Glen Ridge Police Blotter: Fraud and Theft

Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010 9:03am  |  COMMENTS (20)

Last week’s big snow toppled two trees in Glen Ridge, Glen Ridge police reported.
One tree fell on a Clinton Road resident’s roof and caused damage but no one was injured inside the home. Another fallen tree was reported on Ridgewood Avenue shortly after. There were no damage to any houses or power lines and no one was injured.
March 1: A Park Avenue resident came to headquarters to report that they were a victim of fraud and identity theft. An unknown suspect made several charges with the victim’s credit card. This matter is being investigated by the detective bureau. Theft and fraud were reported by a person who left an ATM card at a bank on Bloomfield Avenue on Feb. 25 when an unknown suspect took it and used it to make several thousand dollars worth of charges.
Feb. 22: Officers reported to a Ridley Ct residence for a theft at 11:42 a.m. The resident reported that someone had taken jewelry from a bedroom. There were workers in the house when the theft occurred. The detective bureau will be investigating.

Related Posts:

20 Comments

  1. POSTED BY walleroo  |  March 02, 2010 @ 10:11 am

    There were workers in the house when the theft occurred.
    Case solved!

  2. POSTED BY RealHawker  |  March 02, 2010 @ 10:21 am

    Must comment on this….
    “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to back a major overhaul of U.S. health care even if it threatens their political careers, a call to arms that underscores the issue’s massive role in this election year.
    Lawmakers sometimes must enact policies that, even if unpopular at the moment, will help the public, ”
    Wow.
    Don’t listen to your constituents! You know better than them! Democracy or bust!

  3. POSTED BY Mike91  |  March 02, 2010 @ 10:41 am

    Don’t listen to your constituents! You know better than them! Democracy or bust!
    In this case, given the misinformation campaign currently underway, they probably do.
    And you know, we’re a republic. We vote for the leaders we think will represent our interests the best, not to vote the way we say on everything. A subtle difference, but still.

  4. POSTED BY Mike91  |  March 02, 2010 @ 10:44 am

    Sorry, we’re a representative democracy. I used the wrong term there, but the point is the same.

  5. POSTED BY RealHawker  |  March 02, 2010 @ 10:52 am

    Mike, so say I adopt your thought- “We vote for the leaders we think will represent our interests the best”
    - If I use this reasoning, and apply it to what Pelosi is saying: She is predicting a significant amount of those up for re-election will be at best: voted out in November, if not ever to have a political career “Threatened careers”
    Hence, the people will be saying in November: “I voted for you, but you have shown to not represent my interests best.”

  6. POSTED BY Right of Center™  |  March 02, 2010 @ 10:57 am

    There maybe times when the wills and short-term passion of the people are not the best course. I imagine that’s why the founders created the Senate with six year terms. I’ll bet a majority of people were against the Iraq war, but that doesn’t mean it was the wrong thing to do.
    Of course you cross the people’s passions at your own political peril. As Republicans learned in 2008 and Democrats will learn in November.
    Also I’ll bet undoing Obamacare will prove a lot easier than undoing the war, so on balance progress is made…

  7. POSTED BY NoCorzine  |  March 02, 2010 @ 10:58 am

    This GR police blotter for the week suggests that Mayor Hughes decision to go with 23 officers is a good one. I read the police blotter every week and they all look similar to this. Not much going on in Glen Ridge, cut the 2 officers and take the Chief up on the $300k in expense cuts he says he can live with. Then move on to other departments to see where cuts can be made.

  8. POSTED BY Right of Center™  |  March 02, 2010 @ 10:59 am

    “I read the police blotter every week and they all look similar to this. ”
    A data point of one week? That’s nonsense.

  9. POSTED BY NoCorzine  |  March 02, 2010 @ 11:03 am

    I read it this week, last week, and every week. I get the Glen Ridge Paper, so my data is derived from many weeks of police blotters. Why don’t you go take a leak on someone elses tree Mr. all talk and no action.

  10. POSTED BY Right of Center™  |  March 02, 2010 @ 11:07 am

    But if the police force has just now been reduced what does the previous reports tell you? That since the reduction (a week ago) there has been no increase in crime?
    Or do you have some special ability to discern needed manpower levels based on the blotter?

  11. POSTED BY Right of Center™  |  March 02, 2010 @ 11:12 am

    NoCorzine:
    “our continued safety is proof positive that there are too many police on duty.”

  12. POSTED BY NoCorzine  |  March 02, 2010 @ 11:17 am

    My “special ability” is to ignore your BS. The facts are that there is a budget shortfall and cuts needed to be made. From what I know, read, and actually see as a resident of GR, I believe that these cuts are a prudent decision. That is my opinion. Now run along and be the eternal antagonist that you are to someone else.

  13. POSTED BY Right of Center™  |  March 02, 2010 @ 11:21 am

    I sure wish I could use your logic on my wife.
    “honey, I’ve been looking at our finances. And this week, last week and every week we’ve been able to pay our bills. So it’s really not necessary for me to provide a second income anymore….”

  14. POSTED BY walleroo  |  March 02, 2010 @ 11:24 am

    I’m glad to see you’ve done a study, NoCorzine. I wonder if you can give us some numbers. Are you saying that crime has been flat? For how many years? What’s the error margin? Have you corrected for cyclical trends? Weather? Population? Economic conditions?Can you make the data available so we can check your calculations?
    What’s that? You don’t have any data? Oh, I get it. You don’t need data when you’re using the “BS” method!

  15. POSTED BY NoCorzine  |  March 02, 2010 @ 11:25 am

    You lost all of your credibility in your last post…Nobody would ever marry you. You have been exposed.

  16. POSTED BY Right of Center™  |  March 02, 2010 @ 11:27 am

    actually it’s the IPCC method. Start with the desired conclusion, it’s waaaaaay easier that way.

  17. POSTED BY walleroo  |  March 02, 2010 @ 11:29 am

    Inspired by the example of NoCorzine, I have done a “study” of attitudes toward health care. I have talked to lots and lots of people about health care, and from this research I have concluded that an almost all Americans are in favor of exactly those parts of Obamacare that would benefit me, walleroo. (Mammal home care, government sponsored fur replenishment, etc.)
    QED.

  18. POSTED BY walleroo  |  March 02, 2010 @ 11:30 am

    Yet another “study”: I just looked out the window, and there are no hurricanes. There wasn’t one yesterday, the day before, or the day before that. Therefore, hurricanes do not exist.
    QED!
    Who says being a scientist is hard?

  19. POSTED BY walleroo  |  March 02, 2010 @ 11:36 am

    One more:
    Yesterday at noon I ate lunch. The day before that at noon I ate lunch. Etc. Hypothesis: lunch is at noon. According to my computer model of lunch behavior, I predict that in half an hour, I’ll have lunch.
    Yum, I can’t wait to collect that data point!

  20. POSTED BY NoCorzine  |  March 02, 2010 @ 11:48 am

    I stand corrected ROC, you are married. Do you and Walleroo have his and hers computers in your house or does one log in, type some drivel, then log out quickly and let the other one log in and attack a councilman or two? Let me guess, you two met online?

Leave a Reply

Baristanet Comment Policy:

Baristanet has specific guidelines for commenting. To avoid having your comment deleted -- or your commenting privileges revoked -- read this before you comment. Violators will be banned from commenting.

Report a comment that violates the guidelines to comments@baristanet.com. For trouble with registration or commenting, write to comments@baristanet.com.

Commenters on Baristanet.com are responsible for all legal consequences arising from their comments, including libel, infringement of copyright or actions that threaten a third party. By submitting a comment, you agree to indemnify Baristanet LLC, its partners and employees from any legal action arising from your comments.

In order to comment on the new system, you need to register a new Baristanet account. To get your own avatar next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Featured Comment

I'm starting to see that our political strife on this planet and definitely here on B'net is due to a lack or abundance of Oxytocin. We can't help what we do or think, our bodies, dna, etc. are running the show. We are meat puppets to our hormonal & chemical urges. In the words of the immortal Bela Lugosi...."Pull dee string, pull dee string!" PAZ in Ed Wood land.
Posted by
PAZ

Tip, Follow, Friend, Subscribe

Links & Information

Baristanet on Flickr

Browse all photos...