סיז אינטערסאנט וואספארא סטראטעגיע די זאלי לויערס האבן דא גענומען.
מ'דארף צו פארשטיין אז די מאשען וואס מ'האט יעצט באהאנדלט איז נישט געווען די ארגינעלע און אלטימעט טענה ווער סיז בעה"ב אויף קהל יטב לב.
מ'האט באהאנדעלט א מאשען וואס די אהרונים האבן ממש לעצטענס אריינגעגעבן, אז וויבאלד די וואלן פון די זאליס האבן נישט קיין לעגאלע קראפט, און זייערע וואלן האט קיינער נישט געטשעלענדשט, זאלן די ערוויילטע מענטשן תיכף איינערקענט ווערן פריפיזאריש, און נאכדעם זאל מען ווייטער באהאנדלען ווער סיז טאקע בעה"ב.
דאס איז געווען א שטיקל חוצפה'דיגע פארלאנג פון די אהרונים, ווייל יעדער פארשטייט אז באראש האט שוין געפסקנ'ט גאנץ אנהויב פאר 3 יאר צוריק אז דערווייל זענען די זאליס בעה"ב, און די אלע פרישע טענה'ס וועגן די וואלן וואלטן די אהרונים געדארפט טענה'ן צו באראש פאר ער האט געמאכט זיין דעסיזשען אז פריפיזאריש זענען די זאליס בעה"ב.
די אהרונים האבן עס אבער געטון ווייל זיי ווילן שוין פערטיגן מיט באראש און באקומען א פיינעל דעסיזשען פון איהם, און גיין ווייטער צום אפילס קאורט.
באראש וואלט גראד געקענט אפווארפן די מאשען זאגענדיג אז וואס פארלאנגסטו א זאך וואס איך האב שוין לאנג דיסיידעט.
למעשה האט באראש שיין מיטגעשטימט מיט די אהרונים און אנגענומען די נייע מאשען און שיינערהייט אויסגעהערט אלע טענה'ס פון די אהרונים, און ער האט זיך גאר אריינגעלאזט בעובי הקורה מיט אלע דיטעילס פונעם קעיס בכלל.
מיט דעם האט באראש קלאר געוויזן אז ער וויל שוין געבן א פיינעל דעסיזשען, ווייל ווי יעדער זעהט האט ער גאנץ ווייניג נערווין דערצו און ער וויל זיך שוין זעהן ארויס, כאטשיג ער זוכט אויף אלע וועגן צו צופיקסן די אהרונים.
פון די אנדערע זייט האבן די זאלי לויערס נישט געקענט שלום מאכן מיטן מצב אז די קעיס ווערט דא געפירט אויף די אהרונים'ס טורמס, די הארץ פון די קעיס ווערט שוין באהאנדלט מיט אלע פרטים, און אט אט וועלן זיי זיך דארפן געזעגענען פון באראש, אלעס א דאנק די "נייע" מאשען פון די אהרונים, ווייל ווען נישט די נייע מאשען וואלט מען זיך נאך יעצט ארומגעקריגט אויף זייטיגע שטותים, צו מ'מעג אויפנעמען פרישע מעמבערס צו נישט, צו יאסי בראך מעג אריינקומען אין ראדני צו נישט וכדומה.
שטאטס צו שלום מאכן מיטן מצב און אויסניצן די גענצע צייט צו אפשלאגן די טענה'ס פון די אהרונים ווער סיז בעה"ב, האט סקאט מאלען אנגעברענגט האלב פון זיין צייט פרובירענדיג דאך צו קאנווינסן באראש אז די גאנצע מאשען זאל ארויסגעווארפן ווערן, וועגן די פלגענדע טענה'ס:
סיז נישט לעגאל צו נאכאמאל פארלאנגען עפעס וואס מ'האט שוין איינמאל געפסקנ'ט, די אהרונים זוכן זיך אריינצושווערצן פון אן אונטער טיר! זיי זענען אלס געגאנגען אונטערערדיש! דורכאויס דעם גאנצן פראצעס, און אונז האמיר אלעמאל פונקציונירט לעגאל, אויב די אהרונים איז נישט געפאלן דעם ארגינעלן פסק אז די זאליס זענען פריפיזאריש בעה"ב, וואלטן זיי עס געקענט אפילען, שטאטס אפילען זענען זיי געגאנגען ווי חיות צו אן אנדערן דשאדש, דשאונס! וואס האבן זיי זיך יעצט אויפגעוועקט נאך 3 יאר? זיי האבן זיך געקענט באגיין די לעצטע דריי יאר אן זיצן ביים רעדל, וואס האט יעצט עפעס פאסירט אז מ'זאל דארפן אויסדרייען דעם פסק?
כהנה וכהנה
למעשה, ווי עס קוקט אויס גייט באראש יא געבן אן ענדגילטיגן דעסיזשען, און די אלע טענה'ס זענען געפאלן אויף טויבע אויערן.
ליינטס ווי מאללען ברענגט אן זיין גאנצע צייט, און בעט זיך אז מ'זאל נאך שלעפן די קעיס:
I want to go back to the injunctive relief aspect. When they came into the court with their ex-parte temporary restraining order based on a moving affidavit of a person who also came into courtroom before Your Honor, a person who later took the witness stand and started to lecture Your Honor on religious law and principles within the Satmar community, it later came out that person was a convicted felon and an escapee from federal detention, based on this so-called pious religious person, the restraining order that they obtained was not signed by Your Honor, but was signed by Judge Reynold Mason.
After Judge Mason signed the order, my clients did not take to the streets. That order created a whole new form of governance in the Satmar community. It created a joint committee, three of them and three of us. It took away the power of our board. And took away the power of the wishes -- it undermined the wishes of the Grand Rebbe with respect to the board.
So we did not cause a scene in the congregation. We didn't have rioting. No one raised their voice. What they did, they followed proper lawful procedure notwithstanding the Grand Rebbe's admonition, do not go into -- don't bring disputes into Civil Court. Notwithstanding the interpretation and the revered Rabbi in Israel, Rabbi Fisher, not to go into Civil Court. We were dragged into Civil Court by the order signed by Justice Mason.
What did we do? We followed lawful procedure and went to the Appellate Division.
And the Appellate Division took a look at this order that they had obtained, said this is wrong to change the governance on an ex-parte basis where we didn't have a chance to argue. We weren't allowed. Today we are in a courtroom next to them, when they went to get their order from Judge Mason. They found Judge Mason and made the request without us. We weren't invited. We weren't asked.
The Appellate Division immediately modified that order and sent us back to Your Honor. The Appellate Division, in essence, looked at the form of governance, the issue, struck Judge Mason's provisions and sent us back to Your Honor.
When we came back to Your Honor and had argument it wasn't on an ex-parte basis. Then they were represented, the other side represented by Robert Batra. After argument Your Honor made a ruling.
Your Honor's ruling was that our side for now, until the ultimate decisions are made as to who is the appropriate party to run the congregation, because we have thousands of families that have to be taken care of, we have schools, we have camps, we have social programs, we have banks, money goes back and forth to pay for teachers and for food, so someone has to be in a position to make decisions. And Your Honor said I'm going to, in essence, do what the Appellate Division did and continue the board, which I represent, in power.
After you made your rulings, did they go like we did? We followed the lawful procedure. We did what we're supposed to do. We went to the Appellate Division when we had a problem. What did the other side do?
They didn't go to the Appellate Division and appeal your order. They didn't move to reargue your order. What they did, they tried to find another judge who could contradict you. They went down the hall and they said that this case really relates to an old, a ten year old real estate case then pending before a distinguished jurist, Justice Jones. And they asked him to sign an order that would have contradicted your rulings. They asked for the same kind of relief before Justice Jones that you had just ruled on.
And I asked for an investigation. I asked for the administrative judge's chambers to look at what I viewed as improper, what is the slang expression, judge shopping in the courthouse. And I said, in essence, how dare these people be dissatisfied with Justice Barasch's rulings? Instead of taking an appeal, the proper way, they tried to get another colleague essentially to give contradictory relief.
Justice Pesce looked into it. Gave more opportunity than anyone could really reasonably ask for, took arguments, briefs. There were two arguments. Lawyers came in. Clients came in. And he made a ruling that all the cases belonged in front of Your Honor.
Subsequently, we had -- and once that ruling is made, once that decision is made, the Appellate Division 2d. Department in the case of Angel v. Eichler, 753 NY sub. 2d. 109, and the case of Pollack v. Pollack, 736, NYS 2d., 632, both Appellate decisions, have said once the decision is made by the Court, that is the law of the case. If you want to appeal it, you appeal it. You can't come back two years later, three years later and try to collaterally attack that ruling.
Basically, that's exactly what they did. Not only your first ruling or the Appellate Division ruling on August 10th, 2001, this Court, Your Honor, made your first ruling that our People should remain in charge of the congregation until the ultimate issues in this procedure are resolved on August 13th, 2001.
That August 13th ruling was never challenged. Never moved to reargue. And it's remained in effect since August 10th, 2001. We've been in control since August 10th which means almost three years.
In fact, the petitioners in their own papers, they say that since 2001 the respondents have been in control. Berl Friedman's affidavit dated December 3rd, 2003 attached as exhibit A acknowledges that since 2001 we have been running the congregation.
Now, here we are years later after these rulings have been made, we have a course of conduct for three years and they are asking you now to change the management, change the control of the congregation on a motion for injunctive relief with no basis to overturn the prior rulings. No explanation why they never appealed. No new circumstances. No changed circumstances. No compelling reason why there should be a change.
What they've done is they say we have a factual history that is different than our factual history. We have people who will say things occurred a little bit differently or very differently.
Why hasn't there been more evidence in this case? You have a bunch of people saying here are the traditions, rules, customs of the Satmar community on one side. And you have -- and here's what the Rabbi did, the Grand Rebbe did and didn't do. Here's what the Board did and didn't do. Here's the election the way it was conducted and, if you will, read their version it's all wonderful, it's terrific. They did everything proper and ours is terrible.
If you read ours, you almost have a mirror image, in essence. The reason there hasn't been more uncovering of the facts and testimony and evidence is because they put a wall up. They came to Your Honor and they said to Your Honor we want a stay of all discovery. They asked for the stay. Discovery would have been able to proceed.
And then after they obtained the stay of discovery, then we -- they had a right to appeal. They did appeal the Justice Pesce decision. And if they were really interested in justice, if they were really interested in rapid justice and protecting the families of the Satmar community, you would think, and this is an important issue, goes to the heart of the leadership of the Satmar community, you would think they would want a quick resolution? Let's get this straightened out quickly.
What did they do? They waited the entire six month appeal period and never filed their appeal. They never followed through with their appeal during the appellate period and, in fact, let the period expire and then one of their attorneys went to, respected again, Justice Malonous, and asked the Appellate Division, please give us permission to file a late appeal.
What they did, they waited -- they made a strategic decision, stall as long as possible, wait until the last minute. I believe they confused the 1st Department and 2d. Department because the 1st Department, they can wait the nine months and the 2d. Department is six months.
Low and behold, they let the period go. They discovered that. The Appellate Division, in its' capacity, allowed them to file the appeal and the Appellate Division ruled that Justice Pesce was correct and the case belonged in front of Your Honor and the Appellate Division pointed out that one reason his decision, Justice Pesce's decision was appropriate was because, in essence, what they did, they asked for similar relief that would have contradicted the orders that Justice Barasch had issued. And that was the telling point and the critical point in the eyes of the Appellate Division.
After Your Honor rendered that August 13th decision, Your Honor was confronted with other multiple applications for rulings as to who should be in charge with different aspects because specific issues had come up.
One issue came up, the banks wanted to know who is in charge. The banks want to know whose signatures should we accept? Even worse than that, I don't want to say worse than that, what was very troubling on the high holidays, knowing that we are selling seats in the synagogue, they go and start selling seats, the same seats, in essence, counterfeit tickets.
The Court rulings said we're in charge and they start taking money from people telling them they're giving them tickets for seats that they didn't have a right to do.
Then they were collecting contributions and charitable donations in the name of the congregation even though the Court ruled at that point in time and had said our board is in control.
And then they purported to speak to the Police Department and say they speak for the congregation even though there were multiple court orders saying we speak for the congregation.
Those prior decisions are attached as exhibits B, C, D and E to our papers.
Given those orders, given those orders, there's no basis for the respondents to say we lack a legal basis to be in charge. We followed proper procedure. We put in the appropriate papers. When we disagreed with the Court, if we've ever disagreed, we would follow appellate procedure. They didn't do that.
They argue then that all these orders in their papers are irrelevant. They think they can take an eraser on like a blackboard and make all these orders go away by simply saying these records were in the other case because there were two cases. They say those orders were issued in a case that had a different index number.
What they ignore again, another fact that they ignore, on January 10th, 2002, this Court orally granted a motion to consolidate the two cases. And that's exhibit F to our papers.
What they're asking for here is remedy that is not different than they previously asked. What they're doing is what they've done in the past, first time when they didn't convince the Court of the merits of their position, they tried to get another judge.
Now that they can't go looking for another judge, they're trying to use another mechanism. The relief is essentially the same. They're trying a new mechanism.
Under the law of the case, the Appellate Division says, you can appeal. Those rulings stand. We remain in control until there is a final disposition.
 |
|
|
