Hollywood college admissions scandal-judge disturbed by prosecutor misconduct allegations

I cannot tell you the amount of contempt I have for these Hollywood people. They had available every advantage for their kids -- enough money for tutors, coaches, trainers, whatever. But they chose to cheat. Because it's easier than actually having to work for it. And now this. I want Lori Laughlin and her husband to do hard time. Seriously. I was a National Merit Scholar but would never have gotten into UCLA. But their daughter gets accepted based on false rowing credentials? **** them.
 
CarolfromTX said:
I cannot tell you the amount of contempt I have for these Hollywood people. They had available every advantage for their kids -- enough money for tutors, coaches, trainers, whatever. But they chose to cheat. Because it's easier than actually having to work for it. And now this. I want Lori Laughlin and her husband to do hard time. Seriously. I was a National Merit Scholar but would never have gotten into UCLA. But their daughter gets accepted based on false rowing credentials? **** them.
Click to expand...
I love it when they toss "Save The Earth" leaflets from their Lear jets. Just so inspiring...
 
I don't care about their wealth. My point is that they can afford tutors, which would be ok, but that would require the kids to actually work a bit. But no. So much easier to just flat out buy your way in. Contemptuous!
 
fuzzybuddy said:
Yup, cops can lie to the people they investigate. And it's 100% legal. And another group of folks, who don't necessarily have to be 100% truthful, I BELIEVE :), are defense attorneys, filing briefs for appeal.
Click to expand...

You are wrong about appellate attorneys. They would get in big trouble with the courts and state bar if they lied in an appellate brief. It's almost impossible to do, anyway, because appeals can only address what is already in the record from the court below. Both sides try to spin interpretations, of course, but lie? Not if they want to keep their license, they don't.
 
Gaer said:
Whatinthe: What do YOU think about the allegations?
Click to expand...
It's a high profile case and potential career maker for the prosecutors so are the allegations possible absolutely. But the defense also knows they have a high profile client with money so they are going to try everything and anything. There was a lot of talk of Loughlin not taking the plea deal. Not necessarily this case but I think alot of prosecutors like to make it seem if the defendant goes to court they'll lose(which many do), they try leverage/over whelm the defendant with what they know, not what they can prove in court. Loughlin can afford to call a potential bluff in court. Many others cannot. This appeal is part of attempting to call a bluff ie bad evidence.

At least the practice was exposed. Don't care about jail time, save that for murderers, gangsters, bank robbers etc.
 
Whatinthe: Thanks for your interesting, intelligent answer! You sound like you know a tremendous amount about litigation, the law,etc! It's impressive!
 
I hope this doesn't mean that Laurie Loughlin will get off with a much lighter sentence. She doesn't deserve it. I'm not saying, however, that I'm alright with the FBI having lied. I bet they do that kind of thing often.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
It's a well know defense attorney tactic to discredit the cops, and prosecutors, especially when they wanted to minimalize the guilt pointing facts of the case.
Click to expand...

Well, if it's OK for cops to lie to the suspect when questioning, why isn't it OK for the defense to question the tactics of the cops?

Do remember that under the Constitution, everyone accused of a crime which could carry jail time is entitled to a competent defense.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top