https://www.kan.org.il/item/?itemId=131330
סרבן גט הסכים להתגרש מאשתו אחרי שבית הדין דרש ממנו למסור את מכשיר הטלפון הנייד שלו לשבוע. הסנקציה הוטלה עליו כי המשיך הקליט את הדיונים למרות שהובהר לו שחל על כך איסור
Beis Din Confiscated Cell Phone Of Get Refuser – And He Immediately Agreed To Give A Get
I doubt that the reason he gave the Get was because he liked his phone more than his wife.
ReplyDeleteIt's quite possible that there were recordings and other data on the phone, that would be embarrassing to him, or worse. So he opted to give the divorce, and get back his phone intact, without giving the Beis Din the opportunity to get a search warrant to look through his phone.
Beis Din Confiscated Cell Phone Of Get Refuser – And He Immediately Agreed To Give A Get. Thanks for this post (IR?). Smart move of the av bet din in dealing with a get refuser. She has the upper hand in the bet din because she is demanding a get. Demanding a get sounds like a right to divorce in the NYS Constitution. I write yesterday to the NYS Court of Appeals on my motion 460 June 27, 2022:
ReplyDelete2/dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/01/Constitution-January-1-2022.pdf states: [Right to assemble and petition; divorce; lotteries; pool-selling and gambling;laws to prevent; pari-mutuel betting on horse races permitted; games of chance, bingo or lotto authorized under certain restrictions] \S9. 1. No law shall be passed abridging the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government, or any department thereof; nor shall any divorce be granted otherwise than by due judicial proceedings; except as hereinafter provided...
3.Exhibit A: Kornfeld letter July 1, 1991 Jerry not abandoning his family states: “... your husband Jerry is not abandoning his family.” Susan started a separation action against me in 1991 as was her constitution-protected right. Ian Anderson, my lawyer, suggested I ask Rabbi Kornfeld write that I'm not abandoning my family. Susan started a contested-divorce action against me late 2012 long after I gave Susan a get 2/17/1993. Did Susan have a constitution-protected right to do that? The NYS Constitution needs clarification. It's the job of the NYS Court of Appeals to clarify rights in the NYS Constitution. What are the constitution limits on this right?
Beis Din Confiscated Cell Phone Of Get Refuser – And He Immediately Agreed To Give A Get. Thanks for this post (IR?). Smart move of the av bet din in dealing with a get refuser. She has the upper hand in the bet din because she is demanding a get. Demanding a get sounds like a right to divorce in the NYS Constitution. I write yesterday to the NYS Court of Appeals on my motion 460 June 27, 2022:
ReplyDelete2/dos.ny.gov/system/files/doc... states: [Right to assemble and petition; divorce; lotteries; pool-selling and gambling;laws to prevent; pari-mutuel betting on horse races permitted; games of chance, bingo or lotto authorized under certain restrictions] \S9. 1. No law shall be passed abridging the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government, or any department thereof; nor shall any divorce be granted otherwise than by due judicial proceedings; except as hereinafter provided...
3.Exhibit A: Kornfeld letter July 1, 1991 Jerry not abandoning his family states: “... your husband Jerry is not abandoning his family.” Susan started a separation action against me in 1991 as was her constitution-protected right. Ian Anderson, my lawyer, suggested I ask Rabbi Kornfeld write that I'm not abandoning my family. Susan started a contested-divorce action against me late 2012 long after I gave Susan a get 2/17/1993. Did Susan have a constitution-protected right to do that? The NYS Constitution needs clarification. It's the job of the NYS Court of Appeals to clarify rights in the NYS Constitution. What are the constitution limits on this right?
Beautiful “nor shall any divorce be granted otherwise than by due judicial proceedings” also in Torah. Did Greenblatt follow due judicial proceedings in the K-G garbage heter? No. They did a hoax = A hoax is a widely publicized falsehood so fashioned as to invite reflexive, unthinking acceptance by the greatest number of persons of the most varied social identities and of the highest possible social pretensions to gull its victims into putting up the highest possible social currency in support of the hoax.