Lawsuit Could Dissolve Kiryas Joel

Kiryas Joel dissidents rolled the ultimate grenade into their enemies' tent last week with a federal lawsuit questioning the very existence of the village that the Satmar Hasidic community created 34 years ago.

Federal case could dissolve Kiryas Joel
Lawsuit claims village violates Constitution
By Chris Mckenna • Times Herald-Record

Kiryas Joel dissidents rolled the ultimate grenade into their enemies' tent last week with a federal lawsuit questioning the very existence of the village that the Satmar Hasidic community created 34 years ago.

Their argument — laid out by civil-rights attorney Michael Sussman and sharply disputed by village leaders and their supporters — is that the village discriminates against them because of religious differences, and that public and religious authority are so entwined in Kiryas Joel that it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

But even if the plaintiffs prove they've been thwarted and unfairly treated as they allege, a big question is whether a judge would ever order the drastic remedy they proposed: dismantling the Village of Kiryas Joel.
city of rajneeshpuram

One of the few precedents for the constitutional challenge Kiryas Joel dissidents have brought against their village is a 1983 case involving Rajneeshpuram, a religious enclave incorporated as a city in Oregon the previous year.


The community started in 1981, when followers of a spiritual leader named Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh bought a huge ranch in Wasco County. Within only three years, their commune grew into a city of 7,000 with its own police and fire departments, businesses and bus system.


By that time, the state had sued Rajneeshpuram in federal court, arguing that it had no obligation to recognize the municipal status of a city controlled by a religious organization.


A federal judge ruled in favor of Oregon in 1985. But the decision had little impact on Rajneeshpuram, because state and federal court battles had so depleted the group's resources that the city was soon bankrupt and empty.

The answer depends on whom you ask.

Ralph Stein, a Pace Law School professor who teaches constitutional law, sees no chance of that happening, based on what he read in the court complaint.

"As far as I'm concerned, it's a political polemic," Stein said. "It doesn't provide a legal basis for which the relief can be provided."

If the allegations are true, Stein said, what the dissidents are complaining about amounts to political corruption no different than Tammany Hall-style tactics, even if cloaked in religious garb. And corruption, he said, is no reason to dismantle a municipality.

If it were, Stein said, "I can't imagine how many times places like Boston, New York and Chicago would have been dissolved."

But Nomi Stolzenberg, a University of Southern California law professor who's co-writing a book on Kiryas Joel, argues that a political in-group abusing power for non-religious reasons is different under constitutional law than a "religious in-group that uses political power to suppress religious dissenters."

"Whether that in fact is what's going on in Kiryas Joel remains to be proved," she said. "But the idea that a religious group could capture political power and abuse its power by discriminating against groups that don't adhere to the beliefs of the dominant group — that is a very specific danger that the religion clauses were designed to combat."


Stolzenberg contends the case could hinge on which of two constitutional readings the judge uses.

The prevailing approach would likely find that the institutions of church and state are separate in Kiryas Joel, and therefore, permissible, she said. But a competing doctrine — she calls it the "get real" approach — might take a less lenient view.

"It's actually hard to predict how the federal judges are going to react to this," she said.

The dissidents' lawsuit tries to show unequal treatment in law enforcement, tax exemptions, elections and other areas through a series of examples. Village leaders say the claims have no merit, and insist they provide services to all residents without discrimination.

Joseph Waldman, a plaintiff in the case and a longtime thorn in the side of the village's leadership, brought a similar case in 1997 to try to get the village dissolved. A federal judge and then an appeals-court panel rejected his demand — but strictly because most of his allegations had just been tried in two previous lawsuits.

The appeals-court judges wrote that Waldman's claims didn't "establish the sort of pervasive and otherwise irremediable entanglement between church and state that would justify a drastic remedy like the dissolution of the village."

But they added: "All this is not to say that a series of future actions evincing an enduring and all-encompassing domination of the Village government by the Congregation could not at some point suffice to create a new cause of action for the dissolution of the village."

~~~~~~~~~~

City of Rajneeshpuram

One of the few precedents for the constitutional challenge Kiryas Joel dissidents have brought against their village is a 1983 case involving Rajneeshpuram, a religious enclave incorporated as a city in Oregon the previous year.

The community started in 1981, when followers of a spiritual leader named Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh bought a huge ranch in Wasco County. Within only three years, their commune grew into a city of 7,000 with its own police and fire departments, businesses and bus system.

By that time, the state had sued Rajneeshpuram in federal court, arguing that it had no obligation to recognize the municipal status of a city controlled by a religious organization.

A federal judge ruled in favor of Oregon in 1985. But the decision had little impact on Rajneeshpuram, because state and federal court battles had so depleted the group's resources that the city was soon bankrupt and empty.

[Hat Tip: Seymour.]

Comments

[Proton Soup]

what is drastic about dissolving the government there? would they not just default to an unincorporated area under the jurisdiction of whatever county they occupy ?

[soso]

How could a lawsuit dissolve a town? Explain how this is possible in a state of law? People bought their homes there, who will chase them away?

Or is US-law really as ridiculous as it looks from Europe?

[Shmarya]

How could a lawsuit dissolve a town? Explain how this is possible in a state of law? People bought their homes there, who will chase them away?

Or is US-law really as ridiculous as it looks from Europe?

Posted by: soso | June 19, 2011 at 01:12 Pm

The lawsuit would dissolve the village GOVERNMENT and would make KJ a part of the adjacent town.

[Bassy the Haredi Slayer]

May we all be zoche to see the feds breaks up the Teitelbaum crime family

[Yochanan Lavie]

Apologies to Billy Joel:

Some folks like to get away
Take a holiday from the neighbourhood
Hop a bus to Borough Park
Or to Williamsburg
But I'm taking a Monsey Trails
On the Mehadrin Line
I'm in a Satmar state of mind

I've seen all the admorim
In their fancy cars just like Yated
Been high in the Catskills as a chosid
But I know what I'm needing
If you disagree, you'll pay a fine
I'm in a Satmar state of mind

It was so easy living day by day
Out of touch with the majority of Jews
But now I need a little ghetto space
Der Satmar Yid, Vos iz Neus

It comes down to reality
And which I ignore, you see,'cause I've let it slide
Don't care if it's Square town, by the Rebbe's side
I don't have any reasoning
I've left it all behind
I'm in a Satmar state of mind

It was so easy living, oy vey
Out of touch with the majority of Jews
But now I need no pictures of ladies
Hamodia, Der Blatt today

It comes down to reality
And it's fine with me 'cause I'll ignore it
Don't care if it's Kiryas Joel and if you deplore it
I don't have any reasons
I've left them all behind
I'm in a Satmar state of mind

I'm just taking a Monsey Trails on the Mehadrin Line
'Cause I'm in a Satmar state of mind

[Deremes]

The Village most probably will not be dissolved.
From what i remember years ago when a similar case about KJ was argued in federal court,they made a settlement. But they will for sure need to change their unfairness to dissidents.

[Seymour]

The Village most probably will not be dissolved.
From what i remember years ago when a similar case about KJ was argued in federal court,they made a settlement. But they will for sure need to change their unfairness to dissidents.

Posted by: Deremes | June 19, 2011 at 01:51 PM

maybe the dissidents won't settle this time? Maybe they know that history will repeat itself like is just did and know they have to go all the way this time

[Bubba Metzia]

What's the advantage of being in a municipality anyways? People living in unincorporated areas don't have to pay as much in taxes.

[Deremes]

Its my gut feeling that the Village will settle in a way that both parties will be satisfied.
The patrol will be dissolved or elections moved or something similar.
Both parties are no fools and have some very smart people in their leadership.Waldman is just the face for the media.

[WoolSilkCotton]

YL the Kid, fantastic as always.

Deremes, lawyers always say its a good settlement when neither side is happy.
Paying a few million for a settlement means nothing for the Satmar. Nothing will change if there is a settlement, although the aggrieved will get a nice check.

[jancsipista]

theese satmerers act like homeless begger but in reality they deceive us all they are very wealthy of course they all collect sec.8 and food stamps its part of their deception,working of the books any which way you look at it they are master champions at deception.

[OMG]

Posted by: Deremes | June 19, 2011 at 01:51 PM
Read again the article, see following

“Joseph Waldman, a plaintiff in the case and a longtime thorn in the side of the village's leadership, brought a similar case in 1997 to try to get the village dissolved. A federal judge and then an appeals-court panel rejected his demand — but strictly because most of his allegations had just been tried in two previous lawsuits.

The appeals-court judges wrote that Waldman's claims didn't "establish the sort of pervasive and otherwise irremediable entanglement between church and state that would justify a drastic remedy like the dissolution of the village."

But they added: "All this is not to say that a series of future actions evincing an enduring and all-encompassing domination of the Village government by the Congregation could not at some point suffice to create a new cause of action for the dissolution of the village."

[Morris the Katz]

There was this little village in Ohio near Cleveland where this happened. It was a notorious speed trap, and all the public officials, like the mayor, chief of police, etc. were relatives. The main source of revenue were traffic tickets, and the town was written up repeatedly in Car and Driver Magazine. To the best of my knowledge, none of the municipal officials (crime family) were Jewish.

The village was dissolved, and absorbed into adjacent towns. At least some of the family members went to jail. This must have been around 8-10 years ago.

[Deremes]

All they want is to bring the Village leader to their knees.
The Village shouldn't be part of the congregation.
The leaders of the congregation shouldn't hold any position in the Village.
The Village patrol should serve the Village not the congregation.

You cant even call them dissidents by now because the folks who oppose the village and the main congregations counts to about fourty five to fifty percent.

[Bubba Metzia]

There's another news report about this situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-YHFXUsqQI

[itchiemayer]

Off topic, sorry.

It turns out that the Mother and brother of Huma are both members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Now some of you will say no big deal, no guilt by association, etc...
However, how come they didn't make a stink when she married a Jew? Perhaps she has a "higher calling". I think it's a big deal, but it just my opinion and we all have one...or more. She is Hillary's right hand man. Something is rotten in Denmark, but it will be easier to cope with if we put our heads in the sand.....

[Max]

Itchie,

Maybe they're not as racist as you seem from this post. You know, Mohammed married a Jew.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Thanks for your appreciation, WSC.

[Bugsy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Rome,_Ohio

[just curious]

"You know, Mohammed married a Jew. "

more like captured and raped her from a young age. which they have done (and continue to do) over the centuries

[FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican]

"Some folks like to get away"

Another YL song parody sure to be a Grammy nominee.

[Reuven]

I wonder if New Jersey still has 566 or so municipalities. (In my honest opinion, some of them could use a merger and some others, like Woodbridge Township, which masquerades as places such as "Iselin" and "Colonia", could use a breakup.)

[Reuven]

Muhammad's many marriages:

1) His 40-year-old boss, when he was 25.
2) Some divorcee.
3) The (in)famous 9-year-old named Aisha.
4 and 5) A couple of widows of people killed in battle.
6) His cousin.
7) The captive daughter of an enemy chief. (Her forcible marriage led to the freeing of several other captives.)
8) The daughter of the Quraysh chief.
9) The Jewess. She had been a freed captive of someone else and it was a diplomatic arranged marriage, like several of Muhammad's later marriages. Muhammad had to quell antisemitism among some of his other wives (he was a polygamist).
10 and 11) Enemy captives.
12) A diplomatic marriage to a former enemy tribeswoman.
13) A Coptic Christian slave from the Byzantine Empire, sent as a gift from said empire.

There was also a woman named Rayhana, but her relationship to Muhammad was disputed. It is unclear whether this was a girlfriend/concubine or a wife, so I didn't include her. That one was an enemy captive.

In conclusion, Muhammad's marriages included some voluntary marriages, many diplomatic arranged marriages (including the Jewish person), and some people basically taken captive.

[masortiman]

in the rajneesh case, the STATE of oregon wanted to dissolve the municipality. In this case, the state of NY is NOT supporting the dissolution of KJ. For a federal court to do so, would introduce issues of federalism not present in the Rajneesh case (or, presumably, the ohio speed trap case)

The establishment of municipalities is a function of STATE govts - thats why their form, number, governance, etc vary from state to state. Abolishing one in federal court, even with 1st amendment issues involved, would be a radical departure.

[masortiman]

"Another YL song parody sure to be a Grammy nominee"

This.

[itchiemayer]

Amazing that the media isn't reporting on this. If Romney's top aide had a parent and sibling in the American Nazi party would it be reported straight away?

[Zalman Alpert]

After the Rizhiner Rebbe Rabbi Israel Friedman fled Czarist Russia to Austria (Bukowina) he desired to set up an autonomous self governing Jewish settlement there.
The greatest haalchic decisor of Galicia rav Shlomo Kluger wroter a responsa decalring that prior to the Messianic era , it was forbidden for Jews to have such independent self governing cities.
The Rizhiner did indeed listen to him.
When the Faltishener rav Rabbi Stein a follower of rav Joel T. brough this to the attention of Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum when he created KJ, the satmarer made short shrift of this responsa.
As with many things RJT picked and chose what to stress and what to disgard.
In fact forgetting about Khazaria, I can think of only several instances in East Europe of towns completely under Jewish control with self government . Perhaps the town of Schederin(started by the Mitteler rebbe of Chabad) White Russia was such , and then again it may have been all Jewish but not autonomous and self governing as the Czar was not about to cede such control to the Yevrei and Zhid ..Places like New Square, Tash in Canada KJ and a few others are a very new concept and its amazing that those same Orthodox from Hungary who rally behind the Chasam Sofer's call of Chodosh assur Min hatorah - all that is new is forbidden have created a new innovation self contained and self governing Jewish towns in the diaspora.
As Mrs. Blu Greenberg said years ago when there isa halachic will there isa halachic way. How true !

[Office of the Chief Rabbi]

Nice that someone remembers the Bhagwan.
I once put the kibosh on an aliyah for a follower of the Bhagwan at a nephew's Bar Mitzvah. He didn't have on his orange robe.

Great, YL.

[Dave]

OCR, I remember reading that one sadhu/ guru claimed that he was persecuted by large-breasted woman in a past life !
I wouldn't mind having that kind of problem, ROTFL !

[B-man]

If the dissidents are serious rather than just playing for PR, I would think that they'd need a lot more legal firepower on tap than they seem to have, IMO.

[Ahavah]

The establishment of municipalities is a function of STATE govts - thats why their form, number, governance, etc vary from state to state. Abolishing one in federal court, even with 1st amendment issues involved, would be a radical departure. -Masortiman

Except for one problem - as an incorporated village they have tax exempt status (municipal govts are a type of non-profit, legally). The Feds won't necessarily dissolve the corporation but they CAN rule it is no longer in compliance with laws governing municipal corporations and remove their federal and irs recognition as such. That would make every dime they collect taxable as income, for one thing. Sounds fun to me.

[HURT]

in the past 10 years the village of kj was fair with all residence in a way more fair with the dissidents because they wanted to avoid this situation, since the dissidents have no goal accept for fighting the establishment they never had or will have In a desperate moment they did this move which has no chance.
the self hating Jew Michael sussman decided to fight new square so in order to proof his point he decided he will me a stronger case by alleging kj as well.
I just wonder if Michael sussman is family related to faildmessiah since they share the same values=hatred to charedi people.
but dont worry the hell is big enough for both of them.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Thanks to all.

[Morris the Katz]

HURT, I take it that you hold yourself out to be an example of Jewish values.

1. You can barely write a coherent sentence.

2. You're as intolerant is one can get.

If yours are Jewish values, I want no part of them, so please direct me to the nearest mosque so I can convert to Islam.

Fortunately, the drivel you're spouting is antithetical to the values I grew up with, Jewish and otherwise, so I'm not converting anytime soon.