Picture Of The Day: 10-15-09

by
Whos giving these orders and Why?

Whos giving these orders and Why?

Fresh out of the WIS Inbox.
The message that came with these photos came as follower.

“As I was Photographing these trucks parked the way they are, one of the Jewish (Lady) residents living on this block (Empire between N.Y. and Brooklyn), was entering her car, as she enters she looks at me and says “THANK YOU””

Pump - Yankle Spritzer trucks-A-1 merchandising-Illegal  ParkingYankle Spritzer trucks-A-1 merchandising-Illegal  ParkingYankle Spritzer trucks-A-1 merchandising-Illegal  Parking (1)Yankle Spritzer trucks-A-1 merchandising-Illegal  Parking (2)Yankle Spritzer trucks-A-1 merchandising-Illegal  Parking (3)Yankle Spritzer trucks-A-1 merchandising-Illegal  Parking (4)Yankle Spritzer trucks-A-1 merchandising-Illegal  Parking (5)Yankle Spritzer trucks-A-1 merchandising-Illegal  Parking (6)Yankle Spritzer trucks-A-1 merchandising-Illegal  Parking (7)Yankle Spritzer trucks-A-1 merchandising-Illegal  Parking (8)Yankle Spritzer trucks-A-1 merchandising-Illegal  Parking (9)Yankle Spritzer trucks-A-1 merchandising-Illegal  Parking (10)Yankle Spritzer trucks-A-1 merchandising-Illegal  Parking (13)Yankle Spritzer trucks-A-1 merchandising-Illegal  Parking (14)

About these ads

Tags: ,

6 Responses to “Picture Of The Day: 10-15-09”

  1. WhoIsShmira? Says:

    I find it strange that half a block away at Empire Kosher the truck drivers are seen standing and watching nervously by their truck afraid of maybe getting a ticked for unloading by a pump, which happens to be right in front of the store.
    The trucks i’m talking about by empire kosher are not even double parked or parked on the island. all they are doing is standing by a pump.

    Down the block by Spritzer is another story,nobody’s nervous, nobody’s watching, Spritzer does what he wants.
    Double park, standing on the island and parking by pumps.

    How likely do you think it is that people may have complaint about the trucks at Empire Kosher?
    Very unlikely.

    How likely is it that neighbors have been complaining about Spritzer illegal parking for years and years?
    Likely or not, its a fact that they have.

  2. Machne Menachem Says:

    From actual testimony given by some good officers.

    From the moment we got the new inspector, Mr. Peter Simmonetti, Yankle Spritzer, Chanina Sperlin and co. got to working on him by filling the inspector with vile hate and venom about other Jewish members of our community.

    They gave him the (propaganda) story about the camp, they told him about the so called “Hershkop Mafia” etc… About how the Hershkop Father (Meir) stole a camp etc…
    At some time or another Mr. Peter Simmonetti made it a point to give his officers (who are friendly with the Hershkops) to stay away, “don’t talk” etc.. with the Hershkop, Because of the above mentioned propaganda.

    Once i heard this, I made it a point to give Mr. Peter Simmonetti a copy of Judge Glassers final verdict against Yankle Spritzer. I dropped it off at the precinct, there is no reason he would not receive it. Also printed was the address to my site (http://www.machnemenachem.com).
    So now we know that the inspector knows who Yankle Spritzer and his friends are, and still he works with them to conspire against others in the community.

    In case Im wrong (and for some unknown reason the inspector did not get my package), lets remind him a little…. (next comment)…

  3. Machne Menachem Says:

    Short Version of Judge Glasser Final Verdict Against Yaakov Spritzer:

    On May 6, 1997, the plaintiffs, a not-for-profit Corporation and Yaakov Spritzer, filed a complaint against seven named defendants consisting of 167 paragraphs extending over 50 pages and asserting eleven claims as follows: I) RICO, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1962(b); II) RICO, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); III) RICO, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); IV) RICO, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); V) Tortuous Interference with Contractual Relations; VI) Fraud; VII) Conversion; VIII) Unfair Competition; IX) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; X) Assault; XI) Intentional damages to property. To characterize the complaint as prolix, replete with hearsay and irrelevancies, would be charitable.

    Plaintiff Spritzer was then called as a witness.
    His testimony is revealing in several respects. A careful and critical reading of it corroborated in eloquent detail the testimony of Shmuel and Mendel to the effect that Spritzer arrogated to himself the management of the Corporation. His direct testimony is consistent with the testimony of the prior three defendants [Hershkop, Heber and Goldman]…

    Most revealing, if not disturbing, was the testimony elicited from Spritzer upon cross- examination,….

    A careful examination of the returns for the years 1996-1998 give rise to questions to which answers that were less than satisfactory were offered by Spritzer.
    As has already been indicated, the proceeding was stayed from the conclusion of the testimony on October 31st, 2001, until May 13th, 2002, when the stay required by the filing of the bankruptcy petition was lifted and the direct testimony of Spritzer was resumed.
    Returning to the “Miscellaneous Statements”…

    On Schedule D, Spritzer is listed as a secured creditor in the amount of $1,131,675, which is $131,675 in excess of the mortgage he holds for one million dollars and he surmised that the excess must be an unsecured loan. One can’t help but conclude upon reading his testimony about the schedules submitted to the Bankruptcy Court that the information they contain is of questionable accuracy and the record of monies received and monies disbursed represent a haphazard hodgepodge of speculation.

    The conclusion that is compelled by his testimony is that the affairs of the Corporation were conducted by Spritzer as though it was his personal fiefdom with occasional allusions to board approval at meetings which are nowhere documented and by resolutions which were adopted and action taken only because Spritzer divines that they were.

    The vigorous assertion by Spritzer that Goldman, Heber and Mendel breached a fiduciary duty they owed Machne Menachem by a fleeting involvement in Ohr Menachem upon which they embarked to provide a summer camp experience for some children of Crown Heights who would not otherwise have had it pales into insignificance when compared with the total disregard for the obligation of a director with which this record of self-dealing and financial legerdemain reeks.

    Throughout his testimony, Spritzer asserted that meetings were held by him and Schreiber or by him, Schreiber and Spalter, at which corporate action was approved and yet neither Schreiber nor Spalter were called by him in support of those assertions.

    The summary of the testimony as discussed above would be correctly interpreted by the reader as conveying an unequivocal skepticism of Spritzer’s testimony regarding prior approval and authorization of his virtually unilateral action on behalf of the camp and the Corporation.

    I have previously alluded to the comparative breaches of fiduciary duty by Spritzer which, at the very least, makes his airing of them noisome.

    The evidence established convincingly for this Court that what is alleged to be their abandonment was, instead, what I have analogized to be their constructive eviction by Spritzer.

    The foregoing findings of fact drive the Court to conclude that Joseph Goldman, Mendel Hershkop and Shmuel Heber are still, as a matter of law, directors of Machne Menachem, Inc.

    The foregoing constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court has considered the arguments advanced in the brief of the plaintiff Corporation which requires no discussion by the Court in addition to what has been written and which, the Court, in any event, finds unpersuasive.

    For the full version of the verdict Visit: http://www.machnemenachem.com

    More directly:
    http://machanemenachem.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/after-7-hard-years-in-federal-court-judge-leo-glasser-hands-out-a-verdict/

    Yankle Spritzer is a Ganev and mossier! Why would anybody be working with him? What is the inspector getting in exchange for harassing the Hershkop Family and the beautiful organization they run (Shomrim volunteer/Chesed or organization)?.

  4. Eli poltofrack Says:

    it i known that nyc under bloomberg and kelly is corrupt like never before .

    and with kely favored friend fat schmuk schmukanetti taking from spritzer and his friends all the favore .

    i think federal should start investigate this place.

  5. john doe Says:

    The police here are disgustingly desrepecful to the coomunity, I have volunteered in other communities and the interaction with police has never come close to what I HAVE EXPERIENCED WITH POLICE OFFICERS IN CROWN HEIGHTS, the police here seem to think they are kings of the neighborhood, forgetting that they are public servants working for us, even sargeant troyce who is known by most as the most “nicest policeman” is a bully who wastes no time pushing around and attacking whomever he sees fit without the slightest of warning, Take for example this past labor day parade, a young black male crossed over the gate on the 770 side and was apparently ordered by troyce to get back over, not complying fast enough according to troyce’s standard, troyce grabbed the black male, pushed him up againts the gate, and called on other officers to assist him, one of the officers who was on the corner came running over, (of course he couldn’t know what “crime” was commited) with a fat cigar still in his mouth, swung a hard right hand punch at the black male while he was restrained. . That’s just one example of troyce attacking a black, and I have witnessed him attacking Jews unpovoked as well.
    Police work for us as public servants. They are not a private security company working for spritzer, sperlin, or the shmira cop etc.
    All community members are encouraged to carry cameras, and report any police misconduct in our neighborhood, being taking red lights without lights and sirens to get to the nearest dunken doughnuts or getting tickets or worse, for “political” reasons.
    The nypd has no qualms about calling itself the biggest legal mafia in history, lets put a stop on the crown heights police mafia.

  6. Yankle Spritzer Leis Says:

    “The conclusion that is compelled by his testimony is that the affairs of the Corporation were conducted by Spritzer as though it was his personal fiefdom with occasional allusions to board approval at meetings which are nowhere documented and by resolutions which were adopted and action taken only because Spritzer divines that they were”.
    (Judge Glasser Final Ruling Against Yaakov Spritzer)

    Funny how things ended up. Even the Rightful (majority) directors and owners could not work and get paid in their own camp. Except of course for Spritzer and his family.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers

%d bloggers like this: