Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dershowitz 1st Wife - Tragic Abuse, Divorce, Suicide

Skip to first unread message


Mar 10, 2009, 9:26:35 AM3/10/09

yet another fucken Jew ...


A Sacred Icon Or Another Crazy Meshugana

The Skeleton In Alan Dershowitz's Closet:
The Resurrection Of Sue Barlach, His First Wife

Dershowitz's First Wife SUE BARLACH: Victim Of Tragic Domestic Abuse,
Divorce, Stripped Of Custody Of Her Children And Her Subsequent Suicide
By Jessie L. Leon

According to an article written on March 25, 2007, by internet author Myles O.
Morales, the controversial lawyer Alan M. Dershowitz has a big skeleton in his
closet. It is the story of his first wife Sue Barlach, whom Dershowitz had
been completely successful with hiding in his closet until the publication of
that article made the rounds on the internet in 2007. Until now, an internet
search to find Dershowitz's first wife's name came up empty.
Some of the websites where the original article shedding light on the dark
past involving Dershowitz's first wife may be found are:


The article by Morales details the alleged events surrounding the apparent
suicide by Sue Barlach, who had been divorced by Dershowitz after she endured
a beating by Alan Dershowitz, after which she required hospitalization. Soon
after, Dershowitz stripped Barlach of custody of their two sons, according to
several sources who wish to remain anonymous due to the highly litigious and
vindictive nature of Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz then obtained a divorce from
Sue Barlach in 1975. The beating incident allegedly happened after Barlach,
upon learning of an extramarital affair that Dershowitz was having, scattered
some of his important case documents in the wind.

An original source named in the article by Morales is a San Francisco-based
lawyer who has since recanted that he ever said or knew anything about
Dershowitz and his first wife, and he pleaded with to delete the
story, which is what subsequently happened. It's very possible he
inadvertently spilled the beans about Dershowitz to a source whom he never
thought would spread the word about Dershowitz's spousal abuse and the
subsequent events after that. Of course it's possible he never discussed
Dershowitz and his first wife with anyone at all. The fact is that the news
had broke ground on the internet to make way for further investigation.
Other independent, anonymous sources have now come forth to corroborate the
story of how the ambitious, controversial lawyer, known for defending
wife-beaters, wife-killers, the use of torture, and the apartheid militant
Jewish state of Israel, was responsible for beating his first wife Sue Barlach
so badly that she had to be hospitalized, and how Dershowitz then used his
formidable litigious clout to intimidate local and nationwide news sources,
including CNN, from publicizing the wife-beating event and her subsequent
suicide, apparently by jumping off a bridge in New York (the Brooklyn Bridge,
to be exact, according to one anonymous source).

In fact, Dershowitz had been so thorough at snuffing out the memory of Sue
Barlach, his first wife, that an internet search using Google came up with
absolutely nothing about his first wife, unless you already knew her name.
While a google search on "Dershowitz's first wife" came up blank, after the
discovery of his wife's name Sue Barlach, and using it in an internet search
it turns out that Dershowitz mentioned her in his book "Chutzpah"
Basically, he briefly explains how he got married to her because his parents
encouraged him to marry a Jewish woman before he went away to law school.
That's about it.

The official Marriage License for Alan M. Dershowitz and Sue Barlach has now
come to light. It was issued on June 9, at 9:50 AM in 1959 in Brooklyn, New
York. Further information on the certificate includes Dershowitz' address in
Brooklyn at the time, that his occupation was Full Time Student, and the name
of his parents, etc. As for the Bride, Sue Barlach was named, and her address
at the time was in Bayonne, NJ, where it indicated that she was also born.
Her Occupation was also Student, and both her parents, including her father
Bernard Barlach and her mother Ruth Feldman, were noted to be from Poland.
Another document which has come to light, the Marriage Certificate, shows that
on June 21, 1959, Rabbi Joshua J. Eisenstein in the county of Kings, in the
State of New York, at 2 PM at 673 Broadway, and in the county of New York,
performed the rites of matrimony between Alan M. Dershowitz and Sue Barlach in
the presence of witnesses William Haber and Anatole Tennenbaum, along with
their signatures. It's all a matter of public record.

Further proof of Sue Barlach's existence and status as the first wife of Alan
Dershowitz can be found in the Who's Who book dated 1972. In this 1972
publication, it was published that "Alan Morton Dershowitz" was "m. (married)
to Sue Barlach, June 21, 1959; children - Elon Marc, Jamin Seth."
However, in the 1976 issue of Who's Who, there is no mention of his marriage
or his wife at the time, but there is mention of his two children.
According to an anonymous source, Alan Dershowitz divorced Sue Barlach in
1975. It can then be logically surmised that Sue Barlach made her tragic exit
from this world somewhere between 1975 and 1976.


According to one of the new anonymous sources, who was an associate at Harvard
University, and who lived almost next door to Dershowitz on Robinson Court in
Cambridge, MA, he also alleges that Alan Dershowitz beat up his wife, which
landed her in the hospital for treatment. Dershowitz also allegedly stripped
Sue Barlach of custody of their two young sons, and divorced her. The tragic
story of her subsequent suicide by jumping off a New York bridge is also
alleged to be true by this and another anonymous source. The anonymous
sources also allege that Dershowitz used his litigious skills and prestige to
threaten and discourage CNN, which was then owned by Ted Turner, from
broadcasting the unsavory news of either events. Thus Dershowitz' attempted
cover-up of the big skeleton in his closet has largely been successful - until

If anyone wants to trouble themselves to acquire the Death Certificate for Sue
Barlach, then it is readily available at:



This Site Served by TheHostPros

Message has been deleted


Mar 12, 2009, 3:04:52 AM3/12/09

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" wrote:
> I've been reading about this a lot lately but only on the internet,
> The j00-controlled M$M won't go near it obviously.

Dershowitz is clearly insane:

(0) Disrespectful attitudes about lawyers and the law:

"In a video interview on Leadel.NET, a Jewish media portal,
Dershowitz later said that his `teachers said I should do something
that requires a big mouth and no brain ... so I became a lawyer.'"

(1) Clearly on the wrong side of the courtroom:

"Dershowitz was the appellate advisor for the defense
in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his
ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman."

(2) Maxing out his kook points:

"In spring 2002, as reported later by the Harvard Crimson, a
`petition, which calls for Harvard and MIT to divest from Israel
and from American companies that sell arms to Israel, [and which]
also calls for the U.S. government to stop supplying weapons...'

"Dershowitz staged a solo debate in the Winthrop Junior
Common Room [at Harvard]. Standing beside a chair with a
copy of the petition taped to it, he said students and professors
who had signed the petition were antisemitic and knew 'basically
nothing about the Middle East.'" According to Adams, "'Your House
master is a bigot and you ought to know that,' he told the crowd
of about 200 students. 'Everyone else who signed that petition is
also a bigot.'"[14]

(3) Dershowitz Advocates Violations of International Law:

"On March 11, 2002 Dershowitz published an article in The Jerusalem
Post entitled "Responding to Palestinian Terrorism," in which he
proposes "an immediate unilateral cessation in retaliation against
terrorist attacks" and, "following the end of the moratorium," the
institution of a "new policy if Palestinian terrorism were to resume":
as `an example,' he says, Israel `could announce the first act of
terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction
of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist
operations. The residents would be given 24 hours to leave, and
then troops will come in and bulldoze all of the buildings.'

"Dershowitz's proposal stimulated much criticism at Harvard University
and beyond. James Bamford, a columnist with The Washington
Post, argued that `demolishing the homes of innocent relatives of
those involved in suicide bombing,' which Dershowitz `analyzed' in
that book, is `a practice outlawed under international law.'
Norman Finkelstein, in his book Beyond Chutzpah, went even
further, commenting that `it is hard to make out any difference
between the policy Dershowitz advocates and the Nazi destruction
of Lidice, for which he expresses abhorrence-except that Jews,
not Germans, would be implementing it.'"

(4) Personal animosity toward Noam Chomsky

(5) Personal animosity toward Norman Finklestein

(6) Personal animosity toward John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt

(7) Personal animosity toward Louise Arbour

"After the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour
indicated that Israeli officials might be investigated and indicted
for possible war crimes, Dershowitz labeled Arbour's statement
`bizarre' in an editorial, calling specifically for her dismissal
and inveighing more generally against the `absurdity and
counterproductive nature of current international law.' "

(8) Blaming others for "the obsessive focus on Israel."

"Six million additional people have died since the end of the
Second World War because of this obsessive focus on Israel,"
Dershowitz said....

(9a) Personal animosity toward Jimmy Carter

" `I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with
Dershowitz,' Carter said in Friday's [December 15, 2006]
Boston Globe.`"There is no need . . . to debate somebody who,
in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.'
The school's debate request, Carter said, is proof that many in
the United States are unwilling to hear an alternative view
on the nation's most taboo foreign policy issue, Israel's
occupation of Palestinian territory. . . . `There is no debate in
America about anything that would be critical of Israel,' he said.

"President Carter said he wrote the book because he wanted
to encourage more debate; then why won't he debate?" said
Dershowitz. . .

( Because, Mr. Dershowitz, you do not debate, you merely
call any who oppose your position "bigots" and "liars" )

( If Jimmy Carter wants to encourage more debate this does
not mean that he, personally, must do the debating. Carter
wants to "encourage" -others- to investigate, examine, assess
& discuss. Known as delegative leadership, Mr. Dershowitz. )

(9b) Non-sequitur application in Dershowitz's question to Carter

"During his response, Dershowitz stated that, `if' he had `been
allowed to be in the audience' of Carter's speech to ask a
question or offer a rebuttal, he would have asked one question
of Carter: `...were you ever asked to give your advice to Arafat
as whether to accept or reject an offer [of a separate state for
the Palestinians] at Camp David?' Dershowitz went on to assert
that, had President Carter done so, and had Arafat rejected such
an offer on Carter's advice, Carter himself would have been
`responsible' for the situation of the Palestinians today.

( Dershowitz grasps at straws in his effort to blame everyone
else, except Jews, for the misery of the Middle East )

(10) Dershowitz argues equality between humans & animals:

"In his Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins
of Rights, he writes that, in order to avoid human beings treating
each other the way we treat animals, we have made what he
calls the `somewhat arbitrary decision' to single out our own
species for different and better treatment. `Does this subject
us to the charge of speciesism? Of course it does, and we
cannot justify it, except by the fact that in the world in which
we live, humans make the rules. That reality imposes on us
a special responsibility to be fair and compassionate to those
on whom we impose our rules. Hence the argument for animal

( Hence the counter-argument that rights cannot be accorded
to beings who themselves do not accord reciprocal rights. One
does not require "rights" in order to benefit by compassion.
Moreover, awarding "rights" to all beings willy-nilly tends
to dilute the meaning of the term, imputing disrespect when
"rights" must be invoked, which is the Jew Agenda, eh ? )

(11) Dershowitz waffles on the Second Amendment --

"Dershowitz is strongly opposed to firearms ownership and
the Second Amendment, saying that it is `an anachronistic
drafting disaster that does not belong in any constitution or
bill of rights.' However, he is opposed to repealing the
amendment because he feels doing so would open the way
for further revisions to the Bill of Rights and Constitution. In
a telephone interview with reporter Dan Gifford, he stated that:

" 'Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment
out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right
or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the
danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by
encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate
portions of the Constitution they don't like.' "

( Yet wasn't Dershowitz also a champion for animal rights?
When the rubber meets the road Dershowitz doesn't want
to be associated with animals and their weapons unless,
of course, they wear uniforms emblazoned with IDF logos.
It's a sophism to claim that one's reluctance to change the
Constitution is all that stands between favor and disfavor.
While eviscerating the meaning of the Constitution, passing
legislation that portends to nullify it, Dershowitz rationalizes
an easy sleep in delusion that he was keeping integrity of
the Constitution, though without real teeth in it. Fucken Jew. )

(12) Dershowitz advocates torture

"Dershowitz says that he is personally against the use of torture,
yet he argues that authorities should be permitted to use
non-lethal torture in a `ticking bomb' scenario, regardless
of international legal prohibitions; that it would be less
destructive to the rule of law to regulate the process than to
leave such permission to the discretion of individual
law-enforcement agents. He favors preventing the government
from prosecuting the subject of such torture based upon
information revealed during such an interrogation. Moreover,
he argues: `If torture is going to be administered as a last resort
in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives,
[then] it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with
approval by the president of the United States or by a
Supreme Court justice.' "

( Somewhat naive on several counts. All we need for the
"ticking bomb" scenario is mass hysteria, or merely some
hysteria on the part of police agencies. Does anybody
believe that prosecution will not follow on the heels of
torture? Yet Dershowitz wants us to believe that. And
why should there be a scenario for torture unless there
was a cause for terrorism, i.e. a cause engendered by
the purported target of terrorism? Why does Dershowitz
suppose that the President or Supreme Court justices
are "accountable" ? Do we have evidence that any
of the criminal Bush Gang will be brought to justice?
This all goes back to Dershowitz's limited imagination
concerning when the Second Amendment would get
exercised, as in the _Federalist_ & _Anti-Federalist_. )

Alan Dershowitz has come under fire for his pro-Israel views.
J. Lorand Matory, a fellow Harvard professor has criticized
Dershowitz for his endorsement of torture of Palestinian
prisoners in Israel

(13) Relationship with Elliot Spitzer --

Dershowitz instructed Spitzer in law. This needs to be addressed.
Article is missing important information, 猶receding unsigned
comment added by (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Its irrelevant to an article about Dershowitz. Avruch T 19:54,
11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is not. In a documentary, Dershowitz praised Spitzer
as his best student at Harvard and endorsed him. It is hardly
irrelevant. I promise I will post the material once I find the
proper references. Enjoy. 猶receding unsigned comment
added by (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well - how is Dershowitz' view of one student relevant to an
article about Dershowitz, not the student? Besides - I think
the implication is that Dershowitz made a mistake, or didn't
perceive something? I don't see that, its entirely possible and
not even unlikely that Spitzer was indeed Dershowitz' best
student. Avruch T 20:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think people should know who trained Spitzer -- going by your
logic we should remove the whole of his teaching and academic
career. Dershowitz is on-record as identifying Spitzer as his
best student ever -- and I think that this is very important for
a law professor. 猶receding unsigned comment added
by (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here you go:
and more importantly

Professor Dershowitz spoke on the television news regarding
New York Governor Elliot Spitzer's alleged use of a prostitute,
saying on CNN that reaction to the charges was "overblown" and
that he saw no reason for Governor Spitzer to resign.[65] On
MSNBC, Dershowitz said, "You know, big deal ... In Europe this
wouldn't even make the back pages of the newspaper."[66]
Spitzer previously served as a research assistant to Dershowitz.[65]

Dershowitz suggested that any alleged offense by Spitzer would
be only a "minor misdemeanor."[65] CNN noted that Spitzer had
been accused of transporting a woman across state lines for the
purposes of prostitution, a felony punishable by ten years in
federal prison under the Mann Act.[67]

The Mann Act is one of the cornerstones of the unofficial
constitution along with the Posse Comitatus Act and the
Klan Act of 1873. That Dershowtiz feels that his best student's
career is more important than the Mann Act in the age of
trafficking in human flesh is not only important, it is critical
for an honest assessment of a leading legal authority.
--Jackkalpakian (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(14) Bringing Arab Terrorism to America --

"The Boston Globe quoted Professor Dershowitz on June 5, 2008
as saying of the assassination of Robert Kennedy by Jerusalem-born
Sirhan Sirhan: `It was in some ways the beginning of Islamic
terrorism in America.' Darryl Li, a doctoral candidate
in anthropology and Middle Eastern studies at Harvard
University, responded in a letter to the Globe published
June 9, 2008: `ATTEMPTS TO spin the tragic assassination
of Robert Kennedy as a prelude to today's problems between
the United States and the Middle East collapse under the weight
of the facts. Alan Dershowitz's suggestion that a 40-year-old
crime committed by a lone gunman - a Christian Arab who
moved to the United States at age 12 - could be plausibly
counted as "the beginning of Islamic terrorism in America"
strains credulity.... Such illogical readings of the past do
nothing to advance the mutual understanding between
peoples that is so urgently required in today's world.'

( fucken Jerusalem-born shits ... )

0 new messages