Manalapan Kosher Chinese Express Owner Buying Non-Kosher Chicken

[JMHO]

The state can enforce his false claims.

When is the last time the state did that? Unfortunately this story is closed now...

[aygart]

When is the last time the state did that? Unfortunately this story is closed now...

Not sure but there is a separate office for it.

[elimmm]

When is the last time the state did that? Unfortunately this story is closed now...

sounds really simple, no one can be held accountable? no consumer protection laws that can be enforced?
did this guy's name ever get out so other communities know in case he tries this elsewhere?

[moko]

sounds really simple, no one can be held accountable? no consumer protection laws that can be enforced?
did this guy's name ever get out so other communities know in case he tries this elsewhere?

these are generally civil violations in nature. Upfront, small businesses have more to lose since the violations hit them hard. After the fact (ie: they closed), small businesses have little to lose. To some degree, it's the opposite for larger companies.

[whacked1]

sounds really simple, no one can be held accountable? no consumer protection laws that can be enforced?

This was discussed upthread. I dont think this is simple at all. Aside from the form that iinm aygart mentioned, he was technically kosher certified. Other than that, this is a breach of contract between the kashrus org and him. Again, I have no knowledge of kashrus organizations and how they are formed with applicable state laws, so it could be I'm missing something. But otherwise, seems pretty straight forward to me.

[moko]

This was discussed upthread. I dont think this is simple at all. Aside from the form that iinm aygart mentioned, he was technically kosher certified. Other than that, this is a breach of contract between the kashrus org and him. Again, I have no knowledge of kashrus organizations and how they are formed with applicable state laws, so it could be I'm missing something. But otherwise, seems pretty straight forward to me.

that's not 100% correct. If you breach the contract and represent non kosher food as kosher your in violation of NJ civil kosher statute. BTDT

[whacked1]

that's not 100% correct. If you breach the contract and represent non kosher food as kosher your in violation of NJ civil kosher statute. BTDT

Issue is that he didnt represent non-kosher as kosher, he actually had it kosher certified. Again, if you have experience with this, i'd defer, but seems quite murky to me.

[moko]

Issue is that he didnt represent non-kosher as kosher, he actually had it kosher certified. Again, if you have experience with this, i'd defer, but seems quite murky to me.

if there was definitive non kosher food, and they represented it as kosher (by selling it out of an exclusively kosher restaurants), then that's exactly what they did

[JMHO]

If you breach the contract and represent non kosher food as kosher your in violation of NJ civil kosher statute. BTDT

Is this enforced and what have been the practical consequences for the owner?

[elimmm]

Is this enforced and what have been the practical consequences for the owner?

i keep wondering about that, aloud
and... does anyone even know whom the owner was? we've had so many scandals within the community where people's names were made public, why is his name unknown, no issue of LH here

[Essen est zich]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iP0eabIhvwE&feature=youtu.be he discusses it here

[JMHO]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iP0eabIhvwE&feature=youtu.be he discusses it here

Discusses what & any particular time on the 50 minute video?

[Essen est zich]

Discusses what & any particular time on the 50 minute video?

I didn't listen to it yet it was shared with me via WhatsApp.

[Essen est zich]

Video was made private. Anyone have a chance to listen to it?

[Essen est zich]

It's back up. He discusses it at the 33 min mark.

[Moshe Green]

It's back up. He discusses it at the 33 min mark.

He says that there was never non-Kosher meat found in the restaurant and that the meat that the owner was caught buying said (and proved) that it was for a friend. Also, as opposed to the rumors being spread, the keys were not by the owner.
The OK was still suspicious and checked the story more. When checking the restaurant more they found that there was suspicious chicken boxes in the garbage nearby to the store. He checked the nearby stores and found a Treif restaurant that sold chicken as well. They asked them if these suspicious boxes were theirs and were told that they were not theirs.
When confronted, the owners of Manalapan denied all wrongdoing but when threatened that the Hechsher cannot be continued, they closed the restaurant abruptly. Eventually it was found out that it seems like they were bringing stuff from the back.
While others Paskened that people do not have to Kasher their Keilim, the OK got a psak to kasher.

[Randomex]

Video was made private. Anyone have a chance to listen to it?

It's back up. He discusses it at the 33 min mark.

Private again.

[elimmm]

He says that there was never non-Kosher meat found in the restaurant and that the meat that the owner was caught buying said (and proved) that it was for a friend. Also, as opposed to the rumors being spread, the keys were not by the owner.
The OK was still suspicious and checked the story more. When checking the restaurant more they found that there was suspicious chicken boxes in the garbage nearby to the store. He checked the nearby stores and found a Treif restaurant that sold chicken as well. They asked them if these suspicious boxes were theirs and were told that they were not theirs.
When confronted, the owners of Manalapan denied all wrongdoing but when threatened that the Hechsher cannot be continued, they closed the restaurant abruptly. Eventually it was found out that it seems like they were bringing stuff from the back.
While others Paskened that people do not have to Kasher their Keilim, the OK got a psak to kasher.

are you suggesting that no legal action was taken since the "proof" was circumstantial evidence only?

[Chaim723]

are you suggesting that no legal action was taken since the "proof" was circumstantial evidence only?

What kind of legal action are you suggesting? The business closed down already.
Or are you suggesting criminal legal action, which that's something that only the attorney general's office can do, if they see fit. (Doubt they will)