Oral arguments for Rabbi Eisemann’s defense’s motion to dismiss his case over repeated Brady violations by the prosecution has been rescheduled for Wednesday, March 6th, due to a scheduling conflict.
Late last month, the prosecution submitted their written response to the defense’s motion.
In an attempt to defend themselves from the intentional Brady violation of withholding the identity of the bookkeeper who made the entry they alleged to be a loan write down, the prosecution invented a brand new and rather bizarre prosecutorial theory.
The prosecution is now claiming that it had never been relevant whether Rabbi Eisemann made or directed the entry in question – and indeed there is no evidence to this effect. Rather, they are now arguing that the transfer of money to the school itself was simply a set up to trigger a loan write down, since it would be self-understood by the bookkeeping to credit this particular transaction to this particular alleged loan account. This odd logic appears quite obviously to be borne out of the prosecution’s desperation to save themselves from the very serious Brady violations.
In a short response letter, the defense points out that aside from the total absurdity of this new theory, as well as the direct contradiction from previous court testimony.
Under this new legal theory, the prosecution appears to be abandoning Count Five, which is one of the two Counts pending trial. Count Five is “Corruption of a Corporate Official” which accuses Rabbi Eisemann of using his position as director of the SCHI Foundation to manipulate the QuickBooks to write down a loan.
The prosecution’s admission that there is no evidence that Rabbi Eisemann made or directed the entry in question, negates any notion of misuse of his position as a corporate official to manipulate the books.
Now, if Count Five is out, the other charge – Count Three, of Financial Facilitation – cannot stand, and should also be thrown out.
Alas, despite their bizarre legal gymnastics, the state appears to be bent on their senseless prosecution rather than just calling it as it is – Rabbi Eisemann is innocent of wrongdoing.