Article

2019-09-08 -Land of the Free

Prosecutors call for Felicity Huffman to spend just ONE MONTH in jail after she pleaded guilty in admissions scandal

[Daily Mail, Where America Gets Its News] Court said Friday Felicity Huffman should serve a month in jail and pay $20,000

She was recommended a year's supervised release after her time behind bars

Prosecutor's said house arrest in her Hollywood Hills home was not good enough punishment

Her attorney's responded by asking for her to only have a year's probation, 250 hours of community service, plus the fine

Huffman's husband William H. Macy, Desperate Housewives co-star Eva Longoria, and Huffman herself wrote some sentencing memorandum letters

Her 161-page filing featured 27 letters of support including Huffman's words that she thought by cheating she was giving her daughter a 'fair shot'

Huffman pleaded guilty earlier this year to committing mail fraud and honest services fraud in connection with the college admissions scandal

She paid $15,000 to have an SAT proctor correct her daughter Sophia's answers

Posted by Fred 2019-09-08 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 Force her and her husband to pay the 4-year tuition of not fewer than ten students who would have gained admission to the school her daughter attended but did not because that school reserved those spaces for spoiled and undeserving children like hers.

10 four-year private all-in costs = ca. $2.8 million.

Pay up, bitch.

Posted by Lex 2019-09-08 00:09|| 2019-09-08 00:09|| Front Page Top

#2 A fair shot = outright fraud

Rules for thee but not for me. Our elites hate us.

Posted by Herb McCoy 2019-09-08 01:58|| 2019-09-08 01:58|| Front Page Top

#3 I have no sympathy with this person, but am a little uncomfortable with the way she is considered a monster.
Her crimes are giving bribes to corrupt officials of a University and the SAT.
I can recall a day not that long ago, and perhaps now, in which failure to pay bribes to officials of NY City put one on a blacklist which made one ineligible to do business with the City.
To claim that paying bribes to corrupt officials (people not known to her but arranged at the suggestion of an intermediary) is bad, but actually very common in the real world. (In many countries it is universal).
Thus the treatment of this woman is a bit overmuch.
Second, bribery is an activity involving the corrupt individual being bribed. I do not hear of any great punishment, or any vilification or much publicity about those who accepted these bribes.
i am certain that she was not the first to make use of their corruption, since she did not know them.
If the purpose of the justice system is in part, to deter crimes of the sort involved here, severe punishment of the arranger, and of the corrupt officials would be far more effective than punishing the person bribing an already corrupt official through an intermediary.
Third, what she did was actually harmful to her daughter; academically, placing a person in a position in which one is not qualified to be is a recipe for failure. So this is a person who did something that seems like it helps her daughter while actually harms her. It may also tend to corrupt the morals of her daughter, something unwise in the long run.
Finally, it is very common and legal and even wise, for a parent to seek advice from an expert as to which colleges or schools for one's child to apply to and how to go about doing so.
What happens then if the expert is dishonest and recommends bribing corrupt officials to get preference for admission?
A perfect idiot with too much money will fall for advice to offer bribes, as she did.
In a sense she paid quite a bit of money to harm her daughter, the action of a fool.
To me, it seems like being herself is in itself almost sufficient punishment for this behavior.
What she did is almost nothing compared to what that other entertainer did by faking a hate crime.
And what was his punishment?
Was bribery or undue influence involved in that case?
What annoys me is that almost all commentators on this case assume that she was doing something smart by paying these large bribes, when what she was doing, just by corrupting the morals of her child was actually a form of child abuse, let alone by guaranteeing her child's failure as a student.

Posted by Daniel 2019-09-08 02:23|| 2019-09-08 02:23|| Front Page Top

#4 I was a bit harsh on the advisor and the bribe takers above, because I ignored how they were corrupted.
There are individuals who are highly qualified for admission to universities that are discriminated against by those universities, quite unfairly, and that discrimination is approved of by certain governments.
In particular, today, well qualified applicants, particulary those of East Asian descent, are not admitted to places like Harvard, while those with worse credentials are admitted. Parents of those denied admission unfairly through normal channels, are merely righting a wrong, by paying off those who can get their children into these schools. And the officials such as tennis coaches are aware of the injustice of the admissions process and feel they are righting a wrong by helping out those who seek admission by pretending to be great tennis players. Similarly, those who advise parents are sympathetic with those discriminated against, and do not feel it wrong to help them out by making connections with sympathetic tennis or yachting coaches.
And then some foolish woman with lots of money and wants to use this pathway to ruin her child? Well, the advisor, who considers himself a hero for helping those unfairly treated by dishonest institutions, is tempted by the large fee to help this woman in her folly. And that is what happened here.
What this means is that the bribe takers and intermediaries are not necessarily all bad people, deserving of harsh punishments.
The real culprit is the unfairness of admissions processes.

Posted by Daniel 2019-09-08 03:34|| 2019-09-08 03:34|| Front Page Top

#5 And the university officials to whom she paid bribes, what happens to them? I suppose they fall into the same category as employers who knowingly hire illegals.

Posted by Besoeker 2019-09-08 03:46|| 2019-09-08 03:46|| Front Page Top

#6 To claim that paying bribes to corrupt officials (people not known to her but arranged at the suggestion of an intermediary) is bad, but actually very common in the real world. (In many countries it is universal).

Which is why so much of the world is a sh*!hole. Check the cultures that actually make an effort in integrity and those that don't. Which are the more successful in true economic and social progress (as validated by 'people wanting to live there' migration and application for residence*).

* not to be confused with those who don't tolerate uncontrolled migration so the seekers settle for something less but accessible.

Posted by Procopius2k 2019-09-08 06:26|| 2019-09-08 06:26|| Front Page Top

#7 ...I think she needs to spend 4-6 months at Club Fed, at a minimum. She's no monster, she's just an entitled moron whose sentence would have a beneficial effect upon other entitled morons. It does need to be said that she's stepped up and taken responsibility for what she did (though I would be willing to bet the rent that it took some arguing by her esteemed counsel to get her to understand exactly what she'd done). The fine is okay; it actually exceeds what she spent to get her snowflake a good SAT score. Short version - the sentence could be longer, but overall not bad. She cooperated and will reap the benefits of said cooperation.

Lori Laughlin, however, is going to get her backside handed to her. She's going to end up with a year at least (though probably won't serve the whole thing) and a fine that's gonna hurt. She fought it and thought she could duke it out with the Feds, and only when they started dropping hints that both of her snowflakes could be looking at charges did she see the light. They have to make an example of her, and they shall.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2019-09-08 06:56|| 2019-09-08 06:56|| Front Page Top

#8 One month is a slap on the wrist; six months in a prison on the other side of the country away from her family without visitation rights should be a sufficient deterrent for the rest of her crowd.

Posted by Raj 2019-09-08 09:00|| 2019-09-08 09:00|| Front Page Top

#9 I don't think she should serve any time in prison. Be fined, yes. Community service? I think that is just a form of being pilloried, and is more in line with corrupt prosecutors tendencies. She will never live this down. Plus she has injured her daughter, inadvertently I think. They will have the rest of their lives to work with that.

I think the bribe takers, the corrupt enablers are the ones who should pay with hard time. There is a system in place to be enriched, manned by the corrupt. If they did not have their little toll booths established, she couldn't have been steered to them. These are the criminals, not the dummy who is snared. What is happening there? Anything?

This sounds as much like corrupt prosecutors tacitly working with corruption in academia to put the screws to a dummy who got ensnared. Note: I think all prosecutors are criminals at heart. Otherwise why would they have been threatening her kids? They see it as another splinter to jam under a fingernail, another finger to break, except they are figuratively torturing her kids. God how I hate those bastards. Corrupt and evil to the core.

If you like those tactics, you are no better.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2019-09-08 09:13|| 2019-09-08 09:13|| Front Page Top

#10 She and her ilk likes to bribe? No problem, your ~~bribe~~ cost to avoid jail is $14,000,000, payable to the US Treasury for the specific purpose of steel and concrete for the border wall.

NEXT please, NEXT !

Posted by Besoeker 2019-09-08 10:26|| 2019-09-08 10:26|| Front Page Top

#11 If the punishment is to discourage further similar actions, this don't do a whole lotta discouraging. Especially when the enablers (apparently) go unpunished.

Posted by Bobby 2019-09-08 11:42|| 2019-09-08 11:42|| Front Page Top

#12 "She paid $15,000 to have an SAT proctor correct her daughter Sophia's answers."

I wonder if the proctor was ever charged and if so what was the result?

I couldn't find about this despite a DDG search.

Posted by Seeking Cure For Ignorance 2019-09-08 13:53|| 2019-09-08 13:53|| Front Page Top

#13 Find out if any of the prosecutors are black or white apologetics of opportunity and you'll see where all this misplaced indignation is coming from.

Posted by Dron66046 2019-09-08 13:59|| 2019-09-08 13:59|| Front Page Top

#14 I think the bribe takers, the corrupt enablers are the ones who should pay with hard time.

Good point - I didn't take the rest of the food chain into account, and firings / jail time for all involved is fine with me.

Posted by Raj 2019-09-08 15:58|| 2019-09-08 15:58|| Front Page Top

#15 I'm cool with the harshest penalty possible, especially with L. Loughlin. Time to make Hollywood play by their rules and to sow internal dissension among their ranks: "I hardly knew her!"

Posted by Frank G 2019-09-08 16:22|| 2019-09-08 16:22|| Front Page Top

#16

Posted by Abu Uluque 2019-09-08 17:42|| 2019-09-08 17:42|| Front Page Top

#17 Personally I'd go lenient on her and toss the bribe acceptors into prison long term.

Posted by ruprecht 2019-09-08 21:02|| 2019-09-08 21:02|| Front Page Top

02:32 Fairbanks
00:43 Skidmark
00:24 Skidmark
00:19 EMS Artifact
00:06 Rambler
00:03 Rambler