Wednesday, November 21, 2007
I Urge all readers of the blog to take the time, immediately, and whenever possible, to contact Sol Werdiger and let him know the message we want him to convey to the Gerer Rebbe: that we are not going to tolerate any more coverups and whitewashings for Mondrowitz; that this man must face justice for abominable crimes; that anyone who aids or protects a criminal is morally as culpable as the criminal himself; and that we will be sure to expose anyone guilty of coverup just as we are succeeding in exposing the story of Mondrowitz. They might mention Pirkei Avoth, 4:5: "Whoever is mi'chalel Hashem in secret will be chastised publicly."
DO IT NOW. Time is of the essence. We may never have such a good chance to ensure that this worst of cases may finally see some justice.
Contact info for Sol Werdiger:
Outer Stuff Ltd.
1370 Broadway 15th Fl
New York, NY 10018
I think this man should hear as much as possible from as many people as possible who are tired of the coverup of Mondrowitz.
Mondrowitz is being held until NOVEMBER 27 (which is his 60th birthday, by the way) when there will be another hearing to determine whether he is to remain incarcerated or released with an electronic tracking device. His lawyer, David Ofek, argued today that the court will have to determine whether he can be held because of the "statute of limitations."
We have to be disciplined and focused in our response. So, for right now... let's hit Werdiger. Hard, and repeatedly. I want him to be so stunned in the next few days he'll be asking the rebbe to do something, anything to get him out of trouble.
TRANSLATION OF JUSTICE SHIMON FEINBERG’S DECISION
CASE No. 011944/07
HONORABLE JUSTICE SHIMON FEINBERG
THE STATE OF ISRAEL,
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT
APPEARING BEFORE THE COURT:
For the Plaintiff: Nili Gesser, Esq. and Marilyn Mazal-Hershkovitz Esq.
For the Defendant: David Ofek, Esq. and Tzivia Golovik Esq.
1. In the matter of the request to extend the detention of the Respondents pursuant to Article 7 of the Extradition Law of 1954 (“Extradition Law”).
2. In 1985 the Respondent was issued an indictment in New York, United States on the charges of sodomy and other sexual assaults against five minors between the ages of nine through fifteen. The authorities of the United States issues an arrest warrant against him. However, before they were able to execute the warrant the Respondent fled to Israel. That year, the American authorities requested that the Israeli Government extradite the Respondent back to the United States. At that time the treaty between the two countries did not allow extradition for the crimes the Respondent was accused of. The State of Israel decided to remove him from the country. During that process, the Respondent appealed to the Israeli Supreme Justice Court and the State of Israel decided to abandon the proceedings of his removal. From that time on, the Respondent has been living with his family in Israel.
3. During the course of the past year the protocols of the extradition treaty were modified in a manner in which the crimes that the Respondent stands accused of by the courts of New York became extraditable crimes. In September 2007, the United States authorities requested the extradition of the Respondent from the State of Israel.
4. The Respondent was arrested on November 11, 2007 pursuant to Article 6 of the Extradition Treaty. The Requester now asks for an extension of the Respondent’s incarceration for an additional 12 days for the purpose of obtaining an updated extradition request to amend the request filed many years ago.
5. A hearing of the allegations was held before this Court on November 16, 2007. The Representative today introduced the following additional facts. In May of 2007, a search was conducted of the Respondent’s home where four films containing child pornography were discovered. The Requester also argued that the likelihood of the Respondents fleeing is high if he is not detained, because of his recent knowledge of the change in the Extradition Treaty which now allows his return to United States. The Requester further argues that the Respondent is a threat to the public as evidenced by the above material discovered in his home.
6. The Respondent argued that there are issues of statute of limitations and extensive period of time that has passed since the initial extradition request was made and denied. The Respondent requests that he be released in a manner which assures that the Respondent will reappear once the extradition proceedings commence, even suggesting that the Respondent be released to house arrest and monitored via an electronic monitoring bracelet.
7. The first question to consider is if the Respondent is a candidate for extradition based upon the revised extradition treaty? (See paragraph 6 of the extradition treaty.) We need to answer this request in a positive manner. The treaty between the two countries today states that these offenses are extraditable crimes. The Requester holds affidavits given on behalf of the victims/complainers against the Respondent about the crimes that the Respondent committed. All this evidence is the basis for the indictment against the Respondent, by the Unites States government.
8. Regarding the Respondents claim as to the statute of limitations and the large amount of time that has elapsed, Paragraph 2B (a) 6 of the extradition law, the upholding of the law is conditioned upon the time of the crime or its punishment not exceeding the statute of limitations according to Israeli law. According to paragraph 9 (a) 2 of the Israeli criminal code of 1982, a person cannot be prosecuted for a crime (except in death penalty or life in prison cases) if a period of ten years has past since the day the crime was committed. According to paragraph 9 (3) the statute of limitations commences either from the time of the last day of the investigation, or the day of the indictment or the last day of the proceeding in a court of law, whichever comes last. In our case, all of the proceedings as stated in paragraph 9 (3) above, occurred over ten years ago. The Representative of the government expressed that the statute of limitations might be an issue, however the courts in previous verdicts have recognized other cases where the statute of limitations was frozen where the accused has escaped before prosecution. Based upon paragraph 94-1 (3) of the criminal code, we can come to reject the claim against the statute of limitations.
(See criminal appeal 739-07 (supreme) Yonatan Efrat vs. Attorney General)
I have reviewed this case and concluded that there is a solid basis for the Requesters request regarding the statute of limitations; however this issue has some effect on my decision as to keeping the Respondent incarcerated as I will explain.
9. Another question that paragraph 6 of the extradition law raises is if there is a probable cause that an extradition request shall be filed? To that we answer in the affirmative, and the United States government has declared specifically that it will do so.
10. According to the previous decisions, in a hearing where the subject is in accordance with paragraph 7 to the extradition law, the court shall consider the regular arguments for keeping a person in custody, among them being the safety of the public, the concern of interfering with the investigation and primarily the fear of the accused fleeing, which is a permanent concern in a case of an extradition proceeding. In addition, the court shall consider the commitment that Israel has towards the requesting country – a commitment that is established in an international treaty that is the basis of the extradition law- to extradite the suspect and allow his extradition to the requesting country. This last consideration is a crucial one in a sense that at times it is justified to keep a person in custody even though general custody considerations state that he is to be released, because of the extra dimension that is as a result of Israel’s duty towards the requesting country. [Hon. Justice D. Banish (aka) see case #4422/03 Yitzchak Cohen vs. Attorney General.] These considerations are brought into account also during a proceeding of a requesting of incarceration prior to declaring a person extraditable [See case Jerusalem 11287/04 attorney General vs. Zev Rosenshtien.]
11. In our case, consideration for continued incarceration evolved from danger to the public and fear of the accused fleeing from justice. As to the consideration of danger to the public, findings of the investigation against the Respondent by the Israeli Police Department create a probable cause that the accused is still an active or potential pedophile. The fact that against the accused no criminal offenses have been brought does not negate the known danger of these offenses, especially in the ultra orthodox sector that the accused belongs to, because the victims and their families very often do not complain to the police because of the will of that sector to attempt to solve those problems internally without police involvement, to avoid humiliation to the family. I am not establishing that the accused has commenced any crimes in Israel, but I am not ruling that out either. The fear of fleeing from justice evolves from the revised treaty that allows the extradition of the accused to the United States, a situation that did not exist during the entire period of the accused’s stay in Israel. Additionally, one must bring into account the commitment of the State of Israel towards the requesting country that was established in an international treaty that is the basis of extradition law.
12. All of the above leads me to the conclusion to grant the Representatives request and to hereby order the continued incarceration of the accused. Nevertheless, due to the legality of the statute of limitation as I stated above, there is no room to rule out a potential alternative to incarceration as suggestion by the accused council.
13. Therefore, I hereby extend the incarceration of the accused as requested until November 27, 2007 at 12:00 PM. I am ordering a recommendation report of the Probational Service Office for consideration of a substitute for incarceration including house arrest with an electronic monitoring device. The report shall additionally consider the danger that the accused possesses. The report shall be submitted before the end of the term of incarceration. The report may be used by this court if an additional request for incarceration is filed according to paragraph 7A of the extradition law or if there is a request to declare the accused as extraditable.
14. The secretarial office shall send a copy of this decision to the probation service office.
Given today November 18, 2007 in the presence of all parties.
Shimon Feinberg, Judge
I came across this a while ago and finally found it again. This applies to all of us. May we all be blessed for it with continued success health and happiness. Thank you all from the bottom of my heart.
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world.Indeed it's the only thing that ever has.
Mark Weiss - Survivor - Activist
Ex-Brooklyn rabbi Avrohom Mondrowitz faces extradition to U.S. on kid-sex rap!
BY MATTHEW KALMAN
SPECIAL TO THE NEWS
Monday, November 19th 2007, 4:00 AM
Avrohom Mondrowitz (this summer - left ---- In court - right )
JERUSALEM - A Jerusalem magistrate Sunday ordered a former Brooklyn rabbi accused of raping several boys 20 years ago to jail while American and Israeli officials finalize a U.S. request for his extradition.
Avrohom Mondrowitz, a father of seven, faces extradition to stand trial in New York to answer a 1985 indictment on four counts of sodomy and eight counts of sexual abuse in the first degree.
Mondrowitz, 60, once a popular child psychologist and youth counselor in Borough Park, allegedly sodomized the boys after befriending them or after taking them on trips to the movies and amusement parks.
The U.S. extradition request, resubmitted in September after a change in the treaty between the U.S. and Israel, was delayed after one of the five complainants withdrew from the case.
The U.S. Justice Department is expected to file an amended request this week.
Mondrowitz was arrested early Friday morning at his Jerusalem home and arraigned the same day.
Judge Shimon Feinberg, vice president of the Jerusalem Magistrates' Court, found that Mondrowitz was a possible candidate for extradition and rejected defense arguments that the statute of limitations applied to the offenses, even though they were allegedly committed more than 20 years ago.
Feinberg granted a prosecution request to extend Mondrowitz's imprisonment until Nov. 27 after the prosecution told the court that an Israeli police raid on Mondrowitz's home in May had netted four pedophile movies.
Mondrowitz is due to appear in court again Nov. 27, when Feinberg will decide whether to extend his jailing until the end of the extradition proceedings, which could take several months.
Mondrowitz's wife, Raizel, declared his innocence.
"People can come up 25 years later and say all kinds of things about anybody. No one's had any complaints about him for the last 25 years. This is all old stuff," she said.
Rabbi Yosef Blau Comments!
The debate about whether the Haredi or modern Orthodox leadership has been more negligent in dealing with sexual abuse and which abuser is worse is at best a side show. Thr Mondrowitz case has raised serious questions about how the Orthodox rabbinate responded to the many accusations that emerged twenty plus years ago in Brooklyn.
Since almost no one has denied his guilt, minimally a public statement should be made expressing sympathy for his apparently many victims (my sources say that he sexually abused essentially all the boys that were sent to him)and support for his being extradited. It is also neccesary that there be a thorough investigation of the reports that various rabbis discouraged Jewish children from cooperating with the police and were complicit in his fleeing to Israel after being indicted. If these allegations are false then no one should be afraid of the facts being uncovered.
Steve....Kicks Shafran Where It Should Hurt If He Had Any.....
That is part of why the Torah-observant population is greatly underrepresented in the realms of societal ills like rape, AIDS, prostitution and marital infidelity that affect their less repressed neighbors.
WOW!! Don't we all feel so much better now!! Thank you Avi! UOJ, there is no need for this blog anymore. Tell Elliot Pasik that there is no need for all the fuss about background checks, fingerprinting, registry and mandatory reporting. After all, we are "underrepresented" when it comes to such things as child molestation! Tell all the victims of clergy sexual abuse that they really don't matter, you are "underrepresented".
How this moron continues to write such gibberish and gets away with it is beyond me. It's been a year and a half since that article he's referring to, and forty years since Kolko started his molestation career. Do we have anything in place from the Agudah or Torah Umesorah that will give our children one iota of protection? Why is it that public school children have this protection and our children have nothing? Will Avi L. Shafran or the Agudah ever address these questions head on, or will we continue to hear how wonderful the Orthodox world is, and that we are "underrepresented"? It's like the false prophets before the first Temple destruction, telling the people how wonderful they are.
Until there is a tremendous outcry from the community and a demand for change, we will continue hearing from these false prophets. If you care about your children and grandchildren, start putting pressure on the Agudah, Torah Umesorah and your local politicians. Mandatory background checks, fingerprinting, sex offender registry and mandatory reporting MUST BE ENACTED IN THE YESHIVA SYSTEM AT ONCE!!! I am sorry to say that we are underrepresented when it comes to people crying out for the children. Avi, you are wrong, we have more than our fill of perverts!!
Opinion - In child pornography, fight harder By Ernie Allen
Mon Nov 26, 3:00 AM ET
Alexandria, Va. - Millions of children around the world are being sexually abused and molested. Billions of dollars are changing hands as part of a growing crime wave of child pornography. This is anything but a victimless crime. Children – some as young as infants – are being barbarically assaulted for the sexual gratification of their abusers and those who view their photos.
While inroads have been made in the fight against child pornography, the problem remains severe. We have much more to do.
The Internet has become a child pornography superhighway, turning children into a commodity for sale or trade. Analysts at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) have reviewed 9.6 million images and videos of child pornography on the Internet just since 2002. There are millions more such images in cyberspace that we have yet to find.
Law enforcement agencies are cracking down on this crime wave. In November, the chief operating officer of the National Children's Museum in Washington was arrested and charged with distributing child pornography over the Internet. Also this month, police across Europe announced they had arrested nearly 100 people linked to a network that allegedly produced and sold child pornography videos to 2,500 customers worldwide.
In 1998 Congress asked NCMEC to create a "9-1-1 for the Internet." We established CyberTipline (www.cybertipline.com), which has received more than 500,000 reports from the public and Internet service providers regarding child sexual exploitation. More than 460,000 of those reports involved child pornography.
What is child pornography? It goes far beyond nude pictures of children. It is the visual depiction – whether in still photos or video – of children being sexually assaulted. In some instances, rapes of children have been shown live over the Internet to paying customers. In 1982, the US Supreme Court held that child pornography is not protected speech but child abuse.
Some suggest that many people who view child pornography just "look at the pictures." But our work on these cases has led us to conclude that for most of those who view these images, sex with children becomes a compulsion and evolves into physical acts with real children.
When NCMEC analysts scour the Internet for child pornography, they determine whether website content is illegal, use search tools and techniques to identify and track down the distributors of child pornography, and then provide the information to the appropriate local, state, federal, or international law enforcement agency.
Law enforcement agencies and NCMEC have managed to identify almost 1,200 of the many children who appear in child pornography. We have found that 35 percent of the photos were taken by a parent, 15 percent by another family member, and 20 percent by someone close to the child or the family. We have provided more than 12,000 evidence reports to prosecutors and law enforcement officers to assist in prosecutions of those accused of these crimes.
Sadly, NCMEC has found that the children being used in these images are getting younger and younger, and the images are becoming more graphic and more violent. Of the children in pornographic photos and videos who have been identified, 58 percent had not yet reached puberty.
To stop the use of credit cards that fuel the child pornography industry, NCMEC created the Financial Coalition Against Child Pornography. Today this coalition includes 90 percent of the US payments industry, with growing international involvement. The 30 companies in the coalition include MasterCard, Visa, American Express, Bank of America, Citigroup, Microsoft, America Online, Yahoo, Google, and many others.
Thanks to the participating companies and extraordinary leadership from federal, state, and local law enforcement, we have virtually eliminated the use of credit cards in child pornography transactions. Although credit card logos still appear on some sites, now when consumers attempt to use credit cards, they either become victims of identity theft or are redirected to another method of payment.
In too many places around the world, the possession of child pornography is handled as a relatively minor offense. In fact, in 136 countries it is not even a crime.
Children depend on adults to keep them safe. We need to do more to protect them from dangerous, cold-hearted predators who want to harm them for pleasure and profit. We need to recognize child pornography as a crime against humanity that must be attacked more forcefully and that deserves harsh punishment.
Ernie Allen is president and CEO of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, a nonprofit charitable organization based in Alexandria, Va.