LATEST PSAK REGARDING THE CAMP

The Bais Din’s Latest Psak Regarding Machne Menachem

English Translation

B”H
Wednesday 24 Adar, 5767

To R’ Spritzer and the Brothers R’ Meir and R’ Mendel Hershkop Sheyiehyu.

As there was no conclusion and Psak Din (ruling) with regard to the ownership of Machne Menachem. And there are complaints over the partnership of the above mentioned camp. We are notifying with this letter that until these complaints will be discussed and concluded by a Bais Din that deals with monetary issues on a steady basis in accordance with our holy Torah, there is no permission for anyone to open the camp (even under another name) and use it as his own. We are putting an (ikul) injunction on R’ Yaakov Spritzer not to open the camp and not register any children or hire workers for the camp until the complaints will be adjudicated at a Bais Din.

On this I sign
In the name of the Bais Din
Rabbi Yitzchak Raitport

For Hebrew…

r-raitports-psak

Rabbi Segal sends out a notice to the Bais Din of Monsey about this case:

Rabbi Segal Letter to Monsey regarding machne menachem -Chayolei Hamelech

As of Today, (June 3, 2009- 11 Sivan) Spritzer has not shown up to a Din Torah. He is managing to delay the process (as he is known to do), but to the Din Torah he is not showing up.

The Monsey Bais Din sends Spritzer a Warning

B''D Monsey

————————————————————————–

The following letters were given out last year (2008) by the original directors of Machne Menachem.

B”H

MACHNE MENACHEM LOGO

Isru Chag Pasach 5768 -2008

Soldiers of the Rebbe or Mutineers against the Rebbe

Warning

Of late a member of our community gave notice that he is opening a summer camp by the name of Chayolei Hamelech in Lackawaxen, PA.

We are hereby notifying the community that this is mutiny against the Rebbe Chas Vesholom. According to Torah law we are the rightful owners of that property and do not give him permission to use this property. One who sends his children to this camp is considered a thief C”V. In a camp on stolen property, one can never accomplish a Chassidic education.

The Crown Heights Bais Din has put an injunction on Mr. Spritzer and forbade him to use these premises, until the ownership will be determined (attached is the B”D Letter).

Upon the advice of the Bais Din we called for a Din Torah outside Crown Heights. We called Mr. Spritzer to the Bais Din of Machon Lehoraya in Monsey (see attached doc) and after 3 Hazmonos and warning to Siruv he started mocking the Bais Din, he was warned by the Bais Din to stop mocking them. As of today he has not appeared in front of the Bais Din.

With blessing of a healthy and safe summer

Signed,
Board members of Machne Menachem

[Hebrew Translation]

Warning Hebrew

55 Responses to LATEST PSAK REGARDING THE CAMP

  1. no need to know says:

    a couple points you need to explain:
    – if there is an ikkul, then why wasn’t rabbi spritzer sent a hazmana to beis din… eveyone know that an “ikkul” is untill the situation is clarifeid, which is sent together with a hazmana to a din torah…
    Rabbi Osdoba told me that the beis din never sent spritzer a hazmana…
    – when i asked rabbis osdoba and zirkind about the ikkul, they told me they don;t know about it…
    – I heard that Rabbi Zirkind’s nephew was a head counselor in that camp…
    – where is the ksav siruv from this monsey beis din.. you only show the hasraa… according to this paper, yud shvat last year spritzer should have received a ksav seruv from this beis din…
    – why did only one rabbi sign… with the other rabbonim not notified about it…

  2. Emes says:

    Just adding to “no need to know”:

    I personally know numerous people who asked Rabbi Osdoba
    if they can go to Chayolei Hanelech, and his response was Yes.

  3. Camper says:

    Emes Wrote:

    “I personally know numerous people who asked Rabbi Osdoba if they can go to Chayolei Hanelech, and his response was Yes.”

    Is that so?
    I personally know numerous people who personally know other numerous people who personally know even more numerous people that say the opposite.

    Your probably thinking that what I wrote above is just plain stupid, if thats what your thinking, then your right, it is stupid.

    Emes, if you want to say that “I” personally asked R. Osdoba, thats fine. Then I would ask you this…
    To one person he says one thing and another he says something else?

  4. Emes says:

    Camper Said:
    “Emes, if you want to say that “I” personally asked R. Osdoba, thats fine.”

    Apparently you didn’t read my name right.(Yes, i don’t make things up just for convenience!)

    Then Camper Said:
    Then I would ask you this…
    To one person he says one thing and another he says something else?

    I think that question should be addressed to the Rabbi himself.(But regardless, it still doesn’t change the facts.)

  5. noneedtoknow says:

    To camper:
    If you have a problem with Emes (whoever he is), well, take this: I MYSELF asked Rabbi Osdobo before the summer if I can send my 2 kids to the camp, and he answered YES.
    When I asked him about the ikkul, he said he dosen’t know much about it…
    When I asked if the beis dim of CH ever sent him a hazmana with the ikkul, he said NO.

    So if we have an OK from the Rav, are you going to be the one to argue?

  6. two sides to the story says:

    There are two sides to every story,
    I wonder what Spritzer has to say.

  7. “There are two sides to every story,
    I wonder what Spritzer has to say.”

    This is the “other” side of the story,

    Last Shabbos, I informed one of the mispallim in my shul about this site, I asked him this week what he thinks about it, He replied “it’s finally nice to see the other side of the story”.

    For years, we have been hearing Spritzer side (with all the leis and deceit etc…) this site is meant to say the [other] story.

    So let’s not go and make “poor little Spritzer” as if hes the underdog, the poor Nebach… the victim!
    He has and always will be the aggressor and bully, those days are over!

  8. Must know says:

    can anybody explain to me, if spritzer won the camp back, why is it called Chayallai Hamelech and not Machne Menachem?

  9. Me again says:

    Spritzer didn’t win “the camp” back, he “won” the camp’s assets. (i.e. the camp property)

  10. Must know says:

    Me again wrote:

    Spritzer didn’t win “the camp” back, he “won” the camp’s assets. (i.e. the camp property)

    What does that mean?
    Why is he saying that he won the camp back?

  11. Spritzer didn’t win “the camp” back, he “won” the camp’s assets. (i.e. the camp property)

    please, don’t assume anybody knows what you are talking about, by all means, explain to the people what exactly happened! Why spritzer went to Bankruptcy court, when did spritzer go to bankruptcy court and was in Halachically allowed?
    I have plenty of more questions, I just want to see your side of the story first (heres your chance, take it).

  12. Me Again says:

    1. It is NOT “my” side of the story. I’ll say straight up that most of what I know on the matter came from Spritzer’s side, but it’s not “my” side of the story.

    “explain to the people what exactly happened!”

    In a nutshell: Spritzer filed for bankruptcy (while he was still running the camp) with the vast majority of the debt being owed to him and his family.
    Sometime afterward Spritzer lost the camp in Glasser’s court.
    Eventually the (Bankruptcy) court accepted a plan in which he (Spritzer) would pay up all the debt in exchange for the camp’s assets.
    (wow, I just condensed like 4 years into 5 lines!)

    “Why spritzer went to Bankruptcy court, when did spritzer go to bankruptcy court”

    When: Towards the end of the case by Glasser.

    Why:
    I’m can’t say for sure, you’ll have to ask him.
    I think it was one of two things, either
    A. He was trying to pull it out from under Glasser’s feet. -or-
    B. As a safety net in case Glasser rules against him.
    whatever the case is, I personally think it was a stupid move on his part doing it when he did, as I think it really ticked of Glasser and turned him against Spritzer big time.

    “and was in Halachically allowed?”

    I assume the question is if Bankruptcy in general is Halachically permissible.
    I don’t know, ask a Rov.
    (Considering that his plan included full repayment of the debt I don’t see why not -but like I said, I’m not a Rov…)

  13. Must know says:

    “Spritzer filed for bankruptcy (while he was still running the camp) with the vast majority of the debt being owed to him and his family.”

    Who created this “vast majority of Debt”, was it not spritzer himself?

    According to glassers verdict, spritzer had no right all those year to be running the camp or spending the camps money (or even loaning money to the camp), without the other board of directors approval.

    “owed to him and his family”

    And spritzer is the one who claimed in court, that the Hershkops tried to take over the camp for their own gain.
    This question was asked already, were is the investment that he put in to the camp?

    On everything else you wrote, you concur to what the original directors have been saying…meaning…

    “He was trying to pull it out from under Glasser’s feet.”

    He lost in the din torah, so he went to court, he saw that he was losing in court so he went to bankruptcy court.

    “As a safety net in case Glasser rules against him.”

    So even if the court found that he is not the true rightful owner (the person who founded the camp and brought the property, that there are another 3 directors (who could rightfully vote him out), he still had a back door.

    “I assume the question is if Bankruptcy in general is Halachically permissible.
    I don’t know, ask a Rov.”

    Why isn’t spritzer going to a din torah (were he will find out whether what he did was Halachically permissible, he should be more then glad to go, does he not want to do the right thing?.

  14. Emes says:

    Must know Says:

    “He lost in the din torah, so he went to court”

    May i ask: which Din Torah are you referring to?

    machnemenachem replies:
    Please, for your own sakes, make up your mind to whether you think the camp is spritzers because he won some type of Din Torah or its his because he won (if you can say that) in bankruptcy court.
    Your setting yourself up.

  15. facts says:

    Even the Bankruptcy court recognized the original board of directors of Machne Menachem, so in essence spritzer didn’t really get what he wanted.
    I don’t remember (when he swindled the camp) that the Mishichist party (meaning: spritzers friend), being so excited, even they know that this was not a real victory.
    Anybody else could have came and did the same thing spritzer did, this that spritzer has the property now, has nothing to do with who really owns the camp.

    it was Spritzer who put the camp in debt to begin with. It was spritzer that racked up all those bills, not the original directors.
    Now, spritzer is trying to give the illusion that he is the rightful owner of the camp. Why is it that they are using the same logo as MM (with a few slit changes)?.

    Bottom line ,He did not start this camp. he did not pay for this camp, if spritzer would not have taken this to bankruptcy court, he would not have had the camp (property). What he did was just unethical and not the way a Jew acts.

  16. Camper says:

    “A. He was trying to pull it out from under Glasser’s feet. -or-
    B. As a safety net in case Glasser rules against him.”

    sounds like a coward to me!

    It’s one thing if it was him that was TAKEN to court,
    thats understandable that he must do everything to fight for whats his. But here HE took others to court, and when it was not going his way, like a coward (who can’t face justice) he ran somewere else.

    COWARD!

  17. Zalmen K. says:

    If Spritzer was running the camp so well, why did he need to go to bankruptcy court?

  18. Emes says:

    Zalmen K. Says:

    “If Spritzer was running the camp so well, why did he need to go to bankruptcy court?”

    He’s gonna say that it was them who mishandled the money (Yes, i wasn’t there, but just giving his side of the story. And no, that doesn’t mean i”m taking sides, I”m just saying that your question is invalid).

  19. Emes wrote:

    He’s gonna say that it was them who mishandled the money (Yes, i wasn’t there, but just giving his side of the story. And no, that doesn’t mean i”m taking sides, I”m just saying that your question is invalid).

    I can’t believe I have to respond to this (at this rate,I wont have time to do anything else).

    OK, here we go (again).

    I’m going to hold your hand and try my best to explain, please pay attention!

    Q. When did Spritzer take over the camp?
    A. Summer,1996, the first year (that was the year the property was brought).

    Q. When did spritzer go to Federal court?
    A. After the summer of, 1996.

    Q. Who (because of the court case) was running the camp all those 7 years (that the case was in court)?
    A. Yankel Spritzer and his family.

    Q. So it was Spritzer handling all accounts/money of the camp, all those years?
    A. A-B-C, 1-2-3, one plus one is two.

    Q. When did Spritzer take this case to bankruptcy court?
    A. before Judge Glasser came out with his verdict.

    Q. So, your saying that when Spritzer took this case to bankruptcy court, he was still running the camp?
    A. Yes, thats a fact (thats what history shows).

    Q. So, if Spritzer was basically running the camp since the beginning (and started the bankruptcy even before he lost the case), when did the other directors ever have a chance to “mishandled” or mismanage the camp (and camp money etc…etc…)?

    A. That my friend, is a good question

  20. Emes says:

    machnemenachem replies:
    “Please, for your own sakes, make up your mind to whether you think the camp is spritzers because he won some type of Din Torah or its his because he won (if you can say that) in bankruptcy court.
    Your setting yourself up.”

    Whats the stira?

  21. Did anybody even bother to read…
    Latest papers submitted to Bankruptcy Court of Pennsylvania by the Original Directors

    It’s all explained there.

    Please, take the time, it’s worth the read.

  22. no need to know says:

    just wondering:
    what happened between the years 2001-2007?!
    who had the camp then?
    Not spritzer

  23. machnemenachem says:

    “what happened between the years 2001-2007?!
    who had the camp then?”

    your point being?
    What are you trying to get at?

  24. noneedtoknow says:

    Nothing… just wondering what happened all those years, as nothing is recorded on this site about those years

  25. This site is about how the camp was stolen from the original directors/owners.

    They got it back 2003 (or they were running it for the first time by 2003), and then had it ripped off/swindled, (again) by the end of the summer of 2006.
    what is there really to recored about those years?

  26. noneedtoknow says:

    the last time there was a camp there, I think it was 2001 (maybe 2002), then I remember that they tried to make a camp or menachem (or something like that, I don’t remember exactly).
    what was with the camp all those years? if the original directors had the camp, why didn’t they MAKE a camp?
    I heard that the camp was rented to Bobov (when I was there for visiting day this year, I was told that the Mikve was built by Bobuv…)
    Why?

  27. I’ll ignore the fact that you are changing the subject.

    סוף מעשה במחשבה תחלה

    Again, why this dance? Get to your point!
    What are you (in essence) trying to say?
    I /we (the readers) can see, from the way you write or ask “just questions” that
    you not just some random guy asking questions etc… Your trying to get something out of this, I know what it is (and by the way it is for my benefit), but since you brought up the subject, I/we would like you to expand and explain, what you think you know (about why our own children from Crown Heights could not enjoy the camp those years).
    So we wait (for you)
    Go a head,
    Write on!

  28. noneedtoknow says:

    You keep on thinking I’m involved in this story.
    I promise you: I’m not!
    All I know is from THIS SITE.
    What do u want ME to write? YOU explain, as you know the whole story…

  29. Nothing to explain.
    The rightful owners had their camp back and that is that.

    What they did with it when they had it (as it belonged to them), Is really nobody’s business!
    I don’t tell you what to do with your property, don’t tell me (or anybody else) what to do with mine.

    What I do know: the original directors wanted to open the camp (when they got it back) for our children and Yeshivas (I have the letters they sent out and the brochure). Spritzer got involved (with threats and “Rabbonim” etc…Vdal) and everything went Kaput.
    To make a long story short, It’s a pity, but the community lost out.
    The main thing is that it was returned to its rightful owners and now (again) it was stolen, and nobody has the right to use that property.
    [side note: at the time that Spritzer did the above (causing the community to loss out) he was still legally part of the board of directors].

    P.S. Mr. noneedtoknow, I see how it’s going to work. You will know everything (all the right questions etc…) until your pushed to the corner, were, then you will pick up your hands and say “me? I don’t know anything”, “did I say something?”.

    If you don’t know (the whole story), better to keep your mouth closed!

  30. noneedtoknow says:

    Thanks for answering (at least that’s one question of mine that you actually answered!).
    [Moderator: This is going to be my last comment:]
    At least I know now the truth…:
    -the “original owners” had the property for five years, and there was no camp for us.
    Now spritzer has the camp, and there IS a camp there.

    -We (the parents) have an OK from the Rabbonim to send our children there.

    -The price is affordable (unlike other camps), the Chassidiskeit is great, and they Koch in Moshiach.

    -Thank you for this site for opening up all the facts for me.

    David G.
    Brooklyn, NY

  31. antimesira says:

    -the “original owners” had the property for five years, and there was no camp for us.”
    Now spritzer has the camp, and there IS a camp there.
    “The price is affordable (unlike other camps), the Chassidiskeit is great, and they Koch in Moshiach.

    “Right or wrong, you’re passionate. You care.” If that doesn’t sum up current liberal attitudes in the face of facts, I don’t know what does. Caring means more to them than actually knowing the difference between something that’s false/wrong and something that’s true/right.

    -We (the parents) have an OK from the Rabbonim to send our children there.

    I have a letter (that we can all see on this site), that says you can’t go to this camp (until Spritzer shows up to a Din Torah). Were is your letter?

  32. machnemenachem says:

    Like I already wrote:
    סוף מעשה במחשבה תחלה

    Your so called “conclusion” is no surprise, you already told us from the beginning, what you were going to do, no matter the truth, right or wrong.

    In your own words (in your first e-mail to me)

    I myself don’t care who owns it.. my children went there last year and had a good time. the main thing for me is the koch in Moshiach that’s there now… If I remember correctly, the “real” reason the camp was opened in the first place was that there should be camp the kochs in Moshiach after Gimmel Tammuz… so that’s the reason why I sent my 2 kids there now…

    Just (how do you say it?) “WONDERING”…

    What is your logic/reasoning/rationalization,
    behind your “conclusion”?

  33. Truth and Justice! says:

    “I myself don’t care who owns it…”

    “I don’t care about the facts”
    “I don’t care about Right and Wrong, true or false”
    “I don’t care that 7 families went through years and years of hell in court, because of a Mesira (biased on lies, all to get the camp I want to send my child to)”
    “I don’t care that the camp is stolen”
    “I don’t care about my child’s education”
    “I don’t care about the safety of my child (Vdal)”

    “I just don’t care! period!”

    When it comes to saving a few dollars, Truth, Justice, Right and Wrong don’t even matter. The Shulchan Aruch does not apply here for the reasons I gave above, mainly, saving money and “moshiach”.
    So please, Mr. Machne Menachem, don’t confuse us with facts, “WE DON”T CARE!”
    I,I and I is what matters, I will do whats best for me!
    Didn’t you get it from the beginning, no matter what you would say, no matter what you would proof, I would still do what I,I and I want!

    Do you really think I was concerned about the Truth,
    I know about all these things before, if I wanted to know the truth, if I even cared to know the truth, I could have contacted one of the real owners of the camp years ago (much before your site). I didn’t, Do you know why? You guessed it,
    BECAUSE “I DON’T CARE”

  34. Gam Zu Letova says:

    Right or wrong, “you’re passionate. You care”.

    Man, you sure give people the benefit of the doubt.
    What makes you think these people have any compassion,
    what makes you think they even care, I mean the man said himself “I don’t care”.

    Machne Menachem, your doing a great job, keep it up, but don’t waist your time with the above people,
    They don’t care about the truth.
    There are those that will see this site (sadly, very few) and will think twice before making a move.

    Besides, from the way he writes, he defiantly someone from the Spritzer Mafia pretending to be a father with two children etc… his whole goal was to say what he said in his last post. you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that.

  35. noneedtoknow says:

    I know I write that my previous comment was to be the last one, but I feel the need to answer the question posed to me by “antimesirah”
    I don’t need a “letter” from a Rav to send my children there, I have an OK from Rabbi Osdobo and from Rabbi Schwei. and anyone who asks them also gets an OK (all those I asked, everyone said that Rabbi Osdobo either said “yes” or “I don’t know” or “Don’t mix me in” – depending who and how the question was asked).
    To me he said yes, and that’s enough!

    Of course “I care” about the 7 family’s – but “conscience” by itslef: that’s not enough of a reason to pull out…

  36. Truth and Justice says:

    MM:
    Camp Machne Menachem was founded by the Hershkops, R. Shmuel Heber, and R. Yosef Goldman.


    noneedtoknow:
    “who cares”

    MM:
    Immediately after the first season (at the beginning of registration for the second season) Spritzer already started to dispute with the other directors, refusing to show any of the financial dealing, and thus raising concern regarding his handling of the monies. (A point of contention was that some of the other directors were actively fund raising for scholarships for underprivileged children, and Spritzer would simply take the money and claim there is no money to allow underpaying children.

    noneedtonkow:
    “who cares, moshiach now!”

    MM:
    Levi Hartman (Meir Hershkop’s son-in-law) found, negotiated, and set up the purchase of the current camp grounds in Lackawaxen,PA, and he did this on personal time and at personal cost.

    noneedtoknow:
    “who cares, what a waist of time, moshiach is on the way”

    MM:
    There was never a Psak Din removing the directors from ownership in the camp.

    noneedtoknow:
    “who cares”

    MM:
    Spritzer initiated all court proceedings, initiating the Messira that came thereafter.

    noneedtoknow:
    “who cares, they must have done something wrong, otherwise why would Spritzer take them to court? Dooow!”

    MM:
    To date, a large amount of community funds remains unaccounted for, and is assumed either personally pocketed or at the very best was used to fund lawsuits that attempted to put other Yidden in prison.

    noneedtoknow:
    “who cares, it’s not my money”

    MM:
    Spritzer blatantly ignored any Psak Din that was not to his liking, and continues to do so:
    1) The Rabbonim ordered Spritzer to make all financial records accessible to all the directors, and he did not do so at the time.
    * When Spritzer did get his ‘win’ in Beis Din and it seemed that the dispute is over, he decided to continue his fight – with personal (but frivolous) charges in Federal Court – suing for massive amounts of money and/or jail time.

    noneedtoknow:
    “who cares, Spritzer had a camp for my kids, it was cheap and has a koch in moshiach”

    MM:
    Spritzer has refused to come to a Din Torah more more then over two years.

    noneedtoknow:
    “who cares, he doesn’t need to be by the Din Torah, they can proceed without him, he won’t respect the Psak either way”.

    It’s a fact that facts don’t really mean anything!

  37. antimesira says:

    Of course “I care” about the 7 family’s – but “conscience” by itslef: that’s not enough of a reason to pull out…

    Are you Jewish, you have a Neshoma?

    con·science
    n.

    1. a. The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one’s conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong: Let your conscience be your guide.
    b. A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement: a document that serves as the nation’s conscience.
    c. Conformity to one’s own sense of right conduct: a person of unflagging conscience.

    2. The part of the superego in psychoanalysis that judges the ethical nature of one’s actions and thoughts and then transmits such determinations to the ego for consideration.

    Whats a Yid with out Conscience?

    3. Obsolete Consciousness.

    [Conscience is an ability or faculty or sense that leads to feelings of remorse when we do things that go against our moral values, or which informs our moral judgment before performing such an action. Such feelings are not intellectually reached, though they may cause us to ‘examine our conscience’ and review those moral precepts, or perhaps resolve to avoid repeating the behavior].

  38. antimesira says:

    Conscience

    A poor farmer desired to steal corn from his neighbor’s field. He took his young son along with him to be the lookout. Before the father began, he carefully observed his surroundings, looking in every direction to ensure the coast was clear. Seeing that he was safe, he was just about to fill his bag with fresh, golden corn, when his son cried out, “Father, there is someone watching!” The father panicked, grabbed his son’s hand, and they quickly left the field.

    Once they arrived in neutral territory, the father glanced back to see who had almost caught him. “Where is there someone watching?” questioned the father, as no one was in sight.

    “G-d is watching!” the son answered.

    The father, conscience-stricken, took his boy by the hand and hurried home without the stolen corn.

    (-)

    “You can’t fool G-d, and you can’t fool other people. The only one you can fool is yourself. And what is the achievement of fooling a fool?”
    —Rabbi Shmuel of Lubavitch

    (-)

    “Don’t use an excuse you wouldn’t put on paper.”

  39. So now Mesira is not part of Shulchan Aruch, it’s just a thing for the “Conscience”.
    In other words, Genava/stealing is Shulchan Aruch (right and wrong), but Mesira is just a thing of “Conscience”.*
    Last I checked the Shulchan Aruch is not very found of the Mossier, it speaks very harshly about a Jew who does Mesira, if I’m not mistaken it’s the worse thing a Jew can do.
    Besides, that I did bring proof hes a Ganev, but “who cares”, right?

    All the excuses and explanation, you can save for your children. When they come to you and ask… Tatty, how, if you know what was going on with this camp (you did write comments and sent e-mail), how did you send us to such a place.

    Then you will respond anyway you’d like.
    You will be confused and your children even more.
    I’m not going to get in to the Chinuch aspect of it all (not here, not now). I’ll just say this, if this is the way our children are being brought up, no wonder there is a lack of respect for anything, (starting from Rabbonim and anything of “Conscience”/helping others in need etc…).

    *it so happens to be that with this Mesira, Spritzer did manage to steal the camp for many years, not including all the time and money he caused other Jews to loss, all in trying to defend themselves etc… etc… How is that not stealing?

    P.S. To antimesira:
    Thank you for taking the time!
    Very well said.

  40. Emes says:

    Listen, I’ll be quite frank with you:
    All I know is, is that Rabbi Marlow (who i truly respect) clearly paskend that Spritzer should run the camp. All your tay’nes may or may not be correct, but they’re irrelevant. Because there’s a clear p’sak from Rabbi Marlow (And that’s all I (we) need to know)

    Now, you say that “run” and “ownership” are two separate things (that’s actually the whole basis for Rabbi Reitports p’sak).

    So how do you reconcile that, with a statement (with which i couldn’t agree more) made by, none other than, Meir Hershkop himself that:

    “In this connection, I must again remind the Court that the Camp is a non-profit organization – so that if Spritzer is removed from operating the Camp he will not be made one penny poorer by doing so, nor would Spritzer thereby be deprived of any property or monetary interest – because he doesn’t own the Camp or any part of the Camp. Nobody does. Naturally, if Spritzer lent money to the Camp, he will be entitled to repayment of that loan, in the same way any creditor of the Camp would be. The Court has merely to decide who should be operating the Camp – not who “owns” it”

    If you give me a satisfying answer, then I’m ‘bought’. But if not, then you have a lot of explaining to do, to me, and a large segment of the community that hold the words of Rabbi Marlow dearly, and most of all, to yourself, who embarked on such a unjust cause.

    Also, I only feel obliged to adhere to the genuine Rabonim of CH (i.e. Osdobo, Heller, Schwei), who unequivocally say (at least Osdobo and Schwei, with Heller not saying anything to the contrary) that Chayolei Hamelech is fine.

    (And even if you do recognize Rabbi Raitport as a Member of the BD, he definitely can’t just come along and single-handedly uproot a previous p’sak signed by three Rabonim! As explained in my second point)

  41. Just some simple Research
    Ownership of Corporations

    Understanding Nonprofit Ownership

    Now, I just wonder what the Shulchan Aruch has to say about all this.
    I guess for that answer, we will have to wait for a Din Torah.

  42. Iwanttoknow says:

    Free speech for me but not for thee.

  43. CHER says:

    I can’t help but notice how Spritzer arguments keep changing with the day.

  44. Emes means Truth says:

    Nobody ever denied what the Psak Din was; nobody ever said that it did not say that Spritzer should manage the camp for that year.

    But you CAN’T close a blind eye to all the EVENTS and FACTS that have happened at the time and there after.

    The Din Torah (as it says on the Psak) was only addressed to Rabbi Meir Hershkop and his son in-law Rabbi Levi Hartman, Who (as a matter of fact) were NOT legally part of the bored of directors, at the time they were very active directors/managers of the camp. The din Torah and the Psak were addresses only to them (all of this was already addressed on the site).

    Another FACT, Spritzer did not listen to ANYTHING the Rabbonim (including Rabbi Marlow OBM) ordered him to do. (So I don’t get this holy then now attitude when it comes to spritzer not listening to Rabbi Marlow).
    The other directors always listened to the Rabbonim.

    Being that the Official directors were not called to the Din Torah (and there names are not on the PSAK). They were and still are part of the camp “ownership” (until a Din Torah on that issue happens).

    It’s also a FACT of life, that it was Spritzer who went to court (etc…Etc…V’dal All this is already discussed on this site), without permission from the Rabbonim.

    TODAY, the same Rabbonim which you feel “obligated to adhere” write IN A PUPLIC LETTER (to everybody), that they want this Din Torah to happen (etc…Etc… All this is already on this site). And “all we know” that we have a letter to the public saying what it says (while all you have as “proof” is your “own” words, not very convincing). [beides the very same psak your trying to hold up high, says that the Din Torah is to continue, so NU?].

    I don’t really understand what your problem is with what Rabbi Hershkop wrote,
    If the is a VAAD (a board), Then it makes sense that nobody from that group can claim (for himself) that he is the sole “owner” of that organization.

    My understanding is (after reading the information on this site and speaking to the original directors face to face, which I would advice anybody to do, who really want to know the Truth), that if they (the original directors would have been more experienced in law and court Etc..etc… If they would have had money for proper full time lawyers, then this case would have been over before it even started. Unfortunately for them, Spritzer has plenty, plenty experience with court, Spritzer was using the camps money to fight the camp (all this is on the site).
    Like the saying goes “in hind sight, everything is 20/20.

    To close an eye to all these Facts and events with saying “all I know” or just dismissing everything by saying it’s irrelevant, is not fair and just and quit frankly very stupid (not much thinking goes in to such a reply).

    Must importantly, if all of these Tanyas (that are being made for Spritzer) are so great and so true, then let the man in all his righteousness step forward and make those claims in front of a Bais Din of Jewish Judges.

  45. all I know says:

    Listen, All I know is that people like you are irrelevant.
    All I know is that there is a Psak Din from Rabbi Marlow that the DIn Torah is to continue and that it hasn’t because spritzer went to court without permission from Rabbi Marlow (or any Rav for that matter). All I know is that Spritzer never gave any Din V’heshbon, making (in Rabbi Marlows words) Spritzer B’Chezkas Ganev!
    All WE know is that there is a public letter from the Bais Din (now), that nobody has permission to go to Spritzers camp (in matter of fact even if it was in the hands of the other directors, the same rule would aptly, except (in their case) they could Tanya/claim(and win) that Spritzer took them to court and lost, giving up his right to any din Torah).
    All I know is that I offered you an excellent opportunity to go straight to the source and you decline (which by the way you can still do any time), so all your augments are irrelevant.
    All I know is that We want some answers, and we are not getting any!

  46. Koved Harabonim says:

    Emes the chutzpinyak wrote:

    Also, I only feel obliged to adhere to the genuine Rabonim of CH (i.e. Osdobo, Heller, Schwei)…
    …(And even if you do recognize Rabbi Raitport as a Member of the BD….

    What Chutzpa you have, to talk about our Beis Din like that? What makes Rabbi Osdobo, Rabbi Heller and Rabbi Schwei more of the Crown Heights Beis Din then Rabbi Raitport? As far as I can remember, there took place ‘democratic elections’ to vote these Rabbonim in (including Rabbis Osdobo and Heller (back in the days) and Rabbi Schwie, only a few years ago.

    The community came out in great number to vote these Rabbonim in.

    Now on the issue of the camp.
    The letter is singed ‘In the name of the Bais Din’, which means ALL the Rabbonim!.

  47. Koved Harabonim (?) says:

    When people who claim to be for Koved HaRabbonim say things in the context of…
    “I know there is Public letter/Psak to the community prohibiting the use of the camp, but I asked the Rav and he said there is no problem”. etc…

    WHO ARE THEY MAKING A MOCKERY OF, THEMSELVES OR THE RAV/BEIS DIN THEY ARE CLAIMING TO HAVE THE OUT MOST RESPECT FOR?

  48. Resident says:

    What do you think about all the politics happening now?

  49. What do you think about all the politics happening now?

    The world is round and not a free for all.
    To quote Pirkei Avot:
    7. Moreover he (Hillel) saw a skull floating on the surface of the water and he said unto it: Because you drowned others they drowned you; and those that drowned you will eventually be drowned.

    What I find very sad and disturbing is the fact that the same people who spilled Jewish blood in the name of “Koved Harobbonim” are the same people who are currently spilling the Rabbonims blood.

    The truth is they never cared about any “koved harabbonim”, it was always agenda first Rabbonim second.
    Well, now it’s all being exposed (of course they are still trying old propaganda and trying to blame everybody else, (even those that are not even a hundred miles from this machlokes) but themselves.
    They won’t stop until everything (the Whole Crown Heights) is burnt to the ground.

  50. chayolei staff member says:

    I already wrote that Rabbi Osdobo nodded his approval, the Rabbonim Shvei and Zrikind as well don’t object, and all you have is Rabbi Reitport and Segal (who – by the way – is in a Seiruv)… So what’s wrong with going to the camp? (not to mention that Rabbi Reitport signed the Ikkul not so long after moshe rubashkin put him in (and we all know his Noigai Bedovor regarding the camp, his threats to spitzer and his ideas he had to do with it vechulu vegam poshut…)
    besides the point that most of the community doesn’t count rubaskins rabonim as legal…

    I;m not interested in getting into the politics about it, as I try to stay away from it as much as possible.
    all what I wrote is in reply to what you claim that I am going against Halacha….

  51. Yankle Spritzer says:

    but didn’t he BUY the camp now from the trustee, why isn;t that legal? the case was in bancruptsy court, and yankel submitted a plan which was accepted, paid a million dollors CASH to buy it – why is he a Ganev?

  52. Yankle Spritzer says:

    So in court he got the camp – legally. So he is not a thief legally.

    Now in Beis Din, there’s the Psak Din which is stilll in effect. i have a copy of the psak din (in English, written by rabbi marlow and signed by rabbis marlow osdobo and mangel) that “the spritzer group should consitute the sole directors of the camp”.

    The above paper was signed again by rabbi mangel last year to maintain it’s validity. You can ask Rabbi Segal for a copy.
    Meir Hershkop won’t agree to that part of the Din Torah, so why should spritzer show up to a Din Torah about the baalus, if hershkop doesn’t agree to all the conditions?

    Even on rabbi segal’s letter to mochon lehoroo, note the bottom line… (self understood).

    Yankel doesn’t have to go to Beis Din of Crown Heights, for they never sent him a Hazmana (read again Rabbi Segal’s letter).
    he dosn’t have to go to mochon lohoroo (which sent the hazmana before shvat last year), as after Rabbi Segal sent them his letter (dated 25 av last year), they never got back to Yankel (you call them up to verify this: (845) 425-9565.

    If hershkop would sign that Yankel would get to RUN the camp, and to agree to the other terms in the beis din’s psak, while he will have his name on OWNERSHIP papers (in a non-profit?), then I’m sure Yankel would gladly go. But sadly, that is not the case…

    So according to the legal status- all’s clear. According to the Halacha aspect – all’s clear. So there you go….

    (btw, I remember hershkop putting out papers about dina dmalchusa dina, and that what the court rules is final… so why all of a sudden is he screaming din torah???
    I saw a copy of the court paper where machne menachem is taking the beth din of crown heights to court… should I arrange for it to be sent to Crown Heights, and sent to all the shuls – to show everyone who cares about din torah’s?!)

    Spritzer DOES NOT HAVE TO GO to a din torah – as there is no need to go, unless hershkop is willing to sign that he agrees to the other terms.

  53. Yankle Spritzer wrote:

    If hershkop would sign that Yankel would get to RUN the camp, and to agree to the other terms in the beis din’s psak, while he will have his name on OWNERSHIP papers (in a non-profit?), then I’m sure Yankel would gladly go. But sadly, that is not the case…

    Spritzer DOES NOT HAVE TO GO to a din torah – as there is no need to go, unless hershkop is willing to sign that he agrees to the other terms.

    To My Dear Friend…Greetings and Blessings [The Facts of the Matter]

    As you recall you mentioned that the “other side” is ready to make “peace”. I told you to present their proposal in writing and you stated that Mr. …. would like us to sign a written confirmation that we no longer have any claims of ownership in Camp Machne Menachem Inc. Thereupon, I quote; “ko omar Hashem- ha’ratzachta v’gom ya’rashta!! – you murdered and you also want to inherit! ! (Melachim 21;19). After a few days, you once again approached [another of the camps directors] proposing the same idea, and by Divine Providence, I passed and confirmed that I have already spoken to you and since that time you haven’t presented anything in writing, therefore you are not serious about the matter.

  54. Yankle Spritzer wrote:

    …he [Spritzer] dosn’t have to go to mochon lohoroo (which sent the hazmana before shvat last year),…he dosn’t have to go to mochon lohoroo….

    What indeed has been happening with the Din Torah; why isn’t it going anywhere?

    G-d Willing Coming up this week….

  55. Yankle Spritzer wrote:

    The above paper was signed again by rabbi mangel last year to maintain it’s validity.

    I don’t want to add any commentary; I don’t think there is anything I could really say. I read these documents/transcripts like anybody else. Come to your own conclusion.
    One thing I will say… You CAN’T justify something which is straight out wrong! Although, I won’t be surprised.

    Click Here to see for yourself!
    יראה העם וישפוט

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: