Here’s the story as far as I know it. The following was told to me by a rav who currently resides and is respected and sought out within the Lakewood community, and is not considered “controversial.” Don’t take my word for it; ask around and verify the facts for yourself. Just don’t be naive. I am sharing it because it would be unfair to the parties involved not to.
Rabbi Knopfler showed up in Lakewood a few years ago and set up shop. Some people did not appreciate that he did so without permission from the establishment.
At some point there was a Mr. A who summoned a Mr. B to a din Torah at his Beis Din. Mr. B was a wealthy man with connections to a certain Rabbi X. Instead of going straight to the din Torah, Mr. B asked Rabbi X if he should bother doing so. Rabbi X allegedly told him he should ignore it, as Rabbi X was on the side of those people I mentioned earlier. This Rabbi X does not live in Lakewood, but he is highly respected by the Lakewood community to the extent that the average Lakewood rav will generally be mevatel himself to Rabbi X.
Undeterred, Rabbi Knopfler’s Beis Din issued a siruv against this wealthy person. The siruv also implicated Rabbi X for the advice he gave. This was obviously a very bold move on Rabbi Knopfler’s part, considering Rabbi X’s standing in the Lakewood community.
In response to Rabbi Knopfler’s supposedly unwarranted brazenness, a letter was issued by members of the establishment vilifying him and saying he is unfit to rule on matters and that his gittin are worthless etc. This letter was allegedly signed by many respected rabbonim in town.
Again undeterred, Rabbi Knopfler went and presented his case to R’ Elyashiv. R’ Elyashiv supposedly said that he was 100% right and that the idea that someone already qualified should need special permission from the establishment is untrue. Some time after this, a letter came out from one of the roshei yeshiva saying that Rabbi Knopfler’s Beis Din is perfectly reliable. Furthermore, the rav who told me all this was told by a leading rav in Lakewood that his signature had appeared on the original letter without his knowledge or consent. In other words, it was at least in some part a forgery.
All this is a couple of years old. Last year I was walking in yeshiva and I saw the original letter hanging up again – though not behind the glass where the official signs go. In other words it had not been officially placed there by the yeshiva. What it was doing there, I don’t know. This letter had already been retracted by its main signatory and claimed a forgery by one of its supposedly leading signatories. The rav telling me about this was under the assumption that it was nothing new; it was the same old politics.
I have not been updated since then. But this is the background as of a few months ago.