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.