Thursday, July 17, 2014

Rifky Stein & Yoel Stein: A neutral divorce lawyer's evaluation and suggestions

 Update: RaP's comments

This is a comment that was made to another post but which I feel is a strong contribution to the discussion and should be read by everyone.

It goes beyond the question of who is telling the truth and gets into the practical reality and issues. In particular the issue of the interaction between the secular law and halacha. How does the secular judge view the manuevering on both sides regarding the get?

Do we follow the established halacha if it increases the likelihood of one party going against halacha and perhaps remarry without a get. This in fact is a halacha issue which the poskim indicate is a real issue but its significance and  relevance change with time and place.

Dr. Eidensohn, I'm honored that you yourself chose to respond to me.

So, no, I have not read every single posting on this issue on all the various websites these people have chosen to spread their dirty laundry.

But it doesn't really matter, or change my opinion. Here's why:
I've been involved in dozens of matters (one earlier today!) where there is a claim of criminal activity on the part of one ofththe parents (you think these two are the first to make alleged criminal activity an issue?) Prostitution, Drug sales. Money laundering. Fencing stolen goods. Weapons charges (today's matter!). OK, so this one has racketeering allegations.

One of two things is the truth: either the RICO allegations are true, or they're not. Either he's been arrested and charged criminally, or he hasn't. If we assume (arguendo) he has been charged and arraigned criminally, that he's entered a "not guilty" plea. Has the Grand Jury returned their report? Did they find enough evidence to proceed to trial? That would not be good news for him. Has their been a criminal trial? Or is that still pending? I have to assume from what I have seen here, he hasn't been found guilty of anything. Or maybe the Grand Jury has not found enough evidence and the matter is to be dismissed (like the various Order of Protections that I read about).

If the matter is still pending criminally, then I would have to advise him to hold off on a custody trial as any testimony elicited at a custody trial could be used against him in a criminal trial. I wouldn't take that chance. However reluctantly, I would advise him not to cut off all contact with his children and suffer through supervised visitation. Although if the RICO allegations do not contain allegations of any actual physical violence (and it's strictly a financial allegation), I'd point that out to the Court that he's not dangerous and ask for unsupervised visitation. In such a situation I admit that I might have him hold off on consenting to a Get since the civil divorce will take a year or two as the criminal matter winds it's way through the system and so time is not of the essence. It's not as if she'll be civilly divorced quickly or remarrying anytime soon. BUT the logic to hold off on the GET is not to obtain leverage in a custody matter, it merely is that there's no rush since the civil matter is taking so long due to the pending criminal case. OK, let her wait.

BUT let's assume there are no criminal charges, or he's found "not gulity" what then? Well then we have a custody trial. Let them each take the stand and hurl accusations at each other. Let their attorneys enter whatever evidence they have. Is HE violent? Keep her prisoner? Beat her? The kids? Hasn't he been found not guilty of everything she's claimed about him? All Orders of Protection dismissed? RICO dismissed? Has SHE filed false Order of Protections? Filed false RICO claims? Or is she a good mother? The primary caregiver? etc... This is the stuff of custody and visitation trials. In this scenario, there is NO justification to withhold a Get. The Supreme Court judge will judge each person's credibility, examine the evidence offered, and make the decision. Custody to . . .; Visitation to . . .; Supervised/unsupervised. Overnights? etc. Again, no justification to withhold a Get if the civil divorce is proceeding according to plan, REGARDLESS OF THE ALLEGATIONS.

Remember, I consider paramount not alienating the mother from Judaism. (And I'm not even orthodox!) Make her miserable enough and you increase the odds that she'll remarry out of the community, if not out of the faith. Think of the children.

I have done Orthodox cases in the past. Settlements that are fairly negotiated with a ratcheting down of the hostilities can address a number of concerns. Who takes the child to school? Religious instruction? Who gets what holidays in odd years? Even years? Assurances of a kosher home. Every fear that I've seen expressed on this page (mostly fear of being marginalized in the child's life) can be negotiated and dealt with. As long as there is no "I'm going to win at all costs mentality."

I remember a divorce I did years ago where during the settlement negotiations these two people argued for 30 minutes as to who should get the toaster oven! Afterwards I told my client that given what she just paid me to watch this nonsense she could have bought 4 new toaster ovens! My own client's "win at all costs", cost her money! And for what I ask you?

I've been divorced for 15 years now. There was no arguing over a GET. Yes, arguing over other issues (I'm not perfect), but not that. And you know what? We never argue still over who gets what holiday (Are you taking the kids to services this week or should I? Are you doing the first night of Hannukah, because my mother is coming over??). After Court today I just spent the evening with my three daughters. Two of whom spent last summer in Israel. They are beautiful, intelligent young women. They bring me nachas daily. If any of them go to Israel next year, I'll have them look you up.
Guest post by RaP in response to latest posting by attorney Brent Albala, Esq.

Harbe shluchim yesh lo LaMakom (God has many emissaries)...well, the Stein-Weiss case may lack a "Ronnie Greenwald" but along comes a Brent Albala, a Jewish lawyer trained at Touro Law Center and in practice for over 23 years, with a big heart, who is not even frum but understands the complexity of divorces from a legal point of view in the State of New York and inserts a well-needed dollop of sanity in the feud. But he is of course only dealing with a part of the picture, albeit a central part.

He sees things in a pragmatic lawyerly way, but that is not always the way it works in the Haredi Halachic culture.

Not everything in Torah life is about figuring out a way to "please" judges or gain favor by making conciliatory moves. This calls for a level of flexibility and disconnect from a Torah lifestyle that while he admits he has a good awareness of, it still comes across as coming from someone outside the Halachic system, or at least that part of the Halachic system that Yoel Weiss is willy-nilly part of and has recourse to.

He also lacks an appreciation for how "absolutist" the two sides are at this stage -- with Rivki Stein taking on the role of a larger than life poster child for the cause of "all agunas" and Yoel Weiss becoming a local folk hero to the macho men of Boro Park, Williamsburg and beyond.

Yes the wife has already started the process or knocking out someone from the community by obtain a "ruling" from an unknown shadowy unproven so-called never heard of "bais din" that her husband is a "mesarev ledin" with the allegations that he is in "nidui" a form of excommunication from the community. So it is little surprise that what the wife faces, if it turns out she is a liar and manipulator, that she will be tossed out of the community and seen as persona non grata, and no one will have pity on her. In that regard there isn't enough appreciation of how serious this stuff really is by defying the will of a very frum community and its rabbonim. So far Rivki Stein seems to have produced photo-shopped papers, while Yoel Weiss can rely on that no rabbis in his community have told him to give a get.

In that kind of society people listen to their rabbis and not to their lawyers! No one cares what secular judges may potentially think, but everyone worries what their OWN rabbis will say. In previous cases, like in the Dodelson case the issue was aggravated because their were top rabbis on both sides that made it that much worse. In this case of Rivki Stein and Yoel Weiss it builds on that previous case by the use of the same publicists (Shira Dicker) and radical recourse by the women to unashamedly using the yellow journalism of the New York dailies to spill dirt on husbands, Orthodoxy by implication, and create what is know as a Chillul HaShem and it cannot be blamed on the husbands because everyone must accept responsibility for their actions and by hiring skilled publicists and running to the secular press is no less controversial than running to paid buffoons who beat up husbands to extort a get or anything else.

He does not address the fact the use of publicists, nor does he understand that from a Torah Halachic point of view, it is not mandatory to give a "get on demand" something you need to clarify. But he certainly has added a refreshing perspective!


  1. Brent, thanks for sharing your insights and experiences. If I understand
    correctly , one should withhold get only in the situation where criminal
    charges are being brought against one. What about withholding a get to
    negotiate better custody and visiting arrangements. ? Are you saying – accept the secular court's decision and try to build a better relationship with your ex , so she will want her kids to have a father active in their lives ?

    I have mentioned this before. I have a friend who is Dayan here in
    Israel and he says that divorce is not about Halacha , but helping people
    access common sense and seichel to get on with the lives for themselves and
    their children's sakes .

  2. Dr. Eidensohn:
    I'm doubly honored that you felt my post was important enough to start another page. This despite the fact that not one of your regular readers has given me a "thumbs up" on any of my postings on this issue! (That was my attempt at being lighthearted. Sometimes humor is difficult to ascertain in a written comments section!) Again, I am honored.

  3. Mr Katz,
    Let's get into the correct mindset here. Don't use the word "withhold." There are all sorts of negative connotations to that word. It's like saying "MY child" in front of a judge when it's BOTH of your children. It gets judges very angry and clues them in to who may be a little too possessive.

    What I said was that if there are reasons that a civil divorce will take a long time due to outside matters, usually criminal charges that are being fought, then there may be no rush to consent to a Get. But once those other matters are dealt with, and the civil divorce is proceeding apace, then there is NO justification for not going ahead and consenting to a Get.

    What I said on other posting/pages of this site is that it is a very BAD idea to use a Get to "negotiate better custody and visitation arrangements." If that issue is brought to a judge's attention (especially if the judge is Jewish! And a woman!) who do you think the judge will think is a control freak? "I'm not going to let her get remarried unless I get what I want!" Bad idea. Negotiate custody/visitation issues on their own merits.

  4. This is a continuation as my computer had a glitch and cut me off

    I always advise my clients to be the "good one" in a legal proceeding. After all, you want to show the judge how reasonable you are, and that it's the other parent that's unbending! "See your Honor, I gave her the Get and what does she do? She doesn't let me take the kids to shul!" Make her into the "bad guy."

    As far as "accepting" the Courts decision, you really have no choice, it's the law. Don't like the decision? That's what appeals are for. But a Court Order is to be followed also regardless of what the other side wants as well, so it's not what "she will want. . . " that's why I always try to negotiate all the issues rather than letting a stranger issue an Order.

    Look, I understand that when a couple breaks up emotions run high. Nerves are frayed. I tell my clients that the next few months are indeed going to be rough as we fight and negotiate. But over time normal people calm down and get on with their lives. How long can you stay angry? Getting along with an ex has other benefits. Let's say that as a father you have "every other weekend from Friday at 4 pm through Sunday at 7 pm" But next weekend is her weekend and you want to take the kids to Cleveland for your nephews Bar-Mitzvah. Do you want her to say "no, it's MY weekend" or rather "sure, let's trade weekends." Isn't that preferable?

    Now, who do I send the bill to for all the legal advice? (A joke!)

  5. A fundamental point that cannot be forgotten is that under halacha if the husband issues the Get under pressure from secular court (i.e. the court penalizing the husband for not yet having given the Get), then the Get itself it a Get Me'usa, a halachicly invalid Get, and it isn't worth the paper (or parchment) it is written on.

    If the wife subsequently uses that Get to "remarry", the remarriage is invalid and she and her new man are committing adultery under halacha. And all future children of theirs are mamzeirim.

  6. What about a situation where the other side completely refuses any and all negotiations (the issue you describe of switching weekends actually came up, and the wife refused to switch, since the husband would get an advantage, who knows what advantage, the husband even offered to throw in another benefit or two, even agreeing to Sunday only.)

    And other lawyers refuse to take the case, since the wife's lawyer has a reputation of never agreeing, litigating everything, working only 9 to 5 (ny lawyers do all the office work after 5pm), etc.

  7. Why should non marriage gun issues require supervised visitation? It sets a bad precedent for the future?

  8. So Mr. Ginsburg, you still want to take a hard-line stance. OK. So now she remarries. Or wants to. Her Rabbi and community consider this adultery the subsequent children are mamzerim. Obviously her Rabbi won't even perform the marraige. Her community ostracizes her. What then?

    She'll leave the community if she's made miserable enough. Maybe find a Reform or Reconstructionist husband who isn't frum enough. Find a reform Rabbi, maybe even a female Rabbi, who will marry them. Maybe going to yeshiva isn't a priority anymore. Maybe keeping kosher isn't so important anymore. Maybe they'll drive to shul on Shabbos, if they go. Maybe keeping kosher for Passover means a box of Streit's Matzoh. Maybe live in community with no Eruv, no Mikva.

    Is that a better scenario? Is that what Halacha demands?

    Let's continue this line of thought a little further. Maybe the father of the children is horrified to learn that their step-father made the kids bacon and eggs for breakfast. He files a Petition for a change of custody! He's outraged! Everybody goes back to Court. Lawyers are getting paid again. More Court costs! Maybe they'll end up in front of the same judge that "pressured" him into signing the Get. Now the mother testifies about how ostracized she was in her orthodox community. Her treatment by her old Rabbi, her old neighbors. How she had to move to a mixed community with no local shul, no local kosher butcher,

  9. Part 2. Again my computer cut me off!

    So, what do you think the outcome of a second trial under these circumstances would be?

    That's why I, as an attorney will always advise my client not to withhold a Get. Let me attempt to negotiate a fair custody/visitation agreement. It's better for everybody. If we need to have a trial, let's try and limit it to financial matters.

    There's an old lawyer maxim: "A fair agreement is when both sides walk away equally unhappy!"

  10. No, Brent, I am simply describing what the halacha is. A "Get" is a halachic tool and process. So in order for the Get to be valid, the halachic requirements must be met. Otherwise you could simply have your buddy write up the Get on a scrap of paper with whatever he feels like scribbling in if that makes one happy.

    We do not change Jewish Law because someone will discard following halacha if her desires or even needs are not met outside the confines of Jewish Law.

  11. Of course I've had cases where the other side refuses to negotiate. That's what trials are for. If the issue is stupid, the judge will figure that out. My position is always that I'm the reasonable one, it's the other side that took this unreasonable position to trial.

    Oh, there's always attorneys who'll take the case. We've all had to deal with other attorneys that are difficult. Litigating everything? So litigate. Sometimes it's unavoidable. As long as in conference with the judge prior to trial I can present myself (and my client) that we're being reasonable and the other side is being difficult. Most judges will see through the nonsensical positions.

    Remember this entire page is based on the issue that "should a husband refuse a Get to gain advantage?" My position, for reasons stated repeatedly on the page, is NO. Remember, "MY client is being reasonable Your Honor."

  12. OK, fine. But it still doesn't change my argument on a legal level. Don't make the Get a bone of contention. It doesn't need to be done on day one, but don't withhold or drag it out. Litigate custody and visitation on their own merits. So that once the civil divorce is done, both people are free to remarry.

  13. Really? I really need to answer this question? I would think the answer is obvious. Just yesterday I had a case where the non-custodial father was arrested on a gun charge. Why was there a gun in his car? Was he going to a drug buy? Going to rob a liquor store? On his way to his ex-wife's house to exercise a little "self-help" divorce? Would YOU want your child in that car? Maybe if he's involved in criminal activity there'll be a shoot-out. Still think he should be free to do whatever he wants with the children? I don't. And I'm pretty sure I could get any judge to agree with me.

    Now that's not to say there aren't valid reasons to be in possession of a gun. Is he in the jewelry business? (When I was in college many many years ago I had a summer job working on 47th Street in NYC. For those of you who aren't New Yorkers, that's the diamond district. There were days I carried a whole lot of diamonds on my person!) Is the gun licensed? At home is it kept in a lock-box? Obviously in such cases there is no rational requirement for supervised visits. That's what conferences and negotiations are for.

  14. He is making a different point. That in a case where this may turn her away from Judaism, withholding the get is pointless. What is he achieving by withholding a get. In fact, it can only cause worse problems.

    I happen to know of such a case. The woman found a boyfriend and moved in with him. Reconciliation was definitely out of the question, since it was assur. She was in an adulterous relationship. This led her to slowly drop many other things as well. She started driving on Shabbos, kashrus, moved to a non-religious community etc.etc.

    This is the type of case Mr. Albala is talking about. Withholding the get is only serving as revenge.

    I do think you are right in a case where the woman does want to follow the halacha, and will not drop her Yidishkeit. In such a case, using the get for reasonable leverage is acceptable. For instance, he could stipulate that if/when a serious Beis Din advises him to give a get, he will do so. That will assure him that Halachik rights will not be violated. I also wonder if a judge will then not view this negatively.

  15. Brent,

    you very much for your reply. I went back to check out all your comments and
    your words very much resonate with me

  16. R' Daniel -Thanks for sharing Brent's perspective and insights. I am interested in
    hearing your thoughts concerning the Weiss-Dodelson case
    in the context of Brent's perspective and advise. If I recall correctly
    Weiss used the Get to better his custody and visits deal he got from the
    secular courts. Although I don't think his ex would marry without a Get, imho
    Weiss's strategy may have contributed partly to the chilul hashem his ex wife caused. We could extend this also
    to the problem of pressurizing the husband to give a Get. Brent has given his
    opinion that only where there are criminal charges one is advised to wait with
    giving of the Get. My question is – when
    is using a Get to negotiate better terms acceptable and when would it be
    acting like a ' na'val be'
    re'shoot ha'torah . As Brent's had said withholding a Get is a
    cruel thing to do , so it is not a moral thing to do. I understand that Brent
    has said his words in the context of a judgment in a secular court concerning
    custody and visitation rights, but he has encouraged people to try and hold the
    moral high ground. I think this fits in beautifully with R' Isaac Sher's
    comments on Bnei Gad and Re'uvein's request for the land on the East Bank. Their
    great herds of flock and cattle were indeed a sign from heaven that the land
    was theirs to be taken as an inheritance , but there was another possibility
    that it was a way of Hashem testing them
    to see if they would undermine the morale and the resolve of the nation to enter the
    land of Israel and fight the war to expel the nations or not . In life we may
    see success as a God validating our path and direction or it could be God using
    success to test us. The same goes with halacha. According to the halacha we may
    be in the right , but maybe Hashem is testing us to see if we act morally to
    try and find mutually satisfactory solutions and peaceful relationships and chas ve'shalom not be a ' na'val be'
    re'shoot ha'torah'

  17. @Allan Katz - giving the get at the end is not just an option it is standard operating procedure. A get demonstrates a severing of the relationship. Getting a settlement after giving the get that induces regret at having given the get - undermines the significance of the get. According to your understanding it is an immoral thing which is correct according to the letter of the law but not the spirit. That is not how it is understood in Chareidi circles.

  18. Rav Sternbuch writes


  19. Rabbi Eidensohn, in the title of this post, calls Brant Albala "a neutral divorce lawyer". Therefore I think it is important to point out that this isn't correct as he is not neutral in this dispute. He posted the following on Rivky Stein's facebook group:

    Brent Albala

    "It's too bad you don't live in Nassau County. I'm an attorney that practices
    in Nassau County Family Court almost daily. I'd represent you for
    nothing. This practice of holding a get over a woman's head to extract
    concessions drives me crazy."

    Like · Reply · 1 · July 14 at 4:58pm

  20. R' Daniel ,

    Thanks for your response. I appreciate that the Get should be given at the end of the process. My question is not about the workings of a Beis Din or trying to bring pressure on the man which are halachic issues . It is not about whether one has the right to use the Get as a negotiating tool , but a moral question of using the Get to gain concessions . To reframe the question – how would we like our son-in-laws to approach a divorce with our daughters ? A lot of suffering in the world could be alleviated if people could be educated that the best deal is one that addresses the concerns of both the parties ,
    instead of trying to win

  21. AAAhhh, I was waiting for someone to notice that. I will say that I posted that rather flippant comment before I started following various links and found my way to this website. But notice that nowhere, on her page or on this page do I take any position on her "demands." No-where on either page do I say she should have custody. That Mr. Stein should have supervised visitation. Nowhere do I take a position on child support or alimony. Nowhere do I take a position on criminal activity allegations or Orders of Protection. I have been very careful in that I have consistently been limiting my comments to one single general civil law/halacha issue: "should a GET be used as leverage in a civil divorce custody dispute?" And my comment on Ms. Weiss' page and here has been a consistent NO. Yes, it does "drive me crazy." I don't think that's been inconsistent. I have been very careful not to make any of my comments here "Weiss-Stein case-specific." If you review all my various comments on this website (both on this specific page, and on the "proposal page"), you will find that's true.

    Additionally, at first blush, her FaceBook page refers I believe to only Family Court. I did not know if there is, or was, a Divorce matter pending when I posted that comment. I was under the impression that the civil divorce was finished and only the GET was at issue.

    To take a valid position specifically on the "Weiss-Stein" matter, I and everyone here, need information that none of us have:
    Has a civil divorce been filed? When? What stage is it up to?
    Has Mr. Stein been seeing the child(ren) all this time? How?
    Have criminal charges (RICO) been filed or not? Has he been charged or not?
    What stage, if any, is any criminal matter up to?
    Are there in fact, any Orders of Protection? Violations? Dismissals?
    What, if any, are the allegations in the Order of Protection?
    What is the story about that $10,000?
    What are their incomes? What was each of their property prior to the marriage? Do they own a home? Rent?
    What is Ms. Weiss actually claiming happened during the marriage? (Not with regards to "grounds" as NYS is a no-fault state, but with regards to custody/visitation issues?)
    What is Mr. Stein actually claiming about Rifka?
    Please take note that I admitted to Dr. Eidensohn up front that I have not read all the dirty laundry that these two are airing in public. That is because what is said while posturing in front of the public may not actually be made as legal arguments in Court. "Public Theatre" is not evidence in Court.

    I do not think Dr. Eidensohn erred in referring to me as being neutral in my comments.

  22. To Dass Torah & to Rivky's supporters.



    I intend to show up at 1278 East 77nd Street Brooklyn, NY 11234 the Beis Din Rivky Stein & chose, the very Beis Din who supposable sent me 3 Hazmonos, which allegedly I ignored. This is also Rivky's Beis Din who placed me in Ceirem. [excommunication] because I supposable ignored the Beis Din. As many times I tired, I was unsuccessful to reach those 3 rabonem to arrange a set time for the get. I therefore make this announcement publicly. Please urge Rivky and her advisers to invite the 3 Dayanem "Rabbi Chaim Taub ('dayyan') Rabbi David Binyamin Abales ('av bais din') Rabbi Yehoshua Goodman ('dayyan')" at the address cited on their Hazmonos 1278 East 77nd Street Brooklyn, NY 11234 which is also the same address on the face of the excommunication order, where the excommunication proceeding supposedly took place.

    I intend to show up Bezras Hashem at 12 pm sharp at Rivky' Steins & UZIEL FRANKEL Beis Din located 1278 East 77nd Street Brooklyn, NY 11234 since these three Rabbonem are not known to anybody but to Rivky Stein & { Uziel Frankel } , they will need to identify themselves, present proper identification and credentials that they are indeed rabbonem who can handle a get in general.

    In light of the fact that Rivky's Steins & { Uziel Frankel } Beis Din placed me in Cheirem [excommunication] it will require once I appear at the Beis Din that the same there rabonem void their excommunication, regardless of the outcome in the get proceeding.




  23. Made this into a separate post

  24. Brent, not every lie is demonstrable as a lie. How does one prove he didn't beat his wife in their bedroom? And, yet, the judge may be influenced by the lie and tale unfair action against him. Secular court often results is something that hardly can be called justice.

    As far as giving the Get (despite not desiring to) to please the court, such a "Get" is halachicly invalid and halachicly equivelent to having given no Get at all.

  25. You're welcome. Thank you for your postings.

  26. Cross examination of wife by husband"s attorney:
    So, your husband beat you?
    How often?
    What did you do when he beat you?
    Did you call the police?
    Did you call the police after the second time?
    After the third time?
    Did he use anything to beat you with?
    Did you run out of the house?
    Were there any bruises?
    Do you have any photos?
    Did you go to the hospital?
    Did you go to the hospital after the second incident?
    After the third beating where did you go to live?
    Why didn't you call the police after the third beating?
    Why didn't you go to the hospital after he kicked you in the stomach?
    Why didn't you move out if he beat you?
    Where were the children during the second beating?

    Mr. Ginsburgh, I could come up with a hundred more questions on this. But I think you get the point. If someone is lying about being physically abused there will be no police calls, no doctors notes, no hospital reports, no photographs.

    Summary questions:
    So, are you telling this court that you have no proof of any of these beatings? Are you asking this court to believe that despite five beatings, one with a mop handle, and being kicked in the stomach on the night of May 12, over a seven month period, you never once called the police? You never once went to the hospital? Are you asking this court to believe your story without offering any proof whatsoever? No further questions Your Honor.

  27. Verification of AddressJuly 30, 2014 at 5:31 AM

    Is Rivkah planning to reply to Yoilie's loyal offer to her by Tisha B'Av? It's already 2 weeks since!

  28. Verification of AddressAugust 3, 2014 at 5:01 AM

    It's 2 days before Tishah B'Av! Still no reply from Rivkah and any of her supporters?! Its really unbelievable!¡¿?

  29. So it's been a few months since I followed this story and posted on this site. I see now an article in the NY Post. Here I quote part of the article:

    Weiss chuckled throughout Stein’s testimony, causing Judge Esther Morgenstern to reprimand him.
    “There’s nothing funny here. I don’t see any humor,” said the judge, who had difficulty obtaining her own get when her marriage dissolved in the late 1980s.
    “To see him laugh it off, it was very painful. He still continues to abuse me by not giving me my get,” Stein told The Post outside court.
    Morgenstern has pressured Weiss during the proceedings to give Stein the get."

    This is exactly what I mentioned in my postings months ago. A female judge. A Jewish judge. And one who allegedly had her own difficulties in obtaining a get. A judge who clearly wants Mr. Weiss to grant the Get. And to top it off, he's chuckling during the proceedings! Is there anyone here who thinks the judge is not going to rake Mr. Weiss over the coals? If he's held in contempt, visiting his children will be the least of his worries while he's wearing an orange state-issued jumpsuit. My commentary from months ago appears eerily prescient. This is exactly why I advise my clients to present themselves as being the more reasonable person.



please use either your real name or a pseudonym.