What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Lori Laughlin & Felicity Huffman BUSTED! (2 Viewers)

El Floppo said:
Sounds like it's more about the mob with the pitchforks not getting satisfaction, than anything to do with what she has or hasn't done?
Click to expand...
Well, he indicated that he wanted her to prove the mob wrong. I took that as demonstrating her innocence at trial. 

 
bigbottom said:
Well, he indicated that he wanted her to prove the mob wrong. I took that as demonstrating her innocence at trial. 
Click to expand...
Not exactly. I’d like her to show the state/feds can’t prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. 
 

I am not claiming some moral high ground here. Sometimes I root for the BGs. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
And, I am not rooting for people who break the law, more just rooting against the mob who think they have them dead to rights. 
Click to expand...
You misspelled "federal prosecutors".   The mob thinks they're guilty.  The government knows they're guilty and have the opportunity to prove it in a court of law.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
eoMMan said:
I saw that there was speculation that the kids might be charged too.  
Click to expand...
Honestly, this would be the only way I'd care about this.  When those kids said their mom ruined their lives by getting them into school, the feds should have dropped the case against the mother and just went after the entitled spoiled brats.

 
CurlyNight said:
Will be interesting to see if she continues to hold her ground. Court date is Jan 17.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/people.com/tv/lori-loughlin-about-to-break-in-wake-additional-federal-charges-family-chaos/amp/
Click to expand...
“Does she regret not taking the deal? Of course she does, because it would have been easier,” says the source. “But taking the deal would have admitted guilt, and she believes she was duped by unscrupulous people who enriched themselves off of her. It is her position that she was not some sort of criminal mastermind.”
Click to expand...
So her defense is going to be she was taken advantage of?  Bold strategy there, Cotton.

 
Judge calls alleged investigator misconduct in Lori Loughlin case 'serious and disturbing'

:popcorn:

BOSTON — A federal judge Friday called allegations of law enforcement misconduct in the nation's college admissions scandal headlined by actress Lori Loughlin "serious and disturbing" as he ordered prosecutors to provide more information in the blockbuster case.

U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton made the comments in a written order as defense attorneys for 14 parents, including Loughlin, seek dismissal of the case because of the alleged misconduct. 

At issue are notes Rick Singer, the mastermind of a nationwide college admissions scheme, took on his iPhone after discussions with FBI investigators on Oct. 2, 2018 about recorded phone calls they directed him to make to parents who were his clients. 

Singer was cooperating with the FBI. He wrote that agents told him to lie and get his clients to restate they were making bribes to college officials – counter to what he claimed he actually told them before they paid him to get their children into college.

"The Court considers the allegations in Singer's October notes to be serious and disturbing," Gorton wrote. "While government agents are permitted to coach cooperating witnesses during the course of an investigation, they are not permitted to suborn the commission of a crime."

The judge did not decide whether to dismiss the case, instead ordering prosecutors to respond to the allegations. The defendants then have until May 1 to respond to the government. 

The U.S. Attorney's Office declined to comment. 

n one note, Singer wrote that FBI officials got "loud and abrasive" and "continue to ask me to tell a fib" about what he told clients before they paid into his scheme.

He said the FBI wanted him to not to restate what he actually told his clients — that they were making a payment to an athletic program, not a college coach.

Defense attorneys say the notes prove their clients' innocence – that parents thought they were making legitimate donations to college programs, not bribing college officials, to get their children admitted into elite colleges. The defense says the government "knowingly withheld" the evidence, which was not turned over until February.

They've also argued the notes, which they first raised in court Feb. 27, undermine "one of the government’s most valued pieces of evidence," ie. secretly recorded phone calls that the FBI had Singer make with his past clients to admit to their crimes. 

"The notes state that agents browbeat Singer and instructed him to lie in order to elicit misleading evidence that was inconsistent with the actual facts that Singer had explained to agents," attorneys for the parents wrote in a motion to dismiss filed last month. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
recorded phone calls they directed him to make to parents who were his clients. 

Singer was cooperating with the FBI. He wrote that agents told him to lie and get his clients to restate they were making bribes to college officials – counter to what he claimed he actually told them before they paid him to get their children into college.

"The Court considers the allegations in Singer's October notes to be serious and disturbing," Gorton wrote. "While government agents are permitted to coach cooperating witnesses during the course of an investigation, they are not permitted to suborn the commission of a crime."

The judge did not decide whether to dismiss the case, instead ordering prosecutors to respond to the allegations. The defendants then have until May 1 to respond to the government. 
Click to expand...
SOP.  You mean they had him 'gasp' LIE! 

What did he expect the FBI to instruct him to not get his clients admit guilt during a recorded phone call?  Of course they would instruct him to get them to admit they paid him to get their kids in.

See the resume of her kid where they have the phony credentials listed in black-and-white.  

We know she has no qualms bribing public officials with large sums of money so lets see what 'judge' decides after 'pondering'  :moneybag:  the case over.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Judge calls alleged investigator misconduct in Lori Loughlin case 'serious and disturbing'

:popcorn:

BOSTON — A federal judge Friday called allegations of law enforcement misconduct in the nation's college admissions scandal headlined by actress Lori Loughlin "serious and disturbing" as he ordered prosecutors to provide more information in the blockbuster case.

U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton made the comments in a written order as defense attorneys for 14 parents, including Loughlin, seek dismissal of the case because of the alleged misconduct. 

At issue are notes Rick Singer, the mastermind of a nationwide college admissions scheme, took on his iPhone after discussions with FBI investigators on Oct. 2, 2018 about recorded phone calls they directed him to make to parents who were his clients. 

Singer was cooperating with the FBI. He wrote that agents told him to lie and get his clients to restate they were making bribes to college officials – counter to what he claimed he actually told them before they paid him to get their children into college.

"The Court considers the allegations in Singer's October notes to be serious and disturbing," Gorton wrote. "While government agents are permitted to coach cooperating witnesses during the course of an investigation, they are not permitted to suborn the commission of a crime."

The judge did not decide whether to dismiss the case, instead ordering prosecutors to respond to the allegations. The defendants then have until May 1 to respond to the government. 

The U.S. Attorney's Office declined to comment. 

n one note, Singer wrote that FBI officials got "loud and abrasive" and "continue to ask me to tell a fib" about what he told clients before they paid into his scheme.

He said the FBI wanted him to not to restate what he actually told his clients — that they were making a payment to an athletic program, not a college coach.

Defense attorneys say the notes prove their clients' innocence – that parents thought they were making legitimate donations to college programs, not bribing college officials, to get their children admitted into elite colleges. The defense says the government "knowingly withheld" the evidence, which was not turned over until February.

They've also argued the notes, which they first raised in court Feb. 27, undermine "one of the government’s most valued pieces of evidence," ie. secretly recorded phone calls that the FBI had Singer make with his past clients to admit to their crimes. 

"The notes state that agents browbeat Singer and instructed him to lie in order to elicit misleading evidence that was inconsistent with the actual facts that Singer had explained to agents," attorneys for the parents wrote in a motion to dismiss filed last month. 
Click to expand...
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Clearly those parents who created fake athletic profiles complete with photoshopped images of their children playing sports they’ve never played knew they were committing fraud. But if there is exculpatory evidence to show that they believed they were making a donation to the school’s athletic programs in conjunction with that fraud, I would think that would serve to undermine a number of the federal charges.

With that said, what I suspect happened here is that Singer didn’t come out and state expressly that they were bribing coaches and athletic directors. He instead gave them a line about a “donation” even though all involved understood what the game was. That’s why they admitted to it on tape after the fact when he did expressly reference the scheme. Indeed, his central marketing strategy for parents was to emphasize that he offered a “side door” to admissions because the “back door” of donating to the school was way too expensive. Given this (together with the fake athletic profiles and the taped admissions), it’s pretty hard to believe that these parents really thought they were making bona fide donations to the school. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Clearly those parents who created fake athletic profiles complete with photoshopped images of their children playing sports they’ve never played knew they were committing fraud. But if there is exculpatory evidence to show that they believed they were making a donation to the school’s athletic programs in conjunction with that fraud, I would think that would serve to undermine a number of the federal charges.

With that said, what I suspect happened here is that Singer didn’t come out and state expressly that they were bribing coaches and athletic directors. He instead gave them a line about a “donation” even though all involved understood what the game was. That’s why they admitted to it on tape after the fact when he did expressly reference the scheme. Indeed, his central marketing strategy for parents was to emphasize that he offered a “side door” to admissions because the “back door” of donating to the school was way too expensive. Given this (together with the fake athletic profiles and the taped admissions), it’s pretty hard to believe that these parents really thought they were making bona fide donations to the school. 
Click to expand...
Apart from the merits of the legal defense, isn't it as much or more important if the prosecution failed to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence (as alleged)?  I'm not a criminal law guy, but I think that's a pretty big no-no that can (and should) give rise to sanctions, including dismissal of the charges.

 
CletiusMaximus said:
Apart from the merits of the legal defense, isn't it as much or more important if the prosecution failed to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence (as alleged)?  I'm not a criminal law guy, but I think that's a pretty big no-no that can (and should) give rise to sanctions, including dismissal of the charges.
Click to expand...
Perhaps @Zow can weigh in here. I don’t know if a witnesses own self-serving notes taken during an investigation constitutes exculpatory evidence, but it very well may. 

 
bigbottom said:
Perhaps @Zow can weigh in here. I don’t know if a witnesses own self-serving notes taken during an investigation constitutes exculpatory evidence, but it very well may. 
Click to expand...
Not surprising here, but this is an absurdly complicated situation that may be dependent on the specific rules and caselaw within the jurisdication. 

On its face, a witness's notes during investigation should almost certainly be disclosed if in possession of the state and is fair game for the defense provided they are exculpatory. Exculpatory could include and mean evidence that impeaches a witness or could lend itself towards the affirmative defense of entrapment in addition to just on its face having a tendency to show that the defendant(s) may not have committed the crimes alleged. 

Now, there could be some other very relevant issues that arise here. First, based on my own cases and how they get reported, we just simply don't know enough from media articles to fully understand the facts of this case. Second, there is some nuance here as, oftetimes despite the language in Brady and other caselaw, courts tend to give some leeway to prosecutors who genuinely don't know about particular information. Third, the remedy here (appeal versus post conviction relief versus dismissal versus some sort of disfavorable jury instruction versus possible harmless error) can be really unclear and complicated.  

 
CletiusMaximus said:
Apart from the merits of the legal defense, isn't it as much or more important if the prosecution failed to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence (as alleged)?  I'm not a criminal law guy, but I think that's a pretty big no-no that can (and should) give rise to sanctions, including dismissal of the charges.
Click to expand...
Yes to the bold but as I described in the post above the remedy isn't always clear. The defense will/should be thrown some pretty big bone if it can be shown that the state had this information and knowingly chose not to disclose. 

I'd also note that as recently made known to the general public via the Netflix series "How to Fix a Drug Scandal" Massacchusettes has had some pretty egg on its face on this very issue. 

 
Prosecutors filed their response yesterday. 

Prosecutors deny misconduct in U.S. college admissions scandal

Nate Raymond

BOSTON (Reuters) - Federal prosecutors on Friday denied that law enforcement engaged in misconduct, fabricated evidence or tried to entrap “Full House” actress Lori Loughlin or other wealthy parents who are now awaiting trial in the U.S. college admissions scandal. 

Prosecutors in a filing sought to counter what a federal judge in Boston last week said were “serious and disturbing” allegations that investigators pushed their cooperating witness to lie and trick parents into making incriminating statements. 

That cooperator was William “Rick” Singer, a college admissions consultant who has admitted to orchestrating a vast scheme to use bribery and other forms of fraud to help wealthy parents secure the admission of their children to top schools. 

Prosecutors acknowledged that investigators directed Singer during recorded calls with the parents to “use ruses,” but said his calls with them were consistent with evidence they had gathered and did not amount to government misconduct. 

“The government did not use Singer to suborn the commission of a crime,” prosecutors wrote. 

Loughlin’s lawyers did not respond to requests for comment. 

To date, 53 people have been charged over a scheme prosecutors say Singer ran to facilitate cheating on college entrance exams and use bribery to secure the admission of various parents’ children to schools as fake athletic recruits. 

Prosecutors allege Loughlin and her fashion designer husband, Mossimo Giannulli, agreed with Singer to pay $500,000 in bribes to have their two daughters named as recruits to the University of Southern California crew team. 

Last month, defense lawyers sought the dismissal of the case, saying Singer’s personal notes demonstrate the calls he placed to parents were an orchestrated “sham” by investigators to entrap them. 

In notes written in October 2018, Singer said FBI agents told him to “tell a fib” during the calls by saying the money they were paying would be used for university donations rather than bribes. 

Prosecutors on Friday said Singer’s notes referred to calls he made during a sting portion of the probe to parents about future or current payments and not to the defendants awaiting trial, who they said were past participants in the scheme. 

Prosecutors said Singer at that time resisted using “blunt language” to refer to the money as bribes. 

Singer told the FBI on Wednesday that while he “always knew he was doing a quid pro quo,” he did not until later realize that was the same thing as bribery, according to interview notes.
Click to expand...
 
bigbottom said:
Loughlin pleads guilty to fraud. Two month prison sentence subject to court approval. Husband’s proposed sentence is five months. 
 

https://www.wcvb.com/article/lori-loughlin-mossimo-giannulli-agree-to-plead-guilty-in-college-admissions-case/32627150
Click to expand...
Yeah, just coming to post that.

I guess they had one shot - get the case dismissed over the failure to turn over the notes, and once that failed, the guilty plea was better than risking punishment after a trial.

 
Osaurus said:
Not at all. She should have listened to her lawyers early on and now she’ll be serving time for not doing so. 
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. She was going to be made an example of no matter what--she was doing some time. 

This sentence IMO actually reflects how shaky the prosecutor's case was. Remember when this case was first revealed, every press outlet was running with the 10 or 20 years she was looking at? At the end of the day, it all goes away in a whisper with her doing a sentence at probably some minimum level facility for maybe 45 days. When she is released, she will make a mint off doing the talk show rounds and the inevitable book deal. I wonder who will play her in the Lifetime movie?  

 
Courtjester said:
I don't know about that. She was going to be made an example of no matter what--she was doing some time. 

This sentence IMO actually reflects how shaky the prosecutor's case was. Remember when this case was first revealed, every press outlet was running with the 10 or 20 years she was looking at? At the end of the day, it all goes away in a whisper with her doing a sentence at probably some minimum level facility for maybe 45 days. When she is released, she will make a mint off doing the talk show rounds and the inevitable book deal. I wonder who will play her in the Lifetime movie?  
Click to expand...
There was also a ton of talk about how since she rejected the early deal and was fighting things that prosecutors would not give her another deal offer and that she was not guaranteed to serve a lot of time if she didn’t win.

 
I don't care much about the prison time, i'm not sure if crimes like that really warrant prison, but I think the fines should be AT LEAST as much as the "crimes" involved.  If you had 0.5M to spend on bribes and fraud, you should be paying at least 0.5M in fines, and you can get rid of the 2 month joke prison time.  Looks like they were fined 0.4M, and that's not enough to me.

 
Courtjester said:
I don't know about that. She was going to be made an example of no matter what--she was doing some time. 

This sentence IMO actually reflects how shaky the prosecutor's case was. Remember when this case was first revealed, every press outlet was running with the 10 or 20 years she was looking at? At the end of the day, it all goes away in a whisper with her doing a sentence at probably some minimum level facility for maybe 45 days. When she is released, she will make a mint off doing the talk show rounds and the inevitable book deal. I wonder who will play her in the Lifetime movie?  
Click to expand...
You can't profit off a federal prison stay like that AFAIK.  Martha Stewart did some charity work surrounding hers to a limited extent.

 
The Tick said:
I don't care much about the prison time, i'm not sure if crimes like that really warrant prison, but I think the fines should be AT LEAST as much as the "crimes" involved.  If you had 0.5M to spend on bribes and fraud, you should be paying at least 0.5M in fines, and you can get rid of the 2 month joke prison time.  Looks like they were fined 0.4M, and that's not enough to me.
Click to expand...
I don’t think rich people should be able to buy themselves out of prison time for their crimes. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guilty verdict reached in trial of 2 parents in college admissions scandal

A guilty verdict was reached Friday afternoon in the trial of John Wilson and Gamal Abdelaziz, two wealthy fathers charged with paying bribes to secure prestigious college spots for their kids under false pretenses.

Wilson and Abdelaziz were the first defendants among about five dozen to stand trial in Boston for charges stemming from the sweeping Operation Varsity Blues scheme.

They pleaded not guilty to fraud and bribery conspiracy charges in the case.

Abdelaziz, a former casino executive from Las Vegas, allegedly paid $300,000 to get his daughter into the University of Southern California as a basketball recruit even though she didn't make her high school varsity team.

Wilson, a former Staples executive, allegedly paid $220,000 to have his son designated as a USC water polo recruit and gave an additional $1 million to get his twin daughters into Harvard and Stanford.

While the two men argued they thought their payments to scheme mastermind Rick Singerwere legitimate donations, the jury agreed with prosecutors that they amounted to bribes to buy their kids' way into those schools.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Frank told jurors during closing arguments: "These parents were not willing to take 'no' for an answer, and to get to 'yes' they crossed a line. In crossing that line, they broke the law."

Jurors deliberated for nearly 11 hours over two days. Abdelaziz will be sentenced Feb. 16 and Wilson on Feb. 17.

Abdelaziz and Wilson's actions were "an affront to hard-working students and parents," acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel Mendell said after the verdict. "The verdict today proves that even these defendants, powerful and privileged people, are not above the law."

The trial featured audio recordings of phone calls between Singer, who pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate in the investigation, and each of the men. Prosecutors argued the calls showed that the fathers understood they were partaking in a scheme.

On a phone call where Abdelaziz is heard saying, "Sabrina is loving USC!" Singer also is heard saying, "I'm not going to tell the IRS that your $300,000 was paid to Donna Heinel at USC to get Sabrina into school even though she wasn't a legitimate basketball player at that level."

"You're OK with that right?" Singer asked.

"Of course," Abdelaziz replied.

"I'm going to say your $300,000 payment was made to our foundation to help underserved kids," Singer said. "I just want to make sure you're OK with that."

"I am," Abdelaziz replied.

Three other parents are expected to face trials in January, and three coaches are scheduled for trails in November.

Four dozen other defendants, including the actresses Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman, opted to plead guilty, and many have already served their sentences.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top