Rivky Stein & Yoel Weiss: Mill Basin beis din overrules Rav Moshe Feinstein, Gemora & Shulchan Aruch

One of the many problematic aspects of Rivky Stein's campaign against her husband is the "psak" she received from a beis din which calls itself the Mill Basin Beis Din. Despite the fact that nobody has come forth and said they know it exists and or even that they recognize its dayanim - there is a bigger problem. After sending Yoel Weiss requests to appear before them their "psak" claims he refused and therefore they heard one side - Rivky's - and on the basis of that "poskened" that Yoel was required to give a Get. If anyone one has sources that such a procedure is valid - please let me know.
=========================
Psak of Mill Basis Beit Din

Whereas the Beit Din, after three weeks since the respondent husband's refusal to appear for a Din Torah, sent the respondent as a courtesy a fourth Hazmanawhich provided him with a final opportunity to appear before the Beit Din at a convenient location situated in Borough Park, Brooklyn, and where the respondent husband was advised within the said Hazmana that should he again fail to appear that the Beit Din will proceed in his absentia; and Whereas the scheduled time set forth in the Hazmana passed, and the Dayyanim of the Beit Din after having allowed a sufficient grace period for the respondent husband to appear, and where the respondent husband again failed to appear before the Beit Din andlor request an adjoumed date; the Av Beit Din in the absence of the respondent husband called the Beit Din to order, and asked that the claims of the claimant wife be presented; and The Beit Din after hearing the claims of Rivka Stein, the claimant wife, and the Beit Din finding her claims credible, and there being no person appearing on behalf of the respondent husband to refute or contradict the claimant wife; the Beit Din rules as follows:

1. The respondent husband, Yoel Weiss is obligated (Chayiv)to issue immediately a Get to his wife, Rivka Stein, the claimant herein, with the entire cost of the Get process to be paid by the respondent husband, Yoel Weiss, and with the cost of said procedure set at no higher than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00); and

2. That Yoel Weiss, the respondent husband, within twenty-four hours after service of  this Beit Din Psakupon him by either personal service and/or via email, shall deposit with the Beit Din the sum of $1,000.00 for the Get cost in the form of a bank check [...]

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

While leafing through the Igros Moshe this morning I found a relevant teshuva.(C.M. 3:3)....Question: You ask regarding a psak which was given by a certain beis din regarding a dispute between two parties. After the psak was given, one of the disputants went to one or even before all three of the dayanim and claimed  that his opponent was not complying with the psak of the beis din. The judge or judges accepted this as true without even calling his opponent and asking him about it. Consequently they wrote a seruv against the one who they believed was not complying with their psak.

Answer: In response, it is obvious and self-understood that there is no justification or authority for the beis din to write a seruv under these circumstances. The halacha is explicity stated in Sanhedrin (7b) and explicitly paskened in Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 17:5) [that a beis din can not pasken in a dispute without both parties being present]. Because this is blatantly obvious there is really no need to waste time in further discussion of this matter....

אגות משה (חושן משפט חלק ג סימון ג): - ברבר כתב סיריב שניתן במעמד צד אחר

בע"ה ר"ח כסלו תשמ"ג בנוא יארק,

למע"כ ידידי וחברי מחותני הרב הגאון מוהר"ר אהרן יפהן שליט"א, בברכת שלום וברכה וכל טוב סלה,

אחדשה"ט,

נצטערתי לשמוע על מחלתה של הרבנית שרה יפהן תחי' וכולנו מתפללים שהשי"ת ישלח לה רפואה שלמה, ונא להגיד להרבנית אודות דאגתינו ותפילתינו.

בקשר למה שכת"ר שאל אודות פסק דין שנתן איזה בית דין בדבר סכסוך שהיה בין שני צדדים, ואחר נתינת הפסק דין, הלך צד אחד לפני אחד או אפילו כל הדיינים, וטען שהצד שכנגדו לא ציית להפסק דין, והדיין או הדיינים קבלו טענתו בלי אפילו לקרוא להצד שכנגדו לשואלו אודות זה, ונתנו אז להצד שבא להתלונן, כתב סירוב כנגד הצד שכנגדו, הנה פשוט ומובן הוא שאין שום תוקף בדין לכתב סירוב כזה, דהדין מבואר בסנהדרין דף ז' ע"ב ומוזכר בשו"ע חו"מ סימן י"ז סעיף ה,' ומחמת פשטות הענין אין מה להאריך בענין זה,

ואסיים בתקוה שבזכות זהירות ושמירת כל מצוות ודיני התורה, נזכה כולבו בקרוב לקבל פני משיח צדקיבו,

בידידות והוקרה,

משה פיינשטיין

  
 Sanhedrin(7b): Again: Hear [the causes] between your brethren and judge righteously. This, said R. Hanina, is a warning to the court not to listen to the claims of a litigant in the absence of his opponent; and to the litigant not to explain his case to the judge before his adversary appears. Shamoa’ [hear], in the verse, can also be read, shammea’.   R. Kahana, however, says: We can derive this rule from the verse: Thou shalt not take up [tissa] a false report [referring to the judge], which may be read, tashshi.

Shulchan Aruch (Choshem Mishpat 17:5): It is prohibited for a judge to listen to the claims of one side of a dispute without his opponent being present. ...

See also Halachos of a summons from beis din