Jail guard sentenced for welfare fraud

Jail guard sentenced for welfare fraud

There are 60 comments on the Red Bluff Daily News story from Oct 6, 2010, titled Jail guard sentenced for welfare fraud. In it, Red Bluff Daily News reports that:

A Correctional Officer convicted of helping his girlfriend with welfare fraud is still in the employ of the Sheriff's Department but is on his way out, Sheriff Clay Parker said Tuesday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Red Bluff Daily News.

Local Cop

Chico, CA

#23 Oct 7, 2010
Maybe Parker will use him as an inmate worker and have him do his correctional officer duties while serving his time.
Common Sence

Brisbane, CA

#24 Oct 7, 2010
REALLY THO wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing is...If the Father of those children were supporting them, The mother would NOT have to look into welfare to begin with !!! And this whole issue would have been avoided !!
Yeah, it'd be nice if Dad paid support, but what about her? Does she work? I raised three kids with no support and no aide... you want kids, you better have a job to pay for them.
Max II

Bismarck, ND

#26 Oct 7, 2010
zzz1234 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly!! Love your comment! When the truth about this story gets to be told people will see the situation as a petty attempt to make an "EXAMPLE" out of the wrong people! Why isn't the dead beat dad helping out? Haha that's a great question. As I see it, Mr. Branson has taken on a huge responsibility to help her raise her children, and together they have done a great job thus far. Maybe Tehama County should take a look at the father of the children! Is he perfect? Not so much.:} I wonder if he's even paying child support?
Seems like the dead beat father and mother are the resposible ones here. By her being quite a bit holder than Mr. Branson I am sure she had a lot of influence and knew how to work the system. Probably wasn't the first time that she has done this. Sounds like Branson got lmixed up with the wrong woman and he is taking the fall for her and the dead beat dad.
Max II

Bismarck, ND

#27 Oct 7, 2010
Red Bluff man wrote:
What is the big Deal? You have a guy and girl living together, she has kids, why should he be responsible for them? If anyone person is to be a fault it is her. Would things be different if this guy was not a law enforcement officer? I think so. If this guy looses his job over this then the system is messed up. If a person working at Wal-Mart was living with his girlfriend and she got aid would he loose his job?
I would bet at least 90% of the women drawing welfare are living with someone and not reporting it. A lot of them are living with the dead beat fathers, we need a lot more investigating, should be able to make unannounced vistis if they are drawing off the system to make sure they are living only with their children. Just goes along with the story of millions of welfare money being spent in Vegas, Hawaii, and cruise ships. If they can afford these trips they sure don't need to be drawing money off of the taxpayers, then at the end of the year they get the earned income credit. Something wrong with the system.
Local Cop

Chico, CA

#28 Oct 7, 2010
I just heard that he is on paid admin leave at tis time so he is actually being paid as a CO while he is serving his time....not confirmed yet, but good source told me this.
X-resident

Bettendorf, IA

#29 Oct 7, 2010
REALLY THO wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing is...If the Father of those children were supporting them, The mother would NOT have to look into welfare to begin with !!! And this whole issue would have been avoided !!
Not true. For one, show me a regular person who can live off just child support. I don't know of anyone. The custodial parent still has to work, those kids are hers too so she needs to support them also. But like I said above, between TANF and food stamps, some women would rather take welfare then work because then they can just get by with no effort on their part.

BTW, I raised a child for 18 years with no child support and NO WELFARE, I had a JOB, sometimes two.
jailer

Oroville, CA

#30 Oct 7, 2010
His girlfriend got welfare so that they could work the system and he is proud of that. He brags about how nothing is going to happen to him. He told her not to work so that they could get welfare. The Dad is a loser but he takes his kids half the time so who cares about his part in this. They intentionally did this because James thinks he is untouchable. He learned it from all the shady puppets that Dodd has created in that jail. Parker should do the department a favor and get rid of Dodd and his puppet. Branson would have gotten away with murder if the DA hadn't picked it up. Dodd only cares about himself and not policing up the people who work for him. That department is falling apart.
Pat Johnston

Stockton, CA

#31 Oct 7, 2010
A Corning Citizen wrote:
HERE i HAVE A QUESTION. How can 1 individual be singled out for welfare fraud when 90 percent of those on welfare are defrauding the system? Parker has no reason to pursue the issue when he's a lame duck just like this states actor/govenor.
Goes to show you how well law enforcement and the DA's office works to get those defrauders. Of course, when you support the biggest fraud Embeezlyman Jim Nielson, how could they prosecute anyone. Parker has been a corrupt, lame duck Shreiff for 15 years. Why should he change now. The voters know we can't depend on him. That is why he lost the election.
Pat Johnston

Stockton, CA

#32 Oct 7, 2010
xyz wrote:
Seems to me he got a very light sentence of only 60 days in jail and a very small fine. Stealing from the system should have at least a year in jail and a fine of at least $3,000.
All I can say is that this defendant is lucky that I wasn't his judge.
Back in the early 90's. Jeanette Turner was busted for welfare fraud.(She accidently signed in the wrong place.) She recieved 3 years in prison and outrageous fines, her kids were put into foster care, where they really got messed up. Plus, law enforcement harrassed herself and her family for years for fighting the system. She was eventually found not guilty and was reimbursed the money she allegedly stole.
Pat Johnston

Stockton, CA

#33 Oct 7, 2010
Red Bluff man wrote:
What is the big Deal? You have a guy and girl living together, she has kids, why should he be responsible for them? If anyone person is to be a fault it is her. Would things be different if this guy was not a law enforcement officer? I think so. If this guy looses his job over this then the system is messed up. If a person working at Wal-Mart was living with his girlfriend and she got aid would he loose his job?
The man's income counts, if he's living with the women recieving welfare, whether he is the father or not. He is equally culpable. No one forces him to live and benefit from the system. He can choose to do the right thing. As far as the DA going after deadbeat dads. My grand daughter's father was $30,000.00 in arrears for 10 years, until Michele Proctor recieved the case, child support had been hit and miss or non-existent. Not only does she have the money coming in regularly, so far, she went to court and raised it signigficantly. Thanx Michele.
think for a min

Redding, CA

#34 Oct 7, 2010
OH REALLY wrote:
<quoted text>
this guy is a cop at least while he is on duty. he has let the people of this county down. his teacher should also be investigated. it's a slap in the face to the good cops that respect their jobs and the people they serve.
as far as parker goes, all that can be said is, bye bye.
Again I have to mention the Red Bluff Police Officer who was the lead DUI officer that was arrested for a DUI.. Talk about letting the people down .. At the very least this Jail Guard didn't endanger me and my children by driving drunk !!! I wonder if there are any cops that respect the "people they serve" what a joke !!!
think for a min

Redding, CA

#35 Oct 7, 2010
jailer wrote:
His girlfriend got welfare so that they could work the system and he is proud of that. He brags about how nothing is going to happen to him. He told her not to work so that they could get welfare. The Dad is a loser but he takes his kids half the time so who cares about his part in this. They intentionally did this because James thinks he is untouchable. He learned it from all the shady puppets that Dodd has created in that jail. Parker should do the department a favor and get rid of Dodd and his puppet. Branson would have gotten away with murder if the DA hadn't picked it up. Dodd only cares about himself and not policing up the people who work for him. That department is falling apart.

Such BS !!! Obviously he was working and didnt need welfare. This goes back to the real Parents of these children not James....It is not up to him to support them !!!
my opinion

United States

#36 Oct 7, 2010
Pat Johnston wrote:
<quoted text>
Back in the early 90's. Jeanette Turner was busted for welfare fraud.(She accidently signed in the wrong place.) She recieved 3 years in prison and outrageous fines, her kids were put into foster care, where they really got messed up. Plus, law enforcement harrassed herself and her family for years for fighting the system. She was eventually found not guilty and was reimbursed the money she allegedly stole.
Definition of fraud: deceit, trickery, sharp practice or breach of confidence perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. Not at all what this case is about. Just like Jeanette Turner, a box was marked accidentally in the wrong place on an application (filled out 4 years ago for medical assistance for her children). That to me does not define fraud! The media has made this situation sound like something it isnt that to me is more fraudulent than anything this mother has done to try and take care of her children!
Max II

Bismarck, ND

#37 Oct 7, 2010
my opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Definition of fraud: deceit, trickery, sharp practice or breach of confidence perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. Not at all what this case is about. Just like Jeanette Turner, a box was marked accidentally in the wrong place on an application (filled out 4 years ago for medical assistance for her children). That to me does not define fraud! The media has made this situation sound like something it isnt that to me is more fraudulent than anything this mother has done to try and take care of her children!
I don't know how long she has been with James, why wasn't she putting his income down? Don't they still have those monthly reports that they have to fill out to keep getting assistance? Or is this now done yearly and you are on your honor to report any changes in your living conditions? I think she intentionaly set out to defraud and got him involved in it.
Residentevil

Menlo Park, CA

#38 Oct 7, 2010
Common Sence wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, it'd be nice if Dad paid support, but what about her? Does she work? I raised three kids with no support and no aide... you want kids, you better have a job to pay for them.
Good for you! I wish the rest of the public had the same outlook!!
IDOKNOW

Yreka, CA

#39 Oct 7, 2010
Interesting comments.

First of all,whether or not the father should be supporting the children, she applied for aid and in doing so, she agreed to answer all questions and to report any changes under the penalty of perjury. More simply, she agreed to play by the rules in order to receive aid.

The father may be paying child support and it may be going to reimburse the welfare monies. And yes, he may be a bum or he just may not have the income to pay support.

Lets take a look as some hypotheticals:

Suppose the woman tells the welfare dept. that she pays rent. If she claims she pays rent, that will increase the amount of food stamps she receives every month.

Now suppose the boyfriend is her landlord and he signs a statement that she pays him rent. If she really doesn't, then he has just assisted her in committing welfare fraud because by their actions, she is getting food stamps in an amount she wouldn't if she was telling the truth.

Now, everyone seems to be all bothered about that fact that he is just her boyfriend and shouldn't be in trouble. The scenario above may explain why he is.

Next issue: Suppose for the sake of argument, that the CO and the woman are living together in the same house. Not necessarily a big deal. They sign a paper saying they are doing so, he shows that he has the income to support himself so that she doesn't spend any welfare money on him and everything is fine.

But what if they claim they live in separate households? And what if she actually has access to his monies? Well, then his income is considered against her welfare benefits and if it is above the allowed amount, then she is not eligible to receive cash aid.

So maybe if things transpired as outlined above, it is a big deal. The above acts involve perjury at least by her and possibly both if he signed something under the penalty of perjury.

All of you out there who have no problem with a law enforcement officer committing perjury, well then never, ever complain again that the "cops lied" in one of your many criminal trials that I am sure you have been involved in as a defendant.

And Pat, I may be wrong this time but I kinda doubt it. Take a real look at Jeanette Turners case (like read the actual docket instead of taking her word for it) and make sure that her perjury case was actually overturned.
YOU LIAR

Oroville, CA

#40 Oct 7, 2010
Sheriff Parker is absolutely ridiculous. Are you an idiot, Clay?
Branson has been working in the Jail for MONTHS now..full time! administrative leave!? are you kidding me!?
I used to respect you, Clay Parker, but now I see the snake you are. You flat out LIED to the newspaper to make yourself look good. You loser. Hey, Red Bluff Daily News, I think it would be a FANTASTIC idea if you probed into this a little more. Not the part of Bransons crime, but Parkers lies. That C.O. has been working full time since shortly after his arrest. in the jail, among inmates. Show the county what Parker really looks like. So they can be happy that HE has been fired. This makes me sick. You are pathetic, Clay.
You should be ashamed to show your face, you Liar.
I'm sick of you. GET OUT!
jen

Orland, CA

#41 Oct 7, 2010
question? why should get such a harsh punishment, when a woman kills her mom and gets 2days in jail, 300 hrs comm. service, and ond yeasr without a DL, and what was it 2300 in fines. wow I smell something more the mary jane here
jen

Orland, CA

#42 Oct 7, 2010
opps sorry forgot the "he"
Max II

Bismarck, ND

#43 Oct 8, 2010
IDOKNOW wrote:
Interesting comments.
First of all,whether or not the father should be supporting the children, she applied for aid and in doing so, she agreed to answer all questions and to report any changes under the penalty of perjury. More simply, she agreed to play by the rules in order to receive aid.
The father may be paying child support and it may be going to reimburse the welfare monies. And yes, he may be a bum or he just may not have the income to pay support.
Lets take a look as some hypotheticals:
Suppose the woman tells the welfare dept. that she pays rent. If she claims she pays rent, that will increase the amount of food stamps she receives every month.
Now suppose the boyfriend is her landlord and he signs a statement that she pays him rent. If she really doesn't, then he has just assisted her in committing welfare fraud because by their actions, she is getting food stamps in an amount she wouldn't if she was telling the truth.
Now, everyone seems to be all bothered about that fact that he is just her boyfriend and shouldn't be in trouble. The scenario above may explain why he is.
Next issue: Suppose for the sake of argument, that the CO and the woman are living together in the same house. Not necessarily a big deal. They sign a paper saying they are doing so, he shows that he has the income to support himself so that she doesn't spend any welfare money on him and everything is fine.
But what if they claim they live in separate households? And what if she actually has access to his monies? Well, then his income is considered against her welfare benefits and if it is above the allowed amount, then she is not eligible to receive cash aid.
So maybe if things transpired as outlined above, it is a big deal. The above acts involve perjury at least by her and possibly both if he signed something under the penalty of perjury.
All of you out there who have no problem with a law enforcement officer committing perjury, well then never, ever complain again that the "cops lied" in one of your many criminal trials that I am sure you have been involved in as a defendant.
And Pat, I may be wrong this time but I kinda doubt it. Take a real look at Jeanette Turners case (like read the actual docket instead of taking her word for it) and make sure that her perjury case was actually overturned.
I didn't think the system cared about anyone committing perjury, Foster mother committed perjury, lied under oath....complaint was filed and noone seemed to care. CPS, her attorney(the lady that ran for judge) all knew this and condoned it...DA had to many other important cases to worry about, to file on something as minor as perjury. So I guess it all depends on you are wheather perjury is a crime or not.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Tehama County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Red Bluff-Tehama County police reports June 6-8 (Jun '14) Jun '17 lilbridge861 10
News Man convicted of sexual abuse of minors Apr '17 NUNYA 1
News Sacramento man arrested in connection with Red ... Apr '17 J Thomas 1
News Tehama County Social Services face steep cuts (Feb '11) Aug '16 Welfare recipeint 18
Bradley J. Sundeen (May '13) Mar '15 zionist KKK 4
News Marek Road property abatement ordered; supervis... (Feb '15) Feb '15 anonymous 3
News Man arrested in slaying of 14-year-old girl in ... (Mar '13) Feb '15 Elise Gingerich 5
More from around the web