Raphael Golb re-sentenced to 2 months in prison, 3 years probation

Go_To_JailAccording to the AP:

A man convicted of using digital-age tools to impersonate and malign his father’s academic rivals on the ancient subject of the Dead Sea Scrolls was sentenced Monday to two months in jail after the state’s highest court tossed out some of his convictions — and with them, a state aggravated-harassment law.

The sentencing of Raphael Golb, who also got three years’ probation, came after the Court of Appeals upheld convictions on other charges, including criminal impersonation and forgery. Golb had been sentenced earlier to six months’ jail but free on bail during his appeal.

Golb was given a surrender date of July 22, but could ask the courts to hold off the jail term while appealing the case further.

So once again, the courts have decided that Dr. Golb is a convicted criminal. Dr. Golb was sentenced yet again to two months in prison and three years probation.

Raphael Golb, son of Ludwig Rosenberger Professor in Jewish History and Civilization at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Dr. Norman Golb, committed multiple crimes, was caught, lied about it to police, then claimed he was just joking, was convicted, was sentenced, appealed his conviction, was still found to be guilty on multiple counts, and now has been re-sentenced.

Dr. Golb is still guilty. Dr. Golb is still a criminal. Dr. Golb has been sentenced to do time.

(And of course, Dr. Golb will appeal yet again…)

For a history of this case, click here.


7 Responses

  1. From what I’ve read, it seems his sentence ought to be more severe. Of course, the law dictates how severe a sentence can be, but Rafael Golb went to A LOT of trouble creating an elaborate cast of sockpuppets to disparage and defame the legitimate work of many archaeologists and researchers. He took premeditation to a whole new low. As you said, though, the courts have confirmed Golb is a convicted criminal. That much cannot be erased or diminished.

    Kudos to you, Dr. Cargill, for diligently tracking every detail on top of everything else you do.

  2. The Chief Justice of the highest appellate court of the State of New York did not think Golb was a criminal, nor did the association of American trial lawyers. I would suggest it should have been classed as a civil matter and settled in that arena.

  3. […] the 2010 New York State Supreme Court conviction and sentencing, and the 2014 re-affirmation and re-sentencing by the NY Court of Appeals of Dr. Golb’s conviction on 19 counts of identity theft and […]

  4. Ok. But the court decided to reaffirm 19 counts, and a reduced sentence. So they disagree with you.

  5. Robert: Unfortunately leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States was denied. The Court was unwilling to identify any justiciable issues. I personally was in anticipation of a hearing at the highest court in the United States, it would have been revealing, but alas it is now gone forever and the matter is over (save an appeal on sentencing?)

    Daniel J. Grasse

  6. Why ask another court to repeat what two appellate courts have already said? He’s guilty 19 times, and the law that got struck down has already been replaced by the NY legislature. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Why do you think the SCOTUS would rule any differently?

  7. Robert:

    A case such as Golb has invoked a tremendous array of opinions about what is legally good and what is not good from many sectors of American society. Reflect on the multitude of issues presented throughout this long battle. The Supreme Court could have given us much insight that may have not been canvassed or if you will, clarified such issues for the American Public. We will never know what that great court thinks about this matter, even if that court upheld the decision below we would have the benefits of their reasoning. Also, as appellate courts often do, dissenting opinions from the United States Supreme Court are of tremendous value in shaping the American legal landscape. As you might expect, I do not have a good notion of how the Supreme Court would have ruled, but I surely would appreciate knowing what they think about the Golb case. Those are the base reasons for my position.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: