And this is one way how it works.....

[sirs]

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     

[BT]

Perhaps my point was too fine for your comprehension.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[sirs]

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

[Christians4LessGvt]

perhaps Mrs hart just isn't as brilliant in legal matters

SIRS....isn't Ms. Hart "innocent until proven guilty"?

[sirs]

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

 

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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         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

[BT]

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.

[BT]

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

[sirs]

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

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

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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.

 

[sirs]

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