Includes the following documents:
2. Transcript of Lipnitsky's deposition - in which he states hundreds of times "I Don't remember", "I took no notes", There was no report"...
Aish and their attorney fought in court not to divulge the purported forensic report that Rabbi Cohen stated he saw and relied on that report for his award of $20,000,000
3. A decision from Justice Demarest dated April 25 2015 compelling Aish to show Fetman that forensic report. The Judge noticed that the report was dated December 17th 2013, well after the last session with Rabbi Cohen and was incredulous to hear that Fetman never received this report prior to Rabbi Cohen issuing his decision and award on December 17th. Lipnitsky also admitted discussing this case with Rabbi Cohen the evening before he issued the report, against all common practice that no discussions shall take place Ex Parte.
There are major errors and mistakes in the purported report - some of which are stated below:
Lipnitsky report
Exhibit 1 summarizes his findings - between the years 2006 - 2013
1. Unauthorized compensation - $174,202
2. Funds deposited into Unauthorized bank accounts: $ 1,697,523
3. Credit Card charges Personal - $ 462,787
4. Other $16,700
Total: $2,351,211 (This is the figure that they made to match R. Cohen's reference when he states that the report claims that $2.4 million stolen from Aish. Also note that the report is dated December 17, when the psak itself was already faxed over December the 16th - based on R' Cohen fax date stamp)
Issues with the report:
2006-2013
1. Unauthorized compensation states that two schools were paid as a part of Allowable Compensation
Masores BY - report claim $ 161,942 however - as can be learned from the school's report (attached)
$131,473 was paid (difference of $30,469)
Tiferes Yisroel - Lipnitsky report claims $ 94,242 however as can be seen from the school's report (attached) only $ 58,403 was paid (difference of $ 35,839)
Additionally, Health insurance premiums, totaling $ 95,733 were NOT a part of the compensation but an added benefit.
Fetman's compensation 2006-2011 did NOT stay the same but was increased annually. 2012 - 2013 was $135,000 and not $125,000 as it shows on the report
Therefore - there is no basis to the claim of unauthorized compensation.
2. Lipnitsky's report refers to a total of seven bank accounts as "Unauthorized bank accounts"
Project Inspire (Bank of America X4050) total deposited $1,200,052
Tomchei Torah (Bank of American X4322) total deposited $ 262,923
Jewish Speakers Group (Bank of America X8362) total deposited $ 64,581
Ahavas Israel (Bank of America X4513) Total deposited $ 4,975
Three other account are referenced -
Aish International - depositing funds totaling $ 139,967 into Merkaz account (Bank of America X5468)
Aish Missouri - depositing funds totaling $ 15,025 into Merkaz account (Bank of America X5468)
and Aish Center - depositing funds totaling $10,000 into Merkaz account (Bank of America X5468)
the last three entities (Aish International, aish MO and Aish Center) are separate and distinct 501c3 organizations, with their own board, management teams and accounting departments. These entities are NOT under Fetman's control and never were. Its misleading and a complete falsehood to report these transactions as if they had anything to do with Aish NY. Certainly, Mr. Lipnitsky never even attempted to contact them as he stated in his deposition.
Project Inspire and Tomchei Torah are their own entities - Project Inspire was ALWAYS under Aish International (certificate of Incorporation attached) had its own staff, address, board of directors and fundraising and accounting systems. Lipnitsky's letter refers to email dialog between Greenman and Yossi Friedman, the director of Project Inspire, requesting that Inspire pay more money towards Fetman's compensation - clearly, Inspire is NOT under or a part of Aish NY.
Greenman claims that these accounts were 'unauthorized' yet clearly he knows and agrees to have Project Inspire use accounting services provided by Fetman. Greenman's claims that the Project Inspire bank account was unauthorized - is unbelievable - how else can checks made out to Project Inspire be able to be deposited ?
THE MOST EGREGIOUS OMISSION IS THAT IN THE LETTER LIPNISKY ACKNOWLEDGES CONFIRMING THAT APPROXIMATELY $450,000 WAS DEPOSITED BACK IN AISH ACCOUNT FROM MERKAZ, HOWEVER THE REPORT FAILS TO DEDUCT THAT AMOUNT FROM THE $2.35 MILLION REPORTED.
3. Credit Cards transactions reported to Lipnitsky by Aish as Personal - a total of $ 462,787
The report claims that EVERY charge at Staples was personal - approx. $200K over the 8 years! Likewise, charges from T-Mobile, Mountain Fruit, Home Depot, Lowes, Costco local coffee shops etc. are all marked as personal. Fetman NEVER had an account with T-Mobile only with Sprint and those transactions were authorized by others as legitimate aish expenses and not a part of Fetman's compensation.
Specific business transactions, such as over 10,000 dollars copier lease expenses charged by De Lage Landen, were marked as personal expenses. See lease attached.
Simcha Kosher Caterers, which was an Aish caterer for an event in Austen Texas, were marked personal as well.
Fetman was personally in charge of all purchases, and Aish staff constantly used Fetman's credit cards to have with them while on Aish run trips and student meetings. Many times staff meetings at local restaurants and eateries were charged to Fetman's credit card by staff.
As much of the documentation is not available to us, we can not comment on the amex transactions. One credit card - Aish Plum card - which Lipnitsky's report claims to have $147,919 personal charges 2010 thru 2013 was analyzed and concluded to have a total charges of $585,400. When deducting returns and refunds of $16,755 and legitimate Aish NY business transactions of $558,827, only $9817 of personal charges over the 4 year period exist.
4. Other Fetman Expenses:
$6700 over 2006 - 2013 Insurance payments to William Penn were authorized and not a part of Fetman's compensation.
Conclusion:
Lipnitsky's report which spans 8 years, and reports finding $2.35 million is a gross and malignant painting of the actual information. Even according to his own findings, its actually $1,900,000 (2.35 mil less than the $450K found returned to Aish). Even if we take 1.9 mil over 8 years and project to 17 years the total would be approximately $4 million - no where near $20 million. However - as stated, the 'unauthorized accounts' were fully authorized and fully scrutinized by Project Inspire and Greenman, so the 1.9 mil is no where near that amount.
"Lipnitsky also admitted discussing this case with Rabbi Cohen the
ReplyDeleteevening before he issued the report, against all common practice that no
discussions shall take place Ex Parte."
What's the problem with forensic expert discussing the pending report with the Dayan? This is a beis din proceeding, not a secular court, and the rules are based on halacha not secular court rules. What halacha makes an issue with an agent of the beis din, i.e. conducting an expert forensic investigation on behalf of the beis din, with discussing the pending investigation with the Dayan?
The "ex parte" argument was made before the judge. She dismissed it out of hand. It's explicit in her decision.
ReplyDeleteHaving lost the case before the dayan, and now before the judge, Fetman is intent on reinventing it on the web.
ReplyDeleteAish would have to be willing to give Fetman's forensic accountant access to its books and records and to cooperate with his forensic accountant in order for him to effectively commission his own report. Would they do so?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that there are a couple of questions here:
1. Did Fetman use Aish funds (that were not designated for his compensation or employee benefits) for personal use?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, was that a patter of activities of all senior executives of Aish or something Fetman did on his own.
3. Finally, there seems to be a big question about where the $20 million number comes from. Even if we disregard all the questions raised about the forensic report and give the report full credence, it seems clear that the report came up with a figure of $2.3 million. How did that become $20 million. Does a Dayan have a right to extrapolate a figure based on conjecture? It may very well be the case, that Fetman did steal a smaller number, for arguments sake, lets say the $2.3 million identified in the report but that the $20 million figure has no basis in reality. If that is the case, then both sides have what to answer for.
Having Fun....
ReplyDelete....Watching "the gang of four" -- moo, knishka, dishonest, lieseeker -- troll around as they go into over-drive to defend the corrupt crumbling Aish Empire even as the evidence against them mounts. What's with these guys, ever since they got involved with this blog they have taken it on themselves to defend the wrongs of the establishment.
Take a look at poor dishonest, in the last post, he resorts to digging up dirt from Luke Ford (is that because he knows Californians so well?), and from Frum Follies, as "proof" against how "bad" Rabbi Belsky is when he does not even come to the fungus under Rabbi Belsky's toenails. If anyone else would cite sp much as a word from disreputable blogs like Luke and Frum Follies, dishonest wouwld be down their throats with a gazillion insults and attacks, shame on you dishonest, go on a diet will you!
Spinning their wheels they go, like paid spinmeisters working overtime to defend Greenman who even among Aish is known as the go to mean guy who has fired and bounced so many former colleagues too many to count. And now that Greenman is tsuck in the web he spun for himself, moo-knishka-dishonety-lieseeker, come out of the woodwork to do their dirty work.
What a joke!!
1. Did Fetman request access to Aish's books for his own forensic accountant to investigate? If he did so, when did he make that request - prior to or after the beis din decision had already been rendered? If the beis din had already rendered a verdict in the case, how could he expect to do an investigation on an already decided case that he should have done while the case was still not concluded?
ReplyDelete2. Regarding your #2, what difference is it? If other Aish executives were stealing from Aish, does that excuse any one of them? Is he excused from theft because others were doing the same?
3. It's been said that at some point Fetman stopped cooperating with the beis din's investigation and accounting of the missing funds thereby causing the beis din to extrapulate figures on assumptions that were not to Fetman's benefit of the doubt. As a result of his no longer giving the beis din the information it needed to make an accurate accounting. So would that not indicate it is Fetman's own fault that the beis din ended up making assumptions for the figures as a result of his lack of cooperation?
How is Aish enforcing the $20 Million beis din judgement (affirmed by
ReplyDeletethe secular courts) that was awarded to Aish from Fetman? Is Aish
seizing assets from Fetman? Which assets? How are they seizing it? Have
they already seized certain assets? How are the seizures being enforced?
Get a grip rapper. You have these conspiracy theories that you weave into megilas. You still haven't explained why your beef isn't with Rav Hutner instead of with Rav Schechter. Rav Hutner was the party who dismissed RSC during his lifetime. And it was Rav Hutner who was initially called to the Agudas HaRabbonim b"d, to which Rav Hutner cited the halachic provisioning permitting a talmid chochom/yeshiva to decline responding to the b"d. Rav Schechter only continued with the path Rav Hutner took on the RSC issue. The issue developed two years prior to Rav Hutner's passing.
ReplyDeleteHi "Emes" -- didn't you say you weren't going to respond to me any more b/c of my "rudeness?"
ReplyDeleteFetman admitted to stealing enormous amounts of money. At first he cooperated, and showed much of what he stole over the last several years, and how he did it. It's the information gleaned from that cooperation that is the basis for a lot of the accountant's report. Fetman then stopped cooperating, and withheld further documents that were requested by the accountant, forcing him to extrapolate out to what the true number might be for a period of twenty years of stealing. No one disputes that he stole large sums of money -- he admitted it and there is proof -- the question is only exactly how much. If Fetman is unhappy with the $20 million number arrived at, he could easily resume cooperating and provide the documents requested. The same information that was available to the accountant is available to anyone else Fetman would appoint to rebut the assessment. He has not attempted a rebuttal. I leave you to figure out why. All the stuff going on here -- his brother-in-law Lefkowitz bringing in the Belsky BD, the wild accusations, and more -- it's the thieves desperately flinging mud in the hope something will stick.
RMF did make the statement against RAS, and not Rav Hutner. Had there been one against R Hutner, it would have been a major machlokes, but since RAS obviously was of lower stature than RMF, then there is a valid claim against his stance.
ReplyDelete"Did Fetman request access to Aish's books for his own forensic accountant to investigate?"
ReplyDeleteI don't know. Do you?
"how could he expect to do an investigation on an already decided case that he should have done while the case was still not concluded?"
I'm not the one suggesting he should do so. Kishkeyum is criticizing him for not commissioning his own report. Having said that it would not be irrational for him to do so if, as some reports seem to indicate that his primary complaint here is that the $20 million award is a farce. Defendants are often wrong and often judgments and awards are issued against defendants where right and wrong is not clear and are based on judgments - but defendants nonetheless have the right to expect that the judgment will be based on reality and there are procedures to challenge judgments in court and, to a substantially lesser degree, even in din torah. It has been suggested here that Fetman's complaint is not that he lost as much as that the $20 million award is a scam with no relationship to reality. To be clear, I do not have first hand knowledge of the facts at hand so I am not saying what is or isn't the case here.
"Regarding your #2, what difference is it? If other Aish executives were stealing from Aish, does that excuse any one of them? Is he excused from theft because others were doing the same?"
This can be extremely important but would obviously depend on the facts at hand. For example, if it was a matter of practice to funnel some level of personal expenses through Aish, Fetman could argue that his was his legitimate compensation approved by senior executives and all he is guilty of is collusion in a tax evasion scheme (not that tax evasion is okay - but he wouldn't be guilty of stealing anything from Aish). Assuming that theft did occur, but there was collective theft going on here, then it raises very serious concerns about all the parties involved, officers, arbitrators, forensic accounts and perhaps the right answer is that they should all be removed, the arbitration award thrown out and someone independent needs to be brought in. From a more technical perspective, there is a doctrine known as the clean hand doctrine which essentially says that a court can refuse to enforce the rights of a party who has also acted with unclean hands. So the course of conduct of the parties involved can be very relevant to whether a court would enforce the arbitration award.
"3. It's been said that at some point Fetman stopped cooperating with the beis din's investigation and accounting of the missing funds thereby causing the beis din to extrapulate figures on assumptions that were not to Fetman's benefit of the doubt. . . . So would that not indicate it is Fetman's own fault that the beis din ended up making assumptions for the figures as a result of his lack of cooperation?"
To the extent that is correct would that allow the bais din to make up a number? The burden of proof, both in bais din and secular court is on the plaintiff.
My, my David, you are so "clever" you think that "shooting the messenger because you hate the message" is a way to "deal" with tough questions.
ReplyDelete(1)Why don't you ask Rav Dovid Feinstein SHLIT"A what his father Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L meant by summoning RAS and RAF, and NOT to Rav Hutner in writing? Go on, call him up and report back to us every word he says.
(2) Then call up the CRC Satmar Bais Din and ask them what they had in mind when they issues offcial summonses to RAS and RAF, they are still a fully-active Bais Din and they surely will know if the case has been "closed out" or if it's still pending.
(3) Then go ahead and ask the Agudas HaRabbanim (yes I know they are not as great as RAS etc, but be humble for a change and not a Baal Gaava, and talk some other Rabbanim, who can maybe give you the right guidance and Hashkofos, and Derech Eretz, that you are obviously very much, Nebech, lacking.
(4) Then call up all those Batei Din who agreed with the To'en who represented Landau's-Veretzy (who beat Chaim Berlin at their own game and won the rights to the property next door to the CB Mesivta) that because of TWO individuals ONLY, RAS & RAF, and not Rav Yitzchok Hutner ZT"L, the entire Chaim Berlin Yeshiva is collectively effected and cannot proceed with ANY Din Torah in ANY Bais Din, and as Rav Elyashiv ZT"L had ruled that "people who do not go to a Din Torah, cannot summon others to a DiN Torah" -- beautiful logic and Emes don't you think? Any fool (but you and the "gang of four: moo-kinishka-dishonest-lieseeker" that even a blind man can see the truth here of that, except for folks like you who enjoy being trolls on blogs intimidating others from commenting, rather than face up to the reality.
(5) Finally, call up Rav Shlomo Carlebach SHLIT"A himself, he is still alive and fully mentally alert and gets around. Ask him all the question you have put to some silly blogger (me) and find out for yourself the other side of the story, won't you. Just to refresh your memory, here are some of the key documents that are still part of the open case/s against RAS and RAF. If you can't do that, then call up Rav Carlebach oldest son in law Rav Motti Jafen the Rosh HaYeshiva of the Navardok Yeshiva in Flatbush, or his second son in law Rav Avrohom Marmorstein a Rov in Manhattan, or maybe call up Rav Binyomin Carlebach SHLIT"A the Rosh HaYeshiva of the Mir Yeshiva in Yerushalayim, he is cousin, and ask him the same "brilliant" smrat-aleck questions you are posing to little old me, after all I am just a "RaP" you know, no big deal to beat up on me, try picking on any of the above, and then get back to us with the results.
Here are some original documents to refresh your memory of how this had played out and where it's still at, thanks:
The case was originally against Rav Hutner ZT"L. It was Rav Hutner who decided not to respond. It was Rav Hutner who invoked the halachic principle that a T"C/yeshiva has the right to decline to respond. Rav Schechter merely continued the response and path that Rav Hutner gave and initiated prior to his passing.
ReplyDelete1. I asked already, rapper. Rav Dovid will on principle not respond to questions on this matter. You should have known that.
ReplyDelete2. I've spoken to dayanim on the CRC as well. They too, as you should have well known, refuse to discuss the case with any non-party.
3. Same.
4. Veretzky and Chaim Berlin get along very well.
6. Rav Motti Jafen, Rav Carelbach's son in law, is co-Rosh Yeshiva in Navardok with Rav Yaakov Drillman, a very close talmid and friend of both Rav Ahron Schechter shlita and Rav Hutner zt'l. It was Rav Ahron Schechter who strongly encouraged Rav Drillman to switch from Chaim Berlin to Navardok and accept the position as R"Y with Rav Joffen. Rav Drillman was on the hijacked plane with Rav Hutner.
Rapper, boy, you simply attempt vainly to onscure the truth. You've failed miserably. Just as your fellow rapper, and now ex-Orthodox, Matisyahu.
If that is so, then was there any such letter from RMF regarding R' Hutner? Theoretically, could a BD make a judgement against a Gadol?
ReplyDelete