Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Weiss Dodelson: Dodelson supporter says Weiss supporter lied about settlement details

Guest post by emes vshalom (a Dodelson supporter) responding to the post - "Negotiation documents reveal the minor gap between the two sides" by a Weiss supporter. I don't see why the Dodelson supporters need to use such nasty abusive language instead of simply asking for an explanation. 

There really is only one issue that needs to be clarified after reading emes vshalom's rebuttal. Why didn't the Weiss's agree to the settlement - assuming that emes vshalom's facts are correct. Dodelson's claim that it is simply because the Weiss's don't want to give a get. That is rather absurd after what has gone on. My laymen's understanding is that by giving the Get before the agreement is approved by the court - there is no guarantee that the deal will be binding on the Dodelson's and it will end up that Gital has the Get and the Weiss's have nothing.

The simple question is does Rav Shalom Kaminetsky understand the facts the way the Dodelson's do? If he does then that would mean he is a fool to continue negotiations. But since we all know that he is obviously not a fool and yet he is continuing the negotiations - he apparently doesn't agree with the Dodelson's view. I am also not sure he is insisting that everything be done at once - as emes vshalom claims.
====================

To me, as someone who is admittedly biased, as I am a supporter of Gital's, it's very confusing that the Weiss family & their allies seem to continue to lie & misrepresent the truth. The fact is that when you have complete knowledge of the facts, it looks as though the Weiss's never were prepared to give a Get (to me anyway). When R Sholom Kamenetzky (whom the Weiss's commissioned to continue these negotiations) worked out a deal that should have been amenable to all sides, the Weiss's refused to sign on. It included all of the concessions that the Dodelsons made in that email, plus an agreement to have the remaining issues be subject to binding arbitration by R Sholom. Oh, and by the way, it included a 6 digit monetary payment from the Dodelsons to Weiss. R Sholom had (and it is my understanding that he still has) one condition; that everything be taken care of at one time. Meaning the Dodelsons give Weiss the money, Weiss gives Gital the Get, and both parties sign the arbitration agreement at one meet. 

Dodelson agreed to this, Weiss did not.

I'll let you decide for yourselves why.

Also, I won't be responding to any comments, as I think this post speaks for itself. If you think any if the facts are untrue, feel free to reach out to R Yisroel Weiss, as he published his email in a previous post. He should be able to confirm these facts.

176 comments :

  1. the reason why the weisses didn't sign is because it started from where things are holding which is after weiss already gave up on what they were supposed to but dodelsons did not do their half so to start arbitration from here is just not fair because the weisses would lose double and dodelsons gain double and the dodelsons are to blame for this not going thru

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does anyone understand this?

      Delete
    2. It's definitely not what DT said the reason was.

      Delete
    3. Actually, the Dodelsons are giving in by agreeing to arbitration at all. Everything was finalized in court years ago (and if the Weisses did not want rely on the authority they chose in the first place they could have went back to beis din), so to even agree to arbitration (and thus, giving up the court-ordered agreement in favor of something more favorable to the Weisses) was a concession on the Dodelsons' part. It was one they had no choice but to make of course, since the Weisses hold the trump card in this struggle.

      Delete
    4. No one has the right to take what a secular court awarded them, but only what beis din awarded them.

      This above halachic principle is even true if it was the other party that initiated secular court proceedings.

      Delete
    5. Gital Supporter; the weisses never wanted to go to court it was an emergency not to lose his son!!! now that that is corrected why didn't she go to the zabla he has been asking for since the beginning and therefore the one who is giving in is weiss by agreeing to arbitration and for you to say dodelson is giving in is a dirty tactic to try to smear weiss

      Delete
    6. Yaakov: Yes, Shimi makes sense! Each person may come up with their own suggestion as to the reasoning, DT only gave his OWN suggestion. However, I believe both are right!

      Gital Supporter: Weiss doesn't need the Dodelsons to "give in" to arbitration, he can pursue remarrying without giving her the Get, via Heter Meah Rabbonim. Now that its clear that the Dodelsons NEED arbitration in order for her to receive the Get she most desperately wants, it's Weiss who is "giving in", after all that she has done to him, his family, Artscroll, and the Yeshiva of Staten Island.

      Delete
    7. It is patently untrue. If someone goes to court with a valid Heter there is no reason the court judgement does not have legitimacy. && Pursuit, it has been discussed multiple times on this blog that THAT IS NOT A VALID HETER MEAH according to R Moshe- but that might not be a problem for this illustrious grandchild of R Moshe, who feels that it makes sense to go to Arkous with a Heter entirely based on a disputed responsa of the Debreciner Rav

      Delete
    8. Dovevos; ust because she forced him to need the court doesn't mean that is a final halachic settlement and just becuse he went to court even though he really didn't want to doesn't he should lose out

      Delete
    9. He made his bed, halachicly he is rquired to sleep in it.

      Delete
    10. dovevos; your comment sounds good in words but halachically and logicaly makes no sense because the court judgement is NOT halacha even if you say a million times that it is

      Delete
    11. it was not an emergency. He was never held back from seeing his son, Arye. He was invited at any hour he would like to come. Avrohom Meir admitted this in court documents. The manchild needs to give a get once and for all.

      Delete
    12. @I was there; since you were there, you must know that the dodelsons were planning a trip to Israel for pesach back in 2010..and after Gital had emailed AM that aryeh doesn't need his father in his life, AM, worried that they wouldn't return as the dodelsons have plenty of family there, went to court to hold aryehs passport, which they did. So it was an emergency. Regarding what AM said go back and read the deposition and you will see that he was asked regarding the court ordered visitation, if the child was held back and he said he was not...he did not say the child was never withheld from him.

      Delete
    13. If such an email existed, it would have made quite a stink in court. But in all likelihood it doesn't, & it is just yet another Weiss allies fabrication.

      Delete
    14. dovevos; you make it sound like there are so many weiss supporter fabrications i wonder what other ones you're referring to

      Delete
  2. a.reb shalom was asked by the weisses to join? news to me b.to the idiots out there who buy the dodelsons game here. if the weisses give the get right away whats to stop the dodelsons from doing what they have been doing this whole time...backing out?!nothing it would be dumb for avraham meir to give a get right away which is why he agreed to give the get 45 days after the dodelsons agree to the arbitration so that they cant appeal it and just take the get and go home.people lets b clear if gital would have agreed to everything she was going to anyways all that remained between gital and that guy she wants to live with 5 years before shes married is indeed that minor gap!!!and c dont try to make yourself into teh good guy here"im not answering any posts"thats because all you did was post some misleading false info and not alot of it at all,i mean why not go for the home run why not say he threatened her life ooh naybe he even kidnapped her sister,wait wasnt he the one who killed jfk?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jay, calm down before you hurt yourself. The fact that the Weiss's asked R Sholom to get involved is undisputed. In fact, it was originally alleged by whichever Weiss wrote the original post. So calm down.

      Delete
    2. what are you saying? The Dodelson's are not trying to get anything but a get. Do your research!

      Delete
  3. (fed-up) lawyer from njDecember 17, 2013 at 10:15 PM

    the question here is a legal one. as one who has dealt with many gitten and law cases before, the dodelsons seem to be asking for something out of the ordinary. the get is not usually given until the consent form is entered with a stipulation that nothing goes into effect until the get is given. it is done like this all over the place. if I was the weisses I would demand that that be the stipulation. otherwise, what is stopping the dodelsons from not allowing the consent order from being put in. Let's be realistic here, she has been waiting for 4 years. a couple of more days wont make a difference. if rabbi kaminetzky actually wants to do it in one room, I think he would need to have a plan how that works.
    jay discusses something about the 45 day appeal time limit. this is also standard procedure but you can probably insert a penalty cause to make sure no side appeals.
    I notice that there is a money question here as well. six digits. now, is that the 350k that was supposedly requested or another amount? also, is the "guest post" admitting that dodelson will pay this money? if yes, the poster is admitting guilt on behalf of the dodelsons. truth be told, they could have just given Weiss the money they spent on that horrid pr firm. I am sure it is more than 350k and they would have saved themselves a lot of embarrassment and hatred.
    the ultimate question is if Weiss will give the get or not. it seems that Weiss or a relative of theirs called rabbi kaminetzky. cant understand if jay has a question mark in the wrong place or not. if that is the case, someone is obviously playing for keeps on the Weiss side. cant tell you if it includes the husband but definitely is someone.
    so, as a lawyer, I would say sign the consent agreement (which no one seems to be signing) have rabbi kaminetzky or greenwald issue their ruling. complete consent order. have such order accepted by court. give get. pay husband. move on with your lives. if this simple directive, which is standard in everyday fare, can't be agreed to then nobody wants this get. either way, get out of our lives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two points that need to be addressed as you are so obviously not a lawyer. A) what "guilt" is being admitted by paying Weiss the money they asked for? Besides for being guilty if being willing to pay off an extortionist? B) You need to check the rate PR firms charge. For a campaign like Dicker is running, it runs maybe 1-2% of the 350,000 demand Weiss had.

      Delete
    2. (fed up) lawyer from njDecember 18, 2013 at 2:39 PM

      I happen to be a lawyer and a good friend of LB. If you are a dodelson supporter you know who he is. He is a better lawyer than me but I am sure he will tell you the directive I outlined is the one always followed.
      Guilt is not always a legal term. There are lines in the sand that you set your argument up on. When you go to a paper and claim something that you will never do and then do it , you are admitting to guilt. Either is your PR proposal or in your stand. I applaud the weisses for never falling into that trap.
      I can't tell you how much dicker is charging. For all I know she is doing this all for free. Can't tell you how much all the other components cost either. I do know that if they were being paid it would be more than 350k. The fact that there are volunteers obviously isnt taken into account.
      With all that being said, I want gital to get her get today. However, let's all play by the rules and directives we always do. By doing what the Dodelsons are doing it puts doubt in my mind what they really want.
      In order not to waste any more of my time and not to sound like a sock puppet I will end my tenure as resident esquire. I suggest you find something better to do as well. These people were made for each other.

      Delete
    3. "this is also standard procedure but you can probably insert a penalty cause to make sure no side appeals."
      I don't know about the US, but over here such a clause would be invalid...

      Delete
    4. You are off your rocker if you think that a PR campaign that amounts to a Facebook page and some news stories costs $350,000.

      Delete
    5. dovevos; it's obvious that they spent alot more than that and it got them nowhere

      Delete
    6. Smart take. Call any PR firm & find out that it costs far less, but to Shimi it's obvious.

      Delete
    7. dovevos; i guess the post office delivers their mailings for free

      Delete
    8. Yes, the post office charges. By your count, the Dodelsons must have already mailed out over a million pieces of literature in order to surpass the much more than $350,000 mark.

      Delete
  4. Totally confused here. I live in willowbrook in staten island. I got a mailing from the Dodelsons on November 27th saying there was no arbitration and no decision. This pro-dodelson poster is saying there is the discussions with rabbi kaminetzky which was obviously ongoing on November 27th. It also seems that he/she is not arguing with the 14 points that was released by the pro-weiss poster which shows there was an agreement and decision by rabbi greenwald. So, the mailing I got was a lie. Now, I don't know if all the mailings were lies but this one definitely was. How can we trust you or anything the Dodelsons are telling us now. I don't know if the weisses are any better but I know at least one side openly lied.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's really simple, see? RG was never an arbitrator- & only sent a "proposal" via Aron Kotler to Gital. So, no. There was never arbitration, & never a "decision". Operating under the assumption that there was a decision when there wasn't is counterproductive. Rabbi Greenwald said he was not acting as someone who was making a decision, he made a proposal. Can you explain why this should bind either party any more than the court decision- halachicly?

      Delete
    2. I don't think any one can explain why it is - but the Dodelsons obviously are working under the pressure of the greenwald decision. while you may say they are merely working to end this, it seems kind of stupid to then fight over 2 small issues that are left. why have a arbitrator for those 2 issues? cant you give in somewhere? therefore, I think the facts speak for themselves. Weiss "won" the greenwald decision. whatever happened there happened. it was arbitration it wasn't arbitration. it was mediation. I don't care and neither does any one else besides yakov, devevos and well. something happened there. a man doesn't simply put out his decisions or recommendations without hearing from both sides (unless you are one of the 9 rabbinical signers). the dodelsons are being asked to live up to the "recommendations" of greenwald. Weiss, if anyone is giving in, is the one giving in on the points of contention. who is saki agreeing to anyway? where was her proposal to start with? but I don't have a beef with the dodelsons on any of those grounds. they are in this just like the weisses. the issue is who is giving in to whom. the way it reads, Weiss is giving in to dodelson and dodelson is not giving in on 2 points which are demanding arbitration.
      what does dodelson want if this falls through? to go to the court judgment? then why did they go to greenwald at all? obviously, they realize this wont be the end. so, if they went to greenwald - which I think is a proven fact - and they want out of it, finish it up. give in. what are we arguing over? yes, you could say the same thing against Weiss on the last part but dovevos you asked why the greenwald decision mattered.
      however, dovevos can clearly see that dodelson has not been truthful about the negotiations. they have claimed reb dovid shlita and the other rabbi d Feinstein were not correct and misinformed. they said the arbitrator was a figment of the weisses imagination. we all clearly see that is a lie. how many more lies are there, probably a few. probably can be found on both sides. one thing we all know is that dodelson has not been truthful, has tried to destroy all negotiations by sending out the attack letters during negotiations and probably doesn't even want the get. prove me wrong and have them sign the arbitration agreement. when I see that I will shut up.

      Delete
    3. dovevos killer; absolutely correct

      Delete
    4. an upside down worldDecember 18, 2013 at 10:51 PM

      I see NO evidence or even indication or hint of a lie on the Weisses part.

      Delete
    5. Hi Mr. guy who thinks its funny to give himself a title with someone elses name and "killer" in it,
      Dodelson had sent the arbitration agreement to Weiss multiple times, but he wouldn't sign it.

      Delete
    6. dovevos; if you are talking about rsk i can see a very good reason not to sign it to have someone who signed a letter against you be an arbitrator is suicidal and besides for the fact that he signed for ronni to arbitrate and she agreed although didn't sign on it and she was the one who backed out and if she was interested in doing whats right and getting a get she can go back to that agreement from ronni and have a get today! all this shows who is trying to finish this and who is not interested and for you to blame weiss for not agreeing to an arbitrator who attacked him is ludicrous

      Delete
    7. Dovevos, still talking out of both sides of your mouth? Show us a SIGNED arbitration document from Dodelson. One that we can see what they are agreeing to have arbitrated.

      Delete
    8. Shimi- for some reason Weiss felt the need to leak to this blog an arbitration agreement that they got from Dodelsons lawyer- but they could not provide any proof to back up their claim that they actually signed one.

      Delete
    9. Just saying- earlier on this blog, http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2013/11/weiss-dodelson-dodelsons-did-begin.html to be exact, you will find the ARBITRATION DOC SENT FROM DODELSONS LAWYER TO WEISS, WHICH WEISS REFUSED TO SIGN.

      Delete
    10. Once again dovevos caught lying. All that was was a doc sent from the lawyer. It was never signed. Never. The Dodelsons have no intention of signing. They realize they need to play the game. When they sign tell me. Furthermore, the agreement you saw was what the dodelsons wanted the rules of arbitration to be. There was no agreement on that from weiss. And STILL the dodelsons wouldnt sign.

      Delete
    11. dovevos; i guess you forgot about the letter from ronni and please stop with this misinformation habit of yours that you skip facts, i guess you must be a dodelson because that's what they do best

      Delete
    12. Ronnie said, and all Weiss leaked correspondence backs up the fact that he got involved because of Zlotowitz & Aron Kotler. If Dodelson agreed to give it a try, but Weiss never ended up signing on, that's not their fault. Also, when someone says that he was misunderstood in a letter he wrote, & you insist on returning to that letter as proof of something, all it proves is that you have no interest in the truth.

      Delete
    13. dovevos; first of all weiss did sign and she still has the option of going back to that agreement and by doing so she could end this whole thing today so it is her fault secondly ronni put out the letter that he was misunderstood after he was harassed over 10,000 times in a few days so for that to be proof is pretty pathetic

      Delete
    14. Weiss hadn't signed anything for Greenwald. Insisting he did doesn't make it true. There has never been any evidence provided that Weiss signed anything by Greenwald short of your claims on this blog.

      Delete
    15. dovevos; here he says that weiss agreed to his proposal and no it wasn't just an agreement that he can back out of he signed on it and he halachically couldn't back out and still is willing to go by it but gital backed out
      http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ihsx-wkSmmc/UoHsx8Bi59I/AAAAAAAANXU/FW2uq9PDRXw/s1600/Weiss+dodelson+R+Ronnie+Greenwasl+R+Dovid+Feinstein+R+Shain.jpg

      Delete
    16. Shimi you are making things up again. Nowhere does it say that he signed anything. He says that Weiss said that they'd be ok with those terms. Weiss did not sign anything to make anything bind. But good try. Repeating the same claim does not, however, make it true.

      Delete
    17. dovevos; that's absolutely not true because he did sign and just because you never saw the document doesn't mean it doesn't exist and to say that he just agreed is stupid because when working in such a situation you always need a guarantee before moving on otherwise you get what the dodelsons did which is back out because it doesn't go the way you want it to

      Delete
    18. I guess we should just trust you on that. Fact is, Weiss leaked a document to this blog, but could not provide any evidence that he signed anything with RG. You insisting that he did is not worth anything. We make determinations based on facts and evidence. You have provided neither.

      Delete
    19. dovevos; and what makes you think weiss leaked it to this blog and not someone else who got a hold of it because as we've seen weiss is not interested in fighting like this and he doesn't leak documents it's other people who do so just because this person never got a hold of the signed document doesn't mean it doesn't exist

      Delete
  5. @yakov ye that seem to be in the last post too im happy to see you found one thing you can argue about but at least you agree to the other things.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here's the crux of the issue. Saki is ready to fork over the cash. The problem is twofold: a. It sets a terrible precedent, b. It makes Weiss look bad. So here's what has to happen, saki has to fork over the dough and agree to shut up about it - then Weiss can save face and say you see it wasn't about money it was about other stuff.Yankel fun Mikkeys kaveh shteeb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saki isn't paying any money. No one is. There is no money component in this Get.

      Delete
    2. And you, Sally, know this how?

      Delete
    3. Look at the documents describing the dispute and proposed settlement. Not a single provision of anyone paying anything to the other party. It's all an old fashioned bitter custody/visitation battle.

      Delete
    4. It would be nice to believe that money is not an issue. Perhaps the posted documents are not complete?

      Delete
    5. yitz waxman; and what if money is part of the issue wouldn't you demand money that is halachically owed to you before giving up your only chance to get it

      Delete
    6. Well, well... He halachically owes her support for all the time they were/are married...

      Delete
    7. well; i think you forgot the halacha of moredes and therefore no he does not owe her any support and that's besides the fact that she was supposed to support him so maybe she should pay him the support she owes him for all this time

      Delete
    8. Shimi, do you know how silly you sound when you go back to the inane Moredes claim? She says he was abusive, he says he wasn't. Whether or not she is a Moredes is something a Beis Din should determine, but he isn't ready to go to any Beis Din.

      Delete
    9. dovevos; how dare you call halacha inane just read the post article and you'll see how little her CLAIMS of abuse are then take away from it because we all saw clearly how overly inflated they are and what you are left with is what can't even be called abuse and yes she is a moredes so for well to say he should pay her is so pathetically stupid

      Delete
    10. Deflection thy name is Shimi. I said your claims are inane, not the Halacha. The fact is that she claims he was abusive.

      Delete
    11. dovevos; look how small the claims are of abuse and do you really believe for a second that he gave her silent treatment during shabbos sheva brachos i'm sorry but that's absurd

      Delete
    12. Ok, people. Shimi doesn't believe one of the stories she said, so it must've never happened. & if you actually ask the Dodelsons- honestly, asking because you care, there are more things that didn't make it into the Post because it was overkill.

      Delete
    13. dovevos; that story is so ludicrous that it removes all trust for anything else written together with that he said if i divorce you how else can i control you and if there was more to say it definitely couldn't have been worse that what she claimed so again there isn't much abuse there

      Delete
    14. Stop rambling, shimi. You may make a mistake and come all the way around to coherence.

      Delete
    15. dovevos; you couldn't come up with an arguement because what she said is so outrages so instead you attack me by saying that i'm rambling i just showed you two things she said that make absolutely no sense

      Delete
  7. @yitz waxman why would that be nice?do yyou think if there is money its just case of him saying oh why dont i just take some money while im at it?do you think his grandparents would support simple extortion?!no if theres money its because theres a good reason.im not saying i know the reason and im assuming that there is money involved.and if i had to guess the money isnt going to even be enough to cover the lawyers fee....but lets not make it sound like hes some extortionist.even gitals complaints of avraham meir was that he was too principled(see candle lighting in the post which makes the fact that she accused him of manhandling her mother a complete joke)so if you think this is some get rich quick scheme ur sorely mistaken and foolish.trust me in all probability there is money involved and he nor his parents will see a cent of it.its all going to the lawyers being forced upon them by dodelsons big bucks and continuous court battles.hence the money.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Weiss took Dodelson to court, how on earth did Dodelson force lawyers on them?

      Delete
    2. why money is always an issueDecember 22, 2013 at 11:33 AM

      I have been following this case and i also learned (through a sad occurance),a few possiblities.
      Weiss took Dodelson to court in the initial custody hearing. Dodelson then sued for divorce. So, the difference between those 2 cases is definitely the cause of Dodelson's actions. Furthermore, weiss feels that the entire initial reason they came to court was the withholding of visitation by dodelson. Therefore, weiss feels like that the whole reason they are in court is the fault of dodelson.
      I think it is also important to understand that in the orthodox Jewish world there is always a payment made from the side breaking an agreement to the other side. This may have legal consequences has well. I just know that when someone I knew broke her engagement she had to pay her former fiancee for costs incurred as well as a "breaking agreement" fee. I had never heard of such a thing (thankfully), but the rabbi said it is standard procedure.
      Lastly, there is also the monies that were promised as part of the marriage. If dodelson promised the couple a house, car, boat or whatever. There is a possible halachick requirement they may need to pay. I know my friend didn't have to pay it when she broke her engagement but the rabbi said in marriage there may be such a payment.
      Obviously, it would be easier to get these payments in a bais din then in a civil court. However, that is my feeling as to why a demand for money is being made.

      Delete
    3. Dodelson took the child. What choice did AMW have?

      Delete
    4. It's so funny that you claim that she "abducted" the child when he said in the deposition that they never witheld the child from him.

      Delete
    5. Dodelson took the child. What choice did AMW have?

      This is a good enough question. IOW, the father wanted to secure his fair share of parenting (custody) of the child. As a divorced father, I certainly understand this.

      The answer is that the parents, for the good of the child, should have sat down with a mediator and hashed out an agreement that they both could agree to. Whenever the decision is delegated to a 3rd party, whether it be a secular judge or rabbinical court, everyone (except the lawyers) loses and most of all the child who is then left to grow up with antagonistic parents.

      Whose fault is it that they ended up fighting it out rather than hashing it out? I have no idea. By default I would assume that both the mother and the father have their fair share of responsibility for the debacle.

      Delete
    6. Dovevos, you constantly twist in a way that is very much aligned with the dodelson's whole PR campaign including the website and Facebook page so either you are a dodelson or you are not thinking for yourself. On the documents regarding the visitation where AM was asked if visitation was ever held from him it says there,
      "Q: the original parenting time plan was--
      A: there was no plan
      Q:an order from the court and modified somewhat by the order of may 5, 2010?
      A: makes sense to me
      Q: those orders, has aryeh ever been withheld from you on Tuesdays or Thursday afternoons
      A: he has not"
      this only proves that AFTER visitation by the court was set up aryeh was not withheld from AMW. It also clearly states that before court visitation there was no arrangement. So when did AMW say that
      his child was never witheld from him?

      Delete
    7. really?!; i thank you for showing us how the dodelsons and dovevos use misinformation to fool everyone

      Delete
    8. Really & Shimi: if AMW said that there was no prior parenting plan agreement, why do you continue to post that she withheld the child despite having had a prior agreement? If there was no prior agreement, (& D's website has emails from D to W begging to sit down & make an arrangement & Weiss's refusal) we can debate whether an infant should spend overnights away from his mother.

      Delete
    9. dovevos; i tried finding those e-mails on her site but couldn't find them maybe you can post a link

      Delete
    10. Look a little harder.

      Delete
    11. dovevos; sorry but it's not there

      Delete
    12. http://www.setgitalfree.com/uploads/2/3/0/0/23001734/attachments_part_1.pdf

      It is there, you just need to want to find it.

      Delete
    13. Thank you, Tzedek. I was wondering if Shimi would respond to that.

      Delete
    14. dovevos; i rtead the e-mails and the dodelsons only released a small amount of the e-mails and skipped a lot of the back and forth so that proves nothing untill you show what weiss responded

      Delete
  8. Why is the get such a big issue? Does anyone think she is finding a shiduch after this whole saga? Anyone with a pulse can use google to tell him that this shiduch would not be a good idea. Gital has no reason to give in on anything, she holds all the cards because she does not have any use for a get.

    ReplyDelete
  9. daas torah; i head that rmk said that the post article was not a chilul hashem can you please try to verify this. (no need to post this comment)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I heard he was very upset with the post article

      Delete
    2. i heard that he said that he doesn't believe she went to the post but then i heard that just at the end of last week he said he doesn't think it's a chilul hashem

      Delete
    3. I heard he said that he likes butter with bread

      Delete
    4. dovevos; that was a great argument but just add to yudi RMK told a friend of mine when asked if he agrees thatthe post article was a chilul hashem he said he's not a posek

      Delete
    5. Pursuit of HonestyJanuary 7, 2014 at 7:08 AM

      Shimi, at least RMK is "Modeh Al H'Emes" on something...

      Delete
    6. Especially since he never said that.

      Delete
    7. dovevos; i know as fact that he did how can you know that he didn't do you know everything he ever said

      Delete
    8. You once stated as a fact that Dodelsons alleged nanny brings a dog to the Dodelson home. So obviously your statements of fact aren't all that credible.

      Delete
    9. dovevos; stop rambling i already explained to you exactly what happened there but you still feel the need to go back to it again and again

      Delete
  10. reb malkiel told the feinstein family that he was upset at the post article and said it was aryeh dodelsons fault and that he is a bad person.and as far as weisses taking the dodelsons to court the dodelsons said they were going to court in either ny or nj whichever one is better for woman and so the weisses went to the other one furthermore,i said the dodelsons are keeping them in court now @shifra.the weisses want this over and done they have no money for lawyers and they want this over with.they have offered a get countless times in the past two months.gital has everyone fooled thinking shes the poor suffering aguna.she is a moredes which halachically means she is not an aguna,and she is very much responsible for not having a get,being stubborn when she could have got her get.you know i started off maybe even leaning toward the fact that he should give her a get because that is my belief in general.not that he has to but that he should,but honestly gital is making a mockery of agunos the world over.dyu know how many girls are sitting there willing to do anything for a get?!and she turns it down so she can have her kid for an extra hour on friday?!!!!now the only reason i still believe he should give her a get is because of the suffering it is caussing the families and more importantly the little boy aryeh.but in no way shape or form do i have any sympathy for gital making a joke out of the jewish people and making a joke out of every agunah in the world.all these feminists side with gital not realizing its because of people like her that gets arent given.there are two sides to every story even if both sides are wrong and ignoring that fct as gital is doing and going to war with the jewish people is not doing agunos any favors.and all you people siding with her are blinded by the picture of a sweet girl with that little cap on her way to law school to provide for little aryeh.question people ...whos watching aryeh while shes in law school...during all those hours that shes fighting for tooth and nail whos watching aryeh?whos spending time with him?if it was her then its still stupid but did you know that a nanny is watching him the whole day or at least when hes home?!!did you know that the hour shes fighting for isnt so she can spend time with him just so AM cant...because shes not her nanny is!!everyone wake up!!mrs dodelson told me that all we want is a get and i told her i agree but that was just lies,because gital could have had her get 1000 times over.WAKE UP PEOPLE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just called one of the people I know who are close with the Dodelsons. He told me that there is no nanny in the employ of the family. When Gital is not home, Aryeh is cared for by other members of the family.
      I will pose the question to you though, "jay", who watches Aryeh when Avrohom Meir goes to Shul on Shabbos? on Sunday when he goes to learn? on the days he has hours of visitation when he goes to learn? does he not go to learn at that time? It is a lot of hours of babysitting that he must be doing just to stick it to his ex wife.
      And who watches Aryeh when he stays in a strangers house on a three day yom tov? Is it so important to him to have his visit on a three day yom tov that he needs to bring Aryeh in to a strange house?
      2 can play that game "jay", And there is no question that you have issues with the truth when you say that she was offered the get many times over but she said no WHEN SHE AGREED TO ARBITRATE ANYTHING SHE DIDN'T AGREE TO BY THE PERSON WEISS WENT TO TO GET INVOLVED!! Still, this was not good enough for him. enough of your facts that you say tha aren't true. you lost all your credibility when earlier in these comments you denied that Weiss went to Rav Sholom, only to sheepishly admit you lied when you were caught.

      Delete
    2. Weiss has been going to arbitrators. There is no denying that the lying dovevos said something truthful. Why, my untruthful friend, is it only weiss looking for the arbitration? You know why? Because the dodelsons don't want the get. The only time they were involved in finding a arbitrator they got rid of him (rg). Keep it up dovevos.

      Delete
    3. dovevos; what you are saying is an absolute lie there is a nanny in the house and she takes care of aryeh (btw sometimes she brings her dog with her) for you to deny that just shows how desperate you are to hide the truth!
      why do you think am can't learn while he's watching aryeh and why do you think aryeh can't go with him to shul on shabbos
      and why you call the people he stayed by for a three day yom tov strangers is beyond me because they actually know each other very well!!!!!
      she agreed to arbitrate anything she didn't agree to by ronni but only if weiss kept the part he agreed to on condition she keeps her half so basically it's a crooked attempt to get even more out of weiss!?!?!?!
      now that all dovevos' lies are revealed hopefully he'll stop with all this misinformation and recognize the truth and instead of desperately trying to hide it

      Delete
    4. After reading your back & forth with Mordechai (btw, are you E, or W?) it's clear to see Shimi has very little regard for accuracy. Here he claims that the alleged nanny brings the alleged dog with her. Later he claims that she doesn't bring the dog, but the child has visited the nanny's home where he was licked by the dog. He obviously has no problem making statements of fact even if he himself in unaware of how accurate they are. This is a common malady affecting the Weiss allies.

      Delete
    5. dovevos; ok i'll explain it to you first i heard from aryeh weiss when he was asked who puts him to sleep he said Donna and when asked if she's jewish he said no then as all kids like to talk a lot he said sometimes she brings duddly and when asked who that is he said her dog then a few weeks later when asked about duddly again he said she doesn't bring him and when asked why he said she does last time he said because he dreamed about her bringing him and then just like all kids like talking he started talking about the time he went to Donnas' house to meet her family and duddly licked him i hope now you understand and no i don't make statements unless i'm sure about what i'm saying

      Delete
    6. You don't make statements unless you are sure of what you are saying- unless they are factually incorrect, like that the alleged dog came to the Dodelson home.

      Delete
    7. dovevos; i guess you didn't understand the comment right on top of yours

      Delete
    8. Or maybe I did.

      Delete
    9. dovevos; if you did then you wouldn't be making these comments

      Delete
  11. not a chillul Hashem!!!are you mentally incompetant?!!! go look at the comments on the post article (online)reb malkiel is a rosh yeshiva of the biggest yeshiva in america.i choose to believe that he is not as dumb as you people are making him out to b.hes a gadol.any gadol should b able to see what a five year old could see.that the post article is up there along with that dude beating gittin out of people and that jewish pedophile as the top few biggest chillul Shems in the past 20 years!im not willing to say gitals responsible for the article because i dont know but whoever it was is headed for the max ammount of hell a person could get!and honestly anyone involved in this fight is in dangerous waters too which is why i will not post again.but i ask that all you people stop making things up and slandering people that are our gedolim!why are we even taking sides here!were not helping anything all were doing is enabling both sides.shame on all of you (and me)happy holidays btw...oh and everyone wish me a happy anniversary!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thank you jay the truth will prevail it may take time but the truth will prevail

      Delete
  14. I live on Dodelsons block, I have never seen a nanny go in to their home at the end of our cul de sac, not has my wife or any of my children. We have certainly never seen a dog!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. mordechai; i can't argue on whether you do or don't live on the block and i can't argue on whether you did or didn't see the nanny get out of the car but what i can tell you is that i heard from aryeh weiss that the person who puts him to sleep is not jewish and sometimes she brings her dog along

      Delete
    2. Another sockpuppet dog claim doesn't make it more true, not does it have any bearing on the dispute. AMW shouldn't have married a girl who would hire a nanny with a dog, according to these allegations(which are silly).

      Delete
  15. If you live on the Dodelson's block please bear witness to the fact that GITAL WITHHELD E CHILD FROM AVROHOM WEISS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THEIR SEPERATION. As soon as she left the house the couple decided that weiss and dodelson would switch off weekends with the baby, when Weiss went to pick up the baby Dodelson refused to let him see the child. That is when weiss got his heter arkayos. As a neighbor, you surely saw that. You surely saw when some well meaning halacha abiding yeshiva boys stole weisses carraige when he returned from dropping off his son as well. If you are indeed a neighbor you should bear witness to the truth. Too much is misleading

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's not a witness but he's definitely able to think clearly & rationally. After all, of all the possible names he could have taken, he chooses "why I hate" which is not a simian of zeta avrohom Avinu.

      Delete
  16. Also, the free gital facebook page just updated with a statement calling Weiss an extortionist. The post says that there are "rumors of negotiations", well someone should call Rav Shalom Kamenetzky and tell him that not only are the Dodelson's blantantly ignoring RSK's decision that they cease and desist, his negotiations are nothing but a rumor. What is with these people?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I called him, he told me not to worry.

      Delete
  17. I don't know how you expect me to bear witness to something that allegedly happened one time if I wasn't there. I was there on Succoss however, and you guys are reinforcing the idea that you aren't entirely truthful. It was a couple of boys from the yeshiva that rents space from the shul. Weiss, like all bullies, freaked out when people started screaming "Why don't you give a get?" And left his carriage & ran. Those boys screaming at him doesn't make a get posul any more than Rabbi Eidensons postings here regarding other gitten

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A yeshiva on succos????? Why were those boys there any way? Just decided that the Dodelsons were correct in this fight or were they told to be there? I wasn't there. I don't know but your story has holes. Furthermore, I don't think anyone is denying that dodelson with held the child from weiss once. This singular time set off the court battle.

      Delete
    2. mordechai; that's a lie, first of all the dodelsons got these people to bother him second they stole the stroller he got it back and then someone screamed lock your arms around him so he ran he didn't just freak out from some people screaming at him and i'm surprised that you who claims to live on the block should not know these facts unless you heard the dodelson distorted misinformation version of the story as they are notorious for doing and you really don't know any facts about the case

      Delete
    3. I'm sorry Shimi, I was there. Were you? & in lakewood, local boys do learn in their yeshivas Bein Hazmanim too.

      I also was curious why he thought he was allowed to take the stroller back with him after he dropped off the child.

      Delete
    4. mordechai; from what you claim happened it doesn't sound like you were there unless you are doing what the dodelsons do best which is lyeing besides for the fact that there were more than just some boys and even in lakewood boys don't learn in yeshiva on yom tov even the few who do learn in yeshiva during bein hazemanim and in regard to him being allowed to carry his stroller on yom tov you should learn the halachos before making such comments and after you learn them you'll understand how stupid your comment is

      Delete
    5. Again, were you there?


      Also, there is no Hitiru soifum Mishum tcholoson on a stroller, it was Friday afternoon & he dropped off his child. What was the Heter for Hotza'ah?

      Delete
    6. @mordechai, he picked up his child not dropped off...he actually had to carry aryeh most of the way since it was a long walk....so were YOU there?

      Delete
    7. mordechai;why do you keep distorting and changing the facts and ignoring what i say and instead keep asking if i was there as if me being there changes the facts of what happened
      why do you take one quote that you got from somewhere and use it to make useless chumros on other people

      Delete
    8. Again, Shimi- as reading comprehension is clearly not your strong point. I was there, this is how it went down. You claim that it went down differently, you will have to provide a Kli Rishon to contradict what I saw. I watched it unfold from my front porch as Weiss reached the corner of Evian & Williams street. I am not making chumros for other people- Hotzahah is assur when you don't need the item later that day- seeing as Weiss dropped off his child, he was doing a melocho shelo letzorech Yom tov.

      And as you can see from the comment of "Really???!?!" The Weiss allies aren't always confined to truthful statements.

      Delete
    9. Mordechai,

      After mikveh and mincha on erev yom kippur, please add "call AMW and ask mechila for speaking loshon hara". I am sure he will be mochel you and you can even discuss the sugyah of hotzaah with him.

      Delete
    10. Of course. If you can't address the halachic problems with his actions there, which are real, perhaps you'd like to attack me for voicing me concerns that his actions weren't halachicly permissible. Facts are, there is no hetter to carry something without a tzorech Yom tov. If you have a goo explanation as to why he carried, fine, but ad hominem attacks are indicative of the weakness of your argument.

      Delete
    11. really?!; this time you are wrong it was a drop-off

      mordechai; no i wasn't there myself but i heard from others who were that i trust a lot more than you and when you can tell me where he should have put the stroller then you can argue about whether he was allowed to carry it back besides that he has a much better halachic source for what he does than you can come up with and he is very knowledgeable in halacha himself which i see you are not so next time don't try stuffing your chumros down his throat just to bash him

      Delete
    12. Shimi, you can keep insisting falsehoods and then wonder why nobody believes you about anything. I saw it, he was dropping off. The child wasnt there at the time.

      Delete
    13. Freddie, I'd love to call him and discuss the Sugya of Hotza''a with him. Perhaps you can give me his cell phone number? Try as I may, I can't find it on the Dodelson websites, while I saw Gital's phone number posted here...

      Delete
    14. mordechai; are you stupid just because you don't see it now it was very publicized by the dodelsons and you who claims to be a neighbor just walk down the block or call them up and they'll gladly give it to you

      Delete
    15. And here Shimi turns to insulting people.

      Delete
    16. I searched- where was his number publicized?

      Delete
    17. dovevos; it was there i guess they took it down just like other numbers they took down

      Delete
    18. You guess so. Great.

      Delete
  18. mordechai; you're mixing me up with really?! as you can see i just clearly told him that he is wrong so don't attack me because of what someone else said

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My mistake- but there is no halachic justification. Maybe he's not as knowledgable in Halacha as you think.

      Delete
    2. I'm sure Either of the Rabbi Eidensons can back me up on this.

      Delete
    3. mordechai; if i were you i wouldn't try arguing because i assume he's backed by rabbi feinstein so watch what you say

      Delete
    4. So you are saying I shouldn't criticize anything he does because you assume he's backed by Rabbi Feinstein? You, sir, have just jumped the shark...

      Delete
    5. mordechai; the problem here is that the only reason you are saying anything about this is to try to smear him with things that he knows he is allowed to do and it shouldn't effect you in the slightest bit it just sounds bad for him so you bring it up even though it's completely irrelevant

      Delete
    6. It's assur. no Rov would say it is muttar.

      Delete
    7. mordechai; with such educated comments i can't argue

      Delete
    8. You say things with no basis in fact. You say I brought this up to smear him, Au contraire, I was responding to the ludicrous allegation that there is a non Jewish nanny with a dog at the Dodelsons. I was jumped on and asked if I saw the Succos episode, & I said what really happened. You aren't entitled to your own facts Shimi, although a cursory glance at your postings here makes it apparent that you think that you are.

      Delete
  19. mordechai; so are you saying that Donna and her dog named Dudley don't exist and are you saying that ari kranz, neuberger, shragie kotler and his kids don't exist or are they also boys in the yeshiva down the block if this is not what you are saying then why did you change the facts of what happened?
    in regard to carrying what gave the people who stole his stroller a right to move it shelo le'tzorech ???
    why are you attacking him for carrying it le'tzorech because it was carrying things he needed even if you don't want to consider that a tzorech halacha does so as i said originally learn the halachos before commenting like this

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Aryeh Kranz was there, as was Neuberger- but that's only 2 people out of the group you allege was there. Shragie Kotler was nowhere near Williams street at the time. Again, I said it was bochurim from the yeshiva, you say that there were also 2 adults there, shoin! You are great. But there is no dog that you have the Azus to invent, and at the same time accuse me of trying to smear Weiss by pointing out that he did something not letzorech? & NOBODY STOLE THE STROLLER!!!! you make a hanacha tht I haven't learned these Halachos. Stop making up stories. Hopefully this all ends soon, & the stories that you make up will serve what purpose?

      Delete
    2. mordechai; so now you're working on damage control you deny now only half the facts and ignore the other half does that mean you finally decided not to deny that they have a nanny and you also decided not to deny that there were more than just boys there (as if that makes a difference)but either you are a kotler or you just didn't see the kotlers just like you never saw Donna and i made the hanacha that you never learned the halachos because of the way you accuse him and then when i explain it you choose to ignore the explanation!! and just because you put it in bold letters doesn't take away from the fact that it was stolen and he only ran when someone screamed lock your arms around him so now please stop making up stories and definitely stop accusing me of lying because the only mistake you got me on is the dog that she does have and it also licked aryeh when he went to donnas' house to meet her family and he dreams about dudly coming to the dodelsons house

      Delete
    3. I'm wondering how you would know what dreams Aryeh has? Also, calling me a Kotler doesn't make me one, & there were none present. You can repeat the lie as many times as you'd like, it doesn't become true.

      Delete
    4. mordechai: i know he dreamed about it because he told me he did and this is another attempt of yours to deny the facts and try to make it as if i'm the one who's lying here even though we already saw all the lies you made up together with the halachos you make up and the ones you ignore like that Donna doesn't exist and that he was the one who carried even though the ones who stole it were the ones that carried shelo le'tzorech and don't go now and deny again that it was stolen because it was and all it was was some people peacefully screaming at him even though someone screamed lock your arms around him and that there were no kotlers there even though shragie kotler admitted that he was there and that's besides for the schustal that was there so stop with these lies that it was only boys and that there were no kotlers there how long will it take unyill you stop this ludicrous misinformation and lies

      Delete
    5. mordechai: i know he dreamed about it because he told me he did and this is another attempt of yours to deny the facts and try to make it as if i'm the one who's lying here even though we already saw all the lies you made up together with the halachos you make up and the ones you ignore like that Donna doesn't exist and that he was the one who carried even though the ones who stole it were the ones that carried shelo le'tzorech and don't go now and deny again that it was stolen because it was and all it was was some people peacefully screaming at him even though someone screamed lock your arms around him and that there were no kotlers there even though shragie kotler admitted that he was there and that's besides for the schustal that was there so stop with these lies that it was only boys and that there were no kotlers there how long will it take unyill you stop this ludicrous misinformation and lies

      Delete
    6. Leaving aside the other lies you are saying about Shragie Kotler being there, or any Schustals being there, I wonder who you are if Aryeh Weiss is telling you what he dreams.

      Also, you Shimi, are pretty much busted using different user names on the same thread. You were Yudi on Dec 25 when you made that same claim. You know the rules- pick one name and stick with it. I don't know if you are trying to make it look like there are more Weiss allies than there are, but your writing style is pretty distinctive I wouldn't be surprised if you we're a half dozen other "people" on this site.

      Otherwise, it's pretty disturbing that Avrohom Meir Weiss is having his 4 year old son tell his dreams to a bunch of non relatives.

      Delete
    7. mordechai; is this a last ditch attempt from you to smear me and make me look like a liar you ignored all the lies i pointed out that you made and now you accuse me of using multiple names even though what you said makes no sense because if my writing style is very distinctive and that's your ''proof'' that yudi is me then how come the half a dozen others don't write the same style as me and in regard to who aryeh tells his dreams to i don't know why it's such a big deal that two people heard it

      Delete
    8. Yeah. 2 people who arent related to Weiss heard the dreams of an introverted 3-4 year old. and I addressed all of your lies. you lie, and lie, and lie.

      Delete
    9. mordecai; please tell me which ''lies" of mine you're talking about because as of now it looks like you are admitting that the kotlers ans schustals were there and you stopped denying the fact that his stroller was stolen and you finally admitted defeat on the pathetic arguement that there is no nanny and all that you can say is you can't understand how 2 people heard the same thing from a kid who likes to talk a lot

      Delete
    10. I will address only the lies in this post- just to show that you can't help yourself & have no neemonus.
      1)There were Kotlers or Schustals at the Succos incident. LIE
      2)a stroller was "stolen". LIE
      3)I "admitted defeat" on the fact that there is a nanny. LIE
      4) Aryeh Weiss is a very talkative child. LIE

      Just stop. You are making a fool out of yourself. Anyone who has ever seen this child can see he's introverted- in no small part due to his parents.

      Delete
    11. mordechai;how do you have the nerve to blatantly deny the facts if you claim you were there shragie kotler admitted he was there and you go and deny what he himself said and call me a liar instead? that itself shows how interested you are in the truth and yes the stroller was stolen and again you deny the facts claiming to be there but just because you repeat it so many times doesn't make it true as far as the nanny yes Donna puts him to sleep at night ask the dodelsons that you claim to know i'm sure they'll tell because they would never lie about anything and yes aryeh is very talkative and if you deny that you obviously never spoke to him and probably never met him so don't say he's introverted without knowing the facts

      Delete
    12. Lies in this comment:
      1)I claimed I was "there". I watched from my porch.
      2)Shragie Kotler admitted he was there. He wasn't. You claiming he "admitted it doesn't make it true, or carry any weight.
      3)The stroller was stolen. that is untrue. AMW took off like a frightened little man-child looking for someone to help him because a few people, mostly boys, yelled at him.
      4)Donna puts him to sleep at night. You may be confusing this with his grandfather- his name is Danny.
      5)Aryeh is talkative. he isnt.

      Delete
    13. mordechai;
      1)i'm sorry i was misunderstood i meant you claim to have seen it
      2)yes shragie kotler was there and yes he admitted it i don't know how you who claims to have seen it can deny he was there stop repeating these lies already
      3)the stroller was stolen and again you who claims to have seen it how you can deny the facts like this is beyond me and it was more than just a few as you like playing it down you are right that there were a few men like ari kranz neuberger shragie kotler schustal and probably some more but you'll deny that just like you denied shragie kotler being there but there were a lot more people than that
      4)no i did not mix up Donna and Danny but you who claims to know him should ask him who puts him to sleep at night i have news for you he'll say Donna
      5) yes he's very talkative when he wants to maybe he doesn't like talking to you but to me and others he talks plenty

      Delete
    14. Pursuit of HonestyJanuary 7, 2014 at 7:31 AM

      Although I never asked him about his dreams or his nanny and her dog, I've had several conversations with Aryeh Weiss... He may be introverted, but he definitely talks to people!

      Delete
    15. You may want to take that up with Shimi, pursuit. He claims that he isn't introverted at all.

      Delete
    16. Pursuit of HonestyJanuary 12, 2014 at 5:42 PM

      See my comment below where I clarify what you call a stirah!

      Delete
  20. The claim that Dodelson would have a nanny with a dog is silly. Anyone who knows Saki would realize she wouldn't even let a dog on her front lawn, let alone in her house. The source for this "SMEAR CAMPAIGN" is probably the same fellow who testified in court (falsely) that Saki smokes. I'm looking at you Yisroel. Just stop already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yisroel Weiss really said that???

      Delete
  21. If you asked me, Nanny Donna and Dudley the Dog sounds like a childrens book, or a cartoon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yekusiel; ask anyone in the dodelson family that would tell you the truth (if there is anyone) and they'll tell you she is the nanny and that's her dog's name

      Delete
    2. like I said, I live on the block and have never seen a dog on the block at all. I have seen the boys Grandfather and Great-Grandfather/Great-Grandmother watching him, probably when Gital is in school.

      Delete
    3. this arguement of yours shows nothing to deny the fact that there is a nanny and explained the whole thing about the dog higher up on this post to dovevos

      Delete
    4. Shimi, all I mean is that if all you have to go on is the word of a 4(?) year old who never had a stable family life, whose mother is in law school & whose father takes him along to shul for every minyan (which you seem to think is normal) then it's more likely the child formed a fantasy based on a book or cartoon he saw. I'm not sure what the phycologists call it, maybe DT can help out on this

      Delete
    5. yekusiel; no kids don't lie and he wasn't dreaming about dreaming about donna and duddly

      Delete
    6. Shimi, you obviously have no children. And have neever dealt with children who have grown up with trauma, Anyone who has would at least be open to the possibility that this is a manufactured reality.

      Delete
    7. Pursuit of HonestyJanuary 7, 2014 at 7:39 AM

      Yekusiel, you claim "whose father takes him along to shul for every minyan".

      I can personally testify that this is blatantly untrue!!!

      FYI, my father started taking me to shul for many of the Shabbos tefillos starting at the ripe old age of 3. I believe he did the right thing.

      Delete
    8. That was a claim of Shimmis on Dec 23. I guess Pursuit of Honesty- who must live in Staten Island & daven in the Yeshiva (& isn't related to AMW?) is testifying that Shimi lied yet again.

      Oh, & 3 is not the normal age to bring a child to Shul for "many" tefillos. At least not in any shul I've been to.

      Delete
    9. Pursuit of HonestyJanuary 8, 2014 at 4:12 PM

      Mordechai, to begin I'll point out that I live Lakewood, and no I'm not related to the AMW. I happen to know the Dodelsons, the Wiesses, and the Feinsteins since before this "shidduch" was even dreamt up of. Many of them quite well.

      I have been to the Yeshiva Staten Island community many times, including shabbosim that AMW had Aryeh by him for shabbos. AM did not bring Aryeh to all the teffilos. That was a ridiculous accusation!

      Regarding the age of 3 to begin taking your child to shul; I don't know if you are married with children, but I am. I believe when chazal say "Chanoch L'nar al pi darcho", they mean it!!!

      Delete
    10. Gee, I guess if you make a claim while not even posting your first name we should all believe you. Especially when it contradicts the claims of others who are arguing your sides arguments. Has Aryeh told you also about his dreams/realities about Donna the Nanny and Her Magic Dog Dudley?

      Delete
    11. Pursuit of HonestyJanuary 9, 2014 at 11:27 PM

      And if I would put a first name it would be better? That's still anonymous... unless you're going to put your last name to your first, and bring direct and legitimate proof of anything you say, there is no reason why you should believe anyone online!

      As far as the Nanny & her Dog: I mentioned earlier "Although I never asked him about his dreams or his nanny and her dog, I've had several conversations with Aryeh Weiss... He may be introverted, but he definitely talks to people!"

      Delete
    12. Pursuit of HonestyJanuary 9, 2014 at 11:32 PM

      And what contradictions do you refer to???

      Note: Although I don't take any responsibility for anyone else's claims, I can vouch that anything I've written is true and heard from reliable sources!

      Delete
    13. Pursuit,

      Your statements, and those of Shimi, can not both be true. He says that Aryeh spends every minute of time with his father when it is his parenting time. He said that the child is there when AMW is learning and that he takes him to shul with him "all the time". He used that to level an attack at GD for having other family members ( though he alleges its a Nanny anf Clifford the BIG RED DOG) watch Aryeh when she is not around.
      You have stated that this is not true.
      Shimi said Aryeh is "a very talkative kid"
      You said that "He may be introverted, but he definitely talks to people!"
      another stirah.

      Which one of you is telling the truth? is there a way to be meyashev this stirah?

      Delete
    14. Pursuit of HonestyJanuary 12, 2014 at 5:40 PM

      Having family members watching a child and having a Nanny doing so are very different... I can personally testify having seen AM walking the floors of YSI w/o Aryeh, on weekends that Aryeh was under his wings. (I didn't check to see if Aryeh was sitting at his seat while he was possibly getting something or going to the bathroom and was stopped on the way... or any other form of possible justification) I don't care about accusations, most of them are ridiculous! I care about facts!

      I wrote "He MAY be introverted, but he definitely talks to people!". I used the word introduced by Mordechai as possibly being true. The definition of introverted is Shy or Reserved. When a person is shy or reserved, they can still be friendly and even open to outsiders, as long as they feel comfortable with them. Therefore, Aryeh may be introverted in general, but that doesn't necessarily mean he isn't very talkative to Shimi, or just willing to talk to me! (Note: I'm not very scary to most people, although if you follow in dishonest ways of the Dodelsons & Co. I could understand why he wouldn't have any interest in speaking to you)

      Delete

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