Forging Piskei Dinim: It is Spritzer who continuously made a Mockery of the Bais Din

Spritzer has countless times disobeyed the Bais Din, spit in their faces and stepped all over them.  He then put them on a silver platter and gets to claim “Kovod Harabonim”.

Here is the fake Psak Din which Spritzer tried to represent to the court.

The court did not accept this as evidence (coopering it to the original), the Judge looked at it, and just let it roll out of his hand, on to the floor.

The court saw it for what it was, a fake. written by Spritzer himself. Yet, Spritzer sells to anyone that will listen stories of how it is he who is for “Kovod Harabonim”.

To note: you will not find this document in any court files (for it was totally disregarded).

Rabbi Meir & Mendel Hershkop , the founders and original directors of Machane Menachem approached Rabbi Marlow ob”m showing him the forged “Psak” and ask him, “היתכן that after the Bais Din comes out with a Psak (which was given to both parties) , they go ahead and sign a second Psak – to the liking of Spritzer – to pour salt on the wounds?” To this Rabbi Marlow replied “I don’t know to what you are referring, I never saw nor signed such a Psak”.

The “Psak” was written by Spritzers lawyer, Peretz Bronstein (without the second party even knowing about this “new” “Psak” until they came to court).

See for yourself…

יראה העם וישפוט

Go back, read the real Psak Dinnim, does this make sence?

Go back, read the real Psak Dinnim, does this make sense? a Letter written by Peretz Bronstein himself. Since when do lawyers write letters for Bais Din? Why not present to the court the real (original) Psak?

puzzuled! was the reaction of Rabbi Shmuel Heber when seeing this what ever it's serposed to be.

It is incredulous for them to state in the letter that "Shmuel Heber is Posae'ach al Shtei Hase'ifim.” This statement has no meaning or relevance to the entire case and we cannot understand its intention. Moreover, Shmuel Heber was not involved in any din torah about Machne Menachem!

11 Responses to Forging Piskei Dinim: It is Spritzer who continuously made a Mockery of the Bais Din

  1. no need to know says:

    proof?
    the letter from Rabbi Marlow look genuine to me! you have to prove that it’s a fake…
    all the tainus you bring are all in regard to the baalus, but the nihul is sadly to spritzer…

    by the way, since when is there baalus on a non-profit-org?!

  2. no need to know says:

    is the pask that was hanging in the rabonim’s box all these years also forged?

  3. machanemenachem says:

    “proof?”

    I already wrote:
    1-“the “Psak” was written by Spritzers lawyer, Peretz Bronstein (without the second party even knowing about this “new” Psak until they came to court).”
    I also already wrote:
    2-The court did not accept this as evidence, the Judge looked at it, and just let it roll out of his hand, on to the floor. etc.. etc..

    The first time the Original directors saw this “Psak” was in court (in front of the Judge). Usually when Bais Din comes out with a Psak, they send it to both parties.

    [besides: you will just have to trust what I’m saying/writing, especially when I (when at all possible) back up anything I say/write. I have ten years worth of stuff, I would not go down a path that I didn’t need to, unless I was 100% sure about what I’m about to write].
    P.S. In the future, be more direct, either say straight up I’m lying (and explaining why) or tell use something we might not know. I’m not afraid of the truth (that after all is my goal).

  4. machanemenachem says:

    “all the tainus you bring are all in regard to the baalus, but the nihul is sadly to spritzer…”

    If it’s so clear, then tell me, why did Spritzer go to court (in middle of a Din Torah)?

    Once he went to court and lost, He can’t suddenly remind himself of the Psak etc… Once he went to court, he gave up on that Psak (for after all he did not rely on it himself).

    Let’s not forget, it was Spritzer that went to court in middle of a Din Torah.

    It’s been almost two year since he’s been called to a Din Torah, why hasn’t he shown up, after all he has the above Psak, no?

  5. machanemenachem says:

    “by the way, since when is there baalus on a non-profit-org?!”

    I don’t really understand were your trying to go with this one. correct me if I’m wrong, are you trying to say that anybody can kick out and steal from any boss/owner/founder etc… from a non-profit organization, because it’s non-for profit?

    Can I go take over Hatzala?
    Can I go take over any Chesed organization That just comes to mind?

    Explain yourself!

  6. machanemenachem says:

    “is the pask that was hanging in the rabonim’s box all these years also forged?”

    I know were your going with this and I’m willing to roll with it. (I know what your next question is going to be, but I will wait for you to ask it).

    Yes, If the “psak” that was hanging in the Machlokes is the same fake Psak I have displayed above, then it’s obviously a fake. 1+1=2.

  7. no need to know says:

    You wrote:
    Yes, If the “psak” that was hanging in the Machlokes is the same fake Psak I have displayed above, then it’s obviously a fake. 1+1=2.

    oh, so Rabbi Osdoba didn’t have a problem having a forged psak hanging in 770 for so many years?
    maybe just he didn’t know about it… com’mon… get real…

    regarding the non profit stuff you write… if the nihul of hatzala is to someone, then you’re right, the “owner” (which besides having his name on the paper) can NOT take it away…

    also, you still didn;t prove that Rabbi Marlow’s letter is fake, you only mentioned the first one (which that also isn’t such a raaya)

  8. Emes says:

    machanemenachem Says:

    “I don’t really understand were your trying to go with this one. correct me if I’m wrong, are you trying to say that anybody can kick out and steal from any boss/owner/founder etc… from a non-profit organization, because it’s non-for profit?

    Can I go take over Hatzala?
    Can I go take over any Chesed organization That just comes to mind?

    Explain yourself!”

    It’s actually very simple:
    If Spritzer won the “nihul”, the “balus” comes along with it!

    ————————————————————————–
    MM replies:
    Your just repeating your first point/question (again), I will not repeat my responds, for it stays the same.
    [I know this game, seen it on many other forums and blogs, I’ll talk/write till I’m blue and you”ll just keep saying the same thing as if I don’t even exist. I’m not going to play].

    I will respond with this: Learn to read! You must read everything I posted before, it’s all interconnected.
    How do I know you didn’t read everything I posted before?
    You told us.
    You did not even bother to read my previous responds, I can easily assume you didn’t bother reading everything else. The way it’s going to work with you and your type, your going to say what you want and disregard anything else anybody else says.

  9. machanemenachem says:

    “oh, so Rabbi Osdoba didn’t have a problem having a forged psak hanging in 770 for so many years?
    maybe just he didn’t know about it… common… get real…”

    This (the question above) is what I meant when I wrote…

    “I know were your going with this and I’m willing to roll with it. (I know what your next question is going to be, but I will wait for you to ask it).”

    ————————————————————————————-

    About responding to comments:
    I’m B”H Married, have Children and have a actual job- one that I have to actually get up in the morning for. I hardly have time to do what I have done until now (the comments is the last thing on my list). In time I will respond to your comments (if I approved them, it’s for a reason).

    Not all comments will be approved,
    Which ones?

    1-Propaganda

    2-general statements,(which is part of number 1) containing no facts, explanations and/or evidence.

    3- If I feel (from my experience) that you did not even bother to read everything else on this site and just feel the need to make random statements (with out knowing or caring to know all the facts), I reserve the right not to post your comment.

    4- Any comment that states “I dare you to post this comment” will NOT be posted.

    5- you must attach your e-mail
    [if you are sure of what you are stating, you should not be afraid to go one on one with me. I find that what a person [usually cowards] will say or do in a public setting is much different then when he or she is alone].If you want to be Anonymous and not us your day to day e-mail address, then just make a new one (it’s free) just for us].
    6- Fairness: As the individual(s) running this site, I have an option of allowing comments or not. I have chosen out of fairness to allow your comments, that is my stand. Therefore I am making it clear here, this is not going to be a one way street, were you get to be the only one asking questions, if you are having a discussion, it has to be two ways, otherwise, I will consider you from those just looking to make trouble (and not really interested in the truth), and therefor will not approve any of your comments.

    AGAIN! YOU MUST READ ALL PREVIOUS POST (WORD BY WORD, WITH ALL THE DOCUMENTATIONS) BEFORE COMMENTING.

    thank you all, I encourage you to comment and ask etc…

    If you really are interested in the truth, you can always contact any of the original directors directly and they will be more then happy to answer any of your question.

  10. camper says:

    “Since when do lawyers write psak Dinnim for Bais Din?”

    Better yet, since when does a Bais Din sign a “psak” that a lawyer wrote?
    Why did they have to re-write the “psak”, was not the originals good enough?

    The original “psak dinim” were put up in the Mochlokes box and after a while were replaced with the new one, why is that?
    who controlled the contents of that box anyways?

  11. By the Grace of G-d
    23rd of Adar Rishon, 5763

    To All Residents of our Community

    Greeting and Blessing!

    In light of the fact that, this past week, a letter signed by two members of the Beis Din Tzedek began circulating in the neighborhood concerning the summer camp Machne Menachem, we feel compelled to set the record straight with this short letter. This is particularly true since the above-mentioned letter was written caustically, unlike standard letters of the Beis Din. After reading the following facts, it will become crystal clear who instigated this letter and for what motive.

    1. When we were forced to appear in court, to defend ourselves in a case initiated by Yakov Spritzer, he claimed we did not represent the Board of
    Directors and accused us of baseless lies and other falsehoods. After five years of hardship and great personal anguish, and after detailed examination and inquiry by the judge, the court recently ruled in our favor – that we always were, and still remain, the Board of Directors of Machne Menachem. Thank G-d, the judge totally negated and nullified all accusations and lies hurled at us by Yakov Spritzer. (The entire ruling will mailed under separate cover, bli neder.)

    2. Upon receiving the ruling from the judge, we began seriously working on a summer program. We planned to open a Yeshivas Kayitz (summer yeshiva program) for all yeshiva students, something sorely lacking in the five years the camp was not in our hands.

    3. Although we could have easily filled registration with children from other areas, or have rented space to other organizations, we felt duty-bound to help the children of our neighborhood. This was an honor for us. We therefore sent our suggestions (see enclosed insert) to the administrators of local schools, with ideas that resolve two most pressing concerns: 1) To find adequate space for all yeshiva students, for the entire summer; 2) To provide scholarships for those – blessed with large families, or those who simply cannot afford to pay the required amount. They; too, will now be able to send their children to camp. Similarly worded documents were sent to the administrators of both Oholei Torah and Lubavitcher Yeshiva.

    4. Hearing of this development, Yakov Shpritzer approached the administrator of
    Torah and asked him to deny our request. Furthermore, he promised to bring a letter from the Rabborum,” with a clear ruling forbidding anyone to enroll in our program. Tie fulfilled this assurance and the letter was promptly written.

    5. According to the letter, the ruling of the Rabbonim is based on an earlier ruling dated 5757 (the original is enclosed). This raises undeniable concerns and inexplicable questions:

    I) The din torah was between Yitzchak Hartman and Meir Hershkop on one side, and Yakov Spritzer with Meir Schreiber on the other. This is explicitly written in the ruling. Hence, the din torah did not pertain to us at all.

    II) The entire ruling was, as clearly stated, based on the opinion of local educators. They were asked about the above individuals – Spritzer and Hershkop – and not about Spritzer and Heber at all.

    III) The entire debate was, as expressed clearly; about management alone. Ownership was not even mentioned. This was because the Rabbonim did not yet know who were officially registered as the real owners. Now that the judge ruled we have ownership and are considered to be the board of directors, this gives us the authority to decide who should run the camp.

    IV) Three years ago, a respected member of our community asked Rabbi Osdoba if he would abide by the ruling of the judge regarding the camp. Rabbi Osdoba wrote him a response, dated Sunday, Mar Rishon, 5760, in which he wrote: “Will the bees din accept the ruling of the courts? The Halacha stipulates that ‘the law of the land is law’ This individual showed us this response back then, and also showed it to us again now

    V) It is incredulous for them to state in the letter that “Shmuel Heber is Posae’ach al Shtei Hase’ifim.” This statement has no meaning or relevance to the entire case and we cannot understand its intention. Moreover, Shmuel Heber was not involved in any din torah about Machne Menachem!

    6 When we were at the Ohel, we wrote to the Rebbe about our expressed intention to bring positive changes for the children of our _neighborhood, but we were barn. g purposely and forcefully prevented by others. Later, when we entered the small shut, we were amazed to see a video playing the Rebbe’s talk of Purim 5747, in which he explains at length the criteria of a Ray, based on two paragraphs (Se’ifim) found in Rambam (Hilchos Talmud Torah 4:1, and Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 19:17). We understood that this referred expressly to our circumstances, hinting that these were the two Se’ifim
    (see the two paragraphs of Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 246:8, and Even Ho’Ezer 2:5, and the Hayom Yom of this date in both months of Adar.)

    7. Regretfully; the damage now affects parents of children living in our neighborhood, who will be forced to find an alternate camp for their children and pay full price – an exorbitant amount of money. Children whose parents cannot afford this large amount will languish in the city for the summer, with all the dire consequences this entails. We do not wish to elaborate on the great pain, and anguish facing our community, an intolerant situation caused by certain individuals fueled by personal hate and egotism. To attain’ their goals, they are prepared to destroy the education our children richly deserve.

    With respect and blessing,
    Shmuel Heber Mendel Hershkop
    Yosef Goldman
    Machne Menachem, Board of Directors

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: