Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Null37283t03

Miscellaneous Celebrity News

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, MikaelaArsenault said:

That's nothing new, either; this is all from the plea agreement, which is how prosecutors have "spoken" on the issue -- they will argue Huffman is an offense level 9, which has a sentencing guideline of 4-10 months, and agree to recommend the court sentence her on the "low end" of that guideline.  Huffman has the right to argue she's an offense level 7 instead, which has a sentencing guideline of 0-6 months. 

The judge will hear these arguments and determine her offense level (whether it be 7, 9, or something else) and consider the relevant guideline when imposing sentence.

Edited by Bastet
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Mittengirl said:

So, am I the only who thinks Loughlin and Giannulli will be in divorce court soon, as well as federal court?

Yeah, I'm thinking their most apt punishment would to be sentenced to house arrest together. Might want to take away the sharp objects, though.

  • Laugh 7

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎04‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 11:05 AM, Homily said:

The problem here is that the difference isn't between the rich and the non-rich (how many non- rich people pay this kind of money to get their kids into a university that's going to cost them $$$ for a few years at least?) it's between the famous and the non-famous.  IMO why should a famous person get treated more harshly because they are well known?  And that's what I see a lot of people advocating for which I feel is wrong.

They shouldn't be treated more harshly, and they aren't being treated more harshly.  They're being treated the way they should be for the crimes they're accused of committing.

On ‎04‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 2:42 PM, BW Manilowe said:

Tiger Woods wins the 2019 Masters Golf Tournament (Final Round played early due to severe weather expected in the Augusta, GA area later today).

It’s Tiger’s 5th Masters title (1 behind Jack Nicklaus for the most); 1st Masters win in 14 years; 15th Major golf title overall (3 behind Jack Nicklaus for the most); & 1st Major golf title in 11 years. 

I have never liked Tiger Woods and hate the way that talk about him in the golf-related media tends to suck all the air out of the room.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:

Plus, no one bribes any school official to get into Hudson. It's all med or law students working their way through Hudson as strippers or escorts.

Hey, at least they have a good work study program. 

So do Lori and her idiot husband actually believe they didn't cheat or are they saying that hoping we'll all believe them and forget EVERYTHING that points to them cheating?

  • Like 8
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

From USA Today‘Jeopardy!’ Host Alex Trebek Shares Health Update Amid Cancer Battle: ‘I’m Feeling Good’

Here is the new video from Alex, which was said, in the article linked above, to have been posted to the Jeopardy! Twitter page. The video with the linked article is of Alex’s original cancer diagnosis announcement.

Edited by BW Manilowe · Reason: To add a link.
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

So many celebrities do insane, immoral, illegal things and I'm appropriately annoyed/outraged, but I quickly move on.  But for some reason, these situations with Aunt Becky and Jussie Smollett have sent me into full blown, Jenna Maroney rage strokes lol.  Just the sight of their faces pisses me off and yet I can't stop reading about and obsessing over their cases.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

The Jussie Smollett case is sticking with me because I have little doubt that bigots will use it to dismiss crimes against LGBT people, as if such things happening are preposterous.

  • Like 7
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, TaraS1 said:

So many celebrities do insane, immoral, illegal things and I'm appropriately annoyed/outraged, but I quickly move on.  But for some reason, these situations with Aunt Becky and Jussie Smollett have sent me into full blown, Jenna Maroney rage strokes lol.  Just the sight of their faces pisses me off and yet I can't stop reading about and obsessing over their cases.

I actually started following this thread because of my inexplicable obsession with wanting to know more about the Jussie Smollett case, but with nothing new in at least a month, I've at least put it on one of the back burners of my brain.

But the celebrities using their undeserved wealth to secure for their offspring undeserved positions in institutions of higher education that will guarantee those offspring future undeserved benefits--
well,
the 3 "undeserved" in that sentence tell y'all that I'm so not over it.
And not just "undeserved," but unneeded. 
I have reached the point where I do accept that the rich celebrities were conned (easily) into believing what they were doing was okay, and maybe even necessary for their kids success.
But, really? Seriously?
They could've put the roughly 1 million for bribes and tuition into an account to grow enough wealth for their kids to do whatever they wanted forever.

But then again, I let my genius-but-socially-challenged kid apply for and get a scholarship to NYU without realizing that at 35 she would still be in debt for $20k for student loans to cover the rest of it.
So, yeah, FH and LL were gullible like my daughter and I were. Still, don't they hire financial planners to look out for such scams? IDK.

Edited by shapeshifter
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Possibly, but let's remember that Mr. Giannulli's tale of cheating his own parents out his supposed college funds to launch his line  evidently became a family legend and even via their daughter's retelling of it, she just said that she 'wasn't supposed to talk about it' NOT 'Mom disapproved of what Dad did and  has urged him to make things right with my grandparents'. IOW, water often meets its own level despite one stream supposedly being on higher ground because that's others want to believe. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Jaded said:

I don't really care.  Even if that's true, she clearly went along with the whole thing and was more than happy with the results until they got caught.  The only times I take "it was his idea" as an actual defense is when it involves kids (the "idea person" has to be an older kid or an adult, though), someone with mental deficiency, or someone who actually feels physically threatened.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

I'll just say that I hope we haven't devolved into a place that sentences people based on their facial expressions.

Agreed, but acceptance of responsibility and demonstrations of remorse are things that factor into sentencing.  I've seen judges verbally smack down and refuse to take off the extra point for smug or resistant defendants, and I've seen them sentence at the bottom of the range or even below because the defendant demonstrates genuine remorse and has taken steps toward turning his or her life around.  So, attitude is relevant at the sentencing phase. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Archery said:

Agreed, but acceptance of responsibility and demonstrations of remorse are things that factor into sentencing.  I've seen judges verbally smack down and refuse to take off the extra point for smug or resistant defendants, and I've seen them sentence at the bottom of the range or even below because the defendant demonstrates genuine remorse and has taken steps toward turning his or her life around.  So, attitude is relevant at the sentencing phase. 

I understand that as well, I really do, I'm just a bit bored with seeing remarks about her "smug" face.  As someone with RBF, I feel a certain way about it I guess, lol.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

From USA TodayProsecutors Say Felicity Huffman Should Serve 4-10 Months in College Bribery Case

Yes, I know we already know this (& they’re still recommending her sentence be on the lower end of that term). But the linked article gives some information on what else she may have to do to pay her debt to society that hasn’t been mentioned before.

According to the terms of her deal, her prison term will be followed by a year of probation. She will also have to forfeit the $15,000 she paid to have her daughter’s SAT exam corrected. She must also pay a $20,000 fine, with financial restitution determined at sentencing.

The filing also warns that if she does not accept full responsibility for her crime at the plea hearing or commits any new offenses or obstructs justice in the meantime, the DOJ will “object to any reduction in her sentence”.

The maximum penalty for her offenses of mail fraud and honest services fraud is a 20-year prison term, forfeiture of the money used in the crime, a fine of $250,000 and other restitution. Huffman is due back in federal court on the afternoon of May 21, according to the DOJ’s website.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, BW Manilowe said:

She will also have to forfeit the $15,000 she paid to have her daughter’s SAT exam corrected.

What does that mean?  Are they going to refund it to her?  Otherwise how would she have it in the first place to forfeit it?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Katy M said:

What does that mean?  Are they going to refund it to her?  Otherwise how would she have it in the first place to forfeit it?

I guess in this situation it means even if the authorities can recover the money from the people she paid that money doesn't go back to her.  I'd be pretty surprised if anyone expected that it would though but I guess it's got to go somewhere.  And that somewhere won't be back to the people who paid it out.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 5

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

The Jussie Smollett case is sticking with me because I have little doubt that bigots will use it to dismiss crimes against LGBT people, as if such things happening are preposterous.

Never watched Empire and didn't know who Jussie Smollett was before the story broke, but the whole thing is weird.  Originally he did not want to report the incident and the police on the report involved have some problematic histories, like arresting the wrong person, and one incident where the victim of the crime was arrested rather than the perpetrator.  The fact that he wanted cameras in the courtroom doesn't look like someone knowingly perpetrating a hoax.

Honestly, I have no idea what happened and have no idea what to believe.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

The Jussie Smollett case is sticking with me because I have little doubt that bigots will use it to dismiss crimes against LGBT people, as if such things happening are preposterous.

I feel the same way about him as I do about women who file false rape claims. It makes it harder for the real victims.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

I understand that as well, I really do, I'm just a bit bored with seeing remarks about her "smug" face.  As someone with RBF, I feel a certain way about it I guess, lol.

I get it.   My face gets me in more trouble than my mouth does.   And my mouth gets me in plenty of trouble.

BUT, she's an actress.   Supposedly she is capable of showing a range of emotions, instead of a sullen when -- for the occassion.    If she were caught off guard and had an RBF, that is one thing.   But this is a woman in court who looked petulant, not just "I can't help how my face looks."

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

But this is a woman in court who looked petulant, not just "I can't help how my face looks."

Whenever I ask my husband why he looks so crabby, he always quotes Ringo Starr. "I'm not crabby. That's just me face." 

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

The fact that he wanted cameras in the courtroom doesn't look like someone knowingly perpetrating a hoax.

He's an actor. Playing for the cameras is what he knows how to do, probably better than the average person who might've been on the jury.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I find the Smollett case interesting because it’s a complete clusterfuck. Jussie’s story and background are problematic, the brothers are sketchy, the decisions of the police are questionable and the prosecutor’s handling of the case is shady. 

With most big stories I feel like I can come to reasonable conclusion with time but this one just gets weirder with every new detail. 

8 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

I get it.   My face gets me in more trouble than my mouth does.   And my mouth gets me in plenty of trouble.

BUT, she's an actress.   Supposedly she is capable of showing a range of emotions, instead of a sullen when -- for the occassion.    If she were caught off guard and had an RBF, that is one thing.   But this is a woman in court who looked petulant, not just "I can't help how my face looks."

I think a lot of the criticism is because  she had time to prepare before she was arrested. She had over 24hrs before she turned herself in but still appeared to be arrogant. I think she could have saved herself if she had presented a more serious image the next time she was in court but instead she acted like she was at a fan event. For a woman who has spent years carefully crafting her image she has made extremely bad choices when it comes to this case. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Drogo

This is a place for news about celebrities.

This isn't a place for news about not-celebrities.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×