GUNS OUT!!! Arizona Attorney General Office First Amendment Audit Phoenix Police – Phoenix Video

published: 2019-02-06 18:54:22

If anything you see bothers you:
Attorney General’s Office: (602) 542-5025
The Attorney Generals Office and the Phoenix Police Department violate constitutional and statutory law by initiating a false arrest and malicious prosecution in this video. CHARGES DISMISSED!!!

*** ***

A special thanks to Black Witch Savannah for initiating contact with Lucifer on my behalf.

The Attorney General’s Office has gone wild! This office believes they have legislative window chalk; wherein they can create new laws and arrests citizens based on their new law of the day. The charges were dismissed. First Amendment audits consist of recording public officials respect or disrespect for first amendment law.

This video is appropriate for the following tags 1 amendment, 1 amendment audit, 1 amendment audits, 1st amendment, 1st amendment audit, 1st amendment audit pass, 1st amendment audits, amendment, Arizona, Arizona attorney general, attorney general, audit, audits, first amendment audit 2018, first amendment audit pass, first amendment audit tyrant, phoenix police, phoenix police department, phoenix,


Some local news is curated - Original might have been posted at a different date/ time! Click the source link for details.

36 Comments - Write a Comment

  1. Did you have to sell your soul for no charges

  2. bye bye cop no job for you stupid pig

  3. These police officers have violated the Civil and Constitutional Rights of this U.S. Citizen!.

    The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the Constitution, AS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. No state can make a higher law and if it tried no judge could enforce any such law. That law would become a legal fiction, as if it never existed.

    "The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law." "void ab initio" ((Marbury v. Madison), 5 US 137), ((Norton v. Shelby County), 118 U.S. 425 p. 442)

    "Constitutional Rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied." ((Gomillion v. Lightfoot), 364 U.S. 155 (1966)), ((Smith v. Allwright), 321 U.S. 649.644, (1944))

    "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime"… "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law." ((Wright v. Georgia), (1963)), ((Simmons v. United States), (1968)), ((Palmer v. Euclid), (1971)), ((Sherar v. Cullen), (1973))

    None of the legal statements and commands issued by these police officers were truthful or lawful. These police officers attempted to convert the exercise of a Constitutional Right into a crime. These police officers issued a false retaliatory charge and issued a retaliatory false arrest.

    A public employee issued a false police report to police officers.

    These police officers are in violation of Title 18 U.S. Code 241 and 242 and Title 42 U.S. Code 1983 – Conspiracy to deprive and Deprivation of a U.S. Citizen of their Civil and Constitutional Rights without due process of law by police officers under color of law.

    Absent any crime, a U.S. Citizen cannot be trespassed from public property. ((Musumeci v. DHS), (2010)), ((United States v. Grace), (1983)), ((Palmer v. City of Euclid), (1971))

    Unlawful detainment and arrest without any reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause suspected of a crime by police officers under color of law. ((Terry v. Ohio), (1968)), ((Brown v. Texas), (1979)), ((Kolender v. Lawson), (1983))

    A U.S. Citizen cannot be lawfully detained without reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause suspected of a crime. ((Terry v. Ohio), (1968)). A police officer cannot demand legal identification from a U.S. Citizen without reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause suspected of a crime. ((Brown v. Texas), (1979)), ((Kolender v. Lawson), (1983))

    According to the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in ((Terry v. Ohio), (1968)), to legally detain a person, an officer is required to have specific articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrants a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

    "To detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct." – United States Supreme Court. ((Brown v. Texas), (1979)), ((Kolender v. Lawson), (1983))

    "Where an individual is detained, without a warrant and without having committed a crime (filming in public is not a crime), the detention is a false arrest and false imprisonment." Damages Awarded: ((Trezevant v. City of Tampa), (1984))

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that refusal to answer law enforcement questions cannot form the basis of reasonable suspicion. ((Florida v. Bostick), (1991))

    "We have consistently held that a refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure." ((U.S. v. Santos), (2005))

    The unlawful destruction of Federal evidence on a Federal evidence recording device by police officers in violation of Title 18 U.S. Code § 1519 and Title 42 U.S. Code § 2000aa and other State and Federal laws and precedents ad infinitum.

    Unlawful aggravated assault and battery and detainment and arrest and search and seizure without any reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause suspected of a crime by police officers under color of law in violation of the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. ((Carpenter v. United States), (2018)), ((U.S. v. Easley), (2018)), ((Riley v. California), (2014)), ((Fordyce v. City of Seattle), (1995)), ((Hayes v. Florida), (1985)), ((Kolender v. Lawson), (1983)), ((Brown v. Texas), (1979)), ((Dunaway v. New York), (1979)), ((Terry v. Ohio), (1968)), ((People v. Hevern), (1926))

    These police officers issued a prior restraint detainment and arrest.

    A prior restraint is an official government restriction of speech prior to publication. Prior restraints are viewed by the United States Supreme Court as "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment Rights" ((Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart), 427 U.S. 539 (1976))

    The United States Federal district courts have ruled that there is a First Amendment Right to record police activity in public. ((Turner v. Driver), (2017)), ((Fields v. The City of Philadelphia), (2017)), ((Gericke v. Begin), (2014)), ((ACLU v. Alvarez), (2012)), ((Glik v. Cunniffe), (2011)), ((Robinson v. Fetterman), (2005)), ((Smith v. City of Cumming), (2000)), ((Fordyce v. City of Seattle), (1995))

    The United States Supreme Court declined to establish that the "press" had Rights which the average citizen did not. ALL U.S. citizens have the same Right of access to information that the "press" has. ((Smith v. City of Cumming), (2000)), ((Branzburg v. Hayes), (1972)), ((New York Times Co. v. Sullivan), (1964))

    "Changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status." ((Glik v. Cunniffe), (2011))

    An accrued or established Right is one which cannot be wholly taken away by statute. ((Richards v. Bellingham Bay Land Co.), 55 F. 209)

    These police officers failed to articulate any reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause for a crime. These police officers failed to articulate what law or statute that they were attempting to enforce. ((Kolender v. Lawson), (1983)), ((Brown v. Texas), (1979)), ((Terry v. Ohio), (1968))

    "Today, a trespass law is used to penalize people for exercising a constitutional Right. Tomorrow, a disorderly conduct statute, a breach of the peace statute, a vagrancy statute will be put to the same end." – United States Supreme Court ((Adderly v. Florida), (1966))

    Because these police officers lacked probable cause to detain and arrest this U.S. Citizen, they are not entitled to immunity. ((Turner v. Lieutenant Driver), (2017))

    "Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional Right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law!" ((Turner v. Lieutenant Driver), (2017)), ((Owen v. Independence), 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622), ((Williamson v. Mills), 11th Cir., 1995), ((Brookfield Construction Co. v. Stewart), (1964))

    "Qualified immunity defense fails if the public officer violates clearly established Rights, because a reasonably competent official should know the law governing his conduct." ((Jones v. Counce) 7-F3d-1359-8th Cir 1993), ((Benitez v. Wolff) 985-F3d 662 2nd Cir 1993)

    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any Rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. (42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of Rights)

    These police officers are in violation of Oath and not in compliance with the current judicial standing of the United States Supreme Court.

    Please issue a complaint with the Arizona State Attorney General.
    Please issue a complaint with the Phoenix, Arizona Mayor office.
    Please issue a complaint with the Phoenix, Arizona District Attorney office.
    Please issue a complaint with the Phoenix, Arizona police Internal Affairs division.
    Please issue a complaint with the Federal Bureau of Investigation:

    Is it not it true that every honest American is ashamed of their government these days? Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will befall us and our children when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes, crimes that infinitely outdistance every human measure, reach the light of day?

  4. You say charges were dismissed, after watching the video I cannot even guess what those charges may have been. What did they charge you with?

  5. Cool, with lucifer all things are possible… wait, what!?!? Lol

  6. Always wondered what it looks like in an X-ray machine

  7. Are they allowed to behave like that? Someone should be held to account.

  8. Another traitor shows his colors. Fuck the police

  9. Ok I did like the benediction to the Dark Lord where most sheep would claim G*d. 🙂

  10. erm, a couple of words pop to mind. Lawsuit & CopLogic

  11. Safer to shoot a cop when you see them rather than talk to them. Citizens should have stepped in and used force to stop that domestic terrorist attacking a citizen!

  12. I just subscribed please give up date. Thank you for what you do…..

  13. Got what you got because you didnt stand up for yourself. Know your rights, you could have prevented it.

  14. Until the individual(s) responsible for violating "The People's" Rights, are held financially AND criminally negligent and forced to pay out of THEIR OWN POCKETS for their transgressions?
    Nothing will change.
    Isn't it amazing how our govt. founded, supports, PROMOTES, the 'NSA', an organization that gathers any and all data without any warrant or justifiable cause, from every single source of information the American People have (phones, TV's, computers/Internet, cell phones, etc..), yet when a Citizen is filming THEM, they lose their shit?
    Amazing, isn't it.
    Another sentiment for it is- Tyrannical Government.

    If that fat fucker had approached me in that manner, making demands and 'Orders' that he has no RAS to sustain?
    He would have met the business end of my 2nd Amendment.
    Unfuckingbelievable, just how badly so many corrupt, stupid, arrogant LEO's are so very happy to display, even KNOWING they're being filmed/recorded.
    What an utter asshat in uniform.

  15. Please tell us you SUE THOSE FUCKING PIECES OF SHIT COWARDS RETARDS LIARS MORONS THIEVES RACISTS ASSHOLES BULLIES WITH BADGES AND GUNS AND at least that one is fired or in jail and become someone's bitch.

    Greatest country in the world.
    Land of the free.
    And americans wonder why the rest of the world laugh at them.

  17. Another traitor begging to have his skull evacuated.

  18. Oh Boy They Screwed up Big!!

  19. A guy is eating ice cream and looks suspicious. Better grab and ID him… Crooked cop!

  20. Wtf assaulted and handcuffed for what ? “Lawsuit “

  21. WOW! How much is this going to cost them?

  22. I use to think that cop killing was terrible.

  23. When were the guns out? Didn't see it.

  24. Sorry, these tyrants in blue do not respect your rights. They think they are above the law and violate citizens Constitutions. Need to re-school these idiots

  25. So look more bad cops so few good cops out there these two bullies are violating Citizen's rights and not following the law that they are sworn to uphold besides being bad cops they're stupid cops

  26. Sue these tyrants for everything they own then NAIL the city for the rest . I hope you immediately filed complaints on these Blue Isis Thugs !

  27. Should have knocked him out run up grabbing someone with no reason

  28. You fucking sicko 😁 i will continue to report your videos

  29. this is a slam dunk for a lawsuit. civil rights attorneys would have field day in court with this one.

  30. I will pray to baby Jesus somebody follows the stupid fucking old piece of shit home to his senses of his home see how many kids he has who lives in his home and murder them I hope you get shot in the face so he won't have a open casket and his kids won't see him clearly he's a tyrant this is win citizens need to arm themselves with A.R. 15's Glock9 and body armor so could be a fair fight

  31. Great job dickhead violation of 1st, 4th amendment, faulse arrest, assault, violation of PD policy and I bet a faulse report! If you do not institute a federal case your waiting your time auditing as nothing will change untill the cops are fired and big money is paid out by the city!


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.