EVERY SIGNATURE MATTERS - THIS BILL MUST PASS!

EVERY SIGNATURE MATTERS - THIS BILL MUST PASS!
CLICK - GOAL - 100,000 NEW SIGNATURES! 75,000 SIGNATURES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED TO GOVERNOR CUOMO!

CLICK!

Friday, January 12, 2007

SEX ABUSE IN THE ORTHODOX JEWISH COMMUNITY

The Awareness Ctr. Writes:

I've been informed that there are several radio talk shows in the New York area that are addressing sexual abuse in Jewish communities.

The Dov Hikind show is doing a series
When: Saturday Night: 11:00 to 12:00 pm
Where: 570 am.

This week there is going to be a special 1 & 1/2 hour show. A survivor will be interviewed for 45 minutes where he will share his story and the effects it has had on his life.

There will also be a mental health professional who will talk about abuse in the Jewish Community.


The show can be downloaded now: Cut & Paste.

http://www.savefile.com/files/411648:

http://www.savefile.com/files/411663:

28 comments:

Question said...

Has Dov Hikind done anything to push legislation and aid Elliot Pasik ? He also has a lot of pull, so has he otherwise done things behind the scenes to get abusers out of yeshivos?

Rabbi Effy Wachsmann said...

Stop listening to UOJ. Although he is a gadol, he is not sanctioned by the heiliger Agudah. The same thing goes for Reb Shraga Feivel because he is from a different dor and his letter about corrupt rabbonim is very embarassing for us. So SHHHH, don't even mention his name again.

The Jewish Week said...

DOV HIKIND HAS PROBLEMS WITH A DIFFERENT TYPE OF ABUSE:

Hikind’s Anti-Olmert Cash Raised Via Tax Cheat’s Charity
Experts say campaign to have prime minister resign may violate law.
Larry Cohler-Esses - Editor At Large

Tax experts this week sharply questioned a New York State Assembly member’s use of a religious charity run by a convicted tax evader to fund a campaign to get Israel’s prime minister to resign.

Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind raised some $40,000 to run full-page ads in Jewish newspapers last month calling on Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to quit and urging supporters to back his cause by writing tax-deductible checks to a charity called Yad Moshe. Both pre- and post-ad contributions were channeled through Yad Moshe.

The ads, however, instructed donors to mail the checks to an address that was not the charity’s but the headquarters of Hikind’s campaign finance committee, Friends of Dov Hikind.

The committee’s headquarters is also the Brooklyn residence of Wolf Sender, a longtime Hikind political associate. Last July, Friends of Dov Hikind gave $2,000 to Yad Moshe.

Sender declined to answer questions about the arrangement. But Rabbi Gershon Tannenbaum, the head of Yad Moshe, said they used Sender’s address merely as a mail drop to “segregate” the funds meant for the anti-Olmert campaign. Hikind and Rabbi Tannenbaum defended their use of the charity to solicit tax-deductible contributions, arguing that their cause was not political but moral and nonpartisan.

“The ads were not supporting any candidate from a political point of view,” said Hikind. “Who do I prefer [to replace Olmert]? I have no clue. The message was that this is a man who endangers Israel.”

The Internal Revenue Service prohibits the use of charity money for partisan political purposes—including abroad—and bars donors from taking deductions on contributions made to such causes. Hikind’s use of a religious charity to channel funds connected to his ad were first noted on The Politicker, a blog published by The New York Observer, and followed up on YudelLine, a Web site authored by Larry Yudelson, a former reporter for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

The ad in question ran last month in a number of high-profile Jewish papers, including The Jewish Week, The Forward and The Jewish Press. Headlined in large type at the top of the ad with a picture of Olmert was the message: “PRIME MINISTER OLMERT, PLEASE RESIGN!”

The ad went on to denounce Olmert, also in upper case type, as, “ARROGANT,” “IRRESPONSIBLE,” “DELUSIONAL,” “INEPT,” “CONFUSED,” “INDECISIVE,” “OVERWHELMED,” AND “INCOMPETENT.”

“Olmert, please resign. For the sake of Israel and the Jewish people,” the ad concluded. Its sponsor was identified as “ASSEMBLYMAN DOV HIKIND,” adding, “COMMITTEE IN FORMATION.” Smaller type on the bottom instructed donors wishing to “participate in this campaign” to “forward your tax deductible contributions to Yad Moshe, 1254 E. 35th Street, Brooklyn NY 11210”—Sender’s residence.

After reviewing the ad, Bruce Hopkins, one of the country’s leading authorities on charities law said, “I just don’t see how these contributions are tax deductible. They’re clearly for a political campaign.”

Further, he said, if the funds collected were spent to advance the cause of ousting Olmert, “It would cause them [Yad Moshe] to lose their tax-exempt status.”

Hopkins conceded that in most cases, “When you think of a political campaign, you think of transferring money to help someone get elected or to prevent their election. Here, it’s more in the nature of a recall. But it’s the same outcome.” He noted the ad’s use of the word “campaign” in its solicitation and suggested that could have legal implications.

Marcus Owens, a former chief of the IRS’s exempt organizations division, which includes charities, said, “What the ad suggests is potentially actionable. An ad calling for the resignation of a political figure is not a charitable act.”

Yad Moshe, he said, would be particularly vulnerable to legal action if the sums funneled through it constituted a significant portion—“say, 25 percent”—of its budget.

“The IRS has been moving aggressively to seek injunctions where promoters are promising tax deductions for things that are not charitable,” said Owens.

Rabbi Tannenbaum declined to say how large Yad Moshe’s budget was. And no financial data on the charity were available because it is registered with the IRS as a religious organization. Unlike secular nonprofits, such as education or social-welfare organizations, religious charities are exempted from reporting to the IRS or to the public on their finances or how they spend their money. The government maintains this exemption to avoid entanglement between religion and state. The charities, in exchange, are expected to rigorously avoid involvement in partisan politics.

Rabbi Tannenbaum, however, has had a checkered record when it comes to handling money. The cleric, who heads the Rabbinical Alliance of America and is spiritual leader of B’nai Israel of Linden Heights, pleaded guilty to tax evasion in 1996 and served 10 months in prison for the felony.

More recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Rabbi Tannenbaum with securities fraud in a civil case. And a jury in 2002 found him guilty in a federal civil suit filed by a plaintiff who claimed he was a victim of the fraud, which involved false claims about the assets of a company whose stock Rabbi Tannenbaum and others were promoting. The SEC case remains unresolved. Rabbi Tannenbaum is appealing the jury’s decision in the civil suit.

Rabbi Tannenbaum declined to comment on his criminal conviction. But he said that the campaign to get Olmert to resign “is absolutely not political. It’s definitely within the functions and purposes of a charitable organization . ... We’re not endorsing any candidate. We’re talking about the unity of the Jewish people. It’s moral and religious.”

He said he and Hikind chose to use Yad Moshe as their conduit on the advice of an accountant, whom he declined to name.

Rabbi Tannenbaum said of Yad Moshe, whose address is his residence, “It’s a congregation, basically. All the things I do besides my shul [B’nai Israel of Linden Heights] are through Yad Moshe.” These include “a lot of chesed activities”—aid and comfort to the downtrodden—“bikur cholim”—visiting the sick—“and other activities like that.”

Rabbi Tannenbaum said the $40,000 raised to pay for the ads was channeled “partially” through Yad Moshe. But he said the response to the financial appeal was “not especially strong . . . The contributions did not replenish our cost.” Nevertheless, “The ads gave us the recognition we were looking for. At least the discussion got started.”

Asked about previously announced plans to place similar ads in Israeli newspapers, Rabbi Tannenbaum said, “It’s not maturing as rapidly as we thought. We’re not accelerating, and we’re not racing toward it.

Hikind, however said, “We have gotten a lot of support” when asked about donor response to the ads. “We have a group in Israel that will be placing full-page ads there. We’ve gotten a very, very positive response.”

Hikind was acquitted of federal bribery charges in 1998 in a case in which two officials of a Brooklyn charity were convicted of having misappropriated government funds by directing them to benefit Hikind.

Like Rabbi Tannenbaum, Hikind stressed that the ad’s message was “a moral issue, because we believe Israel is in jeopardy. When I say the situation in Israel is so dangerous, there is nothing political about that. ... The ads were bipartisan and not supporting any candidate or from a political point of view.”

But Hikind acknowledged, “I’m not a tax attorney. If someone has an issue [with the ads] they should raise it. I can’t tell you I’m an expert. I discussed it, not with tax experts but a number of people. ... I spoke with one person who some consider an expert . . . and one person who is an accountant said [he] did not see a problem.”

He declined to name the accountant.

Response to Gil Student said...

Please refer to the audio file of Gil Student's public address.

Gil started off in his first "for the record" post here by saying that Rabbi Rosenberg never mentioned anything about UOJ, which would have me putting words in his mouth as it were. Very true regarding Rabbi Rosenberg and also very misleading because Gil himself referred to the NY Magazine article at 1 hour and 47 minutes into the forum. This was after all the other dead giveaway clues that Gil provided. How do you spell comic relief ? It's not R-O-L-A-I-D-S. It's Gil Student giving a speech on U-O-J. If Gil wants to play dumb he will have to find another choir to preach to.

Gil said that I mistated the Neuhoff details that he told me. That is simply not true.

Gil has adamantly stated that his words that night can only be interpreted as lauding UOJ. He then tried to "clarify" by saying he was not attacking UOJ on his core mission of stopping molesters, but over what Gil feels are peripheral issues, like UOJ maligning people that are "remotely involved" or who "merely mishandled" the situation. Gil was mocked at the time for not making sense about the enablers who are much more complicit than he would like us to believe.

I will now demonstrate that the audio shows, in my view, that Gil also contradicted himself on the core inyan of UOJ vs molesters.

45 minutes into the audio - Gil makes what sounds like an odd statement that he is not interested in molesters going to jail. That he feels, is for victims interested in "revenge". Gil says he is only interested in protecting his children. Pray do tell Gil, how you can ensure your children's safety if predatory beasts are allowed to roam free ?

46 minutes - Although Gil later commends UOJ, he describes UOJ's tactics of stopping molesters as "offensive"

48 minutes - Gil informs us that what UOJ did (in the context of stopping molesters) was "ossur" - "but he saved children."

50 minutes - The same UOJ that Gil claims he called a "hero", is labeled a "malcontent". I'm not sure which definition Gil bears in mind but the word was apparently first introduced to English in the Middle Ages. In Shakespearian & later Renaissance literature, the morality and sympathy of the malcontent is a massive variable.

1 hour & 17 minutes - Rav Blau shlita criticizes the parent body of Tora Temima for enabling Margulies and setting back the fight against molestation in general by leaving their sons in the yeshiva. Allow me to derive from this that Gil's friend Neuhoff is in the same boat, if not worse, for accepting Margulies's offer of employment. To my knowledge Gil has never criticized Neuhoff at all, although the apologists have begun littering the blogs with alibis for Neuhoff, which will probably be invoked. Neuhoff mind you, has had time to sanitized his blog by deleting many revolting items that would be difficult to defend against. Furthermore, Gil has not bestowed any of the plethora of rosy appellations on Neuhoff that he applied to UOJ, like "obnoxious", "malcontent", etc

1 hour & 26 minutes - Gil admits that no one has been unjustly fired as a result of being accused. In the same breath he then says he would still not employ UOJ's methods.

1 hour & 29 minutes - be'neshima achas, Gil says that UOJ saved children AND that UOJ attacked "well meaning" people (I can't make this up)

Gil says he is most upset by the Rabbi Schiffenbauer "revelation". I did not hear any mention of the minyan on the recording although I am sure it was part of the public comments. I don't know who it was that uploaded the tape after almost a week and wether there could have been some sort of glitch or edit. I was sure that Gil mentioned the minyan, most likely after enumerating the various yeshivos whose talmidim he said follow the blogs. I cannot even figure out a context where it could have been inserted in our semi-private conversation. (I believe there is one other remark made last week, one that is a political hot potato, that is mysteriously missing. I would have to listen to the audio again to be certain). Still, I am guilty of at least one error here. There was really no need for me to farentfer myself. Gil does not accuse me of fabricating that story and I did not blow some kind of secret as Rabbi Schiffenbauer gave the remarks in his shul where it was surely at least be'apei tlasa. As I mentioned earlier, I also had no idea who Gil was referring to. Abstract parties filled in the blanks because it was already public knowledge.

Getting back to the contradictions that are like tantzerei bei alleh chassunos, I would ask the real Gil Student to please stand up.

boog said...

Hikind and (Hot Money)Tannenbaum together. What a team. The irony of it all. Criticising Olmert who is currently under several investigations for his own funny money deals and influence peddling.

Maybe Guiliani was right about Hikind, after all.

Yoisher is a 4-letter word.

Shabbat Shalom.

Chance Meeting with Gil Student said...

Someone posted a tidbit about Rabbi Schiffenbauer which I learned today is a silly misrepresentation. (Gil should not blame himself for what some immature ignoramous does and feel he somehow inspired the post.)

A post stated that R.S. said it's better to stay home than come to shul without a hat & jacket. What the rabbi actually said was he quoted a machlokes Rav Elyashev who said you can come to shul without a hat if you will instead miss davening & Rav Zilbershtein who holds you can not.

Bill Cosby said...

sounds like getting Gil Student to explain his shitos is like trying to nail a piece of Jello to the wall

Dovid Stein said...

Gil,

Grow a pair.

Thanks

Who Was Paying ? said...

Boog and esteemed readership,

Hikind & Tennenbaum is an old story. They were together on that junket to Gush Katif. Tennenbaum made the usual bogus claim that he was there on behalf of the Iggud haganovim who represent, depending on what mood they are in, 750 or over 1000 American & Canadian Orthodox rabbis. They also have a couple of bridges in Brooklyn to sell. Next he'll say he's Napoleon.

Vicki Polin said...

If anyone hears the radio show can you let me know how it went? I'm not in NY so I can't listen. We all need to be supportive of the survivor who is speaking out.

vickipolin@aol.com

Heads Up to UOJ said...

I have information that the Belsky camp is making moves in response to the rabbonishe letters of condemnation that you publicized. They are saying that they have the backing of Rav Elyashev, who they claim gave the green light for Rabbi Belsky to do as he saw fit in the Schattner case.

I find it hard to believe that Rav Elyashev would back a bittul kidushin. It's not easy to verify that Rav Elyashev actually said something these days with the protective mafia that surrounds him.

If Rav Elyashev did actually say it, virtually any rov would be forced to back down except for hard core Briskers who have it in for him because the Brisker Rov didn't hold of him. R' Velvel was furious over a beis din of appeals that Rav Elyashev sat on which is against halacha. Rav Elyashev came up with a big chidush in halacha that he's doing it al smach the beis din hagadol. I think he evntually quit when the repulsive Shlomo Goren was later placed on the beis din, to avoid the disgrace of sitting with him.

Margo Crime Chronicles said...

Could we have some help from the YTV old timers on this one ?

Excuse me for not remembering the exact nusach in the mamma loshon, but is it true that Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky said on Margo: That some Yidden become ganovim, but one Yid was born a ganav ?

The Skipper said...

"I don't know who it was that uploaded the tape after almost a week and wether there could have been some sort of glitch or edit ... (I believe there is one other remark made last week, one that is a political hot potato, that is mysteriously missing. I would have to listen to the audio again to be certain)"

Moishe Scherer is said to have edited sensitive material out of the old convention tapes. Why can't the modern orthodox do the same when it suits their purpose? Voltaire might say that the recording of Gilligan's speech is fiction agreed upon.

Anonymous said...

"Gil started off in his first "for the record" post here by saying that Rabbi Rosenberg never mentioned anything about UOJ, which would have me putting words in his mouth as it were. Very true regarding Rabbi Rosenberg and also very misleading because Gil himself referred to the NY Magazine article at 1 hour and 47 minutes into the forum."

Didn't he just say that rabbi shiffenbauer did mention anything about UOJ. Read the posts again. That's definitely what he was saying.

United Media said...

"Moishe Scherer is said to have edited sensitive material out of the old convention tapes."

Scherer is also said to have cut the mike when a true gadol would say something out of line of the Agudah spin agenda. He would then never invite that gadol back.

The limud from all this is to bring your Apple Ipod to get the goods on these guys, especially the Agudah and Dilbert Student.

YTV OLD TIMER said...

R' Yakov Kaminetzky ZT"L said exactly whay you said about Margulies. He hated him and said to a few talmidim that "Torah emanating from that school(not yeshiva) will have no kiyum".

Was R' Yakov right or what?

Yeshivishe Nudnik said...

I understand the Brisker Rov had other taynos associated with the appeals beis din on Rav ELyashev, but that the Chazon Ish backed up Rav Elyashev on those. Does anyone know what the CHazon Ish or anyone else possibly said on beis din hagadol chidush ?

Also, was this the same beis din in the Great Synagogue of Jerusalem that the gedolim were in an uproar about ?

AmEchad said...

Why are we scared to post the name of all the abusers like the Romimu abuser?

Ombudsman said...

Another segment in our series of prevailing attitudes that facilitate abuse.

"Shmerel" is a baal habos who lives in Flatbush. The poor soul is rather shallow and materialistic. He will do anything to live the high life, but this is not enough. He feels a need to rub shoulders with the big machers and gevirim in town and he loves it that everyone sees. He even makes a point to brag to everyone how much he spends on various goods & services. His abode is not so humble. It must be one of the nicer homes in town. Of course, these puddle-deep pursuits have to be counter-balanced with a fake frumkeit show, lest anyone think he's not choshuv. The show is only a public display. He secretly gets every cable TV channel even though he signed documents at yeshivos that he would do no such thing. The wife is also a faker and they engage in conversation behind closed doors with the grace & vocabulary of Rubashkin truck drivers. "Shmerel" really has a long shopping list here. He has to go to the "in" hotel every Yontef and the "in" bungalow colony in the summer. And actually, the frumkeit show can be even more expensive. When there's an appeal by davening, the Gabbai has to call out a nice sum that you are being menadev and you can't get by without hosting a parlor meeting here and there.

"Shmerel" needs a way to pay for all these extras, so he cheats in business, fleecing so many people that he's lost count long ago.

Unfortunately, "Shmerel" is a real person that I know. He puts on a good enough act, that most people fall for it. There are other "Shmerels" out there, you can be sure. If the Shmerels of this world ever had a taayva to molest children, do you think they have enough yiras Hashem to abstain? Or do you think the Shmerels of this world have enough toychen to speak up for what's right?

Bnei Braq Citizen said...

Att: Nudnick
What the Chazon Ish did not back up the Israeli rabbinate appeals court. The thing he said about the Beit Din Hagadol, was that there is no such thing as an appeal court in halacha, and that the Rabbinut court operated by Rav Elyushka is nothing but a secular court using some halachic guidelines. The building which housed the dreck court of appeals at that time was Heichal Shlomo, today it is adjacent to the B"K Hagadol. Rav Velvel ZT"L, the Brisker Rav told the young Zionist Elyushka N"Y to stay out of Heichal Shlomo, but like Mr. Finkel from Monsey, money was more important than the Torah. And so, Elyushka refused to adhere to the Gadol Hador.

Anonymous said...

Belsky has no support at all on his wedding annulments from Rav Elyashiv Shlita. The only ones that support Belsky YMS on annulments are the phony beis din court of the finally dead Sidney Klass better known by his ficticious name Rabbi Shalom Klass.

What a Lowlife said...

There's someone who sounds a lot like Shmerel who is very slimy but very intelligent. He stooped so low to even steal cash at someone's wedding. They know he did it but it can't be proven in court. The cops said they needed more evidence. Rabbonim wanted to shake him down and scare him with some tough guys, but the tough guys refused to get involved because the shmuck could call the cops and they don't have a solid enough story. It was a complicated maaseh remiya what the guy did. Poskim said you can call him a ganav and if anyone asks them they advise not to do a shidduch with his children. Most people who attended the wedding have no idea who it is, except for some guests who saw him acting suspicious. People who know him otherwise, wouldn't suspect him.

And to think someone would steal from a chosson and kallah on their wedding night so he can finance his next vacation or home renovation. Eeeech.

Anonymous said...

Rabbi Yisroel Belsky posted comments on Chaptzem Blog stating that he knows very well Rabbi Jerry Brauner and that he knows him to be fully innocent of all the charges. This Rabbi Yisroel Belsky is a real jerk and knuckle head who by now must personally "own" all the bridges in the state of New York.

Anonymous said...

It's about time that Yisroel Belsky should join together with Sidney Klass. After all Sidney Klass must be very lonely down there.

Anonymous said...

Israel Belsky continues to constantly claim that Yidi Kolko, Ephrayim Bryks, Avrohom Mondrowitz, Jerry Brauner and himself are all purely innocent of those terrible charges. Can someone please tell me why Yisroel Belsky enjoys advocating all the perverted fags?

Sammy Weiner said...

It seems that Yisroel Belsky loves fags. You should have realized that by this time.

Anonymous said...

Someone should check out the Rebbeswho are teaching elementary school in Torah Temimah. one of them covered yp his own son's sexual abuse by his nephew. Can this Rebbe be trusted to care for other people's children when he doesn't care about his own son's mental health ow well being?

Anonymous said...

Someone should check out the Rebbeswho are teaching elementary school in Torah Temimah. one of them covered yp his own son's sexual abuse by his nephew. Can this Rebbe be trusted to care for other people's children when he doesn't care about his own son's mental health ow well being?