RaP wrote:(Here's a story about a Bais Din and Din Torah that has nothing to do with conversions, altho it has similarities in that like Rabbi Tropper and EJF who ignored the pleas of the Bais Din Tzedek of the Eidah Hachareidis, it is a zilzul of a Bais Din, and it goes further by landing up in gentile arka'os (courts), a very grievous matter in Halacha:)
Question: When a Din Torah clashes with "Dina de Malchusa" in the form of a secular court's counter-verdict, what does one do?
Or: Who took this case to to non-Jewish court after it was already adjucated, and why? Does the Bais Din have the power to put in cherem the person who took the Bais Din to a secular court?
If anyone has the answers to these questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you!
Here is the story, that is both fascinating and foreboding:
From:
The Jewish Star Also reported in
Vos Iz Nei'as"
Beit Din decision overturnedNYS Supreme Court calls verdict on HAFTR teacher ‘irrational’By Michael Orbach
Issue of Jan. 9, 2009 / 13 Teves 5769
The New York State Supreme Court has overturned a decision by the Beth Din of America, shocking both the rabbinical and civil legal communities. In a Dec. 18 decision, Justice Bruce M. Balter of Kings Country Supreme Court found that a verdict concerning a teacher at the Hebrew Academy of the Five Towns and Rockaway, rendered by the beit din, was “irrational” and “violative of public policy.”
Left unappealed, the ruling could impact future beit din verdicts.
The case concerns a rebbe named Nachum Brisman. He began teaching at HAFTR in 1991 and was let go at the end of the 2005 academic year due to differences in hashkafa (religious outlook) with the school. He had received tenure over the course of his employment, though tenure was canceled school-wide in 2005. A din Torah (trial) before a panel consisting of Rabbi Mordechai Willig of Yeshiva University, Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun of Teaneck, and Rabbi Ronald Warburg found in Brisman’s favor and awarded him $50,000 in back pay. The beit din also doubled his salary to $100,000, reinstated his tenure and ruled that any future termination of Brisman must go through the beit din itself even though the original arbitration agreement granted such jurisdiction for just one year.
Marvin Neiman, Brisman’s lawyer, stressed the nature of the compromise.
“It was a good compromise because it made everyone unhappy,” Neiman told The Jewish Star. He also explained that the beit din salary award was lower than Brisman’s total 2005 compensation which, according to Neiman, was mainly built through overtime.
A HAFTR official said that the school would have no comment about a pending legal matter.
While Neiman believed that HAFTR would honor the beit din’s decision, he sought to confirm the award with the New York State Supreme Court, which is a common step after arbitration. The overturning of an arbitration verdict is relatively rare and considered unusual.
While arbitration verdicts are not enforceable, the decisions are given weight in court. According to a 2006 precedent, an arbitration decision cannot be vacated, even if there is a factual error in the case, unless there is a suspicion of fraud, irrationality, or a harm to public policy. There is no suspicion of fraud in the case. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court refused to confirm the verdict.
Justice Balter found that the decision should be voided on the grounds that the decision was irrational, the beit din specifically went beyond its enumerated authority and that the verdict violated public policy.
The decision was irrational on two counts, Balter found. [...]