Not so off topic: USC athletics will be Lori Laughlin's defense

4,046 Views | 56 Replies | Last: 9 mo ago by Cal84
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Apparently, it's all Pat Hayden's fault. Basically, USC had a system to pay for athletics which involved money for admissions, and Mossimo and Laurie simply did what every wealthy parent does to get the kids into school, they wrote a check to support athletics. Not to let facts get in the way, Mossimo and Laurie apparently did write a check that went directly to a now fired USC Senior Associate AD (who may have pocketed the money), and paid $20,000 a month to an admissions specialist who then was then bribing that AD. But most to their money went to Rick Singer or a favorite charity of Singer, not USC or anyone at USC. As pointed out in the article, while all other universes in the scandal have come clean, USC still has its investigation "ongoing." Looking at this, I can see why SC didn't hire Meyer. There is a lot more stuff coming out - so bad that he might of walked rather than have is image tarnished (sarcasm intended).


New details surface in Lori Loughlin's admissions case http://a.msn.com/0A/en-us/BBYRssx?ocid=st2



socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shocked.
bearup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Apparently, it's all Pat Hayden's fault. Basically, USC had a system to pay for athletics which involved money for admissions, and Mossimo and Laurie simply did what every wealthy parent does to get the kids into school, they wrote a check to support athletics.
I find it extremely hard to believe that a former Rhodes Scholar would stoop so low. :
hanky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Exactly what law did she break by bribing her kids way into USC? I don't get it.
510 Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lori Loughlin would be a great choice to be USC football's new defensive coordinator. She could create an imaginary/fabricated defense that might get them through half the season before anyone figures it out.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hanky1 said:

Exactly what law did she break by bribing her kids way into USC? I don't get it.
1) she took a charitable deduction for a bribe. Apparently is she doesn't plea bargain the Fed will add this charge.
2). conspiring to commit federal program bribery by paying employees at the University of Southern California to admit her children as athletic recruits or other favored admissions categories.
3) conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud as well as honest services mail and wire fraud (the person they bribed, the Associate AD is charged with committing federal program bribery).


The conspiracy to commit federal bribery charges are based on a federal statue that's triggered whenever a bribe of at least $5,000 is given to an organization that receives more than $10,000 from the federal government. Every college in the country, both public and private, fits that category. So to answer your specific question that law that was (allegedly) broken is 18 U.S. Code 666.

The people paying the bribes get hit with conspiracy. The people who get get the bribes and take action are charged with bribery. Get it now?

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
An gif from Lori's upcoming reality TV show, Hoosegow Harlots: The Untold Story of the College Admissions Scandal:

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
LateHit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Federal" is not the word you want to hear at your arraignment.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

hanky1 said:

Exactly what law did she break by bribing her kids way into USC? I don't get it.
1) she took a charitable deduction for a bribe. Apparently is she doesn't plea bargain the Fed will add this charge.
2). conspiring to commit federal program bribery by paying employees at the University of Southern California to admit her children as athletic recruits or other favored admissions categories.
3) conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud as well as honest services mail and wire fraud (the person they bribed, the Associate AD is charged with committing federal program bribery).


The conspiracy to commit federal bribery charges are based on a federal statue that's triggered whenever a bribe of at least $5,000 is given to an organization that receives more than $10,000 from the federal government. Every college in the country, both public and private, fits that category. So to answer your specific question that law that was (allegedly) broken is 18 U.S. Code 666.

The people paying the bribes get hit with conspiracy. The people who get get the bribes and take action are charged with bribery. Get it now?


I have no idea if the article you linked to is correct, but if so, it seems Loughlin has a decent case. According to the article, she: (i) paid money directly to USC's AD - check payable to USC; and (ii) paid money into Rick Singer's "charity." It is not clear if she paid money to Singer directly outside of his charity - I assume so and if she did that might actually be a good fact for her defense.

There is no allegation that Loughlin directly bribed the USC official (Pat Heinel). Singer bribed Heinel and it seems plausible (if not likely) that Loughlin had no idea about the details of that bribe and/or exactly how Singer's scheme worked. If she didn't know about the bribe, than the conspiracy charges (2 and 3 above) seem tenuous. Not to mention that the bribes to Heinel didn't start until after the daughters were admitted, per the article.

If the government's position is that paying money to private university (check payable to USC) in exchange for admission preferences constitutes a bribe in violation of Section 666, then there are many, many, many parents who should be very worried right now. There is no way that theory will fly. It is not a bribe if the university (or its employees) know that the donation is taken into account for admissions purposes. If the government pursues such a broad and tenuous theory of Section 666, they likely will lose (similar to the Enron/Skilling case which involved a similar type of dragnet statute).

In terms of the tax fraud (1 above), why wasn't that charged up front? It could be that Loughlin paid Singer money directly AND made a "charitable" contribution to his foundation, which makes the facts a bit muddier. Even if the government can add and then prove this type of violation, the penalties are far less (potentially just civil) - people don't generally go to jail for tax fraud.

I'm not defending what Loughlin did. The scheme was disgusting and they deserve the public ridicule and other consequences. But not every bad/wrongful act is or should be a federal crime. I'm not a fan of federal prosecutors overreaching. It remains to be seen if that is the case here, but the article you provided seems to suggest that's a possibility.




bearup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hanky1 said:

Exactly what law did she break by bribing her kids way into USC? I don't get it.
With all due respect, google it. It's been covered extensively.
BearMDJD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All the more reason for U$C to spin off its Athletic Department from the University and keep sports insulated from all these "federal laws" and "ncaa rules" that are standing in the way from them operating the way they want to.
510 Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearMDJD said:

All the more reason for U$C to spin off its Athletic Department from the University and keep sports insulated from all these "federal laws" and "ncaa rules" that are standing in the way from them operating the way they want to.
True, though at this point in time you could cross out USC and pencil in a whole bunch of schools and what you said would be no less true.
OneTopOneChickenApple
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

wifeisafurd said:

hanky1 said:

Exactly what law did she break by bribing her kids way into USC? I don't get it.
1) she took a charitable deduction for a bribe. Apparently is she doesn't plea bargain the Fed will add this charge.
2). conspiring to commit federal program bribery by paying employees at the University of Southern California to admit her children as athletic recruits or other favored admissions categories.
3) conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud as well as honest services mail and wire fraud (the person they bribed, the Associate AD is charged with committing federal program bribery).


The conspiracy to commit federal bribery charges are based on a federal statue that's triggered whenever a bribe of at least $5,000 is given to an organization that receives more than $10,000 from the federal government. Every college in the country, both public and private, fits that category. So to answer your specific question that law that was (allegedly) broken is 18 U.S. Code 666.

The people paying the bribes get hit with conspiracy. The people who get get the bribes and take action are charged with bribery. Get it now?


I have no idea if the article you linked to is correct, but if so, it seems Loughlin has a decent case. According to the article, she: (i) paid money directly to USC's AD - check payable to USC; and (ii) paid money into Rick Singer's "charity." It is not clear if she paid money to Singer directly outside of his charity - I assume so and if she did that might actually be a good fact for her defense.

There is no allegation that Loughlin directly bribed the USC official (Pat Heinel). Singer bribed Heinel and it seems plausible (if not likely) that Loughlin had no idea about the details of that bribe and/or exactly how Singer's scheme worked. If she didn't know about the bribe, than the conspiracy charges (2 and 3 above) seem tenuous. Not to mention that the bribes to Heinel didn't start until after the daughters were admitted, per the article.

If the government's position is that paying money to private university (check payable to USC) in exchange for admission preferences constitutes a bribe in violation of Section 666, then there are many, many, many parents who should be very worried right now. There is no way that theory will fly. It is not a bribe if the university (or its employees) know that the donation is taken into account for admissions purposes. If the government pursues such a broad and tenuous theory of Section 666, they likely will lose (similar to the Enron/Skilling case which involved a similar type of dragnet statute).

In terms of the tax fraud (1 above), why wasn't that charged up front? It could be that Loughlin paid Singer money directly AND made a "charitable" contribution to his foundation, which makes the facts a bit muddier. Even if the government can add and then prove this type of violation, the penalties are far less (potentially just civil) - people don't generally go to jail for tax fraud.

I'm not defending what Loughlin did. The scheme was disgusting and they deserve the public ridicule and other consequences. But not every bad/wrongful act is or should be a federal crime. I'm not a fan of federal prosecutors overreaching. It remains to be seen if that is the case here, but the article you provided seems to suggest that's a possibility.





Good analysis. This whole affair with all the families has been a guilty pleasure for me. I read as much as I can about it.
Loughlin's husband did barge into the counselor's office after the counselor questioned the use of rowing photos. Tried to intimidate. If he didn't think he was doing anything wrong, this would look damaging.
LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearup said:

hanky1 said:

Exactly what law did she break by bribing her kids way into USC? I don't get it.
With all due respect, google it. It's been covered extensively.
has there ever been less respect due?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

wifeisafurd said:

hanky1 said:

Exactly what law did she break by bribing her kids way into USC? I don't get it.
1) she took a charitable deduction for a bribe. Apparently is she doesn't plea bargain the Fed will add this charge.
2). conspiring to commit federal program bribery by paying employees at the University of Southern California to admit her children as athletic recruits or other favored admissions categories.
3) conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud as well as honest services mail and wire fraud (the person they bribed, the Associate AD is charged with committing federal program bribery).


The conspiracy to commit federal bribery charges are based on a federal statue that's triggered whenever a bribe of at least $5,000 is given to an organization that receives more than $10,000 from the federal government. Every college in the country, both public and private, fits that category. So to answer your specific question that law that was (allegedly) broken is 18 U.S. Code 666.

The people paying the bribes get hit with conspiracy. The people who get get the bribes and take action are charged with bribery. Get it now?


I have no idea if the article you linked to is correct, but if so, it seems Loughlin has a decent case. According to the article, she: (i) paid money directly to USC's AD - check payable to USC; and (ii) paid money into Rick Singer's "charity." It is not clear if she paid money to Singer directly outside of his charity - I assume so and if she did that might actually be a good fact for her defense.

There is no allegation that Loughlin directly bribed the USC official (Pat Heinel). Singer bribed Heinel and it seems plausible (if not likely) that Loughlin had no idea about the details of that bribe and/or exactly how Singer's scheme worked. If she didn't know about the bribe, than the conspiracy charges (2 and 3 above) seem tenuous. Not to mention that the bribes to Heinel didn't start until after the daughters were admitted, per the article.

If the government's position is that paying money to private university (check payable to USC) in exchange for admission preferences constitutes a bribe in violation of Section 666, then there are many, many, many parents who should be very worried right now. There is no way that theory will fly. It is not a bribe if the university (or its employees) know that the donation is taken into account for admissions purposes. If the government pursues such a broad and tenuous theory of Section 666, they likely will lose (similar to the Enron/Skilling case which involved a similar type of dragnet statute).

In terms of the tax fraud (1 above), why wasn't that charged up front? It could be that Loughlin paid Singer money directly AND made a "charitable" contribution to his foundation, which makes the facts a bit muddier. Even if the government can add and then prove this type of violation, the penalties are far less (potentially just civil) - people don't generally go to jail for tax fraud.

I'm not defending what Loughlin did. The scheme was disgusting and they deserve the public ridicule and other consequences. But not every bad/wrongful act is or should be a federal crime. I'm not a fan of federal prosecutors overreaching. It remains to be seen if that is the case here, but the article you provided seems to suggest that's a possibility.





I see where you are going. You are ignoring the monthly money to the counselor (who has pled and I assume will testify) to be used for bribes. But you make good points why this is not a slam dunk. There article is not a complete or good discussion of the facts so let me give it a shot, as I understand it (it gets reported on a lot here in LA).

Not in the article, but in the complaint, is the allegation of wiretaps with Singer, where Singer is explaining to the defendants how the schema worked. The folks that got busted were late to the game after Singer had turned and was wire tapping clients as part of his deal. Perhaps the defense lawyers will argue entrapment to get the tapes removed? Also, Laurie and Massimo didn't start this - they heard about Singer from someone who will testify. I assume Singer will also testify.

There also is an evidentiary problem. The couple's attorneys say they need "any statements by Singer as to what he precisely told his clients" about the use of their funds. They also say they need "statements detailing what USC knew of Singer's operation, arguing that if they did know about the operation but accepted money anyway then the university was not bribed or defrauded." This is the problem that SC faces, and would be huge problem for the prosecution, that is not really brought out well in the article (though I tried to point out same in my intro). The big "but" so far may be the lack of evidence. Prosecutors turned over more than 3 million pages of emails, wiretaps and other evidence to defense attorneys. But at a court hearing in June, defense attorneys flagged how the government had not released FBI interviews with parents not charged in the case and interviews with SC. They demanded that evidence be turned over arguing their entire defense turned on finding that SC knew about the "bribes" in that evidence, and really treated them as essentially donations in exchange for the kids being admitted. They argued that this evidence existed in the transcripts of the interviews. My guess, is this also is why SC not releasing the results of its inquiry is a huge gripe of the defense attorneys (note TMZ is a shrill for the celeb's defense attorneys). The Judge refused, calling it a fishing expedition. So somehow the defense is going to have get USC to admit in testimony they knew and participated in this process or find some other evidence to rebut the other evidence. Stay tuned.....

This case is venued back east. Now if it was LA, there is no doubt in my mind the celeb parents are found not guilty. LA juries never convict celebs unless their weird, like Phil Spector.
bearup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LunchTime said:

bearup said:

hanky1 said:

Exactly what law did she break by bribing her kids way into USC? I don't get it.
With all due respect, google it. It's been covered extensively.
has there ever been less respect due?
Uh, no.

hanky's just a mean little bot. I'm trying to throw off its internal programming so that it
becomes a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9poCAuYT-s&list=RD-9poCAuYT-s&start_radio=1&t=20 and spins completely out of control.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

wifeisafurd said:

hanky1 said:

Exactly what law did she break by bribing her kids way into USC? I don't get it.
1) she took a charitable deduction for a bribe. Apparently is she doesn't plea bargain the Fed will add this charge.
2). conspiring to commit federal program bribery by paying employees at the University of Southern California to admit her children as athletic recruits or other favored admissions categories.
3) conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud as well as honest services mail and wire fraud (the person they bribed, the Associate AD is charged with committing federal program bribery).


The conspiracy to commit federal bribery charges are based on a federal statue that's triggered whenever a bribe of at least $5,000 is given to an organization that receives more than $10,000 from the federal government. Every college in the country, both public and private, fits that category. So to answer your specific question that law that was (allegedly) broken is 18 U.S. Code 666.

The people paying the bribes get hit with conspiracy. The people who get get the bribes and take action are charged with bribery. Get it now?


I have no idea if the article you linked to is correct, but if so, it seems Loughlin has a decent case. According to the article, she: (i) paid money directly to USC's AD - check payable to USC; and (ii) paid money into Rick Singer's "charity." It is not clear if she paid money to Singer directly outside of his charity - I assume so and if she did that might actually be a good fact for her defense.

There is no allegation that Loughlin directly bribed the USC official (Pat Heinel). Singer bribed Heinel and it seems plausible (if not likely) that Loughlin had no idea about the details of that bribe and/or exactly how Singer's scheme worked. If she didn't know about the bribe, than the conspiracy charges (2 and 3 above) seem tenuous. Not to mention that the bribes to Heinel didn't start until after the daughters were admitted, per the article.

If the government's position is that paying money to private university (check payable to USC) in exchange for admission preferences constitutes a bribe in violation of Section 666, then there are many, many, many parents who should be very worried right now. There is no way that theory will fly. It is not a bribe if the university (or its employees) know that the donation is taken into account for admissions purposes. If the government pursues such a broad and tenuous theory of Section 666, they likely will lose (similar to the Enron/Skilling case which involved a similar type of dragnet statute).

In terms of the tax fraud (1 above), why wasn't that charged up front? It could be that Loughlin paid Singer money directly AND made a "charitable" contribution to his foundation, which makes the facts a bit muddier. Even if the government can add and then prove this type of violation, the penalties are far less (potentially just civil) - people don't generally go to jail for tax fraud.

I'm not defending what Loughlin did. The scheme was disgusting and they deserve the public ridicule and other consequences. But not every bad/wrongful act is or should be a federal crime. I'm not a fan of federal prosecutors overreaching. It remains to be seen if that is the case here, but the article you provided seems to suggest that's a possibility.





Separate on why no tax charge yet. That is the nuclear option. I can see a judge going easy on the fraud charges, especially if there is some evidence USC sanctioned any of this. But a tax charge is different. Probably get 5 years and a ton of civill penalties, interest, etc. so you end talking about real money (I believe they deducted all payments (they better have or they have an inconsistent arguments since donations to USC (as opposed to Singer's charities) are also deductible) so talking $600K plus in payments, penalties and interest, you start looming at close to $1 million. it raises the stakes, and likely is the only leverage the prosecuters have at this point to avoid trial. In talking with trial tax attorneys, they usually get brought in at the end when the government is pissed off (such as in the Enron cases).
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Cheat on!
hanky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If rich people want to bribe their way into a crappy school like USC I say let them waste their money.
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hanky1 said:

Exactly what law did she break by bribing her kids way into USC? I don't get it.
hank1, This gets an aggregate score of 1.7 out of 6 for an attempt to troll a reaction.

Only the Bulgarian judge saved you by giving you a score of 4.8.
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hanky1 said:

If rich people want to bribe their way into a crappy school like USC I say let them waste their money.
Exactly. The Judge in the case should declare: "You guys are all guilty, and for your punishment I sentence your kids to attend u$c, and do laundry for all the sports teams while they are there."
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:


Cheat on!
Where does one think the $100K came from to pay off Reggie Bush's family? Hey, these payoffs aren't getting any cheaper. Has to come from somewhere.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:





I see where you are going. You are ignoring the monthly money to the counselor (who has pled and I assume will testify) to be used for bribes. But you make good points why this is not a slam dunk. There article is not a complete or good discussion of the facts so let me give it a shot, as I understand it (it gets reported on a lot here in LA).

Not in the article, but in the complaint, is the allegation of wiretaps with Singer, where Singer is explaining to the defendants how the schema worked. The folks that got busted were late to the game after Singer had turned and was wire tapping clients as part of his deal. Perhaps the defense lawyers will argue entrapment to get the tapes removed? Also, Laurie and Massimo didn't start this - they heard about Singer from someone who will testify. I assume Singer will also testify.

There also is an evidentiary problem. The couple's attorneys say they need "any statements by Singer as to what he precisely told his clients" about the use of their funds. They also say they need "statements detailing what USC knew of Singer's operation, arguing that if they did know about the operation but accepted money anyway then the university was not bribed or defrauded." This is the problem that SC faces, and would be huge problem for the prosecution, that is not really brought out well in the article (though I tried to point out same in my intro). The big "but" so far may be the lack of evidence. Prosecutors turned over more than 3 million pages of emails, wiretaps and other evidence to defense attorneys. But at a court hearing in June, defense attorneys flagged how the government had not released FBI interviews with parents not charged in the case and interviews with SC. They demanded that evidence be turned over arguing their entire defense turned on finding that SC knew about the "bribes" in that evidence, and really treated them as essentially donations in exchange for the kids being admitted. They argued that this evidence existed in the transcripts of the interviews. My guess, is this also is why SC not releasing the results of its inquiry is a huge gripe of the defense attorneys (note TMZ is a shrill for the celeb's defense attorneys). The Judge refused, calling it a fishing expedition. So somehow the defense is going to have get USC to admit in testimony they knew and participated in this process or find some other evidence to rebut the other evidence. Stay tuned.....

This case is venued back east. Now if it was LA, there is no doubt in my mind the celeb parents are found not guilty. LA juries never convict celebs unless their weird, like Phil Spector.
Since the original story broke, I haven't really followed the details. So I defer to your knowledge, but doesn't the fact that they paid Singer directly actually help the defendants? They could argue: (i) we paid money - lots of money - to singer to help us, but didn't know what he did with it (bribe Heinel); (ii) we knew Singer had connections, but that's not illegal; (iii) Singer told us a donation to USC would be helpful to admission, so we made it (again not illegal); and (iv) we had already paid Singer separately, the donation to Singer's "charity" was on top of that and something we wanted to do (a stretch).

Regarding the wiretaps, as I recall those were made AFTER Singer began cooperating. So he was calling after the fact and "confirming" what happened. It will be interesting to see to what extent the defendants actually made incriminating statements (as opposed to agreeing with what Singer was saying). I think a jury will view that with suspicion.

Regarding your separate post on the tax charges, I don't think those are being held back as the final hammer. The defendants can serve 45-50 years based on the existing charges - according to Forbes and NPR. I don't think the tax charges are more severe than that. If the feds add those late, it will be a sign of weakness in their case IMO.

bearup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hanky1 said:

Exactly what law did she break by bribing her kids way into USC? I don't get it.
Does the reason you "don't get it" have anything to do with what you....supposedly....did at UCLA.
I depend on your posts for a little humor once in a while (seriously)...and you're beginning to fail miserably. Maybe you should take that refresher class in Stand-Up you've been thinking about.



hanky1
5:35p, 1/5/20


You can get away with alot more at UCLA I suspect than you can at Cal.

I use to be a graduate student at UCLA. I tutored members of their basketball team on writing as a side job. I use to write essays and stories for their team for classes and everyone knew it and no one cared.

One time, I wrote an essay for a lady on the team about her grandmother dying. I complete fake story but she got so emotional that she started crying as if her grandmother actually died.
MathTeacherMike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

hanky1 said:

Exactly what law did she break by bribing her kids way into USC? I don't get it.
1) she took a charitable deduction for a bribe. Apparently is she doesn't plea bargain the Fed will add this charge.
2). conspiring to commit federal program bribery by paying employees at the University of Southern California to admit her children as athletic recruits or other favored admissions categories.
3) conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud as well as honest services mail and wire fraud (the person they bribed, the Associate AD is charged with committing federal program bribery).


The conspiracy to commit federal bribery charges are based on a federal statue that's triggered whenever a bribe of at least $5,000 is given to an organization that receives more than $10,000 from the federal government. Every college in the country, both public and private, fits that category. So to answer your specific question that law that was (allegedly) broken is 18 U.S. Code 666.

The people paying the bribes get hit with conspiracy. The people who get get the bribes and take action are charged with bribery. Get it now?




Can't it be framed as a donation?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MathTeacherMike said:

wifeisafurd said:

hanky1 said:

Exactly what law did she break by bribing her kids way into USC? I don't get it.
1) she took a charitable deduction for a bribe. Apparently is she doesn't plea bargain the Fed will add this charge.
2). conspiring to commit federal program bribery by paying employees at the University of Southern California to admit her children as athletic recruits or other favored admissions categories.
3) conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud as well as honest services mail and wire fraud (the person they bribed, the Associate AD is charged with committing federal program bribery).


The conspiracy to commit federal bribery charges are based on a federal statue that's triggered whenever a bribe of at least $5,000 is given to an organization that receives more than $10,000 from the federal government. Every college in the country, both public and private, fits that category. So to answer your specific question that law that was (allegedly) broken is 18 U.S. Code 666.

The people paying the bribes get hit with conspiracy. The people who get get the bribes and take action are charged with bribery. Get it now?




Can't it be framed as a donation?
Sure. The determination is factual obviously - what did they know about how the money would be used. Not an expert in criminal law, but it seems to me if the government proves the fraud charges, then they are guilty of tax evasion. As BG posted, this is not a slam dunk. Depends a lot on if the wiretaps are admissible and what was said, etc.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

wifeisafurd said:





I see where you are going. You are ignoring the monthly money to the counselor (who has pled and I assume will testify) to be used for bribes. But you make good points why this is not a slam dunk. There article is not a complete or good discussion of the facts so let me give it a shot, as I understand it (it gets reported on a lot here in LA).

Not in the article, but in the complaint, is the allegation of wiretaps with Singer, where Singer is explaining to the defendants how the schema worked. The folks that got busted were late to the game after Singer had turned and was wire tapping clients as part of his deal. Perhaps the defense lawyers will argue entrapment to get the tapes removed? Also, Laurie and Massimo didn't start this - they heard about Singer from someone who will testify. I assume Singer will also testify.

There also is an evidentiary problem. The couple's attorneys say they need "any statements by Singer as to what he precisely told his clients" about the use of their funds. They also say they need "statements detailing what USC knew of Singer's operation, arguing that if they did know about the operation but accepted money anyway then the university was not bribed or defrauded." This is the problem that SC faces, and would be huge problem for the prosecution, that is not really brought out well in the article (though I tried to point out same in my intro). The big "but" so far may be the lack of evidence. Prosecutors turned over more than 3 million pages of emails, wiretaps and other evidence to defense attorneys. But at a court hearing in June, defense attorneys flagged how the government had not released FBI interviews with parents not charged in the case and interviews with SC. They demanded that evidence be turned over arguing their entire defense turned on finding that SC knew about the "bribes" in that evidence, and really treated them as essentially donations in exchange for the kids being admitted. They argued that this evidence existed in the transcripts of the interviews. My guess, is this also is why SC not releasing the results of its inquiry is a huge gripe of the defense attorneys (note TMZ is a shrill for the celeb's defense attorneys). The Judge refused, calling it a fishing expedition. So somehow the defense is going to have get USC to admit in testimony they knew and participated in this process or find some other evidence to rebut the other evidence. Stay tuned.....

This case is venued back east. Now if it was LA, there is no doubt in my mind the celeb parents are found not guilty. LA juries never convict celebs unless their weird, like Phil Spector.
Since the original story broke, I haven't really followed the details. So I defer to your knowledge, but doesn't the fact that they paid Singer directly actually help the defendants? They could argue: (i) we paid money - lots of money - to singer to help us, but didn't know what he did with it (bribe Heinel); (ii) we knew Singer had connections, but that's not illegal; (iii) Singer told us a donation to USC would be helpful to admission, so we made it (again not illegal); and (iv) we had already paid Singer separately, the donation to Singer's "charity" was on top of that and something we wanted to do (a stretch).

Regarding the wiretaps, as I recall those were made AFTER Singer began cooperating. So he was calling after the fact and "confirming" what happened. It will be interesting to see to what extent the defendants actually made incriminating statements (as opposed to agreeing with what Singer was saying). I think a jury will view that with suspicion.

Regarding your separate post on the tax charges, I don't think those are being held back as the final hammer. The defendants can serve 45-50 years based on the existing charges - according to Forbes and NPR. I don't think the tax charges are more severe than that. If the feds add those late, it will be a sign of weakness in their case IMO.


I'm sure they will make the argument you made. However, that hinges on creating a reasonable doubt that they knew what Singer was doing. I think there is a lot of evidence that they knew exactly what he was doing. But I don't think it is a great argument to a jury that I gave a guy a ton of money and told him to get my kid into a school and then I didn't find out how he was doing it.

There are plenty of people who make a living assisting kids with college applications and admissions. And that process entails helping kids study for the SAT/ACT. Helping them develop an actual extracurricular profile. Helping them fill out their applications in an advantageous way. Picking the right schools to apply to both for fit and for increasing odds of getting into a right school. Strategizing about legacy admissions, early decision, early action, etc. Helping write essays. They all involve hours of work between the consultant, student and family. They are not, "I want my kid to go to College X. Here is a bag of cash. Make it happen."

And further, they know that their kid did not participate in crew. They went down and screamed at the high school when the high school counselor raised the question to USC admissions about why a kid she knew did not do crew was getting in on the basis of doing crew. I think once you've established that they know full well that bad acts are being done, I think you have a hard time convincing a jury that well, yeah, I knew we were faking all this stuff about my kid but I didn't know everything.

As I said, I think you are stating their argument. I think in theory you can argue it. I also think despite those arguments every single one of us knows exactly what really happened and every single juror will also and it is only if you can tie them up in knots over legal theory that they are going to question the government's version of events here. Frankly, I think the defense has to put on a pretty technical case that will be susceptible to the government making the Caveman Lawyer "I'm just a simple caveman and even I can see what went on here." argument. I think it most likely a jury would say "Yeah, right. You didn't know. pffft!"
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

BearGoggles said:

wifeisafurd said:





I see where you are going. You are ignoring the monthly money to the counselor (who has pled and I assume will testify) to be used for bribes. But you make good points why this is not a slam dunk. There article is not a complete or good discussion of the facts so let me give it a shot, as I understand it (it gets reported on a lot here in LA).

Not in the article, but in the complaint, is the allegation of wiretaps with Singer, where Singer is explaining to the defendants how the schema worked. The folks that got busted were late to the game after Singer had turned and was wire tapping clients as part of his deal. Perhaps the defense lawyers will argue entrapment to get the tapes removed? Also, Laurie and Massimo didn't start this - they heard about Singer from someone who will testify. I assume Singer will also testify.

There also is an evidentiary problem. The couple's attorneys say they need "any statements by Singer as to what he precisely told his clients" about the use of their funds. They also say they need "statements detailing what USC knew of Singer's operation, arguing that if they did know about the operation but accepted money anyway then the university was not bribed or defrauded." This is the problem that SC faces, and would be huge problem for the prosecution, that is not really brought out well in the article (though I tried to point out same in my intro). The big "but" so far may be the lack of evidence. Prosecutors turned over more than 3 million pages of emails, wiretaps and other evidence to defense attorneys. But at a court hearing in June, defense attorneys flagged how the government had not released FBI interviews with parents not charged in the case and interviews with SC. They demanded that evidence be turned over arguing their entire defense turned on finding that SC knew about the "bribes" in that evidence, and really treated them as essentially donations in exchange for the kids being admitted. They argued that this evidence existed in the transcripts of the interviews. My guess, is this also is why SC not releasing the results of its inquiry is a huge gripe of the defense attorneys (note TMZ is a shrill for the celeb's defense attorneys). The Judge refused, calling it a fishing expedition. So somehow the defense is going to have get USC to admit in testimony they knew and participated in this process or find some other evidence to rebut the other evidence. Stay tuned.....

This case is venued back east. Now if it was LA, there is no doubt in my mind the celeb parents are found not guilty. LA juries never convict celebs unless their weird, like Phil Spector.
Since the original story broke, I haven't really followed the details. So I defer to your knowledge, but doesn't the fact that they paid Singer directly actually help the defendants? They could argue: (i) we paid money - lots of money - to singer to help us, but didn't know what he did with it (bribe Heinel); (ii) we knew Singer had connections, but that's not illegal; (iii) Singer told us a donation to USC would be helpful to admission, so we made it (again not illegal); and (iv) we had already paid Singer separately, the donation to Singer's "charity" was on top of that and something we wanted to do (a stretch).

Regarding the wiretaps, as I recall those were made AFTER Singer began cooperating. So he was calling after the fact and "confirming" what happened. It will be interesting to see to what extent the defendants actually made incriminating statements (as opposed to agreeing with what Singer was saying). I think a jury will view that with suspicion.

Regarding your separate post on the tax charges, I don't think those are being held back as the final hammer. The defendants can serve 45-50 years based on the existing charges - according to Forbes and NPR. I don't think the tax charges are more severe than that. If the feds add those late, it will be a sign of weakness in their case IMO.


I'm sure they will make the argument you made. However, that hinges on creating a reasonable doubt that they knew what Singer was doing. I think there is a lot of evidence that they knew exactly what he was doing. But I don't think it is a great argument to a jury that I gave a guy a ton of money and told him to get my kid into a school and then I didn't find out how he was doing it.

There are plenty of people who make a living assisting kids with college applications and admissions. And that process entails helping kids study for the SAT/ACT. Helping them develop an actual extracurricular profile. Helping them fill out their applications in an advantageous way. Picking the right schools to apply to both for fit and for increasing odds of getting into a right school. Strategizing about legacy admissions, early decision, early action, etc. Helping write essays. They all involve hours of work between the consultant, student and family. They are not, "I want my kid to go to College X. Here is a bag of cash. Make it happen."

And further, they know that their kid did not participate in crew. They went down and screamed at the high school when the high school counselor raised the question to USC admissions about why a kid she knew did not do crew was getting in on the basis of doing crew. I think once you've established that they know full well that bad acts are being done, I think you have a hard time convincing a jury that well, yeah, I knew we were faking all this stuff about my kid but I didn't know everything.

As I said, I think you are stating their argument. I think in theory you can argue it. I also think despite those arguments every single one of us knows exactly what really happened and every single juror will also and it is only if you can tie them up in knots over legal theory that they are going to question the government's version of events here. Frankly, I think the defense has to put on a pretty technical case that will be susceptible to the government making the Caveman Lawyer "I'm just a simple caveman and even I can see what went on here." argument. I think it most likely a jury would say "Yeah, right. You didn't know. pffft!"


Love the Caveman lawyer argument. Actually, that logic applies to many, many things.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

BearGoggles said:

wifeisafurd said:





I see where you are going. You are ignoring the monthly money to the counselor (who has pled and I assume will testify) to be used for bribes. But you make good points why this is not a slam dunk. There article is not a complete or good discussion of the facts so let me give it a shot, as I understand it (it gets reported on a lot here in LA).

Not in the article, but in the complaint, is the allegation of wiretaps with Singer, where Singer is explaining to the defendants how the schema worked. The folks that got busted were late to the game after Singer had turned and was wire tapping clients as part of his deal. Perhaps the defense lawyers will argue entrapment to get the tapes removed? Also, Laurie and Massimo didn't start this - they heard about Singer from someone who will testify. I assume Singer will also testify.

There also is an evidentiary problem. The couple's attorneys say they need "any statements by Singer as to what he precisely told his clients" about the use of their funds. They also say they need "statements detailing what USC knew of Singer's operation, arguing that if they did know about the operation but accepted money anyway then the university was not bribed or defrauded." This is the problem that SC faces, and would be huge problem for the prosecution, that is not really brought out well in the article (though I tried to point out same in my intro). The big "but" so far may be the lack of evidence. Prosecutors turned over more than 3 million pages of emails, wiretaps and other evidence to defense attorneys. But at a court hearing in June, defense attorneys flagged how the government had not released FBI interviews with parents not charged in the case and interviews with SC. They demanded that evidence be turned over arguing their entire defense turned on finding that SC knew about the "bribes" in that evidence, and really treated them as essentially donations in exchange for the kids being admitted. They argued that this evidence existed in the transcripts of the interviews. My guess, is this also is why SC not releasing the results of its inquiry is a huge gripe of the defense attorneys (note TMZ is a shrill for the celeb's defense attorneys). The Judge refused, calling it a fishing expedition. So somehow the defense is going to have get USC to admit in testimony they knew and participated in this process or find some other evidence to rebut the other evidence. Stay tuned.....

This case is venued back east. Now if it was LA, there is no doubt in my mind the celeb parents are found not guilty. LA juries never convict celebs unless their weird, like Phil Spector.
Since the original story broke, I haven't really followed the details. So I defer to your knowledge, but doesn't the fact that they paid Singer directly actually help the defendants? They could argue: (i) we paid money - lots of money - to singer to help us, but didn't know what he did with it (bribe Heinel); (ii) we knew Singer had connections, but that's not illegal; (iii) Singer told us a donation to USC would be helpful to admission, so we made it (again not illegal); and (iv) we had already paid Singer separately, the donation to Singer's "charity" was on top of that and something we wanted to do (a stretch).

Regarding the wiretaps, as I recall those were made AFTER Singer began cooperating. So he was calling after the fact and "confirming" what happened. It will be interesting to see to what extent the defendants actually made incriminating statements (as opposed to agreeing with what Singer was saying). I think a jury will view that with suspicion.

Regarding your separate post on the tax charges, I don't think those are being held back as the final hammer. The defendants can serve 45-50 years based on the existing charges - according to Forbes and NPR. I don't think the tax charges are more severe than that. If the feds add those late, it will be a sign of weakness in their case IMO.


I'm sure they will make the argument you made. However, that hinges on creating a reasonable doubt that they knew what Singer was doing. I think there is a lot of evidence that they knew exactly what he was doing. But I don't think it is a great argument to a jury that I gave a guy a ton of money and told him to get my kid into a school and then I didn't find out how he was doing it.

There are plenty of people who make a living assisting kids with college applications and admissions. And that process entails helping kids study for the SAT/ACT. Helping them develop an actual extracurricular profile. Helping them fill out their applications in an advantageous way. Picking the right schools to apply to both for fit and for increasing odds of getting into a right school. Strategizing about legacy admissions, early decision, early action, etc. Helping write essays. They all involve hours of work between the consultant, student and family. They are not, "I want my kid to go to College X. Here is a bag of cash. Make it happen."

And further, they know that their kid did not participate in crew. They went down and screamed at the high school when the high school counselor raised the question to USC admissions about why a kid she knew did not do crew was getting in on the basis of doing crew. I think once you've established that they know full well that bad acts are being done, I think you have a hard time convincing a jury that well, yeah, I knew we were faking all this stuff about my kid but I didn't know everything.

As I said, I think you are stating their argument. I think in theory you can argue it. I also think despite those arguments every single one of us knows exactly what really happened and every single juror will also and it is only if you can tie them up in knots over legal theory that they are going to question the government's version of events here. Frankly, I think the defense has to put on a pretty technical case that will be susceptible to the government making the Caveman Lawyer "I'm just a simple caveman and even I can see what went on here." argument. I think it most likely a jury would say "Yeah, right. You didn't know. pffft!"
I generally agree with what you posted, though I think there are degrees of "knowing." By no means defending what they did (which is gross and unfair), but the government will have to prove that the defendants knew what Singer did was illegal - that he was improperly bribing a USC official or engaging in illegal contact. This is a different situation where parents were paying to change test scores where there was clear knowledge/intent.

Hypothetically, if there were a very influential alum who said "pay me $100,000 and I'll put in a good word for you" would that be illegal? It would be despicable, but absent a bribe to the school, would it be illegal? To my knowledge, paying someone a bunch of money to get you into college is not, by itself, illegal. And as we both know, recommendation letters like that happen all the time (presumably most of the time without an express quid quo pro).

Regarding the college admissions consultants, I think your description is generally correct. Our family used legit companies for both of my sons. However, many of the people in that field are former admissions officers, etc., who 100% use their connections and inside knowledge to facilitate admissions. They get paid for that - sometimes excessively. In many cases it is more corrupt than your description - particularly among the wealthy who can afford big $$. I don't like it, but I don't think its per se illegal.
Cal84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This could go either way at trial. The falsified rowing pictures are pretty strong proof that the parents knew shenanigans were involved. There could be some complications for the prosecution if the amount of money in the check to USC Athletics is much, much larger than the check to Singer's fake charity. But what we haven't yet heard is what Singer will testify to. If he gets up on the stand and says he told the parents it was illegal but no one would find out, then that's pretty strong. Not that the defense wouldn't try to paint him as a liar trying to get a reduced sentence.
hanky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not even trying to troll or be funny. Seriously what's the big deal? Supposing she donated her money legally and treated it legally from a tax perspective...what's the big deal?

Rich people have been paying for access since money was first invented. So she made up some rowing pictures. Big deal. I'm more amazed that rowing actually helps you get into college (which is laughable) than that someone would make up fake rowing stories.
Go!Bears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hanky1 said:

I'm more amazed that rowing actually helps you get into college (which is laughable) than that someone would make up fake rowing stories.
It is real

https://www.oaklandstrokes.org/collegerecruitment

Q: How many spots are there for college rowers across all schools (Division 1, 2 and 3) and how many high school rowers are vying for those spots?

A: There are about 3,000 spots for women and 6,000 for men in college; there are approximately 2,700 girls rowing in high school and 2,434 men.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/550c4a01e4b017278668f3a4/t/5a2ec63f24a694cd61af0f98/1513014847952/College+Recruitment+Q%26A.pdf
bearup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hanky1 said:

I'm not even trying to troll or be funny. Seriously what's the big deal? Supposing she donated her money legally and treated it legally from a tax perspective...what's the big deal?

Rich people have been paying for access since money was first invented. So she made up some rowing pictures. Big deal. I'm more amazed that rowing actually helps you get into college (which is laughable) than that someone would make up fake rowing stories.
Honestly, the whole thing is pretty wack.

I'm learning from the posts of lawyers and others in this thread.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hanky1 said:

I'm not even trying to troll or be funny. Seriously what's the big deal? Supposing she donated her money legally and treated it legally from a tax perspective...what's the big deal?

Rich people have been paying for access since money was first invented. So she made up some rowing pictures. Big deal. I'm more amazed that rowing actually helps you get into college (which is laughable) than that someone would make up fake rowing stories.
1. They didn't donate their money. They paid off individuals. If a school wants to sell a slot because in their opinion having a new library is better than having one more smart student, that is their business. It is their slot to sell and they can determine what size donation benefits the rest of the student body enough to be worth it. In that case at least the students who are accepted benefit. Bribing individuals provides no benefit to anyone but that individual.

2. There are lots of legal schemes with which to part someone from their money. That doesn't mean straight theft is okay.

3. For a lot of history rich people were able to get away with murder. (literally). Slavery. Rape. Lots of awful things. That doesn't mean we should perpetuate it.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

hanky1 said:

I'm not even trying to troll or be funny. Seriously what's the big deal? Supposing she donated her money legally and treated it legally from a tax perspective...what's the big deal?

Rich people have been paying for access since money was first invented. So she made up some rowing pictures. Big deal. I'm more amazed that rowing actually helps you get into college (which is laughable) than that someone would make up fake rowing stories.
1. They didn't donate their money. They paid off individuals. If a school wants to sell a slot because in their opinion having a new library is better than having one more smart student, that is their business. It is their slot to sell and they can determine what size donation benefits the rest of the student body enough to be worth it. In that case at least the students who are accepted benefit. Bribing individuals provides no benefit to anyone but that individual.

2. There are lots of legal schemes with which to part someone from their money. That doesn't mean straight theft is okay.

3. For a lot of history rich people were able to get away with murder. (literally). Slavery. Rape. Lots of awful things. That doesn't mean we should perpetuate it.
All this is correct and let me embellish.

Wealthy families often donate to colleges with the hope, or expectation, that it'll get their kids a leg up in the admissions process. The recent affirmative action trial involving Harvard made this all to apparent, but that still didn't help Asian students, since Harvard won the case. Bottom line is the preference exists, and no one can do anything about it apparently with respect to private schools. This doesn't even get into the legacy preference at Ivy schools, which have an even far more dramatic impact on admissions (which btw, the courts also blessed).

But what is different about the alleged bribery scheme here is that it was much more explicit exchange of holding a recruitment spot for a student in exchange for a set amount of money paid to school individuals without (allegedly) the knowledge of the school. Singer promised to secure admission to USC for the daughters as recruits for the university's crew team, even though neither participated in the sport, Singer arranged fake athletic profiles for the girls, and the feds say Loughlin and Giannulli sent pictures of their daughters using ergometers. Rather than writing a donation check to USC, the Feds allege they had to send $200,000 to Singer through the a non-profit he controlled, for each daughter, plus $50,000 per kid to USC senior associate athletic director Donna Heinel. The Feds allege the checks were directly to Heinel, not USC, which is in dispute apparently. Heinel admitted that she (not USC) pocketed the money. Moreover, the Feds allege that both daughters were presented to USC in their college applications as a Coxswain on the LA Marina Club Team. That goes way beyond simply donating money and expecting some preference to your child's application. This is fabrication and deceit.

So back to Hanky's original question, if they didn't do anything illegal what is the problem? What must be assumed is that they did this the old fashioned way and wrote donation with the expectation that would be a criteria in getting the daughters accepted. That is a different factual scenario then in the present case. But let's say they did this.

When the US Department of Education investigated Harvard's admissions practices in the 1990s, it concluded there was no legal reason that the school couldn't favor wealthy and legacy students who may bring in more donations. Private schools need a large endowment to compete for top faculty, facilities, etc. This led to snarky remarks (many made by me and others on this forum) about USC, the Ivies and Furd when Varsity Blues came out, given the existing undercurrent that too much of society is rigged for the benefit of the rich and privileged in what is supposed to be a meritocracy. But I'm assuming Hanky's point is that this has never been a meritocracy, so what is the problem? Admission preferences have been happening forever, as have other preferences as pointed out by Oak. In fact, our founding fathers were the wealthiest folks in the colonies for the most part. So I guess it depends on your perspective. Here is an article with the arguments for the issue of legacy preference, and the same arguments for the most part apply to donation preferences as well. Should Legacy Admissions Be Allowed? A Debate via @forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2018/10/15/should-schools-be-allowed-to-have-legacy-admissions-a-debate/#2160faea1f5b. Also note Oak's points 2 and 3. I guess the debate can go on, but it simply doesn't reflect the facts being presented in the Laughlin case, as Oak so astutely notes in his first point.



Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.