Monday, July 18, 2016

Yehuda Pogrow: Advocate Meyer Seewald (founder of Jewish Community Watch) - issues warning not to engage him or his new organization

update:Hopefully this ends the dispute. Wishing Yehuda success in his endeavors

facebook 5 hours ago 7/18/16
I wish to apologize to the Public, and particularly to Survivors of abuse, for any harm my actions have caused. My actions did not make me deserving of the public shaming I experienced. Nonetheless, I hold myself to a higher standard in both my personal and professional lives, and I am disappointed in myself for not living up to those standards. I intend to use this as a learning opportunity so that I do not make the same mistakes again.
Should anyone wish to share this, they may feel free to do so. Sincerely, Yehuda Pogrow

update: 18 hours ago 7/17/16
I wish to clarify that I believe Jewish Community Watch has done fantastic work and changed the world for the better. I commend Meyer Seewald for founding this incredible organization and playing such a pivotal role in its success. In no way do I wish to interfere with JCW's work. I ask that this dispute come to an immediate end so all can get back to focusing exclusively on what matters, helping Survivors, and making sure no children are ever abused. Sincerely, Yehuda Pogrow


update: Yehuda Pogrow asked this to be added 3:15 PM 7/17/16

Please post this as an update on the top of the page:
Yehuda Pogrow has asked that it be stated that the "victims information" to which Seewald referred is communications Pogrow possesses from the 2 people who supported Seewald's remarks that exonerates Pogrow. At no point did Pogrow ever suggest that he would release any information from victims other than the specific communications from these 2 people -- who happen to be victims of abuse -- that, in their own words, exonerates Pogrow.

update: Meyer Seewald posted the following on facebook on Friday 7/15/16


Meyer Seewald Yehuda, I will not apologise for warning victims to stay away from you. After I posted the updated post explaining things that may have come out wrong. You threatened the survivors you will expose private things so I removed it. I do not consider you a advocate, nor will I ever work with you. I personally think you need help and until you get the right help you should stay away from working with victims. Please stop tagging me in your comments. I wish you luck on your healing process.

Yehuda Pogrow Per his request, I will not tag Meyer. However, to shed some context around his remarks, I will explain what really happened behind the scenes yesterday. I possess evidence that proved that the allegations that supported Meyer's defamatory post were outrageously false. The quickest way for me to have proven that the post was defamatory would have been to publicly release this information. I did not do that because I did not want to cause pain to the individuals who promoted my defamation. Rather, I reached out through intermediaries to notify these individuals that if they did not bring their influence to bear on Meyer to delete the post I would feel forced to prove my innocence by releasing the exculpatory evidence. Thankfully, no such release of information was necessary.
LikeReply17 hrsEdited

Meyer Seewald You are such a good manipulator it shocks me. Your version of the events are mind boggling. But if that is what makes you and the Ceo of עמותת מגן MAGEN sleep at night then continue on. This is not the first problem they had like this.

Now please ju
st go away. You have caused nothing but havoc for people in the advocacy world. And I think I gave you enough attention. So going forward I will not be responding to your comments.

I also received the following email from Yehuda Pogrow which is a dishonest representation of reality as Meyer Seewald has stated above:

Yehuda Pogrow

5:11 pm Friday 7 15 2016
to me
You must delete it [your post] It is false as Seewald has deleted his post because I proved the allegations were baseless.
I replied to Yehuda Saturday night

so tell him to send me an email to remove it together with an apology to you 

Yehuda responded Saturday night with

That's ridiculousYou have a post claiming something is on facebook that is not on Facebook.And why haven't you posted my latest comment which includes me telling you that I will take legal action?
Leaving the post up destroys any credibility you may have had whatsoever.
it doesn't  *exist* on facebook. your whole page is now a lie.
Pogrow posted the following on his facebook page

Daniel Eidensohn has defamed me. He has left up on his blog the post written by Meyer Seewald last week, even though Meyer deleted it. I informed Eidensohn of this, he responded to my email, and still has not removed his post (so stating that he was unaware of the deletion of Meyer's post would be a lie). He has lost any credibility he may have had as a 'journalist' because the entire page (linked below) is now a lie. It claims what is no longer on Facebook is still on Facebook. I call upon all those of good conscience to demand Eidensohn delete this post, and issue me an apology.

Saturday night 10:30
The above claim is absurd. Pogrow claimed that Seewald removed the post because he proved to him that his information was wrong. Seewald in fact said he removed it solely because Pogrow threatened to reveal information that might harm victims. As I noted Pogrow is being dishonest in misrepresenting the facts. Furthermore he is bizarrely accusing me of claiming that what I posted is still on facebook - a blatant lie. I simply said that I wanted a letter from Seewald that he wanted the post of his statements removed and an apology to Pogrow. Seeing that Seewald has repeated his claims against Pogrow and refuses to issue an apology - there is absolutely no misrepresentation at all in keeping the original statement up.

upate: Seewald has removed the following because of what he claims are threats from Yehuda Pogrow to reveal victims information] but has restated the substance on comments posted above which are still on his facebook page.

Facebook    Meyer Seewald posted the following warning on his Facebook page. The warning is consisted with recent discussion and concerns expressed  on this blog -  Daas Torah

Please keep in mind this warning is the expression of an experienced advocate but it is not in itself proof of wrong doing. It is simply a warning to be cautious and careful because he thinks Yeudah's attempts to help are problematic - causing harm to victims rather than helping their cause. Please do your own research to confirm or deny it.


Due to numerous complaints from survivors and victim advocates, I am warning the public not to engage with Yehuda Pogrow. One victim advocate has come forward that he has made inappropriate comments to survivors. Another advocate has received complaints that he was undermining survivors stories. He has come out and said he wants to works with victims. Please take necessary precautions and do not engage with Yehuda Pogrow  or Survivors for Change. [update] I would like to clarify that this is not at all implying that he actually sexually abused anyone. As he did not.
update to the update
I am writing this to clarify the message of my previous post. I believe that I did not phrase all of it clearly, which led to confusion within many of the subsequent comments and arguments. Yehuda Pogrow I am truly sorry to hear about the abuse that you went through, I hope and pray that you are able to take your pain and turn it into healing and live a happy and healthy live. 
Several hours ago I edited the post to clarify that you have not been accused of sexually abusing anyone - just in case anyone misunderstood the to post imply that. I have also clarified that this message is intended for victims, not the general public. 
You began acting as a (very) public victim's advocate only a few short weeks ago; you immediately began calling upon and very aggressively pushing people to share your article, aggressively sought out endorsements from numerous individuals and professionals, and issued a public call for victims to contact you. As a result, one victim was re-traumatized and hurt by extremely insensitive remarks you made to her, and you crossed very serious boundaries with another survivor and fellow advocate that no advocate should ever, ever cross. 
I will not issue an apology for my previous Facebook post; while what you went through pains me, it does not give you a right to hurt victims and to push your agenda at the expense of any victims' pain. Your cause, however noble, can never take precedence over the well-being of the victims it purports to be advocating for. 
You must take care of your own health before you try and help others. My heartfelt advise to you is get the help you need, and if you wish, advocate in another way that does not involve interacting directly with victims so these problems won't arise again. Make amends to those you hurt, and inform the public you will stop soliciting victims for their stories and encourage those who need help to reach out to organizations such as Amudim, JCW, Magen, Tzedek and other such organizations. 
(Any comments left attacking anyone will be deleted)
Facebook  Yehuda Pogrow has responded

Meyer Seewald has defamed me. I ask him to please apologize publicly and retract his statement.


  1. Very sad story from every possible angle. I'm afraid we'll never know the whole truth (not that we need to, as a tzibur) and will have to rely on the psak of the rabbonim in question. Rav Malinowitz is known as a person who stands his ground, as demonstrated by his support of Nosson Slifkin, for which he received much criticism. As for this specific warning, I genuinely feel that, irrespective of Yehuda Pogrow's true reasons (and they may be very noble), he does have a score to settle with his brother Meir and his mother Mimi (as per his owns posts), hence I seriously doubt he's at all capable of APPROPRIATE support to his brother's victims. The family feud is simply too great to allow him clarity of judgement.

  2. It's worse than him just falling prey to a family feud. Had he written the first third of his article, claiming that his brother beat him mercilessly, then you would have been correct. However, he went on to equate receiving standard, legal, petch in his school with people's who have been sexually abused. ( A discussion about petch is not relevant over here. It is the comparison.) He also used as an opportunity to benefit himself, and not anyone else. There's a lot more. But worst of all,

    He, himself, showed serious signs of being an abuser or an abuser-in-waiting.

  3. Senior professional Advocate doesn't want competition.

  4. Very possible indeed... oldest line in the book of abusers is: "I myself was abused as a child...".

  5. are you just interested in bad mouthing him or do you have proof? He says his view is based on actual reports from the field - what are your allegations based on?

  6. I don't like either of them. They both come from the same cloth.
    In all fairness, yes it's true, one does have more legitimacy than the other. But they both do harm.

  7. Meyer Seewald has removed the Facebook Post after I provided him with evidence that these allegations were outrageously defamatory and baseless. I call for you to delete this post as it does not reflect the current truth.

  8. The Facebook post was deleted after I provided evidence that the allegations were baseless and defamatory.

  9. The Facebook post was deleted after I proved that the allegations were baseless and defamatory.

  10. Seewald deleted the Facebook post after I provided evidence that the allegations were baseless and defamatory.

  11. Surprised Seewald didn't seek proof before making public allegations.

  12. "I encourage you in the strongest possible terms to broadcast all personal attacks against ... as far and wide as possible"

    That's what you're doing. Only thing is, this is just one of the ways you chose to respond to serious questions about your course of action.

  13. R' Eidensohn - You now have a quote from a Facebook post that does not even exist. The links within the text you have here are now broken because the posts to which they link do not exist on Facebook. Would you be kind enough to explain why this post is still here? You leaving this post up here is defamatory, and I reserve the right to take legal action against you.

  14. yehuda you seem to have loss touch with reality. It is rather bizarre to threaten legal action because I have posted a statement which Seewald has subsequently taken down but the repeated the substance in a recent comment to you on facebook. (which I added to the original post).

    So you are claiming that my reporting that Seewald (one of the most respected names dealing with abuse) doesn't think highly of your competence means that I a defaming you?!

    Do you always threaten people who disagree with you? And you claim that you should be the address for victims of child abuse should turn to?!

  15. On Facebook, I have publicly requested that Jewish Community Watch condemn Seewald's remarks, and formally dissociate from him.

  16. Your chances of success in this is about that of a snowball surving the Sahara Desert

  17. I appreciate your input.

  18. Dear Yehuda,
    Just let it go!
    If you look at my post above you'll see that I never call into question your true reasons, HOWEVER, you must admit that there's a LOT OF BAGGAGE that comes with your help, assistance, advocacy, etc... and no victims are deserving of having that baggage added on to their already very heavy burden.
    When I read your first open letter I said: "Poor Yehuda, what he must have been through..." and I could picture it having met your brother in the past. However, your letter brought about an avalanche of negative responses, claims and counter claims in a way that inasmuch as I understand you want to "clear your name", I also humbly think that you should NOT be involved with any of the victims, their cases and their plight. You shouldn't even be in contact with any of them, and that is the best way for you to show that you genuinely care about their well being.
    Reb Daniel (and again, I'm not his lawyer as he doesn't need one) plays a very dangerous role in the community... one I would not be able to play and which, frankly, very few people would dare taking on... he exposes himself in order to expose threats to the community at large.
    Are you a threat that needs to be exposed? I can't say one way or another BUT if it causes further pain and suffering to other victims who are trying to heal their wounds and carry on with their lives, then I do think it's incumbent upon you to put their interests before anyone else's in a way that is beneficial to them!
    I do wish you much hatzlocha... every single one of us needs help with our emotional and mental health, so I do hope you continue to take care of your well being.
    As the Mishnah tells us: Try to be a man in a place where there's no man... Rav Noach Weinberg used to say that the deeper teaching behind the obvious lesson is: "If there's already a man, let him do the job.". B"H There are already various organizations to support the victims... we need to support such organizations and not to start up a new one.
    Wishing you a Gut Voch!

  19. Dude: Let me know when you are available and I can give you a discounted course in Debating 101.

  20. Seewald strongly disagrees with your explanation for why he deleted his original Facebook post and he says it was because you threatened to reveal victims information - he reiterated his views of you that you were not helpful dealing with victims in a comment which I added to this post.

  21. Thanks for the news update.

  22. The "victims' information" that Seewald is referring to is communications I have from them that proves their allegations are false. I held off on releasing this information so as not to humiliatworry them. Seewald is being disingenuous in speaking of vague "victims' information" without crystalizzing that this is the very information that proves the claims are baseless. What he told you leaves the reader free to imply I said I would release random confidential information about victims. I never said that.

  23. I seek to take a slightly different angle to attack the crisis of abuse, an angle which is not currently being exploited to its full capacity. I believe my work will complement the work of the "men" already doing the job. And there indeed are many, very, very, good men and women doing the job. As for the rest of your remarks, based on utter nothingness -- again. But I do appreciate the well-wishes. Gut Voch

  24. you present an intelligent attempt to guess what has happened but it is only a guess.

    Let me provide an alternative way of reading what is happening.

    I don't know the facts being disupted by Pogrow and Seewald personally but clearly Yehuda Pogrow is not ready to deal with victims with the proper sensitivity and he clearly doesn't have the training. Pogrow is threatening to sue me simple because I reported on what had been posted on Facebook and it had been removed even though Seewald has repeated his initial claims in a comment on Facebook

    That is totally absurd and illogical. Furthermore he claimed that Seewald had been convinced because he told him the true facts. That is false as Seewald himself stated.

    It doesn't take a psychologist to see that Pogrow has clearly been under a lot of stress because of the announcement about his brother and that he decided he will be the savior on the white horse who saves the world. It doesn't take a professional to see that Pogrow lacks the detached objective ability to deal with issues and he apparently needs some professional help himself - as number of detached observers have already noted

    In short given the strange behavior of Pogrow in this incident - it doesn't take much to give Seewald the benefit of any doubt and assume he is in fact telling the truth.

    Pogrow definitely has a concern that his reputation has been harmed - but it is primarily due to his own behavior not Seewald's

  25. you are welcome. Please calm down. This issue should be dealt with in private with mediator and not on blogs or facebook.

    threatening me legal action for reporting what you are saying on Facebook is absurd. Speak to a lawyer before making a fool of yourself.

  26. R'Eisensohn, thank you for the reply. I hear your opinion and respect your effort to help victims from within a halachic framework. It is a thankless task.

  27. One of Mr. Pogrow's Facebook posts advice appears to have been made late Friday evening Eastern Time. It's Mr. Pogrow Orthodox?

  28. Ok, so now this is just getting stupid. I'm not sure if it's funny or tragic. No one on here seems to have seen any evidence. I have. All of it. Seewald falsely implied that the reason he deleted the posts was because I threatened to release random victims' information, when in fact I advised him I would release communiques from the specific individuals -- who happen to be victims -- that proves the claims are false. So who's face should be on the headline here with their creditibulity called out? Mine, or Seewalds?

  29. Oh he did. The portion of it that suited him.

  30. Now this is some impressive sophistry. You almost convinced me.

  31. Disclosing victim's information to save his own "reputation"?
    This pogrow guy is a coward.

  32. Yehuda sorry that I didn't convince you - but the fact is that this fight is not helping anyone's reputation and it harming the victims who now are wondering who to turn to

  33. clearly yours. I have talked to people in the field and they are horrified about your campaign against Seewald and the more you write the more they distrust everything about you.

    Who in the abuse field is supporting you at this point? Can you mention any names? If you can't name any names that should impress even you that you are not handling this properly. If you do have backers I would like to publish there support letters

  34. Pogrow is obviously not frum. I received emails from him that had been sent on Shabbos.

  35. actually things are much better than they were 5 years ago. the beis din clearly handled this properly

    When I spoke at the White Insitute (Recording on the sidebar) and mentioned that Rav Sternbuch had said to call the police if someone was in danger - the audience response was that they had never heard a rav saying it was permitted.

  36. Which other remarks are baseless?
    Yes or no answers?
    a) Do you come with a lot of baggage? Yours posts on socia media clearly indicate that you do. Yes or No?
    b) Should you add your own unresolved issues to the lives of the victims? Yes or No?
    c) Did your letter bring about an avalanche of negative responses and calls for you to stop? Yes or No?
    d) Shouldn't you help victims in a way which is best for them? Putting their well being ahead of your own self appointed mission? Yes or No?
    e) Has your approach caused more pain to the victims? Yes or No?
    f) Do you need to take care of your emotional and mental health? Yes or No?
    Please understand that this is not a personal attack but rather a call to reason.
    Best Wishes!

  37. The "victims information" was communications I had received from the 2 people who slandered me that prove that what they alleged was false. These 2 people *happen to be* victims of prior abuse. The only information I would potentially release would be the information from them that -in their own words - exonerates me. Victims don't get a free pass for life to slander other victims because they happen to be victims. And, note that I *still* have not released this information because I do not want to humiliate and retraumatize them, even though they are the reason I am being slammed in the public eye.

  38. And this is the guy that claims to "care" about yeshivot...

  39. A Post I issued on Facebook this morning: I wish to clarify that I believe Jewish Community Watch has done fantastic work and changed the world for the better. In no way do I wish to interfere with their work. I ask that this dispute come to an immediate end so all can get back to focusing exclusively on what matters, helping Survivors, and making sure no children are ever abused. Sincerely, Yehuda Pogrow

  40. How did you get into contact with these two victims who just decided to slander and defame you? Have you been in contact with them for several years? Ahh, you know them for less than three weeks, only since they contacted you after your article asking them to contact you.

    What does it say about your claim that you woud like to help victims, if the only tangible thing you've accomplished is having victims become "bad" people.

  41. - Judge for yourself!!!

  42. pogrow is not frum - so what is your point?

  43. Your assumption is false.

  44. BetYouCantPushJustOneJuly 17, 2016 at 8:56 PM

    I would like all the narcissists of the Litvak world and the various Hassidic naturas to know that they're giving the Left exactly what they want with all this infighting - and that is to further the destruction of the family unit.

    Personally, I refuse on principle to mentor young people from families with degenerate parents on this basis alone. People need to see that those who suck all the air out of the room are precisely the ones that are the biggest hinderance to the future of their children.

  45. The lack of accountability of Seewald/JCW is part of the reason they have been successful."
    no accountability?!?!?!
    RED FLAG!!!!!!!!!

  46. Are you saying you would have refused to mentor Meir and Yehuda Pogrow then? Is that you point?

  47. BetYouCantPushJustOneJuly 18, 2016 at 6:32 AM

    No, but rather that the Left's goal is to destroy the nuclear family so that they can consolidate power in government. Naturally, who would they come after first? Who has the strongest families? Jews, of course.

    So they'll go and appeal to the egos of several prominent Jews, and cause strife amongst various communities by inciting them to tribalism.

    Pogrow's brother should shut up. Whether he's right or wrong, no one cares. Sometimes you have to roll with the punches. Let's not fuel the fire.

    Hopefully Moshiach will come immediately and put an end to this chaos.

  48. I have always thought it extremely important to have an open dialogue with one's adversaries. I would like to gain a deeper understanding of your concerns so I can perhaps adjust my course of action if I feel they are valid. If you would feel so inclined, I would appreciate it if you would please reach out to me at the email address listed at the end of either of my articles. I do not post the email address here out of respect for those in this forum who have previously requested I not do so. I promise to keep our conversations confidential if that is your preference.

  49. I care about a lot of things. What I have gone public about here is my care for Survivors / victims of abuse and children who may be subjected to future abuse. All children, anywhere. So far, I have limited my "call to action" to the Orthodox Jewish world, because that is the one with which I am most familiar. It isn't about a care for Yeshivas per se; it's a care about children. Although I received an intense Yeshiva education, I do not hold myself out as qualified in any way whatsoever to make recommendations about Jewish curriculum. In sum, the fact that I consider myself to be not religious at all is irrelevant. I strongly suspect many will disagree. That's ok. "Disagreement is fantastic," so long as it is expressed respectfully.

  50. I humbly agree that this is a significant concern. I will share with you that I am already brainstorming how to implement a strong checks and balances system within the organization I have started, so that I, as "CEO" of sorts (it is hard to take myself seriously calling myself that, but I suppose I am the "CEO"), am very much accountable to the public and their representatives. I welcome any suggestions, although I prefer they be sent to me at the email address in my articles rather than in this public forum.

  51. There is no problem for you posting your email address here. The original concern was that in the context of your original essay you were inviting victims to call you for help.

    I see no problem with anybody contacting you as long as they do it with open eyes .

    I would like to conduct this conversation in the open. since we both agree that it is an important issue - I think it will help everybody. It might also encourage those I have criticized in the field to participate explaining why they have remained silent - either supporting you or Seewald in this discussion.

  52. a) Yes, I come with a lot of "baggage". A vast majority of the advocates I have encountered these past few weeks have told me that they, too, come with a lot of baggage, in no small part because so many of them are survivors themselves. Would the cause of victims / survivors be better of if no one with baggage engaged in the fight for them? I am fairly confident that not many of these advocates would declare that their baggage is no longer "unresolved."

    b) I answer your question with a question? Should the many, many people who have been fighting for victims for years "add their own unresolved issues" to the lives of victims? Such a big part of the job of the supportive survivor is to do their absolute best to ensure they can avoid adding their baggage in an inappropriate manner. However, so much of being a supportive survivor is "sharing" one's baggage in the right way and with the appropriate boundaries. Sharing one's baggage in the appropriate manner is such a big part of what makes support groups of all forms help people.

    c) It absolutely did bring about such an avalance. I do not hold myself out as a Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King, Jr, but did they not bring about an avalanche of negative criticism? It is my prayer that you agree with me that they changed the world for the better.

    d) Yes, I absolutely should. It seems much of the public has an assumption that I have not. This is false.

    e) I cannot know what the impact I have caused to the victims with whom I have not interacted. I do humbly assert that with the victims with whom I have interacted, and those who have reached out to me either via email or by messaging and/or commenting on my organization's Facebook page to whom I have not yet had a chance to respond, I have engendered at least some small step toward healing rather than pain -- or at least that is what they have told me. It is very unfair to judge the full gamut of my "work" these past few weeks based on a public humiliation related to interactions with 2 individuals -- who happen be victims of abuse.

    f) I do my absolute best, including -- among many other tools in my kit which I do my best to employ -- being in professional counseling consistently for the past 20 years.

    Thank you for your well-wishes.

  53. I "hear" what you are saying. I am honestly not sure how much more time I can focus on continuing to "explaining" my "side" in this open forum, although it certainly is indeed an important issue. Since it is quite clear that the other "side" in this disagreement have a whole lot more backers than I do (if for no other reason than they are well-established, I would not possibly be able to keep up with the volume of disagreement I would receive). However, more generally I think calling for an effort to call people to reengage in the past dispute is unproductive. It seems the dispute is over. I think for the benefit of the individuals involved (including me, no doubt), Survivors, and institutions that protect them, trying to re-ignite the debate is not wise. I pray you will follow my suggestion (I wonder if JCW and / or Meyer Seewald would agree. I hope they would but I cannot know). May I suggest, however, that if we have come to agree that this perhaps has become more of a "debate" as opposed to a "story" about an experienced advocate humiliating a "newbie" to the scene, you consider changing the subject of the article to something more even-handed. If you now perceive this as a kind of "dispute" between Seewald and me (which I humbly hope is now over), perhaps a more even-handed title is called for. I confess that this is a request largely out of pure self-interest -- I simply believe that the title of the article is unfair, both to me, and to my organization. You know your readership far better than I do, but I have a hunch that a significant portion of your audience doesn't scroll down through all the comments to read my "side" of the story. Even the many of them who will see the most recent "update" in which you quoted me at the top, many will still likely be far more influenced by the title and majority of the substance of the article than the updates posted. I'm no expert journalist, but "headlines" are called headlines for a reason. I still think that a deletion of this article is most appropriate, but I suspect that is not going to be a suggestion you will follow.

  54. Further to the above, I think a protracted discussion of the "history" of this dispute could possibly lead to further leakage of the substance of the "evidence" underlying it. I assure you that would be exceedingly harmful to the individuals who were the source of Seewald's calling me out, as well as to me. There is a reason Meyer deleted his post when I suggested I might publish the communications from my 2 anonymous "adversaries" in this story, and there is a reason why I have not named these adversaries. You have my word -- for what it is worth -- that it is my honest opinion that it would not be to their benefit if their names were known to the public. Note that they have not chosen to disclose their names. I presume they would have if they thought it would be in their -- or the public's -- interest. In sum, let's not encourage the possibility of such information leakage. I believe it is not in the public interest whatsoever.

  55. I am not interested in protracted discussion of the history - I am interested in the topic of why those who claim to be most sensitive to the issue of protected victims - did not vote for or against you and provide any public notice of their concerns?

    Of greater interest is what you think can be done when dealing with well meaning individuals who might be problematic in certain areas?

  56. This is an attack that I truly do not understand. I'm not offended by it. I just have no idea where it is coming from.

  57. As many experienced advocates have told me in recent weeks, throwing that -- and similar lines -- out in the public is harmful to the cause of victims and survivors, because it tends to make victims / survivors feel afraid to seek help and come forward for fear that they will be stigmatized as likely future abusers. I do not advocate for censorship, but if our motivation is pure, this remark is unproductive. There is indeed research that I have read as a layperson to support that some abusers were abused themselves. However, in the interest of the cause, that information must be shared very carefully and in context, including by couching it with the idea that the vast majority of victims of abuse are far more likely to not repeat the pattern / continue the cycle (I am no expert on this subject, but that is my understanding as a layperson.)

  58. Can you clarify both of your questions? I ask that respectfully. I think I have a sense of them, but I want to be sure of exactly what you are asking before I respond (I will do my best to respond ASAP.)

  59. What is also *egregiously* false, is that "the only tangible think you've accomplished is having victims become 'bad' people." First, I do not believe my two "adversaries" are bad people, although I am certainly disappointed by their actions. Second, to say that my achievements are limited to the vague disinformation spread about me is woefully unfair. Feel free to look at the Facebook page of my new organization, Survivors for Change, to determine for yourself whether I have engendered any positive feedback from those who have been hurting (but please, do not comment negatively on that page; if not out of respect for me, then out of respect for fellow survivors). And I certainly have many -- confidential -- communications from others who have expressed deep appreciation for my efforts. It is so important for all to not believe "everything they see on TV."

  60. Danielle, your last paragraph is why I wish I could get some sort of apology. Not because I need it to feel better on a personal level, but because it unfortunately has indeed "stuck," which may well hamper my efforts both in this arena as well as in any other professional pursuit (including a possible furtherance of my finance career -- when people see google results, they read the headlines) But so be it.

  61. I would like you to know that I greatly appreciated this comment. This comment, along with a similar sentiment expressed by others, is perhaps the strongest reason I did my best to end this dispute yesterday. Reputations are important, but what I really hope is that any concerns victims had can be quickly addressed and their faith in the system that seeks to protect them is quickly restored. It matters to me none whatsoever whom victims turn to. Speaking of which, I have read on Facebook that some categorized this dispute as one between "competing organizations." I cannot speak for JCW, but in no way whatsoever do I see myself as a competitor to them. In fact, I hope that I can complement their wonderful work. One on-the-ground concrete example would be if my platform is able to encourage a survivor to come forward, and as part of their story they share with me that an active abuser is still out there on the prowl, I would immediately -- with the survivor's permission -- forward the portion of their story that testifies to the ongoing danger to those equipped with the ability to hunt that abuser down and knock him out. Perhaps I am guilty of tooting my own horn, but two alleged perpetrators of horrific sex crimes are now being investigated as a result of people who came forward to me, who -- as far as they told me -- had previously given up on the possibility of taking these alleged assailants off the street. I now have absolutely nothing to do with these investigations. I passed the information along to the people equipped to handle it, and stepped away. I am not free to share to whom I have passed the information along. But I hope we can agree that if successfully locking these alleged criminals up is all my articles will have achieved, it will have been a fruitful effort.

  62. You are obviously very bright. They were court style Yes or No answers, so I can't really consider the Rashi & Tosfos with them.
    Problem is/was you put yourself in the line of fire and that's not pleasant for anyone. Believe me that when I suggest that you just let go, I'm ALSO thinking of your well being.
    Why expose yourself to taking so much flak?
    Focus on your career in the financial industry, revisit the idea of becoming POTUS (or a lesser office in which you can benefit the community), revist and rediscover Yiddishkeit... Many positive things you can do with the gifts HaShem's given you.
    As for the issue at hand and your will to be an advocate, I'm afraid that ship has sailed before it even arrived.

  63. Now *that* was a compliment :)

  64. My suggestion is to cease any further comment on the whole dispute. Don't talk, threaten, argue or justify. Just do. No more negative. Don't give people more gossip. Not helpful.

    Personally I think the world would rather see a time out for reflection, therapy, writing a book. Go on TV and talk about it. There are stages to becoming a credible advocate and self revelation and scrutiny is the first.

    Then eventually turn the experience into a nonprofit with a board of directors that is accountable as you state elsewhere.

    And for the record I use the computer on Shabbos and am working on doing less driving. Nobody is so holy holy.

  65. I wish to call the public attention's to the fact that the blogger of Frum Follies, Yerachmiel Lopin, operates under a pseudonym. His real name is Danny Katz. I firmly believe this disclosure is in the public interest. Mr. Katz published a piece today which was critical of me. He violated my confidence when he published it because he based his (illegitmate) criticisms of me in large part on off-the-record conversations he and I had. When I decided to counter his attack with a post on Facebook that included the disclosure of his real name, he threatened me. I do not belive Mr. Katz deserves the creditibility he so widely enjoys.

  66. It is not an attack. It is an opinion. This is what my observation has been. After your admirable apology, I had intended to come on here and express my admiration. However, your reaction to Lopin is very unimpressive, or worse.

    Lopin - who helped you get your name out there - wrote a pretty positive article about you. But, he did write that in the here-and-now you are not the right address for hurt, emotionally distressed people. I'll add, neither are you currently the right address for someone who needs surgery on your foot. However, your reaction to Lopin does not say positive things about you. Is that the way you behave to a person who has helped you? You take his help and you turn it against him?!

    What does that say about you? Is trampling upon others OK for you if you're thereby fulfilling your emotional wants? How is this not part of the psyche of an abuser?

    (I do not like what Lopin writes, at all, in any way. I only read his article now because it was linked here. But that's not relevant.)



please use either your real name or a pseudonym.