Mondrowitz :Who protected the monster from deportation?

Times of Israel   There is a monster in Jerusalem as well. No one has ever laid a hand on him either. But this one is definitely real. His name is Avroham Mondrowitz.

Mondowitz is a paedophile who molested up to 300 boys in Brooklyn in a mainly ultra-Orthodox section of the city — we’ll never know the real number of victims — and then skipped out to Israel in 1985 where he twice fended off efforts to send him back to face justice. Mondowitz, who presents himself as an ordained rabbi and Columbia-trained psychologist, and is neither, lives free as a bird in the neighborhood of Nachlaot in central Jerusalem.

The US twice sought his extradition from Israel, in 1986 and again in 2008. The first time the two states discovered incredibly that their extradition treaty covered only sexual abuse crimes against females and not males. The second time they worked with a revised treaty. A lower court ruled for the extradition. The Supreme Court nixed that saying that Israel had 20 years to get this guy hiding in plain sight and to come along after such an extraordinary period of time violates his civil rights. You can’t make this stuff up.

He may gone off the radar in Israel but they have not forgotten Mondrowitz in New York. Just last month the Post ran still another article on how the man they call “New York’s most notorious child molester … got away with it.”

Ultra-orthodox rabbis are renown for spending their entire lives memorizing a multitude of precepts produced by a multitude of sages down their ages and then applying them to every situation in their waking lives so that every minute of every day they will always be doing the right thing. But when it comes to paedophiles in their community somewhere along the line they reached outside the box for their guiding precept. They adopted it from Mizaru, Kikazaru, and Iwazaru. These are Japanese monkeys. Their names mean see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. In an amazing triumph for the ecumenical movement it turns out that Catholic prelates adopted the exact same precept in regard to paedophiles among the ministers of their faith. Some like the Monsignor William Lynn of Philadelphia, who got up to six years for “child endangerment,” are now in prison. The judge convicted him of shielding, protecting and aiding “monsters in clerical garb.” Mondrowitz got help along the way too up to and including illegal acts of obstruction of justice but we’ll never learn from whom. The Catholics operate in a strict hierarchical system. There but for the grace of decentralization go our child endangerers. [...]

He used the boys sent to him as sex toys, In ultra-Orthodox culture members of the flock are expected to choose a rabbi. When they need guidance in any matter not excluding their personal lives, they seek it from their rabbi. What he tells them is binding. From empirical evidence it appears that all the rabbis on the subject of paedophilia imposed “omerta,” an Italian word meaning a code of silence. No one reported Mondrowitz to the authorities. Then he got careless. He lived in a mixed neighborhood. Mondrowitz developed an appetite for boys of Italian extraction. Their folks were not bound to any omerta. Parents of four boys went to the police. Two cops came round to arrest Mondrowitz. They were too late. He was already en route to Canada and from there headed to the Promised Land. [...]

Read More

Judge orders ex-Penn State executives to trial in abuse coverup

Reuters   Harrisburg District Judge William Wenner, after a two-day preliminary hearing, ordered a criminal trial to be held for the university's former president, Graham Spanier, 65, its former athletic director, Tim Curley, 59, and its former senior vice president Gary Schultz, 63.

Sandusky, 69, a former assistant football coach, was convicted in June 2012 of 45 counts of sexual abuse involving 10 boys. He is serving a sentence of 30 to 60 years in a state prison

A witness central to the prosecution's case, former assistant football coach Mike McQueary, testified on Monday about seeing Sandusky abuse a child in the school's locker room showers in 2001. He testified that the morning following the assault, he told Penn State football coach Joe Paterno what he saw and also told Curley and Schultz. No one told police.

Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are accused of a "conspiracy of silence" for failing to report the shower incident to authorities, which permitted Sandusky to continue preying on boys. He met most of his victims through a charity he founded for at-risk youth. [...]

Read More

D.A. Hynes conduct raises Questions of Professional Conduct

NY Times   In search of love and votes, Charles J. Hynes, the Brooklyn district attorney, cannot seem to stop tripping over himself. 

Last week, he went on a television and radio show for the Orthodox Jewish community and denounced Sam Kellner. Bearded and intense, a bubbling fountain of words, Mr. Kellner is one of the rare few in the Hasidic community who spoke publicly about the plague of child sexual abuse. He helped the district attorney build cases against prominent Hasidic leaders, including a man accused of molesting Mr. Kellner’s own 16-year-old son. 

Or at least Mr. Kellner spoke until Brooklyn prosecutors turned around two years ago and charged him with trying to extort his son’s accused abuser, the Satmar cantor Baruch Lebovits.

The weakness of the case against Mr. Kellner is difficult to overstate. On Monday in State Supreme Court, Mr. Hynes’s prosecutors pleaded for more time to reinvestigate their rapidly disintegrating case. 

None of which appeared to have given pause to Mr. Hynes. “I believe there was a substantial effort by Mr. Kellner to gain money by making up stories,” he told the host of the program, Zev Brenner, last week. “I think we have a substantial case.” 

It appears Mr. Hynes, who often emphasizes the management experience he has accumulated over many decades, has violated the state’s rules of professional conduct, which prohibit prosecutors from offering “any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a suspect” in a criminal matter.[...]

Read More

Mondrowitz beaten up in Jerusalem by vigilante

Algemeiner   Avrohom Mondrowitz, a notorious fake rabbi and child psychologist who fled US arrest warrants for child molestation in 1984, was attacked and beaten by an unknown vigilante assailant last week in Jerusalem, according to cellphone video footage of the incident released exclusively to The Algemeiner.

“Isaac,” a 22-year old American studying in Jerusalem who recorded the scene, asked that his full name not be used and that his voice be altered in the footage.

The cameraman said he did not know the identity of the assailant nor was he, personally, someone who typically resorted to violence, but the frustrating circumstances surrounding Mondrowitz’s continued freedom from hundreds of accusers made this an occasion where “vigilante justice could be justified.”

Isaac, originally from the New York area, said that he was neither a victim of child abuse nor an activist, but knew many people who had suffered abuse and felt “someone has to do something,” and that he had to “speak up.”

 

Read More

Rav Kook's dilemma: Hesped for Hertzl

Shaalvim   On the twentieth of Tammuz, 5664 (July 3,1904), Dr. Theodor Herzl (Benjamin Ze’ev) Herzl, founder of the Zionist movement, died at the tragically young age of forty-four. Rav Avraham Yitzhak Kook, the newly installed rabbi of the port city of Jaffa, was asked to participate in a memorial service to honor the departed leader. Rav Kook was placed in a difficult situation, for which there was no totally satisfactory solution. On the one hand, the Halakha is quite specific when it comes to those who have deviated from the norms of Torah:

Whoever secedes from the way of the community, namely persons who throw off the yoke of commandments from upon their neck, and do not participate with the Jewish People in their observances, in honoring the festivals, and sitting in the synagogue and study house, but rather are free to themselves as the other nations, and so too the apostates and informers — for none of these persons does one mourn. Rather, their brothers and other relatives wear white (festive garments) and eat and drink, and make merry (Shulhan ‘Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 345:5).

However one might lionize Herzl, there was no getting away from the fact that his lifestyle was that of an assimilated Jew far from observance of traditional Judaism. If one were to adhere literally to the passage in Shulhan Arukh, the customary hesped or eulogy for the deceased would be out of the question.

On the other hand, Rav Kook knew his flock. If in Jaffa itself Rav Kook might find a few individuals capable of relating to the halakhic objection to memorializing a declaredly secular Jew, in Rehovot and the other outlying settler communities, Herzl, with his patriarchal beard and searing eyes, was regarded as nothing less than a modern-day “prophet.” And Rav Kook had been engaged not only as rabbi of Jaffa, but of the recently established moshavot (colonies) as well. [...]

Read More

Rav Moshe Feinstein's grave damaged by Belz chassidim

bhol update July 31, 2013


bhol Belzer chassidim -who went to Har Menuchos for the previous rebbe's yahrzeit - caused serious damage to Rav Moshe Feinstein's tombstone. This was the result of the pushing of the chassidim to see their rebbe.

Read More

Lakewood: Child abuse must be handled by a beis din which doesn't exist!?

It has been a number of weeks since the Kolko confession and conviction. What lessons have been learned? Of course the most important question is what lesson has Lakewood learned?

On the face of it, it seems that Lakewood made a major mistake in how they handled the Kolko case. Kolko himself has confessed to being a molester to the secular court. He has allegedly also confessed before a number of rabbis who were scheduled to testify to this fact at the trial. Apparently then we have certified by both halacha and secular law that Kolko is in fact a child molester.

However if this is truth is obvious – then why has the Lakewood establishment been silent? Why haven't they at least acknowledged that they made a mistake and apologized to the family that they drove out of Lakewood for the alleged crime of mesira? Isn't it obvious to them that there was no mesira because the father's concern was to protect other children from an actual child molester?

The answer that I am hearing from Lakewood is a resounding, "No!" There are many who still claim that the reporting of Kolko constituted mesira – in particular Rabbi Yisroel Belsky. Rabbi Belsky in fact claimed in a letter that circulated Lakewood before trial that his investigation confirmed Kolko's innocence and that the father – Rabbi "S" was the abuser. The consensus of the reports I have gotten after the trial is that he hasn't changed his mind. This view is shared by many other rabbis in Lakewood. It is true that there are some who have changed their minds – but this is only in private. No one is acknowledging publicly that he erred.

It seems that there are at least 3 factions in Lakewood. 1) Kolko is innocent or at least never was a threat to any children. Since he is not a threat he is not a rodef and therefore there was no justification for calling the police. This seems to be the majority. 2) The other view is that Kolko is a child molester and even without a beis din or even a rav – it is clear that the police should have been called. No one of significance has publicly stated this view. 3) Kolko is in fact a child molester and major rabbis paskened that the police should be informed. However this group – in particular the rabbis – not only refuse to publically state that they paskened this way – but they allegedly lie when they are asked.  They are afraid of telling the truth. Publicly this view doesn't exist.

Furthermore the population in Lakewood has 3 different approaches to understanding the conditions for calling the police.

1) A beis din of 3 rabbis is required to hear the claims and testimony of kosher witnesses is required. The purpose of the beis din is to determine halachic guilt or innocence. This approach asserts that without an explicit psak from a beis din – it is prohibited to go to the police. Even if guilt is determined – but if the beis din says that the matter can be handled internally – it is prohibited to call the police. This is the view explicitly stated by Rav Menashe Klein.

2) No beis din is needed since they have neither the power or competence to investigate the matter. However a rav needs to be consulted as to whether there is raglayim ledaver – credible evidence. The rav serves as the gatekeeper – but he is not poskening guilt or innocence. This is the view of the Aguda.

3) There is no reason to consult either a beis din or a rav. It is enough that that there is credible evidence that abuse has occurred. Since we are dealing with rodef – self‑protection – no rabbinical authority is needed. Only normal human judgment and knowledge is required to make the decision of whether to call the police. This is the view of the RCA and Rav Belsky's letter posted to the RCA website.

Unfortunately whether one needs to go to a beis din or not is at this point a moot point in Lakewood. That is because a person with an abuse allegation, no longer has a beis din in Lakewood dealing with these cases. In addition apparently no rav will posken these issues and publicly stand by his views. Anyone who goes to the police after receiving a psak will be labeled a moser. Thus the problem for Lakewood is – there is no longer any acceptable rabbinic mechanism for dealing with these cases. This was also the problem for the Aguda when they announced a few years ago that a rav (not even a beis din) had to be consulted for raglayim ledavar – and then a year later they acknowledged that they had no rabbonim who were willing to be publicly designated to deal with child molesting!

In Lakewood this is allegedly the result of a dispute been Rav Malkiel Kotler and Rav Mattisyahu Solomon. Rav Kotler is allegedly opposed to having a beis din for these matters and Rav Solomon is allegedly for the beis din. I was told by a number of sources that the beis din of Rav Solomon was dissolved after it ordered on alleged perpetrator to quit teaching and he threatened the beis din with a $10, 000, 000 lawsuit. The final nail in the coffin of the beis din was that Rav Kotler publicly sided with the accused. Thus Lakewood has a "catch 22" situation. Everyone acknowledges that child abuse is harmful and therefore halachicly it must be stopped. But there is no longer a mechanism in Lakewood for dealing with the problem so therefore the problem can't be dealt with! The only thing that can be dealt is condemning those people who go to the police without the permission they can't get.

This conflicting confusion in dealing with child abuse – is not limited to Lakewood. It is also clearly present in Rav Belsky. On the one hand he strongly condemned Rabbi "S" as a moser and a molester – and yet publicly published a statement on the RCA website saying that someone with credible evidence should go to the police (without mentioning either a beis din or a rav). In contradiction he is also quoted as saying that "in Lakewood we don't go to the police." However to show that he was serious about calling the police he said in the RCA statement that in one case in Brooklyn he had actually advised going to the police. So Rav Belsky does favor going to the police in certain circumstances - however most cases of molesting apparently don't meet his standards.

In sum, in Lakewood "one does not go to the police" and even though there are major rabbonim who will permit it in certain cases of abuse – they will never acknowledge that they permitted it. Thus no one will go to the  police because they definitely will be destroyed as a moser. In Lakewood abuse is denied or covered up (in the immortal words of Rav Mattisyahu Solomon at an Aguda Conference). Sometimes molesters are asked to go to therapy - without any way of making sure they comply. Sometimes molesters are sent to Israel or other communities. There was even a case of the Lakewood establishment in which the rabbis naively tried curing pedophilia by have the pedophile marry an innocent orphan who didn't realize how she was being betrayed by the rabbis that she had been taught to blindly respect. In addition I have heard allegations that even when Rav Solomon's beis din was functioning and telling molesters to pay for therapy for their victim – that some of these molesters went on to molest other children - because they were allowed to keep teaching. Of course after molesting again, they again went to Rabbi Solomon's beis din – but the police were never called.

Read More