Why then did Rabbi Ort lose so badly in every court?

‘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

Joe writes:

Fotheringay-Phipp: what an ignoramus and fool you are.  The courts are utterly corrupt. They favor the woman all the time. There is a whole industry out there based on feminism and the guilt of the man before he even sets foot in court. The court is not interested in the facts, just helping the “poor weak” woman destroy the man as much as possible. That is exactly the reason this woman chose the court system instead of bais din.

[Mod.: Sounds like someone has a chip on their shoulder?]

Our Response:

Dear Joe:

We, you, and Fotheringay-Phipp all agree that the courts are biased toward the woman. We from our vantage point maintain further that anyone carefully reviewing the final arbitration ruling on R’ Avrohom’s case will see many clear examples of that bias. We also added to that premise that in this particular case, Mrs. Ort did not have to rely on that bias. This is because the unrealistic way in which the law views custodial money guaranteed her in advance of obtaining the overwhelming majority of the assets on that basis alone.

Now we ask you: Are we, you and Fotheringay-Phipp so far apart?

– A Pushita Yid