Absolutely not true. The professional association does prohibit ‘commissions’ as a sales person might receive. But end of year bonuses based on performance are perfectly acceptable.
Covering up? I think not. For whatever reason, they chose not to include that party in this suit. That’s all we know.
Some of us keep pointing out that not being named in the suit is NOT an indication of innocence, nor any intention to never charge those others.
A lawsuit of this nature is a case into itself, not intended to be a kitchen sink.
Re bonuses:
But it’s not simple. Any extras have to meet the NP entity’s policies as voted by the board of governors. And "performance " needs to go beyond the dollar amount brought in.
It’s a topic for a different thread. It veers offtrack, imo, to raise the suggestion college fundraisers are complicit for personal gain.
I just find it odd that you give the benefit of the doubt to everyone except Lori Loughlin, who you insist should have known that giving a donation to a big foundation that would be sent to an athletic department fund is somehow illegal.
I certainly see the guilt of parents who paid to have someone else take their child’s test. But I don’t see why anyone would already convict the parents who paid a big donation to the athletic department and had their child be designated a student-athlete and get that recruiting tip (which is not a guarantee).
We now know that giving donations to athletic department of selective universities is not unusual. It happened at Harvard, it happened at Yale, it happened at U Penn and it probably happens at whatever university you work for.
The question is whether there was something given in exchange and if we are reserving judgement about the Harvard fencing dad, we should withhold judgement about Loughlin.
In the case of Harvard, not only did the dad make a big donation to a fencing foundation that immediately turned around and gave a portion of it to the Harvard fencing coach’s newly created “non-profit” (sound familiar?) but he also then bought a house at an inflated price. Not sure how that is “legal” but what Loughlin did is not.
Has anyone at Harvard been indicted as part of Singer’s conspiracy?
“I just find it odd that you give the benefit of the doubt to everyone except Lori Loughlin…”
Huh? I’m not giving much benefit of the doubt to anyone. And I keep standing for this: you don’t give to “a big foundation [run by a private counselor!] that would be sent to an athletic department.” You give through Development, which has subgroups for athletics.
Try not to get side tracked by H or what happened elsewhere. No one in this case is less guilty of what they, as individuals, are charged with, just because someone else named did something different. How is it relevant to her case?
LL is NOT less guilty of her charges because she didn’t have scores fudged.
The question is NOT whether anyone could guarantee anything. It’s about the manipulation scheme she did participate in.
I’m fond of the law, in general. It requires a sense of logic to follow the line of thinking, to find the “if, then.” IF she paid for currying favor and outside legit lines, then…
Im.not the one making excuses for her, coming up with defenses she wasn’t, eg, collrge educated. This will boil down to what she DID do.
@observer12 LL should hire you to be on her defense team 
“Has anyone at Harvard been indicted as part of Singer’s conspiracy?”
Not so far.
Thank you, Hanna. I’m not really understanding what bearing that situation has on this case then. We compare actions to the law to determine guilt or innocence, don’t we? So why would it matter if what these people were charged with is better/worse than someone else’s actions in an unrelated case? It don’t see how it could have any effect on the guilt or innocence of these people.
@austinmshauri “I’m not really understanding what bearing that situation has on this case then”
My point is that two people did exactly the same thing and people here are insisting that one person is guilty and another one we must wait until there is a trial where they are convicted.
@lookingforward “And I keep standing for this: you don’t give to “a big foundation [run by a private counselor!] that would be sent to an athletic department.” You give through Development, which has subgroups for athletics.”
You have already acknowledge that this is not true since the Harvard dad did not give money through “Development”. You keep giving the Harvard dad the benefit of the doubt yet he gave money through a foundation that then went directly to the fencing coach’s personal non-profit.
Again, why do you keep saying that every donation to athletics is made through “development” when that is clearly not the case at Harvard?
ADD: And it is clearly not the case at UCLA, since the athletic department received that money directly. You keep insisting that we must withhold judgement in some cases and practically have them convicted in other cases.
“Some of the biggest spenders in Singer’s scheme remain unidentified. One parent paid Singer $6.5 million, U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said at a news conference last month. Another, identified only as the father of “Yale Applicant 1,” spent $1.2 million to ensure his daughter was admitted to Yale as a recruited soccer player.””
This is why these parents need to get jail time if they are convicted. Clearly a big fine is not going to be punishment enough. It won’t be punishment at all. If someone has enough money and is willing to spend millions just to get their kid admitted to college, then clearly any fine the trial judge might hand out is not going to make an impact. It will just be one more expense the rich will willingly pay on their way to buying favoritism for themselves and their kids.
Seriously, observer? For real?
“My point is that two people did exactly the same thing and people here are insisting that one person is guilty and another one we must wait until there is a trial where they are convicted.”
What’s the real confusion here? The VB case is the VB case. Not about H or something at UCLA 5 years ago. We wait for more details to come out and a lawsuit to proceed through trial. The feds charged whom they charged (why is that confusing?)
Why do you keep pointing to some case that was not yet brought as proof of anything? This VB case is not about Harvard.
NOT.
“You have already acknowledge that this is not true since the Harvard dad did not give money through “Development”. You keep giving the Harvard dad the benefit of the doubt yet he gave money through a foundation that then went directly to the fencing coach’s personal non-profit.”
No, I haven’t. In fact, my only comments on H are oblique: mentions that this is not about Harvard.
Why are you getting mixed up and what can we clarify? Or this isn’t serious?
If the H dad gave money other than through Dev, what makes that okay?
Meanwhile, we’re wasting time spinning wheels on UCLA, Harvard, whether or not it matters that LL did not pay for score fudges and more.
MODERATOR’S NOTE: Please stay on track. When you find yourself writing things like, “Again, why do you keep saying…” realize that you’re getting into a debate which isn’t allowed.
Can someone help me understand:
In reading the charging documents, many phone conversations are labeled as “consensually recorded”. I don’t get it. So, on October 25, 2018 CW-1 phoned Giannulli and both Giannulli and CW-1 agreed to record their call?? Why would Giannulli (or any of the parents) consent to a recording?
What Lori Loughlin did is - legally - the same thing that was done at UCLA a few years ago and what happened at Harvard. A parent with a kid who was applying to that school gave money through a foundation to the college’s athletic department or to a coach’s non-profit.
And yet people are already convicting Loughlin and claiming she has no case and is guilty, while they insist that we don’t yet know that anything improper – let alone illegal! – went on at UCLA or Harvard. Say what??
We know that what Loughlin did was improper and broke rules but let’s reserve judgement on whether what she did was “illegal” just like we are reserving judgement on the other parents who made donations to a foundation that were then sent to the athletic department to help their child’s admissions chances.
I think what happened at UCLA was that a parent ‘pledged’ to give money. Then the child was accepted. All this sort of nonsense has got to stop.
Make all applications blind. No names, no identifiers. A number only that is later put with a name after acceptance or rejection.
“whether or not it matters that LL did not pay for score fudges and more.”
I truly do not understand how people do not see a difference between paying to have your child’s SAT/ACT scores changed and making a donation that you believe will go to the university or athletic department so that they will look favorably on your child’s application. I don’t think most people believe it is wrong to make a big donation knowing that it will help your child’s admission chances.
Also, calling what the far more guilty (in my mind) parents did “score fudges” really minimizes something that is far beyond making a donation that was going to help all the student athletes at the university in exchange for getting a huge admissions boost.
Not what we have said.
Let’s not get this thread closed by repeating the same misunderstandings.
My only point is we should reserve judgement on Loughlin’s legal guilt the way we are reserving judgement on the legal guilt of all the other parents who did the same thing.
Not sure why anyone is arguing with me about that.
We should all discus her moral guilt and the moral guilt of other people all we want : )