Posted on 08/02/2008 12:04:15 AM PDT by wac3rd
San Francisco authorities have been able to justify the handling of just 127 border-prosecution cases out of the more than 2,300 that the city billed to the federal government under an anti-crime grant program. Federal auditors said last year that the city was not entitled to any of the more than $5 million it got over three years under the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative grant program, which repays local authorities in border states for handling prosecutions referred to them by federal authorities. In 2006 alone, San Francisco took in $3.7 million from the program, the largest share of any jurisdiction in the country. Auditors said that when they tried to verify that the city deserved the money, San Francisco first stalled, then admitted that officials could not prove that any of the funding was justified. The city's applications were filed by a private consultant, who was paid out of the grant proceeds. The district attorney's office and Sheriff's Department split the federal payments. As a result of the audit, the San Francisco controller's office factored a $9.3 million hit into this year's city budget - estimating that was how much the city would eventually pay back or had counted on but would not receive.
(snip)
Now, at a minimum, it will have to repay about $2.45 million, based on the figures cited by Rosenfeld, on top of the $2.7 million it has already returned to the government.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
About time!!!
What crooks!!
1. Waste
2. Fraud
3. Abuse
4. Democrat
5. Honesty
Where’s the prosecution of the individuals involved in this thievery? Oh, my mistake. Democrats don’t get prosecuted.
I don’t understand the numbers in the story. If SF got $3.7 million and were entitled to $550,000 why do they only have to give back $2.7 million instead of $3.15 million?
Also, where do they get the “$9.3 Million hit” figure from? Where they claiming money for prosecutions that they had not yet tried?
Also, what about interest? The US Government had to borrow a large slice of the money SF swindled from the PRC in the form of treasury bonds.
Finally, if SF is a “sanctuary city” why should they be eligible to participate in a “Border Prosecution Initiative” in the first place?
This article provides another good example.
Today, almost every state is a border state.
I imagine that actually prosecuting someone for fraud would be out of the question.
The 9.3 is the budget hit which includes anticipated future monies they’ll now never receive.
Why don’t they put a very large tax on their illegals?
“Newsom needs to go.”
...to jail. Why should these corrupt SF officials, who lied to the federal government, be able to get away with stealing millions from U.S. taxpayers when thieves who steal $100 in a mugging go to jail?
Why should the Justice Department not arrest Newsome and his cronies for lying to the federal government as they have done in the Ted Stevens case? There is something very rotten here.
That's not even 10%!!! Seems to me some criminal charges need to be filed. I think what probably happened here is that they really had 2,300 but only pursued 127, let the other go but charged us taxpayers for the full 2,300.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.