Bill from NYC Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, KD in CA said: The difference between this and the bartender example is here the parties exchanging money were conspiring to defraud a 3d party (the school). But no question the people who should receive the longest prison sentences are the coaches or whoever at the university were accepting the money and those who took payments to subvert the integrity of the SATs. Hopefully that's happening, but that doesn't generate public interest like the former hottie from Full House. I hear ya but from what I understand, this took place at USC, a private school, no? I'm not a lawyer (my daughter and son in-law are) but I am thinking that the intent was simply admission to a private school. I know that virtually every school gets some federal funding too, but so do folks on social security. Like I said, I don't know enough about the case but I fail to see a bribe here. Edit: My big tip at a bar could be to encourage free drinks, which would be at the expense of the bar. Confusing but interesting stuff.
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said: I hear ya but from what I understand, this took place at USC, a private school, no? I'm not a lawyer (my daughter and son in-law are) but I am thinking that the intent was simply admission to a private school. I know that virtually every school gets some federal funding too, but so do folks on social security. Like I said, I don't know enough about the case but I fail to see a bribe here. Edit: My big tip at a bar could be to encourage free drinks, which would be at the expense of the bar. Confusing but interesting stuff. The crime was that they paid someone to create a fraudulent scholastic record. It's not the exchange of money itself, it's the "service" of creating a fake high school transcript and record, and then using that to fraudulently get athletic scholarships.
Bill from NYC Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 Just now, DC Tom said: The crime was that they paid someone to create a fraudulent scholastic record. It's not the exchange of money itself, it's the "service" of creating a fake high school transcript and record, and then using that to fraudulently get athletic scholarships. OK, so we are not talking about bribery?
row_33 Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: The crime was that they paid someone to create a fraudulent scholastic record. It's not the exchange of money itself, it's the "service" of creating a fake high school transcript and record, and then using that to fraudulently get athletic scholarships. . they weren't talented and they are super stoooopid as well you have to be at least one of talented or booksmart or quota filling
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 Just now, Bill from NYC said: OK, so we are not talking about bribery? We are...in that college officials were bribed to accept fake scholastic records. People like Felicity Huffman didn't just "bribe" schools to accept their kids - that's not illegal, it's called "paying tuition." Technically, I'm guilty of it - got into grad school on the agreement I'd pay tuition out-of-pocket and not take aid. But what they did was "hire" an outside "consultant" to create fake high school records, then bribe school officials to accept the fake high school records and grant scholarships to their kids. That is definitely fraud and bribery, and is illegal. And probably more expensive than if they'd just asked "Can my kid go to your school if we make a donation and pay her tuition?"
row_33 Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: We are...in that college officials were bribed to accept fake scholastic records. People like Felicity Huffman didn't just "bribe" schools to accept their kids - that's not illegal, it's called "paying tuition." Technically, I'm guilty of it - got into grad school on the agreement I'd pay tuition out-of-pocket and not take aid. But what they did was "hire" an outside "consultant" to create fake high school records, then bribe school officials to accept the fake high school records and grant scholarships to their kids. That is definitely fraud and bribery, and is illegal. And probably more expensive than if they'd just asked "Can my kid go to your school if we make a donation and pay her tuition?" for degrees that are not garnering 100 applicants for each admission, entrance rules are bent to justify holding the classes
Bill from NYC Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: We are...in that college officials were bribed to accept fake scholastic records. People like Felicity Huffman didn't just "bribe" schools to accept their kids - that's not illegal, it's called "paying tuition." Technically, I'm guilty of it - got into grad school on the agreement I'd pay tuition out-of-pocket and not take aid. But what they did was "hire" an outside "consultant" to create fake high school records, then bribe school officials to accept the fake high school records and grant scholarships to their kids. That is definitely fraud and bribery, and is illegal. And probably more expensive than if they'd just asked "Can my kid go to your school if we make a donation and pay her tuition?" But Tom in federal law, does one have to be a public servant to take a bribe as is the case in NYS Law? If so, I would love to be her lawyer. USC is a private school.
apuszczalowski Posted January 8, 2020 Posted January 8, 2020 10 hours ago, Bill from NYC said: But Tom in federal law, does one have to be a public servant to take a bribe as is the case in NYS Law? If so, I would love to be her lawyer. USC is a private school. From my understanding of this whole situation, the problem was they didn't pay the right people. Had they paid the school directly, in the form of a 'donation' (although usually by an alumni) they would be fine and an acceptable way for a child to get into a school. What they did was pay an organization to help get their child admitted into the school and the organization was not affiliated with the school. In order to get them in, the organization either falsified their test results or made fake records showing them as part of a sport team to get them into the school. I believe the charges are more about fraud then bribery and were a big deal cause it involves celebrities. They want to use Laughlin as an example because she didn't roll over and accept the plea deals they originally offered. What makes most of this laughable is that they make it out to be like colleges are so upstanding and only the best of the best are accepted and would never let someone in based on money.....
Bill from NYC Posted January 8, 2020 Posted January 8, 2020 (edited) On 1/7/2020 at 9:57 PM, apuszczalowski said: From my understanding of this whole situation, the problem was they didn't pay the right people. Had they paid the school directly, in the form of a 'donation' (although usually by an alumni) they would be fine and an acceptable way for a child to get into a school. What they did was pay an organization to help get their child admitted into the school and the organization was not affiliated with the school. In order to get them in, the organization either falsified their test results or made fake records showing them as part of a sport team to get them into the school. I believe the charges are more about fraud then bribery and were a big deal cause it involves celebrities. They want to use Laughlin as an example because she didn't roll over and accept the plea deals they originally offered. What makes most of this laughable is that they make it out to be like colleges are so upstanding and only the best of the best are accepted and would never let someone in based on money..... That makes sense. I get the fraud, not the bribe. I expect the case to be tossed. As you say, lots of others are involved in similar situations I think they will decide that this is better left alone. Edited January 9, 2020 by Bill from NYC
apuszczalowski Posted January 8, 2020 Posted January 8, 2020 3 hours ago, Bill from NYC said: That makes sense. I get the fraud, not the bribe. I expect the case to be tossed. As you say, lots of mothers are involved in similar situations I think they will decide that this is better left alone. It wont get tossed, she will get a jail sentence, but probably only serve a couple days of it. They don't like the fact that she didn't take the plea deal and tried fighting it. I'm still confused how both her and her husband are charged in this one, bit the other actress was the only one charged on her case but not her husband William H Macy. She took the plea and only served a couple days in jail.
KD in CA Posted April 2, 2020 Posted April 2, 2020 Another arrogant big shot goes down.....enjoy prison honey! https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-31/silicon-valley-mom-gets-7-months-for-450-000-college-scam
Recommended Posts