It of course seems very one sided. She was probably advised this by others and told if Yoeli doesn't like the offer, he can always counter propose. In addition, as a woman who didn't have any of her own money, she needed Yoeli to pay for all the legal costs of the divorce.
So Yoeli, please share with us:
1) Your counter proposal
2) the story behind the $10,000 she claims you took from her.
This is a "feminist heaven" divorce settlement. This so-called settlement reduces a Jewish father to a sperm donor who might be allowed supervised "visiting rights" to his offspring for one or two hours a week. That is until the mother alienates the children against the sperm donor, interferes with the visitation, and then moves on to a distant state.
Doesn't the sperm donor have any rights to make decisions for his own children such as their education and teach them his minhagim? Doesn't the sperm donor have any rights to be with his offspring on a Shabbos or Yom Tov? In feminist heaven the sperm donor is simply an ATM machine while the poor ex-"agunah" can now move on to her next male victim.
I pray that Yoel and all other Jewish men in his situation will resist the feminist brown shirts arrayed against them and will not consider giving a GET unless and until they obtain secure and substantial parenting rights with their children.
Its time to tell the feminists NO JUSTICE, NO GET!
Moe, you are so biased is stinks. How do you know where the money is from? In truth most people are on this blog are anti women and seem to enjoy when women suffer . This blog has nothing to do with Torah or Halacha . Many of you including David Eidensohn probably have a din of an apikores because you constantly speak and מבזה our גדולים. Nobody knows what happened except the parties involved. Yoily should go to his Rav , or maybe he doesn't have one, and deal with his situation instead of causing such a chillul Hashem . At least I understand Rivky, she wants a get, but what is holding him back. When gital wanted a get, and couldn't get it, she did the same thing and it forced her husband to hammer out a deal. The get was 100% kosher! not withstanding a certain DE claiming he would pasul the get if Weiss gave it. BH there are now ways to force a deal done. And no, I am not related to any side, have no ax to grind, but seeing the hatred this blog owner ,his brother and others have against Halacha and common sense, I felt I had to write this post. Ok, now attach me.
To evaluate the demands on custody and visitation, it is key to find out whether Yoel did indeed threaten her to take her children away from her, so that she will not see them any more. If he made threats of kidnapping, as she alleges, the demands seem justified.
Even if - and that's a big if - he made kidnapping threats, were they realistic? Where would he take them to? His family is NY. His business (whatever it may be) is in NY. The Hague Convention would have stopped him from abducting their children to any civilized country.
__________
Even a parent who is a real, documented and serious threat of hurting his children can get three supervised visits a week.
____________
I fail to see justification for the once weekly supervised visit proposal.
Why would he waste his time negotiating with a liar?
He never felt there was someone at the other end who wanted something to work out, she felt so confident with all of her allegations, she was not serious about negotiating.
In other words your saying Yoeli was looking to hurt her and never had a need or interest in moving ahead with his own life. You are not presenting Yoeli in a good light, and just the opposite, you are adding credibility to Bamberger's letter.
Bamberger wrote in his letter (available on this website) that Yoeli boasted to him in detail about his lifestyle, explained why he had no need to move ahead with his life and was just looking to hurt Rivki.
Yoel Weiss states (in a court document that was published on this site) that he saw a Beith Din in August 2012 and in turn made demands concerning custody that were not met by the other side. So there has to be a counter-proposal. Yoel Weiss also stated that he did not give the get that day in August 2012 only because his custody demands were not met. (He does not state money issues or questions who had to pay the beith din fee).
So it turns out (if what kol kureh writes ist true) that the problem boils down to: both parents wanted full custody of the children, and neither was ready to compromise.
Now I want to ask the blog author:
Do you support a husband who will refuse to give a get unless he obtains sole custody of the children? (assuming that the mother is a normal mother, not neglectful or a danger to the children)
If so, why do you support Beth Schlesinger against Michael Schlesinger?
That's flawed logic, in my opinion. If someone went through the effort of having a lawyer write up a proposal, which showed seriousness and reason-ability in some areas, the conversation and dialog should be continued and perused. Acknowledge the good, and battle on the outrageous.
Ignoring it when she was reasonable and understandable in the financial areas, brings on the fight.
I don't know what school you went to, but I don't follow your twisted logic, how you come to a conclusion that from my writing Yoel wants to hurt her is beyond me.
Once she took Yoel to court, Yoel was and is waiting for the court to decide the custody issues.
With a liar like her there is practically only one way to deal with, and thank god she took him to court, so he did not have to be the one to go against halacha.
What Rivkie is doing is completely unacceptable. I can't imagine much justification - though I suppose she is going along with it because her advisers have convinced her there is no other way.
However, I wonder if a skilled, serious and honest mediator would have been able to bring about a decent resolution in the early stages. Could it be that there were emotionally charged responses and demands coming from both sides?
But I suppose that she took the order of protection before negotiations started, since Yoel states that here leaving came completely out of the blue, and she took the order of protection the day she left.
As it appears now, the courts will decide anyway on the custody issues, which seem to be the main point of contention between the parents. Therefore, Yoel does not gain anything in withholding a get. Give the get now and trust the courts. If Yoel is as innocent as he claims, his innocence will shine, and he will get all the custody and visitation he wants. If rivky's allegations are true, the Beith Din would (I hope) side with her, just as the secular courts. So what is the difference? Just give the get!
And she proved that by tormenting the Weiss family for the past two years. If this was just about a get why would she target Yoel's parents and siblings and terrorize the entire family especially in the last 6 months as they were going through a difficult time with the father in a coma and then passing away?
I wonder how any people on this page are attorneys? Yet I see an overabundance of terrified men taking a knee-jerk anti-woman position. "This proposal is unfair! One-sided! Take the shirt off his back!" Oh, brother!
I'm an attorney. I do divorces and work in Family Court almost daily.
First of all, this is a PROPOSAL. I don't see a counter-proposal posted here. So lets just go with what IS posted above:
1. Perfectly reasonable. Given the animosity between these two, the Orders of Protection, etc., after a trial NO judge that I've ever been before would order joint custody. Custody to mom. Period. 3. Hard to say. Two children. NYS Child support guidelines is 24% of gross pay, minus a few deductions (FICA/social security and NYC income taxes). So no-one here can comment on whether the amount is fair without knowing his gross income. ADDITIONALLY, there's no provisions as to splitting college expenses, yeshiva expenses, medical expenses, child care, all of which will need to be discussed. 4. Clothing, crib, one dresser. THAT'S ALL?? She's entitled to much more. Anything purchased during the marriage is equitable distribution, eg. half. Her request for only her clothes, a crib and a dresser is eminently fair. 5. Hard to say. Did he or didn't he take $10K from a joint bank account. Easy enough to figure out. At trial bank statements will be subpoenaed and entered into evidence. If he took the money, he'll be ordered to pay it back. If he didn't; then he won't. 6. Goes without saying. Period. I didn't fight my wife and hold a get over her head. Cruel. 7. If they had a civil NYS marriage, then it too goes without saying. Unless they're fighting over valid issues, eg. the money (#3, 5) But I thought I read elsewhere that they never had a civil marriage. 8. More than fair legal fees. I'd charge three times as much for a contested divorce. 9. Makes sense.
So that only leaves #2 up for any real discussion. And that is the crux of all the fighting. Does he deserve supervised visits or not? Maybe yes, maybe no. Or maybe he should make a counter-offer. I've NEVER (NEVER EVER) had a judge order supervised visits forever. Usually it's for a few months until the Court can get a report as to the father/children's interaction. Then it's usually phased out. If the mother claims the husband is cruel, abusive, or that the children are unsafe being alone with him; then a forensic eval with a psychologist should shed some light on whether the allegations are valid or not. Same with his allegations that she's mentally ill. (Although the judges I've been before generally understand that when men claim their wives are mentally ill it is usually nonsense and then hold this baseless allegation against him in making custody decisions.) Again, easy enough to do if there is a disagreement.
BUT the bottom line: do not withhold the get. It is cruel, and abusive. And if it becomes an issue in the divorce action, the judge will hold his abusive behavior against him. He's shooting himself in the foot. Never a good idea. There are other, more valid, sources of contention in a divorce. A get is not one of them.
I've never had a case where there are three supervised visits per week. It is usually once a week for an hour or two. That being said, it's also never a permanent situation. Supervision is usually only for a few weeks, or a few months at most, until the court gets a report as to the parent/child interaction. If all is OK, then unsupervised visits follow.
I've never had a case where there are three supervised visits per week
Demanding supervised visitations on baseless claims, is cruel, cruel, cruel. It's cruel to the children, it's cruel to the father, and its even cruel to the mother (she now has to deal with children who had a part of their heart - their father - ripped away from them.
No, a get should not be given until this issue is resolved. Additionally, that hurt that the children went through for the period of time their father was withheld from them can never, never be made up. It can never be corrected.
The proposal did not put a time limit on it. It's preposterous to ask for a cessation of the marriage prior to working out custody issues. How often are civil divorces granted, while leaving the custody unresolved?
When in conflict, Jewish law takes precedence over secular law in all these instances, regarding monetary issues, custody issues and other divorce related issues. Jews are commanded to follow Jewish law even if they have the technical ability to shove secular law down the thought of their legal opponent against their will.
A Get needn't be given to a wife if Jewish law does not require it to be given.
Demanding he pay her legal fees, give her whatever support she demands and surrender full custody to her is neither fair nor just under any system.
Mr. Ginsburgh: I'll respond to your third paragraph first since its the easiest to reply to. NYS law permits the non-moneyed spouse (=wife) to make a Motion for the moneyed spouse (=working husband) to pay her legal fees. The law was enacted to allow non-working housewives who stay home to raise children and have no money of their own to afford lawyers in these matters. So chances are he'll end up paying her fees regardless. Please remember these are Proposal "demands" and I see no counter-proposal posted. She "demands" that he "give her whatever support she demands," so what? I already stated above what NYS Support Guidlelines require. Any court will require he produce his pay stubs and tax returns to establish his income and what support will be required by law.
The same goes for custody. She "demands . . ." again, so what? Don't agree. That's what trials are for. Please do not confuse "demands" or "proposals" with "settlements" or "Court Orders."
By the way. . . ALL men think the support guidelines are too high, and ALL women think that they're too low. Of course. Don't like it? Write your congressman. Judges can't change the law themselves.
As far as your recitation of halachic law goes I'm not going to argue. I'm a lawyer, not a Rabbi. BUT no-one on this page is considering something very important. Keep in mind I've been doing this for 20 years. . .
NYS is a no-fault divorce state. No more grounds trials. She can get a civil divorce without his consent. She doesn't have to prove anything to get a civil divorce. So at some point she WILL be divorced, and free to legally remarry. Pressure her enough and she may forgo a GET. Play "Halachic Hardball" and she just might say forget it and leave the Orthodox community. Yes, the divorce and remarriage won't be religiously recognized, but she just might make that decision. NYS WILL recognize the second marriage. What if she finds some reform or reconstructionist Jew who isn't as observant or frum enough for your community? Maybe someone who won't care if she has a Get? Maybe the children won't go to yeshiva? Do I relly have to paint you a picture?
Give her the Get. Limit it to the divorce itself. Litigate the other issues in Supreme Court if they can't settle it. But don't alienate her from Judaism (which is what you're recommending)!
@Brent Albala - I appreciate your knowledge of the legal reality. They obviously need to weigh that against the halachic reality. But there is an elephant in the room.
Have you read the documents concerning the RICO claim she has filed? What do you think of them?
It of course seems very one sided. She was probably advised this by others and told if Yoeli doesn't like the offer, he can always counter propose. In addition, as a woman who didn't have any of her own money, she needed Yoeli to pay for all the legal costs of the divorce.
ReplyDeleteSo Yoeli, please share with us:
1) Your counter proposal
2) the story behind the $10,000 she claims you took from her.
Wait, it seems as though Rivky forgot to demand ownership of the shirt on Yoeli's back. It must've been an oversight on her lawyers behalf.
ReplyDeleteThis is a "feminist heaven" divorce settlement. This so-called settlement reduces a Jewish father to a sperm donor who might be allowed supervised "visiting rights" to his offspring for one or two hours a week. That is until the mother alienates the children against the sperm donor, interferes with the visitation, and then moves on to a distant state.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the sperm donor have any rights to make decisions for his own children such as their education and teach them his minhagim? Doesn't the sperm donor have any rights to be with his offspring on a Shabbos or Yom Tov? In feminist heaven the sperm donor is simply an ATM machine while the poor ex-"agunah" can now move on to her next male victim.
I pray that Yoel and all other Jewish men in his situation will resist the feminist brown shirts arrayed against them and will not consider giving a GET unless and until they obtain secure and substantial parenting rights with their children.
Its time to tell the feminists NO JUSTICE, NO GET!
Moe, you are so biased is stinks. How do you know where the money is from? In truth most people are on this blog are anti women and seem to enjoy when women suffer . This blog has nothing to do with Torah or Halacha . Many of you including David Eidensohn probably have a din of an apikores because you constantly speak and מבזה our גדולים.
ReplyDeleteNobody knows what happened except the parties involved. Yoily should go to his Rav , or maybe he doesn't have one, and deal with his situation instead of causing such a chillul Hashem . At least I understand Rivky, she wants a get, but what is holding him back.
When gital wanted a get, and couldn't get it, she did the same thing and it forced her husband to hammer out a deal. The get was 100% kosher! not withstanding a certain DE claiming he would pasul the get if Weiss gave it. BH there are now ways to force a deal done.
And no, I am not related to any side, have no ax to grind, but seeing the hatred this blog owner ,his brother and others have against Halacha and common sense, I felt I had to write this post. Ok, now attach me.
Moe,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you know about the $10,000? How do you know if it was or wasn't nichsei milug? How do know she didn't own it prior to marriage?
This was her proposal, in writing. What was his counter proposal?
Everything, other than the custody and visitation, seems acceptable as a starting point of negotiations.
ReplyDeleteChild support seems to include tuition here. Sure, it must be knocked down. But it isn't an outlandish amount.
Asking only for her clothing, crib and dresser seems decent.
[Why didn't Yoely send her her clothing on his own? What use does Yoely have for her clothing? Who was advising Yoely?]
It is important to know the story behind the $10,000.
However, her outrageous request that Yoel see his kids once a week - and supervised! is unacceptable. I don't know what she was thinking.
It would be of great value to see Yoel's counter proposal.
To evaluate the demands on custody and visitation, it is key to find out whether Yoel did indeed threaten her to take her children away from her, so that she will not see them any more. If he made threats of kidnapping, as she alleges, the demands seem justified.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, in an other document, she states that he took from her I think 8500$ that she owned before the marriage.
ReplyDeleteEven if - and that's a big if - he made kidnapping threats, were they realistic? Where would he take them to?
ReplyDeleteHis family is NY.
His business (whatever it may be) is in NY.
The Hague Convention would have stopped him from abducting their children to any civilized country.
__________
Even a parent who is a real, documented and serious threat of hurting his children can get three supervised visits a week.
____________
I fail to see justification for the once weekly supervised visit proposal.
What does say? Rivkie presented a serious, yet highly flawed proposal. Why didn't Yoel keep the negotiations going and offer a counter proposal?
ReplyDeleteWhy would he waste his time negotiating with a liar?
ReplyDeleteHe never felt there was someone at the other end who wanted something to work out, she felt so confident with all of her allegations, she was not serious about negotiating.
Instead of hearsay, can we please see a written counter proposal from Yoeli ?
ReplyDeleteBecause at that point in time there was an order for there to be supervision during visitation. The lawyer assumed it would stay in place.
ReplyDeleteIn other words your saying Yoeli was looking to hurt her and never had a need or interest in moving ahead with his own life. You are not presenting Yoeli in a good light, and just the opposite, you are adding credibility to Bamberger's letter.
ReplyDeleteBamberger wrote in his letter (available on this website) that Yoeli boasted to him in detail about his lifestyle, explained why he had no need to move ahead with his life and was just looking to hurt Rivki.
Yoel Weiss states (in a court document that was published on this site) that he saw a Beith Din in August 2012 and in turn made demands concerning custody that were not met by the other side.
ReplyDeleteSo there has to be a counter-proposal.
Yoel Weiss also stated that he did not give the get that day in August 2012 only because his custody demands were not met. (He does not state money issues or questions who had to pay the beith din fee).
So it turns out (if what kol kureh writes ist true) that the problem boils down to: both parents wanted full custody of the children, and neither was ready to compromise.
ReplyDeleteNow I want to ask the blog author:
Do you support a husband who will refuse to give a get unless he obtains sole custody of the children? (assuming that the mother is a normal mother, not neglectful or a danger to the children)
If so, why do you support Beth Schlesinger against Michael Schlesinger?
Weiss insider,
ReplyDeleteThat's flawed logic, in my opinion. If someone went through the effort of having a lawyer write up a proposal, which showed seriousness and reason-ability in some areas, the conversation and dialog should be continued and perused. Acknowledge the good, and battle on the outrageous.
Ignoring it when she was reasonable and understandable in the financial areas, brings on the fight.
It does not justify other actions.
I don't know what school you went to, but I don't follow your twisted logic, how you come to a conclusion that from my writing Yoel wants to hurt her is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteOnce she took Yoel to court, Yoel was and is waiting for the court to decide the custody issues.
With a liar like her there is practically only one way to deal with, and thank god she took him to court, so he did not have to be the one to go against halacha.
What Rivkie is doing is completely unacceptable. I can't imagine much justification - though I suppose she is going along with it because her advisers have convinced her there is no other way.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I wonder if a skilled, serious and honest mediator would have been able to bring about a decent resolution in the early stages. Could it be that there were emotionally charged responses and demands coming from both sides?
But I suppose that she took the order of protection before negotiations started, since Yoel states that here leaving came completely out of the blue, and she took the order of protection the day she left.
ReplyDeleteAs it appears now, the courts will decide anyway on the custody issues, which seem to be the main point of contention between the parents.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, Yoel does not gain anything in withholding a get. Give the get now and trust the courts.
If Yoel is as innocent as he claims, his innocence will shine, and he will get all the custody and visitation he wants.
If rivky's allegations are true, the Beith Din would (I hope) side with her, just as the secular courts.
So what is the difference?
Just give the get!
And she proved that by tormenting the Weiss family for the past two years. If this was just about a get why would she target Yoel's parents and siblings and terrorize the entire family especially in the last 6 months as they were going through a difficult time with the father in a coma and then passing away?
ReplyDeleteI wonder how any people on this page are attorneys? Yet I see an overabundance of terrified men taking a knee-jerk anti-woman position. "This proposal is unfair! One-sided! Take the shirt off his back!" Oh, brother!
ReplyDeleteI'm an attorney. I do divorces and work in Family Court almost daily.
First of all, this is a PROPOSAL. I don't see a counter-proposal posted here. So lets just go with what IS posted above:
1. Perfectly reasonable. Given the animosity between these two, the Orders of Protection, etc., after a trial NO judge that I've ever been before would order joint custody. Custody to mom. Period.
3. Hard to say. Two children. NYS Child support guidelines is 24% of gross pay, minus a few deductions (FICA/social security and NYC income taxes). So no-one here can comment on whether the amount is fair without knowing his gross income. ADDITIONALLY, there's no provisions as to splitting college expenses, yeshiva expenses, medical expenses, child care, all of which will need to be discussed.
4. Clothing, crib, one dresser. THAT'S ALL?? She's entitled to much more. Anything purchased during the marriage is equitable distribution, eg. half. Her request for only her clothes, a crib and a dresser is eminently fair.
5. Hard to say. Did he or didn't he take $10K from a joint bank account. Easy enough to figure out. At trial bank statements will be subpoenaed and entered into evidence. If he took the money, he'll be ordered to pay it back. If he didn't; then he won't.
6. Goes without saying. Period. I didn't fight my wife and hold a get over her head. Cruel.
7. If they had a civil NYS marriage, then it too goes without saying. Unless they're fighting over valid issues, eg. the money (#3, 5) But I thought I read elsewhere that they never had a civil marriage.
8. More than fair legal fees. I'd charge three times as much for a contested divorce.
9. Makes sense.
So that only leaves #2 up for any real discussion. And that is the crux of all the fighting. Does he deserve supervised visits or not? Maybe yes, maybe no. Or maybe he should make a counter-offer. I've NEVER (NEVER EVER) had a judge order supervised visits forever. Usually it's for a few months until the Court can get a report as to the father/children's interaction. Then it's usually phased out. If the mother claims the husband is cruel, abusive, or that the children are unsafe being alone with him; then a forensic eval with a psychologist should shed some light on whether the allegations are valid or not. Same with his allegations that she's mentally ill. (Although the judges I've been before generally understand that when men claim their wives are mentally ill it is usually nonsense and then hold this baseless allegation against him in making custody decisions.) Again, easy enough to do if there is a disagreement.
BUT the bottom line: do not withhold the get. It is cruel, and abusive. And if it becomes an issue in the divorce action, the judge will hold his abusive behavior against him. He's shooting himself in the foot. Never a good idea. There are other, more valid, sources of contention in a divorce. A get is not one of them.
I've never had a case where there are three supervised visits per week. It is usually once a week for an hour or two. That being said, it's also never a permanent situation. Supervision is usually only for a few weeks, or a few months at most, until the court gets a report as to the parent/child interaction. If all is OK, then unsupervised visits follow.
ReplyDeleteI've never had a case where there are three supervised visits per week
ReplyDeleteDemanding supervised visitations on baseless claims, is cruel, cruel, cruel. It's cruel to the children, it's cruel to the father, and its even cruel to the mother (she now has to deal with children who had a part of their heart - their father - ripped away from them.
No, a get should not be given until this issue is resolved. Additionally, that hurt that the children went through for the period of time their father was withheld from them can never, never be made up. It can never be corrected.
The proposal did not put a time limit on it. It's preposterous to ask for a cessation of the marriage prior to working out custody issues. How often are civil divorces granted, while leaving the custody unresolved?
When in conflict, Jewish law takes precedence over secular law in all these instances, regarding monetary issues, custody issues and other divorce related issues. Jews are commanded to follow Jewish law even if they have the technical ability to shove secular law down the thought of their legal opponent against their will.
ReplyDeleteA Get needn't be given to a wife if Jewish law does not require it to be given.
Demanding he pay her legal fees, give her whatever support she demands and surrender full custody to her is neither fair nor just under any system.
Mr. Ginsburgh:
ReplyDeleteI'll respond to your third paragraph first since its the easiest to reply to. NYS law permits the non-moneyed spouse (=wife) to make a Motion for the moneyed spouse (=working husband) to pay her legal fees. The law was enacted to allow non-working housewives who stay home to raise children and have no money of their own to afford lawyers in these matters. So chances are he'll end up paying her fees regardless. Please remember these are Proposal "demands" and I see no counter-proposal posted. She "demands" that he "give her whatever support she demands," so what? I already stated above what NYS Support Guidlelines require. Any court will require he produce his pay stubs and tax returns to establish his income and what support will be required by law.
The same goes for custody. She "demands . . ." again, so what? Don't agree. That's what trials are for. Please do not confuse "demands" or "proposals" with "settlements" or "Court Orders."
By the way. . . ALL men think the support guidelines are too high, and ALL women think that they're too low. Of course. Don't like it? Write your congressman. Judges can't change the law themselves.
As far as your recitation of halachic law goes I'm not going to argue. I'm a lawyer, not a Rabbi. BUT no-one on this page is considering something very important. Keep in mind I've been doing this for 20 years. . .
NYS is a no-fault divorce state. No more grounds trials. She can get a civil divorce without his consent. She doesn't have to prove anything to get a civil divorce. So at some point she WILL be divorced, and free to legally remarry. Pressure her enough and she may forgo a GET. Play "Halachic Hardball" and she just might say forget it and leave the Orthodox community. Yes, the divorce and remarriage won't be religiously recognized, but she just might make that decision. NYS WILL recognize the second marriage. What if she finds some reform or reconstructionist Jew who isn't as observant or frum enough for your community? Maybe someone who won't care if she has a Get? Maybe the children won't go to yeshiva? Do I relly have to paint you a picture?
Give her the Get. Limit it to the divorce itself. Litigate the other issues in Supreme Court if they can't settle it. But don't alienate her from Judaism (which is what you're recommending)!
Resolve the custody issue and then resolve the Get issue. There is no need to do it in the reverse order.
ReplyDelete@Brent Albala - I appreciate your knowledge of the legal reality. They obviously need to weigh that against the halachic reality. But there is an elephant in the room.
ReplyDeleteHave you read the documents concerning the RICO claim she has filed? What do you think of them?