| נשלח ב-21/2/2006 21:29 |
 |
| |
סקאט מאלען איז דארט א שרייבער
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-22/2/2006 02:38 |
|
| |
ביי אונז אין קרעטשמע קומט אלסדינג אפיר
כאפטס אריין א וואדקע
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-22/2/2006 02:45 |
|
| |
דא איז דער באריכט און דעם פרעזטיזש פולן LAW JOURNAL ' , דאטירט FAB 13 , ווי עס ווערט באריכטעט אז ר' בערל פריעדמאן איז באשטעטיגט געווארן אלס דער אויסשליסליכער פרעזידענט אויף "קהל יטב לב ד' סאטמאר", ( .... אויך אין ברוקלין...... ).
Ruling Sets Control Over Hasidic Sect
In the latest round of the struggle for control of the Satmar Hasidim, an Orange County judge has ruled that a faction led by the Grand Rabbi Moses Teitelbaum's son Aaron rightfully controls the faction's political decision-making. The ruling effectively puts Aaron, who is based in the Orange County Village of Kiryas Joel, and his followers in administrative control of the Satmar Hasidim, whose holdings have been estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Although ostensibly about the use of an Orange County cemetery, the decision required Supreme Court Justice Stewart A. Rosenwasser to address broader issues. Specifically, he held that Aaron's supporter Berl Friedman had been rightfully elected president of the sect's Brooklyn congregation and was therefore "conferred the authority to protect and preserve [its] assets." The decision follows a November ruling that left the ailing, elderly grand rebbe in the care of supporters of Aaron's rival, his younger brother Zalmen. Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar of Kitryas Joel v. Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, 4495/05, will be published Thursday.
— Mark Fass
כאפטס אריין א וואדקע
תוקן על ידי - כל_העולם - 22/02/2006 2:58:27
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-22/2/2006 03:02 |
|
| |
 מצורף קובץדריי טאג שפעטער FEB 16, איז דער פולער טעקסט פון דעם ראזענוואסער פסק, ארויפגעלייגט געווארן, מיט דעם פרעזטיזשפולן באצייכענינג אלס דער :
DAILY DECISION OF INTEREST
כאפטס אריין א וואדקע
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-22/2/2006 03:18 |
|
| |
פאלגענד איז דער באריכט פון דעם זעלבן ריפארטער Mark Fass , ןןען דער דער משתמש בקודש משה פריעדמאן האט געווינען דעם ביי לעווינטאהל - אום נאוועמבער 18, און מען זעהט אז דער ריפארטער איז א זאלי סימפאטיקער, און ער שילדערט מיט אלע דעטאלען דעם גרויסן זאלי זיג.
אויך זעהט מען אז ביי לעווינטאהל, שילדערט ער די נעמען פון אלע אדוואקאטן , וואס האבן אנגעפירט מיט די קעיס, אבער איצט האט ער אפגעשוינט זיין פרענד סקאט מאללען, און ער שרייבט נישט די נעמען פון די אדוואקאטן , כדי ער זאל נישט נעבאך זיין געצווינגען צו שרייב,ן אז זיין פרענד סקאט מאללען האט אזוי מיאוס פארלוירן.
דאס מיינט אז דער יעצטיגער באריכט אז ר' בערל איז ראש הקהל איז בבחינת:
 ומלאך רע בעל כרחך יענה אמן
דא איז דער באריכט פון לעווינטאהל
Court Declines to Appoint Guardian for Grand Rabbi
Dispute Stems From Battle Between Sons For Control of Satmar Chasidic Sect
By Mark Fass
New York Law Journal
November 15, 2005
The five-year dispute between two sons of Grand Rabbi Moses Teitelbaum and their followers over which son will succeed their father as spiritual leader of the Satmar Chasidic sect took another step toward closure last week as a Brooklyn judge declined to appoint a guardian to care for Rabbi Teitelbaum.
The decision, which leaves the grand rabbi in the care of Satmar members sympathetic to Zalmen Teitelbaum, is a victory for Mr. Teitelbaum and his followers. Zalmen Teitelbaum was appointed as the head of the Williamsburg congregation by his father in 1999.
Mr. Teitelbaum and his older brother, Aaron, are fighting to follow their father as the head of the 100,000-member Satmar community. Approximately 40,000 members live in Brooklyn, primarily in Williamsburg.
"This Court finds that in addition to the petition's lack of any specific factual allegations, it also fails to reveal information pertinent to this proceeding and within the knowledge of the petitioners," Supreme Court Justice John M. Leventhal wrote in Matter of Teitelbaum, 100180/05.
The decision will be published Friday.
"A guardianship proceeding is not the proper avenue for a resolution of a family dispute, even when this dispute impacts on the future leadership of the Satmar movement," he added. "Thus, the affirmations submitted in [support of] the motion are insufficient to establish the need for the commencement of a guardianship proceeding."
The ruling follows a 2004 decision in which Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Melvin S. Barasch declined to intercede in the dispute over control of the Satmar Chasidim. That decision left Zalmen Teitelbaum in charge of the main Satmar faction and its seat of authority.
Justice Leventhal's decision on Thursday focused on two issues, whether a secular court held jurisdiction for such a matter and whether the petitioners established the need to commence a guardianship proceeding.
Justice Leventhal ruled that the Supreme Court did hold jurisdiction, but that the petitioners failed to support their claim.
The petitioners — six of the grand rabbi's 86 grandchildren and two of his grandchildren by marriage who support Aaron Teitelbaum — claimed that Rabbi Teitelbaum was "disoriented" and "in poor-health" and required "around-the-clock assistance," according to the decision.
The respondents disputed the claims and contended that the matter should be resolved by a rabbinical court.
Justice Leventhal held that while he had "no intention of interfering with purely religious matters," the Supreme Court was the proper venue for guardianship proceedings.
Comparing the decision to appear before a Beit Din to an agreement to arbitrate a matter, Justice Leventhal ruled that a guardianship proceeding is comparable to other areas of law that have been ruled non-arbitrable for public policy reasons, such as criminal cases and child-custody matters.
"It would be against public policy to allow an ecclesiastical court to offset an individual's civil rights," Justice Leventhal held.
Having found that his court maintained jurisdiction, he dismissed the claim.
"The petition submitted in this proceeding contains nothing but conclusory allegations," the judge wrote.
"This Court observed the Rabbi studying and walking. The Court also asked the Rabbi, outside the presence of his staff, if he was satisfied with the care he was receiving from [his personal secretary] Moses Friedman and [his son] Lipa Teitelbaum," Justice Leventhal stated. "The Rabbi responded in the affirmative."
The judge added that the grand rabbi's execution of a health care proxy and a power of attorney also obviated the need for a guardianship.
Zalmen Teitelbaum's supporters considered the guardianship petition an attempt to wrest control of the grand rabbi, who is in his early 90s, and consequently of the future of the Satmar community by followers Aaron Teitelbaum, leader of the Satmars' branch in the Orange County village of Kiryas Joel
"The underlying dispute is who's going to succeed the grand rebbe as leader of the satmar community," said Scott E. Mollen, an attorney for Zalmen Teitelbaum. "We're extremely gratified that the court saw through this litigation tactic."
Mr. Teitelbaum was represented by Mr. Mollen, Paul A. Rubin and Rachel C. Engelstein of Herrick, Feinstein, and Edwin Kassoff of Kassoff, Robert, Lerner & Robert.
The petitioners were represented by Steven R. Finkelstein of Finkelstein & Virga.
"We think the decision is in error," Mr. Finkelstein said. "The judge ignored a great many salient facts. The law affords us the right to appeal. We are going to be meeting with our clients in the next several days to review our options."
The grand rabbi was represented by Paul Bookson and Martin Evans of Herzfeld & Rubin.
כאפטס אריין א וואדקע
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-23/2/2006 22:42 |
|
| |
New York Law Journal
February 16, 2006 Thursday
President of Religious Corporation Not Expelled From Congregation; Property Transfer Approved;
Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar of Kiryas Joel Inc. v. Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar Inc.;
ORANGE ;
;
CASE INFO: 4495/2005 Supreme Court
Justice Rosenwasser
IN THIS DISPUTE over property rights and the transfer of title of 50 percent of a cemetery, two factions of a religious group contested the legitimacy of the other side's election. Berl Friedman's election was contested as it was alleged he was expelled from the congregation prior to the transfer of title, thus it was claimed he could not have been elected president in May 2001. The court found Friedman was not expelled prior to January 2001 as all reviewed submissions failed to establish the alleged expulsion. Hence, as he was the president of the corporation in 2000, absent competent evidence to show otherwise, there was no reason to find he was not the president at the time of the transfer. Thus, it followed that if he was not expelled, then he was president at the time of the transfer of the real property and was subsequently re-elected president in the May 2001 election. The court granted plaintiff's application for nunc pro tunc approval of the transfer of property.
|
|
|
|
|
|
