DISCLAIMER: These testimonials represent a small sampling of clients the firm has helped. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in your case.
North Carolina Attorney Defending Against Welfare Fraud
When you are charged with welfare fraud, you want a defense attorney who will listen to your side of the story. At Roberts Law Group, PLLC, we understand that welfare fraud is a complex charge. We know that a poor choice does not mean that all hope is lost. We can still fight the charge, even though you were charged with fraud such as:
- Welfare benefits fraud
- Improper use of state assistance
- Food stamp program fraud
- Rental assistance fraud
- Day care assistance fraud
- Providing false information
- State assistance fraud
Our firm's founding attorney, Patrick Roberts, is skilled at going to bat for clients involved in challenging fraud cases. The proven success of past cases shows that he knows how to prepare an aggressive and persuasive defense. With years of experience, we provide compassionate counsel to help you get through the legal problem you are facing.
North Carolina Experienced Fraud Defense Lawyer
The government may charge you with welfare fraud if you fail to report one of the following things:
- Income
- Relocation or move of dependent child
- Absent parent is no longer absent
Whether you failed to report income and lost eligibility or you were running a public assistance scam, we use our experience to achieve the best solution for your circumstances.
Quick Action After Fraud Allegations Yields Strong Results
We encourage you to call 1-866-630-2389 as soon as you can when you are accused of welfare benefits fraud. We work quickly to begin our own investigation into the case, including interviewing witnesses, neighbors and friends. An immediate response to a welfare fraud case can produce evidence that may be the key to your benefits fraud defense case.
Located in Raleigh, North Carolina, we defend against welfare benefits fraud in counties such as Wayne, Pitt, Mecklenburg and New Hanover. Our staff is kind and understanding, and our attorney has years of experience in criminal defense. Don't think that your case is hopeless; we will make arguments to defend you and assist you in ways that will protect your record and your future.
Contact the Roberts Law Group, PLLC, to speak to a knowledgeable criminal defense lawyer.
Maryland vs. R.A.
Charge:
1st Degree Murder, Attempted 1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder Attempted 2nd Degree Murder, Manslaughter, Second Degree Assault and Felony Handgun Charges
Facing:
Multiple Life Sentences
Result:
Not Guilty
This client allegedly fired shots into a New Years Eve party on January 1st 2006. The shooting resulted in the death of a 21 year old female (who was survived by her twin sister), and the wounding of the deceased's uncle.
Defense focused on:
- The week-long unexplained absence of an important Government witness after the shooting occurred;
- The lack of any witnesses testimony as to the Defendant firing a handgun;
- The inability of the State to produce a weapon;
- And the possibility of another shooter on the scene due to blood splatter evidence outside the home near the spot that the Defendant was standing.
Defendant was found not guilty on the murder charges. The jury was hung as to the manslaughter, assault and handgun charges. The defendant later pled to manslaughter and was given a ten year sentence, suspend all but 5 years.
Maryland vs. E.W.
Charge:
Domestic Violence -2nd Degree Assault (Two Counts), Deadly Weapon with Intent to Injure, Malicious Destruction of Property, and 4th Degree Burglary
Facing:
26 years, 60 days years
Result:
Dismissed
In a case of alleged domestic violence, cross examination of accuser, the government's main witness, cast doubt on the strength of the Government's case. The Judge granted the Defense motion for acquittal at the close of the State's case and dismissed all charges.
Maryland vs. M.W.
Charge:
Attempted Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Two Counts), Drug Possession
Facing:
44 years
Result:
Jury Trial - Not Guilty
Two officers testified at this jury trial. Inconsistencies elicited on the cross examination of the officers established that the Government did not do enough to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
