The Weiss Family has put out several statements. This page is intended to refute their accusations and misinformation point by point.
Rabbi Dovid B. Feinstein put out a statement explaining the Weisses’ current position. This is the gist of his statement:
1. The two sides accepted Ronnie Greenwald as binding arbitrator
2. The arbitrator rendered a decision
3. The Weisses accepted the decision
4. The Dodelsons rejected it
5. Hence, the Get is on the table and the Dodelsons are unreasonably refusing to take it
1. The two sides accepted Ronnie Greenwald as binding arbitrator
2. The arbitrator rendered a decision
3. The Weisses accepted the decision
4. The Dodelsons rejected it
5. Hence, the Get is on the table and the Dodelsons are unreasonably refusing to take it
First, before getting into the details, one note of importance: This case was decided by the judge after three years in court and after hearing from both sides and both custody experts. Weiss is not satisfied with that decision (despite the fact that he was the one who chose the venue of court), and he is withholding a Get until we go to arbitration for a new decision, totally discarding the judge’s decision. That alone is extortion and totally unacceptable – withholding a Get in an attempt to obfuscate the court's ruling and a second chance to obtain better terms.
Our Response to the Statement:
Ronnie Greenwald was never accepted as binding arbitrator. Ronnie himself sent out an email: “It is unfortunate that due to many legal conditions regarding binding arbitration the proposal that I become the binding arbitrator was not accepted” (see email below). And, if there had been binding arbitration, it would be enforceable in court. There would be no need to post on the internet asking anyone to “accept the decision.” Hence, the many of the statements made by Dovid Feinstein alluding to "arbitration" and a "decision" are beyond meaningless. There was no arbitration. There was no decision.
What did happen? Ronnie Greenwald, who had spoken to Weiss constantly for the past five months, without Dodelson’s knowledge offered a suggestion to base negotiations on. Not as an arbitrator making a binding decision, but as a biased negotiator making a suggestion. Anybody can put out a suggestion, but it carries no weight on its own. It is not a decision and not even a recommendation. Nobody who takes himself seriously can make even a recommendation about the future of a child without at least talking to the mother to get her input.
And, even as a suggestion, it is so blatantly one-sided, that it is ludicrous. It mirrors, almost to the T, the Weisses’ demands. Rabbi Greenwald's suggestion calls for major modifications to the visitation schedule, and for Gital to pay a six-figure sum to Avrohom Meir.
We have never met anyone, outside of Rabbi Zlotowitz from Artscroll, and now Ronnie Greenwald, who thinks it is acceptable to use a Get to extort money and better visitation terms (Ronnie Greenwald, by the way, is great friends with Rabbi Zlotowitz, which is how he got involved in the first place).
And Avrohom Meir, great guy that he is, is now willing to accept the six-figure sum and the increased visitation! What a Guy!
The bottom line is that there was no agreement to go to arbitration, nor did both sides agree to go to Ronnie Greenwald for negotiations.
Gital has no intention of giving in to extortion.
Now, you know why we need your continued support. The court rendered its decision and the case should be over. Withholding a Get to obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars and better terms – be it through new arbitration or new negotiations – is pure extortion.
Ronnie Greenwald was never accepted as binding arbitrator. Ronnie himself sent out an email: “It is unfortunate that due to many legal conditions regarding binding arbitration the proposal that I become the binding arbitrator was not accepted” (see email below). And, if there had been binding arbitration, it would be enforceable in court. There would be no need to post on the internet asking anyone to “accept the decision.” Hence, the many of the statements made by Dovid Feinstein alluding to "arbitration" and a "decision" are beyond meaningless. There was no arbitration. There was no decision.
What did happen? Ronnie Greenwald, who had spoken to Weiss constantly for the past five months, without Dodelson’s knowledge offered a suggestion to base negotiations on. Not as an arbitrator making a binding decision, but as a biased negotiator making a suggestion. Anybody can put out a suggestion, but it carries no weight on its own. It is not a decision and not even a recommendation. Nobody who takes himself seriously can make even a recommendation about the future of a child without at least talking to the mother to get her input.
And, even as a suggestion, it is so blatantly one-sided, that it is ludicrous. It mirrors, almost to the T, the Weisses’ demands. Rabbi Greenwald's suggestion calls for major modifications to the visitation schedule, and for Gital to pay a six-figure sum to Avrohom Meir.
We have never met anyone, outside of Rabbi Zlotowitz from Artscroll, and now Ronnie Greenwald, who thinks it is acceptable to use a Get to extort money and better visitation terms (Ronnie Greenwald, by the way, is great friends with Rabbi Zlotowitz, which is how he got involved in the first place).
And Avrohom Meir, great guy that he is, is now willing to accept the six-figure sum and the increased visitation! What a Guy!
The bottom line is that there was no agreement to go to arbitration, nor did both sides agree to go to Ronnie Greenwald for negotiations.
Gital has no intention of giving in to extortion.
Now, you know why we need your continued support. The court rendered its decision and the case should be over. Withholding a Get to obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars and better terms – be it through new arbitration or new negotiations – is pure extortion.
The Weiss Family put out a statement with their "side" of the story. This is our response:
It is important to note that the main gist of the statement is that the Siruv is invalid because Weiss was allowed to go to secular court. Okay, even if we accept everything they say as absolute truth, the undisputed fact remains (even according to their own statement) that it was the Weisses who chose to go to the secular court and the case was decided by the secular court. But, now they are not satisfied with the court’s decision so they withhold the Get to obtain better terms. That is called blackmail. And, yes, the whole world is outraged when a person withholds a Get as a means to extort a better deal. That is why we are all rallying to Gital’s cause.
And, even now, after the court rendered its decision, Avrohom Meir can simply go to a Bais Din. But, he refuses. He doesn’t like the court’s decision, refuses to go to a Bais Din, and demands that Gital give him better terms or else he won’t give a Get. Blackmail, plain and simple.
And, even now, after the court rendered its decision, Avrohom Meir can simply go to a Bais Din. But, he refuses. He doesn’t like the court’s decision, refuses to go to a Bais Din, and demands that Gital give him better terms or else he won’t give a Get. Blackmail, plain and simple.
The "Hetter."
1. This “hetter” was not shown to anyone until it appeared on the internet in June, 2012 – 7 months after the author died, two years after Avrohom Meir sued for custody and one year after the Siruv was issued. Nobody ever mentioned it – not the Dodelsons who were definitely not told about it, not Rabbi Reuven Feinstein who wrote a letter about the case explaining his grandson’s reason for going to court and did not even mention it, and not Rabbi Gestetner who actively supported the Avrohom Meir in a letter but did not even mention it. In fact, the Bais Din itself sent a copy of every response they received from Avrohom Meir to Gital and they neglected to send this “hetter,” presumably because they never received it.
Why was it not shown to anyone until 7 months after the author died? Why would it not be shown to the Bais Din and to the Dodelsons? Why was it not mentioned by the two people publicly supporting him? It is, after all, the main point of their entire position.
2. A “hetter” needs to be issued by a Bais Din, not an individual, even if he is a scholar. (See Attachment 1, saying that an individual issuing a Hetter is in Niddui - Paragraph #3.)
3. A “hetter” can only be issued after issuing a summons three times and the defendant refuses to come to Bais Din. (See attachment 1 - Paragraph #2.) In this case, the individual did not even attempt to speak to the Dodelsons, much less send a summons.
4. This “hetter” is based on the individual hearing only the Weiss’ side. He never spoke to the Dodelsons. Bais Din Mechon L’hoyroa spent 7 months on the case, hearing back and forth from both sides.
5. This “hetter” is based on the individual unilaterally and for no known reason accepting the Weiss’ claim that Gital was withholding the baby. One phone call to the Dodelsons would have led him to understand that, quite the contrary, the Dodelsons were seeking to go to a Rov to work things out. (See Attachment 2.)
6. The “hetter” is based, in part, on his stating that Bais Din is not accepted by the courts. This is not true in NJ, where the courts accept arbitration by third parties. (See Attachment 3 - the court transcript where the judge advises the Weiss’ lawyer of this fact.)
7. The “hetter” is based in part on Rabbi Stern, “the Debreciner Rov.” The note from Rabbi Stern was submitted to the Bais Din, and rejected. This is a note that was written 20 years ago about an unknown case, with lines whited out in the middle. The “hetter” claims that the Debreciner’s case and this case are similar. How can he know from the note what the Debreciner’s case was about, and how can he know without talking to the Dodelsons what this case was about?
8. Rabbi Stern, the Debreciner Rov, signed on a letter stating clearly that a “hetter” cannot be issued by an individual, only a Bais Din. How can this rabbi issue a “hetter” based on Rabbi Stern, when Rabbi Stern himself invalidated such a Hetter and said anyone who does so should be in Niddui. (See Attachment 1.)
9. The “hetter” was issued by an individual who was disqualified by The Chief Rabbinate of Israel from dealing with Gittin. (See Attachment 4.)
10. Even if we ignore all of the above issues and assume the “Hetter” is valid, the Hetter only allows him to go to court for “ביקורי ילד” – visitation. Nowhere does it permit suing for custody, child support and legal fees. Avrohom Meir sued for all of these things (See Attachment 5).
Why was it not shown to anyone until 7 months after the author died? Why would it not be shown to the Bais Din and to the Dodelsons? Why was it not mentioned by the two people publicly supporting him? It is, after all, the main point of their entire position.
2. A “hetter” needs to be issued by a Bais Din, not an individual, even if he is a scholar. (See Attachment 1, saying that an individual issuing a Hetter is in Niddui - Paragraph #3.)
3. A “hetter” can only be issued after issuing a summons three times and the defendant refuses to come to Bais Din. (See attachment 1 - Paragraph #2.) In this case, the individual did not even attempt to speak to the Dodelsons, much less send a summons.
4. This “hetter” is based on the individual hearing only the Weiss’ side. He never spoke to the Dodelsons. Bais Din Mechon L’hoyroa spent 7 months on the case, hearing back and forth from both sides.
5. This “hetter” is based on the individual unilaterally and for no known reason accepting the Weiss’ claim that Gital was withholding the baby. One phone call to the Dodelsons would have led him to understand that, quite the contrary, the Dodelsons were seeking to go to a Rov to work things out. (See Attachment 2.)
6. The “hetter” is based, in part, on his stating that Bais Din is not accepted by the courts. This is not true in NJ, where the courts accept arbitration by third parties. (See Attachment 3 - the court transcript where the judge advises the Weiss’ lawyer of this fact.)
7. The “hetter” is based in part on Rabbi Stern, “the Debreciner Rov.” The note from Rabbi Stern was submitted to the Bais Din, and rejected. This is a note that was written 20 years ago about an unknown case, with lines whited out in the middle. The “hetter” claims that the Debreciner’s case and this case are similar. How can he know from the note what the Debreciner’s case was about, and how can he know without talking to the Dodelsons what this case was about?
8. Rabbi Stern, the Debreciner Rov, signed on a letter stating clearly that a “hetter” cannot be issued by an individual, only a Bais Din. How can this rabbi issue a “hetter” based on Rabbi Stern, when Rabbi Stern himself invalidated such a Hetter and said anyone who does so should be in Niddui. (See Attachment 1.)
9. The “hetter” was issued by an individual who was disqualified by The Chief Rabbinate of Israel from dealing with Gittin. (See Attachment 4.)
10. Even if we ignore all of the above issues and assume the “Hetter” is valid, the Hetter only allows him to go to court for “ביקורי ילד” – visitation. Nowhere does it permit suing for custody, child support and legal fees. Avrohom Meir sued for all of these things (See Attachment 5).
The Rest of the Weiss Statement.
1. The Statement claims that his child was withheld from him. This is false. In fact, there was a disagreement about visitation arrangements and the Dodelsons had begged that they go to an impartial Rov to resolve the dispute, which the Weisses refused to do.
2. The Statement claims that the episode was recorded. This is true – Avrohom Meir secretly recorded the conversation and later tried to use it in court; but it got him nowhere. What is apparent from seeing the transcript of the recording is that the Dodelsons had one repeated request – that we go to an impartial rov to help work out the issues.
3. The Statement claims that he sued for joint legal custody. This is false. In fact he sued for sole residential custody (Attachment 5) which he later changed to joint residential custody, not just joint legal custody.
4. The Statement claims that the only way to protect his rights in NJ is in court. This is false. In NJ, arbitration is perfectly acceptable. Bais Din is perfectly acceptable by the courts in NJ. (See Attachment 3.)
5. The Statement claims that the divorce suit “supplanted” all previous filings. This is false. In fact, the two suits were merged into one docket. (See Attachment 6.) The Complaint for Custody (brought by Weiss) and the Complaint for Divorce (brought by Dodelson) were now both in one docket; nothing was supplanted.
6. The statement claims that only Dodelson could withdraw the Complaint for Custody. This is false. Even after it was merged into one docket with the Complaint for Divorce, nobody could force Weiss to continue with his Complaint for Custody. You can’t force somebody to sue you. He could have withdrawn. And Dodelson expressly told Weiss and Bais Din that she would sign any document if necessary to remove both the Complaint for Custody and the Complaint for Divorce.
7. The Statement claims that Avrohom Meir provided the Bais Din with the “hetter” to go to court. This is false. He did not present the “hetter” which is posted here. He provided the Bais Din with the Debreciner’s note –which the Bais Din rejected as totally inadequate – a 20 year old note about an unknown case with lines missing in the middle.
8. The Statement claims that he explained to Bais Din that he could not withdraw from the case. This is false because he could withdraw his Complaint for Custody even though she sued for divorce. Bais Din is familiar with court procedures and understood the situation very well. And Dodelson told Weiss and Bais Din she would sign anything if necessary to have both custody and divorce withdrawn from court.
9. The Statement claims that Weiss provided the name of a rabbi for Zabla. They provided the name of somebody who had a stroke and, at the time, could not physically carry on a dinner conversation, much less preside over a Din Torah. They gave the name of another rabbi who is rejected by every single Bais Din in the country.
1. The Statement claims that his child was withheld from him. This is false. In fact, there was a disagreement about visitation arrangements and the Dodelsons had begged that they go to an impartial Rov to resolve the dispute, which the Weisses refused to do.
2. The Statement claims that the episode was recorded. This is true – Avrohom Meir secretly recorded the conversation and later tried to use it in court; but it got him nowhere. What is apparent from seeing the transcript of the recording is that the Dodelsons had one repeated request – that we go to an impartial rov to help work out the issues.
3. The Statement claims that he sued for joint legal custody. This is false. In fact he sued for sole residential custody (Attachment 5) which he later changed to joint residential custody, not just joint legal custody.
4. The Statement claims that the only way to protect his rights in NJ is in court. This is false. In NJ, arbitration is perfectly acceptable. Bais Din is perfectly acceptable by the courts in NJ. (See Attachment 3.)
5. The Statement claims that the divorce suit “supplanted” all previous filings. This is false. In fact, the two suits were merged into one docket. (See Attachment 6.) The Complaint for Custody (brought by Weiss) and the Complaint for Divorce (brought by Dodelson) were now both in one docket; nothing was supplanted.
6. The statement claims that only Dodelson could withdraw the Complaint for Custody. This is false. Even after it was merged into one docket with the Complaint for Divorce, nobody could force Weiss to continue with his Complaint for Custody. You can’t force somebody to sue you. He could have withdrawn. And Dodelson expressly told Weiss and Bais Din that she would sign any document if necessary to remove both the Complaint for Custody and the Complaint for Divorce.
7. The Statement claims that Avrohom Meir provided the Bais Din with the “hetter” to go to court. This is false. He did not present the “hetter” which is posted here. He provided the Bais Din with the Debreciner’s note –which the Bais Din rejected as totally inadequate – a 20 year old note about an unknown case with lines missing in the middle.
8. The Statement claims that he explained to Bais Din that he could not withdraw from the case. This is false because he could withdraw his Complaint for Custody even though she sued for divorce. Bais Din is familiar with court procedures and understood the situation very well. And Dodelson told Weiss and Bais Din she would sign anything if necessary to have both custody and divorce withdrawn from court.
9. The Statement claims that Weiss provided the name of a rabbi for Zabla. They provided the name of somebody who had a stroke and, at the time, could not physically carry on a dinner conversation, much less preside over a Din Torah. They gave the name of another rabbi who is rejected by every single Bais Din in the country.
| 
| ||||||||||||
