The NOT Mesira, Mesira

True, there was a time that even if a gun was pointed at your head and you did the act of Mesira you were nevertheless called a Mosser. Today with no guns pointing at anybody head, we have Mesira happening and so-called "Eltereh Chasidim" Endorsing Mossrim.

True, there was a time that even if a gun was pointed at your head and you did the act of Mesira you were nevertheless called a Mosser. Today with no guns pointing at anybody head, we have Mesira happening and so-called "Eltereh Chasidim" Endorsing Mossrim.

Forwarded by a fan (Click to enlarge)

According to the above, the subpoenas are not a Mesira.  Although Rabbi Bogomilsky says they are and as of today we have not seen any permission from any Rov with the  go ahead of issuing these “not Mesira subpoenas”.

WIS will now take the liberty to address the Mosrim and Mesira justifiers directly.

Lets have it your way for a moment (just one post). The subpoenas are NOT Mesira. O.k. granted.

The Talmud in tractate Shabbos 31a relates the following well-known story of Hillel:

“On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, “Make me a proselyte, on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.” Thereupon he chased him away with the builder’s cubit that was in his hand. When he came before Hillel, (he also asked Hillel to teach him the entire Torah while standing on one foot) Hillel replied, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah while the rest is commentary; go and learn it.”

Since this subpoena thing is no big deal to you, WIS is offering a fair proposition for you all… WIS is of-course extending the very same courtesy you are to your neighbors. So in the name of neighborly love….

Hand  over all your books and records to WIS. Send us [whoisshmira@gmail.com] all your and your families (wife and kids) information. Where you work; how much you make;  your expenses;  share with WIS any information of extra cash you might be making on the side; send WIS your tax returns; bank statements; credit card bills…

You know, WIS is just going to borrow a few lines from the ‘Not Mesira subpoena’ to give you a better understanding of what WIS would like you to share with the rest of us.


i.          “Transaction” means any payment, exchange, transfer, sale, or loan of money, securities, goods, services, or other valuables or any other business deal or agreement.

ii.          “Document” means all written or graphic matter or any other means of preserving thought or expression of every type and description, including but not limited to originals, drafts, computer-stored and computer-retrievable information (including but not limited to databases, spreadsheets, word processing files, charts and graphs), copies or duplicates that are marked with any notation or annotation, copies or duplicates that differ in any way from the original, correspondence, memoranda, intra or inter office communication, reports, notes, minutes, contracts, agreements, books, records, vouchers, invoices, purchase orders, ledgers, diaries, logs, calendar notes, appointment books, computer printouts, computer disks and programs, microfiche, price quotations, sales records, card files, price lists, press clippings, sworn or unsworn statements of employees, requisitions, purchasing manuals or guidelines, lists, audit work papers, financial analysis, tables of organizations, advertisements or other promotional material, audited and unaudited financial statements, newspapers or newsletters, faxes, diagrams, photographs, electronic mail, electronic or mechanical records, and other writings or recordings, including audio and video recordings, which are in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff or its attorneys, agents, representatives, members, managers, employees, employers, family members or anyone acting on its behalf. A draft or nonidentical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. “Document” also includes any removable “Post-it” notes or other attachments affixed to any of the foregoing.

x.         “Person” means any natural person, business, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, organization, affiliated group, association, legal or governmental entity or any other entity.

xi.         “Communication” means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries or otherwise). Without limiting the foregoing, “communication” includes all letters, memoranda, telephone conversations (without regard to the location where the conversation originated), face-to-face conversations, electronic transmissions, fax, wire, modem, e-mail, telegraph and internet transmissions, meetings, visits and conferences.

xii.        “Concerning” and “concern” mean relating to, referring to, describing, evidencing, summarizing, or constituting in whole or in part.

xiii.       The words “and” or “or” shall be interpreted conjunctively, and consistent with the result providing for the most expansive response, and shall not be interpreted disjunctively to exclude any information otherwise within the scope of any specifications below.

xiv.       “Each,” “any,” and “all” shall be construed broadly and shall mean “each,” “any,” or “all” or “each,” “any,” and “all” wherever such meaning broadens the meaning of any sentence or phrase.

xv.        “Related,” “relating to,” or “referring to” mean constituting, comprising, containing, setting forth, showing, disclosing, describing, explaining, summarizing, mentioning or in any way concerning, directly or indirectly.

xvi.       “Between” means by, among, to, and/or from.

xvii.      As used in these requests, the present tense of a verb includes past tense and vice versa, use of the singular includes the plural and vice versa and use of the masculine gender includes the feminine gender and vice versa.

INSTRUCTIONS

i.          All documents produced pursuant to this request shall be organized in such a manner as to clearly indicate the request in response to which they are produced or they shall be produced in the manner in which they were maintained in the ordinary course of business.

ii.          All documents produced in response to this Request shall be produced in toto, notwithstanding the fact that portions thereof may contain information not requested.

iii.         If any requested document is withheld from production for any reason, furnish a list specifying, for each document: (i) the reason for which it is being withheld; (ii) its character (letter, memorandum, etc.); (iii) the name, position, and business affiliation of its author or authors; (iv) the name, position and business affiliation of each recipient of the letter or a copy thereof and where not apparent, the relationship of the author and recipient to each other; (v) the date on which it was written; (vi) its general subject matter; (vii) the paragraph of this request to which it is responsive; (viii) its present custodian; (ix) the name of each person with knowledge of the information withheld; and (x) such other information as is sufficient to identify the documents for a subpoena duces tecum.

iv.         This request shall be deemed continuing and the response thereto shall be supplemented within ten days of the receipt or identification of documents or things responsive to this request.

v.         If any document or thing requested herein has been lost, discarded, destroyed or otherwise disposed of, identify such document or thing as completely as possible, providing as much of the following information as possible: (i) the type of document or thing; (ii) its date; (iii) its author and recipients; (iv) its contents; (v) the date or approximate date it was lost, discarded, destroyed or otherwise disposed of; (vi) the circumstances and manner in which it was lost, discarded, destroyed or otherwise disposed of; (vii) the reason or reasons for discarding, destroying or disposing of the document or thing; (viii) the identity of all persons authorizing or having knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the destruction or discarding of the document or thing; (ix) the identity of the person(s) who lost, discarded, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of the document or thing; and (x) the identity of all persons having knowledge of the contents thereof, including names, addresses and phone numbers.

vi.         If a requested document currently or formerly in Your possession which You allege was received under a cloak of confidentiality: (i) state whether the identity or source of the alleged confidential information has ever been disclosed and/or waived; (ii) identify all individuals known to have knowledge of the confidential information including their name, title, and last known address; and (iii) identify all occasions including date, time and location of the disclosure and/or waiver of the identity or source of the alleged confidential information.

vii.        If any document relates to this proceeding which is no longer in Your possession because it has been returned to an individual or entity, please provide the following information: (i) the place, date (or approximate date), and manner of recording or otherwise preparing the document; (ii) the name and title of sender, and the name and title of the recipient of the document; (iii) a summary of the contents of the document; (iv) the identity of each person or persons (other than stenographic or clerical assistance) participating in the preparation of the document; (v) the identity of all persons having knowledge of the substance of the document; (vi) the date on which it was returned; (vii) the reason it was returned; and (viii) whether the claimed return occurred as a result of any policy relied upon by you. If so, describe the policy.

viii.       Please preface your response to each request with the text of the Request, as set forth below.

ix.         Unless otherwise stated, the time period covered by each request is January of 2005 through the present.

DOCUMENT REQUESTS

All documents and communications concerning any transactions between you and the rest of the world. Anything and everything.

___________________________

Don’t make us wait to long. We already established that this is no big deal and you clearly proved you don’t mind this happening to your neighbor, surly you are a good Finner mentch and would do the same in a heart beat.

WhoIsShmira is not an attorney nor an accountant and definitely not a Mosser, so you have absolutely nothing to worry about (this is not even a ‘not Mesira Subpoena’). If you for reasons unknown don’t trust WIS, you can always go to the people you do trust with full heart and soul (after all you trust them with your neighbors books and records), gangsters Elie Polotrak, Chanina Sperlin and Fishel Brownstein.

WIS does reserve the right to note/file any wrong doings/illegal activity  and use it to black mail you at a later date.
This fact does not bother you and you agree to WIS  tactics no matter the consequence to you, your family and community, after all you have nothing to hide.


11 Responses to “The NOT Mesira, Mesira”

  1. Shoshanna Silcove Says:

    Some people get their law degrees out of a cereal box. How can a lawyer say a subpeona is not mesira? Is he deluded or paid off or both? How stupid does this lawyer think we are? The lies of these people are abusrdly ridiculous!

  2. Whats True is True Says:

    Whats good for the goos is good for the gander.

    I would like to see how fast Mendle Hendel opens his books.

    I bet the near mention of Hendel opening books made plenty of the Mesira Justifiers crap their pants.

    Lets see Yankle Spritzer open his books.

    Lets see Elie Polotrak and his good friend Paul Huebner open their books.

    Let’s see the Sperlin family open their books.

    Remember….NOT A MESIRA!!!!

  3. antimesira Says:

    Great stuff!

    4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

    Rules for Radicals-By Saul Alinsky.

  4. awacs Says:

    Sorry, Shoshana and WIS,

    I am a lawyer by training, and I have to agree with Mr. Wagshul (who, BTW was NOT disbarred) that a subpoena is NOT mesira. It may be penicious, it may be evil, it may be against Halacha, but it is NOT mesira. So, why confuse the issues?

    But, yes, WIS, your other points are valid. I certainly wouldn’t want to open up my books. 🙂

    P.S. I didn’t get my degree out of a cereal box. Nor am I deluded or ‘paid off’ – I’m too expensive. 🙂

    • WhoIsShmira? Says:

      Seeing how far these Mosrim are ready to go (example: shomrim Six case) to reach their goal of absolute power, its safe to say that the information they would have retrieved would have been used to lock up Yidden.
      Or at the very least, to intimidate and black mail with threats of Mesira if not obeyed.

      They have locked up Yidden in the past, they have no problem doing it.
      They can and will do mesira, they will justify and excuse and even have so called “Eltere Chassidim” backing their Mesira.

      I stand by my statement that THESE subpoenas are Mesira.

      The shomrim Six Mesira was a Mesira on all of us. Had they g-d forbid succeeded they would have been walking around threating people to get in line or we will lock you up like we did the Shomrim.

      As a matter of fact, for two years they were using this as a threat as many have reported over time to WIS.
      This threat was coming from the mouths of the small foot solders 9the tzvaties) all the way up to Mendle Hendel, Yankle Spritzer etc…etc…

      Just have this in mind.

    • IN THE MATTER OF YITZCHOK DAVID WAGSHUL, AN ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR-AT-LAW. Says:

      September 15, 2003

      IN THE MATTER OF YITZCHOK DAVID WAGSHUL, AN ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR-AT-LAW.
      GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE SECOND AND ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTS, PETITIONER; YITZCHOK DAVID WAGSHUL, RESPONDENT.

      Diana Maxfield Kearse, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Colette M. Landers of counsel), for petitioner.

      Jerome Karp, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.

      A. Gail Prudenti, P.J., David S. Ritter, Fred T. Santucci, Myriam J. Altman, Anita R. Florio, JJ.

      The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam.

      This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

      (*1)

      OPINION & ORDER

      DISCIPLINARY proceeding instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on January 10, 1996. By decision and order of this court dated March 13, 2002, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent and the issues raised were referred to the Honorable Ann B. Dufficy, as Special Referee to hear and report.

      The Grievance Committee served the respondent with a petition containing six charges of professional misconduct. The Special Referee sustained all six charges. The petitioner now moves to confirm the Special Referee’s report and to impose such discipline as the court deems appropriate. The respondent has submitted an affirmation in partial opposition to the Special Referee’s report and requests that the court impose such discipline as it deems appropriate under the circumstances. (*2)

      Charge One alleges that the respondent commingled personal funds with funds entrusted to him as a fiduciary incident to his practice of law, in his attorney escrow account, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102(a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46[a]).

      The respondent maintained an attorney escrow account at Fleet Bank entitled “Yitzchok David Wagshul, Esq., Attorney Trust Account IOLA.” Between approximately August 1999 and May 2000, the respondent deposited personal funds into his attorney escrow account. During that time, the respondent maintained funds entrusted to him as a fiduciary incident to his practice of law in that same account.

      Charge Two alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct involving fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, which was prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(a)(4) and (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.46[a][4], [5]).

      In or about July 1999, one of the respondent’s creditors obtained a judgment against him in a civil proceeding resulting in the attachment of funds in his personal account. On or about December 15, 1999, the respondent established a domestic registered limited liability partnership with the New York State Department of State Division of Corporations, entitled “New York Elder Law Group, LLP.” The respondent had no partners in that group.

      On or about March 30, 2000, the respondent established a checking account at Fleet Bank entitled “New York Elder Law Group, LLP.” From approximately July 1999 through September 2000, the respondent maintained no bank account other than his attorney escrow account and his “New York Elder Law Group, LLP” account. From approximately March 30, 2000, through September 14, 2000, the respondent deposited legal fees into his “New York Elder Law Group, LLP” account. The respondent established that bank account in an effort to prevent his creditors from locating his assets and executing judgments obtained against him. Between approximately May 1999 and April 2000, the respondent drew checks for personal expenses directly to named payees, totaling in excess of $4,000, from his attorney escrow account. The respondent also deposited personal funds into his attorney escrow account in order to prevent his creditors from locating his assets and executing judgments obtained against him.

      Charge Three alleges that the respondent improperly used his attorney escrow account, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102(b) (22 NYCRR 1200.46[6]).

      Between February 24, 1999, and April 14, 2000, the respondent made various deposits totaling approximately $15,000 into his attorney escrow account which represented loans or gifts from his mother. Between in or about May 1999 and April 2000, the respondent drew from his attorney escrow account checks for personal expenses directly to named payees, totaling in excess of $4,000.

      Charge Four alleges that the respondent improperly made cash withdrawals and drew a check to cash from his attorney escrow account, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102(e) (22 NYCRR 1200.46[e]).

      Between approximately September 1996 and January 1997, the respondent withdrew cash totaling $1,220 from his attorney escrow account on ATM machines. On or about December 21, 1998, the respondent drew a check in the amount of $100 upon his attorney escrow account, payable to cash.

      Charge Five alleges that the respondent failed to maintain required records for his attorney escrow account into which he had deposited funds entrusted to him as a fiduciary incident to his practice of law, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102(d)(1) and (2) (22 NYCRR 1200.46[d][1], [2]).

      The respondent failed to contemporaneously maintain a ledger book or similar (*3)record for his attorney escrow account showing the source of all funds deposited therein, the names of all persons for whom funds were held, the amount of such funds, the charges or withdrawals from the account, and the names of all persons to whom such funds were disbursed.

      Charge Six alleges that the respondent improperly practiced law under a trade name and improperly identified himself as a partner, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-102(a)(1) and (4), 2-102(b), and 2-102(c) (22 NYCRR 1200.7[a][1], [4], [b], [c]).

      Respondent’s business cards and stationery for his law practice bore the words “New York Elder Law Group, LLP.”

      Based on the evidence adduced, the Special Referee properly sustained all six charges. The petitioner’s motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report is granted.

      In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to impose, the respondent asks the court to consider that he did not hide any assets from creditors and did not surreptitiously transfer funds. He acknowledged his debts and attempted to satisfy each obligation in accordance with his financial means. He did not opt to declare bankruptcy in order to avoid his debts. The respondent maintains that he has corrected each of his errors and now maintains his escrow account in accordance with all governing rules. The respondent has submitted a number of character references attesting to his honesty and integrity. He asserts that no client has suffered any harm as a result of any of his mistakes. Per the respondent, whatever errors he has committed do not demand a severe rebuke.

      The respondent notes that he was not trying to shelter assets but was simply trying to feed his family of seven children and keep a roof over their heads. He submits that his own difficulties with Crohn’s disease and his son’s mental problems prevented him from finalizing a payment agreement with a creditor.

      The petitioner informs the court that the respondent has no prior disciplinary history.

      Balancing the severity of the respondent’s misconduct, the absence of harm to any client, and his previously unblemished record, the respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years.

      PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, SANTUCCI, ALTMAN and FLORIO, JJ., concur.

      ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee is granted; and it is further,

      ORDERED that the respondent, Yitzchok David Wagshul, is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, commencing October 15, 2003, and continuing until the further order of this court, with leave to the respondent to apply for reinstatement no sooner than six months prior to the expiration of the said period of three years, upon furnishing satisfactory proof that during the said period he (1) refrained from practicing or attempting to practice law, (2) fully complied with this order and with the terms and provisions of the written rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 691.10), and (3) otherwise properly conducted himself; and it is further,

      ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension and until the further order of this court, the respondent, Yitzchok David Wagshul, shall desist and (*4)refrain (l) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.

  5. Wagshul Says:

    wagshul the potz lawyer by training was dissbared.
    only in Crown Heights such people have any voice

  6. 311 Says:

    Not every time someone gets arrested is it Mesira either.
    Every situation is different, that is why one must ask a Rov before going to the police or to court.

    Even if your not a Rov you can still study the laws of Mesira and who is or isn’t a Moser.

    Some subpoenas are Mesira and some are not, depends whats the case is all about.

    When Mossrim ask for your books and records, that is Mesira.

    History is there for us to learn from. Those who did Mesira in the past are still Mossrim. When these Mossrim send you a subpoena, that is a dangerous situation.

  7. awacs Says:

    “wagshul the potz lawyer by training was dissbared.”

    It’s disbarred, thank you, and no, he wasn’t – only suspended for three years:

    http://tinyurl.com/2evrf54

    And, if you dig down far enough, you find that his aveiros would be mitzvos by most people. Basically, he put personal money in his escrow account.

  8. logic Says:

    All that one needs to justify a Mesira is to “suspect” the other of wrong doing?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: