Tendler Case Reaches Highest Court – Rabbi Tendler's Lawyer: "What We Have Here Is Consensual [Sexual] Conduct"

The Mordechai Tendler case has reached New York State's highest court on appeal and Tendler's arrorney appears to admit an ongoing sexual affair between…

…a former member of Tendler's synagogue and Rabbi Tendler, as the Journal News reports:

Arguments heard in case of New Hempstead rabbi accused of seducing woman
BY JAY GALLAGHER • ALBANY BUREAU • JUNE 4, 2008

ALBANY - The state's highest court heard arguments yesterday about whether a claim of emotional distress and breach of fiduciary duty should be reinstated against a New Hempstead rabbi on behalf of a woman who says he seduced her.

The case involves Adina Marmelstein, a Manhattan woman, and Rabbi Mordechai Tendler, founder and spiritual leader of Kehillat New Hempstead.

Marmelstein claims the two had a sexual relationship from November 2001 to May 2005 after he induced her into having intercourse "as part of a course of sexual therapy which he represented would lead to her achieving her goals of marriage and children."

"Should the predator be allowed to cloak himself in clerical garb to prey on his clients?" Marmelstein's lawyer, Lenore Kramer, asked the seven-member Court of Appeals panel.

But Tendler's lawyer, Richard Bliss, said: "What we have here is consensual conduct. I don't think we should criminalize it."

Bliss pointed to a statute passed by the state Legislature in 1935 that abolished the right to seek monetary damages for seduction.

But Kramer argued that because Tendler was a rabbi, it put him in a position of power over Marmelstein and that this position separated their relationship from a mere affair.

"This man is a predator," she said.

Could he have seduced her and not faced criminal sanctions if he was not a rabbi? Judge Robert Smith asked Kramer.

"It is an indispensable element" of the action that he was a rabbi, Kramer said. "This is not some man she met in a bar."

The trial-level court, the Court of Appeals, upheld Marmelstein's right to seek damages, but the mid-level appeals court reversed that decision in a 3-2 vote.

A decision from the Court of Appeals is expected by early next month.

Comments

[Ratso]

It is misleading to editorially extend "consensual" to mean "sexual". It is quite reasonable that there was absolutely NO sexual activity going on between R. Tendler and Adina Marmelstein, but that she had simply consented to a DISCUSSION of her inability at intimacy at home, which was part of the particular problem for which she had come to R. Tendler for help. Linguistically, people jump the gun when they encounter the word "consensual" and immediatly assume it means sex because it contains the word "sensual". In this case, there was obviously no sexual activity at all - only a discussion of a womans inability to achieve orgasm and suggestions of techniques that could help and maybe a demonstration or two. But to call this sexual activity is an enormous leap, and to characterize R. Tendler as a hardoned criminal is inexcusable.

[rebitzman]

++It is misleading to editorially extend "consensual" to mean "sexual". ++

In the context of the discussion, it is naive not to.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Jews used to gloat over the problems of the Catholic priests, saying OUR clergy are normal because they can marry.

I guess Tendler's lawyer would say they were just following their Bliss...

[Isaac Balbin]

It is also imputing meaning into the chosen words of Tendler's attorney. The task of justifying such an imputation is for the prosecution; it's hardly part of the defence's statement. Quoting the defence and using that is tendentious. We can all read and are capable of seeing what the arguments on both sides are. Unless the defence has admitted to a sexual act, it is disingenuous to simply graft that onto their words.

Similarly sensationalist would be to enlist a headline

Marmelstein's lawyer: "this is not some man she met in a bar [ Rabbis don't do this]"

Just stick to the quotes without imputation.

[formely frum]

Ratso,Issac

Are you really that blind and loyal to think no Jew can do no wrong so you come up with your lame excuse of what this means (or is) But Tendler's lawyer, Richard Bliss, said: "What we have here is consensual conduct. I don't think we should criminalize it."

What could there be in a
discussions (as you say this means) that would be criminal. Obviously, he means an act that COULD BE CRIMINAL UNDER certain situation. SEX

[Isaac Balbin]

Formerly frum: I can't parse your post easily.

"could be criminal" might well be the view of the prosecution, but not the view of the defence.

[formely frum]

But isn't the defense saying this statement.

"I don't think we should criminalize it." If only a discussion took place as some want to argue, Bliss should have said flatly, there was no criminal act period.

[steve]

Marmelstein claims that there was a sexual relationship and the defense is clearly not denying it but are calling it "consensual" and hence, not a crime. If it wasn't true, they would outright say that her claims are totally false and there was no such relationship, period.

[Anon]

The lawyers statement need to be read in context which Shmarya as usual doesn't provide. The question is was it actually admitted that he engaged in sexual relations with this woman, consensual or not, or was he simply stating the that allegations, even if true, were consensual and thus non actionable?

[rabbidw]

Anon has it. I believe that what the attorney is saying is that there is no case because even if all the plaintiffs allegations are true, the allegations do not state criminal conduct or a cause for civil action. If the court rules that there is a case, I am sure that Rabbi Tendler will deny all allegations of sexual misconduct and, to the best of my knowledge, the trial will be a he said she said, no one will ever know the truth.
All attorneys will try to have the case against them thrown out pre-trial, and one way of doing that is stating that even if the facts stated by the plaintiff are completely true it is not enough to legally win the claim. Such a tactic in no way concedes the facts of the case morally or legally and Shmarya, you really should know this.

[Shmarya]

This is not the trial – it's the second appeal,

This is not about substantiating the facts of the case. It is only about whether the interpretation of the law made by the court of appeals is correct or not.

That is why Tendler's lawyer does not say, "Even if a relationship did occur…"

The facts of the case have already been determined. A relationship did occur.

The only remaining question is whether, as a rabbi counseling the woman, could that rabbi have a consensual relationship with her or is that relationship by definition coercive.

[rabbidw]

NO, NO, NO there has never been a trial! This ia an appeal from a motion to dismiss the case. The motion was originally granted. The casewas dismissed as a matter of law. The orinal appellate case reinstated the case. This is an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state of NY to reinstate the original ruling and dismiss the case. If the court rules against Tendler, then the case will procede to trial. As I said on many pretrial motions, the defendant concedes the plaintiffs version of the facts for the SOLE PURPOSE of dismissing the case as a matter of law. IF Rabbi Tendler loses this appeal, rest assured he will contest the facts at trial.

[Yisroel-by-the-Bay]

But to call this sexual activity is an enormous leap, and to characterize R. Tendler as a hardoned criminal is inexcusable.

Posted by: Ratso | June 04, 2008 at 06:10 AM

hardoned!! what a defense!

[Shmarya]

NO, NO, NO there has never been a trial! This ia an appeal from a motion to dismiss the case. The motion was originally granted. The casewas dismissed as a matter of law. The orinal appellate case reinstated the case. This is an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state of NY to reinstate the original ruling and dismiss the case. If the court rules against Tendler, then the case will procede to trial. As I said on many pretrial motions, the defendant concedes the plaintiffs version of the facts for the SOLE PURPOSE of dismissing the case as a matter of law. IF Rabbi Tendler loses this appeal, rest assured he will contest the facts at trial.

You're right.

[Anon]

--You're right.--

Then you should have the decency of correcting the title to your post.

[Shmarya]

Then you should have the decency of correcting the title to your post.

Absolutely not.

Tendler's attorney said exactly what I reported, in context.

If he changes his story later, I'll report that.

[Dalek I]

and to characterize (the accused) as a hardoned criminal is inexcusable.

That's "hardened."

Quite an appropo typo, no?

[shmuel]

"The trial-level court, the Court of Appeals, upheld Marmelstein's right to seek damages, but the mid-level appeals court reversed that decision in a 3-2 vote."

Wrong. The trial level is known as the New York State Supreme Court (weird, I know). You appeal from there to the mid-level court, which is known as the Appellate Division.
After that, you may appeal to New York's highest court, where the case is being heard now: the Court of Appeals.

[Anonymous]

"The facts of the case have already been determined. A relationship did occur."

This is totally untrue.

It is beneath you to write this.

I believe the quote - taken out of context - was part of a lawyers argument not an admission.

Of course, you could verify this by calling the lawyer but throwing mud is so much easier.

I expect more of you.

[Yisroel-by-the-Bay]

But to call this sexual activity is an enormous leap, and to characterize R. Tendler as a hardoned criminal is inexcusable.

Posted by: Ratso | June 04, 2008 at 06:10 AM

hardoned!! what a defense!

[rabbidw]

What you could do is remove the parenthetical (sexual) which was never said and is, especially in context, completely misleading. If the rules of loshon harah don't concern you, and you seem to have no common decency, how about the rules of libel and slander. Removing the word from your headline would go a long way to insulate you from a law suit.

[steve]

If the rules of loshon harah don't concern you, and you seem to have no common decency, how about the rules of libel and slander.

What gives you the right to libel and slander Adina Marmelstein? Does she not have any rights? Why doesn't loshon hara apply to her also?

Removing the word from your headline would go a long way to insulate you from a law suit.

Tendler went that route already and failed.

[Shmarya]

What you could do is remove the parenthetical (sexual) which was never said and is, especially in context, completely misleading.

No it is not.

The conduct the court is judging is sexual, and that is also made clear in the article.

[rabbidw]

AS YOU write in your current lead on Rubashkin, people seldom admit their mistakes even when they are wrong. I guess that is truer than you realize.
To Steve, I said nothing about the plaintiff in this case, not even her name. Her case has not yet come to trial and in both Jewish Law and American Law people are innocent until proven guilty. As far as I know Tendler was trying to find the name of an anonymous blogger. Whatever Shmarya is, he is not anonymous.

[Anon]

--and to characterize R. Tendler as a hardoned criminal is inexcusable.--

I agree. Unlike other crimes, perpetrators of sexual crimes become less hardoned after they commit the crime.

[Yehuda]

shmarya, has never ever learned the most severe laws of loshon Horah,or nebech, thousdands of times more sever-slander. This is what he does. If he were to study these laws, (of course he would have to first believe that they exist), he would be forced to shut down this smelly garbage can.
We see over and over in The Torah, that we human beings, especially Fruma yidden have attacks from the yetzer harah much more so than others because, where there is Keddusha, there is more Tumah. We didn't see how Pinchas killed a Prince-nassi, who was with Cosbi-the shiksa? For sure if Shmarya was the nassi in this case with this unbelievable trial, he would have fallen very quickly, but be sure...he would not report this on his smelly site.
The Torah teaches shows us many times where we, human beings fall short due to our tremendous yetzer harah. What is the difference between us and others? A religious Jew most likely has tremendous remorse, (charatah) and wishes that he could turn back time to do it better. This is why many times G-d, who is Merachem, (merciful),UNLIKE the likes of shmarya, hints in the Torah by mentioning all of the places that we sinned, rather then mention them explicitly. Why? Because G-d (the merciful) is concerned about the Kavode of Am Yisroel....UNLIKE Shmarya and the likes of him.

This is why Hashem gave us the laws of Loshon Harah Motzei Shem Rah, etc. Because inside we are good, so when we fall, if a Talmud Chacham, we are to believe that he did Tshuva, at least give him the benifit of the doubt, and we know that it was his yetzer harah that got the best of him.
But, with Shmarya, he will see to it to destroy and wreck as many lives as possible, families, children of families etc, because he has a chip on his shoulder.
So, come on Shmarya, fulfill at least the mitvah of V'ahavta L'reiehca K'mocha, (love your fellow man as yourself), and please put up on this smelly stinking site everything wrong and immoral that you yourself have ever done. All the times you looked at the wrong places on the internet, (on purpose), all of your hidden things that you did and are doing, that you would not want to be made public. Make them public and we want you to put up the pictures of yourself doing them...just like you do for the other poor yidden here.
Of cours unless you are a hidden tzadik, and there is nothing to post.
But, on the other hand, you are over on the most severest of sins concerning, i.e. loshon horah, motzei shem rah, etc, and these sins are so much more severe, because the one who does them, does not derive any physical pleasure or benefit from them, so he doesn't have this excuse as one who falls short with sexual sins.

[Shmarya]

Let's see if I understand your logic.

A man seduces and sleeps with women. This man is married. He is a rabbi. He is counseling the women he sleeps with, women who came to him with their most personal problems.

He exploits their vulnerability and his position of power. He uses them for his own pleasure.

And you want everyone to keep quiet about this, to protect the rabbi – but not his victims or future victims.

You are a poster boy for everything that is wrong with Orthodoxy today.

I'll opt for my place in hell over yours any day.

[rabbidw]

What you have is a classic "HE SAID, SHE SAID" . You stated that he has confessed. That is a lie. All that you can say is there have been allegations made against him. You can even say that you believe those allegations. You cannot state these allegations as facts.
I can say that there are allegations that Shmarya sleeps with barnyard animals. I can even say that I believe these allegations. I cannot say that Shmarya has admitted that he sleeps with barnyard animals, nor can I say that it is a fact that Shmarya sleeps with barnyard animals. Do you understand the difference?
We cannot make the world perfect. It is not our job to be avenging angels, righting every wrong that might exist. "The hidden things belong to God" HANISTOROS LHASHEM ELOKEINU. We can and must avoid making things worse. Have you ever thought that Rabbi Tendler just possibly be innocent of the charges? Do you have any idea of how you and your fellow gossips have ruined his life?
You like to tear down and tearing down is sometimes necessary, but ultimately, life is about building, not tearing down. How about, as a chamge of pace, focussing on some good things that need support?

[Shmarya]

There are other accusers.

Further, there was a rabbinic investigation of those accusations. The result? Tendler was thrown out of the RCA.

This is not a simple "he asaid, she said" situation.

[rabbidw]

The RCA threw him out without ever hearing his side of the story. The Beit Din of Jerusalem ordered a Beis Din to hear the case according to the rules of a proper Beis Din. I do not know what happened since. If you want to operate as a journalist and find out what happened to this Beis Din, I, for one, would appreciate it. But I do know some very important people who feel that the RCA reacted much to quickly and strongly for fear of being tarred as "covering up". There should be a balance between protectiong the innocent and due process for the accused. Rabbi Tendler has never received due process.

[Shmarya]

No true.

The RCA hired professional investigators, took extensive testimony, and was very thorough.

And, of course, you leave out of your account the things Rabbi Tendler got caught doing to try to intimidate witnesses and scuttle the investigation.

[steve]

Due process is fine when it comes to keeping him out of jail until criminality is proven. I say this in regards to all accused sexual predators. However, credible allegations(especially with multiple accusers) must be publicized in order to keep these accused predators away from potential future victims. This means in the case of accused child molesters that they should not be teaching or counseling children, and in this particular case, that he shouldn't be counseling vulnerable women.
Innocent until proven guilty applies to the courts and justice system. When it comes to protecting innocent victims, we must go beyond the letter of the law and use proper judgment in removing a seriously potential threat. One question to all of you defending Tendler, would you allow your wives or daughters to be alone with him?

[Anon]

The RCA did not provide Rabbi Tendler with due process but neither it is required to. It is a professional trade organization, whose profession requires that they maintain a high degree of integrity and respect. They conducted their investigation and concluded that the evidence against him was credible enough to throw him out. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean he is guilty. I would be sorely dissappointed in the RCA if their standard was you can remain a member unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[rabbidw]

To Steve, the answer is absolutely, unequivocally yes, without a second thought. As far as the "professional" investigator hired by the RCA, it is someone who lives in Texas, only met with the plaintiffs over the phone. Rabbi Tendler was set up by people with an agenda.
Intimidation? They took a maid who testified as a witness to the house where she supposedly saw something and she said that was not the house and then she said that the "Rabbi Tendler" that she saw was not Rabbi Tendler, but someone she was told was Rabbi Tendler.
If you haven't read Kafka, you really should. I also recommend "The Children's Hour" by Lillian Hellman.
A man works 50 years and establishes a reputation. He finds it destroyed by 1 person, of dubious reputation) who goes public and anonymous sources. How does one counter anonymous sources?
Shmarya, I hear from a number of anonymous sources that you are sleeping with barnyard animals. Can you prove that you are not?

[Jimmy]

After all that has been said, after agreeing that rabbidw is correct on the facts, Shmarya still keeps the post. This is clear proof of his deceit. This is 60 Minutes-Bush memos stuff. This is unmistakable. Save it for future reference.

[rabbidw]

Shmarya cannot prove that he is not sleeping with barnyard animals. Therefore it is OK to tell everyone that he is. QED

[Shmarya]

There is a lot of evidence against Tendler, much more than you admit to.

There are MULTIPLE women who tell the same stories of manipulation and abuse.

And the RCA's investigation was far more complete than you let on.

But you know that.

[rabbidw]

Actually, I do not. Due process from the RCA would have SUSPENDED him until he came forward to answer the allegations, rather than EXPELLING him when he did not show up. According to what I read, he had concerns regarding what he felt was an attempt to railroad him, and rather than deal with his concerns, the RCA immediately expelled him. It seems to me that Rabbi Tendler's concerns about being railroaded were legitimate. At no point did the RCA act in a collegial fashion, to try to get his side of the story. We still do not have his side of the story, except that he said he did not violate halacha in any way.
BTW if someone does not show up at a criminal trial, he is held in contempt, but is not found guilty because he did not show up. Even people who skip the country to escape prosecution are entitled to a trial when they are caught. They may be held in contempt, but the underlying charges must still be proven.
Shmarya, there is a rule, SHTIKA K'HODAYA, silence is an admission. While Rabbi Tendler has, at every opportunity, denied all allegations against him, you still have not even denied sleeping with barnyard animals, let alone proven that you haven't. Do you see how the game is played?

[Shmarya]

Tendler refused to appear. He also tried to challenge the RCA's right to investigate and to stop the investigation.

Again, there are MULTIPLE women who tell the same story about Tendler manipulating them and abusing them.

There is a lot of corroborating evidence, as well.

Your assertions to the contrary, halakha MANDATES removal of a community leader under these circumstances.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Steve: You're absolutley correct. As a public school teacher, I would removed from the classroom pending due process if similar allegations were brought against me, from either a student or a colleague. Unfortunately the "goyim" have a higher standard in this respect than many Jewish institutions.

[steve]

Reading some of the apologists comments here and on VIN, I get the impression that vast conspiracies abound in the Jewish community. The depth of these conspiracies makes the Kennedy assassination look like child's play. Here's a small sample of what I've come across:

1)Yudi Kolko- A group of boys, teenagers and men, aged 6-50 have gotten together and hatched a plot to accuse this wonderful and kind mechanech of child molestation. The accusations range across the past five decades among several camps and yeshivos. All of these conspirators were recruited and organized by blogger UOJ who has an axe to grind with YTT founder Lipa Margulies.

2)The US government working in tandem with Shmarya Rosenberg has launched a full scale attack on Agriprocessors. The USDA, ICE, FDA and both houses of Congress are all involved in this plot. The USDA put out a 529 page report full of lies about health and safety violations. The ICE conducted the largest raid of its kind for no apparent reason other than perhaps Agri hired a few undocumented workers. ( So what, we all hire undocumented cleaning ladies?) The raid, the USDA report and the congressional inquiries are all part of the scheme to put Agriprocessors and the Rubashkin family, a family of philanthropy and integrity, out of business. The reason for this vast government conspiracy? Rosenberg's being denied a Rubashkin's daughter's hand in marriage!

3)Mordechai Tendler-A group of at least a dozen unrelated women, together with prominent rabbonim from Monsey and the entire Rabbinical Council of America joined together to destroy this rabbi's reputation. They put together doctored tapes and false witnesses as "evidence" against him. The reason for this conspiracy is still unknown, but it has been rumored that a group of bloggers with too much time on their hands were the orchestrators.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Steve: The explanation is simple: Shmarya is the Elder of Zion.

[steve]

I didn't mention the smaller scale conspiracies involving Moshe Eisemann and Yona Weinberg. And of course I only scratched the surface of the elaborate Rubashkin conspiracy. Shmarya is applying for additional blog space to contain the library of charges against them.

[Yankel]

rabbidw

re tendler. Be advised that when the Tendler case was posted to the Awareness Center web site Rabbi Yosef Blau of Yeshiva University was aiffiliated with the organization. The information would not have been posted unless Rabbi Blau reviewed the information and gave permission for it to be posted.

Anyone who knows Rabbi Blau knows it would not have been posted unless the information was thoroughly vetted.

[Anon]

--Shmarya, there is a rule, SHTIKA K'HODAYA, silence is an admission. While Rabbi Tendler has, at every opportunity, denied all allegations against him, you still have not even denied sleeping with barnyard animals, let alone proven that you haven't.--

So Scotty, fill us in. When did you start sleeping with barnyard animals?

[rabbidw]

Rabbi Blau left the awareness center precisely because they did NOT check with him. They used his name as a shield. He refused to be used and got out. Look, I do not live in Monsey and I only know what I read in the papers. There is nothing that I read that convinces me, even by preponderance of evidence, let alone reasonable doubt, that Rabbi Tendler did ANYTHING to be ashamed of. If someone has PROOF I will be glad to look at it. I have no ax to grind. But all I have seen is repetition of a charge that is unbelievable. Why is it unbelievable? Because what intelligent Jewish woman at the turn of the 21st century is going to believe that a rabbi has extraordinary powers that will heal whatever ails her if he sleeps with her? Can you say that with a straight face. Just saying it makes her a nut job. And she does not say that rabbi Tendler said it and she slapped his face and ran. She says the line worked. So she is a self confessed nut job. The question is whether Rabbi tendler, a well educated man would, could, try such an idiotic line. I cannot believe it. You want to show me different, go to it.
The RCA was so afraid of another Lanner scandal that they bent over backward. It won't be the first time or the last thatthe RCA jumped the wrong way. They get credit for protecting the public. Had they found no evidence they would have been accused of a cover up.
The Tendler's have made a lot of enemies through the years and no one was ready to go out on a limb for them. He will never be able to restore his reputation whatever the truth may be.
And Shmarya, you still have not denied that you sleep with barnyard animals. But I will give you credit for being able to take it as well as dish it out.

[Shmarya]

I spoke with Rabbi Blau. You completely misrepresent him – no surprise coming from a man who has also misrepresented what the RCA did and what evidence exists.

[anonymous]

Ask Rabbi Blau about his son's divorce.

Ask him if the allegations of child abuse made by the former wife were true?

Why didnt Vicki Polin, Luke Ford, JWB, or you post on this?

Rabbi Blau is not the model of virtue and integrity here.

His wife Rifka forced him off the Awareness Center.

And Blau is a red herring here.

After all, you sleep with barnyard animals.

[Shmarya]

The sleaziness of pro-Tendler commenters never ceases to amaze me.

[rabbidw]

When it comes to sleazy, you take the cake.You take his attorneys words in a motion to dismiss and plaster them as a headline that has him admitting to a sexual relationship. You admit that you were wrong and refuse to retract. You don't have to like the guy, you can be convinced that he is sleaze, Bit that does not mean that you have the right to publish what you KNOW TO BE LIES, in the search for a so called greater thruth.

[Shmarya]

Please.

The man said clearly that the relationship under consideration at the court – a sexual relationship – was consensual.

What is so difficult for you to grasp? The entire proceeding is about whether there is or is not something called clergy abuse, whether a rabbi can break his fiduciary duty to a woman he counsels by seducing her and sleeping with her.

Tendler's lawyer says that sexual relationship was consensual.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Tendler's lawyer says that sexual relationship was consensual.

Even if it is not actionable under civil law (if we believe the appropriately named lawyer, Bliss), isn't this a serious aveirah? If so, what role should Tendler play in Jewish life? Has he publically apologized, or done teshuvah? Just a few thoughts.

[rabbidw]

Shmarya, What Tendler's attorney was saying that the ALLEGATIONS were of a consensual relationship. Therefore there is no cause of action, no need to determine whether the allegations were true or not. The truth of the allegations have no LEGAL significance. He did NOT admit that such a relationship existed, except in the context of this motion to dismiss.
Let me give you an example. Let us say someone, call him Algore, claims to have invented the internet. I sue him for making that claim. Algore can deny making that claim, in which case there will be a trial to determine whether he made that claim or not. Or Algore can move to dismiss the case on the grounds that claiming to have invented the internet is NOT ACTIONABLE. It does not give rise to legal remedies. Therefore, for the SAKE OF THIS MOTION ONLY, he concedes that he made the claim, but says it does not matter. If for some reason, the motion is denied and the case does come to trial, Algore would still be able to claim at the trial that he NEVER made such a claim.
That is what Rabbi tendler's attorney did. He said that even if what the Plaintiff alleges is true, it does not state a cause of action under NY State Law. That is why he is stressing consensual. If the court rules against Rabbi Tendler, and the case does come to trial, he will deny that any sexual relationship occurred and state that any "relationship" was limited to counselling.
And Shmarya, you understand full well what I am saying, so I must add that you still have not denied that you sleep with barnyard animals so I must ask you which barnyard animals do you sleep with, goats or pigs?

[Yochanan Lavie]

If his lawyer is admitting the relationship, even as a legal tactic, Tendler still has some 'splaining to do.

[rabbidw]

Yochanan, I will try to make this as clear as I can. This is a motion for summary judgement, or its equivalent. For the purposes of this motion, all facts alleged by the plaintiff are assumed to be true. The court then rules on whether the case need procede to trial. If the court rules for the defendant, the matter ends there. If the court rules for the plaintiff the case WILL procede to trial, where, I guarantee, Rabbi Tendler will deny all allegations of sexual relations and claim to only have had a proper counselling relationship.
Very honestly, I would have an easier time beleiving her if she claimed rape. I do not know Rabbi Tendler well, but I have spoken to him on a number of occasions and the line of being cured by the Rabbis sexual powers does not seem to be part of his thinking or vocabulary. He is not a chasidic Wonder Working Rabbi, or someone who is mentally in the 17th century. It just does not seem like something he could say. The story does not ring true.And if she claims to have beleived such bull she is telling me that she is not all there. No normal woman would believe anything so ridiculous.
Could I be wrong? Yes I could be. I have no secret knowledge. But his lawyer is arguing the law. Despite Shmarys, who I hear sleeps with pigs, there is nothing in the lawyers comments that reflects badly on Rabbi Tendler.

[rabbidw]

Now you can believe him or believe her, that is your privilege, but what the attorney said has NOTHING to do with what Rabbi Tendler did, or admits to doing. This I do know for a fact, and so does Shmarya, which is why I am disappointed in him.

[Shmarya]

As you well know, the attorney could have said his client denies these allegations which, even if they would be true, are nothing more than consensual.

He did not.

[rabbidw]

Wgat you have is a quote from an attorney in oral arguments. I do not know what the judges question was, or if the quote was complete. Generally, attorneys stick to the elements of the law being argued. ALL facts are considered denied unless specifically admitted so there would be no reason for the attorney, arguing before a court, to make a specific denial of the allegations. It seems to me that he was commenting on the ALLEGATIONS. That is what I have said all along. Or he may have blundered and misspoke. Rest assured rabbi Tendler denies any allegations of misconduct.

[Shmarya]

I do not know what the judges question was, or if the quote was complete.…It seems to me that he was commenting on the ALLEGATIONS. That is what I have said all along. Or he may have blundered and misspoke.

In other words, you're guess is that what I wrote is wrong.

Your guess – you have no proof.

[rabbidw]

If the attorney had said what he was quoted as saying, in the context that you maintain, he would be guilty of malpractice. Surely, whatever you believe Rabbi Tendler may be guilty of, you have no reason to believe that his attorney is that incompetent. Therefore, either the quote was mangled, was taken out of context or was in answer to a specific question. And yout quote is wrong in that it inserted a parenthetical that did not appear in your source. And you mangled the facts of the case appearing before the court. You were convinced that Rabbi Tendler had been found guilty at trial and this was a case of using legal technicalities to stay out of jail, when as you now have been forced to admit, no trial of facts has occurred. And I still want to know how a woman can claim to be in her right mind and still claim to have been taken in by the story she is telling. Whether something happened or not, by her own story there is something wrong with her. And you still haven't told us if you are going to stop sleeping with pigs now that your secret has come out.

[Shmarya]

The context is clear from the report.

If you have a valid complaint – which you really do not – take it up with the Journal News – or Tendler's lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Those barnyard animals say you kept them up all night Shmarya.

[gerald]

all your rantings and you sleep with barnyard animals too?

[drew]

do you follow shulchan aruch? Do you ask shailos to a Rav? If yes to both of these, I am curious what your heter is to sya the things you say.

[baked]

oink oink