Who oppose the current Vaad of Mosrim? (Jihad.info)
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 Forced The Rav To Appear In Court?
This entry was posted on Monday, June 14th, 2010 at 10:09 am and is filed under Din Torah, Lies And Deceit. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
This site is not addressed to the malevolent troublemakers who thrive on dissension and miss no opportunity to stir up controversy. They have no interest in knowing the truth, so no letter, information or facts, can deter them from their goal of provoking strife and sitting back to enjoy the action…
This site and the information on it, is addressed only to those genuinely interested in the truth, justice and who are honestly concerned about respect for the Torah, and are upset by what they feel to be the Chillul Hashem by Spritzer and friends.
If you have nothing genuine to say/state or as(comment), just don’t!
If you know something I might not know, feel free to inform (all of) us. E-mail: machnemenachem@gmail.com
א. אסור לקנות דבר הגזול מן הגזלן ואסור לסעדו על שינויו כדי שיקנהו שכל העושה דברים אלו וכיוצא בהן מחזק ידי עוברי עבירה ועובר על ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול
ב. אסור ליהנות בדבר הגזול ואפילו לאחר ייאוש והוא שידע בודאי שדבר זה הוא הגזלה עצמה. כיצד ידע בודאי שבהמה זו גזולה
אסור לרכוב עליה או לחרוש בה
ג. גזל בית או שדה אסור לעבור בתוכה או ליכנס בה בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים. ואם דר בתוכה חייב להעלות שכר לבעלים כדין הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו. גזל דקלים ועשה מהן גשר אסור לעבור עליו וכן כל כיוצא בזה
ווען דער רבי וואלט ניט געשטעלט די דריי ווערטער "במדת אמת ליעקב" – באה"ק קטנטי – וואלט ער געאט נאך פופציג טויזענט חסידים, אבער דער רבי מאנט מדת אמת
Had the Rebbe not inserted the three words "b'midat emet leYaakov" ("according to the attribute of Truth unto Yaakov"), he would have attracted fifty thousand more Chassidim. But the Rebbe demands the trait of truth.
אילו היה הרבי משמיט את שלש התיבות "במדת אמת ליעקב" - באגה"ק "קטנתי" - היו לו עוד חמישים אלף חסידים הרבי תובע מידת אמת
Lying is as impractical as it is immoral.
The human brain is a super computer. It has a vast memory bank that can store vast amounts of information. However, even this memory bank has its limitations. As with any computer, it is possible for its capacity exhausted.
Facts require little retention. A tree was a tree ten years ago, is a tree today, and will be a tree ten years hence. Falsehoods, however, have no existence in reality, and must be retained in memory. A faulty memory will, of course, soon expose the false nature of a statement.
Even if memory is intact, the storage of falsehoods occupies precious space where truth could be stored. Retention of these falsehoods will, therefore, diminish the brain's capacity to store useful information. While we may deceive another person with a lie, we cannot make constructive use of false information.
Truthfulness cannot be maintained during active Lying. Excuses, cover-ups, and frank distortion of fact characterize a lie. To live a lie is not only unethical, but also stupid.
Machane Menachem
Reading spritzers appeal he seems to be doing the same thing chabad.info is doing in the post above. And that is, bring up the so called “violence” that never happened. Spritzer tried many times and in fact in trying right now, to use Judge Glassers Injunction/Restraining order in order to prove that there was in fact acts of violence.
Spritzer and I believe the post on chabad.info is all Spritzers head fails to mention that the judge a little over a year, took the restraining order off.
We all already know because it was documented right here on this site, what the judge said about all these claims of violence etc…after a 7 year trial.
If you don’t remember, I will remind you.
“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.”
“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.”
For more, read the full verdict.