Rabbi Eisemann’s New Trial Set To Begin Today

1
>>Follow Matzav On Whatsapp!<<

The trial of Rabbi Osher Eisemann, beloved founder of SCHI in Lakewood, NJ, and noted baal chesed and tzaddik, is scheduled to commence today with jury selection, as he faces charges of money facilitation and corruption of a corporate official.

The prosecution has chosen not to indict Rabbi Eisemann on the alleged underlying crimes, instead focusing on the fallout charge of money facilitation – indicating that they know he did not commit any underlying crime.

The case revolves around a 12-day loan from the school, which the prosecution claims was used to promote another crime. However, it has already been established that the loan was made using private funds, not government money, and the lead detective has testified that such a loan was permissible. Furthermore, the second alleged criminal act, a loan write-down, is disputed by the bookkeeper who made the transaction, who claims that it was a simple bookkeeping maneuver, not an attempt to erase a debt.

Forensic audits ordered by the commerce department of the attorney general’s office have also shown that no loan balance existed between Rabbi Eisemann and the foundation, and that the foundation actually owed Rabbi Eisemann money. Despite this, the justice department refuses to consider these audits, clinging to their theory of a loan and attempted write-down.

Rabbi Eisemann’s legal team urgently needs hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare for trial, including outstanding legal fees that must be paid immediately.

Donations can be made at pidyonshvuyim.com. Please daven for Osher ben Chana Frumet.

{CB Frommer – Matzav.com}

1 COMMENT

  1. We must do our best to daven for ר’ אשר שליט”א, and of course the donations need to cover all expenses. There should not be תפילות שוא, however.

    The prosecutor can’t indict him (or more accurately charge him) on the underlying crimes (meaning the original 3 out of 5 charges on $779,000) because he was found not guilty, not because the prosecutor chose not to charge him. The guilt or innocence there is irrelevant to the current charges, and in this trial, as with the 2 charges in the other trial, it is the prosecutor’s accusation that ר’ אשר was basically trying to wrongfully obtain a separate and illegal $200,000 benefit. The other 3 charges aren’t relevant, so if you think that because they weren’t brought up it means some type of concession of innocence then you are confused.

    The fact that the $200,000 dollar “loan” may have been private money is again irrelevant. The prosecutor is claiming that it was used for an illegal benefit that is illegal whether the money was public or private. Basically, the prosecutor is calling it theft, which is illegal whether the thief steals from public or private people. Not that anyone thinks that ר’ אשר שליט”א took anything that he wasn’t supposed to get, but that is what the prosecutor is saying. Therefore, hoping that the money was be found to be privately sourced is again irrelevant and another תפילת שוא.

    The bookkeeper’s dispute is again irrelevant. She may have been just maneuvering the books and it wasn’t a loan write off, but she definitely intended to write down and doesn’t dispute that she recorded that ר’ אשר שליט”א gave money to the school from his own money. It wasn’t a donation (couldn’t have been as it was $25,000 more than his yearly salary at that point). As such, the fact that ר’ אשר שליט”א gave the school $200,000 from his own money was then recorded, and benefits him. When someone subsequently looks at the books, the person will see that ר’ אשר שליט”א paid the school $200,000. If the government proves that ר אשר שליט”א actually owed money to the school, then he has this $200,000 as a write-off on his debt.

    The forensic audit is again irrelevant. Even if there may have been a calculation that the school owed ר’ אשר שליט”א money, the government can prove (so it may be that it claims) that the audit only took into account the recorded debits and credits on the books. If ר’ אשר שליט”א or the bookkeeping staff didn’t write down something, (for example shool money loans that he gave to others) as his responsibility, and he did owe that money to the school, then for him that was a loan. It just wasn’t recorded.as his responsibility. If he illegally benefited (recorded a payment) from the $200,000 and used that to offset his responsibilities (from his loans or other ways he may have owed the school money), then he did pay down his responsibilities. It just wasn’t recorded. Therefore, the government may try to say that the audit is irrelevant.

    Bottom line is the legal situation could easily swing against ר’ אשר שליט”א , and hoping that his lawyer’s claims will be accepted is a dangerous hope, and legally, if you look at it with a goy’s view, it is not very easily understood to be legal. We trust only in ה’, and the ultimate ישועה will come from there.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here