Convicted Rabbi In "Coerced Get" Case Sentenced To 10 Years

In April, three defendants were convicted in federal district court in New Jersey on charges growing out of arrangements to abduct, beat and torture recalcitrant Jewish husbands who refused to give their civilly divorced wives a religious divorce document (get). (See prior posting.)  Yesterday the most prominent of those defendants, 70-year old Rabbi Mendel Epstein, was sentenced to ten years in prison for conspiracy to commit kidnapping.  A second defendant, Rabbi Binyamin Stimler, was sentenced to 39 months. As reported by AP, Rabbi Epstein told the sentencing judge: "Over the years, I guess, I got caught up in my tough-guy image. Truthfully, it helped me — the reputation — convince many of these reprobates to do the right thing."

Convoluted Rabbinical Court Politics In Israel

Jerusalem Post reported yesterday on the complex and convoluted politics surrounding decisions on the appointment of Rabbinical Court judges under Israel's newly formed coalition government. At the center of the controversy is the question of how Rabbinical Courts, that are responsible for various personal status matters, will treat women seeking divorces.  That will be affected by who sits on the Appointments Committee for Rabbinical Judges, and the judges they select.

Bayit Yehudi, a religious Zionist party that is one of the coalition partners, does not want to see a change in the current composition. In the last government it succeeded in getting 4 of the 11 seats on the Appointments Committee for women. However, United Torah Judaism, another coalition partner, wants to expand the Appointments Committee in order to water down the influence of the women members, and will introduce legislation to do so.  Bayit Yehudi, in its coalition agreement with Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party has obtained the right to oppose UTJ's bill-- which likely will assure it will not pass the Knesset. Currently nearly 30% of the positions on Rabbinical Courts are vacant.  A further complication is that the Chairman of the Appointments Committee can block judicial appointments by refusing to convene the Committee.  Divorce rights advocates are criticizing Bayit Yehudi for giving up the Chairmanship to Likud, which will more likely side with the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) parties on appointments.

Jury Convicts 3 In "Coerced Get" Kidnappings

In Trenton, New Jersey yesterday a federal district court jury convicted 3 of the 4 defendants on trial on kidnapping related charges growing out of alleged arrangements to abduct, beat and torture recalcitrant Jewish husbands who refused to give their civilly divorced wives a religious divorce document (get). (See prior posting.) NJ Advance Media reported that the most prominent of the defendants, 69-year old Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Mendel Epstein, was found guilty only of conspiracy to commit kidnapping.  Prosecutors charged that he arranged the kidnappings and torture in exchange for as much as $60,000.  The jury found Rabbi Jay Goldstein, who allegedly acted as the scribe for the gets guilty of conspiracy to commit kidnapping and attempted kidnapping.  Rabbi Binyamin Stimler who allegedly acted as a witness for the get was also convicted of conspiracy and attempt. David "Ari" Epstein, son of Mendel, was acquitted on all charges.  All of the defendants were acquitted on the kidnapping counts against them.  Stimler's attorney says an appeal is planned.

Court Rejects RFRA and Religious Belief Defenses In Forced "Get" Case

In United States v. Epstein, (D NJ, March 19, 2015), a New Jersey federal district court, in a 53-page opinion, explained various rulings the court had made on religious-based defenses raised by defendants who were being tried on charges of kidnapping and conspiracy for using coercive tactics to Force Orthodox Jewish husbands to give their wives divorce documents ("get").  The court rejected defendants' contention that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act required dismissal of the indictment against them.  The court held:

I conclude that the Government’s decision to prosecute Defendants does not constitute a substantial burden on Defendants’ religious exercise. Further, even if a substantial burden does exist, I find that the Government has a compelling interest in preventing crimes of violence, and moreover, the arrest and prosecution of individuals who violate such criminal laws is the least restrictive means of enforcing that interest.

Defendants had argued that freeing an agunah (woman who was refused a get) is a mitzvah in Jewish law. The court responded:

[I]f Defendants had acceptable religious alternatives -- instead of resorting to violating the criminal laws -- I find that the Government’s application of the kidnapping laws to Defendants here does not substantially Defendants’ religious exercise.  Nevertheless, even if Defendants had exhausted all other available non-violent means of coercing a husband to give his wife a get, and the only remaining method of coercion, as argued by Defendants, is through violence or force, i.e., kidnapping, I remain convinced that would not amount to a substantial burden. This Court has not found any authority condoning the use of violence under the guise of religion, and more importantly, no case has found the Government’s application of violent crime laws to certain religious practices is a substantial burden.

The court also ruled that defendants' religious beliefs do not negate the element of specific intent required for a conviction.  The court said in part:

According to Defendants, by signing the ketubah, an Orthodox Jewish husband promises to be bound by the laws of Moses and Israel, both to the authority of the beth din and to the halakhic, or the Jewish religious law, process of the “forced” get as the term is described by Maimonides.  Therefore, taken together, Defendants insist that because of their religious beliefs and because of their beliefs that the victims have consented to the coercive acts, i.e., kidnapping, Defendants lack the intent to commit the crimes as charged. The Court rejects this theory of defense.

In Kidnapping Trial, Rabbi Argues Torture To Extract Divorce Document From Husband Complies With Jewish Law

Yesterday in federal district court in Trenton, New Jersey the trial of respected Orthodox Rabbi Mendel Epstein, along with his son and two other rabbis, on conspiracy and kidnapping charges began.  As reported by NJ Advance Media, the defendants are charged with arranging the kidnapping and beating of recalcitrant Orthodox Jewish husbands to force them to give their wives a get-- a Jewish divorce document. Wives or their families paid tens of thousands of dollars for the document. Defense attorneys argued that the rabbis were merely following Jewish law. In his opening statement, Epstein's attorney argued that the Jewish community views a husband who refuses to grant his wife a get as being consumed by evil. He continued, that under Jewish law "force and torture can be used until evil leaves the husband's body and he does what he's supposed to do." (See prior related posting.)

Judge Pressures Husband To Give Jewish Divorce Document

A New York trial court judge has again raised the issue of how far a civil court may go in pressuring parties in a divorce action to perform a religious act.  Yesterday's New York Post reports that Brooklyn judge  Esther Morgenstern, in divorce proceedings of a Jewish couple, has told the husband that unless he gives his wife a get (Jewish religious divorce document), she will order him to pay alimony for life.  The wife's attorney says this is justified because without a get it will be almost impossible for the wife to remarry and receive financial support.  Adding complexity to the case is the fact that Judge Morgenstern herself some 25 years ago was involved in a divorce where her husband resisted giving her a get.

More Indictments In Kidnappings To Obtain Jewish Divorces From Recalcitrant Husbands

Yesterday the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey announced a new series of grand jury indictments in the investigation that began in 2011 of kidnappings and assaults to force recalcitrant Orthodox Jewish husbands to give their wives a religious divorce document (get). (See prior posting.) Yesterday's indictments charged four Orthodox Jewish rabbis and one of their sons with kidnapping and conspiracy. They face maximum sentences of life in prison. According to AP, the attorney for Rabbi Jay Goldstein, one of those charged, said  that the case was "overcharged" and that prosecutors failed to take into account the individual circumstances of the women who were aided in obtaining divorces. Attorneys for other defendants called the charges false.

UPDATE: Jewish Voice reports that on May 24, FBI agents made two more arrests on kidnapping charges growing out of a 2009 abduction of a man in order to force him to give his wife a get.  The two were charged in a criminal complaint, taken before a  magistrate and released on $500,000 bail plus home detention and electronic monitoring.  The two who were charged are David Epstein (who was also name in the indictment described in the main posting) and Chaim Rubin.

High-Ranking French Rabbi's Religious Court Accused of Extorting Funds To Get Divorce Document For Wife

The Forward yesterday reported on allegations made two months ago in France against the Chief Rabbi of Paris (who is now also serving as the interim Chief Rabbi of France) by a woman who claims that the rabbi-- Michel Gugenheim-- was involved in extorting 90,000 Euros (approximately $123,000 US) from her in exchange for her obtaining a get (Jewish divorce document). According to a deposition filed in March with Paris police by the woman's family, the 28-year old woman's husband demanded 30,000 Euros from her before he would give her a get.  Apparently Gugenheim and two other rabbis serving on his rabbinical court backed the husband's demand, and asked the woman's family to pay it by writing a check for 90,000 Euros as a charitable contribution to the Sinai religious institution.  French tax authorities would reimburse the family for 60,000 Euros of that since it was a charitable contribution. The charity would then transfer 30,000 Euros to the husband and keep the rest. Asked to comment, Gugenheim denied any wrongdoing.

First Guilty Plea In Coerced Jewish Divorce Extortion Operation

The New Jersey U.S. Attorney's Office announced that David Hellman, a 31-year old personal trainer, pleaded guilty yesterday in federal court to traveling in interstate commerce to commit extortion in an attempt to coerce a Jewish man in New York to give his wife a "get"-- a Jewish divorce document. Hellman was part of a group of men-- including two rabbis-- who allegedly charged women tens of thousands of dollars to use violence against their recalcitrant husbands who refused to grant a Jewish divorce after a civil divorce had been obtained. They were arrested in an FBI sting operation. (See prior posting.) Hellman was the first of the group charged to plead guilty.  His bail conditions include a $500,000 bond and GPS monitoring. He faces a possible sentence of as much as 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The Newark Star-Ledger reports on the case.

UPDATE: The March 11 Asbury Park Press reports that two additional defendants involved have pleaded guilty to charges of traveling in interstate commerce to commit extortion.

Israel Obtains Extradition of Recalcitrant Husband From U.S. Using Other Charges As Pretext

YNet News reports that last Friday the United States extradited to Israel a man sought primarily by an Israeli Rabbinical Court for refusing to grant his wife a get (Jewish divorce document).  The U.S.-Israel Extradition Treaty only permits extradition where the offense is a crime under the laws of both countries.  So formally the extradition was on the basis of charges of sex offenses and pedophillia. During the divorce proceedings, the wife's sister testified that the husband had sexually abused his minor son and had abused her when she was a minor.  Usually Israel's Justice Ministry does not request extradition until it has investigated allegations, but here it agreed to act sooner because of the husband's denial of a get.  Rabbi Eliyahu Maimon, head of the Rabbinical Courts' Agunot Department, says that Israel's Justice Ministry Department for International Agreements will use this case as precedent in the future to seek extradition using suspicion of other crimes to obtain return of men who have fled abroad after refusing to grant their spouse a get. [Thanks to Jack Levey for the lead.]

Court Invalidates Couple's Agreement Negotiated Before Bet Din For Lack of Formalities

In Katz v. Katz, (S.Ct. Kings Co. NY, Nov. 7, 2013), a New York trial court held that an agreement negotiated before a Jewish rabbinical court (Bet Din) by a husband and wife is unenforceable because it was not formally acknowledged in the manner required by NY Domestic Relations Law Sec. 236B(3).  As described by the court, the wife argued that she:

was a "victim of extortion" in the sum of $70,000.00 in order to obtain a get, a Jewish divorce, from the husband....  [She] alleges that she only conceded to joint custody and to the parenting access schedule detailed in the May 17, 2010 writing because she "was intimidated to give in to the Defendant's unreasonable demands of custody, visitation and holidays" and that she believed that the husband would not grant her a get [a religious divorce] unless she did so.... She alleges that she placed $50,000.00 in escrow to "guarantee performance" that the husband would grant her a get and that she has "not received [the escrow] money and believes that it has been given to the Defendant, and that he is using [her escrow] money to support this litigation."

The husband denies that the wife was a victim in process of obtaining the get and alleges ... that if the wife "did not agree with the tenets of the Jewish Law and Torah or felt that the process was unfair to her, she did not have to go through the Get process" and that it is "disingenuous of her to receive the benefit of the Get and then attack the Jewish Law and Torah under which it was issued." He "categorically" denies the he received any money from the wife in exchange for him granting her a get. The husband alleges that it is he, not the wife, who is being victimized in this litigation: he alleges that "[i]t is only because [he] did not think [the son] should be traveling to Israel, that [the wife] is now retaliating against [him] by trying to take away what [he] value [sic] most in life — custody of [his] son."