---

CANDLELIGHTING

---

THE JEWISH VIEW

---

HOLIDAYS

---

JUDAISM 101

---

{weblog_name} - Happy 10-23 Chuck
Comments (1)

So, I look up at the calendar, and I see that Tuesday is dated 10-23. For those of few old-timers left at Alter Communications, this number is, well let’s just say personal. We’d push the buttons 1-0-2-3 on the exterior door computer pad of our former office at 2104 North Charles Street, and the door would click and open. That was the “secret” code that all us knew. Fact is, if there was ever an association for current and past members of the Jewish Times/Style family, it could be called the 10-23 club. 10-23 was the birthday of our late publisher Charles A. “Chuck” Buerger. He was 57 years old when he died in 1996. He’d be 68 years old Tuesday if he were still with us. But every time I look up at his photograph in our conference… read more

PHIL, I REALLY THINK YOU THINK YOU ARE PROTECTING PPLE FROM ABUSERS. BUT YOU HAVE LOST YOUR WAY IMMENSELY AND HAVE BECOME A TRUE ABUSER YOURSELF, JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PERSONAL VENDETTA AGAINST RAV EISEMANN FOR THIS: (QUOTED FROM YOUR BLOG ENTRY ON)
“I chair a once-a-year shul function. I am directed each year by my rabbi to call an individual of his choosing. That individual receives an $800-$1,000 honoraria from the Pearlstone Foundation through the Associated: Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore. The scholar-in-residence comes to shul, usually speaks on a Friday night and a Shabbat afternoon.
Years ago when this program was in its infancy I invited a respected yeshiva rabbi to be our speaker.
When he got up to speak, instead of first addressing the issue of the day, he went off on a tangent, attacking me by name and my rabbi by name. Why? Because on the Associated’s Pearlstone brochure publicizing the various scholar-in-residence programs, his name was listed along side a noted lesbian feminist, who was performing at a nearby synagogue.
The rabbi absolutely attacked us, insisting that had known he would be on the same list as the woman, he never would have accepted the gig at our shul.”

PHIL, YOU ARE SO BIASED AGAINST RAV EISEMANN BECAUSE OF THIS INCIDENT, WHEN HE HAD A VERY GOOD POINT. BUT EVEN IF IT UPSET YOU, IT DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE KILLING YOU HAVE DONE. SEE BELOW FOR THE EXPOSURE OF HOW LOW YOU HAVE SUNK-LETTERS PRINTED IN YOUR MAGAZINE.

Unverifiable

The Jewish Times and Phil Jacobs revealed low
journalistic integrity and reliability with their
publication of the article concerning Rabbi Moshe
Eisemann. From the opening sentence until the very
end, there was almost nothing more than unverifiable,
unsubstantiated and ergo non-credible allegations.

While having no factual knowledge of the
communications between Rabbi Hopfer and Rabbi
Eisemann, the Jewish Times publishes an anonymous
source saying “he thinks” Rabbi Eisemann admitted some
of the abuses. Of what credibility is a statement if
the source is not sure his information is accurate?

The Jewish Times writes that Rabbi Hopfer allegedly
was chosen by Ner Israel, Rabbi Eisemann was allegedly
told to work through issues with a therapist, and
Rabbi Eisemann was allegedly retired through Rabbi
Hopfer’s recommendations. It is all just alleged!

And I am supposed to believe that the alleged
therapist broke ethical and legal confidentiality and
shared his beliefs about a client with some anonymous
source and then I should trust this alleged unethical
therapist’s assessment?

The Jewish Times writes “One source said: ‘You have
Rabbi Eisemann denying all of this. You have Ner
Israel’s legal statement. You have Rabbi Hopfer’s
judgment call. Also, Rabbi Hopfer found Eisemann’s
accuser credible. Put it all together this is what you
have.’” Well, what exactly do you have? Nothing but
speculation.

And the accusations from Mr. Simms –– they are
complete supposition and subjective non-factual
statements. Just because he thinks Rabbi Eisemann was
looking somewhere does not make that true. He
‘believes’ Rabbi Eisemann touched him twice
inappropriately. What does that mean?

That the Jewish Times would print one individual’s
literally dubious and unverifiable accusations at the
expense of someone’s reputation is nothing short of
irresponsible and reckless.

A few months ago Mr. Jacobs solicited information on
the UOJ blog concerning Rabbi Eisemann. He personally
confirmed this to me in a phone call. I was shocked to
see a supposedly respectable journalist publicly name
someone as an alleged molester and then go fishing
publicly for information when someone’s name and
reputation were at stake without any facts to back him
up.

Instead he has chosen to print rumors at the cost of
someone’s reputation. Such behavior would be wrong
even if the alleged perpetrator was your average
citizen, let alone a beloved Rebbi of thousands.

Mr. Jacobs writes “His [Rabbi Hopfer’s] response could
have cleared up much of the speculation.” Mr. Jacobs
should blame himself for helping the speculation
continue with almost no facts at his disposal.

Zev Friedman
Calgary, Canada

Phil, your scandalous and disgusting revenge on Rabbi Eisemann has not been forgotten.

You lie.

You say “Snubbing at Tiferes Yisroel by Rabbi Eisemann?......We settled our differences in our telephone conversation and moved on. ”

YOU SEEK NO TRUTH ONLY REVENGE.

May You Find No Peace.

A victim