Quartzsite, Arizona

Conspiracy, Major Civil Rights Violations and Massive Public Cover-up

4th of Sep, 2011 by [email protected]

Freedom of speech and corruption controversy

In July 2011 a video was posted on YouTube showing Quartzsite resident Jennifer Jones being arrested, manhandled, and removed from a city council meeting after accusing the city council of violating open-meeting laws. After the video received widespread public comment and media attention, the city council, in an emergency, closed-door session, removed the mayor and declared a state of emergency. The mayor, Ed Foster, who was elected on an anti-corruption platform, has accused the city council members of embezzling $250,000 every year since 1991 from the town's public coffers. He has also accused the town's police chief Jeff Gilbert of repeatedly investigating and arresting him for "bogus" reasons, most recently on charges of disorderly conduct and interference after trying to stop Gilbert from arresting Jones for the third time in the wake of $2 million lawsuit against the town on allegations of police harassment. The city council has denied Foster's allegations.[8][9]

Sometime before July 19, 2011, Jennifer Jones and Michael Roth went to Town Hall. Jones knew that Roth carried a handgun (concealed carry is now legal in Arizona without the "need" for permit)[10] and he needed to store it in a weapon locker in the public building. Jones recognized Town Councilman Joe Winslow and said "Hey, turd, where are the keys for the gun lockers?" (Or words to that effect.) Roth, who didn't know Winslow, joked along and said, "Yeah, turds, where are the keys for the gun locker?" (Or words to that effect.)[11]

Even though Roth did not know Winslow, Winslow took Roth's statements as a threat. (But apparently not Jones.') On July 19, Winslow petitioned for, and obtained, a civil Injunction Against Harassment[12] against Roth from a visiting Justice of the Peace, Judge Karen Slaughter.[13] Roth was out of town and the town council knew it. Roth believes Winslow's timing of the petition was not random, but planned to occur in his absence. (Upon his return on the outskirts of town, Roth was met by Sheriff Deputies who served him the Injunction on his return.)[14] As a proximate result of the Injunction, Roth's Second Amendment right was unlawfully suspended.[15]

Roth challenged the unlawful Injunction, hired an attorney, and a hearing was scheduled for 3:30 pm August 11, 2011. At about 10 am that day, Judge Slaughter faxed an Order, vacating the Injunction, to Roth's attorney. The Order stated that the Injunction did not comport with Arizona Law governing Injunctions. Nevertheless, Roth suffered deprivation of constitutional right and emotional distress as a proximate result of the bogus Injunction against him. JP Judge Slaughter failed to uphold the law in the Michael Roth Injunction and should be impeached.

First, she is not allowed to make up her own law, but did. Specifically, Arizona law requires a "series of acts" before issuing an Injunction. See A.R.S. § 12-1809.[16] A series of acts is defined as "two" in the Arizona Supreme Court's Rules of Protective Order Procedure.[17] JP Slaughter acknowledged this fact while simultaneously acknowledging that Winslow had listed only one act.[18] Yet she issued an Injunction anyway. She did not uphold the law. Hence, a misconduct complaint and impeachment are in order.

Second is the question of "soundness of mind" for an Injunction. A.R.S. § 12-2202[19] says “Persons who are of unsound mind at the time they are called to testify shall not be witnesses in a civil action.” Mr. Winslow admitted to JP Slaughter that he is suffering from PTSD and seeing a psychiatrist.[20] Therefore, he is not of sound mind and the Injunction should never have been issued. (How did he legally buy a shotgun with a mental disorder?) Again, JP Slaughter failed to uphold the law.

Third, JP Slaughter’s prohibition against firearms is unconstitutional. Specifically, an Injunction against Harassment is a civil matter. It is not a criminal matter like an Order of Protection. Firearms can only be prohibited under an OOP, per Brady and the Violence Against Women Act. See A.R.S. §13-3602 G(4).[21]

In contrast, Injunction law does NOT give a judge the right to prohibit firearms because Brady does not apply in an Injunction. The Legislature does not speak to firearms in Injunction law. (No mention of firearms in A.R.S. § 12-1809.) It is only an internal handbook of the AZ Supreme Court—which is not law—which claims a judge can prohibit firearm possession in a civil injunction. (See Rule 6, E e 2 on page 20 of the AZ Rules of Protective Order Procedure. But the handbook is wrong. In fact, it does not cite any lawful basis for its Rule (as it does for every other Rule) because there is no lawful basis for their Rule! This makes a prohibition against firearms a violation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as Arizona’s Constitution. JP Slaughter deprived Mr. Roth a Constitutional right.

Note: A petition was filed last year in the Arizona Supreme Court’s public forum to correct this error in the ARPOP. But the State Bar fought it and the Activist Liberals on the Court denied the petition. A Federal Civil Right lawsuit suing the Justices and JP Slaughter is the only way to make the court obey the law and uphold the 2nd Amendment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above entry was originally taken from the Quartzsite, Arizona wikipedia page but has been under a coordinated attack by professional wikipedia monitors hired by the City of Quartzsite and its elected officials. Bottom line is there is major conspiracy and corruption activity in an ongoing basis in the city and they are trying to supplant the elected Mayor of the town with another one of their puppet politicians.

I am posting this here because this is CRUCIAL information about the city - in fact no one would probably have ever heard about the city if it was not for this controversy. The fact that wikipedia admins are allowing this deletion is appalling. On this site however, and others like it where this will be reposted, we can guarantee that no edits will prevail, and that this page will show up alongside wikipedia on the first page of the google results.

Not only should this article draw your attention to the controversy, but it should also draw your attention to what is going on on its wikipedia page.

Track this Report 0 Comment | Post a Comment