Seminary Scandal: Questions from a loyal and informed CBD supporter - and my answers

This post originally appeared as a comment to a different post - but I thought it would be of more use as its own post. My answers are interspersted and preceded by DT.

Material that I have added after the original response in the comments sections is in bold letters.

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

Guest Post by puzzled by RDE •

 

RDE: Your position on this issue has truly surprised me. It is difficult to fully understand how you have so aggressively sided with the IBD here. 

A few very specific questions for you - I would ask that you answer them directly. (If you can indulge me by answering - please do, rather than reference another post where you addressed this already). (As an intro - I too have been in touch with people deeply involved, including personal conversations with the dayanim on both sides - so please don't simply dismiss my words as someone who is not informed.). 

1. A choshen mishpat shayla - a person signs up their daughter to go to a seminary run by Rabbi/Rebbetzin/Mr. "X. In the period of time after the deposit is paid the seminary is transferred to a new owner, etc. - does the parent have a right to ask for the money back with the simple claim of "I never agreed to this - I signed up for something else." What do you believe the answer is? Have you asked a posek?

DT   @puzzled I am puzzled by your puzzlement - since you claim to have access to dayanim on both sides - why haven't you asked them. Is it that you want to know the truth or that your question is really why I am involved? Are you claiming that my answers are not what the IBD would answer because you asked them and found major discrepancies? To answer your first question since it the only one that seems to raise new issues. I have not heard that anyone is making the claim that they want out simply because their is a new owner. The claim has been the CBD has declared them unsafe and therefore it is a mekach taus. To that question it is clear that there is a need for a beis din and yes I have asked poskim and that is what they say. I am not sure that objecting to the sale merely because there is a new owner without claiming that there is a difference is services provided means anything.

I did in fact ask a posek your question and he said:
Of course it doesn't preclude a din Torah). If I pay a cleaning service (not Mr. XYZ) to clean my suits for one year,and the business (with which the contract was with ) gets sold (and the owner is not even the one who cleans the suits ; he sets policy, hires the cleaners, buys equipment -- if I want my money back I absolutely have to convince the BD that there is a real reason to think that the new person will not run the business as well as the old one. Especially if the "real" owner is an amutah.

2. You and the IBD have maintained that Mr. Yarmush "bought the seminary". What is the evidence of that? I do believe that the IBD willfully misled people to say it was sold. When I pushed one of the IBD members (who I spoke to personally), he said "it is in process" and will be sold. How is this justified by the IBD? [As an important aside - I am not offended by the practical need of Mr. Yarmush to have many contingencies before a sale is consummated. He is a smart businessman and would never buy something until he knew what he was buying. If no girls attend - why would he agree to a price now? etc. Thus - I think such an approach is perfectly reasonable. My issue is the IBD being deceptive about this point.]

DT  2. In regards to the second, I have a letter from Rav Aharon Feldman that he verified that the sale was good. Is that good enough? The CBD has been claiming - not that the sale isn't valid but that it is a sham and that Yarmish is merely a front for Mieselss. They offer no proof but keep claiming that the two are old buddies. Yarmish categorically denies that. The CBD has not produced any evidence for their questionable claim. Why don't you ask them? As I noted in a previous post - the CBD in the May guidelines made no mention of the need for Meisels to sell.

3. In the various communications send out by the administration of the school (specifically in an email invitation to a conference call for parents) - they introduced the dayanim as "our dayanim"? What does that mean?

DT 3. I don't know. I haven't seen it - perhaps you will send it to me and I'll try and find out. Someone suggested that it simply means the dayanim to whom we were meshabed ourselves to follow by signing the shtar. When I see the actual documents I can investigate further.

4. What is your view about what the staff knew? Every seminary has an Eim Bayis? Were they aware that girls were going for "rides" with Meisels at the wee hours of the morning? What did they do about it? Did they not know? If not, is this a proper level of supervision? How could the IBD make such a quick decision labeling the staff as doing their work with "mesiras nefesh" and "yiras shamayim"? More importantly - are these specific people returning next year?

DT:  4.Despite your request - this item is clearly explained in the post of the IBD father to his son.

5. You seem to have embraced the IBD narrative that they tried from the beginning to have the CBD share the testimony, etc. - which many of us question. For the purpose of this discussion - I will accept that fact. But without it how could they say what they did? How could they issue such sweeping endorsements without the facts (which they acknowledge they don't have) - based on the one sided testimony of the minahalos that that spoke with?

DT  5. Ditto for this. By the way did the CBD tell you that they in fact have shared the testimony?! If not why don't you believe the IBD. This is doubly curious in the fact that the CBD now says that the lawsuit precludes them for sharing and allowing the witnesses to be questioned. Why would they say such a thing if in fact they had already shared the information.

It also seems that part of the reason that the CBD engineered the RICO claim was to create a situation where they are blocked by secular law to share information

6. The IBD has over and over repeated the calumny that the CBD took testimony "shelo kihalacho" - not in the presence of the other side? Do you believe they are correct in the assertion? Can you justify this statement in light of the Teshuva published in Yeshurun (whose editor in chief, ironically, is Rabbi Gottesman...), written by none other than Rav Mendel Shafran the Av Beis Din of the IBD - which explicitly states that in abuse cases this is not required! [Furthermore - if as it appears to be the case - RAF left the proceeding early on - did they not do the very thing they criticized the CBD for doing!?] These are but some of the questions many of us have about this case and specifically your approach.

DT 6. The simple explanation to this is that there is significant difference between a beis din which is to determine guilt and one which collects testimony strong enough to remove an educator from a school. The Shoel UMeishiv is halacha for the latter case. The CBD's claim that Meisels is guilty of all the sexual sins on the book - indicates a full beis din judging guilt or innocence. That requires hearing both sides. Meisels denies that accusation. As far as I know there has not been a proper beis din trial and therefore they can't according to the halacha claim that he is guilty as they claim.

Please go back to the CBD and request some documentation for their allegations. You might even want to show them my presentation of the IBD's views. I will be quite willing to publish their point by point rebuttal - especially if they provide documentation to prove that they have given over their data to the IBD and that they in fact have conducted a proper din Torah that allows them to pasken that Meisels is guilty of all sexual sins.

Additionally when the IBD claims the CBD is acting shelo kahalacha it is because the case has been give to IBD, through a shtar that says they would not. The CBD simply is not authorized to be issue psakim in this case and need to work through the IBD or at least in conjunction with it as Rav Aharon Feldman suggested and the IBD agreed to do.

I hope I don't sound condescending when I suggest you rethink your views on this sordid scandal. I suggest this because I usually think you are on the right side of these issues and am baffled at your approach here. less 

DT Please get back to me soon so this whole affair can be brought to a peaceful resolution before Elul.

Seminary Scandal - The blood libel of an absurd RICO Claim: Using an Atom Bomb instead of a Key to open the door of their home!

The Orthodox world was shaken this week by a RICO class action filing in Federal court against Meisels, his seminaries and alleged coconspirators. It claims that Meisels seminaries - which have been viewed as premier educational institutions by all - were merely  fronts that pretended to be Orthodox girls seminaries. Their true purpose was simply to defraud the parents of money and to provide Meisels the opportunity to sexually abuse the girls that he and his co- conspirators had recruited. It is beyond belief that any normal human being would make such a claim - especially those who claim to be Orothodox Jews!

The filers of the suit were alleged by my sources to have been aided directly or indirectly by people associated with the Chicago Beis Din -  part of the claims are similar to that made by the Chicago Beis Din. It is also alleged by my informants that this is a direct result of the current conflict between the Chicago Beis Din and the Israeli Beis Din. According to my sources it was also allegedly the (unintended?) consequences of activities by a lawyer by the name of Gottesman because of his perceived humiliation by the Israelli Beis Din.

It is unbelievable that included in the list of defendants is Rav Tzvi Gartner - one of the distinguished members of the Israeli Beis Din - a universally recognized talmid chachom.

Anyone who knows the facts of this case, realizes that the lawsuit is equivalent - in damage to the Jewish community and institutions and in logic used - to claiming that the Jews have a conspiracy to kidnap and kill goyim in order to obtain blood to bake matzoh. Or that the goal of Judaism is to corrupt human beings into rapists, thieves and murderers.

Why have the #%&  who filed this suit not realized that it is using an atom bomb instead of a key  - to open a door of their home! They will not be undamaged by this filing. While the plaintiffs have some legitimate issues as evidenced by the comments of both the Israaeli and Chicago Beis Dins - this is not an acceptable method that anyone concerned about Torah and halacha would ever use. The damage to the viability of the institution of beis din - as well as to the idea of girls going to seminary in Israel - is very severe. Aside from the chilul HaShem and debasement of all Jews.

   Meisels - RICO Claim  August 4 2014 

Seminary Scandal: The Chicago Beis Din did not require Meisels to sell the seminaries!

One of the strange puzzles in this scandal is the conduct of the Chicago Beis Din. First they ask the Israel Beis Din to take care of the case - and then they refuse to share the information that they got from purported victims. Then they tell the Israel Beis Din that if the seminaries are sold to Yarmish. they will remove their warning against attending the seminaries - and then they refuse to do so and refuse to explain why. Then when the seminaries are sold to Yarmish with the supervision of Rav Aharon Feldman - the Chicago Beis Din says that it was a sham sale because they falsely claim that Yarmish and Meisels are good buddies. They clearly will not tolerate less than an absolute sale.

 I just received the following Chicago Beis Din document which lists the Chicago Beis Din's guidelines for Meisels. It is signed by the entire beis din. Of importance, please note that the CBD does not even require Meisels to sell the seminaries! So why are they complaining about what they mistakenly say is a sham sale - when they didn't even require a sham sale? Anybody have the answer? [It is interesting to note that the document says they are working with Torah U'Mesorah - but that is another issue.]

Seminary Scandal: Rav Aharon Feldman's role - and why both sides are attacking him

One of the mysteries of the Seminary Scandal is the role of Rav Aharon Feldman. Rav Aharon Feldman is well known as the Rosh HaYeshiva of Ner Israel of Baltimore and as someone well acquainted not only with the Torah world of learning but the real world of people and their concerns. But in a recent letter from the Israeli Beis Din and from one of its dayanim - Rav Malinowitz - Rav Feldman is strongly criticized for his involvement and his apparently trying to bridge the gap between the Israeli Beis Din and the Chicago Beis Din.  It is also well known that one of the blogs - Frum Follies has attacked Rav Feldman in very harsh terms. My concern has been trying to understand why he is being attacked and to reconcile this with the fact that he is a rav whose reputation is not to create disputes but to resolve them.

I had the occasion to speak with a few people today that have fragments of the picture. They agree in one aspect - that Rav Aharon Feldman was sincerely trying to make peace between the two warring beis dins - especially by making them into a joint beis din. It also seems that he was a bit too credulous (with all due respect) in assuming that his sincere commonsense would be enough to reconcile the differences between strong personalities with strong differences of opinion. The new development of pending criminal and civil claims seems to have made this joint beis din impossible.

I was also given a letter which I was told could be published. The letter was written by Rav Aharon to a lawyer who represents two of the victims who accused Rav Aharon of meddling in the case when he was not authorized by any of the victims. The letter is interesting in that he clearly states that he was only appointed by the Israeli Beis Din as the pro forma plaintiff. [I was just informed that the Chicago Beis Din had also requested that he represent the victims so he obviously was acceptable to both sides.] Thus he had no significant role in determining the course or the focus of the beis din activity.  It is important to note that he says the Israeli Beis Din was concerned primarily with monetary compensation to the victims and whether the principals of the schools were liable also.

His attempt at smoothing over differences with the Chicago Beis Din explains why he was criticized harshly by the Israeli Beis Din even though he was officially recognized as being a participant in the process of the Israeli Beis Din. His main concern was to make peace in order that the primary focus of the dayanim on both sides would be to help the victims as well as to improve the manner in which the seminaries deal with these issues so that there would not be a repetition of this tragedy. On the other hand the Chicago Beis Din is not happy with his attempt to have them rescind their advisory not to attend the seminaries and as well as his concern for the continued existence of the seminary and their teachers. Thus his attempt at compromise is viewed as betrayal by both sides. Not a good place to be.

This is only a brief discussion without touching on the many unresolved questions. For example  why there is no mention of the possible negligence of the senior seminary staff in not stopping Meisels(even though they are discussing whether they owe compensation)?  Or why there is no formal confession by Meisels and well as an apology? Were psychologists and education experts consulted by either beis din? What was the controversy over who should buy the seminaries? What was the role of R Gottesman? And what impact does pending criminal and civil suits have to do with the ability of the beis din to resolve the matter successfully- if at all? Why do both beis dins seem to be unconcerned with how their fight is undermining emunas chachomim - as Rav Aharon pointed out in his letter to the Israel Beis Din?

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

From: Rav Aharon Feldman
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:13 AM
To: B. C.
Subject: RE: Mr. Meisels - Israeli Beis Din

Dear Mr. C.

In reply to your letter to me of July 16, 2014, I would like to state the following:

1.       I was appointed by the Israel Beis Din to act as the pro forma plaintiff (to’en) necessary for initiating a din torah (a trial held in accordance with Torah laws). I specifically stated at the beginning of the proceedings that I did not represent anyone who does not want me to represent him, which referred to the two clients whom you represent.

2.       The counsel for Elimelech Meisels began his defense by claiming that I was not empowered to represent anyone. The Chief Dayan (the head of the Beis Din) replied that he is technically correct but this is immaterial since Meisels had already confessed and that the din torah was to establish the amount of compensation to be paid the victims and to decide if the principals of the schools are liable to pay damages as well. Counsel agreed to this and to continue the din torah.

3.       Having performed my pro forma duties I left the proceedings after one or two people were called to testify since my presence was no longer needed. I had nothing to do with the judgment issued at the end.

4.       The din torah was not related to Meisel’s guilt, as you seem to have assumed. This had been  established by his previous confession, as above. Consequently, your suggestion that the Beis Din “whitewashed” Meisels has no basis in fact.

Respectfully,

Aharon Feldman

Seminary Scandal: RICO claim - Yerachmiel Lopin of Frum Follies view & my rebuttal

The following is Yerachmiel Lopin (Frum Follies) explanation of why he finds the RICO charge plausible in this case. I offer my rebuttal to each of his points indicated by DT. Mr. Lopin has been the most active blogger dealing with this scandal and has been the source of many important leaks from the Chicago Beis Din and opponents of the Israeli Beis Din. We have been in contact for a  number of years and I generally agree with his analysis and concern for establishing the truth as well as his genuine concern for the victims of abuse. However in this case he is strongly opposed to the Israel Beis Din's (IBD) handling of this case. In contrast, while I initially shared his view - I now view that the IBD's position - while not without faults - is the most reasonable according to the facts as well as the halacha. I have been supplied by a number of documents from supporters of the IBD which clearly support their view and call into question the conduct of the CBD in this matter. 

Contrary to recent allegations of CBD and its associates - the IBD is not trying to make a coverup - nor is it trying to save the seminaries at the expense of the safety of the girls. In contrast I find the Chicago Beis Din's view as unacceptable both from the halachic point as well as the psychological dealing with abuse. Initially both the IBD and CBD agreed that the seminaries could be saved be made safe for students. Initially the CBD asked the IBD to handle the matter. Rav Aharaon Feldman was asked by the CBD to represent the victim and Rav Zev Cohen of the CBD attended the signing of the shtar berurrin which laid out the charter for the IBD. Then something happened which turned the CBD against the IBD and made them refuse to cooperate with dealing with these seminaries. That something has not been explicated so far.

Yerachmiel Lopin of Frum Follies

 

Rabbi Eidensohn asked me if I find the RICO charge in the lawsuit even plausible. I wrote up a reply but when I got ready to paste it in I could not seem to find the question, so I am just pasting it in over here.

1. Meisels' recruitment was rife with fraud in representing his schools as safe and educating for Torah observance. Put differently, had Meisels told parents the truth of his conduct and they had nevertheless plunked down their money there would not have been fraud. But of course they wouldn't have bought in.

DT. To be a RICO claim a conspiracy must be present. There was clearly no conspiracy of the seminaries to defraud parents and it is clear the staff viewed that they had a good Torah program that was safe – and the seminaries in fact have had a good reputation up until now. Thus it is dangerous nonsense to claim that the staff was part of a conspiracy that was concerned only with defrauding parents and providing sexual excitement for Meisels. The Chicago Beis Din made no such claims – it is clearly made up by lawyers claiming that was the best way to get money back either by intimidation or by the unlikely possibility of actually convincing a secular court of the claims. The Chicago Beis Din clearly felt the seminaries could be fixed up and be safe – but not yet.

2. Meisels did in some cases use the recruitment process to begin his grooming. I have gotten three reports from very distinct sources of his behaving oddly with some exceptionally attractive potential students. It was so odd that the students commented that they did not understand why instead of raising reasonable questions at the interview he lavished flattery and talked about how they would have a very special relationship, (more than those of other students). Two of the three found it uncomfortable and opted out of going to his seminary even though he was more generous than he needed to be about scholarships. The third was subjected to an actual groping quite a while after she started in the seminary.

DT: This is again no proof for a conspiracy of the seminaries and their staff but entirely about Meisels and thus irrelevant to a RICO claim.

3. RICO requires one of several crimes in the conspiracy. In this case the alleged crime is fraud in securing parent's tuition money. I find that charge utterly credible. Rabbi Eidensohn, I suspect you might agree with my case thus far but you question why include the other defendants, Yarmish, Slanger and especially R. Gartner. I will turn to that shortly. 4. However, it needs to be understood that the fraud charge goes beyond the original recruitment. From the point of view of the lawsuit, the parents should have gotten their money back when they asked for it. They reason that the money never belonged to the seminaries since it was secured by fraudulent misrepresentation. A similar argument could be made in halacha that this was mekach taus. Thus the transaction is void. 5. Three days after the first Chicago ruling the IBD declared the schools were safe, the students couldn't switch to other seminaries and other seminaries could not go after those students. This now involved the IBD in the attempt to perpetuate the fraudulent retention of the parent's funds. The charge is not that the other three defendants were involved in a conspiracy to sexually abuse students. Instead it asserts, that they knew or should have known by now that Meisels was abusing students, and thus misrepresenting the offering, and thus that the families were defrauded when they signed up. On that basis the suit asserts that the other three defendants were helping to perpetuate the retention of fraudulently obtained deposits. And indeed, the IBD's goal, as you noted early on was to "save the schools" which meant retaining the students and their money by blocking them from getting money back or going to other schools. When Yarmish was said to be in control of the seminaries, as the successor, he became legally liable for settling outstanding claims, and became part of the fraud in refusing to return fraudulently obtained deposits. Mrs. Slanger as the front-line money person in the Lakewood office also became a party. If, Rabbi Gartner controls some of their accounts, he too becomes part of the fraud of not returning monies. It is alleged, that the three are playing a game of passing off parents to each other while not being clear about who has the power to authorize checks. That too would make them part of a conspiracy to deny parents refunds. The IBD has claimed to have control of monies so, in theory all three members are part of the fraud. The lawsuit name R. Gartner, because Yarmish identified him as holding the power to return deposits.

DT: Your description is not accurate. The students were not prevented from going to another seminary as is clearly stated in the 4 item in the IBD statement of July 25. The IBD only prohibited other seminaries from recruiting the students. Your assertion of a conspiracy is simply wrong. Contrary to what you assert there is no evidence that the schools knowingly recruited girls for Meisels sexual pleasure. The CBD made no such claims. It simply said "the Beis Din believes that the students in this seminaries are at risk of harm and it does not recommend that that prospective students attend these seminaries at the present time". According to your version of the facts it should have clearly said "It is prohibited to go to the schools and that they must be closed down as the evil permeates the whole fake structure of the schools!" But they made no such statement.

The job of the beis din was merely to establish that the seminaries are safe and a viable place for education. I just received an email from Rabbi Malinowitz which says that the IBD does not view its job as saving the seminaries. He wrote:

We, the BD here, do not consider it our mandate to work on making sure the seminaries stay open---- (the task of a BD) we must be very clear that they can stay open and they are safe,etc,etc,etc. To make sure they stay open despite the continued onslaught of rish'us is not our mandate.

Your description of the roles of Yarmish et al – do not show a conspiracy. But simply the reaction any business would do if the quality of their services or merchandise was questioned. Again it is clear if the seminaries have been declared safe but the parents don't accept that – a beis din must rule that the parents should get their money. No beis din was approached for a din Torah - but rather the parents went right to secular court. Unless the CBD gave them a heter it was clearly against halacha.

6. For purposes of this argument, it is irrelevant whether, as the IBD claims, the seminaries are now safe. Though I must add that the IBD is oddly inconsistent. The IBD promises to keep an eye out, conduct investigations, and make further changes. If all that is needed and has not been done, how can they certify the safety of the seminaries. Furthermore, why should anyone trust them to find flaws, when they went on the record saying they were good in the past, when they clearly felt that Meisels had to be out before they could say that for the future.

DT: The IBD spent considerable time questioning the staff. The beis din has considerable expertise in abuse cases and according to what they found – the seminaries are safe. They said that they are aware of the allegations by the CBD that senior staff was complicit – but did not find evidence for such. If the CBD wants the seminaries fixed then they should have shared their evidence.

By not sharing the evidence it is clear that the CBD nw wants the seminaries closed down. IBD thinks it is astonishing that the CBD will not share their evidence with them as they agreed to from the start when the CBD asked them to deal with this matter. The CBD took the initiative and their dayan Rav Zev Cohen and R' Gottesman were present with Rav Aharon Feldman when the shtar was drawn up defining their job. No one forced the CBD to pick Rav Shafran's beis din – especially as some bloggers claim that was to be expected that an Israeli beis din was concerned only with covering up abuse not stopping it.

It is absurd to say that the CBD – experienced in dealing with abuse – would pick a beis din that would not deal properly with the issues. It is also absurd that R' Gottesman – connected with Torah U'Mesora and the CBD allegedly demanded that the seminaries be sold to him or his friend Bloom or he would have the seminaries closed down. It is absurd that Rav Zev Cohen made the promise that if the IBD arranged the sale to Yarmish they would remove the warning. But the CBD did not follow through without giving an explanation of why or under what conditions they would view the seminaries as safe. Nor did they remove the warning when the sale was made to Yarmish. They clearly did hold out the possibility that they would declare the seminaries safe. So according to your inside understanding how could the CBD possibly allow the seminaries to continue to exist given this alleged conspiracy of the seminaries and the IBD to aid Meisels.

In sum, it is clear from the CBD's statements that they viewed the problem with the seminaries as fixable. That they viewed the IBD as the agent to fix them. That they asked the IBD to take the job and appointed Rav Aharon Feldman to represent the victims. But they issued a warning – "at this time" against going to the seminaries and they blocked funds for girls to go the seminaries and then they alleged that the IBD was involved in a cover up for a sale which they had approved. The CBD made accusation that senior staff was involved – but at the same time crippling the IBD in investigating these charges by suddenly refusing to share information.They made promises to remove the warning if the seminaries were sold to Yarmish and then reneged on the promise.

7. In sum, while I have no idea how the court will handle the RICO claim, I find a plausible argument that there was a conspiracy to fraudulently obtain students' enrollment deposits and deny them refunds.

DT: In sum – it is incredible that with your intelligence and inside knowledge of the facts that you can say with a straight face that it is plausible that there was a conspiracy to defraud the parents of deposit money. The more reasonable explanation that there is no conspiracy but there is a legitimate disagreement whether they are required to return the deposit since a competent beis din has found the schools to be safe. According to halacha a beis din is required to resolve that issue – not an absurd RICO claim in secular court.

PS. Above I presented the argument that the enrollment and payment of deposits was a mekach taus, and thus void to two rabbonim (one a dayan, and one lamdun who writes halacha articles). Both of them are completely unconnected to the Chicago Beis Din. While neither will take a definitive position without full access to the facts, both found the mekach taus argument sound and inclined toward it. Both also agreed that if it was a mekach taus, the students did not "belong to these seminaries" as customers and thus there is no basis for asserting hasugas gvul.

DT: I have no problem with a claim of mekach taus – but did your sources say such a claim is justification to go to secular court? Or did they say that the parents should therefore go to beis din? You obviously told them that the IBD had paskened that it is assur to go to another seminary when in fact the prohibition was for seminaries to actively recruit them. The issue is solely of whether the deposits must be returned – not whether the students are prohibited to go elsewhere because they "belong to these seminaries". Again all of this is not justification for a slanderous RICO claim when all that was necessary was to go to a din Torah to get the deposits back.

Filing papers of lawsuit against Meisels and Peninim Seminary for sexual abuse

update:  I just received the following allegations which were agreed to by two insiders that I know - that isn't absolute prove that they are true but are obviously something highly likely to be true. Will notify when I get final confirmation or dis-confirmation

1) "Just to clarify, these 2 girls are the same ones the CBD has been talking about since June. There is nothing new here- no new testimony or claimants. These are the same 2 girls that testified in front of the Beis Din Murchav, and it was determined that their claims were not enough to vilify the staff, hence the recent psak that the staff is clean and the schools are safe. Now these SAME 2 girls have decided to sue in secular courts since they lost in Beis Din. BUT ITS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, THERE IS NOTHING NEW HERE. No one should mistake this suit as 2 more girls coming out of the closet with claims. There have been NO OTHER STUDENTS other than the same 2 from June MAKING ANY CLAIMS."

2)

דברי רוח

The Batei Dinim heard testimony regarding these girls as well, and nevertheless said what they said. I don't know who permitted or advised the girls to go to secular courts. These claims are no less fabricated or exaggerated in the public statement than in the public statement of the RICO suit.

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

These are the filing papers for a lawsuit against Meisels and Peninim Seminary and Peninim of America by two women alleging they suffered sexual abuse from Meisels -  including apparently rape.

Oddly rape is not stated explicitly in the charges but can be inferred from the request for anonymity where she says that revealing that she had sexual intercourse with Meisels - presumably against her will - would damage her marriage prospects.This is the exact quote from the filing:

 Jane Doe No. 2 asserts that she fears retaliation and ostracism by members of the Orthodox Jewish community if it is publicly disclosed that she is suing the defendants for alleged sexual harassmant and assault or that she had sexual relations with Meisels. Jane Doe. No. 2 Aff. at ¶¶ 10-15. She states that she may never be able to marry or have children if her identity is revealed, and that she and her family would be shunned in the community as a result. page 6

 Court granted them the right to be anonymous in this document due to alleged threats and severe negative consequences (e.g., shunning within the Orthodox Community and inability to marry) to them if their identity was generally known. Though it does acknowledge that their identify is known by the defendant and others already.

Plaintiffs further allege that Peninim of America and Peninim Seminary are liable for Meisels' conduct with the plaintiffs because they were "deliberately indifferent to known acts of discrimination, which occurred under their control."

The obvious and unanswered question is since  the charges apparently included serious sexual violence including rape - why didn't these young ladies go to the police? This is a civil suit which involves money - not a criminal case involving jail.

Legal Papers 

Seminary Scandal: An explanation of why both the CBD and IBD are claiming exclusive jurisdiction

The following is what I have been able to piece together from various sources who have close connections with the IBD and the CBD.

The following information timeline indicates what is the crux of the dispute between the IBD and CBD. It is not that the CBD views that the IBD is not concerned for the victims but only for the seminaries. Or that the victims will be harassed by the IBD. It is not because the victims approached the CBD and not the IBD.  While the CBD views all these as being true - it is not the basis of the dispute.

The real reason is because the CBD is bluntly claiming that the IBD never had any right to be involved in more than a very limited roll that the CBD decided.

In contrast the IBD is claiming that the CBD never had jurisdiction over the seminaries which are located in Jerusalem and that contrary to what the CBD is now claiming - the CBD did in fact ask them to have full jurisdiction in the case. The IBD brings as proof the shtar borerus which was signed by the staff, Meisels and Rav Feldman

The CBD responds that their authority comes from the fact that  Meisels now agrees to abide by their psak as well as the request of the victims for them to deal with the case. The CBD claims that the shtar borerus of the IBD was in fact initiated by them - but only to make changes in the amutah - and nothing else. Therefore the CBD claims the IBD never had more than a peripheral role and that now it has none.

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

A girl from Chicago complained to someone there about the problem. She was told that if she’s the only victim, they won’t listen, she should find others.She reached out to other girls and identified another victim. Chicago Rabbanim are informed that there’s another victim.

May 9-11 At the Torah Umesorah Convention Rav Zev Cohen, representing the CBD, asks Rav Aharon Feldman to act as the victims’ formal representative. He agrees.

R. Gottesman calls Rav Gartner in the name of the CBD to discuss convening a BD in EY to take this over. Rav Gartner proposes the dayanim.

CBD meet with Meisels who admits some inappropriate physical contact.

May 19 -- CBD issues it’s ruling of 7 guidelines that include removing Meisels from involvement in the seminaries and avoiding contact with the students. Therapy is required but there is no requirement to sell. No mention is made of any other staff involved. No warning is issued to the girls and permission is granted for the victims to go the the police if they want to so.

June 12 -- R Gottesman and RZ Cohen fly to Israel on behalf of the  CBD, with Rav Aharon Feldman on behalf of the girls; with R' Gottesman and Rav Zev Cohen present and involved in drafting the shtarei beirurin, Rav Aharaon Feldman, Meisels, and the school representatives sign shtarei beirurin with kabalas kinyan, etc, for IBD to handle the case. Clearly handing the responsibility of the case to the IBD. Rav Feldman agrees to be the representatives of the victims for the IBD as he was for the CBD Shtar Borerus

June 30 – Apparently in light of the lack of cooperation of CBD, IBD sends an email to R Gottesman - as the representative of the CBD - that they are meeting that evening, and if the CBD has something to say, this would be the opportunity to do so.

R' Gottesman sends an email in response to IBD - in the name of the CBD [including Rav Levine] - which makes claims which are severely at variance with the original understanding between the IBD and CBD regarding the respective roles and jurisdiction of the IBD and CBD. It claims that the CBD still has full jurisdiction over the case in all areas including all matters  relating to changes in the seminaries and arranging for compensation of the victims. It also clearly acknowledges that the CBD asked the IBD to be involved in the case but claiming it was only for the purpose of reorganization of the Amutah. It also claims that the shtar borerus was signed at the suggestion of the CBD but only to reorganize the Amutah. He requests that these changes be done quickly so that the CBD will proceed as the sole body to have jurisdiction of the IBD and that they drop out of the picture entirely because they no longer will be needed. Consequently the CBD sees no purpose in further discussion about the role of the IBD is this matter because it has none and that the CBD had notified the IBD of this 4 days before on June 26. Finally that the CBD intends to issue a second psak on the matter which will supersede the one of May 19th. This would explain why there has been no sharing of data by the CBD because they claim - contrary to what Rav Zev Cohen told Rav Feldman - the CBD never intended to share the information.

R' Gottesman also sends a second email that day announcing that the CBD has issued a 2nd psak. While it again acknowledges that it had asked for assitance from the IBD in the Meisels case  but since Meisels now  agrees to abide by the psak of the CBD  - there is no longer any need for the IBD to be involved in the case. [Apparently Meisels had not agreed to abide to their psak previously.]While expressing gratitude for the help they again insist that they have retained full jurisdiction in this case and there is no further role for the IBD. It is not clear whether the CBD authorized R Gottesman to send these letters since they did not send any letters stating such allegations on their letterhead nor did the CBD sign the letters. On the other hand they have never denied that these letters were authorized.

July 3 – IBD sends their response to the CBD and Gottesman’s emails strongly criticizing the emails from Gottesman (CBD).Response of IBD to R Gottesman's letters

July 10 – CBD first public letter stating that the IBD had assumed the case but that they viewed the seminaries as unsafe at the present time and did not recommend girls attending the seminaries

July 13 – IBD first public letter - a month after they had taken on the case. They declare that the CBD had requested through the agency of Rav Feldman ,  Rav Cohen and   R Gottesman to establish a beis din to hear the claims and to make decisions regarding compensation as well as to make changes in the seminary program. That the staff of the seminaries has accepted the IBD's to do such and they have promised to obey all requests. They also declare that the seminareis are now completely safe because of the removal of Meisels  They said they now will start evaluating the actual claims for the purpose of establishing compensation and to recommend changes in the seminaries.

July 14 – CBD letter to HTC not to recognize the seminaries

About July 24 – transfer of schools to Yaakov Yarmish is finalized. An earlier demand by R Gottesman that the seminaries by sold to him had been rejected. Another proposed deal of purchase by Yaakov Yarmish in conjunction with a friend who is associated with Torah U' Mesorah falls through when the friend backs out. The CBD had promised that the warning against the seminaries would be removed if it were sold - but the CBD reneges on its promise without explanation.

July 25 – IBD’s psak post-sale. Some of the points they mare are: That since they have thoroughly questioned the staff  - they have found no basis of concern for students to attend these seminaries. They request that Touro provide college credits for the courses. They ban predatory recruiting. They prohibit slandering the seminaries. They strongly criticize R Gottesman for meddling in this matter

 July 31 – Rav Aharon Feldman's “Chillul Hashem” letter questioning why the IBD had not requested information from the CBD. This assertion is based on what Rav Zev Cohen told Rav Feldman. He questions why Rav Malinowitz had publicly stated that the CBD had refused to share information and notes that he can't believe that Rav Cohen would lie. He also suggests that the IBD and CBD form a joint beis din. 

August 1-2 – IBD strong formal response to Rav Aharon Feldman 

At that point all hell had broken loose...

THE MOMENT HAS ARRIVED - abuser usually contesses to beis din

 https://mishpacha.com/the-moment-has-arrived/

I think it is important to know that over the past 30 years, there was only one case in which the accused denied the charges. In every other instance, there were multiple victims who testified, and the predators admitted what they had done as soon as we confronted them with the accusations.

The Torah explicitly equates violations of a woman to murder: “for like a man who rises up against his fellow and murders him, so is this thing” [Devarim 22:26]. And in some ways it is even worse than murder, because of the enduring pain.

The above statement while true is very misleading and out of context

The Torah is not talking about rape of any woman but an engaged woman and this is not saying that rape is the same as murder but rather in the case of rodef of an engaged woman  he can be killed to save her just as if he were pursuing to murder.

Thus it is not  dealing with child abuse or rape or even sexual abuse

Let’s just hope that the moment has finally arrived, as a consequence of the recent tragedies, for every medium-sized community to establish its own Special Beis Din, and for the smaller communities to be organized to refer to batei din in larger nearby cities. And that this conversation will serve as a catalyst for that.

The article basically is propaganda rather than a serious attempt to evaluate the need for a special beis din for abuse or the cases which a beis din makes things worse For example the case a few years ago when this special beis din announced that a seminary head had raped his students. An investigation by a second beis din found no evidence of rape or other allegations transmitted by this beis din and repeated by a number of blogs as well as newspapers.

Hundreds of Bedouins clash with police over controversial Negev tree planting

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/hundreds-of-bedouins-clash-with-police-over-controversial-negev-tree-planting/

KKL-JNF chairman Avraham Duvdevani told Kan on Wednesday that his organization was just a government contractor and wasn’t setting policy.

“We have been planting trees in the Negev for 15 years in the same format as right now,” Duvdevani said. “There was nothing different from what we have been doing all these years. We have no idea what’s different now. The instructions to halt plantings have been sporadic, and we resumed full work after a few days.

“We will continue planting in the entire Negev. This is part of the Zionist vision.”

Ghislaine Maxwell verdict is a field day for cranks

 https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/ghislaine-maxwell-verdict-is-a-field-day-for-cranks-3CvcxFUpIytXanX2i1kPZD

Meanwhile, the Brixton branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign has asserted on Instagram and Facebook that the affair shows, “Israel’s involvement in a key pedophile [sic] Network”. The posts bear the logo of a group called Key48, that campaigns for Palestine. It has posted the same conspiracy on its Instagram page to over 77,000 followers, where it has been liked more than 3,000 times. The posts are based on statements made by a figure called Ari ben Menashe, who claims to have worked for Israeli intelligence several decades ago. The fact that Ben Menashe, who has previously worked as a lobbyist for the Myanmar Junta, has his claims treated seriously, says a lot about how easily conspiracy theories about Israel are accepted, even by people who view themselves as defenders of human rights. When interviewed by RT in 2020, Ben Menashe was asked for evidence supporting his claims, but didn’t have anything to offer other than his assertions.

Sorry, Rabbi Riskin and Rabbi Greenberg – Homosexual relations are not permitted by the Torah

 https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/sorry-rabbi-riskin-and-rabbi-greenberg-homosexual-relations-are-not-permitted-by-the-torah/

In an interview (in Hebrew) that was sharply criticized even by some rabbis who generally identify with him, Rabbi Shlomo Riskin opined that the Biblical prohibition on homosexual relations only applies to one who voluntarily chooses homosexuality, but that one who considers himself wired as homosexual and feels that he can only experience intimacy with another man is exempt from the prohibition. Rabbi Riskin applied the Talmudic axiom of “ones Rachmana patreh” — that the Torah does not hold one accountable for an involuntary act — as his source for this whopper of a “heter” (halachic leniency).

Hence, Rabbi Riskin and others who invoked “ones Rachmana patreh” to permit homosexual relations are wholly in error and are contradicted by the Talmud and all halachic codes. This important point needs to be made.

Furthermore, how could Rabbi Riskin and others sincerely believe that this gaping-hole exception exists, in light of the fact that it is totally absent from the Talmud, all subsequent halachic codes and all writings of rabbinic commentators? Such a massive exception would surely have appeared in large print, so to say, in the canonical sources of Jewish Law.

The Contested Significance of January 6

 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/the-contested-significance-of-january-6/621235/

In all this, I still find myself most aligned with one concern explored by Barton Gellman: the Trumpist impulse to use parliamentary machinations to overturn election results and the groundwork the GOP is laying to do so more effectively. “Elected officials in Arizona, Texas, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and other states have studied Donald Trump’s crusade to overturn the 2020 election,” he reported.

They have noted the points of failure and have taken concrete steps to avoid failure next time. Some of them have rewritten statutes to seize partisan control of decisions about which ballots to count and which to discard, which results to certify and which to reject. They are driving out or stripping power from election officials who refused to go along with the plot last November, aiming to replace them with exponents of the Big Lie. They are fine-tuning a legal argument that purports to allow state legislators to override the choice of the voters.