Grow The Game
BRONZE
What makes you think that the players don’t know what is going on and that they and all involved parties and their parents haven’t been instructed to not comment?
College Entrance Scam includes former Yale Women's Soccer Coach
- Thread starter Dos Equis
- Start date
What makes you think that the players don’t know what is going on and that they and all involved parties and their parents haven’t been instructed to not comment?
Grow The Game
BRONZE
You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. You have no clue what was told to anyone and you are dead wrong about the athletic admissions process.
This is exactly the reason why everyone is keeping quiet. The media and people like you are assuming a lot.
Didn't realize that I was stepping into a trap. You only wanted to know what schools we were considering so you can simply bring up all the mishaps of the past, including what happened during slavery period of our country. I'm certain none of us, not just Georgetown, are proud of those times. Perhaps you're either UCLA or USC grad? Our family has two UCLA grads.
Yes almost every school has issues but the difference is who they are today, as our kid is considering to apply. Cannot go back and change the past and often is the case, those involved are gone today. Clearly not the case for either USC or UCLA administrators or ADs.
I only mentioned that we have crossed off these two schools because we have options, thanks to my kids grades/scores and his extracurriculars.
Dos Equis
GOLD
We all have a vested interest in the admissions process for our public universities, given how competitive it is to get in. One would hope the process to gain admission outside of normal application channels would be closely monitored, have multiple layers of approval and review, and the decision maker who vouches for someone's direct admission remains accountable for that person. I doubt the process was "just pay Salcedo."
In this case, it may be that a favor resulted in or necessitated future fraud, and the mistakes and poor judgment multiplied. That is what happens when you start out with a lie -- the cover-up is often worse.
By way of contrast, my own child's athletic commitment to a D1 program required meeting and an interview with every member of the coaching staff, an interview with the assistant athletic director, meeting with the head trainer, and meeting with people in academic services and advising (not to mention spending two days with the team). On an ongoing basis, in addition to still watching her play, the soccer staff requires she send every standardized test score and her interim and final grades/transcripts every semester. The coaching staff also met with us, her parents, several times, both with and without our daughter present, and we met with the assistant AD at their request. When I expressed my surprise at the amount of time they spent with us prior to the commitment, the coach made it very clear it was not about soccer. He stated that his career, the soccer program and the school are directly impacted by the decisions every player makes, both on and off the field. He needed to be confident that the players he recruited had the right character.
I do not know AC. She seems like a hell of a coach, and we need more of those in this country. I am less certain about who she is as a person, but I hope this experience makes her an even better one.
??? How do we know you're not just a girl in a kangaroo suit?
End of the Line
SILVER ELITE
To find fraud, you must have a victim who is harmed because they reasonably relied to their detriment on a false misrepresentation. If UCLA is not a victim as you claim, then there is no fraud. Which means the Isackson's were morons for pleading guilty on the fraud claim. Unless, just maybe, you're the one who's the moron.
There does not need to be an actual victim for mail fraud - no one needs to be harmed. It's the Isackson's intent that matters.
The forum's collective IQ level seems to drop every time you post. Please stop.
Supermodel56
SILVER ELITE
The legal definition for mail/wire fraud is that the intent has to be to obtain money or property... in other words, if you send a letter to a friend that contained a lie, you wouldn’t be charged for fraud unless you we’re trying to use that lie to obtain money or property - which in the case of this scam they did neither. They lied to gain admission - to pay money, the Isaacksons were not seeking any financial benefit.
Racketeering is when an organized business is dealing with illegal or fraudulent activity. The families involved were not part of the business - they were simply customers.
You would be laughed out of court.
Supermodel56
SILVER ELITE
Kinda like how you get laughed out of this forum?
Supermodel56
SILVER ELITE
I don’t think you know how the law works... you actually have to break a law to be convicted. The first question the lawyers will ask is what money or property did they seek to defraud the university from?
Again, with the whole definition thing, try looking it up...
A court of law or this forum? I think you just established the value of your own posts
Supermodel56
SILVER ELITE
It already has... goodbye, you and your nonsense is officially blocked.
Supermodel56
SILVER ELITE
Why don’t you look up the legal definition of mail fraud and fraud. it doesn’t matter what this forum thinks... if they are being charged with mail/wire fraud, what is the criteria for mail/wire fraud?
Legal definitions are there for a reason. Singer and the coaches certainly are guilty. They lied to the university to obtain money.
Regarding the parents, they can easily be charged with bribery because a coach (public official) got money in exchange for admission, but re: mail fraud, the prosecution would have to prove they did it to gain financial or property benefit. Prosecution argument would be that they were part of the financial transaction - but they weren’t the financial beneficiaries. It’s an interesting legal case. In a typical mail fraud case, the person that paid the money is the victim...
The big question is, does admission to the university count as financial or property benefit?!? And if so, is it tangible? How much was defrauded?
It's "what is the criterion" or "what are the criteria". Your choice.
E, they blocked you. She won. You lost. I tied you.
dk_b
GOLD
Mom's plea agreement was to attempted fraud (1349) - her plea letter is available online. The judge did express some concern about the fraud charge. Dad's plea agreement was for money laundering and tax fraud (in addition to attempted fraud, presumably; I have not seen his agreement). The tax fraud is easy since his payment to Singer was to Singer's non-profit. My guess is that part of the plea was to charge only one of them with that count.
Is that a rule? Or a Law of the Game (whatever the game is)?
Supermodel56
SILVER ELITE
Yeah... they shouldn’t have pled so early. I don’t think money laundering was the right charge and tax fraud is a stretch... their intent for doing this was not to reduce their tax liability or hide money from the gov.
They shouldn’t have claimed it as a deduction because they received benefit (or intended to receive benefit)... but again, when it comes to charitable donations - you can deduct donations so long as you subtract the benefit you received. For example, if you donate $100 to a charity at a silent auction for an item that’s worth $75 You can only deduct $25. In this case, how do you quantify the value of admission?
Does that also mean the mega donors who donated to the college for a building can’t deduct the gift because their kid got in?
I think if they fought this, at the end of the day at most it would’ve resulted in paying the tax penalties to offset any improper deductions and a fine for bribery w/maybe community service.
The tax part is a very common mistake because charities will simply send you a statement at the end of the year with your total donation and don’t disclose what the value of the benefit is. Most people just turn this doc over to their accountant and they have no idea what it was for and their accountant just deducts it all.
It is one of many unwritten rules.