metro

Chabad from page 21

institution Bais Chabad Torah Center of
West Bloomfield and the members of its
board in their function at the institution,
in order to get a rabbinical court ruling
validated, there is clearly no place here
for concern about [this causing] any des-
ecration of the Divine Name, G-d forbid."
The defendants counter with a let-
ter from the Brooklyn-based Office of
the Executive Committee of the Central
Committee of Chabad-Lubavitch Rabbis
in the United States and Canada that
stated that Chabad of Michigan has no
authority to sue the members of the
Torah Center board in civil court because
they were not party to the rabbinical pro-
ceedings:
"If the rabbinical court will decide to
permit Rabbi Shemtov to begin secular
court proceedings, this permission is
only granted concerning his demands
and arguments against Rabbi Silberberg
exclusively"
The letter added, "In general, as in any
case where one Jew has a dispute with
another Jew whom he feels has grieved
him, the two parties (the members of the
board and Rabbi Shemtov), can summon
each other to a rabbinical court of their
choice."

Nctittitir

Thus, said attorney Mendel, Chabad of
Michigan is defying its own hierarchal
superior in filing a civil suit against the
Torah Center board.
"Their argument is that there is a hier-
archy that has to be followed. Even if you
assume there is a hierarchy, look at what
the hierarchy said — and it specifically
said you cannot sue the board or the
Torah Center, and yet they did. That's a
big problem from a Jewish standpoint."
Chabad attorney Ankers responded
to this point, saying, "I think that that
is a mischaracterization; and there are
a number of bodies in the hierarchal
authority which can convey a right to
sue; and we have, in fact, received that."

Tribunal Or Arbitration?

The Torah Center also denies that the rab-
binic proceedings that Chabad of Michigan
seeks to enforce were final judicial rulings,
but rather an incomplete arbitration.
"They picked three arbitrators; they
had an arbitration contract signed as
part of the hierarchical process and the
arbitration then proceeded and essen-
tially never finished," said Mendel. "And
now, it can't finish because one of the
three arbitrators passed away and one

withdrew. They never got done with the
process."
Ankers disagrees with the contention
that Michigan law regarding arbitrations
should apply to the rabbinical court.
"This was an ecclesiastical tribunal
that is established pursuant to certain
rules and everyone is bound by those
rules:' he said.
"The defendants call it an arbitration
— I guess you can do it colloquially —
but the case law that they cite that refers
to arbitration is clearly referring to civil
authorities constituting civil litigation
disputes, and that's not what this is."

Role Of The Board

"One of the issues that you see from the
exhibits of the complaint is that these
arbitration panels realized that they only
had Rabbi Silberberg there and they did
not have the owner of the property:' said
Mendel.
"So, the end result of these arbitrations
that never actually ended is they said, `Rabbi
Silberberg, you've got to make an effort to go
to your board of the Torah Center and see
if they are willing to transfer the prop-
erty.' Which he did and they were not.
"An invitation was made to the Chabad

of Michigan to come and make a presen-
tation to the board and they declined:'
said Mendel. "So the board was willing
to discuss it. They were willing to put an
end to it to make certain changes in their
bylaws — not the ones that the arbitra-
tors wanted, not all the ones that the
plaintiff wanted — but enough to assure
people that the Torah Center would
remain Chabad in the way of customs,
liturgy, those sorts of things. It was not
taken up by the plaintiff."
But Chabad of Michigan said in its
statement: "We believe we have a respon-
sibility to protect the Lubavitch move-
ment by respecting its system. In order
for Lubavitch to pursue its mission, this
must continue to be a high priority.
"If the defendants would like this issue
to move out of court, rather than distract
the community with technical legal argu-
ments, they should do what they know
is right and comply with the decisions of
the rabbinical courts."
Both parties have until July 18 to
respond to each other's motions and
another week to file a rebuttal. Oral argu-
ment is scheduled for Aug. 15 before
Judge Chabot at the county courthouse in
Pontiac.

-ct,phy

by M

Nat-LAA -ottlyM 011.41AA Win/

248.867.4884

FALL 2012:

The, relea,se,

•

•
I~ lt• I IU! tttiReAsIps ,

E A

TRIUMPH

(A coaectio-n/ of
poi -tra,fts- cf,nd/ yto-ri,es.
of- H olo-ccuA/st

i11/

s4 -ctoi/

E 1.,t4/-ope/,

a/ncl/ theAL S

mititti.LiviAcup) i,t-ne4se* net

'hank you to our Jewish News for
fidping to keep our community strong and connected7

22

June 21 2012