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."

http://sboe.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/sboe/publication/attachments/Residency%20Verification%20Summary%20Document.doc

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?

I assume you are just playing devil's advocate, but this is communicated to parents at the time that they fill out the paperwork documenting their residency. You are swearing that you and your child "reside" at XY address. Ownership of the property is not needed, nor is it enough.

I saw the document. It has multiple ways to show you are a resident, none of them specify that you live there.

Did you read the document that does explanation the definition of residency?

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).

Maybe this AG's office is going to be more active about pursuing the residency fraudsters. It would be great if they set up a line for the public to report license plates. Should be easy for them to look up the plates and owners' names.

OT, the MPD really should start providing a financial incentive for its officers to reside in D.C. They need to be more connected to the communities that they police. But these particular residency cheaters probably would have lied to MPD about their residency, too.

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."

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I can claim that I own a residence if I own one and relent it. There is no document they signed that says it has to be their primary residence.

Unless you can prove they knew you "knowing" is meaningless.

Maybe They can sue you for being an accomplice for knowing and not doing anything.

You are really trying too hard.

Most police officers take cruisers back and forth to work. Did they commute with their kids in the police car? I didn't think that was allowed. My friend's DH is in the FBI and she has to do all their pickupts/dropoffs.

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?

Anonymous wrote:This ownership thing is a red herring people. If they live in a house in Maryland, they are lying when they sign forms about residing in DC. Plain and simple.

And it will be a tax fraud question as well. In which jurisdiction did they pay state income tax?

This ownership thing is a red herring people. If they live in a house in Maryland, they are lying when they sign forms about residing in DC. Plain and simple.

By the way, the press release indicates that DC has already successfully sued non-residents for fraud, so the precedent has been set.
http://oag.dc.gov/release/attorney-general-files-suit-against-police-officers-who-claimed-false-district-residency

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?

I assume you are just playing devil's advocate, but this is communicated to parents at the time that they fill out the paperwork documenting their residency. You are swearing that you and your child "reside" at XY address. Ownership of the property is not needed, nor is it enough.

Anonymous wrote:you get in-state tuition at a college if you own property in the state. Don't have to live there

Not true at all.

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?

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.