Sunday, August 19, 2012

A Rabbi's Tale of Abuduction, Torture - Newsday

a guest post [click  here for documents  http://lukeford.net/Images/photos/belsky.pdf]

Rabbis Belsky and Wolmark, amongst those who signed the seruv against Aharon, were accused by Rabbi Abraham Rubin of being responsible for an attack in which Rabbi Rubin was kidnapped and beaten to force him to give a get.
==============================================
A RABBI'S TALE OF ABDUCTION, TORTURE Newsday March 8, 1998  by Dan Morrison

On the evening of Oct. 23, 1996, as Rabbi Abraham Rubin walked home from synagogue toward his Borough Park home, two cars collided up the block at the intersection of 56th Street and 14th Avenue.

Rubin, 31, ran toward the scene of the accident, an apparent diversion. A man standing on the sidewalk in front of him suddenly turned and started punching him and grabbed his glasses. He was dragged into a waiting van, he says, where several assailants began beating him.

He did not have to ask why.

For five years, Rubin, an Orthodox Jew, had been involved in a bitter dispute with his estranged wife.

Rubin says he has refused to this day to grant his wife a religious divorce, known as a get, until she lets him see his two children, who live with her in Montreal.

In an interview that elaborated on charges in a lawsuit he has filed against his alleged captors, Rubin described his abduction and torture.

"I was expecting it, sooner or later," he said.

Inside the van, he said, paid assailants wrapped a black laundry bag around his head. As he was handcuffed and choked, a voice said in sarcastic Yiddish, "Ess vet zein gut It will be good . . . Mir vilen
nor die zalst a yid We only want you to be a Jew ."

As the van sped through Brooklyn, Rubin said, he was asked if he knew  Kol D'Alim G'var, a Talmudic commentary on the theory that might makes right.

The van stopped, and all the attackers left, except one, he said. "The rabbi is coming," he said he heard one of his assailants say. The door opened and new passengers entered.

"Do you understand English?" Rubin said he was asked. "Repeat my words."

Rubin said that when he refused to repeat the 12-line oath that grants a Jewish wife a divorce, punches and electric shocks rained down on him, first just a few and then a torrent - so many that he beganreciting the "Viduy," the traditional Jewish deathbed prayer of repentance.

According to the lawsuit Rubin filed against his alleged captors, they zapped him with an electronic stun gun - in all, more than 30 times - including shocks to his genitals.

After passing out for about an hour, Rubin said, he was shaken awake. "Rabbi, wake up," a voice said. "The get is done."

He was transferred from the van to a car. "Don't be a moser," an informer, he said he was told. "If you know what's good for you, don't be a moser."

He said he was thrown from the car, still handcuffed and shrouded, and dumped outside a Brooklyn cemetery. A cab driver found the bloody rabbi and took him to the 66th Precinct. No arrests have been made in the attack.

Rubin, represented by Manhattan attorney Thomas Stickel, charges in a civil racketeering lawsuit filed in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn that Mendel Epstein, a well-known divorce mediator, took part in his "abduction and torture." Rubin said he learned the details of the plot during an investigation he and his friends conducted over several months.

Epstein's attorney has denied the charges. The suit also charges several other rabbis with planning or participating in the attack, including Martin Wolmark, a rabbi from the upstate Orthodox enclave of  Monsey, and Israel Belsky, a rabbi from the Ditmas Park section of Brooklyn.

In a telephone interview, Belsky denied taking part in the attack. "I have no connection to any of this," he said. "The guy is a crackpot. The whole thing is a frivolous action."

Robert Rimberg, an attorney for Wolmark, also denied the charges listed in the lawsuit. "As far as I know, and based on my investigation, there is no basis for it," he said. [...]

While no one has ever been prosecuted for a get-related attack in New York City, that may soon  change. Det. Robert Roddenberg of the 66th Precinct said Rubin's case might be the first of its kind to make it into a courtroom.

"Rubin is entitled to his day in court and the best investigation we can do," Roddenberg said. "Rubin is one of the few who have stood up. He was abducted. They beat the - - - out of him.

"They investigators spent an awful lot of time doing this case and it was really nitpicked to do it right," Roddenberg said. "It was done as well as any homicide case could be done. Just like not every homicide case gets solved, will this case get solved? That's up to the DA's office."

21 comments:

  1. "Bais din" is supposed in "certain cases" to beat a husband to give a get .
    To be moser in "such" a case is a terrible Aveira.
    (I am talking in general because I don't know any information about this case.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think there is any justification for vigilante justice whatsoever, and any person is entitled to file a complaint against thugs who beat him.

      It really makes a joke of the Torah to claim it is messira to go to police when someone beats you up!

      Dina de malchuta dina, if bodily punishment by religious authorities is not acceptable in the country you live in, don't do it.

      And, between you and me, I would not like to live in a country where religious authorities habe the authority to mete out corporal punishment (Iran? Saudi arabia? Yemen?)


      Delete
    2. right, the jury system is much more honest and reliable, just ask all the shvartzers on death row.

      Delete
  2. You Cant Handle The TruthAugust 19, 2012 at 5:08 PM

    So now that the Dodelson case has been decided in court, with the judge all but denying Weiss' demand for equal custody, (she just made minor modifications) and a court mandated custody agreement is in place, does Weiss lose all credibility as to why he is withholding his get?
    He claimed he was scared he would never see his child again, now there is a court mandated agreement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am confused here. The wife (dodelson) took the husband (Weiss) to court for the divorce. The husband didn't sue for divorce, he only sued to see his kid. We all saw those documents on this site. So if the husband didn't get what he wanted isn't shver. Furthermore, you say "minor" modifications. Were they pro the husband or wife? Just curious. Now, while I don't agree with your "demands" of the husband to give the get to prove he is truthful and halachikly he probably can't be forced to give it, it would be nice to end this sorry chapter soon. However, I gather you know something we don't. I can't tell if your insinuating a financial demand or a custody demand. You seem to feel the custody is sealed and final but I know nothing is final in divorce cases. There's always cards up the sleeve somewhere. Unfortunately, you seem to be saying this isn't over. Maybe the dodelsons should go to a new bais din, since we all know the previous one was corrupt (monsey). But what can she sue for halachikly? Is a woman entitled to.a get because she simply wants out of the marriage? When is one called a moredes? Please understand I don't know who is right or wrong here. I figure both are right and wrong. I am just trying to understand the halachik ramifications here. Between me and you, and I say this with respect to both sides, only one side is.known worldwide for their halachik decisions and they aren't on the dodelson side.

      Delete
  3. The Stamar rov said mefushesh any decision by a court is going to be le'hepech the torah. since weiss was left with no choice but to go to arko'oys to get the most minimum access to his child, this does not make him obligated to give his wife a get.

    a court mandated agreement is an agreement forced on a father k'neged halocho. he should not give her a get until he gets custody of the choild if he is a boy, and all his legal fees are paid.

    otherwise teshev ad she'talbin sa'ara. if YU don't like it, then let them lump it.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now we get to the bottom of the issue.

      You believe that no matter what anyone finds, be it a BD or a civil court, the father has an automatic right to full custody.

      Delete
    2. what does lump it mean?

      Delete
  4. If satmar rov said that then why is satmar and bobov currently fighting in secular court for years now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find it unfortunate that a mitzvah of the Torah is used to batter women over the head even in cases where a husband is doing so to get custody. Just strikes me as disgusting.

      Delete
  5. Its only a matter of time before this all gets blamed on Rav Schachter and YU.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If satmar rov said that then why is satmar and bobov currently fighting in secular court for years now.

    Because there is money involved, dah

    ReplyDelete
  7. COURT - NO COURT - CUSTODY DECIDED - NOT DECIDED
    WHERE IN SHULCHAN ARUCH DOES IT SAY A WOMAN CAN GET UP ONE MORNING AND SAY I WANT A GET -GIVE IT TO ME
    IT SAYS SHE IS A MOREDES AND SHE SITS UNTIL SHE GETS GRAY.
    THATS THE ONLY ISSUE IN ALL THESE CASES
    AND IF TORAH DOESN'T GIVE EQUAL RIGHTS TO WOMAN THEN ITS JUST TOO TOO BAD
    THATS TORAH MI SHAMOYIM WETHER U LIKE IT OR NOT. A MOREDES IS A MOREDES IS A MOREDES.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No you idiot she is not an moredes if she says that he dosnt treat her properly . That is what's written in their Kesuba that he must do.

      Delete
    2. did beis din agree that she wasn't being treated properly?

      Delete
    3. I don't know anything about that case.I was actually responding to the so called "emes vemunah" of I guess the jewish taliban , who wrote in general "THATS THE ONLY ISSUE IN ALL THESE CASES"

      Delete
    4. avf - on multiple occasions over the last few months, on multiple posts on this case, YOU STATED VERY CLEARLY THAT YOU DO HAVE INSIDE INFORMATION ON THIS CASE AND THAT AHARON WAS ABUSIVE TO TAMAR - now that evidence comes up from tamars diary that this is all false, you now say you don't know anything about the case - but you still say she is not a moredes because he didn't treat her properly. make up your mind. also don't say now you don't know the details of this case when in earlier blogs you made it clear you were a relative of Tamars.

      Delete
  8. YCHTT. You seem to be an insider of the Dodelsons. I am puzzled what claim you can possibly have, the Weiss's immediately responded to the hazmanah from Mechon with a response that they want Zabla, which is their right. If the Dodelson's have any claim, they can just call the Weiss's borrer and have a Din a Torah. The Dodleson's never did that, and instead responded in a thuggish manner by suing in court for divorce and support (which is Assur Lechol Hadeos). This entire matter is an outrage by the Dodelson's.

    ReplyDelete
  9. your forgetting the follow up to the DA hynes's part of that lawsuit.

    Hynes put a number of rabbonim on kidnapping charges, then droppedd the charges in exchange for the rabbonim not bringing up his biggest political problem at the time -- his (purposely) messing up the crown heights prosection (hynes was running for NYS governor at the time.) a deal was struck, "we" wont bring up crown heights, and he will drop the charges. both sides kept up their part of the deal, although hynes lost the primary (he had little chance anyway.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Looking at the dockets, I can see that Rabbi Rubin lost the case, before trial. Was there any testimony?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I remember when this case broke.I was working for Rav Belsky,SHIlT"A.There was a photo of him in the NYPOST.A coworker asked him about it and he simply said "Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers".

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.