More Irregularities Revealed In Legal Documents Between Meisels and Plaintiffs

(See images of the referenced documents at the end of the post)

Meisels Still Claims Control of Peninim of America, Inc

Yesterday (12/14/14) I reported that Elimelech Meisels still claims ownership of the not-for-profit (NFP) entity, Peninim of America, Inc. This claim was part of his response to a complaint by two plaintiffs (Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe #2) who allege Meisels sexually assaulted them.

Internet Intimidation

The plaintiffs sought a conference with the court ( which was granted for Tuesday 12/16/14, 1:30 p.m. with Judge Marily Go) because, “In the past week, information concerning the plaintiffs has been posted all over the internet. The personal information concerning the plaintiffs is information that only an insider would have.” The letter is probably referring to information and threats that appeared as comments on the Daas Torah blog with the tacit consent of the blog moderator, Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn.

Rabbi Daniel Edensohn Daas Torah blog

Rabbi Daniel Edensohn
Daas Torah blog

After I blogged to protest implied threats to reveal the identities of the plaintiffs, Eidensohn grudgingly backtracked in part but directed a massive attack at my blog. He and I argued about his allowing a comment in favor of revealing the plaintiff identities if they lied. This was in the context of repeated suggestions by Eidensohn and his favored commenters that the plaintiffs were lying in claiming rape and attempted rape.

Eidensohn insists that there is no proof that Meisels’ misconduct extended beyond a few hugs which may have been consensual and not explicitly sexual. His next few postings claimed that reports of the incidence of rape of college women are exaggerated, that U.S. Title IX legislation (regarding sexual violence and harassment in higher education) is “strongly reducing a man’s presumed status of innocence,” and referenced an article pointing out that the media have a legal right to reveal the identities of John and Jane Does in sex abuse cases.

Eidensohn finally stated, “I of course agree with the standard procedure of not publicizing the names of victims and witnesses.” However, he mitigated his responsibility stating “I approve many comments which I don’t agree with.” However, the plaintiffs, this blogger, and many observers detect an implied threat coupled with the strong suggestion that these plaintiffs are part of a large problem of exaggerated allegations of abuse by young adult women.

Meisels Blames Others for Leaks
Claiming an Attempt to Take Away Peninim of America, Inc

Meisels’ attorney responded to leak allegations:

Rabbi Meisels… has assured us that he has not leaked or otherwise caused the identity of the Plaintiffs to be compromised. We suspect, that… it was done so by persons whose agenda includes undermining Rabbi Meisels’ defense… all as part of the continued campaign to seize control of… Peninim of America, Inc… 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.

This is bizarre because Meisels is turning on Eidensohn accusing him of leaking to force him to surrender his control of the seminaries. Eidensohn’s name never appears in this exchange but I have information from informed sources that Eidensohn’s posts and moderated comments will be raised in the proposed conference with the Judge about Internet intimidation.

Yet Eidensohn attacked the Chicago Beis Din and Shlomo Gottesman with exactly the same accusations of attempting to steal the seminaries. This allegation was also circulated to many alumni through mass emails.

It is true that the Chicago Beis Din  and Touro College (& HTC) do not feel the schools are safe unless Meisels is completely removed from any control or role in the seminaries. But they are agnostic about who ends up controlling them.

Several different potential “owners” looked into “buying” the seminaries sometime between May and July 10th of this year (2014). They included Zvi Bloom the owner of the Nachlas Bais Yaakov seminary and the very wealthy Shlomo Yehuda Rechnitz. Both withdrew from the negotiations because they concluded Meisels was not serious about “selling.” Several others have been, or are now, exploring “buying” the seminaries. The roster of potential “buyers” includes figures who are aligned with the Chicago Beis Din as well as those aligned with Moetzes members who publicly criticized the Chicago Beis Din (i.e., Rabbis Yaakov Perlow (aka Novominkser Rebbe), Aaron Shechter (Chaim Berlin), Aron Feldman (Ner Israel Rabbinical College, Baltimore), Malkiel Kotler (Beth Medrash Gavohah, Lakewood) and Avrohom Chaim Levin (Telz-Chicago)).

The details are muddy and it is hard to separate out plausible allegations from either misleading claims or simple paranoia. But the one thing that is clear is that Meisels has not surrendered control  and does not want to, unless completely forced.

Can a Not-For-Profit Be Sold?

The IRS classifies Peninim of America, Inc as a not-for-profit (NFP). Thus, it assets cannot be used or sold for the personal benefit of its officers. Officers do not own an NFP. Yet all the parties in this controversy have regularly talked about “buying” and “selling” the seminaries. I have regularly asked experts how this can be done. The tax accountants tell me it cannot be done legally. Of course, it can be done privately and illegally, off the record. In fact, it is understood in the Yeshivish world that most schools are privately owned and the not-for-profit status is fakery to the government for the sake of tax benefits. However, even knowing this, I am surprised that various parties would openly use the language of buying and selling. Legally, the most that can be done is having existing officers of a corporation transfer authority to a new set of officers. It is impossible to even know if this has happened because the officers are not publicly disclosed. Peninim Inc claims “church” status with the IRS which frees it from having to publicly disclose those facts. I would hope that if a transfer of authority is accomplished, the new officers will voluntarily disclose their identities for Peninim of America, Inc and its Israeli entities to which it transfers funds in return for providing the actual education.

Did Meisels Miss the Lawsuit Response Deadline?

According to the plaintiffs, “Although Counsel for Defendants has filed a Notice of Appearance, no Answer has been filed. The Defendants are currently in default.”

Meisels’ attorney replied: “Just this Wednesday [12/10/4] we received copies of the
Affidavits of service from Plaintiffs’ counsel… We object to any notion
that service of process has properly been effectuated on Rabbi Meisels.”

In other words, plaintiffs claim that Meisels hasn’t answered on time and the judge should therefore award a default judgment. Meisels claims there was not proper service of the notice of the lawsuit so he is not susceptible to default judgment.

It is hard to believe that a defendant would willingly surrender his opportunity to respond. Yet it is equally hard to believe that a competent attorney would bungle something as simple as serving a lawsuit. ‘Tis mysterious!

Summary

It is astounding how much was revealed in the few hundred words exchanged by the attorneys for plaintiffs and Meisels. Civil courts, even with some sealing orders are way more transparent than the Beis Din process. Mind you, the Battei Din in this case have been way more transparent than most others to date, letting documents circulate that ended up on the Frum Follies and Daas Torah blogs. The only reason we learned anything at all is because Meisels refused to comply with the conditions the Chicago Beis Din set for him.This case illustrates that Beis Din is simply not up to the task of dealing with sexual abuse. The CBD is not yet successful in spite of the best of intentions,  investigative diligence, and considerable courage. I have a strong feeling that Meisels intends to stage a comeback and might succeed.

Meisels lawsuit leak complaint 12-11-14

Meisels lawsuit leak complaint response p1 of 2 12-11-14

Meisels lawsuit leak complaint response p2 of 2 12-11-14

Hat Tip to Michael Lesher and “Shmilda”

Update 12/16/14 6 p.m. – After today’s status conference, the following minute entry was entered on the docket:

Minute Entry for proceedings held on 12/16/2015 before Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go: Appearances by B. Condon, L. Catina for plaintiffs; A. Miltenberg for defendants. After discussion, the parties are granted leave to file under a seal a renewed motion to seal the case, which shall include specific examples of the concerns raised in their [9] [10] letters. The time for defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is extended to 1/23/2015, on consent. FTR/c: 1:04-1:18 (Moo-Young, Jillian)
In other words, both parties get to submit further motions, but they are sealed. Meisels was given an extension to reply and he is not in default at this point. So we wont see the motions but we might see additional orders including cease and desist orders about victim intimidation, perhaps directed at a certain other blogger.
Advertisements

34 thoughts on “More Irregularities Revealed In Legal Documents Between Meisels and Plaintiffs

  1. And, right on cue, they are on the judge’s calendar for Tuesday: https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/cal/calPDF.cfm?prid=1052

    Regarding the legality or possibility of “selling” the seminaries, I think you are missing the point by focusing on the “American Friends of” entity. Presumably, the actual operating business and assets (ie-property) would be owned by the Israeli entities. I have no idea how those are organized or what the rules for transferring them are, but assuming they could be “sold” (or perhaps the employees made to understand that they are now working for a new boss in a new entity renting the same space, etc.) then the new owners should be able to form their own “American Friends of” entity to funnel funds to Israel. Whether Meisels maintains control of the old US shell (and whatever funds he keeps stashed in it) or not should be irrelevant to the management of the seminaries, so long as going forward they have their own US entity and do not rely on him to collect tuition in the US.

    • My Israeli colleagues have searched for the amutot (Israeli term for such incorporated entities) employing various search strategies. They were not able to find them. ‘Tis a mystery.

    • Thank you for the info about the calendar. I incorporated the information into the post and gave you a Hat Tip. Feel free to advise me if your prefer it be a “Fedora Tip,” “Streimel Tip” “Kippah Tip,” “Sheitel Tip,””Shpitzel Tip,” or “Kerchief Tip.” Naturally, in deference to tznius, the latter three would only be done indoors, etc.

      • LOL! There are so many more to choose from. Up-Hat Tip, Down-Hat Tip, Fedora-with-Feather Tip, Tichel Tip, and Snood Tip, just to name a few.

        • And we are just tip toeing around a larger universe of ever-finer distinctions just like the many finer divisions in orthodoxy. And that is just head covering. It goes Downhill from there for the rest of the wardrobe distinctions.

          • At least we don’t have toe-wear distinctions, or all that tip-toeing would get tedious. Toe-wear distinctions would be almost as bad as nose-ring distinctions, which our ancestors wore as was described in our holy Torah. Funny that a frum girl would get expelled from school now for wearing a nose ring, when Rivka Imeinu received them as engagement gifts from her Chosson (and what Kallah doesn’t wear the jewelry gifted to her by her Chosson?! The insult would be insurmountable, even for a matriarch.)

            • As they say about everything else: “They were allowed to; we are not.” Of course with enough censoring and phototshopping newer generations will become convinced that Rivka was not wearing a nose ring. ArtScroll just published a chumash where they censored some of the comments of the rishon, and grandson of Rashi, the Rashbam. #sarcasm & #satire

  2. Mr. Lopin, I respectfully disagree with your statement that the CBD “is not up to the task” of dealing with sexual abuse. These Rabbis are incredibly courageous and have spent hours of their time, on a volunteer basis, to assist the victims and try to achieve a just result. At this time, the CBD seems to be the best resource the community has for dealing with sex abuse and they should be lauded for their efforts, lest other victims feel there is no purpose in stepping forward. Ideally, there should be a special court or organization paid for by the community and trained specifically in sex abuse and harrassment issues, to deal with these matters. Until then, let’s support the Chicago Beis Din and encourage all victims from accross the country to be brave and step forward to save others from potential future harm.

    Mr. Lopin, Thanks for your blog and for your hard work bringing these issues to the public. Our Jewish future depends on the hard work of people like you. Surely, many OTD kids suffered from some sort of sexual abuse or harrassment or similar betrayal by trusted Rabbis and teachers.

    • I think the CBD is absolutely the best there is in the Haredi world. I am speaking to the limits of Beit Din. I strongly believe that we need to end the intimidation that deters criminal complaints and civil suits. Until then we will have more farces where a well intentioned beis din still has to contend with many obstacles and frustrating incomplete results.

      Just for an example. In a civil suit, the staff could have been compelled to give depositions and testify under oath about allegations of enabling. The CBD tried to get cooperation but had to agree to an enlarged beit din to get them to appear. This is another problem with beit din. Outside their home communities, no beis din has undisputed jurisdiction. So when a defendant doesn’t like a result or a likely result he just goes shopping for another beis din. Even when jurisdiction is respected, problems arise in enforcing a beis din ruling. And all these problems arose with the best beis din for abuse in the US and perhaps in the world. Imagine how much worse things get with other battei din.

  3. Title IX is relevant; because of Pell Grant and FAFSA money going to seminaries via their accreditation by Touro etc., Touro will find it necessary that any operation it gives academic credit for meets the same administrative and disciplinary standards that a U.S. college or university getting Federal money does lest it find itself in serious legal jeopardy. And Title IX IS in conflict with the civil rights of those accused of sexual offenses. Little details like right to representation, right to cross-examine witnesses, and the presumption of innocence are all under attack under Title IX. Under the orders of the Federal Government, heavy civil and even criminal penalties will be enforced without due process. When Title IX becomes relevant to seminary operation, that too will become relevant for the next would-be Jacob Frank to come along. It is also relevant in that it is the Title IX definition of “sexual violence” which is in play in at least some of the cases of Meisels’ misconduct, and may enter into the lawsuits.

    However, with respect to the Meisels Beit Din “case” this is an irrelevant smokescreen: many if not all of the civil and possible criminal charges against Meisels involve halachic violations, in which how “sexual violence” is defined under Title IX is irrelevant. However, with respect to Rabbi Eidensohn’s agenda of denigrating civil law, it is highly relevant. That is why on his blog, a predator gets a chezkat kashrut when he shouldn’t, and the cracks between halacha and civil/criminal law are refuge for vermin, with social pressure in the Orthodox world being an additional factor which has historically benefited the predators even if halacha would allow another course. The unfortunate young women who were Meisels’ prey are just cannon fodder in the war Rabbi Eidensohn is waging, which I believe is involved in staking out a position for chareidi influence in eroding civil law in Israel, and which underlies his moderation policy in the comments to his blog.

    Rabbi Eidensohn is also correct that the “one in five women” statistic for rapes on college campuses is bogus and has been widely debunked. But that is again irrelevant with respect to Meisels.

    • I do not see R. Eidensohn favoring eroding civil legal authority across the board.

      Obviously, some things can make one unfit as a rabbi or religious school teacher which are perfectly legal starting with eating ham sandwiches, or consensual non-marital sex with adults outside one’s family or professional/rabbinical orbit.

      The one in five statistic is a straw man. His statistic of less than 1% in a year is equally misleading because it is based on police reports when it is widely known that most sexual assaults are never reported. the best data come from the national victimization survey which samples the entire normal population to ask them if they were ever assaulted. The national victimization survey concludes that about 1.3% of coeds are victimized each year. Over 4 years that works out to a 5% likelihood that a woman will be sexually assaulted while in college (usually by student peers). 5% is less than 20% but way more than 0.6% he quotes from Breitbart. In fact 5% is a frighteningly high number and worthy of raising an alarm and taking substantial action to reduce the number. Instead, Eidensohn has joined the bandwagon which is trivializing the issue and claiming the problem is too harsh an attitude to alleged perpetrators. i see many problems with the internal college processes for investigating and punishing offenders starting with a serious lack of professionalism in investigation, respect for rights of both parties, and decision making. I feel, that the more this is moved to the civil system and criminal system, the better. But on the whole, the major problem is not taking abuse seriously enough. for example, in one college the punishment for a confirmed rape was banishment from campus, AFTER graduation. That was it. not even any notation on the academic record.

      • Since I don’t know Eidensohn personally, it would be presumptuous to suggest that he has some misogyny influencing his attitudes towards adult female victims of rape and molestation. Unfortunately, t he fact that he would embrace Breitbart’s flawed and inflammatory statements rather than critically review the self-same article from the justice department that he posted does lend credence to that conclusion.

        • It boggles the mind that anybody would harass victims like he is doing. His blog is there to disturb, upset ,threaten and intimidate victims. The fact that he himself does it, and encourages others to do it is beyond anything I’ve seen.
          To be so low as to victimize the victims as to minimize how they feel makes him and his cohorts the scum of the earth.
          Does he have no scruples at all?
          What does he gain by protecting predators, extortionists and the like?
          What was his upbringing like? Is this is what he was taught when he was growing up?
          Danny, I know you read these comments. Are you a psychopath? There is no other way any sane person can understand why you attack victims and protect predators.

      • You’re right that rape accusations should be handled by the criminal justice system, but that is not where the current trend on campuses under Title IX is going, and the loss of civil rights is deliberate and driven in part by activists at the DOJ.

        I believe that there is a pattern discernible in many of the articles which Rabbi Eidensohn posts and links to (and not just regarding the Meisels affair) and that those postings are tactical and strategic moves in the service of an agenda. For example, even where an injured party has obtained a psak from significant poskim permitting the injured party to seek redress in civil courts, those piskei din are generally dismissed in the comments on Daat Torah. With the demographic changes in Israel, there is a struggle for power and I believe that delegitimizing secular courts is part of that struggle. True, the Israeli Supreme Court has done a great job of delegitimizing itself with its political activism.

        By the way, it’s not just Breitbart that has problems with one in five:

        http://time.com/2934500/1-in-5%E2%80%82campus-sexual-assault-statistic/
        http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
        http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html

        I agree that even one in twenty is horrible and but one in twenty would call for a different response than one in five. One in five is false, yet continues to be used to justify despotic acts (like deprivation of civil rights under Title IX.) For example, one of the editors at the U of VA student paper was taken in by Rolling Stone’s vicious and unprofessional reporting because she believed that statistic.

        • See this nice summary of the controversy about rates of sex assaults in colleges. It is by Politifact, which got the Pulitzer prize for fact checking.

          The story you mention about an unfair college disciplinary hearing at the University of Michigan is indeed disturbing if accurate. However, it is overwhelmingly based on the version of a guy who was accused of rape and claims the university of Michigan was treating him unfairly. Could be true. But without detailed reporting on the woman’s point of view it is hard to know what to believe. By and large for every wife of Potiphar there are many women like Tamar bas Dovid.

          College handling of sexual assault cases usually stinks. But the problem is that they are usually leniant, not punitive. Colleges are like the Catholic Church or the frum community. They hate scandal. The only better illustration is their handling of offenses by prize athletes (whether it is assaults, DUIs or academic cheating). Personally, I would like colleges to also move almost all handling of serious crimes (whether sexual assaults or any others) over to the criminal justice system which is much more professionally capable. But I do not believe the average male on campus sits in terrible danger of being destroyed by femi-nazis who will indict and convict on imagined or trivial misconduct.

          The other issue is how will Title IX affect Haredi seminaries. The answer is obvious to anyone who knows how incredibly hard it is for a frum girl to bring charges. Once they do it formally in ways relevant to Title IX they are in great danger of losing their standing for shiduchim. Once they file a formal complaint, all bets are off on protection from loshon horah and motzi shem rah. Just look at the incredible comments made about the young women who testified to the Chicago Beis Din.

          • http://www.thefire.org/on-sexual-harassment-and-title-ix/
            http://time.com/3612667/campus-sexual-assault-uva-rape-title-ix/
            The money quote from the latter:

            “As long as universities provide alternatives to the criminal justice system that are presented as more attractive to student victims of sexual assault, many victims will use that system. (Title IX, as currently construed, requires universities to have such systems.) The motive may be compassionate, but this has to be weighed against the fact that the actual results, as in the UVA case, can be horrifying.”

            Think about that for a moment: Title IX MANDATES that a university provide an extralegal way to handle sexual assault cases. What could possibly go wrong?

            Also see this:
            http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink-harvard-sexual-harassment-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html

            The signatories list is a pretty good who’s who of left-liberal civil libertarians.

            While the letter asserts that what Harvard is doing violates Title IX, the Harvard policies the letter objects to were instituted in response to a Title IX investigation of Harvard’s handling of sexual assault and harassment charges.

            And a good overview of the college climate (less relevant for seminaries ) http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-15/no-is-a-womans-most-powerful-word

              1. the 2011 letter by Dept of Ed was clear that students needed to be aware of advised of option of simultaneously pursuing an action with police and with their higher ed institution. Organizations need internal disciplingin and problem solving tools for disciplining actions ranging from rape to cheating on tests. When someone assaults you at work, you report it to the cops and also expect the employer to have some internal personnel action, etc. What victims choose, is not the fault of Title IX. Non-reporting of sex crimes to police is ubiquitous in every segment of the population. I think it is wrong to force a student with an assault claim to choose one over the other. You are right about the terrible problem of schools counseling students to skip the police and stick to the campus process. US Dept of Ed is extremely clear that doing it is a serious violation.

              Some 20+ Harvard law faculty (a minority of all faculty, but still a formidable group) are objecting to the top down imposition of a system for dealing with abuse that they claim has all sorts of features not required by Title IX. They are also jealously defending the right of each individual school to be in charge, a source of perennial debate with their University administration. Based on a superficial reading my sympathies lie with the faculty. But that is not a problem, even according to them with Title IX. Of course you expect 20+ Harvard Law faculty to be darn persuasive bout a legal issue. I wonder about the views of those who did not sign on. Finally, note that Harvard has the distinction of being one of 55 out of thousands of Higher Ed institutions who got cited by US Dept of Ed.

              I like the Bloomberg Review article.

              If you want to know what the Department of ED wrote that is triggering this compliance issue it was a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) in 2010: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html

              It is possible that with four years to respond, some of those 55 who were not in compliance are overreacting in stupid ways. But that is not the fault of the Dept of Ed.

              There is also mythology such as all complaints have to handled in 60 days. Nothing of the sort. here is what the letter says:

              “OCR (US dept of ed, ofc of cvil rights) will evaluate whether a school’s grievance procedures specify the time frames for all major stages of the procedures, as well as the process for extending timelines. Grievance procedures should specify the time frame within which: (1) the school will conduct a full investigation of the complaint; (2) both parties receive a response regarding the outcome of the complaint; and (3) the parties may file an appeal, if applicable. Both parties should be given periodic status updates. Based on OCR experience, a typical investigation takes approximately 60 calendar days following receipt of the complaint. Whether OCR considers complaint resolutions to be timely, however, will vary depending on the complexity of the investigation and the severity and extent of the harassment. For example, the resolution of a complaint involving multiple incidents with multiple complainants likely would take longer than one involving a single incident that occurred in a classroom during school hours with a single complainant.

          • What you say about Title IX and due process is nice, but doesn’t reflect reality:

            http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/07/feds-punish-princeton-for-giving-too-man

            A key quote:

            “As part of its settlement, Princeton is required to lower its evidence standard to “a preponderance of the evidence,” which means adjudicators must convict if they are 50.1 percent persuaded by the accuser.

            Princeton’s old policy was also criticized by DOE for allowing accused students to appeal decisions, but not accusers. Both this practice and the evidence standard were revised under Princeton’s new, DOE-compliant policy.”

            • Preponderance is the standard for civil lawsuits as well. The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt only applies to criminal prosecutions where there are punishments like prison, being on sex offender registry, etc. The preponderance standard is considered acceptable for all sorts of regulatory practices according to the US supreme court. Dont blame colleges or US Dept of Ed.

              Your last quote sounds like good news. Now either party who is unhappy can appeal the decision. Why do you consider that a problem?

  4. The “Jane Doe”s are incredibly courageous and selfless to bring this to court. I have so much admiration for them. Their reward will be immeasurably great. May Hashem give them the inner strength and the tools they need to overcome their pain and live meaningful and happy lives.

  5. Too bad Eliyahu Weinstein got sentenced to another long prison sentence today (away from all airports per the judge’s instructions!) or he could use some of the $200M that is still missing to buy the four seminaries. Maybe with Weinstein involved, parents won’t send their daughters.

  6. According to Rabbi Eidensohn (direct quote from the comments section): “All the accusations of him doing more than hugging come from allegations from other people whose testimony has not been verified or from certain peoples imagination of what he might have done given their belief of who he is.”

    So according to him, how does a testimony become “verified?” That’s a key question. I do not post on his site (do not use discus), so someone feel free to ask him. Does it require the admission of the predator? I wonder why he didn’t clarify his view of “verifying testimony” in his book about abuse, and I wonder what his co-authors would think about his view.

    • It’s a shell game he’s playing. He’ll tell you that if it were “verified”, then there’s no way the CBD could ever find the seminaries safe, and that there’s no way they would have signed the letter. Ergo, the testimony isn’t credible enough to be “verified.”

      Now, people like myself and Rational Thinker and others have torn his “logic” to shreds, as well as the fact that this red herring also sets in motion Meisels comeback. Yet they still try to put this garbage out there, because there are a few mental midgets who actually buy it.

    • not been verified means that the victims have not put videotapes of themselves being violated on the Internet with unambiguous lighting, faces, and a long prior transcript to satisfy all of us that the victims were not manipulating poor mr Meisels. If such material is posted the victim will be vilified and intimidated. Translation. Nothing will be verified at this point in the eyes of Eidensohn. His claiming to care about facts is just a charade.

    • not been verified means that the victims have not put videotapes of themselves being violated on the Internet with unambiguous lighting, faces, and a long prior transcript to satisfy all of us that the victims were not manipulating poor mr Meisels. If such material is posted the victim will be vilified and intimidated. Translation. Nothing will be verified at this point in the eyes of Eidensohn. His claiming to care about facts is just a charade.

  7. Update 12/16/14 6 p.m. – After today’s status conference, the following minute entry was entered on the docket:

    Minute Entry for proceedings held on 12/16/2015 before Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go: Appearances by B. Condon, L. Catina for plaintiffs; A. Miltenberg for defendants. After discussion, the parties are granted leave to file under a seal a renewed motion to seal the case, which shall include specific examples of the concerns raised in their [9] [10] letters. The time for defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is extended to 1/23/2015, on consent. FTR/c: 1:04-1:18 (Moo-Young, Jillian)
    In other words, both parties get to submit further motions, but they are sealed. Meisels was given an extension to reply and he is not in default at this point. So we wont see the motions but we might see additional orders including cease and desist orders about victim intimidation, perhaps directed at a certain other blogger.

See Commenting policy ( http://wp.me/pFbfD-Kk )

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s