The attitude today regarding our US MILITARY COURT is similar to CANON LAW in that the military citizens are expected not to QUESTION these court rulings and judges decisions. These few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have seen our STRONG PUBLIC COURT SYSTEM being made dysfunctional---while being dismantled while CANON LAW is becoming the only source for justice.
So, we are told to go to our PRIEST, IMAM, RABBI, PASTOR for help in accessing justice.
COMMON LAW IS AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT I AM MAN REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE CAPITALISM-----CANON LAW IS DARK AGES GLOBAL 1% OLD WORLD KINGS RELIGIOUS TRIBUNAL COURTS.
There is no way to discuss today's COURT public policy without discussing RELIGION since all our US courts are being tied to CANON LAW.
When FEEDBACK from NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG on public surveillance is openly saying that I NEED TO BE BEAT-----I NEED TO BE KEPT IN THE HOUSE AND MADE SILENT-----this is my MUSLIM NOSY NEIGHBORS ------and they think they are giving me a RELIGIOUS verdict/conviction.
'Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great'.
CANON LAW no matter the religion resembles FATWAS======FATWAS are decisions handed down by IMAMS who are making a JUDGEMENT against an individual. Ergo, being HIT-------is a FATWA--------someone in power makes a decision to systematically HARM a VICTIM.
While this is CANON LAW for MUSLIMS-----this same FATWA structure exists for JEWISH with RABBI system and CATHOLICS with BISHOP system. DECRIES as court rulings against citizens.
'What is a Fatwa?
Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani
In recent years, the term “fatwā” has been widely used throughout the media, usually to indicate that a death sentence has been dealt to someone or some group of people. The limited use of this term has resulted in a limited understanding of its meaning. ISCA therefore offers the following statement to elucidate the true significance of the term “fatwā.”
Most importantly, a fatwā is not by definition a pronouncement of death or a declaration of war. A fatwā is an Islamic legal pronouncement, issued by an expert in religious law (mufti), pertaining to a specific issue, usually at the request of an individual or judge to resolve an issue where Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), is unclear. Typically, such uncertainty arises as Muslim society works to address new issues – issues that develop as technology and society advance. “Can a Muslim be involved in cloning?” for instance'.
'But in 1540 a new order came to power.
The Society of Jesus (Jesuits)
Unable to crush the growing Protestant movement through torture, Pope Paul lll sanctioned a loyal, yet independent group of men to defeat the Protestants. Created by Ignatius of Loyola, “The Society of Jesus” had a more subtle way of defeating the Protestants.
The Society of Jesus wasn’t just about bringing men into physical submission, they were (and are) about controlling the emotional, intellectual and spiritual properties of men as well. Their stated goal was to become:
“The counsellors and confessors of the powerful and the teachers of their children.”'
This CANON LAW is used to repress any population group------when we have no SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE----then each religion is exercising its own JUDICIAL structure. HITTING is a FATWA by DUBIOUS leadership PRETENDING to be religious.
The Day the Jesuits Were Suppressed
On this day in Church history, the pope cracked down on Christendom's most stunningly successful order
Steve Weidenkopf • 7/21/2019
Stunned by the rapid advance of the Protestant Revolution, the Church began its much-needed reform with the ecumenical council at Trent (1545-1563). The council that would lay the foundation for the Catholic Reformation followed another important development, when in 1540 Pope Paul III approved the Society of Jesus. The Jesuits, as they would be called, began their work several years prior in Paris, when Ignatius Loyola and several companions (including Francis Xavier) pledged to live the evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity, obedience) and to go to Rome and place themselves at the service of the pope.
Ignatius envisioned his new order would participate in the reform of the Church by focusing on education (catechesis) and encouraging the laity to participate frequently in the sacraments, especially confession and the Eucharist. This focus led to a multitude of Jesuit teachers and missionaries serving in heavily Protestant territories and in far-flung places of the world that had never heard the Gospel, all to win souls for Christ.
Although the Jesuit formation process was long and life in the Society was difficult, men joined by the thousands. The Society established universities throughout Christendom in order to form both members of the order and Catholic laity to participate fully in the Catholic Reformation. The small group began by St. Ignatius and his companions became a powerful and influential element within the Church and Christendom within a century of the founder’s death in 1556. By the eighteenth century, there were over 20,000 Jesuits running nearly seven hundred universities, colleges, and seminaries. The Society contributed to the prestige of secular rulers and the papacy but its influence was not universally appreciated. Anti-religious intellectuals and absolutist-minded monarchs became wary, envious, and ultimately opposed to the Jesuits.
René Decartes’s (1596-1650) philosophical writings, likely without his intent, sparked a movement opposed to the Church and its understanding of philosophy. By the eighteenth century, the “age of reason” and “enlightenment” produced a crop of thinkers, writers, and politicians radically opposed to the Church and its influence in the world. François-Marie Arouet (1694 – 1778), known by his pen name Voltaire, was one such individual. Although educated by Jesuits, Voltaire embraced anti-Catholic beliefs and worked tirelessly to destroy the “infamous thing,” his moniker for the Church. Voltaire recognized the only way to limit the Church’s influence and bring about a secular society was to take control of the institutions of higher learning in Europe, which required the destruction of the Jesuits. He boasted that with the Jesuits defeated, “there will be nothing left of the Church.” In order to further their agenda, Enlightenment thinkers began a concerted campaign against the Society of Jesus.
Many secular rulers were wary of the Jesuits due to their outsized influence and their independence. Jesuits were fiercely loyal to the pope, whom many kings saw as a foreign prince intent on meddling in their internal affairs. As these monarchs focused on creating a centralized state, they increasingly saw the Jesuits as an obstacle to their plans. Frustrated and irritated by the Jesuits, several secular rulers in the eighteenth century placed intense political pressure on the Roman pontiffs to do something about the meddlesome Society. However, these rulers did not wait for papal activity, as many began their own campaigns of suppression and expulsion.
King Joseph I (r. 1750 – 1777) desired to reform Portugal so that it could be a leading power in Western Europe. He placed great power and authority in the hands of Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, known as the Marquis de Pombal, in order to accomplish this task. Believing the Jesuits to be a threat, Pombal began a concerted propaganda campaign directed at creating a negative image of the Jesuits in the minds of the king and the Portuguese people. In 1759, Pombal convinced the king to sign a decree denouncing the Society and ordering their expulsion from Portugal and its overseas territories.
The next attack on the Society came from France, the “Eldest Daughter of the Church.” The Paris Parlement, the most important of thirteen provincial appellate courts charged with registering and approving royal decrees, initially restricted French subjects from entering the Society and banned Jesuits from teaching theology, then prohibited citizens from attending Jesuit schools. The Parlement’s anti-Jesuit declarations culminated in 1764, when King Louis XV (r. 1715-1774) signed a decree expelling the Jesuits from France and its dominions.
Recognizing the serious threat to the Society and the Church as a whole posed by such attacks, Pope Clement XIII (r. 1758-769) defended the Society its role and mission in the Church in the bull Apostolicum pascendi in 1765. Despite the papal defense, the attack on the Society from European secular rulers continued. In Spain, Ignatius’s nation of origin, the Jesuits came under fire from Bernardo Tanucci, a chief minister and advisor in Naples to King Charles III (r. 1759-1788). Tanucci despised the Jesuits and the Church and continually sought to limit the power and influence of both. He convinced the king to order the expulsion of all Jesuits from Spain and its colonies in 1767.
In only twelve years, the Society was ruthlessly persecuted in three countries where it had been highly effective and influential. The Jesuits, once the champions of the Catholic Reformation and a powerful and prominent group within the Church and Europe, were dazed and weakened, but their greatest defeat was yet to come.
Giovanni Vincenzo Antonio Ganganelli was educated by the Jesuits as a young man and discerned a religious vocation. He entered the Conventual Franciscans in 1723, taking the religious name Lorenzo. He was ordained to the priesthood and pursued advanced academic studies, earning a doctorate, and teaching at a university. Pope Clement XIII, who had befriended Fr. Ganganelli, made him a cardinal at a time when the Jesuit controversy dominated the pontificate. The conclave to elect Clement’s successor met in the face of a formal request from the rulers of Portugal, France, Spain, and Naples to suppress the order.
Several cardinals believed suppression was the only viable alternative to bring peace between the Church and those kingdoms. There was much debate within the conclave but eventually the cardinals elected Ganganelli, who took the name Clement XIV (r. 1769-774). Clement XIV hoped to resolve the Jesuit question peacefully but was under intense political pressure throughout his pontificate. After a failed attempt to placate the anti-Jesuit secular powers through harsh measures against the Society, he issued the brief Dominus ac Redemptor on July 21, 1773, which formally suppressed the Society of Jesus.
It was, as historian Eamon Duffy wrote, “the papacy’s most shameful hour.” Clement partially blamed his action on the Society itself for sowing seeds of dissension and discord among secular rulers and other religious orders. Sadly, the pope ordered the arrest and imprisonment of the Superior General of the Society, Lorenzo Ricci, in Castel Sant’Angelo, where he later died. Clement XIV’s action against the Society left such a significant blot on the history of the papacy that no pope since has taken the name Clement.
Although the suppression was universal, there were areas where the Jesuits continued to operate unimpeded (especially in areas with non-Catholic monarchs). The monarchical world was turned upside down by the creation of the United States and the French Revolution in the late eighteenth century. Desperate to revive Catholic higher education and reigning during a time when the Church no longer faced opposition from the same secular authorities that clamored for the Society’s suppression, Pope Pius VII (r. 1800-1823) re-established the Jesuits on August 7, 1814. Once more, the sons of Ignatius were allowed to operate universities, colleges, and undertake missionary adventures.
The forty-one years of suppression were a dark time in the history of the Society, but the vision of St. Ignatius and his companions could not be forever dimmed.
JEWISH citizens perhaps ULTRA CONSERVATIVE as with MUSLIM have their FATWA systems--------where RABBIS can act as JUDGES to create legal decisions taking a form similar to MUSLIM FATWAS. These religions forms are not tied to our MODERN WESTERN VALUES AND COURT PRECEDENCE-----they are not tied to COMMON LAW------but tied to a DARK AGES legal structure which without coincidence places WOMEN and SEXUAL ABUSE at a low to non-existent level.
The further RIGHT a religion goes the more a COURT SYSTEM is slanted towards A CANON LAW controlled by a small group of people calling themselves RELIGIOUS LEADERS. In ARABIA these several decades the MUSLIM religion has been corrupted by GLOBAL BANKING 1% FREEMASONRY the same here in US where our 5% FREEMASON/GREEK FAKE RELIGIOUS players corrupt these religious structures.
'A Brooklyn rabbinical court has a new commandment for the thousands of religious Jews under its jurisdiction: Thou shall not snitch. The Beth Din of Crown Heights has ordered an estimated 10,000 members of the Lubavitch Hasidic sect not to gripe about cops or blab about crimes to outsiders'.
Would a RABBINICAL COURT have turned a blind eye to CHILD ABUSE as too with CATHOLIC child abuse? They would if they were working from a DARK AGES legal stance where children as well as adults have no legal protections.
THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE 'HITTING' STRUCTURE AS US COMMON LAW COURT SYSTEMS ARE DISMANTLED. TODAY, WE HAVE BLACK MARKET 'HITTING' BY PEOPLE PRETENDING TO BE RELIGIOUS.
Did Baltimore’s Orthodox Community Turn A Blind Eye To Child Sexual Abuse?
Despite allegations against him, popular rabbi was still working with children — until Jan. 18, 2018.
By Hannah Dreyfus January 17, 2018, 10:29 am
For three young boys from Baltimore, Camp Shoresh, an Orthodox day camp tucked into the gently rolling hills of Frederick County in western Maryland, must have seemed a child’s paradise.
It had a twisty water slide, a spacious game room packed with pool, ping-pong and foosball tables, a zip line, a climbing wall reaching into the sky and a creek winding through the grounds, perfect for nature hikes.
But in the summer of 2015, dark clouds pierced paradise.
Soon after Zev, then 7, Boaz, then 8, and Adam, then 7 (not their real names), started spending their days at the camp in late June and early July, each boy’s parents began to notice disturbing changes in their children’s behavior.
Zev, a sensitive, intellectual child, began waking up in the middle of the night screaming. Later that summer he complained of headaches and stomach aches, and he began wetting his bed.
Boaz, an active, “always laughing” kid, began acting out — shouting and becoming violent with his siblings, displaying “explosive” episodes of anger, his parents said. During a family drive, Boaz took off his seat belt, fell to the floor of the moving car and started screaming and crying.
Adam’s mother sensed something was wrong when the usually energetic and curious child started complaining of horrible stomach aches and developed a tick. He smeared feces on the walls, and he started to believe that “monsters lived in bathrooms.”
The connective tissue tying the boys’ similar stories together is Rabbi Steven (Shmuel) Krawatsky, who in the summer of 2015 served as the head of the lower boys’ division at Camp Shoresh.
The grounds of Camp Shoresh where Rabbi Shmuel Krawatsky was the head of the lower boys division in the summer of 2015.
Rabbi Krawatsky, 40, has worked in Jewish education for more than two decades and is considered to be a highly respected, charismatic leader who creates close personal relationships with his students. Before moving to Baltimore in 2003, he worked as a Judaic studies teacher at HAFTR, a large Jewish day school in the Five Towns area and as the youth director at the White Shul in Far Rockaway.
Married and the father of four, he lives in Baltimore and teaches middle school Judaic studies at Beth Tfiloh, the local Modern Orthodox day school, and runs youth programming at Suburban Orthodox Toras Chaim, a large Orthodox synagogue in Baltimore. He began working at Camp Shoresh, an outreach, or kiruv, camp, in the early 2000s.
The boys’ parents describe behavior that experts in the field of child sexual abuse label as “grooming.” Rabbi K, as he is known around Baltimore, took a special interest in each child, giving them gifts (a signed basketball in Boaz’s case, davening prizes in Adam’s). Two of the three sets of parents recalled receiving phone calls from Rabbi K early in the camp season offering to give their sons private, one-on-one “social skills” lessons to improve their behavior. In the phone conversation, he praised each boy, calling them “special.”
Adam’s mother recalled Rabbi Krawatsky telling her over the phone that he had taken her son into the camp locker room to reprimand him for “inappropriate” behavior. He had gone with him alone into the locker room in order “not to embarrass him,” she recalls him explaining.
Toward the end of camp that summer, the boys’ stories of alleged sexual abuse at the hands of Rabbi Krawatsky began to spill out, first to their parents and then to staff at Child Protective Services (CPS) in Frederick County, Md. Two of the alleged victims underwent forensic interviews.
Rabbi Krawatsky declined to speak directly with The Jewish Week. His attorney said the rabbi continues to proclaim his complete innocence and denies that any misconduct took place.
Rabbi Shmuel Krawatsky is fondly called “Rabbi K” by many in the Baltimore Orthodox community.
The Jewish Week reviewed the transcript of one of the forensic interviews, which provides abundant and disturbing detail of what took place, according to one of the young boys.
According to the transcript, the rabbi, who was naked and alone in the pool changing room with two alleged victims, touched the young boys “inappropriately” before asking them to touch his “private parts” in exchange for $100. The report also states that the rabbi threatened the young boys not to tell their parents what had happened and hit one boy in the stomach because “he was mad because we didn’t do what he said; touch his private parts.” (The parents of the young boy recalled finding bruises on their son’s stomach in July.) Similar incidents took place three times over the course of the summer, according to the report.
The first alleged victim interviewed by CPS later revealed to a private therapist that Rabbi Krawatsky had anally raped him, according to the boy’s parents. (The therapist, a mandated reporter, reported the rape to the Frederick County Child Advocacy center on Nov. 9, 2017, according to an email exchange between the boy’s parents and the therapist.)
Another disclosed to his parents and to CPS that he had been anally and orally raped by Rabbi Krawatsky. (The alleged victim disclosed details of the abuse to CPS in early 2017. A time lapse between sexual abuse and a victim’s disclosure of the abuse is expected, child trauma experts say.)
Frederick County CPS declined to release a transcript of the forensic interview, according to the victims’ parents. In an email to The Jewish Week, a CPS spokesperson explained, “absent a court order, the local department would not provide copies of a recording.”
The third child initially did not disclose abuse when he was interviewed by a CPS caseworker and the Frederick County Police on Dec. 22, 2015.
“I simply cannot stay silent when I know that this man is still working with children.”
However, according to his father, he later disclosed to a private therapist that Rabbi Krawatsky had propositioned him to touch his penis in the pool locker room two times over the course of the summer. The child said Rabbi Krawatsky was naked and verbally abusive towards him, threatening to “punish” him if he did not comply with his proposition, according to the young boy’s father. (These details are corroborated in the CPS transcript of the first alleged victim’s forensic interview.)
In the first two cases, CPS case workers, trained extensively to detect child sexual abuse and trauma, concluded that Rabbi Krawatsky was “indicated” for child sexual abuse. (In the third case, CPS ruled that sexual abuse was “unsubstantiated.”) These CPS terms are critical to understanding the case.
According to Sandra Barnes, assistant attorney general at Maryland Attorney General’s Office and the point person on cases that involve CPS, an “indication” from Child Protective Services means there was a “preponderance of evidence” that sexual abuse took place.
“To issue an indication, CPS must be convinced that it is more likely sexual abuse occurred than that it did not occur,” she said. “Where there is all that smoke, there must be fire.”
“I’m fighting for my son’s childhood. You only get one. I want my son to have his.”
Rabbi Krawatsky appealed both determinations, a move that is not unusual, according to Barnes. In both instances, the cases were settled prior to an appellate ruling. In the end, CPS, in what amounts to a plea bargain, downgraded its determination from “indicated” to “unsubstantiated,” which means that there is not a preponderance of evidence that abuse took place.
Much of the Baltimore Orthodox community continues to vocally support and defend the rabbi, citing him as a warm and caring leader.
Rabbi Krawatsky stopped working at the camp after the summer of 2015, according to a letter sent out by the camp director to the “friends and families” of Camp Shoresh in February 2016 addressing the “allegation … about improper conduct.”
Joel Avrunin, father of one of the alleged victims: “I’m fighting for my son’s childhood. You only get one. I want my son to have his.” Courtesy
The parents of each child are still searching for answers.
More than two years after the events of the summer of 2015, the boys are still struggling to deal with the effects of what allegedly took place, according to their parents. The three boys (two of whom are cousins) continue to disclose details about what they went through that summer, under the care of therapists trained in trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy.
“I simply cannot stay silent when I know that this man is still working with children,” said the mother of one of the alleged victims, who requested to remain anonymous to protect her son’s privacy.
Though her preference would be to “bury my head in the sand and just move forward,” she feels compelled to speak out “to prevent future victims.”
“This nearly broke us,” said Joel Avrunin, Zev’s father, who met with me in mid-November. “I’m fighting for my son’s childhood. You only get one. I want my son to have his.”
An Anomalous Investigation
An investigation by The Jewish Week into the allegations against Rabbi Krawatsky paints a disturbing picture of how the Camp Shoresh case played out — from the perspectives of law enforcement, organizational “best practices” to guard against abuse, and the Orthodox community’s reaction.
The story comes as the Jewish community is in the midst of what many say is a long-overdue conversation about how to prevent child sexual abuse. A number of major philanthropists recently signed on to a pledge saying they would no longer fund schools and camps that do not put into place best practices to combat such abuse. Nonprofits have sprung up in an effort to guide Jewish institutions toward setting up policies to protect children. And the case comes as the Conservative movement is dealing with newly published allegations (and in some cases confirmation, as this newspaper reported) of sexual abuse carried out years ago by leaders in its youth arm, United Synagogue Youth.
“The more victims there are, the less likely it is that the accused is innocent.”
“It is extremely rare to have a false allegation of child sexual abuse,” said Victor Vieth, founder and senior director of the Gundersen National Child Protection Training Center and a nationally recognized expert in child sexual abuse prevention. “The more victims there are, the less likely it is that the accused is innocent.” A false allegation is akin to being “struck by lightning,” he said.
The likelihood that three separate allegations are false is “equivalent to the same person being struck by lightning three times. It is improbable enough to stagger the imagination.”
In the case of the Shoresh allegations, the police opened a criminal investigation in late August 2015, two days after the alleged sexual abuse had been reported to the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office, and a day after Zev went to the Child Advocacy Center for his forensic interview. The charges: sex offense in the third degree and sexual abuse of a minor.
But, experts assert, it may have been a flawed probe from the start.
According to the police report, obtained by The Jewish Week, the investigating detective, Michael P. Davies, brought Zev, his father and the CPS caseworker back to the scene of the alleged abuse — the pool changing room at camp. When they arrived at the camp, Davies met up with the camp’s director, Rabbi David Finkelstein. Together, Davies and Rabbi Finkelstein questioned Zev about the alleged incident.
Rabbi Finkelstein declined to comment for this story.
The likelihood that three separate allegations are false is “equivalent to the same person being struck by lightning three times. It is improbable enough to stagger the imagination.”
Zev’s father, Mr. Avrunin, recalled that the police detective, who was armed at the time, asked him to remain outside the changing room while his son was questioned. The move struck him as strange. Nonetheless, he complied. (A spokesperson for the Sheriff’s Office said that requesting a parent not to be present while a child victim is questioned is “standard procedure.”)
The investigative detective told The Jewish Week he was unable to provide comment for confidentiality reasons. He directed The Jewish Week to Maj. Tim Clarke, operations commander and spokesman at the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office. According to Clarke, taking a child victim back to the scene of the alleged crime is “normally not done.” However, in this case, the investigator felt it necessary because “the child may have been unclear of the location where the incident occurred.”
Sandra Barnes of the state attorney general’s office said bringing a victim back to the scene of an alleged crime just days after it was suspected to have taken place is “very unusual” and a tactic she has “never seen before.”
The police investigation also does not include any video footage, photographs, sworn statements or witness testimonies, all methods of corroboration criminal investigators generally try to include, said Clarke. In this case, Davies must not have thought them “necessary,” said Clarke. Investigative tactics are left up to the police detective’s “discretion.”
The police report also indicates that Rabbi Finkelstein, the camp director, was involved in the criminal probe of his employee, Rabbi Krawatsky — an unusual circumstance, according to legal experts, given his apparent conflict of interest. The report states that Rabbi Finkelstein “asked several other counselors about changing habits at the pools changing rooms(s)” and that these counselors said that, unlike other counselors, Rabbi Krawatsky used a private pool utility room to change.
“This case has ‘all the earmarks typical of an investigation constructed to protect the perpetrator.'”
Maj. Clarke, who reviewed the case prior to an interview with The Jewish Week, said he was not aware that Finkelstein had been involved in the investigation; however, under normal circumstances, any information used by police is received via direct interviews or in-person statements.
According to Marci Hamilton, CEO and academic director of CHILD USA, a think tank dedicated to preventing child abuse, this case has “all the earmarks typical of an investigation constructed to protect the perpetrator.” (Hamilton, a distinguished legal scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, did not have access to the police report but was informed of the facts of the case.)
Further, a significant part of the criminal investigation — referenced by community leaders and Rabbi Krawatsky’s lawyer as evidence of his innocence — was a polygraph examination. On Sept. 11, 2015, Rabbi Krawatsky submitted to a polygraph examination at the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office, according to the police report. After the exam was completed, the officer who conducted the test advised Davies that “deception was NOT detected.”
Experts assert that the investigation into the abused allegations may have been a flawed probe from the start.
Rabbi Krawatsky’s attorney cited the polygraph as evidence of his client’s innocence. “He [Krawatsky] immediately offered to take a polygraph test which he passed without question,” Rolle wrote to The Jewish Week in an email.
(The polygraph report was not included in the police report. The Frederick County Sheriff’s Office denied the victim’s father access to the polygraph report, according to a letter from the Frederick County Sheriff’s office. The letter did not cite a reason for the denial.)
Experts say the polygraph exam is unreliable, and polygraphs are not admissible as evidence in court. The manual of the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, an arm of the National District Attorneys’ Association, writes about the polygraph: “These investigative tools should never be the controlling factor in a decision about whether to proceed with a case.”
On Dec. 8, 2015, Lindell Angel, assistant state’s attorney in Frederick County and the chief of the sex crimes and child abuse unit, decided not to pursue criminal charges against Rabbi Krawatsky “at this time.” After reviewing the case with Det. Davies on Dec. 2, the police report states Angel declined to prosecute due to “the lack of evidence and witnesses.”
In an email, Angel told The Jewish Week “it was apparent that the allegations of the complaint could not be corroborated, and furthermore were contradicted by other witnesses reported to be present as well as the physicality of the alleged scene of the reported event.”
The police report includes no witness testimony contradicting the alleged victims’ accounts. When asked for comment on why this seemingly pivotal testimony is absent, Maj. Clarke said, “I have no additional comments to add.”
“There is a common and grave misunderstanding out there that failure to prosecute exonerates the perpetrator. It does not.”
The threshold to prosecute a case — confidence that a crime can be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” — is much higher than CPS’ threshold to “indicate” someone for sexual abuse, experts explain.
“Our threshold is not ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’” said Barnes. Still, “To indicate, we have to be convinced abuse happened.”
Hamilton points out that the decision not to prosecute a case does not suggest the alleged abuser’s innocence. “There is a common and grave misunderstanding out there that failure to prosecute exonerates the perpetrator. It does not. It just means more evidence is needed,” she said. When the accused is a religious figure and beloved community member, gaining enough evidence to prosecute becomes increasingly difficult, she continued.
Hamilton pointed out, though, that “New victims can come forward at any point.” (In 2017, Maryland extended the statute of limitations for victims of child sexual abuse to age 38.)
Communal Silence & Cognitive Dissonance
The Orthodox community’s reaction to the allegations against Rabbi Krawatsky, which reaches from local leaders in Baltimore to the national umbrella group the Orthodox Union, is an example of what one abuse prevention expert called “cognitive dissonance.”
According to Shira M. Berkovits, an expert in abuse prevention, the inclination among community members to defend the accused is typical, even expected. (It was a pattern that was common in the sexual abuse case of National Council of Synagogue Youth Rabbi Baruch Lanner, a story first reported by The Jewish Week in 2000.)
“When a respected religious leader is accused of a morally repugnant crime, the impulse not to believe goes to the core.”
“When a respected religious leader is accused of a morally repugnant crime, the impulse not to believe goes to the core,” said Berkovits, who holds a doctorate in psychology as well as a law degree.
[Berkovits writes more about the psychological factors that contribute to sexual abuse here.]
Indeed, the Baltimore community has rallied around the popular Rabbi Krawatsky.
Complicating the picture is the rabbi’s successful appeals of the Child Protective Services rulings that there was a preponderance of evidence to suggest that he had sexually abused two of the Baltimore boys; the term “unsubstantiated” may have left the impression that Rabbi Krawatsky was cleared when in fact it meant that there was not a preponderance of evidence of abuse.
During the appeal of the first case, which took place during early 2016, Rabbi Krawatsky was placed on leave by the Beth Tfiloh day school, his primary employer.
Speaking to The Jewish Week, Zipora Schorr, Beth Tfiloh’s director of education, said she was unaware that the rabbi had been indicated for sexual abuse in September 2015 or in March 2017.
In a subsequent email exchange, Schorr acknowledged that she “was informed of the indication via email on September 25, 2015 from Frederick County Child Protective Services unit.” She said Rabbi Krawatsky was immediately suspended and accompanied out of the building.
Schorr maintains she did not know about Rabbi Krawatsky’s second indication or his subsequent appeal.
According to experts, a successful appeal does not exonerate the accused. The case was closed on Feb. 10, 2016, after the parties settled the matter prior to any appellate review. The lawyer representing CPS and Rabbi Krawatsky’s attorney, Chris Rolle, reached a settlement to downgrade Rabbi Krawatsky’s “indication” to an “unsubstantiated” status.
Rabbi Krawatsky was immediately reinstated at Beth Tfiloh after the first appeal, with no further investigation by the school.
(Drew Fidler, the Baltimore Child Abuse Center representative Beth Tfiloh hired in June of 2017 to audit the school’s child sexual abuse prevention policies, affirmed that an “unsubstantiated” ruling does not indicate innocence.)
It is not unusual for CPS legal personnel to settle with an alleged abuser’s attorney, legal experts say. “With limited financial and legal resources, CPS caseworkers will often choose to settle with the alleged abuser’s attorney, a preferable outcome to the indication being ruled out and the record destroyed,” said Barnes.
“A high-priced attorney can browbeat CPS to downgrade that ‘indicated’ to ‘unsubstantiated.’ That’s not rare.”
Converting a ruling from “indicated” to “unsubstantiated” preserves a paper trail on the alleged abuser. (In Maryland, anyone with an “indicated” or “unsubstantiated” finding of child abuse is entered into a central confidential state database, according to the Maryland Department of Human Resources.)
Victor Veith, the child sex abuse expert, agreed: “A high-priced attorney can browbeat CPS to downgrade that ‘indicated’ to ‘unsubstantiated,’” he said. “That’s not rare.”
(In Maryland, the third potential outcome of a CPS investigation is “ruled out,” meaning that based on the available information, child maltreatment did not occur. This determination was not reached in the cases involving Rabbi Krawatsky.)
Schorr, meanwhile, continues to affirm her belief in Krawatsky’s “complete innocence,” though she declined to explain why.
As an example of Rabbi Krawatsky’s popularity, last November, when Chaim Levin, an activist and advocate for child abuse victims, posted a warning about the rabbi on his Facebook wall, indignant responses poured in. Most of them attested to Rabbi Krawatsky’s exceptional character and fastidious care of the children under his watch. (Levin previously worked for The Jewish Week as an editorial intern.)
To date, the Nov. 10 post has received nearly 70 comments, almost exclusively defending the rabbi.
“I can prove to you that Rabbi K is innocent. Stop hurting HIS children by bringing up a case that was thoroughly investigated and thrown out. It is honorable to protect kids. It is awful to slander an innocent person,” one mother wrote.
One commenter posted about his “multiple 1 on 1 lunch and learns with the accused as a middle schooler” and recalls going over to the rabbi’s house “for sleepovers as an elementary school student” as evidence of his trustworthiness.
The thread also contains vicious verbal attacks against Levin (who said he received multiple threats) and the victims’ families.
The OU’s Knowledge — And Apparent InactionIn September of 2016, more than a year after the allegations against Rabbi Krawatsky surfaced, the Orthodox Union’s Yachad, a national organization that works to include individuals with disabilities in Jewish life, struck up a collaboration with Suburban Orthodox synagogue in Baltimore to create a Teen Inclusion Minyan, a prayer service catering to children and teens with disabilities.
Rabbi Krawatsky, the synagogue youth director, was appointed to lead the Yachad program in addition to his job at Beth Tfiloh.
Days after the new Yachad minyan began to advertise, several different individuals approached the Orthodox Union with concerns about Rabbi Krawatsky’s appointment. David Ohsie, a concerned father of eight living in the Baltimore Orthodox community, communicated his concerns to Deborah Rockoff, Yachad’s director of national programs, via email and phone for nearly two months.
(Rockoff, who did not respond to requests for comment, assured Ohsie that the OU was going to remove Rabbi Krawatsky from his position of leadership, according to Ohsie. Rabbi Krawatsky was not removed from the special needs minyan.)
Upon receiving complaints, Jeffrey Lichtman, international director of Yachad, conducted a “preliminary investigation” into the rabbi, according to Lichtman. (The Yachad employee tasked with investigating the matter had no training in cases of child sexual abuse, Lichtman said.)
The OU reached out to two independent groups for further information: the Gundersen National Child Protection Training Center and GRACE, an organization that has in the past helped Christian organizations respond to abuse. Both organizations confirmed to The Jewish Week that Lichtman reached out regarding the matter of Rabbi Krawatsky in November 2016. Both strongly recommended that the OU engage a third party to conduct an independent investigation into what Boz Tchividjian, founder of GRACE, described as the “very serious allegation in Baltimore County.”
(The OU has a fund set aside to help member synagogues investigate abuse claims.)
The Gundersen and GRACE organizations said the OU expressed interest in retaining their expert personnel to conduct an investigation into the matter. Both organizations said Lichtman requested proposals for conducting an investigative assessment. Both independently took the time to prepare these proposals for the OU, but said they did not hear back from Lichtman.
Lichtman said he did not follow through with these experts because “he [Rabbi Krawatsky] was not an employee so we did not conduct further investigation.”
Results of the OU’s internal investigation prompted the OU to “immediately disassociate from this person [Rabbi Krawatsky] and not be involved with him in any way, shape or form.”
Meanwhile, the results of the OU’s internal investigation, which unearthed sexual abuse allegations made against the rabbi, prompted Lichtman to “immediately disassociate from this person [Rabbi Krawatsky] and not be involved with him in any way, shape or form,” he told The Jewish Week. Lichtman said he advised his fellow OU staff members not to partner with Rabbi Krawatsky on any OU-sponsored programs.
In December 2016, nearly two months after initial concerns about the rabbi leading the Yachad minyan were brought to the OU’s attention, Yachad dropped its name from the special teen service. But the special needs minyan, under the leadership of Rabbi Krawatsky, continued, according to the synagogue’s weekly bulletins. (A phone call to the synagogue last month confirmed that Rabbi Krawatsky is still the youth director and still coordinates programming for special needs children.)
Lichtman said that, at the time, he “informed our [Yachad] participants who would potentially be involved in the program” that the OU had decided not to work with Rabbi Krawatsky.
The OU took no further steps to inform the Baltimore Orthodox community of its concerns about Rabbi Krawatsky. Lichtman said: “The OU has no mechanism to communicate with the community aside from telling the rabbi” of the congregation.
Lichtman said he personally informed Rabbi Shmuel Silber, rabbi of the synagogue hosting the Yachad minyan, about his concerns regarding Rabbi Krawatsky. In a phone interview with The Jewish Week, Lichtman said he “informed” Rabbi Silber over the phone that conducting an independent investigation is the recommended best practice.
Rabbi Silber did not respond to several requests for comment. However, Baltimore community members say that Rabbi Silber remains vocally supportive of Rabbi Krawatsky and convinced of his innocence.
[In August 2016, The Rabbinical Council of America released a proclamation acknowledging that sexual abuse “destroys lives” and recognizing how the community has failed in the past to adequately help victims and “hold perpetrators accountable.” Rabbi Silber, a former executive committee member of the RCA, is a signatory on the proclamation.]
Rabbi Krawatsky continues to teach at a Baltimore school.
Lichtman said he also informed Beth Tfiloh of the OU’s decision to remove Rabbi Krawatsky from all their programming. Beth Tfiloh’s Zipora Schorr emailed The Jewish Week that the school “never received any notification by the OU of its decision to sever all ties with Rabbi Krawatsky.”
Lichtman said he believes the OU followed best practices in responding in this case. He said: “We did everything we needed to do to protect our people.”
“We did everything we needed to do to protect our people.”
During the summer of 2016, NCSY Camp Sports, an all-boys sleepaway camp sponsored by the Orthodox Union, hosted Rabbi Krawatsky as their special Shabbat guest. He slept on-site and conducted learning workshops with campers.
According to NCSY’s Conduct, Policy and Behavioral Standards manual, volunteer hires who interact with teens are hired only after various background checks and an interview.
The Jewish Week reached out to Rabbi Jon Green, NCSY Camp Sports’ director, to inquire who conducted the background check into Rabbi Krawatsky. Rabbi Green assured this reporter that he would “100 percent” respond to the question.
“But,” he said, “you do know Rabbi K was totally cleared, right?” His source: a “passing conversation” with a “mutual friend” who knows Rabbi Krawatsky. (Rabbi Green did not respond to The Jewish Week’s question about who conducted the background check.)
“The potential danger to children should be far greater than any other concern.”
Rabbi Yosef Blau, a longtime spiritual adviser at Yeshiva University and advocate for victims of child sexual abuse in the Orthodox community, said that “not having enough evidence [to convict someone] of child sexual abuse is a ridiculous standard” for the individuals the community chooses to teach its children.
“The potential danger to children should be far greater than any other concern,” Rabbi Blau continued. “The notion that if the police don’t arrest the guy you should keep him teaching is absurd.”
Reflecting on the case in light of the recent national reckoning surrounding sexual abuse and harassment, University of Pennsylvania’s Marci Hamilton said, “What is happening with this man is indefensible. This is willing ignorance, and nothing else. In the #MeToo era, the decision to ignore all of these very loud bells could lead to endangering children.”
‘Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire’
The three families whose boys were allegedly abused now plan to sue Rabbi Krawatsky and any organization that “had knowledge that Rabbi K was being inappropriate with children and failed to intervene,” said Jon Little, the attorney who will be representing the families.
“From these three kids, we’ve gleaned the names of five more kids,” all of whom were allegedly abused by Rabbi Krawatsky at Camp Shoresh and in his other roles, said Little. “We have the record from the Maryland Child Protective Services — that’s a lot in my world. I am pretty confident that where there’s smoke, there’s fire, and here there’s a raging forest fire.”
Chris Rolle, Rabbi Krawatsky’s attorney, stated by email that the rabbi is “heartbroken and dismayed that the parents of the children are continuing to press these false allegations. There isn’t any more that my client can say other than he is innocent.” (Aside from citing the fact that his client passed a polygraph exam, Rolle declined to provide further evidence of his client’s innocence.)
For the parents of the alleged victims, the last two years have been a nightmare. The father of Rabbi Krawatsky’s third alleged victim said the community’s inaction is what pains him most deeply.
“It’s not the abuser — he’s a weed, a sick person who needs treatment. The real problem is the willingness of the whole community — including its leaders — to shelter him.”
“It’s not the abuser — he’s a weed, a sick person who needs treatment. The real problem is the willingness of the whole community — including its leaders — to shelter him,” said the father, an Israeli physicist who lives with his wife and three children in a suburb of Washington, D.C.
As for the Avrunins, who have been the most vocal about their son’s alleged abuse, they say that over the last two years they have been slandered, defamed and accused by members of the Baltimore Orthodox community of spreading “lashon harah,” malicious gossip, about an innocent man. Some have claimed the family is pursuing a “personal vendetta” against Rabbi Krawatsky.
The situation eventually caused the family to leave their Baltimore home of nine years; they now live in another state.
“The constant disbelief was the second wound our family endured, and the one that leaves a deeper scar,” said Rachel Avrunin, speaking to The Jewish Week by phone in November.
“It is one thing to wrap our mind around the fact that our son was sexually abused,” she said. “It’s another to realize that our community — our friends and neighbors, the people who davened next to us in shul and had playdates at our house — chose to turn a blind eye, or worse, betray us.”
So, who is 'US' AND 'THEM'? As I work to understand WHY I am being HIT------these are the structures I must consider. How can CANON LAW be abused? Well, I left employment at a rather high-level management job because I developed SEASONAL AFFECT DISORDER-----that is DEPRESSION from lack of SUNSHINE. That SAD became too deep for me to continue to work and I resigned. The LEADING DOCTORS tied to my employment were ANGRY-----they didn't want to have to replace me. This is a common occurrence in tens of millions of US citizens' lives. Some people quit employment for reasons that benefit THEM financially------socially-----family. If corporate leaders are allowed to use a HITTING structure as REVENGE for an employee leaving-----that would something I could believe to be the reason I was targeted for HITTING. The timeline of being HIT works with the case of my leaving one state and coming to another the future moves all tied to being HIT.
A GLOBAL CORPORATION and its leaders are tied to CANON LAW by the high-ranking leaders of each religion. A JEWISH CEO could use the RABBINICAL system ----A CATHOLIC CEO could use the BISHOPS system-----A MUSLIM CEO could use the IMAM system to track and HIT any employee/CITIZEN they wanted to harm.
A NSW Supreme Court judge has found the Sydney Beth Din’s (SBD) rabbis – Rabbi Yehoram Ulman, Rabbi Moshe Gutnick, Rabbi Michael Chriqui and Rabbi Eli Schlanger – are in contempt of court and did not afford a defendant natural justice.
Last year, Reuven Barukh was called to front the SBD to resolve a business dispute, but he refused to attend and instead offered to have the case heard “in a civil court”.
Rabbi Schlanger wrote to Barukh that “all members of the Jewish faith are obliged to have their disputes heard in accordance with Jewish Law at a Beth Din” and that Jews are “not permitted to seek adjudication at a civil court without the express permission of a Beth Din”'.
THIS 'HITTING' IN MY CASE TAKE ON LOTS OF RELIGIOUS CONNOTATIONS WHILE THE ACTIVITIES ITSELF IS TIED TO USING PEOPLE FOR MONEY ----ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE AND VIDEO PORN.
This is what happens when we start moving away from a PUBLIC COURT AND JUDICIAL system of COMMON LAW and move towards a THEOCRACY COURT system of CANON LAW giving power to each religion and its leadership.
"This makes sense when looking at revenge as a power play," wrote the study's author. "Positions with more power may have less fear of losing their job."
Here in Baltimore I have made POLITICAL MACHINES angry as well and what I call 5% freemason/Greek players can easily be used for a FATWA carried out by members of a GREEK SOCIETY for example. This is what I feel happened to me to expand the number of people allowed to HIT ME.
GREEK SOCIETIES have those networks where FATWAS tied to 'HITTING' are easily installed and maintained. Most of today's religious leaders in US are GREEKS
Nearly Half of U.S. Workers Have Sought Revenge on a Co-Worker
The consequences can range from petty to disastrous for those who get caught up in this behavior.Daniel B. Kline
Apr 23, 2018 at 8:40AM
Sometimes, no matter how much we think we have grown, the workplace can turn into high school with its high drama, pettiness, and narrow view of the world. More than 4 in 10 (44%) of 1,000 people surveyed in a new study admit they have sought workplace revenge.
That number may seem high, but the definition of revenge includes a lot of different scenarios. At the top of the list is "causing a purposeful decline in the quality or quantity of your work." That's revenge, in a sense, but it's not exactly leaving a severed horse head in a co-worker's bed. Other more spiteful types of revenge include "spreading unflattering rumors," "quitting in an unconventional way," and "hiding a co-workers possession[s]" rounding out the top four methods of "revenge" given.
Still, while some of the items above and others on the list, including "eat a co-worker's lunch" seem more childish than terrible, the much more detrimental "get a co-worker fired" was the fifth-most-popular method of revenge. "Delete work from a co-worker's computer was also named as a method of revenge as was "sabotage a co-worker's work."
Don't do this
It should go without saying that seeking revenge in the workplace, even a toxic office, is a terrible idea. While doing something that harms a co-worker may bring short-term satisfaction, it's petty and in some cases named above, even criminal. Many of the methods used will actually harm your career and some might land you in big trouble.
In all cases, when you have a work problem, it's best to handle it professionally. Bring it up to your boss or to human resources. That may not be as satisfying as eating a co-worker's lunch, but it's the right move for your career.
Who is committing workplace revenge?
While more than half of workers can resist the urge to take revenge on a co-worker, that does not mean someone won't try to take it on them. That can be a challenging problem to deal with because the survey showed that only 36% of entry-level workers have sought workplace revenge while 45% of senior managers and 38% of general managers have.
"This makes sense when looking at revenge as a power play," wrote the study's author. "Positions with more power may have less fear of losing their job."
In addition, higher-level employees have more power to openly seek revenge against lower-level workers. Because of their lofty positions, managers can mess with lower-level workers in ways that may be hard to spot. For example, a boss can give out unpleasant work assignments, deny overtime, or assign subordinates to unpleasant shifts out of spite or as a measure of workplace revenge.
What should you do?
First, always try to be honest and above board when dealing with co-workers. Don't give anyone a reason to seek revenge or want to see bad things happen to you. If something happens that may put you at odds with a co-worker, or even worse a boss, be proactive and take steps to talk it out.
Of course, just like in high school, it's possible to get targeted when you actually did nothing wrong. When that happens, it's important to discuss the situation. Go to human resources or your boss (assuming that's not the perpetrator) and let them know what is happening.
That won't always solve the problem if a person at the top has it out for you. Still, it's the best chance you have to rectify the situation without seeing it get further out of hand.
Something big just happened
I don't know about you, but I always pay attention when one of the best growth investors in the world gives me a stock tip. Motley Fool co-founder David Gardner and his brother, Motley Fool CEO Tom Gardner, just revealed two brand new stock recommendations. Together, they've quadrupled the stock market's return over the last 17 years.* And while timing isn't everything, the history of Tom and David's stock picks shows that it pays to get in early on their ideas.
There is NO WAY to maintain a COURT/LEGAL structure tied to CANON LAW where anyone can call themselves a RELIGIOUS LEADER. GREEKS are pledged to what they consider a RELIGION-----FREEMASONRY has its own structure for RELIGION.
My case of NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG entail all of these FATWAS structures coming from people in powerful positions.
'In the courts, a slave accused of any crime against a white person was doomed. No testimony could be made by a slave against a white person. Therefore, the slave's side of the story could never be told in a court of law. Of course, slaves were conspicuously absent from juries as well'.
NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG have been allowed to use PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE structures outside on streets and inside business buildings to call me A SLAVE-----NO ONE WANTS ME------THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH HER (me)
PROTESTANTS have never had a CANON COURT because we have always used PUBLIC FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL COMMON LAW courts to which everyone in modern history was able to access. We haven't had SLAVERY in US since mid-late 1800s.
When I hear these terms directed at ME ----I am obviously a FREE WOMAN highly educated with my own money to support me-----I think Hmmmmm why would I have no outlet for justice. Well, I am not CATHOLIC---I am not MUSLIM----I am not JEWISH ergo I have no CANON LAW COURT protecting me.
'Legally considered property, slaves were not allowed to own property of their own. They were not allowed to assemble without the presence of a white person'.
THIS IS WHAT I THINK IS HAPPENING WITH THOSE CALLED 'THEM' WHO ARE BEING SELECTED TO BE 'HIT' RANDOMLY---NOT BEING GUILTY OF ANY CRIME WHICH WOULD LEAD TO THESE DRACONIAN LEGAL RULINGS.
FEEDBACK from NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG say
SHE'S NOT FIT FOR THE PRESENCE OF GOOD PEOPLE-----sounding much like SLAVES NOT ALLOWED TO ASSEMBLE IN THE PRESENCE OF FREE MEN AND WOMEN.
I am not supposedly allowed to be OUT after a certain hour----since I am a SLAVE.
6f. "Slave Codes"
The Granger Collection, New York
Nat Turner was inspired by visions of the Spirit to lead a slave uprising in Virginia on August 22, 1831.Slaves did not accept their fate without protest. Many instances of rebellion were known to Americans, even in colonial times. These rebellions were not confined to the South. In fact, one of the earliest examples of a slave uprising was in 1712 in Manhattan. As African Americans in the colonies grew greater and greater in number, there was a justifiable paranoia on the part of the white settlers that a violent rebellion could occur in one's own neighborhood. It was this fear of rebellion that led each colony to pass a series of laws restricting slaves' behaviors. The laws were known as slave codes.
Although each colony had differing ideas about the rights of slaves, there were some common threads in slave codes across areas where slavery was common. Legally considered property, slaves were not allowed to own property of their own. They were not allowed to assemble without the presence of a white person. Slaves that lived off the plantation were subject to special curfews.
In the courts, a slave accused of any crime against a white person was doomed. No testimony could be made by a slave against a white person. Therefore, the slave's side of the story could never be told in a court of law. Of course, slaves were conspicuously absent from juries as well.
Slave codes had ruinous effects on African American society. It was illegal to teach a slave to read or write. Religious motives sometimes prevailed, however, as many devout white Christians educated slaves to enable the reading of the Bible. These same Christians did not recognize marriage between slaves in their laws. This made it easier to justify the breakup of families by selling one if its members to another owner.
As time passed and the numbers of African Americans in the New World increased, so did the fears of their white captors. With each new rebellion, the slave codes became ever more strict, further abridging the already limited rights and privileges this oppressed people might hope to enjoy.
NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG as we have said often is a civil unrest civil war global private military corporation structure allowed to work in a black market economy tied to the global SEX TRADE. I have said from the start NOSY NEIGHBORS and all this surveillance technology come straight from the WAR ZONE and I tie it to ABU GHRAIB.
While doing that I do not see NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG as EMPLOYED BY MILITARY---I see them USED to exact control and revenge by these kinds of FATWAS sources listed above.
'In the 1970’s, the U.S. military tossed its trousers into the sex trade when Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara arranged for cities in Thailand and elsewhere to establish brothels. These businesses were specifically set up to handle thousands of U.S. servicemen on leave from fighting in Vietnam.
Naturally, it was understood that the women in these ventures were to be paid and not forcibly enscripted'.
When I state that NOSY NEIGHBORS tied to being MUSLIM acting as if I was a PRISONER OF WAR----made a SEX SLAVE----this is not over-dramatizing what is MOVING FORWARD because of our US SOVEREIGNTY being replaced by OLD WORLD FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES as colonial entities.
Hmmmm, seems I look a lot like that ISRAELI WOMAN below taken captive and used for SEXUAL GRATIFICATION in order to HUMILIATE me just as the ARABIC PRISONERS at ABU GHRAIB.
'Indeed, Dr. Suʿad Ṣālih, former Dean of the Women’s College of Islamic and Arabic Studies at al-Azhar University in Egypt (the seat of Sunni learning), very explicitly and nonchalantly states that taking female slaves (milk al-yamīn) is Islamically permissible in a war against Muslim enemies. She gives an example involving Israelis, stating that were Israel to fall, it would be permissible to take Israeli women as captives and use them for sexual gratification in order to humiliate them'.
This is why we use the term ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE is taking the US back to 3000BC but instead of Western religions it adopts EASTERN HINDI-BRAHMIN.....extreme wealth extreme poverty filled with small g-----gods and goddesses.
A Short History of
February 1, 2007 - -
This article is included in the anthology
Sexual Enslavement of Girls and Women
Herodotus and other ancient historians tell us the Greeks
were famous for carting off young women after battles. The human booty was consigned to lives of servitude, either as concubines or domestic servants.
In Rome, at the height of its far-flung empire, one in every
three persons is thought to have been a slave. While enslaved men toiled as laborers, girls and women were more likely to be channeled into entertainment avenues.
It’s interesting to note that prior to 4000 B.C., or what has
been dubbed “pre-history”, evidence of sexual servitude and
slavery are largely absent from the artifacts of human culture.