Thursday, December 11, 2014

Filing papers of lawsuit against Meisels and Peninim Seminary for sexual abuse

update:  I just received the following allegations which were agreed to by two insiders that I know - that isn't absolute prove that they are true but are obviously something highly likely to be true. Will notify when I get final confirmation or dis-confirmation
1) "Just to clarify, these 2 girls are the same ones the CBD has been talking about since June. There is nothing new here- no new testimony or claimants. These are the same 2 girls that testified in front of the Beis Din Murchav, and it was determined that their claims were not enough to vilify the staff, hence the recent psak that the staff is clean and the schools are safe. Now these SAME 2 girls have decided to sue in secular courts since they lost in Beis Din. BUT ITS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, THERE IS NOTHING NEW HERE. No one should mistake this suit as 2 more girls coming out of the closet with claims. There have been NO OTHER STUDENTS other than the same 2 from June MAKING ANY CLAIMS."
2)
דברי רוח
The Batei Dinim heard testimony regarding these girls as well, and nevertheless said what they said. I don't know who permitted or advised the girls to go to secular courts. These claims are no less fabricated or exaggerated in the public statement than in the public statement of the RICO suit.

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

These are the filing papers for a lawsuit against Meisels and Peninim Seminary and Peninim of America by two women alleging they suffered sexual abuse from Meisels -  including apparently rape.

Oddly rape is not stated explicitly in the charges but can be inferred from the request for anonymity where she says that revealing that she had sexual intercourse with Meisels - presumably against her will - would damage her marriage prospects.This is the exact quote from the filing:
 Jane Doe No. 2 asserts that she fears retaliation and ostracism by members of the Orthodox Jewish community if it is publicly disclosed that she is suing the defendants for alleged sexual harassmant and assault or that she had sexual relations with Meisels. Jane Doe. No. 2 Aff. at ¶¶ 10-15. She states that she may never be able to marry or have children if her identity is revealed, and that she and her family would be shunned in the community as a result. page 6
 Court granted them the right to be anonymous in this document due to alleged threats and severe negative consequences (e.g., shunning within the Orthodox Community and inability to marry) to them if their identity was generally known. Though it does acknowledge that their identify is known by the defendant and others already.

Plaintiffs further allege that Peninim of America and Peninim Seminary are liable for Meisels' conduct with the plaintiffs because they were "deliberately indifferent to known acts of discrimination, which occurred under their control."

The obvious and unanswered question is since  the charges apparently included serious sexual violence including rape - why didn't these young ladies go to the police? This is a civil suit which involves money - not a criminal case involving jail.

309 comments :

  1. Interesting to note that nowhere in this filing does it mention rape or anything of the sort. While it does use the ambiguous terms of "sexual harassment" and "sexual assault". It is quite obvious that every lawsuit has exaggerated terms. A nice text message can be called "sexual harassment" by an aggressive (or disbarred!) attorney. A hug can be called "sexual assault" by the same creativity that the CBD used to call it "sexual violence".


    It is interesting that these plaintiffs have chosen not to go to the police. Prosecutors would be very helpful - and they would be free! This is all about money and a smear campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If they are lying in this lawsuit, the plaintiffs names should be publicized.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have read elsewhere (not in the context of this episode) that the term "rape" is never used in filings of this sort, and that "sexual assault" is the standard term no matter what occurred.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Shockingly, the only reactions to the lawsuit are how do we out the plaintiffs names and they obviously are exaggerating. If there is any report that a בית דין examined the complaints against Meisels and did not find them credible please produce it. It is an unquestioned fact that one בית דין did believe them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can any lawyer confirm this? It would be very helpful ito clarify what the lawsuit is about.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Rabbi Blau - you are correct that there seems to be a case of cognitive dissonance here.

    Since the CBD did in fact examine their charges - if they found them credible it is strange that they would make a declaration that all is well with the seminaries. Could you please explain the actions of the CBD?

    In addition the CBD provided all their evidence to the IBD - do you thnik that they IBD found the evidence credible and yet said the seminaries are safe?

    In short your statement that the CBD found their testimony credible is totally inconsistent with their subsequent action of declaring the seminaries safe - unless you are implying that the CBD is corrupt and stated something they knew is untrue. Is that what you are claiming?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I asked for a statement from any בית דין that the accusations against Meisels are not credible and you did not have one. The statement that the seminaries are now safe is likely a result of the workshops donee with staff and students and the protocols introduced into the schools by Debbie Gross. This process was discussed publicly in front of hundreds of people. You haven't established any proof of congnitive dissonance except for those who refuse to accept Meisels guilt.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Rabbi Blau - again the CBD originally stated that 40 girls were raped etc. That certain staff knew about the abuse and did nothing. That is their stated reason for not declaring the seminaries safe. They found the charges - including that which is in this lawsuit against Meisels quite credible.

    The CBD still held to its position even after Debbie Gross was involved and the seminary had Reb Birnbarum and a new Vaad including Rav Asher Weiss. The cognitive dissonance is obvious. Harry Maryles writes about it at length on his blog.

    The evidence which the CBD gathered has only recently been shared with the IBD. Nevertheless they also declared the seminaries safe.I assume because they did not find the charges of rape credible but I don't know this directly

    You have access to the rabbis involved -the declaration was not made because they suddenly accepted the view of the IBD because of Debbie Gross. Their claims against the seminaries preclude declaring the seminaries safe unless certain staff was fired - since they view the lawsuit as credible.

    Please share with us the real reason that the CBD agreed to declare the seminaries safe

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's so odd that they didn't go to the police - especially considering the victim blaming, people saying they're lying, and the general disrespect that they've been faced with. You're suffering from cognitive dissonance - he's a sexual predator and you want to believe he isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Is it so hard to apologise and admit you were wrong? Pages and pages of defense of the seminaries and meisels. Attacks on the girls posting here who were in the know. Attacks on frum follies who believed whilst you did not.
    Even now one of your posters tries to brush off 'sexual assault' as a hug.

    I just really don't understand why you felt that you had to pick meisels side in all this. You ask how come the CBD said the sems were safe? Why the girls didn't go to police? Because of people like you. People who want big institutions to continue whatever they are responsible for. People who support cover ups and care more about the prestigious guy with the beard than the victims. People who cry 'chillul haShem' and bury their heads in the sand.

    You should be ashamed of yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @dave obviously weren't reading the same material as I was.

    There is no defense of Meisels. Just because a person admits doing a horrible dead - it doesn't give anyone the ability to ignore the evidence and claim he "raped 40 girls" etc etc.All I am demanding is an evidence based approach - and not as Lopan does of imagining that something could be true and then treating it as if it is a fact - and not a possiblity that hasn't been proven.

    Your claims against me have no basis in reality. I am not a defender of Meisels - but simply of the truth. He is guilty - but not guilty of everything sopmeone imagines is possible. He is not guilty simply because some claims he is - the Torah and secular law requires evidence - not a loathing and hatred of the accused.

    Your ignoring that I am not alone in this that many distinguished rabbis have stated siimilar views as done the secular court - why are you claiming that I am part of a move to terrorise anyone who disagrees with my preconceived views? I demand evidence. You believe in mob rule. Of decision by bloggers and and those who pontificate based on minimal infomration as to what must have happened - because it seems reasonable to them that it happened. That is not just - that is the law of the jungle.

    You want to talk facts. You want to show me where I have done the horrible things you slanderously accuse me of - then we have what to talke about.

    Screaming loudly that someone is horrible - doesn't make it true.I have nothing to be ashamed of - unless you consider the rule of law and justice to be shameful. Do you?

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Shoshana - how many times do I need to say that he has committed sexual transgressions and is unfit to be in chinuch because of that before you accept that I agree that he is a sexual predator?
    Do you always take at face value allegations of sexual abuse? Have you read the some of the many examples that I have published on this blog? Do you have credentials as a judge, lawyer or psycholgist dealing with abuse allegations? Or is all your knowldeged about the subject from blogs and what uniformed people say?

    Torah and the secular legal system demands protection of the rights and reputations of everyone one. A person who claims abuse doesn't is not automatically believed to have the status of a victim - until the charges are investigated. Do you have problems with that? Many times the facts are not clear or are disputed - does that mean that anyone who has investigated the matter and disagrees with your evaluation is corrupt, evil or suffering from cognitive dissonance?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Back in August Rabbi Blau accused the IBD of "not being knowledgeable about abuse and the role of enablers". However, he sings the praises of the CBD and claims that they are knowledgeable. Now, he all-of-a-sudden is not worried about the supposed enablers! Has he changed his opinion about the process of grooming and the role of enablers that he accused the IBD of being ignorant about?

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/08/seminary-scandal-rabbi-malinowtiz.html#comment-1525218328

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/08/seminary-scandal-rabbi-malinowtiz.html#comment-1526193119

    #cognitivedissonance

    ReplyDelete
  14. In the latest post you refer to the document from Pacer as "filing papers for a lawsuit against Meisels and Peninim Seminary and Peninim of America by two women alleging they suffered sexual abuse from Meisels - including apparently rape." I don't think they are filing papers, and I'm sorry if I mislead you into characterizing them that way. I think the document is a decision that Judge Go made.

    Since this document may not be the lawsuit itself, that could be why "rape" is omitted.

    According to the New York Jewish Week, the lawsuit was brought under Title IX. Clearly, the attorneys for the women had to be creative to find some way to bring this lawsuit. They may have tried to get the police involved. However since most of the activity took place outside the United States, this is not a police matter here in the U.S. It could be a police matter in Eretz Yisrael.

    It seems to me that the standard for rape under Title IX may be different than under criminal law. In other words, "rape" may be easier to prove under Title IX, and this may be a factor in bringing a lawsuit over pressing for criminal charges. At the very least, since Judge Go is taking this case seriously, I would guess that Rabbi Meisels and Peninim could easily find themselves with attorney fees in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range. They have hired lawyers, according to Pacer. Lawyers typically bill at $250 an hour and up. Plaintiffs expose themselves to having to pay defendants' legal bills if lawsuit is found to be frivolous. It can be inferred that plaintiffs are confident they have a solid case.

    According to this article
    http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/womensrights/titleixandsexualassaultknowyourrightsandyourcollege%27sresponsibilities.pdf
    schools that receive federal funding may have to pay damages to students in cases like this. If plaintiffs win, expect a flood of copycat lawsuits.

    If I was running a seminary in Eretz Yisrael, I would be looking real hard at the behavior of my staff right now, and making some tough decisions in regard to whether I should continue to take federal funding.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wow, as if a money extracting lawsuit is evidence of anything.

    ReplyDelete
  16. When did the CBD state that 40 girls were rape? There is no formal statement on that. I never heard that. I heard that around 30-40 girls called in after the initial letter was released, claiming that they had experienced Meisels inappropriate behavior and/or touching. People may have taken that to mean 40 girls were raped, but the CBD never formally stated that.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sexual assault: unwanted sexual contact that stops short of rape or attempted rape. This includes sexual touching and fondling. (But, be aware: Some states use this term interchangeably with rape.) RAINN.org

    ReplyDelete
  18. Daas Torah wrote: "Torah and secular law requires evidence"

    Yes, evidence is required to convict someone in Bais Din or in Secular Court. However, it is reasonable for the Public to view the person as guilty based on probabilities even without evidence.
    If you were a judge and dismissed the case - that would be reasonable. But perhaps it is unreasonable that you are "dismissing the case" in your capacity as a regular person.

    ReplyDelete
  19. A lot of people commenting here (Honesty, Kishekiyum) are saying that all that happened was a single instance of an inappropriate goodbye hug. Is that your position as well? Can that be inferred from the rulings of the bais din?

    ReplyDelete
  20. You confuse claims with evidence. Naturally, claims are inflated in a lawsuit (witness the CBD lawsuit, which claimed the seminaries were a brothel); the hope is to force a settlement. A plaintiff's filing is not a judge's finding.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Really. They are suing for sexual assault because of a hug? No. The assault, along with the alleged intimidation via text and email, as well as the staff minimizing everything was all over a hug? No. Liars like you and your ilk could be shown a video tape of Meisels sexually assaulting the girls and you would still figure out a way to minimize it and to explain it away all while screaming "Gottesman" and "he admitted to no more than a hug."

    Sane people trust Rabbi Schwartz when he said "sexual violence" k'pshuto, rather than all of the fancy word tricks you've been trying unsuccessfully to play.

    Now you're again trying to explain away serious allegations of sexual assault. At this point they are allegations but you still refuse to even ackowledge the scope of the allegations much less to consider the possibility they might even be proven in court.

    ReplyDelete
  22. All that is known for certain is what Meisels admitted to before the CBD, which was negiah. Everything else is conjecture, including the precise nature of the claims, which are not stated explicitly in the filing. The existence of a lawsuit proves nothing other than that someone is making a claim, not the truth of the claim.

    But none of this is relevant to the behavior of Chicago and Gottesman vis-a-vis the schools after Meisels was removed. They claimed that teachers and principals were complicit, and that they had evidence of it, and therefore the seminaries were unsafe. This turned out not to be true, by Chicago's own admission. People like you want to keep the actions of Meisels front and center in order to destroy the schools, and distract attention from the bad behavior of the CBD. In fact, he left the schools months ago, and so his actions have no bearing on their status now, as attested to by the CBD iiself.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's true that criminal cases go to the DA. Civil court is where you go when money is on your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Just to clarify, these 2 girls are the same ones the CBD has been talking about since June. There is nothing new here- no new testimony or claimants. These are the same 2 girls that testified on front of the Beis Din Murchav, and it was determined that their claims were not enough to vilify the staff, hence the recent psak that the staff is clean and the schools are safe. Now these SAME 2 girls have decided to sue in secular courts since they lost in Beis Din.

    BUT ITS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, THERE IS NOTHING NEW HERE. No one should mistake this suit as 2 more girls coming out of the closet with claims. There have been NO OTHER STUDENTS other than the same 2 from June MAKING ANY CLAIMS.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Eidensohn, ur a sick and twisted man. Go ahead everyone- attack me. I don't mind being the "korban" for haters. But when u focus on harassing the victims/ promoting to expose their names, that's just a whole different level. U are all sick people. Refuah Sheliemah.

    ReplyDelete
  26. R Eidonsohn has taken a evidence based approach and has been proven right as evidenced by the CBD about face.

    That you would blindly accept R Schwartz letter as fact (after the CBD was clearly misled by Gottesman (or some other explanation) without requiring knowledge of details shows that you will believe what you want to.

    R Eidensohn, however, rightfully requires evidence.

    Please show how he refuses to acknowledge the scope of the allegations, he actually did acknowledge them. Please reread the post.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Who has ever "dismissed the case" or is this just another attempt at confusing the issue so you can further besmirch people, ruin their reputations and harm their parnassos?
    Meisels was removed at the first hint of impropriety. Subsequent efforts were made to close his schools and tar and feather his staff without any attempt to differentiate between those that could have possibly been guilty of something [which is still unproven] and those that couldn't because he had nothing to do with their schools.
    It is those attempts to extort or close the schools and wreck his staff that we all want evidence of, not just public sentiment. That follows secular law and Halachah. Which system of law are you following?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Getting Meisel's kicked out of the seminaries, forcing him to sell, and having accreditation revoked is not losing in Beis Din.


    How many girls does Meisel's need to sexually assault to make you happy? Two isn't enough?

    ReplyDelete
  29. That is absolutely true.
    These are the same two girls.

    ReplyDelete
  30. We can get into endless arguments about the oral torah. The written statements of the CBD, which were never retracted or contradicted by CBD, the IBD, or the expanded beit din are:

    May '14 private ruling on conditions- “Elimelech Meisels may have no contact
    wth any girls, including present or former students, not by mail,
    email, texting, talking, Shabbos meals; no contact whatsoever… At no
    point do we give permission to Elimelech Meisels to resume any
    interaction.“ (subsequently made public by Daas Torah Blog

    July document- "allegations" of “unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature between Elimelech Meisels and students.”

    Sept '14 to public- Meisels ultimately confessed… to the victims’ allegations of misconduct. He also confessed to having engaged in other misconduct, and prepared and delivered to the Beis Din a handwritten list of multiple additional victims…… Some of the misconduct to which he confessed constitutes… “sexual violence.”

    Different individuals reported additional claims of what they heard privately and orally. As we both know, on the one hand there is a risk of telephone distortion and on the other hand sometimes people will say more in private than in public, especially rabbonim when it comes to the sexual misconduct of other rabbonim.

    But Rabbi Eidensohn, your argumentation would be more credible in this case if you stuck to formally confirmed written documents. You have lashed me for claiming that the enlarged beit din intends the firing of some staff even though I said, it would be privately handled and not official. It is an unresolvable argument unless one chooses to privilege the private info one of us got over the info another got.

    Rabbi Eidensohn, please dont use off the record stuff as your straw man. If you want to claim cognitive dissonance, prove it with documented cognitions, such as the stuff I put out above.

    Returning to the question of Rabbi Blau- have you ANY WRITTEN proof that any body has contradicted the CBD determinations about the sexual misconduct of Meisels?

    Also, please answer, do you really believe the CBD would have issued such severely restrictive lifetime condictions for just a few consensual, non-sexual hugs done in private where no other staff could have been aware of them or related grooming behaviors. Really, do you believe that?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I said nothing about any hugs, single or otherwise. I said he confessed to negiah, nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dismissing the case??
    He clearly has said many times that M admitted to doing something wrong and should not be involved in chinuch any longer.
    What is being dismissed is the exxagerations and hyperbole being thrown around. In fact it seems quite reasonable that the extortion allegations about Mr Gottesman are true, especially after the joint B'D session.
    It is also reasonable to believe that these 2 girls are simply looking for a payout and are betting that since it will cost a substantial amount of money for lawyers he will just settle with them....

    ReplyDelete
  33. Fuerst said it incessantly to anyone who called him.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Vera - don't bother, every time I have asked this very question, it is either ignored or the response is that someone said it orally. the fact is that no BD wrote, nor did FF blog and the Jewish Week never said that there was 40 girls raped. The only place that claim was ever made was on this website.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Fortunately, you are not the judge, since you seem to think that the mere accusation (of you not what, but something) is proof of guilt.

    ReplyDelete
  36. If you want to believe the victims and say he is guilty, then also believe them when they state what he is guilty of. Your position makes no sense.
    The views of distinguished rabanim are irrelevant unless they have heard the evidence first hand and even then suspect because as a group they have an abysmal track record in abuse cases.
    You try to work from the innocent until proven guilty perspective yet even when he has been proven guilty you refuse to accept what the victims claim he did.
    You constantly vilified a witness to meisels shady character; if this is not defending him what is?
    Don't joke to me about law and justice. If the secular court conclude that he sexually assaulted these girls based on the same evidence that the jewish courts have hushed up where will you stand then?
    You have a lot to be ashamed of.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Ben P. It has been noted be a number of people that the statement was made repeatedly by the CBD. You don't like it because it wasn't repeated by FF or the Jewish Week? Neither FF or Jewish Week is viewed as the final arbiter of truth

    ReplyDelete
  38. That's just stupid. Rabbi Schwartz has a 50 plus year career as a dayan and spent months investigating the case and talking to victims. His letter most certainly qualifies as evidence. You think some Gottesman colored Rabbi Schwartz's evidence based approach?

    If anything, I trust that Rabbi Schwartz actually spoke to victims which is a lot more than Eidensohn has to offer.

    You may now commence with the usual baloney about Gottesman and hit jobs and Chicago corruption. But who is really fact-based around here?

    ReplyDelete
  39. "forcing him to sell, and having accreditation revoked is not losing in Beis Din."

    Those had nothing to do with halachah or psak. They were the means by which the CBD attempted to extort the seminaries from Meisels.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The suit was filed BEFORE the latest BD ruling.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "I am glad that I am not part of the lyhch mob that you take such pride"

    Hear, hear!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Which includes intercourse with a young woman over whom he had tremendous power and authority, and also includes rape . Nothing more .

    ReplyDelete
  43. That is exactly my point, a "number" of people have noted that CBD "said" it. I don't know whether they "said" it verbally or not, however CBD certainly never wrote anything close to that. Specifically, they never wrote 40 and they never wrote rape. Both of those "facts" are only found in your blog and by your commentators. CBS written documents don't give a number and say unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature between Elimelech Meisels and students. Pointing to my statement of FF and JW is a red herring, designed to confuse the issue, as that statement had nothing to do with the truth or the point that I was making, which was that other than this blog no other written publication said anything about 40 girls being raped.

    When you try and discredit CBD by expressing horrified dismay that CBD claims 40 girls raped and it turns out to be just a few hugs, it is deceitful as you certainly have not shown even one time, despite being asked numerous times, any actual statements from CBD alleging 40 rapes. Your commentators claims to have heard it do not constitute any proof of such a statement.

    David - the RICO suit did not allege any rapes, did not allege 40 girls and did not even deal with the actual events. The RICO suit was the parents attempt to fight back against the seminaries for not giving back the deposit money when they decided to pull their girls from those schools. Victimized can mean many things - nowhere did it say rape. So even if you are 100% correct, that the suit was engineered by Rabbi Feurst and Gottesman and it claimed "that the entire purpose of the seminaries was really just to provide victims for the perpetrator and claimed that dozens of girls had been victimized" it still didn't say the facts that are being attributed to CBD on this blog without proper citation.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Yerachmiel Lopin - regarding your claim about demotion - as I have repeated said the IBD said your statement was a lie. They didn't say it was true but that it was being handled privately they said "IT IS A LIE" The joint beis din did not agree to demotion either publicly or privately. While I am aware that there are some who are demanding a token demotion so that they can save face. But it hasn't happened. Again your statement is a lie both in terms of what has been written and what has been stated orally.

    As far as my crediblity - I don't have a problem with credibility - the problem is yours. It is interesting after I pointed out the various wrong claims you made about Adina Cohen - you didn't change your allegations except to note she didn't work for Rabbi Kahana. You even kept the picture of Rabbi Kahane on the post - which had absolutely nothing to do with the story since he never empolyed Adina as a madricha. Bottlom line your story - remained unchanged after the facts were shown to be wrong - because you think it made sense. But you had zero evidence to support your claims!

    Yerachmiel - when the basis of your allegations are destroyed you come back and say "lets change the rule of debate". when I said your comments about demotion was a lie - your response was that you didn't have to prove that you were right - I had to prove that I was right. Wow! didn't impress anyone.

    Now you are pulling the same thing with the contradiction of the CBD's position. Harry described the conflict very nicely. These are rabbis who announced that they could not say the seminaries were safe because of concerns that certain staff were complicit. Now they say that the seminaries are safe - with the same staff and the same evidence they had before. Harry says that he still respects them but he can't accept their statement that the seminaries are safe. What about this don't you understand.I don't know anyone else who has trouble understanding the contradiction. Why don't you just ask Harry to explain it to you.

    Yerachmiel - regarding your final point. Your disgusting post that lied about my view of the signficance of hugging and "christening" Meisels a "respected rabbi" should be removed if you have any sense of decency and integrity. On the other hand if your really believe the lies you wrote there - then we simply have nothing more to talk about.

    ReplyDelete
  45. 1. We do not have the actual complaint, but rather a ruling that the complaint will be kept sealed and that the plaintiff's identities will not be disclosed.

    2. The term rape, like the term murder, has limited specific legal definitions. If the plaintiffs are not alleging an actual rape (generally physically forced penetration, or intercourse with a minor) then it makes sense for the judge to avoid the term.

    ReplyDelete
  46. When someone or more than one make a claim to something that was previously unknown and for which the alleged rabbi would never have been suspected of prior, and then we find out by his own admission that at least some part of is true - something serious enough for him to be removed- the logical path is to assume all they said is true until shown otherwise.
    One side is lying. Is it more likely that it's the girls whose testimony has at least in part been proven true? Or that the rabbi, his staff, and his defenders are lying or in error?
    The answer is self-evident.
    Of course if you work at one of the sems or are related to Meisels you'll deny this simple reality.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Not the first time he went against halachah with regard to arkaos. The RICO suit was his doing too.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Based on the above comment, you're name should be Irrational Non-thinker, not Rational Thinker.

    ReplyDelete
  49. So they were canny enough not to put the lie in writing. They said what they said. You don't get to flush it down the memory hole just b/c it's inconvenient now that it's clear they were not being honest about their "evidence."

    ReplyDelete
  50. " But who is really fact-based around here?"

    Certainly not you. You are welcome to trust Schwartz all you like. But in fact, when he wrote that Meisels admitted to "sexual violence," he was lying.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thank you for that. You have made it so very clear. One can either trust Rabbi Schwartz or the people who call him a liar. It's a simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  52. When you can't argue facts just toss around an ad hominem.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Lol do u even HEAR ur comments? Ur embarrassing urself already. U just keep calling everyone a liar. U sound incredibly NOT credible and immature. Now, go ahead, I'm waiting for the insults (cuz that's the only thing you've got).

    ReplyDelete
  54. Ben,

    You are welcome to deny anything you wish but since I heard Feurst use the number 40 and allege many rapes with my own ears, I'm free to claim that he said it. I know that I am not the only one and indeed, many commentators here have claimed to have heard similar things from him as well.
    Pretending it didn't happen because it's not in writing doesn't make an iota of a difference.
    Meisels also didn't write an admission so per your reasoning that didn't happen. I challenge the CBD to produce a written admission.
    He also didn't commit any form of negiah in writing [or on tape] so that must not have happened either.

    Let's all go find something to eat and call it a day since nothing's in writing.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Rabbi Schwartz actually did not spend months interviewing and speaking to anyone. He was at the initial hearing and left the BD Murchav hearing in the first few minutes. He, of all three dayanim, had the least to do with it. He is not on the BD normally and only joined because R' ACL refused to sit on the BD.
    The only reason he began taking a public stand was because at a certain point both feurst and cohen no longer agreed to do so because they realized they'd overstepped their boundaries.
    Continue inventing facts but don't expect to get away with them. There are actually people around who know something about this case.

    ReplyDelete
  56. The fact is that after the joint beis din the CBD made an about face. Of utmost importance is that Gottesman was removed from the case which let thingsove forward objectively, hence the results. To not acknowledge Gottesman's role is an admission of ignorance regarding the entire proceedings of this case.

    ReplyDelete
  57. There is another option that paints him in a slightly less negative light and that is that he was mislead and therefore believed that he was doing a good thing, when in reality he was being fooled. I choose to believe this more charitable version of his mindset than to accept that he was an outright liar.

    ReplyDelete
  58. His letter was actually the first use of "fancy words", let him stop being vague and spell out exactly what the admission was to. Who does it help to use such language?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Ad hominem has it's place when dealing with fools. But this is actually a comment on your non-facts; namely, that negiah includes intercourse. Irrational non-thought. Hence my suggestion for your new handle.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Except that in this case, the CBD has already been shown to have acted dishonestly, in their supposed "evidence" of complicity by staff, which they themselves have now admitted was not substantial. By your logic, once they are shown to have been dishonest in one area, the same applies across the board.

    Secondly, your "simple reality" notwithstanding, I happen to know that they are lying, b/c I know what was said at the hearing, which, as you may or may not know, was recorded. You can choose not to believe my claim; that's fine with me. What's important to me is that the truth be put out there. He admitted to nothing more than negiah, and the CBD lied when they claimed he admitted to more.

    And one need not work at a seminary or be related to Meisels to demand that batei din behave honestly (at the very least!), not as extortionists and thieves. You've got your agenda -- for all I know you're the accuser's cousin or Fuerst's gabbai -- but I've got the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Yes. But my purpose is not to convince "no longer dormant" or any other person who has bought the lie. My purpose is to put out the true story, so that people with open minds can be informed of what's really going on, and when they get a whiff of the smell coming from Chicago, they'll know it's not just their imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  62. So let's see, on one hand we have several anonymous blog commentators alleging that the CBD made an outrageous and specific claim that 40 girls were raped. On the other hand, we have no hard evidence that they made such a claim, the fact that these claims are very serious and sane people would not completely lie about such things and the 30 + years of respected leadership and rabbanus of the CBD that all lead to the conclusion that they would not make such a claim. Throw in the threat of a possible lawsuit (or beis din proceeding) for libel, slander or defamation.

    So how about this, R'DE, let's get it straight - did any member of the CBD ever directly tell you orally, verbally or in written form that they were investigating up to 40 claims of rape, or are you basing this "fact" on what would be called hearsay in court.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Rabbi Eidensohn, Do you endorse Moe Ginsburg that the names of the plaintiff should be publicly exposed? Would you allow someone to put their initials up on this blog as you did with Truthseeker? It is your blog and your call (and your legal liability for violating a court order) but the public is entitled to know.

    ReplyDelete
  64. @Yerachmiel Lopin - I think you are getting ridiculous - or rather you persist in making up sensation seeking claims against me. No I am not advocating publicizing the names of the plaintifs anymore than I endorse the slander that Truthseeker spouts about me

    Contrary to your allegation - I do not endorse every comment that is published on this blog. I

    BTW the comment suggested that their names should be revealed IF they are shown to be lying. Do you think that if the court decides that they made up the charges about Meisels that their identities should still be protected?

    I understand and endorse clearly the right and need of protecting the needs of victims - but what if they are not victims but are themselves guilty of false accusations?

    ReplyDelete
  65. @Ben P. - one of the major figures connected to seminaries told me that the CBD had made such a claim. Why don't you ask Rabbi Fuerst whether he denies ever making such a claim. The absence of such a claim in FF or the Jewish Week does not mean that Rabbi Fuerst or the other dayanim of the CBD did not make such an accusation that several of the commentators here claim to have heard directly from Rabbi Fuerst.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "and for which the alleged rabbi would never have been suspected of prior,"

    Actually, one of these rabbis has a prior record of misdeed. The others are too inconsequential and/or unlearned to matter, so no one has really been keeping track, but now we know what they're about. The truth is out.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I believe in all civil and criminal consequences for defamation and perjury in sex abuse cases as in other cases. I have no sympathy for false allegations of abuse.

    However, I absolutely reject the idea of self-appointed arbiters of falsity or arcaos, like Moe Ginsburg, taking it on themselves to justify breaking the anonymity seals of courts and battei din.

    As we both know, this is a regular tactic in the Haredi world to get plaintiffs to withdraw their lawsuits or charges in criminal cases. The issue of consequences for false accusations should only arise if and when a case has run its proper course in a judicial or beis din setting, not at the beginning.

    I think we can both agree, that while almost all defendants holler about their innocence and dishonest accusers, in practice it is uncommon.

    P.S I did not say you endorsed every comment. I said it went through moderation.

    You still leave it ambiguous whether you accept outing if there is
    certainty that the plaintiff is lying. Do you think it is OK to reveal
    the identity of a plaintiiff if either you are sure they are lying or
    are sure that they are in arcaos?

    ReplyDelete
  68. 30+ years of respected leadership? Eh, says who? Fuerst was never all that respected. He's done lots of questionable things before now. This has been only the most egregious. Cohen is a non-entity, notwithstanding his very rabbinic voice. Is Schwartz respected? Maybe b/c of his great age. I don't know.


    What I do know is that they lied about what Meisels admitted. And about the "evidence" they supposedly had against the teachers and principals. And once they lied about that, it's not difficult to believe they lied about many more things.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Sure, kid, lol. LOL. Ur Immature. NOT. Cuz whatever.

    Thanks for your contribution.

    ReplyDelete
  70. @Yerachmiel Lopin - please stop the "when did you stop beating your wife" accusations. Nobody said anything about self-appointed arbiters to decide whether tthe prlaintiffs are telling the truth.

    Why do you think smearing people - including myself - by making conjectures about the evil they might do - and only afterwards check to see if your nonsense is true?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Eidensohn, u are seriously getting ridiculous with ur picking-and-choosing which if my comments to post or not. Ur purposely choosing not to post/answer certain things I write.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @truthseeker - you said you would stop posting here - please go away. There is only so much of your nonsense that I can tolerate.

    ReplyDelete
  73. " I absolutely reject the idea of self-appointed arbiters of falsity or arcaos,"

    Your a self-appointed arbiter on what should be publicized about people's alleged misdeeds. Why not someone else?

    ReplyDelete
  74. You're absolutely right. It was a huge victory to have to sell and lose accreditation.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Well that settles it then. What could be more trusted than the words of An admitted predator?

    ReplyDelete
  76. You think I'm a fool? I KNOW you're an enabler of sex abuse.
    i suggest you wear it proudly and call yourself "Predator Enabler" .

    ReplyDelete
  77. Try reading it again. That reference was to Meisels.
    And yes, part of the truth IS out thanks to brave women like Truthseeker. A dangerous man is gone from his sexual playground.

    ReplyDelete
  78. How would you know what was said if you're not a party/defendant/accused ?
    Methinks the truth is the LAST thing you want out there.
    Having said that you're clearly a nogeah b'davar.
    As for me, I've seen here that most people whose comments say they find the accusations including those related to staff believable, are accused of having some ulterior motive. I've posted thousands of comments under this name on other blogs which you can read through if you like by clicking my name. I suggest you do as you would certainly learn a thing or two.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Just curious, have any of these rabbis done anything as bad as using 18 or 19 year old beis yaakov girls for their own sexual gratification? Because I know of a rabbi that did just that.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Moe. you know what's odd? A girl(s) came forward and used tremendous courage and summoned much strength to accuse a previously respected rabbi and menahel of sexual misdeeds. As we now know, through the rabbi's admission, they were telling the truth. As a result of this bravery countless other girls have been protected from having this monster around. So here's the strange part.....The commenters here, like yourself , instead of thanking and praising them, are doing exactly the opposite. You want to punish them. Seems really strange. Why do you suppose that is?

    ReplyDelete
  81. @Rational Thinker - that is a major misreading of what Moe wrote. He said nothing about punishing the victims. He said if they turn out to be liars. Liars are not victims Liars are not courageous. Are they in your universe?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Please make up your mind. Do you trust the CBD as a bet din or you don't trust them? If you trust them then you will trust their ruling that there is no issue, at all, with any current staff member at any of the seminaries. Lets remember that no one was fired nor demoted.

    The CBD has publicly retracted from their previous position about "sexual violence" etc. Therefore, how can you now come and claim "It is an unquestioned fact that one בית דין did believe them"?



    Please be clear - what did the beis din say he did. What the girls themselves say he did? Its all clouded in creative ambiguity. Now, what was the point you were making, Rabbi Blau?

    ReplyDelete
  83. 2 girls whose accusations are known to be at least partially true (with no reason to assume that they're being anything other than fully truthful) have made serious claims against a man who has admitted serious wrongdoing. That would make them VICTIMS. I would expect a normal ,compassionate, reasonable person to respond to news of their lawsuit by saying he hopes they're OK. They've been through something no girl should. He might say he hopes that this predator is severely punished for what he did. Yet instead, his comment makes clear that his main concern is his doubt about their honesty and his desire to have THEM pay IF they turn out to be liars. This is quite bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Hello Mr. "No longer dormant". How are you?

    Curiously the first comment you made with this moniker was a week ago, about this specific topic. Whats your real name?

    They are suing for sexual assault because of a hug? No.

    What evidence do you have that this is not the case? Is your suspect claim in anonymity supposed to be taken seriously? No.

    The assault, along with the alleged intimidation via text and email, as well as the staff minimizing everything was all over a hug? No.

    Did the Beis DIn rule that the staff did not minimize anything? Yes. You, however are saying otherwise. Nu.

    Liars like you and your ilk

    Cute. Sounds like a disbarred lawyer griping in anonymity. Projection, my dear!

    Liars like you and your ilk could be shown a video tape of Meisels sexually assaulting the girls and you would still figure out a way to minimize it and to explain it away all while screaming "Gottesman" and "he admitted to no more than a hug."

    Really, Mr. McCarthy? And you know this from where? Ahh, everything you say has the same credibility as this one. Yes. I get it, Mr. McCarthy.

    One line of reasoning all along.

    How about a little sincere resourcefulness?

    Sane people trust Rabbi Schwartz when he said "sexual violence" k'pshuto,

    These sane people see his actual psak and take this at face value. They also realize that ambiguity, as well the the silly RICO complaint remains unknown. Come'on, don't you know "ain sofek motzie miday vaday"? A lamdan as yourself should know better.

    rather than all of the fancy word tricks you've been trying unsuccessfully to play.

    There you go again with your projection, my dear.

    Now you're again trying to explain away serious allegations of sexual assault.



    What are the exact allegations? Please be precise. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Do you understand the difference between assuming someone is telling the truth based on knowledge of their history of truth telling as evidenced by his admission, and convicting someone in a court?
    We all operate based on thousands of assumptions every day. An honest person would assume the girls are the ones telling the truth until proven otherwise. Then again that qualifying adjective appears not to include you.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Please, Ms. MB - take a deep breath. Count to ten, s-l-o-w-l-y. Ok? Good.


    One more time, what is the issue, please?


    I look forward to being of further assistance.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Do you have any evidence of such or are you just another fool who believes everything he hears that is negative about others?
    Has anyone produced evidence that you're aware of?
    Of course not but it helps to muddle the waters by pretending that it may have happened. Excellent work.

    ReplyDelete
  88. You sound like Truthseeker only slightly less intelligent. You sure you're not her?

    ReplyDelete
  89. When people who were the 'adults' at a seminary entrusted to care for 18 YO BY girls either failed to see what was going on right under their nose, or worse, failed to act despite knowing something didn't smell right are faced with the prospect of being exposed and having their reputations hurt and maybe losing their jobs, do you think it's plausible that they might deny deny deny and attack attack attack?

    ReplyDelete
  90. and therefore what? That does very little to advance your point.
    Once again, you are welcome to produce evidence of what you allege but until then, you're nothing but a gossip monger.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Do you seriously entertain the possibility that two frum girls would go through the bother of filing a law suit alleging sexual assault if it is not true or "only a hug"??!

    ReplyDelete
  92. Another illogical, irrational leap. I dispute your contention that negiah equals intercourse, so I'm enabling predators. You are dumber than a sack of hammers.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Truthseeker had nothing to do with removing him from the seminaries. It happened before she ever got herself involved, at the hearing before the CBD. No one disputes that he had to be removed, and I'm glad he was. What's inexcusable is the attempted destruction of the schools and the attacks on the staff without evidence, all in service of greed and rishus.

    ReplyDelete
  94. There's nothing I want to learn from you.

    I've written a number of times now how I know the true facts. You are welcome to read my many posts on the topic and become educated. And if you choose not to, that's fine with me too. Tiny, closed minds are almost impossible to enlighten.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Yes, a victory for extortionists and gangsters, not for true dayanim.

    ReplyDelete
  96. "Well that settles it then. What could be more trusted than the words of An admitted predator?"

    What it settles is that the CBD lied about what he said. What else did they lie about?

    ReplyDelete
  97. "Shockingly, the only reactions to the lawsuit are how do we out the plaintiffs names"

    Nonsense. Their names are already known to many, as the court filing itself attests. Yet, they have not been outed.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Please, you're the one who started with the ulterior motives. I quote: "Of course if you work at one of the sems or are related to Meisels you'll deny this simple reality." Don't start whining when it gets turned around.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Because I know of a rabbi that did just that.


    Really? Why is this relevant? Please get your mind out of the gutter.


    What does one misdeed have to do with another?
    If someone robs a convenience store, may you now kill him?


    That's aside from the point that you didn't define the "sexual desires" or "gratification" of the person you believe it is permissible to murder since he has committed certain inexcusable wrongdoings.

    ReplyDelete
  100. You completely ignored my points:
    1) You admit to the guilt of meisels but refused to accept that he is guilty of what the victims are accusing him of.
    Please explain, very clearly, why.
    2) The fact that the jewish courts said the sems were safe is not reliable evidence of anything as they will always protect the establishments over the victims. Do you deny this?
    Why do you, as someone, one assumes, not under external pressure, not give any responsibility to sems that housed an admitted abuser for years.
    a)Do you categorically state that the victims all lied when they said they went to other staff for help?
    b)Do you categorically state that staff who allowed any sort of abuse, even 'hugs' and intimate chats should be allowed to continue teaching?
    c)Do you support a rabbi who wrote a threatening email to girls telling them to keep silent and consider him an appropriate leader of a sem?

    please go through the points.

    ReplyDelete
  101. I am not going to insult you, as I have great respect for much of what you have written (more at Frum Follies than here). However, I would suggest that you reread your own comment. Posting in the register used in text-messaging, and not including anything substantive in the comment other than an insult ("U sound incredibly NOT credible and immature") and stating that you (U?) expect insults in return does not meet the standard that you set for yourself in your well-written and informed comments you have made elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  102. @Dave - you totally missed my point that they testimony has been examined by beis din - which includes the CBD that has stated that if there is concern that the staff was complicit they would not declare the seminaries safe . They have declared the seminaries safe. Or rather it is obvious that you believe that a Jewish beis din can not possibly evaluate the facts honestly and competently. That seems to be our disagreement

    1) Why do keep insisting that accusations have to be accepted at face value? What exactly did Meisels do according to the beis din that heard his testimony?
    2) your casual dismissal of the honesty and competence of the beis din - because it differs from what you believe - is nonsense. Do you have independent evidence to support the accusations?

    Again why are you ignoring the joint beis din which has heard evidence? Why are you I insist on accepting your conjectures rather than the findings of the beis din?


    ReplyDelete
  103. Rational thinker? With these type of outbursts only one thing comes to mind truthseeker???

    ReplyDelete
  104. Yehoshua I understand u and thanks for the comments. U are correct that some of my recent comments have not been as productive as they have been in he past. U need to realize that Eidensohn allowing my identity to be threatened/ he allowed lies/ still continues to bully me and the victims on his blog and I will NOT back down from these low lives like "Kishkeyum" "Honesty" and "David" who threaten the victims and myself. If anything, "Rabbi" Eidensohn should be offered your advice. His responses to readers include bullying and the like. Don't u expect much more from him, than from a girl 40 yrs younger?

    ReplyDelete
  105. " failed to see what was going on right under their nose, or worse, failed to act despite knowing something didn't smell right"

    But in fact, the expanded BD (which included the CBD) concluded that the staff members were not complicit, and acted properly in removing Meisels once he was found out. Both BD's declared the seminaries safe on that basis. Without evidence, you reject the BD's decision, which was reached after hearing from accusers and defenders, and examining the evidence. Your rant is your own invention, and is not based on facts but on foolish emotion and anger.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Whether or not the girls are telling the truth is irrelevant to the BD's decision re. the seminaries. Boh BDs have said, after examining the staff, and hearing accusations, that the seminaries are safe. They fired no staff. You are deliberately confusing the issue to obscure that fact. Clearly, you have an agenda of your own.

    ReplyDelete
  107. How did those extortionists and gangsters get Meisels to admit ? Pretty devious.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Good point, the joint Bais din discussed this, and the staff was found to have acted properly.

    If the accusers have a history of making accusations, would you take their claims as seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Do you know just based on a assumption??
    Its seems you like to treat assumptions as facts.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Funny how the the one prattling about assumptions misses an obvious assumption.... The fact they are trying to extract money. Need I say more?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Try to follow. It doesn't equal intercourse, but it can include it. Thus an admission to negiah which you concede was made, does not preclude that it did take place. In addition, even if M did not admit to anything, or anything other than shaking a gloved hand, that wouldn't make it true. Almost every criminal doing time in prison is there by a miscarriage of justice....just ask them.

    ReplyDelete
  112. You sound like a misogynist protector of sex abusers who would stoop so low as to attack innocent victims.

    ReplyDelete
  113. If it were known by ANYONE on staff just that M took a girl in his car alone , OR entered the dorm for example, yet he remained in good standing until girls came forward themselves, then at the very least staff must be fired.
    I wouldn't send my daughter there now with the rest of the staff still there if you paid me. Maybe that's because I care about her well-being.

    ReplyDelete
  114. " Please get your mind out of the gutter."


    There's no room for my mind as the gutter is filled to capacity with admitted predators and their morally challenged defenders.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Oh dear. Are you now denying that M admitted to anything?

    ReplyDelete
  116. Those would be the same 2 options in your defense.

    ReplyDelete
  117. "An honest person would assume "

    And a biased person with an axe to grind would assume and say that the schools are unsafe and the staff complicit even after both batei din have ruled the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  118. An honest person would keep his lips sealed unless he know what he was talking about. Since you don't, please accept this friendly reminder that this is the proper way to act. Trying to insult me will do nothing to enhance your credibility or refute my arguments. Get the facts and then we can continue this conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  119. No insults here.
    You're are so very on the mark. Everything you write is laced with wisdom and insight. You are truly a role model for us all. Please don't go anywhere and please don't start to charge for this enlightenment. We're fortunate to have you share your endless insights and precious tidbits. We know that you have better things to do with your time and that you're frequently called upon to speak to the esteemed CBD. We appreciate the time you devote to this worthwhile cause and hope that you'll always remain faithful to this cause and remember what got you to where you are.
    Satisfied?

    ReplyDelete
  120. Do you care to explain why my most recent few comments do not appear and are no longer in moderation? Too much truth and logic
    ?

    ReplyDelete
  121. Either they were in fact approved and you put them on the wrong post or you didn't correctly enter them into the Disqus system.You have quite comments approved - even recently.

    ReplyDelete
  122. so that means you can ignore the evidence and just use your imagination to determine the facts?

    ReplyDelete
  123. How did the CBD get Meisels to confess. Did they use torture? Did they kidnap him and lock him in solitary for a month? Or did he voluntarily admit to something which he understood was wrong. Please tell us the true story.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Meisels was declared guilty because he confessed.There seems to be a disparity between what he confessed to and what they testified he did.

    Are you claiming the CBD is lying now?

    ReplyDelete
  125. "A" breaks "B"'s widget. "A" apologizes to "B", says he'll be more careful next time he borrows one of "B"'s widgets, and agrees to take "Widget Sensitivity Training". Naturally, I would lend "A" my trusty widget now, wouldn't you?

    "A" still has to pay "B" to fix "B"'s widget. You know, "money, money, money."

    ReplyDelete
  126. i see them now. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  127. You're the one who seems to have a tough time following. Chicago claimed he admitted to far more than he actually did. They lied about that. The only ones who can truly know whether anything more than he admitted to happened are himself and his accusers, and they are in disagreement about that. The difference between us is that I don't pretend to know who's right, whereas you do. But that's what the lawsuit is about.

    And try to follow this too, Irrational One: None of that has anything to do with the staff. Chicago claimed they had evidence of staff complicity and therefore the schools are unsafe; they have now declared the schools safe, after a joint hearing of both BDs. Your attacks against the staff and schools are unfounded, and contrary to the ruling of both batei din.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Your go-to insult, aimed at anyone who dares disagree with the Irrational Non-thinker.

    ReplyDelete
  129. How can I be ignoring evidence or using my imagination when all I did was correctly point out that the admission of negiah COULD include many different things. If someone claimed that all he admitted to was a hug, THAT would be using their imagination since that is just one possible included act under the term.
    Has there been any published finding which further classifies what exactly took place ?

    ReplyDelete
  130. Oh gosh. Are you having a hard time stating what you actually know and how you know it?

    ReplyDelete
  131. I threatened you? More proof that you're a fantasist.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Really? Properly? Did they find that nobody at all on staff knew of any car rides or visits to dorm, or sexual questions, or comments on girls' appearances, or long solo 'talks' ? Is that what they found? Could you provide a link to this please? Did they find that Kahane did NOT write a letter requesting girls' silence ?
    OR did they just say that the sems are safe and nobody must be fired? Because those are 2 very different findings.
    And if the facts are that some on staff DID know of anything from the list above, or were told of them, then it really doesn't matter what any BD says. They are unfit IMO.
    Oh and are you now claiming all the accusers are ill, hurt, delusional, and or malicious liars with a history of false accusations? Absent solid proof of this, you should be ashamed for asking this. Didn't you learn ANYTHING from his CONFESSION??

    ReplyDelete
  133. See my above reply to shlomo. Nice try with the word games. Being aware of and being complicit are very different. I challenge you too to provide a finding that NOBODY on staff knew of anything such as late night car rides. If you can't , then there's no disagreement on the factual rather just on the very subjective question as to whether or not the entire staff is suitable to remain in their jobs. The BD may have said yes they're OK to continue despite that some saw things which weren't fully kosher.
    I'm free to question such a ruling as ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  134. "axe to grind"? i have no problem stating that I have no connection, direct or indirect with anybody in this case.
    Not the complainants, the defendants, the witnesses, the staff or ownership of any of the sems, any potential owners, any sems in competition, the dayanim nor anyone else I may have left out. Nor am i related in any way to any of the above. never even spoke to any AFAIK.
    i wonder how many of the big M defenders here can say the same truthfully.
    Would you start us off, kishkeyum?

    ReplyDelete
  135. Which facts? Did I ever say the BD did not say they were safe? Please copy and paste it. Nice try.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Oh, did you not hear about a confession? Or is that a fact you don't like so you ignore it?

    ReplyDelete
  137. It doesn't mean rape - can we agree on that? He specifically denied doing anything more serious when asked by the Jewish Week. All the accusations of him doing more than hugging come from allegations from other people whose testimony has not been verified or from certain peoples imagination of what he might have done given their belief of who he is..

    There is no verified evidence at the present for the CBD accusations of rape or that that he did "all matters of prohibited activity". The CBD did not produce any evidene for either at the jjoint session.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Do you know what the confession was or is it just based on your assumptions since you seem to come to absolute conclusions based on your assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  139. You are entitled to suspect whoever and whatever you want, just be honest what your suspicions are based off.

    Despite the joint B'D evidently not finding the staff of acting improperly (this despite the fact that they stated the opposite earlier and you can be sure would have grasped at anything to hold the staff accountable) and you not having any evidence to the contrary, you still are suspicious. That's fine just make the above clear.

    Before you accept accusations as fact, it is only reasonable to check into the accusers history, especially since they are trying to get a payout major exaggerations are an obvious suspicion.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Comical rational thinker challenging all to say truthfully they have as little negius as him yet he won't tell us his real name????? How could that be rational I must say truthseeker has affected us all!!

    ReplyDelete
  141. Agree on what? That rape is included in the set : negiah, or that a rape occurred? Rape is just as included as a subset of negiah as a hug is.

    Did a rape - or intercourse with a girl under his authority as a teacher or administrator, which is a crime in Israel even if she were of adult age - occur ? I don't know and neither do you. I've never claimed it did. What I did was show that it's as valid a claim as one insisting it was just a hug.

    "He specifically denied doing anything more serious when asked by the Jewish Week."

    Seriously...you're saying his denial is sufficient evidence for you? What would you expect him to say?

    Of course other allegations haven't been 'verified'. i wouldn't expect them to have taken place in front of others so it would have to be a "He said, she said" which could be considered "unverified". That doesn't make them untrue. And IF such allegations were made - I don't know but you might- then i would believe them.

    "The CBD did not produce any evidene for either at the jjoint session."



    Again i have no idea if this is accurate, but even if so, was there evidence produced which proved the allegations did NOT take place? Or that the CBD heard testimony that it did but the witnesses chose not to go to the second BD?
    If your bar is set to factual evidence, then absent any proof either way, a claim to believe the accusers is at least as valid as a claim to believe him when he denies.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Ummmm no. i know what I've read on blogs and their comments.

    ReplyDelete
  143. "Chicago claimed he admitted to far more than he actually did. They lied about that"


    Proof? Or should I take your word for it? Were you there with a recorder taping?


    " The difference between us is that I don't pretend to know who's right, whereas you do."


    Wrong. I don't know with certainty either. But if more than one girl alleged he did more, and if it's true that he did confess to at least part of their claims, then i would bet my house they were telling the truth on everything.




    "None of that has anything to do with the staff"




    Really? On what delusional planet? If as I've read a girl(s) claimed to have gone to staff with some of her allegations and the staff member(s) didn't take the necessary steps to stop it and expose M immediately, then it has a whole lot to do with the staff.


    And I don't care WHAT the CBD, IBD or hybrid declared. If a girl told staff or staff turned a blind eye to late night drives then ANY BD who says the schools are safe with the same staff IS NOT SPEAKING FOR ME. They would be dreadfully wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Uh not quite. Agreeing to having done something does not equate to having been forced to sell one's seminaries. That is the extortion that folks are referring to. You can pretend that it didn't happen, but it's a known fact.

    ReplyDelete
  145. How utterly insightful of you. Keep up the great work. You're making less and less sense with each comment.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Negiah can also mean murder so let's also include that in the list of possibilities. The fact that no one accused him of it is irrelevant because no one accused him of rape either but details don't seem to matter.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Have no fear or embarrassment I'm an Orthodox Jew.
    And thx for acknowledging that I'm not the only one that thinks irrational makes sense "hundredth time over the years" #troll I rest my case

    ReplyDelete
  148. And I really pray for you that the Truthseeker comments were sarcastic?? You don't seriously think the commenters insulted her she came to a gun fight with a foam cup
    With dirt in it. The level of this blog when she comments really feels like I'm watching a high school girls movie!!

    ReplyDelete
  149. Can you take your high school drama elsewhere please???

    ReplyDelete
  150. Says the anonymous man he has no problem stating he has no relation to any side make it
    A hundred and one tImes
    IRRATIONAL THINKER makes more sense!!!

    ReplyDelete
  151. 1) Are you implying that the only reason he was found guilty was because he confessed? Based on what? You think jewish courts are so incapable that the claims of multiple victims would just be ignored unless there is an actual confession?

    2) Where did the CBD state that there was no sexual assault? It is you who made this assumption. It is you who sees the disparity. It is all in your head because you will imagine anything that can defend meisels. The question is, what do you have to gain from this?

    You owe a lot of people an apology.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Every one of your comments make you sound like Mr. Gottosman himself.


    Kindly answer the question - are you Shlomo Gottosman?


    Your little rant and supposed psychoanalysis of Rabbi Eidensohn sound more like you're projecting your bias upon others.

    ReplyDelete
  153. He has yet to explain why he assumes there was no sexual assault. Basing it on the fact that the beis din declared the sems safe is a fallacy.
    Why do you, honesty, feel you can disregard the written accusations of the victims, accusations that lead a beis din to declare meisels guilty and rely on a inference which basically says 'because they declared the sems safe now that meisels has gone, obviously he didn't sexually assault the girls'.

    ReplyDelete
  154. @Dave why are you repeating the same claims which have been repeatedly refuted here?
    Meisels did confess to sexual misdeeds which required his removal from the seminaries.

    The issue is whether the seminaries are safe with the present staff. Originally the CBD said they thought some of the staff was complicit and therefore they coud not say the seminaries were safe. They apparently have changed their minds and have declared them safe - without any change of staff.

    The alleged victim's testimony written, skyped or direct was listened to prior was taken prior to stating the seminaries are safe - that means the seminaries are safe.

    To say it one more time - Meisels was declared guilty because he confessed. Again no one is aying he isn't guilty of sexual misconduct.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Ok. so accept, as opposed to many commentators here, that he sexually assaulted the girls.
    So why on earth are you supporting the beis din's ruling that basically whitewashed the whole situation and relieved the seminaries of taking any responsibility? And why on earth are you describing people as a lynch mob as if they are in the wrong? A man abused his position and sexually assaulted girls. You accept this. Why aren't you at the front holding a pitchfork demanding that the rabbi who sent the girls a threatening letter is fired? That the staff, who the victims claimed knew about things, are punished?

    Is your petty excuse that you will just sit back and accept whatever the beis din decides? You should be ashamed of yourself. What kind of blogger are you?

    ReplyDelete
  156. @Dave - you simply haven't read the discussion if you can now make those accusations.

    Everybody accepts that he sinned with hugging which if forced - makes it assault or sexual violence to use the Title IX term. He confessed to that.

    There is no whitewash going on. Meisels was removed when it was revealed what he did.

    There are two issues 1) did he do more than hugging? 2) Did the staff know about his activities or should they have known about it and are either negligent or complicit.

    It has not been estalished that he did more - and he denies it And it has not been established that the staff knew about it or should have known about it..

    Sorry Dave but I don't agree that people like you who confidently known what must have happened and therefore act as that is what happened are in a superior position to a seven man beis din that has carefully evaluated the evidence.

    At the present they collectively have paskened that the seminaries are safe even though no staff has been fired. You don't think that means anything while most of the rest of us clearly do.

    I would assume that if at a future date they obtain clear evidence that the staff was complict or should have known- they take the appropriate measures.

    If you don't understand what I have just written don't bother repeating your question - simply go back and read the many posts and comments over the last six months. If you still disagree - then there is no basis for further discussions.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Was there a coherent thought in there somewhere?

    ReplyDelete
  158. Since you're not too bright I'll type slowly. I've stated clearly my lack of any conflict of interest here. This is strongly supported by the thousands of comments I've made using this same alias going back long before this sex abuse case started. All of these are available to read.
    You, kishke, and others defending and enabling a predator and his blind or incompetent staff have not AFAIK even made a clear denial of any connection to any parties to the case. Until you and they at least make that claim, nothing you say can be taken seriously.
    Funny how many new aliases appeared to comment only on this case. Oops.

    ReplyDelete
  159. He voluntarily admitted to something he understood was wrong. He was remorseful. The CBD assured him that so long as he stepped down from his chinuch position and any connection with students, they would not publicize the matter, and he could retain ownership of the seminaries. Those assurances appear in their initial ruling.

    The extortion came later -- with threats to publicize the matter and have him arrested if he would not hand the seminaries over to the person they designated. After carrying out the threat to go public, they continued with threats to further persecute him and destroy the schools if he would not hand them over, and they took steps to block the sale of the schools to other buyers.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Why would I provide you with proof? It makes no difference to me what you think. I write for others to see, whose minds are open, so they can learn the truth, not for people like you, whose minds are closed, and are not interetsted in the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  161. "Or that the CBD heard testimony that it did but the witnesses chose not to go to the second BD?"

    How silly. The CBD was part of the second BD. They were in a position to say whether there was more evidence. They did not do so, but instead gave their hechsher to the seminaries. Evidently, there was no such testimony.

    Do you think at all before you comment?

    ReplyDelete
  162. The expanded BD examined not only complicity, but also when they became aware and how they reacted. They were satisfied, as evidenced by their ruling.

    Of course, there's no point in explaining this to you, after you stated above that you don't care in the slightest what the joint BD ruled. Still it's important to counter your lies so that others can learn the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  163. We're stlil waiting for your denial. Will that be forthcoming, or just more deflections and attacks? It's untzniusdik for so many of the enablers here to be walking around with their negios showing.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Your anonymous statement is worthless. You could be anyone, and say the same.

    In any case, the axe I refer to is your wish to believe the worstt of the seminary staff no matter what is decided after investigation. You made that quite clear above, when you stated that no matter what any BD determines, you do not accept it. You are one of those people who believes every accusation of sexual impropriety to be true, and that's why no matter what, the staff cannot possibly be innocent, and must be persecuted. That's the axe you're grinding.

    ReplyDelete
  165. You continue to level the accusations against the staff that the BD determined were not substantial. You stated clearly that you don't care what about the BD's determination. No need to copy and paste; it's all clearly stated in this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Oh, so when you said this:

    "have any of these rabbis done anything as bad as using 18 or 19 year old
    beis yaakov girls for their own sexual gratification? Because I know of a
    rabbi that did just that."

    you were lying. You don't actually know of a rabbi who did that. You just read a blog comment somewhere that made the claim.

    That's the level of all the nonsense you write. All just extrapolation from rumour and vitriol. As I said, you have an axe to grind.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Rational Thinker = TROLL.

    I suggest that from hereon we ignore this troll. Facts don't matter, nothing the CBD or IBD has said does he know about or care about and his imagination is fertile.

    ReplyDelete
  168. TROLL.

    Highly doubtful you have a daughter, let alone get paid for anything. If you did have a daughter, my guess is she wouldn't be accepted to any of the seminaries either so no worries about where to send her.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Typing slowly might make things easier for you, but it won't make your points any more relevant or insightful. You're still a TROLL and don't deserve a fraction of the attention that's been paid to you up until this point.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Please demonstrate even one time that I did or wrote anything remotely threatening to you? Just one.
    If anything, I've been the one inviting you to remain and continue to make a fool of yourself. These comments of yours have been the most productive of any you've ever made. They show the world just how unreliable and untrustworthy you are.
    Now - please produce examples of threats...

    ReplyDelete
  171. RT,

    Did you think of that on your own or did your mommy help you? Either way I'm impressed because it's levels above anything you've posted so far.

    ReplyDelete
  172. I see you can still type but haven't gotten around to responding to my request regarding your connection here. That silence speaks volumes.

    ReplyDelete
  173. I would love to have a conversation with you when you stop deflecting and tell all of us your real name?????
    You really seem to be getting agitated it's just a simple question?

    ReplyDelete
  174. So has frum follies been commenting long before you that proves nothing abt being unbiased or having negius does it not? It's blogosphere unless u state your real name like rabbi eidonsohn etc.. U have no נאמנית end of story.

    ReplyDelete
  175. i didn't ask for your real name. I asked for a statement denying any connection as I have made. And just like kishke, you won't provide one. It just confirms that all the busy defenders here are not credible since they (you) lack objectivity.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Yet you feel the desperate need to respond to me and attempt unsuccessfully to refute my points. And when that's not possible to go into attack mode. Too funny.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Another substantive comment. Bravo.
    Your, kishke's, 'facts' and the other transparently biased enablers' comments should be linked to in the definition of the ad hominem fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  178. You mean facts like the

    direct quotes from RGDS letter ?

    "Meisels repeatedly visited dormitories late at night, to the knowledge of certain staff.

    Meisels repeatedly took female students for car rides alone with him late at night, often to secluded destinations, to the knowledge of certain staff.

    A parent of a victim of unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature by Meiselsreported the misconduct to a senior administrator, who summarily dismissedthe report as false.

    Another staff member was aware of multiple instances of unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature by Meisels, but did not take action in response

    A student reported misconduct to anothersenior administrator, who responded that the student should remain silent lest Meisels ruin her shidduch prospects.

    A senior administrator instructedothers that it was forbidden to discuss Meisels’s misconduct or believe it to be true.

    A staff member who was aware of multiple instances of unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature by Meisels instructed the victim not to tell her parents."

    http://frumfollies.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/breaking-no-accreditation-for-seminaries-until-other-staff-testify-some-staff-are-fired-and-meisels-surrenders-control/

    ReplyDelete
  179. Correct. I don't care what the BD says regarding their judgements or recommendations. i use my own brain to make my own judgements and given the known facts many more people need to be gone.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Truthseeker never claimed to be a victim of Meisels. You don't seem to know much about this.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Let it speak volumes to you. I owe you no explanations. I am here b/c I am aware of certain facts in this case, and I'd like to make them known to others. You don't like that, b/c it interferes with your agenda. Too bad.

    ReplyDelete
  182. @ Rational Thinker - the letter describes allegations - it doesn't say they were verified. Why do you insist that allegations are to be treated as facts?

    Furthermore notice the heading of the post. The CBD said that they had conditions for recommendation of accreditation i.e., No Accreditation for Seminaries until Other Staff Testify, Some Staff are Fired, and Meisels Surrenders Control

    It is obvious that they don't see the allegations as problem. They said what needed to be rectified had been rectified - and no staff was fired.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Wait - isn't this the guy who just said that he doesn't give a hoot about what any BD said?
    Of course when it's convenient, then everything they said is the gospel truth.

    here's a little secret for you - we've known anout these allegations. We also know that the CBD which introduced us to them now tells us that there's no reason that the schools are unsafe. We also know that when the CBD was given an opportunity to present the evidence that they supposedly uncovered for all these allegations they were unable to produce any which is why they had to admit that the schools are safe.

    You can continue to scream all you want about the allegations, but as I said, folks who deal in facts and not just allegations are not impressed.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Nice words, but you're still a TROLL

    ReplyDelete
  185. Glad I can provide some humor to your otherwise sad life. When you do get around to making a point, I'll be glad to address it too.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Really? Can you read? In RGDS letter it states the following: There were a MINIMUM of 4 separate victims and possibly MANY more. So anyone who claims there were only 2 is lying. How do i know?
    The first sentence of paragraph 2 says "former studentS- plural. So at LEAST 2 came forward and spoke to the BD. It's possible to infer at least 3 because it then says "each of them" as opposed to "both" which would be more correct if it were just 2, but I digress. Let's go with at least 2. He then goes on to say that not only did M confess to their allegations -and note it doesn't say "to PART of their allegations"- but "delivered a handwritten list of MULTIPLE ADDITIONAL victims. 'Multiple must be at least 2 and could be many many more but is at least 2 OTHERS. So we now have conclusive proof that there were AT A BARE MINIMUM 4 different girls that were ADMITTED to. (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  187. cont.- But there's much more. What you keep trying to dismiss as allegations are not just allegations at all. And you're very dishonest in calling them that. How do we know? Because the signed letter says that " they received EVIDENCE including DOCUMENTARY PROOF (this makes you look really bad) ....and...wait for it..... ADMISSIONS. These would be admissions by these staff members themselves. But there's more. We also know that there were at LEAST 2 staff members -note plural- who were aware of BOTH specific misconduct AND violations of norms of behavior.
    It then lists the items I listed before and refers to them not as "unverified" or "allegations" , but as "disturbing FACTS supported by this evidence".
    So....we know as fact of at least 4 separate victims and that at least 2 staff members were indefensibly enabling this abuse to proceed by their own admission.

    ReplyDelete
  188. There's always room for a mind as tiny and insignificant as yours.

    ReplyDelete
  189. please see my response to kishkeyum. These weren't allegations, but were findings of FACT supported by evidence which included documentary PROOF as well as ADMISSIONS.
    My question to you is why you keep referring to these facts - including at least 2 staff members having been aware of both specific instances of misconduct AND "gross violations of the norms of behavior in seminaries" as being just "allegations" ?

    ReplyDelete
  190. @RT because that is how the beis din which you don't value treats them

    ReplyDelete
  191. Incorrect. These were allegations, which were addressed at the joint BD hearing and found to be without substance, resulting in the ruling declaring the schools safe.

    ReplyDelete
  192. I can't combat with foolishness just utter rubbish that a statement from anonymous that he/she has or isn't anything makes a difference?????
    I will not continue this foolish elementary level discussion being that you bring nothing of any intelligence to the table no thank you!!

    ReplyDelete
  193. You're behind the times. The allegations -- yes, allegations -- put forward by the CBD were addressed at the joint BD hearing, which included the CBD. At that point, the allegations -- y'hear? allegations -- were shown to be without substance, resulting in the all-clear ruling for the seminaries. The letter is yesterday's news.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Nonsense. He delivered no such list. All that was part of the CBD's lie fest. There were two accusers, the same two that are now suing Meisels. The proof of this is in the joint BD hearing. The CBD produced only these two victims when they joined with the IBD in the expanded BD. Where were the multiple others they claimed?! No sign of them. No others were produced. Schwartz is either a liar, or an old dodderer who was fed a bill of goods to which he affixed his signature.

    But of course you choose to ignore the evidence of the joint BD hearing, since your mindset requires no facts to assume the guilt of the staff. You're just too transparent.

    ReplyDelete
  195. I'm not following.

    ReplyDelete
  196. "Everybody accepts that he sinned with hugging"????
    Where do you get that from?

    The victims are accusing him of sexual assault to say the least and you, in your wisdom, interpret this as hugging? Will you please retract the post you wrote against frum follies when he accused you of claiming it was 'just a hug' and you denied it.

    I see this discussion is pointless as you for some reason you are extremely biased and disingenuous.

    What a disappointment.

    ReplyDelete
  197. @Dave stop throwing a fit. You simply attention. Again if you are following this discussion the base line that all agree is that he confessed to hugging. The question is whether he did anything else. Not aware of anyone who doesn't say he didn't hug anyone.

    you obviously are more interested in ignoring what I have written countless times and assert falsely that no one says he did more than hugging.

    It is impossible to have a discussion with someone that every point has to be repeated each time a response is made - especially when their understanding of my views have become twisted by reading posts from FF and Harry

    ReplyDelete
  198. There are at the very least 4 girls. Stop lying.

    ReplyDelete
  199. Not so. As was made clear at the joint BD procedure, to which Chicago brought all their evidence, accusers and witnesses. There were only two accusers. You're ignorant of the facts. Quite literally so, b/c you ignore all facts that do not fit your preferred narrative.

    ReplyDelete

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