I have been asked to provide the background of this blog. Here it is.

This so-called “rabbi” charged a WIDOW with TRESPASSING when he barred her from the YOUNG ISRAEL Aish of Las Vegas after she stopped donating to the YI when the “rabbi” tried to force her to bury her husband in a cemetery from which he received kickbacks. He was excommunicated when he refused to obey a summons to Bet Din. The excommunication was removed but then reinstated when the “rabbi” reneged on the Bet Din’s condition that the trespassing charges be dropped. Seven years ago NATIONAL COUNCIL of YOUNG ISRAEL committed FORGERY to hide the EXCOMMUNICATION of the “rabbi” of its Las Vegas branch by altering dates on the removal of the first seruv to make it seem to be later. Please see the timeline and documents at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByDyf3w55PRPbk1DaGVLaGVWNzQ/view?usp=sharing

Does it take this to get people to understand what the seruv on Yitzchak Wyne means?
Young Israel Aish of Las Vegas is violating halacha by engaging him as rabbi!

It as if they are serving what you see in this photo to anyone who comes to them.

1. The seruv from 6 MarCheshvan 5765 was mistakenly removed on 1 Kislev 5765 based on
• Rabbi P. Steinberg's testimony that Yitzchak Wyne did not receive the Hazmonos (Yitz Wyne lied to him) and
• the promise by Young Israel the trespassing charges against Mrs. Shalov would be dropped.
2. The seruv on 11 Tevet 5765 specifically says it was reinstated because
• the original seruv "was mistakenly removed due to incorrect testimony by Rabbi P. S." (Peretz Steinberg)
• Young Israel reneged. The trespassing charges against Mrs. Susan Shalov were not dropped!

Rabbi Peretz Steinberg is NOT qualified to tell anyone the seruv is invalid:

1. He is a single person telling people to disobey a Bet Din of 8 dayanim
2. He gave testimony to that Bet Din and accepted their removal of the original seruv so he is obligated to accept their psak that they later determined his testimony was incorrect.  Even though he feels he testified correctly he has no right to tell anyone to ignore the seruv on 11 Tevet 5765 since it is on the same case from the same Bet Din whose psak he accepted on 1 Kislev.
3. His testimony to a secular court was based upon a document that was blatantly FORGED as a supposed removal of the seruv.