More Chabad Mishegas
Lisa
giving a vort on the Siddur.
Well, sort of. The vort basically said that since page 770 in the
Artscroll Siddur was Tashlich (or whatever it was), that's a sign that
we need to do teshuva, presumably in order to bring the Rebbe shlita
ztz'l back.
It's at times like this that Hashem weeps.
Lisa
Creedmooronics!
"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:cc62d1fa.03120...@posting.google.com...
> Someone I know was recently in a Chabad school and heard someone
> giving a vort on the Siddur.
>
> Well, sort of. The vort basically said that since page 770 in the
> Artscroll Siddur was Tashlich (or whatever it was), that's a sign that
> we need to do teshuva, presumably in order to bring the Rebbe shlita
> ztz'l back.
What is on page 69 in said siddur, and how do they darshen it?
IS
Fiona
Fiona
"Creedmooronics!" <serj...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote
> > Someone I know was recently in a Chabad school and heard someone
> > giving a vort on the Siddur.
> >
> > Well, sort of. The vort basically said that since page 770 in the
> > Artscroll Siddur was Tashlich (or whatever it was), that's a sign that
> > we need to do teshuva, presumably in order to bring the Rebbe shlita
> > ztz'l back.
>
> What is on page 69 in said siddur, and how do they darshen it?
Oy, oy, oy. But I couldn't help laughing.
arise and learn
>Subject: More Chabad Mishegas
>From: li...@starways.net (Lisa)
>Date: 12/3/2003 2:45 PM Mountain >Standard Time
>Message-id: <cc62d1fa.0312031209.>1558...@posting.google.com>
What is a vort? Looked in the dictionary (Websters) and it wasn't listed.
That it's degradeding in anyway don't reply I don't need to add it to my
vocabulary.
Israel Tekhelet
**************************************************************************
*******************
I believe with a complete faith that the entire Torah now in our hands is the
same one that was given to Moses, our teacher, peace be upon him.
Henry Goodman
"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:cc62d1fa.03120...@posting.google.com...
Can I ask for suggestions.
(a) If you were the Artscroll publishers (perhaps some of them are lurking) what
would you put on page 770 of the next edition of the Siddur/machzor?
(b) (more difficult) Witty gematrias for Tav, shin, ayin
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd
news:20031203191625...@mb-m25.aol.com...
> [ Moderator's Comment: vort is Yiddish for word HPG ]
Not in this case - see below
> >Subject: More Chabad Mishegas
> >From: li...@starways.net (Lisa)
> >Date: 12/3/2003 2:45 PM Mountain >Standard Time
> >Message-id: <cc62d1fa.0312031209.>1558...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >Someone I know was recently in a >Chabad school and heard someone
> >giving a vort on the Siddur.
> >
> >Well, sort of. The vort basically said that >since page 770 in the
> >Artscroll Siddur was Tashlich (or >whatever it was), that's a sign that
> >we need to do teshuva, presumably in >order to bring the Rebbe shlita
> >ztz'l back.
> >
> >It's at times like this that Hashem >weeps.
> >
> >Lisa
>
> What is a vort? Looked in the dictionary (Websters) and it wasn't listed.
> That it's degradeding in anyway don't reply I don't need to add it to my
> vocabulary.
In this case, a vort is a short explanation of some point or another in
Torah or Jewish belief/practice. A vort, like the one Lisa mentioned, can
often be so original as to be completely fanciful and quite far from
traditional interpretation.
Here is a sample of a vort:
When we look at the name of the supposed Moshiach of the Jews, we see that
it is made up of Lose and Y. (Losey). It is clear that this refers to the
phrase "why lose," as in why lose our virginity to the depradations of those
who not only claim they are Moshiach, but also follow in the ways of the
author of the Ahavas Nearim, the Nambler Rov.
IS
Eliyahu Rooff
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:bqn1lu$us8$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
>
>
>
>
> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
> news:cc62d1fa.03120...@posting.google.com...
> > Someone I know was recently in a Chabad school and heard someone
> > giving a vort on the Siddur.
> >
> > Well, sort of. The vort basically said that since page 770 in the
> > Artscroll Siddur was Tashlich (or whatever it was), that's a sign
that
> > we need to do teshuva, presumably in order to bring the Rebbe shlita
> > ztz'l back.
> >
> > It's at times like this that Hashem weeps.
> >
> > Lisa
>
> Can I ask for suggestions.
>
> (a) If you were the Artscroll publishers (perhaps some of them are
lurking) what
> would you put on page 770 of the next edition of the Siddur/machzor?
>
nearly 800 pages long <G>, I'd put on page 770 whatever logically
followed page 769 and preceded 771. Unless we're superstitious like the
folks who won't put a 13th floor on a building, _something_ has to be
there...
Eliyahu
Henry Goodman
"Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vsukr15...@corp.supernews.com...
I was hoping for something to annoy the Lubies who regard 770 as a holy number.
Ravchaz
>number.
>
>
>--
>Henry Goodman
4 x 770 = 3080.
The Jewish Theological Seminary (Conservative) is at 3080 Broadway.
Conservative Judaism is thus 4 times as holy as Chabad.
QED
Charles Arian
Baltimore
Jonathan J. Baker
>> Well, sort of. The vort basically said that since page 770 in the
>> Artscroll Siddur was Tashlich (or whatever it was), that's a sign that
>> we need to do teshuva, presumably in order to bring the Rebbe shlita
>> ztz'l back.
>(a) If you were the Artscroll publishers (perhaps some of them are lurking) what
>would you put on page 770 of the next edition of the Siddur/machzor?
This page intentionally left blank.
>(b) (more difficult) Witty gematrias for Tav, shin, ayin
Well, 770 = TSh` = Tesha` = Nine which sounds like Nein -> don't follow
this sect.
814 is the gematria of Shabtai Tzvi. The difference is 44, which
could be Yeled - child. 770 is the child of Shabtai Tzvi?
That's the thing with Gematria - you can make it say anything.
--
Jonathan Baker | Marches-wan, marches-two,
jjb...@panix.com | March the months all through and through
Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker>
Creedmooronics!
news:20031204150441...@mb-m25.aol.com...
> >I was hoping for something to annoy the Lubies who regard 770 as a holy
> >number.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Henry Goodman
>
> 4 x 770 = 3080.
>
> The Jewish Theological Seminary (Conservative) is at 3080 Broadway.
>
> Conservative Judaism is thus 4 times as holy as Chabad.
More like four times more detrimental than fringe meshichist Chabad.
770 = gematria for hamor bli daat (donkey lacking knowledge). Hamor bli daat
has the same Habad acronym as does the Habad movement.
Moral of the story - don't play with gematrias.
IS
Yisroel Markov
said:
>Someone I know was recently in a Chabad school and heard someone
>giving a vort on the Siddur.
>
>Well, sort of. The vort basically said that since page 770 in the
>Artscroll Siddur was Tashlich (or whatever it was), that's a sign that
>we need to do teshuva, presumably in order to bring the Rebbe shlita
>ztz'l back.
A call to t'shuva is never a bad thing, is it? Nor are numbers games
in the service of a drash new to Judaism.
You said "presumably." I gather that whoever gave the vort didn't say
so explicitly. If so, why do you have a problem with this? I dislike
"Chabad mishegas" no less than you do, but this case doesn't seem to
qualify.
(Yes, some Chabadniks insert 770 in their e-mail addresses and try to
use it anywhere else they can. A guy I know bought a Brother P770 fax
machine for that reason, and when he got a bulk mail permit #770 he
was very proud of himself. But this is quaint, not "Hashem cries"
material, IMHO.)
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Lisa
> news:cc62d1fa.03120...@posting.google.com...
> > Someone I know was recently in a Chabad school and heard someone
> > giving a vort on the Siddur.
> >
> > Well, sort of. The vort basically said that since page 770 in the
> > Artscroll Siddur was Tashlich (or whatever it was), that's a sign that
> > we need to do teshuva, presumably in order to bring the Rebbe shlita
> > ztz'l back.
> >
> > It's at times like this that Hashem weeps.
> >
> > Lisa
>
> Can I ask for suggestions.
>
> (a) If you were the Artscroll publishers (perhaps some of them are lurking)
> what would you put on page 770 of the next edition of the Siddur/machzor?
Aseret HaDibrot. Or possibly the parasha of navi sheker.
> (b) (more difficult) Witty gematrias for Tav, shin, ayin
That's pretty obvious, too. There are 10 commandments. One of them,
of course, is against idolatry. Chazal tell us that someone who
worships idols, it's as if he has violated the entire Torah. So we
can conclude that the 9 Commandments (the 10 Commandments with the one
tantamount to the whole Torah removed) is equivalent to no Torah at
all.
And nine in Hebrew, of course, is teisha. The gematria of the word
teisha is 770. From this we can learn that the legacy of 770 is not
the absence of Torah, but something which, like the 10 Commandments,
once exemplified Torah, but which, like the 9 Commandments, has become
something un-Torah because of its embrace of idolatry.
Not witty, I'm afraid, but accurate.
Lisa
Zev Steinhardt
I looked at my reference guide on SQL Server and found that page 770
talks about replication (a system of copying the contents of one
database server to another). Does this mean that the Rebbe will
replicate himself when he comes back?
Zev Steinhardt
Henry Goodman
"Zev Steinhardt" <Wayne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41e04c01.03120...@posting.google.com...
Which manual is that exactly?
I have Access 97 Developer's Handbook third edition (1997)
Page 770 is called Mastering Replication. (beginning of Chapter 13)
If it's not the identical manual then there is a profound significance here (or
not)
Lisa
Actually, it means that 770 implies the opposite of Hashem Echad.
Lisa
Zev Steinhardt
Nope. This is a book on SQL Server, not Access. Looks like we have a
corroborating source on the Rebbe's replication. :)
Zev Steinhardt
Henry Goodman
"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:cc62d1fa.03120...@posting.google.com...
Shavua Tov
Do the Borenu crowd hold by the SQL Server manual?
Or the Access 97 Developer's handbook?
R
You hae actually seen Him weep?
R
You hae actuall seen Him weep?
R
While there ARE certain posters here who regularly get their
kicks out of annoying "Lubies" (and others), I did not think you,
Henry, were one of them. I a dissapoined. I would have xpected
you to be hoping for better things than petty people inflicting
petty annoyances.
As for 770 being a "holy number," it is not "Lubies" who regard
it thus, but the Lubavitche Rebbe himself who regards it thus,
and spoke about it in innumerable sichos, many of them available
in print.
Pardon us foolish Lubies for considerings holy what our Rebbe
considers as holy. And now hat someone as succeeded in anooying
me about it, I hope you didget your expected jollies out of it.
For the record: AFAIK, the "vort" posted by Ms. Lisa is NOT one
of those found in the Rebbe's sichos on the significance of the
number 770.
Zev Sero
> Do the Borenu crowd hold by the SQL Server manual?
> Or the Access 97 Developer's handbook?
Since there is no borenu `crowd', the question makes no sense. The
people you are referring to can almost be counted on the fingers of
one hand, and are certainly not numerous enough to form a `crowd'.
That is not counting mentally unbalanced people like Meir Baranes,
who is now happily occupying a padded cell, and could just as easily
have decided that Michael Jordan was god, or even Harry Potter.
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV.
zs...@free-market.net They go well together, but are completely
different concepts. - James Lileks
Henry Goodman
"R" <rut...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:3FD2762E...@verizon.net...
Sorry to upset you. I didn't know the late Rebbe regarded 770 as a holy number,
I assumed it was a meshugas of his followers, as per the title of this thread.
So tell me did Chabad establish its headquarters at a building numbered 770
because that was a holy number or did the number only become holy when Chabad
established its HQ there?
p_al...@hotmail.com
> (a) If you were the Artscroll publishers (perhaps some of them are lurking) what
> would you put on page 770 of the next edition of the Siddur/machzor?
The brachot for putting on Talit and Tefilin, as the commentary on
modeh ani will run up to 769 pages by the next edition.
p_al...@hotmail.com
> 4 x 770 = 3080.
>
> The Jewish Theological Seminary (Conservative) is at 3080 Broadway.
>
> Conservative Judaism is thus 4 times as holy as Chabad.
>
> QED
The way I learned it is that the reason to multiply 770 by four is
because "paratzta", is followed by "yama vekedma tzafona venegba".
Creedmooronics!
news:nMtAb.2832$rP6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> That is not counting mentally unbalanced people like Meir Baranes,
> who is now happily occupying a padded cell,
Baranes, whose mental problems (and involvement with Chabad) stem from a
serious brain injury suffered in a car accident, is a tool of the Shabak. He
is allowed out of his padded cell when said august organization needs his
services to make the religious anti-appeasement crowd look bad.
In fact, knowing that the late R' Levi Bistritsky was among those involved
in the Chabad protests against Oslo, I wonder if it was his brain injury or
the Shabak which caused him to hear messages telling him to kill the late
rov. R' Bistritzky AH died of a heart attack, but his health may well have
been ruined after Baranes ran him over with a car, about a year prior to his
very untimely death.
IS
R
1. You did not upset me. I have had a lot worse over the past
four decades. If this sort of thing upset me, I would not have
survived this long.
2. Chabad established its headquarters at this address because it
had the required room layout, it had an elevator (by 1940 the
Previous Rebbe was unable to walk, much less climb stairs), and
the price was right. The significance of the number 770 and its
connection to Chabad existed before they purchased the property,
but the Rebbeim first articulated this significance afterwards.
It's called hashgacha pratis; Divine Providence made available a
building at an auspicious address.
3. Chabad is by no means unique in attaching significance to what
otherwise appear to be fortuitous and coincidental details. The
Munkaczer Rebbe, R. Chayim Alazar Shapiro ztz"l, would attatch
significance to every number he encountered. Even when boarding a
train, he would find a remez in the number painted on the side of
the car he was riding in. When staying at a hotel, he would find
a remez in the number of the room the desk clerk "happened" to
assign him.
Zev Sero
> In fact, knowing that the late R' Levi Bistritsky was among those involved
> in the Chabad protests against Oslo, I wonder if it was his brain injury or
> the Shabak which caused him to hear messages telling him to kill the late
> rov. R' Bistritzky AH died of a heart attack, but his health may well have
> been ruined after Baranes ran him over with a car, about a year prior to his
> very untimely death.
Not to mention the attempt he made to beat him to death 6 months earlier,
for which the Israeli judicial system gave him a 3 month suspended
sentence, and a trifling fine. The rav appealed the leniency of the
sentence to the High Court and was turned down, leaving Baranes free to
repeat his attempt, and, as you say, probably succeed indirectly.
This was not very long after the same judiciary (though not the same
judge) had sentenced Yisrael Lederman to three years, non-suspended,
for spilling tea on Yael Dayan.
Jonathan J. Baker
>3. Chabad is by no means unique in attaching significance to what
>otherwise appear to be fortuitous and coincidental details. The
>Munkaczer Rebbe, R. Chayim Alazar Shapiro ztz"l, would attatch
>significance to every number he encountered. Even when boarding a
>train, he would find a remez in the number painted on the side of
>the car he was riding in. When staying at a hotel, he would find
>a remez in the number of the room the desk clerk "happened" to
>assign him.
Interesting. There's a similar story told of Srinivasa Ramanujan, the
famous Indian mathematician. See http://www.jimloy.com/number/hardy.htm
: Once, in a taxi from London, Hardy noticed its number, 1729. He must
: have thought about it a little because he entered the room where
: Ramanujan lay in bed and, with scarcely a hello, blurted out his
: disappointment with it. It was, he declared, "rather a dull number,"
: adding that he hoped that wasn't a bad omen. "No, Hardy," said Ramanujan,
: "it is a very interesting number. It is the smallest number expressible
: as the sum of two cubes in two different ways."
Zev Sero
> Baranes, whose mental problems (and involvement with Chabad) stem from a
> serious brain injury suffered in a car accident, is a tool of the Shabak. He
> is allowed out of his padded cell when said august organization needs his
> services to make the religious anti-appeasement crowd look bad.
I just remembered that it was Baranes whom Josh Backon cited in this
forum as proof that Chabad was riddled with idolatrous beliefs. If I
recall correctly, he wouldn't accept at the time that Baranes had no
position in Chabad, and was just some random nutcase who claimed to be
a Chabadnik. I wonder if subsequent events have changed his mind.
Josh?
Henry Goodman
"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:br0cjn$jc2$2...@reader2.panix.com...
> In <3FD34FA6...@verizon.net> R <rut...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >3. Chabad is by no means unique in attaching significance to what
> >otherwise appear to be fortuitous and coincidental details. The
> >Munkaczer Rebbe, R. Chayim Alazar Shapiro ztz"l, would attatch
> >significance to every number he encountered. Even when boarding a
> >train, he would find a remez in the number painted on the side of
> >the car he was riding in. When staying at a hotel, he would find
> >a remez in the number of the room the desk clerk "happened" to
> >assign him.
>
> Interesting. There's a similar story told of Srinivasa Ramanujan, the
> famous Indian mathematician. See http://www.jimloy.com/number/hardy.htm
>
> : Once, in a taxi from London, Hardy noticed its number, 1729. He must
> : have thought about it a little because he entered the room where
> : Ramanujan lay in bed and, with scarcely a hello, blurted out his
> : disappointment with it. It was, he declared, "rather a dull number,"
> : adding that he hoped that wasn't a bad omen. "No, Hardy," said Ramanujan,
> : "it is a very interesting number. It is the smallest number expressible
> : as the sum of two cubes in two different ways."
>
>
There is no such thing as an uninteresting number (among the positive integers)
Proof: Suppose there are uninteresting numbers among the positive integers. Such
numbers, being a subset of the integers must have a smallest member, call that
n.
Then n is the smallest uninteresting number, which is very interesting. This
contradicts the assumption that n is uninteresting.
Hence the original assumption that there are uninteresting numbers is false. QED
Hence, ob Jewish, even 770 is interesting.
Creedmooronics!
> Creedmooronics! wrote:
>
> > Baranes, whose mental problems (and involvement with Chabad) stem from a
> > serious brain injury suffered in a car accident, is a tool of the
Shabak. He
> > is allowed out of his padded cell when said august organization needs
his
> > services to make the religious anti-appeasement crowd look bad.
>
> I just remembered that it was Baranes whom Josh Backon cited in this
> forum as proof that Chabad was riddled with idolatrous beliefs. If I
> recall correctly, he wouldn't accept at the time that Baranes had no
> position in Chabad
Baranes is the Warren Losey of Tzfat (and of Chabad in general, although
there is another head case in Kfar Chabad who comes close). Given the number
of off-center Lubavitchers in that community, that is really saying
something!
IS
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd
>
> >3. Chabad is by no means unique in attaching significance to what
> >otherwise appear to be fortuitous and coincidental details. The
> >Munkaczer Rebbe, R. Chayim Alazar Shapiro ztz"l, would attatch
> >significance to every number he encountered.
What did he attach to the number 69?
IS
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: Zev Sero <zs...@free-market.net>
>Subject:Re: More Chabad Mishegas
>Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 23:47:48 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<nYLAb.4608$rP6....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
>Creedmooronics! wrote:
>
>> Baranes, whose mental problems (and involvement with Chabad) stem from a
>> serious brain injury suffered in a car accident, is a tool of the Shabak. He
>> is allowed out of his padded cell when said august organization needs his
>> services to make the religious anti-appeasement crowd look bad.
>
>I just remembered that it was Baranes whom Josh Backon cited in this
>forum as proof that Chabad was riddled with idolatrous beliefs. If I
>recall correctly, he wouldn't accept at the time that Baranes had no
>position in Chabad, and was just some random nutcase who claimed to be
>a Chabadnik. I wonder if subsequent events have changed his mind.
>Josh?
>
And this Chabad "Rabbi" Zik in Cholon is better ? He makes Baranes
look normal by comparison. Every Friday evening in shul there are a dozen
different "Parshat haShavua" pamphlets distributed. One is the highly
meshichist Lubavitcher "rag". I promptly crunch it in my hand and practice
my basketball skills aiming directly for the nearest garbage can. After
all, practice makes perfect :-)
Josh
Zev Sero
>From: Zev Sero <zs...@free-market.net>
>>Creedmooronics! wrote:
>>>Baranes, whose mental problems (and involvement with Chabad) stem from a
>>>serious brain injury suffered in a car accident, is a tool of the Shabak. He
>>>is allowed out of his padded cell when said august organization needs his
>>>services to make the religious anti-appeasement crowd look bad.
>>I just remembered that it was Baranes whom Josh Backon cited in this
>>forum as proof that Chabad was riddled with idolatrous beliefs. If I
>>recall correctly, he wouldn't accept at the time that Baranes had no
>>position in Chabad, and was just some random nutcase who claimed to be
>>a Chabadnik. I wonder if subsequent events have changed his mind.
>>Josh?
> And this Chabad "Rabbi" Zik in Cholon is better ? He makes Baranes
> look normal by comparison.
No, actually, he doesn't. AFAIK he hasn't tried to murder anyone yet.
And I thought he was in Bat-Yam.
> Every Friday evening in shul there are a dozen
> different "Parshat haShavua" pamphlets distributed. One is the highly
> meshichist Lubavitcher "rag". I promptly crunch it in my hand and practice
> my basketball skills aiming directly for the nearest garbage can. After
> all, practice makes perfect :-)
If you're talking about (ose maase) Zimroni's rag, then I'm glad you're
getting some use out of it. But please don't dignify it with the name
`Lubavitcher', as if his work is representative of Lubavitch. And don't
automatically treat all Chabad publications the same way, under the
assumption that you know what they're about because you've read Zik's
work.
I'd still like to see you retract the claim you made in this forum
that Chabad is idolatrous because you'd seen a newspaper ad placed by
Baranes. At the time you insisted that Baranes was indeed a Chabad
spokesman; I'd like to see an acknowledgement that nobody at Chabad
is responsible for what a homicidal maniac prints, no matter what
invented title he puts after his name. Or do you blame the French
government for anything printed by someone claiming to be Napoleon?
Creedmooronics!
<BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote in message
news:br24jo$2jh$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:146890
> And this Chabad "Rabbi" Zik in Cholon is better ?
Zimroni Tzik is the shaliach in Bat-Yam; not sure if he is considered
official or if Chabad in Israel sent someone to replace him over there.. Sad
case, as he did some good before this nonsense started. He is the inventor
of the boreinu chant; he claims in one of his weekly asher yotzar papieren
that a girl who woke up from a coma thanks to Schneerson mikve water (yeah,
right, and that water really is from the Rebbe's mikve?!?!) celebrated her
return to consciousness by chanting Yechi w/Boreinu instead of moreinu. We
used to call him Zimroni Sick.
IS
Jay Braun
> What is on page 69 in said siddur, and how do they darshen it?
>
On page 69 is the English translation of most of Ashrei. Most
prominent, due to an in-line comment, is the translation of the pasuk
beginning with the letter peh, which means mouth (of course). The
translation of this pasuk is: You open your hand and satisfy the
desire of every living thing.
Need one darshen?
Ron Aaron
>>
>> What is on page 69 in said siddur, and how do they darshen it?
>>
>
> On page 69 is the English translation of most of Ashrei. Most
And inode 770 on my hard-disk has the program 'chmod', which could be
used to make a 'suid' program -- turning an ordinary program into a
'superuser' program. Must be a connection...
Don Levey
Whereas in my B&H Photo catalog, page 770 is a listing for canvas
backgrounds. This may take a while...
--
Don Levey NOTE: spamtrapped address likely to change
Framingham, MA at any moment. Most recent post has best
address.
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd
> BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
I'd like to see an acknowledgement that nobody at Chabad
> is responsible for what a homicidal maniac prints, no matter what
> invented title he puts after his name.
What title does Baranes put after his name? Meshuggener, or his rank in the
Shabak (freier)? Don't forget that he was also the nutcase responsible for
the pulsa denura ceremony directed against the Pope!
IS
Zev Sero
> "Zev Sero" <zs...@free-market.net> wrote in message
>> I'd like to see an acknowledgement that nobody at Chabad
>>is responsible for what a homicidal maniac prints, no matter what
>>invented title he puts after his name.
> What title does Baranes put after his name? Meshuggener, or his rank in the
> Shabak (freier)?
In the newspaper ad cited by Josh, he styled himself `dover chabad'.
As I pointed out at the time, nothing prevents me from taking out an
ad calling myself `dover rosh hamemshala', or `dover haafifyor', (or,
for that matter, `dover Josh Backon',) but that wouldn't make it so.
Henry Goodman
"Zev Sero" <zs...@free-market.net> wrote in message
news:kxHBb.6501$_r6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd wrote:
> > "Zev Sero" <zs...@free-market.net> wrote in message
>
> >> I'd like to see an acknowledgement that nobody at Chabad
> >>is responsible for what a homicidal maniac prints, no matter what
> >>invented title he puts after his name.
>
> > What title does Baranes put after his name? Meshuggener, or his rank in the
> > Shabak (freier)?
>
> In the newspaper ad cited by Josh, he styled himself `dover chabad'.
> As I pointed out at the time, nothing prevents me from taking out an
> ad calling myself `dover rosh hamemshala', or `dover haafifyor', (or,
> for that matter, `dover Josh Backon',) but that wouldn't make it so.
>
>
I don't know what the law is where you live but in the UK the Advertising
Standards Agency could prosecute you for making a false statement.
Creedmooronics!
> Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd wrote:
> > "Zev Sero" <zs...@free-market.net> wrote in message
>
> >> I'd like to see an acknowledgement that nobody at Chabad
> >>is responsible for what a homicidal maniac prints, no matter what
> >>invented title he puts after his name.
>
> > What title does Baranes put after his name? Meshuggener, or his rank in
the
> > Shabak (freier)?
>
> In the newspaper ad cited by Josh, he styled himself `dover chabad'.
He must have meant "chamorim bli daat!"
IS
Zev Sero
>>In the newspaper ad cited by Josh, he styled himself `dover chabad'.
>>As I pointed out at the time, nothing prevents me from taking out an
>>ad calling myself `dover rosh hamemshala', or `dover haafifyor', (or,
>>for that matter, `dover Josh Backon',) but that wouldn't make it so.
> I don't know what the law is where you live but in the UK the Advertising
> Standards Agency could prosecute you for making a false statement.
Huh? Lying is illegal in the UK? Once again, USAns have occasion to
thank G-d for the 1st Amendment.
Henry Goodman
"Zev Sero" <zs...@free-market.net> wrote in message
news:hwJBb.6601$_r6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Henry Goodman wrote:
>
> >>In the newspaper ad cited by Josh, he styled himself `dover chabad'.
> >>As I pointed out at the time, nothing prevents me from taking out an
> >>ad calling myself `dover rosh hamemshala', or `dover haafifyor', (or,
> >>for that matter, `dover Josh Backon',) but that wouldn't make it so.
>
> > I don't know what the law is where you live but in the UK the Advertising
> > Standards Agency could prosecute you for making a false statement.
>
> Huh? Lying is illegal in the UK? Once again, USAns have occasion to
> thank G-d for the 1st Amendment.
>
It is illegal to make a false claim in an advertisement. It's called consumer
protection. Don't you have that in the USA?
Jonathan J. Baker
>"Zev Sero" <zs...@free-market.net> wrote in message
>> >>In the newspaper ad cited by Josh, he styled himself `dover chabad'.
>> >>As I pointed out at the time, nothing prevents me from taking out an
>> >>ad calling myself `dover rosh hamemshala', or `dover haafifyor', (or,
>> >>for that matter, `dover Josh Backon',) but that wouldn't make it so.
>> > I don't know what the law is where you live but in the UK the Advertising
>> > Standards Agency could prosecute you for making a false statement.
>> Huh? Lying is illegal in the UK? Once again, USAns have occasion to
>> thank G-d for the 1st Amendment.
>It is illegal to make a false claim in an advertisement. It's called consumer
>protection. Don't you have that in the USA?
Yes, but it may be on a state-by-state level. E.g., the state kosher
laws are based on false-advertising rules.
Eliyahu Rooff
prohibited often depends upon how it's worded and whether it's germane
to the advertisement. For instance, in "normal" English, the
comparatives are "good, better, best" in increasing order of quality. In
advertising, it's "good, best, better." That is, anyone can claim "best"
because it's a claim of parity with other products -- Eight different
furniture polishes can all claim to be "best." OTOH, "better" is a claim
of superiority, and they'd better be able to prove it. Or take the word
"like" as a comparative. To most of us, "like" would imply that
something is pretty much the same. In advertising, it means "similar to,
but not necessarily the same as" what it's being compared to. When it
comes to using the language to deceive, there are a lot of similarities
between politics and the advertising industry.
Eliyahu
Zev Sero
>>>>In the newspaper ad cited by Josh, he styled himself `dover chabad'.
>>>>As I pointed out at the time, nothing prevents me from taking out an
>>>>ad calling myself `dover rosh hamemshala', or `dover haafifyor', (or,
>>>>for that matter, `dover Josh Backon',) but that wouldn't make it so.
>>>I don't know what the law is where you live but in the UK the Advertising
>>>Standards Agency could prosecute you for making a false statement.
>>Huh? Lying is illegal in the UK? Once again, USAns have occasion to
>>thank G-d for the 1st Amendment.
> It is illegal to make a false claim in an advertisement. It's called consumer
> protection. Don't you have that in the USA?
Only if you're selling something, and the false claim would mislead
people into buying something they would otherwise not buy, to their
detriment. Fraud is a crime, but lying is not the same as fraud, in
the UK or the USA (or any other common law country).
An advertisement is pure speech; there is no difference between an ad
and an editorial article, or between either and talking to someone on a
street corner. By placing an ad you are simply talking to a lot of
people at once. In the USA you are free to tell people whatever you
want, so long as you don't commit fraud, defamation, incitement to
riot, etc., i.e. so long as you don't do clear, provable damage to
someone.
Henry Goodman
"Zev Sero" <zs...@free-market.net> wrote in message
news:d32Cb.7722$_r6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Well the law is different (and better for consumers) here. You cannot put a
brass plate outside your door claiming you are a qualified doctor or an
authorised Chabad Shaliach unless it is true.
Micha Berger
:> It is illegal to make a false claim in an advertisement. It's called consumer
:> protection. Don't you have that in the USA?
: Only if you're selling something, and the false claim would mislead
: people into buying something they would otherwise not buy, to their
: detriment. Fraud is a crime, but lying is not the same as fraud, in
: the UK or the USA (or any other common law country).
A Jew in advertising could keep his rabbi quite busy with halakhic
questions.
-mi
Micha Berger
: Well the law is different (and better for consumers) here. You cannot put a
: brass plate outside your door claiming you are a qualified doctor or an
: authorised Chabad Shaliach unless it is true.
Authorized? Who authorizing shelichim?
-mi
Steve Goldfarb
>Well the law is different (and better for consumers) here. You cannot put a
>brass plate outside your door claiming you are a qualified doctor or an
>authorised Chabad Shaliach unless it is true.
You can't claim to be a medical doctor in the US, or any other profession
for which you need a license, unless you do in fact have that license.
People are definitely prosecuted for this.
Is a Chabad shaliach an employee of Chabad, Inc. (assuming there even is
such a thing) or is it a voluntary sort of thing? It might be illegal to
claim you're an employee of a company if you're not.
A Chabad organization with the proper legal standing could probably get a
court injunction to order a person to stop representing himself as a
spokesperson for Chabad, assuming the acronym "Chabad" isn't in the public
domain. Violating that injunction would then be a crime.
According to chabad.org, "Chabad-Lubavitch is a philosophy, a movement,
and an organization." I don't see how you can prevent someone from saying
they're a representative of a philosophy. I don't know how tight the
organizational structure of Chabad is. Seems to me that the more rigid
they are, the stronger their history of preserving their trademark and
preventing people from speaking in their name, then the better their case
would be to stop any particular person from calling himself a "Chabad
shaliach."
--sg
>--
>Henry Goodman
>henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
--
---------------------------------------
Buy my boat!
http://www.oscodagroup.com/boat
Zev Sero
>>It is illegal to make a false claim in an advertisement. It's called consumer
>>protection. Don't you have that in the USA?
> Yes, but it may be on a state-by-state level. E.g., the state kosher
> laws are based on false-advertising rules.
And the 1st amendment limits what states can do. E.g. the NY state
kosher laws were struck down (incorrectly IMO) as inconsistent with
the 1st amendment.
Any state that enacted a law that would ban the ad by Baranes, that
Josh took to be an official Chabad statement, would be slapped upside
the head by the courts.
Ron Aaron
wrote:
> You can't claim to be a medical doctor in the US, or any other profession
> for which you need a license, unless you do in fact have that license.
> People are definitely prosecuted for this.
True, but ...
> Is a Chabad shaliach an employee of Chabad, Inc. (assuming there even is
> such a thing) or is it a voluntary sort of thing? It might be illegal to
> claim you're an employee of a company if you're not.
NO. When the Rebbe z"l was alive, he would appoint shliHim. Now there
is no real authority. But even then, IIRC, anyone could call himself a
Chabad emmisary and set up shop.
Don Levey
Zev Sero <zs...@free-market.net> writes:
>
> Only if you're selling something, and the false claim would mislead
> people into buying something they would otherwise not buy, to their
> detriment. Fraud is a crime, but lying is not the same as fraud, in
> the UK or the USA (or any other common law country).
>
> An advertisement is pure speech; there is no difference between an ad
> and an editorial article, or between either and talking to someone on a
> street corner. By placing an ad you are simply talking to a lot of
> people at once. In the USA you are free to tell people whatever you
> want, so long as you don't commit fraud, defamation, incitement to
> riot, etc., i.e. so long as you don't do clear, provable damage to
> someone.
>
Not necessarily true. Advertising is 'commercial speech' which is
not afforded quite the same protections as non-commercial speech.
In particular, the right to compel is absent. This is one of the
reasons why the Do-Not-Call lists exempt political and charity calls;
they are considered non-commercial and thus afforded greater protection.
Someone who placed an ad proclaiming themself an authorised rep of an
organisation could be sued for fraud, misrepresentation, or libel. The
latter, in particular, if such a claim would have a negative impact
upon the group in question.
Oh, p.s: IANAL...
Zev Sero
> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> writes:
>>Well the law is different (and better for consumers) here. You cannot put a
>>brass plate outside your door claiming you are a qualified doctor or an
>>authorised Chabad Shaliach unless it is true.
> You can't claim to be a medical doctor in the US, or any other profession
> for which you need a license, unless you do in fact have that license.
> People are definitely prosecuted for this.
No, they're not. They're prosecuted for practising medicine, law, etc,
without a license. As far as I know, it is perfectly legal in the USA
to falsely claim to be a doctor, lawyer, or any other licensed
professional, so long as one doesn't actually practise that profession,
or defraud anyone based on the misrepresentation.
Steve Goldfarb
>Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> writes:
>>>Well the law is different (and better for consumers) here. You cannot put a
>>>brass plate outside your door claiming you are a qualified doctor or an
>>>authorised Chabad Shaliach unless it is true.
>> You can't claim to be a medical doctor in the US, or any other profession
>> for which you need a license, unless you do in fact have that license.
>> People are definitely prosecuted for this.
>No, they're not. They're prosecuted for practising medicine, law, etc,
>without a license. As far as I know, it is perfectly legal in the USA
>to falsely claim to be a doctor, lawyer, or any other licensed
>professional, so long as one doesn't actually practise that profession,
>or defraud anyone based on the misrepresentation.
I dunno - the context was "put a brass plate outside your door," seems to
me that's soliciting business, which I suspect would be prohibited. I
suppose it wouldn't be a crime if I signed my letters "Steve Goldfarb,
M.D." but OTOH I have a solicitation on my sig now, so perhaps a sig would
be considered a solicitation.
Why would you want to claim to be a doctor, except to try to convince
someone you were a doctor? Seems to me you'd be on thin ice pretty
quickly, although I suppose technically you are correct.
--sg
>--
>Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV.
>zs...@free-market.net They go well together, but are completely
> different concepts. - James Lileks
Eliyahu Rooff
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:brcj41$n8c$1...@reader2.panix.com...
call yourself anything you want as long as you don't do it for illegal
or fraudulent purposes. There are some specific prohibitions, such as
impersonating a police officer, member of the military or a few other
professions, but others, such as medicine and law, generally have a
prohibition regarding the practice of that profession rather than using
the title.
Curiously, there's also a specific prohibition in one of the sections of
Title 18, USC, making impersonating a member of a 4-H club a felony.
IOW, you'll probably be safer telling the young lady that you're a
lawyer than that you belong to the organization for farm kids. If you
want to be really safe (in the US, at least), tell her you're a Rabbi.
Laws regulating the use of religious titles would certainly be
unconstitutional.
Eliyahu
Fred Rosenblatt
But wouldn't that be a violation of "lo tachmod"?
Creedmooronics!
news:brad0g$12jpn$3...@ID-113975.news.uni-berlin.de...
The Shluchim Office in Crown Heights, which I believe is a part of the
Merkos L'Inyanei Chinuch. In addition, a shaliach authorized as such by said
office can appoint additional shluchim as assistants or to cover nearby
geographic areas.
IS
Henry Goodman
"Zev Sero" <zs...@free-market.net> wrote in message
news:nxeCb.48$Pg1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> > "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> writes:
>
> >>Well the law is different (and better for consumers) here. You cannot put a
> >>brass plate outside your door claiming you are a qualified doctor or an
> >>authorised Chabad Shaliach unless it is true.
>
> > You can't claim to be a medical doctor in the US, or any other profession
> > for which you need a license, unless you do in fact have that license.
> > People are definitely prosecuted for this.
>
> No, they're not. They're prosecuted for practising medicine, law, etc,
> without a license. As far as I know, it is perfectly legal in the USA
> to falsely claim to be a doctor, lawyer, or any other licensed
> professional, so long as one doesn't actually practise that profession,
> or defraud anyone based on the misrepresentation.
>
>
And you are happy with that arrangement because it goes with the nth amendment
to your constitution.
I would rather a false doctor was prosecuted before he killed me rather than
after.
Shavua Tov
Henry Goodman
"Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vtjms79...@corp.supernews.com...
But suppose you falsely claim to have received semicha from a particular
rabbinal college. That is similar to falsely claiming to have a degree from a
specific University. Is that really legal in your country?
Shavua Tov
Micha Berger
: But suppose you falsely claim to have received semicha from a particular
: rabbinal college.
You mean like Feivel Gruberger's {"Philip Berg"'s) non-existant ordination
from Torah Vadaath?
: That is similar to falsely claiming to have a degree from a
: specific University. Is that really legal in your country?
You mean such things are not legit? Quick, tell Madonna! Maybe she could
get that inane tatoo removed!
Gut Voch!
-mi
--
Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"
R
The Shluchim Office is no more "official" than any other
organization. And in fact, they do not appoint shluchim at all.
They are an organization set up by shluchim to provide
infrastructure and support to shluchim. They have ready made
sermons and vertlach available by email or on line for shluchim
who need them. Names and addresses of professionals in various
fields in case a shaliach needs them. If a shaliach needs to
bring out a few bochurim to assist him for some occasion, they
will find them in Crown Heights and arrange to send them (usually
at the shaliach's expense).
Contrary to what the name implies, shluchim are not actually
"sent" by anyone. Even in the pre-3-Tammuz era, the Rebbe himself
rarely if ever personally appointed a shaliach. The shluchim
themselves work for various institutions: Merkos LeInyonei
Chinuch, Lubavitch Youth Organization, Friends of Refugees of
Easter Europe (FREE), National Committee for the Futherance of
Jewish Education (NCFJE), etc.
There is an unwritten and unofficial (and usually unenforceable)
understanding that the first shaliach in a given area is the
"head shaliach," and others who wish to come after him need his
permission to come in to "his territory."
There is an "official roster" of shluchim. But unfortunately, as
in everything else, politics occasionally plays a role. And so,
you will find some very prominent and productive shluchim who are
not on the official list, and some shluchim who do nothing at all
and have jobs in the private sector, and yet they are on the
official list.
To summarize: nobody appoints shluchim. A shaliach is -- in
effect -- anyone who sets himself up to do the work (and actually
does this work) that the Rebbe expects us all to be doing.
Eliyahu Rooff
influence people, it's perfectly legal. Ethically and morally wrong, of
course, but that's another matter. If you do it to obtain employment,
financial advantage or for other such reasons, it's fraud. I can tell
you, for instance, that I'm the Chief Rabbi of S.E. Walla Walla and that
I have semicha from the OrthConserveReformOdox Yeshiva of the Internet
(or from a real yeshiva), and the worst I've done is make myself look
like a fool. OTOH, if I were to make a more refined version of that
claim to get a job or to obtain a financial grant, I'd be liable for a
civil suit for recovery of my ill-gotten gains and possibly for criminal
prosecution.
Eliyahu
Eliyahu Rooff
setting and trying to practice medicine without a license.
Eliyahu
p_al...@hotmail.com
> Well the law is different (and better for consumers) here. You cannot put a
> brass plate outside your door claiming you are a qualified doctor or an
> authorised Chabad Shaliach unless it is true.
Would the charges be brought by the authorities, or by Chabad?
Henry Goodman
"Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vtnsglt...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:brftas$9io$3...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > But suppose you falsely claim to have received semicha from a
> particular
> > rabbinal college. That is similar to falsely claiming to have a degree
> from a
> > specific University. Is that really legal in your country?
> > Shavua Tov
> >
> It depends on why you're doing it. If you're trying to win friends and
> influence people, it's perfectly legal. Ethically and morally wrong, of
> course, but that's another matter. If you do it to obtain employment,
> financial advantage or for other such reasons, it's fraud. I can tell
> you, for instance, that I'm the Chief Rabbi of S.E. Walla Walla and that
> I have semicha from the OrthConserveReformOdox Yeshiva of the Internet
> (or from a real yeshiva), and the worst I've done is make myself look
> like a fool. OTOH, if I were to make a more refined version of that
> claim to get a job or to obtain a financial grant, I'd be liable for a
> civil suit for recovery of my ill-gotten gains and possibly for criminal
> prosecution.
>
> Eliyahu
>
The point I'm making is that if you claimed semicha from a real Yeshiva, that
Yeshiva could sue you (or bring it to the attention of the Director of Public
Prosecutions)
Henry Goodman
<p_al...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:91bf498e.03121...@posting.google.com...
I really don't know - maybe somebody else does. Probably the authorities but
Chabad could certainly sue.
I just know people don't make such claims for fear of legal consequences.
R
There is no legal entity called "Chabad." And so, "Chabad" is not
in a position to sue anyone or to press charges against anyone.
Even if someone misrepresented himself as being a spokesman for a
specific Chabad organization that is legally incorporated, if the
trustees of said organization took legal action they would do so
at their peril. Many of these institutions have been taken over
by directors who retain power in violation of the legal corporate
charters, and would be foolish to chance having their authority
challenged in court.
p_al...@hotmail.com
If the defendant could manage to convince the court that no one body
speaks for Chabad, would he still be in trouble for "authorized", or
would they rule that since no one is authorized, anyone could call
themselves authorized?
Zev Sero
>>>You can't claim to be a medical doctor in the US, or any other profession
>>>for which you need a license, unless you do in fact have that license.
>>>People are definitely prosecuted for this.
>
>
>>No, they're not. They're prosecuted for practising medicine, law, etc,
>>without a license. As far as I know, it is perfectly legal in the USA
>>to falsely claim to be a doctor, lawyer, or any other licensed
>>professional, so long as one doesn't actually practise that profession,
>>or defraud anyone based on the misrepresentation.
> I dunno - the context was "put a brass plate outside your door," seems to
> me that's soliciting business, which I suspect would be prohibited.
Not unless you actually transact the business. If you set up shop as
a doctor, but never actually treated any patients, pretending to anyone
who tried to make an appointment that you were fully booked, and you
didn't try to obtain any sort of commercial advantage at anyone else's
expense on the basis of being a doctor, then AFAIK you would be perfectly
safe running your `medical practise' in any state of the USA indefinitely.
The moment you so much as counselled someone to take chicken soup for a
cold, though, while they were under the impression that you were a real
doctor, you'd probably be in trouble.
> I suppose it wouldn't be a crime if I signed my letters "Steve Goldfarb,
> M.D." but OTOH I have a solicitation on my sig now, so perhaps a sig would
> be considered a solicitation.
Again, AFAIK you can solicit business all you like, so long as you make
sure never to actually transact any.
> Why would you want to claim to be a doctor, except to try to convince
> someone you were a doctor?
For social status.
Zev Sero
> But suppose you falsely claim to have received semicha from a particular
> rabbinal college. That is similar to falsely claiming to have a degree from a
> specific University. Is that really legal in your country?
AFAIK it is, so long as you do not defraud anyone. And in the USA, just
as in the UK, simple lying is not fraud.
Henry Goodman
"Zev Sero" <zs...@free-market.net> wrote in message
news:DQaDb.4823$Pg1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Henry Goodman wrote:
>
> > But suppose you falsely claim to have received semicha from a particular
> > rabbinal college. That is similar to falsely claiming to have a degree from
a
> > specific University. Is that really legal in your country?
>
> AFAIK it is, so long as you do not defraud anyone. And in the USA, just
> as in the UK, simple lying is not fraud.
>
Would it be defrauding to put this on your CV and thus get a job?
Steve Goldfarb
>>
>> AFAIK it is, so long as you do not defraud anyone. And in the USA, just
>> as in the UK, simple lying is not fraud.
>>
>Would it be defrauding to put this on your CV and thus get a job?
Don't know if it would meet the legal definition of "defrauding" but lying
on your resume is certainly grounds for termination. On some job
applications (for gov't jobs and the like) I think you have to actually
swear that your statements are true - then I suppose the lying would be
perjury. Don't know if anyone's ever been arrested for lying on a regular
CV or job application, but many have been fired.
Of course if you were hired for any licensed profession (i.e., medicine,
law, or my own - real estate sales) without being licensed, then by
definition once you're hired you're practicing that profession without a
license, which can be illegal. (even if you haven't seen any patients,
you're still getting paid to be a doctor)
Lying about smicha - probably not "illegal," unless they ask you to swear
to the accuracy of your application.
--sg
>--
>Henry Goodman
>henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
--
Zev Sero
>>>But suppose you falsely claim to have received semicha from a particular
>>>rabbinal college. That is similar to falsely claiming to have a degree
> >> from a specific University. Is that really legal in your country?
>>AFAIK it is, so long as you do not defraud anyone. And in the USA, just
>>as in the UK, simple lying is not fraud.
> Would it be defrauding to put this on your CV and thus get a job?
Only if they can show that they would not have hired you had you not
lied, that you knew this and that's why you lied, *and* that they were
damaged by hiring you (e.g. because you didn't have the skills you
claimed to have you didn't do your job properly, and as a result they
lost a customer).
If they would have hired you had you admitted to your real education,
or if you didn't know they wouldn't hire people of your background,
but lied on general principles just in order to look better than you
are, or if you have in fact been doing your job properly and they have
no real cause for complaint except the fact that you lied, then you
are not guilty of fraud, and AFAIK have not committed any crime.
They can still give you the sack, and probably would, but you will
remain free to look for your next job, rather than serving time.
As for claiming to be the graduate of a specific yeshivah, unless
you've been hired for a job where that matters, and you knew it matters,
then you have committed no crime.
Henry Goodman
"Zev Sero" <zs...@free-market.net> wrote in message
news:DRNDb.7661$0s2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I think in this country you would be guilty of obtaining the job on false
pretences. Intention to defraud is a crime.
What I don't understand is that, given that the Torah says "midvar sheker
tirchak (keep away from lies)" why think it is an advantage to live in a country
that allows people to get away with false statements.
Is it legal to lie on your tax return?
Is it legal to lie to police investigating a murder?
Going back to the original issue of someone falsely claiming to be a Chabad
Sheliach, don't Chabad Shelichim ask for money and isn't it fraud to ask for
money on false pretences?
Zev Sero
> I think in this country you would be guilty of obtaining the job on false
> pretences. Intention to defraud is a crime.
I'm not a lawyer, and nor, AIUI, are you, but AFAIK the law on fraud
is more or less the same in all common law jurisdictions, and intention
is merely one element of fraud. Without intention there is no fraud,
but intention without the other elements is also not fraud.
> What I don't understand is that, given that the Torah says "midvar
> sheker tirchak (keep away from lies)" why think it is an advantage
> to live in a country that allows people to get away with false
> statements.
Because it protects us from being hauled up before the magistrates
every time we say something someone doesn't like. Telling a harmless
lie is forbidden by the Torah, but it's a purely religious violation,
like wearing a four-cornered garment without tzitzit, not a crime
against another person, which is the proper sphere of criminal law.
> Is it legal to lie on your tax return?
No, because you are required to swear that the return is true.
Lying on a tax return is not necessarily fraud, but it is perjury.
> Is it legal to lie to police investigating a murder?
No, that is a specific crime. But lying to the same policeman
afterwards, down at the pub, is legal.
> Going back to the original issue of someone falsely claiming to be
> a Chabad Sheliach, don't Chabad Shelichim ask for money and isn't
> it fraud to ask for money on false pretences?
I don't know which shluchim you know, but the ones I know aren't
asking for money 24/7. They do occasionally do other things, like
davven, eat and sleep. And, you know, say good morning or good
evening. The mere act of claiming to be a shliach doesn't imply
a solicitation of funds. And in the specific case we were dicussing
(remember it) the claim to be a (or the) Chabad spokesman (not
shliach) was made in a newspaper ad, which was not soliciting money,
and AFAIK gave no return address where anyone *could* send money
even if they felt inclined to. If this had happened in the USA I'm
sure no crime would be committed, and I'm not convinced that it
would be a crime in the UK, or even in Israel. I am sure that,
whether or not it was a crime in Israel, the person in question
ran no risk whatsoever of prosecution, let alone conviction. The
only possible risk was that some Chabad organisation would sue him
for defamation, and I wouldn't like their chances of success, let
alone recovering anything from him.
As for whether asking for money under false pretences is fraud,
I don't think it necessarily is, if the defendant can show that the
donor would have given the same amount or more had he known the truth.
For instance, if a person is really collecting to save himself and
his family from starvation, but out of embarassment claims to be
collecting for some yeshivah or other, I don't think that that is
fraud, because if he were able to tell people the truth they would
probably give him more than they do for the yeshivah.
Furthermore, consider the case of someone who is collecting for one
tzedakah, but, knowing that a potential donor won't give to that
institution, falsely claims to be collecting for a different
tzedakah, and as a result comes out with a nice amount, which the
donor would definitely not have given had he known the truth. You'd
think that would be pure fraud, right? But if I were that solicitor's
solicitor, so to speak, I would argue that there was no fraud,
because there was no detriment. The tzedaka my client was actually
collecting for is a worthy tzedaka, the donor got the same mitzvah
as he would get had the money really gone to the institution he
thought he was giving to, he will receive the same reward from Hashem,
and his reluctance to give to my client's institution is merely a
mishegas or misunderstanding on his part. No detriment, therefore
no fraud. This argument would not go down well in a goyishe court,
which is not equipped to distinguish between a worthy tzedakah and
an unworthy one, and certainly cannot inquire into what sort of
gan-eden the donor is likely to get, but *in principle* I believe
it is a valid argument, and a bet-din, if asked to apply the common
law, might buy it.
Steve Goldfarb
>As for whether asking for money under false pretences is fraud,
>I don't think it necessarily is, if the defendant can show that the
>donor would have given the same amount or more had he known the truth.
>For instance, if a person is really collecting to save himself and
>his family from starvation, but out of embarassment claims to be
>collecting for some yeshivah or other, I don't think that that is
>fraud, because if he were able to tell people the truth they would
>probably give him more than they do for the yeshivah.
Except when the folks from the yeshiva come knocking at the door the
person might say "oh, I already donated to you."
>Furthermore, consider the case of someone who is collecting for one
>tzedakah, but, knowing that a potential donor won't give to that
>institution, falsely claims to be collecting for a different
>tzedakah, and as a result comes out with a nice amount, which the
>donor would definitely not have given had he known the truth. You'd
>think that would be pure fraud, right? But if I were that solicitor's
>solicitor, so to speak, I would argue that there was no fraud,
>because there was no detriment. The tzedaka my client was actually
>collecting for is a worthy tzedaka, the donor got the same mitzvah
>as he would get had the money really gone to the institution he
>thought he was giving to, he will receive the same reward from Hashem,
>and his reluctance to give to my client's institution is merely a
>mishegas or misunderstanding on his part. No detriment, therefore
>no fraud. This argument would not go down well in a goyishe court,
>which is not equipped to distinguish between a worthy tzedakah and
>an unworthy one, and certainly cannot inquire into what sort of
>gan-eden the donor is likely to get, but *in principle* I believe
>it is a valid argument, and a bet-din, if asked to apply the common
>law, might buy it.
Isn't there a prohibition on "genievas das" - "stealing knowledge?" I was
once taught that halacha prohibits tricking people. Even if there's no
harm done, i.e., some hold that under this rule even a simple
sleight-of-hand magic trick would be prohibited.
Next you'll say that if the person refuses to donate at all, that's simply
mishegas or misunderstanding on his part, and therefore it'd be OK to just
pick his pocket and take the amount of money that you know he'd really
want to donate.
If you tell me you're collecting for X, but you then give the money to Y,
that's fraud. Even if you think Y is more worthy. (unless you're
collecting in a general way for "Charity" and not specifically for X, then
you can do whatever you see fit with the money -- a generic "Chabad
Shaliach" would seem to fit into that category to me, seeing as how
there's no "official Chabad" to receive the money)
--sg
>--
>Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV.
>zs...@free-market.net They go well together, but are completely
> different concepts. - James Lileks
Eliyahu Rooff
You're building a straw man, Henry, by conflating fraudulent
statements (a subset of lies) with all lies.
> Is it legal to lie on your tax return?
> Is it legal to lie to police investigating a murder?
Is it legal to lie to one's spouse about the reason you're late
getting home?
Is it legal to lie to an acquaintence about your college degree?
We're mixing apples and oranges if we assume than all four of the
above are legally equivalent. Yes, you can go to jail for tax fraud.
Yes, you can go to jail for making a false statement to police. I
can't think of any particular country that would "allow people to
get away with [these] false statements. I also can't imagine living
in a country that would prosecute someone for the last two
statements. Whether or not halacha prohibits us from lying to people
under most conditions, there is a difference between lies that are
criminal in nature and those that aren't. For an interesting
essay/story on the difference and
import between honesty and absolute truthfulness, see Mark Twain's
"Was it Heaven or Hell" at
http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.6/bookid.263/
>
> Going back to the original issue of someone falsely claiming to be
a Chabad
> Sheliach, don't Chabad Shelichim ask for money and isn't it fraud
to ask for
> money on false pretences?
>
This calls for an assumption that no one could possibly claim to be
a Chabad Sheliach without asking for money. Without that assumption,
the argument falls apart.
Eliyahu
Steve Goldfarb
>I think in this country you would be guilty of obtaining the job on false
>pretences. Intention to defraud is a crime.
If you can perform the job despite your mis-statement, then the company
hasn't been damaged, so how have you defrauded them? If your false
statement did cause the company some harm, then that could possibly be
fraud here, too.
>What I don't understand is that, given that the Torah says "midvar sheker
>tirchak (keep away from lies)" why think it is an advantage to live in a country
>that allows people to get away with false statements.
Is that another of your anti-American digs? How can you live in a country
that has an official church, such that IMO any support you give to Great
Britain is support given to the Church of England? Hm? It's more pertinant
than the fact that we can "get away with false statements," don't you
think?
>Is it legal to lie on your tax return?
no, a tax return is a sworn statement
>Is it legal to lie to police investigating a murder?
not sure - if you're sworn, then yes. if not, then it depends on if it's
pertinent to the investigation.
>Going back to the original issue of someone falsely claiming to be a Chabad
>Sheliach, don't Chabad Shelichim ask for money and isn't it fraud to ask for
>money on false pretences?
What are the false pretences? Presumably the pretence under which he asks
for money is to support Chabad ideals. As long as he does that, then
what's false about it? Since Chabad is a philosophy and not an
organization, it'd be like me knocking on your door and asking for money
to support teaching Existentialism -- doesn't matter if I'm officially
authorized by Sartre's legal heirs or not.
--sg
>--
>Henry Goodman
>henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
--
Henry Goodman
"Zev Sero" <zs...@free-market.net> wrote in message
news:CR0Eb.8543$0s2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Henry Goodman wrote:
>
> > I think in this country you would be guilty of obtaining the job on false
> > pretences. Intention to defraud is a crime.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, and nor, AIUI, are you, but AFAIK the law on fraud
> is more or less the same in all common law jurisdictions, and intention
> is merely one element of fraud. Without intention there is no fraud,
> but intention without the other elements is also not fraud.
>
No I am not a lawyer, but I do read the papers and I reckon to have a good
general idea of what is or is not legal in this country. You in the US have
amended your constitution to give a presumption of free speech which we do not
have here. The point I was making above is that while intention to commit fraud
(machashava) is not fraud (maaseh) it is a crime in this country; rather like
attempted murder is a lesser crime than murder. Specifically we have laws on
advertising and it is an offence to make a false claim in an advertisement for a
product whether or not somebody buys it. We have something called the
Advertising Standards Agency to enforce this.
>
> > What I don't understand is that, given that the Torah says "midvar
> > sheker tirchak (keep away from lies)" why think it is an advantage
> > to live in a country that allows people to get away with false
> > statements.
>
> Because it protects us from being hauled up before the magistrates
> every time we say something someone doesn't like. Telling a harmless
> lie is forbidden by the Torah, but it's a purely religious violation,
> like wearing a four-cornered garment without tzitzit, not a crime
> against another person, which is the proper sphere of criminal law.
>
>
> > Is it legal to lie on your tax return?
>
> No, because you are required to swear that the return is true.
> Lying on a tax return is not necessarily fraud, but it is perjury.
In this country we don't swear tax returns, just sign them but you can get into
serious trouble for a deliberately false entry (it's not perjury though). Seems
to me you have a lot of swearing in the USA to get round your constitutional
right to free speech; many people don't like making a shavua.
>
>
> > Is it legal to lie to police investigating a murder?
>
> No, that is a specific crime. But lying to the same policeman
> afterwards, down at the pub, is legal.
>
Depends what you say. if a suspect, or friend thereof, says something to the
policeman in a pub which sets him on the wrong track that could also be called
"perverting the course of justice".
It would be fraud in this country. Suppose I give to this person assuming it is
for a specific Yeshiva. The next day I get a written appeal from that Yeshiva;
I would then think "I gave to that yeshiva yesterday" and would bin the appeal.
>
> Furthermore, consider the case of someone who is collecting for one
> tzedakah, but, knowing that a potential donor won't give to that
> institution, falsely claims to be collecting for a different
> tzedakah, and as a result comes out with a nice amount, which the
> donor would definitely not have given had he known the truth. You'd
> think that would be pure fraud, right? But if I were that solicitor's
> solicitor, so to speak, I would argue that there was no fraud,
> because there was no detriment. The tzedaka my client was actually
> collecting for is a worthy tzedaka, the donor got the same mitzvah
> as he would get had the money really gone to the institution he
> thought he was giving to, he will receive the same reward from Hashem,
> and his reluctance to give to my client's institution is merely a
> mishegas or misunderstanding on his part. No detriment, therefore
> no fraud. This argument would not go down well in a goyishe court,
> which is not equipped to distinguish between a worthy tzedakah and
> an unworthy one, and certainly cannot inquire into what sort of
> gan-eden the donor is likely to get, but *in principle* I believe
> it is a valid argument, and a bet-din, if asked to apply the common
> law, might buy it.
No. I have the right to decide to whom I give. Who decides what is worthy? I
wouldn't give to an institution that thinks the late Rebbe M.M. Schneerson is
still alive, for example, or anti-Zionist institutions like Sotmar.
Harry Weiss
It is not perjury and one does not sign their tax returns under oath. As a matter of
fact, it is legal to declare that one earned more than one really did and pay
additional taxes.
Of course the qeustion is how many of the meshulachim are independant contractors
working on a massive commision. How many of the solicitations are from professional
fund raisers who keep a large percentage.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Zev Sero
> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> writes:
>>Going back to the original issue of someone falsely claiming to be a Chabad
>>Sheliach, don't Chabad Shelichim ask for money and isn't it fraud to ask for
>>money on false pretences?
> What are the false pretences? Presumably the pretence under which he asks
> for money is to support Chabad ideals. As long as he does that, then
> what's false about it? Since Chabad is a philosophy and not an
> organization, it'd be like me knocking on your door and asking for money
> to support teaching Existentialism -- doesn't matter if I'm officially
> authorized by Sartre's legal heirs or not.
But what if you were not teaching Existentialism at all, but rather
were spending the money on drugs and prostitutes?
In any event, in the original case the liar was not asking anyone
for money, so Henry's premise is false.
Steve Goldfarb
>> In this country we don't swear tax returns, just sign them but you can get into
>> serious trouble for a deliberately false entry (it's not perjury though). Seems
>> to me you have a lot of swearing in the USA to get round your constitutional
>> right to free speech; many people don't like making a shavua.
>It is not perjury and one does not sign their tax returns under oath. As a matter of
>fact, it is legal to declare that one earned more than one really did and pay
>additional taxes.
Sorry, Harry. I'm looking at a 1040EZ form online right now, this is the
simplest Federal tax return. The signature line says:
"Under penalties of perjury, I have examined this return, and to the best
of my knowledge and belief it is true, correct, and accurately lists all
amounts and sources of income I have received during the tax year."
Sounds like an oath to me, and the penalty of perjury is explicitly
spelled out.
Henry, British tax returns don't have anything like that on them? I can't
imagine they don't - what's the point of signing if there isn't some sort
of declaration that you're asserting to?
--sg
Henry Goodman
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:brs8ee$sc8$3...@reader2.panix.com...
As I said above we sign them but there is no mention of perjury.
The latest one says:
The information I have given in this Tax Return is correct and complete to the
best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that if false information is given
or any income or chargeable gains concealed, financial penalties may be charged
and/or prosecution may follow.
In fact I don't sign them any more as nowadays I submit them online and just
check a box for this declaration.
Henry Goodman
"Zev Sero" <zs...@free-market.net> wrote in message
news:TlcEb.9360$0s2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> > "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> writes:
>
> >>Going back to the original issue of someone falsely claiming to be a Chabad
> >>Sheliach, don't Chabad Shelichim ask for money and isn't it fraud to ask for
> >>money on false pretences?
>
> > What are the false pretences? Presumably the pretence under which he asks
> > for money is to support Chabad ideals. As long as he does that, then
> > what's false about it? Since Chabad is a philosophy and not an
> > organization, it'd be like me knocking on your door and asking for money
> > to support teaching Existentialism -- doesn't matter if I'm officially
> > authorized by Sartre's legal heirs or not.
>
> But what if you were not teaching Existentialism at all, but rather
> were spending the money on drugs and prostitutes?
>
> In any event, in the original case the liar was not asking anyone
> for money, so Henry's premise is false.
>
If Chabad is not an organisation why do I think that Shmuel Boteach was thrown
out of Chabad some years ago (I think to do with his book "kosher sex")?
Or is the problem that Chabad had a Rebbe at that time but is now leaderless and
therefore disorganised?
Zev Sero
> Zev Sero <zs...@free-market.net> writes:
>>For instance, if a person is really collecting to save himself and
>>his family from starvation, but out of embarassment claims to be
>>collecting for some yeshivah or other, I don't think that that is
>>fraud, because if he were able to tell people the truth they would
>>probably give him more than they do for the yeshivah.
> Except when the folks from the yeshiva come knocking at the door the
> person might say "oh, I already donated to you."
That would be to the yeshivah's detriment, not the donor's. Still
no fraud.
>>Furthermore, consider the case of someone who is collecting for one
>>tzedakah, but, knowing that a potential donor won't give to that
>>institution, falsely claims to be collecting for a different
>>tzedakah [...] if I were that solicitor's
>>solicitor, so to speak, I would argue that there was no fraud,
>>because there was no detriment. [...] *in principle* I believe
>>it is a valid argument, and a bet-din, if asked to apply the common
>>law, might buy it.
> Isn't there a prohibition on "genievas das" - "stealing knowledge?" I was
> once taught that halacha prohibits tricking people. Even if there's no
> harm done, i.e., some hold that under this rule even a simple
> sleight-of-hand magic trick would be prohibited.
Yes, but we're not talking about halacha, and religious prohibitions
on lying. We're talking about the common law crime of fraud. What
this person has done is certainly a sin, but I think a case can be
made that it is not fraud. As I said, I don't believe that this case
would succeed in a goyishe court, not because it's wrong, but because
the court doesn't have the background to properly understand it. But
I believe that a bet-din, ruling under the common law, might buy it.
> Next you'll say that if the person refuses to donate at all, that's
> simply mishegas or misunderstanding on his part, and therefore it'd
> be OK to just pick his pocket and take the amount of money that you
> know he'd really want to donate.
That would be theft, not fraud. A pickpocket does not make any sort
of representation to his victim, true or false. He simply takes the
person's wallet and runs.
> If you tell me you're collecting for X, but you then give the money
> to Y, that's fraud. Even if you think Y is more worthy.
How is it to the victim's detriment? Without that element there can
be no fraud. A goyishe court would say that the victim has suffered
because he gets nothing from tzedaka except the satisfaction of
seeing his money go to causes he deems worthy, and in this case he
did not get that satisfaction. But in truth a person *does* get
from tzedakah something far more valuable than satisfaction - he
gets a mitzvah, with reward both in this world and the Next one.
And this donor has received the same mitzvah he would have had the
money gone where he intended. So there is no detriment to him.
Note that I am *not* arguing that this diversion of funds is not
wrong - it is. But I am arguing that it is not fraud, becuase the
donor is no worse off. The victim here is not the donor but the
intended charity.
Steve Goldfarb
>Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>> Zev Sero <zs...@free-market.net> writes:
>>>For instance, if a person is really collecting to save himself and
>>>his family from starvation, but out of embarassment claims to be
>>>collecting for some yeshivah or other, I don't think that that is
>>>fraud, because if he were able to tell people the truth they would
>>>probably give him more than they do for the yeshivah.
>> Except when the folks from the yeshiva come knocking at the door the
>> person might say "oh, I already donated to you."
>That would be to the yeshivah's detriment, not the donor's. Still
>no fraud.
So he's defrauding the yeshivah - it's still fraud. He doesn't have to be
defrauding the person from whom he's collected the money.
If I go and steal all the Chabad tzedaka boxes I can find and give the
money to Ner Israel, would you hold that isn't stealing because the people
all intended their money to go to tzedakah and it did end up going to
tzedakah? Nonsense.
>> Isn't there a prohibition on "genievas das" - "stealing knowledge?" I was
>> once taught that halacha prohibits tricking people. Even if there's no
>> harm done, i.e., some hold that under this rule even a simple
>> sleight-of-hand magic trick would be prohibited.
>Yes, but we're not talking about halacha, and religious prohibitions
>on lying. We're talking about the common law crime of fraud. What
>this person has done is certainly a sin, but I think a case can be
>made that it is not fraud. As I said, I don't believe that this case
>would succeed in a goyishe court, not because it's wrong, but because
>the court doesn't have the background to properly understand it. But
>I believe that a bet-din, ruling under the common law, might buy it.
Now you've totally confused me -- you're suggesting that there's a
common-law interpretation and a halachic interpretation, but if you go to
the commmon-law court they won't understand the real common-law
interpretation, so you should go to the halachic court to get it? That
makes no sense to me at all.
>> Next you'll say that if the person refuses to donate at all, that's
>> simply mishegas or misunderstanding on his part, and therefore it'd
>> be OK to just pick his pocket and take the amount of money that you
>> know he'd really want to donate.
>That would be theft, not fraud. A pickpocket does not make any sort
>of representation to his victim, true or false. He simply takes the
>person's wallet and runs.
Fraud is a form of theft. It's the mechanism under which the theft
occurred.
>> If you tell me you're collecting for X, but you then give the money
>> to Y, that's fraud. Even if you think Y is more worthy.
>How is it to the victim's detriment? Without that element there can
>be no fraud. A goyishe court would say that the victim has suffered
>because he gets nothing from tzedaka except the satisfaction of
>seeing his money go to causes he deems worthy, and in this case he
>did not get that satisfaction. But in truth a person *does* get
>from tzedakah something far more valuable than satisfaction - he
>gets a mitzvah, with reward both in this world and the Next one.
>And this donor has received the same mitzvah he would have had the
>money gone where he intended. So there is no detriment to him.
>Note that I am *not* arguing that this diversion of funds is not
>wrong - it is. But I am arguing that it is not fraud, becuase the
>donor is no worse off. The victim here is not the donor but the
>intended charity.
First, even if you haven't stolen from the giver, you've stolen from the
intended receipient.
Second, how do you know the donor has received the same mitzvah? You're
suggesting it's none of donor's concern if you give the money to Ner
Israel or Ohr Sameach. But what if you give it to J4J? Would that be of
the donor's concern? Who are you to decide where this donor's money ought
to go?
It's misappropriation of funds. Whether that meets the legal definition of
"fraud" is really irrelevant. And please don't claim that's all you
intended to get at -- you started out with the claim that it wasn't a
crime at all.
--sg
>--
>Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV.
>zs...@free-market.net They go well together, but are completely
> different concepts. - James Lileks
Henry Goodman
"Zev Sero" <zs...@free-market.net> wrote in message
news:bjcEb.9358$0s2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
The schnorrer has defrauded the yeshiva out of the sum of money the donor gave
to him thinking it was for the Yeshiva. That is fraud.
Incidentally, we have had problems in London with fraudsters claiming to be
collecting for specific Yeshivas in Israel and the local Rabbonim have put out
warnings about this.
Don Levey
> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:brs8ee$sc8$3...@reader2.panix.com...
> >
> > Sorry, Harry. I'm looking at a 1040EZ form online right now, this is the
> > simplest Federal tax return. The signature line says:
> > "Under penalties of perjury, I have examined this return, and to the best
> > of my knowledge and belief it is true, correct, and accurately lists all
> > amounts and sources of income I have received during the tax year."
> >
> > Sounds like an oath to me, and the penalty of perjury is explicitly
> > spelled out.
> >
> > Henry, British tax returns don't have anything like that on them? I can't
> > imagine they don't - what's the point of signing if there isn't some sort
> > of declaration that you're asserting to?
> >
>
> As I said above we sign them but there is no mention of perjury.
> The latest one says:
> The information I have given in this Tax Return is correct and complete to the
> best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that if false information is given
> or any income or chargeable gains concealed, financial penalties may be charged
> and/or prosecution may follow.
>
> In fact I don't sign them any more as nowadays I submit them online and just
> check a box for this declaration.
>
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But that declaration looks
similar to the US. You're asserting that you're giving correct
information (to the best of your knowledge). If you give false info,
OR if you conceal income/gains, you may be subject to penalties and/or
prosecution. That is, you may be prosecuted for giving false
information, whether or not you are concealing income or gains in the
process. Am I interpreting this incorrectly?
--
Don Levey NOTE: spamtrapped address likely to change
Framingham, MA at any moment. Most recent post has best
address.
Yisroel Markov
<henry....@virgin.net> said:
[snip]
>If Chabad is not an organisation why do I think that Shmuel Boteach was thrown
>out of Chabad some years ago (I think to do with his book "kosher sex")?
AFAIK, the "throwing out" consisted of de-listing from the shlukhim
directory and a few mailing lists. That was carried out by a few
organizations, including the Agudas Chasidei Chabad. Since there's no
official membership, it's hard to formally evict someone.
>Or is the problem that Chabad had a Rebbe at that time but is now leaderless and
>therefore disorganised?
It never was particularly organized :-)
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Henry Goodman
"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
news:m3u13yv...@davinci.the-leveys.us...
Yes you are interpreting it correctly. In practice there is no significant
difference between our two countries. There seems to be a technical difference
in that the USA has to somehow bring in references to oaths and perjury to
overcome your constitutional right to utter falsehoods; we have no such right
and hence a simple declaration suffices.
I have dug out how this controversy started a week ago
Zev
>>In the newspaper ad cited by Josh, he styled himself `dover chabad'.
>>As I pointed out at the time, nothing prevents me from taking out an
>>ad calling myself `dover rosh hamemshala', or `dover haafifyor', (or,
>>for that matter, `dover Josh Backon',) but that wouldn't make it so.
Henry
> I don't know what the law is where you live but in the UK the Advertising
> Standards Agency could prosecute you for making a false statement.
Zev
Huh? Lying is illegal in the UK? Once again, USAns have occasion to
thank G-d for the 1st Amendment.
I still don't see why some Americans value the freedom to deceive people, e.g.
by claiming qualifications they do not have, and hence have to extend the
concept of perjury to ensure obvious legal necessities like penalties for false
tax declarations. If you sign a document in this country or publish an
advertisement or claim to be a Chabad Sheliach you are responsible for the
consequences if it is not true. Perjury only means lying under oath in a court
of law.
Steve Goldfarb
>Henry
>> I don't know what the law is where you live but in the UK the Advertising
>> Standards Agency could prosecute you for making a false statement.
>Zev
>Huh? Lying is illegal in the UK? Once again, USAns have occasion to
>thank G-d for the 1st Amendment.
>I still don't see why some Americans value the freedom to deceive people, e.g.
>by claiming qualifications they do not have, and hence have to extend the
>concept of perjury to ensure obvious legal necessities like penalties for false
>tax declarations. If you sign a document in this country or publish an
>advertisement or claim to be a Chabad Sheliach you are responsible for the
>consequences if it is not true. Perjury only means lying under oath in a court
>of law.
Why? Because I don't think it should be up to some government standards
agency to decide if I'm a Chabad Sheliach or not. Sounds like in your
country if your government decides that this guy is a Chabad Sheliach then
he's OK, if they decide he isn't then he goes to jail. How would he prove
that he was? To follow the Chabad example, what if the Meshichist
Chabadnicks have more political power in the UK, and convince your
government that only they truly represent Chabad --- I presume, then, that
anyone publishing an ad in the paper claiming to be a member of Chabad and
asserting that the Rebbe is dead could be prosecuted?
Not in our country.
--sg
>--
>Henry Goodman
>henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
--
p_al...@hotmail.com
> > > > Is it legal to lie on your tax return?
> > >
> > > No, because you are required to swear that the return is true.
> > > Lying on a tax return is not necessarily fraud, but it is perjury.
>
> > In this country we don't swear tax returns, just sign them but you can get into
> > serious trouble for a deliberately false entry (it's not perjury though). Seems
> > to me you have a lot of swearing in the USA to get round your constitutional
> > right to free speech; many people don't like making a shavua.
>
> It is not perjury and one does not sign their tax returns under oath. As a matter of
> fact, it is legal to declare that one earned more than one really did and pay
> additional taxes.
While it may not be an oath, it is perjury to lie.
On the bottom of page 2 of IRS Form 1040 (the tax return), right
before the submitter's signature, it says "Under penalties of perjury,
I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules
and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief they are
true, correct, and complete."
This form can be viewed at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf by
anyone who doesn't live in the US, can't find last year's return, or
doesn't pay taxes.
Maybe they don't care if someone lies so that they pay more taxes.
But if they reported someone else's income as their own to reduce the
other person's taxes, it seems they could charge them with perjury
(although they might make a deal to drop the charges in exchange for
testimony). If it's halachically acceptable to lie and pay more
taxes, or to testify against someone in order to stay out of jail, are
questions for YLOR's tax advisor.
Zev Sero
> If Chabad is not an organisation why do I think that Shmuel Boteach
> was thrown out of Chabad some years ago (I think to do with his book
> "kosher sex")?
No, it was long before that. And it depends in what country. In the
UK, there is a Lubavitch House that serves as the headquarters for
Chabad operations, under the direction of Rabbi Sudak. I don't think
there's any legal bar to someone setting themselves up as an independent
Chabad operation, but Boteach used to be affiliated with Lubavitch House,
and they subsequently broke that affiliation, over various differences.
It didn't really affect his operation, as he continued under the name
'Oxford Chai Foundation' or something like that.
Zev Sero
> Zev Sero <zs...@free-market.net> writes:
>>Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>>> Zev Sero <zs...@free-market.net> writes:
>>>>For instance, if a person is really collecting to save himself and
>>>>his family from starvation, but out of embarassment claims to be
>>>>collecting for some yeshivah or other, I don't think that that is
>>>>fraud, because if he were able to tell people the truth they would
>>>>probably give him more than they do for the yeshivah.
>>>Except when the folks from the yeshiva come knocking at the door the
>>>person might say "oh, I already donated to you."
>>That would be to the yeshivah's detriment, not the donor's. Still
>>no fraud.
> So he's defrauding the yeshivah - it's still fraud.
How has he defrauded the yeshivah? He hasn't said anything to it,
true or false. It certainly hasn't relied on his representations,
whether to its detriment or not. C'mon, you're not even trying.
> If I go and steal all the Chabad tzedaka boxes I can find and give the
> money to Ner Israel, would you hold that isn't stealing because the people
> all intended their money to go to tzedakah and it did end up going to
> tzedakah? Nonsense.
Stealing, certainly. But fraud? Even if I put the money in my pocket
it wouldn't be fraud, as it did not depend in any way on my telling
untruths. Again, a bank robber is not guilty of fraud.
>>>Isn't there a prohibition on "genievas das" - "stealing knowledge?"
>>>I was once taught that halacha prohibits tricking people.
>>Yes, but we're not talking about halacha, and religious prohibitions
>>on lying. We're talking about the common law crime of fraud. What
>>this person has done is certainly a sin, but I think a case can be
>>made that it is not fraud. As I said, I don't believe that this case
>>would succeed in a goyishe court, not because it's wrong, but because
>>the court doesn't have the background to properly understand it. But
>>I believe that a bet-din, ruling under the common law, might buy it.
> Now you've totally confused me -- you're suggesting that there's a
> common-law interpretation and a halachic interpretation,
Where did I say that? You introduced the red herring of a halachic
prohibition on lying. We're not talking about what halachic sins a
person might be committing, we're talking about fraud, which is a
creation of the common law, not of halacha. There is no halachic
`interpretation' of the common law.
> but if you go to the commmon-law court they won't understand the
> real common-law interpretation, so you should go to the halachic
> court to get it? That makes no sense to me at all.
The argument depends on the fact that a donor gets an actual benefit
from giving tzedakah, and not just the good feeling of seeing his
money go where he wants it. I think the argument is sound, but I
wouldn't fancy its chances in a goishe court, which is unlikely to
understand this premise, and therefore will not be equipped to
evaluate the argument's merits. A bet-din, if asked to apply the
common law rather than the halacha, will understand the premise,
and will therefore be able to evaluate the argument and see whether
it has merit or not. Of course, the bet-din would have to be
applying common law, or the whole question of whether fraud has been
committed would never come up.
>>>Next you'll say that if the person refuses to donate at all, that's
>>>simply mishegas or misunderstanding on his part, and therefore it'd
>>>be OK to just pick his pocket and take the amount of money that you
>>>know he'd really want to donate.
>>That would be theft, not fraud. A pickpocket does not make any sort
>>of representation to his victim, true or false. He simply takes the
>>person's wallet and runs.
> Fraud is a form of theft. It's the mechanism under which the theft
> occurred.
Fraud is a separate crime. We are not talking here of crime in
general, we are talking specifically about fraud. In particular, the
allegation that false advertisements are by definition fraudulent.
Please stop dragging in red herrings.
> First, even if you haven't stolen from the giver, you've stolen from
> the intended receipient.
Er, no. The money belonged to the donor. It wouldn't belong to the
intended recipient unless the donor tranferred it to him, which he
didn't. So while the effect of your action is to deprive the donor
of money it would otherwise receive, you cannot have stolen from him.
> Second, how do you know the donor has received the same mitzvah?
> You're suggesting it's none of donor's concern if you give the
> money to Ner Israel or Ohr Sameach.
I am *not* saying that it's none of the donor's concern; it's his
money, and he's entitled to give it where he likes. What I am saying
is that he has suffered no detriment from being misled. He is no
worse off than he would be had he given the money where he inteded.
> But what if you give it to J4J? Would that be of the donor's
> concern? Who are you to decide where this donor's money ought
> to go?
This is one reason why a goyishe court would not be in a position to
evaluate the merits of my argument. The goyishe court has no way to
inquire into what is a mitzvah and what is not. But a bet-din is in
a position to determine that giving to Chabad and to Ner Yisrael are
equally mitzvot, while giving to J4J is not. Once that determination
has been made, it can then decide whether this means that the donor
has in fact suffered no detriment, and therefore no fraud has occured;
without this determination there is no way to tell whether the donor
has suffered a detriment or not.
> It's misappropriation of funds. Whether that meets the legal
> definition of "fraud" is really irrelevant. And please don't claim
> that's all you intended to get at -- you started out with the claim
> that it wasn't a crime at all.
I started with the claim that placing an ad in a newspaper falsely
claiming to be someone's spokesman is not a crime. I stand by that
claim; I don't even believe that it's a crime in the UK or in Israel,
and I certainly maintain that it would not be a crime in the USA. I
said nothing about soliciting funds - Henry dragged that one in.
While denouncing that as a red herring I added as an aside that I
believe an argument could be made that this would not actually be
fraud. You seized on that aside, and raised other problems that
there would be with soliciting funds under false pretenses; I have
never claimed that doing so is either legal or ethical, merely that
it is arguably not fraud.
Zev Sero
> The schnorrer has defrauded the yeshiva out of the sum of money the
> donor gave to him thinking it was for the Yeshiva. That is fraud.
It certainly is not. How has he defrauded the yeshiva? What untruth
has he told it? He hasn't even spoken to it!
Remember, fraud has a specific definition - it isn't anything you don't
think is right, or even any old crime. Soliciting funds for one
tzedakah while claiming to do so for another is certainly unethical,
and quite possibly illegal, but it is not fraud unless the donor
a) would not have given to the real recipient, and b) suffered somehow
by giving to the wrong cause. If he would have given an equal or
greater amount had he known the truth then it's certainly not fraud,
and even if he would have refused to give had he known the truth, it's
not fraud unless he is damaged, which I argue that he is not.
Harry Weiss
Chabad appears to use it both ways. If someone they strongly disagree with (even if
trained at Chabad) tries to set up an organzation and call it Chabad of x street,
they would start trying to get rid of him using method possible. But if one their
shluchim does something that people don'e like such as call the Rebbe a god, they
will say there is no central organzation....
> --
> Henry Goodman
> henry dot goodman at virgin dot net