AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the law you have to "reside" in DC or pay tuition. It has been that way since 1960. Under no definition of "reside" did this family qualify for DCPS. There is no mention of ownership of property, just "reside" which is easily proven.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/86/hr7124/text

I would assume that the AG wouldn't have brought such a high profile case if they didn't feel certain with their evidence and the law. This family clearly knew the problem and continue to enroll their children.

The definition of "reside" pre-2008 was to own property. Internal documents changed the meaning but the new definition was never communicated to the public. If it was communicated to the public, can you provide a link?

Please provide a link to show "reside" was defined as "to own."

Seriously. Maybe there was some internal memo from a moron in the central office screwing this definition up, but reside has a specific legal meaning (pre and post 2008).

Can you link to that specific meaning?

[Anonymous]

Here is where you are getting tripped up. You can meet the standards on form C (provide a pay stub or a driver's license) and still get kicked out if you don't RESIDE there. Lots of schools look the other way if you can meet the documentation. But you aren't actually compliant with the law.

DCPS and the AG can still get you if your place of residence is in another state, and this is what's happening to the Hills. DCPS has already kicked the kids out; now DC is coming for their tuition money.

[Anonymous]

Okay, so nobody can point to a definition.

Here is one case.

Family lived in southern md, dad has an apartment in DC. He stays in the apartment in DC m-th, he stays in s.md F-sun. His HS students wants to go to HS in dc, the student will live in DC, m-th, go to s.md. On the weekend. Fraud?

Mom and dad live in md. They get divorce, dad moves to dc has 50/50 custody, can they go to school in dc.

Mom and dad live in md, dad leafs mom because she is an abusive drunk, can't afford a divorce, can't afford a place of his own. His sister helps him by a townhouse, he stays in the basement and rents the rest of the house. The kids basically lzive with the aunt, but not legally, they live in the basement. What is their "primary" residence.

These are all real situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, so nobody can point to a definition.

Here is one case.

Family lived in southern md, dad has an apartment in DC. He stays in the apartment in DC m-th, he stays in s.md F-sun. His HS students wants to go to HS in dc, the student will live in DC, m-th, go to s.md. On the weekend. Fraud?

Mom and dad live in md. They get divorce, dad moves to dc has 50/50 custody, can they go to school in dc.

Mom and dad live in md, dad leafs mom because she is an abusive drunk, can't afford a divorce, can't afford a place of his own. His sister helps him by a townhouse, he stays in the basement and rents the rest of the house. The kids basically lzive with the aunt, but not legally, they live in the basement. What is their "primary" residence.

These are all real situations.

In all of these situations, the students and one or more parents reside in DC. In the case in question, nobody in the family resides in DC. Therefore it is open and shut that they are not residents.

[Anonymous]

Whenever "residency fraud" comes up, it's funny how many people rise up to defend the criminals. For the life of me, I can't figure a reason why, other than some feel they are entitled to break the law.

[Anonymous]

Do you really think this family thought they were DC residents?

[Anonymous]

No where in PP's link to the residency requirements before and after 2008 say that to reside means to own.

Shared custody situations: it is fine for kids to go to school in DC. But the kids in question apparently never lived in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the law you have to "reside" in DC or pay tuition. It has been that way since 1960. Under no definition of "reside" did this family qualify for DCPS. There is no mention of ownership of property, just "reside" which is easily proven.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/86/hr7124/text

I would assume that the AG wouldn't have brought such a high profile case if they didn't feel certain with their evidence and the law. This family clearly knew the problem and continue to enroll their children.

The definition of "reside" pre-2008 was to own property. Internal documents changed the meaning but the new definition was never communicated to the public. If it was communicated to the public, can you provide a link?

Not true. You know what has never qualified pre and post 2008 as showing residency? Mortgage payment on a property in DC. I know this for a fact since I have been registering kids since 2001. Back in the good old days (ore lottery, pre charter, pre Rhee) you still had to show a paycheck. We moved here when I had to wait in line overnight to get a spot at SWS at Peabody. The only form of "residency" we had was our newly minted mortgage papers. No car and no paycheck yet. The kind lady at the office held our spot until my DH could get his office to give him an employment verification with our home address so they knew we were paying income tax in DC within the boundaries. To this day a mortgage is still not proof of residency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could someone explain how they sent their kids to Eaton/Deal/Wilson in the first place if the rental property was in a different catchment?

They same why our family and others have, playing the lottery. Eaton has always been a school to accept many OOB families. It's nothing new. Along with Hearst.

[Anonymous]

And to be a resident, you dont have to be a property owner.
Some posters are very confused about whether or not the Hills resided in dc. The Hills, however, were not confused at all.

[Anonymous]

And to be a resident, you dont have to be a property owner.
Some posters are very confused about whether or not the Hills resided in dc. The Hills, however, were not confused at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, so nobody can point to a definition.

Here is one case.

Family lived in southern md, dad has an apartment in DC. He stays in the apartment in DC m-th, he stays in s.md F-sun. His HS students wants to go to HS in dc, the student will live in DC, m-th, go to s.md. On the weekend. Fraud?

Mom and dad live in md. They get divorce, dad moves to dc has 50/50 custody, can they go to school in dc.

Mom and dad live in md, dad leafs mom because she is an abusive drunk, can't afford a divorce, can't afford a place of his own. His sister helps him by a townhouse, he stays in the basement and rents the rest of the house. The kids basically lzive with the aunt, but not legally, they live in the basement. What is their "primary" residence.

These are all real situations.

In all of these situations, the students and one or more parents reside in DC. In the case in question, nobody in the family resides in DC. Therefore it is open and shut that they are not residents.

So the definition is that somebody lives in DC at lease 1 day a year, a week, a month?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the law you have to "reside" in DC or pay tuition. It has been that way since 1960. Under no definition of "reside" did this family qualify for DCPS. There is no mention of ownership of property, just "reside" which is easily proven.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/86/hr7124/text

I would assume that the AG wouldn't have brought such a high profile case if they didn't feel certain with their evidence and the law. This family clearly knew the problem and continue to enroll their children.

The definition of "reside" pre-2008 was to own property. Internal documents changed the meaning but the new definition was never communicated to the public. If it was communicated to the public, can you provide a link?

Not true. You know what has never qualified pre and post 2008 as showing residency? Mortgage payment on a property in DC. I know this for a fact since I have been registering kids since 2001. Back in the good old days (ore lottery, pre charter, pre Rhee) you still had to show a paycheck. We moved here when I had to wait in line overnight to get a spot at SWS at Peabody. The only form of "residency" we had was our newly minted mortgage papers. No car and no paycheck yet. The kind lady at the office held our spot until my DH could get his office to give him an employment verification with our home address so they knew we were paying income tax in DC within the boundaries. To this day a mortgage is still not proof of residency.

So. You can have paycheck go to a rental house and then you are a resident?

[Anonymous]

Since these people were gainfully employed during this time by MPD, they were having state and federal taxes withheld. In my experience, the state that received those taxes would be considered their state of residence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legal mumbo-jumbo aside, this family knew they were cheating the system. 100%. I knew them and know plenty of other families who knew them too. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Also, legally, how can you claim an address as your family's residence and also enter into a rental agreement on that same property? Big fat lie there. Sounds like the AG found a solid piece of evidence. Good for dc.

People in DC do this all the time. How many people in DC take in room mates and make them sigh a lease? How many people on DCUM rent out their basements and call them in-law suites.? Do they not require a lease from their tenants?