Times of Israel by Nitzan Caspi Shiloni, Esq. is an attorney at the Center for Women's Justice, a legal advocacy organization
[...] In case you missed it: on Tuesday, February 14, the rabbinic court announced its findings with great fanfare: More women withhold religious divorces than men! To understand this outrageous piece of PR, let’s take a look at some key facts that might come as a surprise to those unfamiliar with the world of rabbinic courts.
First, rabbinic court statistics are utterly meaningless when examined in context. They fail to provide an accurate representation of the actual numbers of women refused a get. Naama, the woman mentioned above, who has been waiting five and a half years for her get, is not counted. 60- and 70-year-old women, who, after waiting 20 or 30 years for a get that never materializes and have had their rabbinic court files closed due to lack of activity, are not counted. Women who filed for divorce, but could not cite halakhically adequate grounds for divorce (to illustrate, “occasional” domestic violence against women is not considered sufficient grounds for divorce according to many rabbinic courts in Israel), and whose divorce requests were subsequently rejected by the rabbinic court, are not counted. Women who sue their recalcitrant husbands for damages in civil court are labeled recalcitrant wives by the rabbinic court as “punishment” for turning to the civil system, doubly skewing the statistics by not factoring into the number of agunot, while also adding to the number of recalcitrant wives. And women who do not capitulate to financial extortion for their get are not counted either, since the rabbinic court will not obligate a man to give the get until the woman satisfies all of the husband’s demands.
In an especially blood-boiling incident I encountered a few months ago in the course of my work at the Center for Women’s Justice, the Haifa Rabbinic Court released the recalcitrant husband of one of my clients from prison because she would not pay hundreds of thousands of shekels for her get. The rabbinic court judges had the gall to admonish the woman (whose husband had been refusing her a get for six years), saying that it was her fault that she had no get — because she refused to meet the husband’s demand. Absurdly, in the rabbinic court’s statistics, the man is not counted as a get-refuser. [...]
But let’s put aside all these pesky facts for now, and take a fresh look at the story behind the story. If we pause and think about the rabbinic court’s data and their “boys versus girls” argument that they attempt to craft, one thing is glaringly obvious: the utter failure of the rabbinic court itself.
The rabbinic court can try and wage a defensive PR campaign against the barrage of criticism hurled its way every day by the media and others who are fed up with its shenanigans. But the fact remains that get-refusal — whether perpetrated by men or women (the numbers of whom the rabbinic court is all too happy to share) — is enabled by the rabbinic court system itself. Their own failing system is responsible for the proliferation of get-refusal and their ineptitude is what chains more and more Israeli men and women in marriages against their will. And the icing on the cake? By issuing this misleading report, the rabbinic court tries to place the responsibility for this tragic state of affairs on the very women who suffer at its hands. But there is no doubt that the responsibility for this predicament lies with the rabbinic courts themselves.
This angry feminist is basically writing that she's angry that butei dinim in Israel actually follow halacha rather than order all men whose wives want a Get to give her a Get even when halacha says not to order a Get.
ReplyDeleteThat's all she's writing, in a nutshell. And she's pretty brazenly open about that this is her demand.
actually that is not what she is saying
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think she is saying?
ReplyDeleteLet me explain. You're right that it isn't what she is saying but it's a necessary introduction to her statements. She talks about extortion. But the fact is that the woman is demanding a get when the halacha doesn't require him to give a get. But if she will compensate him financially. he would be willing. This is a sort of compromise. But if you assume that a woman is automatically entitled to a get on demand, then it's extortion.
ReplyDeleteIn this day of disposables, some women think that a marriage is also disposable a matter of convenience. The idea of breaking a home doesn't matter to them that much.
And as far as “occasional” domestic violence, imagine a couple who have been together for years without incident, but one day a civil dispute erupts, and without discussion of fault, it escalates and a blow is delivered. It is out of character, and immediately regretted. Should that automatically be ground to justify a divorce demand? I think not. But most likely, the woman wanted a divorce for other reasons, and this incident is being taken out of context to promote her agenda. She is actually pleased that it happened, because it wasn't so bad at all, and it gives her ammunition. So the rabbis are wise to that. That is how we can view it if her demand for the get isn't automatically justified. Where the 'given' is that a Jewish home is not be wound up at someone's whim. But if you assume that a woman is automatically entitled to a get on demand, then we can be up in arms that the incident of violence is ignored.
she explains herself very well and it isn't that she is rejecting halacha
ReplyDeletea nice sugar coated version of events. There is extortion going on. There are demands which have nothing to do with any sense of justice or equity - but are simply demands because they can be made. Some men also think that a marriage is disposable. Therefore?
ReplyDeleteOccasional domestic violence?!- you sound like we are talking about occasional friendly pats on the back. I assume you have never read the court records dealing with abuse and the type of abuse the beis din considers "normal".
“Women who filed for divorce, but could not cite halakhically adequate
ReplyDeletegrounds for divorce (to illustrate, “occasional” domestic violence against
women is not considered sufficient grounds for divorce according to many
rabbinic courts in Israel), and whose divorce requests were subsequently
rejected by the rabbinic court, are not counted… If a woman is discovered to
have engaged in a relationship with another man, her actions carry significant
halakhic and legal consequences. Contrast this with a man who has been denied a
religious divorce and chooses to move on with his life — he faces no risk of
halakhic or legal repercussions whatsoever. He can live with a woman and his
subsequent children will be considered 100% kosher.”
True. True. I quote:
The
sin:
“When
the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and a delight to the eyes, and
that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom, she took of its fruit and
ate. She also gave some to her husband, and he ate. (Genesis 3:6)
The punishment:
“And to the woman He said, “I will make most severe Your pangs in
childbearing; In pain shall you bear children. Yet your urge shall be for your
husband, And he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16).
מדרש אגדה (בובר) בראשית פרשת בראשית פרק
ג סימן טז
עצבונך. זה צער גידול בנים: והרונך. זה
צער העיבור: והוא ימשול בך. שהוא כובשה שלא תדבר עם בני אדם:
The Midrash (Buber) states , “And he shall rule over you” that he
conquers her that she not talk with other men.
רבינו בחיי בראשית פרשת בראשית פרק ג פסוק
טז
ואל אישך תשוקתך. שאע"פ שהאשה משועבדת
ברשות הבעל ומנהג העבד לברוח מן האדון כדי שלא ישתעבד, גזר בזאת שתהיה משתוקקת לבעל
ושתרצה להשתעבד לו, בהפך מן המנהג:
Rabbeinu Behaye says “Yet your urge shall be for your husband” that even
though the woman is oppressed/enslaved to the husband and the habit/convention
for the slave top flee from the master so that he does not oppress/enslave,
[God] decreed here that she will be longing for the husband and be willing to
be enslaved/oppressed to him, the opposite habit/convention.
והוא ימשל בך. העונש הזה שיהיה הבעל נגיד
ומצוה עליה תחת אשר צותה עליו לאכול מן הפרי, ועונש זה מדה כנגד מדה.
Sir, with all due respect, while I agree that there is extortion going on, because the world is a big place, and lot's of things, almost everything you can imagine, is going on, that doesn't represent the whole story, or even most of it.
ReplyDeleteI am familiar with some instances of the abuse I discussed. Could I ask you to present some records of serious abuse which were dismissed by Bais Din as "normal"?
This angry misogynist is basically writing that he didn't actually read the article, but turned his brain off as soon as he saw that it presents a balanced view of the issue.
ReplyDeleteShe clearly predicated her assumptions that a beis din should disregard halacha when it runs counter to 21st century Western beliefs.
ReplyDeleteRead between the lines. It is clear that's what she's saying.
ReplyDeleteRDE, Are you arguing that what the Tzitz Eliezer paskened is not normative halacha from the Shulchan Aruch, Chazal, and before and since?
ReplyDeleteWhere does it say in Shulchan Aruch that a woman needs to accept beatings as a normal part of married life? Even if there were times in Jewish history were beatings were not totally uncommon - there is no justification today for insisting that a woman should learn to accept even occasional beatings.
ReplyDeleteyou don't need to read between the lines - read the lines themselves
ReplyDeleteThere is no requirement that 21 century women need to put up with beatings or extortion. A woman in the 21 century has the right to expect psychological sensitivity that wasn't part of marriage in the Middle Ages.She has a right to be treated with the same dignity and kavod and her non Frum or non Jewish neighbors take for granted.
ReplyDeleteI am not understanding. You said that there are court records showing that batay din don't feel that serious physical abuse is grounds for divorce. I asked you to show me that. What is here that shows that? The fact that those stories were terrible doesn't mean that anything less wouldn't suffice.
ReplyDeleteIt's been awhile since I looked in the sugya, but I believe the Mechaber as Rema pasken in Shulchan Aruch that if a wife demands a Get on the claim that her husband physically beats her, if he's denies it then beis din halachicly cannot accept her claims and can put an agent of beis din in the martial home to witness whether it's true or not. If they have witness that it's true, or if be admits it, even then the Mechaber paskens beis din must first warn him to stop and they cannot order him to give a Get until and unless he continues the violence after being warned by beis din.
ReplyDelete"And as far as “occasional” domestic violence, imagine a couple who have been together for years without incident, but one day a civil dispute erupts, and without discussion of fault, it escalates and a blow is delivered. It is out of character, and immediately regretted. Should that automatically be ground to justify a divorce demand? "
ReplyDeleteErrr yes!!!! This is how domestic violence often begins. Trying to minimize the severity of such a major issue in this way will only increase domestic violence in both genders.
Yes it does
ReplyDeleteNope.
ReplyDeleteErrr, no!!!! Of course, things always start small before they escalate, but not every small thing escalates. There is such a thing as a mistake. Most of us don't have perfect marriages without ever an abusive word or action. If any isolated bad action is grounds for divorce, then most (just about all) marriages should be dissolved.
ReplyDeleteI am not minimizing it, but neither is the one who acted badly. Things need to be considered in their context. Suppose a woman was so overly abusive, verbally and/or physically, that he lost it momentarily. Would you automatically vilify the man for this?
What I'm saying is that things need to be judged in their context. In a bais din, sometimes the rabbis hear the story and correctly determine that there are no grounds to rightfully demand a divorce.
Please point out exactly where you see the משמעות
ReplyDeleteWhat if he only beats her 4 times a year? We are not talking about once in the course of 20 years. What if it is only once every 5 years but it involves broken bones? Please state the degree of abuse that you expect a woman to put up with?
ReplyDeleteNobody should have to put up with any abuse at all. We all deserve better.
ReplyDeleteBut would you agree that a slap on the wrist once in 20 years, by a man who is forever (besides the moment of that slap) doting and giving, is not grounds for divorce? So the case can be reasonably examined to see if it is abuse that warrants divorce.
To the question of when it should be worthwhile to divorce rather than stay together there is no clear cut answer, because there are many factors, some legitimate and some not so. There are things which would be agreed by all that they warrant divorce, and that is the better choice no matter what. There are things which most would agree don't, and there are grey areas. What I am saying is that sometimes things are dishonestly mixed into a chulent. A mild abuse which most would agree isn't in and of itself a reason for divorce, would be brought in to the discussion, to dishonestly 'prove' that the man is abusive and bad, in order to facilitate a divorce which the woman wants for reasons which most would not be impressed by. I am therefore saying that a rabbi is sometimes wise to that ploy being used. But it seems that this writer has decided that any woman is right for expecting a get on demand no matter what. So then why not throw the slap into the mix.
Why does he have to state the degree? We have halachas, Chazals and a Shulchan Aruch to define these questions for us.
ReplyDeleteLet's use them.
Let me put the Rema (E.H. 154, 3) in perspective. In those days it was common practice among goyim to hit their wives, as The Rema say there. Let me explain why that matters.
ReplyDeleteNot long ago it was considered acceptable for teachers to spank students. Being that so, when a teacher did that, it didn't indicate a deviant behavior pattern or a lack of self control or any personality disorder at all. If the teacher would be instructed to stop, he would be able to do that if he would agree that it is correct. However, now that it is against the rules, the only teacher that would do it is someone who has a lack of self control or some other personality disorder. It doesn't help to tell him not to, because he can't control himself.
So with hitting wives. When it was acceptable in society to do so as a matter of discipline, even though halacha says no, a perpetrator didn't necessarily have a personality disorder, but rather a mistake in not knowing that the halacha forbids it, or looking at it like one of those avairos that everyone does (like lashon hora). So to warn him to stop could help, and an occasional potch (as long as it was not overly harsh) didn't mean he is person you can't live with. But today, hitting means he has a problem, and most likely would not be able to stop himself even if warned. A person who hits out of lack of self control, is a dangerous person and a person one can't live with.
I agree.
ReplyDeleteProblem is that the sources I found discussing hitting all are entitlted "A husband who regularly hits his wife" meaning if he doesn't do it regularly but once in a while it is not grounds for divorce. However society has changed and so have the expectations for marriage. The idea that a man can be a good husband even though he sometimes loses his temper and slugs his wife - is simply unacceptable. This is the disparity between the report from the Jerusalem beis din and that of the lawyer. They are referring to different realities.
This I assume refers back to the statement of Chazal that women are desperate to be married and therefore will tolerate less then proper circumstances. Rav Moshe says that that is no longer true. Therefore the halacha should also change to deal with the reality that a husband who slaps around is wife once in a while is not viewed as a decent husband.
because the halacha is not stated precisely either in Chazal or Shulchan Aruch and the expectations of marriage are different.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree. She has a very valdi objection to the statistics as presented by the beis din.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the overall point since by Jews it was always, including during the Rema's time, wrong, sinful and unacceptable for a Jewish husband to hit his wife. So the Rema's and the Mechaber's prescription (psak) for such situations is as relevant and binding halacha today as it was then.
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to fault the Jerusalem beis din when, as you acknowledge, they are merely ruling in accordance with established and codified halacha as always practiced by Jews and butei dinim throughout the centuries.
ReplyDeleteno!
ReplyDeleteאבן העזר קנד
איש המכה אשתו, עבירה היא בידו כמכה חבירו. ואם רגיל הוא בכך, יש ביד ב"ד ליסרו ולהחרימו ולהלקותו בכל מיני רידוי וכפייה, ולהשביעו שלא יעשה עוד, ואם אינו ציית לדברי הב"ד י"א שכופין אותו להוציא, ובלבד שמתרין בו תחלה פעם אחת או שתים כי אינו מדרך בני ישראל להכות נשותיהם, ומעשה עובד כוכבים הוא. וכל זה כשהוא מתחיל, אבל אם מקללתו בחנם או מזלזלת אביו ואמו, והוכיחה בדברים ואינה משגחת עליו, י"א דמותר להכותה, וי"א דאפילו אשה רעה אסור להכותה. והסברא ראשונה היא עיקר. ואם אינו ידוע מי הגורם, אין הבעל נאמן לומר שהיא המתחלת, שכל הנשים בחזקת כשרות, ומושיבים ביניהם אחרים לראות בשל מי הרעה הזאת, ואם היא מקללתו חנם, יוצאת בלא כתובה. ונראה לי דוקא ברגילה בכך, ואחר ההתראה, וכמו שנתבאר לעיל סימן קט"ו. ואם הלכה מביתו ולוותה ואכלה, אם יצאתה מכח שהכה אותה תמיד, חייב לשלם (כל דברי הגה זו תמצא במרדכי פרק נערה בשם מוהר"ם וב"ז סימן פ"ח), וכמו שנתבאר לעיל סימן ע'.
the qualifier "If he habituatally beats her" is not acceptable today. Can not find a single source what happens if he occassionaly gets mad at her and slugs her. I assume you are telling me that if your son-in-law broke your daughters arm - only once in a while - you would feel that the marriage was solid?!
No it isn't. The statistic they reported are in essence saying that in cases where a beis din ruled that the parties need to get divorced.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't mention that cases where the wife REASONABLY wanted out of the marriage and yet the husband refused - were being excluded. It didn't mentioned that cases the beis din had given up and closed were being excluded - even though the women would still want to receive a get. In short it was misrepresenting the data by excluding cases that most people would consider deserved to be ended with a get.
There is a story in one of those "get procedures" book (somewhat non sided) of a young sfardic wife who came to RMF and complained about her husband, a talmid student of rav Moshe, claiming he hit her.
ReplyDeleteThe whole yeshiva was aghast. They could understand abuse, but not this particular Talmid. He was the most non physical person around.
Rav Moshe spoke to her, and she said, yes, he hit her regularly.
What happened?
Such and such, and he yelled at her.
That's it?
That's it.
Where's the hitting?
Well, he yelled, and in my parent's house, in my parent's culture, yelling is followed by hitting.
So there was no actual hitting?
No, yelling, and hitting would be next, based on her culture, not on his culture, not on his behavior.
What remember is "cases that most people would consider deserved to be ended with a get"? What is relevant is cases that halacha would consider deserved to be ended with a Get.
ReplyDeleteHow could that be? What we know today about husbands who beat their wives, is that they are out of control. So what logic could there be to suggest just giving him a warning which is most likely a futile effort, and in the mean time she should have to risk being subjected to out of control wrath? It must be that the truth is as I say. Don't you think?
ReplyDeletePlease tell us in short, what her valid objection is.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but it could also be that my explanation takes care of that too. If it isn't out of control hitting, it isn't severe and dangerous, and it isn't necessary worse that occasional verbal abuse, which is common enough and maybe not grounds for divorce, if the verbal abuse isn't too severe.
ReplyDeleteאיש המכה אשתו, עבירה היא בידו כמכה חבירו.
ReplyDeleteThe qualifier "If he habituatally beats her" is regarding beis din punishing him. It is clear it is and always was an aveira for a husband to hit his wife even once in his lifetime. The point is if he hit her once in isolation, and it isn't habitual, then beis din cannot force him to divorce his wife.
והוא ימשל בך. העונש הזה שיהיה הבעל נגיד
ReplyDeleteומצוה עליה תחת אשר צותה עליו לאכול מן הפרי, ועונש זה מדה כנגד מדה.
Rabbeinu Behaye says “And he shall rule over you” This punishment is
that the husband will be the governor and commander over her for that she [Eve]
commanded her husband to eat [the forbidden] fruit. This is measure for measure.
רש"י
בראשית פרשת בראשית פרק ג פסוק ו
ותתן
גם לאישה עמה - שלא תמות היא ויחיה הוא,ז וישא אשה אחרת:
Rashi says that Eve feared she would die and Adam would marry
another. The worst fear of women is that
her husband marries another. I support Israeli activists that seek to punish
men that beat their wives. I call such activists moderate and reasonable. Susan, on the other hand is a radical
feminist advocating divorce on demand without the man beating the wife, as in
my case. I write yesterday to the NYS
Court of Appeals motion 2017-262: “Radical feminism hurts the cause of women's
justice, much like radical Islam hurts the cause of moderate Islam. This is the central issue in my motion Susan
v Gerald 2017-262---women's justice among Orthodox Jews in Israel and in
NY. NY judges ignore that Israel ruled
that I divorced Susan on her initiative 2/15/1993. What!
Is Israel a banana country?
Activists in Israel for women and justice are moderate and reasonable,
not like Susan, and Rivka and Irwin Haut.
I believe activists in Israel would take my side over Susan's side. Susan's side is an embarrassment to their
cause.”
I think that several of the posters here are missing the point. The issue is not under what circumstances a beis din should advise/encourage/compel divorce. The issue is that in this report, the Rabbanut presented misleading statistics by not explaining their methodology. They were looking for the headline of "Women refuse gittin more than men" and they constructed their definitions in a way to get that result.
ReplyDeleteNo this is defining what a meaningful marriage is. It is saying that while it is wrong to hit one's wife - if not for the purpose of chinuch - but nonetheless it is still a viable marriage if he doesn't do it on a regular basis.
ReplyDeleteThat definition is not acceptable in out times
A woman has the right to say the degree of physical and verbal abuse she is willing to tolerate. You say she should accept once every six months or only that which produces mild bruising rather than severe bruising and broken bones. She says she does not want to live in fear of being slapped or hit - for anything!
ReplyDeletethey clearly misrepresent what the statistics are saying - as she clearly states
ReplyDeletedon't know what you are talking about. Some husbands beat their wives with full awareness that they are maintaining control over them - and not just because they get so angry that they lose control of themselves.
ReplyDeleteBut the halacha is based on the feelings of people and if what is intolerable changes so does the halacha.
ReplyDeletethat sounds ch'vshalom "Open Orthodox" to me - can you elucidate on that please?
ReplyDeleteOn what basis in the halachic sources do you assert that"halacha is based on the feelings of people and if what is intolerable changes so does the halacha"?
ReplyDeletethe halacha describing cases where beis din can tell a couple to separate a cases which are not tolerable by the average person. The cases of kiddushei ta'us are cases where most people would not accept the problem. In cases of ma'us alei the beis din evaluates whether it is reasonable that a normal person would be bothered by what she is finding disqusting. the principle of women prefer to be married to something rather than be unmarried has changed in our times. Plus we see that the history of divorce laws changed over the ages depending on what women were willing to accept
ReplyDeletejust did in reply to Moe
ReplyDeleteThe Rema says that it's assur to hit even once, but the intervention only begins if it's ragil. I believe the explanation is as I said.
ReplyDeleteThat's probably self deception. When something is so clearly against societal norms, it takes an person with a problem to rationalize that way.
ReplyDeleteIs it her word against theirs?
ReplyDeleteShe also maybe can't tolerate his longish nose. That's legitimate too once the honeymoon is over.
ReplyDeleteIf someone after 20 years of marriage hits his wife for the first and only (non-repetitive) time, and is immediately remorseful, that demonstrates he is out of control by nature? Or that he is obligated to grant a divorce? The halacha says no to both.
ReplyDeleteNever was talking about that case!
ReplyDeleteIf most women can't tolerate it you have a point
ReplyDeleteNot me, the guy with the long nose. He certainly has a point.
ReplyDeleteNope!
ReplyDeleteI agree. Nor should modern society. Divorce is not there as a matter of revenge. It's an institution to dissolve a failing union. The union you described isn't failing. Meaning it isn't destined to fail. It simply had a moment of failure in the past.
ReplyDeleteYou aren't, but I suspect that the lady who wrote the article is.
ReplyDeleteCorrect.
ReplyDeleteThese arguments were all brought by the Rackman BD - which I am not accusing you of. the principles are the same but the fine detail of halacha is probably not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the discussion digressed from the statistic topic.
ReplyDeleteBut the criticism is going to manipulation, when the raw data supports the headline.
There may or may not be manipulation, but non specific criticism. Raw data is that substantially more women than men refuse gitten. After loads of claims that no one supports their claimed statistics (but never attributing it to abuse), now an actual bet din presents statistics, and they don't claim under counting to their thousands of agunah claim, but bring up abuse issues.
The kiddfushei taut claims are almost always overblown. Or inapplicable.
ReplyDelete1. Baltimore: drugs she admits she knew about, but no realistic proproof there was a problem to begin with.
2. Long island Cohen: specific statement there was no abuse, but a rabbi claims to know of previous abuse. So now she marries a Cohen.
3. Tzfat: not a taut, but a claimed never articulated agreement.
4. reform kiddushin: that's only a practical solution, developed by RMF, in apposition to established halacha.
“The rabbinic court can try and wage a defensive PR campaign against the
ReplyDeletebarrage of criticism hurled its way every day by the media and others who are
fed up with its shenanigans. But the fact remains that get-refusal — whether
perpetrated by men or women (the numbers of whom the rabbinic court is all too
happy to share) — is enabled by the rabbinic court system itself. Their own
failing system is responsible for the proliferation of get-refusal and their
ineptitude is what chains more and more Israeli men and women in marriages
against their will. And the icing on the cake? By issuing this misleading
report, the rabbinic court tries to place the responsibility for this tragic
state of affairs on the very women who suffer at its hands. But there is no
doubt that the responsibility for this predicament lies with the rabbinic
courts themselves.”
The responsibility for this predicament lies with the very women that
run to the court with no proper purpose.
If the man is not an abuser, it’s his right to refuse to divorce his
wife. “the barrage of criticism hurled
its way every day by the media and others” is like the false claims that Israel
mistreats Arabs in Israel. Israel treats
Arabs in Israel most fairly. Do Orthodox
Jewish men treat their wives fairly in divorce matters? Do they mistreat their
wives even if their temper is understandable?
Evidence on wife beating among Orthodox Jews would be strong evidence to
support false claims of the media and others.
What actually happens
is that the wife hates her husband and demands a divorce without giving proper
justification and lies to the court. I
quote “An enemy dissembles with his speech, Inwardly he harbors deceit. Though
he be fair-spoken do not trust him, For seven abominations are in his mind. His
hatred may be concealed by dissimulation, But his evil will be exposed to
public view. He who digs a pit will fall in it, And whoever rolls a stone, it
will roll back on him. A lying tongue hates those crushed by it; Smooth speech
throws one down.” (Proverbs 26:24-28).
Did Mendel Epstein
have a fair trial?
Pacer 2/8/2017: “MR. GOLDBERGER: Good morning, and may it please the Court,
my name is Peter Goldberger, and it’s my privilege to - - for these seven
minutes of our time, to represent Mendel Epstein, who was convicted in this
case of conspiracy only. The exclusion of critical defense evidence and the
delivery of erroneous jury instructions together denied Rabbi Epstein a fair
trial.”
“Women who sue their recalcitrant husbands for damages in civil court are labeled recalcitrant wives by the rabbinic court as “punishment” for turning to the civil system, doubly skewing the statistics by not factoring into the number of agunot, while also adding to the number of recalcitrant wives. And women who do not capitulate to financial extortion for their get are not counted”
ReplyDeleteWhat of women who sue their husbands in NYS courts and win win win? They get the get, custody, the house, and 55% of the pension (the max ERISA allows). Oh, they also get the good name. The judge labels him the bad guy because he insisted on moving to Israel, as she earlier agreed.
I sent today to the NYS Court of Appeals motion 2017-262 Susan v Gerald:
2.Judge Prus ruled 11/18/2016 (see my motion 2016--1135):
“…The plaintiff, Susan Aranoff opposed the requested relief and in opposition papers contained therein is what is denominated as a cross motion. While all the applications are defective the Court nonetheless, will address the issues raised. Mr. Aranoff objects to the payment of 55% of his TIAA-CREF pension to the defendant. The papers are replete with statements, letters, and materials that have no bearing on the application or the underlying matrimonial proceedings and its litigation. The defendant's opposition lays out the long and tortured history of this case and the seemingly endless litigation she was subjected to by Mr. Aranoff. The time to object or appeal the pension award or any other award to the plaintiff has long since passed. Consequently, Mr. Aranoff's claims are time barred and at this late stage are nothing short of frivolous. Accordingly, Mr. Aranoff's applications are denied in toto with prejudice…”
6.The issued raised--- am I time barred? TIAA pays Susan $825 monthly from my pension (tax free to Susan) in violation of ERISA and NYS laws with the youngest 31. I quote the Bible (Psalms 82:1-4)
“A psalm of Asaph. God stands in the divine assembly; among the divine beings He pronounces judgment. How long will you judge perversely, showing favor to the wicked? Selah. Judge the wretched and the orphan, vindicate the lowly and the poor, rescue the wretched and the needy; save them from the hand of the wicked.”