The Winners, The
Losers, and How We Got Here.
Op-Ed submitted by A.L. 2/18/2018
It
seems that the dust is now settling and people have decided their
positions from whatever information they have chosen to believe. The
NY Jewish Week shocked the Jewish world with their explosive article.
As these things normally play out, people were saddened and
embarrassed that there was yet another such tragedy with children in
our community. But then in response, new information that The JW
seemingly missed was brought to light. There were critical and
important facts, and there were also ugly facts that were not really
needed for the case.
In actuality, the true, legal case was already investigated and closed. This new "case", brought to life by activist Chaim Levin, was the very same case that the authorities dismissed. However this one now had a new audience in the courtroom of the internet and social media. The litigants had no rules or protocols to follow, and the judge and jury was everyone whose attention was captured by the propaganda. All of the internet cowboys "came to town" to get in on the action. Anonymous bloggers, well known pseudonym bloggers, internet activists, and a whole new cast of named and unnamed Facebook personalities who were busy posting, commenting and messaging in their various groups. The verdict in our case? A draw- for now.
The argument lives on with nothing more than finger pointing. The accuser's supporters are making the accusation of victim shaming. They stand by the JW's article and are proud of it. They feel it did not deserve to be challenged. The other side, who include Rabbi K's defenders as well as other truth seekers state that there was no way an article of that nature was going to be left to stand unchallenged. They further assert that this should have been understood at the outset of the push for publication. This part of the debate rages on.
A large lawsuit was filed by Team Krawatsky, and it seems that Team Avrunin, led by Levin is possibly preparing a countersuit in response- one that Levin hinted they had already been preparing for. So we have frantically arrived at a pause. We now wait for this to be ended in a court of law (where it essentially already occurred in the first place and is now a new civil case). But as for the public internet judge and jury, the lines have been drawn and people have arrived at their own conclusions.
It seems that not much more is going to come out that will sway anyone further. Jon Little, attorney for the accuser, and who is now Defendant, expressed no regret regarding the article. When asked if he felt the newer publicized information hurt his case he responded, "Not at all". I asked him if knowing what he knows now, if he could rewind the clock and stop publication of the NY Jewish Week article would he? This also got a "Not at all". He added, "...but I'll tell you, in the 10 years we've been doing these types of cases, this is the first time I've ever seen the accused sue the accusers".
With no more public litigating and arguing left, we are left to reflect on this episode with some lingering questions. The most troublesome question is what was the intention behind getting The NY Jewish Week to write that article? From its slant, it is crystal clear what its agenda was. It is widely understood that Chaim Levin took this matter directly to The NY Jewish Week, or at the very least, got their attention and wanted it out there.
But why?
To understand, we first need to delve into who and what is our activist's "professional" function. I contacted Levin, who stated multiple times that "these families" are his "clients". I asked who exactly is/ are his clients, how they are your clients, and what exactly do you do for your clients? He refused to answer stating, "it's not a simple question...this will be dealt with in court". Levin affirmed to multiple sources, that in addition to bringing the "abuser" to light, he connected his clients to the law firm that they plan to use to represent them. (In fact, Levin refused to answer anything at all. More about that in the post script below.)
We have no choice but to assume that the purpose of the article was one of only three possibilities. The first possibility is that they wanted to protect children and get Rabbi K removed from his job. The second possibility is that because they were not believed, the Avrunins felt they were mistreated by the law and by the Baltimore Jewish community and wanted revenge. The final possibility will be discussed later.
In terminating Rabbi K, Dr. Zipora Schorr referred to "recent allegations" in the NY Jewish Week article, many of which she stated plainly she was never aware of. This means that Avrunin (or Levin) had never approached Dr. Schorr to simply state "I believe my kid was molested by this guy so get him away from children". Our first possibility (that they wanted to protect the school and the children) is no longer within reason.
The second possibility of wanting revenge is the natural immediate conclusion- and they got it. But it came at a serious cost. Details emerged about the Avrunins that they must have wanted to remain private Families that wanted to remain anonymous were outed by virtue of the public record. All sorts of negative opinions and experiences about them were shared in public. Team Avrunin must have known that a slanted article was not going to be able to stand alone and go unchallenged. They had to have been prepared for all of this damage to their reputation if they were pushing for this article. So after some consideration, the conclusion is that there is no way they wanted all this.
The final and most probable possibility is that this mess was a calculated gamble by Chaim Levin. Getting his hands on a big case, and being certain this really happened, he went all-in hoping that publishing an explosive article would get others to come forward. It needed to be an attention grabber and gain maximum viewership. The hope must have been that dozens of other Rabbi K victims would come forward and turn this into a major abuser story. There was no thought of any challenge to credibility. At the time, it probably didn't seem like much of a gamble at all. But so far, this gamble seems to have been a losing one.
So, who are the winners and losers to date? Of course, Rabbi K is devastated, Dr. Schorr cannot be happy about how the BT situation has developed, the students are distressed to have lost a beloved Rebbi, the Avrunins have to be feeling pretty embarrassed, Dreyfus, Rosenblatt and The Jewish Week appear to be amateur reporters who got duped, and Levin's firm, Saeed and Little can't possibly have been helped by all of the blow back against their case. They are all losers. But the activist, law firm intern, and internet blogger who scored himself a big case- Chaim Levin, has got to be feeling pretty good right now. He was able to almost single handedly, create this whole mess. He, alone, is our winner.
One has to wonder what Saeed and Little want with this case? They seem to be a real law firm. Although they routinely take sensational cases, they are certainly in it for the money. Are they being paid by a deep pocket who is hellbent on ensuring that Rabbi K remains ruined forever? No, they are on a contingency basis. Presumably, they have been told by their intern that there is a juicy case opportunity including a few large (insured) institutions. In my conversation with Jon Little for this article, he expressed confidence in whatever he intends to file on April 2 (more about that conversation below). Whether before or after filing their defense answer/ counter-suit, based on the current trajectory, with no other "metoo”s coming forward, I can't see them staying on the case for very long. I believe they will recuse themselves. At that point, or in the event their case concludes with a loss, our winner becomes the biggest loser. We are all staying tuned.
Post Script:
In compiling this Op-ed, originally for Kol Habirah, I reached out to Chaim Levin, Hannah Dreyfus, and Jon Little for comment. Levin was defensive and suspicious of every word. At some points he refused answering questions using the excuse of being named in the lawsuit ("You know I am a defendant in Federal case, right?"). In other parts of our conversation he simply told me that he doesn't owe me any answers. We spent a surprising amount of time texting back and forth going nowhere. There were only veiled threats, outright insults, and not a single straight answer. At a certain point, I told him outright, "You know, why do you think everything is a plot? Because you are always plotting. I feel bad for you. That is not a way to live." He replied, "You are so kind. Thank you for your sympathy." That exchange pretty much characterizes our interaction.
I reached out to Hannah Dreyfus via Facebook messenger asking her for a couple of minutes by phone. In simple words I explained to her that my Op-ed was to sum up where we are now. Came a flurry of requests. Who are you writing for? Is there an editor? I'd like to comment but I need you to email me the article in it's entirety. Then I need to review with my editor and our attorney. I said that I simply want 5 minutes by phone and won't use her name to anything without her permission- that we can talk off the record if she prefer. This was met again, with even more conditions, and "that for all future correspondence please use my work email hannah@jewi..." . I answered her "I just want a phone call for one or two questions...all these requirements and safeties are too cumbersome. I might just skip it".
I was very surprised that in reaching out to Jon Little, Levin's/Avrunin's attorney, via Facebook messenger, I received a polite reply with a time and cell number. When I spoke with him the next morning, Jon Little was cordial, relaxed and pleasant. We talked as he was in his car taking his child to school. I questioned Jon about whether he was disappointed with the lack of results and backlash from the Dreyfus article. His response to this question and the others I posed were very by the book, and indicated he plays by the numbers. "That's normal of how a community responds to these things", or "I've seen this many times before in the case of a beloved teacher". When I asked him about the information uncovered in [this] blog, he showed no signs of being upset. He described it as a normal response. I sensed that Jon was not yet fully familiarized with the case. I could certainly tell that he had no personal attachment to the case. He was merely doing the stuff he does- "We've been handling these types of cases for the last 10 years", and then he listed off some high profile cases.
Initially, upon being offered the "first shot" at it, Kol Habirah was excited to publish this Op-ed. But then, as their editor considered it, he was concerned about viewed as taking a side and not being seen as being balanced. Isn't an opinion piece exactly that? I told Kol Habirah I understood their hesitation and would get it out otherwise- like by getting it published in this blog.
So it seems "the press" takes their stance and publishes their opinions fully fluffed with carefully selected experts who will second their opinion. Even better is if they can break down their opinion into multiple parts and have an expert lined up for each. Then you can have many pages of excellent journalism and even dream of a Pulitzer. The lawyers only want to discuss matters good for their case, the activists post to followers who are hungry for exactly what they are offering, the plaintiffs and the defendants are blind to anything but their own way, judges seal cases, and transcripts are, anyway, too long to get through and make sense of.
Think about this. Without this blog we would only have the Dreyfus article, Kol Habirah's comments from the States Attorney (which was big), and a bunch of Facebook arguments. That means in any unfortunate situation like this one, we are being fed information however the "info-chefs" want to cook it up. Sometimes we take their bait and sometimes we don't. That makes us all (those who are not involved but somehow "interested") the truest losers.
email me at: arighteousindig@gmail.com
In actuality, the true, legal case was already investigated and closed. This new "case", brought to life by activist Chaim Levin, was the very same case that the authorities dismissed. However this one now had a new audience in the courtroom of the internet and social media. The litigants had no rules or protocols to follow, and the judge and jury was everyone whose attention was captured by the propaganda. All of the internet cowboys "came to town" to get in on the action. Anonymous bloggers, well known pseudonym bloggers, internet activists, and a whole new cast of named and unnamed Facebook personalities who were busy posting, commenting and messaging in their various groups. The verdict in our case? A draw- for now.
The argument lives on with nothing more than finger pointing. The accuser's supporters are making the accusation of victim shaming. They stand by the JW's article and are proud of it. They feel it did not deserve to be challenged. The other side, who include Rabbi K's defenders as well as other truth seekers state that there was no way an article of that nature was going to be left to stand unchallenged. They further assert that this should have been understood at the outset of the push for publication. This part of the debate rages on.
A large lawsuit was filed by Team Krawatsky, and it seems that Team Avrunin, led by Levin is possibly preparing a countersuit in response- one that Levin hinted they had already been preparing for. So we have frantically arrived at a pause. We now wait for this to be ended in a court of law (where it essentially already occurred in the first place and is now a new civil case). But as for the public internet judge and jury, the lines have been drawn and people have arrived at their own conclusions.
It seems that not much more is going to come out that will sway anyone further. Jon Little, attorney for the accuser, and who is now Defendant, expressed no regret regarding the article. When asked if he felt the newer publicized information hurt his case he responded, "Not at all". I asked him if knowing what he knows now, if he could rewind the clock and stop publication of the NY Jewish Week article would he? This also got a "Not at all". He added, "...but I'll tell you, in the 10 years we've been doing these types of cases, this is the first time I've ever seen the accused sue the accusers".
With no more public litigating and arguing left, we are left to reflect on this episode with some lingering questions. The most troublesome question is what was the intention behind getting The NY Jewish Week to write that article? From its slant, it is crystal clear what its agenda was. It is widely understood that Chaim Levin took this matter directly to The NY Jewish Week, or at the very least, got their attention and wanted it out there.
But why?
To understand, we first need to delve into who and what is our activist's "professional" function. I contacted Levin, who stated multiple times that "these families" are his "clients". I asked who exactly is/ are his clients, how they are your clients, and what exactly do you do for your clients? He refused to answer stating, "it's not a simple question...this will be dealt with in court". Levin affirmed to multiple sources, that in addition to bringing the "abuser" to light, he connected his clients to the law firm that they plan to use to represent them. (In fact, Levin refused to answer anything at all. More about that in the post script below.)
We have no choice but to assume that the purpose of the article was one of only three possibilities. The first possibility is that they wanted to protect children and get Rabbi K removed from his job. The second possibility is that because they were not believed, the Avrunins felt they were mistreated by the law and by the Baltimore Jewish community and wanted revenge. The final possibility will be discussed later.
In terminating Rabbi K, Dr. Zipora Schorr referred to "recent allegations" in the NY Jewish Week article, many of which she stated plainly she was never aware of. This means that Avrunin (or Levin) had never approached Dr. Schorr to simply state "I believe my kid was molested by this guy so get him away from children". Our first possibility (that they wanted to protect the school and the children) is no longer within reason.
The second possibility of wanting revenge is the natural immediate conclusion- and they got it. But it came at a serious cost. Details emerged about the Avrunins that they must have wanted to remain private Families that wanted to remain anonymous were outed by virtue of the public record. All sorts of negative opinions and experiences about them were shared in public. Team Avrunin must have known that a slanted article was not going to be able to stand alone and go unchallenged. They had to have been prepared for all of this damage to their reputation if they were pushing for this article. So after some consideration, the conclusion is that there is no way they wanted all this.
The final and most probable possibility is that this mess was a calculated gamble by Chaim Levin. Getting his hands on a big case, and being certain this really happened, he went all-in hoping that publishing an explosive article would get others to come forward. It needed to be an attention grabber and gain maximum viewership. The hope must have been that dozens of other Rabbi K victims would come forward and turn this into a major abuser story. There was no thought of any challenge to credibility. At the time, it probably didn't seem like much of a gamble at all. But so far, this gamble seems to have been a losing one.
So, who are the winners and losers to date? Of course, Rabbi K is devastated, Dr. Schorr cannot be happy about how the BT situation has developed, the students are distressed to have lost a beloved Rebbi, the Avrunins have to be feeling pretty embarrassed, Dreyfus, Rosenblatt and The Jewish Week appear to be amateur reporters who got duped, and Levin's firm, Saeed and Little can't possibly have been helped by all of the blow back against their case. They are all losers. But the activist, law firm intern, and internet blogger who scored himself a big case- Chaim Levin, has got to be feeling pretty good right now. He was able to almost single handedly, create this whole mess. He, alone, is our winner.
One has to wonder what Saeed and Little want with this case? They seem to be a real law firm. Although they routinely take sensational cases, they are certainly in it for the money. Are they being paid by a deep pocket who is hellbent on ensuring that Rabbi K remains ruined forever? No, they are on a contingency basis. Presumably, they have been told by their intern that there is a juicy case opportunity including a few large (insured) institutions. In my conversation with Jon Little for this article, he expressed confidence in whatever he intends to file on April 2 (more about that conversation below). Whether before or after filing their defense answer/ counter-suit, based on the current trajectory, with no other "metoo”s coming forward, I can't see them staying on the case for very long. I believe they will recuse themselves. At that point, or in the event their case concludes with a loss, our winner becomes the biggest loser. We are all staying tuned.
Post Script:
In compiling this Op-ed, originally for Kol Habirah, I reached out to Chaim Levin, Hannah Dreyfus, and Jon Little for comment. Levin was defensive and suspicious of every word. At some points he refused answering questions using the excuse of being named in the lawsuit ("You know I am a defendant in Federal case, right?"). In other parts of our conversation he simply told me that he doesn't owe me any answers. We spent a surprising amount of time texting back and forth going nowhere. There were only veiled threats, outright insults, and not a single straight answer. At a certain point, I told him outright, "You know, why do you think everything is a plot? Because you are always plotting. I feel bad for you. That is not a way to live." He replied, "You are so kind. Thank you for your sympathy." That exchange pretty much characterizes our interaction.
I reached out to Hannah Dreyfus via Facebook messenger asking her for a couple of minutes by phone. In simple words I explained to her that my Op-ed was to sum up where we are now. Came a flurry of requests. Who are you writing for? Is there an editor? I'd like to comment but I need you to email me the article in it's entirety. Then I need to review with my editor and our attorney. I said that I simply want 5 minutes by phone and won't use her name to anything without her permission- that we can talk off the record if she prefer. This was met again, with even more conditions, and "that for all future correspondence please use my work email hannah@jewi..." . I answered her "I just want a phone call for one or two questions...all these requirements and safeties are too cumbersome. I might just skip it".
I was very surprised that in reaching out to Jon Little, Levin's/Avrunin's attorney, via Facebook messenger, I received a polite reply with a time and cell number. When I spoke with him the next morning, Jon Little was cordial, relaxed and pleasant. We talked as he was in his car taking his child to school. I questioned Jon about whether he was disappointed with the lack of results and backlash from the Dreyfus article. His response to this question and the others I posed were very by the book, and indicated he plays by the numbers. "That's normal of how a community responds to these things", or "I've seen this many times before in the case of a beloved teacher". When I asked him about the information uncovered in [this] blog, he showed no signs of being upset. He described it as a normal response. I sensed that Jon was not yet fully familiarized with the case. I could certainly tell that he had no personal attachment to the case. He was merely doing the stuff he does- "We've been handling these types of cases for the last 10 years", and then he listed off some high profile cases.
Initially, upon being offered the "first shot" at it, Kol Habirah was excited to publish this Op-ed. But then, as their editor considered it, he was concerned about viewed as taking a side and not being seen as being balanced. Isn't an opinion piece exactly that? I told Kol Habirah I understood their hesitation and would get it out otherwise- like by getting it published in this blog.
So it seems "the press" takes their stance and publishes their opinions fully fluffed with carefully selected experts who will second their opinion. Even better is if they can break down their opinion into multiple parts and have an expert lined up for each. Then you can have many pages of excellent journalism and even dream of a Pulitzer. The lawyers only want to discuss matters good for their case, the activists post to followers who are hungry for exactly what they are offering, the plaintiffs and the defendants are blind to anything but their own way, judges seal cases, and transcripts are, anyway, too long to get through and make sense of.
Think about this. Without this blog we would only have the Dreyfus article, Kol Habirah's comments from the States Attorney (which was big), and a bunch of Facebook arguments. That means in any unfortunate situation like this one, we are being fed information however the "info-chefs" want to cook it up. Sometimes we take their bait and sometimes we don't. That makes us all (those who are not involved but somehow "interested") the truest losers.
email me at: arighteousindig@gmail.com
I predict a settlement. No way this is going to trial.
ReplyDeleteHe has gotta take this all the way, get some kind of money out of them, or get their attorneys to drop out after realizing this case is a loser. Anything less will be spun by the activists as a loss to Rabbi K. He can afford no hint of a loss. His life is on the line.
DeletePredictor: you're off the mark. Why didn't he sue the Jewish News, the deep pockets in this case? It's because he knew that he would win. Only someone with a losing case goes after the deep pockets in the hope of getting a face-saving tiny settlement. If you're confident, you sue the small fry hoping to grind them into the ground for a total victory.
DeleteOJ Simpson beat the legal system but the civil trial is where he got spanked. The burden of proof is very different. I hope this civil trial goes all the way. Krawatsky will win it for sure.
DeleteDamn straight. All the family has going for them is the kids testimony, the CPS evaluations and their own kids psychologists. No real evidence. And he's got the fact that abuse never, ever happens in a locker room like that. Even Sandusky who was an expert abuser got caught in a locker room, so you know that undetected abuse never happens that way. The story is absurd from the start. He's going to clean their clocks.
DeleteChaim Levin always wants to be as sensational as possible to get 5 or 10 more views to his posts. He got busted big time with this one getting way out of control and he's going to pay for it. He is not going to get any more free trips to Israel from Gofundme after this ordeal ruins him.
ReplyDeleteThe guy has done nothing in his life. Winning the lawsuit against JONAH was small potatoes. Now he's trying to hit the big leagues going up against Baltimore where he'll learn his lesson. He's trying to make us look foolish for keeping around a teacher whose three abuse accusation were backed by nothing more than child testimony and some indications by CPS. Anyone who works with kids knows that this can happen to anyone. Levin picked the wrong hill to die on this time. Baltimore has nothing to hide and that's why Levin's pawn, young Miss Drefyus, was totally ineffective in her reporting.
Delete