Thursday, April 24, 2014

Schlesinger Twins: Beth accuses Michael of illegally forging her signature for financial gain

 update - contrast of documents increased for easier reading
Beth has a number of allegations concerning wrong doing by Michael. I don't have an independent way to verify these claims - so I am simply presenting them as is. I am relying on Beth's reliable and consistently honest reporting of events so far. But to keep this as objective as possible I am also inviting Michael to explain and justify what he did with a guest post. Thus this post is not to decide whether Michael has done anything wrong - but it simply is adding to the total - consistent picture - of an incompetent (?) secular system and failure of the Jewish community to properly support both sides to reach a fair resolution.

The allegations do involve issues in Jewish as well as secular law. For example according to halacha a wife's earnings technically belong to the husband. But that is assuming that the husband is supporting the wife. Furthermore I am not aware of a heter to use forgery to acquire money - even if the money is rightfully his. (In fact I received a psak from Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky that forgery is not permitted in such a case).

Beth's point - that this is against secular law - yet Beth allegest that this is another example of the secular courts favoring Michael at her expense
===========================================
Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,

I hope you are well and had a lovely Chag.

It seems the maintenance posting has stirred up a lot of strong emotions. Perhaps this would be an opportune time to release the information below now?

Kol tuv,
Beth

=========================================

If you have the right connections and know how to play the system, it seems there's no end to what you can get away with in Vienna.

People are horrified that I am being extorted for maintenance payments now we are divorced, yet while I was still married to Dr Schlesinger he forged my signature to get my child benefits paid into his account. From September 2009 to February 2010 he deceitfully received a total of 4,080 Euros until I realized how he'd betrayed me. I was too busy caring for my newborn babies to suspect anything at the time.

I was also to discover that all our joint savings - over 50,000 Euro - he had secured in an account in his name alone, leaving me virtually penniless after I had saved up scrupulously and contributed my salaries from the 2 jobs I had to 'our' savings account.

He even spent the money we received at the Bris in presents for the boys and didn't put it away for them.

My lawyer reported him to the police on 5.11.2012 for the forgery - a blatant criminal act - but they dropped all charges.

When I cited the forgery as evidence in the divorce court, his defense was that I told him to do it! Even if I had (which of course I hadn't), it's still illegal to forge someone's signature, even your spouse!

The form with his forgery is below together with an application with my signature. The handwriting is clearly different. I always sign 'B.Alexander', he forged 'Beth Alexander'.

============================
Beth's genuine signature- outlined in blue


The signature on this document is clearly different from that on the above document. Beth alleges that her signature was forged in this document.
page 1

page 2 - forged signature circled in red


110 comments :

  1. The Schlesinger twins and many other Jewish children need to be rescued from this violent and dangerous country.

    Rabbi eidensohn, please can you put out an appeal to organize kinder transport out of Austria and find families in the civilized world who will take in these suffering children currently being exposed to this cultish and abusive society.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If he forged her signature, she should take him to court. Under Austrian law, it is not permissible to forge signatures.

    Did she take him to court?

    If not: why does the blog author assert that the *cvivil system" is "incompetent".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Patience it would really help if you took the trouble to read before you attack me.

      Beth wrote above "My lawyer reported him to the police on 5.11.2012 for the forgery - a blatant criminal act - but they dropped all charges."

      Delete
    2. This is THE QUESTION: why are charges dropped and appeals denied THE MOMENT THE NAME SCHLESINGER TWINS COMES UP? What's going on in Vienna - with the police and the courts?

      Delete
    3. @Patience, take the time to read the post before try and refute it. In addition, hiding behind an anonymous username without a link or email address is pitiful. If you can't stand behind your statement, ask yourself if you should be making it.

      Delete
    4. Doesn't Michael Schlesinger have a conscious. Can he call himself a good citizen, a good Jew and a good father?

      Is'nt he going to defend himself, although what defence can their be? Is he going to call Beth a liaras well as evil?

      Delete
    5. Terminology clarificationApril 24, 2014 at 9:03 PM

      The point being made by "Patience" was that this is a failure of the criminal justice system, not the civil justice system.

      Criminal justice refers to the formal process by which individuals are investigated and prosecuted by the state. Civil justice refers to private cases brought by persons (whether natural or legal persons) against other persons (whether natural or legal persons).

      The point "Patience" was making is that Beth could have brought a private civil case again her ex-husband. But that's like throwing good money after bad money given how the ex-husband has (with help) clearly manipulated the court system. Beth has instead focused on the need to ensure her children are safe, which is highly commendable and clearly juxtaposes with her ex-husband's behaviour.

      But the fact Beth has (rightly) not taken civil (private) legal action against her ex-husband does not make his deeds any less outrageous. His behaviour in this point appears entirely consistent with his behaviour in all other aspects: namely outrageous.

      Let's be less concerned about terminology and more concerned about those poor children who so desperately need their mother.

      I just hope it's not too late to undo the psychological damage this sorry incident is having on the children. Michael: surely you can see this and swallow your pride (and ignore the malicious ideas your mother and your guru are feeding you).

      Delete
    6. By guru. Can we take it that you mean certain unscrupulous religious leaders in Vienna,: who have another agenda rather than
      the welfare of two innocent
      bereaved children.

      The sad thing is their mother is
      not dead, but very much alive
      capable and ready to give them all
      the love they yearn for.

      There is such an easy remedy to kick start their failing development. Give them to their mother. They have suffered enough now!

      Delete
    7. she did. and what do you think happened? she lost

      Delete
    8. she did. and what do you think happened? she lost

      Delete
  3. I have little doubt that the courts are corrupt in Austria. They aren't any better in Brooklyn. The hysteria this case has generated would not be misplaced if these same people posting here would equally protest against the corrupt NY and NJ courts. But I doubt seriously this will ever happen. Calling for kinder transport out of Austria should equally apply to Brooklyn. Where are all the cries to help the victims of arkooys in brooklyn? When was there ever a protest held against the corrupt rabbis there?
    Why only vienna? What about the US ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan, you are right. Unfortunately, progress is only made by highlighting blatant injustices in individual cases like this one. Please create blogsites for as many of the corrupt injustices as you can find in nj and ny and then share like mad on social media. Only then would we have a chance to make a change. Go for it stan, we're right behind you!

      Delete
  4. Nothing but a thug, in fact a mini mafia!!

    Actually on second thoughts - the whole of Vienna seems to be one big Mafia

    ReplyDelete
  5. Beth is a British citizen who was brought up by a well respected family in a caring community. She is well educated having gone to one of the
    best Universities in England and had
    she not married, would have attended
    Columbia, one of the top universities in
    the USA. Instead she made sacrifices!

    Beth has excellent character reference
    s and has endeared herself to
    supporters worldwide.

    What is not being explained and needs to be is why Beth is being treated in such an abominable way.

    It seems clear that Michael has wronged her in so many ways
    including taking money from her in the
    most dubious circumstances!

    Not only has he robbed her of large sums of money and now expects her
    to pay more to pay for substitute
    mothering by phillopinos, he has also
    robbed her of her children.

    What maked it so much worse is that no amount of money can ever give the children what Beth can!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Where does New York come into this?We want answers about Schlesinger and this individual case please!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow- so he admitted the forgery in court while denying that there was anything wrong with it?!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh my, Michael Schlesinger has a lot to answer for!

    His poor sons! What a father to grow up with!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Honour, because that court is just as corrupt!!! as long as there is no hard evidence of abuse an abuser can get custody of their kids and use the get as extortion in order to take custody and any real monetary rights from the woman.. this happened to my mother!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Honour NY state comes in because there are many parents destroyed in NY by the courts and yet I havent heard you protesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan, please take your irrelevant comments to a different blogsite. Whilst I'm sure your cause is formidable, it has no place here. There are other more suitable forums for your comments, elsewhere on the internet.

      Delete
  11. I can't help in every case. Each case is individual. What gets me that no one is actually putting up any good defence for Michael SSchlesinger. How on eartg did he get custody?

    The only form of defence is attack!

    Never mind about the parents. The children were taken from their mother's breast for no good reason!

    How are the little boys? Does anyone
    really know?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Elsewhere please take your comments elsewhere. Unless you believe only Beth is a victim and no one else

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. stan, do you have individual names for the cases you feel need addressing? Would you be able to put up an equivalent amount of evidence as has been done here to convince people in the cases you refer to?

      The case of the Schlesinger twins is very important and must be discussed on its own merits without being bundled in with other similar-yet-different cases.



      Delete
    2. Perhaps Stan you could tell us a case which you feel is similar to the Schlesinger case with children that are showing such trauma
      that they are unable to speak at 5 They are well below par in
      accordance with other children of
      their age.

      These children were brutally
      taken away from their perfectly fit
      mentally stable, very capable,
      and loving mother. No proof to
      say otherwise!

      She was given professional psychological tests, but the
      father children were not at the
      time, or since to show the
      deterioration that has happened
      during the three years that the
      boys have been in the father's
      care!

      The boys are now being brought
      up by Philopino maids. We don't
      know what psychiatric tests they
      have had, or seen their references or know what
      language they speak, or even
      know if they are legally working in Austria!
      Also? why, indeed, the courts have approved them as surrogate
      mother for Sammy and Benji!

      In the USA don't the Authorities
      do more checks on immigrants
      and their employers? Isn't it
      punishable to employ people
      without proper authorisation?

      I could go on but
      do any cases that you aresuggesting we support run
      parallels with this one with what I have mentioned so far?




      Delete
  13. As a matter of fact, Beth is not yet legally divorced, contrary to what she states here. How can we believe then anything else she is telling us...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a matter of fact, Beth is divorced in Jewish law, she received the Get a long time ago. How can we believe the lies you, Sarah, flower, bubbe and other names you have invented, when you have repeatedly made allegations that have been proven wrong time and time again???

      Delete
    2. Esther LowensteinApril 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM

      And ironically, you've called yourself "Fact", while simultaneously lying. Just because the Austrian civil divorce has not yet taken place doesn't mean the Get is negated. Get your facts right before you post any more rubbish! It's most interesting to note that those who are proven liars on this blog re Beth and the twins are certain to be - in almost all cases - members of the father's family. Beth's supporters do not write in the tone any of you use. You are all instantly identifiable. And .. you are the people the court awarded the children to. One may conclude the Vienna family court does not rate honesty highly - only lies. An appalling state of affairs, especially for the boys, who are not being brought up by people who are good role models to them.

      Delete
  14. It's clear from this unscrupulous behaviour that Beth has (and had) no rights in her husband's eyes. To steal her money and then remove the kids - its all one questionable pattern. So unjust that the courts also don't recognise Beth's rights and the children's needs

    ReplyDelete
  15. Who is the person/people who can manipulate the police (as we read above) the Courts, the Social Services, just about any official body, to do wrongdoings against a loving mother and her children.

    Why would all this be done for this one wicked man.

    Bad people have got bad reasons to act in such a bad way.

    Just what are those bad actions for.

    Why are those children not flourishing on a par with other children of their age.

    Why is the outside world standing back.

    This case has to be referred to the EU without delay, and the EU has to deal with it promptly for the sake of the children.

    Horrible things are not new to Austria!!

    Mr Liddington has to act, in certain circumstances diplomacy has to come second when children have to be saved from a life that is not good for them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes Diplomacy is definitely needed here.

    The court has made a decision but no
    one is publising the reason. If it is in
    the father's favour he should publish to clarify why the Court favoured him
    over Beth for custody!

    They may have thought that the farher could satisfy the boys needs, but
    it is now proven that this is not the case as the boys are severely developmently delayed. This was
    something that Beth was blamed for
    when the children were two.

    At two the boys did not speak the required no of words in accordance
    with the text book. However, when
    they were in Beth's loving care they
    had pearly white teeth and they were
    progressing slowly but surely.

    After being Now ripped from her care and now five they do not talk, behave
    like zombies, showing characteristics of depressed children, who have been
    conditioned and suppressed!

    The boys seem to have a spark after being in Beth's care for the few hours
    she has them each week and then
    quickly revert when taken away from her!

    Beth has to now to be given the opportunity to help these two little
    boys, because despite therapies and
    such like they may have received,
    nothing is helping them.
    .
    Why is the father and the courts so against mother?

    Cusody laws have been reformed in Great Britain and Wales this week for good reasons.

    Perhaps Austria should look at theirs to gain public confidence!

    In the meantime, Mr Liddington needs to be asking serious questions
    regarding how Beth is being treated
    regarding her contact with her sons
    and the high maintenance being
    demanded.

    Most important is the safeguardimg and welfare of the children, which needs urgently addressing!



    It is a calamity that the father, the court, nor the Jewish community in Austria do not see what is clearly in front of their eyes that Sammy and Benji need their mother and should not be denied this right.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Enjoining your comments as usual. I expected a little bit more. Hopefully next week. Have a great shabbes;-) the children will definitly have without their mental mother......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @cc Dr. Schlesinger's supporters obviously take delight in hearing in great detail the "wonderful" things that Dr. Schlesinger has done. I hope not to disappoint you/Michael next week with additional revelations.

      Your great hatred of Beth certainly is more important then the welfare of the children or you would be aware of how much they love her and how much they have suffered by the program of keeping her out of their lives..

      Delete
  18. Are the boys going to Shul over Shabbat?
    Is there a children's service where they will be joining in?
    Are they going to be invited for Friday
    night and Shabbat lunch?
    Will they be playing with other children?
    Who will light the Shabbat candles
    with them?
    Can they recite The Shema?

    Perhaps next week Cofetz Chaim you,
    or your accomplices can give us some
    insights about the boys!
    Shabbat Shalom

    ReplyDelete
  19. What do i care where the children are on shabbes? What colour underwear do you have? How many times did you go on the toilet today and did you recite shema on the 23 of march 2002?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chofetz Chaim
      What sort of moron are you?
      You say the children will have a good Shabbos without their
      mental mother, but when I ask
      how they will be spending it
      you spill out a load of abuse!

      Michael Schlesinger how can you say you are a caring
      father?

      Time to admit you are using the children as weapons against Beth, who for some
      reason you have pure hatred
      for.


      Calm down and atart being sensible for the sake of two little boys who suffered
      enough trauma. Now is the
      time to start the repair.

      You must want the best for the boys and don't want them to
      be trapped in their own little
      worlds forever?

      The boys need help and you know it. You have tried for three years to help them but nothing has worked.

      You need now to be sensible and to swallow some pride.

      Happy to talk further.

      Shabbat Shalom
      Shabbat Shalom

      Delete
    2. You didnt answer my questions?

      Delete
    3. The questions that Rachel Levy have asked are quite normal things that happen in a normal families.

      What else would the children do on Shabbat?

      Rachel's questions deserve sensible answers, not the rubbish
      that "Chofetz Chaim" has written!

      Delete
    4. @CC you obviously are a very sick person. You don't even pretend to be interested in the twins - but just to criticize Beth and others who are trying to help.

      Delete
    5. Esther LowensteinApril 27, 2014 at 4:01 AM

      CC, as you can only be either the father himself or else his sister - the boys' aunt - I'm utterly amazed to note you don't give a damn about where the twins are on shabbes. There is nobody else who writes here in this tone so it would be impossible to conclude that you are an impartial observer. You are obviously very deeply involved in this whole sad story. Perhaps you should look at what the father's lawyer writes on his behalf: she claims - in his name - that his family is doing their utmost to help the children to thrive. BUT YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THEM! I think the lawyer should be telling Judge Göttllicher that!

      Delete
  20. Every case is not exactly the same. I am very well aware of a case where the father was prevented attending his sons bris when a fake order of protection was put in place just before the bris then lifted without objection at the next court hearing, where the father was falsely accused of molestation which was found completely unfounded and then prevented from overnight visitation and made to jump through a million hoops for two and a half years and who spent almost two hundred thousand USD thereby pauperizing the father on this nonsence all the while while the plaintiff mother was allowed to get away with hiding her very disturbing psychiatric records. The judge also threatened the father that if he used a, name for the child whose bris he was excluded from that was not that given by the maternal grandfather (the mother was too "ill" to attend the bris he would lise the rights to see any of his children. Mother after finally being exposed as having no reason for her parental alienation and preventing overnights and false molestation allegations awarded full custody and full child support and tuition which is in excess of cost of supporting not only children and cost of their schooling but also cost of mother's living expenses. Father owes over $200k for legal expenses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan, is there a dedicated blogsite for the case you mention? Like http://helpbeth.org

      Delete
  21. Blog the person is afraid to put it up at this point. And anyone naive to think the rabbis in NY or NJ care anymore than in Vienna are very naive. They couldn't care less.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan, no one is going to back an anonymous publicity campaign. Helpbeth deserves all of our assistance because she has published under her own name and everyone who knows her has given her (and her family) glowing character references.

      I suggest you go back to the person suffering in ny/nj and see what direction they wish their campaign to take. In the meantime, it is simply clouding the issue of Beth and the twins when you post your comments here.

      Thanks for your understanding.

      Delete
    2. Stan wont' back Beth, she is... well a woman. Stan has said, right here on this blog, that spousal abuse is a myth cooked up by feminists wanting to take from there husbands.

      Beth is a woman. She wants full custody of the children(Stan has said that such should never be the case). She is going to want maintenance in raising the children(Stan has said that should never be the case). She is going to want to remarry(Stan has said that in any case where a woman goes to secular court, such as Beth has, her Get is possul so she can't). She will want to have more children(Stan has said that given the above such children will be mamzerim).

      Stan is just here trolling for Two torahs(one for women in which they are denied the rights given them under halakha) and the one for men(in which they are allowed to ignore any halakha they want in order to persecute their (ex)wives).

      Make no mistake Stan is a Michael Schlessinger supporter, he is just being crafty in how he is attempting to go about it.

      Delete
  22. I heard the boys were not in shul over Pesach. How sad. Where were they?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You obviously went to the wrong shul. Maybe eisenbergs church?
      I definitly saw them. They looked very cute. Both with ties in the same colour like their father.

      Delete
    2. @Naomi rosenzweig

      So Naomi, you saw them in shul then, have the children had a decent haircut yet?

      Now Naomi, who are people going to believe, Local Viennese or naomi rosenzweig. hmmm I would go for Local Viennese telling the truth, and not believe somebody who insults the Chief Rabbi of Austria.

      Naomi you are not fit to walk into a church or a shul.

      Delete
    3. Naomi
      Isn't Rabbi Eisenberg the Chief Rabbi of Vienna? You are certainly Vienese and know the children very well to know their where abouts.

      Why are you so disrespectful?

      Why are we only told how the boys look that they are neat and tidy. What about how they really are!

      Delete
    4. Esther LowensteinApril 27, 2014 at 4:16 AM

      Naomi Rosenzweig is not a credible individual. In fact she/he has a reputation for lack of respect for the Chief Rabbi and for generally distorting facts. WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVE, NAOMI? I can not remember you ever posting any positive remarks and so it can easily be concluded that you, like Chofetz Chaim, must be a member of the Schlesinger family. Can you tell us what your contribution to the children's upbringing is? The judge was told recently that the whole family is doing an enormous amount to help them. Are you the one who has enabled them to speak so well? Or did you perhaps nappy-train them so early? Maybe you were the one who gave them bottles of sweet milk when they were screaming at night from the trauma of being separated from their beloved mother....?? And then you had to take them secretly to a Jewish dentist you knew so the community wouldn't find out the reason for their having those important teeth for learning to speak pulled out so brutally...? Naomi Rosenzweig - tell us what else you do for the boys that the lawyer was referring to in the father's name...

      Delete
    5. I can not respect a rabi who is playing poker on friday night as it was written recently in the newspaper nor can i respect a person like you who is attaking people without knowing whats realy going on

      Delete
    6. Naomi, you make some crazy allegations. Please can you present the link to the article that accuses this rabbi of playing poker on Friday night.

      Which newspaper was it? If you can't back up your serious allegations then you have committed a very grave sin of motsei shem ra. Why would you try to destroy a rabbi using lies?

      Delete
    7. @ naomi rosenzweig

      So naomi, tell us, what is really going?

      Delete
    8. Naomi let's see fhe newspaper to back up your claims!

      Delete
    9. Of course i will send you the link ofd the newspaper. But first i would like to see some written evidence (of course not from beth) from the court for example the court decission why beth didnt get the children and an evidence that michael was not tested by a psychologist (because he was like beth) and please also publish the statement of the jugendamt where its written that michael let beth seeingvthe children but she rather stayed in england for 2 months. So ask betb to publish this. if she will not i will do it and that will be very emberressing for her

      Delete
    10. So Naomi, basically, you are saying you don't have the newspaper article! You are quite happy to make highly slanderous remarks about your Chief Rabbi (Eisenberg) and not prepared to tell us the public link on a website to back up your claim.

      Go crawl back into your cave with the rest of your animal friends.

      Delete
  23. Stan I find the case you mention very sad.
    How do think anyone can help?
    Shabbat Shalom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul, stan is not credible as can be seen above. He is just a troll.

      Delete
  24. Seious questions that need addressing

    1) Why did Michael see it more important to leave his newly born
    children in the care of his wife, who
    had just given birth and had a painful
    cesarean to cope with two distressed
    children?

    It is the duty of the mohel to revisit
    after a Brit and the husband to support
    his wife! In this case Michael was not
    only a husband, but also a doctor.
    What could have been more important
    than his children? Normally a drop of
    kiddush wine or a bit of calpol is
    sufficient to releave the discomfort
    after a Brit. Beth was correct in asking
    for help. Why was it used against her
    by her husband and a non Jewish
    judge?

    2) why did Michael try to get
    Beth certified when it is clear that there
    is nothing wrong with her mental
    health?
    (Professional Reports prove)

    3) Why was Beth blamed for the fact
    that the boys didn't speak 200 words
    by the age of two?

    4) Why after Michael was given un
    supervised visiting for 18 months was
    the decision reversed by the jidge and
    he given full and immediate custody?

    5) Why is Beth's contact with the boys
    so restricted. She has always been allowed unsupervised visits, so
    clearly there is no reason why she
    can't see her boys more, and have
    overnight stays!

    Why is Michael paying phillopinos to sleep in whilst he is on night duty?

    6) why is Beth barred from knowing any thing about the boys regarding their education health and welfare.
    She is not even told their favourite food

    7) why is Beth not given more information which could be of benefit
    to the boys?


    8) Why is Beth being demanded to pay such high maintenance, well above
    her means?

    9) What reasons are being given for the boys constant need for teeth
    removal over the three years they have
    been with the father?

    10) Why are the boys so
    developmentally delayed?

    11) Where are the assessments giving reaons?

    12) what is being done to help them? Why is Beth not being informed so that
    she can asist and reinforce even
    during the limited time she is with
    them?

    What will happen to them when they shortly become school age and are not uo to entering mainstream school?

    12) why is more being done to prevent
    Beth of having proper contact with her
    children, than is being done to help
    these clearly very disturbed and
    developmentally delayed children?


    13) How can the father or court be
    sure that the children would not be
    doing better in their mother's care.

    It is evident that they are doing badly
    in the father's custody?

    Mr. Liddington please address these questions, although the list is not
    exhausted, for the sake welfare and
    future of the children, not
    withstanding that there has been a
    clear miscarriage of justice in this case!



    ReplyDelete
  25. Serious questions,

    Your words should also be addressed to as many newspaper editors as possible. They should publish your words to thousands of readers out there.

    People outside Austria should be made aware worldwide, that Austria is not just beautiful mountains and scenery.

    Rabbi Biderman, take note of the above, look what you have connected yourself too by protecting and honouring this man. You walk around Vienna with your black hat and dapper suits saying your Baruch Hashems. Let people hear you say Baruch Hashem lets speedily help return Sammy and Benji to their mother. If not, there should be no place for you in Chabad. You would just be a FAKE!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Esther LowensteinApril 27, 2014 at 4:29 AM

    Rabbi Biederman - expert on child development! Would love to know where you got your degree in that, Rabbi B! The man who's given the privilege by the family court in Vienna to give evidence on how children are doing and is then believed by the naive judge! But how could you possibly be so pretentious, Rabbi B, as to think you could get away with such tomfoolery? Had you pre-arranged it with the judge in the community and the judge on the case? No way would a rabbi be regarded as a child development expert if he didn't have at least a Master's degree in it - in an honest, fair, unbiased court. And no cheating - by asking the kindergarten director to comment! A court witness has to have seen something for him- or herSELF. You infringed the law - as a witness AND the judge accepted it! Corruption in all directions. Pfui!

    ReplyDelete
  27. As the Director of the Chabad Kindergarten and The Lauder Business School in Vienna you would Rabbi Biderman could be trusted!

    In his statement to the court Rabbi Biderman commented on the psychological state of the boys, when he was unqualified to do so and one ofthe children was sekf harming. Rabbi Biderman complained bitterly that he
    waa being harrases by Rabbis around the world.

    We have not heard fron him then, or since as to how the boys are doing
    educationally and what his plan is for
    the boys, as they are so far behind in
    their speech and development to move
    up into mainstream school!

    Rabbi Biderman needs to be required to answer!

    Another serious question that needs addressing Mr Liddington please

    ReplyDelete
  28. a. beth wasnt "right after csection" at their bris. their bris was delayed and not on the 8th day.
    b. you cant argue both ways- if beth isnt to blame for their not knowing 200 words at age 2, why is Michael to blame for their not knowing 400 words at age 4?
    c. the intelligence and strength of both sides' arguments have completely devolved- attacking Rabbis, calling names and shouting hate! This is not Jewish behaviour. If you feel the argument has any merit, argue it, not the people!

    for shame!

    ReplyDelete
  29. I am sure Beth was not right after the c section. It takes many weeks to recover from operations where there has been a cut! This is one reason why
    she should not have not have been left
    all alone to cope with two little boys
    after their cut!

    Also if the father was concerned that
    Beth was not fit either physically or mentally why did he leave her all alone
    to cope with the two boys after such a
    trauma?

    No one is blaming the father for the boys lack of development. What he is being blamed for is denying them
    professional assessments and proper
    access to their mother.

    Mother therapy seems to be the only
    therapy not tried and a very obvious
    one!

    Why can't better access be given to Beth for the sake of the boys?

    We have all seen how much they enjoy being with Beth and how well they respond to her!


    As for the Rabbis. Why are they not trying to bring some sanity to theis awfully sad situation. Intead, they are
    encouraging a enormous rift between
    the parents who and forcing the
    community to turn against Beth, who
    only wants to be a mother to her two
    ailing sons. There is no good reason
    why she shouldn't and the Rabbis
    should all be assisting.

    What motive could any religious leader have for not trying to bring harmony
    and peace, especially when two little
    children's lives are at stake?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do we know the father has not had professional assesments done?
      How do we know that the boys enjoy being with Beth?
      How do we know the Rabbis are encouraging a rift?

      Do we know all this, because Beth said it?!

      Delete
  30. Thank you Rabbi Tzadok for putting us right about Stan in your comment above.

    It is a shame that Rabbis inside Vienna are not trying to help bring sanity to this desperate situation as you and
    dear Rabbi Eidensohn are trying to do!

    We have to collectively try to help Sammy and Benji, who are two little
    boys clearly suffering in the centre of
    this awful situation, which has been
    manufactured, uunfortunately by Rabbis as well as others in Vienna!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Michael Tzaddok is an utter distorter of the truth. He was found by me to tell several untruths including claiming the false fact that the rabbanut dont force gittin of course I back Beth. The fact that Tzaddok even has the chutzpah to decide what I do or dont hold is pathetic. He is no authority on anything except his own self promotion. I just wished to highlight that not only are the Austrian authorities corrupt but equally are the US authorities and courts. For tzaddok to start up again during sefira with personal attacks is not surprising but sickening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. stan, if you have a story to tell, then tell it under your own name. Set up your own blogspot.

      How do you expect people to understand your situation and have sympathy for you when you are not even telling the story??

      Delete
  32. @vienna. have you had a c section? I have had 2 and let me tell you my husband didnt leave my side. its very painful and I couldn't walk for a few days. what husband goes out to a party the night of their sona brit? again my husband stayed with my son all night. going out was the last thing on his mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes actually I did. And a month later which is about when they had their brit I had already recovered. So let's not dramatise she was right after an operation

      Delete
    2. How do we even know Michael went out? any independent proof?

      Delete
    3. We know the father went out because the Judge blamed Beth for not being able to insert suppositories whilst he was out!

      Beth was also blamed for asking
      her husband to return home from
      a party vn order to help her with
      their two screaming babies.


      In England it is highly unusual to use suppositories, and simply unheard of after a Brit.

      Why should Beth have needed to cope alone straight after a brit
      whilst the father was out enjoying himself.

      Michael Schlesinger obviously never put his wife or children first.

      Why should we believe tbat he puts the welfare of his children
      first now?

      Delete
  33. Please explain why you allowed Michael tzaddok to invent lies about my positions without allowing me to refute him. And please dont say because my remarks were inappropriate. Tzaddok's were and don't represent my position at all. I will not even give him the courtesy of responding to them because they are total fabrications of my position.
    i t would appear as if you have one standard for tzaddok and a different one for everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. stan, if you have a story to tell, then tell it under your own name. Set up your own blogspot.

      How do you expect people to understand your situation and have sympathy for you when you are not even telling the story??

      Delete
    2. Stan
      Are you denying that you said,
      Domestic abuse is nothing less than the invention of the machasheifahs who torment their husbands and their feminist handlers. These machasheifahs go to arko'oys, they are oyver mesirah, they stop their husbands seeing the kids, and seek only to itentionally destroy him financially with equitable distribution, maintenance and exorbitant legal fees etc. Don't let feminists like tzaddok fool you.

      Under your other moniker, Anti Rabbnut.

      The comment can be found here:
      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/re-real-stuff.html

      Delete
  34. Stan

    Why are you doing this? You gatecrashed our blog
    with something unrelated.

    Rabbi Tzadok has given some insight.
    We cannot help you as the case you
    refer to needs lots of investigating as
    this case has. We are sorry but we can't lump your case with this one.
    You need to start your own blog
    elsewhere! Sorry and good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Serious QuestionsApril 27, 2014 at 7:01 PM

    Please don't be side tracked by Stan and pay attention to the serious questions that need addressing!

    ReplyDelete
  36. anyone can post anything under the acronym "stan". There can be domestic abuse on both sides. However tzaddok as usual has invented what I do or dont hold aboout beth because he was busted numerous times being economical with the truth.Nobody is trying to sidetrack anything except tzaddok. I was merely pointing out that the courts in NYC and NJ are no better than Vienna despite all the anti Austrian feeling expressed on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Elsewhere is just a troll.

    ReplyDelete
  38. People's comments seem completely out of proportion and I suggest, they better read the previous blog entries, too, before theories run wild. First of all, Beth was NOT left alone. Her parents were with her. So, we have 3, one would assume capable adults, who should be able to take care of 2 babies for a couple of hours.
    The bris didn't' take place right after her c-secyion. I had one myself.Believe me after a week, and in case of twins , even longer than 8 days, you hardly suffer from the aftermath. Further, who cares, if the kids were at synagogue. It would be crazy to drag such young children to service on a regular basis.Only people without kids speak like that. And no, I am not related to the Schlesinger family as I assume all will now jump at me. This is just a logical observation. I have a very hard time believing this woman.
    Even having different signatures on documents doesn' t prove anything. A lot of us use different style signatures for different purposes. As long as Beth doesn't publish the court's decision- which she is allowed to publish, I won' t believe either side. In the meantime, this is simply a smear campaign of a bitter woman, that has lost her case for various reasons, she obviously doesn't want to admit.Publish the official decision - usually she is not so shy - end of story!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rachel, you sound like Naomi. Let's see the newspaper article that backs up your claims about Rabbi Eisenberg. Beth has presented plenty of evidence for her claims, this blog post serves as yet another example.

      You have failed to present anything of any worth, just slanderous lies. Your life would be worthless were it not for the damage you have created.

      Delete
    2. @ Rachel

      For starters Rachel people's comments are not out of proportion. We are talking about two little boys torn apart from their mother.

      So Rachel you yourself hardly suffered from the aftermath of a cesarian, so thats ok is it? I guess you are really a male!!

      You say it would be crazy to drag young children to shul on a regular basis. If children want to go to Shul they go, if they don't, they don't, but these children do not have any choices do they Rachel. Ask them who would they rather be with, a loving caring mother or a cruel controlling father and phillipino women.

      Its not going to be the end of the story M/s Rachel you wait and see.

      Delete
    3. News,

      Message from Naomi/Rachel and various other aliases: "You stumped me, so I'm leaving this site. I won't respond anymore."

      Delete
  39. @Rachel. I also dont know both families. I am just seeing this from my own perspective

    Firstly what man goes out even for 2 hours on the night of their sons brit to a party? My husband was by my side and wouldnt leave our son as this was very painful
    In the UK we dont use supositories for a brit. The UK doctors have confirmed this to the courts already.
    Secondly I also had a c section. Its not nice and I actually couldnt move for quite some time..
    I dont care whether the kids were in synagogue. Infact thats all irrelevant,
    What bothers me the most is that the children need their mother in their life as much as the father and he is denying them that contact.
    Can you imagine having your kids taken away from you? The thought of it sends shivers down my spine.
    I dont care about the courts decisions. I care about the boys which clearly no one else does. Its all seems to be such a fight.
    Its the children that are being used as weapons and yet the father doesnt seem to care. Dont you think they need both parents?
    Also the last thing I want you to think about is this.. How do you think Beth feels not knowing how her children are, not being allowed to tuck them in at night, not allowed to speak to the nursery, not being told about their welfare... Its absolutely disgusting.
    How people in Vienna are being threatened if they publish anything on here that they will lose their jobs. Its just crazy

    You clearly do know the Schlesinger family as you have said that Beth is usually not so shy. how do you know that???

    I am just so glad that the UK government will be having a meeting very soon and Austria will have to answer many questions. Lets just see what happens then.

    How do you know she is allowed to publish the decision??

    ReplyDelete
  40. Mandy Cohen
    Another observation you missed is that Rachel must be very Schlesinger family because she knew that Beth's
    parents were there!.

    Even if they were ther, they are English and therefore would not be used to
    suppositories on babies! They had
    their own two sons, so were not novices like Beth and if they were there
    as Rachel claims,: they still would
    have been correct in expecting their
    daughters husband not to have gone
    to a party, but to have been their to
    support his wife and look after his two sons on the night following their Brit.

    He should have been there also as a doctor and also ensued the Mohel he
    employed to do the Brit returned to make that nothing was wrong after the brit as is normal practice!

    None of this should have been used against Beth!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Investigations and safeguardingApril 28, 2014 at 9:34 AM

    What choice are Sammy and Benji being given?

    They have been traumatised
    conditioned, suppressed and more
    than likely, they are severely depressed!

    This may not be a true analysis.

    How does anyone really know,
    because they have never been
    professionally assessed!

    Why don't they talk, why can't they
    reason at five years old?

    No one needs to take notice of any of the comments on this blog!

    It does show that there is something drastically wrong with the decision of
    the court, which needs thoroughly
    investigating.

    No one can truly say that the boys are
    thriving in their father's care, nor can
    they say why the mother has been
    denied contact and whether the boys
    would be thriving in her care!

    This is the reason Mr. Liddington and
    the British Government need to be
    asking questions in Austria as to what
    is happening to Sammy and Benji
    currently!

    They should never give up until we are sure that Sammy and Benji are safe
    and the best solution is found.

    In any event, it is obvious that there is
    no good reason why good contact with
    their perfectly healthy, capable, loving mother has been denied!

    There is now good reason now not to
    question the boys future. I am sure the
    Court and the father wants the very
    best for them, although this is not we
    are seeing!

    The public now need the confidence that the very best is being done for Sammy and Benji Schlesinger!

    ReplyDelete
  42. It is sickening how everyone likes to twist everything around here. By shy, I meant, not hesitsnt to publish all kind of insignificant papers and going public. Further, you can read yourself in one of her many blog entries, that she wrote herself, that her parents were with her on that night. Yes, I also car
    e about the childrens' wellfare. But only until I see the court's reasoning, will I be ready to support Beth. Why follow her campaign blindly? It seems, she has reasons to hide the verdict from us. She might no doubt love her children, but, maybe, she is really incapable of caring for them properly.Those are two different issues.
    In the meantime, it simply looks like an ugly smear campaign by an embittered party. Again , Beth, com'on, publish the court' s verdict, because we are more and more, that have started to doubt this whole campaign.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To restore public confidence that the decision is correct and has proved to be in the best interests of the children,
      the Austrian Court, themselves, should be asked to publish the reasoning for
      their decision!

      Public confidence in the
      Judicial system is paramount,
      as well as the safeguarding of children!

      Delete
  43. Rachel

    You say that "it may be that Beth is not able to care for the boys properly"!

    What do you mean by properly?
    What
    Why can't Beth have a lot more access
    to them. If she has shown she has
    been more than capable of looking
    after her sons unsupervised and they are happy with her for a number of
    hours, why can't this be increased?

    Why could Beth not have also been given help and support?

    Afterall the father does not take care of the boys 24/7 as they attend
    kindergarten from 8 til 6 every day and
    then are mainly cared for by
    philopinos, which Beth is expected to
    pay high maintenance for!

    There is no good reason fot Beth not to have a lot more contact and overnight
    stays is there?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Personally I don't have a need to see the court documents. Beth's resilient dedication to her children under extremely difficult circumstances is enough testimony for me to believe that she is authentic in her claims, whatever the verdict of the court was.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Rachel, where is your web link backing up your slanderous claim against rabbi eisenberg? (Assuming this even exists!!!!)

    ReplyDelete
  46. There was an anonymous commentator here a few weeks ago (by the name of Sarah) who didn't believe rabbi biderman made a voluntary statement to the court in May 2012. She stated on this blog that if such a statement exists she would speak to biderman herself. The statement was subsequently published on this blog but nothing more was heard from "Sarah". Rachel, you are probably Sarah and you have no intention of honoring any agreement even if all the docs are published. Show us the eisenberg link and we may believe you!

    ReplyDelete
  47. What are you talking about??? What link about what Eisenberg? I never said anything regarding such a subject. Please enlighten.That's what I meant, everything gets twisted around and one is accused of things, one has never said. Nice diversion tactic. Again, everything on this blog is totally useless, until she has not published the verdict. This is fooling good natured people. Surely, kids are always best with her mother. The question is, what kind of a mother. By dragging her kids into this campaign and exposing them the way she does, makes me, a mother myself, think twice. I don't know either party. A friend sent me a link to her petition campaign. My policy is that first, I read before I sign up for something. In this case, I couldn't find any convincing argument and it simply smells of a bitter person getting it back at her ex. Let's be realistic, after all it is also a financial issue. She will most likely not get any support by her X, without having custody. Without showing the court' s reasoning, I keep on telling my friends to ignore this petition. If she was a man, no one would give it a second thought!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Naomi above is either the same person as Rachel or very close with her. They made a scandalous allegation about a newspaper report featuring chief rabbi eisenberg playing poker on Friday night. Where is the article? Why would you want to hold back an article already in the public domain? Why are you using diversion tactics to avoid posting the article?

      Could it be that the article doesn't exist and you don't want to admit that you have told an outright lie on a public website designed to ruin the reputation of a chief rabbi???

      I think people are getting a clear picture of Schlesinger and his supporters who will sink to newer depths every day.

      Delete
    2. @Rachel

      Lets get real Rachel.

      You are not real

      Delete
  48. sarah wrote that if a voluntary statement in support of schlesinger were produced, shed talk to the Rabbi. The only statement I've seen was one where it affirms that the kids are doing well in kindergarten. That is not considered support of any side; thats a statement about their behaviour in kindergarten

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look how twisted you are "Sarah"!!!

      Delete
    2. It was a statement about their behaviour in kindergarten by a rabbi who cannot possibly know the boys, or he wouldn't have been fool enough to state falsely to a court that they were "doing well". We could presume that he didn't even talk to or play with them, as he stated he got this information from Frau Chani Eidelman, the kindergarten director.

      Sarah - we're still waiting for that voluntary statement in support of Dr Schlesinger. When will it be coming?

      Delete
  49. The children are in kindergarten from 9 til 6 what sort of home life do they actually have?

    Why haven't they learned to talk?
    What report can Rabbi Biderman give the boys now?.


    Is this the behaviour of children that
    are doing well psychologically as we
    ll of course educationally?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do the Fillipinos speak Tagalog to them? Maybe that's the only language they know how to reproduce real words from.

      Delete
  50. Please can we clarify some things?
    In the alleged forged document there are a few anomalies. No stamp (there is on the later one). Some writing appears to have been tippexed out but as far as we can make out there are no details at all on the entire second page (we would expect at least a crossing out or the German equivalent of N/A) and in the bottom of the first page the children are not named nor birthdays written. (It could be that these details are not required - our German isn't very good but we can make out at least the words for 'alimony', 'children' and 'birthdates'.)

    Wouldn't a form like this need to be signed in the presence of a bank official? Or are we supposed to believe that the the Austrian banking system is as corrupt and useless as the police, social workers and judge seem to be.

    Looking forward to an explanation of these points.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Herbert, you're missing an important point. Both the police and the courts, and Schlesinger himself admit that he forged Beth's signature!! That is not in dispute.

      The main question is why the police and the courts failed to take it further despite many pleas from Beth's legal team.

      And yes, it does look like Austria is corrupt from the top down!!

      Delete
    2. Where does everyone admit the forgery? link please.

      Delete
  51. These are not bank forms, Herbert. The first one is from the Austrian equivalent of the National Health (insurance), stating that a claim had been made and the amount would be transferred to the acct named, while the other 2 are probably copies (and not originals) of an income tax declaration from the year 2008. There are no stamps on copies of Austrian income tax declarations. You can do your tax online but some people still did it by hand in 2009. You hand your declaration in and keep a copy but that doesn't have a stamp on it. In Austria you don't write the German equivalent of N/A on an income tax declaration. The children couldn't have been named before they were born! And... no bank officials' signatures because these forms were not issued by banks!

    Herbert - I hope you read more carefully in your daily work! These forms may be in German, which is clearly not your mother tongue, but you've done a bit of good guesswork nonetheless. However, not to have noticed "2008" and "2009" on the income tax forms would indicate a lack of attention and/or care. No - the Austrian banking system is not more corrupt than anywhere else (Israel, UK, USA, etc) and it is certainly not useless!

    The police have not been entirely useless in this tragic case of the Schlesinger twins either, as it was a police doctor ("Amtsarzt") who questioned the dodgy shrink from Steinhof (Otto Wagner Spital), Paul Földes, when he, who had never met the mother, claimed that she needed to be committed to a mental hospital (and then that it had actually been his "friend", Dr Michael Schlesinger, the father, who had made this outrageously false claim). Refusing to accept the mother's lawyer's complaint re the alleged stealing of her savings (undoubtedly via the "Arztbank" named on the above forms) was definitely a failing on the part of the police, however, and also very hard to understand. You are also right about the social workers at the Vienna "Jugendamt" and Judge Susanne Göttlicher. Except of course for the social worker Frau Dr Kindelhofer, who was threatened with the loss of her job for expressing positive thoughts about the mother.

    Hmmm... "threatened" .... how often are we hearing this word in the course of this case? Wasn't the nanny Nora threatened only a few weeks ago? And numerous others over the past few years?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like we said, we wanted an explanation and thank you for that. No need to be rude though.
      Our error arises from Beth's introduction to this post in which she states that Michael effectively stole the child benefit from September 2009 and brings facsimile of a document dated that very month to provide proof. Now, we discover that the form is an income tax form (we are grateful for the information) from the previous year before the children were born.

      Delete
    2. Sorry if I appeared to be rude, Herbert. Am not normally like that at all but sometimes this case gets so frustrating that even friends of Beth's who are not related to the Alexanders tend to fly off the handle at the very slightest provocation.

      Delete
    3. OK, Noemi. However, there are still inconsistencies as I state above.

      Delete
  52. No, it is not proven. We only have Beth dubious words.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Schlesinger has been invited many times to present his own version of events (under his own name) but has declined at every opportunity.

      Have you ever heard of the concept of shtika kehoda'ah?

      Beth is incredibly brave to publish all this information under her own name and would not do so if she could be proved wrong. No one has been able to stand up and question any of her evidence successfully so far.

      Delete
    2. As has been commented many times, those of us who know Beth personally are convinced of her honesty. The opposite goes for the father, who even lies to police and the courts. There is more than enough evidence for that.

      Delete
    3. Beth's words are anything but dubious, "not proven". We have sufficient evidence, however, that Michael's supporters tend to write utter trash. How about the story that he's a psychiatrist? Nobody has so far produced any evidence that he has any qualifications at all in this field!

      Delete

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