Excommunication of Insane "Rabbi" Herschel Schachter

The following was translated by Mishpat Tsedek.

It is a letter of excommunication against an insane rabbi by the name of Herschel Schachter who has called for assassinations, Heaven forbid, of many, including Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Binyamin Netanyahu. Schechter has disgraced Judaism, has interfered in marriages, in stark contradiction to Jewish Law, which values marriage above all else, and needs to be stopped.

FREE TRANSLATION Rabbinical Court Shar Hamishpot Monsey, Ny(845)425-9708 “

PROCLAMATION OF EX-COMMUNICATION AGAINST THE FOLLOWING SLANDERERS AND THEIR FALSE STATEMENTS

We have already in the past condemned the great miscarriage of justice perpetrated by Rabbi Avrohom Union (LA), Rabbi Nochum Sauer (LA) against Mr Meir Kin in regards to a past seiruv that was corruptively issued against him, despite his willingness to all along arbitrate his divorce matters in a Bais Din and has even deposited a kosher Get at a Bais Din in 2008. Despite the fact that Mrs Lonna Kin refuses to pick up the GET, they falsely state that Meir Kin is “chaining his wife” by not giving her a Get. Their past seiruv was issued against Halocho as per the Poskim. (See Bais Din transcript# 1025). They now decided to add more wickedness to their past wickedness by issuing a new false seiruv on the 11th of Tamuz 5770.

Only this time they combined their signatures with Rabbi Herschel Schachter (YU)from Ny who is known for his unethical halachic procedures and is likened to a “Harem Keeper”. Herschel Schachter does not conform his rulings in strict accordance to Torah principles, but rather panders to the “feminist causes” as he pleases. Herschel Schachter practices injustice in Halacha , by allowing a woman to do whatever Torah violations she so pleases in matters of divorce without any consequesnces, but at the same token will attack the man while standing up to his Halachic rights. Herschel Schachter's “reformed principles” has allowed the woman:
A) to seek out their husbands in the Civil Courts against Halocho;
B)Commit Mesira against Halocho and
C) Allow her to steal the husband's monies using the Non-Torah approach of the Civil Courts. When these approaches are used to steal a man's Halachic rights as well as coerce him against Halocho to issue a GET, invariably the woman remains an “Eishes Ish”(married woman).Such a Get that was extracted thru these forceful and anti -Torah means, will invalidate the Get, and any children born as a result of such a Get are rendered “Mamzeirim” (illegitimate Bastards). It has been quoted by the famous “Steipler Gaon” that if one sees a Rabbi always ruling in favor of women, one needs to suspect of “suspicious sexual behavior by that Rabbi.”

We therefore publicly proclaim against Herschel Schachter(NY), Avrohom Union (LA), Nochum Sauer(LA) that they are slanderes of the worst order and therefore have lost their share in the next world by Torah Principles guiding the Halochot of “Motzi Shem Ra Berabim”. (SEE hebrew version for all Halachic citations).

We also announce that Mr Meir Kin from California is innocent of all their false accusations and is completely Halachacally compliant in regards to matters of his Jewish Divorce . Any seiruv against him is null and void and should be regarded as mere chards of pottery. We ask for anyone who can influence the above wicked rabbis to repent and to stop causing Mamzeirim to be born as well as stop supporting people who arbitrate in the civil courts.

In conclusion, the Gemara Shabbos 139a ,states that tragedies befall us because of corrupted rabbis amongst us.

Signed: Avrohom Shmuel Yehuda Gestetner (chief judge )

A Most Needed Voice: Allen West

At a recent debate, Allen West sparred with Ron Klein over terror and national security. Klein's comments were dangerously ignorant.

West stressed the need to be on the lookout for problems in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries. He recognizes that we cannot rely on forced alliances to protect American security. By contrast, Congressman Klein showed his ignorance and his adherence to conventional wisdom as a substitute for terror policy, callously stating that "Iran is the enemy" and that we must bolster the Afghani, Pakistani and other armies. To be sure, the Iranian regime is a huge enemy of the West and even of Saudi Arabia, but focusing on them alone is wrong and dangerous.


In truth, Iran has the largest number of pro-Western citizens of any country in the Middle East, outside of Israel. There is hope for regime change, as long as we can stop radicals like Mousavi from hijacking those reform movements. And of course we need to deal with the current threat and the current regime. But that doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye on the Taliban and al-Qaeda, as Ron Klein wants us to.


To eradicate terror, we need to show common sense and firm resolve on the international front, as well as introduce domestic policy to end terror recruitment in prisons by sentencing non-violent offenders to work details or military service instead of long prison sentences where large numbers are recruited every year.

There is no simple solution and only a multi-pronged change to domestic policy, coupled with foreign vigilance, will see the terror threat erased. But Ron Klein's position is shockingly ignorant and dangerous to America's security. By contrast, Allen West's is a tremendous step in the right direction.

Congressman Ron Klein has failed to do anything in his four years in Congress and is dangerously naïve on the international front. Colonel Allen West understands global politics and what is needed internationally. It's time to give him an opportunity to lend his voice to solving our most glaring global problem.

On Nov. 2, vote Allen West. The future of America relies on common sense solutions.

Alex Sink: Allen West 2010, Ron Klein 2012?

This term will see redistricting, a once in a decade process by which all congressional, state level and regional seats are redrawn. We need to work hard to elect a Republican governor, unless we want to cede as many as 6 congressional seats to the Dems.

As of this email, we may be well on track to seeing Allen West elected to Congress in South Florida. Alan Grayson appears to be going down to defeat.

But elect Alex Sink as governor and Alan Grayson, Ron Klein, Suzanne Kosmas and Alan Boyd may well be back in two years, not to mention the future of the two new seats being gained by Florida in the process.

The Governor has veto power over any redistricting plan. A Republican governor helps ensure that these seats stay Republican. A Democrat governor would demand compromise from the Florida House and it’s doubtful that Tallahassee leadership would hold the line in great enough numbers and have the media savvy to win that battle.

That’s why electing Rick Scott is absolutely crucial to the Republican effort and why his race is the most important one in this election cycle.

Best regards,

Yomin Postelnik
Chairman
A Better Florida PAC
www.ABetterFlorida.com


A Better Florida PAC Voter Guide
United States Senate
Marco Rubio
------------------------------------
United States Representative

U.S. House of District #22
Allen West

U.S. House of District #19
Joe Budd

U.S. House of District #20
Karen Harrington

U.S. House of District #23
Bernard Sansaricq

U.S. House of District #17
Roderick Vereen
--------------------------------------
Florida Governor
Rick Scott

State Attorney General
Pam Bondi

State Chief Financial Officer
Jeff Atwater

Commissioner of Agriculture
Adam Putnam
----------------------------------------
State Senate

State Senate District #25
Ellyn Bogdanoff

State Senate District #27
Lizbeth Benacquisto

State Senate District #32
Patrick Laffey

State Senate District #35
Corey Poitier

----------------------------------------------------------


Find Your District Below
For State House

State House District #91
George Moraitis

State House District #87
Bill Hager

State House District #89
Steven Rosenblum

State House District #85
Tami Donnally

State House District #83
Pat Rooney

State House District #95
Scott Yardley

State House District #98
Kim Burgess

State House District #90
Alison Rampersad

State House District #100
Ed Bender
-------------

--------------------------------------
Broward County Commission
District #4

Chip LaMarca
--------------
District #8

Christopher Max Ziadie
--------------------------------------------------------------


Justice of The Supreme Court
Should Be Retained In Office?

Charles Canady – Yes

Jorge Labarga – No – Undemocraticly voted to remove the “Florida Health Care Freedom Act” from the ballot.

James Perry – No - Undemocraticly voted to remove the “Florida Health Care Freedom Act” from the ballot.

Ricky Polston – Yes
------------------------------------------
Broward County Court Judge Group # 1

John Howes
----------
Broward County Court Judge Group # 26

Mardi Anne Levey Cohen
---------------------------------------------------------

Broward County School Board
District #7

Travis Williamson
---------

Constitutional Amendments

No. 1 – Review and decide
No. 2 – Yes
No. 4 – No
No. 5 – No
No. 6 – No
No. 8 – No - Amendment 8 would only make a bad situation worse. While lack of a qualified hiring campaign, the Teachers’ Unions and an inflexible curriculum are primary causes of stagnation in Florida public schools, raising the class size without improving the curriculum by bringing creativity to the classroom or hiring more qualified teachers would only make a bad situation worse. Every dollar spent PROPERLY on education betters the future of the state and is even fiscally prudent, by leading to savings on criminal justice and juvenile delinquency programs. Increasing the class size without fixing the educational structure is just plain wrong.
--------------------------------------------------

Nonbinding Statewide
Advisory Referendum

Yes

-------------------------------------------------

Broward County Issues

No. 1 – Yes
No. 2 – No
No. 3 – No
No. 4 – No
No. 5 – Review and decide

Interesting

I see that Google Ads put an Obama ad on my blog, probably because of the amount of times the word "Obama" comes up.

Well, if you want to cost the Dems 3 cents or so, you can click on it.

But are the Obama Dems even worth 3 cents or your time?

O’Donnell Was Factually Right, Coons and Widener Law Students Were Shockingly Foolish

The First Amendment establishes that Congress shall declare no official nationwide religion. The First Amendment does not ban the mention of religion in public. In fact, it protects same. While far left radicals like Chris Coons may wish to knowingly distort or ignore this fact of American history, it is as shocking as it is sad that the entire student body of a supposedly “prestigious” law school seemed to be equally ignorant and/or oblivious to our founding principles.

Yes, I know that in saying so I’ve just bucked conventional wisdom, which dictates that self proclaimed Marxist aficionados such as Chris Coons, wise men like Al Franken, erudite speakers like Barney Frank and great thinkers of our times like Howard Dean are the epitome of normal, while hard working Americans and Reagan Democrats, now referred to as “Tea Party Activists,” are the “extreme.” Too bad.

The real radical in the O’Donnell-Coons race is Chris Coons
The real radical in the O’Donnell-Coons race is Chris Coons, which is patently obvious to anyone who’s reviewed his positions or life experience. Pinning that term on O’Donnell, in this race, is like saying that Queen Elizabeth should learn decorum from a more famous O’Donnell of a more Rosie nature. As much should be clear to all Delaware Republicans, Castlonians and Christinians alike.

The false picture portrayed by the media of the O’Donnell-Coons race in general, and of their latest exchange in particular, represents a new low even for Network News. While O’Donnell was able to enumerate the five freedoms actually guaranteed by the First Amendment, Coons was not. Too bad that factoid didn’t make its way to the “fair and balanced” Democratic media.

As to the issue at hand, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of all religions on the federal level, the ability to express thoughts in public and other similar rights. Coons’ use of the amendment as a pretext to ban speech, thought or open discussion in public classrooms is to attribute to the First Amendment all that it is truly against. In so doing, Coons may as well have continued that line of reasoning and gone on to explain how the Second Amendment demands confiscation of all firearms.

In truth, his distortion of the First Amendment should be as offensive to Americans as calling Karl Marx a capitalist would be to a guy like Coons.

A proper reading of the First Amendment would be even more shocking to Coons and Widener Law School company. The Amendment was actually established to protect statewide religious practices from federal interference. One should read the sources that Thomas E. Woods, Jr. so brilliantly brings together in his Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (among them, historian David Hackett Fischer) for more information on this subject.

And it cannot go without saying that Coons also showed a profound ignorance of science, which in its un-politicized form (in other words, the kind no longer taught in universities), demands logic and shuns dogma; even liberal, conventional dogma. But that’s for a more in-depth discussion on the gaping holes in conventional scientific theory. For now, suffice it to say that the foolish nature of liberal dogma is as far reaching as it is wrong.

The main lesson remains as follows: Congressional Democrats have made Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Tim Geithner in charge of banking during a time of national crisis (Geithner by way of senatorial approval). Less than two short years ago, they sued to make the Grand Statesman of the Century, Mr. Al Franken himself, a full fledged Member of the United States Senate. And they have elevated to the speakership a radical who was commonly referred to as “San Fran Nan” prior to said elevation.

Yet they persist in calling us “radicals?”

Democrat Congressman Threatens Opponent’s Life, Again

This Sunday, at a retirement home in Belle Glade, Florida, a United States congressman threatened the life of his opponent in front of an entire group of senior citizens. For those familiar with the entitlement mentality that has so sullied the left, the party of the esteemed Congressman can be left without saying. For all others, I’ve included it in the title.

Sunday’s riff was par for the course with Alcee Hastings. During the 2008 cycle (three days or so before the election), Democrat Hastings, a member of Congress since 1993 and the only impeached judge ever to be elected to higher office, brought up his own impeachment in a public forum, all but proclaiming it to be a badge of honor. His opponent at the time, former state Chief Medical Officer Marion Thorpe, being a quintessential gentleman, didn’t engage him head on, but instead reminded the audience that Hastings’ impeachment had precluded him from being an effective voice on issues affecting his district.

Alcee went ballistic. Although it was he, not his opponent, who had brought up his own impeachment, Hastings approached Thorpe after the debate and told him (among other things not fit to print), “you ever bring up that impeachment again and I’ll take you out.” The two then sat down and let the candidates for state attorney take the stage, Alcee’s threats having almost been within earshot. Alcee was soon at it again, finishing off the evening by standing up, waving his finger at Thorpe and hissing “it ain’t over, it ain’t over. I’m coming after you.”

Whatever…“Congressman.”

Hastings’ reward for that most comical charade was reelection to a ninth term in Congress. To be sure, he doesn’t have much clout and Pelosi et al made him “Chairman of the Helsinki Commission,” to make sure that he spends most of his time amusing the good folks of Europe, doing his best to “bolster” our national image.

(Details of the above incident are available online at The entire incident is available at http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/172989/opponent-accuses-rep-alcee-hastings-threatening-his-life/mark-hemingway. Of note, I was in the room when it happened, albeit not close enough to hear Alcee’s gracious and poetic threats.)

That episode was mild and pales in comparison to what happened this weekend at Quiet Waters Retirement Home, a Belle Glade, Fla. nursing home that will be quiet no more.

Alcee Hastings arrived with Kendrick Meek and the media. Kendrick gave a good speech and left, the media following suit.

Alcee’s Republican opponent - diplomat, community leader and renown human rights activist Bernard Sansaricq - was at the home, meeting with residents. Sansaricq notes that this was after a full day of campaigning and listening to the concerns of constituents in Belle Glade, the poorest area in the state and one with an unemployment rate of 42%. Surprisingly, while Sansaricq has visited the area 20 times, Hastings had been a no show until that afternoon.

With the media gone, Alcee gave his speech. Winding down, he turned to his opponent and announced that the Tea Party had invited him to a debate, rebutting “I have nothing in common with the TEA parties, so I refused.” At that point, he called out to Bernard to stand next to him and demanded that “Bernard debate (him) right here and now.” That move would prove foolish, even by Alcee standards.

Alcee, now both the candidate and self-appointed moderator of the debate, continued on about how much he loved Belle Glade, where he grew up (but hasn’t been seen since). His concluding remarks were that he “was an impeached federal judge.” He added that he’s “now under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, but none of that matters because I represent the people.”

The esteemed Congressman continued:

“Bernard Sansaricq posted accusations on his site that I pay my girlfriend, who is also my staffer, $160,000 a year. And I have one word for him. You, Bernard should go find out what I did to my last opponent. I sued his -expletive deleted- off.”

First point of contention:

It wasn’t Bernard Sansaricq who broke that story. It was national news sources, including the ultra-liberal Sun-Sentinel (see http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-03-06/news/fl-congress-spending-20100304_1_budgets-staff-salaries-office-expenses).

Second point of contention:

Hastings’ expletive laced rant took place in a nursing home, right in front of elderly residents!

Third point of contention:

Hastings never sued (or attempted to sue) the honorable Dr. Marion Thorpe, Jr., former Chief Medical Officer of Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration. He threatened him with physical harm.

Well, we know what you “did to his last opponent.” And just like his impeachment, he may not want to bring it up in public.

You would think that would be enough. But, Alcee being Alcee, there was more to come.

Bernard Sansaricq is a serious man who cares about the plight of people in Alcee Hastings’ district. Hastings would have been well advised to leave him well enough alone. But he didn’t and now it was Bernard’s turn to fire back:

Turning to the audience, the statesman responded:

“I have visited Belle Glade 20 times since the beginning of the campaign and I intend on being YOUR Congressman. And I won’t tell you that you need to hire a lobbyist when you need something from me. That’s because your congressman is elected to be your lobbyist!

Belle Glade has a 42% unemployment rate. You can be sure that when elected, I won’t hire some girlfriend and pay her $160,000 of the people’s money when those funds can be used to hire eight people in Belle Glade. I also won’t take trips to Europe with that girlfriend on the taxpayer dime. I will remain here and have a presence in the district, fighting for you.”

Alcee’s response, in full earshot of all of the assembled elderly residents of the no longer Quiet Waters, “You’d better travel safe! You’d better travel safe! You’d better travel safe!” For those who don’t understand thug-ese, that’s a desperate threat (albeit an empty one) on Bernard Sansaricq’s life.

When asked about what had transpired, Sansaricq stated, “that was obviously not the speech I had in mind to give. But since he laid it all out on the table, there was really no choice but to oblige.”

Alcee Hastings was right about one thing. He has nothing in common with the TEA parties, or any other citizens’ movement for that matter.

The most riled up members of our grassroots movements are motivated by a desire to help America realize its potential. They respect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Alcee Hastings threatens his opponents and he chases the pursuit of girlfriend staffers.

What’s also true is that Alcee Hastings needs psychiatric help. As far as being a decision maker or community leader goes, suffice it to say that I’ve met wild armadillos more intelligent than he is. With 42% unemployment in parts of his district, Florida’s most impoverished one, it’s a shame that they don’t have better representation.

Alcee Hastings is the embodiment of a disgrace. Compared to Sansaricq, whose amazing bio cannot be given justice in this article (though readers are encouraged to visit www.sansaricq4congress.org to see for themselves), Hastings appears to be nothing more than a shadow of a man. And the Democratic Party, even with their pervasive entitlement mentality, should be ashamed to have him as their nominee.

The High-Tech Lynching of Commissioner Keith Wasserstrom

When a prosecutor calls the charges levied against a conservative commissioner in a liberal county “novel,” you know that justice has run amok. But the extent of the miscarriage of justice in the Keith Wasserstrom case goes well beyond that definition.

Keith Wasserstrom was a city commissioner in Hollywood, Fla., in the southern part of Broward County. Nominally a Democrat, Wasserstrom was open in his support for the reelection of Gov. Jeb Bush in 2002. At the height of the Iraq War’s unpopularity, Wasserstrom was a lone voice in that party, reminding them of the national security reasons for the war. He knew that his popularity would suffer and he was kicked out of three Democratic clubs as a result. But he did not know the extent of maliciousness that was in store for him.

At the same time, federal agents were looking to prosecute crimes in Broward. One county commissioner with a past that swirled with rumors, and who was later indicted after a joint federal and state investigation, had been caught misusing funds without charges being laid. There were rumored backroom deals with school board members (one instance of which was later confirmed). Broward was working on establishing new ethics standards. But instead of promoting steps to actually curb corruption, certain officials decided to alleviate the pressure of never having prosecuted a Broward official by going after the one whose politics they liked least, a Democrat who showed voters how much their party had changed. The fact that he had done nothing wrong was a side matter.

I know that many Democrats believed then, and probably still believe, that support of the war in Iraq is a crime in and of itself. The votes of 25 Democratic senators to approve the war, all of whom had the same intelligence briefings that the UN and other international organizations had provided both the White House and leaders of Congress, would stand in the way of such an argument, as would the continued presence in Iraq under a Democrat administration. Either way, the Iraq War does not give license to go on a witch hunt against its supporters or to manufacture crimes against them.

Wasserstrom was charged with unlawful compensation for dealing with a client who provided him with no compensation on anything having to do with the City of Hollywood (that charge was thrown out by the judge due to its sheer ridiculous nature). Prosecutors piled on four ancillary charges in the hopes of exacting a deal, two counts of filing false forms and two counts of getting the mayor to as well. The fact that these forms were recusal forms, meaning that they explained why Wasserstrom did not vote on the project, was all but overlooked. The city attorney called the charges “a miscarriage of justice.”

Specifically, the charges against Wasserstrom centered around a deal between the City of Hollywood and Schwing Bioset, a company that converts waste into fertilizer. The company has been hired by several cities. It is not the cheapest company to offer this service, but cities contract Schwing Bioset because of its unique track record and clear abilities to perform. Wasserstrom’s firm represented the firm, with a clause in their contract specifically excluding his firm from compensation for any Hollywood deal. This measure was not necessary. All Wassserstrom would have needed to do is to recuse himself from any Hollywood vote. Conversely, based on his fee exemption, Wasserstrom could have legally voted on the Hollywood contract.


In an abundance of caution, Wasserstrom both excluded himself from any gains resulting in the City of Hollywood contract and from voting on the contract. He was upfront about his firm’s relationship with the company. He broke no laws and did nothing untoward.

Although the judge threw out the main charge, the ancillary charges made the jury believe that something was wrong. After all, who is charged who has committed no wrongdoing? This is a dangerous supposition that assumes guilt at the onset and stands in stark contrast to the rule of presumption of innocence. If we believe that all who are charged are in fact guilty at onset, then how can anyone ever have a fair trial? But the pile on of charges led the jury to conclude that “something must have been done” and that it was reasonable to find that Wasserstrom should have at least made the forms more clear and detailed.

The jury overlooked that recusal forms are just that, forms - not biographies. They are filed after the fact and list a brief reason why the commissioner who filed them recused himself from the vote. They are not detailed explanations. They simply state that so and so recused himself of a vote and why. It’s impossible to have criminal intent in filing such a form, as no gain is garnered by their filing. Moreover, in the Wasserstrom case, the City Attorney had filed one of the forms himself. But juries that suppose that the defendant must have done something to be hauled into court have often seen otherwise. At least one Wasserstrom juror said that none of them felt good about convicting him, but felt unclear about the case. This speaks to the surreal nature of the charges, not to his guilt.

The assistant state’s attorney who prosecuted the case called the Wasserstrom conviction “novel.” There is nothing noble about “novel” prosecutions. All that means is that the charged person had no way of knowing that his/her actions would be considered illegal and that the actions undertaken were never before considered criminal. It’s the definition of prosecutorial overreach.

The case should have never been brought and should have been thrown out when it was. It’s the latest in the attempt by the left to hijack the right and to stifle dissent. And it was followed up by the unfair, unfounded and unjust charges against two Republican commissioners in another Broward city for allegedly violating Sunshine Laws (laws preventing commissioners from discussing city business outside of a public forum) in a he said/he said case that was actually dismissed and resulted in an assistant states attorney who was also a state representative attending the latter’s vindication party.

We must all stand up against injustice, against the targeting of innocents and against the besmirching of a fine public servant like Keith Wasserstrom, for no other reason than that of agenda driven politics.

Some additional shocking legal facts:

Wasserstrom followed the advice of the City Attorney all along, from drafting the clause in the engagement letter to filling out the recusal form. Although the City Attorney advised the Mayor and Wassserstrom that they had no legal conflict of interest, they both chose to recuse themselves to avoid any appearance of impropriety. The City Attorney backed up his opinion with a legal memo that explained that Florida law only requires the disclosure of conflicts that would benefit the elected official.

The prosecution, recognizing that the main charge of unlawful compensation was absurd on the face of it, contended that Wasserstrom stood to gain from Hollywood, because another city may choose Swing Bioset because they will have had a track record with Hollywood. The prosecution recognizes that even this far fetched scenario would be legal, as Wasserstrom had recused himself of the vote. They contend that the illegal act was that he didn’t specify this in the recusal forms, the forms that are filled out after the fact and detail briefly why he didn’t vote on the deal. Never mind that Swing Bioset could point to numerous other contracts that it’s performed well before meeting Wasserstrom or Hollywood. How filing a form after the fact results in unlawful compensation is too twisted to describe in words.

Nonetheless, the City Attorney forewarned against this assertion as well, citing that Florida does not consider as a benefit anything that is contingent, speculative or remote. The fact that anyone would be able to go to other cities and say “Hollywood uses Bioset” was a benefit that was remote, speculative and contingent. First, their work had to be successful in Hollywood in order for there to be any benefit. Second, Wasserstrom would only benefit if Bioset continued to retain the marketing company that hired his firm—as his firm was engaged by the marketing company for Bioset, not Bioset itself. Bioset could have fired the marketing company, or the marketing company could have fired his firm, at any time. Third, there would only be benefit to his firm if the city, municipality or county being offered the services chose Bioset after an extensive and expensive request for proposal process - remote, speculative and contingent.

Regarding the piling on of charges and how it seems to have influenced the jury, one other point stands out. Wasserstrom was charged not only for failing to provide a rendition the size of War and Peace on a simple recusal form, but also for the Mayor having done the same. By contrast, the Mayor was not charged at all. In reality, neither should have faced such absurd charges, but this just shows the malicious nature of the Wasserstrom prosecution. Of course, the jury could find no reason to believe that Wasserstrom had influenced the Mayor (and the prosecution could offer none), and acquitted on those charges, but chose to convict on his own forms, under the actual (if not the legal) premise of “I guess he could have been more specific,” a supposition that should never justify a conviction and that in fact convicted an innocent man.

Further, Wasserstrom was charged with filing his form (and the Mayor’s) and then charged again for an amendment to his firm (and the Mayor’s). By all interpretations of the law, even if there would have been impropriety, that would have been one act, one conviction. The amendment clarified that Wasserstrom’s firm did not work for the marketing company, Bionative Technologies which was the marketing company for Schwing Bioset, but for a local Florida company retained by Bionative. It was technical in nature and of course, had no bearing on whether he’d receive compensation or any criminal intent. How correcting the name of a marketing company on a form led to two separate counts brought is unbelievable.

The absurdity is that all of the above, his entire prosecution, related to his filing of recusal forms, forms filed days or months after a commissioner properly recuses him or herself of a vote due to potential conflicts. It’s the first such case that has been handled in such a way, and it’s a crying shame.