Thursday, March 12, 2015

Epstein Torture Trial - David Wax links Epstein to the torture of Bryskman to give a Get

NJ.Com    In the ongoing federal conspiracy trial of Rabbi Mendel Epstein, David Wax detailed the roles of three of the four men accused of resorting to violence in exchange for large sums of cash to extract divorces from unwilling husbands.

Wax, the founder of a charitable organization that funneled millions of dollars to Israel, directly linked Epstein and two of the three other men on trial with him to the 2010 attack on Yisrael Bryskman, an Israeli national who was living in Brooklyn to avoid giving his wife a divorce according to Orthodox Jewish custom.

On the witness stand for the entire day on Wednesday, Wax said he and Epstein had phone discussions about forcing Bryskman to agree to the divorce -known as a get - at Wax's Lakewood home.

He said Epstein wanted $50,000 from the family of Bryskman's wife "to pay the people who were going to come." [...]

Bryskman testified on Tuesday before U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson in Trenton that his attackers blindfolded him, cuffed his hands behind his back and bound his legs before repeatedly beating and kicking him. The attack occurred late Oct. 16, 2010, and continued into the early morning hours of the following day.

Bryskman couldn't identify anyone other than Wax as his attackers, but Wax on Wednesday said Ari Epstein and his unknown friend threw the first punches before he joined in.

At one point, Wax donned a white cowboy hat and pulled Bryskman's head up by his hair to ask him how he liked the hat, Wax admitted.

He said Goldstein was present to write the official get document before everyone left.

Wax also testified that after the attack was over, he got into a cab with Bryskman and took him to an automated teller machine to withdraw the money. The cash - which Bryskman eventually did not retrieve - was to pay for the rug in Wax's bedroom that Bryskman had bloodied during the attack, Wax said.

Wax said he attempted to have Bryskman's father pay $100,000 in ransom but insisted the money was intended as child support for Bryskman's wife.

In the four weeks that federal prosecutors have been calling witnesses, Wax, who has admitted to the kidnaping and brutal beating of one of those husbands, has provided the most potentially damaging testimony so far. [...]


137 comments :

  1. Bryskman's coerced "Get" is clearly a Get Me'usa. Does anyone know if his eishes ish purported to remarry or has had mamzeirim?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where's the beef? How was the grand prize divided amongst the go Getters? The big bang is having birth pangs. Where were the other rabbis outside of the manhigei hador while all this was happening under their nose? Preparations are going on upstate for a mehadrin Kosher for Passover Prison ulechol shaar yemos hashono to accomodate from all the way to top. They also contemplate of merging all Shomer Shabbos prisoners, so that each rabiner have their own minyanim throughout most of the day (Shomrei Torah umitsvot need not apply). Moitsi assirim org is working tirelessly to make their stay as enjoyable as they can supplying all conveniences. For your donations, please make out your checks payable to "hayadayim yedei" a/k/a Rosho lomoh sakeh.

    ReplyDelete
  3. she is indeed remarried

    ReplyDelete
  4. How do you know that she is "remarried"? Did she have mamzeirim with her paramour?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not every coerced Get is a Get Me'usah. there are instances, albeit rare ones, when a Get may be coerced. Was this one of them? Who knows, but i do hear whispers that the undisputed Poskei uGedolei Hador held that Bryskman may be forced, due to his outrageous behavior towards his wife.

    ReplyDelete
  6. She is married to Mondrowitz son.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What about the issur of mesira? Is Wax, allowed to testify against Epstein to save his neck? After all, Wax did believe that Epstein was following halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, I heard Mondrowitz's son as well -- impeccable pedigree. As to get meuseh, I heard second hand from R' Efrati that R' ELyashiv said it was a get Meuseh.
    Her family is very close to a Talmid Chacham whose followers are not voting in this election, and he allegedly said the get was Kosher.

    ReplyDelete
  9. he allegedly said the get was Kosher


    I find it very hard to believe that he would have contradicted Rav Elyashiv - especially in a case like this. There was a news release back then that the Rebbe who visited him recently was the one who permitted his chasiddim to attend that elopement ceremony.


    I've read that Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky took a strong stand that it was a get meusah.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes sometimes a coerced Get may not be a Get Me'usa but this was 100% am invalid Get Me'usa because in order for a coerced Get to be valid, it is only possible after a valid Beis Din trial where the valid beis din orders the husband to provide the Get, he refuses and the beis din thereafter formally rules that he may be physically coerced. In order for such a beis din ruling to occur, it can only happen if both the husband and wife were physically present in the beis din courtroom, having accepted the beis din's jurisdiction over their case. Since the husband in this case was never a party or attended a beis din court where it was ruled coercion is halachicly permitted, it was clearly impermissible in this case to coerce. He never attended any such beis din court case, something that would have had to happen in order for any beis din to have had the halachic ability to rule coercion permissible.


    No recognized posek has ever ruled this illegally coerced Get vallid, as the coercion occurred in the absence of any beis din that he appeared in and heard both sides in person.

    ReplyDelete
  11. but i do hear whispers


    Whispers after the fact are simply whispers. Was there a valid Beis Din who paskened that he may be beaten???


    Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky, who does not seem to be a machmir in regards to pressure etc., is claimed to have ruled that it was meussah.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Who chose to say that it would be valid - and where did you hear as such?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Which talmid chochom are they close to - and where did you ever hear he said it was kosher?


    Any children from this so-called "marriage"?

    ReplyDelete
  14. If the Wax couple are able to violate a Jew by violently beating him and thereafter causing an eishes ish to be mezane and have mamzeirim based on on an invalidly coerced Get, what is so far fetched for him to break halacha and be moser another Jew into prison in order to save himself from a long prison sentence?

    ReplyDelete
  15. @David there is no prohibition of moser in testifying in regards to a public menace. He is not breaking any halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nevertheless, it is quite hypocritical of Wax to only be testifying against Epstein to save his own tuchas from being hauled into prison for a dozen years. And the Wax couple is only in the predicament they are in because they violently beat a man in their home.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes, Rav Kaminezky ruled immediately after the beating that the Get was invalid.

    Was this story of Briskman's wife's "remarriage"?:

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/204479/is-the-kallahs-get-valid-or-will-the-chasenah-be-cancelled.html

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/204716/the-chasenah-took-place-in-bnei-brak.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. @David - hypocrisy is not a consideration in deciding whether to testify against a public menance

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yes. And R' Shmuel Kaaminetsky disputes this Talmud Chacham on other matters as well

    ReplyDelete
  20. “Bryskman testified on Tuesday
    before U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson in Trenton that his attackers
    blindfolded him, cuffed his hands behind his back and bound his legs before
    repeatedly beating and kicking him. The attack occurred late Oct. 16, 2010, and
    continued into the early morning hours of the following day.



    Bryskman couldn't identify anyone
    other than Wax as his attackers, but Wax on Wednesday said Ari Epstein and his
    unknown friend threw the first punches before he joined in.”

    I’m angry at Jews with beards and
    black hats violating a clear Torah
    prohibition: “but not more” means a prohibition of anyone striking his fellow.

    אַרְבָּעִ֥ים
    יַכֶּ֖נּוּ לֹ֣א יֹסִ֑יף פֶּן יֹסִ֨יף לְהַכֹּת֤וֹ עַל אֵ֙לֶּה֙ מַכָּ֣ה רַבָּ֔ה וְנִקְלָ֥ה
    אָחִ֖יךָ לְעֵינֶֽיךָ:

    רש"י
    דברים פרשת כי תצא פרק כה פסוק ג

    לא יוסיף
    - מכאן אזהרה למכה את חברו:

    ReplyDelete
  21. What is the liability of the Eishes Ish in this court case. Can she be extradited for ordering and financing the kidnapping and beatings. It would be economical to get two flight tickets for Father-in-law and Daughter-in-law, or better yet for the two outlaws to stand trial in the USA. On second thought, since marrying an eishes ish, there is no bigger molestation of children than creating mamzerim, then indeed buy three tickets, 2) Oso ve'es bno, +1) eishes ish outlaw 'bechode machsa'.

    ReplyDelete
  22. i repeat, "undisputed Poskei uGedolei Hador". I don't feel it's correct or even permitted to be motzi la'az on a woman and her kids without doing the necessary research.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @David you err in the facts of the case. Of course there was BD involved. this went through the courts of the Rabbanut, up until the very top. I would consider it an absolute necessity to comprehensively studying all that transpired PRIOR to the "beating", before condemning generations of Jewish kids.

    ReplyDelete
  24. “What is the liability of the
    Eishes Ish in this court case. Can she be extradited for ordering and financing
    the kidnapping and beatings.” Don’t we
    say אין שליח לדבר עברה, meaning that ordering and financing
    wicked acts is exempt from punishment! Yes, of course, I’m angry at the
    inciters---especially Agunah International.

    ReplyDelete
  25. OH, INDEED, Rabbi Sam Kam!!! Isn't it funny??
    Is perhaps a woman released by a Get obtained through coercion, which, depending on many variables, may possibly be Kosher, more of an Eishes Ish than a woman with NO GET?? Think Tamar Epstein before jumping on the Kamenetzky bandwagon.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This is a joke, right? What does she gain by marrying a gerrer chosid, lol?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Let's not forget that Bryskman is a bad guy. According to nj,com he went to a beis din to get a hetter to remarry without giving a get. He deserved to be beaten up for that alone. This has of course no bearing on the kashrus of the get.

    ReplyDelete
  28. What is the relevance of this question when he is a criminal in any case and he would do anyhting to avoid a very long sentence for his own crimes.

    As far as Epstein, halachically he may well be a ROIDEF for using such immensly dangerous methods so there is no basis to your question

    ReplyDelete
  29. @מאן דאמר

    Yet the Rabbanut Beis Din never authorized "kofin osoh ad sheyomar rotzeh ani". After all, the Rabbanut beis din is a legal entity of the State of Israel and it legally cannot order physical coercion. And kofin osoh cannot be applied without a Beis Din ordering it. If kofin osoh IS done without a beis din ordering kofin osoh (in accordance with halacha) then the resulting Get is a Get Me'usa.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You seem very dismissive of a godol hador such as HaGaon HaRav Shmuel Kaminetzky shlit"a. If Rav Shmuel ruled she is an eishes ish, then her current status is that of a zoneh and future children being...

    ReplyDelete
  31. What about the rest of the victims, where they also as bad, or possibly worse. Now let's flip the coin, would she also be wanted in USA for conspiracy of kidnapping, financing aiding and abetting underworld criminals? We haven't yet seen the tip of the iceberg, the sad part is that this chilul hashem is growing by the day. Eventually, the Titanic will drag down all those complicit to the ocean floor.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Kamo tshuvos bedovor!
    Firstly, this is a court law and order, and dina demalchuse is big time dina. Secondly, according to 'doin minah uminah veoikei abasrah', if the shliach lekabolas haGet was a shlicach although it was a full fledged aveiro, apply the same here accordingly mitaam shlichus mitchila vead sof budled together, in addition to svoras Yodov keyodoh, his battering as if she is battering. Thirdly, tze ulmad, to destroy a Tzelem Elokim of which is a Moel beHekdesh, and shofech dam beodom not the least, is yesh shliach lidvar aveiro. To demand paying for replacing the bloody rug, of which Mr. Beezwax spilled bemo yodov is like the Beit Din of anshei Sdom Va'amohra spilling Eliezer's eved Avraham's blood, roim vachatoim L'H meod. Finally, have we yet mentioned machzik yedei ovrei aveirah. Buying of fenced goods such as prepaid makot retsach, is aiding and abetting yedei overei averoh. Aguno Inter is a whole separate can of uber worms that will come to light in it's full glory with it's dark al keida tunnels and it's network, veyovo baal haShor veYaamid al schoro. They shall be charged for Battering, character assassination, harassment as well a whole host of other charges. And let the chips fall where they may.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Think Tamar Epstein before jumping on the Kamenetzky bandwagon.


    Good point! Even one who appears to be so lenient in these halachos still insists that the Bryskman get was invalid!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Rav Elyashiv, Eida haChreidis, R' Chaim Kanievski harei heim heim Poskei uGdoilei haDor, period! Ve'ein beis din achar yochol lachlok aleihem, elo im kein hem yoser godol bechochmo uvminyan. Case closed!

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm pretty sure that was it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. TRENTON – After tying up Yisrael Bryskman and beating him in 2010, David Wax felt anger, he testified in federal court on Thursday.

    The feeling was no carryover from the beating he delivered to Bryskman, whom he was trying to coerce into granting Bryskman’s wife a divorce under Orthodox Jewish law. Wax was angry that Bryskman had bled on the bedroom carpet inside Wax’s Lakewood home, he told jurors.

    “I was angry at him, foolishly, for having put me in this compromised position,” Wax said. “I snapped and lost it.” ...

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/12/witness-describes-beating-coerce-orthodox-divorce/70241972/

    http://www.app.com/story/news/crime/jersey-mayhem/2015/03/12/lakewood-rabbi-money/70239446/

    ReplyDelete
  37. מאן דאמר

    Please name a single "Poskei uGedolei Hador" who held that Bryskman could be beaten or coerced into giving a Get. So far there is not a single, not one, legitimate posek or godol on the record saying they supported the beating of Briskman. Or that the Get is kosher.

    Please also backup and document your otherwise liberlous claim that Briskman displayed outrageous behavior towards his wife during their time living together.

    And furthermore, demonstrate what he allegedly did during his marriage that halachicly warrants kofin oso.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I believe I know which poseik you are referring to. I heard the same in this case. If it's true, he is indeed one of the greats.

    ReplyDelete
  39. And what EXACTLY did they hold in this case? at least one of those mentioned had a very clear opinion that may well surprise, or even shock, you!

    ReplyDelete
  40. IF, and it's a big if, his ONLY concern is the Halakha. i have ample evidence to prove otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Not dismissive at all. I am just attempting to keep focus. No one is above נגיעות, however big they are. Rabbi Kamenetsky has issued 2 rulings which need to be analyzed both together and individually. He, allegedly, declared the Bryskman Get to be invalid.

    Questions;

    1) What level of information was he privy to when issuing that decision?

    2) Was his decision made after hearing both sides of the argument?

    3) Was his information hearsay or was he גובה עדות בפני בית דין?

    Rabbi Kamenetsky also, allegedly, declared Tamar Epstein to be free to remarry without receiving a Get from her husband, a ruling which, whatever the situation, would be deemed by many as outrageous and as such demands scrutiny.

    Questions;

    1) What level of information was he privy to when issuing that decision?

    2) Was his decision made after hearing both sides of the argument?

    3) Was his information hearsay or was he גובה עדות בפני בית דין?



    Specifically in this instance where the parties had signed arbitration and argued in front of a mutually accepted BD who issued a ruling finding no grounds for divorce whatsoever!


    So, ask yourselves these basic questions on both cases and post both your answers and your conclusions. בעז"ה I will post my conclusions (and/or more questions) in 24 hours.

    ReplyDelete
  42. David, you contradict yourself. If the Rabbanut, for legal reasons, can't issue a written Psak of כפייה, how do you know their true opinion on the matter? Certainly not from the fact that their is nothing in writing! Perhaps there was an oral decision???

    ReplyDelete
  43. more than whispers, my friend, and BEFORE the fact!!

    ReplyDelete
  44. @מאן דאמר: You premise your entire non-answer on a fallacy. Rav Shmuel Kaminetzy shlit"a never said or ruled that Tamar Epstein is free to remarry. ORA said that. Yet in order to avert responding to what I asked you used an untruth to not answer it. Rather than that, address the question rather than skirt it.

    Now Rav Shmuel had no previous affiliation to Meir Briskman, his family, his wife or his wife's family prior to their acrimonious separation. Yet after addressing the situation he made clear the coerced Get is a Get Me'usa, invalid.

    And you have no response to that. You slyly hint there are other big rabbis who rule that the Briskman beating Get was not a Get Me'usa. Yet you cannot produce one single rabbi of note who says it is anything other than a Get Me'usa.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Or maybe there was a Bas Kol from Shamayim! Yes, how could we have not thought of that possibility! How can we dare question the validity of a physically coerced Get when, in fact, a Bas Kol from the RBS"O himself said it to be kosher?!? Just because we were not zoche to hear this Bas Kol, how dare we question it's authenticity?


    The authenticity of the Bas Kol and the authenticity of this supposed unwritten Beis Din ruling must remain unquestioned!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Which one? Let's hear the name(s). And what did he say? You keep slyly hinting someone, yes someone, holds it isn't a Get Me'usa. Yet you cannot, simply cannot, name a single posek or rov. We must believe your anonymous claim that an anonymous posek or an anonymous beis din ruled it isn't a Get Me'usa. We dare not question your anonymous claim as such. After all YOU said "at least one of those mentioned had a very clear opinion that may well surprise, or even shock, you!" Wow! That's all we need to hear, isn't it? No need to say a single posek of note who ruled a physically coerced Get to not be a Get Me'usa.

    ReplyDelete
  47. If more than whisperers, account for your inability to name a single name.

    ReplyDelete
  48. at least one of those mentioned had a very clear opinion that may well surprise, or even shock, you!


    Really, now? Who, what, when and where? If your claims are true, why not tell us precisely who it is and not tell us about a supposed anonymous "godol hador".

    ReplyDelete
  49. I produced a psak. Others mentioned other (and bigger) names. Have you mentioned any names to challenge their psak? Are you challenging it through character assassination?

    ReplyDelete
  50. If you refer to R' Chaim Kanievsky, there was posted on this blog his Issur. What is the reason you refrain to mention his name? Ahhh... boruch shekivanti, Honesty, you beat me to it. BTW, no kosher BD, no baalei dinim present, no legit Psak, no Agunah, no Husband, no Dubim, no yaar, velo klum, no get, no nothing. Aval yesh kaan zoken mamre, beis din chotzuf, bemoshav leitsim tlose kechode havina, and one broken spare rib. Aguno mino lan?

    ReplyDelete
  51. No hypthesizing, facts only. Otherwise it's luftgesheften.


    Man Dehu vesiyato.

    ReplyDelete
  52. If it's true


    That is a big if. Why wouldn't that world-renown poseik write a letter supporting her and put all laazin to rest?

    ReplyDelete
  53. You would have to ask him. His name is not difficult to figure out -- someone else gave a pretty broad hint down below.

    ReplyDelete
  54. If Rav Shmuel Aurbach did indeed validate the beating and get, why would Rav Shmuel Aurbach not put pen to paper? Why would those quoting him not mention his name? Would Rav Shmuel disagree with Rav Elyashiv about this type of issue?


    Others did put pen to paper or attend the ceremony.

    ReplyDelete
  55. IF and it's a big if, show the evidence by all means if you only can. BTW, there are different levels of kofin oso, and elevating a notch can make it or break it as get meusse. Indeed, the Rabbanut never ordered kofin bealos, or even higher as these thugs and goons did.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I cannot vouch for it, but I heard RSA's name early on as the one who urged Wax to do it. It's not a kasha to me that he didn't write it. Not everything that is said gets written.
    Would he disagree with R' Elyashiv? I don't see why not. But maybe he held the circumstances were different than in R' Elyashiv's psak. It's impossible to know for sure without speaking to him. As I said, I don't know that the claim is true, but I do know for certain that it's what Wax claimed.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I too heard RSA's name as the one who urged Wax. I heard that at the time and from the top of the opposite camp to Wax -- so if both sides say it, it can be presumed to be true.He is the Talmid Chacham I referred to in an earlier post.
    As to would he argue with R' Elyashiv, hear this story and decide for yourself. About thirty years ago I was a bit close with him (he is at least a generation older than I am) and we were discussing a Talmid of his who was depressed. RSA explained that the talmid had the "Litvishe Machla" that if you are not a lamdan you are nothing. Allow me to switch to the originalYiddish (burned into my memory) of the rest of what he said out of some vestigial respect:
    "Zolst nit meinen as ehr ken nisht lehrnen. Ehr ken lehrnen azei vi... azei vi... [dismissively] azei vi R' Elyashiv."
    So, Kishekeyum, I don't think that he would have any difficulty disagreeing with R' Elyashiv -- at least in private.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I'm not the one who said he wouldn't argue. To the contrary, I said, "I don't see why not." To me it's obvious that he wouldn't feel bound by R' Elyashiv's pesak.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Rav Elyashiv disagreed?........... but i've spoken too much already.

    ReplyDelete
  60. You've offered no evidence that RSA ever said or supported any such thing other than your own anonymous comment based on hearing something third-hand.

    ReplyDelete
  61. A distinct untruth! Not necessarily by you, rather by those who are trying to allow an אשת איש to remarry ר"ל but are not man enough to let their private היתירים be announced in the public arena. It's the worst kept secret in the field that RSK, father & son, tell anyone who wants to date her that she is מותרת לינשא.
    שומו שמים על זאת!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  62. If he indeed did say that, there is nothing to hide. However, I would anytime take Issur of Poskei hador befeirush ubichsav, over hush hush whispers and secrecy keili shlishi, meachoirei hapargoid, and still holding your own "but i've spoken too much already. "
    Bemakom sheyesh chilul hashem, ein cholkin kavod lerav, verav lochem gam ish mibeis levi. Or forever hold your peace.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "by those who are trying to allow an אשת איש to remarry ר"ל"

    You're (rightly) worried about allowing an אשת איש to remarry ר"ל by Tamar Epstein yet you're not worried about allowing an אשת איש to remarry ר"ל by Chaya Briskman/Schechter.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Can you possibly let us in on what MO and harassment tactics ORA goons employ, from anyones experiences? Do they try to makeh re'ehu beseser beilum shem chai peomim, or baseser kebagalui? Laasos nekomo bagoyim.org would love to know mi vomi haholchim. BTW, the more the publicity, the better chance it will have to enter the court case, and put those responsible to task. Dam achinu einan hefker.

    ReplyDelete
  65. an anonymous internet claim that RSK is matir Epstein

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/05/tamar-epstein-is-free-according-to.html

    ReplyDelete
  66. Correct. No evidence, only what I heard from a very good source regarding what Wax claimed. He might have been telling the truth or he might not have. He had a relationship with RSA through his foundation, so it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.

    ReplyDelete
  67. The first line in that link says it is ORA saying that she is free. In the unclear (" he said something like"?!?) written description of RSK, nowhere did he say she is free. The tidbits the caller relates, he is far from clear and as such is unreliable.

    ReplyDelete
  68. And, by the way, WHO didn't answer WHOSE question???

    ReplyDelete
  69. Let's be clear: I am not a supporter of Wax or of Shechter. Nevertheless, I think that it is a fair assumption that both of them felt (no matter how wrong they were) that what was done was according to Halachah. It is unthinkable that Shechter would acquiesce to his daughter marrying without what he believed was a valid get. Shechter is and was, unquestionably, close to RSA, who was heavily involved in the beis din fight here in Israel. Both sides point to him as the halachic authority who approved. I'm not sure why "evidence" is necessary to say that even people who would stop at nothing to receive a get have reason to believe that their 'daas torah' supported them.
    What I heard third hand (second hand from Rav Efrati) was that Rav Elyashiv paskened that it was a get meuseh

    ReplyDelete
  70. The first line of that link says ORA claims she is free not RSK. The caller to RSK is very unclear in his description ("he said something like"?!?) and thus his entire description of his conversation is unreliable.

    ReplyDelete
  71. You didn't answer the question as to which hat you pulled out this apparent canard that some big who-must-remain-unnamed rabbi said that the Was physically coerced Get from Briskman is anything other than a Get Me'usa.

    ReplyDelete
  72. If Wax had a previous relationship with RSA it would make it easier for Wax to (after he was busted) to falsely claim backing from RSA, since he knows people know he had some previous relationship with RSA and he may think he can get away with piggybacking off that by falsely claiming RSA backed him in this story.

    ReplyDelete
  73. How and in what way was RSA "heavily involved in the beis din fight"? The beis din used was the rabbanut beis din not the typical chareidi butei dinim. Why was the rabbanut beis din used by a chareidi couple? What do you base your claim on that "both sides", and more specifically that the Briskman side said or acknowledged that RSA backed the Schechter side and supported his being physically coerced to give a Get. This point is not made or claimed anywhere else (that Briskman acknowledged RSA is supporting his wife's side and supported the physical force.) The question here is not whether the Schechters "have reason to believe" they have valid halachic support for the coercion and the validity of the subsequently produced Get, but rather the questions here is other than third-hand rumor, which rabbinical figures are *known* to support the Schechters and the coercion and the validity of the coerced Get.

    ReplyDelete
  74. "Rabbi Kamenetsky has issued 2 rulings which need to be analyzed..."

    Incorrect. Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky issued no ruling or other declaration on the Epstein case declaring her free.

    ReplyDelete
  75. You obviously do not live in Israel. Regarding gittin, the Batei din of the Rabbanut are just about the only show in town, and the dayanim are mostly 'chareidim' who care very much what chareidi Rabbonim say.
    As to anything else, I am not at liberty to say any more. You can call the Bryskmans, and if they are convinced you have no agenda, I'm sure they will be happy to tell you chapter and verse

    ReplyDelete
  76. The beis din used was the rabbanut beis din not the typical chareidi butei dinim.


    Interestingly, when speaking to friend of mine, RSA was referred to the Rabbanut in a get/custody battle "dayonim, mushchosim!".


    That's in addition to the siruv from Rav Nissim Karelitz' Beis Din...

    ReplyDelete
  77. Take it up with him. Wiggle all you like. Point is, he is not anonymous. He is Joe Orlow, who posts here regularly. He made the phone call, he wrote about it under his own name. Your quibbles don't obscure that fact. You'd like to pretend it's just some anyonymous commenter making the accusation, but in fact, it's not. Orlow has often posted his contact info on this blog. Call him if you dare.

    ReplyDelete
  78. That's right. The Wax relationship cuts both ways. As I said, the truth can be obtained only by speaking to RSA, if he agrees to talk about it.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Rav Elyashiv, Eida haChreidis, R' Chaim Kanievski harei heim heim Poskei uGdoilei haDor, period!

    Yeah, yeah. Until one of them says something you disagree with. And your inclusion of the Eidah is bizarre. Who appointed them the poskei hador for klal Yisrael? Please.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Oh, please. Is it really so difficult to imagine that RSA might disagree with whoever you think is the big kahuna? You don't need to believe it, but let's not pretend that It's beyond the bounds of possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  81. You're clearly wrong. See "Honesty's comment right above yours regarding RSA referring to the Rabbanut in a get/custody battle as "dayonim, mushchosim!".And even more importantly, do you think members of the communities from Eida Chareidus, Satmar, Toldosh Ahron, Brisk, etc etc use the rabbanu beis din system for gittin? Most certainly not. Eida Chareidus has their own butei dinim that do gittin and are not part of the rabbanut. Rav Nissim Karelitz's beis din is not part of the rabbanut. etc.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Honesty: Can you explain which siruv from Rav Nissim Karelitz' Beis Din you are referring to?

    ReplyDelete
  83. i had someone call both Kamentsky's, father and son. Both said she was allowed to remarry. Son said you can rely on my father and father said you can rely on my son.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I'm waiting to hear what Judy Wax tells the jury. She'll be the first woman to testify. Wives have a natural advantage over their husbands they're angry at. The men want their bodies and the women want their freedom. Yes, the husbands do possess the woman when he marries her, much as a person possesses real estate he purchased. The ketubah is the marriage contract with no provision if the lady decides she could do better and fights (dirty fighting) for the get on her terms.

    ReplyDelete
  85. So he's not anonymous. He made an unclear post. He wrote "he said something like". Something like? Without him posting a verbatim transcript of what Rabbi Shalom Kaminetzky told him (and also note he spoke to Rabbi Shalom so even with his conversation it indicates nothing on the part of Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetzky) it is meaningless. Again, he never posted verbatim what Rabbi Shalom told him and therefore there's nothing to talk about or take any implications from. Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetzky certainly never said or indicated that Tamar is free. So your point using that as a basis is completely off-target.

    ReplyDelete
  86. The Rabbanut is far from the only game in town for gittin. There's the Badatz Yerushalayim and there's Rav Nissim Karelitz, both of whom are not affiliated with the rabbanut and are examples of butei dinim that do gittin.


    And notice what Honesty wrote in his above comment of what RSA derogatorily referred to the rabbanut beit din system as in their gittin cases.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Honesty: That's the term RSA used to refer to the rabbanut beit din system's handling of gittin cases?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Your anonymous claim has no validity. Especially without providing direct verbatim quotes of the exact conversation, rather than your alleged paraphrasing, of precisely what this third-party you say called asked as a question to each of them and precisely what each of their verbatim responses were.

    ReplyDelete
  89. She
    has not the last word, Hashem is also a party, and he says veHoelokim yevakesh
    et haNirdaf. Tze ureh ma bikesh lavan hoarami laasos... Never in your wildest
    dreams did you think that this Mafia Brigade will ever be brought to justice.
    Hashem yoshev bashamayim, umtzudoso prusoh al kol haolam kulo, caught the heads
    of the Uber rabiner.orgS' bechol hamkomos shehem in the web with their hands in
    the cookie jar selling their soul to the devil and the Torah for a pair of
    shoes. They claimed it was all leShem Shamayim, while taking Shochad upfront
    Shishim Elef Ke$ef oiver lasoicher, beini ubeincho ma hi - making a chaluka
    derabanan baolam hazeh, ucheilek kacheilek yachloki. These
    same rabbis are advocates for "child molesters" and "enablers", inventing issur
    messira while Hashem however, tells them SSUR MERA. That is the MUSSAR haskel
    from this grandiose CHILLUL HASHEM. Same thing is happening in Australia, no
    matter how hard they tried to hide and squelch the victims for DECADES, but now
    the genie is out of the bottle. Umi sheomar leolamo day, yomar letsorosenu day.
    Finally, Justice is happening "LEINEINU" al tapeinu veal dam avodecho
    hashafuch.

    ReplyDelete
  90. You find me one person who comments on this blog whose family uses anything but the Rabbanut beis din for gittin. "Only show in town" for those who vote in elections -- and who in Yerushalyim would even think of going to R' Nissim's beis din in Bnei Brak?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Lo sosur mimeni yomin o small. The Eida is yesodosa beharerei kodesh, ugeonei tevel, is the BEIS DIN haGODOL shebeYERUSHALAYIM much before all those johny come lately encroaching on their own. Their hechsher is the best in the world, lechol hachored lidvar hashem and all. My dear friend, it is the EICHUS not the Kamus

    ReplyDelete
  92. This discussion has nothing to do with who does or doesn't vote in elections or reads this blog. That is all irrelevent. Briskers don't vote in general. Rav Auerbach's Hapeles kehila in Yerushalayim is not voting in today's election. Satmar never votes. Eidah Chareidus and Toldos Ahron doesn't either. All of them, regretably, have had gittin cases. And those many gittin cases were handled outside of Rabbanut beit dins. Bnei Brak is part of Eretz Yisroel, too, last time I checked. In fact the Schechter family in this very Briskman case we are discussing is from Bnei Brak. And Rav Nissim Karelitz's beis din is THE premier and most important beis din in town.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Their hechsher? Yes, I enjoy their candies. So what.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Your anonymous claim has no validity.

    This is the internet. Anonymity and rumors are the stock in trade. This is where the non-documented stuff gets said (as well the documented stuff). Amusingly, you demand ironbound proof. You are unlikely to get it, and so you can continue to shout that your idols have feet of gold. You may be right. But you'll pardon us if we are suspicious. Orlow's account has the ring of truth. So does מאן דמר's.

    But I have a suggestion: Their accounts are easily disproved if you are so inclined. Why don't you call and post a transcript of the conversation, or better yet, a recording? If you're right, I'm sure you'll have no problem getting a clear answer from the RSKs.

    ReplyDelete
  95. You're nitpicking. Why don't you call and ask them. Let's see what they tell you. I assume, based on your frenzied defense, that you are a Philadelphia talmid. Even if not, you clearly are troubled by the aspersions being cast upon R' Shmuel and son. Why not contact them and get the true picture?

    ReplyDelete
  96. The name has now been named. You are entitled to be skeptical, but as has been pointed out, מספק you should not be מוציא לעז on her and her children without proof to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  97. These Dayonim are hand picked and hand packed straight shooters, sonei betsa and that is something you cannot buy. Pun intended! BTW, make sure you eat along kosher sour pickles beHechsher haB"datz when consuming those candles, no pun intended :)

    ReplyDelete
  98. What we don't know is if T. Epstein was advised to date, and to be willing to give into Ahron's conditions when she is ready to get engaged. At that point, she can obtain a kosher get easily.


    This is what I assume is what happened.

    ReplyDelete
  99. It has already been mentioned that Rav Kaminetzky and Rav Eliashev said it was a Get Me'usa.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Yes. Exact words.

    ReplyDelete
  101. I do not have exact info on this one. I heard that Rav Nissim Karelitz' Beis Din put out a siruv on the Schechter family. Is there any way to verify this?

    ReplyDelete
  102. I do not have exact info on this one. I heard that Rav Nissim Karelitz' Beis Din put out a siruv on the Schechter family.

    ReplyDelete
  103. I'm glad you've found your moraei derech. Just don't try to foist them on the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  104. In that case, let's wait and see what the Jury decides. Dina demalchusse dina, and the law of the land RULES. As the saying goes, ' im ein kessef lo'oden ze, yesh kessef leo'den achar'. We now have dealt with both sides of the coin, and Yikov hadin et hahar, let the chips fall where they may. Long live the STING!

    ReplyDelete
  105. In addition, why wouldn't a person like RSA write a letter which would shut down all those being מוציא לעז? Chazal went very far to shut down unfounded לעזן. Then there's the cherem of Rabbeinu Taam.

    Why would RSA not do the same here, if he indeed supported the beating?

    Even Rabbi Haim Pinto of Ashdod, who did write a letter to kasher the get, did not quote Rav Aurbach. Rabbi Pinto's son

    ReplyDelete
  106. So what? She is entitled to go to her poseik, not yours. You have no business naming her children mamzerim so long as that possibility exists, as it most certainly does. Bring proof that they are mamzerim -- meaning, that she acted without rabbinic guidance -- and you are within your rights to make such statements. But without proof, you have no right to label these children as such. I highly doubt R' Shmuel is making announcements labeling her children mamzerim. Where do you come off doing so? Misguided frumkeit combined with a little learning run amok.

    ReplyDelete
  107. So he's not anonymous. He made an unclear post. He wrote "he said something like".

    In fact, his post is quite clear, and raises serious and disturbing questions. You cavalierly dismiss them by fastening onto the words "something like," as though that's the sum of Orlow's account. You demand absolute proof in this case of אשת איש לשוק, although when it comes to labeling children mamzeirim in another such case, your standards of proof are markedly lower, almost nonexistent, and you are quick to condemn. Very strange.

    ReplyDelete
  108. kishkeyum, you're wrong. Violently beating someone into giving a divorce and no one can call her to task on the halachic consequences because she had "rabbinic guidance"? That's completely absurd. Anyone can claim rabbinic guidance for anything. You'll find one rabbi or another who'll approve almost anything you want.


    What you can't deny is that gedolim have deemed this case to be a Get Me'usa. That means she remains married to Mr. Briskman. Which means her current relationship is adultery. With the obvious status affecting future children.


    You can't stop great rabbis from deeming her status as such because she had opposing "rabbinic guidance". According to the aforementioned great rabbis who deemed her hiring Mr. & Mrs. David and Judy Wax to bloody her husband into giving a divorce resulting in an invalid Get, that status must be known. And those rabbis made their halachic assessment of her status public information. And the public has the right to know this status. First, that no man enter into an adulterous relationship with her. And secondly, if one does that any subsequent children are halachicly mamzeirim. And that no one marry those mamzeirim.


    The halacha states that if a mamzer is born it is necessary to publicize the child is a mamzer. And it is publicized at that child's bris. Furthermore, even if whether a person's status as a mamzer is disputed, it is necessary to make known to those who consider said child to be a mamzer of his status that according to their shitta he is a mamzer, so that those with that opinion do not marry him or her. And indeed the Gemora relates that when there was a machlokes where Beis Hillel considered a person kosher and Beis Shammai considered him to be a mamzer, Beis Hillel (who held he is kosher) would tell Beis Shammai that this person is considered a mamzer under your view and you cannot marry him.


    So for you to attempt to shutup the great rabbis who deem her an eishes ish has no basis in halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  109. The only thing I asked for proof for is the allegation that the rabbi(s) in question said she is free and not an eishes ish. I do not ask for proof and do not question the fact that she is an eishes ish. I completely agree Epstein is an eishes ish. I merely question that the rabbi said otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  110. She is entitled to go to her poseik, not yours.

    That's not the real way things are supposed to work. It is not supposed to appear as if there are two Torah's. Ideally, there would be a Sanhedrin that would provide a clear psak.

    Now that we unfortunately do not have a Sanhedrin to mete out a conclusive and binding ruling, we still have to play by the rules.

    True, she is entitled to go to her poseik. But when you behave in this sort of vigilante way, it is incumbent upon her to be transparent and provide her backing. If not, there is no reason to dan l'caf zechus a violant beating.



    Especially when we consider the ironic, poetic justice that this horrendous beating - muffin for breakfast notwithstanding - brought about.


    Bottom line, why are these children not b'chezkas soffek, or C"V...?


    This is sad from every angle.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Point is, in both case the statements of the rabbis are in doubt. Don't be so quick to label people mamzeirim where there is doubt. That's all that concerns me.

    ReplyDelete
  112. When R' Shmuel states publicly that the children are mamzeirim, I will not attempt to shut him up, have no fear. But you are not R' Shmuel, and you know nothing about anything other than what you read online. So you should indeed stop labeling people mamzeirim. Find some other mitzva to do.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Which children? Who said she even has children with her new paramour. There are no children to yet label. Nevertheless, he did say the Get was a Get Me'usa. So everything else is self-explanatory. If the rabbi says the mean is pork he doesn't have to specifically say it is "treif". Pork is treif and it is enough to call it pork. Having said it is a Get Me'usa, he by definition said she remains a eishes ish and if she has children with someone else they are by definition mamzeirim.

    ReplyDelete
  114. She
    is entitled to go to her poseik, not yours.

    Zoken
    Mamre tochiach! Furthermore, we had posters from the Top Poskei haDor, they are
    megale ponim baTorah shelo Kehalacha, that it IS a Get meusse, she IS an Eishes
    ish, and her future children ARE chs"v mamzerim. Didn't the price tag of the
    Get cause any suspicion as to why such an exorbitant price? Time to take a
    break, my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  115. This is how it has always worked. The utopian dream of one nation, one leader, one heart, one mind, has not been true since Shlomo's time, and who knows what things were really like then.

    ReplyDelete
  116. You're the one carrying on about mamzeirim. Now you ask which children? I'm done with you. Go do your pretend mitzva.

    ReplyDelete
  117. If you think it okay to shop for an opinion that you can violently beat a man into giving a divorce and then say it isn't a Get Me'usa, you cannot stand in the way of gedolei rabbonim and/or poskim who declare that violently-produced divorce to be an invalid Get Me'usa and her status as an eishes ish unchanged. And her future activity as eishes ish carrying the obvious consequences of her actions as an eishes ish.

    ReplyDelete
  118. What is so difficult for you to grasp? The point being that any future children she produces from her new illegitimate union carry the status as mamzeirim, as per her status (as publicly stated by the aforementioned rabbinic luminaries) as an eishes ish - who is now in a public union with a man other than her husban (who resides in a different country than herself.)

    ReplyDelete
  119. this is something I have been guilty of myself , so I am not preaching, but I realise that even when there is machloket between Gedolim, little people (like myself and others) should not involve themselves in calling names.

    ReplyDelete
  120. All fine and dandy, but don't forget Shabttai Tsvi also had his downfall.

    ReplyDelete
  121. CHAS MILEHAZKIR!!! I don't believe for one minute he EVER said such a thing. It is against all logic that he should. You brought absolutely no proof that he did. Whispers, shmuos rechokos, are dvorim haporchim beavir ve'einon dvorim, vechol harotse leshaker yarchik eduso. This lie is becoming tired.

    ReplyDelete
  122. I stated very clearly that there's no proof. Don't you dare accuse me of lying.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Are you agreeing with me or arguing? I'm not grasping your point.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Why no one should believe RSA would say such a thing. if you use your sechel hayoshor, ALL agree that The Beis DIn MUST be a KOSHER Beis DIn. Here, all so called Dayonim involved are neveilo utreifo mitocho umigabo saruach meikro. That is only for starters, veidach zil ugmor! Klomar, it talks for itself.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Lo
    shomanu eino raya. Lying
    man dechar shmei? Indeed,
    I agreed with you there is no proof of RSA saying such. You are trying to
    deflect from the essence issue at hand, so stop threatening. I dare to add that
    drips and dribbles would be unbecoming of such a Godol and caliber, commenting
    al riv loi lo just for the sake of ipche mistavra. These Chachomim are very
    nizhorim of what they say, and what they don't, more so when matir eishes ish
    lashuk. More so, when from such a merchak me'ever layam he has no privilige of
    minute details as to their authenticity. Therefore, you can rest assure, those
    blowing bubbles in the air to be mevalbel the Satan, are nothing other
    mecharcherei riv letaher sheretz ... Nothing more, nothing less.




    And
    just one more thing. What is your opinion of someone being a Dayan in a Beis Din
    that takes money upfront, giving a psak al gavra shelo haya velo nivra? Is this
    what you call "Boki Betiv Gittin veiKidushin? Is this what you call Sonei Betsa?
    Accepting such exorbitant amount of $hochad to perform a Get? Don't you find
    something rotten in Denmark smelling all the way to the US of A? That is all I have to say.

    ReplyDelete
  126. I do not understand your response. When we see someone beating a person to a pulp in order to extract his money, or his wife, from him - we must judge them for what we see. If the thug claims that her possaik endorsed her behavior, then she should bring proof. Otherwise, we assume that the money she obtained still belongs to her victim. We also assume that anything else she obtained - such as a get - also still belongs to her victim.
    Why wouldn't we still see her in her chazakah as an Aishes Ish?

    ReplyDelete
  127. There is such a thing as being כופה a get. They claim RSA allowed it. It might well be true. I don't accept it as definite truth, but I recognize that there is room here for doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Good point! Did RSA also tell Wax to extort $100,000 thou for child support? Or will you say palginan bediburei, Eh...? That is to say, Wax hosif noifech mishelo umidaat atsmo. Would be interesting to know, whether there were whispers meachorei hapargoid to support the same, since RSA has been seen speaking to Wax. The more you think into it, the more it's falling apart. As they say, tse ubasser lasussim vachamorim.

    ReplyDelete
  129. There is such a thing as being כופה a get.


    True - but it's not just for a get. There are cases where Beis Din will extract money he owes... against his will. They would even use force, if they would need to. Again, in these type of cases, it's guilty until proven innocent. Or you simply put everything into its original chazakah.


    They need to prove that there was a legitimate Beis Din. If they claim that a legitimate posseik endorsed their vigilantism, then they should kindly back it up with some proof.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Did RSA also tell Wax to extort $100,000 thou for child support?

    Are you thick or wilfully obtuse? Silly question -- you're likely both.
    I said nothing about Wax; I'm talking about the woman's heter to remarry.

    ReplyDelete
  131. I am saying one thing only: that since there is a claim that her get was obtained with the psak of RSA, people need to keep an open mind about the possibility that it is a kosher get. Even if they don't bring proof of anything, that's enough to raise doubts, and where there are doubts, idle mitzva-doers like this guy David should not be labeling people mamzerim.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Lying man dechar shmei?

    You did. I quote:

    "This lie is becoming tired."

    ReplyDelete
  133. 1) The only place this "claim", as you so eloquently put it, "that her get was obtained with the psak of RSA" is being claimed is on this blog. Please identify where else this "claim" is being claimed.

    2) RSA is not a beis din and thus cannot issue a "psak", as you put it, on this matter. Only a beis din of three that heard both sides present their case can issue a "psak". So your repetitive syndrome of saying "RSA!! RSA!! RSA!!" is without meaning in the context of this case.

    3) If someone violently beats someone up they think it is justified, they better explain to the public on what legal basis it is justified. The public need not, to borrow your words, "keep an open mind about the possibility that it is a" justified violent beating. If you see someone beating someone you don't keep your mind open to the possibility the violence is okay.

    4) If someone obtains a get through a method that by default it is halachicly invalid followed by the woman who has the chazaka of being an eishes ish publicly moves in with another man, people do NOT "need to keep an open mind about the possibility that it is a kosher get" if she does not explain to the public how her moving in with another man is legally justified, i.e. how a Get that by default is a Get Me'usa is valid.

    Just as Honesty said, there can be cases where it is legally justified for someone to grab someone's money from him. But if that was done so under the aegis of some beis din, the money grabber better offer the witnessing public documentation he had done so under the aegis of beis din. Otherwise the public certainly has every right to assume he is a rasha for grabbing someone else's money.

    ReplyDelete
  134. @kishke...
    Shalosh bemaka echad


    complaint #1

    kishkeyum zbeng • 2 days ago

    I
    stated very clearly that there's no proof. Don't you dare accuse me of lying.
    ****



    Divrei chachomim benachas nishmoim. Relax my friend. Al rishon rishon... I
    said that "CHAS MILEHAZKIR!!! I don't believe for one minute he ( "he" IN
    REFERENCE TO RSA ) EVER said such a thing. That is my intelligent choice not to
    believe RSA would never say such for various logical reasons I stated. YOU heard
    it keli shlishi or higher from someone that heard whispers. I grant you the fact
    you HEARD quoting whispers whereby, you choose to believe those whispers and
    take it for cash that RSA indeed said it. That is your perogitive albeit you
    have no proof as you stated. When I write that "This lie is becoming tired",
    klomar, whoever invented the "WHISPERS" is a LIAR, that would be AVOS or AVI
    AVOS, and is clearly NOT in any reference about YOU! I hope I clarified.





    zbeng Honesty • 2 days ago



    "Did
    RSA also tell Wax to extort $100,000 thou for child support?"



    complaint
    #2

    kishkeyum zbeng • 2 days ago

    Did
    RSA also tell Wax to extort $100,000 thou for child support?

    Are
    you thick or wilfully obtuse? Silly question -- you're likely both.
    I said nothing about Wax; I'm talking about the
    woman's heter to remarry. *****



    And
    I was talking to Honesty and not to you, bringing further logic and reason why I
    chose not to believe those "whispering whispers". Memeila Mr. Whisperer, botlo
    miktsoso, botlo kulo. Spare your name calling. It seems there is mucho a
    miscomprehension.



    complaint #3

    kishkeyum zbeng • 3 days ago

    "RSA
    is a zakein mamrei?" *****



    ...There is a Halacha about a generic zaken mamre, whoever that happens
    to be at any place or given time that gives a psak as Megaleh ponim baTorah
    shelo kehalocho, which proves that just because someone chose a zoken mamre as a
    posek, still remains a zoken mamre. Having said that, I already made it crystal
    clear that personally I DO NOT believe for one minute that RSA ever said such a
    thing. Therefore, he was never referenced as such C'V. This is the truth, the
    whole truth and nothing but the truth!!! As a matter of fact I do hold RSA in
    the "HIGHEST REGARDS". I also would like to add, that I am not thick, drank cool
    aid, high, or willfuly abtuse, but standing tall at a right angle, drinking
    bedivreihem with thirst, absorbing it like a sponge. Farshteist? I firmly
    believe that I answered all your kushyos fully, truthfully, and to the best of
    my ability, so help us all.

    ReplyDelete
  135. An update: I did some checking with people I know in RSA's camp about the Wax claim, and received a strenuous denial. They say RSA never permitted or encouraged beating Briskman to extract a get.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Thank you for the update and acknowledgement.



    So we are back to square one as to who Schechter and Wax claim permitted them to violently beat a man or purports that the resultant get is anything other than a Get Me'usa.


    If anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  137. as i was searching for help on the internet to get my ex lover whom will got divorced back, i came across this wonderful man called DR.ODOGBO of ODOGBO TEMPLE who did a nice job by helping me to get my divorced husband back within 48hours.. I never believe that such things like this can be possible but now i am a living testimony to it because ODOGBO TEMPLE actually brought my lover back, If you are having any relationship problems why not contact DR.ODOGBO TEMPLE via email on: (DRODOGBO34@GMAIL.COM ) OR WhatsApp him on +1443 281 3404 Then i promise you that after 48hours you will have reasons to celebrate like me.

    ReplyDelete

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