Lori Loughlin is reportedly ready to expose the University of Southern California’s admissions practices after reports surfaced that the university threatened to file a civil case against the actress and her husband, Mossimo Giannulli.
A possible civil case was referenced by prosecutors in a motion filed Thursday, USA Today reported. Prosecutors are allegedly seeking a hearing on potential conflicts of interest in regard to the attorneys representing 11 of the 50 defendants caught up in the case. The claimed conflict of interest involves the three law firms that are representing defendants, as well as USC. One of those law firms is Boston-based Latham and Watkins, a firm which also represents Loughlin and Giannulli.
Loughlin is reportedly ready to fight back.
A source told Us Weekly that the actress wants to reveal the university’s methods for admitting students.
“Lori feels that USC is going to do whatever is necessary to attempt to financially ruin her family. USC accepts extremely substantial donations, which will typically result with a child from that family enrolling,” the insider said.
“Lori wants to expose USC’s admission practices and looks forward to her day in criminal court.”
The source also said that if USC did decide to file a lawsuit against Loughlin and Mossimo, the couple would “defend themselves,” adding that they would “anticipate a very robust and thorough discovery process of USC’s admissions and large financial donations in which a child became a student at the university.”
Loughlin, 54, allegedly believes she did nothing wrong in purportedly paying $500,000 to have her daughters enrolled in the university. She and Mossimo, 56, pleaded not guilty to charges brought against them.
NBC reported that attorneys for the Fuller House actress have claimed that she believed the funds she paid to William Singer, who was allegedly behind the scam, were intended to be donations — not bribes.
Possible defense revealed for Lori Loughlin, Bay Area parents in college scandal: They were paying charity, not bribes https://t.co/8qzf6qw6sX
— Mercury News (@mercnews) June 5, 2019
Many clients in the case are using the same defense. On Monday, at a federal court in Boston, attorney Martin Weinberg said that if any money went to the school, then it was not a bribe. Weinberg is representing Vancouver businessman David Sidoo, who is accused of paying $200,000 to have someone take entrance exams for his two sons.
Prosecutors at the hearing argued that it did not matter where the money went. Attorney Eric Rosen said a “bribe is simply a quid pro quo, it doesn’t matter where the money went.”
Of the dozens of parents ensnared in the scandal, 13 — including Desperate Housewives star Felicity Huffman — have pleaded guilty to charges, in hopes of receiving lenient sentences.