SBCDistrictAttorney
Santa Barbara County District Attorney John T. Savrnoch announced today that on April 3, 2024, a Santa Barbara jury found Lynda Gemberling guilty of two counts of Perjury and one count of Welfare Fraud, all felonies. The case was investigated by District Attorney Investigator Patrick Adams and prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Sean Brunton.
In 2019 and again in 2020, Ms. Gemberling applied with the Department of Social Services (DSS) for food stamps (CalFresh) and Cash Aid (CalWorks) programs, reporting that she had no income. In fact, Ms. Gemberling was receiving child support payments during this time but failed to report those payments as income, despite the applications clearly defining income as including child support. DSS became aware of the fraud after being contacted by the Department of Child Support Service (DCSS). Any time a person applies for aid with DSS, DSS sends a referral to DCSS to determine if the applicant is receiving child support. In this case, DCSS reported to DSS that Ms. Gemberling had been receiving child support payments.
After receiving notice from DCSS regarding the fraud, DSS sent a referral to the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office which then opened an investigation into Ms. Gemberling, resulting in the filing of criminal charges in September 2022.
District Attorney John T. Savrnoch commented, “CalFresh and CalWorks are vital programs that California provides to those in need. The Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office is committed to investigating and prosecuting those who abuse the trust of the taxpayers in this state by exploiting government programs intended to help our state’s most vulnerable.”
Sentencing for Ms. Gemberling will take place on May 9, 2024, before the Honorable Pauline Maxwell, in Department 2 of the Santa Barbara Superior Court.
So her only income was child support? I’m guessing she was still poor, struggling, and needed the help. How much food did she get vs the cost of a trial? Yes, she cheated and should be fined. What a waste of resources.
Jury found her GUILTY. obviously she scammed the system. Feel free to research her. She’s not poor I bet
Any idea how much her child support was?
Yes, she broke the law and needs to be accountable. However, fining poor people has been shown to be extremely ineffective as they often can’t pay, then it gets escalated, then what? Throw her in jail so the state can pay to house her and be responsible for her child?
Find a way to hold her accountable that maybe has her give back to the community. Create a net positive out of the situation. It’s possible.
Alex- Totally agree. I thought a fine was stupid after I posted. Community service works!
She paid for a lawyer.. do the math
Jeff, how do you know she paid for the lawyer? Most likely it was court appointed but what does that matter? Should poor people not get represented unless they admit the crime first?
She retained Annie Hayes.
JEFF – again, how do you know she paid anything? Many lawyers do some pro bono work.
I agree with the others. Putting poor people who can’t pay fines into jail does nothing but cost us taxpayers more money. Community service is much more effective and productive for our society in cases like this.
She could do housework for the rich and famous while they cheat on their tax returns.
This feels like an extreme punishment. It’s not like she scammed a bunch of elderly people out of their retirement. Fine her and move on. A jury trial for failing to disclose income would put most entrepreneurs in jail.
Cate offers scholarships and since she’s receiving child support then she’s divorced. Her husband may have money but that doesn’t mean she does. When wealthy men get divorced it doesn’t always mean their ex wives come into a financial windfall, some are left with next to nothing.
She paid for a lawyer. She has money
So she’s an “entrepreneur”? Did she pay for a lawyer?
Court docs say a lawyer was appointed to her.
No they don’t. Post if so. The da wouldn’t waste time on someone who wasn’t trying to cheat the system. The jury neither.
She hired Annie Hayes. Why would you lie?
Defendant
Gemberling, Lynda Cathe
DOB
XX/XX/XXXX
Active Attorneys
Lead Attorney
Hayes, Annie
Retained
Actually she and others like her scam all of us, elderly included out of money. This is a theft of taxpayer money. I’m sure they gave her an option to plea and she refused. She caused the jury trial and should serve time to set an example to others.
@ David- EXACTLY. Thank you for adding common sense to this site.
When has jail/prison deterred criminals from carrying out criminal acts?
“and should serve time to set an example to others.”
Oh, does that work?
Of course it works Alexblue. The main reason most of us are not criminals is the deterrent of jailtime.
Wow. If the only thing that deters you is punishment, you’ve got a pretty deplorable mindset.
Main reason I don’t commit crimes is because I was brought up well and have no desire to screw people over. Weird, I thought most people were like that. Guess not.
Justice is swift when you’re not Donald Trump.
Thank you district attorney for prosecuting. You’re doing a great service to the community for standing up for the truly needy. We need more district attorneys across the nation like you. I have no empathy for those scamming the system. Let this be a lesson to those scammers out there.
Amen. The DA would not waste their time on someone that wasn’t GUILTY. The jury found her guilty so obviously she was a scammer. This lady is an embarrassment. Go to jail
Cheap shot by the DA. If he felt the need to prosecute he should do so with some humility. This is NOT a significant conviction and the criminal is not a significance threat to the community. The whole thing, especially the PR release, smacks of opportunism and pandering to the right wing fantasy that welfare is rife with theft. “Cadillac Moms” etc.
Couldn’t agree with you more, thank you.
Why did you lie? She hired an attorney
You’re going to jail Lynda
She hired a lawyer. What does that tell you? Convinced by a jury. She scammed the system
You only need to say it once! Why are you SO incensed by and obsessed with the case, to the point of extreme namecalling earlier?
You guys see welfare and assume she was poor and needed the money. Apparently no one understands how the court system works. Do you really think the da wanted to prosecute this?? And a jury found her guilt on top of it? She was probably a rich montectio divorcee (based on her previous address) and just didn’t care about stealing. Understand now?
No one should game the system. It should be black and white. If you start making excuses where do you draw the line? How poor do you need to be so that is is ok to lie about income?