The Eisemann Persecution

[yuneeq]

ETA: The defendant also has to want to pursue it, and after 9 years, I would be shocked if he doesn't want to let the matter go.

Side point - was it actually 9 years? I believe the indictment was early 2017, which would mean 7.5 years. I’ve seen people/articles mention 7, 8, 9, and 10 years, when did his case actually start?

[Baruch]

Side point - was it actually 9 years? I believe the indictment was early 2017, which would mean 7.5 years. I’ve seen people/articles mention 7, 8, 9, and 10 years, when did his case actually start?

Maybe they're counting from the raid

[YitzyS]

Side point - was it actually 9 years? I believe the indictment was early 2017, which would mean 7.5 years. I’ve seen people/articles mention 7, 8, 9, and 10 years, when did his case actually start?

It's been 8 years, though many have mistakenly said/written 9 years - including people within the family.

Raid on SCHI was June 2016 IIRC.

[Chester7]

That would be through the political route, which should be done regardless.

Question is if in NJ political route is possible.

[Yehuda57]

Side point - was it actually 9 years? I believe the indictment was early 2017, which would mean 7.5 years. I’ve seen people/articles mention 7, 8, 9, and 10 years, when did his case actually start?

@YitzyS can CMIIW, seems like he was raided in 2016, indicted in 2017, tried and convicted in. 2019, the conviction was tossed in 2022, retried and acquitted in 2024.

[YitzyS]

@YitzyS can CMIIW, seems like he was raided in 2016, indicted in 2017, tried and convicted in. 2019, the conviction was tossed in 2022, retried and acquitted in 2024.

Sounds right. But add in a superseding indictment in 2018.

[Pony]

Is the full transcript publicly available?

https://beckerlawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Eisemann-Decision.pdf

[Pony]

https://mishpacha.com/sweet-vindication/

Seems like this could have been written by @YitzyS

[YitzyS]

https://mishpacha.com/sweet-vindication/

Seems like this could have been written by @YitzyS

-1

ETA: I spoke to the writer in length before he wrote the piece, but did not review the final edition before it went to print (so I take no responsibility for the content).

[Yehuda57]

-1

ETA: I spoke to the writer in length before he wrote the piece, but did not review the final edition before it went to print (so I take no responsibility for the content).

Are there inaccuracies?

[YitzyS]

Are there inaccuracies?

I have a headache now and can't do a proper overview, but there are definitely a lot of minor inaccuracies, and there was at least one big issue. But overall, most of the details seem accurate.

Here are some small inaccuracies that jump out at me as I scan it:

The OPIA never did the raid, as the OPIA was not yet in existence in 2016. They were formed later.
"In the courtroom, he has constantly had a Gemara open in front of him." Not true. During the proceedings, Rabbi Eisemann sat and listened. During breaks he learned Rambam or Chumash. (At least when I saw)
The whole conversation "what will be with Rav Chaim's havtacha" never happened, but was added for the drama.
The description of the financial facilitation charge is overly simplified, and is essentially wrong.
The words "modern day blood libel" were not from "members of the community", but actually said on the stand by a witness of the state.

These are small points. But I still stand by the notion that I take no responsibility for the content.

[Euclid]

The words "modern day blood libel" were not from "members of the community", but actually said on the stand by a witness of the state.

Isn't she a member of the community?

[YitzyS]

Isn't she a member of the community?

Yes. But that is not the significance of the statement. So yes, technically accurate. But not really reflective of who said those words.

[best]

I have a headache now and can't do a proper overview, but there are definitely a lot of minor inaccuracies, and there was at least one big issue. But overall, most of the details seem accurate.

Here are some small inaccuracies that jump out at me as I scan it:

The OPIA never did the raid, as the OPIA was not yet in existence in 2016. They were formed later.
"In the courtroom, he has constantly had a Gemara open in front of him." Not true. During the proceedings, Rabbi Eisemann sat and listened. During breaks he learned Rambam or Chumash. (At least when I saw)
The whole conversation "what will be with Rav Chaim's havtacha" never happened, but was added for the drama.
The description of the financial facilitation charge is overly simplified, and is essentially wrong.
The words "modern day blood libel" were not from "members of the community", but actually said on the stand by a witness of the state.

These are small points. But I still stand by the notion that I take no responsibility for the content.

What is the big issue?

[YitzyS]

What is the big issue?

I'll PM you.

[Sam 77]

I'll PM you.

Can I have one also?

[YitzyS]

Can I have one also?

Sent

[YitzyS]

Blistering!

https://newjerseyglobe.com/state-government/n-j-public-corruption-unit-acts-tough-but-can-they-win-a-conviction/

[yelped]

https://newjerseyglobe.com/state-government/n-j-public-corruption-unit-acts-tough-but-can-they-win-a-conviction/

Great article. The picture they paint is very corrupt.

[Definitions2]

I haven't followed this case much. Details are quite sparse.

It sounds like there was a discovery a few years later into the case that a bookkeeper made a mistake when entering an amount. If that's what the whole case was about then why wasn't it brought up right away by the defense team?