ROCKLAND, Maine — Calling the theft of money from taxpayers “outrageous,” a Superior Court judge on Wednesday rejected a sentence agreement reached between the district attorney’s office and the attorney for the defendant.
Justice Jeffrey Hjelm instead imposed a 30-day jail term for the 45-year-old man who provided false statements in order to receive general assistance from the city of Rockland.
Joseph R. Shaw, who is listed on court papers as a transient but also with a Rockland address, was in Knox County Superior Court to be sentenced for the theft by deception as well as unlawful possession of hydrocodone, violating a condition of release and operating under the influence.
Shaw entered a no contest plea to the theft by deception charge, in which the state claims he and a co-defendant, Elizabeth Riley, 67, of Rockland, provided false information to receive $742 in general assistance benefits from Rockland during August and September 2011.
Riley’s case remains pending before the court.
According to Rockland Police, Shaw said he was renting a room from Riley and claimed she was his sister when she was really his girlfriend. Since they were boyfriend and girlfriend and living in the same home, her income should have been included in the application for general assistance.
City Attorney Kevin Beal said that the city’s welfare director Samantha Mank became suspicious and referred the matter to him and it was then forwarded to police. Riley had also been renting another room to a general assistance client.
The agreement recommended by the district attorney’s office and defense called for no jail time for the theft charge but for Shaw and Riley to reimburse Rockland for the full amount of benefits provided. The agreement offered by the prosecution and defense, however, did call for Shaw to be sentenced to 180 days in jail with all but 30 days suspended on the hydrocodone charge. Rockland police found four pills on Shaw when they stopped him earlier this year while he was free on bail for the theft charge.
Hjelm, however, said he could not accept a deal that did not include jail time for the theft of general assistance funds.
“This is a pretty outrageous offense. He’s stealing money from the taxpayers,” Hjelm said.
He pointed out that by Shaw receiving money he did not deserve, the money would not be available for those truly in need.
The judge said he understands that times are difficult financially for people but that there was no excuse for the theft.
Shaw accepted the change in the sentence as called for by Hjelm. He could have rejected the judge’s proposal and gone to trial.
Assistant District Attorney Christopher Fernald said that the city of Rockland was not interested in jail time so much as in getting the money back that had been paid out in benefits. He said Shaw had no criminal record and that Shaw and Riley had significant economic difficulties.
Fernald then asked the judge if the district attorney’s office should propose the same agreement to the court that it had offered to Shaw when Riley’s case is heard. Hjelm said he already made his position clear and that it would now be up to the prosecution to decide how to proceed.
Riley’s only charge is the theft by deception.
Hjelm agreed to a request by the defense for Shaw to hold off beginning his jail term until next Tuesday afternoon. Defense attorney Jonathan Handelman said that would give his client time to vote in the election, clean up some storm debris and be in court for Riley on Tuesday.
This is ridiculous, make him pay restitution and not run up a bill at the jail.
Jail is not cheap.
What message would that send? He committed fraud, he didn’t take out a loan. Hjelm made a good call with imposing jail time. Do you really expect this guy to repay the money by pulling out his checkbook and cutting Rockland a check. This is what jails are for, to punish criminals with incarceration.
No. He won’t have the ability to repay but he could make it up in other ways.
I love how people scream for their pound of flesh over this.
This guy is not a hardened criminal, people who have taken more have received less.
Maybe he will have all his medical needs attended do while he’s there. I bet that will cost more.
This is foolish…make him pay back what he stole do unGodly hours of community service and let him go. It costs more then $742 to house him in jail for a month. Thanks Judge for protecting us…….get $742 back and spend $2,000!!! This judge is ignorant.
That’s what these thieves count on. No one want the cost or to spend the time to catch and punish them. They have known this for years. This is why they have the nerves to pull some of the stuff they do. Thank you judge for given them something else to think about.
BDN
Good job, Judge Hjelm. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. People should get the message to stop cheating the system. Thank you for standing up for the rest struggling to get by and trying to do things right.
Yeah thanks for costing the taxpayers more money. That’s all that has happened here.
Gee, maybe the police should just stop arresting people for anything less than violent crime.
One of the problems with our “everybody gets free stuff mentality” is there is very little consequence for doing it illegally. I am thankful that apparently this judge is sick of it.
That would be a good idea. People who don’t commit violent crimes shouldn’t be put in jail. They should be monitored at home.
This judge made a mistake on this one. It’s not worth the cost to keep him in jail.
Perhaps he will now get all his medical needs attended to, along with his dental and anything else he is qualified for. Apparently you want the state to provide for his most desperate needs after all.
This could save us a lot of money in the long run. If he does 3 to 6 months in jail and THEN restitution the next dozen deadbeats might think twice about 3 months in jail and NOT a slap on the hand. Sometimes ya got to spend money to save money in the long run.
Jail time is expensive. This man will more than likely not be able to pay restitution, but as I said in the other comment his medical and dental needs will more than likely be taken care of while in jail.
How much will that all cost you?
How much does it save us, when a fifty to hundred other would be thieves don’t want to take the risk of three to six months in jail and still have to pay restitution to cheat the tax payers.
These people have a point. The judge says it is outrageous he is stealing money from the taxpayers, and that money would not be available to those truly in need. Isn’t sending him to jail costly on the tax payers? So even more money is taken from those in need.
Lower middle class people are taxed into poverty and get no services. They need their taxes back.
I agree with other statements he should do community service, and pay back what he took, or find more community service to pay back what he took. I also think they should also include rehab for the drug charge.
Yep!
Good deal, I thought welfare fraud didnt exist…… Must be wrong..
It doesn’t (just ask the Libs). This story must be from the new fiction files on BDN.
I know, thats why they say…..They are like the Fonz, cant say they are wrooooonnnnnnnggggg….lol
there are plenty of couples not married who only claim themselves as one in the household to get money for food stamps.they are buckling down on these people and they will be caught.It is not just a drop in the bucket as they say .
He should have been taken to jail right after court … No questions….
Why, you think he’s going to go on the run over the $742? Get a grip.
Stealing $742 is “outrageous”, yet stealing what was it the guy up in Milo helped himself to and paid back something like fifty grand isn’t? Stealing 50K is outrageous, $742 is chump change. But, tis the season. I worked in the rent to own industry, and the holiday season was when most of our customers suddenly couldn’t pay their home rent and had to get general assistance…why? Took their checks to get Christmas presents for their children. Now THAT is an abuse of general assitance in and of itself, yet it’s business as usual. Or is it because this guy was unlucky enough to get caught? Speaking of stealing money from the tax payers…doesn’t the government do that enough anyway? Apparently they don’t like competition.
…..sigh,,,,, the poor get the shaft
Bad day Jeffrey? Its time for Hjelm to retire. Community service, restitution, and rehab would have had far more likelihood of preventing recidivism; instead he will be a seasoned pro at better ways to milk the system after a month of tips.
Is this guy’s crime any worse than all the restaurant and resort owners whose employees collect unemployment year after year, every year, during the off seasons while “looking for a job”?
This is a joke..Half the people on welfare could be put in jail for theft….
I bet it is more than half.
So you assume more than half of the people receiving benefits should be put in jail?
That would be more expensive and cost you more than ever.
Prove it.
Every person living in my appartments are ripping off the state…
Okay, well that’s probably less than half the people on welfare. How do you know the rest of them are guilty of theft?
I wonder who he’ll vote for – Romney or Obama?
At that exchange rate, $?=time served…… Bob Nutting will die in Prison, and our illustrious Canadian Gubnor will be in his 90’s when he gets out of jail. Both of these men stole from taxpayers after all. And no……… I have no expectation the Fox Snooze low intellect types will be able to figure out what I just said. But rest assured they will be here with their T’Bags swaying in front of their eyes and mouth frothing to protect their guys. LOL!
“He pointed out that by Shaw receiving money he did not deserve,”
_________________________________________________
There is countless riff raff on Maine streets who are receiving money they don’t deserve. I am glad that the judge at least made a stand with one of them.
It seems that a sexual implication is part of the calculation. If the couple is married, they are each liable for each others support. If they are brother and sister, they are not liable for each other’s support. If they are boyfriend and girlfriend they are liable for each other’s support? I think Pine Tree Legal held a different view on this years ago but perhaps things have changed.
Thank you Justice Hjelm. Make him do a goodly amount of jail time and then restitution. Make some of these other deadbeats think twice before stealing tax payers money. For too many years they have been stealing tax payers money with no fear of the law. No more slap on the hand. Make him pay dearly.
The case should have never got to court, this is the modern world, he just should have been told, ya got us once, but now we have your number, do not try it again. I think the problems here is Samantha Mank, she does not know how to handle these petty situations, blows it into costing the town and state 20 times more, good gawd these are poor people you are dealing with.
Nutting Honey. This 45 year old prisoner will have a better chance to have sex than he did from his 67 year old landlord. Just read the irony in this and the other story about Maine prisons to see the irony
Would be interested to know why the city of Rockland is helping transients who just appear here while some folks live on beaches w/o assistance. Just heard of three able adults who “arrived” here and have been given lodging at the city’s expense. At least the three I reference hearing about have a vehicle. The beach folks do not. Who on the City Council dares check into the welfare of its local welfare assistance program?
There aint no welfare fraud. the democrats said so.
And some people use guns to commit crimes. So we should ban guns like we should cut welfare if there is fraud?
“According to Rockland Police, Shaw said he was renting a room from Riley and claimed she was his sister when she was really his girlfriend. Since they were boyfriend and girlfriend and living in the same home, her income should have been included in the application for general assistance.” -BDN
This happens all the time. I love seeing these people who need assistance buying 4-wheelers, snowmobiles, new vehicles and putting everything they own in another persons name so they can continue abusing the system.
The way benefits are calculated must be changed. I am not saying that these people did not break the law or commit fraud but let’s look at the way things are set up, for honest people.
I have some friends; he has been disabled for many years, finally applied for SSI, received about $750 a month, $80 a month in FS and medicaid. He and his lady love of many years decided to marry. She was still working, (low wage) so he lost most of the monetary benefits from SSI, but retained his medicaid. They received a combined FS benefit in the neighborhood of $100.
Not too long after they married she fell ill, became disabled and could not work. After they had liquidated all that they owned, lost everything they had, SSDI finally kicked in. She receives $750 a month, out of which she pays over $100 for medicare part B. Medicare does not pay all of her medical expenses. The FS benefit remained nearly the same.
Now, here is where it gets tricky. In order for him to keep receiving his medicaid they cannot, as a married, mutually dependent couple make more than $875 or so a month or he could lose all benefits. He is very ill, if he loses his benefits he will probably die.
Here’s the rub. If they were just friends, or claimed to be, they would both receive the full amount of their benefits: combined SS- $1500 a month. Combined FS- $160 a month. His medicaid would be safe. And since she is actually receiving a cash benefit less (after part B) than her spouse, she should also receive medicaid and not forego care because she can’t afford the co-pay. But it does not work that way.
BTW, the numbers I have used here are only estimates and this couple does not live in Maine but in a very red state; yes, benefits vary greatly from state to state.
This is why otherwise honest people are forced to lie and bend the rules. The rules are not fair and do not apply equally to all those who apply, such as married people/committed couples who receive less benefits than two single persons living in the same household. There will always be some who cheat just because they can and until the rules are changed so that elderly or disabled couples are not punished for their commitment there will be those who cheat because they must in order survive.
Compare this poor person’s use of the system with the bankers who are borrowing money from the government and then not loaning it to poor people because their house is underwater. I use the term figuratively.