Weberman Trial Day 8 Summary He takes stand to deny charges, admits stealing big time from charity

See NY Times, Wall Stree Journal, ย Daily News and Daily News

Testimony by Nechemya Weberman will continue today, Thursday, Dec 6. There is talk of evidence stage ending today and attorneys for both sides making their closing statements.

My overall impression is that the trial is going very badly for Weberman.

On Wednesday, for the first time he had about 20 supporters in the courtroom instead of the usual 5 but they were all his own family. I am developing the suspicion that the Satmar establishment is cutting him loose and cutting their losses. They will of course continue to insist he is innocent because they want to uphold the ban on cooperating with civil authorities and want to keep conditioning their members to always disbelieve any outside charges. But I suspect even their rather shameful leadership is beginning to grasp that he is an embarassing goner. Besides any of their members attending the trial will be exposed to more objective evidence of his guilt.


29 thoughts on “Weberman Trial Day 8 Summary He takes stand to deny charges, admits stealing big time from charity

  1. I wasn’t trying to imply that there was a Monica moment in this trial; I was just asking the question without any far reaching implications. So please don’t contort an honest inquiry into something taken from the National Enquirer .

    • Can you explain how this trial is going bad for Weberman? And i can’t wait to see how you reconcile all you predictions with what will probably be an acquittal.
      And for the sake of professionalism, don’t come up with “the jury was bribed” kind of answers. I see a Dick Morris moment cominf ๐Ÿ˜‰

      • Try reading the articles cited above and ask the question in a way that speaks to what they say. I dont have the time to repeat the whole megillah. B’kitzur, the victim was a credible witness, he didnt prove she lied, and he was shown to be a ganiff from tzedakkah and someone whose tzedakkah for wayward girls was spending a lot on lingerie for them. Being a crook does not prove someone is a molester. But it makes you less willing to blieve him about other things. Also he said he follows Jewish law and would never touch the girls he counseled. But even goyish jurors know about the ten commandments and lo tignof. So even 12 goyim know he doesnt follow halachah. So why should they believe his testimony that as an orthoox jew he does not touch girls. Also, his defense is that he was providing counseling to make her more frum. But if he isn’t so frum why should they believe that that was the only thing he did in counseling. Capiche.

        If I was wrong, I will try and figure out the true reason and will say it. If you are wrong and he is convicted you will probably shout antisemites.

        I was harsh at the beginning of the post because you did not have the basic manners in how you disagreed with me. Consider that unless your goal is to insult rather than to ask honestly. Next time please be respectful even if you disagree strongly. Also, next time bother to read the facts and speak to them. This is what we do in the fact-based world.

      • Unfortunately, I’ve had first hand experience with the NY State Supreme court system in Brooklyn. There are a lot of powerful lawyers there who are just a little too “friendly” with some of the judges. I fear that George Farkas might be one of them and that’s why Weberman hired him for that reason. Satmar knows they don’t stand a chance against a secular jury and they make sure to get someone “connected” to the system like Farkas to stack the deck in their favor. The only mitigating circumstance that might make this case much more objective and less corrupt, is the glare of the public media to keep this snake pit of a court system as clean as possible.

  2. Lets review what we learned at the trial, not in any particular order:

    1. He has no regard to the law ie:
    Either filtering money through his charity organization to pay his yeshiva and getting a tax donation write off or worse using charity money not meant for him to pay his own bills.
    Using Charity money to buy Lingerie.
    Using the titles Rabbi & Counselor without any training or certification
    Pretending to be a Rabbi & Counselor yet not keeping the code of confidentiality
    Extorting money from the family in advance of services rendered
    Approaching the Witness Room and staring daggers at the witness through the glass in the door
    Harboring underage run-a-ways
    And generally lying under oath.

    2. Revelations in the courtroom: the principal and Webershmutz are Kissin Cousins. They have concocted some kind of situation here where one supplies the other with victims and we could conclude that he gets a commission for his trouble. This would explain why the family was blackmailed to use Webershmutz or the child would be kicked out of school, why they were forced to pay $12,800 in advance, and why the Mom was forced to write a letter of apology to him when she told him she will not let him take her daughter on an all day field trip because it is Yichud.

    One more things, it seems from the accounts I have received from those who are in court and from the videos and photo coverage that his wife has not come to court for quite a while now. That is also telling. Forgive me if I missed a few things.

  3. Oh yes, one more thing, he said since he wasn’t a licensed counselor he didn’t have to abide by the rules of confidentiality. I disagree. Since he calls himself Rabbi presenting himself and promoting himself as a member of the clergy and because he takes payment for his counseling he at least has to follow the guidelines for clergy and confidentiality that clergy has to conduct themselves by. AND because he doesn’t explain to his clients in advance that he is NOT a licensed counselor and doesn’t abide by the rules of confidentiality then he either committed fraud with each one of them by gaining their confidence so they would tell him private things that he could then snitch to their parents and authorities, or he broke the rules of confidentiality. Whichever way you look at it, he is unreliable and untruthful, one that cannot be trusted or believed.

  4. All your ‘probably and credibly’ talk does not amount to a hill of beans! Itโ€™s still he ‘said-she-said’ kind of trial! And there is no โ€˜guilt beyond any reasonable doubtโ€™ here which what the jury is looking for! Your conclusion of ‘stealing’ is not what this court is about! btw, there was no support there while this girl or her witnesses was talking gutter talk no one wants to listen to that, but after she was done support showed up.

    • Zelig, when it comes to “he says she says” it all boils down to “credibility” and who is telling the truth! He HAS NO credibility and therefore it is very clear who is telling the true “she said”!

      • Why does he have less credibility than she? When she and her mother admittedly stole from medicaid and other insurance providers? When she waited or ‘froze’ for 3 years to come up with the un-collaborated accusations with no evidence or everlasting DNA?.
        So according to your logic you can accuse anyone on anything if that person say ever lied to his mother, teacher, boss or anyone else? Comeโ€™on you must be smarter than that!

        • I’ve heard of no evidence that she herself was actively involved in Medicaid fraud, just her mother. So that would affect her mother’s credibility, not hers. And the mother never admitted to anything, and pleaded the fifth, so it was just a question raised, nothing proven.

          Compare that to Weberman’s admission on the stand that he stole from his own charity and used it as his personal savings bank.

          I agree that both activities are examples of fraud and theft and reflect poorly on the witnesses’ credibility. However, I think the jury may see the abuse of charitable funds much differently than Medicaid fraud. Also, his moral character is part of his defense. He is presenting himself as a community-minded do-gooder. Stealing from the poor doesn’t fit in with that.

  5. YL, just wanted to compliment you on your coverage of the trial. Dspite the criticism (that you also allow to be posted), it seems you’ve made an effort to remain objective in your assessment of developments and have provided a lot of context that is not available elsewhere. Many thanks.

  6. I would also like to thank you for your blog. Though I am not sure of his guilt, as I like to see some physical evidence or at least more accusers, I do enjoy your blog.

  7. The best way to get more victims coming forward is to provide incredible support for any victim who does. That is why this trial is so exceptional. Next, if someone admits to being molested lets make sure they aren’t treated like damaged goods. Frankly is some guy or girl who admitted publcily s/he was molested got good shiduchim, shoyn the world would change.

    In the meantime, on the basis of my experience in a few cases, it is a miracle if even one goes forward,

    Also let some more rabbonim declare that if you were molested, then your own experience eliminates the safek and you are obliged under halachah to go to police to protect other children. I promise you that if every rav said this the plague of unreported molesting would be over.

  8. Sheree- I believe Weberman is guilty, but, “harboring underage run-a-ways?” Really? I have a friend who grew up in the Satmar community and Weberman was the only one who took her in. She had nowhere to go, no education, no skills. Would it have been better for her to live on the street? He was very good to her. She wasn’t religious and he taught her that she could still be somebody of worth, saying things like, “Just because you’re not religious doesn’t mean you have to be a bum on drugs and on the street…” I was very impressed to hear someone from the Satmar say that, because the overall mentality there is quite the opposite- that if you’re not religious then you’re lower than the most disgusting, vile shomer shabbos individual. I only figured out a few weeks ago that this man was Weberman and I was in shock. He didn’t sound like the person she described all these years. He was never judgmental or inappropriate. Nonetheless, I had to put that aside and look objectively, and I’m convinced he’s for sure guilty. My friend’s in denial, obviously. What would you do if someone was accusing your own father of molestation? You wouldn’t be so quick to believe it. It would be too painful. He was like a father to my friend and I feel really really sorry her. But of course, I feel worse for the victim. That being said, the “harboring runaways” statement is off the mark, in my opinion, so let’s try to focus on the real crimes at hand.

    • OK, lets focus on the real crimes. Whether she feels he helped her or not, if he didn’t get permission from her parents for her to stay there, it is a crime! Furthermore, he doesn’t get credit for being m’karev one girl while shoving another girl OTD, or claiming she is when it is obvious that she is NOT. In addition, please understand how a molester “grooms” his prey. Why do you think that he wouldn’t be nice to the girls? Maybe he was too busy and tired out from this victim to act on his inclinations with the other. Who knows.

      Furthermore, MEN have no business taking in girls if their WIVES are NOT involved in that. Do you see how that is inappropriate? Especially a Satmar Chassid? Did she mention how Mrs. Weberman treated her or the daughters? Do you see the awkwardness and inappropriateness of such a situation? Are you blind to that? Why is she NOT saying THE WEBERMANS were so kind and generous to me? So right off the bat he was inappropriate and the entire situation was inappropriate. Orthodox especially Chassidic men have no business even talking to women, let alone sustaining them! They can however refer them to a Rebbetzin for assistance!!! Do you get that, do you see what I am saying? There is no other way to look at it. HE HAS NO BUSINESS TALKING TO GIRLS OR WOMEN, he has no heter to do so!! He himself admitted in court that he is NOT a licensed therapist nor is he an ordained Rabbi. He has no training to counsel anyone let alone women.

    • I’m really not sure why you are so upset the “harboring runaways” language. It’s a pretty objective, factual description of what he did. It’s not like she wrote “exploiting and manipulating fragile runaways who had no one else to turn to”, (though perhaps she could have.)

      As for his good deeds, I think it’s very interesting to hear this perspective on him. Hearing just the negative in the media makes it easy to believe he’s a vicious, evil person, while your comment makes the point that the truth is more complex and that he was capable at times of being a generous humanitarian. It also explains how he got away with it for so long, and why his community is rallying around him now.

      However, the trial revealed many of his faults, even if you disbelieve his accuser. What’s uncontested is that he stole public funds, spent inappropriate amounts of time with young women with no accountability, and was involved in shaking down desperate and anxious families for money. Furthermore, his statement that “there are people that are better than her” ( indicates that underneath the kind veneer, he considered his counseling “client” as a lesser class of person, someone who has less intrinsic value than others. Some humanitarian.

      Real therapists view their clients with “unconditional positive regard”. Real social workers help runaways find agencies that will help them find a place to live and gain independence, they don’t tell them to come live with them. Real therapists encourage their clients to talk freely, while explaining to them the limits of confidentiality, and they don’t go blabbing their secrets.

      Being a sugar daddy to the downtrodden doesn’t excuse anything.

      • Shoshy, I agree with your overall view. I would add I have no trouble recognizing he did some good for some people. It might even be true he did it genuinely rather than to fool others. But as you argue, that does not change the crimes.

        I would acknowledge that the word harboring is slightliy sinister because it is so often used in, “harboring fugitives.” While I recognize he may have done some good I suspect his housing makes me worry about how he really treated them. Some he may have helped. But given his history, and given the power of being like a parent I fear he may have abused some.

  9. One must realize, the Moideh Bemikzas trick, must be on advice from Farkas. On this stand he could say he stole, he broke tax laws bought lingerrie from others money, was an unliscences conselor etc because he isn’t standing trial for that, the judge & jury cannot punish him for that.
    The option would be for the DA & possibly the feds to go after him for that, and I doubt this confession which was without the bill of rights could be used against him, Not that this is justice it is just the law.
    Add this to the post above, that Farcas is connected & you never know.
    On another note he may be put away long enough that why waste taxpayer money on the rest.
    Bottom line farcas has one & only one interest here, that is money, and he hopes to set his client free probably only after an appeal, so that he gets more money, & the next case.
    He also needs the advocates to keep filing cases to bring him clients so he has a toss up now. I doubt he has any emaotions or even is sure of his clients innocense, he is playing a game of weardown and technalities, and probaly charging four times as much as Webberman charged to perform…
    They should definatly sue him & his charity for their money back.
    I guess the next lawsuit may be a civil one against UTA. stay tuned.

  10. After following the case closely, and being as thoroughly disgusted with weberman as everyone, and as a survivor myself, I am now troubled.
    It seems the mention of the lingerie shopping, and the importance attached to it in convicting him, is an example of cultural misunderstanding.

    Boro park is actually full of ‘lingerie’ stores and lingerie is written in big on the signs. I was at first shocked, but then came to realise that their definition of lingerie includes nightgowns, pyjamas and robes (robes are a must!). These stores sell a range of sleepwear, underwear, girdles etc, robes, and in the basement or a corner they do have a box or rack of more racy stuff. the specific stores mentioned are of this type and well known.

    So my first thought is that his wife was shopping for nightgowns, robes for her and her daughters. Maybe he didn’t know this (not all couples share all these little details with each other) and maybe he did, or suspected, but didn’t want to possibly embarrass his wife in court (also wrong, by now he should know the order of the day is Nothing But The Truth).

    As well, there is absolutely no way he would shop in those stores himself; the chassidic sales lady and other shoppers would consider it extremely inappropriate, and in a community where everyone knows who he is, he wouldn’t be anonymous in the store and would certainly not buy anything racy, it would be beneath him and embarrassing for him.

    So my feeling is his response on the stand, “me myself….” was candid and he either really didnt know, or was protecting his wife.

    As to the stealing charge, being that these items were bought with charity funds, I do not minimize that it is very wrong, however I cannot with good conscience allow it to increase the likelihood of his guilt, since under his value system, it is acceptable. It is very common in his community, probably the victim family were also involved in such things, as was briefly brought up in court. So if it lowers his credibility, then it must also lower theirs. But it shouldn’t lower either, because in the chassidishe mindset it is ok, but molestation/rape isn’t. It’s apples and oranges. (I am not saying this is ok! Just explaining the culture clash)

    For the sake of truth, and fairness, I am bringing this up, and I hope you will address this and answer me yerachmiel. there is still the indefensible yichud, long hours of therapy with no progress, and the alleged victims testimony.


    Ps p,ease no personal attacks, I am not an emotionally strong person. I hope the response willbe to the points I have brought up, in respectful terms, as befits open debate, I do realize emotions run high here, as I said mine did too.

    • Dinah, you raise good points. I agree that the lingerie issue may be irrelevant to judging his innocence or guilt on the abuse charge. I agree that the extreme violations of yichud are way more indicative of the fact that he is not the frum man he claims to be, not in private. Thus good frum man who could not have done it defense doesnt apply to him.

      In a case where she said, he said, the jury has to decide who to believe. Since both testified, truthfullness is something a jury was try to evaluate. Not because he is being tried for geneivah, but because it is essential to evaluating all the other testimony. the alleged victim did well on that score in spite of a grueling cross examination. In the end her basic story was consistent and plausible. As we know, this must be a horrible experience for a victim to go through to have her serious of intimate invasions of her body discussed and picked apart. If I were raped I would hope I would have the courage to go on a witness stand to protect others. I don’t know if I would. That factor is also legitimately weighed by a jury. Unless the defense can show someone would actually prefer to talk such stuff publicly it suggests honesty.

      As for geneivah. It was big time, with tzedakkah. all theft is wrong, but I and most decent people are more offended by stealing from charity for the poor. It thus not only speaks to his truthfullness but his character. So all this will weight against him.

      I am inclined to guess the jury will convict. I do not think the lingerie will make much difference. But if that is the thing that tips the balance you are right that it had too much influence. However I would say on the basis of my contact with other victims that justice will be served. But you are right he should have made a better case for himself if it was innocent in this instance. I would add that I strongly suspect he did not say more because there were much worse things that could have been revelaed if he opened himself up to cross examination with a false answer.

      I still want to understand why he is called a frum man after obvious evidence of violations of din yichud and genievah.

      • “I still want to understand why he is called a frum man after obvious evidence of violations of din yichud and genievah.”

        ืจืžื‘”ื ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ืชืฉื•ื‘ื”
        ืื ืขืฉื” ืื“ื ืชืฉื•ื‘ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื‘ืขืœ ืชืฉื•ื‘ื”! ื•ื™ืฉ ืœื• ื—ืœืง ืœืขื•ืœื ื”ื‘ื

        ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ืงื™ื™ื, ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื• ืžื–ื‘ื— ื›ืคืจื”–ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืœื ืชืฉื•ื‘ื”!. ื”ืชืฉื•ื‘ื” ืžื›ืคืจืช ืขืœ ื›ืœ ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจื•ืช!, — ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืจืฉืขืช ื”ืจืฉืข ืœื ื™ื™ื›ืฉืœ ื‘ื”, ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฉื•ื‘ื• ืžืจืฉืขื• (ื™ื—ื–ืงืืœ ืœื’,ื™ื‘). ื•ืขืฆืžื• ืฉืœ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ื™ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžื›ืคืจ ืœืฉื‘ื™ื, ืฉื ืืžืจ “ื›ื™ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื–ื” ื™ื›ืคืจ ืขืœื™ื›ื” (ื•ื™ืงืจื ื˜ื–). ืจืžื‘”ื ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ืชืฉื•ื‘ื”

        • Would you say someone who pronounces in a secular court that yichud is “only a man-made law” has done tshuva for transgressing that issur? Does that sound remorseful to you?

    • Dinah, no attacks. I simply want to point out to you that the victim’s family is NOT on trial here, neither is the victim. And since it is a matter of credibility here, everything about him is evidence of his character. He presents himself to be a prominent, respected, upstanding and trusted member of the community. What the victim’s family does or doesn’t do is irrelevant. What he does or doesn’t do, on the other hand is very relevant. The fact that he didn’t follow Jewish Law is extremely relevant. The fact that he broke civil laws is also extremely relevant and answers questions regarding his character and credibility. The Jury is asked whether or not they believe the testimony of the victim or the testimony of the defendant. Who do they trust more and what evidence was presented that would, in their eyes, prove without a shadow of a doubt that he is guilty. Well that brings the credibility of his testimony and his defense into question. Is he an honest and trustworthy person?

      It doesn’t really matter if in your opinion, the entire neighborhood would agree with him that you can play fast and loose with charity funds. The fact is, that is illegal and the jury will probably see it that way. It doesn’t really matter if you think the victim’s parents would do the same, the Jury will not question that. The jury heard his own defense attorney verify that he broke Jewish Laws, admit that he broke civil laws, and found out that the principal that forced the parents to take their daughter to see him and pay him upfront is his cousin. They also heard his cousin deny knowing anything about the Mod Squad and they heard HIM say that the Mod Squad sent him clients. They also heard him say that since he is NOT a licensed counselor he is NOT legally obligated by law to keep what his clients tell him confidential so he snitches to the Jewish authorities and to the clients parents about what they tell him. Well no one likes a snitch and a snitch can’t be trusted, so I am sure that the Jury will NOT trust him to tell the truth because they will see him for what he is and understand that he set up his clients for failure. He got them to trust him, which was fraudulent, and then he broke that trust and spilled the beans on them. What do you think the jury will determine his character to be just by his own and his defense attorney’s admissions?

  11. Lopin, What does this linked “YOYLY YOYO” chuck-full-of-nuts video have anything to do with the weberman trial? are you overtly or covertly implyng something?

  12. ืจืžื‘โ€ื ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ืชืฉื•ื‘ื”
    ืื ืขืฉื” ืื“ื ืชืฉื•ื‘ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื‘ืขืœ ืชืฉื•ื‘ื”! ื•ื™ืฉ ืœื• ื—ืœืง ืœืขื•ืœื ื”ื‘ื

    @ zelig
    How would you know that he indeed did tshuva. The facts show otherwise. The first thing he must do is to apologize, aveirot shebein adam lachavero afilu Yom haKipurim eno mechaper. And this is only for starters. When he locked the three locks on the door, he thought even the Ribono shel Olam was locked out. that was easy.

See Commenting policy ( )

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s