The following is from a Weingarten supporter who sounds like a lawyer:
Anyone who has carefully analyzed this case would realize that this Weingarten character is a devilish, arrogant, conniving, diabolical, scheming, sadomasochistic, psychopathic monster. He perpetrated his abuse in full view of the public over the course of many years. He contrived elaborate schemes as cover stories as to why he is doing what he is doing, and why his daughter would "lie" about him. Many years ago he already pre-recorded alibi tapes and set up elaborate dramatic incidents that should later serve as alibis for him. This case is suitable for a plot twisting Hollywood movie, a horror movie at that.
At the trial, where he arrogantly acted as his own lawyer, he claimed as a defense that the victim's motivation was to abandon her religion and that she was getting back at him for giving her a hard time about it. He further claimed that as a teenager she had sex with: a neighbor in Antwerp, her older brother and her mother!
If the Rabbis were smart they would let this case die from the headlines rather than to stir it up now. It will not be pretty for anyone if this hits the fan.
Although I have come to a conclusion about this monster’s guilt, there are still intriguing facts about this case which continue to perplex me. At the core of this case is a matrimonial controversy. So as they say, there is his version, her version and the truth.
Although I have come to a conclusion about this monster’s guilt, there are still intriguing facts about this case which continue to perplex me. At the core of this case is a matrimonial controversy. So as they say, there is his version, her version and the truth.
1) Why did the family court in Rockland find him to be the ideal parent and award him sole custody of the kids during his divorce?
2) What is with those tapes of his ex-wife speaking in slobbering Yiddish with her sister regarding men she would like to sleep with, and with her daughter (the victim) about shaving her privates?
3) Why did the Feds conduct such an extensive 5 year investigation with extensive resources for crimes which were committed on other continents (mostly Europe), using an obscure law?
4) How was it possible for Weingarten to prevail at the Din Torah in Belgium which was conducted by pretty reasonable people there, even though the story was ongoing at the time?
5) Why do the rest of his children, to this day, swear their loyalties only to their father and still refuse to have anything to do with their mother or sister?
6) Why did he receive such a harsh sentence for a crime that by all accounts did not involve actual intercourse? Technically he got 30 years for transiting JFK Airport with his daughter.
THE FOLLOWING POST IS FROM WEINGARTEN'S BROTHER LEO TO THE ABOVE SUPPORTER
I decided to take on your challenge and try to bang the metal into shape. But before I get into details, please allow me to make a few general statements.
One; my niece and Nephew are well adjusted, loving and hard working people, who contributes to society, and pay their taxes. This goes to show that humans have the ability to adopt and make their life what you want, regardless, if you spend your formative years in a hell hole. Two; you lavished a general attack on my veracity, with “He has had a checkered past since then being implicated in financial misdeeds in Florida.” Suffice to say that is pure bunk, and even if what you claim is true, what has that to do with my brother’s pedophilia indulgence. It is totally irrelevant to our question of today. How can a so called Rabbi support a pedophile? I am not here to relitigate the case. As far, I am concerned, the Jury spoke, and they found him guilty on all charges. And if he is ever, granted a new trial, I am positive that he will be found guilty again.
A few house cleaning items are in order, neither my niece, nor Nephew live within a thousand miles from my residents. I understand that you try to make it, as if I am the controller, believe me some people are born strong-willed others work into it. Both of them are strong-willed people, who will fight for what they believe, and nobody can control them.
You assert that the core of this case is a “matrimonial controversy” you couldn’t be further from the truth. The facts of the case belies you argument. In 1995, my niece charged YM with molestation but the matrimonial controversy didn’t manifest until 2002, seven years after my niece’s first outcry. How would any rational person explain away how a 15 year old girl whose upbringing was sheltered, with a standard, that according my brother, even most Satmar’s were not religious enough, from where would my niece com up with such idea that her father molested her? Definitely, I was not in Belgium, to help her concoct a horrific story. But you see, this is only about molestation of a young girl, by a father who should be the one who would protect her.
Your next argument is, why did the Rockland court “find him to be the ideal parent and awarded him sole custody of the kids” well if I am not mistaken, I believe that you are misinformed or intentionally you misleading the readers. My brother’s ex, with the urging of the Beth Din dropped the case as they guaranteed that she would have equal custody. But instead of dropping the case with a formal agreement, she didn’t show up in court. Therefore, the court awarded the children to the father.
I decided to take on your challenge and try to bang the metal into shape. But before I get into details, please allow me to make a few general statements.
One; my niece and Nephew are well adjusted, loving and hard working people, who contributes to society, and pay their taxes. This goes to show that humans have the ability to adopt and make their life what you want, regardless, if you spend your formative years in a hell hole. Two; you lavished a general attack on my veracity, with “He has had a checkered past since then being implicated in financial misdeeds in Florida.” Suffice to say that is pure bunk, and even if what you claim is true, what has that to do with my brother’s pedophilia indulgence. It is totally irrelevant to our question of today. How can a so called Rabbi support a pedophile? I am not here to relitigate the case. As far, I am concerned, the Jury spoke, and they found him guilty on all charges. And if he is ever, granted a new trial, I am positive that he will be found guilty again.
A few house cleaning items are in order, neither my niece, nor Nephew live within a thousand miles from my residents. I understand that you try to make it, as if I am the controller, believe me some people are born strong-willed others work into it. Both of them are strong-willed people, who will fight for what they believe, and nobody can control them.
You assert that the core of this case is a “matrimonial controversy” you couldn’t be further from the truth. The facts of the case belies you argument. In 1995, my niece charged YM with molestation but the matrimonial controversy didn’t manifest until 2002, seven years after my niece’s first outcry. How would any rational person explain away how a 15 year old girl whose upbringing was sheltered, with a standard, that according my brother, even most Satmar’s were not religious enough, from where would my niece com up with such idea that her father molested her? Definitely, I was not in Belgium, to help her concoct a horrific story. But you see, this is only about molestation of a young girl, by a father who should be the one who would protect her.
Your next argument is, why did the Rockland court “find him to be the ideal parent and awarded him sole custody of the kids” well if I am not mistaken, I believe that you are misinformed or intentionally you misleading the readers. My brother’s ex, with the urging of the Beth Din dropped the case as they guaranteed that she would have equal custody. But instead of dropping the case with a formal agreement, she didn’t show up in court. Therefore, the court awarded the children to the father.
Part 2
Your next argument is that the tapes which are on the internet make it sound like that they are discussing sexual fantasies. If I may let me ask you a logical question, why is it that my brother always has a tape trying to prove his point? Which normal person will make tapes from his immediate family, and keep them save for their eventual name clearing needs. In 1995, he had a tape from his son, allegedly admitting to sexual misdeeds. In 1996, he had tapes from his daughter with the neighbor allegedly alluding to sexual allegations. In 2004, a tape is purporting to be from his ex, with her sister discussing whom they would like to do, and another tape alleging a discussion between the ex and her daughter discussing woman’s personal hygiene. Did your father ever made such tapes and kept it for years, just so if needed he would be able to clear his name? I would venture and say no, not your father or my father ever made any tapes but this sociopath did. Finally, please allow me to ask you, how do you know, that no one tampered with the tapes. The fact is that during the trial, YM tried to submit into evidence a tape in Yiddish, purporting to prove that he is innocent. But after the US Department of Justice (DOJ) tried to authenticate it, they discovered that is had been tampered and spliced. His lawyers had to withdraw the tape, and the Judge mentioned that, (see page 12 note 9 of the ruling of the motion for dismissal see link (http://caseofisraelweingarten.blogspot.com/2009/10/memo-and-order-to-deny-retrial-for.html) therefore, your point doesn’t have any legs to stand on.
Your next excuse is the bewilderment method, why would the government try and spend resources on some case which a father who is an American citizen molested his daughter who is also an American citizen, are you kidding? Additionally if the government didn’t do due diligent and did a vacuum job, then you would argue with good cause, that it was a rush to judgment. So no matter what you will have an issue with the prosecution. Lastly, I need to take you to task, when you claim that YM was prosecuted under some obscure law, you don’t know what you are talking about. The DOJ has allocated a full special department for interstate-country sexual crimes, and thousands of people are charged annually. You just don’t know about because the vast majority cops a plea. Moreover, the US is one of signator's of the UN 2000 protocol, to prosecute people who travel between foreign countries and commit crimes against minors. Are you supposing that the government should just turn a blind eye?
Your next point is how is it that he prevailed at a Beth Din in Belgium? Supposing that he actually did, doesn’t necessary mean that there was a Beth Din, the fact is that there was never ever a seated Beth Din why don’t you prove to us that, show us documentation. No, you cannot because it is a lie.
Your next point is that his other children support him. Forgive me, I hope you understand that I don’t want to comment about them, because I hope one day we all could conciliate.
Going on to your next argument, why such harsh sentences, “technically he got 30 years for transiting JFK Airport with his daughter” this opinion says it all about your view. This was not a theoretical, transportation of a minor. This is about a young girl being kept in Belgium for 30 days, all by herself with her father molesting her again and again. Do you understand that at trial it was disclosed that that month became known as the “sex-a-thon” month. There is zero excuse for your POV.
Tomorrow, I will reply to your next post.
Posted by: Leo Weingarten | January 14, 2011 at 02:53 PM
LEO WEINGARTEN CONTINUES TO ANSWER
Let’s get straight to the point, one I am youngest of my siblings. YM is three years older, why it is important, because, under normal circumstances an older brother molests the younger, not the other way around. Additionally, I resent that you think that my nieces horrific molestations, is for you noting more than trivia, we are humans, not Trivial Pursuit board game. From your writing, I could deduce that if you were alive in the Roman civilization, you would be in a box seat in the Roman Coliseum, cheering for the lions to rip apart the gladiators, just for sport.
After reading this post I decided I just cannot ignore, your blatant racisms, first it is a lie, so tell us what was your purpose to say that her boyfriend is “African American” if you claim that you were trying to differentiate that he is not Jewish. Then why didn’t you write that. But, no you are a low life raciest Chasid. There is no reason why I should even should a civil conversation with a low life like you.
Posted by: Leo Weingarten | January 14, 2011 at 05:26 PM
WEINGARTEN'S DEFENDER COMES UP WITH A BIZZARE SCENARIO
HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS
READ ON
Leo Weingarten:
I would like to thank you for taking the time to reply to my lengthy posts. I know that you think that I am one of those blind defenders of YM, but I assure you that I am not. But even you must admit that with all the drama that this case has created for the past 15 years, there are some very intriguing questions that pique the interest of the outside onlooker.
For starters, I have no problem with YM being locked up forever. Even in the slim chance that the charges are false, just for the way he behaved at the trial he deserves what he got. He basically hung himself.
The fact is though that it would give me much more piece of mind knowing that justice was indeed carried out in this case. In general I have a problem with the over reaching of the Federal Government. I believe that most cases should be handled by the local authorities. Constitutionally the powers of the federal government are limited. But nowadays, every move you make is against federal law. When the feds make it illegal to just travel anywhere - an act that is perfectly legal - with the intent of committing a crime outside the country, they are basically prosecuting crimes committed in other countries. I find this an abuse of federal power. Those other countries are perfectly capable of prosecuting their own cases. Although if YM did indeed do what he was accused of, I do not pity his fate, nevertheless I find the underlying legal basis troublesome.
But this discussion is purely academic. If you would indulge me I would like to have a substantive discussion with you about the facts in the case, and I was wondering if you would be so kind as to address them in this public forum for the benefit of the community
Part 2 to Leo
If I were to take the role of devil’s advocate I would take the peculiar facts of this case that I pointed out and lay out a scenario that differs completely with what you would have us believe.
I see YMW has an overly devout chusid who is perhaps too extremely frum. Perhaps he comes from a family like that, after all, he has a brother who left the fold many years ago, perhaps the pressure was too great. He has a large family, and being a brilliant scholar he devotes his time to study, so the money is not exactly flowing in. His son Y and daughter L cannot handle the pressure and grinding poverty, perhaps they are even influenced by their uncle Leo, start drifting away from YM’s line.
Being the disciplinarian that he is, YM cannot handle this, so he reacts by coming down even harder on his straying progeny. The more he presses L, the more she pushes back. L gets so out of hand that YM is obliged to take her along on all his travels, lest he leave her out of his sight even for a moment. Being extremely clever and stubborn (she gets that from her father) L starts concocting a claim that her father is molesting her and professes it to anyone who would listen. She has become educated about everything sexual from reading forbidden materials and from the secret affair she carried on with a married man in Belgium.
She might have also inherited a sexual-promiscuous gene from her mother, who by all accounts comes from a kinky family (she and her sister have conversations in yerushalmi Yiddish that are surely inappropriate). YM, in a desperate attempt to better control the situation decides to secretly record his family’s conversations. Other people get involved in the case and are dumbstruck with L’s allegations. They seem so extreme that they are hard to believe, but they attribute her rebelliousness to the fact that YM is way too harsh on her, so they try to remove her from the home. YM is very distraught with the outside mingling and he decides to chase after his daughter to Manchester, where she succeeds in stirring up dirt on him and creating a major scandal. The family is now severely dysfunctional and they end up back in Monsey. The dysfunction is a direct result of YM being a megalomaniac, his wife being a slut and two of his kids being rebellious whores.
Finally the marriage falls apart. This is usually the point at which the sh-t hits the fan. This phenomenon is a recurring scenario. In divorce cases the law of the jungle prevails. Nothing is sacred and the mud slinging is furious. The battle lines get drawn, with YM and his kids and several rabbunim taking one side, with the wife, Y, L and with moral support from uncle Leo taking the other. Leo stake in this matter is his general hate for all things frum. After all, he rejected his heritage many years ago, and was shunned for it. Now was his chance to get back at those who shunned him and stick it to all frum yidden everywhere. Although Leo abandoned his religion because he couldn’t take the hypocrisy it displayed, and although he holds himself out to be a paradigm of humanistic values of right and wrong, he himself was embroiled in a scam involving the price manipulation of copper. To this day he is not comfortable in his own skin, moving from state to state and being involved in many petty business ventures that never seem to pay off.
Despite their best efforts, the matrimonial case went in favor of YM, who was able to convince the court that he was a good father. That court saw through the lies of the wife and L and found them to be without merit. At the end of the day he ended up with the kids and the other team was left dejected.
As an act of revenge by a woman scorned, the other side decided to turn the screws even harder. After all, cases of sexual abuse are very often based solely on the testimony of the victim. The system works because most people do not have the motive or gumption to make false claims of such nature. However, in this case we have a scorned wife and a daughter who has already crossed every red line placed by society. At this point she had even taken on living with a black man as a sign of how far she has strayed. She seems to relish in violating to the extreme every taboo her held by her former community. So deep is her hate.
Together they were able to muster enough interest with the FBI to look into the case. The FBI jumped on the opportunity to pursue this sensational case, after all it is a welcome break from the mundane cases that come across their desks every day. If this case were to succeed it would certainly be a career boost for any agent involved. Besides, it involved government paid junkets to far flungs of the globe. In addition, they had very eager witnesses chopping at the bit to testify, something you don’t usually get in cases of this nature.
When the case comes to trial all the cards are stacked against the defendant. The government has unlimited recourses to pursue witnesses at the other end of the globe. The defendant is also burdened with the task of proving a negative. The judge displayed obvious bias against the defendant at every turn in the case. So going into trial the defendant asked for additional time to prepare such a complex case, and predictably the judge refused. To as a stalling tactic and a act of protest the defendant decided to fire his attorneys, thinking it would buy him more time. When the trial proceeded anyway it was anything but fair. The jury did not contain any of the defendant’s peers. In addition, the defendant was hamstrung by the fact that he as remanded during the whole trial so he couldn’t properly conduct his defense. This alone shows the bias of the judge, since he was denied bail although large sums were at the ready. YM, being the stubborn control freak that he is did not conduct himself properly during the trial. After all, he does not speak a good English and he is not familiar with the proper decorum and procedure of a federal court room, since he was never exposed to popular culture. The resulting fiasco was predictable. His hassidic appearance was certainly a turn-off for the jury, while his pretty daughter L was a real charmer. The jury was rightfully impressed with her courage to stand up to her primitive father with his bizarre mode of dress. She also brought along her boyfriend for window dressing which certainly played well to the majority African-American jury.
part 3
The trial result and sentence were predictable as the defendant had no chance. Any objective observer would agree that even if the defendant were 100% innocent in this case the trial would have ended the same way. YM found himself in a Kafkaesque situation. What proof could he possible have brought against his lying daughter? We all know that with all things being equal a jury would side with the party they could more relate to. In addition, he was being prosecuted for crimes that took place halfway around the world, outside the jurisdiction of the court. He did not have the means or recourses to compel any witnesses to appear on his behalf. Trying to impeach the credibility of the witnesses by pointing out the fact that they are promiscuous whores would only backfire, since the transgressions are par for the course in the goyish world. So would his claim that all of his actions vis-à-vis L was his desperate attempt to force her to stay within his Chassidic religion , since the jury would cringe at anyone being forced to live this primitive stinky lifestyle. Being faced with an impossible task, YM flailed out in court in full view of everyone thereby digging himself an even deeper hole.
In short, the whole trial was a kangaroo court. What could the defendant have possible done to prove his innocence
Posted by: Forty Eighter | January 14, 2011
An answer to "forty eighter" from a "soso"
Your next excuse is the bewilderment method, why would the government try and spend resources on some case which a father who is an American citizen molested his daughter who is also an American citizen, are you kidding? Additionally if the government didn’t do due diligent and did a vacuum job, then you would argue with good cause, that it was a rush to judgment. So no matter what you will have an issue with the prosecution. Lastly, I need to take you to task, when you claim that YM was prosecuted under some obscure law, you don’t know what you are talking about. The DOJ has allocated a full special department for interstate-country sexual crimes, and thousands of people are charged annually. You just don’t know about because the vast majority cops a plea. Moreover, the US is one of signator's of the UN 2000 protocol, to prosecute people who travel between foreign countries and commit crimes against minors. Are you supposing that the government should just turn a blind eye?
Your next point is how is it that he prevailed at a Beth Din in Belgium? Supposing that he actually did, doesn’t necessary mean that there was a Beth Din, the fact is that there was never ever a seated Beth Din why don’t you prove to us that, show us documentation. No, you cannot because it is a lie.
Your next point is that his other children support him. Forgive me, I hope you understand that I don’t want to comment about them, because I hope one day we all could conciliate.
Going on to your next argument, why such harsh sentences, “technically he got 30 years for transiting JFK Airport with his daughter” this opinion says it all about your view. This was not a theoretical, transportation of a minor. This is about a young girl being kept in Belgium for 30 days, all by herself with her father molesting her again and again. Do you understand that at trial it was disclosed that that month became known as the “sex-a-thon” month. There is zero excuse for your POV.
Tomorrow, I will reply to your next post.
Posted by: Leo Weingarten | January 14, 2011 at 02:53 PM
LEO WEINGARTEN CONTINUES TO ANSWER
Let’s get straight to the point, one I am youngest of my siblings. YM is three years older, why it is important, because, under normal circumstances an older brother molests the younger, not the other way around. Additionally, I resent that you think that my nieces horrific molestations, is for you noting more than trivia, we are humans, not Trivial Pursuit board game. From your writing, I could deduce that if you were alive in the Roman civilization, you would be in a box seat in the Roman Coliseum, cheering for the lions to rip apart the gladiators, just for sport.
After reading this post I decided I just cannot ignore, your blatant racisms, first it is a lie, so tell us what was your purpose to say that her boyfriend is “African American” if you claim that you were trying to differentiate that he is not Jewish. Then why didn’t you write that. But, no you are a low life raciest Chasid. There is no reason why I should even should a civil conversation with a low life like you.
Posted by: Leo Weingarten | January 14, 2011 at 05:26 PM
WEINGARTEN'S DEFENDER COMES UP WITH A BIZZARE SCENARIO
HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS
READ ON
Leo Weingarten:
I would like to thank you for taking the time to reply to my lengthy posts. I know that you think that I am one of those blind defenders of YM, but I assure you that I am not. But even you must admit that with all the drama that this case has created for the past 15 years, there are some very intriguing questions that pique the interest of the outside onlooker.
For starters, I have no problem with YM being locked up forever. Even in the slim chance that the charges are false, just for the way he behaved at the trial he deserves what he got. He basically hung himself.
The fact is though that it would give me much more piece of mind knowing that justice was indeed carried out in this case. In general I have a problem with the over reaching of the Federal Government. I believe that most cases should be handled by the local authorities. Constitutionally the powers of the federal government are limited. But nowadays, every move you make is against federal law. When the feds make it illegal to just travel anywhere - an act that is perfectly legal - with the intent of committing a crime outside the country, they are basically prosecuting crimes committed in other countries. I find this an abuse of federal power. Those other countries are perfectly capable of prosecuting their own cases. Although if YM did indeed do what he was accused of, I do not pity his fate, nevertheless I find the underlying legal basis troublesome.
But this discussion is purely academic. If you would indulge me I would like to have a substantive discussion with you about the facts in the case, and I was wondering if you would be so kind as to address them in this public forum for the benefit of the community
Part 2 to Leo
If I were to take the role of devil’s advocate I would take the peculiar facts of this case that I pointed out and lay out a scenario that differs completely with what you would have us believe.
I see YMW has an overly devout chusid who is perhaps too extremely frum. Perhaps he comes from a family like that, after all, he has a brother who left the fold many years ago, perhaps the pressure was too great. He has a large family, and being a brilliant scholar he devotes his time to study, so the money is not exactly flowing in. His son Y and daughter L cannot handle the pressure and grinding poverty, perhaps they are even influenced by their uncle Leo, start drifting away from YM’s line.
Being the disciplinarian that he is, YM cannot handle this, so he reacts by coming down even harder on his straying progeny. The more he presses L, the more she pushes back. L gets so out of hand that YM is obliged to take her along on all his travels, lest he leave her out of his sight even for a moment. Being extremely clever and stubborn (she gets that from her father) L starts concocting a claim that her father is molesting her and professes it to anyone who would listen. She has become educated about everything sexual from reading forbidden materials and from the secret affair she carried on with a married man in Belgium.
She might have also inherited a sexual-promiscuous gene from her mother, who by all accounts comes from a kinky family (she and her sister have conversations in yerushalmi Yiddish that are surely inappropriate). YM, in a desperate attempt to better control the situation decides to secretly record his family’s conversations. Other people get involved in the case and are dumbstruck with L’s allegations. They seem so extreme that they are hard to believe, but they attribute her rebelliousness to the fact that YM is way too harsh on her, so they try to remove her from the home. YM is very distraught with the outside mingling and he decides to chase after his daughter to Manchester, where she succeeds in stirring up dirt on him and creating a major scandal. The family is now severely dysfunctional and they end up back in Monsey. The dysfunction is a direct result of YM being a megalomaniac, his wife being a slut and two of his kids being rebellious whores.
Finally the marriage falls apart. This is usually the point at which the sh-t hits the fan. This phenomenon is a recurring scenario. In divorce cases the law of the jungle prevails. Nothing is sacred and the mud slinging is furious. The battle lines get drawn, with YM and his kids and several rabbunim taking one side, with the wife, Y, L and with moral support from uncle Leo taking the other. Leo stake in this matter is his general hate for all things frum. After all, he rejected his heritage many years ago, and was shunned for it. Now was his chance to get back at those who shunned him and stick it to all frum yidden everywhere. Although Leo abandoned his religion because he couldn’t take the hypocrisy it displayed, and although he holds himself out to be a paradigm of humanistic values of right and wrong, he himself was embroiled in a scam involving the price manipulation of copper. To this day he is not comfortable in his own skin, moving from state to state and being involved in many petty business ventures that never seem to pay off.
Despite their best efforts, the matrimonial case went in favor of YM, who was able to convince the court that he was a good father. That court saw through the lies of the wife and L and found them to be without merit. At the end of the day he ended up with the kids and the other team was left dejected.
As an act of revenge by a woman scorned, the other side decided to turn the screws even harder. After all, cases of sexual abuse are very often based solely on the testimony of the victim. The system works because most people do not have the motive or gumption to make false claims of such nature. However, in this case we have a scorned wife and a daughter who has already crossed every red line placed by society. At this point she had even taken on living with a black man as a sign of how far she has strayed. She seems to relish in violating to the extreme every taboo her held by her former community. So deep is her hate.
Together they were able to muster enough interest with the FBI to look into the case. The FBI jumped on the opportunity to pursue this sensational case, after all it is a welcome break from the mundane cases that come across their desks every day. If this case were to succeed it would certainly be a career boost for any agent involved. Besides, it involved government paid junkets to far flungs of the globe. In addition, they had very eager witnesses chopping at the bit to testify, something you don’t usually get in cases of this nature.
When the case comes to trial all the cards are stacked against the defendant. The government has unlimited recourses to pursue witnesses at the other end of the globe. The defendant is also burdened with the task of proving a negative. The judge displayed obvious bias against the defendant at every turn in the case. So going into trial the defendant asked for additional time to prepare such a complex case, and predictably the judge refused. To as a stalling tactic and a act of protest the defendant decided to fire his attorneys, thinking it would buy him more time. When the trial proceeded anyway it was anything but fair. The jury did not contain any of the defendant’s peers. In addition, the defendant was hamstrung by the fact that he as remanded during the whole trial so he couldn’t properly conduct his defense. This alone shows the bias of the judge, since he was denied bail although large sums were at the ready. YM, being the stubborn control freak that he is did not conduct himself properly during the trial. After all, he does not speak a good English and he is not familiar with the proper decorum and procedure of a federal court room, since he was never exposed to popular culture. The resulting fiasco was predictable. His hassidic appearance was certainly a turn-off for the jury, while his pretty daughter L was a real charmer. The jury was rightfully impressed with her courage to stand up to her primitive father with his bizarre mode of dress. She also brought along her boyfriend for window dressing which certainly played well to the majority African-American jury.
part 3
The trial result and sentence were predictable as the defendant had no chance. Any objective observer would agree that even if the defendant were 100% innocent in this case the trial would have ended the same way. YM found himself in a Kafkaesque situation. What proof could he possible have brought against his lying daughter? We all know that with all things being equal a jury would side with the party they could more relate to. In addition, he was being prosecuted for crimes that took place halfway around the world, outside the jurisdiction of the court. He did not have the means or recourses to compel any witnesses to appear on his behalf. Trying to impeach the credibility of the witnesses by pointing out the fact that they are promiscuous whores would only backfire, since the transgressions are par for the course in the goyish world. So would his claim that all of his actions vis-à-vis L was his desperate attempt to force her to stay within his Chassidic religion , since the jury would cringe at anyone being forced to live this primitive stinky lifestyle. Being faced with an impossible task, YM flailed out in court in full view of everyone thereby digging himself an even deeper hole.
In short, the whole trial was a kangaroo court. What could the defendant have possible done to prove his innocence
Posted by: Forty Eighter | January 14, 2011
An answer to "forty eighter" from a "soso"
48er:
Some things you write are plainly wrong:
- The defendent did have witnesses in his favour (his children)
- People DID travel around the world in order to support and defend him
- It appears that the defendend wanted to change the legal team and thus asked for delay, not the other way round
- People DID travel around the world in order to support and defend him
- It appears that the defendend wanted to change the legal team and thus asked for delay, not the other way round
Then
-the defendent was given a choice of persons for jury, like everybody else. If no Hasid was among them, it might be because few hassidim volonteer for jury duty. He could have chosen them if they were on the list.
-the defendent was given a choice of persons for jury, like everybody else. If no Hasid was among them, it might be because few hassidim volonteer for jury duty. He could have chosen them if they were on the list.
But let's look at this case from your point of view. Here are the facts that you could verify:
1) You aknowledge that YMW stayed along with his daughter in the US and in Belgium.
The letter by Rav Stauber states that Dayan Weiss form Antwerp prohibited YMW to be alone with his daughter.
Go and check this out (ask Dayan Weiss).
If these two facts are true, this shows at least that YMW has no respect for Batey Din, which would be opposite of the Yirey Shamaim and Tzadik he is said to be by his followers.
2) It says that YMW did not show up to a Beit Din, although he was summoned, once it turned out that the Beit Din was in possession of the Stauber letter.
This is the jewish form of "contempt of court".
Again: YMW is not such a Tzadik as they paint him.
Again: YMW is not such a Tzadik as they paint him.
3) I am really appalled to learn that the family court awarded YMW custody of six children, when they knew of suspicions of sexual abuse of his eldest daughter.
I suppose that this is really a good reason to act in order to protect the younger siblings, who, as it appears, did not at all want to be protected.
Posted by: Forty Eighter | January 17, 2011 at 05:59 PM
“You are indeed right that in the justice system hypothetical’s don’t count, and I agree that we all must deal with the reality within the confines of our justice system. However, even you would agree that it is not a perfect system. Especially if there are factors at play that are far out of the range of ordinary, that might induce a false result. Therefore, there are those rare cases, where even after a court of law renders a verdict, the jury remains out in the court of public opinion. So although the hypotheticals cannot overturn the verdict in the court of law, if you want to settle the matter in the court of public opinion those hypothetical’s need to be addressed.”