Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

COMES NOW, Brad Lee Barnhill,\[1]/ to more this Court pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5) to dismiss this action on the grounds that the Secretary has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Further, I respectfully request a hearing and to appear at the hearing of this motion telephonically.

The Secretary’s Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted on each of the following grounds:

(A) Because I timely filed all of the reports, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction;

(B) I was never provided any opportunity for an administrative hearing of this matter as required by the Nevada Administrative Procedures Act;

(C) The Secretary’s “determination” is arbitrary and capricious,

(D) I am neither required to report “each” contribution; nor am I required to report “every” expense;

(E) The last two reports I filed do not expressly denominate the reported contributions and expenses in lawful money; and

(F) I reported the contributions and expenses in good faith in the manner required by my faith.

A. Because I timely filed all of the reports, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

The Secretary alleges that I failed to timely submit all three of the reports that are mandated by statute, even though Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 attached to the complaint are file stamped by the Elections Department and were all timely submitted.

The Secretary’s letter to me dated March 4, A.D. 2009 (Exhibit 6 to the Secretary’s Complaint) alleges:

While these reports have been submitted, it does not comport with the statutory mandates. Id.

As Chief Elections Officer, the office of the Secretary of State is charged with enforcing the plain letter of the law, as set forth in Title 24. As such this office requires candidates to accurately and completely file Contributions and Expenses Reports. Refusal to fill in the forms accurately and in good faith is a violation of Nevada law. … Currently, the reports that you have submitted do not contain the required data … Therefore, your filing of these reports is invalid.

The general duties of the Secretary are set forth in NRS 225.080:

The Secretary of State shall:

1. Attest all the official acts and proceedings of the Governor, and affix the seal of the State, with proper attestations, to all commissions, pardons and other public instruments to which the signature of the Governor is required. A copy of these instruments must be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State.

2. Lay all papers, minutes and vouchers relative to the official acts and proceedings of the Governor before either house of the Legislature when required by that house.

3. Keep the official bond of the Treasurer, while the bond is in force.

4. Permit all the records and transactions of the Office of the Secretary of State to be open at all times to the inspection and examination of any committee of either house of the Legislature.

5. Furnish information, in writing, upon any subject relating to the duties of the Office of the Secretary of State to the Governor, whenever required.

6. Deliver, in good order and condition, to his or her successor, all records, books, papers and other things belonging to the Office of the Secretary of State.

NRS 294A.420(1) provides for the Secretary’s power regarding the instant matter as well as the subject matter jurisdiction of this proceeding:

If the Secretary of State receives information that a person or entity that is subject to the provisions of NRS 294A.120, 294A.128, 294A.140, 294A.150, 294A.200, 294A.210, 294A.220, 294A.227, 294A.230, 294A.270, 294A.280, 294A.283, 294A.286 or 294A.360 has not filed a report or form for registration pursuant to the applicable provisions of those sections, the Secretary of State may, after giving notice to that person or entity, cause the appropriate proceedings to be instituted in the First Judicial District Court. (emphasis added)

The statute provides only that the Secretary of State may cause appropriate proceedings to be instituted in the event that I did not submit a report. However, the Court can plainly see that I did, in fact, submit these reports. Further, the Court should take notice that the reports are timely. There is no authority for the Secretary to cause proceedings to be instituted under any other circumstances.

The Secretary has no other duties with regard to this matter. The words of the law must mean what they say. Clearly, the power of the law lies in the words used to express it. The Nevada Legislature made provision for the Secretary to determine only whether the report was submitted, and to assess a penalty if the report is not submitted timely. The Nevada Legislature (at least within Chapter 225 and Title 24) did not confer upon the Secretary the power to determine whether the reports “comport with statutory mandates,” as alleged by the Secretary. The Nevada Legislature could have conferred this power upon the Secretary, but it chose not to do so. It matters not what power the legislature has, it matters only what power the legislature has actually exercised. See Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1 (1825).\[2]/ In the instant matter, the Nevada Legislature did not grant power to the Secretary to determine whether the reports are “complete” or whether the reports contain all of the information “required,” only to act then the reports were not submitted in a timely manner. For the record, the Secretary is violating my federally protected rights under mere color of state law, as he lacks the statutory authority to perform the “duty” that he maintains is his.

I hereby throw down the gauntlet. To pick it up, the Secretary must establish the act of the Nevada Legislature that grants authority to him to determine whether or not the reports are complete or whether the reports contain all of the information required as he contends.

Accordingly, because the Secretary confesses that I submitted all of the reports timely, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the Secretary has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

The very fact that there is no administrative procedure that provides for an administrative hearing so that I can present evidence and seek a final administrative determination that can be appealed for judicial review under the contested case process gives rise to the argument found in the following section.

B. I was never provided any opportunity for an administrative hearing as required by the Nevada Administrative Procedures Act

I ask this Court to address the following four questions: First, at what point am I to be provided with administrative due process and a fair opportunity to be heard on this matter within the agency? Second, when am I going to be given an opportunity for judicial review of the agency determination that should have taken place within the strictures of the “contested case” process set forth within the Nevada Administrative Procedures Act? Third, if there is neither an administrative hearing nor an opportunity for judicial review of the determination made by the agency at such a hearing, has the Secretary thereby failed to exhaust its administrative remedies under the Nevada APA? Fourth, if NRS 294A.420 fails to provide for either an administrative hearing or a judicial review, then is not NRS 294A.420 unconstitutional for its failure to provide for procedural due process within the context of the Nevada APA?

The Secretary will argue that NRS 294A.420 exempts it from the “contested case” process set forth in the Nevada APA at NRS 233B.121 &seq. I argue that because the Office of the Secretary of State is not exempted by NRS 233B.039, that there has to be some procedural due process afforded to me under the strictures of the Nevada APA, else I have been denied due process as required by the Constitutions of Nevada and of the United States.

This matter should be construed as a “contested case” as provided by NRS 233B.032:

“Contested case” means a proceeding, including but not restricted to rate making and licensing, in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing, or in which an administrative penalty may be imposed.

After all, because the Secretary is required by NRS 294A.373(1) to promulgate the report, and there is apparently a penalty for failure to submit the report, does that not mean that the report itself must be construed as a “regulation” as provided by NRS 233B.038(1)(d) and (m)?

NRS 233B.038 “Regulation” defined. 1. “Regulation” means:

* * *

(d) The general application by an agency of a written policy, interpretation, process or procedure to determine whether a person is in compliance with a federal or state statute or regulation in order to assess a fine, monetary penalty or monetary interest.

* * *

(m) The application by an agency of a policy, interpretation, process or procedure to a person who has sufficient prior actual notice of the policy, interpretation, process or procedure to determine whether the person is in compliance with a federal or state statute or regulation in order to assess a fine, monetary penalty or monetary interest;

Every office of government, unless exempted, is made subject to the requirements of the Nevada APA. It is clear that the Secretary is not exempted by NRS 233B.039. Also, because the Secretary is not exempted, the agency is required by NRS 233B.050(1) to adopt rules of practice, so that administrative hearings can be held and administrative determinations can be made.

In addition to other regulation-making requirements imposed by law, each agency shall: (a) Adopt rules of practice, setting forth the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available, including a description of all forms and instructions used by the agency.

The legislative intent of the Nevada APA is set forth in NRS 233B.020(1):

By this chapter, the Legislature intends to establish minimum procedural requirements for the regulation-making and adjudication procedure of all agencies of the Executive Department of the State Government and for judicial review of both functions, except those agencies expressly exempted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

I was never given any opportunity for the “adjudication procedure” in this matter—an administrative hearing within the agency where an administrative determination is made. Nor will I ever be given any opportunity for judicial review of the administrative decision that imposed the penalty, because of this, I contend that this Court now presides as the administrative hearing venue. The disagreement between the Secretary and myself should have been subject to the contested case restrictions in order to afford to me “minimum procedural” due process. However, because of the way the penalty statute is written, I do not have the protection of such “minimum procedural requirements” and I am therefore being denied the administrative due process that is required of the Secretary’s agency by the Nevada APA.

If I am never given an opportunity for an administrative hearing before the agency, then the instant proceeding cannot be construed as a judicial review of the agency’s determination. In point of fact, this proceeding cannot be construed as anything other than the agency hearing itself. Because of this, I will never have any opportunity for judicial review of the agency “determination” made here, as the contested case procedure requires that I be able to appeal the administrative determination to the District Court. My only appeal from the administrative hearing now taking place before this Court is with the Nevada Supreme Court, and this is not the judicial review contemplated by the Nevada APA.

Because the Nevada Legislature never provided for a judicial review of this particular agency “determination”, NRS 294A.420 itself fails to provide me with the procedural due process required by the Nevada APA, it thereby denies to me the due process requirements of the state and federal constitutions. But this cannot be, as statutes have to be construed in such a manner as to pass constitutional muster. Accordingly, because the Secretary has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies within the context of the Nevada APA, he has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

C. The Secretary’s “determination” is arbitrary and capricious

The Secretary alleges in ¶ 9 of its complaint that I “filed reports stating only that [I] neither received nor spent gold or silver coin.” The Secretary, in its letters to me attached to the Complaint as Exhibits 6, 7, and 8, mentions only that the reports submitted “[do] not comport with statutory mandates” and “do not contain the required data.” See Exhibit 6. The Secretary’s other letters do not provide me with the information that I would need to fill out the reports in the manner that is required.

This court's role in reviewing an administrative decision is identical to that of the district court: to review the evidence presented to the agency in order to determine whether the agency's decision was arbitrary or capricious and was thus an abuse of the agency's discretion. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Clark County, 99 Nev. 397, 399, 663 P.2d 355, 357 (1983); see NRS 233B.1351; State Envtl. Comm'n v. John Lawrence Nev., 108 Nev. 431, 433-34, 834 P.2d 408, 410 (1992).

The Secretary’s letters never make any mention that the disagreement with me relates to the nature of the medium of exchange that was reported. There is no description as to the particularities of the size, shape, color, substance or any other attribute that would inform me as to the precise form of the tender that was required for me to report Because of this, I was never made aware of the manner in which I could have corrected my “errors.” Further, there is no way for the Court to perform a judicial review of this “determination,” as the Secretary’s letters are clearly so ambiguous as to prevent a proper adjudication.

Accordingly, the Secretary’s determination was arbitrary and capricious, and the Secretary has thereby failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

D. I am neither required to report “each” contribution, nor report “every” expense

The Secretary alleges in ¶ 4 of its complaint that I am required to “list each of the campaign contributions” that I received. This is a patent misrepresentation of the statutory requirement. The requirement is that I “report each campaign contribution in excess of $100 received during the period and contributions received during the period from a contributor which cumulatively exceed $100.” NRS 294A.120(2).\[3]/ It is patently obvious from this mandate of the Nevada Legislature that if I received no contributions in excess of the statutory requirements, that there is nothing to report. The reports as filed establish that I did not, in fact, receive any contributions at all. The Secretary’s wanton fuss over this matter is not only a waste of the Court’s time, it is a waste of the taxpayers’ money.

The report form promulgated by the Secretary of State appears to require the reporting of all contributions, even those that are $100 or less. This requirement is contrary to the statute. Accordingly, the report itself is statutorily infirm. It is notable that the EL201 report for the 2010 election cycle has been revised to remove the requirement to report contributions that are less than $100.\[4]/

My filing of the report, even to the extent of reporting all of the contributions that were $100 or less, establishes that the report was filed in good faith. Further, the Secretary will be unable to establish by any competent evidence that I actually received any contributions. Therefore, the Court should accept the information set forth on the report as true.

The Secretary properly alleges in ¶ 5 of its complaint that I am required to “list each of the campaign contributions in excess of $100” that I spent. It is patently obvious from this mandate of the Nevada Legislature that if I had no expenditures in excess of the statutory requirements, that there is nothing to report. The report as filed establishes that I did not, in fact, have any expenditures at all.

The report form promulgated by the Secretary of State appears to require the reporting of all expenses, even those that are $100 or less. This requirement is contrary to the statute. Accordingly, the report itself is statutorily infirm. It is notable that the EL201 report for the 2010 election cycle has been revised to remove the requirement to report expenditures that are less than $100.

My filing of the report, even to the extent of reporting all of the expenses that were $100 or less, establishes that the report was filed in good faith. Further, the Secretary will be unable to establish by any competent evidence that I actually had any expenditures. Therefore, the Court should accept the information set forth on the reports as true.

We have previously held that an indictment accusing a public administrator of failing to comply with a statute requiring him to file quarterly reports of all fees and compensation received in his official capacity was defective because it did not allege that he had received such fees or compensation. Adler v. Sheriff, 92 Nev. 436, 552 P.2d 334 (1976). Here, there is no allegation that Hilkert either received contributions, or incurred expenses; thus, we have the same deficiency which proved to be fatal in Adler. Accordingly, we reverse. Hilkert v. Sheriff, 93 Nev. 153, 561 P.2d 448 (1977).

While I understand and agree that this matter is not a criminal proceeding, the Secretary must still have some competent evidence that I actually had contributions or expenditures. Otherwise, it must take my timely filed reports as true and correct, especially due to the fact that they are verified. Frankly, if the Secretary believes that the information on the form is a lie, then it has the duty to file criminal charges.

Accordingly, the Secretary has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

E. Reports 2 and 3 do not expressly denominate the contributions and expenses in lawful money

I respectfully request that the Court look very carefully at Reports 2 and 3, which are attached to the Secretary’s Complaint as Exhibits 4 and 5. Each of the monetary fields on that report contains a zero. Even though there is a notation just above the affirmation that “I have neither received nor spent any gold or silver coin”, there is no indication on the report that the zeros in the monetary fields represent anything but “dollars” as defined in Title 31 of the United States Code.

Accordingly, with respect to Reports 2 and 3, the Secretary has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

F. I reported the contributions and expenses in good faith in the manner required by my faith

The Secretary alleges in ¶ 9 of its complaint that I “filed reports stating only that [I] neither received nor spent gold or silver coin.” The Secretary, in its letters to me attached to the Complaint as Exhibits 6, 7, and 8, mentions only that the reports submitted “[do] not comport with statutory mandates” and “do not contain the required data.” See Exhibit 6. The Secretary’s other letters do not provide me with the information that I would need to fill out the reports in the manner that is required.

The Secretary’s letters never make any mention that the disagreement with me relates to the nature of the medium of exchange that was reported. There is no description as to the particularities of the size, shape, color, substance and any other attribute that would inform me as to the precise form of the tender that was required for me to report Accordingly, I was not made aware of the manner in which I could have corrected my “errors.”

It is only in the Complaint that I belatedly find that all of this fuss is because I reported contributions and expenses as provided by the laws set forth by Our Creator and by the Constitution of the United States. My understanding is that the contributions that I received or the expenditures for the campaign be denominated in lawful money of the United States. This requirement is set forth in Article I, §10 of the Constitution for the United States of America.\[5]/ This requirement is also set forth in Scripture at Leviticus 19:35-36,\[6]/ Deuteronomy 25:13-16,\[7]/ Proverbs 11:1,\[8]/ Proverbs 16:11,\[9]/ Proverbs 20:10,\[10]/ Proverbs 20:23,\[11]/ and Micah 6:9-16.\[12]/ In accordance with these beliefs, I set forth in my reports that I neither received nor spent any money.

This Court is also required to follow the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. This Court is also required to observe the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Nevada. The applicable provision that this Court must now enforce is found within the Irrevocable Ordinances:

In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress of the United States, approved March twenty-first, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and state government, this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada:

* * *

Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.

Frankly, because the Secretary has utterly failed to secure a perfect toleration of my religious sentiment, the Secretary is in perjury to his oath of office. Also, he has denied to me my federally protected right to pursue my faith as I see fit, under color of state law.

Because the Secretary has failed to construe the statutes in question faithfully to secure a perfect toleration of my religious sentiment, he has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

CONCLUSION

While the Court must construe the Secretary’s allegations as true, I believe that upon careful consideration the Court must come to the conclusion that the allegations set forth no cause of action and fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that the Court dismiss the Secretary’s action with prejudice, order the Secretary to reimburse me for my fees and costs, and for any other relief that the Court deems is just.

[1] Proper and timely notice is hereby given of my True Name.

[2] That a power to make laws for carrying into execution all the judgments which the judicial department has power to pronounce, is expressly conferred by this clause, seems to be one of those plain propositions which reasoning cannot render plainer. The terms of the clause, neither require nor admit of elucidation. The Court, therefore, will only say, that no doubt whatever is entertained on the power of Congress over the subject. The only inquiry is, how far has this power been exercised?

[3] Plaintiff cites to subsection (1), but because the citation is subdivided into paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), I believe that the proper citation is to subsection (2).

[4] This form is a public record and can be downloaded from the Plaintiff’s website. I respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice of this new form.

[5] “No state shall … make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts …”

[6] ³⁵ "'Do not use dishonest standards when measuring length, weight or quantity. ³⁶ Use honest scales and honest weights, an honest ephah and an honest hin. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt.

[7] ¹³ Do not have two differing weights in your bag--one heavy, one light. ¹⁴ Do not have two differing measures in your house--one large, one small. ¹⁵ You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. ¹⁶ For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly

[8] ¹ The Lord abhors dishonest scales, but accurate weights are his delight.

[9] ¹¹ Honest scales and balances are from the Lord; all the weights in the bag are of his making.

[10] ¹⁰ Differing weights and differing measures-- the Lord detests them both.

[11] ²³ The Lord detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him.

[12] ⁹ Listen! The Lord is calling to the city-- and to fear your name is wisdom-- "Heed the rod and the One who appointed it. ¹⁰ Am I still to forget, O wicked house, your ill-gotten treasures and the short ephah, which is accursed? ¹¹ Shall I acquit a man with dishonest scales, with a bag of false weights? ¹² Her rich men are violent; her people are liars and their tongues speak deceitfully. ¹³ Therefore, I have begun to destroy you, to ruin you because of your sins. ¹⁴ You will eat but not be satisfied; your stomach will still be empty. You will store up but save nothing, because what you save I will give to the sword. ¹⁵ You will plant but not harvest; you will press olives but not use the oil on yourselves, you will crush grapes but not drink the wine. ¹⁶ You have observed the statutes of Omri and all the practices of Ahab's house, and you have followed their traditions. Therefore I will give you over to ruin and your people to derision; you will bear the scorn of the nations."

What are you going to do about TSA tyranny?

These thugs who tell us that we are waiving our rights by purchasing an airline ticket forget that we have a right (albeit enacted by Congress) to air travel:

49 USC 40101(c)(2):
In carrying out subpart III of this part and those provisions of subpart IV applicable in carrying out subpart III, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall consider the following matters:

(2) the public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace.

This is reiterated at 42 USC 40103(a)(2):

A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.

Given I have this right, I therefore may exercise it without having to prejudice any other rights, for example, my right secured by the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The question therefore becomes whether the new TSA sexual assault guidelines are unreasonable. If they are unreasonable, wouldn't they need a warrant to seize my testicles if I decide to opt out of being subjected to the adverse health effects of the Nude-O-Scanner?

It is, without a doubt, sexual assault for anyone to touch my genitals without my consent. They get away with it by obtaining your consent before they do it.

So, I have to either be a porn star or a victim of sexual assault in order to exercise my right of freedom of transit through navigable airspace? The answer is no, I do not.

I have to consent to a search. See 49 USC 44902. The parameters of the search are set forth in 49 USC 44901(a). Nothing in this section says that I have to consent to sexual assault. However, regulations can be promulgated, and these regulations have the same force as a statute enacted by Congress. The list of regulations that are associated with this statute are found here. The applicable regulation is 49 CFR 1540.107:

No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.

Again, no authorization for sexual assault, or requirement for me to consent to a sexual assault in order to exercise my right of transit through navigable airspace.

The thugs will say that they get to write "secret" policies that we then have to follow, but this violates the strictures of the federal Administrative Procedure Act and federal Register Act. Documents that have "general applicability" or "legal effect" must be published in the Federal Register. This is because in order to know what I am required to do, I have to be able to read it in an official place. Therefore, if I have to consent to sexual assault before I can exercise my right of transit through navigable airspace, that requirement has to be published.

It is not published. Anywhere.

The thugs at the gate do not know this and don't care. They only want to gawk at your tits or touch your junk. And they don't even change their gloves between assaults.

1. I consent to a search, not to sexual assault.

2. Show me the statute enacted by Congress or the regulation published in the Federal Register that requires that I consent to sexual assault in order to exercise my right of transit through navigable airspace.

All it takes is for about 100 people to show up all at the same time and distribute themselves strategically so that everybody who wants to be a porn star or get fondled has to wait behind us. We could bring the system to a screeching halt if we wanted to.

National Opt Out Day. Make it a day they will remember.

National Opt Out Day

The Wednesday before Thanksgiving is generally a very busy day for air travel. National Opt Out Day is an effort to make this day a living hell for all of the air travelers who don't seem to mind being a porno star or getting sexually assaulted.

I went to cafepress.com and designed a t-shirt for myself. On the front is the largest Gadsden Flag graphic I could find and the following message:

I Consent to a Search

Not to Sexual Battery

On the back, I found this really nice graphic at Reddit.com revealing the Statue of Liberty via the new full body scanners:


But I digress. My post today deals more with the procedure that can be used in order to maximize the chances of succeeding when you eventually sue these retards for deprivation of rights.

The First rule is: Consent to a search. This is required. If you do not consent to a search, then you cannot get into the sterile area. Therefore, just about every other thing that comes out of your mouth needs to be:
"I consent to a search, not to sexual battery."

The Second rule is: Show it to me in writing. You see, in order for a "rule" to have general effect or to affect substantive rights, the "rule" has to be promulgated in accordance with the federal Administrative Procedures Act and the federal Register Act. This means that the rule has to be published for public comment for couple of months before it can be added to the Federal Register, and later published in the Code of Federal Regulations. The "rule" written by the TSA and being imposed is not a published regulation. Therefore, no one can be forced to obey it.

The Third rule is: Be nice. No one gets what they want by being nasty. Make them get nasty. Stay cool. Hold your ground. Repeatedly express the First and Second rules.

The Fourth rule is: Arrive with friends and cameras. It cannot be illegal to photograph that which can be seen by the public. They will try to stop you, and you should stop when told, but if we all have our cameras out, they can't stop everyone. I would even send someone through first, who has both a camera and audio recording equipment (careful, though, there are some states where you cannot record a conversation between others). When I am being subjected to secondary screening, I will ask you to be my witness.

I commission you as a witness, do you accept your commission?

Bear witness for each other. Write down names, take down physical detailed descriptions, whatever you can do to record who are the goons who are abusing your rights.

Aftermath: Expect to be refused boarding. Expect to be frog-marched out of the airport. Expect to be detained and questioned. Expect to be intimidated by the goons and by the traveling public (they don't care about their rights, they want to catch their flight). Expect the police to be present and to intervene. In fact, if police do intervene, I would commission them to bear witness and to arrest the perpetrators for attempted sexual battery. If the police say that the TSA is "doing their job, remind them of Nuremburg and demand to see the written law enacted by Congress or the published regulation in the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations that requires that you consent to sexual battery. Get the names of the police that become involved. There is a regulation that keeps the TSA personnel from being identified, but cops are a completely different matter.

Here are the steps that I would take when I got home.

1. Send a state FOIA request to the airport authority for a copy of the videotapes from the checkpoint. Make sure that you have the date, time, length, and place correct. You use a state FOIA, because most airports are state or county territory, not federal territory.

2. Send a state FOIA request to the local police authority for a copy of the incident report. If you request a copy of an privacy authorization, they have to give it to you unredacted.

3. File a federal tort claim against the TSA any any agents you can name for sexual assault, and deprivation of rights contrary to their oaths of office. You cannot make a Section 1983 claim against federal officials, instead you file a Bivens complaint against them. The tort claim application will be eventually denied, and you have six months from that denial to file suit in federal court against the thugs for deprivation of rights.

We Made History!

Independent American Party
186 Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, Nevada 89801
775-397-6859, www.iapn.org

Report by Janine Hansen, IAP Executive Director and National Committeeman

We made history!!! Let’s look at some of our accomplishments as the Independent American Party.

A FIRST: We had 54 candidates more than ever before and that number is correct! To see the complete list of candidates go to the IAP website at www.iapn.org. We filled all Statewide and Congressional positions and had a plethora of candidates. Clark County fielded the most candidates. In Elko County on my ballot I had 13 Independent Americans to vote for. THANKS to all of you who sacrificed to run.

A FIRST: We elected 3 people and re-elected one.

CONGRATULATIONS!

Falcon Finlinson is the new Public Administrator in Nye County. He received 6,765 votes with 51%.

Arthur Wehrmeister is the new District Attorney of Esmeralda County. He won in a three-way race with 47.96% and 188 votes.

John S. Lampros is a new County Commissioner in White Pine County. In a three-way race he received 47.11% with 1524 votes.

Remarkably, all of these successful candidates are new to the party in 2010.

Jackie Berg was reelected as Eureka County Clerk Treasurer. However, Jackie Berg won by only 3 votes and there is going to be a recount.

Statewide: We filled every statewide race and three Congressional races, including US Senate--Tim Fasano .44%, Governor,--Floyd Fitzgibbons .70%, Lt. Governor--Ryan Fitzgibbons 3.74%, Secretary of State--John Wagner 6.0%, Treasurer--Mike Hawkins 3.83%, and Controller--Warren Markowitz 4.83%.

Joel Hansen candidate for State Attorney General received the highest percentage and highest number of votes for our Independent American statewide candidates with 7.81% with 54,980 votes.

Congressional: Russell Best did best of the 3 Congressional races in CD-3 with 4.14% with 10, 809 votes. CD-1, Jonathan Hansen at 1.70%, and CD-2, Scott Nartar with .48%.

Clark County fielded the most candidates:

For State Senate: Tom Jones received the most votes at 4,575 with Glenn Brown receiving the highest percentage at 6.34% with 808 votes. In Senate District 5 we helped elect the Republican Candidate Michael Roberson who defeated Democrat Joyce Woodhouse. We also helped elect Republican Barbara Cegvaske who is now the number 2 person in Republican leadership in the Senate.

Clark Assembly: Stacey Gonzales in District 8 received the highest percentage at 6.81% while Leonard Foster received the most votes at 2,545.

Other Clark County Assembly Candidates include: AD 2--Jon Kamerath at 3.25%, AD 4--Mark Andrews at 5.87%, AD 15--Stan Vaughn at 6.17%, AD19--James Rhodes 5.87%, AD 21--Les McKay at 2.38% and AD22--Salli Durbin at 2.18%.

Clark County Commission Dist. F. candidate Jeff Durbin received 3,954 votes at 6.15% .

Boulder Constable candidate Mike Plott in a two-way race received 12,875 votes at 34.53%.

Other Clark County Candidates: County Clerk--Russell Chey McDonald 3.45%, Assessor Curtis Christianson 2.51%, Alphonso Aguiliar 2.86%, Public Administrator Dana Brown 4.09%, Commission Dist. G—Del Haderly 1.96%, Las Vegas Constable—Lee Andersen 4.34%, Senate Dist. 12--Dick O’Dell 3.33%.

Washoe County: Dan Joseph running for Assessor racked up 42,291 votes in a two-way race for 33.33%. Consider that there would have been no choice on the ballot if an IAP had not run. In another two-way race, Lynn Chapman for Public Administrator got 39,863 votes or 31.91%.

Other Washoe Candidates: Recorder—Ruth Gillings 5.42% with 7,181 votes, County Commission 5—Gary Feero 7.20%, AD 26—Greg Miller 4.45%.

Churchill County: Ken Greenwell running for County Clerk received 1,564 votes and 18.27%.

Douglas County: Public Administrator--Sam Dupuis 36.78% with 6,980 votes, County Clerk—Robert Connor 17.74% with 3,514 votes.

Humboldt County: Kevin Pasquale in a three-way race received 1435 votes at 29.08%.

Multi-County State Senate Seats:

Washoe 4, Ike Yochum received 9,654 and 26.11% in a two-way race.

Capital District, Cody Quirk received 1,993 votes and 4.93% in a three-way race.

Multi-County Assembly Seats:

We helped to elect Pete Livermore Republican in AD 40 who put the Assembly over the critical 15 members to stop tax increases requiring a 2/3rds vote.

AD 33, Janine Hansen received 30.43 % with 4,100 votes in a hard fought three way race coming in second defeating the Democrat. Republican Ellison spend 3 to 1 what Janine spent and had been in local office for 18 years.

Great News! We are now the second party in Elko County as the Democrats did not field any candidates except for Assembly with the IAP fielding many local candidates. See Elko report below. The Dems are dying a slow but sure death in the Rurals.

AD 36, David Vanderbeek received 9.66% at 1,913 votes in a three-way race.

AD 38, Dennis Gomez received 24.91% and 5,734 votes in a two-way race.

AD 39, David Schuman received 8.16% and 1,942 votes in a three-way race.

Elko County:

John Everhart for County Commission #2 received 4,043 votes with 32.66% in a two-way race with a Republican.

Allison King for County Commission #4 received 3,004 with 24.49% in a two-way race with a Republican.

Kay Dawn Jenkins for Public Administrator received 3,309 votes with 27.34% in a two-way race with a Republican.

Mike Smith for Assessor received 3,059 with 24.65% in a two-way race with a Republican.

Dr. William McKnight for County Clerk received 3,249 with 26.22% in a two-race with a Republican.

White Pine County: Jack Curtis Ward for County Commission #1 16.72% with 540 votes.

I’m still recovering from the election. I have not had time to double check all these figures so keep that in mind. If you find a mistake please advise me. You can access these election numbers at www.nvsos.gov and http://www.silverstate2010.com/General.aspx.

Contribute to the Independent American Party at www.iapn.org

This report may be forwarded and may be used with permission.

This is why we are not Republi-cant's

Joel Hansen was the best candidate for Nevada Attorney General by far. The re-elected democratic AG, Catherine Cortez-Masto, is a socialist who refuses to file suit against ObamaCare at the direction of our Governor. This is a misdemeanor and she should be ousted from office.

However, people by and large will continue to remain in the Republi-can't party, because "you can't be elected as an Independent American." This is untrue, as there are currently four IAP-NV officeholders in this state, and we will get more candidates elected in the future, once conservatives currently in the Republi-can't party realize that their leadership does not want their values, they want only their votes. These leaders are willing to sacrifice Nevadans on the alter of National Socialism in order to prevent a return to the Constitutional principles of limited-government.

Wake up, Nevada. There is an alternative to wasting your vote on those who do not cherish this nation.

Here is a message from Joel to you.

Dear Editor, Las Vegas Review Journal,

From Joel Hansen

Many people have lamented to me that if I had just run as a Republican, I could have been elected as Attorney General of Nevada, and asked why I won’t leave the Independent American Party and join the Republican Party. Looking back on the election, I see all the more reasons why not to join the Republicans. My dear friend, Sharron Angle, for whom I have served as an attorney on several occasions, left the IAP long ago to join the Republican Party so that she could be elected. And this year she almost attained that goal. She fought the Republican establishment and beat Sue Lowden, the anointed candidate of the Republican Establishment. Once she gained the nomination, it looked as though she had a good chance of winning, because she stuck to her guns, identified herself openly as a conservative Republican, and delivered blow for blow against Harry Reid’s merciless and untruthful onslaughts against her character and her anti socialist views. And what did she get for this almost superhuman effort? She was stabbed in the back by the Republicans for Reid, led by prominent Republicans such as Bill Raggio, Bob Cashell, Dawn Gibbons, former Sheriff Bill Young, etc. . Also joining in this back stabbing by her own party members were other Republicans who are prominent Mormons who ought to know better than to support socialism.

And so I am unable to join the Republican party because its leadership consists largely of liberal RINOS (Republicans in name only) who openly betrayed Nevada and their own party for Harry Reid, who gave us obamacare, the most unconstitutional and financially and medically destructive federal law in US history. They supported Kenny Guinn, who gave us the largest tax increase in Nevada history, and George W. Bush, who lied to us about weapons of mass destruction. These RINOS constitute the leadership of this Socialist party B.

I thus stand with John Quincy Adams, who wisely stated: “Always vote for principle, and though you vote alone, you can cherish the sweet assurance that your vote is never wasted.” That is why we formed the IAP, so we wouldn’t have to sell our souls to these liberal RINOS who continue to destroy any hope for a return to constitutional limited government and continue to betray conservative Republicans.. I invite all honest Republicans who still believe in the traditional principles of America to see the handwriting on the wall and join with us in the Independent American Party, a party which truly believes in our inspired Constitution and its Sacred Bill of Rights. Any other course, is, in the words of Einstein, insanity, which is expecting a different result while continuing to repeat the mistakes of the past.

The RJ wouldn’t endorse me because I “didn’t have any chance of being elected.” Looks like Sharron Angle didn’t either, because of the Benedict Arnolds within her own party.

Joel F. Hansen

www.iapn.org

Nevada Elects Four IAP-NV candidates

The Independent American Party of Nevada has elected 3 people to local offices across the state and re-elected a current office-holder!

With all of the Precincts reporting in each county, the IAP elected John Lampros as White Pine County Commissioner (Seat 5), Falkon Finlinson as Public Administrator of Nye County, Arther Wehrmeister as Esmeralda County District Attorney, and re-elected Jackie Berg as Eureka County Clerk!

Congratulations to our new IAP office-holders and may they carry forward the Banner of Liberty in the Silver State!

Analysis of the Tea Party of Nevada Senate candidate signatures

I spent a couple of days last week analyzing the petition signatures gathered for the Tea Party of Nevada candidate, Jon Scott Ashjian. There were 66 petitions containing a total of 500 signatures. I am told that the Clark County Elections Department verified the signatures and ended up with 259 good ones. This is pretty normal, as when you gather signatures, about half of them are generally no good: Signatures of people not registered to vote at all, signatures of people who have moved, but have not updated their registrations, people who give information that is simply not legible and so impossible to verify, things like that.

Anyway, I had time to analyze 33 of the petitions, containing 253 signatures. Of those, I was unable to verify 131 of them, about 52% of the total I analyzed. This left 122 signatures that could be verified against the database (48%). So, with these numbers, it was probable that the Elections Department did actually get 259 good signatures.

Next, I analyzed the party affiliation of the people that signed the petitions, and what I found surprised me. I would have expected that the vast majority of the signatures would have come from registered Republican voters, or from those registered as Non Partisan, or even from Independent American registrations.

However, it was only a slight majority of these groups that signed the petition for the "Tea Party" candidate.

DEM	57	46.72%
REP	38	31.15%
NP	22	18.03%
INA	3	2.46%
LIB	1	0.82%
GRE	1	0.82%
TOTAL	122	100.00%

There were 38 Republicans (31% of the total), 22 were Non Partisan (18%) and only 3 were Independent Americans. At 57 signatures, Democratic voters held the largest percentage of petition signers at nearly 47%.

Parenthetically, I note that with only 3 Independent American voters signing the Ashjian petitions, the loyalty of Independent Americans to the party candidates is quite satisfying to me.

The next question that comes to mind is, "Why would a near majority of signatures come from people registered in the Democratic party?" For me, this is evidence that Ashjian is a stalking horse that has been fabricated by the Reid campaign in order to split the Republican and conservative vote. I have attended a couple of the Tea Party gatherings in this county and it is not my experience that nearly half of them are Democrats, itching to vote for a small-government conservative candidate. No, the reality here is something quite different.

With Sue Lowdon confessing that she would have supported the bailout bills, and with her history of fighting against grassroots conservatives in this state (never forget how she threw the Ron Paul Republicans under the bus at the Republican state convention), Lowdon is not a viable candidate behind whom conservatives can muster. The only true conservative in the race against Reid is Tim Fasano of Ferley, in Lyon county. If Tea Partiers want a candidate, Fasano is the one they should be backing.

Brad Lee Barnhill
Chairman, Clark county Central Committee,
Independent American Party of Nevada
brad@electbarnhill.com