Chabot Censors Town Hall – Police Seize Cameras



It is not supposed to happen in America where we value free speech and proudly revel in our history of men and women standing up and speaking to their elected representatives. But…once again, just last night, as they did in June, Congressman Steve Chabot, his staff and security team made sure that there could be no genuine human interaction or spoken question from the audience or any recorded documentation of what was said. And this occurred in a public meeting, in a public place, conducted by a public official, who while speaking to the public refused over 100 people who disagreed with him the opportunity to speak. And he had the police there to physically enforce his own private rules for public discourse.

Last night it was supposed ‘security reasons” that they again not only banned citizen speech, but the photographing and filming of the Congressman speaking as well. Chabot’s security team enlisted the help of the on-duty Cincinnati Police (car # 05313) to enforce this policy with the threat of arrest and the actual confiscation of two video cameras until the conclusion of the meeting.

Dismal exercises such as this must leave his constituents bewildered, thinking they had stumbled into an anti-democratic nightmare where authorities dictate appropriate speech in public places and seize personal property at the request of the elected officials. These policies simply cannot stand legal scrutiny nor the smell test of any citizen interested in an honest and open discussion of public policy issues that impact the lives of their families.

Source

0 thoughts on “Chabot Censors Town Hall – Police Seize Cameras

  1. I am confused here. Was this actually a Congressman in the State of Ohio in the United States of America? Because to tell you the truth, this looked like a reichsmarschall in 1940s Nazi Germany. These people should have went home and got their guns, come back and arrested this son of a bitch for treason.
    They should immediately file for recall on the Chief of Police, citing constructive treason against the Constitution of the United States of America for cause.
    We cannot just stand by and allow this shit. When those people’s rights were violated every citizens’ rights were violated.
    What this video depicts is a public servant setting a precedent for marshal law. This is a dangerous precedent.

    1. Henry,

      That’s exactly what it is. No ifs,ands, or buts!

      They don’t do anything about it because they are cash stripped (first move successfully made to disarm them just in case 50 years of indoctrination to lead them to be frightened and submissive wasn’t enough) and it takes a good lawyer who will work either on contingency or pro bono.

      That would take a sharp lawyer with patriotic principles, integrity, money and courage…and LOTS of the latter two because he’d need round the clock armed protection.
      Ever met one?

      “Good Lawyer” = classic oxymoron

      So they just go home and tremble in their boots, get drunk, and kick the dog.

      Oh…be assured…these are Machiavellian masters of manipulation we’re dealing with here…the devil ain’t dumb my friend!

      1. You are absolutely right. This whole mess began when our law became someone’s occupation.
        When an lawyer becomes and lawyer, he or she swears an oath to the BAR (British Accredited Registry).
        When a lawyer becomes a judge, he or she is granted a commission from the Queen that legitimizes the piracy committed in his or her court, which has just become a merchant vessel on the high seas.
        When a lawyer becomes a politician, he or she takes an oath to Satan himself, who grants all requests as he himself was once a lawyer. And once a lawyer, always a lawyer.

        1. Holy Shite Henry!

          I just thought they were evil ‘cuz they smelled like it! (It’s just a nose thing I was born with…what a curse!)

          Didn’t know all that! Now I really know why the profession never appealed to me. I have to throw up now.

          Yikes!

          1. WTF does the freakin’ queen have to do with us for the love of all that is sacred? How the hell did THAT get set up and why is it still intact?

            Tell me more oh knower of many things.

          2. In early America in the 1600s, lawyers were actually against the law as the people did not want that scourge on our shores. But gradually they weaseled their way back in.
            I believe it is Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution that forbids any citizen serving in our government to hold any titles of nobility. Upon passing the BAR, every attorney receives the noble title of Esquire and are acknowledged as servants of the Queen (or King).
            If you think about it, the capture of our courts was the first necessary accomplishment in regaining the United States as the property of the British Crown.
            Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

          3. Thanks Henry…very interesting. Oh…and thank you for exposing my actual level of ignorance to me and further eroding my dwindling sense of equilibrium! LOL!

            Well…sort of laughing.

          4. Henry,

            I’ve been researching this. It’s very interesting how much controversy seems to exist about this BAR definition issue. An old associate of mine (friend?) is an assistant DA in a major city and has never mentioned it. Next time I speak with him I’ll see what his response is to a direct question about it. It seems very few people are even remotely aware of it.

          5. The fact is the English Common Law we are guaranteed in our Constitution, which is public law for private purposes, has been replaced with Roman Civil Law, which is private policy being enforced as public law. This is the Uniform Commercial Code. This is merchant law, which is only supposed to exist, according to our Constitution, beyond where the tide ebbs and flows. This is why our courts have been made into ships and the judges have been made into captains. Our courts are now commercial ventures on the high seas and under admiralty jurisdiction that judge is not bound by our Constitution or any other law. He is a dictator aboard his ship.. His cause is commerce and so long as he is making money for the Queen he is within the bounds of his authority.
            Hence, if we ever get our courts back with our common law, think of the power the individual will wield. If we had that power today, we could take our grievance before twelve of our peers, who could put the full force of the United States behind an order for the international banksters to return every bit of wealth to each individual who is a victim of the fraud. According to our Constitution, our seats on the jury are what give us the ultimate authority. You see, even if the Supreme Court declares a law constitutional, we the people can nullify that declaration through jury nullification.
            Bottom line, we ultimately enforce, or refuse to enforce, our laws as dictated by our individual consciousness.

  2. And why the hell did the crowd not pounce on this piece of crap Congressman? Ppl are you freakin kidding me? You had the chance to make a statement and they all sit there like a bunch of sheep. UGH

Start the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.


*