« Melbourne Chabad's Head Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Telsner Suddenly Resigns From Rabbinical Council | Main | Video: NYC Mayoral Democratic Candidates On Permitting Dangerous Haredi Circumcision Rite »

May 30, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


rebitz! You're in Wisconsin? I've spent time in Wisconsin. In Eau Claire, Black River Falls - going to Madison next year. I heard there was a Jewish presence in Wisconsin. So, you're the one.

rebitzman - $101 to read my posts

"The argument is that under Australian law"

Turns out we have the same law in Wisconsin. Wife has to sign that she agrees the loan has been made and that it is "in the benefit of the family". It is the responsibility of the lender to get that document signed before turning over loan proceeds. Failure to do so runs the risk of a ruling along the lines of what is being reported. I am being told this is only one of 3 states that have requirements this strict.

Not saying Tayar SHOULD be out the money, but it does appear he'd have been well served paying a lawyer a few hundred bucks. Cheap insurance against what appears to be a $1.6 million loss.


It protects all spouses.

If you want a wife to potentially prejudice her financial position, then make sure she gets independent advice before you hand over any money.


Barry, aside from the frumpls, does the law protect all spouses, regardless of gender, in this type of transaction?


The wives are arguing that they did not understand the agreements.

The Australian High Court decision in Garcia v. National Australia Bank Limited [1998] upheld the principle contained in Yerkey v. Jones (1939) that if a married woman agrees to act as surety for her husband's debt without understanding the effect of this agreement and executes an instrument of suretyship which the creditor accepts without dealing with the women face-to-face, she is entitled to have the instrument set aside (the principle of 'special equity').

This decision requires that the wife be offered an independent explanation of the potential effect of the surety agreement.

It has been argued that the reasoning behind the 1939 decision should no longer apply seeing in general that the social and educational position of married women is not what it was back then, but the Australian High Court felt that many women still were vulnerable to having their trust in their husbands abused and needed protection


The argument is that under Australian law, the judgement is not enforceable because the wives never agreed to the terms.

The Feldmans' claim has nothing to do with halakha.

rebitzman - $101 to read my posts

been tearing through the texts this morning - and while I leave open the distinct possibility that I might of missed something, I will say that I can find exactly nothing that indicates that a contract can be invalidated because one's wife was not informed as to the collateralization of joint property.

Just the opposite appears to be true.

Bobby Basrah

The Beth din was made up by rabbis who were not chabad.
they were from melb's charedi adass community


You guys are commenting on a story you do n't really know about. In this case Tayar was the less of too evils. He probably whouldn't have the balls to take it to a non jewish court because he would look terrible. While it was all going on he was living the life with all the interest he was getting on the loan. There are a lot of other people who are out of money that weren't part of the Ponzi scheme and still haven't been paid. Ie teachers, suppliers of services and equipment etc.,

Alter Kocker

So two blood-sucking maggots fucked a colleague out of his life savings and are bristling that their other colleagues are making them pay him back? A credit to us all.


More fruit of their "Rebbe Shlita"...

Yerachmiel Lopin

Usually courts don't supersede beit din rulings because most battei din secure binding arbitration agreements before the start the case. Most courts respect binding arbitration agreements. But just as a superior court (under whatever terminology) can void a ruling where there is corruption or violation of judicial rules,civil courts on rare occasions have voided beit din rulings. This seems to be one of those cases where you don't have to be a rabbi to know that the beit din violated the most elementary requirements of fairness. If there was a legitimate ultimate halachic power in Australia, the rabbis on that beit din would all be in cherem and jail by now. they are fraudsters hiding behind the cloak of halachah.


it just boggles the mind...
they can do stuff like this...
and judge other jews for not being like them "religious wise"
my g-d!
bunch of jerks.
very religious and wow! your names are just SO important for
what a bunch of hypocrites.


Since it doesn't relate to abusing children Feldman holds that it's OK to go to the Supreme court....

And since this case involves Feldman doing credit card fraud the police MUST be called in....


The Feldmans are appealing the beit din decision
how and to whom does one appeal a beit din decision? does Australia allow beit din decisions to be appealed to the secular courts? surely there is no appellate division of the beit din itself?


Hope the Beit Din awarded the proper amount. ,meaning not less than what was owed.

Good going Beit din!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Failed messiah was established and run in 2004 by Mr. Shmarya (Scott)Rosenberg. The site was acquired by Diversified Holdings, Feb 2016.
We thank Mr. Rosenberg for his efforts on behalf of the Jewish Community


Comment Rules

  1. No anonymous comments.
  2. Use only one name or alias and stick with that.
  3. Do not use anyone else's name or alias.
  4. Do not sockpuppet.
  5. Try to argue using facts and logic.
  6. Do not lie.
  7. No name-calling, please.
  8. Do not post entire articles or long article excerpts.
***Violation of these rules may lead to the violator's comments being edited or his future comments being banned.***

Search this site with Google:


FailedMessiah.com in the Media