Friday, January 04, 2008

Spinka Rebbe Court Order modified


Pursuant to the Stipulation entered into between the parties,
IT IS SO ORDERED that the December 21, 2007 order setting conditions of
bail for Rabbi Naftali Weisz be modified as follows:

The conditions relating to travel are deleted and replaced with the following:
Rabbi Weisz may travel to and within the states of New York, New Jersey and
California; Rabbi Weisz may travel to other states only upon prior notice to and
approval by the pretrial services office. Rabbi Weisz may enter the premises of
airports, railroads, and bus terminals to conduct such travel.
The condition requiring Rabbi Weisz to participate in residential drug and/or
alcohol testing is hereby deleted.

The conditions of home confinement are modified to delete the condition of
electronic monitoring and instead require Rabbi Weisz to report by telephone to the
pretrial services office every day except for the Jewish Sabbath and other Jewish
holidays. Rabbi Weisz may leave the home to perform his work and religious
responsibilities as a rabbi including, for example, attending funerals, weddings,
religious communal meals, circumcision ceremonies, hospital visits, tutoring, inhome
counseling, lectures at schools and places of worship, bar mitzvahs, and
memorial services. For purposes of this order, home confinement shall mean
confinement to the structures at 1462 and 1466 56th Street, Brooklyn, New York.
Abraham Lesser is a satisfactory Surety.

Why is it everybody's business to know and read and gossip about every detail that pretains to the Rebbe? Wouldn't it be better to leave him in peace and let the entire matter stay quiet and below the radar? I think that it is time that this gossip be stopped for the benefit of the Rebbi and everyone else.


whats doing with the moiser?


Why is it everybody's business to know and read and gossip about every detail that pretains to the Rebbe?

Criminal matters are a matter of public record.


Criminal matters are a matter of public record.

January 05, 2008 6:31 PM

Look it up yourself if you are interested
We,the majority,agree with the 1st comment
"I think that it is time that this gossip be stopped for the benefit of the Rebbi and everyone else."


Did anyone ask you to come here? Anyone forcing you to read this? Chaptzem can post what he wants and it up to you do deiced if you want to read it or not.

Way to go Chaptzem!


nothing wrong with keeping up posted with daily new developments pertaining to this case.

Keep up the great work, chaptzem.


What does this mean?
Abraham Lesser is a satisfactory Surety.


Anonymous of 1/4 @6:12 PM:

We have public trials in the United States of America. Perhaps you would prefer "die alter heim."

There is a very simple solution to the "problem" of having people discuss the matters pertaining to your criminal case--don't get involved in one!

Oh, and 1/5 6:43 P.M. "We, the majority?"

Are you delusional, my friend? Who took a poll here?

Bravo Chaptzem for keeping this matter in the public eye and encouraging public disciurse


"We,the majority,agree with the 1st comment"

- if there was a vote, I missed it


The Rebbi might have a problem if he is going to the Catskills.

Remember that there will be construction on Route 17 around Monroe.

I have had occasion, when the Route17 traffic was severe, to bypass it all by going the long way around via I-684 to I-84, and then pick up Route 17 at Middletown.

The problem for the Rebbe is that I-684 goes onto Connecticut soil for not quite a mile.


Forget the poor Rebbe, What's with the Moiser with his very own tennis court?


I'm assuming Chaptzem is Jewish & therefore subject to all the halachos of Loshon Horah (public record is not a jewish concept). Any Rosho Merusha who can't live without a regular dose of Loshon Horah can go on public government websites to dig up whatever trash they need to sustain themselves. Those of us just searching for good accurate kosher news in the frum community don't have many places to go for that. We hope Chaptzem will heed this plea. Thank You.


Some other blogs have decided it more prudent to not run these articles. I can see a handful of reasons for their decision.

For some reason, there are some Jews who get a kick out of articles that show a problem with Chassidim. I do not understand this. Nobody is more charitable or helpful to fellow Jews than the Chassidim, but instead of appreciation, they are put down, made fun of, and shown disdain instead of ahavas Yisroel.

It is funny, tragic actually, but when a movie or music star does something wrong or evil, you all find excuses for him, and we hear comments, like, "Maybe he is innocent" or "Maybe it is not his fault" or "Don't judge him if you are not in his shoes"

But if it happens to a Chassid, a fellow Jew, he is assumed guilty, and does not get the benefit of doubt.

This is wrong, and immoral.

We must assume he is innocent.

We must do or say nothing that can be used against him. That includes writing stuff which may sway the opinions of potential jurors or judges against him!!!!


this is a hot topic and the more info we know the better.


thank you chaptzem for posting this article


Dear "Anon Jan 05, 2008 8:42 PM"

If others heed the issur of G'niveh we will gladly refrain from the issur of Lushen Hura. Either way, I still love you as a person.

Shulem the baal lushen hura that is nukee m'gniveh.


Anonymous of 1/5 @7:43 PM: That usually means that the gentleman in question is satisfactory to the court as the poster of bail.

Anonymous of 1/5 @10:07 PM:

Are you living in some parallel universe?

You said, "It is funny, tragic actually, but when a movie or music star does something wrong or evil, you all find excuses for him. . ."

First of all, I haven't noticed anyone discussing much about show business on this blog, but in any case, you are completely wrong.

The Page One story of both the New York Post and the Daily News in yesterday's editions was music star Britney Spears being hauled off to involuntary confinement, charged with being an unfit mother and having a petition filed attempting to revoke all her parental rights.

I haven't heard or read one word excusing her behavior, certainly not on this blog.

Strike one.

Next, you said, "We must assume he [the rebbe] is innocent." No one need assume anything. On the other hand, as I already pointed out in another post on this blog, every criminal defendant is entitled under the Sixth Amendment to the Presumption of Innocence.

I have every right to assume that the government believes they have a good case. Were I a juror, however, I would follow the judge's instructions and demand that the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. THAT'S the Presumption of Innocence.

Strike Two.

Finally, we come to the jackpot when you declare, "We must do or say nothing that can be used against him. That includes writing stuff which may sway the opinions of potential jurors or judges against him!"

Listen, tateleh, and I'll explain it to you.

We have this thing called voir dire. Google it. Very basically, it is when lawyers and sometimes even the judge question prospective jurors. Among the common questions in notorious cases are variations on:

Have you read or seen any news coverage of this case?

Have you formed an opinion as to whether or not the defendant is guilty?

Are you prepared to put aside any knowledge or bias that you have and decide this case based solely on the evidence presented in this courtroom and the instructions of the judge?

Lawyers and the judge get to challenge i.e. excuse, prospective jurors when they don't like the answers they give to these questions or the manner in which they were given.

While I say kol ha'kavod to Chaptzem, realistically there is nothing that appears on this blog that is likely to influence the Los Angeles federal court jury pool to the point where a fair and impartial jury could not be chosen.

The idea that anything written here influences federal judges is just plain silly.

Strike Three. (Note: That means you're out.)

Now for a reality check. When someone from our community is accused of a crime, it hurts all of us. IF such a person is convicted, it hurts us irreparably.

I am very much concerned about this and I appreciate the opportunity to voice this concern. Feel free to exercise your right to remain silent.




Keep it up post everything...maybe others will see it and stop cheating the IRS because they will see the price that they will have to pay...so in essence you are saving rebbelach from serving hard time as the Spinka will




Esquire : January 06, 2008 5:03 AM

1) You are right, there are a few entertainers now who are getting a rough time for their actions. But that does not give us the right to do the same with a fellow Jew.

However, I accept Strike 1 on that point.

I was thinking about so many of the ones from the past, like MJ and OJ who had, at the time, so many being don THEM L'Kav Zchus. I just wished people would do the same to a Jewish Rov.

2) The Presumption of innocence is the Law in the US, but NOT Halacha. Halacha says we MUST BELIEVE a man is innocent, unless a Beis Din finds the person guilty after testimony of Kosher Aidim. Only after a ruling from a Kosher Beis Din may WE even believe the testimony of the actual eye witnesses.
Sorry no strike to me there.
But Strike One to you.

3) Sorry, as a court reporter, I have been at many voir dires, and also been on quite a few Juries.

Many voir dires are rushed through, and the potential jurors are not questioned thoroughly enough. I have seen so many attorneys take the attitude, that they do not wish to tick off the Jurors by seeming 'mean' to them, that they do the voir dire in a cursory way, with a big smile, using it as an opportunity to ingratiate themselves with the Jurors.

Strike Two to you.

Many jurors LIE because they do not want to look bad in the eyes of the Judge and attorneys.
They remember the press, TV and previous "knowledge" well, and use it in their deliberations, despite their pledge to the attorneys and to The Court otherwise. They do not openly so state in the jury room, but whisper to each other during breaks. You have no idea how many times I overheard, "We all KNOW this guy is guilty. We knew it before the trial. You remember what was in the xxxxxx paper about him. The judge is not allowing us to see much of the evidence because it may not have been obtained legally, you know those loopholes that keep evidence from the jury, but we know it exists. It is our duty to not let this guy go free on the technicality that stopped the evidence from being presented to us. We know it already. We know he is guilty. Why do we have to take so long to deliberate?"

Twice in my life, so far, I have passed a note to the judge telling him the jury was tainted, and caused a severe admonition from the judge. But no matter how loud the judge yells at the jury, it does not change their minds.

One of those times, the judge ruled a miss, and dismissed the jury with anger. He thanked me personally later for the courage to speak out.

Information seen or heard by people before the trial DOES affect the outcome of the trial.

Strike THREE to you.

When The Court charges the Jury, many jurors just nod their heads but understand zilch.

I have spoken to many who have been on numerous criminal and civil trials, who after hearing 20 or 30 charges, still can not tell you the difference between the Fair Preponderance of Credible Evidence and Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

I have seen jurors decide criminal cases based upon "evidence" never presented nor admitted during the trial.

Do not assume that when we send the Jurors to the Jury Room to deliberate, they use only the evidence admitted, and follow the Charge of the Court. That is a very naive assumption.

I was taking a case one time, where the jury found for the plaintiff.
The judge was sooo sure they would find for the respondent/defendant, that he questioned the jurors after the verdict, and asked,

The Court: "On what basis did you find the respondent/defendant liable?"

The jurors: "We heard some convincing testimony."

The Court: "What percentage of the testimony and evidence that you heard here did you think was believable?"

The Jurors: "Oh, all of it."

The Court: "Did any of the defenant's witnesses or any of his evidence seem NOT BELIEVABLE to you?"

The Jurors: "Oh, no. Everything was believable. "

The Court: "So, you say all the evidence was credible in your eyes. What percentage of the evidence did you think was in favor of the respondent/defendant?"

The Jurors: "Oh, almost all of it. Perhaps 80% or more."

The Court: "And what percentage of the evidence was in favor of the plaintiff?"

The Jurors: "I guess about 20%"

The Court: "Can any of you explain to me what I said in my charge, about the word preponderance?"

The Jurors: ... silence..

The Court: Can any one of you tell me that you believe the evidence prepoderated in favor of the plaintiff?

The Jurors: ... silence..

If you are a trial attorney, you have seen this stuff yourself.

How can you assume any person will get a fair trial after damning press has poisoned the minds of the jurors? All it takes is one sentence that makes those who believe in the man's innocence into fools, that makes a juror not wish to say not guilty.

If a juror reads a passage from a Jew that makes fun of someone who is Jewish and believes in the man's innocence, and the juror is to embarrassed to express his not-guilty thoughts if he had them.

Also, please keep in mind, that MANY people are biased AGAINST Chassidic rabbis. Heck, so many Jews themselves are! Let us not make it worse. That is all I am saying.

4) I have personally seen a judge act differently in different cases based upon his own belief as to the innocence of guilt of the defendant. The bias of the judge can influence the tone of voice, and where he places his emphasis during the Courts Charge to the Jury, and CAN affect the outcome of a trial.

He used the exact same Charge each time. The official Record will show that all cases had equal charges. But if you hear the judges voice, you will see a BIG difference. Some words are said softly and almost mumbled. The judge knows the reporter is getting it all, and we can take charges at 240wpm since we know all the phrases. But the parts he wishes to emphasize are said slowly, deliberately, with eye contact to the jurors, while the parts he is "glossing over" make it into the record, but not into the jurors minds.

So, we do NOT want to influence a judge in a negative way. Even subconsciously.

Strike FOUR ... but we did not need that strike. You were already out.

And, if you think a Federal Judge is beyond influence, than YOU are from another dimension. Don't even get me started on that one.

PS. I only took this attitude, in this reply, because you were so sarcastic and insulting in your post. There is no need for us to put each other down personally in order to express an opinion.

PPS. If my words above hurt your feelings in any way, I apologize and ask you for mechila.


anybody know who the heck
Abraham Leser is?


Anonymous 1/06 @ 12:27 P.M.

I respond here only because of the risk of the nonsense you write here actually influencing some uninformed people.

Initially, the readers of Chaptzem ought to fully understand your qualifications and background. You are paid the write down that which is spoken by others. That does not mean you understand any of it. Clearly, you don’t “get” much and there is no reason to answer every single incorrect point.

Chaptzem readers: a “court reporter” also known as a “stenographer” is not a lawyer. While lawyers are required to have seven years of university education and then pass the bar exam as well as the character and fitness committee, a court reporter needs only a trade school course. In fact, “court reporters” are so unreliable that whenever we legally can, we replace them with tape recorders, or better yet, video.

If you believe our friend here, then when visiting a hospital to check on someone’s health, skip the doctor (after all, he only went to medical school), and go directly to the ward clerk. After all, she writes down doctor’s orders.

Hey, by that token, we don’t even need to ask a rav a she’ayla. Just ask the shames or better yet, the janitor.

Because Anonymous knows. He listened to what the professionals were saying. So of course, we can rely on him.

Just to clear up a portion of the rest of this tipshus, apparently, Anonymous believes that all Jews—even those convicted after trial—even those who pleaded guilty—are all not guilty. Why? Because in this twisted reasoning, a bes din did not convict them.

Heavens! You criticize me for writing? If you are really worried about what the judge or potential jurors think then you would beg Chaptzem to delete your message lest anyone get the idea that the Jewish community does not recognize the American legal system.

(Hey, let’s forget about dinei d’malchusa k’dina. Anonymous has just said all Jewish convicts are not guilty. What a chilul Hashem! What a disgrace!)

And how tzudrait can someone be? If the rebbe is “assumed” (again, not "presumed")innocent by your standards, then why are you not demanding an end to charges of mesirah? By your own standards, Mr. CW-1 has not been convicted by a bes din on the testimony of proper aidim so he should also be “assumed” innocent.

Which is it, double standard or lack of understanding?


As far as I am concerned, I would always hope that criminal charges against a fellow Jew prove to be unfounded.

Sadly, this is not always the case.


Just as a side note to this ongoing bickering between Esquire and Anonymous, it strikes me as awkward that an attorney with so much skill and university education would actually come to this blog and debate such nonsense. If you are really such a great attorney you probably do not have the time to come onto this blog and post such lengthy comments.



It seems YOU are the one with the nastiness, not anonymous.

And as an attorney, I can tell you he is more correct than you are.


esquire said

"....Why? Because in this twisted reasoning, a bes din did not convict them..."

So, you say the Torah is twisted? The rabbonim teach us that anonymous is right. That is the Torah way. You think that is twisted.


Anonymous, 6:48 PM:

Ever hear of the expression “a day off?”

I’m upset over this case because of the Chillul Hashem aspects so I feel it’s worth discussing as opposed to some of the less important things posted.

Anonymous, 7:05 P.M:

If you are an attorney, I assume you do not seek the approbation of stenographers for your work. If you think someone is “more correct” than someone else, please indicate how and on what basis.

Anonymous, 7:10 P.M:

Do you have a learning disability?

I said that the poster’s reasoning (that everyone not convicted by a bes din is assumed innocent including those who pleaded guilty) was twisted. This is not the teaching of the Torah!

How dare you accuse me of distorting the Torah!

I suggest you consult with a competent Torah authority and ask him if someone pleads guilty in court and openly admits to the judge (as required by federal law) exactly what criminal acts he committed, we are still to assume he is “innocent.”



What a bizzare way to spend "a day off."

Go get a life!!



Quit ranting and go ask your rov. Or will you call his response wrong also.

Notice that anonymous has stopped arguing.

You are the one ranting with anger.

By the way, I am an attorney also. And I have met some really educated and very experienced court reporters, whose thoughts are valuable to me on a case. They often have clearer insight into the case. Also, a good court reporter must be an educated person.

Bottom line, from what you write, I do not believe you are an attorney. Or if you are, you are very inexperienced.


Certainly, posting on this blog will give Esquire the experience he so desperately needs to prove his case. So Esquire, BRING IT ON!!


Just a point of info from yet another attorney.

Most court reporters who work in courthouses are involved in more trial activity from beginning to end than most trial lawyers experience.

Many a good attorney had met the court reporter during lunch, and asked the court reporter what he thinks, and taken the court reporter's advise. In fact I know of a few frum reporters who are law school graduates, but felt ethical problems in the actual practice of law, and went back to school to become court reporters.

Good court reporters, here in NY, can earn in the same range as a 4th year attorney in a decent firm, and stay clear of the moral issues of legal practice, which we all know has frequent problems, where we are forced to fight for our clients rights even when he/she is morally wrong.


i guess his "day off" is over.


RE: the argument between "Anonymous" and "Esquire"

I must say that it was quite refreshing to read comments that were actually spelled correctly and were grammatically correct on this blog! Quite unusual!


"Many a good attorney had met the court reporter during lunch, and asked the court reporter what he thinks, and taken the court reporter's advise.[sic]"

Sure. Absolutely. Happens every day.

How do you say "contempt of court" in Yiddish?


Who is Abraham Lesser?


Has anyone seen the search warrant that was executed in New York for the Borough Park properties that were searched? I know the California warrant is available & was linked on this blog, but what about the New York warrant? If it's available, where can I find it?


Esquire said:

If you believe our friend here, then when visiting a hospital to check on someone’s health, skip the doctor (after all, he only went to medical school), and go directly to the ward clerk. After all, she writes down doctor’s orders.

I guess Esquire never heard of the concept "ayshes chover k'chover". Oh well, he's a lawyer.


Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Chaptzem! Blog