In a Friday (12/12/14) submission to the court hearing the allegations that Elimelech Meisels sexually abused students, Andrew T. Miltenberg, the attorney for Meisels, claimed that the Internet threat to expose plaintiff identities was the doing of:
Persons whose agenda includes undermining Rabbi Meisels’ defense of this matter and causing him further embarrassment, all as part of the continued campaign to seize control of Defendant Peninim of America, Inc. This is not mere conjecture; we are presently gathering evidence of efforts to threaten Rabbi Meisels into giving up his assets in connection with the allegations in this lawsuit and we suspect the leaking of the details of the allegation are part of this.
Notice that Meisels still claims to control his assets. So much for repeated claims that Meisels was no longer in control. This is one of the reasons why Touro College still has not reinstated the accreditation of the seminaries. This is consistent with a letter by the Chicago Beis Din (CBD) in September, but calls into question how the safety of the seminary could be assured by the Israeli Beis Din (IBD) on July 13, and then the enlarged beis din this month. I am guessing the enlarged Beis Din was willing to encourage parent confidence because they were depending on Touro to do the final vetting of the transfer of control. But Meisels is still playing games and not ceding control. I consider it entirely possible that he is so determined to stage a comeback that he is willing to risk destroying the seminary business in the process. He is counting on everyone else backing off rather than have the employees lose their jobs. I think he is overplaying his hand, especially so close to the end of the application period for next year.
Daniel Eidensohn’s blog, Daas Torah, is where the threats originated through comments allowed through moderation, and by some menacing themes in the blog postings. Such activity is in violation of the court order in this case which is partly sealed. It is bizarre that Meisels seems to be accusing Eidensohn of trying to steal the seminaries from him. But then, Meisels is bizarre. the only question is why it took others so long to notice. Alternatively, Meisels is content to let Eidensohn take the blame for a campaign he is obviously orchestrating. In effect perhaps Eidensohn is so much a tool of Meisels that he will let this insult go unchallenged to help Meisels maintain plausible deniability about victim intimidation.