For a Minimum of $95 and Up --- This Charlatan Chazer Will Steal Your Hard Earned Money ---- This Other Blog Keeps Taking Money From This Thief For Promoting This Fraud! Just Sayin'....

Removing Ayin Horah Remotely from Yerusholayim (and remotely removes you from your money at the same time - mamash a nes)

 People from the frum community worldwide have recently been enthralled with the amazing abilities of Rav Doniel Hool shlitah, who diagnoses ayin horah and then destroys it remotely from Yerusholayim, using the traditional method of pouring molten lead or ‘Blei Gissen’. Almost every day for the last few months, the list of stories on ‘the lead reveals’ page of his website gets longer!

  Provided with only the hebrew name of the client (and his/her’s mothers hebrew name) Rav Hool does the procedure in Yerusholayim and then tells the client -wherever they are on the planet- with uncanny accuracy what physical ailments he/she is suffering from. He has told people from all over the world whether they have problems with their teeth, a stiff neck, back pain, intestinal issues and so on.

 Rav Hool says “Telling people whom I have never met- what they are suffering from is not simply a ‘party trick’……There may be six hundred Reuven Ben Rochel’s alive, but when I tell Reuven ben Rochel in Los Angeles that he has a problem with his right leg and his left shoulder- he now has full confidence that I am treating the right person!”

 When asked how he can ‘read the lead’ like this, he simply says: “Every breath I breathe is with Siyyatah DiShmayah, and similarly it is only with Siyattah Dishmayah that I can do anything at all!”
 Rav Hool says almost everyone he has done the procedure for- showed clear signs of ayin horah in the lead. “Even if they have no physical ailments, the ayin horah shows up in the lead and it may be affecting any non physical area of their lives…”

 Not only has Rav Hool successfully diagnosed the ailments people have, he also has an impressive record of bringing a positive change in their lives by destroying their ayin horah! For example a woman had the procedure done because she needed a shidduch, but when Rav Hool did the procedure, he told her “You have lower back pain that is giving you difficulty to walk!” Three days after the procedure she reported her back problem had disappeared!

 A couple of weeks ago, a client who had the procedure done for his wife three weeks prior told Rav Hool ” “Yeah! No toothaches whatsoever since the procedure (she had toothaches the whole time beforehand!) and even though she has had some light headaches- they are much, much much better, not comparable to the absolutely agonizing headaches she had before the procedure!

Thanks!”

 Last week, a woman who had suffered continuous pain in her arm for two years straight, reported her pain has completely disappeared only four days after the procedure!

 Rav Hool has successfully ‘treated’ migraines, insomnia, parnossah issues shidduchim and so on!
 One can never know for sure whether it was the procedure done by Rav Hool that has caused a positive change, but the yeshuos people have seen soon after the procedure are too many to ignore! Many of the impressive successes are listed on the “success stories” of his website.

 Rav Hool only does the procedure for someone who agrees to undertake the strengthening of a mitzvah. Rav Hool says: “They don’t need to tell me what mitzvah they have chosen- it is between them and Hashem Yisborach, but I feel we can only have Siyattah DiShmayah if they provide this ‘spiritual currency’. I insist the undertaking is very small so that their kabolloh is 100% genuine.”

 Rav Hool has the full written endorsement (!) of Harav haGaon Rav Mattisyahu Doitch shlitah- dayan of the Eidah Chareidis and Moreh D’asrah of Ramat Shlomo Yerusholayim. He also has the encouragement from Harav Hagaon Rav Dovid Abuchatzerah Shlita.

 A talmid of Yeshivas Mercaz HaTorah, Gateshead, Ponevez and Mir, Rav Hool has been learning Torah full time for 30 years. It is intriguing that a talmid of the ‘litveshe’ yeshivos would get into such a thing but Rav Hool replies “I saw that the procedure actually works, and I know Hagaon Rav Yisroel Yaakov Fisher ztz’l sent hundreds of people to get rid of ayin horah in this way. What’s more- the Tzemach Tzeddek even allows heating up the lead on shabbos to try and save someones life- under certain circumstances! So if with S’D’ I can help people, and they will strengthen the performance of a mitzvah- why not?!”

To have the procedure done remotely-wherever you are in the world!- go to www.shevatiheyenoh.com



Moreynu Rosh Hayeshivah Hagaon Rav Gershon Edelstein Shlitah, Rosh Yeshivas Ponevez discussing divrey Torah with Rav Hool in Rav Hool’s home in 1997

 Moreynu Rosh Yeshivas Gateshead, Hagaon Rav Avrohom Gurvitz Shlitah with Rav Hool in 2005

בס''ד

INTERESTING FACT: Facial/skin blemishes are caused by Ayin horah! (Ba'al Shem Tov)

Pricing:

Procedure: $95

Kamiah discounted to $95 (plus $10 postage) if purchased with procedure.

Kamiah alone: $125 (plus $10 postage)

Payment may be made via Paypal (using email: dons77@gmail.com -Please select 'Pay for products or services' not 'family and friends') and we will confirm receipt of payment with you by email before the procedure. 

To Contact us:

Please provide your name

1. Please enter your email address here.

2.  Once you have contacted us we will contact you by email (usually within 24 hrs) and let you know when the procedure can be done, or how to receive the kamiah.
Please provide a phone number as Rav Doniel would like to speak with you before doing the procedure.

Any emails you receive from Rav Hool will be from email: dons77@gmail.com

Please also tell us where you heard about us!

YOU CAN USE THE MESSAGE BAR TO ASK US ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE!

Name

Email address*

Message

What Happens When A Brilliant, Brash Ex-Orthodox Yeshiva Student Goes Mad? He suggests that the age of consent should be lowered to 15, or perhaps even 14.

Dershowitz defends ’97 column claiming statutory rape an ‘outdated concept’

 

22-year-old article resurfaces as Harvard law professor scrutinized over Jeffrey Epstein ties

Alan Dershowitz

 

 

JTA — In 1997, Alan Dershowitz wrote an opinion column headlined “Statutory rape is an outdated concept.”

Now, 22 years later, he’s defending the column on Twitter, at an awkward time: Dershowitz was a member of the team that got convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein a plea deal that sent him to prison for 18 months, a sentence that critics today say was unusually brief and lenient. Epstein is now being prosecuted for sex trafficking, and is accused of sexually abusing dozens of underage girls.

Dershowitz, a prominent defense lawyer and emeritus Harvard University law professor, himself faces accusations of sexual abuse from two of Epstein’s alleged victims — Virginia Roberts Giuffre and Sarah Ransome. He vehemently denies the accusations against him.

The 1997 column is getting renewed attention after it was quoted in a current New Yorker article about Dershowitz and his entanglement with Epstein. In the column, which ran in the Los Angeles Times, Dershowitz argues that statutory rape is an increasingly irrelevant legal concept as teenage sex is normalized and rarely prosecuted.

“This raises a fundamental question about the continuing legitimacy of statutory rape laws at a time when sex involving teenagers is so rampant and prosecution for statutory rape so selective,” Dershowitz wrote. “It is obvious that there must be criminal sanctions against sex with very young children, but it is doubtful whether such sanctions should apply to teenagers above the age of puberty, since voluntary sex is so common in their age group.”

He then suggests that the age of consent should be lowered to 15, or perhaps even 14.

Alan Dershowitz, right, represented sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in a controversial 2008 plea deal

 

 

Facing a barrage of criticism — for his handling of the Epstein plea deal, for the allegations against him and now for this column — Dershowitz has been unapologetic. He told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency earlier this month that “I have no misgivings and I will continue to represent controversial people. That’s what I do. If I’m in a case, my job is to get the best possible result.”

He similarly defended the 1997 column in a series of tweets. He said there should be “Romeo and Juliet exceptions” to statutory rape.

“I stand by the constitutional (not moral) argument I offered in my controversial oped,” he wrote. “[I]f a 16 year old has the constitutional right to have an abortion without state or parental interference, how could she not have the constitutional right to engage in consensual sex? … I did not suggest that it is moral to have sex with a 16 year old, but rather that the issue presents a constitutional conundrum worthy of discussion.”

He has also attacked the New Yorker profile of him, written by staff writer Connie Bruck. Before it was published, he called it a “hit piece” with the “explicit purpose of silencing my defense of President Trump, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the State of Israel.”

The lengthy article, titled “The Devil’s Advocate,” quotes Giuffre, who in accusations going back to 2014 names Dershowitz among the men she says Epstein forced her to have sex with. Giuffre says she had sex with him at least six times. When asked why she had decided to name Dershowitz, she told Bruck, “Jeffrey got away with it, basically. And Dershowitz was one of the people who enabled that to happen.”

Dershowitz vociferously denied her allegations and ended up suing her lawyers in 2015. According to the article, the case was settled in 2016, with Dershowitz’s insurance company paying Giuffre’s lawyers an undisclosed sum. The settlement also included a sum of money to Dershowitz “which would allow him to claim a payment.”

Dershowitz writes that Giuffre “has a long history of lying for money,” and appears not to have told her friends or the FBI that he was among the people with whom she had sex. He says he gave Bruck access to tapes in which Giuffre’s high-powered lawyer, David Boies, acknowledges that it would have been impossible for Dershowitz to have been in the places where Giuffre claims to have met him. Boies disputes Dershowitz’s account.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/dershowitz-defends-97-column-claiming-statutory-rape-an-outdated-concept/?utm_source=The+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=daily-edition-2019-07-31&utm_medium=email

 

Predators are great at sniffing out the kids who are already having trouble in other areas of their lives and who may be vulnerable. Still, there are many things that parents and caregivers can do to protect children!

Give Your Child the Tools to Recognize Sexual Abuse

Talk to kids about their bodies and empower them to speak out.

By Shani Zoldan-Verschleiser

---

It seems that every day we open our newspapers, go on social media or watch the news, there’s a horrific new story of child exploitation and abuse. In my role as a counselor and educator who focuses on prevention of child sexual abuse, people often ask me, “Is sexual abuse more rampant today than in the past?” Caregivers and teachers want to know why it seems as if there is an explosion of new allegations.

It’s a legitimate question and one that’s not easy to answer: Sexual abuse remains an underreported crime, yet there are more outlets than ever for survivors to talk about traumatic experiences. Light is slowly shining into the dark places where predators have always hidden and on those who harbor and aid them. So while stories of abuse by trusted clergy or even family members are difficult to read and painful to witness, I am elated to know that we are finally giving a voice to the voiceless. Statistics show at least one in 10 children in the United States will be sexually abused before their 18th birthdays — it’s a topic we cannot ignore.

With a spotlight shining on survivors’ stories, today is a new day. The Child Victims Act was signed into law in New York in February, extending the statute of limitations under which child abusers can be held criminally and civilly liable and giving survivors a broader path to justice. In June, New York’s state Assembly passed Erin’s Law, which mandates sex abuse education in public schools. Now is the time to focus on prevention. Predators are great at sniffing out the kids who are already having trouble in other areas of their lives and who may be vulnerable. Still, there are many things that parents and caregivers can do to protect children:

• Teach children that their feelings matter and that they deserve respect. For parents, this does not mean that children get to run the house or do whatever they please, but it does mean that when a child shares a feeling, we validate it. Many parents can relate to the classic scenario of preparing a wonderful dinner, with a main course and side dishes and even dessert. Then, shortly after dinner and right before bedtime, as your child is putting on PJ’s, you hear: “I’m hungry.” We all know that we would love to say, “That’s just not possible” or “No you’re not,” or maybe something not as PG. But it takes just a little tweaking to validate a child and still hold our place at the top of the household hierarchy. Try something like, “I’m sorry you’re hungry, but you will have to wait for breakfast,” or “Oh, you’re hungry … there’s a carrot in the fridge for you,” to maintain the validity of your child’s feelings.
  Respect for a child and validation of her feelings gives her a sense of self and helps a child recognize her emotions. Being able to recognize our feelings is the first step in knowing when something doesn’t feel right. Predators rely on the fact that children can be easily manipulated. Children who have a better sense of what feels O.K. and what doesn’t — and are able to receive validation by communicating those feelings to trusted adults — are at a big advantage.
  
  
• Emphasize that children’s bodies belong to them. Kids need to understand that no one is allowed to touch their private parts, look at their private parts or talk to them about their private parts outside of appropriate settings, such as a doctor’s office. Communicate this concept to your kids as early as 2 years old. You can start while giving them a bath or during toilet training. Keep your language simple and age appropriate: “Mommy is washing your eyes and ears and back and your penis. Your body is so special and it belongs to you, no one is allowed to touch you because this is your body. If anyone does, you tell Mommy right away because my job is to keep you safe and touching, especially on your private parts, can be unsafe.”
  As your child gets older, the conversation should get more detailed and can include using “what if” scenarios, dialogue and even role playing. Ensure your child knows that these rules apply for everyone. That means using sentences like, “No one is allowed to make you feel uncomfortable, even if that person is your cousin, uncle, aunt or neighbor. It’s never O.K., and I will always believe you.” Many children will not know this unless you tell them.
  
  
• Make sure kids understand the difference between secrets and surprises. Teach children that a secret should never be kept about their private parts. An example you can use is a doctor’s visit, where someone is looking at and possibly touching private parts. Tell them that it is O.K. because the doctor is making sure the child is healthy, but most importantly it is not a secret. Parents should be in the room with a child when he is getting checked or know of the visit and then discuss what occurred with the child.
  As a counterbalance, help kids understand the nuance between secrets and surprises. Asking a child to keep a surprise party or gift under wraps could be confusing, so emphasize that there’s a difference between secrets and surprises. A gift’s recipient will eventually know of the surprise and will most likely feel comfortable and happy. On the other hand, a secret that can never be told is not O.K. and can make us feel yucky, confused or sad. This is a crucial concept for children, because predators will try to have children keep their secret.
  
  
• Share your own stories, and include as many feelings and sensations as you can. Children look to adults who are close to them to figure out the meaning of what they are experiencing, so it’s helpful to share our own experiences. This will help kids learn what it means to express what they are feeling and it will put words to things they don’t understand. Your stories do not have to be abuse-related; the important thing is to model what it means to listen to our gut feelings. Stories can be as simple as: “I was so frustrated this morning, because I got stuck in traffic and I knew I would be late to work. My stomach felt like there were butterflies in it, and my hands were so tight I was gripping the steering wheel.” Communicating these things with our children gives them permission to share their own feelings of anger, confusion, happiness and sadness and to understand that someone else can feel this way.
  
  
• Ask for permission to touch a child. When we ask children for small permissions, we are giving them the sense that they have control over their bodies. This way, if a predator walks into their life, they will have a reference to pull from that what they are experiencing feels different. Something as small as asking, “Is it O.K. if I fix your collar? It’s turned up,” sends a message to a child that he has some autonomy over his body. Practicing dialogue like this can go a long way in helping a child realize that a predator will not ask permission, and it will help him spot those tricky people.
  
  
• Empower kids to say “no” and talk openly. Encouraging emotional honesty and physical boundaries helps kids gain some control over their bodies. Letting a child say, “No, I don’t want a hug, but a handshake is O.K.” shows her that she has choices. Still, children may not be able to say “no” to their abuser or stop the abuse. Most children who are sexually abused do not disclose their abuse, so we need to tell children that even if they can’t say “no,” even if they can’t get away, the most important thing to do is to tell someone about the abuse. Tell them that you will believe them no matter what happens, and they will not get into trouble for telling you.

Parents and caregivers can help children come forward with stories of abuse, and get the validation and help they need. Preventing abuse is equally important: By giving children the necessary tools, we can help them learn how to stay safer and support them should they face a traumatic situation.

---

Dr. Shani Zoldan-Verschleiser, AuD., L.M.S.W., an alumna of the Touro College Graduate School of Social Work in New York City, is the CEO of Magenu, an organization dedicated to preventing child sexual abuse.

https://parenting.nytimes.com/childrens-health/prevent-child-sexual-abuse

“Aleinu means ‘it’s on us’ or, ‘it is our duty.’ We believe that it is our collective responsibility, as a Jewish community, to protect the children in our care from abuse or harm.”

Danielle Pitkoff Looks to Make a Difference

Danielle Pitkoff, program coordinator at Sacred Spaces.

Danielle Sara Pitkoff is passionate about her work, her studies, her Judaism and in “making a difference” in the world. Pitkoff who is 24 years old, is the program coordinator  at Sacred Spaces, a non-profit that builds healthy Jewish communities by partnering with Jewish institutions to prevent and respond to sexual abuse and other abuses of power. A core member of the organization’s consulting team, she is coordinating “Aleinu: Safeguarding Our Children,” an initiative funded by UJA Federation of New York, which will give youth-serving organizations the tools to implement child protection policies and best practices. She also works on policy development and program assessment.

Pitkoff, who lives in Manhattan, grew up in Pound Ridge, New York,  attended the Bi-Cultural Hebrew Academy in Stamford, Connecticut, and SAR High School in Riverdale. Before matriculating at Johns Hopkins University, she attended Midreshet Ein Hanatziv in Israel.

After arriving at Johns Hopkins University in 2014, Pitkoff started to volunteer at the university’s crisis intervention hotline for victims of sexual assault. She was soon working shifts on the hotline on her own and by her senior year, she was the co-director of Johns Hopkin’s Sexual Assault Resource Unit (SARU), where she was on call for all of her peers. In her role as co-director , she trained staff and student organizations, led campaigns for policy reform, developed workshops for survivor healing and support and partnered with government agencies to improve access to and quality of resources for victims. 

Pitkoff explained, “Sexual assault, harassment and abuse affect so, so many individuals and, upon realizing the high prevalence of these issues on college campuses in particular, I felt deeply compelled to help address them.”

The Hopkins’ hotline is a peer-to-peer crisis intervention resource which requires careful training. Pitkoff explained the importance of training volunteers in empathetic listening, crisis response, and resource referral. By her senior year, Pitkoff was accompanying survivors to the hospital and remaining with them throughout the university investigations. 

Pitkoff shared her thoughts,“I try to honor the voices and experiences of survivors in all of my work, because I firmly believe that doing so is the only way to create lasting culture change and effectively prevent continued abuse.”

Pitkoff noted, “Both of my parents have given so much of their time, both professionally and voluntarily, to their Jewish communities, modeling for my siblings and me real leadership and dedication. I am grateful to them for framing my upbringing in Jewish values that emphasize treating others with kindness and sensitivity. I was fortunate to have teachers, counselors and mentors who inspired in me a strong foundation in Judaism and community. Just as they impacted me, I feel a responsibility to give back to my community, to create spaces for others to safely question and challenge norms and to offer and receive support.”

Pitkoff was a women, gender and sexuality research fellow while at Hopkins, and her work with survivors became her calling. She explained, “My work with Sacred Spaces is an opportunity to take the training and experience that I gained in college and apply it to the communities that I am most intimately familiar with. Our work is guided by the unique needs of Jewish institutions, and we view the building of safe and sacred community spaces as a moral Jewish imperative. It is at the core of what it means to really live our Jewish values.”

Pitkoff cites Dr. Shira Berkovits, founder and CEO of Sacred Spaces, as a significant mentor. Pitkoff elaborated on the importance of Sacred Spaces working within organizations in developing a proper organizational policy on prevention and responsible protocols. “Often, organizations and their leadership want to do the right thing but do not have the tools, knowledge, or resources necessary to properly protect their constituents from abuse or respond appropriately when abuse occurs. It can be hard for organizational leaders and constituents to recognize that their community faces the same unique risks as all faith-based institutions. It is also difficult to reconcile that someone they know and love, and who may have otherwise made great contributions to their community, could also be able to perpetrate harm.”

Sacred Spaces offers “Case Consults” where individual organizations are guided in responding, in a holistic manner, to the cases that they are dealing with. Consults include explaining the relevant legal and mandated reporting requirements, demonstrating how to support survivors and their families, how to communicate about the processes with the wider community, how to establish policies for preventing future incidents, and how to create opportunities for institutional healing.

“Aleinu: Safeguarding Our Children,” is a groundbreaking educational campaign that provides Jewish youth-serving organizations with the much-needed tools and resources to guide them in implementing 10 best practices in child protection. Explained Pitkoff, “Aleinu means ‘it’s on us’ or, ‘it is our duty.’ We believe that it is our collective responsibility, as a Jewish community, to protect the children in our care from abuse or harm.” 

The campaign is meant to standardize child protection in our Jewish organizations by asking each participating institution to commit to implementing at least two best practices each year for five years. Upon committing to incorporate a best practice step, institutions will receive tools in the form of how-to guides, worksheets, video tutorials and sample policy language to assist them in their implementation.

Through all the efforts to reform policy and advocate for survivors, Pitkoff emphasized that it is critical to show compassion to ourselves and each other. We have to have ways of showing publicly, “I am here with you, I see you. You are not alone.”

For information or support, please call the National Sexual Assault hotline operated by RAINN at 800.656.HOPE.

https://www.jewishlinkbwc.com/index.php/features/11439-danielle-pitkoff-looks-to-make-a-difference

When sex offenders are treated as innocent and women are rendered invisible, the Orthodox community needs deep and wide repair...

The rotten state of Orthodoxy ---- When sex offenders are treated as innocent and women are rendered invisible, the Orthodox community needs deep and wide repair

Men's access to the grave of Rabbi Yosef Caro zt"l, in Tsfat, Israel. The men are able to draw close enough to even kiss the grave. (Laura Ben David)

If a picture speaks a thousand words, these images scream volumes. Taken a few weeks ago in the ancient cemetery of Tsfat, they show two sides of the same grave. Rav Yosef Caro zt”l was a mystic, and the author of the Shulchan Aruch, among other works. Thousands come to pray at his graveside. Some have total access to the monument. They can touch it, kiss it, cry on it. Others can talk to the wall behind it. 


 

Women’s ‘access’ to the same grave, from behind a wall. They are unable to even see the grave, let alone approach it, or touch it. (Laura Ben-David)

I cannot think of a better pair of images to illustrate the state of Orthodoxy today, where there is one open accessed reality for men, and one increasingly restrictive reality for women. 
 

You see, today, in Orthodoxy, a man can:

• seduce a woman to leave her husband by claiming that his is the soul of King David and hers of Batsheva. He can promise to marry her upon the (according to him) imminent death of his wife, and still maintain his position, prestige, and influence as head of a yeshiva, having been granted forgiveness by a religious court of his peers (Rav Shmuel Tal). Some brave souls speak out, but they go unheeded.
• be convicted of sex offenses, spend time in jail for them, and still be revered by thousands of followers and honored with the lighting of a torch at a government sponsored event (Rabbi Eliezer Berland).
• confess to having touched students inappropriately (and gone beyond that too), and still teach at prestigious yeshivot, and be defended by some leading rabbis in the community (Rav Motti Elon).
• protect and defend sex offenders, strong-arm professionals to lie about the mental health of accused abusers, stymie investigations into abuse allegations, and work towards the early release of predators and still serve as (deputy) health minister in the Israeli government (Rabbi Yaakov Litzman).
• be accused of molestation and rape for decades, preying on the weakest in the community, threaten victims and their families and still be honored and respected as the chief rabbi of Ukraine (Rabbi Yaakov Bleich).

And a woman can:

• have her motivations questioned and her learning belittled, even while her opportunities to learn are more numerous than ever before.
• expect all male committees to be the ones who define her communal roles and opportunities to participate in ritual.
• be increasingly shut out of holy spaces. The Kotel, Kever Rachel, the ancient cemetery of Tsfat, and more holy sites have smaller and inferior women’s spaces.
• be required to give up her rights, dignity, and possessions in exchange for freedom, in the event that her husband refuses her a divorce.
• hear from rabbis in positions of authority that spousal abuse is not grounds for divorce.
• see no images of women, even at an all-women conference.

And she cannot:

• use her own face to advertise her business.
• see images of other women like her in advertisements or publications.
• read an Orthodox publication that uses the correct words for BREAST CANCER or discusses what it may look and feel like.
• Participate alongside men in setting policy for communal issues.
• influence the determination and execution of policies that affect her.

Should she seek to change these policies, and ask:

• for women to be included in conversations and decisions that affect them…
• to have a headshot in her bio…
• to have a seat in shul where she can see and hear…

…she can expect to be called a “feminist with an agenda.”

Why are God fearing, religious women being increasingly shut out? Why are our motivations constantly and consistently questioned?

Why are the things that mean so much to us, walled off from us? And who gave the wall- builders that right?

Why is male access guaranteed, while female access shrinks?

The contrast between the way that the Orthodox community in general treats men with the way it treats women has never been stronger. Time and again, we see that men are “innocent until proven guilty.” It might be more accurate to say “innocent even when proven guilty.” 

Yet for women, it is almost the opposite: women are “presumed guilty until proven innocent.” Even the wish to dance with a Torah scroll on Simchat Torah is considered subversive unless it can be “proven” to come from a pure, spiritual place. 

Once we stood at Sinai together, men and women, “like one person with one heart.” Today, the heart of Orthodoxy is broken, splintered into a dangerous and gaping divide. 

About the Author

Shoshanna Keats Jaskoll is a writer and an activist. Cofounder of chochmatnashim.org She loves her people enough to call out the nonsense. See her work at skjaskoll.com 

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-rotten-state-of-orthodoxy/?fbclid=IwAR1xHaiupJ1DOhucHl_SIVUQNocTzQMi5s-CvUQjAtS5GXUY1A5OnY26eFI

The Power Of One!

Nice!

Disgraced millionaire Jeffrey Epstein was found injured and in a fetal position in his cell at a New York City jail, sources close to the investigation told NBC News on Wednesday.

Epstein, 66, was found semi-conscious with marks on his neck in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan some time in the last two days, the sources said. Epstein is on suicide watch.

Two sources told NBC News that Epstein may have tried to hang himself, while a third source cautioned that the injuries weren't serious, questioning whether Epstein might have staged an attack or a suicide attempt to get a transfer to another facility.

Another source said that an assault hadn't been ruled out and that another inmate had been questioned.

Attorneys for Epstein did not immediately return calls for comment. A spokesperson for the Bureau of Prisons didn't return calls, and spokesmen for the US Marshals and US attorney's office declined to comment.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/266470

Accepting the all-knowing religious leader whose path will lead to redemption frees one from confronting a world of confusion and inconsistencies...

On charismatic rabbis and cults 

Judaism has many models of rabbinic leadership, but none of them legitimately requires followers to stop thinking for themselves

Ultra-Orthodox men gather in front of the Embassy of South Africa in Ramat Gan, during a demonstration in support of Eliezer Berland, who was then jailed in South Africa, , on April 25, 2016 

by Rabbi Yosef Blau

The term “cult” is associated with religious movements led by a charismatic leader who controls the behavior of the cult’s members. Orthodox Judaism, where religious behavior is determined by adherence to Halakha (Jewish law), should be immune to any internal cults. Yet in recent years, there have been a number of stories of charismatic rabbis who have created communities of Orthodox Jews under their respective absolute control. Inevitably, there arises a scandal involving the leader that many of his followers refuse to acknowledge. The leader has convinced his followers of his extraordinary mystical powers. 

Often a talmudic scholar, the leader sometimes claims a unique approach to learning that outside rabbis do not understand.

Are there specific factors that gave rise to an increase in this troubling phenomenon? Perhaps the impact of the radical changes in the experience of the Jewish people, from the devastation of the Holocaust to the re-establishment of the Jewish state has increased confusion, leading to an openness to a charismatic religious figure who can explain the events and give them meaning. In the 71 years of the State of Israel, there has been a lack of security caused by wars and terrorism, accompanied by extraordinary events that imply Messianic significance. The euphoria following the Six Day War was tempered by the complexity of the Yom Kippur War. The ingathering of the the exiles, including the Russian Aliyah from the “Jews of Silence,” as well as that of Ethiopian Jews, whose very existence was barely known, was all followed by a limited integration. Israeli society is split on the most basic issues.

There is a consensus that the official rabbinic leadership has declined and is mired in politics. Within both the religious Zionist community and the Haredi world, there are endless subdivisions. It is an era ripe for those who claim to have the answers. Joining a small but united community creates a sense of security. Accepting the all-knowing religious leader whose path will lead to redemption frees one from confronting a world of confusion and inconsistencies.

Since this kind of  rabbinic leader claims to function within Orthodox tradition, many, including rabbis, do not see the potential danger. For those who look, however, there are clear warning signs.

For example: any deviation from loyalty to the leader leads to shunning, if not expulsion. The leader’s behavior is not subject to the same scrutiny as that of his followers because he has established himself as beyond the understanding of others. While listening to rabbinic authority is an integral element in Orthodox Judaism, traditionally, that applied to areas of religious law. Even in the Hasidic world, where the rebbe is consulted on all kinds of matters, the rebbe does not force his followers to ask for his direction, nor does he check on their loyalty.

The growing acceptance of the doctrine of Daat Torah, which assign superior knowledge in non-halakhic matters to great rabbis, makes the line separating normative Orthodox Judaism from rabbinic cult leaders less clear. Neo-Hasidism, which in effect is creating new Hasidic rebbes, has yielded groups of followers who assume that the assertion of ruach hakodesh (divine inspiration) is standard for a rebbe. The dangers associated with religious cults warrants a healthy dose of skepticism.

I hesitate to tread on questions of whether we are on a clear Messianic path and how close, but I encourage skepticism of anyone who claims to know particularly if he will play a major role in the process. Precisely because we live in an extraordinary time in Jewish history, we have to be particularly alert to the danger of one who has all the answers — as long as we follow only his leadership. It is irrelevant whether the charismatic leader is manipulative or delusional, sincere or a fraud, one should never give up his or her right to make one’s own choices.

Rabbi Yosef Blau is the Senior Mashgiach Ruchani (spiritual advisor) at Yeshiva University, and a partial resident in Jerusalem. 

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/on-charismatic-rabbis-and-cults/?fbclid=IwAR1leKnYVH2NVSJWeLDi0KmES-Jld9NgIj3L5zw2Q2n1fhVUCaYcNwR43sI
 

share

tweet

How we edit reality and form a story -- and then mistake that story for the truth," says psychological illusionist Derren Brown

Remember this "made-up" reality --- Before you spend your hard-earned money on phony mekubalim, segulas....and the "others" that rob you blind --- because you let them!

Rabbi Marc Angel Paraphrased in Summary - "To Reduce the Amount of Jewish Boys Marrying Gentile Women (intermarriage), Have More Jewish Boys Marry Gentile Women"....(Just Don't Call Them Gentiles)

 photos of a woman from the adult film industry very recently converted to "Orthodox Judaism"

"We live at a time when intermarriage rates in the diaspora are at an astronomical level and show no signs of declining. We live at a time when thousands of people would be willing to turn to Orthodox rabbis for halakhic conversion-if only we presented a halakhic framework for giyyur that is meaningful, accessible, and respectful to the needs and concerns of the proselytes themselves. Local Orthodox rabbis, using their own knowledge of each case on a personal basis, are far better equipped to deal with the challenges of giyyur today than rabbinic bureaucracies."


The Jewish community underwent cataclysmic changes during the course of the nineteenth century. While most of world Jewry was religiously observant in 1800, a large majority were no longer devoted to halakhic tradition by 1900. Nineteenth-century Orthodox rabbinic leadership had to cope with the rise of Reform Judaism, the spread of Haskala, the breakdown of communal authority over its members, the defection of Jews from Torah and mitzvoth-and from Judaism altogether.

The dramatic erosion in religious observance led to various responses among 19th century Orthodox rabbis. Rabbi Moses Sofer (1762-1839), known as the Hatam Sofer, was recognized as the most authoritative Orthodox voice who shaped traditionalist opposition to Reform Judaism and, indeed, to all those who challenged the hegemony of halakha. He believed that deviators forfeited their right to be considered as proper Jews.[1]

He wrote: "If we had the power over them, my opinion would be to separate them from us [our borders], we should not give our daughters to their sons and their daughters should not be accepted for our sons so as not to be drawn after them. Their sect should be considered like those of Zadok and Boethus, Anan, and Saul, they among themselves and we among ourselves." [2]

The Hatam Sofer argued forcefully for maintaining the sanctity of every law and tradition. He is famed for his aphorism "hadash assur min haTorah", by which he meant that the Torah forbids innovations i.e. reforms. His hashkafa (religious worldview) identified Jewishness with scrupulous observance of Torah and mitzvoth and acceptance of the halakhic way of life.

Although the Hatam Sofer's position was dominant, other Orthodox voices called for a more tolerant attitude toward those who veered away from the halakhic way of life. Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman (1843-1921), the leading figure in Berlin's Adass Jisroel Orthodox community, favored a "cooperative separatism" i.e. the Orthodox needed to maintain their distinctiveness, but also had to find ways of cooperating with the non-Orthodox. [3] In an earlier generation, Rabbi Yaacov Ettlinger (1798-1871) had sought to ameliorate the halakhic status of the non-observant Jew through the classification of "tinok shenishba"-comparing the non-observant Jew to a Jewish child who had been captured and raised by non-Jews and who therefore could not be held responsible for ignorance of Jewish laws and customs.[4] Thus, while the non-Orthodox masses certainly fell short of Jewish religious requirements, they should not be rejected out of hand; they simply did not know any better. This halakhic argument fostered a more sympathetic approach than that taken by Orthodox isolationists.

Both the hard-line and the more tolerant Orthodox rabbis were pious and learned Torah scholars. Both groups sought support for their views in the Talmud and halakhic literature. Why did they come to different conclusions? Their differences did not stem, I believe, from different interpretations of halakhic texts. Rather, their halakhic stances reflected different hashkafot (religious worldviews) and different evaluations of how to address the challenges that faced them. The Hatam Sofer viewed Torah-observant Jews as the "real" Jews, and the non-observant Jews as betrayers of Judaism who had to be de-legitimatized. For true Judaism to flourish, it was necessary for Orthodoxy to separate itself to the extent possible from the non-Orthodox. The spokesmen for a more conciliatory Orthodoxy focused on the principle that all Jews-religiously observant or not-are part of the Jewish people and need to see themselves as members of one peoplehood. Thus, ways had to be found to bridge the gaps between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox.

As Orthodoxy continued to lose ground to the non-observant Jewish population, the rejectionist position gained traction within the mitzvah-centered community. The opinion hardened that strong measures were needed to insulate Torah-true Jews from their sinful brethren, and to distinguish between those who observed the mitzvoth and those who rebelled against Torah.

As the hard-line position gained sway regarding non-Orthodox Jews, it also had a profound impact on Orthodox views relating to the acceptance of non-Jews as converts. Since Orthodox rabbis increasingly emphasized mitzvah observance as the essence of Judaism-in order to differentiate clearly between themselves and the reformers-- they came to see the conversion process as entailing a full commitment by the convert to observe all the mitzvoth. Eventually, the position arose that any conversion that took place without the convert's total mitzvah commitment-was not a valid conversion at all....


READ ALL OF ANGEL'S SHAMELESS HAIRSPLITTING:
https://www.jewishideas.org/article/conversion-judaism-halakha-hashkafa-and-historic-challenge

Shedding Light On The Conversion Racket! The Facts Of The "Jewish Converts" Industry - The Vast Majority Do It For Personal Reasons Totally Unrelated To Becoming Jews!

http://theunorthodoxjew.blogspot.com/2016/12/shedding-light-on-conversion-racket.html

The Dangers Of Orthodox Jews Becoming Too Tolerant....

A Physician Loses His Job for Questioning the Wisdom of Sex Changes for Children

July 15 2019

---

---

Two years ago, Allan Josephson, a psychiatrist at the University of Louisville, participated in a panel at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, where he criticized the emerging consensus that children who feel themselves to belong to the opposite sex should receive psychological and medical treatment based on “gender affirmation”: that is, they should be treated as members of the sex to which they wish to belong and receive hormonal and eventually surgical interventions. Josephson was thereafter demoted by the university and eventually removed from the position he had held for over fifteen years. In an interview with Madeleine Kearns, he explains:

I had built [the university’s child- and adolescent-psychiatry program] up from a few people to probably fifteen and we had a clinic of almost 30. [After word of the panel got out], I was banned from faculty meetings. I was banned from certain kinds of interactions with staff and told what I could and couldn’t say to people. . . .
I’ve spoken with colleagues on various campuses who have been in similar situations, and someone will come into their offices, close the door, and say something to the effect of, “You know, I really agree with you, but for various reasons I can’t speak out.” . . . But I can assure you since the Heritage Foundation [panel], I’ve had many supportive calls from parents of children experiencing gender dysphoria, etc.

As for the decision of the American Academy of Pediatrics to endorse “gender affirmation” for minors, Josephson sees this as a case of ideology trumping medical science:

It’s a political process. . . . [T]he way committees are formed [at such professional organizations], various people who have various interests get on them. They do intense work, and sometimes very good work, but it often doesn’t meet the scrutiny of a scientific statement. An organization affirming a position is not necessarily science, but it is a group of people agreeing to say something. . . .
I saw parents and children being hurt by [gender affirmation]. These kids are, for the most part, very vulnerable people. You can see that when you spend time with them. Certainly, the teenagers have multiple problems. Most of the time, 60 or 70 percent of the time, [they suffer from] depression, anxiety, and/or substance abuse. . . . And parents are confused because they’re basically getting one message from medical and mental-health professionals, and that is “affirm people.”
One of the ways to diagnose transgenderism, according to the [official] lingo, is that if a child is “persistent, consistent, and insistent” in the demand that he or she belongs to a sex other than his or her biological sex, then [his or her claim] must be true. When I saw that, my knee-jerk response was, “Do these people have children?” Because in the process of raising children, they insistently, persistently, consistently demand lots of things that are not good for them, whether it’s turning off the computer, eating healthy food, or not staying up too late, and it’s the parents’ job then to guide them to say, “This is what you need to do to be healthy.”

https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/politics-current-affairs/2019/07/a-physician-loses-his-job-for-questioning-the-wisdom-of-sex-changes-for-children/

Acosta Gave Epstein 12 More Years To Rape .....God Knows How Many More Kids! Acosta Now Has The Credentials To Be a Featured Keynote Speaker At The Next Agudah Convention...

BREAKING: Labor Secretary Alex Acosta announced he will resign from his post in one week amid controversy over Jeffrey Epstein plea deal ! https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/452184-acosta-out-as-trump-labor-secretary

 

Alex Acosta’s Team ‘Bent Over Backwards’ For Accused Child Sex Trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, 2007 Letter Said

By Daily Caller

• A U.S. attorney’s office under Alex Acosta “bent over backwards” for Jeffrey Epstein, Acosta’s number two said in a 2007 letter to Epstein’s lawyer. 
• Acosta, now secretary of the Labor Department, defended his handling of the Epstein case Wednesday.
• But the letter shows Acosta’s office catered to the accused sex trafficker throughout the negotiations.

A U.S. attorney’s office under current Labor Secretary Alex Acosta’s leadership “bent over backwards” for accused child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein while negotiating a non-prosecution agreement, Acosta’s assistant U.S. attorney wrote in a 2007 letter to Epstein’s attorney.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida granted federal immunity to Epstein and many of his associates under the 2007 agreement in return for Epstein pleading guilty to state-level charges. Acosta served 13 months at a county jail — instead of a state prison — and was allowed to leave on work release for 12 hours a day, six days a week.

Acosta’s handling of the deal is facing new scrutiny after federal prosecutors in New York charged Epstein in July with sex trafficking of underage girls. The new charges center on Epstein’s alleged sex trafficking in New York, which isn’t covered by the Florida agreement.

Acosta defended the deal in a press conference Wednesday, pointing a finger at the former state prosecutor, who Acosta said wanted to let Epstein go free without any jail time.

But Acosta’s office catered to Epstein throughout the negotiation, according to a December 2007 letter that Acosta’s number two, Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafana, sent under Acosta’s letterhead to Epstein attorney Jay Lefkowitz.

Villafana told Lefkowitz that she felt like she “bent over backwards to keep in mind the effect that the agreement would have on Mr. Epstein and to make sure that you (and he) understood the repercussions of the agreement.”

“For example, I brought to your attention that one potential plea could result in no gain time for your client; I corrected one of your calculations of the Sentencing Guidelines that have resulted in Mr. Epstein spending far more time in prison than you projected; I contacted the Bureau of Prisons to see where Mr. Epstein would be eligible for the prison camp that you desired; and I told you my suspicions about the source of the press ‘leak’ and suggested ways to avoid the press,” Villafana wrote.

“Importantly, I continued to work with you in a professional manner even after I learned that you had been proceeding in bad faith for several weeks — thinking that I had incorrectly concluded that solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution was a registrable offense and that you would ‘fool’ our Office into letting Mr. Epstein plead to a non registrable offense,” she continued, adding:

“Even now, when it is clear that neither you nor your client ever intended to abide by the terms of the agreement that he signed, I have never alleged misconduct on your part.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman told the Daily Caller News Foundation in a phone call that Villafana declined to comment and would not be made available for interviews.

The letter is included in court documents stemming from a still-ongoing lawsuit Epstein filed against an attorney representing some of his alleged victims. Journalist Conchita Sarnoff first reported on Villafana’s letter in her 2016 book on Epstein, “Trafficking.”

A Department of Labor spokeswoman sent the DCNF a letter Acosta emailed to Epstein attorney Ken Starr in December 2007.

The letter, first reported by the Miami Herald in November 2018, shows Acosta complaining about unethical tactics from Epstein’s lawyers and raising concerns about the strength of the agreement.

“Some in our office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions to the agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind,” Acosta wrote.

The Herald’s investigation found that “Acosta not only buckled under pressure from Epstein’s lawyers, but he and other prosecutors worked with them to contain the case, even as the FBI was uncovering evidence of victims and witnesses in other states,” citing FBI and court documents.

CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO SEE THE ENLARGED DOCUMENTS:

 https://thepoliticalinsider.com/alex-acostas-team-bent-over-backwards-for-accused-child-sex-trafficker-jeffrey-epstein-2007-letter-said/?utm_campaign=TPI07112019morning&utm_source=criticalimpact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=a3743e3b3d2ca80da6473c7b9fa19141&source=CI

Alexander Acosta Is A Liar!

Examining Acosta’s Claims on the Epstein Prosecution

R. Alexander Acosta, the labor secretary, defended his handling of a sex crimes case against the financier Jeffrey Epstein over a decade ago. 

The labor secretary, R. Alexander Acosta, rebuffed calls for his resignation by Democrats, who criticized his decision as a prosecutor in 2008 to accept a lenient sentence for the financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The labor secretary, R. Alexander Acosta, rebuffed calls for his resignation by Democrats, who criticized his decision as a prosecutor in 2008 to accept a lenient sentence for the financier Jeffrey Epstein

At a news conference in Washington, R. Alexander Acosta, the labor secretary and a former United States attorney in Florida, on Wednesday gave his account of how federal prosecutors dealt with allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had abused young women and girls, a case first handled by state prosecutors. Here’s how his version of events stacks up against what we know.

The role of state vs. federal prosecutors

What Mr. Acosta Said

“Simply put, the Palm Beach state attorney’s office was ready to let Epstein walk free, no jail time, nothing.”

Prosecutors who worked with Mr. Acosta said that the federal case presented them with legal challenges that made the matter more suited to a state court. Federal laws, they said, would have required the United States attorney’s office to prove that Mr. Epstein, a financier, crossed state lines with the intent to commit the acts.

Nonetheless, federal prosecutors had legal firepower and resources not available to a local prosecutor. That was especially important for a case that presented such complex legal and logistical challenges, involved a large number of victims — up to 40 at the time of the deal — and the prospect of facing the best defense lawyers and private investigators Mr. Epstein’s money could buy. Local law enforcement officials and the F.B.I. referred the case to Mr. Acosta, in part because they feared Mr. Epstein would face no more than a single state charge related to prostitution, which warranted a fine and no jail time.

Investigators involved in the case were hoping Mr. Acosta could pursue a case that would impose a more substantial penalty on Mr. Epstein. The outcome negotiated by Mr. Acosta’s office was a plea deal with state prosecutors on two prostitution charges that led Mr. Epstein to serve 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail and be registered as a sex offender. During his sentence, he was permitted to participate in a work-release program that allowed him to go to his office six days a week for 12 hours a day. 

Barry Krischer, the former top prosecutor for Palm Beach County, said on Wednesday that Mr. Acosta was trying to “rewrite history” by suggesting that state prosecutors were going to be even more lenient toward Mr. Epstein.

“I can emphatically state that Mr. Acosta’s recollection of this matter is completely wrong,” Mr. Krischer said in a statement. “Federal prosecutors do not take a back seat to state prosecutors. That’s not how the system works in the real world.”

If Mr. Acosta believed the state deal was so terrible, he should have filed a federal indictment instead of conducting “secret negotiations,” Mr. Krischer said.

Were victims afraid to come forward?

What Mr. Acosta Said

“She talks about the challenges faced, she talks about the victims being scared and traumatized, refusing to testify, and how some victims actually exonerated Epstein. Most had significant concerns about their identities being revealed. The acts that they had faced were horrible and they didn’t want people to know about them.”

Mr. Acosta was referring to a federal prosecutor on his staff and the possibility that victims might not be willing to testify against Mr. Epstein. Adam Horowitz, a lawyer who represented some of the victims, said that Mr. Acosta’s arguments at the news conference were disingenuous.

He said that the young women were scared to testify, but that it was because the prosecutors had terrified them.

“The prosecutors were saying, ‘These defense lawyers are going to go through your whole personal life, dig up your bad acts and your sex life. When they heard that from prosecutors, sure, they were intimidated,” Mr. Horowitz said. “They kept saying, ‘Are you sure you want to do this?’”

Eventually, after years and under different circumstances, many of the victims did talk — to a Miami Herald reporter — telling the paper that they were dissatisfied with the efforts of Mr. Acosta’s office. 

In a pool of victims so large, it is inevitable that some of them will resist going through to trial, said Spencer Kuvin, a lawyer for three of the victims. But two of his three clients gave depositions and were “willing and ready” to testify, he said.

Was it the best deal possible?

What Mr. Acosta Said

“We believe that we proceeded appropriately, that based on the evidence and not just my opinion but I have shared the affidavit. Based on the evidence, there was value to getting a guilty plea and having him register.”

It is impossible to know how members of a jury might have responded to the evidence if it had been presented to them in a federal trial — or whether efforts by Mr. Epstein’s team to pressure the victims or intimidate prosecutors would have worked. But Mr. Acosta’s decision to accept a plea deal was widely — but not universally — supported by his own team at the time.

A. Marie Villafaña, the lead prosecutor in the case and one of the few women in Mr. Acosta’s leadership team, pushed him to bring charges even if it risked losing in court. She was eventually overruled, and helped Mr. Acosta work out the logistics of the plea deal.

Notifying the victims

What Mr. Acosta Said

“When it was finally clear that Epstein would comply with the agreement, she talks about how she made efforts to notify the victims, how that was a Friday afternoon at 4:15 and that she learned that the state had scheduled the plea for 8:30 the following Monday. And she talks about how over the weekend, she made every effort to notify the victims at that time.”

Mr. Acosta was referring to efforts by Ms. Villafaña to reach the victims. His office began directly negotiating a plea agreement with Mr. Epstein’s lawyers in August 2007, according to The Miami Herald. They reached an agreement on Sept. 24 of that year, but talks continued until June 2008, when Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty in court.

From the time the F.B.I. began investigating Mr. Epstein in 2006 to Sept. 24, 2007, Mr. Acosta’s office “never conferred with the victims” or informed them that such an agreement was under consideration, a 2019 federal court ruling shows. The ruling notes that Mr. Epstein’s lawyers sought assurances that the victims would be kept in the dark.

Mr. Acosta cited an affidavit from Ms. Villafaña, who stated that she did not notify victims because she was worried about negotiations over a provision that would allow the victims to obtain monetary damages. She said she was concerned that Mr. Epstein’s lawyers would undermine the credibility of the victims if negotiations fell through and the case went to trial.

Even after the agreement was reached with Mr. Epstein, the prosecutors kept the details from victims.

The victims received letters from the F.B.I. in January 2008 informing them that the case was still under investigation, but not disclosing the agreement. Six months later, a lawyer for the victims, Bradley Edwards, met with a prosecutor to discuss the case — again, the agreement was left unmentioned.

On June 27, 2008, Mr. Edwards was informed that Mr. Epstein would plead guilty in court, but was not told that the state plea would be the resolution to the federal case. Mr. Horowitz said nobody reached out to any of his seven clients before Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty on June 30, 2008. And Mr. Kuvin said that lawyers had to fight in court for months to learn the details of the deal.

A breakfast meeting with Mr. Epstein’s lawyer

What Mr. Acosta Said

“The meeting that was alleged was a breakfast meeting that took place after the agreement was negotiated, not before. The agreement was signed in September.”

Mr. Acosta is correct that the meeting he had with Jay Lefkowitz, one of Mr. Epstein’s lawyers, took place about two weeks after the plea agreement was reached in September 2007. It is less clear what they discussed.

In a letter to Mr. Acosta, Mr. Lefkowitz noted the meeting took place on Oct. 12, 2007, and thanked Mr. Acosta for his “commitment” to not contact any victims or witnesses.

After the meeting, Mr. Epstein’s lawyers continued to negotiate an addendum and objected repeatedly to notifying the victims.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/us/politics/acosta-epstein-fact-check.html