Wednesday, December 23, 2009

A Culturally Enriched Medicaid Scam

Cultural Enrichment News

As I have mentioned on numerous occasions, one of the money-raising techniques used by Jamaat ul-Fuqra and its front group, the Muslims of America, has involved various forms of social welfare fraud — food stamps, ADC, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Some accounts allege that the Red House compound took in hundreds of thousands dollars through such schemes.

A similar operation was recently busted in Maine. Based on their names, the perpetrators of the scam described below are Muslim immigrants. According to a commenter on yesterday’s brief article, Mr. Guled and Ms. Osman are Somalis, although neither media report confirms this assertion.

Today’s article in The Sun Journal has a more detailed account:

Two Charged in Alleged Medicaid Scam

LEWISTON — An Auburn man and a Portland woman were indicted on 23 combined federal counts in an alleged attempt to defraud the government of thousands of dollars from state and federal programs in a case that likely is linked to a federal raid of a Lewiston office building in June.

According to the indictment filed in U.S. District Court in Portland, Yusuf Guled, 74, of Auburn arranged to have Dahabo Abdulle Osman, 58, of Portland serve as his personal care assistant to provide services for him at his home.

The indictment says Osman was paid based on false and fictitious time sheets that totaled more than $61,000.

Guled allegedly made false statements to nurse assessors to qualify for the services Osman was to provide, but which weren’t necessary.

Both defendants were charged with making false statements on their applications or for their continued eligibility to receive federal benefits, Assistant U.S. Attorney James Chapman said Tuesday.

Those benefits included:
- - - - - - - - -
  • Supplemental Social Security income payments.
  • Public housing or Section 8 subsidized housing.
  • MaineCare.
  • Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.
  • Food stamps.

Guled failed to disclose or falsely reported the number of bank accounts he held and the amounts they contained, the indictment says.

In August 2007, Guled had three bank accounts with combined balances of more than $25,000 while he was receiving benefits from at least three public programs, Chapman said.

Osman failed to disclose that she had gotten income as a personal care assistant. Over a three-year period ending June 2009, Osman was paid in that capacity from three agencies that provide such services to qualified MaineCare members. Those members are eligible to be admitted to a nursing home because they are unable to care for themselves and may choose to receive the services of a personal care assistant in their homes, according to the indictment.

One of the three agencies was in Portland, two were in Lewiston, the indictment says.

In early June, federal agents swarmed two floors of a downtown Lewiston office building, apparently seizing documents from two health care related organizations that provide personal home care assistants. The agents worked for the FBI as well as inspector general’s offices at Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Health and Human Services and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The agents spent hours packing up boxes of documents, then loaded them into government vehicles and drove off without answering reporters’ questions.

The two agencies that were raided were Global Home Health Care and Decent Home Care Inc. The two Lewiston agencies to which the indictment refers are not named but are identified generically as Agencies 2 and 3.

A similar raid was carried out that day on Allen Avenue in Portland.

In July 2006, Guled arranged for Osman to be hired as his personal care assistant, according to the indictment. From that date until November 2008, Osman was paid by the two Lewiston agencies and the unnamed Portland agency to provide Guled with services. At various times in 2006 and up to around March 2007, Osman lived with Guled in his public housing, the indictment says.

Three of the 16 counts with which Guled is charged carry maximum penalties of 10 years each in prison. The remaining 13 counts each carries a maximum term of five years of imprisonment.

Three of the counts against Osman carry maximum terms of imprisonment of 10 years; the remaining nine, five years apiece.

The maximum fine for each count is $250,000.

Guled has no phone listing in Auburn and could not be contacted for comment. Osman also could not be reached.


For a complete listing of previous enrichment news, see The Cultural Enrichment Archives.

Hat tip: Refugee Resettlement Watch.

17 comments:

Viking said...

that's hilarious!

I read recently how a whole crowd of Somalis moved to Maine, openly admitting it was because of their more generous welfare - not content with that, however, they want to commit fraud as well!

One way ticket > Mogadishu.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Viking, abolishing welfare would be one of the first step at making these people live peacefully.

4Symbols said...

rebelliousvanilla,

The neoliberals and the islamists recognise which estates and institutions they have to undermine to bring about the collapse of society subsistence welfare is one of their targets.

If you want thousands of the British poor queuing up at the local mosque for soup and submission then abolishing welfare is the way to go - motavation through the threat of starvation.

Why do you think Nulabour (socialist) legislated in 2009 to destroy subsistence welfare.

The neoliberals cast British citizenship like confetti to destroy identity they also doled out national insurance numbers to destroy subsistence welfare.

rebelliousvanilla said...

4Symbols, abolishing welfare and reducing taxes would lead to a lot of beneficial changes in the British society, one of them would be people being forced to help their own communities and pressure on people to get back to the family system. Welfare is one of the reasons we are in this mess to begin with and without the welfare state the collapse of the family(which lead to the collapse of the birth rates) would have been impossible.

With the abolishing of welfare and drop in taxes, people would find it easier to afford having children in a family, they'd have a pressure to have children due to having someone help them when they're old and there will be a lot more employment opportunities.

Submission to the local mosque or the government is merely the same thing with a different face and the purpose of multiculturalism is to subdue people to their government through the destruction of their identity.

Welfare subsidizes the collapse of the society and welfare is one of the reasons that immigration was needed to begin with. The leftists just used it to their advantage to further undermine national identity.

4Symbols said...

rebelliousvanilla,

The closests Britain has come to the luddite utopia you advocate was under the conservative government of the eighties. I will quote a description of the outcomes of those policies on the indigenous population by conservative leader David Cameron -

"Here the picture is bleak: family breakdown, drugs, crime and incivility are part of the normal experience of modern Britain."

This indictment was made when David Cameron lodged for 2 days with a muslim family -

"Many British Asians see a society that hardly inspires them to integrate. Indeed, they see aspects of modern Britain which are a threat to the values they hold dear - values which we should all hold dear. Asian families and communities are incredibly strong and cohesive, and have a sense of civic responsibility which puts the rest of us to shame. Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around."

Total hypocrisy the family values of the indigenous population were destroyed under the conservatism and by the neoliberal rhetoric of individualism of the eighties.

Britan is a modern society its social dynamics are not comparable with the social construct of a third world economy. To abolish subsistance welfare and I stress the word subsistance would be to create an indigenous population enslaved by indenture - and at the mercy of a hand to mouth existence not the best way to encourage population growth.

The neoliberal argument against unconditional subsistance welfare is one the conservative right has swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

I'm not sure where you get your ideas from, 4symbols, but Thatcher didn't destroy the "subsistence welfare" system. If anyone did it in it was Major and then Blair, both of whom were left of centre, both of whom were gunning for the UK to be absorbed into the multicultural mess of the EU.

In 89, my father's business went bankrupt after a bypass was built around our town, taking away nearly all of his trade. He sold up what he could and we ended up on benefits for nearly a year. Back then the benefit system was, after reforms by the Thatcher government, geared towards retraining and restoration to productive life and acted as a safety net, not an income. It created invcentives to find and keep work. Under Major and the Blair the system was totally transformed, incentives were taken away, the amount paid out was increased, numerous new benefits were created and - most importantly - attempts to return to productive work were met with threats of seizing benefits, back-dated to an arbitrary period. There was no longer an incentive to work. In fact working - especially self-employment - was penalised by the state through higher taxes, refusal of assistance and pursuit of punitive charges.

In 89 to 90 my dad retrained from catering to construction and started a new home repair business. He was encouraged to this by the state. He became self employed. This was encouraged by lower taxes.

The last three years, I've also been self employed. I've been penalised repeatedly by the government through increased taxes, closure of "Loopholes" that allow them to take more of my money from me and now, the latest issue:

Very recently the bottom dropped out of the software development market. This last year has been terrible for me, and became worst just the last few months. I'd moved into a new apartment in september, and in order to cover the increased cost of the rent I applied for housing benefit. I still earn a little bit of money but it's means tested, so that's fine.

The apartment building is owned by my father's company. I pay a full commercial rent and they rent out to people who are on DSS.

Currently I am under investigation by the housing benefits people, entirely because I am trying to stay in work. The tenants downstairs have no work and get more benefit. They aren't being pursued at all, because they aren't trying to be productive (as much as they'd want to). They've realised that the only way to maintain their current level of welfare is to stop working entirely. The alternative is high taxes and potential criminal investigation over trumped-up charges.

Thatcher's welfare was "unconditional" inasmuch as it provided a means to propel yourself back into work. Blair's welfare is "unconditional" as long as you don't work. As long as you're a ward of the state, you can take as much money as you want. And gues which ethnic group takes most advantae of this system. Native English? Black Jamaicans? Hindu Indians? Nope. Muslims. They are using our benefit system to fund their overthrow of our entire society, whilst people like me are persecuted for trying to put something back into that society in the first place.

Cut the benefits and I'd have to move into a smaller flat. I can deal with that. I lived in a caravan for a while when I was a kid because we had no money. I've lived in poverty, I know what it's like and I can do it again if I need to. You'll find that most of the people living on "subsistence" benefits are more adaptable than you seem to think. They'll survive, just as they survived in the past.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

But, that cut of benefits will take away the biggest reason for muslims and other disruptive minorities coming here and staying here in the first place. It will take away their single largest source of funding. It will make them leave. As long as the state continues to pay out huge sums of money to people who are not working and not planning on working, muslims will keep coming here. The most dangerous ones don't plan on working, they just suck at the government tit.

Thatcher was a mother. She knew that eventually the babe has to be weaned away from that tit and structured welfare with that in mind. It worked. It wasn't an ideal system but it damn well worked and gave us the economy that Major and Blair surfed comfortably atop, whilst throwing money away to all and sundry and ripping off the dwindling supply of productive members of society. THEY are the ones who destroyed this country with their unconditional-as-long-as-you-remain-a-good-little-peon welfare state. Try and better yourself and the full weight of the law is thrown at you.

Well I learned my lesson. Strip it all away. Take away the net. It's only catching poisonous fish.

Viking said...

on "Subsistence" welfare; it should be just that - enough to keep you from starving until you find work or find a way to make a living. Americans survive without it, as do South Africans, largely. More than half the white South Africans I know are self-employed (as they have no chance of government help), and the government always finds new ways to punish them for it (the latest being FICA).
Why would Muslim immigrants even be eligible for it, if they are not citizens? why is the UK even considering granted them citizenship?

as 4Symbols points out, there is a prevailing liberal opinion that somehow these people are better or more moral than we are, and so we need more of them, without ANY regard to the negative features of immigration.

If Moslems love family connections so much why are they relying on welfare. Data shows that Moroccan and other immigrants in France have more children there than they do in their own countries.

rebelliousvanilla said...

4Symbols, welfare subsidizes the family breakdown. Without it, for example if I get pregnant, I'd have to either marry the guy who impregnated me or have my parents help me. This would lead to parents being more careful about who their daughters bang around with. Hell, I could have children on welfare there even though I'm a Romanian citizen. lol

You can point the finger at those who destroyed the family by creating the no-fault divorce industry and making a mockery out of marriage. The party who wants more wealth redistribution from men to women at divorce, basically the party of feminism. On what party is Harman?

Muslims don't have children out of the family system because as a Muslim girl you don't have a pretty fate if you do that.

Actually, the safety of the day of tomorrow and generous public retirement benefits give reason to people to not have children, combined with the feminist rhetoric.

The people who use welfare the most to reproduce are Muslims anyway. Where do you think mosques would get the money from anyway? I think this might actually lead to the church having some part of people's lives again - in my country it definitely does. Also, Muslims not having handouts would lead to them having to get jobs and integrate. And as Graham said, a reason why Muslims go there is the benefits - just look at Somalis and under groups in the US who send their kids in all directions to find the places with the most generous welfare systems and then they all migrate there. lol

Why do you think you have so many single mothers? The state subsidizes them to stay single and breed. And if they'd marry and so on, they'd take the handouts away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI
This is a great video about it. The chav generation is a product of welfare.

As a closing thing, if people wouldn't have their safety guaranteed by the government, they'd have to find it somewhere else and the family is the only other place who does it. For example, with smaller taxes, I could marry a man and afford having more children that will take care of me or him if something happens when they grow older. Having more children would be smart because they'd have it easier to take care of me too.

Really, the government replaced the man in the family and then the children, through handouts for single mothers and then through retirement systems. Another thing, who propagates the myths about overpopulation and global warming more? The left or the right? funny enough, the left subsidizes other nations to breed and then imports them there. I can go on, but Graham made really good points so I'll leave it at this.

rebelliousvanilla said...

And the best way to increase the standard of living of people is to get the government out of their lives. Look at the US. Before the government got into education, a worker at Ford had to work for 45 days to afford an year tuition at Yale. Now he needs an year and a half for it. You could work for 3 months as a waiter and afford an year tuition before the government subsidized student loans. 60-70 years ago and earlier, a man would afford keeping his wife at home and seven children, while having a middle class job and getting them through college. Funny enough, technology is supposed to make this even more affordable. Or look at the NHS. Biggest employer in the world after the Chinese Red Army and the quality of the care isn't the best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIcfMMVcYZg
For example. You can also look at all other bullshit methods you probably support like the minimum wage, which makes unskilled people unemployable(nobody will hire you at a loss) and also drives prices up. You probably support the unions, which increase costs of everything by making it impossible for people to compete with them unless they certify them, which is a monopoly or through forcing people to overpay workers.

4Symbols said...

@Graham Dawson (Archonix)

"I'm not sure where you get your ideas from"

lol that would be telling, to go into all the intricacies of your comment would take a long time as it covers a lot of politics and different ministers (whim) interpretation of welfare law.

The economy we have now is not a brand new baby it is a legacy economy of the last 30 years, what Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown surfed comfortably atop was North Sea oil, the plundering of pension pots, asset stripping and other assorted financial shenanigans.

If the the next government enforces the statute law of the welfare reform act 2009 it could cause revolt in Scotland and lead to the break up of the United Kingdom.

Viking said...

"the best way to increase the standard of living of people is to get the government out of their lives"
spot-on. 100%.

Collectivism is a curse, and its antidote is individualism. Any fool knows that, and individualism is not necessarily at odds with 'family values'.

The minimum wage only makes people unemployable if there are no immigrants or third world nations undercutting them. The fact that it is necessary at all is the fault of these other factors.

Unions too are not in themselves a bad thing, as they are a free association of individuals (most of whom are not socialists, even if the leaders sometimes are) of the kind encouraged by a free society. Their job, however, is to look out for the interests of their members, not to hold countries to ransom for more money.

4Symbols said...

rebelliousvanilla,

"You can also look at all other bullshit methods you probably support ..."

One of those bullshit methods was the will to fight to liberate your country from the tyranny and the yoke of communism during the cold war.

Other than yellow journalism what makes you think that your moral aspirations are higher than a young British woman from the lower social strata.

There is an article on Gov which is a criticism of the neoliberals stamping the swastika on people the same criticism can be applied to stamping the hammer and sickle on a man.

The right have to drop the paranoia that the association of men equates to communism or that altruism is a form of socialism.

To concern yourself with the welfare of ones compatriots can also be an act of self-interest and preservation, particularly when it take two able-bodied men to bring the bear down or slay the dragon.

rebelliousvanilla said...

4Symbols, my country had a security guarantee from the UK after WW1 and we were a neutral country when Russia annexed a part of my country, which made us ally with the Nazis and they took a part of my country. So much for the value of the UK's security guarantees(we had a French one too, but they're French so lol). So don't give me the we fought the cold war thing.

And sure, altruism isn't a form of socialism, as long as you do it with your own money, not someone's else. I can't be altruistic with your money, can I? lol. Being concerned with your compatriots is a good thing, this is why you could make donate money to your local church to give food to poor people. Or to a charity. I give to people who need it directly, for example.

And my aspirations are higher on the moral scale because I don't expect the government to provide for me through the use of extortion on other people.

By the way, I didn't call you a communist, nor a fascist. But what you advocate isn't really altruism, fyi. Anyway, I hope you watched the videos and tried to digest what I wrote, even though you didn't reply to it.

Scotty said...

Report all scams at http://www.allscamsforum.com. Support by providing a Link to the forum and get a link back. Thanks!

4Symbols said...

rebelliousvanilla,

As far as I know at the outbreak of WWW2 Romania's territorial integrity had not been breached, Romania's acts thereafter would have made null and void any perceived security guarantees.

"I can't be altruistic with your money,"

Would not be to sure of that as Romania is a recipient of British taxpayers money through DFID and several EU devlopment agencies.

Hey, what are friends for?

rebelliousvanilla said...

4Symbols, we allied with the Nazis AFTER the Russians annexed a part of our territory. What did you expected us to do? Watch?

And you're talking about things you have no idea about. Romania pays more to the EU than it gets. lol. It's due to our politicians being idiotic, but that doesn't matter, we are a net contributor to the EU. And I'm against the EU so I don't get why you're preaching this to me anyway.