Meisels Seminary: Joint Bais Din allows Meisels to keep molesting students ... No problem!

Meisels 

Of course they don't say it out right, just read the psak, and you will conclude as I did that the headline is correct, and not misleading ......

But I have to give credit where credit is due .... the Bais Din did acknowledge that abuse took place, but they decided to  protect the enablers!

If you need further clarification and pshat in the psak ....

read the great commentary from FRUMFOLLIES, he has a great take on this outrageous conclusion!

Psak translation from Frumfollies:

The eve before Wednesday, 5 Adar, 5775 (March 10, 2015)

The Expanded Beis Din With These Rabbis

• Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz
• Rabbi Shmuel Feurst
• Rabbi Yisroel Zev Hacohen Cohen- These three [above] are from Chicago, USA henceforth [referred to as] the Chicago Beis Din [aka CBD]
• Rabbi Menachem Mendel Hacohen Shafran
• Rabbi Chaim Zev ben R. Avrohom Aharon Halevi Malinowitz
• Rabbi Tzvi Gartner- These three [above] are from Eretz Yisroel [Israel] henceforth [referred to as] the Eretz Yisroel Beis Din [aka IBD]
• Rabbi Eliyahu Brudney from Brooklyn, New York

We sat as an expanded beis din (rabbinical court) to judge the issue of the seminaries: Pninim, Chedvas Beis Yaakov, Binas Beis Yaakov, and Keser Chaya – henceforth referred to as “the seminaries”. This psak din (ruling) is the continuation of the partial psak din that was rendered on Monday, 9 Kislev 5775 (December 1, 2014), and these [two rulings] should be understood as a unit.

In this part of the psak din, we address the question of the responsibility of the administrators in what occurred:

• Did they know anything at the time of the events or should they have known?
• Included in this is the issue of the general atmosphere in the seminaries; was there an atmosphere of frivolity that invited abuse? Did they contribute knowingly or unknowingly to the creation of such an atmosphere? Or/and did they fail in creating a proper atmosphere?
• Similarly, when incidents became known regarding the previous year, did the administrators act properly in the relevant spheres?

Our deliberations led to the following Psak Din (Ruling)

A. Keser Chaya Seminary [Mrs. Shulamis Soloff]: No complaint of unacceptable or prohibited action against the offender/abuser [Elimelech Meisels] was received with regard to this seminary. While there were complaints of inappropriate, improper, and abnormal behavior (the type described in the Reasons of the psak din of Rav M.M. HaKohen Shafran, from here on to be referred to as briefly as “Reasons”), the administrators dealt with those incidents immediately, with efficiency and expertise. We decisively say: there was not and is not any reason in the world to raise questions regarding this wonderful; seminary or its administration. This decision should repair any mistaken impression that could confuse others created in the past.

B. Pninim Seminary [Rabbi Boruch Dovid Simon]: Adjudicating this case is superfluous. This is because the administrator at the time of these acts was the offender/abuser himself [Elimelech Meisels]. The current administration was promoted from among the staff as a result of the offender/abuser’s resigning/firing.

As such, one cannot complain about the current administration because of the acts of the previous administration – run by the offender/abuser – and they bear no responsibility, even administratively, for his [Meisel’s] actions.

It should also be noted what was written in note 7 of the partial psak din: “The beis dinwas deeply impressed from the staff of the seminaries, their dedication and concern, their outlook and fear of God, and their being fit to educate bnos yisroel (Jewish daughters) in Torah and fear of heaven and to establish faithful homes in Israel.” These words that were said generally are certainly applicable to the [current] administration of Pninim Seminary.

C. Chedvas Beis Yaakov Seminary [Rabbi Meir Kahane]: Here, we also received no complaints about unacceptable or forbidden behavior by the offender/abuser, only inappropriate, and abnormal behavior, (the type of behavior described in the “Reasons” document.) But, unlike the situation in Keser Chaya, a complaint and claim was placed against them as if the administrator’s response was too conciliatory and inadequate, and perhaps even worse (for details, see the “Reasons” document.)

Also, an email was shown to us that was sent from the administrator about the incident. The email was sent to a group of former students, after the incident blew up and became publicized. It was claimed that this email was at worst an attempt to hide or obscure things (cover-up in English), and at best, insensitive to the situation of the victims.

And so, after careful examination and after pitting the administrator against the witness who testified about the abnormal behavior of the attacker and the inappropriate response of the administrator, we reached the following decision: We heard the explanation of the administrator. Although it would appear that his response cannot be characterized as wise or insightful, but from there to placing a stain and suspicion on a dedicated administrator whose reputation precedes him—who could suggest such a thing?! We will leave it at that.

Regarding the email: the administrator explained his pure intentions – giving strength and encouragement, in what was meant to be a closed forum, to former students who were bewildered and confused about the magnitude of the incident and the public reaction to it. According to him, the initiative for this came from students who asked him for words of encouragement on the topic.

Again, one can debate the judgment of the administrator and his timing. Similarly, he should have known there are no secrets; things said—and certainly written—in a closed forum with many participants are susceptible to being leaked. But in the end, there was no attempt here to hide or obfuscate the facts or be insensitive to the victims.

As such, and taking into account the fact that the administrator expressed before us his true regret for the words that he penned, which might not have been proper, and taking into account his great suffering and the publicizing of him in a bad light recently, we establish that he has already had his just deserts, and there is no further reason to doubt or question—God forbid!—his good name and fitness for educating the young women to Torah and knowledge.

D. Binas Beis Yaakov Seminary [Mrs. Hindy Ullman]: here the issue is more complex, and we will go in order.

1. Did the administration know in real time what was going on under their auspices: The beis din is convinced that until the day the story became known towards the end of last year, the seminary’s administration knew nothing about the offender/abuser’s actions. All the “proofs” submitted before the beis din suggesting they knew this or the other detail, can only be considered speculative and imagination. They do not conform with the reality on the ground, or with the personality of the administration.

2. The administration’s response when the incident became known: The chain of events is detailed extensively in the “Reasons” document. It is clear that once it became known, the administration acted quickly, with determination, and with great efficiency to investigate what occurred. This led to the removal of the offender/abuser from the physical environment (by immediately sending him abroad) and from continuing in the field of education – for these actions the administration is worthy of great praise. {see footnote 1}

3. Regarding the behavior of the administration toward the parents of the victim, and to witness “5”: see the “Reasons” document, and the matter is clear.

4. Regarding the question of the general atmosphere in this seminary, if it was an atmosphere of frivolity, inviting such incidents: the answer is a decisive no. See “Reasons” for more on this at length.

5. Regarding the question of whether the administration should have known sooner what was going on under their auspices: here we are perplexed, and we will go into more detail in order to explain.

As stated in the partial psak din and in the “Reasons,” the offender/abuser himself is not a part of these proceedings. Further, many of those who were meant to know what was going on in the seminary at the time have refused to testify before the beis din. Despite that, the picture that has emerged thus far (based mainly on the written admission of the offender/abuser and supported by a number of testimonies) is as such:

We are talking about incidents that occurred during the schools years of 5770-5774 [Fall ’09- Summer ‘14]. Incidents before that period are not known. The incidents happened in the first years of Pninim, and from 5772 (the year Binas Beis Yaakov opened) and on, specifically in Binas. {see footnote 2} We are talking about a handful of incidents each year. {See footnote 3}

After going through the material before us, it is difficult to shake the feeling that there were red flags and troubling signs, and the administration should have known and sensed what was going on under its own nose. {See Footnote 4} Indeed, it is difficult to establish that with certainty, and even if you say it is true, how can we know and decide if it was at the level of negligence or near negligence, or less than that – but to leave it at nothing is impossible.

On the other hand, one must take into account the great suffering by the administration in recent months with the publication putting them in a bad light, along with their praiseworthy response once the matter became known, as described in section 2.

Therefore it seems that we must make do with the continuation of the arrangements that were agreed upon by the administration in Kislev of this year. According to [these arrangements], some of the positions and responsibility will be transferred temporarily to another party. As well, supervision and guidance by Mrs. Birnbaum will be increased. These arrangements will be in effect until the start of the school year of 5777 [Fall 2016].

E. In part 2, paragraph 1 of the partial psak din it is written: first, and foremost, the beis din Eretz Yisroel dealt with the removal of the offender/abuser and his family from all administrative positions in the seminaries, and brought about their being removed from the amuta [Israeli not-for-profit corporation], and the transferring of responsibility to other people. The situation today is that the amuta and all the institutions under its umbrella are being transferred to the faithful hands of a group of Haredi activists who arebnei torah, who will be completely subservient to the instructions of the expanded beis din, and above them the great rabbis and teachers, the elders of the roshei yeshivos of the USA.

Practically, the issues have been drawn out and have yet to come to a resolution. The beis din is convinced that the situation will be resolved in the best way possible, and is giving it more time, until July 1, 2015. The beis din will continue to follow developments and if necessary will sit again on this issue.

F.  As a side note on the matter: it is no secret that over the entire period of the case thebattei din (Eretz Yisroel and Chicago) acted separately. If we did act jointly, this is as a result of the efforts of three people who wish to remain anonymous, from Chicago, who have worked tirelessly for the success of the unification, and under the authority of Rabbi Avrohom Chaim Levin, Rosh Yeshiva of Telshe Yeshiva-Chicago and member of the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah of Agudah [Council of Torah Sages of Agudath Israel of America], they should be blessed from heaven with all good. And to the Rosh Yeshiva it is said: “Days onto the days of the king may you add, etc.”[Psalms/Tehillim 61:7], and together we should merit to greet the righteous redeemer, speedily in our day, amen. (Footnote 5)

We came to sign on the eve before Wednesday, 20 Adar, 5775 (March 10, 2015) {See footnote 5}

• Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz
• Rabbi Menachem Mendel Hacohen Shafran- (I published my view as part of the minority opinion, and here I join my voice to that of the majority with regards to the practical outcome.)
• Rabbi Shmuel Feurst
• Rabbi Chaim Zev ben R. Avrohom Aharon Halevi Malinowitz (My opinion, in the full sense of the word, is like that of R. Shafran, and my view is also like that of the minority, but here I sign to join with the majority as it regards halacha and the practical outcome.)
• Rabbi Yisroel Zev Hacohen Cohen
• Rabbi Tzvi Gartner
• Rabbi Eliyahu Brudney

Footnotes:

1. It should be stressed a document was presented to the beis din seemingly proving that at least one member of the beis din knew about the actions of the administration while it was happening.
2. [redacted to protect identity of victims and to comply with court order barring publicizing their identities by name or other unique information]
3. And so the rumors of tens of victims each year have no basis or foundation in reality
4. Though, in reality, she didn’t know
5. The minority view, of Rabbis Schwartz, Feurst and Cohen – on one side, and Rabbis Shafran and Malinowitz and the other side, as well as the explanations of the majority, will be publicized separately.

Chicago Beis Din Allows Accreditation on Meisels Seminaries

POSTED by FRUMFOLLIES

The four Jerusalem-based, post-high school girls seminaries (Pninim, Chedvas, Binas, and Keser Chaya) once controlled by disgraced sex abuser Rabbi (sic) Elimelech Meisels are finally having their accreditation restored, allowing for US financial aid and transferable college credit. This ends a half-year impasse that started with a July 10th ruling by the Chicago Special Beis Din for sex abuse (aka CBD) ruling that the Meisels seminaries were not safe for students because of Meisels misconduct. That Beis Din consisted of Rabbis Gedalia Dov Schwartz, Shmuel Feurst and Zev Cohen. In a later ruling they also accused other staff of enabling or covering up abuse. On that basis they convinced Touro College and Hebrew Theological College to deny them accreditation. This in turn prevented students from getting US government aid and college credits.

In contrast, the Israeli Beis Din (IBD) of Rabbis Mendel Shafran, Chaim Malinowitz and Tzvi Gartner claimed that with Meisels departure there were no problems and that additional safeguards had been installed.

The Chicago Beis Din insisted they could not clear the seminaries until accused staff agreed to be interrogated. They also reported, that contrary to IBD claims, Meisels retained control.

The impasse was resolved through a joint Beis Din whose members included the dayanim of both battei din and a seventh member, R. Eliyahu Brudny (Rosh Yeshiva of Mirer Yeshiva in Brooklyn). They met in the Manhattan building of Agudath Israel of America on Thursday, November 6th from about 3 p.m. till past midnight and had subsequent interactions culminating in their Dec 1 ruling.

The Beis Din made heavy use of video- and tele-conferencing.

Rabbi Meir Kahane, Principal Chedvas Bais Yaakov

Two of the rabbis (Schwartz and Gartner) participated from Chicago and Israel. Witnesses of abuse and enabling participated either in person or by phone. In an incredible breach of judicial procedure, the accused were all in the same room able to hear and echo each others claims. Meisel’s guilt was taken as a given and he was not part of the session. They also did not allow any rabbinic pleaders (toanim). This prevented Mrs. Hindy Ullman from using her father, famous toen, Shmuel Fried. While both of the original battei dinhad rules allowing witnesses without the presence of the accused (as is now established halacha for sex abuse cases) they forced the witnesses to give testimony in front of the accused staff, who interrupted, screamed and heaped abuse in a desperate attempt to intimidate the witnesses. Some the dayanim conducted a number of other interviews with the staff.

Mrs. Hindy Ullman

A number of the dayanim were convinced that the scandal at these seminaries involved some of the worst staff enabling of abuse they had ever encountered, both in ignoring the obvious signs and in rebuffing reports. Seminary principals Rabbi Meir Kahane and Mrs Hindy Ullman are being demoted but this will not be stated officially. Formal control of the organization which was previously in the hands of Elimelech Meisels and Mr Yaakov Yarmush will fully pass to a new party. Mr Yarmush is now convinced of the severity of Meisels misconduct and wishes no part of an arrangement that still involves Meisels. Supposedly, the terms for transferring control are settled but the legalities are not completed. New protocols are being installed at the initiative of the Beis Din. A new training was conducted at Peninim by Mrs. Debbie Gross of the Israeli organization, Tahel. Rabbi Moshe Krupka of Touro College was also in Israel to meet with all the seminaries they accredit to advise them on new standards and requirements for avoiding abuse and dealing with it. I also expect to see a shift in seminaries away from male staff and administrators (as advocated by Rabbi Zucker at the recent convention of Agudath Israel of America).

So, now at the end of this process, the seminaries are allowed to live on though they are likely to decline in size. Insiders say five new seminaries are recruiting for the 2015 year both because of growth in this market and the expectation that the seminaries that Meisels used to control will never be as large as they used to be. It does not matter that they have now been proclaimed kosher. The stench of scandalous misdeeds hangs over them. Kosher is not good enough and many parents are not willing to believe they are mehadrin.

I am disappointed that some truly outrageous staff misconduct did not lead to anyone being fired. However, no one should mistake this joint ruling for an innocent verdict on staff. Daniel Eidensohn’s Daas Torah blog leaked the last page of the ruling restoring the accreditation and assuming new controls will make the seminaries safe. He used the misleading headline: “It is official!: Chicago Beis Din and Israeli Beis Din agree 4 seminaries are o.k.

He makes it sound as if there was never a problem. However, he only posted the final page of a longer statement which condemns misconduct in the seminaries by Meisels and other staff. I have heard some of the content and will post it when I get a copy within the next day or two.

The Beis Din is relying on new training. I think the previous conduct of staff suggests they are too indifferent or too stupid to recognize ugly realities being played out in front of them. I for one don’t think these staff should be trusted. Stupidity and indifference cannot be cured by retraining.

It is good that there is a new consciousness about the need to train staff and confront abuse. It is especially good that seminaries realize such scandals can cost them accreditation. But once again the frum world has shown that protecting institutions is more important than protecting victims and punishing culprits. We all know about the problem of financial institutions that can be reckless with our money because they are “too big to fail.” The Haredi world suffers from institutions “too frum to be shut down.”

The biggest problem with this resolution is that many staff of the seminaries are still claiming that the allegations against Meisels are either false or grossly exaggerated. Unfortunately, the Beis Din, has done nothing to correct that falsehood. They have not let the public know that they heard clear evidence that Meisels sexually assaulted girls.

However, no one should mistake this joint ruling for an innocent verdict on staff. Daniel Eidensohn’s Daas Torah blog leaked the last page of the ruling restoring the accreditation and assuming new controls will make the seminaries safe. He used the misleading headline: “It is official!: Chicago Beis Din and Israeli Beis Din agree 4 seminaries are o.k.

He makes it sound as if there was never a problem. However, he only posted the final page of a longer statement which condemns misconduct in the seminaries by Meisels and other staff. I have heard some of the content and will post it when I get a copy within the next day or two.

Meisels defenders now claiming "Loshon Harah" to talk against the pervert

DIN met with the parents of  3 girls that attended the seminaries, this week, and all said  that Meisels was inappropriate. They are very upset about the letter that Rabbi Meir Kahane wrote to parents, and the separate letter he sent to students saying in effect that it is "Loshon Harah" to talk about this menuval! 

R' Meir Kahane defender of the pervert!

Here is a letter from Rabbi Yair Hoffman:

The Seminary Scandal and Halacha

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman
By now, many people are aware of the very unfortunate scandal in some of the religious seminaries for women in Israel.
The seminaries involved included Pninim, Binas Bais Yaakov, Chedvas Bais Yaakov and Kesser Chaya. There seems to be e-mail evidence, phone text evidence, and testimony from young ladies that gravely inappropriate things have been happening over several years by Rabbi M., who has run these four seminaries. It also seems that when victims did come forward to staff members within the seminaries, no steps were taken to rectify the situation. An independent investigation conducted by this author with multiple sources has shown that there is serious substance to what has been alleged.

Some of the students did consult with their Rabbis at home as to what had transpired. One such Rabbi stated that the threshold of “Raglayim l’Davar” delineated by Rav Elyashiv zatzal in his January, 2004 ruling to Rav Feivel Cohen, has certainly been passed in this case. Ultimately, the issue was investigated by the Chicago Beis Din.

After its interviews and investigations, the Chicago Beis Din made up of Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, Rabbi Zev Cohen and Rabbi Gedalya Schwartz, issued its ruling on July 10th. On July 12th , they sent a letter to the various high schools that send their students to seminaries in Israel and recommended that the students not attend those seminaries. This was in light of the fact that the Beis Din deemed that the environment posed risk.

The matter, however, did not end there.

The case was then taken up with Rav Mendel Shafran’s Beis Din in Bnei Brak, Israel. Initially, the Beis Din was misidentified as an official Torah UMesorah Beis Din. This is not accurate, however, as Torah uMesorah has no jurisdiction or affiliation with post high school seminaries in Israel. Regardless, this distinguished Beis Din did ensure that the offending party was no longer involved in the education of the seminaries, and declared that the seminary environments were now safe.

The Chicago Beis Din still had some serious reservations about how the matter was being handled.
Generally speaking, when an untoward situation exists, it is necessary to completely “clean house” and ensure that there is absolutely no control or influence of an offending party over students or staff. This would include even being in charge of the building facilities, educational programming, and financial responsibility. It is also necessary to make sure that any new owner not be tied to the offending party in any manner or form. These criterion were not met to the degree that the Chicago Beis felt necessary.

Regardless, a call placed by this author to Rabbi Fuerst in Chicago revealed that as of Thursday, July 17th ,the Chicago Beis-Din stands fully by its statement of July,12, 2014.

The Rabbonim of the Beis Din have spent more than three months conducting intensive investigations both here in the United States as well as in Eretz Yisroel. In fact, it held multiple hearings in four different locations. The Rabbonim also interviewed multiple complainants, and numerous other witnesses. They both consulted with mental health professionals and reviewed many documents. These documents included e-mails and text messages. They also heard testimony, including admissions of critical facts, by the defendant.

The Chicago Beis Din is certainly aware of the letters written by the Beis Din in Eretz Yisroel, stating that these schools are currently safe environments for our children. They believe, however, that under the current conditions, the environment is not yet fully safe.

I have further been assured that if and when the conditions do change, the Chicago Beis Din will inform the public.

The initial letter of the Special Chicago Beis Din has prompted the Hebrew Theological College to suspend its affiliation with these seminaries. This is crucial because FAFSA funding is dependent upon recognition by an American institution that is accredited by an agency affiliated with the Department of Education. Other institutions may soon follow suit.

A guidance counselor associated with a New York based Bais Yaakov estimated that these seminaries can stand to lose up to 40% of their funding if the Chicago Beis Din’s requirements are not met, and can possibly even close. “Many of the other girls who have attended these seminaries have grown remarkably there because of the wonderful staff, and it would be a shame if they lost any girls, or if they were to close on account of this terrible development,” remarked the guidance counselor

In the past, we as a Torah community have not been very good at effectively preventing such abuse within our ranks.
There is no question that there are halachic authorities that sanction the past methods of minimal and quiet intervention where we handle all such matters internally. However, experience has shown that this either doesn’t work anymore, or never even worked in the first place.

There are numerous Mitzvos involved in taking decisive action to ensure that future victims are protected. The verse in Parshas Ki Taytzai (Dvarim 22:2) discusses the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveida – returning an object with the words, “Vahashaivoso lo – and you shall return it to him.” The Gemorah in Sanhedrin (73a) includes within its understanding of these words the obligation of returning “his own life to him as well.” For example, if thieves are threatening to pounce upon him, there is an obligation of “Vahashaivoso lo.” The psychological repercussions that victims develop often causes them to, r”l, ideate suicide and also to abandon Judaism. This can be confirmed with experts in the field.

Lo Saamod Al Dam Rayacha
There is a negative Mitzvah of not standing idly by your brother’s blood as well. This is mentioned both in Shulchan Aruch (CM 426:1) and in the Rambam.

Lo Suchal l’hisalaym
There is yet another negative commandment associated with the positive commandment of Hashavas Aveida, and that is the verse in Dvarim (22:3), “You cannot shut your eyes to it.” This verse comes directly after the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah. The Netziv (HeEmek Sheailah) refers to this Mitzvah as well. We as a community cannot shut our eyes to this type of activity anymore.

V’Chai Achicha Imach
The Sheiltos (Sheilta #37), based upon the Gemorah in Bava Metziah 62a, understands these words to indicate an obligation to save others with you. The Netziv in his He’Emek She’ailah understands it as a full-fledged obligation according to all opinions. He writes that he must exert every effort to save his friend’s life – until it becomes Pikuach Nefesh for himself. Thus, even when faced with intense pressure, it is our communal obligation to stop this type of activity within our midst.

V’Ahavta l’Rayacha Kamocha
The Ramban, Toras haAdam Shaar HaSakana (p42-43) understands the verse of “And love thy neighbor as yourself” as a directive to save him from danger as well. Although he discusses the issue of medical danger, it is clear that this is an example, and it would apply to danger from activities of molestation as well. Even without the Ramban, however, it is clear that defending and protecting someone from danger is a fulfillment of this Mitzvah.
Our Ineffectiveness
The repercussions of our ineffectiveness have led to four very unfortunate situations. It has led to untold suffering on the part of the victims themselves and on the part of other students who have attended these seminaries and now are at a loss because their spiritual guide has fallen. It has also led to a situation where the public has lost much of their trust in their teachers and Rabbis. And finally, it has led to untold suffering and embarrassment for the families of the perpetrators themselves.

The efforts of the Chicago Beis Din, however, with the haskama of leading Gedolim, represent a sea-change in how we are dealing with these types of scandals internally. The Beis Din has handled the situation with a strength and sensitivity that, unfortunately, in the past has been rarely seen.
The growth we have witnessed in how these matters are handled involves a greater sensitivity to the needs of the victims in terms of both closure as well as counseling and a firm commitment to ensure that the situation not repeat itself again. This can only happen if we adopt the idea that “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”
Which approach is most ideal when dealing with such a horrific topic? Do we follow the lead of the Chicago Beis Din where we need to completely “clean house?” Perhaps the field of Kashrus may be instructive here. In kashrus, when an owner is caught selling tarfus, changing the management is not adequate. Recent events have born that out. Shouldn’t our children be treated with at least as much dignity as our meat?

The author can be reached at yairhoffman2@gmail.com

Elimelech Meisels owner of 3 Girl Seminaries in Israel a Sexual Pervert

From Frum Follies
The special beis din (rabbinical court) of Chicago exists to address allegations of sexual abuse which cannot be, or will not be, directed to the criminal justice system. It is led by Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz, the Av Beis Din (court head) for both the Chicago Rabbinical Council (CRC) and the Beth Din of America (BDA).

Rabbi Elimelech Meisels owns and operates several Israeli “seminaries” for post-high school, year-in-Israel religious education of young women, mostly from Yeshivish ultra-orthodox backgrounds. These include: Pninim, Binas Bais Yaakov, Chedvas Bais Yaakov and Keser Chaya. Meisels is associated with Ohr Somayach and is second author with Rabbi Dovid Kaplan of The Kiruv Files (2008)

In a ruling issued on Thursday July 10, 2014, the Beis Din reported that they believe “that students in these seminaries are at risk of harm and it does not recommend that students attend these seminaries at this time.
The ruling was signed by Rabbis Schwartz, Shmuel Feurst (Dayan of Agudath Israel of Illinois) and Zev Cohen (Congregation Adas Yeshurun).
While Meisels used the title of Rabbi until now the Schwartz Bais Din pointedly referred to him as Mr. Meisels.

Meisels is, I am told, a grandson of Michael (Mike/Elimelech) Tress. If so, his mother is Henie (nee Tress) Meisels.

A beit din is being convened in Israel to deal with this matter. I am told they will force Meisels to give up control of the seminaries. I do not know if they have succeeded to date. I suspect the Chicago Beit Din issued its ruling precisely because he refused to give up control. The Israeli Beit din is comprised of Rabbis Menachem Mendel Shafran, Chaim Malinowitz and Tzvi Gartner.