I don't believe that those girls or the girl that is 19 now is totally innocent. Did anyone see her in court and what she was wearing? It seems as though she wearing clothes that she would wear to a bar. (Flirty) She should at least dress properly and make it look like she is totally innocent. I believe it had to do with wages and since he wouldn't raise their pay then they would come back and get him because they were mad. I don't care what you other people think either! It's my opinion!
Well here are dome FACTS! She was not wearing THOSE particular clothes, or make up when she turned on the theatrical tears to get the sympathy of the jury. The defense attorney, Asad Farah, is a wonderful man and did not put on a defense because he never thought there was even a remote possiblity of a guilty verdict because they did not have one shred of substantiated evidence. ZERO!!! Only Talk from disgruntled ex-employees. Every witness told the police one story and then told a different story for the jury. And a different story than each other. Too bad the jury does not get to see the police report. They could have seen the blatant inconsistencies. (LIES)
Yes, this whole case started because the parents of two "First-Cousins" wanted the owner to pay their kids $4.30 more an hour than the Law calls for. And, demanded that no taxes be paid out of their Tips.
That is what this case is REALLY about. The step father went to the owner and threatened him with sexual harassment charges and said he knew he was very close to getting a liquor license and then threatened that he wouldn't get the liquor license if someone accused him of serving alcohol. Then tried to shake him down for MONEY! The other parent threatened him also did same thing. He never knew they were related. He didn't go along with the shake down. Too bad, it would've been a lot cheaper had he just paid up.
Then a few months later when a parent threatens him again, the owner call the police. The cops call him and he takes his stepdaughter to the police and Bang, now all of a sudden, it's the "Playboy Channel." The police get her first cousin and her best friend to corroborate her story.
And there you have it on the pornography charge.
The alcohol is not even mentioned by these girls in the police report whatsoever. They take the stand and say he sold wine for $8.00 a glass. Who, in their right mind, would pay $8.00 for a glass of cheap red wine?
Again ZERO Evidence. Just their word, unsubstantiated with any proof or facts.
Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There can be no doubt. (SUPPOSEDLY IN THE REAL WORLD)
The prosecution never presented any proof. Just words from disgruntled people with an ax to grind.
That is why the attorney didn't put on a defense. They believed in the system and the system let them down.
Author
Topic: Coney Island owner found guilty (Read 15232 times)
