Someone's Gotta Be Kidding!

Dear Judge:

Taxpayer-Funded Circumlocution Sways The Court
The scandal-plagued Reno airport's taxpayer-funded hired guns mutilated justice with a pack of perversions... blatantly in contradiction to what can plainly be seen on the official video tape of Sam (Denis) Dehne's kidnaping. The Court allowed itself to be duped by their lies. Please do America a favor and look at the official video tape of the ... and remember what hundreds of thousands of Americans have fought and died for... the protection of the United States Constitution... and in this case the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendments. These haloed liberties were mutilated by this evil gang.
Maybe it isn't too late for the Court to "See the Light".
Thus the questions are begged:
Did the Court study the 2 minute official video tape of the kidnaping that plaintiff submitted?
It appears the Court did not. That is an outrage!
Did the Court read Dehne's OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT...
that lays the Defense to waste? ("click" to read!)
It appears the Court did not. That is an outrage!

The Order:

Just for Starters!
A reasonable person would judge that McKibben's cursory and bizarre
Order is flawed from the outset by its display of a pro-Airport bias in its
first paragraph:

"During the public comments portion of the meeting Dehne spoke out against a
newly instituted procedure individuals needed to use before speaking at such
meetings. Dehne was extreme in his condemnation of the Airport Authority
members as individuals. He expressed personally derogatory comments toward
individual board members without consequence. He also tore up and spat upon
the request to speak form that he opposed."

Without pro and con oral arguments having been heard, why does the Order take
the position that Dehne was extreme in his condemnation of Airport members?
Dehne was denied his day in court. A reasonable person examining this matter
in an objective way would judge that facts are not in evidence to support the
contention that Dehne's words constituted an improper condemnation of the
Airport members. Indeed, the history of the Airport board is highly
controversial; the Order totally ignores this undeniable fact.

Subject paragraph does not offer balance by touching upon the key element of
justification for Dehne's condemnation of Airport Authority members. To
portray Dehne as having spoken unfairly without considering his justification
is improperly employed in the Order as setting the stage for later
developments. The Order displays unquestionable bias in assuming that Airport
members were not deserving of criticism by Dehne. Criticism of public
officials ~ in this case, appointed officials ~ is ordered by the U. S. Supreme
Court, Times vs. Sullivan (1964) which states, in part:

"[As Americans, we have] a profound national commitment to the principle that
debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that
it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp
attacks on government and public officials."

Oral argument, denied by the Order, would have permitted exposition of Dehne's
justification for criticizing Airport members. Further, oral argument would
have permitted exposition of the following:
(a) Hill was wrongfully chairing the meeting without having been legally selected
as chairman in compliance with Nevada law,
(b) the Airport board was operating outside of law by not having a legally-selected
chairman at the time,
(c) the "newly instituted procedure" which Dehne spoke against had not been
formally adopted by the Airport board, but rather was being unilaterally dictated
by Hill,
(d) it is the obligation and duty of American citizens, as owners of government, to
monitor public officials and speak out against perceived improprieties, and
(e) as appointed public officials, Airport members are not directly
accountable to the people by election ~ and are thereby especially subject to
accountability by spoken criticism during public meetings.

It must be emphasized that the Order demonstrates a disqualifying lack of
consideration of the massive scope of Dehne's Complaint in failing to recognize that
Airport members are appointed, and NOT elected. Oral argument would have
permitted exposition of the significant difference between the two types of
public officials including the fact that appointed officials can feel
themselves insulated from public accountability ~ and conduct themselves
accordingly with adverse effects on the common good and on the nature of
democracy.

An Order which clearly reveals a bias for this defendant over this plaintiff ~ and
which disregards the need for oral argument to expose a multitude of
significant, contributing details ~ strikes at any notion of due process and
justice.

Thus the questions are begged:
Did the Court study the 2 minute official video tape of the kidnaping that plaintiff submitted?
It appears the Court did not. That is an outrage!
Did the Court read Dehne's OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT...
that lays the Defense to waste? ("click" to read!)
It appears the Court did not. That is an outrage!

Circumlocution
Function: noun
1 : the use of an unnecessarily large number of words to express an idea
2 : evasion in speech

Here is another sleazy Reno Gazette "report".
(Responses in red.)
Kidnap (Websters)"To seize and hold or carry off (a person) against his will, by force or fraud"

Airport board justified in removing disruptive Reno activist
(In the Reno Gazette Journal (RGJ)... 6 April, 2002, page C-3)

RENO, Nev. (AP) — The Washoe County Airport Authority was justified in
having a disruptive citizen activist removed from a meeting by police, a
federal judge has ruled.

(First, the official video tape of Dehne being kidnaped makes a mockery
of this entire circumlocution of American democracy!)

U.S. District Judge Howard McKibben, in a ruling dated March 29, also said
the board did not violate Sam Dehne's First Amendment rights, as he had
claimed in a lawsuit filed over the September 2000 incident, because he was
already given a chance to speak before he was evicted.
"There was no inappropriate regulation of Dehne's speech, and the content of
his outburst was not a factor in his removal," McKibben wrote. "He was
removed, after appropriate warning, for his disruptive, loud and
obstreperous conduct."

(The official video tape of the 9/14 meeting at the scandal-plagued
Reno airport belies this. Dehne spoke only with an appropriately
strong voice [tyrannical Hill had a microphone] and only after he was
rudely called upon by Hill.
Furthermore, the RGJ left out the critical fact that Hill was wrongfully
chairing the meeting without having been legally selected as chairman in
compliance with Nevada law [Chap 474, Statutes of Nevada 1977, Sec 7].
The Airport board was operating outside of law by not having a
legally-selected chairman at the time.)

McKibben's order granted summary judgment in favor of the Airport Authority,
ruling against Dehne without a trial.

(This summary judgment [a unilateral dismissal] denied a citizen his right to his
day in court... a chance to present the overwhelming evidence of the kidnaping to a jury.)

Dehne, a sometimes political candidate and frequent, loud, critic at public
government meetings, was arrested at the airport authority meeting on Sept.
14, 2000 for allegedly disturbing the peace, disturbing a public meeting and
obstructing and resisting arrest.

(More RGJ [not one bit fond of Dehne] distortion. Dehne speaks only
loud enough to be heard... and when he has a legal right and duty to speak.)

The district attorney's office later dropped the charges. Prosecutors also
said Airport Authority Chairman Richard Hill had intended that Dehne simply
be removed from the meeting, not arrested, when he summoned the officers.

(Neither the district attorney NOR THE RENO CITY ATTORNEY could find that
Dehne did anything wrong... after 45 days of investigation. It is surmised by some that
these 2 law agencies are not particularly fond of Dehne.)

The dispute stemmed from Hill's creation of a formal public comment policy
that asks people who address the board during meetings to show respect and
dignity toward others.

NOT!
Dehne is as respectful as the situation warrants... and he is almost always dignified.
What incensed Dehne was the new Hitler-like policy that said the airport board
could pick and choose who they would allow to speak at a Public Meeting.
The quote from the new policy:
"Public Comments will be heard at the discretion of the Chairman"
[Folks, this is blatant yellow... NO, BROWN
JOURNALISM... and a big fat lie.)
Thus this scenario would be the dream of the airport board:
"Um, Jones? Sure you can speak."
"Um, Smith? Okay, you can speak."
"Dehne? Forget it."
Folks, the &^%@%^$#&*&$@# RGJ conveniently left that out.
Hitler and Stalin would have been jealous of the lousy pack of reporters.
Dehne is as respectful to APPOINTED public officials... as they deserve.
It is the obligation and duty of American citizens, as owners of government, to
monitor public officials and speak out against perceived improprieties.)

Dehne, according to court documents, ridiculed the policy and spit on a
piece of paper on which it was written and then tore it apart.
[A BLATANT LIE! THIS IS PURE SLEAZE JOURNALISM!]

(That grotesque anti-American "rule" deserved worse than spit. The irony is
that it is people like Dehne who are patriotic enough to be willing to protect
the very Free Speech... that allows the RGJ to exist!)

Later in the meeting and after the public comment period, Dehne, while
sitting in the audience, made a comment involving the word "spit."

(Dehne whispered a comment... so quietly that it cannot be heard on the
official video OR audio tape. Besides, a citizen has the right to whisper anything
they want to their neighbor. When you can't do that, watch out.)

Hill overheard it, interrupted the meeting, admonished Dehne, and warned him
he would be ejected if it happened again.

(There is never justification for an appointed public official to single out and
admonish a citizen who is quietly seated in the audience at a public meeting.
Never!)

Dehne claimed he was explaining to another person in the audience who had
asked to see the form that it had "spit" on it. He called Hill a liar for
suggesting he was speaking out of turn and demanded an apology.

(Hill did lie. Dehne never said "spit on it." He WHISPERED "There is spit
on the piece of paper." There is a huge difference in the context. Hill lied.
Besides, Dehne actually told Hill that he was "Wrong"... which he was.
Dehne only said Hill "lied" in righteous indignation as he was being manhandled
and ignominously hauled off to jail by the airport police.)

Hill called police and had Dehne removed.
"Dehne was removed because he was being disruptive and not because of the
criticism he leveled at the officials," McKibben said, noting that Dehne
ignored repeated warnings that he would be removed if he did not behave.
"This disruption showed no signs of abating without Dehne's removal, or
without Hill apologizing, which he was under no obligation to do," the judge
said.

(D*mn it! The video tape plainly proves that it was Hill who was "disruptive".
Dehne can be seen quietly seated in the audience. Hill can be plainly heard interrupting
the meeting and verbally accosting Dehne. This kidnaping and jailing of a Watchdog was
obviously retaliatory and was meant to send a message to everybody else who might
want to challenge rotten government. "Watch out. If we can get Dehne, we can get you.")

McKibben cited a previous ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
that said, "meetings of a public body do not become free-for-alls simply
because the body goes beyond what a member of the public believes (even
correctly) to be the body's proper purview."

(Yeh! Get those pesky citizens out of here!")

Internet version (click) http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2002/04/05/11463.php
.
A Few Bonus Notes
1. The bizarre Order is full of so many holes that one of the ubiquitous green
Granite triple tractor trailers can drive through it with closed eyes.

2. Dehne pleaded for Oral Arguments. It's called the "Best Evidence Rule"...
"Excuse me judge, let's look at the overwhelming evidence of this airport
kidnaping crime that can be plainly seen on the 2 minute video tape.".
Dehne was denied that inalienable right... eliminating any possibility of fairness.
Isn't it just darn silly to waste time pondering over a bunch of written lies and
distortions perpetrated by the huge taxpayer-funded airport battery of attorneys...
when a person can plainly and easily see the actual kidnaping right there on
the official video tape?

3. Sam Dehne spent his military career abiding by his Sacred Oath... to defend Americans
against enemies outside the border and inside the border. He has found that there are
as many enemies inside the border as outside.
Sam Dehne has attended and "lectured" at every local government meeting for at least
the last 4 years.
Sam Dehne's decorum is as impeccable as the United States Constitution, the Laws of
Nevada, and the Open Meeting Law call for.
You can read the true story of Sam Dehne's kidnaping at
http//www.renocitizen.com/airportscandal.htm

It is interesting to note that the kidnap victim was not interviewed for this hoax of a
newspaper report.

Click to return to The Reno Citizen