School residency cheaters investigated

[Anonymous]

Oh please! If a black person followed you home you would be the first one crying "stalker" and calling the cops! GTFOHWTBS

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not hard to show where you live. Come to my house. I'll show you my messy house, all my clothes, paperwork, ask the neighbors if I live here and so on.
Never seen people put up such a fuss and fight if they are not cheating.

This is how I feel. It's not hard to prove your residency. So report if you know of someone, and they can put to rest any confusion or questions. It shouldn't be a big deal to prove.

Actually, it is hard to prove residency. When I met my husband, he owned the house we lived in and had all the utilities in his name. Though we filed joint taxes as a married couple and my drivers license and registration carried my name and address, it was insufficient for registering my child. Very insufficient. We're three years in to public schooling in DC and each year, the schools we've attended have been hard core about seeing the person whose claiming guardianship and residency IN PERSON when they register a child.

If it's fair to resort to stereotypes - and it seems the "articles" and thousands of DCUM posts on the subject make stereotypes very fair - then I have to believe that the people with means to skirt this system are more likely well-off white people taking advantage of highly-regarded charter schools and DCPS west of the park. Yet these "reporters" couldn't be bothered with JKLM or Creative Minds, where there are certainly affluent white people "scamming our schools." Not to mention principals and parent teacher organizations looking the other way. These people are just not being followed home or having their government documentation researched and posted online.

Show of hands/posts, how many here are irked by their wait list number for Eagle Academy or Ludlow-Taylor?

I mean, if you don't see this sham excuse for journalism as a bigger problem in the interest of our kids, then I'm just frankly worried for our kids. I have resided and paid taxes in the District of Columbia for close to 30 years. But thinking about some nutcase vigilante targeting my kid for "investigation" because he's a brown kid getting out of the car of my MD-residing SIL who sometimes helps with childcare makes my blood boil.

And you go, Oh! If you're following the law you have nothing to worry about. Just answer the questions imposed on you and you're good to go! But the blatant racial bias expressed here and in the articles means I have a hell of a lot to worry about. Some fucking kook stalking kids outside of their school, taking photographs and posting them online? How is it that THAT fact doesn't disturb people?

I play the cards dealt. The racist vigilante stalking my kids outside their school dealt first.

Again - if there's anyone who can post pictures of these lowlifes that I can share with my kid's school, I'll be most grateful. We're longtime DC residents and taxpayers, but I'll be damned if I will accept this kind of harassment. It is far more egregious to me than people trying to do what's best for their kids - all the nonsense about "concerned and involved parents" is obviously a bucket of donkey shit.

Are all dc residents this angry and against stopping fraud?

I'm with this woman. I want to know who Watson and Taylor are. Not that hard to find out.

It has nothing to do with fraud. It has to do with the kind of people who stall children, all in the name of their "cause." Perfectly acceptable, one assumes, to have their own children stalked. After all, I'm sure their parents have done "something" wrong, and if not... why would they mind?

These people are being investigated because they're criminals. It really is that simple. How would you propose anyone catches these criminals if basic (legal) investigation methods such as following them home constitute "stalking"? Everyone always cries racism when faced with facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When we moved here we had a lease. Gas and water were in landlord's name. Pepco print out establishing we had an account wasn't acceptable. Neither was the Verizon FiOS bill or the at&t bill. They kept asking me, "why don't you have a license and car registration?" I kept saying, "because we don't have a car." Finally, my husband had to take off time and go to the school during school hours with a letter from his employer. It was a huge pita. I can only assume this is compounded for others in less secure situations.

But what I find most infuriating is, the stalking. The stalking is not okay. The daily caller being the beacon of journalism it is, this woman, whose life does not sound all that secure or easy, is also now going to be stalked by a bunch of right-wing nut jobs. And so might her child.

If you're the kind of person who's okay with that--well, for one I'm not sure why live in the district at all, since 99% of it must make you insane; and two, I think you must really be struggling socially yourself.

Yes, you generally have to register your child during school hours. That isn't different if you have a letter from your employer or a pay stub. It isn't a massive hurdle, just the normal course of having children. Many schools have extended hours on certain nights to accommodate those who can't make it during school hours.

[Anonymous]

I'm also not crying racism. Am more of a wasp than anyone named Rosiak.

But it is not okay to stall children. It is not okay to follow someone who "might" be guilty. The things the daily caller article you wrote listed as "proof" aren't even proof. The woman was at her ex's house at 6am? So? She drove in early to beat traffic. She declared bankruptcy in 1999, and although that means nothing in 2016, it makes her look bad so you threw it in. There's no actual proof in the article. I think you probably just got your own employer sued. I am sure it won't be the last time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Criminal surveillance should be performed by trained and qualified law enforcement, certainly not vigilante "journalists"

Then the criminals would just cry that the police are 'targeting our communities' and all surveillance would stop. Then what?

I'm sure this is true in the fan fiction version of the Fountainhead you have constantly running in your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Criminal surveillance should be performed by trained and qualified law enforcement, certainly not vigilante "journalists"

Yeah, those Woodward and Bernstein guys who broke the Watergate story should've just left it to the police to handle. And the "Spotlight" crew that uncovered the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal ... they also should have left it for the police. And the many investigative journalism pieces exposing racism ... those should be left to the authorities to handle. FFS, this sort of investigation is exactly what many journalists do!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Criminal surveillance should be performed by trained and qualified law enforcement, certainly not vigilante "journalists"

Yeah, those Woodward and Bernstein guys who broke the Watergate story should've just left it to the police to handle. And the "Spotlight" crew that uncovered the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal ... they also should have left it for the police. And the many investigative journalism pieces exposing racism ... those should be left to the authorities to handle. FFS, this sort of investigation is exactly what many journalists do!

It's just that these pesky reporters don't appreciate the "ol' DC ways."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:anyone is entitled to take pictures in a public place . get over it

I'll see you at your wife's office tomorrow then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm also not crying racism. Am more of a wasp than anyone named Rosiak.

But it is not okay to stall children. It is not okay to follow someone who "might" be guilty. The things the daily caller article you wrote listed as "proof" aren't even proof. The woman was at her ex's house at 6am? So? She drove in early to beat traffic. She declared bankruptcy in 1999, and although that means nothing in 2016, it makes her look bad so you threw it in. There's no actual proof in the article. I think you probably just got your own employer sued. I am sure it won't be the last time.

I assume the point about bankruptcy and collections actions was in the article because if you look at the court docket sheets under her name, you'll see her Maryland address is listed in those cases. Try it yourself - http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch//inquiry-index.jsp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DC/VA license plate thing is not full blown proof. I have a neighbor who has owned his DC home for 20+ years and he has some sort of Uber/type business with cars registered in VA. Then I have another neighbor who either rents or lives in his father's home and he has MD plates. There are parents who are taxi drivers who drop their kids off.

It's not full blown proof, but it's usually a red flag for further checking. If the parent and child are DC residents, all's good. But it's pretty apparent that in the situations that the reporters dug into that these are families residing in Maryland, not DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm also not crying racism. Am more of a wasp than anyone named Rosiak.

But it is not okay to stall children. It is not okay to follow someone who "might" be guilty. The things the daily caller article you wrote listed as "proof" aren't even proof. The woman was at her ex's house at 6am? So? She drove in early to beat traffic. She declared bankruptcy in 1999, and although that means nothing in 2016, it makes her look bad so you threw it in. There's no actual proof in the article. I think you probably just got your own employer sued. I am sure it won't be the last time.

I assume the point about bankruptcy and collections actions was in the article because if you look at the court docket sheets under her name, you'll see her Maryland address is listed in those cases. Try it yourself - http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch//inquiry-index.jsp

Many people lived at different addresses in 1999 than where they live now. It's not relevant. It is harassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm also not crying racism. Am more of a wasp than anyone named Rosiak.

But it is not okay to stall children. It is not okay to follow someone who "might" be guilty. The things the daily caller article you wrote listed as "proof" aren't even proof. The woman was at her ex's house at 6am? So? She drove in early to beat traffic. She declared bankruptcy in 1999, and although that means nothing in 2016, it makes her look bad so you threw it in. There's no actual proof in the article. I think you probably just got your own employer sued. I am sure it won't be the last time.

I assume the point about bankruptcy and collections actions was in the article because if you look at the court docket sheets under her name, you'll see her Maryland address is listed in those cases. Try it yourself - http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch//inquiry-index.jsp

Six cases spanning a 15-year period, all brought against her as a defendant in courts in PG County -- such suits are usually brought where the defendant resides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm also not crying racism. Am more of a wasp than anyone named Rosiak.

But it is not okay to stall children. It is not okay to follow someone who "might" be guilty. The things the daily caller article you wrote listed as "proof" aren't even proof. The woman was at her ex's house at 6am? So? She drove in early to beat traffic. She declared bankruptcy in 1999, and although that means nothing in 2016, it makes her look bad so you threw it in. There's no actual proof in the article. I think you probably just got your own employer sued. I am sure it won't be the last time.

I assume the point about bankruptcy and collections actions was in the article because if you look at the court docket sheets under her name, you'll see her Maryland address is listed in those cases. Try it yourself - http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch//inquiry-index.jsp

Six cases spanning a 15-year period, all brought against her as a defendant in courts in PG County -- such suits are usually brought where the defendant resides.

And if she moved to DC in September, or December, or yesterday, her kids would be entitled to go to DC schools. Period. The end. Your "facts" are as "factual" as the 30k a year that the taxpayers pay for DC children. Not the right number either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm also not crying racism. Am more of a wasp than anyone named Rosiak.

But it is not okay to stall children. It is not okay to follow someone who "might" be guilty. The things the daily caller article you wrote listed as "proof" aren't even proof. The woman was at her ex's house at 6am? So? She drove in early to beat traffic. She declared bankruptcy in 1999, and although that means nothing in 2016, it makes her look bad so you threw it in. There's no actual proof in the article. I think you probably just got your own employer sued. I am sure it won't be the last time.

I assume the point about bankruptcy and collections actions was in the article because if you look at the court docket sheets under her name, you'll see her Maryland address is listed in those cases. Try it yourself - http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch//inquiry-index.jsp

Many people lived at different addresses in 1999 than where they live now. It's not relevant. It is harassment.

SIX cases, consistently brought against her in PG. This is one "cheetah" who's not so good at hiding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm also not crying racism. Am more of a wasp than anyone named Rosiak.

But it is not okay to stall children. It is not okay to follow someone who "might" be guilty. The things the daily caller article you wrote listed as "proof" aren't even proof. The woman was at her ex's house at 6am? So? She drove in early to beat traffic. She declared bankruptcy in 1999, and although that means nothing in 2016, it makes her look bad so you threw it in. There's no actual proof in the article. I think you probably just got your own employer sued. I am sure it won't be the last time.

I assume the point about bankruptcy and collections actions was in the article because if you look at the court docket sheets under her name, you'll see her Maryland address is listed in those cases. Try it yourself - http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch//inquiry-index.jsp

Six cases spanning a 15-year period, all brought against her as a defendant in courts in PG County -- such suits are usually brought where the defendant resides.

And if she moved to DC in September, or December, or yesterday, her kids would be entitled to go to DC schools. Period. The end. Your "facts" are as "factual" as the 30k a year that the taxpayers pay for DC children. Not the right number either.

Always plausible rationales, always excuses. The reporters tracked her home. If she has proof that she's a DC resident, then produce it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm also not crying racism. Am more of a wasp than anyone named Rosiak.

But it is not okay to stall children. It is not okay to follow someone who "might" be guilty. The things the daily caller article you wrote listed as "proof" aren't even proof. The woman was at her ex's house at 6am? So? She drove in early to beat traffic. She declared bankruptcy in 1999, and although that means nothing in 2016, it makes her look bad so you threw it in. There's no actual proof in the article. I think you probably just got your own employer sued. I am sure it won't be the last time.

I assume the point about bankruptcy and collections actions was in the article because if you look at the court docket sheets under her name, you'll see her Maryland address is listed in those cases. Try it yourself - http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch//inquiry-index.jsp

Six cases spanning a 15-year period, all brought against her as a defendant in courts in PG County -- such suits are usually brought where the defendant resides.

Yes, and the case from 2013 lists her Maryland address. The same address, I believe, where the reporter spotted her car.