Give Me Your Soul

Posted on February 25, 2009 by Luke Ford

From the National Film Board of Canada, this first came out in October of 2000:

Posted in Personal | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Give Me Your Soul

New Report: Should Judges Control US Immigration Policy?

Posted on February 25, 2009 by Luke Ford

Mark Krikorian writes:

WASHINGTON (February 25, 2009) – In last week’s decision in the case of 17 Chinese Uighur Muslims held at Guantanamo, a federal appeals court reiterated the exclusive control over immigration by the political branches of government. The court quoted late Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter that immigration matters are “wholly outside the concern and competence of the Judiciary.”

While this concept, called the “plenary power doctrine,” may seem obvious as a basic attribute of sovereignty, it is under attack by supporters of unrestricted immigration. There is a movement underway among law professors and other activists to erode political-branch control over immigration in favor of a judge-administered system based on the implicit idea that foreigners have a “right” to immigrate. This is despite the fact that the courts have affirmed the plenary power doctrine countless times since the 19th century.

In order to shed light on this effort to subvert the plenary power doctrine and hand the formulation of immigration policy to an unelected judiciary, the Center for Immigration Studies has published a new Backgrounder, “Plenary Power: Should Judges Control U.S. Immigration Policy?” by legal policy analyst Jon Feere. The report examines the long history of the doctrine, the challenges to it launched by supporters of unrestricted immigration, and some possible responses.

The relevance of the plenary power doctrine extends beyond Guantanamo detention cases and is unrelated to specific immigration policy preferences. If constitutional norms are somehow imported into civil immigration law – for instance through the use of a First Amendment analysis as a bar against deportation, race-based civil rights claims as an argument against exclusion, or protections against “cruel and unusual punishment” – the sovereignty and self-determination of the American people would be irreversibly compromised.

 

Posted in Immigration | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on New Report: Should Judges Control US Immigration Policy?

Religious Gratitude For The Atheist Wave

Posted on February 25, 2009 by Luke Ford

Rabbi Gil Student writes:

There is a thought-provoking opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal (link) in which the religious author suggests that he is grateful for the recent wave of vocal atheism:

Why should believers welcome this emergence of unbelief? Why not? We should be glad that there are people, even the devil’s disciples, who take religion seriously enough to attack it, especially in these days when God seems to appear only in quarrels over holiday displays, during political campaigns or on the self-help shelves of Barnes & Noble. Should the primary goal of religion really be to fund municipal crèches, allow politicians to end every speech with the tag "And God bless America," or inspire works like "Tea With God: A Divinely Inspired Self-Help Book" and "The Christian Entrepreneur: How to Profit From Your God-Given Idea"?

In attacking the cloistered monks and nuns of my Roman Catholic Church, the brilliant, if occasionally logorrheic, John Milton wrote in his defense of free speech, "Areopagitica," that "I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed." And what will possibly make us exercise and breathe more fully than challenges by intelligent, thoughtful opponents?

In other words, he has two reasons for praising them:

  • They take religion seriously enough to argue against it, which is unusual in this superficial age.

  • They cause believers like us to rethink and re-energize. Some of the greatest works in Jewish history were written to rebut heretics (e.g. R. Sa’adia Gaon’s Emunos Ve-Dei’os which was written in response to Karaites).

However, while all this may be true, something tells me that the parents of someone who is convinced by these atheists to leave religion is not going to be thanking them. So, thanks but no thanks.

ANON POSTS: if someone is convinced by Christopher Hitchens to leave religion, I suspect it’s because the person’s parents and/or school did a lousy job convincing them why they should be religious. It’s not like Hitchens is required reading and someone is suddenly turned on to atheism.

The parents of someone who is convinced by kiruv workers to become frum might not be thanking them either. So what does that prove? We are all adults, so why are you suddenly worrying what our parents might think? Or is Hitchens particularly effective on teenagers?

HENOCH POSTS: The important issue is not whether we should or shouldn’t thank them but rather since they exist we must deal with the reality of their existence. We need to deal with them and give our children the compelling reason to take what we have to offer over what they are offering.

ANON POSTS: I’m not sure that we’ve really gained much from the atheist cause. What great and ground-breaking works have been written to rebut atheists? I agree that there have been great Jewish works written to rebut heretics who, we would now say, went off the derech. However, does anyone know of any great works that were written entirely for the purpose of proving the existence of G-d (or, at least, the inability to prove G-d’s non-existnece) to rebut the specific concept of atheism (which is a relatively modern concept)?

YONI ROSS POSTS: I disagree with the view that atheists take religion seriously enough to attack it.

Firstly, most atheists do not attack religion, they have just decided not to believe in God. Trying to convince others to "come to the dark side" is not an attack on religion any more that an ad for Coca-Cola is an attack on Pepsi. True, the effect is that people will leave religion, but that’s what happens when someone takes on an ideology which is mutually incompatible with his current ideology.

Secondly, if they did take religion seriously, they would study it first (not Dawkins or some other prominent atheist), and then come to a conclusion about it. In other words, they would judge religion, not atheism, on its own merits. (I’m sure that there are some atheists who have done just that, but I think it’s a safe assumption that most have not, or have been turned off by their own experience with religion, turning to atheism instead of seriously investigating religion first.)

I’m not advancing the position that a religious person who wants to become an atheist should first study religion in depth (I think he should, but that’s not the point). However, until he does just that, I don’t see how it could be considered taking religion seriously.

JEWISH ATHEIST POSTS: Interesting, because there are two sides here. The first side recognizes that atheism forces the religious to clarify and correct their dogma. The second side couldn’t care less what’s true, they just want their kids growing up with the same religion they had.

So yeah, obviously we’re good for the first group and bad for the second. The question is why intellectuals like you would support such parents. If you care about the religion, you should want people to honestly engage with it, to wrestle with it, not to follow it just because they don’t know about the alternatives.

GIL STUDENT POSTS: I think your mistake here is in thinking that it matters what is true and what is not. It certainly does on the grand scheme but regarding individuals who have limited understanding and are often emotional and easily influenced, even someone who is obviously wrong can still have a damaging effect.

Posted in Hirhurim | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Religious Gratitude For The Atheist Wave

Wahe Guru – What Have You Done To Me?

Posted on February 25, 2009 by Luke Ford

I’m in yoga. I went to be flexible for my Torah class later in the evening, flexible enough to see alternative readings of the sacred text, alternative interpretations, alternative ways out of religious obligation.

We’re asked to move our mats to the side of the room and, God forbid!, dance. I can’t dance. I was raised a Seventh-Day Adventist. I’m only comfortable dancing with me. This room is filled with women. Oy, what if they are unclean? What if they are goyim? I’m swimming in a sea of bleeding shiksas! Oy, the shame! Oy, if the rabbis saw me now, they’d be saying, "I was a smart Jew to kick him out of my shul."

I retreat to a corner of the room and unleash a few moves on the post. This is not erotic, therefore it can’t be a sin.

We’re supposed to keep our eyes clothes but I must check out the moves of that young woman over there… Ahh, so pure and sweet and free. Now I’m inspired. Now I’m John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever. Now I’m burning up the dance floor.

Prenatal yoga is the next class. Maybe I should stay to develop my kundalini.

Posted in Personal, Yoga | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Wahe Guru – What Have You Done To Me?

The Jewish Obsession With Law

Posted on February 24, 2009 by Luke Ford

So here’s a copy of the new letter Pico-Robertson’s Modern Orthodox rabbis are sending to local businesses owned by Jews.

Will this high profile campaign do any good or will it only make rabbis feel good for grandstanding on a complex topic?

I want to emphasize one sentence from this new letter: "Peulat Sachir’s ultimate goals are to elevate the level of communal awareness concerning the importance of labor law, and to raise the standards of labor law compliance throughout the Jewish community, focusing initially on the Pico Blvd. strip."

Here’s my view: I’m skeptical that labor laws do much to raise the working conditions of laborers. I do all my work freelance. I do it largely free of laws. I offer to do certain tasks for people for certain amounts of money and then I do the work even when my exmployers call me "cocksucker" and say "I must express my feelings for you in a physical way."

Such comments clearly create a hostile work environment and I do not always welcome them but I don’t go crying about them to rabbis or to lawyers because I’m a manly man and I take care of myself (and those under my pastoral care).

From a capitalist perspective, the number one reason working conditions improve is that employers have to compete for workers and one of the ways of getting and keeping workers is to treat them well in addition to paying them well. If employers mistreat their workers and feel like they can get away with it because the workers have few choices, then that problem is primarily one of lack of demand for workers (not a lack of labor law enforcement).

When you look at the six areas that Peulat Sachir will monitor, these are entirely matters of secular law (yes, I understand that Torah law commands the Jew to obey the law of the land). Sometimes, these secular laws — which are being upheld by this rabbinic ethics program — directly contravene Torah law, such as when they forbid discrimination on the basis of sex. One of the foundations of Judaism is discrimination on the basis of sex. Men must pray separately from women and are accountable to their own unique set of laws.

What about a Jewish day school that doesn’t want to employ a cross-dresser as a teacher? That would violate seem to violate secular law (secular law sometimes makes room for religious institutions to discriminate in ways generally forbidden by secular law). According to my reading of Peulat Sachir’s new letter, the day school couldn’t discriminate against the cross-dresser or the out-homosexual. So what kind of Orthodox parent would like his kids taught by a cross-dressing homo? What Orthodox Jew wants to have his food served by a sodomite in a purple tutu?

It’s not labor laws that make for a worker’s paradise but a free-functioning capitalist economy where laborers are free to make their own deals with employers irrespective of secular laws. If a worker wants to work 20 hours of overtime a week and the only way the restaurant can afford this is if it pays him nothing extra for overtime, then why should the rabbis interfere with the functioning of the free market?

Let’s say an employer tells an employee that the only way he can keep his job is if he has sex with the boss. Why do we need rabbis and lawyers to get involved with this? A worker with dignity will quit and go get another job. I know that one of my bosses is still highly frustrated in this regard because I have both morals and cojones. I refuse his desires which go against the Torah while simultaneously refusing to run to the rabbis with my troubles.

Here’s another excerpt from this new letter: "As you know, Judaism has a rich tradition and volumes of treatises on business ethics, particularly in the area of ethical labor standards and practices. In an effort to raise awareness of this area of Jewish law and ethics, we have recently formed an organization that will offer local establishments the opportunity to promote and publicize their compliance with labor standards and practices. We are calling this organization Peulat Sachir: The Ethical Labor Initiative ."

Judaism does have a rich tradition and volumes of treatises on business ethics but nowhere in this new initiative is there any evidence of this. This program is solely about business owners signing on to follow secular law. That’s it.

So while the rabbis invoke Torah, there’s nothing from Torah in this new initiative beyond the admonition to obey the law of the land.

This new program seems to me like an obeisance to secular laws that interfere with the rights of autonomous adults to make their own deals. I’m really sick of intellectuals who think they know better and that they should have the right to legislate the working arrangements agreed to by mutually consenting adults.

Law, be it religious or secular, is indispensable to the creation of a good society, but as the Ramban noted in the 12th Century, it is possible "to be disgusting with the permission of the Torah." Law is only a means of regulating human behavior, only God and goodness should be the ends. This new program, wrapped in the ribbons of Torah law but consisting solely of obedience to secular law, may or may not improve the lot of the workers. We’ll have to see.

I’ve yet to hear of one employer seeking out this new certification. Instead the rabbis and their friends are going out into the community to recruit.

As Macbeth said:

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

From my live cam chat:

palestine4ever:  used to be that you could great a friend and say, "How ya been, you mouth-breathing retard?"
palestine4ever:  that’s just more of the hovel than i intended to see
palestine4ever:  i humored myself that this was just a television show
WELSHDRAGON:  there it is what the f**k is that thing with buttons?
palestine4ever:  and there’d be an imaginary "4th wall" just for the audience and the cameras
Emma:  bamba lam whoa blakcberry bamba lam whoooooa blackberry.
YourMoralLeader:  must yoga/ then torah
palestine4ever:  wow
palestine4ever:  Luke, I feel obligated to point out that you live in southern california
palestine4ever:  but you’re dressed like a janitor
palestine4ever:  You must spend so much time mentally in Israel that you’re starting to look like it

Posted in Ethics, Modern Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Jewish Obsession With Law

The Bad Jew

Posted on February 24, 2009 by Luke Ford

"Would you carry this?" she asks.

We’re outside the Santa Monica Co-Op on Broadway, a few blocks from where I had a passionate one-year fling with a gorgeous shiksa who was ten years my junior, five times more flexible, one-quarter Jewish and zero interested in Judaism.

But the sex was good.

Today Jane* — the daughter of a minister — extends a non-kosher cookie and non-kosher sushi for me to carry back to our Gentile Alexander Technique teacher.

I refuse to touch them.

We had this discussion a month ago. I had asked the teacher that morning if there was anything at the co-op Jane could get him. He proceeded to give me a $20 bill and charged me with bringing him non-kosher tea and non-kosher sushi.

I picked up the stuff without thinking and was standing in line when I saw someone from my shul wearing a kipa. I was wearing a kipa, my tzitzit flowing in the air conditioning.

"Oy vey!" I thought. "I’m sinning. This is really bad. I’ve grown sloppy because I’m hanging out too much with non-Torah Jews and goyim. This is a bloke who gave me a hard time about my blog not living up to Judaism’s ideals of pure speech. if he looks carefully at what I’m buying, he’ll give up on me. Oy, this is such a shanda. What will the goyim say?"

Back at the Institute, I announced I would no longer buy non-kosher foods for either Jews or goyim. My religion forbade me.

"The big problem is doing it in public," I explained. "It’s maris ayin. It might cause a Jew to think that the food I was carrying was kosher because I had a yarmulke on and it might lead him to sin. It is important to maintain public proprieties. I personally see nothing wrong with buying non-kosher stuff for goyim but my religion forbids it and I definitely can’t do it publicly. And there’s nothing wrong with goyim buying non-kosher food. It’s fine for goyim. Judaism only requires the bare minimum of human decency from goyim — the seven laws of the sons of Noah."

"Oh, so it’s fine to sin privately?" I’m challenged.

"It’s never fine to sin, but sinning publicly is usually a far more serious sin than doing the same thing privately. When you do it in public, you are challenging the established moral order. You are challenging the rules. When you sin privately, you are not challenging the rules. You’re simply not living up to them."

"That’s hypocritical," I’m told.

Today I stand firm. "I can’t carry that," I say. "It’s not kosher."

"Luke, I need to open my yoghurt," says Jane, her yoghurt half-opened and hanging precariously in her other hand. "Here, take this."

"No! I can’t carry something in public that’s not kosher."

"Oh, but you can touch girls?" says my friend Alex*. Earlier he had complained about people seeing him as a bandito — as I once described him — because he was a long-haired Latino "while everyone treats you like a holy man because of how you dress and you’re not holy at all. You’re a fake Jew. You’re always talking about hot chicks. You act like the rules don’t apply to you."

Jane is pissed off. She’s had a bad day and she now has instant access to the Gospels. They’ve prepared her for dealing with Pharisees like me, white-washed sepulchres who pray in the Synagogue of Satan.

"It’s just like the Parable of the Good Samaritan," she says, her voice rising. "The Jews wouldn’t touch a Samaritan by the side of the road who was hurt and needed help. They thought it was a sin to touch non-Jews."

I yearn to show Jane that I don’t think it is a sin to touch certain non-Jews, but it has to be done quietly and privately so the proprieties are maintained and the Torah is not desecrated.

Jane’s in full cry: "But one Jew didn’t care. He came along and helped the guy. Jesus taught that we didn’t need to get so caught up in laws that we forget to help our fellow."

Alex: "It’s because it’s in public? But you’re not supposed to touch women either and you touch them all the time. It’s OK because it’s in private?"

Alex turns to Jane. "Here, I’ll carry your stuff."

She’s almost in tears. "I’m sorry for yelling at you," she says, "but I’m in a bad mood and I feel like beating up on someone."

"That’s OK," I say. "That’s what Jews are for. People have been beating up on us for 3,000 years. We’re used to it."

"Yeah," says Alex, "like you’ve really suffered."

We walk back to the Institute.

"Who are some of your author heroes?" Alex asks.

"Tom Wolfe," I say. "He wrote, ‘The Right Stuff‘, ‘The Bonfire of the Vanities‘, ‘A Man in Full‘, ‘I Am Charlotte Simmons.’"

His face is blank.

"He was one of the founders of the New Journalism along with people such as Hunter S. Thompson. They used novelistic techniques in writing journalism. They’d get inside someone’s head and say what they were thinking when they did something. For instance, if we writing up what happened at the Co-Op a few minutes ago, you might ask me what I was thinking about and I might say, ‘The Book of Leviticus,’ and then you’d write, ‘Luke Ford, standing outside the Co-op, was thinking about the book of Leviticus when…’

"The problem is, I may be lying. I may not have been thinking about Leviticus. How do you know what someone is thinking about unless they tell you and then how do you trust them? But if you trust them, then you can use that information to write a character from an interior point of view and it makes the writing more interesting.

"Tom Wolfe said there were four keys to writing well. (1) Scene-by-scene construction. (2) Liberal use of realistic dialogue. (3) Multiple points of view. (4) Close attention to status details.

"Status details reveal how people strive to avoid humiliation and elevate themselves in the social circle. For instance, by pronouning it STATE-us, I am aspiring to a higher social strata — notice my pronounciation STRAY-tuh — than if I pronounced it STAT-us."

"So when you come into class and say, ‘At ease! Please don’t get up!’ you are aspiring to a higher social status?" Jane asks me.

"Yeah, I guess," I say.

We walk into class.

"I apologize for yelling at you," she says.

"No problem," I say. "It was fine."

Then I let my neck be free, my head go forward and up, my shoulders widen and my back lengthen.

Surely I possess man’s supreme inheritance!

Check out my stimulus package!

Haha! Both Jews and goyim should look upon me now and weep.

My name is Luke Ford, Your Moral Leader:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!

Bite me, baby!

Posted in Christianity, Personal | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Bad Jew

Latin America Jewry’s Bernard Madoff

Posted on February 24, 2009 by Luke Ford

Joe emails: The collapse of Stanford Financial is becoming the Madoff Event of Latin American Jewry, and in particular Mexico City’s community, and in particular some major philanthropic and leadership names that maintain one foot in Mexico City and the other in LA.

The total losses exceed $8 billion, the Jewish losses estimated in excess of $1.5 billion.

In a particular irony, it seems that Stanford has significantly destabilized the regime of Chavez in Venezuela, where the local losses exceed $4 billion.

FROM THE JERUSALEM POST:

Texas-born bank tycoon Robert Allen Stanford, who faces unfolding fraud allegations surrounding his Antiguan investment banks, may end up filling a Bernard Madoff-like role for Latin American Jews and specifically the Mexico City community.

While a smaller sum of money is involved – "only" $8 billion of investments are being questioned – a lot more is at stake.

Thousands of Mexico City’s Jews purportedly invested with Stanford’s banks, lured in by promises of 14-percent returns and a seemingly secure place for their money outside the volatile Mexican economy.

Pesos were tucked away in Caribbean accounts, and investors felt assured that their money would be available whenever the need arose.

But now that the need has arisen – the current financial crisis is by many accounts growing worse, and people are strapped for cash – Mexico City’s Jews, a community of nearly 40,000, cannot get to their money.

Earlier this month, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the FBI began investigating Stanford’s company, Stanford Financial Group, after allegations of fraud began to surface.

Federal agents raided the offices of Stanford Financial on February 17, and the SEC charged Stanford with "massive ongoing fraud" based on the $8b. investment scheme.

Stanford’s two banks were seized by Antiguan government officials last week, and a thorough investigation with the cooperation of American regulators is now under way.

All of the banks’ assets have been frozen and Stanford’s Mexico City branch shut its doors, leaving many there to wonder if they would ever see their money again.

Posted in Jews | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Latin America Jewry’s Bernard Madoff

I Interview A Holocaust Denier Outside The Oscars

Posted on February 23, 2009 by Luke Ford

As I walk around the Kodak theatre Sunday afternoon, I see an old man holding up a sign protesting Hollywood’s recent slew of Holocaust movies.

"That’s a courageous stance," I think. "Handing out literature denying the Holocaust right in the heart of Hollywood on Oscar day. Must interview this bloke."

Zan tells me: "I think [Holocaust movies] are propaganda. They make Jews appear to be the victims when in Palestine they’re the victimizers. And they were in Russia after 1917."

Luke: "How do people react to you?"

Zan: "Nobody’s beaten me up yet."

"I’ve been able to pass out quite a few things, some of them went into the Academy Awards, which is nice. Most people don’t notice. Until a year or two ago, I didn’t know nothing about the Holocaust. It’s a tissue of lies. You have to define what you’re talking about. We don’t have time to go into it."

Luke: "How did you get into this?"

Zan: "I’ve always been an activist of one thing or another. This is just the latest. This is the third rail of conspiracy theories."

Zan gives me some literature. "They don’t have my name on it."

Luke: "I assume you’d get harassed if you did."

Zan: "I’m 82. What can they do?"

Luke: "So what work did you do before you retired?"

Zan: "Listen, I’m paying alimony. I can’t retire."

"Nice to talk to you. I’ve had some nice conversations with some thoughtful people. Most people don’t care about anything aside from [themselves]."

Luke: "Are there any other causes that you are active in?"

Zan: "Nine Eleven truth of course."

A little grey-haired lady (Becky from the Fairfax area) walks up and joins our conversation. "My parents died in the Holocaust," she says.

Luke: "Yeah. So what do you think?"

Lady: "I was born in Germany a year after the Holocaust. My father lost everybody. He was the only one left alive from his family. The people who say it never occurred, were they there when it occurred? Were they in the gas chambers? Did they see people being gassed? I don’t think so."

Zan: "Your father did not see anybody being gassed."

Lady: "My mother was only 18. She was on the train. They made people who could work go on the right. People who couldn’t work that had children, they had to go on the left. They were shipped off to concentration camps and killed.

"My mother worked in a munitions factory. The Russians freed them. She was from Romania. The Russian troops came in and opened up the barracks and said, ‘Girls, you’re free.’ They all just escaped. I forgot the name of the concentration camp where she was."

Luke: "How do you understand people who do what he’s doing?"

Lady: "They have nothing better to do, I guess. They just want to get publicity. Everybody thinks they’re crazy. Nobody believes them.

"I want to thank Steven Spielberg. When I grew up in East LA in a non-Jewish neighborhood, I was afraid to tell people I was Jewish. I was ashamed to tell people that I was born in Germany. I said my parents were just passing through there. When we came here in the early ’50s, nobody ever talked about the Holocaust. I kept asking my parents, ‘Why don’t you tell us about it?’ They wouldn’t talk about it. Because of the movie Schindler’s List, everybody writes books now. Everybody’s making movies. The public was unaware of what was really going on."

Zan: "Can I tell you one thing?"

Lady: "No, you can not even talk to me. Go back to where you came from."

Zan: "This is a closed mind."

Lady: "Anyway, never again."

Zan: "The International Red Cross, they monitored the German concentration camps. They got all the food in there they could."

"This woman is sincere but she doesn’t know. She wouldn’t take my literature. She doesn’t want to see the other side of it."

Josh:  holocaust deniers are clearly anti-semetic, but they do have a point
Josh:  the holocaust industry is sick
Josh:  i, as a jew, am not really that interested in other people’s issues.  black slavery in america happened and i’m sure it sucked, but i couldn’t really care less about it and i’m sick of the media continually rubbing it in our faces
Josh:  so i don’t think we jews should be "educating" the public on the holocaust
Josh:  it’s our event and we shoul deal with it internally.
Josh:  if you notice, it’s only reform and conservative jews who have this sick obsession with the holocaust

Zan emails me back:

Thank you, Luke, for sending me this. I wish you had been more forthright when I asked you what kind of a blog you had. If you mentioned it dealt with Jewish issues I would have taken a different tack with you. Challenged you about your take on the Holocaust. Not too late to do so of course, so let me ask you if you read the flyer and the pamphlet I gave you. If you have done so, did they impress you at all?

I hope you will visit the two sites at the bottom of the flyer. Mark Weber’s ihr.org and Bradley Smith’s codoh.com. They are both in California. You could interview them. They are experts on the subject. Much better informed than myself. You would risk exposing the people you write for (as well as yourself) to the truth about the Holocaust.

Do me two favors, please. Do me the courtesy of putting in your blog the text of two of the signs I was holding. (Will send in a separate email.) To give a better impression of what I was contending. And also refer to me as a Holocaust Revisionist.

I would appreciate letting your "bloggees" read the message I was trying to get across. (Did I just make up a word? "Bloggees" Have you heard it before?) Did I get anything across to YOU across the void that separates Holocaust "Deniers" and Holocaust "Believers?"

ACADEMY AWARDS PLACARD

“THE READER” IS PURE PROPAGANDA WITH FOUR OTHER CURRENT HITLER/HOLOCAUST FILMS, IT (1) PORTRAYS JEWS AS PERPETUAL VICTIMS (2) EXCUSES THEIR VICTIMIZING PALESTINIANS AND OTHERS (3) PERPETUATES THE “GAS CHAMBER/DEATH CAMP” MYTH (4) DISGUISES THE VAST POWER OF INTERNATIONAL JEWRY. WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A MOVIE ABOUT JEWISH POWER? (YOU NEVER WILL.)

SECOND ACADEMY AWARDS PLACARD JEWISH POWER & THE “HOLOCAUST” “INVOKING THE HOLOCAUST IS A PLOY TO DELEGITIMIZE ALL CRITICISM OF JEWS.” (NORMAN FINKELSTEIN-THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY) 

“OF ALL THE ARTS FOR US THE MOST IMPORTANT IS THE CINEMA.” (LENIN)

“ISRAEL CONTROLS THE U.S. SENATE” (SEN. WM. FULBRIGHT ON “FACE THE NATION” —DEFEATED BY JEWISH MONEY IN NEXT ELECTION)

Ari Shavit, Haaretz, May 4, 2003: “The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.”

Kate Winslett: “If you do a film about the Holocaust, you’re guaranteed an Oscar.”

**************************************************************

Kate Winslett knew what she was talking about, eh?

PS Dear Luke, I did have this one there too. How would your bloggees like this one, do you think? Zan.

Fred emails:

Before we get to that, I have a pretty good joke.

Friendship Among Women:

A woman didn’t come home one night. The next day she told her husband that she had slept over at a girlfriend’s house. The man called his wife’s 10 best friends. Not one of them knew anything about it.

Friendship Among Men:

A man didn’t come home one night. The next day he told his wife that he had slept over at a buddy’s house. The woman called her husband’s 10 best friends. Eight of them confirmed that he had slept over, and two claimed that he was still there.

Here’s what I find interesting about your new holocaust denial friend:  apparently, he subscribes to a number of delusional beliefs.  He alluded to several delusional beliefs.

I have always found delusions to be fascinating.  I would be interested in knowing:

a) what delusions he subscribes to;
b) the extent to which he is aware that there are very few who share his opinions;
c) the extent to which many would assume he is morally reprehensible;
d) the extent to which he is antisemitic;
e) the "research" in which he engaged to come to the conclusions to which he subscribes;
f) has he ever met a former Auschwicz inmate;
g) has he ever met any concentration camp inmate with a number tattooed on his/her arm;
h) has he ever visited any of the concentration camps;
i) doesn’t he think that would be important in deciding whether or not the holocaust happened;
j) did someone else "convince" him to become a holocaust denier, or did he come up with this idea on his own;
k) what did he look at or analyze when deciding to become a holocaust denier;
l) are any of his family members holocaust deniers;
m) has he ever been diagnosed with a psychiatric illness;
n) any family members diagnosed with a psychiatric illness;
o) does he feel that it is necessary or important for him to try to convince others that he is right?  if so, why;
p) are his politics otherwise extreme or off the wall;
q) when he was in high school, was he a loner?  was he popular?  athletic? artistic? a good student?  a bad student?  a pot head?
r) is the holocaust a myth propagated by a vast conspiracy?
s) who is in this conspiracy?
t) what other conspiracies are there that are propagating myths?  what are the myths that are being propogated?
u) what is his religious affiliation?  is that the religion in which he was raised, or did he convert?
v) does he subscribe to any particular theory of racial superiority or inferiority?
x) are there space aliens;
y) who was responsible for 9/11, and how does he know;
z) has his system of beliefs ever interfered with his ability to run his life, hold normal employment, relationships, etc.
aa) what sort of relationship history has he had?  spouse? gf?
bb) how have these people reacted to his belief system?  did they share his belief system?
cc) does he exhibit any obsessional behavior vis-a-vis these ideas?
dd) does he believe he has made his own life one bit better by trying to "spread the word"?  does he believe he has made the world one bit better by trying to "spread the word"?
ee) does holocaust denial serve any emotional purpose for him?
ff) does he have any particular inferiority complex that he is trying to combat by spending his time denying the holocaust;
gg) does he get the impression that family or friends consider him an embarassment?
hh) does he have some grudge, or does he think that life has shortchanged him in a significant way?  who?  why?
ii) Suppose there really is a big conspiracy that spreads stories about 9/11 and the holocaust.  would he like to meet the person who runs the conspiracy?  what would he say to that person?  what would he ask that person?
jj) does he know who that person is?
kk) how does the conspiracy work?  who is involved? where do they meet?  how often? 
ll) does he get together with others in the conspiracy community to discuss their world view?  what sort of folks are in this community?  Do they tend to be male? female? loners? college educated? married? racist? Do they have other eccentric ideas?
mm) does he enjoy holding his holocaust denial views?  does it give him nachas?
nn) if you could prove to him that he were wrong, would he prefer to know the truth, or would he prefer to be left in his current state?
oo) what planet is he from?
pp) who has he voted for in the past?

This guy is a veritable font of interesting info.  If you really want a laugh, go to a novelty store, and make up a phony badge and ID card, identifying you as an official member of the Federal Thought Police, Special Agent Luke Ford.  Explain that the Federal Thought Police are a secret unit within the Truth Maintenance Division of the Justice Department (also a secret government group), and you would like a list of names of other people in the conspiracy community.  If you decide to do this, let me know–I’d like to come down to LA to take pictures when you do this.  Make sure you are wearing your sun glasses and have a cigarette hanging out of your mouth when you do it.  It might also be worthwhile leasing a black sedan with dark tinted windows when you do this. 

Here’s an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on Jewish historian Deborah Lipstadt who’s written extensively on Holocaust denial:

In February 2007, Lipstadt used the neologism "soft-core denial" at the Zionist Federation’s annual fundraising dinner in London. Referring to groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain, reportedly she stated: "’When groups of people refuse to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day unless equal time is given to anti-Muslim prejudice, this is soft-core denial.’"[4] According to Paul, "She received huge applause when she asked how former US President Jimmy Carter could omit the years 1939-1947 from a chronology in his book"; referring to his recently-published and controversial book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, she said: "’When a former president of the United States writes a book on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and writes a chronology at the beginning of the book in order to help them understand the emergence of the situation and in that chronology lists nothing of importance between 1939 and 1947, that is soft-core denial.’"[4]

Along the same lines, Lipstadt has criticized the German philosopher and historian Ernst Nolte for engaging in what she calls “soft-core denial” of the Holocaust, and has argued that Nolte practises an even more dangerous form of negationism than the Holocaust-deniers. Speaking of Nolte in a 2003 interview, Lipstadt stated:

"Historians such as the German Ernst Nolte are, in some ways, even more dangerous than the deniers. Nolte is an anti-Semite of the first order, who attempts to rehabilitate Hitler by saying that he was no worse than Stalin; but he is careful not to deny the Holocaust. Holocaust-deniers make Nolte’s life more comfortable. They have, with their radical argumentation, pulled the center a little more to their side. Consequently, a less radical extremist, such as Nolte, finds himself closer to the middle ground, which makes him more dangerous" [5]

Bibliography:

Links:

From my live cam chat:

palestine4ever:  Hello Luke
palestine4ever:  I have much enjoyed the bones you’ve been throwing me
palestine4ever:  The interview with the Holocaust Denier, the Jew talking about the Holocaust Industry
palestine4ever:  I feel like you’re doing that just for me, my lil corner in the Luke Ford Brand
palestine4ever:  Here’s one thing tho
palestine4ever:  Nazis and rednecks are about the only two people on the planet you can call "a good peckerwood" and they’ll take it as a compliment
palestine4ever:  I have to admit that your tri-religionism is starting to get me confused
palestine4ever:  I don’t think I’ll ever give up trying to get you out of the Jew thing
palestine4ever:  but Yoga and Alexander technique are clearly weakening the hold the the people of the devil seedline have over you
Josh:  lukey baby, do you mormonism is a cult
Josh:  don’t all great religions begin sorta cultish?
Josh:  government sanctioned religions wouldn’t be cultish
palestine4ever:  The Cult of the Supreme Being had the word "cult" in it =)
Josh:  for example, the religion of the aztecs and mayans in mesoamerica were essentially created by the establishment, no?
Josh:  there were no charismatic progressive leaders
Josh:  like abraham, jesus, mohammed, or joseph smith
palestine4ever:  Pope, leader of the Pueblo Uprising, was a holy man but we know of him only by the Spaniards he defeated
palestine4ever:  Hiawatha was a real person, most believe, but the stories became distorted into unrecognizable supernatural legends via oral transmission
Josh:  emma, what draws you to luke’s site?
Emma:  The fun, laughter and entertainment.
Josh:  can’t you find that with your friends
Josh:  why strangers
Josh:  why a chunky jewish convert
Josh:  i know why i come
Emma:  I’m drawn to beards.
Emma:  A magnetic thing.
palestine4ever:  Well there are beards, which are fine
palestine4ever:  Then there’s that dead opposum that got lodged in Lukey’s grill
palestine4ever:  He’s like a pre-arrest Radovan Karadzic at this point
Josh:  i’m a modern orthodox jew from new york who likes to read up on what’s going on in the jewish world
palestine4ever:  I’m not sure who said it but, "free a man and he seeks a golden cage"
palestine4ever:  except Luke, who seeks a cage with bars made of matzoh
Josh:  i’m just curious why a non-jewish young girl from ireland is interested in what luke has to say
palestine4ever:  You have a rather aggressive manner, Josh
Josh:  like why does luke spend so much time in front of his comp if it doesn’t give him much of a living
YourMoralLeader:  my mission

palestine4ever:  He’d be happier in Hindooism
palestine4ever:  they have crazy holy men too
Emma:  All religions have crazy holy men.
palestine4ever:  and frankly they’ll take you, the Jews never will
palestine4ever:  You know what he wants?
palestine4ever:  A stoop.
palestine4ever:  A stoop he can sit on, like the stoops in New York
palestine4ever:  and a community that asks him advice on their foibles
palestine4ever:  The intellect reduced to disputes over kosher grocery bills

Posted in Holocaust | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on I Interview A Holocaust Denier Outside The Oscars

Romeo Bashir’s Journey From Somalia To Hollywood

Posted on February 23, 2009 by Luke Ford

I Interviewed Romeo on video Sunday afternoon while we walked around the Oscar preparations at Hollywood and Highlands Blvds.

pic pic pic pic pic pic pic pic pic pic pic pic

Romeo operates RomeoBashirFilms.com.

He was born in Mogadishu around 1983 and adopted by SOS Childrens Villages.

Luke: "Were you anywhere near [the events described in the 2001 movie] Black Hawk Down?"

Romeo: "I was living in Mogadishu at the time."

According to Wikipedia: "With the collapse of the central government in 1991, Mogadishu has been the stage for 17 years of fighting between rival militias. Years of civil unrest and uncontrolled insurgencies against Ethiopian occupation have transformed Mogadishu into one of the most dangerous and lawless cities in the world."

Romeo: "It was something that was a little disturbing. It was something that I don’t think I want to relive ever again."

Luke: "Were you one of the kids with submachine guns out there firing?"

Romeo: "No, not at all.

"I was privileged to be in SOS at the time it was happening, so I did not have any access to any arms."

Luke: "SOS didn’t offer you any submachine guns?"

Romeo: "No. That’s not the point of SOS."

Luke: "What did your parents do for a living?"

Romeo: "My parents are SOS parents. They’re just adopted. It’s a different system. It’s not the same as regular families in other parts of the world where they have a father and a mother and other kids around. SOS has a different perspective on raising families. It’s amazing how they raise kids. We grow up with the same kind of care and love we could possibly ask for."

Luke: "Do you know your birth parents?"

Romeo: "No."

Luke: "So you grew up in an SOS home?"

Romeo: "In an SOS facility, yes, in Mogadishu."

"I was brought in in 1985, about three years after I was born, based on the information I was provided. I don’t have any birth certificate or recollection."

"SOS started in 1949 after the end of World War II. They have the same mission wherever they go in the world. They save the souls of the kids. And they make sure that any kids who have been left behind get the chance to lead their lives as normal children. If it wasn’t for that, I wouldn’t be here today."

Luke: "How many kids were in the home you grew up in?"

Romeo: "At the moment I joined, there were nine. Then we went to 15 kids in one house. Then when the war started, some people came to reclaim their kids… Our house came close to being closed several times, but we managed."

Luke: "How did the war affect you?"

Romeo: "Psychologically, it left me with more of a memory thing, bad memories, something I’m determined to overcome in any way possible. I don’t feel like it has affected me much beyond having flashback memories of being disappointed that I was in the middle of this mess and that it made it impossible for me to retrace anybody who was immediate family. It just made everything impossible."

Luke: "How close were you to the fighting?"

Romeo: "I lived in the middle of it. We were in the middle of Mogadishu. Everything’s close by, surrounding you, including the US Army and the peacekeeping mission came to Somalia, I could see some of that come to the village, especially the Italian peacekeeping forces."

Luke: "What were the attitudes of the warlords to SOS?"

Romeo: "They used to protect SOS because they had a common interest — the kids are Somali kids. The kids came under a lot of scrutiny and attack simply because they were a part of SOS. If you are being raised by foreigners, they see you as being Christian or being abused, these white people are raising them, we should take them out. It was crazy."

"I’m not somebody who follows a religion."

Luke: "What kind of education did you get?"

Romeo: "College (Kenya, where me majored in IT). High school (in Ghana). I was more of a playful person."

"I was much more focused on entertainment. That’s why I decided to come to Los Angeles. I got an internship in San Diego."

Luke: "How has America surprised you?"

Romeo: "Not so much. It’s about living glamor. Living rich and large and you’ll get the girl."

Luke: "Who are your favorite movie directors?"

Romeo: "My favorite director by far is Michael Bay. I also like Martin Scorsese. As far as producers go, Steven Spielberg and Jerry Bruckheimer. My favorite movie is Slumdog Millionaire."

Luke: "So how is SOS helping you get started in Hollywood?"

Romeo: "SOS East Africa had limited services it provided me. I pretty much took care of myself here. They brought me to the US."

Luke: "What are the biggest misconceptions Americans have about Africa?"

Romeo: "Number one, religious ideology. Number two, reporting the wrong things most of the time, not understanding what is really happening, and focusing on one particular issue instead of focusing on all. I’ve met people who live around here who think Africa has only a forest and a bunch of kids with big stomachs. Africa is a beautiful continent. It is well invested and well taken care of."

"Africa has many religious ideologies. When you go to one country, it has a more extreme ideology. When you go to another, it is more moderate. One country harbors people who are extremists. To understand what Africans think of from a religious perspective, you have to live in Africa to understand it. They always look at the rest of the world as trying to oppress them, trying to look at their beliefs as more extreme and not usual and coexisting with the rest of the world. That’s why Africa is left behind most of the time with many topics when the United Nations is having discussions, including religion. Religion is a beautiful thing and it should not be misused for the wrong things based on color, gender. They always mix up and it makes it difficult being African and being in a particular religion and try to live in a society that looks at you differently."

Luke: "Why are Africans so excited about Barack Obama?"

Romeo: "They’re looking at him as an idol. They see him as a renewed face for America on their behalf. It’s important that somebody like him becomes a president. He is the president fortunately in the US. He’s somebody whose family [father] was born in Africa. He has very well known roots to Kenya. It makes it a whole lot easier for people to relate to him real quick and say, ‘If he can achieve, so can I.’ In the same way he said, ‘If you set your mind on something, you will accomplish it. Just make sure that you stick with it and follow through with it.’ It gives people a lot of hope that you can accomplish anything anywhere in the world, especially if you live in America because there are endless possibilities. That is one reason I came because I have more opportunities within my career living in California."

Luke: "I think Kenya declared a national holiday."

Romeo: "Yeah. November 4th. They call it Obama day."

Luke: "What do you think of that?"

Romeo: "I think it’s awesome… It’s a symbol of freedom rather than a symbol of color."

Luke: "It’s a symbol that a black person can accomplish anything."

Romeo: "Correct. It’s a symbol that if you live in a nation where most people are of a particular color, someone from elsewhere can make a difference. A lot of it has to do with how America provided room for such things to happen. Go to Russia. You wouldn’t get such an opportunity to do that. Go to particular countries in the world and particular people of color and gender would not be able to succeed to the government."

Luke: "Do you think America is more of a force for good in the world or more of a force for evil?"

Romeo: "A force for good. The reason that it has been misinterpreted that way was because of the administration that was there at the time made a lot of difficult choices which resulted in negative impacts throughout the world. It made it difficult for them to realize that the other side of the world, the people who live there have feelings on how they are being treated, regardless of whether they are being invaded. When you go into somebody’s country, they look at it not as you coming for peacekeeping but as you invading their privacy. It’s somebody coming to your house and say because a bunch of you in your house are not getting along, I’m going to move in to make sure you get along. It’s invading some nation’s privacy regardless of whether that nation is OK with it or not. I’m sure there a diplomatic ways to handle it."

Luke: "Do you think the lives of Africans will be any better because Barack Obama is president?"

Romeo: "Yes. Africans will have more opportunities to do what they want to do because at least they have somebody of their own kind who has the authority to rule things accordingly."

Luke: "How specifically do you think it will make any difference? Will fewer Africans catch malaria? Will there be more aid given by the United States?"

Romeo: "Let’s say that more aid will be able to be provided to Africa because they have somebody of their own kind who has an in-depth feeling and understanding of what is going on there. On the other hand, Africa will have less tension about being perceived as a continent [filled with] human trafficking, terrorism, and a lot bad stuff that has been perceived for the past eight years. It kinda gives a break from what’s happening and gives them immunity from certain things that have been looked for for the past whatever years. It’s pretty cool."

Luke: "If you were to live in Africa, where would you like to live?"

Romeo: "Good question. I think I’m OK living in America."

Luke: "I know you love it here, but if you were to go back for a year or two, where would you most like to live in Africa?"

Romeo: "Africa is beautiful and big. Anywhere that meets my needs. It’s hard to specify. I feel happy being in America. I feel lucky and alive and able to do anything that I want to do. That’s why I wouldn’t trade anytime soon unless something happens."

Posted in SOS | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Romeo Bashir’s Journey From Somalia To Hollywood

Los Angeles Superior Court Petitioned To Confirm RCC Ruling Against San Fernando Valley’s Rabbi Samuel Ohana

Posted on February 23, 2009 by Luke Ford

The RCC already ruled on behalf of the widow against the rabbi of Beth Midrash Mishkan Israel (13312 Burbank Blvd., Sherman Oaks, CA 91401) in a dispute over four Torah scrolls.

Here’s a pdf of the latest petition in the case before the LA Superior Court. It contains the RCC‘s ruling by rabbis Gershon Bess, Avrohom Union and Nachum Sauer.

Rabbi Ohana is a member of the RCC.

Here are excerpts of the pleading:

MRS. RITA PAUKER LITERALLY BEGS RABBI SAMUEL OHANA FOR THE RETURN OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND’S FOUR SIFREI TORAH & RABBI OHANA REFUSES.

5. Rabbi Norman Pauker was originally the rabbi of a synagogue in North Hollywood called Beth Midrash Mishkan Israel, before the synagogue was taken over by Rabbi Samuel Ohana.

6. Rabbi Pauker’s four (4) Sifrei Torah were originally donated decades ago by his sister to the Young Israel of the Bronx. When the Bronx synagogue closed, the four Sifrei Torah were given to Rabbi Pauker. They are worth between $100,000.00 and $200,000.00.

7. When Rabbi Pauker retired in 1994 and closed his synagogue, Rabbi Pauker transferred ownership of most of the assets to Rabbi Samuel Ohana of (the new) Beth Midrash Mishkan Israel, including the Aron Kodesh [the Torah Ark] Talleisim [the Prayer Shawls] and Seforim (Holy Books in Hebrew]. But according to a handwritten contract between Rabbi Pauker and Rabbi Ohana, signed by Rabbi Ohana, the four Sifrei Torah were to be loaned for only two years (ands Rabbi Ohana was to insure them for two years).

8. Since 1996, once the two year loan was up, numerous demands were made for the return of the four Sifrei Torah and the Ohanas repeatedly promised to return them, but found excuses after excuses for not doing so. Then, Rabbi Pauker’s illness preoccupied the Paukers’ focus, from reclaiming their Torahs.

9. Since Rabbi Pauker’s death in 2002, his widow, Mrs. Rita Pauker, has been repeatedly begging and imploring Rabbi Ohana for the return of the Sifrei Torah. To Mrs. Pauker, Rabbi & Mrs. Ohana repeatedly promised the return of the Torahs but came up with excuses after excuses for failing to do so.

10. Thereafter, Mrs. Pauker went to the North Hollywood police department to file criminal charges against Rabbi Ohana for the recovery of her husband’s four Sifrei Torah, but the police suggested that this was a civil matter to be pursued in court. Mrs. Pauker found the notion of a Rabbi’s wife suing a Rabbi in a non-Jewish secular court to be distasteful (akin to washing one’s dirty laundry in public). Mrs. Pauker was unsure how to proceed to get her husband’s Sifrei Torah back. Unfortunately, the media got wind of this story and it received publicity on various internet blogs (the “Media”).1 This story was reported at:

1. http://musclys.blogspot. com/2007/02/ownership-of-torah-scrolls-disputed.html (“Ownership of Torah Scrolls Disputed”)
2. http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2007/02/rabbi_steals_to.html (“Rabbi Steals Torah Scrolls from Widow”)
3. http://chaptzem.blogspot.com/2007/02/rabbis-widow-us-synagogue-dispute.html#comments (“Rabbi’s Widow U.S. Synagogue dispute ownership of Torah Scrolls”)
4. http://www.vosizneias.com/7424/2007/02/20/sherman-oaks-ca-ownership-of-torah/ (“Sherman Oaks, CA – Ownership of Torah Scrolls Disputed”)
5. http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/27/faith/18_56_022_22_07.txt (“Torah Scroll Claim Dispute”)

11. At first, Mrs. Pauker was reluctant to take her case to a Rabbinical court, because she was advised and she assumed, that since Rabbi Ohana was an orthodox rabbi, that the Rabbinical Council of California would automatically side with one of their own, rule against her, and not give her day in court.

12. Mrs. Pauker was referred to litigation attorney Baruch C. Cohen, whose litigation practice focuses primarily on business law, alternative dispute resolution, corporate and partnership disputes; fraud and unfair competition, anti-slapp law, bankruptcy law, creditors’ remedies, competitive business practices, Bais Din (“0*$ ;*"”) law, entertainment law, corporate law, personal injury, business torts, defamation, libel and slander. Mr. Cohen had successfully represented many parties in Bais Din: (1) before the Rabbinical Council of California; (2) before the Bais Din of the Agudath Israel of California; (3) before the Bais Din of the Rabbinical Council of America in New York; & (4) before the Bais Din of the Machon Horah in Monsey, NY, and was actually quoted as an authority on Bais Din litigation in the March 31, 2003 edition of the Los Angeles Business Journal entitled: “Traditional Jewish Arbitration Panels Find New Converts” by reporter Amanda Bronstad. www.labusinessjournal.com., and actually authored an unpublished treatise on Jewish law entitled: The Halachic Obligation to Bring Disputes to Bais Din and lectured frequently in the Los Angeles area on the issue. In the LABJ article, Mr. Cohen’s successful client was quoted as saying about the Bais Din experience: “It’s a huge time difference and much more economical,” “but perhaps the most unique feature is that most of the time, litigants come out feeling they were dealt with fairly.” Having being sufficiently convinced that Bais Din was fair and equitable, Mrs. Pauker retained trial attorney Baruch Cohen to prosecute her case before the Bais Din of the Rabbinical Council of California against Rabbi Ohana.

13. On June 13, 2008, Mr. Cohen called Rabbi Ohana as a professional courtesy requesting that he voluntarily agree to submit the matter (concerning the return of the four Sifrei Torah) to the Bais Din of the Rabbinical Council of California for adjudication. Whenever dealing with a rabbi in the community, it is Mr. Cohen’s policy to extend any and all professional courtesies to preserve the honor and respect due to the Rabbi.

14. Unfortunately, Rabbi Ohana refused to voluntarily submit to Bais Din, claiming that he already obtained a ruling from Rabbi Nachum Sauer (outside of a Bais Din hearing) allowing him to keep the Sifrei Torah. Mr. Cohen subsequently questioned Rabbi Union of the RCC to verify if indeed Rabbi Sauer issued any such ruling to Rabbi Ohana on this dispute, and Rabbi Union denied it, having confirmed same with Rabbi Sauer.

15. Rabbi Ohana was also very upset over the negative and embarrassing coverage in the Media that he received. Plaintiff’s counsel assured Rabbi Ohana that if and when this case goes to Bais Din, there would be no media coverage of the case during that time to preserve the parties’ dignity. Nevertheless, Rabbi Ohana refused to voluntarily go to Bais Din.

16. On June 16, 2008, Plaintiff, through her counsel, requested a formal Summons be issued in writing to Rabbi Ohana and his synagogue to appear before the Bais Din of the Rabbinical Council of California.2

17. After a month of refusing, on July 27, 2008, Defendants finally agreed to take the dispute concerning the four Sifrei Torah for binding arbitration before the Rabbinical Council of California (“R.C.C.”) before the following three arbitrators: Rabbi Nachum Saur, Rabbi Gershon Bess, & Rabbi Avrohom Union. It is important to note, that Rabbi Ohana, by signing the Arbitration Agreement, specifically agreed to allow Rabbi Nachum Sauer to be on the arbitration panel (notwithstanding his claim that Rabbi Sauer issued a private ruling to him in the past) thereby waiving any possible conflicts.

18. The Arbitration Agreement provides: AGREEMENT TO SUBMIT TO BINDING ARBITRATION: We, the undersigned, hereby agree to submit to binding arbitration the following controversy: A comprehensive settlement of all claims and cross claims between Rita Pauker v. Rabbi Samuel Ohana and Beth Midrash Mishkan Israel pertaining to the ownership and disposition of four Torah Scrolls. The arbitration shall be conducted in the state of California under the auspicious of the Beth Din of the Rabbinical Council of California, 3780 Wilshire Blvd. #420, Los Angeles, California.

19. Plaintiff Rita Pauker was hereinafter referred to by the Bais Din as the Plaintiff and Defendants Rabbi Samuel Ohana and Beth Midrash Mishkan Israel was hereinafter referred to by the Bais Din as the Respondent.

20. July 16, 2008 an arbitration hearing was conducted before three neutral arbitrators, namely, Rabbi Gershon Bess, Rabbi Avrohom Union, and Rabbi Nachum Sauer (the “Bais Din”). Plaintiff appeared and was represented by her trial counsel Baruch C. Cohen. Defendants appeared and was represented by Rabbi Ohana.. The arbitration was held at the Rabbinical Council of California, 3780 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 420, Los Angeles, CA 90010 and evidence and law were presented by both sides.

21. At trial, Rabbi Ohana did not object to Rabbi Sauer’s participation on the Bais Din panel. At trial, Plaintiff presented a 4-page arbitration brief with approximately 6 exhibits, and Rabbi Ohana presented no arbitration brief at all. Among the many things said at trial, Rabbi Ohana testified before the Bais Din that "If Rabbi Pauker would have been alive, I would have returned the Torahs to him, because he was a mensch. But on principle, not to Mrs. Pauker."

22. Thereafter, on January 19, 2009, the Bais Din served a copy of its Arbitration Award upon Plaintiff and Defendant. The Arbitration Award provides: PSAK DIN/JUDGMENT: In the matter of the dispute between Mrs. Rita Pauker, (hereafter known as “plaintiff”) v. Rabbi Shmuel Ohanna and Beth Midrash Mishkan Israel, (hereafter, “Respondent”), concerning the ownership and disposition of four Torah scrolls; after a full hearing of the arguments and presentation of evidence, our arbitration court (hereafter, “Bais Din”) makes the following determinations: 1. The parties stipulated that in 1994, the late Rabbi Norman Pauker transferred four Sifrei Torah (Torah Scrolls) to Rabbi Shmuel Ohanna. Beyond that determination, all of the facts surrounding the origin and ownership of the Sifrei Torah are in dispute. 2. The plaintiff seeks the return of the Sifrei Torah to her for the purpose of distributing them to family members serving in the Orthodox Rabbinate. The Respondent maintained that he is not obligated to return the Sifrei Torah to her, and wishes to keep them in his synagogue. 3. Based on the evidence and the law, the Beis Din determines that the Sifrei Torah must rightfully be returned to plaintiff for said distribution. 4. The Respondent shall return, or arrange for the return, of the four Sifrei Torah to the Plaintiff within thirty days of this order. This order has been signed on 23 Teves, 5769 (January 19, 2009). Rabbi Nachum Sauer, Rabbi Gershon Bess, Rabbi Avrohom Union.4

23. On January 27, 2009, Mr. Cohen wrote Rabbi Ohana a letter to inquire whether he would be complying with the January 2, 2001 Arbitration Award.5

Failed Messiah reported:

Rabbi Ohana’s son Ephraim has been put in cherem (excommunicated) by the Baltimore Va’ad HaRabbonim because he has refused to give his wife a get (Jewish divorce).

Rabbi Ohana himself was involved in a shady scheme to allow the son of David Batzri, a leading Sefardic rabbi and kabbalist (the man who blamed Hurricane Katrina on America’s support for Disengagement), to remarry without giving his first wife a Jewish divorce:

Posted in Orthodoxy, R. Nachum Sauer, R. Samuel Ohana, RCC | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Los Angeles Superior Court Petitioned To Confirm RCC Ruling Against San Fernando Valley’s Rabbi Samuel Ohana