GUILTY Nationwide College Cheating Scandal - Actresses, Business Owners Charged, Mar 2019 #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
scdiv said:
Omg! This woman sounds like a nightmare! So in this case, these classes were for a "kid" already at Georgetown to help him graduate and get his degree from Georgetown. And then mom is griping that she wants a discount because they only got her son a C in the class. Makes one wonder though if the son could have even gotten a C on his own. How pathetic!

One of the classes required video conferences with the professor. Littlefair wrote that her son would be out of the country and that Singer's employee "should have a stand in for [my son] that is highly briefed." The Key associate confirmed she would "take care of the meeting" if the son was unavailable by using a "fellow male colleague" to stand in for Littlefair's son, the documents state.

Littlefair also sent an email asking Singer to do "one more online course" in spring 2018 for credit at Georgetown, and the Key associate then secretly took an online class in her son's name offered by Arizona State University. The credits were then sent to Georgetown and credited to Littlefair's son on his academic transcript, the court documents say, helping him graduate.

In April 2018, Singer's company sent her an invoice for $3,000. She responded that she thought she'd be given a "discount" because the "grade [Key associate 1 earned] was a C and the experience was a nightmare!" according to the criminal information.

Singer replied that he would not discount the invoice because the "process was a nightmare for all." Littlefair then paid The Key $3,000, the documents state.
Click to expand...
Ugh these parents make me want to bang my head against the wall! These people are all total nightmares.

I never even SAW my daughter’s college applications. And now she is a freshman at one of the top research universities in the country. She received some scholarships and is constantly applying to more to be able to finance her education. And she’s doing it HERSELF. Our kids are not incapable if these idiots would just give them a chance. And if they don’t go to a top school, then maybe they didn’t want to! Also who cares about which school. It’s the education and the experience that matters.
 
In my area the cheating to get kids into top schools is prevalent, in another fashion. Many of a certain segment of the population here would pay some $30000 or more to have their kid's essays in applications to Ivys written by professionals. I know of several of these parents.

Also, because my daughter was involved in science research, and participated in the science fairs, we knew of those who had their projects and papers fully prepared by others. Sabotage was also an issue. On one occasion, a student's preliminary paper was stolen. On another, a parent of a student in a grade lower actually called my daughter requesting her paper after she had won in a major state fair. I was astounded and told my daughter, absolutely no. That student eventually did access the full contents and the following year used the research my daughter had compiled on HER OWN during two years of very difficult work.

I'll never forget chatting with the father of a another bright boy who skipped two grades, while we were waiting while students were in a another room during a science conference. I asked him, what does S do for fun, hobby, sports....and he said oh he does Math Club, no time for other things. He stated the kid would go to Harvard, come hell or high water, and would go to medical school. He graduated at barely 16 years old, and didn't really want to do medicine, was more interested in business. Didn't make it into Harvard but went to Johns Hopkins, and there he did poorly. I don't know what became of him.

Another student was actually abused by her mother during school years, study study study, and when she fell asleep during her studying, would have ice water thrown in her face. Eventually she told a counselor at school, and the mother was arrested. However, no charges were made because it was argued it was a "cultural" issue. That girl did go to Harvard, and from what I know, never talked to her mother again.

These parents, it's all about them....the status, bragging rights, entitlement. And in the process at times destroy their own kids' sense of worth and well being. It's horrifying.
 
I saw a link today, that said the defense has been hiding evidence from Lori Loughlin's attorneys Found the article...
Lori Loughlin lawyer: Feds hiding evidence in college admissions case

Right...just click on almost internet link, the web is CHOCK FULL of the evidence that has been collected, reported and published about Lori Loughlin, her husband, and the overwhelming evidence against them. Seriously?!
 
Bravo said:
The fact that Lori and her Husband are even fighting this speaks volumes. To me :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
They say they thought their money was going into legitimate funds for USC and not for bribes. But then what did Mossimo mean? When he said "the bad news is I had to work the system."
And what about the deliberate fake crew photos for both kids?
 
Cool Cats said:
They say they thought their money was going into legitimate funds for USC and not for bribes. But then what did Mossimo mean? When he said "the bad news is I had to work the system."
And what about the deliberate fake crew photos for both kids?
Click to expand...
No way around that. Likely other "communications" we have not seen. Yet. IMO
 
Cool Cats said:
They say they thought their money was going into legitimate funds for USC and not for bribes. But then what did Mossimo mean? When he said "the bad news is I had to work the system."
And what about the deliberate fake crew photos for both kids?
Click to expand...
I don’t see how it could be legitimate donations, and at the same time a bribe, as in working the system. And what is their excuse for the staged fake rowing photos? And they engaged in the same actions as the ones who have plead guilty. How is it those people are not innocent, and they are, when they did the same things the guilty ones did.
Their rationalization and denial is to the level of disturbing, IMO.
 
neesaki said:
I don’t see how it could be legitimate donations, and at the same time a bribe, as in working the system. And what is their excuse for the staged fake rowing photos? And they engaged in the same actions as the ones who have plead guilty. How is it those people are not innocent, and they are, when they did the same things the guilty ones did.
Their rationalization and denial is to the level of disturbing, IMO.
Click to expand...
Lori had fans wanting her autograph at the Federal Courthouse and all her career she's been lauded and pampered with accolades and "loved" by Aunt Becky fans who want autographs and selfies with her wherever she goes.
I think she expects that her attorneys will seat that type of jury for her, weeding out the jurors who are less enamored with her TV image.

I think a trial is very risky because you have parents pleading guilty and taking responsibility for generally the same crimes L &M will be on trial for.

I don't think it can be overstated that during Lori and Mossimo's trial there is a good chance some jurors may have negative pre-conceived notions about them. Some may see them as entitled elite who don't care about students who have no money for college. I just don't see L & M getting a warm and fuzzy star-struck jury.

I also think there's risk of some bias towards them because of the way they use their money to stubbornly and aggressively take what they want. Shutting down the high school guidance counselor comes to mind. This also includes spending massive amounts of money on attorneys so they never have to stoop to the level of taking a plea deal that includes a few weeks of jail time.

Case in point:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A juror
from the Martha Stewart trial emerged from court Friday and said, "This is a victory for the little guys ... No one is above the law."
When asked what message the verdict sent to investors, he said the "middle investors" may feel more secure.
"Maybe it's a victory for the little guys who lose money in the market because of these kinds of transactions," said juror Chappell Hartridge.

STEWART cited his comments as evidence he was biased against wealthy executives.

At times, the trial seemed more fodder for gossip columns than the financial pages. Stewart's arrival each day was chronicled by a barrage of photographers and camera crews and tabloid commentary, and in court she was portrayed as rude, insulting, demanding and cheap.

CNN.com - Juror: 'Victory for the little guys' - Mar. 5, 2004

Martha Stewart Convicted on All Four Counts
 
Last edited:
Cool Cats said:
Lori had fans wanting her autograph at the Federal Courthouse and all her career she's been lauded and pampered with accolades and "loved" by Aunt Becky fans who want autographs and selfies with her wherever she goes.
I think she expects that her attorneys will seat that type of jury for her, weeding out the jurors who are less enamored with her TV image.

I think a trial is very risky because you have parents pleading guilty and taking responsibility for generally the same crimes L &M will be on trial for.

I don't think it can be overstated that during Lori and Mossimo's trial there is a good chance some jurors may have negative pre-conceived notions about them. Some may see them as entitled elite who don't care about students who have no money for college. I just don't see L & M getting a warm and fuzzy star-struck jury.

I also think there's risk of some bias towards them because of the way they use their money to stubbornly and aggressively take what they want. Shutting down the high school guidance counselor comes to mind. This also includes spending massive amounts of money on attorneys so they never have to stoop to the level of taking a plea deal that includes a few weeks of jail time.

Case in point:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A juror
from the Martha Stewart trial emerged from court Friday and said, "This is a victory for the little guys ... No one is above the law."
When asked what message the verdict sent to investors, he said the "middle investors" may feel more secure.
"Maybe it's a victory for the little guys who lose money in the market because of these kinds of transactions," said juror Chappell Hartridge.

STEWART cited his comments as evidence he was biased against wealthy executives.

At times, the trial seemed more fodder for gossip columns than the financial pages. Stewart's arrival each day was chronicled by a barrage of photographers and camera crews and tabloid commentary, and in court she was portrayed as rude, insulting, demanding and cheap.

CNN.com - Juror: 'Victory for the little guys' - Mar. 5, 2004

Martha Stewart Convicted on All Four Counts
Click to expand...

I would never have gone to trial. Considering what we know, and the circumstances of their actions, only someone who is so entitled to the point of delusional would have not plead guilty.JMO and SMH
 
neesaki said:
I would never have gone to trial. Considering what we know, and the circumstances of their actions, only someone who is so entitled to the point of delusional would have not plead guilty.JMO and SMH
Click to expand...

We easily see that rich folk, now, should definitely not go to trial. They won't get a jury of their "peers". They are going to get a jury of folks who may be working 2 and 3 jobs, just to pay rent and eat. The disparity of wealth in the United States continues, and I don't think that rich folk even realize that...."Let them eat cake.". Indeed.
 
neesaki said:
I would never have gone to trial. Considering what we know, and the circumstances of their actions, only someone who is so entitled to the point of delusional would have not plead guilty.JMO and SMH
Click to expand...
Yes!
We could write all night and day the reasons to cop a plea in this case.
So we have 2 reasons being put out as to why L & M didn't take the offered plea:

#1.) There was no way they would take a plea that had jail time attached even though their attorneys could argue for no jail time and the probation dept. could recommend no jail time. By not taking that plea what did L & M think would happen? That
because she is Aunt Becky the prosecution would change their minds about recommending the slammer?

#2.) Mossimo insisted a guilty plea would ruin their careers. Say what? o_O
But wait--no-- that can't be true because didn't they insist on a plea deal with no jail time? That would have been a guilty plea to one felony count right there.

Or maybe the reason is that jail is for schmucks, the average Joes. Absurd to expect a family friendly TV star to don jail scrubs :confused: where's the dignity? :eek:
 
Last edited:
It's so crazy. What would have been "better for their careers" would have been immediately being humble, having someone write something for them that sounded contrite and self-aware, pleading guilty, serving whatever sentence, and quickly having this behind them - and also not a slow drip in the media over the course of several months. Death by a thousand paper cuts as they say. That's where Felicity Huffman did it mostly right.

By stubbornly and defiantly fighting this and insisting on innocence or feigning ignorance, they just appear even more entitled, elitist, arrogant, tone deaf, and that the law doesn't apply to them. Even if they win from a legal standpoint, which seems extremely unlikely, it seems like the worst possible way to rehabilitate an image.

The daughter's middle finger to the media post didn't help. They are completely unlikeable. The YouTube comments show a pretty good pulse on the general feeling.

That said, I did see Lori Loughlin was the 7th most searched person in the United States on Google's annual 2019 top search list, so who knows - maybe notoriety and being a villain will end up serving her somehow. I still say her best career path back is bravo's real housewives where most of them are totally obnoxious and awful people anyways.
 
The couple's attorneys argue the Justice Department must prove Loughlin and Giannulli "intended" to defraud USC and that they "knew" their donations to Singer's nonprofit, the Key Worldwide Foundation, would be used to bribe a USC official, former senior associate athletic director Donna Heinel.

"At trial, Giannulli and Loughlin will help establish their innocence by showing that they understood both sets of payments to be legitimate donations and did not understand or intend that either set of payments would be used to directly or indirectly bribe Heinel," their motion reads.

The government has argued that payments from wealthy parents to Singer produced a classic quid pro quo, with the payments serving as bribes to get their children into elite universities.

To counter, the couple's attorneys say they need "any statements by Singer as to what he precisely told his clients" about the use of their funds. They also say they need statements detailing what USC knew of Singer's operation, arguing that if they did know about the operation but accepted money anyway then the university was not bribed or defrauded.

Lori Loughlin lawyer: Feds hiding evidence in college admissions case
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 133 more.
Total: 2,060 (members: 134, guests: 1,926)

Online statistics

Members online
134
Guests online
1,926
Total visitors
2,060
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,234
Messages
18,105,657
Members
230,992
Latest member
Bella257
Back
Top