Post: #1

Quote:THE wife of former NRL player David Fifita, who claimed to be a struggling single mum when fraudulently pocketing almost $50,000 from Centrelink, has avoided being jailed.

Gosford Local Court magistrate Jennifer Price today said she had decided to sentence Jade Robinson — also known as Jade Fifita — to home detention despite the consistent and persistent way she had greedily rorted the system at taxpayers’ expense.

Robinson, 26, the wife of former Cronulla player Fifita, used the single-parent Centrelink payments to buy clothes and a new car to try to keep up an outward appearance of success.

She pleaded guilty to two counts of receiving financial advantage from a Commonwealth entity [Was the prosecutor high? Why two counts only if it was a five-year scam?] after she was found to have fraudulently received $48,500 in Centrelink benefits over almost five years.

---

A psychological report found Robinson had “a personality profile that reflected a lack of maturity” and an “inability to extricate herself out of the situation she had caused herself to be in”.

The report stated she “felt the competition to clothe her children ... buy a new car and to keep up with others in social activities”, but had no narcissistic or anti-social indicators and showed good prospects of rehabilitation. [So she would have been punished more severely if she had these traits, which are associated with mental illness? Huh?]

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/n...2d067ae157

WBAAHHPH: Would Bang and Avoid Her Huge Polynesian Husband:



She also lied about the year she got married to continue the con. I mean seriously, what a joke. She should have faced probably 20 counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception and God knows how many counts for making false statements. But no, that would be too harsh!

Pussy pass much? This wasn't a one-time incident - it was five years of sustained fraudulent behavior. The average salary in Australia is $70,000. Her husband was on $160,000.

It's great to see that the courts are recognizing the vapidity and sheep-like mentality of many status-conscious Millennial women but it's only in the realm of punishment that any institution wants to acknowledge this. Anything related to rights or privileges and the vapidity and sheep-like mentality are never mentioned.

When I went through my first college, I worked at businesses that regularly had the police called so shoplifters could be arrested, charged, prosecuted and convicted for stealing things closer to necessities (chocolates, basic clothes, even washing powder). At least a few were jailed properly, folks who tended to grow up in the Oz equivalents of projects, with parents who were probably drug addicts, alcoholics or the like. Yet commit years of crime for designer brands and a car and you can't go to jail in New South Wales.

Post: #2

Some more hilarity from the case:

Quote:Her defence lawyer, Samar Singh-Panwar, argued she should not be sent to prison, because she has called upon friends and family to help pay the money back.

"The public purse has been repaid in its entirety," he said.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia...ar-BBEVSN5

All this does is highlight how brazen the fraud was and how she will never learn her lesson, not in a million years. She's been bailed out through everything. She is nowhere close to indigent and not just because her husband was on $160k.

Post: #3

This is an extreme case of the pussy pass. Her family and friends decided to give her money that she will never pay back so that she doesn't have to pay the full price for her fraud.

Post: #4

Are they going to pay the cost of investigating and prosecuting her?

I'm guessing that would run to 100k at least.

"Your honour, to save the court some time I would like to plead guilty to the hit-and-run and also inquire as to the asking price for the dead child."

Post: #5

My guess would be the two counts were to avoid paperwork, entice her to plead guilty, and because she rorted single parent benefit.

Despite what you might think, unemployment benefit in Australia is actually pretty tricky for the average flathead to rort unless they have a colluding employer and they're smart about how they arrange their affairs. Most UB cheats are detected by crossmatching financial records with employer records since most everyone in Prison Australia has a tax file number they have to submit to open a bank account without getting hammered maximum tax rate on any interest there.

Single Parent Benefit, however, is another matter. It's a lot more difficult to prove if you want to bring someone down because partners can break up and get back together with impunity (and often do if you work in the socioeconomic group that most often claims it) and unless you have a social security officer peeking in windows or counting men's shoes under beds (which they did do back in the old days) someone can assert quite happily that they're single and it'll be the devil's own job to prove otherwise ... which is what the Commonwealth has to do. There was an old book - Dolebludging: A Taxpayer's Guide written by a Peter Sawyer (a former social security claims assessor) - which went into detail about every single hole in every benefit in the social security system as it then stood. Admittedly that was back in the 1980s, but even reading it now there are themes that I imagine are probably still being heavily rorted.

Back to SPB, for example. Back in Sawyer's day, you were disqualified from SPB if you were in a bona fide domestic relationship (which is what Jade "Fifita" got nailed for). Where Sawyer lived in rural Western Australia, bona fide relationships began and ended with the fishing season. Hubby would go on a boat for several weeks or more, wife would claim she'd been "abandoned", and go on SPB, at least until hubby came back ... at which point she would quite honestly claim she had "reconciled" with her partner, and they both went on unemployment benefit for the rest of the year.

However, since it's against the law for kids under the age of 16 to be banging each other, SS necessarily could not recognise that two 16 year olds were in a bona fide domestic relationship. Therefore, any kid under the age of 16 who shat out a kid could be living openly with her Maori boyfriend and happily claim single parent benefit, at least until she turned 16, at which point she has a "fight" with her boyfriend and the saga can continue. Sawyer did not pretend to know the age of the youngest SPB recipient in Australia, but he had personally processed applications for 12 year olds.

In short, SPB is like any other government payment built for good intentions but with no objective checks and balances: easy to be rorted if you tell the right lies, because the claims officer who assesses your application has no power to exercise any discretion over whether to grant the claim or not, even if you turn up in an Armani suit and drive away from the Centrelink office in a Ferrari.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #6

(01-24-2018 11:38 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:  Some more hilarity from the case:

Quote:Her defence lawyer, Samar Singh-Panwar, argued she should not be sent to prison, because she has called upon friends and family to help pay the money back.

"The public purse has been repaid in its entirety," he said.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia...ar-BBEVSN5

All this does is highlight how brazen the fraud was and how she will never learn her lesson, not in a million years. She's been bailed out through everything. She is nowhere close to indigent and not just because her husband was on $160k.

A blond criminal bad girl type gets the Indian Race Troll to be her lawyer, then he ponies up the ultimate pussy pass from the cuck judge. You can't make this stuff up.

Post: #7

You gotta watch the Tongans. They can be some crafty gypsyish motherfuckers. She might have gotten some help from the in-laws. I know Tongans that run circles around welfare. If you don't get ebts, section 8, disability and a medicaid prescription of oxycodone to sell, you are the black sheep of the family.

Aloha!

Post: #8

Watch out for soy boy at 2 o'clock in that photo.

Post: #9

Who gave her the money? Parents?

To be perfectly honest, If I was a middle age dude of moderate means or greater and she was my daughter, I'm quite sure I'd pay up in a heartbeat to bail her out of this situation... same if it was my son who did it.

I'm not sure if that would be good parenting or not... Let's hope I never have to find out.

Post: #10

(01-24-2018 11:24 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:  an “inability to extricate herself out of the situation she had caused herself to be in”.

Well, yeah. That's how fraud works.

It wouldn't be a very effective criminal scheme if you were stealing so little that you could just stop and give it back at any time, now would it? You're spending it, so you have to keep going.

(01-25-2018 09:04 AM)christpuncher Wrote:  To be perfectly honest, If I was a middle age dude of moderate means or greater and she was my daughter, I'm quite sure I'd pay up in a heartbeat to bail her out of this situation... same if it was my son who did it.

I think if I was a middle age dude of moderate means or greater and had a kid who landed us in the news pulling something like this, I'd launch them out of a trebuchet.

Post: #11

She looks kinda special

English broad? Some British chicks just look like they're mom and dad are cousins.

Post: #12

(01-25-2018 09:31 AM)heavy Wrote:  She looks kinda special

English broad? Some British chicks just look like they're mom and dad are cousins.

Post: #13

Dammit.

Their, not they're

Post: #14

Do they even have women's prisons in Australia? It seems every judge's mission there to not send any woman to prison, no matter the crime. Who are those "big butch Sheilas" that Schapelle Corby was trying to avoid?