Prosecutors allege the judge and her husband contracted with the state to become foster parents of a twin boy and girl in January 2008. They adopted the children in May. The children are now 3.

Prosecutors allege the children actually have been with the sister of the judge's bailiff since January 2008.

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-county-district-judge-charged-with-fraud-perjury/article/3534447#ixzz1BjphcN7r

Wow. I wonder what judge will handle the case - I guess they'll have to bring in someone from somewhere else.

Would not surprise me to see a retired judge from another district assigned rather than drop the matter into the lap ofa judge from a nearby district.
Then again, given the overall tightness of the budget again this year, perhaps not.

I'm assuming her defense is going to be that she passed all the funds along to the woman raising the kids. Regardless, its just further proof DA Prater is a racist! (sarcasm alert)

This sure is embarrassing for the state's judiciary. The DA has some cojones. This is another make or break case for him politically.

It is such an odd story/charge. You just don't get all that much from the state when you consider all the costs of raising a child and they went ahead and adopted them on top of that. I don't know if you'd get an adoption subsidy for twins. You might if they are a minority or have health issues. But still. How many of us think we'd come out ahead if the state gave us $20,000 and we got to raise twins? It doesn't make a lot of sense. But then, it makes even less sense to take foster children, hand them over to someone else and then adopt them, to boot. I am wondering how DHS managed to miss the fact that someone else was raising them. Of course, once adopted, they wouldn't be checking up on them. Still, the whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense, to me.

The party with the children is related to a staffer of the judge. That relative was a DHS employee at the time of the placement.

I am wondering how DHS managed to miss the fact that someone else was raising them. Of course, once adopted, they wouldn't be checking up on them. Still, the whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense, to me.
Me either. *If* that article is accurate, I'm not so sure that the DHS "missed" anything. It's this combination of statements from the article that leads me to question that:

Prosecutors allege the children actually have been with the sister of the judge's bailiff since January 2008. The bailiff, Lania Davis, and her sister, identified only as R.E., have not been charged.

...

The children were put into DHS custody because their mother tested positive for illegal drugs at the time of their births. The mother said R.E., who was then a DHS worker, contacted her a month later to tell her Tammy Bass-LeSure wanted to adopt the children “and could offer her children a better life,” the district attorney's investigator wrote.

Oklahoma County prosecutors learned of the alleged deception after R.E. became a suspect last September in an arson case, according to the court records. A fire investigator reported “this situation involving these children is common knowledge among people who know Judge LeSure in the community.”

Maybe it is just me, but this seems far more embarrassing for DHS, not knowing where a child is during foster placement & adoption proceedings, than it is for the judiciary, in Oklahoma county or in a general sense.

Penny, those who adopt children from foster care receive an adoption subsidy for each child, regardless of race. The subsidy is about $300 per month for each child adopted. The adoption subsidy isn't designed to cover all of the costs of raising a child, but can make a difference in whether a child is able to find some permanency in a loving home. As far as health care costs, many (most? all? I'm not sure...) receive Medicaid benefits.

As far as post-adoptive services, you can see the requirements here: http://www.okdhs.org/library/policy/oac340/075/15/0103000.htm

In a nutshell, there is a six-month trial period before the adoption is finalized. DHS is required to make monthly visits and provide lots of information. The trial period can be shorter if there is a pre-existing relationship with the person who wants to adopt, for instance, a relative. That might have been the case here since it appears the time period (January-May 2008) was around four months. If the trial period is successful and the court grants the adoption, DHS' custody ends. So unless an issue would arise later, child welfare workers would no longer be involved with the family. Other DHS staff could be, such as those coordinating the adoption subsidy and any other benefits, however those contacts are with the parents to determine continued eligibility.

Between the judge and her husband, it appears they made 32 false claims, i.e. received money they weren't entitled to. If they were given $300 per child per month for 32 months, that would be $19,200. The amount, really, is immaterial. If you or I knock over a liquor store, the law doesn't care if you got $5 or $5,000.

As a matter of fact, I'm more concerned about what all of this does to the children than any amount of money. There are pre-adoptive trial periods for a reason - to help the kids and parents bond, and to see if the adoption is going to work. If these charges are proved to be true, I think it is unbelievably cruel for a couple to bring kids into their home so that they can scam the state and then uproot the kids as soon as nobody's looking.

And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it.

Eep, in 2008, there were nearly 8,000 DHS employees, most of whom do not work in or have anything to do with child welfare. I have no idea where or in what program this R.E. worked (or who R.E. is), but there's nothing in the story to indicate that R.E. was involved in the DHS case. Plus, children in pre-adoptive placement are handled by a special adoptions unit. Add to that, it would be hard for someone to "hand-pick" a case. Most assignments are made on a rotational basis, i.e. who's turn is it, and considering the number of referrals that are made daily - particularly in a metropolitan county - the chances of someone being able to go up to his or her supervisor and say, "Hey, I want this case," is minimal at best. Could it happen? Yeah, but it's not likely.

As far as checking on the kids prior to finalizing the adoption, chances are most of those visits are scheduled. You come at those with a little different view that when you're investigating someone accused of abuse or neglect and need to make an unannounced visit. Prospective adoptive parents have already been through the classes and such, so you're not trying to surprise them when you show up at their door. Unfortunately, scheduled visits allow someone to have the kids there when the worker shows up. And since the kids were less than a year old, they certainly couldn't tell the worker, "R.E. just dropped us off here."

This same process works well for thousands of adoptions each year. But like anything else, some people are going to try to scam the system.

The party with the children is related to a staffer of the judge. That relative was a DHS employee at the time of the placement.

Ahhh. I somehow missed the relative being a DHS employee. Well, there will be hell to pay.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/j22tammy.pdf

Read the "Affidavit of Probable Cause" that starts a little more than half way through this document. It will blow your mind! The woman with custody of the kids was somehow being questioned in regards to an arson investigation, and when the police reported to the DA's office about her one of them mentioned, oh yeah - this is the woman the judge gave those kids too. Because it was apparently common knowledge among those in-the-know at the courthouse.

The money the judge was given to support the kids was put on a debit card by DHS which is common practice, but that gave the investigator a single source to determine how that money was spent. A paper trail of pedicures and casino stops.

Judge kept the money, sister of her bailiff (who worked for DHS) got the kids. Also, includes interview with the birth mother discussing how she felt bullied by DHS (specifically the worker that ended up with custody of the kids) and pressured by the judge and her family. She didn't want to give up the kids but was afraid.

Dirty deal all the way around.

I have no idea where or in what program this R.E. worked (or who R.E. is), but there's nothing in the story to indicate that R.E. was involved in the DHS case.

The Affidavit of Probable Cause includes the investigators interviews with the birth mother that state R.E. was her DHS caseworker on the custody case, and R.E. continually pressured her to relinquish her parental rights. Maybe she was on drugs and maybe she wasn't a fit parent, but they scared and pressured her into giving them those babies.

Why is the judge and her family not charged with 'Child Trafficking'?

Under international law, child trafficking is a crime involving the movement of children for the purpose of their exploitation. The exploitation can be as simple as payment or other considerations.

Why is the judge and her family not charged with 'Child Trafficking'?

Under international law, child trafficking is a crime involving the movement of children for the purpose of their exploitation. The exploitation can be as simple as payment or other considerations.

Exactly! If so many of the courthouse crowd was aware of the deal as the arson investigating police officer implied, I'm sure they were all sweating it when it came time to charge her. If THAT sort of thing can be happening and no one stands up to say it is wrong, what else could be going on? Scary.

The complaint turns my brain inside out. A question I keep asking myself is what everyone thought when the adopted tykes were given a different last name than either the adoptive parents or the birth parents.

If this was truly known around the courthouse, I'd appreciate it if a moderator would please go down and delete my apparently very incorrect post at #8 in this thread.

According to 9, the lady who has been raising the babies is facing several criminal charges in addition to being an identified as a suspect in an arson case in the felony court documents against the Judge.

"Almost all the criminal charges against [the woman] stem from an incident that occurred on January 7, during the same time prosecutors say she was caring for the twin babies thought to be living with Judge LeSure.

Court documents show [the woman] is being charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery, kidnapping and a charge of causing malicious injury. She was also charged with a first-degree burglary charge in July.

This is the lady the judge let keep the babies? My head is going to explode.

You do get a subsidy from the state for both foster and adoption until the children are of legal age unless they continue onto college the federal benefits can last even longer. The fact that the woman raising the kids also works for DHS could explain why nobody checked. Some people just don't want to know what is really going on but once it hits them like a pie in the face they have no choice. I blew the lid off of this over a year ago and nobody cared but David Prater wanted her off the Ersland case so he had to use his ace in the hole. I wonder if he is going to use the rest of the stuff or will they do like they usually do with our crooked officials a little slap on the hand, a fine, and then send her right back to work.

Why is the judge and her family not charged with 'Child Trafficking'?

Under international law, child trafficking is a crime involving the movement of children for the purpose of their exploitation. The exploitation can be as simple as payment or other considerations. Yea well that is another law that gets broken on a daily basis in this town but nobody will stop that either the politicians would have to give up all that federal money.

The Affidavit of Probable Cause includes the investigators interviews with the birth mother that state R.E. was her DHS caseworker on the custody case, and R.E. continually pressured her to relinquish her parental rights. Maybe she was on drugs and maybe she wasn't a fit parent, but they scared and pressured her into giving them those babies.Pressuring her to give up her children is no surprise they take children from parents who don't do drugs and are also law abiding citizens. Everybody knows it is going on just like they said but there is nobody to stop them. You can hire a lawyer but they won't help because they have learned the hard way if you try to expose the illegal activities within DHS they will take the lawyers kids too it has happened before that's why lawyers won't touch these cases.

Eep, in 2008, there were nearly 8,000 DHS employees, most of whom do not work in or have anything to do with child welfare. I have no idea where or in what program this R.E. worked (or who R.E. is), but there's nothing in the story to indicate that R.E. was involved in the DHS case. Plus, children in pre-adoptive placement are handled by a special adoptions unit. Add to that, it would be hard for someone to "hand-pick" a case. Most assignments are made on a rotational basis, i.e. who's turn is it, and considering the number of referrals that are made daily - particularly in a metropolitan county - the chances of someone being able to go up to his or her supervisor and say, "Hey, I want this case," is minimal at best. Could it happen? Yeah, but it's not likely.

As far as checking on the kids prior to finalizing the adoption, chances are most of those visits are scheduled. You come at those with a little different view that when you're investigating someone accused of abuse or neglect and need to make an unannounced visit. Prospective adoptive parents have already been through the classes and such, so you're not trying to surprise them when you show up at their door. Unfortunately, scheduled visits allow someone to have the kids there when the worker shows up. And since the kids were less than a year old, they certainly couldn't tell the worker, "R.E. just dropped us off here."

This same process works well for thousands of adoptions each year. But like anything else, some people are going to try to scam the system. You are so wrong it is very likely for her to ask for the case and get it. Also to answer your question R.E. is Ravonda Edwards she is still listed on state payroll as a Child Welfare Specialist.

Ahhh. I somehow missed the relative being a DHS employee. Well, there will be hell to pay.No hell to pay they will just make it disappear like they always do with this stuff it has been going on for years it's just most people don't want to believe it even when the writing is on the wall. If I had told you people about this stuff 6 months ago you would have said I was crazy. I have been trying to expose this stuff for years even on this web site but people said I was crazy, and now the proof has now been plastered all over the T.V. now they can't say it doesn't exist.

Penny, those who adopt children from foster care receive an adoption subsidy for each child, regardless of race. The subsidy is about $300 per month for each child adopted. The adoption subsidy isn't designed to cover all of the costs of raising a child, but can make a difference in whether a child is able to find some permanency in a loving home. As far as health care costs, many (most? all? I'm not sure...) receive Medicaid benefits.

As far as post-adoptive services, you can see the requirements here: http://www.okdhs.org/library/policy/oac340/075/15/0103000.htm

In a nutshell, there is a six-month trial period before the adoption is finalized. DHS is required to make monthly visits and provide lots of information. The trial period can be shorter if there is a pre-existing relationship with the person who wants to adopt, for instance, a relative. That might have been the case here since it appears the time period (January-May 2008) was around four months. If the trial period is successful and the court grants the adoption, DHS' custody ends. So unless an issue would arise later, child welfare workers would no longer be involved with the family. Other DHS staff could be, such as those coordinating the adoption subsidy and any other benefits, however those contacts are with the parents to determine continued eligibility.

Between the judge and her husband, it appears they made 32 false claims, i.e. received money they weren't entitled to. If they were given $300 per child per month for 32 months, that would be $19,200. The amount, really, is immaterial. If you or I knock over a liquor store, the law doesn't care if you got $5 or $5,000.

As a matter of fact, I'm more concerned about what all of this does to the children than any amount of money. There are pre-adoptive trial periods for a reason - to help the kids and parents bond, and to see if the adoption is going to work. If these charges are proved to be true, I think it is unbelievably cruel for a couple to bring kids into their home so that they can scam the state and then uproot the kids as soon as nobody's looking.

And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it.Yea they say they are required to make visits just like the worker said she visited the home of the Cruz baby the day before she died and said there was nothing wrong with her. It was later proven that she never went to the home the worker and the foster refused to give her the medicine she needed and so she died of respitory failure and she had cockroach bite marks on her inside her diaper on her private parts. Now after reading that you are thinking that the worker was fired for not doing her job and you would be wrong she was just moved to another county. Just like Yolanda Hunter the worker for Kelsey Briggs who as we know died. She was also moved to another county and became the worker for Aja Johnson who also died. The public wanted to blame her daddy for letting Aja go with her mother for a visit but they didn't know that according to the court papers he had to let her go. The court papers said that Aja's visits with her mother were to be supervised by her mother obviously somebody made a mistake on the court order but if Mr. Johnson had not followed them to the letter he would have been arrested and lost Aja anyway. So you see things are not always as they seem and just because somebody holds a job in the political arena does not mean they are honest. In fact David Prater's hands are dirty in this too he has actually helped keep a lot of this covered up and now he is trying to act like the good guy. One day my documents and evidence will see the light of day even if the media is too afraid to report it here one day the truth will come out. I am just hoping it will happen before too many more children have to die.

Update today: http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-judge-losses-fight-to-get-da-off-her-case-20110531,0,1450818.story

I can't believe the judge really thinks its legal to ban cameras from the halls of the courthouse.

Update today: http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-judge-losses-fight-to-get-da-off-her-case-20110531,0,1450818.story

I can't believe the judge really thinks its legal to ban cameras from the halls of the courthouse.

Not one of Judge Woodward's better moments. Like you, I can't imagine he'll stick to the notion, let alone try to enforce it, after he reflects on it further.

Unless the defense sought that action, and I don't see where they did, they ought to get out front on it. The, in my opinion, unfair perception of favoritism is the sort of thing that can really sour a jury pool.

Does anyone know where the twins are? Are they back in their care?

Update today: http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-judge-losses-fight-to-get-da-off-her-case-20110531,0,1450818.story

I can't believe the judge really thinks its legal to ban cameras from the halls of the courthouse.

I'm sure KFOR's attorneys will be intervening on that point. They usually do.

Media Attorney Says Oklahoma City TV stations Will Not Appeal Decision.

Link To NewsOK Story (http://newsok.com/attorney-oklahoma-tv-stations-will-not-appeal-camera-order/article/3573534)

I don't surprise real easy. But this qualifies.

Man will not be free until the last lawyer is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

--Voltaire

What is the latest on this case? Does anybody have a link or case # from OSCN?

CF-2011-385 is the case number for the OK County criminal case proceeding

Cf-2011-385.

Wow I am surprised I thought DHS and all Oklahoma judges were perfect and didn't break laws or make mistakes.

Wow I am surprised I thought DHS and all Oklahoma judges were perfect and didn't break laws or make mistakes.

Obviously that is something you heard from those little voices in your head and not something ever forwarded here.

Wow.. what brought this on?

The voices in my head are quite respectful and play well with each other...no we don't...sit down and shut up...I'm going to tell Ma.

The voices in my head are quite respectful and play well with each other...no we don't...sit down and shut up...I'm going to tell Ma.

So Larry, tell me which voice I'm starting to get along with. LOL

Wow.. what brought this on?

Dana was feeling ignored and reached out to us. Kinda sweet, really. :-)

So Larry, tell me which voice I'm starting to get along with. LOL
That's for you to know and for me to find out (maniacal laughter)

Not feeling ignored just noticed that DHS and others are not perfect when everybody else is talking about it but when I mention things they do wrong all of you attack me and tell me I don't know what I am talking about even though I have all the evidence to prove what I say.

Not feeling ignored just noticed that DHS and others are not perfect when everybody else is talking about it but when I mention things they do wrong all of you attack me and tell me I don't know what I am talking about even though I have all the evidence to prove what I say.

No one thinks they are perfect. They just don't buy into the insanity you've been selling.

http://newsok.com/bass-lesure-husband-plead-guilty-to-fraud/article/3653990

Tammy Bass-LeSure and her husband plead guilty to fraud and received deferred sentences. Seriously!?

They conspired with at least two other people (her bailiff and the bailiff's sister), lied on adoption papers for TWO children, applied for and accepted state funds for the care of the children, and even mis-spent some of the funds on themselves, and all they receive are deferred sentences!?

Something is seriously wrong when people commit serious crimes involving children, and no punishment is administered.

Not shocked at all.
Perferential treatment im sure had nothing to do with it.

I know things don't always appear as they seem. This can go for people too. I had the pleasure of being a juror on one of TB-L's cases. This was in 07 and at that time she was very personable & professional. After our verdict, she asked us to stick around and after everyone left the courtroom, she came out to speak with us, answering any questions we had about the case. I know you have to be accountable for your actions, but I have a feeling Karlos (with a K) had a big influence on her wrong doings. It won't surprise me if he ends up divorcing her now that she holds no power-title....just my opinion...