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.
