Friday, December 24, 2021

Flaws in the Proposal of Rabbi Emanuel Rackman


  1. “Flaws in the Proposal of Rabbi Emanuel Rackman” My complaint against Rackman/Morgenstern even Rabbi Lookstein (son)---they view a woman who got a NYS civil divorce as basically divorced, just missing the formalities of the get. No. In Aranoff v Aranoff Susan never got a NYS civil divorce. Susan paid a lot of money to get a fake aranoff divorce document in 2013 ten years after the get 1993. This is why I say the lot of them are rotten scoundrel frauds.

    I have access to Pacer:
    119115972237 (
    “On April 21, 2015, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit kidnapping. (See Jury Verdict as to Mendel Epstein, ECF No. 352.) Defendant’s conviction followed a jury trial wherein he was charged with various kidnapping-related offenses, stemming from his involvement in a scheme through which he, along with others, sought to assist Jewish women in obtaining religious divorces from their recalcitrant husbands. (See Amended Redacted Indictment, ECF No. 344.) On December 15, 2015, this Court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment of 120 months.”

    My theory. Many of the alleged recalcitrant husbands are not divorced in NYS civil law. Alleged means without proof.

    I heard Rabbi Lookstein say at a rally for agunot in late 1980s, that once the agunah got a civil divorce, the man should give her the get. No. Too easy to get a fake NYS civil divorce. Just cost money. Mendel Epstein agunah solution costs her money too. This is investment money: to get the house, the children, sweet (sinful) revenge etc.

    Maybe I’ll cause a reform in NYS courts to stop fraudulent/fake NYS divorces. Then the alleged agunah has to answer her husband’s letters and talk to him etc. I kept my cool all these 30 years. I got on with my life. I resisted pressure to give Susan a NYS civil divorce.

    My letter 12/23/2021 to NYS Court of Appeals:
    “5.According to NYS law I'm still married to Susan and I'm still part owner of the marital house.
    6.The NYS Court of Appeals errs in stating: ORDERED, that the motion is dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.”

    Back to parsha שמות Pharaoh was a rotten scoundrel fraud. Hertz Chumash says the Egyptians always liked the Jews. Do the Americans like the Jews today? Yes.

  2. Thanks for the uptick KA. To counsel women whose husbands use the Get as a weapon to extort financial gain or custodial rights, or to exact revenge during the divorce process.

    I claim women turned the NYS civil divorce process to a weapon to extort financial gain or custodial rights, or to exact revenge during the divorce process.

    What are dead marriages? (“ Our Mission: To free women trapped in dead marriages by recalcitrant husbands who refuse to grant a Get.”).

    Simple: a dead marriage is after a NYS civil contested divorce. Susan asked me to agree to a NYS civil divorce January 1992. I adamantly refused. Susan said to me January 1992: that’s the ticket. Why did I refuse? I didn’t want, in January 1992, my marriage to be a dead marriage. I had hopes Susan would join me and our 6 children in Israel as she promised me in writing in 1989.

    Susan’s mission: To promote a systemic halachic solution to free agunot. Rabbinical courts must be encouraged to assert their halachic authority to dissolve dead marriages by applying the halachic concepts of kiddushei ta’u, hafka’at kiddushin, and umdenah.

    My theory: Yes there are halachic concepts of kiddushei ta’u, hafka’at kiddushin, and umdenah but to true dead marriages, but not to NYS contested civil divorce cases where the woman wins. Wow did Susan ever win in my case: 9% interest on a phony balance, the whole house, 55% of my pension since early 1994 with no end in sight! I hear virtually nothing from the NYS Court of Appeals, TIAA, and Susan. Do they read this blog?

  3. Torah thought daf hayomi Megilah 12a
    “At the end of this period, the king gave a banquet for seven days in the court of the king’s palace garden for all the people who lived in the fortress Shushan high and low alike (Esther 1:5). Rab and Samuel interpreted this differently. One said he was a clever king, and the other said that he was a foolish king. The one who held he was a clever king said that he did well in entertaining [lit., bringing near] his distant subjects first, because he could win over the inhabitants of his own city any time he wished. The one who held that he was foolish says that he ought to have entertained the inhabitants of his metropolis first, so that if the others rebelled against him, these would have supported him.”

    Interesting. We could ask Trump v Biden which one is clever and which one is foolish? No. Politics politics.

    Megilah 12a: not debating the raw intelligence of the king. The Gamara is debating if the king concerned himself with politics or not. The one that says that the king was foolish, because he believes the king did not concern himself with politics. The one that says the king was clever because he believes the king did concern himself with politics. My theory, follow KA, Garnel, Joseph?

    Update on Trump SCOTUS docket number 21-952:
    " The question presented is: Whether the Committee’s records request violates the Constitution or laws of the United States entitling President Trump to a preliminary injunction prohibiting production of the records to the Committee."

    Idea for me. I should phrase my Aranoff v Aranoff complaints that way, e.g: whether the NYS Court of Appeals dismissal of my motion violates the NYS Constitution or laws of NYS?

    Yes, I love Trump and Netanyahu. No doubt the Committee’s records request is illegal. Will SCOTUS support Trump?


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.