באשטימט דאטום אויף בית החיים קעיס

<* style="margin-left: 0px" dir="rtl"><* style="margin-left: 0px" dir="rtl">

David Hamm attorney For our side

started off by saying what I was not there to do.  I was not there to seek Court ordination of the Grand Rebbe of Satmar, nor to seek a ruling as to who's in charge of  Satmar, nor to restrict anyone from burial in the cemetery.  I was there solely to seek to prevent people from interfering with plaintiffs' contract to burial in the cemetery. Eng was the main questioner.  His focus, as Demarest's was, was on membership - - isn't that an issue necessarily involving religious criteria?  It's not an issue here, I said, because here all plaintiffs are members, no one's a heretic, and the suggestion that they might become one is totally speculative, and the suggestion that even someone who is a heretic would want to be buried in the Satmar Cemetery is even more speculation.  But, the Judge insisted, membership does involve religious requirements, right?  I said that's true, but all of the plaintiff's meet those requirements, and there's nothing in the Record to the contrary.  But, he asked, what if someone does become a heretic, who can remove him from membership?  Well, let's look to the by-law, I responded.  That says officers can remove a member, but they've conceded (a) we are members, and (b) no one on that side can be deemed by the court to be an officer.  So, no one has the right to remove any of our plaintiffs from membership.  That means heretics can be buried ?  I said, the courts can't get involved in such religious issues.  The courts can look to the documents before it.  We have the  contract, which says we're members, the by-laws, which say only officers can remove someone from membership, and the Barasch case which says that there are  no officers today.  Accordingly, the status quo - - we are members and cannot be removed by them.  Other questions were easily addressed - - Judge Chambers wanted to know whether the Court had to decide ''who's in charge'' to decide our issue?  Answer: no.  We have a contract right which subsequent changes of ''people in charge'' cannot change.  Scott Horn focused on membership.  To Judge Eng's inquiry about our Point III, i.e., that they concede we're members, he said it doesn't matter if we are members in 2001, 2010 or 2011.  The only issue is are we members at the time of P'tera, and that determination  necessarily involves religious matters.  He raised other points, including whether this was a ''ripe'' case,