Monday, February 28, 2005

Update: Rabbi Baruch Lanner still in jail, Parole Eligibility Date: December 9, 2006

72 Comments:

At 10:47 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

see: https://www6.state.nj.us/DOC_Inmate/inmatefinder?i=I
(search for lastname = Lanner)

1) Lanner's been in jail since February 10, 2005.
2)
Current Max Release Date: May 20, 2010
Current Parole Eligibility Date: December 9, 2006
3) Since his last incarceration in 2002 he's lost 13 lbs.
4) Very recent prison photo at:
https://www6.state.nj.us/DOC_Inmate/photo?id=1248335
5) I suggest that people involved mark his parole date on their calendar and start making arrangements to be present to speak out against his early release.

 
At 1:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, Lanner only went into prison this past Friday, 2/25. Better late than never !

 
At 9:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I Don't get this. If he was sentanced to 7 years, I didn't think he would be eligible for parole for 3 1/2 years. That would be 2008 or 2009. What's the deal with this?

 
At 10:43 AM, Blogger Anonymous said...

Lanner was jailed Wed.Feb.23rd. Regarding his time spent in jail, that's how the system works. Everyday he spends in jail saves a child's life and doesn't destroy another family! The guy can't be rehabilitated, so it's safe to assume that as soon as this pedophile goes free, he'll just continue his path to destruction.

 
At 11:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At least he's doing time, and when he gets out he'll be under Megan's Law so everyone in his neighborhood will know to watch out for him. I bet he'll skip the country though...

 
At 3:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) Regarding Megan's Law: It's not as great as one would think. When someone has been slapped with the Megan's law and purchases/rents in a particular community, notices are not sent to each person living in that town. It's strickly up to any individual to contantly check to see if any abuser moved into the neighborhood. Most people don't bother. It may be state by state, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

 
At 3:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Make note: It's very interesting that Lanner lost his "so called" 13lbs. "prior" to going back to jail and while he was out on bail. That could potentionally work against him. Wondering just how he lost the weight. He would most likely state it was nerves, but then again, he still doesn't think he didn't anything wrong and never truely believed he would be back in prision. In his mind, he's not guilty, therefore not owning up to his errors...not that he believes there were any!

 
At 3:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would be nice if there were a blog specifically for victims and their families that are victims also. That would ge a GREAT help and maybe bring some back to their roots. Please respond with your resonse to this. It's important.

 
At 4:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Question to all:
I know that most of you, if not all, believe that Lanner is guilty. But how do you personally feel about the girls and guy that filed a complaint with the criminal courts? Did anyone read the younger girl's essay on her accounts of what happend to her in the Jewish Week about 3 weeks after the paper blew the story open?

 
At 4:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

what are you referring to?

 
At 4:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

what are you referring to?

 
At 4:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous wrote:

"It would be nice if there were a blog specifically for victims and their families that are victims also. That would ge a GREAT help and maybe bring some back to their roots. Please respond with your resonse to this. It's important."

http://www.jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com

 
At 5:07 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>I know that most of you, if not
>all, believe that Lanner is
>guilty.

He has a criminal conviction.

>But how do you personally feel
>about the girls and guy that
>filed a complaint with the
>criminal courts?

There were 2 girls who filed criminal complaints (others were past the Statute of Limitations). Both girls are heroines. Very brave.

>Did anyone read the younger
>girl's essay on her accounts of
>what happend to her in the
>Jewish Week about 3 weeks after
>the paper blew the story open?

I think you've got it wrong. I think you're referring to this article.
http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/Lanner_Baruch.html#Preventing%20Future

I suggest you read this webpage:
http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/Lanner_Baruch.html

 
At 5:09 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Megan's Law is not enough to protect children from him.

He needs to be kept in jail as long as possible.

After that, we can post data as to his whereabouts and activities on the internet.

 
At 5:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps you people should consider the strong possibility that Rabbi Lanner is completely innocent of the charges levied against him!

Have you even heard the evidence in the case? Why did these "women" wait ten years to file charges? Why did they follow Rabbi Lanner everywhere, including field trips to Israel, if they were being harrassed, molested, or assaulted? Why did one of the "victims" recant her testimony? Why did Rabbi Lanner turn down a plea bargain to have all charges dropped, except misdemeanor harassment?

Obviously, this was a kangaroo trial, no more factual in conviction than that of Dreyfus or Leo Frank.

The Jewish community, who threw Rabbi Lanner to the wolves, rather than risk some of the stigma (of the false accusations) rubbing off on them, should be thoroughly ashamed.

No, I'm not a friend, relative, or fan of Rabbi Lanner. I don't even like him. But Jewish law requires we give a fellow Jew the benefit of the doubt, and there is more than reasonable doubt here.

 
At 5:52 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>Perhaps you people should
>consider the strong possibility
>that Rabbi Lanner is completely
>innocent of the charges levied
>against him!

Shameful, why don't you actually read up on the case before you bad mouth the courageous victims.

Try reading the Orthodox Union investigation report (summary only)

1)
http://www.ou.org/oupr/2000/comm/pr00.htm

and

2)Awareness page
http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/Lanner_Baruch.html

Your comments show incredible ignorance.

 
At 6:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why did they follow Rabbi Lanner everywhere, including field trips to Israel, if they were being harrassed, molested, or assaulted?"

Are you kidding us? If victims always steered clear of their abusers afterwards the problem wouldnt be as great. That is not how things work, buddy. It's still considered abuse even if the abused goes back for more. Get a clue.
I am not one who always agrees with JWB, I don't feel every case of Whistleblowing is warranted, but you are way off in this case. Defending Lanner after all of this is just wrong. Go stick up for someone who is withholding a get or something.

 
At 7:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if the person who's sticking up for Lanner is the same person/people who are sticking up for Gafni and Carlebach?

 
At 8:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That would be a question for the JWB. Do they have the same IP?

 
At 8:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anonymous who wrote:

"I wonder if the person who's sticking up for Lanner is the same person/people who are sticking up for Gafni and Carlebach?"

The fact that they wrote---

"Why did these "women" wait ten years to file charges? Why did they follow Rabbi Lanner everywhere, including field trips to Israel, if they were being harrassed, molested, or assaulted?"

-----tells me it's likely possibly written by an abuser also. You have to understand that a lot of these men TRULY believe, or at least convince themselves, that these young women and women invite the abuse, initiate it, want it.

 
At 9:39 PM, Anonymous Ploni Almoni said...

>He has a criminal conviction.

So Rabbi Lanner is "legally guilty" --- and OJ and Clinton are innocent, right?

>There were 2 girls who filed criminal complaints (others were past the Statute of Limitations). Both girls are heroines. Very brave.

What statute of limitations? Priests are being accused (both factually and falsely) for crimes they may (or may not)have committed 40 years ago!

False accusations do not a heroine make.

>He needs to be kept in jail as long as possible. After that, we can post data as to his whereabouts and activities on the internet.

How will this protect anyone? You are simply trying to extract revenge above and beyond that which the law prescribes. This is called "lynch law".

>Shameful, why don't you actually read up on the case before you bad mouth the courageous victims.

Giving a fellow Jew the benefit of the doubt is shameful? Shame on you! I have "read up on the case". However, unlike some of you, I have actually read the evidence as well, rather than relying on the anti-religious propaganda promulgating the media.

>Your comments show incredible ignorance.

And yours show incredible bigotry.

>Are you kidding us? If victims always steered clear of their abusers afterwards the problem wouldnt be as great. That is not how things work, buddy. It's still considered abuse even if the abused goes back for more. Get a clue.

Not the way things work? Poppycock! Rational people do not "come back for more". I'm not claiming that (if they do) this excuses or jutifies abuse, but I am claiming that such behavior establishes more than a reasonable doubt that such abuse ever occured.

>Go stick up for someone who is withholding a get or something.

Why would I do that?

>I wonder if the person who's sticking up for Lanner is the same person/people who are sticking up for Gafni and Carlebach?

Nope. Are you the same person who spits on Shlomo's grave daily?

>That would be a question for the JWB. Do they have the same IP?

Hmmm. How many people have a static IP address? Mine is different every time I dial-up to the Internet, so it would be a remarkable coincidence if it were the same, even if we were the same people -- which we are not.

But, let's assume that I were also "sticking" up for other persons who are accused of offenses which it appears they may not have committed. Would that be wrong?

Does being accused of a heinous offense --- without convincing evidence --- require an automatic conviction and condemnation?

Do you believe in trial by media?

Are you ranting and raving about Clinton's sexual abuse of young interns and vulnerable staff? What about Woody Allen? Michael Jackson? Jessie Jackson? Martin Luther King Jr.? FDR?

Or is this just an "important issue" for you because you hate rabbis and religious Jews?

>the fact that he wrote ... tells me it's likely possibly written by an abuser also. You have to understand that a lot of these men TRULY believe, or at least convince themselves, that these young women and women invite the abuse, initiate it, want it.

Oh, give it a rest. Not everyone fits into your stereotype profiling. My mention of the young lady's fawning was not to imply she invited certain actions (which I doubt took place), but to cast doubts on her entire account. Rational people do not follow their "abusers" no matter what the liberal media wishes you to believe.

Am I an abuser? Most emphatically, no. But why should you believe me? Find someone who doesn't know me, ask her (or him) to accuse me of something, and Voila! Instant pervert!

Are you a rabbi basher? You certainly fit the profile. But I'm still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Anonymity is so confusing. Let's call me Ploni Almoni, and you can be Deep Throat.

 
At 11:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the person that stated:
"Why did these "women" wait ten years to file charges? Why did they follow Rabbi Lanner everywhere, including field trips to Israel, if they were being harassed, molested, or assaulted?" "Give lanner the benefit of the doubt"?
1) These women didn't wait ten years to come forward.
2) Why did they "follow" lanner? They were extremely fearful of him and were brain washed that "he" was the person to ONLY go to when they have a problem. No one else, including their parents. They were children and lanner took over many minds that he destroyed.
Get your ignorant facts straight! One charge was dropped because of technicalities. But I can surely tell you that everything that was written about this pedophile was correct. I know the true facts and because of these true facts, my daughter and our family have yet to come back from hell. I have a question for this person who wants to give lanner the benefit of the doubt. Was it your child that was affected? If it was, I highly doubt you would be saying the things you are.
You can call me "Mom" of the younger brave victim that helped put a stop to more young children getting hurt and the truth being swept under the rugs. No Jew wants their dirty laundry on the front pages but if the Rabbis took care of the problem a long time ago, especially at the 1989 Bet Din, then there would not have been a need to go to the proper authorities. If Jews don’t want to help their own, then other measures must be taken.
I would love a reply from this person who wants to give lanner the benefit of the doubt!

 
At 11:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the person that stated:
"Why did these "women" wait ten years to file charges? Why did they follow Rabbi Lanner everywhere, including field trips to Israel, if they were being harassed, molested, or assaulted?" "Give lanner the benefit of the doubt"?
1) These women didn't wait ten years to come forward.
2) Why did they "follow" lanner? They were extremely fearful of him and were brain washed that "he" was the person to ONLY go to when they have a problem. No one else, including their parents. They were children and lanner took over many minds that he destroyed.
Get your ignorant facts straight! One charge was dropped because of technicalities. But I can surely tell you that everything that was written about this pedophile was correct. I know the true facts and because of these true facts, my daughter and our family have yet to come back from hell. I have a question for this person who wants to give lanner the benefit of the doubt. Was it your child that was affected? If it was, I highly doubt you would be saying the things you are.
You can call me "Mom" of the younger brave victim that helped put a stop to more young children getting hurt and the truth being swept under the rugs. No Jew wants their dirty laundry on the front pages but if the Rabbis took care of the problem a long time ago, especially at the 1989 Bet Din, then there would not have been a need to go to the proper authorities. If Jews don’t want to help their own, then other measures must be taken.
I would love a reply from this person who wants to give lanner the benefit of the doubt!

 
At 1:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Mom". I feel your pain. Don't waste your time and emotion trying to convince "Ploni Almoni" and Lanner defenders.

You have more important things to do, like caring for your daughter and helping your family through, what will no doubt be, a long healing process.

A Lanner Survivor

 
At 4:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Not the way things work? Poppycock! Rational people do not "come back for more". I'm not claiming that (if they do) this excuses or jutifies abuse, but I am claiming that such behavior establishes more than a reasonable doubt that such abuse ever occured."

You do not know what the hell you are talking about. Go ask anyone who specializes in abuse or incest. You're way, way off on this.

 
At 4:57 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

1) The Statute of Limitations applies to criminal NOT civil proceedings. That's why many could not make criminal charges against Lanner.

2) The Orthodox Union report, which the ignorant poster has clearly not read, makes it clear that Lanner's documented behavior of both inappropriate and criminal acts goes back to the 70s and was routinely ignored and covered up by his superiors at the NCSY/OU.

http://www.ou.org/oupr/2000/comm/pr00.htm


3) No one should waste their time with this crazy poster. They just demonstrate why this blog is necessary.

 
At 5:55 AM, Anonymous Ploni Almoni said...

>These women didn't wait ten years to come forward.

No? Please elucidate.

>Why did they "follow" lanner? They were extremely fearful of him and were brain washed that "he" was the person to ONLY go to when they have a problem. No one else, including their parents. They were children and lanner took over many minds that he destroyed.

Why were they "extremely fearful of him'? Why did they consider him "the only person to go to"? Where were their parents? Why didn't I have this sort of self-destructive "fear and reverence" of any teacher or clergyman (or authority) when I was a child? How did Rabbi Lanner "take over minds"? Gevalt!

>Get your ignorant facts straight!

I prefer to get my accurate facts straight. Ignorant facts are a waste of time.

>One charge was dropped because of technicalities.

Had the appellate court done their job, the entire decision would have been reversed. The US Constitution requires proof, not just accusations (at least in theory).

>But I can surely tell you that everything that was written about this pedophile was correct.

You can tell me anything you wish, and I can tell you anything I wish. That doesn't make it correct.

>I know the true facts and because of these true facts, my daughter and our family have yet to come back from hell.

I truly feel sorry for you. Where were you ten years ago when these events were allegedly occuring?

>I have a question for this person who wants to give lanner the benefit of the doubt. Was it your child that was affected? If it was, I highly doubt you would be saying the things you are.

If it had been my child, or myself, and these events had actually transpired, or even if I only believed they transpired, I would not have waited ten years to bring charges. And there would have been no need for a trial.

As a child and young adult, I was "propositioned" on more than one occasion by a "pediophile". In each case, I rebuffed the unwelcome advances, and I didn't wind up "in hell" temporarily or permanently. Why did your family?

>You can call me "Mom" of the younger brave victim that helped put a stop to more young children getting hurt and the truth being swept under the rugs. No Jew wants their dirty laundry on the front pages but if the Rabbis took care of the problem a long time ago, especially at the 1989 Bet Din, then there would not have been a need to go to the proper authorities. If Jews don’t want to help their own, then other measures must be taken.

Yes, when we don't agree with the decision of the authorities, vigilante justice is certainly called for. That's a real healthy attitude, and one which will certainly protect our children's futures.

What would you have done if the New Jersey authorities had ruled differently? Built a gallows?

>I would love a reply from this person who wants to give lanner the benefit of the doubt!

You now have my reply. Somehow I doubt that you will love it. But thank you for requesting my further opinion.

>You do not know what the hell you are talking about. Go ask anyone who specializes in abuse or incest. You're way, way off on this.

If YOU knew "what the hell you are talking about", you would realize that there are many disparate theories in respect to "abuse and incest", including the media mythology which you have apparently accepted as fact. Please look up the definition of "theory" in a dictionary.

>The Statute of Limitations applies to criminal NOT civil proceedings. That's why many could not make criminal charges against Lanner.

Sorry, "JWB". YOUR facts are in error. There are statutes of limitations (time limits in which charges must be filed) for virtually every aspect of criminal and civil law. There are some crimes (e.g. murder and tax fraud) for which there is no statute of limitations. There are also actions (such as leaving the jurisdiction of venue) which "suspend" the statute of limitations from tolling while that situation exists.

Statutes for civil suits are usually very short, e.g. 6-months for a property damages, 3-years for medical damages, etc. There are also civil charges for which there is no statute.

As I asked you before, which "statute of limitations" precluded Rabbi Lanner being prosecuted for other alleged crimes?

>The Orthodox Union report, which the ignorant poster has clearly not read, makes it clear that Lanner's documented behavior of both inappropriate and criminal acts goes back to the 70s and was routinely ignored and covered up by his superiors at the NCSY/OU.

It's interesting that you cannot discuss this issue without ad hominom insults and statement of falsehoods. Just because we arrive at different conclusions doesn't mean that I haven't done my homework (or that you have).

We (or at least I) am discussing the strong possibility that Rabbi Lanner is innocent of the charges that were levied against him. I am not discussing any other allegations (which lack even the limited evidence of those with which he has been charged).

As I stated earlier, the OU (and their report) are an obvious self-serving attempt to distance themselves from Rabbi Lanner, in an attempt to avoid lawsuits (whether well-grounded or groundless) and other revenue losses. Throwing someone to the wolves is is a common corporate defense, and can not be construed as evidence of that person's guilt or complicity.

>No one should waste their time with this crazy poster.

Yet, for some reason, you can't resist doing so, and have little to say in way of rebuttal other than ad hominom insults.

Because I disagree with your biased conclusions, you call me ignorant and crazy. Real mature.

>They just demonstrate why this blog is necessary.

How does that erudite conclusion follow? You people have been bashing Rabbi Lanner and other rabbeim for (at least) five years now. What does this "blog" ad to that? When will your blood thirst (and blood libel) be satisfied?

 
At 6:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ploni Almoni wrote:

"If it had been my child, or myself, and these events had actually transpired, or even if I only believed they transpired, I would not have waited ten years to bring charges. And there would have been no need for a trial."

Interesting last comment. Are you stating you would have sought justice by your own hands? Interesting view since you're complaining about those who are speaking out about Lanner.....

"As a child and young adult, I was "propositioned" on more than one occasion by a "pediophile". In each case, I rebuffed the unwelcome advances, and I didn't wind up "in hell" temporarily or permanently. Why did your family?"

What a perfect example of the "blame the victim" mentality, i.e., 'I didn't allow MYself to be victimized, so why did YOU?'
It's fascinating to see how far people will go to distance themselves from victims (handy inner defense mechanism?) even if it means ending up aligning themselves with the perps.
Just curious, did you ever report to any authorities the approaches made to you by pedophiles? If not, why not? If so, what were the responses?

To put yourself in a 'superior' mode by having 'rebuffed advances' by pedophiles and asking why that family "did not" is a truly shameful thing to do. Be thankful you never had the horrid experiences those children had, but learn how to develop a bit of compassion for those who fell prey.

 
At 6:52 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>>These women didn't wait ten
>>years to come forward.
>
>No? Please elucidate.

10 years would be past the Statute of Limitations for criminal charges, moron.

>>Why did they "follow" lanner?
>>They were extremely fearful of
>>him and were brain washed
>>that "he" was the person to
>>ONLY go to when they have a
>>problem. No one else, including
>>their parents. They were
>>children and lanner took over
>>many minds that he destroyed.
>
>Why were they "extremely fearful
>of him'? Why did they consider
>him "the only person to go to"?
>Where were their parents? Why
>didn't I have this sort of self-
>destructive "fear and reverence"
>of any teacher or clergyman (or
>authority) when I was a child?
>How did Rabbi Lanner "take over
>minds"? Gevalt!

By abusing his position of power over these children.

>>Get your ignorant facts
>>straight!
>
>I prefer to get my accurate
>facts straight. Ignorant facts
>are a waste of time.

You're a waste of time.

>>One charge was dropped because
>>of technicalities.
>
>Had the appellate court done
>their job, the entire decision
>would have been reversed. The US
>Constitution requires proof, not
>just accusations (at least in
>theory).

As usual don't know what you're talikng about. Testimony is evidence.

>>But I can surely tell you that
>>everything that was written
>>about this pedophile was
>>correct.
>
>You can tell me anything you
>wish, and I can tell you
>anything I wish. That doesn't
>make it correct.

You are correct in that what you say is not correct.

>>I know the true facts and
>>because of these true facts, my
>>daughter and our family have
>>yet to come back from hell.
>
>I truly feel sorry for you.
>Where were you ten years ago
>when these events were allegedly
>occuring?

Again, not 10 years.

>>I have a question for this
>>person who wants to give lanner
>>the benefit of the doubt. Was
>>it your child that was
>>affected? If it was, I highly
>>doubt you would be saying the
>>things you are.
>
>If it had been my child, or
>myself, and these events had
>actually transpired, or even if
>I only believed they transpired,
>I would not have waited ten
>years to bring charges. And
>there would have been no need
>for a trial.

Nonsense.

>As a child and young adult, I
>was "propositioned" on more
>than one occasion by
>a "pediophile". In each case, I
>rebuffed the unwelcome
>advances, and I didn't wind
>up "in hell" temporarily or
>permanently. Why did your family?

The 2 situations were completely different or are you claiming that no child could ever be sexually molested?

Did you report that pedophile? I'm sure you didn't.

>>You can call me "Mom" of the
>>younger brave victim that
>>helped put a stop to more young
>>children getting hurt and the
>>truth being swept under the
>>rugs. No Jew wants their dirty
>>laundry on the front pages but
>>if the Rabbis took care of the
>>problem a long time ago,
>>especially at the 1989 Bet Din,
>>then there would not have been
>>a need to go to the proper
>>authorities. If Jews don’t want
>>to help their own, then other
>>measures must be taken.
>>
>>Yes, when we don't agree with
>>the decision of the
>>authorities,
>>vigilante justice is certainly
>>called for. That's a real
>>healthy attitude, and one which
>>will certainly protect our
>>children's futures.
>
>What would you have done if the
>New Jersey authorities had ruled
>differently? Built a gallows?

Aren't you the one that just said "there would have been no need for a trial."

>>I would love a reply from this
>>person who wants to give lanner
>>the benefit of the doubt!
>
>You now have my reply. Somehow I
>doubt that you will love it. But
>thank you for requesting my
>further opinion.
>
>>You do not know what the hell
>you are talking about. Go ask
>>anyone who specializes in abuse
>>or incest. You're way, way off
>>on this.
>
>If YOU knew "what the hell you
>are talking about", you would
>realize that there are many
>disparate theories in respect
>to "abuse and incest", including
>the media mythology which you
>have apparently accepted as
>fact. Please look up the
>definition of "theory" in a
>dictionary.

So basically you don't believe children can be sexually molested?

>The Statute of Limitations
>applies to criminal NOT civil
>proceedings. That's why many
>could not make criminal charges
>against Lanner.
>
>>Sorry, "JWB". YOUR facts are in
>>error. There are statutes of
>>limitations (time limits in
>>which charges must be filed)
>>for virtually every aspect of
>>criminal and civil law. There
>>are some crimes (e.g. murder
>>and tax fraud) for which there
>>is no statute of limitations.

Many of the civil Statutes have been extended by decades allowing civil suits against priests where criminal charges are no longer possible. That is why so many priests are being sued NOT criminally charged. In the Orthodox world however we are encouraged NOT to file civil suits.

>>There are also actions (such as
>>leaving the jurisdiction of
>>venue) which "suspend" the
>>statute of limitations from
>>tolling while that situation
>>exists.
>>
>>Statutes for civil suits are
>>usually very short, e.g. 6-
>>months for a property damages,
>>3-years for medical damages,
>>etc. There are also civil
>>charges for which there is no
>>statute.
>>
>>
>>As I asked you before,
>>which "statute of limitations"
>>precluded Rabbi Lanner being
>>prosecuted for other alleged
>>crimes?

The Statute of Limitations on criminal charges in the states where he committed crimes against children are very strict (very short) and have long passed.

>>The Orthodox Union report,
>>which the ignorant poster has
>>clearly not read, makes it
>>clear that Lanner's documented
>>behavior of both inappropriate
>>and criminal acts goes back to
>>the 70s and was routinely
>>ignored and covered up by his
>>superiors at the NCSY/OU.
>
>It's interesting that you cannot
>discuss this issue without ad
>hominom insults and statement of
>falsehoods. Just because we
>arrive at different conclusions
>doesn't mean that I haven't done
>my homework (or that you have).

Actually, you haven't. That's clear.

>We (or at least I) am discussing
>the strong possibility that
>Rabbi Lanner is innocent of the
>charges that were levied against
>him. I am not discussing any
>other allegations (which lack
>even the limited evidence of
>those with which he has been
>charged).

Quite to the contrary.

>As I stated earlier, the OU (and
>their report) are an obvious
>self-serving attempt to distance
>themselves from Rabbi Lanner, in
>an attempt to avoid lawsuits
>(whether well-grounded or
>groundless) and other revenue
>losses. Throwing someone to the
>wolves is is a common corporate
>defense, and can not be
>construed as evidence of that
>person's guilt or complicity.

1) The report actually provides evidence of a pattern by OU/NCSY higher-ups that would help anyone suing them civilly.
2) The report was written by people outside the OU/NCSY.
3) The full report does provide evidence and testimony that construe evidence of Lanner's guilt to crimes (which the Statue of Limitations have passed) and evidence that could be used to establish civil liability of Lanner and the OU/NCSY.

>>No one should waste their time
>>with this crazy poster.
>
>Yet, for some reason, you can't
>resist doing so, and have little
>to say in way of rebuttal other
>than ad hominom insults.
>
>Because I disagree with your
>biased conclusions, you call me
>ignorant and crazy. Real mature.

No I call you that because you truly are ignorant.

>>They just demonstrate why this
>>blog is necessary.
>
>How does that erudite conclusion
>follow? You people have been
>bashing Rabbi Lanner and other
>rabbeim for (at least) five
>years now. What does this "blog"
>ad to that? When will your blood
>thirst (and blood libel) be
>satisfied?

When there is justice.

 
At 7:26 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Statute of Limitations in NY:
http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/sol_NY.html

Statute of Limitations in NJ:
http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/sol_NJ.html

 
At 7:44 AM, Anonymous Ploni Almoni said...

>Interesting last comment. Are you stating you would have sought justice by your own hands? Interesting view since you're complaining about those who are speaking out about Lanner.....

Read what you will into my statement. Or perhaps you should try taking it at face value, novel as the experience may be.

Please try to understand there is a marked difference between self-defense and vengeance, legally, morally, and halachically.

There is also a marked difference between chastizing the guilty and those who may be innocent.

>What a perfect example of the "blame the victim" mentality...

What a perfect example of creative misinterpretation of another's statements to "prove" your spurious point. As I have made perfectly clear above, I don't "blame" any victims. However, in this case, I do doubt the veracity of the accusers' statements.

>Just curious, did you ever report to any authorities the approaches made to you by pedophiles? If not, why not? If so, what were the responses?

I found myself quite capable of discouraging such attempts, and avoiding the possibility of any repitition, and thus never found it necessary to report them to the authorities. Had I not been able to do so, or had the offenders been teachers or rabbeim or anyone with whom I expected to be in future contact, I wouldn't have hesitated to file a complaint. [In fact, I have filed many complaints over the years against "authority figures" for other offenses, (including a little league coach who insisted in smoking (tobacco) in the dugout") with mixed success.]

I simply can't imagine anyone allowing themselves to be abused (physically, verbally, or sexually) daily over a period of years without saying something to someone. Or waiting 10 years to file a criminal complaint or law suit. Or waiting 10 years to vastly embellish an earlier complaint.

What was the magical "power" Rabbi Lanner allegedly held over his accusers, that they were afraid to complain about his alleged actions? The man is 5'6" tall, and looks like the Pillsbury doughboy. How could anyone be afraid of him? Because he was the school principal? I've never yet seen a high school student with any respect for the principal. As I recall, we unabashedly referred to ours as "Pinhead", and even refused to extinguish our cigarettes on his order. Because he was a "Rabbi"? There is no halacha requiring one to respect a b'nai Torah who does not practice Torah.

Furthermore, I can't believe that a school official could or would commit such an offense as that of which Rabbi Lanner is accused, inside a glass-walled office without someone else noticing and doing something about it.

In my opinion, the accusations are not credible. They are not supported by evidence or logic. The entire affair appears to be a politically-expedient witch hunt.

And, if complaints were filed 10 years ago, and the authorities to whom you complained did not respond in the way you wished, well --- that's life. There is a good reason for the double jeopardy protections of our constitution, and it is a shame that modern society finds so many ways to bypass them.

What would you have done if the New Jersey authorities had not been willing to prosecute, or the jury had acquited, or the appellate court had reversed the decision? Would you have filed a complaint with the UN, built a gallows, set fire to Rabbi Lanner (as another "blogger" recently obscenely suggested)?

Are your opinions as to Rabbi Lanner's guilt based on an unbiased evaluation of the evidence, or based on your dislike for Rabbi Lanner's abrasive personality, or based on your dislike for Rabbeim and/or Judaism in general, or based on the heinousness of the crime and an assumption that he who is accused of such is automatically guilty?

The latter is a fairly common "automatic response" with such crimes. Many accused rapists have been lynched before it was discovered that the entire story was fabricated. (For a prime example, do a web search on "Leo Frank".) Subsequnetly (I believe) the courts went too far in the other direction, giving too little credence to victims. Now, since it has become "politically correct" and amusing to bash clergy and religion, we have gone almost full swing back to the days of "hang 'em first, try 'em later".

Both Jewish and civil law require the benefit of doubt be given to the accused, and the burden of proof be placed on the accuser. There are good reasons for this policy. Have any of you considered the possibility that Rabbi Lanner may be innocent of the charges of which he was convicted? Would it matter to any of you if he was?

 
At 7:55 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

If ignorance = money, you'd be wealthy. Go talk to a few prodecuters, therapist that deal with these type of situations on a daily basis. Read a few books. Your ignorance and arrogance are a real combination.

 
At 8:08 AM, Anonymous Ploni Almoni said...

>10 years would be past the Statute of Limitations for criminal charges, moron.

Again, you respond with ad hominum insults, rather than respond to the question posed.

>By abusing his position of power over these children.

That's the accusation.

>You're a waste of time.

And yet you can't resist the investment. Perhaps you are not as convinced of your position as you would like to believe?

>As usual don't know what you're talikng about. Testimony is evidence.

As usual? Talikng? Yes, testimony is one form of evidence. How does that relate to my comment?

>You are correct in that what you say is not correct.

You are misquoting me in a feeble attempt to prove that you can type.

>Again, not 10 years.

How many then? What are the dates of the alleged offences. When were criminal charges filed?

>Nonsense.

Sense

>The 2 situations were completely different or are you claiming that no child could ever be sexually molested?

You've twisted my words beyond recognition. The two situations are similar enough for the point I was making. I said nothing that could be interpreted as you have concluded.

>Did you report that pedophile? I'm sure you didn't.

I took care of the situation,and there was no further need to report anything. But why are you "sure I didn't"? Had there been a need, I wouldn't have hesitated.

>Aren't you the one that just said "there would have been no need for a trial."

Yes, I believe that was me.

>So basically you don't believe children can be sexually molested?

What did I ever say that would lead you to that conclusion?

>Many of the civil Statutes have been extended by decades allowing civil suits against priests where criminal charges are no longer possible. That is why so many priests are being sued NOT criminally charged.

Are these the same civil statutes that (in your earlier post) you said didn't exist? [JWB: Statute of Limitations applies to criminal NOT civil proceedings.]

>In the Orthodox world however we are encouraged NOT to file civil suits.

Yes, it is forbidden by halacha. We are expected and required to bring our grievances to a beis din, and accept their ruling. Since, in our times, the beis din does not have police authority, when one party to the action refuses to appear or abide by the decision, the beis din can give permission to bring the matter to the civil authorities.

>The Statute of Limitations on criminal charges in the states where he committed crimes against children are very strict (very short) and have long passed.

And, my erudite expert, what are those statutes that you refer to so freely?

>Actually, you haven't. That's clear.

Only to you.

>Quite to the contrary....

I stand by my earlier statement on this matter. Discussing more specific details with you seems to be fruitless. Your mind was made up long ago.

>No I call you that because you truly are ignorant.

Interesting. I have a verifiable IQ which places me in the "genius" rating, I have been invited to join Mensa, I have an extensive religious and secular education, and you --- the self-appointed "Jewish Whistleblower" (an apparent euphimism for anti-rabbinincal bigot) --- see fit to label me as ignorant.

>When there is justice.

You neglected to complete the sentence. Perhaps because we are still waiting for justice in this matter. You are waiting for a lynching. I am waiting for an appellate reversal.

jewishwhistleblower said...
>Statute of Limitations in NY:
http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/sol_NY.html

>Statute of Limitations in NJ:
http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/sol_NJ.html

Why don't you just (accurately)quote the statute for our edification? I know how to look it up. I don't know which specific statute you are referring to, and I suspect that you don't either.

 
At 8:08 AM, Anonymous Ploni Almoni said...

>10 years would be past the Statute of Limitations for criminal charges, moron.

Again, you respond with ad hominum insults, rather than respond to the question posed.

>By abusing his position of power over these children.

That's the accusation.

>You're a waste of time.

And yet you can't resist the investment. Perhaps you are not as convinced of your position as you would like to believe?

>As usual don't know what you're talikng about. Testimony is evidence.

As usual? Talikng? Yes, testimony is one form of evidence. How does that relate to my comment?

>You are correct in that what you say is not correct.

You are misquoting me in a feeble attempt to prove that you can type.

>Again, not 10 years.

How many then? What are the dates of the alleged offences. When were criminal charges filed?

>Nonsense.

Sense

>The 2 situations were completely different or are you claiming that no child could ever be sexually molested?

You've twisted my words beyond recognition. The two situations are similar enough for the point I was making. I said nothing that could be interpreted as you have concluded.

>Did you report that pedophile? I'm sure you didn't.

I took care of the situation,and there was no further need to report anything. But why are you "sure I didn't"? Had there been a need, I wouldn't have hesitated.

>Aren't you the one that just said "there would have been no need for a trial."

Yes, I believe that was me.

>So basically you don't believe children can be sexually molested?

What did I ever say that would lead you to that conclusion?

>Many of the civil Statutes have been extended by decades allowing civil suits against priests where criminal charges are no longer possible. That is why so many priests are being sued NOT criminally charged.

Are these the same civil statutes that (in your earlier post) you said didn't exist? [JWB: Statute of Limitations applies to criminal NOT civil proceedings.]

>In the Orthodox world however we are encouraged NOT to file civil suits.

Yes, it is forbidden by halacha. We are expected and required to bring our grievances to a beis din, and accept their ruling. Since, in our times, the beis din does not have police authority, when one party to the action refuses to appear or abide by the decision, the beis din can give permission to bring the matter to the civil authorities.

>The Statute of Limitations on criminal charges in the states where he committed crimes against children are very strict (very short) and have long passed.

And, my erudite expert, what are those statutes that you refer to so freely?

>Actually, you haven't. That's clear.

Only to you.

>Quite to the contrary....

I stand by my earlier statement on this matter. Discussing more specific details with you seems to be fruitless. Your mind was made up long ago.

>No I call you that because you truly are ignorant.

Interesting. I have a verifiable IQ which places me in the "genius" rating, I have been invited to join Mensa, I have an extensive religious and secular education, and you --- the self-appointed "Jewish Whistleblower" (an apparent euphimism for anti-rabbinincal bigot) --- see fit to label me as ignorant.

>When there is justice.

You neglected to complete the sentence. Perhaps because we are still waiting for justice in this matter. You are waiting for a lynching. I am waiting for an appellate reversal.

jewishwhistleblower said...
>Statute of Limitations in NY:
http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/sol_NY.html

>Statute of Limitations in NJ:
http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/sol_NJ.html

Why don't you just (accurately)quote the statute for our edification? I know how to look it up. I don't know which specific statute you are referring to, and I suspect that you don't either.

 
At 8:11 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

The statistics indicate that false accusations in such cases are rare. Particulary when there are numerous victims all coming forward with allegations.

Lanner was afforded a trial by jury and convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.

>There is also a marked
>difference between chastizing
>the guilty and those who may be
>innocent.

But you don't even respect the determination of guilt by a court. Lanner is not innocent.

>However, in this case, I do
>doubt the veracity of the
>accusers' statements.

Based on your very limited knowledge and life experiences. Which added together are worthless.

>I simply can't imagine anyone
>allowing themselves to be abused
>(physically, verbally, or
>sexually) daily over a period of
>years without saying something
>to someone. Or waiting 10 years
>to file a criminal complaint or
>law suit. Or waiting 10 years to
>vastly embellish an earlier
>complaint.

Based on your very limited knowledge and life experiences. Which again added together are worthless.

>What was the magical "power"
>Rabbi Lanner allegedly held over
>his accusers, that they were
>afraid to complain about his
>alleged actions?

People complained for decades, OU/NCSY officials covered up for him and silenced the complainers. You obviously have not read the OU commission report.

http://www.ou.org/oupr/2000/comm/pr00.htm

Try basing an argument on the contents of the report. Surprise us.

>In my opinion, the accusations
>are not credible. They are not
>supported by evidence or logic.
>The entire affair appears to be
>a politically-expedient witch
>hunt.

Your opinion and $1 will get you a coffee.

>Many accused rapists have been
>lynched before it was discovered
>that the entire story was
>fabricated. (For a prime
>example, do a web search on "Leo
>Frank".)

Completely diffent situation and time. By the way even in this situation there was a real rape victim who was killed. Just not by Frank.

>Both Jewish and civil law
>require the benefit of doubt be
>given to the accused, and the
>burden of proof be placed on the
>accuser. There are good reasons
>for this policy. Have any of you
>considered the possibility that
>Rabbi Lanner may be innocent of
>the charges of which he was
>convicted? Would it matter to
>any of you if he was?

This has been addressed by:
1) 1989 Beis Din
2) OU investigation
3) Jury trial
4) appellete ruling

None have found Lanner innocent, to the contrary all have found him guilty.

 
At 8:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

WOW. Ploni Almoni truly astounds me with his/her ignorance. I am one who on more than a few occasions has disagreed with JWB. I have made many arguments in defense of those that are IMHO, unfairly targeted or targeted with insufficient evidence by JWB. I do it respectfully and do not claim to be in the know regarding every issue posted about.Hoewever, Ploni's stunningly insensitive comment makes me realize how important people like JWB really are to our community, even while not agreeing with all his choices of targets. I cannot fathom the depths of stupidity Ploni would have had to plumb to come up with these alarming arguments. I know, JWB, you told us not to humor him/her with a response. I, unfortunately, cannot hold back. Ploni Almoni, let's hope you're not actually raising any children. I hope, that if you are, nothing untoward ever befalls them. Because with your 'blame the victim' or 'disbelieve the victim' (depending on which post of yous I go by) I can't imaginr they would ever get the protection they would need from you.

 
At 8:18 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

The above link should have sufficed except for a moron like you. So:


Criminal Procedure

ARTICLE 30--TIMELINESS OF PROSECUTIONS AND SPEEDY TRIAL
Section 30.10 Timeliness of prosecutions; periods of limitation.
30.20 Speedy trial; in general.
30.30 Speedy trial; time limitations.

S 30.10 Timeliness of prosecutions; periods of limitation.
1. A criminal action must be commenced within the period of limitation
prescribed in the ensuing subdivisions of this section.
2. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision three:
(a) A prosecution for a class A felony may be commenced at any time;
(b) A prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within five
years after the commission thereof;
(c) A prosecution for a misdemeanor must be commenced within two years
after the commission thereof;
(d) A prosecution for a petty offense must be commenced within one
year after the commission thereof.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision two, the periods of
limitation for the commencement of criminal actions are extended as
follows in the indicated circumstances:
(a) A prosecution for larceny committed by a person in violation of a
fiduciary duty may be commenced within one year after the facts
constituting such offense are discovered or, in the exercise of
reasonable diligence, should have been discovered by the aggrieved party
or by a person under a legal duty to represent him who is not himself
implicated in the commission of the offense.
(b) A prosecution for any offense involving misconduct in public
office by a public servant may be commenced at any time during the
defendant`s service in such office or within five years after the
termination of such service; provided however, that in no event shall
the period of limitation be extended by more than five years beyond the
period otherwise applicable under subdivision two.
(c) A prosecution for any crime set forth in title twenty-seven or
article seventy-one of the environmental conservation law may be
commenced within four years after the facts constituting such crime are
discovered or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been
discovered by a public servant who has the responsibility to enforce the
provisions of said title and article.
(d) A prosecution for any misdemeanor set forth in the tax law or
chapter forty-six of the administrative code of the city of New York
must be commenced within three years after the commission thereof.
(e) A prosecution for course of sexual conduct in the first degree as
defined in section 130.75 of the penal law and course of sexual conduct
in the second degree as defined in section 130.80 of the penal law may
be commenced within five years of the commission of the most recent act
of sexual conduct.
(f) For purposes of a prosecution involving a sexual offense as
defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law committed against
a child less than eighteen years of age, incest as defined in section
255.25 of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen
years of age, or use of a child in a sexual performance as defined in
section 263.05 of the penal law, the period of limitation shall not
begin to run until the child has reached the age of eighteen or the
offense is reported to a law enforcement agency or statewide central
register of child abuse and maltreatment, whichever occurs earlier.
4. In calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a
criminal action, the following periods shall not be included:
(a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which
(i) the defendant was continuously outside this state or (ii) the
whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and continuously
unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence. However, in no
event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years
beyond the period otherwise applicable under subdivision two.
(b) When a prosecution for an offense is lawfully commenced within the
prescribed period of limitation therefor, and when an accusatory
instrument upon which such prosecution is based is subsequently
dismissed by an authorized court under directions or circumstances
permitting the lodging of another charge for the same offense or an
offense based on the same conduct, the period extending from the
commencement of the thus defeated prosecution to the dismissal of the
accusatory instrument does not constitute a part of the period of
limitation applicable to commencement of prosecution by a new charge.

S 30.20 Speedy trial; in general.
1. After a criminal action is commenced, the defendant is entitled to
a speedy trial.
2. Insofar as is practicable, the trial of a criminal action must be
given preference over civil cases; and the trial of a criminal action
where the defendant has been committed to the custody of the sheriff
during the pendency of the criminal action must be given preference over
other criminal actions.

S 30.30 Speedy trial; time limitations.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision three, a motion made
pursuant to paragraph (e) of subdivision one of section 170.30 or
paragraph (g) of subdivision one of section 210.20 must be granted where
the people are not ready for trial within:
(a) six months of the commencement of a criminal action wherein a
defendant is accused of one or more offenses, at least one of which is a
felony;
(b) ninety days of the commencement of a criminal action wherein a
defendant is accused of one or more offenses, at least one of which is a
misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three
months and none of which is a felony;
(c) sixty days of the commencement of a criminal action wherein the
defendant is accused of one or more offenses, at least one of which is a
misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of not more than
three months and none of which is a crime punishable by a sentence of
imprisonment of more than three months;
(d) thirty days of the commencement of a criminal action wherein the
defendant is accused of one or more offenses, at least one of which is a
violation and none of which is a crime.
2. Except as provided in subdivision three, where a defendant has been
committed to the custody of the sheriff in a criminal action he must be
released on bail or on his own recognizance, upon such conditions as may
be just and reasonable, if the people are not ready for trial in that
criminal action within:
(a) ninety days from the commencement of his commitment to the custody
of the sheriff in a criminal action wherein the defendant is accused of
one or more offenses, at least one of which is a felony;
(b) thirty days from the commencement of his commitment to the custody
of the sheriff in a criminal action wherein the defendant is accused of
one or more offenses, at least one of which is a misdemeanor punishable
by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months and none of
which is a felony;
(c) fifteen days from the commencement of his commitment to the
custody of the sheriff in a criminal action wherein the defendant is
accused of one or more offenses, at least one of which is a misdemeanor
punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of not more than three months
and none of which is a crime punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of
more than three months;
(d) five days from the commencement of his commitment to the custody
of the sheriff in a criminal action wherein the defendant is accused of
one or more offenses, at least one of which is a violation and none of
which is a crime.
3. (a) Subdivisions one and two do not apply to a criminal action
wherein the defendant is accused of an offense defined in sections
125.10, 125.15, 125.20, 125.25 and 125.27 of the penal law.
(b) A motion made pursuant to subdivisions one or two upon expiration
of the specified period may be denied where the people are not ready for
trial if the people were ready for trial prior to the expiration of the
specified period and their present unreadiness is due to some
exceptional fact or circumstance, including, but not limited to, the
sudden unavailability of evidence material to the people`s case, when
the district attorney has exercised due diligence to obtain such
evidence and there are reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence
will become available in a reasonable period.
(c) A motion made pursuant to subdivision two shall not:
(i) apply to any defendant who is serving a term of imprisonment for
another offense;
(ii) require the release from custody of any defendant who is also
being held in custody pending trial of another criminal charge as to
which the applicable period has not yet elapsed;
(iii) prevent the redetention of or otherwise apply to any defendant
who, after being released from custody pursuant to this section or
otherwise, is charged with another crime or violates the conditions on
which he has been released, by failing to appear at a judicial
proceeding at which his presence is required or otherwise.
4. In computing the time within which the people must be ready for
trial pursuant to subdivisions one and two, the following periods must
be excluded:
(a) a reasonable period of delay resulting from other proceedings
concerning the defendant, including but not limited to: proceedings for
the determination of competency and the period during which defendant is
incompetent to stand trial; demand to produce; request for a bill of
particulars; pre-trial motions; appeals; trial of other charges; and the
period during which such matters are under consideration by the court;
or
(b) the period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the
court at the request of, or with the consent of, the defendant or his
counsel. The court must grant such a continuance only if it is
satisfied that postponement is in the interest of justice, taking into
account the public interest in the prompt dispositions of criminal
charges. A defendant without counsel must not be deemed to have
consented to a continuance unless he has been advised by the court of
his rights under these rules and the effect of his consent; or
(c) (i) the period of delay resulting from the absence or
unavailability of the defendant. A defendant must be considered absent
whenever his location is unknown and he is attempting to avoid
apprehension or prosecution, or his location cannot be determined by due
diligence. A defendant must be considered unavailable whenever his
location is known but his presence for trial cannot be obtained by due
diligence; or
(ii) where the defendant has either escaped from custody or has failed
to appear when required after having previously been released on bail or
on his own recognizance, and provided the defendant is not in custody on
another matter, the period extending from the day the court issues a
bench warrant pursuant to section 530.70 because of the defendant`s
failure to appear in court when required, to the day the defendant
subsequently appears in the court pursuant to a bench warrant or
voluntarily or otherwise; or
(d) a reasonable period of delay when the defendant is joined for
trial with a co-defendant as to whom the time for trial pursuant to this
section has not run and good cause is not shown for granting a
severance; or
(e) the period of delay resulting from detention of the defendant in
another jurisdiction provided the district attorney is aware of such
detention and has been diligent and has made reasonable efforts to
obtain the presence of the defendant for trial; or
(f) the period during which the defendant is without counsel through
no fault of the court; except when the defendant is proceeding as his
own attorney with the permission of the court; or
(g) other periods of delay occasioned by exceptional circumstances,
including but not limited to, the period of delay resulting from a
continuance granted at the request of a district attorney if (i) the
continuance is granted because of the unavailability of evidence
material to the people`s case, when the district attorney has exercised
due diligence to obtain such evidence and there are reasonable grounds
to believe that such evidence will become available in a reasonable
period; or (ii) the continuance is granted to allow the district
attorney additional time to prepare the people`s case and additional
time is justified by the exceptional circumstances of the case.
(h) the period during which an action has been adjourned in
contemplation of dismissal pursuant to sections 170.55, 170.56 and
215.10 of this chapter.
(i) The period prior to the defendant`s actual appearance for
arraignment in a situation in which the defendant has been directed to
appear by the district attorney pursuant to subdivision three of section
120.20 or subdivision three of section 210.10.
(j) the period during which a family offense is before a family court
until such time as an accusatory instrument or indictment is filed
against the defendant alleging a crime constituting a family offense, as
such term is defined in section 530.11 of this chapter.
5. For purposes of this section, (a) where the defendant is to be
tried following the withdrawal of the plea of guilty or is to be retried
following a mistrial, an order for a new trial or an appeal or
collateral attack, the criminal action and the commitment to the custody
of the sheriff, if any, must be deemed to have commenced on the date the
withdrawal of the plea of guilty or the date the order occasioning a
retrial becomes final;
(b) where a defendant has been served with an appearance ticket, the
criminal action must be deemed to have commenced on the date the
defendant first appears in a local criminal court in response to the
ticket;
(c) where a criminal action is commenced by the filing of a felony
complaint, and thereafter, in the course of the same criminal action
either the felony complaint is replaced with or converted to an
information, prosecutor`s information or misdemeanor complaint pursuant
to article 180 or a prosecutor`s information is filed pursuant to
section 190.70, the period applicable for the purposes of subdivision
one must be the period applicable to the charges in the new accusatory
instrument, calculated from the date of the filing of such new
accusatory instrument; provided, however, that when the aggregate of
such period and the period of time, excluding the periods provided in
subdivision four, already elapsed from the date of the filing of the
felony complaint to the date of the filing of the new accusatory
instrument exceeds six months, the period applicable to the charges in
the felony complaint must remain applicable and continue as if the new
accusatory instrument had not been filed;
(d) where a criminal action is commenced by the filing of a felony
complaint, and thereafter, in the course of the same criminal action
either the felony complaint is replaced with or converted to an
information, prosecutor`s information or misdemeanor complaint pursuant
to article 180 or a prosecutor`s information is filed pursuant to
section 190.70, the period applicable for the purposes of subdivision
two must be the period applicable to the charges in the new accusatory
instrument, calculated from the date of the filing of such new
accusatory instrument; provided, however, that when the aggregate of
such period and the period of time, excluding the periods provided in
subdivision four, already elapsed from the date of the filing of the
felony complaint to the date of the filing of the new accusatory
instrument exceeds ninety days, the period applicable to the charges in
the felony complaint must remain applicable and continue as if the new
accusatory instrument had not been filed.
(e) where a count of an indictment is reduced to charge only a
misdemeanor or petty offense and a reduced indictment or a prosecutor`s
information is filed pursuant to subdivisions one-a and six of section
210.20, the period applicable for the purposes of subdivision one of
this section must be the period applicable to the charges in the new
accusatory instrument, calculated from the date of the filing of such
new accusatory instrument; provided, however, that when the aggregate of
such period and the period of time, excluding the periods provided in
subdivision four of this section, already elapsed from the date of the
filing of the indictment to the date of the filing of the new accusatory
instrument exceeds six months, the period applicable to the charges in
the indictment must remain applicable and continue as if the new
accusatory instrument had not been filed;
(f) where a count of an indictment is reduced to charge only a
misdemeanor or petty offense and a reduced indictment or a prosecutor`s
information is filed pursuant to subdivisions one-a and six of section
210.20, the period applicable for the purposes of subdivision two of
this section must be the period applicable to the charges in the new
accusatory instrument, calculated from the date of the filing of such
new accusatory instrument; provided, however, that when the aggregate of
such period and the period of time, excluding the periods provided in
subdivision four of this section, already elapsed from the date of the
filing of the indictment to the date of the filing of the new accusatory
instrument exceeds ninety days, the period applicable to the charges in
the indictment must remain applicable and continue as if the new
accusatory instrument had not been filed.
6. The procedural rules prescribed in subdivisions one through seven
of section 210.45 with respect to a motion to dismiss an indictment are
also applicable to a motion made pursuant to subdivision two.

 
At 8:24 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

The sad thing is that there are many that hold similar views to Ploni Almoni in the Orthodox community.

Ploni Almoni would never express these views in his own name and I suspect his real identity might even shock some of you.

 
At 8:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Interesting. I have a verifiable IQ which places me in the "genius" rating, I have been invited to join Mensa, I have an extensive religious and secular education, and you --- the self-appointed "Jewish Whistleblower" (an apparent euphimism for anti-rabbinincal bigot) --- see fit to label me as ignorant."
..."ad hominom insults"(mispelled TWICE-so no typo)

I.Q. has no connection whatsoever with ignorance. Obviously.

"found myself quite capable of discouraging such attempts, and avoiding the possibility of any repitition, and thus never found it necessary to report them to the authorities."

I'm so glad for you that you were able to deal with this so well. I mean, everyone is always able to deal with what life throws at them without any help or support at all, right? I wish I wasn't too livid to ignore a self-centered, ignorant idiot such as yourself. Alas, you've made my blood boil.

 
At 8:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets stop feeding this animal.

 
At 10:15 AM, Anonymous Ploni Almoni said...

>The statistics indicate that false accusations in such cases are rare. Particulary when there are numerous victims all coming forward with allegations.

Citing non-existent statistics, and quoting such citations, is a common ploy of the liberal media.
To which statistics do you refer?

>Lanner was afforded a trial by jury and convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.

There were serious procedural errors in the trial. [Read the appellate brief prepared by Nathan Dershowitz.] If this wasn't such a political "hot potato", the entire decision would have been thrown out by the appellate court.

>But you don't even respect the determination of guilt by a court. Lanner is not innocent.

I respect the decision of the court. I also disagree with it, and respect the right of the defendent to an appellate reversal.

It is you who have no respect for the decision of the court. You reject the earlier decision of the beis din, and you reject the sentencing of the court, wishing to prevent an "early" parole, and advocating chasting Rabbi Lanner even after he has served his full sentence --- assuming he survives incarceration.

>Based on your very limited knowledge and life experiences. Which added together are worthless.

You opinion (and misstatement of fact).

>Based on your very limited knowledge and life experiences. Which again added together are worthless.

I believe you stuttered.

>People complained for decades, OU/NCSY officials covered up for him and silenced the complainers. You obviously have not read the OU commission report.

Perhaps "people" complained for decades, but NOT about the specific offences of which Rabbi Lanner was brought to trial. Those accusations were not made until about 10 years after the events allegedly took place.

You keep telling me that I haven't read a 331-page report, and providing me a link to a 54-page summary report. And you keep calling me names. Why?

>Try basing an argument on the contents of the report. Surprise us.

I've already commented on the report. Will you please show me where in the report there is any corroboration for the crimes of which Rabbi Lanner was accused by the State of New Jersey?

>Your opinion and $1 will get you a coffee.

I'm not a coffee drinker. Could I have $5 for a Jack Daniels instead?

>Completely diffent situation and time. By the way even in this situation there was a real rape victim who was killed. Just not by Frank.

You are extending my analogy beyond that which was intended, and rejecting YOUR extension.

>This has been addressed by:
1) 1989 Beis Din
2) OU investigation
3) Jury trial
4) appellete ruling

This has been politicized by the aforementioned list --- as well as hate-mongers such as yourself. The evidence does not support your conclusions.

>None have found Lanner innocent, to the contrary all have found him guilty.

How did the 1989 Beis Din find Rabbi Lanner guilty of crimes of which he had not yet been accused? And, if they did, why did you not accept their verdict, but rather insist on further persecution?

>WOW. Ploni Almoni truly astounds me with his/her ignorance....

It's interesting that your entire argument consists of ad hominum insults. Which of my comments do you consider so "insensitive" as to warrant your invective epithets, or your adoration of (the self-appointed) "JWB's" hate-mongering?

>Ploni Almoni, let's hope you're not actually raising any children. I hope, that if you are, nothing untoward ever befalls them. Because with your 'blame the victim' or 'disbelieve the victim' (depending on which post of yous I go by) I can't imaginr they would ever get the protection they would need from you.

You know absolutely nothing about me, but --- because we disagree about evidentiary conclusions --- you presume to tell us I'm incapable of protecting my loved ones! I have not "blamed" the victim in any of my posts, but rather doubted testimony which is simply NOT credible. I have repeatedly explained this to you. Yet you have ignored my statements, and explanations --- just as you have ignored the real evidence in the Lanner case --- to support your pre-formed opinions.

How does anything you or the self-designated "JWB" say help protect anyone's children?

>jewishwhistleblower said...
The above link should have sufficed except for a moron like you. So -snip pages of unnecessary text-....

Again, you choose to use ad hominum insults rather than logical argument. You cited a statute of limitation. I asked you to which statute you refer. You (eventually, after multiple requests) provided me a link to a lengthy section of New York and New Jersey criminal procedural code -- as if I don't have these law books in my Library. Again, I asked you to which statute you refer. Your ludicrous response was to post the entire code, leaving the question as yet unanswered.

Oh, well. If you don't answer, you won't give me an opportunity to reply.

>jewishwhistleblower said...
The sad thing is that there are many that hold similar views to Ploni Almoni in the Orthodox community.

If so, that's very encouraging -- not sad. It would be nice if you would publish their responses as well as your bigoted hate-mongering.

>Ploni Almoni would never express these views in his own name and I suspect his real identity might even shock some of you.

Actually, I have expressed these views in my own name, as you are well aware from the emails I've sent you. I have not done so on this forum for the same reason other posters prefer to remain "anonymous".

I note that you have not really addressed any of the concerns I have expressed, but rather restricted yourself to calling me names, and telling me I know nothing, despite evidence to the contrary.

I've asked you several specific questions in respect to opinions and "facts" you have presented, and in respect to the underlying reasons for your animosity. I'm still waiting for a response beyond the level of "you're a moron".

 
At 10:30 AM, Anonymous Ploni Almoni said...

>The statistics indicate that false accusations in such cases are rare. Particulary when there are numerous victims all coming forward with allegations.

Citing non-existent statistics, and quoting such citations, is a common ploy of the liberal media.
To which statistics do you refer?

>Lanner was afforded a trial by jury and convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.

There were serious procedural errors in the trial. [Read the appellate brief prepared by Nathan Dershowitz.] If this wasn't such a political "hot potato", the entire decision would have been thrown out by the appellate court.

>But you don't even respect the determination of guilt by a court. Lanner is not innocent.

I respect the decision of the court. I also disagree with it, and respect the right of the defendent to an appellate reversal.

It is you who have no respect for the decision of the court. You reject the earlier decision of the beis din, and you reject the sentencing of the court, wishing to prevent an "early" parole, and advocating chasting Rabbi Lanner even after he has served his full sentence --- assuming he survives incarceration.

>Based on your very limited knowledge and life experiences. Which added together are worthless.

You opinion (and misstatement of fact).

>Based on your very limited knowledge and life experiences. Which again added together are worthless.

I believe you stuttered.

>People complained for decades, OU/NCSY officials covered up for him and silenced the complainers. You obviously have not read the OU commission report.

Perhaps "people" complained for decades, but NOT about the specific offences of which Rabbi Lanner was brought to trial. Those accusations were not made until about 10 years after the events allegedly took place.

You keep telling me that I haven't read a 331-page report, and providing me a link to a 54-page summary report. And you keep calling me names. Why?

>Try basing an argument on the contents of the report. Surprise us.

I've already commented on the report. Will you please show me where in the report there is any corroboration for the crimes of which Rabbi Lanner was accused by the State of New Jersey?

>Your opinion and $1 will get you a coffee.

I'm not a coffee drinker. Could I have $5 for a Jack Daniels instead?

>Completely diffent situation and time. By the way even in this situation there was a real rape victim who was killed. Just not by Frank.

You are extending my analogy beyond that which was intended, and rejecting YOUR extension.

>This has been addressed by:
1) 1989 Beis Din
2) OU investigation
3) Jury trial
4) appellete ruling

This has been politicized by the aforementioned list --- as well as hate-mongers such as yourself. The evidence does not support your conclusions.

>None have found Lanner innocent, to the contrary all have found him guilty.

How did the 1989 Beis Din find Rabbi Lanner guilty of crimes of which he had not yet been accused? And, if they did, why did you not accept their verdict, but rather insist on further persecution?

>WOW. Ploni Almoni truly astounds me with his/her ignorance....

It's interesting that your entire argument consists of ad hominum insults. Which of my comments do you consider so "insensitive" as to warrant your invective epithets, or your adoration of (the self-appointed) "JWB's" hate-mongering?

>Ploni Almoni, let's hope you're not actually raising any children. I hope, that if you are, nothing untoward ever befalls them. Because with your 'blame the victim' or 'disbelieve the victim' (depending on which post of yous I go by) I can't imaginr they would ever get the protection they would need from you.

You know absolutely nothing about me, but --- because we disagree about evidentiary conclusions --- you presume to tell us I'm incapable of protecting my loved ones! I have not "blamed" the victim in any of my posts, but rather doubted testimony which is simply NOT credible. I have repeatedly explained this to you. Yet you have ignored my statements, and explanations --- just as you have ignored the real evidence in the Lanner case --- to support your pre-formed opinions.

How does anything you or the self-designated "JWB" say help protect anyone's children?

>jewishwhistleblower said...
The above link should have sufficed except for a moron like you. So -snip pages of unnecessary text-....

Again, you choose to use ad hominum insults rather than logical argument. You cited a statute of limitation. I asked you to which statute you refer. You (eventually, after multiple requests) provided me a link to a lengthy section of New York and New Jersey criminal procedural code -- as if I don't have these law books in my Library. Again, I asked you to which statute you refer. Your ludicrous response was to post the entire code, leaving the question as yet unanswered.

Oh, well. If you don't answer, you won't give me an opportunity to reply.

>jewishwhistleblower said...
The sad thing is that there are many that hold similar views to Ploni Almoni in the Orthodox community.

If so, that's very encouraging -- not sad. It would be nice if you would publish their responses as well as your bigoted hate-mongering.

>Ploni Almoni would never express these views in his own name and I suspect his real identity might even shock some of you.

Actually, I have expressed these views in my own name, as you are well aware from the emails I've sent you. I have not done so on this forum for the same reason other posters prefer to remain "anonymous".

I note that you have not really addressed any of the concerns I have expressed, but rather restricted yourself to calling me names, and telling me I know nothing, despite evidence to the contrary.

I've asked you several specific questions in respect to opinions and "facts" you have presented, and in respect to the underlying reasons for your animosity. I'm still waiting for a response beyond the level of "you're a moron".

 
At 10:39 AM, Anonymous Mrs. Almoni said...

As the mother of a teenager myself, I have to wonder why the mothers of these young ladies allowed them to remain in the Hillel school -- if such things were actually occuring?

Supposedly, the mother of one of the girls discovered that "something" improper was going on. Supposedly she complained to the school authorities, and supposedly they didn't do anything about it. Supposedly many other children were being abused, physically and/or mentally. Surely the matter was widely known.

Why, then, did the parents leave their daughters in the school? For that matter, how could a school stay in business with such a tarnished reputation and with children subject to such "continual and horrendous abuse"?

There are any number of alternative religious and secular, public and private, schools available in that part of the country. Even if the Hillel school was more prestigious, or provided a higher level of education, even if scholarships were provided --- if the daughters were being brainwashed and/or abused, why did the parents leave them in that school? Were the parents brainwashed as well?

Rather than throwing stones and castigating people, you have to take a little responsibility yourself. Although it doesn't exhonerate Rabbi Lanner (if he is truly guilty), the responsibility must be shared by all those who contributed.

But let's consider the "heinous" offense of which Rabbi Lanner has been convicted: Did he rape anyone? Did he have sexual relations with any of his victims? Did he beat them, tie them up, drug them, make them perform trapeze acts? Were these innocent babes who were totally ignorant of worldly matters, that they wouldn't know to run for cover?

Rabbi Lanner has been convicted of "coping a feel", repeatedly; certainly inappropriate and reprehensible --- if he did it -- but people survive much worse, and turn out just fine. So, all this "going through hell" business is an extreme exaggeration, and an attempt to blame Rabbi Lanner for other family problems.

I believe this is a continuing travesty of justice. I believe that the "JWB" is capitalizing on a politically-charged issue for his own selfish need to discredit Rabbeim and observant Jews. I don't know, and I won't speculate why you have such a goal. The sad thing is that, with all the false and exaggerated accusations, there will be some real offenders who will slip through the cracks of an (eventually) innured public. And, the responsibility for that future danger will be partially yours.

 
At 10:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Phoney Baloney wrote:

""found myself quite capable of discouraging such attempts, and avoiding the possibility of any repitition, and thus never found it necessary to report them to the authorities."

Congratulations on having been able to have maintained such a superior mental and psychological state throughout your life.
However, I wonder how many others were NOT so fortunate, and ended up falling prey to the perpetrators you chose not to report?

"How does anything you or the self-designated "JWB" say help protect anyone's children?"

Everything that is said that helps battle the ignorance such as you display, adds to the contribution toward helping protect children.

Now, it might be a good idea for you to ponder the very real possibility that the perpetrators you so self-righteously did not report, went on to actually abuse other children.

 
At 10:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At 8:24 AM, jewishwhistleblower said...
The sad thing is that there are many that hold similar views to Ploni Almoni in the Orthodox community."

Those views are still *everywhere*, not just the Orthodox community. Any opportunity to speak out on these views, educate the speaker, should be grabbed....

 
At 11:15 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

www.ou.org/oupr/2000/comm/sc000001.pdf

Please read.

 
At 11:18 AM, Anonymous Ploni Almoni said...

>Anonymous said... Phoney Baloney wrote:

Oh, that's clever. Can't any of you say anything without silly name-calling?

>However, I wonder how many others were NOT so fortunate, and ended up falling prey to the perpetrators you chose not to report?

I can assure you that the number is ZERO! I can be very convincing.

>Everything that is said that helps battle the ignorance such as you display, adds to the contribution toward helping protect children.

More name-calling instead of answering a question.

>Now, it might be a good idea for you to ponder the very real possibility that the perpetrators you so self-righteously did not report, went on to actually abuse other children.

Now might be a good time for you to ponder the very real possibility that they didn't.

>Those views are still *everywhere*, not just the Orthodox community.

Thank G-d for that. Note that the "views" to which you object are that an innocent person should not be railroaded because of someone's political agenda, and that not every accusation is factual.

>Any opportunity to speak out on these views, educate the speaker, should be grabbed....

Be careful what you grab. You might end up doing 5-7 in Jersey.

 
At 11:22 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Excerpts:

1. Lanner's Employment History.

Lanner began his involvementwith NCSY in 1970. He soon became an
advisor in the New Jersey Region, where he quickly moved up the ranks to become Regional Coordinator. For a brief period in early 1972, Lanner was threatened with suspension or dismissal for having engaged in sexual contact with one or more teenagers involved in NCSY. Senior professional leadership decided nevertheless to retain him
within NCSY and Lanner was appointed Regional Director of the New Jersey Region.

 
At 11:26 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Excerpt 2:

The Commission, however, received credible evidence that Lanner
engaged in various forms of abusive and improper behavior with respect to young women
and teens with whom he worked-.
a. Lanner Sexually Abused Women and Teenage Girls.
The Commission heard from ten women who testified that Lanner
engaged in sexually abusive behavior toward them during his NCSY career. The
Commission also received credible testimony from witnesses describing abusive sexual
conduct by Lanner toward sixteen additional girls.These incidents of physical sexual abuse about which the Commission heard testimony occurred during the 1970's and the 1980's;

 
At 11:30 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Excerpt 3:

b. Lanner Physically Abused Boys and Girls.
The Commission received testimony regarding numerous incidents of non sexual physical abuse,
the most prevalent form of which was Lanner's practice of
kneeing boys in the groin.

 
At 11:31 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Excerpt#4

The Commission also received and described in the Report testimony
regarding several occasionson which Lanner allegedly abused NCSY students- both
boys and girls- by punching,hitting or otherwise physically assaulting them.

 
At 11:35 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Excerpt #5

C. Lanner Attempted to Control the Lives of NCSY Students.
The Commission received testimony and written materials from numerous NCSY students who described a pattern of psychological abuse by Lanner during his tenure as Regional Director of the New Jersey Region (and perhaps thereafter) that
seemed designed to allow him to obtain control over the lives of these students. As the Report explains,these detailed and moving accounts lead the Commission to conclude that Lanner repeatedly targeted students who were having emotional or family problems
and engaged in intense and abusive emotional manipulation of these vulnerable adolescents. This behavior included demanding absolute loyalty, constant professions of love, and daily reports and phone calls from NCSY students,as well as placing inordinate demands on students' time, instilling fear of being made an outsider to the group, and
dispensing excessive praise and criticism to exert control and command devotion.

 
At 11:37 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Excerpt #6

d. Lanner Initiated Sexual Discussionswith Girls.
The Commission received evidence that Lanner engaged in inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature with girls during the course of most of his tenure with NCSY. The Commission was also told he would often comment on girls'physical attributes. This latter type of conduct appears to have continued well into the 1990's, when Lanner is reportedto have made inappropriate comments to girls about their phvslcal attributes during their interviews for the Michlelet program and during telephone conversations with at least one student in the national NCSY leadership.

 
At 11:42 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Excerpt# 7

e. Lanner Engaged in Other Inappropriate Conduct.
Apart from individual acts of abuse, Lanner often behaved in an offensive and vulgar manner thatwas certainly unbecoming of a rabbi who was being heldout as a
role model for children. According to the testimony received by the Commission, this
included the use of offensive language, the making of sexually explicit comments, the use
of nicknames for students that referenced parts of their anatomy, and the use of double
entendre in making comments that could be construed in a sexual manner. Many of the members of the OU and NCSY leadership familiar with Lanner,as well as all three members of the beis din,told the Commission that, in their view, Lanner either engaged
in conduct unbecoming of a rabbi, was not someone they would have hired or was not someone they wanted their children to have as a role model. Even Lanner himself, in his Submission, acknowledges that certain of his behavior "was unbefitting for anyone, particularly one in his position." Yet, the OU failed to take effective action to address
these problems.

 
At 11:47 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Excerpt# 8

Furthermore, Lanner engaged in transactions that abused his office and potentially created gross conflicts of interest. For example,Lanner operated an
unauthorized bank account while he was New Jersey Regional Director,which he used at
his sole discretion.The Commission also found and included in its Report detailed
evidence, including letters, bank records and cancelled checks, indicating that in recent
years Lanner successfully solicited donations for NCSY programs, but instructed donors
to send their checks to his home. In several instances, the Commission has been unable
to locate any record of these donations on the OU's books and the evidence indicates that
they were deposited into Lanner's personal bank accounts. The Commission was not able to determine how, if at all, the monies so deposited were ultimately used. Finally,
Lanner during working hours and with the full knowledge of his superiors engaged in
financial transactions involving other OU employees, and involving NCSY advisors and students, through which he stood to profit personally.This represents an abuse of the trust inherent in his relationships with them.

 
At 11:51 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Excerpt#9

B. Certain Members of the OU and NCSY Leadership Share Responsibility for Lanner's Misconduct.
The Commission is of the opinion that some of the members of the lay and professional leadership of the OU and NCSY made profound errors of judgment in their
handling of Lanner throughout his career with NCSY and missed a number of critical opportunities to correct these errors. The specifics of these missed opportunities, including the identities of the lay and professional leaders involved, are spelled out in great detail in the Report. The Commission believes that these members of the leadership knew or should have known of an array of facts about Lanner's conduct that should have resulted in his termination from NCSY and the OU, but they did not take effective action in response to this knowledge. The Commission believes that many of these failures reflect the exercise of extremely poor judgment by otherwise well-intentioned people.

 
At 11:54 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Excerpt#10

1. The OU and NCSY had Direct Knowledge of Lanner's Sexual
Abuse of Girls.
The Commission received evidence of four occasions- in 1972, 1977,
1984 and 2000 - whereby some members of the OU and NCSY leadership were put on direct and specific notice of serious sexual misconduct by Lanner, but did not remove
him from his position with NCSY. Specifically-.
A senior member of the professional staff admitted that in 1972 he was informed that Lanner engaged in a physical sexual relationship with two NCSY teenagers.
This staff member said that he "fired" Lanner upon finding out about these incidents, but was then persuaded to give him a second chance.

 
At 12:04 PM, Anonymous Ploni Almoni said...

>jewishwhistleblower said... If ignorance = money, you'd be wealthy. Go talk to a few prodecuters, therapist that deal with these type of situations on a daily basis. Read a few books. Your ignorance and arrogance are a real combination.

Again with the insults. My, my. Such eloquence. What, pray tell, is a "prodecuter"? Prosecutors and "therapists" have biases, just like everyone else. And, not surprisingly, they don't always agree. But people like you pick the "experts" who say what they want to hear, and ignore the others. And designate as ignorant those who disagree with them.

>Anonymous said..."ad hominom insults"(mispelled TWICE-so no typo)

Actually, it were indeed a typo (and "it were" is a "Yorkshire-ism", not a grammatical error). I also mis-typed "anti-rabbinincal", if you wish to nit-pick.

>I.Q. has no connection whatsoever with ignorance. Obviously.

So you say. What's worse, intelligent people are known to make typographical errors, too! Let's line them all up and shoot them.

>I'm so glad for you that you were able to deal with this so well. I mean, everyone is always able to deal with what life throws at them without any help or support at all, right? I wish I wasn't too livid to ignore a self-centered, ignorant idiot such as yourself. Alas, you've made my blood boil.

If you are so easily enraged, perhaps you should attend an anger-management group. Why can't you handle a differing opinion without becoming angry and abusive? Who will protect our children from a hot-head such as you appear to be?

The point is that normal people can and do handle such situations without "going through hell" for the rest of their life. People handle much worse situations every day. If Rabbi Lanner was doing what you are accusing him of, then none of the parents and students were doing THEIR jobs. If some of the victims and parents were too weak or "frightened" to do anything about it, were all of them so handicapped? Why? Does the school only accept milquetoast with similar families? How difficult is it to kick an aggressor in the groin and walk out? Or simply walk out? Rabbi Lanner was hardly a physical challenge to a teenage youth.

Had these charges been filed in a timely fashion, rather than years later, they would have been more credible. Had there not been so many inconsistencies, improbabilities, unlikelihoods, impossibilities, we might believe them. But you people obviously believed the charges before you saw any evidence, and were thus willing to accept rumor and innuendo and falsehood as fact. And you continue in your prejudicial bias.


>Anonymous said... Lets stop feeding this animal.

That's right. Anyone who disagrees with you is an animal.

>Whistleblower said ... (followed by numerous one-sided excerpts taken out of context, and without rebuttal)

Of course, absolutely none of this has anything to do with what Rabbi Lanner was charged with, nor does it present Rabbi Lanner's side of things. Rabbi Lanner was controversial. He had his fans, and he has his enemies --- like every teacher and public official. If all this was going on all these years, why was he so popular? Why did parents allow their children anywhere near him.

Do you understand what "blowing something out of proportion" means? Do you understand the difference between rape, sodomy, and inappropriate touching? You throw them all in the category of "abuse" and cheapen the impact of the more serious offenses. Rabbi Lanner "hit" children? How hard? Did he leave bruises? Or was this nothing but harmless child's play --- which was never considered an offense until recently, nor should it be.

A teacher used to be able to give a child an affectionate hug when the child needed it, and to chastize the child when that was needed as well. Now, we expect teachers to teach without a modicum of classroom discipline. Is it no wonder our children are growing up "politically-corrrect" ignoramouses, while we force good teachers out of the profession?

Rabbi Lanner did a lot of good. He brought many, many people back to their Jewish heritage. Halacha REQUIRES that one extol the accused virtues before presenting evidence against him. But halacha is the furthest thing from any of your bigoted minds.

This group is incorrigible. You are an insatiable lynch mob looking for a victim. When you finish with this one, you will move on to another. If you can't find one, you will create one. And your children, who you purport to protect, will suffer as a result.

Pray their is no such thing as karma.

 
At 12:06 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Excerpt #11
In 1977, a female teenage student reported to a senior member of the NCSY professional staff her physical sexual relationship with Lanner on a summer NCSY tour when she was 14 years old. The girl also reported several incidents of
Lanner's abusive conduct towards her. The senior staff member denied knowledge of these events.

Several witnesses with contemporaneous knowledge informed the Commission that in 1984, a male NCSY teenager told a senior NCSY professional staff
member of an inappropriate relationship between Lanner and a specifically identified New Jersey teen who was a participant in Junior NCSY (a program for
students of middle schoolage). While the staff member admitted that this male teenager spoke to him, he denied that the teenager identified Lanner or the
participant by name. The teenager involved has refused to confirm or deny the substance of the conversation with this senior NCSY professional staff member.

 
At 12:07 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Excerpt #12

In January 2000, a senior OU staff member received a letter from a senior lay leader enclosing a 1999 letter from a former NCSY participant detailing
allegations that Lanner had inappropriately touched her when she was an NCSY teenager in the 1970's, and describing that, even years later, upon hearing Lanner's name her stomach "clutches in tension." In the cover letter to the OU
staff member, the lay leader noted the age of the complaint and expressed his assumption that if the problem was a continuing one, there should be more recent
complaints.

 
At 12:10 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Rabbi Baruch Lanner is a child molester plain and simple.

Those who want to minimize the damage he did or question the conduct of the victims expose themselves for what they truly are: ignorant and vile.

 
At 12:14 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>Rabbi Lanner did a lot of good.
>He brought many, many people
>back to their Jewish heritage

To quote Rabbi Blau:
He said that communities improperly rationalize the conduct of abusive rabbis by emphasizing that they are, "Very charismatic people, who have achieved a lot in the rabbinate," which Blau characterized as, "A Faustian deal." Blau responded to this attitude, saying, "First of all, I don't think religiously or morally we're allowed to make that kind of equation; secondly, we're underestimating the number of people who've been hurt."

 
At 12:20 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>Pray their is no such thing as
>karma.

I believe in and pray to Hashem. You can keep your nonsense Buddhist Karma garbage, buddy.

 
At 12:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

>jewishwhistleblower said...Excerpt #11...

Now you are listing totally unsubstantiated hearsay as "evidence"! Unnamed "witnesses" claim that something happened. Staff claim that Rabbi Lanner was not named in that accusation. The alleged accuser won't comment? What sort of evidence is this?

>jewishwhistleblower said...
Rabbi Baruch Lanner is a child molester plain and simple.

So you say. But teenagers are not children, they are adolescents. And nothing Rabbi Lanner has been accused of constitutes "molestation" in the sense the term is normally understood.

And, there is a strong possibility that he is innocent of the charges -- a possibility that you have never even considered, because you are an anti-religious bigot.

>Those who want to minimize the damage he did or question the conduct of the victims expose themselves for what they truly are: ignorant and vile.

Again, you use the wrong terms to distort matters. Disagreeing with you is neither ignorant nor vile. Requiring evidence stronger than rumor and innuendo is neither ignorant nor vile. Disbelieving and incredible account is neither ignorant nor vile.

However, using terms such a "child molestor" to describe what Rabbi Lanner is accused of doing, is both ignorant and vile; as is pretending that your anti-Semitic witchhunt tactics are protecting anyone.

>jewishwhistleblower said...
I believe in and pray to Hashem. You can keep your nonsense Buddhist Karma garbage, buddy.

Then pray you will be spared the divine retribution (Kharma) you so richly deserve. [P.S. Your comment shows your ignorance of both Torah and Buddhism, as well as your bigotry.]


 
At 12:57 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

karma
n : (Hinduism and Buddhism) the effects of a person's actions that determine his destiny in his next incarnation

It is not "divine retribution".

 
At 1:05 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>Now you are listing totally
>unsubstantiated hearsay
>as "evidence"!

No.

>Unnamed "witnesses" claim that
>something happened. Staff claim
>that Rabbi Lanner was not named
>in that accusation. The alleged
>accuser won't comment? What sort
>of evidence is this?

Names are in the private full report.

>So you say. But teenagers are
>not children, they are
>adolescents. And nothing Rabbi
>Lanner has been accused of
>constitutes "molestation" in the
>sense the term is normally
>understood.

They can't vote, they are not adults, they are children.

molestation
n 1: the act of subjecting someone to unwanted or improper sexual advances or activity (especially women or children) 2: the act of tormenting by continued persistent attacks and criticism

 
At 1:05 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>And, there is a strong
>possibility that he is innocent
>of the charges

None.

>-- a possibility that you have
>never even considered, because
>you are an anti-religious bigot.

I'm not anti-religious or a bigot.

>Again, you use the wrong terms
>to distort matters. Disagreeing
>with you is neither ignorant nor
>vile.

Attacking victims with the courage to come forard is ignorant and vile.

>Requiring evidence stronger than
>rumor and innuendo is neither
>ignorant nor vile. Disbelieving
>and incredible account is
>neither ignorant nor vile.

Again no basis for anything you claim.

>However, using terms such
>a "child molestor" to describe
>what Rabbi Lanner is accused of
>doing, is both ignorant and
>vile; as is pretending that your
>anti-Semitic witchhunt tactics
>are protecting anyone.

Wrong.

http://jewishwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2005/02/updated-brandeis-u-alert-sexual.html#comments

 
At 1:17 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

You're utterly ignorant of this case. To go back to your 1st post:

>Question to all:
>I know that most of you, if not
>all, believe that Lanner is
>guilty. But how do you
>personally feel about the girls
>and guy that filed a complaint
>with the criminal courts?

No guy filed a criminal complaint.

>Did anyone read the younger
>girl's essay on her accounts of
>what happend to her in the
>Jewish Week about 3 weeks after
>the paper blew the story open?

You're referring to the wrong victim.

Then:
>Why did one of the "victims"
>recant her testimony?

Also didn't happen.

You are just spouting utter ignorance and it's vile.

 
At 1:36 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Then:
>Why did these "women" wait ten
>years to file charges?

Answer: They didn't

The offenses occurred between 1992 and 1996,when both students were under 16 years of age. They filed criminal charges in 2000.

 
At 2:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

p.almoni wrote:
I simply can't imagine anyone allowing themselves to be abused (physically, verbally, or sexually) daily over a period of years without saying something to someone.Here's the crux of the problem: you cannot imagine. No-one wants to imagine these things. Even survivors themselves frequently go through a harsh wake up and realization, after months or years of blocking these experiences, or convincing themselves they are to blame, or convincing themselves it was not abuse but 'love'.

What was the magical "power" Rabbi Lanner allegedly held over his accusers, that they were afraid to complain about his alleged actions? The man is 5'6" tall, and looks like the Pillsbury doughboy. How could anyone be afraid of him? Because he was the school principal? I've never yet seen a high school student with any respect for the principal. As I recall, we unabashedly referred to ours as "Pinhead", and even refused to extinguish our cigarettes on his order. Because he was a "Rabbi"? There is no halacha requiring one to respect a b'nai Torah who does not practice Torah.Here again. You will not or can not see beyond your own frame of reference. Referring to Lanners' height and looking like a Pillsbury doughboy, hence not 'scary', you are mocking victims. How you have gotten to the year 2005 without having become educated that predators are not fang-wearing, cloak-draped wild-eyed and obvious evil-doers, is quite a feat. What rock have you been living under? Pick up a newspaper --- predators are just the guy next door. Look at all the people the BTK killer fooled.

Furthermore, I can't believe that a school official could or would commit such an offense as that of which Rabbi Lanner is accused, inside a glass-walled office without someone else noticing and doing something about it.No, you refuse to believe. Officials have access beyond their offices, and you know this.

In my opinion, the accusations are not credible. They are not supported by evidence or logic.

How many times do the facts need to be re-posted by JWB?

You, sir, need a heavy-duty education in the issues of sexual abuse and molestation of children. Perhaps readers can contribute a suggested book list.

 
At 8:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many times do the facts need to be re-posted by JWB?



KM,
My hope is he will post things over and over again until idiots no longer post their ignorance.

 
At 7:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lanner is a PIG and a pervert adn an Opikores Gomur! I went to Hillel High School and I know him and his sick ways. He passed the girls that he like and brought them into his office to sweet talk them. I was once suspended and was kept isolated in the back room of his office. he asked his secretaru to leave and called in a girl and started saying to her, why don't you want to be my friend?...
He didn't know was there listening. The next year that Frum girl left Hillel and went guess where??? PUBLIC SCHOOL. I wonder why? He deserves to stay there for life. "Kol Baeyha LOh Yeshuvun"

 

Post a Comment

<< Home