Admissions scandal

Discussion in 'In The Stands' started by Joe Fan, Mar 12, 2019.

  1. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    Lori and her hubby were in court today - sticking with their plan to be represented by the same law team. Lori Loughlin returns to court for college admissions scandal case.

    According to the article, that would make an appeal more difficult - I'm not a lawyer, so I don't understand the implications. Any of you lawyers explain that in plain English?
     
  2. LonghornCatholic

    LonghornCatholic Romantic Catholic

    Sure. That gurl gunna burn. In Latin - Conbustio Gurlio :hookem:
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
  3. SabreHorn

    SabreHorn 5,000+ Posts

    Sorry, people. it's government grunts vs Latham Watkins. There's a reason attorneys work for those two.

    LW = at or near the top of their class

    other group = not so much
     
  4. MajesticII

    MajesticII 1,000+ Posts

    Surely she has the money to walk..... If that former NBA player can assault a woman, have the video ( surveillance ) of him assaulting her played in court, have a witness testify that the woman was yelling for help; and get acquitted for sexual assault....sheeesh....Anyone with $$$$ can walk.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    ^Possibly - but this case is federal, and the feds have better lawyers than the locals. Hard to believe the feds would have gone forward unless they believe they have an airtight case. Guess we'll see.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  6. ViperHorn

    ViperHorn 5,000+ Posts

    I have worked with and against LW on environmental law issues and they are good but beatable. It will be interesting to see who the Dept. of Justice puts in as lead if (and it is a big if) they actually go to trial. If the Feds force a split of defense teams all hell could breakout. :popcorn:

    HHD, generally the Feds do not go to trial unless they think they have the goods to win. They had the goods on Cuban but got lazy, and he got off on a technicality.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2019
  7. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    Viper, thanks for sharing your insight - appreciate your thoughts. When you say "big if," in my non-lawyer mind, that implies two possible alternatives - (1) the feds drop the case (I find that very difficult to fathom; they wouldn't have gone this far unless they think they have an ironclad case) or (2) Lori and her hubby will agree to a plea deal prior to trial (and according to all the news reports, the feds won't agree to a deal unless it includes prison time). Have I thought this through correctly, or is there something I'm missing?
     
  8. ViperHorn

    ViperHorn 5,000+ Posts

    ^^^
    You have it down HHD. Remember there are all kinds of branches to this case, so dropping the case by the Feds is not in the cards. They are probably in the process now of pressing both sides to get one to break. I would suspect harder on the husband because is a no-body compared to her. If he breaks and dumps on her he will probably get 5 years probation or little to no jail time.
     
  9. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    Looks like Huffman will go to court this coming Friday for sentencing. Apparently she will be the first in the Varsity Blues scandal to be sentenced, and she is asking for no prison time. Federal prosecutors argue for prison time for Felicity Huffman in cheating scam: 'She knew it was wrong'.

    I find it hard to believe that the government or the judge will agree to this, since it would set a precedent - and there are several defendants who pled "Not Guilty" and will go to trial. Lawyers out there - am I looking at this wrong? Is setting a precedent important to the Government?
     
  10. SabreHorn

    SabreHorn 5,000+ Posts

    What is important to the government is they cannot afford to lose, thereby setting the precedent. I have had my doubts all along that any of this will get inside the courtroom.

    Again, it is real lawyers versus government grunts.
     
  11. BevoJoe

    BevoJoe 5,000+ Posts

    Feds are tough. I don't practice criminal law, but as I recall if the accused agrees to make plea of guilty, some charges may be dropped and the severity of the punishment lessened, such as prison/jail time reduced or a longer probation period placed on the accused. If the person pleas not guilty and declines a plea deal for lesser sentence, it becomes "all or nothing meaning", the judge or jury, provided a jury trial is requested, returns a guilty verdict, then sentencing can be the max for egregious offences and per the charges and sentencing guidelines for similar offences, or the minimum depending also on the circumstances. The sentencing phase follows the hearing on guilt or innocence to determine punishment. The Judge adjourns court or may go straight into the sentencing/punishment phase of the trial and the judge and/or the jury will hear both sides argue about the person's background, community involvement and so on. The jury, if one was requested, decides the sentence (jail time and penalty to be paid) and gives a recommendation to the judge who pronounces the sentences in court sometimes immediately or may adjourn to review all facts and circumstances and the law and pronounce sentence later. Notice of appeal has to be filed generally within 30 days of sentencing. There's a lot of politicking in State courts by folks who may have been instrumental (financially) to assist in the judge's election campaign and election, but Federal Judges are appointed for a term or for life depending on the court and not generally susceptible to such pressures unless funds magically pass under the table, but that is very rare.

    I understand that she was found guilty, then sentenced to 30 day jail term and a fine of $250,000 but haven't seen this reported yet or if there will be an appeal filed. Hope all this helps some.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2019
  12. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    ^BevoJoe, thanks for the insight - appreciate your sharing your knowledge. It seems to be that the Government would want to watch the first case carefully, as it sets a precedent for upcoming cases. I just don't believe they'll agree to zero jail time - perhaps very minimum, but not zero.

    Next question - if Felicity does get a very light minimum jail-time sentence, will that cause some of those who entered a "Not Guilty" plea to reconsider and try for a deal in exchange for a "Guilty" plea - or have they already missed that opportunity?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
  13. BevoJoe

    BevoJoe 5,000+ Posts

    You're welcome HornHusker.

    To answer your second question, I will say, perhaps. They may see their opportunity to make a plea deal for zero jail time and a reduced penalty, and ask their attorney to approach the prosecution to see if they can plead out. The prosecution may take one of two positions. Offer the same deal from the individual previously tried and convicted received, but no trial, or the same penalty with less, maybe no jail but longer probation, or some other combination. Primarily, it depends on the facts and circumstances being the same or similar to the person's case where that person was adjudicated guilty. Prosecutors are usually amenable do a deal since they get credit for a guilty verdict because the accused announces in open court they are guilty of the charges. If the Judge agrees with the terms of the deal, the Judge will review with the accused and then pronounces them guilty and sets the punishment according to the terms the prosecutor has set forth. That is generally how it works, but federal criminal courts may have some slightly different procedures. Generally, as I recall, a deal can be reached at any time prior to the beginning of the trial, even post voir dire and seating of the jury. I do not know if, in Federal Court, once the trial has begun, if the accused can change their verdict. I can see it going either way. Let me know if you have additional question.
     
  14. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    Well, the first sentencing is in, and it does involve prison time (although not very much) - Felicity Huffman sentenced to 14 days in prison in college admissions scandal. I'm guessing the government is less than happy with the length of the sentence, but happy that it does include prison time - sets the precedent for the rest of the cases.

    It will be interesting to see what some of the "Not Guilty" folks (Lori Loughlin, specifically) do now that they see Felicity getting a light sentence - maybe there will be some plea deals.
     
  15. ViperHorn

    ViperHorn 5,000+ Posts

    14 days is less than a slap on the wrist and is an afront to everyone who did less and got more. I heard this morning that by pleading Not Guilty Loughlin opened herself up to a maximum prison sentence of 40 years.
     
  16. zuckercanyon

    zuckercanyon 1,000+ Posts

    Sooooo y'all are surprised that rich people got good legal representation (if not great) and "beat the rap"?
     
    • Hot Hot x 1
  17. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    Zuckercanyon, I'm not sure we can say that she "beat the rap." Yes, she is getting a slap-on-the-wrist jail sentence and a pocket-change fine - but she is still going to jail and she is a convicted felon. Being a convicted felon will follow her for the rest of her life.
     
  18. zuckercanyon

    zuckercanyon 1,000+ Posts

    Maybe she won’t be hired as an actress anymore. Still not wearing the orange jumpsuit long...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. BevoJoe

    BevoJoe 5,000+ Posts

    Well, shes still a convicted felon. That doesn't go away. Same will happen to the others whether they plead out or go to trial and found guilty. Of course my thought is they all have more wealth than most folks can imagine, and will be back in their trite, airheaded group of friends anyway. AND, the others that plead guilty can point to this case for lesser time and/or fine.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019
  20. ViperHorn

    ViperHorn 5,000+ Posts

    No doubt Joe. They are only sorry they got caught. Money talks.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  21. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Seems like she overpaid?

    "Prosecutors unsealed charges on Tuesday against a woman who they said had paid a consultant $400,000 to get her son admitted to the University of California, Los Angeles, as a recruit for the soccer team. The charges added another defendant to the Justice Department’s sprawling college admissions prosecution.

    The woman, Xiaoning Sui, 48, was arrested by Spanish authorities on Monday night and was being held in Spain, according to the office of Andrew Lelling, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts. The office said it would seek her extradition to Boston to face the charges.

    The charges against Ms. Sui bring the number of wealthy parents who have been charged in the fraudulent admissions scheme to 35, a group that includes the Hollywood actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin. Ms. Huffman pleaded guilty to a fraud charge and was sentenced on Friday to 14 days in prison; she will begin serving her sentence next month. Ms. Loughlin, who is charged with fraud and money laundering, has pleaded not guilty...."

     
  22. SabreHorn

    SabreHorn 5,000+ Posts

    That has to be fake news. An Asian woman paying to get her kid into the school known as “University of Caucasians Lost Among Asians”?

    Kid must be dumber than a bag of hair.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  23. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    That does seem a bit far-fetched, spending a ton of money to get admission to UCLA. But I'm betting the feds would not publicize it and seek extradition if they didn't have a solid case.
     
  24. SabreHorn

    SabreHorn 5,000+ Posts

    I'd bet that the feds want to coerce her cooperation in a different kind of case
     
  25. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    I notice that no parents were dumb enough to pay a bribe to get a child admitted to Zero U. :ousucks:
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  26. Austin_Bill

    Austin_Bill 2,500+ Posts

    Am I really the only person in America that DGAF?

    Seriously, who cares if some rich witch and her friends pay extra to get their kids into USC/Texas or any other school. How many rich dudes got their kids into Ivy league schools with a nice donation.

    Am I the only one that saw Back to School?

    This isn't insider trading, or Bribing government officials for a gov contract. This is rich a$$ parents trying to get their dumbass kids into a good school.

    Really, I think there are better things the feds could be working on.

    Maybe they should be looking at how Clinton got her dumbass daughter into Stanford. Or how that girl got the jobs she got right out of college with no experience.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  27. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

  28. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Paid "hundreds of thousands" to get one kid into Georgetown, the other into USC

     
  29. n64ra

    n64ra 500+ Posts

    jail for a week?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  30. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Federal prisoner
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page