Not to change the subject, but… I think the Laughlin kid has a valid case against her parents. Lost income and credibility.
On a side note, who names their kid something that abbreviates to OJ? Possible discussion between the expecting parents: “How about Olivia Jade?”… “I love the name, but not the initials - that’s a hard pass.”… “I guess you’re right - we’ll have to torture her some other way.”
@HowardGradly It’s referring to the consent of CW-1 (Singer) – not the parent on the other end of the phone. Some states have one-party consent laws so that only one of the 2+ people who are a party to the conversation being recorded have to consent to the recording for it to be legal.
That’s not what has been reported. e.g.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/03/college-admissions-scandal-9-revealing-moments/584803/
And CA is 2-party consent state.
There are lots of issues here.
To me, the biggest issue is what these parents have done to their kids. While their intentions were seemingly to help their college bound students, that’s not the outcome. These parents didn’t have faith that their kids could succeed without some kind of (dishonest in some cases) intervention that most students just don’t have.
I really, really do hope that there is money from these families for the family and individual counseling that they will likely need to mend these family fences.
It’s sad that these parents couldn’t let their kids succeed as they were.
Guess they just couldn’t “love the kid on the couch”, as they say.
Will couples who have both been charged be tried together or separately?
@thumper1 - agreed, lots of trust issues going forward if the kids were not fully aware. We already see that with Olivia Jade
@austinmshauri - I would think they would be tried together, unless one of them chooses to request separate trials (and then throws the other under the bus, or attempts to take full blame and spare the other).
I think it went far beyond trusting their kids. Imo, they wanted to bathe them in the (perceived) prestige. It’s not so different than other parents who push their kids in other ways toward elites. But this time, with money behind it. Lots of money and allowing the cheating.
These people don’t care about their kids in the way many parents do. Reading articles about LL’s “obsession” with USC, she thought she was buying into a brand like she bought clothing brands. They want to live vicariously through their children’s “success.” Sadly, they used their kids for their own vanity and the kids were too stupid or too lacking in integrity to realize that and went along with a scam. LL’s husband stated he wanted something better than ASU for his daughter, like Chanel might be considered better than some other brand. UC Merced or Cal Poly might be better than ASU, but he clearly did not have that in mind.
The one organization I feel sorry for in all this is ASU. I’m sure thousand of student go to college there and get perfectly fine educations, but apparently in some quarters ASU is seen as so awful that people would commit felonies rather than send their kids there.
It’s actually a good school. Some depts very strong. I could name a bunch of happy colleges in LA I’d skip in a flash for ASU.
Ok, now words out LL and the mister will be tax audited back 5 years and his business for 3.
Someone is puh-lenty annoyed at them.
I think there are trust issues with some of the kids but, despite what “acquaintances” are saying to the media, I don’t believe OJ is one of them. She was copied on at least some of the emails between her parents and Singer, including one where they talked about avoiding the guidance counselor. She may have also been copied on the reply email where Singer instructed an employee to fill out and submit her applications. Her birthday is 9/28/99 so she would have been 18 at the time her application was submitted.
Loughlin and her husband should be audited. If they claimed that bribe as a charitable donation, that’s tax fraud.
They may not have mis-claimed anything.
It would start as a look-see.
I think, from a fair government sense, it shouldn’t never just be bringing the axe down because these pled not guilty. It’s logical to look for allied fraud, but they all should get a deeper look.
Don’t know if this has already been posted because too many unread posts to go through.
https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Lori-Loughlin-huffman-college-bluffing-plea-jail-13757392.php
These people are dumber than a box of rocks.
I don’t think extra charges with considerable jail time should be added as a punishment for not pleading guilty. The idea of a plea deal is that you take it or risk the jail time of the original charges, not you take it or risk a sentence 10 times as long. People shouldn’t be pressured into making guilty pleas to avoid draconian punishments.
Thanks for posting that article @emilybee. It brings in a most needed perspective— that of the student on campus. Yes, there were unsavory things done but we need to focus on improving the student experience both during admissions season and while they are at school (all schools) maybe then some of this craziness will end.
The feds didn’t make up additional crimes. They believe Lori and her husband were guilty of all of them.
But in terms of sending a message to Lori and others, it is just as effective to charge them with one crime with the hope of them realizing that this is the best deal they are going to get and admit guilt quickly. If they turn it down, the feds absolutely should threaten them with everything, and that may include Olivia Jade as well.
I dont see any student perspective in Emily’s link.
Imo, this case was designed to be public, build a very large wall of fear in potential cheaters. But it can still operate as a traditional case. I believe they could have accomplished this with guilty pleas. I dont believe they had any intention of looking for 40 years in jail- or 20 or even 2.
But by pleading NG, any defendant opens him/herself up to the full weight of the law. In ways, claiming NG says, “Fine, go ahead, give me your best shot.” A strategic issue here, I think. Now, the feds get to build their full case.
If LL could claim Singer did x and y without their consent, fine. Each side brings its facts to the table. But so far, I don’t see that.
I still don’t think the feds want major jail time. Imo, they can accomplish their goal without that.