After 7 Hard Years in Federal Court, Judge Leo Glasser Hands Out A Verdict Ruling Against Yankle Spritzer

The Vedict machne menachem

How this case got to Federal Court when it should have went [straight] to State Court (being a dispute in property ownership), Is all a result of Yaakov Spritzer and Friends (Spritzer, Meir Schreiber and Yossi Spalter) trying to have fellow Jews locked up with a Viscous Mesira. [If Spritzer would have started this case in state court, the issue would have been resolved almost immediately (the verdict, that all are rightful directors), Spritzer knowing this, comes up with a plan of Mesira, to force the camp away from it’s rightful owners, as you see].

For those who excuse  themselves (and send your children to “Spritzers” camp) by saying “I don’t get involved in politics”, you are going to discover that this is not simply a case of two sides disputing over a piece of property (which is meant to help you and your children in the summer months), this goes much deeper then that, Mesira to the worse degree.

In time all will be exposed, there will be no excuse of “oh, I did not know”.

Added:(March, 8th, 2009) After reading thorough stacks of material on this case, I have come to a conclusion, that in essence the only thing I would have really needed (to make a case against Spritzer) is this Verdict and PMM. Meaning: if I was to just make a site posting this Verdict, it would be enough . If you really want to get a true picture of what went on, I advice to read this verdict more then onc

Original; Judge Glassers final ruling (Click here)

For a clearer, easier to read version  (Click Here)

Read and come to your own conclusion!

יראה העם וישפוט

Short Version of Judge Glasser Final Verdict Against Yaakov Spritzer

On May 6, 1997, the plaintiffs, a not-for-profit Corporation and Yaakov Spritzer, filed a complaint against seven named defendants consisting of 167 paragraphs extending over 50 pages and asserting eleven claims as follows: I) RICO, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1962(b); II) RICO, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); III) RICO, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); IV) RICO, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); V) Tortuous Interference with Contractual Relations; VI) Fraud; VII) Conversion; VIII) Unfair Competition; IX) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; X) Assault; XI) Intentional damages to property.To characterize the complaint as prolix, replete with hearsay and irrelevancies, would be charitable.

Plaintiff Spritzer was then called as a witness.
His testimony is revealing in several respects. A careful and critical reading of it corroborated in eloquent detail the testimony of Shmuel and Mendel to the effect that Spritzer arrogated to himself the management of the Corporation. His direct testimony is consistent with the testimony of the prior three defendants…

Most revealing, if not disturbing, was the testimony elicited from Spritzer upon cross- examination,….

A careful examination of the returns for the years 1996-1998 give rise to questions to which answers that were less than satisfactory were offered by Spritzer.

As has already been indicated, the proceeding was stayed from the conclusion of the testimony on October 31st, 2001, until May 13th, 2002, when the stay required by the filing of the bankruptcy petition was lifted and the direct testimony of Spritzer was resumed.

Returning to the “Miscellaneous Statements”…

On Schedule D, Spritzer is listed as a secured creditor in the amount of $1,131,675, which is $131,675 in excess of the mortgage he holds for one million dollars and he surmised that the excess must be an unsecured loan. One can’t help but conclude upon reading his testimony about the schedules submitted to the Bankruptcy Court that the information they contain is of questionable accuracy and the record of monies received and monies disbursed represent a haphazard hodgepodge of speculation.

The conclusion that is compelled by his testimony is that the affairs of the Corporation were conducted by Spritzer as though it was his personal fiefdom with occasional allusions to board approval at meetings which are nowhere documented and by resolutions which were adopted and action taken only because Spritzer divines that they were.

The vigorous assertion by Spritzer that Goldman, Heber and Mendel breached a fiduciary duty they owed Machne Menachem by a fleeting involvement in Ohr Menachem upon which they embarked to provide a summer camp experience for some children of Crown Heights who would not otherwise have had it pales into insignificance when compared with the total disregard for the obligation of a director with which this record of self-dealing and financial legerdemain reeks.
Throughout his testimony, Spritzer asserted that meetings were held by him and Schreiber or by him, Schreiber and Spalter, at which corporate action was approved and yet neither Schreiber nor Spalter were called by him in support of those assertions.

The summary of the testimony as discussed above would be correctly interpreted by the reader as conveying an unequivocal skepticism of Spritzer’s testimony regarding prior approval and authorization of his virtually unilateral action on behalf of the camp and the Corporation.

I have previously alluded to the comparative breaches of fiduciary duty by Spritzer which, at the very least, makes his airing of them noisome.

The evidence established convincingly for this Court that what is alleged to be their abandonment was, instead, what I have analogized to be their constructive eviction by Spritzer.

The foregoing findings of fact drive the Court to conclude that Joseph Goldman, Mendel Hershkop and Shmuel Heber are still, as a matter of law, directors of Machne Menachem, Inc.

The foregoing constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court has considered the arguments advanced in the brief of the plaintiff Corporation which requires no discussion by the Court in addition to what has been written and which, the Court, in any event, finds unpersuasive.

15 Responses to After 7 Hard Years in Federal Court, Judge Leo Glasser Hands Out A Verdict Ruling Against Yankle Spritzer

  1. Machane Menachem says:

    What is
    RICO (click)

    Who is
    Judge Leo Glasser (click)

  2. Camper says:

    reading over the verdict this looks like a case that should have taken less then six month, it’s so clear what spritzer was doing or not doing.
    So why did it take 7 years?

  3. The Real Owner says:

    Better yet how, after such a verdict did that scum bag end up taking the camp?
    Which judge would give him the camp after reading this verdict?

  4. machanemenachem says:

    “reading over the verdict this looks like a case that should have taken less then six month, it’s so clear what spritzer was doing or not doing.
    So why did it take 7 years?”

    1st:
    Court in general takes a long time.

    2nd:
    Spritzer did all he can to drag out the case, so he can have another and another summer (with the stolen camp). I will be showing documentation showing how he tried to purposively drag the court.

    3rd:
    He came to court with many claims of Mesira, it took the court about 3 years to see through his leis.

    We can see even today how he is not coming to a din torah.
    he was called about a year and half ago and dragged it out and the last minute before the bais din came out with a Charim/Shiruf he asked for a Zabla.
    he knows that he has no chance so he just drags it out, meanwhile he has the camp.

  5. who cares? says:

    “he knows that he has no chance so he just drags it out, meanwhile he has the camp.”

    He just sucks the blood out of you till you have no more energy to fight, thats how he wins all his battles, he has time and MONEY.
    I salute the The Hershkop brother meir and mendle for not giving up and doing whats right.
    But I must say good luck. The man (spritzer) wont ever stop till it’s all his.
    A man that killed his own father does not care for right and wrong.

  6. machanemenachem says:

    “Better yet how, after such a verdict did that scum bag end up taking the camp?
    Which judge would give him the camp after reading this verdict?”

    Not so simple, in time I will get to that.
    The truth is my head spins trying to understand what went on there (in bankruptcy court).
    I do know this that a few store owners (trying to make a few bucks) gave fake recites to spritzer in order to be considered a creditor and suck out money from Machena Menachem.
    I will get to that, meanwhile there is plenty of work to be done (almost 10 years worth of stuff).

  7. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.

    At a stated Term of the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 6th day of August, two thousand and four.

    Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, ROBERT D. SACK, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.

    YAAKOV SPRITZER, Plaintiff-Appellant, MACHNE MENACHEM INC., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant, -v- (03-7266)

    MEIR HERSHKOP, AARON (LELLI) HERSHKOP, SHNEUR (GADI) HERSHKOP, LEVI HARTMAN, MENDEL HERSHKOP, and YOSEF GOLDMAN, Defendnants-Counter-Claimants, SHMUEL HEBER, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.

    Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant: Yaakov Spritzer, pro se, Brooklyn, NY.

    Appearing for Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee: Shmuel Heber, pro se, Brooklyn, NY.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (I. Leo Glasser, Senior District Judge).

    ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the District Court, dated February 11, 2003, be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

    The instant case concerns a dispute over the ownership and control of Machne Menachem, Inc. (“Machne”), a New York not-for-profit corporation. Yaakov Spritzer, in his own behalf and purportedly on behalf of Machne, filed a complaint alleging that the defendants had illegally removed him from Machne’s board of directors. Federal jurisdiction was based upon the assertion of claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962 et seq. The complaint also asserted a variety of common law claims.

    Spritzer appeals from the order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entered February 11, 2003 (“the February 11th order”), which, with Spritzer’s consent, granted Machne’s motion to dismiss with prejudice the federal law claims and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the common law claims. In fact, Spritzer raises no real challenge to this final order. Rather, he attempts to appeal from the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, dated October 18, 2002 (“the October 18th order”). Both parties to the instant appeal have moved to strike each others’ briefs, which motions are denied.

    In the October 18th order, the district court determined only that defendants Mendel Hershkop, Shmuel Heber, and Yosef Goldman were currently members of Machne’s board of directors. The October 18th order did not actually or effectively dispose of Spritzer’s RICO claims. Indeed, at oral argument, Spritzer insisted that his RICO claims survived the October 18th order and that his consent to the February 11th order was a product of factors unrelated to the October 18th order. Under these circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.

    See Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 139-140 (2d Cir. 1996).

    Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

    FOR THE COURT:

    Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk of Court By:

    Richard Alcantara, Deputy Clerk

  8. CHER says:

    I’m reading some of the new comments and I’m trying not to fall off my seat.
    The Chutzpa that some people have.
    Spritzer takes seven families to Federal court, making the must ridicules accusations, all to steal the camp away. After 7 years of torture, he finally losses the case.
    How do some have this Chutzpa to come claim, now, that he has a “psak” from the rabbonim that he is the camp owner?

    Let me get this straight, Spritzer wins either way, Is that what they are trying to say?

  9. Anybody who might be interested in a PDF of the above verdict, may request one at machanemenachem at gmail.com,

    If you are interested in the Spritzer Mesira papers, I will send you that as well.

  10. The plaintiffs Yaakov Spritzer (Spritzer) and Machne Menachem, Inc., were represented by Jeffrey Schwartz, Esq., at the hearings on September 11th, October 11th, October 15th and October 31st, 2001. At the conclusion of the hearing on October 31st, the Court directed the hearings to be resumed on December 10th, 2001. On December 7th, the Court was advised that Spritzer, acting on behalf of Machne Menachem, caused a petition pursuant to Chapter 11 to be filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. That filing, and the automatic stay which it invoked, caused the suspension of this proceeding, then in its final stages, for more than five months.

    What a coward!
    He drags, 7 families through hell and back, in Federal court, with a viscous Mesira, steals their property etc…. Finally after 5 years of torture, everybody gets their say in court, Spritzer Stumbles and mumbles through his testimony (Meaning: is found to have lied and stolen money etc…). Read for yourself!
    Chutzpa! Before the last hearing (day of testimony) he runs to bankruptcy court, in an attempt to delay or cancel the proceeding (which are not going as he planed).

    Is that a guilty person or what?

  11. Justice for all! says:

    people get annoyed when getting a measly parking ticket, imagine going through years of this torture.

    How a few small men who can barely speak English beat this viscous blood liable is nothing more then a miracle. May g-d bless them for more miracles to come.
    Justice will prevail!

  12. Concerned says:

    After spending about an hour and a half reading and re-reading this verdict, I am left with one question.
    How is it that after receiving such a verdict didn’t the original directors use it to get their justice?

    This verdict says so much about how corrupt Yankle Spritzer was and is, this would have been a great opportunity to go after him and get true justice,
    so why didn’t they do it?

    Can they still?

  13. […] 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 (funding of […]

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: