Bernie Madoff, Jewish Defense League, and Jehovah's Witnesses

If you were the Jewish Defense League, would you look at the Bernie Madoff case as an opportunity to mke a point about anti-Semitism, and to advance your own agenda? I wouldn't either, which pretty much confirms my previously rather vague opinion about the Jewish Defense League. That opinion is that it is a typical, if rather bigoted, organization interested more in its own power and influence than in right and wrong--or individual people.


Yes, an item of "news" I heard today is that the Jewish Defense League is worried that the Bernie Madoff scandal will lead to a rise in anti-Semitism in this country, and that the JDL aready sees a "spike" in anti-Semitism in this country.


Does that mean that the JDL does not care about the individuals--mainly Jews--who lost all of that money in Madoff's Ponzi scheme? I actually think it does mean that. The JDL, from all evidence, has tunnel vision--regarding itself as a "guranan" of the Jewish religion, rather than a true advocate of right and wrong. That is much the same as these Muslim "defense" or "advocacy" groups who defend militant, and even estreme--Muslims, no matter what they do, or are wanting to do (short, and sometimes its seems not even short, of dending terrorism itself).


What should the JDL have done? Well, for a start it should ot have advanced the idea that one of the major worries in the Madoff matter is a rise of anti-semitism. I don't believe than is the case. I don't think there is any evidence that is the case. And, even if Madoff was being used as an excuse for nti-Semitic hate speech, it is the wrong battle for the JDL to fight at the wrong time (somewhat typical of this kind of militant organizations--see the above paragraph on similar Muslim organizations).


I would have though better of the JDL if it had instituted a fund to try to compensate victims of Madoff. As it is, I think people get a (correct) view that the JDL could care less about the victims, and is only worried abut its own agenda and power base.


As I stated above, it appears that most of Madoff's victims were Jews. In fact, it appears that Madoff traded on his religion, and the characteristic of people in the relatively tight knit Jewish community to want to deal with people of their own religion, to take advantage of other Jews.


I know whereof I speak here. I used to be partners with a rather prominent Jewish family lawyer (diverce lawyer) here in El Paso. You would be amazed at the number of Jewish clients that lawyer got--including clients even outside of family law--because he was Jewish. That is, other Jews would go to him at least partly for that reason. If you doubt me, look at the Madoff client/victim list. Sure, they are not all Jews. But a large percentage of them are.


Is this tendency for Jews to seek out other Jews to do business with, and to socialize with, bigoted? Sure it is, in a way, but it is no different than how almost everyone acts. Jews have a reputation of being more insutlated than most, and more tightly knit. That has sometimes been an excuse for antiSemitism, as others observe this tendency of Jews to act like a separate community of their own within the larger communities in which they live. So Jewish people like to deal with other Jews who go to the same synagogue, or at least the same type of synagogue. However, do not a lot of Catholics and other Christians prefer to deal with people who go to the same church, or the same country club?


Sure they do, even if then tendency may not always be as strong as it is among Jews. And this is a kind of irrational bigotry, even it it is also--at least in part--rational human nature. Don't you naturally trust someone like yourself more than you trust someone different? Of course you do. And that is especailly true if you have a hsitory of being attacked and discriminated against by "outsiders". The Mormon Church--in some ways analogous to the Jews in the way the close knit members have a reputation of creating a community of thei own from which "outsiders" are often excluded--has a reputation of encouraging Mormons to deal with other MOrmons.


Con men like Madoff take advantage of this natural tendency of people to think that another Jew will be nonest with a Jew, or another Mormon more hones with a fellow Mormon. History suggests that this attitude is truly irrational, because it is merely a means of con men taking advantage of people using this irrational trust. The notorious, "Elmer Gantry" type, religious frauds are the classic examples of trying to gain trust on false pretenses. Madoff approached fellow Jews on basically the same basis as Elmer Gantry approached Christians--albeit extending the concept from a straight religious con into a business con taking advantage of a religious "kinship". This tendency to judge people as members of groups, rather than individuals, is the classic evil of bigotry, and it is present here as well as in the more obvious burning crosses of the KKK.


Now there is a rational component here. Is it not natural to prefer to deal with people you know, instead of with total strangers? Sure it is, but that natural tendency easily slides into an irrational trust, and an irrational distrust of others.


Back to the Jewish Defense League: Should that organization not be distressed that Jew Madoff took advantage of his religion, and a slightly bigoted habit of Jews going mainly to other Jews for borkers, lawyers, accountants, etc.? Yes, I think that the JDL should be distressed about that, and should even go so far as to say that Jews should not be irrationally trusting of their "own kind", any more than non-Jews should be irrationally distrusting of Jews. But the JDL is not that "honest" an organization, and I think that pretty much diminishes the credibility of that it says. In its own way, its tunnel vison is as extreme as the KKK, even if it does not spread bigoted hatred in the same obvious way as the KKK. Indeed, the mission of the JDL is supposed to be to stop irrational hatred against Jews, but I am convinced it does not go about it the right way by a mentality (as I say, bigoted in its way) that it is "Jews against the world".


When I was a working lawyer, doing a fair amount of appellate work, a fellow lawyer asked me to handel an appeal of a divorce/custody matter where a judge had denied a Jehovah's Witness woman custody of her child using her religion as at least a factor. To refresh your memory, Jehovah's witnesses do not believe in Christmas celebrations, birthday celebrations, blood transfusions, and a lot of other things that are pretty far out of "mainstream" Christian religious doctrines. Is a child better off being raised in a religion that is more "normal"? You can make that case. But I argued to the appellate court in Texas, based on Texas precendent, that a judge could not use the rather eccentric beliefs of the Jehovah's Witness religion as even a factor to decide custody issues concerning a child.


What is the point here? Well, I did not charge the Jehovah's Witnes woman nearly the amount which I would normally have charged for such an appeal. And I am an agnostic, and was never sympathetic to the Jehovah's Witnesses (raised Presbyterian). But this woman had little money. I was sorry for her, as the El Paso trial judge had clearly misapplied Texas law (whether you think Texas law on this point entirely makes sense, and it is not an easy question--the Texas position has the merit of coming down on the side of religious freedom, even if it is hard to see how a "fringe" religion does not affect the "best interest of the child").


Now the Jehovah's Witness woman had been able to get some help from the equivalent of the "Jehovah's Witness Defense League" (I don't remember its official name at this point). She borrowed money to pay my (inadequate) "up front" fee. I think the Jehovah's Witness organization advanced some money for that purpose. They additionally gave me some information for the appeal. We won the appeal.


You know what? I don't think it did the woman any good, although I never found out the final result. I was not a family lawyer. I did not handle trial court divorces, or child custody matters (even though I was a partner in that firm that did for a long while). It was always clear that I was not going to handle this woman's child custody case when it was returned for a new trial. I actually remember that the original trial had been a jury trial where the judge allowed evidence of Jehovah's Witness practice, and refused an instruction that the jutry could not consider that in awarding child custody. But the judge might have simply made clear that he considered that evidence in a decision from the bench :(this was some time ago). The point is that the case had to go to trial again, without the evidence on Jehovah's Witness beliefs and practices. That was expensive. The woman did not have the money anymore.


The original trial lawyer (who sent the case to me for appeal) would not continue the case for free (why should he--no Jehovah's Witness either?). Yet, this woman evidently could not get the national Jehovah's Witness organization, or nay Jehovan's Witness organization, to pay for continuing her case. She evidenctly could not get them to provide a Jehovah's Witness lawyer, for free. The equivalent of the Jehovah's Witness Dfense League was willing to try to help fight for the "principle" that Jehovah's Witnesses should not be discriminated against, but they did not seem to care much for this woman as an individcual. She came back and asked me to help her. My job was over, and I was not competent to go into trial court on a family law case, even if I so wanted (which I did not). So upholding the "principle" on appeal may have done this woman no good. I hope she eventually got some help. Today, she may have gotten state pro-bono help not avaiable then. But I thought then, and think now, that some Jehovah's Witness chruch organization should have helped her. Instead, the main help she got--even if ultimately inadequatge--was from me and that original trial lawyer who helped her more than the value of what she paid him. Neither of us were Jehovah's Witnesses, or particularly admired their beliefs.


That is my problem with organizations like the JDL. I think they are more interested in advancing an agenda than in individual "justice". In fact, I think they are somewhat more interested in their own power and influence than in any principle at all. I think the JDL reaction to Bernie Madoff proves that (without rpresenting that I have studied in detail what the JDL has done in response to that "scandal"--it is possible that they even started a fund for victims, which has not been publiclized, which would make me feel somewhat better about them; I doubt it).


As it is, the "positionis" and "statements" of advocacy organizations like the JDL (and Hispanic advocacy groups and Muslim advocacy groups, etc.) get way too much attention. What they say is worth little.


Plus, have you seen the mainstream media explore any of the issues I explore above? Don't be silly. They are leftist COWARDS, and would not touch what I discuss above (including the "Jewish" clannishness) with a ten foot pole. Now I have seen mention as to how these losses will affect Jewish philanthropy, and the fact that many of the victims have connections in the Jewish community could not be ignored. But listen carefully, and you will not hear the issues I raise above really being discussed.


Too bad our mainstream media are mainly leftist COWARDS--not to mention stupid.