Tool's Disability Outrage

ADL6009 wrote:

3rdrail wrote:Your union(s) should be rolling out their big legal guns on this one. If they don't, remember at election time (and let them know it !)

the people being targeted in this witch hunt are not union members, they are retired and do not pay union dues and are not represented by the union. they do not have voting rights in a union election. the assets of a union should be spent on issues that affect current dues paying members, such as the contract negotiation. i would much rather have my union dues spent on laywers fighting for the contract rather than lawyers to defend someone who only worked here 20 years and retired 10 years ago.

Couldn't disagree more. This IS action which affects active union members. If you think that this couldn't happen again to anyone actively enrolled as a member now when they retire, you are probably very much mistaken. The union(s) should recognize that this is part and parcel to a lengthy union professional career in the railroad. To ignore this aspect merely because the members are retired is like the general public not taking action against Kia for producing cars that disintegrate the moment that they are driven off the dealer's lot.

Well scott Walker won, let the fun begin.
Now, back to the disablity issue.
as I said before, Paragraph 2 of the "offer" that came in the mail.
Page 1 second paragragh...

"IF YOUR APPLICATION, AND STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE RRB RELATING TO DISABILITY BENIFTS WERE TRUTHFUL, THIS PROGRAM IS NOT RELEVANT TO YOU.

Very simple, if one did not lie, and has the conditions submitted to the RR retirement board, they have nothing to worry about.
Does not matter what doctor they saw.
The RR retirement board makes the determination, not the doctor.
Much ado about nothing me thinks.
The Doctor could say you had arthritis in the knees, for example and were bone to bone in the knees. But without the medical evidence, x-rays or mri's the RR retirement board would turn down the application.
Unless you broke the law by working or earning income off the books, you are in the clear. Threw my "offer" in the garbage.

Chicagorail1: Your example as well as the cases of many retired persons are exactly what I laid out in my last post. At work, your employer is liable for you and the riding public. If your working with injuries that qualify you for an occupational disability and an accident occurs while assisting a commuter, the company is liable here. If your home retired with an occupational disability and you push yourself beyond what your injuries allow you to do, you are only a liability to yourself. At home you can easily take care of pain or limitations with medication. At work you have no options for relieving pain from your injured condition. This is what will have to be distinguished in a court of law.

Scott Walker has nothing to do with this. Leave these kind of incendiary remarks out of it, especially since they have nothing at all to do with the matter at hand. You're talking about a media-whore prosecutor. It ain't the first time this has happened.

I'd be curious to know the party affiliation of the DA? Seriously, I have no idea. Is it the AG appointed by Andy? That would really put the lie to the "Scott Walker" remark.

This is what I said... I differentiated between walker and the disability issue.
"Well scott Walker won, let the fun begin.
Now, back to the disablity issue"

What I meant by the walker comment was, what he did was take collective bargaining rights away from public sector unions in wisconsin.
The recall was a test case, since by doing so, walker took wisconsin from a budget deficit to a surplus, and no one lost their Jobs, in fact there was a Job increase in wisconsin of apporox 40,000 or so.
The unemployment rate in wisconsin dropped to 6 per cent, well below the national average.
The point I was making was, other states will see his succsess and try it themselves.
The disability issue is a seperate matter all together.
As a UTU member for 34 years, and a Person who also recieved The Voluntary Disclosure and Disposition Program application, from the US dept of Justice, and a LIRR employee of 34 years, I feel I am well qualified to comment on whats going on in this country, regarding unions.

May I warn my fellow EX-coworkers, if YOU were truthfull in your statements to the RR retirement board, do NOT sent it back. It does not apply to you. Read the bold print in Paragraph 2.
IF YOUR APPLICATION AND STATEMENTS SUBMITED TO THE RRB RELATING TO DISABILITY BENEFITS WERE TRUTHFUL, THIS PROGRAM IS NOT RELEVANT TO YOU.
I have spoken to people who have thought about sending it back. Not a good idea since it is an admission of lying.
If you were truthful, no need to send it back. Dont let them intimidate you.
Someone needed to say this.

Jeff Smith wrote: I'd be curious to know the party affiliation of the DA? Seriously, I have no idea. Is it the AG appointed by Andy? That would really put the lie to the "Scott Walker" remark.

The original 2008 investigation was by the NY Attorney General (then Cuomo). The 2011 investigation (the ongoing case) is by the U.S. Attorney's Office (NY Southern/Manhattan).

Interesting Reading, found it online:

So I have openly railed against copyright and trademark trolls using extortionate letters to extract unreasonable settlement amounts from folks accused of infringing on their intellectual property. In fact, I have a whole website devoted to the topic: www.extortionletterinfo.com. But Wednesday’s Newsday had a cover story about Long Island Railroad disability pension fraud that revealed perhaps the most outrageous extortion letter yet. This one comes from Uncle Sam, through his personal police squad- the FBI!

It seems the FBI recognizes that there is “rampant fraud” by LIRR workers who claim they are too hurt to work and then live off nice, fat, tax-free disability pensions fueled by the extortionate fees charged by their former employer, the LIRR. So rather than put more manpower and resources into this rampant fraud, here’s what they did. They made poster children out of about 20 of the worst offenders and then they sent letters offering a deal to all others: Come in and admit your fraud and we will not look to recoup your back pension benefits, just cut you off from future benefits. But if you do not come forward and reveal your fraud and we catch you later, then we will seek reimbursement for back earnings and cut off future benefits as well.


Uncle Sam Really Wants You!!

Forget that the FBI has just told folks they suspect to be criminals that they can keep their ill gotten gains as long as they come forward, that’s a whole other issue. The problem I have is not that they sent this letter to suspected cheats, its that they sent it to ALL persons receiving disability benefits from the LIRR.
Any disability recipient – even those legitimately hurt- will be quaking in his boots when he reads this. Was that all that physical therapy really necessary? Did I perhaps exaggerate how much pain I’m in a little bit? Did I try hard enough to see if the LIRR had a job for me to do with my limitations? The threat of an FBI investigation may make some folks who have done nothing wrong come forward “just to be on the safe side” and find themselves losing their rightful benefits.

We should expect the government to act only upon reasonable suspicion and probable cause. There is no justification for scaring the pants off some disabled person who may question their chiropractor’s credentials and decide they’d rather rough it in the future than face Federal prison and bankruptcy.

No doubt, if as reported, the method of "investigation" may be questionable, however, once again it gets down to the only opinion worth anything is the court's final opinion. What you are describing is a confession which any competent attorney could argue was given under duress. Any evidence which comes from such a confession would be ruled inadmissable if found to be not given freely and without the right of counsel attached. Such a ruling is known as "fruit of the poisoned tree" theory. All that this kind of sensational out of court hysterial blogging does is make individuals worry needlessly.

Doc Emmet Brown wrote:This is what I said... I differentiated between walker and the disability issue.
"Well scott Walker won, let the fun begin.
Now, back to the disablity issue"

What I meant by the walker comment was, what he did was take collective bargaining rights away from public sector unions in wisconsin.
The recall was a test case, since by doing so, walker took wisconsin from a budget deficit to a surplus, and no one lost their Jobs, in fact there was a Job increase in wisconsin of apporox 40,000 or so.
The unemployment rate in wisconsin dropped to 6 per cent, well below the national average.
The point I was making was, other states will see his succsess and try it themselves.
The disability issue is a seperate matter all together.

Exactly my point; it has nothing to do with this. Why make the remark at all? This isn't unionbusting.net or benefitnegotiation.com. We're talking about the LIRR. In the context of railroad.net, what other states try with unions has nothing to do with the LIRR pension issue.

So why are you arguing? Heed my admonition; drop it.

R36 Combine Coach wrote:

Jeff Smith wrote: I'd be curious to know the party affiliation of the DA? Seriously, I have no idea. Is it the AG appointed by Andy? That would really put the lie to the "Scott Walker" remark.

The original 2008 investigation was by the NY Attorney General (then Cuomo). The 2011 investigation (the ongoing case) is by the U.S. Attorney's Office (NY Southern/Manhattan).

Thanks R36.

"Uncle Sam Really Wants You!! QUOTE

Forget that the FBI has just told folks they suspect to be criminals that they can keep their ill gotten gains as long as they come forward, that’s a whole other issue. The problem I have is not that they sent this letter to suspected cheats, its that they sent it to ALL persons receiving disability benefits from the LIRR.
Any disability recipient – even those legitimately hurt- will be quaking in his boots when he reads this. Was that all that physical therapy really necessary? Did I perhaps exaggerate how much pain I’m in a little bit? Did I try hard enough to see if the LIRR had a job for me to do with my limitations? The threat of an FBI investigation may make some folks who have done nothing wrong come forward “just to be on the safe side” and find themselves losing their rightful benefits.

We should expect the government to act only upon reasonable suspicion and probable cause. There is no justification for scaring the pants off some disabled person who may question their chiropractor’s credentials and decide they’d rather rough it in the future than face Federal prison and bankruptcy".[

This was an EXCELLENT post, They just lumped everyone together. Glad you said it.

Just to clarify,

The 2008 investigations were performed by the following agencies:

NYS Attorney General
Railroad Retirement Board Inspector General
MTA Inspector General
NYS Police
NYS Insurance Department
FBI

In addition (according to Wikipedia.com), a September 2009 report by the U. S. Government Congressional Accountability Office report disclosed that five federal agencies which investigated and audited the disability awards found no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing by either the Railroad Retirement Board or the retirees who applied for those awards.

Information disclosed during those investigations is being used by the US Attorney in prosecute 21 defendants charged last year and this year in two indictments.

A May 22, 2012 Manhattan US Attorney's press release states that "Hundreds of LIRR workers schemed to defraud the RRB".

LongIslandTool wrote:Just to clarify,

The 2008 investigations were performed by the following agencies:

NYS Attorney General
Railroad Retirement Board Inspector General
MTA Inspector General
NYS Police
NYS Insurance Department
FBI

In addition (according to Wikipedia.com), a September 2009 report by the U. S. Government Congressional Accountability Office report disclosed that five federal agencies which investigated and audited the disability awards found no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing by either the Railroad Retirement Board or the retirees who applied for those awards.

Information disclosed during those investigations is being used by the US Attorney in prosecute 21 defendants charged last year and this year in two indictments.

A May 22, 2012 Manhattan US Attorney's press release states that "Hundreds of LIRR workers schemed to defraud the RRB".

Tool, if they found no wrong doing, what is the US Attorney using against them?

Several were working. That is illegal. They will be prosecuted. Others supposedly made "confessions". They will be prosecuted and forced to "turn state's evidence". Those signing confessions must, as a condition of their amnesty, testify against the other retirees.

They could try to use these, along with lots of circumstantial arguments, intimidation and fear to build a case against other annuitants.

The feds could also initiate or contract administrative actions, where the burden of proof is substantially less than in criminal proceedings, to obtain huge money judgements against retirees.

Their success would depend on a defendant's ability to financially support an aggressive defense.

LongIslandTool wrote:Several were working. That is illegal. They will be prosecuted. Others supposedly made "confessions". They will be prosecuted and forced to "turn state's evidence". Those signing confessions must, as a condition of their amnesty, testify against the other retirees. They could try to use these, along with lots of circumstantial arguments, intimidation and fear to build a case against other annuitants and also initiate or contract administrative actions, where the burden of proof is substantially less than in criminal proceedings, to obtain huge money judgements against retirees.

That seems odd, considering the report found no evidence of wrongdoing in the original investigation. Why did the U.S. Attorney open a new investigation (with indictments) in 2011?

That makes me wonder: Did new evidence come to light between 2009 and 2011?