• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Homeowner Jailed for Hosting Bible Study

Uhmm no it is several violations and refusing to come within code.
My post was poorly worded. Do you believe people should be jailed for other administrative violations? Or do you limit yourself to just this particular instance?
 
A number of people on this site have posted many resources and links that IF you would take the time to read and compare would give you a much clearer picture of the issue. You want to argue bits and pieces and argue about what you don't understand. Go back and read the links provided and find out for yourself if it is just for building code violations. Stop expecting people to do the work for you.
I know what is reported. My questions probe the posters who agree the man should be jailed because he did not resolve the building code violations. Many of you are very willing to give cities the power to jail its citizens over trivial things. The post you reference was poorly written. My intent was to ask the poster if his believe the city should jail people for administrative violations. They guy did not have the correct exit signs, for example.

I have been on the receiving end of a county bureaucrat who just didn't like"rich" people. What got my attention was the 67 code violations. That sounds like harassment. I want to know from those of you who agree he deserved to be put in jail if that applies to all other administrative violations. Would you expect jail time for someone who has one more pet that the city allows, for example?
 
My post was poorly worded. Do you believe people should be jailed for other administrative violations?

Not initially, and nor was the Pastor. In fact he hasn't yet been jailed at all. There comes a point however, when deliberate flouting of safety regulations has continued over a number of years, as in this case, when the penalties ramp up. What would you suggest should be the penalties available to the courts for these violations of zoning and health and safety regs? Just fines? And what if the person of interest just flatly refuses to pay up and desist with the illegal activity?
 
Not initially, and nor was the Pastor. In fact he hasn't yet been jailed at all. There comes a point however, when deliberate flouting of safety regulations has continued over a number of years, as in this case, when the penalties ramp up. What would you suggest should be the penalties available to the courts for these violations of zoning and health and safety regs? Just fines? And what if the person of interest just flatly refuses to pay up and desist with the illegal activity?
I like having an additional legal step within which an individual is given direction to cease use of the facility until it is proven by re-inspection that the code violations have been resolved. If the individual violates that then he could be jailed for something more serious that a code violation. If people in power were not often vindictive I would have no problem with what is occurring. But people in power often are.
 
I like having an additional legal step within which an individual is given direction to cease use of the facility until it is proven by re-inspection that the code violations have been resolved. If the individual violates that then he could be jailed for something more serious that a code violation. If people in power were not often vindictive I would have no problem with what is occurring. But people in power often are.

I agree but as I understand it, he didnt recieve all these violations at once and get into trouble. This happened over a long period of time when he could have adressed the issues, but he refused to. The refusal to use the building untill the issues have been resolved would still result in jailing under code violations, you just added extra wording. I would be suprised if the city had not already told him to cease and decist a while ago. The safety regulations are just that for safety. As I said before I do not have all the facts but it appears in this case the city tried to do this the right way but were met with someone who refused to obey the law.
 
How does a so-called news organization always get the facts wrong?

He was jailed for breaking the law.

Period.

This is why people need to turn off Fox News, it truly makes you less intelligent.


Yeah, white people don't have to put up with LAW BREAKERS in their neighborhoods and FINALLY government does something about. You got a point. I mean remember that horrible law breaker Martin Luther King Jr? He absolutely would not follow local laws and the protest marches and rallies were ILLEGAL, BROKE THE LAW and interferred with traffic for white people too. But the whimp ass government did almost nothing. Just one criminal charge each time. JUST ONE! Today the government knows what to do to LAW BREAKERS of local ordinances like MLK Jr to your satisfaction! You white people don't have to worry about law breakers like him again!

You'd be assured and pleased that they would have written him 125 citations, had police, code enforcement and the fire department repeatedly raid and search his house, then fine him so much they take the house. Your great government would ENFORCE THE LAW AND PUNISH THE LAW BREAKER MLK Jr. They would fine him so much he lost his house - the only thing they could do after he refused to have other law breakers over to his house. They would put him in jail for many months and then on probation for years so they could restrict his activities, prohibit him traveling, monitor all his movements and regulate you he may and may not speak to.

Your folks also today would know how to deal with that law breaker Rosa Parks too. The law clearly stated that negros sit in the back half of the bus. She knew that. It was made perfectly clear. The police even explained it to her before arresting her. BUT they only filed ONE charge against her. Your people would handle that better now. They would have made at least half a dozen charges against her - disobeying an officer, disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, violating ordinances about bus travel...

And it is important to know who the good people and bad people are too. YOU, of course, are GOOD WHITE PEOPLE and YOU ARE ACTING ACCEPTABLE to the government. So you don't really have to follow all those code ordinances, there is no reason to raid or check out your house, and we all (wink wink) know you're one of the good guys. The local ordinances are how you good people take care of bad people. You cause no problems to government so you're ok.
 
Last edited:
Not initially, and nor was the Pastor. In fact he hasn't yet been jailed at all. There comes a point however, when deliberate flouting of safety regulations has continued over a number of years, as in this case, when the penalties ramp up. What would you suggest should be the penalties available to the courts for these violations of zoning and health and safety regs? Just fines? And what if the person of interest just flatly refuses to pay up and desist with the illegal activity?

Well, MLK Jr refused to desist with illegal activities under local ordinances, but they didn't use the methods against him like they are against Salman. Maybe Salman should be killed as the only way to stop his criminally illegal religious meetings? This is a really, really serious matters and he must be stopped. That might be the only way.
 
When I worked at the theater I managed operations. Four times a year we were inspected for safety and health regulations to insure we were in compliance. We had 10 business days to correct any violations found unless written notice was provided to explain why a repair or correction would take longer. If we failed to get into compliance in 10 days the manager on duty during the initial inspection was fined (usually paid for by the company). If we did not respond in another allotted period of time the same manager could be subject to jail time.

That was here in Texas. I'm not sure how things work in Arizona by comparison, but I see absolutely nothing wrong or excessive about jail time if a business entity fails to achieve code compliance within a given amount of time.

All details reports suggest that this man was given several chances to meet code. Not only did he fail to do so, he acquired incorrect permits for the original structure, he classified his property as a church on legal documents and simultaneous lied about it being such when confronted by officials. The man's actions suggest a blatant disregard for law and a willingness to play the system to his own benefit.

Lastly, his actions are in no way comparable to the civil protest and refusal to comply with restrictive, racist laws that MLK Jr. promoted. This man was not fighting against injustice, discrimination, racism, or a lack of equal rights. He was violating the law for his own self-serving motivations. Any idiotic argument attempting to draw a parallel fails the minute it is used.

And PPS, this man is not being targeted because of religion. If he were running a counseling center, a day care, a car repair shop, or any other business out of his home he would still be obligated to comply with codes and regulations regarding health and safety. The "business" he chose to run is irrelevant.
 
This didn't happen overnight.
Timeline

Mr. Salman's interaction regarding his property dates back to 2006, when he was advised by the Zoning Administrator that his property was analogous to a church and required compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.

During 2007, Mr. Salman had interaction with the City regarding his attempts to build on his property. The issue revolves around Mr. Salman's assertion that he is building a detached garage, when the building is actually to function as a church. Mr. Salman builds, despite not having a proper permit. On May 1, 2007, he is cited for, and eventually pleads responsible to building without the required permit. (Pleads responsible 7/18/2007)

In the Fall of 2007, Mr. Salman is notified several times by the City that he needs to obtain the proper permits and approvals before holding church services on his property.

In 2008, Mr. Salman's church, Harvest Christian Fellowship Community Church, is issued a Building Permit to construct a 2,000 square foot private game room accessory to an existing single family residence. The permit states, "Any other occupancy or use (business, commercial, assembly, church, etc.) is expressly prohibited pursuant to the City of Phoenix Building Code and Zoning Ordinances."

During 2009-2010 church services are held on Mr. Salman's property without proper permits and in violation of safety concerns. As a result, Mr. Salman is cited.

On January 4, 2010, Harvest Christian Fellowship Community Church is found responsible for 96 civil code violations. The Court notes, "[T]he State is not saying the Salmans can't run a church or have worship services at the location, but the State is saying that if they do so, they must do it properly and in accord with the building, fire, and zoning codes."

On August 30, 2010, Mr. Salman was found guilty of 67 Class 1 Misdemeanors. The Court stated, "Everyone is entitled under the United States Constitution to worship as they please. But there is a reason for these codes and that is for public safety. And that, I believe, is all that the State is asking is that the Code violations be rectified."

Mr. Salman appealed his convictions. On June 2, 2011, the Maricopa County Superior Court upheld the convictions and stated, "[T]he Defendant was engaged in public or church activities, and further that Defendant's convictions did not violate his Constitutional right to religious freedom."

The Court sentenced Mr. Salman to serve jail time. He was ordered to report to jail on June 18, 2012. The county jail relies on a Department of Public Safety table of criminal codes to confirm the basis for the incarceration when a person self surrenders. The table did not include the particular charge on Mr. Salman's confinement order. Mr. Salman was, therefore, not incarcerated. The table has been corrected.

On June 28, 2012, a Probation Revocation Arraignment was held alleging violations of Mr. Salman's sentence by twice having a gathering in excess of 12 people on his premises while not in compliance with all ordinances and failing to cooperate with the Court's Financial Screening.
Official Site of the City of Phoenix - Fact Sheet Regarding the Michael Salman Case
 
wolfsgirl;1060684753Timeline said:
Mr. Salman's interaction regarding his property dates back to 2006, when he was advised by the Zoning Administrator that his property was analogous to a church and required compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.

During 2007, Mr. Salman had interaction with the City regarding his attempts to build on his property. The issue revolves around Mr. Salman's assertion that he is building a detached garage, when the building is actually to function as a church. Mr. Salman builds, despite not having a proper permit. On May 1, 2007, he is cited for, and eventually pleads responsible to building without the required permit. (Pleads responsible 7/18/2007)

In the Fall of 2007, Mr. Salman is notified several times by the City that he needs to obtain the proper permits and approvals before holding church services on his property.
In 2008, Mr. Salman's church, Harvest Christian Fellowship Community Church, is issued a Building Permit to construct a 2,000 square foot private game room accessory to an existing single family residence. The permit states, "Any other occupancy or use (business, commercial, assembly, church, etc.) is expressly prohibited pursuant to the City of Phoenix Building Code and Zoning Ordinances."

During 2009-2010 church services are held on Mr. Salman's property without proper permits and in violation of safety concerns. As a result, Mr. Salman is cited.

On January 4, 2010, Harvest Christian Fellowship Community Church is found responsible for 96 civil code violations. The Court notes, "[T]he State is not saying the Salmans can't run a church or have worship services at the location, but the State is saying that if they do so, they must do it properly and in accord with the building, fire, and zoning codes."

On August 30, 2010, Mr. Salman was found guilty of 67 Class 1 Misdemeanors. The Court stated, "Everyone is entitled under the United States Constitution to worship as they please. But there is a reason for these codes and that is for public safety. And that, I believe, is all that the State is asking is that the Code violations be rectified."

Mr. Salman appealed his convictions. On June 2, 2011, the Maricopa County Superior Court upheld the convictions and stated, "[T]he Defendant was engaged in public or church activities, and further that Defendant's convictions did not violate his Constitutional right to religious freedom."

The Court sentenced Mr. Salman to serve jail time. He was ordered to report to jail on June 18, 2012. The county jail relies on a Department of Public Safety table of criminal codes to confirm the basis for the incarceration when a person self surrenders. The table did not include the particular charge on Mr. Salman's confinement order. Mr. Salman was, therefore, not incarcerated. The table has been corrected.

On June 28, 2012, a Probation Revocation Arraignment was held alleging violations of Mr. Salman's sentence by twice having a gathering in excess of 12 people on his premises while not in compliance with all ordinances and failing to cooperate with the Court's Financial Screening.

Misterveritis he was told he cannot hold his services untill he complies. I hope that satisfies you as the extra steps they took. Seems it was 96 code violations and 67 convictions of Class 1 Misdemeanors. I thought the OParticle was ambigous and missing facts (what the citations were for) but in fact they were wrong and called 67 convitions code violations.
 
67 convictions for having more than 12 people participating in prayer without permission of the government.

Yes, that is what the American revolution was for. To limit the number of people that may pray together in someone's home without obtaining government permission and without a $20,000 fire suppression sprinkler system installed.

Besides, people who can't afford $50,000 in government required pre-prayer renovations are too poor to be praying. They should be cursing God for being poor. Or better yet, attending the mega million dollar right wing conservative church the Republicans of Phoenix city government attend and giving their little money to it.

F...k poor people. I think that accurately summarizes Phoenix Arizona's overall policy, although usually that is targeted at Latinos and not white people.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that is what they said. The government needs to send law enforcement agents to all religious meetings and prayer sessions to count heads and take names. That also was a primary reason for revolting against the British. The King wasn't having that done, the bastard.

And, of course, only truly EVIL people would ever disagree with the Republicans of the Phoenix Code Enforcement Department. Disagreeing with government is another thing that makes is clear someone is a bad person who much be re-educated and, if refuses, fined, imprisoned and then perpetually monitored on probation. Only evil people on this forum would question the government of Phoenix, Arizona.
 
Last edited:
67 convictions for having more than 12 people participating in prayer without permission of the government.

Yes, that is what the American revolution was for. To limit the number of people that may pray together in someone's home without obtaining government permission and without a $20,000 fire suppression sprinkler system installed.

Besides, people who can't afford $50,000 in government required pre-prayer renovations are too poor to be praying. They should be cursing God for being poor. Or better yet, attending the mega million dollar right wing conservative church the Republicans of Phoenix city government attend and giving their little money to it.

F...k poor people. I think that accurately summarizes Phoenix Arizona's overall policy, although usually that is targeted at Latinos and not white people.

It wasn't a home. It was legally a church.
 
Guy decided to go against the law for his religious beliefs. :applaud

I assume he knew he could be fined/imprisioned/etc. and accepted the fact before he took this action.
 
It wasn't a home. It was legally a church.


Those definitely need weekly government head counts for sure, and bi-monthly surprise police and code enforcement raids too.
 
Yes, that is what they said. The government needs to send law enforcement agents to all religious meetings and prayer sessions to count heads and take names. That also was a primary reason for revolting against the British. The King wasn't having that done, the bastard.

And, of course, only truly EVIL people would ever disagree with the Republicans of the Phoenix Code Enforcement Department. Disagreeing with government is another thing that makes is clear someone is a bad person who much be re-educated and, if refuses, fined, imprisoned and then perpetually monitored on probation. Only evil people on this forum would question the government of Phoenix, Arizona.

So what is your point? That people should just ignore code violations? And go along their merry way...
 
Guy decided to go against the law for his religious beliefs. :applaud

I assume he knew he could be fined/imprisioned/etc. and accepted the fact before he took this action.


Everyone in the USA can be fined and imprisoned anytime local, county, state or the federal government wants to. That is the reality.
 
Those definitely need weekly government head counts for sure, and bi-monthly surprise police and code enforcement raids too.

ALL buildings that are open to the public are inspected for safety. If there are code violations they are allowed time to fix the violation, if the violation is not fixed they can be shut down.

This guy was given every opportunity to comply with the codes. He chose not to, and was charged.
 
So what is your point? That people should just ignore code violations? And go along their merry way...


Yeah, people who cannot afford dumbass endless codes with enforcement specifically selectively used against them to try to force them to give up fundamental rights should exactly ignore code violations.

That is 100% exactly what MLK Jr, Rosa Parks and one hundred thousand other people did.

I have no doubt the origins of this case are someone else on that block is related to someone on the Code Enforcement staff or city council and doesn't like all those poor people's cars parked in front of his/her house every week. City counsel and code enforcement generally based on who you do or don't know. Such massive stacking of cases also tells that this is not just about code violations.

Technically, an officer could write you a speeding ticket for every block and could add "reckless driving" and "Public endangerment" too. When an officer does so, it is because the officer specifically is singling you out beyond all norms and that is exactly what is being done to that guy in Phoenix.

67 convictions? I bet that is not for 67 different offenses. I bet it is for redundancy offenses and stacking offenses.
 
Everyone in the USA can be fined and imprisoned anytime local, county, state or the federal government wants to. That is the reality.


The only legal way to combat this is to change the laws. Other than that you do what this gentleman did - break the law and accept the consequences. Sad, because this country was founded on "freedom of relgion", but true.
 
ALL buildings that are open to the public are inspected for safety. If there are code violations they are allowed time to fix the violation, if the violation is not fixed they can be shut down.

This guy was given every opportunity to comply with the codes. He chose not to, and was charged.


Churches are NOT public facilities, though I gather you think they are and believe the government can go into churches any damn time they want to for any or no reason. In fact, it would take a criminal search warrant upon probably cause to enter a church without permission. Churches are no public facilities UNLESS the church wishes it to be.
 
67 convictions for having more than 12 people participating in prayer without permission of the government.

Yes, that is what the American revolution was for. To limit the number of people that may pray together in someone's home without obtaining government permission and without a $20,000 fire suppression sprinkler system installed.

Besides, people who can't afford $50,000 in government required pre-prayer renovations are too poor to be praying. They should be cursing God for being poor. Or better yet, attending the mega million dollar right wing conservative church the Republicans of Phoenix city government attend and giving their little money to it.

F...k poor people. I think that accurately summarizes Phoenix Arizona's overall policy, although usually that is targeted at Latinos and not white people.

I have to give you credit, joko. You're doing a better job of twisting this story than even FoxNews did.
 
Back
Top Bottom