August 17, 2012 is Etz Chaim/Ohr Saadya's next court date VS the Teaneck BOA. What do you think will occur on August 17th? What will Etz Chaim/Ohr Saadya do?

Thursday, July 19, 2012

The Trial

After the BOA decision,
the neighbors were happy,
Robert Erlich told the papers he was happy,
Rabbi Daniel Feldman told the papers he was relieved
and Etz Chaim's lawyer said
he was happy with the balance the BOA made
between religious freedom and respecting the neighbors.


All was quiet and dandy.


Enter Akiva ”I need to enhance my resume” Shapiro.


He pushed for a trial instead of applying to the township for a sign and going to BOA to appeal specific issues.


There are systems in place in all-inclusive Teaneck
to accommodate synagogues and mosques and churches.
All you need to do is follow them.
Instead, overtaxed Teaneck residents will be footing the bill,
so Akiva Shapiro can get trial experience.


If Akiva Shapiro,
member of Ohr Saadya and dinner honoree,
didn't need this trial on his 2 1/2 year old resume,
would Ohr Saadya still be going to trial?
Posted by Shluffenheimer MacDougal at 9:19 PM
Labels: , , , ,

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would have to answer yes they probably still would have sued the BOA because upon reflection they were unhappy with the conditions. I doubt the decision was based all on him. Again I doubt he is even the lead counsel, he has no litigation experience. A small time lawyer who does litigation and knows New Jersey Courts would kick his butt around the Court, he may be a pompous New York attorney, but that doesn't translate into knowing how to navigate the rules of evidence in a New Jersey Court room.

July 19, 2012 at 9:46 PM
Shluffenheimer MacDougal said...

Moderator's Comment:
9:46 are other systems in place in Teaneck for them to use to get what they want. For example, if they apply for the ability to put up a sign, they will be able to put up a sign which is a very low key decision. Extra time to congregate etc they need to reapply to the BOA. Based on synagogues that follow the rules, they would be approved, but instead Akiva Shapiro pushed for a trial. Its not a question of results, but a question of method.

Instead of using a quiet, mundane ordinary routine handshake, Ohr Saadya is looking for a high profile drawn out brawl.

Is it Rabbi Feldman's fault? Robert Erlich's? They need members to pay for the house, not horrible press (like my blog). The only one who gains, win or lose, is Akiva Shapiro.

Shluffenheimer

July 19, 2012 at 10:00 PM
Anonymous said...

Now your attacking Akiva Shapiro, amazing, he actually has more brains in his butt than you losers collectively have in your combined heads. Etz Chaim was never content with the restrictions they were forced to accept them, again more Macdoo distortions. 9:46 you will eat cr p after Akiva wins the trial, what will you say then, you yutzes should pray hard this week, repent actually.

July 19, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Anonymous said...

10:06 give it a rest already dude, it is the same BS on every post, Akiva Esq., will probably not win or lose the case because I doubt he will be the one to actually try it. You repent for us based on your lofty Jewish status, you need a good beating boy. Mac, you could be right but I don t see how a guy with no real trial experience ivy leaque or not could be the lead counsel on this case, I still think they would have sued anyway even if A Shapiro encouraged it.

July 19, 2012 at 10:19 PM
Shluffenheimer MacDougal said...

Moderator's Comment:
Mr. 10:06 hypocritically commenting on the 9 days. You should control yourself from sinning.

Reality is is that Rabbi Feldman, Robert Erlich and Ed Trawinski, esq DID NOT have to go on record in interviews all happy, relieved and lauding the BOA.

If they were truly upset, their quotes would be angry and vengeful and expressed their disagreement with the ruling.

That's why your arguments are just noise and angry rantings.

Shluffenheimer

July 19, 2012 at 10:21 PM
Anonymous said...

Mac, I think you maybe misquoted Rabbi Daniel. He never actually said he agreed with all the stipulations. He actually said that he hasn't seen them all but that he was sure they're all good and fair. That's a big difference from actually agreeing to all the stipulations. I like your blog but here's one time you made a mistake.

July 20, 2012 at 9:38 AM
Shluffenheimer MacDougal said...

Moderator's Comment: 9:38am I wrote that Rabbi Feldman was relieved. That is not a misquote or mistake.

Rabbi Feldman is well documented in stating that Etz Chaim operates only 3% of the week. Everything the township stipulated was good and fair because it was exactly what Rabbi Feldman asked for, especially the religious aspects.

The only areas that he might not be happy with is not being able to cook in the kitchen, which they never asked for and not having a sign, which they need to apply for separately.

Shluffenheimer

July 20, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Post a Comment