Community Chat

[Johnnyeager]

After a spell of basically no real legal developments, Monday, June 3rd is the date for the initial status conference for all of the parents who are pleading not guilty.  No word yet if Lori and Mossimo will attend; they aren't required to, but are allowed to be represented by attorneys.  Not attending might be wise given the furor over their last appearance.  This initial conference is basically to start discussion of dates for witness list, trial preparation, trial date, jury selection, etc.

Reports are that Olivia Jade may be called as a witness. Prosecutors will definitely want to know what her parents told her about her admissions process.  There is no parent/child privilege.

On a lighter note, William Macy was spotted purchasing balloons  and cake for daughter Sofia Grace's high school graduation celebration.  The balloon that says "YOU DID IT" is kind of, well,.......amusing.

Sofia apparently is not attending college yet, pending the outcome of her mother's sentencing.

.  

[Isobel Archer]

---

@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.

---

I'm in favor of getting our public schools to the point that adversity rankings are unnecessary.

This was supposed to be the goal beginning back in the 60"s.  

College admission should be based on merit.  It doesn't help anyone to admit kids who later drop out - or to give them grades they didn't earn.

[suzyQ3]

---

@Isobel Archer 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.

---

I'm in favor of getting our public schools to the point that adversity rankings are unnecessary.

This was supposed to be the goal beginning back in the 60"s.  

College admission should be based on merit.  It doesn't help anyone to admit kids who later drop out - or to give them grades they didn't earn.

---

I agree. @Isobel Archer. But until that goal is reached, I think a well-constructed ranking is in order.

It in no way confers unearned grades. And you would need a crystal ball to determined accurately just who drops out later on.

[magicmoodz]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer 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.

---

I'm in favor of getting our public schools to the point that adversity rankings are unnecessary.

This was supposed to be the goal beginning back in the 60"s.  

College admission should be based on merit.  It doesn't help anyone to admit kids who later drop out - or to give them grades they didn't earn.

---

I agree. @Isobel Archer. But until that goal is reached, I think a well-constructed ranking is in order.

It in no way confers unearned grades. And you would need a crystal ball to determined accurately just who drops out later on.

---

@suzyQ3 

I'm pretty certain there are statistics mapping this very subject. No crystal ball required.

[suzyQ3]

---

@magicmoodz wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer 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.

---

I'm in favor of getting our public schools to the point that adversity rankings are unnecessary.

This was supposed to be the goal beginning back in the 60"s.  

College admission should be based on merit.  It doesn't help anyone to admit kids who later drop out - or to give them grades they didn't earn.

---

I agree. @Isobel Archer. But until that goal is reached, I think a well-constructed ranking is in order.

It in no way confers unearned grades. And you would need a crystal ball to determined accurately just who drops out later on.

---

@suzyQ3 

I'm pretty certain there are statistics mapping this very subject. No crystal ball required.

---

@magicmoodz. could be some helpful stats. But those stats are based on our current and past status, not the poster's hope for public schools to get to the point at which no help is needed via some type of ranking.

[Johnnyeager]

On Friday Steven Masera, 69 of Folsom, California agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit racketeering and will cooperate with the government.

He was the accountant and chief financial officer for Singer's Edge College & Career Network and the Key Worldwide Foundation.

Among his primary duties were billing the parents for their "donations", sending false charity receipts and handling of the bribery payments.

For his plea and cooperation, the government will recommend incarceration at the low end of a possible 20 year sentence, specifically a term between 57 and 71 months.

[Johnnyeager]

This thing is going to stretch out for a loooong time.

The next hearing date for Lori, Mossimo and others is October 2.

Gives them all summer to think about it hanging over their heads.

[Johnnyeager]

After yesterday's hearing, a number of attorneys disclosed to various outlets that moving forward to trials is inevitable.  Many of them say that plea deals for many of their clients will no longer be considered by the government.

Defense strategies are also beginning to be revealed, the most likely one, as you've heard is "the $$$ was for charitable purposes, not bribery!"

Defense attorney for one parent who paid $200,000 to have someone take his son's test (David Sidoo) is quoted "Many of the clients would contend that if payments were made to a charity or sports organization, that it is not a bribe."

Attorney for Elizabeth Henriquez confirmed that his client will contend that Singer told her payments would go into sports programs, not an individual's pocket.  This attorney said he speaks for "many, if not all the defendants".

Attorney for the Justice Department responded:  "It doesn't matter if the money went to coach's program or the coach directly.  A bribe is simply a quid pro quo, it doesn't matter where the money went".

Good Luck With That Defense!  

[Johnnyeager]

Well, an expert has corroborated what a number of posters here have said:  the proposed defense by Lori and other parents is weak.

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani, now in private practice, says that the defense argument "completely contradicts the evidence in the case and is a weak defense, at best."

Rahmani continues:  "Just like a drug mule doesn't have to know he or she is transporting drugs, just something illegal, the prosecution doesn't have to prove that the parents knew that the payments to Singer were to be used to bribe college coaches.  The parents just need to know their payments were for unlawful or fraudulent purposes", adding that the parents would have made legitimate donations directly to the schools, rather than through Singer as an intermediary.

"Legitimate donors to a university don't pay someone to doctor their kids' test scores or make their kids appear to be athletes."

[Cakers3]

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:

After yesterday's hearing, a number of attorneys disclosed to various outlets that moving forward to trials is inevitable.  Many of them say that plea deals for many of their clients will no longer be considered by the government.

Defense strategies are also beginning to be revealed, the most likely one, as you've heard is "the $$$ was for charitable purposes, not bribery!"

Defense attorney for one parent who paid $200,000 to have someone take his son's test (David Sidoo) is quoted "Many of the clients would contend that if payments were made to a charity or sports organization, that it is not a bribe."

Attorney for Elizabeth Henriquez confirmed that his client will contend that Singer told her payments would go into sports programs, not an individual's pocket.  This attorney said he speaks for "many, if not all the defendants".

Attorney for the Justice Department responded:  "It doesn't matter if the money went to coach's program or the coach directly.  A bribe is simply a quid pro quo, it doesn't matter where the money went".

Good Luck With That Defense!  

---

@Johnnyeager   Exactly.

These students had their exams corrected by proctors and even had others taking the tests for them. 

This "boo-hoo we thought it was a legit donation" is laughable.

When you KNOW cheating to get your child in is the end result, there is no defense.