[skissane]

> If you look at the lawsuits against them, they almost all fit that pattern: someone (often elderly) who heard the kids singing on the radio, had a junk car, and figured they'd go help some underprivileged kids.

If they shifted their operations a bit, they probably could technically answer this criticism, even if in a way which wouldn't satisfy the critics.

Ultra-Orthodox communities such as Lakewood, NJ, contain lots of large families with many children, many of which formally fall beneath the poverty line – even though they generally have a lot of informal social support available to them which isn't reflected in the official poverty statistics. If they adjusted their focus to helping elementary school-aged ultra-Orthodox children from less well-off families, they could call that "helping underprivileged kids" – and a judge would probably agree with them - even if it isn't what many of the donors are thinking of when they hear the phrase "underprivileged kids"

[freejazz]

Laughing that you'd call a judge a critic. It wasn't criticism, it was a judgment!

[skissane]

You are misinterpreting what I was saying. Critics and judges are two different groups.

My point was, if they changed their operations a bit, judges would find it much harder to rule against – but that change wouldn't satisfy most of the critics.