Kolko gets 15 years after judge rejects guilty plea withdrawal

Asbury Park Press   After watching his former camp counselor try to avoid responsibility for molesting him during a nine-hour hearing on Thursday, a 16-year-old boy faced his abuser in court as a judge sentenced him to 15 years in prison.

Superior Court Judge Francis R. Hodgson imposed the prison term shortly before 11:30 p.m. on Yosef Kolko, 38, a former counselor at an Orthodox Jewish camp in Lakewood.

Before the sentence was handed down, the victim, who was 11 and 12 years old when he was molested by Kolko in 2008 and 2009, confronted his former camp counselor.

“Molesting may seem harmless to you, but the reality is, it kills people,” the victim said. “How can you ignore the tears and open wounds when you know how much you hurt me? You ganged up on me and hurt me again.”

The victim and his family were ostracized in Lakewood’s Orthodox community for bringing the child’s allegations to secular authorities and breaking the religious tradition of having rabbis handle such problems. The family [...] made a 12-hour trip by bus for the sentencing hearing and an earlier hearing that stretched from the afternoon until 11 p.m. on Kolko’s bid to retract his guilty plea.

Kolko’s attorney, Alan Zegas, argued Kolko should be allowed to withdraw his plea to the molestation charges because he was coerced into making the admissions by members of the Orthodox community who didn’t want the bad publicity from a trial. [...]

However, Kolko’s previous attorney, Michael Bachner, one of seven witnesses at the hearing on whether to allow the guilty plea to be withdrawn, testified there was no coercion.

 

Senior Assistant Ocean County Prosecutor Laura Pierro called Bachner to testify after six witnesses testified on behalf of Kolko, describing an effort by many people in the community to try and convince him to plead guilty.

“He was never being threatened,” Bachner said of Kolko. “I didn’t feel he was being coerced. He never indicated to me he was being pressured.”[...]

New accusers in rabbi ‘torture’ ring

NY Post   A prosecutor said Wednesday that “the phone has not stopped ringing” with calls from Orthodox Jewish men who claim they were kidnapped by a rabbinical torture ring that used a cattle prod to force recalcitrant husbands to divorce their unhappy wives.

Assistant US Attorney Joseph Gribko said that while the feds were aware of 20 abductions when the unholy gang was busted last week, it’s unclear how many more will be uncovered.

“It’s larger than we thought,” Gribko said in Trenton federal court.

“The threats are not just in the past. This is an ongoing business.”

Sadistic cult leader sentenced to 26 years

YNET    26 years in prison. That is the punishment meted out Thursday morning by the Jerusalem District Court on the head of a "sadistic cult" in the Jerusalem area. He was also ordered to pay NIS 100,000 to his victims. His aide, who was convicted alongside him in court, was sentenced to six years in prison.

In September, the head of the sect and his aide were convicted of sexual offenses, violence, imprisonment in conditions of slavery and abuse of women and dozens of minors – some of whom were biological children of the father of "the family." The father, known as D., and his assistant, were arrested with much publicity two years ago. Twenty charges were filed against the two, and they were convicted of most.

According to the verdict, the "family" consisted of six women and dozens of children. The father persuaded the women to join them peacefully, but once they joined, life became a living hell of horrific violence, and physical, sexual and emotional abuse towards them and their children. Even so, some wives continued to be faithful and denied the charges against him. "There was only love at home," they claimed after the conviction. "It is all lies."

 

Publication of the full indictment has been forbidden, in order to prevent the identification of dozens of young children and their mothers, but a shortened version was released. [...]

Kolko claims Rabbi Belsky and other rabbis pressured him to falsely plead guily and to go to jail - to avoid sensational trial

Asbury Park Press    Middle-of-the-night visits and YouTube videos of child molesters in prison were among methods employed by Lakewood’s Orthodox Jewish community to pressure a former Orthodox Jewish camp counselor to admit to sexually abusing a child, the former camp counselor’s attorneys said in court papers.The members of Lakewood’s Orthodox community made the concerted effort to persuade Yosef Kolko to plead guilty to child molestation against his will to spare the community the unwanted publicity of a trial, defense attorneys Stephanie Forbes and Alan L. Zegas said in a brief filed in state Superior Court. [...]

Senior Assistant Ocean County Prosecutor Laura Pierro said in a response to the brief filed by the defense attorneys that Kolko already had been contemplating a guilty plea, because of the way the trial was going. He went ahead with the plea after learning that the Prosecutor’s Office had been contacted by an attorney representing two more individuals who claimed to have been molested by him, Pierro said in her brief opposing Kolko’s motion. Kolko did not enter his guilty plea until after he consulted with a Brooklyn rabbi, Yisroel Belsky, to get his blessing, Pierro added. [...]

Five letters from members of the Orthodox community were submitted with the brief on Kolko’s behalf, saying that Kolko was pressured into taking a plea bargain. The letters included one from Shabsi Kolko supporting the defendant’s story that he told him he was pleading guilty against his will, and one from Belsky, who said he was among the people who advised Kolko to plead guilty.“The reasons were convincing enough to make those who believed in his innocence fearful of the sensationalism attached to the affair and other weighty considerations,’’ Belsky wrote in his handwritten letter.

Hodgson is scheduled to hold a hearing on Kolko’s motion at 1:30 p.m. today.

R Mendel Epstein's alleged get kidnap & torture gang - soon to be out on bail

Asbury Park Press     [See also Lohud for additional details]

Two rabbis and four other men charged with planning to kidnap and torture Orthodox Jewish husbands to force them to grant their wives religious divorces are set to be freed as early as today on bail that runs into millions of dollars for some defendants.

Home confinement and other tight restrictions were also placed on the six men, including Rabbi Mendel Epstein, by U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Doulas E. Arpert this afternoon in Trenton.

Epstein will be wearing an electronic bracelet while he remains under house confinement in his home in Lakewood, Arpert said. [...]

A law-enforcement source with knowledge of the investigation said the arrests were the direct result of a 2011 case in which a Lakewood couple, David and Judy Wax, were accused of kidnapping an Israeli national in an attempt to force him to divorce his estranged wife in Israel. Proceedings in that case have been repeatedly postponed since the arrest.

Just Say No: When It Makes Sense Not to Take Your Medicine

Time Magazine    It sounds like something a quack would support, but it’s true. There’s growing evidence that lifestyle changes such as eating a healthier diet and exercising more may be enough to prevent and even treat conditions ranging from diabetes to cancer.

The latest comes from a review of studies, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, that analyzed the effects of a combination of behaviors that reduced the rate of Type 2 diabetes among those at high risk of developing the disease. Making over their diets and boosting their amount of daily exercise, as well as quitting smoking and managing their stress were enough to help the participants, all of whom had high blood-sugar levels that precede diabetes, lower their glucose and avoid getting diagnosed with the disease.

And it’s not the first study to hint at the power of the pharmaceutical-free approach. A study published this month in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention reported that brisk walking cut postmenopausal women’s breast-cancer risk by 14% compared with those who didn’t walk. Women who exercised more vigorously enjoyed a 25% drop in risk of developing the disease. Another report in the journal Lancet Oncology found that a plant-based diet, stress management and other lifestyle changes contributed to longer-lived cells among men with prostate cancer. Those results echoed previous work that documented that the same lifestyle-based changes contributed to fewer recurrent tumors among men who had been treated for prostate cancer.

Taken together, the data has more doctors putting away their prescription pads when they see certain patients. The pill-free route isn’t for everyone, however, so it’s important for physicians and patients to understand when it’s appropriate and when it isn’t. [...]

Israeli court rules teen can’t be forced to go to yeshiva

Haaretz    The Haifa District Court overturned a Magistrate's Court ruling that forced a 16-year-old boy to study in a yeshiva as his father demanded, against his will. The court accepted the youth's appeal and ordered that he be allowed to register at a technical school of his choice. 

The youth's parents are separated. Both are religious, and the mother supported her son's wish. The District Court criticized the Magistrate's Court for not calling the youth to the witness stand or requesting to hear his opinion, and for ignoring the report of a social worker that supported the boy’s stance. The mother told the court that the standard of studies in the yeshiva was very low, that it does not prepare students properly for the matriculation exams, and that many students have left the yeshiva. The judges, Shoshana Stemer, Adi Zarnakin and Rivka Lemelshtrich summoned the youth to their chambers and heard his opinion. The youth was represented by attorney Efrat Venkart of the Justice Ministry department of legal aid. [...]

Lashon Hara:Did Chofetz Chaim transform a moral issue into a legal one?

[updated see below] How do we know that lashon harah (making derogatory statements about others) is prohibited? The most obvious candidate for the prohibition of lashon is Vayikra (19:16), Do not spread gossip amongst your people....  However the Rambam in Sefer HaMtizvos (301) says that this is a prohibition for rechilus (gossip) and motzi shem rah (slander) and does not mention lashon harah at all. .In contrast the Rambam in his later work Mishna Torah (Hilchos De'os 7:1) states that this verse is the source for the prohibition of rechilus (gossip) and that lashon hara and motzi shem rah are also included in this Torah commandment. The Chofetz Chaim says that the verse is only about rechilus and that lashon harah is learned by kal v'chomer from rechilus. [He says that consequently there is a problem for the Ravad who disagrees with the Rambam and says that rechilus is more severe than lashon harah – and thus the Ravad must learn lashon harah from a different verse.]

The Bavli also does not provide a verse for the prohibition of lashon harah. Rather the concern is for the prohibition of slander. Kesuvos (26a) mentions a debate regarding motzi shem rav – is it learned from Vayikra (19:16) or is learned from Devarim (23:10) Guard yourself from all evil. It does not ask about lashon harah. The verse in Vayikra is also cited as the source of rules regarding judges. He is not to be harsh to one litigant and gentle to the other. The deliberations of the court are not to be revealed.

One obvious explanation as to the lack of sources is that the Talmud does not clearly differentiate between gossip (rechilus) and derogatory comments (lashon harah) but rather uses the terms interchangably. We see this also from Yerushalmi (Peah 1:1) which does in fact ask for the source of prohibition of lashon harah. It says there is a dispute whether lashon harah is learned from the prohibition of gossip (Vayikra 19:16) or from Guard yourself from all evil (Devarim 23:10) – just as the Bavli asked regarding slander (motzi shem rah). Rav La says that prohibition against spreading gossip indicates a prohibition against "lashon harah –rechilus." [both terms together as if lashon harah is an adjective modifying rechilus] Rav Nechmiah said one should not be like a peddler who carries the words of one and brings them to another and vice versa. 

אזהרה ללשון הרע מניין ונשמרת מכל דבר רע אמר רבי לא תני רבי ישמעאל לא תלך רכיל בעמך זו רכילות לשון הרע תני ר' נחמיה שלא תהא כרוכל הזה מטעין דבריו של זה לזה ודבריו של זה לזה

The question is then whether it is true that before the Rishonim there was not a precise differential meaning for rechilus and lashon harah and that the terms were used interchangably? This would make sense if speaking negatively about others was a moral issue rather than a legal one. In other words if speaking lashon harah was a problem of character or midos and not halacha. If this is true than the revolution of the Chofetz Chaim was not that he was the first to create a Shulchan Aruch of the issur of lashon harah but rather that he succeeded in transforming lashon harah from midos to halacha. While it is true that bad midos are also prohibited by halacha – but there is no need for precisely describing the parameters as the Chofetz Chaim has done regarding the prohibitions of lashon harah/rechilus. 

This issue of whether lashon harah is primarily midos or issur is discussed by Rav Asher Weiss (Minchas Asher Vayikra 19:16 #41) and Dr. Benny Brown Pdf fixed link  [ and Daas Torah link] (From Principles to Rules and from Musar to Halakhah:The Hafetz Hayim’s Rulings on Libel and Gossip) and Rabbi Asher Buchman pdf (Legislating Morality: The Prohibition of Lashon Hara in Hakira) who discusses why Rambam placed these laws in Hilchos De'os which describes character perfection)

update (10/16/13) The Chofetz Chaim himself made the distinction between moral (mussar) and halacha in his explanation of how he could use Rabbeinu Yonah as a source - when it was  mussar (moral) not a halacha sefer

Chofetz Chaim (Lashon Harah – Introduction: Comment): The reader should not find it astounding that even though my entire sefer is based on halachic principles and conclusions, but I nevertheless cite in a number of places proofs from Rabbeinu Yonah's sefer – Shaarei Teshuva which is a mussar book [not halacha]. That is because if one examines Rabbeinu Yonah's words in a number of places it is clear that he was very careful with his words and they do not deviate from the halacha. In particular this is true concerning his writings about lashon harah. In fact everything he wrote there is a source in the Talmud as I will explain G‑d willing in this sefer. However he is very sparing in his words and he doesn't cite his sources contary to the practice of Rishonim. Nevertheless, in most cases I did not depend exclusively on the rulings of Rabbeinu Yonah – except in circumstances where a leniency could be inferred (and this is true for other Mussar books).

Progress in dealing with Domestic Abuse

Times of Israel      It was only when her sons came at her with knives that she realized keeping quiet was not going to work. 

For nine years, her rabbis had told her not to speak up about her husband’s verbal, physical and sexual attacks. They assured her that the abuse would pass, that if she obeyed his every wish — folding his napkin just so or letting him do as he liked in bed — the attacks would end and he would stop telling their grown sons she was a bad mother. 

But when her sons began to threaten her, she knew it was time to leave.

Taking her youngest children, she turned to Yad Sarah, a highly regarded Israeli charity founded by former Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski. The organization mainly focuses on medical services, but it also runs a domestic abuse division geared toward Orthodox Jews. A professional there directed her to Bat Melech, a shelter for battered religious women. [..]

The wall of silence surrounding sensitive domestic issues in the haredi Orthodox community has long been seen as an impediment to successfully addressing them. Yad Sarah and Bat Melech have sought to change the situation — and their efforts appear to be bearing fruit.

A decade ago, haredi community leaders rarely spoke openly about violence against women. Now leading rabbis are working with experts to fight abuse in the community. [...]

Rachel Imeinu and the Rescue of the Jewish people

5TJT by Rabbi Yair Hoffman    [...] Yaakov knew that Hashem Yisboruch would not be able to resist the cries of a mother.  A young mother, who died in childbirth at the age of 26, and was a remarkable tzadaikes.

Yaakov Avinu did not bury Rachel in the ancestral plot his grandfather Avrohom Avinu had purchased.  He did not bury her at Maaras HaMachpeilah in Chevron.  She would not be buried with the other Avos and Imahos.  Her destiny lay elsewhere.

Yaakov Avinu buried her on the side of the road – on the path toward Yerushalayim, on the path in  Beis Lechem.

Why? Why?!  Why?!?

She was the love of Yaakov Avinu’s life.  Why didn’t he bury her next to him?  Why did he not bury her with the Imahos and the Avos?

The answer is one we all know, of course.  Because when we get up to the B in the above mnemonic, the Babylonians, the same thing was going to happen.  The Jewish people being exiled to Babylonia, passing that road in Beis Lechem would be relegated to oblivion. [...]

Chacham Tzvi #1 Provides no heter to force a Get in a case of ma'os alei or where the husband loses leverage

I recently posted  an  article by Rabbi Hoffman  in 5TJT  about the use of cattle prods to force a husband to give a get.  He noted while it is clearly prohibited by the major poskim such as Rav Eliashiv and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach - there are minority views such as the Chacham Tzvi which would allow it. [see 2005 Bedatz protesting against American cattle prod gittin]

"There are also Poskim who draw a distinction between the cases in the Gemorah and Shulchan Aruch and cases where the wife is no longer under the same roof as the husband. These Poskim write that the entire issue of limitation of forcing was only when they were under the same roof, but otherwise forcing when there is a concern that the wife would be an Agunah, left alone, is always permitted. The responsa of the Chacham Tzvi Siman 1 seems to indicate that he holds of this distinction. He writes that one may force a get either because of igun or because of the issues that Chazal enumerated. This is also the position of the Z’kain Aharon (Rabbi haLevy) in his responsa (#149). According to these Poskim the cattle prod get would be kosher."

Note Rabbi Hoffman tentativeness  - that the Chachom Tzvi would seem to accept the distinction of whether the wife is under the same roof. Thus the Chachom Tzvi at most implies that there might be a heter when the couple are living apart.

However I disagree with Rabbi Hoffman's apparent assertion that the Chachom Tzvi would allow the use of force in all cases where the couple are living apart.

I looked in the authoritative sefer Kefiya B'Get by Rav Tvi Gartner, expecting the find the Chachom Tzvi cited all over the place as a heter to use force. But I only found a single reference to it which is found below. [It is also not cited in review articles about aguna e.g., in the 111 pages of  Rabbi Breitowitz - Plight of the Aguna]

Chachom Tzvi says clearly that a get can be forced either because of the specific cases permitted by the gemora  or because of the issue of agunah. Rav Gartner explains  the Chachom Tzi as saying that force can be used in the case of aguna because it is similar to a forced sale in which the customer pays for the item and thus the "seller" loses nothing. This logic is described in Rabbi Hoffman's article in reference to the Rashbam and others. The simple question is does this in fact provide a heter to use a cattle prod to force a husband to give a get? (assuming of course that the government permitted its citizens to torture each other for religious reasons)

The answer is clearly no! Where the wife has requested the divorce because of ma'os alei - this is simply not a case of aguna. The overwhelming view of the poskim is that she is not an aguna because he didn't wish to divorce her and thus she still has a marriage. It is not the marriage she wants - but she is not an aguna. Even if there is a civil divorce - there is nothing preventing her from returning to him.

But what about the case where there is no possibility of reconciliation - doesn't the Chachom Tzvi allow force even in the case of ma'os alei? The answer again is clearly no! In most cases there are unresolved issues for which the giving of the get is the major motivation for the husband being able to obtain equitable custody or to resolve financial issues. Clearly the husband has much to lose by giving the Get. Thus even if you want to posken like the minority view of the Chachom Tzi - that in a case of aguna force can be use - his heter  doesn't apply in most modern cases.

In fact it apparently would only apply where the husband is only refusing to give a get out of spite - and he has nothing to lose by giving her the get.

Rav Hershel Schacter's lectures dealing with violence against husbands have been removed from YU website

At the bottom I have provided links to some of the posts dealing with the subject. It is important to note when rereading these posts how the world suddenly changed with the arrest of R Epstein and Wolmark. The recording have been removed from the YU website.

--------------------------------------
Guest Post (from someone who insists on remaining anonymous):

Daas Torah has previously featured several commentaries about Rabbi Schachter's advocacy of violence against men who haven't given a get, including on lectures posted on YU's website.  Rabbis Dovid and Daniel Eidensohn have noted that Rabbi Schachter's advocacy of violence is without halachic basis, and constitutes dangerous incitement to violence.  ORA claims Rabbi Schachter as its posek (Jewish Law decision-maker), and has previously disseminated Rabbi Schachter's incitement to violence.  Rabbi Schachter and ORA know very well that their incitement to violence could very well result in actual violence, and that very well may be their specific intention.  Indeed, a specific target of Rabbi Schachter and ORA's incitement was actually attacked by masked thugs, as previously covered on Daas Torah.  This puts to lie ORA's claim that it is against violence.   

YU has pulled Rabbi Schachter's lecture calling for violence from its website following the FBI sting operation. If there were nothing wrong with Rabbi Schachter's lecture, why would YU have taken it down?  

It is about time that Rabbi Schachter and ORA apologize for their abominable incitement to violence, which is against halacha and against the law.
==================================================
Video - YU Lecture series Shachter - Plight of the Agunah
Audio  - Rav Schachter's letter and links to various recordings of lectures
Web Archive: Rav Schachter "Options for helping Agunot"
Audio - Rav Schachter Aharon Friedman beaten police report
Rav Eliashiv denounces rabbis who force gittin  Rav Schachter Witholding Get is serious aveira
 Does Rav Schachter Permit Beatings
Rav Schacter's Occasional Mispeaking
Aharon Friedman beaten
Jewish Exponent reports Friedman assault