IN RE MACHNE MENACHEM, INC. v. SPRITZER

 IN RE: MACHNE MENACHEM, INC., Debtor, v. YAAKOV SPRITZER, Appellant.

 No. 11-1496.

 United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

 Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 16, 2011.

 Filed: January 3, 2012.

Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,^* Judge.

      Appellant Yaakov Spritzer (“Spritzer”) appeals a District Court judgment affirming a Bankruptcy Court’s conclusion that $286,000 in advances made by Spritzer to Debtor Machne Menachem, Inc. (“Machne”) between March 1997 and October 2002 were not loans. See In re Machne Menachem, Inc., 425 B.R. 749, 754 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2010), aff’d, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18026, at *12 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 18, 2011). Spritzer argues the checks he wrote to Machne were loans, and not donations, and therefore his allowable bankruptcy claim should be increased by $286,000. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

     Because we write for the parties, we recount only the essential facts and procedural history.¹ Machne is incorporated under the New York Not-For-Profit Corporation law to run a summer camp for children. The Machne board of directors for the relevant time period consisted of Yosef Goldman, Shmuel Heber, Mendel Hershkop, and Spritzer. On March 17, 1997, Goldman, Heber, and Hershkop, acting as the board of directors of Machne, passed a corporate resolution prohibiting Spritzer from undertaking further activities on behalf of Machne (“Machne Resolution”).² In July 1997, Spritzer obtained a permanent injunction prohibiting directors Goldman, Heber, and Hershkop “from interfering, in any way, with the administration of the affairs of the . . . camp, including the maintenance of bank accounts . . . .” (“Permanent Injunction”). Despite the Machne Resolution, Spritzer continued to operate the Machne summer camp through October 2002. During his time as a director of Machne, Spritzer wrote multiple checks from his personal bank account to Machne. In 2001, Machne filed for bankruptcy.

     Spritzer filed a proof of claim with the Bankruptcy Court, stating his checks, totaling $1,012,454, represented monies loaned to Machne and entitled Spritzer to treatment as one of Machne’s creditors. Machne objected to the claim, arguing, inter alia, that there was insufficient documentation of indebtedness, Machne never authorized the debt, and the services were done without expectation of payment. The Bankruptcy Court limited Spritzer’s claim to $76,000, finding there was insufficient evidence that the parties intended to create a loan beyond this amount. In re Machne Menachem, Inc., 425 B.R. at 754, 756-57. The Bankruptcy Court relied in part on the Machne Resolution prohibiting Spritzer from undertaking additional activities on behalf of Machne as of March 17, 1997, and characterized all checks issued after this date as donations. Id. at 753-54. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s opinion. In re Machne Menachem, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18026, at *12. Spritzer’s current appeal relates to checks written after March 17, 1997, totaling $286,000.

     We have jurisdiction to review a final order of a district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d)(1) and 1291. This court exercises plenary review over final decisions of a district court when the district court sits as an appellate court reviewing the decisions of a bankruptcy court. Rhett v. Carnegie Ctr. Assocs. (In re Carnegie Ctr. Assocs.), 129 F.3d 290, 294 (3d Cir. 1997). We “stand in the shoes” of the district court and review the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Internal Revenue Serv. v. Pransky (In re Pransky), 318 F.3d 536, 542 (3d Cir. 2003). The determination of whether an advance is debt or equity is a question of fact that we review for clear error. Cohen v. K.B. Mezzanine Fund II (In re SubMicron Sys. Corp.), 432 F.3d 448, 457 (3d Cir. 2006).

     As part of its equitable powers, a bankruptcy court may “recharacterize” an advance as debt or equity when determining the amount of a creditor’s claim. Id. at 454. “[T]he determinative inquiry in classifying advances as debt or equity is the intent of the parties as it existed at the time of the transaction.” Id. at 457. Although this case involves an advance to a non-profit corporation, as opposed to an advance to a for-profit corporation as in SubMicron Systems, the intent of the parties at the time of the transaction remains the determinative issue. In determining the intent of the parties, courts may infer “from what the parties say in their contracts, from what they do through their actions, and from the economic reality of the surrounding circumstances.” Id. at 456. Although the label given to a transaction by a party is a factor, it does not outweigh what the parties actually intended or how they acted. See id. (“[T]he characterization as debt or equity is a court’s attempt to discern whether the parties called an instrument one thing when in fact they intended it as something else.”).

     Here, the Bankruptcy Court analyzed the intent of the parties under SubMicron Systems and determined Spritzer’s advances to Machne made after the Machne Resolution were not loans. In re Machne Menachem, Inc., 425 B.R. at 752-54. We find the Bankruptcy Court’s determination is not clearly erroneous and thus affirm that advances made after March 17, 1997 were not loans.

     Spritzer relies on deposit slips and checks written from Spritzer to Machne, some with “loan” written on them, as evidence that the checks were loans.³ Spritzer provides no additional evidence to demonstrate an expectation of repayment, such as a contemporaneous written instrument indicating the due date, repayment schedule, or default date of the purported loan. Thus, there is no written instrument for the court to analyze and determine whether the terms suggest an expectation of repayment.

     Moreover, Spritzer provides no evidence of intent on behalf of Machne to accept or authorize the purported loans, such as a resolution from the board of directors, or evidence that the board was aware of the loans. Spritzer argues that he, as the sole board member not barred from camp administration by the Permanent Injunction, had to be authorized to accept the loan on behalf of Machne.⁴ It would be unreasonable to interpret the Permanent Injunction as authorizing Spritzer to both make the loan to Machne and accept the loan on Machne’s behalf because New York law prohibits such self-dealing, unless, at a minimum, the board of directors is informed of the material facts of the transaction. N.Y. Not-For-Profit Corp. § 715(a), (b).⁵ Here, Spritzer presents no evidence that he informed the old board or a properly constituted new board of the material facts relating to his purported loans or that any board of directors authorized the loans at any time.⁶

     Although Spritzer’s notation of “loan” is one factor to consider in determining the intent of the parties, the lack of any documentation relating to the terms of the loan and the lack of intent on behalf of Machne to accept a loan provides sufficient evidence to support the Bankruptcy Court’s finding. Thus, it was not clearly erroneous for the Bankruptcy Court to find the advances made by Spritzer to Machne after the resolution of March 17, 1997 were not loans and therefore are not recoverable in the bankruptcy proceeding.⁷

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Footnotes

* Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Back to Reference

1. Additional facts can be found in Machne Menachem, Inc. v. Hershkop, 237 F.Supp.2d 227, 228-39 (E.D.N.Y. 2002).

Back to Reference

2. The Machne Resolution and the related corporate minutes are not included in the record. The parties, however, do not dispute the material facts relating to the Machne Resolution.

Back to Reference

3. Spritzer argues the Bankruptcy Court found that the notation of “loan” on deposit slips was sufficient contemporaneous written evidence of a loan. In a finding not appealed to this court, the Bankruptcy Court found some of the advances made prior to the Machne Resolution of March 17, 1997 were supported by written evidence showing an intent to establish a loan. In re Machne Menachem, 425 B.R. at 757. We do not opine on whether such scant notation is sufficient to evidence an actual loan under the facts that existed before March 17, 1997. For advances made after the Machne Resolution of March 17, 1997, which are at issue here, the Bankruptcy Court found no intent to create a loan obligation between Spritzer and Machne, despite any “loan” notations.

Back to Reference

4. Spritzer argues the crux of the appeal is whether a permanent injunction trumps a prior conflicting corporate resolution. Spritzer’s characterization of the appeal is inaccurate because the Permanent Injunction and the Machne Resolution apply to different individuals, and thus, do not conflict. The Permanent Injunction, which did not expressly void the prior Machne Resolution, prevented Goldman, Heber, and Hershkop from interfering with the administration of the camp, while the Machne Resolution prevented Spritzer from undertaking further activities related to Machne. Spritzer argues there is a conflict, and either the Permanent Injunction or Machne Resolution must give way, because otherwise, no one would have been authorized to run Machne. Although this may have been an unfortunate outcome for the children utilizing the camp, it does not defy common sense that litigation and fighting among a board of directors would result in a corporation being unable to function.

Back to Reference

5. Section 715(a) and (b) of the New York Not-For-Profit Corporation law states:

(a) No contract or other transaction between a corporation and one or more of its directors or officers, or between a corporation and any other corporation, firm, association or other entity in which one or more of its directors or officers are directors or officers, or have a substantial financial interest, shall be either void or voidable for this reason alone or by reason alone that such director or directors or officer or officers are present at the meeting of the board, or of a committee thereof, which authorizes such contract or transaction, or that his or their votes are counted for such purpose:

(1) If the material facts as to such director’s or officer’s interest in such contract or transaction and as to any such common directorship, officership or financial interest are disclosed in good faith or known to the board or committee, and the board or committee authorizes such contract or transaction by a vote sufficient for such purpose without counting the vote or votes of such interested director or officer; or

(2) If the material facts as to such director’s or officer’s interest in such contract or transaction and as to any such common directorship, officership or financial interest are disclosed in good faith or known to the members entitled to vote thereon, if any, and such contract or transaction is authorized by vote of such members.

(b) If such good faith disclosure of the material facts as to the director’s or officer’s interest in the contract or transaction and as to any such common directorship, officership or financial interest, is made to the directors or members, or known to the board or committee or members authorizing such contract or transaction, as provided in paragraph (a), the contract or transaction may not be avoided by the corporation for the reasons set forth in paragraph (a). If there was no such disclosure or knowledge, or if the vote of such interested director or officer was necessary for the authorization of such contract or transaction at a meeting of the board or committee at which it was authorized, the corporation may avoid the contract or transaction unless the party or parties thereto shall establish affirmatively that the contract or transaction was fair and reasonable as to the corporation at the time it was authorized by the board, a committee or the members.

N.Y. Not-For-Profit Corp. § 715(a), (b).

Back to Reference

6. Spritzer’s argument that Machne’s use of the loan proceeds constitutes evidence that Machne ratified the loans is unavailing. Machne’s use of the funds does not speak to whether the advance was a loan or a donation because an organization would use the proceeds from either.

Back to Reference

7. Spritzer argues that if his loans were not authorized, New York law would prevent Machne from avoiding the loans without restoring the funds to him. Because Spritzer has failed to show he intended to make a loan in the first place, we need not analyze New York law to determine whether an unauthorized loan is void or voidable or whether a corporation can void a loan without restoring the funds.

Back to Reference

Rabbi Shmuly Rothman

I was approached by a parent shortly after camp last summer. He wanted to know why his child was a dysfunctional wreck. “What happened to the chassidishe and positive energy I was told campers return home with? My kid is emotionally frozen and non responsive.”

The story that unfolded was the all-too-common unfortunate one.

The child turned to the counselor after the first sign of being picked on by bunk mates. The counselor reassured the camper that everything would be fine. The harassment continued. The cycle repeated itself. The counselor gave reassurance, the camper built hope, nothing was done, and the camper was let down again.

Feeling that there were no means to attaining adequate support in camp, and having little to no phone access to contact his parents, the child came up with his own method of coping. He turned off emotionally.

In this case, it took months and months to get the child back to the relatively healthy emotional state he had been in prior to the camp experience.

Unfortunately, this child is not going back to overnight camp this summer. Interesting return on an investment.

Does this happen to all kids who go away to sleep away camp? Of course not! Does it happen to most? No. But does it matter? Even if it only happens to a few, will you knowingly send your child off – and pay top dollar at that! – for this possible outcome?

Let me make my feelings about camp very clear. Overnight camp is an incredible experience. Many kids look forward to camp all year long. Many parents rely on camp for the infusion of chayus, chassidishkeit and the all around excitement for yiddishkeit it instills in their children. Camp is a living, breathing, Jewish reality. Perhaps for some it is even a fortaste of Moshiach.

How can parents assure that their children have this kind of amazing experience and not have one like I described earlier? Is there anything that can be done on the homefront? Or do we just send our kids away and take our chances?

Allow me to offer some humble suggestions.

First and formost, ask yourself: What am I doing to prepare my child to face the social-emotional challenges that will face them in camp… and throughout life?

Just as you as a parent make sure to send off your kid with every item on the camp packing list neatly packed and ready to go, so too, you need to have your own checklist.

Here are some of the questions to ask yourself before you send your child away:

* What have I done to protect my child from the emotional dangers they may encounter as I send them many miles away?
* I teach my children to stay away from strangers. Have I had a conversation about setting personal boundaries?
* Have I taught my child that someone who picks on them, laughs at them, and makes fun of them does not fit into the category of friend?
* Have I taught my child to say, “I will be happy to associate with you when you are kind and friendly to me?”
* Do I teach my child that no one has the right to lay a finger on them? Camper or staff?
* In the world we live in, with statistics being what they are, does my child know that they are forbidden to be alone in an area with an older camper or staff member?

You might also do well to have a list of questions to ask the camp director. Camp directors and camp staff work extremely hard to make the camp miracles happen each summer.

By being in contact with them, you can actually help them to reach the succes that they are already striving for. Ask him or her some pointed questions:

* What system do you have in place to guarantee the physical safety of my child?
* What system do you have in place to guarantee the emotional well being of my child?
* Does your camp have a strict (same-gender) no yichud policy, forbidding staff to be alone with a camper or with each other?
* Do you have state clearances for all of your staff?
* Is anyone on staff trained and experienced in the social-emotional safety of children?
* Understandably, campers will need to be disciplined. Are you able to send me a copy of your discipline guidelines?

You have a responsibility to make an informed decision about where to send your child off to (it could not hurt to ask the same questions to any out of town moised you send your child, bochur, or high school girl to and spend tens of thousands of dollars annually on).

Failing to ask the questions is an injustice to your child. This is not to suggest that the answers will be dissatisfactory. Asking will make you an informed consumer. If nothing else, you’re paying for the right to ask.

You have already made the decision to invest in the overnight camp experience for your child. Now insure a desired return.

— Rabbi Shmuly Rothman is a Shliach in Pittsburgh, PA and coaches Shluchim, Mechanchim, parents and children in the Lubavitch Community. Learn more about him at ShmulyRothman.com

The following was taken from whoisshmira.com

Yaakov Spritzer loses appeal:
Spritzers Appeal: Pages 1-11 ——- Pages 12-22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the orders of the Bankruptcy Court dated March 4, 2010 (D.1.838) and March 31, 2009 (D.1.825) are AFFIRMED. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 2/18/11.

Yaakov Spritzer must return $1.3 million that he stole from  Machne Menachem.

The following issues have to be dealt with:

1. Yaakov Spritzer illegal activities throughout all these years.

2. Paying for all the damage he caused good families, by dragging them to Federal Court and bringing  a Blood Libel (RICO) against them.

First loss for Yaakov the Ganev Spritzer:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Judge Glasser Final Ruling  Against Spritzer – Finding of Facts (Click Here)

Second loss for Yaakov the Ganev Spritzer:
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Judge Thomas Final Ruling Against Spritzer – Finding of Facts (Click Here)

Also See:
Parshas Machne Menachem

Yaakov Spritzer Initial Mesira

The Facts Of The Matter

Yaakov Spritzer: This case is not about a Camp (Coming Up… WIS will have a post dedicated in explaining what the case was really about…).

How Did Spritzer Get Hold Of The Camp Grounds?

Din Torah: Past, Present and Future. It’s been over three years since Yaakov Spritzer was called for a Din Torah and still has not shown any sign of cooperation. Din Torah Update.

Non-Kosher meat is soooo cheap

Parent: I have no choice but to send my child to Camp Chayolei Hamelech, it’s simply cheaper and I can’t afford any other camp.

Parent: I have no choice but to buy only Non-Kosher (Traif) meat, it’s simply cheaper and I can’t afford Kosher meat.

ארור משיג גבול רעהו ואמר כל-העם אמן

(דברים כ”ז- י”ז)
“Accursed is one who moves back the boundary of his fellow”

Let Yaakov Spritzer come to a Din Torah with all these claims and so called proves and make his case.

Why  is Spritzer withholding for over two years, showing up to a Din Torah?

Din Torah: Past, Present and Future

Psak Din[im] 5757/1997-5769/2008

Who Set The Trap For The Rav?

Who Forced The Rav To Appear In Court?

Camp Chayolei Hamelech has been operating under the directorship/management of Yankle Spritzer and family (mainly Shlomie Rutman) since 2006. Spritzer and Rutman had previously mismanaged Machne Menachem between the years of 1996 till the summer of 2003.   Total years of Spritzer/Rutman operating a summer camp for the children of Crown Heights, eleven years.

You would think after all these years of  such a “successful” camp, there would be no need to advertise*. In fact one would think that by the time Purim came along, registration would be coming to a close, with a full camp of over 500 children (between the ages of 8 to 13), not including the older divisions (7th and 8th grade programs).

*We don’t see such a push of advertisement from any of the other Chabad/Crown Heights camps as we do Spritzers camp. We don’t even see the newer camps (2-3 years old) begging for campers, they seem to be doing fine.

Desperate People Do Desperate Things

The must successful camp advertising every Monday and Thursday (Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday included), begs the question of, is this camp really having any success at all?

Can anybody explain to me who could have been the brains behind this stupid and very desperate, I don’t even know what to call it, it’s not a plan, it’s not even a technique, what in the world is this? Don’t answer, it was a theoretical question, the master behind this thing, is none other then Shlomie Rutman, the best camp directer and manager in the whole wide world.

Whats the plan here, are children really expected to register to Chayolei Hamelech
because of a free hot-dog and ice cream, you kidding me? That hot-dog better be  the best I ever eat.

Besides in my Shul the kids (over 60) got free ice cream without registering to camp.
And what did Rutman say to those children that came for a hot-dog or ice cream that did not register to camp, did he send them away?

Ok, so let’s see how this hot-dog thing turned out….

Nobody push, one at a time

What we have here: The grill is off; not in operation. Rutman our main man is still wearing his hat and jacket, he’s really getting ready to work, work, and work. Half empty bottle of fake soda and more helpers then buns. This was to enticing for me, I almost registered to camp for one of those dogs.

Yes indeed it’s true, like it says on the sign, if you are indeed a first time camper you will get ONE of these delicious hot-dogs, no catch.

At some point in time  reinforcements were called in to hold back the lines.

Why they keep on coming back year after year….

Notice the abundance of goodies special for those individuals who are going to be managing almost every aspect of day to day camp. Spritzer brings out the works. We have, a third empty bottle of soda; third empty rolled up bag of chips; an empty bag of licorice; an empty bag of pretzels’; 5 cups and six people. And most importantly, notice the body language of ALL those sitting there, they just look so excited to be there. Wow, this is going to be a smashing summer.

The Best for last…

Don’t you just love the self promoting comments, there so inspiring… take a look…

…I wish I was a kid again so I could go to Spritzers camp and get a free hot-dog and ice cream.

Oh yes before I forget…. Spritzer makes an appeal in bankruptcy court.

Spritzers Appeal (Pages 1-11)

Spritzers Appeal (Pages 12-22)

This appeal is so foolish I wont even waste my wasting time ripping it apart. All I will do in responds is direct you to Honorable Judge Glassers Final Verdict (finding of facts) and the Honorable Judge Thomas  Final Verdict (finding of facts).

The answer to the above question, is easy, short and clear.
The saying goes, “If you want to know who a person is, just look at who his friends are”.

We already know who Yankle/Yaakov/Jacob Spritzer is.

Yaakov Spritzer is a…
MOSER (Rat),
a GANEV (Theft)
a CHEAT,
a LAIR,
and HEARTLESS EVIL MAN to say the least.

Now, what would that say about somebody who would associate himself with such an individual? I would say they relate to each other.

A few mouths back, I was told about how Yaakov Spritzer did not pay (what he promised), one of his must loyal and devoted staff members. If you ask me, I would say that this staff member was the face of Spritzer camp (Chayolei Hamelech). I guess now hes the…. [not the face]. Yes, there was a Din Torah (by Rabbi Schwei), it goes without saying that the staff member lost. Usually,  when you have an employee, who is loyal, devoted and does a great job, you do all you can to keep him. Especially, pay him what you promised.

But all the above (the last paragraph) is not the point I’m trying to make. What is the point, you ask?

It goes without saying, that this staff member feels betrayed and is not returning to Chayolei Hamelech. But when his younger brother was asked as to whether he will be returning to Spritzer camp, his reply was in the affirmative. When he was asked, how can you go back to Spritzer, when Spritzer did what he did to your brother [?].
[And here my friends is the punch line]. His reply: “He screwed my brother, not me”.

By the way: Now he’s saying, “if Spritzer pays me up front, then I’ll go”. Which is in no way an improvement of his previous attitude and just comes to prove, that all those that go to Spritzers camp are sick and selfish individuals, only looking out for themselves. What that tells me is,  even if they know (and always knew), what I have been writing/posting on this site, to be true (that Spritzer is a Ganev and  Moser etc…) . It would make no difference to them. Because, this was never about Right and Wrong*, Machne Menachem/Hershkop/Heber/ Goldman and Spritzer, this was always about themselves, me, me, me.  So, it’s no surprise that you will find this attitude of, “all the things you are saying is true, BUT, it didn’t happen to ME”. For a great example of what I just wrote, read THIS.

There you have it. They go to Spritzers camp, because that’s who they are, they are Spritzer and everything Spritzer represents (which is hate and greed).
*Torah/Halacha/Shulchan Aruch

_________________________________

In years past, there may have been the excuse of, “I did not know”. For one thing, the only source of information was misinformation, rumors and propaganda, coming from the Spritzers side. But on November 30th, 2008 (my first posting) that all changed. After hearing all the rumors  and propaganda and actually seeing prove to the contrary, I decided to take the initiative and create this site. Having the actual proves (documents etc…) made it so much easier.

Now with almost 28,000 views, it’s safe to say, that now “everybody knows”, who, what, when, where and why.  There is no excuse.
By going to Spritzers camp you are saying load and clear, “I DON’T CARE ABOUT…
MESIRA,
GENAYVA (STEALING),
CHEATING,
AND I DON’T CARE ABOUT ALL THE LIES AND DECEIT” ETC…

Such people, should not be anywhere near our children, especially when it come to education.

March 18, 2010, Pike County Press

Camp Stabbing Victim Identified (Click Here)

Spritzer must return $1.3 million that he stole from  Machne Menachem (-$76,000).

The truth [as it was always] comes out. After many years of both sides representing their case in front of a judge, the court comes out with the second verdict against Yankle the Ganev Spritzer.

The Final Order And Decision By Judge Thomas [Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Court] Click Here

For a clearer re-typed version Click Here

Read it once, read it twice, study it if you have too. You will discover where all the millions went.

Hint, not for the benefit of your children.

Also see:

Nu, So How Did Spritzer Get Hold Of The Camp?

UPDATE 3/18/10: As expected; no surprise. In another effort to waste/kill time, Spritzer Appeals the bankruptcy decision above. I could go ahead and try to explain why I think, this appeal is a waist of time and useless, but whats the point, let’s first see if the appeal will be  granted.

_____________________________________

PLUS: Spritzer keeps on hiring lawyers and doesn`t pay them. He is now being sued for $319,194.00. by his lawyers in the Supreme court of the State of NY. Index No. 601311/07 (Click Here).

It seems Spritzer expected the above verdict and decided to cause some more trouble for the rightful directors of Machne Menachem. Spritzer saw he was going to loss, so he went to Mr. Rubin, a lawyers he had not paid, while illegally operating Machne Menachem and advised him that now MM will have money and he should demand it from MM. Another long battle to deal with. This is far from over my friends.

UPDATE 3/18/10: Thank G-d I was wrong. The case has been Disposed (Click Here). Not knowing that the court had already disposed of this case on March 10, the directors responded with THIS, on the 15th. They were advised by the clerk that there is no need for a responds. I’m sharing this with you, to demonstrate the fraud that was about to take place. 

י''א שבט תש''ע Bais Din Beth Yosef Letter to Spritzer (click to enlarge)

In has come to my attention and was no surprise to me, that Yankle Spritzer has been working very close with Paul Huebner (the Mosser who orchestrated the Shomrim Six Mesira). In the last motion that Huebner put in to court (re: the $144 million lawsuit), he tried to use, as Spritzer wrongfully and illegally did himself in the past,the restraning order that Judge Glasser put on the rightful directors of Machne Menachem  by 1997. Amongst the documents that Huebner is so foolishly trying to use are also transcript pages which he could have only gotten from Spritzer.

As already reported here, Spritzer was tried to use the Shomrim Six case to avoid a Din Torah.

Related:

Same Mesira (On Hershkop/Shomrim), Same People, Different Day.

The Mossrim Then And Now

Why has there not been a [proper] Din Torah until this day and why I think there will [probably] never will be.

PAST:
This case was in middle of a Din Torah, Spritzer took it to court.
In court the original directors (Hershkops, Goldman and Heber), agreed to return this case to Bais Din, but Spritzer
repeatedly refused. All this has already been documented and discussed in Parshas Machne Menachem, (under: Who Is Making A Chillul Hashem?). Even back then, the original Directors agreed to go to a Zabla, but again Spritzer refused (Read Rabbi Hebers Letter to the judge and Spritzers Lawyer).

CURRENT:
TRYING TO HAVE THE LONG AWAITED DIN TORAH.

On the suggestion of the Crown Heights Bais Din, the original directors seek to have a Din Torah out of Crown Heights.
It was decided to go to the Bais Din Machon Lehoraya Monsey.

Update: Spritzer played the Monsey Bais Din for over a year. After a year of back and forth Spritzer makes a request for a Zabla. The Bais Din of Monsey does not deal with Zabla, so they suggest that the Din Torah take place with the Bais Yosef Bais Din (located in Boro-Park) who deal with Zabla. The Monsey Bais Din informed the MM directors that they will monitor the situation, if Spritzer plays his usual games, then they will come out with a Siruf against Spritzer. This all happened Tammuz time (5769). Since that time the Bais Din Bais Yosef has been avoiding the Din Torah. It has recently come to our attention from information coming out of the Bais Din itself, that its not for no reason the Din Torah has been delayed.

The reason they gave was that they had received information from “various parties” that the Hershkop family where involved in a criminal preceding were it would be proved that they are a violent gang and therefore the camp in any case can not go to them, making the argument that there is no need for a Din Torah. The case they were informed about was the now famous Shomrim Six case. What has been known to myself all along and now becoming more apparent is that many people (including Spritzer) were banking on the g-d forbid prosecution and conviction of 6 innocent Jews just to satisfy their own agendas. It’s also becoming very obvious (I personally didn’t need this prove to teach me this fact for as I stated, this is something I could have told you mouth ago), that this whole case from it’s conception had nothing to do with what happened (or did not happen) in 749 on the night of December 29,2007.  סוף מעשה במחשבה תחילה

Three  Hazmonoz were sent to Spritzer…

1 Kislev 5768

15 Kislev 5768

4 Tevet 5768

1 Sevat 5768- Warning of A Siruv

Spritzer (as usual) start his process of mocking the Bais Din

28 Iyar 5768- Din Torah over a Camp? What Camp?

20 Sivan 5768- Spritzer stole the camp in a legal way!

25 Tamuz 5768- Really? What do you want from me?

2 Av 5768

16 Elul 5768- I finally found out what "ZABLA" means!

20 Elul 5768

10 Kislev 5769- There you have it folks, Spritzer found another way to avoid true Justice (for now!)

After all the above the original directors decided to play along with Spritzer little game. They approached Rabbi Schwei and requested that he be the Bais Din that Arbitrates this case. Remember Rabbi Schwei is Spritzers “Rav”.

25 Kislev 5769- Rabbi Schwei is said to be Spritzer Rav. Will he go to A Din Torah by his "own" Rav?

5 Tevet 5769

13 Tevet 5769 - Lets get on with this!

At First Rabbi Schwei was more then happy to be the Bais Din in this case. Two weeks latter, Rabbi Schwei let it be known that he (after all) is not interested (and that the Original Directors should find a different Bais Din).

Your confused? Don’t be! Remember, Agenda first “Kavod Harobbonim” whenever convenient.

4 Shevat 5769

Another Day; another week; another month and perhaps even another year, how long will it take?
Will a man who is known not to listen to Rabbonim come to a Din Torah?

Will a man who is known to take all his disputes to a non-Jewish court, come to face true justice in front of a Bais Din?

Will a man who with no Shame had his own sister arrested (tied up), care enough to find out what Halacha (G-d almighty) has to say about all that he has done?

Related:

Psak Din[im] 5757/1997-5769/2008

The “no comments” policy is definitely a most positive improvement. The comments were (sadly) many times used to express negative sentiments. Although the editor of each website has the option of deleting negative comments, nevertheless “certain” websites thrive on these very negative comments. I would like to see the Rabbonim enforce the “no comments” rule on all websites serving the Lubavitch community throughout the world. It will greatly reduce a lot of “sinas chinom” and “machloikes” and perhaps even put the websites who thrive on the negative out of business. This should have been done long ago.

Yankle Spritzer

How about not stealing?
How about listening to Rabbonim yourself for once in your life?
How about that long awaited Din Torah?

The Mossier and Ganev Yankle Spritzer is worried about the Rabbonim all of a sudden and hes really worried about comments and the “other certain sites” that carry them, thats whats bothering him. Why is that, perhaps because they expose all you mossrim for who you really are?

An animal that takes Jews to court on viscous messiras time after time and even has his only sister put in to hand cuffs is worried about “sinas chinom” and “machloikes”?

The Messira disease didn’t’ just start now in 2009 , this sickness started long ago, over 15 years. One of those first Messiras was in fact on the directors of Machne Menachem (1996). Not only didn’t Rabbi Marlow do anything to stop it, he tried like many [evil] people to justify and excuse. Like Rabbi Schwei he does not admit that he gave permission but does not deny either. None of these justification or excuses are found in the Shulchan Aruch.

The words of the Rambam in the laws of Sanhedrin: “it is forbidden for a judge to hear one side of the litigants before the other one is present or in his absence and even one word is forbidden  (to listen to) as it says you must listen to your brothers (plural). And if (a judge) hears only one side he transgressed a Torah violation as it says you should not bear vain claims which includes a warning to one who accepts evil talk (loshon hora) and one who says loshon hora and one who testifies falsely (as we see everyday in court).

Rambam Sanhedrin 23, 8: “forever a judge should feel as if a sword is applied to his neck and the gates of hell are open beneath him and he should know whom he is judging and in front of whom he is judging and who will ultimately make him pay (for his ruling) if he deviates from the truth as it says G-d stands among a community of G-d, etc.”

Rambam Sanhedrin 23,9: “every judge who doesn’t rule according to the ultimate truth causes the Shechina (G-d’s presence) to withdraw its presence from amongst the Jews and every judge who takes from one and gives to the other unjustly against Halacha, G-d collects from him lives … And every judge who rules according to the truth even for one hour he is considered as if he corrected the entire world and he causes the Shechina (G-d’s presence) to dwell amongst the Jewish people as it says, G-d stands amongst the community of G-d.”

PDF -Rabbi Marlow Testifies In Court

“There are those who say that asking the Rabbonim for an explanation of their Psak Din is a chutzpah, and that they owe no one a Mehaichan Dantuni. Where do these people find a source in Shulchan Aruch for their position? On what basis do they make the claim that a Rov does not have to answer for his actions. I hear this sicha being quoted and that sicha being quoted; the Rebbe said such wonderful things about the election of the Rabbonim, and so on and so forth. Nevertheless the Rebbe did not create new standards chas v’shalom for these Rabbonim. The Rebbe desired and demanded that they conform to the same standards of Shulchan Aruch as all Rabbonim and Gedolei Yisroel have for thousands of years. One of those standards is that when a Rov is asked Mehaichan Dantuni he must respond and show the sources. To say otherwise is to put the Rov on a pedestal which is even higher than the Shulchan Aruch, G-d forbid. And To say so in the Rebbe’s name, is dishonest and the antithesis of his stated position.

For the original Hebrew letter to Rabbi Schwei from Hershkop Family Click Here

[Translation]

5 Kislev 5770 (November 22, 2009)

Dear Rabbi Schwei:

You are most certainly aware of the fact that there is a court case going on in secular court, and you have stated clearly that it is forbidden to do so without explicit permission from a competent Rav.

Recently a flier was distributed to all the homes in Crown Heights, it was sent from our opponents who claim to speak on your behalf (they also posted it on the official website of your followers called Chabad.info).  In the flier they claim that you, Rav Schwei and Rav Osdoba gave them permission to take us to court. Rav Osdoba immediately issued a public letter in which he completely denies such claims, and he stated that he never gave them permission to go to court, and that those who went to court are evil people who have no share in the world to come.

It is obvious that this court case causes a tremendous violation of Hashem’s name.
Everyday, for the last three weeks G-d’s names is desecrated and the name of Lubavitch has been dragged down to the gutter.

The court appointed a jury of non-Jews and they are hearing and seeing on a daily basis how Chasidic Jews are fighting amongst themselves. They are hearing about all the garbage that goes on in Crown Heights replete with lies and incitement against Jews, etc. All this is done in your name and the name of your Beth Din who purportedly permitted them to go to court. They even publicized this claim that you gave them this permission in a letter to the entire community (and through their website to the entire world).

So our question to you is: Is it true that you gave them permission to go to court?! And if so, when and where did you properly investigate this matter before you issued such a ruling?!

In reality you refused to get involved and refused to hear the other side claiming that you don’t have the power or the manpower to get involved! And if in truth you didn’t give permission to go to court then why aren’t you issuing a letter against those who are spreading lies in your name? And if for whatever reason you are unable to publicly deny their claim that you gave permission (for unfortunate reasons of politics, etc.), then on you the Chachamim said “since you are silent you must agree with it.”

Did you know that they are attempting to put 6 Jews in prison?! Did you know that four of them are family men and fathers of children?!
Do you know that these defendants are unable to work for the last three weeks?
Do you remember the good old fashioned government appointed Rabbonim in the dark days of Russia of old?!
Do you take responsibility for these horrendous Mesira and government informers?!

Haven’t we suffered enough from the Mesira’s against the Rubashkin family, heaven forbid? Which, by the way, your people are part of the gang that ratted on Moshe Rubashkin and had him sent to prison, and they also attempted to inform on Rav Moshe Bogomilsky.

Our sages already commented: “from evil people evil comes forth” and “one transgression leads to another transgression.”

P.S. If it is true that this abomination was approved by you then you are destined to pay for it in this world and the world to come.

We wish to remind you (since your memory fails you to remember if you gave permission….) the words of the Rambam in the laws of Sanhedrin: “it is forbidden for a judge to hear one side of the litigants before the other one is present or in his absence and even one word is forbidden  (to listen to) as it says you must listen to your brothers (plural). And if (a judge) hears only one side he transgressed a Torah violation as it says you should not bear vain claims which includes a warning to one who accepts evil talk (loshon hora) and one who says loshon hora and one who testifies falsely (as we see everyday in court).

Rambam Sanhedrin 23, 8: “forever a judge should feel as if a sword is applied to his neck and the gates of hell are open beneath him and he should know whom he is judging and in front of whom he is judging and who will ultimately make him pay (for his ruling) if he deviates from the truth as it says G-d stands among a community of G-d, etc.”

Rambam Sanhedrin 23,9: “every judge who doesn’t rule according to the ultimate truth causes the Shechina (G-d’s presence) to withdraw its presence from amongst the Jews and every judge who takes from one and gives to the other unjustly against Halacha, G-d collects from him lives … And every judge who rules according to the truth even for one hour he is considered as if he corrected the entire world and he causes the Shechina (G-d’s presence) to dwell amongst the Jewish people as it says, G-d stands amongst the community of G-d.”

I suppose that on you it is said: “I said that you are G-dly and that you are sons of man, indeed like man…., etc.”
“Arise G-d judge this world – Pursue Justice!”

Suffering over the public desecration of G-d’s name.
Where there is desecration of G-d’s name you don’t give honor to….

A United Hershkop Family

SHORT INTRODUCTION:

Following is a history on Machne Menachem (“The Corp.) and an abbreviated version of the court cases, and proceedings which lead to the current claim.

1. Machne Menachem was established in 1996 as a not for profit Corp. The Corp. was established to operate as a summer camp for the benefit of Jewish children. In 1997 The Corp. purchased a property in Lackawaxen, PA. The Corp. was run by the Board which consisted of Mendel Hershkop, Shmuel Heber, Yackov Spritzer, and Yosef Goldman.
2. In 1997 Mr. Spritzer submitted a claim in Federal Court on the basis of RICO charges against the other directors. In October, 2002 the Court decided in favor of the Board of Directors, dismissing charges against them, and giving the opinion that MR. Spritzer had acted against the law.
3. In December of 2000, while the proceedings in the NY court were still active, Mr. Spritzer filed for bankruptcy for the Corp. in the State of Pennsylvania. Judge Glasser (New York) assessed that Mr. Spritzer filed for bankruptcy to disrupt the proceedings in New York which at that time were not working in his favor. At the time there was no reason (financially) to file for bankruptcy. The camp was well funded via government programs and camp tuition.
4. To substantiate his claim, Mr. Spritzer claimed that the Corp. owed him $1.3 million which he had loaned to the Corp. He also submitted claims for his partner (Mr. Schriber), his children, and his son-in-law. One month before filing for bankruptcy Mr. Spritzer placed a lean on the camp grounds for his claim (against the law).
5. After Judge Glasser’s decision, The Board resumed operating the Corp.
6. The Boards objective at first was to disprove all of the claims submitted against the Corp.
7. The Board was advised by its counsel to keep the case in Bankruptcy Court so that it could recover the documents which would be used to refute the claims. They were also advised that this would allow them to recover funds they claimed Mr. Spritzer owed the Corp.
8. After receiving part of the information demanded from Mr. Spritzer, The Corp. accountant confirmed that the claims were unsubstantiated. Furthermore, Mr. Spritzer was advised by the board (around 1998) not to loan money to the Corp. It was further established that relatives of Directors were not allowed to work for pay. This and much more was submitted to Mr. Santura at Hourigan, Kluger, and Quinn. The Board requested of Mr. Santura that he submit a motion regarding these claims, as refutation of those claims would prove the entire bankruptcy proceedings illegitimate.
9. After several meetings with Mr. Santura at the offices of H.K.Q., The Board was finally promised that such a motion had been submitted. Mr. Santura provided a copy of this motion with his signature (copy available).
10. This motion included a request for repayment from Mr. Spritzer on the amount owed by him to The Corp.
11. The Board trusted Mr. Santura’s word that he had submitted this motion. Any time Mr. Santura was asked why he was not more actively pursuing this he would answer that the Judge was busy and had not had time to review it.
12. During this time Mr. Santura left H.K.Q. and formed a partnership with Mr. Bresser. The partners were retained to finish the case and were paid tens of thousands of dollars both from Corp. and private funds.
13. The Corp. determined it would submit a separate claim in State court against Mr. Spritzer and paid Mr. Bresser $5000 for that case. Mr. Bresser promised that this had been done, but any demands for paperwork pertaining to that case were ignored. Regardless of his having been paid, and regardless of the critical impact that case would have had on the Machne Menachem case, Mr. Bresser neglected to ever file the case he had promised and been paid for.
14. In 2004 The Board wanted to rent the grounds to a Yeshiva. They raised this issue with Mr. Santura who drew up a contract to be used for this purpose. He also gave the Board the go ahead to rent it out without Court permission (which they later found out is against the law). As a direct result of this, the Court appointed a trustee which ultimately led to the Boards loss of the property.
15. At several points in time reference was made to the above mentioned motion and lawsuit on the stand in Court with Mr. Santura present. At no point in time did he ever admit that those motions and the case were never filed.
16. As a direct result of the lies, deceit, and false promises by Mr.’s Santura and Bresser, the Court accepted Mr. Spritzer’s claim and ultimately appointed a trustee over the Corp. Since then, the trustee has given ownership of the camp property over to Mr. Spritzer for the sum of $1.3 million which was given as security. Those funds were mostly distributed back to Spritzer related claims leaving the Corp. without camp grounds or money.

MR. CONWAY – COURT APPOINTED TRUSTEE

After Mr. Conway’s appointment as trustee in 2006 he neglected his responsibilities as a trustee for Machne Menachem (“The Corp.”). In place of working with the Corp. for the good of the Corp., Mr. Conway worked against the Corp. and refused to meet with the Board of Directors (“The Board”). He also submitted several motions against the Board of Directors which were rejected by the Court.

1. In spite of the Board ‘s insistence that Mr. Spritzer’s children were not owed any money, and in spite of the objections filed to these payouts, Mr. Conway paid the Spritzer’s children’s claim to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars.
2. In spite of Mr. Conway’s knowledge of the Board’s objection to Mr. Schriber’s claim, Mr. Conway paid the claim as submitted to the tune of over $100,000.
3. Mr. Conway paid claims to creditors despite the Boards objection. Many of those claims had already been paid, and some had failed to provide proof of claim. One of those companies (Ahava) had already failed to prove its claim in court. Nevertheless, Mr. Conway paid that claim.
4. Despite Mr. Conway’s knowledge of the fact that Mr. Spritzer was not allowed to use the Corp. funds to pay his lawyers, and despite a motion filed by the Corp. to recover the funds already taken by Mr. Spritzer to pay his lawyers, Mr. Conway paid tens of thousands of dollars more to Spritzer lawyers – against the interest of the Corp., from the Corp. money.
5. In place of acting as a trustee and confident of the Corp., Mr. Conway conspired with Mr. Spritzer, meeting with him and discussing the case on several occasions, while refusing to acknowledge the Board.
6. As of  Today the Board has still not received an accounting of the 1.3 million dollars in the trust. There has been no information provided by Mr. Conway on payouts, only as the Board has learned from Court proceedings. It stands that there is around $500,000 still left, which means that Mr. Conway paid out around $800,000 without the Board’s knowledge or consent.