Share This Page

Fumo's kids? They're outta here!

| Saturday, July 13, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Loser: Vince Fumo

As the former state senator from Philadelphia awaits his release from federal prison following a corruption conviction, two of his children testified in court that he is an untrustworthy louse.

Son Vincent E. Fumo and daughter Allison Fumo provided details of a rift with their father over a $2.5 million trust fund set up to benefit them. Fumo borrowed $1.4 million from the fund several years ago to cover some of the fines and restitution associated with his conviction.

Allison Fumo filed a lawsuit last year to take control of the partnership that oversees the fund. She contended that Fumo cronies were running the partnership and making financial decisions to benefit him rather than her and her brother.

A deposition in the case seemed to bear that out. According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, a turnpike maintenance worker Vince Fumo picked as a partnership trustee revealed he knew little about Allison Fumo and nothing about his or her fiduciary obligations as a trustee.

On the witness stand on Tuesday, Allison Fumo testified, “I don't trust my father, unfortunately.”

She has plenty of company on that front.

Winner: Prince Andrew

Finally, a British Royal has opened a Twitter account. Using the @TheDukeofYork handle, Prince Andrew began tweeting on Tuesday with this relatively innocuous message: “Welcome to My Twitter account. — AY.” Within 24 hours, he had more than 24,000 followers — an impressive number, but one that Prince Harry or Prince William probably could top easily on their first day should they ever come down with the Twitter bug.

The only other sort-of Royal on Twitter is Prince Andrew's ex-wife, Sarah, the Duchess of York. She tweets as @SarahTheDuchess. For some reason, she was not among the first people or organizations that Prince Andrew followed, until, of course, he learned that the Trib was going to out him. By week's end, Sarah had popped up on his “following” list.

Loser: Nina Totenberg

The legal affairs correspondent for liberal-leaning National Public Radio 'fessed up to a large mistake in her recent story on the end of the Supreme Court term. Totenberg quoted Northwestern University law professor John McGinnis saying that the court's decision on the Voting Rights Act was “as singular a failure as I've seen in the history of the Supreme Court.”

McGinnis uttered those words during his appearance on a panel at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, he was referring not to the Voting Rights Act but to the court's decision in the Defense of Marriage Act case. Totenberg admitted in her mea culpa that she “apparently got confused in my notations about what McGinnis was talking about.”

It was an easy enough mistake to make. The two cases were so vastly similar.

— compiled by Trib Total Media staff

To suggest a winner or loser, or to find out what else is happening right now, go to blog.triblive.com/right-now/

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.