four clerks. the three retired justices each gate one clerk. .. >> it was his fear of the supreme court that you see so clearly today.

>> host: any thoughts? >> guest: i say this is easily resolved. i think the one thing to be careful of is the difference between sort of partisan decisions and ones that come from different judicial philosophies or ideologies, when you think partisan, you think i'm going to vote as any republican or democrat would do. i believe that there are a lot of cases at the supreme court and we can point to numerous examples that do not follow that traditional breakdown between party lines. and i think a good sample would be coming this term about recess appointments. here is an issue that will affect whoever the sitting president has come at a sitting president is not currently a democrat. but of course in a future election and maybe the republicans that win an election, therefore the decision that they announce it in the court will be a rule about the perspective power to make these recess appointments regardless of the party of the presidency. what you will see in that decision is the core grappling

with more fundamental questions about judicial philosophy and ideologically and text versus how this provision has been practiced over time. this is what you see over time between justice scalia and justice breyer. now, sometimes that will lead to the partisan result, sometimes it will not. >> guest: there are many cases at a broader level where justices who might not think would be terribly sympathetic to civil plaintiffs seeking damages that would be voting for those peoples. but because of their judicial philosophy, not making a constitutional right, vigorously enforcing this, you see justice scalia siding with this. >> host: going onto another topic, our cameras are recording

this, opening day, we have a couple of people holding up a sign that the cameras in the court now. c-span has written numerous letters to the court asking for cameras to be put in there. if you are interested, if the viewers are interested, go to her website at c-span.org and you can follow the timeline of the courts and the different justices on her website. but what are your two thoughts? what are your thoughts on us this and what impact do you think that that will have a max. >> i am not sure it will have that big of an impact to open up the court. i think that the one concern that to me seems most persuasive is the danger that advocates might start tailoring their arguments more to a broader audience rather than the court itself. and i think particularly when advocates an elective officials participate rather than career

advocates from the solicitor general's office. and there may be some concern that they would not necessarily be tailoring their presentation through the core that might have some broader agendas in mind. it is hard because we haven't had cameras in the courtroom to know whether that concern would actually be borne out. i think that what you see is increasing access by the court for the cameras are used to be that you wouldn't get audio then you have to wait and now they are coming sooner and sooner and saying the transcripts are available same day. i personally think it will be a matter of time. the supreme court is an institution the changes very slowly. i wouldn't hold your breath. >> i would have to concerns. and pratik shah and i have both start at the lectern and argued there in preparing for those arguments and no one ever came to us and said this is the key to our city that we want to

follow. and if the court started having the large broadcast, i mean, people especially in the private sector would have this great it can also interfere justices and the dynamic because they use those questions and some of them are very odd or seemingly off point hypothetically. and they use them to sharpen their thinking and the dialogue with this in this day and age. you see people criticized for these assemblies or metaphors and i think that it might tamp down the conversation. >> host: chief justice marshall worked very hard to keep the core from becoming political. monsieur says i see the politicization of the court. and then we hear from an individual this as do most

clockworks come from harvard or other northeastern schools? >> well, i think that is probably a bias of the court in terms of numbers and law clerks and certainly the west coast and a sense that the law clerks is the justices themselves are from a relatively small and select root of law schools. that is not always the case. but i do think that it is part of the risk-averse nature of the hiring that the justices that do. but they want to know the people who they hire come from people that they know, often people who they know are professors from those law schools. so there is a personal budget comes from and i think that certain of them make more of an effort to look beyond the conditional law school is. and to make this from those

other law schools. i think many have gone beyond like justice breyer. i think there is a risk-averse nature that prevents it from happening more often. >> let's talk about the 39 law clerks, each justice with a law clerk, do they get a new one every term? >> they do each internship. some of those justices are doing the work of appellate judges. one justices sitting with the appeals court, and the justice has sat with every single one. it's about law clerk will help the justice with his or her justice work. post justice work. they will also be borrowed as a fifth law clerk. >> host: against says that it would be like pulling this back

on the wizard of oz. let's talk to a democratic caller. go ahead. >> caller: i would just like to know why they haven't investigated justice thomas' wife laura illegal activities. i mean, this guy is the highest court in for seven years. >> host: did either one of you follow that? >> not particularly with any suspicions. >> host: another question is religious affiliation with justices and clerks. as a player will? >> certainly not in regards to that. the justices have a lot of criteria that they apply. they are looking for excellent and hard work and i think that they are looking not looking at whether you go to church. >> host: we are talking with pratik shah and a former clerk

for justice breyer and william jay is another individual who worked for justice scalia as a corporate to what stands out to you guys for cases,. >> one of the cases that i will be watching is the case will be argued in the supreme court and that is a first amendment challenge to a provision of the federal election campaign and it regulates not how much a donor can give to anyone federal candidate, but how much they can give any particular election cycle to all individuals as well. so all the contributions are to give $1,176,000 to a series of candidates. the first one is fine, the second one is fine. but eventually last one would become a felony.

so this is the latest in a series of cases the supreme court has had, citizens united is probably one of the best-known to the c-span audience to hear politicians talk about this in the sprinkler. this is the latest about the federal adulation of campaigns. >> host: the court will take that up on tuesday. >> i think it is particularly interesting because it's emblematic of a number of cases in this term doesn't have a single blockbuster case like last term for the health care or other histories. but it has a number of cases involving constitutional issues and abortion, affirmative action, recess appointments, i think it is going to implicate at least the fundamental distinctions in campaign-finance law which is the distinction between expenditures and how much a person turn person spends of their own money and the court

struck down those limits. versus limits on campaign contributions including a political committee. that has been the fundamental difference in the court has been more prone to expenditure limits and not a strict scrutiny and so this case is the court ready to take that next step and lessen the distinction between expenditures and contributions and apply a stricter level of scrutiny to these aggregate contribution limits and i think that we have were several for several of the justices stand and this could come back to the chief justice who has not yet taken a clear position. so this one i think is where the chief justice says and how hard

if he wanted to. >> host: our guests have laid out this. the other areas on the docket, campaign finance as we talked about, affirmative action. it is also going to be taken up and recess appointment, which we also talked about as well. let's go to steve in hendersonville, north carolina. >> caller: hello, thank you very hendersonville. hendersonville north carolina. i just wanted to know if there are any limits to change law saying that it is unconstitutional and to send it back to the congress to be rewritten. the major thing to think about is roberts when he ruled on health care bill and say that

they are not thieving, but taxes. it seems to me that he ruled as unconstitutional and he changed the word from fiji taxes and then that was unconstitutional. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: he should have sat back have it rewritten. >> host: udc the court exercising something of a rewriting power. the best example is where the supreme court valued this with the sixth amendment because they allowed important facts about what would be received to be determined by a judge and not a jury. because that was part of this, they couldn't send it back to congress because there would be no framework and the remedies

put in place because judges could look at the sentencing guidelines of congress that they had written. but that judges would be able to have a part of this. they did so because of the power to correct this. several justices dissented vigorously from that and said exactly what steven wants to say, that the court was rewriting the statute far beyond the power. >> host: we have an independent caller on the line. >> caller: the gentleman to answer my question. i did not have a questions and he answered it. [laughter] is that okay, pratik shah committee have some thoughts? on the question was put that was put forth by the previous caller? >> host: yes, when interpreting the law, rather than sort of taking on the questions to whether they are actually declaring a law unconstitutional or not, there is an element of a

close call, if it is a close call, if that will implicate a significant constitutional question, the court can construe a statute to avoid a difficult constitutional question. so the court will say that we will review the statute that is not coming close to that and that at that point it is interpreted to this as a clerk if it did not include that amendment statute and then you would precipitate that decision, or a can be the law that interpreted to avoid this is the law says. >> host: how influential is public opinion in the formalization of your opinion on the case. do they believe into the justices opinions, and if so, to what extent? >> host: i think every one of

the justices that we see on the supreme court has handed down decisions that are terribly unpopular at some point in their career and that is part of being a justice and on the highest court of the land. i don't think the justices are weathervanes. each of them has a philosophy and we don't see that wasabi changing by and large, especially those who are associated and justice scalia has talked about this and she joined the court that i think the public opinion has or would cause us. >> guest: i think they have life tenure. if they issue a decision that is unpopular at a certain point, one of the safeguards and the very ideas of making these justices not subject to election

is that they are going to issue the decisions are not popular were consistent with public opinion at the time. but it has really alluded to the longer view that they take about applying this and that provides a weathervanes. >> host: let's listen to what the chief justice had to say about this. >> if you have been a president or a senator, you have a particular way of looking at public policy. if you have been a judge on the court of appeals, if you have a very different way of looking at it. you have to decide what type of questions that you think should be decided. and what they call for as far as people who have one way of looking at public policy as opposed to people that you said

our technical bureaucrats, but more focused way of zeroing in on the law. including the type of person are you have to decide it. you have to dissolve the attention one way or another. but that is not a happenstance that you have a quick look so different in the past. >> host: chief justice john roberts talking about the different experiences and backgrounds. we have a roundtable discussion with two former law clerks at the table. and someone on twitter wants to know this. how would justice roberts manage a liberal majority court. >> i don't think it would change his job that right. the chief justice has certain powers and i think we see it the most evident behind the scenes

with a ceremonial function in the public behind the scenes with the conference were the justices sit down in the order in what they will talk about for the cases at the time for discussion in this sort of thing. so don't think those sort of responsibilities would be affected. affected by the rest of the composition. the one way in which it might make a difference is whenever the chief justice is in the majority, he gets to assign the opinion. and presumably if it were a liberal court, then he would be in the majority perhaps less often and have less power to be assigning the case i think that that would the concrete impact across the court, but i think otherwise as well. >> host: speaking of the job of locker, when you are done with law school and able to become a law clerk, what are you making and when you have to start paying back?

>> i think that law schools are understanding that this is not just educational experience in public service and it helps one of our three branches of government do its job. none of them is in it for the money. i don't think the bill collectors are beating up the door at of that year. it's true that law clerks after their clerkship are now increasingly able to ask law firms to pay a bonus for that time. that bonus is quite central. >> host: 300,000 is what one report put it at now. including a signing bonus in the schools he attended including university of virginia law school and a good pr campaign for them as well, 14 have clerk for the u.s. supreme court order now quick and. >> that's right, i think it is

something that a law student may interact with in law school. never really spent any time in court, there's a certain thrill and it is sort of a unique position other than the folks at ackley become this themselves. and this is the one chance to have an inside look at the work and play a role with your law class and what might be. here you're actually doing it where it matters. so i think it's such a good opportunity for a law student. so it's not surprisingly law school. >> how does it prepare you for being a lawyer? >> a couple of ways. one is hard work. there's a tremendous volume volume of work that has to be often digested an incredibly short. back of time.

sometimes this is the first experience having to formulate and make a recommendation and another is exposure to the pinnacle of written and oral advocacy. i think those who argue regularly are really top-notch and law clerks get to see those arguments. i went to every single one because even the humdrum cases could produce stellar advocacy. >> host: up next of next we will ask our viewers to call in in the past cases of the court. but for this, pratik shah, we talked a little bit about campaign finances and there are some abortion cases that the court is going to take up as well. can you talk about that? >> there are two abortion

related cases. one was in oklahoma, a statue that restricts the off label use any medications and including diseases those uses that are not prescribed by the fda approval and for those purposes. the oklahoma supreme court, in a surprisingly terse striking down of the law. there was a lot of analysis and the state supreme court did an unusual thing in this case. they issued an order sending two questions to the oklahoma supreme court and they wanted some greater clarity about this statute into particular questions are should they be part of restricted with one of

these medications altogether, and should they be interpreted to restrict this to prohibit treatment with ectopic pregnancies, one of the jokes communalism off label use, is generally used. so it seems that the supreme court wants clarity and isn't so brought to effect all uses of this medication or is it really a more limited effort trying to pinpoint uses of the drug. those at the oklahoma court may inform what the court does with the case, and whether or not still will hear the case. so i think that one would have to hit the pause button on the we wait and see what the sprinkler does. the other case is out of massachusetts and it's an abortion and part of these

statutes that prohibit any sort of activity within a certain distance of a clinic and i think this particular blog restricted access to a public sidewalk within 35 feet of the entrance of a clinic and there is a prior case which had a different law upheld and i think it was an 8-foot ban on any protesting or counseling. i think that this is going to test the bounds of that prior case and there are some differences for the biggest distinction is creating employees of the clinic who are allowed access to that sidewalk. so it's interesting to see whether the court is willing to revisit the earlier case. this will be part of justice sotomayor hours for a into the tensions between first amendment

rights and abortion rights. and there are absolute individuals who would otherwise look at it. >> host: with that explanation, we touch on the major ones of the core between you guys and the previous guests. i wanted to get your guidance about what cases the people don't know about the you will be listening for a decision on and what do you think will surprise people about this term? >> the surprise is actually in the high-profile cases rather than the obscure ones. but the one thing that i'm looking for that the court has not added to the docket is the question of when someone is arrested and they have a cell phone, maybe a smart phone in

her pocket, their pocket, what can the police do with that smart phone. can they take it out of the pocket, open up the smart phone, search through the call history, look through the memory. and the court has to cases in the queue that it may decide to here, one is involved in a more traditional type of thing. the legal issues may scramble the usual alliances of what people think is and this includes technology and criminal justice. >> host: pratik shah? >> i think that is correct. as we talked about earlier. i think one of the fundamental questions is the courtland go to the extreme that involve the constitutional questions and affirmative action, or are they going to decide in an

incremental fashion that might include the landmark decisions and avoid some of those more difficult individual. there is also sleeker cases on the docket for constitutional law and which goes to the heart of a treaty power that congress has. this is the last case on the treaty power and the question is really are there any limits, structural limits on possessing a treaty, even when it might otherwise be beyond all of its other powers. and this is a constitutional law issue as well. >> host: pratik shah and william jay, thank you both. thank you for your time this morning. >> a look at the health insurance market places greater by the affordable care act. we will talk with the head of

the white house health reform office during president obama's first term. more about the president's health care law with mike leavitt who served as secretary of health and human services under president george w. bush. and the closure of national parks because of the government shutdown. our guest is the head of the national parks conservation association. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span2. coming up next, social security disability fraud and then the hearing of john beal, accused of stealing thousands of dollars from the epa. later, iran in the nuclear program. tuesday look at the humanitarian situation in syria.

senator bob casey who cosponsored legislation to provide assistance to the syrian people speak at an event hosted by the national press club. see it live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. the heads of african affairs for the state and defense department testified tuesday on capitol hill about the situation in somalia. it is live starting at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> during the booktv coverage during this year's national book festival, david nassau spoke about joseph kennedy. >> whether churchill was teasing them or was so drunk that he forgotten the day before that kennedy didn't drink. they dislike one another intensely that the war was over and they had intense suffering and churchill sent to kennedy that he held out his hand and said that i am so sorry for your

loss. joe turner had died during the war and churchill was sincere. he said to churchill, what good was it all? and he looked at him unbelieving , world war ii had destroyed in churchill's mind, helder, mostly, the dictators. it had saved democracy. it had saved western civilization and social thought. >> booktv is the only national television network devoted to nonfiction books every weekend. this fall, we are marking 50 years of booktv on c-span2. >> on monday, the senate homeland security and government affairs committee examines social security disability fraud. witnesses included an attorney

that was accused of filing fraudulent disability claims for this portion of the hearing is .5 hours. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] homologue. >> the meeting will come to order. we welcome all of our guests today. i want to start by thanking doctor coburn and the other staff and witnesses for the work you have done.

and to bring us here to this day, i want to make a very brief statement. we deal to doctor coburn and we have some more things to say. i will say this. all of us know that we are facing budget deficits in this country. $700 billion is a debt that is too much. it is part of the reason that we have had this government shutdown. there are a number of things we need to continue to do to make sure that we bring down the deficit and we run this country in a fiscally responsible way. we have a moral imperative to do what is right, and we also have its fiscal imperative to make sure that we are meeting a moral imperative in a financially responsible way. doctor and i have spent years working together along with

senator mccain and others trying to make sure that we are rooting out waste and fraud and reduce it. i think in this case the doctor has done terrific work. i yield to him and i will have some more decisions. >> doctor courtland? >> this is the second looking at deficiencies in the social security disability claims mishandling. the first one looked broadly at the decisions made by the own internal studies that showed 22% of those who have decided inappropriately, that they look at those near 25%. this afternoon we are going to focus on the findings of a

two-year investigation into the west virginia security office. specifically the investigative report that we are releasing the details went a group of doctors to manufacture bonus fraudulent medical evidence to were disability benefits over 1800 people. i would like to thank my chairman and chairman of investigations, the senators for their hard work on this. without their work, this could not be possible. i want to extend a thank you for the four greatest ladies in front of us at this time. it only survives with the basis of character, sound morals, integrity, and honor, and each of them have demonstrated that an i think the public will see

that as their stories are told. these women, jamie sloan, sarah carver, jennifer griffin. they saw the disability programs that are exploited and brave enough to bring this and whether it can social security or any other agency of the federal government. congress needs to know where the problems are not government so that they can be addressed and hopefully change for the better. thank you to each of you traveling to washington to tell your story and i look forward to hearing from you. like many of our current problems, it began with congress. only here could we take something as important as a social security disability program but politics hurt those most in need. for a long time congress has acted as if getting people into the program is more important

than doing oversight of the program. in practical terms this has meant pushing this with little interest on how that is performed. it was a point driven home clearly last time the senate headed the agency during the 2007 confirmation process, many senators use the chance to criticize how long it took to get a hearing. the gentleman in response wanted to reduce the backlog for the hearing and we saw the results. shortly after he was confirmed from the agency rolled out an aggressive plan to produce backlog and at bottom the plan asked the agency employees to do more faster. the agency hired more individuals to carry the load in a pressured them to decide what cases by spending less time on each case. as part of the plan, many of them decided between five and

700 cases per year, many that had medical evidence and the agency also went so far in 2001 and 2122 have to .37 cases per day to speed the process further and the judges were encouraged to skip hearings altogether and write opinions that felt were warranted. the agency made clear that this was the top priority in on the surface the plan appeared to work. over the next two years, the agency saw an incredible improvement to issue a decision for the alj and a drop from 514 days to see his 350 days by 2012. the number of decisions likewise increased from roughly 575,000 in 2008 to more than 820,000 in 2012. the 43% increase. but to bring two dozen women,

commissioners announced proudly that under his watch the agency had reversed a trend to increased backlog in the disability were quotes. with emphasis on the quantity, including the alj decision has diminished. the report today details what was suffered in one particular office. in huntington, west virginia, office. several doctors took advantage and exploited the program for their own personal benefit and together they had disability rules based on manufactured evidence and borderline decisions. as a result, billions of dollars had bad behavior ignored. the alj at the center of this mass was david doherty. over the course of his tenure come he became the most prolific alj's for the agency.

during 2010 he decided cases and he was the third highest producing of more than 1500 alj's. during that year alone he decided 1375 cases awarded benefits in 1371. with an approval rating and he denied only four cases. he was out on only by frederick mcgrath, and charles bridges of harrisburg, pennsylvania, and how it was possible to decide that so many cases most struggled for a third of it. when asked how they were deciding such a high volume of cases, he said that you are just were just going to have to learn what corners to cut. to cut those corners, investigation found that he focused on cases from one individual, a self-described multi-millionaire and the

practice focused entirely on quiet seeking social security disability benefits and he became known for his aggressive marketing and witnesses interviewed said he could not into the radio or watch television without seeing these commercials. and by 2010 he was a high speed in the country despite working with only 500 people. he received those with the attorney's fee from the agency. the only other attorneys are suing more were individuals of the finer and finer firm that received 22 million and thomas nash of chicago. as our investigation uncovered, there was more than the advertising. they carried out a sophisticated plan to ensure that this would

be relying on questionable and fraudulent methods that they carried out. the top priority was getting his cases in front of judge gordy and they were appealed to whichever office is close to where they live, including clemency might otherwise have to travel great distances for, which can be difficult for someone who is disabled. but the individual discovered a way to discover the cases would always go to the huntington office. and he would require his clients to solve a waiver to go to a satellite office of the huntington office. including being located to the current law offices. and those who travel east once a

month, the disability claim would be a sign to this on appeal. including this would take additional effort and in the normal course, agency rules are the oldest case it is assigned. at the moment that this case arrived at the office, judge gordy would intercept the cases and assign them to himself. the cases would happen to slip past you assigned to another judge, judge gordy would go to the computer system and move the case country cases docket. some of the offices began to notice what was happening and brought it to the attention of the chief judge, charles andrews. despite having the issue brought repeatedly, the judge never once stopped the procedure. in this was a quota built with

very little effort. including to employ interviews, they would cornyn on the risk of the clients who approve and the key was that they would only approve his client provided the one additional piece of evidence and every month he would know just what kind of evidence that he needed for each client. he would start by relating the name and social security number of each person he was ready to approve. and this includes a physical impairments. this was saved at the computers at the law firm and the staff refer to these monthly lists as a nickname list. the committee obtained the lists from june of 2006 through july 2010. this includes the total list from that time and 1823 people

that were approved for disability benefits. after he told him to come with the medical a medical evidence, the next step was to ensure that a doctor provided and fortunately he had a crew of individuals ready to provide what he needed. this includes one with a checkered or difficult past and those have history of malpractice, medical license revoked, and other standards. until his death in 2010, while practicing as an orthopedic surgeon, he was the subject of medicine and he had his privileges revoked in other states. since he lives four hours away, he was arranged to come to town for two days each month and examine his clients in a medical suite in his law office and they

were scheduled for exams and 15 minute blocks to lead up to 35 clients per day. the medical report that he gave him weizmann modest at best and they would provide brief reports about the visit and describing the residual functional capacity that is an important term that we need to be aware of during this hearing. in this includes a residual functional capacity described as a claimant's limitations and performing this end including whether an informant was entitled to benefits. doctor hufnagel said it's important to understand what they contain. here is what the claim that can limit the amount that the client can sit or stand or walk, the

amount that they can lift and carry. they also require that the doctor determine the health and perform 22 other activities by marking one of four answers, never, occasionally, frequently, or constantly. giving the vast range of answers that they could provide, it would be nearly impossible for him to be found with exact same indications. yet somehow the doctor found that his patients almost always had the exact same limitations. ninety-one of them signed one of just 15 different variations and for just one version he frequently signed, he reported 97 claimants had exactly the same limitation. this was no coincidence. our investigation found that this -- it was one of the plans for getting his client on the disability list. he had 15 versions of it filled

up for any doctor visit took place. he cycled through one of these 15 prefilled rfc's and had no connection to the situation even if they had no had no connection. the only thing the change was the name and social security number on the top of the page and then exported the opinion to the judge. agency rules require alj's to review a claimant's entire file and write a comprehensive conference of decision and based on the decisions that we review, we would routinely cite a single piece of evidence, namely the reports from the gentleman, and as such the opinions were shorter and less detailed and other alj's, almost all of them include the paragraph with a following quote. having considered considered all

the evidence and separate information provided by the doctor, most accurately reflects limitations and therefore the claimant is limited to less than work at best. it's remarkable for two reasons, one a claimant's case file can be hundreds of patients if not thousands long come for judge to say that the only piece of evidence was looking at is the one paid for by the claimant's lawyer is absurd. secondly for a claimant gets the alj, must have been a value weighted and denied by the agency twice. professionals who do this all day everyday. and have dedicated their lives to it. the opinions that we review, judge gordy rather strays from the basic format, most have a small exchange. and we were able to write a lot of decisions with little effort. the doctor passed away in 2010, the same rfc forms that he signed continued to be resubmitted by other doctors and

we reviewed a hundred signed by the doctor and 90% were identical that doctor huffnagle sign. nine were identical to the prefilled forms signed by doctor tranter. identical forms were also used by doctors examining mr. kahn's climates or mental impairments. for then, he consented for his client to meet with doctor brad atkins. atkins would submit a mental rfc. erc required him to write a claimant with regard to 15 different abilities, such as follow work rules and behave in a stable manner. unlimited, good, fair, poor were the rankings. finding two identical ones should be next to impossible. yet we found that 74% signed by doctor atkins were one of just five different forms.

they came from doctor khan's office and only the names of social security numbers were changed. just as before, judge dougherty would cite the documents when only they benefited mr. kahn's clients. it's useful not to turn back to the issue of why these individuals did what they did. the short answer is that judge dougherty, judge anderson, and the doctors benefited in different ways and mr. khan made millions for coming up with the db list for several years and he was paid or $4.5 billion by the social security administration and in 2010 alone, 3.9 million for all of the cases, including those from judge gordy. his doctors also benefited and

he paid his doctors up to $650 per claimant, helping them with considerable fees and testimony that we sometimes been less than 10 to 15 minutes for this and mr. khan paid him almost $1 million and he was paid more than 600,000 in doctor atkins over 600,000. the judge, judge dougherty took advantage of this. when they complained about this, the big numbers let him do whatever he wanted. and they rose to be the second-most second most productive office in the agency. office management received salary interest is. some even receive bonuses for productivity. the judge received national recognition including the mentor of other alj's across the

country and the real claimants with american taxpayer. we don't do anything when we wrongly were benefits and we will certainly hurt those who justifiably are justifying this less than 18 months in a row. at the same time, the judge approved an estimated $546 million with benefits. all these cases, judge dougherty awarded 2.5 billion in the last 10 years so what happened when the details became uncovered? in may of 2001, a reporter for "the wall street journal" ran a story about the relationship of

mr. khan and judge dougherty and along with the judge, they responded by turning out what appeared to be an elaborate of campaign to cover up the truth after the story ran, they made the decision to speak with each other only using prepaid disposable cell phones. we are told by the former employees that this was to keep the conversations are being recorded. including one of the witnesses today who believe that she was behind "the wall street journal" article. the plan was an attempt to get her fired for violating the agency rules. so once the agency discovered what was going on and they placed them on administrative leave. the trouble was the destruction of documents, once allegations

began to surface publicly. both mr. khan and the agency took the unusual steps to destroy the documents potentially related to a known congressional relations. the committee found that mr. connor hired a local trading company to destroy over 3 million pages of documents and this includes all copies of the list, including a warehouse full of fires. along with hard drives and a massive fire. it was also noted that the number of e-mails mysteriously went missing. the agency for its part could not find any of judge dougherty's e-mails either. the agency approve the purchase of personal trainers for the office of the management. keep in mind that this occurred in the middle of a congressional investigation when the agency

was legally obligated to preserve all relevant documents. senator levin and i immediately asked the local inspector general to seize the shutter, which they did. why the huntington management, this is a question that needs to be answered. and we approve the purchase and said that i hadn't even been considered. this is a judge that says it is not acceptable. including laws and regulations updated that can be governed at social security bill disability programs and in my mind they broke all agency rules. but attorneys using these documents to provide bogus

medical evidence is not limited to huntington, west virginia. his laughter, the report found the same thing happened in three other officers. i'll end by noting that congress continues to be the problem with a clock ticking on the agency trust fund. some refuse to acknowledge that the disability programs are broken and in dire need of significant oversight and people who are truly disabled will pay the price of our dithering. one simple reform would make a big difference come including professional's with the social security administration and ultimately what those made by the alj. this would bring a needed balance for hearings and decisions at the level of appeal, which is especially true now that most claimants have representation. as we learned in our previous report, some attorneys withhold evidence showing that the claimant's condition has improved. a government representative would make sure no such

information is overlooked the cast was also representing that this is clearly outnumbered. including the agency management breathing down the necks of alj's to decide the monthly quotas or cases. this includes all of the claimants and the evidence file. this has long been a recommendation by the social security advisory board and is fully supported by the association of administrative law judges. this is one area where congress can find common ground on reforms. we also need to make sure that they render the proper decisions and the agency's recent preventing of the purchase of symptom validity testing like that minnesota multiphasic personality inventory is ridiculous. these tests can be manipulated

if an individual is lying about her symptoms for the recently determined the agency stands alone and other federal agencies, private academics at large. and i hope that this encourages us to take a level of merit including the money that is taxpayer money. i close with my market if you work somewhere and federal government today, i would hope that we can proceed fraud. if you are seeing manipulation, if you are seeing things that are not right, that you will follow the lead for courageous women and bring it to the attention of my office. that, i thank you.

document request, and dug in to the facts. in the second year of the investigation when senator coburn became ranking minority member of the full committee, which he is now, the joint report being released today was drafted. and so this report is a prime example of a bipartisan congressional oversight effort has the entire investigation has been. we are happy and proud that senator health mccain is our

ranking republican and working together on many investigations. senate coburn already described whalt investigation uncovered. a case study of conduct that has abuse uv, fraudulent, long standing, and intolerable. it shows how one lawyer living in kentucky, erick, engaged in a wrath of improper practices to obtain disability gifts for thousand of climates. taking advantage of federal disability programs taken -- manufacturing boilerplate mm form, misusing wavers to submit claims that should have gone elsewhere. employing suspect doctors and signed virtually any form that put in front of them and colluded with the administrative law judges on procedures that broke the laws in improperly favored his client.

evidence in inappropriate collusion between mr. khan and one of the administrative law judges is particularly striking. administrative law judge david dorrty used a range of techniques to quickly award benefits large numbers of the khan cases. they included improperly assigning the khan cases to himself. secretly informing mr. khan of what case he would decide and what documentation should be submitted. accepting boilerplate million forms, relying on medical opinion to reverse prior benefit denial. skipping hearings, churning out short, poor quality decisions. in addition, the chief administrative law judge in the regional office, charles andrews, failed to act on complaint that too many of the khan cases were going to administrative law judge dorrty. and a allowed khan cases to receive favorable scheduling compared to other cases. after a negative media report on

mr. khan, tarnished the reputation of his office. only after the report chief administrative law judge andrews did something else. he teemed up with mr. khan to discredit social security employee they believed had blown the whistle. in addition to improper practice is, the evidence exposes the nonexistent oversight by social security officials that allow the abuses to continue for years. repeatedly lower level -- warned senior per tell me about the improper case assignment. the -- and the mishandling of had his case by administrative law judge dorrty. but nothing was done to stop it. action was taken only after the abusive practices where exposed in the media in the "the wall street journal" article mentioned by dr. coburn.

the report being released today documents how the individualities involved in the abuse profited from them. mr. khan i was paid millions of dollars in attorneys fees becoming as dr. coburn said in 2010 the third highest paid disability lawyer at the social security administration with fees totaling almost $4 million. the doctor who provided mm opinion justify were also well paid. sin 2006, just five of them split $2 million in fees paid by mr. khan. judge dorrty and never explained the origin of multiple cash depositive it to his family bank account total $96,000. so where are we today? administrative law judge dorrty was placed on leave by the social security administration in 2011. then retired and no longer deciding disability cases. last month the judge andrews was placed on administrateive leave

and undergoing a review to determine whether or not he's losing his job. erick khan is going strong still. it was launched because some of the social security administrations hard working employees blew the whistle on the misconduct say that

observed. those federal employees will testify today as will two former members of mr. khan's office. who helped bloat -- blow the whistle. our nation is in your debt. the point of this hearing is not to attack our talk about programs, which play a critical role in the live of many americans. but to spotlight the abusive conduct of a group of legal medical and judicial professionals exploding these programs also the purpose is press the need for greater oversight in the agency and the congress. you can have dwreart e fresh sincerity and must have great e fresh sincerity. we can't tolerate fraud. we also reamed number of measures to prevent similar abuses in the future. again, i want to thank you, mr. chairman, for pitching in the way you have.

and also to senator coburn and his staff again for spearheading this investigation. thank you to so you and dr. cor burn. they are longer than the usual -- you usually don't hear a chairman of the committee or sub exee or the ranking member gave statement of that length. this is an extraordinary investigation has taken several years to do pain staking huge amount of effort. and i'm grateful to those who have lead that charge. i said earlier that as we try to grapple with our nation's fiscal woe, there are essentially three things we need to do. one, look at the entitlement programs and ask how -- what steps we need to take in order to save money in those entitlement programs in order to save those programs for our children and grandchildren. how do we so in a they is

sensitive to the least of these. we need tax reform. it generates some revenue for deficit reduction. the third thing. we almost need a culture change and culture of spend theft to a culture of thrift. and an approach which we have everything across the government and say how do we get a better result for less money or the same amount of money just as we need a culture thrift we need a culture that says there's 0 tolerance for fraud. 0 tolerance for dishon ety. zero tom rains for wasting taxpayer's money. it amounts to over half what spend. social security is a big part of that. most of the people who receive

social security for the regular social security retirement benefit deserve that. we make sure that monies spent in this social security disability program -- dr. coburn said we're going to run out of money about a year and a half. how do we make sure that the stop wasting money there if we actually direct money to the place it's needed? we hope to hear from the social security administration. they have asked to be excused and have a change to come back later this month. as soon as the government is back open for business we expect to schedule a second hearing and social security administration to come in and tell us what are we doing nationally throughout the program? and the country. in order to address these kinds of problems that are have been uncovered. we look forward to that

hearing. we're not going to d -- this is a big problem. what i have heard here today does not make me proud of particularly proud of some of the things that happened in my native state. whatever state that we're -- this kind of thing i've true cannot be tolerated. we have to use our best effort to make sure it stops. and the in this first panel of witness. the buck stops here? then the case is not -- what is the -- one of the thing we pray for is wisdom to know to do the right thing. and we pray for the strength and courage to be able to do what we know is the right thing. what you have done is not an easy thing to do. it's the riping thing to do. whatever source you drew your

courage and strength, hopefully you'll be an example for the rest of us. to enable those that might be following the proceeding today. we want to thank you for being here. citizens and federal employees who bring forward evidence and indication of potential violation of the law are one of the most important ways in which federal agencies inspector general and congress can address waste, fraud, and abuse. we invite you to go ahead with the stai. senate mccain, i yield to the ranking member of subcommittee. let me stop right now. i guess i should have asked if you like to make a brief

statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. u look forward to hear from the witnesses. >> thank you so much. >> that was brief. we're not always that brief. the first is czar perhaps she works at the huntington west virginia office. and review? she's here before committee to describe her experience in disclosure about the operation of the huntington office. she appeared today in a pelf capacity not representing the view of a social security administration. welcome. >> our next witness is jennifer griffith. a former master docket clerk of the u.s. social security administration. she worked at the west virginia office. she's also here before our committee to describe her experiences in disclosure about the operation of that office. she appears knead a personal

capacity and not representing the view of social security administration. welcome, thank you finish joining us. next is jamie sloan. she is a resident of pikeville, kentucky. appearing today to share her observations and experience as an employee of ther rick c khan law firm from 2006 to i believe 2012. we want to thank you, again, for appearing before our panel today. thank you so much. finally, melinda l. martin, former employee of the khan law firm. i'm not sure for how long. we're grateful for coming here to testify before us today. the the next thing before we testify though i would ask it each of you to stand and ask do

you stand and raise your right hand, please. do you swear the testimony you will give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you god? please be seated. thank you. would you like to proceed your testimony will be made part of the record. you're welcome to surprise if you wish. >> member of the committee, good afternoon. my name is sara carver. in twept of sphwun i joined the social security administration office of disability and review. beginning a 12-year career at the agency. over the course of my employment with the administration, i've held the position of a senior case technician sct. in 2006, in addition to my duty

as an sat i was elected to the position of afgc3610 union steward. prior to my employment with odar. i was paralegal in the private sector for 13 years 8 of which i primarily focused on representation of climate seeking social security disability benefits. i'm a graduate of marshall university with a degree in legal studies. from 2001 to 2006, i routinely received purchase award for the quality and production of my work and the huntington office. however, in 2006, those awards came to an abrupt stop. when greg hall became the hearing office director. subsequently. i had been voicing my concern about what i perceived as inimproper processing of social security claim in the hunt ton

office. not only did i report my concerns to mr. hall, i also reported them to other member of the huntington management team throughout the years. these members consistent of stacy clerkson, jerry mead, john patterson, kerry roland and chief charlie paul. i'm still currently employed for the huntington office despite many retaliatory action against me by several members of management. i reported to management on numerous occasions what i perceived as inappropriate action involving the management. alj dorrty and khan. when such example in may of 2007 i sent an e-mail to greg requesting justification on the hearing request date of fully

favorable dispositions. i discussed the serious evidence which would substantial the overt favoritism of the claimant and management's continuous sweeping things under the rug with regards to dorrty and khan. in that e-mail, i directly warned my managers and i quote, the cairn situation is going to bite this office in the butt one day. i further requested minuting -- management to open the eyes and change the way it was handled before it became an outside issue. instead of any corrective action being taken, the situation only escaladed. i continued reporting to management for several years thereafter before i took my concerns out of the office. as a result of my multidisclosure i have suffered tremendously.

and make my life as miserable as possible for the last seven years. knowing that a private investigators was hired to follow me has been very traumatizing. i still fear for my safety and the safety of my family. also knowing that employees have been terminated for their association with me has left me with such a burdensome feeling. perhaps i should mention that this point that the agency has asked me to inform you that i'm here testifying in my personal, not official capacity. and that the agency does not sanction my testimony. every employee in the huntington, west virginia including management is concerned a public servant and held to a hire standard of conduct. management officials and judges are no exception.

where does the accountability in this agency? why cousin the -- does the agency promode and reward -- agency production goals and benchmarks are important. however, they should not diminish the importance of the quality of work we perform for the american people. changes need to be made in the agency to not only allow for timely processing of claims without sacrificing quality. but also as important a system needs to be put in place and monitored by an outside source to ensure agency leaders and claimant representatives are held accountable for failing to follow the law and religionlations policy. i appreciate the opportunity to speak with you and would be happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you so much.

miss griffith. would you make sure -- in you go. members of the committee. good afternoon. my name is jennifer griffith. i'm a wife, mother of two, and student as well as a former employee of the huntington, west virginia office of disability adjudication and review. i'm both humbled and honored to be appear here today and appreciate the opportunity to describe my experience. october has been a special month for me. activity the day in 1997 my son was born. 12 years ago in october i began my career. >> today is your son's 16th birthday? >> give him my best, thank you. thank you for sharing -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> during my employment, i was also a master -- beginning in 2006 on too many occasions to count my group super visier began to call me to

my office and -- docketed improperly, incompletely north docketed timely. i was unable to answer the question and no idea what was causing the issues. in an attempt determine what was occurring with i began to various reports on a daily basis and keep track of cases i docketed each day. i determined in fact the docketing issues were occurring because dorrty was assigning cases to himself at the master docket level before i was ever aware that the case had been transmitted to huntington. cpms, the agency's computerized docketing system provided no safe guard at the time. i immediately brought it to the attention of the hearing office director.

it was the beginning of the end of my career. i was beginning to question how he was accessing the files not making it to the docket report. if they had not been through the docketing process how was he aware? he had prior knowledge. alj dorrty did not take cases from the moster docket without proper dockets. he assigned and self-scheduled extensive quantity of mr. khan's cases and awarded all of them infavorable sham hearings. in 2007 other area -- khan was receiving preferential treatment. i forwarded them on. soon after dorrty stopped holding hearings. for an extended period all the cases were decided facially -- favorably on the record without hearings. they increased the effort to stop my reporting. i have been decided to make each

nofghts in writing and include my union representative. i felt i was doing the right thing. i wanted the retaliation to stop and do my job fully without the threat of reprimand. instead as i reported of misappropriation of khan cases increased, the investigation to retaliation by management increased at one point my supervisor would time how long i took throughout my day. she told me in an annual progress review that her goal by the end of the year make sure i was no longer employed there and nothing i could do about it. after years of trying to get to correct the consistent misappropriation of cases by ajl for khan-clear to me things were never going change. the cost of retaliation had severely affected my health and family. i physician advised me to leave my employment before it killed

me. i left. i filed a complaint with the inspector general in 2009 they if not contact me until april of 2011. apparently because of a rumored "the wall street journal" investigation. they called regarding the explant and i cooperated fully. in addition to my cooperation i had the graduate fortune to cooperate with the investigation and speak with committee staff as well as to participate in the article written by the "the wall street journal." i also thought -- filed a complaint regarded my forced resignation after appealing that claim, i settled it and requested by the agency i have agreed not to seek employment with the social security administration for five years. in october of 2011, siri -- sara and i found attorneys to sue him. and we are continuing to pursue the case and hopefully be able to obtain -- each time i was spoke with someone i was asked what to do

be done to fix it. there not nearly safe guards to catch the type of fraud that occurred here. to receive the primary concern of the management i worked for was quantity with no regard to quality. my family has not been the same. and financially we'll never have the same amount of security. we have suffered loss and probably don't -- continue to do so. whatever happens now whatever any meanful aca was taken place. i did erg to make sure that the american public knew about it. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much for the statement. and joining us today and the journey in the last several years. >> missloan. you are are welcomed and

recognized. >> my name is jamie sloan. i'm 36 and live in kentucky. i'm married and have 4 children. i work if the khan law firm for september to 2006 to march 16, 2012. one of my responsibility at the firm to field call from administrative law judge dorrty each month judge dorrty called and gave the followings informing forest fire 30 to 50 social security disability claimants represented by khan. first name, last name, the climate's social security number, and mental or physical. i created a life these climate claimant known throughout the office. once the list was created another employee called each claimant on the throis schedule an exam with the doctor. during my tenure at the firm jessica newman was primarily responsible for that. depending on judge indicated mental or physical.

she scheduled them to see a certain did doctor to provide an opinion on the claimant's alleged disability. when they were completed he sent a bar code to the firm to atornadoattach to the report. and used to upload them to the ssa electronic file system. he issued a decision approving them for disability benefits on the record without holding a hearing. if you have any questions i would be happy to answer. thank you. >> thank you. finally, miss martin. please proceed. welcome. >> would you make sure your mic is on. formerly martin. i was married in june of 2012. i worked at the khan law firm from 2006 to 2012. my responsibility at the firm range from receptionist to several different supervisorring positions to assisting and management of the office. during my time i did witness several inappropriate acts between khan and the administrative law judges from

the west virginia hearing office. i have previously submitted an averred which outlines the relationship between him and the judges. that i saw during my time working at the office. if you have any questions i'm ready to answer those. >> thank you. this is not a trial. this is a committee hearing. this is an opportunity for us try to get to the truth. because thomas jefferson said the american people know the truth they won't make a mistake. what we're trying to do today is garner much more of the truth as we can. i'm going to ask -- i don't know -- staff come and go. and senators come and go for a hearing like this. they need other things they need to do at the same time. if one of you take a minute or two and just explain what was going on here. in your own words. what was going on here? someone -- one of you feel comfortable in

doing that. please do. >> it is, in my opinion, it was a mass collusion between a judge an attorney. it was something that was very noticeable from the day within days of my employment, and it just increased. it was -- it was done in such openness, and it wasn't something that was going on behind the scenes. we had office statistics, and as jennifer mentioned, as those statistics became available to us in a system to where we were able to view these report it became more apparent because you could see the mass numbers of

favorable decisions going out. this was something that really comb -- come to light whenever the electronic folder came out. you could see the massive amount of numbers, and the other thing that kind of astonished me even after this investigation started, they -- management was still pooling and, again, this is in my personal opinion, management was still pooling these cases out of hearing request dates and still allowing -- and at one point before -- it happened also on several occasions once judge helped them meet the monthly goal. we had monthly dispositions goals, they would bank these decisions -- these of decisions were people who were waiting for them to come in the mail, and they would

bank these for their own number call purpose and hole them before sending them out. they were all khan cases. there would be 50 sitting all favorable on the record, khan decisions. management would allow him to put them in aw pressuring c, which basically means it's the judge riding. they had within written two weeks ago. and all favorable just sitting there for the next reporting month. in my view, management was just a part of this as the individuals that were actually, you know, -- >> that was a great overview. thank you. any idea how many people work at the huntington office, social security office in huntington? talk about dozen of people? >> at one time, i believe, we had about 60.

in that office and satellite offices. maybe the law office of mr. khan. other people had to know something was going on. >> absolutely. >> people had to know. >> but four of you have somehow stepped up shown courage, are here today. and some of you have been through difficult times. what was that compelled do you stand up and say this is wrong. and somebody needs to say something and cosomething. what compelled you? we'll ask everybody that question. what compelled do you do this? >> i'm not really sure. i actually probably would have been too scared to do it myself, but i had actually spoke to another attorney in the area just about what was going on, he contacted someone for me.

that knead a little easyier for me to be able to do. >> thank you. miss sloan? >> i -- it's not an easy thing to do. what was it that compelled you and gave you the courage do it? >> melinda had officially taken the first step toward speaking to someone about the problem within the office. i was approached to cooperate and answer some questions and give my insight to, you know, things involved at the law firm. and, i mean, there wasn't any question. i just cooperated. >> cooperated with the inspector general? >> at first it was your staff. it was the staff here. the subcommittee. then also the oig. >> thank you. >> miss griffith, same question, please. >> i don't really know. [laughter] to an the question. i left in 2007 and walked away

from it. until 2009. in 2009 i began to see some things in the media that just -- that were put out by mr. khan and some other things. it just -- i walked away from my house but suddenly i was mad again and ready to take that next step to do something. and filed a complaint with the oig fraud division at that time. and just sort of nothing really happened for awhile then contacted by mr. -- communicated and to the committee here. and worked with them to bring it out. you just have to have a certain level of anger over what you see to -- >> what compelled you? >> i agree with jennifer star

the anger. we initially started reporting this together. i was a -- the union rep, and she initially came to me because of the disciplinary problems that she was having with her supervisors. whenever i would have one on one talks with the office management, it was apparent that is not what they wanted to hear. and at the point where they started retaliating in doing things not only to her but to me, i really truly believed that just triggered something inside of me that, you know, i'm a fighter when it comes to doing the right thing. i just kept doing it to the point where i couldn't stop now. and i'm there to as a union representative to help and to set an example. and that's what i was trying to do. >> okay. thank you.

before yielding to dr. coburn. i ask that my statement be made part of the record. dr. coburn, please. >> jennifer, i'm going go through a list of questions if you can answer them fairly rapidly. i'm sure you probably have the answer to them in your mind. how long did you work at the office? >> from 2001 to 2007. >> and you are master docket clerk for. >> for the latter half i was the initially the senior case technician. >> were cases assigned only by "the master" docket clerks or judges allowed to assign cays? a at that time "the master" dockets were the only ones assigning the cases unless, of course something was brought to the attention by the supervisor. >> the reason they didn't want judges assigning cases on "the master" docket list? >> to avoid judge shonning or favoritism.

>> okay. it was -- typically for the case to be reassigned to another judge? >> it was not supposed to be assigned to another judge. you talked about some of the problems you have when dr. -- judge dorrty was going in to the computer system cpms and assigning himself cases. it was some of your conflict you were supposedly displinned over. >> yes. >> really not your fault. >> what are -- is that the only way you can manipulate the system? are there other ways yuma nip late the system? somebody could cheat the system? >> there are numerous way the. keep in mind i've been going for awhile. unless something changed significantly. the goal number kl goal make it a priority toy sort of sort things around. for example, if you have a case in one stars it -- status for too long it could be an issue. you want to make sure you are processing them timely.

you can change status out of the case and change it back. without really ever doing anything to the case. >> you meet the numbers but didn't do anything. >> essentially, yes. >> sara? let me finish with jennifer again. you turn exhibit 26. in the big book in front of you. this is an e-mail you wrote on september 11th, 2010 to greg, the hearing office director in charge of the office at that time. you express serious frustration. you let him know you were quitting. you where i'm aware that while i was out of the office the judge felt it was necessary to take

away more cases assigned to another judge. i take this wasn't the first time this happened? >> no. this had begun approximately a year, year and a half prior. >> why did it make you upset? >> because every time a case would disappear or a group of cases would disappear off "the master" docket list and my supervisor was coming to me for explanations as to why. i'm not pressuring my job to the fullest capacity then i won't receive a successful performance evaluation. i have no change for promotion or anything else. and it had taken mae long time to figure out what caused this. because there was no clear way to determine what happened. it and had escaladed to a point of almost continue substantiate altercations with my supervisor. >> how long do you think the judge was doing this? >> by my estimation, it began after the e folder process went in to effect.

>> which was? >> in 2005. >> okay. >> when we started that. >> how many times do you remember it happening? he would reassign cases and i don't think i can count that. it was every month. he could. it. >> 50 or 6000 times? >> there were times 50 cases missing off my pending list or sometimes five. it was you docket daily. it would just cases disappearing every day sometimes, you know, every week. >> and in your e-mail you al wrote judge drty does many things like this every month. when i find them i make management aware of it. nothing is ever done about it. what did you tell your managers? what was their response? >> at the certain point of time it became clear they were not going to do anything. i started making written information to and including the name of the social security -- they became aware of. then that continued from nowed

late 2005 until when i left in 2007. >> to your knowledge was he disciplined for what he did? >> not my knowledge. >> that's a violation of rules. >> it's. >> were the cases from one particular lawyer. can he do it for all cases? >> i'm not aware for doing it for any other office than khan's office. >> you noticed many of the same problems she saw in the west virginia office. can you describe your role in the office specifically as to what jennifer has talked about? >> jennifer was receiving disciplinary rip rip i are manned. verbal and writing. denied at first she was denied for me to a union representative to even be present when they

were verbally -- what they said, is counseling. but then it escaladed to the verbal could believing. they would put in writing. it was a battle with management to even let me be present. that's when i kind of got involved with not only management but with my outside union president and vice president and chief steward. and i began talking with management and also keeping things in writing based on what conversations we had. >> lfer all right. before we talk about the decision. i understand the office joke if you were looking for judge dorrty, don't look in his office. is that true? >> that's fry. >> that's an observation not by you but several people. >> yes. there were several occasions they no go next door or management would call him on the

cell phone because there were people waiting in the hearing rooms for him. he was usually at the coffee shop at the holiday inn in across the street. >> did anyone know about the time and attendants problems? >> yes. not only did other alj report it. i reported it approximately probably two or three times. >>s was anything done about it? >> no. >> thank you. i can finish with a few -- it's been about two and a half years within the situation became known publicly. have you withinned any rei are biewtion for those trying to speak out still? >> yes. >> would you describe that, please. >> there have been -- i'll give you a good exafm. one of the employees who reported to the oig that the

private investigator was hired to have me followed. she went from being one of the top employees as far as production in her workup in the country. she was number one and number two. and often helped management with projects that weren't even -- they were management-type projects to be suspend forked two weeks. she was also reprimanded for bringing the word up -- the wordy versety up in one of her office evaluations. several employees that participated were -- we were now being charged with -- i had a police officer call my work and my 16-year-old daughter

had been in a car accident. i had verbally went and sought approval from management and received it and left the office. however, why came back, i was charged with what i officially put in my leave request i was acharged with awol. it was the beginning of -- still occurring despite any type of medical certification that employees are receiving from their physicians, management is giving themselves the right to decide whether or not your condition is serious. and denying employees leave. this is happening every day. it didn't happen before the information. >> each judge would have several support staff working with them. including those helping draft decisions. can you describe judge dorrty's

they would write the decisions. these are paralegal writers. they would write the decisions and they were told she was told by the supervisor if she didn't write the decision she would be held insubordinate. >> all right.

we've heard the hearings can take an hour or more. how long did his with khan take? >> about ten minutes. >> he went in long enough to two on the record. no -- you can listen to the court reporting of the senior case technician. we would bring the hearings in and put them in the system pane you can listen to the recordings and he would just go on record and announce that the his decision was favorable. there will be no testimony for the ve, the claimant or anybody. >> and it is true that you noticed that you were aware that the judge was assigning himself cases as well. >> on many, many, many occasions. >> that was written as well? >> yes. >> all right. thank you. the next question will be asked by senator levin and followed by

senator mccain, senator bald, -- baldwin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you were targeted for speaking out. chief judge administrative law judge andrews and mr. khan used a khan employee, a former police officer, to video tape you on the days you were supposed to working from home. they were trying to catch you going shopping or otherwise taking van of the rules. they failed. they were unable to provide any kind of proof like that. so instead you were filmed going shopping on the weekend and evidence was fabricated in the video tape to make it appear as though you were going shopping during work hours. and the video tape was turned over to your superior. so far, is that correct? >> we're. they try to discredit you

because they believe you had spoken to a reporter about behalf going on in the office. and judge an andrews admitted as much in a signed statement to the social security administration ig, which is exhibit number 82. so now -- should i call you miss martin or hicks? >> either will be fine. >> okay. miss hicks, you're married and obviously did -- a member of the huntington office, sandy regularly place calls to you at the khan office informing you when miss carver would be working from home. >> she did. she didn't call my office. she called the personal cell phone. >> were you at the office when she called? >> are most of the time. >> why she calling your personal

cell phone? >> yes wanted me to let erick know. >> khan? >> yes. what days sara would be on her flex day, and she also called to give us directions to her home, her address, she told us she had a tal privacy fence that would be hard to record over. and also told us the top of the vehicles she and her views drove so it would be easier for them to find her. >> and this came from the social security office? >> yes. >> then was part of that a coded message? >> yeah. a couple of messages she would say that her children had band practice. i don't think she children that band practice. that meant -- instead of saying it's flex cays. she would say her children had brand practice glips a flex day is when employees are working at home; that's correct? >> yes.

and so that was, in your junlt, coded words for she's supposed to be doing work at home on flex day. >> right. >> and not the kids had band practice. >> correct. did you then give that information to mr. khan? >> i did. that's pretty stunning testimony. i have to tell you. you're being tracked and followed here, miss carver. we have a witness from the social security administration office there who confirms these calls were made to mr. khan from your office so you could be tracked by -- i'm wondering, i think you have initiated a lawsuit, i believe, you made reference to; is that correct? >> yes. >> against the social security administration? >> have you thought about suing

him for the employee, employer relationship? >> a lot of the information, obviously within i wasn't privy to until the last couple days. it was quite shocking because, you know, in the report it stated that the agency -- once they found out this information they didn't use it, and they did use it. the acting -- the judge had talked to me and had ordered an investigation with stephen heys, my supervisorred at the time. they brought me to the office and asked me a budge of questions just kind of like, you know, intimidate you. it was kind of intimidating

because they wouldn't tell me what, when, where, how, at the time my union representative had requested any information they had. documentation, what they based this investigation on, and they were told -- i was told we -- there wasn't any. it was an anonymous call. so i just now kind of finding out the information. i mean, it's shocking. >> it's stunning and shocking information. >> it's scary. >> i hope will have an impact in many ways. the i think you ms. carver and ms. griffith indicated that you pointed out what was going on to your bosses there at the social security office. you -- i believe you alerted the chief staff in your office; is this correct, greg hal what was going on? stherkt? >> that's correct.

>> yes. >> and judge chef andrews? did you inform him what was going on as well? >> most of the e-mails started to be copied. on one particular occasion, judge dorothy taken approximately 50 cases away from alj and had them in the office preparing to write favorable otr decisions after they were assigned. i took them in to the office and showed them the cases. they removed them but they were later back with him and decided favorably. >> thank you. let me ask miss sloan and mrs. hicks. the bank records from 2005 to 2011 show some so far unexplained cash depositive it and $96,000. and round amounts starting as low as $1,000 and going as high

as $5,000 at the time. some of $26 ,000 posted to the daughter's account from 2007-2008. when asked he declined to provide any information from the cash payments. there's no explanation of them in his financial disclosure forms. ms. sloan and mrs. hicks, do you know anything about the cash deposit? >> no , sir, i don't know anything specifically about the cash depositive i -- depositive it. i had, at the firm for quite a few years and working closely. i did -- >> con. >> yes, sir. i pretty much knew where erick chiropractic onn was every day. there was one day usual lay month that he was unaccounted for by myself, anyway.

i had asked him one day he come back. he was gone half the day. i told him i had a theory about him. and he asked what the theory was. and i said i think when you disappear one day a month, you go meet db. and he just looked at me and smiled said where there is smoke there's fire. >> d -- >> you know anything about the cash depositive snit. >> no my time is up. thank you. >> senator mccain, senator baldwin. >> i want to thank the witnessens. i also want to thank senator coburp -- coburn and senator levin on the excellent work they and their staff have done. obviously this is appalling. it's one of these things you

read about in novels or see on tv. what is most disturbing, i would like to begin with the witnesses who i want to thank profusely. there was a pattern -- is it true, there was a pat herb of intimidation in an action concerning your willingness to step forward? could i just go down the line and make sure that is an accurate statement, is that true? >> yes, it is. >> could you give mae couple of most agreeing use examples. >> everything from, i guess, suspensions to -- [inaudible conversations] >> video taping. >> to being video taped, yes. >> shouldn't happen in america. >> no. >> i don't think. >> no. >> ms. griffith? >> i'm more fortunate i haven't been followed by the private

investigator. i was already gone by that time. i was already gone by the time the worst of the office environment, you know, -- i've been gone for several years. during my time there, each reporting action was met with equal and opposite reaction of negative verbal reprimands, i've had, you know, files that would disappear and be reviewed. in the last example before i left, the supervisor had issued another union employee to go through my desk to determine if any mail was over a certain age and then in my progress review she told me that was her goal was to make sure that he was not going to be there by the close of the year, which would have been two months away. ..

he actually had a security -- eric is mr. conn. you would have to go through security check to make sure you didn't have any phones or recording devices or anything like that before you would be allowed to enter into his office.