Community Chat

[Mj12]

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:

Yesterday, there were two more formal hearings as guilty pleas were entered and accepted.  6 more hearings are scheduled for the rest of week.

Gordon Caplan, co-chairman of the prestigious international law firm., Wilkie Farr & Gallagher   He paid $75,000 to have his daughter's ACT exam corrected after she took iit.

Prosecution recommends 14 month prison term and $40,000 fine.

Agustin Huneeus, executive of a family owned Napa Valley vineyard.  He agreed to pay $300,000 to fix his daughter's SAT exam and have her falsely recruited to the USC water polo team.  He had paid $50,000 but was arrested before the balance was paid.

Prosecution recommends:  15 month prison term and $95,000 fine.

Clearly, by pleading guilty these parents will do considerably less than the 20 year maximum term possible.

Too bad Lori and Mossimo didn't understand this.  Their sentences would have been higher due to the $ amount involved, but at least it wouldn't be 40 years.

---

He's getting off light - another smart early plea.  And as you probably know - he'll be automatically disbarred in NY State.  

[Johnnyeager]

I'm wondering if the government is still open to accepting guilty pleas?  Of course, the prison time would now be higher after the money laundering charges were slapped on.

And the Justice Department does like to make deals, except for extremely high profile, serious crimes.  It raises their prosecution success rate, saves time and resources and taxpayers money.

[stevieb]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

I am in favor of some type of adversity ranking. But it should be tweaked to have more transparency. The devil is always in the details.

---

@suzyQ3  As is sometimes the case, we'll agree to disagree about this one and I'll tell you why...  First, let's define 'adversity'... 'Adversity' can take many forms. ... At this point it appears it's being defined by zip code, apparent SES data, race/ethnicity and so on... Essentially assignment of 'adversity' status is based on assumptions and even on appearances, which, to me, is nothing more than glorified profiling... 

Let's take the hypothetical example of two kids, one raised in a broken home in Beverly Hills, constantly subjected to parental fighting, a vicious divorce, parental abuse, constant exposure to alcohol and drug abuse and the other raised in a loving, intact home in inner city LA... Both pull 4.0 averages... Who's suffered more 'adversity' on the road to their accomplishments? Unless or until admissions and hiring authorities want to take a look at the whole person, which, of course, is not likely to happen, it can be argued that giving the 'leg up' to someone based on where they live or parental income is nothing more than another form of discrimination...

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:

I'm wondering if the government is still open to accepting guilty pleas?  Of course, the prison time would now be higher after the money laundering charges were slapped on.

And the Justice Department does like to make deals, except for extremely high profile, serious crimes.  It raises their prosecution success rate, saves time and resources and taxpayers money.

---

A person can change his plea at anytime.  If a person is not going to get a "deal" for changing their plea then best to go for a full trial.  May get a sympathetic jury.

[Gorgf]

@Johnnyeager  Thank you for taking the time to update. I look for your posts and appreciate them.

[suzyQ3]

---

@stevieb wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

I am in favor of some type of adversity ranking. But it should be tweaked to have more transparency. The devil is always in the details.

---

@suzyQ3  As is sometimes the case, we'll agree to disagree about this one and I'll tell you why...  First, let's define 'adversty'... 'Adversity' can take many forms. ... At this point it appears it's being defined by zip code, apparent SES data, race/ethnicity and so on... Essentially assignment of 'adversity' status is based on assumptions and even on appearances, which, to me, is nothing more than glorified profiling... 

Let's take the hypothetical example of two kids, one raised in a broken home in Beverly Hills, constantly subjected to parental fighting, a vicious divorce, parental abuse, constant exposure to alcohol and drug abuse and the other raised in a loving, intact home in inner city LA... Both pull 4.0 averages... Who's suffered more 'adversity' on the road to their accomplishments? Unless or until admissions and hiring authorities want to take a look at the whole person, which, of course, is not likely to happen, it can be argued that giving the 'leg up' to someone based on where they live or parental income is nothing more than another form of discrimination...

---

@stevieb, hence my suggestion that it needs tweaking. :-)

[Johnnyeager]

Three more parents entered guilty pleas yesterday:

Marcia and Gregory Abbott (NY and Aspen): He is chairman of a food/beverage packaging company.  Paid Singer $125,000 to have a proctor correct their daughter's ACT after completion.  

Recommended Sentence:  One year and one day incarceration;  $55,000 fine

Peter Sartorio (Menlo Park); packaged food entrepreneur:  Paid Singer $15,000 to have daughter's SAT corrected by a proctor.

Recommended Sentence:  Incarceration at the low end of sentencing guidelines (presumably similar to Felicity's );  $9500 fine.

(I checked to see that Felicity's fine is $20,000.  I wonder why the  difference between her and Sartorio since both crimes involved $15,000?)

[proudlyfromNJ]

---

@Gorgf wrote:

@Johnnyeager  Thank you for taking the time to update. I look for your posts and appreciate them.

---

@Johnnyeager @Gorgf.  Agree with this statement. Johnny, yours are the only posts that I read on this thread. Thank you for them.

[Johnnyeager]

The final 3 plea hearings for this group of parents will be held later today in Boston.  Here's a summary of who they are, what they did and the prosecution's recommended sentences:

Jane Buckingham {Los Angeles), CEO of a boutique marketing firm.  Paid $50,000 to have a proctor take the ACT for her son.  The proctor scored a 35/36 on the test to her son's benefit.

Recommended sentence:  Incarceraton at the low end of the sentencing range and a fine of $40,000.

Robert Flaxman:  (Beverly Hills), president of an LA based real estate development firm.  Participated in both schemes; his son was recruited as an athlete to the University of San Diego for $250,000 and his daughter received assistance from a proctor while taking the ACT and SAT for $75,000.

Recommended sentence:  incarceration at the low end of the sentencing range and a fine of $40,000.

Marjorie Klapper:  (Menlo Park) Jewelry business owner.  She paid $15,000 to have her son's ACT exam corrected.

Recommended sentence:  Incarceration at the low end of the sentencing range and a fine of $20,000.  

[sashamatthews]

What happened to the good old days  when wealthy people would donate a lot of money to a school they wanted their kids to go to?  When it came time to apply, the schools always took the money into account and the kids got in.  Done deal.  No pay-off shenanigans.  And no jail time.  Plus the parents got a tax deduction.