Avi Hack Videotape Order Overturned By 2nd Circuit

Avi Hack Videotape Order Overturned By 2nd Circuit

Spread the love

Avi Hack must be very happy that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Shea’s order granting me the right to obtain a copy of Avi’s videotape deposition. I’m sure the Yeshiva in Rhode Island has been saying special tehillim every day since Judge Shea granted my request back in 2017.

The Appellate Court found that Second Circuit precedent that allowed public access to videotapes similar to Avi’s were written before Al Gore invented the Internet. The Court found that Judge Shea properly followed case law of the Second Circuit as it was written back in the 1987, but failed to take into consideration Avi Hack’s privacy interests and Larry Noodles’ evil motives. The Second Circuit found that the Internet put these issues in an entirely new light. The Court went to great lengths to stress that it was not changing case precedent and stated: “the video was of highly sensitive and personal nature and—perhaps most relevantly—the Internet’s rise over the last 30 years has tremendous implications for the ease and immediacy of access to videos, as well as the permanence of those videos, increasing the potential for needless emotional harm to minor victims of sexual assault who seek to avoid being victimized further.” The Court seemed to carve out a special exception for the innocent victim Avi Hack and the evil blogger Larry Noodles.

The Appellate Court felt that posting Avi’s videotape on the Internet would create a permanent record of Avi Hack and infringe on his right to privacy. The Appellate Court found that Judge Shea should have considered my “apparently spiteful motives” in posting Avi Hack’s videotape deposition. The Court found that I did not show any “affirmative public need” or “positive role” in posting the videotape. The Appellate Court went so far as to read my blog and cited passages in which I wrote about how Avi was the Goat’s “side piece” and the Goat was Avi’s “sugar daddy” and I published the address of the big house Avi purchased in Rhode Island with Goat gold. The Court implied that I wrote about where Avi taught in Rhode Island in order to harass or humiliate Avi Hack. I guess warning high school students about a teacher who has a history of groping and nibbling on students’ ears, and failing to report student molestation and rape by the Goat for three years constitutes harassment. The media posts addresses of public figures all the time. The New York Post uses far worse language than I in it’s headlines. Read all the headlines about Anthony Weiner. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times trashes President Trump far worse than anything I have written about the Goat, Avi Hack or anyone else for that matter.

The Appellate Court rewarded Avi Hack for repeatedly evading service in Rhode Island, at one point leaving his classroom of students alone while he ran out the back door. The Court found that Avi’s avoidance of the process servers in Rhode Island was an attempt to “protect his privacy by avoiding testifying in court about embarrassing and sensitive subjects.” The Court found his behavior to be “wrongful” but also found that such behavior did not warrant the sanction of having his videotape posted on the Internet. This contrasts sharply with the decision of Judge Shea. Judge Shea wrote that had Avi showed up at the trial I would never had the right to get access to his videotape, because the videotape would never have been shown to the jury. Avi would have testified and went home. No videotape. Avi Hack got away with evading service in the civil trial, so he employed the same tactics in Mr. Greer’s subsequent criminal trial, and got away with it. The marshals couldn’t locate Avi Hack. No evidence of the molestation of Avi Hack was admitted into the Goat’s criminal trial, not even Avi’s transcript.

The Appellate Court rarely looks beyond the record of the trial court in reaching a decision. In this case the Second Circuit read Larry Noodles blogs that were posted long after the Goat trial. The Court took “judicial notice” of my unflattering blog posts about Avi Hack. The Appellate Court should have contacted the numerous individuals, whose stories I posted, who were subjected to abusive behavior at the Goat school by Avi Hack, while Avi Hack was in charge. The Appellate Court didn’t mention that Avi Hack testified in his deposition that he “nibbled” on a student’s ear. I watched Avi Hack grope teenage boys with my own two eyes. The Appellate Court didn’t mention that mandated reporter Avi Hack did absolutely nothing while his student Eli Mirlis got raped by the Goat for three long years. Avi was also having sex with the Goat at the same time as Mirlis. I believe the public interest is best served by exposing what happened at the compound, not by hiding it under the carpet while Goat protectors and mandated reporters Avi Hack, Dov Greer, Ezi Greer and Harold Hack live out their lives without any legal consequences, while the old Goat rots in jail.

The Appellate Court stated that I did not show any “positive public purpose” or need for the videotape to be published. Whatever happened to the First Amendment protecting the rights of the public, the right of the media and the right to express unpopular opinions? I argued before the Second Circuit that Avi Hack’s deposition would give strength to other victims to come forward and report abuse. I don’t understand why the Yale law clerks who work for the Second Circuit Judges didn’t read my brief!

The State’s Attorney’s Office filed a motion to get access to Avi Hack’s videotaped deposition to use during the Goat criminal trial. The State’s Attorney filed their motion in the Federal Court at the last minute and was denied. Was the public interest not served when Daniel Greer was convicted and sentenced to 20 years of incarceration? If it wasn’t for my exposure of Mr. Greer’s crimes, that I posted from the civil case, Mr. Greer may never have been prosecuted by the State’s Attorney. The Goat would still be molesting children right now.

The Appellate Court stated that other witnesses will be more inclined to avoid service and not come forward if Avi Hack’s videotape is posted on the internet. The only reason Avi Hack voluntarily gave his videotape deposition is because Eli Mirlis initially sued Avi Hack and Daniel Greer. Mirlis dropped the case against Avi in exchange for his testimony against the Goat. Had Avi Hack not been sued he would have never come forward, regardless of any opinion from the Second Circuit. Either way, Avi Hack avoided service in the civil case and the criminal case and got away with it. Avi was no ordinary rape victim witness. Avi was a crucial witness, as Avi ran the Goat’s school for years and failed to report that Mirlis was getting raped by the Goat.

The Goat’s appeal of the $15 million verdict was shot down without much analysis by the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit cited other large verdicts for child molestation against other schools, as well as the Boy Scouts. The Second Circuit shot down the Goat’s argument that he was somehow prejudiced when Judge Shea instructed the jury to make a negative inference against the Goat for taking the 5th Amendment and refusing to testify. The Second Circuit shot down the Goat’s argument that Judge Shea should have reopened the case to allow Dr. Thomas DeRosa to testify that he thought Mirlis was a “liar,” that Avi Hack and Mirlis sat next to each other on a desk, and Mirlis threw a chair while he yelled “Kill all the Christians!”

You can expect the Goat to appeal this verdict to the United States Supreme Court in a writ of Certiorari. The Goat will get shot down again, but not without spending tens of thousands of dollars on more attorneys fees. The Goat has a big war chest of money he stole over the years. I have not decided whether to file a writ of certiorari to appeal the Avi Hack videotape decision. I don’t have a big war chest of stolen money. Hopefully Avi Hack will come forward and tell the truth about the Goat, and about himself, Ezi Greer, Harold Hack, Dov Greer, and the numerous crimes committed at the compound.

You can read the Appellate Court decisions below:


The opinions expressed in this blog are solely the opinions of Larry Noodles and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of Lawrence Dressler, Willie the Dow, Joseph Merly, John Williams, Avi Hack, Jean Ledbury, or the Goat. If you have been offended by anything that has been written in this blog I would suggest that you file a complaint, in triplicate, with HASHEM.

“The hand of G-d lay heavy upon the he-goats, the crooks, the politicians, the goats and the infidels, and He wrought havoc among them: He struck them with hemorrhoids.” I Samuel 5-6

“It is better to be cursed by the Prophet Achiya ha’Shiloni, and repeatedly cursed out by Larry Noodles, than to be blessed by Bil’am.” Taanit 20.

PLEASE HELP! If you wish to help the Larry Noodles website defray the costs of court documents, transcripts, depositions, investigations & research, and make a tax deductible contribution to a non profit organization that works to help bloggers like Larry Noodles protect themselves against bullies like Daniel Greer, and the Department of Injustice, please donate your hard earned dollars, shekels, and dinars to this organization:  First Amendment Watchdogs Incorporated, 516 Ellsworth Ave, New Haven, CT 06511.  EIN number 83-0873639

If you have been the victim of government prosecution and / or persecution, and have been commanded to surrender to a correctional institution, and are in need of advice, counseling, contacts, and information please contact me, everything will be kept strictly confidential: lawrencedressler@gmail.com or give me a call at 2037108137

If you have news tips from the inside, or the outside, please forward to lawrencedressler@gmail.com, ALL information, including you name will be kept strictly confidential.

For G-d, For Yale, For Country, For Moshiach!

7 thoughts on “Avi Hack Videotape Order Overturned By 2nd Circuit

  1. The balance of privacy provisions and public interest is not new by any means. I am not a lawyer but even I remember a prominent case, https://www.rcfp.org/federal-appeals-court-affirms-dismissal-libel-privacy-suit-filed-ove/ where one Luther Haynes suited an author of a social history book, which portrayed him in unflattering terms. The court did acknowledge the damage done by invasion of his privacy but held that public interest overrode those concerns.

    Whether you agree or disagree with this interpretation of the First Amendment, you will have to prove to the superior court that the strong public interest in exposing these videos overrides Hack’s privacy concerns. And these concerns are strong and legitimate (think of his kids) – now and for the rest of their lives. I think it is hard to prove strong public interest in seeing these videos given that the full transcript is already available to the public.

    What’s actually the public interest here? To provide further evidence of horrific crimes committed by Dan Greer? A strong argument can be made that justice has been served by the verdicts in both civil and criminal trials.

    If it is to expose wrongdoing by AVI Hack (either in groping of kids or in non-reporting of Greer) then an argument can be made that these matters were totally incidental to the purposes of the deposition so your aim in exposing them in this manner is not legitimate. Maybe Avi can even apply to struck them down from the public record.

    Arguably There is a legitimate public interest in exposing those wrongdoings but maybe through different means. One can ask the state of Connecticut why they won’t push the non reporting case. Perhaps statutes of limitations have expired.

    1. The court is required to follow precedent. The facts of Avi’s videotape were very similar to the CBS case, which Judge Shea relied upon in ordering the release of the video. The Second Circuit went outside the record of the trial court, in order to find improper motive on my part, as well as harm to Avi’s privacy interests. There was no evidence of this presented during the hearing. The Second Circuit took “judicial notice” of these facts, which is highly unusual, and overturned the decision of Judge Shea. Ironically, there are now procedures in the Federal courts where the media can request that court trials be streamed live and recorded on video, thus making a record of the testimony of all witnesses available for everyone to see. The courthouse is financed by the government in order to allow people to resolve their disputes. The public thus has an interest in what goes on in the courthouse. If you want to resolve your dispute outside the public eye you can agree to private arbitration. Avi was initially named as a defendant in the lawsuit, but was dropped after Avi agreed to flip on the goat. I believe Avi lost his right to privacy when he was initially named as a defendant, and had testified that he actually protected the Goat, as well as the school, which he ran, from criminal prosecution, but what I believe is meaningless, I am just a wet noodle.

  2. Money quote: The two criteria, offensiveness and newsworthiness, are related. An individual, and more pertinently perhaps the community, is most offended by the publication of intimate personal facts when the community has no interest in them beyond the voyeuristic thrill of penetrating the wall of privacy that surrounds a stranger. The reader of a book about the black migration to the North would have no legitimate interest in the details of Luther Haynes’s sex life; but no such details are disclosed. Such a reader does have a legitimate interest in the aspects of Luther’s conduct that the book reveals. For one of Lemann’s major themes is the transposition virtually intact of a sharecropper morality characterized by a family structure “matriarchal and elastic” and by an “extremely unstable” marriage bond to the slums of the northern cities, and the interaction, largely random and sometimes perverse, of that morality with governmental programs to alleviate poverty. Public aid policies discouraged Ruby and Luther from living together; public housing policies precipitated a marriage doomed to fail. No detail in the book claimed to invade the Hayneses’ privacy is not germane to the story that the author wanted to tell, a story not only of legitimate but of transcendent public interest.

  3. I completely agree with the second circuit. You seem to be motivated by some kind of a sick unexplainable obsession and compulsoon with this case for which you should seek psychiatric help.

  4. Total Jewish chosen bullshit of second circuit. SCOTUS ruled in Shepard v Maxwell that what goes on in criminal court is public property. Welcome to the new world Jewish order of law. A rabbinical court based on the Talmud to undermine the four legged goyim. First Amendment holds right to scrutiny in a public forum….but not to jews on the Second Circuit.

Comments are closed.

Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: