[BostonCard]

OF, are you suggesting the judge in the Vandemoer trial was biased?  Otherwise, I am struggling to see the relevance of your post to Stanford athletics.

BC

[BostonCard]

OF, are you suggesting the judge in the Vandemoer trial was biased?  Otherwise, I am struggling to see the relevance of your post to Stanford athletics.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Anyone see the WSJ story today about how 2/3 of federal judges didn't recuse themselves in cases the defendant was a company in which they owned stock? What in the holy hell has happened to our moral compass in this society?

Lying and cheating is being so accepted, even enabled, that people are seeing that is the best way to get ahead in life. It's absolutely vomit-inducing how many truly shitty, dishonest people there are amongst us.

The moral rot must be purged and replaced with integrity and honesty or the whole society is going to implode.

While I basically agree with you analysis of our current society, I am not of the opinion that this is necessarily an example of it. The presumption has to be that if the judge does not recuse himself it is because he believes he can make an unbiased judgement even though he may own some stock in companies appearing before him. Assuming that is not true is not of itself warranted. A better question would be did the judge inform the parties of that situation to allow them to challenge his decision to continue as the judge. If that was done and nobody did challenge, its fine IMHO.

Several of the judges contacted by WSJ said they goofed or had a lapse or some other nonsense. They knew what they were doing and did it anyway. Making matters even worse, Chief Justice Roberts, who oversees the courts, was asked for a comment and he declined.  He couldn't even say "judges must recuse themselves when they have a conflict," as a generic statement, unrelated to any specific case.

[OutsiderFan]

Anyone see the WSJ story today about how 2/3 of federal judges didn't recuse themselves in cases the defendant was a company in which they owned stock? What in the holy hell has happened to our moral compass in this society?

Lying and cheating is being so accepted, even enabled, that people are seeing that is the best way to get ahead in life. It's absolutely vomit-inducing how many truly shitty, dishonest people there are amongst us.

The moral rot must be purged and replaced with integrity and honesty or the whole society is going to implode.

While I basically agree with you analysis of our current society, I am not of the opinion that this is necessarily an example of it. The presumption has to be that if the judge does not recuse himself it is because he believes he can make an unbiased judgement even though he may own some stock in companies appearing before him. Assuming that is not true is not of itself warranted. A better question would be did the judge inform the parties of that situation to allow them to challenge his decision to continue as the judge. If that was done and nobody did challenge, its fine IMHO.

Several of the judges contacted by WSJ said they goofed or had a lapse or some other nonsense. They knew what they were doing and did it anyway. Making matters even worse, Chief Justice Roberts, who oversees the courts, was asked for a comment and he declined.  He couldn't even say "judges must recuse themselves when they have a conflict," as a generic statement, unrelated to any specific case.

[TrumpCard]

Anyone see the WSJ story today about how 2/3 of federal judges didn't recuse themselves in cases the defendant was a company in which they owned stock? What in the holy hell has happened to our moral compass in this society?

Lying and cheating is being so accepted, even enabled, that people are seeing that is the best way to get ahead in life. It's absolutely vomit-inducing how many truly shitty, dishonest people there are amongst us.

The moral rot must be purged and replaced with integrity and honesty or the whole society is going to implode.

While I basically agree with you analysis of our current society, I am not of the opinion that this is necessarily an example of it. The presumption has to be that if the judge does not recuse himself it is because he believes he can make an unbiased judgement even though he may own some stock in companies appearing before him. Assuming that is not true is not of itself warranted. A better question would be did the judge inform the parties of that situation to allow them to challenge his decision to continue as the judge. If that was done and nobody did challenge, its fine IMHO.

Several of the judges contacted by WSJ said they goofed or had a lapse or some other nonsense. They knew what they were doing and did it anyway. Making matters even worse, Chief Justice Roberts, who oversees the courts, was asked for a comment and he declined.  He couldn't even say "judges must recuse themselves when they have a conflict," as a generic statement, unrelated to any specific case.

Here is the article:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/131-federal...1632834421

Money Quote:  "About two-thirds of federal district judges disclosed holdings of individual stocks, and nearly one of every five who did heard at least one case involving those stocks."

My take as litigator for 20 years.  I often have heard judges disclose when they hold stock in a company that is a party.  I can't be sure the number of instances when they haven't disclosed (obviously).  Personally, I would not object on that basis unless the holding were quite large and the case were material to the company's stock price.  In most instances, neither is true.  I'm all for following rules to a "t," but the vast majority of the instances where this occurred do not reflect moral rot.  I cannot exclude the possibility that there was an instance or two where the judge purposefully failed to disclose such a bias.  And since we don't have a good way to determine intent nor do we have a good way to go back and give parties the opportunity to demand recusal without knowing how the judge would rule on key issues in the case.  So the consequences here are very unfortunate.  But it is wrong to say that all of the judges caught up in this investigation are corrupt.  Considering the WSJ article acknowledges that virtually every judge who owns individual stocks ran afoul of the ethical standard, we have a good idea that it's extremely difficult for judges to comply with the rule as written.  I might suggest that the relevant authority (Congress, a judicial council, SCOTUS, or whoever) consider adopting ethical standards that make compliance easier.  Maybe the rule should be more strict:  No judge may hold individual stocks, maybe except in a blind investment account.  Maybe the rule should be more lax:  Judges do not need to report holdings less than $XYZ.  But federal judges do a really difficult job for far, far less compensation than they could earn in the private sector and it's not right to accuse a broad swath of them of corruption when they have only committed a technical violation of a law without actually ruling in a biased fashion in any case.

[TrumpCard]

Anyone see the WSJ story today about how 2/3 of federal judges didn't recuse themselves in cases the defendant was a company in which they owned stock? What in the holy hell has happened to our moral compass in this society?

Lying and cheating is being so accepted, even enabled, that people are seeing that is the best way to get ahead in life. It's absolutely vomit-inducing how many truly shitty, dishonest people there are amongst us.

The moral rot must be purged and replaced with integrity and honesty or the whole society is going to implode.

While I basically agree with you analysis of our current society, I am not of the opinion that this is necessarily an example of it. The presumption has to be that if the judge does not recuse himself it is because he believes he can make an unbiased judgement even though he may own some stock in companies appearing before him. Assuming that is not true is not of itself warranted. A better question would be did the judge inform the parties of that situation to allow them to challenge his decision to continue as the judge. If that was done and nobody did challenge, its fine IMHO.

Several of the judges contacted by WSJ said they goofed or had a lapse or some other nonsense. They knew what they were doing and did it anyway. Making matters even worse, Chief Justice Roberts, who oversees the courts, was asked for a comment and he declined.  He couldn't even say "judges must recuse themselves when they have a conflict," as a generic statement, unrelated to any specific case.

Here is the article:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/131-federal...1632834421

Money Quote:  "About two-thirds of federal district judges disclosed holdings of individual stocks, and nearly one of every five who did heard at least one case involving those stocks."

My take as litigator for 20 years.  I often have heard judges disclose when they hold stock in a company that is a party.  I can't be sure the number of instances when they haven't disclosed (obviously).  Personally, I would not object on that basis unless the holding were quite large and the case were material to the company's stock price.  In most instances, neither is true.  I'm all for following rules to a "t," but the vast majority of the instances where this occurred do not reflect moral rot.  I cannot exclude the possibility that there was an instance or two where the judge purposefully failed to disclose such a bias.  And since we don't have a good way to determine intent nor do we have a good way to go back and give parties the opportunity to demand recusal without knowing how the judge would rule on key issues in the case.  So the consequences here are very unfortunate.  But it is wrong to say that all of the judges caught up in this investigation are corrupt.  Considering the WSJ article acknowledges that virtually every judge who owns individual stocks ran afoul of the ethical standard, we have a good idea that it's extremely difficult for judges to comply with the rule as written.  I might suggest that the relevant authority (Congress, a judicial council, SCOTUS, or whoever) consider adopting ethical standards that make compliance easier.  Maybe the rule should be more strict:  No judge may hold individual stocks, maybe except in a blind investment account.  Maybe the rule should be more lax:  Judges do not need to report holdings less than $XYZ.  But federal judges do a really difficult job for far, far less compensation than they could earn in the private sector and it's not right to accuse a broad swath of them of corruption when they have only committed a technical violation of a law without actually ruling in a biased fashion in any case.

[teejers1]

 But federal judges do a really difficult job for far, far less compensation than they could earn in the private sector and it's not right to accuse a broad swath of them of corruption when they have only committed a technical violation of a law without actually ruling in a biased fashion in any case.

Agree with TC down the line . . . almost completely.  On the sentence above, I'd say the majority of judges are underpaid in comparison to what they could make in the private sector.  However, it is a pretty sweet gig with many benefits, including smart clerks helping you with your job, job security like no other (which is liberating, to put it mildly), generous (to put it mildly) public pension in retirement, and a great opportunity to make a lasting mark in your chosen profession.  That is why so many would drop everything to become a federal judge.  It's kinda like the Athletic Director position at Stanford!

Some on the federal bench I wouldn't trust in Small Claims Court.  And those folks are making out like bandits and fleecing us all!  [I'll refrain from any further Stanford sports analogy here].

[teejers1]

 But federal judges do a really difficult job for far, far less compensation than they could earn in the private sector and it's not right to accuse a broad swath of them of corruption when they have only committed a technical violation of a law without actually ruling in a biased fashion in any case.

Agree with TC down the line . . . almost completely.  On the sentence above, I'd say the majority of judges are underpaid in comparison to what they could make in the private sector.  However, it is a pretty sweet gig with many benefits, including smart clerks helping you with your job, job security like no other (which is liberating, to put it mildly), generous (to put it mildly) public pension in retirement, and a great opportunity to make a lasting mark in your chosen profession.  That is why so many would drop everything to become a federal judge.  It's kinda like the Athletic Director position at Stanford!

Some on the federal bench I wouldn't trust in Small Claims Court.  And those folks are making out like bandits and fleecing us all!  [I'll refrain from any further Stanford sports analogy here].

[Mick]

I know half a dozen judges reasonably well.  Almost all of them are terrific, very high quality people, generally thought to be excellent judges.

I only know one judge to have a poor reputation.  A superior court judge, rated 24th of 31 superior court judges in that county.  I know her very, very well and wouldn't trust her to judge a third grade spelling contest.  Personality-wise, very unfit to be a judge.

[Mick]

I know half a dozen judges reasonably well.  Almost all of them are terrific, very high quality people, generally thought to be excellent judges.

I only know one judge to have a poor reputation.  A superior court judge, rated 24th of 31 superior court judges in that county.  I know her very, very well and wouldn't trust her to judge a third grade spelling contest.  Personality-wise, very unfit to be a judge.

[teejers1]

I know half a dozen judges reasonably well.  Almost all of them are terrific, very high quality people, generally thought to be excellent judges.

I only know one judge to have a poor reputation.  A superior court judge, rated 24th of 31 superior court judges in that county.  I know her very, very well and wouldn't trust her to judge a third grade spelling contest.  Personality-wise, very unfit to be a judge.

I could have - and perhaps should have - said "vast majority" (which is still a "majority").  But perhaps the awful ones stick out more than the good ones, and I can think of a couple off the top of my head on the federal bench.

[teejers1]

I know half a dozen judges reasonably well.  Almost all of them are terrific, very high quality people, generally thought to be excellent judges.

I only know one judge to have a poor reputation.  A superior court judge, rated 24th of 31 superior court judges in that county.  I know her very, very well and wouldn't trust her to judge a third grade spelling contest.  Personality-wise, very unfit to be a judge.

I could have - and perhaps should have - said "vast majority" (which is still a "majority").  But perhaps the awful ones stick out more than the good ones, and I can think of a couple off the top of my head on the federal bench.

[Goose]

I know half a dozen judges reasonably well.  Almost all of them are terrific, very high quality people, generally thought to be excellent judges.

I only know one judge to have a poor reputation.  A superior court judge, rated 24th of 31 superior court judges in that county.  I know her very, very well and wouldn't trust her to judge a third grade spelling contest.  Personality-wise, very unfit to be a judge.

I could have - and perhaps should have - said "vast majority" (which is still a "majority").  But perhaps the awful ones stick out more than the good ones, and I can think of a couple off the top of my head on the federal bench.

I have no knowledge of this issue myself. From what I hear from some people who I think do know is that Judges in the Superior Court are often not very good. Some of them don't know the law. Some of them are lazy. Some are downright biased. This kind of makes sense, as the election process doesn't have a real good feedback mechanism to get rid of such persons. These positions are also not real prestigious so you often get people who weren't very good lawyers and need a steady job. The federal bench is much better. You seldom get a dolt. You may get somebody you don't like much, but generally they are competent. All that said, corruption seems not to be much of an issue at any level, thank goodness. Lets just hope it stays that way.

[Goose]

I know half a dozen judges reasonably well.  Almost all of them are terrific, very high quality people, generally thought to be excellent judges.

I only know one judge to have a poor reputation.  A superior court judge, rated 24th of 31 superior court judges in that county.  I know her very, very well and wouldn't trust her to judge a third grade spelling contest.  Personality-wise, very unfit to be a judge.

I could have - and perhaps should have - said "vast majority" (which is still a "majority").  But perhaps the awful ones stick out more than the good ones, and I can think of a couple off the top of my head on the federal bench.

I have no knowledge of this issue myself. From what I hear from some people who I think do know is that Judges in the Superior Court are often not very good. Some of them don't know the law. Some of them are lazy. Some are downright biased. This kind of makes sense, as the election process doesn't have a real good feedback mechanism to get rid of such persons. These positions are also not real prestigious so you often get people who weren't very good lawyers and need a steady job. The federal bench is much better. You seldom get a dolt. You may get somebody you don't like much, but generally they are competent. All that said, corruption seems not to be much of an issue at any level, thank goodness. Lets just hope it stays that way.

[82lsju]

William “Rick” Singer, the mastermind of the “Varsity Blues” college admissions fraud, personally made nearly $28 million from the scheme, a forensic accountant testified.
...
“The vast majority came from parents, approximately $26 million by parents,” George said of the funds that flowed into Singer’s personal accounts. 
...
Singer spent more than $20 million of his money, some of it in furtherance of the scheme, she said. He paid around $7 million to various university sports foundations as well as school officials, teams and coaches who prosecutors say participated in the fraud. Many of Singer’s clients, including Wilson and Abdelaziz, allegedly paid to have their children falsely designated as athletic recruits.

Personal Investments

Another $6.4 million went to personal business investments and expenditures, George said, though she didn’t say what those were. 

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/varsity-blue...-1.1659345

[82lsju]

William “Rick” Singer, the mastermind of the “Varsity Blues” college admissions fraud, personally made nearly $28 million from the scheme, a forensic accountant testified.
...
“The vast majority came from parents, approximately $26 million by parents,” George said of the funds that flowed into Singer’s personal accounts. 
...
Singer spent more than $20 million of his money, some of it in furtherance of the scheme, she said. He paid around $7 million to various university sports foundations as well as school officials, teams and coaches who prosecutors say participated in the fraud. Many of Singer’s clients, including Wilson and Abdelaziz, allegedly paid to have their children falsely designated as athletic recruits.

Personal Investments

Another $6.4 million went to personal business investments and expenditures, George said, though she didn’t say what those were. 

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/varsity-blue...-1.1659345

[82lsju]

podcast with some of the recordings of the calls between Rick Singer and his clients...some before and some after he flipped

Stanford mentions ~10 min-12:30 min, 

https://gimletmedia.com/shows/the-journa...-about-the

[82lsju]

podcast with some of the recordings of the calls between Rick Singer and his clients...some before and some after he flipped

Stanford mentions ~10 min-12:30 min, 

https://gimletmedia.com/shows/the-journa...-about-the

[oldalum]

And the jury returned guilty verdicts for both defendants, I think on all counts (5 for one, 11 for the other). 

per the NY Times, the men were both convicted on charges of conspiring to commit bribery and fraud; one was also found guilty of filing a false tax return for taking a deduction for a payment that the government called a bribe.

[oldalum]

And the jury returned guilty verdicts for both defendants, I think on all counts (5 for one, 11 for the other). 

per the NY Times, the men were both convicted on charges of conspiring to commit bribery and fraud; one was also found guilty of filing a false tax return for taking a deduction for a payment that the government called a bribe.

[82lsju]

And the jury returned guilty verdicts for both defendants, I think on all counts (5 for one, 11 for the other). 

per the NY Times, the men were both convicted on charges of conspiring to commit bribery and fraud; one was also found guilty of filing a false tax return for taking a deduction for a payment that the government called a bribe.

a little more here, I wonder if some of the other accused will now plead guilty....

https://abcnews.go.com/US/guilty-verdict...d=80474660

here's the above mentioned NYT article (not sure if it is behind a paywall)

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/08/us/va...laziz.html

[82lsju]

And the jury returned guilty verdicts for both defendants, I think on all counts (5 for one, 11 for the other). 

per the NY Times, the men were both convicted on charges of conspiring to commit bribery and fraud; one was also found guilty of filing a false tax return for taking a deduction for a payment that the government called a bribe.

a little more here, I wonder if some of the other accused will now plead guilty....

https://abcnews.go.com/US/guilty-verdict...d=80474660

here's the above mentioned NYT article (not sure if it is behind a paywall)

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/08/us/va...laziz.html

[BostonCard]

It takes a lot of chutzpah to claim a tax deduction for a bribe, but as I recall, that was something that Singer advocated as part of the scheme.

BC

[BostonCard]

It takes a lot of chutzpah to claim a tax deduction for a bribe, but as I recall, that was something that Singer advocated as part of the scheme.

BC

[82lsju]

It takes a lot of chutzpah to claim a tax deduction for a bribe, but as I recall, that was something that Singer advocated as part of the scheme.

BC

and apparently only one of these two did that, of course if he really thought it was legit (or at least wanted to make it look like he thought it was legit) he would take the deduction, makes me wonder why the other parent did not.

[82lsju]

It takes a lot of chutzpah to claim a tax deduction for a bribe, but as I recall, that was something that Singer advocated as part of the scheme.

BC

and apparently only one of these two did that, of course if he really thought it was legit (or at least wanted to make it look like he thought it was legit) he would take the deduction, makes me wonder why the other parent did not.

[Genuine Realist]

It takes a lot of chutzpah to claim a tax deduction for a bribe, but as I recall, that was something that Singer advocated as part of the scheme.

BC

and apparently only one of these two did that, of course if he really thought it was legit (or at least wanted to make it look like he thought t was legit) he would take the deduction, makes me wonder why the other parent did not.

Hypothetical letter from Stanford Provost’s Office to Bribegiver (sailing program)



Dear whoever,

This letter is to inform you that your [son] ‘[daughter] has been expelled from the Stanford student body, effective immediately and regardless of academic performance. This institution will tolerate no interference with, or corruption of, the integrity of its admission processes.

However, we are also p/leased to acknowledge your generous gift to the Stanford sailing program. In gratitude for your generosity, enclosed are two complementary tickets to the Big Regatta. Also, reservations have been made in your name at the Sailing Club Team Dinner, at the special reduced price for sailing club sponsors. An acceptance form is also enclosed. If you are able to attend, please indicate you and your guest’s choice of entree (fish, chicken, or beef - please note that the beef entree is $10.00 extra. A drink menu for beverages available at the no-host bar is also enclosed.)

Stanford University and the Stanford Sailing Club thanks you again for your gift, and hope we may continue to rely on your continued support in future years.

[Genuine Realist]

It takes a lot of chutzpah to claim a tax deduction for a bribe, but as I recall, that was something that Singer advocated as part of the scheme.

BC

and apparently only one of these two did that, of course if he really thought it was legit (or at least wanted to make it look like he thought t was legit) he would take the deduction, makes me wonder why the other parent did not.

Hypothetical letter from Stanford Provost’s Office to Bribegiver (sailing program)



Dear whoever,

This letter is to inform you that your [son] ‘[daughter] has been expelled from the Stanford student body, effective immediately and regardless of academic performance. This institution will tolerate no interference with, or corruption of, the integrity of its admission processes.

However, we are also p/leased to acknowledge your generous gift to the Stanford sailing program. In gratitude for your generosity, enclosed are two complementary tickets to the Big Regatta. Also, reservations have been made in your name at the Sailing Club Team Dinner, at the special reduced price for sailing club sponsors. An acceptance form is also enclosed. If you are able to attend, please indicate you and your guest’s choice of entree (fish, chicken, or beef - please note that the beef entree is $10.00 extra. A drink menu for beverages available at the no-host bar is also enclosed.)

Stanford University and the Stanford Sailing Club thanks you again for your gift, and hope we may continue to rely on your continued support in future years.

[TrumpCard]

On the one hand, this sort of deserves a separate thread.  On the other hand, it's pretty off topic from Stanford sports and it does relate to getting into school through illegal means.  So I'll bunch it here with the trial of a couple of the U$C varsity blues defendants.  

Mark Ridley-Thomas and an ex-dean at U$C were just indicted for a scheme where Ridley-Thomas bribed U$C with campaign funds to give his son a scholarship and then a professorship in U$C's school of social work.  Stay classy, U$C.

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/ridley-...n-charges/

Edit: I suppose I also could have put it under one of the threads about sexual harassment/assault by U$C employees since the scandal came to light after an internal investigation in which Ridley-Thomas' son was forced to resign admist numerous allegations of sexual harassment. Once again, stay classy, U$C.

[TrumpCard]

On the one hand, this sort of deserves a separate thread.  On the other hand, it's pretty off topic from Stanford sports and it does relate to getting into school through illegal means.  So I'll bunch it here with the trial of a couple of the U$C varsity blues defendants.  

Mark Ridley-Thomas and an ex-dean at U$C were just indicted for a scheme where Ridley-Thomas bribed U$C with campaign funds to give his son a scholarship and then a professorship in U$C's school of social work.  Stay classy, U$C.

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/ridley-...n-charges/

Edit: I suppose I also could have put it under one of the threads about sexual harassment/assault by U$C employees since the scandal came to light after an internal investigation in which Ridley-Thomas' son was forced to resign admist numerous allegations of sexual harassment. Once again, stay classy, U$C.

[Softball Fan]

I listened to an in-depth news report about the USC story this afternoon.   They made it sound like Marilyn Louise Flynn, former dean of the USC School of Social Work, is corrupt to the core.  As soon as she found out there were possible contracts for the School of Social Work, she did everything possible to get Ridley Thomas' son admitted into the grad school.  She also arranged for all his classes to be structured so he could take them on-line.  I guess attending class was too much of an inconvenience for him.

[Softball Fan]

I listened to an in-depth news report about the USC story this afternoon.   They made it sound like Marilyn Louise Flynn, former dean of the USC School of Social Work, is corrupt to the core.  As soon as she found out there were possible contracts for the School of Social Work, she did everything possible to get Ridley Thomas' son admitted into the grad school.  She also arranged for all his classes to be structured so he could take them on-line.  I guess attending class was too much of an inconvenience for him.

[M T]

On the one hand, this sort of deserves a separate thread.  On the other hand, it's pretty off topic from Stanford sports and it does relate to getting into school through illegal means.  So I'll bunch it here with the trial of a couple of the U$C varsity blues defendants.  



Mark Ridley-Thomas and an ex-dean at U$C were just indicted for a scheme where Ridley-Thomas bribed U$C with campaign funds to give his son a scholarship and then a professorship in U$C's school of social work.  Stay classy, U$C.



https://ktla.com/news/local-news/ridley-...n-charges/



Edit:  I suppose I also could have put it under one of the threads about sexual harassment/assault by U$C employees since the scandal came to light after an internal investigation in which Ridley-Thomas' son was forced to resign admist numerous allegations of sexual harassment.  Once again, stay classy, U$C.

I read that report a bit differently than you summarized.    I also want to point out that USC did start the investigation that wound up with these charges.

Mark Ridley-Thomas is a LA City Councilman who has represented parts of LA for 3 decades. (He declined to run for mayor 6 weeks ago.) His son Sebastian was an Assemblyman before joining USC.
  (as the phrasing of allegations is important, I am going to quote the KTLA report)

Ridley-Thomas and Marilyn Louise Flynn, a former tenured professor and the dean of the USC School of Social Work, were named in a 20-count indictment that alleged the politician, then serving on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, traded “supporting county contracts and lucrative contract amendments with the university” in exchange for benefits for a relative in 2017 and 2018.

Sebastian Ridley-Thomas received benefits from USC such as “graduate school admission, a full-tuition scholarship, a paid professorship, and a mechanism to funnel” campaign funds to Mark Ridley-Thomas using a nonprofit operated by Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, the indictment said.

(From  what I read at LATimes, the "funnel" statement seems backwards.  The allegation seems to be that campaign funds of the father were funneled through the school to the nonprofit.)

As for Sebastian's hiring and firing at USC, here's a few more details. and more at LATimes.  From what I read there, the allegations of harassment were not at USC and dated before his hiring.  It is appropriate here to point out that USC launched an internal investigation into Sebastian's hiring, then fired him and referred the matter to the US Attorney's office.

I don't see any indication that the son was part of the indictment.

Rather than making a remark about an indictment of a politician, I'll remind myself that people are innocent until proven guilty.

[M T]

On the one hand, this sort of deserves a separate thread.  On the other hand, it's pretty off topic from Stanford sports and it does relate to getting into school through illegal means.  So I'll bunch it here with the trial of a couple of the U$C varsity blues defendants.  



Mark Ridley-Thomas and an ex-dean at U$C were just indicted for a scheme where Ridley-Thomas bribed U$C with campaign funds to give his son a scholarship and then a professorship in U$C's school of social work.  Stay classy, U$C.



https://ktla.com/news/local-news/ridley-...n-charges/



Edit:  I suppose I also could have put it under one of the threads about sexual harassment/assault by U$C employees since the scandal came to light after an internal investigation in which Ridley-Thomas' son was forced to resign admist numerous allegations of sexual harassment.  Once again, stay classy, U$C.

I read that report a bit differently than you summarized.    I also want to point out that USC did start the investigation that wound up with these charges.

Mark Ridley-Thomas is a LA City Councilman who has represented parts of LA for 3 decades. (He declined to run for mayor 6 weeks ago.) His son Sebastian was an Assemblyman before joining USC.
  (as the phrasing of allegations is important, I am going to quote the KTLA report)

Ridley-Thomas and Marilyn Louise Flynn, a former tenured professor and the dean of the USC School of Social Work, were named in a 20-count indictment that alleged the politician, then serving on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, traded “supporting county contracts and lucrative contract amendments with the university” in exchange for benefits for a relative in 2017 and 2018.

Sebastian Ridley-Thomas received benefits from USC such as “graduate school admission, a full-tuition scholarship, a paid professorship, and a mechanism to funnel” campaign funds to Mark Ridley-Thomas using a nonprofit operated by Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, the indictment said.

(From  what I read at LATimes, the "funnel" statement seems backwards.  The allegation seems to be that campaign funds of the father were funneled through the school to the nonprofit.)

As for Sebastian's hiring and firing at USC, here's a few more details. and more at LATimes.  From what I read there, the allegations of harassment were not at USC and dated before his hiring.  It is appropriate here to point out that USC launched an internal investigation into Sebastian's hiring, then fired him and referred the matter to the US Attorney's office.

I don't see any indication that the son was part of the indictment.

Rather than making a remark about an indictment of a politician, I'll remind myself that people are innocent until proven guilty.

[BostonCard]

Rather than making a remark about an indictment of a politician, I'll remind myself that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Yeah, but that would deprive us of the ability to feel superior to USC.

BC

[BostonCard]

Rather than making a remark about an indictment of a politician, I'll remind myself that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Yeah, but that would deprive us of the ability to feel superior to USC.

BC

[Softball Fan]

"..., I'll remind myself that people are innocent until proven guilty."

Absolutely that's the way proceedings in the courtroom are structured.  To be consistent you should make that statement about Singer and everyone charged in Varsity Blues before a verdict is rendered.

It doesn't mean an individual can't form an opinion outside of court based on available information.  In the news report I listened to they stated the evidence against Ridley-Thomas is overwhelming in the form of emails and witness statements.

[Softball Fan]

"..., I'll remind myself that people are innocent until proven guilty."

Absolutely that's the way proceedings in the courtroom are structured.  To be consistent you should make that statement about Singer and everyone charged in Varsity Blues before a verdict is rendered.

It doesn't mean an individual can't form an opinion outside of court based on available information.  In the news report I listened to they stated the evidence against Ridley-Thomas is overwhelming in the form of emails and witness statements.

[Goose]

Rather than making a remark about an indictment of a politician, I'll remind myself that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Yeah, but that would deprive us of the ability to feel superior to USC.

BC

Not really. We don't need anything at all to do that.

[Goose]

Rather than making a remark about an indictment of a politician, I'll remind myself that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Yeah, but that would deprive us of the ability to feel superior to USC.

BC

Not really. We don't need anything at all to do that.