Bizarre claim against Hgray"l: "Torah opinion is a threat"

Claim against the Gedolei Yisrael: Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court discussed today (Sunday) a lawsuit filed by a resident of Bnei Brak Yisrael Apple v. Mayor Avraham Rubinstein and against Hgray"l Steinman and Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, because of the pressure they exert not to hold elections in the city.

Apple claimed that the debate today because of their advanced age of the Gedolei Yisrael, "to come their house to investigate them."

Lawyer of the Mayor Avraham Rubinstein, Attorney Leibowitz expressed surprise at the prosecutor's office, "You cannot ignore that the very indictment is baseless and delusional and reveals offense. I am surprised the prosecution did not stop the charges from coming to court. "

Yaron Kostelitz attorney, the office of Attorney Yaakov Weinroth representing the Gedolei Yisrael claim, mentioned that according to Apple's complaint alleged threats were made by the defendants, "the indictment does not have a single word on who carried out threats," said Kostelitz during the discussion, "the indictment does not disclose an offense and there is no basis for complaint."

Apple on the other hand said that there were indeed threats "It is true that Hgray"l had a nightmare by the big fight in the ultra-Orthodox community, he decided that there will be more votes of Hasidic and Lithuanian, the word "Torah opinion" is a threat that threatened those who oppose it and boycott it." That part of the complaint, Apple said that three published a letter in which noted: 'according to the Torah opinion - Avraham Rubinstein - will be crowned mayor, and that the word "Torah opinion" is a threat. "

Judge Uziel Zahi rejected the request to take early evidence from Gedolei Yisrael as required by the complainant. "There is a request to listen to this testimony at the entrance before the procedure and before heard at the prosecution case," the judge said, "and I have found that there is a legal basis or unusual matters in such proceedings."

He added: "I was generally unable to assume evidentiary foundation that will not be possible to collect the testimony under a normal procedure. Third and without a firm determination at this point, there really is claim that the facts revealed are wrong, at least as to justify taking testimony on site."

Continued prosecution will be conducted as a series in court.

'בחדרי' גם ברשתות החברתיות - הצטרפו!