Another Win For Machne Menachem…Spritzer Loses Another Appeal

 IN RE MACHNE MENACHEM, INC. v. SPRITZER

 IN RE: MACHNE MENACHEM, INC., Debtor, v. YAAKOV SPRITZER, Appellant.

 No. 11-1496.

 United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

 Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 16, 2011.

 Filed: January 3, 2012.

Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,^* Judge.

---

 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

OPINION OF THE COURT

Advertisement

Didan Notzach! Victory For Truth And Machne Menachem

יראה העם וישפוט

Spritzer must return $1.3 million that he stole from  Machne Menachem (-$76,000).

The truth [as it was always] comes out. After many years of both sides representing their case in front of a judge, the court comes out with the second verdict against Yankle the Ganev Spritzer.

The Final Order And Decision By Judge Thomas [Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Court] Click Here

For a clearer re-typed version Click Here

Read it once, read it twice, study it if you have too. You will discover where all the millions went.

Hint, not for the benefit of your children.

Also see:

Nu, So How Did Spritzer Get Hold Of The Camp?

UPDATE 3/18/10: As expected; no surprise. In another effort to waste/kill time, Spritzer Appeals the bankruptcy decision above. I could go ahead and try to explain why I think, this appeal is a waist of time and useless, but whats the point, let’s first see if the appeal will be  granted.

_____________________________________

PLUS: Spritzer keeps on hiring lawyers and doesn`t pay them. He is now being sued for $319,194.00. by his lawyers in the Supreme court of the State of NY. Index No. 601311/07 (Click Here).

It seems Spritzer expected the above verdict and decided to cause some more trouble for the rightful directors of Machne Menachem. Spritzer saw he was going to loss, so he went to Mr. Rubin, a lawyers he had not paid, while illegally operating Machne Menachem and advised him that now MM will have money and he should demand it from MM. Another long battle to deal with. This is far from over my friends.

UPDATE 3/18/10: Thank G-d I was wrong. The case has been Disposed (Click Here). Not knowing that the court had already disposed of this case on March 10, the directors responded with THIS, on the 15th. They were advised by the clerk that there is no need for a responds. I’m sharing this with you, to demonstrate the fraud that was about to take place. 

Nu, So How Did Spritzer Get Hold Of The Camp?

MR. RON SANTURA – ATTORNEY FOR MACHNE MENACHEM

SHORT INTRODUCTION:

Following is a history on Machne Menachem (“The Corp.) and an abbreviated version of the court cases, and proceedings which lead to the current claim.

1. Machne Menachem was established in 1996 as a not for profit Corp. The Corp. was established to operate as a summer camp for the benefit of Jewish children. In 1997 The Corp. purchased a property in Lackawaxen, PA. The Corp. was run by the Board which consisted of Mendel Hershkop, Shmuel Heber, Yackov Spritzer, and Yosef Goldman.
2. In 1997 Mr. Spritzer submitted a claim in Federal Court on the basis of RICO charges against the other directors. In October, 2002 the Court decided in favor of the Board of Directors, dismissing charges against them, and giving the opinion that MR. Spritzer had acted against the law.
3. In December of 2000, while the proceedings in the NY court were still active, Mr. Spritzer filed for bankruptcy for the Corp. in the State of Pennsylvania. Judge Glasser (New York) assessed that Mr. Spritzer filed for bankruptcy to disrupt the proceedings in New York which at that time were not working in his favor. At the time there was no reason (financially) to file for bankruptcy. The camp was well funded via government programs and camp tuition.
4. To substantiate his claim, Mr. Spritzer claimed that the Corp. owed him $1.3 million which he had loaned to the Corp. He also submitted claims for his partner (Mr. Schriber), his children, and his son-in-law. One month before filing for bankruptcy Mr. Spritzer placed a lean on the camp grounds for his claim (against the law).
5. After Judge Glasser’s decision, The Board resumed operating the Corp.
6. The Boards objective at first was to disprove all of the claims submitted against the Corp.
7. The Board was advised by its counsel to keep the case in Bankruptcy Court so that it could recover the documents which would be used to refute the claims. They were also advised that this would allow them to recover funds they claimed Mr. Spritzer owed the Corp.
8. After receiving part of the information demanded from Mr. Spritzer, The Corp. accountant confirmed that the claims were unsubstantiated. Furthermore, Mr. Spritzer was advised by the board (around 1998) not to loan money to the Corp. It was further established that relatives of Directors were not allowed to work for pay. This and much more was submitted to Mr. Santura at Hourigan, Kluger, and Quinn. The Board requested of Mr. Santura that he submit a motion regarding these claims, as refutation of those claims would prove the entire bankruptcy proceedings illegitimate.
9. After several meetings with Mr. Santura at the offices of H.K.Q., The Board was finally promised that such a motion had been submitted. Mr. Santura provided a copy of this motion with his signature (copy available).
10. This motion included a request for repayment from Mr. Spritzer on the amount owed by him to The Corp.
11. The Board trusted Mr. Santura’s word that he had submitted this motion. Any time Mr. Santura was asked why he was not more actively pursuing this he would answer that the Judge was busy and had not had time to review it.
12. During this time Mr. Santura left H.K.Q. and formed a partnership with Mr. Bresser. The partners were retained to finish the case and were paid tens of thousands of dollars both from Corp. and private funds.
13. The Corp. determined it would submit a separate claim in State court against Mr. Spritzer and paid Mr. Bresser $5000 for that case. Mr. Bresser promised that this had been done, but any demands for paperwork pertaining to that case were ignored. Regardless of his having been paid, and regardless of the critical impact that case would have had on the Machne Menachem case, Mr. Bresser neglected to ever file the case he had promised and been paid for.
14. In 2004 The Board wanted to rent the grounds to a Yeshiva. They raised this issue with Mr. Santura who drew up a contract to be used for this purpose. He also gave the Board the go ahead to rent it out without Court permission (which they later found out is against the law). As a direct result of this, the Court appointed a trustee which ultimately led to the Boards loss of the property.
15. At several points in time reference was made to the above mentioned motion and lawsuit on the stand in Court with Mr. Santura present. At no point in time did he ever admit that those motions and the case were never filed.
16. As a direct result of the lies, deceit, and false promises by Mr.’s Santura and Bresser, the Court accepted Mr. Spritzer’s claim and ultimately appointed a trustee over the Corp. Since then, the trustee has given ownership of the camp property over to Mr. Spritzer for the sum of $1.3 million which was given as security. Those funds were mostly distributed back to Spritzer related claims leaving the Corp. without camp grounds or money.

MR. CONWAY – COURT APPOINTED TRUSTEE

After Mr. Conway’s appointment as trustee in 2006 he neglected his responsibilities as a trustee for Machne Menachem (“The Corp.”). In place of working with the Corp. for the good of the Corp., Mr. Conway worked against the Corp. and refused to meet with the Board of Directors (“The Board”). He also submitted several motions against the Board of Directors which were rejected by the Court.

1. In spite of the Board ‘s insistence that Mr. Spritzer’s children were not owed any money, and in spite of the objections filed to these payouts, Mr. Conway paid the Spritzer’s children’s claim to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars.
2. In spite of Mr. Conway’s knowledge of the Board’s objection to Mr. Schriber’s claim, Mr. Conway paid the claim as submitted to the tune of over $100,000.
3. Mr. Conway paid claims to creditors despite the Boards objection. Many of those claims had already been paid, and some had failed to provide proof of claim. One of those companies (Ahava) had already failed to prove its claim in court. Nevertheless, Mr. Conway paid that claim.
4. Despite Mr. Conway’s knowledge of the fact that Mr. Spritzer was not allowed to use the Corp. funds to pay his lawyers, and despite a motion filed by the Corp. to recover the funds already taken by Mr. Spritzer to pay his lawyers, Mr. Conway paid tens of thousands of dollars more to Spritzer lawyers – against the interest of the Corp., from the Corp. money.
5. In place of acting as a trustee and confident of the Corp., Mr. Conway conspired with Mr. Spritzer, meeting with him and discussing the case on several occasions, while refusing to acknowledge the Board.
6. As of  Today the Board has still not received an accounting of the 1.3 million dollars in the trust. There has been no information provided by Mr. Conway on payouts, only as the Board has learned from Court proceedings. It stands that there is around $500,000 still left, which means that Mr. Conway paid out around $800,000 without the Board’s knowledge or consent.

The Case is still (very much) in Bankruptcy Court

What Is… (click  Bellow for link)

Summary Judgment

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (google it, for more information)

Latest papers submitted to Bankruptcy Court of Pennsylvania by the Original Directors

For Text version Click Here: Motion #1 Motion #2

Motion #1