Community Chat

[lovesrecess]

Cheating is cheating...the amount of money doesn’t matter unless there is a threshold over which it is a felony or has more serious punishment. Just unlucky to be part of a group who committed the same crimes....no safety in numbers this time...at least I hope not. There must be some consequences for what they did; so unfair to so many.

[Johnnyeager]

I'm sort of surprised some posters don't want these parents to present a defense. If you love the Constitution you know that this is their right.

It may be ridiculous, far-fetched, but they can do it.

[dex]

@Johnnyeager @I agree they have a right to defense but I feel they knew what the score was and lost the bet....best thing to do is admit wrong doing and face the punishment.Something wrong must be righted or its never over.

[magicmoodz]

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:
I'm sort of surprised some posters don't want these parents to present a defense. If you love the Constitution you know that this is their right.

It may be ridiculous, far-fetched, but they can do it.

---

@Johnnyeager 

First I want to thank you for your many informative posts on this subject. Clearly you have a good understanding of the law and are willingly sharing your expertise with others.

Regarding your comments above, of course a defendant has the right to plead not guilty. But I will say  currently John Q. Public probably feels Felicity Huffman is doing the right thing. She is pleading guilty, might do a little time and will hopefully come out the other side with her marriage intact, repairing the relationship with her daughters and maybe even salvaging her tarnished career. I am not so sure Lori Loughlin will encounter the same based on her plea.

People seem to think her fans were there to support her at her court hearing. Looks like not everyone was a fan as shown below:

[Isobel Archer]

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:
I'm sort of surprised some posters don't want these parents to present a defense. If you love the Constitution you know that this is their right.

It may be ridiculous, far-fetched, but they can do it.

---

I think what grates on folks - or at least on me - is that there is no doubt whatsoever that they did what they did.  The "defense" is all about - the law really shouldn't apply to me because - I didn't know (well I did know, but didn't think it would really be applied to me), and -  I was just doing what any parent would do if they had the money and power I have.  So while I am willing to accept a slap on the wrist - and maybe even a fine, there is no way I should ever have to do any jail time.

So even if they can get off on technicalities, I hardly think this is upholding the Constitution.

[Johnnyeager]

True that none wants to do any jail time, even the guilty pleaders.

Felicity reserves the right to challenge any incarceration sentence or at least the length: her Federal sentencing formula uses a $15,000 plus crime; she will say hers was just $15,000. THE POWER OF A PENNY! She should have paid $14,999.99!

[suzyQ3]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:
I'm sort of surprised some posters don't want these parents to present a defense. If you love the Constitution you know that this is their right.

It may be ridiculous, far-fetched, but they can do it.

---

I think what grates on folks - or at least on me - is that there is no doubt whatsoever that they did what they did.  The "defense" is all about - the law really shouldn't apply to me because - I didn't know (well I did know, but didn't think it would really be applied to me), and -  I was just doing what any parent would do if they had the money and power I have.  So while I am willing to accept a slap on the wrist - and maybe even a fine, there is no way I should ever have to do any jail time.

So even if they can get off on technicalities, I hardly think this is upholding the Constitution.

---

@Isobel Archer, their defense is that they were not involved in a conspiracy. They will likely not be successful with that, but that is the crux of their defense.

[Isobel Archer]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:
I'm sort of surprised some posters don't want these parents to present a defense. If you love the Constitution you know that this is their right.

It may be ridiculous, far-fetched, but they can do it.

---

I think what grates on folks - or at least on me - is that there is no doubt whatsoever that they did what they did.  The "defense" is all about - the law really shouldn't apply to me because - I didn't know (well I did know, but didn't think it would really be applied to me), and -  I was just doing what any parent would do if they had the money and power I have.  So while I am willing to accept a slap on the wrist - and maybe even a fine, there is no way I should ever have to do any jail time.

So even if they can get off on technicalities, I hardly think this is upholding the Constitution.

---

@Isobel Archer, their defense is that they were not involved in a conspiracy. They will likely not be successful with that, but that is the crux of their defense.

---

That is the technicality they are challenging.  But Lori's statements reflect what I said.  Her "moral defense" is - I really did nothing seriously wrong here - or at least it shouldn't be considered serious.

[sidsmom]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:
I'm sort of surprised some posters don't want these parents to present a defense. If you love the Constitution you know that this is their right.

It may be ridiculous, far-fetched, but they can do it.

---

I think what grates on folks - or at least on me - is that there is no doubt whatsoever that they did what they did.  The "defense" is all about - the law really shouldn't apply to me because - I didn't know (well I did know, but didn't think it would really be applied to me), and -  I was just doing what any parent would do if they had the money and power I have.  So while I am willing to accept a slap on the wrist - and maybe even a fine, there is no way I should ever have to do any jail time.

So even if they can get off on technicalities, I hardly think this is upholding the Constitution.

---

@Isobel Archer, their defense is that they were not involved in a conspiracy. They will likely not be successful with that, but that is the crux of their defense.

---

That is the technicality they are challenging.  But Lori's statements reflect what I said.  Her "moral defense" is - I really did nothing seriously wrong here - or at least it shouldn't be considered serious.

---

Being immoral is not illegal.

The Court of Public Opinion can rule on morality but having an attitude 

is not illegal.

[Johnnyeager]

So far, the Colburns are looking to dismiss on this basis, but of course Lori's attorney's are looking at this.

All attorneys challenge the charges first off. That's normal and accepted practice.