1""

12-1522

_____________________________________________________________________

United States Court of Appeals

for the

Federal Circuit

_____________________________________________________________________

SHARON BEN-HAIM, et al.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

V.

YAAKOV NEEMAN, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees

____________________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey in Case No. 2:12cv351-JLL-MAH,

Judge Jose L. Linares

BRIEF OF SHARON BEN-HAIM, SOL HAVIVI, GAMLIEL ELMALEM - PLAINTIFF’S-APPELLANT

2""

Sharon Ben-Haim, pro se 6-05 Saddle River Rd #225 Fair Lawn, NJ 07410 Tel: 917.285.8530 Fax:201.625.6377 212CV00351@gmail.com

SOL HAVIVI, Pro se 1 HaCarmel Street, Tel Mond 40600, Israel

Gamliel Elmalem, Pro se 3 Duchifat Street Box 4408 Yavne, Israel

July 17, 2013

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S RULE 26.1

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Petitioners-Appellants, Sharon Ben-Haim, Sol Havivi and Gamliel Elmalem are natural persons. As such, a corporate disclosure statement is not required. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 26.1(a)

Table of contents

I. Statement of Jurisdiction 5

II. Statement of Issues 5

III. Statement of the case 6

IV. Statement of Facts 7

V. Summary of Argument 9

VI. Standard of review 9

3""

VII. Argument 10

1. Torture as a violation of international law

2. Meaning of ‘torture’ in the TVPA

!

VIII. Conclusion 11

Table of Authorities

Cases

Abdul-Rahman Omar Adra v. Clift, 195 F.Supp. 858 (D.C.Md.1961)

Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 442 F.3d 1147, 1156 (9th Cir. 2006) 9

Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000) 9

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 712, 124 S. Ct. 2739, 159 L. Ed. 2d 718 (2004) 10

See Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, 671 F.3d 736, 747 (9th Cir. 2011) 10

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 1350 5,6,8,10,11

28 U.S.C. § 1331 5

28 U.S.C. § 1332 5

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) 5

4""

IX. Statement of Jurisdiction

The original US district court had jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Claims Act (“ATCA”) 28

U.S.C. § 1350, as to Plaintiff Ben-Haim’s claims and pursuant to the Torture Victim Protection

Act of 1991 (“TVPA”) 28 U.S.C. § 1350 Pub. L. 102–256, note § 2(a), as to Plaintiffs Havivi

and Elmalem’s claims.

The court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 encompassing actions which present

a federal question.

The Court has diversity jurisdiction between Ben-Haim and Edri pursuant to U.S.C. § 1332

because Plaintiff Ben-Haim is a resident of this district, Defendant Edri resides in the State of

Israel, and the impact of Defendants’ actions impact Plaintiffs in this district.

This Court has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

The appeal is from a final order from the US District Court, District of New Jersey See Exhibit

“C”.

Enclosed:

• Order June 13, 2013 See Exhibit “A”

• Notice to Appeal See Exhibit “B”

• Final Order Jan 23, 2013 See Exhibit “C”

• Declaration Israeli Officials Dec 24, 2012 See Exhibit “D”

• Brief IFCJ Dec 24, 2012 See Exhibit “E”

• Declaration “NIF” Jan 20, 2013 See Exhibit “F”

• Declaration “KAS” Dec 24, 2012 See Exhibit “G”

• Amended Complaint Sup 28, 2012 See Exhibit “H”

5""

X. Statement of Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by holding that plaintiff Haim’s claims of gender

discrimination in the child custody and marital dispute does not fall within the ambit of

specific, universal and obligatory category of claims cognizable under the ATCA?

2. Whether the district court erred in the interpretation of the word ‘torture’ within the

meaning of the TVPA?

XI. Statement of the case

This is an action filed by Plaintiff Ben-Haim as an alien under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28

U.S.C.§ 1350 et seq. (“ATCA”), and Plaintiffs Sol Havivi and Gamliel Elmalem who are US

citizens under TVPA. All three Plaintiffs encounter denial of jus cogens rights in Israel, a State

where men are considered inferior to women. Plaintiff seek relief and damages for gross

violations of human rights and torture arising out of an institutionalized discriminatory laws and

policies of gender apartheid against men, including disengaging and separating fathers from their

minor children, the purposeful impoverishment of men, and the encouragement of use of the

various arrest and detention techniques to jail men, and intimidate them from demanding parental

equality, in a State that does not offer any judicial remedies to men on a private or as a group.

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ actions constitute crimes against humanity, violations of

international civil and human rights, torture of Plaintiff, their children and all other men who are

similarly situated. Defendants and their agents, subordinates and functionaries, have acted in

concert with the members of the Israeli Judiciary and employees of the Israeli Ministry of

6""

Welfare in aiding, abetting, facilitating, directing, and orchestrating these practices of gender

apartheid and the denial of the rights to fatherhood. Defendants’ actions constitute violations of

the Law of Nations, international law, US laws, and the natural laws of man.

Plaintiffs bring this complaint on their own behalf, as victims of systematic persecution, torture

and denial of civil rights of men in divorce proceedings, who are subject to torture, abuse, and

threats of great harm by, or as a direct and proximate result of, Defendants’ actions.

XII. Statement of Facts

Ben-Haim’s child was illegally removed and kidnapped from the United States to Israel, and

because of the Defendants’ discrimination and hatred towards men, he was unable to rescue his

daughter from Israel. Havivi’s contacts with the Defendants rendered him physically crippled,

and Gamliel’s contacts with them rendered him a victim of a physical assault and incessant

persecution.

In Ben Haim’s case following the abduction, once in Israel, the child’s mother refused to return

the child to the US. Ben-Haim sought relief in Israel pursuant to the Hague Convention on the

Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Pending disposition of the Hague Petition, he

sought interim access rights to his child. Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain relief were thwarted, though,

by Defendants’ failure to take action to abolish institutionalized policies elevating the rights of

women over the rights of men in Israeli child custody cases, and failing to provide due process.

These policies violate Plaintiffs’ civil rights and basic human rights; they are discriminatory and

7""

create statutory presumptions and a prevailing atmosphere of hate against men in divorce within

the Judiciary, social workers and the police.

Plaintiff Ben-Haim’s Hague Petition in Israel was ultimately denied by Defendant Arbel who

ruled in defiance of law and common sense that Plaintiff Ben-Haim’s participation under

coercion (mainly be Edri) in divorce and custody negotiations constituted acquiescence to

abduction, and indication that he gave up his daughter. He was compelled to travel to Israel to

testify, where Defendant Edri waited for him as easy prey, and restricted his ability to exit Israel

for 4 months to coerce him to succumb to Oshrat Ben-Haim’s demands. Foillowing Arbel’s

Judgment, Ben haim lost contact with his child, and Defendant Edri issued letters to a squad of

goons for hire in NYC (“The Aguna Squad”, financed by Defendant NIF), whose job is to find

recalcitrant husbands and physically assault them, and in addition he sent a letter to Rabbis in NJ

instructing them “not to bury” Ben Haim, which means that his life is dispensable. Gamliel and

Ben Haim have encountered various forms of torture and abuse as detailed in the complaint.

Although Plaintiffs are entitled to protections under the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and

Navigation between Israel and the United States, signed in 1951 (the “Friendship Treaty”),

Defendants Arbel, Neeman and Kahlon failed to comply with such treaties between Israel and

the US, which prohibit the preferential treatment of women in Israeli child custody cases where

the father is a United States citizen. The US Government also failed to intervene and take the

complaints to the Court in Hague, as is warranted by the Friendship Convention, which may be a

better forum for resolution of these disputes against the State Defendants.

Pursuant to the Friendship Treaty, Article 5, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a “most favored

nations” treatment with respect to access to the Courts of Justice… in pursuit of and in defense

8""

of their rights. Pursuant to article VI (1) “property of nationals and companies of either party

shall receive the most constant protection and security.” Contrary to the Friendship Treaty,

Defendants Arbel, Neeman and Kahlon continue to deny the benefits and protections of the

Treaty to all men, including the American ones.

On January 17, 2012, Plaintiffs Haim, Havivi and Elmalem filed a six-count Complaint with this

Court alleging claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act (“ATCA”), 28 U.S.C. §1350, and the

Torture Victim Protection Act (“TVPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, note. This district Court dismissed

Plaintiffs’ Complaint on August 29, 2012 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because

Plaintiffs failed to allege that they experienced torture as that term is defined in the TVPA, and

Ben Haim did not clearly specify that he is an alien resident in NJ. [See Dkt. Nos. 67, 68.]

Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their Complaint in light of their pro se status.

On September 28, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a seven-count Amended Complaint alleging causes of

action under the ATCA, the TVPA, and the state common law, correcting the pleading

deficiencies cited by the court below. In Count 1, Plaintiff Haim seeks damages in excess of

$75,000 under the ATCA against the Individual Defendants for “recklessly disregarding torture

and crimes against humanity in violation of international law.” (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 136-155.) In

Court 2, Plaintiffs Havivi and Elmalem seek damages in excess of $75,000 under the TVPA

against the Individual Defendants for “recklessly disregarding torture.” (Id. ¶¶ 156-185.) In

Court 3, Plaintiff Haim seeks damages in excess of $75,000 under the ATCA against the

Individual Defendants for “reckless disregard for human and parental rights.” (Id. ¶¶ 186-202.)

In Court 4, Plaintiff Haim seeks damages in excess of $26,000,000 against Defendants Edri for

“aiding and abetting an anti-suit injunction and international or negligent infliction of emotional

stress,” under the state common law. (Id. ¶¶ 203-232.) In Courts 5, 6, 7, Plaintiff Haim seeks

9""

damages in excess of $26,000,000 against Defendants KAS, IFCJ, and NIF, respectively, for

financing “radical and fanatical groups in Israel…which support, promote, and lobby for

oppressive treatment of men” in violation of the ATCA. (Id. ¶¶ 234, 254, 277.)

XIII. Summary of Argument

The district court initially claimed to lack jurisdiction in the matter before admitting that it does

have jurisdiction in limited cases. The court wrongly associated racial discrimination with

torture, and refused to proceed to trial on the severity of the torture claims, both physical and

mental. Further the district court misconstrued the definition of ‘torture’ in the TVPA, and

dismissed with prejudice the claims against Edri which can be separately reinstated in State

Court.

XIV. Standard of review

This Court’s review is plenary, based on the issues presented in this appeal which include the

District Court’s abuse of discretion and the District Court’s error in formulating and applying

legal precepts. A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an erroneous legal

standard or clearly erroneous findings of fact. Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 442 F.3d

1147, 1156 (9th Cir. 2006). In addition, this Court’s review of a dismissal for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction is plenary. See Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir.

2000). Likewise, this Court exercises plenary review over whether a District Court has properly

granted dismissal of Petitioner’s case by granting Defendants Motions to Dismiss. The Federal

Circuit reviews district court’s findings of fact for clear error, and conclusions of law de novo.

10""

XV. Argument

1. Torture as a violation of international law

The district court initially stated that it lacked jurisdiction under the ATCA as the latter is a

jurisdictional statute, claiming that it vests federal courts with “original jurisdiction of any action

by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350. The plaintiff Ben Haim is a US non-citizen resident has suffered from

a tort committed by an Alien, which is in violation with both the law of nations and the treaty of

the United States. The court below ignored a multitude of exhibits proving the scope of the

gender apartheid perpetrated in Israel by the Defendants, including condemnation by the UN

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in November 2011. The Court below the

then admitted that the ATCA grants federal courts jurisdiction to hear a “very limited category”

of claims “defined by the law of nations and recognized at common law.” Sosa v. Alvarez-

Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 712, 124 S. Ct. 2739, 159 L. Ed. 2d 718 (2004). It is agreed that

violations of international law must be of a norm that is specific, universal, and obligatory1and

courts have been able to recognize torture as a violation of international law that is specific,

universal, and obligatory, See Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, 671 F.3d 736, 747 (9th Cir. 2011). The

district court citing of Sarei v. Rio Tinto for racial discrimination is out of context as torture and

racial discrimination are two completely different violations. See also, Abdul-Rahman Omar

Adra v. Clift, 195 F.Supp. 858 (D.C.Md.1961), wrongful acts of child abduction are in

violation of the law of nations and fall within alien tort claims.

The court below further ignored the development of the law of nations as reflected in Atala v.

Chile, a case from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, where the Court decided the

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""1"Id.$At"732.33"

11""

international responsibility of states for the alleged discriminatory treatment and arbitrary

interference in private life and family, when Ms. Atala lost custody because of her sexual

orientation. The judgment was sustained in favor of Atala on every count (the right to equality

and non-discrimination, the right to privacy, protection of honor and dignity, family protection,

right to a fair hearing, all enshrined in the Inter-American Convention). The amici 2 briefs filed

in Atala are equally relevent here, when the underlying discrimination is based on sex, and not

sex orientation. The Inter-American Court condemned the Chilean Court’s use of stereotypes

against lesbians as incapable of raising children. Even worse stereotypes are advanced by the

herein Defendants against men in Israel to deny their child access, take away their properties and

liberties, restrict them to the ever expanding “one-hour-a-week-contact centers”, and impose on

them impossible child supports (four times higher than Western standards without any

connection to actual salary). What follows is a multitude of draconian measures: loss of

children, arrest, liens and foreclosures on all properties, loss of passport, driving licenses, other

licenses, and 100% wage garnishment. See the declarations filed im Dkt: 43-50, which were

completely ignored.

" "

2. Meaning of ‘torture’ in the TVPA

The district court has failed to analyze all the facts and has wrongly adjudicated that the facts

provided by the plaintiff Haim do not amount to torture within the meaning of the TVPA. The

TVPA provides that an “individual who, under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of

any foreign nation…subjects an individual to torture shall, in a civil action, be liable for

damages to the individual”. 28 U.S.C. § 1350, note, § 2(a). The term “torture” as defined in the

TVPA, is “any act, directed against an individual in the offender’s custody or physical control,

by which sever pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on that

individual for such purposes as obtaining from that individual or a third person information or a

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""2"See"Columbia"University’s"amicus"brief:"http://www.law.columbia.edu/null/download?&exclusive=filemgr.download&file_id=59712"

12""

confession, punishing that individual for an act that individual or a third person has committed

or is suspected of having committed, intimidating coercing that individual or a third person, or

for any reason based of any discrimination of any kind…”, id § 3(b)(1)

The district court has associated torture to physical pain alone and has overlooked the mental

torture plaintiff Haim endured. See, Dkt.43: “The complaint describes adequately a widespread

systematic attack against men and fatherhood in Israel. It is like a noose which slowly tightens

and tightens until the final physical and mental strangulation of the man. One can describe it as

slow roasting torture with guaranteed results, and nowhere to escape”.

Many American men are exposed to torture and dehumanization in Israel, that goes undetected,

largely because of gag orders. While 28 USC §1350 requires exhaustion of remedies, Plaintiffs

stated that 7 supreme Court petitions were filed in Israel, but Defendant Arbel pulled them and

dismissed them. Defendant Arbel herself sabotaged the rights to redress. For the others,

Defendant Neeman who was responsible for the Courts has populated the family courts with

radical and militant ultra feminists, trained them with gender ideation and anti-male agendas,

evidence rules were discarded with, the power to control transcripts was given to these judges,

and excessive unaffordable appellate bonds that prevent judicial reviews are increasing.

The Court below should have also looked into the definition in the OAS Treaty, Art 2 states:

“Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate

the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not

cause physical pain or mental anguish”. Torture based on infliction of emotional distress

was sustained in Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1253 (11th

Cir.2005) (per curiam), en banc reh'g denied, 452 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549

U.S. 1032, 127 S.Ct. 596, 166 L.Ed.2d 431 (2006). See cases cited therein. See also, Chavez v.

Carranza, 413 F.Supp 891, (torture to induce a confession), and after trial, Chavez v. Carranza

(6th Cir. 2009). The 6th Cir. stated that “The law of command responsibility does not require

proof that a commander's behavior proximately caused the victim's injuries. See Hilao, 103 F.3d

at 776-79 (proximate cause is not an element of command responsibility). This conclusion is in

13""

accord with the legislative history of the TVPA: [A] higher official need not have personally

performed or ordered the abuses in order to be held liable. Under international law, responsibility

for torture, summary execution, or disappearances extends beyond the person or persons who

actually committed those acts - anyone with higher authority who authorized, tolerated or

knowingly ignored those acts is liable for them.

Here, Defendants are responsible for orchestrating a relentless and massive crusade

against fathers when they seek custody of their children in Israel, but also any time they are haled

to a family court in Israel. Defendants raise funds in the US portraying Jewish fathers in Israel as

potentially murderous wife-beaters and threats to the very lives of their own children.

XVI. Conclusion

Plaintiffs Ben Haim, Havivi and Elmalem respectfully requests this Court to reverse the

judgment of the district court.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: July 17, 2013

/s/ Sharon Ben-Haim Sharon Ben-Haim, pro se 6-05 Saddle River Rd #225 Fair Lawn, NJ 07410 Tel: 917.285.8530 Fax:201.625.6377 212CV00351@gmail.com

/s/ Sol Havivi SOL HAVIVI, Pro se 1 HaCarmel Street, Tel Mond 40600, Israel

/s/ Gamliel Elmalem Gamliel Elmalem, Pro se 3 Duchifat Street Box 4408 Yavne, Israel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

_______________________________________ SHARON BEN-HAIM, SOL HAVIVI, and GAMLIEL ELMALEM, Civil Action No: 2:12CV351(JLL) Plaintiffs,

Vs. COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

YAAKOV NEEMAN, MOSHE KACHLON, EDNA ARBEL, SIMONA SHTINMETZ, BATYA ARTMAN, NIVA MILNER, DANIEL EDRI, KONRAD ADENAUER STIFTUNG, INTERNATIONAL FELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS, and NEW ISRAEL FUND, Defendants. ________________________________________ Plaintiffs, for their amended complaint against Defendants, do hereby set forth and

allege, as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action filed by Plaintiff Ben-Haim as an alien under the Alien Tort

Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.§ 1350 et seq. (“ATCA”), and by Plaintiffs Havivi and Elmalem under

TVPA. Plaintiffs seek relief and damages for gross violations of human rights and torture

arising out of an institutionalized discriminatory laws and policies of gender apartheid against

men, including disengaging and separating fathers from their minor children, the purposeful

impoverishment of men, and the encouragement of use of the various arrest and detention

techniques to jail men, and intimidate them from demanding parental equality. Plaintiffs

contend that Defendants’ actions constitute crimes against humanity, violations of

international civil and human rights, torture of Plaintiffs, their children and all other men who

are similarly situated. Defendants and their agents, subordinates and functionaries, have acted

2

in concert with the members of the Israeli Judiciary and employees of the Israeli Ministry of

Welfare in aiding, abetting, facilitating, directing, and orchestrating these practices of gender

apartheid and the denial of the rights to fatherhood. Defendants’ actions constitute violations

of the Law of Nations, international law, US laws, and the natural laws of man.

II. PARTIES

2. Plaintiff, Sharon Ben-Haim, is a resident of New Jersey, since 2004 who

resides at 25-24 High Street, Fair Lawn, NJ 07410. Ben-Haim is the father of Ofir Ben-Haim,

born September 10, 2009, in the United States, an American citizen who was abducted by her

mother, Oshrat Ben-Haim, to Israel.

3. Plaintiff Ben-Haim is an alien residing in the United States who was granted a

H1 visa.

4. Plaintiff, Sol Havivi, is a United States citizen born and raised in New York

City. He currently resides at 1 HaCarmel Street, Tel Mond 40600, Israel (Tel 011-972-54-

497-3652). Havivi is 47 years old and is the father of three children. The younger two

children live with him after a bitter divorce, and excruciating and tormenting struggles with

Court appointed social workers, but the older daughter is a victim of parental alienation

syndrome and has refused to see him for 5 years. Havivi is now physically handicapped,

penniless and about to become homeless.

5. Plaintiff, Gamliel Elmalem, is an American citizen and a former resident of

Lakewood, NJ with address at Chabad House, 25 Cottage Street, Jersey City, NJ 07306,

USA’ (Tel 201-798-0056). He lived in Israel until recently, escaped to the United States

during 2011, and has returned to Israel to try to unite with his children. Upon his return he

3

was arrested on a false domestic violence charge. He now resides at his parents’ home at 3

Duchifat Street, Box 4408, Yavne, Israel.

6. Defendant, Yaakov Neeman, is a resident of Israel with an official address of 4

Weitsman St., Tel Aviv 64239 Israel. Neeman is the Justice Minister for the State of Israel

and is the official responsible for the implementation of international treaties, including the

Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (1950), and other multilateral conventions,

pursuant to which he is the chief overseer that Israel ensure fundamental human rights

including no discrimination, due process, right to family life, right to access children, right to

travel, right to earn a living, the right to dignity and the right to be free from arbitrary

intrusions into private and family life.

7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Neeman is a graduate of NYU, New

York University law School, who served as a visiting professor at NYU, Cardozo Law school

and University of California at Los Angeles. He maintains an address at 11201 Queens

Blvd., Forest Hills, NY 11375.

8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Neeman while serving as a minister

of Justice still retains his position as the head of Israel’s biggest law firm, and his clients

include many tycoons including Americans, Daniel Abrahams, Charles Bronfman, the arms

dealers Shoul Eisenberg and Marcus Katz, Robert Maxwell and Jonathan Kolber. He thus has

extensive commercial interests and transactions with the United States, mainly advising

clients on tax evasion.

9. Upon information and belief, Neeman served as a Minister of Justice 15 years

ago, but he resigned when charges of obstructing justice, false swearing and perjury were

4

launched against him in connection with dissuading a British millionaire from testifying in a

corruption scandal.

10. Defendant, Moshe Kahlon, is a resident of Israel with an official address of 83

Narkisim Street, Atlit. He is the Minister of Welfare and Social Services for the State of

Israel. He is the official in charge of social workers that are appointed in every divorce case

in Israel to investigate the fathers, by appointing a social worker as a personal Probation

officer, and determine whether, if at all, they will be allowed access to their own children.

11. Upon information and belief, Kahlon has signed certain agreements with the

IFCJ and other Jewish federations to collect funds in the United States and propel them, into

the industry of persecution of men in Israel, by giving social workers the power to dispense

IFCJ money, and financing programs designed to portray divorced men as inherently violent,

e.g. “Cities without Violence” a program designed to treat every man as a potential “ticking

bomb”, and lock them up, and by hand-outs to feminist organizations such as Na’amat, which

use the money to incite hatred and propaganda against men.

12. Defendant, Edna Arbel, is a resident of Israel and is an Associate Justice with

the Supreme Court for the State of Israel with an official address of Bet Mishpat Elyon, Sharei

Mishpat St, Kiryat Memshala, Jerusalem. As part of her previous official duties, she was also

responsible for drafting Attorney General “Guideline 2.5” which is intended to encourage

filing of false domestic violence complaints which improperly prejudice fathers’ custody and

access claims relating to their minor children. As a Supreme Court of Justice Judge, her

decisions are motivated by a radical agenda seeking to “empower women” at the expense of

men, perpetuate gender based stereotypes, and disengage fathers from children, in total

oblivion to the miseries of the fathers.

5

13. Upon information and belief, in her prior position as chief State Prosecutor she

handed down several criminal indictments against public officials, who were eventually

acquitted and as a result she was criticized that she started prosecutions “despite lacking

evidence or an adequate case to justify criminal charges”, and that “she lacks the professional

judgment to continue in her senior position”. Arbel prosecuted Benjamin Netanyahu, Yaakov

Neeman, and Ariel Sharon, which turned out to be groundless. This is mentioned because in

Ben-Haim’s case her legal theories also appeared groundless. Her main criticizers were

Yaakov Neeman, Ehud Olmert and Avigdor Lieberman. Six members of the Parliament

(Knesset) filed objections against her appointment, and the Knesset Law Committee held an

emergency session on the matter of Arbel’s appointment. Upon information and belief, her

appointment passed due to affirmative action.

14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Arbel also abused her position as

Chief State Prosecutor when she asked then Communications Minister Limor Livnat to

appoint her husband as a director in a State controlled telephone company, Bezeq. Livnat

filed objections to Arbel’s appointment as a Supreme Court Judge, citing corruption. It is also

believed she asked for her husband to be appointed as director in the State controlled maritime

shipping company Zim.

15. Upon information and belief, during Arbel’s tenure as State Attorney and as

Supreme Court Judge, she has manifested radical feminism agenda, and has consistently

advanced appointments of radical feminists and male bashers, and has refused to acquit males

on appeal in domestic violence or sexual harassment cases, even when other judges found no

evidence to sustain such appeals, as she advocated the position that a female victim should

always be believed on her claims alone, with no need for external evidence.

6

16. Upon information and belief, Arbel tailored bids for public servant positions in

civil service, especially the police, to populate them with radical feminists to further develop

tools for tormenting men via massive police arrests (e.g. Nurit Ziv).

17. Defendant, Simona Shteinmetz, is a resident of Israel with and address of 63

Ramat Bet haKerem, Street, Jerusalem, (Tel. 011-972-2-648-0153). She is the National

Supervisor of Court Appointed Social Workers in Matrimonial Cases. She is responsible for

developing policies which have artificially increased the use of supervised visitations centers

in “contact centers” (20%-25% in Israel as opposed to 1% to 2% in the United States), as well

as training social workers to appease women, and arm them with veto powers over fathers’

ability to see children.

18. Shteinmetz is also responsible for instructing social workers to treat any

referral for investigation from a Court as an “at risk/high conflict” situation, and coerce

“interventionist” measures, as well as compel “therapy” for men.

19. Shteinmetz is also responsible for orchestrating anti-male orientation sessions

for social workers at radical feminist institutions, where the social workers are taught that men

are inferior to women, men are inherently violent, Israeli men are the most violent on the

world, men cannot take care of their own children, men can easily forget their own children

and make new ones, and that the brains of men cannot produce neurons that pick up stress

signals from young children.

20. Defendant Batya Artman is a legal advisor at the Ministry of Welfare with an

official address of 6 Hasatat St, Jerusalem. Artman is actively producing opinions designed to

perpetuate discrimination, and disengage children from fathers. She deliberately frustrates any

7

effort to align Israel with the rest of the world in the context of joint custody and equal access

to children.

21. Defendant Niva Milner is the Regional Director of court-appointed social

workers in Tel Aviv with an official address of 53 Haalon St. Yavne Israel. She is responsible

for thousands of reports each year that deny fathers basic and/or minimal access and contact

with their children, and collect and disseminate libel and fiction against those fathers. She

encourages the treatment of all men as “violent” or “aggressors”, and she is responsible for

execution of the “contact center for everybody” policy in the Tel Aviv area.

22. Upon information and belief, Milner is an employee of a municipality. She has

filed thousands of false, perjuries reports against men, and coached social workers to fabricate

false police complaints against men, so as to keep them away from seeing their children.

23. Defendant Daniel Edri is a Rabbi who sits in a Rabbinical Tribunal as a quasi-

judge (“Dayan”) and resides at or may be served at Regional Rabbinical Bet Din, 28 Yalag

Street, Haifa 31052 Israel.

24. Edri has aided and abetted the kidnapping of Plaintiff Ben-Haim’s child, by

trapping Ben-Haim in Israel, threatening needless arrest, and refusing to vacate a ne exeat

order issued against the child to keep her in Israel. Edri is currently tormenting Ben-Haim’s

father in retaliation.

25. Upon information and belief, Edri is not a lawyer or judge. He is trained in

ancient Jewish laws, and sits in a tribunal, which lacks any characteristics of a Court, i.e. no

evidence rules, no adversarial rights, active coaching of litigants during sessions what to

argue. Edri has persecuted thousands of men who are compelled against their will to appear

in a religious tribunal.

8

26. Edri has sent letters to Rabbis in New Jersey demanding that they

excommunicate Plaintiff Ben-Haim, publish his name and picture anywhere possible as a

criminal and approach Plaintiff to compel him to follow commands.

27. Defendant, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (“KAS”), is an entity existing and

organized under the laws of the nation of Germany with an address of 2005 Massachusetts

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036, U.S.A. KAS is ostensibly engaging in charitable

activities with branches in Israel and in New York. KAS is funding radical feminist groups

that are devoted to the destruction and annihilation of fathers or men in divorce in Israel.

28. Upon information and belief, KAS conducts commercial activities in the US

and in NJ. For example, KAS sponsored trips to Germany of New Jersey and other US

residents, including Muslims to Auschwitz (reported on November 15, 2010 a trip with Rabbi

Jack Bemporad of Center for Interreligious Understanding (NJ) in Carlstadt, NJ followed by

event at South Orange, Seton Hall auditorium at Jubilee Hall.

29. Upon information and belief, KAS publishes or sponsors books and articles

with Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

30. KAS also offers grants and scholarships to all US residents, including residents

of NJ.

31. Defendant International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (“IFCJ”) is a

United States charity based in Washington, D.C. with a business address of 30 North LaSalle

Street, Suite 2600, Chicago, IL 60602-3356.

32. Allegedly, IFCJ was founded by Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein to promote

understanding between Jews and Christians, but IFCJ collects donations from evangelical

9

worshippers in the United States, and sends the funds to charitable causes, and also directly to

Minidtry of Welfare (I,e. to Defendants Kahlon, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman).

33. While IFCJ donors believe in the strength of the families, IFCJ sends money to

organizations such as Na’Amat in Israel, which are devoted to the break-up of Jewish

families, annihilation of men in divorce, and disengagement of fathers from children, and to

another program “City without violence” headed by ultra feminist Orly Innes who advocates

that all men are inherently violent.

34. Upon information and belief, IFCJ works as the alter-ego of Kahlon,

Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman in the United States, collecting money in the United States

and transferring it to Kahlon, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman, so that they continue the

persecution of men in Israel beyond the budget allocated by the Government of Israel for

these purposes, with US money.

35. Defendant New Israel Fund (“NIF”) is a U.S. based nonprofit organization

located in New York with an address of 330 Seventh Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, NY

10001-5010. NIF donates money to radical feminist groups, which espouse, advance and take

part in the wrongful actions set forth in this complaint.

36. Upon information and belief, NIF actively solicits donations in the US and in

NJ. At least two local synagogues, Congregation Shomrei Emunah, in Montclair, and the

Reform Temple Ner Tamid of Bloomfield, are sponsors of NIF, where NIF events are held.

37. The events are described to the public as “civil rights, religious pluralism,

environmental, and poverty-fighting”, but in reality a large proportion of the money is sent to

organizations that advocate the alienation of fathers from children.

10

38. Upon information and belief, other NIF lectures and activities are organized in

NJ in association with the Amy Adina Schulman Fund at The Jewish Center, in Princeton,

New Jersey. For example, in 2011 the guest speaker was Bruce Temkin, NIF NY director.

39. Upon information and belief, one of NIF’s chief directors is Peter Shapiro of

South Orange, NJ.

40. Upon information and belief, NIF is registered with the Division of Consumer

Affairs Charities Registration Section, under the provisions of the Charitable Registration and

Investigation Act (N.J.S.A. 45:17A-18 et seq.), the "CRI Act."

41. Plaintiffs bring this complaint on their own behalf, as victims of systematic

persecution, torture and denial of civil rights of men in divorce proceedings, who are subject

to torture, abuse, and threats of great harm by, or as a direct and proximate result of,

Defendants’ actions as described herein.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

42. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under the Alien Tort

Claims Act (“ATCA”) 28 U.S.C. § 1350, as to Plaintiff Ben-Haim’s claims and pursuant to

the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (“TVPA”) 28 U.S.C. § 1350 Pub. L. 102–256, note

§ 2(a), as to Plaintiffs Havivi and Elmalem’s claims.

43. The court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 encompassing

actions which present a federal question.

44. The Court has diversity jurisdiction between Ben-Haim and Edri pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction) because Plaintiff Ben-Haim is a resident of this

district, Defendant Edri resides in the State of Israel, and the impact of Defendants’ actions

impact Plaintiffs in this district.

11

45. Moreover, Defendant Edri availed himself of the jurisdiction by aiding and

abetting the violation of an anti-suit order issued by a New Jersey Court, and sent letters

requesting New Jersey rabbis to approach and intimidate Defendant Ben-Haim, with

instructions not to bury the body of Ben-Haim.

46. Defendant Neeman derives substantial benefits from commerce with the

United States in his private practice, and upon information and belief maintains an address in

New York.

47. Upon information and belief, immediately after two witnesses located in Israel

have signed declarations on June 15, 2012 to be presented to this Court, and indeed so filed,

Defendant Neeman instructed Israel’s Administration of the Courts “to crack down on

dissident and recidivist fathers”. One witness, Guy Shamir was arrested and kept in custody

for 40 days, and the other, Amir Shipperman was interrogated by Israel’s elite police force,

his house searched and computer seized. Shipperman was told that any activity on behalf of

fathers’ rights will result in immediate suspension of child access and criminal indictment.

Six other activists (and one mother) were also arrested or interrogated or their computers

seized in a massive wave of arrest, which upon information and belief was ordered by

Defendant Neeman. Thus, Neeman has tampered with potential witnesses and evidence

and/or attempted to tamper with witnesses or evidence belonging to a pending New Jersey

case, and subjected himself to jurisdiction.

48. Defendants Kahlon, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman have availed themselves

of the jurisdiction of New Jersey by selecting IFCJ to solicit funds and donations in the USA

and NJ to be spent in Israel on programs and buildings designed to disengage fathers from

12

children, and to collect for them funds which they give to social workers for hand outs to the

needy, or to satisfy payments for claims of abuse of power.

49. Defendants are subject to suit in the courts of the United States pursuant to the

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq., because their conduct falls

within the exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1605(a)(5) and

1605(a)(7).

50. Defendant committed tortuous acts with impact on the United States.

Alternatively, Defendants raising of funds within the US are commercial activities carried on

in the U.S. by the foreign Defendants or by their agents, KAS, NIF and IFCJ, and/or acts

which were performed outside the U.S. in connection with commercial activity outside the

U.S. and which causes a direct effect in the U.S.

51. The amount in controversy, both individually and collectively, exceeds one

million U.S. Dollars.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

52. Plaintiffs’ claims arise in conjunction with widespread discrimination against

men in Israel, especially during divorce, which results from years of radical feminist

brainwashing that men are inferior, dangerous and unworthy of contact with children1.

Against this background, Plaintiffs efforts to obtain custodian and/or access rights and/or

visitation rights of their minor children in Israel are illustrative of the discrimination, since the

Defendants automatically give the children to women, with veto powers to block the fathers’

pleas for child access.

1 For example, on January 3, 2012 Defendants Kahlon, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman conducted an indoctrination conference for the social workers at the Rackman Center, where they “learned” that men’s brains cannot produce neurons that pick up stress signals from children, and that fathers are unnecessary in children’s lives.

13

53. In the case of Ben-Haim, his child was illegally removed and kidnapped from

the United States to Israel, and because of the Defendants’ discrimination and hatred towards

men, was unable to rescue his daughter from Israel.

54. In each case, Plaintiffs’ minor children had been used by their mothers to

alienate the children from their fathers, under the active encouragement of the Defendants,

who believe that children belong with their mothers, and that children should be disengaged

from their fathers to “empower the mothers” or to compensate for historical oppression of

men against women.

55. In Ben-Haim’s case, following the abduction, once in Israel, the child’s mother

refused to return the child to the US. Ben-Haim sought relief in Israel pursuant to the Hague

Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Pending disposition of the

Hague Petition, he sought interim access rights to his child. Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain relief

were thwarted, though, by Defendants’ failure to take action to abolish institutionalized

policies elevating the rights of women over the rights of men in Israeli child custody cases,

and failing to provide due process. These policies violate Plaintiffs’ civil rights and basic

human rights; they are discriminatory and create statutory presumptions and a prevailing

atmosphere of hate against men in divorce within the Judiciary, social workers and the police.

56. Plaintiff Ben-Haim’s Hague Petition in Israel was ultimately denied by

Defendant Arbel who ruled in defiance of law and common sense that Plaintiff Ben-Haim’s

participation in divorce and custody negotiations constituted acquiescence to abduction.2 He

was compelled to travel to Israel to testify, where Defendant Edri waited for him as easy prey,

2 Arbel’s Judgment poses a risk to the International Community as the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Convention is now developing in the “Malta Process” a new international Guideline for international mediation in abduction. When the highest Court in Israel states that an attempt to negotiate constitutes acquiescence, it will deter spouses from mediating.

14

and restricted his ability to exit Israel for 4 months to coerce him to succumb to Oshrat Ben-

Haim’s demands. Ben-Haim was also interrogated at the police twice for false claims.

57. Prior to Ben-Haim’s case, Israel persistently refused to return children

abducted by mothers due the belief of officials in Israel that women are superior. Other men

who came to testify in Hague Convention cases were also trapped in Israel by rabbinical

Dayanim, and some were arrested. (One man, Noam Hupert [Dkt. No. 47] had to travel from

Australia to testify in a Hague case in Israel, and upon his arrival was arrested. The same

happened to a man who travelled from Spain, Dan Cohen [Dkt. No. 48]).

58. Plaintiffs’ inability to obtain relief is a result of, among others, discriminatory

and statutory presumptions in Israeli family law and cases, which create an atmosphere of

hate against men in divorce among the Judiciary, social workers and the police.

59. In Israel, women are improperly favored in divorce proceedings and receive

preferential treatment. However, because Plaintiffs are American, they are entitled to the

same level of treatment as that enjoyed by Israeli women. In other words, while Israeli men

may remain inferior to women, American men in Israel are entitled to equalizing protection

via the bilateral treaties. Specifically, American Plaintiffs are entitled to protections under the

Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between Israel and the United States, signed

in 1951 (the “Friendship Treaty”). However, Defendants Arbel, Neeman and Kahlon failed to

comply with such treaties between Israel and the US, which prohibit the preferential treatment

of women in Israeli child custody cases where the father is a United States citizen.

60. Pursuant to the Friendship Treaty, Article 5, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a

“most favored nations” treatment with respect to access to the Courts of Justice… in pursuit

15

of and in defense of their rights. Pursuant to article VI (1) “property of nationals and

companies of either party shall receive the most constant protection and security.”

61. In essence, Plaintiffs are entitled to treatment in Israel that is no less favorable

than the sector that receives the most preferential treatment in Israel, and in Israel the sector

that receives the most preferential treatment is women in divorce or separation.

62. Contrary to the Friendship Treaty, Defendants Arbel, Neeman and Kahlon

continue to deny the benefits and protections of the Treaty to all men.

63. Examples of preferential treatment for women in divorce proceedings include

automatic interim child custody, presumptive permanent custody, exemption from producing

financial records, exemptions from paying child support or from contributing to child support,

and the luxury of filing false police complaints and causing the arrests of the male spouses

without evidence.

64. Men in Israeli divorce proceedings are also routinely denied due process and

fair hearings because they are not allowed in many cases to cross examine wives or witnesses,

family courts refuse to issue necessary subpoenas for witnesses and financial records, refuse

to hear witnesses on behalf of husbands, improperly limit trials to 30 minutes or a few

questions per side, and refuse to mark exhibits or admit proof into evidence. In most cases,

men are not permitted by Judges to cross-examine other witnesses, including the social

workers who are appointed by the Judges.

65. Upon information and belief, these tactics were developed or condoned by

Defendant Arbel, who consistently refused to allow any appeal on these issues to proceed.

66. The Judiciary, under the watch of Defendants Neeman and Arbel, also allows

women to file ex parte motions and enters immediate remedies for any relief sought by the

16

women. However, the men’s applications for relief are deliberately postponed for months or

years, to allow women to accrue tremendous child support delinquencies, which will be

recovered from the husband’s half of the marital property when distributed3.

67. Most egregiously, Defendants Arbel, Neeman and Kahlon did nothing to

abolish the immunity for women from making false domestic violence complaints in support

of their divorce cases. As referenced above, these false domestic violence actions are granted

presumptive validity by the courts and men are precluded from substantively contesting the

allegations. There is no ability to talk to potential witnesses, (otherwise a new charge of

obstruction of investigation will be tacked on), no ability to access or examine evidence or the

scene, and any attempt to challenge the prosecution results in further charges of tampering

with evidence or testimony.

68. Conversely, men are discouraged at police stations from filing domestic

violence complaints against wives or partners, when they are attacked. In Elmalem’s case,

despite being brutally attacked and permanently scarred by his wife, he ended up being

3 Some Judges, for example, Esperanza Alon of Haifa or Tova Sivan, President of the Family Court in Tel Aviv District, simply issue Judgments “on the merits” without proofs or even scheduling a trial. In 2005, an American from Indiana, Evan Watkins found his way to Judge Sivan’s courtroom in a custody case. Judge Sivan unequivocally told Watkins that anybody can raise children, except their biological fathers. Watkins’ family engaged senators from Indiana and California to write letters of protest to Defendant Neeman’s predecessor, as they were outraged by Israel’s systematic disengagement of fathers from children, and apparent discrimination under color of the law. The letters from the American senators fell on deaf ears. To this day, Judge Sivan continues to abuse and torment fathers, and to deny them basic familial rights. At the same time she imposes thousands of dollars in sanctions to deter further applications for contact with children. In July-August 2012, Sivan, Esperanza Alon, Esther Stein, Shifra Glick had used Israel’s Judiciary intra-net email to send messages to other judges to treat men harshly, and do whatever they can to quash the fathers’ protest in Israel. They also started filing criminal complaints against fathers who are active in protests. The letters of Evan Watkins’ American family, which detail five cases of abuse that occurred six years ago shows a pattern of abuse by against biological fathers in Israel. See Exhibit “A”; Letter of Shoshana Harper, dated October 7, 2005.

17

arrested and charged. Thus, Defendants Arbel, Neeman and Kahlon failed to protect the

physical safety of Israeli and American men in Israel.

69. The nature of the unfair treatment, because it destroys the parental relationship,

is equivalent to torture and violates the most fundamental international human rights.

70. The parental relationship, particularly the relationship between parents and

their minor children, is vastly more important and deserving of protection than the material

concept of property. It is the most basic of human rights.

71. Defendants Arbel, Neeman and Kahlon, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman

engage in a systematic practice of torture, violations of human rights and egregious gender

discrimination for the intentional purpose of separating fathers from their natural born

children in proceedings related to the dissolution of family relations.

72. In order to perpetrate the assault and torture of men, Defendants utilize a

myriad of tools to suppress men and torture them, as follows:

a. Defendants protect, condone and encourage abductions of children from

foreign countries to Israel by women, where women enjoy the presumption

that the best interests of the child is equal to the best interest of the abducting

mothers,

b. Defendants automatically disengage fathers from children either completely or

by sending men to visitation centers.

c. Defendants encourage women to file false domestic violence complaints

against men and remove them from their homes, thereby preventing the fathers

from physically being in contact with their children.

18

d. Defendants’ policies validate false domestic violence complaints, thereby

giving women unfair advantages financially and in matters of custody, while

the men are removed from the home and/or locked up in the custody of the

police.

e. Defendants’ policies place greater evidentiary weight on the woman’s

testimony and evidence in family courts and criminal Courts, (i.e. a woman’s

testimony is always considered more credible than that of a men),

f. Defendants automatically and without Due Process grant motions against men,

most times ex parte, or they aid and facilitate such practices,

g. Defendants impose unconscionable child supports awards on men regardless of

the women’s income or the men’s actual income (sometimes at 80% to 250%

of the men’s actual salary) for the improper purpose of prejudicing them,

making them unable to meet court imposed obligations and coercing them into

giving up their parental rights, and their share of the marital property,

h. Defendants attribute to men fictitious “imputed salaries” without testimony or

evidentiary support,

i. Defendants deplete men’s property and transfer it to their wives without

testimony, evidentiary support or Due Process,

j. Defendants’ policies cause men to be arrested without due process for inability

to pay child support, be arrested on charges of “anticipatory refusal” to

divorce, be arrested on false domestic violence charges, result in the revocation

of men’s passports and driver’s licenses, and deny men the ability to work by

issuing a constant stream of executions and levies.

19

k. Defendant Edri and his colleagues routinely support women’s claims in

divorce, routinely award automatic custody to women, routinely issue ex parte

orders of arrest of men, even non-residents, based on spurious charges of

“potential to refuse to divorce,” routinely issue ex parte orders restraining

men’s abilities to leave the State of Israel, and routinely transfer marital

property to women or curtail the men’s right to equitable distribution by

allowing women exclusive possession until the children mature. In cases of

abduction by women of minor children, because of the ancient religious policy

of preference for custody with women, Defendants and Edri support and

facilitate kidnapping by helping the women kidnappers trap the fathers in Israel

with excessive bonds, threats of arrest and ex parte orders.

l. In the area of child abductions, Defendants consistently violate the objectives

of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction by

systematically denying left behind fathers their right to a speedy return of

children abducted by mothers to Israel. The Defendants’ ideological adherence

to the Tender Years Presumption, the statutory discrimination in favor of

women and the overall preferences in favor of women and mothers inspired by

radical feminism, (or in the case of Edri, the fear of violating the anti-male

feminist trends for fear of losing his job), enables Defendants to prolong

litigation, interpret the Convention in contrast to the rest of the world, and, in

the rare case a father wins a Hague Convention case, impose drastic and

draconian financial conditions that are unaffordable to ordinary men. See

Exhibit “B”. Edri and his cohorts set up legal and jurisdictional traps for the

20

men who come to Israel solely to testify on the issue of abduction by issuing

ex parte orders of arrest, ex parte restraining orders on properties and bank

accounts, and ne exeat orders secured by exorbitant bonds (in one case

$500,000). Defendants coerce the men into divorce and to submit to a

Rabbinical jurisdiction that they would otherwise not be subjected to. Edri is

now issuing orders against Ben-Haim’s father in retaliation.

73. Fathers, or any male in matrimonial proceedings, are automatically treated as

“second class citizens” by family courts, rabbinical “courts” and the social workers that

answer to anti-male policies disseminated and enforced by Shteinmetz, Artman and Milner.

Defendants intentionally discriminate against such men who lose the basic protections of

human rights.

74. Indeed, a man in divorce proceedings in Israel is subject to institutionalized

torture and constant denial or deprivation of civil rights. The defendants Neeman, Kahlon and

colleagues of Arbel at the Supreme Court of Justice refuse to recognize any rights to

fatherhood, family life and contact with children, and to achieve their goal they subject men to

deprivation of life, liberty and property. They routinely divest and destroy men’s rights in this

area by failing to conform to the laws, practices and policies of international standards of

equality and right to family life.

75. Defendants officially interpret the right to family life as dependent on the

concept of “mother’s consent,” which the international community, European Court of

Human Rights and other international tribunals discarded long ago. Similarly, Defendants fail

to treat men and women equally as they officially advocate that the “best interest of the child”

is equal to the “best interests of the mother.”

21

76. The “mother’s consent” doctrine, advocated by Neeman, Kahlon, Shteinmetz,

Artman and Milner obviously offends jus cogens4 and discriminatory because its very nature

is to favor one party’s position over another without any evidentiary scrutiny, assessment of

accuracy or actual of proof. It is completely subjective and without basis in fact.

Perpetuating these policies allows for judicial, emotional and economic tools of extortion.

77. Despite many opportunities, Defendants have done nothing within their powers

to terminate the policies of egregious and unconscionable gender-apartheid, as follows:

a. The Tender Years Presumption gives automatic custody of children to

mothers, pursuant to Article 25 of the Guardian and Capacity Law, which

Defendants never took steps to terminate its effect.

b. Under Kahlon’s supervision, all men are sent to court appointed social workers

who act as personal criminal probation officers and cancel visitations without

reason or notice.

c. Due to policies promulgated by Defendants Shteinmetz, Artman and Milner,

and endorsed by Defendant Kahlon, the rate of supervised visitations (20-

33%) in Israel is the highest anywhere in the world. The rate in the U.S. is 1-

3%. See Exhibits “C” & “D”.

d. The rate of children’s removal and outplacements is also the highest in the

world.5

e. The rate of false arrests and false convictions is also extremely high; the false

arrests are an institutionalized tool used to disengage fathers from children.

4 See the recent case Atala v. Chile at the Inter-American Court of human rights, where the judges and various

amici concurred that discrimination against lesbians and gays offends international human rights. 5 See: http://www.mchp.gov.il/default/Pages/Residential%20Education_Care%20in%20Israel.aspx

22

f. Pursuant to policies endorsed by Neeman, women are exempt from paying

child support in all cases, allegedly based on “religious law”. Child support

awards do not take into account the women’s income in setting the child

support amount. Child support awards should be formulas based on

disposable income as in other developed countries. Instead, Israeli child

support awards are based on multiplying the number of children by a certain

minimum (about $450 per child), and adding additional amounts (e.g., 30%,

40% and 50% of the woman’s monthly rent, medical, dental, extracurricular,

babysitting, and other expenses a judge feels like including). As a result,

most men are burdened with child support awards substantially exceeding

their income. This rate of non-disposable income vs. award of child support is

unconscionable and is the highest rate in the world. See Exhibit “E”.

78. Defendants also imposed and enforce discriminatory domestic violence

guidelines. Defendant Arbel herself drafted the policies that exempt women from prosecution

for false reports, and thus she encouraged free and careless false reports by women at police,

and perjuries at family courts. This results in automatic removal of husbands from homes,

and placement of men in police custody, as well as a high rate of false convictions, and

suicides.

79. Defendants have done nothing to stop the routine separation of children from

their fathers for long and intolerable periods. All fathers are subjected to compelled

interventionist methods of social workers, (under supervision of Kahlon, Shteinmetz, Artman

and Milner), and costly parental fitness evaluators, which increase the impoverishment of

fathers. See Exhibit “F”, Parliamentary Report of Dan Shcnit on the futility of parental

23

fitness exam, published September 26, 2011. These practices affect about 10,000 fathers

every year, and result in about 50% of the national number of suicides, 200 divorced men out

of 400 total. See Exhibit “G”, Suicide Date from the Ministry of Health of Israel.

80. In defiance of all international standards, the Israeli family and rabbinical

“courts” do not engage in objective determinations of justice. They systematically grant

women interim custody and refer the men to social workers who become the true decision-

makers. The social workers are trained to assist women in denying visitations to the men, and

assist women in filing false police reports. The gender training of social workers is supported

by funds provided by KAS, IFCJ and NIF to radical feminist organizations, who are hired by

Kahlon, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman to train the social workers.

81. Defendants Neeman and Arbel have done nothing to clean up the family courts

from the mechanisms that turned the family courts into butcher-shops for men. There is no

due process in them and hardly any evidentiary hearings. Judges capriciously issue

Judgments without trials, proper testimony or any evidentiary record. The family courts

merely schedule endless numbers of conferences. The conferences are not on full record, are

dominated by the judge, and routinely deny the husbands’ attorneys any participation.

Similarly, decisions on applications benefiting husbands, such as equitable distribution of

marital assets or child access, are deliberately delayed for months or years. By contrast,

applications benefitting women are decided immediately or within days based on affidavits

containing ridiculous unsupported allegations not tested by cross examination.

82. If the Court must conduct a trial, judges limit the trial to 30 minutes per side to

avoid elicitation of facts adverse to the women’s positions.

24

83. It is even impossible to apply for child support reduction or visitation

enlargements because those applications are routinely denied without hearing and often result

in exorbitant monetary sanctions that further impoverish the men.

84. Defendants’ policies also deny men due process by refusing applications to

summon witnesses or financial records, denying applications to cross examine social workers’

hearsay reports, and issuing judgments without trials. Family Court proceedings lack due

process, fair justice and equal protection. In addition, Defendants have made it impossible to

appeal from family court are intentionally expensive and unaffordable. A minimum $3,000

bond is necessary to secure an appeal, as well as court fees.

85. The policies result in ongoing damage to the father-child relationship through

the imposition of supervised visitation requirements, regardless of risk factors. The per-capita

rate of supervised visitation in “Contact Centers” in Israel is the highest in the world (2,200

families per year, out of 6,000 divorces-with-children (but the number is higher as there are

1,000-1,500 in waiting list). See Exhibit “C”. Official data from the Ministry of welfare is

attached as Exhibit “H”. Periods of State-enforced disengagement and alienation can last

two to five years and in an extreme case, 12 years 6.

86. Defendants’ Shteinmetz, Milner, and Artman actively develop more

discriminatory policies also impose a strict, cruel and unconscionable regime of supervised

father-child relationships.

87. Despite the obvious harm in constraining and limiting the father child

relationship, these decisions are imposed without any evidentiary determinations. Family

6 Since this case started, Defendants Shteinmetz, Milner, and Artman have intensified the rates of parental

alienation by opening two additional Contact Centers and populating them with additional 500 children. It is believed that IFCJ and its co-partner the Jewish Federation collect funds in the US to building these “centers”.

25

Court judges simply delegate the authority to determine the fathers’ level of contact with his

children to state employed social workers, as “court aides”.

88. In making their determinations, social workers utilize a presumption that the

mother is the parent best suitable for custody under Capacity and Guardianship Law, Section

25. As a result, women are routinely granted primary physical custody rights on application

alone. Conversely, men are sent to social workers for investigation, character assessment and

reports. This practice is discriminatory on its face, and it is supported and advocated by

Defendants Neeman, Kahlon and Arbel. According to Shteinmetz, social workers must apply

interventionist methods even if the Court only orders an investigation.

89. The social workers routinely threaten the fathers, and collect rumors and false

statements against them, entice women to file false domestic violence complaints to expel

men from their own homes, and delay proceedings pending referrals to private and costly

Dangerous Propensity Tests or Parental Fitness Tests. These tests feed a booming industry of

psychologist and mental evaluators at $5,000 per test, while the professionals who administer

them admit that the tests have no scientific validity7.

90. More specifically, those fathers who take Parental Fitness Tests, are degraded,

punished, and subjected to non-scientific experimentation that is non-scientific, highly

subjective, and non-clinical.

91. Moreover, it is simply degrading and dehumanizing for a father who devotedly

raised his children during the marriage and behaved as a fit and responsible parent to be

7 This is stated in a recent report presented to Defendant Neeman by Prof. Dan Schnit, available in Hebrew only. The Schnit Committee Report calls for the abolishment of the parental fitness testing, and abolishment of the Tender Years statutory presumption, but Defendant Neeman refused to endorse the recommendations on September 27, 2011.

26

questioned simply because he appears in Israel. Those policies subject men to an unfair and

discriminatory system that doubts their ability to parent and torments them.

92. As a general rule, appointed social workers routinely send the men to see their

children in supervised visitations centers one hour a week. Even if a report initially makes

certain favorable findings to men, the moment a woman is displeased with the arrangement,

the visitations or even co-parenting is immediately suspended, and the father goes to a

Contact Center.

93. The requirement of supervised visitation is imposed simply upon the mother’s

request. Simona Shteinmetz admits this in the press by the official in charge, Defendant

Simona Shteinmetz. Defendant Kahlon also admitted this at the Israeli parliament8.

94. As a result, fathers are treated like criminals, branded as dangerous, and only

get an hour or two per week with the children, for several years.

95. The supervised visitation system is also designed and operated to prejudice

fathers’ rights. The supervised visitations take place at the social workers’ convenience, and

only one or two hours per week of visitation during the fathers’ work hours. The State’s

policies requiring supervised visitation causes men to miss work, lose income and jeopardize

their careers in order to see the children.

96. Before a father may see his child in supervised visitation, a social worker must

issue a report. These reports take six to nine months to issue and often are supplemented by

additional reports before allowing the fathers to see their children.

97. The process used to prepare social worker reports is faulty and inherently

discriminatory. The social worker merely collects any piece of libel and defamation from the

8 See on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAs8wrhqY4M

27

woman and encourages the woman to manufacture lies. Manipulated character assassination

of men is the usual practice of such Social workers.

98. These practices violate the guarantees under article 10 of the International

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and its equivalent in other

international conventions, since the right to family life becomes conditioned on satisfying the

whims of a hostile and biased social worker in every case and as to each child.

99. These practices, endorsed by Defendants Kahlon, Shteinmetz, Artman and

Milner, feed an industry of prejudiced social workers at huge costs to society. The policies are

driven by a philosophy of woman empowerment that destroys men’s self respect, privacy and

their human to be parts of their children’s lives. Defendants Kahlon and Shteinmetz are

responsible for the social workers training school, at 1 Jabotinski Street, Ramat Gan, where

the curriculum comprised only of women empowerment lectures, radical feministic

indoctrination and interventionist theories.

100. This system was created and enjoys continued support through Defendants’

policies and actions, and their financiers, KAS, NIF and IFCJ.

101. The state of Israel and the United States are signatories to international

covenants such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ICESCR

and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Despite those agreements, Israel’s

courts systematically refuse to recognize a father’s right to see his children without state

intervention or interference. Instead, Neeman, Kahlon, and their subordinates require fathers

to demonstrate why the child’s best interest warrants such contact. Because of this failure,

fathers must submit to the authority of social workers and supervised visitations, while

women get automatic interim custody without a fair, evidentiary and adversarial hearing.

28

102. These policies result in most men only seeing their children in a prison-like

setting for one or two hours per week because the Ministry of Welfare automatically refers

men to supervised visitations whenever a woman voices disagreement with regular visitations.

103. Supervised visitation occurs for at least one to two years, and can be longer.

During the visits, men must yield their rights and civil liberties to the guards on duty. There

is no remedy available to a father if a woman does not bring the child to the center.

104. Attorney General Guideline 2.5 immunizes women, but not men, from

prosecution for false domestic violence arrest. See Exhibit “I”. Women are encouraged by

the authorities and the social workers to file as many domestic violence complaints as

possible, in order to perpetuate the child alienation and disengagement periods. The

discriminatory guideline is a tool used to cut off children from fathers.

105. Defendant Arbel, drafted said Attorney General Guideline 2.5 when she was

Attorney General of the State. A pending petition to revoke it will likely be dismissed.

106. Defendants routinely convict men merely on the unsupported and uncontested

allegations of a purported victim. No evidence is required other than the rehearsed words of

the woman. This is the pattern and practice in Israel even when there were no domestic

violence complaints, or complaints that the man posed a danger to the well being of the child

or woman, before the divorce. Despite this questionable basis, domestic violence complaints

result in the immediate removal of the husband from his home. He is cut off from his

clothing, records, personal belongings, and his children.

107. Once judgments are rendered, and often they are issued ex parte without trial,

an unconscionable mechanism of usurious post judgment collections is utilized to further

destroy the man’s livelihood, ability to work, his morale, spirit and sanity. Courts impose a

29

constant stream of executions and levies carrying up to 50% interest and exorbitant automatic

attorney fees to leverage men into giving up.

108. Defendants’ practices result in thousands of children being disengaged from

their fathers every year, thousands of fathers being needlessly arrested, and thousands of

fathers being forced to live in fear, taunted by endless and persistent persecution. The abuse

results in about 150-200 suicides of divorced men every year.

109. The institutionalized and statutory discrimination against fathers in Israel is a

violation of international treaties. A complaint based on these discriminatory policies filed on

behalf of the fathers’ rights organizations in Israel is pending before the United Nations

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and is scheduled to be heard on

November 15-16, 2011 in Geneva. A true and correct copy of the United Nations Rights

Complaint is attached as Exhibit “J”. Five more individual complaints were sent to the UN’s

Human Rights Council in August 2011, detailing torment and abuse.

110. American citizens in Israel victimized by outrageous conduct designed to

disengage them from their children and impoverish them have organized as a group called

fathers 4 Justice Israel.

111. Many of them were victims of Judge Rivka Mekayes, a former attorney with

the Israel Women’s Network, who published guides for women detailing how to file false and

fictitious domestic violence charges against men Exhibits “K”, and “L”. After her judicial

appointment, she began terrorizing men and disengaged thousands of children from their

fathers, while awarding outrageous child support awards.

30

112. Mekayes and the other Defendants have acted only to enable the American

citizens’ former partners’ physical and emotional abuse of the joint children and to increase

the children’s alienation from the fathers.

113. For the past three years, many American citizens residing in Israel have been

able to meet their children only at a contact center.

114. In fact, American citizens joined a support group called "Fathers injured by

Judge Rivka Mekayes.” The judge, herself, is a victim of parental alienation syndrome,

reportedly having had no contact with her divorced father.

115. Rivka Mekayes is the lead author of a 1992 guide teaching women how to

fabricate domestic violence charges. See Exhibit “M”. The judge now lectures on false

accusations in her spare time. In her courtroom she is the last to recognize child abuse,

parental alienation and false accusations.

116. American citizens in Israel are also victims of the Defendants’ policies

requiring fathers to undergo Parental Custody Evaluation at mental health clinics that

evaluates fathers without even seeing them, and depend financially on manufacturing reports

that suit the discriminatory policies of Kahlon, Shteinmetz, Artman and Milner.

117. It is impossible to seek remedies for gender discrimination or exhaust remedies

in Israel based on international human rights, because Israel does not recognize any UN

Convention internally. While Israel signed some UN Conventions, it did not adopt them

internally, and they are meaningless in Israel.

118. Thus, for example, in March 2011, one such father who has not seen his six-

year-old child in three years, (even though the child resides within 3 city blocks), filed a

Collective administrative petition against Defendant Kahlon with the High Court of Justice in

31

Jerusalem, where Defendant Arbel is a chief judge to show cause why the right of fathers to

child access is unrecognized, but colleagues of Defendant Arbel, (J. Itzhak Amit) dismissed it

ex parte, on September 27, 2011. In fact, Judge Amit stated that he does not even understand

what the Petitioner and 29 other co-Petitioners want.

119. In 2012 a collective Petition to abolish exemption of women from child

support launched by Guy Shamir was assigned to Defendant Arbel, who refused to schedule a

hearing. Several months later, Shamir was framed by his family court judge, Esperanza Alon,

who filed false charges that he threatened her, and was incarcerated for 40 days since August

10, 2012. [Dkt. No. 66]

120. Shamir also signed a declaration on June 15, 2012 in support of this case, and

thus became a target for retribution. Also Amir Shipperman filed a declaration in this case.

He too was called to the police and his computer was seized.

121. In fact, the witnesses who filed declarations in this case, and those who

assisted them became targets for retribution9. See, Declaration of Adi Vaxman, a New Jersey

citizen, [Dkt. No. 45] Declaration of Amir Shipperman, [Dkt. No. 49] Declaration of Guy

Shamir, [Dkt. No. 50]

122. In a recent Supreme Court case in Israel, Orit Goren v. Home Center, on May

17, 2012, Judges of Israel Supreme Court actually praised “the values of radical feminism”

9 See, Israel Jails Dads Protesting Family Courts” (Sep 6, 2012), at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/09/06/israel-jails-dads-protesting-family-courts and

“Wave of Arrests of Father's Rights Activists”, (Aug, 31, 2012) at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/159496

32

and stated that every matter involving men versus women should be looked at through the

prism of radical feminism. In a jurisdiction that actually praises radical feminism; no man has

a chance to obtain any remedy whatsoever, and for men to exhaust remedies in Israel is an

exercise in futility, especially so since in August 2012 family court judges who are most

antagonistic to men, usurped to judges’ intra-net email system to request other judges’

assistance in quashing fathers’ rights, and 7 men were arrested on spurious charges launched

by the judges in different parts of the country, together with tv promotions, and recruited

journalists at Haaretz and Maariv, who slammed fathers rights in a concerted attack.

V. PARTICULAR FACTS FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF

A. SHARON BEN-HAIM

123. Plaintiff Ben-Haim, is a United States resident living in Fair Lawn, the State of

New Jersey, whose child was abducted to Israel June 20, 2010 by the child’s mother.

124. Defendant Arbel disregarded the protections of the Hague Convention for the

Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (which direct the immediate return of such

children to the United States), and a New Jersey State Court order directing the return of the

minor to the United States. Arbel condoned the kidnapping in deciding an appeal filed at the

Supreme Court after two lower courts held the mother wrongfully abducted the child to Israel

and the child should be returned to the U.S. (albeit with severe financial impositions on Mr.

Ben-Haim). On May 17, 2011, Arbel ordered the minor shall not return to her home State,

New Jersey, on the spurious theory that Plaintiff Ben Haim, by participating in negotiations

for a divorce and custody settlement, while trapped in Israel by Rabbinical Court Orders for

his arrest enjoining him from leaving Israel, somehow acquiesced to the abduction. See

33

Exhibit “N”, Judge Arbel’s decision and Exhibit “O”, Judge Mizdol’s decision refusing to

grant comity to Judge Arbel’s decision.

125. The climate of discrimination against men is Israel so brutal, that the

Defendants have erected various procedural obstacles to deter Ben Haim from seeking to

reunite with his daughter. The courts compelled him to appear in the destination country of

abduction instead of allowing videoconference, forced him to pay exorbitant fees and bonds,

forced him to pay the kidnapper’s airfare, six months of rent and six months of child support

in New Jersey, (contrary to New Jersey law and in encroachment on the sovereignty of the

United States), and issued ne exeat injunctions and orders of arrest against him.

126. Defendant Arbel’s manufactured Judgment denying the return of the minor

daughter to the United States is a heinous crime tainted with gender-based hate and

discrimination. The Israeli Central Authority, responsible for implementing the Hague

Convention in Israel, filed an opinion severely criticizing Defendant Arbel’s butchering of the

law. Exhibit “P”.

127. As a result, Plaintiff is cut off from Ofir, an American citizen, for more than

two years, has needlessly spent $100,000 in attorney fees and related expenses, has been

arrested by an ex parte order of a Rabbinical Court, has been served with a ne exeat injunction

preventing his departure from Israel when he arrived to participate in the International Child

Abduction proceedings, and was trapped in Israel for months during which his entire business

in the United States collapsed due to inability to fulfill orders. Plaintiff Ben-Haim has

suffered and continues to suffer mental anguish, loss of work and loss of self-esteem.

Everyday, his daughter grows more distant despite his every effort to reunite.

B. SOL HAVIVI

34

128. Plaintiff Havivi was born and raised in New York City. He is 47 years old. In

1984 he moved to Israel and later married an Israeli woman. He is now the custodian of two

children, ages 17 and 12, after a long and excruciating custody battle. He has another

daughter who he has not seen in five years.

129. When his wife filed for divorce, Judge Yaakov Cohen told him that in his

Court fathers do not see children. Havivi suffered humiliating treatment by hostile social

workers, who despised him solely on account of his gender. For 8 months, he was forced to

see his children in a supervised contact center, for no valid reason who ATCA over. His

oldest child was a victim of parental alienation and Havivi has not seen her in 5 years. The

social workers and Judge Cohen ridiculed Havivi, made his life unbearable and tormented

him for more than 4 years.

130. In Havivi’s case, social workers deliberately procrastinated any order to

arrange for visitations, and had incited all three children against their father. In private, low

level social workers admitted that they were forced by their supervisors to lie and to take a

woman’s side in every dispute. Moreover, the low level social workers were forced to ignore

any request by the children to live with their father, and to offer foster care rather than

paternal custody, should the children insist on moving away from their mothers. When the

children themselves told the social workers they were abused by their mother, the social

workers rationalized and ignored every act of the mother, and offered outplacement instead of

custody with the father.

131. The social workers convinced the Police in Petach Tikva to close an assault

charge against the mother, who smashed Havivi’s head into a table, because prosecution

would disrupt her life.

35

132. Judge Cohen imposed an outrageous child support award that exceeded the

entire salary of a person who is 100% handicapped, thereby living Plaintiff Havivi no

resources for daily life, and subjecting him to arrests without any proof of financial ability to

pay.

C. GAMLIEL ELMALEM

133. Plaintiff Elmalem is an American citizen who resided in Lakewood, in the

State of New Jersey and now returned to Israel. He is a former Israeli police officer, and after

becoming religious, he became a kosher food inspector. He escaped Israel and left four minor

children in Israel (ages 11, 10, 7 and 3). Prior to his departure, Elmalem’s wife attacked him

with sharp glass and ripped his arm apart. He called the police, but the police arrested him

and removed him from his home. He had nowhere to go, so he went to a domestic violence

shelter, but the shelters only accepted women. His salary was 2,500 shekels (about $714) per

month, but he was ordered to pay 3,000 Shekels ($857) per month. Because of the order of

removal/protection he did not see his children for many months, until a social worker

determined that he must see his children in a contact center, "so as not to traumatize the

children.”

134. In Elmalem’s case, the police did not register him as a victim and arrested him

instead of his wife. He was also ordered to pay child support exceeding his income and was

only permitted to see his children in a supervised contact system. These injustices resulted

because Defendants Kahlon, Shteinmetz, Artman and Milner believe that children will be

traumatized if they see their own fathers unsupervised.

135. Because child support was so unconscionably excessive, unaffordable and un-

payable, orders for Elmalem’s arrest were issued. He fled to the United States in June 2010

36

and has no ability to exercise his parental rights. Elmalem returned to Israel in November

2011 because he could not bear the separation from his children. The complete elimination of

Elmalem’s rights through discrimination and criminalization demonstrates the pervasive and

systematic injustice experienced by fathers in Israeli child custody cases.

COUNT ONE

AIDING AND ABETTING, INTENTIONALLY FACILITATING, AND/OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDING TORTURE AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

(By Plaintiff Ben-Haim Against Defendants Neeman, Kahlon, Arbel, Edri, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman)

136. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all previous allegations with the same force and

effect, as if fully set forth herein.

137. The rights to non-discrimination, equal protection, due process and family life

(in the sense of right to parental access to children) are universally agreed upon as the law of

nations and international law, except Israel, the only dissenter in the international community.

138. For example, the rights are enshrined in ICESCR Article 10(1) – The right to

family life: "The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family,

which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment

and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children." See also, Art. 8

European Convention on Human Rights, and Karen Atala v. Chile.

139. Crimes against humanity are likewise defined with a specificity sufficiently

comparable to international law violations that were familiar when the ATCA, 28 U.S.C. §

1350, was enacted.

140. The core elements of a crime against humanity in violation of international

law, as codified in the above sources and recognized in international law generally, include

37

various forms of heinous acts against human life, physical welfare, and dignity that are

undertaken as part of a widespread or systematic attack against the male population in Israel.

141. Crimes against humanity are punishable whether committed in time of peace or

war.

142. Aiding and abetting and/or reckless disregard of crimes against humanity are

actionable claims under the law of nations and this court has jurisdiction over claims related

to such actions pursuant to the ATCA as to Sharon Ben-Haim, an alien.

143. When the Defendants violate all such universal rights, utilize threats of arrest,

injunctions on right to travel, unconscionable child support, gender based anti-male social

workers’ interventionist methods, lack of due process and equality in both family courts and

rabbinical “courts”, it is an act of systematic torture and terror applied against innocent

citizens, and especially Americans who are entitled to a “most favored nations treatment.”

144. Defendants intentionally, knowingly and willfully facilitated, encouraged

and/or condoned, or at minimum failed to take steps to protect the Plaintiffs using the

following tools10, and failing to take steps within their powers to (a) abolish the “Tender

Years Presumption” which discriminates against men in favor of women and results in

separation and alienation of fathers from children, (b) abolish Israeli Attorney General

Guideline 2.5 which immunizes women from prosecution or liability due to false police

reports of domestic violence, (c) abolish the Israeli Police patrol guidelines mandating orders

of removal from the home based on mere allegations of violence without evidence, (d)

Policies disengaging children from fathers, (e) Policies allowing fathers access to children

only at supervised visitation contact centers, or no visitation if the woman does not cooperate,

10 See Exhibit “Q”, “Discrimination Against Divorced Fathers in Justice and Welfare.”

38

(f) Policies compelling fathers to prove their fitness to see children and beg to be granted

visitations despite that fathers are entitled to the same presumption as mothers that they are

good and loving parent; (g) Policies postponing property distribution and awarding most of,

if not all, the marital property and the husbands’ personal property to the women; (h) Policies

of issuing ex parte decisions in Family Court and in post Judgment Enforcement Offices (i)

Family Court policies inflicting excessive attorney’s fees on husbands in almost every case;

and (j) Policies undermining and ignoring the Hague Convention on Child Abduction by

discriminating in favor of women abductors and falsely interpreting the Convention to the

detriment of disabused fathers.

145. Defendants Neeman, Kahlon, Arbel, Edri, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman’

wrongful conduct jointly and severally, as hereinabove alleged, and the crimes and torts

committed by them, as hereinabove alleged, have caused Plaintiffs and other similarly

situated men, emotional and psychological harm including stress, detachment from family,

pecuniary and economic damages, loss of support, loss of nurture care and guidance, grief,

anguish and other mental and physical injuries.

146. In Ben-Haim’s case, Defendants Neeman, Kahlon Arbel, Edri, Shteinmetz,

Milner and Artman created the circumstances and/or did nothing to prevent the circumstances

that enabled the wife, Oshrat, to kidnap his daughter, and get away with it.

147. The kidnapping of Ben-Haim’s daughter has caused a loss of family life in NJ,

a financial loss in NJ to the Plaintiff, continued persecution while ongoing litigation in Israel

resulted in orders from Edri to rabbis in NJ to intimidate, harass him, excommunicate him, as

well as instructions “not to bury his body” in NJ, which is an implicit death threat.

39

148. In fact, in Plaintiff Ben-Haim’s efforts to return his abducted child to the

United States, Arbel herself abetted the abduction, motivated by her belief that women in all

situations should enjoy custody of children, even at the expense of the father’s rights.

149. In order to achieve her goal, Arbel manipulated facts, intentionally misapplied

principles of law, and sabotaged the goals of the Hague Convention on the Civil aspects of

Child Abduction. Her ruling makes Israel a safe haven for female child kidnappers, and is a

violation of the rights to non-discrimination, equal protection and due process.

150. As Defendant Neeman is in charge of the justice system, he did nothing to

protect Ben Haim from false complaints, police interrogation, the fear of being arrested and

the creation of an automatic criminal record.

151. Ben-Haim also suffered from false complaints launched in Israel by his wife’s

mother and sister, who falsely claimed on December 23, 2010 and again on January 5, 2011

that he threatened them. Ben-Haim was interrogated for hours, humiliated, removed from his

home town, and left with a stain on his rap sheet.

152. At the rabbinical Court, Defendant Edri caused Ben Haim to be trapped in

Israel for four months, and actively coached the wife what to say and do in order to issue

various restraining orders against Plaintiff Ben Haim and prevent him from returning to the

US for 4 months.

153. Edri then started a campaign to torment Ben-Haim’s family members by

issuing subpoenas to banks, allowing the wife to sue Ben-Haim’s father for $25,000, and after

this case was initially filed, aided and abetted a violation of an anti-suit order and issued

written demands to the Israeli Consulates in the US and to rabbis in NJ to limit and curtail the

liberties of Ben Haim and make his life miserable.

40

154. The remaining Defendants of the Welfare office, Kahlon, Shteinmetz, Milner

and Artman supported the wife’s claims that interim visitations while the Hague case was

pending be allowed only in a contact center.

155. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Ben-Haim, based on the ATCA, requests judgment in

his favor and against Defendants Neeman, Kahlon, Arbel, Edri, Shteinmetz, Milner and

Artman, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $75,000 plus interest, costs, punitive

damages, attorney’s fees and such other relief as the Court may determine.

COUNT TWO AIDING AND ABETTING, INTENTIONALLY FACILITATING,

AND/OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDING TORTURE AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE TVPA

(By Plaintiff Havivi and Elmalem Against Defendants Neeman, Kahlon, Arbel, Edri, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman)

156. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all previous allegations with the same force and

effect, as if fully set forth herein.

157. Crimes of torture within the meaning of TVPA, 28 USC §1350 are subject to

jurisdiction in this Court as to Havivi and Elmalem, who are American citizens.

158. Before his divorce, Havivi was in good health, a sportive person and a police

sniper. The divorce has turned him crippled, 100% incapacitated, and totally impoverished.

159. Havivi has suffered all of the above plagues. Social workers under command

of Kahlon, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman have deliberately harassed, intimidated and

tormented him with intentions to destroy him physically and mentally, so he would give up

the fight for his children. They have written libelous and horrendous lies about him to court,

branded him as violent and dangerous and compelled him to see his children in contact

centers where he was was forced to sign a confidentiality agreement as well as an agreement

41

to obey all orders of the guards and placed in the custody of the guards and treated like a

dangerous criminal while he was permitted to only see his children one hour a week, and .

When Havivi’s children expressed desire to live with him, the social workers told Havivi that

children who refuse to live with mothers belong in outplacement institutions.

160. At family court, the Judge issued a child support order that was unconscionable

child support of 7,500 Shekels or $2,200, when his salary was only 5,000 Shekels. He was

then hounded by child support execution which garnished all his salary and issued levies,

restraining orders, and other measures that completely stripped him of any citizen’s rights.

161. At the hands of police, Havivi has endured 28 baseless false complaints, and

when his ex wife intruded his new home and brutally attacked him, with intentions to kill, the

police refused to investigate, and failed to protect him in the same way women are protected

when they file domestic violence complaints.

162. As a result of the continued terrorization by the Defendants, Havivi developed

fibromyalgia and degenerative disk disease. He is in the most severe life-threatening pain the

human body can endure. He is prescribed morphine. Without pain management, he is at risk

of dying from the pain itself. The fibromyalgia pain racks the entire body while the

degenerative disk disease is localized to the spine.

163. Given the above, defendants knew, or should have known, that they were

physically torturing Havivi in this serious condition, when they forced him into a “Contact

Center” “one hour a week” for 8 months to see his son11.

11 A new petition was filed on September 13, 2012 with the Supreme Court where Arbel sits to close the contact

Centers, and related remedies. It will surely be dismissed, like all others before. Guy Shamir v. Simona Shteinmetz, Bagatz Docket # 6819/12.

42

164. Defendants knew, or should have known, they physically torture Havivi in this

serious condition when they used his medical condition against him in documented falsified

reports and evaluations.

165. Defendants knew, or should have known, they physically torture Havivi in this

serious condition when they repeatedly punished him for being the victim of domestic

violence, (and failed to protect him in the same way women are protected), including at least

one attempt on his life.

166. Defendants knew, or should have known, they physically torture Havivi in this

serious condition when they obstruct access for him to the same welfare benefits freely given

to women with the same medical condition, such as a assisting caretaker, timely renewal of

prescriptions, protection from domestic violence, etc.

167. Defendant Kahlon, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman have abused and mentally

tortured Havivi by subjecting his children to psychiatric treatment and medications intended

to “teach” the children that they do not need a father in their lives.

168. Defendants knew, or should have known, they mentally tortured Havivi in this

serious condition when they forced psychiatric treatment on at least 2 of his children without

his consent and against his will.

169. Defendants knew, or should have known, they mentally tortured Havivi in this

serious condition when their psychiatrists hired by Shteinmetz’ social workers told his

children on record that Havivi is a “lousy father” (due to his handicap), and they were better

off suffering life-threatening abuse from their mother, locked in an orphanage or put up for

adoption to complete strangers.

43

170. Defendants knew, or should have known, they mentally tortured Havivi in this

serious condition when they forced mind-altering drugs on his son under threat of cutting him

off completely from Havivi if the son refused to comply.

171. Defendants, via their agents, knew, or should have known, that they mentally

tortured Havivi in this serious condition when they forced his daughter into a lock-down

psychiatric hospital, where they forced her to take mind-altering drugs and forcibly tied her

down to a bed in their radical attempt to "cure" her of needing a father.

172. Defendants knew, or should have known, they mentally tortured Havivi in this

serious condition when they eventually broke his daughter down mentally, causing her to

become suicidal, self-mutilating and even homeless.

173. The actions and, or, omissions committed by defendants constitute crimes

against humanity in violation of the law of nations, and crimes of torture within the meaning

of TVPA, 28 USC §1350.

174. Plaintiff Elmalem had become homeless and destitute because of the torture he

endured in Israel. Due to the circumstances of annihiliation and destruction of men in divorce

situations, his wife, encouraged by the exemption from prosecution promulgated by

Defendant Arbel, and inspired by Neeman’s encouragement of the family courts to brutally

treat all men as violent and dangerous, picked up a sharp glass and assaulted him causing his

severe bodily injury and permanent physical and emotional pains. Instead of being protected

by the police, he was charged with assault against his wife, and ordered to leave the home

immediately. Thus, Elmalem lost his children and his home.

175. After a long period of disengagement from the children, social workers who

take orders from Kahlon, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman compelled him to see his children in

44

a contact center “one hour a week”. In order to crush him, completely, child support

exceeding his income was awarded to the wife, therefore eliminating the ability to work, and

causing him, starvation, and the need to beg for food and shelter from strangers.

176. Elmalem knew that many men in his situation simply commit suicide, and he

would have committed suicide as well, but for his American citizenship, which gave him,

hope. However, in the US Elmalem was so traumatized; he could not keep a job, or a steady

place to live. Missing his children, he returned top Israel where he was arrested again on a

new domestic violence charge, intended to keep him away from seeing his children.

177. Under the circumstances described above, Defendants Neeman, Kahlon, Arbel,

Edri, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman, each acted under actual or apparent authority or color

of law of the nation of Israel, and subjected Plaintiffs Havivi and Elmalem to torture.

178. Defendants Neeman, Kahlon, Arbel, Edri, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman,

jointly and severally, committed acts directed at Plaintiffs Havivi and Elmalem while Havivi

and Elmalem were under their custody or physical control, either at the Contact Centers, the

police stations where their wives filed false complaints, the offices of the social workers

Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman, or any office of an employee who receives instructions from

Defendant Kahlon, or inside the rabbinical “courts”, where defendant Edri exercises his

control, or the family courts where defendant Arbel exercises her control, or the family courts

and offices of child support enforcement where Neeman is exercising his control12.

179. Defendants Neeman, Kahlon, Arbel, Edri, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman,

jointly and severally, subjected Plaintiff Havivi and Elmalem and/or failed to take action to

12 For that matter, the entire State of Israel can be considered the locus of custody or physical control, because

of the issuance of ne exeat orders.

45

prevent severe pain or suffering, both physical and mental, which was intentionally inflicted

upon them because of their gender.

180. Defendants Neeman, Kahlon, Arbel, Edri, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman,

jointly and severally intended to punish Plaintiff Havivi and Elmalem for the act of separating

from his wife and/or the act of seeking child access, and or seeking reversal of custody of the

children.

181. Defendants Neeman, Kahlon, Arbel, Edri, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman,

jointly and severally, intimidated and/or coerced Plaintiffs Havivi and Elmalem, to give up

their parental rights, to refrain from seeking custody of their children and to give up all their

assets and transfer them to his wife in the form of unconscionable child support, and all that

was based on discrimination attributed to their gender as males.

182. Defendants' conduct was the sole proximate cause of the severe and continuing

emotional distress suffered by Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals, who have

experienced similar human rights violations, torture, mayhem, and false arrests.

183. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ intentional, reckless,

outrageous and intolerable conduct, Plaintiffs, as well as similarly situated men, have

suffered, and continue to suffer, substantial damages and discrimination.

184. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to judgment in their favor against Defendants

and demand damages in an amount to be determined by a jury, not less than the statutory

minimum amount of $75,000, for damages arising out of severe emotional distress, mental

anguish, intense fear and anxiety, and manifestations of physical and emotional distress, such

as loss of sleep, loss of appetite, back pains, migraine headaches, heart ailments, depression

loss of self esteem, nervousness and anxiety. loss of consortium, loss of solatium, and/or loss

46

of services, plus interest, costs, and such other monetary and equitable relief as this Court

deems appropriate to compensate the Plaintiffs, and prevent Defendants from ever again

supporting crimes against humanity in violation of the law of nations.

185. Defendants’ actions towards Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals

were undertaken with the specific intent to harm and discriminate.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Havivi and Elmalem, based on TVPA request judgment in

his favor and against Defendants Neeman, Kahlon, Arbel, Edri, Shteinmetz, Milner and

Artman, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $75,000 plus interest, costs, punitive

damages, attorney’s fees and such other relief as the Court may determine.

COUNT THREE RECKLESS DISREGARD

FOR HUMAN AND PARENTAL RIGHTS (Plaintiff Ben-Haim against Defendants Neeman, Arbel and Kahlon)

186. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all previous allegations with the same force and

effect, as if fully set forth herein.

187. Defendants Neeman, Kahlon, and Arbel, jointly and severally, recklessly

disregarded the Plaintiffs’ right to “most favored nations” treatment in Israeli Courts and other

tribunals to be treated no less favorable than the treatment enjoyed by women in divorce.

188. Plaintiffs’ application to the US Department of State to invoke remedies in

that Convention (i.e. sue Israel in Hague) resulted in issuance of a travel warning as follows:

“Court Jurisdiction : Civil courts in Israel actively exercise their authority to bar certain individuals ,including nonresidents, from leaving the country until monetary and other legal claims against them are resolved. Israel’s religious courts exercise jurisdiction over all citizens and residents of Israel in cases of marriage ,divorce, child custody and child support. In some cases, U.S. citizens who entered Israel as tourists have become defendants in divorce or custody cases filed by their spouses in Israeli religious courts. These U.S. citizens have been detained in Israel for prolonged periods while the Israeli courts consider whether the individuals have sufficient ties to Israel to establish jurisdiction. Such visitors should be aware that they might be subject to

47

involuntary and prolonged stays in Israel if a case is filed against them in a religious court, even if their marriage took place in the United States and regardless of whether their spouse is present in Israel” .13 189. Defendants knew, or should have known, their encouragement of, disregard of

and/or negligence regarding the atrocities men suffer in Israel during divorce proceedings

would result in the harm, pain and suffering, as described above.

190. Defendants knew, or should have known, they were and are disregarding the

rights of the American Defendants to treatment in Israel at a “most favored nations” basis

equal to the treatment women in Israel are entitled to.

191. Defendants knew, or should have known, their disregard of the rights of

Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated men causes 200 suicides each year.

192. Defendants knew, or should have known, their disregard of the rights of

Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated causes 3,500 children to be sent to Contact Centers

due to the almost automatic supervised visitation policies promulgated by Defendant

Shteinmetz.

193. Defendants knew, or should have known, their disregard of the rights of

Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, causes at least the same amount of disengagements of

children from fathers every year.

194. Defendants knew, or should have known, their disregard of the rights of

Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, causes the impoverishment and false arrests of

thousands of men each year.

13 http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1064.html#special_circumstance

48

195. Defendants knew, or should have known, their disregard of the rights of

Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, causes the massive transfer of millions of dollars in

properties lawfully belonging to men to be taken without due process and given to women.

196. In spite of this knowledge, or in spite of the fact they did not take reasonable

steps to know what a reasonable person should know, Defendants Neeman, Arbel and Kahlon

have intentionally turned a blind eye and failed to investigate or evaluate Plaintiffs’ assertions

of improper conduct, Plaintiffs’ specific suffering and the impacts on others similarly situated.

197. Defendants appointed various commissions to investigate the perpetration of

such heinous crimes against men, including the Slonim-Nevo Commission on social workers,

Exhibit “R”, Schnit commission on joint parenting Exhibit “S”, and Shifman Commission

on fair child support amounts. Defendants have taken no action on the findings of the

Slonim-Nevo Commission (which finalized its report two years ago).

198. Beyond appointing the Schnit and Shifman Commissions, Defendants have let

those bodies languish for more than six years without taking any action suggested by the

reports. Defendants have paid only lip service to the well-known calls for reform

demonstrating Defendants’ intent to continue their systematic discrimination against men.

199. As a result, Neeman, Arbel and Kahlon were aware or should have been aware

of a risk so great that it was highly probable, and thus foreseeable, that serious harm and/or

death could result to Plaintiffs from their acts or omissions.

200. Neeman, Arbel and Kahlon recklessly disregarded this known and substantial

risk thereby facilitating, assisting, aiding, abetting and incentivizing the torture and abuse that

were foreseeable to Neeman, Arbel and Kahlon, and which were the direct and proximate

cause of the injuries Plaintiffs and their children.

49

201. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts and omissions of Defendants

Neeman, Arbel and Kahlon foreseeable physical and emotional injuries were inflicted upon

the Plaintiffs.

202. As a result of the foregoing Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount not less

than $26,000,000.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Ben-Heim requests judgment in his favor, under the ATCA

for violation of treaties with the United States, and against Defendants Neeman, Arbel and

Kahlon in an amount in excess of $75,000 plus interest, costs, punitive damages, attorney’s

fees and such other relief as the Court may determine.

COUNT FOUR AIDING AND ABETTING AN ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION AND INTENTIONAL OR

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Plaintiff Ben-Haim against Defendant Edri)

203. Plaintiff Ben-Haim repeat and reallege all previous allegations with the same

force and effect, as if fully set forth herein.

204. Plaintiff Ben-Haim brings this claim against Defendant Edri.

205. Following the abduction of Plaintiff Ben-Haim’s daughter to Israel, and the

family Court’s refusal to hear testimony by video, Ben-Haim had to travel to Israel to testify

in November 2010.

206. Defendant Edri knew that Ben-Haim’s center of life is in New Jersey and that

he was only coming to Israel to testify. Despite this, and out of pure malice, Defendant Edri

issued a ne exeat order against Ben-Haim, thus trapping him in Israel for four months.

207. Ben-Haim’s private business in NJ as an Italian kitchens importer and installer

collapsed.

50

208. When the ne exeat order expired, Ben-Haim left Israel on March 7, 2011, and

immediately thereafter Edri issued a new ne exeat order.

209. In the United States, Ben-Haim started matrimonial proceedings, in which his

wife participated by phone. When the NJ Judge learned that Ben-Haim’s wife was pursuing

actions of divorce, child support, and equitable distribution in Israel, the Judge issued an anti-

suit injunction against Ben-Haim’s wife.

210. On or about January 6, 2012, the Honorable Judge Bonnie Mizdol of New

Jersey State Superior Court issued an anti-suit order enjoining Ben-Haim’s wife from

prosecuting any action in family court or the rabbinical courts of Israel.

211. Said order was brought to the attention of Defendant Edri on January 10, 2012

in the form of a Notice of Anti-suit Injunction in the case of Ben-Haim v. Ben-Haim, Docket

Haifa 589799

212. The anti-suit order was served upon Oshrat Ben-Haim, her lawyers and the

United States Department of State for official forwarding to Israel’s Central Authority and

administration of the Courts.

213. The order was issued following Oshrat Ben-Haim failure to comply with

previous NJ Court order to return the daughter, Ofir, by Sup 10, 2011, and on December 7,

2011 a habeas corpus order was issued against Oshrat Ben-Haim, followed by an enforcement

order via the FBI dated December 21, 2011.

214. Despite knowledge of the anti-suit injunction, Defendant Edri decided to

ignore it, and instead actively aided and abetted Oshrat in tormenting the Plaintiff Ben-Haim

and his family in Israel.

51

215. In retaliation, Defendant Edri issued an order without a hearing on January 29,

2012 restricting certain liberties of Ben Haim including a ne exeat order valid until February

11, 2017.

216. Continuing the retaliation, Edri issued another “order” on ex parte basis on

February 8, 2012 addressed to “the Consulate at Fair Lawn NJ and any other consulate in the

US to cease any consular services until Ben Haim agrees to appear before Edri in Haifa. He

further commanded the Israeli ministry of Foreign Affairs to “summon” Ben-Haim to a

Consulate and seize his passport. He further issued a domestic arrest warrant without bail to

be effective upon entry into Israel.

217. On February 8, 2012 Edri issued an order directed to the Israeli consulates in

the United States ordering them to stop providing any consular services to the Plaintiff Ben

Haim, and another local order of arrest without termination date and without a bond.

218. On or about July 22, 2012, Defendant Edri sent an envelope by mail Addressed

to “Rabbi, Sephardic Center of Fair Lawn, 40-34 Terhune Place, Fair Lawn, NJ 07410”.

219. In the letter which was addressed to Rabbi Avidan Elkin in Fair Lawn,

Defendant Edri called the Plaintiff a “criminal”, a “crook”, and asked everyone with the

Jewish community in NJ not to talk to Plaintiff, not to “do any favors” to plaintiff, not to pray

with him, or converse with him, and not to bury Plaintiff’s body should he die.

220. In addition, Edri instructed the rabbis in New Jersey to publish the name and

picture of Plaintiff, “in any place without limitation” with a notice that anybody who knows

the whereabouts of Plaintiff must assist in approaching Plaintiff to coerce him to give a Get.

52

221. Upon information and belief, Edri and the rabbinical courts of Israel maintain

contacts with “Agunot Squads”, a team of bandit rabbis, who search men overseas, outside

Israel and intimidate them into doing what the rabbis of Israel dictate.

222. The Agunot Squads have used force, intimidation and terror outside Israel, to

compel men to surrender to the demands of the wives financially, and as to custody of

children.

223. Upon information and belief, the Agunot Squada are financially supported by

the International Coalition for Agunah Rights (ICAR), which is financed by NIF.

224. Defendant Edri subjected himself to the jurisdiction of New Jersey by issuing

said orders directed at the Israeli Consulates in the US, and by sending the letters addressed to

the rabbis of Fair Lawn14.

225. Defendant Edri’s conduct of threatening the Plaintiff with retribution,

retaliation, and invasion of his privacy, as well as orders not to bury him constitute a breach of

the sovereignty of the United States.

226. Edri intended, knew, or should have known the commission of acts designed to

violate the rights of men, deny him due process and equal protection under law, impoverish

him, arrest him, and disengage him from their daughter would create grief, devastation and

emotional injuries.

14 See Jaoudi v. Cigna Worldwide Ins. Co. (3rd Cir., 2010). In the context of FSIA, a Liberian official and his attorney, both non-USA residents acted to enforce a Liberian judgment which was issued against a US anti-suit order. Citing Abi Jaoudi & Azar Trading Corp. v. CIGNA Worldwide Ins. Co., No. 91-6785, slip op. at 2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2009), the Court rejected the appellants' jurisdictional challenge. “other Courts of Appeals have "held that minimum contacts exist where one has actively aided and abetted a party in violating a court order." Id. (citations omitted). With this in mind, the District Court explained that "[t]here is evidence that Mr. Senesie, the Receiver, is acting to enforce, in part, the Liberian judgment that was the express object of Judge O'Neill's injunction." Id. Therefore, "[f]or purposes of jurisdiction only," it found "that Mr. Senesie may be considered an aider and abettor of AJA."

53

227. Upon information and belief, Edri himself called reporters from Maariv

newspaper, a paper distributed and sold in NJ’s Jewish and Israeli communities to publish the

issuance of his orders along with defamatory information. On July 25, 2012 an article

appeared in Maariv, in print and on the internet, which Edri himself sent to the press.

228. Edri infringed on the sovereignty of the United States, and perpetrated crimes

of intimidation and infliction of terror and threats upon Ben Haim on NJ soil, a territory where

he is not immune from prosecution, while aiding and abetting a NJ anti-suit order.

229. The actions of Defendants Edri are unconscionable and done with an

intentional, malicious, willful, and/or reckless disregard for the rights and lives of those

tortured and abused, and the extended family members, especially children.

230. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Edri’s intentional misconduct

and/or reckless disregard for human life, Plaintiff Ben-Haim suffered and will continue to

suffer severe financial losses, the collapse of his business, tens of thousands of attorney fees,

loss of at least work after the return to NJ, loss of 120 days of work while being trapped in

Israel, debilitating, permanent emotional, physical disorder, ongoing emotional distress and

anxiety, physical and mental distress, and significant mental injury and impairment causing

ongoing and long-term expenses for medical treatment, services, and counseling and long-

term care, particularly for all minor Plaintiffs.

231. Upon information and belief, Edri had previous contacts with the rabbis of the

communities of New Jersey, and had acted similarly with respect to other men residents in

New Jersey.

54

232. Defendant Edri, by engaging in this intentional, unlawful conduct,

intentionally, grossly negligently, or negligently also inflicted financial harm and emotional

distress upon Ben-Haim.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Ben-Haim requests judgment against Defendant Edri,

personally, in an amount in excess of $26,000,000.

COUNT FIVE FINANCING, AIDING AND ABETTING ACTS

OF PERSECUTION, UNIVERSALLY CONDEMNED AS VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF NATIONS

(Plaintiff Ben-Haim against Defendant KAS)

233. Plaintiff Ben-Haim repeats and realleges all previous allegations with the same

force and effect, as if fully set forth herein, and sues here Defendant KAS under ATCA.

234. Defendant Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (“KAS”) finances radical and fanatical

groups in Israel such as the Israel Women’s Network (“IWN”), which support, promote, and

lobby for oppressive treatment of men.

235. IWN fights to curtail fathers’ rights, spread propaganda that all men are violent

offenders or potential aggressors, to increase the minimum statutory child support award, and

to impose unconscionable and usurious child support awards that are unaffordable, ab initio.

236. KAS and IWN intensify the persecution of men. They lobby for the adoption

and preservation of institutionalized polices of discrimination and systematic opposition to

joint custody and equality in duties of child support.

237. The financing of such inherently discriminatory activities and other attacks

committed by KAS and IWN is a violation of the law of nations.

238. KAS funds IWN, which is indoctrinating women with extreme anti-male

policies and preparing those women, such as Rivka Mekayes and Tamar Snunit Forer, to

55

become family court judges. These funds are used to systematically configure and control the

family court process in order to perpetuate anti-male case law from the bench according to

their ideological hateful agenda. See Exhibit “L”, “The Matter of the Vengeful Judge,” and

Exhibit “K”, “The Vengeful Judge A Monologue of a Despondent Father.”

239. The prohibition against financing activities that are in contravention of

international human rights rests on a clear and definite norm of customary international law

universally accepted by the civilized world.

240. KAS officials in Israel knew well that the advocacy of child-father alienation

which they promote in Israel is against the law back home in Germany. Germany itself was

been hailed several times to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for separating

between men and children in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article

8 (right to private life and family life), and Article 14 (non-discrimination), as well as CRC

Article 3 (best interests of the child), and Article 9 (separation from parents). See Sarin v.

Germany, (30943/96) [2003] ECHR 340 (Judgment July 8, 2003) in that case Germany

differentiated between fathers in marriage and fathers of children out of wedlock. The latter

got no child access rights unless the woman consent. This is similar to the situation in Israel

today, except that in Israel it applies to both children of marriage and children out of wedlock.

241. See also, another case against Germany, Sommerfelfd v. Germany, (31871/96),

[2003] ECHR 341, affirmed Sarin. This did not propel Germany to change its laws. See

Zaunegger v Germany [2009] ECHR 22028/04 (Judgment December 3, 2009)15: the ECHR

held that the denial of a fathers’ right to custody of a child born out of wedlock violated his

right to respect for family life under art 8, in conjunction with discriminatory treatment under

15 Judgment found here: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1982.html

56

art 14 of the European Convention. The Court examined the German Civil Code and

determined it amounted to unjustified discrimination against unmarried fathers on the grounds

of sex in comparison with divorced fathers. While the situation of men in Germany was

limited to fathers’ of children out of wedlock, it is not comparable to the situation of all men

in Israel, whose persecution covers every aspect of their life, combined with relentless hate

propaganda, fueled by money from KAS.

242. While KAS activities around the world, Israel and the US are portrayed as

“cultural activities”, in fact, KAS has been actually aiding and abetting crimes against

humanity, torture, degradation, dehumanization and systematic persecution. KAS received

several demands to cease and desist, but refused to do so.

Plaintiffs agree that diplomatic and cultural activities are immune, and for that purpose

the US government does qualify KAS officials for special governmental visas. But some of

KAS activities are beyond promoting ideas (an activity that is exchanged without monetary

value), such as actually giving money to certain organizations that incite hate and stereotypes,

and it is not clear from Lars Haensel Declaration how KAS can do business in the US without

any connection to NJ at all.

243. Consistent with its condemnation of gender hate financing, the world

community has also joined in defining who can be held liable.

244. ATCA provides liability for financing violations of crimes against humanity

reach those that directly or indirectly provide or collect funds with the knowledge and purpose

that the funds will be used to carry out defined human rights offenses, regardless of whether

the funds were actually used. Specifically, the financing liability reaches accomplices and

every person who organizes or directs others in the scheme.

57

245. Defendant KAS knowingly, intentionally, and purposefully, directly and

indirectly, aided and abetted, intentionally facilitated, and/or recklessly disregarded crimes

against humanity in violation of the law of nations.

246. Defendant KAS aided and abetted crimes against humanity by knowingly

giving money to IWN and other radical feminist organizations, for purposes of establishing

and perpetuating a discriminatory system of justice resulting in unfair determinations, denial

of due process and equal justice under law, false arrest, impoverishment, emotional distress

and suicide. It is estimated that upwards of 200 divorced men commit suicide in Israel every

year.

247. Defendant KAS knowingly provided millions of dollars to the IWN and other

radical feminist organizations through private and charitable contributions with the purpose of

supporting IWN and other radical feminist organizations, including the support of widespread

intentionally discriminatory practices, gender discrimination, direct and indirect child abuse,

economic discrimination, institutionalization of gender discrimination and other heinous acts

against human and parental rights.

248. At all times, KAS knew that the receipt, transfer, and disbursement of

charitable funds were being paid to members of IWN and other radical feminist organizations

who carried out ferocious libelous attacks against Plaintiffs and other male Israelis.

249. Defendant KAS aided and abetted, intentionally facilitated and/or recklessly

disregarded the planning, preparation or execution of these crimes against humanity by

providing organized and systematic financial support and other practical assistance,

encouragement or moral support which had a substantial effect on the perpetration of crimes

58

against humanity, with the knowledge and purpose that such actions would assist IWN and

other radical feminist organizations in the commission of crimes against humanity.

250. Defendant KAS aided and abetted, intentionally facilitated, and/or recklessly

disregarded a violation of customary international law, to wit, terrorist financing, by

knowingly providing funds to IWN and other radical feminist organizations for the purpose

of assisting the IWN and other radical feminist organizations in carrying out offenses as

defined by the Financing Convention and customary international law:

251. Defendant KAS regularly provided substantial funding, totaling millions of

dollars in private contributions and charitable donations, with actual knowledge and

awareness that these same funds were raised and deposited for the purpose of supporting IWN

and other radical feminist organizations’ torture activities against Plaintiffs and other innocent

males in Israel.

252. KAS’s actions directly and materially contributed to the institutionalized

discrimination Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals suffer in divorce and child

custody proceedings in Israel.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Ben-Haim request judgment in their favor and against

Defendant, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, in an amount in excess of $26,000,000 plus interest,

costs, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and such other relief as the Court may determine and

further request an Order preventing Defendant Konrad Adenauer Stiftung from ever again

engaging in the financing of terrorism in violation of the law of nations, or financing

organizations that advocate gender apartheid against men.

59

COUNT SIX FINANCING, AIDING AND ABETTING ACTS

OF PERSECUTION, UNIVERSALLY CONDEMNED AS VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF NATIONS

(Plaintiff Ben-Haim against Defendant IFCJ)

253. Plaintiff Ben-Haim repeats and realleges all previous allegations with the same

force and effect, as if fully set forth herein, and sues here IFCJ under ATCA.

254. Defendant International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (“IFCJ”) finances

radical and fanatical groups in Israel, such as Na’Amat, which support, promote, and lobby

for biased and torturous treatment of men such as the Plaintiffs.

255. IFCJ also supports the Ministry of Welfare directly, by giving monies to

supplement the state budget of the welfare programs, thus giving social workers powers tro

dispense monies collected in the US.

256. Thus for example, around Passover 2012, IFCJ gave $2,000,000 directly to

Kahlon for distribution of $125 food stamps to the needy. Instead of dispensing the money

directly to the needy, IFCJ gives it to Kahlon and his employees.

257. IFCJ also funds the Cities without violence program in association with the

welfare Defendants (Kahlon, Shteinmetz, Milner and Artman), which advocates male bashing

and removals of men from home without evidence, as well as extended and enhanced

sentences to men, even when no evidence exists.

258. IFCJ is based in Chicago, with a donation center in Washington DC and it

collects donations from evangelical Christians, who themselves believe in the sanctity of

marriage, family life and the importance of fathers in the lives of their children.

259. IFCJ does not tell its donors that part of their monies go to organizations in

Israel that encourage divorce, believe that women are oppressed when they create family

60

units, and are prevented from self fulfillment, and that their donations are channeled to radical

feminist groups that are determined to disengage fathers from their children, assist women in

divorce proceedings file frivolous domestic violence claims against fathers, contest father’s

rights to see children, preserve Defendants’ supervised visitation policies and contribute to the

growing number of loss of Jewish lives by suicide.

260. Na’Amat is dedicated to curtailing fathers’ rights, spreading propaganda that

all men are violent offenders or potential aggressors, preventing joint custody, encouraging

women to file for divorce to obtain Single Family governmental benefits, and collecting

unconscionable and usurious child support awards that were never affordable, ab initio.

261. Na’Amat is also the Welfare licensee to conduct family violence training to

same social workers that decide the fate of fathers’ contact with their children. These are

training focus on seeing fathers as unfit and inherently dangerous.

262. IFCJ and Na’Amat are devoted to intensifying the persecution of men, fighting

to preserve discrimination, and opposing joint custody and equality in duties of child support.

263. The financing of such anti-male activities and other attacks committed by IFCJ

and Na’Amat constitutes a violation of the law of nations.

264. The prohibition against financing activities that are in contravention of

international human rights rests on a clear and definite norm of customary international law

universally accepted by the civilized world.

265. Consistent with its condemnation of gender hate financing, the world

community has also joined in defining who can be held liable.

266. ATCA establishes that liability for financing or facilitating torture applies to

those who directly or indirectly provide or collect funds with the knowledge and purpose the

61

funds will be used to carry out a defined terrorist offense, regardless of whether the funds

were actually used. Specifically, the ATCA reaches every accomplice and every person who

organizes or directs others in the financing effort.

267. Defendant IFCJ knowingly, intentionally, and purposefully, directly and

indirectly, aided and abetted, intentionally facilitated, and/or recklessly disregarded crimes

against humanity in violation of the law of nations.

268. Defendant IFCJ aided and abetted crimes against humanity by knowingly

giving money to IWN and other radical feminist organizations, for purposes of annihilating

the ability of men in divorce in Israel to stay alive.

269. Defendant IFCJ knowingly provided millions of dollars to Na’Amat and other

radical feminist organizations through private and charitable contributions with the purpose of

supporting Na’Amat and other radical feminist organizations, including the support of

widespread intentionally discriminatory practices, gender discrimination, direct and indirect

child abuse, economic discrimination, institutionalized gender discrimination and other

heinous acts against human and parental rights.

270. At all times, IFCJ knew the receipt, transfer, and disbursement of charitable

funds were being paid to members of Na’Amat and other radical feminist organizations who

carried out ferocious libelous attacks against Plaintiffs and other male Israeli civilians,

contrary to the beliefs of the donors themselves.

271. Defendant IFCJ aided and abetted, intentionally facilitated and/or recklessly

disregarded the planning, preparation or execution of these crimes against humanity by

providing organized and systematic financial support and other practical assistance,

encouragement or moral support which had a substantial effect on the perpetration of crimes

62

against humanity, with the knowledge and purpose that such actions would assist Na’Amat

and other radical feminist organizations in the commission of crimes against humanity.

272. Defendant IFCJ aided and abetted, intentionally facilitated, and/or recklessly

disregarded a violation of customary international law, to wit, terrorist financing, by directly

or indirectly knowingly providing funds to Na’Amat and other radical feminist organizations

for the purpose of assisting Na’Amat and other radical feminist organizations in carrying out

offenses against humanity and customary international law.

273. Defendant IFCJ regularly provided substantial funding, totaling millions of

dollars in private contributions and charitable donations, with actual knowledge and

awareness that these same funds were raised and deposited for the purpose of supporting

Na’Amat and other radical feminist organizations’ terrorist activities against Plaintiffs and

other innocent male Israeli citizens.

274. IFCJ’s actions directly and materially contributed to the institutionalized

discrimination which Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals suffered in divorce and

child custody proceedings in Israel.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Ben-Haim request judgment against Defendant, IFCJ, in an

amount in excess of $26,000,000, and further request an Order preventing Defendant IFCJ

from engaging in the financing of violations against humanity and torture in violation of the

law of nations, or financing organizations that advocate gender apartheid against men.

63

COUNT SEVEN FINANCING, AIDING AND ABETTING ACTS

OF PERSECUTION, UNIVERSALLY CONDEMNED AS VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF NATIONS

(Plaintiff Ben-Haim against Defendant NIF)

275. Plaintiff Ben-Haim repeats and realleges all previous allegations with the same

force and effect, as if fully set forth herein, and sues here Defendant NIF under ATCA.

276. NIF is a U.S. based non-profit organization established in 1979 located at 330

Seventh Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10001-5010. Upon information and belief, in

2008 it contributed about $30 million (USD) to human rights and civil society groups in

Israel. NIF describes its objective as social justice and equality for all Israelis. However, the

opposite is true.

277. Defendant NIF finances radical and fanatical groups in Israel, such as “Center

for Woman Justice,” “Al Anwar,” “Adva Center,” “Awareness For You,” “Mavoi Satum,”

“Sisters for Women,” “Arous Elbahr,” “Women Against Violence,” “Women & Horizon,”

“Woman Lawyers For social Justice,” and “Woman’s Fund For Human Rights,” which

support, promote, and lobby for oppressive treatment of men such as Plaintiffs.

278. One of NIF’s grantees is ICAR - The International Coalition for Agunah

Rights. This Coalition was approached by Defendant Edri to harass and intimidate Plaintiff so

as to surrender to his wife’s demands by way of demonstrations, publications, contacting

employers, telephoning and faxing, speaking to neighbors and other stalking activity.

279. While Defendant NIF advertises equality for all, in reality it supports radical

feminists in their fight to perpetuate old stereotypes and invent more legislation designed to

specifically target men, hurt them, and strip men of any fundamental human right that is left.

64

280. Indeed, a test case request to fund activities benefitting men, especially to fund

shelters for men thrown out of their house by orders of removal or orders of protection, was

declined.

281. NIF does not tell its donors that part of their monies go to organizations in

Israel that encourage divorce and believe women are oppressed when they create family units,

NIF does not the donors the donations are channeled to radical feminist groups determined to

disengage fathers from their children, assist women in divorce file frivolous domestic

violence claims against fathers, contest father’s rights to see children, preserve Defendants’

supervised contact visitations policies and contribute to the growing number of loss of Jewish

lives by suicide.

282. NIF through its funding, curtails fathers’ rights, spreads propaganda that all

men are violent offenders or potential aggressors, prevents joint custody, encourages women

to file for divorce to obtain Single Family governmental benefits, and promotes

unconscionable and usurious child support awards that were never affordable, ab initio.

283. NIF and its beneficiaries are devoted to intensify the persecution of men,

increase discrimination, and oppose joint custody and equality in duties of child support.

284. The financing of such anti-male activities and other attacks committed by NIF

and its beneficiaries against Plaintiffs, constitutes a violation of the law of nations.

285. The prohibition against financing activities which are in contravention of

international human rights rest on a clear and definite norm of customary international law

universally accepted by the civilized world.

286. Consistent with its condemnation of gender hate financing, the world

community has also joined in defining who can be held liable.

65

287. NIF provides that liability for financing to facilitate torture includes those that

directly or indirectly provide or collect funds with the knowledge and purpose that the funds

will be used to carry out a defined terrorist offense, regardless of whether the funds were

actually used. Specifically, the ATCA reaches every accomplice and every person who

organizes or directs others in the financing effort.

288. Defendant NIF knowingly, intentionally, and purposefully, directly and

indirectly, aided and abetted, intentionally facilitated, and/or recklessly disregarded crimes

against humanity in violation of the law of nations.

289. Defendant NIF aided and abetted crimes against humanity by knowingly

giving money to a multitude of women only organizations and other radical feminist

organizations, for purposes of annihilating the ability of men in divorce in Israel to stay alive.

290. Defendant NIF knowingly provided millions of dollars to a multitude of

radically feminist groups and organizations through private and charitable contributions with

the purpose of supporting them, including the support of widespread intentionally

discriminatory practices, gender discrimination, direct and indirect child abuse, economic

discrimination, institutionalized gender discrimination and other heinous acts against human

and parental rights.

291. At all times, NIF knew that the receipt, transfer, and disbursement of charitable

funds were being paid to members of radical feminist organizations who carried out ferocious

libelous attacks against Plaintiffs and other male Israeli civilians, contrary to the beliefs of the

donors themselves.

292. Defendant NIF aided and abetted, intentionally facilitated and/or recklessly

disregarded the planning, preparation or execution of these crimes against humanity by

66

providing organized financial support, practical assistance, encouragement, and, or moral

support that substantially effected the perpetration of crimes against humanity, with the

knowledge and purpose that such actions would assist radical feminist organizations in the

commission of crimes against humanity.

293. Defendant NIF aided and abetted, intentionally facilitated, and/or recklessly

disregarded a violation of customary international law, to wit, terrorist financing, by directly

or indirectly knowingly providing funds to radical feminist organizations for the purpose of

assisting radical feminist organizations in carrying out offenses against humanity and

customary international law.

294. Defendant NIF regularly provided substantial funding, totaling millions of

dollars in private contributions and charitable donations, with actual knowledge and

awareness that these same funds were raised and deposited for the purpose of supporting

radical feminist organizations’ terrorist activities against Plaintiffs and other innocent male

Israeli citizens.

295. NIF’s actions directly and materially contributed to the institutionalized

discrimination which Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals suffered in divorce and

child custody proceedings in Israel.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Ben-Haim requests judgment against Defendant, NIF, in an

amount in excess of $26,000,000 and such other relief as the Court may determine and further

request an Order preventing Defendant NIF from engaging in the financing of violations

against humanity and torture in violation of the law of nations, or financing organizations that

advocate gender apartheid against men.

67

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demands a trial by jury of any and all issues herein triable of

right by a jury.

Respectfully Submitted,

_________________________

Sharon Ben-Haim, Pro se 6-05 Saddle River Road #225 Fair Lawn, NJ 07410 T: 917.285.8530 F: 201.625.6377 212CV00351@gmail.com

__________________________

Sol Havivi, Pro se 1 HaCarmel Street Tel Mond, Israel 40600

___________________________

Gamliel Elmalem, Pro se 3 Duchifat Street Box 4408 Yavne, Israel

Date: September 28, 2012 Newark, NJ