ShareThis Page
Feds bust wife of former Vandergrift High, NFL player in college admissions scandal | TribLIVE.com
News

Feds bust wife of former Vandergrift High, NFL player in college admissions scandal

Mary Ann Thomas
| Friday, March 15, 2019 7:15 a.m.
884708_web1_vnd-loupalatella-031519
Wikipedia
Lou Palatella played football for Vandergrift High School and the University of Pittsburgh before being drafted by the San Francisco 49ers.

The wife of a Vandergrift native and football star who played for Pitt and the San Francisco 49ers is among 50 people charged in the largest college admissions scam ever prosecuted in U.S. history.

Marci Palatella, 63, of Hillsborough, Calif., is facing mail fraud charges in federal court for alleged involvement in scams for her son’s acceptance to the University of Southern California. Palatella is the CEO of a liquor distribution company in Burlingame, Calif.

Palatella paid about $575,000 to a nonprofit that allegedly assisted in her son’s SAT test and created a fraudulent athletic profile of her him, according to the affidavit. She allegedly conspired to bribe USC senior associate athletic director Donna Heinel, who since has been fired, to designate her son as a football recruit for admission to USC.

She is the second wife of Lou Palatella, 85, a Vandergrift native and a former guard and linebacker for the San Francisco 49ers.

Lou Palatella is not named in the suit, nor is his current wife’s son.

But their fate with college athletics couldn’t be more different.

Dad’s career was real

The son of a steelworker at the Vandergrift U.S. Steel plant, Palatella grew up in a tight-knit community and powered his way through football, starting at Vandergrift High School.

“He is a really good guy and a heck of a football player,” said Frank “Beans” Moliterno, 88, of Vandergrift.

Palatella was one of the top linemen to come out of Vandergrift, graduating in 1951. He played at the University of Pittsburgh from 1951 to 1954, according to Pitt records.

In 1955, he was drafted into the National Football League by the 49ers in the 12th round. He played guard and linebacker through 1958. Palatella was traded to Green Bay where he turned down playing for Vince Lombardi.

After football, Palatella made a name for himself in the liquor distribution industry, going on to own a tequila company. His second wife, Marci, also had an extensive background in the liquor business. The couple recently opened a craft bourbon and whiskey distillery in Kentucky.

Palatella was known to visit the Vandergrift area regularly when his brother, Patsy, a lifelong resident, was still alive.

“When he came in, he was casual with everyone,” Moliterno said. “He never acted like a big shot.”

The feds’ accusations

The college entrance scandal started for Marci Palatella in 2016, according to the affidavit. She made arrangements with William “Rick” Singer, the mastermind of the college admissions scandal who set up a charity, Key Worldwide Foundation (KWF), to mask bribes and payoffs.

Singer is accused of funneling money from wealthy parents through his foundation, then using it to bribe coaches and others to get their children into elite universities.

Singer allegedly set up an appointment with a psychologist to examine Palatella’s son for medical documentation to qualify him for extended time on his college entrance exam.

Her son, who is unnamed in the document, was granted extended time on the SAT and arrangements were made for someone to fly in to proctor the exam.

Palatella’s son scored 1410 out of 1600 on the SAT, according to the affidavit.

After the test, Palatella allegedly asked Singer how to position her son for college applications. According to the affidavit, Singer asked: “Are you willing to make a contribution of several hundred thousand as a donation to get him in as a participant in someone’s program?”

Palatella allegedly replied, “Money, for the right environment, yes. But he can never know.”

Singer allegedly told her that her son needed to get into college through football. Palatella emailed a photo of her son in a football uniform and Singer forwarded the photo to an assistant USC coach, his grades, test scores and the SAT score.

A football profile was created describing Palatella’s son as an active player on his high school football team.

Federal authorities allege that USC senior associate athletic director Donna Heinel emailed Singer a conditional acceptance letter for Palatella’s son. And Palatella allegedly mailed Heinel a $100,000 check payable to the USC Women’s Athletic Board with the note, “Our son … is beyond thrilled at the prospect of attending USC as a freshman this fall.”

Six days after USC mailed Palatella’s son his formal acceptable letter early last year, Singer allegedly instructed a KWF employee to send Palatella an invoice for $400,000 and she wired the money to KWF in early April.

Federal authorities say Palatella took a tax write-off on the money she paid to Singer’s organization.

In January, Palatella allegedly called Singer to tell him about a neighbor who told her son about her efforts to pay to secure his admission to USC.

Palatella allegedly told Singer that she and her spouse “laugh every day” about how grateful they were for Singer’s services, telling him, “We’re like, it’s was worth every cent,” according to the affidavit.

Palatella made an initial court appearance Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco and was released on a $1 million unsecured bond, meaning she didn’t have to post any money.

Mary Ann Thomas is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Mary at 724-226-4691, mthomas@tribweb.com or via Twitter .

Categories: Local
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.