Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Weiss Dodelson: Negotiation documents reveal the minor gap between the two sides

Update(rebutal by Dodelson supporter) http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/12/weiss-dodelson-dodelson-supporter-says.html
=========================
There  has a lot of belittling of Rabbi Greenwald's heroic efforts in negotiations by the supporters of the Dodelson's. They have also been strident in their denigration of the seriousness of the Weiss's commitment to giving Gital a get - falsely claiming that the Weiss's are constantly changing their position. In fact there has been a lot of lies and false accusations against the Weiss and Feinstein family as well as a massive corruption and abuse of rabbinic authority as seen in the invalid seruv and the halachic joke of the Kol Koreh. In fact the issues that the Dodelson's abandoned Rabbi Greenwalds carefully negotiated settlement and went to the NY Post are trivial. The reality is that Gital could have had her Get a long time ago - without all the disgusting chilul hashem. 

In order to set the record straight, the following are the actual documents of the negotiations- judge for yourselves.

42 comments :

  1. Who wrote this? Can I assume it is R Yisroel Weiss, since it is from his email? As an aside, all the documents show is that Weiss had 14 demands & Gital accepted 11 of them. Why wasn't the rest put into a consent order & signed. Has R Sholom said anything publicly about this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. & as the poster says, I have judged for myself. I see that besides the money, there are now 14 demands Weiss has for a get. (There is no evidence provided that the list is anything but that) since the Get wasn't given that day, I assume Gital no longer accepts those demands, as she clearly writes her acceptance is contingent on that.

      Delete
    2. Also, what was it about Gital's accepted terms that stopped AMW from giving a get that Friday? I find it curious that the poster (who still remains anon but expects us to accept his version of the story as fact) doesn't address that?

      Delete
    3. Besides what "money"? Not a single point or demand is for money. It turns out that claim has been false all along. Not a claim for a single penny. All the claims are simply to insure a father has access and visitation to his own son!!

      And yet Gital is still trying to limit a father's access to his son, still trying to reduced -- point-by-point -- any terms that give the father more access to his son!

      Why?

      Because as Gital wrote in her treif New York Post article -- she wants to marry someone else to replace Avrohom Meir as the boy's father.

      Her own words directly and unabashedly written in the NY Post.

      Delete
    4. Dov Brecher; thank you for sticking up for the truth

      Delete
  2. Why is this such a major issue to you? I mean, I haven't seen you focus on the agunah issue in other cases. Is it because of the high ranking of the Rabbis involved that you disagree with?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People like Rav Doniel Eidensohn and his brother as well as many many others in Klal Yisroel such as myself who have zero connection to any of the parties in this terrible case, see this as a major issue and are terribly bothered by it because of the railroading by the Dodelson against the Weiss's. They have railroaded halacha and demanded something they are not entitled to. And they have initiated a worldwide shmutz war against a Torah Mishpacha and Gedolei Yisroel such as Rav Dovid and Rav Reuven Feinstein.

      Such a Chillul Hashem and disgrace of Halacha should bother every single Jew.

      Delete
    2. aside from agreeing with Ben Torah's comment - you obviously haven't been reading this blog very long. Look into the extensive coverage of the Friedman Epstein case

      Delete
    3. The extensive discussion about this and other cases is related to the fundamental larger issues that will affect klal yisroelfor generations to come

      Delete
    4. I read this blog on and off. I remember the epstein/friedman case having a lot of coverage, but mostly you going on and on about a forced get being pasul. This case just seems like your point of a forced get being pasul is a side point and you are, for some reason, trying to prove that the situation is all dodelson's fault. Again, you did this in the epstein/friedman case as well, but the main focus was the halacha aspect and the side point was that you thought it as epstein's fault. Here, you are trying really hard, day after day, to show that it is dodelson's fault, without much of a halachic point.

      Delete
    5. Here, too like Epstein, Dodelson is trying to force a Get with halachicly impermissible pressure.

      Delete
  3. This document finally PUTS TO LIE the false claims spread by Gital in her trashy NY Post article and spread by the Dodelson clan that the Weiss' have been demanding any money -- let alone $350,000 in cash.

    This ENTIRE dispute resolves around the custody, visitation and upbringing of their son. (And considering that halacha grants a boy 6 years or older to the custody of the father, really, Weiss shouldn't negotiate and should simply demand his full halachic right to custody from age six and on. Otherwise he'll get his heter meah, remarry, while Gital can pick up her Ger once she starts following halacha.)

    Another Dodelson lie buried.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Superintendant ChalmersDecember 17, 2013 at 4:36 AM

      Is there any bais din in the world that will do what you are suggesting - grant a heter meah and not allow (!) the wife to pick up the get??? You are living in fantasy land ..

      Delete
    2. Of course. After a Heter Meah Rabbonim the husband deposits a Get in Beiss Din. (BTW, the Beis Din chosen for the Heter and to hold the Get is exclusively chosen by the husband and can even be an "ad hoc" beis din he composed of any three dayanim of his choice.) And the Beis Din has the right to hold on to the Get it has until the wife complies with the demands the beis din make on her. Until then she wont be allowed to collect the Get.

      Delete
  4. It also shows point blank that Gital is denying AMW a normal relationship with his father. There is no excuse for her not letting them skype with each other three times a week for 45 minutes..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gitals vindictivenessDecember 17, 2013 at 10:43 AM

      Excellent point and to add to it why is it such a big deal to her if the child goes with the father at 12 pm on Fridays when there is no school? Tje only logical reAson seems to be her poisonous vindictive attitude. It seems she needs a major attitude-readjustment. I cant imagine any normal healthy value-focused man wanting to date much less marry a woman who conductted a slash and burn divorce campaign in this way .

      Delete
    2. of course there are good reasons not to garantee the father that he can skype 3 times 45 minutes.

      What if the child does not want?

      What if they plan other activities?

      Delete
    3. Gitals vindictivenessDecember 17, 2013 at 11:28 AM

      Well - Your points are beyond silly. If a child has a good relationship with a parent of course he will want contact. The Rabbi Greenwald agreement allows for contact and requires the mother to make the child available. it is not a lot of time and ceratinly could be flexibly planned for the childs other activities.

      Delete
    4. My husband likes to read mussar , hashkafa and midrashim to my boys each nite.. that could easily be 45 minutes. If the child does not want that is fine but for her to point blank say that it is not allowed is totally not acceptable. There is no good reason for that. They can always reschedule if there are other activities planned. AMW wants to be mechanech his son. Just because Gital decided that the marriage was not for her does not mean that things can't be as they should be. signed, an adult who suffered from my parent's bitter divorce.. who sees almost constantly how my almost 30 year old brother suffers because my father was determined that my mother get the most minimal visitation (2 hrs each week and every other shabbos).. another thing, we keep reading that since the civil court decided X that means that it's what is right is just laughable. My parents got divorced due to the fact that my father was guilty of spousal and child abuse (with black and blues and witnesses!) and because there was no real evidence and he had a powerful lawyer he got full custody.. the law guardian for us kids actually thought that I was brainwashed! that is beyond funny. Family court is all about who has the most money and muscle and manipulation talents.. it's mindboggling how so many people are just so naive.

      Delete
    5. Gitals vindictivenessDecember 17, 2013 at 11:33 AM

      Also regular substantive communication between both parents and the child at least several times a week is according to the most basic common sense extraodinarily important and healthyfor a childs emotional social educational psychological and spiriitual development.

      Delete
    6. Well -- since you advocate denying the child his father if the child supposedly "does not want" to talk to his father, surely you will similarly support taking the child away from his mother if, as you said, the child "does not want" to be with his mother.

      Delete
  5. I am confused by this.

    1) Who wrote the introductory paragraphs? I assume someone on the Weiss side?

    2) The document dated 15 Nov. indicates Ms. Dodelson's acceptance except for the amount of time on Skype which really seems minor and the weekday overnights in point 1 which the introduction said Weiss accepted. The note on point 4 although saying they don't expect him to go to SI every time it still leaves it up to the father. However, the agreement is contingent on a get being given that day. So why wasn't it given? Surely it wasn't because they couldn't find a beit din or sofer.
    If they are still fighting over a few minutes of Skype time four years from now, the child should be given to a loving adoptive family so his parents can't play tug-of-war over him any more. Either one should have just given in on that point if it is all that separates them. Somehow I imagine (hope?) there is more to the story than this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike S.; what about 8 and 14 which she doesn't agree to unlike weiss who gave up on skype aned other things as long as she keeps her part of the deal about 1 8 and 14 now you decide who is giving in and who isn't, and who is at fault for this still going on

      Delete
    2. Well, the introductory paragraphs which seem to be written by someone on the Weiss side said he accepted her proposal for 1. 8 and 14 just say "Accepted" on her document, so I don't know what you are talking about.

      Delete
  6. stating the obviousDecember 17, 2013 at 7:05 AM

    Leaking this info is highly counterproductive. This doesn't help end the conflict anymore than the ny post article

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point of this "leak" is likely to show everyone that this whole mess is stupid, and that anyone who can put some pressure on the Dodelsons to 'just get it over with already', should try to do so.
      This machlokes has been dragging on for way too long, and needs to stop. AMW, and his father and uncle as well, are all UNEMPLOYED, courtesy of the 'smear campaign' (R Shmuel Kaminetzky's words). EVERYTHING needs to end, and now that everyone sees how ridiculous the true obstruction is, maybe everyone can just be convinced to just end it all, once and for all.
      גענוג שוין, enough is enough.

      Delete
    2. yy; absolutely correct everyone should put pressure on the dodelsons to stop with this smear campaign that is only holding up the get and not getting it any quicker and as we see the get is not their concern they probably don't even want it because if they get a get they can't harass him anymore

      Delete
  7. This is not the whole agreement. That is section II or III on custody.

    Where is section I, what is it about?

    To be clear: I think you are hiding the 350'000$

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As easily seen in Saki Dodelson's own email from Nov 15, as well as the attached proposed agreement, this is the entirety of the agreement and demands.

      There is no money component.

      The so-called money demand has been nothing other than a figment of the very vivid imaginations of Gital through her hired Public Relations hitwoman Shira Dicker and the article they put in the NY Post.

      Delete
    2. "The so-called money demand has been nothing other than a figment of the very vivid imaginations..."

      But, interestingly enough, the blog-owner and many commentators spoke out in favor of this money-demand.

      They did not deny it existed, they stated AMW was entitled to the money...

      Delete
    3. well; just because it was made up doesn't mean it would be wrong so you are wrong about this on two fronts first it's made up and second even if it wasn't he has a right to demand it

      Delete
    4. Correct! AMW is correctly owed many thousands of dollars by Gital and Co. for the legal costs she incurred him.

      However, Gital and Co. haven't been denying it, all they did was use it as a convincing point to the public that AM is bad guy. Therefore there is no reason it would be mentioned in the Mediators list.

      They agreed to pay it!

      Delete
  8. Gitals vindictivenessDecember 17, 2013 at 12:05 PM

    With such a small gap between the two sides, the Doodlesons decided to take their case to the court of non- Jewish yellow journalism in the NY POST?! And tow get two rabbonim fired from their jobs at artscroll?! And to create a fraudulent kol koreh?! This is what Lakewod-Kotler Torah has become?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I ask the same question, but the other way. The Weiss's gave up their positions at Artscroll over Skype?

      Delete
    2. Should a father have a significant role in bringing up his son? In-person is better than Skype, but Skype is better than nothing. Dodelson refusal is just representative of their determination to prevent the child from having a meaningful relationship with his father.

      Delete
    3. Actually, the way the Dodelson's operate is that they promise it is only skype that they want removed, but as soon as AM agrees they tell him the next item they want removed from the agenda. I think it has been made abundantly clear that the Dodelson's cannot be trusted to uphold their end of any agreement. Perhaps this post and the ensuing publicity will convince them that their tactics to strip AM of his relathionship with his son have been exposed and they should work on encouraging Gital to create a working relationship with AM, so that their son can some normalcy in his life

      Delete
    4. insider; thanks for publicizing the truth and showing who is being unreasonable

      Delete
  9. @Nat Sower - "This ENTIRE dispute resolves around the custody, visitation and upbringing of their son" - Great point you made here.

    In many of the high profile "Orthodox" divorce cases, vindictive women are trying to wreak vengeance on their husbands the best ways they can - by crushing the husbands financially and severing their relationships with their beloved children.

    Then the feminist YU ORA - Shira Dicker mob is brought in to create a fake "agunah" poster girl and portray the wife as the innocent victim of a malicious husband.

    The Get is simply a powerful PR club being wielded in the public arena against the husbands to force them to surrender to all their wives' demands. In truth the Get is not usually the issue at all, but it very effectively mobilizes the feminist sheeple against the husbands.

    ReplyDelete
  10. “D. P. Moynihan”December 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM

    As Gital demonstrates very clearly in the New York Post article and in the interview with the Time of Israel, this case isn't really about Gital's get.
    This case is about establishing the principle that a mother has the right to terminate a marriage under any circumstances at any time for any reason or no reason at all and be entitled to an unconditional get, regardless of issues of custody or marital property.
    The case is also about establishing the absolute moral right for a mother to walk out of a marriage (and of course to unilaterally relocate the children with her, as some posters on this blog have advocated). Leaving or staying in a marriage, regardless of the circumstances, are two equally valid choices that any mother may make at any point in time for any reason or no reason at all.
    This case is about establishing the principle that no mother should feel any obligation or pressure to work on her marriage, regardless of the circumstances, if she doesn’t want to.
    This case is about establishing that the Orthodox community must get with the times and adopt the very worst of the 1960’s counterculture attitudes towards marriage and children. The case is about establishing that the centuries-old observant Jewish community’s negative attitude towards divorce and children is not only obsolete but also very wrong because no woman should ever feel any moral obligation or family and or communal pressure to try to make a marriage work if at any point she doesn’t want to, because that would be stifling and against the mother’s human rights. (To the contrary, communal pressure is only appropriate for fathers (and their families) who decline to give unconditional gets regardless of the circumstances including international child abduction.)
    And, this case is about completely disregarding as irrelevant the interests of children, who are far better off if parents can make their marriages work, and are even generally better off (absent exceptional circumstances such as violence) if their parents remain in unhappy marriages instead of divorcing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. DPM yasher koach for your eloquent accurate comments

    ReplyDelete
  12. I haven't seen an answer to Mike S.'s question, i.e., who wrote the introductory paragraphs? Because Rav Eidensohn/ DT posted this material on Scribd, my first thought was that these were his comments. However, the claim that the Gedolim [who signed the Kol Koreh] "must have been misled," and that "The Chillul Hashem was made by someone misusing the Gedolim's words," seems inconsistent with Rav Eidensohn's characterization of the Kol Koreh as "halachic nonsense" and "a massive corruption and abuse of rabbinic authority." It seems also hard to claim that "someone [was] misusing the Gedolim's words," when the pressure on the Weiss family was well within a reasonable reading of the Kol Koreh.

    It also seems the conclusion of the introductory portion, that in the writer's personal view, R' AMR should "give the get NOW, period," lest his refusal "[give] someone an opportunity to disgrace the name of Hashem, the frum world, and the Feinstein's and Kotler's names ... causing hurt and loss to innocent people and organizations," is problematic both because (a) as I understood Rav Eidensohn's position, a get given in response to such pressure, absent a ruling by a valid beit din that R' AMR is obligated to give it, would be of doubtful validity, or even prima facie void; and (b) it would set a bad precedent, effectively saying that whether or not a wife is halachically entitled to a get, if she makes enough noise and creates enough embarrassment, the get will be given. It seems that in debating the "he said, she said" of this particular case, people are losing sight of the larger issue. Rav Eidensohn, would you clarify?

    ReplyDelete

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