College Entrance Scam includes former Yale Women's Soccer Coach

[younothat]

Well I guess the politicians and More college admins wanted to get in on the ACT

"Mark Ridley-Thomas is accused of of conspiring with the then dean of USC’s School of Social Work, to steer county money to the school in return for admitting his son into graduate school with a full-tuition scholarship and a paid professorship"

L.A. Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas and ex-USC dean indicted on bribery charges

A former USC dean is charged with paying off Mark Ridley-Thomas in exchange for millions of dollars in L.A. County contracts with the university.

www.latimes.com

Don't know if this is surprising or we've just become dull to this kind of graft going on?

Where are the check and balances for these "special" acceptances via college officials or through these back room deals?

Compliance people, committees, auditors or what? Do you just need a dean, coach, or committee approval to get admitted? . Regular students perhaps but athlete needs much more. Once there attending college that's a whole different ball game.

As far as this case, feds only interested in federal charges like conspiracy or bribery so they was nothing done at the state local levels besides people resigning or being fired from jobs. Both USC and UCLA had coaches who fell under this category, I thought one from the UCLA women's program staff resigned or something like that or where they both from USC?

 

[watfly]

I kinda get what you are saying but there is a lack of evidence.

I know a lot from personal experience that the Feds love to play a dirty little game called CONSPIRACY. I am shocked that Cromwell did not go down with JS on a conspiracy charge.

From my personal experience, when someone doesn’t go down it’s because they are a snitch/reliable source working for the government. I think it’s plausible that the initial snitch had limited information and Cromwell was the weak leak in the chain and when pressed she got diarrhea about the mouth.

It wouldn't surprise me if this was the case. It just doesn't past the smell test that she was left unscathed both by the authorities and the school. Maybe she made a convincing case for "plausible deniability".

 

[GoldenGate]

I kinda get what you are saying but there is a lack of evidence.

I know a lot from personal experience that the Feds love to play a dirty little game called CONSPIRACY. I am shocked that Cromwell did not go down with JS on a conspiracy charge.

From my personal experience, when someone doesn’t go down it’s because they are a snitch/reliable source working for the government. I think it’s plausible that the initial snitch had limited information and Cromwell was the weak leak in the chain and when pressed she got diarrhea about the mouth.

I like it. How about maybe she was a super secret assassin for the CIA under deep cover as a UCLA soccer coach, and we need her to keep her job for the sake of national security?

Or maybe UCLA is worried that firing her might violate due process and constitute bad PR by virtue of the fact that it secured the confession through waterboarding?

I know, she leveraged her great power as the SoCal youth mafia boss and used her capos, the SoCal DOCs, to leave a horse head at the foot of the UCLA chancellor's bed while he was sleeping?

FFS, all of these are more plausible than that the feds pressured UCLA to let her keep her job despite her criminal conspiring because she's a snitch. Singer was THE snitch and got prison time. The Isaksens were also snitches as part of their plea deal and also got prison time. What is your theory about why the Singers and the Isaksens got prison despite their snitching, while the great and powerful lesbian soccer coach of Westwood is the only person who manages to play the federal government, the state of California, and some of the richest people in America for fools, so that she's the only conspiratorial coach to walk away scot free not only without an indictment but with her job? ,The feds nailed more than 10 other college coaches with indictments despite their cooperation, plus every single person involved besides Cromwell? Perhaps she was the criminal mastermind behind the whole thing, and always one step ahead of the feds? Or maybe the feds and UCLA were worried that Cromwell would use her vast wealth and power to beat the rap and then bring the State of CA to its knees if they dared take action against her?

 

[MacDre]

I like it. How about maybe she was a super secret assassin for the CIA under deep cover as a UCLA soccer coach, and we need her to keep her job for the sake of national security?

Or maybe UCLA is worried that firing her might violate due process and constitute bad PR by virtue of the fact that it secured the confession through waterboarding?

I know, she leveraged her great power as the SoCal youth mafia boss and used her capos, the SoCal DOCs, to leave a horse head at the foot of the UCLA chancellor's bed while he was sleeping?

FFS, all of these are more plausible than that the feds pressured UCLA to let her keep her job despite her criminal conspiring because she's a snitch. Singer was THE snitch and got prison time. The Isaksens were also snitches as part of their plea deal and also got prison time. What is your theory about why the Singers and the Isaksens got prison despite their snitching, while the great and powerful lesbian soccer coach of Westwood is the only person who manages to play the federal government, the state of California, and some of the richest people in America for fools, so that she's the only conspiratorial coach to walk away scot free not only without an indictment but with her job? ,The feds nailed more than 10 other college coaches with indictments despite their cooperation, plus every single person involved besides Cromwell? Perhaps she was the criminal mastermind behind the whole thing, and always one step ahead of the feds? Or maybe the feds and UCLA were worried that Cromwell would use her vast wealth and power to beat the rap and then bring the State of CA to its knees if they dared take action against her?

Good stuff. I like it all. But, what are your thoughts as to why there was no conspiracy charge against Cromwell?

 

[GoldenGate]

Don't know if this is surprising or we've just become dull to this kind of graft going on?

Where are the check and balances for these "special" acceptances via college officials or through these back room deals?

Compliance people, committees, auditors or what? Do you just need a dean, coach, or committee approval to get admitted? . Regular students perhaps but athlete needs much more. Once there attending college that's a whole different ball game.

As far as this case, feds only interested in federal charges like conspiracy or bribery so they was nothing done at the state local levels besides people resigning or being fired from jobs. Both USC and UCLA had coaches who fell under this category, I thought one from the UCLA women's program staff resigned or something like that or where they both from USC?

Dull to this graft? WTF are you talking about? Every single person - other than Cromwell if you believe in conspiracy theories - was convicted and did time. The LA Times was all over this including in court to obtain all the emails and texts - which showed nothing bad about Cromwell btw. This board alone has 57 pages worth of babbling conspiracy theory nonsense. The truth is people still don't like graft, unless it's the one guy of course, and then it's great but not as great as grabbin' chicks by the pussy and screwing hookers while the wife is preggers.

The check and balance for the Varsity Blues fraud was prison, job loss, and getting raked over the coals pretty much every day by the press. Pretty much how it has always been and should be in a country that doesn't cut off hands for theft.

By the way, now is probably a good time to refresh everyone's memories about the nature of the crime, which was conspiracy to defraud the colleges. People seem to forget - or refuse to acknowledge - that the colleges were the victims. The idea that UCLA would continue to employ someone who screwed it for their own personal financial gain (and just because she turned snitch) is laughable. Do you remember that mega class action that was filed by "students" against all the schools as a result of this lawsuit and which got all that attention? Do you know what happened to it? The court dismissed it because it was absolute b.s., but nobody knows that or cares because all they care about is the b.s. which makes for much more fun conspiracy theories than the actual truth. Most of the people here are so stupid and self-pitying that they think they're the victim. The truth is their kid did not lose a spot to UCLA because of this, no one's did. The only victim at UCLA was UCLA.

 

[GoldenGate]

Good stuff. I like it all. But, what are your thoughts as to why there was no conspiracy charge against Cromwell?

Because she did not conspire. It's pretty simple.

 

[younothat]

Dull to this graft? WTF are you talking about? Every single person - other than Cromwell if you believe in conspiracy theories - was convicted and did time. The LA Times was all over this including in court to obtain all the emails and texts - which showed nothing bad about Cromwell btw. This board alone has 57 pages worth of babbling conspiracy theory nonsense. The truth is people still don't like graft, unless it's the one guy of course, and then it's great but not as great as grabbin' chicks by the pussy and screwing hookers while the wife is preggers.

The check and balance for the Varsity Blues fraud was prison, job loss, and getting raked over the coals pretty much every day by the press. Pretty much how it has always been and should be in a country that doesn't cut off hands for theft.

By the way, now is probably a good time to refresh everyone's memories about the nature of the crime, which was conspiracy to defraud the colleges. People seem to forget - or refuse to acknowledge - that the colleges were the victims. The idea that UCLA would continue to employ someone who screwed it for their own personal financial gain (and just because she turned snitch) is laughable. Do you remember that mega class action that was filed by "students" against all the schools as a result of this lawsuit and which got all that attention? Do you know what happened to it? The court dismissed it because it was absolute b.s., but nobody knows that or cares because all they care about is the b.s. which makes for much more fun conspiracy theories than the actual truth. Most of the people here are so stupid and self-pitying that they think they're the victim. The truth is their kid did not lose a spot to UCLA because of this, no one's did. The only victim at UCLA was UCLA.

This referring to ridley thomas and the USC dean like quoted in that post

The rest of the garbage you posted is in your head or something. Did you have blinkers on, is somebody riding you like a horses ass or something or just stuck in your own fantasy world?

L.A. Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas and ex-USC dean indicted on bribery charges

A former USC dean is charged with paying off Mark Ridley-Thomas in exchange for millions of dollars in L.A. County contracts with the university.

www.latimes.com

 

[GoldenGate]

It wouldn't surprise me if this was the case. It just doesn't past the smell test that she was left unscathed both by the authorities and the school. Maybe she made a convincing case for "plausible deniability".

I've always said that if it weren't for Cromwell's snitching, the feds never would have learned about Singer ALTHOUGH SINGER HAD ALREADY PLED OUT AND IMPLICATED EVERYONE SIX MONTHS EARLIER.

I do also see how the feds might get Singer to implicate everyone, sign off on a plea deal and then, right before they spring the indictments on everyone, they decide they could use just a little more info on Salcedo, so they go to Cromwell and tell her that they'll let her off the hook for her crime if she rats out someone who they already have nailed based on both Singer's testimony and the financial transaction docs. I mean who cares that bringing her in might backfire and she might alert Salcedo and the Isaksens. I mean, we know Salcedo is the ring leader and easily the most important piece of the entire house of cards.

And so then UCLA tells Cromwell how appreciative they are that she defrauded the school but ratted everyone out under threat of criminal prosecution, that's just the type of person they want leading their young students into adulthood, so they go out and destroy all the emails and text messages before the LA Times can get their hands on them so she can keep coaching. Totally approved by UCLA's general counsel, the UC system's general counsel, and all the outside legal counsel, none of whom worries for a second that maybe letting a criminal who defrauded the school continue teaching students is a bad idea, especially given how important she is coaching a team that loses almost three times as much money as it makes.

 

[GoldenGate]

This referring to ridley thomas and the USC dean like quoted in that post

The rest of the garbage you posted is in your head or something. Did you have blinkers on, is somebody riding you like a horses ass or something or just stuck in your own fantasy world?

L.A. Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas and ex-USC dean indicted on bribery charges

A former USC dean is charged with paying off Mark Ridley-Thomas in exchange for millions of dollars in L.A. County contracts with the university.

www.latimes.com

Uh, this is a thread about Varsity Blues and Cromwell conspiracy theories.

 

[lafalafa]

Uh, this is a thread about Varsity Blues and Cromwell conspiracy theories.

No it's about the college entry scams just like the title says.

Yale, USC, UCLA, etc. They all willing participated, accepted the students and keep them after for years at some places. Playing them as victim(s) might just be about the wildest conspiracy theory of them all.

 

[MacDre]

Because she did not conspire. It's pretty simple.

GTFOH! I have childhood friends and relatives that I will not give my phone number or save their number in my contacts because I’m scared of a conspiracy charge; yes, I know folks currently in club fed because they were connected by phone records.

I’m not as familiar with the facts here as you and lafalafa but I’ve seen several innocent folks go down on conspiracy charges and they are damn near impossible to defend against!! Cromwell talking to JS, team pictures, uniform, compliance review definitely enough for a least 10 years in club fed unless one is a snitch.

. https://www.bajokalaw.com/conspirac...ments-required-for-criminal-conspiracy-charge

 

[MacDre]

Because she did not conspire. It's pretty simple.

GTFOH! I have childhood friends and relatives that I will not give my phone number or save their number in my contacts because I’m scared of a conspiracy charge; yes, I know folks currently in club fed because they were connected by phone records.

I’m not as familiar with the facts here as you and lafalafa but I’ve seen several innocent folks go down on conspiracy charges and they are damn near impossible to defend against!! Cromwell talking to JS, team pictures, uniform, compliance review definitely enough for a least 10 years in club fed unless one is a snitch.

. https://www.bajokalaw.com/conspirac...ments-required-for-criminal-conspiracy-charge

 

[lafalafa]

Donna Heinel, ex-senior associate athletic director for USC, will plead guilty Friday to honest services wire fraud after allegedly arranging for more than 24 students to get into the college, Reuters reported.

USC official accused of taking bribes to plead guilty in ‘Varsity Blues’ scandal

Donna Heinel, ex-senior associate athletic director for USC, will plead guilty to honest services wire fraud after allegedly arranging for more than 24 students to get into the college.

nypost.com

The systematic problems apparently still exist and there are not enough check and balances. Of course there are more people involved who didn't take money but still willingly participated in the scams that are still around.

The Latest, Part I
Ridley-Thomas was arraigned Wednesday afternoon and pleaded not guilty. The 35-page indictment alleges that he worked with then-USC School of Social Work dean Marilyn Louise Flynn on a scheme to admit the councilman’s son, former state assemblyman Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, into the graduate school and provide him with a scholarship and a paid professorship. The insinuation is that a soft landing was arranged after the younger Ridley-Thomas resigned his seat. In return, the elder Ridley-Thomas, then a member of the powerful County Board of Supervisors, allegedly steered millions of dollars in county contracts to the school.
A trial date has been set for December 14. Expect delays.

https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/the-takeaways-from-mark-ridley-thomas-indictment-and-suspension/

 

[Carlsbad7]

24 students × $20,000 per bribe (which is likely low) = $480,000

And this is on top of his regular USC coaches salary. (Which is almost guaranteed to be over 100k)

Bribes or "Donations" if they go to the school are one in the same. However a small percentage of donations will likely make it back to the players, fields, or coaching programs.

 

[GoldenGate]

24 students × $20,000 per bribe (which is likely low) = $480,000

And this is on top of his regular USC coaches salary. (Which is almost guaranteed to be over 100k)

Bribes or "Donations" if they go to the school are one in the same. However a small percentage of donations will likely make it back to the players, fields, or coaching programs.

Huh? A bribe to a coach is very different than a donation to a school. There is nothing unlawful about USC admitting a student because a parent donated millions. Honestly, there isn't even anything wrong with that either since USC gets to decide who gets to go to school there, and the money is likely to benefit other students. Plus, no one gets denied admission because they created an additional spot for a student whose parents dropped $10 million. A bribe to a coach who keeps the money and dupes the school into admitting the student on false pretenses, on the other hand, is a crime as it should be.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Huh? A bribe to a coach is very different than a donation to a school. There is nothing unlawful about USC admitting a student because a parent donated millions. Honestly, there isn't even anything wrong with that either since USC gets to decide who gets to go to school there, and the money is likely to benefit other students. Plus, no one gets denied admission because they created an additional spot for a student whose parents dropped $10 million. A bribe to a coach who keeps the money and dupes the school into admitting the student on false pretenses, on the other hand, is a crime as it should be.

Bribes, one and the same.

In both cases a student was accepted into the school because a large amout of $$$ changed hands.

Also in both cases a deserving student was bumped out of line by another with $$$.

 

[crush]

Bribes, one and the same.

In both cases a student was accepted into the school because a large amout of $$$ changed hands.

Also in both cases a deserving student was bumped out of line by another with $$$.

Pay to enter!!!

 

[lafalafa]

Pay to enter!!!

Where all paying or subsiding universities in CA through our federal, state, and local assessments, taxes, etc.

Favorable admission terms for people with more $ or connections could be viewed as economic discrimination with moral and ethical ramifications. Buying priority or a faster pass might work for Disneyland but not really a fair or equitable approach to higher education opportunities.

 

[crush]

How to pay to play at the next level by crush: First, make sure you have enough money to participant. Then you must "Pay to Play" soccer in this country, especially after High School. Pay for private coaching. Pay for tutors so be best student. Pay for travel ball. Work hard at your sport. Work super hard at School. Education is like a religion for most in this country so they have private school for that as well for those with lot's of cash. Work all the angles and make sure you know the, "whose who" of "you know who" (("Middleman Rick" or someone else with ties and keys to the kingdom)) can make it happen and unlock doors that most us will never have keys to. Once at the door, get the cash out to take it to the next level. That's the key from what I have learned. What a mess and so unfair to the real student/athlete. I will end with this: My good pal dd got a full ride to a big time P5 school. Played soccer since she was 5. Her ride was 100% academic and has no plans to tryout for the soccer team because she wants to be a doctor. 4.7 GPA gets your full ride at most places.

 

[MacDre]

I was a public defender when I first started practicing law. I know quite a bit about how prosecution decisions are made. In a high profile case like this, there is no way on Earth that prosecutors would not have charged Cromwell if they they thought they had a winnable case against her. None. Accordingly, I conclude that she is factually innocent.

1. Prosecutors did not need Cromwell as a primary witness. The evidence needed to show the fraud was easily acquired. There were many witnesses. There were bank and brokerage records. There was provable evidence that the player did not have a true soccer provenance. This was a slam dunk. Cromwell was probably a minor witness whose testimony might have been useful, but not necessary. Therefore, there was no need to offer Cromwell a plea, because she had no real leverage.

2. What crime, anyway? Is there any evidence that she took money? Is there any evidence that she doctored paperwork? Is there any evidence that she made a false representation? I have not seen anything like this. What I hear is that she turned a blind eye, and did not do any investigation of her own. That is not a prosecutable crime.

3. The idea that Cromwell got a secret plea deal is astonishingly ignorant. If a plea deal of this type were offered, then it had to be in writing, and there has to be a public record of it. Pleas are part of the court record. If there is no court record, then there is no plea. It is true that there can be "no prosecution" agreements, but these are written, and usually available by request. (For example, in Los Angeles County, you can get them from the City Attorney.) Otherwise, they are available through a FOIA request. If Cromwell had a "no prosecution" agreement, we would know it.

4. In high profile cases, just as a matter of practice, nobody is let off the hook. If anybody did anything wrong that rose to the level of a crime, that person would have been prosecuted.

The people on this board who claim that Cromwell was somehow given preferential treatment, or was let off the hook, are just talking out of their ass. They probably base their opinions on a deep study of television drama. In the real world of criminal law, Cromwell would have been prosecuted if there were (1) legally tenable grounds to do so; and (2) a realistic possibility of obtaining a conviction.

You are making some very strong statements while avoiding the issue of CONSPIRACY. Generally speaking Counselor, how hard is it for a prosecutor to prove up a conspiracy charge? In your professional opinion, do you think there was enough evidence for a prosecutor to substantiate a conspiracy charge here? If not, why not?

FYI, I don’t know Cromwell or have anything against her. From what I’ve heard and seen, she’s a very likable and respectable person. I’m just “turning stone’s” and something seems off to me.