Harassment Of Alleged Chabad Abuse Victims Increases

Members of Melbourne's Chabad community and rabbinic leaders of that community continue to harass an alleged victim of child sexual abuse and his family that supports him.

Manny Waks, right, and his father Zephania Waks, left

 

As you read this, remember, there are 12 alleged victims of David Cyprys vetted by police and who are part of the criminal court case against Cyprys. Manny Waks is the only one who has gone public. He did so in part to encourage the other alleged victims to go to police. 11 did go to police. Many others didn't.

But Cyprys wasn't the only pedophile Chabad was harboring and knowingly protecting, and Chabad faces potentially a series of criminal trials against former (and perhaps, current) employees.

To try to prevent that, Chabad has tried to intimidate Waks and his family, apparently as a warning to the other victims. (It is clearly also meant as vengeful retribution.)

The Wakses haven't buckled, despite having their patriarch suffer a form of excommunication and having all sorts of lies spread about Manny – many of those lies probably originating with a Chabad shaliach hired by Rabbi Yitzchok Dovid Groner.

But when that bad wasn't bad enough to force the Waks family to 'repent', Chabad's lies against the Waks family were intensified, as Manny Waks now writes:

It is somewhat unsurprising but utterly disgusting the new level of intimidation and harassment we are currently experiencing.

Malicious rumours by some Yeshivah community members are alleging (privately, publicly and anonymously) that I and my siblings have been the subject of abuse by my parents – and that somehow this is connected to the sexual abuse cases in Yeshivah.

I therefore now feel compelled to respond publicly to these spurious allegations.

Firstly, the sexual abuse that I and so many others suffered was at the hands of people either formally or informally associated with the Yeshivah Centre. It is also a fact that Yeshivah was aware of (at least some of) the abuse and attempted to cover this up.

Anything else, including in relation to my family, is completely irrelevant. Full stop.

In response to the specific allegations of abuse at the hands of my parents, nothing could be further from the truth. Sure, we were raised in a strict religious environment and I vociferously disagreed with some of my parents’ approaches to discipline. This, at a time (and subsequent to), when I was being sexually abused over a number of years by two perpetrators and, probably as a result, presented my parents (and teachers) with numerous challenges, including some which they never faced before (e.g. as I am the oldest boy in a family of 17 children, I would have been somewhat of an experiment in terms of what discipline works generally, and especially discipline relating to demonstrating behaviour that is counter to a religious lifestyle).

In hindsight, both I and my parents can see some of the mistakes that were made. We have had mature discussions about this. They were even kind enough to apologise for any hurt they may have inflicted as a result of their mistakes.

Similarly with other siblings. My parents have conceded that they got some things wrong. And again, they have apologised for any hurt caused. Of course this does not necessarily mean that some children do not harbour some grievances towards my parents. There are plenty of issues in every family, and ours is no exception. In fact, as our family is around seven times the size of the national (Australian) average, it is safe to assume that the politics and issues we have is proportionate.

And for the record, the memories of my childhood within my family are very fond – the many trips we took as a family (overseas, weekends and day trips), playing with my many siblings all sorts of sports, the fun festive occasions etc.

So to claim that parental mistakes (even repeated ones) is somehow defined as child abuse suggests ulterior motives by those disseminating these spurious allegations (e.g. the need to cover up sexual abuse or jealousy of a great family relationship).

Interesting that these same people have never raised such issues in the past. Apparently it was fine for them to stand idly by and allow so many innocent children in the one family to be repeatedly abused by their parents. They did not feel the need to ensure intervention – either by the communal leaders or the police. In fact, as my parents are known for their generous hospitality, it is safe to assume that some of these ungrateful people were even hosted by them for a Shabbat meal. It is also a shocking reflection on these people to allow my mother to be President and an active member over many, many years of the N’shei Chabad (‘Women of Chabad’) organisation. Apparently my parents were fit for these and so many other communal contributions – a trait they have evidently imparted to their children.

It is quite evident that some will never accept the facts and unfortunately I anticipate further attempts to harass and intimidate. I can assure these people that I will remain resolute in this public campaign to achieve justice and raise awareness for the benefit of past victims and to try to prevent future victims.

As some of these people disseminating these spurious allegations have tried to somehow use my brother’s (Avi/Bobom) recent public address at the Mizrachi Synagogue as proof of their lies, he has today provided the following public response, which was written and posted on his own accord i.e. I was not involved in his response in any way (it was written in response to comments on an article on the Galus Australis website):

"Normally I would not respond to comments to a blog post which had nothing to do with me but someone told me that I had been brought into this public debate with this comment:

"But classmates of his, myself included know full well that he and some of his siblings were abused victims well before Cyprus was on the horizon. Were you at Mizrachi (Shavuot) when Manny’s brother bared his soul and spilled his guts about family goings on? I was as were 250 others. The dominoes quickly fell into place. What we suspected, and it appears others who were closer to Manny knew, filled in the missing links."

This comment was clearly designed to build up credibility for the writer by insinuating I said something which I didn't. I actually mentioned the current sexual abuse case in my speech as an example of how the leadership/community itself was highly hypocritical in it's response to the sexual abuse cases, in my opinion.

I did not say I was sexually abused and my speech which had nothing to do with the Yeshivah sexual abuse cases, is being twisted around here to make an argument that it is the family's fault if a victim is abused.

Mendy needs to get his facts straight and be more careful about who and what he uses to make his assertions.

Galus Australis needs to be more discerning in the moderation of the comments on their posts."

I do not intend to re-visit this issue – hopefully this will now be put to rest (at least until these people can think of further lies to disseminate).

People have asked me, now that I am experiencing this level of abuse, would I still have gone public and chosen this course? My response (and my parents’ response) is still an unequivocal yes. I’m proud to have exposed this scandal and the Yeshivah Centre’s hypocrisies. We have achieved a great deal both within Australia and globally and unfortunately we still have a fair bit to go. But with ongoing determination and support, we as a community can achieve a whole lot more.

During the height of the Agriprocessors scandal, Chabadniks spread lies about me:

I had once lived in Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin's basement, they said, living off charity from him, driving one of his cars and eating his food. I did that for three years, never spending a penny of my own own money, relying on Rubashkin's largesse. But when i wanted to marry Rubashkin's sister, Aaron, Sholom's father, said no because I'm a ba'al teshuva. Enraged, I set out on a campaign to destroy Agriprocessors and Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin.

All of that is demonstrably and unequivocably false.

What's more, the Chabad shluchim, rabbis, in the Twin Cities know it. So does my old friend Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky, Chabad's international head. And so do many other Chabad rabbis worldwide.

But not one of them publicly said it.

Instead, these representatives of Chabad allowed the lies to stand. Many of them did that even though they were asked to intervene.

Smearing people is an old Chabad tradition. Historians can show Chabad did this to opponents as far back as the 1790s.

Truth isn't important to Chabad unless that truth supports its behvaior and desires.

But when the truth is uncomfortable or calls their behavior into question – or when truth simply frees an opponent from attack or trouble – Chabad has no use for it.

Smearing Manny and his father Zephania Waks serves Chabad's purposes.

Therefore, the lies and harassment of the Waks family will almost certainly continue.

Comments

[shragi]

Hell hath no fury like a Chabad rabbi scorned

[thelion]

what is herzogs involment in this

i keep hearing from my sources that he and the chabad busiees district keep on trying to influence judges and help the yeshiva raise money

[Tom]

Any way to get the names of the community members that have been harassing them?

[Bruce J Cooke]

When this is all over & the perpetrator/s have been thrown in jail & the judge has made a damning report on all those responsible there will still be denials.
Just like the holocoust.Plenty say it never happened.
This was the holocoust for the child victims but don't expect any hand wringing & tearfull apologies from the apologists.Don't hold your breath.

We are a light unto the nations!!!!!!!!!!
We are better than "them"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Really?
Some are,some aren't

[Q9]

Wak's Brother in NYC seems to be a popular guy, and I haven't gotten the feeling that there's been any pressure on him, even though there are hundreds of relatives of these Australia leaders living in NYC.

[Jeff]

... as I am the oldest boy in a family of 17 children... In hindsight, both I and my parents can see some of the mistakes that were made. We have had mature discussions about this. They were even kind enough to apologise for any hurt they may have inflicted as a result of their mistakes.

The first thing for which they should apologize is having seventeen children.

[Bruce J Cooke]

The first thing for which they should apologize is having seventeen children.

Posted by: Jeff | June 24, 2012 at 04:46 PM
A despicable comment if ever there was one.A comment R Groner would be enraged at.I have been told that R Groner responded to a similar comment about the Waks's by reminding the low life who made the comment with words to the effect:
6 million is enough 17 is not

[Jeff]

A despicable comment if ever there was one.

Well, I'm a despicable guy - but at least I'm not overtaxing the environment by contributing to the overpopulation problem.

6 million is enough 17 is not

That doesn't make any sense.

Bottom line: Haredim have too many children. Ten or twelve is irresponsible; seventeen is simply criminal. And whatever they say, there is no way in which children can receive enough attention in such an environment - which goes a long way toward explaining much of the pathology in their world..

[Steven]

"but at least I'm not overtaxing the environment by contributing to the overpopulation problem."

Jeff, you are smoking too much dope, you dope. There's room in Australia for 22 million people (incuding hundreds of boat people every month) but not 17 Wakses.

[Jeff]

Jeff, you are smoking too much dope, you dope.

Yes, I guess I'm just too stupid to understand.

[Total Truth]

Firstly, sorry Manny but I would never have put in the time nor effort into any reply to these people, do as they do "siag L'chochma Shtika" & just let the law do the rest. They are dead scared! Don't worry, you have the full support of the public including majority of the school community who are too scared of "them" to stand up & show any support.Kol Hakavod for going public as you did & yes one day the rest will emerge (other perpetrators & victims!). This is just the beginning, there is/are more to come.

[Mendy]

Avraham Yemini says:
June 24, 2012 at 11:42 am
Mendy,
I am only commenting here because someone told me that I had been brought into this public debate with your comment:
“But classmates of his, myself included know full well that he and some of his siblings were abused victims well before Cyprus was on the horizon. Were you at Mizrachi (Shavuot) when Manny’s brother bared his soul and spilled his guts about family goings on? I was as were 250 others. The dominoes quickly fell into place. What we suspected, and it appears others who were closer to Manny knew, filled in the missing links.”
I only mentioned the current sexual abuse cases as an example of how the community itself was highly hypocritical in my opinion, in the handling of these cases, both in the past and at present.
I did not say I was sexually abused and my speech had nothing to do with the Yeshivah sexual abuse cases. Even though I personally have nothing to do with these cases I really do not appreciate you using me to make an argument that it is the family’s fault if a victim is abused.
I am the first (literally) to talk about how dysfunctional my family is but I do not appreciate
a) you twisting my story which has nothing to do with this case to attack ANYONE, even my estranged parents
b) to strengthen a culture of blaming the victim
c) you omitting the fact that I ALSO said I observed A LOT of the same hypocritical priorities in many other families within the community I grew up in or
d) making false public insinuations that my speech backed up your opinion.
My stance is that child sexual abuse is the perpetrators fault no matter what is going on in a family.
My stance is that we all have a duty to prevent child sexual abuse especially, and all forms of abuse and I put my money where my mouth is everyday by running a business which serves to empower victims of crime to know how to defend themselves, teaches everyday people how to defend themselves and reminds children of their right to safety.
My stance, as I have made public on Manny’s facebook page, is that mandatory reporting to the police MUST be carried out by people with a duty of care within the ultra-orthodox community – just like in the rest of society.
Mendy, you need to get your facts straight and be more careful about who and what you use to make your assertions.
Galus Australis, you need to be more discerning in the moderation of the comments on your posts.
--------------------------------------

Hi Avi,

Hmm strange.

Now how did this post get slotted into the spot where it is now, yesterday it was not there at that time? Had it been there I would have responded there and then.

Incredibly your post parrots (more or less) much of Mannys 9.15pm post.

Coincidence?

Never mind, I’ll deal with yours now although I had no intention of posting again on this topic.

Avi, one thing you have to learn and that is, when a post is prepared for you by others, maybe even spin doctors, you have to read it and make sure its response is relevant. You didn’t and in the process have exposed yourself to further inspection and queries.

Are you ready? Here we go.

This is what I posted

At 8.33 I posted:
Manny is entitled to justice which will be delivered in due course.

At 11.04 I posted:
God forbid Manny had it coming. No one has it coming, ever! No one is attacking Manny. And I can’t see how you arrived at such a stupid conclusion. He was a kid. He did nothing wrong.

For clarification purposes, I’ll say it again. (for the 10th time) There is nothing in Manny’s background , absolutely nothing which justified him being sexually molested. I stated in one of my posts there is no justification for anyone be sexually molested by anyone .

Period!

Manny is entitled to have his day in court where justice will be served. Court of Law!

I make the above comments, without qualification.

It appears I will have to remember to make the above comments at the commencement and conclusion of every post. It appears to be a deliberate attempt to confuse readers into assuming I believe Manny’s legal actions are unwarranted.

Penny drop everyone?

My intention is to clearly compartmentalise the two issues.

Mannys coming forward and doing what he’s doing was a brave action. He has every right in the world to get the terrible ordeal off his chest, and that alleged accusations be dealt with fully by the law of the land. I am unaware of anyone who disagrees with that sentiment.

Whilst Manny deservedly has the sympathy of the general public who wish to see justice done and served, myself included, no one, not Manny, not anyone else has the right to exploit that sympathy with half-truths and out of context statements. I and many others believe there is a deliberate attempt to portray the illusion that the only point of the Facebook, Newspaper and radio interviews is to reform the centre, and nothing more.

There are competing agendas out there dressed up as the Holy Grail but in reality wish to bring the institution to ruin. Revenge to its fullest degree!

The focus of my posts have related to point No 2 and that point only.

Good, now let’s move on shall we?

At 8.33 I continued as follows:
“But classmates of his, myself included know full well that he and some of his siblings were abused victims well before Cyprus was on the horizon. Were you at Mizrachi (Shavuot) when Manny’s brother bared his soul and spilled his guts about family goings on? I was as were 250 others. The dominoes quickly fell into place. What we suspected, and it appears others who were closer to Manny knew, filled in the missing links.”

So Avi, perhaps you could point out where I was referring to sexual abuse?

I was referring to emotional and psychological abuse, which you were exposed to. You said yourself on Shavuot, you were at your rock bottom. Your message implied you had been evicted, invited, encouraged whatever (my words but essentially the point Avi was trying to convey) to remove yourself from your parents’ house, you were at rock bottom, drugged off your face, half dead for all intent and purpose, but managed to drag yourself back to your parents’ house as a last resort, virtually your last gasp so to speak. There were no other options open to you. Your parents opened the door, you begged to come home, you were as sick as a dog. You told us that your parents first needed to consult with their Rav as to whether to take you back in. (ironically, they needed to refer to a rabbi whether on not to let their desperate half dead son back into the house, but today have issues about referring matters to rabbis. Great!)

What was there to refer to a rabbi?

A son is begging at the parents door and they need to refer to a rabbi if he can come back, particularly so in the condition you were in?

Parental instincts should have kicked in there and then! Damn the rabbis opinion!

You went on to say the hypocrisy got to you, and one example you alluded to was that there was a sign stuck to the TV as to what would be allowable and appropriate to watched in a religious home, yet when you sneaked past their bedroom you observed them watching whatever was available through which ever medium they subscribed to.

But more to the point Avi, please tell us why you took such a radical step as to change your name?

Generally people change their identity due to shame, avoid authorities, avoid debt perhaps. But often is to distance themselves from past trauma. No one changes their name just for the heck of it.

Care to clarify which category you fit into? Better still, if you don’t fit into any of the categories I have listed, please explain.

Avi, you posted the following:

I am the first (literally) to talk about how dysfunctional my family is but I do not appreciate

a) you twisting my story which has nothing to do with this case to attack ANYONE, even my estranged parents
b) to strengthen a culture of blaming the victim
c) you omitting the fact that I ALSO said I observed A LOT of the same hypocritical priorities in many other families within the community I grew up in or
d) making false public insinuations that my speech backed up your opinion.

I respond as follows:

(a)Your estranged parents? They’re nice people for heavens sake. Look at Mannys post. He says Similarly with other siblings. My parents have conceded that they got some things wrong. And again, they have apologised for any hurt caused

But Avi, you're still estranged…change of identity etc? Bit over the top isn’t it? And you like I, label them dysfunctional! We are in agreement, no?

(b) Blaming the victim? Who blamed the victim? Can you read English? Show me where I blamed the victim for being a victim.

(c) What you may or may not have witnessed elsewhere would not have caused you to take the drastic actions which you did, for example tell us why you were on drugs? What got you onto the streets? The hypocrisies of a neighbour?

(d) Your Shavuot presentation backs up exactly what I posted. In essence I posted I believe your family was dysfunctional (there is a multitude of statistical data of case histories whereby children from dysfunctional and/or troubled homes are more prone to be targeted by paedophiles) Incidentally this has been a major point of discussion over the past two weeks during shabbat services. Perhaps if you attended, you’d pick up a few pointers.

Avi, our parents were warned many times by the Yeshiva (in writing) that the school grounds and the mikva (was used as a pool of sorts) were off limits, when not in use by the school as there was no supervision. My parents followed the school advice and would not allow me to play there during non-school hours whereas the Waks family treated the off limit grounds as their personal backyard. (I am unsure if the mikva was also used) These vulnerabilities and others are picked up by paedophiles who hang out at the same locations. Their antennae spot any weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

There is plenty more which can and will be said but I have to work for a living. I don’t have the luxury of sending my kids to school free of charge, but perhaps when I have 17 I too will receive a “gold-pass” (at other peoples expense). I pay full fees, there's not much left. A legacy my father taught me, you want something, pay for it!

Again for the record, nothing Manny did or didn’t do gave anyone the right to molest him.

The Waks currently adoring public are entitled to the truth, not self-serving half truths at whim.

.

[Steven]

Mendy your personal attacks on the Wakses is offensive and not the subject of this or the other threads and your disingenuous 'I am not attacking the victim' but then you go on to post the longest comment in fm history entirely dedicated to personally bash the family.

We really are not interested in how good or bad the family is, it's not our business. If you like exposing other people's dirty laundry go start a blog but then talk about others, besides the Waks, too.

We are exclusively talking about exposing paedophilia and it's cover up. Full stop.

From todays The Age:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/hell-on-earth-20120624-20wa8.html

[Steven]

And it's ironic when WE read about the abuse in the Church, we think 'how terrible the priests were and those poor victims...', and when it's done in a Shule, then it's 'how terrible the victims and their families were and the poor Rabbis who had to go overseas with their families'.

[Mendy]

The readers can decide for themselves Steven.
I admire Manny and totally support his legal actions, but am repulsed by the behind the scenes bullshit. Everyone should tell it the way it is, warts and all. You, me, everyone. Let's hide nothing!

[Bruce J Cooke]

6 million is enough 17 is not

That doesn't make any sense.
Posted by: Jeff | June 24, 2012 at 06:28 PM

Too subtle for you?
6 million died in the holocoust.

[Emanuel Newgant]

“Mendy”, you claim to be “repulsed”. I just find you repulsive. But I’ll go along with you. You request “Let's hide nothing!”. I’ll go along with you, further than you perhaps wished.

Firstly, let's start with your full name so that we can examine your family background! What, too much of a coward?

Secondly, I warned you in a previous post that if these disgusting personal attacks on the Waks family continued, I would “hide nothing” about some of the pillars of the Yeshivah Centre, for which you are a prized apologist, likely one of the pillars yourself. I won’t stoop as low as you, I won’t name the people I describe. But I will give readers a pool of candidates to choose from, they’ll make up their own minds who is who.

Some of the pillars of the Yeshivah Centre in alphabetical order, with a couple of decoys thrown in for good measure: Emanuel Althaus, Raphael Aron, Benjamin Althaus, Nechama Bendet, Abraham Glick, Michael Goldhirsch, Michael Greenbaum, Chaim Zwi Groner, Samuel Gurewicz, Sholom Kluwgant, Meir Kluwgant, Harry (Chaim ) New, Louie New, Max New, Ronnie Tatarka, Zwi Telsner, David Werdiger, Solomon Werdiger, Don Wolf. These are names to remember. Investigate them. Find out what their stance on pedophilia is, in action, not words. See how they stack up for honesty, in business, in their jobs, within their families, as Trustees or on the Board of Yeshivah Centre, with police, and with the courts. More names may be added as people feed me more names and information. Let’s spread the truth around.

If you continue, we’ll start with the dirt, not just the names.

So there’s no confusion, I know some Wakses, but they don’t have a clue who I am.

[Double Helix]

Manny you protest to much, don't confuse the issue of your right to seek justice, let the court process take it's due course, but trying to change history, Manny please, you have told are few porkies here.
Next we might have a candidate for Father of the year.

[Double Helix]

EN scatter gun attack seems your only method of defense. But what are you defending exactly, what is your point.
It suits you to continue to portray ZW as a victim, a victim of what. Manny is the victim. Highlighting hypocrisies and opportunism in ZW behavior is not saying this was the cause for his son to be a victim.
Avi Yemini expressed it accurately on Shavout, when he spoke of his volition.
Mendy has painted a picture that is supported by many!

[Emanuel Newgant]

Double Helix Aka David Werdiger: Not so pleasant your name is out there now? Wait till the dirt starts flying. You don't make the rules jerk.

[Aussie]

Firstly, let's start with your full name so that we can examine your family background! What, too much of a coward?

Secondly, I warned you in a previous post that if these disgusting personal attacks on the Waks family continued, I would “hide nothing” about some of the pillars of the Yeshivah Centre, for which you are a prized apologist, likely one of the pillars yourself.

It's not rocket science folks....
The one posting as "Mendy" at Galus is Emanuel Althouse....

Why Shmarya allows him multiple names here is beyond me....

[Aussie]

For those still interested here is the latest on the Cyprys case.....

The Directions Hearing which was to be on the 19th June 2012 was adjourned.

Was a "conference" held with Cyprys which could mean that they are considering a plea which would avoid a trial....

The Directions Hearing has been re scheduled for the the 13th July 2012.

[Jeff]

Too subtle for you?
6 million died in the holocoust.

Posted by: Bruce J Cooke | June 24, 2012 at 11:55 PM

I understood the reference. The statement itself was nonsensical.

I won't waste my time with you again. You're an idiot, and there's an end to it.

[Appalled]

Manny why don't you reveal who the people harrasing your family are? Surely publicizing their names might encourage them to stop. Does ANYONE know who these people are. Pls post their names

[Steven]

Appalled, please post your name first.

[Give Peace A Chance]

Why can't we all just get along!

[David Werdiger]

"Emanuel Newgant",

I'm not "Double Helix" and I've not posted any comments on here. Ask Shmarya to verify my IP if you like. If you have something to say to me, then say it like a man, not scurrying in the shadows like a pathetic sockpuppet.

[Bruce J Cooke]

Too subtle for you?
6 million died in the holocoust.

Posted by: Bruce J Cooke | June 24, 2012 at 11:55 PM

I understood the reference. The statement itself was nonsensical.

I won't waste my time with you again. You're an idiot, and there's an end to it.

Posted by: Jeff | June 25, 2012 at 05:15 AM

You just besmirched R Groners' memory by calling R Groners' comment nonsensical & implying that R Groner was an idiot.
Disgraceful

[No Light]

Actually Bruce, it was closer to eleven million. But feh! Who gives a fuck about dead goyim, eh?

I'm pig-fucking-sick of the implication (by haredim), that only half of the holocaust dead in my family are worth mourning.

For the exceptionally hard of thinking - victims of the camps lived together, worked together, and were gassed, shot, and burned together.

Got it? Every death was a pointless tragedy.

[Appalled]

Who are the pple harassing manny

[Steven]

Tell us your name first.

[Emanuel Newgant]

Dw if it really wasnt you I apologize. Then it was certainly one of the other names on the list . Get them to stop their nonsense then you won't be falsely accused.

[Steven]

"Get them to stop their nonsense then you won't be falsely accused."

Does that make sense?

[Emanuel Newgant]

Yes they all write the same apologist rubbish. Hard to tell them apart.

[David Werdiger]

Emanuel Newgant: "it was certainly one of the other names"?? You have no idea who it was, no proof it was anyone in particular, and you don't have the balls to say something in your own name. Instead you and most others on these pages just crawl around in the shadows making accusations and assumptions.

BTW, thanks for the apology.

[Appalled]

If u don't want is to make assptions then tell us who is harassing manny

[Steven]

Tell us who you are first.

[Noah]

Does this sound familiar?
All that is needed is to swap church & priest with shule & rabbi.

Church failed to tell of paedophile priest.
THREE of Australia's most senior Catholic clergy failed to tell authorities of evidence they received that a priest had repeatedly sexually abused boys as young as 10 in New South Wales. Two of the victims committed suicide.
The three priests are Brian Lucas, secretary-general of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference; John Usher, the former head of the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission; and Wayne Peters, the vicar-general of the Armidale diocese in NSW.
The priest, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told a court in 2004 he admitted to the three during a 1992 meeting that he had sexually molested boys.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The scandal has also ensnared Archbishop of Sydney George Pell, who has spoken in defence of the three men, apparently unaware that there was extensive documentation backing the assertion that the alleged paedophile priest outlined his conduct to them.
Dubbed Father F, the accused paedophile priest was first accused of sexually abusing young boys in the early 1980s in Moree, ABC's Four Corners reported.
Arrested in 1987, he was brought to trial, but the matter was dismissed by a magistrate before it went to a jury because he judged the alleged victim, Damian Jurd, 15, as a witness whose credibility could not match that of the priest.
Father F was allowed to continue to serve as a priest in Parramatta, where he allegedly molested more altar boys.
The continued reports of sexual assaults at Parramatta prompted a meeting between Father F and three senior priests at St Mary's Cathedral in 1992.
Cardinal Pell told the ABC that Father F made no admissions to the priests. But the archbishop's assurances were called into question after Four Corners revealed the priest had admitted under oath in a court case in 2004 that he had, in fact, told the priests he had engaged in oral sex with young boys.
Asked about the contradiction, Cardinal Pell said: ''I would take the word of the three priests against that allegation.''
More damning still is a letter Father Peters wrote to Bishop Kevin Manning of Armidale just eight days after the 1992 meeting, which describes what the priests talked about.
''He admitted there had been five boys around the age of 10 and 11 that he had sexually interfered with in varying degrees in the years approximately 1982 to 1984,'' Father Peters wrote.
The saga has intensified calls for a royal commission. Patrick Parkinson, a University of Sydney professor of law who has advised the church on sexual abuse cases, said: ''We need a royal commission with subpoena powers. The files of the Catholic Church must be opened up.''

[Another]

Telsner has made an enormous tactical blunder.

Until now he could have said that Groner may have made mistakes but they were not done with evil intent, they were the failings and errors of judgement of a man who was the product of a less-enlightened generation and of a different culture. But as for me, my hands are clean, I had no part in those decisions; I was not here then. Now things are different; we have learned from the mistakes of the past and under my administration they will not be repeated. We know better now and in the future we will meet our moral and legal obligations with meticulous care.

But now, after this action by Telsner against Waks, he can no longer say that. By his own actions (and actions speak louder than words), he has shown himself to firmly belong to the "vilify the victim" camp. He shows himself to be firmly of the belief that the goal of preserving the "good name" (haha) of the institution must take precedence over the demands of justice, that the interests of Telsner and the Yeshivah are more important than victims' welfare, that the moral obligation to provide comfort and support for the victims of crime must take second place to the agenda of Chabad.

Telsner has now actively joined the ranks of those who would pressure victims and their supporters into silence and deter other victims from coming forward to seek justice for themselves. He demonstrates that the sins of the past that may have been "shogegim" (the result of ignorance and poor judgement) WILL now be repeated as "meizidim" (in full knowledge of how wrong they are because that ignorance of the past can no longer be credibly claimed nowadays.) He has shown that the organisation and its top leaders have learned nothing!

This is possibly an even greater indictment of the culture of the organisation and its leader than the original scandals were. Telsner has been quoted here as saying that the reason for his action against ZW is because ZW has besmirched him and the Yeshivah. Whatever besmirchment may have been brought upon Telsner and the Yeshivah up to now, Tesner himself has just exacerbated it. And it is unfathomable that he did not realise that this would be its effect. Either he is incredibly shortsighted or he was so blinded by his own anger and concern for his personal kovod (reputation) that he could not see that he is damaging the very thing he is so concerned to protect.

Telsner has shown himself to be petty, vindictive and vengeful and, to top it all off, so stupidly shortsighted that this action of his, which is against both his own and the Yeshivah's interests, will inevitably erode community confidence in his wisdom and judgement into the future. In short, he is hoist with his own petard. ויאמר המלך תלהו עליו .