四 川 铁 FourRiverIron

If this is true it could be more of the old "Do as I say, not as I do" from our government masters?

Source

Feds probed role of Gov. Brewer in son's Social Security benefits

by Michael Kiefer and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez - Dec. 8, 2011 05:19 AM

The Arizona Republic

Gov. Jan Brewer's role in the collection of her son's Social Security benefits was under investigation for more than a year by federal authorities trying to determine if about $75,000 in benefits was improperly paid on behalf of her son.

Sources familiar with the investigation said the case was referred to federal prosecutors, who have declined to pursue charges. However, sources said, Social Security officials are considering efforts to recover the money through administrative procedures. One source described the case as "highly political."

The precise scope of the probe could not be ascertained because state and federal officials would not reveal the information, citing federal secrecy statutes and patient-confidentiality laws.

Brewer and her office have declined to discuss the matter in detail. Brewer said in a written statement to The Arizona Republic, after more than a month of interview requests, that she knows no specifics of the inquiry and never spoke to investigators.

Her spokesman, Matt Benson, wrote in an e-mail late Wednesday that the target of the inquiry has not been clear. "All that has been evident is that the records of the governor's son Ron were of interest," he said.

Brewer's statement said she believed the investigation was a politically motivated attack on her family. She said she believes it began with an anonymous complaint to Social Security before last year's election.

"To our family's knowledge, my son has never received any Social Security benefits to which he was not entitled, and all the benefits he has received have been spent entirely for his care and well being," the statement said.

The Arizona Republic has determined:

The case involves an examination of Social Security benefits paid on behalf of Brewer's oldest son, Ronald. He first received benefits as a minor after his father's death and continued to receive them as an adult because of a disability from mental illness.

In 1989, Ronald was charged with sexual assault and kidnapping. The next year, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and sent to the Arizona State Hospital. A court commissioner ordered Jan Brewer, as Ronald's "representative payee," to direct her son's monthly Social Security benefits toward the cost of his hospitalization. The Arizona Department of Health Services, which runs the hospital, declined to release records to The Republic regarding such payments, saying the records either were protected by privacy laws or did not exist.

Court records said Ronald was receiving Social Security benefits when he was sent to the hospital in 1990. Federal law was changed in 1995, barring Social Security benefits to anyone institutionalized after being found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Each year, Jan Brewer, as "representative payee," would have been asked by the Social Security Administration to sign a form regarding her son's status. That form requires the representative payee to confirm if there is any change in the living arrangements of the beneficiary. The signature line for that reporting form states: "A person who conceals or fails to tell SSA about events asked about on this form with the intent to fraudulently receive benefits may be fined, imprisoned, or both." Ronald did have a status change in 2002. Court records show he was conditionally released in May 2002 and returned to the hospital by September 2002. He currently is confined to the hospital.

The basis of the investigation was whether Ronald improperly received benefits at any time; the amount of money in question is about $75,000. Brewer said her son is no longer receiving benefits.

The governor declined repeated requests for interviews or records regarding the investigation. Last Friday, the newspaper submitted written questions to the governor's chief of staff and Brewer's private attorney. Those questions were answered in part this week by a four-page statement from Brewer.

Much of that statement focused on her family's efforts to manage the affairs of her son, whose institutionalization has required them to be involved in his financial affairs.

"Federal laws have changed many times through the course of his life," Brewer said. "His benefits have changed through the years depending on his status. Our family, like many others, has repeatedly had to deal with a bureaucratic maze to fully understand and comply with the requirements of the Social Security system."

Benson's statement Wednesday said the governor had regularly communicated with the Social Security Administration and filled out paperwork about her son over the years. Given that, he said, "it is baffling that any sort of formal inquiry or investigation would be necessary if the SSA had a question regarding Ron's status, whereabouts or entitlement to benefits."

The Arizona Republic has confirmed from multiple sources that the Social Security Administration's Office of Inspector General initially launched an investigation involving Brewer in a case tied to Ronald's benefits.

The case was presented in fall 2010 to the U.S. Department of Justice, sources said, which sent it to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Nevada to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest with the office in Arizona. That office is involved in the Department of Justice's lawsuit against Arizona and Brewer in her capacity as governor over the state's immigration law, Senate Bill 1070.

A spokesman for the SSA said more than 1,200 Social Security cases were accepted for federal prosecution during the past fiscal year. A larger number of cases were declined because they were minor offenses, there was no loss to the government or there were "problematic" issues with evidence or procedure, the spokesman said.

The agency said other cases are prosecuted at the local level. When prosecution is declined, the Social Security Administration has the right in cases of overpayment of benefits to try to recover the money through civil lawsuits or administrative means.

A Department of Justice spokeswoman on Wednesday said she could not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.

Request for records

During the course of The Republic's investigation, the newspaper obtained billing records of a Phoenix law firm retained to represent the Arizona Department of Health Services.

In late September 2010, the state hired Gallagher & Kennedy "in responding to a subpoena," according to a letter that shows the hiring of the firm. So far, the state has paid the firm more than $50,000 "in order to fully respond to the subpoena and multiple subsequent records requests by The Arizona Republic," the governor's statement said.

Typically, the state attorney general would be the statutory legal representative on such matters for ADHS and other state agencies. But when the subpoena arrived last year, then-Attorney General Terry Goddard was running against Brewer in the November 2010 gubernatorial election. Gallagher & Kennedy was hired to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The Republic also requested copies of any subpoenas, records of any payments to the hospital on Ronald Brewer's behalf, officials' calendars, and communications related to Ronald Brewer, the governor or the investigation. Various state agencies denied the requests on legal grounds or said they were unable to locate such records. In her statement, Brewer said: "I and my staff have adhered with all federal and state laws as they pertain to public records."

The Brewer family hired an attorney in the office of a law firm that has offices in Nevada and Phoenix to represent her family. The attorney, Greg Brower of the law firm Snell & Wilmer, is the former U.S. attorney for Nevada and has expertise in defending against investigations by the Office of Inspector General. Brower did not respond to written questions about the case. The governor's statement said her family is paying for the private legal counsel. Questions over benefits

Over the course of its attempts to understand the nature of the federal investigation, The Republic learned that Ronald Brewer would have become eligible for his Social Security benefits via his birth father, Ronald Richard Warren, whom Brewer, then Drinkwine, married in 1963.

The couple divorced in 1967, and Ronald Warren died in Southern California in August 1969, entitling his son to survivor Social Security benefits. After the future governor remarried in 1970, Ronald Jr. took the last name of her new husband, John Brewer.

Ronald Brewer was 25 and living on his own in an apartment on July 29, 1989, when a woman knocked on his door, mistakenly thinking it was the apartment of a friend. According to a Phoenix police report, Ronald pulled her into the apartment, closed the door and forced her to perform oral sex.

He was arrested, charged, found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to the Arizona State Hospital in Phoenix.

The court order following his commitment required Jan Brewer to use her son's Social Security benefits -- his only income at the time -- to pay the Arizona State Hospital for "the cost of said patient's examination, treatment and maintenance pursuant to court-ordered treatment." At the time of his 1990 commitment, Ronald Brewer's monthly Social Security check was $445. A year later, the court reiterated the order, and his monthly benefit had grown to $469.

Those Social Security benefits are the only benefits involving the Brewers of which the newspaper is aware. Ordinarily, survivor benefits expire at age 18 or 19. But if a surviving child is found to be disabled before age 22, the benefits could convert to disability benefits and be extended indefinitely. Ronald Brewer would have met the Social Security requirements for disability at a younger age based on what court records say was an early diagnosis of mental illness.

It is unclear when federal officials first questioned whether benefits were still being paid for Ronald Brewer even though he may not have been eligible because of his institutionalization in the Arizona State Hospital's forensic ward, where the average daily rate for care is $613.

The governor said her son "currently does not receive Social Security benefits," and she noted that she has "never been served with a subpoena, interviewed or deposed in the matter."

Published Social Security policies state that payee representatives are required to fill out forms annually indicating whether there has been any change in the beneficiary's living arrangements and how the benefits were spent. An accompanying instruction sheet says Social Security benefits must be used for the "care and well-being of the beneficiary."

In her statement, Brewer said she believes her "family will prevail with any additional or future inquiries in any fashion about his benefits."

USA Today reporter Kevin Johnson contributed to this article. Reach the reporters at michael.kiefer@arizonarepublic.com and yvonne.wingett@arizonarepublic.com.

More on this topic

About this report

The Arizona Republic began looking into the federal investigation of Gov. Jan Brewer's role in the collection of her son's Social Security benefits last year after learning in mid-November, after the 2010 gubernatorial election, that federal authorities were examining benefits.

Republic reporters filed a series of requests for information about the investigation using state public-records laws and the federal Freedom of Information Act. Those requests were filed with various government agencies, including the Arizona Governor's Office, Arizona Department of Health Services, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Arizona Department of Administration, U.S. Social Security Administration, Los Angeles Department of Coroner and the Glendale, Calif., Police Department.

The Social Security Administration and Arizona agencies mostly denied access to the information requested. State officials did produce billing records from the law firm of Gallagher & Kennedy, with many of the entries redacted.

Republic reporters also gathered information from Maricopa County Superior Court records, administrative-policy documents, public repositories of vital records and confidential sources.

The newspaper's yearlong examination underwent regular review by multiple editors.

The Arizona Republic first e-mailed the Governor's Office in November 2010 asking a spokesman to discuss the investigation. The spokesman said Brewer "has not been contacted by any federal official informing her that she is the target of any investigation."

The newspaper subsequently made its numerous public-records requests of the office and other public agencies, most of which were rejected. After additional investigation, the newspaper in October 2011 requested through Brewer's spokesman an interview with the governor. Shortly after that request was made, the newspaper was contacted by an outside political adviser of Brewer's offering to meet for an off-the-record talk. The Republic declined the invitation but renewed its interview request. After more than a week without response, the newspaper on Nov. 2 contacted a top gubernatorial staffer to renew its request.

On Friday, The Republic submitted written questions via e-mail to Brewer's office and to her private attorney asking for a response by Monday. The Governor's Office on Tuesday sent a four-page statement. Late Wednesday, the governor's spokesman, Matt Benson, responded to five follow-up questions.

Source

Brewer: 'I have never shirked from my responsibilities'

Dec. 8, 2011 05:19 AM

The Arizona Republic

Statement from Gov. Jan Brewer:

"In September 2010, my chief of staff, Eileen Klein, informed me that the Arizona Department of Health Services had been served with a federal subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's office in Nevada asking for personal health and financial records related to my son, Ron. The Department's director, Will Humble, informed Eileen about the subpoena, as would any director who had received notice of a federal inquiry. In the coming weeks and months, the Arizona Department of Health Services and my office curiously received multiple public records requests regarding the inquiry from The Arizona Republic, despite federal laws that require strict confidentiality by the federal government and provide for felony prosecution and/or civil penalties for federal employees who wantonly violate these laws.

"Normally, the Arizona Department of Health Services would seek legal counsel from the state Attorney General to fully and accurately comply and respond to federal subpoenas or legal public records requests. Because an obvious conflict of interest existed given that the Arizona Attorney General at the time, Terry Goddard, was campaigning against me for Governor, Director Humble requested permission from the Attorney General's Office to obtain outside counsel so that the Department could have independent legal advice in responding.

"As a result of its conflict of interest, the Attorney General's Office referred representation to outside counsel. The Attorney General's Office unilaterally selected the law firm of Gallagher and Kennedy from the state contract list to represent the Arizona Department of Health Services in any legal matters regarding my son, and provided Paul Charlton as a contact within the firm. This was the state Attorney General's selection, despite the fact that Gallagher and Kennedy was deeply involved during that same time period with the officially organized 'Republicans for Goddard' campaign, with former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton serving as co-chairman of the campaign committee.

"No one from the Arizona Department of Health Services or Gallagher and Kennedy ever consulted me or my office on how to fulfill these requests, nor would I have chosen to interject myself into those decisions given that the requests all involved my son, Ron. I and my staff have adhered with all federal and state laws as they pertain to public records.

"All of the Department's responses to the federal subpoena and related public records requests were completely fulfilled solely by the Department and under the legal counsel of Gallagher and Kennedy, without any involvement from me or my staff. To date, the Arizona Department of Health Services has been obligated to expend more than $50,000 of taxpayer funds in legal counsel for Gallagher and Kennedy in order to fully respond to the subpoena and multiple subsequent records requests by The Arizona Republic seeking information on a presumably confidential matter.

"I am aware that in the days leading up to the November 2010 election someone made an anonymous complaint to Social Security concerning my son Ron's Social Security disability benefits and, as a result, this investigation was opened. To this day, I have never been served with a subpoena, interviewed or deposed in the matter. My family's counsel was contacted by officials from the U.S. Department of Justice two months ago and told that the Department of Justice had closed the investigation. My family's counsel has been paid by our personal funds at standard firm rates. Not a dime of taxpayer funds was used to pay for my family's counsel.

"I was surprised to learn that anyone was questioning Ron's benefits -- given the regular and repeated dialogue my family and I have had with Social Security officials for many years on his behalf. To our family's knowledge, my son has never received any Social Security benefits to which he was not entitled, and all of the benefits he has received have been spent entirely for his care and well being. He currently does not receive Social Security benefits. I am confident our family will prevail with any additional or future inquiries in any fashion about his benefits. Likewise, we have fully complied with all laws requiring payment for his care at the state hospital.

"My family members are not public figures. My son, Ron, is not a public figure. Regrettably, this is not the first time he has been victimized by the news media and my political opponents as a result of his mother being Governor. For his health and well being, he deserves his privacy.

"My son's health is fragile and his case is complicated. Federal laws have changed many times through the course of his life. His benefits have changed through the years depending on his status. Our family, like many others, has repeatedly had to deal with a bureaucratic maze to fully understand and comply with the requirements of the Social Security system. We have completed countless forms and reports during the years that he received a benefit, and have read and reviewed both old and new federal rules on countless occasions. It is obvious why families have a very difficult time understanding all the federal rules and their continual changes -- and the federal government is rarely of any real help or consistent direction.

"While I don't know and likely will never know what the impetus of the investigation was, I am certain that it is not a coincidence that this investigation was launched in the midst of a political campaign. What bothers me is that officials at the highest levels of our state and federal justice system were involved in this cowardly pursuit against my ill son, in a clear effort to bully and try to discredit me for their political purposes.

"The details of the now-closed federal investigation were never shared with me, but they were very clearly leaked by federal government officials and potentially others to the news media. Any government employee who perpetrated felonious leaks should be prosecuted and held accountable. I am extremely disappointed that The Arizona Republic has played a role in perpetuating this outright harassment of my family and facilitating the criminal acts of federal and other government employees.

"Finally, I will just add this: all of us have confronted challenges in life. These are the most difficult experiences and adversities that change us. It is up to each of us as individuals to decide if those challenges drag us down, or make us wiser and better. I believe the challenges I have confronted have made me wiser, stronger and a better mother. I have never shirked from my responsibilities to my family and the State of Arizona, and I'm confident in the decisions I've made for the betterment of each." Follow-up questions

After the governor issued her statement, The Arizona Republic posed additional questions in a phone conversation with her chief of staff. Matt Benson, the governor's spokesman, then wrote the following questions and answers in response.

Question: Wasn't the governor the target of this inquiry? Why does the governor believe that is not the case?

Answer: It has consistently been unclear whom or what was the target of the federal inquiry. All that has been evident is that the records of the governor's son, Ron, were of interest.

Q: Has the governor received a declination letter from the DOJ?

A: The governor is not aware of any declination letter being issued from the U.S. Department of Justice, and the governor does not possess such a letter. Her family's counsel, however, was informed within the last 60 days that the U.S. Department of Justice had closed its inquiry into the matter.

Q: Has the governor's family ever had a past dispute with SSA regarding Ron's benefits, especially regarding his eligibility?

A: Ron's case is complex, and his status has evolved over the years as he has followed his treatment plan and there have been changes in the law. But his family and the Social Security Administration have always reached agreement regarding his level of benefits. The family has been in regular communication with the SSA, and the governor has actively filled out paperwork, e-mailed and called at every step. Because of that, she has no doubt that the SSA has always had full knowledge of Ron's circumstances, whereabouts and resulting eligibility status. Given the significant level of voluntary communication by the family through the years, it is baffling that any sort of formal inquiry or investigation would be necessary if the SSA had a question regarding Ron's status, whereabouts or entitlement to benefits.

Q: Has the governor ever been told she is the target?

A: At no time has the governor been informed that she is the target of any investigation. To this day, she has never been served with a subpoena, interviewed by authorities or deposed on this matter. What has become abundantly clear, given the apparent pattern of purposeful, illicit and patchwork leaks that curiously began in the weeks prior to the 2010 election, is that the governor is the target of a failed political hit job executed by individuals within the state and federal justice system.

Q: Has the governor ever been asked to repay all or a portion of Ron's benefits?

A: To the knowledge of the governor and her family, all Social Security benefits that Ron received over the years were benefits to which he was entitled. These benefits were spent entirely on his care and well being.