Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Tom Servo

Lori Laughlin & Felicity Huffman BUSTED!

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Da Guru said:

You know some women prisoners are "Licking their chops" to get at Lori.

Full house at the big house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CurlyNight said:

This wasn't some petty crime. She effed up other students lives who should have had a place at USC. The punishment should have been more in at least fines. 

I think you’re confusing Felicity Huffman with Lori Loughlin.  Huffman paid $15,000 to have someone take the SAT for her daughter. As far as I’m aware, her daughter didn’t apply to USC. Loughlin was the one who gave a $500,000 bribe to coaches at USC to get her daughters admitted.

Edited by bigbottom
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll do her some good.  Besides, she'll probably be in the protected crowd.  In prison, dinner for those people is always a big thing. They'll have a pasta course and then meat or fish. Felicity can do the prep work. I read she has this wonderful system for doing the garlic. She uses a razor, and she will slice it so thin that it will liquefy in the pan with just a little oil. It's a very good system.

Edited by RC94
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

I think you’re confusing Felicity Huffman with Lori Loughlin.  Huffman paid $15,000 to have someone take the ACT for her daughter. As far as I’m aware, her daughter didn’t apply to USC. Loughlin was the one who gave a $500,000 bribe to coaches at USC to get her daughters admitted.

Hey, can’t let facts get in the way of a good emotional rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

No, fines are exactly right for this sort of thing.  

The correct solution for white privilege is to treat everybody like we treat white people.  The wrong solution is to treat everyone like we treat black males.

Indeed.  I often wonder if people would be more open to the concept if we called it “black penalty” or “Hispanic penalty.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The correct solution here is that no-names and POCs should not get prison time for non-violent crimes.  Not the other way around.

Free Shkreli, eh?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Capella said:

I know it’s not apples to apples but how did Loughlin not plea? Christ. 

Fed stuff you can plea basically to the point where they say you are guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2019 at 11:38 AM, bigbottom said:

There was also a story about a mom who was indicted for enrolling her daughter in a school using her father's address after there was a break-in at the mom's home while the girl was home alone (and she was being bullied at her school).  After the girl was in the school for a year, they notified her that she had to remove her daughter as they had a PI tail her for two weeks and had evidence that she did not live in the district (mom says her daughter was the only black girl in her class).  She immediately removed her daughter from the school.  17 months later, she was served with an indictment, went to trial and was convicted.  She did 10 days in jail and was hit with a $70,000 fine.

This sounded vaguely familiar to me, but i had zero recollection of the bullying. So i did some digging for past stories about this. Did not find any mention of bullying, probably because that wasnt a buzzword back then. But what i found the most tragic about this story is that her father was later sentenced to a year and died in prison. This basically is getting zero attention. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

This sounded vaguely familiar to me, but i had zero recollection of the bullying. So i did some digging for past stories about this. Did not find any mention of bullying, probably because that wasnt a buzzword back then. But what i found the most tragic about this story is that her father was later sentenced to a year and died in prison. This basically is getting zero attention. 

I think this was the article I read at the time that mentioned the bullying. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/her-only-crime-was-helping-her-kid/597979/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, CurlyNight said:

Wow. Basically a slap on the wrist. If it was a no fame name person of color... smh

If that was a no name person, they're not stupid enough to bribe someone to get into a school. They choose another one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, CurlyNight said:

Wow. Basically a slap on the wrist. If it was a no fame name person of color... smh

Stanford coach who accepted the bribes and got kids admitted didn't do time.  Unknown - slides by.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to say what a poor person would have got since a poor person wouldn't have the money to bribe someone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Leroy Hoard said:

Hard to say what a poor person would have got since a poor person wouldn't have the money to bribe someone.

That is the beauty of bribery. If you get caught, you can just keep bribing people so you can keep getting away with it. 

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/dad-receives-4-months-in-prison-for-paying-dollar250k-to-get-son-into-usc/ar-AAHLUk0?ocid=ientp

Quote

BOSTON – Devin Sloane, a Los Angles business executive, was sentenced Tuesday to four months in prison for paying $250,000 to get his son accepted into the University of Southern California as a fake water polo recruit. 

He is the second parent to be sentenced in Boston federal court in the nation's college admissions scandal after actress Felicity Huffman received 14 days in prison this month.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani also sentenced Sloane to 500 hours of community service over two years and a $95,000 fine. 

"Just because you’re a good person doesn’t mean you don’t commit a crime when you do those things," Talwani said. “I come back to the action you took in bribing a college official. Bribing a college official is a serious crime. You are not a repeat player, but what you did involved your child."

Sloane, 53, is the founder and CEO of waterTALENT, a water treatment company. The judge ordered him to report to prison Dec. 3. 

Sloane and his team of attorneys declined to comment leaving the courthouse. 

The longer prison term for Sloane compared to Huffman means parents who took part in the recruitment plot rather than the testing scam could be in line for tougher sentences. Parents made larger payments to Rick Singer, the admissions scheme's mastermind, to participate in the recruitment plot, which guaranteed a seat at a college or university.

Federal prosecutors had recommended that Sloane receive one year and a day in prison in addition to a $75,000 fine and 12 months of supervised release. Sloane's lawyers said he should be sentenced to 2,000 hours of community service instead of prison and proposed he launch and oversee a Special Olympics initiative at independent schools.   

The judge rejected that idea, noting that Sloane has an exemplary record of community service. "I think those are very good characteristics," she said. "But I don’t understand how it’s punitive." 

"I don’t think that independent school children is the focus of this case," Talwani said when Sloane's lead attorney, Nathan Hochman, suggested the proposal could be a way to help students harmed in the college admission case. "That’s about as tone-deaf as I’ve heard."

In a deal with prosecutors, Sloane pleaded guilty in May to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud. 

Sloane choked up addressing the judge Tuesday and apologized to his family and the judge. “There are no words to justify my behavior," he said, adding that he takes "complete responsibility" for his actions.

"Some people see this as a case of privilege and arrogance. In my heart and soul, I wanted what was best for my son. I now realize this was the antitheses of that."

But Talwani pushed back, making a statement about the entire admissions scandal. 

“I find that’s at issue in all of these cases. It’s not basic care-taking for your child. It’s not getting your child food or clothing. It’s not even getting your child an education. It’s getting your child into a college that you call ‘exclusive.’”

"Are they doing this for their children or their own status?”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Rosen argued Sloane’s conduct was “far more egregious” than Huffman’s, noting he paid “17 times the bribe amount” to Singer. Rosen argued Sloane did not accept responsibility like Huffman did.  

“Huffman has owned her criminal activity, while the defendant attacked the victim and blamed others,” Rosen said.

He argued Sloane's proposal for significant community service would not be available to the poor and middle class.   

“Make no mistake, he is using his wealth to attempt to buy his way out of jail,” Rosen said. “Prison is necessary here as a great leveler between rich and poor, and that’s why the defendant is doing everything possible here to avoid it.”

According to prosecutors, Sloane paid $200,000 to Singer's sham nonprofit group, the Key Worldwide Foundation, and $50,000 to USC Women's Athletics through Donna Heinel, a former senior associate athletic director at USC, who has pleaded not guilty to charges.

The payments came in 2017 and 2018 after Sloane's son was fraudulently admitted to USC as an internationally accomplished water polo recruit – which he was not. 

Hochman told the judge Sloane was a "good man who made a mistake" and that 2,000 hours of community service would be unprecedented, making it an appropriate punishment instead of prison.

But Talwani interjected at several moments to disagree with his defense, including when Hochman disputed that Sloane knew Heinel received bribe money. He said his client did not know what Singer did with the money.  

“Your client didn’t know how the messy details were being worked out," Talwani said. "But he understood the money was being used to bribe a USC official."

Hochman painted Singer as a "world-class scheme and manipulator" and suggested that Sloane would not have committed the crime if not for Singer. That also drew sharp disagreement from the judge.

"Why is that the question?" Talwani said, noting that she has defendants come before her court regularly who have been offered a “financial route” to sell drugs or commit other crimes. “Why does it matter that somebody invited him?”

Fifty-two defendants, including 35 parents, were charged with crimes in the nation's "Varsity Blues" college admissions scheme. Twenty-three defendants pleaded guilty to felonies; the remaining pleaded not guilty.

The government has pushed for longer prison terms for parents, such as Sloane, who made among the largest payments in the scheme. In contrast, Huffman paid $15,000 to have someone correct answers on the SAT exam for her oldest daughter. Prosecutors sought one month of prison for Huffman.

A ruling earlier this month from Talwani on which federal sentencing guidelines to use might have led to a lighter prison term than prosecutors had sought for Sloane. The judge decided the federal fraud statute should set the base level for sentences of parents in the admissions case. The government requested the tougher commercial bribery statue to apply.

The college admissions case continues Thursday in Boston federal court when Stephen Semprevivo, a former executive at Cydcor, is scheduled to be sentenced. Semprevivo admitted paying $400,000 for his son to be admitted into Georgetown University as a fake tennis recruit. Semprevivo's legal team watched Sloane's hearing from inside the courtroom.

Edited by bigbottom
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This dad made all the same arguments its sounds like Loughlin and her husband intend to make and this Judge pretty much shot them all down.  I wonder if this is the same judge that will be hearing Loughlin's case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Federal prosecutors had recommended that Sloane receive one year and a day in prison in addition to a $75,000 fine and 12 months of supervised release. Sloane's lawyers said he should be sentenced to 2,000 hours of community service instead of prison and proposed he launch and oversee a Special Olympics initiative at independent schools.   

The judge rejected that idea, noting that Sloane has an exemplary record of community service. "I think those are very good characteristics," she said. "But I don’t understand how it’s punitive." 

"I don’t think that independent school children is the focus of this case," Talwani said when Sloane's lead attorney, Nathan Hochman, suggested the proposal could be a way to help students harmed in the college admission case. "That’s about as tone-deaf as I’ve heard."

Perhaps my interpretation is wrong, but is the judge stating that because Sloane already volunteers within the community and provides community service outside of judicial intervention she wouldn't impose more community service? Seems like you had a guy that was willing to do a year of volunteer work and she threw it away to put him in jail for four months. seems counter-intuitive to me.

Also, guess I won't volunteer so if I a judge ever has to choose between community service and jail for me, community service will still appear punitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gawain said:

Perhaps my interpretation is wrong, but is the judge stating that because Sloane already volunteers within the community and provides community service outside of judicial intervention she wouldn't impose more community service? Seems like you had a guy that was willing to do a year of volunteer work and she threw it away to put him in jail for four months. seems counter-intuitive to me.

Also, guess I won't volunteer so if I a judge ever has to choose between community service and jail for me, community service will still appear punitive.

I don't read that the same way as you. It wasn't either/or. The prosecution asked for a year with no community service. The defense asked for 2000 hours of community service with no time inside. She gave him both--four months inside and 500 hours of community service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Christo said:

I don't read that the same way as you. It wasn't either/or. The prosecution asked for a year with no community service. The defense asked for 2000 hours of community service with no time inside. She gave him both--four months inside and 500 hours of community service.

Ahh, I glossed over the 500 hour part. Thanks for pointing it out.

It's odd that the bribor (?) is getting punished more than the bribee (?). Is that normally the case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s this that particularly galls me:

“Sloane's lawyers said he should be sentenced to 2,000 hours of community service instead of prison and proposed he launch and oversee a Special Olympics initiative at independent schools.  “

Oh, was bribing somebody to get what I wanted wrong? Why don’t I just throw a few dinner parties and we’ll forget about the whole thing?

Taking away his freedom for even a little bit is about the only way to really punish him. Clearly financial penalties weren’t going to curtail this behavior at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Gawain said:

Ahh, I glossed over the 500 hour part. Thanks for pointing it out.

It's odd that the bribor (?) is getting punished more than the bribee (?). Is that normally the case?

Where do you see this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said:

These people that bribed their kids' ways into college suck, but jail time for it just seems dumb to me. 

I agree with this:

“Make no mistake, he is using his wealth to attempt to buy his way out of jail,” Rosen said. “Prison is necessary here as a great leveler between rich and poor, and that’s why the defendant is doing everything possible here to avoid it.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bigbottom said:
  Quote

It’s not basic care-taking for your child. It’s not getting your child food or clothing. It’s not even getting your child an education. It’s getting your child into a college that you call ‘exclusive.’”

Nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have a question, though. Why should it be illegal to give money in a quid pro quo way for admission to a private institution?

That seems odd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Christo said:

Where do you see this?

From Sands link:

On 9/14/2019 at 11:20 AM, Sand said:

Stanford coach who accepted the bribes and got kids admitted didn't do time.  Unknown - slides by.

Guy had one day, with credit for time served. While he stated that he didn't personally benefit, I doubt that statement carries much weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rockaction said:

I do have a question, though. Why should it be illegal to give money in a quid pro quo way for admission to a private institution?

That seems odd. 

As far as I know it's not, it's just prohibitively expensive even for these relatively rich individuals.  Think in terms of cost of a new building. That wasn't what was happening here.

They were giving money to an individual associated with the institution (mainly coaches) and that individual would arrange scholarships and admission as an athlete. The school never actually got the money. Then they were claiming the money paid as a donation to a charitable organization for a tax write off.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rockaction said:

I do have a question, though. Why should it be illegal to give money in a quid pro quo way for admission to a private institution?

That seems odd. 

What happened here is fraud. Giving money to the school in exchange for admission of your kid is perfectly legal, but  the price tag would have been much higher. What happened here was a conspiracy to falsify admissions documents and perpetrate a fraud (not to mention the crime of deducting self-serving bribes as charitable contributions on your taxes).

edit:  what buckychudd said

Edited by bigbottom
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those two comments answered my question. I think I had a brain cramp for a moment. I hadn't remembered the way in which this was done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 7:38 PM, IvanKaramazov said:

No, fines are exactly right for this sort of thing.  

The correct solution for white privilege is to treat everybody like we treat white people.  The wrong solution is to treat everyone like we treat black males.

While I agree that fines are appropriate here, I'm not sure I agree that prison is never appropriate for non-violent crimes.  For example, when politicians and other wealthy/powerful "elite" bilk people out of hundreds of millions, fining them a few million isn't appropriate and isn't a deterrent.  The Equifax folks who sold their stock just prior to disclosing the security breach probably deserve jail time.  The guys here probably deserve jail time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

While I agree that fines are appropriate here, I'm not sure I agree that prison is never appropriate for non-violent crimes.  For example, when politicians and other wealthy/powerful "elite" bilk people out of hundreds of millions, fining them a few million isn't appropriate and isn't a deterrent.  The Equifax folks who sold their stock just prior to disclosing the security breach probably deserve jail time.  The guys here probably deserve jail time.

It's a really tough debate to have, but I err more on the side of prison than not. Just not gen pop. There are too many odious and disgusting things one can do in violation of the law or someone else's rights, even, that deserve incarceration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is a $75,000 fine an adequate deterrent for multi-millionaires?  And volunteering to set up a Special Olympics event as a punishment?  It is a joy and a privilege to engage in public service of that sort.  Maybe if you made the guy do 2,000 hours cleaning toilets at government-owned rest stops along the highway.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bigbottom said:

How is a $75,000 fine an adequate deterrent for multi-millionaires?  And volunteering to set up a Special Olympics event as a punishment?  It is a joy and a privilege to engage in public service of that sort.  Maybe if you made the guy do 2,000 hours cleaning toilets at government-owned rest stops along the highway.

i agree bromigo and i think it says a lot and none of it good about this jagbag that he considers volunteering for something awesome that is good for your soul to be a punishment take that to the bank 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rockaction said:

Those two comments answered my question. I think I had a brain cramp for a moment. I hadn't remembered the way in which this was done. 

Then again I would have no problem with someone paying 250k to get their kid into USC.  That would pay for a number of low income kids to get a free ride.  Seems like a win/win.  

3 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I do not believe the rich should be treated differently by our justice system.  I do believe that the hot should, however.

The same can be said for our immigration system.  Bikini models of Venezuela - welcome!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Gawain said:

From Sands link:

Guy had one day, with credit for time served. While he stated that he didn't personally benefit, I doubt that statement carries much weight.

Looks like it was considered:

But Vandemoer never pocketed any of that money, using it instead to buy boats and gear for the sailing program. On Wednesday, a judge kept asking prosecutors, how is that a bribe?

The article also pointed out that he was one of the first to admit what he did and plead guilty. Also important was no one was denied admission to Stanford as a result of his actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I do not believe the rich should be treated differently by our justice system.  I do believe that the hot should, however.

Lori should be required to make Chained Heat 3.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, CurlyNight said:

Can't wait to see what happens to smug Lori.

that seems mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2019 at 9:53 PM, Rustoleum said:

It’s this that particularly galls me:

“Sloane's lawyers said he should be sentenced to 2,000 hours of community service instead of prison and proposed he launch and oversee a Special Olympics initiative at independent schools.  “

Oh, was bribing somebody to get what I wanted wrong? Why don’t I just throw a few dinner parties and we’ll forget about the whole thing?

Taking away his freedom for even a little bit is about the only way to really punish him. Clearly financial penalties weren’t going to curtail this behavior at all.

 

So I totally understand the outrage. And realize how completely unfair that sentence would be.

But aren't we better off as a society if that is his sentence instead of prison time? 

I guess that goes to what is the point of the penalty in a criminal justice system. Is it punishment? Retribution? To make sure the person doesn't do the harm again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, whoknew said:

 

So I totally understand the outrage. And realize how completely unfair that sentence would be.

But aren't we better off as a society if that is his sentence instead of prison time? 

I guess that goes to what is the point of the penalty in a criminal justice system. Is it punishment? Retribution? To make sure the person doesn't do the harm again?

Dollars to donuts he was already planning on something similar to the Special Olympics initiative. And to answer your question, both punishment and rehabilitation (assuming that's what you meant by "retribution"). I think society is still served if he has to cool his heels in the slammer a little bit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whoknew said:

 

So I totally understand the outrage. And realize how completely unfair that sentence would be.

But aren't we better off as a society if that is his sentence instead of prison time? 

I guess that goes to what is the point of the penalty in a criminal justice system. Is it punishment? Retribution? To make sure the person doesn't do the harm again?

Well, a big big big part of it in my eyes is to at least make it seem like people with money don’t get to play by a different set of rules when they get caught. They already clearly have a head start when it comes to the quality of the legal defense they can mount.

If it was really about punishment, if anything, his sentence should be longer. A few months in the slammer for me would almost cost the roof over my family’s head and probably knock us semi-permanently to poverty level or build so much debt  I’d spend the rest of my life trying to dig out of.A few months to this guy is a sabbatical.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/students-parents-both-sentenced-to-month-in-prison-in-college-admission-scam/ar-AAItkG1?ocid=ientp

A New York man and his wife were each sentenced on Tuesday a month behind bars for paying a college-admission fixer to boost their daughter's SAT and ACT scores.

Gregory and Marcia Abbott will also have to complete a year of supervised release, pay a $45,000 fine and perform 250 hours of community service each, under sentences handed down in Boston by U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani

The couple had already pleaded guilty in May to a single count each of fraud and conspiracy, paying $125,000 to ring leader Rick Singer for someone to correct answers on their daughter's college board exams.

"My husband and I were both motivated by good intentions ... but this does not excuse our actions," Marcia Abbott told Talwani, before the sentences were handed down, according to NBC Boston.

"I stand before you today extremely contrite and remorseful," she said.

Prosecutors had asked Talwani to sentence the Abbotts to eight months in prison each. Defense lawyers had sought probation for the pair.

The couple paid $50,000 to have a test proctor correct their daughter's ACT exam answers in 2018, and then another $75,000 to fix her SAT.

"I knew my daughter was getting some help that was outside the rules," Gregory Abbott told the judge before sentencing.

The judge ordered the couple's sentences to be staggered, in order to maximize time at least one of them could be at home with their three children.

Gregory Abbott was ordered to report to federal prison on Nov. 20, while Marcia Abbott won't have to turn herself in until Jan. 3.

Gregory Abbott lives on Manhattan's Upper East Side and took a leave of absence from his role as chairman and CEO of International Dispensing Corp. Marcia Abbott, a former fashion editor at Family Circle magazine, lives in Aspen, Colorado.

The Princeton alum Gregory Abbott received some backing from his college classmate Andrew Napolitano, a retired New Jersey judge and who now works as a legal analyst for Fox News.

The "Greg Abbott I know is among the more honest, decent, selfless persons I have ever known," Napolitano wrote, on FNC letterhead, in a letter to Talwani. "His honesty is so deep, I would entrust all that I own to his care with no qualm or hesitation."

The Abbotts are among more than a dozen rich parents caught in the federal probe dubbed "Operation Varsity Blues." Parents in the scam were accused of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to have their children's test scores boosted or to have them passed off as top athletes in order to gain special admission to elite universities.

TV actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin were the biggest names caught up in the wide-ranging scandal.

Huffman was sentenced to 14 days behind bars and the prosecutor overseeing the case said he wants Loughlin to get more time if she's convicted or pleads guilty.

And last week, 53-year-old Greenwich, Connecticut lawyer Gordon Caplan was sentenced to one month behind bars. He pleaded guilty in May to a single count of fraud and conspiracy, for paying $75,000 to Singer so a proctor could correct his daughter's ACT answers last year.

Prosecutors requested a sentence of eight months in prison for Caplan, though defense lawyers said he deserved no more than 14 days in prison.

 

If I were the judge, the bolded statement (which pretty much everyone is making in these guilty plea proceedings) would annoy me.  You weren't motivated by good intentions.  You were trying to cheat the system to benefit your own.  Are you motivated by good intentions if you rob a bank so you can buy your kid a car?

Edited by bigbottom
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My prediction is that Loughlin and husband get convicted at trial and get a six month sentence.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2019 at 8:20 PM, Christo said:

Dollars to donuts he was already planning on something similar to the Special Olympics initiative. And to answer your question, both punishment and rehabilitation (assuming that's what you meant by "retribution"). I think society is still served if he has to cool his heels in the slammer a little bit.

How much does four months in prison cost society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

 

The judge ordered the couple's sentences to be staggered, in order to maximize time at least one of them could be at home with their three children.

Gregory Abbott was ordered to report to federal prison on Nov. 20, while Marcia Abbott won't have to turn herself in until Jan. 3.

 

Kind of a contradiction.  Should have overlapped the sentences to really #### up the kids lives.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bigbottom said:

My prediction is that Loughlin and husband get convicted at trial and get a six month sentence.

And that her appearance will be immaculate because never waste a photo op.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.