Haredi Mega-Thief's Bid To Delay Sentencing Denied
Haredi mega-thief Eliyahu Weinstein (pictured at right), who has fired or lost a string of attorneys; tried – and spectacularly failed – to withdraw his guilty plea because, he claimed, the government had no right to charge him for new frauds he committed after pleading guilty; had his latest attorney try to delay sentencing so he could have more time to prepare to object to the government's sentencing demands. Earlier today, that motion was denied.
This weinstein is so out of his mind that its not even funny.
Posted by: jancsibacsi | December 09, 2013 at 04:08 PM
You have to admire his tenacity
Posted by: rebitzman - $101 to read my posts | December 09, 2013 at 06:40 PM
This thief is clutching at the sides of a 'Teflon lined pipe' leading to a 'big black hole' to which he will never emerge again.
My guess is more than 26 years
Posted by: Isa | December 09, 2013 at 07:35 PM
I would like to be in front of his cell and say...HA HA!
Posted by: Account Deleted | December 09, 2013 at 10:11 PM
On a more serious note, knowing the tenaticty and stupidity of his lawyer (or vice versea)I am expecting another wild card appeal of some sorts. Who is paying for this guy's defense? These appeals aren't cheap.
Posted by: Account Deleted | December 09, 2013 at 10:13 PM
On a more serious note, knowing the tenaticty and stupidity of his lawyer (or vice versea)I am expecting another wild card appeal of some sorts. Who is paying for this guy's defense? These appeals aren't cheap.
Posted by: marinejew | December 09, 2013 at 10:13 PM
See the previous article!!!
Posted by: nachos | December 10, 2013 at 09:03 AM
Thanks for the update
Posted by: Moisheb | December 10, 2013 at 09:36 AM
Weinstein argued that the government "had no right to charge him for new frauds he committed after pleading guilty?" That's some lazy reporting on your part. The motion argued that the fraud as alleged by the government was committed before he pled guilty.
Posted by: Moshe | December 10, 2013 at 02:26 PM
No.
What it argued rather clearly is that Weinstein's guilty plea in the "first" fraud covered all similar crimes committed during or after the first fraud.
And what the judge did is reprimand Weisnstein's attorney for filing that motion.
Posted by: Shmarya Rosenberg | December 10, 2013 at 03:26 PM