BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366

United States Attorney

District of Oregon

HELEN L. COOPER, OSB #871957

helen.cooper@usdoj.gov

GAVIN W. BRUCE, OSB # 113384

gavin.bruce@usdoj.gov

Assistant United States Attorneys

405 East 8th Avenue, Suite 2400 

Eugene, Oregon 97401-2708

Telephone: (541) 465-6771

Facsimile: (541) 465-6917

Attorneys for the United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JAMIE FAYE COBAT,

Defendant.

3:16-CR-00187-MO

GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING 

MEMORANDUM

Sentencing: Wednesday, August 23, 2017, 

11:00 a.m.

The United States of America, by Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the 

District of Oregon, through Helen L. Cooper and Gavin W. Bruce, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, hereby submit the following in support of the Government’s sentencing 

recommendation. The government is recommending a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment and 

a three-year term of supervised release along with the standard and special conditions of 

supervision recommended in the pre-sentence report. The government is also seeking a 

restitution order in the amount of $27,917, as well as a forfeiture judgment of the same amount.

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 1 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 2

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Defendant was initially indicted in April of 2016 for the theft of welfare related to 

defendant’s claim that her son lived with her. Subsequent investigation led to the addition of the 

wire fraud charge and the forfeiture allegation so the charges would include defendant’s 

fraudulent conduct related to her own disability benefits. Defendant proceeded to trial April 4-6, 

2017, and was found guilty by the jury on all counts. Defendant waived presentation of the 

forfeiture count to the jury and elected to have the forfeiture judgment decided by the Court.

Defendant comes before the Court for sentencing on one count of wire fraud and three 

counts of theft of government funds. The government will present a forfeiture order for the 

Court’s signature at the time of sentencing.

Defendant’s trial counsel has since withdrawn and defendant has advised the Court that 

she wishes to proceed pro se.

FACTUAL SUMMARY1

The Investigation

In 2005, the Social Security Administration (SSA) granted defendant’s son, Bryce 

(Identified as “B.R.” in the indictment) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, based on a 

medical condition and defendant’s financial need. Because Bryce was then 7 years old, 

defendant applied to be Bryce’s Representative Payee to receive the SSI benefits on Bryce’s 

behalf. As Bryce’s Representative Payee, SSA advised defendant of her reporting duties and 

responsibilities including reporting to SSA if Bryce’s medical condition improved, he moved, or 

 1 The government is confident the Court recalls the facts of the case as presented at trial, however 

the factual summary is included here for the record as well as to include information that was not 

presented at trial.

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 2 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 3

the household’s resources or composition changed. SSA also advised defendant that Bryce’s SSI 

was solely to be used for Bryce’s care and support.

Between 2012 and 2014 defendant submitted three Representative Payee annual reports 

to SSA stating that Bryce had continued to reside with her, and that she had spent all of Bryce’s 

SSI for his care and support. 

In 2014, SSA received a fraud referral from defendant’s ex-husband Robert Ramsey. 

Ramsey advised SSA that Bryce had been residing with him in Albany since at least August of 

2012, when defendant began residing with Tim Fox, a convicted sex offender. Fox was on postprison supervision and prohibited from contact with minors, including Bryce. In August 2012, 

Bryce was 14 years old. Ramsey told SSA that he had been supporting Bryce since August of 

2012, and that defendant had not provided him or Bryce with any of Bryce’s SSI funds. Based 

on Ramsey’s allegation, this criminal investigation ensued.

SSA Office of Inspector General Special Agent Dale Boring conducted further 

investigation including verifying Tim Fox’s criminal history, his release from prison in August 

2012, and his prohibition of contact with minors. He also verified that defendant had married 

Fox in August of 2014. He interviewed Robert Ramsey and his son Bryce, and Bryce confirmed 

that other than occasional grocery and clothing purchases and infrequent cash gifts, defendant 

had not provided Bryce his SSI benefits.

Agent Boring further determined that in addition to receiving Bryce’s SSI, defendant had 

been on some form of public assistance since at least 1997, including Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, commonly known as food stamps. Defendant had also 

received Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) benefits based on defendant’s claim 

that Bryce had no contact with his father. Both SNAP and TANF are federal, needs-based, 

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 3 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 4

welfare benefits administered by the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS), and require 

truthful disclosure of the applicant’s income, resources, household composition, and marital 

status. Defendant made similar statements to DHS between August 2012 and November 2014, 

that Bryce was residing with her, and did not inform SSA or DHS that she and Tim Fox were 

living together as a couple or had married.

Agent Boring and DHS fraud investigator Karlene Austin contacted defendant in 

November 2014 at her residence in Redmond. Their interview of defendant was audio recorded. 

When confronted with her concealment of Bryce’s true living arrangement, defendant stated that 

because she still had legal custody of Bryce, she did not believe she was untruthful with SSA 

when she stated that Bryce lived with her. When reminded that SSA required Bryce’s SSI to be 

used solely for Bryce’s care and support, she claimed she maintained a bedroom for him and 

paid 25% of his SSI each month towards her rent, and that the “rest goes to Bryce”. She also 

claimed that Robert Ramsey “stole” Bryce from her; that Ramsey had “brainwashed” Bryce; that 

Bryce did not want to live with her because he did not want to follow rules; and that she and Tim 

Fox have gone “back and forth” between Redmond and their Lebanon residence since 2012. 

Defendant also stated that Bryce’s father makes too much money for Bryce to be eligible for SSI.

Agent Boring interviewed Linn County Parole and Probation (LCPP) officers Cliff Filley 

and Jason Eddie. Filley and Eddie advised they supervised Fox while Fox was on post-prison 

supervision between August 2012 and February 2016. Their records show Filley contacted 

defendant at her and Fox’s residence in Lebanon, Oregon, on September 19, 2012. Defendant 

advised Filley that no minors were present when Fox was home and that her children were not 

present due to Fox’s restrictions. Defendant confirmed that she knew Fox was not to have any 

contact with minors. LCPP records show that Fox continuously reported living with defendant, 

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 4 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 5

and repeatedly reported he had had no contact with minors. During his term of post-prison 

supervision, Fox was never granted permission to have contact with Bryce despite his and 

defendant’s repeated requests for a “safety plan”. Additionally, Fox’s monthly reports to LCPP 

regarding his household composition and income conflict with information defendant provided 

to DHS.

SSA records show that SSA assessed overpayments on defendant in 2008 and 2011, 

based on defendant inaccurately reporting resources information to SSA. On both occasions 

defendant appealed the overpayment assessment. DHS records show that DHS received several 

fraud referrals regarding defendant prior to 2012. As a result, the social workers frequently 

questioned defendant about the accuracy of information she was providing to DHS.

DHS records show that Tim Fox applied for SNAP benefits in January 2013, and 

provided information to DHS regarding his address and household composition through May of 

2015. The information he provided on his applications is at times in direct conflict with 

information defendant provided to DHS.

On May 11, 2016, during an eligibility interview for defendant’s application for her own 

SSI benefits, defendant told SSA that she was paying rent to Carrie Fox2

, that Bryce was residing 

with her, and that she and Fox had never lived together as husband and wife.3 As a result of 

these statements to SSA, defendant was awarded Title XVI SSI benefits in addition to Title II 

disability benefits, and was advised she would receive an SSI back-payment in the amount of 

 2 Carrie Fox is Tim Fox’s ex-wife, testified at trial and denied being defendant’s Landlord, other 

than a brief time in 2012 when defendant rented a room from her while Fox was in prison. 3 Two weeks later, defendant would tell U.S. Pre-Trial Services that she and Fox had resided 

together continuously since 2012.

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 5 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 6

$16,799. Defendant subsequently opted to not take the SSI benefits in order to facilitate a faster 

release of her $26,245 Title II disability back-payment.

Between August 2012 and November 2014, defendant received $19,247 in Bryce’s SSI, 

$2,845 in TANF, and $5,825 in SNAP benefits. Therefore, the actual total loss is $27,917, and 

the intended loss is $44,716.

Defendant was initially charged in April of 2016, with three counts of theft of 

government funds related to the benefits received based on her false statements regarding Bryce 

being in the household. After further investigation revealed defendant’s false statements related 

to her own SSI application in May of 2016, the government sought the superseding indictment 

with the additions of the wire fraud charge and the forfeiture allegation.

Post Indictment and Trial

In June of 2016, defendant made claims to SSA that she was in dire need of funds and 

requested an advance payment of her $26,245.50 back-payment for her recently-approved 

disability benefits. After requiring defendant to sign a statement under penalty of perjury that 

she would immediately repay any overpayment, the Albany SSA field office issued defendant an 

immediate payment of $999, and a payment of $9,999 from SSA’s Critical Payment System. A 

few weeks later, SSA’s disability payment center issued defendant a check in the full amount of 

the $26,245.50 back-payment without withholding the $10,998 that had been advanced to her. 

Defendant failed to return the overpayment. Defendant was not charged with any crime related 

to her receipt of this overpayment.

After her indictment and prior to trial, defendant contacted at least one congressional 

office to complain about her fraud charges. She asserted that the welfare agencies were at fault.

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 6 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 7

After learning that Bryce may be a government witness, defendant sent numerous text 

messages to Bryce telling him that he had to “step up” like his siblings and assist her with the 

criminal charges, and that, “It’s sad that u are afraid to help me.” When the government learned 

of the nature of defendant’s communications to Bryce, the government requested that defendant 

have no contact with Bryce without the approval of Pre-Trial Services. Judge You imposed this 

no contact condition in October of 2016. 

At trial, Bryce was called as a government witness on behalf of the government. His 

testimony changed slightly from his previous statements to the investigators, but for the most 

part was consistent. He had provided a letter for the defense as requested by his mother.

Prior to trial, the parties litigated numerous evidentiary issues wherein defendant sought 

to introduce evidence of her dysfunctional relationship with Bryce’s father and Bryce’s medical 

history, which the government argued was irrelevant. The court allowed in part defendant’s 

evidence.

Defendant testified at trial. She again claimed that since she had legal custody of Bryce

she was entitled to claim he was in her household and to keep his SSI benefits. She testified that 

she maintained a bedroom for him in both Lebanon and Redmond, and that Bryce was “a little 

confused” when he testified that he saw her only once or twice a week when she lived in 

Lebanon, and even less when she moved to Redmond. She also testified that DHS social worker 

Rebecca Hernandez was incorrect in her testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the 

issuance of an April 2012 letter; that SSA Claims Specialist Jeffrey Holmes mistakenly wrote 

down the wrong name for her Landlord; that Linn County Parole and Probation officer Cliff 

Filley was incorrect in his testimony that she shared a bedroom with Tim Fox; that her exhusband “stole” Bryce from her; that liquor store and Victoria’s Secret purchases on Bryce’s SSI 

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 7 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 8

debit card were for soda and ice and cologne for Bryce; and that her attempted withdrawal of 

$150 at Harrah’s Casino in Las Vegas was because she had already provided Bryce with cash 

and was paying herself back. 

Post Trial

Defendant has continued to dispute her fraudulent receipt of benefits and has made 

repeated phone calls and office visits to SSA and DHS. Defendant has continued to file 

complaints with congressional offices requiring SSA to respond to numerous Congressional 

Inquiries. Defendant has also filed documents with the agencies and the court claiming that her 

debts have been paid in full from an account held for her by the U.S. Treasury. Defendant also 

left at least one voicemail message for an SSA employee threatening to hold the employee 

personally responsible for not providing defendant with a letter stating her debt was paid, and 

that she is tired of the “lies, deceit and corruption” of the SSA office. (This voicemail recording 

will provided to the court prior to sentencing and marked as Exhibit 1.) SSA has since issued 

defendant a Ban letter, prohibiting her from entering any Social Security office due to defendant 

threatening SSA staff by stating, “you will regret this you capital letter (explicit.)” Exhibit 2. 

SSA has also imposed 42 months of Administrative Sanctions4 for defendant’s refusal to repay 

the $10,998.00 overpayment related to the advance payment to her in July of 2016. Defendant 

filed a request for reconsideration in May of 2017, which SSA has denied.

/ / /

 4 Any monthly benefits defendant is entitled to receive (such as her Title II disability benefits) 

will be withheld for 42 months. This is for the loss to SSA involving defendant’s disability 

benefits and is separate from the $19,247 loss to SSA for the instant offense involving the 

fraudulent receipt of Bryce’s Title XVI SSI benefits.

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 8 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 9

GUIDELINES CALCULATION

The government agrees with the guidelines calculation in the Pre-Sentence Report. 

Defendant’s Base Offense Level for wire fraud and theft of government funds is seven, with a 

six-level enhancement for an intended loss of more than $40,000, but less than $95,000. Twolevel enhancements for both abuse of trust and obstruction of justice are warranted, resulting in a 

Total Offense Level of 17, and a sentencing range of 24-30 months’ imprisonment. 

ARGUMENT

The Sentencing Guidelines’ Range is Appropriate

The Supreme Court has held that there is no rule that requires an “extraordinary 

circumstance” to justify a sentence outside the guideline range. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 

586, 595 (2007). Nevertheless, the Court in Gall recognized that the guidelines are “the product 

of careful study based on extensive empirical evidence derived from the review of thousands of 

individual sentence decisions.” Id. at 594.

Even though the guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, the district court must 

begin all sentencing proceedings by calculating the applicable guideline range. Id. at 596. See 

Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 574 (2007) (“District Courts must treat the 

Guidelines as ‘the starting point and the initial benchmark.’”) Here, a sentence within the 

guideline range of 24-30 months’ imprisonment is appropriate. 

Repetitive Nature of the Offense

It is significant to note that this guideline calculation does not include the repetitive 

nature of defendant’s fraud and theft. This case was not a result of a few acts by defendant that 

resulted in a $27,917 loss. This case involves the repeated theft of benefits paid each month 

between August 2012 and November 2014. Each month, or 26 times, defendant converted 

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 9 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 10

Bryce’s SSI funds to her own use. This case also involves numerous false statements to SSA and 

DHS. 

Victim Impact

The guidelines calculation does not take into account the full victim impact of 

defendant’s conduct. That is, the guideline range of 24-30 months’ imprisonment is primarily 

driven by the amount of benefits paid to defendant and the SSI benefits she attempted to receive 

on her own behalf, for a total of $44,716. The calculation does not include the valuable human 

resources of the welfare agencies that defendant has used and wasted because of her incessant 

calls to the social workers and demands on the welfare agencies. As noted in the timeline below 

and defendant’s conduct since being indicted and convicted, defendant has been a substantial 

burden to these agencies. Time the social workers could be spending on other applicants has 

been used on defendant.

Obstruction Enhancement

The Pre-Sentence Report assesses the two-level obstruction of justice enhancement for 

defendant’s acts of obstruction. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. §3C1.1, this enhancement is appropriate if 

defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration 

of justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of 

conviction. Here, the enhancement is warranted for defendant’s attempt to manipulate a 

witness, her repeated filings of frivolous appeals and complaints with welfare agencies and 

congressional representatives, and her perjured testimony at trial. 

 Following her indictment and review of the discovery, defendant sent numerous text 

messages to Bryce telling him he had to write a letter in her defense. Although defendant will 

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 10 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 11

likely argue she was simply trying to secure what she considered truthful testimony, defendant’s 

messages went further. For example:

"My lawyer told me today you are a witness for the State.”

"I'm your mom and I've bent over backwards to help, and all I ask is for you to step up 

like your siblings are. It's sad that you are afraid to help me."

"It breaks my heart to see this go on." 

“If Robert (Ramsey) wouldn't have written that letter full of lies, none of this would 

be going on."

“[Y]our dad is using you to play his game. I'm sorry, I'm pretty pissed off that he has 

no regard for you."

"You are simply in this due to your dad involving you," 

After not responding to numerous messages, Bryce replied:

"I don't want to talk about it. I'm tired of being involved."

Yet the following morning, defendant continued with more text messages:

"Are you coming by before I leave? I mean it, Bub. It's the only thing going to keep 

me from being put away. This is seriously a big deal. Don't ignore this, please. Hello, 

hello, knock, knock. You have to write a letter telling all of it. Bryce, what's going on? 

Why are you ignoring me? It seems like ever since this court crap, you have moved 

out and I hardly speak to you. This court thing needs to be resolved pretty fast. It 

seems all my kids are here to help with this any way they can. I hope you, too, are on 

board."

The content of the text messages was sufficiently inappropriate and concerning that Judge 

You ordered the defendant to have no further contact with her son without the approval of pretrial services. According to the Commentary of §3C1.1, an example of conduct covered by the 

enhancement is threatening, intimidating, or otherwise unlawfully influencing a witness, or 

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 11 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 12

attempting to do so. (See Application Note 4A.) Defendant’s messages to Bryce qualify as such 

conduct. As previously noted, defendant presented a letter from Bryce at trial.

The court could also impose the obstruction enhancement if it finds that defendant

committed perjury. See United States v. Castro-Ponce, 770 F.3d 819, 822 (9th Cir. 2014). To do 

so, the district court must find that: “(1) the defendant gave false testimony, (2) on a material 

matter, (3) with willful intent.” United States v. Castro-Ponce, 770 F.3d 819, 822 (9th Cir. 

2014). Defendant’s testimony was rife with lies. Her explanation for the debit charges at 

Victoria’s Secret, nail salons, and liquor stores was absurd. Additionally, her statements that she 

and Tim Fox did not live together were in direct conflict with years of written records signed by 

defendant and Tim Fox to welfare agencies and probation offices. Her claim that the SSA 

Claims Specialist mistakenly wrote down “Carrie Fox” when in fact she told him “Tim Fox” was 

beyond unbelievable. This testimony was as to how she spent the funds, her household 

composition, and whether she made false statements to the agencies—all material matters. 

Clearly her false testimony at trial was with willful intent.

Similarly, defendant’s frivolous appeals and complaints to the agencies and congressional 

representatives involved the same false claims and statements she made at trial on material 

matters with willful intent. Defendant’s conduct has been, and continues to be, directly intended 

to obstruct the agencies’ administration of justice.

Abuse of Position of Trust

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 provides that if “the defendant abused a position of public or private 

trust, or used a special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or 

concealment of the offense, increase by 2 levels.” Defendant applied to be the Representative 

Payee on behalf of Bryce in March of 2005. She agreed to report truthfully to SSA if Bryce 

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 12 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 13

moved, left her care, or received other assistance. Between 2012 and 2014, defendant repeatedly 

filed Representative Payee Annual Reports that advised SSA Bryce resided with her and 

concealed the care he was receiving from his father. During a redetermination of eligibility 

interview in October 2014, defendant advised SSA that Bryce continued to live with her. Based 

on these statements and concealments by defendant—the person entrusted to manage Bryce’s 

SSI and truthfully report to SSA—the benefits continued to be paid. Defendant abused this 

position of trust granted to her by SSA and the two-level enhancement is warranted.

Timeline of Events

Defendant has been on some form of public assistance since 1997. Although the actual 

loss amount in the instant offense only involves benefits paid between August 2012 and 

November 2014, defendant’s history with the welfare agencies shows repeated instances where 

social workers and investigators suspected fraud. The following timeline illustrates this history, 

defendant’s treatment of the social workers, and refutes defendant’s arguments that she is 

somehow an innocent victim of the government agencies.5

1997 – 2011

1997 – Defendant applies for SSI claiming “panic disorder”. Her application is denied.

March 4, 2002 – DHS receives a “community complaint” that defendant is concealing that 

Robert Ramsey is in the household. Branch worker is notified to do a home visit. (1252)

February 13, 2003 – Defendant tells caseworker to do her job and “not be so nosy” when worker 

tries to inquire who the male was who answered the phone. (1269)

February 13, 2003 – another “investigation referral” made by DHS due to conflicting household

information. (1272)

November 8, 2003 - (Bryce is 5 years old) applies for SSI. Denied (Bryce’s SSI file)

 5 The numbers in parentheticals refer to the corresponding page number in discovery.

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 13 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 14

2000 – 2003 –Early school records for Bryce show some behavior problems consistent with 

OCD, but by 2004 the school sees marked improvement. Defendant stops cooperating with 

school and evaluators when they start saying he has improved (Bryce’s SSI file.)

2004 – Defendant and Robert Ramsey separate

April 26, 2004 – Defendant files a reconsideration request for Bryce’s SSI

Between June 21, 2004 and August 9, 2004, defendant repeatedly calls SSA, sometimes twice 

daily, asking about Bryce’s claim. Told to call weekly instead of daily on August 2, 2004. 

Defendant says ok, but then calls on August 3rd and August 6th.

December 27, 2004 – DHS attempts a home visit but Jamie yells and screams and slams the door 

in their faces. She tells them to shove a form up their ---. (1326)

January 27, 2005 – DHS fraud investigator and caseworker attempt to discuss a community 

complaint with defendant, but defendant becomes emotional and blames Robert for fabricating 

information to try to take Bryce from her. (1334)

February 10, 2005 – Defendant files a grievance regarding the attempted interview by the DHS 

fraud investigator. (1342)

July 21, 2005 – letter to SSA from defendant’s SSA attorney stating that defendant won’t pay his 

attorney fees and is not returning his calls (Bryce’s SSI hard copy file)

July 24, 2006 – Supplemental Judgment modifying Custody – Defendant awarded “sole custody” 

– Order full of do’s and don’ts including that defendant is prohibited from using Bryce’s identity 

for credit purposes

October 21, 2008 - SSA assesses an overpayment in the amount of $1,414.65 for not accurately 

reporting resources or income (request for waiver denied) (54-59)

April 15, 2010 – defendant applies for own disability benefits – claiming multiple physical and 

mental impairments.

May 24, 2011 – SSA assesses an overpayment in the amount of $2,585 for not accurately 

reporting resources or income (70-76)

2012

April 12, 2012 – Defendant asks DHS how her benefits would be affected if Bryce lived with his 

father. She is advised her TANF would stop and (without his SSI) her food stamps would 

increase $6 (1538)

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 14 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 15

June 2012 – Tim Fox released from prison, then county jail through August (975-979)

August 6 2012 LCPP “leave a note” from Cobat inquiring how long approval process will take 

(2279)

August 2012 – Bryce goes to live with dad

August 28, 2012 – Stipulated 3rd sup judgment modifying parental time – refers to March 30 and 

May 18, 2012 hearings, but not signed until August 2012. (i.e. by the time this order is signed, 

Bryce is living with his dad.) Orders that defendant still has sole custody, but parents have 50/50 

parenting time to alternate every 2 weeks.(Attorney Vergamini represents def.)

October 4, 2012 – Defendant tells DHS that “for some reason” she owes support to Robert now. 

As a result, DHS increases her benefits (1547 TRACS)

December 4, 2012 – Fox asks probation for permission to have contact with girlfriend’s son, 

(2245)

2013

January 28, 2013 – Defendant sends Rep Payee report to SSA and claims Bryce lived w/ her 

between October 2011 and September 2012 (84-85)

April 1, 2013 – Debbie and Toby Brown begin renting Mayfly residence

April 30, 2013 – Defendant tells DHS Tim Fox LL & they live together on Mayfly, but are just 

friends, does not disclose any financial help, and claims Robert Ramsey is an “absent father”. 

(165-173)

May 13, 2013 – DHS finds there is no parental deprivation for Bryce (no TANF anymore) based 

on defendant’s statement that Bryce seeing dad after school every day (1554)

July 24, 2013, Fox receives notice from VA that he will be receiving monthly benefits – approx. 

$1,400/month (1150)

October 18, 2013 – defendant tells DHS she & Bryce on Nickernut and pays $700 rent to Tim 

Fox, says Robert is absent parent who stopped living with Bryce in 2005,

November 25, 2013 – Fox’s monthly report says living w/ defendant (2293)

December 10, 2013 – Fox tells DHS he lives by himself on Nickernut, discloses $1400 month

VA benefits

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 15 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 16

2014

January 3, 2014 – Fox monthly report says living w/ defendant (2296)

January 10, 2014 – J. Luukinen signs Interim order of Parenting Time and Suspension of Child 

Support. References parties had binding settlement conference on November 12, 2013. Orders 

child support suspended, defendant allowed to relocate to Deschutes County, and that 

Bryce shall reside primarily with father until July 1, 2014 and remain in school in Albany; 

No contact with Tim Fox allowed. Def given approximately 23 days of visitation between 

January 2014 and July 2014.

February 28, 2014 – defendant added to Fox’s OSU FCU account (VA account)

March 29, 2014 – Rep Payee report to SSA saying Bryce resided w/ her October 2012-

September 30, 2013 (included address change info to Mayfly) (86-87)

May 18, 2014 (received by DHS June 9, 2014) – Fox’s application to DHS for SNAP –

Redmond address, doesn’t disclose anyone else in HH, says no one else w/ any income (doesn’t 

disclose Jamie getting Bryce’s SSI)

July 28, 2014 – Fox monthly report – living w/ defendant on Nickernut (2231)

August 28, 2014 – Attorney Vergamini tells Brown’s attorney he is representing Tim Fox in 

Brown vs. Fox, civil lawsuit involving defendant and Fox’s tenants.

August 30, 2014 – defendant and Fox married

September 4, 2014 - $500 payment to Vergamini from Bryce’s SSI benefits

September 12 – September 29, 2014 – Dates for probation-approved trip to Vegas for 17 days. 

October 15, 2014 – Defendant has phone interview w/ DHS. Says Bryce in HH. Does not 

disclose Fox or Fox’s VA benefits.

October 17, 2014 – Defendant does not report marriage to DHS & checks “divorced” on app

October 27, 2014 – Rep payee report, defendant claims Bryce resided w/ her October 2013-

September 30, 2014, (88-89)

October 31, 2014 – Defendant does an eligibility interview over the phone w/ SSA, says Bryce 

residing with her, he doesn’t get any help from anyone, says has no bank account (doesn’t 

disclose OSU FCU acct w/ husband Fox) (90-97)

November 25, 2014 – Defendant contacts DHs and says she feels she is being “harassed” by 

DHS and wants her benefits closed. SNAP closed effective November 30, 2014. (252)

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 16 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 17

2015

January 2015 – Def and Fox back on Mayfly. Jason Eddie PO does home visit

March 25, 2015 – DHS sends Def overpayment notice

2016

April 26, 2016 – ALJ awards defendant disability benefits, but recommends a determination be 

made whether she needs a rep payee due to her claims of impairments (1015-1022)

May 9, 2016 – defendant makes false statements to SSA, Jeffrey Holmes – doesn’t disclose VA 

income, says doesn’t live w/ husband, says Bryce lives w/ her, says paying rent to Carrie Fox, 

(987-1012) Holmes sends her forms to sign and return because he suspects she is not being 

truthful.

May 11, 2016 – Defendant signs form under penalty of perjury that she and Fox have never lived 

together as husband and wife and that daughters loaned her money.

May 23, 2016, Monday – defendant served with indictment and summons

May 25, 2016 – SSA sends notice to defendant advising she will be getting $733 per month in 

SSI, and a $16,799 back payment (1023)

May 27, 2016 – defendant tells SSA she does not want SSI after all (1013)

March – July 15, 2016 – “Remarks” in SSA records note numerous calls from defendant

inquiring about her money

June 13, 2016 – Def arraigned on first indictment. Tells PTS that she and Fox have lived 

together on Mayfly since 2012

June 27, 2016 – receives cash advances (Both $999 or $9,999), claims her home is about to go 

into foreclosure

July 25, 2016 – cashes $26,000 check

3553(a) Factors

The factors the Court shall consider in imposing a sentence include the nature and 

circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; the need for the 

sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law and to 

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 17 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 18

provide just punishment for the offense. The sentence should also afford adequate deterrence to 

criminal conduct and protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.

The nature and circumstances of the offense was serious and ongoing for years. 

Defendant repeatedly lied to social workers and manipulated the welfare system. Although this 

is her first criminal conviction, defendant had prior overpayments with SSA that were resolved 

administratively. In other words, defendant simply had to pay the money back with no other 

consequences. A sentence that does not include a significant term of incarceration would 

essentially be the same “punishment” that has been imposed on her in the past. Such a penalty 

failed to have any deterrent effect with this defendant. 

Additionally, a sentence of incarceration will promote respect for the law and will be a 

message to the welfare agencies that their work is important and supported by the Court. 

Anything less than a term of incarceration would send the wrong message to the public.

The government is unaware of any positive characteristics of defendant. Defendant’s 

actions prior to indictment, while the case was pending, and since trial have been obstructive, 

rude, and criminal. Defendant’s deliberate acts of leaving berating voicemail messages for the 

social workers, hanging up on them, cursing at them, and slamming the door in their faces is a 

troubling illustration of defendant’s nature. Defendant has been a social worker bully for years.

Defendant has failed to show any remorse for her criminal acts or make any efforts 

towards remediation. In fact, her acts are quite the opposite as she continues to dispute her guilt, 

file frivolous claims, complain to Congress, and abuse social workers.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 18 of 19
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

Page 19

RESTITUTION

Restitution is mandatory and the government requests the court order restitution in the 

amount of $27,917, payable as follows:

Social Security Administration

Debt Management Section

ATTN: Court Refund

PO Box 2861

Philadelphia, PA 19122

Amount: $19,247

Department of Human Services

Overpayment Recovery Unit

PO Box 14150

Salem, OR 97309

Amount: $8,670

CONCLUSION

For all the reasons noted above, the government recommends a sentence of 24 months’ 

imprisonment, restitution and forfeiture orders in the amount of $27,917 each, a three-year term 

of supervised release, and the special and general conditions of supervision recommended in the 

Pre-Sentence Report.

Dated this 16th day of August 2017.

Respectfully submitted,

BILLY J. WILLIAMS

United States Attorney

s/ Helen L. Cooper

HELEN L. COOPER

Assistant United States Attorney

s/ Gavin W. Bruce

GAVIN W. BRUCE

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 103 Filed 08/16/17 Page 19 of 19