DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on March 13, 2013, 05:00:22 PM
-
It'll be nice to hear the Government's version
------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Woman Arrested for Reciting Constitution at Tax Meeting
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 13, 2013
Police in Clayton, New Jersey, confiscated two guns from a woman after she complained about county government moving to raise her property taxes and inspect her property without a search warrant.
Eileen Hart of Franklin Township was arrested and charged with making terroristic threats, disorderly conduct and harassing officials from the Gloucester County Office of Assessment and Appraisal Systems, Inc.
A county tax assessor told police Hart attended a meeting held with Franklin Township residents to discuss a property revaluation program the county instituted to “bring all home values up to the current market value,” according to the South Jersey Times.
Assessment and Appraisal Systems told the Gloucester County Times last August the pilot revaluation program is not about raising taxes. “A revaluation is not necessary to raise taxes,” Ernest DelGuercio, CEO of the assessment company, told the newspaper. “It ensures everyone is paying their fair share – no more and no less.”
Residents have complained the assessment program violates the Fourth Amendment. In order to make revaluation assessments and determine the tax value of a property, company inspectors must enter homes and inspect them. If not allowed to do so, the company often assesses higher values on homes, leading to increased taxes.
Eileen Hart said she did not allow the Assessment and Appraisal Systems to inspect her home because her husband was not present at the time. She also cited religious reasons. Because it was denied access, the company revalued her property at a higher rate. Hart attended the meeting last weekend to complain about the revaluation and the arbitrary move by the county to assess the value of her property.
After she began reciting the Constitution to support her argument, an Appraisal Systems employee escorted her from the public building.
“I didn’t scream, I didn’t yell,” she told the Examiner. “I have the right to air my grievances against the government in a public setting. I’ve never threatened anyone a day in my life.”
“She also wouldn’t let me speak and told me to sit down and shut up and listen as well,” she explained. “That’s when the young man came toward me. I knew he was going to put his hands on me. I saw him out of the corner of my eye. I said to him ‘Don’t you dare touch me.’ Then they threw us out of the auditorium. The young man from Appraisal Systems, Inc. was the one going postal, and I believe if he had a gun, he would have shot me (and my family) on the spot. I was calm the entire time.”
A spokeswoman for Gloucester County said the assessor “has never experienced this type of extreme behavior from a taxpayer” and the police were notified, apparently because reading the Constitution is considered extremist and a threat.
Although Hart exercised her Fourth Amendment right by not allowing an inspection by government without a court-issued warrant, it did manage to violate her Second Amendment right by confiscating her firearms.
After police arrested her, they demanded she hand over her two guns, a .357-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver and a .40-caliber Glock for “safekeeping.” If she had refused, a judge would have set bail too high for her family to pay.
“I have permits for each of them. I applied legally, I got them legally,” she said. “Now I can’t defend myself. I never said the word ‘gun’ at the meeting. None of those people would have even known I was a gun owner.”
No outrage?? (http://www.infowars.com/new-jersey-woman-arrested-for-reciting-constitution-at-tax-meeting/)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(because the state required her firearms to be registered, they knew she had them. So even though she was no threat to anyone, nor threatening anyone, exercising her 1st amendment rights, criticising the Government for stepping on her 4th amendment rights, they decide to step on her 2nd amendment rights as well.)
-
Yea, let's check out this "threatening woman" that the Government feels compelled to confisgate her REGISTERED firearms
(http://static.infowars.com/2013/03/i/general/eileenhart.jpg)
-
A Franklin Township woman was arrested over the weekend after allegedly making threats about bringing a gun to a Gloucester County building, where she was attending a public meeting on tax revaluation. She later handed two guns over to police for safekeeping.
Clayton Police reported on Tuesday that Eileen Hart, 47, was charged with making terroristic threats, disorderly conduct and harassment.
http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2013/03/franklin_woman_threatens_to_br.html (http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2013/03/franklin_woman_threatens_to_br.html)
Tax meetings can get quite rowdy. And sometimes people say things in the heat of the moment that they might not have said in calmer moments. And sometimes they get arrested.
-
So, if there's any validity to the charges, we can expect an indictment...or plea bargain, ......right?
-
So, if there's any validity to the charges, we can expect an indictment...or plea bargain, ......right?
I think i linked to the local jersey paper if you are interested in a followup. I doubt alex jones will do the follow up.
My neighbor got arrested at one of the council meetings because of a tree ordinance that wouldn't have affected his lot at all. He just went off on one of the female councilwomen , made threats, wouldn't sit down when asked numerous times, and next thing you know he is in handcuffs and on his way to jail. Didn't even mention firearms, just said he would slap the "bitch silly".
Whatcha gonna do, some people just can't help themselves.
-
Per Mrs Hart, she did no such thing. And then her weapons were confiscated, because the Government knew she had them. If that's how it went down, you don't have a problem with that?
-
Per Mrs Hart, she did no such thing. And then her weapons were confiscated, because the Government knew she had them. If that's how it went down, you don't have a problem with that?
Her story does not match up with the jersey papers story. I guess the police report might shed some light on the incident. Most government meetings that include the public either have minutes or recordings that can be looked at also.
My first inclination is to not believe her side of the story. She reminds me of a code pink warrior.
-
My 1st inclination is to believe her side of the story, given the level of Government regulation/taxation/legislation in play
I guess the follow-up indictment or plea bargain will settle it
-
My 1st inclination is to believe her side of the story, given the level of Government regulation/taxation/legislation in play
I guess the follow-up indictment or plea bargain will settle it
Be sure to keep us posted.
-
Thats crazy
Just because the market value of the home has gone up , they shouldn't raise the taxes . It's not like the raised value is providing income for the homeowner. Now if the home got sold then it's worth raising the taxes. This system might encourage people to sell thier homes and leave
-
My 1st inclination is to believe her side of the story, given the level of Government regulation/taxation/legislation in play
I guess the follow-up indictment or plea bargain will settle it
Be sure to keep us posted.
Ditto
-
Thats crazy. Just because the market value of the home has gone up , they shouldn't raise the taxes . It's not like the raised value is providing income for the homeowner. Now if the home got sold then it's worth raising the taxes. This system might encourage people to sell thier homes and leave.
Kimba....I think that is pretty standard procedure for taxing authorities.
In Texas your property taxes are based on current values of the house.
Mine recently went down a bit due to the (democrat party caused) housing crash.
But for example my parents bought their house in 1963 for $24K
We sold it in 2004 for $250K
Are you saying they should have been taxed all those 40 years at the $24K value?
I think you're dreaming!
-
Most local government entities have an appeals process for higher appraisals.
This meeting wasn't an appeals meeting, it was an explanation of the process of reappraisals.
Usually a meeting is set with the tax collection office, where you meet with a mid level govt employee and you show that houses around you were appraised at a lower value.
The employee knows the process and if you aren't a pain in the ass will try to find a way to help you. But if you are a pain in the ass they can and often do say their hands are tied. Threatening to bring guns to the building would be a pain in the ass move.
-
unless, of course, such a statement was never made
-
numerous witnesses say different:
Clayton Police reported on Tuesday that Eileen Hart, 47, was charged with making terroristic threats, disorderly conduct and harassment.
Police said they were dispatched at about 10:22 a.m. Saturday to the Gloucester County Complex on Delsea Drive in Clayton for a report of a possible disturbance.
When they arrived, Sgt. John Dick was informed that the Gloucester County Office of Assessment, along with Appraisal Systems, Inc. were holding a meeting for Franklin Township residents to discuss the countywide property revaluation program that ASI was hired to perform in order to bring all home values up to the current market value.
County tax assessor Robyn Glocker-Hammond told police that a woman who had been at the meeting was asked to leave the complex for causing a disturbance and making threats about coming back with a gun.
Police said Hart wasn't at the complex when they arrived. Workers there gave police information about Hart and the registration of the car she was driving.
Clayton Police and Franklin Township Police located Hart, who lives on Harding Highway in Franklin Township. She was brought back to the Clayton Police Department where she was processed and charged. She was released on her own recognizance pending court, police said.
http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2013/03/franklin_woman_threatens_to_br.html (http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2013/03/franklin_woman_threatens_to_br.html)
-
I see 1 person, the Government employee on the recieving end of Mrs. Hart's complaints. Who are these other numerous witnesses, who claimed she threated to bring her guns? I'm missing that in the article you provided
-
Workers there gave police information about Hart and the registration of the car she was driving.
-
Information about Hart isn't "she was going to bring her guns back here". It could have been the color of her dress, her height, etc.
So, no you don't have numerous witnesses claiming she was "threatening to bring guns to the building". With the current facts as presented, at most you only have a she said she said, with the accusation coming from the Government employee on the receiving end of Mrs hart's 1st amendment criticisms.
You're going to need to do better than extrapalate what you think others may have said. I know you're good at that, but let's try focusing on what people are actually saying
-
Information about Hart isn't "she was going to bring her guns back here". It could have been the color of her dress, her height, etc.
So, no you don't have numerous witnesses claiming she was "threatening to bring guns to the building". With the current facts as presented, at most you only have a she said she said, with the accusation coming from the Government employee on the receiving end of Mrs hart's 1st amendment criticisms.
You're going to need to do better than extrapalate what you think others may have said. I know you're good at that, but let's try focusing on what people are actually saying
Get a copy of the arrest report to prove your case that there was only one witness. Normal police procedure is to get contact info from all those in attendance. And those names would be on the report.
-
So, I'm supposed to go by your say so, that those "workers" must have been giving information that Mrs Hart was "threatening to bring guns to the building", to support your claim of numerous witnesses refuting my position...........just your say so? I don't think so.
I'll advocate you obtain the same arrest report to back up this numerous witness account claim of Mrs Hart threatening to bring her guns. I'm going to go by what's actually been reported and said....I know, I know....what a concept, when its so much easier to make up what other people obviously meant to say or were thinking
-
at most you only have a she said she said,
SIRS....it looks like this same police department settled out of court last summer on complaints from a citizen that they made an arrest on "fabricated charges" that involved "applying excessive force".
http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/2012/08/clayton-and-elk-pay-20000-to-settle.html (http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/2012/08/clayton-and-elk-pay-20000-to-settle.html)
-
So, I'm supposed to go by your say so, that those "workers" must have been giving information that Mrs Hart was "threatening to bring guns to the building", to support your claim of numerous witnesses refuting my position...........just your say so? I don't think so.
I'll advocate you obtain the same arrest report to back up this numerous witness account claim of Mrs Hart threatening to bring her guns. I'm going to go by what's actually been reported and said....I know, I know....what a concept, when its so much easier to make up what other people obviously meant to say or were thinking
I don't see why you shouldn't go on my say so, since you expect us to take Ms. Harts word as gospel on your say so. And you are basing your claims on the incomplete story provided by infowars.
I have been in situations like that where the police were called to public meetings. Can you make the same claim?
-
at most you only have a she said she said,
SIRS....it looks like this same police department settled out of court last summer on complaints from a citizen that they made an arrest on "fabricated charges" that involved "applying excessive force".
http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/2012/08/clayton-and-elk-pay-20000-to-settle.html (http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/2012/08/clayton-and-elk-pay-20000-to-settle.html)
The townships got off cheap. and it is usually the insurance companies that make the decision to settle. The defendants usually have no say in the matter.
Again that comes from personal experience.
-
Never claimed you had to take Mrs Hart's word as gospel. I claimed you SHOULD consider what's said vs what's not. What's NOT been said/reported is that numerous witnesses claimed Mrs Hart was "threatening to bring guns to the building". That was solely your implied claim when you attempted to refute my reference "unless, of course, such a statement was never made".
You'll also note, wasn't a declaration of what did happen, more so what could have happened. But you were so intent, so focused to try and disprove what you wanted to think I was saying, that you've put yourself out on such a frail little accusatory limb, that you better hope the DA comes back with an indictment and Judge appointed court date, to resupport that limb.
That or at the very least, an arrest report that corroborates your vision of events
-
at most you only have a she said she said,
SIRS....it looks like this same police department settled out of court last summer on complaints from a citizen that they made an arrest on "fabricated charges" that involved "applying excessive force".
Interesting, although in this scenario, I don't see the Police as being the instigators, merely the tool being used by the Government, in this case, the County Tax Assessor's office......IF, the scenario turns out to be more inclined to Mrs Hart's version of events.
And was the question ever answered that if this does turn out to be Mrs Hart's version, should this not be extremely alarming??
-
actually here in sf I pay 1980`s tax with adjustment due to inflation of course.
I`m so used to california price I forget how much less homes cost anywhere else. Does this changing cost of property taxes affordable?
-
Never claimed you had to take Mrs Hart's word as gospel. I claimed you SHOULD consider what's said vs what's not. What's NOT been said/reported is that numerous witnesses claimed Mrs Hart was "threatening to bring guns to the building". That was solely your implied claim when you attempted to refute my reference "unless, of course, such a statement was never made".
You'll also note, wasn't a declaration of what did happen, more so what could have happened. But you were so intent, so focused to try and disprove what you wanted to think I was saying, that you've put yourself out on such a frail little accusatory limb, that you better hope the DA comes back with an indictment and Judge appointed court date, to resupport that limb.
That or at the very least, an arrest report that corroborates your vision of events
Methinks you project too much.
And I care little about Ms. Harts travails, for the reasons i gave up thread.
-
actually here in sf I pay 1980`s tax with adjustment due to inflation of course.
I`m so used to california price I forget how much less homes cost anywhere else. Does this changing cost of property taxes affordable?
It would be interesting to see what California's taxation level would be without Proposition 13.
-
Never claimed you had to take Mrs Hart's word as gospel. I claimed you SHOULD consider what's said vs what's not. What's NOT been said/reported is that numerous witnesses claimed Mrs Hart was "threatening to bring guns to the building". That was solely your implied claim when you attempted to refute my reference "unless, of course, such a statement was never made".
You'll also note, it wasn't a declaration of what did happen, more so what could have happened. But you were so intent, so focused to try and disprove what you wanted to think I was saying, that you've put yourself out on such a frail little accusatory limb, that you better hope the DA comes back with an indictment and Judge appointed court date, to resupport that limb.
That or at the very least, an arrest report that corroborates your vision of events
Methinks you project too much.
Naaaaa.........simple deductive reasoning, based on what's said vs what one wants to think someone is saying
-
What's NOT been said/reported is that numerous witnesses claimed Mrs Hart was "threatening to bring guns to the building".
And we know that at least one government official swore out the complaint of disruption and threats that happened in front of a roomful of people.
Wonder what the penalty is for a government official to swear out a false complaint. Wonder why she would think she would get away with it in front of that roomful of people.
************************************************************
Upon further research it looks like the Appraisal Systems guy swore out the complaint . The Tax Assessor apparently chaired the meeting.
Arrest report:
(http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Warrant2-001-620x559.jpg)
-
The woman, formerly a goofy well armed gun nut, is now a disarmed gun nut. I note that no one has been shot.
I see this as a positive thing.
-
What's NOT been said/reported is that numerous witnesses claimed Mrs Hart was "threatening to bring guns to the building".
And we know that at least one government official swore out the complaint of disruption and threats that happened in front of a roomful of people.
Yea, we've already established the 1 person who made the accusation about her supposedly coming back with a gun. Still waiting for the report of these "numerous witnesses", that you've referenced, that have corroborated that accusation
Wonder what the penalty is for a government official to swear out a false complaint. Wonder why she would think she would get away with it in front of that roomful of people.
Seriously?....Yea, because Government officials are never found making unlawful/unfounded testimony. Not to mention she could have provided the complaint out of both eye and earshot of that "roomful of people", not that the complaint was made to the police in that "roomful of people" The wording appears to logically claim that the "disturbance" occured in that roomful of people, but as the report also indicates, Mrs Hart had already left, when the Police arrived ::)
-
Eileen Hart's twitter feed (https://twitter.com/EileenHart1)
-
........and? ???
-
From the blaze (Glenn Beck)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/nj-mother-forced-to-turn-over-her-guns-charged-with-terroristic-threats-after-reading-the-constitution-at-tax-dispute-assembly/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share%20Buttons# (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/nj-mother-forced-to-turn-over-her-guns-charged-with-terroristic-threats-after-reading-the-constitution-at-tax-dispute-assembly/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share%20Buttons#)
-
........and? ???
Take from it what you will.
-
Nothing to take, just curious at the posting.
-
I found it interesting.
Looks like she took GUNS off her profile:
Eileen Hart (EileenHart1) on Twitter
twitter.com/EileenHart1
1,317 followers ·
6,795 tweets ·
Following 1,765 others
The latest from Eileen Hart (@EileenHart1). Orthodox Jew, GUNS, ... Twitter stores that location. ... Profile summary. Your lists.
-
Martin Goldstein ?@MJ_Goldstein
@oc_f1fan @EileenHart1 @JDL_UK At least she took "GUNS" off her profile. ;)
-
hmmm she is asking the JDL for legal help. Her innocence must not be a slam dunk.
Eileen Hart ?@EileenHart1
@JDL_UK @MJ_Goldstein @oc_f1fan JDL, we need to talk privately, need JDL's help, serious.
-
You really wanting to dig this hole? If you were wrongly being charged, wouldn't you WANT legal help?? good gravy. and what guns on her profile has to do with anything....well, at least you found it interesting. Your desperation in rationalizing these posts is nearly tangible however, and that I do find interesting
-
You know what i would want if i were guilty. High powered defense attorneys who could work a deal and keep me out of jail.
If i were innocent i would go get a local defense attorney and demand a jury trial.
But judging by her twitter feed we might be seeing the birth of a new Cindy Sheehan.
15 minutes of fame, start the clock now.
-
OR....if she believed herself being wrongly accused, she'd seek legal help ::) oy
-
OR....if she believed herself being wrongly accused, she'd seek legal help ::) oy
I believe in my post I stated legal representation should be sought no matter of guilt or innocence. My point was the quality of the legal representation sought and possible motivation for those choices. It was right there in black and white. See:
You know what i would want if i were guilty. High powered defense attorneys who could work a deal and keep me out of jail.
If i were innocent i would go get a local defense attorney and demand a jury trial.
-
They can turn her loose, so far as I am concerned, so long as she is disarmed.
She has every right to her day in court. But without arms.
-
OR....if she believed herself being wrongly accused, she'd seek legal help ::) oy
I believe in my post I stated legal representation should be sought no matter of guilt or innocence. My point was the quality of the legal representation sought and possible motivation for those choices. It was right there in black and white. See:.......
OR....if she believed herself being wrongly accused, she'd seek legal help.
Yep, pretty black and white ::)
-
Perhaps my point was too fine for your comprehension.
-
Your point was not too fine for anyone's comprehension.
Sirs is incapable of admitting that anyone other than himself is correct in any way. Perhaps it is a congenital problem, or maybe just a genital one, eg, he is a dick. ;D
-
Perhaps my point was too fine for your comprehension.
Ditto. Or perhaps Mrs hart just isn't as brilliant in legal matters as yourself. Yea, that must be it
-
perhaps Mrs hart just isn't as brilliant in legal matters
SIRS....isn't Ms. Hart "innocent until proven guilty"?
-
You would think, C, but under the current train(s) of thought, 1 poster has this apparent need to prove me wrong, even if its making up what I supposedly mean to say, and then try to debunk that, while the other doesn't really care what she's done or hasn't done, so long as her 2nd amendment rights have been removed
:-\
-
While Sirs is busy waving his victim signage, i don't know whether Ms. Hart is guilty or not. What i do know is there was more to the story than InfoWars felt fit to print.
-
Sure didn't stop the misrepresentations and attempts to debunk my reference of unless of course, Mrs Hart hadn't made any threats to bring her guns, with your no-validated/non-reported references to "numerous witnesses", having apparently reported that to the police.....at least per your say so Yea, not trying to push anyone's guilt there :o And the soruce of the thread also had a link to the complete story that you provided, so hardly them trying to hide something
Which of course, keeps missing the whole point of the thread, to begin with. But hey, if its strawmen and deflections you folks want to focus on, then by all mean, have at it
-
Perhaps you missed the remark in one of the articles or Ms. Harts twitter feed where she posted that she and her attorney want to talk to the witnesses at the meeting. My understanding is that MS. Harts honesty is not to be questioned so if she says there were witnesses , by gum, there were witnesses. So the point of additional witnesses is now settled.
-
A New Jersey woman was arrested after allegedly threatening to bring a gun to a tax meeting at a county building, NJ.com reported.
Eileen Hart, 47, of Franklin Township, was arrested and charged with making terroristic threats late Saturday during a public meeting on tax revaluation at a Gloucester County building, according to the website.
Hart was not at the Gloucester County Complex when police arrived, but witnesses provided officers with the registration of the car she was driving.
Hart was reportedly asked to leave the meeting after allegedly causing a disturbance and threatening to return with a gun.
From Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/13/new-jersey-woman-charged-after-allegedly-making-threats-at-county-tax-meeting/)
-
How bizarre. Perhaps you missed that no one is refuting that there were "witnesses". What's at issue is the notion that these "numerous witnesses", were providing contrary reporting to the notion that Mrs Hart was threatening coming back with a gun. That was the clear inference you provided in trying to debunk my comment (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/and-this-is-one-way-how-it-works/msg152289/#msg152289)
To this day, that claim still remains unsubstantiated, yet the misrepresentations continue to abound, a plenty, while the point of the thread continues to remain selectively detached
-
Do you believe the police spoke with the witnesses?
Do you believe the police Sgt would have filled out a summons if the number of witnesses substantiating the charges did not out number the witnesses who may not have heard it?
Do you have evidence that Sgt J Dick has a history of filing false summons? If so please provide that evidence, otherwise perhaps we are presuming guilt until proven innocent for him as well. These were your statements ?
I don't see the Police as being the instigators, merely the tool being used by the Government, in this case, the County Tax Assessor's office....
Seriously?....Yea, because Government officials are never found making unlawful/unfounded testimony.
-
Yea, I believe the police spoke to witnesses. And until otherwise reported, the ONLY one claiming that Mrs Hart was going to return with a gun is 1 county tax assessor.
Ball in your court, but cudos on the misdirection effort
-
Yea, I believe the police spoke to witnesses. And until otherwise reported, the ONLY one claiming that Mrs Hart was going to return with a gun is 1 county tax assessor.
Ball in your court, but cudos on the misdirection effort
Actually the Police Sgt filed the summons based on the remarks of the people (plural) interviewed. Also the person who called the police was the employee of Appraisals Systems Inc. The County Assessor neither called nor has the authority to tell the police what to do.
What is ironic is that Ms. Hart decided to recite the constitution on a matter that is delegated to the various states and through them local governing units. There is a vast disconnect between the way we believe government works and the way it actually does. Sad really.
-
All your speculation aside, To this day, the claim that that "numerous witnesses" reported that Mrs Hart was threatening to return with a gun, remains unsubstantiated. To this point, it's still only 1 person who made such an accusation. To this point, its still only a she said, she said. And if her version of events is what truly happened, THAT is not just sad, but tragic, as it relates to those concerned about the repercussions of gun registration
-
To this point, it's still only 1 person who made such an accusation.
I don't recall reading any where that there was only one witness or only one person who corroborated the claims against Ms. Hart.
Perhaps you can provide that to the class now.
-
Nor did I claim "THERE WAS ONLY 1 WITNESS". Again, with the misrepresentations.
Perhaps YOU can show the class someone, ANYONE, other than County tax assessor Robyn Glocker-Hammond, who either accused Hart of threatening to return with a gun, or simply corroborated Hammond's accusation
Ball in your court. If you have no one else, we're done with this....at least until more facts are reported. Current facts simply have a she said she said situation
-
Perhaps YOU can show the class someone, ANYONE, other than County tax assessor Robyn Glocker-Hammond, who either accused Hart of threatening to return with a gun, or simply corroborated Hammond's accusation
Perhaps you can show that it was Robyn Glocker-Hammond who made the complaint, because if it was, then the Appraisal Systems employee who was reported to have made the complaint would be the second accuser.
Either way your synopsis seems to be wrong.
-
Doncha hate when your own posts come back to bite yas (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/and-this-is-one-way-how-it-works/msg152290/#msg152290)
numerous witnesses say different:
Quote
Clayton Police reported on Tuesday that Eileen Hart, 47, was charged with making terroristic threats, disorderly conduct and harassment.
Police said they were dispatched at about 10:22 a.m. Saturday to the Gloucester County Complex on Delsea Drive in Clayton for a report of a possible disturbance.
When they arrived, Sgt. John Dick was informed that the Gloucester County Office of Assessment, along with Appraisal Systems, Inc. were holding a meeting for Franklin Township residents to discuss the countywide property revaluation program that ASI was hired to perform in order to bring all home values up to the current market value.
County tax assessor Robyn Glocker-Hammond told police that a woman who had been at the meeting was asked to leave the complex for causing a disturbance and making threats about coming back with a gun.
Police said Hart wasn't at the complex when they arrived. Workers there gave police information about Hart and the registration of the car she was driving.
Clayton Police and Franklin Township Police located Hart, who lives on Harding Highway in Franklin Township. She was brought back to the Clayton Police Department where she was processed and charged. She was released on her own recognizance pending court, police said.
Either way, my synopsis has never been challenged with any facts to the contrary. And as you have yet to demonstrate any other of these "numerous witnesses" to make a claim that Mrs Hart was coming back with a gun or even merely corroborating Hammond, merely your speculation of who said what, we're done here
-
Not really (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/and-this-is-one-way-how-it-works/msg152307/#msg152307)
-
Yes, really. I'm not sure the game you're playing here. I've made reference to this being a she said she said situation, based on the facts presented. You attempted to refute the claims by Mrs Hart, by referencing "numerous witnesses" also apparently heard her make these supposed threats. Strangely, you've not provided any names or specifics, just apparently your gut thinks so......based on.....because I guess sirs thinks the opposite. Here you have referencing a nameless employee, who, for all we know, could have easily been providing comments passed on by Mrs. Hammond, or without a name, may even Miss Hammond herself. And EVEN taking this as supposed gospel, hardly equates to "numerous witnesses"
Seriously, I have no problem acknowledging if there were other witnesses that reported threats from Mrs Hart. But lets see them and hear/read what they claimed Mrs Hart said. But until that time, I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, and for someone who apparently isn't looking for guilt of innocence in Mrs Hart, the amount of time you're trying to paint her as guilty sure digs a hole into that notion. By all means, you can keep focused on speculation, I'll stay focused on the facts
-
I've made reference to this being a she said she said situation, based on the facts presented.
The she being the Tax Assessment official Robyn Glocker-Hammond. But in the report we see that there was also a he said that being the young man from appraisals systems inc.
No it is not a she said she said situation at all is it is a she said - she said he said situation. Backed up by Ms. Harts very own claims. Ergo two complainants . Which i believe is contrary to your claims.
-
ergo, not "numerous witnesses", nor a name, so yea, until some more facts are presented, your speculations remain the forefront, ergo not contrary to my claims
-
Numerous as in any greater number of complainants than 1, because 1 is all you need.
And unfortunately Ms. Hart didn't name the employee of Appraisal Systems Inc.
These is not based on my speculation, it is based on during much more research into the matter than your InfoWars folks saw fit to do. Some information comes from Ms. Harts own words, some information comes from the Court Summons, some information comes from other news reports.
-
LOL....numerous is defined as very many; being or existing in great quantity...not 1. Nor is it Mrs Hart's obligation to name anyone. That would be the person(s) claiming "numerous witnesses" were laying claim to Mrs Hart's threatening gun tactics. But nice try
-
LOL....numerous is defined as very many; being or existing in great quantity...not 1. Nor is it Mrs Hart's obligation to name anyone. That would be the person(s) claiming "numerous witnesses" were laying claim to Mrs Hart's threatening gun tactics. But nice try
Now you are simply playing semantics. At least two people are documented as being witnesses to the complaint and their testimony runs counter to Ms. Hart. On to court.
And to answer your original question, no i am not outraged that Ms. Hart saw fit to turn in her guns. She was given options, she chose expediency.
I would be outraged if Ms. Glocker-Hammond or the young man from Appraisal Systems Inc. were shot dead for doing their jobs, even after the police were made aware of potential threats.
-
No, the semantics somersault here is you trying to redefine "numerous" as 1. Perhaps if you had started out with that, we could have had a conversation. And no, you completely missed the point I was making regarding the original point of the thread. Alas, we're done here....and yes, you may have the last word (unless of course you're intent on making more misrepresentations of what I've said, in which case, I'll withhold the need to rebut, until necessary)
-
No, the semantics somersault here is you trying to redefine "numerous" as 1.
There you go again. I never claimed numerous was 1. Why do you insist on misrepresenting my posts.
-
Because that is the way of the sirs.
Yammer on about how unfair everyone treats him until they give up and drift away.
-
LOL....needed a good laugh. Too funny to even try to seriously respond to. Thanks Xo ;D
-
.....and this is another way
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, there are four things that are really ticking me off.
They are …
#1). Broccoli. What a foul devil-weed that over rated sprig is, eh?
#2). Drivers who text while driving. I passed this metrosexual the other day in Miami on US1 who was swerving all over the road in his Prius like a gypsy on a three-day tequila bender. When I got up beside him, his nose was down, buried in his cell phone, drafting a text message at forty-five miles per hour. He was probably confirming an appointment to get his eyebrows threaded at JLo’s new salon in Midtown.
#3). Lesbians who hate men but insist on looking like one are really getting on my nerves, also. What the heck, woman? If you love the ladies well then … please look like one. Follow Amber Heard’s lead and quit making it even more confusing for the children. Think. About. The children. No more Flobees. Or stretch pants. Thank you.
And #4). I hate the Left's knee-jerk infringement into our Second Amendment rights.
Case in point: earlier this week, New Jersey cops and the Department of Youth and Family Services raided a New Jersey family’s home after the DYFS saw a picture of their 11yr.old son holding a .22 rifle on Facebook
Yep, that’s what caused them to show up in Kevlar to this kid’s casa. A Facebook profile picture of him grinning from ear to ear and holding the .22 rifle his dad had just bought him for his birthday. Eee-gads! We can’t have that now, can we?
That photo of a maturing young lad holding his first rifle, which, by the way, has been commonplace since the development of the Daguerreotype, is what spawned an illegal search and attempted seizure of a private citizen’s private property. The Left is truly loosing what’s left of its bereft and fetid head.
However, as batty as they are becoming, we mustn’t allow for them to make us the bad guy and cease being normal people who enjoy normal freedoms like giving our kid a .22 for his birthday and taking a picture of it.
Matter of fact, I say that not only should we mildly oppose their Gestapo like opposition to our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, but we should go the second step and cram up the very tailpipe that which they pooh-poohed this week; namely, take pics of our kids and grandkids holding their first rifle and show them loud and proud.
My daughter, Second Amendment activist and huntress, Regis Giles of GirlsJustWannaHaveGuns.com decided to rally support for this violated family and our nation’s distaste for DYFS and the NJ cops' unlawful behavior by calling her 50,000+ subscribers at GirlsJustWannaHaveGuns.com to submit a photo of their child or grandchild with a firearm of their choice.
According to Miss Giles, she will post the photos up on her website, starting Monday March 24th, for everyone and their dawg to see. She’s hoping that by doing this, we, the defiant people of the United-Don’t-Tread-On-Me-States of America, will send a much-needed, concerted message to the Department of Youth and Family Services and their ilk that if they want to pick on one of us, they’re going to have to pick on all of us.
Here is what she needs people to do:
Select a photo of your child/grandchild with a firearm.
Send it in an e-mail as an attachment to: updates@girlsjustwannahaveguns.com
Submit it by midnight Sunday, March 24th.
See it posted Monday on girlsjustwannahaveguns.com .
It’s past time we ceased to be cowed by these haters of our 2nd Amendment rights. Screw them and the horse they rode in on. (http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2013/03/24/hey-gun-haters-progun-girl-solicits-parents-for-pics-of-their-kids-with-guns-n1547301)
-
Yes, it is clearly time to arm the toddlers.
What the hell were you doing in Miami, sirs?
Or did you just copy this thing?
No one likes idiots who text while driving, but there are at least as many in Hummers, Armadas and Navigators as there are driving Priuses.
I have a feeling that Lesbians have a total right to dress any way they wish.
-
Yes, it is clearly time to arm the toddlers.
And where has anyone claimed that?? You and your army of strawmen. ::) You do realize that a toddler's age is between 1-3, correct?? This is about an 11year old, merely holding a firearm, and is perfectly legal.