There is always going to be inequity. Some people are stronger. Some people are smarter. Some people think ahead when making important decisions. Others aren't, aren't and don't. The right needs to state that while inequity will always exist (even the Torah says so) it is important a) to ensure a level playing field and equality of opportunity if not results b) the responsibility of the individual to look around for the disadvantaged and to offer help
Kalonymus HaQatan says “On what basis did she manage to freeze your pension?” Thanks. Allow me first to quote from Exhibit A: Judge Rigler Order March 29, 2000: “In 1991, Ms. Aranoff filed an action for separation.” On the internet: “In Aranoff v Aranoff (226 A.D.2d 657), the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that a trial court was not required to recognize an Israeli divorce decree when there was no evidence that the foreign court had personal jurisdiction over both parties and, regardless, the trial court retained jurisdiction over issues of child support, even if the Israeli divorce decree was recognized.” Aranoff v Aranoff (226 A.D.2d 657) states: “In the separation action, the wife seeks, inter alia, support for the minor children.” “During the pendency of the separation action in New York, on February 17, 1993, a Rabbinical Court in the State of Israel issued a divorce decree.” Susan’s problem is that NYS courts have jurisdiction over child support only for married husband and wife. Rigler claims that I want to reargue a point already considered and settled. No. Talmud is actually the same as NYS law. With Susan accepting the get, DRL \S 170 is closed to her. In legal terms: Preclusion = the barring of evidence, testimony, etc. from a trial: "on the facts of this case, preclusion of testimony is not an appropriate sanction" I quote from Exhibit A: Judge Rigler Order March 29, 2000: “The law of the case doctrine is part of a larger family of kindred concepts, which includes res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion).” No. Susan had no good basis to freeze my pension 1994-1997. 1994 was after “During the pendency of the separation action in New York, on February 17, 1993, a Rabbinical Court in the State of Israel issued a divorce decree.” Claim and issue preclusion means that Susan in 1994 can no longer claim child support and no longer make the issue child support the central pieces of her 1991 separation action.. Anyway, the unjustified freezing of my pension 1994-1997 blocked me from paying child support.
There is always going to be inequity. Some people are stronger. Some people are smarter. Some people think ahead when making important decisions. Others aren't, aren't and don't.
ReplyDeleteThe right needs to state that while inequity will always exist (even the Torah says so) it is important
a) to ensure a level playing field and equality of opportunity if not results
b) the responsibility of the individual to look around for the disadvantaged and to offer help
sorry!
ReplyDeletethe Torah is not so naive
The Torah says both that
ReplyDeleteאֶפֶס, כִּי לֹא יִהְיֶה-בְּךָ אֶבְיוֹן: כִּי-בָרֵךְ יְבָרֶכְךָ
and also כִּי-יִהְיֶה בְךָ אֶבְיוֹן מֵאַחַד אַחֶיךָ, בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ, בְּאַרְצְךָ,
the feeling is mutual
ReplyDeleteOn what basis did she manage to freeze your pension?
ReplyDeleteKalonymus HaQatan says “On what basis did she manage to freeze your pension?”
ReplyDeleteThanks. Allow me first to quote from Exhibit A: Judge Rigler Order March 29, 2000:
“In 1991, Ms. Aranoff filed an action for separation.”
On the internet: “In Aranoff v Aranoff (226 A.D.2d 657), the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that a trial court was not required to recognize an Israeli divorce decree when there was no evidence that the foreign court had personal jurisdiction over both parties and, regardless, the trial court retained jurisdiction over issues of child support, even if the Israeli divorce decree was recognized.”
Aranoff v Aranoff (226 A.D.2d 657) states: “In the separation action, the wife seeks, inter alia, support for the minor children.” “During the pendency of the separation action in New York, on February 17, 1993, a Rabbinical Court in the State of Israel issued a divorce decree.”
Susan’s problem is that NYS courts have jurisdiction over child support only for married husband and wife.
Rigler claims that I want to reargue a point already considered and settled. No. Talmud is actually the same as NYS law. With Susan accepting the get, DRL \S 170 is closed to her. In legal terms: Preclusion = the barring of evidence, testimony, etc. from a trial: "on the facts of this case, preclusion of testimony is not an appropriate sanction"
I quote from Exhibit A: Judge Rigler Order March 29, 2000: “The law of the case doctrine is part of a larger family of kindred concepts, which includes res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion).”
No. Susan had no good basis to freeze my pension 1994-1997. 1994 was after “During the pendency of the separation action in New York, on February 17, 1993, a Rabbinical Court in the State of Israel issued a divorce decree.” Claim and issue preclusion means that Susan in 1994 can no longer claim child support and no longer make the issue child support the central pieces of her 1991 separation action.. Anyway, the unjustified freezing of my pension 1994-1997 blocked me from paying child support.