Welcome to the Voice of Justice Blog

Follow by Email

Monday, June 27, 2011


Eliminating the statute of limitations for sexual abuse has cost the Catholic Church in a few states especially California and Delaware   over a billion dollars.  It was killed last year by Albany.  Was there a behind the scenes warning to the church and other religious leaders that if they objected strongly on gay marriage the bill to eliminate the statute of limitations would pass? AGUDATH LEADERSHIP AND ARCHBISHOP DOLAN"S lack of anger yesterday demands more investigation. Or was it a profoundly changing power dynamic, where Wall Street donors and gay-rights advocates demonstrated more might and muscle than a Roman Catholic hierarchy and an ineffective opposition. PASSAGE OF A SPONSORED BILL THE "CHILD VICTIMS ACT"  BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN MARGARET MARKEY WOULD COST THE CHURCHES AND YESHIVAS OVER 2 BILLION DOLLARS BY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATES.THE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL WOULD OPEN A WINDOW UPON WHERE VICTIMS CAN SUE THEIR PERPETRATORS AND PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS, YESHIVAS FOR CRIMES COMMITTED IN THE PAST  .THIS BILL IS SUPPORTED BY THE(RCA)THE RABBINICAL COUNCIL OF AMERICA,(O.U)ORTHODOX  CONGREGATIONS ,    THE   RABBINICAL    ALLIANCE OF AMERICA      AND MAJOR JEWISH AND RELIGIOUS LEADERS.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Accused Pedophile Meir Dascalowitz Committed To Mental InstitutionAccused Pedophile Meir Dascalowitz Committed To Mental Institution

Accused Pedophile Meir Dascalowitz Committed To Mental Institution

Meir Dascalowitz Dascalowitz was judged to be unfit to stand trial and was just committed to a mental institution.                  failed messiah

Meir Dascalowitz court cropped 5-16-11 Meir Dascalowitz's attorney wanted a month delay before commitment because Dascalowitz's wife had just left him and Dascalowitz's mother has cancer, but the judge refused to grant that, and Dascalowitz was remanded into custody and sent to a short to medium term mental hospital.
I'm told he will be evaluated on a yearly basis to see if he is fit to stand trial (although I believe he can at any time request an evaluation).
If his prognosis remains poor, he may be committed to a long term mental facility.
Due to illness, the victim's family did not attend today's hearing.
Mark Meir Appel of the Voice of justice was in court and spoke with the victim's family after Dascalowitz was committed.
They thanked advocates for all they have done to help over these many months and they expressed the hope that the victim


Monday, June 13, 2011


Lauren Spierer is a 20 year old, Indiana University student from New York. She went missing in Bloomington, Indiana over a week ago. Lauren has a heart condition that requires medication, and when she is found, she will need to be taken to a hospital immediately.


We need as many people as possible to be on the lookout and help us in the merit of finding Lauren Spierer safe and well.

PLEASE CONTACT  1 812 339 4477 OR 1 800 621 8551 

Wednesday, June 8, 2011


  Last night a group of us living in Bay Harbour Florida joined together for a evening of torah study in the tradition of shavouth.It was Led by the HON. ISSAC SALVER a city commissioner and a man who has earned great respect in south Florida for his work in charity. We learned the story of RUTH and we discussed the lessons we can learn from this great heroine. RUTH who born a non Jew and  has become a symbol of hope and inspiration to the world .We all agreed that greatness  can only be achieved through kindness and self sacrifice.RUTH  a poor and hungry young widow was blessed to have KIND DAVID the king of the jews as her offspring.We all agreed that we must work harder as a united people in making this world a better place         
                                                              Ruth - a Love Story     
Ruth is one of the most famous women of the Bible - which is strange when you realize she was not an Israelite at all, but a Moabite woman, a foreigner, an outsider. 
Left alone when her husband elimelech died, Naomi had one great asset: she was a shrewd old Jewish mother-in-law  who loved her daughter in laws Oropah and Ruth, and whom  loved her. 
They stuck together through thick and thin - through hunger and poverty.the situation got better when Ruth met Boaz, a rich man who seemed to have fallen in love with her at first sight. Boy meets girl, boy loves girl.

Ruth and Naomi came to Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest, which began with the Feast of Firstfruits, the day after Passover. Passover was celebrated on the 14th day of the first month of the Jewish calendar, which corresponds to March-April. Thus, Passover would fall approximately April 1. At harvest time almost everyone was working in the field harvesting the barley. Since, Naomi and Ruth were bankrupt, Ruth decided to get a job as a gleaner. Gleaners were poor women peasants who followed the reapers and picked up straw (stalks of barley) that were dropped. Gleaners were like migrant laborers, Chinese peasants, or Russian peasants, who worked in the fields of others at harvest time. On her first day on the job, Ruth wound up in a field belonging to Boaz, her right man. She had traveled from a foreign country, received permission to work as a peasant and was waiting for him (per the Plan of God) when he arrived for work that morning.

BOAZ leadership ability as revealed in the book of Ruth was magnificent.He was a great scholar of torah while at the same time managing women in the workplace, established , managed an estate, and was a brilliant lawyer. He is one of those rare and gifted leaders, who because history dealt him no crisis, never became famous. If one can imagine what great leaders like Douglas McArthur or Napoleon would have been without a war, such was Boaz, whose sole claim to fame is that he was one of the greatest husbands who ever lived.
Boaz was also a mature believer. Unlike others who married for convenience, Boaz waited for his right woman and spent the time advancing to spiritual maturity. The path that his right woman took to reach him is a testimony to his spiritual advance in the grace of God. When Boaz finally met his right woman, he was probably 50 years old. He was waiting faithfully for God to fulfill His promise when he saw Ruth working in his field. The Lord brought Ruth to him per the divine order of precedent.
When Boaz entered his field that morning (
Ruth 2:4-5), he greeted his reapers by recognizing the blessing of the LORD upon the agricultural operation. How many today have a clue as to what makes a business successful? Then Boaz noticed a new gleaner, which was an entry level position, pauper. Granted Ruth was probably the most attractive woman in the field, but Boaz immediately noticed a new employee and inquired about her. He asked the crew foreman for a report on her, which was promptly provided. All this shows the sensitivity of a great leader as well as the efficiency of his business.
The crew foreman told Boaz that this was the Moabite girl who came back with Naomi. Moabites were foreigners, who were respected but lacked the full rights of Jewish citizenship (e.g. the right to worship in the temple with Jews). Perhaps it was anticipated that Boaz would not take notice. But it is obvious, that his personnel department had already allowed a Moabite to work on the farm because Boaz had established a policy (in keeping with the Mosaic Law) that prevented racial prejudice. The Crew Foreman related how Ruth had followed established protocol in requesting permission to glean and that she was a hard worker.
    Ruth 2:7 “And she said, ‘Please let me glean and gather after the reapers among the sheaves.’ Thus she came and has remained from the morning until now; she has been sitting in the house for a little while.”
Boaz listened to the report and read between the lines the spiritual meaning. Nothing is ever understood until it is understood spiritually. Boaz, as a mature believer, was used to analyzing circumstances with divine viewpoint. He was executing the Plan of God just as Ruth had been when she chose a field and applied for permission to work that morning. Boaz immediately understood (without going back to sit down in the shade and pray about it) that Ruth had separated from the world and was working to support Naomi. Boaz next demonstrated his leadership ability and offered her permanent employment for the duration of the harvest (Ruth 2:8). 
    “Let your eyes be on the field which they reap, and go after them. Indeed, I have commanded the servants not to touch you. When you are thirsty, go to the water jars and drink from what the servants draw.” (Ruth 2:9)
He told Ruth that she could drink water that had been drawn by the servants. She wouldn't have to draw her own. She would be treated with hospitality. She would receive equal treatment. There would be no prejudice against her. Among the snobbishness of racial prejudice, foreigners are often prevented from eating or drinking with locals. However, Boaz made it clear that he provided fair personnel management practices. This further demonstrated sensitivity to personnel needs because one of the most important needs of a farm worker is access to water. When working in the hot sun, it is a necessity. Thus, we see Boaz personally handling the personnel orientation for the lowest class of worker even though he is the entrepreneur of the estate and director of harvest operations.

Gleaning Principles

Boaz is a believer in Spiritual Maturity by the time he meets his Right Woman. He is prosperous, a great leader, and entrepreneur of a large estate. All Boaz had was provided compliments of the grace of God per the Plan of God. He applies Bible Doctrine in every area of his life every day. Boaz has or his Right Woman. His friends have probably been through several divorces by now and their children have become adults. Boaz waited for God to provide per the divine order of precedent. He may have been 50 to 55 years old before he ever met his Right Woman. When Ruth came into his life during the barley harvest, she was perhaps 19 to 20 years old. He was old enough to be her father.
    Principle: Right Man/Right Woman discover each other by executing the Plan of God. Principle: God provides the Right Woman for the Right Man in grace - human works (e.g. social life, partying, running ads, dating around) are rejected. Principle: Age does not make a difference in the Right Man/Right Woman relationship per the Plan of God.
Boaz went to work one morning when god brought his Right Woman into his field. She was waiting for him to arrive. Boaz performed his job as a professional, and that is how he met Ruth. She was a new employee. As a mature believer and great leader, Boaz looked out for his personnel - even the entry level peasants. Boaz was doing his job as unto the Lord. He was not selecting a pretty young female to make a conquest. He treated Ruth with the utmost respect and hospitality. As will be seen later, he even waited for Ruth to choose him as her Right Man. He never tried to coerce her volition.

Lessons from the Book of Ruth

Printer-friendly version

One of the great lessons we learn about the greatness of RUTH is how a great God takes ordinary people and does extraordinary things with them to accomplish great ideas in tikkun olam. On this holiday of Shavuot , it is a good time to focus on the incredible qualities of one of the mothers of the faithful RUTH and work harder as a united people to make this world a better place.Our hope and dreams are that we as  a people of all races and religions come together and continue to fight in making  our communities safe for our children and families              

                                     WITH LOVE,     MARK MEYER APPEL


Tuesday, June 7, 2011


          The Jewish holiday of Shavuot is set to begin tonight – for two days.
The holiday of Shavuot marks the Jewish People’s receiving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai 3,000 years ago. It also marks the days after the 49-days of mourning {Sefirat HaOmer}  period, which began on the Passover holiday. The counting and mourning are as a result of  the jewish people rising to a new level of kingdom from slavery,and from darkness to light.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011


Support Jewish originated news, culture, and opinion by supporting the Jewish Week today

Ohel Campaign To Bolster Image Questioned

In wake of Jewish Week story, social service agency shared confidential files about abuse case with outsiders.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Special To The Jewish Week
In the wake of a Jewish Week story questioning the practice of Ohel Children’s Home and Family Services in reporting suspected cases of sexual abuse, the Brooklyn-based social service agency has launched a campaign to clear its name. But while supporters and some former critics of the institution say the effort has proved Ohel acted correctly in the disputed case, others maintain that the promotional effort itself is raising serious ethical, if not legal questions about the agency’s conduct.
The story in question was published in the Feb. 23 issue of The Jewish Week and described a case in which Ohel therapists suspected that a mother was sexually abusing her then 5-year-old son but were instructed by their supervisor not to make a report to the authorities. (The law requires a report to the Administration for Children’s Services even if there is only a “reasonable cause to suspect” that abuse is taking place.)
After the article appeared, Ohel took out a full-page ad in The Jewish Week and another Jewish newspaper discrediting the paper’s sources and asserting that the story was inaccurate and biased.
During the months leading up to publication of the story, Ohel officials refused this newspaper’s repeated requests for comment about its policies on reporting suspected cases of sexual abuse to the authorities. Several sources had told The Jewish Week that, given the agency’s close connections to the fervently Orthodox community, it is reluctant to report such cases for fear of contradicting rabbinic leaders, whose approval they court.
(Indeed, just two weeks ago representatives of the Agudath Israel, a major haredi umbrella group, publicly stated that even mandated reporters should consult a rabbi before making a report.)
Ohel’s rabbinic adviser, Rabbi Dovid Cohen, plays a key role in deciding how the agency should act in situations where the mandates of religious law — which, for example, prohibits mesira (informing to the authorities on fellow Jews) — conflict with those of secular law, which require reporting any reasonable suspicion of abuse to the authorities.
Regarding the particular case of the woman and her young son, Ohel officials had told The Jewish Week they were prohibited from discussing the case, citing confidentiality requirements. But a key element of the recent effort by Ohel to bolster its reputation has been to show confidential patient files related to the case to former critics, raising questions about the agency’s motives and practices.
There are, in effect, two parallel narratives to describe the current Ohel campaign. One is that the organization, widely praised for many of its services, is taking a number of steps to convince the community, including former critics and members of its own board, that its work in dealing with cases of sexual abuse is equally exemplary, and that The Jewish Week article was inaccurate and damaging. The agency cites testimonials, based on reviews of the case by outsiders, that Ohel acted properly in every way.
The other version, voiced by several former and current employees, abuse victim advocates and former clients, is based on the premise that Ohel is more concerned with protecting community members suspected of abuse — and in so doing, preserving the reputation of the community — than it is in protecting vulnerable children. (The child in question ultimately was removed from the mother’s supervision.)
The Jewish Week has learned that the agency offered to show files from the disputed case to some leaders of advocacy groups, apparently seeking endorsement for the agency’s conduct. That has led to the charge that Ohel sought to divide and co-opt members of the advocacy community, in part by implying that it would fund joint programs with those groups that supported the agency’s position.
How could Ohel share files with outsiders after insisting for many months that privacy laws prohibited it from even discussing the mother-child case? Ohel explains the apparent contradiction by noting that the people it approached to review the case were engaged as outside consultants. (It is legal under confidentiality regulations to share files containing protected health information with a consultant if that person has signed an appropriate business associate agreement.)
A Face-To-Face Meeting
More than two months after the Feb. 23 story was published, Ohel CEO David Mandel agreed to an on-the-record interview with The Jewish Week. At a tense but cordial meeting at Ohel headquarters in Borough Park, Mandel, flanked by the agency’s attorney/ quality-control officer and public relations director, sat across the table from this reporter and two Jewish Week editors and patiently made his case. He asserted that The Jewish Week story was inaccurate and that Ohel, highly rated by the city for its foster care and other services, is a well respected and professional organization that scrupulously follows the law in all of its actions.
Mandel explained that to restore its reputation, the agency hired a forensic psychiatrist who specializes in issues related to sexuality and sexual abuse, and his psychologist wife, to review the mother-child case because “the allegations made in the article”… “were completely false.”
A March 10 letter from the consultants, Drs. Richard Krueger and Meg Kaplan, a copy of which was obtained by The Jewish Week, said they had “reviewed the chart and discussed the case” with Ohel’s attorney and absolved the agency of any wrongdoing in the case.
Several critics noted, however, that Krueger and Kaplan were not given access to the mother, her son or anyone else with direct knowledge of the case, including The Jewish Week’s sources. According to those sources, a number of discussions about the case that took place at the time among Ohel staff — and specifically about the mother’s disclosures about her own behavior — were not recorded in any patient charts and, because of this, there exists no written record of them.
When asked whether it is standard practice in a forensic evaluation to review only selected charts and not interview those directly involved in a particular case, Krueger referred The Jewish Week to Ohel.
Asked for comment on this story early last week, the organization’s spokesman, Derek Saker, said Ohel would “follow up in the near future.” On Tuesday, pressed again for a response, Mandel asked that The Jewish Week “delay publication this week and wait for comprehensive factual information that we will provide in the next few days.”
Jewish Week editors, however, concluded that Ohel has had ample time to confirm or deny whether the events described here indeed transpired, and if so, to provide an explanation for them.
Internal Friction Among Abuse Advocates
Among those with whom Ohel shared the case files to get an opinion are members of the Jewish Board of Advocates for Children (JBAC), an advocacy organization that has been a central force in the effort to address the issue of child sexual abuse and its cover-up within the Orthodox community.
JBAC’s president, Elliot Pasik, declined to comment on his review and the circumstances under which it was solicited. But The Jewish Week obtained information indicating that without the knowledge or approval of the full JBAC board, Pasik, an attorney specializing in serious personal injury and general commercial litigation, and Rabbi Chaim Wakslak, a clinical psychologist who works with people with disabilities, went to one of Ohel’s offices, where they reviewed selected charts and interviewed some individuals connected to the case; therapists were interviewed in the presence of their supervisors.
After the review, Pasik sought approval from some members of JBAC’s executive and rabbinic committee to issue a statement clearing Ohel of any wrongdoing in the mother-child case and calling for a Jewish Week retraction. This was the first the members had learned of the review and some balked, citing the fact that JBAC’s executive vice president is Asher Lipner, a therapist and former Ohel employee who was directly involved in the mother-child case and spoke on the record to The Jewish Week for its Feb. 23 story.
Others expressed concern that Ohel officials had manipulated Pasik. For example, Rabbi Yosef Blau, mashgiach ruchani (spiritual adviser) of Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, argued that it was highly irregular for Ohel to pick and choose individuals to review the case and withhold certain information. He also cited Pasik’s alleged lack of objectivity and qualifications to conduct a forensic review.
The Jewish Week has learned that, while neither Pasik nor Rabbi Wakslak were compensated for their review, Pasik made it clear to others involved with JBAC of the prospect for future collaboration with and funding from Ohel, based on his conversations with CEO Mandel.
The fact that Pasik may have had an expectation of his organization benefiting from his giving Ohel a positive report and that Ohel controlled the access he had to both documentation and personnel raises red flags among some experts on standard protocol for a forensic review process.
Conflict Of Interest?
Dr. Mary A. Connell, a board-certified clinical and forensic psychologist who has worked for Child Protective Services in Texas, said that typically, for the results of an investigation to have credibility, it is crucial that the investigators be “truly independent,” and without, for example, “expectation of employment or good will” from the agency they are reviewing.
In this case, she said, the expectation of possible funding from Ohel and the fact that Lipner is a member of the JBAC board suggests a conflict of interest.
Similarly, Michael Salamon, the director of the Adult Development Center in Hewlett, L.I., and a psychologist in the Orthodox community, said that “one well-established approach [to conducting an evaluation] would be to hire an outside, unaffiliated group that has the breadth of resources and experience to do a complete and thorough forensic evaluation.”
Even if it were technically legal for Ohel to show the files to handpicked outside individuals, sharing patient information with consultants for the purpose of clearing the agency’s name may be an inappropriate use of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which governs privacy regulations, according to Abner Weintraub, a national authority on HIPPA.
Mary Vandenack, another authority on HIPPA, told The Jewish Week that bringing in a consultant who is not an expert in the specific area or who has an interest in the outcome is unethical and may even constitute fraud if the agency and/or consultant make representations that the consultant is an expert.
Pasik may not have been the only abuse victim advocate approached by Ohel. Mark Meyer Appel, president of The Voice of Justice, said that an Ohel executive board member offered to the show the files to him. But Appel told The Jewish Week he declined to view them, citing a concern that “sensitive files should not be shared indiscriminately with advocates [as it is] a moral breach in governance.”
Ohel CEO Mandel said there was no offer to share the files of the mother-son case with Appel.


What's Good For The Church Is Good For The Gander

New York Times logo Agudah logo red The New York Times criticized the Catholic Church for its stand on child sexual abuse reporting. Now Agudath Israel of America has announce a policy that mirrors the Church. Shouldn't the Times condemn Agudah's policy, as well?

When Religious Doctrine Undercuts Mandated Reporting On Abuse
Michael J. Salamon, Ph.D. • Jewish Press

The New York Times got it right. In an editorial published on Thursday May 19, the Times castigated the Vatican for issuing "flimsy guidelines" for combating the sexual abuse of children by the clerical hierarchy.

According to the Times, the Vatican "issued nonbinding guidance," giving authority to local bishops which in effect bypasses the need to report the criminal offense of sexual abuse, or for that matter any abuse performed by an official of the Church, to the proper legal authorities.

In essence the report places Church doctrine ahead of the law and allows the local diocese the religious right to shield abusive priests from prosecution. At about the same time the guidelines were released, a study, funded primarily by Church sources, was released. The study allegedly reviews the causes for the sexual abuse scandal in the Church and, in an interesting twist of propaganda, blames the social climate of the 1950s, 60s and 70s for priestly indiscretion.

Taken together, this bizarre approach to coming to grips with the depth of the problem and working to set up parameters to prevent further transgressions is not just counter-intuitive, it's absolutely backward.

The law is quite clear. Individuals who are mandated reporters must report any suspected abuse to the proper authorities. In most states mandated reporters are teachers, doctors, lawyers and child care workers. In many locales clerics are also mandated reporters. Apparently the Church feels that reports are not mandated by Church doctrine and that the best needs of society are secondary to religious doctrine. This could be humorous if it wasn't so sad. Unfortunately, the Church is not alone in this folly.

Last month Agudath Israel of America held a conference for professionals at which the topic of how and when to report suspected abusers was discussed. The presentation of the topic included a good deal of source review and explanation. The presenter was knowledgeable about the issue. But, shockingly, the position advocated by the Agudah sounds astoundingly similar to that promulgated by the Vatican.

The conclusion stated in the Agudah position is that you must first ask a senior rabbi with experience or "even better, you should ask a full beis din" before you can call the proper authorities to report suspected abuse.

As a mental health professional I am a mandated reporter. What this means is that if I am made aware of a situation that raises a reasonable a measure of suspicion that abuse of any type is taking place, I am obligated by law and my professional license to report the situation to the proper authorities.

Nowhere in my professional training are rabbis considered proper legal authorities in this matter. In fact, if I report only to a rabbi, I put not just my professional license in jeopardy but also the welfare of the individual who is being abused.

Rabbis are not generally trained in forensics or police work and simply have no authority to intercede in any legal capacity to aid the abused person or apprehend the abuser. In addition, I may be breaking certain HIPAA laws related to confidentiality if I discuss a situation related to someone I am treating with someone who has no legal standing.

It is important to understand that most professionals do not have to report often, and certainly they do not do so lightly when they feel the need to report. Further, the reporting system, at least in New York and several other states, allows for a discussion with the agency to which the professional reports in order to better determine if a particular case merits investigation.

A professional can discuss in total confidence what he or she sees as suspected abuse - without providing any identifying information - if there is any uncertainty about the situation being a reportable offense. The specialist helps the mandated reporter determine what is reportable. The system is not generally set up as an immediately reflexive and overwhelmingly reactive response - unless there is clear and obvious abuse.

By issuing the doctrine of rabbis as the first report, Agudath Israel has put my license, my parnassah [income], my professional integrity and the law of the land in jeopardy. And while that alone is sufficient cause to ignore the position, there is one even more imperative justification for not following the mandate. So many poskim, from Rav Elyashiv to Rav Hershel Schachter, have declared that individuals who abuse children are in the category of a rodef (a pursuer) and should be reported to the police.