OK - now 1st Circuit appeal in #VarsityBlues college admissions scandal case of Gamal Abdelaziz and John Wilson- Inner City Press has covered the case matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/in-varsity-b… and will live tweet, thread below
Counsel: There were no referrals to Isackson, Lori Laughlin, or Abdelaziz... But when you invoke criminal conspiracy law, everything gets swept in.
Q: But couldn't you client be charged with the smaller conspiracy, as to his own children?
A: But there's good faith
Q: But couldn't you client be charged with the smaller conspiracy, as to his own children?
A: But there's good faith
Counsel: My client was in Asia on a 12 hour time difference, we're talking about a 30 second conversation. Schools are involved in side doors, back doors - you can get away with one weak manager, but not two. They put Isackson on the stand for more than a day...
Judge: It seemed there was an emphasis on secrecy, no?
Counsel: I very much disagree. Singer explained, You shouldn't tell the school that you're doing it with me or they'll just ask you (Wilson) for more money. This was after Singer has turned state's evidence
Counsel: I very much disagree. Singer explained, You shouldn't tell the school that you're doing it with me or they'll just ask you (Wilson) for more money. This was after Singer has turned state's evidence
Judge Sandra Lynch: If you move beyond text to the Skilling narrowing, if you are correct, the remedy is acquittal, not just remand. So please continue.
Counsel: They have no case in all of US history that support their position-
Judge: There's the question of 666
Counsel: They have no case in all of US history that support their position-
Judge: There's the question of 666
Judge Lynch: History is instructive, but we're all into text. Let's look at 1346 & the narrowing construction language from Skilling. One could say that the 1346 language under Skilling is meant to prevent only pre-McNally type claims. Can't find a case like this
Judge Lynch: We could switch over to Justice Scalia's concerns about due process. Maybe history plays into this, but I tend to think that's a more minor theme. What did Congress intend here. I feel like we're in the law school class debating these issues
[Yep]
[Yep]
Judge: What if we were to send it back for a new trial, and you then file a motion on double jeopardy?
Counsel: I'm not sure double jeopardy would apply --
Judge Lynch: Stop. I don't want you arguing against your client. I'm going to withdraw my question.
Counsel: I'm not sure double jeopardy would apply --
Judge Lynch: Stop. I don't want you arguing against your client. I'm going to withdraw my question.
Now DOJ lawyer says, The defendant waived some of these arguments. Consider the money funnel --
Judge: The what?
DOJ: The co-mingling of funds. They routed it through KWF. Bruce Isackson said he understood the comingling could benefit donors with thick tax returns
Judge: The what?
DOJ: The co-mingling of funds. They routed it through KWF. Bruce Isackson said he understood the comingling could benefit donors with thick tax returns
AUSA: These defendants were involved in editing their kids' essays to match the sports they were using --
Judge: Parents do that all the time.
AUSA: Not about sports they haven't played in two years.
Judge: Parents do that all the time.
AUSA: Not about sports they haven't played in two years.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
