Shaitle Fraud Chillul Hashem Video: Sha'ar haTumah haChamishim

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Controversial Topics Shaitle Fraud Chillul Hashem Video: Sha'ar haTumah haChamishim

Viewing 50 posts - 251 through 300 (of 328 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #718060

    cherrybim
    Participant

    While Rabbi Hoffman is Trying his Best, there are still too many holes and inconsistencies in “their side of the story” to render it: THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. And until such time as the WHOLE TRUTH is provided, the frum couple is still a walking Chillul Hashem and the judge’s verdict is totally valid.

    #718061

    “And until such time as the WHOLE TRUTH is provided, the frum couple is still a walking Chillul Hashem and the judge’s verdict is totally valid.”

    You have it backwards.

    It is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, not guilty until proven innocent.

    At the very minimum you must admit, the frum couple’s guilt is not proven – to say the least.

    #718062

    cherrybim
    Participant

    At the very minimum you must admit, the frum couple are liars- to say the least; that’s been proven and there’s your guilt.

    #718063

    Are you accusing that Rabbi Hoffman’s version is not even possible (let alone highly likely)? Since you must admit Rabbi Hoffman – at the very minimum has a plausible explanation (even putting aside admitting he is correct), you can’t accuse the frum couple!

    #718064

    Feif Un
    Participant

    Trying my best, when it comes to chillul Hashem, we are not innocent until proven guilty. Read what I posted earlier in the thread about not entering into a situation where someone can conceivably cause someone to mistakenly think badly.

    #718065

    10-Luchos
    Participant

    Trying my best, how does it work. When do you decide to post from different screen names.

    TheChevra was going strong in the beginning, and then you needed support so you jumped right in with a bunch of others.

    At least bring TheChevra back in for one comment now just to tell everyone how right TheChevra was all along.

    Your getting really sloppy recently…..

    #718066

    cherrybim
    Participant

    Even if Rabbi Hoffman’s version of their version is correct, the frum couple are still proven liars and need to come clean with the whole truth.

    #718067

    Jose
    Member

    Cherrybim,

    2 points.

    How were the couple proven liars?

    Why does the “Judge” have ne’emanus? There is very credible evidence that she messed up.

    Are you going to admit that you were proven wrong?

    You insisted that there is no reason to be dan these people lkaf zchus, yet apparently the judge’s assertions were wrong, so why do you insist that she has nemanus?

    You have to clarify which of the catagories listed above you fall.

    #718068

    cherrybim
    Participant

    Yossel, you’re wrong on all points.

    #718069

    apushatayid
    Participant

    Forget about Mendy and Hendy, judge millian, georgie and sheitels for a moment. What is important to keep in mind is that the torah demands from us “hin tzedek” (on top of many other mitzvos and halachos that can apply to a given situation). When applied in the business world, hin tzedek demands that everything we say or do is above and beyond suspicion. For a detailed discussion how poskim apply this, may I suggest Economics and Jewish Law by Rav Ahron Levine.

    #718070

    Sam l Am
    Member

    cherrybim, how is he wrong? He is quite persuasive.

    #718071

    aries2756
    Participant

    TMB, for one thing all those who condemned SMR, why didn’t they get on line and ask mechilah, that was far worse than this.

    For another, R’ Hoffman proved nothing except that after much thought and probably advisement from others and maybe he himself, they came up with new answers. He did not answer or address any of the issues that came up in court nor any of the Judge’s questions. Maybe if he had his story would have some credibility. I give him credit for trying to help this couple whether they came to him or he offered, but I don’t believe he is helping them in the end if he is not offering the absolute truth and only helping to spin a larger web knowingly or not.

    He would be better off advising them to apologize to the olam as well as the court for misleading them and for taking this issue public on national TV instead of asking their Rav to begin with how to handle it. Even if they don’t admit that they mislead the court, even if they only apologize for taking this public and for not asking their Rav how to handle it, that would be enough for everyone to shut up.

    There are just too many discrepancies in this story and Georgie is just put into a terrible position here which she shouldn’t be. She should not be forced to speak to anyone and corroborate anyone’s story. The truth will come out in the end, someone at Georgie’s salon will eventually talk about it, and will eventually tell someone the truth because there is no way to keep all the juicy details to themselves forever. So if Georgie is fibbing to help this couple out of this mess, that too will surface and that will come back to slap her in the face for trying to do a good deed. Remember no good deed goes unpunished. So if R’ Hoffman wants to help, he should leave Georgie out of it because no good will come of it. Had the couple gone to Georgie with the ruined wig, and had she replaced it at cost with the wig that Heidi was wearing, she would be so gracious as to give her a statement to the fact to begin with. Why wouldn’t she? It would only show her goodness and generosity to the court and the public. Everyone knows that she is a chesedik person. Again this whole story does not ring true no matter how R’ Hoffman tries to make it sound plausible, it just isn’t and the more he tries, the more he allows the couple to lie. It is better to stop asking them question than force them to lie more.

    #718072

    Homeowner
    Member

    I have a question for Rabbi Hoffman, if there is a Rabbi Hoffman and if he is the one to whom the quote is attributed. (You never know who is actually posting.)

    Why didn’t you talk to the laundry owners?

    It’s amazing how this amateur investigation, supposedly conclusive, doesn’t include all the parties. Why, because you don’t bother to ask the gentiles?

    Would this “investigation” be sufficient anywhere including any beth din?

    For the other amateur legal scholars here, “dan l’kaf z’chus” is more closely analagous to “give the benefit of the doubt,” NOT “innocent until proven guilty.”

    The standard of proof in a civil action is not and has never been “beyond a reasonable doubt” which is used in criminal cases. The standard in civil cases is “by a preponderance of the evidence.” which essentially means more likely than not.

    The couple here were the plaintiffs and they failed to meet that standard. That’s why they lost.

    #718073

    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    Homeowner? Talk to the laundry people about what? About whether it was bought from georgi?

    About whether it came in long? Just pull the hair straight and look at it.

    #718074

    Dave Hirsch
    Participant

    Rabbi Hoffman made a silly and sloppy attempt to cover up the Chillul Hashem thus making it worse.

    First and foremost, why didn’t Heidi (heidihud123) use this version on her attempt to defend herself on YouTube?

    Why didn’t the couple say this story when the judge demanded an explanation as well as the reporter in the hallway, as many others do? Why would they use she is in France if they have a better defense? And to those claiming that you’re not allowed to question the judge on the program: Accusing the judge for being a liar, is permitted?

    Why, when asked, didn’t Heidi say that the wig she was wearing was a replacement (as every innocent, Masiach Lefi Tumo, would say)?

    If the judge used the receipt to call the company, why and how did she call the other company? And what company has no one in the office (with a computer and data) during business hours? Forwarded to a cellphone? Stinks!

    If she did indeed have all information (presumably in her cellphone) why didn’t she have info on the other wig while having info on a prior purchase of $3,000 (and details such as the wig length)?

    Why did they claim that the girl only spoke Spanish (why should a cleaners be hysterical when calling a customer)?

    Why did their story about running down to the store contradict (and who doesn’t run down instantly when 3K is at stake)?

    Why did Heidi try to indicate that the wig on her head (long one) is 5K while the damaged one was three?

    Why didn’t they provide a second receipt that proves a purchase of a replacement wig (because that’s what you do at a lawsuit)?

    Sent all her wigs to Israel, yeah right. Where’s her ‘special occasion’ wig?

    Last but not least, if their loss was only $1,500, why were they suing for 3K?

    Rabbi Hoffman, nice try but I Dont buy it, and no apologies.

    #718075

    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    I concur with several of dave’s points.

    #718076

    Dave Hirsch
    Participant

    I’m not seeking to incriminate this couple, I just want to highlight some of the many questions Rabbi Hoffman has left unanswered (or made). People out there believe a judge (that had the evidence in front of her and presented it to the camera) more than just another investigative journalist or Rabbi that disputes her claims (without showing us his proof). We are an Am Hanivchar and we should look to protect our image not tarnish it. We ought to give decent and adequate explanation if we seek to defend a Chillul Hashem.

    #718077

    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    Why not, I’ll go through them.

    First and foremost, why didn’t Heidi (heidihud123) use this version on her attempt to defend herself on YouTube?

    I haven’t seen her defense.

    Why didn’t the couple say this story when the judge demanded an explanation as well as the reporter in the hallway, as many others do?

    It didn’t seem like they were given a chance to respond, but they should have been indignant in the courtroom and in the hall.

    Why would they use she is in France if they have a better defense?

    Well, in france is good defense, but should have been indignant.

    And to those claiming that you’re not allowed to question the judge on the program: Accusing the judge for being a liar, is permitted?

    Why, when asked, didn’t Heidi say that the wig she was wearing was a replacement (as every innocent, Masiach Lefi Tumo, would say)?

    Was she asked afterward if the wig she was wearing was the bought one from the receipt?

    If the judge used the receipt to call the company, why and how did she call the other company? And what company has no one in the office (with a computer and data) during business hours? Forwarded to a cellphone? Stinks!

    You tell me about the shaitel business. I don’t know.

    If she did indeed have all information (presumably in her cellphone) why didn’t she have info on the other wig while having info on a prior purchase of $3,000 (and details such as the wig length)?

    Makes you wonder.

    Why did they claim that the girl only spoke Spanish (why should a cleaners be hysterical when calling a customer)?

    That is not the part of the story in question. You make it sound as if the entire thing was an elaborate hoax, from the beginning. As if they were going to trap the cleaners into paying them money and therefore sent in the wig. I find that absurd.

    Also, I thought her English was bad enough.

    Why did their story about running down to the store contradict (and who doesn’t run down instantly when 3K is at stake)?

    You only run down if you think they have it. And they thought they told them not to wash it- if they have it.

    Why did Heidi try to indicate that the wig on her head (long one) is 5K while the damaged one was three?

    You mean if she bought this one for 1500. Maybe that is the real value.

    Why didn’t they provide a second receipt that proves a purchase of a replacement wig (because that’s what you do at a lawsuit)?

    You don’t need to show the replacement. They were suing for the old one, not the new one.

    Sent all her wigs to Israel, yeah right. Where’s her ‘special occasion’ wig?

    Give me a break.

    Last but not least, if their loss was only $1,500, why were they suing for 3K?

    You are entitled to the amount the first one was worth, not the amount you replaced it for. If you break my car, and I get a new one for free, the benefit accrues to me, not to you.

    #718078

    This is a farce. We could have Rav Elyashev, Rav Shteinman, and Rav Kanievsky sit as a Beis Din and acquit this Frum Yiddisha couple, followed by a bas kol from the RBS”O himself confirming the Beis Din’s acquittal…

    and there will still be the same cabal of people above with “unanswered questions” condemning them nonetheless. Indeed, these same people are prone to immediately condemn anyone with a yarmulka and sheitel… and save their “benefit of the doubt” reservations for those that discarded Yiddishkeit for tatoos on their arms or better yet they never observed a Jewish law in their life.

    #718079

    oomis
    Participant

    I think she was hysterical because she had ALREADY accidentally or stupidly put it in the washer. The phone call was made after the fact. That is my suspicion.

    #718080

    aries2756
    Participant

    Oomis, I don’t believe that, not that I want to disagree with you, I am sure as a laundromat, they have many questions when it comes to things people send in, and since the wig, in particular was in a separate plastic bag, I believe that she called before washing it. People who don’t do their own laundry and drop all their laundry off for others to handle sometimes don’t read labels and don’t think before throwing things in the bag. So I tend to think that the laundromat looks at the items and separates them to determine which gets washed in cold, hot or warm. Which need delicate cycle or pretreatment, etc. I am sure many a dry clean only item has found its way to the laundromat as well.

    So here is a question I would ask you in general, even though I believe that they called. What if they didn’t call. Who’s responsibility was it to make the call? Who’s responsibility is it to make sure that everything in the bag that you drop off at the laundromat is actually intended to be washed at the laundromat? How does it become their fault?

    Hypothetically speaking, if my washing machine broke and you so graciously offered to have your shiksa wash my clothes for me and I dropped everything off at your house in a bag with no instructions and she ruined something that I should not have put in the bag who’s fault would it be? Mine or hers?

    #718081

    chesedname
    Participant

    First and foremost, why didn’t Heidi (heidihud123) use this version on her attempt to defend herself on YouTube?

    is there a rebuttal on youtube?

    #718082

    bh18
    Participant

    i went to school with hudy (heidi) and i see she is still the quiet timid girl she was way back when. when teachers were upset with the class, she sat quietly. when teachers, on rare occasions, were upset with her, she answered quietly. she never wanted to make a fuss or fight back. maybe this is why when the judge accused her of fraud (something hudy would never do!) hudy just shut down.

    #718083

    aries2756
    Participant

    bh18, people change, and if what you say is true, I can’t imagine a quiet timid girl agreeing to go on national TV just to satisfy her husband’s need for shtik. And I can’t imagine a husband who has a need for shtik forcing a shy, timid and quiet wife to do so. That is an even greater chilul Hashem.

    #718084

    just close the forum already…….

    #718085

    Rabbi Hoffman spoke to the couple, and the husband had to cajole and talk his wife into going on the show, since she didn’t want to and was very against it. And there was no shtik by anyone on the show, except by Mrs. Milian.

    So bh18’s comment makes a lot of sense and puts more pieces together. Thank you bh18 for posting.

    #718086

    oomis
    Participant

    and you so graciously offered to have your shiksa wash my clothes for me “

    I have a SHIKSA??????????? Why didn’t anyone TELL me?

    #718087

    Homeowner
    Member

    PBA, to respond to your question, since the rabbi apointed himself a grand jury to investigate the matter, he should have spoken to all the parties involved if he was looking to find out everything that really happened.

    And to the two posters who have used the term, I find it very inappropriate to say “shiksa” in this context unless you are a graduate of the Mendy and Heidi School of Chilul Hashem. Why not simply say, “cleaning lady,” “maid” or “housekeeper,” without being offensive?

    #718088

    In defense of aries and oomis, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with distinguishing the Am Hanivchar with a pruste shiksa.

    #718089

    What many here fail to realize is that there are many facts that we don’t have…

    For example – do you know there are TWO Georgies… (couple, divorced, divided the business, one partner – the WOMAN, in fact, her name in real-life IS Georgi.. am assuming that’s what they meant about Georgi ‘being in france”… so with just these facts alone it is easy to see there’s enough room for mixups and errors and confusions… to give them the benefit of the doubt…

    #718090

    Aishes Chayil
    Participant

    Re- the damaged sheitel,

    does any wonder why the judge never asked the laundress what it looked like PRIOR to when it was thrown in the wash? Short, long , quality etc…..

    #718091

    A23
    Participant

    Leave it to the Post to write an article on this…ten days late.

    #718092

    Fast Forward
    Member

    The story has hit the NY Post, including their last name.

    #718093

    The moment it was mentioned the post did a hit-job, I immediately knew it would be their in house anti-semite self-hating “Reuven” Blau – who’s first job is to prove himself a Jew-hater to keep his job. His only job is to lie about Orthodoxy, as practically all his articles do.

    #718094

    wanderingchana
    Participant

    This may be a day late and a dollar short, but did anyone notice how after the judge presumably made the phone call, she was holding the wig with rubber gloves, and pulled them off disdainfully? More made-for-TV drama.

    #718095

    Homeowner
    Member

    TMB, since you are accusing another Jew of libel, please tell us all where the false statements are in the Post article.

    #718096

    aries2756
    Participant

    Oomis, I said Hypothetically, but I would do it for you!

    That still doesn’t answer my question. If in fact either you or I had graciously offered to have our “housekeeper” do the other’s laundry in an emergency and something that shouldn’t have been in the wash was, who would be at fault the housekeeper or the one who put it in the laundry? That’s the $3,000 question.

    #718097

    lesschumras
    Participant

    Trying my best, please define pruste shiksa.And her title is JUDGE Milian

    #718098

    lesschums: The definition is Madam Milian.

    Homeowner: The entire story is a lie. It was no scheme, there was nothing pulled over the eyes by the couple – wool was pulled by the TV arbiter on the audience.

    #718099

    aries2756
    Participant

    Evreyone is entitled to their own opinion and that is going to be decided by watching the video and coming to your own conclusion not by name calling on this blog. If you go to the website you will see the Judge’s credentials. Just because you choose to put her down because she is not Jewish does not make it true. And just because you choose to believe the frum couple over the goyim that does not make it a valid argument. That will be your argument in any situation no matter what the circumstances are.

    The question came up many times and no one answered it. How would your opinions differ if the the laundromat was owned and operated by Jews. That is the real question here. I asked the same question and never got an answer. If I offered the services of my own housekeeper to someone else in an emergency situation, and that friend put something in the wash that shouldn’t be there, lets say a sheitel and my housekeeper washed it, same scenario, who would be responsible my housekeeper or my friend for putting it in with the laundry? And back to the original situation if the couple realized the sheitel was missing. Who was responsible for making the call the couple or the laundromat? So if the laundromat went so far as to make the call, why would they lie and say that they were told to wash it if in fact they were told not to. If they were that stupid or if they were that negligent as the couple claim they were, why would they bother to make the call to begin with?

    So if this whole scenario was brought into a beis din, what would the beis din say? Who would be responsible the couple who sent everything to the laundry to be washed without checking the contents or the laundry who is supposed to wash everything they receive in the laundry bag?

    By the same token had the child put the mother’s diamond ring in the bag and the spanish woman would have called to say that she found the ring, would she go public and sing her praises about her honesty for returning her ring? After all would she be responsible to call or just wait for them to call or wait for them to come in and pick up the laundry or maybe not say anything at all, after all who would know that she found it.

    #718100

    It wouldn’t make a the slightest difference if the laundromat was Jewish, as to the fact that the couple purchased the wig in question from Georgie’s — the ORIGINAL Georgie’s NOT the ex-husband’s wig store that is also called Georgie’s that the clown Milian mistakenly called on her follow-up after the original Georgie’s was closed at the time of her call.

    #718101

    aries2756
    Participant

    TMB, lets try to make sense of what you are saying here. Why would Georgie’s be closed it was the middle of the day. Just because the Heidi said that Georgie herself was in France that does not mean that any of the other stylists nor the desk clerk wouldn’t be there to make appointments. Do you not know how a sheitel macher conducts business? She is not a one woman show. She is a big business with a big salon. So that in itself makes no sense at all. Next, why and how if the store was closed as you claim to buy, would she even look for another number? That makes no sense at all. There is no way her answering machine would refer anyone to her ex-husband’s number. And thirdly it absolutely would make a huge difference if the laundromat was Jewish. They would never try to pull this shtik with another Jew, they would never fall for it.

    #718102

    aries2756
    Participant

    In all honesty the more people do what R’ Hoffman tried to do and try to make this couple look better the more questions will arise to the validity of those arguments. I think the couple have suffered enough embarrassment because of their mistake and since the Post has already picked this up, maybe the mods should not only consider closing this thread but deleting it altogether so the post and/other other papers can’t refer anyone to it.

    #718104

    Who appointed any of us Grand Inquisitor? When was dan l’kaf zchus discarded? Let everyone keep their questions in their pocket. None of us are the prosecutor general. As Rabbi Hoffman amply and starkly documented, not only is there reason to give them the benefit of doubt they decisively deserve, there is the abundance of evidence on their side. Even absent all that, who appointed all the Kapos ready to condemn them?

    #718105

    flowers: It wouldn’t matter. They can answer every question posed by every inquisitor, and the inquisitors will come up with a whole new, unending set, of “unanswered questions” that they will never allow the Jew to be absolved of their imaginary “chillul Hashem”.

    #718106

    New York Yid
    Member

    I haven’t read the posts so perhaps I am echoing the outrage of others, but this whole thread is Lashon Harah. We pat ourselves on our collective backs for having “shmiras halashon” Friday night groups and “A Lesson A Day” e-mails, but we are all sitting around discussing two of our bretheren. Can’t we all just decide to stop?

    #718108

    Homeowner
    Member

    TMB,

    You’ve offered nothing to back up your nastiness of Reuven Blau.

    What a disgrace!

    #718109

    oomis
    Participant

    If a borrowed housekeeper doing a favor for someone, negligently put something in the wash that was there by mistake WITHOUT CHECKING WITH THE “guest” boss, she would be guilty. I would probably say, forget about it, but 3K is 3K and nothing to sneeze at.

    #718110

    Reuven Blau has disgraced himself with his vicious, repeated, lies against Jews to prove his gentilehood to his employer.

    #718111

    Bottom line –

    There are two types of Jews here:

    1. Jews who are dan l’kaf zchus, and in the absence of overwhelming proof of guilt, provide the required presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt to their fellow.

    2. Jews who are afraid of their Jewish skin and of how the sweet holy goyim — who are great lovers of Jews as we see throughout history — and are ready to condemn their fellow to score some brownie points with their goyish friends to prove their “neighborliness”.

Viewing 50 posts - 251 through 300 (of 328 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.