a labor union which represents most Social Security employees, sent to its members recently. Apparently, the milk carton graphic was sent 25 days after the "Where is Saul" graphic.

     I can guess that Social Security has some online system that employees use to sign in and out and that any agency employees can check to see if any other agency employee is on duty. If that's the case, I don't know why Saul wouldn't use it. It seems quite unlikely that he was away from his office for more than two months. I hope that's not the case.

Union Files Grievance

     The labor union that represents most Social Security employees has filed a grievance against the agency based upon the alleged failure to provide physical security at agency offices. The complaint concerns the unescorted presence of contractors and cleaners and the like. This may or may not be a threat to the security of Social Security data but I don’t see how it is a threat to union members.

Saul To Testify Before Congressional Committee

     Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security will make his first appearance before a Congressional committee as Commissioner on January 29 at 9:30. It will be before the Senate Special Committee on Aging and the hearing will concern "Social Security Impersonation Scam." 

     Will the House Social Security Subcommittee schedule even one oversight hearing in this Congress?

Social Security Loses In CA3 On Issue Of When Lucia Argument Had To Have Been Raised

     After the Supreme Court held in Lucia v. SEC that Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) as then appointed were unconstitutional, there was the inevitable issue of which Social Security claimants would get new hearings. The Social Security Administration argued that the issue had to have been raised before the Administrative Law Judge or at least before the Appeals Council. They have now given up on the argument that Lucia had to have been raised before the ALJ and have remanded all of the cases where the Lucia issue was raised at least before the Appeals Council. The issue of whether the issue had to have been raised at least before the Appeals Council is being litigated in the federal courts. 

     We have our first Court of Appeals opinions in one of the post-Lucia Social Security cases, Cirko v. Commissioner, a Third Circuit case. Social Security lost. The Court held that it did not matter that the Lucia issue wasn't raised until after the matter reached the United States District Court.

     Social Security is still litigating this issue before other Courts of Appeals. It's possible that the agency will win elsewhere. If that happens, the issue will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Why Not Just Ban The Testimony Outright?

     From the summary of a change to Social Security's HALLEX manual:

We clarified that an ALJ must obtain concurrence from the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge (HOCALJ), Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge (RCALJ), and Regional Commissioner (RC) of the appropriate region to request the testimony of a particular FO [Field Office] employee at an appearance. We removed the phrase stating that the RCALJ may waive notification of the request because RCALJ's concurrence is now required.

     How might this come up? Let's say it's the testimony of a claimant that a particular field office employee, that he can identify by name, told him that he could not file a claim for Social Security benefits and that advice was incorrect and cost the claimant money. The Social Security Act would allow backdating of a claim in this circumstance. Wouldn't the field office employee's testimony be relevant?