Federal Judge Martinez ruled that the old Goat will not be able to have an expert on Jewish law and ethics to testify on Greer’s behalf. Rabbi Judah David Bleich, who is on the board of directors of Greer’s yeshiva, is the rabbi of Congregation B’nei Yehuda, a Talmudic professor at Yeshiva University, the head of YU’s postgraduate institute for the study of Talmudic jurisprudence. Bleich also teaches at the Cordozo Law School. He is widely respected and has published many books on Jewish law and ethics.
Greer listed Bleich as an expert witness who would appear at trial to testify in support of the old Goat. What did the old Goat expect Bleich to say? Did he expect Bleich to testify that Jewish law and ethics permit a rabbi to rape teenage boys? Judge Martinez shut down the goat and ruled, “the witness would be offering expert testimony or, to the extent, his testimony would pertain to relevant facts, it would be cumulative of facts that can be elicited from other witnesses.”
The other supporting witnesses on the Goat’s witness list included his long time secretary and notary on his shady real estate transactions Jean Ledbury. His witness list also named local pediatrician Dr. Moshe Siev. The Court ruled that if the goat wanted these witnesses to appear in court he would have to allow the attorney for Mirlis to take their depositions, with the goat footing the legal bills. Judge Martinez ruled: “The Court finds that these witnesses should have been disclosed earlier in initial disclosures… To the extent that defense counsel intends to call Ms. Ledbury and Mr. Siev, plaintiff’s counsel will be allowed to depose these witnesses at defendants expense, i.e., defendant shall bear the costs of any such deposition of those witnesses and the reasonable attorney fees incurred in connection with those depositions.”
What did the old Goat expect Ledbury and Siev to say on the Goat’s behalf? Ledbury and Siev never saw the Goat rape Mirlis. Did Greer expect the jury to conclude that the goat is innocent based on the testimony of Ledbury and Siev? Was the Goat’s lawyer William Ward planning to argue to the jury that had anything gone on with Mirlis, Ledbury would have known about it. But Ledbury was hired by Greer long after Mirlis left the compound. Ledbury has nothing relevant to say about the Goat.
Was Ward planning to argue that if Greer was raping students Dr. Siev would have known about it. Dr. Siev has lived down the street from the compound for many years. If the goat was raping students in the compound Dr. Siev would have seen something and reported it.
Even Ward realizes that these are stupid arguments that will only get the jury mad at the goat. Ward admitted as much when he called Judge Martinez and told her on the telephone, “defense counsel indicated that either Mr. Siev, Ms. Ledbury, or both may be withdrawn as witnesses.”
This leaves only two witnesses on the Goat’s witness list. The Goat’s wife, ie., Rebbetzin Sarah Ewe, and a former student at the school who the Goat thinks had a sexual relationship with Avi Hack. The Goat is not going to be able to get this former student to testify. The Goat doesn’t have subpoena power beyond 100 miles. This former student lives more than 100 miles from the courthouse. This former student is not going to voluntarily appear to defend the Goat. Plus Avi Hack testified that he didn’t have sex with this student.
The Goat did not list himself as a witness. The Goat is refusing to testify based on the 5th Amendment. The Goat is afraid that he may say things that would incriminate himself if he takes the witness stand. The Goat doesn’t want to go to jail. That leaves the Goat with one witness, Rebbetzin Sarah Ewe.
I wonder what Rebbetzin Ewe plans to say about the Goat when she testifies at the trial. I can only speculate that she will try to be a character witness for the Goat. She will put on her martyr act. She will plead that her husband is innocent and that the entire world is against the Goat. She will testify that the child rape lawsuit is an attempt to extort money from the Goat. This extortion plot was hatched by Eli Mirlis, Noah Muroff, Avi Hack, Harold Hack, Ezi Greer, Dov Greer, Sima Greer, Reena Greer, Barack Obama, Larry, Mo-Mo & Curlie, Knock-Knock, Beedo, and the Undertaker.
Here is a copy of the entire Court Order:
The Court SUSTAINS IN PART AND OVERRULES IN PART plaintiff’s objection to defendants witnesses, Jean Ledbury and Moshe Siev, identified in “Exhibit B: Defendants’ Witness List and Plaintiffs Objections” (which is attached). The Court finds that these witnesses should have been disclosed earlier in initial disclosures or in responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories. To the extent that defense counsel intends to call Ms. Ledbury and Mr. Siev, plaintiff’s counsel will be allowed to depose these witnesses at defendants expense, i.e., defendant shall bear the costs of any such deposition of those witnesses and the reasonable attorney fees incurred in connection with those depositions. On the call, defense counsel indicated that either Mr. Siev, Ms. Ledbury, or both may be withdrawn as witnesses. Therefore, on or before April 20, 2017, defense counsel shall file a statement on the docket indicating whether they intend to withdraw either or both of such witnesses.
5. The Court SUSTAINS plaintiff’s objection to defendants’ witness, J. David Bleich identified in “Exhibit B: Defendants Witness List and Plaintiff’s Objections” (which is attached). In short, based on the defense counsel’s representation of the testimony Mr. Bleich would offer, the Court finds that the witness would be offering expert testimony or, to the extent, his testimony would pertain to relevant facts, it would be cumulative of facts that can be elicited from other witnesses. Mr. Bleich was not disclosed as an expert during the discovery period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A); see also Fed. R.Civ. P. 37(c)(1) (“If a party fails to…identify a witness as required under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless.”). Further, on the telephonic conference today, defense counsel made a motion for a late disclosure of an expert as to Mr. Bleich, which the Court denied because defense counsel articulated no reason why such witness could not have been disclosed earlier.