Honest Services Fraud and Felicity Huffman

The problem lies with the institutions, not these two actresses.

It is an overly vague statute which needs to be looked at more closely by the Supreme Court.

Isn't the real issue for a lot of these people that they were able to take a tax deduction for a service (college prep) that was anything but? Tax fraud is pretty hard to talk your way out of...

R3 - How is that any different than anyone else who makes a massive donation and gets their kids in the school (and gets their name on a building too)?

R2, it has been.

R4 it isn't, but the claim on the tax form--donation vs. college prep--is truth vs. deception. Something the IRS, I don't think, deems acceptable

R4 That is pretty much the whole point of this, in that bribes that go directly to colleges are ok, but bribes to third parties are not. The US Attorney basically said so during his press conference.

R5 Yes, it has been looked at it, but their hasn't been a sweeping case for them to rule it unconstitutional. There are many judges and scholars, both liberal and conservative, who are uncomfortable with the vagueness of Honest Services Fraud and mail and wire fraud.

R4 also proctors changed answers on tests which is unacceptable in anyone's book

In the case of the school receiving a donation, no one is being misled. In the present case, the school made its offer based on lies. I don't understand how people don't see a difference.

R8 My only problem with that being the basis for prosecution, is that the SAT and ACT are administered and owned by private entities, The College board and ACT, Inc., respectfully. It is not the federal government or even state governments to maintain the integrity of those tests, that is the up to the organizations. It should be a civil not a criminal matter. Now if we were talking about a civil service exam, that would be different.

R9 But, that isn't why most people are upset. They are upset because they say that these parents stole college placements that would have went to "deserving" students. People who buy a placement for their child are doing the exact same thing.

Amoral jerkoffs *pretend* not to see the difference in a typically cynical effort to sway others toward similar corruption, so they don’t face consequences for their malfeasance. If everyone is dirty, they skate. This explains much of the last 50 years or so (or, really, all of human history).

R11, I think it's a ridiculous law. But if they're gonna prosecute Felicity for it, then they need to prosecute every other instance too.

I still don't understand how a "broker" was able to fudge and fake everything without the schools knowing.

This is just the tip of the iceberg w this crap.

OP, very bad analogy. No girl wants to see your dick pic.

^^^your momma did

[quote]But if they're gonna prosecute Felicity for it, then they need to prosecute every other instance too.

Not every speeder on the highway gets a ticket.

These rich bastards bribed employees of the State of California, in order to screw some deserving and hard-working kid out of a USC education.

This is worthy of both public humiliation, and prosecution.

They are GUILTY in the court of public opinion.

R18 Honestly, does it not concern you that people are being tried in the court of public opinion, all the time now? They are immediately declared guilty, and the mob demands they lose their jobs. Mob justice is NOT justice.

I saw her dick once in a movie

At least if someone donates a building or stadium, the community gets a benefit—something needed or nice is available to many. A bribe, on the other hand, benefits just two parties: briber and recipient.

r17: USC is a private university. UCLA is a public university. Not sure who the employees are you are referring to but if they work for USC, they are not state employees. Not saying this whole thing isn't terrible and that these people shouldn't be prosecuted.

Uhh ... precious space in the world's elite institutions is a LITTLE more important than a Big Mac.

^^^Wrong

The law says 'a scheme or artifice to defraud another of an intangible right' which sounds pretty clear to me, OP. Duplicity for ill gotten gain, going skulking about, lying, cheating on tests, etc. Whereas endowments to a University are a matter of public record.

As for the College Board and SAT, shut all that shit down. Those quasi-governmental businesses are shady in their own right.

R9 because both scenarios you describe are equally underhanded, yet one gets a nod and a wink and a pass.

I see a difference between doing this at a public and private institution.

At a public (state university), the parent is bribing a state employee to gain a right to something (the education) that other citizens also have a right to be considered for. So I'm ok with prosecuting the parent on a bribery-conspiracy charge for this.

At a private univ, no one has a right to go. If a pvt univ wants to admit people on the basis of arbitrary criteria, they could do that -- as long as they are not discriminating against protected classes. So the pvt university can get the bribed employee prosecuted, because he committed a fraud against his employer. But the parent . . .?

Also the same thing with the testing companies -- if they can't maintain the integrity of their tests, then the free market should put them out of business.

OP, you are comparing apples to oranges... if you talk the McDonald's girl into supersizing it in exchange for a dick pick, and then she starts supersizing it for a lot of people and charging a fee for it, is she not guilty of a crime? She is stealing from McDonalds and so are her customers. The product she is selling is not hers to sell.

The tennis coach at Georgetown had no right to profit from using his back door to get these kids into college. That's right, back door, with back door meaning his tennis recruitment and scholarships. The school wasn't giving him discretion to recruit because they wanted rich kids, they wanted to be competitive in tennis. That's their policy (right or wrong) and he was using it for his own gain. This was a racquet racket, plain and simple.

R28, I agree that the employee should be prosecuted. (I'm not OP, I'm R27.) Whether it's the McDonald's clerk or the Georgetown coach, he's defrauding his employer.

But I don't think it's the government's job to stop every customer from trying to bribe employees.

revoke her license to 'act'.....

Here's another example: I go to a bakery and order a birthday cake. The clerk says ok, you can get in 3 days. I say I really it need it tomorrow, and I put a $10 bill in the tip jar. Or I lie, and say it's for my dying mother who's in the hospital.

Have I committed a crime?

When you allow the government to prosecute for private contract situations, you open up a door to arbitrary (and potentially abusive) enforcements.

I want to see HARD TIME for all involved.

I hear unairconditioned Louisiana State Prison @ Angola is accepting Federal prisoners at a reasonable day rate as a money-making venture.

R27, are any of the so-called private universities free from atate and federal overgnment loans, grants, or subsidies of any kind? Have any of the so-called private universities refused to qualify for non-profit status and refused to take of advantage of the bounty of tax exemptions that goes with it? Have they voluntarily paid sales tax on every purchase? Do they all refuse to fundraise tax-deductible donations from all sources? Do they refuse to accept federally-guaranteed student loans and things like Pell Grants from their students who qualify for them?

Your so-called private colleges and universities are on the government dole in many, many, ways. They have to follow the law.

I would further suggest that the parties against whom Felicity Huffman and Lori Laughlin have committed Honest Services Fraud would include, first and foremost, the highly qualified kids who were not admitted to the elite schools because of the fraud and the graft perpetrated by two Hollywood celebrities. Two wealthy celebrities who had already lavished their children with every possible advantage and it still wasn't enough for their mediocre children to land those spots on their own.

[quote]Yes, it has been looked at it, but their hasn't been a sweeping case for them to rule it unconstitutional.

Oh, dear!

[quote]It is not the federal government or even state governments to maintain the integrity of those tests,

Oh, DEAR!

[quote]They are upset because they say that these parents stole college placements that would have went to "deserving" students.

It’s a shame you weren’t one of those deserving students.

[quote]Here's another example: I go to a bakery and order a birthday cake. The clerk says ok, you can get in 3 days. I say I really it need it tomorrow, and I put a $10 bill in the tip jar. Or I lie, and say it's for my dying mother who's in the hospital. Have I committed a crime?

In that case, no. But that’s because the baker is selling HIS time, not someone else’s. That is not the case here nor in the McDonald’s example.

And is it a non-for-profit bakery floating on a sea of government money? Because if it is not a not-for-profit bakery, the analogy fails from the start.

Touche -- you're right. The whole higher educational system is built on government $$$.

Aren't either of their husbands being charged as well?

Mossimo is

Macy is not thus far.

[quote]So I've been reading what she was charged with. It's ridiculous. If you talk the McDonalds register girl into supersizing it at no cost in exchange for your dick pic, you're guilty too. That's a stupid law.

I'm surprised it took this long for the trolls to begin to rail against this. I supposed that there are many, many people who don't want us to look too closely at HOW some of them or their children got into various schools, so must pooh-pooh it as silly and ridiculous.

Then, step 2 is to blame the school and not the individuals involved for offering and accepting a bribe - it's an institutional problem so the people offering and accepting bribes are VICTIMS also of a corrupt system.

Some of us got into top universities the old-fashioned way - we studied, got good grades, got good test scores, and wrote good applications.

It's funny, R34, I used to miss Troll-dar, but now I can identify certain posters just by the grammatical errors.

[quote] Some of us got into top universities the old-fashioned way - we studied, got good grades, got good test scores, and wrote good applications.

Well, SMELL you!

[quote]Well, SMELL you!

Just another attempt to denigrate and lessen the value of an education and hard work.

I bet you're also one of those people who call people that took getting good grades serious "goody goody braniacs" and losers.

Mocking education is an attack on fact-based and critical thinking that is the hallmark the current anti-science, anti-reason state of politics. It allows rabid emotion to take the place of well-reasoned policy -on both sides of the political divide., furthers identity politics, and demands purity tests, rather than nuanced thinking on specific issues.

R44, new here?

Within the context of this thread, R43 has a point. Despite all of R41's hard work and enormous rectitude, Lori Laughlin's dim bulb child could easily have gotten R41's place in his "top university."

It can be argued that R41 got there through hard work and blind luck. Or it might be argued that the rich kids didn't want the place that eventually went to him. The sad fact of this pay to play scheme with the country's elite educational institutions is that everyone is potentially in that place where R41 finds himself. Hard working and smart, but not really wanted by a "top university" because, as always in this country, it's all about the Benjamins.

Please understand that this entire mess is beautiful example of what AOC is saying when she raises the immorality of capitalism. Once a system makes it all about the money... it's all about the money.

So don't be so smugly self-satisfied, R41. It makes us forget how cute you are.

[quote]The problem lies with the institutions, not these two actresses.

The institutions were the targets of the fraud by test administrators and corrupt coaches.

What R47 said

Oh, dear! R34 People like you are really tiresome, this is an anonymous message board where one writes quickly and does not take time to edit and proofread. Typos do not equate to a lack of intelligence.

[quote] Typos do not equate to a lack of intelligence.

Exactly the kind of horseshit a dumb person would try to sell us.....

Here is an explanation from psychologist Tom Stafford, of the University of Sheffield.