Chetrit, Bistricer pay $81 million for Brooklyn's Bossert Hotel

Nov 12, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Real Deal

The former Bossert Hotel traded hands for $81 million, Rosewood Realty Group, which represented both the buyer and the seller, told The Real Deal today.

Comments
1 - 20 of 21 Comments Last updated Nov 14, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Conroe, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

David Bistricer and Joseph Chetrit bought the 14-story property in August and the sale officially closed last Friday. The purchase price was rumored to be around $90 million. Rosewood President Aaron Jungreis represented Bistricer and Chetrit, and Devin Cohen of Rosewood represented the seller, the Jehovah’s Witnesses/Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York.

Good deal.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 12, 2012
 
Great news. At least my contributions won't necessarily be used for paying out settlements and judgements. 80 mil should be able to help out in that regard, at least for the time being.
UNchained

Maryville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Dream-weaver wrote:
David Bistricer and Joseph Chetrit bought the 14-story property in August and the sale officially closed last Friday. The purchase price was rumored to be around $90 million. Rosewood President Aaron Jungreis represented Bistricer and Chetrit, and Devin Cohen of Rosewood represented the seller, the Jehovah’s Witnesses/Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York.
Good deal.
That leaves the Watchtower Publishing Company approximately $60 million less brokerage fees after they pay Ms. Conti for their role in her being sexually molested by Brother Kendrick.

Good deal.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Interesting that they will still have their hand out.. Those people need to learn how to budget.. Like common folks who work for a living.

“GOD'S TRUTHS *NEVER* CHANGE”

Since: Aug 09

A SMALL VILLAGE IN UPSTATE NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 12, 2012
 
Maravilla wrote:
Interesting that they will still have their hand out.. Those people need to learn how to budget.. Like common folks who work for a living.
True dat! LOL!

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 12, 2012
 
Nedoba wrote:
<quoted text>
True dat! LOL!
I think they may find some scripture to tithe.

“GOD'S TRUTHS *NEVER* CHANGE”

Since: Aug 09

A SMALL VILLAGE IN UPSTATE NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 12, 2012
 
array wrote:
<quoted text>I think they may find some scripture to tithe.
I keep seeing references being made to this idea....I would not be surprised if they implemented this procedure and declared that it was "an arrangement and a provision of jehovah" just like they presented the Donation arrangement to be.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 12, 2012
 
Nedoba wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep seeing references being made to this idea....I would not be surprised if they implemented this procedure and declared that it was "an arrangement and a provision of jehovah" just like they presented the Donation arrangement to be.
be interesting if this does happen how they will introduce it. Of course will be the emotional black mail, the widows mite and the need for money to help their b/s in poorer countries, no mentioning of the millions for dollars they have paid out in gag orders and the latest Conti case, they are strapped for cash so would not surprise me if they do bring in tithe.

“GOD'S TRUTHS *NEVER* CHANGE”

Since: Aug 09

A SMALL VILLAGE IN UPSTATE NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 12, 2012
 
array wrote:
<quoted text>be interesting if this does happen how they will introduce it. Of course will be the emotional black mail, the widows mite and the need for money to help their b/s in poorer countries, no mentioning of the millions for dollars they have paid out in gag orders and the latest Conti case, they are strapped for cash so would not surprise me if they do bring in tithe.
I'd have to agree with you once again, LOL!

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

On their WT Internet site for JWs, it is not mentioned that they got $81 Million for it. "Why" do they not mention that to their people? Do not their people have a right to know that. It seems one can get the fuller facts sometimes from the "media." I do understand the JWs are commanded not to pay attention to the media about them. Why would that be?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Nov 13, 2012
 
I'm not saying this is the reason, but I can see another perspective that says that one wouldn't want to be seen as gloating or bragging about how much one netted on a real estate sale.

On a smaller scale, we don't (or shouldn't, anyways) go around bragging to our fellow JWs if we bought a fancy new boat or whatever. If a lucrative business deal was finalized that netted a brother a huge profit, I wouldn't expect him to be telling me about it. He might disclose it if pressed, sure, but he wouldn't go out of his way to let people know.

Anyways, I don't think there would be many JWs who would be under any false illusions that the thing went for less than many millions of dollars. It's in NYC. It's going to be in the millions, that's a given.

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

acrobat wrote:
Great news. At least my contributions won't necessarily be used for paying out settlements and judgements. 80 mil should be able to help out in that regard, at least for the time being.
What lawsuit? The lawsuit from the two-time convicted felon (drug addled burglar, extortionist) that lied through her teeth under the penalty perjury? Have you even read the case files?

“Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Trial Memorandum Filed 05-18-12

“There is no other witness who will corroborate plaintiffs allegations of abuse in this case. In fact, the evidence from other witnesses contradicts certain allegations of Plaintiff. Her father, Neal Conti, will testify that he never allowed plaintiff to leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. Because his wife, plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, had been abused as a child, he was very careful and vigilant in protecting his daughter from such things. He also denies ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. Plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, denied ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. She also vehemently denied allowing Kendrick to take plaintiff to his home from the meetings at the Kingdom Hall. The elders will testify that they kept a close watch on Kendrick after he was removed as a ministerial servant (the removal was in December 1993). They made sure that he did not pay inappropriate attention to children in the Kingdom Hall. They will confirm that they never saw plaintiff leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. In fact, if they had seen such conduct, they would have put a stop to it. Similarly, they never saw Kendrick bear hugging plaintiff or having plaintiff sit on his lap at the Kingdom Hall. Several persons who were members of the congregation at the time of the alleged abuse of plaintiff will testify that they never saw plaintiff, a 9, 10, or 11 year-old-girl, sitting on Kendrick's lap. They will add that they would have found such conduct to be inappropriate. Similarly, they will testify that they never saw plaintiff being taken from the Kingdom Hall by Kendrick, and that they would have considered such conduct even more inappropriate and upsetting. They will point out that they would have notified the elders of it if they had ever seen it happening.”

The evidence from this case clearly indicates this woman's a crook and deliberately lied to bring liability on Jehovah's Witnesses. That's why the case is being appealed. The appellant court will very likely eradicate this corrupt judgement. If you see something else through your rose colored glasses, that simply tells me that maybe you're a crook also. For all we know, you could be stealing someone's identity as we speak.

If you truly believe these frivolous lawsuits have any validity to them and you willingly donate money to the Watchtower Society, I'd say you're a sad, strange little man.

Do you also wear a t-shirt that says "Jack-ass" on it?
UNchained

Maryville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
What lawsuit? The lawsuit from the two-time convicted felon (drug addled burglar, extortionist) that lied through her teeth under the penalty perjury? Have you even read the case files?
“Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Trial Memorandum Filed 05-18-12
“There is no other witness who will corroborate plaintiffs allegations of abuse in this case. In fact, the evidence from other witnesses contradicts certain allegations of Plaintiff. Her father, Neal Conti, will testify that he never allowed plaintiff to leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. Because his wife, plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, had been abused as a child, he was very careful and vigilant in protecting his daughter from such things. He also denies ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. Plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, denied ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. She also vehemently denied allowing Kendrick to take plaintiff to his home from the meetings at the Kingdom Hall. The elders will testify that they kept a close watch on Kendrick after he was removed as a ministerial servant (the removal was in December 1993). They made sure that he did not pay inappropriate attention to children in the Kingdom Hall. They will confirm that they never saw plaintiff leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. In fact, if they had seen such conduct, they would have put a stop to it. Similarly, they never saw Kendrick bear hugging plaintiff or having plaintiff sit on his lap at the Kingdom Hall. Several persons who were members of the congregation at the time of the alleged abuse of plaintiff will testify that they never saw plaintiff, a 9, 10, or 11 year-old-girl, sitting on Kendrick's lap. They will add that they would have found such conduct to be inappropriate. Similarly, they will testify that they never saw plaintiff being taken from the Kingdom Hall by Kendrick, and that they would have considered such conduct even more inappropriate and upsetting. They will point out that they would have notified the elders of it if they had ever seen it happening.”
The evidence from this case clearly indicates this woman's a crook and deliberately lied to bring liability on Jehovah's Witnesses. That's why the case is being appealed. The appellant court will very likely eradicate this corrupt judgement. If you see something else through your rose colored glasses, that simply tells me that maybe you're a crook also. For all we know, you could be stealing someone's identity as we speak.
If you truly believe these frivolous lawsuits have any validity to them and you willingly donate money to the Watchtower Society, I'd say you're a sad, strange little man.
Do you also wear a t-shirt that says "Jack-ass" on it?
Another day, another jury and the results will be the same.

The Watchtower Publishing Company will be found guilty as charged again.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Well well, lookey here. Having been thoroughly spanked in the thread she created to slander and libel me as a result of her embarrassingly cringeworthy performance in the Man Sentenced thread, Dreamweaver has chosen to come over onto this thread and resurrect another post she missed.

And incredibly, watch what she does, even after I showed how her every waking thought and impressing of legal issues surrounding the WT is sadly and solely informed by this obsession of hers with the Candace Conti case.
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
What lawsuit?
Oh, please, do tell us all what I was thinking!(lol)
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
What lawsuit? The lawsuit from the two-time convicted felon (drug addled burglar, extortionist) that lied through her teeth under the penalty perjury?
The who? The what? Sorry, I don't know who *you* might be referring to, but I was referring to other cases. Plural. CaseS.
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text> Have you even read the case files?
“Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Trial Memorandum Filed 05-18-12
Oh! Back to the Candace Conti red herring again, I see. MMkay. Yes, I read the case files. All of them, not just the defendants' lawyer's statements to the jury (HAH! Nice try! that doesn't count as evidence lol!!) And I came to the same conclusion that Mr McCabe encouraged the jury to give careful consideration to: that the allegations were probably true, or were more likely true than not true. Therefore, they became fact. Hey, his words!:)
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
blah blah blah blah blah Lawyer's statement blah blah etc etc
As mentioned, the lawyer's statement doesn't constitute evidence. I could just as easily quote her lawyer. Next. You've already used this same tactic before. You're repeating yourself.
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence from this case clearly indicates this woman's a crook and deliberately lied to bring liability on Jehovah's Witnesses.
Ah yes, it clearly indicates it. To the judge, the jury, the world, everyone except me. I get it. I'm the lone ranger, the onlyyy person in the world that knows more than all these other entities..oh, wait, no, that's you and your similarly insane buddy FC Chandler. Are you his legal secretary? Hmm.
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why the case is being appealed. The appellant court will very likely eradicate this corrupt judgement.
Oh, sure, because appellant courts have a strong and rich tradition overturning civil cases in that state (stifled laugh). You keep believing that.
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
If you see something else through your rose colored glasses, that simply tells me that maybe you're a crook also. For all we know, you could be stealing someone's identity as we speak.
Oh, of course! I'm a crook! You've caught me! Stealing someone's identity now, is it? What was the last one, hiring people to do human trafficking or something? You're actually clinically insane. Crazy. Nuts. Bonkers. Psychotic, even.
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
If you truly believe these frivolous lawsuits have any validity to them and you willingly donate money to the Watchtower Society, I'd say you're a sad, strange little man.
Wait, you don't willingly donate money to the WT? I don't do so in order for it to be paid out in legal settlements, if that's what you mean. So yes, cases in which they do pay out legal settlements, yes, they concern me greatly!

I'm a sad strange little man. Says the psychotic crazyperson known on many websites. MMkay.
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you also wear a t-shirt that says "Jack-ass" on it?
Ah yes, your final hurrah! The reviling! Or are you just getting warmed up?:)

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
What lawsuit? The lawsuit from the two-time convicted felon (drug addled burglar, extortionist) that lied through her teeth under the penalty perjury? Have you even read the case files?
“Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Trial Memorandum Filed 05-18-12
“There is no other witness who will corroborate plaintiffs allegations of abuse in this case. In fact, the evidence from other witnesses contradicts certain allegations of Plaintiff. Her father, Neal Conti, will testify that he never allowed plaintiff to leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. Because his wife, plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, had been abused as a child, he was very careful and vigilant in protecting his daughter from such things. He also denies ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. Plaintiffs mother, Kathleen Conti, denied ever allowing plaintiff to sit on Kendrick's lap at the Kingdom Hall. She also vehemently denied allowing Kendrick to take plaintiff to his home from the meetings at the Kingdom Hall. The elders will testify that they kept a close watch on Kendrick after he was removed as a ministerial servant (the removal was in December 1993). They made sure that he did not pay inappropriate attention to children in the Kingdom Hall. They will confirm that they never saw plaintiff leave the Kingdom Hall with Kendrick. In fact, if they had seen such conduct, they would have put a stop to it. Similarly, they never saw Kendrick bear hugging plaintiff or having plaintiff sit on his lap at the Kingdom Hall. Several persons who were members of the congregation at the time of the alleged abuse of plaintiff will testify that they never saw plaintiff, a 9, 10, or 11 year-old-girl, sitting on Kendrick's lap. They will add that they would have found such conduct to be inappropriate. Similarly, they will testify that they never saw plaintiff being taken from the Kingdom Hall by Kendrick, and that they would have considered such conduct even more inappropriate and upsetting. They will point out that they would have notified the elders of it if they had ever seen it happening.”
The evidence from this case clearly indicates this woman's a crook and deliberately lied to bring liability on Jehovah's Witnesses. That's why the case is being appealed. The appellant court will very likely eradicate this corrupt judgement. If you see something else through your rose colored glasses, that simply tells me that maybe you're a crook also. For all we know, you could be stealing someone's identity as we speak.
If you truly believe these frivolous lawsuits have any validity to them and you willingly donate money to the Watchtower Society, I'd say you're a sad, strange little man.
Do you also wear a t-shirt that says "Jack-ass" on it?
and there will be other law cases against the WTBTS concerning this crime against children, and probably the WT will not be able to pay out gag orders to silence those victims.

One is to many, and their have been more than one, sadly you attitude is one that is only concerned about the reputation of the organization, and never any mention of how this has been a bad witness against Gods name.

JW have never been in the headlines more than they have this past decade, showing that things are not all as they would like the rest of the world to think, they are sqeakly clean and living in this so called sprirtual paradise. No amount of clean shirts ties, shinned shoes trimed hair and lack of facial hair will give that impression of an appearance of being so morally upright. Especially when they have pedophiles going door to door reading scriptures from Gods word about justice, morals and love of neighbour.

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

acrobat wrote:
Well well, lookey here. Having been thoroughly spanked in the thread she created to slander and libel me as a result of her embarrassingly cringeworthy performance in the Man Sentenced thread, Dreamweaver has chosen to come over onto this thread and resurrect another post she missed.
And incredibly, watch what she does, even after I showed how her every waking thought and impressing of legal issues surrounding the WT is sadly and solely informed by this obsession of hers with the Candace Conti case.
<quoted text>
Oh, please, do tell us all what I was thinking!(lol)
<quoted text>
The who? The what? Sorry, I don't know who *you* might be referring to, but I was referring to other cases. Plural. CaseS.
<quoted text>
Oh! Back to the Candace Conti red herring again, I see. MMkay. Yes, I read the case files. All of them, not just the defendants' lawyer's statements to the jury (HAH! Nice try! that doesn't count as evidence lol!!) And I came to the same conclusion that Mr McCabe encouraged the jury to give careful consideration to: that the allegations were probably true, or were more likely true than not true. Therefore, they became fact. Hey, his words!:)
<quoted text>
As mentioned, the lawyer's statement doesn't constitute evidence. I could just as easily quote her lawyer. Next. You've already used this same tactic before. You're repeating yourself.
<quoted text>
Ah yes, it clearly indicates it. To the judge, the jury, the world, everyone except me. I get it. I'm the lone ranger, the onlyyy person in the world that knows more than all these other entities..oh, wait, no, that's you and your similarly insane buddy FC Chandler. Are you his legal secretary? Hmm.
<quoted text>
Oh, sure, because appellant courts have a strong and rich tradition overturning civil cases in that state (stifled laugh). You keep believing that.
<quoted text>
Oh, of course! I'm a crook! You've caught me! Stealing someone's identity now, is it? What was the last one, hiring people to do human trafficking or something? You're actually clinically insane. Crazy. Nuts. Bonkers. Psychotic, even.
<quoted text>
Wait, you don't willingly donate money to the WT? I don't do so in order for it to be paid out in legal settlements, if that's what you mean. So yes, cases in which they do pay out legal settlements, yes, they concern me greatly!
I'm a sad strange little man. Says the psychotic crazyperson known on many websites. MMkay.
<quoted text>
Ah yes, your final hurrah! The reviling! Or are you just getting warmed up?:)
Nice... respond back with a garbled mesh of gibberish as a supplement for sanity. Next time, try a coherent, articulate response.

I'm not here to untangle your neurotransmitters if they're completely of skelter.

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"As mentioned, the lawyer's statement doesn't constitute evidence. I could just as easily quote her lawyer. Next. You've already used this same tactic before. You're repeating yourself."

Isn't this the cat's ass?

The pretrial memorandum that presents the testimony of every eye-witness that testified in this case is somehow not evidence because it was refereed to by a lawyer.

"Acrobat" can damn sure use a crash course in the basics of Law 101.

You can start with Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness

A witness is someone who has, who claims to have, or is thought, by someone with authority to compel testimony, to have knowledge relevant to an event or other matter of interest. In law a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what he or she knows or claims to know about the matter before some official authorized to take such testimony.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice... respond back with a garbled mesh of gibberish as a supplement for sanity. Next time, try a coherent, articulate response.
I'm not here to untangle your neurotransmitters if they're completely of skelter.
Why should I dignify you with an articulate response? You don't merit it.

When in Rome, as the saying goes...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Good grief Dreamweaver is such a pedantic child. A lawyer can get up and at the outset of any trial and say

"You will hear reputable scientists tell you that the earth most definitely does not revolve around the sun"

And guess what? He's not entering evidence per se. He's saying what conclusion he purports the evidence and/or witnesses will bear out. His statement becomes part of the legal argument, yes, but in and of itself it's not part of the chain of evidence; it's a synopsis of his belief that what he's brought to the trial to convince the jury.

At the end of the day, he still has to convince the jury that his take on it is factual and supported by the evidence.

And, whoops, he didn't.

Like I said, I could post Simons opening statements too, but it won't really shore up my personal view of the case any. This Dreamweaver quotes the opening statement of the WT lawyer like it was gospel. And ironically, doesn't say "according to the WT lawyer" and then quote him. She just throws it out there like it's accepted fact.

Which is probably understandable that this is the most common thing she posts, because by the end of the trial McCabe was reduced to blubbering silly things like 'We're not talking about the Catholic Church here, folks'. lol!!

I'm done arguing this case with Dreamweaver - there's nothing to argue! The jury found in her favor, and there's not a darn thing Dreamweaver says or does (across every site and blog discussing this case, no less..has anyone actually checked it out? Talk about *extreme obsession*! lol) that will change it.
Myke Hunte

Middletown, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Nov 14, 2012
 
Mainstream religion in 2 years. They are losing the young generation.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••