Skip to content

Councilman Joe Winslow v Michael Roth- Exactly who was threatening who?

by on July 26, 2011

00:32 Joe Winslow states his name and takes the oath.
00:52 Judge presents case of Joe Winslow v Michael Roth. Joe Winslow requests an injunction on harassment against Michael Roth.
01:11 requesting that Michael Roth no longer be able to possess fire arms or ammunition. Requesting Roth to stay away from Winslow’s home and place of work as well as the town hall where council meetings are held.
03:00 Judge ask Winslow if any of the documents are pointed directly at Winslow.
03:05 Winslow then says that he does not believe that there is anything directed at him but say he has “approximately 100 more…the copies are currently at city hall.
04:13 Winslow then tries to correlate Roth with an IRA Bomber.
04:41 Winslow then explains he was told by the Police Chief that was Michael Roth’s Signature. (What Signature?) The signature he is referring to is a screen name on a blog or forum. A screen name cannot identify a person unless the name and the actual post can be traced back to Roth’s computer or network. Many people can have the same screen name but different blogs or forums. In no way is this identifiable to Roth.
05:04 Winslow then says he turned this information over to the FBI.
05:22 Winslow then describes how it is connected to Jennifer Jones arrest.
05:26 Winslow admits he cannot prove it was connected to Jennifer Jones arrest.
05:35 Winslow lies under oath that Jennifer Jones was removed because she became disruptive.
06:02 Winslow says that he is 71 years old and does not want to be a statistic, does not want to go to jail and does not want to go to a hospital.
06:16 Winslow states “based on his history with 24 years in the service. He is more concerned about his reaction to his aggression.
06:33 Winslow states “now he believes Roth has a handgun, his actions have demonstrated in the past that he is not in full control of his emotions. Yet afraid of his own reactions.
07:09 Judge states “usually with harassment injunctions, we need more than one incident and I know you are sitting here and telling me but you are not giving me anything specific he has done towards you.” Winslow: “I can’t do that because it hasn’t happened until now, but they are moving to a different phase, this group that he belongs to, uh, they tried legal means, uh they have tried about everything they can and now they are moving along to the next phase which is confrontational and the final phase would be violence. Hence the samples that you have there, they are contacting people all over the country with similar political beliefs and that’s why we had to declare a “state of emergency” and Mr. Roth is involved in that um there has been several more threats from different people in this organization and I am going to be asking typically the same thing of the court.” The same political belief he shares is that corruption will not last long in the United States and the groups are pro America, none of them to our knowledge are violent, though every individual is different. Winslow has no evidence that the groups Roth is involved with are violent or disruptive, and I believe he is referring to Sunday when Tea Party Patriots headed to Quartzsite to investigate the allegations of corruption and gather statements. That does not sound like a Council needs to declare an emergency unless they are hiding something.

08:32 “I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist, I have been involved with…. uh” wait I can’t confess I am seeing a psychiatrist now or ever “I have been diagnosed with PTSD and I am a member of the DAV uh, that’s what I am concerned with” He’s concerned of his own PTSD. So don’t piss off Winslow he may PTSD on you. “He is going to get so far into my personal space, I am going to react and uh, without thinking.” “It’s uh I am not making threats or anything.” That is more of a threat than what Winslow presented or is accusing Roth of.

09:07 Judge Says “It’s a possibility that’s on your mind” Winslow “it’s just the way I am, it’s not something I am proud of”

09:16 Winslow describes an incident where Roth was in Winslow’s “space.” An incident where Winslow said Roth blocked his entrance into town hall. Then he describes how Roth was glaring at him one time 4 months ago.

10:30 Winslow describes his time in the military and working for certain government agencies investigating political activist groups and their course of actions before violence. He describes the situation in Quartzsite as getting to that degree. The foreign countries he describes them as Democracies which we have seen in the history do not last. We live in a republic and the minority has a voice. What he doesn’t understand is these “groups” like the Tea Party have been around for a long time, this is not a foreign country and the issue in Quartzsite is not new to them. This is called jumping the gun on the council’s behalf because they know what they have been up to and are afraid, not of violence as he says, but “discovery” if I may put it that way.

12:14 “You know as I say, I don’t want to be in that kind of position where I have to make that kind of decision, I am going to make the wrong one and I am going to end up in the hospital or in prison.”

12:27 “I don’t like firearms which may sound a little strange but after 24 years in the military and working for the Federal government I have nothing against anyone who wants to own a gun…..”

14:27 “I missed my point I was trying to make, I felt it necessary for me to go out and purchase a gun, and I did, I went out and bought a 12 gauge shotgun.” This is coming from someone whose nickname is Machine gun Joe after his comment at town hall. Quartzsite Councilman Joe Winslow earned the nickname “Machine Gun” after he was caught on the town hall microphone before the March 23rd, 2010 town council meeting was called to order saying “I think if we could get all five of them in the front row, we’d just machine gun ’em” Councilman Lukkasson replied “Damn fine idea!”

All of this happened while Roth was out of Town. When he returned he was to disarm himself to the county Sheriffs. No offense to Winslow or any others diagnosed with PTSD as I am too. But the point is that Winslow is using his PTSD as saying he is afraid of himself and is building the case to be as if he is more afraid of hurting someone who angers him than he is of someone hurting him out of anger.


  1. Kevin permalink

    Winslow is a crazy old lunatic, and he should not be on the council. There is something seriously wrong with his head.

  2. Kevin permalink

    I don’t know if you have seen this yet, but the video of the secret locked door meeting from July 10th has been released today. You can go to this webpage to see it:

    It definitely shows that the council absolutely established a State of Emergency, and suspended certain parts of the Town Code. They did this illegally, and without the Mayor presiding. Vice Mayor Barbara Cowell presided over the meeting, and Brannan spoon fed the council on what steps to take. Corruption abounds in the government of Quartzsite!

  3. The judge in this matter is as big a dope as Winslow. For her to issue such an injunction based solely on Winslow’s claims, and without bothering to learn any of the background about the true nature of events in Quartzite, is entirely unacceptable.

  4. Milton W T permalink

    Ok this gun grabbing by an old loose screw- a corrupt member of a city council no less- is unacceptable.

    Winslow is acting like a rabid dog. I hope no other citizen gets winslow’s “rabies”.

    Who is this idiot judge that signed off on it?

    I hope Mr. Mike Roth can redeem himself soon, despite Roth doing nothing wrong. I urge Mr. Roth to take courageous action and for others to do so as well, it seems at least one loser on the bench is taking sides in the political imbroglio. Perhaps the injunction can be reversed, if not I hope Mr. Roth does not consent to the gun grabbing.

  5. Kevin permalink

    According to an article on WorldNetDaily today, Mike Roth gave his guns to a friend so that the police couldn’t take them. I think he forgot about one of his guns, and that one was confiscated. We are on your side Mike, and I hope this action by this incompetent judge is reversed. Hang in there!

  6. Milton W T permalink

    Thanks for the update Kevin 😀 Very good news.

    Maybe that one gun he was trying to sell but it wouldn’t sell because it jams all the time.. you know, gotta give them one, throw off the scent, etc. yeah let the gov take it off his hands, it might be useless anyway

  7. Chuck permalink

    Being a small town in the middle of the desert is a great place to practice “the new police state”. Get used to it folks, it’s happening on the National level too.

  8. Mike Palmer permalink

    First, JP Slaughter cannot make up her own law. Arizona law requires a “series of acts” to issue an Injunction. The Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure defines a series of acts as “two.” But Winslow only listed one incident. So the judge is not obeying the law. A misconduct complaint is in order.

    Second, there is some question about “soundness of mind” when testifying in court. (See Rule 35 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, which is binding on JP courts per A.R.S. 22-211.) Clearly, Mr. Wilson admitted he is not of sound mind. If your neighbor is insane and complains to a judge that you are beaming microwaves into his bedroom, that is not grounds for an Injunction against you. (How did he buy a shotgun? The ATF form asks about your mental state.)

    Third, the Injunction against Mr. Roth prohibiting guns is unlawful under Arizona law. Mr. Roth needs to challenge the Injunction and if unsuccessful, needs to go federal right away and file a § 1983 civil right lawsuit for his 2nd Amendment right to get Injunctive and Declaratory judgment against JP Slaughter and the AZ Supreme Court.

    I fought this a few years ago locally in a JP court also (won) and in our Supreme Court’s public comment forum. In Arizona, an Injunction against Harassment is a civil matter. A Protective Order, which can only be levied on domestic partners, is criminal. They are often confused by the courts and lumped together. But in the Arizona Revised Statutes, it is only a Protective Order that allows prohibition of weapons, per Brady and VAMA. See A.R.S. 13-3602 G(4)

    The law concerning an Injunction Against Harassment does NOT give a court the right to prohibit firearms, since Brady does not apply. See A.R.S. 12-1809.

    Use your browsers FIND function to search for the word ‘firearm.’ It’s not in that law.

    It is only our Supreme Court’s internal Rules of Protective Order Procedure, which are NOT law and not from the Legislature, that claims a judge can prohibit weapon possession in a civil injunction. See Rule 6, E e 2, on page 20 in the link below.

    But not even the RPOP cites a lawful basis for its internal rule. Like Bill Clinton, just said it could.

    I tried to change the system in a public comment forum a year ago, but the Libs on our court denied my petition. The State Bar fought me on my little comment. It seems to me a Federal Civil Right lawsuit, like the one with SB1070, suing the AZ Supreme Court Justices is the only way to make our court obey the law our Legislature gave us.

    (As a side note, a judge cannot tell you to whom you must turn over your weapons. (i.e., the police.) Only that you cannot posses them.)

  9. Bob permalink

    why are the people on the Town Council so terrified that the people they’ve been illegally and secretly paying each pay period with taxpayer money will see the light of day? All of the Town Councils’ perceived “enemies” could be dealt a figurative mortal blow if they simply released the information and it revealed nothing illegal. Hell, at this point, it could reveal something very questionable or shady and it couldn’t possibly be as bad as…

    It really is?

  10. Duncan permalink

    Based on my experience with, and understanding of cases like this….

    Unfortunately, the judge had no choice but to grant the request for a restraining order.

    The plaintiff showed up, the defendant did not nor did he, apparently, make any effort to file for an extension to respond.

    By default, the restraining order was granted.

  11. Mike Palmer permalink

    A.R.S. § 12-2202 says “The following shall not be witnesses in a civil action: 1. Persons who are of unsound mind at the time they are called to testify.” Mr. Winslow told JP Slaughter that he is
    suffering from PTSD and is seeing a psychiatrist. He is not of sound mind. Therefore, his testimony at his petition hearing is void and his petition is void on its face. (Again, how did Winslow buy a weapon with a mental disorder? Did he falsify his ATF form?)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: