SouthamptonSouthampton, Westhampton Beach and Quogue have spent $884,837 thus far fighting imposition of a Jewish religious boundary called an eruv in their areas, according to records obtained via Freedom of Information filings by this website.

The biggest bill, $655,860 from Jaspan Schlesinger, has been shouldered by Southampton, a town of 56,000 that includes WHB and Quogue. One of the oldest towns in the U.S., founded in 1640, it is also known as the home of some of the wealthiest families in the U.S.

This is a battle that should not be costing the towns a nickel.

It is based on people not knowing what an eruv is. Cited are legal cases that were decided in 1987 and 2002, long before the web ushered in the Age of Information. Currently, residents of WHB, where lechis signifying an eruv have been put on 27 utility poles, they are not even allowed to know which poles are involved. This is a religious ploy that fears the light.

The U.S. Appeals Court decision Jan. 6 said, “No reasonable observer who notices the [lechi] strips on LIPA utility poles would draw the conclusion that a state [government] actor is thereby endorsing religion, even assuming that a reasonable observer was aware that a state actor (LIPA) was the entity that contracted with a private party to lease the space.”

“Reasonable” people today wolf down info from the web and know well that the lechi strips mean Orthodox Jews regard such poles, which are on government property, as part of a succession of “doorways” that convert public property into their “private domain."

Eruvim Involve Government Property

Far from being a mere “accommodation” as stated in the decision, the lechis involve government property in the active support of an irrational religious concept that is a giant favor to the sect that is involved. No comparable favor could be given to any other religion. Communities with eruvim become highly attractive to the observant.

Allowing sect members to believe that everything behind the “doors” is their “private domain” and that they are exempted from certain rules of behavior on the Sabbath, is a violation of separation of church and state, one of the basic founding principles of the U.S.

A 34-page article written in 2009 by law professor Alexandra Susman of UCLA demolishes the precedent cases on which the pro-eruv court decisions are based. The 16,807-word analysis, which allows copying by anyone, should be carried in full by the Southampton Press and its online version, 27east.com.

The latter is fumbling the ball on this issue by failing to carry the Jan. 6 court decision and reader opinions on it. The web’s last entry under “eruv” is for Aug. 20, 2014, a story about the sudden erection of the WHB eruv that drew 100+ comments.

The Jan. 6 Appeals opinion is laced with words such as “nearly invisible,” “inconspicuous,” and “less obtrusive” than other religious displays. “The eruv does not convey any message to the uninitiated,” it further says.

Well, we’re all “initiated” these days. Everyone knows or can know just about everything almost immediately. The opinion cites as precedents favorable court decisions for eruv proponents in 1982 in Long Branch, N.J., and 2002 in Tenafly, N.J.

Precedents Were From Stone Age

These cases were in the “Stone Age” compared to what’s available now on the web.

Here are two of the many descriptions of an eruv that define it as a paramount religious doctrine of the Orthodox. To claim, as is being done in legal actions, that eruvim merely allow certain “secular” behaviors, is irrational.

Chabad.org says an eruv “creates a large private domain on which carrying is permitted on the Sabbath.” Jewish Press has an extensive description of an eruv as something that allows carrying in a “private domain.” Carrying from a private to a public domain on the Sabbath is prohibited. An area in WHB supposedly has been coverted from a “public” to a “private” domain.

“An eruv is only religious and has no significance but for religious implications,” says Andrew Seidel, attorney for the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

As for “accommodating” a religion or religious practice, he said governments may do such things as providing for a chaplain to a military service member, fix sidewalks in front of a church, or allow religious facilities at airports. But eruvim are not acceptable accommodations “because there is no government imposed burden. The burden comes from the same religion that is seeking to erect the eruv,” he adds.

The East End Eruv Assn., which erected an eruv in WHB last August, has said it also seeks eruvim in SH and Quogue.

Several court actions are pending in that litigation.

Maria MooreMoore

WHB Trustees Meet in Private Tomorrow

The WHB trustees are meeting in “executive” session tomorrow, Jan. 15 at 6 p.m. with the public barred. Subject is said to be “Litigation Matter.”

This sounds like the eruv. It is a subject that should be discussed in the open. WHB should at least do what Tenafly did in 2000—have open meetings at which the eruv proposal was discussed. More than 100 attended such meetings and the discussions were heated at times.

WHB Mayor Maria Moore has kept a low profile on the eruv issue, refusing to say where she stands and not returning “multiple” calls of the Southampton Press and its online version 27east.com. Our emails to her are not returned.

Poles with Lechis Need to be Outed

She and the trustees should tack notices on all the WHB utility poles that have lechis on them. Secrecy and subterfuge on this issue must stop.

It’s time for Moore to show leadership on this issue and not cave to the “hostile takeover” of WHB that is being orchestrated via the courts.

WHB’s legal bills thus far total $125,118 and Quogue has paid outside lawyers $103,859. Sokoloff Stern has been representing WHB and Devitt Spellman Barrett, Quogue.

Representing EEEA since 2011 on a pro bono basis has been Weil, Gotshal & Manges, 13th biggest law firm in the world with revenues of more than $1.3 billion and more than 1,200 lawyers on staff.

Lead attorney for Weil is Robert Sugarman, who won similar litigation involving an eruv in Tenafly, N.J., in 2002. The town had to pay more than $300,000 in legal expenses of the Tenafly Eruv Assn. Whether SH, WHB and Quogue will be liable for any legal expenses of EEEA is not known.

Sugarman addressed the Quogue board in March 2012, warning it not to reject the eruv. To do so would be violating the rights of Orthodox Jews to practice their religion, which would violate the Constitution’s religious protections.

Among those disputing that contention are lawyers for Jewish People Opposing the Eruv, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Friendly Atheist, and law Prof. Susman of the University of California at L.A.

Current Docket of SH on Eruv

Here’s the docket of Southampton—legal “hell.” One filing was 70 gigabytes (a gigabyte is one billion bytes).

Order(Other)
ORDER re 78 Letter filed by Simcha Pollack, Deborah Pollack, East End Eruv Association, Inc. The Court is well aware of the issues that remaining pending in this case and the related cases. The parties will receive notification via ECF when the Court files an order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 10/30/2014. (Kandel, Erin)

. October 28, 2014 00:00
Letter Document: 78
Letter (enclosing Article 78 Petition) by East End Eruv Association, Inc., Deborah Pollack, Simcha Pollack (Attachments: # 1 (Sugarman, Robert)

. October 23, 2014 00:00
Letter 
Document: 77
Letter by Jewish People for the Betterment of Westhampton Beach (Sinnreich, Jonathan)

. October 23, 2014 00:00
Order(Other)
ORDER re 76 Reply in Support filed by Jewish People for the Betterment of Westhampton Beach. Pursuant to the Court's Individual Practice Rule (3)(A)(1), replies are not permitted on letter motions. The Court further points out that counsel did not seek permission to file a reply. Consequently, DE 76 is rejected as an improper reply on the letter motion designated DE 74 and will not be considered by the Court. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 10/23/2014. (Kandel, Erin)

. October 21, 2014 00:00
Reply in SupportDocument: 76

REPLY in Support re 74 Order on Motion to Intervene, Pursuant to Rule 60(b) filed by Jewish People for the Betterment of Westhampton Beach. (Sinnreich, Jonathan)

. October 20, 2014 00:00
Response in Opposition to Motion 
Document: 75
RESPONSE in Opposition re 74Order on Motion to Intervene, Pursuant to Rule 60(b) filed by East End Eruv Association, Inc., Deborah Pollack, Simcha Pollack. (Buchweitz, Yehudah)

. October 15, 2014 00:00
Set Aside : 74
Letter MOTION to Set Aside 72 Order on Motion to Intervene, Pursuant to Rule 60(b) by Jewish People for the Betterment of Westhampton Beach. (Sinnreich, Jonathan)

. September 24, 2014 00:00
Order on Motion to Dismiss 
Document: 73
ORDER re 38 Motion to Dismiss: Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs' Sixth Cause of Action is dismissed, without prejudice, and this action is STAYED pending determination of the Article 78 proceeding in New York state court. SEE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER for details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 9/24/2014. (Lanin, Debbie)

. September 24, 2014 00:00
Order on Motion to Intervene 
Document: 72
ORDER denying 11 Motion to Intervene. The motion to intervene filed by Jewish People for the Betterment of Westhampton Beach a/k/a Jewish People Opposed to the Eruv is DENIED. SEE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER for details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 9/23/2014. (Lanin, Debbie)

. September 17, 2014 00:00
Letter 
Document: 71
Letter requesting a telephonic conference regarding case status by East End Eruv Association, Inc. (Sugarman, Robert)
.
Reflects complaints, answers, motions, orders and trial notes entered from Jan. 1, 2011.
Additional or older documents may be available in Pacer.

View more case details in PACER (separate subscription required)

. May 23, 2014 00:00
Reply in OppositionDocument: 70
REPLY in Opposition re 69 Letter Filed by Plaintiffs Dated May 22, 2014 filed by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals. (Liccione, Maureen)

. May 22, 2014 00:00
Letter 
Document: 69
Letter to Magistrate Judge Tomlinson by East End Eruv Association, Inc., Deborah Pollack, Simcha Pollack (Attachments: # 1 
Document: 67
Letter to Magistrate Judge Tomlinson by East End Eruv Association, Inc. (Mishkin, Jessie)

. April 11, 2014 00:00
Letter ent: 66
Letter Providing Dial In Information by East End Eruv Association, Inc. (Buchweitz, Yehudah)

. April 09, 2014 00:00
Scheduling Order
SCHEDULING ORDER: Based on the representations of counsel, the Court is scheduling a telephone conference for April 14, 2014 at noon. Only the parties in this matter need attend. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 4/9/2014. (Buckel, Katherine)

. April 08, 2014 00:00
Letterment: 65
Letter Providing Cost Estimate for E-Discovery Collection by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals (Presser, Seth)

. April 04, 2014 00:00
Letter ent: 64
Letter providing 2nd Circuit Court Decision by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals (Presser, Seth)

. April 02, 2014 00:00
Letter ent: 63
Letter in opposition to defendants' letter filed at docket entry 62 by East End Eruv Association, Inc., Deborah Pollack, Simcha Pollack (Sugarman, Robert)

. March 28, 2014 00:00
Letter ent: 62
Letter -Supplement Defendants' Reply Memorandum of Law by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals (Liccione, Maureen)

. March 24, 2014 00:00
Order(Other)
ORDER re 61 Letter, filed by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals. Defendants' request to supplement their reply to the motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiffs may respond to Defendants' submission. Neither filing is to exceed three pages. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 3/24/2014. (Buckel, Katherine)

. March 14, 2014 00:00
Order on Motion for Protective Order 
Document: 58
ORDER denying 51 Motion for Protective Order. SEE ATTACHED ORDER for details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 3/14/2014. (Buckel, Katherine)

. March 03, 2014 00:00
Order on Motion for Protective Order
ORDER striking 53 Motion for Protective Order. Defendants' "motion" constitutes an impermissible reply to a letter motion. Thus, the Court is rejecting this submission. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 3/3/2014. (Buckel, Katherine)

. February 28, 2014 00:00
Protective Order 
Letter MOTION for Protective Order by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals. (Liccione, Maureen)

. February 27, 2014 00:00
Response in Opposition to Motion 
Document: 52
RESPONSE in Opposition re 51 Letter MOTION for Protective Order (Letter addressed to the Hon. A. Kathleen Tomlinson) filed by East End Eruv Association, Inc., Deborah Pollack, Simcha Pollack. (Buchweitz, Yehudah)

. February 27, 2014 00:00
Scheduling Order
SCHEDULING ORDER: Due to a conflict in the Court's calendar, and based on counsel's representations on a telephone call with the Court's law clerk, tomorrow's telephone status conference is adjourned to March 14, 2014 at noon. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 2/27/2014. (Buckel, Katherine)

. February 25, 2014 00:00
Protective Order 
Letter MOTION for Protective Order by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals. Maureen)

. February 20, 2014 00:00
Order(Other)
ORDER re 49 Letter filed by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals. If the Court finds that oral argument is necessary it will contact the parties to set a date. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 2/20/2014. (Buckel, Katherine)

. February 06, 2014 00:00
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File
ORDER granting 47 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 2/6/2014. (Buckel, Katherine)

. February 05, 2014 00:00
Extension of Time to File Document 
Document: 47
Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Statistics re: Search Terms, To Meet and Confer, and, if needed, To File Protective Order by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals. (Presser, Seth)

. February 03, 2014 00:00
Reply in Support 
REPLY in Support -Defendants' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion to Dismiss The Complaint filed by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals. (Liccione, Maureen)

. February 03, 2014 00:00
Memorandum in Opposition 
Document: 44
MEMORANDUM in w.law360.com/dockets/documents/52efd61aae93a82b0c00001b> 
Document: 42
MEMORANDUM in Support re 38 MOTION to Dismiss -Notice of Motion to Dismiss Complaint -Defendants' Memorandum of law in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals. (Liccione, Maureen)

. February 03, 2014 00:00
Dismiss 
Document: 38
MOTION to Dismiss -Notice of Motion to Dismiss Complaint by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals. Responses due by 1/17/2014 (Liccione, Maureen)

. January 06, 2014 00:00
Reply in Opposition 
REPLY in Opposition re 31 Letter Motion to Compel Discovery filed by The Town of Southampton. (Presser, Seth)

. January 06, 2014 00:00
Extension of Time to File Document 
Document: 32
Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File and Serve Motion to Dismiss by The Town of Southampton. (Presser, Seth)

. January 06, 2014 00:00
Order(Other)
ORDER re 33 Reply in Opposition filed by The Town of Southampton. The Court will not reject plaintiffs' filing nor will it treat the filing as a motion to compel. The defendants are free to submit a response not to exceed six pages, provided that the response be submitted by 6 p.m. today in light of tomorrow's discovery status conference. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 1/6/2014. (Buckel, Katherine)

. January 06, 2014 00:00
Order on Motion for Pre Motion Conference
ORDER terminating 14 Motion for Pre Motion Conference. The motion was addressed at the November 22, 2013 Initial Conference. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 1/6/2014. (Buckel, Katherine)

. January 06, 2014 00:00
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File
ORDER granting 32 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The parties' amended briefing schedule is SO ORDERED. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 1/6/2014. (Buckel, Katherine)

. January 02, 2014 00:00
Order(Other)
ORDER re 29 Letter filed by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals. Counsely may submit any declaration they wish if the purpose is to attach exhibits related to the motion to dismiss. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 1/2/2014. (Buckel, Katherine)

. December 27, 2013 00:00
Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Document: 28
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 27 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages specifically for an enlargement of the page limit with regard to the Motion to Dismiss to be served on or before January 3, 2014. The motion is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. The parties may serve Memoranda of Law not to exceed 40 pages. To the extent that the facts are driving the recitation, counsel can utilize affidavits from an individual with first-hand knowledge (not counsel) to set forth the facts germane to the motion. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 12/27/2013. (Ryan, Mary)

. December 26, 2013 00:00
File Excess Pages 
Document: 27
Letter MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages , specifically for an enlargement of the page limit with regard to the Motion to Dismiss to be served on or before January 3, 2014 by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals. (Presser, Seth)

. November 22, 2013 00:00
Order(Other)
ORDER re 24 Letter filed by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals. The parties' schedule is approved. At the January 7, 2014 status conference, the parties will be expected to report back regarding the status of discovery, particularly the 70 gigabytes of non-email data. The Court reminds the parties of their obligation to work collaboratively to narrow the scope of the search terms to be applied, utilizing principles of proportionality. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 11/22/2013. (Buckel, Katherine)

. November 19, 2013 00:00
Reply to Response to Motion

Document: 22
REPLY to Response to Motion re 11 %2Fdoc1%2F12319111070> Exhibit) (Sinnreich, Jonathan)

. November 18, 2013 00:00
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File
ORDER granting 19 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Based on the representations of counsel, the parties' are directed to submit a letter to the Court on or before November 21, 2013 detailing any agreements reached between the parties and any remaining disputes. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 11/18/2013. (Buckel, Katherine)

. November 15, 2013 00:00
Extension of Time to File Document 
Document: 19
Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File letters to Court regarding discovery agreements and disputes by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals. (Presser, Seth)

. November 05, 2013 00:00
Reply in Support Document: 16
REPLY in Support re 11 MOTION to Intervene filed by Jewish People for the Betterment of Westhampton Beach. (Hill, Timothy)

. October 30, 2013 00:00
Pre Motion Conference 
Document: 14
Letter MOTION for pre motion conference by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals. (Attachments: Exhibit B) (Guido, Robert)

. October 28, 2013 00:00
Memorandum in Opposition 
Document: 13
MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 11 MOTION to Intervene filed by East End Eruv Association, Inc., Deborah Pollack, Simcha Pollack. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jessie B. Mishkin, # 2 Declaration of Rabbi Leon A. Morris) (Buchweitz, Yehudah)

. October 11, 2013 00:00
Intervene Document: 11
MOTION to Intervene by Jewish People for the Betterment of Westhampton Beach. (Attachments: # Exhibit) (Hill, Timothy)

October 09, 2013 00:00
Pre Motion Conference 
Document: 10
Letter MOTION for pre motion conference by The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals. (Attachments: # 1

. October 04, 2013 00:00
Scheduling Order
SCHEDULING ORDER: The parties are directed to appear for a conference on November 8, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 10/4/2013. (Buckel, Katherine)

. August 27, 2013 00:00
Complaint Document: 1
COMPLAINT against The Town of Southampton, The Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -Yes,, filed by Deborah Pollack, East End Eruv Association, Inc., Simcha Pollack. (Attachments: # 1