The Eisemann Persecution

[TzviR]

Sent

A real YitzyS would say "if anyone wants me to send it to them just like my post so I know who wants it" 

[Yehuda57]

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?

Details are not sparse in the slightest, especially in local Lakewood outlets. The Mishpacha article above has the timeline, albeit with a few mistakes that @YitzyS pointed out and one big one that is secret. But @YitzyS has also answered that question on this and the other thread comprehensively.

[zh cohen]

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?

As I understand it; The defense did not know which specific entry the prosecution was basing their money laundering charge on.

Also, in the first trial they were working on the assumption that if they show that no money was stolen, the other charges would fall apart (since money laundering is about covering up a crime, and there would be no crime.) However just before the case went to the jury, the judge ruled for the prosecution in how the jury instructions were written.

[Definitions2]

Details are not sparse in the slightest, especially in local Lakewood outlets. The Mishpacha article above has the timeline, albeit with a few mistakes that @YitzyS pointed out and one big one that is secret. But @YitzyS has also answered that question on this and the other thread comprehensively.

The mishpacha article was the only one so far that I saw a decent breakdown of the case from start to end. Other newspapers I just saw the results of the court cases without much details.

I saw zh Cohen's response below. Do you have a link to where yitzys talks about it?

[Yehuda57]

No. It was written that way in the jury instructions.

To give a little background, the two charges in the new trial were barely mentioned at all during the first trial. The focus of the first trial was on the other three counts, which alleged that he misused public money. Until the last day of the trial, when the judge changed the rules, a conviction on counts 3 and 5 (the two he was convicted of) was not allowed without a conviction on one of the other counts. So instead of confusing the jury, the defense focused on counts 1, 2, and 4, which was the primary focus of the entire case. But after they rested their case, the judge disconnected counts 3 and 5 from 1, 2, and 4, and that is how he was able to be convicted.

Now, the entire case is focused on Counts 3 and 5, so a lot more is naturally being discussed about them.

(Count 3 is financial facilitation, which means that the defendant used the proceeds of one crime to commit another. During the first trial, the first crime WAS the other counts, until the judge allowed them to convict on it without a conviction on the other counts. Since he was vindicated on the other counts, the prosecution has repeatedly shifted their narrative as to what the first crime is.)

[YitzyS]

The 'big issue' is not a secret, I'll PM it to whoever wants.

I just don't like to post negative information on a public forum, where it can be found in years from now when it's no longer relevant.

[yungermanchik]

Can you just write an accurate article. So we don't have to read an inaccurate one and have it corrected?

[YitzyS]

Can you just write an accurate article. So we don't have to read an inaccurate one and have it corrected?

If you want accurate articles, read the Yated. But they are not available online.

[Pony]

If you want accurate articles, read the Yated. But they are not available online.

Besides the accurate reporting on the actual trial, a very inspiring interview with Rabbi Eisemann, the model of how someone should deal with a nisoyon.

[yungermanchik]

If you want accurate articles, read the Yated. But they are not available online.

Thanks, just read it.

[aygart]

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?

Because the prosecution improperly failed to disclose certain items.

[YitzyS]

Because the prosecution improperly failed to disclose certain items.

In the indictment, it just said that he was guilty of "financial facilitation" of $200,000, but it didn't say which transactions they were alleging as being criminal. A few days before the trial, the state handed over a flash drive with hundreds of thousands of entries, and said, "This is our evidence". It was only DURING the first trial when they learned which entries were the alleged criminal ones. And, when the prosecution showed it, they showed it on a spreadsheet which DID NOT contain the name of the person who made the transaction. (For other entries, they DID show the names.) That being the case, during the first trial, the defense assumed that there was no name attached to it, so they couldn't research it further.

It is also important to remember that there were alleged 5 counts, not just this count. And at that time, a defense on the other counts would've automatically meant a vindication on this count, as it was predicated on the other counts. It was only after the defense rested, when the judge changed the rules to make this count independent, that this entry suddenly became so pertinent.

[aygart]

In the indictment, it just said that he was guilty of "financial facilitation" of $200,000, but it didn't say which transactions they were alleging as being criminal. A few days before the trial, the state handed over a flash drive with hundreds of thousands of entries, and said, "This is our evidence". It was only DURING the first trial when they learned which entries were the alleged criminal ones. And, when the prosecution showed it, they showed it on a spreadsheet which DID NOT contain the name of the person who made the transaction. (For other entries, they DID show the names.) That being the case, during the first trial, the defense assumed that there was no name attached to it, so they couldn't research it further.

It is also important to remember that there were alleged 5 counts, not just this count. And at that time, a defense on the other counts would've automatically meant a vindication on this count, as it was predicated on the other counts. It was only after the defense rested, when the judge changed the rules to make this count independent, that this entry suddenly became so pertinent.

Yes and because of this the court ruled and the appeals court agreed that

the prosecution improperly failed to disclose certain items.

[YitzyS]

Scroll down

https://www.nj.com/opinion/2024/08/friendly-fire-the-walz-choice-platkins-overreach-and-aipac-wins-again.html

ETA: direct link to topic

[Joel]

Mishpacha had a nice article on the trials explaining what happened at each step.

[Jellybelly]

Mishpacha had a nice article on the trials explaining what happened at each step.

Nice interview with Rabbi Eiseman in this week’s Yated by Chaim Saller.

[YitzyS]

https://www.nj.com/opinion/2024/08/attorney-general-platkin-is-having-a-rough-time-sheneman.html

[Dawie]

https://www.nj.com/opinion/2024/08/attorney-general-platkin-is-having-a-rough-time-sheneman.html

https://archive.is/eQNGj

[Randomex]

[...]
I just don't like to post negative information on a public forum, where it can be found in years from now when it's no longer relevant.

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 whole conversation "what will be with Rav Chaim's havtacha" never happened, but was added for the drama.
[...]
These are small points. But I still stand by the notion that I take no responsibility for the content.

That's not small to me, and rather negative. I don't know if I'm allowed to believe you al pi halacha.

[YitzyS]

That's not small to me, and rather negative. I don't know if I'm allowed to believe you al pi halacha.

To clarify, Rav Chaim’s havtacha did happen. But nobody called up asking “what will be with the havtacha?”

I don’t know if you consider it negative to embellish articles, but it’s standard practice in some publications. I was not trying to be negative by writing that, rather my intention was to clarify the facts.

But you can feel free to not believe me.