Reply to Let a coworker use my address for a good school pyramid

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "Let a coworker use my address for a good school pyramid"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]No, of course not. This is fraud. She has a lot of nerve to ask a co-worker! I have heard of people using grandparents' addresses, but this is next level![/quote]

Right!!  That is next level brazen fraud.  I’m tempted to ask what the ethnicity or background or even religion is here… [/quote]
[b]Can you explain why you think this is brazen fraud? [/b]Fraud is to obtain something of value by deceptive means, but the school board members are on record as purportedly believing that the high schools are all the same quality and fungible (that’s how they try to sell the boundary changes to families). Just not sure what thing of value is obtained through this. Different story if the person lives outside of Fairfax.[/quote]

Are you unfamiliar with public schools? How can you not know this is fraud and policed by the school district. Everyone knows this. That’s why proof of residence is sometimes requested. We had to show proof of property tax payments to Langley [/quote]
I’m very familiar with public schools.

[b]What I’m pointing out is that there is no financial or personal gain in the eyes of FCPS. If i were arguing on behalf of an in-county family charged for using a fake address, exhibit A in our filings would be a compilation of the school board members statements repeatedly saying all the FCPS schools are the same quality, thus no personal gain in going to Langley. [/b]The gain is an element of the fraud claim.

I understand that you believe school quality differs, I do too. Most people believe that in fact. But when the system pretends that they are the same, there is a tailor-made defense to allegations of fraud.

Btw, the members make those claims in support of the comprehensive boundary review. If they claimed otherwise then it would be an admission that the boundary review will result in many families getting screwed over.

P.S. I’m confident that your last sentence is incorrect and that you didn’t need to show proof of tax payments to Langley, whatever that means.[/quote]

NP.

That is quite the justification for fraud; actionable fraud.[/quote]
I mean, I’m not going to take the time to explain it any clearer than I already did. Fraud requires a benefit and there is a clear defense to that element of the claim.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics