Schlesinger Twins: Does Michael's tragic family history explain his cruelty to Beth? Part I

updated with Beth's father-in-laws testimony and prohibition to see grandchildren.
Just received the following letter from Beth Alexander in which she speculates about the basis for her husband's cruel campaign against her involvement with her children. I will be publishing additional information regarding this in another post.

====================================

Last week the father wrote another spiteful letter to court denying the children greater access to their mother. He also insisted that the current arrangement whereby the handovers are done at a visiting centre every second Sunday and outside supermarkets on Tuesdays by a private person (former worker at the visiting centre) mustn't change and that I must continue to pay 50 Euro per visit.

He refuses to allow me to pick them up from the kindergarten because he claims I would 'disrupt their routine and calm' Why is he so afraid of me meeting the teachers and other parents? What is he trying to hide?

He refused the generous offer of Chief Rabbi Eisenberg to supervise the handovers for free because of the 'tension between them'.

He denied the twins weekends or overnights with their mother because he claims they need 'intensive therapy and I 'don't recognize their needs.'He said they need stability with 'the father and his family!' The children are mostly seen with the Filipinos. I wasn't aware that 2 Filipinos are part of the Schlesinger family.

Why, after almost 3 years, is he still hell bent on denying Sammy and Benji their mother?

I can only surmise that his own tragic family history explains much of his behaviour today. His own father fought a ten year battle just for visiting rights to Michael and his sister Tina. Michael's mother used the same tactics to deny him all contact. He missed out on their entire childhood. She poisoned the children against their father and to this day they still bear a searing hatred for a man they don't even know - they were 3 and 6 when their mother and her parents decided to dispose of Abraham Mandel. Is that what Michael is trying to repeat with me?

His actions contradict the statement he made to court in 2011 (before he was awarded custody):

'The children's father doesn't consider the mother his enemy...but he recognizes that painting a positive picture of the mother and allowing regular contact with the children is essential for the healthy development of his sons.'

Court application, 10.6.2011

'Der Kindesvater betrachtet die Kindesmutter nicht als seine Feindin...sondern anerkennt, dass ein positives Bild der Mutter und ein regelmaessiger Kontakt zu den Kindern ein wesentlicher Bestandteil fuer eine gesunde Entwicklung seiner Soehne ist.'

After we separated I established contact with my father-in-law, a kind, gentle man who like me, was denied his role as a parent to his children. I invited him to come regularly to visit his grandchildren, Sammy and Benji, whom he soon grew to love.

He witnessed the dramatic and poignant moment his son, whom he hadn't seen for over 30 years, cruelly and violently snatched his newly discovered grandchildren from their mother.

[ Abraham Mandel (aka Jonny) has provided the following written testimony concerning this event. This is translated from the German text is placed at the end of this post].

I hereby testify on oath with full knowledge of the penalty for untruthful testimony. On 26.7.2011 my daughter-in-law Beth Schlesinger called me and asked me to come urgently to her apartment because there was a court order that the children were to be taken away.

I came by taxi as quickly as possible. As I arrived, I met Rabbi Hofmeister, my daughter-in-law, her parents and the children outside the building. A woman I did not know suddenly appeared in the lobby. She was waving some papers. I was holding Benjamin in my arms. This unknown woman (the lawyer) pointed her finger at me and ordered me to leave the building.

l stood next to Rabbi Hofmeister, whose phone was ringing continually . The Rabbi held the phone to my ear and told me quietly that my son was hounding him with calls claiming that I had no right to be there to see the children being taken away. I could hear on the Rabbi's phone how hysterically he was screaming, that he couldn't remove the children as long as I was there. He constantly threatened he would immediately call the police unless I left the building. I told the Rabbi that I would not be intimidated. I wanted to be with my grandchildren one last time.

Suddenly, out of nowhere, my son together with my daughter stormed into the building and she started screaming hysterically at me: 'Get out of here! What do you want? You ruined my life!'

I stretched out my hands to calm her down but she kept screaming louder and louder, 'Get out! You ruined my life!' Then the following occurred: I passed by my son, he made a sudden movement and hit my toes with his foot. I was under the impression that it was deliberate and asked him whether this was a reaction or whether he had hurt me on purpose. He didn't answer.

Both children saw everything and were crying. They cried incessantly and reached out their arms to their mother who was herself in shock. My son, daughter and the unknown woman then quickly left.

The mother took the crying child and tried to calm him down. I went up to the apartment with Rabbi Hofmeister, my daughter-in-law and her parents. My daughter-in-law couldn't unlock the door. We were all shocked to discover that he (my son) had had the lock changed before he came to take the children away.

There was a note on the door saying that the new key was in the postbox. Beth's father collected it. The Rabbi went back down to the lobby. I went into the kitchen with my daughter-in-law and the children. Beth sat the children down and gave them dinner. The children calmed down and began to eat.

A short time later four policemen came to the door and ordered the children to be taken away immediately. I was watching the children eating. They were immediately taken out of the apartment

My daughter-in-law wanted to go with them to the front of the building to say goodbye. A policeman held her back and the others blocked her so unfortunately she couldn't move.

Beth's father and Rabbi Hofmeister took the children and carried them down the stairs. I accompanied them. The children began to cry again. My son simply grabbed them and quickly disappeared. The children's cries could be heard long after they left the building.

After Jonny saw the children during one of my visits shortly after Michael was awarded custody, he was so horrified at their pitiful neglected state that he registered a danger report with the Social Services to have the children immediately removed from their father's custody.

The Social Services, instead of doing an immediate unannounced house visit to Dr S, instead broke all rules of confidentiality. They called him up, informed him his father had called them and said they were coming over for a chat. I had no idea any of this had taken place and was meanwhile waiting at the visiting centre for my Tuesday visit. I was then informed the father was angry at me because he thought I'd colluded with his father and he denied me my visit.

After that he denied me 4 subsequent visits and refused to reinstate my contact with the children unless I promised not to allow my father-in-law to see his grandchildren ever again. If not, he threatened to cut off all my contact with the children.

In a court hearing, the judge, Goettlicher forced me, at Dr S's insistence, to sign a declaration forbidding me from granting the children's paternal grandfather any more access to his grandchildren. There was no justification whatsoever for this order. It was based on pure spite and baseless hatred.

=====================================================
German text of Abraham Mandel (aka Jonny) -  Beth's father-in-law's-  testimony.

Uncommon Knowledge: Yuval Levin and the development of right and left in politics

Orthodox, celibate, gay and that’s OK

Update: Saying Amen after a Conservative or Reform "rabbi's" beracha

 update: a number of  commentators  to this post seem to be unaware of the view of Rav Moshe Feinstein (Translation published here a number of years ago

update: Just added Rabbi Norman Lamm's comment on to'eivah

http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/03/homosexuality-obvious-why-it-is prohibited

Igros Moshe (Y.D. 3:115): When the manuscript was sent to me I saw in it another matter. The wicked had intended to weaken the prohibition of homosexuality. First of all by raising the question as to why the Torah prohibited it. This itself is a great evil and it weakens the prohibitions to the wicked with this disgusting lust. In fact it is one of the greatest abominations that even the nations of the world know that it is an incomparable abomination. Therefore there is no need for any rationale to explain why it is an abomination that the whole world despises. The world already holds that the transgressors of this sin are disgusting and are not members of civilization at all. So when a reason is sought for this prohibition, this removes the obscenity from it. It removes the embarrassment, shame and disgrace and completely downplays the seriousness of this issue. Furthermore the answer - given in this manuscript to this question - is that the prohibition is in order to ensure that men will marry women and fulfill the obligation to have children. This further diminishes and weakens the prohibition. It is equivalent to saying that there is in this issue no sexual prohibitons at all but that the reason is just to ensure observance of the positive command to reproduce - which is not viewed as important by the world. These views are prohibited to publish. just as if they were outright heresy, since they represent a view which is contrary to the view of the Torah….

Igros Moshe (O.C. 4:115): 
שו"ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ד סימן קטו

תשובה לנכשל במשכב זכור ר"ל א' דר"ח אדר ראשון תשל"ו. מע"כ הבחור הנכבד שליט"א שלום וברכה לזכות לתשובה גמורה.

הנה אף לטרדותי המרובות מכיון שחז"ל אמרו כמה דברים מפני תקנת השבים כ"ש שמוכרחין להזדקק להשיב לבעל תשובה בין שהוא להשיב להלכה בין שהוא לחזוק שאל יפול רוחו ולהתרשל בדבר שצריך חזוק גדול להנצל מעצות היצר הרע, שלכן פניתי מעט להשיב לו על מכתבו, והנה איני רואה שאלה להלכה במכתבו כי אף שבמכתבו שהוא איסור כרת מסתמא יודע שמשכב זכור הוא גם איסור סקילה כי בתורה בפרשת קדושים נאמר יומתו דמיהם בם וילפינן ג"ש מאוב וידעוני שהוא בסקילה כדאיתא בסנהדרין דף נ"ד ע"א עיין שם וכרת כתיב בסוף פרשת אחרי ונכרתו הנפשות שקאי על כל הא דלעיל עיין ברש"י ריש כריתות, ונמצא שאתה רוצה שאכתוב לך דברי חזוק להנצל מיצר הרע ואיזה עצה.

והנה ראשית הידיעה דחומר האיסור דסקילה וכרת וגם שנקרא תועבה והוא מחטאים המגונים ביותר ואף בני נח נצטוו ע"ז הוא כח גדול לעמוד כנגד היצר הרע, ושנית שהוא דבר שלא מובן שיהיה ע"ז ענין תאוה דבבריאת האדם בעצם ליכא תאוה מצד טבעו להתאוות למשכב זכור, שלכן אמר בר קפרא לרבי על תועבה זו שנאמר באיסור דמשכב זכור דפירושו תועה אתה בה בנדרים דף נ"א ע"א ופי' הר"ן שמניח משכבי אשה והולך אצל זכר, וכוונתו דהוא על לשון תועבה שנאמר במשכב זכור יתר על לשון התועבות הנאמר ד' פעמים בסוף פרשת אחרי שקאי על כל העריות דעל קרא דתועבות לא הוקשה לו משום שאין צורך לבאור שפירוש שהם דברים מתועבין ומאוסין מצד איסורי התורה, אבל הוקשה לו על לשון תועבה הנאמר בזכור שני פעמים בפ' אחרי כשנאמרה אזהרה בלאו ובפ' קדושים שנאמר העונש מה שלא נאמר כן בשאר איסורי עריות דאם מצד האיסור מ"ט לא נאמר זה בשאר עריות, וע"ז תירץ בר קפרא שהוא תביעת הקדוש ברוך הוא בהקרא להרשעים, שלעבירה זו דמשכב זכור הרי ליכא כלל תאוה מצד הטבע שבראתי שיהיה להם תאוה למשכב הנשים דבלא תאוה לא היה אפשר לקיום ישוב העולם כדאיתא בגמ' בשני מקומות ביומא דף ס"ט ע"ב ובסנהדרין דף ס"ד ע"א, ולא אפשר שיהיה פלגא שיהיה לו תאוה לאשה המותרת ולא יהיה לו תאוה לעריות כמו שאיתא שם שפלגא מרקיעא לא יהבי ע"י תפלה שהוא מהטעם שלא נברא בתחלת הבריאה פלגא, אבל למשכב זכור ליכא שום תאוה מצד הבריאה וכל התאוה לזה הוא רק תועה מהטבע לדרך אחר אשר גם רשעים בעלי תאוה שלא נמנעין מצד חטא ועון אין הולכין לשם שיצר הרע זה אינו אלא מחמת שהוא דבר אסור שהוא כמו להכעיס ח"ו, והחלוק הוא דהרשע הרי איתא ביומא דף ל"ה ע"ב שמתרץ עצמו נאה הייתי וטרוד ביצרי הייתי ומחייבין אותו רק מצד שיוסף מחייב את הרשעים, אבל על עבירה דמשכב זכור אין להרשע העובר על זה שום טענה לתרץ את עצמו כי לא היה שייך להתאוות לעבירה זו. והוא פירוש המדויק והנכון.

ועיין בפרש"י שם בנדרים שכתב כלומר שמניח אשתו של היתר ותפס זו של זנות, וזה תמוה דזה הא שייך על כל איסורי עריות שנאמרו שם בפרשה ולא נקט לשון תועבה בכולם אלא בזכור, אבל ידוע שפירוש רש"י הנדפס בנדרים הוא פירוש מוטעה בכמה מקומות ואינו מרש"י או שאיזה מעתיק טועה ומשבש בכל אופן אין לסמוך על לשונו ואם היה העתקה מפרש"י פשוט שהיה הגירסא שם כלומר שמניח את אשתו ותפס זו של זכור והמעתיק הוסיף תיבות של היתר והוא מטעם שלשון של אשתו הוא בדוקא שא"כ הוא מחמת שהיא היתר ולכן הוסיף לפרש כוונת פרש"י והוקשה לו על לשון של זכור דהא כל הנשים אסורות אינם של היתר ולכך הגיה לכתוב של זנות והוא טעות ברור, בלשון שכתבתי שאפשר היה כתוב כן הרי הוא בתוס' ורא"ש שמניחין נשותיהן והולכין אצל משכב זכור, ופשוט שמש"כ נשותיהן אין הכוונה כאן לענין היתר ואיסור, אלא משום דהקרא הא איירי אף באינו חשוד לעבור על זנות עם עריות אלא על משכב זכור, שג"כ הוא נחשב תועה אף לענין התאוה, דלא שייך כאן אף מה שאיתא בע"ז דף כ"ו ע"ב דאכל פרעוש או יתוש ה"ז מומר שהוקשה למ"ד דלהכעיס הוא מין ותירץ התם בעי למיטעם טעמא דאיסורא, דהתם נמי אין הפירוש שאיכא תאוה טבעית לאדם לעבור עבירות אלא כדפרש"י התם לא להכעיס אלא מתאוה לטעום טעמו לפי שאין ישראל טועמו מעולם, שפירושו שחושב אולי יש בזה איזה טעם מאחר שלא טעמו מעולם, דבמשכב זכור לא שייך זה והוא פירוש אחד עם של הר"ן ולרבותא פירשו כן והר"ן חשש לטעות איזה מעתיק לכן כתב סתם שמניח משכבי אשה והולך אצל זכר שהוא לשון שלא שייך לטעות בו.

עכ"פ תאוה למשכב זכור הוא נגד עצם התאוה וגם רשעים אין להם תאוה לזה בעצם אלא שכל התאוה הוא רק מחמת שהוא דבר אסור והיצה"ר מסיתו להמרות נגד רצון הקדוש ברוך הוא וידיעה זו הוא חזוק גדול נגד יצה"ר שכבר נצחתו שאתה מאמין בהקב"ה ובכל הי"ג עיקרים ובכל התורה שבזה תנצחהו על מה שמסיתך להמרותו ולהכעיסו, וקרא מפורש בהאזינו בתועבות יכעיסוהו ופרש"י כגון משכב זכור שזה קרא הכתוב שהוא להכעיס, ומש"כ גם כשפים משום שהוא הכחשה בפמליא של מעלה כדאיתא בסנהדרין דף ס"ז ע"ב והוי הפירוש שגורם שיכחישו גזירת שמים ויעשו להכעיס ח"ו, ובספרי ליכא אלא משכב זכור לבד ורש"י אולי היתה לו גירסא אחרת בספרי, או מצא במקום אחר. חזינן דאף שנאמר בסוף הפרשה דאחרי לשון תועבות על כל העריות לא מפרש הספרי אלא על משכב זכור והוא משום דכל העריות הוא ודאי בתאוה ואינו להכעיסו שלכן הוכרח לפרש רק על משכב זכור.

ושלישית הגנאי אף לבני אדם שכל העולם אף הרשעים מבזין לבעלי עבירה דמשכב זכור ואף בעיני הרשע השני שעושה עמו העבירה הוא מזולזל ובזוי שזהו חזוק גדול נגד היצה"ר, ועיין בסנהדרין דף כ"ט ע"א דאמרינן לעדים כשמאיימין אותם שלא יעידו שקר בשביל תאות ממון לפי המסקנא דא"כ אשי אמר לי נתן בר מר זוטרא סהדי שקרי אאוגרייהו זילי, הרי מפורש שזהו עצה טובה לחזק עצמו מתאות הממון וכמו כן היא עצה טובה נגד תאות עבירה מגונה ובזויה זו שלבד שהוא נגד התורה באיסור חמור היותר גדול הוא גם נגד עצם האנושיות שנעשה שפל ובזוי בתכלית השפלות, ולא רק שהוא גנאי הוא גם גנאי היותר גדול לכל משפחתו.

והעצה הגדולה הוא למוד התורה בעיון שהוא מציל ושומר מכל העריות ואף מהרהורים כדאיתא ברמב"ם סוף הלכות איסורי ביאה גדולה מכל זאת אמרו יפנה עצמו ומחשבתו לדברי תורה וירחיב דעתו בחכמה וכ"ש שיועיל זה להנצל מיצה"ר דעבירה בזוי הזו. והנני גומר בברכה שתהא תשובתך שלימה וגמורה ותתגדל בתורה ויראת ה'. משה פיינשטיין.

Rabbi Norman Lamm(Homosexuality): It may be, however, that the very variety of interpretations of to'evah points to a far more fundamental meaning, namely, that it is an act characterized as an "abomination" is prima facie disgusting and cannot be further defined or explained. Certain acts are considered to'evah by the Torah, and there the matters rests. It is, as it were, a visceral reaction, an intuitive disqualification of the act, and we run the risk of distorting the Biblical judgment if we rationalize it. To'evh constitutes a category of objectionableness sui generis: it is a primary phenomenon. (This lends additional force to Rabbi David Z. Hoffmann's contention that to'evah is used by the Torah to indicate the repulsiveness of a proscribed act, no matter how much it may be in vogue among advance and sophisticated cultures: see his Sefer Va-yikra, II, p. 54).

 


=============================================

Times of Israel     by David Benkof

With increasing awareness of homosexuality within the Orthodox Jewish world, a common, barely challenged refrain has been that abstaining from sex is not a real option for frum (traditionally observant) gay men. Often, advocates for changing Orthodox attitudes and policies on homosexuality have discussed celibacy with language and arguments that are poorly reasoned and insulting – even homophobic. 

Yet traditionalists rarely respond convincingly, whether they would rather not discuss sexuality at all, are afraid of sounding bigoted, or simply have never heard cogent answers to such claims. This essay attempts to fill that gap.

I am a formerly sexually active gay man who has been celibate for more than 13 years as part of my best attempt to follow halacha (Jewish law). I have a heter (permission) from my rabbi not to date, marry, or have children. [...]

Clearly, the arguments advanced by rabbis like Farber and Greenberg for increased tolerance of gay male sexual aveirot are inconsistent with our tradition. But also problematic is the practical advice they give to those who feel they just can’t be successful at refraining from same-sex relations.

Rabbi Greenberg’s message to young men who “cannot” be celibate without engaging in self-harm is to “find a partner, join a shul and seek a way to make a family.“[...]

A message for Orthodox gays

Here’s my message for frum gay men:

For men like us, following Jewish law about sexuality is an enormous struggle which often takes place without much sympathy or support. God loves us even when we cannot understand why He would limit our sexual options. Ideally, we’ll never have any sort of intimate contact with other men. But any exceptions should be as infrequent as possible, with as few halachic violations as possible. Be especially careful to avoid mishkav zachar. The process of teshuvah exists precisely so people in such situations can pick themselves up, rectify their beh

avior, and move on. Take advantage of it.

By contrast, Rabbi Greenberg says he tells young gay men looking for halachic advice that “if you find a committed monogamous partner and avoid anal intercourse, you are better off halachically speaking than all the Orthodox Jews you know who do not keep the niddah (menstrual purity) laws.” [...]

Israel likely to deport British Jewish pedophile

ynet  Todros Grynhaus, 48 from Salford, was charged with seven sexual assaults on children in Manchester.

He violated his bail conditions last year when he went on the run with his wife and children, fleeing Britain with a fake passport. He was arrested in February in Jerusalem after the British police issued an international warrant for his arrest. 

Grynhaus hired two Israeli legal teams to fight his deportation by trying to gain Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, or otherwise seeking to settle in countries that don't have extradition agreements with the UK.  

Israeli law only allows formal extradition of foreign criminals, a process that could take up to two years and risk the possibility that Grynhaus could be released from prison during the proceedings. 

Grynhaus's lawyers tried to force Britain to use complicated extradition powers rather than allow Israel to deport him back to England, to draw out the proceedings against him. 

But District Court Judge Dana Marshak-Marom ruled that Grynhaus's "failed efforts" to avoid being returned to the United Kingdom strengthens Israel's legal authority to deport him and other suspected foreign criminals. [...]

PBS Are private charter schools monopolizing public resources?

Here’s Why This Best-Selling Book Is Freaking Out the Super-Wealthy

Time   There are many reasons why French academic Thomas Piketty’s 685-page tome, “Capital in the 21^st Century,” has vaulted to the top of the Amazon.com best seller list and is being discussed with equal fervor by the world’s top economic policy makers and middle class Americans who wonder why they haven’t gotten a raise in years. The main reason is that it proves, irrefutably and clearly, what we’ve all suspected for some time now —the rich ARE getting richer compared to everyone else, and their wealth isn’t trickling down. In fact, it’s trickling up.

Piketty’s 15 years of painstaking data collection—he poured over centuries worth of tax records in places like France, the U.S., Germany, Japan and the U.K—provides clear proof that in lieu of major events like World Wars or government interventions like the New Deal, the rich take a greater and greater share of the world’s economic pie. That’s because the gains on capital (meaning, investments) outpace those on GDP. Result: people with lots of investments take a bigger chunk of the world’s wealth, relative to everyone else, with every passing year. The only time that really changes is when the rich lose a bundle (as they often do in times of global conflict) or growth gets jump started via rebuilding (as it sometimes does after wars).[...]

That’s one of Piketty’s biggest messages–inequality will slowly but surely undermine the population’s faith in the system. He doesn’t believe, as Marx did, that capitalism would simply burn itself out over time. In fact, he says that the more perfect and advanced markets become (at least, in economic terms), the better they work and the more fully they serve the rich. But he does believe that rising inequality leads to a less perfect union, and a likelihood of major social unrest that mirrors the sort that his native France went through in the late 1700s. Indeed, the subsequent detailed collection of wealth data in the form of elaborate income and tax records made France a particularly rich data collection ground for his book. (Bureaucracy is good for something!)[...]

Philantrhropist Rapfogel Admits Stealing More Than $1 Million From Charity

NY Times    For most of his long and very public life as a philanthropist, William E. Rapfogel has been surrounded by powerful friends and politicians, chief among them Sheldon Silver, the New York State Assembly speaker.

But as he sat in State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Wednesday, about to plead guilty to several criminal charges, Mr. Rapfogel was all alone.

Grim-faced in a dark suit and black skullcap, Mr. Rapfogel quietly read passages from a well-thumbed copy of the Torah while his lawyers, Alan Vinegrad and Paul L. Shechtman, went over terms of a plea agreement.

A few minutes later, Mr. Rapfogel, 59, stood before Justice Larry Stephen and admitted stealing more than $1 million from the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty, the influential social service organization he had led for more than two decades.

The plea marked a stunning downfall for a man once considered one of the New York City’s most respected philanthropists, whose work and close ties to Mr. Silver, a Manhattan Democrat, gave him influence and prominence in political circles. [...]

Mr. Rapfogel will be sentenced to 31/3 to 10 years in prison and must pay $3 million in restitution to the charity; to date, he has repaid $1.8 million. If he fails to pay the full restitution by his sentencing date, July 16, he will be sentenced to four to 12 years in prison, Gary T. Fishman, an assistant attorney general, said in court.[...]

Schlesinger Twins: Beth accuses Michael of illegally forging her signature for financial gain

 update - contrast of documents increased for easier reading
Beth has a number of allegations concerning wrong doing by Michael. I don't have an independent way to verify these claims - so I am simply presenting them as is. I am relying on Beth's reliable and consistently honest reporting of events so far. But to keep this as objective as possible I am also inviting Michael to explain and justify what he did with a guest post. Thus this post is not to decide whether Michael has done anything wrong - but it simply is adding to the total - consistent picture - of an incompetent (?) secular system and failure of the Jewish community to properly support both sides to reach a fair resolution.

The allegations do involve issues in Jewish as well as secular law. For example according to halacha a wife's earnings technically belong to the husband. But that is assuming that the husband is supporting the wife. Furthermore I am not aware of a heter to use forgery to acquire money - even if the money is rightfully his. (In fact I received a psak from Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky that forgery is not permitted in such a case).

Beth's point - that this is against secular law - yet Beth allegest that this is another example of the secular courts favoring Michael at her expense

===========================================

Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,

I hope you are well and had a lovely Chag.

It seems the maintenance posting has stirred up a lot of strong emotions. Perhaps this would be an opportune time to release the information below now?

Kol tuv,

Beth

=========================================

If you have the right connections and know how to play the system, it seems there's no end to what you can get away with in Vienna.

People are horrified that I am being extorted for maintenance payments now we are divorced, yet while I was still married to Dr Schlesinger he forged my signature to get my child benefits paid into his account. From September 2009 to February 2010 he deceitfully received a total of 4,080 Euros until I realized how he'd betrayed me. I was too busy caring for my newborn babies to suspect anything at the time.

I was also to discover that all our joint savings - over 50,000 Euro - he had secured in an account in his name alone, leaving me virtually penniless after I had saved up scrupulously and contributed my salaries from the 2 jobs I had to 'our' savings account.

He even spent the money we received at the Bris in presents for the boys and didn't put it away for them.

My lawyer reported him to the police on 5.11.2012 for the forgery - a blatant criminal act - but they dropped all charges.

When I cited the forgery as evidence in the divorce court, his defense was that I told him to do it! Even if I had (which of course I hadn't), it's still illegal to forge someone's signature, even your spouse!

The form with his forgery is below together with an application with my signature. The handwriting is clearly different. I always sign 'B.Alexander', he forged 'Beth Alexander'.

============================
Beth's genuine signature- outlined in blue

The signature on this document is clearly different from that on the above document. Beth alleges that her signature was forged in this document.
page 1

page 2 - forged signature circled in red

Supreme Court Void $3.4 Million Award to Child Pornography Victim

NY Times    The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a $3.4 million award to a victim of child pornography who had sought restitution from a man convicted of viewing images of her. That figure was too much, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for a five-justice majority, returning the case to the lower courts to apply a new and vague legal standard to find a lower amount that was neither nominal nor too severe.

The victim in the case said the majority’s approach was confusing and meant that she might never be compensated for her losses. [...]

The case arose from the prosecution of Doyle R. Paroline, who was convicted in 2009 of possessing 280 images of child pornography. Two of them were of a woman known in court papers as Amy.

Images of Amy being sexually assaulted by her uncle as a child have been widely circulated and have figured in thousands of criminal cases. Amy has often sought restitution for her losses under a 1994 federal law. Every viewing of child pornography, Congress found, “represents a renewed violation of the privacy of the victims and repetition of their abuse.”

Amy’s lawyers say her losses — for lost income, therapy and legal fees — amount to $3.4 million. She has been granted restitution in about 180 cases and has recovered about 40 percent of what she seeks. [...]

The 1994 law allows victims of child pornography to seek the “full amount” of their losses from people convicted of producing, distributing or possessing it, and Amy asked the United States District Court in Tyler, Tex., to order Mr. Paroline to pay her the full $3.4 million.

Mr. Paroline said he owed Amy nothing, arguing that her problems did not stem from learning that he had looked at images of her. Amy’s uncle, who was sentenced to 12 years in prison for his crimes, bore the brunt of the blame, Mr. Paroline said, but was ordered to pay Amy just $6,325.

Mr. Paroline was sentenced to two years in prison, but the trial judge said Amy was not entitled to restitution, saying the link between Amy’s losses and what Mr. Paroline did was too remote.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, disagreed and awarded Amy the $3.4 million she sought. Mr. Paroline should pay what he could and seek contributions from his fellow wrongdoers if he thought it was too much, the court said, relying on the legal doctrine of “joint and several” liability.

The Supreme Court adopted neither of the lower courts’ approaches. Acknowledging that he was employing “a kind of legal fiction,” Justice Kennedy said the only sensible method of apportionment was for courts to require “reasonable and circumscribed” restitution “in an amount that comports with the defendant’s relative role.” [....]

Tzedaka with accountability: The Robin Hood Foundation

Kolko Lakewood case: The role of the Lakewood roshei yeshiva in driving out Rabbi S.

In the Kolko case the Lakewood establishment succeeded in driving out a major talmid Chachom as the result of his reporting the abuse of his son. He only did this after going to beis din and consulting with gedolim. Nevetheless he was still driven out and labeled a moser! I received the following insider account from someone in Lakewood regarding this case and received his permission to publicize it.

==========================

1. The whole Lakewood was told that Rabbi S. dreamt up the accusations "without a shred of evidence", and that he didn't have a psak to go to Court. Even the biggest and loudest rabble rousers were lied to (thus the heart full public apology by one such "askan" when he was finally told the truth) and tricked into thinking they were fighting against an injustice. Without these two important lies NOBODY in his right mind would have helped Kolko. 

Of course, Kolko had already admitted to 4 independent adults, and leading Poskim were behind Rabbi S. One of the BMG Rosh Yeshivas  was from the handful of people that knew these facts, Rabbi S. told him everything. Even if he was inclined to believe Kolko over Rabbi S. he could have done his own research, the adults were and still are, alive and well. Not only did it not stop him from harassing Rabbi S. and family, he was active in the misinformation campaign. He led his henchman and the greater community to believe there never was any abuse, and he leaned on the Rabbonim in an attempt to get them to take back their heter.

2. This RH, spent hours and hours and countless meetings scheming and strategizing on kolko's behalf.

3. Rabbi S. left town at his own will. No one, even after the harmful cruel things that were said about them, ever took away any of Rabbi S's many positions. Except BMG. His job was taken from him against his will.

4. NOT ONE of the Rosh Hayeshiva ever apologized in public or even in private!?! They simply don't regret what they did. 

5. The ONLY reason he got his job back was because of a written psak from EY!!!!

In short, the problem here was not that they FOLLOWED the wrong people, but rather that they LED people in the wrong direction. Rewarding bad behavior, especially to these ever powerful establishment types, only encourages more bad behavior.

Please,  publicly demand they right this terrible wrong. 

I would like to sign off on a positive note. The party that really deserves our praise is Rabbi S's kehilah. Despite unbearable pressure to fire him, they stood by him. And, when he was here in Lakewood before Pesach, they were "mechabeid" him to give a shiur. The place was jammed!!!

May we be zocheh to LEADERS that will LEAD us to greet Moshiach very very soon.

Gut Shabbos,
Lakewood Charedi.

Can Limiting Divorce Make Marriage Stronger?

 update This article comparing marriage to military enlistment was also suggested Spousebuzz

 Bloomberg By Megan McArdle  ..I see via Rod Dreher that there is a movement afoot in some states to restrict no-fault divorce, on the grounds that easy divorce is undermining marriage. Rod and I disagree about lots of things, but we’re both in agreement that marriage could certainly use some shoring up. The question is, is this a good way to do that?

I can see the appeal of making marriage more difficult to get out of. My brief tour through the divorce literature indicated that ending a high-conflict marriage is better for everyone, including the kids -- despite the financial and emotional drawbacks, it really is better to have two homes, rather than one where Mom and Dad are engaged in a bitter civil war.

On the other hand, the evidence on ending low-conflict marriages -- one in which maybe one party, or both, doesn’t feel perfectly fulfilled, but they get along OK -- wasn’t so happy. Children of low-conflict marriages whose parents divorce have more difficulty adjusting than the kids of high-conflict marriages. It’s thought that the divorce comes as a shock to these kids; a relationship that seemed fine to them suddenly dissolves, which changes their ability to trust the world and other people.

These divorces aren’t necessarily so great for the adults, either. Divorce tends to be a financial disaster for all but the very rich, because it’s more expensive to support two households than one. And people who exit marriages don’t necessarily find this makes them happier. We tend to think that marriages are good, and then they go bad, and then you divorce and get happy again, but unhappiness can often be a temporary condition that later improves.

Some approximation of this insight is what structured divorce laws before the no-fault revolution. You exited marriages in which there was abuse, adultery, abandonment or wild financial irresponsibility, not because you were just sick and tired of being married. [...]

The lesson is that when you make it harder to exit, you also make people reluctant to enter. If we try to strengthen marriage by clamping down on divorce, we may find that more and more people simply refuse to get married in the first place.

The divorce laws of an earlier era were one part of a complex social institution with mutually reinforcing norms and a fairly elaborate system of punishments and rewards. People were encouraged to stay in marriages because divorce was difficult -- but it is at least as important that divorce was heavily stigmatized. Even more important is the energy society spent encouraging people to get married in the first place -- not just with the gauzy dreams of wedding gowns and perfect babies that help sustain the institution today, but also with a complicated system of carrots and sticks that have now completely vanished. Old maids were stigmatized; women who had babies out of wedlock were shunned. Marriage was the only socially permitted way to cohabit and, for that matter, often the only legal way to do so: Landlords didn’t like renting to people who were shacking up, and hotels that rented to rooms to openly unmarried couples risked being indicted as brothels. On the positive side, getting married often meant a raise for a man, and for both parties, it constituted instant admission to adulthood. [....]

Even if you accept the premise that marriage needs to be strengthened -- which I do! -- and even if you accept the premise that the state therefore has a right to force people to stay married, which is a bigger stretch, I’m not sure that the state should. As conservatives are fond of noting, societies, like economies, are very complex organic systems. We do not understand them, much less control them with a few simple tweaks.