'State of emergency' in 'Nazi'-cop town?

I agree is B.S. On multiple levels.

But why is the title NAZI cop and not NAZI councilman, who ordered the cops to remove her. Yeah, they could have stood up for the constitution, as a civil servant. However, they take orders from the authority, the civilians elected to be in charge of them.

This isn't the corrupt police, nazi police...etc.

It's a corrupt politician. Yet it feeds the hungry police haters.

But i guess is the trend here on this site.

I think I quit it. Ignorance isn't being denied anymore. It's being coddled, enlarged, and disguised as truth.

Eff you ATS.

Are things hotting up down there in Quartzite?

Just found this report posted today:

theintelhub.com...

Quartzsite, Arizona, the town now infamous for arresting a citizen for speaking during a public city council meeting, has apparently declared martial law.

This, according to Quartzsite Mayor Ed Foster, happened after a secret meeting was held during which the city council voted in favor of declaring a state of emergency.

Jennifer Jones, the woman who has gone on a full scale crusade against corruption in the small town of 3,600, posted an urgent update on here blog The Desert Freedom Press.

“At about noon today, the town council, at the request of the police chief, declared an official state of emergency. Sgt Xavier Frausto was dressed in tactical gear when he and the police chief demanded the mayor get in their car,” wrote Jones.

That’s right, according to this report, police in tactical gear ordered a sitting mayor to a potentially illegal secret meeting.

reply to post by Demoncreeper


Correct, it was the councilman who ordered the cops to remove the woman speaker.
However, the police are under no obligation to do so if the request in any way is illegal or unconstitutional, something the police should already know. So, by acting the way they did in removing the woman, they have shown they are willing to act on illegal orders, against the people, and should be sacked immediately.

reply to post by Demoncreeper

But why is the title NAZI cop and not NAZI councilman, who ordered the cops to remove her. Yeah, they could have stood up for the constitution, as a civil servant. However, they take orders from the authority, the civilians elected to be in charge of them.

Because the officer has a mind of his own. Because the officer saw the whole situation go down, and he could have made the correct decision, but he didn't. Because the officer was given two orders, from two public servants, and he chose to follow the unlawful order that required force and restriction of someone's rights. Because the Mayor says the police are part of the problem.

I waffle from pro-police to anti-police depending upon the circumstance, and this circumstance was clearly an intentional act to stop the woman from carrying out her right to lawfully speak, even though she followed the rules, had the floor, and had the support of the Mayor.

The title is correct.

Wow, just.... wow. The police in my town may be corrupt as well, but never would they stand for this! Now, that's saying a lot coming from where I live, as I'm sure all of you have heard about what happened to that mentally handicap kid in Dayton, OH.

I really have nothing else to say. It makes me want to just take the long drive down there just to swear at those counsel members and shake that Mayor's hand.. I don't know much about the mayor of that town, but after seeing him trying to defend that woman, it seems the town made a very, very good choice!

reply to post by getreadyalready


Whatever, dude. You are a shining example of my last sentence.

Originally posted by Demoncreeper
I think I quit it. Ignorance isn't being denied anymore. It's being coddled, enlarged, and disguised as truth.

Missing the original problem to begin with. Fix the source FIRST...but w/e.
haha.

reply to post by EagleTalonZ

Just to pass along a Canadian perspective...
First off...the Mayor (generally Chair) has one vote, and then only in a tie position. Secondly, the City would be running its meetings on the basis of Robert's Rules of Order. They are set in place so that a meeting can move forward and not be either hijacked or derailed, and there are plenty of good reasons for that. Most Council meetings have an agenda, for which one has to be included as of a close-off date, and there is a time limit on deputations.

If one wishes to over-rule the wishes of the Chair, then there has to be a motion to challenge him/her, seconded and voted upon by the Council. Things are carried out accordingly.

Freedom of speech does not allow one to grab the mike and take over the meeting. There is a structure in place for a reason...basically so one person or mob or issue does not hamstring the whole proceedings. I don't see that addressed in this 'nazi cop' thread. The cops were doing what they were there for...I'd say that the Chair and the Clerk let it fall apart.

Of course...that won't be the popular response...

reply to post by EagleTalonZ


Wow... I hope DPS's investigation results in removal and charges against the Chief and any other officer involved in this mess. The City Council meeds to go away as well. If the people cant make any eadway against city coucil in this manner, then the town residents should look into the process to unincorperate their town in order to get rid of city council and start fresh.

@ JohnyCannuk
Roberst Rules of Order are one thing. When city council violates them though in order to silence the female who was given the floor is a violation of procedure as well.

Doesn't the police chief usually answer to the mayor? In my neck of the woods a sheriff is an elected official, while a police chief is appointed by the mayor. Just fire him outright and show the town who's boss, mayor. Show them you are not one to be effed with.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American
Doesn't the police chief usually answer to the mayor? In my neck of the woods a sheriff is an elected official, while a police chief is appointed by the mayor. Just fire him outright and show the town who's boss, mayor. Show them you are not one to be effed with.

/TOA

Generally speaking cities that use the Mayor - City Manager form of government, department heads (Chief of Police) answer to the city manager. The City Manager in turns answers to the City Council.

City Manager is responsible for day to day operations of the city.
Mayor is responsible for long term outlook and planning based on citizen feedback.

Once again we as Americans and also those around the world can clearly see the ugly face of corruption among those sworn to protect the citizens that they represent.

While I viewed a number of online videos regarding this crisis situation and have listened to AJ talk with those involved, I personally think that everyone is missing a critical point about all this drama.

The only authority that the corrupt councilman Joe Winslow and the Chief of Police have is the authority acknowledged by those citizens within the city or county where this latest American drama is taking place. Just think about that and when it clicks, everyone should be able to discern what needs to be done to remove these criminals from office and from further corrupt practices against the citizens they supposedly represent.

While the corrupt city members and police attempt to invoke martial law, it is also clearly apparent that they want to do so to protect themselves from the public at large based on email threats received after the initial video went viral. They also are clearly showing by their continued criminal actions that they intend to continue their criminal actions no matter who objects.

Once again we see the elitist attitude that they are above the law and do not have to answer to anyone for their corrupt practices and actions against the citizens of the county or city in question.

This incident has garnered national attention and because it has, I feel that the criminals in question are taking outside recommendations or orders to deal with the current crisis in a way that helps the big boys out with another problem. This to me is one set of crooks getting another set of crooks to run cover and to distract the nation while Eric Holder and Obama continue in their own corrupt practices.

I mention this point because it so conveniently distracts from the AZ gun running to the Mexican cartels that Eric Holder and Obama need some help with in distracting the nation from the crimes of those in Washington. I feel that this local drama is being fueled by a need to have some national media coverage on anything but the gun running charges that Holder and Obama should be answering for.

It is a distraction and a clear example of corruption once again rising up and stating, "you cant touch me". It is this type of insider attitude that the citizens need to correct. To achieve that correction the citizens should recall these elected officials and if that is not possible, then local measures to remove these criminals would of course be in the best interest of the public.

Should the Police chief then use SWAT or force to maintain their corrupt position, that is when as a local citizen I would rise up and show the Councilman Joe Winslow and the corrupt Chief of Police just how little authority they posses among the citizens when they act outside of the law they supposedly represent. I think this way because any law enforcement officer acting like a criminal, is a criminal first and a pretend law enforcement officer second. This is why when their criminality has been exposed, they have no authority except what authority the people decide to give them.

While there may be a number of non violent options for dealing with this local problem, I for one think that acknowledging that they don't have the authority they think they have is key to any future success at removing them, because the citizens have been shown actions that prove these elected officials are corrupt and acting against the interests of the citizens that they supposedly represent.

Lastly I would say that this type of problem is only the beginning of many more, because it is corruption that has ruined this nation and it is corruption that keeps certain criminal elements in office. It is corruption that like a cancer plagues this nation.

It is time to end the systemic governmental corruption and to begin that effort in earnest, I would begin with forcibly removing the Councilman and the Chief of police and then immediately arrest them and throw them in jail where they can scheme their next move and where they can get to know the local inmates that they will get to know both of them on a personal level, prison style.

Do something or continue to get more corruption of the same and worse. That is my honest opinion whether anyone wants it or not. To do nothing is to ignore the seriousness of this situation and to do nothing is to allow evil and corrupt men to continue in their selfish and greed oriented corruption.

With our current way of life threatened, I would think that this national issue would be headline media news, but of course, the media is corrupt as well and will no doubt support the local authorities while talking about the citizens as if they were terrorist for exposing corruption and wanting to put an end to it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
@ JohnyCannuk
Roberst Rules of Order are one thing. When city council violates them though in order to silence the female who was given the floor is a violation of procedure as well.

It's hard to tell in the verbal melee, but the speaker could be interrupted on a point of order, should she be exercising improper decorum. I will readily concede, though, that just because Robert's Rules were screwed up doesn't mean they can't all be crooks and weasels as well.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Unfortunately I cannot watch the video from work, but I gather from the responses, that she did lawfully have the floor, and the chair never "gavelled her down." The meeting was called by the mayor, specifically with the intention of letting the citizens speak out, and this woman had the permission of the mayor to be speaking.

Also, there is a tradition in the US of lawfully obtaining the mic and stopping all progress in a meeting, it is specifically called the filibuster.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


From a legal aspect, the lady was in violation of disrupting a government function, since the manner the meanings re conducted in follow state and federal law )in terms of open records act etc). Her continued speech could also be called into question since its possible her topic was outside the open floor discussions.

Usually city council meetings allow for citizen feedback / new order of business towards the end of city council meeting. Earlier in the meetings the floor is also opened up for feedback on current topics that were raised in the last meeting.

It doesnt excuse what city council is doing in the town, and its apparent some type of criminal activity is present.

As I said, worst case scenario would be for the people of the city to start a petition to get a dissolution of the city onto the ballot. Dissolve the city, then reform it with better laws in place to prevent something liek this from happening. Ive performed security for many city council meetings and I have seen goofy encounters between citzens and city council, but nothing to this extent. The worst I have ever had to do was ask a person to leave the chamber so they could talk on their cell phone. Their conversation was interrupting the council meeting.

The fact she also ran for city council probably plays into it, but even then the totality of circumstances are enough to warrant further investigation.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Also, there is a tradition in the US of lawfully obtaining the mic and stopping all progress in a meeting, it is specifically called the filibuster.

Which is generally reserved for use in the legislative branch. City council meetings are run completely different and use a different set of operating guidelines that allow the city council to end one topic to move to the next or hold a vote. They can end a persons speech in order to conduct business.

Like i said, if it were limited to just one incident, I would probably chalk it up to politics, but taking all the info and history into account, the town has some serious issues with its elected officals.



Also @ the op. I saw the phrase requested to declare marhsal law but I am not seeing that phrase anywhere in the story / video. Where did that come from?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Also, there is a tradition in the US of lawfully obtaining the mic and stopping all progress in a meeting, it is specifically called the filibuster.

It gets used here in Parliament from time to time, but it's part of the process. I'm not sure it it is written into municipal governance.

Also, one hears a motion that she be removed from the meeting...cannot tell why...and she says "Out of order or not, I have the floor..." That is self-contradictory.

Not sticking up for bad governance, but I don't hear anything 'Nazi' in the process, and she is bulldozing through the rules.

Maybe they need some good 'ole boys from ATS to go down there and restore some order to that fascist town! Show them what constitutional justice REALLY is!

This video is a little confusing.

From what I understand, she was being removed because she was not following protocol on "having the floor" to speak. But Although the Mayor let her continue, the councilman demanded she be removed for not following proper S.O.Ps.
So who controls the floor? The councilman or Mayor? If the Mayor controls the meetings, the cops should of have listened to the Mayor instead of a clearly disgruntled councilman.

But maybe I am missing something?

Has anyone seen this yet? I haven't kept up with this story too much myself.

Public Notice
Call Of Special Recall Election

Recall Election: August 30, 2011

Offices to be recalled: Mayor

www.ci.quartzsite.az.us...

Is anyone familiar with this process?

Originally posted by InnerTruths
This video is a little confusing.

From what I understand, she was being removed because she was not following protocol on "having the floor" to speak. But Although the Mayor let her continue, the councilman demanded she be removed for not following proper S.O.Ps.
So who controls the floor? The councilman or Mayor? If the Mayor controls the meetings, the cops should of have listened to the Mayor instead of a clearly disgruntled councilman.

But maybe I am missing something?

But that is the point...Once again, a video goes viral on the internet, that only shows a very biased side. Feeding more ignorance. Only showing that part. Where is the rest? Why isn't it shown?

Why isn't there proper order?

I can't believe the amount a video of a light in the sky gets picked apart, here, but a two minute arrest video is gospel.

From what I SEE i disagree with a woman not being allowed to hold the floor. I disagree that the mayor and counsel man cannot seem to stand level headed enough with each other to maintain order, I disagree that a citizen was removed without cause...or maybe there was rules she wasn't following...

Was she arrested, charged, thrown in jail? Forced to stand in a "shower" like the nazis forced the jews?

Where is that info, before everyone is labelled nazis?

proper thread title my a$$