tyb!
Banker down- Jumper
Charles-Henry Kurzen, 43 years old, partner at Saltbox Partners LLC
French financier jumps to death from NYC balcony during apartment showing
May 26, 2022
"A French financier jumped to his death from a luxury Manhattan high-rise near the United Nations Thursday while taking a tour of a unit with a real estate agent, police sources said.
The 43-year-old man, identified as Charles-Henry Kurzen, plummeted from a 32th-floor balcony at 100 United Nations Plaza in the Turtle Bay neighborhood around 1:15 p.m. and landed on a third-floor patio, a police spokesman said.
The French businessman, who was living in Brooklyn, was touring the apartment when he asked the agent to show him to the balcony and “then suddenly jumped off” to his death, the sources said.
He was pronounced dead at the scene."
Kurzen, a financial banker and graduate from the Ecole Superieure de Commerce de Paris (ESCP) Business School, was a partner at Saltbox Partners LLC and had years of experience in the French and New York financial industry, according to the company’s website.
He had previously worked as an analyst in the Mergers and Acquisitions Group at Lazard Freres & Co. in Paris, the site states.
A coworker declined to comment when reached, but described him as a dear friend.
He was quoted in a 2004 New Yorker article as an attendee of “French Tuesdays” — a group of weekly parties hosted for French ex-patriots in New York City."
Sauce: https://nypost.com/2022/05/26/man-jumps-to-death-from-balcony-at-luxury-nyc-building/
Saltbox Partners: http://www.saltboxllc.com/
tis just a flesh wound..
The Police are Not Required to Protect You
June 26, 2016
“To Protect and to Serve[1]” – the ubiquitous creed emblazoned across millions of police cars throughout Los Angeles and indeed the United States. This motto is consistent with the common belief that police officers as well as other law enforcement officers are here to protect us. After all, we are all taught to dial 9-1-1 when we need help. Subject to narrow exceptions[2], the United States Constitution does not require law enforcement officers to protect you from other people, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. This notion contradicts our engrained perceptions, but it’s still the law today.
In the 1989 landmark case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the failure by government workers to protect someone (even 4-year-old Joshua DeShaney) from physical violence or harm from another person (his father) did not breach any substantive constitutional duty.[3] In this case, Joshua’s mother sued the Winnebago County Department of Social Services, alleging it deprived Joshua of his "liberty interest in bodily integrity, in violation of his rights under the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, by failing to intervene to protect him against his father's violence.”[4] While the Department took various steps to protect Joshua after receiving numerous complaints of the abuse, the Department took no actions to remove Joshua from his father's custody.[5] Joshua became comatose and extremely retarded due to traumatic head injuries inflicted by his father who physically beat him over a long period of time.[6]
Nevertheless, the Court found that the government had no affirmative duty to protect any person, even a child, from harm by another person.
“Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors," stated Chief Justice Rehnquist for the majority, "even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual" without “due process of the law.”[7]
The DeShaney decision has been cited by many courts across the nation and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Namely—on June 27, 2005, in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the U.S. Supreme Court again ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.[8] The decision overturned a federal appeals court ruling which permitted a lawsuit against the town of Castle Rock for the police’s failure to respond after Jessica Gonzales tried to get the police to arrest her estranged husband Simon Gonzales for kidnapping their three daughters (ages 7, 8, and 10) while they were playing outside, in violation of a court-issued protective order. [9] After Simon called to tell Jessica where they were at (in Denver at an amusement park),for hours she pleaded for the police to arrest Simon.[10] But, the police failed to act before Simon showed up at the police department and started shooting inside, and with the bodies of the 3 children in the trunk of his car.[11]
Sauce: https://www.barneslawllp.com/blog/police-not-required-protect
The Police arePOLICY OFFICERS
1/2
In her suit against the town, Jessica argued that the protective order stating “you shall arrest” or issue a warrant for arrest of a violator and that it gave her a “property interest” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process guarantees, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.[12] By framing their case as one of procedural Due Process and not of substance, Jessica and her lawyers had hoped to get around the 1989 DeShaney precedent. To no avail, the U.S. Supreme Court saw little difference between this case and the DeShaney case.[13] Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated that Ms. Gonzales did not have a "property interest" in enforcing the restraining order and that "such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property."[14] [15] The Court went on to reaffirm the DeShaney ruling that there is no affirmative right to aid by the government or the police found in the U.S. Constitution, and thus no legal recourse could be brought thereunder. [16] The “no duty to protect” rule remains unwavering and the law today.
Needless to say, the stories of Joshua DeShaney and Jessica Gonzales’ three daughters (and countless similar stories) are saddening, and the rulings seem to be at odds with our common and fundamental understanding that the police are here to ensure our safety and provide protection. One need only look to the door of a Los Angeles police cruiser to find those reassuring words. However, those words are misleading in light of these Supreme Court rulings.
Though alarming, we simply have no affirmative right to police aid, even when a person, including a helpless child, faces imminent danger. We are all responsible for our own personal safety, whether we like it or not."
2/2
(fyi- the same applies to IRS enforcement officers, when accompanied by CI, the CI agent is ONLY required to protect themselves so the rule was make sure the CI agent is VERY close and in the line of potential fire, just in case)
>glossy notecard he received today warning of "violent attacks"
A kindler gentler protection racket? Next comes the wrap up extortion "smear"?
> (You)
They're generic enough to slip in anywhere. Like "Martin Lewis" did (Henry Hill, Lufthansa heist, many others & lotsa murder)
Best fake name he could muster.
>Patricia Krenwinkle
"Tate–LaBianca murders
Main article: Tate–LaBianca murders
Krenwinkel was a participant in the murders on August 9, 1969, at 10050 Cielo Drive, home of actress Sharon Tate and her husband, director Roman Polanski.[5] After stabbing Abigail Folger, Krenwinkel went back inside and summoned Tex Watson, who also stabbed Folger. During her trial, Krenwinkel said, "I stabbed her and I kept stabbing her."[6] When asked how it felt, Krenwinkel replied: "Nothing, I mean, what is there to describe? It was just there, and it was right."[6]
Krenwinkel participated willingly in more murders the following night. Krenwinkel recounted during her December 29, 2016 parole hearing the events of the night of August 10, 1969.[7] Along with Manson, Watson, Atkins, Clem Grogan, Leslie Van Houten, and Linda Kasabian, Krenwinkel went to the home of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca where Krenwinkel, Watson, and Van Houten murdered the couple.[8]
When later questioned, Krenwinkel claimed the only thing going through her mind at the time was that "Now he won't be sending any of his children off to war." Before hitchhiking back to Spahn Ranch, the trio stayed a while in the LaBianca home — eating food, showering, and playing with the LaBiancas' two dogs.[9] "
stone cold killer without remorse
> (You)
Henry Hill chose Martin Lewis as his witness protection name, alias. And he proceeded to keep committing crimes while our tax dollars covered his sorry rat ass.
The absolute state of education
>mother
""He got into an argument with the grandmother and she was screaming, 'He shot me! He shot me!' and then he got in the car, zoomed down the street, there was some kind of crash, according to Trinidad," Newsy journalist John Mone reported.
"The suspect got out, he had two weapons, and then started engaging gunfire," he said.
After hearing the chaos unfolding, Trinidad headed over to Gonzales' home, where other neighbours discussed what was happening. Gonzales was listed in critical condition overnight.
As his wife lies in hospital, Ramos' grandfather Rolando Reyes said he is in shock.
He said he did not know that his grandson had recently purchased two AR-15-style assault rifles.
"I don't like weapons. I cannot be around weapons," the 72-year-old told US ABC News. "I hate when I see all the news, all those people that get shot."
Reyes told the station he has a criminal background and cannot have a weapon in the house, and that he would have reported the weapons to authorities had he known about them."
Those weapons were illegal to possess in that particular house. Grandpa is a felon.
Sauce/more: https://theworldnews.net/nz-news/texas-school-shooter-s-mother-breaks-silence-with-shock-claim