The Awareness Center closed. We operated from April 30, 1999 - April 30, 2014. This site is being provided for educational & historical purposes.
We were the international Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault (JCASA); and were dedicated to ending sexual violence in Jewish communities globally. We did our best to operate as the make a wish foundation for Jewish survivors of sex crimes. In the past we offered a clearinghouse of information, resources, support and advocacy.
Convicting of sodomy in the first degree (three counts) and use of a child in a sexual performance. He was Sentenced to four concurrent indeterminated terms of 2 to 6 years imprisonment. Please note that there are several people who go by the name of Ross Goldstein.
Disclaimer: Inclusion in this website does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement. Individuals must decide for themselves whether the resources meet their own personal needs.
Table of Contents:
1990
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ross G., Appellant (07/18/1990)
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered May 3, 1989, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree (three counts) and use of a child in a sexual performance, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to four concurrent indeterminate terms of 2 to 6 years imprisonment.
DISPOSITION: ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by (1) vacating the provision thereof convicting the defendant of sodomy in the first degree (three counts) and use of a child in a sexual performance and substituting therefor a provision adjudicating him a youthful offender, upon his plea of guilty to sodomy in the first degree (three counts) and use of a child in a sexual performance, and (2) reducing the sentence to a term of six months imprisonment and five years probation, with the terms of imprisonment running concurrently with and as a condition of the term of probation; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, to fix the other terms and conditions of probation.
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant sought review of the decision of the County Court, Nassau County (New York), which convicted him of sodomy in the first degree and use of a child in a sexual performance, upon his plea of guilty, and sentenced him to four concurrent indeterminate terms of two to six years imprisonment.
OVERVIEW: In connection with the investigation of a child molester, police were led to defendant, a friend of the accused molester, who had also sexually abused some of the boys. Defendant was 15 and 16 years old when he committed the crimes. The prosecution agreed that in return for defendant's testimony, it would recommend that defendant receive a sentence of no more than six months in jail, youthful offender status, and probation in exchange for his testimony against the molester. After receiving the benefits of defendant's testimony, the prosecution represented to the victims' families that defendant would not be allowed to plead guilty to anything less than class B violent felonies. The sentencing judge did not grant defendant youthful offender treatment and the prosecution prevented defendant from being sentenced to anything less than two to six years. The court modified the sentence and held that defendant acted to his detriment on the promise of the prosecution, and it was not enough to permit defendant to withdraw his plea, or to promise to foreclose the use of his grand jury testimony if he chose to go to trial because defendant had already complied with his part of the agreement.
OUTCOME: The court modified the judgment by vacating the conviction of defendant of sodomy in the first degree and use of a child in a sexual performance and substituting therefor a provision adjudicating him a youthful offender. The court also reduced the sentence to a term of six months' imprisonment and five years' probation, with the terms of imprisonment running concurrently with and as a condition of probation.
CORE TERMS: youthful offender, cooperation, imprisonment, guilty plea, sentenced, sentence, probation, arrested, sexual, sodomy, judgment of conviction, term of imprisonment, violent felonies, plea of guilty, pleaded guilty, plead guilty, convicting, indictment, sentencing, six-month, cooperate, suspected, attending, recommend, modified, complied, supplied, top
COUNSEL: Kartagener & Stavis, New York, New York, (Steven R. Kartagener [***2] and Roger L. Stavis of counsel), for appellant.
Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola, New York, (Bruce E. Whitney and Kenneth Harris of counsel), for respondent.
JUDGES: Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
OPINION: [*529] [**603] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered May 3, 1989, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree (three counts) and use of a child in a sexual performance, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to four concurrent indeterminate terms of 2 to 6 years' imprisonment.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by (1) vacating the provision thereof convicting the defendant of sodomy in the first degree (three counts) and use of a child in a sexual performance and substituting therefor a provision adjudicating him a youthful offender, upon his plea of guilty to sodomy in the first degree (three counts) and use of a child in a sexual performance, and (2) reducing the sentence to a term of six months' imprisonment and five years' probation, with the terms of imprisonment running concurrently with and as a condition [***3] of the term of probation; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, [**604] and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, to fix the other terms and conditions of probation.
In 1987, Arnold Friedman, a retired high school teacher, was arrested on Federal charges for using the mails to send and receive child pornography. A subsequent investigation disclosed that Friedman, who ran an after-school computer program in his Great Neck home, and his son, Jesse Friedman, had been sexually abusing the young boys who had been regularly attending the computer classes. Arnold Friedman was arrested on State charges with respect to the sexual abuse crimes, and upon his guilty plea, was sentenced, inter alia, to 8 1/3 to 25 years' imprisonment, in addition to his sentence on the Federal charges. In connection with the investigation of the Friedmans, police were led to the defendant, a friend of Jesse Friedman, who had also sexually abused some of the [*530] boys who had been attending the computer classes. The defendant, who was 15 and 16 years old when he committed the crimes, became repulsed by them, and six months before the Friedmans were arrested, the defendant [***4] disassociated himself from Jesse Friedman and his activities. Following the defendant's indictment for a number of sex crimes, including class B violent felonies, the prosecution, with the approval of the victims' families, approached the defendant's counsel and sought the defendant's assistance in strengthening the case against Jesse Friedman, and in providing information concerning two other individuals suspected of being involved in the crimes.
On September 8, 1988, the defendant agreed to cooperate, and the terms of the agreement between the defendant and the prosecution were placed on the record. The prosecution agreed that in return for the defendant's testimony, it would recommend to the sentencing court that the defendant "receive a sentence of no more than six months in jail, youthful offender status, probation and any and all therapy contingent upon that probation which the probation department deems is necessary".
There is no question that the defendant complied with his part of the agreement. The prosecution acknowledged that the defendant "cooperate[d] fully with the Nassau County Police Department and District Attorney's office", and gave extensive testimony before [***5] the Grand Jury. Because of the defendant's cooperation Jesse Friedman pleaded guilty, was sentenced to 6 to 18 years' imprisonment, and the two other individuals suspected of being involved in the crimes were brought to the attention of the police.
After receiving the maximum benefits of the defendant's testimony, the prosecution entered into another set of promises, unbeknownst to the defendant, representing to the victims' families that the defendant would not be allowed to plead guilty to anything less than the top counts of the indictment, which were class B violent felonies. This was not made known to the defendant until February 3, 1989, five months after September 8, 1988, the date of his cooperation agreement, and after he had fully performed his part of the agreement, and had supplied the information and testimony which led to Jesse Friedman's guilty plea and imprisonment.
The defendant entered his guilty plea on March 22, 1989, and was sentenced on May 3, 1989. At the time the defendant pleaded guilty, Judge Boklan stated that based on her review [*531] of the defendant's candid revelations before the Grand Jury (the very testimony which the defendant supplied, [***6] postindictment, by way of cooperation with the prosecution), she would not grant the defendant youthful offender treatment. The prosecution then rejected the defense counsel's urging that the prosecution consent to a guilty plea to a class D felony, which would have enabled the court to impose a six-month term of imprisonment, in keeping with the prosecution's recommendation. After learning that the court would not grant the defendant youthful offender treatment, the prosecution, by refusing to let the defendant plead guilty to any crime below a class B violent felony, prevented the defendant from being legally sentenced to anything less than the 2-to-6-year term of imprisonment which was imposed. [**605] Thus, the prosecution rendered hollow its express promise to recommend a six-month term of imprisonment.
The defendant asserts on appeal that the prosecution's representation to the victims' families, that it would insist on guilty pleas to the top counts, constituted secret, double dealing which violated the "fair import and spirit" of the prosecution's cooperation agreement with the defendant, and that, therefore, the defendant's sentence should be adjusted to reflect the [***7] terms of his cooperation agreement with the prosecution.
We find that by extending promises to the victims' families, after negotiating the cooperation agreement with the defendant, the prosecution betrayed the spirit of the cooperation agreement and its promise to the defendant as to the prospects of his receiving youthful offender treatment and six months' imprisonment. The prosecution has acknowledged that the defendant fully complied with his part of the agreement, and that he was instrumental in the prosecution of one of the key figures in the crime. Although the court, when refusing to grant the defendant youthful offender treatment, gave him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea, that offer, under the circumstances of this case, could not adequately remedy the situation created by the prosecution. At that point, the defendant had already totally complied with his part of the agreement, and the prosecution had received and fully benefited from his cooperation. We find that the defendant acted to his detriment on the promise of the prosecution, and it was not enough to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea, or to promise to foreclose the use of his Grand Jury testimony [***8] if he chose to go to trial (see, People v McConnell, 49 NY2d 340, 347-349).
[*532] We cannot countenance a judgment of conviction obtained under these circumstances and therefore vacate the judgment of conviction and adjudicate the defendant a youthful offender. Although there is some question as to whether Judge Boklan applied the proper standard in denying the defendant youthful offender treatment (see, People v Thiessen, 76 NY2d 816), we find that under the circumstances of this case, in light of our determination regarding the prosecution's conduct, it would be inappropriate to remit the matter for resentencing. In the exercise of our discretion in the interest of justice, we reduce the defendant's sentence to the very terms recommended and agreed to by the prosecution. Additionally, we note that the defendant has been incarcerated since being sentenced on May 3, 1989, and thus, has served over one year of incarceration.
Victims' Parents Denounce Abuser's Release By Jack Curry New York Times - July 29, 1990
Parents in Great Neck, L.I., are upset at the recent release from prison of a teen-ager who was part of a group that sexually abused children during computer classes at the home of a former high school teacher there.
''The children have exhibited a real fear of this person,'' said the mother of one of the victims, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ''If we drive by the house, they hit the floor in the car. They ask constantly when he is going to get out of prison or if he could escape.''
The former prisoner, Ross Goldstein, 19 years old, was released from Collins Correctional Facility in Helmuth, N.Y., on July 21 and his criminal record was sealed after the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn ruled that prosecutors had failed to keep an agreement with him in return for his testimony against Arnold and Jesse Friedman, the father and son who led the group abusing the boys
The appellate court ruled that the prosecution ''betrayed the spirit of the cooperation agreement'' by promising the victims' families that Mr. Goldstein would not be allowed to plead guilty to any crime carrying less than a 2-to-6-year sentence.
The appellate court said Nassau County prosecutors had already promised Mr. Goldstein that they would recommend that he be sentenced to no more than six months and be treated as a youthful offender, meaning that his criminal record would be expunged once his sentence was served. He was 15 and 16 years old when the crimes were committed.
Court Vacates Harsher Sentence
When he was sentenced, the appellate court said, Judge Abbey Boklan of Nassau County Court refused to accept the six-month limit or to treat him as a youthful offender because of the crimes he had admitted in his grand jury testimony. The prosecution then offered him only a chance to plead guilty to Class B felonies - sodomy and using a child in a sexual performance - which carried a minimum 2-to-6-year sentence.
On July 18, the court, criticizing both the District Attorney's office and the lower court judge, vacated Mr. Goldstein's sentence and gave him youthful offender status. He had served 15 months, so he was released.
Many parents said they were furious over the youthful offender designation.
''He can become a teacher or work at a day-care center and no one will know what he did,'' said the mother of another victim. ''This should be part of his life just as it is part of ours.''
''The deal was made to get Jesse Friedman,'' the mother said. ''We didn't need a deal like that. We had him anyway.'' Arnold Friedman, a former teacher at Bayside High School in Queens, and his son, Jesse, were arrested on Nov. 26, 1987 and eventually charged with more than 400 counts of sexual abuse of boys from 7 to 11 years old during computer classes at the Friedman home. Mr. Goldstein was charged with 118 counts of sexual abuse.
In December 1988, after Mr. Goldstein testified before the grand jury, Jesse Friedman pleaded guilty to 25 counts of sexual abuse and was sentenced to six to 18 years. Arnold Friedman, then 58, had pleaded guilty earlier to distributing child pornography through the mail and to sexual abuse. He is serving a 10-to-30-year sentence. The District Attorney's office said its plea deal was misunderstood.
''He was never promised that we were going to knock down his plea of guilty,'' said Edward Grilli, a spokesman. ''We said we would recommend a six-month sentence and we did.''
Several parents criticized the prosecutors' strategy, but Mr. Grilli said the case ''wasn't thrown away.''
''Ross Goldstein served time in prison and the principals involved are serving long prison terms, in large part because of him,'' he said. ''We were able to obtain guilty pleas because of his testimony.''
Michael Cornacchia, Mr. Goldstein's lawyer, said his client was getting counseling.
''Any thought that he is a threat is totally baseless,'' he said. ''Ross wasn't a monster. He was a 15-year old kid when this happened.''
Teenager’s 1988 Sexual-Abuse Conviction Was Justified, Report Says By Peter Applebome New York Times - June 24, 2013
Jesse Friedman, the Great Neck, N.Y., teenager whose role in a sexual abuse case a quarter-century ago was portrayed in the Oscar-nominated documentary “Capturing the Friedmans” and came to symbolize an era of sensational, often-suspect accusations of child molesting, was properly convicted and should not have his status as a sexual predator overturned, according to a three-year review that was released on Monday.
In a 155-page report written with very little ambiguity, the Nassau County district attorney, Kathleen M. Rice, concluded that none of four issues raised in 2010 in a strongly worded ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit were substantiated by the evidence.
Instead, it concluded, “By any impartial analysis, the reinvestigation process prompted by Jesse Friedman, his advocates and the Second Circuit, has only increased confidence in the integrity of Jesse Friedman’s guilty plea and adjudication as a sex offender.”
The review concludes another chapter in a case that came to national attention after the 2003 release of the film, which portrayed both the breakup of a deeply troubled family and what was characterized as a flawed, biased police investigation and judicial process. The case led to guilty pleas in 1988 by Jesse Friedman, then 18, and his father, Arnold Friedman, who ran a popular computer class at his house on Piccadilly Road in the affluent Long Island community of Great Neck.
The report’s conclusion was not entirely unexpected, even by Mr. Friedman and his advocates, given the explosive nature of the charges, the impossibility of a definitive finding on many of the allegations more than 25 years in the past and the high bar for prosecutors to overturn convictions, especially those based on confessions.
Still, Mr. Friedman’s lawyer, Ron Kuby, and the film’s director, Andrew Jarecki, reacted with disappointment and anger, saying the report was a biased whitewash by the office that originally botched the case. Mr. Kuby promised to pursue appeals.
“D.A. Kathleen Rice has made a craven, but not surprising, political decision in failing to admit to the wrongdoing of the Nassau County D.A.’s office and former sex crimes chief Fran Galasso, in the face of overwhelming evidence of Jesse’s innocence,” Mr. Jarecki said.
Mr. Kuby said that the district attorney’s office had fought Mr. Friedman’s efforts at every turn and that this was just more of the same.
“My immediate reaction is that we have spent three long years in a pointless waste of time waiting for D.A. Rice to issue this report,” Mr. Kuby said.
“Fortunately, the conclusion of this bogus reinvestigation clears the way for the Friedman team to return to court based upon the new evidence we’ve collected as well as the increasing likelihood of obtaining the original case documents.”
The review led both to evidence supporting the conviction and to evidence suggesting it should be overturned. Perhaps most powerful for the defense was a detailed and chilling statement that it obtained from Ross Goldstein, a high school friend of Jesse Friedman, who was the only person other than the Friedmans convicted in the case. Mr. Goldstein said his confession had been a lie coerced by intimidating police conduct and the threats of a draconian sentence.
In its 2010 decision, the Second Circuit reluctantly upheld the verdict on technical grounds but harshly criticized the trial judge, prosecutors and detectives in the case. The court said there was a “reasonable likelihood” that Jesse Friedman, who served 13 years in prison before being released in 2001, was wrongfully convicted and suggested that Ms. Rice reinvestigate the case. Arnold Friedman died, apparently a suicide, in prison in 1995.
Yet Ms. Rice’s report, in all instances, found that the preponderance of evidence pointed toward upholding the conviction. And her report comes with a limited, but potentially powerful, seal of approval in a case that is also being played out in the court of public opinion.
When she began her review, Ms. Rice, a Democrat first elected in 2005, appointed a four-member independent advisory panel to guide and oversee the work. It included Barry Scheck, a founder of the Innocence Project and one of the country’s leading advocates for overturning wrongful convictions.
The report was prefaced by a four-page statement by the panel. It said its job was about process more than findings. It did not reinvestigate the case itself, and it was not given access to key documents like grand jury records and interview reports.
Still, it commended the investigation, and said that if the evidence had pointed toward exoneration, “we have no doubt the Review Team was prepared to recommend without reservation that Friedman’s conviction be overturned.”
The statement, signed by all four members, said it was not the role of the panel to make an ultimate judgment about Jesse Friedman’s guilt, but added: “We do have an obligation to express a view as to whether we believe the conclusions expressed in the Review Team’s report are reasonable and supported by the evidence it cites. We think they are.”
The report centered on four points raised in the film and by the appeals court: that the case may have been tainted by repeated police interviews that pushed children toward confessions; that children may have been hypnotized to recover memories not based on fact; that the case was distorted by a “moral panic” that created false accusations and a predisposition toward conviction; and that Jesse Friedman’s guilty plea may have been unlawfully coerced by the police, prosecutors and a hostile judge.
The review rejected them all. It said that though some interviews late in the case may have been flawed, the rapid pace and early flow of accusations from children in the classes indicated that the allegations arose from spontaneous accounts, not from investigators pushing children toward accusations. It said the first child interviewed reported improper behavior, 12 children leveled accusations of illegal sexual behavior at Arnold Friedman in the investigation’s first two weeks and, five weeks into the investigation, 13 boys described criminal behavior by Jesse Friedman.
It said, that despite one student’s account in “Capturing the Friedmans” of making allegations after being hypnotized, any use of group therapy or hypnosis came after all the indictments were filed. It disputed the one account of hypnosis in the film.
The review said the Friedman case was “in no way similar” to other notorious cases of its time, like the McMartin preschool case, which produced allegations of satanic ritual abuse of children but ended with no convictions. The review said that the children in this case were twice as old as in that one and that many victims complained of abuse early rather than through months of questioning.
And it said Jesse Friedman had competent legal representation, weighed his options intelligently and pleaded guilty after determining it was “the optimal strategy” in light of the available choices.
It cited other evidence damaging to Mr. Friedman’s case — students and parents who stuck by their accounts and added fuller details, a psychiatric evaluation conducted for his defense that labeled him “a psychopathic deviant” and a telephone interview with Arnold Friedman’s brother, Howard Friedman, in which, according to the report, he said: “Jesse is guilty and you’re going to ask me how I know. Because Arnold told me.” He said Arnold Friedman had confessed that both he and his son had “misbehaved” with children in the class, but it is not clear from his statements what that misbehavior might have entailed.
Still, the panel and the review team cited the enormous difficulty in getting to the truth because of the passage of time, incomplete and shoddy record keeping and faded memories. Participation was entirely voluntary, so only some of those involved in the case took part in the investigation. Only three original accusers repeated their accounts to the review team. And many of the figures in the case gave different accounts at different times, making evaluation difficult, the investigators said.
Most glaring of the conflicting accounts was the one given by Mr. Goldstein, who said that “every single thing” in his grand jury testimony had been a lie and that he had been “coached, rehearsed and directed” by a prosecutor and a detective to tell the story they wanted, which was devastating for Jesse Friedman’s defense. The review said his recantation was unreliable.
Ms. Rice said in a statement that “instances of wrongful conviction are real and exist in far greater numbers than any of us would like to admit.” But she added: “The case against Jesse Friedman is not one of them.”
Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Dublin, Ireland Scotland Yeshiva Etz Chayim - London, England
Manchester, England
Holy Law South Broughton synagogue - Prestwich, England Temple Sholom - Pompano Beach, FL Adjuct Professor, University of Wales - Cardif, England
Accused of sexual misconduct of women from his Manchester synagogue. After loosing his postion in England he crossed the ocean and found a pulpit in Florida. In 2004,
Rabbi Wachmann was honored by the Moonies.
Rabbi Ivan Wachmann was born Dublin, Ireland. He received his Doctorate in divinity, with a conferred status of Dayan, or religious judge, at Yeshiva Etz Chayim in London.
Disclaimer: Inclusion in this website does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement. Individuals must decide for themselves if the resources meet their own personal needs.
Table of Contents:
1990
Rabbi denies women's sex claims but refuses to attend hearing; Ivan Wachmann (07/12/1990)
Rabbi Accused of Sexual Immorality (07/13/1990)
Rabbi in sex case plans to challenge dismissal (09/24/1990)
Office of the Chief Rabbi - London Metropolitan Archives (1990-1991)
1991
R v Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Great Britain and the Commonwealth, ex parte Wachmann (01/25/1991)
Law Report: Chief Rabbi's decision not subject to judicial review;
Regina v Chief Rabbi, Ex parte Wachman - Queen's Bench Division (02/06/1991)
Sacked rabbi's legal action fails (02/07/1991)
Rabbi loses court fight against dismissal; Rabbi Ivan Wachmann (02/07/1991)
1994
Shalom, Begorra - Irish Rabbi Comes from Long Line of Rabbis From Dublin (04/17/1994)
Rabbi Remembered (07/08/1994)
2001
Rabbi Ivan Wachmann(12/29/2001)
2003
Memorial Service Set For Longtime Pompano Leader(03/01/2003)
2004
Rabbi Wachman honored by the Moonies(04/23/2004)
2005
The Halachic and legal precedent for the RCA’s
action against Rabbi Mordechai Tendler. How the chief rabbanut of
England dealt with their Tendler
(05/30/2005)
2006
Rabbi Ivan Wachman - Temple Sholom(02/01/2006)
2007
Religion Notes(02/18/2007)
2008
Point of Life - With Michael Levy - Guest Rabbi Ivan Wachman (03/05/2008)
Rabbi denies women's sex claims but refuses to attend hearing; Ivan Wachmann. By Daniel Treisman
The Times (London, England) - July 12, 1990
A RABBI accused of having sexual relations with a woman attending his evening Scripture classes is being investigated in absentia by a Jewish ecclesiastical court.
Ivan Wachmann, aged 54, says the allegations were made by women who attended weekly readings from the Torah and discussions on religious ethics. He has been suspended from his Manchester synagogue since May while a commission of two rabbis and a senior Jewish judge investigate the claims.
If found guilty of ``serious conduct unbecoming of a rabbi'', he could be struck off the list of approved rabbis. His congregation at the Holy Law South Broughton synagogue, in Prestwich, would then have to decide whether to keep him. However, he is refusing to attend the court hearing, which began in Manchester three weeks ago and reopened in London yesterday, because he claims it is ``biased and unfair''.
``These accusations are crazy. I am totally innocent,'' Mr Wachmann, who also served as a chaplain at Strangeways prison, says. At the two-day hearing at Manchester's Jewish ecclesiastical court three weeks ago, he says, four women accused him of making romantic advances.
He accuses the court of failing to observe Jewish law, which requires that such complaints must be backed by two independent witnesses.
A personal adviser who serves as a senior Jewish judge has counselled him not to attend the proceedings. ``It's not because I don't respect the Chief Rabbi,'' Mr Wachmann says. ``Unfortunately, I feel I shouldn't attend because there's been prejudice throughout the case.''
He also denies rumours that he had participated in black magic rituals and faith healing and had used spoon-bending tricks to seduce women.
``The spoon-bending allegation is just laughable. I picked up a spoon and said that people were worshipping Uri Geller. I said this sort of worship was against Jewish law. But the whole incident has been twisted around.'' Dayan Berger, the senior judge presiding at the hearing, yesterday rejected allegations of bias or non-observance of Jewish law but said it would be inappropriate to comment further until the court finding in a few days. He said Mr Wachmann had been given a reasonable and fair opportunity to make his case and was still free to change his mind and choose to participate.
At the end of such cases the court makes recommendations to the Chief Rabbi, who can then strike a rabbi off the approved list after offering him another chance to respond. Mr Wachmann, who has served 33 years in the ministry and comes from an unbroken line of 13 rabbis, says he has had thousands of letters of support from his past and present congregations.
At his synagogue's annual general meeting in May, he says, more than 300 members voted unanimously to ask the Chief Rabbi to reinstate him.
``Rabbi Wachmann can give deeper learning to the common people,'' one man who regularly attended the weekly classes with his wife said. ``He has been denied the most elementary justice.''
Rabbi Accused of Sexual Immorality By Douglas Davis The Jerusalem Post - July 13, 1990
LONDON - A 54-year-old British rabbi, accused of having sexual relations
with a woman who attends his weekly Tora reading classes, is boycotting
a rabbinical commission of inquiry into his conduct because he claims
it is "biased and unfair."
Rabbi Ivan Wachsmann was suspended
from the Holy Law South Broughton Synagogue in Prestwich, near
Manchester, last May and could be struck off the register of rabbis if
he is found guilty of serious misconduct.
At a two-day hearing
of the commission in Manchester, four women accused Wachsmann of making
romantic advances, but he claimed the charges against him were "crazy,"
and he insisted that he was "totally innocent."
He also denied rumours that he had participated in black magic rituals, faith healing, and spoon-bending tricks to seduce women.
In
addition to complaints of bias, Wachmann has accused the commission,
which was appointed by British Chief Rabbi Lord Jakobovits, of ignoring
the halachic requirement of having two independent witnesses to support
allegations of misconduct.
Dayan Isaac Berger, who is heading the
inquiry, vigorously denied charges of halachic impropriety. All the
proceedings, he told The Jerusalem Post yesterday, were "in strict
conformity with halacha."
A RABBI sacked for alleged sexual misconduct with women congregants has
set up a breakaway synagogue backed by supporters who believe his case
was unfairly handled.
Rabbi Ivan Wachmann intends to challenge
his dismissal by the Holy Law and South Broughton Synagogue, Prestwich,
Greater Manchester, one of the country's largest, at an industrial
tribunal.
The affair has opened deep divisions in the Jewish
community in Manchester and provoked a row between supporters, said to
number up to 200, and opponents.
His dismissal followed a
commission of inquiry set up by the Chief Rabbi, Lord Immanuel
Jakobovitz, which ruled that Rabbi Wachmann, 54, had "acted in a manner
unbecoming a rabbi". He is seeking a judical review of the decision. The
three-man commission examined allegations made by four women who were
in the rabbi's religious classes.
The rabbi, who ministered to
the synagogue's 750 members for 17 years, had previously banned one of
the women from Monday evening lecturers after she had written him a
letter displaying her infatuation for him. The rabbi relented, but
shortly after he claims she said she was pregnant by him with a child
that would be the Messiah.
Another woman alleged he had made
sexual advances towards her. Two other women claimed he had sexual
intercourse with yet another woman.
Rabbi Wachmann was suspended
by his synagogue's committee in May despite denials about the alleged
affairs which surfaced in the News of the World. Allegations that he
took part in black magic rituals, faith healing and used spoon-bending
tricks to seduce women were also denied.
Rabbi Wachmann refused
to appear before the hearing in London because he did not believe it was
impartial. But it went ahead in his absence and he was suspended in
late July. At an emergency general meeting two weeks ago the authorities
at Holy Law synagogue voted 157 to 95 to sack him with three months'
severance pay.
But Rabbi Wachmann said he was not told the full
charges, nor was he allowed to challenge the women, or put his case. He
has consulted Jewish legal authorities which believe the commission was
acting illegally. "According to the religious judge the evidence of the
complainant witnesses was invalidated because they bore a grudge or were
infatuated," he said.
He also said the synagogue committee had
acted unfairly and improperly. "The ecclesiastical authorities just
wanted me out of the way because I am a thorn in their flesh," he said.
"I knew too much about the establishment."
He claimed the the
commission was prepared to believe the "absurd" allegations of these
"infatuated" women for that reason. "They had a crush on me. They
believe that I'm charismatic, I'm different, I'm attractive. I can't
explain it. I suppose the same thing happens when a pop star gets up on
stage."
A supporters' group put out a pamphlet detailing his side
of the case. As the synagogue committee decided the rabbi's fate, about
50 women from the congregation held a protest outside carrying banners
urging "Fair Trial for Wachmann".
One of the most vociferous was
Dorienne Feldman, who said: "There had been a great deal of bitterness
and rancour within the synagogue for years. Many people in the executive
did not like the rabbi because he has charisma and presence. So they
seized on this reason to get rid of him. The whole thing has been
extremely divisive. The whole women's guild has resigned at the
synagogue."
On Thursday and Friday last week, the Jewish new
year, Rabbi Wachmann held services for his supporters at the hall of
another synagogue. On the first day about 100 turned up with 150 the
next, all supporters from the Holy Law congregation, according to the
rabbi and Mrs Feldman.
Morley Wolfson, synagogue president,
disputes the figures, saying only about 10 dissidents from Holy Law went
to the service. But as far as he was concerned the matter was closed
and he refused to comment further.
Mrs Feldman was outraged by Mr
Wolfson's version. "I knew very well they would have egg on their
faces, but to deny what actually happened is ludicrous. It's a blatant
lie. We knew everybody who came through the door."
Rabbi Wachmann
is delighted by the level of support. Mrs Feldman said: "I thought for
sometime we were seeing the death of a synagogue, but in fact I think we
are seeing the birth of a new one."
____________________________________________________________________________________ Office of the Chief Rabbi - London Metropolitan Archives 1990 - 1991
R v Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Great Britain and the Commonwealth, ex parte Wachmann Queen's BenchDivision (Crown Office List) [1993] 2 All ER 249, [1992] 1 WLR 1036
HEARING-DATES: 25 JANUARY, 6 FEBRUARY 1991
CATCHWORDS: Judicial review - Availability of remedy - Chief Rabbi -
Disciplinary proceedings against rabbi - Chief Rabbi deciding that rabbi
morally and religiously unfit to hold rabbinical office - Rabbi
dismissed from congregation - Whether Chief Rabbi's decisions
susceptible to judicial review - Whether Chief Rabbi's decisions within
sphere of public law.
HEADNOTE: The applicant was an Orthodox
rabbi appointed in 1972 to a synagogue by a congregation which belonged
to the United Hebrew Congregations of Great Britain and the
Commonwealth, the spiritual head of which was the Chief Rabbi. The
constitution of the applicant's congregation provided that the
congregation's religious guidance was under the supervision of the Chief
Rabbi. Early in 1990 allegations were made against the applicant of
adultery with members of his congregation. By letter dated 8 May 1990
the Chief Rabbi notified the applicant that he had appointed a
commission of inquiry to investigate those allegations and that in the
meantime he was suspended from rabbinical activities. The commission
found the applicant guilty of serious conduct unbecoming of a rabbi and
no longer religiously and morally fit to occupy his position as a rabbi.
By a letter dated 1 August the Chief Rabbi wrote to the president of
the applicant's congregation unreservedly accepting the commission's
findings and stating that having regard to the extreme gravity of the
applicant's conduct, which was incompatible with his rabbinical standing
and activities, the Chief Rabbi would no longer regard the applicant as
morally and religiously fit to hold his rabbinical office. On 24 August
the executive and council of the applicant's congregation resolved
that, in the light of the Chief Rabbi's decision, the applicant's
employment with the congregation would be terminated by three months'
notice. The applicant applied for judicial review of the Chief Rabbi's
decision. The question arose whether the Chief Rabbi was subject to
judicial review in respect of the discharge of his essential functions,
including his disciplinary function, as the spiritual head of Hebrew
congregations. The Chief Rabbi contended that his decisions were not
amenable to judicial review because (i) the applicant had consensually
submitted to the Chief Rabbi's jurisdiction and (ii) that there was no
public law element in the Chief Rabbi's decisions and it would be
against public policy for a secular court to regulate the religious
functions of the Chief Rabbi.
Held - For a decision of a given
body to be a public law decision with public law consequences which
attracted the court's supervisory jurisdiction the effect of the
decision had to be more than merely of great interest or concern to the
public or to have consequences for the public. Instead, there had to be
not merely a public but potentially a governmental interest in the
decision-making power in question. The Chief Rabbi's functions were
essentially intimate, spiritual and religious functions which the
government could not and would not seek to discharge in his place were
he to abdicate his regulatory responsibility and Parliament would never
contemplate legislating to regulate the discharge of his functions. It
followed that his decisions contained no public law element.
Furthermore, although an Orthodox rabbi pursuing his vocation had no
choice but to accept the Chief Rabbi's disciplinary decisions and
therefore could not be said to submit to the Chief Rabbi's jurisdiction
consensually, the court was not in a position to regulate what was
essentially a religious function, namely the determination of whether
someone was morally and religiously fit to carry out the spiritual and
pastoral duties of his office and the court would inevitably be wary of
entering so self-evidently sensitive an area and straying across the
well-recognised divide between church and state. The application would
therefore be dismissed (see p 253 j, p 254 c d j, p 255 g to j and p 256
a to c, post).
R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin plc (Norton Opax plc intervening) [1987] 1 All ER 564 applied.
NOTES: Notes
For
the scope of judicial review, see 1(1) Halsbury's Laws (4th edn
reissue) para 64 and for cases on the subject, see 16 Digest (Reissue)
321-435, 3362-4797.
CASES-REF-TO: Cases referred to in judgment
Law v National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd [1983] 3 All ER 300, [1983] 1 WLR 1302, CA.
Leech v Parkhurst Deputy Prison Governor [1988] 1 All ER 485, [1988] AC 533, [1988] 2 WLR 290, HL.
R v Advertising Standards Authority, ex p Insurance Service plc (1989) 9 Tr LR 169, DC.
R
v Code of Practice Committee of the Association of the British
Pharmaceutical Industry, ex p Professional Counselling Aids Ltd (1990)
10 BMLR 21.
R v Jockey Club, ex p RAM Racecourses Ltd [1993] 2 All ER 225, DC.
R
v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin plc (Norton Opax plc
intervening) [1987] 1 All ER 564, [1987] QB 815, [1987] 2 WLR 699, CA.
R v Rabbinical Commission for the Licensing of Shochetim, ex p Cohen (1987) Times, 22 December, [1987] CA Transcript 1259.
INTRODUCTION: Application for leave to apply for judicial review
Ivan
Wachmann, a rabbi appointed to the Broughton Synagogue, Manchester,
applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the
Chief Rabbi of the United Hewbrew Congregations of the British
Commonwealth in a letter dated 1 August 1990 to the president of the
Broughton congregation declaring that the applicant was no longer
morally and religiously fit to hold his rabbinical office, which
decision caused the congregation to dismiss him from the congregation's
employment. The relief sought was a declaration that the Chief Rabbi's
decision was void and of no effect and a declaration that the factual
findings on which the decision was based were void and had been reached
in breach of the rules of natural justice. The facts are set out in the
judgment.
COUNSEL: Roderick Carus QC and M J Booth (instructed
by Read Roper & Read, Manchester) for the applicant.; Michael
Beloff QC and David Pannick (instructed by Beachcroft Stanleys) for the
Chief Rabbi.
JUDGMENT-READ: Cur adv vult
6 February 1991. The following judgment was delivered.
6 February 1991
PANEL: SIMON BROWN J
JUDGMENTBY-1: SIMON BROWN J.
JUDGMENT-1: SIMON BROWN J.
The
issue before the court is whether the Chief Rabbi is subject to
judicial review in respect of the discharge of his essential functions
asthe spiritual head of the United Hebrew Congregations of Great Britain
and the Commonwealth. More particularly, as to whether he is subject to
judicial review in respect of what may broadly although inexactly be
called his disciplinary function. More precisely still, as to whether it
is properly arguable that he is amenable to such review.
The
issue arises upon an adjourned application for leave to move for
judicial review, the application having been adjourned by Kennedy J on
16 November 1990 so that the Chief Rabbi might assist the court upon the
matter of jurisdiction. At the outset of this adjourned hearing I
suggested to counsel that it might be preferable to reach a final
decision one way or the other (subject to appeal) upon the
jurisdictional issue, essentially as a preliminary point. That course
the applicant declined. Although, however, it follows that leave would
fall to be given if I regard the point as properly arguable, that is a
decision I am entitled to take in light of the full and helpful
arguments already advanced before me. Let me say at once that with
counsel's assistance I have indeed been able to form a clear view upon
the issue.
Before turning to the principles of law applying to
this application, it is convenient first to relate something of the
nature of the Chief Rabbi's role in Jewish life and law and then to
indicate something of how this proposed judicial review application
arises.
As stated, the Chief Rabbi is the spiritual head of the
United Hebrew Congregations of Great Britain and the Commonwealth. Those
congregations embrace the entire Orthodox Jewish community save only
for certain splinter groups of an ultra orthodox character. Those
splinter groups, together with reform and liberal Jewish communities,
are not subject to the Chief Rabbi's spiritual guidance. In respect,
however, of all those within the mainstream of Orthodox Judaism in the
British Commonwealth-and that includes the South Broughton congregation
of Manchester where the applicant rabbi officiated-the Chief Rabbi is
for all purposes the spiritual head. His essential functions are to
advise and rule on matters of Jewish law, ritual and doctrine, to
officiate at special functions and ceremonies, and, importantly to this
application, to certify religious officiants as religiously and morally
fit (or unfit) to hold their respective offices within their
congregations. In certain congregations a clause in the constitution
specifically stipulates that only a rabbi approved by the Chief Rabbi
may be appointed. In others-including the applicant's-the constitution
provides rather that the congregation's religious guidance is under the
supervision of the Chief Rabbi.
The applicant is an Orthodox
rabbi appointed in 1972 to the Broughton synagogue in Manchester. Early
in 1990 grave allegations were raised against him, essentially of
adultery with members of his congregation. By letter dated 8 May 1990
the Chief Rabbi notified the applicant that he had appointed a
commission to investigate these allegations; meantime, however, he
thought it right to suspend the applicant from rabbinical activities. He
therefore directed 'that as of today until further notice you do not
officiate at weddings, funerals or preach, or in any other way discharge
rabbinic duties'. On 16 July 1990, following a number of hearings, the
commission of inquiry reported to the Chief Rabbi. Essentially the
commission found the applicant 'guilty of serious conduct unbecoming of a
rabbi and ... no longer religiously and morally fit to occupy his
position as Rabbi'. By letter dated 1 August 1990-the decision sought to
be challenged-the Chief Rabbi wrote to the president of the applicant's
congregation unreservedly accepting the commission's findings and
stating:
'Accordingly, having regard to the extreme gravity of
Rabbi Wachmann's conduct, which I considered to be incompatible with his
rabbinical standingand activities, I am most painfully and reluctantly
forced to declare that I no longer regard him as morally and religiously
fit to hold his rabbinical office. I want to emphasise that this
declaration is not intended as a punishment, which I am not called upon
to impose, but simply as my conclusion on his fitness. This is required
and expected of me by any congregation under my jurisdiction. The prime
objective is to assure members of such congregations and the community
at large that those entrusted with high spiritual office, can and will
justify the trust reposed in them. Congregations must be able to feel
confident that they will be neither exploited nor misguided in matters
of moral delicacy and intimacy. This applies particularly in matters of
personal counselling.'
On 24 August 1990 the executive and council of the Broughton congregation passed the following resolution:
'It
is regretfully resolved that, in the light of the decision of the Chief
Rabbi ... the Executive and Council have no alternative but to
terminate Rabbi Wachmann's employment with the Congregation by three
months' notice ...'
That same day they wrote to each member of
the congregation setting out the history of the matter, enclosing a
notice convening a general meeting, and concluding thus:
'We
cannot emphasise too strongly the consequences of your not confirming
that resolution. Not only would the Congregation be left with a Minister
who would not be authorised by the Chief Rabbi to perform marriages or
any other rabbinical duties but, by its refusal to accept the decision
of the Chief Rabbi, the Congregation would be removing itself from his
jurisdiction and authority and would almost certainly be ostracised by
the Rabbis of all other Congregations recognising his authority.'
At the meeting of members on 11 September 1990 the resolution was duly passed.
It
is unnecessary, indeed inappropriate, to set out the detailed nature of
this proposed challenge. Suffice to say that the applicant contends
that the Chief Rabbi's decision was flawed by both the conduct and the
make-up of the commission of inquiry. This commission was set up to hold
what was tantamount to a judicial (or at least quasi-judicial) inquiry.
Charges were framed. Principles as to the burden and standard of proof
were established. Rules of evidence were recognised. The three tribunal
members acted in effect as judges. The Chief Rabbi clearly recognised
his duty to set up such an inquiry as would ensure that justice was both
done and seen to be done. The submission is, however, that whilst that
is what he intended to achieve, in the event he failed.
For the
purposes of the application presently before the court, such challenge
must be regarded as one properly arguable assuming only that the court
would have jurisdiction to entertain it. I shall further assume for
present purposes: (1) that the respondent's 'declaration' constituted
such a decision as is potentially subject to review; (2) that the
practical consequence of that decision was the applicant's dismissal
from his appointment to the office of rabbi of the Broughton
congregation; (3) that the consequence of that dismissal was in turn
that the applicant is now unemployable as a rabbi and is stripped of all
religious status; (4) that this challenge is not outwith the court's
review jurisdiction on the grounds that it concerns a dispute as to
employment; (5) that the applicant has no contractual remedies open to
him; indeed, no contractual relationship whatever with the Chief Rabbi.
In
a most able argument Mr Carus QC for the applicant takes as his
starting point the landmark decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Panel
on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin plc (Norton Opax plc
intervening) [1987] 1 All ER 564, [1987] QB 815, in particular the
oft-cited passage from Donaldson MR's judgment ([1987] 1 All ER 564 at
577, [1987] QB 815 at 838):
'Possibly the only essential elements
[required to attract the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction] are
what can be described as a public element, which can take many different
forms, and the exclusion from the jurisdiction of bodies whose sole
source of power is a consensual submission to its jurisdiction.'
He
then refers to a number of subsequent cases in which the court has
applied this review jurisdiction to bodies which in earlier days would
surely have been thought beyond its reach, including the Divisional
Court decision in R v Jockey Club, ex p RAM Racecourses Ltd [1993] 2 All
ER 225 at 248, where, as Mr Carus reminds me, I said: 'We are here in a
dynamic area of law, well able to embrace new situations as justice
requires.' Mr Carus urges that justice does here require the court's
jurisdiction to extend to this case. Were it otherwise, he submits, a
minister of religion such as his client, holding important office,
entitling him, inter alia, to solemnise marriages and officiate at
burials, could be disqualified and dismissed from office and unable to
pursue his vocation by a decision which might conceivably have been
wholly unfairly arrived at and yet be without redress from any quarter.
It could be, for instance, that the tribunal consisted of a minister's
sworn enemies, displaying rampant bias towards him, refusing even to
hear his answer to the charges.
Returning to the cited passage
from Donaldson MR's judgment in the Datafin case, Mr Carus submits: (a)
that the applicant cannot be said to have consensually submitted to the
Chief Rabbi's jurisdiction: rather he is pursuing his vocation as an
Orthodox rabbi and has no choice but to accept the respondent's
disciplinary decisions; and (b) that there is a clear 'public element'
to this decision: as, indeed, the Chief Rabbi himself said: 'The prime
objective [of the Chief Rabbi declaring his conclusion upon fitness for
rabbinical office] is to assure members of such congregations and the
community at large that those entrusted with high spiritual office, can
and will justify the trust reposed in them' (my emphasis). Mr Beloff QC
suggests, I think rightly, that 'the community at large' there refers to
the Jewish community, but that scarcely diminishes the weight of Mr
Carus's point, assuming the point to be otherwise good. To that I shall
return.
In response to these arguments, Mr Beloff takes
essentially three points. First, he contends that this is indeed a case
of consensual submission to the respondent's jurisdiction. Second, he
urges that there is no public law element to this case, certainly
nothing coming within measurable distance of any of the precedents nor
within the Datafin concept of 'public law functions' or 'public law
consequences' as properly understood. Third, he relies on considerations
of public policy militating against the secular courts arrogating to
themselves the regulation of religious functions by the Chief Rabbi (or,
indeed, other religious bodies). Let me consider these in turn.
Consensual submission
Mr
Beloff submits that the Chief Rabbi's role and authority is exercised
only in respect of those persons and communities who choose to belong to
the United Hebrew Congregations. No one is compelled to be a Jew, or
Orthodox Jew, still less a rabbi. This argument I reject. I prefer Mr
Carus's submission that an Orthodox rabbi is pursuing a vocation and has
no choice but to accept the Chief Rabbi's disciplinary decisions. I can
see no distinction in this regard betweenrabbis and, for instance,
members of the Bar or members of a university. So far as the Bar and
universities are concerned, once the exclusive visitorial jurisdiction
has been invoked and exhausted, the court can review the visitor's
decision; it does not decline such review on the footing that those
aggrieved chose rather than were compelled to go to the Bar or
university.
As it seems to me, the exclusion from judicial review
of those who consensually submit to some subordinate jurisdiction
properly applies only to arbitrators or 'private or domestic tribunals':
see Law v National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd [1983] 3 All ER 300,
[1983] 1 WLR 1302. Certainly I know of no other bodies held exempt from
judicial review on this particular ground. Perhaps, however, it is
artificial to regard this as a wholly distinct ground; perhaps rather it
shades into consideration of whether the body in question is fulfilling
an essentially public duty and its decision is one having public law
consequences.
The public element
Mr Beloff invites my
attention to certain passages in the judgments of the Court of Appeal
both in the Law and Datafin cases. I need not recite them. Their effect
is clear enough. To say of decisions of a given body that they are
public law decisions with public law consequences means something more
than that they are decisions which may be of great interest or concern
to the public or, indeed, which may have consequences for the public. To
attract the court's supervisory jurisdiction there must be not merely a
public but potentially a governmental interest in the decision-making
power in question. And, indeed, generally speaking the exercise of the
power in question involves not merely the voluntary regulation of some
important area of public life but also what Mr Beloff calls a
'twin-track system of control'. In other words, where non-governmental
bodies have hitherto been held reviewable, they have generally been
operating as an integral part of a regulatory system which, although
itself non-statutory, is nevertheless supported by statutory powers and
penalties clearly indicative of government concern.
Perfectly
evidently it was just such considerations which led Popplewell J (and
even then with obvious reluctance) recently to conclude in R v Code of
Practice Committee of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical
Industry, ex p Professional Counselling Aids Ltd (1990) 10 BMLR 21 that
the Code of Practice Committee of the British pharmaceutical industry is
reviewable. And certainly it is a feature of all these cases that, were
there no self-regulatory body in existence, Parliament would almost
inevitably intervene to control the activity in question. There is much
emphasis on this consideration in Datafin itself. That was also the
position in R v Advertising Standards Authority, ex p Insurance Service
plc (1989) 9 Tr LR 169. Even, moreover, in the RAM Racecourses case,
where the respondent body operated entirely outside any relevant
statutory context (albeit under royal charter)-and which is thus a
decision which arguably carries the review jurisdiction to its widest
limits thus far-I described the Jockey Club's discharge of its
'functions of regulating racecourses and allocating fixtures [as]
strikingly akin to the exercise of a statutory licensing power', and its
position 'holding as it does monopolistic powers in this important
field of public life [as] a position which could as well have been
enshrined in legislation' (see [1993] 2 All ER 225 at 247).
It
cannot be suggested, Mr Beloff submits and I accept, that the Chief
Rabbi performs public functions in the sense that he is regulating a
field of public life and but for his offices the government would impose
a statutory regime. On the contrary, his functions are essentially
intimate, spiritual and religious functions which the government could
not and would not seek to discharge in his place were he to abdicate his
regulatory responsibility. It is no answer to all this to say, as Mr
Carus does, that the effect on those such as this applicant of the
exercise of the respondent's disciplinary function is far graver than
that of adverse decisions in such cases as Ex p Insurance Service plc
and Ex p Professional Counselling Aids Ltd. There exclusively commercial
concerns were affected and even then not perhaps to any great extent.
But that distinction is nothing to the point: whether or not a decision
has public law consequences must be determined otherwise than by
reference to the seriousness of its impact upon those affected.
Before
leaving this point, I must briefly mention two statutes. First the
Jewish United Synagogues Act 1870 (33-34 Vict C cxvi), an Act whose
relevance Mr Carus had little opportunity to consider but which he
tentatively suggested could be regarded as one of the sources of the
Chief Rabbi's authority in the exercise of his disciplinary functions.
That argument seems to me impossible. Rather, Mr Beloff is clearly right
in submitting that, as its title states, it is no more than an Act to
confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners to enable the synagogues
encompassed within it to enjoy charitable status, assuming always they
organise their affairs in accordance with its provisions. The subsequent
deed of foundation and trust is merely an instrument amending the
scheme. In short, the Act operates in the discrete area of the law of
charities. Unsurprisingly, it recognises the existence and essential
role of the Chief Rabbi. It cannot, however, be construed either as
conferring upon him disciplinary powers that he would not otherwise have
had or as indicating Parliament's interest in and concern to underpin
such powers.
Similarly irrelevant to the point at issue is the
Slaughterhouses Act 1974, which by Sch 1 provides for the Chief Rabbi to
chair the Rabbinical Commission itself for the licensing of Shochetim.
True, as shown by R v Rabbinical Commissioner for the Licensing of
Shochetim, ex p Cohen (1987) Times, 22 December, the Rabbinical
Commission is in this regard judicially reviewable. That, however,
cannot assist the applicant in respect of the Chief Rabbi's
non-statutory functions here in question. Indeed, Mr Carus does not
submit to the contrary.
Public policy
As Mr Beloff points
out, the court would never be prepared to rule on questions of Jewish
law. Mr Carus, recognising this prospective difficulty, says that in
advancing his challenge here the applicant would be prepared to rely
solely upon the common law concept of natural justice. But it would not
always be easy to separate out procedural complaints from consideration
of substantive principles of Jewish law which may underlie them. In this
very case, for instance, the applicant seeks to contend that the only
procedure recognised by Jewish law for investigating the allegations
facing him is a Beth Din-three qualified Dayanim judges.
That
consideration apart, the court is hardly in a position to regulate what
is essentially a religious function-the determination whether someone is
morally and religiously fit to carry out the spiritual and pastoral
duties of his office. The court must inevitably be wary of entering so
self-evidently sensitive an area, straying across the well-recognised
divide between church and state.
One cannot, therefore, escape
the conclusion that, if judicial review lies here then one way or
another this secular court must inevitably be drawn into adjudicating
upon matters intimate to a religious community.
Although the
speeches of the House of Lords in Leech v Parkhurst Deputy Prison
Governor [1988] 1 All ER 485, [1988] AC 533 appear to lend some support
to Mr Beloff's submission that a court may decline to recognise a review
jurisdiction for reasons of public policy, I prefer to regard these
considerations as going instead to the earlier question raised-the
question whether the Chief Rabbi's discharge of his religious functions
has about it a truly public law character such as alonewould attract the
court's supervisory jurisdiction. I do not think it has. Rather, the
selfsame considerations of policy that prompt the court's reluctance to
regulate this area of decision-making demonstrate also its lack of real
public law character and consequences in the sense established by the
authorities. Not merely is the Chief Rabbi without any statutory support
for his decision-making but, by the same token that the court would be
loath to intervene, so too Parliament, as already suggested, would never
contemplate legislating in this field.
In the result it is my
firm conclusion that to entertain this challenge would involve a clear
departure from and extension of the principles established by the
Datafin case and the subsequent cases and that such an extension would
be wholly inappropriate. This application I accordingly regard as doomed
to inevitable failure upon the issue of jurisdiction. I therefore
dismiss it.
Law Report: Chief Rabbi's decision not subject to judicial review;
Regina v Chief Rabbi, Ex parte Wachman - Queen's Bench Division
By Ying Hui Tan, Barister
The Independent - February 14, 1991
The functions of the Chief Rabbi are essentially religious and spiritual
ones in which Parliament would not intervene. Accordingly, his
discharge of religious functions do not have a public law character
which would attract the court's supervisory jurisdiction.
Mr
Justice Simon Brown refused Rabbi Ivan Wachman leave to move for
judicial review of a decision of the Chief Rabbi, the spiritual head of
the United Hebrew Congregations, that Rabbi Wachman was no longer
morally and religiously fit to hold his rabbinical office. Rabbi
Wachman, an orthodox rabbi, was appointed in 1972 to the Broughton
Synagogue in Manchester, whose congregation embraced the Chief Rabbi as
its spiritual head. The congregation's constitution provided that the
congregation's religious guidance was under the supervision of the Chief
Rabbi.
In 1990, the Chief Rabbi appointed a commission to
investigate allegations against Rabbi Wachman of adultery with members
of his congregation. The Chief Rabbi accepted the commission's finding
that Rabbi Wachman was guilty of serious conduct unbecoming of a rabbi
and no longer religiously and morally fit to occupy his position as
rabbi. Rabbi Wachman's employment with the congregation was terminated
by his congregation.
Rabbi Wachman applied for leave to challenge
the Chief Rabbi's decision on the grounds that it was flawed by the
conduct and the make-up of the commission.
Roderick Carus QC, and
Michael J Booth (Read Roper & Read, Manchester) for Rabbi Wachman;
Michael Beloff QC, and David Pannick (Beachcroft Stanley) for the Chief
Rabbi.
MR JUSTICE SIMON BROWN said that the issue was whether the
Chief Rabbi was subject to judicial review in respect of the discharge
of his essential functions, more particularly his disciplinary
functions, as spiritual head of the United Hebrew Congregations. Mr
Carus, taking R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, Ex parte Datafin plc
1987 QB 815 as his starting point, urged that justice did here require
the court's jurisdiction, as otherwise a minister of religion, holding
important office, entitling him to solemnise marriages and officiate at
burials, could be disqualified and dismissed from office and unable to
pursue his vocation by a decision which might have been wholly unfairly
arrived at, and yet be without redress. He submitted that the applicant
could not be said to have consensually submitted to the Chief Rabbi's
jurisdiction and that there was a clear public element to the decision.
An
Orthodox rabbi was pursuing a vocation and had no choice but to accept
the Chief Rabbi's disciplinary decisions. There was no distinction
between rabbis and members of the Bar or members of a university. So far
as the Bar and universities were concerned, the court did not decline
review of the visitor's decision on the footing that those aggrieved
chose, rather than were compelled, to go to the Bar or university.
The
exclusion from judicial review of those who consensually submitted to a
subordinate jurisdiction applied only to arbitrators or private or
domestic tribunals.
To say of decisions of a given body that they
were public law decisions with public law consequences meant something
more than that they were decisions which might be of great interest or
concern to the public, or which might have consequences for the public.
To attract the court's supervisory jurisdiction there must be not merely
a public but potentially a governmental interest in the decision-making
power.
Where non-governmental bodies had hitherto been held
reviewable, they had generally been operating as an integral part of a
regulatory system which, although itself non-statutory, was nevertheless
supported by statutory powers and penalties clearly indicative of
government concern.
It could not be suggested that the Chief
Rabbi performed public functions in the sense that he was regulating a
field of public life and, but for his offices, the Government would
impose a statutory regime. On the contrary, his functions were
essentially intimate, spiritual and religious functions, which the
Government could not and would not seek to discharge in his place were
he to abdicate his regulatory responsibility. Whether a decision had
public law consequences must be determined otherwise than by reference
to the seriousness of its impact on those affected.
The court
would never be prepared to rule on questions of Jewish law. Although
Rabbi Wachman would be prepared to rely solely on the common law concept
of natural justice, it would not always be easy to separate procedural
complaints from consideration of substantive principles of Jewish law
such as might underlie them. The court was hardly in a position to
regulate what was essentially a religious function - the determination
whether someone was morally and religiously fit to carry out the
spiritual and pastoral duties of his office. The court must inevitably
be wary of entering so self-evidently sensitive an area, straying across
the well- recognised divide between church and state.
One could
not, therefore, escape the conclusion that, if judicial review lay here,
then this secular court must inevitably be drawn into adjudicating on
matters intimate to a religious community. The Chief Rabbi's discharge
of his religious functions did not have about it a truly public law
character such as alone would attract the court's supervisory
jurisdiction. Not merely was the Chief Rabbi without any statutory
support for his decision-making, but by the same token that the court
would be loath to intervene, so too Parliament would never contemplate
legislating in this field.
The application was doomed to inevitable failure on the issue of jurisdiction and was dismissed.
Sacked rabbi's legal action fails The Inependent - February 7, 1991
A RABBI who was sacked from a synagogue for alleged sexual misconduct
with women congregants yesterday lost a High Court action challenging
the Chief Rabbi's declaration that he was unfit to keep his post.
Ivan
Wachmann, an Orthodox rabbi, was dismissed by the Holy Law and South
Broughton Synagogue in Prestwich, Greater Manchester, last September,
after a commission of inquiry set up by the Chief Rabbi, Lord Immanuel
Jakobovits, ruled that he had ''acted in a manner unbecoming a rabbi''.
Rabbi
Wachmann had asked for leave to seek a judicial review of the decision,
which he said had made him unemployable as a rabbi. But Mr Justice
Simon Brown said the courts had no jurisdiction over the Chief Rabbi's
disciplinary powers, which were ''essentially religious''.
Rabbi loses court fight against dismissal; Rabbi Ivan Wachmann By Ruth Gledhill The Times (London, England) - February 7, 1991
A RABBI sacked for alleged sexual misconduct with two women from his Jewish community lost his attempt in the High Court yesterday to win his job back.
In the first case of its kind, Rabbi Ivan Wachmann challenged the Chief Rabbi's decision that he was morally and religiously unfit to remain in office. In a reserved judgment after a hearing on January 25, however, Mr Justice Simon Brown ruled that the court had no jurisdiction to intervene. He said that the court ``would never be prepared to rule on questions of Jewish law''.
Mr Wachmann, aged 55, of Prestwich, Manchester, said last night that there had been a smear campaign against him and added: ``Because I know I am innocent, I will fight until my dying day for justice.''
He denies any sexual misconduct and says that he was unfairly dismissed last August after complaints by two women who attended his evening lectures. He plans to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Shalom, Begorra - Irish Rabbi Comes from Long Line of Rabbis From Dublin
By Lane Kelley
Sun-Sentinel - April 17, 1994
Ivan Wachmann is an Irish rabbi who often sounds like a fundamentalist preacher.
Wachmann,
58, bounces all over the room in his weekly lecture at Temple Sholom,
full of gestures and vocal tricks. He's fond of the Socratic method,
asking people direct questions. And they usually give him answers.
Sometimes,
they just want to agree with him, saying, "Sure enough," or "That's
right, very true."Wachmann's audience responds to him the same way
church audiences respond to black preachers and Pentecostal evangelists.
"To get to the soul, you've got to speak to the soul," Wachmann says. "You've got to cut the shenanigans and get down to it."
Wachmann
gets down to some serious topics in his hour-long lectures, every
Tuesday at 3:45 p.m. at the temple, 132 SE 11th Ave., Pompano Beach.
Some
of them sound like themes from a college sophomore philosophy class:
the ethics of keeping people alive by life support whether terminally
ill patients should be told they're about to die whether the Bible says
it is permissible for Israel to trade territory with the Palestinians.
Wachmann
attacks his topic from many directions he loves to digress. This
Tuesday, he strays from the subject at one point and spends a few
minutes talking about the violence reported on TV and in the newspapers.
Wachmann says the world has always been full of violence.
"You know, man hasn't changed since Cain killed Abel, he's just found more sophisticated ways of doing it," Wachmann tells them.
He gets many of the topics from his listeners, most of whom are senior citizens.
"That's
why it's my challenge to make them young," Wachmann says. "And
remember, these are people who have to be kept awake as well."
Kurt
Levi, 83, says he has no problem staying awake during Wachmann's
lectures. "I like him because he brings a new spirit into the world,"
Levi said. "He's a person with a heart."
Born and raised in
Dublin, Wachmann comes from a long line of Irish rabbis. He is the 23rd
generation in his family to become a rabbi, and his son in Lakewood,
N.J. is the 24th.
Wachmann says his mother taught him to
appreciate the rhythm of speech and how to hold an audience by telling
him nursery rhymes. But they weren't the usual nursery rhymes about
Humpty Dumpty or Goldilocks.
Wachmann says his mother always told him nursery rhymes about a character named Ivan - himself.
"To
me, it was, `Ivan stood on a chair,' `Ivan did this,' or `Ivan did
that.' This was what a nursery rhyme was to me. It was about me."
Wachmann
also is a trained psychologist. After spending most of his career as a
rabbi at synagogues in England and Scotland, he followed a friend's call
to become a psychologist and rabbi in California last year.
That fell through after he encountered obstacles with educational requirements and bureaucratic red tape.
Wachmann
eventually found the synagogue in Pompano Beach, where he serves both
as cantor and rabbi. He began his weekly lectures after he arrived, in
August.
"I believe in the flowing of inspiration," he said. "Not only that I get it but that the audience gets it as well."
South Florida Jews will gather next week at the Castle Hotel on Miami
Beach for a Shloshim or 30th day memorial for Rabbi Menachem Schneerson,
head of the Lubavitch Hasidic group. Schneerson died June 12 in New
York at the age of 92.
The program will begin at 8 p.m. at the
hotel, 5445 Collins Ave. Keynote speaker will be Rabbi Moshe Solovechik,
dean of the Chicago-based Yeshivah of Brisk.
For information, call South Broward Chai Center at 458-1877.
Conference
Temple
Sholom will host a conference on Schneerson's death, starting at 3:45
p.m. at the synagogue, 132 SE 11th Ave., Pompano Beach.
Rabbi
Ivan Wachmann, assistant spiritual leader at the temple, will present
"With the death of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Where is Messiah Now?"
Wachmann, born in Ireland, corresponded with Schneerson for more than 36
years. The speech is based on the belief of many in the 250,000-member
Lubavitch movement that Schneerson was the prophesied leader who would
return the Jewish people to the Holy Land.
After a short recess,
the conference will resume with a 5:30 p.m. dinner speech by Rabbi Yossi
Y. Biston, the leader of Lubavitch of northern Broward and southern
Palm Beach counties. Also speaking will be James D. Davis, Sun-Sentinel
religion editor, who has written several stories on Schneerson and
Lubavitch.
For information, call the temple at 942-6410.
Heritage trip to Italy
Hebrew
University of Jerusalem will sponsor a Jewish heritage study trip to
Italy from Aug. 14 to 24. The trip will cover the Piedmont and Lombardy
regions of Italy, including synagogues and Jewish districts of Turin and
Milan.
Led by Professor Yom Tov Assis of the school's department
of the history of the Jewish people, the program will be conducted in
English. Kosher meals will be included during Sabbath.
For
information, call Jo-Anne Greenblat at the university, 011-972-2-342079,
or write to her at the Department of Summer Courses and Special
Academic Programs, Rothberg School for Overseas Students, The Hebrew
University, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel 91905.
To ensure
better coverage of your synagogue's activities, information for Religion
in Brief must be received two weeks in advance of the event. Please
type and send notices to James D. Davis, Religion Editor, Sun-Sentinel,
200 E. Las Olas Blvd., Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 33301. Photos are welcome
but cannot be returned. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Rabbi Ivan Wachmann
Sun-Sentinel December 29, 2001 by James D. Davis
Position: Spiritual leader of Temple Sholom, a synagogue of 500 members in Pompano Beach.
Born: Dublin, Ireland. South Florida resident for 81/2 years.
Education: Doctorate in divinity, with a conferred status of Dayan, or religious judge, at Yeshiva Etz Chayim in London.
Age: 66. Family:
Wife, Cindy, co-president of the temple Sisterhood and vice president
of New Membership in Brandeis, a women's Jewish group. No children.
Q. How did you become a rabbi?
A.
My father was a 10th-generation rabbi; he died when I was 1 year old.
When I was 2, my mother told me that my father's wish was for me to be
the 11th generation. I gave my first sermon at 3 at a synagogue in
Dublin. I led youth group in a Bible class at 6.
Q. Did you ever wish to be anything else?
A.
A soccer player. When I was 13, I scored two goals per game. I was
spotted by a scout for Manchester United, one of the great soccer clubs.
I didn't go, because it would mean playing on a Saturday. I realized
that being a rabbi is more important. But if there could be an
exception, I would do it.
Q. Favorite part of your work?
A. When someone comes into the office and says, "I need you, rabbi." Then I know what I'm here for.
Q. Hardest part?
A.
When my body tells me that I have to go to bed. There is so much to
read, to do, I feel guilty taking time out to go to sleep.
Q. Sounds like a classic Type-A personality.
A.
But what had a calming effect on me was when I discovered a teaching
from Ethics of the Fathers: "The work is not yours to finish; neither
are you free to take no part in it." It also got rid of my ego.
Q. What do you do to relax?
A. Meditation. I do 10 minutes every few hours. I also swim 18 laps every day. It reconnects me to God.
Q. What book have you been recommending lately?
A. Herman Wouk's This is My God. It's about the remarkable survival of the Jews. It can be read from now to time immemorial.
Q. Written any books?
A.
I'm writing a book called God Goes Public. I don't think I'll finish it
till I retire. But I think it's important to finish it, in order to
leave a legacy.
Q. Favorite pastime?
A. Music. Any kind. Soul, classic, rock, jazz. It soothes the soul, and it's a great connector with God.
Q. Favorite vacation spot?
A. Key West. That's where I took my wife for our honeymoon. It's one of the most beautiful places you could have a honeymoon.
Q. Do you have a hero?
A. My latest hero is George Bush. A hero is somebody you don't expect. That gives hope to everyone that he can be a hero.
Q. If your house were burning, what would you take out first, after your family?
A. My Bible. I've had it since I was a child.
Q. Favorite TV shows?
A.
Ice-skating shows, for their majesty, and because they show how to keep
your balance. I also love to watch soccer. Put a match on TV and I'm
there.
Q. Your worst moment in the pulpit?
A. When
someone shouted out, "Don't trust him! He belongs to the IRA!" There was
a pregnant pause. I said, "Shut the doors! It's true!" After a long
silence, I said, "The Irish Rabbinical Association!" The audience was
relieved.
Q. What one thing would you change about yourself?
A. I'd be less sensitive. I've toughened up, but I still get hurt very easily.
Q. Is there one thing you can't stand?
A. Noise. It drowns out communication with God.
Q. Have you ever doubted your faith?
A.
No. Someone once asked me a question about that: "Which is better, to
have doubt in faith, or faith in doubt?" I said, "The latter. If you
didn't have doubt, the faith couldn't emerge. Where there is emptiness,
there is potential for learning."
Q. Motto, or favorite Scripture verse?
A. From the Psalms: "He who sows in tears shall reap in joy."
This
is one in a continuing series profiling area religious leaders. Do you
know someone we should profile? Tell Religion Editor James D. Davis at
954-356-4730, or via e-mail (jdavis@sun-sentinel.com). ____________________________________________________________________________________
Memorial Service Set For Longtime Pompano Leader Sun Sentinel - March 1, 2003
POMPANO
BEACH — A memorial service for Pompano Beach Vice Mayor Herb Skolnick
is scheduled at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the City Commission chambers at 100 W.
Atlantic Blvd. Rabbi Ivan Wachman of Temple Shalom will conduct the service.
Mr.
Skolnick, who served on the commission for 26 years, died Thursday at
North Ridge Medical Center from complications after surgery for cancer
of the esophagus. He was 80.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Rabbi Wachman honored by the Moonies Interfaith Efforts Bring Recongition To Rabbi Peace Council Bestows Honors By Peter Hawkins Sun-Sentinel - April 23, 2004 A Pompano Beach rabbi has been presented a special award in recognition of his efforts toward international peace.
The
Interreligious and International Peace Council presented the Ambassador
For Peace Award last month to Rabbi Ivan Wachmann of Temple Sholom in a
ceremony at the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.
Wachmann, who is 67 with four children and 11 grandchildren, is in his 49th year in the ministry.
"I
was one of the honorees because I've dedicated 48 years to promoting
deeper understanding between Christians, Jews and Muslims," he said.
"I've spoken in churches of all faiths, including a mosque, and I've
been president, vice president and secretary of the Council of
Christians and Jews."
Wachmann told members of the peace council
that the global community should focus on issues that unite people
rather than those that divide.
"Each of us as religious leaders
should go back to our respective communities and get sponsors to help
build houses for our poor Palestinian brothers because we are direct
descendants from Abraham," he said.
Gunter Freystatter, who
serves as president of the American Family Coalition of Florida, sits on
the peace council's Advisory Board. Freystatter said Wachmann has drawn
notice because his interfaith endeavors have gone against tradition.
"Rabbi
Wachmann has been doing interfaith work for many years and he has been
involved in trying to bring reconciliation in the Middle East," said
Freystatter, of Weston.
"Traditionally, Christians work among
Christians and Jews among Jews, but Rabbi Wachmann has worked
continually with people of other faiths."
A few days after the
outbreak of the war in Iraq, Wachmann organized an interfaith service at
Temple Sholom, attended by about 150 people. Shortly after the Sept.
11, 2001 attacks, he spoke at St. Coleman's Roman Catholic Church in
Pompano Beach.
He also has conducted an interfaith service with St. Elizabeth of Hungary Catholic Church in Pompano Beach.
Wachmann
was among 80 people, including Rabbi Leonid Feldman of Temple Emanu-El
in Miami Beach, who received the peace award in March. The keynote
speaker at the ceremony was the founder of the Interreligious and
International Peace Council, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Since 2001, the
peace council has appointed 25,000 Ambassadors for Peace in 185 nations.
Last
month, Wachmann, who hails from Dublin, Ireland, emphasized the
similarities between the Irish saint and Moses during a St. Patrick's
Day service at Temple Sholom. A meal that included green bagels
concluded the evening.
Wachmann maintains strong links with
another Irish cleric, Father Thomas Foudy of St. Coleman's. They are
both on the board of Holy Cross Hospital, and they participate every
year in the graduation ceremony at Pine Crest School.
"We
share a table of discussion," Foudy said. "I find him a wonderful man
and a wonderful communicator who transcends all national boundaries.
He's deeply admired by everyone. I see him as a brother in religion and
I'm very proud to be his friend. His tradition is mine and I feel very
honored to know him."
Wachmann, the 10th generation of rabbis in
his family, said he thinks the way to forge a path of peace in the
Middle East is to help build the community there.
"If I was told
my home had been stolen and I was given guns instead of toys, I'd be the
No. 1 to die for Allah," he said. "The reason why Hamas can influence
these people is because they have nothing to live for and everything to
die for. We'll never get peace in the Middle East if they live in
squalor."
The Halachic and legal precedent for the RCA’s
action against Rabbi Mordechai Tendler. How the chief rabbanut of
England dealt with their Tendler Jewish Whistleblower - May 30, 2005
Postscript: After the events described below(on this web page), Rabbi Ivan Wachmann left
England and became the Spiritual Leader at Temple Shalom in Pompano
Beach, Florida. He continues in that position to this day Note the numerous similarities to the Rabbi Mordechai Tendler situation:
A. Rabbi Ivan Wachmann was accused of sexual misconduct with women congregants.
B. A commission of inquiry NOT a Bais Din was set up by the Chief Rabbi, Lord Immanuel Jakobovits
C.
Four women accused Wachmann of making romantic advances, but he claimed
the charges against him were "crazy," and he insisted that he was
"totally innocent."
D. Rabbi Wachmann accused the commission,
which was appointed by British Chief Rabbi Lord Jakobovits, of ignoring
the halachic requirement of having two independent witnesses to support
allegations of misconduct.
E. Dayan Isaac Berger, who is heading
the inquiry, vigorously denied charges of halachic impropriety. All the
proceedings, he told The Jerusalem Post yesterday, were "in strict
conformity with halacha."
F. The rabbi, who ministered to the
synagogue's 750 members for 17 years, had previously banned one of the
women from Monday evening lecturers after she had written him a letter
displaying her infatuation for him. The rabbi relented, but shortly
after he claims she said she was pregnant by him with a child that would
be the Messiah.
G. Another woman alleged he had made sexual
advances towards her. Two other women claimed he had sexual intercourse
with yet another woman.
H. Rabbi Wachmann refused to appear
before the hearing in London because he did not believe it was
impartial. But it went ahead in his absence and he was suspended in late
July. At an emergency general meeting two weeks ago the authorities at
Holy Law synagogue voted 157 to 95 to sack him with three months'
severance pay.
I. But Rabbi Wachmann said he was not told the
full charges, nor was he allowed to challenge the women, or put his
case. He has consulted Jewish legal authorities which believe the
commission was acting illegally. ''According to the religious judge the
evidence of the complainant witnesses was invalidated because they bore a
grudge or were infatuated,'' he said.
J. He claimed the the
commission was prepared to believe the ''absurd'' allegations of these
''infatuated'' women for that reason. ''They had a crush on me. They
believe that I'm charismatic, I'm different, I'm attractive. I can't
explain it. I suppose the same thing happens when a pop star gets up on
stage.''
K. A supporters' group put out a pamphlet detailing his
side of the case. As the synagogue committee decided the rabbi's fate,
about 50 women from the congregation held a protest outside carrying
banners urging ''Fair Trial for Wachmann''.
L. The commission ruled that he had ''acted in a manner unbecoming a rabbi''. This statement was made publicly,
M.
Rabbi Wachmann ACTUALLY lost his position at South Broughton Synagogue
in Prestwich, Greater Manchester as a result of the Chief Rabbanut of
England’s statement.
Temple Sholom will host a Rabbinical Roundtable discussion at 7 tonight. Rabbi
Lewis Littman of Temple Bat Yam will discuss reform while rabbis Ivan
Wachman of Temple Sholom and Yosi Biston of Chabad Margate talk about
Conservative Orthodox views.
Refreshments will be served. The temple is at 132 SE 11th Ave., Pompano Beach. Call 954-942-6410.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Point of Life - With Michael Levy - Guest Rabbi Ivan Wachman Point of Life - March 5, 2008
Spiritual Leader Rabbi Dr. Ivan Wachman has over 50 years of experience
serving as a rabbi and teacher of congregations in Ireland, Britain,
Scotland and the United States. He has extensive experience as a
lecturer, counselor and trainer, as well as a lecturer in Kabalistic
Studies. In his words ... "Kabbalah helps us to balance the spiritual
and physical world. Without it, we become disconnected, creating a
dichotemy between body and soul."
Talk show host Michael Levy discusses the relevant.
Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
