Friday, January 10, 2014

Google's automatic email invitation causes man to be jailed for violating restraining order

abc news   In what one expert on Internet privacy calls "a worst-case scenario," a Massachusetts man was jailed for sending his ex-girlfriend (who had a restraining order against him) an email invitation to join Google+

But Thomas Gagnon contends he didn't send it; Google did, without his knowledge or consent. 

When his ex-girlfriend received the invitation, according to the Salem News, she went to the police, complaining Gagnon had violated the restraining order by sending her the email. Police agreed and arrested him, the News reported. He was jailed then released on $500 bail.[...]

Shear noted: "Google is going through every one of your contacts and sending them an invitation, whether it's your doctor, your lawyer, your mistress, or your ex-fiancee who's got a restraining order against you." 

He called this, "a perfect example of what happens when a company oversteps its bounds."

Schlesinger Twins: Beth loses custody appeal to Supreme Court

Jewish Telegraph     BETH Alexander, the Manchester mother at the centre of a tug-of-love case in Vienna, has lost her appeal for custody of her four-year-old twins.[...]

Beth’s case is now being handled by Martin Preslmayer, who told the Jewish Telegraph yesterday that it was extraordinary a decision had been reached so speedily when appeals normally take three to four months.

He said: “The case is finally closed but Beth has the right to open a new custody case and the strategy [this time] will be different.

“Hopefully, this time she will be treated better.

“It is quite unusual that some judges not even working on that case intervened with the relevant judge in the first instance. That is information I have gained from the client but not been able to check.

“What also seems strange is that so many lawyers suddenly withdrew their power of attorney from the case without reason. [For further reading on this subject click here]

“It is unusual that some decisions took such a long time and some others, especially those not in favour of Beth, were actually issued within a couple of days.”

Dr Preslmayer added that he would be seeking a new psychologist’s report on the children.
The others seen by the court he described as “very, very questionable”. [...]

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Promoting divorce with children and without serious cause: Writing a new ending for Masechta Gittin

Guest Post:

It is understandable that someone who wants out of a marriage would be happy (at least temporarily) upon believing that they are “free.”  But Barbara Sofer misses the irony in her unqualified assertion that “Joy spread throughout the Jewish world” upon the news that one such woman is “free.”  [http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/The-Human-Spirit-Free-at-last-but-how-336906]  Really?  Perhaps for those in the “Jewish world” who reject Jewish laws, customs and traditions deemed inconsistent with the values of the 1960s counterculture in which a woman’s right to divorce is absolute and the devastating effects of divorce on children are irrelevant.  In contrast, Chazel’s final word on divorce at the very end of Masechta Gittn [90b] concludes that the destruction of a first marriage is so tragic that even the mizbeach sheds tears (R’ Elazar) and that G-d despises the perpetrator of such action (R’ Yochanan).  And the Gemara is particularly forceful in decrying divorce where there are children involved (for example, Eruvin 41b and Pesachim 87b).

But some in the Jewish world apparently believe the Gemara’s approach to be outdated, and have written a happy new ending to Masechta Gittin in which mourning is replaced by pure joy, and condemnation by legitimization: “Though marriage can offer a rewarding path to personal growth, it is important to remember that it cannot provide a secure or permanent status. Many people will make the decision between marriage and singlehood many times throughout their life. Divorce represents part of the normal family life cycle. It should not be viewed either as deviant or tragic, as it has been in the past. Rather, it establishes a process for ‘uncoupling’ and thereby serves as the foundation for individual renewal and ‘new beginnings’.” [A distillation of “modern” high school and college textbooks by Barbara Defoe Whitehead, “The Experts' Story of Marriage.”]
The women in both “agunah” cases much discussed on this blog and in the general media would have each received a get long ago if they been willing to be reasonable regarding custody arrangements, or at least acted in good faith. Instead, they, and the rabbonim backing them, have decided to turn their cases, which could have been and should have been treated as private matters, into very public debates (carried out in the likes of the New York Post, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.) about completely uprooting Jewish Law and tradition regarding the role of family and the fundamental definitions of marriage and divorce.

Even if one believes that these women should not have been expected to stay in marriages that they wanted out of for whatever reason, it is hard to see any reasonable argument that either had what are generally considered serious cause (domestic violence, substance abuse, infidelity, or even an unwillingness of their spouses to work on their marriages) to destroy their families, especially given that each had just been blessed with a child. Rather, after being married for a year or two, they found themselves being miserable post-partum and felt incompatible with their spouse. Indeed, that is the whole point. They have chosen, with the encouragement of the rabbonim backing them, to become poster children for the worldview that the decision to divorce should not be regarded in Judaism as deviant or tragic, but as the foundation for a woman’s absolute right to seek individual renewal and new beginnings. And each must have full custody of the children because her decision to divorce must not come with unwanted consequences such as recognizing that the children should be allowed to have significant relationships with their fathers.

Remaining silent - when it is required to speak - causes the same spiritual damage as lashon harah

The Klausenberger Rebbe explained the reason behind the Chofetz Chaim's great dread of speaking lashon harah as that one needs to view it spewing a nerve gas into the environment. Chofetz Chaim  clearly feels that it is better to err in not speaking rather than causing the great destruction if you mistakenly speak lashon harah. Fear of lashon harah combined with fear of mistakenly saying lashon harah effectively produces a very strong bias towards silence.

I just found this Shem M'Shmuel who has a different view. He asserts that remaining silent when one needs to speak up e.g., child abuse, fraud, or poor shidduch  - produces the same spiritual damage that saying lashon harah does. Consequently you are not safter remaining silent and being machmire when ever there is a doubt. He thus is claiming that there is no safety in silence and one must speak - even if you risk speaking lashon harah - when there is a to'eles to speak.




שם משמואל - פרשת וישב - שנת תרע"ז
ויש לומר נמי ביוסף כי השתיקה והעדר הדיבור במקום שראוי לדבר נחשבו לו כפגם דיבור וכלה"ר וכמלה בישא, וזה עצמו הביאו להביא דבתם רעה אל אביהם בפועל ממש כי עבירה גוררת עבירה. אף כי גם בזה לא היתה הכוונה ללה"ר ולעבירה ח"ו, אלא שאביהם יישירם, מ"מ לצדיק כביר כזה גם זה נחשב לחטא וכמו לה"ר ממש. ולפי"ז י"ל דגם הא דקלקול ירבעם לא ממנו הי' אלא מן הקלקול הקדום של יוסף הצדיק שלרגלי מעלתו נחשב, לקלקול ועבירה, ועדיין לא נתקן לגמרי עד עשרה הרוגי מלכות כידוע, קלקול זה המעט שבשורש שהוא ענין פירוד והבדל, כאמרם ז"ל (ערכין ט"ז ע"ב) הוא הבדיל וכו' לפיכך אמרה תורה בדד ישב, פרה ורבה בענפים עד שבירבעם שהי' מזרע יוסף משכהו לקלקול גמור ופירוד וקיצוץ בנטיעות, כמו שהאריך רבינו בחיי (בפ' ויצא) מענין חטא ירבעם. ואף שחטא בבחירתו הרע, דאל"ה לא הי' עליו עונש, כי השכר והעונש תלויים בבחירה, מ"מ כבר נסתלקה השמירה העליונה של רגלי חסידיו ישמור ולא יאונה לצדיק כל און, והי' החטא שבשורש מושך אותו לרע, ושוב אין תימה מה שאדם גדול כמוהו נלכד בפח זה:
ולפי האמור יש ליתן טעם מה שהמלך הראשון קודם דהמע"ה לא הי' מזרע יוסף, אחר שזרע יוסף הי' אז עלול לחטא ואמרו ז"ל ראוי' היתה מחלוקתו של ירבעם להיות בימי שבע בן בכרי, אלא שא"כ לא היתה מתיסדת מלכות דוד ולא הי' נבנה ביהמ"ק ע"כ נסתלקה עד ימי רחבעם, כ"ש אם הי' המלך הראשון מזרע יוסף, ובאשר הי' עלול לחטא הי' נשחת ח"ו כל הענין של מלכות ב"ד ובנין ביהמ"ק, ע"כ ניטלה אז המלוכה מזרע יוסף וניתנה לזרע בנימין שגם הוא מזרע רחל וגם הוא ראוי לענין זה כנ"ל:
והנה ענין שתיקה במקום הראוי למללא שנחשב לפגם הדיבור, מצינו נמי ביהודה שהורידוהו אחיו מגדולתו כשראו בצרת אביהם אמרו אתה אמרת למכרו אילו אמרת להשיבו אל אביו היינו שומעים לך. ולכאורה אינו מובן מה קושיא היתה להם עליו יותר מעל עצמם, ונימרו אינהו לנפשייהו שחשבו שימות תחתיו בבור ברעב ובצמא. אך לפי דרכנו יובנו הדברים ששתיקה במקום הראוי לדבר נחשבת פגם הדיבור וכמו לה"ר שמבדיל ומפריד בין איש לרעהו. ובאשר תעודת המלך היא לאחד ולחבר את העם וע"כ נקרא מלך בשם עוצר כמ"ש (שמואל א' ט' י"ז) זה יעצור בעמי, הנה זהו היפוך מדת המלוכה, וע"כ הורידו את יהודה מגדולתו באשר חשבוהו לפוגם במדת המלוכה, וכמו שאיתא במפרשים הטעם בהא דאמרו ז"ל (יומא כ"ב ע"ב) שאול באחת ועלתה לו דוד בשתים ולא עלתה לו, כי חטא שאול הי' בענין המלוכה ובאשר פגם במלוכה נסתלקה ממנו המלוכה, אבל חטאו של דוד לא נחשב לחטא בענין המלוכה, ע"כ די הי' לו עונש אחר, כן נמי באשר חשבו ליהודה פוגם בענין המלוכה ע"כ הורידוהו מגדולתו:
ולפי האמור יש לפרש הפלוגתא דרב ושמואל אי קיבל דוד לה"ר, דאלו ואלו דברי א"ח. דכמו שאמרנו לעיל בענין יוסף דמקלקול מועט בשורש פרה ורבה בענפים וזה משך את ירבעם לחטא, כן נמי יש לומר בענין יהודה, ששתיקתו של יהודה במקום הראוי לדבר גרמה לדהמע"ה למשוך אותו לקבל לה"ר, אבל לא ממנו הי' לקבל לה"ר כי הי' איש מרכבה ולבו חלל בקרבו, ולא הי' מעותד אף לשגגה קלה אפי' שראה במפיבושת דברים נכרים כבש"ס שם, אלא מחמת מעט דמעט הפגם שבשורש דהיינו יהודה שבשבילו הורידוהו מגדולתו זהו שגרם למשכהו לשגגה קלה כזו לקבל לה"ר מציבא, וא"כ מר דאמר לא קיבל דוד לה"ר דיבר ממהות דוד המלך ע"ה בעצמו, ומר דאמר קיבל דוד לה"ר מדבר מגרם הפגם בשורש, ומ"מ ניכרת מעלת דהמע"ה ממה שאנו רואים בירבעם דמעט דמעט פגם שבשורש הביאו לחטאים גדולים מאד ועבירה גוררת עבירה חמורה הימנה, אבל בדהמע"ה לא היתה ביכולת ההמשכה מחמת הפגם שבשורש למשכהו אלא לשגגה קלה כזו שקיבל לה"ר אחר דחזי בי' דברים נכרים, וניכר יתרון אור מן החושך:

The Eidah finally severely criticizes the Sikrikim

bhol

פרסום ראשון: לראשונה תוקפת 'העדה החרדית' את פלג ה'סיקריקים', שבוע לאחר שאנשי הפלג הקיצוני ניסו לחבל בעצרת של 'העדה'.

הבוקר (חמישי) מתפרסמת בעמוד הראשון של הבטאון 'העדה', הודעה רשמית של הנהלת 'העדה החרדית', המגנה את הסיקריקים.

לפני שבוע, בערב ראש חודש שבט, נערכה עצרת תפילה ברחבת בניני זופניק בירושלים, ואנשי הסיקריקים ניסו לחבל בה בשל השתתפות הראב"ד הגר"מ שטרנבוך. הללו שפכו באזור שאריות של דגים מרקיבים וגרמו לבאשה עזה באזור העצרת.

תחת הכותרת 'זעקה גדולה ומרה' נכתב: "אוי לו לדור שכך עלתה בימינו שכמה יצאו אנשים בלי עול, קומץ קטן של יהירים עזי פנים, ריקים ופוחזים משולי המחנה, לחבל כרם בד"צ עדתינו החרדית שיסודה בהררי קודש ובראשה עומדים רבותינו חברי הבד"ץ".

What does it mean that the Torah is the greatest mitzvah?

 Guest Post:

When I was becoming frum, I learned about mitzvos. They were the big challenge: shabbos, niddah, kashrus. Now all I hear about it Limud Torah, as if it's the only mitzvah. I hear often, Limud Torah is the greatest mitzvah. What's the source for this I ask people. They say, "Talmud Torah c'neged culam." This doesn't seem a good source. Cneged doesn't mean greater. It doesn't even mean equal as "shekul" should be a better word for that. R' Joseph Soloveitchik said  "Talmud Torah c'neged culam" doesn't mean Torah is greater than mitzvos but it teaches us about mitzvos, helping us to do them.  (The Rav Thinking Aloud, p. 69) This explanation goes better with the word cneged. Additionally, there are other statements of chazal such as "tzit tzit are equal to all the other mitzvos" and "yishuv ha'aretz is equal to all the other mitzvos." I asked a Rav recently who told me the source is a posuk somewhere that says "the purpose of the world is Torah study." But the Vilna Gaon, even shelaimh, 1, says the purpose is to fix middos.
So is there a source for this idea that Torah study is the greatest mitzvah?

I find the whole concept of Torah study as everything a tremendous turnoff considering I have to spend 65 hours a week earning a living and I start wondering why I'm working so hard to keep mitzvos when they are not important.

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Tamar Epstein's testimony proves that there is no basis for annulment and she is still married

As I have noted, Tamar Epstein has declared that she is freed from her marriage to Aharon Friedman - despite not having received a Get. The only basis for such a claim according to the view of Rav Moshe Feinstin -  is only if her husband had a pre-existing condition - that she was unaware of - that no normal woman would be able to put up with and that she left immediately upon discovering this condition. All three conditions must be met for a valid annulment.

The following words of Tamar are part of the court record and were shown to the Baltimore beis din and have been acknowledged as valid by Tamar Epstein. She said she wrote them shortly before she abandoned Aharon taking their child to live with her parents. I challenge anyone to find any evidence that she viewed that Aharon had a pre-existing condition such as severe mental or physical illness which she had been unaware of and that she viewed living with him something no normal woman would be able to do.

It is clear that she decided that despite having at least a minimally acceptable marriage - which could be significantly improved through therapy - she didn't want to invest the time and energy because she thought she could do better. No competent and unbiased rabbinical authority would annul such a marriage. Thus she is still married to Aharon Friedman

==================transcipt of Tamar's document============
-Flexibility  ability to go with the flow in whatever situation, ex. at a long Sabbath meal, if company stops by, vacation etc.
-joint decision making/ we are a unit
- put my needs ahead of yours. ex: going to wedding v. coming home, ex: hiking in Israel v. pregnancy

What I'm struggling with:                                                                   
I love Aharon               When I think about being married to Aharon for the rest of my life I feel:
I care about Aharon                                   
I see/know Aharon is trying                                      his efforts are not enough
He needs more direction                                          doesn't go to people for help - relies on me
He insists he doesn't know what to do
He thinks he's doing a good job                                it's not about small gestures

I regret having married Aharon because
not a mentsch/friendly/midos hakaras hatov [show appreciation]
- mostly not a mentch in Philadelphia - with parents and others
- not friendly
- not interested in other people - doesn't enjoy being with others- likes to be alone
- not mature about certain things when upset/feels pressured into doing things he immature - sulks, passive-aggressive, self-absorbed
- not aware of how comes across - not open [crossed out]
- doesn't seek out help
Me - anxious/stressed when with family when socializing with others - worry about how Aharon feels and will react
in these situations, I wish Aharon was more flexible and easygoing and actually enjoyed people so could be pleasant under ordinary circumstances
disappointed/embarrassed/appalled by behavior - not friendly/mentchlich.polite - i.e., poor etiquette and not interested in changing.
ex: read paper, leave table, doesn't say goodbye etc.
- I want a husband, not a child/ I want to be a wife not a mother
* needs so much handholding/direction/ etc/ - things that I take for granted
- different values child & mother, attitudes towards inlaws, general relationships with people
open home, involved in community vs. priding self on independence doesn't care what others think/feel
- his own insecurities - jealousy of my family
- not picking up on other's cues of annoyance discomfort
- not aware of proper etiquette
- don't feel like we're on the same wavelength
- I don't see that we'' ever resolve certain things: in-laws, what is respectful
- maybe Aharon will just go along with my way

Why I love/like Aharon/what I respect:
-respect: shmiras halashon [wide ranging term meaning does not speak badly about others in any way or curse]
-loyalty - I can trust will always be at my side when crises
-makpid [very careful about] on kashrus [keeping kosher] and davening [praying]
-idealistic - can also be tiresome/absurd
-loving/sweet/ affectionate/gentle to me
-lets me spend money  - equal share
-sometimes helpful
-open/honest/real to me
-doesn't pressure me to go back to work
-appreciates me - taking care of baby etc.
my intuition tells me this is wrong; I don't trust my intuition very much anymore because my intuition told me to marry Aharon


לראשונה: שוטר חרדי יטפל בעבירות מין במודיעין עילית

גלי צה"ל
אתמול בבוקר דיווחנו כאן על מכתב ששלחה מנהלת בית-ספר במודיעין עילית ובו הזהירה את תלמידותיה והוריהן מפני נהג הסעות שהציע הצעות מיניות לנשים. בעקבות הפרסום, החליטה המשטרה לעשות מעשה על מנת להתמודד עם תלונות על עבירות מין בעיר החרדית

במודיעין עילית סערו אתמול הרוחות בעקבות הפרסום בגלי צה"ל אודות מכתב שהפיצה מנהלת בית ספר להורי מאות תלמידותיה. במכתב היא הזהירה מפני מטרידים מיניים ברחובות, עליהם התקבל מידע. היא גם נתנה להורים עצות מה ללמד את הבנות אם חיללה הן נצבות בפני סכנת תקיפה, כמו לצעוק לברוח ועוד
.
פרסום המכתב גרם למשטרה לחקור מה נסיבותיו, שכן הם לא הכירו תופעה כפי שבאה לידי ביטוי במכתב. החקירה חשפה כי נהג הסעות פלסטיני נוהג לפזר פתקים בקרב נוסעות שלו, בהן תלמידות, ובו הוא מציע להן שרותי מין. שתי נשים שמצאו את הפתקים סיפרו על כך לעירייה. הרבנים זימנו אליהם את הנהג והוא פוטר, אבל דיווח עליו לא הגיע למשטרה. אתמול הוא נעצר. בחקירתו הודה במיוחס לו, וטען שזו הייתה הלצה, למרות שנשים צלצלו אליו. הבוקר הוא יובא להארכת מעצר בגין הטרדות מיניות.

Monday, January 6, 2014

Menachem Stark - there were many who didn't want him dead- one story amongst many

Guest post from a reliable source:

Friday morning, I got the following whatsaap message from a friend that grew up in Williamsburg.....

"C/p A popular millionaire businessman, a Satmar Hasid, was kidnapped from his Williamsburg office, according to police reports in New York. Brooklyn Police said that Menachem Stark was kidnapped by two assailants at 11:30 p.m. on Thursday. According to video surveillance, the two suspects were waiting outside Stark’s office, which is located in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, jumped on him, threw him into a big white van, and drove away. Police said that numerous phone calls to Stark’s cellphone went unanswered. Due to the snowstorm, police are unable to efficiently search for the victim or the suspects. Police searched Stark’s office, where they were looking for clues. Stark is a strong supporter of the Satmar grand rabbi. Last week, the rabbi's wife held a fundraiser at Stark’s home."

Slightly shaken, I went on the rest of the day without giving it a thought. You see, I don't know Menachem Shtark. I'm not from Williamsburg. I don't live in Brooklyn. I don't even live in New York State. I'm also not Chasidic, and even had i joined them it certainly wouldn't be to their Satmar brand....

Surely, it'll work out fine. I must have figured.....

Well, it didn't. And Saturday night, everyone was talking about the gruesome heinous crime....

I was told his name was Menachem "Max" Shtark. Eager to get some details, I punched into my phone Max. Before I had a chance to put in the rest of his name, my phone suggested a contact I had saved some time ago... Menachem "Max" Shtark.

Naturally, I was thrown off and confused... "Hey, this seems to be him.... But how did he land in my contacts?!?!"

Slowly, a meeting I had with a stranger two years ago in a black SUV started coming back to me...

A business opportunity arose, about two years ago, that looked very promising. Naturally, I was shopping around for tips and advice, and meeting anyone and everyone that would shed some light on that kind of venture. One older person I met with said that he could never have succeeded on his own. He was lucky to have a neighbor, a young entrepreneur who showed him all the ins and outs, and held his hand through every process. This very successful, generous, businessman, refused to take a dime for his advice, but sincerely wanted him to succeed. His name, Menachem Shtark.

This fellow I was meeting felt that he himself couldn't help me. He hardly knows how to run his own business. All he knows is one phone number, Menachem's.  

He suggested I too speak to Menachem. "Don't worry that he doesn't know you from Adam. If he can, he'll help you too!!. He loves to help others. Here is his cell number, call him. Don't think you'll get thru the first time, though, he's very busy. Leave a message and he'll probably call you back. Just be persistent and you'll get thru..."

That night,  I made the call (to a total stranger!!), didn't get thru, and I left a message. The next day I called again and he picked up. He remembered the message I left, and apologized for not having time to return my call.

After asking a few questions, he immediately started making suggestions. When I suggested I come meet him personally, he said "sure, but what for? I'll help if I can, in any way!!" I told him it’s important for me, but he didn't want me to schlep to his office in Williamsburg just to meet him. We agreed to both schedule meetings in Flatbush on the same day and meet there. Only after he finished talking to me, a total stranger, did he attend to the many people coming in and out of his office, and the phones ringing off the hook...

We spoke a number of times on the phone, before we met, but I believe he never even got my name! As soon as I would call he would say "yes, yes, you're the one that wants to open etc...".

We met outside his attorney's office, in his SUV.  Menachem had an infectious smile and a even more impressive can-do attitude. We talked in his vehicle for a very long time. His phone, "bluetoothed" to the car, didn't stop the whole time. Once in a while he would say, "oiy, I really have to take this call". He would answer, apologize that he's in a meeting and promise to call them back as soon as he's done. He gave me all the time I would have wanted, and then some.

We spoke about a whole host of management issues. Ironically, the one that I remember the most is an issue that’s been deliberately distorted since his death. It’s about the HPD violations (not to be confused with building code violations). The average building has about 50 frivolous, opened violations (that's a fact and even a Post reporter knows that!). Tenants often don't give access to make the repair, or deliberately break it as soon as it was fixed. An inspector can also write up 15-20 violations in one visit, on a spic and span, picture perfect apartment!! It's literally like trying to empty a drowning ship with a pail. Even The City recognizes this absurdity; their policy being that one can have up to 5 opened violations per unit!! Meaning, Menachem was "entitled" to 5,000 violations!!!!

Menachem explained to me at that meeting, that he did it differently. He felt a responsibility to focus on clearing the violations, regardless of the hardships involved. He hired two extra secretaries just to be on top of violations. 

That's how he managed to have only 148 in 1,000 units!!! (That's less than 0.15 per unit, what a slumlord!!!)

Sitting in his SUV, I asked him if he would be my partner. He said "no, do it yourself, I'll help you". When I was persisted, he said "What? You’re afraid I won't have time to help you? Don’t worry I'll be there for you, do it yourself!!". (BTW, it would have been very profitable for him too.)

I explained to him why I needed him as a partner, and he said, he would have to discuss it with his partner and get back to me. "Either way", he was quick to add, "I'll be there for you!!!"

We were in touch a number of times after that (I think he never did get my name) and the deal fell thru for totally unrelated reasons...

Unfortunately, that was the only time I met this special man.

To The Post: I didn't really know Menachem, and apparently people like you and his savage murderers did want him dead, but to answer your question...

I, for one, most definitely didn't want him to dead!!!

I'm not one to jump to call people anti-Semites, and i certainly will not play the motive game. But, the damage you have wrought by playing into those ridiculous stereotypes will be felt tomorrow morning. No, not every landlord/ manager are a zillionaire, trying to rip-off or cheat. And, for crying out loud, tenants are not some hapless, hopeless, indigent, natives being exploited and frozen, etc. You know that, and shame on you for implying otherwise. Hundreds of young hard working Orthodox Jewish fathers, trying to make an honest living, will have it that much harder thanks to your nonsense. 

(BTW, having met Menachem, I have no doubt he hired a competent exterminator. Those complaining about vermin almost certainly didn't let them in to spray. Just another of the many difficulties, us zillionaires encounter regularly.)

To Mrs. Shtark and their eight precious children: I know you will probably never read these lines. You never met me, and probably never will. It's my fervent hope that you will always stand tall, and proud of your husbands'/fathers' accomplishments. You know better than anyone else, what a loving, caring, generous, and upbeat husband/father you had. Please always remember that.

You can be sure; the family won't be the only ones to remember the great guy he was...

Everyone will...

Even strangers.

Yehi Zichro Baruch