Wednesday, April 8, 2015

More of Lopin's lies and distortions regarding the seminaries

Yerachmiel Lopin's flights of fantasy and outright lies are getting worse. Having pinned his hopes on the CBD to destroy the seminaries and the IBD - he has been had a tough time of it since the CBD joined the IBD and issued a joint psak that was similar to what the IBD has been saying all along. Due to the odious task of having to read through Lopin's posting, I am going to start this post and add more material to it later.


 Lopin's lies: "...Daniel Eidensohn’s Daas Torah Blog, which has always been the voice of Meisels and guilty seminary staff as argued by Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz. Their agenda has always been to minimize acknowledging Meisels’ sexual abuse (even though he faces civil court charges of rape and attempted rape by two of his alumni)."

Lopin's strategy has always been to present conjecture with wildly exaggerated claims presented as facts. I have simply stated that evidence is needed before accepting allegations as true. Contrary to Lopin, conjecture is not the same as evidence. Lopin seems to believe that insisting on evidence is to "minimize acknowledging Meisels sexual abuse" and is therefore wrong. What has become clear to mostly everyone except for Lopin and his peanut gallery - the case does not involve the rape of 40 girls, nor does it involved the cover up of sexual abuse by the staff nor is there any evidence to support the absurd RICO claims that the seminaries were constituted as houses of prostitution for Meisels pleasure and to defraud the parents. What is clear is that Meisles is unfit to be in chinuch and he has been removed. Lopin is not a prophet and his visions and his reckless allegations are not the same as truth. Lopin's filthy claims and attempt to paint me as a supporter of Meisles should be beneath response - but there seem to be some naive people who forget that guilt is established by evidence not by the rantings of  demagogues.
 
Lopin's lies:"The enlarged beis din’s majority was guided by a Haredi “sixth Shulchan Aruch” that no scandal can ever be allowed to close up institutions that provides jobs to people from choshuv (important) families. Under this perversion of commonsense and halacha (Jewish law), the reputations and jobs of important families overrode the safety and well-being of students...."

There is no such rule. Rav Sternbuch told me explicitly that the concern for viability of a yeshiva never takes precedent over the welfare of a child. There was never a time that the IBD or the CBD felt it was permissible to endanger a student for the sake of the existence of the seminaries. Here is a clear example of Lopin making up a lie rather than accept the fact that the seminaries are in fact not a danger to their students.

Lopin's lies: "How in the world did a yeshiva get so entangled with a cell phone company. The lawsuit by Yarmish/Zap Cellular alleges RICO violations. Eidensohn screamed “blood libel” when Yarmish, Meisels and Rabbi Gartner were sued by parents unable to get refunds after they withdrew their daughters per the psak of the CBD. One Jew’s heter arcaos (permission to sue a Jew in secular courts) is another man’s blood libel."

Lopin is lying when he indicates that I am against RICO suits. If Lopin bothered reading what I wrote I objected to the RICO suit which alleged a conspiracy of Meisels creating the seminaries solely as houses of prostitution for his pleasure and to defraud parents. Such a claim is not only absurd, it is a tremendous slander for all the girls who have attended the seminaries as well as the staff. It is an incredible chilul hashem. That criticism has absolutely nothing to do with the appropriateness of RICO suites in general. Lopin cares nothing for the collateral damage he causes as long as he can slander chareidim.

Lopin's lies: "Yes, Malinowitz and Eidensohn’s nephew are the two most important political figures in Haredi Bet Shemesh. They partner on all sorts of projects including schools, and are now talking about a hareidi initiative on sex abuse to undercut Magen which does support reporting sex crimes to the police."

My nephew  is not "now talking about a hareidi initiative on sex abuse to undercut Magen  which does support reporting sex crimes to the police." 1)His program has been in operation for a long time. 2) Furthermore his program is not undercutting Magen nor was it created to undermine Magen - as can be seen from my recent post about his program which includes a letter from one of Magen's staff. 3) Furthermore my nephew's program in fact works with the police and reports sex crimes to the police. Not all parents want to go to the police and that is true of Magen's clients also. Lopin tries to create hatred and divisiveness rather than taking the trouble of understanding the facts.


Lopin's lies:  "Now we are again assured by Eidensohn that the seminaries are sold to Rabbi Gedaliah Weinberger “a prominent member of Agudas Yisroel.” For the record, he is “prominent” because he is wealthy, not because he has any educational credentials. He was Chair of Agudah’s lay board until 2013. He did Agudah’s dirty work of maintaining connections with mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner after an ugly sexting scandal, because Jews owed him “hakkaros hatov” (gratitude) and “the other candidates are not much better then him in terms of behaviors.” He sounds like is the perfect man to replace Elimelech Meisels. "

Here Lopin see fit to smear Rabbi Weinberger by equating his role in dealing with Anthony Weiner as a community leader with the immoral activity of Meisels.  Yes Jewish community leaders need to deal with a variety of immoral characters who hold views and conduct themselves in disgusting ways. Whether there was a need to give aid and comfort to Anthony Weiner is a legitimate question that good men can strongly disagree. However that provides no justification for equating Rabbi Weinberger to Meisels and basically saying that the new owner of the seminaries is no different than the former one.

Lopin's lies: "Eidensohn’s “leak” is once again, highly selective, and actually undermines his arguments. Remember, the dispute initially pitted 3 rabbis of the CBD against 3 rabbis of the IBD. Rabbi Gartner refused to join the dissent of the IBD leaving only Rabbis Shafran and Malinowitz. All we see of the two-rabbi dissent is that they don’t think any seminary staff are culpable, meaning five rabbis including Brudny felt there was some staff culpability. But then we have Malinowitz dissenting from his dissent partner, Shafran, and going solo to declare:...So we now know that 6 out of seven dayanim thought there were red flags. In my opinion the administrators should be in trouble for either willfully ignoring the red flags, or being too color blind or stupid to notice them.

Lopin obvously has not read the full minority opinion and is so obsessed with seeing disputes amongst the dayanim that aren't there that  he grossly misunderstands the last page of the minority pask that I published -  as a dispute between Rav Shafran and Rav Malinowitz. More importantly he falsely characterizes the nature of the joint psak and the nature of the minority dissent. A commentator - Ish - to Lopin's post states:
BTW R’ Malinowitz’s dissent is from the joint psak which finds a need to sanction one of the staff members. After a very long hebrew explanation by R’ Shafran why he finds no need to sanction the person in question — or anyone else — R’ Malinowitz, who in his signature to the main psak [which you posted} writes that he agrees with every word written by R’ Shafran, adds an English summary of what was written in Hebrew by Rav Shafran — it was unquestionably not a dissent[...]
 In response to a ridiculous response by Lopin to the above Ish continues:
I think you are being disingenuous. The whole purpose of a joint beis din was to find some way to get back accreditation for the seminaries. Otherwise, the IBD was ready to clear the seminaries in accordance with the takonos they implemented. The architecht of the joint beit din was Rabbi Gartner. Rabbi Shafran made it clear that only a perversion of halachah allows censure of that staff member (the acrimony to which you refer in an earlier post). Rabbi Gartner made sure that the IBD would allow a vague censure on which everyone could sign. Then CBD dissented with a stronger censure OF ONE PERSON, and the remainder of the IBD dissented on that vague censure, but accepted it as necessary in the real world. You didn’t read the nineteen pages before R’ Malinowitz’s signature. There was nothing substantive added by R’ Malinowitz.
If you want to go with what your eyes see, why does R’ Malinowitz write in his signature to the main ” דעתי במלא המובן כהרר שפרן ואני גם כן כדעת המיעוט והנני חותם בהצטרפות לדעת הרוב “להלכה ולמעשה I’ll allow you to translate that. That’s explicit enough to obviate any need for pilpul about dissent from dissent.
You go with what your eyes see, but don’t force what you see to meet your agenda. This includes R’ Kahane, of whom the JBD writes [and you posted]”ויותר אין להרהר ולפקפק חס ושלום בחזקת כשרותו וצדקתו לחנך בנות ישראל לתורה ולתעודה ” This was bolded in the original and signed by all seven dayanim — and I tell you from what I have indeed seen with my own eyes there is no dissent on that point. If you choose to dissent, then the burden of proof is on you to show proof that people can see with their own eyes that there is any dissent on that point. Even with what is available to the public it is clear that R’ Gartner — at least – is not disgusted by R’ Kahane’s abilities to educate seminary girls.
 [to be continued]

34 comments:

  1. Lopin has been a born and bred liar since the day he started his hate-filled blog. I, for one, don't even understand the necessity to respond to him. He is trying to be the 21st Century Goebbels. And like his icon, he is failing. His words circulate among his very small clan of likeminded readers who have too much time on their hands to kill but whose influence doesn't reach past their kitchen sink.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "There was never a time that the IBD or the CBD felt it was permissible
    to endanger a student for the sake of the existence of the seminaries."

    What about the pronouncement from the IBD on 7/13/14, which said "In light of what is said, there is no cause to refrain from sending
    girls to study and dorm in these seminaries. It can be confidently
    assumed that the distinguished staff does its work trustworthily and it
    will continue to educate Jewish daughters for Torah and purposefulness."


    Pretty clear from that pronouncement, which occurred well before the thorough fact-finding diyun that the seminaries came well before the students in the eyes of the IBD. No other way to understand such a pronouncement so early on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "There is no such rule. Rav Sternbuch told me explicity that the concern
    for viablity of a yeshiva never takes precedent over the welfare of a
    child. There was never a time that the IBD or the CBD felt it was
    permissible to endanger a student for the sake of the existence of the
    seminaries. Here is a clear example of Lopin making up a lie rather than
    accept the fact that the seminaries are in fact not a danger to their
    students."

    Sorry, but just because R' Shternbuch says that, doesn't mean that's how the Beis Din operated.

    Not saying they endangered students to protect the sem, just saying that this is absolutely NO PROOF

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Shlomo your answer is absurd. If Lopin says that chareidim place institutions before the welfare of students your take that as true but if Rav Sternbuch contradicts Lopin you saying it isn't proof?!

    ReplyDelete
  5. @not a hug - the danger according to everyone was Meisels - and he was removed. There is no basis for your deduction or that of Lopin from the IBD declaration and the basis of them making it.

    Please show evidence that showed that there was still a reasonable chance of that student were endangered when the IBD made their pronouncement. so no it was not "pretty clear from the statemento of the IBD that they placed the seminareis before the students.The fact is there was no basis to assume that the seminaries were a danger to the student after getting rid of Meisels and interviewing the staff.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually, as of July 2014, the scope of the danger, even according to the seminary supporters was unknown and required investigation. That was to be the purpose of the diyun which would happen later. So, no, merely removing Meisels COULD have ended the danger (using only information available on July of 2014) , but maybe it didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am not taking what Lopin says as true, I am questioning your proof.
    I am telling you that you are using projection.
    Just because R' Shternbuch said it, doesn't mean that is how it was carried out.

    I am not coming to defend Lopin. Like I said, I wasn't casting judgement on the Beis Din. I just find your proof flimsy.

    Talk is cheap, lets see actions (when they need to be taken).

    And, unfortunately, there are MANY stories of the schools/organizations (not just chareidi) putting their reputations before the students (e.g. NCSY with Lanner, Yeshiva of Brooklyn with Kolko, Australia etc.), all while saying the Politically Correct statements to show that they care.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "There is no such rule. Rav Sternbuch told me explicity that the concern
    for viablity of a yeshiva never takes precedent over the welfare of a
    child."


    Also, R' Shternbuch is saying that one SHOULDN'T put the institution before the student. He isn't talking "metzius".



    The question that was asked to the Rov "Should the institution be put before the student"?


    The question you are trying to apply his answer to:
    In practice, is the institution ever put before the student?

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Shlomo - we are not dealing here with a high school debate. Lopin made an accusation that in the Chareidi world institution are more important and take priorty to the welfare of individuals.

    I am saying that Rav Sternbuch says it is not true.

    The fact that you can find cases where insitutions did in fact sacrifice students doesn't make it a universal rule and it clearly is not an ideal. Thus it is a refutation to Lopin - which is where this discussion started.

    In fact there are times where students have been sacrificed in the Orthodox World,as they have in public schools, in universities, in business etc etc. There is no justification for Lopin characterizing it as a chareidi response. Anymore than saying that thiefs and murders are characteristic chareidi responses.


    The enlarged beis din’s majority was guided by a Haredi “sixth Shulchan Aruch” that no scandal can ever be allowed to close up institutions that provides jobs to people from choshuv (important) families. Under this perversion of commonsense and halacha (Jewish law), the reputations and jobs of important families overrode the safety and well-being of students.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Shlomo - come down from the clouds. I didn't say that because of Rav Sternbuch's statement that it doesn't happened. In fact I said the opposite.

    This has nothing to do with projection.

    I quoted Rav Sternbuch to show it is not an inherent chareidi value. I was not saying that because of what he says it doesn't happen.

    And again this was a response to Lopin.

    You simply came in during a discussion and tried to focus on on element and ignore the context. You imputed significance to Rav Sternbuch that I never said.

    So at this point - I don't think there is any meaningful difference between the two of us.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Not just a hug - please produce some evidence to support your claim that the IBD was being irresponsible instead of repeating your assertion.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If I understand, his evidence is from the timeline. The IBD pronounced the schools safe in July, and fully investigated the staff (if they even did that yet) only in the hearings of the JBD. What "Not Just a Hug" is saying that pronouncing the schools as safe before investigating if other staff members were complicit/negligent was being irresponsible, even if they did ultimately determine, after interviewing the staff, that the staff members did nothing wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What "Not Just a Hug" is saying that pronouncing the schools as safe before investigating if other staff members were complicit/negligent was being irresponsible

    Is any seminary safe? They determined that these seminaries were at least as safe as all other seminaries. Was there any credible evidence produced to them suggesting otherwise.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-what-went-wrong-20150405

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am confused. According to you, did the CBD admit that they were wrong all along and the IBD was right? I did not understand the JBD ruling that way. I understood that the JBD is just saying from now forward all is alright. That would still mean that the IBD was wrong in its initial ruling even according to the JBD.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Exactly. Simple logic. Follow the timeline.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Whether or not there is credible evidence otherwise is beside the point. The issue is whether or not there was sufficient reason to be concerned that there may have been staff members who had been negligent. Declaring the schools safe without clarifying this first is what is being labeled as irresponsible.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Yehoshua - why do you insist that the schools were declared safe without a reasonable investigation?

    What do you claim they didn't do and how do you know it wasn't done?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Why are you so confused? The JBD ruling indicates the IBD ruling was correct.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm not sure how you could have understood it that way. You read the psak? The psak was a retraction of the earlier CBD letters and correction of the original mistaken accusations against the staff. I suggest you reread it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, we know that they were first declared safe, and only later did the IBD decide to install Rebbitzen Birnbaum in some sort of role as an overseer and to have Debbie Gross give the staff members training as to how to properly deal with these type of events in the future. Additionally, the first pesak of the IBD talks about the great impression that the administrators and staff members made on them, and does not state anything about hearing from students who have alleged improprieties. I have not seen anyone claim that the IBD interviewed students until the hearings held before the JBD.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rabbi Eidensohn,

    Lopin has formed an online posse and is on a virtual vigilante mission.

    I think in the end he's going to appear to succeed, not from his own efforts, but because the Bais Din process here has become a circus.

    If the CBD was incompetent in their initial analysis, then their sitting on the JBD lends incompetence to the JBD Psak. And if the CBD was competent in their initial analysis, then that is grist for mill of those who want to portray the JBD as a ragtag court.

    If I can be permitted to make a modest proposal, I would suggest a truce till the school year ends, when we can all revisit this issue after most of the current students have completed their studies at the seminaries.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The seminaries were safe as other seminaries
    It was decided to improve the structure

    You are demanding that all records be made public because you don't think they are competent but you have no evidence
    In short the BD is assumed to be. Incompetent unless they can prove otherwise
    Aside from lopin and his peanut gallery that is not how they are viewed

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think a little ignoring might be helpful. My suggestion is save up all the polemical ammunition for when Summer arrives, and then unleash a barrage of point by point refutations. This will serve a dual purpose. It will mean he doesn't get traffic driven to his site by posts here that reference his posts; and by the Summer time, the wind will be taken out of his sails by circumstances. The reality that the seminaries are up and running, and likely to be so for the upcoming year, undercuts his whole premise that the seminaries are dangerous. At least, I think that's his premise.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Need to know the details
    Please have her contact me or give me number and I'll contact her

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Joe the facts I have presented undercuts premise
    But he doesn't answer my questions just adds slander
    Or repeats claims based solely on his conjecture

    Not responding gives mistaken impression that he has serious questions

    ReplyDelete
  26. a lot of posts about sheker in the last few days, how about one on Emet - what we have lost in the passing of Gadol and Posek HaDor R' Wosner z'tl?

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Eddie - please write a guest post

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Yehoshua - you wrote to me privately

    " [The therapist] is basically just disappointed that matters weren't dealt with the way she had hoped, but she has enough experience to not be surprised. I don't think she is interested in pursuing it."

    A rather disappointing response. I am willing to pursue the matter but you are basing yourself on comments on someone who makes accusations but is not willing to have them carefully examined


    Sorry but phantom accusers are not taken too seriously. You can't publicly make accusations attacking the integrity of Rabbi Malinowitz and Rabbi Shafran and then when asked for details say the rabbis are guilty as charged so there is no need to investigate!

    ReplyDelete
  29. This is typical of how all the accusations have gone. A great noise and tumult, but when investigated, there inevitably turns out to be nothing of substance. "Yehoshua" follows closely in the footsteps of earlier accusers, who used lies and innuendo in their attempts to destroy the seminaries and their staffs.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I am quite impressed with "Yehoshua". While he claimed not to have and inside info just a few weeks ago, http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/03/joint-beis-din-israeli-and-chicago.html#comment-1903068500
    , he now has inside info from therapists about supposed negligence and recklessness. Neat.


    Oh, and when Rabbi Eidensohn asks for info, oops, the inside info somehow disappears. Double neat. But just go on in continuing to have your own set of rules in how to further your own form of "justice.

    ReplyDelete
  31. First of all, no need for the quotation marks, that is my real name, "Honesty." Second of all, if you are having trouble comprehending how someone may not have had information a few weeks ago and had it yesterday, you must have not learned much in the past few weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Second of all, if you are having trouble comprehending how someone may not have had information a few weeks ago and had it yesterday, you must have not learned much in the past few weeks.

    Huh? Please explain your comment.

    1.) You've been very consistent in trying to smear the seminaries and beis din with your McCarthy-type assertions and immediate mistranslations of the psak.

    2) You claimed not to have any inside info, and that you're an unbiased observer.

    3) You've tried to claim that the Bottei Din were negligent and incompetent, yet somehow not call them that. You did eventually call them so, explicitly.

    4) Asked to back up your incredulous assertion, you were stuck and could not come up with a coherent reply.

    5) Eventually you claimed that you know of supposed "wrongdoing" by the Beis Din from a supposed therapist whom you claim to have been in contact with the beis din.

    6) When Rabbi Eidensohn pressed you to back up this newest "claim", you fail to do so, yet again.
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/04/more-of-lopins-lies-and-distortions.html#comment-1951625140



    Now, back to reality. Where did you pick up this supposed inside information during the past few weeks? Why do feel you can slander the Beis DIn, yet refuse to provide proper evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  33. 1: I have never called the Beis Din incompetent. I said that if they cleared the seminaries without examining the role teachers played in dealing with the issue, then they are incompetent. Do you agree with that?
    2: The fact that someone who spoke with one of the dayanim personally would not be interested in pursuing the matter further by means of the mouthpiece of that dayan should not be surprising to anyone.
    3: If by evidence you mean cell phone records, phone logs, or the like, I certainly don't have that. Of course, nobody needs to accept my word for anything, as information provided by anonymous commentators on blogs is not worth very much. I mentioned the issue of the therapist to explain why I am eager to read what Rabbi Shafran has written, as, according to Rabbi Eidensohn, he addresses the issue of the teachers in detail.
    4: Chol Homo'ed is a good time to meet people you haven't seen in a while. I met someone who I had heard was planning to contact one of the dayanim back in July, and inquired what came of that.
    5: Contrary to your assertions, I have no ax to grind. I am disturbed that to date, the JBD has not stated anything as to the complicity or lack thereof of the staff members. I do not think it is "slandering" the Beis Din to question why they have yet to say anything about this point. They wrote that there is no need to discuss what occurred at Peninim at all, being that Meisels himself was the principal there. This indicates that they think there is no place to discuss the staff at large, an idea that I find disturbing. Once again, Rabbi Eidensohn said that is is discussed in one of the dissents, and I look forward to when that is publicly available.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Chol Homo'ed is a good time to meet people you haven't seen in a while. I met someone who I had heard was planning to contact one of the dayanim back in July, and inquired what came of that."

    Was this person you met the therapist you mentioned before? If yes, please pursue the following avenue: ask the therapist to contact the client who spoke to the therapist regarding the seminary. Find out if the client would be willing to speak on the record, with the client's identity not being revealed to the public. Report back here. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete

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