Shmerel writes:

Is it true that the monies that are gotten for the children’s real estate never get to Mrs Ort bec. those monies are distributed by Ort’s brother?

Our Response:

Phillip Ort, R Avrohom’s brother and the manager of the real estate which the court made Mrs. Ort the custodian on, is under court order to send all their income to Mrs. Ort.

As an illustration of that happening and an idea of what the income receivable from that is, here is a check deposited by Mrs. Ort last month: check

Notice the message on back of check that this brings all payments due to the children up-to-date.

Because this check represents settling some back payments, it is for a larger amount than the usual monthly check. But it does portray just how “starving” the “poor” children are.

Yossi Writes:

While I don’t claim to know both sides of this story it is quite clear to me that this site is not just to provide information. This is rather a forum for a one sided story to be told.

I do however know some well-respected people that have worked for Mrs. Ort because they are aware of the details that represent her case.

In addition, to my knowledge she was instructed by a well respected Rav to take her case to court. So before you portray your site as just information and a willingness to “help” the Ort Family be honest and admit that everything on this site portrays R’ Ort’s position.

I will once again say that I am not drawing conclusions as to who is right or wrong but I don’t believe that this website is as you “advertise”, and it is certainly not bringing any Shalom.

Our Response:

We appreciate your comment very much because, although the fallacy in your logic in really simple, it could be overlooked by others just as it seemingly was by you. Thank you for providing the opportunity to point it out.

If a plaintiff in court obtains judgment in his favor by default (i.e. his adversary offers no counter-claim), you cannot call that ruling “one-sided” even though it only offers one side of the story. “One sided” is when you refuse to present the other side, not when it’s not there to present.

This website has constantly offered to present any claims and/or documentation that Mrs. Ort may have. That offer still stands. The glaring lack of any documentation on their side may or may not be an indication that there just isn’t any, but it certainly does not make us “one sided”.

This site does present Rabbi Ort’s side, true, however we are commited to presenting both sides of the argument, if they will be submitted to us.

You claim that she was “instructed by a well known Rav to take her case to court”. If this is true, why can she not present a single document to be publicized to support that claim? All the Gedolim supporting Rav Avrohom, who have consulted both sides, have issued public statements on his behalf. To reject the printed psak of all the Gedolim here and in Eretz Yisroel, in favor of a rumor about one individual Rav, seems to us to be pretty one sided.

As to your claim that we are “certainly not bringing any Shalom”, well it depends: If shalom means Rav Avrohom forced to remain in golus, penniless, while his former wife sits happily on the riches that she misappropriated from him by going to arka’os she’lo k’din, then you are right. We picture shalom as Mrs. Ort and the children being adequately provided for by an impartial Bais Din shel Yisroel k’din Toraseinu haKedosha while R’ Avrohom is allowed to return home and have a remainder of his parents’ yerusha. That shalom has not been accomplished yet, but we are certainly working toward it.

– A Pushita Yid

Shloimy Klugman writes:

Lots of information, obviously very complicated.

I know some of the children though, and I have one question: why are all the children seemingly happy with their mother, and say they don’t want to have anything to do with their father?

Doesn’t that say something?

Our Response:

In order to correctly address your comment, we must focus separately on the two separate aspects of the Orts’ situation which you present.

The first is the financial, which you seemingly assess based on our presentation. Your conclusion is that is it “very complicated”.

The second is the personal, which you assess based on your knowing of the children’s negative attitude toward their father. Your conclusion (clearly implied by your closing statement: “Doesn’t that say something”) is that there must be something wrong with the father.

Your first conclusion is definitely incorrect. Webster’s Dictionary (’93) defines “complicated” as “difficult to understand”. Our presentation is lengthy, because we encompassed all aspects of the case. It is detailed, because we gave full documentation to prove its veracity. But it all points toward one clear, inescapable conclusion: Mrs. Ort acquired R’ Avrohom’s entire inheritance of millions of dollars. That is not complicated.

The second aspect you present deserves the conclusion you assigned to the first. Human emotions are extremely complicated and almost impossible to fathom (Yirmiyahu 17:9). To take a superficial glance at a situation and assume the most simple cause to be the correct one is about as accurate as a doctor who, whenever he hears that someone has a headache, makes no further investigation and assumes that the person must have walked into a lamppost.

It is our fervent hope that when this matter reaches its just conclusion in a Bais Din, they will also take steps to heal the rift which has tragically (but typically) arisen between the children and their father. But just for the record, knowledgeable sources inform us that when R’ Avrohom himself was forced to move out of the house, the reactions of some of the children ranged from little ones walking around crying “when is Totty coming home”, to an older one running away from home in protest, and similar reactions in between. Yet now, after having had no contact with him in the interim, only with their mother, they mysteriously changed their attitude and “don’t want to have anything to do with their father”.

Doesn’t that say something?

– A Pushita Yid

Terry K. writes:

Such a shame that such things are publicized in our community!

Our response:

In OUR community, we try to establish our norms by the guidelines of Chazal as codified in the poskim. In the classic Halachic treatise Chofetz Chaim (4:8) we find: “If Bais Din tells someone a halacha… and he absolutely refuses to acquiesce, and he has no valid reason for doing so, it is permitted to publicize his iniquity.”  (See footnote 32 that this publicity is permitted only for a practical purpose e.g. “to motivate the culprit to desist from his wrongdoing by utilizing the opprobrium of public opinion.”) This is further elaborated on ibid, 10:4.

You state that in YOUR community it is considered a shame to publicize such wrongdoing. The insinuation by omission is that perpetrating such wrongdoing is not a shame, only the publicizing thereof.

We find this puzzling. Could you identify your community?

– A Pushita Yid

Terry K Responds:

Well since you yourself state that you goal is NOT to point fingers, how can you defend publicizing this story by claiming it is permitted to “publicize his iniquity”?

And my community is Lakewood, NJ.

Our response:

Your quote is a part of one sentence from the front page of this website. Allow us to present the entire text:

“The purpose of this site and all the documentation is NOT to point fingers…in a personal sense. In any divorce, emotions run high, the pain is great and people are driven to act in a way that they themselves would never have contemplated under normal circumstances.”

Two paragraphs earlier on the same page we state, “This site is to provide information…that you will be spurred to ask yourself, ‘What can I do to help…’ Our other goal is that…the parties involved will go to a Bais Din…as halacha requires.”

It seems that the answer to your question is self-explanatory. We are NOT pointing fingers at anyone as being “to blame”, “a rosho”, etc. (see also earlier response to comment), but we ARE publicizing the facts in hope of achieving a settlement fair to all, in Bais Din. This is in keeping with the halacha cited from Sefer Chofetz Chaim, and the universal practice of Botei Din to furnish a Siruv for circulation, towards reaching that goal.

Incidentally, we note that you left unanswered our question as to why you seem so perturbed by the one who publicized the iniquity, but not by the one who perpetrated it.

We are still puzzled.

– A Pushita Yid

Joanne writes:

What I don’t get is why Jews can’t go to court???

Our response:

We could answer you simply: Because it says so in Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 26:1, but since your question touches on a fundamental of the Jewish religion, it deserves a more in-depth answer.

One of the most basic tenets of our belief is the fact that in the year 2448 from Creation, Hashem (God), in an event unparalleled in history, granted prophecy on a national scale to the progeny of His beloved Avrohom (Abraham). Yitzchak (Isaac) and Yaakov (Jacob) in order to establish them as His chosen people by virtue of their accepting His Torah. This covenant was bonded into eternity by a mutual oath between Him and His chosen people. (Devarim 26:17-18/Gittin 57b)

The authority of the Torah is in its totality and is for all time (Rambam, Hil. Yesode HaTorah 9:1). If someone denies the authenticity of even one single law of the Torah, even those derived by the Rabbinic Interpretation, he is categorized as a heretic. (Rambam, Hil. Teshuva 3:8)

With this foundation laid, we can understand the severity of the words of Chazal (Gittin 88b, Tanchuma Shmos 21:1, codified in Rambam, Hil. Sanhedrin 26:7, Choshen Misphat 26:1) that we are not only forbidden to utilize the non-Jewish courts for our monetary claims, but that one who does so is considered to have denied the very existence of Hashem and of the Torah, an epithet which is not pronounced over someone who simply decides as to the justice of his claims on his own and helps himself to his adversary’s assets.

It is because the latter recognizes the sovereignty of the Torah, he merely succumbed to the temptation to satisfy his greed. The former, however, seeking desperately to not merely satisfy, but to justify that greed, resorted to rejecting the laws of the Torah which we and our ancestors (Shmos Rabbah 28:6 ) accepted for eternity. He has repudiated that eternal bond which the Torah represents. The bond that we, the chosen people, have faithfully kept with the Creator of the Universe for the past 3322 years. Therefore any man or woman who summons to secular court an adversary willing to be heard in Bais Din, or any person regardless of his title who supports such action, is justifiably branded “in rebellion against the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu”. (Shulchan Aruch ibid.)

– A Pushita Yid

Debbie Roberts writes:

Hi,
Firstly, let me thank you for this very informative post, you are obviously very well informed in Jewish law. I was researching this topic because of a class our Rabbi gave on the topic of non-Jewish courts. His conclusion was quite different than yours. In short, he said that because in our times we do not have an “official court” (he used a Hebrew term that i don’t recall) it is always allowed to go to non-Jewish courts. He referred us to the following webpage to back up his reasoning.

Although I do not fully understand what it says, it seems to corroborate his conclusion. I was wondering if you could explain what it says on the above webpage and how it differs from what you posted here. I would appreciate it immensely since I am currently faced with a situation and I’m not sure what I should do.

(Also, are you a Rabbi?)

Our response:

We have reviewed the text of the webpage you mentioned, Since you say that you do not fully understand it, allow us to briefly summarize:

The Kli Chemdah (a commentary on the Chumash) quotes the same Halacha as did we, that it is forbidden for Jews to resort to gentile courts except for when one’s adversary refuses to submit to Bais Din, and even then only with the permission of a Bais Din that verified from both sides that such is the case. He proceeds to question why even then is it permissible, and he offers two answers: 1) In case of an intransigent adversary, one may even take the laws into his own hands. It follows that using a gentile court is no worse than using a club. The Kli Chemdah ultimately disproves this reasoning. 2) Since the basis for the prohibition of using gentile courts is the intrinsic recognition of a set of values other than the one presented to us by Hashem through Moshe Rabbenu (Moses), this recognition is not implied by someone who established in a Bais Din that he is being coerced by the actions of his adversary. This is his final answer.

As you can see, it fully corroborates what we stated. Furthermore, it makes no mention of any difference between times when there is an “official court” or any other times. If the term your rabbi used was “Sanhedrin”, then aside from our seeing no basis in that webpage for his position, it is contradicted by all the Rabbinic responsa and codes of the past millennium. They all work freely with the prohibition of gentile courts, in spite of their having lived long after the dissolution of the last Sanhedrin.

Actually this issue is not germane to the purpose of this website, as to our knowledge, Mrs. Ort never denied the general obligation to litigate in Bais Din; rather she excused herself on the grounds that she had no choice as she was left “penniless”. Therefore this website documents exactly how “penniless” she was.

We have addressed this matter out of an appreciation of your sincere desire to clarify this fundamental concept and as a public service to anyone else in need of such clarification.

Regarding your last question, “Are you a rabbi?”: This website is the combined efforts of many individuals – some are rabbis, some are laymen, some male, some female. We are all just trying to help a Jewish family the Jewish way.

– A Pushita Yid

‘Anonymous’ writes:

You only show the front of the checks. I suspect that many of these checks were never handed over. Also, the child support is supposed to be $25,000 a month. It is clear even according to these checks that nothing even remotely close was being provided!

Our response:

The point which you seemingly misunderstand is that the checks documented were not part of the child support. The child support of $25,000 per month, which gave Mrs. Ort $525,000 between 7/5/01 and 3/03 when the joint account was thereby depleted, were all issued from the bank directly to Mrs. Ort. I am displaying (again) the court order that Mrs. Ort herself withdraw the $25,000 every month from Smith-Barney, and the statement from Smith-Barney showing that that account had a balance of $668,512.34 at the outset of the case. (Note the matching acct. numbers in the judge’s order and the statement.)

The checks you are referring to are not child support but represent money given voluntarily to Mrs. Ort from Rav Avrohom in addition to the $316,210.52 (itemized on the spreadsheet on this website as source #1) which he gave her during the fourteen months of “reconciliation”. These checks were accepted as evidence by the arbitration panel and were documented by then in their final ruling, as they were not contested by Mrs. Ort. If you wish to doubt their veracity now, that is your prerogative. At any rate, those checks represent less than 10% of the total money R’ Avrohom gave Mrs. Ort in the hope of “reconciliation”. The other 90% is documented by the panel, as displayed.

– A Pushita Yid

Anonymous writes:

The last check was in 2001. that was close to nine years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What are you trying to prove? You big fat liar!!

Our response:

The information furnished for your previous comment should suffice for this one too. If you still find it unclear, I suggest you ask your parents or someone a little older.

‘Fotheringay-Phipps’ writes:

One thing you’ve not addressed in this website is how it came about that R’ Avrohom lost so resoundingly in secular courts. I’ve seen the arbitration settlement (online) and it is as one-sided as anything I’ve ever seen. From that point and on it’s a long internet trail of R’ Avrohom filing and losing court appeals.

I’m aware that the courts are highly biased against men, but this particular verdict seemed extreme even by secular court standards.

Best as I can speculate is that the arbitrators agreed with Mrs. Ort that R’ Avrohom had attempted to conceal assets and thus couldn’t be trusted, so they had to give Mrs. Ort control over everything.

But maybe not. I’d be interested to hear how this came about.

Our Response:

Thank you for taking the trouble to research this matter. The first step toward rectifying a situation is to be thoroughly aware of it. In this particular situation where the excuse given was that Mrs. Ort was “left penniless”, the first step is to see for yourself how untrue that is.

I think that we would all agree with you that the matrimonial courts are highly biased against men, but as far as this particular verdict being extreme, that is true only insofar as its bottom line, which was to leave R’ Avrohom with zero. (p. 96 of the arbitration ruling) (not settlement)  The legal rationale behind this bottom line was primarily the fact that (as you saw): 1) The vast majority of assets had been put by R’ Avrohom in the children’s name, thereby removing them completely from the framework of this litigation. Mrs. Ort gained automatic control of them by being appointed as custodian (standard legal policy is that the parent with whom the children are living be custodian of their funds) and 2) The joint account, which had a balance of $656,404.00 as of the commencement of the trial (p. 23) all went to Mrs. Ort for “child support” of $25,000 per month (p. 11).

Hence, this decision is not more biased than the entire system which can take an inheritance wholly the husband’s (p. 7) and give it to the wife (p. 96).

YOU NOW UNDERSTAND WHY MRS. ORT IS SO ADAMANT IN REFUSING TO GO TO BAIS DIN. IN COURT SHE WAS GUARANTEED UP FRONT THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE ASSETS WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BECOME HERS AS CUSTODIAN. HOW THE SHULCHAN ARUCH VIEWS CUSTODIAL ASSETS AND THEIR ALLOTMENT MAY BE VERY DIFFERENT, BUT PRESUMABLY EVEN MRS. ORT WOULD NOT CLAIM THAT SHE WENT TO COURT TO OBTAIN THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE SHULCHAN ARUCH.

As far as who the panel trusted (or mistrusted) more, a number of Mrs. Ort’s claims were also rejected (see p. 55-56, 81), so that is indeed a matter of speculation. But the panel’s opinions as to their personal caliber is really not relevant, as the purpose of this website is to highlight that Mrs. Ort obtained millions of dollars from R’ Avrohom’s inheritance Shelo K’din though Arka’os shel Akum. That is not a matter of speculation.

It is a chizuk to us that you took the effort to read through over a hundred pages of documentation to clarify this matter. We hope that others will follow your example and be spurred to action which will finally resolve this matter “al pi Torah” in the Ir HaTorah.

A Pushita Yid

‘a friend of the ort family’ writes

What exactly is the purpose of your website you act as if you are so concerned with halacha, but you disregard all halachos with every single word of this website. Have you ever heard the term “loshon harah”?? You act as if you care about the children, yet you publish this publicly! There are 10 children still unmarried, you and your website are partially responsible for the pain they feel when they are turned down for a shidduch because of the misinformation people have about their family.

You act so concerned about all the money aspects of this issue; did you ever stop to think about why Mrs. Ort felt the need to turn to a secular court in the first place? Did it occur to you that she needed protection from this “chasshuva yid” you seem to think so highly of?

You have so much documentation abt the financials, why didn’t you post documentation of the restraining order some of the children have against their father? Or pictures of the bruises he left on some children?

Did you ever stop and wonder WHY he is out of the country and can’t return? Why haven’t you posted documentation of the warrant out for his arrest?

MOST IMPORTANTLY, I am wondering why you feel the need to hurt and embarrass this family further. You must be a close friend or family member of “harav reb” Avrohom Ort, and you are just as heartless as he is!

Our Response:

After carefully sifting through your comment, we were able to separate the six issues which you raise with our website. They are:

1.    What is its purpose?
2.    It is loshon hara.
3.    It hurts the children’s shidduch prospects.
4.    It provides “misinformation”.
5.    It omits documentation of the restraining order and physical brutality.
6.    It omits documentation of the arrest warrant.

Your last point (“MOST IMPORTANTLY”) is a repeat of point no. 1.

All of your issues focus on demonstrating who is really “right” and who is “wrong” in this case. We believe, as the gedolim have declared, that only an impartial Bais Din, accepted by both sides, which hears all the testimony from both parties face to face, is qualified to make that decision. Hence, there is really no need to address these issues here. However, since you raised them, and they are all really easy to clarify, we will do so.

1. The purpose of this website is explained clearly on the front page, and its goal, to bring the matter to a Din Torah as halacha requires, is obviously acceptable to any objective frum person. That is why it has been endorsed by all the gedolei harabbonim.

2. The method of accomplishing that goal, i.e. publicizing the truth of what has transpired by means of documentation, is the universal practice of all Botei Din when they issue a siruv or ikul against the recalcitrant party so that it may be publicized. (See a previous response to “Terry” for more sources.) If you feel that all the gedolim who have issued their letters regarding Mrs. Ort’s behavior in this matter are transgressing the issur of loshon hara, perhaps you should inform them so.

3. Allow us to share with you a dialogue that took place some months ago, which answers your question.
We first wish to reiterate the position of the Roshei Yeshiva shlit”a, articulated very succinctly by Horav Dovid Schustal shlit”a on his way to the courthouse in Toms River on behalf of Rav Avrohom in May of 2008. He said, “We are not saying that she (Mrs. Ort) is wrong on the monetary questions. She may be entitled to every penny that she took. But she is wrong in setting herself up as the one to decide those questions by going to court and refusing to go to Bais Din.” (as quoted by R. Yakov Pikus)

With that Hashkofo in mind, here is the dialogue:

The Rosh Yeshiva Horav Malkiel Kotler shlit”a was beset with the following question by the indefatigable Mrs. Miriam Steinberg: Even if you hold that she is wrong, but the children are suffering in shidduchim. What right do you have to make the children suffer because of her?

He replied: You are looking at it backwards. If she would take the whole matter to Bais Din as she is m’chuyov to, the Bais Din would settle it once and for all, the people would stop talking about it, and the children would find shidduchim. By not going to Bais Din, she is causing everyone to keep talking about it and the children continue to suffer. She is responsible for the shidduchim problems and no one else.

Our comment: “The words of a Talmid Chochom are graced” (Koheles 10:12). Would that Mrs. Ort follow the advice of the Roshei Yeshiva shlit”a and all the other gedolim, and there be many simchas in the Ort family.

4. All information on this website is corroborated by documentation. If you demonstrate anything to be incorrect, we will remove it.

Your theory that Mrs. Ort went to court because “she needed protection” from Rav Avrohom is chronologically impossible. Mrs. Ort went to court on Feb. 4, 2000, whereas the restraining order that you mention was filed for on Oct. 10, 2003 – 3 ½ years later. The only “protection” Mrs. Ort sought in going to court was for the assets, by freezing them so that they could all go for “child support” between years 2000-2003. We shall address this point thoroughly as soon as we are able to obtain full documentation, hopefully next week.

6. Meanwhile let us answer your last point, the arrest warrant. As per your request, we are posting the warrant in its entirety.

Click to enlarge

As you can see, it is wholly for monetary issues. There is no mention of, or even a request for, any kind of protection, nor is R’ Avrohom even accused of any misconduct whatsoever, contrary to the insinuation of your comment.

All it shows is that after acquiring over 4 ½ million dollars from him and leaving him penniless, Mrs. Ort is trying to throw Rav Avrohom into jail because he did not get a job to earn a couple thousand more for her.

Do you feel that this is fair, and publishing it is needless loshon horo?

– A Pushita Yid

a friend of the ort family:

Regarding the page “What would you do with a check like that?”; With a check like that, if I was a single parent to thirteen children, I would pay my mortgage, utility bills, tuition, food bills, etc… It is a very stupid question!!!!

Our reply:

We found it very surprising that you seemingly forgot the most basic information that has been on display on this website since its inception.

Mrs. Ort is already receiving $11,000 per month (for the last seven years) to pay her utility bills, tuition, etc. (See source #3 on spreadsheet and this.)

You must have also forgotten that she is receiving the children’s share of the income from a huge commercial building in Jamaica, Queens (approx. $70,000 per year; see source #7 on spreadsheet and documentation), and a shopping mall in Sussex, NJ (of which this check is just a part) to pay those bills that you mention.

And it certainly just slipped your mind that this is all in addition to the $342,000 that Rav Avrohom gave her towards “reconciliation” (see Source #1 and documentation) and the $600,000 which she acknowledged taking from the personal account of Rav Avrohom’s mother (see source #2 and documentation). Presumably this could help offset those many bills, too.

And then there are the custodial accounts of the 7 emancipated children which they put at her disposal as they reached age 21. (See documentation as to the size of those accounts.) Surely it also slipped your mind. But now that you’ve been reminded of all those millions of dollars to take care of utilities, tuitions and food bills, we ask you:

If you got an additional check for $139,000 WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH A CHECK LIKE THAT??? (If you still feel that the question is “very stupid”, you are invited to explain why.)

Incidentally, you mention paying a mortgage: There was no mortgage on the home, Rav Avrohom’s father o”h bought it for him – all cash. Also, of the 13 children, 3 are married and two more are working full-time, leaving 8 being supported by Rav Avrohom’s funds.

– Pushita

The Friend of the Ort family replies:

All the money that you quote that Mrs Ort “gets” each month, ie. $11,000 per month, she only gets when and if “Rav” Ort actually follows the laws of the country we live in, and gives her what he is legally obligated to be giving her. however, we all know that he is out of the country, with a warrant for his arrest in America should he step foot back in this country, simply because he is not following the law, and he is not giving her the money she is owed. And, incidentally, the house that Mrs Ort lives in now we have to assume was not a gift from “Rav” Ort’s father, and she must be paying a mortgage on that. So i stand by my opinion; STUPID QUESTION!

Our response:

Thank you for clarifying your previous comment. You are overlooking facts documented on this website; we shall remind you of them.

You assert that “the $11,000 per month she only gets when and if Rav Ort…follows the laws of the country…and gives her”.

A glance at the order will show you that this is factually incorrect. The court did not order Rav Avrohom to give this money to Mrs. Ort. They could not, because they were aware that he had no money left. They ordered the bank (Smith Barney) where the money was frozen to issue the money directly to Mrs. Ort. (Click here to see arbitration order and here)

Hence, unless you maintain that the bank “is not giving her the money”, it is now clarified that Mrs. Ort has received $11,000 per month for the past 7 years  ($924,0000) from accounts established by Rav Avrohom.

Also, as you do not make any assumptions to negate any of the other sources of income which we listed and documented on the spreadsheet and website, we reiterate: if you had $924,000 in “child support” plus $342,000 in “voluntary support” plus $600,000 admitted taken from R’ Avrohom’s mother plus $70,000 yearly income from children’s real estate all to pay utilities, tuitions and food bills and then you got a check for another $139,000, WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH A CHECK LIKE THAT???

(If you still feel that the question is “very stupid” please review the facts documented on this website, and then you are invited to explain why.)

Incidentally, your statement that the arrest warrant on Rav Avrohom is “because he is not following the law” is also erroneous. Rav Avrohom has not broken any laws, nor has Mrs. Ort ever even accused him in court of breaking any law (and she would certainly not pass up the opportunity!). The warrant on Rav Avrohom is for contempt of court, which does not constitute a crime. It is simply a prerogative of a judge to coerce either party into complying with his ruling. If this difference is not clear to you, consult any lawyer.

Although contempt of court is not a crime, mesira and going to arka’os without a heter Bais Din IS a most serious crime. Serious enough that the Ramo in Choshen Mishpat (26:1) calls it “a rebellion against the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu” and the perpetrator “a rosho”. (Click here to see letter from the Gedolei Eretz Yisroel about this case.) Someone who considers himself to be frum should worry about that more than a contempt of court.

Also, you refer to the money the court awarded Mrs. Ort as “money she is owed”. R. Akiva Eiger zt”l in his notes on Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) begs to differ. He writes there that money obtained through Arkaos shelo k’din Torah constitutes theft, renders the perpetrator unfit (posul) to be a witness, and that any transaction effected by that money is therefore null and void.

Your last comment is rather amusing. Do you mean that someone that can afford to leave empty a mansion in which they were living mortgage free (thanks to R’ Avrohom’s father) and purchase a second mansion is to be considered “needy” because they “nebbuch” took out a mortgage on the second one? And if she buys five more houses, will she be even more needy because she will have five mortgages to pay?

Again, we thank you for your comment. It provides an excellent opportunity for everyone to see for themselves the quality of Mrs. Ort’s position.

Q. The documents provided do not show Mrs. Ort as currently receiving support. the documents provide are old. anything showing current support?

Our response:

Most things indeed are old. The child support, however, is ongoing. Have a look here.