Beit Din Ruling Meant To Block Testimony In Haredi Molester's Criminal Trial
This was originally posted on March 16, 2010.
I'm re-posting it now because this ruling was cited in the Baruch Lebovitz trial, and even though it was, the Brooklyn DA did not prosecute the beit din judges for witness tampering and intimidation.
And now that the DA is about to prosecute Samuel Kellner for allegedly extorting Baruch Lebovits' son Meir, even though the evidence the DA has against Kellner seems to be trumped up, I thought it would be a good time to remind him that there are other haredi criminals who need to be prosecuted, men who intimidate witnesses and harass victims. And here you have hard evidence against one of them. I hope you use it, Joe.
Please click to enlarge:
PSAK DIN - JUDGEMENTIn the matter of the dispute-matter between the sides, that is Mr. ____ Side A the plaintiff, and between Rabbi Berl Ashkenazy shlit”a (should merit to long good years??) the defendant, side B, after the (sides) disputants agreed to heed the judgment of the dayan signed below, and after listening to the arguments and counter arguments of both sides, and after sorting out the facts and the halacha (Jewish law) ,the following ruling went out.
A. There is no obligation from side B to side A.
B. In contrast to this, it is forbidden for the young man (bochur) _____ to inform on side B (Rabbi Ashkenazy) to the courts (because) [that] he (talked on his heart) [tried to persuade him] that he should leave the courts, which is according to their laws a grave crime, and there is an obligation on side A to do whatever is in his ability to deter the above mentioned young man from this (mesirah) [informing].
C. Side B accepted on himself of his free will that he is prepared to help the above mentioned young man with whatever is in his ability to encourage him to go in good ways, however he will begin with him after the above mentioned young man will remove himself altogether from the courts of the goyim also in other matters.
And there are no more arguments and counter arguments between the sides, only peace to us and to all Israel.
And on this I applied my signature in the 9th day of Shevat 5769
Says Israel Meir Makovetzky, Dayan





Theese hassidishe lunatics actually think they are in charge when in fact all they have is intimidation and threats and no courts of anything remotly to carry out their infantile eddicts we live in a christtian country where you have to follow their laws but theese mindless hassids keep on rehashing their megalomaniac fantasy of ruling the country sick .
Posted by: jancsibacsi | January 24, 2013 at 07:54 AM
SHMAYRA...thanks for this update on a very troubling story on the action of DA HYNES to indict a father of a victim on trumped up charges.this story is a very damaging and will finally end the careear of hynes.Hella Winston article in the jewish week on the kelnner case is very informative and should be read by all
Posted by: meir | January 24, 2013 at 07:57 AM
When a community cares not for its children, its future is doomed. Sad. Luke.
Posted by: Luke | January 24, 2013 at 09:16 AM
That is obstruction of justice, time to stop this in court and tear down their fallacious Freedom of religion defense that is intended to obstruct the prosecution of crimes.
Posted by: skepticfrum | January 24, 2013 at 09:16 AM
DAYAN. says who>??????????????an inflated prick. you get what you deserve putting up with these self ordained TWITS
Posted by: contra apion | January 24, 2013 at 10:24 AM
Hey, cool. It's against Jewish law to accuse *me* of a crime, says Me.
Nice work if you can get it.
Posted by: Sarek | January 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM
tHERE IS A PSAK DI THAT SAYS THAT IT IS A MITZVAH TO REPORT PEDOPHILES. Go to jewish community watch for the exact text.
Lebowith and his cousin Shulem Shnitzler are fucken pedophiles. GThey shall both rot in hell together with weberman
Posted by: put a square into a hole | January 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM
It's called witness tampering.
It's called obstruction of justice.
It's a serious crime.
Posted by: A. Nuran | January 24, 2013 at 11:56 AM
Shmarya, a note on the rough translation:
From the language in the Hebrew letter, it is evident that "side A" was a male, not a female.
Posted by: David | January 24, 2013 at 12:02 PM
I'm sorry, I meant the reverse; a male, not a female.
Posted by: David | January 24, 2013 at 12:03 PM