Wednesday, January 4, 2006

Email Luke Essays Profiles ArchivesSearch LF.net Luke Ford Profile Dennis Prager Advertise On LF.net Dec 30

Holly Welcomes In The New Year With A Man She Values

Thursday. 9am. A friend IMs me. "Are you coming to Holly's party Saturday? You guys are so right for each other. I can't wait to see you in action."

"That's the first I've heard about it," I reply. "So I guess not."

I email Holly the first sentence of the IM I received. Six hours later, she calls me back. "Of course you can come, darling. It's an annual party. We don't even bother to send out invites. I forgot to tell you."

Saturday it rains, sometimes hard. I figure I'll skip the party.

Saturday night, the rain ends. I call Holly for the zip code of her parents' home.

She's distracted. She obviously has one hundred things on her mind aside from talking to me. But she eventually gives me the zip code and I use Yahoo maps as a complement to her explicit directions from Friday.

I start my drive tailed by two police cars (I check my pocket and realize I've left my wallet at home). Then they drop away. The 45-minute drive is smooth and sweet. I arrive at the home of Holly's parents at 9pm.

I park on the road and walk the third-of-a-mile uphill. A fancy import in front of me spins its wheels madly as it tries to mount the final hill.

As I approach the house, a tractor comes down the hill and though I scrunch to the side into the bushes as much as I can, there's still only a foot between its blade and me. I feel like the driver is toying with me.

The tractor stops beside me.

"Are you Luke?" asks Suze.


"You're the smart one parking down on the road.

"Go upstairs and say hi to Holly. She's curling her hair. Go right in."

"Thank you."

"I'm going to grade the driveway one more time."


I walk in the house and introduce myself to Holly's father Humphrey Knipe.

"Hi," he says.

"Where can I get a drink?" I ask.

"Around the corner."

I round the corner. The bartender tells me if I want water, it's around the corner.

I round that corner, see nothing, then round another corner outside.

Humphrey comes out.

"Where could I find some water?"

"What type of water?" he asks.

"Regular flat water."

"Just round the corner inside."

I retrace my footsteps and find the water cooler. I have a stiff drink of flat water and then sit down in a corner in the livingroom.

Ten minutes go by. I kick myself for not wearing a belt so that my jeans would be tight enough to hold Ask Albert Ellis? Straight Answers and Sound Advice from America's Best-Known Psychologist against my bum for easy access in times of boredom and crisis.

I look around the room and see no books.

Amber (webmistress) is the first person to really talk to me.

"You're the one who told Holly that because I like the Dallas Cowboys, I must be a fag."

"That wasn't me," lies Amber.

She's sweet. She's kind. She's beautiful. She makes me feel at home.

Eventually Holly (holding a nearly-empty beer bottle) comes down and welcomes me. She's stoned (she began the day smoking marijuana resin, all that was left in her pipe, it's much stronger than regular grass, and the friend she shared it with is still knocked out twelve hours later with a ringing headache) and drunk and dressed like a hooker. I love that.

Luke: "Who did you give bad pot to?"

Holly: "Today? We smoked some resin. I told her this is all I've got. If you want some, you can smoke some."

What I love even more is to watch her spending the evening exchanging caresses with the dozen or so men at the party that she's fucked.

But this is not to say that she does not make distinctions. It's most important for her to be with her ex-boyfriend and co-worker Chris. She needs to repeatedly hold on to him right in front of me. She needs to repeatedly break away from talking to me to drape herself over him and whisper in his ear. I love that because they were so wonderful when they were a couple. Nary an unkind word or thoughtless action.

If the only pictures I got to see of Holly locked in embrace with ex-boyfriends (ones I repeatedly asked her to take down) were the ones in Holly's house and on her website, that would not be enough. I need to see it repeatedly in my face. That way I get the full effect and I realize how much I mean to her and how clearly she wants to communicate that to me.

During my sum total of 15-minutes with Holly, her mind is elsewhere. There are a hundred things and people at the party more important to her than me. The legs to the fire grill rate about a nine on her 1-10 scale of importance (ten being of premium importance). Getting refills of champagne is a ten for her. I feel that I rate about a two (along with the starving in Africa). The only time I can sustain her attention is when I aim the camera at her (or when she's reviewing her pictures in my viewfinder).

I spend most of my night talking to Holly's parents. I give them a brief sketch of my first eleven years.

They're every bit as charming as Holly promised they would be.

I largely talk to Humphrey about writing. I tell him about rereading my late mother's book Fireside Stories.

"That's why you're so fucked up," he says. "Religion and losing your mother."

Humphrey says that in the age of nuclear weapons and terrorism, religion could kill us all. He praises the recent book by Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.

I heard Harris demolished on Dennis Prager's radio show (August 16, 2004). It wasn't fair. Prager already knew all of Harris's arguments but poor Sam hadn't thought about Prager's challenges. Sam thought it had done so poorly in the debate, he asked Prager to come back on the show when he was better prepared.

I ask Humphrey what percentage of people can live happily without religion.

"That's a good question," he says. He admits that many, maybe most, would not be able to do without it.

"They will seek substitute religions," I say, thinking of communism and Nazism which replaced Christianity as leading ideologies in Europe in the 20th Century. Those ideologies, based on hatred of God and religion, slaughtered far more people (over 100 million within 40 years) than all religious wars and persecutions in all of history put together.

"Sam lays out a framework for a secular humanist approach to life," says Humphrey, "but I only skimmed over it."

"That sort of stuff will only appeal to a tiny number of intellectuals," I reply. "It's not a rubric for ordinary people to lead a meaningful and happy life."

"I'm happy without religion," says Humphrey.

He repeatedly introduces me as the "famous internet scourge of the Adult industry." I like that.

Judging by what he's read, Humphrey says he'd describe the tone of my writing as "vitriolic."

I meet Holly's dominatrix ex-boyfriend Zev Berman, the Hollywood director, who comes with publicist Melissa from thePleasureChest.com.

"Did you come here to get blackmail pictures?" asks Holly.

"I already have blackmail pictures," he replies.

"Tell me more," I say.

"No," says Holly. "Let's not go there."

I meet Holly's ex-boyfriend Brian Gage, an author and graphic designer, with his beautiful young wife.

At 11:45pm, I walk around the party until I find Holly by the bar. She's got a full eight-ounce cup of vodka (with a little cranberry juice).

I want to give things one last chance. Why go away mad when you can go away glad?

"Aren't you violating the rule you told me about Friday [she was painfully hungover on a week during which she had resolved not to drink, we went to breakfast]?" I ask. "That you should never have more than two types of alcohol drinks in a night?"

"Since when do I follow the rules?" she says.

"Good point."

As the crowd counts down the seconds to the new year, Holly and I lean against each other. She pulls out her camera.

She must want a picture of us bringing in the new year. She wants me. She wants to treasure me as I treasure her. She wants a picture of us to place in frames around her home instead of those of the 40 or so men who proceeded me into her.

But I'm wrong. She has no interest in me. She's not taken a picture of me all night. She wants a picture with Chris.

As we enter 2006, I turn to Holly to kiss her for the first time in three weeks, but I only see her back leaping in the air.

She wants to spend this precious time with someone she values.

Jumping from her seat, Holly hurls herself into Chris's arms and gives him a passionate kiss on the lips.

I turn away and leave her in the arms of people who want to fuck her.

It's a cold and lonely 15-minute walk through the mud to my car. Midway down, I open up my zipper and take a long leak goodbye.

I arrive home at 1am and get on my computer.

I look down. I've tracked Holly's mud into my hovel. I vacuum and scrub but I can't get rid of the filth.

Her mud is all over my hovel, all over my shoes and jeans, and all over my life.

With the wisdom of hindsight, I now realize I should've stuck around so that I could've gotten in line and tasted Chris (and her other lovers) on Holly's lips. She did call my home at 12:24pm to say that she wanted to kiss me (along with about 20 other guys I'm sure).

What a glorious sensation it would've been to have tasted those drunken men on her mouth and breathe in their smell on her body.

Just by hanging with Holly, I can feel what it's like to be banged by 40 guys.

Until Saturday night, I mainly saw Holly's previous lovers laid out on her refrigerator (and in frames in almost every room of her house, including the bedroom), on her website, and sometimes at parties (or those who just unexpectedly walk into her home when I'm with her, I guess they've been granted that right).

Now I've met a dozen of them in one night and gotten to see her do everything with them short of opening up an orifice and bringing them inside. I love that. I love how it makes me feel. I love dating and sleeping around. It's such a wonderful preparation for a lasting marriage.

Thanks to the miracle of the internet, we can all enjoy the handsome visages of Holly's ex-boyfriends. It makes a man feel so special when he sees daily reminders of his girl's ex-lovers and gets to constantly hear about how much they mean to her (how she's cancelling a snowboarding trip to host a birthday party for a boyfriend from seven years ago).

Though many people break up in anger, that is not true with Holly and I. Though twelve years my junior, she has taught me to not look back in anger, but in love.

Thus, it is with love in my heart that I lay out the following photo gallery that I've been forced to constantly confront since I met Holly, and visited her home and website. She's a special girl to be able to maintain such an intimate connection with so many men.

Some people might read sarcasm into my commentary. They should not. Holly is the sweetest girl. She never did anything bad to me. That I was not more important to her is my problem, not her's. That I have had no appetite since Dec 11 is my problem, not her's. That I am a basketcase right now is my fault, not her's. Holly was only good to me. My problem was that I wanted more than she could give. I was not content with sloppy seconds, with tasting Chris's kiss on her lips. If only I wasn't so homophobic.

Holly had a heart -- how shall I say? -- too soon made glad, too easily impressed; she liked whatever she looked on, and her looks went everywhere. It was all one! My favour at her breast, the dropping of the daylight in the West, a bar tender, a movie director, a journalist, a professor, a dominatrix. Each drew from her alike the approving speech, the blush, the blowjob.

She thanked men, -- good! but thanked somehow -- I know not how -- as if she ranked me with any other man. Who'd stoop to blame this sort of trifling? Even had you skill in speech -- (which I have not) -- to make your will quite clear to such a one, and say, "Just this or that in you disgusts me; here you miss, or there exceed the mark" -- and if she let herself be reproved, there would be some stooping, and I choose never to stoop.

She smiled, no doubt, whenever I with her; but who was with her without much the same smile?

Vilnii writes: "Amalek was wrong! In hindsight, Holly did not invite you over to her party to introduce you to her parents. You were invited because she wanted to make a point, and it appears she made sure you got the message. The good news is that what you feel now (well-written by the way) is as bad as it gets. In men, the emotions and hurt typically wear off quickly from here on."

Fritz writes: "Sorry about your heartbreak, Luke. In the end, though, you did get a wonderful story out of it."

Fred writes:

We’ve all been there, they smart pretty girl who like us, but can’t seem to let go of former boyfriends, and really is smart enough to be able to see the problem it’s causing us for themselves. You find yourself frustrated and neglected. This is not good.

What you must realize is that smart pretty girls aren’t like you and me. They don’t realize, or at least don’t admit to themselves, that the ex boyfriends still want to get in their pants. They also don’t realize that they themselves want to get back into their ex boyfriends pants, and that their difficulty in letting go is a consequence of that desire.

What you need to do is to ponder your future. Do you want to be with Holly? Does she actually want to be with you? If the answer is yes to both those questions you need to actually talk with her and resolve your AND her issues concerning ex boyfriends.

The Educated Man Shortage

John Tierney writes in The NYT:

The women surveyed were less willing to marry down--marry someone with much lower earnings or less education--than the men were to marry up. And, in line with Jane Austen, the women were also more determined to marry up than the men were.

You may think that women's attitudes are changing as they get more college degrees and financial independence. A woman who's an executive can afford to marry a struggling musician. But that doesn't necessarily mean she wants to. Studies by David Buss of the University of Texas and others have shown that women with higher incomes, far from relaxing their standards, put more emphasis on their mate's financial resources.

Religion Vs. Reason

Mike Ramone writes on the AVN blog:

"The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" is a recent New York Times best-seller by Sam Harris (W.W. Norton & Company), a very sobering assessment of, to quote the back cover, humankind's "willingness to suspend reason in favor of religious beliefs - even when these beliefs inspire the worst of human atrocities."
A section of the book called "The War on Sin," brilliantly lays out how the Christian Right's myth-based beliefs shape this country's absurd policies outlawing or regulating certain types of private consensual pleasures people engage in, including, for purposes of this blog, consuming porno.
"In the United States, and in much of the world, it is currently illegal to seek certain experiences of pleasure," Harris writes. "...Behaviors like drug use, prostitution, sodomy and the viewing of obscene materials have been categorized as 'victimless crimes.'...The idea of a victimless crime is nothing more than a judicial reprise of the Christian notion of sin.
"...It is no accident that people of faith often want to curtail the private freedoms of others. This impulse has less to do with the history of religion and more to do with its logic, because the very idea of privacy is incompatible with the existence of God. If God sees and knows all things, and remains so provincial a creature as to be scandalized by certain sexual behaviors or states of the brain, then what people do in the privacy of their own homes, though it may not have the slightest implication for their behavior in public, will still be a matter of public concern for people of faith."
So there you have it. Despite all their voodoo science about how porn is addicting and a threat to the American family and an affront to women, the real reason the Religious Right is anti-adult, according to Harris, is that they secretly fear that if us porn-consuming sinners are in their midst, God will be displeased with them for allowing that and then they, like us, will burn for eternity. Sheesh. Why do you think they called it the Dark Ages?

They don't call it the Dark Ages, Mike. Nobody who knows anything about Europe during the years 476 to about 1000 of the Common Era calls them the Dark Ages because they weren't. There was no decline in learning or freedom or civilization. Instead, these years were the preparation for Europe's eventual domination of the world (based significantly on Christianity's worldview, and I'm not a Christian, so I have no axe to grind here, but I will cite Rodney Stark's book: The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success).

"The worst of human atrocities," if we are to count by numbers or murders, were committed by aggressively anti-religious ideologies such as Nazism and Communism, which murdered about 100 million people over 40 years. All religious wars and persecutions in all of history have not killed that many.

If you don't think porn is addicting, then you are living in a dreamworld (not that porn being addicting necessarily argues that porn is bad as everything that gives pleasure, including religion, is addicting). Millions of men in the United States are addicted to porn and for one who is, it is a disabling and shaming addiction.

How would I define porn addiction? Unless you are looking at porn for work, spending more than an hour a day with it on average is a good indication of addiction. Porn's primary purpose is solitary masturbation. However you feel about wanking, it's hard to argue that it is ennobling.

What people do in the privacy of their own homes has been an obsessive concern of at least as many non-Christian societies as Christian ones. For instance, every society has developed taboos about sex even when that sex is conducted in the privacy of one's home. There aren't many societies where incest and bestiality are OK, for instance, even when it is done in the privacy of one's home.

Director Michael Raven writes:

The atrocities of Nazism where made possible by the extreme right wing and very religious philosophical orientation of it's own leader, Adolf Hitler. Anyone who is a serious student of history will remember the motto of his own right-wing "faith": "Kirche, Kueche, Kinder" (church, kitchen, children). Hitler was not an athiest as many modern day Christians try to present him. He shared many of the same beliefs that many Christian conservatives hold dear today. "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"Parallel to the training of the body a struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth ... Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world ..."

"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god."

"For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!'"

All these quotes come from Adolf Hitler's memoir "Mein Kampf."

As you can see from this small sampling of Hitler's philosophy from his own book, he shared many of the same values and social concerns that fundamental, right-wing believers hold today. In fact, aside from his anti-semitic views his own beliefs mirror many factions of contemporary fundamental Christianity.

To be more specific, Hitler believed that the Aryan race was descended from Adam and Eve, but everyone else evolved naturally. He believed that Jesus of Nazareth was an Aryan, not a Jew, and that Jesus fought the Jews and was killed by them. He believed in life after death, the supreme being, and universal creation. He opposed the Catholic church only because its seat of power was in Rome, not Berlin. He was intolerant of competing versions of Christianity but at no time did he ever commit acts or express beliefs which were not expressed by other Christians before him such as Martin Luther, as well as certain Christians after him, right up to this very day.

I leave you with these thoughts:

Hitler's writings reveal a religious fanatic: a Christian and a creationist, driven by the belief that racial intermixing was destroying the purity of God's creation (the Aryan race, which he imagined to include Jesus) by mating with naturally evolved "apes". His actions were wholly consistent with this belief. Consider:

(1) While some Christians believe that all acts of war violate God's will, the majority of Christians throughout history have believed in the idea of the "just war"; a war of good against evil, in which the good guys commit no wrong by waging war on the bad guys (for example, World War Two is widely cited as the last "just war", despite the fact that the "good guys" ended it by dropping nuclear weapons on civilian targets without explicit warning). Hitler obviously shared this belief; he thought he was fighting for a just cause.

(2) While some Christians claim that racism is inherently anti-Christian, the sheer numbers of Christian racists throughout history easily put the lie to that claim. In reality, the Old Testament is an extremely racist tome, and Jesus said very little to contradict its message of a "chosen people" in the New Testament. Moreover, the racism of both Catholic and Protestant conquerors in Africa, India, and the Americas during the age of European colonialism makes any claims of Christianity's inherent anti-racism absolutely laughable.

(3) While most Christians believe that the sixth commandment outlaws murder, they believe that it does not extend to the killing of animals. Hitler believed that non-Aryans were animals. Most Christians also believe that murder can be justified (eg- self defense). Hitler believed that the world was arrayed against Germany and that their national actions were taken in self-defense.

The interesting thing about Hitler is that if you accept his bizarre belief system, his actions actually make sense. A common thread among all white supremacists has been their hatred for racial intermixing. They see it as a "dilution" of the "purity" of the white race.

Hitler was no exception; he hated racial intermixing with the fervour of racism reinforced by his religious conviction, because he felt that non-Aryans were not human, and in his words, marriage should produce children who are "images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape"In his mind, his "Final Solution" was no different from the kind of extermination program one might carry out against pest animals, and in a very real sense, his creationism led directly to his racism.

Creationists have long tried to portray Nazism as the end result of Darwin's evolution theory. But his writings make it very clear that while he accepts natural evolution as the origin of other races, he does not accept that he himself was the product of natural evolution. Since Darwin's theory of evolution makes no allowance for such ridiculous exceptions to the rule, it is quite clear that despite creationist claims to the contrary, Hitler did not understand or accept evolution theory. It is clear that he was, in fact, a creationist (albeit what we would ironically refer to as a "moderate" creationist today), who believed that while evolution does take place in the natural world, the Aryan race stood apart from nature, was created by God in his own image, and had been given dominion over the Earth.

If Hitler was Christian, why didn't he take on a Christian symbol? Instead, Nazism took on the swastika, a pagan symbol. For more on this, read Dennis Prager's book Why The Jews? The Reason For Antisemitism:

Hatred of Judaism for subverting pagan values and unleashing Christianity was later expressed in a song of the Hitler Youth: "Pope and Rabbi shall be no more. We want to be pagans once again. No more creeping to Chruches. We are the joyous Hitler Youth. We do not need any Christian virtues. Our leader, Adolf Hitler, is our Savior." (Pg 160)

...Virtually every ideology and nationality in Europe had been saturated with Jew-hatred by the time the Nazis developed the Final Solution. Over the preceding decades and centuries essential elements of Christianity, Marxism and socialism, nationalism, and Enlightenment and post-Englightenment thought had ruled the existence of the Jews to be intolerable. In the final analysis they all would have opposed what Hitler had done, but without them Hitler could not have done it. (Pg 168)

While it is true that many Nazis were anti-Christian (and that Nazism itself was anti-Christian), they were all, as the Jewish philosopher Eliezer Berkovits has pointed out, the children of Christians. The Holocaust took place in Christian Europe. (Pg 108)

Prof. Ross

Daryl writes: "Since, unfortunately, Googling "Tamar Ross" gives prominence to your uncomprehending review of her outstanding work, it is suggested that you remove your references to her & her work. Better still, if you are able to seriously engage her writing & thought, try again. She, to my knowledge, is the first person to attempt a marriage of process philosophy & serious commitment to halacha. In ways perhaps unavailable to you, yet anyway, this is of great moment. It reflects poorly on you to have published such remarks."

Is it Wrong to Fetishize a Car?

That's one of the more interesting conundrums in my in-box today, but first, I want to address my loyal readers who were worried about me, given the intensity of my reaction to recent events in my social life. I'm fine. It's like when you have a bad case of food poisoning after eating something that looked perfectly delicious and might even have tasted wonderful, only the busboy who served it to you failed to wash his hands after defecating, and a few hours later you think life is not worth living. But then it passes, you clean yourself up, and you get on with life.

Now, on to today's most curious question. Nadine from Manhattan Beach writes Luke: "Is it normal to fetishize a car? I recently caught my husband inserting his penis into the exhaust pipe of our SUV. He did not see me, as he was too busy playing with the car, but the fact remains that I saw what I saw, and it has left me extremely upset. He first lubes the pipe with some sort of gel (which he does not use on me), wiggles himself into position, and goes at it while sitting on a low, wheeled cart. I've looked all over the internet for guidance, and I know just about anything can be fetishized, but I've found nothing. Should I be afraid to live with this man?"

The answer to this question must start where all moral inquiries, properly addressed, should start: the Torah. According to the Oral Law of the Rabbinate, that which is not prohibited is allowed. The torah does not forbid a man from inserting his penis into the tail pipe of an automobile or a light truck, provided that none of his seed has been spilled in the process, and provided that he is not needlessly endangering his (or your) health. Before confronting him, I would inspect the tail pipe for tell-tale signs of semen. It is, by the way, always a bad sign when a women discovers that her man is depositing semen in a tail pipe. Provided that is not the case, and he is not endangering his or your health (to develop that query further, one must consult both a urologist and a mechanic), I would let sleeping dogs lie.

Got a question? I've got an answer. Write to Just_ask_Luke@yahoo.com, and watch as your problem is resolved.

Hazing At YULA Boys Highschool

During Mincha time I witnessed torture in the worst degree. I witnessed the tears of the tortured, and I saw the smile on the face of the tourcheres. Both were equally as haunting. However I feel I may be getting ahead of myself, so allow me to start from the begining.

As I was sitting doing my homework, I overheard two sophmores decide that now would be a good time to go "trash a freshman" (make note that these kids are probably two of the most obese kids in the school...hence insecurities).

They started with one freshman...it was just them, i didn't find it funny, but what ever he didn't really fit in the trash can and he didnt seem to get hurt. However, as word spread around the yard that people were trashing freshman it was as if every insecure kid in the school came out of hiding for the event.

Cosmo writes: "That YULA story you're referring to is pretty astounding. Makes me squirm. I think that kind of stuff is unheard of at Beverly Hills High."

Cowboys Are My Weakness

Larry David writes:

I'm for gay marriage, gay divorce, gay this and gay that. I just don't want to watch two straight men, alone on the prairie, fall in love and kiss and hug and hold hands and whatnot. That's all.

Is that so terrible? Does that mean I'm homophobic? And if I am, well, then that's too bad. Because you can call me any name you want, but I'm still not going to that movie.

'I need to feel fulfilled independently otherwise I will never be whole enough to have a good relationship'

I hear this (mainly from women) a lot and I think it's nonsense (even though it is obviously true you should try to be the best you you can be, even if you are not in a relationship).

A woman's deepest need is to feel worthy of love and a man's is to feel competent.

People need people, people can not be fulfilled without close relationships with others, and that aching hole can not be fulfilled without others. You can not on your own make yourself whole. No individual is whole on his own. It is through our interactions with others (and the relationships that we develop) that we grow. We don't grow on our own (except in solitary hobbies).

What Happened To Dennis Prager?

During his "Happiness" hour, the second hour of Friday's show, he read an announcement through his tears that he was getting divorced from his second wife Fran (who converted to Orthodox Judaism in 1988 to marry him).

He said he did not regard the marriage as a failure. That they had many good years together and had good kids.

Prager worried if his listeners would take his moral teachings less seriously because of his divorce.

After telling his three kids (one created from his first marriage, one inherited from Fran's first marriage, and one adopted with Fran), Prager said his next priority was to tell his listeners about his divorce.

In 2004, Prager cited personal reasons for not running for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate to oppose Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer.

Prager has always been staunchly opposed to reporting on private lives, including the private lives of public figures. He said it was a consideration that journalists would scrape through his life looking for scandal if he ran for public office.

Fran always seemed to have good relations with Prager's first wife Janice.

Fran is a leggy blonde and a former actress. Dennis has often said he couldn't speak so openly about such intimate topics as sex if he was not blessed with such a wonderful marriage.

Dennis said:

I have a sad personal announcement to make. After seventeen years of marriage, my wife Fran and I are divorcing. This is sad first and foremost for Fran and for me. We've known each other nineteen years, have raised three children, and assumed we would be together forever. It was not only our hope. This is a value that we shared.

But despite our values and despite years of work on our marriage, not to mention prayer over it, we could not sustain it. There are no villains here, just two decent people who have endured a lot of heartache and pain. It is also sad, of course, for our three beloved children, two of whom are in their twenties and living on their own, and the youngest who is 13. All five of us are very close to one another. While unhappy about it, our children do understand why this divorce is happening. And all of our closest friends likewise understand why it is necessary and in fact, none of our closest friends were surprised.

I am sure, however, that many of you are surprised, if not actually shocked. After all, for many years I would talk about Fran on the show, and knowing how much I make the case for marriage and family, you had every reason to believe my marriage was sound and even wonderful. When you add that to my happy demeanor, and to my dispensing of advice on happiness and male-female relations, you surely had no reason to assume otherwise.

So you, my dear listener are the third reason for my sadness, right behind us and our children. I know that many of you hold me and the values and the ideas I express in high regard. I pray that my divorce does nothing to diminish that respect. While I have always argued for divorce when truly necessary, some of you I know regard a divorce as a moral failure. For you I hope that what I call my moral bank account is large enough to withstand this withdrawal.

For the rest of you who do not necessarily morally judge those who divorce, my divorcing can still be shocking. As one prominent individual said to me, “My God, if Dennis Prager is divorcing, it can happen to any of us.” Well, the truth is it can happen to almost anybody, and that is why I work so hard on my radio show to help men and women better understand each other, and to never take a spouse for granted.

From your many calls and e-mails on this subject of marriage, I know that I have, in fact, helped many marriages. Tragically, this advice could not save my own. As my father, married to my mother for 65 years, said to me recently, “The longer we’re married the more I realize how rare it is, and how lucky, to get along with someone for so long.”

As you would well understand, this is all so private within my family that I cannot speak of any particulars. But I do believe if the particulars were known, no one would judge either of us harshly.

Madonna wears a bikini, eats a raw egg and uses her body as a skillet

I wonder if this was inspired by kaballah.

In light of this, residents of greater Monsey have formed The Committee for Rabbinic Integrity that strives to prevent Mordy Tendler from continuing on in capacity of "Rav", "dayan" or "mashgiach" and to warn the entire Jewish community against having any contact with him, especially women, many of whom he has abused as well as so many families for decades.

According to the Chafetz Chayim in his vital sefer Shmiros Halashon (klal 4 halacha 7-8) it is permitted and even obligatory to record and and even a mitzvah--good deed to publicize the information contained herein:

Additionally, in light of the express permission of a wide spectrum of foremost N.Y. Rabbanim, that includes the enclosed summary translation of an important t’shuvah-- responsa expressly written for this issue, this can and must be read by all adults.

1. Summary Translation Responsa of the venerable Rav Wosner, Shlit"a
2. Rabbinic Proclamation of Leading Monsey Rabbanim (with english translation)

Note: If any of the halachic material below is printed, please discard it properly in shaimos. Thank you.


Summary Translation for the "Responsa" written by
Harav Hagaon Rabbi Benzion Y. Wosner Shlit"a
Rosh Beis Din Shevet Halevi
Monsey - Beit Shemesh
Please note: These are excerpts only from a lengthy and very thorough T'shuvah. This translation has been authorized by Harav Hagaon Rav Wosner, Shlit"a, but has not been translated by him. This is only a summary, not at all a complete translation. One must actually read and study the original Teshuvah in its original Hebrew to get a true understanding and appreciation of this psak (Halachic ruling). All Rabbis in Monsey retain a copy of the original Teshuvah and it is thus available for anyone to study.
Please note: While Rabbi Wosner is a Gaon in his own right, and one of the leading Halachic Authorities for the Monsey Kehilla Mikvah, he is also the son of the venerable Gaon, and world renowned Posek, the author of the multi-volume responsa, Shevet Halevi of Bnei-Brak. (The great Chazon Ish Z"l is known to have recommended the Shevet Halevi as the leading authority in Bnei-Brak 50 years ago.)
The reason this vital information was not presented publicly until now* is that the Rabbanim attempted to give Tendler many chances, with the latest attempts during the Yomim Noraim, to resign as Rav and Dayan before releasing both the t'shuvah and kol-korah proclamation and if needed other very compromising information. Their patient attempts went on completely deaf ears that included his father and brother. The time to declare the Torah view has come. No more chances.
A Short Translation Summary:

This is in regard to an issue whereas numerous Rabbanim in our town (Monsey) have requested that I rule Halachicly, how to deal with a certain Rabbi, who deals with divorces, marriages and kashruth issues.

Unfortunately, there have been rumors about him for years that he has deliberately violated many Torah prohibitions, particularly involving immoral relations with women. To be sure that this was in fact truthful, I summoned and interviewed many men and women who reside in both New Hempstead and who reside outside of New Hempstead, and found all of this to be unfortunately true!

The women testified on his total disregard of Torah prohibitions. For example, he would meet women one on one, on the pretense that he wants to teach them Halachos and counsel them on the ways of life. Once he wins their confidence, he would, for example, forget to bring his book and ask the woman he was seeing if they could learn together using her book, thereby giving him the opportunity to move physically closer to her where they would eventually touch. He would ultimately hug the woman and subsequently perform other immoral acts that I have great difficulty putting to print!

In addition, he has brazenly dealt in difficult Halachic marriage situations, annulling countless marriages (Hashem, protect us).

When asked by a group of Rabbis at a meeting, how he could take upon himself these halachic rulings, he answered that his grandfather Harav Moshe Feinstein Z”l also ruled this way! However, after having inquired from Harav Feinstein’s own children and students, we found that this was a total fabrication!
Now, the inquiry before us is:
What do we answer members of our community and our neighbors, who ask whether to continue under his leadership and teachings, or to leave him?
In addition, this inquiry notes the fact that this Rabbi was a member for many years of a Rabbinic organization, (RCA) and after doing their own investigation decided to oust him from their organization!

This Rabbi has summoned this same Rabbinic organization (RCA) to a (Rabbanut) Beit Din in Israel claiming that they terminated his membership in their organization under the violation of Halacha-Torah law.

For example, he claims that the Shulchan Aruch writes that one cannot remove a “Chazzan” from his position based on a rumor, unless there are actual kosher witnesses.

From his side he likewise claims:

a) there are only women witnesses and he claims women are not kosher witnesses
b) that these witnesses testified without him being present
c) the witnesses are biased
d) the rumors were spread by his enemies!

This case has absolutely no resemblance to the case discussed in the Shulchan Aruch. The Shulchan Aruch talks about a Congregation that wants to remove a Chazzan from his employment in a synagogue, based on a rumor.

In our case this Rabbi was not employed by the organization (RCA), he was a member like other member Rabbis. We could not find one instance in Halacha that an organization cannot remove one of their members. In addition, every organization can set and change its own rules as they see fit! -- ( )

Every organization has a right to set rules that their members should not profane HASHEM’S great Name, certainly not to violate outright Halachic prohibitions .

Therefore, since this rumor has been ongoing and the Rabbis of the organization are ashamed and embarrassed of his actions, they not only have a right to oust him from their organization but they have a Torah obligation to do so!

With this action, the Rabbis of this organization are sanctifying HASHEM’S Name!
It is vital to know that, accordingly, his own Congregation has an equal obligation!
(a) In regard to his claim that only women testified:
As far as Halacha is concerned (see actual T’shuvah for elaboration), in a case where a Rabbi has a rumor that doesn’t stop ... (this rumor has been ongoing for multiple years) we do not need any witnesses to remove him.
In our case we actually do have witnesses ... men who have testified that they actually saw this Rabbi meet women one on one (flagrantly violating the prohibition of Yichud). There are, however, also women witnesses! The victims themselves who came to him for counseling to pour their broken hearts to him!
The Ramah in Choshen Mishpat (Siman 35, 14) rules that in a case where only women congregate or in a case (like ours) where only women could possibly testify, (since he meets women one on one behind closed doors) they can and should certainly testify. (Terumas Hadeshen Siman 353 and Agudah Perek 10, Yochasin)

This is also the ruling of the Mahrik, Radvaz, and the Mahr”i of Minz. Even those “Poskim” that would normally not rely on women witnesses, they would certainly agree that in our case ... where there is ample evidence that this Rabbi violated Torah precepts, then even children or women can certainly be kosher as witnesses, as the Chasam Sofer pointed out in his sefer (Orach Chaim T'shuvah 11)

(b) His claim that the witnesses testified without him being there:

There are many Responsa in regard to having witnesses testify, without the defendant being present. The Ramah has already ruled (Choshen Mishpat) that testimony taken without the defendant present is halachicly correct, especially in a case where the defendant has a history of intimidating witnesses (This Rabbi called and threatened many women who testified at the RCA hearing).
In addition, since we are dealing with a person who intimidates, curses and harasses anyone that dare oppose him including respected Rabbis...one may testify without the defendant being present.

The Ramah adds that in such a case (as ours) where we know that the defendant will certainly intimidate the witnesses, the Gaonim (Sages who lived during the years 900 C.E.) long ago established a Halachic rule that one may testify without the defendant being present!
c) He claims the Witnesses are biased: This claim is not true since:
(1) some of the witnesses were actually men who had no previous associations with him
(2) some of the women witnesses who testified, testified not what he actually did with them, but they testified what he did with other women who confided in them (and additionally brought them evidence of this). And even if his claim was actually true, the absurd claim of his ... that these women were biased, it would be irrelevant as far as Halacha is concerned.
According to Halacha, these women would still be believed.
(Please see sources).

Rumors that have not stopped (Kalay D'lo Pasak V'Sanu shomaneha):
In a case such as ours where rumors about this individual have been ongoing for years, the Ramah has already ruled () that in a case such as this, even if one individual of his congregation protests his behavior, this would be sufficient reason to remove this Rabbi from his position ... based on a rumor only! See also the Chasam Sofer (ibid)

Even in the case where the Rabbi claims that he is like a Chazzan, where the Shulchan Aruch says that based on one rumor one cannot be removed from his position, in this case even the Shulchan Aruch would agree that he should be removed since there are many people in his Congregation that have protested his despicable behavior (witness how many people left his shul).

The Aruch Hashulchan (Yoreh Dayah 119) writes a rule for all to know, that the Halacha requires his removal even if the rumor never reached a Beis Din!

The Bais Yosef in the name of the R"ash and Rabbeinu Yeruchum rule this way even if the rumor stopped !!
One may surmise from the Rambam’s ruling (source) that even in a case where we do not have clear kosher witnesses, but where we have some basis of fact, and a rumor that doesn’t stop that he has violated immoral prohibitions, one has an obligation to humiliate him in public! All of this without any witnesses testifying!

The Rambam therefore states regarding a person like this: (Sanhedrin chapter 24):
"The Congregation should taunt the one that is transgressing the Torah prohibition of arayos--immoral relations and, in addition, whoever hears about his evil behavior must embarrass him even in front of his own children" (See Rambam source above).
d) Claim ... that his “enemies” have spread the rumors:
All people who have claims against them, always argue that the witnesses are enemies and hate them ... we actually see this on a daily basis with people who go to court!

With this reasoning there would never ever be any court cases whatsoever!

Having said this, the definition of “enemies” is clearly defined by the Talmud (Yevamos 25a) and several other commentaries (e.g. HaHaishiv Moshe 60, Rambam Sanhedrin chapter 23, Otzer HaPairushim 11:33, etc...) and these sources talk about real enemies not people who had some disagreements between each other.
We can therefore reason that his claim that “enemies” spreading rumors about him are not only false, but absurd!
All Rabbis Have a Clear Obligation to Publicly Ostracize Him:

Rashi in Tractate Megillah 25b states that if there are rumors that one is an Adulterer, one may embarrass him!
Rabbis that are quiet and do not chastise this individual cause HASHEM’S Name to be profaned.
It is therefore an obligation on our town’s Rabbinic leaders to do whatever is in their power to ostracize him and separate him from his congregation. This Halacha is brought down by the Rif and this is the Halacha (Yoreh Dayah 334:42)!

No prohibition on speaking Lashan Harah (evil gossip):

The Chofetz Chayim (klal 7:65) rules emphatically that if an individual is a known rasha, for just an example, he is known to have had immoral relations (and is involved in Yichud repeatedly, etc.), one is allowed to listen and speak about this individual!

Prohibited from being a Dayan (Rabbinical Judge):
The Bais Yosef (Choshen Mishpat 34 in the name of the R"osh) rules that one who has been accused of illicit relationships including one who is m'yachaid (meets women alone on a one on one basis) ... is prohibited from ever being witness, and anyone who cannot be a witness can never be a Judge! (Ramah 25, Niddah 49b, Tur Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat Siman 7:69)...
Therefore it stands to reason that one who cannot be a witness or a Judge ... must immediately be stopped from officiating at weddings and divorces! See Responsa Rabbi Moses Feinstein Z"l (Yoreh Dayah Siman 1)!

Final Halachic Ruling Summary:
Numerous Rabbis sat together and heard audio tapes, where this “Rabbi” attempts to seduce married (and unmarried) women (Hashem, please protect us). On one particular tape one can clearly hear a married woman begging the “Rabbi” to leave her alone.
Accordingly, the RCA had every right to oust this Rabbi from their organization, and his own Congregation has the same obligation!
This Rabbi can no longer officiate at divorces, weddings, batei dinim, etc...
No one is obligated to give him any respect such as standing up for him, etc.
He can no longer be a Rav or Rabbi or Dayan amongst the Jewish People!
One should never allow their wives or daughters to go to his classes or to go to him at all including counseling... and all his rulings are null and void!
This ruling obligates all of us according to Halacha as per the ruling of his own grandfather Alah V'shalom, Z"l in his Sefer Igros Moshe ... (ibid).
By doing so we will fulfill the verse in our Holy Torah...
Destroy Evil Amongst Us.”

Translation of a joint Rabbinic Kol Korah
“Denial & Clarification” letter
issued by 7 Leading Monsey Rabbonim
against R’ Mordecai Tendler of
New Hempstead, New York
Denial (of his claims) and Clarification!

We have gathered together to inform the public that since it has been publicly announced, written and printed that we investigated R’ Mordecai Tendler and that we were convinced of the truth of his statements. We are hereby forced to publicize that this is an outright Lie!

In addition, we want to publicize our opinion that after thoroughly investigating the matter in his presence and after a thorough examination of the issues, it is our opinion that one must not seek any advice in any area of zia mely, and certainly not in any Halachic matters pertaining to Divorce, Marriage or Conversions!

On this matter we are affixing our signatures on this the 20th day of the month of Iyar* in the year 5765. Here, in Monsey, New York

(In order of Hebrew Signatures)

Rabbi Moshe Green,
Rosh Yeshivah, Yeshivah D’Monsey
Rabbi Yisroel Hager
Son of the Grand Rabbi of Vishnitz
Rabbi Chaim Halberstam,
Rav, K’hal Yoel Moshe, Satmar, Monsey
Rabbi Chaim Shraga Feival Shnaybalg
Rav, K’hal Avreichim, Monsey
Rabbi Chaim Leibish Halevi Rottenberg
Rav, K’hal Netzach Yisroel,Monsey
Rabbi Sharaga Feivel Halevi Zimmerman
Rav, K’hal Bney Ashkenaz,Monsey
Rabbi Mordechai Ohrbach
Rav, K’hal Forshay,Monsey
You may comment and or share your confidential information with us via email: rabbisintegrity@optonline.net

Luke says: All these rabbis are charedi (ultra-Orthodox) and are natural opponents of innovative Modern Orthodox rabbis such as Mordecai Tendler. So many people are going to view the above statement as political rather than moral.

The Tendlers are a powerful family. It's like going up against the Corleones, to use an example from the Godfather movies.

Case Against Rabbi Mordecai Tendler - Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York

Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York
Filed: December 20, 2005
Index No: 05117629
Plaintiff designates New York County as the place of trial
The basis of venue is plaintiff's residence
Plaintiff resides at:
(Address removed)
County of New York

Survivors Name Removed, Plaintiff,
Kehillat New Hempstead: The Rav Aron Jofen Community Synagogue, and
Mordecai Tendler, Defendant

To the above named Defendants:
You are hearby summoned to answer the compliant in this action and to serve a copy of our answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff's Attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service for within 30 days after the service is complete in this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.

Dated: New York, New York
December 20, 2005

Yours, etc., Kramer and Dunleavy, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Lenore Kramer, Esq.
A Member of the Firm
350 Braodway, Suite 1100
New York, New York 10013
(212) 226-6662

Defendants Addresses:
Kehillat New Hempstead: The Rav Aron Jofen
720 Union Road
New Hempstead, New York 10977

Mordecai Tendler
653 Union Road
Spring Valley, New York 10977
Page 2

Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York

Verified Complaint
Filed December 20, 2005
Index No: 05117629

Survivors Name Removed, Plaintiff,
Kehillat New Hempstead: The Rav Aron Jofen Community Synagogue, and
Mordecai Tendler, Defendants.

Plaintiff, by her attorneys, KRAMMER & DUNLEAVY, LLP., complaining of the defendants, respectfully alleges, upon information and belief, as follows:

1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE, was and still is a domestic not-for-profit corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the Religious Corporation Law of the State of New York.

2. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE held itself open to members of the public as a place of worship, guidance and sanctuary.

3. Defendant MORDECAI TENDLER was and still is the founder and leader of defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE.
Page 3

4. Upon information and belief, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER was and still is an employee of defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE.

5. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER had a reputation as a scholar, educator and community leader within the Orthodox community.

6. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER held himself out to the public and to the plaintiff as a counselor and advisor with an expertise in women's issues.

7. That the plaintiff (SURVIVORS NAME REMOVED) first became acquainted with defendant MORDECAI TENDLER and his work on behalf of women in 1994.

8. That beginning in 1994, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) consulted by telephone with the defendant MORDECAI TENDLER on various personal issues.

9. That beginning in 1995, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER began to actively recruit plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) to join his congregation at defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE.

10. That in September, 1996, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) began attending services at defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE.
Page 4

11. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER took on the role of counselor and advisor to plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) and did counsel and advise her with respect to her personal, legal and financial problems.

12. At all relevant times, a relationship of confidence and trust existed between the plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) and the defendant MORDECAI TENDLER.

13. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER represented to plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that she was his "favorite" and his "closest."

14. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER represented to plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that he would "be there" for all of her needs.

15. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER represented to the plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that he would assist her in finding a prospective husband so that she would be able to marry and have children, as she wished.

16. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER represented himself as an advisor, a father figure and a god to plaintiff (NAME REMOVED).

17. Beginning in November, 2001, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER began a sexual relationship with plaintiff (NAMED REMOVED).
Page 5
18. That from November 2001 through May, 2005, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER had an ongoing sexual relationship with plaintiff (NAME REMOVED).

19. That prior to and throughout the duration of the aforsaid sexual relationship, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER advised plaintiff (NAME REMOVED)
that she was "close to the possiblity of finding a husband" and that she would never find a husband in her current state.

20. That prior to and throughout the duration of the aforesaid sexual relationship, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER advised plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) to permit him to have sexual intercourse with her so that her "life would open up and men would come" to her.

21. That prior to and throughout the duration of the afordsaid sexual relationship, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER advised plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that "Everything was closed" to her and that she should let him "open up her to the world."

22. At all relevant times, defendant "MORDECAI TENDLER advised plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that, if she had sexual intercourse with him, "doors would open," she would be "open up to meeting men" and she "would get married and have children."

23. That from November 2001 through May, 2005, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER had sexual relations with plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) at
Page 6
various locations, including in his rabbinical study at defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE.

24. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER told plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that he "was as close to God as anyone could get."

25. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER told plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that he "talks to God all the time."

26. At all relevant times, defendant "MORDECAI TENDLER told plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that he "was the Messiah."

27. That plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) was induced to engage in this physical relationship with defendant MORDECAI TENDLER as part of a course of sexual therapy which he represented would lead to her achieving her goals of marriage and children.

28. At all relevant times, defendant (MORDECAI TENDLER warned plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that, if she told anyone about the sexual therapy, he "would have her placed in a straight jacket," "have her put in the penitentiary" and/or "have her thrown in jail."

29. At all relevant times, defendant "MORDECAI TENDLER warned plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that, if she told anyone about the sexual therapy, he "would have her banned from the shul (synagogue)" and "would turn the community against her."
Page 7

30. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER advised plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that engaging in sexual relations with him, was her "only hope" to open her up to become receptive to men.

31. At all relevant times, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) believed the words, advice and threats of defendant MORDECAI TENDLER.

32. That once plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) submitted to his course of sexual therapy, rather than assisting her to reach her goals of marriage and children, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER physically and emotionally abused plaintiff for his own sexual pleasure and gratification.


33. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 though 32 inclusive, with the same force and effect as in specifically set forth herein at length.

34. That the aforesaid representations made by defendant MORDECAI TENDLER to plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) were false and reckless.

35. That at the time he made the aforesaid representations, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER knew them to be false and reckless.

36. That defendant MORDECAI TENDLER made the aforesaid representations with the express intent to deceive plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) and induce her into a sexual relationship with him.
Page 8
37. That in knowingly making the aforesaid false and reckless representations to plaintiff (NAME REMOVED), defendant MORDECAI TENDLER took unfair advantage of his position as her counselor and advisor.

38. Plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) relied on the false and reckless misrepresentation of defendant MORDECAI TENDLER and engaged in sexual relations with him.

39. That had plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) known that the course of sexual therapy advised by defendant MORDECAI TENDLER was solely for his personal pleasure and gratification, she would not have engaged in sexual relations with him.

40. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) was physically violated, had her reputation impugned, was ostracized from her synagogue and has lost her standing in the community.

41. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) has been injured and damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of all the lower Courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction over this action.


42. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 41 inclusive, with the same force wand effect as if specifically set forth herein at length.
Page 9

43. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER occupied a position as fiduciary to the plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) as her counselor, advisor and therapist and owed her a relationship of trust and confidence.

44. That as a result of the foregoing, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER breached his fiduciary duty to plaintiff (NAME REMOVED).

45. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) was physically violated, had her reputation impugned, was ostracized from her synagogue and lost her standing in the community.

46. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) was caused to and has suffered and sustained severe and serious personal injuries, severe and serious conscious pain and suffering, severe and serious mental distress and anguish and attendant economic losses.

47. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) has been injured and damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of all lower Courts that would other wise have jurisdiction over this action.


48. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation contained in paragraph 1 through 47 inclusive, with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth herein at length.

Page 10

49. Defendant MORDECAI TENDLER encouraged his congregates at defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE, to harass, threaten and intimidate plaintiff (NAME REMOVED).

50. The congregates at defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE did harass, threaten and intimidate plaintiff (NAME REMOVED).

51. Defendant MORDECAI TENDLER engaged in a concerted scheme to embarrass, humiliate and diminish plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) in the orthodox community so as to injure her reputation and destroy her credibility.

52. Defendant MORDECAI TENDLER knew, or should have known, that his actions towards plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) in falsely inducing her into a sexual relationship, in physically violating and abusing her, in causing her to be harassed, threatened, intimidated and ostracized from the community and in intentionally injuring her reputation and standing in the community would result in serious emotional distress, pain and suffering to her.

53. In doing the actions hereinabove alleged, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER acted with willful, wanton, reckless, intentional and deliberate disregard for the likelihood that plaintiff would suffer severe emotional distress, pain and suffering as a direct and proximate result of his actions.

Page 11
54. The aforementioned wrongful conduct of defendant MORDECAI TENDLER was extreme and outrageous and went beyond all bounds of civility and decency.

55. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) was caused to suffer severe mental and emotional distress, pain and suffering.

56. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) has been injured and damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of all lower Courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction over this action.


57. Plaintiff repeats and reiterate each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 56 inclusive, with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth herein at length.

58. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER was aware that plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) trusted him, relied on him and placed her confidence in him.

58. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER knew or should have known that his actions would cause her severe mental and emotional distress, pain and suffering.
Page 12
59. That as a result of defendant's actions, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) was caused to suffer severe mental and emotional distress, pain and suffering.

60. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) has been injured and damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of all lower Courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction over this action.


61. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 60 inclusive, with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth herein at length.

62. At all relevant times, defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE was aware of the aforesaid conduct and actions of defendant MORDECAI TENDLER.

63. At all relevant times, defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE knew or should have known of propensity of defendant MORDECAI TENDLER for the aforesaid conduct.

64. At all relevant times, defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE knew or should
Page 13

have known that defendant MORDECAI TENDLER used his rabbinical study at the synagogue to conduct his sexual therapy sessions with congregation members.

65. At all relevant times, defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE knew of facts that would lead a predent party to investigate the use by defendant MORDECAI TENDLER of his rabbinical study at the synagogue.

66. At all relevant times, defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE had notice of prior allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct by defendant MORDECAI TENDLER.

67. That in spite of the aforesaid notice of prior allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct by defendant MORDECAI TENDLER, defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE took no steps to warn or protect plaintiff and other female congregants, to adequately supervise defendant, to remove defendant from his position of authority or to make an appropriate investigation.

68. That defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE, was grossly negligent as follows: in failing to properly and adequately supervise the activities of defendant MORDECAI TENDLER; in failing to use reasonable care to correct the conduct of defendant MORDECAI TENDLER; in failing to remove defendant MORDECAI TENDLER was an employee; in failing to conduct an adequate and appropriate investigation; in
Page 14
failing to warn congregants of in failing to take the steps necessary to have prevented the fraud and assault on plaintiff; and, in further failing to exercise that degree of due care as a reasonable party under the same or similar circumstances.

69. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) was physically violated, had her reputation impugned, was ostracized from her synagogue and lost her standing in the community.

70. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) was caused to and has suffered and sustained severe and serious personal injuries, severe and serious conscious pain and suffering, severe and serious mental distress and anguish and attendant economic losses.

71. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) is entitled to recover punitive damages from and against defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE.

72. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) has been injured and damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of all lower Courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction over this action.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE and MORDECAI TENDLER for both compensatory and punitive damages in the sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of all lower Courts that would.
Page 15
otherwise have jurisdiction over this action and is within the jurisdiction of this Court

Dated: New York, New York
December 20, 2005

Yours, etc.,
By Lenore Kramer
A Member of the Firm
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Office and Post Office Address
350 Broadway - Suite 1100
New York, New York 10013
(212) 226-6662
Page 16


I, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State, state that I am a member of the firm of KRAMER & DUNLEAVY, L.L.P. attorneys for the plaintiff in the within action; I have read the foregoing verified complain and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The reason this verification is made by me and not by plaintiff, is because the plaintiff is not now within the County where deponent maintains her offices.

The grounds of my belief as to all matters not stated upon my own knowledge are as follows:

Conversations with plaintiff and a review of the file maintained at my office on this matter.

I affirm that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury.

Dated: New York, New York
December 20, 2005

Lenore Kramer