The problems with the Lubavitch


Freehold, New Jersey
January 2, 2008, 11:41 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

“Rabbi sues to overturn zoning rules”

Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 05/31/07

BY NICK PETRUNCIO
FREEHOLD BUREAU

Story ChatPost Comment

FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP — A dispute between an Orthodox Jewish rabbi and the township is being couched as a clash between religious freedom and municipal zoning rules.

The township contends that Rabbi Avraham Bernstein is using his home on Stillwell’s Corner Road as a house of worship and that the number of people frequently gathering in his backyard are constitutes an infringement on the residential character of the neighborhood.
“This is a zoning issue. We have a zone in which houses of worship are a conditionally permitted use, and in order to establish such a use you have to meet certain conditions,” said Duane Davison, the township attorney.

Davison added that Bernstein’s property does not meet those conditions.
However, Gerald Marks, a Red Bank attorney who represents Bernstein, said the rabbi is protected by law as a clergyman who is pursuing his religious beliefs in his own home. The gatherings in the backyard are family celebrations being generally mistaken by neighbors as religious ceremonies, Marks said. The rabbi has eight children.

“The importance of this case is the attempted abridgement of the constitutional right to practice your own religion in your home, and that is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, it’s further guaranteed by the New Jersey Constitution and a further act of Congress,” the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Marks said.

The legislation was signed into law in 2000.

The act “prohibits federal, state and local governments, with certain exceptions, from implementing any land-use regulation that imposes a substantial burden on religious activity,” said Stuart Meck, the director of the Center for Government Services at Rutgers University.

Meck added, though, that the law does not say what a substantial burden is.

To prevail, a town must show it is acting in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and the means selected to enforce the law is the least restrictive means, said Meck, who also is a licensed professional planner.

Without commenting specifically on the Bernstein case, Meck said: “Governments tend to lose (cases involving the land-use act) because they often don’t have a good defense. It’s very hard to come up with a defense where you have to meet both of those prongs.”

The federal law also addresses the religious rights of institutionalized people such as prisoners.

Crowds excessive

Davison said that while the state Supreme Court has ruled people have a right to religious use in a home, the meetings of 30 to 70 people at Bernstein’s home goes beyond that use.

“It’s crossed over to a substantial degree such that it needs the municipal approvals to have a house of worship, and that’s all it comes down to,” Davison said.

Marks said that even if those gatherings were religious ceremonies, they still would be protected under the law. He said the only thing the rabbi is doing is praying in his house, and in order to pray appropriately, according to Orthodox Jewish law, a minyan, or group of 10 men, is needed. Otherwise, the Torah cannot be read and other prayers cannot be recited, he said.

Moreover, Bernstein — as a part of Chabad, one of the largest branches of Hasidic Judaism — organizes community, educational and social activities, Marks said, but all of those take place at locations such as the Freehold Raceway Mall.

Township zoning officials had sent Bernstein notices before and after he applied to build an addition, informing him he is in violation of municipal land-use ordinances. His application also was denied because the township said he was using his home as a house of worship.

Zoning Officer Guy Leighton, who could not be reached for comment, filed a complaint in Municipal Court. A hearing was set for May 15 but was adjourned until June 26.

Marks filed a lawsuit Tuesday in Superior Court in Freehold. He said he does not expect the Municipal Court to act before there is a resolution in the higher court.

Davison said the Bernstein suit is premature because he has not exhausted other avenues of appeal. Davison said Bernstein can declare his home a house of worship on an undersized lot and apply for proper variances for that use from Zoning Board of Adjustment. Or the rabbi can apply to have the board interpret the zoning ordinance with the possibility the building will not be considered a house of worship, Davison said.

Nick Petruncio: (732) 308-7752 or npetruncio@app.com

Town modifies definition for houses of worship

FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP – The Township Committee recently adopted changes to the municipality’s land use code to modify the words “church” and “churches” and the phrase “places of worship” to read

houses of worship.”

The change stems from an ongoing legal case involving Rabbi Avraham Bernstein, a member of Chabad Lubavitch, a worldwide Jewish organization headquartered in Brooklyn, N.Y., who has lived on Stillwells Corner Road directly across from the municipal building since 1998.

Bernstein filed a lawsuit against the town after being issued a notice from the zoning officer which stated that he was in violation of municipal land use law by conducting a house of worship in his home. Complaints against Bernstein concerning religious activities in his home started in 1999.

A civil rights lawsuit was filed by Bernstein against Freehold Township in federal district court several months ago, accusing the township of setting up a camera in the window of town hall and pointing it at Bernstein’s home.

Attorney Gerald A. Marks, who represents Bernstein, claims the township is violating the free exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution, the New Jersey State Constitution, and the Religious Land Use Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. He said the change in wording in the municipal ordinance has “constitutional defects.”

“The township has the tools already in place to control a nuisance,” said Marks, who spoke before the committee when the ordinance was considered in late September. “We needn’t go into the area of zoning, which is butting heads with freedom to exercise religious beliefs. What you are considering tonight is on thin ice or a slippery slope. Whatever you seek to stop, you already have the police power to stop.”

Marks said parts of the ordinance are written in vague terms.

According to the Township Committee, the amendment to the ordinance is “to permit the free expression of faith in all circumstances where it will not be deleterious to the character of the zone district in which such expression is taking place and will not interfere with the rights of quiet repose of property occupants in the vicinity.”

A house of worship is defined in the ordinance as “any structure or building that is used as the regular site for traditional services, meetings and/or gatherings of an organized religious body or community, which services, meetings and or gatherings are presided over by the ordained or otherwise officially recognized leader of that body or community. Exempted are incidental, temporary or sporadic meetings attended by a small number of persons such that the character of the zone district in which it is located is not comprised for occupants of properties in that area.”

Resident Perry Schwartz asked Township Attorney Duane O. Davison, “What is the definition of the words you are using? That leaves holes large enough to drive a truck through.”

Resident Howard Bernstein said, “How much money is this township willing to spend to fight this?”

http://newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2007/1017/Front_Page/081.html

Advertisements


Mission of this blog
January 1, 2008, 10:31 pm
Filed under: Ethics, separation of church and state, Uncategorized

Lubavitch Chabads are multiplying all over this nation at a huge rate. I have been involved in litigation against one and through my research I have found that my situation was happening in other communities but no one has connected these different cases to a movement by this group. Currently there are 3000 Chabads in the U.S. and they plan in the next 5 years to have 8000. The Lubavitch came in the 50’s with about 2000 followers and are currently about 200,000.

This sect takes residential real estate and uses it for a place to do their business. They take all of this real estate off the tax roles and live rent-free and tax free just by holding services in their living rooms. They avoid taxes with their 501C status while at the same time use the services of the fire, police and all other infrastructure services which their tax paying neighbors are paying for in residential neighborhoods….. which are the only neighborhoods that they target.

The Lubavitch are very quietly anti Israel as they feel it is much too secular and they believe that their Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson who died in 1994 will return soon as their messiah. The established Jewish American community does not recognize the Lubavitch. Most of the Rabbis are not licensed or have not even graduated from any recognized universities. They also use cash, bartering and foreign money to augment there lifestyles. They are amassing enormous amounts of residential real estate nationally without paying any taxes.

There is a” bait and switch “mentality to this group. Tell the community that you are buying a house for residential use and then turn it in to a house of worship. Their entitlement is very obvious when you try to fight them. Currently, there are several court cases about this issue, and many other cases that towns are fighting these groups on zoning violations in their own local municipals. They are operating abusive scams in the name of RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) and other religious accommodation laws.

This particular group will always build and operate first without compliance or permits in violation of zoning and then scream religious persecution when anyone attempts to get them to comply.

This is not only about who pays tax. It is about landowners and tenants rights and the ability of this sect to suppress those rights and amass tax free donations and real estate while forcing local businesses to comply with their rules and regulations all via intimidation tactics. This is a national problem that must be addressed.

But no one media organization has connected all these different situations to a grand movement by the Lubavitch. In the following pages I have copied just a few of the many newspaper, magazine and web articles about this subject.

I do believe that I am one of the few people to win against the Lubavitch. I had excellent lawyers, Judges that listened and wrote case law decisions and strong

New York City rent laws.

I will try to inform you each week of other cases that these chabads have in cities throughout the U.S. with local real estate authorities and citizens of these communities.