| |
C.R.C. Permission for Civil Suit
From the beginning, I arduously
sought a Beit Din adjudication through the auspices of the Chicago
Rabbinical Council Beit Din, which has acted very professionally
throughout. My efforts in Circuit Court never exceeded even the
initial limited permission granted by the C.R.C. Beit Din to proceed
with civil court litigation. Not to mention the comprehensive final
permission. (Rabbi Fuerst knew this and chose not to convene a hearing
for me to prove it.) Please read on. September 1998
I was very naive when I came to Chicago in September/Elul 1998
to confront the Shabats. I really thought that in the spirit of that
special time of year, we would all join hands in mutual commitment to
cleansing the world of the far-reaching situation - thereby setting an
example to all embittered parties. But the Shabats were totally
unremorseful. It wasn't that they denied the sexual abuse. They couldn't.
In our previously tape-recorded Jerusalem-Chicago phone conversation,
they had already stumbled into confessing the sexual exploitation. But
they denied that it happened over fifty times. So I went to the
Chicago Rabbinical Council Beit Din to apply for a Din Torah. My
complaint against the Shabats was based on a solemn agreement into which
we had entered, by which I had entrusted and empowered them to officially
act as overseas Chicago parents to my child for the summer of 1996. I
claimed that the sexual exploitation was a direct breach of the
contracted fiduciary relationship. Additionally, since I also had
evidence that the exploitation was planned in advance, this converted
our negotiated agreement into an outrageous Fraud. The young victim
(who was no longer observant, due to the sexual exploitation) would not
agree to sue in Beit Din, but chose rather to sue in civil court for
damages. The C.R.C. Beit Din menahel, Rabbi Menachem Rosenfeld
(now located in Fair Lawn, New Jersey, Congregation Ahavat Achim), issued
a summons to the Shabats, and simultaneously allowed me to file suit in
civil court to preserve that remedy from being extinguished in eleven
days by the Statute of Limitations. He explained that the Torah encourages
the adjudication of claims, and only prohibits a civil court adjudication
when there is a Beit Din option. He said there is no guarantee that the
Shabats will agree to come to Beit Din. Rabbi Rosenfeld also
warned me that simply filing the civil claim wouldn't absolve my
responsibilities. He said that I would have to be prepared to defend the
claim against various Motions to Dismiss that might be raised by the
defendants. Also, if I didn't adhere to Court ordered litigation schedules,
the Court itself would dismiss the claim for Lack of Prosecution.
Rabbi Rosenfeld explicitly restricted the C.R.C.'s civil
prosecution permission to "preservation of the claim." He said that
ultimately, we must hope for a Beit Din adjudication. Therefore, he said,
I must come back to him for further permission before entering the
discovery stage (taking of depositions, etc.) of the lawsuit.
I asked Rabbi Rosenfeld for the traditional written
permission to sue in civil court, but he adamantly refused to
put anything in writing. He said not to worry, it was not
necessary - "I will not deny it." I did not press him further.
Actually, I was grateful that he had assisted me as much as he
had. After all, the Shabats were very prominent citizens, and
this put the C.R.C. in a difficult position.
(Fortuitously however, two years later, in August 2000, answering Rabbi
Fuerst's inquiry, Rabbi Rosenfeld did corroborate in writing this
initial 1998 permission. Maybe due to the wording in Rabbi Fuerst's
inquiry, Rabbi Rosenfeld did not refer to his more comprehensive
permission of July 1999 and January 2000 that he granted pursuant to
the Shabats' final refusals to adequately respond to the Beit Din. But
Rabbi Fuerst knew this anyway, because I had already provided Rabbi Fuerst
with documentation evidencing those 1999-2000 developments. More
importantly, the litigation in civil court never proceeded beyond the
scope of the initial 1998 permission, because my lawsuit did not
survive Motion to Dismiss #4 in December 2000.)
Rabbi Rosenfeld summoned the Shabats, and my attorney filed the lawsuit
right under the wire on Sept. 13, 1998. The Shabats communicated their
amenability to a Beit Din process. Since a plaintiff (the one suing) has
the right to file a single, one-year-time-out from litigation, I exercised
my time-out option to display good faith towards pursuing a Beit Din
adjudication. That whole year, I experienced great frustration in
attempting to get the Shabats to honor their commitment to Beit Din
(documented). The Shabats said that they would not go to Beit Din
in Chicago. They would only go to a certain Beit Din in Monsey, N.Y., and
only if the victim also agrees to transfer its claim out of civil court
into Beit Din. December 1998 - The C.R.C. decided that it
was their policy not to force the Shabats to come to Beit Din because
this could be perceived as meddling into the criminal proceedings that
were then pending against the Shabats. July 1999 - After
various meetings with Rabbi Rosenfeld, I demanded in writing a definitive
answer on the availability of a Din Torah. In writing, I
reported to him that the originally aggressive criminal authorities
had mysteriously lost interest and were closing the case. Now I needed to
know once and for all if the C.R.C. was going to bring the Shabats to Din
Torah. I explained that in November my civil court "time-out" would lapse,
and I had to be prepared to diligently prosecute my lawsuit. I told Rabbi
Rosenfeld that I needed a definite "yes or no" answer by August 1, 1999,
so that I could travel to Chicago to find an appropriate attorney who would
be willing to take such a unusual case on a contingency fee basis.
Rabbi Rosenfeld answered (orally) unequivocally that the C.R.C.
Beit would do nothing more to force the Shabats to come to Beit Din. The
C.R.C. Beit Din decided that even though the Shabats' attempt to move the
proceedings to Monsey was untenable, still, the Shabats' objection to
simultaneously defending themselves in Beit Din against Aaron Thomas'
claim, and in civil court against the victim's claim, prevented the
C.R.C. from forcing the Shabats to come to Beit Din.
November 1999-February 2000 Because of the uncharted
legal basis of my "fatherly" claim against the Shabats, Chicago attorneys
would not represent me without a retainer - which I did not have. But I
did have resolve, so I decided to proceed with my claims against the
Shabats pro se (self-represented). Shortly thereafter,
the young victim felt traumatized by the litigation process and dropped
the lawsuit - hoping that at least I would succeed in bringing the
perpetrators to justice. Although not required to do so, I contacted
Rabbi Rosenfeld at the C.R.C. to tell him of this development and to
insist that he reinstate the summons to bring the Shabats to Beit Din.
Rabbi Rosenfeld aggressively summoned the Shabats one last time. The
Shabats answered unequivocally in writing that they will only submit to
a Din Torah in Monsey. Rabbi Rosenfeld acknowledged that this was
untenable. Two months later, Rabbi Fuerst summonsed me to his
Beit Din to answer Danny Shabat's complaint against my civil litigation.
I explained to Rabbi Fuerst the nature of my C.R.C. Beit Din permission
and faxed him all the documentation. August 2000 & February 2001
- C.R.C. Letters to Rabbi Fuerst and Danny Shabat
In August 2000, Rabbi Rosenfeld responded in writing to Rabbi Fuerst's
oral inquiry and acknowledged the C.R.C. Beit Din's 1998 limited
permission for Aaron Thomas to file suit in civil court.
In February 2001, Danny Shabat realized that the Situation was about to
be publicized. He pre-emptively sought vindication for the nefarious
Excommunication from Rabbi Schwartz of the C.R.C.! He "innocently"
inquired (in a Feb. 11, 2001, letter to Rabbi Schwartz) regarding Rabbi
Schwartz' position on a reported Excommunication Order by Rabbi Fuerst
condemning Aaron Thomas' refusal to appear before Rabbi Fuerst's
Beit Din. (Now realize, that even with C.R.C. Beit Din permission to
be in civil court, I was still obligated to respond to a Rabbi Fuerst
summons, which I did of course.) Apparently, Danny Shabat concealed
from Rabbi Schwartz that the Excommunication Order was actually based on
Aaron Thomas' "blasphemously suing the Shabats in civil court."
Understandably, the unsuspecting Rabbi Schwartz issued a letter stating
that the C.R.C. honors the actions of Rabbi Fuerst's Beit Din.
Access to Danny Shabat's Feb. 11, 2001 letter to Rabbi Schwartz is being
requested from the C.R.C.
 TOP OF THIS PAGE | |