Kosher Get Deposited but rejected by NY State Judge

For illustration only

Guest post: The following was sent to me anonymously:

A NY Judge has rejected a Get deposited in a valid Bais Din as fulfilling the requirements of the NY Get Law on the grounds that the Bais Din insisted that the Get only be given over in accordance with Halochoh to ensure the validity of the Get. The Bais Din ordered the female Plaintiff to be tzias dina and leave arko’oys in order to receive the get as required by Shulchan Oruch. The Plaintiff refused.

The judge claimed that since the Get was not unconditional, it was not a valid Get and ordered that a “Glatt Kosher” Get be issued. Thus is despite the fact that “Glatt” only applies to “shechted” meat, and refers to the smoothness of the lungs.

The Plaintiff’s lawyer insisted in forcing the Defendant to go to one of the many “hired gun” mercenary type, for profit, purported “botei din” in the NY area (the Bobover) in order to consider settling the case which the Plaintiff has deliberately dragged on for many years in order to destroy the Defendant financially as well as prevent him proper access to his children.

The Judge furthermore warned the Defendant through his lawyer “off the record” (so that there would be no proof of the threats in advance of any trial and any due process occurring) that if the matter did go to trial if another Get was not issued, the judge would see to it that the Defendant’s visitation would be reduced but reasons totally unrelated to the Get would be created in order to reduce likelihood of this being overturned on appeal. The Defendant would have to pay additional money as maintenance to the Plaintiff since he was preventing the remarriage of the Plaintiff.

For fear of retribution, the parties involved shall remain anonymous.

1. Is this not against the constitution in terms of separation of church and state?

2. Is this not Stalinist behavior in terms of punishing someone even before the case and the 

3. Defendant’s arguments have been heard? Is the Defendant not at least entitled to a fair trial

4. Do not Rav Elyashiv zt”l, Rav Menashe Klein, Rav Moshe Sternbuch and even the Aguda and every other posek with some inkling of yiras shomayim hold that this will produce an invalid get me’useh?

=======================

Update [8/26/2013 D.T.] Here are some quotes from Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz' critique of the New York State Get Bill from JLaw   Update 8/27/13 Rabbi Michael Broyde's response

In the view of this writer, the problems with the New York State Get Bill are so many and varied, that the wonder is not the opposition it has met, but rather that it has any support whatsoever. Many contend that the Jewish community is immeasurably better off without the bill than with it since, as we shall see, the bill represents a dangerous time-bomb to the validity of many Gittin. Hence, ultimately, it endangers the sanctity of the Jewish family. In addition, ironically, the bill may actually be counterproductive. The halachic process, which, under most circumstances solves Igun problems when followed through, is undercut by "solutions" such as these. By encouraging people to avoid a Bet Din and avoid having to justify their demands by the standards of halacha, it only helps frustrate Rabbanim and Rabbinic Judges who seek halachic solutions. It teaches litigants to ignore the Bet Din process and rulings and, indeed, to second-guess them. The overwhelming majority of Igun cases, after all, are solved -- by rabbinic leadership along with community pressure. If the public is taught by well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning activists that the halachic route is to be avoided and ignored, then although there may be a few agunot helped by (one hopes) valid Gittin, there will be many many more who find their problems compounded. 

Apart from the bill's flaws with respect to the validity of Gittin, there are three other anti-halachic effects. In the opinion of this writer, these effects are so manifest, so incontrovertible, that it is mystifying that any Orthodox Rabbi, much less any rabbinic institution, can be in favor of it. 

 I. The first basic flaw in the Get Bill is that it is intended to aid in procuring a Get -- even if there is no reason according to Jewish law to assume a Get to be appropriate.[...] 

 II. Furthermore, resorting to the secular courts to resolve disputes is strictly forbidden in Jewish Law.14 This transgression is described by the Shulchan Aruch as akin to blasphemy and "taking up arms" against the Torah.15 The Rashba16 warns against confusing this prohibition with the dictum Dina D'malchuta Dina ("the law of the land is law").17 Even if both parties agree to go, and in fact stipulate in writing that they will utilize the civil court system, it remams forbidden by halacha.18[...] 

III. As we have noted, the prohibition of resorting to the secular courts holds true even if every court action happens to follow all the rules of the Shulchan Aruch. If there are any differences, the additional issue of out-and-out theft arises, if the courts award money or privileges to either party.21 (Even in circumstances where one had received permission from a Bet Din to "use the courts" one is prohibited from keeing any monies he is not entitled to according to halacha.) The Get Bill encourages a woman to use the civil courts to set rates of maintenance and "equitable distribution despite the fact that she might not be entitled to that money according to Jewish law. [...]