Red Herring: Resisting Islamic Law

Zionist Propaganda in Judge's Opinion

by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)

Hypocritical and extremist Zionists like Daniel Pipes complain that Sharia is creeping into the legal system,but there is probably no greater threat to the American way of life today than the covert infiltration of Zionist Law into US courts.

On July 18 Pauline Dubkin Yearwood of the Chicago Jewish News reported in The Jewish Clause that the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed on June 30 the decision of The Circuit Court of Cook County that the so-called "Jewish Clause" of the trust that Max Feinberg established for his descendants was unenforceable. Here is the provision.

"3.5(e) A descendant of mine other than a child of mine who marries outside the Jewish faith (unless the spouse of such descendan t has converted or converts within one year of the marriage to the Jewish faith) and his or her descendants shall be deemed to be deceased for all purposes of this instrument as of the date of such marriage."

Ron Grossman of Chicago Tribune covered the same case on August 28 in 'Jewish Clause' Divides a Family.

The case is disturbing not so much because of the legal particulars, which describe a nasty family battle, but because of Grossman's failure to report a significant detail and because of the material that Appellate Judge Alan Greiman included in his opinion.

Since the death of Max's wife Erla in 2003 seventeen years after his death, the estate has been in litigation. The probate hearing was the first case. Then Max's grand-daughter Michele Feinberg Trull brought a litigation against Max's son her father Michael Feinberg, Max's daughter her aunt Leila Feinberg Taylor, and Max's son-in-law her uncle Marshall Taylor, who together served as executors of Max's estate since his death in 1986. Michele accused them of conspiring in evasion of estate taxes and of misappropriating millions of dollars from both Max's and Erla's estates. The third case alleged that the three executors withheld putting stock certificates belonging to Max into the estate for twenty years.

According to the articles Max added the "Jewish Clause" to the rules of the trust because Michael's son Michele's brother Aron invited a non-Jewish Chinese-American girl to his high school junior prom. Aron later married her, and they have given their children at least a Jewish-aware upbringing. (See  The Jewish Clause by Edmund Case and Twisted Will for more discussion.)

Michele accuses her father of using money from the estate for unauthorized purposes including paying for her wedding, buying a car, finishing the floors in his home, and purchasing a summer home while her mother was still alive. Michael has argued in his deposition that he was merely taking an advance on his inheritance.

Aron stated that he was never informed that marrying his wife could cost him his inheritance, but he also claims he does not care because he is rich in his own right.

The payment for Michele's wedding has the appearance of an attempt to compensate Michele for being disinherited, but the Trull's are also upset at the treatment Erla received from the executors. One can speculate that Michele probably became Erla's primary caregiver because all the other grandchildren are wealthy and apparently either doctors or lawyers except for Michele, who is a paralegal.

The family should have negotiated a settlement among themselves. Michael alone has already spent $200,000 on legal costs.

Instead in all three cases the defendants have attempted to challenge the standing of Michele to bring a lawsuit on the basis of the "Jewish Clause," which declares her to be dead from the standpoint of the estate because of her marriage to attorney Ethan Trull.

The Appellate Court's ruling was confined specifically to this issue, and now the defendants have lost twice.

Non-Jewish Appellate Court Justices Cunningham and Quinn ruled narrowly on the public interest in encouraging marriage and discouraging divorce. Justice Quinn was also concerned that enforcing the "Jewish clause" could "result in the courts being required to enforce the worst bigotry imaginable" (decision, p. 11).

Both justices were concerned with the unspecified consequence if a grandchild married a non-Jew, divorced the non-Jewish spouse, and then married a Jew.

One could in fact argue that the "Jewish Clause" was completely meaningless because it does not really define Jewish faith.

Does the term include:

• Karaite Judaism,
• Samaritan Judaism (something of an oxymoron I admit, but I see it in the literature),
• Messianic Judaism,
• Reform Judaism,
• Conservative Judaism, and
  
• Reconstructionist Judaism?

In recent history modern (Yiddish-speaking) Jews have used three different definitions of "Jewish":

• a member of the E. European Ashkenazi ethnic group (Yiddishist definition but ambiguous with regard to religious practice),
• someone that obeys the commandments of the Law of Moses (religious definition but ambiguous with regard to interpretation of commandments), and
  
• a member of the pan-Judaic ethno-national group (Zionist definition, constantly subject to controversy in Israel).

The issue is even more complex if we look back more than 1000 years. Was King Herod Jewish? Harvard Professor Shaye Cohen points out in The Beginnings of Jewishness that the Talmud seems to have no doubt even though Herod's mother was a Nabatean Arab.* 

The Medieval religious text Sefer Hasidim does not consider marrying a non-Jew to be marrying out of the faith (in all circumstances), and Amitav Ghosh documents the acceptance of marriages with non-Jews (or more accurately concubinage of non-Jewish women) within the Egyptian Jewish community of the 12th century in his book In an Antique Land.

Justice Alan Greiman's dissent from the majority and his subsequent discussion with the Chicago Jewish News indicate that he has transgressed the boundaries of acceptable judicial behavior.  In his opinion:

"Max and Erla Feinberg seek to preserve their 4,000-year-old heritage" by inserting the marriage provision in their will... He adds that he finds the Illinois cases the majority cited to be irrelevant to the present case and cites other cases that seem to point to the validity of the clause. "Max and Erla had a dream with respect to the provisions of their will and if you will it, it is no dream," he concludes, echoing Theodor Herzl's famous aphorism.

Greiman expanded on his position in a recent phone conversation. "The majority opinion took three cases where the testator (person writing the will) had been advocating divorce," he said. "That kind of thing, encouraging divorce, is against the public policy of the state, and the majority opinion used those cases as the basis for knocking out the Feinberg case. But the majority of states have approved things like that."

The Jewish News article also notes the following.

A petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case must be filed in the next three weeks, he said.

While the Feinberg decision has not yet received much discussion in the Jewish community in general, one group of Jews has been preoccupied with it: lawyers.

"It's been an extremely hot topic in e-mails" among members of the Decalogue Society of Lawyers, Chicago's Jewish bar association, according to Executive Director Devorah Heyman.

In an e-mail sent out to members, the organization's recently installed president, Andrea M. Schleifer, wrote, "This case is important because it involves compelling Jewish interests on both sides: those who believe that each of us ought to have the right to determine the disposition of our own property; and those who believe that such provisions in a will ought to be prohibited as discriminatory, and echo anti-Semitic provisions which members of the community have historically been subjected to."

In a phone conversation, Schleifer said members feel so strongly about the case that, during an executive board meeting, it was decided to plan a program for the fall, in conjunction with several local law schools, in which participants would discuss the pros and cons and the impact of the decision.

Members are already doing that informally, she said.

"Justice Greiman is one of our most respected members, and we appreciate and acknowledge his brilliance," she said. "The discussion has been very heated about his dissent. Some of our members were very delighted with the dissent and think that should be the law. Others felt that discriminatory clauses have been used to harm Jews in the past and were happy with the majority decision." Within the society, as tradition has it in the Jewish community in general, there are often "three Jews and 10 opinions," Schleifer said.

To all appearances Greiman is acting to serve Jewish Zionist special interest, fanaticism, racism and extremism. Such behavior is un-American. Such an extremist Zionist mindset would almost certainly bias decisions relating to Arabs, Muslims, Arab Americans and Muslim Americans.

The argument over Michele's complaint even echoes the question of Palestine. When Michele or Palestinians attempt to address misappropriation or theft, Greiman and Zionists justify their positions by reference to the 4,000 year old heritage of Judaism even though Shaye Cohen argues that Jewishness begins in the fourth century CE. A case can even be made that Rabbinic Judaism did not crystallize until the 10th century CE. In either case Judge Greiman's dissent borders on the delusional and ventures into the Zionist mythology that certainly should not enter into his juridical opinions.

Greiman is unfit to serve on the Circuit  Court and should be removed immediately. His decisions should be reviewed, and if judicial misconduct is detected, he should be disbarred. If such misconduct could be construed as criminal, he should be arrested and tried.

Greiman is hardly unique among American judges. It does not take a degree in rocket science to understand the persistence in the US legal system of ridiculous court cases against Arab or Muslim charities, against Sami el-Arian and various nuisance suits against the PA or Iran. The judiciary is infiltrated top to bottom with Zionist facilitators and gate keepers.**

 

A comparison of the Chicago Jewish News and the Chicago Tribune versions of the story shows the same situation in the press.

The Chicago Jewish News writer explicitly points out that Greiman is paraphrasing Herzl.

"Max and Erla had a dream with respect to the provisions of their will and if you will it, it is no dream," he concludes, echoing Theodor Herzl's famous aphorism.

Yet, in the Tribune version of the story reporter Ron Grossman makes no attribution to Herzl  when he cites Judge Greiman.

Can't a person do what he wants with his money—like ensuring the survival of the Jewish people? Judge Alan Greiman thought so, writing: "Max and Erla had a dream with respect to the provisions of their will and if you will it, it is no dream."

Not only does Greiman frame his legal opinion to conform to the principles of Zionist ideology even when there is a conflict with those of the American Constitutional system, but Zionists in the mainstream media are also limiting information*** available to the general American public to prevent Americans from realizing they are losing their country as inexorably as the Palestinians are losing Palestine.

NOTES

* I prefer to avoid the use of the term "Jewish" to refer to people associated with some form of pre-Medieval Judaism.

** No central authority is giving the facilitators and gate keepers marching orders. They are simply so thoroughly indoctrinated from early childhood education through college that they base decisions in Zionist ideology reflexively and generally unconsciously.

*** Philip Weiss assumes that Grossman neglected to mention Herzl out of ignorance (see  Chicago Judge Invokes Herzl in OK'ing Ban on Intermarried Heirs), but Grossman almost certainly must have consulted the Jewish News version of the story while he researched his article for the Tribune.

Sphere: Related Content