The Future of Lakewood

[JMHO]

His ads compared certain rabbonim to ——- who will do anything for money.

Is that true in your opinion?

[avromie7]

It's not the first time you mentioned this on DDF, but I still have no idea what your talking about. I don't remember anything like this.

[aygart]

It's not the first time you mentioned this on DDF, but I still have no idea what your talking about. I don't remember anything like this.

I don't remember this specifically but I do remember him stalking a committee member's wife for harassment.

[YitzyS]

Prosecutors filed their brief to the NJ Supreme Court asking them to take the Eisemann case.

https://lakewoodalerts.com/prosecutors-beg-supreme-court-to-take-eisemann-case-despite-glaring-flaws/
https://lnnnews.com/state-appeals-to-supreme-court-against-rabbi-eisemann-trial-delayed/
https://thelakewoodscoop.com/news/first-report-eisemann-prosecutors-formally-request-state-supreme-court-to-hear-their-case/

[Euclid]

https://www.faanews.com/2023/07/first-report-proposed-revolutionary.html

Senate didn't hear the new proposed busing authority bill

[YitzyS]

https://www.faanews.com/2023/07/first-report-proposed-revolutionary.html

Senate didn't hear the new proposed busing authority bill

Email I just got:


Dear friends,

As you may be aware, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed the New Jersey state budget this past week.
There are many ramifications for New Jersey residents.
Please join us for a webinar at 8:00 tonight in which we will explain how the budget impacts you, your family, and our entire community.
You can access the webinar by clicking here, or by calling in to 309-205-3325, using meeting ID 517 431 6594#.
We look forward to having you join us.
Sincerely,

Rabbi Avi Schnall
Director

Rabbi Shlomo Schorr
Associate Director

[YitzyS]

Email I just got:


Dear friends,

As you may be aware, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed the New Jersey state budget this past week.
There are many ramifications for New Jersey residents.
Please join us for a webinar at 8:00 tonight in which we will explain how the budget impacts you, your family, and our entire community.
You can access the webinar by clicking here, or by calling in to 309-205-3325, using meeting ID 517 431 6594#.
We look forward to having you join us.
Sincerely,

Rabbi Avi Schnall
Director

Rabbi Shlomo Schorr
Associate Director

Now live

[yelped]

Now live

TLDW?

[YitzyS]

TLDW?

Was about half an hour long.

Went through some of the points of the budget. Avi Schnall said that they got some stuff they wanted but not everything, called it a five-and-a-half or six out of ten.

Got a significant increase in Aid-in-lieu (about $145 per child), which can help get more routed bid out and can help keep the LSTA from raising costs for courtesy busing. (IINM, it is a pretty significant raise compared to the standard.)

Got a lot more money for special services, but there is also a huge increase in usage, so it may not translate into an actual increase.

Free lunches for all didn't go up for a vote, but Agudah got private school students back into the bill, so if it ever goes up for a vote, it should include yeshivos. There was a general increase in the eligibility level though, so more students are eligible.

I left out tons of stuff, but these were just some of the things I remember.

[Thrifty]

But they didn't mention anything about summer food boxes.

[YitzyS]

Prosecutors filed their brief to the NJ Supreme Court asking them to take the Eisemann case.

https://lakewoodalerts.com/prosecutors-beg-supreme-court-to-take-eisemann-case-despite-glaring-flaws/
https://lnnnews.com/state-appeals-to-supreme-court-against-rabbi-eisemann-trial-delayed/
https://thelakewoodscoop.com/news/first-report-eisemann-prosecutors-formally-request-state-supreme-court-to-hear-their-case/

More detailed piece: https://matzav.com/eisemann-prosecutors-appeal-case-to-states-highest-court/

[Yehuda57]

More detailed piece: https://matzav.com/eisemann-prosecutors-appeal-case-to-states-highest-court/

Someone's space bar broken?

[Pony]

More detailed piece: https://matzav.com/eisemann-prosecutors-appeal-case-to-states-highest-court/

What in your opinion @YitzyS is the motivation to appeal to the supreme court? Last we thought it was because they didn't want to go to a new trial and be compelled to turn over the full Exhibit F. But they have since been required to turn it over to the defense. So what's the motivation now?

[shapsam]

What in your opinion @YitzyS is the motivation to appeal to the supreme court? Last we thought it was because they didn't want to go to a new trial and be compelled to turn over the full Exhibit F. But they have since been required to turn it over to the defense. So what's the motivation now?

Trying to answer for the Brady violation and other things they were called out for, on the record. They accomplish that even if the SC doesn't take the case. IMO

[Yehuda57]

What in your opinion @YitzyS is the motivation to appeal to the supreme court? Last we thought it was because they didn't want to go to a new trial and be compelled to turn over the full Exhibit F. But they have since been required to turn it over to the defense. So what's the motivation now?

Why can't it simply be they don't want a retrial - they have a guilty verdict they want to stick, and they certainly don't want Brady violations on their record.

[Pony]

Why can't it simply be they don't want a retrial - they have a guilty verdict they want to stick, and they certainly don't want Brady violations on their record.

True.. I guess I'm thinking with a 90% chance that the SC will not hear this, it will put the prosecution in a worse light. I'm pretty sure the defense was hoping that at this point they wouldn't appeal anymore for that reason.

[JMHO]

True.. I guess I'm thinking with a 90% chance that the SC will not hear this, it will put the prosecution in a worse light. I'm pretty sure the defense was hoping that at this point they wouldn't appeal anymore for that reason.

What do they have to lose by appealing to the SC?

[Yehuda57]

True.. I guess I'm thinking with a 90% chance that the SC will not hear this, it will put the prosecution in a worse light. I'm pretty sure the defense was hoping that at this point they wouldn't appeal anymore for that reason.

Why would they look worse? The SC takes on a fraction of the cases they are presented. It is not indicative of anything if they don't take it on. However if they do take it on and the SC affirms the ruling, *then* it looks worse for the prosecution, as the SC will have affirmed the Brady violation! Unless they are completely blinded by their hubris, they might actually be hoping the SC doesn't take on the case for that reason, and then they can always say, "The court got this wrong [because the judge is a ....], but what can we do the SC won't even look at it."

[Pony]

Why would they look worse? The SC takes on a fraction of the cases they are presented. It is not indicative of anything if they don't take it on. However if they do take it on and the SC affirms the ruling, *then* it looks worse for the prosecution, as the SC will have affirmed the Brady violation! Unless they are completely blinded by their hubris, they might actually be hoping the SC doesn't take on the case for that reason, and then they can always say, "The court got this wrong [because the judge is a ....], but what can we do the SC won't even look at it."

Makes sense.

[yuneeq]

What in your opinion @YitzyS is the motivation to appeal to the supreme court?...So what's the motivation now?

They get to stretch out the case longer and increase R' Eisemann's legal costs