Letter to Judge Kiel Re: 1567 56th Street, LLC, 1569 56th Street, LLC, and Shlomo Braun v. Arthur Spitzer, et al (Dkt. 186, D.N.J.)
Summary
In this August 21, 2026 letter in the criminal case against Arthur Spitzer, Mendel Deutsh and Joshua Feldberger (Crim No. 24-528), attorney Gary Koenigsberg asks Judge Kiel for a conference to seek relief from the Consent Protective Order. The firm represents Abraham Teitelbaum, Jehuda Weisz and Dekel Abstract LLC, defendants in an Eastern District of New York RICO suit (Index No. 22-cv-4873) in which Rabbi Shlomo Braun alleges a fraudulent transfer of title to property in Brooklyn. The firm wants a video believed to depict the signing of a deed in or around August 2019, which it says purports to show Braun executing the deed. The letter says Spitzer’s counsel cited the protective order and the government refused to authorize disclosure without giving a reason. Fact discovery in the civil case has a final deadline of October 16, 2026.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 1 of 36 PageID: 829
www.moodklaw.com
NEW YORK CITY OFFICE Gary L. Koenigsberg
600 Third Avenue Member NY & NJ Bars
(856) 406-1306
Suite 1501
GKoenigsberg@moodklaw.com
New York, NY 10016
(212) 967-0080 Fax: (212) 967-0082
August 21, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC CASE FILING
The Honorable Edward S. Kiel
United States District Court
District of New Jersey
Mitchell H. Cohen Building
United States Courthouse
4th & Cooper Streets
Camden, NJ 08101
RE 1567 56th Street, LLC, 1569 56th Street, LLC,
and Shlomo Braun v. Arthur Spitzer, et al
Court: United States District Court,
Eastern District of New York
Index No.: 22-cv-4873
Dear Judge Kiel:
This office represents the defendants, Abraham Teitelbaum, Jehuda Weisz, and Dekel
Abstract LLC, in the above-referenced matter, which is currently being litigated in the Eastern
District of New York (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Action”). We write with regard to United
States of America v. Arthur Spitzer, Mendel Deutsh, and Joshua Feldberger, Crim No. 24-528
(hereinafter referred to as the “Criminal Action”), which we understand to be currently pending
before you.
For the reasons explained below, we respectfully request a conference with the Court
pursuant to Your Honor’s Rules and Preferences and Local Rules of the District of New Jersey so
that we may seek relief from the Consent Protective Order, a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit
A.
We seek relief from the Protective Order only to the extent that permits our office to obtain
a specific video. The video is believed to depict the signing of a deed in or around August 2019,
which is crucial to the allegations in the Civil Matter. We have made several attempts to obtain the
video directly from sources believed to possess it to no avail. Due to the video’s supposed
significance to the Civil Matter, we accordingly now seek relief directly from the Court.
Factual History
Philadelphia Cherry Hill Westchester County Towson Pittsburgh Wilmington
Pennsylvania New Jersey New York Maryland Pennsylvania Delaware
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 2 of 36 PageID: 830
MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C.
August 21, 2026
Page 2
The Civil Matter arises out of alleged RICO conspiracy to effectuate a fraudulent transfer
of title to real property in Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff – Rabbi Shlomo Braun – alleges that
the defendants – Arthur Spitzer, Josh Weinfeld, Isidore Bleier, BSD Realty Holdings Inc., 1567
56 NY LLC, Dekel Abstract LLC, Abraham Teitelbaum, Rosa Funding LLC, and Jehuda Weisz –
conspired to transfer title of the property without his knowledge.
Rabbi Braun alleged that our clients, Abraham Teitelbaum, Jehuda Weisz, and Dekel
Abstract LLC, aided with the transfer. He claims that Mr. Weisz fraudulently notarized his
signature insisting that he never appeared before Mr. Weisz. He further claims that Dekel Abstract
and Mr. Teitelbaum did not perform their due diligence to ascertain the basis for transferring the
property and that they were involved in the “enterprise” for purposes of his RICO claim. However,
our clients maintain that Rabbi Braun did appear and signed the documents that were notarized.
Upon information and belief, the video that we seek to obtain from the Criminal Action p
urports to show Rabbi Braun executing the deed. It stands to have a material impact on the Civil
Action, a belief that appears to be shared by the presiding Magistrate Judge, the Honorable Clay
Kaminsky.
Efforts to Obtain the Video
My office has made numerous attempts to obtain the video. To give the parties time to
exhaust the possibilities for obtaining the video and complete remaining fact discovery, Judge
Kaminsky granted a final extension of the deadline to complete fact discovery until October 16,
2026.
First, our office served a subpoena on Henry Edward Mazurek, Esq. of Meister Seelig &
Fein LLP to obtain a video on March 18, 2026, a copy of which is enclosed in Exhibit B, at 2-5.
Mr. Mazurek represents Aurthur Spitzer in the Criminal Action. However, Jason Sir, who also re
presents Mr. Spitzer in the Criminal Action, advised us in a written objection that, while he was i
n possession of material responsive to the subpoena, it was subject to the Protective Order. SeeEx
hibit B, at 6. Therefore, he was unable to disclose it to us. Id.
However, ¶7 of the Protective Order allows disclosure upon the Government’s written
authorization of the same. See Exhibit A, at 3. Accordingly, our office next contacted the handing
Assistant US Attorney, Elisa Wiygul, pursuant to ¶7 of the Protective Order, to request permission
for the disclosure of the video, copies of which are enclosed as Exhibit C. Nevertheless, the
Government refused to authorize disclosure. No reason was given. See Exhibit C.
We then learned the video may be in the possession of Rabbi Braun’s son – Aharon Bruan.
We served him with a subpoena requesting the video via personal service on May 21, 2026, a copy
of which is enclosed as Exhibit D. He did not comply within the requested time period. During a
June 17, 2026, tele-conference, Judge Kaminsky directed us to contact an attorney who represented
Aahron Braun in another New Jersey action. We thus attempted to contact him but again to no
avail.
4918-0299-5911, v. 1
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 3 of 36 PageID: 831
MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C.
August 21, 2026
Page 3
We were then able to locate an email address for Mr. Braun. We sent several emails to him.
See Exhibit D, at 5-6. Following our final email to him, Mr. Braun called our office. During the
call, he argued he did not have the video. At the request of our office, he confirmed the same in
writing. Id.
In our last attempt to avoid involving this Court, my office attempted to obtain the video
from Mr. Spitzer himself by use of another exception to the Protective Order. According to ¶12 of
the Protective Order, Mr. Spitzer himself is not restricted from using or disclosing ESI that
originally belonged to him. See Exhibit A, at 4. We again spoke with Mr. Ser of Meister Seelig &
Fein LLP, who agreed with our understanding of the language. However, after speaking with his
client, Mr. Ser advised us that Mr. Spitzer claimed he was not in possession of the video either.
Having exhausted all other avenues, we now make the instant application to Your Honor
to seek relief from the Protective Order.
Legal Basis for the Instant Request
We make our request for a conference to seek relief from the Protective Order pursuant to
the Local Civil and Criminal Rules of the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. Specifically, we make the application pursuant to Rule 5.3 and Rule 37.1(a)(1).
Rule 5.3 governs confidentiality orders and restrictions of public access. Under Rule 5.3(b)(3) a
Judge may modify these orders at any time. We accordingly request Your Honor modify the
protective order to allow disclosure of the video for the limited use in the Civil Action.
The Third Circuit recognizes a common law public right of access as well as the First
Amendment right of access. Mesabi Metallics Co. LLC v. Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. (In re ESML
Holdings Inc.), 135 F.4th 80, 93-94 (3d Cir. 2025). Local Civil Rule 5.3(a)(4) codifies the
presumption: "[s]ubject to this rule and to statute or other law, all materials and judicial
proceedings are matters of public record and shall not be sealed." The accompanying Explanatory
Note emphasizes this point, specifically highlighting that, “[t]he right of public access to filed
materials and judicial proceedings derives from the First Amendment and federal common law.
Consistent with this right, this subparagraph establishes a presumption in favor of public access.
L.Civ.R. 5.3(a)(4), Explanatory Note at 14.
Any dispute regarding the confidentiality of discovery materials under a protective order
must be brought before a Magistrate Judge pursuant to L.Civ.R. 37.1(a)(1). The explanatory notes
of the Rule 5.3 give more context to the procedure for challenging protective orders:
“Subparagraph (b)(5). This subparagraph contemplates that disputes may arise
with regard to the terms of blanket protective orders and the designation of
materials under such orders. Should such disputes arise, the parties are directed to
the procedure set forth in Local Civil Rule 37.1(a)(1) for the resolution of discovery
disputes. […]” L.Civ.R. 5.3, Explanatory Note at 15.
4918-0299-5911, v. 1
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 4 of 36 PageID: 832
MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C.
August 21, 2026
Page 4
Rule 37.1(a)(1) requires counsel to confer to resolve any discovery dispute, and any such
dispute that is not resolved shall be presented by telephone conference call or letter to the
Magistrate Judge. Such presentation must precede a formal motion.
Based upon the foregoing, we request a conference with the Court to seek a modification
of the Protective Order allowing disclosure of the video for the limited use as evidence in the Civil
Action.
Should you have any questions regarding the within, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN,
DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C.
/s/ Gary L. Koenigsberg
GARY L. KOENIGSBERG, ESQUIRE
E: gkoenigsberg.@moodklaw.com
GLK/gdd
Encls.
4918-0299-5911, v. 1
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 5 of 36 PageID: 833
EXHIBIT “A”
Case
Case1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document
Document186
33 Filed 10/07/24
08/21/26 Page 1
6 of 6
36PageID:
PageID:160
834
Case
Case1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document
Document186
33 Filed 10/07/24
08/21/26 Page 2
7 of 6
36PageID:
PageID:161
835
Case
Case1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document
Document186
33 Filed 10/07/24
08/21/26 Page 3
8 of 6
36PageID:
PageID:162
836
Case
Case1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document
Document186
33 Filed 10/07/24
08/21/26 Page 4
9 of 6
36PageID:
PageID:163
837
Case
Case1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document
Document186
33 Filed
Filed08/21/26
10/07/24 Page
Page 5
10of
of636
PageID:
PageID:
164
838
Case
Case1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document
Document186
33 Filed
Filed08/21/26
10/07/24 Page
Page 6
11of
of636
PageID:
PageID:
165
839
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 12 of 36 PageID: 840
EXHIBIT “B”
Case
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:22-cv-04873-KAM-CHK
Document
Document
186 127
Filed Filed
08/21/26
04/09/26
Page 13
Pageof136
of 12
PageID:
PageID
841#:
1352
www.moodklaw.com
NEW YORK CITY OFFICE Gabrielle D'Amato
600 Third Avenue Member NY Bar
(646) 454-4896
Suite 1501
GDamato@moodklaw.com
New York, NY 10016
(212) 967-0080 Fax: (212) 967-0082
April 9, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC CASE FILING
Hon. Clay H. Kaminsky
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201
RE 1567 56th Street, LLC, 1569 56th Street, LLC,
and Shlomo Braun v. Abraham Teitelbaum
Index No.: 22-cv-4873
Our File No.: 1803.112080
Dear Honorable Kaminsky:
This office represents the defendants, Abraham Teitelbaum, Jehuda Weisz, and Dekel Abstract
LLC, in the above-referenced matter. As Plaintiff’s counsel indicated in his letter, there have been issues
with the Subpoena discussed herein. We attach a copy of the Subponea and a copy of the objection we
received in advance of the Teleconference scheduled for tomorrow, April 10, 2026.
On March 18, 2026, this office served a subpoena to produce documents, information, or objects
on Henry Edward Mazurek, Esq. of Meister Seelig & Fein LLP to obtain a video (the “Subponea”). Mr.
Mazurek represents Aurthur Spitzer in the criminal case currently pending against him in the District Court
of New Jersey, United States v. Arthur Spitzer, et al., Crim. No. 24-528 (ESK). The video is believed to
depict Rabbi Shlomo Bruan involved in the execution of the deed for the real property located at 1576 and
1569 56th Street in Brooklyn, New York, which are the properties involved in the subject litigation. We
believe this video will have a material impact on the litigation. Accordingly, it is in the interest of all parties
to have access to this video prior to depositions.
On April 9, 2026, Jason Ser, Esq. also of Meister Seelig & Fein LLP served a written objection on
our office. Ms. Ser admitted that they were in possession of material responsive to the Subponea, however
it is subject to a Protective Order in United States v. Arthur Spitzer, et al. Accordingly, it appears they
cannot produce the subpoenaed information without an appropriate court order.
Mr. Ser’s letter and the Protective Order are enclosed for the Court and parties’ review in advance
of tomorrow’s Conference.
Respectfully submitted,
MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN,
DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C.
__________________________
GABRIELLE D. D’AMATO
GDD/nls
Philadelphia Cherry Hill Westchester County Wilmington Towson Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania New Jersey New York Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania
Case
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:22-cv-04873-KAM-CHK
Document
Document
186 127
Filed Filed
08/21/26
04/09/26
Page 14
Pageof236
of 12
PageID:
PageID
842#:
1353
AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Eastern
__________District of of
District New York
__________
1567 56TH STREET, LLC et al
)
Plaintiff )
v. ) Civil Action No. 22-4873-CV
)
ARTHUR SPITZER, et al
)
Defendant )
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS
OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: Henry Edward Mazurek
(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed)
’ Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following
documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the
material:
Any and all video footage of or relating to Rabbi Shlomo Braun involved in the execution fo a deed for real
property located at 1576 and1569 Street in Brooklyn, New York, in or around August 2019.
Place: Date and Time:
Via email to gdamato@moodklaw.com and/or
600 Third Avenue, Suite 1501, New York, NY 10016 04/17/2026 12:00 pm
’ Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or
other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party
may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.
Place: Date and Time:
The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached – Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance;
Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to
respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.
Date: 03/17/2026
CLERK OF COURT
OR
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney’s signature
The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) JEHUDA WEISZ,
DEKEL ABSTRACT LLC, ABRAHAM TEITELBAUM , who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
Gary L. Koenigsberg, Esq., Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.,600 Third Avenue, Suite 1501, New York, New
York 10016; (856) 406-1305, gkoenigsberg@moodklaw.com.
Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena
If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the
inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before
it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).
Case
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:22-cv-04873-KAM-CHK
Document
Document
186 127
Filed Filed
08/21/26
04/09/26
Page 15
Pageof336
of 12
PageID:
PageID
843#:
1354
AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 22-4873-CV
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)
on (date) .
’ I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:
.
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also
tendered to the witness the fees for one day’s attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
$ .
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Wayne Nuessle, President
Printed name and title
Gold Investigations, Inc.
P.O. Box 536
Tarrytown, New York 10591; (914) 420-7895
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.:
Case
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:22-cv-04873-KAM-CHK
Document
Document
186 127
Filed Filed
08/21/26
04/09/26
Page 16
Pageof436
of 12
PageID:
PageID
844#:
1355
AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action(Page 3)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)
(c) Place of Compliance. (ii) disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does
not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s
(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a study that was not requested by a party.
person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: (C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances
(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or
regularly transacts business in person; or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified
(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly conditions if the serving party:
transacts business in person, if the person (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be
(i) is a party or a party’s officer; or otherwise met without undue hardship; and
(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial (ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
expense.
(e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.
(2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:
(A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These
tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored
employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and information:
(B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected. (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents
must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or
(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement. must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in
to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The
enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include person responding need not produce the same electronically stored
lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees—on a party or attorney who information in more than one form.
fails to comply. (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person
responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to order, the person responding must show that the information is not
permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is
production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the
hearing, or trial. requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated
in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to (A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information
producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for material must:
compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, (i) expressly make the claim; and
the following rules apply: (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself
may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
order compelling production or inspection. (B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as
order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party
significant expense resulting from compliance. that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the
compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; present the information under seal to the court for the district where
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who
specified in Rule 45(c); produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no resolved.
exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (g) Contempt.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a The court for the district where compliance is required—and also, after a
subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion is transferred, the issuing court—may hold in contempt a person
motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires: who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, subpoena or an order related to it.
development, or commercial information; or
For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013).
Case
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:22-cv-04873-KAM-CHK
Document
Document
186 127
Filed Filed
08/21/26
04/09/26
Page 17
Pageof536
of 12
PageID:
PageID
845#:
1356
Case
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:22-cv-04873-KAM-CHK
Document
Document
186 127
Filed Filed
08/21/26
04/09/26
Page 18
Pageof636
of 12
PageID:
PageID
846#:
1357
Case
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:22-cv-04873-KAM-CHK
Document
Document
186 127
Filed Filed
08/21/26
04/09/26
Page 19
Pageof736
of 12
PageID:
PageID
847#:
1358
Case
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:22-cv-04873-KAM-CHK
Document
Document
186 127
Filed Filed
08/21/26
04/09/26
Page 20
Pageof836
of 12
PageID:
PageID
848#:
1359
Case
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:22-cv-04873-KAM-CHK
Document
Document
186 127
Filed Filed
08/21/26
04/09/26
Page 21
Pageof936
of 12
PageID:
PageID
849#:
1360
Case
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:22-cv-04873-KAM-CHK
Document
Document
186 127Filed Filed
08/21/26
04/09/26
Page 22
Page
of 36
10 of 12
PageID:
PageID
850
#: 1361
Case
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:22-cv-04873-KAM-CHK
Document
Document
186 127Filed Filed
08/21/26
04/09/26
Page 23
Page
of 36
11 of 12
PageID:
PageID
851
#: 1362
Case
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK
1:22-cv-04873-KAM-CHK
Document
Document
186 127Filed Filed
08/21/26
04/09/26
Page 24
Page
of 36
12 of 12
PageID:
PageID
852
#: 1363
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 25 of 36 PageID: 853
EXHIBIT “C”
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 26 of 36 PageID: 854
D'Amato, Gabrielle D.
From: Wiygul, Elisa (USANJ) <Elisa.Wiygul@usdoj.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 4:42 PM
To: D'Amato, Gabrielle D.; Koenigsberg, Gary L.
Cc: Ciobanescu, Ana R.; Somsag, Nicole L.; newyorklawyer@msn.com;
yoelweisshaus@gmail.com; eschwalb@koffskyschwalb.com; sholomw@bergpllc.com;
4888-1742-9986@mail.vault.netdocuments.com
Subject: RE: Civil Action subpoena directed to Henry Mazurek, related to USA v. Spitzer et al.
Case No: 24-528 (ESK)
Good afternoon,
Upon consideration, the Government does not consent to an exception to the protective order in the
ongoing criminal case.
Thank you.
Regards,
Elisa T. Wiygul
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s O ice for the District of New Jersey
401 Market Street, 4th Floor
Camden, NJ 08101
Desk: (856) 968-4929
Cell: (862) 754-2206
elisa.wiygul@usdoj.gov
From: D'Amato, Gabrielle D. <GDamato@moodklaw.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 2:05 PM
To: Koenigsberg, Gary L. <GKoenigsberg@moodklaw.com>; Wiygul, Elisa (USANJ) <Elisa.Wiygul@usdoj.gov>
Cc: Ciobanescu, Ana R. <ACiobanescu@moodklaw.com>; Somsag, Nicole L. <NSomsag@moodklaw.com>;
newyorklawyer@msn.com; yoelweisshaus@gmail.com; eschwalb@koffskyschwalb.com; sholomw@bergpllc.com; 4888-
1742-9986@mail.vault.netdocuments.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Civil Action subpoena directed to Henry Mazurek, related to USA v. Spitzer et al. Case No: 24-
528 (ESK)
Good afternoon,
I hope you’re well. We are following up on the subpoena. We are meant to provide an update to the Court this
Friday, 5/15.
All parties to the civil action are included here for their awareness ahead of the update.
Please advise at your earliest convenience. Thank you!
1
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 27 of 36 PageID: 855
Best,
Gabrielle
Gabrielle D. D'Amato
Attorney at Law
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.
646-454-4896 Direct
212-967-0080 Office
gdamato@moodklaw.com
From: Koenigsberg, Gary L. <GKoenigsberg@moodklaw.com>
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 12:42 PM
To: Wiygul, Elisa (USANJ) <Elisa.Wiygul@usdoj.gov>
Cc: Ciobanescu, Ana R. <ACiobanescu@moodklaw.com>; D'Amato, Gabrielle D. <GDamato@moodklaw.com>; Somsag,
Nicole L. <NSomsag@moodklaw.com>
Subject: RE: Civil Action subpoena directed to Henry Mazurek, related to USA v. Spitzer et al. Case No: 24-528 (ESK)
Hi Elisa. Any update on this issue? We are supposed to provide an update to the Court one week from
today.
Gary L. Koenigsberg
Attorney at Law
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.
856-406-1305 Direct
856-663-4300 Office
gkoenigsberg@moodklaw.com
From: Koenigsberg, Gary L.
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 2:37 PM
To: 'Wiygul, Elisa (USANJ)' <Elisa.Wiygul@usdoj.gov>
Cc: Ciobanescu, Ana R. <ACiobanescu@moodklaw.com>; D'Amato, Gabrielle D. <GDamato@moodklaw.com>; Somsag,
Nicole L. <NSomsag@moodklaw.com>
Subject: RE: Civil Action subpoena directed to Henry Mazurek, related to USA v. Spitzer et al. Case No: 24-528 (ESK)
Yes, no objection. Thank you Elisa!
Gary L. Koenigsberg
Attorney at Law
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.
2
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 28 of 36 PageID: 856
856-406-1305 Direct
856-663-4300 Office
gkoenigsberg@moodklaw.com
From: Wiygul, Elisa (USANJ) <Elisa.Wiygul@usdoj.gov>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 2:00 PM
To: Koenigsberg, Gary L. <GKoenigsberg@moodklaw.com>
Cc: Ciobanescu, Ana R. <ACiobanescu@moodklaw.com>; D'Amato, Gabrielle D. <GDamato@moodklaw.com>; Somsag,
Nicole L. <NSomsag@moodklaw.com>
Subject: RE: Civil Action subpoena directed to Henry Mazurek, related to USA v. Spitzer et al. Case No: 24-528 (ESK)
* External Sender * use caution
Gary,
Thank you for this information. I will need to look into exactly what materials the Meister Seelig firm has
that would be responsive to the subpoena. Am I correct that you have no objection to my sharing your
attachment with counsel for Spitzer, anyone else with an interest (e.g., any source from which the
Government may have obtained a responsive record), and others within the Government (e.g., FBI)?
Thanks,
Elisa
Elisa T. Wiygul
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s O ice for the District of New Jersey
401 Market Street, 4th Floor
Camden, NJ 08101
Desk: (856) 968-4929
Cell: (862) 754-2206
elisa.wiygul@usdoj.gov
From: Koenigsberg, Gary L. <GKoenigsberg@moodklaw.com>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 12:32 PM
To: Wiygul, Elisa (USANJ) <Elisa.Wiygul@usdoj.gov>
Cc: Ciobanescu, Ana R. <ACiobanescu@moodklaw.com>; D'Amato, Gabrielle D. <GDamato@moodklaw.com>; Somsag,
Nicole L. <NSomsag@moodklaw.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Civil Action subpoena directed to Henry Mazurek, related to USA v. Spitzer et al. Case No: 24-528
(ESK)
3
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 29 of 36 PageID: 857
Ms. Wiygul, it was a pleasure speaking with you on the phone a few minutes ago. This o ice represents
Defendants, Dekel Title, Abraham Teitelbaum and Jehuda Weisz in a civil action pending in the United
States District Court Eastern District of New York (22-cv-4873) related to the criminal action referenced
above wherein you are the Assistant US attorney assigned to the case. I attach hereto letter to the
Magistrate Judge in the civil matter, copy of a subpoena seeking videotape evidence from defendant
Spitzer’s counsel and copy of counsel’s objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on the
basis of a Consent Protective Order issued by the Presiding Judge in the criminal case. Can you please
advise whether the US attorney would consent to Mr. Spitzer’s counsel complying with the subpoena and
modifying the consent protective order for the purpose of use of the videotape evidence in the pending
civil action in the Eastern District of New York? Please advise further at your earliest
convenience. Thank you.
Gary L. Koenigsberg
Attorney at Law
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.
Cherry Tree Corporate Center Suite 501 535 Route 38 East
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
856-406-1305 Direct | 856-663-4300 Office | 856-663-4439 Fax | gkoenigsberg@moodklaw.com
Pennsylvania • New Jersey • New York • Delaware • Maryland
This message and any documents accompanying it contain information from the law firm of Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. which may be
confidential and/or legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the original addressee. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, forwarding, downloading, printing, copying, distribution or the taking of any action
in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail or telephone and destroy the original transmission and attachments.
4
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 30 of 36 PageID: 858
EXHIBIT “D”
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 31 of 36 PageID: 859
AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Eastern
__________District of of
District New York
__________
1567 56TH STREET, LLC et al
)
Plaintiff )
v. ) Civil Action No. 22-4873-CV
)
ARTHUR SPITZER, et al
)
Defendant )
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS
OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: Aharon Braun
(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed)
✔
’ Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following
documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the
material:
Any and all video footage of or relating to Rabbi Shlomo Braun taken in or around August 2019.
Place: Date and Time:
Via email to gdamato@moodklaw.com and/or
600 Third Avenue, Suite 1501, New York, NY 10016 06/14/2026 12:00 pm
’ Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or
other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party
may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.
Place: Date and Time:
The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached – Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance;
Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to
respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.
Date: 05/15/2026
CLERK OF COURT
OR
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney’s signature
The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) JEHUDA WEISZ,
DEKEL ABSTRACT LLC, ABRAHAM TEITELBAUM , who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
Gabrielle D. D'Amato, Esq., Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.,600 Third Avenue, Suite 1501, New York,
New York 10016; gdamato@moodklaw.com.
Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena
If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the
inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before
it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 32 of 36 PageID: 860
AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 22-4873-CV
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)
on (date) .
’ I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:
.
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also
tendered to the witness the fees for one day’s attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
$ .
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Wayne Nuessle, President
Printed name and title
Gold Investigations, Inc.
P.O. Box 536
Tarrytown, New York 10591; (914) 420-7895
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.:
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 33 of 36 PageID: 861
AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action(Page 3)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)
(c) Place of Compliance. (ii) disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does
not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s
(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a study that was not requested by a party.
person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: (C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances
(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or
regularly transacts business in person; or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified
(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly conditions if the serving party:
transacts business in person, if the person (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be
(i) is a party or a party’s officer; or otherwise met without undue hardship; and
(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial (ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
expense.
(e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.
(2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:
(A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These
tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored
employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and information:
(B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected. (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents
must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or
(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement. must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in
to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The
enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include person responding need not produce the same electronically stored
lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees—on a party or attorney who information in more than one form.
fails to comply. (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person
responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to order, the person responding must show that the information is not
permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is
production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the
hearing, or trial. requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated
in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to (A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information
producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for material must:
compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, (i) expressly make the claim; and
the following rules apply: (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself
may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
order compelling production or inspection. (B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as
order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party
significant expense resulting from compliance. that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the
compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; present the information under seal to the court for the district where
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who
specified in Rule 45(c); produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no resolved.
exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (g) Contempt.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a The court for the district where compliance is required—and also, after a
subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion is transferred, the issuing court—may hold in contempt a person
motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires: who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, subpoena or an order related to it.
development, or commercial information; or
For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013).
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 34 of 36 PageID: 862
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 35 of 36 PageID: 863
D'Amato, Gabrielle D.
From: Rebecca Braun <ziporahjewelers@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 12:31 PM
To: D'Amato, Gabrielle D.
Subject: Re: Subpoena Compliance //1567 56th Street, LLC et al. v. Abraham Teitelbaum et al.//
1:22-cv-04873-KAM-CHK
* External Sender * use caution
I have no video and I have no idea what the hell you want from my life. Please leave me alone.
On Jun 30, 2026, at 11:44 AM, D'Amato, Gabrielle D. <GDamato@moodklaw.com> wrote:
Good afternoon,
This is our final attempt to obtain your compliance regarding the attached subpoena. Should
you fail to respond by close of business tomorrow, July 1, we will be filing a motion to compel
your response on July 2.
Best,
Gabrielle D. D'Amato
Attorney at Law
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.
646-454-4896 Direct
212-967-0080 Office
gdamato@moodklaw.com
<image001.png>
From: D'Amato, Gabrielle D.
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 9:48 AM
To: 'ziporahjewelers@aol.com' <ziporahjewelers@aol.com>
Cc: Koenigsberg, Gary L. <GKoenigsberg@moodklaw.com>; Somsag, Nicole L.
<NSomsag@moodklaw.com>
Subject: Subponea Compliance //1567 56th Street, LLC et al. v. Abraham Teitelbaum et al.// 1:22-cv-
04873-KAM-CHK
Good morning,
I’m reaching out to follow up on our previous message. If we do not receive a response, we will
be moving to compel your response at the direction of the Court by the end of next week.
Failure to comply risks monetary sanctions and being held in contempt of court.
1
Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK Document 186 Filed 08/21/26 Page 36 of 36 PageID: 864
Please be guided accordingly.
Best,
Gabrielle D. D'Amato
Attorney at Law
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.
646-454-4896 Direct
212-967-0080 Office
gdamato@moodklaw.com
<image001.png>
From: D'Amato, Gabrielle D.
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 11:48 AM
To: 'ziporahjewelers@aol.com' <ziporahjewelers@aol.com>
Cc: Koenigsberg, Gary L. <GKoenigsberg@moodklaw.com>
Subject: Subponea Compliance //1567 56th Street, LLC et al. v. Abraham Teitelbaum et al.// 1:22-cv-
04873-KAM-CHK
Hello,
I hope you are well. By way of introduction, my name is Gabrielle D’Amato. My office
represents the defendants, Abraham Teitelbaum, Jehuda Weisz, and Dekel Abstract LLC, in the
above-referenced matter. We are attempting to obtain Mr. Aahron Bruan’s compliance with a
subpoena we served him with regard to the above-referenced action, attached. For clarity, Mr.
Braun is not party to the above-referenced action.
Please advise when we can expect Mr. Braun’s compliance so that we may avoid unnecessary
motion practice.
Thank you.
Warm regards,
Gabrielle D. D'Amato
Attorney at Law
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.
600 Third Avenue Suite 1501
New York, NY 10016
646-454-4896 Direct | 212-967-0080 Office | 212-967-0082 Fax | gdamato@moodklaw.com
Pennsylvania • New Jersey • New York • Delaware • Maryland
<image001.png>
This message and any documents accompanying it contain information from the law firm of Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.
which may be confidential and/or legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the original
addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, forwarding, downloading, printing, copying,
distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or telephone and destroy the original transmission and attachments.
<Aharon Braun - Affidavit of Service 4914-7415-5186.1.pdf>
<DSC - Subpoena to A. Braun 4922-3631-5308.1 4926-9025-3740.1.pdf>
2
File and source
- File
- 186.pdf
- Size
- 7,838,439 bytes
- SHA-256
- 654ac33e7ea050cb61bd3faee7ce85de8c8d960a826261c15b8a53c688d5b6e5
- Our copy
- 186.pdf
- Original
- No public link identified.