Rivka Stein's RICO case against Yoel Weiss is dismissed

Case 1:13-cv-06795-BMC-JO Document 104 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 3 PagelD #: 1181

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------- )(

RIVKA STEIN,

Plaintiff,

- against -

WORLD-WIDE PLUMBING SUPPLY INC., MOSHE WEISS (a/k/a MOSES WEISS, a/k/a MOSHE WEISZ), YOEL WEISS (a/k/a JOEL WEISS, a/k/a DAVID WEISS, a/k/a DAVID STERN, a/k/a JOE WEISS, a/k/a WIZTEL USA, INC.), PEARL WEISS, CHAIM LEFKOWITZ, SURI LEFKOWITZ ( a/k/a SARAH WEISS LEFKOWITZ), GEDALIA DANIEL KATZ (a/k/a DANIEL KATZ), BARUCH WEISS, SIRKI EHRMAN (a/k/a SIRKY EHRMAN, a/k/a SIRKA WEISS EHRMAN), RUCHIE WEISS (a/k/a RACHEL GOLDA WEISS), ABRAHAM BERGER ( a/k/a ABE BERGER), BURTOLUCCI'S RISTORANTE, LLC, BERTOLUCCI'S CATERING CORP., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-5,

Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------- )(

C/M

ORDER

13 Civ. 6795 (BMC)(JO)

This Court entered an Order on December 22, 2015, warning plaintiff prose that if she

continued to fail to meet her discovery obligations in this case and to ignore the case, it would be

dismissed for failure to prosecute. That Order was based Magistrate Judge Orenstein' s prior

warning to her to the same effect on November 10, 2015. No activity on plaintiffs part has

occurred since the entry of these Orders.

The Second Circuit has identified several non-exclusive factors that a district court

should consider in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute:

(1) the duration of the plaintiffD s failure to comply with the court order, (2) whether plaintiff was on notice that failure to comply would result in dismissal,

Case 1:13-cv-06795-BMC-JO Document 104 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 3 PagelD #: 1182

(3) whether the defendants are likely to be prejudiced by further delay in the proceedings, ( 4) a balancing of the court D s interest in managing its docket with the plaintiffD s interest in receiving a fair chance to be heard, and (5) whether the judge has adequately considered a sanction less drastic than dismissal. Lucas v. Miles, 84 F .3d 532, 535 (2d Cir. 1996). D [W]hile pro se litigants may in general deserve

more lenient treatment than those represented by counsel, all litigants, including pro ses, have an

obligation to comply with court orders. When they flout that obligation they, like all litigants,

must suffer the consequences of their actions. D McDonald v. Head Criminal Court Supervisor

Officer, 850 F.2d 121, 124 (2d Cir. 1988).

All of the factors, and any other considerations of which I can conceive, weigh in favor of

dismissal. The case has been pending for over two years with no progress made. Plaintiff has

been on notice of her obligations as a prose litigant since her attorneys were granted leave to

withdraw nearly eight months ago and has taken no action. This case is a parallel proceeding to

pending divorce proceedings in state court and possibly religious court as well, and using it as

leverage without prosecution unfairly prejudices the participants in those proceedings. The

Eastern District ofNew York is one of the most highly congested courts in the country. I can

think of no lesser sanction that will induce plaintiff to prosecute the case as she has represented

that she has limited means and she has been warned repeatedly that she must proceed with this

case or it would be dismissed. And the only excuse for not proceeding that she has offered is

that she is raising young children and working multiple jobs, but she has given no indication that

her situation is going to materially change at any point in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Plaintiff raised very serious allegations in her complaint and the Court devoted

2

Case 1:13-cv-06795-BMC-JO Document 104 Filed 01/12/16 Page 3 of 3 PagelD #: 1183

substantial effort to considering them seriously in the context of the motions to dismiss. But

even serious allegations must be pursued; they cannot be allowed to remain no more than

allegations for an indefinite future. The case is therefore dismissed for failure to prosecute.

SOORDERED.

Digitally signed by Brian M. Cogan

U.S.D.J.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York January 12, 2016

Trying to make sense of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter Fiasco

Guest Post by A Concerned Jew

Random thoughts:

It seems to me that there might be three sets of issues preventing the non-chasidic rabbonim in the US from addressing the issues:

1. As you have noted, they are not willing to do anything that would involve subjecting R' Shmuel to any amount of criticism. I think these people could be divided into two groups.

a. There are some who want to protect R' Shmuel because they believe that anything he does is necessarily correct and that to question him is to question Hashem. Therefore, if R' Shmuel was involved in the heter, no one has the right to question the heter.

b. There are some who want to protect R' Shmuel because they believe that he is an important gadol who has devoted 70 plus years to serving the Jewish People. They are incapable of accepting the possibility that R' Shmuel did anything wrong. They believe that R' Shmuel (1) either has absolutely nothing to do with the heter or (2) at most they are willing to accept that R' Shmuel made an honest good faith mistake in being very peripherally involved in the heter. But they are unwilling to even entertain the belief that R' Shmuel either (1) was substantially involved in the heter, (2) would have any part whatsoever in advancing the heter in any possible fashion (including not objecting to the heter) if R' Shmuel had any doubts about the heter's validity [in other words, they believe that R' Shmuel was at most, peripherally involved in the heter, and that if so, he honestly believes that the heter is completely justified], or (3) wrongfully intervened in this matter in any fashion on behalf of a family with whom he has longstanding and extremely close personal and financial ties. It appears to me that even Rabbi Feldman and Rabbi Miller fall into this category.

2. Even if R' Shmuel did something wrong, exposure of this fact would somehow degrade respect for "Daas Torah" and respect for the "system." In short, they fear that transparency itself is harmful.

Within this category, (a) some believe that exposure of any wrongdoing or misconduct of whatever sort is generally bad, and (b) there are some who have a vested interest in a system whereby insiders, in which those who are wealthy, related or just well-connected, receive favorable treatment from the system - which in many cases doesn't involve other parties necessarily ending up on the losing end. They are unwilling or unable to disconnect the concept that a rich donor will receive attention and honor for no real reason other than that person being a rich donor (which is a reality, and oftentimes completely innocent, but something they might not want to acknowledge), from that bleeding over into such type of person getting an unfair advantage from the "system" when such person is involved in a dispute with a "plain" person.

3 - a Those who believe from a moral perspective that a woman is necessarily entitled to an unconditional no-questions asked get upon demand no matter the circumstances. They are therefore extremely uncomfortable with a situation where halacha results in a woman not being able to get remarried under halacha, and therefore willing to try to "bend" halacha in order to achieve what they see as the morally correct result. These people have adopted the general moral norms now prevalent in the U.S. that have their origins in the radical counter-culture of the 1960s. Some of these new moral norms generated by the counter-culture have seeped into even the most yeshivish parts of the Orthodox world. No-fault divorce against the will of either spouse was not available in any U.S. state before the counter-culture, but is now available in every U.S. state - and now seems, at least to many in the Orthodox community, to be the obvious morally right answer. Other norms of the counter-culture may not have yet been adopted by the yeshivish, but have started seeping into more left-wing parts of the Orthodox community as well, such as the Open Orthodox attitude towards gay marriage.

3-b There are also many who believe that 3-a is the position of the masses and that the rabbonim have no choice but to go along.

Giving Tochacha - even if it causes embarrassment and degradation - for bein Adam L'Makom mitzvos

update Rabbi Shain has additional sources that he asked to be posted

http://yudelstake.blogspot.com/2014/08/rambam.html

BM (59a): Better it is for man to cohabit with a doubtful married woman1 rather than that he should publicly shame his neighbour. Whence do we know this? — From what Raba expounded, viz., What is meant by the verse, But in mine adversity they rejoiced and gathered themselves together... they did tear me, and ceased not?2 David exclaimed before the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Sovereign of the Universe! Thou knowest full well that had they torn my flesh, my blood would not have poured forth to the earth.3 Moreover, when they are engaged in studying "Leprosies" and "Tents"4 they jeer at me, saying, "David! what is the death penalty of him who seduces a married woman?" I reply to them, "He is executed by strangulation, yet has he a portion in the world to come. But he who publicly puts his neighbour to shame has no portion in the world to come."’5

       Mar Zutra b. Tobiah said in Rab's name — others state, R. Hana6 b. Bizna said in the name of R. Simeon the pious — others again state, R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Better had a man throw himself into a fiery furnace than publicly put his neighbour to shame. Whence do we know it? — From Tamar.7 For it is written, when she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law [etc].8

 Berachos(19b):     R. Judah said in the name of Rab: If one finds mixed kinds3 in his garment, he takes it off even in the street. What is the reason? [It says]: There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord;4 wherever a profanation of God's name is involved no respect is paid to a teacher.

Rambam(Hilchos De'os 6:7-8): 

Halacha 7

It is a mitzvah for a person who sees that his fellow Jew has sinned or is following an improper path [to attempt] to correct his behavior and to inform him that he is causing himself a loss by his evil deeds as [Leviticus 19:17] states: "You shall surely admonish your colleague."

A person who rebukes a colleague - whether because of a [wrong committed] against him or because of a matter between his colleague and God - should rebuke him privately. He should speak to him patiently and gently, informing him that he is only making these statements for his colleague's own welfare, to allow him to merit the life of the world to come.

If he accepts [the rebuke], it is good; if not, he should rebuke him a second and third time. Indeed, one is obligated to rebuke a colleague who does wrong until the latter strikes him and tells him: "I will not listen."

Whoever has the possibility of rebuking [sinners] and fails to do so is considered responsible for that sin, for he had the opportunity to rebuke the [sinners].

Halacha 8

At first, a person who admonishes a colleague should not speak to him harshly until he becomes embarrassed as [Leviticus 19:17] states: "[You should]... not bear a sin because of him." This is what our Sages said: Should you rebuke him to the point that his face changes [color]? The Torah states: "[You should]... not bear a sin because of him."

From this, [we learn that] it is forbidden for a person to embarrass a [fellow] Jew. How much more so [is it forbidden to embarrass him] in public. Even though a person who embarrasses a colleague is not [liable for] lashes on account of him, it is a great sin. Our Sages said: "A person who embarrasses a colleague in public does not have a share in the world to come."

Therefore, a person should be careful not to embarrass a colleague - whether of great or lesser stature - in public, and not to call him a name which embarrasses him or to relate a matter that brings him shame in his presence. 

When does the above apply? In regard to matters between one man and another. However, in regard to spiritual matters, if [a transgressor] does not repent [after being admonished] in private, he may be put to shame in public and his sin may be publicized. He may be subjected to abuse, scorn, and curses until he repents, as was the practice of all the prophets of Israel.

Rav Elchonon Wasserman (Kovetz Ha’aros #70):...It would seem that all that is prohibited between people (bein adam l’chavero) is only prohibited when done in a harmful and destructive manner without justification. For example regarding the prohibition of “Not hating your brother.” This is only prohibited for gratuitous hatred (sinas chinom). In other words when he is not doing anything wrong (davar ervah). However if he is doing something wrong then it is permitted to hate him. It is important to note that the reason for hatred being permitted in this case is not because of the fact that a sinful person is not considered your “brother.” Tosfos (Pesachim 113b) explains that if you hate this sinful person for another reason then you transgress the prohibition. The hatred is only permitted because of the bad (davar ervah) that you see in him. Similarly regarding the prohibition of beating another, the Rambam writes that it is prohibited only if done as fighting (derech netzoyan). This is clear from the fact that it is permitted for a teacher to his student. And this that we noted before in Sanhedrin (84b) – that is only a rabbinic restriction. And similarly concerning the prohibition of causing anguish to a widow or orphan, Rambam (Hilchos De’os 6:10) writes that if it is done to teach Torah or a trade – there is no prohibition. Similarly concerning the prohibition of lashon harah, it is permitted against people who cause discord and quarrels in order to stop the fight. Similar concerning using words to cause anguish (onas devarim), it is permitted publicly criticize someone publicly if it is for the sake of chastisement. It is even permitted to publicly embarrass someone if it is done for the necessity of chastisement for a person who has not stopped his bad behavior after being rebuked in private. In such a case it is even permissible to curse him. In fact this is what was done by the prophets in the past as the Rambam (Hilchos De’os 6:8) notes. We thus shown from all this, that all the prohibition involving interpersonal actions do not apply when the act is beneficial.

Is this comparable to the the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter? Former Judge Is Convicted of Bribery in Divorce Court

NY Times

A former State Supreme Court judge was convicted yesterday of accepting bribes to manipulate the outcome of divorce proceedings in a case that led to a broad political and judicial corruption inquiry in Brooklyn.

The judge, Gerald P. Garson, 74, could face as many as 15 years in prison if he is sentenced consecutively on the three guilty verdicts, on bribery and two lesser charges. The jury acquitted him on four other counts after a four-week trial in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn.

In his roughly five years on the bench in Brooklyn, Mr. Garson handled nearly 1,100 matrimony cases, making decisions on child custody and financial matters. In finding him guilty, the jury endorsed the prosecution theory that he had an agreement with a divorce lawyer to take cash, dinners and cigars in exchange for courtroom assignments and favored treatment. [...]

Mr. Garson was first charged in 2003, along with the divorce lawyer, Paul Siminovsky, as well as one of his clients, a court officer, a former clerk and a man described as a fixer. All six were charged with felonies.

The case immediately reverberated throughout Brooklyn, from playpens and dinner tables to the upper echelons of politics. Divorce cases were reopened. Judges feared that their offices were wired for surveillance. The system of nominating judges was ruled unconstitutional.[...]

“Finally, we have justice,” said Frieda Hanimov, whose divorce case was handled by Mr. Garson and who wore a surveillance device to collect evidence against him. Adding that she and other victims were planning civil lawsuits, she said, “Now hopefully they’re going to learn and realize we have corruption everywhere.”

macho'oh vs. Macho'oh: Being concerned for a man's honor and not G-d's

Nedarim (39b): Raba, or as others say, R. Isaac, lectured: What is meant by, The sun and the moon stood still in their zebul?15 What were they doing in the zebul, seeing that they were set in the raki'a?16 This teaches that the sun and the moon ascended from the raki'a to the :zebul and exclaimed before Him, ‘Sovereign of the Universe! If thou wilt execute judgment for Amram's son,17 we will give forth our light; if not, we will not shine.’ In that moment He shot spears and arrows at them. ‘Every day,’ He rebuked them, ‘men worship you, and yet you give your light. For My honour you do not protest, yet you protest for the honour of flesh and blood.’ [Since then,] spears and arrows are shot at them every day before they consent to shine,18 as it is written, And at the light of thy arrows they go, etc

Sanhedrin (103b):It has been taught: R. Nathan said: From Gareb to Shiloah is a distance of three mils, and the smoke of the altar33 and that of Micah's image intermingled. The ministering angels wished to thrust Micah away, but the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, ‘Let him alone, because his bread is available for wayfarers.’ And it was on this account34 that the people involved in the matter of the concubine at Gibeah35 were punished.36 For the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, ‘Ye did not protest for My honour, yet ye protest for the honour of a woman.’

Sanhedrin (110a): Raba said: What is meant by the verse, The sun and the moon stood still in their zebul, at the light of thine arrows they went?40 — This teaches that the sun and the moon ascended from the rakia’ to the zebul, and exclaimed before the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Sovereign of the Universe! If thou wilt execute justice for Amram's son [by punishing Korah and his assembly], we will go forth [to give light]; if not, we will not go forth.’ Thereupon he shot arrows at them, saying, ‘For My honour ye did not protest, yet ye protest for the honour of flesh and blood!’41 So now they do not go forth until they are driven to it.42

רד"ק שופטים כ

(כא) וישחיתו בישראל - אמרו כי העונש הזה היה לישראל בעון פסל מיכה שהיה בימים ההם כמו שפירשתי והנה קנאו לדבר פלגש בגבעה ולא קנאו לפסל מיכה והיה לה' לקנא ולעלות עליו למלחמה ולבער הפסל מישראל כמו שבערו זאת הרעה ולפיכך נענשו במלחמה הזאת אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא בכבודי לא מחיתם בכבוד בשר ודם מחיתם:

רמב"ן בראשית יט

 ומה נכבדו דברי רבותינו (סנהדרין קג ב) שהיה הקצף בפסלו של מיכה, אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא בכבודי לא מחיתם, בכבוד בשר ודם מחיתם. לומר, בכבודי לא מחיתם במחוייבי מיתה ופושטים ידיהם בעיקר, בכבוד בשר ודם מחיתם יותר משורת הדין. ועל כן סכל עצת שתי הכתות ואמץ את לבבם ולא זכרו ברית אחים:

Open Letter to Rav Aharon Schechter regarding the 4:30 p.m. meeting concerning Tamar's "heter"

Update: I had posted this Sunday morning before the meeting - but then removed it when I received conflicting messages from insiders as to whether it would be a positive influence.

Received word Monday morning that the meeting was viewed as productive

Was told I would received details later. 
 ===============================================

I hope the Rosh Yeshiva does not view this letter as chutzpa - but rather as acting according to Berachos (19b) - "when there is a chilul haShem our first duty it to correct the problem even if it unavoidably results in shame to distinguished rabbis." 

This letter is written out of great pain and concern for the corruption of the halachic process which has taken place - which the Rosh Yeshiva is well aware of and is why there is a meeting today at his house.

Today is perhaps the last opportunity to correct the great chilul HaShem that has resulted from the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt "heter" for a married woman to remarry without a Get. As has been fully documented, the heter resulted from the joint efforts of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky and his son Rav Shalom  to obtain a heter for Tamar Epstein. They not only got a psychiatrist to write a false report without speaking to the husband - but they went around the world seeking out poskim who would agree to accept the facts and the "heter" that they had written up.

The relevant documentation is publicly available and leaves no doubt that the facts presented to Rav Greenblatt are false and that the "heter" has no basis - as has been clearly demonstrated by Rav Aharon Feldman and others. Rav Greenblatt did not investigate the facts or even talk with the husband. He based his psak entirely on the false psychiatric report that the Kaminetskys assured him was accurate.

The issue before the Rosh Yeshiva now is how to clean this ugly stain from the soul of the Jewish people?

It is clear that most of the distinguished attendees of the meeting have one concern - to save Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky from disgrace. We all are aware of Rav Kaminetsky's great achievement, his many talmidim, his great mesiras nefesh for many decades and the fact that he is a beloved and well liked person. But we also are aware of his obstinate refusal to take any responsibility for this "heter" or to condemn it.

There are a number of options open. The most obvious solution is simply to blame Rav Shalom Kaminetsky for everything. Let him take the full brunt of criticism and simply say he duped his father and Rav Greenblatt. However it is clear that in the eyes of the bnei Torah who have followed this crisis carefully - that is simply a cheap solution and one that ignores the facts of the case. That solution will simply produce cynicism and loss of emunas chachomim. Rav Shalom will simply be viewed as a scapegoat being sacrificed to cover up his father's active role in the "heter".

The only way this can be properly resolved is for all parties - Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky, Rav Shalom Kaminetsky and Rav Nota Greenblatt - to categorically acknowledge that the "heter" is invalid and that they made a serious error in judgment. They need to take the path of Yehuda when he admitted that he had erred in dealing with Tamar. Only by clearly and strongly denouncing this heter can it be guaranteed that it won't be used by others to destroy the kedusha of clall Yisroel.

We are not simply dealing with a one time mistake in judgement or the single tragic case of Tamar Epstein. As Rav Aharon Feldman and others have stated the issue at stake is no less than the future of Gittin and marriage as well as the stability of the family. This can not be accomplished by blaming Rav Sholom Kaminetsky for the entire debacle. The focus has to be on the future not the past. Furthermore Rav Shalom Kaminetsky's reputation and future should not be destroyed - he has much of value to contribute.  The solution has to focus on retracting the heter and preventing it from being viewed as a viable option in other cases - there is no need to ruin anybody.

We are looking forward to the Rosh Yeshiva - with siyata dishmaya - bringing a full resolution of this chilul HaShem.

The Organized Resistance Against Phony Agunahs by Joe Orlow

It is not for plain, simple, members of the community to publicly question the religious rulings of the Rabbis of congregations. The role of entering into these Halachic discussions is the perogative of the great scholars of the generation.

We hold, however, that it is the obligation of every good man -- Jew and Gentile alike -- to protest when Rabbinical leaders promote lawlessness.

Therefore, we wish to go on the record as saying:

(1) No more incitement to riot in other people's Shuls.

(2) No more incitement to snatch husbands and violently attack them.

Rabbis involved in this incitement are

The Rabbis of the Washington Vaad;

Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz; and

Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky.

We call on these Rabbis to rescind their inflammatory rhetoric and act to restore calm and peace to the community.

We cannot emphasize enough that we have no personal enmity against these Rabbis. If their car were to be stuck, we would come to their aid; in their respective domains, they are each Mora D'Asra, and all who choose to enter there should exhibit respect to them.

But when these princes of Our Nation venture into the public realm and trample the common values of Man and G-d, what citizen with any shred of feeling can remain still?

If they want to stir up others to beat their own followers, or foment a riot in their own Minyan -- by all means! But they have not limited their thuggery to those who willingly submit to them.

Therefore, with reluctance and regret, we unsheathe from our First Amendment scabbard the same weapon of the word that these men have wielded against us. We will go to the streets and online and trumpet the alarm to awake our unwary friends and neighbors.

Know that these kind, smiling, educated men we've collectively hired and/or elevated to "Gadol" status can also be nasty, arrogant, and bullheaded when it comes to placing their honor and selfish interests above the integrity of the Torah. That innocent people standing in their way get hurt seems to mean nothing to them.

We want to express Hakaros Hatov to fellow community members Mrs. Sara Barak, Dr. Jeremy and Mrs. Erica Brown, Mr. David and Mrs. Sharon Butler, Mrs. Avraham Rubin, Mr. Nathan and Mrs. Elizabeth Diament, Mrs. Sara Elikan, Dr. John Golin and Trish Weissman, Dr. Jacques and Mrs. Susan Gorlin, Mr. Dean and Mrs. Devorah Grayson, Mr. Ed and Mrs. Lori Greenberg, Mrs. Elanit Rothschild Jakabovics, Mr. David Janus, Mr. Avi Kaplan, Miss Rella Kaplowitz, Rabbi Ira and Mrs. Rachel Kosowsky, Mr. Neil and Mrs. Fran Kritz, Mr. David Levin and Ms. Debbie Rosenbloom, Rabbi Avi and Mrs. Debby Levitt, Mr. Avi Litwack, Mr. David and Mrs. Giliah Litwack, Mr. Maury Litwack, Mr. Moshe and Mrs. Rose Litwack, Dr. Jonathan and Mrs. Michelle Schneck. Mr. Joseph and Mrs. Orlee Turitz. Their groundbreaking and pioneering letter five years ago paved the way for us to openly and boldly state our position.

Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky receives support - not for being right but for being a gadol!

update: Those who signed were told that it was a private show of support for Rav Kaminetsky and that it would not be made public. The original text is the first version. It was modified after it was signed to indicate that the support was also for Rav Shmuel's psak. Lakewood was flooded with the second version which contains the loyalty clause regarding psak. Third version claims that the 2nd version was a forgery to cause machlokes - it is now the dominant version in Lakewood
=================================
One of the great tragedies of the this crises is the way the issue of a heter which is causing a couple to commit adultery - is being avoided. Neither Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky or Rav Nota Greenblatt have actually defended their actions. The following excuses for not discussing the heter is 1) it is complicated so don't mix in 2) I didn't investigate the facts but depended on a psychiatrist who must know what he is doing or else he would damage his reputation 3) I didn't pasken but relied totally on somone else 4) It is worse to criticize a gadol then to commit adultery 5) Rav Kaminetsky and Rav Greenblatt have done so much for Yiddishkeit - how dare you open your mouth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST VERSION

SECOND VERSION  - added it is Torah requirement to fully accept his psakim

THIRD VERSION: Claims the second version regarding psak is forgery to cause machlokes

Nathan Lewin: Defense of the Epstein Torture Gang - because they were just doing a mitzva!?

Nathan Lewin is a very smart lawyer - but in his continued defense of the Epstein Torture gang he is showing he knows nothing about elementary halacha. Torturing a husband to give a Get invalidates the Get. Furthermore it is clear that Epstein was doing it for money - not for the mitzva of freeing an Aguna. 

But even if he were doing it for a noble cause - his lack of concern for the facts as well as the illegality of kidnapping and torture - makes the whole enterprise disgusting. It is a chilul haShem and embarrassment to the Jewish community that the Jewish Press saw fit to publish such trash. Perhaps next week they will have an article about torturing a beis din into giving the wife an annulment or perhaps it will be enough to give substantial bribe - for this noble cause. Why does he think that the end justifies any and all means?! 

Instead of focusing his complaints on the FBI and the American Justice system for protecting husband from torture - he should have spent some time asking halachic experts for letters supporting Epstein's work. Does he really think Epstein's approach is supported by the mainstream poskim? If so - who are they? 

Is Lewin in favor of special training in torture techniques for dayanim so they can be more effective? Maybe instead of electric shock, Epstein should have used an electric drill on the brain of these stubborn husbands or maybe slowing skinning them alive! How can a frum lawyer defend the Epstein torture gang?

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

Jewish Press

In more than 50 years of practicing law as both a prosecutor and defense counsel I have witnessed no more misguided and foolishly destructive use of law-enforcement resources than the FBI’s recent triumph in a federal court in Trenton, New Jersey.

Three distinguished rabbis who had courageously championed the cause of agunot – women whose former husbands cruelly prevent their remarriage by deliberately withholding a Get – were sentenced in mid-December to terms of ten years, eight years, and more than three years in federal prison because they were induced by FBI actors to participate in what they believed was a “forced Get” but was, in reality, nothing more than a show – a “sting” – created by the federal authorities.

The FBI set out to lure rabbis who would actively – perhaps over-zealously – try to have a recalcitrant husband (who did not exist) authorize the writing and delivery of a Get to a weeping agunah who was, in reality, an FBI agent. The agent’s acting talent persuaded the trusting rabbis that she was authentic, particularly because she brandished a forged but legitimate-looking ketubah and a seruv signed by the presiding dayan of the Beth Din of America fraudulently secured by the FBI.[...]

The “Getcha Sting” backed the wrong side in the battle between agunot and their despicable recalcitrant husbands. There are, to be sure, legitimate law-enforcement objectives that require undercover agents and call for “stings.” Potential terrorists have been smoked out by federal agents who masqueraded as compatriots or supporters. Under-age prostitution in 135 cities was stopped in October as a result of a “massive FBI sting.” The famed “Abscam” prosecutions of seven Congressmen and one Senator in 1980 grew out of an FBI “sting.”

If the FBI had some basis to believe that rabbis had formed a mafia-style organization to beat recalcitrant husbands, it might have justified a “sting” directed at such a group to prevent future violence. But the “Getcha Sting” began with efforts to lure ORA and the Beth Din of America into the FBI’s web. Not only was this an enormously foolish expenditure of federal law-enforcement resources, it was a disastrous choice made by the FBI. Husbands who withhold gittin from victimized agunot are evil, and one would expect the FBI to choose the virtuous side in this conflict. The FBI should have sided with the agunot, not with the spouses who flout rabbinic orders to give a Get.[...]

The presiding judge wrongly excluded all evidence of religious motivation and intent. From the beginning of the Trenton trial, I and the other three defense counsel tried to present to the jury the overriding motive of all those who planned and participated in the trip to the warehouse. None truly wanted to lay a hand on the fictional husband or to engage in violence. All believed the husband might agree to authorize a Get if he was only confronted. All thought they were performing a mitzvah in helping to free an agunah.[...]

The FBI’s “Getcha Sting” was comparable to similar “stings” that have been found “outrageous” so that prosecutions were dropped. Did the prosecution’s conduct in creating the “sting” entitle the defense to claim that the defendants had been “entrapped?” The current law on entrapment presents a significant obstacle to such a defense. But the FBI’s conduct is not beyond correction by the courts. Federal courts have dismissed criminal cases when the prosecution’s conduct in promoting and prosecuting fictional crimes was “outrageous.” Last January the federal prosecutor in Chicago dropped charges against 27 black and Hispanic defendants who were charged after being arrested following similar “stings” conducted by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). [....

If the ATF’s “sting” was so outrageous that Zachary Fardon, the federal prosecutor in Chicago, dropped 27 cases against black and Hispanic defendants rather than prosecute them, why did Paul J. Fishman, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey, proceed with the trial of rabbis and young Jewish men who committed a less serious offense than attempted robbery and possession of cocaine? And why did he urge severe prison sentences for rabbis and Orthodox Jews who were only trying to perform the mitzvah of freeing an agunah?