Solomon Dwek Arrested For Car Theft

Dwek, a rabbi's son who is a cooperating witness for the federal government in several dozen corruption and money laundering trials, was expected to testify at a trial Monday but prosecutors say he's been arrested in Maryland for failure to return a rental car. Dwek wore a wire and recorded politicians taking bribes and ultra-Orthodox rabbis agreeing to launder money.

 

NJ corruption trial begins; star witness arrested

NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — Opening arguments have begun in the trial of a former northern New Jersey mayor swept up in a massive 2009 federal sting.

Federal prosecutors day former Secaucus Mayor Dennis Elwell of accepting $10,000 through a middleman from a crooked developer.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Maureen Nakly told a jury Elwell knew it was a bribe.

The developer was actually government cooperating witness Solomon Dwek. He agreed to wear a wire after being arrested for bank fraud.

Dwek was expected to testify Monday but prosecutors say he's been arrested in Maryland for failure to return a rental car.

Instead, the government plans to call former political adviser Ronald Manzo as the first witness.

Manzo pleaded guilty in May to acting as a middleman between Elwell and Dwek.

Comments

[Loshonhora]

Sof Ganev letliah.

[jewland]

i wonder if a shrink can help the guy, i think he is terminaly ill.

[jancsipista]

once a thief always a thief.

[Adam Neira]

What a can of worms !

Imagine if all the crimes and misdemenours of the world were revealed for all to see. Would be a fascinating audit nu ? Thank G-d knows the score.

"They hang the man and flog the woman who steals the goose from off the common
But leave the greater villain loose who steals the common from off the goose."

- From England circa 1660's

[seymour]

maybe he was in a crash

[Leah]

How is it that this man, clearly by all norms, a criminal's criminal allowed to be walking the streets freely? Is there nothing they can pin on him?

What a lonely man he must be, shunned by family and friends, you would think this pathetic creature would be hiding inconspicuously in some dark corner somewhere; but no, crime runs in his veins and he must come out to get the criminal's "rush".

[Yeshivaman]

this can also just be a ploy to keep him on the street longer

[Guest]

It was bound to happen. What a jerk.

[Deremes]

May he rot.

[a reader]

perhaps he did this to intentionally sabotage his own credibility?

[jancsipista]

deremes- you shouldnt curse another jew maybee he wants to do tshuva ver veist?.

[sarah]

It always boggled my mind how in the US justice system the testimony of certified crooks – people who have committed grave crimes and/or stolen tons of money suddenly get the highest level of trust and acceptance of their words.

You have a mass crook like Solomon Dwek who stole loads of money, then suddenly he becomes the person who is to be trusted in order to destroy others.

How can it be that is such a great country as the USA, the court system routinely accepts witnesses on behalf of the government – witnesses who are proven criminals? How can we trust their words?

The problem becomes much bigger for me when these “witnesses” are “testifying” for a clear reason. They were told by the government that if they provide actionable, “good testimony”, which can be used to bring others down, they will be dealt with more leniently on their own proven crimes.

Can someone please explain to me how this is any different from hiring a witness of the street, paying him a hefty sum of cash to testify for something that would benefit you? (is a witness who has demonstrable ulterior motives and demonstrable things to be personally gained from his testimony, can he be deemed trustworthy and believed?)

In my judgment, the whole concept of accepting as a witness people who are proven criminals and additionally have clear, proven (beyond a shadow of a doubt) ulterior motives and something huge to gain personally form the testimony – this is accepted as truth and can lock someone else away for a very long time.. My “simplistic” mind finds it very difficult to understand, accept and rationalize this logic and “justice”…

[effie]

sarah: Dwek wore a wire, so what's your beef?

[Deremes]

jancsipista,

Rubashkin you cursing away because he didn't do tshuva the way fm posters requested and a skunk like this this piece of Dwek you defending.
Nice.

[seymour]

Posted by: sarah | June 20, 2011 at 01:55 PM

first they did not even need him seem they taped the conversations that dweck had with the politicians and rebbies

another thing it takes a crook to catch a crook how would one ever get info about crooked deals unless someone talks. this is how they got rid of many mafia bosses

Of course the jury must consider all that you said in their decision

[devorah]

Any relation to the Manzos of "Housewives of NJ?"

[jancsipista]

deremes- you are minstaking i never wrote or cared much to write about rubashkin i never ever cursed him or others here i am sort of indifferent to the rubashkin case.

[Barry]

Informants such as Dwek have little credibility as witnesses. There main purpose is to point the police in the right direction to find corroborative evidence so any prosecution would not be reliant on the informant's evidence alone.

The reason the prosecution call an informant as a witness is because it would be unethical to deny the defence a chance to cross examine him as to his credibility. The prosecution are in effect saying to the jury we are laying ALL our cards on the table including the fact that our informant lacks credibility and is dishonest. Notwithstanding that fact, we are prepared to allow the defence the chance to rip into him because it would be unethical for us to hide anything from you the jury or deny the defence every opportunity available to undermine our case and besides we have other corroborative evidence to prove our case without needing the informant.

A judge would not look kindly on a prosecuter who refused to call an informant as his witness because he feared cross examination by the defence. He would allow the defence to call the informant as a hostile witness which is the last thing the prosecution would want.

[sarah]

It always boggled my mind how in the US justice system the testimony of certified crooks – people who have committed grave crimes and/or stolen tons of money suddenly get the highest level of trust and acceptance of their words.

You have a mass crook like Solomon Dwek who stole loads of money, then suddenly he becomes the person who is to be trusted in order to destroy others.

How can it be that is such a great country as the USA, the court system routinely accepts witnesses on behalf of the government – witnesses who are proven criminals? How can we trust their words?

The problem becomes much bigger for me when these “witnesses” are “testifying” for a clear reason. They were told by the government that if they provide actionable, “good testimony”, which can be used to bring others down, they will be dealt with more leniently on their own proven crimes.

Can someone please explain to me how this is any different from hiring a witness of the street, paying him a hefty sum of cash to testify for something that would benefit you? (is a witness who has demonstrable ulterior motives and demonstrable things to be personally gained from his testimony, can he be deemed trustworthy and believed?)

In my judgment, the whole concept of accepting as a witness people who are proven criminals and additionally have clear, proven (beyond a shadow of a doubt) ulterior motives and something huge to gain personally form the testimony – this is accepted as truth and can lock someone else away for a very long time.. My “simplistic” mind finds it very difficult to understand, accept and rationalize this logic and “justice”…

[sarah]

Editor. sorry for re-posting my previous comment in error. If it’s possible for you to remove the duplicate post, please do so. Thanks.

If they did not require any evidence or substantiation from the government informant = paid crook witness, only to lead the government to the rock solid evidence, then why would they call him to the stand?

The fact – the way I understand it is – that the government frequently rely very heavily on informants testimony at trial (not just to lead then to other evidence. In virtually all cases, the “rat” is not testifying out of good will but rather for a “hefty payment” by the government – in the form of better treatment.

Also there is the ultimate pressure for the informant to “perform” and provide “juicy” material to “lock up for good” the person(s) they are after – there is the biggest incentive to exaggerate, twist and pervert the facts. Since the bottom line is they made a deal to help the government. If they help the prolocutors sec use a conviction, they will be very “handsomely compensated”.. can there be a worse form of bribery?

Additionally, the strike a deal with this “soft target”/informant, then they go tell the jury that this person “became good” since they feel bad for what they have done and want to come clean and help the government against the rest.

This is usually an absolute lie. It’s just like saying that after the KGB or inquisition or any other totalitarian force tortured someone, gets them to “admit guilt” or testify against someone – would anyone in their right mind believe their “admission” or “testimony” NO! it was obtained via brutal torture and it can reasonably be assumed that it’s all one big bluff, but the person was forced to “admit” to it in order to avoid further torture.

In my mind, the exact same is the situation where the (all powerful) government threatens a person (criminal) with the worst punishments, and “offer a deal” to better their situation in exchange for some “juicy” material that can incriminate someone else. These 2 people are probably just as bad. Why would anyone in their right mind believe a “government witness” (when the testimony is the result of a “deal” stuck with the feds. ) this boggles my mind. (in the Dwek case I understand there are lots of audio tapes, but in many cases they rely primarily on the courtroom evidence of these criminals who struck deals with the feds (tantamount to torture. These people would really never want to talks with the government on their free will they are not looking for or seeking justice. All they care about is to get themselves of the hook.. now tell me, what wouldn’t a person (especially a proven dishonest person and criminal) to get himself a better chance at staying out of jail (or not spending the rest of his life there)??? Is this not basic logic?

[effie]

Who says an informant is "honorable, good and trustworthy" except the resident thug enablers?

Before a co-conspirator can testify, there must be corroboration. The jury is instructed to approach the testimony of co-conspirators with caution. It's up to the jury, not the government, to determine the credibility of witnesses.

The larrys, sarahs, and barrys just want their pet criminals to not be prosecuted. Well, tough nougies!

[leah]

SSSSSSSSOF GANAV LITLIA.AMEN

[Meir]

This is a false aligation I know Mr. Dwek from town and I was the person who Mr. Dwek rented the car to. I was not able to afford a car to get to work and Mr. Dwek was able to put me on as an authorized user of the car. Due to my mistakes and phone service being disconnected the rent a car place was not able to contact me due to the tags needed to be updated. Failure to return a rent a car phone call results in them thinking you stole the car. I returned the car before shabbos on Friday May 27 2011 the car was returned and has been before the warrant was issued. Mr. Dwek was doing me a favor I made many mistakes and should have touch base with the rental car place more while renting. This was all a huge misunderstanding and I'm sorry but please stop making false clamis about something you have no idea about this is the only truth due to the details I described. Mr Dwek has been doing so much teucheva before all this and doven to STOP all this hate and slander and maybe the Mociach would actually come.

[effie]

Was Dwek arrested? Yes.
Did he fail to return a rental car? Yes.

So, no, it's not a false allegation.

[Meir]

Sorry Effie if you must have not read the whole post he was trying to help me it was my fault I had the car not Dwek so look deep in side your soul and take the hate out hashem does not like loshon hora

[MdCrimDefAtty None]

Posted by: Meir | June 21, 2011 at 08:19 AM

Your allegations are a flat out lie. The vehicle was rented much earlier (march 25th, to be exact) and was due back on April 18th (erev pesach). nice try R'Meir.

btw, I have emailed Shmarya a copy of the Dwek charging documents as proof.

[getreal]

MR. MIER- are you mentally sane? Who in their right mind would take ANYTHING from this DWECK? He may be setting you up to be arrested as well! if so you certainly deserve it for being in DENIAL...

[http://www.yourcaraccidentclaim.co.uk/car-accident-compensation/]

a hefty sum of cash to testify for something that would benefit yo