Saturday, June 28, 2014

Rivky Stein and Yoel Weiss Divorce:Co-defendants' lawyers claim this is not a RICO claim - court documents

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and the following is based on Wikipedia

One of the unusual characteristics of the Rivky Stein vs Yoel Weiss divorce case is that she is attempting to have this made into a RICO case. In other words she is claiming that she not only suffered abuse at the hands of Yoel but that there was an organized conspiracy of his family to commit crimes that make this into a RICO case. RICO has different rules of evidence - it is enough to show a pattern of conspiracy to do criminal acts and there is no requirement that the leader of the organization actually did anything wrong. Penalties are severe - both in terms of jail and money. In the following documents his lawyers attempt to argue that there was no criminal organization but it is simply a dispute between Rivky and Yoel and therefore doesn't qualify for a RICO claim. The judge at present has not decided whether he will let this proceed as a RICO claim. Apparently  no proof of the criminal acts that Rivky claims has been presented and so at this point it is a he said/she said - as he denies he claims.
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed someone who told a man to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.

RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968. Under the close supervision of Senator John Little McClellan, the Chairman of the Committee for which he worked, G. Robert Blakey drafted the "RICO Act," Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, signed into law by Richard M. Nixon. While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.

Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" drawn from a list of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period, if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an "enterprise," can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such racketeers to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.

In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[1]

There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers". The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[2] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise; or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control over, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity; or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity; or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above.[3] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[4] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[5]

Both the federal and civil components allow the recovery of treble damages. [,,,]


  1. I do not know either Rivky Stein nor Yoel Weiss, nor have I verified any of
    the substantial facts of their case. But I do believe they are both
    entitled to their day in an authentic Beis Din.

    Instead of Torah justice, we see in this case, like we've seen in many other
    Jewish divorce cases, evidence of a vicious feminist gender war
    against the Jewish husband in a divorce dispute. Again we see enraged
    feminist lynch mobs who judge and convict Jewish husbands without
    verifying any of the real facts of the case. And again we see evidence
    of a Jewish wife and her supporters employing a fake "seruv"
    to create phony religious credibility to strident demands for a GET and
    vicious campaigns against the husband.

    Here's a brief sample of comments from the RedeemRivky Facebook page that demonstrate the crazed, man-hating, ignorant rage of the
    feminist "agunah" activists:

    "...Like Adolf Hitler, the face of Yoel Weiss is now associated by the entire
    world as the mark of evil. Like Adolf Hitler, Yoel Weiss too seeks to
    make Jews suffer. Yoel Weiss you too are hated by all...MAY G-D MAKE

    "He's a bastards. As Confucius say....a dick Is a dick and sometimes it
    needs to be completely cut off.......someone needs to do a bobbit on
    him...., "

    "I hope he rots in hell !!!!!!!!!!!!!that Peace of S***!!!!!!!!!"

    "Cut his nuts out"

    "if she is not given the get she can do anything to get it, even to the
    point of breaking his bones as stated in halacha. so if it means
    getting her ex arrested or suing her dieing father inlaw thats all
    fear game"

    "I actually believe violence in these scenarios are the most effective
    way to end the torment of the abused women. Who would be opposed to
    Yoel getting a nice beating till he agrees to give his estranged wife
    a get? I wouldn't. So why are so many within our own community so
    hesitant to support a few Rabbis who were framed in a get case of a
    recalcitrant husband who refuses the issuing of a get? They are
    facing 20 years of jail time. Unimaginable. "

  2. Lawyers lol for two things when taking on a RICO case. 1. A decent case. 2. Sufficient damages to justify the case.

    She has neither.

    Proof: she couldn't get a lawyer to take the case She filed pro se (meaning on her own, without an attorney.)

  3. Your headline "Rivky Stein and Yoel Weiss Divorce:His lawyers claim this is not a RICO claim - court documents" is incorrect.

    These filings were not made by Yoel Weiss's Lawyer or on his behalf. They were made by the Lawyer for Yoel Weiss's co-defendants in the RICO suit; World Wide Plumbing Supply, Chaim Lefkowitz, and Suri Lefkowitz,. Chaim and Suri Lefkowitz are Yoel's Uncle and Aunt and own/run World Wide Plumbing Supply.

    If your going to post filings from the court docket, it would only be fair for you to post filings from the Plaintiff as well so your audience can see both sides positions. Otherwise, it would seem you are biased and are just out to support him.

  4. Rviki Stein has violated the strict prohibition against arkoyos, of a Jew suing another Jew in secular court. Forget about her husband. She sued 10 other Jews in the lawsuit.

  5. Yoel Weiss published youtube videos of his children on his Yoel WEiss youtube channel, free to see for everyone. In the Daily News article, the faces of the children were blotted out.

    How hypocritical can you be?

    Nothing in what he writes contradicts Rivka's version of the story. And he shows himself as a destructive, controlling, manipulative caracter.

    He does not want shared custody. He wants sole custody of children while he was never civilly married to the mother. I think this is another Michael Schlesinger. Why are you on his side in this case?

  6. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 29, 2014 at 1:20 PM

    RICO is not a lawsuit, as you are thinking. It is a criminal complaint that has attached to it, the desire for relief in regards to damages resulting from those criminal activities.
    Saying that this is assur is not so simple as Rav Eidensohn has already pointed out.

  7. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 29, 2014 at 1:22 PM

    And there is an equal lynch mob of anti-women activists on his side, for such you have thus far been a prime example. Willing to ignore halakha, and any attempt at ascertaining truth.

  8. corrected the title as you suggested.

    Regarding fairness - up until now she has had a web page and a facebook page as well as coverage in numerous newspaper and television stations. In other words the whole world knows her side of the story.

    I find it very strange that by posting documents from his perspective - that are not readily available to balance the coverage you think I am not being fair? Aside from the fact that I have offered both of them an opportunity to provide a guest post.

  9. The fact she has gone to a rag like the Daily mail, who delight in salacious stories of rape, molestation and abuse, either means she is truly desperate to escape a horrible marriage, or she has sunk to new lows. It doesn't smell of יראת שמים to invoke the help of DM. My initial feelings of sympathy For her are gradually being eroded by her own campaign

  10. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 29, 2014 at 1:40 PM

    Regarding fairness - up until now she has had a web page and a facebook page as well as coverage in numerous newspaper and television stations. In other words the whole world knows her side of the story.

    Yes you are correct. However, if you only show one side of the story, you appear to have chosen a side and thus to be unfair. Unless that is you have compelling reasons to have chosen a side.

    I find it very strange that by posting documents from his perspective -

    Personally I think that you should either link to(where they are already found on the internet) or post all the documents relating to the case. That way people may have an idea of what is going on and just how complex this whole thing is.

  11. Good point - I will amend the original post to include links to her webpage as well as his recent commnent on her facebook page.

  12. This answer does certainly not paint Yoel Weiss in a positive light.

    To me, it confirms possessive and manipulative tendencies.

  13. "RICO is not a lawsuit" -
    The document posted on Rivky's website (first amended complaint) states "United States District Court" at the top. Below that it states Rivky Stein as Plaintiff and then lists a whole slew of Defendants. Paragraph one states "This is a civil action arising under the laws of the United States..."

    Rivky has not presented the slightest evidence that she obtained permission from a known, reputable real Beis Din to initiate a lawsuit in arkoyos.

    And yet Tzadok actually attempts to bamboozle us that Rivky did not violate any prohibition of arkoyos.

    How stupid does Tzadok think we are?

  14. Tzadok, there's just no limit to your intellectual dishonesty,
    obfuscation, and attempts to legitimize severe violations of Torah law
    committed by Jewish women in divorce disputes.

    The anti-Rivky camp is not denying her legitimate halachic rights, they are denouncing her Torah violations of using arkoyos, employing a fake "seruv", and using the secular media in a war against her husband.

    My only defense of Yoel has been his right to a hearing before an authentic, reputable Beis Din.

    Contrast this with the feminist storm troopers pronouncing Yoel guilty without verifying any of the facts while denying any halachic rights to Yoel.

  15. And there is an equal lynch mob of anti-women activists on his side

    Really, now? Where are they? How comes I can't see them. I see an isolated few. 5,000+? Nope?

    Exaggerate a bit, Rabbi - do we now?

    Boys please stick to the truth and play nice!

  16. My initial feelings of sympathy For her are gradually being eroded by her own campaign

    Same here. Only it's not all that gradual for me. I see her dead wrong in this public campaign. This is not the way for a frum woman to behave.

    I'm afraid that this is part of the negative affects team Dodlesohn caused Klal Yisroel.

  17. Yeah, but does it say of a person who stoops to going to every rag and posting personal pictures?

  18. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 29, 2014 at 3:51 PM

    Not true. If you want I will bring the quotes where you have tried to say that her actions were defacto against halakha even though that is not necessarily the calse.

  19. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 29, 2014 at 3:52 PM

    RaP has said it, Rav Eidensohn has said it. Most people have chosen definitive side in this, and each side is a lynch mob mentality.

  20. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM

    RICO by nature is a criminal complaint. Look it up. Sorry you don't seem to be able to understand that.

    It is not necessarily arkoyos so long as it is linked to legitimate damages from a criminal action. As Rav Eidensohn as already said.

  21. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 29, 2014 at 4:23 PM

    The anti-Rivky camp is not denying her legitimate halachic rights, they are denouncing her Torah violations of using arkoyos

    Your words. You are denying her her legitmate Torah rights, and even mitzvah of stopping a rodef. And possibly seeking legitimate damages for actual criminal actions.

    You claim intellectual dishonesty, but when you and Moe Ginsburg raised objections to this on this post:

    Rav Eidensohn informed you of your error. Even when you objected to the sum that she is asking for, he responded:
    "Daas Torah Mod TruthJew • 2 days ago
    Typically no. But it really depends on the facts of the case. Major poskim permit calling the police when you know someone is driving without a license or in an unsafe manner - even if it results in serious jail time."

    Yet you persist in repeating your error as though it is truth. I am assuming that you failed to notice his response, because surely you wouldn't commit such blatant intellectual dishonesty.

  22. Secular criminal complaints fall under the rubric of mesira.

  23. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 29, 2014 at 4:50 PM

    One more thing. Why is it that with Weiss and Friedman you did not insist that they get a heter from a B"D, where that was purely a civil case.

    Whereas here, where it is criminal case for which many poskim write that even a single Rav need not be consulted, you insist on a heter from a valid B"D?

  24. not necessarily. While it is clear that Rav Moshe holds that way It seems clear thar Rav Eliashiv disagrees

    ..Rav Eliashiv (Nishmas Avraham 4:208-211): … Rav Eliashiv told me that there is in fact no difference in halacha between a teacher who is molesting boys or girls since in both cases we are talking about severe mental damages and danger to the public. He cited the Beis Yosef who cites the Rashba regarding R’ Eliezar ben Rav Shimon (Bava Metzia 83a) who reported thieves to the government… Regarding this Rav Eliashiv said that we learn from this that surely in the case of child abuse which is more severe then theft that it would be permitted to first report it to the principal of the school and if he doesn’t do anything to report the matter to the police even in the Diaspora.

    Rav Eliashiv (Divrei Sinai page 45-46): … See Panim Me’eros (2:155) concerning our issue in which someone found an open chest from which much was stolen. There is reasonable circumstantial evidence that one of the workers was the thief. He was asked whether it was permissible to inform the secular authorities and that this will lead to him to confess … However at the end the Panim Me’eros concludes, “It is improper to turn a Jew over to secular authorities as our Sages say they will treat him like a trapped animal and there is concern that if he confesses they will kill him.” From here it is clear that this ruling is not applicable in our times. Therefore it is permitted to turn to the police. However since you raise the concern that this will lead to a chilul hashem, I can’t render an opinion concerning this since I don’t know how to evaluate it and therefore the matter must be determined by your evaluation.

    The above seems to indicate that if it is a chilul hashem that Jews don't go to the police - then it is poshut that there is no issur

  25. No matter how much Tzadok tries to morph Rivky's civil lawsuit in
    archaos for millions of dollars into a "criminal complaint", that
    lawsuit is not what Rav Eliashiv allowed.

    Rav Eliashiv's words: "Therefore it is permitted to turn to the police." This is obviously referring to utilizing the police to obtain protection from a person who constitutes a danger to the public, or else to recover a stolen object.

    Rav Eliashiv did NOT state that a Jew may utilize non-Jewish courts to obtain compensation for damages allegedly caused by another Jew.

    Furthermore, we have not even seen any clear evidence that Yoel Weiss is a danger to the public requiring us to turn him over to the government. Was he ever convicted by a jury of any of the crimes alleged to him by Rivky? If so, show us proof.

  26. ALso, there are civil RICO, and criminal RICO cases.

    Just like she couldn't find a lawyer to handle her civil RICO, she couldn't find a federal attorney ( = prosecutor) to take on the case as a criminal matter.

  27. Can someone explain what in the world he means by "kosher porno website".

  28. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 29, 2014 at 8:30 PM

    You keep repeating the same error, hoping to convince the unsuspecting that you are right. I could overlook the first time as not being deliberate. However, let me once again, remind you of the objection you raised to Rav Eidensohn and his response:
    TruthJew Daas Torah • 2 days ago

    @DT - "to be stopped" - Does stopping an alleged rodef also allow one to collect $60,000,000 in damages from the alleged rodef in archaos without first getting permission from an authentic Beis Din?

    Daas Torah Mod TruthJew • 2 days ago

    Typically no. But it really depends on the facts of the case. Major poskim permit calling the police when you know someone is driving without a license or in an unsafe manner - even if it results in serious jail time.

    So please. Rav Eidensohn has already informed you that you are wrong. Please stop repeating your erroneous claims.

    Furthermore, we have not even seen any clear evidence that Yoel Weiss is a danger to the public requiring us to turn him over to the government. Was he ever convicted by a jury of any of the crimes alleged to him by Rivky?

    So you are saying that before an abuser or molester can be turned over to the government for prosecution, he has to have been successfully prosecuted by the government. That is a bit absurd to be honest. If we assume that Rivka Stein has evidence to prove her case(and I am not saying that she does, that is a very big uncertainty), but even if she did, do you really expect her to put it all out in the public.
    Did it ever occur to you that, considering the graphic and personal nature of some of the charges that, any evidence may also be graphic, intimate and personal, and thus not suitable for public consumption?
    When a person alleges that they were molested and their rape was used for child porn, do you demand to see the illegal pornographic material before you will believe them?

    Honestly TruthJew/EmetL'Yaakov, you wonder why there are such organizations as ORA, and people like Shira Dicker, you really need only look in the mirror. From the two of you we have heard:
    1)Spousal abuse is feminist generated myth.
    2) Spousal rape is halakhically permitted
    3) A woman needs a heter from a B"D to go to court, a man doesn't even need a heter from a Rav.
    4) Halakha says that Michael Schlessinger should get full custody of the children according to Torah.

    Honestly the more you make your case the more you strengthen the feminist position. Please for the sake of Torah, and Torah Jewry, PLEASE STOP!!!

  29. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 29, 2014 at 8:47 PM

    Tzadok, there's just no limit to your intellectual dishonesty, obfuscation, and attempts to legitimize severe violations of Torah law committed by Jewish women in divorce disputes.

    You keep trying to paint me as some sort of feminist TruthJew/ELY. However that is not the case. Nor am I Rivky Stein supporter, I'm not a Yoel Weiss supporter either. I'm seeking the truth.

    Honestly I daven that Rivky Stein will be proven to be a liar. If she is not, if her claims are proven true, then a major chillul hashem will have occured from those who claim to be Torah observant, and supporters of the Torah. We will have one more abuse victim that was trashed by the religious community.

    You will say, what if Yoel Weiss is proven to be true? Will there not have also been a chilul hashem? Yes, but no where near as much. It will be horrible if an innocent man has his name so besmirched, but it will have the mitigating factor of having been done by Shira Dicker and other "progressives" that openly espousing tossing out Torah. At least then the Torah community will have been shown to be righteous.

  30. I was thinking about this whole thing. As far as I know, there are no qualified Dayanim on this blog (apologies if there are). Even if there are, it is not a quasi bet Din, we are dealing with people who might tell the truth or might not, and the Dayan cannot see them in person, or hear them take an oath. So we can play detective, but the truth is beyond us.

  31. "then a major chillul hashem will have occured from those who claim to be Torah observant, and supporters of the Torah."

    What have they done to allegedly cause such a c"H? Have you seen some outpouring and swelling of support from the community for Yoeli Weiss? All the noise is coming from Rivki Stein. He has virtually remained silent other than one simple reply he made yesterday. Other than a few posters on this blog where else have you seen him being supported? All the articles in the Daily News of NY, Daily Mirror of the UK and the other media outlets have been lock stick and barrel in deep support of Ms. Stein running all of Shira Dicker's propaganda pointers.

  32. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 29, 2014 at 10:34 PM

    How many people do you need to make a Chillul HaShem? 30,000 people have seen this blog and read these comments in the last 7 days.
    If an Orthodox Jewish blog, and its commentors get something of this magnitude wrong, you think that will not be a Chillul Hashem? Please explain how it will be any different than persecuting a sexual molestation victim.
    What I am saying, and what I have been saying from the beginning is that we have very few facts, but many people are making great leaps claiming this one or that one is right. Have I missed something? Has Navua been restored to the Jewish people?

  33. Today I spoke to a highly experienced dayan in Brooklyn who has checked out the so-called "seruv" document against Yoel Weiss. The dayan told me that the so-called seruv document is "pure fraud", and it provides no valid "heter" for Rivky to litigate in archaos.

  34. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 29, 2014 at 10:35 PM

    Stan/Catskills has claimed several times to be a Dayyan on Rav Gestetner's B"D.

  35. RICO is NOT by definition criminal. There are two kinds of RICO - criminal and civil. Criminal cases are brought by a prosecutor and carry potential criminal penalties. Civil RICO is brought by an individual plaintiff (as here) and is like any other suit for damages, except that the damaging activity is defined by the "RICO" statute rather than by ordinary torts or other statutes.

  36. @Tzadokk "I'm seeking the truth" -

    So far you're doing a poor job of truth-seeking. For example, the RICO lawsuit claims that Rivky was provided insufficient food. Can you perhaps locate one reliable witness who observed Rivky in an emaciated, starving state?

  37. @Tzadok - Please cite any comment allegedly made by Stan where Stan claimed to be a Dayyan in Rav Gestetner's B"D. I never recall seeing such a comment in the last few years.

    Catskills has a different writing style than Stan.

  38. @Tzadok -
    Apparently you believe that by resorting to BRAZEN LIES you can convince the readers you are correct. I NEVER EVER made any of claims 1-3 you cited above. I am not "Stan", but to the best of my knowledge he made no such statements in the last few years.

    As far as your claim no. 4, its possible that Michael Schlessinger is entitled to custody of the children, but that would have to be decided by a kosher B"D.


  39. Stan did make such a claim - he said he deals with Gittin every day, and when i asked if he is a dayan, he said there is no contradiction between being a dayan and being Stan.
    Last username Stan had was meuseh.

    But, we don't know if he really is a dayan, and even if he was, he is not sitting in judgement, and could not. there is no such thing as an internet BD!

  40. Yes. By nature, as soon as an allegation is made, it creates a doubt that it may be true.

    When I see a person running around to the Daily Mail and to other disgusting rag's to air personal bedroom details (Jodi Aries anyone?), it degrades the slanderer in my eyes. I therefore consider the man as innocent as if no accusation has ever been made.

    I'm not sure what you're saying about dayonus.

  41. Again, an e-q-u-a-l lynch mob? I think not.

    Rivkie's mob is similar to Cossacks pulling off a pogrom. Those defending Yoel are like those trying to do some defensive battle against the Cossacks armed with their pitch forks, shovels and torches.

  42. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 30, 2014 at 5:51 AM

    I'm not trying to prove her side. Where did I say that?

    She has filed a RICO complaint. I'm willing to wait to see what happens there. I'm not a professional investigator.

  43. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 30, 2014 at 5:53 AM

    I don't believe psakim or words from anonymous Rabbis. Have him write it out on letterhead, put his name to it, and send it to Rav Eidensohn. Otherwise it never happened.

  44. Have I missed something? Has Navua been restored to the Jewish people?

    Rabbi, please, hold on. Until Navua is returned, we will never be completely certain of the truth. If we didn't see it, we cannot know for certain. So even after you will see all the evidence, you still won't know the truth. You may have strong reason to believe and accept what the evidence will indicate, but you'll never know.

  45. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 30, 2014 at 6:12 AM

    It is by definition criminal. Before one can receive ether the equitable relief provided in section 1964(a) or the treble damages provided in 1964(c) one has to prove that overt criminal acts have taken place. Specifically, as the law states:
    must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) a defendant committed or intended to commit a RICO violation by establishing the same elements as in a criminal RICO case, except that criminal intent is not required and (2) that there is a reasonable likelihood that the defendant will commit a violation in the future.

    So not only must it be proven that the defendants acted as a rodef, it must also be proven that there is reasonable likelihood that he will do so again.

  46. Or what he means by " posting seductive pictures of herself " ...

    He is not doing himself any favours by suggesting the photos of his estranged wife are seductive or poronographic when they clearly are not. My guess is he is trying to besmirch her reputation because she besmirched his.

  47. "You keep trying to paint me as some sort of feminist"
    What is negative about being a feminist, especially as a man?

  48. That's why I find it important to check whether he indeed wrote this text. It paints him as rather manipulative and possessive, especially with his use of the words "seductive" and "pornography".

    Furthermore, he seems to state that he will not give a get until he has sole custody of the children. I suppose not even the blog author would consider this a justified demand.

    @daas torah: can you confirm that Yoel Weiss indeed wants this text published under his name?

  49. Yoel Weiss also states that he was arrested 5 times for violating a protection order.

    To me, this indicates that he has difficulties respecting boundaries.

    I suppose that police would not arrest anyone for violating a protection order if there was no protection order (irrespective if it was justified or not) and the order was not violated.

    So you could imagine that Yoel Weiss maybe did not understand right away how serious the prohibition to go e.g. to her house was. But after he had been arrested the first time, I cannot understand how he came to repeat this offense.

    Even if the protection order was completely unjustified, it shows a serious lack of boundaries to violate it over and over again.

  50. Register - your strident and nasty comments motivated to check your ip address. You have been posting under a number of names such as Patience, Bat Melech, Helas, Question Divorce Extortion - all from the same place in Zurich.

    Please stick to one name

  51. The contention is that the order and arrests were initiated under false pretenses. It is relatively easy for a woman to get a man arrested without true cause.

  52. He originally only asked for 50/50 custody. Now he is asking for primary custody since his wife has made wild and public allegations that indicate an illness.

  53. Even if the order of protection is unjustified, he will not get arrested until he violated it. And there has to be proof for that.

    The fact that he got arrested implies that he set his foot in a zone where he was told not to set his foot.

    This indicates a serious lack of boundaries. No respect for the law.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.