(1) No sanctions were imposed here, and there was no siruv. It was the Beth Din’s threats of sanctions alone that got them convicted of contempt.

(2) For the second time, you are mixing up two distinct aspects of this case. Although Justice Sackar was satisfied that there was an issue of apprehended bias, it was not his view on that which led to his conclusion about the “propriety,” as you put it, of the BD’s threats. That conclusion was reached independently of the apprehended bias issue, which Sackar J considered (wrongly, in the view of the appeal judges) to be not justiciable. His conclusion about the BD’s threats was that they amounted to improper pressure on a potential litigant to abandon his common-law right to free and unhindered access to the civil courts (a right that the courts are duty bound to defend), and that they therefore constituted a (general) interference with the administration of justice, which is a contempt of court.

(3) On the issue of apprehension of bias, to which Sackar J devoted pages documenting and showing why he was abundantly satisfied that this was proven, you are quite right to criticise the three dayanim for the conduct giving rise to this. But that criticism must be based on solid grounds – on evidence and proper argument that is sustainable in the face of rigorous examination. To overstate the issue undermines the strength of your own argument.

The exact content of the discussion between Mr Kuzecki and Rabbi Ulman when they met in Israel is unclear. Certainly the meeting should have ended much sooner than it did. As soon as Kuzecki disclosed that he wished to bring a din Torah to the SBD, Rabbi Ulman should have given him the BD’s card with the contact details of the registrar and immediately excused himself. That probably did not happen, but it is far from certain that they discussed the substance of the case as opposed to the logistics of lodging it with the SBD. I am not saying that Rabbi Ulman’s behaviour was correct, even if the conversation was confined to the latter; on the contrary, it was extremely injudicious behaviour – in both senses of the word. I am just saying that it may not be a clear violation of Choshen Mishpat.

I say this, not of my own knowledge, for I have never studied Choshen Mishpat, but Rabbi Moshe Gutnick has, and he seems quite confident that they did not violate Choshen Mishpat. During a brief break in the appeal hearing, I got the chance to challenge him personally about the propriety of the BD’s behaviour with regard to that meeting and also the subsequent extensive ex parte correspondence between Kuzecki and himself, plus the other rabbis. When I put this to him, he answered that they did not discuss the substance of the case, just the arranging of it (which seems to be borne out by the emails quoted in the judgment). I then said, “But you have a registrar for that; you should use him,” to which he responded that there is no other way of doing it. That last statement is clearly wrong and untenable, and the BD’s behaviour was indeed reprehensible, but possibly not for the reasons you gave. The correct reasons were identified by Sackar J and I will have more to say about that aspect of the case another day.

Anyway, on the topic of Siruvim, it appears according to info found on mehadr.com and confirmed with my rabbi that many siruvim these days are invalid because the Beth Din (whether self-appointed or democratically elected, the latter being a Beth Din Kavuah) informs the recipient of the hazmana that the cost of the hearing will be shared! A Siruv can only be issued if the guy refused to attend a gratuitous hearing. Even a secular court doesn’t expect money from a defendant before hearing the case. An allowance to charge has its roots in Shulchan Aruch but only works when the two parties come voluntarily to be heard and don’t mind paying. [It’s also unfair to expect someone to come against his will and have to pay as well. He hasn’t lost the case and he’s already paying money! He will be forced to compromise to save money on the case!] He says that “מנהג” here is the same letters as גהנם. Now that’s important information! – but i doubt that happened in the case Mr Koncepolski is upset about.