Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
F3SS

Mother Arrested for reciting Constitution?

35 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Even the small time government employees hate being told who they work for and what our constitution allows. Seriously though, if this all went down true to the way she said there are so many reasons to be outraged. So many things are wrong with how this was handled.

---Please click the link for the whole article. It's been snipped and all the good stuff is in there. What's been left here isn't of much interest.---

NJ Mother Pressured to Turn Over Her Guns, Charged With ‘Terroristic Threats’ After Reading the Constitution at Tax Dispute Assembly

A New Jersey mother was arrested and told to turn over her guns after reading the Constitution and peacefully protesting at a tax dispute forum, she says.

Eileen Hart was with her husband Keith and her 7-year-old daughter on Saturday at the Gloucester Community Center to dispute a mandatory home re-evaluation that would roughly double her property value (and therefore dramatically increase her rates), objecting on multiple grounds. As an Orthodox Jew, she refused to have the inspectors in her home when her husband was away at work. As an American citizen, she objected to the seemingly arbitrary reappraisal, noting that she is not planning on selling her home and hasn’t renovated her kitchen in 30 years.

But at the forum, Hart was allegedly told that since she didn’t let the inspectors into her home, the state has a right to “assume” its value.

*Snip*

Click the source link for a copy of the police statement.

http://www.theblaze....spute-assembly/

Edited by -Mr_Fess-
Reduced amount of copied text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like she should be more careful about what she says in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did she say that you think she shouldn't have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What did she say that you think she shouldn't have?

From your link:

"One of tax officials called 911 saying Hart threatened to return with a gun, but she unequivocally denies the claim."

I would imagine she would deny saying it. But I believe she did, being that her guns are the central focus of this story.

Edited by Jeffertonturner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She has a right to defend her property. She owns it and the State wants to fill there coffers off of her owning said property. Seems to me the assessors started slinging mud...Doubling a property value with the housing and foreclosure events of recent history is obscene.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I can see why they were upset.. after all she was quoting some pretty radical stuff...

I mean if people started following the Constitution there is no telling what would happen to this country...

We'll see what happens at the trial... If anyone comes forward and corroborates her story, then every single one of the officials at that meeting should be impeached... If she did threaten to come back with a weapon, then she

deserves to be questioned and detained by the police... but if not... heads should roll (figuratively speaking of course - I use to be a janitor, and believe me mopping up all that blood is no easy task!)...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops. I forgot the crowd I was dealing with.

I'll take my crazy facts & reality elsewhere.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But at the forum, Hart was allegedly told that since she didn’t let the inspectors into her home, the state has a right to “assume” its value.

“How could they assume that my value had doubled when there is absolutely no housing market?” she asked TheBlaze rhetorically over the phone. “There is basically no GDP growth.”

They do have the right to assume value. That's how it's done pretty much everywhere. Maybe she shouldn't have purchased a house.

On the other hand, doubling value is pretty insane. That's why we have elections and courts. So that people in government can be replaced and actions changed. You'd have to hope that she actually votes. And files a civil suit.

Going off in a public hearing really didn't get her anywhere but possibly in jail.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds fishy,

i know few thing about Orthodox Jewish community, I'm half Jew, but I'm not religious.

they don't have guns, it is against their religion, that is why Orthodox Jews don't serve in Israeli army, they don't touch guns. i think she was just trying to scare the tax man. dumb move, should have scared him with a large dog at least.

anything is possible however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From your link:

"One of tax officials called 911 saying Hart threatened to return with a gun, but she unequivocally denies the claim."

I would imagine she would deny saying it. But I believe she did, being that her guns are the central focus of this story.

Ha, I figured that's exactly what you'd say.

Oops. I forgot the crowd I was dealing with.

I'll take my crazy facts & reality elsewhere.

You don't have any facts. You have the article I posted. Maybe she's crazy, maybe she's not. I agree with what Tuan said. You're making up a reality to suit your views.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From your link:

"One of tax officials called 911 saying Hart threatened to return with a gun, but she unequivocally denies the claim."

I would imagine she would deny saying it. But I believe she did, being that her guns are the central focus of this story.

...suggesting that you yourself place more faith in the statement of a government official than you do in the statement of a fellow citizen....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gov or state doesnt much matter if they want what you have they will find a way to take it its always been like that and it always will be like that it's not right but really thats just the crouption bull ****

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ha, I figured that's exactly what you'd say.

You don't have any facts. You have the article I posted. Maybe she's crazy, maybe she's not. I agree with what Tuan said. You're making up a reality to suit your views.

Fess, don't argue with Jefferton Turner, it's a depressing waste of time. Everything said falls on deaf ears with that one.

Edited by WoIverine
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

his point was that you personaly would take a word of gvmnt officials over ordiary citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did she say that you think she shouldn't have?

There are two options:

The first is she made threats.

The second is less what she said and more what she didn't say, and what she didn't say that' s getting her into trouble is "yes, raise my rates however highly you want to, I'm a Sheeple and I do whatever my government tells me".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the first amendment right there, she can say anything she wants in public. Arresting her is basically infringing upon the amendment. As much as I hate some people who say stupid **** and traitorous crap, I can't call the cops and have them arrested because our constitution protects their rights too. God I hate the political correct b******* these days.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, I figured that's exactly what you'd say.

You don't have any facts. You have the article I posted. Maybe she's crazy, maybe she's not. I agree with what Tuan said. You're making up a reality to suit your views.

To be completely fair, you don’t have any facts either. All you have is a very one-sided article. You’re doing the same thing that you are accusing him of doing. There are 3 sides to this story: hers, theirs, and the truth.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It is the first amendment right there, she can say anything she wants in public. Arresting her is basically infringing upon the amendment.

No she can't. You do not have the right to threaten anyone’s life. If she did threaten to get her gun then what happened to her is just what she deserves.

What seems more likely?

That an angry person went there and calmly tried to fight an increase in her tax rates and that she was, for no reason what so ever, attacked both verbally and physically then arrested for no reason.

Or,

That an angry person said something that was a threat to the lives of the people there.

Edited by Odin11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like she should be more careful about what she says in public.

Heavens, one should not quote the archaic constitution in a facist country. I am surprised she was not sent to one of those internment camps they have all around the country. After all criticizing authority is a crime in many parts of the good old USA and dissent is considered a terrorist threat in the new world order they are trying to create.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No she can't. You do not have the right to threaten anyone’s life. If she did threaten to get her gun then what happened to her is just what she deserves.

What seems more likely?

That an angry person went there and calmly tried to fight an increase in her tax rates and that she was, for no reason what so ever, attacked both verbally and physically then arrested for no reason.

Or,

That an angry person said something that was a threat to the lives of the people there.

Knowing how money hungry beurocrats are I would think it would be the first scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

To be completely fair, you don’t have any facts either. All you have is a very one-sided article. You’re doing the same thing that you are accusing him of doing. There are 3 sides to this story: hers, theirs, and the truth.

I know and I said in the op 'if this is true' and I didn't pack up my bags yet and leave with my facts and reality. Maybe I'm a little biased against the gov but the details she provided about the story and about who she is seem to have some weight. To me at least. I wouldn't put it past any person to lie though.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I also have issues with how they set property taxes. You can buy a house with property taxes at a certain amount. You own the house for 30 years and have done and paid for work to be done to it. You may never plan to sell, but you are assessed what they tell you your house is worth. Even though there may be chance in heck of you getting that much out of it.

I think if the government charges you property taxes based of of their percieved value of your home, then they should be required to put up. You charge me $$ because you think my house is worth $230,000. Sold!!! Sold to the government for $230,000.

Edited by Myles
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea but they'd just buy up everything because people would sell like crazy. There's actually a lot that could go wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do have the right to assume value. That's how it's done pretty much everywhere. Maybe she shouldn't have purchased a house.

On the other hand, doubling value is pretty insane. That's why we have elections and courts. So that people in government can be replaced and actions changed. You'd have to hope that she actually votes. And files a civil suit.

Going off in a public hearing really didn't get her anywhere but possibly in jail.

Sounds like she should have just let the government officials evaluate her property. If she wants to maintain her privacy, she is welcome to it, but the government is going to err toward their side of the equation. What did she think was going to happen? That they would tax her LESS??

If you want to stand up to the government be prepared to take a beating for it.

I've heard of people that this happened to going to court with their own apprasal and winning easily, and having their taxes adjusted accordingly. The problem then is that it costs more for the lawyer and documents then it would to just pay the difference. And they are going to re-assess your property again next year anyway.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea but they'd just buy up everything because people would sell like crazy. There's actually a lot that could go wrong.

That's probably true. But if the government taxes me because they think my house is worth more than I can sell it for, they should be liable for the difference in some way. A study would be needed to make it work, but it's not the homeowner who did this.

The tax rate should only change if the homeowner changes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.