Topic category: Law & Litigation Issues
Should Team Hannity Be Urging Fair Treatment for Lori Loughlin?
Sadly, there are plenty of people who are eager to tear successsful people down.
Sometimes they tear down people who don't deserve it.
Richard Jewel was a hero, not a domestic terrorist.
He was savaged before the truth prevailed.
The Duke lacrosse players were not rapists.
While many pilloried Jewel and the lacrosse players, Sean Hannity investigated instead of jumped aboard the jump to a terrible conclusion bandwagon and sensed that they were innocent.
Ultimately, Hannity was proven to be correct.
These days Hannity is dealing with the progressive campaign to destroy President Trump for daring to win the 2016 presidential election and celebrating the Mueller report conclusion that President Trump did not collude with the Russians and the determination of Attorney General Barr and Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein that President Trump did not obstruct justice either.
The "progressive" destroy Trump campaign continues unabated, unfortunately, so Hannity remains focused on that and it is unlikely that Sara Carter, John Solomon and Gregg Jarrett will turn to the college admissions scandal to separate the genuine villains from persons who relied on the wrong professionals, be those professionals lawyers, accountant or college admission consultants and did not intentionally break any law.
Actress Lori Loughlin has been made the Face of Evil in the college admissions scandal, but I suspect that she may only be "guilty" of picking bad advisers and being an ideal "Face" for the folks who delight in tearing down a very successful person.
So far it appears to me that Ms. Loughlin dearly loves her daughters, wanted them to have the best possible education that money can buy, and pursued her wishes for her daughters with the help of a bad person or bad people.
Ms. Loughlin is supposed to be presumed innocent, not guilty, and not cast as the Face of Evil of the college admissions scandal that the United States Justice Department was not looking for but was told about and investigated.
Let's keep it simple.
Ms. Loughlin is not a lawyer
.Ms. Loughlin is not a tax expert.
Ms. Loughlin is not a college admissions consultant.
Ms. Loughlin is a high school graduate, a wife, a mother of two daughters, and an accomplished actress who has earned plenty of money and is willing to spent very generously on her daughters and wanted them to have good college educations.
That's not a misdemeanor, much less a felony.
Reportedly, Ms. Loughlin hired a college admissions expert who was generally respected before the scandal broke.
That's not a crime either.
In "William Rick Singer: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know," Conor Shells reported (https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/william-rick-singer/) reported:
"On The Surface His Role Looked Legit…
"One of the most interesting facts about Singer is that he has been involved in the college admissions industry for many years. He is the founder and CEO of the company the Key, a 'Private Life Coaching and College Counseling Company.'
"The company’s website reads: 'The Key’s clientele is all referral based; consequently, the quality of the service provided to many of the world’s most renown [sic] families and individuals has provided an incredible foundation for The Key to grow its offerings worldwide.'
"Singer spent years at the helm of this hugely successful business and nobody questioned his methods."
I have not ascertained who, if anyone, referred Ms. Loughlin to Mr. Singer, but who it was may be very important in determining whether Ms. Loughlin reasonably believed that she was dealing with a reputable person.
Mr. Singer's admitted guilt later is not evidence that Ms. Loughlin was aware that he would do anything illegal on her behalf.
Ms. Loughlin and her husband allegedly “agreed to pay bribes totaling $500,000 in exchange for having their two daughters designated as recruits to the USC crew team — despite the fact that they did not participate in crew — thereby facilitating their admission to USC.”
No contract to that effect has been produced, however.
US reports (www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/olivia-jade-fans-asked-me-for-help-on-college-apps-before-scandal/):
"[Ms. Loughlin's daughter] Olivia wasn’t really involved in her own application process. According to documents obtained by The Atlantic, Loughlin, 55, emailed Operation Varsity Blues’ cooperating witness, William 'Rick' Singer, in December 2017 'to request guidance on how to complete the formal USC application, in the wake of her [other] daughter’s provisional acceptance as a recruited athlete.'
"[Ms. Loughlin] allegedly wrote, '[Our younger daughter] has not submitted all her colleges [sic] apps and is confused on how to do so. I want to make sure she gets this in as I don’t want to call any attention to [her] with her little friend at [her high school]. Can you tell us how to proceed?'
"Singer 'responded by directing an employee to submit the applications' for Olivia, according to the documents."
I doubt that if Ms. Loughlin had appreciated that something criminal would be involved that she would have emailed for advice of how to commit a crime.
That's just me, of course.
I consider that email exculpatory evidence.
I think that when Ms. Loughlin wrote "I want to make sure she gets this in," Ms. Loughlin simply meant to make sure her younger daughter's college application got "in" to the USC admissions department.
Tellingly, Ms. Loughlin did not instruct Singer to pay a bribe to get her younger daughter into USC.
I presume that Ms. Loughlin expected Singer to use only lawful means to improve Ms. Loughlin's younger daughter's chance to be admitted to USC.
With the FBI and the United States Justice Department not prosecuting Hillary Clinton for "extreme carelessness" that jeopardized national security, perhaps Hannity, Carter, Solomon and Jarrett should be promoting equal justice under the law for Ms. Loughlin and her husband, who apparently did not pay anyone to falsify test scores and retained an apparently reputable expert to help with their daughters' college admissions!
Michael J. Gaynor
Biography - Michael J. Gaynor
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.
Gaynor's email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.