Monday, November 25, 2013

Weiss Dodelson: Dodelson's did begin binding arbitration proccess with Rabbi Greenwald

Update: Full document posted
The Dodelson's have been claiming that they were not involved in working out a binding arbitration agreement with Rabbi Greenwald. They assert that Rabbi Greenwald simply offered a proposal and they rejected it. Thus their side is claiming that Rav Dovid Feinstein's psak that according to everyone Avraham Meir could not be considered mesarev - is at best mistaken and worst is false.

The reality is different. There was a lot of negotiation involving the Dodelson and their lawyers as well as the intervention of Rabbi Ahron Koter and it was coordinated by Rabbi Greenwald.

This is a document which was received by Rabbi Greenwald from the Dodelson's lawyer to sign on the binding arbitration that they claim they never were involved in. 

This is clear proof that the Dodelson's did in fact start the binding arbitration process with Rabbi Greenwald. Binding arbitration was later abandoned for legal reasons and they focused on a consent order.


===========From  Set Gital Free website

The Weiss Family has put out several statements.  This page is intended to refute their accusations and misinformation point by point.
 
Rabbi Dovid B. Feinstein put out a statement explaining the Weisses’ current position.  This is the gist of his statement:
1.      The two sides accepted Ronnie Greenwald as binding arbitrator
2.      The arbitrator rendered a decision
3.      The Weisses accepted the decision
4.      The Dodelsons rejected it
5.      Hence, the Get is on the table and the Dodelsons are unreasonably refusing to take it

 
First, before getting into the details, one note of importance:  This case was decided by the judge after three years in court and after hearing from both sides and both custody experts.  Weiss is not satisfied with that decision (despite the fact that he was the one who chose the venue of court), and he is withholding a Get until we go to arbitration for a new decision, totally discarding the judge’s decision.  That alone is extortion and totally unacceptable – withholding a Get in an attempt to obfuscate the court's ruling and a second chance to obtain better terms.

Our Response to the Statement:Ronnie Greenwald was never accepted as binding arbitrator.  Ronnie himself sent out an email: “It is unfortunate that due to many legal conditions regarding binding arbitration the proposal that I become the binding arbitrator was not accepted” (see email below).  

Most importantly, however, Rabbi Ronnie Greenwald has issued this letter to clarify any misunderstandings:
If there had been binding arbitration, it would be enforceable in court.  There would be no need to post on the internet asking anyone to “accept the decision.”  Hence, the many statements made by Dovid Feinstein alluding to "arbitration" and a "decision" are beyond meaningless.   
There was no arbitration.  There was no decision.  Rabbi Greenwald, acting as a mediator of his own volition, passed along the demands of the Weiss family.  Gital, however, has no intention of giving in to extortion.

Now you know why we need your continued support.  The court rendered its decision and the case should be over.  Withholding a Get to obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars and better terms – be it through new arbitration or new negotiations – is pure extortion.

60 comments :

  1. Dodelson caught in the midst of a lie, once again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh my. So everything they said must be a lie- does Weiss have a copy of the consent order to leak to you, or only the letter to his attorney? If he has the consent order, why not post that as well? Did Weiss sign that consent order that was attached to this letter? If yes, post it. If not, explain why.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your dismisal of this letter reminds me of Gital's assertion in the NY Post article that Avraham Meir refused to go to therapy when in fact they had gone to a therapist of her choice who declared the marriage was fixable - and she refused.

      Delete
  3. Can we know who you got this from? The way I see it there are 5 possible answers.
    1)Dodelson
    2)Dodelson's attorney
    3) Ronnie Greenwald
    4) Weiss's attorney
    5) Weiss.

    The first 3 have no reason to leak it to you. The 4th would be breaching ethics as an attorney. That leaves just Weiss.
    What's with the selective leaks? Why not leak the entire letter, including the attachment? Might it then be clear why he refused to sign it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. the reason its not signed is because they demaded a get before arbitration

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Um, no. The order says that the get has to be issued for the decision to bind.

      Delete
    2. No this PROPOSAL says the Get must be a prerequisite to binding consent of this proposal to arbitrate. Meaning - the Get has to be given first in order for Dodelsons to consent to go to arbitration.

      Delete
    3. No, this proposal is about ACCEPTING R Ronnie to be a binding arbitrator by affixing BOTH signatures FIRST. Only then kicks in step 1, of providing a Get. and then the rest. The dodelsons refused to sign, period! Does anyone see an affixed a signature from Dodelson??? If someone buys from you merchandise and you put on him handcuffs so he couldn't move, you then start screaming GANIV, you stole merchandise from me, kappish.

      Delete
    4. This document was proposed by Dodelson's lawyer ... then it gets sent to the other side and seemingly the other side signs first. That is how legal documents work. The other side can say, we do not like this proposal the way it is written. Do you see a signature from the WEISSES? No - but the Weisses did leak this document thinking it would help their case. It does not.

      Delete
    5. 3. The Weisses accepted the decision
      4. The Dodelsons rejected it ------- once rejected, why a signature?
      5. Hence, the Get is on the table and the Dodelsons are unreasonably refusing to take it

      Delete
  5. Dovevos... what differnece does it make?

    What about the surrepetitious recording of an off-the-record meeting selective quotes of which were played to teh rabbis to get their signatures...

    Selective leaking?! That's your (excuse.me "the Dodelsons") area of expertise. They had this letter all along, so why do they only release Rabbi Greenwald's Nov. 11 pressure-induced semi-retraction?

    You're being caugth with your pants down. And the Weisses have been holding back washing YOUR dirty laundry in public.

    Truth will prevail.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This all is pursuant to Ora's usual M.O. Spread alll kinds of misinformation, half-truths, and outright falsehoods to portray the father and the father's family in the worst possible light. Because Ora and company are so well-financed, and supported by the media, and because the fathers are generally extremely reluctant to discuss what should be very private matters, the truth almost never comes out. However, when the truth does come out, Ora than changes the subject and says all of the underlying facts about which Ora has been lying are completely irrelevant because the only fact that matters is that the woman doesn't have a get.
    Everything else, such as parental kidnapping, alienation of the children from the father, the mother violating custody agreements, the mother violating orders of Beis din, all of which Ora purposefully misleads or openly lies about, is irrelevant. The only issue that matters is the get.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This lawyer's document finally shows everyone what the real dispute is between Weiss and Dodelson. This was previously not public knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Where is the lie? IF they agreed to the arbitration agreement, it would have been signed. Everyone agrees that they were in "negotiations". Only a shtar berur can overturn a seruv. Negotiations alone are worthless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The so-called seruv was never valid as it was issued by an entity that the parties did not agree to arbitrate the case.

      Delete
  9. James you are right if this was a real airuv from a real bais din. But instead this is the bais din of ad hominum attack and of motzi sheym ra.

    ReplyDelete
  10. James. The gig is up. Your ORA buddies and Dodelson backers are caught. Now you start with a shtar birur to get rid of a siruv. Yesterday you were saying the Weisses lied about what Ronnie Greenwald was supposed to be. We now all see what he was supposed to be THE BINDING ARBITER. Now you are off To claim some other reason why the siruv is still good. Are you arguing with Reb Dovid Feinstein? Because you should? Because the end of the Dodelsons and ORA is just around the corner. You and your RCA friends can argue with RDF from now till you meet your just reward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was never any valid siruv. Mechon Lhoraa was never agreed to be the venue for beis din by the Weiss, so they never had any authority. Only a beis din both parties agreed to can issue a siruv, and Mechon never had that agreement.

      Delete
    2. You dont need to agree to BD to get a seruv. Hazmanas were issued. Weiss's responses were not deemed valid because his first borer was incapacitated and his second was not recognized. Thus, valid seruv. If the dodelson's had agreed to binding arbitration, we wouldnt be having this discussion because the arbitrator could just rule and it would be binding.

      Delete
    3. Once one of the parties receiving a hazmana requests zabla, the original beis din loses the case and only the zabla beis din can take further actions such as siruvs, etc. So in this case there was never a valid seruv.

      The first borer wrote a letter accepting his appointment as borer. Machon Lehoraa never advised anyone they had a problem with the named borer. Yet they issued an invalid seruv despite the first borer stating in a written letter he was able and willing to serve as borer.

      Delete
  11. and WHY should WEISS GIVE IN TO EXTRUTION?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What in heavens name is Weiss being extorted for?

      Delete
    2. Recipients and PublicityNovember 26, 2013 at 12:27 AM

      1 of 2:

      yoni said: "and WHY should WEISS GIVE IN TO EXTRUTION?"

      Presumably you meant to type "extortion"? And this is also related to another kind of simpleton question that ignores the complexities, contradictions and paradoxes of life.

      First of all the level of "legalese" relating to the Dodelkson affair is becoming mind-numbing. But at least it shows a serious involvement by many readers of this blog with the minutia of this scandal.

      Secondly, a number of posters keep asking "but is this-- the demand of the Weiisses for legal fees -- the way of Torah?", or something to this effect. The answer to that is not simplistic since the Torah does not tell people to get married in order to get divorced or to enter into financial arrangements in order to get into monetary disputes. The Torah wants us to practice the Mitzvos and that is not easy as it sounds. As the saying goes "Judaism is not a religion, it is a way of life" and therefore the Torah and Judaism and the Rabbis try to deal with and teach us how to deal with STUMBLING BLOCKS in life and overcome them.

      We know that God sometimes sends "tests" sometimes "punishments" and sometimes "rewards" and much more but it is not as easy as saying 1+1+1=3.

      The struggles between the Weisses and the Dodelson looks like a very American secular "clash of the titans" sports tournament with various rounds, victims and a cast of characters including that all-American ingredient of PR, the media and technology (websites, blogs social and professional sites) fueling everything even more.

      But this is not what the Torah or Judaism teaches or practices and you need to be very alert and very smart to see it, but once it's pointed out it becomes obvious.

      Delete
    3. Recipients and PublicityNovember 26, 2013 at 12:28 AM

      2 of 2:

      Take the example of Yom Kippur, Judaism's holiest day known as the Day of Atonement. It's in every machzor and it was done in the times of the Bais HaMikdosh. The high point of the Kohen Gadol's rituals that was key to attaining the ATONEMENT FROM NO LES THAN GOD HIMSELF required a special SHOCKING procedure.

      Let's say you have to go from point A to point C, but first you MUST stop off at point B even though you would think it is "forbidden" -- now what could such a thing be????

      ANSWER: APPEASE THE SATAN !!!!

      There were two identical goats and one was selected for the altar in God's Bais HaMikdosh, but the other goat had to be sent to the wilderness to APPEASE THE DEVIL (this is what the rabbinical commentators definitively say), in Yiddish it's called "me koift up dem teivel" (literally "one buys off the devil") that is how the Torah and God Himself set it up, and that is how it is done on YOM KIPPUR no less, because you must FIRST appease your opponent (the ultimate opponent) and then you can go on to win God's favor and find appeasement and peace. It would be no use to make demonstrations and scream and shout how "unfair" or "evil" that was, it was what it was, God set it up that way in the Torah, and that is how it had to be done. Mart people know that maneuver but not the Doldelsons, at least in this case they don't. They are ignorant or tone deaf or learning-disabled about such things. They like to FIGHT even if it ruins the life of their daughter Gital forever!

      In simple English it would maybe called to "throw a dog a bone" that way you "win him over" and you can get on with your agenda.

      Similarly, Yaakov Avinu sent GIFTS to EISAV in order to APPEASE him and stop his wrath and it worked. Yes, it takes real wisdom to know when to wage war and when to seek the paths of appeasement, but when the other side holds the "get" that you want to get, then you have no choice but to appease that other side. What use is it to run to other rabbis to "rule" that Eisav or the Devil is "bad" when the ONLY way you can get your get is by APPEASEMENT and NEGOTIATIONS.

      But this is something that evidently goes against the grain of Gital and Saki and Papa Dodelson and their immature Kotler bros. They have no problem with even letting Gital "prostitute" herself in the secular sleazy media, where she can smear her husband and joke that "next time" she would live with a guy for five years with a guy before marrying him and she must be dumb if she thinks that guys who sleep with girls for five years like to stick with only one girl for five years. That is if she doesn't get STDs, or AIDS and have abortions from "unwanted" pregnancies in the interim. This is the can of worms that has been unleashed.

      The smart way is the Jewish way that lies hidden and not so hidden between the lines of the Torah, that is not about all the legalese and documents and decrees from paid-off batei din+publicists+talk of hiring hit men+lawyers+articles in tabloids etc all wasted $$$$$$$. The smart way is how you win, and winning quickly with the least of amount of self-damage inflicted, and in this case, no one will be impressed by the crushing of the popular ArtScroll, getting two of its top editors fired, attacking Rav Moshe Feinstein's yeshivas who are small compared to the BMG 800 pound gorilla, pounding your enemies into the dust as if they were Amalek because even when dealing with Amalek's ancestor Elifaz who was hunting Yaakov down, Yaakov Avinu stripped naked and gave away his clothes but at least he got away with what counted most, his precious life and got on with it.

      Get rid of the lawyers and all the clap trap and garbage that clutters your minds and surrounds you and start thinking like true Bnai Torah.

      Delete
  12. James.. check your halachic facts.
    He's teh nitvah. They agreed to this person as a dayan. He is no longer a mesarev or a me'agen. The halachos arenlt in the ORA handbook, their in Shulchan Aruch and Poskim.
    Parroting nonsense is good for PR, not truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There never was a valid siruv by any beis din both parties agreed to. Only such a b"d has the authority to issue a siruv. Since one party requested zable, the venue moved to zable and no other beis din has any authority over the case.

      Delete
    2. Without a signed agreement, they obviously didnt agree. They were in "negotiations".

      Delete
    3. Once one of the parties receiving a hazmana requests zabla, the original beis din loses the case and only the zabla beis din can take further actions such as siruvs, etc. So in this case there was never a valid seruv.

      Delete
    4. That is not technicaly correct. In an age in which no BD or zabla has any jurisdiction without a signed arbitration agreement, simply stating you want a zabla does not end the hazmana process. Otherwise, everyone will use that as a response and then stop the process. Unless there is a signed arbitration agreement, BD can continue to send hazmanas.

      Delete
  13. This doesn't contridact their statement b/c even if they sent the forms over, they never signed them! And they never denied involvement in potentially doing an arbitration, they denied ultimately participating in one. So there is no "aha" here at all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. does anyone know the origin of the word "shtar"?

    Is if the same as in Daniel, 7: ה וַאֲרוּ חֵיוָה אָחֳרִי תִנְיָנָה דָּמְיָה לְדֹב, וְלִשְׂטַר-חַד הֳקִמַת, וּתְלָת עִלְעִין בְּפֻמַּהּ, בֵּין שניה (שִׁנַּהּ); וְכֵן אָמְרִין לַהּ, קוּמִי אֲכֻלִי בְּשַׂר שַׂגִּיא.

    Although this reads SeTar. Is shtar classical Hebrew?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, different words. "star," more commonly written with samech rather than sin, means "side," (Jastrow 973) so in your quote from Dan. 7:5, "listar-chad" means "on one side." "Shtar" with shin means a writ or document. (Jastrow 1555). The quote from Daniel, of course, is Aramaic. As I read Jastrow, "shtar" is rabbinic (not biblical) Hebrew, with Aramaic cognate "shtara" or "shitra," both derived from "shatar," "to draw lines, arrange," and related to Hebrew "shoter," "officer."

      Delete
  15. Sorry - but you have only posted proof that validates what the Dodelsons have been saying.
    This order is a written up PROPOSAL for CONSENT FOR ARBITRATION and the CONSENT to arbitration (NOT THE ARBITRATION ITSELF) will only be accepted if a GET is GIVEN AS A PREREQUISITE. Then - it went clearly unsigned. Lawyers always draft proposals but an unsigned proposal means no one agreed to what was actually written in this proposal. The weisses clearly refused to give a Get as a prerequisite to make consent for arbitration binding. Nothing new here.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is very damaging to the dodelson side. However much more damaging is the fact that there was a precedent set with so called approval of the gedolim that if you have an issue you can bring it to the media.

    ReplyDelete
  17. lmaan Torah V'lomdehaNovember 25, 2013 at 11:20 PM

    R' Daniel,
    Someone posted on one of the older posts that Mrs. Dodelson is the owner of a multi million dollar company. I am finding incomprehensible that these Dodelsons have destroyed one Yeshiva, Rabbi weiss's Ohr Hadaas, they are trying to destroy Rav Moshe's ztvkl MTJ and YSI, they have attacked Artscroll who are probably responsible for the greatest explosion of Torah learning since Ravina and Rav Ashi. They are destroying the health and financial well beings of a family of talmidei chachamim -- Rav Moshe Meir, Yosaif, and Yisroel Weiss who I hear are all Talmidei chachamim and marbitzei Torah -- and the world is silent while some "educational software company" continues to enrich the Dodelsons unscathed. I respectfully suggest a phone call campaign against this acheive 3000 to get these people to stop attacking Torah, Yeshivos, and Talmidei Chachamim.

    ReplyDelete
  18. why is no one saying which rabbi weiss wanted to go to that nebach was not well?

    many times when people are negotiating they send a settlement to sign based on what they would want. until it is signed it does not mean that the parties agreed to what is written. maybe they were negotiating if they should use r greenwald and for whatever reasons they decided not to use him. big difference if decided before or after signature. they have a right to decide not to use him for binding arbitration.
    for these papers to have value you have to show signed documents.

    also it is very important to realize a child needs their mother.
    if there is not fighting and a child visits their father and has somewhat of a relationship with him child can grow up fine.
    if it is the other way around chances are more that the child will have more issues. and remember if the father is a well person he should want to remarry it should be easier for him and the child if the child does not to live with him.

    after the post article things could have quieted down somewhat and the whole community would not have to be so involved. why DT are you continuing to keep this in the news ever day.
    if you wanted to show there is another side of the story which there always is and if weiss really wanted it to be public they could have set up a clear web site with documents to prove there side of the story. for you to every day have different posts with comments written what does that accomplish? you are not putting together a good "counter attack" all you are doing is throwing out questions of the other side without proper proof and just having all the loshon hara continually in the news for what purpose?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't Use My Chelek for ExtortionNovember 26, 2013 at 1:43 AM

      Open Letter: Why the Feinsteins Should Quit Supporting the Get-Extortion

      Dear Reb Yid,

      You are so deep into helping Avramie that you cannot see the tremendous chilul haShem you are causing.

      I don't know anyone who is ever going to think the same way again about Reb Dovid and Reb Reuven, or even your organization.

      I am 67 years old, a former big believer of the Feinsteins, I don't have any mishpocha to speak of. I have to no axe to grind. I have no idea who Dodelson is, except from this tzichtzuch. I am just heartbroken at the latest group of "helige yidden" who turn out to be phonies.

      Why can't you admit that there is no principle here except Avramie wants money, custody and vindication - no Torah values are at stake between him and Dodelson.

      Here's what you are failing to understand:

      To defend the Feinsteins, the Weiss' have said or caused to be said the worst loshon hora about all the Rabbis who signed the Kol Koreh - the Novomisker Rebbe, et al. "This one is not honest", "this one is not really an expert in halacha": and especially "that one is a friend of the Kotler side". Otherwise, unless brought into disrepute, how can all these choshuv rabbonim be defied?

      But its both sides that are being covered with schmutz! Since Avramie insisted on payment of $350,000 for the get, I've heard and read tons of Loshon Horah about R. Dovid and R. Reuven. "R' Dovid was nogeya b'dovor when he ruled on his great-newphew, but it wasn't the first time". "He should have blocked Aaron Schecter from the Motetzes". "Reb Reuven should simply give Avramie the $350,000 - he got 10 million from Tropper", etc. etc.

      It is plain, therfore, that you, Reb Yid , have contributed to the defamation of almost all the important American Rabbis! Why should anyone have respect for any of the rabbis on BOTH side - or the neutral rabbis who ruled Avramie should give a get without extortion. If you don't respect the signatories to the Kol Koreh, who should?

      If you don't respect a Kol Koreh, who should?

      Delete
    2. Don't Use My Chelek for ExtortionNovember 26, 2013 at 1:44 AM

      Open Letter Part 2:

      At the Agudah Israel Dinner, the Novomisker Rebbe, Nosi of Agudath Israel, openly warned Israeli Prime Mnister Binyamin Netanyahu against acting against Torah vaules and interests in Eretz Yisroel. I thought at the time that it was a little silly of him to think Binyamin Netanyahu gives a fig for what the Novominsker thinks.

      It turns out I was right! You don’t give a fig for what the Novominsker Rebbe thinks either! We have that in common!

      No indeed. For the sake of Avramie’s pride and pocketbook, the Feinsteins are going against the Novominsk, R. Kaminetsky. R. Vogelenter, R. Schechter, R. Feldman, etc. Aren’t most of these rabbonim on the Moetzses Gedolei HaTorah?

      Are you now going to write in your publications about “emunas chachomim”?

      Look what you have done to your supposed friend Ronnie! You are calling him a liar! You make it sound like Ronnie Greenwald took money from Dodelson to deny he rendered a psak in the case. You don't have any shame!

      Even worse is that you pretend that Ronnie Greenwald is the reason the Feinsteins, Weisses and Avramie won't give Dodelson a get! How can you sleep at night - when you know the reason Avramie won't give the get is MONEY not RONNIE. How can you pretend otherwise?

      Look what you have done to R. Kotler, saying he tried to influence the Bais Din. Isn’t he a member of the Moetzes, too? Oh yes, remind me to have respect for our sages.

      Look what you have done to Mechon HeHohroyah!

      When your friends at KAJ stole $67,000 from me, and I was going to sue them, Reb Dovid himself called me up told me not to sue - but to go to bais din. I said "I hear the bais dins are crooked. There's no beis din on planet Earth that will rule against the famous mohel and the big friend of Rabbi Meir Tzvi Bergman in favor of some yichus-lacking B.T." Reb Dovid told me I was wrong.

      But now, you, Reb Yid , have taught me that I was right to scorn batei din! You and the Feinsteins do it too! You taught our people that Mechon HeHoyroa - one of the leading - certainly a well- known bais din, is crooked! Maybe they all are?

      So now what is your tyna against people who refuse to go to Bais Din? Some talmudic pilpul? Bah! You had better put into your seforim that Bais Din is optional!

      Delete
    3. Don't Use My Chelek for ExtortionNovember 26, 2013 at 1:45 AM

      Open Letter Part 3

      And put in your seforim that "almost" going to binding arbitration is as good as actually going to arbitration - and going to arbitration excuses every Jew from going to bais din.

      Explain that in 2013, parties no longer need to sign a shtar birur; the Bais Din can poskin without a shtar birur.

      You, Reb Yid , have given batei din a bad name and have given people a heter to simpy not go - and to ignore their decisions.

      How could you let Reb Dovid posken an alleged shyla - when it involved his own great-nephew?

      They tell a story that Brooklyn rabbis came to visit the Rosh Yeshiva, zatzal, and asked him whether the halacha permitted the erection of an eruv in Brooklyn. He is reported to have said " There's plenty of qualified rabbonim in Brooklyn, ask them".

      Reb Yid, in your former impartial state of mind, you would know that there are plenty of Rabbonim who can posken such a shyla, here and in Israel.

      You will still be appalled in the future if you hear that any rav was paskening on shylas affecting his brother's einikle. How would you like to have your din torahs be poskened by the zeidie of the person your were suing?

      But you, Reb Yid , have taken the sting out of negius - as long as it affects the other guy.

      Chelek for Extortion

      Delete
    4. Don't Use My Chelek for ExtortionNovember 26, 2013 at 1:45 AM

      Open Letter Part 4

      You, Reb Yid , have given get-refusers a good name, and taken all of them out of cherem. In your delusional state, you are thinking that every other divorced man is different. You are thinking that Avramie is special. He doesn't need to give a get, because he has REASONS...,. the other men don't have reasons, so they should give a get.

      Finally, you are making a huge chilul haShem by taking a grandchild's personal desire -for money, child custody and pride - and wrapping it in the Torah. You give yourself and the Feinsteins a horrible name when you pretend that there are Torah issues and involved here and that the matter actually involves halacha. That's the part that makes me really sick.

      Reb Yid, you are marketing a bunch of imitation "Torah" malarkey! Siruvin, get meusa, moredes, halacha, - all that is sheer crap! It plays no rule in this dispute. Its about Money. $$$$. Money.

      True, I don't have your yichus, I never went to a real yeshiva, what the heck do I know about Torah and Halacha?

      But I have been litigating all types of lawsuits here in New York and Brooklyn for about 35 years - I have won cases in the civil court, the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division, the Surrogates court and the NYS Court of Appeals, not to mention victories in sundry Federal Courts.

      So, I know baloney when I see it:

      Q. Isn't it true that Avramie is refusing to give the get unless Dodelson pays
      him $350,00 cash?

      A. Well, its not that simple, you see there is a get me’usa, the halacha of
      siruv, Ronnie Greenwald said there was almost an arbitration and
      Mechon HaRoyoah is a bad Beis Din.

      Q. Well, if Mr. Weiss changed his mind about the money and he wanted
      to give her the get this afternoon, is there any Torah law to
      prevent him from giving the get?

      A. No, not really.

      Q. So its really more about Mr. Weiss’ own personal choice than about
      Torah is that right?

      A. Well, yes, I suppose so.

      Q. Well, why doesn't he just give her the get then?

      A. I told you, he wants the $350,000 cash.

      Reb Yid - It is an ethical failure and a chilul HaShem in that you insist in using the Moreshas Kehillas Yaakov to make Avramie Weiss happy.

      I read somewhere that "Moreshas Kehillas Yaakov" means the Torah belongs to every Jew. I object to your using my chelek in the Torah as a means to help Avramie extort money from his ex-wife.

      I also object to your using my chelek in the Torah to pretend that you are extorting Avramie's ex-wife for the sake of Klal Yisroel.

      Reb Yid, wake up! I beg you, don't throw away all your credibility, reputation and zechusim just so that Avraimie can get money and extra child custody and show that he is not a person to be trifled with.

      I know you don't have time to answer back. Anyway, the only answer I want to hear is that the Feinsteins have announced that in this case, they do not endorse the use of a get to extort money from the Dodelson family.

      Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation herein.

      Yours truly,

      Don't Use My Chelek for Extortion

      Delete
    5. Spot on - losing respect and trust in them all every day this continues.

      Delete
    6. Mr Don't use my Chelek for Extortion. First of all thank you for taking the time to express your views and to share your experience with us. Furthermore if I even needed a lawyer I would definitely hire someone like you.. In a jury trial I am sure your summations are dynamite.

      However regarding your points - especially the halachic issues and the appropriate moral position in the present situation - I don't see the matter as black and white as you do. I don't think this case is simply a matter of money on the Weiss' part nor do I think it is simply an issue of winning on the Dodelsons. This dispute is not helping the Jewish people and there is no question that it should have been handled in private. Regarding the gedolim - I think it is fair to say that this issue has not been handled well.

      However since the Dodelson's have insisted on having this matter debated in the most public way - it is only fair that both positions be presented. This is true not only in matters of facts but also in terms of halacha.

      There are clear halachic issues of great significance which are being ignored or trampled. The Jewish concept of marriage and divorce is being severely distorted.

      Or to put it another way - people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

      Delete
    7. You can not compare the chill Hashem you created and spent the last few weeks spreading it, to the article in the post. You have done much worse destroying yiddeshkeit then all the NY Post's commentators would dream of. For that you have only yourself and your brother to thank for.
      Boy, I am glad I'm not in your shoes. And the problem, your to blind to see it, even when it's pointed it to you. You accomplished zilch except destroying the cornerstone of yiddeshkeit.

      Delete
    8. One more comment, you did more damage to the Feinstein,Weiss name then the dodelson could ever imagine, but you still don't get it. I know you are trying to defend the them, but you are actually proving to many of us, why they decided to go with their story to the post, which at this time, I don't blame them.

      Delete
    9. a simple Jew among the masses.November 26, 2013 at 4:34 AM

      Since when do people respect kol korehs? Seriously.

      Delete
  19. Rabbi Eidensohn,

    I have been puzzled by your involvement in this case throughout as I truly feel you have not been evenhanded, or worse disingenuous, as in this post. In your defense, it might be due to your unfamiliarity with legal issues and terminology.

    I should state that I have been deeply involved in divorce mediation (as a volunteer - never accepting a penny) - including acrimonious divorce cases. I should also add that I am an attorney (although not practicing family law).

    You are confusing what this document is. It is a proposal to consent to Binding Arbitration (yes, this was part of the negotiation as to how Rabbi Greenwald might be used to assist) - the proposal required, AS A PREREQUISITE to agreeing to binding arbitration, that a get be given. Then the document sets forth how the arbitration would work. It is obviously not signed. Do you claim otherwise? The statement remains (based on what we have seen) that no one agreed to arbitration and to present it as such is simply untrue. It is certainly what you have implied (and what Rav Dovid's, shlita's letter implied. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he also is not familiar with legal terminology).

    I have no skin in this game other than being pained by the absolute chillul hashem and a fundamental disgust over Weiss using the get as a weapon to extort money. I agree there are many facts no one knows and therefore caution is in order and don't pretend to think the she is blameless. This is truly not about who was right and wrong and who is more responsible for the failure of the marriage. However, there are some simple facts we do know: this marriage is over and a court order to that effect has been granted. She may have been wrong and at fault but at this point those are the facts.

    I have not seen a clear statement by you addressing the core issue - is he in fact demanding money to give the get (I apologize while you may have written it somewhere - I don't have the time to read all of the posts...) How much (is it the $350,000 we have seen in the media). What is the basis? To reimburse his legal costs? Pain and suffering? To punish her?

    My recommendation at this point is that if he is claiming she caused him monetary losses and that justifies her paying him money - he should take her to a Din Torah (perhaps grant the get conditioned on her agreeing to go before a specified standing Beis Din (not Zabla) to rule on the monetary issue). However, he should give the get now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Esq. ,
      We now understand why you are a lawyer and not a posek. We all understand this document is a prelude to arbitration. The question that was being asked was did the Dodelsons accept Ronnie Greenwald as arbiter or not. Halacha does not care about documents being signed and or not. Ronnie Greenwald was accepted by the Dodelsons as a binding third party for his opinion in all outstanding issues. While they demanded a get be given prior to this taking place or not does not change the fact that they accepted Ronnie Greenwald as arbiter. Now when the ruling is in and they don't like it they claim that they never accepted Ronnie Greenwald as arbiter. A claim that is simply not true. Now in your world of being an esq you have different criteria. However, that has nothing to do with halacha. Rabbi Feinstein is not interested in your prerequisite of a get. He is interested if a trusted third party was found. He was. Furthermore, he issued a ruling. Can you explain to me why no one is forcing this ruling to be enforced. I can. It is because they don't want to be the next person with Shira dicker and ORA screaming at them. The kollelim in the US and Israel are baffled at how people like yourself are dictating to the gedolim what should be done. Perhaps you don't realize how far you have strayed from the torah. Maybe you think that you're doing a cheesed by not charging - though you admit this is not your area of expertise. While the gemarah has its own way of saying this, I will use your language to tell you that "you get what you pay for". Please learn to refrain, at least, from discussing halacha which you don't even know but obviously are willing to give your opinion there - for free - as well.

      Delete
    2. @Clarifying Esq - I am surprised that one who is so erudite and experienced didn't carefully read carefully what I wrote before issuing forth with pronouncement about things I never said. As a starter please reread the title of the post.

      While I share your pain in this matter, the issues you have raised have in fact been debated repeatedly on this blog and as you note you don't have the time to read all the posts. I also don't have the time to constantly repeat the answers.

      Delete
    3. Yet another truly rational and appropriate comment. Well done.

      Delete
    4. The title of your post "Dodelsons's did begin binding arbitration process with Rabbi Greenwald" is incorrect and misleading even according to the "proposal" you have linked.
      The proposal is ONLY an outline by a lawyer that (including but not limited to) if certain prerequisites are met the Dodelsons and weisses will consent (consent inferred by this signed document) to actually arbitrate. But the proposal was never signed which means specifically, there was NO "LEGAL" agreement to arbitrate and that with Ronnie Greenwalds own words that the Dodelsons did not agree to the arbitration is true. Your title should only read, along the lines of ... "Dodelson's CONSIDERED arbitrating at some point" But they certainly began NO ARBITRATION PROCESS. And one who begins no arbitration process also pulls out of NO arbitration process.

      Delete
  20. Anyone who listens to the garbage from a lawyer to give a get first frankly belongs in an asylum. Once a get is given all power to obtain any fairness is gone - chalas - and then its back in front of the feminist courts and the legal cash speedomoter is flying at 400 an hour.

    She caused his family a loss because she was full of hatred and tried to litigate AMW out of his child's life. Let her family pay and let this be a warning to all the machshohs out there - this type of behavior will come at a steep price.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @FedUp - I note you resort to attacks as opposed to substance... allow me to respond after reading @claryfing esq's comment and RDE's response:

    1. I read carefully what RDE wrote. What does: "Binding arbitration was later abandoned for legal reasons and they focused on a consent order." mean? (To me it means RDE is (exactly as @Clarifying Esq wrote) not understanding the legal terminology). The Consent Order is about Binding Arbitration! It is gibberish to say they focused on a consent order after abandoning binding arbitration.

    2. You then say: "Halacha does not care about documents being signed and or not. Ronnie Greenwald was accepted by the Dodelsons as a binding third party for his opinion in all outstanding issues." You must be kidding. As you infer you view yourself as a talmid chacham - by what power would halacha view Rabbi Greenwald as having standing as an Arbitrator? The statement is absurd. I assume RDE would agree with that.

    3. What "ruling" did Rabbi Feinstein order? Did someone ask him a sheila? He defended his nephew. [He clearly would not be allowed to issue rulings in this case. He is posul to be a dayan here.]

    4. Where did @Clarifying Esq admit that this was "not [his] area of expertise"?

    RDE - could you indulge me and point me to the post where you discussed exactly what the money demand is and the basis for the claim (and if you would endorse the demand?). What do you think of his suggestion to grant a get after agreeing to accept the ruling of a standing Beis Din on outstanding monetary claims?

    [A final comment to @FedUp - why the anger? his comments were thoughtful and calm. Why fly off the handle as opposed to responding rationally?]

    ReplyDelete
  22. DT, you are acting like a baby again and you would be better as a copywriter for the Weiss family.

    Rabbi Greenwald has already dealt with this issue in his 'clarification' letter. There was never an agreement to enter into arbitration. All that you have provided here is an un-signed proposal which is now of no significance.

    The title of this post is an oxymoron. You can't 'begin' a binding agreement. You either have one or not - it is only binding if both parties sign up and that clearly did not happen.

    As to the primary issue of your recent postings, you started with questioning if the Weisses lied to R' Feinstein. That is certainly the case because they purported that there was a binding agreement which there isn't. In that regard it is clear from the latest email from Greenwald to Artscroll that the 'straw that broke the camels back' was the revelation that the Weiss family was misrepresenting to everyone that Greenwald was the arbiter when he wasn't.

    To somehow now twist this accusation onto the Dodelson's just shows how perverted you are in your thinking.

    Weiss does the lying and Dodelson is to blame?

    ReplyDelete
  23. The proposed consent order was submitted by Dodelson's attorney.

    Why should R. Weiss have to give a GET before the arbitration even begins?
    Perhaps so that Dodelson can then go back to the judge claiming she agreed to arbitration under "duress" and have the arbitration dismissed?

    If, as it appears, R. Weiss was willing to submit to R. Greenwald's arbitration & give a GET afterwards, then at least three points are clearer now:
    - R. Weiss is not a MESAREV.
    - Dodelson is not an AGUNAH at all, she's a PR poster girl and useful idiot for the YU ORA (OH-RAH) feminists.
    - The SERUV against R. Weiss is completely political and bogus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps so that Dodelson can then go back to the judge claiming she agreed to arbitration under "duress" and have the arbitration dismissed?

      You have this very backward. Giving a Get would actually do away with her ability to claim "duress" while having to complete some form of arbitration before being able to get a Get would give her a fairly solid claim of duress to take to the courts.
      In New Jersey this is an even bigger problem, because the courts are not bound to follow a binding arbitration agreement, they can alter it as they(the judge) sees fit and in order to adhere to NJ State law.

      Delete
  24. there is a phrase called pilpula shel hevel...loosely translated this means sophistry that gets you nowhere...i humbly think we are seeing a lot of this here...we have a situation of a former couple that are arguing over a childs custody...the court order is still unfinished hence the need for further mediation...anyone who understands the concept of bra kara d'avuha understands that just like to a mother her child is one with her so it is with a loving father ..thus the mantra just give a get is a fallacy...the father once he gives the get has no recourse to salvage a lifetime relationship with his child...believe it or not the issues stopping gital from getting her get are 1. she wants to control where avrohom meir takes his child on his weekly visitation 2. she is battling giving avrohom meir from noon on erev shabbos when it is his shabbos so he can go to the country etc with his child 3.she is haggling over a statement to stop mud slingig once the get is given...these are the core issues by not agreeing she is branded an aguna...a lot different than a woman anchored isn't it ...thus people of reason such as rabbi bender, rabbi greenwald and now rabbi sholom kaminetsky were brought in to seal the deal...why should the dodelsons rebel against these attempts? and whiile these attempts were going on the dodelsons during all mediation attempts have been slinging arrows at the weiss's and the feinsteins...mass mailings where they live...protests at thier home...villifying them in the global press...and what have the weiss's and feinsteins done? sheker needs to keep pounding emes is recognizable without saying a word....the weiss's are out of parnassa...while the achieve 3000 war machine hacks away mercilessly...there was a kol korei...people forget that the first one was signed by rav kotler..that dissapeared because it made no sense at all..note that rav dovid did not say a word because of negios until he finally wrote one sentence as a gilui milsa balma...the next kol korei was signed by people who never talked to the weiss feinstein camp to hear thier side of the story...yes they are gedolim but we are taught ki hashoced yaveir einie chachomim visaleif divrei tzadikim-bribery blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous ...there are all kinds of bribery all rodes lead to lakewood especially philly and most shidduchim come from lakewood and most young men go to lakewood ...the power brought against avrohom meir is scary
    hoping for a speedy resolution for avrohom meir and gital
    Hashem yracheim
    truth

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your misconception is that withholding the get will enhance the father's relationship with the child.

      Look what it brought to AMW's child: is the present situation more desirable than just having two days a week plus every other weekend, in peace and quiet?

      Do you think that AMW's tactic will help him improve the situation?

      Delete
    2. Made this into a post

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/weiss-dodelson-weisss-view-what-is.html

      Delete
  25. This document is a proposal, put forth by Ms. Dodelson's lawyer, for binding arbitration on a variety of financial claims (including R. Weiss's request for alimony and every other claim I have heard that he made) and on the visitation schedule, provided Rabbi Weiss would give a get. Presumably the Weiss's were unwilling to agree to arbitrate given these conditions, and either offered a counter proposal for arbitration on different terms or suggested some other procedure, perhaps that R. Greenwald mediate the dispute. I don't know why the parties were unable to agree on binding arbitration. Give the proposal I would imagine that either because, as the proposal makes clear even an agreement between the parents cannot bind the court's ruling on custody or because R. Weiss was unwilling to give a get even if the other issues were to be subject to R. Greenwald's binding decision. If the former, there really isn't much that can be done, as I understand it, because the court is supposed to decide custody in the best interests of the child and this cannot be overridden by any agreement between the parents. If the latter it would be more accurate to describe the situation as Weiss having refused Ms. Dodelson's offer of binding arbitration. Perhaps he also offered some other proposal for binding arbitration that was not acceptable to Ms. Dodelson's but that remains speculation. Thus while the parties talked about setting up binding arbitration they did not "start the binding arbitration process with Rabbi Greenwald"

    What the document you posted shows is that Ms. Dodelson proposed binding arbitration; since R. Greenwald says the binding arbitration did not, in fact, happen, R. Weiss presumably rejected at least that proposal. And if he offered a different arbitration proposal it was unacceptable to Ms. Dodelson. There is a huge difference between "the two sides talked about, but could not reach an agreement on the conditions for, binding arbitration." and "one side walked out after beginning to binding arbitration." (By the way, in most cases, the latter is not possible--once you agree to binding arbitration it is binding and you can't pull out)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haikar choser min haseferNovember 27, 2013 at 1:57 PM

      Isn't the Arbitrator who proposes? His position is to come up with something that is palatable for both according to HIS opinion after listening to both sides requests. You go the Doctor to tell about your pain for a relief, and listen to his EXPERT opinion, and not the other way around. Something is definitely missing here. Haikar choser min hasefer.

      Delete

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