Sinas Chinam V - A Ruse by Any Other Name Would Smell as Foul

Ever since the story broke last October, I have debated whether to write about the DoorDash Girl.

On the one hand, this is certainly not the kind of news item that should be on our radar screen. On the other hand, there is a very important lesson that emerges from this story that is a clear and frightening sign of the times. 

I assume most American readers know what DoorDash is (I only found out in October). DoorDash is a freelance courier service that restaurants or other retail shops use to deliver online or telephone purchases to the customers. It is a competitor of Uber Eats. Here in Israel, we have those Wolt motorcycles. 

Any capable person with a vehicle can sign up to be a DoorDash delivery person and make a handful of cash. Many folks do it, some for basic income and some for money on the side.

This event took place on October 12, 2025 in Oswego, NY. A 23-year-old woman who was driving for DoorDash was called to make a delivery. I would guess that this woman is not married and indications are she does not even have a boyfriend. 

The call was to a man’s home with explicit instructions to leave the delivery outside the door and not to bother ringing the bell or coming in.

 

According to her, when she arrived at the home the door was wide open. It seems that the door was not locked and may have been slightly open but nothing in her TikTok video confirms the claim that it was wide open. The man inside was not fully dressed, incapacitated and unconscious on his couch after drinking alcohol. A little bit like Noach. ויתגל בתוך אהלה.

Instead of just leaving the delivery as instructed, or taking a blanket and walking backwards to cover up the indecency, she did a true maaseh shel Canaan (or Cham). She pulled out her cell phone while outside the home, and recorded the man while he was totally unconscious on his couch. She didn’t just tell her immediate family members (if she has any), but rather posted the video online to the entire world – currently more than only eight people. It is said that up to 30 million viewers viewed her revealing video on her TikTok page. 

In the Noach story, Rashi says that Noach was physically assaulted and, although intoxicated, he was unequivocally the victim. But this woman, after filming and posting this man’s “deficiency” complained to her DoorDash superiors that she was se%ually assaulted on the job. The complaint was forwarded to the Oswego Police Department and they investigated the matter obtaining statements from both the driver and the customer. 

The police determined that no actual se%ual assault (SA) occurred. Moreover, they determined that the woman violated two felony offenses. For this she was arrested and later indicted. She is now charged with unlawful surveillance in the second-degree and dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the first-degree. She now faces up to four years in prison for each felony which, could add up to eight years in the pen. 

In an Oct. 16 statement, DoorDash said that the driver’s DoorDash account was deactivated along with that of the customer. “Posting a video of a customer in their home and disclosing their personal details publicly is a clear violation of our policies,” read the statement in part.

But it seems that after she lost her job and faced prosecution, she went absolutely berserk. In some of the online versions of this news story, they show an excerpt of a TikTok video that she made after being fired where she can be seen screaming at the top of her lungs, “How can I be fired? I was SA’ed! I am the victim!”

She is saying that the mere fact that this person was in his own home totally unconscious and totally unaware of her presence, and that he was not covered below the belt, and that the door of the house did not prevent her from trespassing is his act of SA toward her.

Thank G-d, she didn’t get anywhere with this. At least upstate NY is not half as crazy as is metro NY. But it is very disturbing all the same. 

Even if she couldn’t convince her employers, the cops, or her viewers that she is a victim of SA, she certainly convinced herself. It’s not that she’s pulling a ruse and she knows it, and is just trying to “get away with it”. No, from all appearances she truly believes it. And this makes a big difference when liberals like her do indeed get positions in the DA’s office. Yeah, it didn’t play in Oswego and it wouldn’t play in Peoria, but it might play in Manhattan or Chicago.

I have no idea what the millions of viewers thought, but it’s a safe bet that there is at least a fair minority on her side. In a world where clearly stated definitions become subjective, anything goes.

This is not a new tactic. If the events don’t fit the crime, just redefine the crime to fit the events. This is how they put vaguely defined crimes on the books such as “bribery” and “racketeering” and “conspiring to...” to nab crooks and politicians (more or less synonymous) and Kosher meatpackers to help fill the prisons and justify the hard work of prosecutors. 

However, in the past, this used to be done on the sly. In today’s world, it is done blatantly and shamelessly. Hence, the shamelessness of the DoorDash girl.

בעקבתא דמשיחא חוצפא יסגיא.

This is no more apparent than in the two-year-old debacle of the ICJ accusations against Israel. We know that the South Africans, who are the genuine Bnei Cham, wanted us to be prosecuted for “genocide”. Thus, they filed a complaint to the International Court of Jesters Justice (ICJ). As we know, all Jew haters worldwide have been chanting the “genocide” song ever since October 7, but when an international court needs to apply judicial process to the claims, the stakes are much higher. 

Firstly, the court at least needs to present a façade of jurisprudence to retain a sense of impartiality and credibility. This is no small feat for them. Secondly, in so doing, the court needs to have clear definitions of the terms and apply them judiciously. Thirdly, they need to establish “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the conditions for prosecution, as defined, are being met.

To do so, they would need irrefutable evidence of incidents where civilians (non-combatants) were being targeted for hostilities or even combatants with no regard for the safety of civilians in the area. Even if an isolated incident or two is found, it needs to be established that this is the policy of the body that is accused and not an anomaly carried out by renegades.

They weren’t able to do that. So the next step was to move the goalposts. As such, in December 2024, our great friends from Ireland wanted to “broaden” the definition of “genocide” for the good of the poor civilians who weren’t being targeted. As I wrote above, if the events don’t fit the crime, just redefine the crime to fit the events.

Needless to say, such a move would open a Pandora's box and eventually come back and bite those who push for it. As far as I know, this did not get anywhere. Yet, the fact that a “concerned” sovereign nation could push for it tells us a lot about where we are.

Another “redefinition” of bad behavior is one that I have written about in numerous previous posts generally in regard to the Malka Leifer affair. But this one is a double whammy. The bad behavior in question is: pedophilia.

In my preamble post 10 years back titled Thinking Like a Jew, I stated the true definition of pedophile (from Wikipedia). Here is an excerpt:

Pedophilia - a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive se%ual attraction to prepubescent children.

Notice the word prepubescent. This means a child who has not yet reached puberty. For a girl, the cutoff would be about 12 and maximum 13.

This indicates that any se%ual offender who is just as eager to assault a person beyond puberty as they are one below puberty doesn’t fit the definition of pedophile. This person doesn’t really discriminate and, as such, there is no primary or exclusive attraction to children. More so, one who hasn’t even offended a prepubescent child at all.

But, just like the “anti”-genocidists, liberal folks need to demonize and dehumanize the offender to the utmost. Hence, they redefine a pedophile as one who experiences a se%ual attraction to children. Somehow, they dispense with the modifiers, “primary or exclusive” and “prepubescent”.

To help accomplish this, they utilize today’s liberal redefinition of the term "child". In today’s world it basically means any person, at any age, who cannot think for themselves, which technically includes any liberal person at any age. 

By broadening the definition of child, not only do they broaden the definition of pedophile (hence the double-whammy), but they also broaden the definition of genocide. Countless times we have heard the news announce: “There have been a gazillion civilian deaths – mostly women and children…” 

Hey, if a 15-year-old post-puberty boy who is trained to fight, is armed to the teeth, and is present on the battlefield constitutes a “child”, there will be many such “children” on the casualty list. And if this applies to a 17-year-old and to a 19-year-old and to a 21-year-old – and I don’t even think it ends there – there are bound to be lots and lots of dead “children”.

These first few “redefinitions” (SA, genocide, pedophile, and child) all have to do with defining - or redefining and broadening - crimes. 

I have one more redefined term to discuss. This one is not meant to broaden the crimes to fit the events, but to legitimize the punishments. The term is…Justice.

What does the term “justice” really mean?

Let’s check out Wikipedia. Here is what it says:

In its broadest sense, justice is the treatment of individuals fairly. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the most plausible candidate for a core definition comes from the Institutes of Justinian, a 6th-century codification of Roman law, where justice is defined as "the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due".

So justice means fairness. And here is an amazing corollary: the term “justice” is more applicable to the perpetrator than it is to the victim. It means that if one is accused of something, or sued for something, the defendant must be treated fairly. Lynching a suspected horse thief is not “justice” even if he really is a horse thief.

Yet, somehow it came to mean something else. It is redefined as "seeing to it that a wrongdoer gets his comeuppance". In my previous Sinas Chinam post (June 18), I made a big fuss out of this. Currently, justice is redefined as prosecution, punishment and retribution. Somehow, now, a victim gets justice, not a perpetrator.

How did this come about?

In my very first post about the Malka Leifer affair - Mesira XII: Justice is Blind...and Deaf - Midas Ha"Din" – I explained how today’s concept of justice is built. I made a few points. Here are the main ones:

The human being abhors monotony and craves drama. As such, whenever possible, a monotonous event will be dramatized to the utmost.

The human being firmly believes that good should be rewarded and evil should be punished and, as such, has a craving to administer justice and to exact revenge.

The normal human being (not a psychopath) cannot conscience unjustified violence. As such he must have some battle-cry or pretense which he will swear by to justify his actions. (E.g., righting a wrong - serving justice, avenging the "victim".)

This says that there is a universal bloodlust for crime and punishment. If the crime does not exist, it needs to be created. The old definitions need to be “broadened”. If the consequences of the crime are not debilitating and they do not mollify our bloodlust, they need to be intensified. Whereupon, they are explained away as “doing the right thing”. Fairness has nothing to do with this. The ends justify the means. 

This is the power of sinas chinam. This is the craft of Haman and Amalek, the duplicity of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. It’s a trap that many of us fall into to this day.

Revised definitions, a ruse by another name, may not play in Oswego and Peoria, but they will play on Broad-way.

 

Big Brother Goes Down Under

Happy July 1st, everybody.

It’s such a special day today if you live in Australia. Today is the day that the new Austrac AML (Anti Money Laundering) regulations take effect.

Briefly, the new regulations say that if you have hired a lawyer, accountant, real estate agent, stock or mortgage broker, or even a jeweler or any such service provider to work for you, they are also working for the Australian government. This is because if these professionals merely suspect that any of your activities cross legal boundaries, they are required to report it to the Australian authorities (Austrac) under penalties of being fined or losing their license to practice their profession.

It’s not only that, but they are not allowed to tell you if they are reporting you. You will never know until you are nabbed.

This means those you need to trust for confidentiality and client privilege will offer no such thing.

KGB goes Down Under.

I learned about this from an Australian lawyer who explained it on his YouTube channel. You can see the video here:

Lawyers Will Be FORCED to Report You Starting Tomorrow - YouTube

Here are some excerpts from the transcript (don’t you love copy/paste?):

I'm on my way to court, so I can't sit down and do this properly with you. But everything is about to change at the end of the month, and you need to know this. This is about the people you trust, the people you should be able to trust.



Dealing with your life, some of the most important things that you have, money, relationships, legal advice, real estate agents, accountants, people who deal in precious stones and metals, because come July, they're no longer just going to be working for you. In fact, if they notice anything suspicious, they're going to be required to report it to the government, and they're not allowed to tell you. And there's a real question as to whether or not this fundamentally changes the relationship between lawyers and their clients forever. And as a lawyer, I can tell you it's very concerning because there's a real question as to whether or not everything you tell a lawyer is going to be privileged or if this continues, that privilege starts to disappear.



So, let's start with when this kicks off, because it kicks off on the 1st of July, 2026. That's not far away. And while everybody's being distracted by the budget and the changes to tax and incentives and thresholds, this is almost largely being ignored in the mainstream media. And part of the reason I think this is probably not hit the news properly is it doesn't sound like it's going to affect you. That's the brilliance of it. Cuz what this is, is touch two of the anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing regime which, if you just read that, you would never think it applies to you but it goes a fair bit further. We're talking about lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, conveyances, brokers. The important thing is these are not fringe industries. These are these are professions where people need that degree of trust. They need to know that if they tell this person something, they're not just going to turn around, tell the government, tell Austrac, and not be able to warn you that you are now under investigation.



The people you trust with your most private affairs are now built in. They're wired into the reporting system. So, the mechanism is something called a suspicious matter report. And that report goes to Austrac.



And it's not about believing that somebody's committed a crime or that they're about to commit a crime. The threshold is just suspicion. If things don't add up, and ordinarily before this regime, they could probably ask you about it. But the issue is that now if they're even suspicious based on a lack of information that could very well trigger an obligation to send that report to Austrac. And suspicion can come from simple innocent things. It can come from things being rushed. It can come from things being recorded badly or not properly looked after in terms of records. And even if you trust your lawyer, which I certainly hope you do, or your accountant, I can tell you that when people are running a business, when they have these professional obligations, and when the risk of not reporting something means that they could lose their livelihood, they're going to report it.



The most concerning part is that once they decide or are concerned that there's some sort of suspicious activity going on, they file the report. That's it. They can't tell you. They're not allowed to under penalty. It's something called the tipping off rule, which, in the simplest way to explain, means that the person reporting you can't advise you. They can't let you know that you might be under investigation.



So, in many ways, it almost prevents your lawyer or your accountant from being able to help you get ahead of a badly reported or a missed document. To put it into context, you could be sitting down for a conference with your lawyer or accountant and at the end of it they can shake your hand, say it was good to see you, see you out the door, and that's the end of it. You won't get a warning. You won't get a letter. You may never know. And it might not just be that one professional. It might be both. It might be more if you have a mortgage broker as well or somebody who looks after your real estate.



So, let's get back to the broad justification for this. The official line is that this closes the gap for criminal organizations and how they're able to support themselves. And in many ways, almost as always, that's true. It does, because the criminals that are making a lot of money do hire lawyers. They do hire accountants and they try to make it as legit as possible. They use company structures and trusts. So, it's kind of like a dragnet because it catches everything. But that's the problem. Catches everything. And that means you and me and anyone else who's watching this.

Nobody has to be corrupt. Nobody has to be malicious. This is the system working exactly as it's designed to. And that's why it's so important to know how the system actually works and what you can do about it or at least be aware of how it works and what's happening because almost always this is how power expands. It doesn't do it dramatically or with some big announcement or with boots on the ground. It does it quietly, slowly, and always with paperwork.


This is Big Brother Watching at its finest. I wonder if it applies to morticians, as well. (“Where’s the body?”)

So, this quiet law has now gone into effect in Australia (not one of my favorite places). Why Australia?

I wrote in a previous post, that Australia is one of only two countries that consider themselves “Western democracies” that do not have a constitution that includes a Bill of Rights. When there is no constitutional law to guarantee one’s privacy, it's guaranteed that there will be laws that invade one's privacy.

The other one is the great State of Israel. All Jews have the right to live here but, it seems, nobody has the rights to live here. Still, I think we are safe from laws like this. The Knesset would never pass it. The individual MKs have too much at stake.

But if you’re not Australian or Israeli, don’t relax just yet. I am sure the countries that do have Bills of Rights are going to be watching this very carefully. Now, most of these “Western” places are headed for Sharia law anyway, so it won’t much matter, but even if they manage to hold out, they are very good at creating new “interpretations” of the Bill of Rights. What if they call it, “Financial terrorism”?

Orwell calls this "Newspeak".

The Cold War may be over, but if so, the communists won. We can still “vote” for our leaders and our lawmakers (while we are dead or alive) and we can proclaim our “rights”. But the “authorities” can make their own rules, and when they do, there is nobody to complain to. It’s their ball.

Once one has a Google account or a Microsoft account, “they” know everything about you. You already have no privacy. But, just in case, your own lawyer and accountant will fill them in. At your expense. And when you land on “their” radar screen, you will never know it. They are not even allowed to tell you.

I suppose this means that they are probably not even going to tell you about this new AML regulation. (Probably many of the professionals will be clueless about it.) Don't expect your lawyer or accountant to "read you your rights" and to tell you, "From here on in, anything you tell me can and will be used against you in Austrac." They like to pass these new laws very quietly. (No worries, mayte, you 'eard it from me.)

Incidentally, he closes his diatribe by saying:

So, is there anything that any of us can do about this? I would say take advantage of the fact that hasn't kicked in yet. Take advantage of the fact that there is still a little bit of time where you can get advice as to whether or not anything looks suspicious and what you can do to remove that suspicion. Don't panic.

This video was obviously made a day or two before July 1. Yet, what he said about still having some time to adjust one's MO (method of operation) brings about the question, what if the professional is already aware of the way you do things? Is he required to report the "suspicions" he is aware of or does it only apply to newly rendered services as of July 1st? 

Some service providers may want to play it safe and be stringent.

For us Jews, this is even more scary. We Jews like to engage Jewish lawyers, Jewish accountants, Jewish real estate agents and Jewish jewelers. And, very often, we like to pay for things in cash. What will happen when a Jewish lawyer or accountant has grounds to “suspect” a Jewish client of "suspicious" activities?

What a mess! Just like the old KGB days in communist Russia. You cannot trust the gabbai of your shul.

Well, the KGB has arrived Down Under and they may soon show up at a theater of operations near you.

So, Happy July 1st. Happy Summer!

Is it any wonder that this year July 1 falls on erev 17 Tammuz?

Be worried. Be very worried!

ואין לנו על מי לסמוך אלא על אבינו בשמים.

Sinas Chinam IV – A Trail[er] of Blood [Libels]

 

Clearly, I maintain that there is no toelles to perpetuate the Malka Leifer episode even if it were done in a truthful manner. All it can do is harm. How much more so when the picture is deliberately distorted to this end? Then, not only does it become motzi shem rah, but an actual blood libel.

In my previous post, I discussed a documentary about the Malka Leifer episode that was produced for an entertainment provider exclusively in Australia. Nicole Meyer came all the way to Monsey to peddle the documentary even though all she could show is the trailer. But the trailer says a lot. 

She actually first came to Atlanta in late February for an Atlanta Jewish Film Festival showing on Feb. 26. Her trip was sponsored by some organization so she did not come to Monsey special or on her own dime. She was here anyway.

In any case the trailer is about 1 minute 50 seconds long. Any trailer is meant to make a strong impression. It is meant to draw our interest with a few highly dramatic clips. Hence, any statement that was chosen for display in the trailer has to be there to make a quick impact and to serve as a draw. We call this "shock value".

Here is the trailer:

At 0:30 the narrator poses a question:

Why did it take 15 years to bring her to justice?

I believe the respondent is Nicole Meyer. She starts with these words:

In our community, sexual abuse is stigmatized. 

This, I can accept as a true statement. Nothing wrong with it. But then, she follows it with this:

They don't see an abuser. They see a person who needs to be saved.

What is she saying? What is she telling her clueless impressionable viewers?

Before we “micro”-analyze her precise words, let’s “macro”-analyze her intent. Bear in mind that she is talking about her very own “community” and is informing people who know little to nothing about it. 

Is she saying something nice about this unfamiliar “community” or is she criticizing it? Is this a compliment or an indictment?

I did not see the documentary, just the trailer, but it is hard to say that the documentary is trying to say anything positive about anybody except the victims survivors. The impression I got, is that she is saying something very negative about the community. 'The community is not supposed to be this way, but it is'.

So, she is vilifying her entire community. And she is doing it as an impact point (shock value) on the trailer, which anybody can access. Even those who do not or cannot see the documentary can view the trailer in under two minutes.

If what she is saying is the unequivocal truth, then we can downplay it as a simple case of truthful lashon hara and maybe even come up with some toelles to make it permissible. Call it “constructive criticism”. I could live with that. But if there is anything about it which is false and misleading, then it is slander and libel. And, when the target audience isn’t even Jewish, it becomes a blood libel.

So now, let us micro-analyze her second sentence.

They don’t see an abuser. They see a person who needs to be saved.

Who is “They”? 

In the previous sentence she names an entity called “the community”. Then she says “They…”. Evidently, “They” are the community. Are “They” some of the community? The entire community? Specific members of the community? 

She equates the community as “They” so she must mean everybody. This includes the commoners and it includes the leaders. She makes no distinction, so the viewer will make no distinction, either. 

First, let’s talk specifically about the Malka Leifer case. In my previous post, I noted that Dassi Ehrlich’s book was peppered with some blatant lies. To qualify this claim, I put into parentheses two of the most noteworthy ones. I wrote: that (1) the Adass community supported Malka Leifer and (2) that the women who heard the rumors took no action.

I debunked both these lies in at least two of my book review posts. In this post I wrote:

There is no evidence at all that the community in any way supported Mrs. Leifer’s alleged activities. Dassi herself attested (31:30) that they were not even aware of it. And, as soon as they got wind of it, they promptly shipped her out of Australia back to where she came from despite her denials and objections. I will note, as I have done numerous times, that Mrs. Leifer was not a wanted criminal at the time and there were not even any police complaints on file about her.

When I wrote “they promptly shipped her out”, by “they” I meant the exact same “they” as Nicole means here. But it does not confirm Nicole's claim that they don't see an abuser. (I debunked the second lie as well in that post.)

So, it’s now two years after Dassi’s poisonous book was released, and after I critiqued it (don’t think for a moment that Nicole does not know what I wrote – and she has never disputed it), and now, Nicole, not Dassi, is back up there proliferating the same lies. To this day. For the entertainment industry.

Let’s move on: They don’t see an abuser.

They don’t see who as an abuser?

Does she mean a person who confessed to being an abuser? A person who was caught in the act? A person who was convicted of abuse by virtue of hard irrefutable evidence? 

This a bold claim. What is her proof of this? How many such abusers are there?

Or, does she mean, someone who is accused of being an abuser yet denies it? Somebody on whom there are no objective witnesses and no forensic proof?

Ah-h-h. An alleged abuser. Sadly, there are plenty of those. I would contend this really covers most of them. If they are merely alleged abusers, why should the community see them as confirmed abusers?

Again, she makes no distinction. And, here is the crux of the issue. According to Nicole Sapper, and Dassi Ehrlich, and, as we shall see, Zvi Gluck, there is no such thing as an alleged abuser. Anybody accused to be an “abuser” is a full-fledged abuser. He/she has no rights and has no voice. Conversely, in their tunnel vision world, there is no such thing as an alleged victim, as well. Anyone who claims to be a victim is full-fledged victim with automatic immutable integrity. They have full immunity and cannot be challenged or questioned. 

This entire subject is driven by a universal, intrinsic presumption of guilt. Rabbi Fuerst, Dovid Lichtentstein, David J. Nyer and about 180 Rabbanim live by it. Zvi Gluck and Rabbi Daniel Coren live by it, and the Jewish and non-Jewish masses live by it. It could be that the Sapper sisters are genuine victims and, in their case, there is no presumption, but they are feeding it to the uninvolved masses and riding on its coattails for their personal aggrandizement. 

The Torah doesn’t live by it, the Rambam doesn’t live by it, the Chafetz Chaim doesn’t live by it, Rav Elyashiv, ZTL, doesn’t live by it, and…I don’t live by it.

With this in mind, let’s go on: They see a person who needs to be saved.

What does “saved” mean?

Does she mean they need to be placed in a freezer or storage unit and saved for later use? I don’t think so. Does she mean saved from a sinking ship? It’s a bit closer, but somehow, I don’t think this is what she is saying.

I checked the Thesaurus in MS Word and the first synonym for “saved” is protected. I think there is another appropriate synonym that I was shocked that it did not appear in the list in MS Thesaurus – rescued. I looked up rescued in the MS Thesaurus and the first suggested synonym was “saved”. How about that?

So, let’s go with the meanings of “protected” or “rescued” or maybe “shielded”. 

Protected from what? Rescued from what? No, not from a sinking ship.

The lead question gives away the answer. “Why did it take 15 years to bring her to justice?”

I guess she needs to be saved from justice. By the way, this does not apply only to Mrs. Leifer. This applies to all “abusers”. Evidently, it’s a “community thing”. You know, son cosa nostra. She is telling the world that the “community” maintains that all abusers should be “saved”, i.e., protected from justice.

What is justice? 

It is certain that any normal viewer (I am certainly not normal) will define justice as the wrath of the law and valid prosecution, retribution, and punishment. This is an inalienable virtue and social necessity.

Again, before we micro-analyze the truthfulness of her statement, let us macro-analyze what she is broadcasting to the average viewer.

The average viewer is hearing an indictment against the entire ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, which is very unfamiliar to him or her as it is. He/she is hearing a standing member of the community saying that when there is a molester in their midst, presumably even a confirmed molester, the community believes this evil molester is somebody who needs to be saved from “justice” which is the virtuous application of the law. The "community" is against this idea.

Doesn’t this sound illogical, irrational, absurd, and downright diabolical?

It does to me, and I bet to the vast majority of typical viewers. So, firstly, this is the impression that will be made. And since most people cannot really think, it will be swallowed whole. 

But, to a critical thinker, it opens up a whole slew of questions:

• Why do they not see an abuser?

• Why do they think this is somebody who needs to be saved?

• Why are they not rational like I am or everyone else?  Don’t we all know that justice is a virtuous ideal?

• How can an entire community of people, who are supposed to be religious, moral and highly intelligent, be so immoral, corrupt, diabolical and irrational? Don’t they have any common sense?

Hence, such a thinker should come to the conclusion that something is not adding up here. What the respondent is saying doesn’t make sense. Thus, either this entire community is wacky and off the deep end, or there is something about them that is not being accurately portrayed.

This is the place where a responsible journalist gives pushback and asks the respondent: Why? You say “They don’t see an abuser, they see a person who needs to be saved” – why do they see that??

Nobody asked Nicole this fundamental question. If they did, it surely didn’t make it into the trailer. So, the question was either totally omitted (most probable), or it was asked but cut out of the trailer (highly unlikely). So, whether by omission or by deletion, the viewer is shown an unchallenged claim of an entire community being irrational and corrupt.

This confirms that it is a “Propagandist” documentary, not a factual "Journalistic" one.

Now, let us see if there is any truth to her claim.

Before we discuss the nitty-gritty about how the "community" sees things, let’s take a big step back and look at the giant lie.

Nicole was asked: “Why did it take 15 years to bring her to justice?” and her answer was: “Stigma in the community…need to be saved…”. Nicole is publicly blaming her own community for 15 years of lack of “justice”. Nobody else, it’s her community’s fault. For 15 years!

Really? Let’s do some math.

The 15 years must be the span from when the allegations first broke out in 2008 until the court verdict in April 2023. That’s 15 years. What happened over those 15 years?

Even though the allegations broke out in 2008 and Mrs. Leifer was immediately sent packing, there were no charges filed in any law enforcement agency until 2011. Until 2011, there was no quest for “justice”. Period. This has nothing to do with the “community” because Mrs. Leifer was not wanted by any law enforcement when they sent her home. These three years don’t count, so we are down to twelve.

The Australian authorities did not process the charges and request extradition until 2014. That’s another three years that have nothing to do with anybody’s community.

The extradition was approved at the end of 2020 and carried out in January 2021. From then it was all the Australian justice system until the verdict in April 2023. So this is close to another 2.5 years that are just standard procedural issues.

This basically leaves about a six-year window wherein Mrs. Leifer was fighting a halachically illegitimate extradition. It goes without saying that any human being who is faced with extradition to a faraway country will do whatever they can to scuttle it by hook or by crook. Again, this does not have much to do with anybody’s “community”.

Indeed, there are confirmed allegations that Health Minister Yaakov Litzman meddled with the process by obtaining adverse reports on Mrs. Leifer’s mental condition, and he is certainly a member of the ultra-Orthodox community. However, he only assumed the office of Health Minister in 2015. Even then, it appears that his involvement to get these adverse reports were carried out only after Mrs. Leifer was re-arrested in 2018. This puts a limit on his involvement to maybe as much as four years. That’s a lot less than 15.

So here is Nicole Leifer agreeing with the interviewer that it took 15 years to bring Mrs. Leifer to justice when the maximum was twelve. She  blames all 15 years on her community and nobody else.

Now, after the giant lie, let’s check out all the other lies and half-truths. Bear in mind that what she said about the “community” and “abusers” is in the context of Mrs. Leifer.

Nicole says “They don’t see an abuser” as if to imply that they have a genuine, bona fide, Grade A abuser in front of them but they don't see him (her). Either they are blind, or they choose to look 'the other direction'. Again, the abuser in question is Mrs. Leifer. So, let me ask: over the 15 years did Mrs. Leifer ever confess to doing anything wrong? Did the accusers present any objective evidence or witnesses to prove their accusations?

The answer to these questions is an emphatic No. Hence, they did not see an abuser. They weren’t supposed to see an abuser. They saw an alleged abuser. They saw an alleged abuser who denied abusing. Even if a confirmed abuser has no “rights” (a topic in itself), an alleged abuser has all the rights any accused person must have. This is the presumption of innocence in the eyes of the “community” and the right to avoid being unjustly persecuted (and extradited). 

Nicole does not have the integrity or courage to acknowledge this. 

This has nothing to do with “stigma”.

She continues, “They see a person who needs to be saved.” This is as if to say that they are wrongly saving people who should not be saved.

Saved from what? Why, saved from justice, of course. We all know that an abuser must not be saved from “justice”. These community people are diabolical fiends, just like the “abuser” herself, busy saving people (i.e., abusers) from justice. This is sure to create more victims, and the community loves making lots of victims.

Now, I wrote above that most viewers define “justice” as: the wrath of the law and valid prosecution, retribution, and punishment and that this is an inalienable virtue and social necessity. There is no question that Nicole Meyer is sold out to this definition.

But the community is Jewish. Not just Jewish but Torah observant. And in Torah Judaism “justice” has a different definition. The Torah’s definition of justice is compensation to one who was wronged. It is not retribution and punishment. In Torah Judaism we have a different term for those who pursue punishment and retribution. It is called “nekama” – vengeance. In fact, the primary synonym to “retribution” in the MS Word Thesaurus is “vengeance”.

In Torah Judaism, vengeance among Jews is forbidden. Nicole forgot to mention that.

And, do you know what else is forbidden (as I have cried out endless times)? 

That’s right. Extradition out from Eretz Israel. And it doesn’t matter if we are dealing with a confirmed abuser or an alleged abuser. It is always forbidden.

Nicole knows this. But somehow, it doesn’t make it into the trailer.

I will add one other thing about the “community”. The community is a community. This means that it is a network of people who are friends, neighbors, providers and clients, and relatives of each other. They don’t see an “abuser”. They see one of their own who may or may not be acting out. And community members do not just act out. Something triggers it. It may be mental illness and it may be trauma.

That’s right, I am told that most abusers were abused themselves. This means that, most of the time, they are not just abusers, they are also [ex-]victims. 

If this is the case, as it so often is, then punishment and retribution, i.e. “justice”, is not being just. It is destruction. And in my “community”, our relatives and neighbors do need to be saved, i.e., rescued or shielded, from unjustified destruction.

I have said this many times in many ways in many posts. Nicole cannot accept this. I will explain why in an upcoming post.

The last thing I need to point out is Nicole’s choice of words. “A person who needs to be saved.”

As I wrote earlier, there are more accurate terms to use – protected, rescued, shielded, maybe even spared. But the term “saved” has another connotation. 

Yoshke saves! As in to save one’s soul from h-ll and damnation. 

This conjures to us the idea of the Catholic Church and the “celibate” priests who were caught performing organized ritual pedophilia. We are talking about real pedophilia with real children and real sexual activity, not the pattycake stuff that Mrs. Leifer is accused of. And all those holy clergymen who covered up for each other to actively perpetuate this debauchery. These are holy men who need to be saved.

This is corruption in the name of religion. And Nicole is telling the non-Jewish world that it’s not just them. It’s us as well. Even though there is no actual pedophilia, there is no corrupt network, there is no ritualism, there is no cronyism, there is no coverup; even though the Malka Leifer case is driven by mental illness or trauma and not by lust and Satanic worship, the viewer will not see any of these distinctions. He will say “The chosen people are just as depraved.”

Blood libel. For all the world to see.

It’s not just me that sees this way. Check out this documentary from last October 18 at 1:02:27. 

Three Sisters Expose the Darkest Secret - YouTube

Here is the transcript:

1:02:27  The actions of the school board have been compared to the way the Catholic Church has been found to transfer pedophile priests to new parishes when allegations were made against them.

All told, with her untruthful and antagonistic response, Nicole is watering two poisonous weeds: (1) The poison of presumption of guilt and (2) the suggestion that the Chareidi community, her community, is as debased and corrupt as the Catholic Church.

The sad thing is that she had the opportunity to extol our community simply by telling the truth. She could have painted a truer and more upbeat and realistic (i.e., rational) picture of our community: 

• She could first set the record straight that her quest for “justice” only extended 12 years and that there were numerous contributing factors to the delays. 

• She could have told the truth that the community “doesn’t see an abuser”, but at worst, they see an alleged abuser who may actually be innocent. And even if not, they see them as broken human beings who are friends, neighbors and relatives who may be suffering from abuse or trauma.

• She could have told the truth that we actually believe in presumption of innocence and that we need to protect the basic rights of an accused person from misplaced, vigilante “justice”. This is for the benefit of any society.

• She could have told the truth that we are a Torah observant community and the Torah does not allow any Jewish person, miscreant or not, to be extradited away from Israel.

• She could have explained that in Torah Judaism, “justice” is defined as compensation to an injured party. Punishment and retribution are not our style of “justice”. If it is done for the sake of vengeance, it is forbidden.

• She could show that our community is different and special and a cut above. We have our share of miscreants, but we are more moral and compassionate about how to deal with them. And none of this needs to come at the expense of the alleged victims.

[For good measure, she could acknowledge that she spent 12 years defying her own Torah values to obtain her false secular "justice", but this would require serious soul searching and honesty. These seem to be in low supply. Besides, it certainly doesn't fit the narrative of the inflammatory documentary.]

She could have made a quasi-Kiddush Hashem and salvage something positive from the perpetual sheker and chillul Hashem that she is generating. But she can’t do that. Instead of elevating her own community, she uses the tropes of the goyim to falsely bring them down to their level. She continues to fan the flames of sinas chinam and chillul Hashem.

Why can’t she do that?

Because it doesn’t serve her purpose. The more she humanizes the alleged abuser and the more she commends her upstanding community, the less of a victim she is. And she needs to be a life-long victim.

All this is apparent from one remark in a short trailer that, like all movie trailers, is here for shock value. It is designed to artificially sensationalize the feature and to lure the viewer. 

Just imagine what the rest of the documentary has to say.

Sinas Chinam III - Surviving Malka Leifer

 

In this series, we are discussing some past events of sinas chinam and most likely Chillul Hashem, as well, and bemoaning the fact that we can’t get them to go away. The most painful thing is that, in all three cases, the primary tool was a blanket distortion of Halacha displayed by people who claim to be the very guardians of Halacha.

The first example was the witch hunt against sincere and concerned people who question the safety and advisability of the new experimental vaccines. At the forefront of this witch hunt stands HRHG Asher Weiss, Shlita, who brought very flawed Halachic arguments to vouch for this dangerous vaccine. Details in my initial post (HERE).

The second example is the anticipated resurgence of a very irresponsible Kol Koreh which is meant to open the door to indiscriminate mesira. Sometimes these measures are called for but other times, or dare I say, most times, they are not called for, and they cause irreversible needless damage. It is driven by a distortion of the mitzvah of לא תעמוד על דם רעיך and misquoting the teshuvos of past Gedolim. This monstrosity is spearheaded by Harav Shmuel Fuerst and has the blessings of quite a few other distinguished people such as Rav Yitzchok Breitowitz, Rav Yitzchok Berkowitz, and Rav Doniel Neustadt. All the links to the halachic rebuttals can be found in my previous post (HERE).

We now arrive at the third and most serious fountain of perpetual sinas chinam that just keeps on flowing. This is the Malka Leifer episode.

For those who are not familiar with the episode, I refer you to the relevant post in my discussion of the Four Horsemen (HERE). This was Horseman number 3. This post is very comprehensive and contains a timeline of events as well as a list of all the halachic conundrums that are involved in this case. In addition, it also spells out some of the prime targets of the Sapper sisters’ sinas chinam campaign. I listed some of these targets as follows:

On the other side of the aisle, people who stood up for due process of law, for basic compassion, and for the kavod of Torah and Halacha and kedushas Eretz Yisrael, and who were basically doing their moral and civic duties, were publicly defamed and maligned. This includes Mrs. Leifer’s legal team, Rav Yitzchak Grossman, Rav Mendel Shafran, Rav Yaakov Litzman and even yours truly.

Okay, this goes back to Sept. 2022. 

The saga finally came to a conclusion in April 2023 when the Australian court convicted Mrs. Leifer on 18 out of 74 90 29 27 counts. Finally, in August of 2023, the sentence was announced. 15 years minus 5.6 years for time served with a possibility for parole after about another 6 years.

Hooray! Now we can all go home (except for Mrs. Leifer) and forget about this whole mess. The poor “victims” need to heal. If nothing else, these “victims” (i.e., accusers) can at least become civilized and stand back from all the motzi shem rah and sinas chinam they have been generating for years. It is no longer relevant.

Once again, wishful thinking. As they say, one cannot have a dialogue with these people.

As we know, Dassi Ehrlich had to come out with her devious and dishonest book in early 2024. As I described in a full series of posts, the book was built on theatrics, half-truths, hypocrisy, misrepresentation of facts, some blatant lies (e.g. that the Adass community supported Malka Leifer and that the women who heard the rumors took no action), plenty of sinas chinam and just as much chillul Hashem. 

The question persists: Was the book really done for altruistic reasons, i.e., to help fight against child sexual abuse, or was it done primarily for the fame and fortune that the girls crave for? 

I analyzed this question in my post about Winners and Losers. My conclusions were that the book is really more about mental illness and personality disorders than it is about sexual abuse. As such, it is not very likely to have much impact on the subject. Its main accomplishment is to lionize Dassi Ehrlich and to demonize the Adass community and her critics. 

For us observant Jews, this is nothing to celebrate.

Sadly, I cannot expect better from Dassi Ehrlich or Ellie Sapper. They both abandoned Judaism. As such, where there is no yiras shamayim, there are no boundaries. As for Nicole Meyer who pretends to be observant, I can try to be dan l’kaf zechus that she was merely an [un]willing accomplice to the book. The general impression I get is that Dassi was the main ringleader to this entire debacle and the other two sisters were beguiled by her vengeful energy.

But, okay, Dassi was working on this book for quite a long time, so she had to see it through to the end. It’s hard to shelve a project even if it’s damaging. But now, once she got it out of her system, do we need even more of this sinas chinam and chillul Hashem?

I guess we do.

As in many works of fiction, it seems like someone bought the movie rights and turned the book into a motion picture. That “someone” is Stan Streaming. This is an Australian online streaming service for movies, online TV, sport events and documentaries. This is the same assortment of garbage from all ratings levels that you get on modern airplane monitors. 

Stan is apparently the fourth biggest such trash provider in Australia. It is a subscription-based service like Netflix. Unlike many of these, it does not even offer a 7-day free trial period. 

To somebody like me, this would not make a difference. Stan streaming is geo-blocked. This means that you can only see their content if you actually live in Australia. It won’t work anywhere else, unless one uses the common VPN trick to access an Australian server. My Rimon filter does not allow VPNs. 

Stan uses a common title opener for their string of documentaries which is “Revealed”. Hence, in October 2025, they released a “documentary” about the Malka Leifer affair named, “Revealed: Surviving Malka Leifer.” It is only available on Stan. Hence, it is only available in Australia. I cannot get to it even if I was foolish enough to pay for a subscription. The most I can access is a 1.5-minute-long trailer clip on YouTube. You can see it HERE.

So, what does this say to us (or, what does it say to me)? 

This says that this “documentary” is not intended for the Jewish community. Certainly not the world-wide Jewish community. It is not available on any public forum, nor anywhere outside of Australia, so all the rhetoric about raising awareness of sexual abuse and how victims should speak out and fight for justice is all hot air. It is not meant to reach any genuine active or potential victims, especially Jewish ones.

It is intended for the entertainment of the largely anti-semitic Australian public who are willing to pay for it. More immigrant Islamic r^pists will watch it than will law-abiding Jews. The Sapper sisters are pursuing fame and fortune, not “justice” and deterrence.

As for the trailer itself, there are three things that it tells me. One is that the documentary is going to have at least as much motzi shem rah and sinas chinam as the book. Secondly, that Nicole Meyer, the “observant” one, is a key player in this venture. I can’t be dan l’kaf zechus anymore. The third, I will mention in a few more paragraphs.

I assume that this documentary is a lot like the book and there is not a whole lot new that I would learn from it. I still want to see it. Why?  

I want to check out if this is a “journalistic” documentary or a “propagandist” documentary.

What is the difference?

A journalistic documentary is meant to convey facts without being slanted. If the subject is controversial, the documentary at least makes an attempt to get the perspective of both sides. If there are opponents and critics to an issue, the opponents are given the opportunity to make their case. Even if they don’t get “equal time” they get some time. If nothing else, there needs to be some measure of pushback against the claims of the protagonists. This is called balanced reporting. 

A propogandist documentary is blatantly one-sided. No attempt is made to contact those being maligned for any kind of balance. All the protagonists’ claims go unchallenged. It is intended to sway peoples’ opinions.

The book In Bad Faith was Dassi’s personal project. It reflects her own sentiments, so there is no reason to expect any kind of balance. But this documentary is produced by an independent producer, one Adam Kamien. It’s his second major work. The first one dealt with an isolated event that occurred 45 years earlier, so it does not have any propaganda value. Can we say the same now?

Firstly, I can say this. It is certain that the documentary has choice things to say about Mrs. Leifer, her legal counsel, Adass community members and Rabbi Litzman. It’s also a safe bet that if Mrs. Leifer, her lawyers, or Rabbi Litzman were contacted for a statement, that they would decline to respond. Still, you can never know for sure, so it deserves a try. Regardless, I know one thing for certain. In terms of uninvolved analysts of the episode, there is nobody more critical and outspoken than I am. And nobody attempted to contact me for any perspective.

The sad truth is, I don’t need to guess the answer to my question. This is the third thing that I was able to see from the 1.5-minute trailer. And it comes out of the mouth of none other than Nicole Meyer. But, since it deserves a hard look, it is too much to elaborate in this post. It will have to wait for a future post.

You may ask, how do I even know about this documentary? 

The answer is that, for this documentary which is only accessible to the non-Jews and secular folks in Australia, Nicole Meyer, the “observant” one, had to fly all the way to New York to promote it. She arranged a presentation in a popular shul in Monsey sponsored by Zvi Gluck and the Amudim organization. The name of the shul is Beis Medrash Ohr Chaim and it is presided by Rabbi Daniel Coren, Shlita.

Interestingly, Rabbi Coren is a signatory on the ill-conceived Kol Koreh that I wrote about in my previous post. In his brief contribution to the presentation about the 1:23:00 mark, he totally contradicts its message. Go figure.

Anyhow, the event took place on March 8, 2026, which is close to three months ago. The entire event was videoed and posted onto YouTube. It lasts 1 hour and 52 minutes. You can see it HERE. 

I don’t remember if I stumbled on it or if it was sent to me. Regardless, since I follow All Things Leifer, I viewed the whole thing and even took notes. The fact that it was misrepresented as some kind of a Torah-diga endeavor was appalling. It was just another one-sided firing squad of more lies, motzi shem rah, and sinas chinam. 

I plan to elaborate on this in the upcoming posts.

I explained in countless previous posts exactly why the Sapper sisters as well as any of their supporters are guilty of mesira l’mehadrin and gonev ish u’mecharo. The supporters may all be passive participants, but the Sapper sisters and some others carried out these capital offenses with their very hands, hearts, and souls. And it doesn’t matter how much the ladies were truly molested by Mrs. Leifer until 2006 (if at all). Any Jew who sincerely considers himself a shomer Torah u’mitzvos will agree with me. 

This applies to Nicole (Nechama) Sapper Meyer, no matter how holy a sheitel she wears and how tzniusdig are her clothes. She saw everything I wrote since 2016 and she always knew that it is all forbidden. She has never claimed to have asked any recognized posek whether, in her case, it is permitted to report a Jew living in Israel to Australian authorities and to actively facilitate an extradition of a Jew away from Eretz Yisrael. No recognized posek has ever sanctioned it and she has not named one. She cannot claim, “I didn’t know it’s forbidden” or “a Beis Din heard the case and ruled she should be extradited”.

As such, there is no justification to give a moser and gonev nefesh any kind of platform whatsoever in any Jewish setting. And certainly not to help proliferate all the lies, motzi shem rah, sinas chinam, chillul Hashem, and the actual blood libels that she is telling the sonei Yisrael. Anybody who does so is obviously a supporter of these horrendous capital crimes.

Regrettably, this includes Kol Koreh supporter Rabbi Daniel Coren and, even more regrettably, Amudim Director Rabbi Zvi Gluck. I sent both of them emails detailing what the problem is and what the sinas chinam is and implored them to cut it out. Nobody responded.

One cannot have a dialogue with these people.

Until this event, I thought a lot higher of Rabbi Gluck. I thought he was different than all those other, self-righteous, fanatical CSA advocates. I thought he used his head instead of his emotions. It pains me to see him prove he has fallen to the same sitra achara as the rest of them.

Those emails were not sent in confidence. I want to review them in the coming posts.

I still haven’t seen the “documentary” and don’t think I ever will. About a month ago, I sent an email to all three Sapper sisters asking them if there is any way I can actually see the documentary, preferably without having to pay for it. I was surprised that one of the ladies (not telling which one) actually responded to my inquiry. She wrote:

Are you actually joking?

My response:

Yes, I really want to see it. Preferably without having to pay for the privilege.

Why do you doubt me? I read Dassi's book cover to cover, didn't I? (I paid for that.)

What have I ever joked about (besides some well-placed wisecracks)??

I haven’t heard from any of them since.

To close this post, I want to reprint the Storyline blurb from one of the hosting sites.

[Surviving] Malka Leifer explores a harrowing abuse scandal in Melbourne. Sisters Nicole, Dassi and Elly grew up adhering to the structures of their ultra-orthodox Jewish community. Isolated from the evils of the world around them, their fate is predetermined: arranged marriage, children, homemaking. In 2008, allegations surface that the three sisters were abused by their headmistress Malka Leifer. With a public relations disaster on their hands, members of the local community allegedly help Leifer flee, with her boarding a plane to Israel with three of her eight children in the dead of night. For the sisters, the escape sets in motion a decade of anger, frustration, and determination to bring Leifer back to face her crimes. When they are finally successful, having stared down pressure from their community, political corruption and endless legal manoeuvring, the question is: at what price?

I have been asking this very question since 2016.