Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lori Loughlin and Husband Are Active in Legal Defense, Says Source: 'They're Both Very Type A'
People Magazine ^ | May 21,2019 | Steve Helling

Posted on 05/21/2019 11:05:29 AM PDT by libstripper

Lori Loughlin and husband Mossimo Giannulli are actively involved in their defense after being charged in the college admissions scandal, a source familiar with their cases tells PEOPLE.

“They’re both very type A,” says the source, “and they’re figuring out what to do next. They are both mounting a vigorous defense against the charges.

(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: cheating; loughlin; trial
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: Liz

Plus taking it as a tax deduction


41 posted on 05/21/2019 1:20:03 PM PDT by gcparent (Justice Brett Kavanaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65

No stinker, she will be popular with filing writs.


42 posted on 05/21/2019 1:21:51 PM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

So you think this Caplan guy, big nyc attorney thought he should have fought it? Why would he plead guilty today if he thought he had a chance? Afterall, pleading to a felony is automatic disbarrment.


43 posted on 05/21/2019 1:24:18 PM PDT by gcparent (Justice Brett Kavanaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

You have a gift for understatement. First, Ms. Laughlin and Hubby pay a cool $500K to get their air-headed spawn into a vastly overrated school (USC). Then, when they’re indicted for their role in the fraud scheme, she shows up at the courthouse smiling, waving and signing autographs. There are also reports they rejected a plea deal, then, realizing what they had done, asked prosecutors to put it back on the table. The US attorneys just laughed and said “see you in court.”

Felicity Huffman paid less than $20,000 to get someone to take the SAT for her daughter. She agreed to a plea deal, cooperated with authorities—and is still looking at four months behind bars. Laughlin and her husband will spend years in the pen, and the “vigorous defense” will make for some interesting courtroom theatrics, but it won’t save them from prison.


44 posted on 05/21/2019 1:25:19 PM PDT by ExNewsExSpook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

So, one of the co-conspiritors is a hot shot lawyer. He’s pled guilty with lots of remorseful language. Looks like free legal advice to me.


45 posted on 05/21/2019 1:26:09 PM PDT by The Public Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

From what I’ve heard, Laughlin’s daughters aren’t exactly Mensa material, and one was content to enroll at Arizona State. And given her lack of academic ambition, that would have been perfectly fine. But like other Hollywood parents, Laughlin (apparently) couldn’t bear the thought that her daughters would wind up at a “lesser” school and eagerly signed on to the scheme to get her kids into USC.

If I were advising “Aunt Becky,” I’d tell her to get an airtight financial plan in place and put the daughters on a strict allowance while she and the hubby are in jail. Otherwise, the “girls” will devour what’s left of their fortune while the parents are behind bars.


46 posted on 05/21/2019 1:30:35 PM PDT by ExNewsExSpook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gcparent

[So you think this Caplan guy, big nyc attorney thought he should have fought it? Why would he plead guilty today if he thought he had a chance? Afterall, pleading to a felony is automatic disbarrment.]


You need big bucks to fight the Feds. The question is whether Caplan had $100m. It’s not enough to think you can beat them on the merits - it also necessary that you have the money to fight them. That’s why prosecutorial abuse is so egregious - most people don’t have the money to mount a serious fight against the bottomless resources of the state.

The guy who went after the lacrosse players at UNC, Mike Nifong, thought he could rack up brownie points with black voters for the next election by nailing a clutch of Great White Defendants. The defendants’ parents emptied their bank accounts and did home equity loans to hire the best in the biz to defend them. And that was just a county-level prosecution.


47 posted on 05/21/2019 1:42:03 PM PDT by Zhang Fei (My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Pride Goeth Before the Fall...


48 posted on 05/21/2019 1:45:25 PM PDT by TADSLOS (You know why you can enjoy a day at the Zoo? Because walls work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

“They could get them on tax evasion, since they used the payments as a tax deduction- but that is also allowed.”

Since when was funneling your bribe through a fake charity to evade taxes allowed?


49 posted on 05/21/2019 1:47:55 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

I believe her husband was Trump financial donor.


50 posted on 05/21/2019 1:55:50 PM PDT by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

The Feds wouldn’t have even brought the charges if they didn’t have a slam dunk .... the key players have turned to lessen their sentences .... less than a zero chance with a jury ... the jury will get their chance to show that inconveniencing them will be painful.


51 posted on 05/21/2019 2:27:01 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (Start using cash and checks or the elite class and bankers will make "cashless" the norm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

That was Duke not UNC and 2 of the 3 families were well off. Well worth the fight. They would have still been in prison. Great attorneys representing them
They were innocent. The college admission scandal parents are guilty. Recordings, email, tax deductions etc.


52 posted on 05/21/2019 2:32:23 PM PDT by gcparent (Justice Brett Kavanaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: gcparent

[That was Duke not UNC and 2 of the 3 families were well off. Well worth the fight. They would have still been in prison. Great attorneys representing them
They were innocent. The college admission scandal parents are guilty. Recordings, email, tax deductions etc.]


Guilty of what? Rape is unquestionably a crime and was (1) a capital offense for most of human history, and (2) considered a justifiable basis for multi-generational blood feuds up to, and including, all-out war. Honest services theft is a federal charge of relatively new vintage and was criticized as an overreach by the late great Scalia:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honest_services_fraud
[The statute grants jurisdiction to the federal government to prosecute local, state and federal officials. It is frequently used to fight public corruption because it is easier to prove than bribery or extortion.[1][22][23] The term “honest services” is broad and open to jury interpretation, according to several legal experts.[22] Prosecutions under the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) frequently use violations of the honest services statute,[1] as mail and wire fraud are predicate acts of racketeering; therefore, two mailings or wire transmissions in the execution of honest services fraud can form “a pattern of racketeering activity.”[6]

Prosecutions for honest services fraud that do not involve public corruption generally involve corporate crime, although the line between torts and crimes in such cases is considered murky and unclear.[6]

The law is reportedly a favorite of federal prosecutors because the language of statute is vague enough to be applied to corrupt political officials’ unethical or criminal activities when they do not fall into a specific category, such as bribery or extortion.[22] For similar reasons, defense attorneys dislike the law, viewing it as a poorly defined law that can be used by prosecutors to convert any kind of unethical behavior into a federal crime.[22]

Nevertheless, prosecutors must still prove all the elements of mail fraud or wire fraud in a case regarding a scheme to defraud of honest services.[22]

The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the statute, stating that the clause was so poorly defined that it could be the basis for prosecuting “a mayor for using the prestige of his office to get a table at a restaurant without a reservation.”[24]

In The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, investigative journalist Gary S. Chafetz argued that honest-services fraud is so vague as to be unconstitutional, and that prosecutors abused it as a tool to increase their conviction rates.[25] Bennett L. Gershmann, a professor at Pace University Law School, similarly has contended that the law “is not only subject to abuse...but has been abused.”[26] The case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is often cited as an example of possible prosecutorial misconduct and abuse of the honest services law.[26]

Many interest groups oppose the usage of the honest services law, including the conservative United States Chamber of Commerce and Washington Legal Foundation, as well as the more liberal National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.[26] One notable proponent of the law is the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.[26][27][28] ]


I read an account of the Duke case where the parents claimed to have HELOC’ed their homes to pay for the defense. They may or may not have exaggerated their circumstances, but it was a major financial undertaking. And that was a pretty cut-and-dried rape case where the law was established. Here, everything is loosey-goosey and just crying out for a defense with with real money backing it to take it apart.


53 posted on 05/21/2019 2:45:16 PM PDT by Zhang Fei (My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

[Since when was funneling your bribe through a fake charity to evade taxes allowed?]


As long as the law considers it a real charity, it’s allowed. There are plenty of fake charities out there that are little more than tax-avoiding slush funds for the wealthy. The Clinton Global Initiative is one such charity. Are the Clintons getting prosecuted for it? At least the Mossimos supplied their own funding. The Clintons got their slush fund money from people with the expectation of favors to come.


54 posted on 05/21/2019 2:50:45 PM PDT by Zhang Fei (My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

The point being that there are a lot of loopholes re charities that can’t be closed because they would cause problems for real charities. So you take the good with the bad.


55 posted on 05/21/2019 2:57:02 PM PDT by Zhang Fei (My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

“As long as the law considers it a real charity, it’s allowed.”

Obviously not, if people are getting prosecuted for it. Just because the charity is “legal” doesn’t mean that it can’t be misused in criminal activity. Fraud is still fraud, even if the charity’s paper work is in order.

“The Clinton Global Initiative is one such charity. Are the Clintons getting prosecuted for it?”

They certainly should be.

I suppose I’m just not the type of person that say “well one person got any with it, guess we let everyone get away with it”.


56 posted on 05/21/2019 3:02:33 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

[Obviously not, if people are getting prosecuted for it. Just because the charity is “legal” doesn’t mean that it can’t be misused in criminal activity. Fraud is still fraud, even if the charity’s paper work is in order.]


The way prosecutors work, they throw everything they can at the wall and hope that something sticks. It’s called overcharging. It costs them nothing. Doesn’t mean any of the charges will stick. The case will take time to wend its way through the courts. We’ll see how it plays out.


57 posted on 05/21/2019 3:07:03 PM PDT by Zhang Fei (My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

SAT Practice Tests
https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sat/practice/full-length-practice-tests

SAT Practice Test (2019 Version)
https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sat/practice/full-length-practice-tests

They just ask for a bank account number : )


58 posted on 05/21/2019 3:49:38 PM PDT by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ExNewsExSpook

Hopefully the heads of the schools will also go to jail as they had to know this has been going on forever.


59 posted on 05/21/2019 3:52:38 PM PDT by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: The Public Eye

He knew they had him by the short hairs, so he cut the bet deal he could and ran.


60 posted on 05/21/2019 5:11:38 PM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson