Written in cooperation with Dr. Anthony and Donna Laine
| EJF Home | Find Help | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter |
| Families And Marriage Book | Abstract | Family site map | Family index |
| Chapter 3 Child Support: A Program For Everyone But Children And Fathers |
| Next Criminalizing America's Fathers? by Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D. |
| Back Bradley Amendment |
Georgia 1976-early 1978 Marriage and breakup
Tennessee 1978-1989 Mary Ann
Tony makes a new life
Maximus enters the picture
1990 to October 1991 Arizona
1998 A child is born?
Late 2000 Missouri
2000-2001 Back to Arizona
2002-2006 New Jersey
And off to jail with him
2007 Case closed again, this time in New Jersey
2008 Maximus in Tennessee just can't stop hounding Dr. Laine
Maximus still hounding Dr. Laine this time in New York
July 2009 goodbye to New York
Failing health so Maximus garnishes his Social Security
Hounded unto death
Requiem et pace
List of figures
Review of child support collection practices
Organizations in a partnership relationship with Maximus
Maximus offices are located as follows:
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights
Child welfare programs
WIC (Women, Infants & Children) Consulting
Federal Consulting: WGA Health Passport Project, USDA FNS
Themis, Ltd., British Columbia, Canada
Child Support Lien Network
Software provided by Maximus:
Fraud and criminal investigations of Maximus
Documentation of financial incentives paid by the federal government
Maximus corruption in Hawaii
What follows is a true story involving quite disparate opponents. Though one side has suffered a series of crushing defeats, the fight continued for more than 20 years until Dr. Laine was literally driven to his death by the hounds of hell from Maximus.
On the losing side was Anthony Laine Ph.D., a nuclear physicist whose research findings on nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weaponry continue to be used by the Department of Homeland Security and various law enforcement agencies to help thwart terrorist attacks aimed at the United States. His security clearances were so high that he required an F.B.I. "minder" and when imprisoned has to be kept in a separate cell for security reasons.
His opponent is Maximus Incorporated whose stated mission is "Helping government serve the people." But in many ways Maximus is not like most other publicly-held corporations; the devil is in the details and the magnitude of this monster is apparent in Appendix A.
It was Dr. Laine's unfortunate circumstance to learn firsthand of the extreme methods Maximus employs to add to its coffers through one arm of its corporate structure, essentially a collection agency, but one of massive scale. Maximus administers state social programs such as child welfare, child support enforcement, Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, tax collection, and social security for many states and the federal government.
States where Maximus operates include at least Arkansas, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas, and Missouri.
Many state legislatures view the privatization of their unwieldy social programs as a welcome relief. But Maximus almost always submits the lowest bid, a "low ball" in more appropriate street terms, and secures the lion's shares of contracts it bids. In the second year, however, Maximus follows a familiar pattern, or more correctly, a practice. Maximus simply claims it cannot operate profitably, and renegotiates the original contract for millions more than its competitors' original bids.
Most of us are familiar with collection agencies in fact, or at least in theory. There are several common practices:
They are relentless.
They do not care about their methods except when bankruptcy is an issue.
They use threats.
The burden of proof is on the debtor.
The debtor is a debtor and anything that debtor says is subject to scrutiny. Their bias is that debtors (viewed as such regardless of veracity) will do or say anything to avoid meeting their obligation.
Contract agencies seek to collect child support benefit from laws that are invasive, draconian, and far reaching. Maximus throws about the term "child support arrears" to gain the instant attention of any judge hearing the case for the first time; it's an emotionally charged term...even for the bench.
It is also common practice for Maximus and others to create paper arrearages for "state debt" after the children are grown and call it child support arrears. State debt does not have to be proven; all that is required for maximum leverage with the courts is to lump it into a "child support enforcement" claim.
It must be pointed out that this story is not simply about child support and its collection. However, Maximus would have you believe that its single-minded goal and exceptional power to extort money from Dr. Laine was only an attempt to collect from a "deadbeat dad".
Anthony (Tony) W. Laine, age 30, and Mary Ann Phillips, age 17, married on May 4, 1976, and began life together in Atlanta, Georgia. However, after the wedding Mary Ann spent months of the year in the Clinton area of Tennessee, where she is from, supposedly "visiting her family." Mary Ann is from a small country town and had difficulty adjusting to life in a larger city like Atlanta, where she and Tony lived during their brief marriage.
A first child, a boy, Tony Allen, was born in October 1977.
In January 1978 Mary went back to Tennessee again to "see her family." She left a note for Tony ordering him not to call her or ever try to contact her again.
Not long after leaving him she discovered she was pregnant and in September 1978 gave birth to a second child, a girl, Amanda Renae. But she never told Tony she was pregnant or had any further contact with him until 2004.
After many unsuccessful attempts to locate his estranged wife and son Tony gave up and has never seen Mary Ann again.
By late 1978 Mary Ann, now 19, had found a new love and filed for divorce in Tennessee. She arranged for Tony to be stripped of his parental rights by claiming that her husband-to-be, David Jarnigan, intended to legally adopt both her children as soon as they married. As a result Mary Ann was not awarded any spousal or child support. Her divorce from Tony was finalized September 7, 1979 (Figure 1). The decree is final and gives full custody of the two children to Mary Ann. No provision is made for child support and none was requested. Nor is the issue reserved in the certificate of divorce for later consideration because of her plans to have Jarnigan adopt the children.
In Mary Ann's words she wanted her children to have what she termed a "normal life." She did not want the children to be frequently moved around and subjected to surveillance by federal agents, normal circumstances for someone in Dr. Laine's position. Furthermore, her biggest fear was that if Tony paid child support he would have visitation rights to the children. That was the last thing she wanted.
She feared that if he had any rights to the children, he would be able to obtain custody of them if he wished because she was not able to provide the kind of home for them that he could. In the event, all she offered them was a life of poverty and an upbringing with a drunken stepfather. Eventually she ended up a single mother, selfishly putting her own emotions above the best interests of the children.
Only after the divorce was final was Tony notified of the proceedings and only then did Tony discover that he supposedly has a daughter.
Considering all this, and Mary Ann's renewed request that he not contact her or the children, Tony regretfully accepted that reconciliation with his children was not possible. In the circumstances, Tony also believed that David Jarnigan had adopted Mary Ann's two children.
Mary Ann's new husband proved to be an alcoholic with only intermittent employment, and her second marriage also began to fall apart.
In an attempt to make a better life for her children, Mary Ann enrolled in nursing school but, with an additional child fathered by Jarnigan, she had three mouths to feed. Seeking help, she applied for food stamps from her local public assistance program. For two years, 1988 and 1989, Mary Ann received $100 in food stamps each month. During this period she got a divorce from Jarnigan and got a nursing degree.
After her divorce from Jarnigan she had a fourth child but did not go on welfare again.
The food stamps were entirely paid for through the federal government. Federal law directs that the state issuing the food stamps incurs only the cost of disbursing the stamps. However, reimbursement for all these expenses was later demanded of Tony.
Despite the breakup of his marriage to Mary Ann and the loss of his children, Tony, who had a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Minnesota, went on to earn his M.S. and Ph.D. in electrical engineering and nuclear physics from Century University in 1985. After completion of his doctorate Tony began a career in aircraft avionics investigating such areas as radio frequency interference, electromagnetic interference, electromagnetic pulses from nuclear events, electronic countermeasures, lightning strikes, and nuclear event hardness for both commercial and government aircraft. As is common with research scientists and consultants, Dr. Laine's work took him to many locations:
1986-1987 Fort Wayne, Indiana
1987-1989 Litchfield Park, Arizona
1990-1995 Phoenix, Arizona
1996 Ontario, Canada
1997-1999 St. Louis, Missouri
2000 Chesterfield, Missouri
2000-2001 Phoenix, Arizona
2002-2003 Lakehurst, New Jersey
late 2003-early 2004 Huntsville, Alabama
2004-2006 Baltimore, Maryland with a couple of trips to jail in New Jersey
2007-2009 upstate New York
July 2009 retired
November 2010 dead, hounded to death by Maximus
In 1983, Tony met and married Donna and remained married to her until his death.
It was 1990 when Maximus began its plan of attack but was thwarted by several initial stumbling blocks:
Tony and Mary Ann's divorce was granted in Tennessee without an order for child support (Figure 1), and Tony had moved from Georgia, ending up in Arizona at the time.
In cases where the parent lives in a state other than that of the minor children, the standard procedure for a child support claim is to process it through the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA).
URESA requires that such claims be filed with the court where the support order originated, but in this case there was no such support order. A judge in the state court where the URESA claim is filed is supposed to review the case, and if he rules that child support is warranted under the terms of the divorce or paternity judgement, a petition for support is issued. Again, that was never done in Dr. Laine's case.
Only after review by a judge in the originating state, and only then, does the initiating state file the petition for enforcement with the state in which the parent now resides. The responding state is then granted jurisdiction over the case and all future issues in the case are essentially transferred to that state.
The legal process notwithstanding, Maximus handled this matter in-house, without obtaining a judge's order, clearly a violation of federal law governing dual-state support cases.
Tony Laine, now living in Arizona with his present wife, was contacted for the first time by a Maximus operation in Tennessee. The collection agent claimed that he owed child support for two children from his previous marriage to Mary Ann née Phillips (f/k/a Laine) Jarnigan.
At that time, the children were young teens and Dr. Laine had not seen his son, Tony Allen, since late 1977 when he was three months of age. He had never seen his daughter, Amanda Renae.
According to Mary Ann, whom Dr. Laine contacted many years later, it was Maximus, not she, who decided to pursue Tony for child support in 1990. Maximus soon discovered from Mary Ann's food stamp interview and application that alcoholic Jarnigan was not a good target for collection of child support even though two(?) of her children were his. Nor, apparently, was the father of her fourth child (also thought to be Jarnigan).
On the other hand, Dr. Laine, a well-educated professional looked to be a much more promising target for extortion. Thus began the systematic destruction of a nuclear physicist who would discover the length to which Maximus, considering profit far above fairness, justice, and the law, would go in order to collect a pound of flesh.
It has not been possible to establish that the Uniform Support Petition represented in Figure 2 was ever actually filed in Anderson County, Tennessee where Mary Ann and the children lived. Any future attempt by Maximus to make things legal would have exposed their original disregard for due process and the law.
As a private collection agency, Maximus has sole use of and access to the information about such child support cases. As well, Maximus used a "Clerk and Master" (Court Clerk) rubber stamp, to circumvent the procedures outlined in URESA, thereby creating a clever replica of a court document.
Armed with this document, Maximus agents in Tennessee filed for the right to collect child support through an Arizona court. On January 29, 1991, they also filed an exorbitant claim from the state for expense and costs reimbursement of $11,489 without providing any justification for such outrageous charges (Figure 2). Apparently all that is required to justify "reimbursement" for unspecified and unproven expenses is to put a number in a box (page 2 of Figure 2)
Moreover, Maximus agents refused to provide the Arizona Superior Court with the required Tennessee court order; but claimed to have one. Common sense begs the question; just how was Maximus planning to reimburse the State of Tennessee for this case when there were no state records?
Maximus, in an attempt to sidestep the issue of the missing order, begged the sympathy of the courts and societal bias, playing the stereotypical "Deadbeat Dad" card. However, the reason for the 11-year delay in requesting child support was due to a change in Mary Ann's financial status because of Jarnigan, her second husband, not to Mary Ann's or Maximus' inability to locate Dr. Laine prior to 1991.
Up until the time Maximus contacted him in Arizona, Dr. Laine had every reason to believe the children were legally adopted by David Jarnigan. The Laine's had received documentation stating the children's surname was Jarnigan. Thus it was a total surprise that Tony would be hit for child support after a hiatus of thirteen years with no contact or communication.
Naively, Dr. Laine appeared at a hearing in Phoenix, Arizona, on October 15, 1991, without an attorney. It is nearly always a fatal mistake for any professional, or any man with substantial assets to represent himself in court, and that is certainly true in this case.
The judge in Maricopa County, Arizona expressed some reservations about this case and even commented that it "smells like a bad kettle of fish." However, URESA required that an order must be filed because the children were minors, so the judge used the Arizona guidelines for child support, which coincided with Maximus' request, and awarded a monthly payment of $150 for each of the children (Figure 3). The Arizona judge also granted Maximus' request for reimbursement of $11,489 plus interest, to be repaid at the rate of $50 per month. An attorney may well have saved Dr. Laine the imposition of an order for reimbursement that haunts him to this day.
Although Arizona granted the state reimbursement, the judge stated that child support enforcement in Tennessee (aka Maximus) would never get all the money they wanted, meaning it is not reimbursable after the children are grown.
The possibility of providing medical coverage at a later date was left open but the Arizona court never required Dr. Laine to provide such coverage for the children. Tony had no objection to the new court order, years late though it was, and continued to honor the support order until September 1995 when he was forced to stop making payments briefly due to circumstances beyond his control. However, that should not have been a problem because, according to Maximus, he was several months ahead in his payments at that time.
In September 1999 Dr. Laine received a letter (Figure 4) from Arizona Child Support Enforcement (CSE) indicating his case was closed and enforcement action had ceased. The letter also states that Arizona CSE had received a request from Tennessee CSE requesting that all enforcement action be dropped and that after sending Tennessee a copy of the payment history, which was done, that the case be closed even though at most only $4,800 of the $11,489 plus interest reimbursement awarded Maximus by the Arizona court had been repaid.
Under URESA that should have been the end of the story.
According to Mary Ann and her daughter Amanda in 2004, after reconciliation of Tony and his daughter, she never received a dime in support after 1994 even though Tony was still paying Maximus. Since both Amanda and her brother were both grown when this information was offered they had no reason to lie about the situation as they would not receive any money in this matter.
According to Mary Ann, the total amount she received in child support between 1991 and 1996 was no more than $6,000. She should have received some $18,000 if Maximus had forwarded the $300 per month she was awarded by the Arizona court. It did not. Mary Ann generally received one-third or less of the actual child support award she was granted. All checks that she allegedly received were cashed. However, when Dr. Laine asked Maximus in Tennessee for front and back copies of each check, his request was denied.
The Arizona court was sending the correct amount each month to Maximus in Tennessee for disbursement so the fault was not with them. It was in Tennessee where Maximus decided to take the "lion's share" instead of forwarding to Tony's children what they were actually granted by the Arizona court.
In 1998, two years after Tony's youngest child was emancipated, Maximus/Child Support Enforcement created a case in which Mary Ann was alleged to have had a male child two (2) months before that she claimed was Tony's. At this point Tony had had no contact with Mary Ann for 20 years.
Notice of this action by Maximus/Child Support Enforcement of Tennessee was served via a package from Missouri CSE where Tony was living at the time. Coincidentally, Missouri is another Maximus/CSE-controlled state. Enclosed in this package was a copy of a forged prenatal bill, a forged hospital bill, and a summons requiring Tony to appear in St. Louis County Superior Court to decide upon terms of child support. At this point his youngest child had been emancipated for the past2 years and this was an apparent attempt to force payment for the next 18 years for a non-existent child. This appeared to be a "recycling" of the original 1991 case without providing justification for the action. Tony requested a DNA paternity test but that was immediately denied by Maximus/CSE in Tennessee on the basis that the "mother" would not allow a paternity test to be done.
Eventually, Tony was able to avoid this obligation by proving to the Missouri Court that he could not have been anywhere near Mary Ann at the time of the conception and the case was dismissed. Dr. Laine later learned that the alleged child never existed. The last child that Mary Ann had was in 1991, after which she had her Fallopian tubes ligated. This information surfaced in conversations between Mary Ann, Tony, and Amanda in 2004.
In 2000, four years after the youngest child, Amanda, was emancipated, and a year after Arizona had closed his case, Maximus in Tennessee decided to come after Tony yet again.
In an effort to obtain even more money than they had already received from Arizona, and after asking the State of Arizona to close the case for enforcement (Figure 5), Maximus filed fraudulent documentation in the St. Louis County Circuit Court in Missouri, where the Laine's primary residence was at the time, claiming that the "Superior Court of Maricopa, state of Tennessee" had entered a child support order number 000112287 on October 15, 1991, against Dr. Laine (Figure 5).
Maximus claimed Dr. Laine owed $13,491 for child support arrearages. But there are some trifling details that are bothersome. First, there is no "Maricopa, Tennessee," now or then, and certainly no Superior Court in that fictitious town or county. In fact the only order filed against Dr. Laine, number 91-09225, was filed in Maricopa County, Arizona, on the date referenced (Figure 3) and that case had been closed (Figure 4). However, any citizen familiar with family court operations today will be aware that the courts consider such mistakes "harmless error."
Dr. Laine was never notified of the pending Missouri court proceedings or afforded due process of law. Instead, Maximus of Tennessee joined Maximus of Missouri and they apparently agreed that Dr. Laine would be nothing but a superfluous participant to the proceedings.
Using the wage garnishment process over the next several years, $3,400 was extracted from Laine's paycheck. None of that money was forwarded to Mary Ann for the alleged "child support arrears," the buzzwords used by Maximus in Tennessee to go after Tony's Missouri paycheck.
In Missouri child support cases are handled administratively. The judges in the St. Louis County Circuit Court simply go along with whatever claims their state's contractor, Maximus, makes. It is common practice to have caseworkers sign Administrative Orders and force payment. It is a rare occasion when a judge actually hears a child support case.
It is lucrative for the state and their contractor to create as many child support cases as possible, thanks to the federal government and their incentives (see Appendix B), despite the question as to any legality or actual paternity in the cases created.
In an effort to get to the bottom of this, in 2005 Dr. Laine contacted Anderson County, Tennessee, Chancery Court, where the 1991 support petition (Figure 2) supposedly originated, requesting documentation. In a handwritten note, the Anderson County court confirmed that there were no records of any child support case filed against him in that court (Figure 6).
Yet, the Clerk of Court stamp on all the Uniform Support Petitions bore the words "Anderson County Chancery Court" . That is characteristic as Maximus never uses any letterhead with their name on it. They contract to states, and as the state's specter they use state letterhead with state logos and pretend to be state employees. People are thus duped into believing that it is a state-run agency that is abusing them, while Maximus hides in the background.
Maximus in Missouri continued wage garnishment while Tony lived and worked in Arizona.
In 2002 Dr. Lane relocated to New Jersey. In 2003 he questioned the continued jurisdiction of Missouri. At his request the Missouri State's Attorney General investigated the case and forced Maximus to close the case in July 2003.
In 2004, approximately one year after Maximus in Missouri had closed their case against him for enforcement, like a never-ending nightmare Maximus/Tennessee came after him yet again. This time, they claimed he owed child support arrears in excess of $10,800. The documentation dredged up from the past to support Maximus' claim was none other than the fraudulent Administrative Order (Figure 5) filed in Missouri in 2000. That document references this case as being from the imaginary land of Maricopa, Tennessee. It is also a document with an imaginary case number. Of course these mistakes are, in the eyes of today's "justice" system, "harmless error."
The next twist in what could by then only be described as a personal vendetta, was a letter dated March 8, 2004, from Ms. Devonne Moore, a Maximus/Tennessee employee (Figure 7). She wrote to her Maximus colleagues in New Jersey claiming that, "Mr. Laine then moved to the State of New Jersey in an effort to avoid his child support debt." She claims that an order was filed in Arizona for current and past child support and that it is this Arizona order she wants to enforce. (Figure 3) but that case had been closed in 1999 (Figure 4).
There is nothing in the Arizona order about past child support. Yet as proof, she mentions a handwritten document apparently signed by Mary Ann and notarized on August 23, 2000 (four years after the youngest child, Amanda, was emancipated) stating the children were not adopted (Figure 8). However, the handwriting of the affidavit clearly does not match the handwriting of the signature and daughter Amanda's middle name is misspelled as Renee, rather than the correct Renae, a mistake a mother would be unlikely to make.
There are also questions of why an affidavit signed in 2000 only surfaced in 2004, and why a mother would sign such an affidavit four (4) years after her youngest child was emancipated? In itself that would not have been a profitable thing for her to do as Mary Ann would not have received any money as Tony's children were grown. Mary Ann later declared the document a forgery.
It is apparent that, despite both Arizona and Missouri having closed their cases against Dr. Laine, that Maximus in Tennessee continued to attempt to collect the remainder of the "reimbursement" granted them in October 1991 by the Arizona court (Figure 3). However, the "reimbursement" has now metamorphosed into "child support arrearages" and his case has been reinstituted by Maximus in New Jersey, which has little interest in the outcome of his case in Arizona and Missouri except as such rulings as may be used to extort money from him.
As readers have probably now surmised, Maximus always interprets child support orders on nothing more than what makes the most money for the corporation. Then its agents use tools such as fraudulent court orders and libelous, well-poisoning letters to insure that their wishes are granted by other states without question, regardless of actual facts. And, as in this case, little of the money collected in the name of "child support" actually goes to the mother.
In common with other child support enforcement agencies, Maximus intentionally creates an underclass of perpetual outlaws, comprised almost entirely of men whose only crime was in marrying or fornicating with the wrong woman and fathering her children, although even the paternity is often imaginary. It is in Maximus' best interest, not to be confused with the children's best interests, to create perpetual paper arrearages against men. Commonly these arrearages are fictitious yet Maximus bolsters the illusion that they are for "child support" so it can continue the persecution without interference from the law. And it works to Maximus' advantage if the alleged father is located in another state where he cannot readily obtain necessary documentation or bring the local Maximus representatives to account. And the father has no chance whatsoever if he represents himself pro se.
In 2005 Maximus/New Jersey had Dr. Laine jailed twice, his wages garnished, and liens filed against his property.
Laine was arrested on April 15, 2005 and thrown into "debtor's prison." At the time of his arrest, a warrant had been issued by Judge Barbara Ann Villano who was supposedly checking into his case. Laine believed his case would finally be given due process.
Unbeknownst to Laine, Judge Villano was apparently hand-picked by Maximus to preside over Ocean County's child support enforcement division because she would consistently rule in their favor, regardless of the circumstances.
On April 21, 2005, after six days in jail, Tony then appeared before Judge E. David Millard.
The inestimable hardships that this persecution has caused in Laine's life was of no interest to the court. The only question was how much money he would be obligated to pay and when. He was not allowed to speak in his own defense, ask questions, or present evidence. Judge Millard automatically ruled in Maximus' favor and set a new hearing before a hearing officer, two weeks hence.
He was kept in the Ocean County Jail in New Jersey until he was able to come up with a minimum payment of $2,000 for his release. As a result of payment demands and loss of wages while incarcerated, Laine and his wife faced the termination of electric, gas, and other utilities; most of their bills were left unpaid, ironically resulting in yet additional collection agency harassment.
It would later be discovered that Mary Ann only received just $800 of the $2,000 Tony was forced to pay to get out of jail. The fact that Mary Ann received any money is due to the numerous investigations being conducted against Maximus, and because she was notified of this payment through Tony's daughter, Amanda. She would not have received any money at all otherwise.
When Mary Ann asked where the rest of the money was, she was told that the other $1,200 was for Maximus' "fees" and was informed she was not entitled to any more money. All the money paid after that was strictly for "the state." In short, Maximus is making a tidy profit by claiming that Tony owes child support against a claim that was never filed in a court in the imaginary locale of Maricopa, Tennessee.
In May 2005 Ocean County, New Jersey, Judge Barbara Villano required Dr. Laine to appear in court before a "hearing officer" employed by Maximus, Inc., to review his evidence and decide if he indeed owed child support, but it proved to be nothing more than a star chamber (Figure 9).
Dr. Laine soon discovered that the "hearing officer" had no intention of allowing him to defend himself. It was later discovered that a warrant, signed by Judge Barbara Ann Villano, had been issued for his arrest two days prior to the hearing. Apparently, this was a pre-planned sting to lure Tony to the courthouse where he would be arrested.
Realizing the hearing was a set-up, Mrs. Donna Laine attempted to appear in place of her husband with signed power of attorney. She was not permitted to present any evidence and was told that "only Mr. Laine or an attorney" would be heard, otherwise she would be "practicing law without a license." Once again Dr. and Mrs. Laine made the mistake of attempting to represent themselves in court, basically a fatal mistake for any professional man, or any other man for that matter.
Just before the hearing the bailiff told Mrs. Laine that other deputies were "looking for Mr. Laine in the courtroom." He warned her the only hearing would be that of handcuffs closing once more on her husbands' wrists for "non-payment of child support."
In September 2005, Laine made the mistake of again accepting a job in New Jersey. Like many scientists, he lacks common sense. Inevitably he was arrested again, this time for failure to appear at the May court hearing.
This arrest warrant had nothing to do with child support. Picked up by the Mt. Olive Police Department, a background check revealed no reason for his incarceration, so the officers declined to formally place him under arrest. Instead, Laine was considered a "guest," allowed to keep his cell phone and his laptop computer, and make all the calls he wanted.
Later, the Ocean County Sheriff's Department picked him up from the Mt. Olive facility and transported him to Toms River. He was detained overnight but once again was not arrested. This is unusual because most men picked up on bench warrants are forced to remain incarcerated for several days before seeing a judge.
Eventually Laine appeared before Judge Ronald E. Hoffman. However, because of the critical nature of Dr. Laine's work with regard to national security, and his high-level security clearance that requires a "minder," this time Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents and New Jersey State Police detectives appeared at the hearing and briefed the judge on the circumstances of his case. This arrangement was a joint effort between the FBI and New Jersey State Police who are also investigating this case to, hopefully, prevent this from happening again.
However, Maximus has the habit of going "judge shopping." If they don't get what they want from one judge, they simply go to another that has no knowledge of the case in an effort to get what they desire. Dr. Laine has observed Maximus doing this in both Missouri and in New Jersey in his case. To forestall that tactic, and as a result of the interstate nature of the case and the intercession by the FBI and state police, an arrangement was made to have all the family court judges in the courtroom at the same time to hear this case.
Judge Hoffman ruled that there would be no more court hearings regarding Laine and told him that if it were up to him this case would be dismissed immediately. Dr. Laine was relieved that he received much better treatment than he had from Judge E. David Millard in April 2005. Unfortunately, his case could not be dismissed by the New Jersey court. New Jersey is only the receiver state and current UIFSA law does not allow interstate cases to be dismissed by the responding state regardless of the circumstances surrounding the case. He was told by the judge to "take Maximus on" and keep fighting.
However, Tony was required in court to provide his personal information so Maximus could garnishee his wages for this fabricated arrearage. The resulting payment was so high it soon became extremely difficult for the Laines to pay their monthly bills.
Tony decided after his release to take Judge Hoffman's advice and "take Maximus on." After extensive research he found that Maximus was under criminal indictment in numerous states for their fraudulent practices with regard to child support, child welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs (see Appendix B).
He also compiled a list of people who have committed suicide and/or murder as a direct result of the massive abuses forced upon them by Maximus and published it. All accompanying evidence was sent with it to several government entities, including the President of the United States, as well as news media in the U.S. and other countries where Maximus also has operations.
Laine was fighting back and thus posed a significant threat to Maximus' extremely profitable operations and he has caused numerous criminal investigations to be opened against Maximus, Inc. More investigations are forthcoming. Through Dr. Laine's contacts with the FBI he has heard that they have caught numerous perpetrators since. People working for Maximus have been caught embezzling money, diverting child support and child welfare funds to their own bank accounts, etc., e.g., see Appendix C.
In May of 2006, a letter from New Jersey Maximus Child Support Enforcement claimed that a bench warrant had been issued for Tony's arrest. It also demanded that he call them immediately and be prepared to "pay the purge." This is the money that a man is forced to pay in cash in order to get out of debtor's prison. If he does not have the money, he stays in jail for an indeterminate amount of time until he does come up with it. The United States supposedly eliminated the practice of imprisonment for debts at the federal level in 1833 and most states followed suit. However, it is still possible to be incarcerated for debt; debts of fraud, child support, alimony, or release fines can land a citizen in jail or prison, or prevent one's release.
At the time Dr. Laine was out of state and unreachable and that is why they ordered him to call a particular number and be prepared to "pay the purge." Tony's purge in April 2005 was only $2,000 and he had the ability to pay it although it cost him dearly.
This notice also stated that his "New Jersey driving privileges have been suspended indefinitely" and that he must immediately "turn over his New Jersey driver's license to the court," a standard practice in child support cases. However, he did not have and never has had a New Jersey driver's license. In essence, Dr. Laine cannot drive in New Jersey again until he pays a fine to the local department of motor vehicles to reinstate a license for which he never applied.
It seems obvious that Maximus went judge shopping again. Chances are they went to a judge in some other section of the court, e.g., special civil, criminal, or hired a retired judge. Unfortunately, in these cases, any "judge" will do and defendants are never allowed to defend themselves. The only testimony the "judge" receives is what Maximus wants them to hear. Perjury is standard practice in order for Maximus to get what they want, but those committing the perjury are never punished for their actions. It is only fathers who suffer.
New Jersey Maximus has become increasingly punitive as it persists in its extortion attempts. Sadly, their legal machinations have forced the Laines to live hundreds of miles apart, and they see each other rarely. Even if the couple relocates to another state, Maximus will surely track them down again and undoubtedly add a few more thousand dollars onto the tab. And, again they will re-label it back child support, state debt, or whatever they think will succeed in court.
After the travail and expense detailed above, New Jersey closed the case, CS 62974285A, against Dr. Laine (Figure 10) on August 20, 2007.
It took them nearly a year but Maximus in Tennessee is a bulldog and, no matter what, fathers must pay, and pay, and pay, and pay, and... On July 25, 2008, one Joseph Ottino sent Dr. Laine another Non-Custodial Parent Delinquency Notice (Figure 11).
One thing that has always been constant in this case is the fact that no order requiring Dr. Laine to pay child support signed by any judge in an Anderson County, Tennessee, court has ever been produced. Since he was not "ordered" to pay child support until after a 12-13 year hiatus, there should have to be a separate order requiring him to pay from the court in Anderson County, not just a "Uniform Support Petition" created by a law office under contract to the state for the collection of child support.The third page of the Uniform Support Petition that was sent to Arizona (Figure 3) states, "Defendant is not under a court order to provide support." But Maximus has never considered itself constrained by such legal niceties.
The Anderson County Chancery Court is the only court in Tennessee that could have issued such an order. Tony's ex-wife has not left that county since 1978, when she left him for the last time so locating her has never been a problem. But petty dictators and bureaucrats seldom regard themselves as having to obey the same laws they supposedly enforce.
Note that Dr. Laine's son and daughter are now 31 and 30 and he is still being hounded for child support that he has paid and paid again.
Maximus began hounding Dr. Laine again, this time in New York where he had lived and worked for over a year. They claimed to have a "valid" Arizona order against him even though that order was closed and vacated in 1999 and never reopened as noted above.
The pending (or temporary) case number the court issued in this matter was BQ79979V1. At first, the state of New York would not register the "Request for Foreign Order" they received because it was sent by "Maximus." (Figure 12). The court initially ruled that Maximus was a private, for profit-only collection agency that had no jurisdiction because they do not, nor have they ever had, any verifiable order against Dr. Laine for child support from the state of Tennessee. [And just how many times is a man required to prove he is innocent?]
However, as she had done for so many years, Devonne Moore of Maximus Child Support Services in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, continued to hound the State of New York in an effort to get her "Foreign Order" registered. As is common practice for Maximus, after the original judge refused to register the order, they went judge shopping (Figure 13).
The case was originally due to be heard in New York in August 2009 but was postponed due to the appeal, filed by Maximus' in-house attorneys in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, of the original judge's decision not to enforce. A hearing to discuss Maximus' objections to the "Order Vacating Registration of Foreign Order" (Figure 12) was decided upon by Judge Pines but never took place.
Dr. Laine's contract with the company he was working for in New York ended in July and he promptly left the state. The child support hearing in this matter was cancelled once Laine proved to the court that he was no longer a resident of New York. As a result, the case was never heard in New York. It was closed before going to a hearing, but that did not stop Devonne Moore from claiming that a hearing had been held and a judgment had been entered in favor of the "Plaintiff" Mary A. Jarnigan.
At that time, per New York law, a "pending" case file with a "temporary" case number would be generated for child support cases in which a demand for money has been made. Once a hearing was held, and a judgment entered into the record, the "pending" case number would be replaced with another case number starting with the letters CV. This is common practice in most if not all states, because child support enforcement is a civil matter, not the criminal matter that private child support collection agencies like Maximus Inc. have tried to make it. This new number would then be classified as the official case number for enforcement purposes. But since no hearing was held in this matter, no child support order from the State of New York was granted. However, this minor detail did not stop the demonic Ms. Moore from going after whatever income Dr. Laine had anyway.
Toward the end of 2009 Dr. Laine's health started to fail and he was concerned that he would need to retire soon so he could focus on whatever treatment he would require for his increasing health issues. As a proactive gesture on his part, he applied for Social Security. It did not take long for Ms. Devonne Moore and Maximus to go after his Social Security payments in the name of "child support" in the amount of $353.50 per month (Figure 14).
The case number this she-devil used to show the garnishment was "authorized" was none other than the "pending" case number (listed above) in the New York case that was never ruled upon by the court. [The lesson here is that if a bureaucrat knows how to play the system they can and often will steal you blind under color of law.]
As is usual in these cases, Ms. Moore's wish was granted without question by the Social Security Administration (SSA). Dr. Laine never even had the opportunity to object. He was simply informed that the money Maximus demanded would be taken out of his next and each successive check indefinitely. The only good thing that came out of this turn of events was that soon after Ms. Moore started getting her rather large "cut" from Laine's Social Security checks, the constant harassment he had been subjected to by Maximus and their employees, for many years, finally ceased.
At this point, Dr. Laine was in his 60's and the children he was allegedly paying "child support" for were in their mid 30's with children of their own. They are also not, in any way, dependent on their mother.
Maximus eventually admitted that the money they were taking in the name of "child support" from his Social Security checks was for alleged "State Debt" charges that, according to them, accrued 20+ years before when the children were still minors. But no verifiable proof that this alleged charge ever actually existed has been found. The seizure of these funds was classified by Maximus as payment for "back child support" and enforced as such, but not one penny of that money ever went towards the support of his children.
This was not the first time Ms. Moore has claimed to have an order against Laine for child support when in fact she did not. In 2000, Ms. Moore claimed that she had an open Child Support order against Dr. Laine from the "Superior Court of Maricopa, State of Tennessee" (Figure 2). This document was filed in the St. Louis County Circuit Court in Missouri when the Laine's were living there. However, as previously noted, Maricopa, Tennessee does not now, nor has it ever existed. Therefore, there could not be any legitimate order against Dr. Laine or anyone else issued from this mythical court. But, thanks to well-meaning but misguided legislation like the Bradley Amendment and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (aka UIFSA), all that was needed to take his money with this alleged court order was some Child Support caseworker's word that one had been issued. Whether or not a case is actually legitimate is of no consequence.
It is of interest to note that Devonne Moore of Maximus Child Support Services did not even become involved in this case until several years after both children were emancipated. So technically, neither the children nor their mother would have been entitled to child support in any case. The question must be asked. If Tony's ex-wife was no longer entitled to child support payments because her children are grown, then who is actually benefiting from the thousands of dollars Dr. Laine was forced to pay in the name of child support after both children were grown? It certainly did not go towards the benefit of his children.
Ms. Moore's secret to success in this matter has always been her consistent portrayal of Dr. Laine as a "Deadbeat Dad" who would adamantly refuse to support his children unless forced to do so by the most aggressive methods available to the "Family" Court when, in reality, the opposite was true. For example, after Tony and his youngest child Amanda were reunited in 2004, it was not unusual for him to help her financially when she had trouble paying her household bills, or any unexpected expenses that might come up. He would send money directly to her for these expenses, without asking for anything in return for his assistance. He did this because he wanted to help the young woman he believed to be his daughter, and for no other reason. Does that sound like the behavior of a "Deadbeat Dad"?
Dr. Laine never objected to supporting his children. However, he strongly objected to being forced to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars through whatever cloned Gestapo tactics Ms. Moore and her cohorts at Maximus could devise because he knew it would never reach the parties it was claimed to be intended for. Once the money was in Maximus' Oak Ridge Tennessee office, it simply and mysteriously, vanished into their "system." It was never used for the financial support of Dr. Laine's or anyone else's children.
Sadly, in today's "Family Court" environment, at least in this case and seemingly many others, all that is needed to successfully make a claim for child support is some caseworker's word that money is owed. Verifiable proof to back up the case worker's claim is not required. As a result judgments were automatically filed against Dr. Laine without question, and all possible assets he might have obtained were subject to the placement of liens, and/or automatic seizure in the holy name of "Child Support."
The only court that became involved in this matter that dared to question Ms. Moore's and Maximus' motives, was the one in New York state. The "Family" courts in Missouri and New Jersey just automatically gave Maximus what they wanted without question, and with little to no input from Dr. Laine as to the legality of these demands.
Early in November, Dr. Laine suffered a major stroke as a result of his failing health and was hospitalized. He never recovered and passed away several weeks later. Ms. Moore continued to garnishee Dr. Laine's Social Security checks until he died.
At the time of his death, Dr. Laine only owed approximately $50 for alleged "back child support" per Maximus' records. But, when the final payment was made through his last Social Security check, Maximus received an additional bonus in the form of an overpayment of several hundred dollars. However, Ms. Moore only posted slightly over $50.00 to his account, not one penny more than the amount owed per Maximus' records. It is not known what happened to the remainder of the $353.50 they received. But this was not the first time an overpayment was mistakenly made to Maximus in this matter and the additional money mysteriously vanished without a trace. That happened before, on many occasions, since his nightmare began.
In closing, we can only hope that Dr. Laine has finally found the peace in death that consistently eluded him in life. No man should have to endure the long-standing persecution he suffered at the hands of Maximus, Inc. and their agents.
Sadly, in the end, malicious employees working for Maximus' Child Support Enforcement division got what they wanted. They successfully forced Dr. Laine to pay out a great deal of money over many years on behalf of an alleged "child support" case, the legality of which has always been extremely questionable. His persecution was done with the consistent help and approval of the "Family" Court System.
Few, if any, men who have been accused of becoming "fathers" in today's Family Court System, have any rights or legal recourse, even when they are falsely accused of what is today the crime of "fatherhood."
The Laine case illustrates a number of practices common to Child Support Enforcement agencies such as Maximus. Paper arrearages are created for alleged state debt or medical expenses that have no basis in fact. Sometimes these paper arrearages are combined with genuine child support so the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Then the entire amount is renamed "child support arrears" in order to keep "Deadbeat Dads" perpetually behind in their child support obligations. When men balk or resist these practices they are thrown in jail, i.e., debtor's prison, with alarming frequency.
Before a man is jailed the standard practice is to take away his drivers license and any professional licenses he may hold. This includes medical, real estate, stockbroker, and any other license issued by the state. Of course the man is then almost always unable to earn a living even for himself, let alone pay the often outrageous "child support" frequently based on "imputed income," i.e., what the judge thinks the man should be earning.
Another common practice is to secure so many court dates the defendant incurs a heavy loss of wages simply due to time away from work. Employers often terminate workers who miss excessive days of work. As a result, many lose their jobs. This of course causes Maximus' victims to fall further behind in their legitimate child support payments due to lack of income. Then, adding insult to injury, Maximus plays the "look how the children suffer" card. Of course it is Maximus causing the children to suffer the loss of a parent and the support he provided.
The economic and emotional downward spiral for men such as Laine can be unending. Fathers are jailed again and again for a real arrearage as well as Maximus-manufactured arrearages. Tragically, some of these men, sensing the futility, choose to commit suicide as Maximus systematically destroys them to the point that they no longer have reason to hope. And their children are simply expendable pawns to Maximus' corporate greed.
In other cases the man's second family disintegrates as the financial and emotional stress escalates, penalizing the completely innocent. Often the second family falls into the same never-ending downward abyss as the sadistic Maximus process begins anew.
The original reason for child support laws was to reinforce the obligation both parents have for the well-being of their children. The enforcement of child support was never intended to become the multibillion-dollar cash cow for corporate extortionists that it has become.
All collection agencies have a reputation for bullying. Maximus, however, and other agencies like it, have literally received carte blanche from state legislatures to do whatever it takes to collect, however self defeating such measures may be. Is it any wonder that massive civil rights violations are often the only real result of the "family court" industry?
The reason Maximus's cams are so pervasive and difficult to dismantle is because all interested agencies get a piece of the action. States receive a minimum payment of $10,000 in federal funds to use as they wish for each child support case they create and enforce. Those payments are received even when DNA testing proves the man is not the father of the child.
Maximus makes an even bigger profit by imputing income and making the "obligation" so high that in some cases a man has to work 2-3 jobs or live in a tent because he simply cannot afford a roof over his head. Maximus has created a culture of slavery.
Any man who persists in fighting for justice in a child support case, particularly if he is pro se or pro per, as is Dr. Laine, can expect that eventually a bench warrant will be issued for their arrest. It will also demand that he call CSE immediately and be prepared to "pay the purge." This is the money that a man is forced to pay in order to stay out of, or get out of jail. If he does not have the money he stays in jail for an indeterminate amount of time until he does come up with it just as was done in more primitive times with such debtors prisons.
Most men who are hit with child support or "arrearages" are required to pay thousands of dollars in cash in these cases. Imagine a factory worker with a low paying, or no job trying to come up with $2,000, $3,000, or more in cash for the purge? Such cases are especially sad if he has already been thrown in jail a few times and there is no money left to pay the extortionists. And jails are now commonly charging a daily fee for their "accommodations."
A bail bondsman cannot help. They are strictly prohibited from providing bail in child support cases. Therefore, whatever money is used for the "bail" or "purge" has to be raised entirely by the non-custodial parent, or his parents, relatives, or friends. There is no other help available for these men.
They do not even have the right to speak with an attorney once incarcerated. Mrs. Laine learned this the last time Dr. Laine was "kidnapped." When she tried to call Legal Aid seeking an attorney's phone number she was told that once a man is incarcerated for child support he has no legal right to speak with a Legal Aid attorney, or any attorney unless he or his family can find a private attorney and pay a large amount of money to him to spend a few minutes with the "convicted" man.
If a man is unable to pay the purge he does not get out of jail, period. And whenever he is finally released months or years later his career and job prospects have been destroyed. Of course the child support arrearages continue to accrue while he is in debtors prison and one sickens to think of the effect on the children the loss of a father makes. The problems children of single parent mothers are numerous: low educational achievement, school dropouts, teenage pregnancy, gangs, drug use, juvenile detention, and many other pathologies closely correlate with the absence of a father in a child's life. Of course Maximus only profits from these cascading pathologies.
Clearly, Maximus will never give up. But Anthony W. Laine dare not give up, the principle and the consequences are far too great. Nor will the growing number of supporters who truly believe that the Constitution of The United States of America should not and will not be traded for profit on the New York Stock Exchange.
Maximus is not the underwriter of our state or federal legislative process, and We the People must take back what is ours. Until that time, under current law and practice, a man has to be functionally insane to marry and a drooling idiot to sire a child. As a result, marriage and families are becoming a thing of the past, and our civilization is facing a time of darkness.
Designed to insure compliance with federal laws and regulations applying primarily to child welfare and Medicaid programs also involved in collection of fines, software to automate parking garages and increase revenue, federal funding of program evaluations, Head Start program, Medicaid eligibility, sending receivables files directly to parties owing money with being routed through the Department of Financial Services, electronically auditing courthouse official records for the Department of Revenue.
States in which they are under contract: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin.
Maximus is under contract to the following courts: Volusia County Circuit Court and Volusia County Jail, Daytona Beach, Florida; Rutherford County General Sessions Court, Murfreesboro, Tennessee; Spalding County State Court, Griffin, Georgia; Greenville County Detention Center, Greenville, South Carolina; Rockdale County State Court, Conyers, Georgia; State of Utah, Dept. of Corrections, Salt Lake City, Utah; Federal Way Municipal Court, Federal Way, Washington.
States that employ them for Medicare: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washing, Wisconsin.
States that employ them for this contract: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, California, Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Hawaii
Maximus is in charge of child welfare programs in the following states: Delaware, Florida, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Connecticut, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maryland, Rhode Island, Wisconsin. They used to be in charge of child welfare (DYFS Division of Youth and Family Services) in New Jersey until their gross mismanagement caused the federal government to take it over.
Maximus has a contract for Welfare Reform in Israel, modeled after their "Welfare to Work" program in Wisconsin (what a disaster that was). They have purchased a company called Israel Workforce Solutions in order to run their program. They may also be involved in child support enforcement but I could find no information with regard to that on the internet.
Themis, Ltd. was purchased by Maximus as a means of getting into the Canadian child support enforcement game in 2002. Themis is a wholly owned subsidiary of Maximus, operating the British Columbia child support program as well as the programs in all other provinces. The main office is as follows:
The Child Support Lien Network is the product of a joint venture between the State of Rhode Island and Maximus Inc. Maximus is the chief vendor in support of this network. Because there are so many offices only one for each state is listed that is a part of this network.
Offices are located in: New South Wales, Bondi Junction, Brookvale, Chatswood. Northern Territory: Casuarina, Darwin, Darwin Regional. Queensland: Beenleigh, Browns Plains, Caboolture, Capalaba, Charleville, Cleveland, Dalby, Finance, Inala, Ipswich, Loganholme, Roma, Stones Corner, Townsville, Victoria Point, Woodridge, Wynnum. Victoria: Box Hill, Glenhuntly, Moorabbin, Oakleigh.
Provides software applications for state, county, city, special districts, K-12 public schools, higher education and not-for-profit entities. Customers include the following states: Oklahoma, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts.
MAXReg Security enforcer used as a defense against internet intruders. It is easy to see why nobody wants to call them on the abuses they commit against people for child support. All government entities are "in bed" with them one way or another.
Customers include: US Department of Veterans Affairs, US Drug Enforcement Agency, US Department of Defense, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), American Express, Transportation Security Administration. They also provide consulting services for Homeland Security.
Maximus has created a special program for use with a Government issued "smart card," i.e. identity management, etc. Their customers include: U.S. Department of the Treasury, US General Services Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, Puerto Rico Health Insurance Administration, United States Navy, United States Army, United States Air Force, Marine Corps Systems Command, Ministry of Defense for the United Kingdom, Western Governors Association and Southern Governors Association. It is easy to see how Maximus has become "Big Brother."
This is an asset and fleet management software. Maximus handles the day-to-day system and database administration responsibilities that would otherwise need to be managed by an entity's Information Technology Department. The application is "rented" and accessed over the internet. They handle Fleet Management Software for government entities, Fuel Management Systems, Public Transportation, Asset Management, etc.
This is software used by K-12 school districts to manage student information. SchoolMAX customers are in: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Texas.
Maximus has managed to win a consulting contract to provide "solutions" to problems surrounding social issues such as Welfare Reform and Health Care Programs for the poor. The states contracting with Maximus for this consulting are as follows: Virginia; Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, California, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin.
Federal incentives exist to make children fatherless by Phyllis Schlafly, May 9, 2005
Welfare reform meets the law of unintended consequences by Phyllis Schlafly, March 27, 2006 (7 th paragraph and rest of article)
TRACY RODRIGUES, age 33, yesterday pleaded guilty to three welfare fraud charges involving bank fraud, wire fraud, and theft from the State of Hawaii before United States Magistrate Judge Kevin S.C. Chang. Ms. Rodrigues admitted in court that between April 2001 and April 2003, while an employee of Maximus, Inc., a private company contracted by the State of Hawaii Department of Human Services to provide a variety of social welfare services, she embezzled approximately $93,000 in "First to Work" program funds intended for monthly child care benefit payments.
United States Attorney Edward H. Kubo, Jr. said that according to information produced in connection with the case, Maximus' primary function was to assist unemployed individuals to obtain job training and employment through the "First to Work" program. To assist efforts to obtain job training and employment, Maximus would administer and disburse federal and state grant funds to provide parents sufficient funds to pay for child care. Typically, payments were $250 per child per month for child care expenses such as babysitting or pre-school care.
As a former case manager for Maximus, Ms. Rodrigues' primary responsibility was to assist unemployed clients to obtain job training and employment. Rodrigues was also responsible for the issuance and management of monthly child care benefit payments. Ms. Rodrigues admitted between April 2001 and July 2002, she obtained checks payable to Maximus' clients, forged clients' endorsements, and deposited them into a bank account for her own personal benefit.
Rodrigues also admitted that between June 2002 and April 2003, she caused "First to Work" funds in excess of the allowable child care benefits to be deposited into her clients' Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) accounts. After deposit of this money, and through a variety of fraudulent methods, Rodrigues then obtained the excess benefit amounts for her own personal benefit.
United States Attorney Kubo said that anyone with information about past or on-going federal or state welfare fraud should notify the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General via their toll free fraud hotline (1-800-HHS-TIPS (447-8477)) and the Investigations Office of the State of Hawaii Department of Human Services at their fraud hotline (587-8444).
Rodrigues is scheduled to be sentenced by Chief United States District Judge David A. Ezra on August 1, 2005. The maximum sentence that Rodrigues could receive is thirty (30) years imprisonment for each of the bank fraud and wire fraud counts and ten (10) years for the theft from a state program receiving federal funds count. The actual sentences will be further determined by federal Sentencing Guidelines. There is no parole under current federal law.
The Investigations Office of the State of Hawaii Department of Human Services conducted the investigation leading to the criminal charges, assisted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The prosecution is being handled by Assistant United States Attorney Tracy Hino.