'Nice Jewish girl' Anna Fermanova busted for trying to smuggle night-vision scopes to Russia

Russia's newest export is sexy bad girls named Anna.

Hot on the stiletto heels of sultry spy Anna Chapman comes Anna Fermanova, busted for trying to smuggle night-vision scopes to Moscow.

And just like redheaded double agent Chapman, foxy Fermanova left a trail of very revealing photos of herself on Facebook.

Fermanova, who was born in Latvia, was arrested at her home near Dallas on July 15 after returning from a four-month trip to Moscow - where her husband lives, court papers say.

Her lawyer told the Daily News the case "looks a lot worse than it really is."

"She's a nice Jewish girl who lives with her sweet Latvian parents," said Scott Palmer, a Dallas criminal defense attorney.

"There's no terrorism link. There's no espionage."

But court documents make Fermanova sound like quite the femme fatale.

They say a confidential informant tipped off federal immigration agents in February that Fermanova was in the market for weapons accessories.

Agents stopped her a month later at Kennedy Airport when she checked in for a Moscow-bound flight.

They found a $7,000 Raptor 4X Night Vision Weapons Sight in the blond bombshell's suitcase, along with two other night-vision devices worth $4,000 each, records say.

Fermanova told the agents she bought the scopes online for her husband's hunting buddies in Russia.

Asked if she knew taking them out of the country was illegal, she said she "signed something about that" but was "not really sure what she was signing," the papers say.

She admitted removing identifying marks from the scopes and blacking out serial numbers with a marker "so they would be less noticeable," court records show.

Agents confiscated the scopes but allowed her to fly to Moscow - then arrested her when she returned to U.S. soil this month.

Fermanova was charged with "knowingly and intentionally" attempting to export "defense articles on the United States Munitions list" - charges that carry 10 years in prison.

Her passport was seized and she was put under house arrest after posting $50,000 bond.

Her lawyer said she's going "stir-crazy" at her parents' home in Plano - a two-story brick house in a middle-class subdivision where the family refused to answer the door yesterday.

She is expected in Brooklyn Federal Court later this summer.

"She bought them legally. They are available for purchase on the Internet, you just need a license to export them," Palmer said.

"They were for her husband's buddies who are hunters in Russia," he said. "They were basically buying something in the U.S. that's available in Russia but is extremely expensive."

The former cosmetology student and English teacher is studying communications at the University of Phoenix, Palmer said. She emigrated with her parents from Latvia as a baby and is now a U.S. citizen.

She was arrested in 2003 for forging a $76 check, fined and given three years of probation, according to court records.

The suspected smuggler is described in court papers as 5-foot-6, 135 pounds, with a belly-button piercing.

Her Facebook page is bursting with pictures that show she was paying attention in beauty school.

She has been seen dressed up as a sexy pirate, showing off her bikini body at the beach, and cradling glasses of white wine with girlfriends.

Her activities and interests include loving, partying, smiling, hair and "generally being happy," according to Facebook.

Department of Justice investigating if hundreds of FBI agents may have cheated on test

The investigators are being investigated.

The Justice Department is trying to find out if hundreds of FBI agents cheated on a test on new rules governing the bureau to conduct surveillance and when agents are permitted to open cases without evidence, according to the Associated Press.

Authorities are suspicious because some agents took the open-book test in groups, which is prohibited. Others also finished the extensive test in a suspiciously short amount of time.

"There are similar stories for practically every office, demonstrating the pervasive confusion and miscommunication that existed," Konrad Motyka, president of the FBI Agents Association wrote to the Justice Department in a letter dated on May 18.

Motyka suggested the agents not be punished. He said the problem was due to a lack of communication about the rules.

When the FBI received more freedom to open investigations and obtain information in recent years, it promised Congress that it would instruct and test agents on what they were—and were not— allowed to do.

For example, for the first time the FBI was allowed to conduct surveillance without proof that a crime took place. They were also granted permission to consider race when opening early investigations.

Improprieties about the testing came up as early as last year when Assistant Director Joseph Persichini, head of the FBI's Washington D.C. office, which examines congressional wrongdoing and crime in the capital, retired during an investigation alleging that he cheated during an open-book test in 2009.

The latest probe seems limited to the D.C. office. Depending on the result of the investigation, the agents could be disciplined or even canned from their jobs.

Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, is scheduled to testify on Wednesday before Congress. The alleged cheating scandal is expected to come up.

With News Wire Services

Husband Sanctioned for Israeli Divorce Scheme

New York Law Journal

A husband who obtained a divorce or "Get" from a rabbinical court in Israel -and persuaded legal authorities there to forbid his wife from leaving Israel unless she submitted to the court's authority-has been fined $10,000 and assessed more than $12,000 to pay his wife's attorney fees and expenses.

Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice William Rigler ruled that the husband, by initiating the legal action in Israel after the wife filed for divorce in the United States, "attempted to thwart the tenor and spirit of [a court order and] divest the court of its asserted jurisdiction" over the marriage.

The wife, Rachel Schaeffer, in Schaeffer v. Schaeffer, 23111/99, commenced a divorce action in 1999. Later that year, the husband, Allan Schaeffer, stipulated to a court order allowing his wife to travel to Israel, with the couple's children, for a wedding in her family.

Ms. Schaeffer then sought a contempt finding since her husband failed to make support payments. Mr. Schaeffer did not appear for a hearing on the motion.

When Ms. Schaeffer went to Israel to attend the marriage of her brother, she found herself in a bind, since the rabbinical court issued a restraining order barring her from leaving Israel unless she signed an affidavit discontinuing divorce proceedings in New York.

Justice Rigler said that Mr. Schaeffer had manipulated events to place his wife in the position of having to submit to the rabbinical court's authority and dismiss her divorce proceedings in New York.

"The central focus of this dispute is the activity planned and executed by the Defendant-husband, designed to circumvent this court's order," Justice Rigler wrote. "Defendant-husband…signed a stipulation that was to allow the Plaintiff-wife to travel for a happy family occasion. Instead of honoring his agreement, made in court, he carried out a plan to divest this court of its jurisdiction."

Justice Rigler sactioned Mr. Schaeffer $10,000, payable to the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance. He also ordered him to pay $10,000 in attorney's fees and more then $2,400 in travel expenses.

Justice Rigler acted under §130 of the New York Court Rules and Regulations, authorizing judges to impose sanctions and award costs when a party engages in conduct “undertaken primarily…to harass or maliciously injure another.” Mr. Schaeffer, Justice Rigler said, used his lawyer and the court as “pawn[s]” in a scheme to force his wife into a settlement not possible under New York Law.

When Ms. Schaeffer went to Israel to attend the marriage of her brother, she found herself in a bind, since the rabbinical court issued a restraining order barring her from leaving Israel unless she signed an affidavit discontinuing divorce proceedings in New York.


Wedding as Backdrop



Justice Rigler indicated that he was especially offended that Mr. Schaeffer used his wife’s brother’s wedding as the backdrop to his plan to move the divorce litigation from New York to Israel.

“Harsh as the… relief may appear, it is really insufficient to make the plaintiff-wife and her family whole,” he wrote. “Weddings are committed to the memory by actual tangible reminders-photo albums, video taped highlights, gifts, and even the plastic bride and groom figures that traditionally adorn wedding cakes, among other souvenirs,” Justice Rigler wrote. “Here, however, defendant-husband made this wedding unforgettable by nefarious reminders: process-servers, writs and injunctions.”

The opinion was the last by Justice Rigler before his retirement, he said in a letter accompanying the decision.

Ms. Schaeffer was represented by Martin E. Friedlander of Martin Friedlander, PC, in New York. Mr. Schaeffer’s attorney was Leo Kimmel of Brooklyn.

גילוי בגידות - חוקר פרטי

בעל משרד חקירות יודע היטב כי כאשר לקוח פונה אליו בנושא מסוים, בנושא מעמד אישי, בגידות, תביעת מזונות, והוא מיוצג על ידי משרד עורך דין, רצוי ומומלץ כי חוקר פרטי יתאם את מהלכיו עם עורך הדין המייצג את הלקוח. אנו יכולים להעיד על עצמנו כי סיעור מוחות של חוקר פרטי עם עורך דין יכול למנוע הוצאות מיותרות מהלקוח.

במשך השנים למדנו כי ישנם מספר סימנים אשר מצביעים כי יש בעיה בזוגיות ואפשרות של קיום קשר רומנטי עם אחרים.

כאשר בן הזוג מתחיל לשפר הופעתו, מחדש את המלתחה שלו, מתבשם, עושה לייזר, מחליף משקפיים, צמוד לפלאפון גם בשירותים, יצא לחברים בשעות אחרי העבודה, מוציא כספים רבים מכספומט, מוחק הודעות ושיחות בפלאפון, מחליף תחתון מייד כאשר חוזר הביתה לאחר מקלחת, מאבד את התיאבון המיני, מחפש עילות למריבה, חסר סבלנות וסובלנות. יש סיכוי יותר מסביר כי הנכם נבגדים.

פניה לעורך דין לענייני משפחה או טוען רבני חיונית מאד במקרה כזה. זאת על מנת לקבל תמונת מצב משפטית על זכיותיכם, חובתכם, פעולות שיש לנקוט, פנייה להגשת תביעה בבית דין רבני או בית משפט לענייני משפחה.

תפקיד חוקר פרטי להמציא ראיות ומידע אשר ישמשו את עורך הדין או טוען רבני, להגשת תביעה נגד בן הזוג. לפעמים חקירה טובה של משרד חקירות המסתייע בצוות חוקרים פרטיים, יכול להקל לעין שיעור על עורך הדין בתביעה, ועל הלקוח בהוצאה הכספית. לא אחת התבקשנו לערוך חקירה פרטית מטעם בן זוג ללא ייצוג משפטי, ואיסוף החומר על ידי חוקר פרטי הספיקה לעורך הדין לצורך סיום הטיפול.

מעקב אחר בן זוג הוא אחד השיטות להמצאת ראיות שיכולות להביא להחלטה של בית משפט: אשה הבוגדת בבעלה אסורה עליו ועל המאהב, מפסידה כתובתה, ומפסידה מזונותיה, אלא אם היא עובדת. גבר המנהל קשר רצוף עם אשה אחרת יכול להיות מוכרז כרועה זונות, גבר או אשה אשר טוענים כי אין ביכולתם לעמוד בתשלום מזונות, יכולים לזכות בתביעה של הצד השני אם יהיו לבית המשפט הוכחה על עיסוקם של הנתבעים. והאם אינם משקרים לבית המשפט.

עורך דין לענייני גירושין ומשפחה יודע היטב איך להשתמש בחומר המוצג בפניו לאחר חקירה פרטית של משרד חקירות. וכל לקוח פוטנציאלי צריך לבדוק עם חוקר פרטי או עורך דין איך להביא ראיות משפטיות שיועלו למרשם בבית המשפט.

פלילי - תלונות שווא

הליכי גירושין והליכים פלילים מתמזגים זה בזה. לעיתים נשים משתמשות בכלי הפלילי של הגשת תלונה כוזבת למשטרה, כחלק מאסטרטגיה שמטרתה להפעיל לחץ על הבעל במסגרת הליך הגירושין.

מחובתה של המשטרה להתייחס לכל תלונה של אלימות במשפחה בכובד ראש.

נוצר קושי רב בהוכחת האמת במקרה של אלימות במשפחה היות והמדובר במילה נגד מילה. למרות זאת, ישנם כלים שיכולים לסייע לך בכדי למנוע מקרים אלו, כגון שימוש במכשירי הקלטה וכן כלים שיסייעו לך לעזור למשטרה להגיע לחקר האמת.

במקרה בו יצרה אשתך פרובוקציה וזימנה משטרה, עלייך לקחת עורך דין שייצג אותך בהליך הפלילי ובהליך הגירושין, שכאמור מתחיל ברוב המקרים יחד.

במידה ותקדים בהגשת תביעותיך לבית הדין הרבני או לבית המשפט לענייני משפחה, בסמוך לחקירת המשטרה ותציין את שארע, פעולה זו יכולה לייתר את ההליך הפלילי שמתקיים. דע כי הגשת תלונה כוזבת מצד אשתך, הנה עבירה פלילית.


נשים שנוקטות בפעולות אלו, של הגשת תלונות כוזבות למשטרה, אינן מסתפקות בהגשת תלונה אחת והן יחפשו הזדמנויות נוספות, בהן יתאפשר להן לפעול שוב. זהירות מצדך, יכולה למנוע זאת

NEW YORK GET LAW:

New York State is one of the few States whose laws deal with the religious barriers to remarriage. Specifically Domestic Relations Law (the section of law dealing with divorce) Section 253, otherwise known as the “Get Law.” It states that the Plaintiff shall affirmatively state that to the best of his or her knowledge he or she has prior to the entry of such final judgment, taken all steps solely within his or her power to remove all barriers to the Defendants remarriage following the annulment or divorce. One is simply obligated to remove any barrier to the remarriage of ones spouse. In the case of Orthodox Jews, this means a valid Get. That applies to one who is the Plaintiff, or the one who initiates the action. Upon a spouses refusal to give a Get, the court can dismiss their civil divorce proceeding.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent lutptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Nam liber tempor cum soluta nobis eleifend option congue nihil imperdiet doming id quod mazim placerat facer possim assum. Typi non habent claritatem insitam; est usus legentis in iis qui facit eorum claritatem. Investigationes demonstraverunt lectores legere me lius quod ii legunt saepius.

But what does one do when the recalcitrant spouse is the Defendant, the one who is being sued for divorce. The Courts, particularly, in Counties which have a high concentration of Orthodox Jews have applied Domestic Relations Law Section 253 (B (5) (h). under this statute of in any decision where appropriate, the Court is to consider the effect of the removal barriers to remarriage. This section has been implemented in many different scenarios by the New York Supreme Courts.

The Appellate Division, in Pinto v. Pinto, affirmed a Nassau County Lower Court decision which awarded a wife the entire marital estate, due to the husband’s refusal to give a Get. In that case the husband was the Defendant.

But what does one do when the recalcitrant spouse is the Defendant, the one who is being sued for divorce. The Courts, particularly, in Counties which have a high concentration of Orthodox Jews have applied Domestic Relations Law Section 253 (B (5) (h). under this statute of in any decision where appropriate, the Court is to consider the effect of the removal barriers to remarriage. This section has been implemented in many different scenarios by the New York Supreme Courts.

In another decision, Justice Sunshine in S.A. v. K.F. a 2009, decision from Kings County where the recalcitrant husband was the defendant. The court after trial issued a decision that the husband was entitled to receive both a maintenance award due to his age and not being the wage earner for a lengthy period of time, as well as a portion of the wife’s pension. At that trial, credible evidence was presented by a Rabbi that the husband has refused to give a Get. The Court in S.A. received further testimony as to what barriers in relation to the restrictions on the wife’s social and economic status, she faced in relation to not receiving a Get from her husband. The Court’s granting of an award of maintenance and a portion of the wife’s pension was contingent on the husband giving a Get within 45 days of the entry of the Judgment of Divorce; otherwise it would not be received. This case cites extensively to the Rabbi’s testimony explaining the Get process and even the history of when a husband may be forced to give a Get under halachah. In other unpublished decisions, Courts have even limited or stopped parenting time between a parent and child due to the recalcitrant spouse refusal to give a Get.

When the court issues such decisions one must consult their respective Rabbi. A Get in religious terms (Halacha), must be given and received voluntarily otherwise it may be considered a “meusah” or forced Get which can lead to halachic ramifications as to its validity.

Today our secular courts are quite aware of the ramification of the one who refuses to receive a Get, and they will use the applicable laws to assist the spouse who is not receiving a Get.


To be continued…

The Effects of the Ponzi Schemes on Divorce Settlements:

The community at large has been severely affected by ponzi schemes whether it has been with Madoff Securities or one which recently hit the press aimed specifically to the local Orthodox community. How does this effect settlements that were negotiated, prior to the realization that these accounts in fact have no value. One who has divided the assets with ones spouse maintaining the account (which was later found to be valueless) and the other spouse receiving in liquid funds or trade off of some other asset of value. A law suit has been filed in New York County; Steven Simkin, a partner in a large New York law firm, entered in a divorce settlement with his wife of thirty years in which they divided all their marital assets. Included in that assets division was an investment of 5.4 million dollars with Bernie Madoff of which Mr. Simkin paid his wife 2.7 million dollars in cash for the value of the account. The agreement was executed on June 27, 2006. A time period before the revelation that in fact Madoff's investments were in fact a ponzi scheme. In February, 2009 Mr. Simkin instituted an action against his ex-wife to recover the amount paid to her for her share of that account. This raises an interesting question of law. Can one go back after an agreement was executed, based on new found evidence to renegotiate or recover assets thought to be in existence?

The case is pending, and one in which this column will keep you updated on when a decision will be rendered.

The issues to be reviewed are: Did Mr. Simkin have reason to know, despite the fact that statements were issued as to the balance of the account, that the returns were not in the realm of reality and in sync with normal rate of returns? Did Mr. Simkin or his attorney have a duty beyond verifying the statement balance that the account and funds were in liquid or able to become liquid prior to the execution of the agreement?


Justice Rigler said that Mr. Schaeffer had manipulated events to place his wife in the position of having to submit to the rabbinical court's authority and dismiss her divorce proceedings in New York.


This case before the court will have far reaching effects, as many people, especially in recent times having been effected by numerous schemes, where people have been left with assets that do not in fact exist. Thus accounts that individuals divided as part of their marital agreements, years later they may find (after much publicity) that these accounts in fact not existent. Unfortunately, an occurrence that has become a regular news item. An obvious danger, always lies in the fact that the spouse who received the payout, may no longer have funds to recover from as well. This is quit different from stock accounts, that due to market fluctuations many loose their value and one would have no right to seek recoupment.


UPCOMING ARTICLES: Get laws and its practical application, Internet and Divorce- cause and effect


Martin E. Friedlander, Esq. is the principal of MARTIN FRIEDLANDER, PC specializing in Matrimonial/Family law.

Judge orders Brooklyn couple to put up a wall between them - NYPOST.com

Judge orders Brooklyn couple to put up a wall between them - NYPOST.com

Gift Card Scam

Gift Card Scam