I think DC police officers do have some incentive to live in DC. There is an "abandoned house" on my block that is owned by a fairly high ranking dc police officer. Neighbors have tried numerous times to have it declared abandoned but are always unsuccessful because the owner is well connected. Someone contacted the owner directly about the property and he was very direct that he keeps the place to maintain the address and will never sell. Meanwhile the front yard is out of control and and front porch is about to fall off.

Anonymous wrote:My daughter was friends with their daughter. She was a very nice child. They did it so that they could be assured of her safety. It is all good to gloat but these are people's lives.

Many of have no clue how many hours a police work or how difficult their hours and child care can be.

And some of us have the obviously quaint and naive expectation that DC police officers, of all people, should follow the law.

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?

Either they played the lottery for John Eaton or pulled strings to bypass the system and get a spot at a good school near where they worked. It was a pretty open secret that a number of DC employees who had pull at the District building got their Kids into Eaton.

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knew Eaton had many students who were not resident during that time frame. The classic quote of what ward is Landover in comes from Eaton. Wasn't the Principal from Eaton at the time doing the same thing?

Yes, he was. He was eventually let go, but probably not for this.

Just ran into Racine's mom on the metro and told her her son was getting kudos on DCUM for this case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

I looked up the property. He's not getting Homestead. Based on tax bill history, it looks like he may have gotten it in 2007 as it appears his rate of increase was 10% each year after. There are however special assessments and Water liens on the property.

not surprised. they are probably not declaring rental income on federal tax returns either

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be thrown out of court just watch and see..

I concur.

that or the defendants will pay little to no money

I don't know ... there's not a lot of love for corrupt police officers these days.

Anonymous wrote: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

I looked up the property. He's not getting Homestead. Based on tax bill history, it looks like he may have gotten it in 2007 as it appears his rate of increase was 10% each year after. There are however special assessments and Water liens on the property.

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.

A lien rarely forces a sale of a property unless there's plenty of equity to pay off other superior liens. It's pretty rare for judgments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be thrown out of court just watch and see..

I concur.

that or the defendants will pay little to no money

DC has a one year statute of limitations for torts. I wonder how they're reaching back 10+ years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be thrown out of court just watch and see..

I concur.

that or the defendants will pay little to no money

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be thrown out of court just watch and see..

I concur.

Really? On what basis?

The "it's a DC thing" clause of the Home Rule Charter.

That WOULD be predictable D.C. felon-friendly BS. If there's any risk of losing punishment of those leeches, Racine should remove it to federal court due to diversity jurisdiction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be thrown out of court just watch and see..

I concur.

Really? On what basis?

The "it's a DC thing" clause of the Home Rule Charter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be thrown out of court just watch and see..

I concur.

Really? On what basis?

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be thrown out of court just watch and see..

I concur.