It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lie about food stamp applications to feed your kids? 5 years in jail while banks get bailouts

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Doesn't matter that taking drugs is PERSONAL business and the government has no freaking right to put their nose in that business...

Woman Gets Jail For Food-Stamp Fraud; Wall Street Fraudsters Get Bailouts

Last week, a federal judge in Mississippi sentenced a mother of two named Anita McLemore to three years in federal prison for lying on a government application in order to obtain food stamps.

Apparently in this country you become ineligible to eat if you have a record of criminal drug offenses. States have the option of opting out of that federal ban, but Mississippi is not one of those states. Since McLemore had four drug convictions in her past, she was ineligible to receive food stamps, so she lied about her past in order to feed her two children.

The total "cost" of her fraud was $4,367. She has paid the money back. But paying the money back was not enough for federal Judge Henry Wingate.

Wingate had the option of sentencing McLemore according to federal guidelines, which would have left her with a term of two months to eight months, followed by probation. Not good enough! Wingate was so outraged by McLemore’s fraud that he decided to serve her up the deluxe vacation, using another federal statute that permitted him to give her up to five years.

He ultimately gave her three years, saying, "The defendant's criminal record is simply abominable …. She has been the beneficiary of government generosity in state court."

Yes that woman committed fraud. But she did pay back the entire thing. Did she deserve jail? Probably. Thing is, the big banks committed for tens of billions if not more then that in fraud, and received hundreds of billions in bailouts and nobody went to jail or lost their jobs.

And it's not just big banks doing fraud and all sorts of illegal stuff way worse then that and getting away with it. Those people do that to get rich and when they get caught, they don't pay anything back and continue to commit fraud. That woman was doing that to feed her kids and she paid it back. That's a whole world of difference.


Here’s another thing that boggles my mind: You get busted for drugs in this country, and it turns out you can make yourself ineligible to receive food stamps.

But you can be a serial fraud offender like Citigroup, which has repeatedly been dragged into court for the same offenses and has repeatedly ignored court injunctions to abstain from fraud, and this does not make you ineligible to receive $45 billion in bailouts and other forms of federal assistance.

And then (some) people wonder why the 99% movement exists... it's because of crap like that.
edit on 18-11-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Common sense is dead.

That's what happens as a society crumbles.




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Did she deserve jail??
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 



Doesn't matter that taking drugs is PERSONAL business and the government has no freaking right to put their nose in that business...


If the drugs were illegal, then the PERSON knew that s/he was violating the government's law....hello?

I guess chaos/confusion would be better?

I agree that sometimes the sentences are harsh, and rehab (in drug cases) might be a better avenue...but there can't be so many shades of gray regarding the law of the land.

Especially when it is laid out in black and white; everyone knows it....

Banks getting bailouts are a totally different deal!!!! But as much as we may want to, the two are different circumstances and cannot be compared--defying logic....





edit on 18-11-2011 by BurningSpearess because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by BurningSpearess
 




If the drugs were illegal, then the PERSON knew that s/he was violating the government's law....hello?

Yeah and ``legal`` drugs are legal because big pharma has lobbyists? Because the government says it's illegal doesn't mean that it's should be illegal. This government, after all the crimes against humanity they have committed, have no right to tell what's wrong from right to anyone, especially when it comes to private matters such as drugs.




Banks getting bailouts are a totally different deal!!!! But as much as we may want to, the two are different circumstances and cannot be compared--defying logic....

Wrong. Both committed fraud. One (the mother) paid back and is doing time. Banks, committed fraud on a much larger scale, and nobody went to jail, they paid nothing back, and received tens of billions in bailouts.

Same crime, different outcome.
edit on 18-11-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 



Yeah and ``legal`` drugs are legal because big pharma has lobbyists? Because the government says it's illegal doesn't mean that it's should be illegal. This government, after all the crimes against humanity they have committed, have no right to tell what's wrong from right to anyone, especially when it comes to private matters such as drugs.


No Argument From Me...

But we are dealing with a "what is" and "what should/could be" situation.

In the meantime, we have to deal with what is...



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
The fact that she was able to pay that money back is nothing short of heroic for someone in her position. I think the judge went overboard. In most cases there is a penalty, jailing people is going a bit far.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 



Wrong. Both committed fraud. One (the mother) paid back and is doing time. Banks, committed fraud on a much larger scale, and nobody went to jail, they paid nothing back, and received tens of billions in bailouts.

Same crime, different outcome


Again, no disagreement from me.

Problem is the parameters of the system and you cannot compare an individual to a corporation entity. I know it stinks to high heaven but the banks have the whole executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government wrapped all around them. The mother, unfortunately, does not. If *every* mother did this, right now, what would happen to society? Children without moms, an way overburden on the system, and eventually, anarchy?

Where's that going to get us?



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
The fact that she was able to pay that money back is nothing short of heroic for someone in her position. I think the judge went overboard. In most cases there is a penalty, jailing people is going a bit far.



Why is it "heroic" to pay back money you obtained by fraud?



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
How did she pay back 4,000$+?

I simply do not understand how anyone could come up with that much dough if they are so poor they need food stamps to survive.

Of course I think this is totally absurd and asinine, but at the same time I am utterly perplexed of how she came up with four grand like that...

I feel like we are missing a lot of the story here. I need more information and facts to make any reasonable determination of what is really going on here.

None of it makes any sense to me. Although one thing is clear, she needed a better legal adviser, because whoever was representing her was a complete failure, or was actually in cahoots with the judge and prosecutor in the first place.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll

Originally posted by nixie_nox
The fact that she was able to pay that money back is nothing short of heroic for someone in her position. I think the judge went overboard. In most cases there is a penalty, jailing people is going a bit far.



Why is it "heroic" to pay back money you obtained by fraud?




Well "fraud" in this sense seems more like a twisted version of reality.

Someone with multiple drug convictions is certainly at the bottom of society in most cases (not all of course, see Celebrities), but it just appears to me that acquiring food is a basic need and that even if they had to lie and cheat just to fill their belly I can understand the situation.

If an orphan stole a loaf of bread from you, would you seek full punishment? Or would you let it slide because seeking to punish a starving orphan is well, demented and ludicrous.

But that is why I questioned how they acquired 4 grand to pay it back, and I also would like to know the specifics of the story. If the lady was sitting on 20 grand in her savings account, she sure as hell did not need food stamps. But at the same time, if this 4 grand was acquired by basically confiscating her car and home, and then auctioning it off, than I would have to call this absolute tyranny.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


People who are against this women are pretty damn disgusting in my opinion, what she did is a human instinct called survival and her maternal need to provide.
People who think that what she did is wrong because its 'illegal' need to think about our legal system for themselves rather then the fact they tell you its correct.
The legal system is designed to make little people like this innocent mother look guilty and in turn pit people against one another. The fact is our system makes it near impossible for her to provide for her family and then gives her no option but to break the law.
I wish people could stop getting angry at people like this. To go up against the system in her position is worthy of a medal not anger or disgust.
With all politness, F food stamps. Food should be a right, except people seek to find monopoly and profit in everything today.. Making it ever increasingly hard for the little person, who now has to break phony laws just to survive.
Some laws are there for an obvious good and reason, but a MAJORITY are there to oppress and seperate socio-economic groups. Never believe something its wrong simply because it is illegal.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by BurningSpearess
reply to post by Vitchilo
 



Wrong. Both committed fraud. One (the mother) paid back and is doing time. Banks, committed fraud on a much larger scale, and nobody went to jail, they paid nothing back, and received tens of billions in bailouts.

Same crime, different outcome


Again, no disagreement from me.

Problem is the parameters of the system and you cannot compare an individual to a corporation entity. I know it stinks to high heaven but the banks have the whole executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government wrapped all around them. The mother, unfortunately, does not. If *every* mother did this, right now, what would happen to society? Children without moms, an way overburden on the system, and eventually, anarchy?

Where's that going to get us?


Actually, haven't we as a society deemed corporations individuals....didn't we give them the same rights? The whole battle between what is vs what should be is the whole concept of the occupy movement....why are we giving faceless entities more freedoms and power than the average individual.

It is heroic for a person in her position to be able to pony up that kind of money....Not saying her drug use is heroic, just that she was able to go ahead and make it right....Besides, if she is trying to right her life, why would the system go out of it's way to make her life worse.......Granted she did drugs when she was younger, she has a recorded, she also has a family.....why would the system say, sorry, you have a recorded, no food for you or your kids....is the concept to help only those that have never done anything wrong, or to help rehabilitate them and get them back on the right track? I'm a little confused by what prison is then......what is the thing they say about prison, it isn't punishment, it is rehabilitation? That they are sending people into the slammer to change them to help better society? okay, so why is it that we are then holding that against her now that she is free?

If a murderer does their time, then they have paid their penance....So if we then hold that against them there after, isn't that considered a kind of double jeopardy? The welfare programs are supposed to help, not hurt....If we look at the those in need and start saying yes and no regarding their past, it will just make the situation worse....What recourse does she then have? Go and start stealing food after she gets out, because if she can't even get food stamps, i bet she can't get a job that will cover the bills either because she is an ex-con.....self fulfilling prophecy....do we wish to continue the downward cycle or try to actually help those that want and need help. It isn't like she is going to take her food stamps to the local crack dealer (or maybe a small percentage will),.....yet we are supposed to err on the side of caution, never allow the possibility of hanging an innocent man without due process.
edit on 18-11-2011 by pointr97 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2011 by pointr97 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by WakeUpRiseUp
 



People who are against this women are pretty damn disgusting in my opinion, what she did is a human instinct called survival and her maternal need to provide.


Yes, you're correct.

It is human instinct to feed yourself drugs (4 times that we know of--could be continuing) rather than to provide food for your children.

A drug habit is more important than your offspring.




edit on 18-11-2011 by BurningSpearess because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by BurningSpearess
reply to post by WakeUpRiseUp
 



People who are against this women are pretty damn disgusting in my opinion, what she did is a human instinct called survival and her maternal need to provide.


Yes, you're correct.

It is human instinct to feed yourself drugs (4 times that we know of) rather than to provide food for your children.

A drug habit is more important than your offspring.

Please explain to me what drugs have to do with someones right to food?
Clearly there is a human instinct for drugs and I believe its called addiction and the need for the brain to release endorphins.
Anyway, the government that locked her up for drug charges are the biggest drug cartel on the planet, talk about contradiction.
I dont blame her for wanting free food. Is it fair to pay premium prices for a need when the industry is controlled by people who wont allow local supply of food. Wait untill corporations like monsanto control all viable crops left in the world.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 


I should of said herculian effort. I worked in a welfare office, anyone giving money back, no matter the conditions, is nothing short of a miracle.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by BurningSpearess
 


You bring up a point. The judge may have done it so the kids get into foster parenting and hopefully get good parents for a change.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I can't say the judge's decision is wrong, but it is overkill. Somehow she paid back the money but still got sentenced to 3 years due to her past 4 drug related offenses. She should appeal the decision and reduce the sentence me thinks.

The whole war on drugs scheme is just as much a charade as the "war on terror". If you are not elite and get caught, you pay the penalty. If you are elite, not only do you not go to jail, but you are deemed kool and part of the "in crowd".

Same old, same old...especially in the deep south where they hate minorities and welfare recepients!



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Who knows how she paid back that money. Maybe a friend or family give her money to pay the fine so her kids wouldn't be motherless for years.

And to those who say ``drugs are illegal so she shouldn't have taken them``... stop ignoring the fact that some people have what I call ``addictive personalities`` and once they start something, they can't help themselves and they continue and can't stop, even if they know full well it's bad for them... it's an addiction. It's like being an alcoholic. Do you puts alcoholics in jail? Recovering alcoholics who've been sober for a year? No?

Putting someone in jail because of drugs is like putting someone in jail for smoking cigarettes or drinking booze. Simple as that. Being addicted to those substances is a disease, not a choice, most of the time anyway.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Here's the thing that I can't get past . . . the single mom struggling from day-to-day, lying awake at night trying to figure out how to feed her kids, scared out of her mind, wondering who's at the door next to come and get money she doesn't have and thinking of any way possible to make a few bucks here and there even if it means selling her body . . . so she spends some money to take away the pain and it gets her through another day to keep trying . . . gets addicted and the spin cycle speeds up . . . she ends up doing whatever it has to feed her kids and feed the addiction that keeps her from going insane and blowing off her own head, leaving her kids as orphans . . . and somehow she's a criminal.

The bankster, rides the wave of greed and steals from the common folk (insert MF bankruptcy info here . . . ) and plays a game of fiscal chicken to increase profits and get a big fat bonus cheque each year and starts worrying how to repeat the performance to get a bigger bonus and outdo the next bankster who's lying their fool asses off to do the same . . . he worries . . . has sleepless nights . . . scared out of their minds because they know what they're doing is unsustainable . . . nervous . . . tension . . . stress . . . ulcers . . . so they rush off to some high timer's liquor store and busts out a few hundred bucks for a bottle of scotch or cognac or some snooty imported vodka and gets blasted every night trying to figure out how to fix the pickle they're in because they know the gig is up soon when there isn't enough liquidity to cover the vig on the derivitives they've hedged on . . . they drink some more and become raging alcoholic bastards stealing, grubbing, lying, cheating and whatever to get a few more billions in the investment account to keep the ponzie scheme going and in some drunken stupor one night they get a call from Ben or Tim or Barak or whomever iit is in the big chair who says Don't worry, bub . . . we gotcha covered and the banksters walk away scott free and with another bonus cheque to boot.

If you put the bankster and the single mom in front of me and I've got to choose which one gets to walk away free and which one get's the flashy end of a Glock shoved in their pie hole following which I pull the trigger . . . you can rest assured that there are a handful of kids that'll see their mom that evening and there'll be an empty desk in some ivory tower come sunrise.

Oh yeah, and I'd save a slug for the judge in this case too . . .
edit on 18-11-2011 by GoalPoster because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join