ShareThis Page
Stenographer to pay fines, restitution |

Stenographer to pay fines, restitution

Matthew Junker
| Saturday, January 20, 2001 12:00 a.m

One week after prosecutors were told she was ignoring notices for payment, a court stenographer convicted of bilking Fayette County out of about $60,000 made arrangements Friday to pay fines and restitution.

Deborah A. DeFranks, 47, of Uniontown, was convicted in August 1997 for billing the county for 40,000 pages of transcribed testimony, but filing only 8,200 pages of work. She also forged signatures, billed the county for work on bogus cases and filed duplicate transcripts.

She is currently on work release from the Washington County Correctional Facility as she serves a 10- to 23-month prison sentence.

DeFranks was convicted of three counts each of theft by deception and tampering with public records, but did not serve any jail time until last Nov. 1. At that time, DeFranks was given work release by Washington County Senior Judge John A. Bell.

Since then, DeFranks has said she has been willing to pay her remaining balance of more than $36,000, but only to the agencies dictated by Bell in his sentencing order.

But Fayette County Clerk of Courts Janice Snyder said DeFranks refused to pay repeated notices seeking payment of her costs, fines and restitution.

Snyder said Bell simply specified agencies used for collection during his career in Washington County, and sent a letter asking for a clarification.

After DeFranks was provided a copy of that letter yesterday, she called to arrange a payment plan, according to Snyder.

On Jan. 12, Snyder notified the state attorney general’s office that DeFranks was failing to make payments, putting DeFranks at risk of having her work release revoked.

Docket entries indicate that DeFranks was sent two notices requesting payment.

Earlier, DeFranks said she was willing to pay any agency that Bell specified.

‘I just want to pay and get on with my life,’ she said.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.