מאסיווע FBI איבערפאל אויף מאנסי ישיבה "שערי תורה"

Brooklyn, NY - Charedi Rabbi Says Divorce In Orthodox Community Stems From Misleading Hashkafos; Blasts Current System

By Larry Gordon -

Originally published August 19, 2013 -

Rabbi Mendel Epstein says he has seen enough abuse. That is, abuse of the system that is supposed to be used to protect women (and some men, too) stuck in or navigating their way through a difficult or bad marriage.

Rabbi Epstein is a dayan and the rav of a kehillah, as well as a to’ein, an advocate who is well versed in halachah and represents litigants in front of the Jewish rabbinical tribunals commonly referred to as beis din. He has been doing this for over three decades and has been involved in more than two thousand gitten (divorce cases) and feels it necessary to publicize certain issues.

Expressing some disgust with the system, the rabbi has issued what he has entitled a “Bill of Rights of a Jewish Wife.” In the introduction to his document, the rabbi writes, “I have authored the Bill of Rights of a Jewish Wife to clarify and strengthen the rights of the Jewish wife because I am disturbed by the number of women who find themselves in unbearably difficult situations due to incorrect hashkafos and advice that they have received and therefore come to blame the Torah and rabbanim for their plight.”

Amongst the items on the Bill of Rights are:

(1) A wife must be treated with respect and not be abused. A woman in an abusive relationship has a right to seek a get.

(2) She is entitled to be supported by her husband. Read the kesubah.

(3) A husband is obligated to honor and respect his wife’s parents.

(4) She is entitled to a normal conjugal relationship.

As far as the proliferation of divorces in the frum community, Rabbi Epstein says that the inordinate number of divorces comes about as a result of infidelity in marriages. He did not specifically refer to dalliances of this sort that start on the Internet but said that they start very often in shul and with people coming and going freely in and out of each other’s homes.

He said that there is no age restriction on these circumstances that end in divorce. He added that they affect those who have been married a few months as well as those married a few decades. Rabbi Epstein is well known in the international beis din world for his representation of parties and halachic expertise primarily in disputes centered on marital woes. The first part of our conversation the other day dealt with the fullness of the 10-point document he released last week and the matter of its sensitivity. The initial part or focal point of our talk was whether it was proper or healthy to be airing these issues out in public.

So why come forward at this juncture? Rabbi Epstein says that it was imperative that he speak up at this point because of the great proliferation of divorces in the community. “There are so many women left in limbo by the process,” he says, and adds, “There is hardly a family in the community that is not dealing with divorce or a yeshiva that does not have one or two children at minimum in every class whose parents are either in the process or already divorced.”

He says that an additional reason for speaking up at this point is that these cases, which impact so dramatically on women and children, translate into feeling resentment towards the beis din process and as a result to rabbanim in general. “Don’t minimize the impact this is having on frum homes, as mothers begin to view trying to live according to a halachic or Torah lifestyle as being a prime cause of their problems,” Rabbi Epstein says. And he adds that this attitude can easily trickle down to the children, where it can emotionally resonate for years.

“It’s not the Torah and it’s not the rabbis that are at fault or responsible for all the misery, heartache, and broken marriages and families out there,” Rabbi Mendel Epstein says. He says that more than anything else it is long-held false ideals and misguided hashkafos that have turned the way our community looks at these situations upside down.

Rabbi Epstein says that he is not functioning in a vacuum and that he has shown his Bill of Rights to several leading rabbinical figures who concur with his outspoken approach, agree with his formulation, and have encouraged the rabbi to publicize these points. Amongst those who Rabbi Epstein says have endorsed his approach are Rabbi Peretz Steinberg of the Queens Vaad HaRabonim, Rabbi Hershel Kurzrock of the Rabbinical Alliance/Igud HaRabbonim, and Rabbi Moshe Bergman, a prominent rav dealing with gittin in Brooklyn.

To illustrate his points in a fashion that also expresses his frustration, Rabbi Epstein refers to a client of his, a woman who has been waiting for her get for more than three years. Rabbi Epstein relates that in this case he called the rabbi holding up the get, inquiring as to why it was taking so long. He said that there was already evidentiary proof that the husband was no longer observing Shabbos and was also already dating other women, so why the delay? Rabbi Epstein says that the rabbi told him that he requires a therapist as a third party to independently verify that the marriage could not be repaired or saved. “There is no basis in halachah for this opinion,” Rabbi Epstein says. He adds that all this ignorant approach does is prolong the process and increase the suffering, usually on the woman’s side of the equation.

He explains that the goal of many of the rabbis involved in these situations is to keep the couple together and try to keep the family unit intact. This may look like the best situation from the outside, but internally it can be doing more damage than anyone can imagine. “There are a lot of stupid women staying with their husbands,” the rabbi says, “even though by right the marriage is over and for everyone’s good they should be out of there.”

Aside from infidelity and disloyalty in a marriage, the second-most-common reason for divorce seems to be economic pressures. Rabbi Epstein devotes two of his ten points to these matters. He states clearly that “a woman is entitled to be supported by her husband,” and that this is clearly and unequivocally defined in no uncertain terms in the kesubah that is the documented centerpiece of every Jewish marriage.

Rabbi Epstein states further in his document, “The money that she brings in before the wedding should be used to enhancing the living standard of the couple, not for the husband to waste on buying electronics or other gadgetry.”

He addresses a number of other points in our discussion. “There is a wild idea out there that a kosher woman has to put up with abuse because that’s the way Hashem wants it,” the rabbi says, expressing astonishment at the belief. “What father would want their daughter to suffer in that way?” he asks incredulously.

“Another great error that women often make is that they run to court instead of the beis din,” he says. “No court can grant her a get.” He adds that it is a mistake to run to retain a divorce attorney that unfortunately all too often mislead their clients and take them through a wild and very costly ride through the judicial system—only to find that after a few years they have accomplished nothing except the spending of tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. “The proper beis din is relatively quick, fairly cheap, and knows where the cash is hidden.”

He agrees that there are times where going to court first is beneficial, especially when there is a particularly obdurate and uncooperative husband involved. Unlike beis din, the court can demand and compel the husband to disclose all his personal financial information, which a Jewish court does not have the full legal ability to do. Sometimes this process will be convincing enough for a man to voluntarily give his wife the get.

I asked Rabbi Epstein to comment on the campaign that is encouraging families to allow their young men to marry earlier than has been the norm. The motivation of this campaign is to address the so-called shidduch crisis out there by having young men marry earlier and encouraging them to marry women their own age or even a little older. To this Rabbi Epstein responds quickly and simply: “It’s a terrible idea and it will increase the divorce rate.”

It might or might not be easily explainable, but I asked Rabbi Epstein whether verbal abuse or being spoken to harshly or with a lack of respect for either party in a marriage is grounds for divorce. His response: “Cursing her or her family could be grounds for a get. Or to quote Chazal, ‘Ein adam dor im nachash bekefifa achas’—you can’t live with a snake.”

As to why he believes there is so much dysfunction to which he attributes failed marriages and the inordinate number of divorces in the community, Rabbi Epstein for the most part points toward the young (and not-so-young) men. “The main reason many young people are just not ready for marriage or parenthood is that many of the boys are just sitting in yeshiva. They are not tested or evaluated and all too many do not even make it to morning minyan,” he says. And Rabbi Epstein adds that he thinks that this idea of sending boys to out-of-town yeshiva at such a young age is finally backfiring on families and the community. “We send our kids to dormitories, and during his formative years the child hardly ever sees what a normal husband–wife relationship looks like.” He adds that too many children grow up thinking that their parents are little more than ATMs. “So when Mr. Spoiled marries Ms. Spoiled, why are we shocked that they cannot make a marriage work or successfully assume the responsibilities of parenthood?” he asks rhetorically.

So there it is. Rabbi Mendel Epstein says that he has observed this sad reality playing itself out and most community leaders just looking away as the problems that plague our people and wreak havoc are spiraling out of control. He says that it needs to be said not to G‑d forbid embarrass anyone but rather to put the issues out there so that we can tackle them, take them on, and try to figure out some solutions

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
LTNITED STATES OF AMERICA Hon. Douglas E. Arpert
V. : Mag. No. 13-2550 (DEA)
MENDEL EPSTEIN,
MARTIN WOLMARK, : CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
ARIEL POTASH and
FNU LNU ai’kia Yaakov’
I. Bruce D, Karnerman, being duly sworn, state the following is true and correct to
the best of my knowledge and belief:
SEE ATTACHMENT A
I further state that I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
and that this Complaint is based on the following facts:
SEE ATTACHMENT B
continued on the attached pages and made a part hereof
Bruce D. Kamerman, Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence,
October 7, 2013 at Trenton. New Jersey
Date City and State
Honorable Douglas F. Arpert 4 A A
United States Magistrate Judge ‘‘2t YI’ ‘(
Name and Title of Judicial Officer Signature of dLal Officer
1
Case 3:13-mj-02550-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/07/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 12
ATTACHMENT A
From on or about April 7, 2013, to in or about October 2013, in Ocean County. in the
District ofNew Jersey. and elsewhere. Defendants
MENDEL EPSTEIN.
MARTIN WOLMARK,
ARIEL POTASH and
FNU LNU aIkia “Yaakov”
conspired and agreed. together and with others known and unknown to knowingly and
unlawfully seize, confine, inveigle, decoy, kidnap, abduct, and hold a person for ransom, reward
and otherwise. that is, to threaten and coerce him to consent to a divorce, and traveled in
interstate commerce and used means. facilities and instrumentalities of interstate and foreign
commerce in furtherance of the commission of the offense,
In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to accomplish its object, Defendants committed the
following overt acts, among others:
1. On or about August 7, 2013, Defendants MARTIN WOLMARK and MENDEL
EPSTEIN participated in a telephone conference call, the purpose of which was to
discuss the possibility of authorizing the use of violence to obtain a forced
divorce.
2. On or about August 14, 2013, Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN met with
undercover FBI agents in Ocean County, New Jersey and discussed kidnapping
the purported husband of one of the undercover FBI agents.
3. On or about September 25, 2013, Defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN and FNU
LNU, alkla ‘Yaakov.” drove to a location in Middlesex County, New Jersey to
determine whether it was a suitable location for the kidnapping.
4. On or about October 2, 2013, Defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN, MARTIN
WOLMARK. ARIEL POTASH and FNU LNU, a/k/a “Yaakov,” met in Rockland
County, New York to authorize the use of violence to obtain a forced divorce,
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1201(c).
2
Case 3:13-mj-02550-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/07/13 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 13
ATTACHEMENT B
I. Bruce D. Kamerman, am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of
investigation (“FBI”). I have knowledge of the facts set forth below as a result of my
participation in this investigation as well as from my review of reports from, and discussions with.
other law enforcement personnel. Where statements of others are related herein, they are related
in substance and part. Because this complaint is being submitted for a limited purpose, I have not
set forth each and every fact that I know concerning this investigation. Where I assert that an
event took place on a particular date, I am asserting that it took place on or about the date alleged.
Background of the Investigation
1. According to Jewish law, in order to effect a divorce, a husband must provide his
wife with a document known as a ‘get.” Although a divorce may only be initiated by the husband
issuing a get. the wife has the right to sue for divorce in a rabbinical court, known as a “beth din,
which may order the husband to issue the get. If the husband refuses the court’s demand, he may
be subjected to various penalties in order to pressure him into consenting to the divorce, i.e., giving
the get. A woman whose husband will not consent to a divorce is known as an agunah”
(agunot” in plural).
2. Defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN and MARTIN WOLMARK are Jewish Rabbis
who charge agunor and their families thousands of dollars to obtain gets from recalcitrant
husbands by means of violence.
3. Defendants ARIEL POTASH and FNU LNU afkIa “Yaakov” are Orthodox Jewish
men who assist Defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN and MARTIN WOLMARK in obtaining gets
from recalcitrant husbands by means of violence.
Case 3:13-mj-02550-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/07/13 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 14
4. Essentially the Defendants’ organization operated as follows. The family of an
agunah made contact with the Defendants. The agunah ‘s family then made payment to the
Defendants, after which the Defendants convened a beth din, which issued a contempt order,
known as a ‘seruv,” against the husband. If the husband failed to respond, the beth din issued a
ruling, known as a “psak din,” authorizing the use of coercion and/or violence to obtain the get.
The Defendants then arranged to kidnap the recalcitrant husband and assault him until he
consented to the divorce, , until he “gave the get.”
5. In a recorded conversation on August 14, 2013, Defendant MENDEL EPSTEiN
admitted to planning, approving and committing numerous kidnappings and coerced gets.
Specifically, Defendant EPSTEIN claimed that his organization kidnaped one recalcitrant husband
approximately every year or year and a half.
The Undercover Operation
6. An undercover FBI Special Agent (“UCE-l”) posed as an Orthodox Jewish wife
whose husband was unwilling to consent to a divorce. A second undercover FBI Special Agent
(‘UCE-2”) posed as the brother of UCE-l, who was willing to pay for a kidnapping in order to
coerce UCE-1 ‘s recalcitrant husband into consenting to a divorce. (Hereinafter, UCE-l ‘s
purported husband will be referred to as “the Husband”).
7. On August 7, 2013, LICE-i and UCE-2 (collectively. “the UCEs”) made a
telephone call to Defendant MARTFN WOLMARK. During the call, which was recorded by the
UCEs, the UCEs presented their case that they were desperate for a religious divorce and were
willing to pay a large sum of mone to obtain the divorce. WOLMARK talked about the
mechanism for coercing a divorce and stated that it would be costly.
Case 3:13-mj-02550-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/07/13 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 15
8. Specifically. WOLMARK stated:
Now, the question is, under certain conditions the person can be coerced to give the get.
Now, there are a couple of ways to do that. To get that situation created that he can be
coerced on the get, it’s a. it’s a. it’s a process. It could happen but it’s a (UI) process. Ya
know. it means getting the paperwork done. You have to. we have to, convene a special
beth din and see if there are grounds to, to, to coerce him on the get.
That’s step number one. Step number two is then going ahead and getting it done. Now,
each process, if it’s done, I mean, could be very costly, ya know, It doesn’t have to, ya
know. It depends. It’s, it’s, in other words, you need special Rabbis who are going to
take this thing and see it through to the end. Urn, that, that, that, that’s probably the most
effective way. Ya know, there’s another way. Getting a guy like Mendel Epstein who’s
a, ya know like a hired hand or so. Who’ll go and maybe make a. va know. If he doesn’t
have him around here, he’s not gonna be effective. In other words, you need to get him to
New York where someone either can harass him or nail him. Plain and simple.
9. Defendant MARTIN WOLMARK then connected Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN
into the conference call. At the conclusion of that call, Defendant EPSTEIN told the UCEs to call
him an hour later on his home telephone to discuss the details, Defendant EPSTEIN then told
Defendant WOLMARK to stay on the line.
10. Approximately one hour later, UCE-1 and UCE-2 called Defendant MENDEL
EPSTEIN as directed. During that call, they arranged to meet with Defendant EPSTEIN at his
house in Ocean County, New Jersey, on August 14, 2013, because, in Defendant EPSTEIN’s
words: “I don’t think this is a phone conversation, am I correct?”
11. On August 14, 2013. the UCEs met with Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN at his
residence in Ocean Count, New Jersey. The meeting was consensually video and audio
recorded by the UCEs.
12. During the course of the meeting, Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN spoke about
kidnapping, beating and torturing husbands in order to force a divorce. Indeed, he specifically
stated:
Sup. suppose we. ya know this is an expensive thing to do. It’s not simply; we’re talking,
Case 3:13-mj-02550-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/07/13 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 16
uh, I don’t want to use the, the (UI) terms but, basically what we are going to be doing is
kidnapping a guy for a couple of hours and beating him up and torturing him and then
getting him to give the get.
13. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN talked about forcing compliance through the use of
“tough guys” who utilize electric cattle prods. karate. handculYs and place plastic bags over the
heads of the husbands. at one point telling UCE-2:
Defendant EPSTEIN: Wait, wait, wait a minute, Wait a second here. I guarantee you that
if you’re in the van, you’d give a get to your wife. You probably love your wife, hut you’d
give a get when they finish with you. So, and it’s, hopefully, there won’t even be a mark on
him.
UCE-2: You can leave a mark. (Chuckle).
Defendant EPSTEIN: No, no, no, no, we
UCE-2: I know. I understand what you’re saying.
Defendant EPSTEIN: We prefer not to leave a mark .
.
.Right. Because then when they do
go to the police, the police look at the guy
UCE-2: Yeah, what’s wrong
Defendant EPSTEIN: You look the same. You know, ah, what’s so terrible. They did this
to give a get. How long didn’t you give a get. Ah, two years, yeah. I mean, I, I’ve traveled,
I’ve been in South America too ...And basically the reaction of the police is, if the guy does
not have a mark on him ... Then uh, is there some Jewish crazy affair here, they don’t get
involved.
* * *
Defendant EPSTEIN: We take an electric cattle prod.
UCE-l: Electric cattle prod, okay.
Defendant EPSTEIN: If it can get a bull that weighs five tons to move
You put it in certain parts of his body and in one minute the guy will know.
14. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN admitted to committing approximately one
kidnapping every year to year and a half. “One a year. Year and a half. So that way7the police
jurisdictions... They’re all linked together now and everything. It’s not so simple, but, but uh ...“
15. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN stated that the kidnapping would cost $10,000 to
pay for the rabbis on the rabbinical court to approve the kidnapping and an additional $50,000 to
$60,000 to pay for the “tough guys” who would conduct the beating and obtain the forced get.
Case 3:13-mj-02550-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/07/13 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 17
Defendant EPSTEIN stated that Defendant MARTIN WOLMARK officiates during the
kidnapping and ibrced get and that Defendant EPSTEIN’s son is one of the ‘tough guys” who uses
his karate skills on the victims to facilitate the divorces.
16. During the meeting the UCEs explained that the Husband lived in South America.
and had a residence in Florida, The UCEs said that UCE-2 and the Husband were longstanding
business partners, doing real estate deals together. UCE-2 said that he had introduced UCE-1 and
the Husband. According to UCE-2, he and the Husband were still business partners, but once the
marriage between LICE-i and the Husband deteriorated (which UCE-i claimed was largely
because of financial issues and the fact that the Husband decided that he did not want children). the
business relationship between UCE-2 and the Husband had deteriorated as well. According to
UCE-2, the Husband claimed that UCE-2 owed him money from past business deals, and the
Husband would not give UCE-1 aget unless LJCE-2 paid the Husband. UCE-2 said he could lure
the Husband from South America to a location in New Jersey under the pretext of a business deal.
17. In a series of subsequent telephone conversations, UCE- 1 arranged with Defendant
MENDEL EPSTEIN and Defendant MARTIN WOLMARK to have a beth din convene in
Rockland County, New York on October 2, 2013. The purpose of this beth din is to issue apsak
din authorizing the use of violence to obtain a forced get.
18. UCE-2 has also had subsequent telephone conversations and e-mail exchanges with
Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN regarding where and how the proposed forced get was to take
place. In these conversations, UCE-2 suggested that he could lure the Husband to New Jersey
during the week of October 7, 2013.
19. Specifically, on September 25, 2013, UCE-2 called Defendant MENDEL
EPSTEIN and proposed that a warehouse in Middlesex County, New Jersey (the “Warehouse”)
Case 3:13-mj-02550-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/07/13 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 18
could be used for obtaining the forced get. In response. Defendant EPSTEIN indicated that he
wanted to have his people investigate the proposed site beforehand. to ensure its feasibility.
Defendant EPSTEIN then said he needed money to have people investigate the Warehouse (which
would, in his words, ‘commit them”). In response, UCE-2 told him that he would wire $20,000 to
Defendant EPSTEIN afier the psak din was issued on October 2, 2013.
20. In that call. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN and UCE-2 discussed whether it would
be preferable to conduct the beating of UC-I inside the Warehouse or in a van in the parking lot.
Defendant EPSTEIN said they did not necessarily need to go inside because “they don’t need him
for long, believe me. They’ll have him in the van, hooded, and it will happen.”
21. In that call, Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN and UCE-2 discussed getting the
Husband to and from the Warehouse, UCE-2 said that he would drive the Husband there.
MENDEL EPSTEIN then asked how the Husband was going to get home. MENDEL EPSTEIN
told UCE-2 he prefelTed that UCE-2 bring the Husband home so there would be “no police
involvement.”
22. On September 29, 2012, FBI surveillance teams observed Defendant MENI)EL
EPSTEIN and Defendant FNU LNU, alkla “Yaakov,’ drive to the Warehouse. Defendant
EPSTEIN then got out of the vehicle and appeared to take a picture of the Warehouse with his cell
phone before driving away. Soon thereafter, Defendant EPSTEIN sent an e-mail to UCE-2
stating: “We were at the site on blue heron its excellent police station two blocks away ask if they
patrol or of they have private security did not seem that way surveillance cameras?? Really out of
the way great,” (Lack of punctuation in original).
23. The next day. September 30, 2013, UCE-2 called Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN,
and confirmed that there would be no security patrols. Defendant EPSTEIN said the building was
Case 3:13-mj-02550-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/07/13 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 19
“better than good” and that his people would prefer to be inside the Warehouse when they obtained
the forced get. UCE-2 and Defendant EPSTEIN then solidified their plan for the kidnapping and
coerced get: UCE-2 would unlock the Warehouse in the evening on October 9. 2013. and allow
the Targets inside. The Targets would then prepare inside the Warehouse, and UCE-2 would pick
up the Husband, UCE-2 would then return to the Warehouse a short time later with the Husband.
24. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN then confirmed that UCE-2 was going to wire
$20,000 after the psak din was issued on October 2, 2013. Defendant EPSTEIN then instructed
UCE-2 to bring a check for $30,000 with him to the Warehouse on October 9, 2013, and give that
check to the “so/er (meaning the scribe), because his guys “need to be paid within twenty-four
hours.”
25. On October 2, 2013, UCE-1 traveled to Rockland County, New York for the beth
din. There she met Defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN, MARTIN WOLMARK and FNU LNU.
alk/a “Yaakov.” UCE-1 was then escorted into a back office to begin the beth din. When UCE-1
asked Defendant FNU LNU who he was, Defendant FNU LNU refused to answer UCE-1 ‘s
questions about his identity, explaining that it was better “the less information you know about
myself.”
26. During the beth din, Defendant MARTIN WOLMARK asked UCE-l to explain
her situation. Specifically, he asked: ‘Wh do you have to be released from this marriage, even
if your husband has to be coerced?” UCE-1 explained her situation and why she is desperate for a
divorce from her husband, who refuses to give her a get. Defendant EPSTEIN directed
Defendant FNU LNU to write down everything for the psak din.
27. About one hour into the beth din. Defendant ARIEL POTASH arrived to serve as
the “shliach,” that is, the person appointed to serve as UCE-1 ‘s agent to accept the get from the
Case 3:13-mj-02550-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/07/13 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 20
husband, since UCE..l will not be present for the forced get. When asked by liCE-i about his
role, Defendant POTASH explained that he does ‘whatever the rabbis tell him,” Defendant
POTASH further explained to UCE-l that there is no need for UCE-1 to know who he is, saying:
‘I’ll make it even more clear - if you see me, two months ... down the street. von don’t know me,
I don’t know you.” Two additional young males then arrived to witness the appointment of
Defendant POTASH as the shliach. Defendant MARTIN WOLMARK instructed both witnesses
to sign a document, omitting their last names, attesting to the appointment of the shliach.
28. At the end of the beth din, Defendant MARTIN WOLMARK asked UCE- 1 about
“the plan” for the forced get. and whether UCE- 1 knew the location and the timing. Defendant
MENDEL EPSTEIN confirmed the plan for the forced get was good, stating, “it’s at night, and it’s
a weird place, it’s very good ... hopefully the patrol will not be out on patrol that night.”
Defendant EPSTEIN also told UCE-l that during the forced gel, “you should be out in public”
among a lot of people.
29. After the psak din was issued on October 2, 2013, UCE-2 transmitted $20,000 to
MENDEL EPSTIEN by wire transfer.
Case 3:13-mj-02550-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/07/13 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 21
search warrant to be served at the time the search is executed.
Subscribed and sworn to me
This day of October, 2013
HONORL DOUGLAS E. ARPERT
United Sai lagistrate Judge
Bruce Kamerman. S1
Federal Bureau of Investigation
ial Agent
12
Case 3:13-mj-02550-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/07/13 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 22

rabbis, 8 others jailed in NJ, NY divorce sting
GEOFF MULVIHIL, Associated Press
By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press
Updated 6:15 pm, Thursday, October 10, 2013

An FBI agent stands guard as evidence sits in the trunk of a vehicle at the Brooklyn residence of Rabbi Mendel Epstein during an investigation, early Thursday, Oct. 10, 2013, in New York. Several defendants, including Epstein and another rabbi, were arrested in an overnight sting in New York and New Jersey and accused by the FBI of plotting to kidnap and beat a man to force him to grant a religious divorce. Photo: John Minchillo, AP[/left

[left]TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Two orthodox rabbis and eight other men were arrested in an FBI sting in New Jersey and New York on charges they plotted to kidnap and torture a man to force him to grant a religious divorce.

Rabbis Mendel Epstein and Martin Wolmark charged Jewish women and their families thousands of dollars to obtain religious divorces, known as "gets," from unwilling husbands, the FBI said.

"They didn't do it out of religious conviction," Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Gribko told a judge Thursday in a federal court hearing for the men. "They did it for money."

Marc Agnifilo, a lawyer for Wolmark, said it's possibly a case where religious law collides with federal statutes, where the crimes they're accused of can be punished by life in prison.

"It's a very complex case. The government says it's all about money, but I don't think that's quite right," Agnifilo said after the hearing, calling coercion and even violence to get husbands to grant religious divorces "an old tradition."

The rabbis and the 10 other men were arrested as a result of an undercover operation that began in August when two FBI agents, one posing as a woman trying to get a divorce, contacted the rabbis. According to an FBI complaint, Epstein spoke about forcing compliance through "tough guys" who use electric cattle prods and even place plastic bags over the heads of husbands.

The FBI said the price was more than $50,000 and a prosecutor said at Thursday's hearing that the organization involved in the alleged plot had been involved in up to 20 kidnappings over the years.

No pleas were entered Thursday and lawyers for some of the defendants sought to minimize their clients' roles in an effort to get them freed on bail or put on home confinement.

Magistrate Douglas Arpert ordered all 10 held in federal custody at least until hearings next week.

The investigation took place in Ocean and Middlesex counties in New Jersey and Rockland County in New York, and ended with arrests overnight Wednesday.

Four of the rabbis' associates were described as enforcers, or "tough guys," as Epstein called the men who helped coerce reluctant husbands.

The undercover agents, including a man posing as the woman's brother, met with Epstein at his Ocean County home in August, during which the rabbi spoke about "kidnapping, beating and torturing husbands in order to force a divorce," the complaint said.

"Basically what we are going to be doing is kidnapping a guy for a couple of hours and beating him up and torturing him and then getting him to give the get," Epstein is quoted as saying during the conversation, which was videotaped.

Epstein is also quoted saying he wanted to use a cattle prod to torture the reluctant husband.

"If it can get a bull that weighs 5 tons to move ... you put it in certain parts of his body and in one minute, the guy will know," he said, according to the complaint.

He said that his group did a kidnapping every year to year-and-a-half, and that the cost is $10,000 for a rabbinical court to approve the action and $50,000 to $60,000 for the enforcers.

The undercover agents wired him a $20,000 down payment, the complaint said.

Under Jewish law, if a husband refuses to grant his wife a "get," she has the right to sue in rabbinical court. The complaint said that a rabbinical court was held in Rockland County on Oct. 2 as part of the sting, during which the use of violence was authorized.
___

Associated Press writer Tom Hays in New York contributed to this report.

FBI: Orthodox rabbi in Lakewood hired 'tough guys' to force religious divorces
Authorities: Suspects OK'd cattle prods, karate to force marital splits

LAKEWOOD — Two Lakewood residents — Mendel Epstein and Binyamin Stimler — were among 10 men arraigned Thursday after they were caught in an FBI sting and charged with planning to kidnap and torture Orthodox Jewish husbands to force them to grant their wives a religious divorce, authorities said.

A law enforcement source with knowledge of the investigation said the arrests were the direct result of a 2011 case in which a Lakewood couple, David and Judy Wax, were accused of kidnapping an Israeli national in an attempt to force him to divorce his estranged wife in Israel. More arrests will follow “like dominoes,” the source said.

The Wax case has been stalled in federal court for the past two years.

Two of those charged are rabbis – Epstein, who also lives in Brooklyn, and Mordechai “Martin” Wolmark of Monsey, N.Y. All 10 were arraigned in federal court in Trenton Thursday afternoon, where a judge ordered them all held without bail pending hearings next week, at a date to be determined.

Watch the videos above to hear a documentary filmmaker talk about Epstein, see scenes from an FBI raid at a yeshiva in New York and see a film clip featuring Epstein.
Threats and torture

The men used intimidation, threats and physical torture — including an electric cattle prod — to convince reluctant Orthodox Jewish husbands to grant religious divorces to their wives, authorities said.

“It was not about religion,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney R. Joseph Gribko, who estimated the group previously conducted 24 kidnappings to achieve forced divorces. “Frankly, even if it was about religion, you shouldn’t be able to torture people to get them to do things.”

According to Jewish law, in order to grant a divorce, a husband has to provide his wife with a document called a “get.” However, a wife can also sue for divorce in a rabbinical court, called “beth din,” which orders the husband to issue the get, the complaint said.

געברענגט געווארען צו אייך דורך סאשי פיש לאקעל.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


V.


MENDEL EPSTEIN,
MARTIN WOLMARK,
ARIEL POTASH and
FNU LNU a/k/a “Yaakov”

I. Bruce D, Karnerman, being duly sworn, state the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief:

I further state that I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and that this Complaint is based on the following facts:

October 7, 2013 at Trenton. New Jersey
Date

Honorable Douglas F. Arpert
United States Magistrate Judge
Name and Title of Judicial Officer Signature of Judicial Officer

ATTACHMENT A

From on or about April 7, 2013, to in or about October 2013, in Ocean County. in the
District ofNew Jersey. and elsewhere. Defendants

MENDEL EPSTEIN,
MARTIN WOLMARK,
ARIEL POTASH and
FNU LNU a/k/a “Yaakov”

conspired and agreed. together and with others known and unknown to knowingly and unlawfully seize, confine, inveigle, decoy, kidnap, abduct, and hold a person for ransom, reward and otherwise. that is, to threaten and coerce him to consent to a divorce, and traveled in interstate commerce and used means. facilities and instrumentalities of interstate and foreign commerce in furtherance of the commission of the offense,

In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to accomplish its object, Defendants committed the following overt acts, among others:

1. On or about August 7, 2013, Defendants MARTIN WOLMARK and MENDEL EPSTEIN participated in a telephone conference call, the purpose of which was to discuss the possibility of authorizing the use of violence to obtain a forced divorce.
2. On or about August 14, 2013, Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN met with undercover FBI agents in Ocean County, New Jersey and discussed kidnapping the purported husband of one of the undercover FBI agents.
3. On or about September 25, 2013, Defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN and FNU LNU, a/k/a “Yaakov” drove to a location in Middlesex County, New Jersey to determine whether it was a suitable location for the kidnapping.
4. On or about October 2, 2013, Defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN, MARTIN WOLMARK. ARIEL POTASH and FNU LNU, a/k/a “Yaakov,” met in Rockland County, New York to authorize the use of violence to obtain a forced divorce,

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1201(c

ATTACHEMENT B

I, Bruce D. Kamerman, am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of investigation (“FBI”). I have knowledge of the facts set forth below as a result of my participation in this investigation as well as from my review of reports from, and discussions with, other law enforcement personnel. Where statements of others are related herein, they are related in substance and part. Because this complaint is being submitted for a limited purpose, I have not set forth each and every fact that I know concerning this investigation. Where I assert that an event took place on a particular date, I am asserting that it took place on or about the date alleged.
Background of the Investigation

1. According to Jewish law, in order to effect a divorce, a husband must provide his wife with a document known as a “get.” Although a divorce may only be initiated by the husband issuing a get, the wife has the right to sue for divorce in a rabbinical court, known as a “beth din, which may order the husband to issue the get. If the husband refuses the court’s demand, he may be subjected to various penalties in order to pressure him into consenting to the divorce, i.e., giving the get. A woman whose husband will not consent to a divorce is known as an agunah” (agunot” in plural).

2. Defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN and MARTIN WOLMARK are Jewish Rabbis who charge agunor and their families thousands of dollars to obtain gets from recalcitrant husbands by means of violence.

3. Defendants ARIEL POTASH and FNU LNU a/k/a “Yaakov” are Orthodox Jewish men who assist Defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN and MARTIN WOLMARK in obtaining gets from recalcitrant husbands by means of violence.

4. Essentially the Defendants’ organization operated as follows. The family of an agunah made contact with the Defendants. The agunah ‘s family then made payment to the Defendants, after which the Defendants convened a beth din, which issued a contempt order, known as a “seruv,” against the husband. If the husband failed to respond, the beth din issued a ruling, known as a “psak din,” authorizing the use of coercion and/or violence to obtain the get. The Defendants then arranged to kidnap the recalcitrant husband and assault him until he consented to the divorce, , until he “gave the get.”

5. In a recorded conversation on August 14, 2013, Defendant MENDEL EPSTEiN admitted to planning, approving and committing numerous kidnappings and coerced gets. Specifically, Defendant EPSTEIN claimed that his organization kidnaped one recalcitrant husband approximately every year or year and a half.
The Undercover Operation

6. An undercover FBI Special Agent (“UCE-l”) posed as an Orthodox Jewish wife whose husband was unwilling to consent to a divorce. A second undercover FBI Special Agent (‘UCE-2”) posed as the brother of UCE-l, who was willing to pay for a kidnapping in order to coerce UCE-1 ‘s recalcitrant husband into consenting to a divorce. (Hereinafter, UCE-l ‘s purported husband will be referred to as “the Husband”).

7. On August 7, 2013, LICE-i and UCE-2 (collectively. “the UCEs”) made a telephone call to Defendant MARTFN WOLMARK. During the call, which was recorded by the UCEs, the UCEs presented their case that they were desperate for a religious divorce and were willing to pay a large sum of mone to obtain the divorce. WOLMARK talked about the mechanism for coercing a divorce and stated that it would be costly.

8. Specifically. WOLMARK stated:

Now, the question is, under certain conditions the person can be coerced to give the get.
Now, there are a couple of ways to do that. To get that situation created that he can be coerced on the get, it’s a. it’s a. it’s a process. It could happen but it’s a (UI) process. Ya know. it means getting the paperwork done. You have to. we have to, convene a special beth din and see if there are grounds to, to, to coerce him on the get.
That’s step number one. Step number two is then going ahead and getting it done. Now, each process, if it’s done, I mean, could be very costly, ya know, It doesn’t have to, ya know. It depends. It’s, it’s, in other words, you need special Rabbis who are going to take this thing and see it through to the end. Urn, that, that, that, that’s probably the most effective way. Ya know, there’s another way. Getting a guy like Mendel Epstein who’s a, ya know like a hired hand or so. Who’ll go and maybe make a. va know. If he doesn’t have him around here, he’s not gonna be effective. In other words, you need to get him to New York where someone either can harass him or nail him. Plain and simple.

9. Defendant MARTIN WOLMARK then connected Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN into the conference call. At the conclusion of that call, Defendant EPSTEIN told the UCEs to call him an hour later on his home telephone to discuss the details, Defendant EPSTEIN then told Defendant WOLMARK to stay on the line.

10. Approximately one hour later, UCE-1 and UCE-2 called Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN as directed. During that call, they arranged to meet with Defendant EPSTEIN at his house in Ocean County, New Jersey, on August 14, 2013, because, in Defendant EPSTEIN’s words: “I don’t think this is a phone conversation, am I correct?”

11. On August 14, 2013. the UCEs met with Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN at his residence in Ocean Count, New Jersey. The meeting was consensually video and audio recorded by the UCEs.

12. During the course of the meeting, Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN spoke about kidnapping, beating and torturing husbands in order to force a divorce. Indeed, he specifically stated:
Sup. suppose we. ya know this is an expensive thing to do. It’s not simply; we’re talking,

uh, I don’t want to use the, the (UI) terms but, basically what we are going to be doing is kidnapping a guy for a couple of hours and beating him up and torturing him and then getting him to give the get.

13. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN talked about forcing compliance through the use of “tough guys” who utilize electric cattle prods, karate, handcuffs and place plastic bags over the heads of the husbands. at one point telling UCE-2:
Defendant EPSTEIN: Wait, wait, wait a minute, Wait a second here. I guarantee you that if you’re in the van, you’d give a get to your wife. You probably love your wife, hut you’d give a get when they finish with you. So, and it’s, hopefully, there won’t even be a mark on him.
UCE-2: You can leave a mark. (Chuckle).
Defendant EPSTEIN: No, no, no, no, we
UCE-2: I know. I understand what you’re saying.
Defendant EPSTEIN: We prefer not to leave a mark Right. Because then when they do go to the police, the police look at the guy.
UCE-2: Yeah, what’s wrong…
Defendant EPSTEIN: You look the same. You know, ah, what’s so terrible. They did this to give a get. How long didn’t you give a get. Ah, two years, yeah. I mean, I, I’ve traveled I’ve been in South America too ...And basically the reaction of the police is, if the guy does, not have a mark on him ... Then uh, is there some Jewish crazy affair here, they don’t get involved.

* * *

Defendant EPSTEIN: We take an electric cattle prod.
UCE-l: Electric cattle prod, okay.
Defendant EPSTEIN: If it can get a bull that weighs five tons to move
You put it in certain parts of his body and in one minute the guy will know.

14. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN admitted to committing approximately one kidnapping every year to year and a half. “One a year. Year and a half. So that way7the police jurisdictions... They’re all linked together now and everything. It’s not so simple, but, but uh...“

15. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN stated that the kidnapping would cost $10,000 to pay for the rabbis on the rabbinical court to approve the kidnapping and an additional $50,000 to $60,000 to pay for the “tough guys” who would conduct the beating and obtain the forced get.

Defendant EPSTEIN stated that Defendant MARTIN WOLMARK officiates during the kidnapping and forced get and that Defendant EPSTEIN’s son is one of the ‘tough guys” who uses his karate skills on the victims to facilitate the divorces.

16. During the meeting the UCEs explained that the Husband lived in South America, and had a residence in Florida, The UCEs said that UCE-2 and the Husband were longstanding business partners, doing real estate deals together. UCE-2 said that he had introduced UCE-1 and the Husband. According to UCE-2, he and the Husband were still business partners, but once the marriage between LICE-i and the Husband deteriorated (which UCE-i claimed was largely because of financial issues and the fact that the Husband decided that he did not want children), the business relationship between UCE-2 and the Husband had deteriorated as well. According to UCE-2, the Husband claimed that UCE-2 owed him money from past business deals, and the Husband would not give UCE-1 a get unless LJCE-2 paid the Husband. UCE-2 said he could lure the Husband from South America to a location in New Jersey under the pretext of a business deal.

17. In a series of subsequent telephone conversations, UCE- 1 arranged with Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN and Defendant MARTIN WOLMARK to have a beth din convene in Rockland County, New York on October 2, 2013. The purpose of this beth din is to issue a psak din authorizing the use of violence to obtain a forced get.

18. UCE-2 has also had subsequent telephone conversations and e-mail exchanges with Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN regarding where and how the proposed forced get was to take place. In these conversations, UCE-2 suggested that he could lure the Husband to New Jersey during the week of October 7, 2013.

19. Specifically, on September 25, 2013, UCE-2 called Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN and proposed that a warehouse in Middlesex County, New Jersey (the “Warehouse”)

could be used for obtaining the forced get. In response, Defendant EPSTEIN indicated that he wanted to have his people investigate the proposed site beforehand. to ensure its feasibility. Defendant EPSTEIN then said he needed money to have people investigate the Warehouse (which would, in his words, ‘commit them”). In response, UCE-2 told him that he would wire $20,000 to Defendant EPSTEIN after the psak din was issued on October 2, 2013.

20. In that call. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN and UCE-2 discussed whether it would be preferable to conduct the beating of UC-I inside the Warehouse or in a van in the parking lot. Defendant EPSTEIN said they did not necessarily need to go inside because “they don’t need him for long, believe me. They’ll have him in the van, hooded, and it will happen.”

21. In that call, Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN and UCE-2 discussed getting the Husband to and from the Warehouse, UCE-2 said that he would drive the Husband there. MENDEL EPSTEIN then asked how the Husband was going to get home. MENDEL EPSTEIN told UCE-2 he preferred that UCE-2 bring the Husband home so there would be “no police involvement.”

22. On September 29, 2012, FBI surveillance teams observed Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN and Defendant FNU LNU, alkla “Yaakov,’ drive to the Warehouse. Defendant EPSTEIN then got out of the vehicle and appeared to take a picture of the Warehouse with his cell phone before driving away. Soon thereafter, Defendant EPSTEIN sent an e-mail to UCE-2 stating: “We were at the site on blue heron its excellent police station two blocks away ask if they patrol or of they have private security did not seem that way surveillance cameras?? Really out of the way great,” (Lack of punctuation in original).

23. The next day. September 30, 2013, UCE-2 called Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN, and confirmed that there would be no security patrols. Defendant EPSTEIN said the building was

“better than good” and that his people would prefer to be inside the Warehouse when they obtained the forced get. UCE-2 and Defendant EPSTEIN then solidified their plan for the kidnapping and coerced get: UCE-2 would unlock the Warehouse in the evening on October 9, 2013, and allow the Targets inside. The Targets would then prepare inside the Warehouse, and UCE-2 would pick up the Husband, UCE-2 would then return to the Warehouse a short time later with the Husband.

24. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN then confirmed that UCE-2 was going to wire $20,000 after the psak din was issued on October 2, 2013. Defendant EPSTEIN then instructed UCE-2 to bring a check for $30,000 with him to the Warehouse on October 9, 2013, and give that check to the “sofer” (meaning the scribe), because his guys “need to be paid within twenty-four hours.”

25. On October 2, 2013, UCE-1 traveled to Rockland County, New York for the beth din. There she met Defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN, MARTIN WOLMARK and FNU LNU. a/k/a “Yaakov.” UCE-1 was then escorted into a back office to begin the beth din. When UCE-1 asked Defendant FNU LNU who he was, Defendant FNU LNU refused to answer UCE-1 ‘s questions about his identity, explaining that it was better “the less information you know about myself.”

26. During the beth din, Defendant MARTIN WOLMARK asked UCE-l to explain her situation. Specifically, he asked: “Why do you have to be released from this marriage, even if your husband has to be coerced?” UCE-1 explained her situation and why she is desperate for a divorce from her husband, who refuses to give her a get. Defendant EPSTEIN directed Defendant FNU LNU to write down everything for the psak din.

27. About one hour into the beth din. Defendant ARIEL POTASH arrived to serve as the “shliach,” that is, the person appointed to serve as UCE-1 ‘s agent to accept the get from the

husband, since UCE..l will not be present for the forced get. When asked by UCE-1 about his role, Defendant POTASH explained that he does ‘whatever the rabbis tell him,” Defendant POTASH further explained to UCE-l that there is no need for UCE-1 to know who he is, saying: ‘I’ll make it even more clear - - if you see me, two months …... down the street, you don’t know me, I don’t know you.” Two additional young males then arrived to witness the appointment of Defendant POTASH as the shliach. Defendant MARTIN WOLMARK instructed both witnesses to sign a document, omitting their last names, attesting to the appointment of the shliach.

28. At the end of the beth din, Defendant MARTIN WOLMARK asked UCE- 1 about “the plan” for the forced get, and whether UCE- 1 knew the location and the timing. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN confirmed the plan for the forced get was good, stating, “it’s at night, and it’s a weird place, it’s very good ... hopefully the patrol will not be out on patrol that night.” Defendant EPSTEIN also told UCE-l that during the forced gel, “you should be out in public” among a lot of people.

29. After the psak din was issued on October 2, 2013, UCE-2 transmitted $20,000 to MENDEL EPSTIEN by wire transfer.

search warrant to be served at the time the search is executed.

Subscribed and sworn to me
This day of October, 2013
HONORL DOUGLAS E. ARPERT
United States Magistrate Judge