Americano/A Mary Cano

fraud, waste, or program abuse in any of the following programs:

The Texas Workforce Commission is authorized by the Texas Labor Code to investigate allegations of fraud, waste, and program abuse involving these programs. The Hotline is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. An investigator is normally on duty to take calls Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time. To limit fear of reprisal, the Hotline permits reporting of matters anonymously, if desired. Information that is submitted on the Hotline must be as specific as possible.

Reportable violations include, but are not limited to, the following examples:

• Obtaining unemployment insurance benefits by misrepresentation
• Obtaining child care benefits by misrepresentation
• Improper tax avoidance by nondisclosure or misrepresentation of facts
• Authorizing an improper claim for others
• Authorizing ineligible participation in TWC programs
• Authorizing payments to ineligible claimants/clients
• Accessing agency information (e.g., wage records) for non-business reasons.
• Conflict of interest issues
• Extorting money or accepting favors from contractors, clients, or vendors
• Failing to follow applicable rules, regulations, policies, procedures, and laws
• Improperly disclosing information
• Misusing State-owned property (computers, equipment, telephones, etc.)
• Nondisclosure of material facts
• Overstating travel expense reimbursement claims
• Receiving kickbacks from contractors, clients, or vendors
• Using State supplies for personal use
• Using State telephone lines for personal calls to avoid long distance charges
• Using unauthorized computer programs on State-owned computers
• Installation of State-owned computer software on home computers
• Violating contract or grant procedures

When Lee’s witnesses were then reported missing, the judge had ample reason to believe they had second thoughts about testifying. All three of Lee’s family members had traveled from California to testify, but all three left without speaking to Lee or his lawyer. Two sets of witnesses, four persons in all, had just placed Lee in Kansas City; and the prosecution had said it had in reserve other witnesses prepared to rebut the alibi testimony. Lee had been sentenced to 80 years in Missouri prison for an unrelated armed assault and robbery, and any witness who was considering perjury would have had little inducement to take that risk–a risk that would have became more pronounced after the prosecution’s witnesses had testified–if Lee would serve a long prison term in any event. The judge’s skepticism seems even more justified when it is noted that six weeks later, during a hearing on Lee’s motion for a new trial, counsel still did not explain where Lee’s family members had gone or why they had left. It was not until 17 months later, in an amended motion for postconviction relief, that Lee first gave the Missouri courts an explanation for his family’s disappearance.