1

An examination of civil and criminal liability for those who protect child abusers
in the Jewish community
By: Shlomo Y. Singer
(c) 2014. All rights reserved by the author.

Preface
This paper was mainly written in late 2013, in the wake of the Kolko scandal. Out
of an abundance of caution and due to personal constraints, I put this paper on the rear-
burner for several months. In light of the Meisels affair, it has become crystal clear that
I needed to polish off this paper and present it for mass consumption. I do this with
anxiety and trepidation. This paper is not intended to be a roadmap for litigation; it is
intended to be another warning for those who believe that they are untouchable. It is
with the consolation that my hours of toiling will be repaid tenfold if I stop even one
future case of abuse by releasing this work that I proceed.
When addressing the issue of child abuse, one's vision can easily become
myopic. The doctor, it is said, mostly sees sick patients. A smart doctor, however, will
not conclude that most people in the general populous are sick. As a civil defense
attorney, I primarily defend people who are sued as a result of being involved in motor
vehicle accidents. Again, this does not mean that everyone who gets into a car crash
will get sued. That stated, there are cases where private persons and organizations, in
conjunction with law enforcement, have stopped offenders in their tracks. Further, there
are documented instances where prestigious rabbis have advised victims to report
abuse to law enforcement. It is clear that some people are attempting to help. One
must admit that the situation is getting better over time. There is a proliferation of
organizations whose goals are to protect victims and weed out the cancer of child
abuse. Nonetheless, their reach is limited and they are far from universally accepted.
The cadre of rabbis, which is substantial, which protect abusers has caused much
damage. Therefore, child abuse must be continuously addressed as, I fear, it will never
fully disappear from our community.

Overview
As it is with the fish in the sea - the larger ones swallow up the smaller
ones - so it is with men, were it not for the fear of government, men would
swallow each other alive. This is what is taught: Rabbi anina the deputy
high priest said "Pray for the welfare of the government; for were it not for
2

the fear thereof, men would swallow each other alive." (Talmud Bavli:
Avoda Zara 4a)
1


Thankfully, this generation has witnessed a shift in paradigm whereby victims of
child abuse are coming forward to confront and prosecute their abusers. Nonetheless,
it is evident that there are people, groups, and institutions who feel that they can better
address treatment of abusers than governmental authorities. While possibly well-
intentioned, said actions often result in protecting the accused at the expense of the
victim and future victims. This paper will examine the potential exposure- both criminal
and civil- for those who protect child abusers.
The raison d'tre for this paper is out of necessity. Many articles and halachic
works have been authored which address the treatment of the (alleged) abuser.
Similarly, there is a plethora of material- in the secular corpus- that examines how to
treat the victim of abuse. I have yet to find any study which definitively sets forth the
(quite serious) ramifications for those lay civilians in the Orthodox Jewish community
who determine to handle an abuser in a private forum rather than allowing
governmental institutions to handle same. While it is axiomatic that attainment of
semicha
2
does not confer a carte blanche allowance to practice as a psychologist,
therapist, or attorney; often rabbis disregard criminal and civil law, the advice of mental
health professionals, and social mores
3
when dispensing advice to the abused and their
accusers. This paper will additionally flesh out some factors that should be considered
by persons who wishe to provide advice to either a victim or (suspected) perpetrator of
abuse.
One needs to only look as far as the Catholic Church abuse scandal of the past
decade to see how criminal actions of clergy resulted in civil suits. Unlike the Church,
Orthodox Judaism (Hassidism being the exception) does not provide its adherents an
all-encompassing one-stop shop for religious demands. A family may benefit from the
use of a synagogue, grade school and high school- all of which are controlled by
separate entities. This, by default, ensures that no one entity can amass the capital that
has led to the multi-million dollar settlements entered into by the Church. Nonetheless a
time may come where a Jewish institution must sell off assets to satisfy the debts

1
Translation as appears in Rabbi Dr. Binyamin Lau's work "The Sages: Character, Context & Creativity"
Volume I, Page 301. 2010, Maggid Books, Jerusalem. This teaching obviously refers to the mishna in
Avot 3:2.
2
I will not address the topic of what "special" capabilities, if any, Torah study may confer on a person.
While rabbinic literature posits that learning of the Torah can allow a person to achieve a deeper
understanding of the world as a whole, we have witnessed too many examples where those in positions
of power who "wave the banner of G-d" due to ulterior motives and wind up causing disastrous results.
3
When discussing the halachic implications of violating social mores- even when carrying out one's
religious obligations, one should first refer to the Rambam's Yisodei Hatorah Chapter 5 Et. Seq.
3

incurred by their agents' illegal actions. Regardless, it is clear that sexual abuse by
religious figures has been successfully prosecuted in civil courts.
I do not espouse to be an expert in either law or halacha. While I am an
attorney, I am far removed from my years of practicing criminal law as an assistant
prosecutor. Further, I have never civilly prosecuted a RICO case.
4
It is out of an
abundance of outrage and caution that I (proverbially) put pen to paper. I feel that this
paper addresses important issues that can, and most-likely will, have significant
ramifications for Jewish community leaders in the near future.
This paper is not intended to be an all encompassing tome. It is intended to be a
springboard for discussion and, more importantly, action. I know that by authoring this I
will simultaneously become a hero to some and a pariah to others. I have attempted to
tread carefully. Critique is expected; constructive critique is welcome. I hope that
regardless of what transpires, the focus will remain on the issue, not he who presents it.

Introduction
Simply put, child abuse is a crime. It is a criminal offense in our judicial systems.
It is a religious offense. It is a moral offense. For whatever reasons espoused,
5
many
have decided that it is prudent to protect abusers instead of reporting them to the
secular authorities. An abundance of caution for the reputation of the accused often
ignores the wellbeing of the victim and the reality that future victims may exist. Those
who privately handle investigations can neglect urgent issues due to self-imposed
blinders. The misplaced belief that therapy can "cure" a child abuser simply ignores the
rights of the victim. Moreover, without strong enforcement powers, most groups that
attempt to supplant the government's roles are, in reality, impotent.
6

Throughout this article, I will use the term "child abuse." This term does not
distinguish between physical, mental, and sexual abuse. All are harmful and all are
forbidden, in some form or another, by both secular and Jewish laws. That stated; most
of the following discussion could be applied to other types of illegal and/or dangerous
activities. I merely use the vignettes presented below because they 1) are loosely

4
After a judicial clerkship, I served as an Assistant Prosecutor in Essex County, New Jersey. I currently
am house counsel for an insurance company. This article is not intended to provide any legal or halachic
advice. One who relies upon the information contained herein does so at their own risk. The opinions
expressed herein are those of the author alone and not of any of his current or former employers.
5
I am quite aware that some feel that protecting an abuser from the authorities is mandated by halacha.
While I personally do not subscribe to this theory, and indeed find it self-serving, offensive and
destructive; this paper is intended to address the consequences of the actions perpetuated by these
"leaders," not to judge the morality, or lack thereof, of their actions.
6
See below regarding mandated reporting regarding how governmental enforcement is also limited.
4

based on actual events and 2) can be expounded upon in a manner that elucidates the
differences between various causes of action. It should be noted that unless otherwise
specified, all hypothetical examples are just that. They do not refer to any specific
person(s) or institution(s).
Our methodology will be simple: we will present three scenarios of actual and
hypothetical cases. We will then introduce various causes of action- both criminal and
civil- and apply the latter to the former. We will see how various actors are treated
differently by the law and that each case's specific facts can and do have far-reaching
ramifications. Due to the recent exposure of the Meisels case, we will depart from this
formula when discussing RICO issues.
An obvious question that may be asked is: "If something is illegal, why don't the
authorities prosecute it?" Similarly, "If something is a tort, why doesn't someone sue?"
The answers to these questions are both simple and complex. In the United States,
prosecution of crimes is carried out by both Federal and State authorities. These
prosecutors are political beings. The United States Attorney for every district is an
appointed position. Similarly, in New Jersey, County Prosecutors and the (state)
Attorney General are appointed positions. In New York, District Attorneys are elected
positions. Regardless of the method of attaining the position, it is clear that the person
or office charged with enforcing the criminal code
7
in any jurisdiction is beholding to
political and other ancillary pressures. One only has to open the New York newspapers
to find critiques of how former Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes waffled in his
handling of child abusers.
8

The answer to the second question is more nuanced. Certain civil suits are
prosecuted by the government. In those cases, the above logic applies. In order to
successfully pursue a privately prosecuted civil matter, a litigant is required to outlay
considerable time and money. Moreover, there is a large emotional toll that can be
experienced by the litigants. For example, a victim may be required to testify both at a
deposition and at trial in addition to being subjected to attending various defense
medical or psychological examinations. Contrary to most victims of Catholic priest
abuse that have come forward in recent years, victims of recent abuse are often still
minors or in their early adulthood. Clearly, now-grown victims of child abuse may be
better equipped to handle the stresses of a civil suit than a twenty-something who is
simultaneously attempting to finish his/her education, marry, and start an independent
life. Further, as a victim may have experienced a wave of hostility and harassment from
their own community, the victim may just want some "peace and quiet." Last, just

7
I would use the term "finding justice;" however, I believe that "Justice" is an ecclesiastical trait; not one
that can be executed by the government. Much thanks to Judge Serena Perretti, for whom I clerked, for
helping me to develop this theory.
8
http://bit.ly/1594pmk
5

because one is successful in litigation, there is no guarantee that the victor will actually
be compensated.
Essentially, it is a given that both civil and criminal prosecution of child abuse are
riddled with hazards. That does not mean that said legal actions are impractical,
impossible or improbable. We live in an era where policies change as often as the
weather does. It is simply a matter of time before an Orthodox Jew decides to use the
legal tools available at their discretion.
9
More poignantly, one who ignores the potential
for legal exposure does so at his/her own risk.
This paper purposely does not address the prudence, or lack thereof, of
prosecuting those who protect child abusers. On the surface, it may appear to be a
clear-cut decision. Sadly, cases exist where actors have been wrongfully accused.
One must commend those intuitions that protect and vindicate the wrongly accused. It
does, nonetheless, beg discussion as to who should be charged with protecting the
innocent. Regardless of one's conclusion, mistakes do happen and neither religious
10

nor secular courts run efficiently for a wronged party. That discussion is beyond the
scope of this paper.
Prior to embarking on our journey, I wish to provide one note about my selection
of statutes. I purposely chose Federal, New Jersey, and New York statutes. This is
merely out of convenience as I am admitted to practice law in these three jurisdictions. I
am confident that other judicial systems may have differing rules. I am confident that
these differing statutory schemes do not vary in such a manner as to render this
exercise moot.
Last, a special thank you to those who reviewed this paper prior to its completion.
Your observations and encouragement were most-helpful.

Hypothetical scenarios
11

Scenario 1, sadly, is real. It is the case of Yosef Kolko. Without discussing the
specific details, Kolko sexually assaulted at least one minor. A beit din (rabbinic court)
was convened in his home town of Lakewood, New Jersey. Said beit din determined
that it could properly treat Kolko and that involvement of secular law-enforcement was

9
This was written prior to the filing of the Meisels suit (as described below).
10
As clearly set forth in Exodus, Jethro had to inform Moses that the latter's judicial system was highly
inefficient. One may wonder as to how Moses, "the servant of G-d," was unable to grasp this on his own.
Whatever one's answer is, one must conclude a fortiori that today's religious judges most-likely suffer at
least as great of a blind-spot when assessing their institutions.
11
Again, as stated above, scenarios 2 and 3 are merely speculative and are not based on any real
situations.
6

unnecessary.
12
One victim's family was publicly denounced and harassed by several
rabbis and their supporters. This family was forced to move out of Lakewood.
13
At
some point, one victim reported Kolko to law-enforcement. After the commencement of
a criminal trial, Kolko pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault and is currently
incarcerated.
14

Specifically, for our discussion, it is of importance that Kolko's case was
(mis)handled by an appointed body- a beit din. Moreover, said beit din was acting
under the auspices of certain prominent communal rabbis. Rabbi Yisrael Belsky, a
prominent posek (decider of halacha) issued a letter to the Lakewood community
regarding this travesty. In it, he alleged:
After conducting a thorough investigation I am absolutely certain that R'
Y.K. [Yosef Kolko], may his light shine, is perfectly innocent of any
wrongdoing of any nature whatsoever. And not only is he innocent, but it
is also as clear to me that all these allegations are fabrications....
15


After some pointed opinions about the victim and his family, Belsky
16
continued:
Accordingly, as it is a great mitzvah to rescue the pursued from the hands
of the pursuer and to make it known that the righteous man is right and the
evil man is evil- to rescue a pure and righteous soul. Therefore, anyone
who has the ability to rescue the righteous and does not do so is
considered as if he is himself the pursuer. (See: Rambam- laws regarding
informing 1:14)
Thus, all who have the ability to influence the informers that they should
retract their terrible deeds should do so.
17


This sentiment was echoed in a letter signed by nine prominent Lakewood rabbis.
18
It is
clear that the rabbinic establishment exerted much undue pressure on the victim and his
family throughout this sad episode.

12
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new-york-news/lakewood-abuse-cases-parallel-justice-system
13
http://www.app.com/article/20130505/NJNEWS/305050035/?nclick_check=1
14
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OlIbsqCuarA/Ub1nP-LEq-
I/AAAAAAAAL8M/BbF90_JBSpE/s1600/kolko+yosef+prison+data.jpg
15
http://survivorsforjustice.org/images/stories/pdfs/YosefKolko/Kolko_BelskyLetterEnglish.pdf
16
I have no doubt that Rabbi Belsky is a knowledgeable "talmid chochom." Nonetheless, when applying
the facts to a person, I must, with good conscience, simply refer to Rabbi Belsky by his surname in an
attempt to protect the mantle of Torah from being further besmirched.
17
Id. As in interesting aside, Belsky, as a member of the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) has
created severe issues for the latter as his opinion is at loggerheads with the RCA's official stance.
Nonetheless, risking its credibility, the RCA has essentially danced around the issue by reverting to
semantic arguments to distance itself from one of its most prominent members. Belsky is also a
prominent figure in the hierarchy of the Orthodox Union (OU).
18
http://survivorsforjustice.org/images/stories/pdfs/YosefKolko/Kolko_LakewoodRabbisProclamation.pdf
7

Scenario 2 One of the beauties of the Jewish community is that we have
developed institutions to assist those in need. Hatzolah is no different. Hatzolah is a
volunteer ambulance corps. The theory is that supplying a privately-funded emergency
response organization will result in a better quality of care. As Hatzolah is a community
organization, it has a rabbinical board. As licensed emergency medical technicians
(EMTs), the volunteers of Hatzolah are mandated by state law to report the suspicion of
certain crimes- including domestic and child abuse. In order to shield its EMTs from the
stigma of, G-d forbid, falsely suspecting that someone has engaged in child abuse (and
the ensuing fallout which will inevitably result), the organization implements a rule: If you
suspect something, run it past our rabbinical board. If rabbis believe that your concern
is warranted, they will grant permission to contact the necessary law-enforcement
personnel.
While (possibly) well intentioned, this policy creates an extra layer of bureaucracy
between the event and possible reporting of same.
19
Let us now imagine that EMT Ben
reports to the scene of a call to treat an injured child at the Gold home. The injuries
wreak of physical abuse- the child has a mark on his body that looks like it came from a
belt. Mrs. Gold, trying to stop her out-of-control husband, called Hatzolah to give the
family a reprieve. EMT Ben cannot remove the child from the house, he must contact
the rabbi charged with determining whether or not a reportable infraction occurred. An
immediate response would result in the Gold boy being temporarily removed from the
home for a brief investigatory period. Rabbi Silver, the rabbi charged with overseeing
Hatzolah, knows the family personally. He knows what removal of the child will mean.
He knows the stigma that reporting will have. He knows that Mr. Gold just lost his job
and that the Golds have had prior marital issues. Before making a decision, Rabbi
Silver decided to "sleep on it." The next morning, Rabbi Silver decides to go to the Gold
home to address this issue on his own. Sadly, he cannot find a parking space because
the block is cordoned off by police. Overnight, Mr. Gold, after one too many drinks, let
his son have it. The Gold boy is now in the intensive care unit at the local hospital after
being hit in the head with a frying pan. Ironically, Mrs. Gold finally called 911 instead of
the local Hatzolah hotline.
Scenario 3 Mrs. Stern is a teacher at the local school in Happyville, New York.
She notices how Becky seems to be acting differently of late. Taking her aside, the
teacher inquires and discovers that the morning teacher, Rabbi Adler has been touching
her inappropriately. Thankfully, Mrs. Stern immediately reports this to the school's
principal. Within a week, it is announced that Rabbi Adler's father has "taken ill." Rabbi
Adler has to cease teaching to assist his ill parent. The summer comes, and the school,

19
We will ignore the fact that law enforcement personnel are charged with first investigating a matter and
then, if necessary, prosecuting same. Whether or not a rabbi can conduct a more thorough investigation
than a police detective is irrelevant.
8

needing a full roster of teachers, decides to replace Rabbi Adler. So far, all seems well.
Right? No!
Our staged disappearing act did work in Happyville; however, the next
September, an announcement comes from Rabbi Adler's new community that he is
taking over as the new sixth grade girl's teacher. One doesn't need much imagination
to figure out where the story goes from here.

Application of criminal and civil remedies:
1) Criminal remedies
Witness tampering
18 USC 1512, the Federal Statute
20
regarding witness tampering proscribes
certain conduct. Specifically, it is a criminal offense, punishable with fines and up to
twenty years of imprisonment if one
... knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another
person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward
another person, with intent to
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official
proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object,
from an official proceeding. 18 USC 1512 (b)

Similarly, New Jersey criminalizes witness tampering. Of note, New Jersey's statue is
broader insofar as it criminalizes actions by a person who "knowingly engages in
conduct which a reasonable person would believe would cause a witness"
21
to withhold
testimony, etc. While in a Federal Court, a fact finder would have to make a factual
finding that the aggressor intended to intimidate or influence a witness, in New Jersey
Superior Court, a fact finder would merely have to conclude that the accused engaged
in conduct that would reasonably cause a witness to be intimidated.
Scenario 1 clearly demonstrates an instance where more than one person
intimidated the victim and his family. While it could possibly be a stretch to prosecute
Belsky under Federal law, it seems crystal clear that he violated New Jersey law. The
takeaway seems that those leaders who attempt to overtly influence the process by

20
Throughout this exercise, I will attempt to refer to Federal statues as they have the broadest
applicability. Each state (ostensibly) has similar, often identical, statutes. Regardless, our discussion is
to identify potential issues, not to provide a framework for applying- or circumventing- current law.
21
N.J.S.A 2C:28-5
9

advocating others to intimidate a witness can be subjected to criminal punishment in
this regard.
Let us take Scenario 1 one step further, if the beit din attempted to issue a
summons (hazmana) to the victim, would this be a violation of the witness tampering
statute? How about if the beit din issued a proclamation (seruv) against the victim for
refusing to cooperate with the beit din's "investigation?"
Mandated Reporting
Based on a Federal initiative, all states have laws which mandate that certain
persons are required to report the suspicion of abuse to law enforcement. New Jersey
requires all persons who suspect abuse to report.
22
New York specifically delineates
who is a mandated reporter. Included in this list are doctors, nurses, mental health
professionals, teachers and police officers. Of note, the statutory scheme does not
include rabbis who are otherwise excluded from the other specified categories. A
serious weakness with both New Jersey and New York's statutory schemes is that both
classify failure to report as a disorderly persons offense (New Jersey) or a misdemeanor
(New York).
23
Essentially, not reporting abuse by a mandated reporter carries the same
punishment as punching someone without causing any serious injury.
24

If either Scenarios 2 or 3 to have occurred in New Jersey, all persons having
knowledge and a reasonable suspicion of the alleged crimes would face exposure. It is
further clear that in Scenario 1, Belsky as well as any other rabbis involved in the Kolko
affair have broken the law. Nonetheless, as discussed in the introduction, the State
declined to prosecute these persons.
Applying the lower, New York, mandated reporter standards to Scenario 1, there
would be potential liability for all professionals, if any, that were consulted by the beit
din- assuming that they had a reasonable suspicion that abuse occurred. Had Kolko
indeed gone to therapy, his therapist would have been required to report. In Scenario 2,
the EMT involved is a mandated reporter. In addition to criminal exposure, if
prosecuted, he would most-likely also forfeit his EMT license. Nonetheless, there is
probably no criminal exposure for Rabbi Silver- in regard to this statute. In Scenario 3
are persons discussed were mandated reporters. They must report the alleged
activities. Therefore, both Mrs. Stern and whomever she reported to would face
exposure.

22
https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/manda.pdf#Page=7&view=Fit
23
https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/report.pdf#Page=2&view=Fit. (New
Jersey's criminal statutory scheme uses the terms "indictable offense" in lieu of "felony" and "disorderly
persons offense" in lieu of "misdemeanor.")
24
Also known as simple assault.
10


2) Civil remedies
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is a civil cause of action. IIED is
unique because it is encompasses a tort which does not (necessarily) result in either
physical or monetary loss.
25
After a protracted battle for acceptance, most states
recognize this tort.
In order to prevail in a law-suit for intentional infliction of emotional
distress, the plaintiff typically must show the following: (1) the defendant
intended to inflict emotional distress; (2) the conduct of the defendant was
extreme and outrageous; (3) the actions of the defendant were the cause
of the plaintiffs distress; and (4) the resulting emotional distress to the
plaintiff was severe.
26


IIED is to be distinguished from its cousin, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
(NIED). Whereas the former requires intent, the latter occurs when someone's
negligent action causes emotional distress.
27
NIED was born out of a realization that
the law needed to provide an injured party relief in instances that were not expressly
covered by IIED.
28
One caveat; a tortfeasor must owe, and breach, a duty to the injured
party.
29
Therefore, parties can attempt to reason that the victim was not foreseeable.
Applying the above-mentioned rules provides some interesting results. In
Scenario 1, it is obvious, assuming that the victim was severely emotionally distressed,
and that he would have a course of action for IIED against Kolko. Nonetheless, it would
be difficult to substantiate a cause against any of the rabbis who presided over this
episode as there is an absence of the first prong for IIED and most-likely there was no
duty of care owed by them to the victim. Nonetheless, the victim- and his family-
conceivably would have a cause of action for NIED, if not IIED, against those who
harassed and pressured him in an attempt to enforce the rabbis' wills.
Similarly, in Scenarios 2 and 3 it appears at first glance that NIED would be a
more accurate course of action to pursue against both Rabbi Silver and the
administration of the Happyville school. It is indisputable that Rabbi Silver's negligence
in failing to report resulted in emotional distress to the victim's relatives. The

25
See Cavico, Frank, J.: "The Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in the Private Sector."
21:1 Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal 111 (2003).
26
Id. at 113, citations omitted.
27
http://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/legal-referral-service/practice-areas/negligence-and-personal-
injury-law/infliction-of-emotional-distress
28
Sheila C. v. Povick 781 N.Y.S.2d 342 (1st Dept. 2004).
29
Id.
11

administration of the Happyville school may, however, get off with an easier treatment.
One of the fundamental notions of civil liability for tortuous actions is that the harm
claimed must be foreseeable.
30
New York Chief Judge, and later Supreme Court
Justice. Benjamin Cardozo's opinion in this regard is one of the highlights of every first
year law student's curriculum. Cardozo's opinion essentially codified the reasoning that
one cannot be held liable for the most remote results of a negligent action- liability must
cease at some point.
31
A defense attorney for the Happyville school will argue, that the
school administration could not foresee that their actions (or inactions) would
reasonably result in the harm to children in a different school, state, or country.
A final warning about foreseeability. Some courts have been expansive in their
application of the foreseeability requirement. "Foreseeability, in turn, is based on the
defendant's knowledge of the risk of injury."
32
Whether or not an actor knew or should
have known that their actions risked injury to others is debatable. Nonetheless,
regardless of the final outcome, it is doubtful that a rational person would want to put
themselves in a position where they are subjected to the legal process.
33


RICO Statutes
While initially designed to curb activities related organized crime, in recent
decades, racketeering statutes have been used to combat a slew of "nontraditional"
criminal enterprises. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
has both Federal and State iterations. Moreover, RICO allows for both criminal and civil
penalties. The civil penalties can include- depending on venue- treble damages as well
as attorney's fees. This would mean that a $1 million verdict could be inflated to $3
million- exclusive or attorney's fees.
New Jersey's RICO statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2(c) allows for civil remedies for
victims of racketeering enterprises. The plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the existence of
an enterprise, (2) that the enterprise engaged in or its activities affected trade or
commerce, (3) that defendant was employed by, or associated with the enterprise, (4)

30
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (N.Y. 1928). Similarly, Foreseeability of the risk of
harm is the foundational element in the determination of whether a duty exists. J.S. v. R.T.H., 155 N.J.
330, 337 (1998).
31
Obviously, this theory has undergone some change in the past 85 years. Nonetheless, this is a theory
paper.
32
Podias v. Mairs, 394 N.J. Super. 338, 350 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 192 N.J. 482 (2007).
33
As an example, New Jersey's Appellate Division recently issued a ruling where it expanded the scope
of liability for someone who knowingly sends a text message to the driver of a vehicle when he/she knows
that the recipient will illegally read same while operating a vehicle. Kubert v Best (App. Div.) 2013.
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a1128-12.pdf (This case may be appealed further. No proper
citation available as of the publication of this article).
12

that the defendant participated in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise, and (5) that
he participated through a pattern of racketeering activity. Racketeering activity
includes, among other things, bribery, extortion, forgery and fraudulent practices,
securities fraud, and all crimes set forth in chapter 21 of Title 2C of the New Jersey
Statutes.
Often the most difficult prong of RICO prosecution is proving that a "pattern" of
activity existed. RICO is not intended to punish random offenders; hence why RICO is
synonymous with the mafia and not with a "run of the mill" crook. New Jersey's RICO
statute requires the showing that (1) the defendant committed at least two acts and (2)
that these acts "embrace criminal conduct that has either the same or similar purposes,
results, participants or victims or methods of commission or are otherwise interrelated
by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents."
34

The extra hurdle of proving the criminal RICO prongs adds a layer of complexity
to the civil prosecution that can be fatal to many claims. While a civil complaint may list
a RICO count, it may only be worthwhile to pursue same once a criminal RICO action
has successfully proceeded. Referring back to our introduction, it is safe to say that
prosecution of a beit din, Jewish charity or school will be infrequent.
The Meisels Affair
In the summer of 2014, a new scandal rocked the Jewish community. Elimelech
Meisels
35
, a rabbi who owned and ran several Israeli seminaries for post-high school
women was accused of sexual misconduct with some of his students.
36
It appears that
Meisels' victims were over 18. While this only slightly dampens the alarm; it is clear that
a different discussion would transpire had Meisels abused students who were minors.
As a result of his alleged offenses, Meisels was forced to give up ownership of
these seminaries. Some of Meisels' students and their parents filed a RICO suit in
Federal Court in Illinois. The claim essentially alleges that Meisels and his cohorts lured
unsuspecting females to Israel in order to sexually abuse them. Further, Meisels and
his alleged co-conspirators did this under the auspices of Meisels' seminaries. Plaintiffs
argue that RICO was triggered by the systematic abuse, fraudulent representations by
the seminaries, and racketeering activities of the named defendants.

34
http://www.davidrichlaw.com/new-jersey/business-litigation.html
35
See FN 16.
36
http://frumfollies.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/a-compendium-of-www-postings-on-meisels-scandal/ and
http://www.scribd.com/doc/236210001/Meisels-RICO-Claim-August-4-
2014?secret_password=nXDclTUD6c3YOJeIxKoM
13

While I have no knowledge as to how the above-referenced RICO suit will
develop, it is clear that analogous allegations could be made when referencing the
organizations set forth in scenarios one two and three.

Conclusion
It is clear that there is no "magic pill" that can disincentivize protecting abusers,
punish perpetrators, and compensate victims in an efficient manner.
Rabbi Dr. Binyamin Lau, in his thought-provoking work, "The Sages: Character,
Context & Creativity," concludes one section with the following observation:
Our lesson... is that everything depends on the leadership that is capable -
or incapable - of assuming responsibility. There is never a vacuum in any
generation or in any movement. Leadership that stands up and takes
responsibility can also lead the turbulent, idealistic and zealous forces,
diverting them toward the direction of repair and growth. Leadership that
withdraws from the public arena inevitably finds that those very same
forces motivated by an idea, endanger the entire building by the fire of
zealotry.
37


It is with these pangs of distress, anger, and outrage that I reveal that the above quote
concerned the actions and inactions of Jewish leadership as antecedent to the
destruction of the Second Temple. Nonetheless, clearly this quote could be applied in
our times. It is with a large dose of naivety and blind faith (bitachon) that I hope and
pray that our community avoids repeating previous mistakes.

37
Lau (FN 1) Page 315.