Preschool teacher Marisa Trachtenberg, 31, was charged on a sex-abuse charge in August with kissing a 15-year-old girl in 2006 — an allegation she vehemently denies.
Although the charges were quickly dismissed, Trachtenberg claims “she lives in hell” because a Minnesota blogger who reported the arrest implied the victim was a young child and that there were “potentially many more victims,” according to a December Queens Supreme Court suit.
Although a lawyer alerted Shmayra Rosenberg, who runs failedmessiah.typepad.com, that the statements were “false and defamatory,” Rosenberg refuses to remove the post.
Rosenberg “did not check the source of his information” and “acted in reckless disregard for the truth,” according to court papers. “A simple visit to the court or phone call to Marisa Trachtenberg would have resulted in access to the pleadings.”
Rosenberg claims it’s on Trachtenberg to provide proof of her innocence — although the blogger never requested such evidence when Trachtenberg’s lawyer asked that the post be removed.
“I did not speak to Trachtenberg” before writing about the arrest, he told The Post. “I had a credible source who told me the child was very young and that they were afraid there were more victims,” he told The Post.
Trachtenberg says she lost her job, has been unable to get another one, and has been “totally ostracized by the Orthodox community.”
She’s asking a judge to force Rosenberg to take down the post, as well as for unspecified damages.
 |
| Trachtenberg |
The New York Post omitted key facts from a story in order to try to smear me.
What follows shows that Post did this intentionally and willfully.
If someone claims a post I wrote is false or defammatory or "hurtful," does that person have to provide details and facts to prove that claim? Or am I obligated to remove the post simply becuase an unspecific claim has been made?
The law is clear. I have no obligation to remove the post or to update the post.
In this case, an accused pedophile's attorney wrote to me claiming that "[y]our website contains inaccurate hurtful information regarding our client. We would like to avoid a defamation of character suit and please ask that you kindly remove this article from your website. Please contact our offices to discuss this matter further."
I responded this way, "She was arrested, as you know, and you have no legal basis for a lawsuit."
Note the attorney provided no specifics. He didn't claim the alleged victim was older or that the abuse did not take place or even that the charges were dropped or that his client was innocent.
Also note that he did not respond to my email.
Therefore, I had no legal obligation to do anything. As far as I knew, the case was still active and nothing I reported was wrong.
Note that the Post was told by Trachtenberg's attorney that I never responded to his email – which is false and which the Post knew to be false. But as you'll see below, that lie by Trachtenberg's attorney is not in the Post's report. Neither is the reason for the dismissal of the case against Trachtenberg. (I've been told it has to do with a statute of limitations question caused in part by a prosecutor's error – but I have not yet been able to confirm this.)
Also note that the Post repeatedly refused to share the lawsuit with me so I could respond to it or to tell me why the case was dropped – something they don't tell readers, either.
This is a hit job done in part to placate the haredi community and to make up for its Menachem Stark "Who didn't want him dead?" cover. And what this should tell you is that nothing the Post reports can be trusted.
