Skip to comments.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.
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.
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 ...
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.
This is nothing short of kidnapping and extortion.
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.
This is why you could’nt give me a registered gun!!
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
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.
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.
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.
What witnesses? Not mentioned in this article.
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.
What third world socialist banana republic did this occur in?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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!
...name says it all.
They don’t need to interview a bunch of witnesses if she made a threat openly in public.
Because they people in the meeting called it in.
Maybe you should try reading the article before forming an opinion on the subject of the article?
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 know a lot of people who are simply afraid to speak up..they better learn to while they still can!
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.
You know this, how? Back it up please. If they did and it was reported, then the arrest was on the up and up.
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?
Who did call it in?
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.
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.
So you don’t know who called it in.
"Because they people in the meeting called it in."
I did not post that, you did. Answer your own question.
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.
I would expect an investigation. I would not expect a person to be arrested from an accusation over the phone.
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.
The speaking up ship has long since sailed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.