|
Post by donneyp on Apr 16, 2019 9:13:00 GMT -5
I had not realized this but Lori Loughlin's husband Mossimo Giannoulis is THE Mossimo behind the volleyball wear Mossimo during the 1980's and 1990's. It was ubiquitous in the volleyball scene. It was later bought by Target and died as a brand. But that is where the money comes from. He's worth $80m, she's worth $20m. That's a lot of t-shirts, and a lot of hallmark work.
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Apr 16, 2019 11:18:35 GMT -5
Going by what I know about Donna Heinel, which is only what I’ve read on VT 😀, the furniture on the front patio surprises me. She doesn’t seem like the chatty-with-the-neighbors type.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 16, 2019 11:26:31 GMT -5
Going by what I know about Donna Heinel, which is only what I’ve read on VT 😀, the furniture on the front patio surprises me. She doesn’t seem like the chatty-with-the-neighbors type. Nowadays, I rarely (if ever) see neighbors sitting on their front porch. This kind of stuff was common in TV shows and movies of long ago. I seem to recall that it only happened in the South, but I could be wrong. They sat in the shade of their porch and drank lemonade and somebody was always sayin' "Mama" this and "Granny" that.
|
|
|
Post by maplespear on Apr 16, 2019 11:30:53 GMT -5
Was wondering how the money laundering charge going to stick? I mean Loughlin paid it into the account designated by Singer...what he does with the money or whether the account is designated a non-profit organization is out of their hands. If Singer was working with the FBI, maybe they can even say its entrapment. Lori and Mossimo paid about $500k to Singer. As I heard it, they put on their taxes that this $500k was a charitable contribution to (not sure who but let's say) St Jude Hospital. In checking with St Jude, no -- no contribution made from Lori or Mossimo. Right there is money laundering.
|
|
|
Post by reader on Apr 16, 2019 11:38:03 GMT -5
It can still be laundering if it was to Singer's "503c" and they knew it wasn't a real charity or it was buying something of real value. You're only supposed to write off the part that doesn't come back to you as value. You can quibble about the value of the Alumni dinner or whatever when you file your taxes, but there's not a lot of cover in a scheme like Singer's.
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Apr 16, 2019 17:52:24 GMT -5
It’s just further proof of their arrogance that they’re fighting what appears to be a slam dunk.
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Apr 16, 2019 18:44:05 GMT -5
It’s just further proof of their arrogance that they’re fighting what appears to be a slam dunk. Read any article about Lori Loughlin now and she (and the media) have done a slam dunk job at now portraying her as the victim.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2019 19:43:19 GMT -5
It’s just further proof of their arrogance that they’re fighting what appears to be a slam dunk. Really? Let's not devalue our Constitution like some of our politicians and their base do. They are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. They have a right to a jury trial by their peers. The prosecution is required to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There would be way more innocent people in prison but for "fighting what appears to be a slam dunk."
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Apr 16, 2019 19:49:04 GMT -5
It’s just further proof of their arrogance that they’re fighting what appears to be a slam dunk. Really? Let's not devalue our Constitution like some of our politicians and their base do. They are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. They have a right to a jury trial by their peers. The prosecution is required to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There would be way more innocent people in prison but for "fighting what appears to be a slam dunk." C’mon...you think they’re innocent?
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Apr 16, 2019 19:58:22 GMT -5
It’s just further proof of their arrogance that they’re fighting what appears to be a slam dunk. Really? Let's not devalue our Constitution like some of our politicians and their base do. They are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. They have a right to a jury trial by their peers. The prosecution is required to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There would be way more innocent people in prison but for "fighting what appears to be a slam dunk." Lori Loughlin agrees... she is “OUTRAGED” that the public has turned on her. www.google.com/amp/s/people.com/tv/lori-loughlin-husband-outraged-people-calling-them-cheaters/amp/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2019 20:11:03 GMT -5
Really? Let's not devalue our Constitution like some of our politicians and their base do. They are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. They have a right to a jury trial by their peers. The prosecution is required to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There would be way more innocent people in prison but for "fighting what appears to be a slam dunk." C’mon...you think they’re innocent? It really doesn't matter at this stage what I personally think after reading media accounts and the Affidavits. As a former long-time practicing attorney before I turned entrepreneur, I know that there are many Constitutional, procedural and factual issues that can be raised in the court room, preferably, instead of in the press.
|
|
|
Post by XAsstCoach on Apr 16, 2019 20:26:01 GMT -5
It can still be laundering if it was to Singer's "503c" and they knew it wasn't a real charity or it was buying something of real value. You're only supposed to write off the part that doesn't come back to you as value. You can quibble about the value of the Alumni dinner or whatever when you file your taxes, but there's not a lot of cover in a scheme like Singer's. Only if the FBI has something on record where Loughlin knew Singer's non-profit organization is only a front. I guess that's where the money laundering charge came from after reviewing some articles. They filed the charitable donation to KWA (Singer's organization) in the tax return and KWA declared no goods or services were rendered.
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Apr 16, 2019 20:40:17 GMT -5
C’mon...you think they’re innocent? It really doesn't matter at this stage what I personally think after reading media accounts and the Affidavits. As a former long-time practicing attorney before I turned entrepreneur, I know that there are many Constitutional, procedural and factual issues that can be raised in the court room, preferably, instead of in the press. So you don’t care if they’re innocent or not, you just care whether they can use their constitutional rights to get out of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2019 20:42:17 GMT -5
It really doesn't matter at this stage what I personally think after reading media accounts and the Affidavits. As a former long-time practicing attorney before I turned entrepreneur, I know that there are many Constitutional, procedural and factual issues that can be raised in the court room, preferably, instead of in the press. So you don’t care if they’re innocent or not, you just care whether they can use their constitutional rights to get out of it. I care a great deal about both of them.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Apr 16, 2019 20:46:25 GMT -5
You lose your job in a major scandal like this along with your source of income - all topped by the fact that you're paying a small fortune for attorneys to keep your sorry ass out of jail - and you probably need to put your house on the market. Your prospects of landing a similar cushy job in your field may be slim for a few seasons.
|
|