Rabbi David Wax Implicates Rabbi Mendel Epstein, Others, In Jewish Divorce Extortion Scheme

While pleading guilty yesterday, Rabbi David Wax told the court that Epstein sent several co-conspirators, including Rabbi Martin Wolmark, Jay “Yaakov” Goldstein, Alexander “Sendy” Frankel and Mendel Epstein’s son, David “Ari” Epstein, to Wax’s house to help with the kidnapping and extortion.

Above right: Rabbi David Wax

 

The APP reports:

During his plea Tuesday before U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson, David Wax implicated Mendel Epstein, a Brooklyn rabbi who has a home in Lakewood, along with several other men who were charged last fall in a similar conspiracy.…

Wax told the court that in October 2010, he and Epstein agreed to force [Yisrael Meir] Briskman to give Briskman’s wife a “get,” which is a document needed in Jewish law, so that an Orthodox woman would be able to remarry without religious consequences. Wax told the court Epstein had arranged for a forced get for Wax’s sister in the 1980s.…

Wax told the court that Epstein sent several co-conspirators, including Rabbi Martin Wolmark, Jay “Yaakov” Goldstein, Alexander “Sendy” Frankel and Mendel Epstein’s son, David “Ari” Epstein, to Wax’s house to help.

The wife’s family seeking the religious document paid Wax approximately $100,000 for the agreement. Wax told the court that Mendel Epstein got $50,000. Wax also told the court that on the drive back to New York with Briskman, he tried to extort another $50,000 from Briskman’s father.…

The Wax case ultimately led to charges against Epstein, Wolmark and eight New York men, accused of being involved in more plots to kidnap and torture other Orthodox Jewish husbands to force them to grant their wives religious divorces.…

Wax is facing as much as life in prison.

Epstein, Wolmark and Goldstein are awaiting trial in a separate kidnapping-torture-forced get conspiracy.

Related Posts:

Rabbi David Wax Pleads Guilty.

Rabbi David Wax Plea Agreement.

All Rabbi David Wax Kidnapping-Torture Posts.

All Rabbi Mendel Epstein Kidnapping-Torture Posts.

Comments

[S M L]

Let's count how many different yet related black eyes Jews in general will receive from the publicity attendant on this idiot's case:

1 One because an ostensible clergyman was involved in extortion and violence.
2. One deriving from exposition to the world in general of the general absurdity and nastiness surrounding the giving/withholding of the get.
3. One relating to the stereotype of the rich Jew willing and able to pay $100K to obtain a reiligious document.

I'm sure others can add to the list.

[Yosef ben Matitya]

oy oy oy a case of multiple meuyser!

[D]

just wondering if womark is the son in law of wolfson and the one that lives in the huge house in monsey

a 6 by ten cell is a life changer

[Moshe in Israel]

@D Of course he is. The bigger question is, with all that Wolmark has: Being married to Wolfson's daughter, and Wolfson "buying" him a Yeshiva from Rabbi Wein, why would he involve himself with a gang of thugs?

I think that the simple answer is that greed has no bounds. He is probably as much as narcissist as he is a supposed Talmud Chochim.

[Fishel]

Anyone who knows him knows that

[R Nash]

It is really just sad that Jewish leadership is so bankrupt of leadership ability that they need to resort to thuggery to do correct a modernity problem in Halacha, i.e. the inequity of power and extreme disadvantage of the woman in a divorce procedure. Let's compare. Rebenu Gershom in the 900s instituted monogamy and eliminated the power of the husband to divorce without his wife's consent. Thus, the husband needed the divorce as much as the wife did. Today's leadership knows that people merely laugh and dismiss their takanahs. So they have to resort to crime when enforcement is critical, with which they have no problem, even at the expense of chilul Hashem.

Quoting Leo Derocher, "Does anyone around here know how to play this game?"

[Allan]

“Rebenu Gershom in the 900s instituted monogamy and eliminated the power of the husband to divorce without his wife's consent.”

Although intended to protect women, this decree had the side effect of empowering women to refuse to accept a get from her husband although the marriage is effectively over. So now men, as well as women, could become trapped in a marriage against their will and become vulnerable to blackmail.

In other words, the whole Jewish divorce system is sick and needs to abolished completely. Of course, this can never happen as long as religious indoctrination has people convinced that this cruel system is “God’s will.”

[Jekylljacobson]

Nash
The halakha does not nor should it be adjusted to satisfy individuals. Those who use halakha to hold their women hostage should be dealt an iron fist. Period. We need Epsteins and the secular authority should know better than getting involved. Same I believe in regards to child abuse--we should take it serious enough and deal with those committing such acts in equally violent manner... IT WORKS. Unlike the failed correctional system that does not solve crime nor rehabilitate those committing such, what I profess actually brings positive results. This is the way I feel about it. Perhaps you glorify your host country that you're deemed incapable of understanding a so basic concept.

[Barry]

Contrary to what Jekyll argues this is exactly the kind of case the civil courts should involve themselves. No one should be subject to halakha against his will.

Lets say in happier days a wife gives her husband a photograph of herself in the nude. On divorce she asks for that photograph to be returned claiming she fears the release of that photograph on to the internet. The husband claims that his wife fears are unfounded as he would never do that and if he did the court should then punish him at that point.

I would require the husband to return the photo not because I do not believe the husband promise to keep the photo privater, but because the wife has a reasonable and normal psychological need which the husband has a duty to fulfil even on divorce by reason of his choice to marry her in the first place.

There is a strong secular case for forcing a recalcitrant spouse to grant a get so that the other spouse to alleviate psychological distress preventing the other spouse getting on with their lives with the least mental damage which is one purpose of secular divorce law. If you do not want to be subject to US Divorce Law, then don't marry or live outside the US.

So, Jekyell, as soon as a beis din issues a hazmano seeking to overturn or otherwise undermine civil judgments, the civil judges should order the dayanim to be put in chains and imprisoned in a hog pen whilst their grand- children are fed pork and taught the Catholic catechism. Agree, Jekyll?

[jancsibacsi]

Jekylljacobson---"We need Epsteins and the secular authority should know better than getting involved."
I caanot beleive you made this statement are you for real,or are you in a never never land like most rebbes,you dont live in youre own country and you dont ignore the laws of the country you live in its that simple stop with this childish attitude that most frummes exhibit.

[!!]

@JekyllJ
"The halakha does not nor should it be adjusted to satisfy individuals".
Really? So the fat that in the FBI informants part of this mess there was a pre-paid psak to get the Beis Din on board with allowing force against a husband who did not even exist, is not changing halacha to satisfy individuals? Since when is a pre-paid psak halachic? These individuals deluded themselves into believing that they were changing the halacha for the satisfaction of (rich only) agunas but in actuality were changing halacha for their own enrichment. So the very people you say we "need" are changing the halacha that you say cannot be changed...hmmm..

[Robert J. Barron, Attorney-at-Law]

Whenever I read about "get's", and "Agunah's", I have to remind myself that this (hilarious) entertainment is free....but nonetheless real.

And that makes it even MORE funny.

Get's....Agunah's.....what some Rabbi said in the 900's.....good lord.

NEWSFLASH: This is the year 2014. Got that? Next year it will be 2015. The year after that, 2016. That's how that works.

That being the case, can someone here tell me why were are (seriously) considering what someone said back in the 900's?

I mean, what is the NEXT topic of disagreement and/or analysis? How many angels can dance on the head of pin? Or a pincushion? Stay tuned, folks!

LOL LOL LOL LOL

[Sholom]

Hey lady, your former husband won't give you a get? So nu, what's the big deal? You got a civil divorce, is nu, faf'm un and vayter g'furin.

Ay, you're concerned that you won't be able to marry someone else with khipekidishin? Na, nit g'ferlikh, you'll marry him in the secular system and vayter g'furin.

Ay, you worry that the rabunim will paskin that your children are mamzerim? Okay, so you go ahead and paskin that they're a bunch of greedy and corrupt bastards and vayter g'furin.

Your problem is only a problem if you choose to continue to play into their hands. Why would you subject yourself to that?

Go on, take the money and run.

[Mee-Samcha?]

@Robert Barron

The Jewish people have survived all this time based on the adhering to God's laws as given to Moses at Sinai. Over time people believed that they knew better and that the laws of God should evolve with the times, that led to the conservative, reform and reconstructionist movements which in turn have given us unprecedented rates of intermarriage and assimilation. If God wants his laws changed, he will change them, it's not up to man. Mocking those who adhere, or try to adhere, to God's laws is beneath an officer of the court.

That being said, the entire Get/Agunah situation stinks. I don't think divorces should be withheld for any reason and I certainly don't think that those involved here are acting in the name of God (that goes out the window when you charge 100k a pop). These guys should get prison time.

[Jekylljacobson]

I see that you folks are shallower than I thought.
As religious people we have the right in this country to practice our religion freely whether you antis like it or not. The government recognizes the batei din as an alternative to the judicial system in many instances (especially as mediators). We have the right to choose to follow rabbinic decrees regarding divorce issues and not be bound by civil law when it contradicts our religious beliefs. Dina demalchuta is not applied in such cases. That of course is all from my religious perspective.
A woman has the right to be freed of her husband's grips if she so pleases. Even after a civil divorce she is still an eshet ish and cannot remarry halakhically. The only answer to recalcitrant spouses is FORCE. Halakha has loopholes for such cases. Get meuseh is not as simple as one may think.

Hi Jancsi, long time no speak.

[R Nash]

"The halakha does not nor should it be adjusted to satisfy individuals."

Laughable. Have you ever opened a gemorra?

Jekyll, there is an old saying in Mes. Shavuot, that there is no gangster whose family is not also gangsters. They are so considered because they protect the gangster. There is a thin line between a truly ordained court enacting a punishment, and baalei zroah doing as they please by force. I think we have crossed the line. A Jewish court derives its power from the consent of the governed. Without that, they are no more than implicit and explicit gangsters.

[R Nash]

"The only answer to recalcitrant spouses is FORCE."

This is exactly the point. Rebbenu Gershon used his considerable clout to mitigate this type of abuse by the recalcitrant. I seriously doubt he ever organized shock troops to go out and impose his will by force. He led in a way that his community was inspired to follow and the recalcitrant would find himself ostracized, shamed and without any economic opportunity. By saying the only way is force, you cede the argument, admitting that without the power of influence, Jewish leaders resort the power that any random, evil meaningless group could have. What then makes them leaders, or Jewish for that matter?

[Robert J. Barron, Attorney-at-Law]

@Mee-Samcha? -----> "If God wants his laws changed, he will change them, it's not up to man. Mocking those who adhere, or try to adhere, to God's laws is beneath an officer of the court."

Based on a literal reading of the Bible/Old Testament, don't those laws also allow slavery, the stoning of adulterers, and other practices that a civilized society finds barbaric? (And lets' stay away from capital punishment, on which I myself have conflicted feelings)

Sorry (but not really) if I have offended you by mocking those who adhere or try to adhere to God's laws, but as I have repeatedly stated here, those laws were written for and in a world that no longer exists and will never exist again.

If you want to pretend that you are still living in the 1300's/1400's, go ahead; and be prepared for the ridicule that follows.

[Robert J. Barron, Attorney-at-Law]

@Jekylljacobson-----> "We need Epsteins and the secular authority should know better than getting involved."

Excuse me? As an Officer of the Court, I find that statement (more or less) obscene.

Let me spell it out for you, and I'll actually try not to be pompous, as some have said I can get when talking about the law (including some close friends of mine).

We live in a country of laws. LAWS. Written either by duly-elected representatives, or drafted by agencies answerable to those representatives.

The Courts that interpret and apply those laws are open and available to everyone on American soil or who is an American citizen. Even persons who are in this country with no legal status (the so-called illegal aliens) have access to those Courts. Terrorists (for the most part) and murderers and some of the worst criminal scum you can imagine have access to those courts.

Your statement that "the secular authority should know better than to get involved" shows you simply have no respect for - or appear to have no respect for - the system of laws upon which this nation was built.

Obscene.

(But I'll bet if neo-nazis wanted to march in your neighborhood, you'd be among the first to head to Court trying to get a restraining order to prevent such.)

Not that I mean to brag about my profession, but back in the 1770's when doctors were still using leeches to cure people, lawyers were writing the United States Constitution. That Constitution allows you to worship how and where you want, and you don't have to "register" with the authorities as Jewish. Ever think about that? I seriously doubt it.

Lesson over for today.

[Robert J. Barron, Attorney-at-Law]

@Mee-Samcha -----> "The Jewish people have survived all this time based on the adhering to God's laws as given to Moses at Sinai".

Actually, I think there were six million Jewish people who didn't survive during World War Two....and I'm pretty sure a very high percentage of them were adhering to God's laws as given to Moses at Sinai.

Care to explain what seems to be a discrepancy here?

[Mee-Samcha?]

@Robert Barron

Yes, the loss of 6 million in the holocaust (most of whom probably weren't observant, but that really doesn't matter) is a tragedy of epic proportions. I don't understand that any more than I understand the Armenian genocide, the slaughter in the Sudan or Stalin wiping millions of his own people. When God shares his reasoning with me, I will share it with you. My point is, that even with all of the oppression that we as a people have suffered through the centuries, we are still around. How many civilizations have fallen by the wayside over those centuries? We are still here because we follow God's laws. You have, I suspect because of your legal training, put man's laws before God's laws. Your opinion and your entitled to it. I will stick with God's laws as given are eternal and if and when He wants to change them, He will.

None of what I say should be misconstrued as condoning knuckleheads who are charging $100,000 to beat a Get out of someone; that's just nuts.

[Robert J. Barron, Attorney-at-Law]

Mee-Samcha -------> If someone is making $100,000.00 to beat someone up, then I am in the WRONG line of work....LOL LOL LOL.

Actually, it's not so much that I put man's laws before God's law's....and I'm not really sure how to respond to that particular assertion. I frankly don't understand the adherence to laws that were passed centuries ago, and were written in and for an age that no longer exists and will never exist again.

[m]

R. Gershom created a lot of mess. But Get is Biblical and must stay, but be fully in hands of husbands, no rabbi must interfere/ Get is just a proof that husband was willing to let his wife leave. Any intimidation by a 'rabbi' or someone else must make Get invalid