Punishments for Crimes through the ages – from the bizarre to outrageous, from the sublime to the ridiculous. We don’t know how lucky we are!
Many of us are apt to complain about sentences handed out by our Courts for crimes these days – too harsh, too lenient. But a quick look at some punishments for crimes through the ages, including in some countries today, we should really consider how much we really have to complain about.
Not only have punishments been truly shocking (and in some instances still are), but even some of the crimes are truly unbelievable.
Many Sydney criminal lawyers would have had their work cut out for them if some of these historical crimes were still on the statute books! Lucky for us that our complaints about the justice systems these days are limited to whether an offender should be given a jail sentence or community service, or whether a 2 year sentence is sufficient or whether 5 would have been better, and so on.
Thank goodness we don’t have to contend with crimes for which the penalty is being tortured to death by some truly unimaginable means. Criminal lawyers in Australia, as in Europe, the United States, Canada, New Zealand and others, these days don’t have to plead for the type of mercy that offenders of times gone by had to. And of course, some of these barbaric practices do still exist today in other parts of the globe, as you can see below.
Some Crimes and Some Punishments You Won’t Believe
“Our strategy came to be that when we weren’t talking, we were losing,” Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s lawyers, told The Associated Press in a recent interview. Given that Mueller could not indict a sitting president, Giuliani said, the team kept its focus on Mueller’s “capacity to report, so we had to play in the media as well as legally.”
Experts who spoke with Business Insider on Thursday said that they believed Facebook’s actions had potentially violated multiple laws including a US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) consent decree; the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the European Union’s data-privacy regulation; and while there would likely be a strong defense for Facebook, perhaps even the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), a US criminal statute involving computer fraud and abuse.
If their theories are accurate, and regulators ultimately decide to take action against Facebook over the issue, then it could further exacerbate the legal headaches plaguing the company, which has been battling scandals on multiple fronts for the past two years — from Cambridge Analytica’s misappropriation of tens of millions of users’ data to the social network’s role spreading hate speech that fueled genocide in Myanmar.
Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in an email: “These latest revelations are very disturbing and, according to a number of experts, even raise the prospect that Facebook engineers may have violated federal laws concerning unauthorized access. Facebook continually attributes these mistakes to simple errors; even in the most charitable reading, these continual errors seem to indicate an engineering and product development culture that prioritizes growth and profit above privacy or user security.”
A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment.
Facebook is already under investigation by the FTC
Ashkan Soltani, the former chief technologist for the FTC, said he believed Facebook’s actions with users’ email contacts may itself have broken the terms of the consent decree if it was using the data. “In my opinion, Facebook’s collection and use of users’ address books would be another clear violation of the Consent decree and merit an investigation,” he said.
“The FTC enforces unfair and deceptive trade practices. On its own, downloading and using users’ address books under a deceptive pretext of ‘security’ would constitute a deceptive practice, even IF the company wasn’t under order,” he said, speaking in the abstract.
Dina Srinivasan, a Yale Law graduate who recently wrote a paper called “The Antitrust Case Against Facebook,” said that the company’s behavior was potentially illegal “on the grounds that Facebook was deceiving consumers when it came to their data and privacy. This can be a violation of 3 things. (1) Federal antitrust laws. (2) Unfair competition laws which every state has a version of. (3) The FTC consent decree.”
That said, it’s not yet clear whether the FTC will ultimately attempt to take any action against Facebook on this issue, and a spokesperson for the organization didn’t respond to a request for comment.
“There are so many different potential violations at this point that I don’t know that FTC will investigate this latest … particularly because it’s under a lot of pressure to act on the Cambridge Analytica [incident],” said Sally Hubbard, the director of enforcement strategy at the Open Markets Institute, a research and advocacy group that focuses on issues around corporate power.
She said that even if this did constitute a violation, it would be difficult to investigate. “Once there’s a revised consent decree in place, it will be hard for the FTC to go back and investigate any misconduct that came before it (depending on the terms of the negotiated agreement settling the claims — it likely will resolve all liability for violations up to the date it’s agreed to).”
The Silicon Valley firm could face trouble in Europe too
In May 2018, the European Union started enforcing GDPR, its tough new data-protection legislation. Facebook hasn’t yet said if any of the affected users signed up in Europe after that date, but it seems extremely likely — in which case some believe Facebook may have fallen afoul of GDPR.
“It is especially problematic because it was not just data of the user being verified that was … processed, but the personal data of their contacts too,” Michael Veale, a London-based data-protection researcher and Alan Turing institute fellow, said in an email.
“It might just have been 1.5m users that were directly affected, but considering the number of unique emails that were harvested and the network information linking them, the total number of individuals affected is likely in the hundreds of millions,” he added.
He suggested there may have been multiple breaches of the law, including not informing users and processing people’s data for advertising purposes without informing them. “This could be construed as a general security breach, as Facebook were not aware their system was effectively compromised,” he said.
The Irish Data Protection Commission, which is responsible for regulating Facebook’s data practices in the EU under GDPR, said it’s now in contact with Facebook over the issue and is considering its next move.
“We are currently engaging with Facebook on this issue and once we receive further information we will decide what steps to take,” Graham Doyle, the head of communications at the Irish Data Protection Commission, said.
The question of intent
Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, discussed the possibility that Facebook had potentially violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act — which would veer into criminal territory.
“It’s an offense under 18 USC 1030 to, among other things, intentionally exceed authorized access to a protected computer. A ‘protected computer’ is, for practical purposes, any computer connected to the Internet,” he said. “So with respect to Facebook’s access to users’ e-mail contacts, the relevant questions are whether there’s any viable argument that it was ‘authorized,’ which seems like a very hard sell when it’s represented as being specifically for the purpose of authentication, and if not, whether the access in excess of authorization was intentional.”
He added: “If we were talking about a rapidly-corrected coding mistake that had removed language about scraping the user’s contacts, you’d have a plausible case for saying this was access in excess of authorization, but not intentional. But that becomes more difficult to buy the longer they were doing it.”
Facebook said that the action was purely unintentional — that it previously notified users it would be accessing their contacts, but a change inadvertently stripped that warning out. Such an argument would be a defense under the CFAA.
“Can they plead incompetence? In principle, though boy is that embarrassing,” Sanchez said. “You’d need to look through internal correspondence to see whether anyone noticed the issue and Facebook decided not to fix it.”
Got a tip? Contact this reporter via encrypted messaging app Signal at +1 (650) 636-6268 using a non-work phone, email at firstname.lastname@example.org, Telegram or WeChat at robaeprice, or Twitter DM at @robaeprice. (PR pitches by email only, please.) You can also contact Business Insider securely via SecureDrop.
Best birthday wishes to Shemar Moore, who turns 49 on Saturday, April 20.
Moore has spent the majority of his acting career on CBS. First, he joined The Young and the Restless (1994-2005) in the role of Malcolm Winters, he followed that with his role as Derek Morgan for 11 seasons on the hit crime series Criminal Minds, and now he stars as Daniel “Hondo” Harrelson in the network’s S.W.A.T. series.
The California native began his career as model, but he has also had a chance to show off his winning personality as the host of Soul Train (1999-2003).
Moore earned a Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series in 2000 for Y&R, as well as Daytime Emmy Award nominations for Outstanding Younger Leading Actor in a Drama Series in 1996 and 1997; and a Daytime Emmy Award nomination for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series in 1999.
In addition, he is the recipient of eight NAACP Image Awards, most recently in 2015 for Outstanding Actor in a Drama Series for his work on Criminal Minds. Additionally, he won the award six times in the Outstanding Actor in a Daytime Drama Series category for his role on Y&R.
Moore’s mother, Marilyn Wilson, was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998. Since then, he has become committed to raising awareness about the disease and is a spokesperson for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. For the last nine years, Moore has participated in the organization’s annual charity Bike MS ride from Santa Barbara to Los Angeles. Also, Moore donates a portion of the proceeds from his “Baby Girl” clothing line, named after the popular phrase he coined on Criminal Minds, to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
Moore was born in Oakland, Calif. and was raised in Denmark and Bahrain for the first six years of his life when his mother, an educator, taught overseas. During that time, they traveled to Germany, Ghana, Pakistan, Greece and the Virgin Islands.
For nearly a month, the American public has been under the impression, thanks to a four-page “summary” by Attorney General William Barr, that Robert Mueller could not decide whether President Donald Trump had obstructed justice because of “difficult questions of law and fact.” Barr suggested that the special counsel, after 22 months of investigation, simply couldn’t make up his mind and left it to his boss to decide.
Now that we have seen almost the entire report of more than 400 pages, we know Barr intentionally misled the American people about Mueller’s findings and his legal reasoning. As a former federal prosecutor, when I look at Mueller’s work, I don’t see a murky set of facts. I see a case meticulously laid out by a prosecutor who knew he was not allowed to bring it.
Story Continued Below
Mueller’s report detailed extraordinary efforts by Trump to abuse his power as president to undermine Mueller’s investigation. The case is so detailed that it is hard to escape the conclusion that Mueller could have indicted and convicted Trump for obstruction of justice—if he were permitted to do so. And the reason he is not permitted to do so is very clear: Department of Justice policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president.
Mueller still could have reached a conclusion regarding obstruction of justice, but he believed it would be unfair to reach a conclusion that Trump could not rebut in court. How do we know this? Because Mueller says it. If he had reached a conclusion that Trump obstructed justice, Mueller wrote, Trump could not go to court to obtain a “speedy and public trial” with the “procedural protections” afforded to a criminal defendant by the Constitution.
Though Mueller determined there was no “collusion” between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, he makes clear that proving obstruction does not require the existence of such an underlying crime. There are many reasons, including fear of personal embarrassment, to explain why the president might have tried to impede the special counsel’s investigation. “The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong,” Mueller wrote. Moreover, Mueller’s team “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations.”
But Barr hid these inconvenient facts.
In his letter in March, Barr rushed to conclude that Trump did not obstruct justice, suggesting that Mueller “[left] it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.” His letter, which did not contain a single full sentence written by Mueller’s team, contained none of Mueller’s reasoning, nor his rejection of all of the defenses raised by Trump’s lawyers to obstruction of justice.
Then Barr compounded the deception in his news conference Thursday before his release of the report. Without Mueller present, Barr took a question from a reporter who asked whether Mueller’s non-decision on obstruction “had anything to do with the department’s long-standing guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel on not indicting a sitting president.”
Barr responded that he had a private conversation with Mueller, who told him that he “was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime.” Regardless of whether Barr’s recounting of the conversation was technically accurate, it’s clear that Barr’s answer was highly misleading. Having now read the report, there can be no serious question that the answer from the Mueller team is “yes.” “Fairness concerns” arising from the inability to indict a sitting president was the key factor in Mueller’s decision not to reach a conclusion on obstruction of justice.
Reading Mueller’s report, it is obvious the contortions Barr undertook to pronounce Trump exonerated. In the report, Mueller went out of his way to debunk Barr’s unconventional view that the Constitution “categorically and permanently immunize[d]” Trump from prosecution for abusing his power to undermine the investigation.
In fact, Mueller concluded that Congress has the authority to remove Trump from office, noting that his “conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.” Mueller appears to believe that it is the role of Congress to ensure Trump is not above the law.
And now Congress can see the case Mueller laid out.
What they do with it is in large part a political question. The majority of House Democrats have already concluded that impeachment is not “worthwhile,” Nevertheless, some House members, primarily from the progressive wing of the Democratic Caucus, have indicated they intend to use the full extent of their investigatory powers.
They have plenty to work with. The Mueller report paints a picture of a president who took extraordinary steps to undermine a lawful investigation into him and his associates. Trump fired the FBI director, tried to fire Mueller, asked the FBI director to stop investigating former national security adviser Michael Flynn, tried to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal and tank the investigation, and tried to influence the testimony of witnesses. Mueller properly rejected all of the defenses to obstruction of justice put forward by Trump’s lawyers. Candidly, as a criminal defense attorney, I cannot see how I would convince a jury that there is reasonable doubt based on these facts.
But Trump will almost certainly never face a jury, due in part to the highly questionable efforts of his lawyers, who appear to need lawyers of their own. Their greatest achievement was convincing Mueller not to interview Trump, even though Mueller concluded he “had the authority and legal justification” to force Trump to testify.
Mueller said he chose not to interview Trump because it would cause “substantial delay” and he already had “sufficient evidence,” which strongly suggests that Mueller felt that he could prove Trump’s intent without an interview. In a typical case, a prosecutor would have interviewed Trump regardless, to lock him into a story. In this matter as well, Mueller showed considerable restraint.
Ironically, despite Trump’s refusal to sit for an interview—as other presidents like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton did—Barr touted Trump’s “full cooperation” with the investigation. On this matter, as with so many others, Barr deceived the public.
That is not the only time Barr deliberately misled the American people. His letter from March is full of half-truths and highly misleading statements. For example, Barr quoted the following passage from the report: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Barr omitted the first part of that sentence, which read: “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
If I engaged in that sort of selective quotation in a court of law, I would be censured for misleading the court. As attorney general of the United States, Barr should be held to a higher standard than any ordinary lawyer. There can be no serious question that Barr deliberately misled the American people and its elected representatives about a matter of the utmost public concern.
More alarming, Barr stonewalled the House of Representatives, which has a constitutional duty to investigate criminal activity by the president. Despite repeated requests, Barr did not disclose the report to the House prior to its public release and has still refused to provide the full report to congressional leadership, leading House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York to state that he will issue a subpoena for the report.
There can be no justification for Barr’s refusal to provide the report to Congress, particularly when he provided the report to Trump’s legal team—including Trump’s personal attorneys—days prior to its release. Barr was not required by law to do so, and as far as we know, he provided it to no one else in advance. Jay Sekulow saw the Mueller report before Nancy Pelosi or Nadler saw it, and Barr has refused to produce the full report of a criminal investigation of the president to them. That is not how our constitutional system is supposed to work.
Many will criticize Mueller’s decision (or lack thereof) because, as a practical matter, it does not hold Trump immediately responsible for his conduct. But I will never criticize a prosecutor for demonstrating a sense of fair play. As Justice Robert H.Jackson wrote, “the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.”
Faced with a task of enormous importance, Mueller exemplified the highest ideals of the Department of Justice. Barr, for his part, pledged to be “transparent.” But we can see clearly now how much he tried to conceal.
Heather Meeker has seen her share of career changes. She’s been a software programmer and a drummer in a rock band. Now, she’s very likely the most prominent lawyer working specifically with the world of open source software.
She’s made a name for herself as one of the top experts in the field, especially in the last year. Companies like MongoDB, Redis Labs, and Confluent turned to Meeker to help them write new, more restrictive licenses that prevent big cloud providers like Amazon Web Services, Alibaba, and Tencent from using their code freely.
She calls 2018 a “watershed year” for these new licenses, which sparked fierce debate in the open source software community. The companies in question argued that while it’s completely legal for the big tech companies to take open source code and resell it as a commercial service for profit, it’s not especially fair — especially since Amazon, in particular, is seen as not contributing enough code back to the open source communities in return.
“[These companies] were concerned about cloud providers free riding on their development efforts without sharing their modifications,” Meeker told Business Insider. “They were concerned about sustaining a business and big companies were just using it for free and making a lot of money from making it available for others. They thought, that’s a business problem for us.”
The result, as we’ve seen over the last several months, is a dramatic industry-wide debate over the future of open source: Some companies have chosen to find new monetization models for open source, while others have doubled down and actually released their entire product line-up as open source code.
Besides her licensing work, Meeker is involved in the startup scene as a founding portfolio partner at OSS Capital, a VC firm specifically aimed at commercial open source software startups. She helps these startups with their business and licensing models, helping them solve a problem that’s now decades-old: How do you make money with a business built on free, open source software?
“I’ve always understood that you could make money doing open source development, but there were a lot of people who were really skeptical for a long time,” Meeker said. “You can make money with an open source business very effectively if you plan it properly.”
“Flavor of the month”
Meeker graduated from Yale in 1978 and spent the early ’80s as a programmer. Her degree is in economics, but she learned to program on her own as a child, picking up some basics from her computer scientist father.
“I was a nerd. I love technology all my life,” Meeker said. “I learned about it at an early age which at the time was very unusual.”
After five years as a programmer, she says she became bored. At the time, she was developing accounting applications, and felt that she had hit a roadblock in her career. So instead, she pursued what she says was her first passion, and became a musician. She was a drummer and a leader of a band that played blues, college radio rock, and anything people wanted them to play.
It was a good time, she says, but it didn’t pay the bills.
“It’s easy to explain why I changed from being a musician to a lawyer,” Meeker said. “I wanted health insurance. It was fun, but it was not a career. Compared to other lawyers, I deeply appreciate the practice of law as a career because I’ve been through something much more difficult. I have loved being a lawyer much more than I expected.”
She went into law school at UC Berkeley, thinking she would combine law with music and entertainment to become an entertainment lawyer. But soon enough, she realized interesting things were cropping up in technology law, and she changed course.
As a lawyer, she started off doing intellectual property and licensing. It wasn’t until a couple years later when she discovered the niche field of open source licensing — open source software is, by definition, free for anybody to use and modify, but licensing is a crucial element that controls what’s allowed and what isn’t, legally speaking.
“I set out to learn all I could about it,” Meeker said. “In any organization, if you learn a little bit more than the person in the next office, you’re the expert. Then they came to me with questions, so I learned more about it. Open source to me is really an interesting thing to focus on.”
Meeker expected open source to be like a “flavor of the month;” a fad that would eventually disappear. But it never did.
‘A clash of ideologies’
Today, using open source is the rule in the modern software industry, rather than the exception, Meeker says. The world is embracing open source, and more clients have asked her about it. They wanted to use open source software, but they weren’t sure how — and when she first started, most corporate counsels simply advised clients to stay away.
“I thought there has to be a better answer than ‘no,'” Meeker said. “I thought there has to be a ‘yes, if.’ That’s how I started my practice by trying not to say no. If you want to be a good business lawyer, you have to give your clients more practical and nuanced advice.”
Generally, her clients want to make sure they’re in compliance with open source licenses when they use or modify the code. Some clients want to learn how to set up a foundation to run an open source project of their own, or they may have a dispute over the interpretation of a license. Lately, she’s been involved in writing new software licenses.
“Most open source licenses don’t have any requirements until you distribute the software,” Meeker said. “The advent of cloud computing has changed how people deploy software. A lot of people are asking what is that activity that invokes distribution of open source. There is some sort of doctrinal ambiguity about it.”
More broadly, Meeker says, open source startups are only seeking new ways to protect their business, and that change always comes as a shock to any community.
“Some software that was previously open source became not open source, so people didn’t like that,” Meeker said. “There was also a clash of ideologies. You have some people who are free software advocates who object to anyone who uses anything but a free software license, and you have businesses saying we can’t sustain a business with a free software license.”
A problem, she says, is that advocates, developers, and businesses may all have different ideas on what open source should be. For those advocates, open source is an ideal, while developers find it to be an easier way to work together on large software projects. Open source software-based businesses have to balance these principles, while also finding ways to make money.
In theory, these “ideologies,” can’t meet, Meeker says, but in practice, they’re combined all the time. For example, most of these companies follow a so-called “open core model,” which means that they have a free version of their software, and sell an enterprise version that carries more features for businesses and other power users.
Meeker says that it’s important to find these moments of balance as a way to grow the overall open source community, commensurate with its outsized impact in the world.
“In open source world, there’s a lot of philosophical debate that gets very contentious,” Meeker said. “While it’s important to air ideas and have debate, to people outside who are looking in and are not thinking about open source issues everyday, it’s very confusing and concerning to them. I would like to see open source be a big tent instead of a little tent.”
Facebook has stored millions of Instagram users’ passwords in an unencrypted format easily readable by its employees for years.
The news came on Thursday by way of an update to an existing company blog post, which in March, announced that unencrypted passwords for hundreds of millions of Facebook and Facebook Lite users had been accessible on its internal servers.
At the time, the company also said the same issue affected “tens of thousands” of Instagram users.
On Thursday, that number was updated to “millions.”
Facebook has stored millions of Instagram users’ passwords in an unencrypted format easily readable by its employees for years, the latest in a series of high-profile security missteps committed by the Silicon Valley giant.
The news came on Thursday by way of an update to an existing company blog post, which in March, announced that unencrypted passwords for hundreds of millions of Facebook and Facebook Lite users had been accessible on its internal servers. At the time, the company also said the same issue affected “tens of thousands” of Instagram users.
On Thursday, that number was updated to “millions.”
Facebook said that since its previous post — on March 21 — it had discovered “additional logs of Instagram passwords being stored in a readable format,” but that its “investigation has determined that these stored passwords were not internally abused or improperly accessed.”
The company said it would notify affected users.
Back in March, Facebook said it discovered the vulnerability during a “routine security review” at the beginning of the year. The cybersecurity journalist Brian Krebs said the issue existed as far back as 2012.
The incident adds to a long line of serious scandals and crises to wrack Facebook over the past two years — many of which have been security- or privacy-related. Just yesterday, Business Insider discovered that the tech giant had been harvesting the email contacts of 1.5 million new users without their knowledge or consent.
Welcome! Meredith collects data to deliver the best content, services, and personalized digital ads. We partner with third party advertisers, who may use tracking technologies to collect information about your activity on sites and applications across devices, both on our sites and across the Internet.
By clicking continue below and using our sites or applications, you agree that we and our third party advertisers can:
transfer your personal data to the United States or other countries, and
this link is to an external site that may or may not meet accessibility guidelines.
The Young and the Restless lost one of its biggest and most beloved stars back in February with the death of Kristoff St. John, who was 52-years-old. He played Neil Winters for 28 years on the CBS soap opera, and the soap didn’t waste any time in memorializing him with a tribute following his death. Now, the show has put together an arc to pay tribute to his many contributions over the years.
Yes, Criminal Minds alum (and current S.W.A.T. star) Shemar Moore will return to his old Young and the Restless stomping grounds to be part of that arc. Here’s how.
Shemar Moore returns to The Young and the Restless to reprise his role as Neil Winters’ brother Malcolm Winters, which he originated way back in 1994 and won him a Daytime Emmy for Outstanding Supporting Actor in 2000. He left the series back in 2005, and the character returned played by a different actor from 2009-2011. Still, Moore returned for a guest shot in 2014, and he’ll be back once more as Malcolm to be part of the tribute arc to Kristoff St. John.
The tribute arc will run for four episodes later this month and see the folks of Genoa City gathering after the unexpected death of Neil Winters. His passing prompts the return of many of his friends and family, even some who must travel quite a distance to return. The arc begins on Tuesday, April 23 and concludes on Friday, April 26.
Shemar Moore will be back as Malcolm Winters in the April 25 and April 26 episodes of The Young and the Restless, which presumably means that Malcolm won’t be around the rest of Neil’s family when they learn of his death on the April 23 installment. He will almost certainly be around for the funeral, though, as TVLine reports that Kristoff St. John’s longtime friend (and Roots: The Next Generations co-star) Stan Shaw will appear as the reverend presiding over the funeral on April 25.
In addition to Shemar Moore returning to his old show for the arc, Christel Khalil and Eileen Davidson will return as Lily Ashby and Ashley Abbott, respectively.
Shemar Moore, Christel Khalil, and current Young and the Restless actor Bryton James will also appear on the April 26 episode of The Talk (which is soon losing a host) in a special segment remembering Kristoff St. John, according to Deadline. While fans will undoubtedly be sad to say goodbye to Neil Winters all over again, it’s really only right that somebody who was such a key part of the show for such a long time gets a grand sendoff.
The April 29 episode of The Young and the Restless will be a tribute installment with former and current members of the cast sharing special memories of their time with Kristoff St. John. Be sure to tune in to The Young and the Restless to catch the show’s farewell to Kristoff St. John as well as the returns of former stars like Shemar Moore. If you’re in the mood for more Moore than you’ll get on his brief return to The Young and the Restless, check out S.W.A.T. Thursdays at 10 p.m. ET on CBS.
After 50 people, including parents and coaches, were charged last month with crimes, the nation’s largest-ever college admissions prosecution appeared to be ensnaring another group — students.
According to a lawyer involved in the case, at least some children of the parents who were charged in the scandal have received so-called target letters, which notify people that they could be targets of a criminal probe. The lawyer declined to be quoted by name, citing sensitivities about the ongoing case. A spokeswoman for the federal prosecutor’s office in Boston, which is handling the case, declined to comment on the development, which was previously reported in Law360, a legal news service, and The Wall Street Journal.
It was uncertain on Monday how many students received such target letters or whether they would, in fact, lead to additional charges. Several defense lawyers in the case said the children of their clients — parents charged with trying to get their children admitted to college with falsified athletic credentials or altered test scores — had not received such letters.
Federal prosecutors have said that some of the young people involved in the case were oblivious to what their parents were doing, while others were not. “At times, the students were in on it,” a federal prosecutor, Eric S. Rosen, said in court last week during one in a long schedule of hearings in the sprawling case.
More than a dozen parents, including the actress Lori Loughlin, have pleaded not guilty to the charges against them, court documents showed.
Ms. Loughlin’s not guilty plea on Monday came a week after 13 other parents, including the actress Felicity Huffman, indicated that they would plead guilty. The decisions by Ms. Loughlin and Ms. Huffman, the most widely known parents involved in the case, were only the latest way in which their legal paths have diverged.
Ms. Loughlin waived her right to appear in court for an arraignment after being indicted last week on a count of conspiracy to commit fraud and another of money laundering conspiracy. Her husband, the fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, also entered a not guilty plea to the same charges, documents showed.
Ms. Loughlin and Mr. Giannulli are accused of paying $500,000 in bribes to ensure that their daughters would be admitted to the University of Southern California. The young women were presented as recruits for the women’s crew team, though they did not participate in the sport, according to prosecutors.
Ms. Loughlin, who has appeared largely upbeat during court appearances, has not publicly spoken about the charges.
Also submitting not guilty pleas and waiving their rights to court appearances for arraignment were business executives, investors and others, including: Gamal Abdelaziz, a senior executive of a resort and casino operator; I-Hsin “Joey” Chen, a provider of warehousing and related services for the shipping industry; and Douglas Hodge, former chief executive of Pimco, one of the world’s biggest bond fund managers.