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

reply to post by WakeUpRiseUp

Please explain to me what drugs have to do with someones right to food?

It has nothing to do with the children and everything to do with the parent.

I'm not saying there are not addictions; these are diseases, according to most. As I indicated by a previous post, if that is the case then drug rehab is in order.

I will say that the maternal instinct is very strong. I have countless friends who I would deem alcoholics or nictotine-heads, etc., and the minute they found out they were pregnant....well, let's just say that those natural instincts kicked in, and they were strong-willed enough to think of the child first.

Simply put, if you want to multiply, think of the CHILD FIRST. If it means getting help, get it. I, too, have worked in social services/welfare, and they would rather have you get help then stay on the cycle...of welfare checks, food stamps, medicaid, etc.

Clearly there is a human instinct for drugs and I believe its called addiction and the need for the brain to release endorphins.

It's like the egg and the chicken.

Natural methods do the same, and if you can't do it ("addiction") then go get some help

The total "cost" of her fraud was $4,367. She has paid the money back.

And how much is it going to cost tax payers to fund those 3 years???

He should be tried for injustice to the tax payers... I think there is more to this then is on the cover. Someone had to call down to him and force him to make an example out of this woman.

Originally posted by SmArTbEaTz

The total "cost" of her fraud was $4,367. She has paid the money back.

And how much is it going to cost tax payers to fund those 3 years???

He should be tried for injustice to the tax payers... I think there is more to this then is on the cover. Someone had to call down to him and force him to make an example out of this woman.

The bare-minimum annual cost for housing a prison inmate is probably somewhere around $20,000 annual. This is for food, and basic living materials, as well as facilities provided to an individual. That's just my educated guesstimate.

Even it if was half that, at $10,000 (measly paltry sum to house and feed someone for a year) then after 3 years that is still $30,000 or nearly 7 times the alleged "fraud" total.

Also, someone is going to have to care for her children now on her behalf. If the children become wards of the state and in turn, need to be housed and fed courtesy of the state, then the expenses will of course skyrocket.

I feel it needs to be said, that the judge and all his or her staff are glorified wards of the state, and make decisions on behalf of the state, which is completely supplied and "taken care of" by those who pay taxes. They then send people like this woman into the 'prison industrial complex' (which is now a for-profit business) where more and more people and their "staff" get paid once again... blah blah blah, and it goes on.

What's the real fraud here?

Even if this woman received the food stamps, her money would have gone into the business of food. The business of feeding people, amazing. Instead, her actions are deemed filthy and all energy and resources are transferred into the all-consuming abyssal plain of despair we call the American justice system.

reply to post by BurningSpearess


It dosn't actually mention in the article that the Woman is still on drugs.

It states she has had drug convictions "in her past".

These convictions may very well have happened before she had Children.

She may very well be clean, and has been since she found out she was pregnant for the first time.

reply to post by SyphonX

thanks for that breakdown... It just proves what I was trying to get across.

More wasted money... Not to mention the courts costs and fines on top of what you listed as well.

Sometimes you have to do what you have to do to feed your kids. At least she wasn't out robbing people at gun point or tricking herself down on the block. I bet the drug charges were something like pot too. Which shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Hell sending her on paper is rough enough for the offense. My daughter's mother was living with her boyfriend while claiming her other 2 kids that were living with her mother. She didn't get in trouble when I reported her... and I wouldn't of done it if it was to feed her kids...

She get a Double- Punishment for one Crime,
this is illegal in the free World!

(You do a Crime and get punished one time but not over and over again)

Well, this comment from the article is absolutely ridiculous:

She has paid the money back. But paying the money back was not enough for federal Judge Henry Wingate.

Of course paying money back wasn't good enough.

Anyone would be able to defraud someone else, and - as long as they've backed up the money - could confidently offer to repay it, if they got caught.

There have obviously got to be punitive consequences to deter people from fraud and misappropriation.

Fines and ''community service'' won't work, because, once again, the rewards grossly outweigh the ''risks''. ie. stealing thousands of pounds/dollars would certainly offset a fine, and stealing thousands of pounds/dollars, to many people, would be an acceptable trade-off for a few days of community work.

There's really no alternative to imprisoning these types of offenders.


However, there's a really big problem here. This woman's previous, unrelated offences should have absolutely no impact on her sentence for this particular case.

I mean, if she had a string of convictions for fraud, embezzlement or any other monetary crime, then you could understand it.

But, considering that her previous ''offences'' had no relation to the crime that she was charged with, and convicted of, then why the blazes should those previous spent convictions have any relevance towards her current sentence ?