Mass College Admission Cheating Scandal

[Rimbo 26122]

2 minutes ago, CDAK said:

What are the acceptable motivations for exercising your due process rights?  And are there any other unacceptable motivations for exercising due process rights?

Basically, if she had taken either of the plea deals, then she'd know exactly what she'd get as far as a prison sentence and conviction.

By doing this, she's rolling the dice. And note, as others have mentioned, that the dice are really unfriendly when you're dealing with federal prosecutors. This is putting everything on 13 at the roulette table.

This isn't going to be like the OJ trial, where a couple of local government bumpkins were suddenly thrust into the limelight by a national star's case. The stars are on the prosecution's side, and they already have the case buttoned up. She will get convicted, and of everything the prosecution decides to get her convicted of. The difference is, now she doesn't know what the sentence will be. It will probably be a worse sentence, because prosecutors generally give lighter sentences to those who don't fight the charges.

[CDAK 216]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

We all have rights.  We have a right to tell a cop "why don't you fuckin' make me?"  Just because you have a right doesn't mean that exercising it is wise.

Lots of very, very smart and experienced criminal defense attorneys advise their clients "look, I know you have a right to a trial, and to make the government put on their evidence....but I've SEEN their evidence.  If you do that, you'll be convicted, and go away for 20 years.  My advice is that you waive your right to trial, and take the 2 year deal they are offering."

Having a right is one thing.

Exercising/not exercising it intelligently is another.

What does that have to do with being arrogant and entitled?  You said, if her motivations for rejecting a plea deal are X, that's "arrogance and entitlement so grand that it overrides reason and logic."  Now you're asserting that she may not have been "intelligent[]" in rejecting a plea deal.  Your arguments are inconsistent and all over the map.

I don't think any criminal defendant is arrogant or entitled for exercising their due process rights.  But of course, it's not always the intelligent decision to request a jury trial.  Those are two very different ideas (i.e., arrogant and entitled vs. an unwise decision).  

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

[CDAK 216]

8 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Basically, if she had taken either of the plea deals, then she'd know exactly what she'd get as far as a prison sentence and conviction.

By doing this, she's rolling the dice. And note, as others have mentioned, that the dice are really unfriendly when you're dealing with federal prosecutors. This is putting everything on 13 at the roulette table.

This isn't going to be like the OJ trial, where a couple of local government bumpkins were suddenly thrust into the limelight by a national star's case. The stars are on the prosecution's side, and they already have the case buttoned up. She will get convicted, and of everything the prosecution decides to get her convicted of. The difference is, now she doesn't know what the sentence will be. It will probably be a worse sentence, because prosecutors generally give lighter sentences to those who don't fight the charges.

Maybe she's making an unwise decision.  I don't know.  And I won't dispute it if anyone criticizes her potentially unwise decision.  I object to calling her arrogant and entitled for exercising her due process rights.

[TwiceHorn 31537]

9 minutes ago, CDAK said:

What does that have to do with being arrogant and entitled?  You said, if her motivations for rejecting a plea deal are X, that's "arrogance and entitlement so grand that it overrides reason and logic."  Now you're asserting that she may not have been "intelligent[]" in rejecting a plea deal.  Your arguments are inconsistent and all over the map.

I don't think any criminal defendant is arrogant or entitled for exercising their due process rights.  But of course, it's not always the intelligent decision to request a jury trial.  Those are two very different ideas (i.e., arrogant and entitled vs. an unwise decision).  

Yeah and we have no idea why she has thus far refused to plead guilty.

It wouldn't be the first time the gubmint has overcharged in a high-profile case.  Frankly, money laundering sounds like overkill in this deal.

Granted, there's always some quid pro quo in a plea deal, but I don't really like the government telling defendants "plead guilty to this or we'll charge you with something worse."  That's just stinky.  Either the government is seeking a just punishment or it's playing gotcha games.  The latter is the latter.

Edited April 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 105347]

1 minute ago, CDAK said:

ou said, if her motivations for rejecting a plea deal are X, that's "arrogance and entitlement so grand that it overrides reason and logic."  Now you're asserting that she may not have been "intelligent[]" in rejecting a plea deal.  Your arguments are inconsistent and all over the map.

Ummmmm.....what?

Yes.  I said that she may have made a decision based on arrogance and entitlement, instead of logic and reason.  So....yeah, that would be "not intelligent."  Choosing to go with your feelings/perception as your decision-driver instead of sound reasoning is kinda textbook "not smart."

OF COURSE not all people who opt for their right to a jury trial are "arrogant and entitled" (let's Venn diagram this, verbally).  Some are truly innocent, and/or have a reasonable belief that the government cannot prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  Others just aren't smart enough to figure out how shit works.  Others have an arrogant and entitled worldview that leads them to think that they are bulletproof, and nobody, including the government, can touch them.  I can't believe that I have to type this out, but -- I am speaking just about that last group.  Which is a real thing.

[Brisketexan 105347]

3 minutes ago, CDAK said:

I object to calling her arrogant and entitled for exercising her due process rights.

Gosh, then I guess it's a good thing I didn't say that, then.

25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If they're exercising them because they think "I could NEVER be convicted".....then yeah, it's not just arrogance and entitlement, it's arrogance and entitlement so grand that it overrides reason and logic. 

I bolded the word that you seemed to have missed.  I don't know what her reasoning is.  IF (note the emphasis) her reasoning is that "there's no way anyone as beloved and awesome as me could ever be convicted," then that is arrogance and entitlement, and it's also on such a large scale that it gets you in an ass-heap of trouble.

Seriously, stop being so obtuse.

[CDAK 216]

I don't take issue with your saying the decision is not smart. I take issue with calling her entitled or arrogant for requesting a jury trial.  Those are different concepts no matter how you try to conflate them.  

 

[Rimbo 26122]

6 minutes ago, CDAK said:

Maybe she's making an unwise decision.  I don't know.  And I won't dispute it if anyone criticizes her potentially unwise decision.  I object to calling her arrogant and entitled for exercising her due process rights.

We're not calling her "entitled" and "arrogant" for exercising her due process rights. We're calling her "entitled" and "arrogant" because she is effectively insisting on betting the farm on getting a 13 at the roulette table than she would be if she followed a more sound gambling strategy. Or, even better, chose not to gamble at all.

[TwiceHorn 31537]

Actually, no, the person who called her arrogant and entitled was just talking out his ass.

I think there are probably some legit questions as to whether what they all did, as cosmically wrong as it was, actually fits the definition of "honest services" mail fraud, and, as mentioned, money laundering may be a real stretch.  There may be some actual defenses to these charges.  Or she may be in denial.  Or a whole lot of things.

Edited April 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[CDAK 216]

This is what you said:

 

"If they're exercising them because they think "I could NEVER be convicted".....then yeah, it's not just arrogance and entitlement, it's arrogance and entitlement so grand that it overrides reason and logic." 

Thus, in your opinion, it's arrogant and entitled to exercise your due process rights (that's what "them" refers to in your quote) depending on your motivations.  In my opinion, it's never arrogant or entitled to exercise your due process rights.  

[Brisketexan 105347]

3 minutes ago, CDAK said:

I don't take issue with your saying the decision is not smart. I take issue with calling her entitled or arrogant for requesting a jury trial.  Those are different concepts no matter how you try to conflate them.  

 

Jesus.  This is terrible.  How do you not get this?

Not ALL requests for a jury trial are evidence of arrogance and entitlement.  SOME may be.  This may fall in that "SOME" group.  

Further, not ALL decisions to exercise one's right to a jury trial are wise.  One can choose to exercise a right UNWISELY (that doesn't make it any less a right, it just makes it an unwise decision.  Example: you have the RIGHT at the blackjack table to split a pair -- the dealer can't stop you, it's your absolute right.  It's a WISE move to split aces, or eights.  It's an UNWISE move to split threes).  And the reason for that unwise decision MAY be arrogance or entitlement.  That's the logic here.

[Brisketexan 105347]

2 minutes ago, CDAK said:

In my opinion, it's never arrogant or entitled to exercise your due process rights.  

Oh.  Okay.

So, people have rights.  But perhaps there are times when it's smart to exercise them versus not exercise them.  That's the point.

And I've never said it's arrogant or entitled to exercise your due process rights.  I'm saying that sometimes it's NOT SMART to exercise your rights (splitting threes at the table).  If the REASON for you making that not-smart decision is because you think your shit don't stink ("Split those threes!  I'm a blackjack god and can't lose!"), then that's super-not-smart.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Brisketexan

[TwiceHorn 31537]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Jesus.  This is terrible.  How do you not get this?

Not ALL requests for a jury trial are evidence of arrogance and entitlement.  SOME may be.  This may fall in that "SOME" group.  

Further, not ALL decisions to exercise one's right to a jury trial are wise.  One can choose to exercise a right UNWISELY (that doesn't make it any less a right, it just makes it an unwise decision.  Example: you have the RIGHT at the blackjack table to split a pair -- the dealer can't stop you, it's your absolute right.  It's a WISE move to split aces, or eights.  It's an UNWISE move to split threes).  And the reason for that unwise decision MAY be arrogance or entitlement.  That's the logic here.

He's reacting to post 1169, not yours, which declared her arrogant and entitled and deserving of prison time.  Period.

He's right to take issue with that post.'

I think he gets your posts, but your posts don't pretend to know what her mindset in rejecting the plea is, as did post 1169.

Nevermind.  I do agree that one can insist on a trial out of arrogance.  See, e.g. Manafort.

Edited April 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[CDAK 216]

I've explained it succinctly several times.  It's never arrogant or entitled to exercise your due process rights.  You keep belaboring a point that no one is arguing (i.e., whether it's a wise decision).  I don't know why you keep belaboring that point. 

[Brisketexan 105347]

Just now, CDAK said:

I've explained it succinctly several times.  It's never arrogant or entitled to exercise your due process rights.  You keep belaboring a point that no one is arguing (i.e., whether it's a wise decision).  I don't know why you keep belaboring that point. 

"arrogant and entitled" is a motivation.  You are applying that modifier incorrectly.

[Post Oak 20276]

Especially if you're a pretty, rich white woman.  She's getting off light 

[Rimbo 26122]

4 minutes ago, CDAK said:

This is what you said:

 

"If they're exercising them because they think "I could NEVER be convicted".....then yeah, it's not just arrogance and entitlement, it's arrogance and entitlement so grand that it overrides reason and logic." 

Thus, in your opinion, it's arrogant and entitled to exercise your due process rights (that's what "them" refers to in your quote) depending on your motivations.  In my opinion, it's never arrogant or entitled to exercise your due process rights.  

 

[CDAK 216]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"arrogant and entitled" is a motivation.  You are applying that modifier incorrectly.

I've called it a motivation several times.  To wit.

36 minutes ago, CDAK said:

I'm sure I'll disagree but I don't know what distinction you're trying to draw.  What are the acceptable motivations for exercising your due process rights?  And are there any other unacceptable motivations for exercising due process rights?

22 minutes ago, CDAK said:

What does that have to do with being arrogant and entitled?  You said, if her motivations for rejecting a plea deal are X, that's "arrogance and entitlement so grand that it overrides reason and logic."  Now you're asserting that she may not have been "intelligent[]" in rejecting a plea deal.  Your arguments are inconsistent and all over the map.

I don't think any criminal defendant is arrogant or entitled for exercising their due process rights.  But of course, it's not always the intelligent decision to request a jury trial.  Those are two very different ideas (i.e., arrogant and entitled vs. an unwise decision).  

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31537]

The other thing is that just because she/they plead not guilty today doesn't mean they can't change their plea at any time.  It's not fixed in stone.

I don't like the government setting arbitrary deadlines, either.

[Huckleberry 33099]

In my opinion, it's never arrogant or entitled to exercise your due process rights.  

Then your opinion is wrong. I can think of lots of scenarios where exercising those specific rights would be done out of arrogance. Hell, we could probably come up with a dozen examples just from movies.

[Beau Vine 54432]

4 hours ago, Texas_Rocks said:

 

There is no way in hell that this could have happened at a better time than now. It’s going to cost them a lot of money, but they’ll be just fine in the end imo. 

 

I'll bet they even learn an important lesson from this crazy caper!

[phdhorn 6224]

4 hours ago, Texas_Rocks said:

There is no way in hell that this could have happened at a better time than now. It’s going to cost them a lot of money, but they’ll be just fine in the end imo. I could maybe see a mistrial at worst though. The modern world right now is crazier than it’s ever been.

 

This might hold true for your local yokel courts and even the state, but the Feds is another matter.  This ain't gonna go well for them except the judge might be a little sympathetic and put 'em on the lower end.  But if the gubmint attorneys want prison time, without a deal, they'll probably get some.

[Beau Vine 54432]

35 minutes ago, CDAK said:

I don't take issue with your saying the decision is not smart. I take issue with calling her entitled or arrogant for requesting a jury trial.  Those are different concepts no matter how you try to conflate them.  

 

Dude.  Stop posting.

[CDAK 216]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

Then your opinion is wrong. I can think of lots of scenarios where exercising those specific rights would be done out of arrogance. Hell, we could probably come up with a dozen examples just from movies.

 

You mischaracterized my post.  The act of exercising your due process rights is never arrogant or entitled, regardless of underlying motivations.

[TwiceHorn 31537]

The other thing that may be driving this a bit is Latham & Watkins.  Dedicated small firm criminal practitioners are probably going to charge a flat fee for something like this and they will come as close as humanly possible ("I advise you in the strongest possible terms  . . . .") to making her take a plea if that is the sensible thing to do.  However, when your lawyers are in a big, primarily civil firm that lives and dies by the billable hour, and the client is ultra-wealthy, the lawyers are probably dis-incentivized from browbeating their client into the most sensible guilty plea.  They will advise her appropriately about the plea and its benefits, but they won't browbeat her like some attorneys would. They'll bill the snot out of the file for a few months before browbeating her into a plea.

Edited April 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Lhorn 4964]

25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

  However, when your lawyers are in a big, primarily civil firm that lives and dies by the billable hour, and the client is ultra-wealthy, the lawyers are probably dis-incentivized from browbeating their client into the most sensible guilty plea. 

Sorry. Dont believe you.  Late night TV commercials have led me to believe that lawyers are altruists looking only to find me justice. 

I’m just kidding of course  I believe you completely

 

Edited April 15, 2019 by Lhorn

[CDAK 216]

It's surprising to me (but I suppose it shouldn't be) that individuals are able to pay Latham's rates for a project of any size.  I'm sure many (maybe most) of their partners are over $1,000 per hour.

[TwiceHorn 31537]

26 minutes ago, CDAK said:

It's surprising to me (but I suppose it shouldn't be) that individuals are able to pay Latham's rates for a project of any size.  I'm sure many (maybe most) of their partners are over $1,000 per hour.

Most individuals aren't able to pay, of course.  Which I think explains why a lot of even very high profile criminal defense lawyers have their own little firms.  They'll only soak their clients for a mil or two, while the big firm lawyers may need to do 5 to stay in the good graces of the compensation committee.  Not to mention the conflicts and distasteful clients.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21922]

Based on my experience, Latham and Watkins will suck you dry and then butt fuck your corpse.

[Beau Vine 54432]

Quote

 

It turns out that trusting the word of a con artist might not always be the best choice.

Following Lori Loughlin and husband Mossimo Giannulli's decision to plead not guilty to the charges facing them in connection to the college admissions scandal on Monday, a source close to the 54-year-old actress tells ET that she feels like those who orchestrated the scheme misled her about the severity of her involvement.

"[Lori and her husband] claim they were under the impression they might be breaking rules, but not laws," the source says. "They feel they were manipulated by those involved and are planning that as part of their defense."

"They realize how serious the charges are, but feel that once the judge hears their story he will see they had no bad intentions," the source adds.

 

 

That sounds pretty arrogant and entitled to me.

[CDAK 216]

Lol, I'm not going to keep offering the same explanation because you can't grok it, but I'll offer some context.  It seems like a lifetime ago now, but I was a public defender in Tennessee.  I had numerous clients that thought once they were able to explain their perspective to the jury, judge or even DA, the charges would be dropped or dismissed or they'd be found not guilty.  None of them were arrogant or entitled for exercising their due process rights.  Most, but not all, simply overestimated their ability to sway others and struggled to appreciate other perspectives.

Edited April 16, 2019 by CDAK

[Beau Vine 54432]

1 hour ago, CDAK said:

Lol, I'm not going to keep offering the same explanation because you can't grok it, but I'll offer some context.  It seems like a lifetime ago now, but I was a public defender in Tennessee.  I had numerous clients that thought once they were able to explain their perspective to the jury, judge or even DA, the charges would be dropped or dismissed or they'd be found not guilty.  None of them were arrogant or entitled for exercising their due process rights.  Most, but not all, simply overestimated their ability to sway others and struggled to appreciate other perspectives.

That's pretty much the definition of "arrogant" to me.  I realize that you have now wordsmithed your claim to "arrogant for exercising rights," so that now you're claiming that even if they were arrogant, they weren't arrogant for exercising their rights because that's impossible.  

[Pato del Muerto 52603]

So they think “I didn’t know I was breaking the law” is a defense?

and they’re giving interviews with entertainment tonight about it?

at what point does their lawyer have to hint that he’s advised them against their course of action, so that he will get other clients in the future?

[CDAK 216]

16 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

That's pretty much the definition of "arrogant" to me.  I realize that you have now wordsmithed your claim to "arrogant for exercising rights," so that now you're claiming that even if they were arrogant, they weren't arrogant for exercising their rights because that's impossible.  

That's always been my claim (i.e., its never arrogant or entitled to exercise your due process rights).  Check thread history.  It's not my claim "now."

Righteous indignation over someone pleading not guilty and forcing the government to prove them guilty is grotesque.  

[achooloco 1086]

8 hours ago, CDAK said:

Lol, I'm not going to keep offering the same explanation because you can't grok it, but I'll offer some context.  It seems like a lifetime ago now, but I was a public defender in Tennessee.  I had numerous clients that thought once they were able to explain their perspective to the jury, judge or even DA, the charges would be dropped or dismissed or they'd be found not guilty.  None of them were arrogant or entitled for exercising their due process rights.  Most, but not all, simply overestimated their ability to sway others and struggled to appreciate other perspectives.

also, thats setting the two examples completely out of context and assuming they exist in a void. does anyone on here know aunt becky personally? probably not. but i don't think it is completely out of the realm of possibility to assume that her motivations are a tad bit more arrogant and entitled than joe schmo citizen who can't afford a private attorney in Tennessee...

[Asithappens 974]

8 hours ago, CDAK said:

Lol, I'm not going to keep offering the same explanation because you can't grok it, but I'll offer some context.  It seems like a lifetime ago now, but I was a public defender in Tennessee.  I had numerous clients that thought once they were able to explain their perspective to the jury, judge or even DA, the charges would be dropped or dismissed or they'd be found not guilty.  None of them were arrogant or entitled for exercising their due process rights.  Most, but not all, simply overestimated their ability to sway others and struggled to appreciate other perspectives.

Your misunderstanding (ignorance?) seems to be very intentional.

Equating Tennesseeans to the Loughlins is quite the stretch.

Also, Loughlin has already acted in what most would describe as an arrogant and haughty manner (body language in court, signing autographs before the hearing) which was in marked contrast to Huffman. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Aunt Becky is gonna be a trustees bitch for about 18-24 months somewhere.  Hopefully there'll be some video of the good parts.  TheIr attorney must be giving them some silly ass advice. 

[Asithappens 974]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Aunt Becky is gonna be a trustees bitch for about 18-24 months somewhere.  Hopefully there'll be some video of the good parts.  TheIr attorney must be giving them some silly ass advice. 

I wouldn't be surprised if it's twice that long.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Asithappens said:

I wouldn't be surprised if it's twice that long.

No idea about federal sentencing guidelines, but I think the judges probably try not to get emotionally involved.  Her actions right now seem more like somebody that's just playing the I'm innocent card.  The signing of autographs could be taken any number of ways. Not sure I'd have gone that way in such a proceeding.

I just find it hard to believe that someone named Aunt Becky, from such a wholesome, family oriented show such as Full House would stoop to such actions as bribery.  I'm going full fetal position. I only hope the Olsen twins have been sheltered form this silliness.

[Asithappens 974]

24 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 The signing of autographs could be taken any number of ways.

I can see maybe two ways: 1) she's clueless about the consequences of her mail fraud/tax fraud actions, or 2) she's just milking the publicity like any other starlet.

While there may be a number of ways to take it, none of them are good in connection to her court proceedings, imo.

Again, compare her actions to Huffman's. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

8 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

I can see maybe two ways: 1) she's clueless about the consequences of her mail fraud/tax fraud actions, or 2) she's just milking the publicity like any other starlet.

While there may be a number of ways to take it, none of them are good in connection to her court proceedings, imo.

Again, compare her actions to Huffman's. 

Yeah Huffman, and Macy seem to be maybe a bit smarter, more grounded than her, and her very rich, entitled husband. Like I said her actions could be taken any number of ways from just been being polite to fans or she could be taking this as Meh, I'm Aunt becky, nothing gonna happen to me.

 I really wonder what her thought process is for thinking what she did was just rules infractions, and not something serious once the feds got involved.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Onboard 2.0

[Asithappens 974]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 

Well said.... 

[TwiceHorn 31537]

Another thing that may be influencing this is the judge she's drawn.  As shown with Ellis and Manafort, the prosecution can recommend until they're blue in the face and some judges are going to do what they're going to do.  Probably the majority of judges would go with the guidelines and recommendation, but some are going high and some are going low.  Judges that go low are not a huge outlier, particularly when it comes to wealthy white defendants, although that can cut both ways.

[Asithappens 974]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Judges that go low are not a huge outlier, particularly when it comes to wealthy white defendants, although that can cut both ways.

Aaron Persky says "what up, bro?!?!!".

Edited April 16, 2019 by Asithappens

[Asithappens 974]

16 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 I really wonder what her thought process is for thinking what she did was just rules infractions, and not something serious once the feds got involved.

Maybe Olivia Jade turns out to be the smart one in the family? 

Which makes Loughlin very, very, very stupid. 

[TwiceHorn 31537]

30 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Aaron Persky says "what up, bro?!?!!".

Oddly enough, Persky went along with what pretrial services recommended in that case.  Pretrial services in that instance using California's rough equivalent to the sentencing guidelines.

[TwiceHorn 31537]

39 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah Huffman, and Macy seem to be maybe a bit smarter, more grounded than her, and her very rich, entitled husband. Like I said her actions could be taken any number of ways from just been being polite to fans or she could be taking this as Meh, I'm Aunt becky, nothing gonna happen to me.

 I really wonder what her thought process is for thinking what she did was just rules infractions, and not something serious once the feds got involved.

Just because the feds are involved doesn't mean it isn't a bullshit prosecution.  The opposite might be true, in fact.  The feds love em some high-profile, to a very unhealthy extent.

The main charge, "honest services" mail fraud, has always been controversial and permits the feds to virtually invent a crime.  And money laundering, the new, elevated charge, seems to me to be quite a stretch, even if it may fit in some weird way.  To wit, ordinarily the payor of properly earned money is not a money launderer. If they pay that money for unlawful purposes, that may be a crime, but it ordinarily isn't money laundering.  Usually, it is the payor of ill-gotten gains, and the payee of those gains who does something illicit with the funds to hide their origins or ill-gotten nature that are charged with money laundering.

We can't know what she's thinking.  There's a multitude of reasons she may not be pleading guilty right now.

As CDAK says, you can't infer entitlement or arrogance merely from the act of pleading not guilty.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Just because the feds are involved doesn't mean it isn't a bullshit prosecution.  The opposite might be true, in fact.  The feds love em some high-profile, to a very unhealthy extent.

The main charge, "honest services" mail fraud, has always been controversial and permits the feds to virtually invent a crime.  And money laundering, the new, elevated charge, seems to me to be quite a stretch, even if it may fit in some weird way.  To wit, ordinarily the payor of properly earned money is not a money launderer. If they pay that money for unlawful purposes, that may be a crime, but it ordinarily isn't money laundering.  Usually, it is the payor of ill-gotten gains, and the payee of those gains who does something illicit with the funds to hide their origins or ill-gotten nature that are charged with money laundering.

We can't know what she's thinking.  There's a multitude of reasons she may not be pleading guilty right now.

As CDAK says, you can't infer entitlement or arrogance merely from the act of pleading not guilty.

Not saying that, but when the feds get involved you'd be wise take it seriously, BS or not. Seems the prudent thing to do.  

Just sitting around fishing trip campfires with a few of these guys, and you get the sense they are serious when they come after you, and have done their homework (my personal experiences with what I've heard only).

I haven't really taken a position that she was committing a crime, but based on Huffman admitting guilt it sure looks that way (if the charges are similar).  Maybe they just see her as an great target ala Bonfire Of The Vanities.

[Asithappens 974]

24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oddly enough, Persky went along with what pretrial services recommended in that case.  Pretrial services in that instance using California's rough equivalent to the sentencing guidelines.

Prosecutors, however, recommended six years.

In prison.

Maybe Aunt Becky can get a Persky-like judge?