COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
|
AARON THOMAS
RABBI SHMUEL FUERST RABBI YOSEF WAINKRANTZ RABBI CHAIM GOLDZWEIG DANNY SHABAT |
} } } } } } } } |
No. 01 L 013593 |
|
Now comes the plaintiff, AARON THOMAS, Pro Se, and complaining of all the defendants named above, states as his Second Amended Complaint as follows: 1) Plaintiff, Aaron Thomas was at all times mentioned in this complaint, and still is a citizen and resident of Jerusalem, Israel - residing there with plaintiff’s spouse and family. 2) All the Defendants named above were at all times mentioned in this complaint, and presently are citizens and residents of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois. Defendant Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst resides at 6100 N. Drake Ave., Chicago, 60659. Defendant Rabbi Yosef Wainkranz resides at 6308 N. Francisco, Chicago, 60659. Defendant Rabbi Chaim Goldzweig resides at 6644 N. Richmond, Chicago, 60645. Defendant Danny Shabat resides at 6040 N. Bernard, Chicago, Illinois 60659 4) The defendants, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, Rabbi Yosef Wainkrantz, and Rabbi Chaim Goldzweig sit on a Rabbinic Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as a Beit Din) headed by Rabbi Fuerst. The Beit Din is sponsored by Agudath Israel of Illinois, a prestigious public religious organization. 5) The legal decisions of Rabbi Fuerst’s Beit Din are respected by the Orthodox Jewish community in Chicago and worldwide, and will be enforced by all other Beit Dins worldwide. 6) Jewish law dictates that Jews prosecute their complaints against their fellow Jews, in a Rabbinic Beit Din. However, under certain circumstances, a Beit Din will grant permission to prosecute a claim in secular civil Court. 7) If a Jewish defendant refuses three consecutive summons to appear before the Beit Din, he is punishable by excommunication. 7a) To effect an excommunication, it is necessary to have a Beit Din Tribunal of at least three Rabbis. 7b) The defendants’ Beit Din is responsible for insuring, and administering, proper “law and order” within the Orthodox Jewish community of Chicago and throughout Illinois. 8) During 1998-2001, the Plaintiff Aaron Thomas was prosecuting a civil complaint in the Cook County Circuit Court (No. 99 L 12578) against defendant Danny Shabat and his wife Margie Shabat for their sexual exploitation of plaintiff Aaron Thomas’s minor child, whom had been entrusted to the Shabats care. 9) Due to the Shabats steadfast refusal to come before an appropriate Beit Din to adjudicate said sexual exploitation complaint, Plaintiff Aaron Thomas had repeatedly received permission from the Chicago Rabbinical Council Beit Din to continue his prosecution of the aforementioned complaint in the Circuit Court. 10) During February 2001, defendant Danny Shabat approached defendant Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst and insisted that Rabbi Fuerst find some way to use his position as the head of the Agudath Israel Beit Din to neutralize the threat that plaintiff Aaron Thomas posed through his Circuit Court prosecution of Thomas v. Shabat. 11) On three occasions during 2001, Aaron Thomas received a written summons from defendant Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst to agree to appear before his Beit Din regarding Thomas’s complaint against Danny and Margie Shabat. 12) On each aforementioned occasion, Aaron Thomas communicated to Rabbi Fuerst his willingness to appear before his Rabbinical Court. 13) On Feb. 28, 2001, came the first summons to agree to appear before Rabbi Fuerst’s Beit Din to justify Thomas’s prosecution of a civil lawsuit in the Cook County Circuit Court. If said civil prosecution was found to be unjustified, Aaron Thomas was to transfer the prosecution to Rabbi Fuerst’s Beit Din. 14) On March 21, 2001, Aaron Thomas communicated in writing his willingness to appear before Rabbi Fuerst’s Beit Din. However, Rabbi Fuerst did not set a hearing date. In fact, Thomas received no response at all. 15) On May 23, 2001, Aaron Thomas received another summons similar to the first, and he reiterated his willingness to appear before Rabbi Fuerst’s Beit Din. Again, however, no hearing date was set, and Thomas received no response. 16) On July 19, 2001, Aaron Thomas received yet a third summons from Rabbi Fuerst to agree to appear before his Beit Din! For a third time Aaron Thomas communicated his willingness to appear. Again, however, no hearing date was set. 17) On October 30, 2001, defendant Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst telephoned the plaintiff Aaron Thomas and demanded that Thomas immediately drop his civil lawsuit against the Shabats in Circuit Court. Thomas responded that he believed that his civil lawsuit was quite justified and that upon appearing in Beit Din, he would successfully defend his Circuit Court activities. 18) On several occasions during November 2001, the Shabats attorney, Mr. Howard Hoffmann, telephone-contacted the plaintiff to explore the possibility of settling Thomas v. Shabat. The last such conversation took place on December 4, 2001. During this last conversation, Mr. Hoffmann realized conclusively that settlement could not be had on what he felt were acceptable terms. Mr. Hoffmann immediately contacted defendant Danny Shabat to inform him of his conclusion. 19) Then defendant Danny Shabat immediately contacted defendant Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst to give him the green light to issue an already prepared excommunication. On December 4, 2001, within forty-five minutes of the aforementioned (¶18) Hoffmann-Thomas conclusive phone call, both Aaron Thomas and his Chicago host were served with the notice of Aaron Thomas’s excommunication. It was dated October 31, 2001, thirty-four days before it was served. 20)The notice of excommunication stated that the action was based upon Thomas’s refusal to appear before the Beit Din! 21) The notice of excommunication instructed all Jews to have nothing to do with Aaron Thomas. 22) The necessary three rabbis that signed the excommunication notice were defendants, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, Rabbi Chaim Goldzweig, and Rabbi Yosef Wainkrantz. 23) The defendants, Rabbi Yosef Wainkrantz, and Rabbi Chaim Goldzweig had no first hand knowledge of the aforementioned summonses, nor of the alleged refusal to appear - the details of which served as the basis for the excommunication. Rather, the defendant Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst averred to them the veracity of the details. 24) The defendant, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst knew that the details he was reporting were false. He nonetheless proceeded to induce Rabbis Goldzweig and Wainkrantz to attach their signatures to the letter of excommunication. 25) Aaron Thomas never received any notice that a hearing was going to convene to decide on Thomas’s excommunication. If Thomas had received such notice, he would have attended, and he would have successfully refuted the allegations. 26) The Excommunication, entitled “Writ of Defiance” - a photocopy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit A - is typewritten on defendant Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst’s official stationary, and is composed in the Hebrew language. Here following is an exact and literal translation of the “Writ of Defiance ”:
27) The Hebrew date immediately above the preceding signatures - Tuesday, 2nd of Cheshvan, 5761- coincided with October 31, 2000. 28) The defendant, RABBI SHMUEL FUERST, circulated and published the letter by causing the hand delivery and direct mailing of the excommunication notice, to influential Rabbinic leaders and family members in the U.S.A. and Israel. 29) The plaintiff Aaron Thomas lives in a strict Orthodox Jewish community and culture wherein observance of Jewish Law is universal, and wherein such observance is a prerequisite for normal societal relations and normal economic activity. 30) The plaintiff, Aaron Thomas’s chosen profession since 1989, is the design and fabrication of customized sunrooms in homes of members of the aforesaid Orthodox community in which Thomas lives. 31) The excommunication calling on all Jews to shun Aaron Thomas and banish him from their homes forced plaintiff Aaron Thomas to abandon his aforesaid profession, and seek employment overseas in his father’s Memphis, Tennessee law office as a secretary. 32) The Beit Din of defendant Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst services the entire Chicago Orthodox Jewish community and is respected by Jews worldwide (see ¶5-7b). Rabbi Fuerst’s Beit Din is therefore a public-like organization. 33) The Beit Din of defendants, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, Rabbi Chaim Goldzweig, and Rabbi Yosef Wainkrantz, issued its aforementioned excommunication (¶26), effectively stripping plaintiff Aaron Thomas of, and vitiating, his elementary right to earn a living in his chosen profession. 34) The Beit Din of defendants, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, Rabbi Chaim Goldzweig, and Rabbi Yosef Wainkrantz, issued its aforementioned excommunication (¶33), without notifying plaintiff Aaron Thomas that a hearing was to take place for the purpose of ruling on said excommunication, and without giving plaintiff Aaron Thomas an opportunity to argue in his defense. 35) This aforesaid process (¶33-34), severely affected and vitiated the plaintiff Aaron Thomas’s elementary right to earn a living (¶29-31) - without affording Thomas fair proceedings and due process. 36) Therefore the plaintiff Aaron Thomas respectfully requests that a Writ of Mandamus issue forth from this Honorable Circuit Court of Cook County directed to Rabbi Fuerst’s Beit Din, instructing and compelling the defendant’s Beit Din to nullify retroactively the excommunication issued against the plaintiff. 37) The Beit Din of defendant Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst services the entire Chicago Orthodox Jewish community and is respected by Jews worldwide (see ¶5-7b). Rabbi Fuerst’s Beit Din is therefore a public-like organization. 38) The Beit Din of defendants, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, Rabbi Chaim Goldzweig, and Rabbi Yosef Wainkrantz, issued its aforementioned excommunication (¶26), effectively stripping plaintiff Aaron Thomas of, and vitiating, his elementary right to earn a living in his chosen profession. 39) The Beit Din of defendants, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, Rabbi Chaim Goldzweig, and Rabbi Yosef Wainkrantz, issued its aforementioned excommunication (¶38), without notifying plaintiff Aaron Thomas that a hearing was to take place for the purpose of ruling on said excommunication, and without giving plaintiff Aaron Thomas an opportunity to argue in his defense. 40) This aforesaid process (¶38-39), severely affected and vitiated the plaintiff Aaron Thomas’s elementary right to earn a living (¶29-31) - without affording Thomas fair proceedings and due process. 41) As a direct and proximate result of the Beit Din of defendants, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, Rabbi Chaim Goldzweig, and Rabbi Yosef Wainkrantz, the plaintiff Aaron Thomas was forced to abandon his chosen profession as is described in (¶29-31); thereby injuring plaintiff by denying him the profits of his trade. 42) The acts of the defendants, Rabbis Fuerst, Goldzweig, and Wainkranz were reckless and in total disregard for the rights of the plaintiff, the plaintiff, Aaron Thomas, who thereby suffered damages of a personal and pecuniary nature, as described in detail in (¶40-41). Wherefore, the plaintiff respectfully demands judgement against said defendants in excess of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00) in actual damages, and punitive damages in an amount, sufficient to punish and deter such defendants, as deemed fit and proper by this honorable Circuit Court of Cook County. 43) The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges ¶37-40 for ¶43. 44) Defendant Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst knew that the facts cited as grounds for Thomas’s excommunication, were false. Rabbis Goldzweig and Wainkranz had no first-hand knowledge of the facts. See ¶23-24. 45) The Defendant, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, averred to Rabbis Goldzweig and Wainkranz the veracity of the aforementioned (¶44) facts. The defendant, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, then proceeded to induce Rabbis Goldzweig and Wainkrantz to improperly attach their signatures to the letter in order to give it the appearance of a properly executed Rabbinic Court’s order. See ¶23-24. 46) In effecting Thomas’s excommunication, Rabbi Fuerst was attempting to force Aaron Thomas to withdraw Thomas’s lawsuit (¶8) against Rabbi Fuerst’s acquaintances. 46a) As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendant, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, the plaintiff Aaron Thomas was forced to abandon his chosen profession as is described in (¶29-31); thereby injuring plaintiff by denying him the profits of his trade. 47) The acts of the defendant, Rabbis Shmuel Fuerst, were done recklessly and with malice forethought and in total disregard for the rights of the plaintiff, Aaron Thomas, who thereby suffered damages of a personal and pecuniary nature, as described in detail in (¶46a). Wherefore, the plaintiff respectfully demands judgement against said defendant in excess of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00) in actual damages, and punitive damages in an amount, sufficient to punish and deter such defendants, as deemed fit and proper by this honorable Circuit Court of Cook County. 48) The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges ¶37-47 for ¶48. 49) The motivation to excommunicate Aaron Thomas, was not Rabbi Fuerst’s. The defendant Danny Shabat provided the motivation by urging and insisting to Rabbi Fuerst to act in this manner. See ¶10. 50) Danny Shabat communicated to Rabbi Fuerst that he was unable to achieve a settlement with Thomas, and Shabat gave the green light for Rabbi Fuerst to issue the excommunication. See ¶18-19. 51) Danny Shabat contributed money to Rabbi Fuerst’s funds in return for Rabbi Fuerst’s actions in the excommunication. 52) The acts of the defendant, Danny Shabat, were done recklessly and with malice forethought and in total disregard for the rights of the plaintiff, Aaron Thomas, who thereby suffered damages of a personal and pecuniary nature, as described in detail in (¶40-41). Wherefore, the plaintiff respectfully demands judgement against said defendant in excess of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00) in actual damages, and punitive damages in an amount, sufficient to punish and deter such defendants, as deemed fit and proper by this honorable Circuit Court of Cook County. 53) Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges ¶1-31 for ¶53. 54) Defendant Rabbi Fuerst’s aforementioned actions (¶11-25) in excommunicating the plaintiff Aaron Thomas were purposely designed to cause Aaron Thomas extreme emotional distress in order to force Thomas to withdraw his civil complaint (¶8) against the Shabats for the sexual exploitation of Thomas’s minor child. 55) Rabbi Fuerst’s excommunication indeed proximately caused Aaron Thomas severe emotional distress. 56) Defendant Rabbi Feurst’s acts (¶54) involved in the aforementioned excommunication of Thomas - with the goal of obstructing the prosecution of criminal sexual abuse (¶8) - were outrageous. Rabbi Fuerst used his Rabbinic authority to damage the victims in order to protect dangerous pedofiles. This is outrageous. 57) The outrageous acts of the defendant, Rabbis Shmuel Fuerst, were done recklessly and with malice forethought and in total disregard for the rights of the plaintiff, Aaron Thomas, who thereby suffered damages of a personal and pecuniary nature, as described in detail in (¶40-41). Wherefore, the plaintiff respectfully demands judgement against said defendants in excess of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00) in actual damages, and punitive damages in an amount, sufficient to punish and deter such defendants, as deemed fit and proper by this honorable Circuit Court of Cook County. 58) Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges ¶53-57 for ¶58. 59) The motivation to outrageously excommunicate Aaron Thomas, was not Rabbi Fuerst’s. The defendant Danny Shabat provided the motivation by urging and insisting to Rabbi Fuerst to act in this manner. 60) Defendant Danny Shabat communicated to Rabbi Fuerst that he was unable to achieve a settlement with Thomas, and then Shabat gave the green light for Rabbi Fuerst to issue the excommunication. See ¶18-19. 61) Danny Shabat contributed money to Rabbi Fuerst’s funds in return for Rabbi Fuerst’s actions in the outrageous excommunication. 62) The acts of the defendant, Danny Shabat, were done recklessly and with malice forethought and in total disregard for the rights of the plaintiff, Aaron Thomas, who thereby suffered damages of a personal and pecuniary nature, as described in detail in (¶40-41). Wherefore, the plaintiff respectfully demands judgement against said defendant in excess of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00) in actual damages, and punitive damages in an amount, sufficient to punish and deter such defendants, as deemed fit and proper by this honorable Circuit Court of Cook County. 63) Prior to the defendant Rabbi Fuerst’s Writ of Defiance (¶26), the plaintiff Aaron Thomas enjoyed a good and untarnished reputation. He and his family represent two well-known, publicly respected Jewish families. The Al Thomas (Aaron’s father) family is a highly respected, prominent “lay” family, and the Rabbi Meir Belsky (Aaron’s father-in-law) family is a highly respected, prominent rabbinic family. The Aaron Thomas family is a well-known representative of both. 64) The defendant, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst published his Writ of Defiance (¶26), falsely proclaiming the plaintiff, Aaron Thomas, to be a defiant scofflaw and infidel against the Jewish religion for thrice refusing to appear before a Rabbinic Court as summonsed. In the letter, the defendant called upon all good Jews to banish Aaron Thomas from their homes. 65) Among other falsities, the letter was FALSE in reporting that the plaintiff thrice “defiantly refused to appear before the Rabbinic Court” and “is a defiant scofflaw” and it therefore is “befitting that all good Jews distant this man from their homes” - for the plaintiff, Aaron Thomas, never even once refused to appear before any Rabbinical Court. 66) The defendant, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, first PUBLISHED the Writ of Defiance (¶26), by presenting it, and averring to its veracity, to Rabbi Chaim Goldzweig, of 6308 N. Francisco, Chicago, 60659, and to Rabbi Yosef Wainkrantz, of 6644 N. Richmond, Chicago, 60645. 67) The defendant, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, proceeded to induce Rabbis Goldzweig and Wainkrantz to improperly attach their signatures to the letter in order to give it the appearance of a properly executed Rabbinic Court’s order. 68) Additionally - to insure the letter’s maximum effect - the defendant fraudulently gave it the appearance of an official Rabbinic Court’s “Writ of Defiance” which is issued by a Court of three Rabbinic Judges, after they have thrice summonsed unsuccessfully a defendant to appear. 69) On December 4, 2000, the defendant, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, initiated further circulation and publication of the letter by causing the hand delivery and direct mailing of the bogus “Writ of Defiance”, to influential Rabbinic leaders and family members in the U.S.A. and Israel. 70) By publishing his bogus “Writ of Defiance”, the defendant, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, intended to cause significant pain, anguish, and economic harm to the plaintiff, Aaron Thomas, for the purpose of forcing said plaintiff to withdraw said plaintiff’s lawsuit, Thomas vs. Shabat, against Rabbi Fuerst’s friends and contributors, Mr. and Mrs. Danny Shabat, which was pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, in prosecution of the Shabats’ criminal sexual abuse of plaintiff’s minor child. 71) And indeed, due to defendant’s excellent international reputation, his bogus “Writ of Defiance” was widely honored by influential Rabbinic leaders and community members in the U.S.A. and Israel. 72) And indeed, the excommunication that has been widely honored, has caused the plaintiff significant pain, anguish, and economic harm. 73) Rabbi Fuerst’s false publication in the form of a widely honored libelous excommunication, caused enormous social pressures on the plaintiff Aaron Thomas. In addition it greatly reduced the likelihood of Thomas’s receiving construction contracts from his Orthodox Jewish community.As a direct and proximate result of said pressures and said economic realities, plaintiff Aaron Thomas was forced to abandon his chosen profession as is described in (¶30-31); thereby injuring plaintiff by denying him the profits of his trade. 74) The aforementioned libelous acts of the defendant, Rabbis Shmuel Fuerst, were done recklessly and with malice forethought and in total disregard for the rights of the plaintiff, Aaron Thomas, who thereby suffered damages of a personal and pecuniary nature, as described in detail in ¶72-73. Wherefore, the plaintiff respectfully demands judgement against said defendants in excess of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00) in actual damages, and punitive damages in an amount, sufficient to punish and deter such defendants, as deemed fit and proper by this honorable Circuit Court of Cook County. 75) Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges ¶63-74 for ¶75. 76) The motivation to libel Aaron Thomas, was not Rabbi Fuerst’s. The defendant Danny Shabat provided the motivation by urging and insisting to Rabbi Fuerst to act in this manner. See ¶10. 77) Danny Shabat communicated to Rabbi Fuerst that he was unable to achieve a settlement with Thomas, and Shabat gave the green light for Rabbi Fuerst to issue the excommunication. See ¶18-19. 78) Danny Shabat contributed money to Rabbi Fuerst’s funds in return for Rabbi Fuerst’s actions in the libelous excommunication. 79) The acts of the defendant, Danny Shabat, were done recklessly and with malice forethought and in total disregard for the rights of the plaintiff, Aaron Thomas, who thereby suffered damages of a personal and pecuniary nature, as described in detail in (¶40-41). Wherefore, the plaintiff respectfully demands judgement against said defendants in excess of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00) in actual damages, and punitive damages in an amount, sufficient to punish and deter such defendants, as deemed fit and proper by this honorable Circuit Court of Cook County. c/o Thomas and Associates 77 Adams Ave.Memphis, Tennessee 38103-1709 Certificate of Service Pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned pro se plaintiff certifies that on September 4, 2002, he served, by first class mail, a copy of the foregoing: PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AT LAW upon: Raquelle daFonseca DUANE, MORRIS LLC Suite 3400 227 W. Monroe Chicago, Illinois 60606 Aaron Thomas Aaron Thomas, Plaintiff, pro se |
TOP OF THIS PAGE