Friday, December 12, 2014

Frum Follies' lack of integrity in his slanderous claims against me

Frum Follies seems to have no more real issues to write about and has started attacking me with make-believe charges that arouse his groupies  like sharks smelling blood. It is not enough that he makes up lies in the Meisels case - as I have documented. It seems now that he is attacking me in retaliation for exposing his lies. lies 1   lies 2  lies 3

Yesterday he ran a post that falsely claimed that    I did not say that Meisels was guilty only of a hug and I didn't christen Meisels a respected rabbi. I said that despite the charges in the lawsuit that Meisels was running the seminaries solely to provide girls for his sexual appetites it seemed that he was only guilty of inexcusable hugs. The word "only" was clearly indicating that relative to the in initial charges the reality was much less. I clearly and repeated have said that Meisels misdeeds required that he be removed from the seminaries and educational activities. Lopin himself stated elsewhere on his blog that there was no such thing as "only a hug" for an Orthodox Jew - and yet said in this post that it was question as to whether I was saying it was only a hug or it an inexcusable hug. The answer was obvious to him - but it served the purpose of  inciting his readers to make derogatory comments about me - which is clearly reason why he wrote it.

I didn't "christen Meisels a respected Rabbi" - I stated the obvious that when he committed his crimes he was a respected rabbi. I nowhere stated that he is a respected rabbi now - I challenged him to produce evidence for such a claim - which he hasn't.

Today he is back with a claim that since I moderate all comments that maybe I approve of a comment which encourages harassment of witnesses! Stop the Witness Intimidation by Meisels Defenders    The comment that appears on my blog simply made a one line suggestion that if the anonymous plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Meisels are  found out to be liars their names should be exposed. I of course agree with the standard procedure of not publicizing the names of victims and witnesses. Furthermore I approve many comments which I don't agree with - such as the infantile slander from Truthseeker but this wasn't an outrageous comment. The comment wasn't a call to action of vigilantes to determine the validity of the lawsuit. it wasn't a call for a lynch mob to uncover the identity of victims and witnesses to silence them. It was simply a suggestion that if the lawsuit is judged by the court to be false  - that the plaintiffs names should be exposed.   Again the only justification for Lopin's making a post out of it was to slander me - not to discuss issues or protect anyone.

In both cases - despite my protests to him about the slanderous nature of these posts  and directly explaining why the posts are false - he still hasn't removed them. What slander will he figure out next. 

It is also interesting to note that there are no objections against what he is doing by fellow abuse activists such as Rabbi Yosef Blau, David Morris or Harry Maryles.  In fact the Chicago activist Dorron Katzin selected both the "only a hug" post and the "intimidation" post to distribute to his private group of abuse activists - without presenting any of my posts explaining my side of the story. It is clear that they have decided that I am a pariah for supporting the IBD beis din's activities in the Meisels scandal. It seems that slander and distorting the truth - in the name of "protecting all alleged abusive victims" - is no vice.


  1. Stop while you are behind.
    You have been played by the IBD and the seem buyer.
    Wake up!

  2. You're catching on to his MO - eh?

    But don't take it to heart. This is not really about you. His entire focus has to been to smear and slander Meisels, his staff, and seminaries in as many ways as he possibly can. Anything is fodder for him and will be used to that end.

    Anything that allows him to continue to write about this issue will be squeezed to the very last drop. If it rains in Jerusalem, the story is that it rained on Meisels former seminaries. If there's a drought in Jerusalem, the story is that Meisels former seminaries don't enough drinks at mealtimes and students are forced to drink rain water according to truthseeker.

    The good thing about this tactic is that although you'd never know it from his commenters and some of his supporters here, most people are actually interested in the truth and can smell a fraud from a mile away. The more he posts these inane posts, the less credibility he has.

  3. "I of course agree with the standard procedure of not publicizing the names of victims and witnesses."

    Eidensohn, what kind of lies are u spewing now? You purposely let ppl expose my identity (my initials, saying I was a triplet etc) and allowed those comments thru without blinking an eye back in Aug. Ur ridiculous. U care abt none if the victims/ witnesses. Only about ur own Kavod.

  4. Rabbi Eidensohn, speaking only for myself, I admire much of your past writing -and of course the Yad Moshe- though I disagree with you on the seminaries issue. You've done great service for the community. Similarly, I admire much of Yerachmiel Lopin's writing and believe he has done a great service for our community. With both blogs, the comments range from insightful to nonsensical to malicious and nasty lies - and that is to be expected.

    (Personally, at this point I agree with one of Harry Maryles's comments, that I do not understand how certain respected rabbanim reached their conclusions in the seminaries case.)

    My point in commenting is this: I wish you and FF would stop the petty personal sniping. For the good of our community. To stop it from obscuring all the good work each of you has done. Who was the first to accidentally misquote or to take something out of context, I do not know. But I sincerely hope tonight is the last round.

  5. "It seems that slander and distorting the truth - in the name of "protecting all alleged abusive victims" - is no vice."

    In this area, Lopin emulates his erstwhile heroes, the CBD and Gottesman, who also distorted the truth in the name of stopping abuse, while pursuing another, indefensible agenda in secret.

  6. While I have been following all aspects of this case on both blogs, and have felt that each of you has done a good job in some respects but have blind spots with regard to others, I agree that Frum Follies seems to have gone a bit over the deep end. In response to a comment there which stated:

    “And, right on cue, the Meisels defenders over there are saying that “rape” is never mentioned in the newly publicized filing. And one person already said that their names should be revealed if the accusers are lying. The low-lifes over there will never, ever stop. Their sick way of thinking and their lies must be exposed for all to see.”

    I responded:

    “I do not believe that the accusers are lying, but if they are in fact lying, I fully agree that their names should be revealed, and assume that most readers of this blog would agree.”

    This was met by the following reaction from Lopin:

    “You have just entered the realm of victim/plaintiff-intimidation. Basically, you are saying, others can decide a plaintiff is lying and then use it as an excuse for revealing their identities. How’s about letting the legal system figure out if the claim is supported by the perponderance of evidence (which likely will include a great deal of text and email messages). Everybody who went there knows that M loved his messages. But your rishus is to try to prevent it from getting to trial. You lowlifes tried the same thing with Michal Ben Bruch when she was using the pseudonym TruthSeeker. It failed and it may fail again. We all expect a rashah like Meisels to do that. But if Eidensohn helps him he will be liable for violating the judges order. I hope he is ready for the legal fees and for sitting some time in a jail cell for defying a lawful order. Same for you, “Just Threatening.” Careful about what you advocate or do.

    You are barred from ever commenting again on this blog because you are advocating witness intimidation.”

    I then sent him the following email, with repeated requests for a response, but was unanswered:


    You have totally misunderstood my last comment (Just wondering). I did not say anything about outsiders determining if the claimants are telling the truth. I did not say anything about intimidating truthful witnesses into not testifying. I merely wrote what I assume to be obvious to everyone, including you, that if they are shown to have lied, obviously through due process etc., then the behavior of bringing a false sexual assault lawsuit against anyone is a horrible thing to do, and those who do so should be exposed. I explicitly wrote that I do not believe they are lying. I was responding to "Triangle," who apparently believes that even if they are lying a bringing a false lawsuit, that is okay because Meisels deserves it, or something like that. The Gemara in masekhet Sota teaches that a suspected sota was given twofold instructions: If you are guilty, confess, so that God's name should not be erased, but if you are innocent, continue claiming your innocence and drink the water, and no harm will come to you. I would say the exact same to these claimants: If you are telling the truth, go persist in this lawsuit, and file criminal claims as well.

    I would appreciate it if you would post this email as a comment so as to clear up any confusion as to what my intent was.”

    It seems that his main objective in what he posts is to get a rise out of the amen chorus of several commenters there. While some elements of this episode are black and white (e.g., that Meisels has no business being in chinuch, even if only the most minimal allegations are true), there are elements of grey (e.g., exactly the extent of what he did, the complicity of staff members). Anyone who attempts to note this in the comments of that blog is immediately shouted down.

  7. If Mo Ginsburg's comment had stated 'Expose the plaintiffs if the Court finds them to be lying' - no-one would have any problem.

    But Mo Ginsburg's comment actually stated 'Expose the plaintiffs if they are lying'.
    No reference was made in the comment as to who would determine if the plaintiffs were lying, and as a significant number on this blog have already clearly stated that the plaintiffs are lying, the comment was clearly instructing witness intimidation and the breaching of the Court order for anonymity.

    In this case, Lopin is clearly entirely right, and you are very, very wrong.

  8. @Shmilda - I agree totally. Would definitely rather deal with abuse issues and legitimate disagreement of facts and principles than with FF's distortions and misrepresentations.

  9. First of all, you claim to be a personal intimate of Rabbi Eidensohn.

    Second, you claim Rabbi Eidensohn has an "age-related change in personality".

    You've been proven wrong. Have you had the decency and integrety to admit you were wrong?

  10. The false accusers in the Duke lacrosse case were publicly identified by the media, including by CBS, NBC, McClatchy newspapers, Fox and other media outlets.

    The current Rolling Stone false accusations is on the verge of repeating the Duke lacrosse scenario.

  11. "It seems that his main objective in what he posts is to get a rise out of the amen chorus of several commenters there."

    I'd congratulate you for coming to your senses, but this has been obvious to anyone with an open mind for a long time.

  12. DT,

    Do you think for one minute that Shmilda posted something similar on FF? I wouldn't wade into that cesspool but I'll venture that he did not. He drips with faux sincerity while seeking to make you look petty.

  13. Are you a victim or are you just claiming to have "knowledge"?....
    You remind me of Shmarya harassing rubashkin. People that showed you incredible kindness.....

  14. Im curious, TruthSeeker. Let's say Mrs. Gross says the staff is excellent, well trained and responsible, will you tell us??? and if you do, I predict it will be followed up by you saying that she has no idea what she is talking about and should be thrown out of her profession and her Crisis Center should be shut down, cause she's a Meisels defender and you and your cronies on Frum Follies will curse her out and make fun of her. Let's see how truthful "TruthSeeker" really is...

    When you will be calling?

  15. Truthseeker is a victim. When a girl enters a seminary she expects a year of great experiences. Instead, what happened to Truthseeker? Her native instincts of right and wrong led to a confrontational relationship with the head of the seminary. Bad enough. Next, her intuition is borne out by one revelation after another of things her seminary head said and did, including his confessing to activity that leads to his leaving the seminary in disgrace. Maybe other girls have it worse for their year at seminary, but that doesn't make Truthseeker less of a victim. What is she supposed to say when a matchmaker asks her for a reference from the head of her seminary? What is Truthseeker to tell her daughter when she asks what seminary her mother went to and what it was like??

  16. More Joe psychoanalysis: Sometimes someone who is angry at an individual wants to vent their anger at that individual. Sometimes they can't do that venting, perhaps because they have no means to communicate with the individual they are angry with. They seek out someone who they feel is just of deserving of that anger and direct their anger there. The individual they direct their anger at may, ironically, in reality be someone whom they should be thanking, not attacking.

    Most interesting to me, based on my experience, is that the one who is angry may not be able to realize this until they've dissipated some proportion of their anger. Then there is an "awakening", and they realize what they've done.

    "Ur ridiculous. U care abt none if the victims/ witnesses. Only about ur own Kavod."

    These words are inappropriate addressed to you. But is there a former figure of authority in her life to whom she might want to say this to?

    I hope the awakening comes soon.

  17. Actually, I think Joe was not trying to justify anything TruthSeeker has written, but was trying to explain why TruthSeeker would fall under the category of a victim, thus calling into question why you allowed her identifying details to be published in a comment that you approved.

  18. I was addressing Shlomo's narrow question of "Are you a victim...." Your take on my comment is legitimate, but it wasn't my main intention, and I think TS forfeited her right to online privacy to some extent when she entered the fray and became a bit of a blog public figure. Being a victim doesn't necessarily entitle one to a lifetime cloaking device, to borrow a science fiction trope.

  19. In that case, I withdraw my objection and extend my apologies to Shmilda for my last comment.

  20. Instead of apologizing, perhaps take a lesson for the future not to shoot of your mouth with sarcastic insults before taking maybe 10 seconds to fact check.

  21. Thanks for the advice but I made it clear that I wouldn't be checking FF and Shmilda has already proven himself to be a dishonest poster so I felt no compunctions about pointing out that possibility again. Regardless, once shown that I was incorrect, I readily apologized. That's heaps more than he [or you] can say for yourselves.

  22. Are you trying to ingratitate yourself with Lopin in the hope he'll invite you back? How sweet.

  23. So, have you contacted Debbie Gross? Has Mrs. Gross responded to you? What was her response?

  24. Debbie gross is difficult to reach, but I spoke to a different representative who wrote out strict guidelines for the school to follow. The ppl in that program realize that staff may not be compident even after all the training which Debbie gross put her all into. In general, Mrs.Gross has done her job and if the staff fails to uphold to her trainings, then that is their own fault. This is the info I received.

  25. Actually, I am engaging in an attempt to bring a smidgen of thought and rationality to comments sections of blogs. I seem to be failing both here and there.

  26. Well, I can't write the blog posts here :)

  27. Well, until quite recently you were a part of the FF blog-comment universe. You've only recently changed houses. Shouldn't you wait a bit before you begin criticizing the other inhabitants of your new home?

  28. Doesn't seem accurate, In fact, seems incredibly inaccurate. Firstly, Debbie Gross is on call 24 hours a day and has an answering service. She will call you back especially if you tell her you have concerns regarding the responsibility of people she trained. Difficult to reach????? Absolutely not true.

    Additionally, Debbie Gross has openly and publicly taken responsibility for the safety of the schools. I find it ludicrous that she does not feel confident that she did a good job. Basically you're saying she is highly irresponsible and has the "I did my part" attitude. And if someone gets raped, "don't blame me!" That's ridiculous. Your whole report is rediculous.

    What is the name of the person you spoke to?

  29. Wow. Nowhere did I say that Debbie Gross did not do her job well. In fact, the opposite. And while all you are doing is saying your "feelings" abt how "you doubt" that blah blah, I am actually getting info from people. Pick yourself up and call urself. You don't deserve any info I went out of my way to get. Bye.

  30. a smidgen

    Interesting word choice. Do you have any other screen name that you commented with her on the DaatTorah blog?

  31. Thank you for responding.

    but I spoke to a different representative

    Who did you speak with? Have you ever heard of her prior to this conversation?

    The ppl in that program realize that staff may not be compident even after all the training which Debbie gross put her all into.

    Wow. Is this the opinion of the different representative or this your opinion? Did you notify the Beis Din of your concerns?

  32. I have spoken to Debbie Gross. I know her well and I know she does not feel the way you are suggesting she feels. Quite the opposite. She is very confident in the staff and more than impressed with their training as she has stated publicly and privately. That's how I know what you are saying is not true. And her job was to do that, so if you are clamimg (which you are) that the school is not safe, you are saying that she dd not do her job.

    And just to clarify, its not a matter of whether I do or do not "deserve" certain information. You are making very big claims to the world which are either wrong or unclear. I'm asking you to clarify. Nothing wrong with that. No reason to get angry.

    Truthseeker, I would like to know who the member of Debbie's staff is that is telling random people who call her that the "staff may not be competent even after all the training.". Please at least tell me her initials.

    Thank you.

  33. I have been commenting here longer than I was commenting there.

  34. Not sure what you are referring to, but as far as I can remember, this is the only name I have used here. I may have used a different name at some point in the past, but this is the one I have been using for the last while (and, by the way,it is my real name).

  35. You are either purposely misconstruing my words or you have processessing challenges. Go back and re-read what I have written. You deserve none of the info I go out of my way to receive. I highly doubt Devbie Gross has praised the staff. The whole reason why they needed this training was bc they were frighteningly incompetent at spotting abuse before. You are only saying what makes the staff seem less culpable. As for this conversation, I have no interest in further discussing this on this sick blog with sick commenters who needlessly insult me over and over again. Good bye.

  36. @TruthSeeker - hopefully you will keep your word this time.

  37. I don't understand. You wrote earlier that you did not speak to Debbie Gross, but the person you spoke to said that "The ppl in that program realize that staff may not be compident even after all the training which Debbie gross put her all into." "Clarity" claims that he did speak to Debbie Gross and that "She is very confident in the staff and more than impressed with their training as she has stated publicly and privately." While I have no reason to accept the word of either of you as gospel, "Clarity" has a firsthand account, while you are presenting hearsay. You say you highly doubt that Debbie Gross praised the staff, because it was their incompetence which necessitated the training in the first place. The issue at hand is not their competency before their training, but after. Unless you hear from Debbie Gross herself that she still thinks the staff may not be competent, I think the objective observer would have to go (again, not as gospel) with the firsthand report of "Clarity."

  38. And hopefully you will actually do some research.

  39. I am not misconstruing your words nor do i have a processing disorder. But thank you for your evaluation, I went back and reread what you said. I was, indeed, quoting you correctly. You said that one of her employees says the staff may not be competent. I challenge that, as Debbie Gross has clearly stated otherwise. I think it is wrong for any of her employees to publicly contradict her assessments certainly to a random phone caller and I think that individual needs to be reprimanded.

    I respectfully request that you tell me who you spoke to so the issue can be clarified.

  40. You wrote:

    "The ppl in that program realize that staff may not be compident even after all the training which Debbie gross put her all into."

    Now you pretend you said nothing negative. It's a wonder that anyone takes anything you say serioiusly. I maintain that here on DT, where your words are not celebrated by Lopin's cheering squad, we are seeing the real you.

    " I have no interest in further discussing this on this sick blog with
    sick commenters who needlessly insult me over and over again. Good bye."

    Yes. You've promised to leave before, but never kept the promise. I don't expect this time to be any different.

  41. Oh. Well, in that case, criticize away.

  42. Yes it's a deal!! Goodbye we will do anything you want if you keep your word see ya

  43. I discovered that somebody on frumfollies attacked my brother ferociously with blatant lies and then went after me. I responded as a commentary on ff and I was refused. I wrote to YL and it was still refused. Finally, I wrote on my blog, an answer to the haredi haters, at . It shows clearly what lies are published on the ff blog and what brazen lies they are.

    To refuse an attacked person the right to respond on a blog means that the blog is just about hate. I mentioned in my attack on frumfollies that my brother always publishes Yer on my brother's blog, even while calling him a liar, which my brother proves that he is. But YL will not allow me to respond to brazen lies about myself and my brother on his site.

  44. Truthseeker,

    Im still waiting for you to tell me who you spoke to. Why wont you tell us the name? I don't understand.

    I am going to assume you are lying about speaking to anyone or at least inaccurate in your report. That is a very reasonable conclusion. Otherwise, why wont you tell us her name? Either you never spoke to anyone, or you're concerned I'll call her and get a different report.

    I think its fair that if you don't post her name within 24 hours we can assume you are lying.

    Please keep in mind the ramifications of this, though. If 'Truthseeker' is lying, than she's not as truthful as she claims to be. And you have now cast doubt on all your claims and comments since your Frum Follies career began. (Of course it will also indicate that Lopin is a fool for believing you! Although I think he's really too smart to believe you anyway. He knows you exagerate and make things up. But you're convenient for him, so he's using you for his agenda. If you'd all of sudden claim Meisels was innocent, he'd put up a slandrous post about you as well. He doesn't trust or respect you either, your his pawn.)

    So... your choice "Truthseeker". Clock is ticking. In 24 hours we may know the real truth.

    I ask you once again. Please tell me who you spoke to.

  45. Anyone with the slightest חוש הריח can see at once that Lopin's blog is merely a platform for hatred of frumme yidden. A disgusting venue. One visit was more than enough for me. Feh.

  46. "Truth"Seeker,

    I have given you more than 24 hours. You still have not told me who the lady is that you spoke to. I have decided to extend your time limit. I want to give you every chance possible to clear Truthseeker's name. I will extend your time another day. I am doing this for your sake. Dont let us think you are liar "Truth"seeker. As of know, that's what I think. You are a liar and you make things up. Truthseeker, do this for all the abuse victims that you feel you are helping with the fairy-tales I suspect you made up. If you do not tell us who you spoke to, no one will have any reason to take any of your comments regarding the staff seriously and we will have confirmed that Lopin is the fraud we always thought he was.

    For the sake of victims around the world, "Truth"seeker, do not continue to let us think you are dishonest and making things up. Tell us who you spoke to. You have nothing to lose by telling us who you spoke to... OR DO YOU????



  47. OK. Truthseeker. Your day of reckoning has come!!

    From now on your name will no longer be Truthseeker... It will be LIESEEKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You have successfully proven what everyone has suspected and a many have said: You are not honest, accurate or a truthseeker. You have an agenda, and will lie to accomplish it. Unfortunately it took us this long to catch you in a lie. But better late than never.

    Anyone reading these comments, regarding LieSeeker's refusal to say who should spoke to should copy and paste them on an email and send it to everyone you know. Its about time we do LieSeeker in. She needs to be put in her place once and for all.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.