I am not sure how this following mistake was made, but I will assume it wasn't with malicious intent. I read the 2 letters in Hebrew above, and to my utter dismay I discovered that they say PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE OF THAT WHICH IS BEING REPORTED HERE! the first letter, dated 13 nissan, has rabbis Gold and Flohr DEFENDING Mr. Kellner by stating that he went to court by a rabbinical ruling. Not THEIR ruling, but by an unnamed (by Gold and Flohr) rabbinical advice. (multiple distortions have been made in the article above regarding this.) In the 2nd letter, dated on the first of chol hammoed, they retract their previous defense, by saying that further investigation has revealed that Mr. Kellner had not consulted with Rabbonim before going to court. I just want to clarify the facts that were distorted. I suggest the Moderator reread the two letters and see for himself whether I am right or wrong.