baysidecemeterylitigation.com

An Open Letter to the Worldwide Jewish Community

About the Desecration of Bayside Cemetery, Ozone Park, NY

Perpetrated By Congregation Shaare Zedek

Bayside Cemetery Litigation

http://www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com

The definition of “desecration” – to treat with sacrilege or profanity, to defile, to dishonor, blasphemy

Jewish tradition is very clear… Kavod Hamet… Respect for the dead is a sacrosanct tenet of the Jewish faith.

In this open letter to all Jewish people worldwide, I am providing information about an issue that needs to be more widely discussed and remedied - because a great shame has fallen on the New York City Jewish community at a time when other disgraceful events have occurred and been widely publicized.  Yet this shanda is one that the community can fix.

My grandparents, Harry & Ruth Lucker (and many more unrelated decedents), paid for and signed perpetual care and annual care contracts with Congregation Shaare Zedek in Manhattan for their graves at Bayside Cemetery – contracts which Congregation Shaare Zedek has admitted to the New York State Attorney General it breached by invading cemetery trust monies and improperly using the monies for their own synagogue.  As a direct and proximate result, Congregation Shaare Zedek has not been maintaining the cemetery claiming that they have no funds.  Bayside Cemetery is 13+ acres with 34,000 graves.  The cemetery looks like a rainforest yet it is right in the center of Queens, in New York City, the home of the second largest Jewish population in the world.

In September 2007 I filed a class action lawsuit in US federal court naming Congregation Shaare Zedek at 212 West 93^rd Street in Manhattan and their Bayside Cemetery in Ozone Park, Queens as defendants.  After 2 years, the case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds as the federal court believes this matter properly belongs in state court.  In October 2009, I re-filed my lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York State and named the Community Association for Jewish At-Risk Cemeteries (CAJAC) as an additional defendant.

I am suing the synagogue for the horrendous and disrespectful desecration of Bayside Cemetery, their non-performance of their contractual obligations, and for the statements they have publicly made admitting to co-mingling the cemetery’s funds with those of the synagogue and subsequently using the cemetery’s funds for the benefit of the congregation in violation of trust and fiduciary law.  I seek no personal gain from this lawsuit; rather I have been left with no alternative because of the lack of any viable response, action and long-term plan from the synagogue.  I simply want the synagogue to honor its commitments, both contractual and moral, to those who are interred in the cemetery, to their families and to the greater Jewish community.

As a result of the synagogue’s unlawful conduct, Bayside Cemetery has fallen into complete and total disrepair with wild vegetation, grave desecration, recurring vandalism of graves and mausoleums, exposed human remains, and endless excuses from the congregation for why they have allowed the cemetery to disintegrate.   There has been little or no effort by the synagogue to repair or return these gravesites to their original or even a broadly acceptable state.  Rather, there has been a long, meandering effort by the synagogue to alternatively deny responsibility and delay any efforts to correct this horrendous wrong.

The details of my lawsuit, along with significant information about the situation at Bayside Cemetery, a library of genealogical records for many thousands of people buried at the cemetery and hundreds of pictures of the horrific and disrespectful condition of Bayside Cemetery can be found at http://www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com.

But the purpose of this letter is not to detail or rehash the 2+ years of legal proceedings pertaining to my case as I have faith that the legal system will provide justice in due course.  Rather I feel compelled to ask some of the following questions:

Why is the NYC Jewish Community turning a blind-eye to Congregation Shaare Zedek’s theft of perpetual care monies which has resulted in the desecration of 34,000 graves? 

Why are we unwilling to fully enforce one of our primary commandments “thou shall not steal” within our own community and what message will it send that we refuse to self-police within our own community?

How can the UJA Federation of New York,  the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York and other Jewish Organizations condone Congregation Shaare Zedek’s conduct, prevent full disclosure concerning the stolen monies and seek to protect Congregation Shaare Zedek from full scrutiny for its actions?

How can the rabbi and members of Congregation Shaare Zedek daven under a roof that has been maintained using stolen monies?  How can they recite the mourners Kaddish at Sabbath services and pay homage to the deceased when their synagogue so severely disrespects those at their cemetery (including deceased members of Congregation Shaare Zedek)?

Have recent scandals and events in the Jewish community made us so numb that we are no longer surprised by anything including the theft of monies by a synagogue from its own cemetery?

These are only a few of the questions that need to be asked and answered.  But the only way that the wrongs at Bayside Cemetery can be righted, and this shame on the Jewish Community lifted, is if everyone who learns about this situation gets involved and speaks out.

So please go to http://www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com to learn more.  And then email, write and/or call every New York City Jewish organization, synagogue, newspaper, magazine, TV/radio station, national TV news show, rabbi, UJA official, politician, government official, the NY State Attorney General, Social Justice Director or anyone or any group you can think of to let them know that you think that Bayside Cemetery is a complete disgrace and that Congregation Shaare Zedek needs to fully disclose its wrong doing, conduct a formal forensic accounting for the cemetery’s former and current monies, clean-up the cemetery and fund the cemetery for permanent perpetual care which is what the thousands of people buried there paid for.

Please get involved.  You can make Congregation Shaare Zedek accountable for their moral, ethical and legal violations and compel them to restore and maintain their cemetery now and in the future.

The Jewish Community must hold its own people accountable when wrongs are committed.  This is a wrong that must be righted – because Kavod Hamet is what we all must do.  If we do not respect our ancestors, our most sacred duty, what is our legacy as a people and a community?  Won’t you please join me in this worthy endeavor?

With Deep Respect,

John Lucker, Plaintiff, Simsbury, CT – www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com

Lucker et al vs. Congregation Shaare Zedek, Bayside Cemetery, and Community Association for Jewish At-Risk Cemeteries

Dear Bayside Cemetery Litigation Friends:

Phew.  It’s been a whirlwind few months since I last wrote to you.  There is much to bring you up to date on - some of it good and some of it not so good – or at most frustrating.

So let me start with the frustrating news and then I will tell you the encouraging news.

Frustrating News:   Chief Judge Dearie of the federal court where my lawsuit had been filed, dismissed my lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds and sent me to NY State Court.  Two years wasted.  He kind of apologized for it in the dismissal order and admitted that Bayside Cemetery was in horrible condition but he claimed he didn’t have jurisdiction over the case.  Oddly it took him two years to figure this out.  Oddly he had promised me personally to expedite the case.  My read of this is that he’s busy and he didn’t think my case was worth his time.  Federal judges are important people and a disrespected desecrated Jewish cemetery owned by a synagogue that misappropriated the cemetery’s money may not be the kind of case that some chief judge wants to deal with - not when Chief Judge Dearie gets to work on exciting cases like the Denver terrorist trial (Najibullah Zazi). (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434182416&NY_Federal_Court_Braces_for_Trial_of_Terror_Suspect )

To see some articles about this event, go to:

http://site.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/uploads/NY_Daily_News-Jurisdiction_Dismissal-Oct_22_2009.pdf

http://site.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/uploads/Queens_Chronicle-Cemetery_Cleanup_Needs_Volunteers-Oct_22_2009.pdf

http://site.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/uploads/Jeshiva_World_News-Judge_Throws_Out_Lawsuit_Against_Jewish_Cemetery-Oct_22_2009.pdf

And the judge’s order can be read at:

http://site.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/uploads/AR-M620N_20091006_051528.pdf

The judge’s apology, such as it is, reads as “As the Court has noted from the outset of these proceedings, all agree that Bayside Cemetery’s state of decay and disrepair is disheartening and in need of a prompt repair.  As unfortunate as this lingering dispute is, and fully appreciating the frustration and anger of the affected families, the Court must conclude that it is without jurisdiction to act.”  So there you go… 2 years after the lawsuit was filed.  That’s a long time to wait to have a judge decide he shouldn’t be hearing the case (regardless of the merits of his decision).

I was recently interviewed by a reporter about this development in the case and I prepared some written comments for him that I thought I would share with you all:

“I’m deeply disappointed that Chief Judge Dearie did not follow through with his personal, on-the-record, promise to me to expedite this case to trial after I agreed, at the judge’s request, on two separate occasions to temporarily delay the case for a total of 9 months.  After 2 years of judicial delays, Chief Judge Dearie concocted a reason to dismiss the case from Federal Court when neither party asked for a jurisdictional review and both parties agreed or relented that the court had the necessary jurisdiction based on evidence and expert witness reports.  Chief Judge Dearie clearly did not seem to want to work on this Bayside Cemetery case.

In the meantime Bayside Cemetery continues to be in a horrific disgraceful condition and Congregation Shaare Zedek continues to not be held accountable for their misappropriation of the cemetery’s monies – all in total disrespect of the memories of the 35,000 Jewish people buried there.

Also, the NY Attorney General’s Office continues their 6+ year investigation (under two administrations) of this matter without a publicly disclosed resolution or enforcement – this mystifies me as the AG’s office routinely investigates and prosecutes much less complex cases in months, not years.  I have asked the AG’s office, as have other concerned citizens, what’s taking so long?  We have been told that the investigation is ongoing.

As a result of Chief Judge Dearie’s ruling, I will soon be filing the class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of NY with additional defendants named.”

If you want more legal background on what led up to this event, goto http://site.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/About_the_Litigation.html and read the documents from my last email to you on August 18 until the current time.

So Now The Encouraging News:  Far be it for me and my attorney Michael Buchman to let adversity get to us!  On October 21, 2009 we refiled the class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of NY.  We have redrafted portions of the lawsuit and we have also added CAJAC (Community Association for Jewish At-Risk Cemeteries) as a co-defendant.  You can read the suit at:

http://site.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/uploads/AR-M620N_20091022_043220.pdf

I will not allow the defendants to stall and delay the case like they did in federal court.  I am particularly galvanized on this after visiting Bayside Cemetery last week.

My Visit to Bayside Cemetery on October 13, 2009:  I wrote to you a few months ago that CAJAC, as an apparent arm of Congregation Shaare Zedek, was doing a one-time cleanup of Bayside Cemetery.  Their cleanup was being performed without a permanent recurring plan to ensure that the cemetery stays clean each year after.

CAJAC has made grandiose statements and has publicly communicated plans that they would complete the cleanup of Bayside Cemetery by November 2009.  Well tick tock… because they’ve got 2 weeks to complete a project that isn’t probably 15-20% completed.  When I visited the cemetery and spoke with some area people who watch what goes on at the cemetery, I learned that the landscaper who was contracted by CAJAC to cleanup the cemetery hasn’t done much of anything for nearly two months.

The cemetery is an absolute mess.  In some ways it’s worse than it was before the cleanup in many parts of the cemetery.  Vast quantities of debris are strewn everywhere both in piles and just randomly laying everywhere.  Piles of wood chips cover graves.  Mountains of brush and twigs lay decaying; the cut branches are brown and dead showing how long they have been there since they were cut down.  Areas where the invasive Chinese Bamboo weed was cut down are growing back (as the bamboo will grow back quickly if not chemically killed) and it is already 2 feet tall since being cut.  Trees have been cut down and the fallen timbers lay across graves and stones.  Trash is strewn throughout the cemetery.  Small trees and shrubs were cut down but not chemically treated so they are already growing back.  Plus some of the trees that were cut down were cut within a few inches of the ground rather than removed below the ground and chemically treated and the weeds have grown over the stumps so the cemetery is one giant tripping hazard.  Basically the place is barely better off than it was before the cleanup.  The cleanup seems to have done more to clear the way for new growth this year and ongoing years.  If this is a professional cleanup, I’d like to see the contractor’s credentials!

And interestingly, my family’s burial Gate 19 looks no different than it did two years ago.  It is still a mess, uncared for and overgrown despite the Perpetual Care contract that my grandparent’s burial society purchased and the Congregation acknowledged existed in the papers they provided in the earlier federal lawsuit.

So the reasons for my lawsuit are even stronger than before.  My family has perpetual care and we’re not getting any care!

To see my pictures from my October 13^th visit to the cemetery, goto http://photos.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/GallerySlideshow.aspx?gallery=267916

I think that about updates you on the latest news about my lawsuit.

As always, please visit my website for the latest news and information:

Go To:  http://www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/

Sincerely,

Dear Bayside Cemetery Litigation Friends:

I wanted to provide some comments on the content of the excellent article called “Offering TLC for Jewish Cemeteries” written by Alex Weisler on Forward.com (http://www.forward.com/articles/110374/).  Many thanks to Mr. Weisler for his work to write this article.

• With regards to Gary Katz’s comment where he says that “every cemetery that’s filled with Jews” and “looks nice” now will one day “look like Bayside [Cemetery in Queens – a cemetery owned by Congregation Shaare Zedek in Manahattan]” is a grim prediction that I take exception too and don’t agree with at all.  I have done considerable research on the cemetery business over the past few years as the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Bayside Cemetery and Congregation Shaare Zedek (http://www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/ ).  While it is possible, and perhaps even likely, that other NYC area Jewish cemeteries will suffer the same fate as Bayside, it will likely occur entirely or largely due to mismanagement, incompetence or, as in the case of Bayside Cemetery, from alleged financial malfeasance.  The mechanisms to create a sound financial plan for a cemetery are not terribly complex but they require a sound plan to carefully manage cash flow, ensure adequate payments at inception of a cemetery plot sale, collection of perpetual care and annual care funds due, honest and competent financial management of a cemetery’s trust assets and diligent maintenance of the cemetery using the funds expended.  For old cemeteries, management should also work hard to locate relatives of the deceased, maintain contact with them, and work with them to get them to pay monies for annual or perpetual care when it wasn’t paid by the deceased historically.  I believe that most families would pay money for such services if they knew that the money would be responsibly managed and used for the purpose intended.  In the case of Bayside Cemetery’s history, all of the ingredients for the successful management of the cemetery were in place.  They had a mechanism to collect Perpetual Care and Annual Care and over many many years they collected both forms of care payments.  As for Annual Care, a 1905 document by Congregation Shaare Zedek’s Board of Directors to create rules and regulations for the management of Bayside Cemetery required the payment by all plot owners of $4.00 per year.  To illustrate the efficacy of this simple payment mechanism, consider this example:
  • From the 1905 document called “Congregation Shaari Zedek Rules and Regulations for the Government and care of Bayside Cemetery”, page 15 (page 16 of the PDF at http://site.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/uploads/1905_Rules___Regulations_for_the_Govt_and_Care_of_Bayside_Cemetery-WEB.pdf ), it says “An annual charge of $4.00 per year will be made upon every plot, for the maintenance of the cemetery”
  • I have not seen records for how many plots had been sold in 1905 but assume 20,000 plots had been sold by 1905 (this may be low but I’d rather make conservative guesses).
  • Assume that in 1905, the locations for owners of 50% of the plots were known and would pay the annual fee (this might be low given that people didn’t move as much back then)
  • Therefore there are 10,000 plots that were to pay the annual fee of $4.00
  • Therefore there should have been $40,000 paid for annual maintenance to Bayside Cemetery
  • It clearly didn’t cost $40,000 to maintain the cemetery in the early 1900’s.  Assume 50% of that was spent to maintain the cemetery which is still probably quite a bit higher than it actually cost.
  • Assume $20,000 of annual care money was not spent and was saved in the cemetery trust account
  • So even if they only collected the $4 per year per plot for 5 years and then stopped (but why would they stop collecting the money?  They wouldn’t but let’s just assume they did) and set aside the $20,000 surplus money per year to grow, they would have $5,471,021.80 in 2009 at a 4% interest (which is also a conservative and low interest rate)
    • 1905 – 104 years - $1,181,672.92
    • 1906 – 103 years - $1,136,223.96
    • 1907 – 102 years - $1,092,523.04
    • 1908 – 101 years - $1,050,502.92
    • 1909 – 100 years - $1,010,098.96
  • Of course, based on the $4 per year per plot rule, they should have been collecting this money for much longer than 5 years – like each year through time - they should have been doing it ‘forever’ and should still be collecting annual care money for whatever amount – and the reality is that Bayside Cemetery has been collecting Annual Care money but they haven’t necessarily been using it appropriately and caring for the plots for which the Annual Care was paid.
  • Plus there is profit that should have been generated from all the other cemetery services provided and outlined with the schedule of fees in the 1905 document also.  Plus they of course generate money from the sale of the plots themselves.
  • None of this considers the payment of Perpetual Care monies also.
  • So what happened to all this money that Congregation Shaare Zedek and Bayside Cemetery may have collected and invested over the years?
  • So, in short, Bayside Cemetery should have had plenty of money.  The core question is, and has been, what happened to the cemetery’s money?  In the NY Daily News article at http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2007/10/04/2007-10-04_bayside_cemetery_is_a_disgrace_suit_says.html the cemetery and synagogue’s lawyer says that the synagogue borrowed money from the cemetery’s non-restricted account.  However, according to NY State Cemetery law, accounts are always restricted and only under court order can the funds be used for a purpose other than which cemetery law requires.  I am not aware of Congregation Shaare Zedek getting court permission to use Bayside Cemetery funds to “repair the synagogue roof”.  So they must have used restricted fund in violation of trust rules/law.
• The article quotes Howard Feinberg who says that perpetual care (PC) contracts are vague.  I’m not sure I understand how Bayside Cemetery’s PC contracts are vague.  The typical Congregation Shaare Zedek PC contract says that payment is to “be used toward the Perpetual Care and upkeep of the following lots, plots or graves: [specific lots for which PC  was purchased is listed]”.  Now would a rational person argue that this is vague because it doesn’t say specifically that the grass will be cut, that weeds and wild bushes and trees won’t be allowed to grow through the middle of a plot where the deceased’s grave is, or that garbage/litter/debris won’t be allowed to aggregate at a grave site???  I think any rational person would know that these conditions, conditions which have been ubiquitous at Bayside Cemetery, are not appropriate when people have paid for Perpetual Care.  A simple Google search for definitions of Perpetual Care show what one would expect: “guarantee of perpetual cemetery upkeep”, “the care and maintenance and the reasonable administration of the cemetery grounds and buildings at the present time and in the future”, “for the maintenance, care, repair, upkeep or ornamentation of the cemetery”.  I could go on and on but this seems like a silly thread of discussion… it’s pretty obvious to most anyone what form of reasonable care is included in the meaning and intent of the term Perpetual Care… and the condition of Bayside Cemetery today is not what is intended.
• The article continues with comments from Mr. Feinberg about how PC contracts don’t help pay for general upkeep of the cemetery.  Without getting into a detailed discussion on cemetery management and how portions of plot sales, fees for services, etc are supposed to go into a general cemetery maintenance trust fund to be used for the general maintenance referred to in the article, the core issue of my lawsuit is that Bayside Cemetery and Congregation Shaare Zedek have not even been maintaining the graves and plot areas for the people who PAID FOR perpetual care.  People (my grandparents’ burial society included) paid for Perpetual Care and the photos at www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com clearly show the abhorrent condition of Gate 19 where my grandparents are buried.
• Later in the article, Mr. Katz says that “cemeteries are an inherently financially unsustainable enterprise”. If this were the case, we wouldn’t have such financial instruments as annuities, cash flow analysis, present/future value, etc.  Our world is filled with examples where people make very long term financial plans where cash flow is required each year in perpetuity.  But this means that the fiduciary of the money needs to manage the funds correctly and use it how it was intended and not divert monies for improper purposes like fixing roofs of structures unrelated to the cemetery.
• Mr. Katz continues by talking about how the financial unsustainability of cemeteries is a unique situation for Jewish cemeteries because the burial societies that bought the plots no longer exist.  First of all, there are some burial societies with plots at Bayside Cemetery that do still exist.  Secondly, even if they don’t still exist, so what?!  The burial societies and their members purchased plots from the cemetery.  Fees were paid for the plots, fees were paid to bury the deceased in the plots, and PC contracts were purchased for the plots and the gate areas.  What’s Mr. Katz’s point?  If the money was all managed correctly in the cemetery trust accounts and the proper financial plan was being executed by the cemetery, then all should be OK.
• It is also important to note that other cemeteries of other religions and other ethnic and national origins also had burial societies and purchased burial plots for members.  Burial societies are not unique to Jewish people.
• Mr. Katz then continues to say that most Jewish cemeteries will be like Bayside Cemetery in “50 to 80 years”.  Based on what information does he make this statement?  I also have family buried at Mt. Zion cemetery and I am not aware of the likelihood of that cemetery looking like Bayside in the future.  In fact, Mt. Zion is well maintained despite it being about 8 times larger than Bayside Cemetery.  Absent facts and figures, Mr. Katz shouldn’t make such statements.
• Mr. Feinberg says that he is “technically a member” of my lawsuit.  If Mr. Feinberg’s family purchased Perpetual Care, then he is correct.  He then continues by saying “[if so,] so what?”  From my perspective, the “so what” is that people shouldn’t be allowed to take money that isn’t their’s.  People shouldn’t be allowed to break the law by breaching their fiduciary responsibility and dipping into funds for things not allowed with those funds.  People should be held to the moral and ethical and legal standards by which our society intends for the management of such perpetual care monies and with respect for the dead.  And people should not be allowed to let Bayside Cemetery turn into a rainforest as a result of their actions.  While it’s fine that CAJAC is cleaning the cemetery now, where will they be in 50 to 80 years?  Who will maintain the cemetery in 2010 and 2011 for that matter?  Each and every year the cemetery needs ongoing maintenance just like my lawn needs to be cut every week.  That’s the so what!

CAJAC’s one-time cleanup is cutting down the Chinese bamboo weed growing rampant at Bayside Cemetery.  For any of you who ever had the misfortune of trying to remove Chinese bamboo from their yard, you will know that it has underground runner that keep growing unless the entire plant and root is killed.  Chinese bamboo is one of the most virulent and pervasive weeds that grows in this area - just cutting it down now will do nothing to prevent its growth next year!

Is CAJAC just a one-time cleanup service?  Mr. Feinberg’s comment in the article causes me to wonder… “we want to finish this [Bayside] and do it right [before moving onto work at other cemeteries]”.  I ask, what does it mean to finish at Bayside?  Once the grass, weeds, wild growth and trees are cut down and the trash picked up in 2009, what happens next year in 2010?  You see, the task of maintaining Bayside Cemetery is never “finished”…  it needs the same effort each and every year in perpetuity.  That’s why people purchase perpetual care… because they want their grave plots and areas maintained forever.  And FOREVER is a real long time.

John Lucker
Plaintiff – Lucker et al v. Bayside Cemetery and Congregation Shaare Zedek

Dear Bayside Cemetery Litigation Friends:

I hope you are enjoying your summer and getting some time to relax and spend time with family and friends.  August 27^th is my grandmother Ruth Lucker’s birthday – she would be 119 if she were still alive.  So this time of year I often think of her because she was such a powerful presence in my childhood.  It is her memory, and that of my grandfather Harry, which I am so focused on as we work to right the terrible wrong at Bayside Cemetery and make the cemetery’s owner, Congregation Shaare Zedek, take responsibility for the egregious situation that they have created.  Ironically August is also the peak foliage growing season, so as August 27^th comes and goes, the wild weeds, shrubs, and renegade trees continue to thrive at Bayside Cemetery unchecked and uncared for despite the perpetual care fees paid to Congregation Shaare Zedek and the contracts those people had with the congregation for perpetual care services.

1)  On June 29^th there was a court hearing before Chief Judge Dearie to discuss several motions from the defendant.  The judge did not rule on those motions and concluded the hearing by saying that if we had not heard from him within 3 weeks, that we should begin the Class Action Class Certification Process.  Since Judge Dearie has not provided any instructions to the contrary, we, as plaintiffs, have provided the defendants with legal documents which move towards the certification of a class of plaintiffs all with common positions in the litigation.  All of these documents are available at http://site.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/About_the_Litigation.html and you can examine all the documents dated July 31, 2009.

2) I have received the court transcript for the June 29^th hearing.  It is available on the website at http://site.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/uploads/062909_Lucker_v._Bayside.pdf  It makes for some very interesting reading and it shows the “shifting sands” defense that the defendants keep attempting to use.  As an example on page 9 lines 3-5 you can read how the defendants state that Congregation Shaare Zedek (CSZ) “[has] only a handful of relatives of current members buried there [at Bayside Cemetery]”.  Compare this to http://site.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/uploads/Jewish_Week-Bayside_Cemetery_Mess_Lands_in_Federal_Court-10052007.pdf and CSZ’s original press release when my lawsuit was filed where CSZ says “[CSZ] has no current members who either own a plot at Bayside or have a relative buried at Bayside”.  Also contrast this with my previously disclosed finding that one of CSZ’s most recent synagogue presidents, Robert Pollack, died recently and is buried at Bayside Cemetery.  Another example from the transcript is where the defendants explain to the judge that a one-time cleanup at Bayside is underway.  Compare this to the defendant’s previous statements to the court where they say things like “[a landscaper to cleanup the cemetery is unwilling] to proceed with the project during the pendency of this lawsuit”.  And on and on the inconsistencies in their story continue.

3) There have been several new articles published about Bayside Cemetery since my last email to you all.  Go to http://site.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/Article_Archive.html and see the two July 14^th articles from The Jewish Week and the one July 31^st article from The Forward.

4) Congregation Shaare Zedek’s offshoot organization called CAJAC continues its work to try and make a dent in the mess at Bayside Cemetery.  They are working to get their story out as you saw in the articles I mentioned in #3 above.  It continues to be unclear what the relationship is between Congregation Shaare Zedek and CAJAC.  However it is important for us all to remember that the issues I am working to deal with are not about a one-time cleanup of Bayside Cemetery but rather about Perpetual Care of Bayside Cemetery.  The congregation and its friends in the NYC Jewish community are adept at making excuses about how the congregation has limited resources and that this is a problem the whole Jewish community faces.  Perhaps at the lowest level one could make this argument.  However, Congregation Shaare Zedek owns Bayside Cemetery, was paid for perpetual care services by many many people going back as far as 1912 (as CSZ stated in court on June 29^th), entered into many many contracts to provide perpetual care services, and the congregation has admitted to comingling and misusing the cemetery’s funds for the congregation’s own purposes.  So this case is really about righting that wrong and working towards a permanent and sustainable financial, managerial and maintenance endowment for Bayside Cemetery long after any of you (or me) are around to deal with all this.  So please, keep that in mind…  a one-time cleanup is nice… and necessary… but is not the solution beyond the present.  Because next August and the August each year after, when my grandmother’s birthday rolls around, someone needs to be maintaining Bayside Cemetery… as Jewish tradition prescribes.

5) In the past few years we have all seen numerous high profile criminal and civil cases breeze through the legal system – a great deal of social outrage was expressed during these incidents and rapid action took place.  Clearly this Bayside Cemetery litigation is taking some time and will take more time in the courts.  However, simultaneous to my class action lawsuit, the NY State Attorney General’s office has been investigating the situation at Bayside Cemetery and Congregation Shaare Zedek for 5-6 years!!!  Each time I enquire regarding the status of the NY AG’s work on the Bayside Cemetery matter about one issue or another (through my attorney), I always hear back that the matter is under investigation by the NY AG and I can’t get the information I want access to.  Even reporters have asked about various details under the Freedom Of Information Act and they have not been able to get access to the information.  What could be taking so long?  5+ years???!!!  If you want to ask the NYS AG about this yourself, feel free to call Mr. James Rogers, Deputy Attorney General for Social Justice at 1-800-771-7755.

I think that’s about all for now.  As always I will continue to keep you posted on developments at Bayside Cemetery.  Please feel free to email me your thoughts and ideas on all this.

Sincerely,

John Lucker

Plaintiff – www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com

For quite some time, I’ve made it clear what the reasons are for my lawsuit against Congregation Shaare Zedek and Bayside Cemetery.  My website at www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com is the official record of my pursuit of justice and remediation for Bayside Cemetery in Ozone Park Queens.  I want Bayside Cemetery restored to a respectful and dignified condition and I want the perpetual care contracts that have been entered into with Congregation Shaare Zedek by thousands of now deceased individuals and burial societies representing some of those individuals to be honored.

My lawsuit complaint makes the facts and demands quite clear.  I want nothing of monetary value for me personally.  I am pursuing this matter on my own time and expense with the talents and the tremendous devotion of time, advice and counsel of my dedicated pro-bono attorney Michael Buchman who is also donating his time to this cause.

Recently I have noticed that an offshoot of Congregation Shaare Zedek has been littering the Internet with their version of the truth which is, in my opinion, distorted and revisionist.  This organization called Community for Jewish At-Risk Cemeteries (CAJAC) communicates a noble mission, a mission that few would say isn’t worthwhile if it were what they really intend to do.  However it is my belief that there is much more to CAJAC than meets the eye.  In a prior posting I revealed some facts about CAJAC.  In this posting I will reveal a few more.  I will leave it to you, the reader of this blog, to decide for yourself what might be going on here.

What I think is that CAJAC may be an attempt by Congregation Shaare Zedek to separate and transfer the liability and ownership for Bayside Cemetery to an entity with limited or zero assets.  Now that Congregation Shaare Zedek has publicly admitted to misappropriating the cemetery’s trust fund monies and has allowed the cemetery to fall into an unarguable and horrible state of disrepair, the Congregation seems to be looking for a way to wipe the slate clean and have this new organization called CAJAC take responsibility for the entire situation.  What the people behind CAJAC’s motives are, I don’t know.  What the true relationship between CAJAC and the Hebrew Free Burial Society are, I don’t know.

But rather than the Jewish community, via the UJA Federation, spending a nominal amount of money to write this wrong, I would like to see law enforcement and the courts and the Jewish community and the UJA Federation work to recover any and all monies taken by Congregation Shaare Zedek from Bayside Cemetery and add whatever monies need to be augmented.  The monies should be returned to Bayside Cemetery’s trust funds and a proper annual and perpetual care plan and process should be created and managed.  The plan needs to be extensive and it will be expensive because forever and perpetuity are a very long time - because that’s how long Bayside Cemetery needs to be managed respectfully – forever.

*********************

So what’s this blog entry about?  After my last blog entry on June 10^th I received a comment posting on the blog from someone named Howard S. Feinberg who I assume is the same person who is listed as the Consulting Executive Director of CAJAC.  I could have ignored this posting and blocked it from my blog, but that would be censorship and withholding information from you, the supporters of the Bayside Cemetery Litigation cause.  So here is what Mr. Feinberg said.  My comments will follow after his posting… please read on.

Howard S. Feinberg Comment – June 10, 2009 4:41 PM

Sometimes coincidence (synagogue members feeling they need to do more than watch a cemetery continue to decline) and opportunity (UJA-Federation's willingness to help) drive solutions. In this case, the creation of CAJAC. Rather than cast aspersions and intimate ulterior motives, you and your readers should know the truth which follows.  I hope you will post it.

---My Great-grandparents and other relatives are interred in the cemetery. I was asked by UJA-Federation in summer of 2008 to assist CAJAC in achieving its organizational mandate – to identify and help rescue and maintain Jewish cemeteries. I was honored to get involved in helping CAJAC develop a long-term solution for Bayside Cemetery and others in the future. CAJAC is a totally independent effort motivated by the desire to do Chesed Shel Emes. In 2006, after consulting Shaare Zedek’s leadership, the Hebrew Free Burial Association, The Jewish Community Relations Council and the UJA-Federation of NY, the volunteers determined that Bayside Cemetery might be the tip of the iceberg. Therefore, they incorporate CAJAC to be the address for rescuing and maintaining Jewish cemeteries. Its goal was simple – identify and address the problem cemeteries and get them cleaned and maintained properly while building Jewish community recognition of its responsibilities to honor our dead in a proper fashion. In 2006, the congregation allowed CAJAC to use its address when the organization was formed, as CAJAC had no funds or office and clearly, Bayside Cemetery was to be the first cemetery crying for CAJAC’s attention. Currently, CAJAC’s offices are at One Barker Ave., Suite 260, White Plains, NY 10601. CAJAC and its Bayside Cemetery cleanup are funded with seed grants from the UJA-Federation of New York. We invite you to visit the CAJAC page on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/CAJAC-The-Community-Association-for-Jewish-At-Risk-Cemeteries/76314438341?sid=89048bfe40bdbd6dff3ad593cf29a0aa&ref=search) where you will find accurate material on CAJAC & the Bayside Cemetery cleanup. The CAJAC website is in development and should be fully functional soon. CAJAC is seeking additional funds to establish the long-term permanent maintenance endowment needed to continue the maintenance of Bayside Cemetery after the cleanup is finished (projected by the end of calendar year 2009) and the other cemeteries that CAJAC will address over the years. To donate, until CAJAC’s 501c3 is approved, all donations can be sent through the Hebrew Free Burial Association. CAJAC is a totally independent organization and the Bayside Cemetery clean up effort is being supervised under the strict rabbinical supervision of CAJAC’s Rabbinic supervisor, Rav Elchanon Zohn of the Vaad Harobonim of Queens. For additional information, please feel free to contact me directly at howard.s.feinberg@gmail.com or 201-647-7560. Howard S. Feinberg, Consulting Executive Director, CAJAC

John Lucker Comments

Sometimes coincidence can be a figment of one’s imagination.  I’m a pretty black and white thinker and I take the factual, ethical, moral and public policy aspects of the Bayside Cemetery and Congregation Shaare Zedek matter very seriously.  And since CAJAC has recently weighed in here so heavily, I guess I will now consider CAJAC to be in the fray and part of the mix too.  So here are some thoughts about what Mr. Feinberg says and some additional thoughts:

* Mr. Feinberg writes about synagogue members feeling they need to do more than watch a cemetery continue to decline.  Clearly synagogue members have been watching Bayside Cemetery decline for a very long time.  I have over the past 1-2 years received numerous emails from people who grew up in Ozone Park or live there now and they all say that Bayside Cemetery has been a mess for as long as they can remember.  While it’s hard to imagine how Bayside could decline more than it already has, I do note with interest that congregation members have been repeatedly absent, non-participatory and unhelpful on numerous occasions when people volunteered to do cleanups in the cemetery.  There have been several newspaper articles where volunteers have complained that the synagogue and its members did nothing to help, didn’t provide dumpsters for trash and debris gathered in the cemetery to be disposed of, didn’t personally come out to the cemetery (their cemetery) to contribute their time and energies, etc.  I note with interest the several congregation bulletins on the www.sznyc.org website which speak of numerous volunteer efforts being hosted and organized for a variety of community and charitable causes and none ever mention any work to help out Bayside Cemetery.  Also, there is really no mention at all of the cemetery on the entire congregation website other than naming Ethan Klingsberg as the Cemetery Chairman.  If you go to the Internet web “time machine” at www.archive.org you can see the congregation’s website from years past too – and again, no mention of Bayside Cemetery.  So while Mr. Feinberg’s words sound soulful, the many years of the synagogue members’ inactions and neglect of Bayside Cemetery, lack soul.

* As an example of the lack of caring that the synagogue has demonstrated, look at the February-March 2007 edition of the Congregation Shaare Zedek newsletter on their website.  In it they outline 8 different ways people can financially help by giving to the synagogue or the Jewish community.  Things like naming opportunities, Yizkor/Yahrzeit, S’machot, memorials, Kiiddush, Mishloach Manot, Matzah Fund, and the Rabbi’s Discretionary Fund.  Hmm… seems like something is missing from this list.  How about giving money to help cleanup up and restore the perpetual care monies taken by the synagogue from the cemetery’s trust funds?!  Money that they admitted to using to fix the synagogue’s roof.

* As another example of the ways Congregation Shaare Zedek has tried to avoid liability and avoided taking meaningful action to remediate the problems at Bayside Cemetery, a few years ago I was working with another individual to try and organize a cleanup at the cemetery.  I was going to bring a bunch of Boy Scouts down to the cemetery for an all day cleanup.  The fellow that I was working with to organize this was presented, by the synagogue, with a contract for us to sign.  If you open the contract in Microsoft Word and go to FILE PROPERTIES, the contract was created by “CGSH” which I presume stands for the law firm of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP which happens to be the law firm where Ethan Klingsberg is a partner (as I mention above, Mr. Klingsberg is the the congregation’s Cemetery Chairman).  This contract has typical blah blah stuff about not holding them libel if someone gets hurt, etc but it also had a clause that reads “The undersigned shall not make any reference to Congregation Shaare Zedek or Bayside Cemetery in any written or oral statements to the press or other media or posted on the internet”.  Needless to say, I wasn’t going to sign this as I had no idea where this issue and situation might have needed to go at that time.  I certainly wouldn’t sign such a document now!  Given the cleanup that CAJAC is working on at Bayside Cemetery currently, I wonder if CAJAC had to sign this agreement with Congregation Shaare Zedek?  If so, how come CAJAC and Mr. Feinberg can be so vocal about what they are doing on the Internet?  It seems that Congregation Shaare Zedek wants cheerleaders but not critics!

* Mr. Feinberg says that some synagogue members felt the need to do something.  Why then did it take the creation of CAJAC and funding from the UJA and help from Hebrew Free Burial for something to start being done?  The synagogue repeatedly said that no synagogue member had family buried there.  However recently I published in a prior blog posting the fact that a gentleman named Robert Pollack died and was buried at Bayside Cemetery a year or two ago.  Mr. Pollack was the former president of Congregation Shaare Zedek.  I also proved in an earlier blog posting that the congregation said again that no relatives of congregation members were buried at Bayside Cemetery right around when Mr. Pollack passed away - it was all black & white in his obituary in the NY Times.  It’s hard to know what to believe from Congregation Shaare Zedek because much of what they say and do is distorted and embellished.

* Mr. Feinberg states in his comment that he was “asked by UJA-Federation in Summer 2008 to assist in CAJAC in achieving its organizational mandate”.  In UJA Federation’s tax return (which are available on the Internet because they are a non-profit organization) I see an entry for $40,000 to “Hire Consultant for the Community Association for Jewish At-Risk Cemeteries”.  Is Mr. Feinberg this consultant?  His self-reported title is “Consulting Executive Director”.  The synagogue’s lawyer, Mr. Stephen Axinn, also wrote to the court in a letter dated Aug 22, 2008 that the UJA has funded $40,000 “towards the salary of the CAJAC fundraiser for two years”.  If this is all so and Mr. Feinberg is this paid consultant, then being “asked” by the UJA Federation to do this (as he states in his blog comment) versus being hired by UJA to do the work are two different things to me.  Volunteered vs Paid….  Clearly these are different things.  One is selflessly giving of one’s time and energy.  One is being hired for work to be done.  I think we all understand the difference between the two.

* Mr. Feinberg says he has great-grandparents and other relatives buried at Bayside Cemetery.  My grandparents are buried there too.  I understand the emotion of what that means every time I walk through the gates of the cemetery and fight my way through the garbage, destroyed headstones, vandalized mausoleums, weeds, overgrowth, wild trees and the like just to get a glimpse of the headstone for my grandparents whose burial society PAID CONGREGATION SHAARE ZEDEK FOR PERPETUAL CARE.  So when I hear that Mr. Feinberg has relatives there, I ask myself a few questions.  I ask, where has he been all this time?  Has he known about the problems at the cemetery?  Is he a member of Congregation Shaare Zedek?  If so, why didn’t he do something?  If he isn’t a member of the congregation, why didn’t he contact them and try to get them to do something?  I’ve never heard of Mr. Feinberg before and I think I’ve communicated with many dozens of people who have tried to effect some kind of change and remedy at Bayside Cemetery over the years.  And, at the risk of seeming crass in my next comment, why does it take Mr. Feinberg to get paid to get involved in trying to fix the problems at Bayside Cemetery (assuming he is getting paid as I pondered in the point above)?

*  Mr. Feinberg says that CAJAC was formed in 2006 to address the rescuing of and maintenance of Jewish cemeteries.  This isn’t quite true.  On September 22, 2006 an organization was created called “Friends of Bayside Cemetery, Inc” with the address of Congregation Shaare Zedek.  Clearly this was a Bayside Cemetery centric organization at the time.  Then on April 13, 2007, the organizations name was changed to “Community Association for Jewish At-Risk Cemeteries”.  Again, the address is the same as Congregation Shaare Zedek.  I wonder why the name was changed and the implicit mission broadened?  What was the reason for this?

* Mr. Feinberg says that the current address for CAJAC is One Barker Avenue, Suite 260, White Plains NY 10601.  That’s very interesting.  Another organization registered at that address is  the “Rosalie Katz Family Foundation”.  When I go to the non-profit organization tax returns for the Rosalie Katz Family Foundation (again available on the Internet) I find a few other interesting things.  The CFO of the Rosalie Katz Family Foundation appears to be Gary Katz.  I presume this is the same Gary Katz who is the President of CAJAC and is on the board of the Hebrew Free Burial Society?

* At the risk of mentioning something that may be obtuse but struck me as very amusing and frankly disturbing, another thing I noticed from the tax returns of the Rosalie Katz Family Foundation was a $500 donation they made in 2006 to the “Friends of Bayside Cemetery” at “Outer Clarkson Avenue, Potsdam NY”.  Now if you go to Google and search for Bayside Cemetery, you will see there is a Bayside Cemetery in Potsdam NY also (Potsdam is way upstate NY).  While it may be true that the Rosalie Katz Family Foundation wanted to support the Potsdam NY Bayside Cemetery, I kind of think that they made a mistake and sent money to the wrong Bayside Cemetery!  Why is this funny?  I don’t know, it just struck me as funny in this crazy mess.  But keep in mind that this is the same address location where CAJAC lists their address.  Are these the same people that are going to manage and administer CAJAC’s money?  Are they the same people who potentially sent a 2006 donation to the WRONG BAYSIDE CEMETERY?  How is CAJAC’s money going to be managed?

* Mr. Feinberg wants people to give money to CAJAC.  That is presumably what he was hired to do as a fundraiser.  But in order to do that he wants people to funnel the money through another tax exempt organization (Hebrew Free Burial Association) because CAJAC is not a 501(c)(3).  He says CAJAC will become a tax exempt non-profit but he doesn’t say when.  And what assurance do people have that the money they give instead to the Hebrew Free Burial Society will end up where it was intended by the donor?  How will a donor get a receipt from CAJAC?  How is this different than people giving money to Congregation Shaare Zedek in the past and the synagogue doing what they wanted with the money versus ensuring that it was kept for the cemetery in the legal cemetery trust funds?  Again, how is CAJAC’s money going to be managed?

* And what’s with Mr. Feinberg’s statement about CAJAC seeking funds for the “long-term permanent maintenance endowment needed to continue maintenance of Bayside Cemetery after the cleanup is finished”?  Congregation Shaare Zedek owns Bayside Cemetery.  Thousands of people and burial societies (including my grandparents) contracted with Congregation Shaare Zedek for perpetual care, not CAJAC.  The congregation is supposed to be responsible, not CAJAC.  How is CAJAC assuming legal and financial responsibility for Bayside Cemetery?  What happened to the cemetery’s money?  Congregation Shaare Zedek can’t be allowed to get away with taking all the money and not returning it!!!  This is why I suspect that CAJAC has other missions and motives that we may not yet be aware of.

That’s about all I can think of for now to reply to Mr. Feinberg’s comments.  Thanks for hanging in there and reading my long comments.

Thanks for your interest and support.
John Lucker
Plaintiff - Lucker et al vs. Bayside Cemetery and Congregation Shaare Zedek
www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com

Here is another periodic email from me to you to keep you informed on what's new with the Bayside Cemetery situation:

Topic 1:  On May 12, 2009 we were informed of a court date for oral arguments for the two previous motions (defendant’s motion to dismiss and the court’s issue of jurisdiction).  The next court date is now scheduled for June 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM before Chief Judge Raymond Dearie in Courtroom 10A-S.  http://site.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/uploads/Court_Document-May_12_2009.pdf

Topic 2:  The defendants have repeatedly questioned the legal standing of plaintiffs’ (my and the two other plaintiffs) perpetual care (PC) claims.  One plaintiff (Fran Goldstein) has a perpetual care contract because she was the purchaser of the contract.  On June 29^th one of the things the court will evaluate is the validity of Plaintiffs’ perpetual care claims.  On May 20 and 21, affadavits were filed attesting to the validity of perpetual care claims from the two other plaintiffs (Lynn Cohen and John Lucker et al).  Supporting material for this proof was made possible from the defendant’s own records submitted by the defendant through preliminary document discovery.  In my affadavit, I stated that it was disturbing that the Defendant is trying to argue that my grandparents don’t have a perpetual care contract when the Defendant’s own documents prove that they do have a PC contract – the record is right there in their own documents!  I argue that it is troubling that the Defendants could argue to the Court for a motion to dismiss on the grounds that no contract exists when their own documents prove otherwise.  I believe that the Defendant is trying to be deceptive which is, in my opinion, a dishonest position to take with the Court.  I hope the Court recognizes the Defendant’s attempts to be deceptive and holds them accountable for such actions.

See http://site.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/uploads/AR-M620N_20090520_034447.pdf and http://site.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/uploads/Affidavit_of_John_Lucker.pdf

Topic 3:  Three additional articles have been published and one TV story was broadcast about the Bayside Cemetery situation and my litigation.  A219 Magazine, AM New York newspaper and WCBS published articles and WCBS-TV broadcast a story about the Bayside situation.

See the following:

219 Magazine: http://219mag.com/2009/05/grave-issues-in-nyc-cemeteries/

AM New York newspaper: http://weblogs.amny.com/entertainment/urbanite/blog/2009/05/nyc_cemeteries_dying_from_negl.html#more

WCBS:  http://wcbstv.com/seenon/dead.cemeteries.friends.2.1033486.html

WCBS TV Broadcast video:  http://wcbstv.com/video/?id=128612@wcbs.dayport.com

Topic 4:  INTERESTING ITEM #1: As in prior emails I want to make various observations which I find disturbing, curious and outrageous.  For this email, it is unambiguous that Congregation Shaare Zedek has outrageously and neglectfully failed to maintain Bayside Cemetery for a very long time.  A simple viewing of pictures taken of the cemetery makes this unarguable.  The synagogue has publically admitted to misappropriating cemetery trust funds and using them to maintain the synagogue.  They have failed to honor perpetual care contracts as evidenced by the overgrowth and disrespectful conditions at the many hundreds or thousands of graves at Bayside Cemetery marked with Perpetual Care stickers.  Yet on a recent visit to Bayside Cemetery, I was struck by one very well maintained gated area at the back left of the cemetery.  Guess whose name is on the gate at this section of the cemetery?  The name on the gate is Congregation Shaare Zedek.  They certainly seem to maintain the area of the cemetery where synagogue members are buried.  I wonder if Congregation Shaare Zedek deposited perpetual care funds for maintenance of this part of the cemetery in the Bayside Cemetery trust funds?  Why are they maintaining the area of the cemetery with their name on it but not most of the rest of the cemetery?

Topic 5:  INTERESTING ITEM #2: Second, an organization called Community Association for Jewish At-Risk Cemeteries (CAJAC for short) has allegedly organized and funded a cleanup of Bayside Cemetery.  Under the name CAJAC they have created a website, created a presence on Facebook, created a presence on Wikipedia, claimed to have received seed money from the UJA Federation New York, and are soliciting cash donations from contributors.  I have received emails from several people informing me of the cleanup that is underway at Bayside Cemetery.  There is supposed to be a landscape contractor doing the primary work to clean the cemetery and there is also a small group of volunteers who have worked for several weekends to do some limited cleanup activities to the best of their abilities.  To, anyone who volunteers their precious time to help cleanup Bayside Cemetery, I applaud you.  But let’s keep the effort in context.  While a cleanup will help remediate the problem for now, unless a permanent solution is found for the perpetual maintenance of Bayside Cemetery, then the cemetery will return to its overgrown state in a few years.  And let’s not lose sight of the most important point – that the cemetery belongs to Congregation Shaare Zedek, that they were paid significant monies over the years to maintain the cemetery and that they admitted to illegally taking the perpetual care money and using it for the synagogue rather than for the cemetery which is what they were legally obligated to use it for.

So, now that I’ve written briefly about CAJAC, let’s shed a bit more illumination on the issue:

1) Go to http://appsext8.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=3417729&p_corpid=3416136&p_entity_name=%63%6F%6D%6D%75%6E%69%74%79%20%61%73%73%6F%63%69%61%74%69%6F%6E&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

Do you see what I see?  The address for CAJAC is the same address as Congregation Shaare Zedek!!!

2) Now go to Facebook if you have access to it and look at who is on the board of CAJAC.  There are 4 people on the board.  One is Ethan Klingsberg who is listed as the Founding Member.  Mr. Klingsberg is also listed on the Congregation Shaare Zedek website (www.sznyc.org) as the Cemetery Chairman.  Gary Katz is also listed as the President of CAJAC.  He is also a member of Congregation Shaare Zedek and is on the Board of Directors of the Hebrew Free Burial Society along with Daniel Werlin who is the past president of Congregation Shaare Zedek.  It appears that Congregation Shaare Zedek, CAJAC (which appears to be either an off-shoot or a shadow arm of Congregation Shaare Zedek) and the Hebrew Free Burial Society are intertwined.

3) CAJAC claims that they got a seed-money grant from the UJA Federation of NY to perform a one-time cleanup of Bayside Cemetery.  But was it really CAJAC who got the money?  In a 2005 Form 990 Income Tax Return for UJA Federation of NY, there is a listing for a $145,000 grant to Congregation Shaare Zedek.  In court documents listed at http://site.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/uploads/SMA_to_MMB_-_Dec._28-WEB.pdf , the congregation reports that they have received this money as a grant from the UJA Federation.  So now it appears that this money may have flowed from Congregation Shaare Zedek to CAJAC.  Is CAJAC just a way for Congregation Shaare Zedek to sidestep the issues that they created at Bayside Cemetery with regards to the cemetery’s care and the monies that were taken from the cemetery?

4) CAJAC repeatedly refers to itself as a not-for-profit organization.  One would presume that with such a claim comes the benefit for a contributor that they can deduct their generous donation from their taxes.  NOT SO!!!  CAJAC is not a legal 501(c)(3) organization and donations made to it are not tax deductible.  One person contacted me about their $100 donation to CAJAC.  Their check was cashed, they never received a letter thanking them and acknowledging the gift and then they felt so uncomfortable about the whole thing that they decided not to deduct the money from their taxes as a charitable contribution.  Yet I notice that CAJAC has a website where people can donate money to them but do not disclose that they are not a 501(c)(3) organization and that donations are not tax deductible.

I will continue to keep you posted on what happens with the litigation and the website.  My intentions are to continue in my efforts to force Congregation Shaare Zedek to do the right thing.  I am convinced that without such efforts, the Congregation would never honor their sacred obligations to respect the dead given their long history of neglect and disrespect at Bayside Cemetery.

Please check the website often for current information.

Also, as I've asked before, please generate as much awareness as possible about this important case and the terrible conditions at Bayside Cemetery by forwarding this email to all of your friends, relatives, colleagues, etc. to inform them about this situation at Bayside Cemetery and what Congregation Shaare Zedek has done.  Send them to www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com for information.

Please also leave me comments about this whole situation on the blog at http://blog.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/

Thanks for your interest and support.
John Lucker
Plaintiff - Lucker et al vs. Bayside Cemetery and Congregation Shaare Zedek
www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com

Dear Bayside Cemetery Litigation Friends:

Here is another periodic email from me to you to keep you informed on what's new with the Bayside Cemetery situation:

On May 12, 2009 we were informed of a court date for oral arguments for the two previous motions (defendant’s motion to dismiss and the court’s issue of jurisdiction).  The next court date is now scheduled for June 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM before Chief Judge Raymond Dearie in Courtroom 10A-S.  http://site.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/uploads/Court_Document-May_12_2009.pdf

Some other items of note and other things added to the website:

* there was an article in the Village Voice about the problems at cemeteries like Bayside and the issues with monies held in trust for graves and perpetual care by cemeteries and burial societies.  In this case, Congregation Shaare Zedek has been paid by hundreds/thousands of parties for perpetual care and the monies for that care were misappropriated.  The article speaks about the issues more generally.  You can find the article at http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/1056484 and there are some comments I made in the article about Bayside Cemetery.  Perhaps the part of the article that I find most interesting is where it says that Bayside Cemetery denies the allegations in this lawsuit that Congregation Shaare Zedek fails to keep the cemetery in good condition and that they used the cemetery money for other things.  Of course, this directly contradicts a statement made in a NY Daily News article where the synagogue's lawyer Stephen Axinn says "some cemetery funds were borrowed from a nonrestricted account to repair the synagogue roof".  http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2007/10/04/2007-10-04_bayside_cemetery_is_a_disgrace_suit_says.html  As I've pointed out before, and as is well understood cemetery and fiduciary trust law, there is no such thing as a non-restricted perpetual care cemetery trust fund in NY State.  Cemetery monies can never be used for anything but the cemetery and any invasion of the corpus of the trust fund can only be done under court order which was not obtained by the congregation.  So as we have said in court on this matter, the defendant's have a changing story time and again - some call this a "shifting sands defense".

* In my last email I announced that I had posted Bayside Cemetery burial records from 1908-2004 (however this is an evolving document because there are very few records for modern burials - these records will be restored by volunteers over time).  In this email I want to announce that I have posted burial records from 1882-1908 in the "History & Genealogy" section.  As before, these records are not yet complete but I wanted to share what exists with you.  This documents was provided to me by a genealogical researcher who has been researching Bayside Cemetery for many years.  I believe that this is the first document of this type ever produced for Bayside Cemetery.  In order to control the distribution of this document, it is password protected.  I will provide the password upon email request.  Instructions to do this are on the website.

* In the "History & Genealogy" section of the www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com website, I have posted a schematic map of Bayside Cemetery that shows all the major gate areas and burial society names, etc.

* AN INTERESTING ITEM: I wanted to also point out an interesting tidbit for your thought and pondering.

On numerous occasions, Congregation Shaare Zedek officials and their rabbi have lamented the condition of Bayside Cemetery and implied that it was difficult to get current members of the congregation to care too much about the synagogue since, according to the synagogue, no current members of the congregation had family buried at Bayside.  In fact, in the article called "Bayside Cemetery Mess Lands in Federal Court" from The Jewish Week newspaper dated October 5, 2007, a press release from Congregation Shaare Zedek is quoted as saying: “In fact, Shaare Zedek is the only organization to spend any significant money on [Bayside Cemetery’s] upkeep, despite the fact that the synagogue is struggling financially, has no current members who either own a plot at Bayside or have a relative buried at Bayside, and most importantly, has only a small section of the cemetery associated with members of Shaare Zedek from previous generations.”  Later in an online blog, http://citynoise.org/article/8696 a person posting on January 6, 2009 by the name of Rabbi Julia Andelman (the rabbi of Congregation Shaare Zedek) said "Tens of thousands of dollars are spent from the synagogue budget every year (despite the fact that not a single current member of Shaare Zedek has any relatives buried at Bayside, and despite the fact that the synagogue is struggling financially)".

Based on this, I wanted to point out this interesting factoid.  The congregation made the same nearly identical statement that no congregation members had family buried at Bayside on two occasions - once in October 2007 and again in January 2009.  However, how does one reconcile the following obituary from the NY Times dated November 29, 2007?

"POLLACK--Robert, Congregation Shaare Zedek mourns the loss of our long-time member and former President, Bob Pollack, of New York, NY, who passed away in his sleep on Sunday night at age 76. Bob was a proud graduate of Stuyvesant High School, Harvard Law School and Columbia Business School. He loved the outdoors, classical music, fine food, telling jokes and being with people. He was an ardent supporter of B'nai B'rith and of Congregation Shaare Zedek. He was passionate about Republican politics and about reading the New York Times.  Bob is survived by his companion, Suzanne Frowenfeld and many close friends. The funeral will be held at Riverside Memorial Chapel, Amsterdam Avenue and 76th Street, on Thursday, November 29th at 9am. Burial at Bayside Cemetery in Queens. Memorial donations may be made to Congregation Shaare Vedek, The Bob Pollack Memorial Kiddush Fund, 212 West 93rd Street, NY, NY 10025. May his memory be a blessing."

Only the congregation could say if their 2007 and 2009 statements are technically true - that no congregation members had family buried at Bayside Cemetery.  But the simple fact that their former congregation President passed away and was buried at Bayside Cemetery 1.5 months after the first statement was made to the Jewish Week newspaper and 14 months before the second statement was made in the online blog (assuming it was actually Rabbi Andelman who made the posting on the blog) seem quite contradictory.  Plus as recently as February 1, 2007, Robert Pollack's name was listed on the congregation's website (www.sznyc.org) as an "Honorary Trustee".

I will continue to keep you posted on what happens with the litigation and the website.  Please check the website often for current information.

Also, as I've asked before, please generate as much awareness as possible about this important case and the terrible conditions at Bayside Cemetery by forwarding this email to all of your friends, relatives, colleagues, etc. to inform them about this situation at Bayside Cemetery and what Congregation Shaare Zedek has done.  Send them to www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com for information.

Please also leave me comments about this whole situation on the blog at http://blog.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/

Thanks for your interest and support.

John Lucker

Plaintiff - Lucker et al vs. Bayside Cemetery and Congregation Shaare Zedek

www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com

Here is another periodic email from me to you to keep you informed on what's new with the Bayside Cemetery situation.

I don't have too much to report with regards to the court. We recently filed a letter to Chief Judge Dearie discussing our findings from jurisdictional discovery and asked the judge to allow the parties to appear to argue the pending motions. You can read this recent letter in the "About the Litigation" section of the www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com website.

I have added a few more items to the website:

1) There was an article in the Queens Chronicle on January 29, 2009 about the exposed human remains at the cemetery and how this could potentially pose a human health risk. You can review this in the "Article Archive" section of the website.

2) There is a historical document from 1905 called "Rules & Regulations for the Government & Care of Bayside Cemetery" by Congregation Shaari Zedek. I have placed this document in a new section of the website called "History & Genealogy"

3) I posted a document called "Bayside Cemetery Burial Records Project 1908-2004" in the "History & Genealogy" section of the website. It is not a complete document yet but is a work in progress. This document was provided to me by a genealogical researcher who has been researching Bayside Cemetery for many years. I believe that this is the first document of this type ever produced for Bayside Cemetery. In order to control the distribution of this document, it is password protected. I will provide the password upon email request. Instructions to do this are on the website.

4) There is another BLOG of pictures of Bayside Cemetery. This posting is of winter photos. The link to this is at the top of the Article Archive section of the website or go to http://citynoise.org/article/8997

I will continue to keep you posted on what happens with the litigation and the website. Please check the website for current information. www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com

As I've asked before, please send this email or a link to www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com to all your friends to inform them about the problems at Bayside Cemetery and with Congregation Shaare Zedek.

Thanks for your interest and support,

John Lucker
Plaintiff - Lucker et al vs. Bayside Cemetery and Congregation Shaare Zedek
www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com

It has come to the attention of the plaintiffs in the Bayside Cemetery Litigation (www.baysidecemeterylitigation.com) that another incident of mausoleum vandalism and grave desecration occurred at Bayside Cemetery in Ozone Park, Queens. Bayside Cemetery is owned and operated by Congregation Shaare Zedek in Manhattan (www.sznyc.org).

Some photographs of the previous 2003 grave desecration and re-interment efforts led by volunteers can be found at http://photos.baysidecemeterylitigation.com/GallerySlideshow.aspx?gallery=153763

In December 2008, it was reported to the plaintiffs that sometime in November 2008, more mausoleums at Bayside Cemetery were broken into and desecrated. Crypts were destroyed, coffins smashed, and human remains were scattered on the ground. Some amateur photographers documented the situation at Bayside Cemetery on January 4, 2009. Their photographs can be viewed at http://citynoise.org/article/8696

Scientific literature documents the potential dangers of exposure to human remains, the dust and residue in and around human remains, and the potential for transmission of bacterial, viral, and chemical pathogens from exposed human remains.

The following are some readily available citations and excerpts documenting the potential dangers of exposed human remains at Bayside Cemetery.

* Risky Business: Potential Hazards in the Archaelogical Investigation of Historic Cemeteries - By Alexandra Bybee - Paper presented at the 5th Annual Council for West Virginia Archaelogy Spring Workshop

http://www.crai-ky.com/education/reports/cem-hazards.html

"Numerous infectious bacterial and viral diseases affected historic populations, many of which were catastrophic to 18th, 19th, and early 20th century populations in the United States. Although it is not likely that vestiges of these diseases could have survived over the years in an historic grave setting, it is possible, especially under certain circumstances […]"

"Although the risk of acquiring disease from human remains decreases rapidly with time and decomposition and loss of soft tissue, if an intact metal casket is encountered, it is possible that any communicable disease afflicting the deceased in life, and possibly causing his or her death, could be present in preserved soft tissues."

"Bacterial diseases were prevalent in most North American populations prior to the 20th century and were probably the leading cause of death during that time. Anthrax, tetanus, and tuberculosis are resilient bacteria, and special concern about exposure may be warranted with these diseases. […] anthrax spores can last for years, […] tuberculosis is especially hardy, and the United States National Library of Medicine claims that tetanus can remain infectious for more than 40 years."

"Another bacterial disease that can be seen as a potential threat in historic cemetery excavations is cholera (Vibrio cholerae)"

"Viral diseases were also prevalent in most North American populations throughout the historic period. Viruses are completely dependent on living cells for reproduction. Although the anatomical structure of viruses make it unlikely that they could survive without living cells as hosts, they do have the potential to affect individuals excavating historic cemeteries."

"Smallpox is probably the most significant potential health risk arising from the excavation of historic cemeteries. The smallpox virus has essentially been eradicated and the vaccination is generally no longer performed, thus the release of smallpox organisms could be catastrophic."

"Chemical hazards associated with historic cemetery excavations include fluids used in embalming and materials used in coffin construction and decoration. In the United States, the mid-19th century saw the rapid rise, spread, and acceptance of a need for the body to be preserved as a necessary preliminary to interment. […] Early embalming fluids included alcohol, zinc and mercuric chloride, creosote, arsenic, sulfuric acid, and turpentine. Some of these substances pose little threat to individuals excavating or analyzing materials from historic cemeteries, but others have the potential to be quite hazardous. Many never degrade into harmless by-products and remain with the coffin and skeletal material or seep into the surrounding soils. Historic embalming practices are an issue for archaeologists excavating and analyzing remains from historic cemeteries."

"Arsenic is toxic and persistent, and the elemental form never degrades into harmless by-products. The arsenic that endures today in cemeteries can potentially harm archaeologists or others working in cemeteries, or individuals drinking contaminated ground water."

* http://www.bajr.org/documents/fieldguidetotheexcavationofhumaninhumatedremains.pdf

"Crypt burials or later burials, especially in lead or solid wood coffins may also result in soft tissue preservation. This may include hair, fingernails and skin. These must be treated with caution for health and safety reasons."

* Click Here for Google Book

"[…] archaeologists may inadvertently expose themselves and their colleagues to potentially harmful infectious organisms including those that ignited past epidemics"

* http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/buzz/stories/s902190.htm

"[…] there is potentially a problem: that if the cemetery is sited incorrectly, or managed incorrectly and you have a pathogenic material buried in the ground, in some situations and I want to stress that, I’m not trying to be alarmist here, but in some situations there could be migration of those pathogens."

"We’re talking about some pretty serious and nasty stuff. The main ones that come to mind are anthrax, botulism, tuberculosis, smallpox, Hepatitis A, cholera, typhoid. All the sorts of friendly organisms that you really don’t want to have hanging around, or to be resurfaced, or to move into an ecosystem via movement in groundwater."

"[…] we believe that in order to survive the virus must have a cellular host to be viable. Unfortunately that doesn’t appear to be the case. We have for instance, in the United Kingdom, resurfaced inactive smallpox spores which are 150 years old. Other viruses haven’t been investigated so this area is even more deficient in understanding than the bacterial side of things."

"Well as I said, the information that we have is quite scant but for instance the Bacillus anthrax – so that’s the bacterium that causes anthrax – we know that it can survive for 54 years in surface soil and it’s been found 200 years old in bone which has been buried only at a very shallow depth. The typhoid bacterium – Salmonella typhi – we know that it can survive 730 days in soil, 616 days in seawater and we’ve traced it already for 0.9 metres in soil. The issue of tracing how far it can move is very embryonic, we know very little indeed. The tuberculosis bacterium – Mycobacterium tuberculosis – 213 days it’s survived in soil but there’s an interesting case from Canada where some ill-fated sailors of the Franklin Expedition were exhumed and they’d been frozen for 138 years since death and in one of them they found tuberculosis bacteria, it wasn’t active but it was there. They were also able to culture something from the bowel of one of those sailors so that’s 138 years old."