770 Didan Notzach! Moshiach is coming

[chossidnistar]

http://www.crownheights.info/media/judgment.pdf

[Torah613]

Moshiach???

[Aaronke]

Who's side are you on Chossidnisstar? I thought you were a Meshichist?
I personaly want Moshiach to come and take care of it...

[DW Duke]

Don't the courts in New York have computers yet? That judgment looks like it was typed on an old typewriter.

Maybe Judge Harkavy was hinting that he thinks the third temple might be in Yerusalem after all.

[Meshulam]

Originally Posted by DW Duke

Don't the courts in New York have computers yet? That judgment looks like it was typed on an old typewriter.

Maybe Judge Harkavy was hinting that he thinks the third temple might be in Yerusalem after all.

He hit on something deeper then that, even. Judge Harkavy relied on only a single case in his entire decision: Satmar. Now, Lubavitchers can no longer play their favorite trump card (that is: at least, our fight isn't as bad as Satmar). Since Satmar's decision apparently played a role in getting Judge Harkavey where he was going, it seems as though our issue and Satmar's are similar indeed. And we might be forced to eat humble pie over it.

All of that said, you're right about the old typewriter.

[AntiMishichist]

I hear Aguch is planning to turn 770 in to a museum,
They will make it a place were people can come and see what went on back in the days..
I hear they are going to put up all different types of signs,
I also hear that they are going to make a Shivile at the times the Rebbe would come Daven. I also hear they will make a mock Farbrengen on Shabbos (and some times during the week were the Rebbe davvens) with the whole nine yard saying l’chaim to a chair etc… I even hear that they might give out Dolores on Sundays.
Anybody that does not like what they are doing will simply get beaten up.

If they do these thinks it will be the biggest Chillol Lubavitch ever, How can we let them make a joke out of the Rebbe, WE MUST STOP THEM (before it really gets bad)!!!

[Bittul]

Originally Posted by Meshulam

He hit on something deeper then that, even. Judge Harkavy relied on only a single case in his entire decision: Satmar. Now, Lubavitchers can no longer play their favorite trump card (that is: at least, our fight isn't as bad as Satmar). Since Satmar's decision apparently played a role in getting Judge Harkavey where he was going, it seems as though our issue and Satmar's are similar indeed. And we might be forced to eat humble pie over it.

All of that said, you're right about the old typewriter.

There is a standard format to legal papers and decisions.

The judge relied on many things: Property law, tenant rights, and precedent. Precedent doesn't mean as much in common law as it does in Jewish law, he could have decided other than the Satmar case if he wished. But the ikar is that there is a code of law that dictates property rights.

I am not sure how this is a favorite trump card, or a trump card at all, or how humble pie need be eaten for this, etc. But Lo Machshevosai Machshevoisechem.

[AntiMishichist]

Theres one exit on the right and one on the left.

[JewishHiphop]

B"H

May it be the will of Hashem to resolve this situation with Shalom in the best possible way, in accordance with rigtheousness - tzedeck and judgement - mishpat (I.e. of our holy Torah) amen.

Shabbat Shalom

[a tomim]

Amain.

[Meshulam]

Originally Posted by Bittul

There is a standard format to legal papers and decisions.
The judge relied on many things: Property law, tenant rights, and precedent. Precedent doesn't mean as much in common law as it does in Jewish law, he could have decided other than the Satmar case if he wished. But the ikar is that there is a code of law that dictates property rights.

Correct. Normally, a number of cases are cited to, even when their only purpose is to establish perfunctory matters. The whole case came up under landlord-tenant law. And so it was cited throughout. But there was only one case citation. That was to the Satmar case. The Satmar case itself didn't stand for anything all that interesting (civil Judges cannot decide religious issues. When their decisions based on secular law are to intertwined with religious issues, then they cannot exercise jurisdicton). If anything, that might have been an aid to CLI. But, since the facts here were very distinguishable, Satmar was cited only so that Judge Harkavy could preemptively attack the argument that he was deciding religious matters. With respect to your comment about the role of precedent in secular law: I don't know what you're talking about. Unless there is a statute that controls, common law decides an issue. And common law is precedent. That's all it is. You might have to cite to a House of Lords decision from the 1600s to establish some common law principal. But there is no such thing as citing to "common law." Alternatively, a Judge can state "as has been well established at common law" or some such similar loshon. But normally, there's a case citation attached to a point that's made, even if the point is not at all surprising, and merely reflects the common law.

I am aware of all of this. I also think that there's another reason he chose to cite to that case when, as you said, many other cases could be cited that make the same point (though in fairness, Satmar was brought to New York's highest court, so that makes it extra citeable). I think he wanted to hold a mirror up the Chabad. If we look in the mirror, we'll see... Satmar. A group of Jews who used to have a great leader, and who are now involved in internal squabbles that have become so public that it has tarnished the whole movement. Both sides blame the other. And the uninvolved public can't even tell the sides apart, let alone assign blame: so both sides end up looking very stupid.

I am not sure how this is a favorite trump card, or a trump card at all, or how humble pie need be eaten for this, etc. But Lo Machshevosai Machshevoisechem.

I have seen that trump card played. But maybe you haven't. Fine. The criticism still stands. If you don't want to eat humble pie, you don't have to. Apparently the screen name "Bittul" was a clever joke on your part. But, to be frank, I'm embarassed that we had to take this issue to secular court to get it resolved. It speak to our collective maturity as a chasidic movement.

Bobov is currently in a well-publicized succession feud. However, they have managed to pick a Beis Din (incidentally, not a Bobov Beis Din) and are in the process of sorting their issues out in Beis Din. Most Jews don't like Machlokes, and are a little embarassed to be party to such a public machlokes (Admo''r MiBobov would be a much grander title, if it wasn't being shared). But at least Bobover Chassidim can pat themselves on the back (without letting it get to their heads) because when confronted with a problem, they did the right thing. In Satmar and in Lubavitch alike, we have failed to do that.

[chossidnistar]

Originally Posted by Torah613

Moshiach???

I think that what is going on in 770 today; shvil, signs,musics,flags,tzfaskeit is preventing Moshiach to come

[chossidnistar]

Originally Posted by Aaronke

Who's side are you on Chossidnisstar? I thought you were a Meshichist?
I personaly want Moshiach to come and take care of it...

I am in the Rebbe's side

[Torah613]

Originally Posted by chossidnistar

I think that what is going on in 770 today; shvil, signs,musics,flags,tzfaskeit is preventing Moshiach to come

Maybe, maybe not ... but those antics are unfortunately here to stay...

[Bittul]

The embarrassment arises from the antics being reported in the press for the last 15 years. This court or that court in particular doesn't really bother me. Nothing to do with the Halachah end of it, which is clear, just my personal feeling that there is more to worry about than ending up in court.

Comparing a succession machlokes (even if it includes a property dispute) to what is only a property dispute is apples to oranges.

Originally Posted by Meshulam

Apparently the screen name "Bittul" was a clever joke on your part.

As was Meshulam loshon Mushlam? This canard is old hat. And perhaps here it appropriately refers to Bittul Hachitzonim.

[DW Duke]

Originally Posted by Bittul

The embarrassment arises from the antics being reported in the press for the last 15 years. This court or that court in particular doesn't really bother me. Nothing to do with the Halachah end of it, which is clear, just my personal feeling that there is more to worry about than ending up in court.

Comparing a succession machlokes (even if it includes a property dispute) to what is only a property dispute is apples to oranges.

But is the property dispute seen as a symptom of a much more serious disorder? If the two factions never reconcile, what will be the end result? Perhaps reconciliation will come through the final redeemer.

[Meshulam]

Originally Posted by DW Duke

But is the property dispute seen as a symptom of a much more serious disorder? If the two factions never reconcile, what will be the end result? Perhaps reconciliation will come through the final redeemer.

You hit the nail right on the head.

[Bittul]

Originally Posted by DW Duke

But is the property dispute seen as a symptom of a much more serious disorder? If the two factions never reconcile, what will be the end result? Perhaps reconciliation will come through the final redeemer.

Perhaps. On the other hand, the extremism of the Tzfatim has put most of the average CH balabatim in the camp of those trying to clean up 770, which right now is Merkos and Aguch. They may not care about who is running what, but they do care about being able to daven without fear of a fistfight and other violence. The gabboim elected by them have proven ineffective, although they are supposedly meshichisten themselves.

Whether this practical conciliation continues afterwards is anyones guess. As long as they are allowed to have their davening, especially on Shabbos, the way they want, with a Rov and a speaker after kriah, it may very well continue.

[Intrigued]

The Rebbe wants the oirois d'Tohu to be in the keilim d'tikkun.

But the keilim d'Tikkun don't make room for the oirois and become dictatorial.
And the oiros d'Tohu refuse to accept the structure of th ekeilim and turn into Talibanim.

Too many want to be right and not enough want ahavas yisroel ie oirois d'Torhu b'keilim d'Tikkkun

[yanqui]

Originally Posted by chossidnistar

I am in the Rebbe's side

I'm on the side of whoever can keep the bathroom clean. I was in 770 a few weeks ago, and phew! could smell it even at the top of the stairs. Not like the old days, man, when the Rebbe could keep order, even among the maintenance staff.

Didan notzah my foot. Didan reiach, is more like it.

[Bittul]

You obviously weren't around for the "old days"...

770 was one big "eaeu de toillete" back then.

[Yankel Nosson]

Originally Posted by yanqui

[chossidnistar]

Originally Posted by DW Duke

But is the property dispute seen as a symptom of a much more serious disorder? If the two factions never reconcile, what will be the end result? Perhaps reconciliation will come through the final redeemer.

You are right, IT looks that only the final redeemer can do something

[Bittul]

This is heipech divrei nesienu who insisted Tut Altz Vos Ir Kent and not to hope passively, which is a form of Yiush ukeyadua perek 26 Tanya etc.

[chossidnistar]

Aguch and Markos are not strong, if there is not achdus among the members,...