Article on Falsely Accused Washington Hebrew Congregation Preschool Teacher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when the story first came out, although we didn't have kids there or attend that synagogue.

It's tragic that this man's life has been destroyed, his relationship with his kids irreparably ruined, all due to gossip. The main characters who started this, "Robert" and "Allison" in the story, are the ones who should be prosecuted.

The story is silent as to whether "Robert" the WHC parent who hurled the accusations at the preschool teacher was ever investigated himself for when a different preschool teacher reported to DC Children's and Family Services that his daughter drew a picture showing daddy with a snake between his legs. I hope that little girl got some help and is away from the people who hurt her.

I believe in karma. I feel like anyone reading this article who ran in those circles at the time could probably figure out who “Robert & Allison” are. Whether they (allegedly) did something or not, maybe they’ll suffer some sort of reputational damage from those that know them.

Small consolation, I know, but I’d be giving them some serious side eye after reading this article.

I think "side eye" is small potatoes compared to the preschool teacher losing custody of his kids, when by all accounts he was a dedicated parent. Plus apparently multiple WHC families participated who were "friends of Robert and Allison" participated in the vandalism of the teacher's car and home.

I completely agree, but I’m trying to be very careful with my words, as these parents have already proven to be very litigious. Saying what I think they (allegedly) have done, and what I think should happen to them- would be the exact same thing the previous forums threads on this topic did to JS.

[Anonymous]

I can understand the want to try and clear one’s name publicly, however, I have a feeling this is just going to cause JS more legal trouble.

He was subpoenaed to give a deposition for the civil case. I looked on the court website for this case. A court order dated 3/16/22 states, “ORDERED that Mr. Silverman is precluded from disclosing the identities, or any information that would lead to the disclosure of the identities, of the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases.
Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr.”

While the article gives pseudonyms, the reporter expressly states Mr. Silverman was his source. That he (the reporter) saw and received communications from Silverman about those involved in the civil case. And the reporter included that the reporting was going on while the civil case was still active. (Though typically a HIPPA/Protective order doesn’t expire just because a case ends).

Giving this level of detail to a third party (the reporter) about a case involving minors, with a HIPPA/protective order, seems like a very ill informed decision.

I knew exactly who ‘Robert & Alison’ were from reading this article. As I think anyone who had children at the school at the time could also easily figure it out.

[Anonymous]

Why do Robert and Allison get to remain anonymous in all of this while JS had his life ruined in large part to their bogus allegations? This is totally messed up.

Shame on the therapists for convincing kids and their parents that awful things happened to them. If you aren't questioning your value to society right about now, you should be.

Finally, the WH rabbis have a moral obligation to address all of this in front of the congregation. An individual was falsely accused of doing terrible thing, many members of the congregation rushed to judgement, formed an angry mob and ruined his life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can understand the want to try and clear one’s name publicly, however, I have a feeling this is just going to cause JS more legal trouble.

He was subpoenaed to give a deposition for the civil case. I looked on the court website for this case. A court order dated 3/16/22 states, “ORDERED that Mr. Silverman is precluded from disclosing the identities, or any information that would lead to the disclosure of the identities, of the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases.
Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr.”

While the article gives pseudonyms, the reporter expressly states Mr. Silverman was his source. That he (the reporter) saw and received communications from Silverman about those involved in the civil case. And the reporter included that the reporting was going on while the civil case was still active. (Though typically a HIPPA/Protective order doesn’t expire just because a case ends).

Giving this level of detail to a third party (the reporter) about a case involving minors, with a HIPPA/protective order, seems like a very ill informed decision.

I knew exactly who ‘Robert & Alison’ were from reading this article. As I think anyone who had children at the school at the time could also easily figure it out.

Legally, your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Thank goodness for JS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand the want to try and clear one’s name publicly, however, I have a feeling this is just going to cause JS more legal trouble.

He was subpoenaed to give a deposition for the civil case. I looked on the court website for this case. A court order dated 3/16/22 states, “ORDERED that Mr. Silverman is precluded from disclosing the identities, or any information that would lead to the disclosure of the identities, of the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases.
Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr.”

While the article gives pseudonyms, the reporter expressly states Mr. Silverman was his source. That he (the reporter) saw and received communications from Silverman about those involved in the civil case. And the reporter included that the reporting was going on while the civil case was still active. (Though typically a HIPPA/Protective order doesn’t expire just because a case ends).

Giving this level of detail to a third party (the reporter) about a case involving minors, with a HIPPA/protective order, seems like a very ill informed decision.

I knew exactly who ‘Robert & Alison’ were from reading this article. As I think anyone who had children at the school at the time could also easily figure it out.

Legally, your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Thank goodness for JS.

Okay. Not my case. Not my children.

You seem very invested. Maybe do something positive with these feelings. I hear there is a gofundme if you feel this strongly.

I, on the other hand, think maybe less identifiable details should have been given. Because ultimately these details identify the child, ‘Jenny.’

We disagree. And that’s fine. People disagree about things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand the want to try and clear one’s name publicly, however, I have a feeling this is just going to cause JS more legal trouble.

He was subpoenaed to give a deposition for the civil case. I looked on the court website for this case. A court order dated 3/16/22 states, “ORDERED that Mr. Silverman is precluded from disclosing the identities, or any information that would lead to the disclosure of the identities, of the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases.
Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr.”

While the article gives pseudonyms, the reporter expressly states Mr. Silverman was his source. That he (the reporter) saw and received communications from Silverman about those involved in the civil case. And the reporter included that the reporting was going on while the civil case was still active. (Though typically a HIPPA/Protective order doesn’t expire just because a case ends).

Giving this level of detail to a third party (the reporter) about a case involving minors, with a HIPPA/protective order, seems like a very ill informed decision.

I knew exactly who ‘Robert & Alison’ were from reading this article. As I think anyone who had children at the school at the time could also easily figure it out.

Legally, your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Thank goodness for JS.

Okay. Not my case. Not my children.

You seem very invested. Maybe do something positive with these feelings. I hear there is a gofundme if you feel this strongly.

I, on the other hand, think maybe less identifiable details should have been given. Because ultimately these details identify the child, ‘Jenny.’

We disagree. And that’s fine. People disagree about things.

That blame rests squarely with her parents and the other congregation vigilantes.

JS and his children have been publicly known and tied to false crimes. It’s time the accusers were unmasked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do Robert and Allison get to remain anonymous in all of this while JS had his life ruined in large part to their bogus allegations? This is totally messed up.

Shame on the therapists for convincing kids and their parents that awful things happened to them. If you aren't questioning your value to society right about now, you should be.

Finally, the WH rabbis have a moral obligation to address all of this in front of the congregation. An individual was falsely accused of doing terrible thing, many members of the congregation rushed to judgement, formed an angry mob and ruined his life.

You seem like a passionate person.

People under the protective order are bound not to identify ‘Robert and Alison,’ legally- because it would identify a minor, ‘Jenny.’ Which is the point I was making,

If you feel this strongly, then instead of attacking a stranger on the internet, channel your ‘value’ into the GoFundMe. Start a petition. Contact those in authority with your concerns. There are many things you can do if you feel this strongly.

However, it doesn’t change my opinion that ultimately the amount of detail given in the article could cause JS legal trouble, as he is bound by a protective order.

Maybe you’re not bound by that order. Maybe you’re a concerned friend, or just a concerned citizen. Maybe you have more agency than you realize. Perhaps you can channel your passion into positive action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do Robert and Allison get to remain anonymous in all of this while JS had his life ruined in large part to their bogus allegations? This is totally messed up.

Shame on the therapists for convincing kids and their parents that awful things happened to them. If you aren't questioning your value to society right about now, you should be.

Finally, the WH rabbis have a moral obligation to address all of this in front of the congregation. An individual was falsely accused of doing terrible thing, many members of the congregation rushed to judgement, formed an angry mob and ruined his life.

You seem like a passionate person.

People under the protective order are bound not to identify ‘Robert and Alison,’ legally- because it would identify a minor, ‘Jenny.’ Which is the point I was making,

If you feel this strongly, then instead of attacking a stranger on the internet, channel your ‘value’ into the GoFundMe. Start a petition. Contact those in authority with your concerns. There are many things you can do if you feel this strongly.

However, it doesn’t change my opinion that ultimately the amount of detail given in the article could cause JS legal trouble, as he is bound by a protective order.

Maybe you’re not bound by that order. Maybe you’re a concerned friend, or just a concerned citizen. Maybe you have more agency than you realize. Perhaps you can channel your passion into positive action.

I have donated and have a lot more to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do Robert and Allison get to remain anonymous in all of this while JS had his life ruined in large part to their bogus allegations? This is totally messed up.

Shame on the therapists for convincing kids and their parents that awful things happened to them. If you aren't questioning your value to society right about now, you should be.

Finally, the WH rabbis have a moral obligation to address all of this in front of the congregation. An individual was falsely accused of doing terrible thing, many members of the congregation rushed to judgement, formed an angry mob and ruined his life.

You seem like a passionate person.

People under the protective order are bound not to identify ‘Robert and Alison,’ legally- because it would identify a minor, ‘Jenny.’ Which is the point I was making,

If you feel this strongly, then instead of attacking a stranger on the internet, channel your ‘value’ into the GoFundMe. Start a petition. Contact those in authority with your concerns. There are many things you can do if you feel this strongly.

However, it doesn’t change my opinion that ultimately the amount of detail given in the article could cause JS legal trouble, as he is bound by a protective order.

Maybe you’re not bound by that order. Maybe you’re a concerned friend, or just a concerned citizen. Maybe you have more agency than you realize. Perhaps you can channel your passion into positive action.

I have donated and have a lot more to do.

Awesome. I appreciate a person that acts on their convictions.

[Anonymous]

This is horrific.
My general outlook has generally been to side with the accuser. Will re-examine that.

A reminder of how little protection private school teachers have. My understanding is that public school districts’ teacher unions will provide legal defense against wholly unsubstantiated accusations.

Maybe this should be a different thread. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can understand the want to try and clear one’s name publicly, however, I have a feeling this is just going to cause JS more legal trouble.

He was subpoenaed to give a deposition for the civil case. I looked on the court website for this case. A court order dated 3/16/22 states, “ORDERED that Mr. Silverman is precluded from disclosing the identities, or any information that would lead to the disclosure of the identities, of the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases.
Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr.”

While the article gives pseudonyms, the reporter expressly states Mr. Silverman was his source. That he (the reporter) saw and received communications from Silverman about those involved in the civil case. And the reporter included that the reporting was going on while the civil case was still active. (Though typically a HIPPA/Protective order doesn’t expire just because a case ends).

Giving this level of detail to a third party (the reporter) about a case involving minors, with a HIPPA/protective order, seems like a very ill informed decision.

I knew exactly who ‘Robert & Alison’ were from reading this article. As I think anyone who had children at the school at the time could also easily figure it out.

Was it known that they were awful people in the community? Sounds like they were car respected/ring leader type

Also curious did you already know who the accusers were before reading this article? Assume it was known within the preschool but for the rest of us nothing in the article gives away their identity

[Anonymous]

I don’t know who the accusers are, but I would sure love to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know who the accusers are, but I would sure love to know.

Same. But even if the pp can identify them bc be actually knows them, very different than Google results for js permanently disrupting his life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone should hire this guy.

Or do a go-fund-me so he can get his lawyer to try to get partial custody of his kids back. Hopefully this article can be submitted as evidence.

There is a GoFundMe here: https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-jordan-silverman-rebuild-his-life