Anonymous
07/04/2015 08:29
Subject: AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
Bump
Anonymous
07/03/2015 16:39
Subject: AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
This will settle. Token payment to the City. No admission of wrongdoing. Retirement from MPD. New jobs as administrators at Chartwells. That's how they do in DC.
Anonymous
07/03/2015 12:10
Subject: Re:AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
Anonymous wrote: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.
Can you please post the address?
Anonymous
07/03/2015 11:49
Subject: AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They aren't DC residents. They live in MD. Owning property in DC doesn't make you a resident.
It did make you a resident pre-2008. The rules changed. Where is that posted? It seems the public website aligns with the pre-and rules.
Every time you document your residency in DC for schools, you swear that you and your child reside at the address and that you are aware of the penalties of making untrue statements. They certainly were aware of the law.
No. The form does not ask you to swear, they ask for a pay stub.
[B]Pay stubs are not a reliable document to verify residency, most employers use systems that allow employees to go in and type their own information in for paychecks or tax documents. You can do this and change it right back the same day![b]
Anonymous
07/02/2015 14:14
Subject: AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud
Anonymous wrote: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.
Fraud.