Tzedek vs Waks

Manny Waks was dumped by Tzedek a few years ago after his accusations against Rabbi Glick.

Now Waks and Tzedek are fighting about Adass appointing Meir Kluwgant as CEO and Principal.

Waks and victim advocate Phillip Weinberg have had it in for Kluwgant for years.

First, Waks attacked Adass for appointing Kluwgant. The Tzedek made a statement correcting what Waks said they said. Then Waks responded with a long post of his version of what happened. Then Tzedek replied and agreed that they didn’t support Adass’s decision.

Who do you believe?

Should Tzedek be doing or saying more?

Should Waks keep mixing in to Melbourne things while he lives on the other side of the world?

Will Adass school be unsafe for children if Kluwgant is these?

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Tzedek vs Waks

  1. My recollection was that Meir Shlimo Kluwgant upset Manny by saying that Mr Waks senior was crazy, or words to that effect. Obviously that was wrong, but there must be more to it than that because Manny asks whether someone with his chequered history, who has profoundly hurt numerous victims (their families and supporters), is fit to serve.

    I suppose that Manny may have been profoundly hurt on hearing that someone thought his father was crazy, but then what would he mean by numerous victims? I suppose “approximately one” is a number but I expect Manny meant something more than this. It’s alarming and sinister and I hope Manny makes himself clear. As to whether Manny can continue to involve himself in Melbourne’s Jewish schools while on the other side of the world, I think nobody would welcome the alternative.

  2. What Rabbi Kluwgant said about Zephania being crazy was actually on everyone’s lips at the time.

    After all the abuse of the Waks kids began at home. And only a crazy (and wicked) man would throw out his kids onto the street –
    and then publicly abuse the kind people who took them into their homes.
    Z followe this up by doing everything he can to destroy the school that educated his 17 kids – free of charge!!!

    Meshuga or a Rasha? Or both?

  3. That’s something like the fifth time you’ve said that; do you get a commission on sales?

    I don’t have the book, and I have no plans to purchase it. You could tell me what it says, perhaps.

  4. Are people saying the statement by Kluwgant that Zephania ‘neglected his own children’ is not true? or that it’s wrong to say something like that about the father of a victim?

  5. Why do people keep saying the only thing Kluwgant did wrong was the text message? There is obviously much more out there than that.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/controversial-rabbi-meir-shlomo-kluwgant-to-head-adass-israel-school/news-story/36a5cba5ac8af01d72f72f6715778625

    Now that the Tzedek vs Waks thing has blown over and everyone agrees Kluwgant can’t be principal, can we start a new subject called Rabbi Beck vs Kluwgant? Or Adass vs Kluwgant?

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/senior-rabbi-calls-for-rethink-on-controversial-adass-school-principal-20170704-gx42gk.html

  6. Much more?
    There is the SMS about Zephania – most people agree with _what_ he said but he should not have said it
    And there is this from The Age article: “Another victim told the commission that Rabbi Kluwgant discouraged him from reporting abuse to police. (Rabbi Kluwgant claims he did not know the person was a victim at the time)” This time Timna Jacks reports Kluwgant’s side of thing. Lots of people didn’t know that victim was a victim until around the time of the RC.

  7. Comment n Tzedek Facebook site:

    Otto Waldmann

    I took the trouble to read the materials published in the media about Rabbi Kluwgant and the indictments under which he appeared at the Royal Commission.

    Rabbi Kluwgant was accused of attempting to intimidate a witness, himself a victim of abuse.

    The same piece mentions also that Rabbi Kuwgant HAD NO IDEA THAT THE PERSON WILLING TO APPEAR AT THE COMMISSION WAS, IN FACT A VICTIM HIMSELF.

    It may be assumed that the Rabbi would have thought that, as a presumed outsider, the person should have stayed away, assuming, once more, that he would not have had ACTUAL knowledge first hand of the charges against the person(s) cited at the Commission.

    The other charge, that Rabbi Kluwgant called Waks Snr. a “lunatic” cannot be considered as unlawful, it was and maybe still is, Rabbi’s Kugwant opinion about Waks Snr. and he MAY BE RIGHT.

    From what I have observed in the past few years in the media about Waks Snr. I have to agree with the Rabbi as such as I have no choice but also agree on this one with one of Waks Snr’s own SONS, Avi, who elaborated in the same media a lot more about that “virtue” of Mr. Waks Snr.

    So, all youse guys who are so anxious to see Rabbi Kluwgant hung up and quartered, may have to wait a while, wont you.

  8. I can’t say surprised, necessarily, but I think it’s worth noting that while literally thousands of Roman Catholic clerics in Australia have been accused of sexual assault, and the most senior of their brethren is actually under indictment (and he may or may not defy the summons), our newspapers can still find the time to note that a Jewish guy was mean to Manny’s dad in an SMS message. I mean, 40% of clerics in one Catholic denomination have been accused of actual assault, but nobody but the police and their victims even knows their names.

  9. At least she had the integrity to say he disputes some of the allegations. In the Jewish News story today, he made a statement and he acknowledges it was wrong to send the SMS but denies everything else

  10. Last week, recently-appointed Adass Israel School Principal (Melbourne, Australia), (Rabbi) Meir Shlomo Kluwgant provided a statement to the Australian Jewish News in which he stated ‘any allegations beyond the highly regrettable text that was referred to in the Royal Commission, which led to me resigning my professional and communal positions in 2015 are utterly baseless’.

    ​At the time, I posted that he was a liar and invited him to sue me for defamation if that was untrue. Of course, he won’t be doing that any time soon.

    As we all know, Kluwgant was caught at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse’s public hearing sending a text message attacking my family and shifting blame to my father for the sexual abuse of three of his children at the Yeshivah Centre (which he initially said he couldn’t recall sending), and was accused of telling another victim not to engage with police. He rightly lost several senior professional and communal positions.

    After the Royal Commission, it emerged that this was part of a wider pattern of behaviour by Kluwgant in which he repeatedly, knowingly and falsely attacked people’s families and abused his positions of authority when dealing with matters relating to child sexual abuse. This was his modus operandi.

    Here is a story, most of which is included in my book.

    In 2014, a year before the Royal Commission, I was approached by an individual who claimed that he had been raped by former Yeshivah Principal, Rabbi Abraham Glick, while attending Yeshivah. I assisted this individual in the same way I would assist anybody who approached me with such allegations. As the matter progressed, Rabbi Glick was questioned by police who did not have enough evidence at the time to charge him. Subsequently Rabbi Glick sued me for defamation, and the matter was settled out of court with a public apology on my part (as was noted in my book, and with the authorisation of Rabbi Glick, it was a technical apology in order to resolve the matter between us).

    In response, Kluwgant, Glick’s nephew who occupied the role of President of the Rabbinical Council of Victoria (RCV), immediately issued a public statement condemning me on behalf of the RCV which stated in part: ‘The RCV notes with concern that the publication of the defamatory matters over which he has apologised, has true capacity to cause untold harm to individuals, their family members, and to the whole of the community’. ‘The RCV reiterates its long-held position that victims and individuals with credible information about child sexual abuse should take these matters to the police and other relevant authorities.’

    ​Kluwgant was then challenged by a supporter of mine who sent an email to him and a number of members of the RCV asking, among other things, why the RCV was involving itself in a private civil dispute between two members of the community who had nothing to do with the RCV, whether Kluwgant had been involved in the issuing of the RCV statement given his obvious conflict and whether the RCV was prepared to comment on the conduct of Rabbi Glick or Yeshivah in protecting paedophiles and covering up child sexual abuse. Not surprisingly, my friend did not receive an adequate response.

    Fast forward to early 2015 and in the days immediately following the Royal Commission, after the entire community and Rabbinate had seen Kluwgant’s true character exposed, my friend received a phone call from a rabbi on the RCV.

    “You remember that email you sent to us a year ago after we put out a statement on the Glick allegations?” he said. “I want to tell you what Kluwgant did. He forwarded that email to me and others and falsely stated that a close member of your family used to be a teacher and had sexually abused students and therefore we should ignore everything you have to say because you associate with paedophiles.”

    “I know that is untrue,” the Rabbi continued, “and I will give you all of the evidence you need to sue Kluwgant because he is unfit to be a rabbi.”

    At least when an allegation is made publicly, the person has the opportunity to defend themselves. When the allegation is made behind someone’s back, as Kluwgant prefers to do, the person is not afforded that chance. For Kluwgant to have acted so hypocritically and irreligiously only hours after issuing a public statement about the harm caused by false allegations speaks volumes of his character.

    But the story gets worse. A few days later, and literally a week after the conclusion of the Royal Commission, my friend received a phone call by coincidence (or as we were taught in Chabad: HaShgochoh Protis/Divine Providence) from Rabbi Yaakov Glasman, Kluwgant’s first cousin and current President of the Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand. Rabbi Glasman said that Kluwgant was feeling extremely remorseful after the events of the Royal Commission and wanted to make things right with people. He asked if my friend could come over to Kluwgant’s house that evening as Kluwgant wanted to smooth things over. My friend immediately agreed. Rabbi Glasman did not know that my friend had been provided with a copy of the defamatory email which Kluwgant had sent, and Kluwgant did not know that my friend had a copy of it with him when he went to his house that evening.

    Kluwgant invited my friend inside and they sat down. Kluwgant began, “I have heard on the grapevine that you have some issues with me and I just want to make it absolutely clear that I have never done anything to give you or your family any reason to be upset with me.”

    Stunned, my friend replied, “please think very carefully about that statement as I don’t want you to tell me in a minute that I haven’t given you every opportunity to come clean if there is anything you want to get off your chest.”

    “I swear to you, I have never done anything to you or your family,” Kluwgant continued.

    My friend took the email out of his pocket and showed it to Kluwgant. “Oh my gosh,” Kluwgant said. “How did you get that? It was supposed to be confidential!”

    Kluwgant started crying and begged forgiveness. He said his life had been ruined, his son was getting married soon and he was about to become a grandfather. He asked whether they could just tear up the email and pretend it never happened. My friend told him that he was a “fucking liar and a fraud” and that it was like he had just watched the Royal Commission again.

    My friend sued Kluwgant for defamation and the matter settled out of court with Kluwgant admitting that he had not believed the allegations he made to be true and being forced to tell everyone to whom he had made the false allegations that he was a liar.

    ​Only a few months ago, to their absolute credit, the Executive of the RCV which includes many Chabad rabbis, formally apologised to my friend and his family for Kluwgant’s conduct.

    “The RCV did not authorise and would not authorise such conduct and disavows and distances itself from (Rabbi) Kluwgant’s conduct and condemns it in the strongest possible terms.’

    I share the above story not for the purpose of embarrassing Kluwgant and his family – he has done a good enough job of that himself – but in the interests of child safety and ensuring that the Adass community are able to make an informed choice when they meet to determine Kluwgant’s future (apparently next week). If Kluwgant continues in the role of Principal of Adass, this is the type of conduct that staff should fear.

    As any expert will tell you, administering a child safe organisation and navigating the challenges which can arise in dealing with issues around child safety and mandatory reporting, requires a certain level of integrity and honesty. Kluwgant has shown time and again that he is unfit and that children, and staff would not be safe in an environment in which he was Principal.

    It is my sincere hope and understanding that even without the above information, the Adass community will remove Kluwgant when they meet shortly. The endorsement of Rabbi Beck, which Kluwgant claims to have, appears to have been procured by certain members of the Adass Board without fully informing the Rabbi of Kluwgant’s history. Of course, fully appraised of Kluwgant’s history, no institution could ever consider him for a leadership role, particularly one involving children.

    When this lunacy is over, I will again offer Kluwgant the opportunity to do teshuvah (repentance) and to understand the nature of his conduct, just as I did after the Royal Commission. Hopefully next time he will take me up on it.​

    Once he has done that, I will be the first to wish him all the best in furthering his career.

  11. Is this the nail in the coffin of what was Chabad Australia? Is there a shred of respect left for Chabad? Would any shule appoint a Chabad rabbi? This is chapter 18 of Manny’s book. Does anyone give a shit? As Trump said, “I can shoot someone on 5th avenue and no-one would care”. You get the leaders you deserve.

  12. I won’t comment on things I know nothing about, but that excerpt seems a bit self-serving. I believe it’s generally recognised that the allegations against Rabbi Glick were not just false but extravagantly so. Nobody with any knowledge of the period could have believed them. I think the incident made a lot of people question Manny’s approach to things.

    So in the excerpt, Manny says something quite astonishing:

    As the matter progressed, Rabbi Glick was questioned by police who did not have enough evidence at the time to charge him.

    I think they actually said they were dropping the investigation – quite an unusual thing for them to say, and one that underscores the weakness of the accusation and its profoundly damaging impact upon a former teacher. It wasn’t just a matter of “not having enough evidence at the time” but an acknowledgement that there could be no true evidence. So if my memory is correct, Manny is being less than frank. But he goes on:

    Subsequently Rabbi Glick sued me for defamation, and the matter was settled out of court with a public apology on my part (as was noted in my book, and with the authorisation of Rabbi Glick, it was a technical apology in order to resolve the matter between us).

    A technical apology?! Manny (again, if I recall correctly) conceded that the accusation was false and that he didn’t believe it himself. It was “technically” an apology in the way an elephant is “technically” a mammal. Frankly, I’m surprised and disappointed to see Manny apparently trying to distance himself from it, because apologising was absolutely the right thing to do. Anyway, I hope Manny’s allegation about Meir Shlomo Kluwgant is of the same order as the allegation about Rabbi Glick. If not, then I suppose it shows how people can be misled into repeating scurrilous accusations that they wish were true. I hope that Manny will forgive Meir Shlomo’s (alleged) lapse in judgment, because to my mind it’s the same sort of thing he did himself.

  13. Joe, for someone who says they won’t comment on something they know nothing about, that is an extraordinary post because clearly that’s all you’ve done.

    The police statement about Glick is readily available – it says exactly what Manny says it does. It goes on that they will continue investigating if more evidence comes to light. I think most people believe the allegations about Glick are probably true which is why he kicked a kid out of the school who told him he was raped and why he covered things up and gave dodgy evidence.

    And let’s not start comparing Manny to a piece of shit like Kluwgant. Manny doesn’t pretend to be a Rabbi and isn’t the Principal of Adass.

  14. Manny is a master of the half-truth. His post is so redacted it’s impossible to know what really happened. Kluwgant has a truth defence about some of his statements. Why is Waks not supporting the Yeshivah student who was abused by his teacher?

  15. It was literally impossible for the accusation against Rabbi Glick to be true. Manny’s source alleged that he was raped by Rabbi Glick on the bima in the Yeshiva Shul, during school hours. At the time of the alleged incident the Shul had no lock on the door, the Yeshivah office was immediately outside, and classes for the mesuvta were held in the Shul. The florid nature if the accusation itself (Rabbi Glick is alleged to have opened the Aron kodesh before committing the crime) should have been a giveaway to anyone with sense, but the other details make it absolutely incredible.

  16. Guess you can now write Kluwgant dumped by Adass, when will you lubos realize that you are unemployable outside your sicko community because of what you’ve done to victims? Back to Centerlink queue for Meir Shlomo and Yehudis lol

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s