Some background that led up to the this point.
Understanding the Verdict:
- There were 5 counts on Rabbi Eisemann and 4 against the foundation (they are two separate entities).
- All 4 counts against the foundation were declared not-guilty.
- On counts 1,2, and 4, against R’ Eisemann, the jury said not guilty. Those were the ‘serious allegations’.
- On Count 3 and 5, the jury said
- Count 3 was ‘money laundering’, which the defense lawyers argue is not possible to violate unless you’re convicted of count 1,2, or 4. Reason: According to the text definition f the law, ‘money laundering’ is the concealment of the origins of illegally obtained money. But once the jury declared that the money was obtained legally, by virtue of issuing non-guilty verdicts on counts 1,2, and 4, it’s then impossible to have a money laundering charge, which by definition refers to money obtained illegally.
- Count 5 is ‘misconduct by a corporate official’ – the defense argues that this charge can only apply to someone who was convicted of misconduct. However, once all 4 counts of misconduct are declared not-guilty (count 1,2,4) or dismissed (count 3), it’s no longer possible for this charge (count 5) to exist. Hence, this count is directly tied to count 3; meaning if count 3 is dismissed, count 5 automatically gets knocked off too.
- Read here: Defense Attorney Lee Vartan’s statement on R’ Eisemann’s verdict.
The motion to dismiss the case entirely was presented to the Judge. You can read the 50+ page motion below, but here are a few key points.
1) Money laundering is to clean ‘dirty’ money hence with no other crime rendering it ‘dirty money’ there could not have been laundering.
“Foremost, the state failed to prove a theft from the School. The state affirmatively disclaimed any obligation in the superseding indictment and again at trial to prove that the $200,000 was public money. But if the $200,000 was private money, then the state’s own investigator” admitted, and the Court agreed, that no crime was committed. Related, the $200,000 was loaned and repaid, in full, in 12 days; no evidence of permanent deprivation was offered. The state likewise failed to prove that Mr. Eisemann knew that the $200,000 was derived from criminal activity. If the $200,000 was private money, then “everyone agrees” there was no crime. If the $200,000 was public money, it could be loaned by the School to the foundation. The Department of Education regulations said so, but, more importantly, the school’s independent auditor said so, who had for years submitted unqualified audit reports on behalf of the School to the Department that included loan balances between the School and the Foundation and no suggestion that those balances were improper.”….
“Mr. Eisemann was convicted of financial facilitation based on a $200,000 “theft” from the School designed to conceal that $200,000 or facilitate a $200,000 “theft” from the Foundation, notwithstanding that the state proved no theft from the School, and notwithstanding that nothing was concealed, and notwithstanding that no physical dollars ever entered or exited a Foundation bank account during the transaction, and notwithstanding that QuickBooks reflected that the Foundation was owed $200,000 before the transaction and the same $200,000 after the transaction. A judgment of acquittal must be entered. But the financial facilitation charge should never have even been before a jury. The superseding indictment was returned based on plainly false testimony from the state’s “lead-investigator,” which was not only never corrected but was proudly repeated to the second grand jury. The result was a facially inconsistent superseding
2) The Jury was given poor instructions
“The jury should have been instructed that it could not find Mr. Eisemann guilty of financial facilitation unless it first found him guilty of Count 2 or Count 4, or, alternatively, Count 5, where the predicate crime for Count 5 was a crime other than financial facilitation. Likewise, the jury should have been instructed that it could not find Mr. Eisemann guilty of misconduct by a corporate official unless it first found him guilty of Count 1, Count 2, or Count 4, or,alternatively, Count 3, where the “first” crime for Count 3 was a crime other than misconduct by a corporate official. The Court’s failure to properly instruct the jury sowed confusion, resulted
The prosecution also has a chance to explain why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. This process can take a few weeks. Tefillos are still needed as the process continues – Osher ben Chana
Lakewood SCHI founder’s… by on Scribd
Message from Rabbi Eisemann, Read the message HERE