Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

N.J. Mother Arrested, Guns Confiscated- By Attending Property Tax Dispute Forum
http://www.examiner.com/article/n-j-mother-arrested-guns-confiscated-by-attending-property-tax-dispute-forum ^

Posted on 03/11/2013 6:37:47 AM PDT by servo1969

Ms. Hart tried to explain, that Appraisal Systems, Inc. was attempting to inspect her property without her husband being present. As an Orthodox Jew, this is against the tenets of her religion. Her husband had to be present. According to Ms. Hart, she was unable to express this concern.

**snip**

When the Harts left the gathering, they were followed into the parking lot of the community center, and the same young man who had been so upset by Ms. Hart's comments in the community center, started screaming and shouting at her, took down the license plate number of her vehicle and said - "See if you are able to pay your property taxes NOW!"

Eileen didn't understand what that shouted threat meant, until she returned to her home with her family.

When they arrived, there were 5 police cars from the Franklinville Police Department. They advised her that the Clayton Police wanted to talk to her about the allegations.

**snip**

She was arrested and booked for "terroristic threats" and "contempt."

At the police station, she was handcuffed to a chair.

The cops ran a background check- and it revealed that she had absolutely NO criminal record. It also showed that she was the lawful owner of two hand guns. She was advised to turn in the guns over to the court (surrendered or confiscated) - and they would be held for "safe keeping." If she did not- she was told by the police- her bail would be VERY high. And- if she could not make the bail- she would sit in the county jail until an unknown date.

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: banglist; confiscated; constitution; eileenhart; gun; guncontrol; jew; orthodox; secondamendment; tax

1 posted on 03/11/2013 6:37:47 AM PDT by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: servo1969

ACLJ!!!!


2 posted on 03/11/2013 6:41:13 AM PDT by GregB (There is a whole lot of stupid out there. prisoner6!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
The cops ran a background check- and it revealed that she had absolutely NO criminal record. It also showed that she was the lawful owner of two hand guns. She was advised to turn in the guns over to the court (surrendered or confiscated) - and they would be held for "safe keeping." If she did not- she was told by the police- her bail would be VERY high. And- if she could not make the bail- she would sit in the county jail until an unknown date

This is why these NAZIs want you to believe that something so simple (to them) as a Universal Background check for ALL transfers of weapons is a reasonable option.

What they won't tell you is that Universal Checks NEEDS an additional database, a REGISTRATION of ALL guns. Thats next. With this data base, they'll be able to pull up that you have weapons from any frigging LEO computer and use it against you when a f@cking Democrat doesn't like how you think.

When they get tired of playing soft with you, they'll get round to just kneeling you down beside a ditch and blowing your brains out with your own guns with about as little regard they've shown with the 50 MILLION PLUS unborn souls they've aborted without one whimper or tear...COUNT ON IT.

3 posted on 03/11/2013 6:53:57 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
She was arrested and booked for "terroristic threats" and "contempt." At the police station, she was handcuffed to a chair.

This is nothing short of kidnapping and extortion.

4 posted on 03/11/2013 7:11:06 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Happy Hunger Games! May the odds be ever in your favor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
The complaint (in part) states: The State of New Jersey vs. Eileen B. Hart -"The Defendant was yelling and screaming and making the threatening comment. "If the door is locked. I'll be back with a gun." Ms. Hart denies she ever made this statement, as does her husband, Keith. However, this is how the complaint was written up by Clayton County Sergeant J. Dick- who, it may be noted, was not present during the meeting.

The person making the complaint has not been identified. If Mrs Hart can get together some people from the meeting who can testify that she made no such threat, then she has a course of action to file a complaint about the person filing a false police report, libel, etc.

5 posted on 03/11/2013 7:37:14 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

This is why you could’nt give me a registered gun!!


6 posted on 03/11/2013 7:39:20 AM PDT by heshtesh (I believe in Sarah Palin, the rest not so much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
The complaint (in part) states: The State of New Jersey vs. Eileen B. Hart -"The Defendant was yelling and screaming and making the threatening comment. "If the door is locked. I'll be back with a gun." Ms. Hart denies she ever made this statement, as does her husband, Keith. However, this is how the complaint was written up by Clayton County Sergeant J. Dick- who, it may be noted, was not present during the meeting.

This means the lying leftist punk is going to make her spend a few thousand on a lawyer while the lying leftist punk incurs no expenses. He just sics the police and court system on her and her husband. The police are often brain dead and robotically take the side of the first person making accusations (however unfounded)  in a dispute. Person B has to pay lawyers to get exonerated while accuser A just kicks back and laughs. Even if the accuser A is the real culprit... happens all the time

7 posted on 03/11/2013 7:44:52 AM PDT by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing --- Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

If this ever happens to you, use your cellphone to take the picture of the “young man”. Then, immediately e-mail it to yourself and others. Do this several times.

It is amazing how these fascists don’t like their photo taken and spread.


8 posted on 03/11/2013 7:59:42 AM PDT by Darteaus94025
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

This is why, when confronting unfair or even illegal government abuse, you always need to have an ally discreetly videotaping the event, and in this case, its aftermath.

The assumption has to be that they know it is abusive or even illegal, so are prepared to escalate, be even more abusive or criminal, when called on it.

Behaving politely is only for rational, fair people, not for scoundrels.


9 posted on 03/11/2013 8:02:51 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

My gut is that she is guilty. There are too many witnesses present for it to be a total fabrication. It’s hard to get that many people to all make up the same story.


10 posted on 03/11/2013 8:08:22 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

What witnesses? Not mentioned in this article.


11 posted on 03/11/2013 8:14:21 AM PDT by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing --- Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
My gut is that she is guilty. There are too many witnesses present for it to be a total fabrication. It’s hard to get that many people to all make up the same story.

That's not the gut feeling I get from this. Any liar knows that the most powerful lies are the ones that are mostly true but the liar tweaked a few details. My gut feeling is that we have a woman here who did get upset, who may have yelled, but did not make any threats and certainly didn't threaten to come back with a gun. Those details were tweaked by the punk who called the cops on her for disagreeing with him.

12 posted on 03/11/2013 8:16:33 AM PDT by Bryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

What third world socialist banana republic did this occur in?


13 posted on 03/11/2013 8:18:49 AM PDT by Rome2000 (THE WASHINGTONIANS AND UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE ARE THE ENEMY -ROTATE THE CAPITAL AMONGST THE STATES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

The implication in the threat was that she said it in the public meeting. “If you lock the doors, I’ll come back with a gun. “

The idea that some nameless faceless entity made an accusation probably wouldn’t cause the reaction of the police. If there were numerous witnesses, it would cause the reaction. The article is written to cause a specific conclusion by the reader. And it seems to have worked.


14 posted on 03/11/2013 8:25:39 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

When someone makes a false accusation, that person MUST suffer the same penalty that the falsely accused person would. That will stop false accusations.

In reality, these lies are never punished. Charges always dismissed.


15 posted on 03/11/2013 8:26:19 AM PDT by I want the USA back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

My money says that if she gets any witnesses, once their names and addresses are known, they will receive a visit, or visits, advising them to be very careful of what they say, because..... And if they say anything , it will parrot the party line.


16 posted on 03/11/2013 8:26:51 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Person B has to pay lawyers to get exonerated while accuser A just kicks back and laughs. Even if the accuser A is the real culprit... happens all the time

Like I said in #5: her lawyer needs to find out the name of the complainant, and sue for libel and making a false statement. If the complainant was anonymous, then that is a real issue, since that means that anybody can get anybody into trouble with police by making false accusations, and the system needs to be changed.

17 posted on 03/11/2013 8:31:38 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Darteaus94025
If this ever happens to you, use your cellphone to take the picture of the “young man”. Then, immediately e-mail it to yourself and others. Do this several times. It is amazing how these fascists don’t like their photo taken and spread.

Valuable advice. It's a good idea to have high-quality video of any meeting, and the people there, because you may not know ahead of time who is going to cause you trouble, and once he starts causing you trouble, you may not get the opportunity to get his picture.

18 posted on 03/11/2013 8:35:59 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
"The idea that some nameless faceless entity made an accusation probably wouldn’t cause the reaction of the police".

Are you serious? The police were waiting for her when she got home from the meeting. There is no way they got to the meeting place and interviewed enough witnesses to determine if actual threats had occurred before she was arrested.

19 posted on 03/11/2013 8:57:27 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
This is why, when confronting unfair or even illegal government abuse, you always need to have an ally discreetly videotaping the event, and in this case, its aftermath.

And also, if the meeting has turned contentious, and you have an irate opponent following you out into the parking lot, do NOT go to your car and give this person the chance to see what you drive and what your plate number is. Walk to some public place, call 911, and tell them there is a maniac following you and you are afraid for your safety.

It might also be a good tactic to keep a jacket or blanket in your trunk. When leaving, go to your trunk and take the blanket so that it drapes out of your trunk and obscures your license plate. Once you are clear and are sure you're not being followed, pull over, put the blanket back in the trunk so you don't get pulled over, and get out of Dodge.

20 posted on 03/11/2013 9:01:21 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

Where she lives it takes one wacka-doodle (who maybe has friends in the local PD) to make an extreme accusation (and lie his butt off) to get 5 police cars sent to her house. That’s what I think took place


21 posted on 03/11/2013 9:12:16 AM PDT by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing --- Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Assuming she is in the right she should sue the accuser and have him pay all lawyers fees than a bit moire. No way can or will the accuser remain anonymous, he precipitated serious stuff.

My guess is the accuser works in the public sector and knows a few police there. Lunatic lefty retired teachers abound in NJ, NY, PA...he might be one


22 posted on 03/11/2013 9:19:04 AM PDT by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing --- Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

If you’re carrying a firearm, don’t call attention to yourself! “Stupid is as stupid does!” If she’s an orthodox Jew and the government isn’t allowed to inspect her residence without her husband being present, how is it that she can attend and speak at a public forum without her husband being present? I don’t understand. Dealing with government-people requires than you be smarter than a box of rocks!


23 posted on 03/11/2013 9:34:51 AM PDT by old school
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
this is how the complaint was written up by Clayton County Sergeant J. Dick

...name says it all.

24 posted on 03/11/2013 9:36:48 AM PDT by Flick Lives (We're going to be just like the old Soviet Union, but with free cell phones!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Durus

They don’t need to interview a bunch of witnesses if she made a threat openly in public.


25 posted on 03/11/2013 10:03:46 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
How did they know if she made the threats in public if they didn’t interview anyone?
26 posted on 03/11/2013 10:18:20 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Durus

Because they people in the meeting called it in.


27 posted on 03/11/2013 10:20:12 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: old school
It states quite clearly in the article that her husband and daughter were with her at the meeting. It also states quite clearly that she was not armed at the meeting with anything but her pocket constitution.

Maybe you should try reading the article before forming an opinion on the subject of the article?

28 posted on 03/11/2013 10:27:25 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
“The people” at the meeting called it in? Who did? Were there multiple calls made? Was it the head of the company hired to access property taxes that she was questioning at the town meeting that called it in? Was it the town tax collector that purportedly told the accused to “sit down and shut up” one of the people who called the police?

If someone called the police and claimed John Smith made terroristic threat at a town meeting, should police arrest John Smith without determining if John Smith made any terroristic threats at a town meeting?

29 posted on 03/11/2013 10:34:26 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

I know a lot of people who are simply afraid to speak up..they better learn to while they still can!


30 posted on 03/11/2013 10:34:41 AM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Durus

No but if you were in a meeting with a group and someone made threats involving guns, would you want the police to investigate?

The lack of data in the article usually means the data doesn’t support the story.


31 posted on 03/11/2013 10:52:10 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Because they people in the meeting called it in.

You know this, how? Back it up please. If they did and it was reported, then the arrest was on the up and up.

32 posted on 03/11/2013 11:28:58 AM PDT by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

What were the statements that were deemed threats, that were the basis for the law enforcement actions and why were they demanding to inspect her property? What was the background for all of this?


33 posted on 03/11/2013 11:33:54 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doorgunner69

Who did call it in?


34 posted on 03/11/2013 11:50:28 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

It sounds as though New Jersey is trying to do new property tax assessments that require access to the property, rather than just a general reassessment based on market values. The up close assessment is most likely intended to look for permitting violations, which would potentially increase the value of the property.

In WA and many other states, they are using aerial photography to monitor permitting and storm water violations. They don’t do it in the cities, just the rural areas, where the assessor does not have access to the property. They also try to force small farm owners to sign what they call, farm plans, that grants access to the property by regulators and inspectors at any time. In WA State, tax assessors cannot enter a property without permission, must do their assessing from the street.


35 posted on 03/11/2013 11:52:49 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

That is what I asked you, since you seemed to know that it had been. The article just states some cop who was not there wrote it up.


36 posted on 03/11/2013 11:55:17 AM PDT by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: doorgunner69

So you don’t know who called it in.


37 posted on 03/11/2013 12:00:28 PM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
One more time, real slow for you, you posted this:

"Because they people in the meeting called it in."

I did not post that, you did. Answer your own question.

38 posted on 03/11/2013 12:04:22 PM PDT by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: doorgunner69

So who did call it in?

You don’t know. So why do you assume it was a baseless charge?

Because you want to believe it was a baseless charge.


39 posted on 03/11/2013 12:09:30 PM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

I would expect an investigation. I would not expect a person to be arrested from an accusation over the phone.


40 posted on 03/11/2013 12:11:28 PM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Where on Earth did the USA of 1980-1992 go? I mean it completely vanished it seems the night Al Gore took his concession back from George W Bush.


41 posted on 03/11/2013 12:17:45 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache (In a world where I feel so small, I can't stop thinking big.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

The speaking up ship has long since sailed.


42 posted on 03/11/2013 12:20:40 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Reminds me of a recent personal situation. My son gave me a very good pellet rifle for birthday present. We have a wide backyard easy for a 25 yd target range. I set up an enclosed big box target very well backed with a thin steel plate and 2 inch concrete blocks. All this against the wooden fence. I checked the internet for any regs as to shooting the rifle in my back yard. The only applicable regs that might apply concerned after reasonable hours. I called the police department and asked them about regs and was told I only could not be a nuisance to my neighbors. On one day my wife comes to me in the backyard and says two policepersons were at the door because a neighbor said I was killing birds. I showed the police my target setup and was advised by a young ‘look at me’ cop that I was in violation of code. We didn’t hassle. Luckily I have a place in the mountains where I can use my birthday gift.


43 posted on 03/11/2013 3:14:41 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Durus
If someone called the police and claimed John Smith made terroristic threat at a town meeting, should police arrest John Smith without determining if John Smith made any terroristic threats at a town meeting?

I would guess that the police would not show up in force like that if some unknown, anonymous person made the call. I'm guessing some official at the meeting made the call, and the the identity of the caller will be missing from the police report.

44 posted on 03/11/2013 3:50:27 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
So if some petty town official gets upset that some peasant dared to question them in a town meeting they can call the cops and have them arrested by claiming they made terroristic threats? Remember that they left the town meeting, went home, and cops were there waiting for them. There is no way cops got enough statements from people involved to determine if there was grounds for an arrest.

I don't know for a fact what happened here, but the facts in the articles are damning if true. Heads should roll. I mean that euphemistically of course. If I were suggesting violence against petty bureaucrats on a power trip I think tarring and feathering has been demonstrated as a good place to start.

45 posted on 03/11/2013 7:21:02 PM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Durus
So if some petty town official gets upset that some peasant dared to question them in a town meeting they can call the cops and have them arrested by claiming they made terroristic threats? Remember that they left the town meeting, went home, and cops were there waiting for them.

The interesting part is that to get from Clayton (where the meeting was) to the neighboring town of Franklinville, NJ is at most 4 miles. Figure at most 10 minutes. In that 10 minutes, somebody called the police, they looked up her license, got her home address, dispatched the cops, and five cop cars arrived. That's pretty prompt service.

I doubt a call from some nobody private citizen would have gotten that level of response.

46 posted on 03/12/2013 3:51:52 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
The interesting part is that to get from Clayton (where the meeting was) to the neighboring town of Franklinville, NJ is at most 4 miles.

Nah, that's life in the urbanized northeastern suburbs of the United States. The few times we've called the cops over the last few decades, there was an officer at my home under a minute. And at least two backups in under three. The one thing our high taxes do get is an extremely responsive police force.

I remember one time my wife called 911 because some guy was parked in front of our house for an hour. Just sitting in his car, minding his own business. But my wife thought he might be staking out somebody's home so she called. 911 here goes to a central dispatch. In under a minute, the cops from our local township called her. Told her the car was a fleet vehicle for xyz company. They'd have one of their cops drive by just to talk to him, but they expected he was just a salesman who'd found a quiet street to do some work.

47 posted on 03/12/2013 4:04:36 AM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson