December 8, 2014 at 1:24 p.m.
Defendant in Grace Lodge theft case sentenced to jail
Defendant in Grace Lodge theft case sentenced to jail
Tammy L. Haubert, 55, of Pelican Lake, appeared before Judge Michael Bloom for a restitution and sentencing hearing.
She entered a no contest plea Oct. 21 to a single count of theft of movable property with a special facts enhancer. She was originally charged with two counts of the same charge, class H felonies punishable by up to six years in prison.
Haubert, who made all of her court appearances without a lawyer, accepted a plea agreement from Oneida County District Attorney Michael Schiek in which he agreed to drop the second count and recommend jail time.
The stolen ring was recovered by investigators. Haubert told detectives that she spent the money.
It was the theft of the ring, reported to the Rhinelander Police Department exactly one year from the date of sentencing, which eventually led to Haubert's arrest.
During the first part of the hearing, Bloom heard testimony and received evidence to determine how much restitution Haubert should pay. Haubert has consistently said she took approximately $4,300 in cash from the couple, not the $23,000 Schiek has alleged.
The first witness Schiek called was the couple's daughter. She testified she took her father to the Wells Fargo bank on the border of Minnesota and Iowa twice in 2010 and he withdrew a total of $23,713.75 from the couple's account. She said that money was never deposited into the couple's checking account in Rhinelander.
She also testified that her father passed away after the Oct. 21 plea hearing.
"Dad did his business right up to the end, and I was his power of attorney not because he wasn't capable of doing the things, but because his hearing was getting very bad," she testified. "And so he needed me to be his representative on the phone and most places won't talk to you unless you are the POA."
Since her father's passing, she testified she has reviewed all of her father's financial information and again confirmed that he did not deposit the withdrawn money in any other account.
Bloom told Haubert she had the right to ask direct questions of the witness on the issue of restitution, but she declined.
Terry Friese, the former owner of Grace Lodge, was the next witness called to the stand.
He said the resident whose ring was stolen reported it to the manager and that person brought the matter to his attention. The theft of cash from the other couple came to light during the investigation into the stolen ring, he said.
Friese testified the victim of the cash theft told detectives he had placed $23,000 in three envelopes in a small safe in the room he shared with his wife. Two of the envelopes contained $10,000 in $100 bills while the third contained at least $3,000, also in $100 bills.
Friese testified that during the course of the investigation, Haubert admitted to taking money and the ring.
"As a result of that information, was Ms. Haubert's employment terminated?" Schiek asked.
"Actually her employment was terminated before the investigation was complete under activities that were suspicious," Friese said. "We had strong suspicions that she was involved in the theft."
Friese also testified that because Grace Lodge's insurance would not cover the theft of the cash, he wrote a check to victims for $23,000 out of the Grace Lodge LLC checking account.
"I assume that $23,000 seemed like a lot of money to you?" Schiek asked.
"Yes, sir," Friese replied.
When Schiek asked him if he would have written a check for that amount if he had doubts about how much money was taken, Friese replied, "no."
Haubert declined to cross-examine Friese but took the stand herself.
She admitted to taking roughly $4,300 from the envelopes, "$100 here and $100 there," but as to the total, she said, "I did not take $23,000. If I had, I would still not be in debt."
She recounted speaking with a detective from the Rhinelander Police Department and said she set the figure at between $4,000 and $4,300. Bloom pointed out that the $4,300 figure does not appear anywhere in the police report that was filed with the criminal complaint.
"I know in my heart I didn't take $23,000," Haubert replied.
During her testimony, Haubert said she used the cash primarily to pay bills and pay down her credit cards. She also bought a few Christmas presents for her grandchildren, about $1,000 worth of groceries for herself and her husband and roughly $600 in groceries for her son, she said.
Haubert denied keeping a ledger of how much she took but said she did occasionally count the bills. She also admitted she knew how much money the couple kept in each envelope.
She said she stopped taking the money when she learned that one of the couple's children was having car problems. She said she thought they might need the cash to purchase a new car.
Bloom ruled Schiek had established how much cash was withdrawn by the victim and by "reasonable and strong inference" established that the $23,000 amount set forth in the criminal complaint was the total taken from the unlocked safe in the apartment.
"Ms. Haubert, there's a story about a man about town who is at a fancy cocktail party and he starts to speak to an attractive lady. And at one point he says would you consider spending the night with me if I paid you $1,000? And the lady says that might be nice. And then the man says, well, if that's the way you look at it, would you consider spending the night with me for $50? And the lady says what kind of girl do you think I am? And the man says, we've already established that, now we're just haggling about the price," Bloom said. "That's what we're doing right now. It has pretty much been established that you are, at least in the context of this case, a thief, and to some extent, a liar. Under those circumstances, the victims have met their burden of proof."
He then ordered Haubert to pay $23,000 in restitution to Friese.
As the proceedings shifted to the matter of sentencing, the daughter of the couple whose funds were stolen offered a victim's statement on behalf of her mother.
"For someone to take advantage of the elderly is appalling," she said. "Being robbed makes them feel vulnerable and violated. It's unsettling ... one is constantly feeling unsafe and suspicious of everyone else. And that's not the way... Tammy, we're also missing some other things of dad's, including a black onyx ring. If you took that, I implore you to give it back. It was intended to be passed down to future generations. So now not only are we missing dad, we're missing a number of his items, as well."
She said it has been frustrating to have to spend so much time and effort thinking about the case as it has dragged on over the last year.
"We've seen no remorse from Tammy," she said. "Nor have we seen any effort to make restitution. We desire justice, we are not asking for a punishment like in Islamic countries where her hand would be cut off, forever being a stigma and a visible reminder to other would-be thieves that crime does not pay. We would, however, support the Biblical judgment that requires her to immediately return the stolen amount, plus 20 percent. And if she is unwilling or unable to do so, then she would have to endure debtor's prison or a workhouse until that amount is paid in full.
"We are merely asking that she make right the wrong that she has done, that she be required to sell all of her assets, her cellphones, TV, cars, whatever is necessary to recoup that money," she added.
On the matter of incarcerating Haubert, she said "we all are victims again since our taxes are paying for her food and lodging" while she is either in jail or prison. In the event that she refuses to pay restitution, the woman asked that Haubert be sentenced to the maximum term to send a strong message to other criminals and bring her to "a point of genuine repentance."
The daughter of the woman whose engagement ring was stolen was the next person to testify. She said her mother also feels violated by the theft, although the ring was recovered.
She said Haubert apparently never learned right from wrong.
"All that we are asking is that you (Bloom) put us at peace after one year of dealing with this," she said.
Friese then testified that Haubert's actions, the first thefts to ever occur at Grace Lodge, not only violated the victims, but also the facility and its employees as well. He said he and his staff took great pride in providing a safe and secure environment for residents.
"The loss was to a whole community that lives and works together," he said.
Friese also mentioned that he has been bothered by Haubert's lack of remorse. He said he has seen her on numerous occasions since the case started and "not once, not once did she apologize."
He also asked that she be prohibited from working with at-risk adults.
"I pray for her as a Christian person," he added. "I pray for her salvation."
Schiek said a total of 13 victim impact statements were filed in Haubert's case and noted that a lot of emotion had been expressed in court. He said it is his job to take that emotion and channel it into a sentencing recommendation.
He focused on the sense of violation expressed by all involved in the case and noted that Haubert apparently thought that because she was stealing from elderly patients the thefts would go unnoticed.
"That's the predatory nature of what happened," he said.
Given her chance to make a final statement, Haubert tearfully apologized to everyone affected by her crimes.
"I cried every day over what I did," Haubert said. "I'm so sorry."
She added that she never apologized to Friese because she was under the impression she could not talk to anyone involved in the case.
She asked Bloom to delay the start of her incarceration until after the holidays so that she can prepare her husband, who is confined to a wheelchair and is suffering from the early effects of dementia, for when she will not be able to care for him.
Bloom said this is a case where the actions of one person touch a lot of people like ripples on a pond. He noted that the emotions and desire for justice expressed by the victims and their families are not "inaccurate or unreasonable."
"In cases such as this, protection of the public morphs into a sense of satisfaction that justice has been done," Bloom concluded.
While a prison sentence isn't necessary to protect the public from Haubert, jail time as a condition of probation is appropriate, he said.
He then withheld sentence and ordered Haubert to serve three years on probation, the maximum term he could hand down for a class H felony. As a condition of probation, he sentenced Haubert to nine months in jail with Huber privileges. She must pay the $23,000 in restitution during the term of her probation. She was also ordered to not work in any profession that provides care to vulnerable adults.
Bloom delayed the start of Haubert's jail term to 4 p.m. on Dec. 19.
"I can appreciate that you need to stabilize your disabled husband, but you are going to have to accomplish what you need to accomplish before the holidays are upon us," he said, adding that if she fails to report to jail by the deadline she will be charged with a felony and the six-year prison sentence may come back into play.
Jamie Taylor may be reached at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.