Satmar Hasid Who Allegedly Took Photo Of Child Sex Abuse Victim Testifying Has Charges Dropped By Brooklyn DA

A Satmar hasid who allegedly took pictures of a child sex abuse victim as she testified against a Satmar community leader in his 2012 trial was slated to have the charges against him dropped Friday.

Above: the photo in question as published by FailedMessiah.com the day it was taken, with the faces of the victim and other blocked out by FailedMessiah.com

Satmar Hasid Who Allegedly Took Photo Of Child Sex Abuse Victim Testifying Has Charges Dropped By Brooklyn DA
Shmarya Rosenberg • FailedMessiah.com

A Satmar hasid who allegedly took pictures of a child sex abuse victim as she testified against a Satmar community leader in his 2012 trial was slated to have the charges against him dropped Friday, the New York Post reported.

24-year-old Yona Weissman was charged with contempt when a photo of the 17-year-old girl testifying against Nechemya Weberman was found by court officers on Weissman’s phone. The photo was also posted on Twitter and emailed to several news sources, including FailedMessiah.com.

In August, Brooklyn Criminal Court Judge Michael Gerstein ruled that court officers violated search-and-seizure laws and barred the photo from being introduced at trial. Gerstein made that ruling based on a recent US Supreme Court ruling he appears to have misinterpreted.

Gerstein is also the judge who ruled that there was no jury tampering in the 2012 trail of Rabbi Yehuda Kolko. The serial pedophile was acquitted of violating an order of protection and harassing one of his child victims. The mother of a juror sat in court during the trial, became friendly with Kolko and appeared to be signaling her daughter to vote in Kolko's favor.

“There’s no evidence anymore, so that’s it. You need the evidence to convict and without evidence there’s no case,” Weissman’s defense attorney, Izzy Fried, told the Post. He said the prosecutor called him Thursday to say the case would be dismissed.

“[Weissman] maintains his innocence. He didn’t do anything wrong. The fact that he had the image on his phone that they illegally searched doesn’t mean he snapped the picture,” Fried added.

The three other Satmar hasidim accused of having a role in the taking and distribution of that photo have already had their charges dropped.

The victim’s husband was upset that no one involved in the attempt to intimidate his wife would be prosecuted.

“[Weissman] should have gotten a year in jail. He’s the one who took the photo and he definitely tried to intimidate us,” the husband said.

Brooklyn DA Ken Thompson chose not to appeal Gerstein’s ruling and instead blamed the dropped charges on his predecessor.

“Unfortunately, this is a bad case left over from the previous administration,” a Thompson spokeswoman told the Post.

Gerstein’s ruling is likely wrong because probable cause appeared to exist to search Weissman’s phone. The search done by court officers was done specifically to look for that photo, to prevent it from being distributed and to make sure there was no  imminent threat to the victim – who was sexually abused by Weberman over a several year period beginning when she was 12-years-old – or her family.

Despite massive and widespread intimidation and harassment by Satmar hasidim against her and her family, the victim testified against Weberman, who was found guilty.

He is now serving a 50-year prison sentence.

But the Brooklyn DA’s office has allowed some of those Satmar harassers to go unpunished while it cut sweetheart plea deals with others – including a Satmar hasid, Abraham Rubin, who tried to bribe the victim and her now-husband with $500,000 to leave the country and not testify against Weberman.

Related Post:

Brooklyn Judge Tosses Evidence Against Satmar Hasidic Man Who Allegedly Intimidated Weberman Sex Abuse Victim.

Despite Eyewitness Accounts, Judge Finds No Evidence Of Witness Tampering In Kolko Trial.

Comments

[dovid kahan]

Weberman molested a girl. That makes him a heterosexual molester. A man who molests boys is a homosexual molester. A pedophile is somebody who molests both boys and girls. If somebody molests both boys and girls, he is a true pedophile and it is probably impossible to cure him of his pedophilia. If somebody molests girls because his wife does not give him enough sex or because he doesn't have a wife, he should be encouraged to go to prostitutes. If somebody molests boys he should be encouraged to fulfill his homosexual desires with consenting gay adults. You can call a man a pedophile only if he reicieves sexual counselling regarding this matter and a man continues to have sex with children or trying to have sex with children instead of limiting his sexual escapades to consenting adults.

[dovid kahan]

My son is very immature sexually. He has probably never had sex with anybody during his entire 25 year life unless another young man in the ydei chesed group home for developmentally disabled adults molested him. The only reason that the haredim want my son to spend the rest of his life in a mental hospital is because the haredim have no place for my son in their community because my son is unfortunately gay.

[Shmarya]

You are a very sick man.

[dovid kahan]

I am the only person willing to give a home to my biological son, Abraham Widenbaum. Everybody else just wants him quietly put away in a mental hospital for the rest of his life. They want him to plead guilty by reason of insanity so that he will be sentenced to an indefinite time (life sentence) in mental hospital. Even though my son did not succeed in molesting the 6 year old boy and even though he didn't succeed in trying to molest the 6 year old boy and isn't even accused of touching the 6 year old boy and there is no way that they can prove that he has even any intent to molest the 6 year old boy, because my son has that crook Kenneth Gribetz as his lawyer who wants my son to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, my son has no choice but to plead guilty to all of the charges against him and go to prison for 5 years in order to avoid spending the rest of his life in a mental hospital.
My son would be much better off having the public defender defend him and pleading guilty to a lesser charge than relying on the haredim to provide him with their crooked lawyer Kenneth Gribetz.

[dovid kahan]

My sexually immature son desparately needs counciling to help him deal with his immature sexuality. He doesn't need to go to jail or a mental hospital. He needs a home and I am the only person willing to give him a home.

[dovid kahan]

Why do you say that I am a very sick man?
As far as me needing counseling, I am willing to talk to anybody who is willing to help me get my son out of the mental hospital. Anybody who is not willing to help me get my son out of the mental hospital is either one of the evil haredim or somebody whose pockets are controlled by the evil haredim.

[SkepticalYid]

Shmarya, can you please block this guy?

[dh]

You're never going to get the help you want or need on FM. You're only going to get kicked around like a rubber ball. I already told you to get resources through NAMI. They are all over. Start and don't stop. You are barking up the wrong tree. Go on dovid. Do it. You are wasting precious time here.

[dovid kahan]

I have tried to call NAMI many times and have gotten no help.

[dovid kahan]

My son is represented by the crooked lawyer Kenneth Gribetz who looks forward to his pockets being filled by haredim and does not represent my son but represents the people who adopted my son and represents haredi interests that they should not have any homosexuals in their communities. The fact that the haredim consider homosexuality to be a mental illness for which homosexuals should be locked up in mental hospitals for the rest of their lives is horrible. My son is not represented by somebody with his best interests in mind and would be much better off being represented by the public defender than by a crook whose pockets are owned by the haredim.

[dh]

dovid kahan | October 25, 2014 at 10:36 PM

Very sadly, dovid, you are not going to get any help here either. There are a million social service places in New York because on the 8th day God created New York social workers. Find one. Seriously. They want to help. Eventually Shmarya will ban you and you will feel very empty. Find one. There are 24 hour hot lines. You don't even have to wait until Monday.

[dovid kahan]

I once spoke to a retired psychiatrist who refuses to admit that he retired from the psychiatric profession even though he is old enough to be retired. He says that he quit being a psychiatrist and became a rabbi because when he was a psychiatrist he had to prescribe drugs for his clients in order to paid for his psychiatric services by the people who were paying the bills for his clients. Not only are the pockets of lawyers owned by the people who pay them but the pockets of psychiatrists are owned by the people who pay them.

[dovid kahan]

NAMI is not a 24 hour hotline. Can you please give me the number of a 24 hour hotline that can help me to get my son out of the mental hospital.

[dh]

Okay, you win. Good bye.

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

Oy vey.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Unless theres more to the story it seems to me there's no evidence that there was any sexual intent on his part. He's developmentally disabled and may have had innocent motives.

http://hudsonvalley.news12.com/news/abraham-widenbaum-of-wesley-hills-arrested-in-alleged-luring-of-boy-to-synagogue-1.9378688

[Benny Forer]

The judge's decision in this case was correctly based on the Supreme Court's new ruling, requiring both probable cause AND a warrant in order for officers to search a cell-phone. While that will lead to miscarriages of justice, it is designed to protect against police misconduct of searching through a cell phone, which can contain a significant amount of data. This had nothing to do with bias, and everything to do with following the law, as interpreted by the highest court.

[dovid kahan]

Ah-pee-chorus: You are right about my son's case but the haredim have to scare my developmentally disabled son into thinking that they have a case against him and that he will go to jail for 5 years unless he pleads not guilty by reason of insanity. Neither the haredim or their lawyers tell my son that if he pleads not guilty by reason of insanity he will be committed to a mental hospital for the rest of his life.

[Shmarya]

Benny –

Maybe not. He was seen taking the picture and there was real fear that it may have been used to target her outside of court, so the threat was imminent.

Further, the SCOTUS ruling involved incriminating evidence for which there was no probable cause, and the searching phones just to see what can be found.

Here there was probable cause and a potential imminent threat – and it took place almost two years before the SCOTUS ruling. And they would have found the photo if they had somehow known two years ahead of time that SCOTUS would take a case on phone searches and rule the way it did. And that should be enough for an appellate court to rule the evidence – the photo – in.

[Benny Forer]

Respectfully, I disagree. The opinion is very very clear that a cell phone requires both PC and a search warrant. (typically, a search incident to a lawful arrest requires nothing more than a lawful arrest. The SC changed that in Gant-vehicle search-and required PC to search incident to a lawful arrest in the interior of the vehicle. Regarding cell phones, Riley extended that even further to requiring both PC and a SW.

Re imminent threat. While we can view that as an option, it would be considered unlikely. I.e., in order to use the "exigent circumstance" exception to the warrant requirement, there would have to be an actual and immediate exigency. This scenario is not one envisioned by the court, at all. Usually, those scenarios involve a kidnapped victim, for example, where the immediacy of the search would require a search of the cell phone, instead of waiting for a warrant. Here, they could have gotten a warrant very quickly.

I can't comment on the delay of the determination. But, once the Court determines something, it applies to ALL pending and future cases. Its irrelevant what predictions they could have made. Riley was a California Supreme Court case that made it very clear that police can search a cell phone without a warrant. All agencies relied heavily on this opinion. The SC changed that. Its simply how it works. It sucks, but thats the way it is.

I think the judge made a very clear and obvious decision based on the precedent before him. I would have liked nothing more than this scumbag getting prosecuted and sentenced to the max time in jail. But, the Court made its decision.

As an aside, I disagree with the opinion and feel that it was made on an improper basis. I predict it will be overruled to some extent, in the next 10 years (although it was a 9-0 decision).

[Shmarya]

As I remember the decision, it was based on a case involving a traffic stop and cops randomly searching the driver’s cellphone. At any rate, this is a very different case under very difference circumstances, and the officers were looking for a picture the phone’s owner was seen illegally shooting. They had no reason to think they needed a warrant and, in any case, if they had gotten one, they would have found the photo. It is not as if they saw the hasid taking an upskirt photo of another spectator at the trial, seized the phone and searched it an while doing so found the photo of Weberman's victim testifying. They found the picture they went looking for and it would have been found with or without the warrant, and that should make it admissible.

[MrsAdler.com]

Why can't LE simply confiscate the phone (,provided they have PC) and then wait for SW ,thereby determining search legality parameters, thereupon eliminating the scotus invalidation ruling, thus preserving both the evidence as well as our constitutional rights ?

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

I agree with Mrs. Adler.
A SW could have been obtained in less than an hour. There was no imminent danger of frumma harming the woman during that time.

"...they found the picture they went looking for and it would have been found with or without the warrant..." is irrelevant. Police are obligated to obey the Constitution.

I don't want cops going through my cell phone contents without a judge's authorization. (Imagine if they saw how many times I had looked at Failed Messiah during the day.)
Such laws protect all of us. Sometimes a scumbag gets protected in the process too, but that's the price we have always been willing to pay as Americans.

[Michael-Meir]

I agree with Mrs. Adler and Shmarya.

Sure, it's not a ticking time-bomb situation. But when an officer of the court or a law enforcement officer is an eyewitness to probable cause the phone should be seized and held until a warrant can be promptly obtained (or denied) to search its contents. The warrant-less seizure is only very temporary, and any subsequent search is contingent, so this should not count as an illegal search and/seizure because police action would be highly regulated, circumscribed, and overseen by a judge.

[dh]

Supreme Court cases are not always retroactive, and they did not specifically state whether this one will or will not be. A lot of them may be re-litigated and may turn on the issue of 'good faith'. The question will be, was law enforcement acting in true (and I believe, immediate) good faith that a crime had been committed the evidence of which needed to be preserved to prevent the ongoing or, I think, imminent commission of crime.

This case, and a companion case are seen as only the beginning of a new brand of cases that will sort out Fourth Amendment issues in light of the new age of technology and balance the rights of privacy versus other rights. This is the beginning, not the end.

I think the reason the prosecutor isn't appealing this decision, which I think is probably legitimately questionable, is one of economics. This is too expensive to litigate and not a pleasant circumstance to hang one's legal hat on.

[Benny Forer]

That's incorrect; they can't just search the phone, regardless of reason, unless there was an exigency. What particularly stinks is that the state of the law at the time of search was that it was allowed. Then suddenly, the SC changed the rules. So, the cops relied in good faith on the state of the law. The rules though do not allow such a good faith. When the SC declares the law of the land, it is applied and instituted immediately.

[dh]

Nope.

[Benny Forer]

dh -

Can't just say nope. The decision doesnt effect cases already decided, but for any pending case, the decision absolutely affects them. Please show me anything pointing to the contrary.

[dh]

When the SC declares the law of the land, it is applied and instituted immediately.

Posted by: Benny Forer | October 26, 2014 at 12:30 PM

I said Supreme Court cases are not always retroactive and you agreed with me. So "Nope" worked fine.

[MrsAdler.com]

I agree with Michael Meir.

Pc should be only a stop gap measure to prevent LOSS of ( probable) evidence, but further extraction should be contingent upon SW. If none is legally obtained then any findings shoud be inadmissible in a court of law.
Sucks but it protects our ammendments , & keeps abuse of power in check. Kinda like our inoperable paralyzed capital hill balance system......

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

You trust cops with your cell phone?

http://www.contracostatimes.com/my-town/ci_26793090/warrant-chp-officer-says-stealing-nude-photos-from

[MrsAdler.com]

-Benny forer,

What determines exigency as surely this was no kidnapping scenario and is parameters defined at the state or federal level as one size fits all vs. case by case basis ?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/28/lawmaker-claims-plans-may-be-in-pipeline-to-bring-non-citizens-to-us-for-ebola/

[MrsAdler.com]

A Circuit Court judge in Virginia has ruled that fingerprints are not protected by the Fifth Amendment, a decision that has clear privacy implications for fingerprint-protected devices like newer iPhones and iPads.

According to Judge Steven C. Fucci, while a criminal defendant can't be compelled to hand over a passcode to police officers for the purpose of unlocking a cellular device, law enforcement officials can compel a defendant to give up a fingerprint.

The Fifth Amendment states that "no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," which protects memorized information like passwords and passcodes, but it does not extend to fingerprints in the eyes of the law, as speculated by Wired last year.
Judge Steven C. Frucci ruled this week that giving police a fingerprint is akin to providing a DNA or handwriting sample or an actual key, which the law permits. A pass code, though, requires the defendant to divulge knowledge, which the law protects against, according to Frucci's written opinion.
The ruling stemmed from a case involving David Baust, who was accused of strangling his girlfriend. Prosecutors believed Baust may have stored video of the attack on his phone, and requested that the judge force him to unlock it. If protected by a passcode, Baust will not be required to unlock his phone under the Fifth Amendment, but if protected with a fingerprint, he could potentially be forced to unlock the device.

If Baust's phone is an iPhone that's equipped with Touch ID, it's very likely that it will be passcode locked at this point and thus protected by law. Touch ID requires a passcode after 48 hours of disuse, a restart, or three failed fingerprint entry attempts, and the device has probably been in police custody for quite some time. It is unclear if the judge's ruling will have an impact on future cases involving cellular devices protected with fingerprint sensors, as it could be overturned by an appeal or a higher court.

[Benny Forer]

Confusing the issues MrsAdler. The fingerprint case is a 5th amendment issue. The cell phone search is a 4th amendment issue.

Re exigency: its only in a scenario of destruction of evidence (there was no issue here, they could have gotten a warrant) or an actual real-time emergency (like a kidnapped victim needing to be found). Hypothesizing about some possible exigency is insufficient. That idea isn't new, its the exigent-circumstance exception to the warrant requirement that has been around for a long time.

[MrsAdler.com]

Gotcha. Thanks for clarying without oversimplifying.