Anonymous
Post 06/16/2015 11:20     Subject: AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
This is going to be thrown out of court just watch and see..
Anonymous
Post 06/16/2015 09:08     Subject: Re:AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This is great news! Hope there are more prosecutions to come.

On a related note, I am a little sad that many working class families (especially ones that serve our communities) can't afford to live in the city. Read article today that average 1 bedroom in DC is $2,000. Not condoning the officers.


the officers can send their kids to school where they live. there are plenty of schools in MD and VA where they lived. no reason to cheat.


And get to and from work? This is such a $ thread.
Anonymous
Post 06/16/2015 09:02     Subject: AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
Are they on administrative leave? This is a huge issue because the public should be able to trust their police officers.
Anonymous
Post 06/16/2015 08:57     Subject: Re:AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
They should be fired and arrested.....Police have to power to arrest people for fraud and in the real world they would be fired from their job. I would never have any faith in these two officers.....they are liers.
Anonymous
Post 06/15/2015 21:47     Subject: AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:A case like this is a serious Career Limiting Move for a police officer. Part of the job of an officer is giving testimony in court cases. If an officer has a history of truthfulness issues that has to be disclosed to the defense, and generally means the officer will no longer be considered a reliable witness.


Apparently, as stated by an earlier poster, they are a sergeant and a lieutenant. They would not be in a position to testify. They will retire, get a great pension, get another job and double dip.


And potentially have their wages garnished to pay the 250k.


You cannot garnish a pension. But, if the city gets a judgment, they can force a sell of the rental property via a lien.


The PP said they would get other jobs. I feel bad for the kids, but OSSE needs to get the message across that fraud will be punished severely.


There's no evidence that OSSE had anything to do with this. The AG is independent of the Mayor.
Anonymous
Post 06/15/2015 10:52     Subject: AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
Anonymous wrote:Can police officers get a job if they are convicted of fraud?


Bankers do it all the time.
Anonymous
Post 06/15/2015 10:52     Subject: AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
Anonymous wrote:Can police officers get a job if they are convicted of fraud?


So far no one's talking criminal charges here, just a civil claim.
Anonymous
Post 06/15/2015 10:51     Subject: AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:A case like this is a serious Career Limiting Move for a police officer. Part of the job of an officer is giving testimony in court cases. If an officer has a history of truthfulness issues that has to be disclosed to the defense, and generally means the officer will no longer be considered a reliable witness.


Apparently, as stated by an earlier poster, they are a sergeant and a lieutenant. They would not be in a position to testify. They will retire, get a great pension, get another job and double dip.


And potentially have their wages garnished to pay the 250k.


DC employees cannot have their wages garnished. The City Paper did a story a few years ago about how you should never rent to a DC employee because there's no way to make them pay their rent.
Anonymous
Post 06/15/2015 10:49     Subject: AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
Can police officers get a job if they are convicted of fraud?
Anonymous
Post 06/15/2015 09:51     Subject: AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:A case like this is a serious Career Limiting Move for a police officer. Part of the job of an officer is giving testimony in court cases. If an officer has a history of truthfulness issues that has to be disclosed to the defense, and generally means the officer will no longer be considered a reliable witness.


Apparently, as stated by an earlier poster, they are a sergeant and a lieutenant. They would not be in a position to testify. They will retire, get a great pension, get another job and double dip.


And potentially have their wages garnished to pay the 250k.


You cannot garnish a pension. But, if the city gets a judgment, they can force a sell of the rental property via a lien.


The PP said they would get other jobs. I feel bad for the kids, but OSSE needs to get the message across that fraud will be punished severely.
Anonymous
Post 06/15/2015 09:37     Subject: AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:A case like this is a serious Career Limiting Move for a police officer. Part of the job of an officer is giving testimony in court cases. If an officer has a history of truthfulness issues that has to be disclosed to the defense, and generally means the officer will no longer be considered a reliable witness.


Apparently, as stated by an earlier poster, they are a sergeant and a lieutenant. They would not be in a position to testify. They will retire, get a great pension, get another job and double dip.


And potentially have their wages garnished to pay the 250k.


You cannot garnish a pension. But, if the city gets a judgment, they can force a sell of the rental property via a lien.
Anonymous
Post 06/15/2015 09:24     Subject: AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:A case like this is a serious Career Limiting Move for a police officer. Part of the job of an officer is giving testimony in court cases. If an officer has a history of truthfulness issues that has to be disclosed to the defense, and generally means the officer will no longer be considered a reliable witness.


Apparently, as stated by an earlier poster, they are a sergeant and a lieutenant. They would not be in a position to testify. They will retire, get a great pension, get another job and double dip.


And potentially have their wages garnished to pay the 250k.
Anonymous
Post 06/15/2015 08:19     Subject: Re:AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
I wonder if they claimed a homestead exemption on their DC property? If the DC property was their main residence then of course they would. If so, they can be audited and prosecuted for tax fraud.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/dc-property-tax-exemptions-know-when-youre-eligible-and-know-when-youre-not/2011/06/20/AGGV06iH_story.html

Anonymous
Post 06/14/2015 21:47     Subject: AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
Anonymous wrote:A case like this is a serious Career Limiting Move for a police officer. Part of the job of an officer is giving testimony in court cases. If an officer has a history of truthfulness issues that has to be disclosed to the defense, and generally means the officer will no longer be considered a reliable witness.


Apparently, as stated by an earlier poster, they are a sergeant and a lieutenant. They would not be in a position to testify. They will retire, get a great pension, get another job and double dip.
Anonymous
Post 06/14/2015 21:39     Subject: AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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?


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?


A large percentage of DC are renters.


My question is if I rent a house to you but I continue to get mail at my house that I rent to you, am I a resident?


Do you live there or not?
If yes, resident.
If no, non resident.


What is the definition of "live there", 1 day a week, 1/2 time , > 33%.


In the end, the amount of time they spent in DC in recent years will not be that significant. What will matter more is whether they abandoned their DC residency by getting a driver's license in another state, registering their cars in another state, voting in another state, paying income taxes to another state, etc. If they kept their DC driver's licenses, voted in DC, and paid income taxes to DC, they can argue that their move to another state was always meant to be temporary, but went on for years due to circumstances beyond their control. If they gave up their DC driver's licences, voted in elections in another state, and paid income taxes to another state, they won't have a leg to stand on.