After over three years of tricks in an attempt to delay or [better yet to] avoid not having a Din Torah, the Beth Din Beis Yosef issued a Siruv against Yaakov Spritzer for refusing to show up before the Beis Din for a Din Torah
As soon as I get a copy with more details it will be posted here.
UPDATE: Beth Din wrote the Siruv. Spritzer promised he would come sign the shtar berurin (binding arbitration agreement). The Machane Menachem directors have already signed a shtar and Spritzer has yet to do so.
After Spritzer sends many letters to Bais Din in an attempt to avoid a Din Torah – as he has been doing for the last 10 years- the Bais Din sends him the following Letter, Dated 11 Shvat 5770
י''א שבט תש''ע Bais Din Beth Yosef Letter to Spritzer (click to enlarge)
In has come to my attention and was no surprise to me, that Yankle Spritzer has been working very close with Paul Huebner (the Mosser who orchestrated the Shomrim Six Mesira). In the last motion that Huebner put in to court (re: the $144 million lawsuit), he tried to use, as Spritzer wrongfully and illegally did himself in the past,the restraning order that Judge Glasser put on the rightful directors of Machne Menachem by 1997. Amongst the documents that Huebner is so foolishly trying to use are also transcript pages which he could have only gotten from Spritzer.
As already reported here, Spritzer was tried to use the Shomrim Six case to avoid a Din Torah.
Same Mesira (On Hershkop/Shomrim), Same People, Different Day.
The Mossrim Then And Now
יראה העם וישפוט
Why has there not been a [proper] Din Torah until this day and why I think there will [probably] never will be.
This case was in middle of a Din Torah, Spritzer took it to court.
In court the original directors (Hershkops, Goldman and Heber), agreed to return this case to Bais Din, but Spritzer
repeatedly refused. All this has already been documented and discussed in Parshas Machne Menachem, (under: Who Is Making A Chillul Hashem?). Even back then, the original Directors agreed to go to a Zabla, but again Spritzer refused (Read Rabbi Hebers Letter to the judge and Spritzers Lawyer).
TRYING TO HAVE THE LONG AWAITED DIN TORAH.
On the suggestion of the Crown Heights Bais Din, the original directors seek to have a Din Torah out of Crown Heights.
It was decided to go to the Bais Din Machon Lehoraya Monsey.
Update: Spritzer played the Monsey Bais Din for over a year. After a year of back and forth Spritzer makes a request for a Zabla. The Bais Din of Monsey does not deal with Zabla, so they suggest that the Din Torah take place with the Bais Yosef Bais Din (located in Boro-Park) who deal with Zabla. The Monsey Bais Din informed the MM directors that they will monitor the situation, if Spritzer plays his usual games, then they will come out with a Siruf against Spritzer. This all happened Tammuz time (5769). Since that time the Bais Din Bais Yosef has been avoiding the Din Torah. It has recently come to our attention from information coming out of the Bais Din itself, that its not for no reason the Din Torah has been delayed.
The reason they gave was that they had received information from “various parties” that the Hershkop family where involved in a criminal preceding were it would be proved that they are a violent gang and therefore the camp in any case can not go to them, making the argument that there is no need for a Din Torah. The case they were informed about was the now famous Shomrim Six case. What has been known to myself all along and now becoming more apparent is that many people (including Spritzer) were banking on the g-d forbid prosecution and conviction of 6 innocent Jews just to satisfy their own agendas. It’s also becoming very obvious (I personally didn’t need this prove to teach me this fact for as I stated, this is something I could have told you mouth ago), that this whole case from it’s conception had nothing to do with what happened (or did not happen) in 749 on the night of December 29,2007. סוף מעשה במחשבה תחילה
Read the rest of this entry »
“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”.
(Judge Glasser Final Ruling Against Yaakov Spritzer)
Funny how things ended up. Even the Rightful (majority) directors and owners could not work and get paid in their own camp. Except of course for Spritzer and his family.
Read the rest of this entry »