Updated June 3, 2009
For the Mailing that was sent to all residents of Crown Height Click Here
To address the question being asked by the public:
Why wasn’t the camp open for our children when the original directors got back their camp (between the years of 2003 to 2006)?
The original directors’ and owners intentions and purpose, were to insure the best camp for our children. The first year of the camp, 1995, was successful beyond all expectations. The enrollment was initially 250 children, which rose to approximately 400/500 children and it was expected to increase.
In 1996 a dispute arose amongst the Directors of the Corporation and Yaakov Spritzer “took the camp away.” For approximately 5 or 6 years, despite the protests of Shmuel Heber, Yosef Goldman and Mendel Hershkop, and without following the Not for Profit Laws, Yaakov Spritzer directed the Camp with Meir Schrieber. Yaakov Spritzer was also the one to put the camp in Bankruptcy. After the decision of Judge Glasser which decided that Shmuel Heber, Yosef Goldman and Mendel Hershkop were still directors of the Corporation, Shmuel Heber, spoke to the school principals (of Crown Heights) and the directors (of those schools) and gave a very good offer to the principals and directors for their students to attend the camp, as a whole Yeshiva for the summer.
Thereafter, Yaakov Spritzer approached the principals and directors and stated “don’t agree with them” [Heber, Goldman and Hershkop], I will bring you a letter from the Beth Din of Crown Heights that no one should attend this camp. A letter was thereafter obtained and mailed to all the members of the community stating “…no one should participate in camp “Machne Menachem and Gan Menachem” in any way whatsoever, (including to register their son(s) as campers or as a staff member), as long as the organization is being directed in opposition to the ruling of the Beth Din.” Mr. Spritzer went against the good of the camp, causing our children and our community a great loss.
The following letter was sent out to the principals of our Yeshivas
The following is an excerpt from a letter/motion to the Court (Judge Glasser), which explains (in better words then I can describe) what went on… (written by Meir Hershkop, March 5, 2003)
Our (the defendants’) efforts to reactivate the Camp
I want to advise the Court that since this Court’s decision reinstating (certain) defendants as directors we (the defendants) have been working diligently to reactivate and rejuvenate Camp Machne Menachem. For example, we paid several thousand dollars to reinstate the insurance for the Camp which had lapsed because Spritzer deliberately let it lapse by failing to pay the insurance. Likewise, we paid the arrears on the Camp’s telephone bill (of over a thousand dollars) so as to reconnect the telephone line. Again, Spritzer had deliberately let the Camp’s phone line become disconnected, by failing to pay the phone bills.
We opened a new office for the Camp. We printed brochures touting the Camp. More important, we met with the principals and administrators of various schools in the community to discuss the Camp and some innovative ideas for the use of the Camp. We were delighted that we received a very positive, and indeed, enthusiastic responses from the school’s principals and administrators to our plans. (See e.g., the attached letter from Rabbi Shmuel Heber to Rabbi Rosenfeld.)
But Spritzer and his attorneys take action to block our efforts (through Bais Din);
Finally, I must bring to this Court’s attention an attempt by the plaintiff Spritzer and plaintiff camp’s attorneys to undermine and void this Court’s decision declaring defendants directors of the plaintiff Camp. I (and some of the other defendants) have received a letter from the Crown Heights Bais Din, (a copy of which is attached hereto) which threatens anyone who should send their child to our camp.
The Court must not make a mistake – this letter was not issued sua Aponte. We have ample reason to believe that plaintiff’s attorneys directly solicited and then supported the Bais Din’s issuance of this letter, and may even have helped draft the Bais Din letter. This is shocking in view of the attorneys’ status as “Officers of the Court” and yet they were and are actively working to nullify the decision of this Court by way of improper threats and innuendo. Aside from their status as “Officers of the Court,” these attorneys are supposed to represent the Camp and it is therefore a clear and utter breach of their obligations to the Camp to attempt to stop the Camp’s functioning.
It is certainly improper for plaintiff Spritzer who claims to be a director of the Camp, to deliberately work against the Camp of which he claims to be a director; and certainly it is unheard of that Spritzer should attempt to force the closing of a Camp in which he is supposed to be a director. This is a plain breach by Spritzer of his fiduciary duties to the Camp.
A letter sent out to the community by the original directors (2001)