OFFICIAL POLICE REPORTS
The Perpetual "Raping"of a Victim's Civil Rights Must Not Be Swept Under the Rug.
Dictionary: Rape - Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.
Reno City Hall Sinks to (New) Low Levels
(And this is not just a "Sam Dehne Thing")
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH... OR ACTUALLY... TOO MUCH!
The perpetrators' despicable actions compel victim to file a Complain.
(Note: It is Misprision of Felony to not report a Crime.)
*POLICE STATEMENT (COMPLAINT) #1
*SUBMITTED TO RENO, NEVADA, POLICE DEPARTMENT
*OCTOBER 2002 (Attachment Reference Sam Dehne 02-0001)
VICTIM / COMPLAINANT:
Denis "Sam" Dehne, Lt. Col., USAF (Ret.)
Reno City Attorney Patricia Lynch and Reno Mayor Jeff Griffin
8 October 2002
"... the crucible of democracy is that a government cannot be by the people and for the people unless it
exercises its powers under the scrutiny of the people."
-Frankie Sue Del Papa, Nevada Attorney General
-Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father
the characters and conduct of their rulers."
-John Adams, Founding Father
A) Wrongful exclusion of the Complainant from a public meeting by denying his right to participate
in such meeting. Denying the Complainant's right to speak on matters of public concern equates with
wrongful physical exclusion. Wrongful exclusion of any person or persons from a meeting is a
misdemeanor. See NRS 241.040. Upon conviction, punishment may include a jail term of up to six
months, a fine not to exceed $1,000, or both.
B) Denial of Complainant's right to free expression as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. (Note: Sworn members of the Reno Police Department have sworn
to serve and defend Complainant's rights under the Constitution.)
C) Felony perjury in not honoring the Oath of Office whereby each perpetrator swore to serve
and defend the Constitution of the United States. (Note: Any member of the Reno Police Department
who violates his/her Oath of Office by not serving and defending the Constitution of the United States is
also guilty of perjury.)
D) Willful intent to discriminate against complainant ... A KNOWN CRITIC OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ... in denying his right to speak on an agendized item during an official meeting of
the Reno City Council. Such discriminatory rule/regulation was not clearly articulated on the agenda for
the involved public meeting. Such discriminatory rule/regulation defies the U.S. Supreme Court decision
known as Times v. Sullivan.
To quote from the Open Meeting Law Manual:
Reasonable rules and regulations which ensure orderly conduct of a public meeting and ensure orderly
behavior on the part of those persons attending the meeting may be adopted by a public body, and the
Office of the Attorney General believes that reasonable restrictions, including time limits, can be imposed
on speaking. However, any rule or regulation that limits or restricts public comment must be clearly
articulated on the agenda. See OMLO 99-08 (July 8, 1999)
To quote from Times v. Sullivan (1964) / U.S. Supreme Court:
[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.
E) Obstruction of justice by impeding, hindering, and preventing Complainant's right to speak on
matters of public business during an official meeting of the Reno City Council. A somewhat similar
case in Las Vegas resulted in a $300,000-plus settlement in favor of Carol Ann Hawley, who was denied
her right to speak before the Las Vegas City Council regarding improprieties she observed during the 1987
mayoral election.
F) Denial of Complainant's right to equal treatment under law as guaranteed in the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (Note: Sworn members of the Reno Police
Department have sworn to serve and defend Complainant's rights under the Constitution.)
8 October 2002
Reno City Hall / City Council Chamber
1. At approximately 3:40 PM Sam Dehne was wrongfully excluded from
participation in a Public Meeting of the Reno city council. Dehne turned
in an official Reno Request to Speak form to speak on Agenda Item 9. E. (Staff
Report: Eight Resolutions of Condemnation for the Acquisition of properties in
the Downtown Events Center Block.)
Note: Websters, exclude - "to refuse to consider, include; to shut out."
Note: Websters, include - "to consider as part of a whole; to take into
account."
2. When it came time for Dehne to be recognized to perform his duty as a citizen
to speak on a subject of public importance (condemnation of citizens' homes
and property), he was told by Mayor Griffin ... with the acquiescence of Reno City
Attorney Patricia Lynch ... that he, Dehne, would not be allowed to speak.
3. Dehne reiterated his desire to speak and was threatened with removal from
the Public Meeting by Griffin ... with the acquiescence of Lynch.
4. Even though Dehne was not permitted to speak, other citizens were permitted to do so regarding
involved agendized items.
5. There were dozens of witnesses to this violation... including several city council members and Reno
police officers Galli and Johns.
6. More details of this Violation should be available for viewing on the official SNCAT video tape.
Copies of relevant documents herewith:
City council Agenda excerpt
Nevada Revised Statute/Open Meeting Law excerpt
Article from Reno Gazette-Journal, issue of 9 October 2002
Distribution of this Statement:
Nevada Division of Investigation
Washoe County District Attorney
Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (Opportunity to testify requested)
Here is one of many Complaints filed with Nevada Attorney General:
Sam Dehne, Lt Col, USAF (ret)
(775) 825-1398
Nevada Attorney General 11 Oct, 2002
Carson City, Nevada
100 N. Carson City, Nev. 89701
SUBJECT: And Here are More Reno City Council Crimes. Reno City Attorney and City Council Continue to Not Give a Hoot About Your/Our Open Meeting Law... or the United States Constitution.
Dear Attorney General,
The Nevada Open Meeting Law clearly states that "... the crucible of democracy is that a government cannot be by the people and for the people unless it exercises its powers under the scrutiny of the people."
Scrutiny, Websters: 1, a close examination; minute inspection, 2. a careful continuous watch, surveillance, 3. a lengthy, searching look.
(Note: It is impossible for any regular citizens, and especially a Watchdog, to properly scrutinize and examine Reno's powerful and evil government without being able to investigate, ask questions, and make observations at the Public Meetings.)
During the Public Meetings of 8 October, Sam Dehne turned in Official Request to Speak forms on Agenda Items where direction and possible action was contemplated and/or taken. (See Attachs - circled Agenda items) Some of these actions involved massive amounts of Public dollars.
City hall's latest boneheaded (criminal) scheme has them trying to play loosey-goosey with the term "Public Hearing". They have conspired to juggle up a preposterous postulate that they will not "allow" citizens the opportunity to speak at Public Meetings... on anything other than what City Hall describes specifically as "Public Hearings". This dimwitted "berserkness" is almost too bogus to discuss.
*Vote to create new laws/ordinances,
*Vote to create massive new taxes for RR trenches, Convention boxes, baseball stadiums, etc.
*Vote to build a high rise cemetery in the lot next to your home,
*Vote to take away someone's business license,
*Vote themselves pay raises,
*Vote to condemn property away from citizens,
*Vote to annex half of Washoe County,
*Etc etc etc?
They must not be allowed to get away with these crimes. You must join with Sam Dehne in stopping them.
Sam Dehne's Official Request to Speak forms were ignominiously (with more snickering) denied. Dehne was again told by the City Clerk that Reno City Council would not allow him to speak other than the one time at the 3 minute Public Comment. And that his Request to Speak forms would not be honored.
As one for instance, on the Condemnation Agenda items, several people were "allowed" to speak. But Sam Dehne was not allowed to speak at all.
The official video tape will plainly show the Attorney General the escalating and exacerbating shameful perfidiousness of these Reno city hall people. These are continuing crimes against the community that make Enron and Tyco appear like child's play. Some scenes portraying the evil manipulations are hideous enough to continue to turn an honest citizen's stomach.
The United States Constitution (1st and 14th Amendments), and the Nevada Open Meeting Law, and years and years of precedent, and just good honest American Democracy demand that citizens be allowed to give public testimony about their government and about critical actions they are contemplating.
In California, the Ralph M. Brown (Open Meeting Law) Act states very clearly the right of its citizens to scrutinize their government:
"Public Testimony: Agendas for regular meetings must provide the opportunity for the public to directly address the legislative body on any item on the agenda either before or during its consideration of the item. Further, every agenda for a regular meeting must provide the opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any subject under the jurisdiction of the body (54954.3(a))"
Furthermore, the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution forbids Reno's evil policy of "picking and choosing" who they want to listen to.
The Nevada Attorney General should thank a citizen like Sam Dehne who has dedicated his life on a Crusade to try to bring some honesty back to Reno government. It should thank him for caring enough to spend his time preparing this Complaint. Citizens can only pray that the Attorney General doesn't whitewash these premeditated Reno government perversions and mendacities.
The Official video tape of the meeting will corroborate these ongoing premeditated crimes.
An immediate injunction ordering Reno City Council to cease and desist from its illegal actions must be issued against the Reno City Council's perverted tactics. Reno City Council's outrageous white-collar terrorism against Reno must be stopped.
Reno City Council must be ordered by the Nevada Attorney General to IMMEDIATELY start obeying the Law.
Reno must allow all citizens to speak on all Public Meeting Agenda items.
Please keep in mind that all of these actions that have been taken in violation of the Nevada Open Meeting Law are void. (NRS 241.036)
Please contact Sam Dehne before believing anything you hear from Reno city hall.
Signed,
Sam Dehne, a concerned citizen
297 Smithridge
Reno, Nevada 89502
Here's another Attorney Complaint... just filed:
Sam Dehne, Lt Col, USAF (ret)
(775) 825-1398
Nevada Attorney General 18 Oct, 2002
Carson City, Nevada
100 N. Carson City, Nev. 89701
SUBJECT: And Here are More Reno City Council Crimes Against Nevada Open Meeting Law
Dear Attorney General,
The Reno City Council continued its blatant and arrogant violations of the Nevada Open Meeting Laws at the Public Meeting of 15 October, 2002. I attended the meeting and wanted to scrutinize government concerning several Agenda items that were of significant interest to the Public.
Citizens have a "statutory right" to address Reno city council on matters of public importance.
Evidence and arguments provided in my previous Complaints about similar Reno crimes continue to apply to this Complaint.
During the Public Meeting of 15 October, I prepared Official Request to Speak forms on 4 Agenda Items of Public concern. (See Attachs - circled Agenda items). I was (again) told at the start of the meeting that I would (again) not get to speak.
Powerful evidence of their crimes is the absence from the podium of Sam Dehne in the videos. This Watchdog has averaged at least 4 Public Comments on Agenda items of Public Concern at every Reno meeting for the last 8 years. (This is a fact that nobody will dispute... in fact council person Pierre Hascheff reiterated, and even exaggerated, the fact at the 15 October meeting... although he was wrong when he stated that all Dehne talks about is the airport.)
This Complaint includes several instances of wrongful "exclusion" from a Public Meeting. But it focuses also on the fact that, not only did Mister Griffin wrongfully exclude me from participation in the meeting during Agenda items, but this time he exacerbated his previous crimes and ordered the police to remove me physically from the public chambers.
I had gone to the podium for "Public Comment" and brought up issues of public concern. As I was leaving the podium, the city attorney started discussing the issues of public concern that I had brought up.
Since these were issues of public concern that I had brought up and since they were being addressed publicly, it was my right and duty (by precedent and logic) to participate in discussing the issues of public concern that I had brought up. This is especially poignant because the city attorney had not been forthright about the issues of public concern that I had brought up, and her new "Reno" rule to vote on whether or not citizens can speak on issues of public concern is grossly in violation of precedent, common practice throughout northern Nevada, and the United States Constitution. I had every right and duty to stand at the podium.
Mister Griffin thereafter wrongfully ordered me removed from the chambers. I was not the person being disruptive. It was Mister Griffin. This can be plainly seen on the video tape.
For a specific point of perspective as to the precedent concerning addressing citizens during Public Comment, a person who had spoken before me is powerful evidence that it is standard procedure for citizens to remain at the podium while issues that the citizen brought up are addressed. This only makes sense! Council spent almost 2 minutes discussing the matter of public concern that he had introduced and he remained at the podium and participated throughout that discussion. Mister Griffin's ordering me to not be allowed to participate in the city attorney's discussion of issues that I had brought up breaks from precedent (an example of which had just taken place just 10 minutes earlier) and is just plain lousy governance.
I had done nothing to justify exclusion and removal from the public chambers. The city attorney did not know the Rule that was being discussed. I had the Rule in my hand and was trying to tell council. You can see me holding it up. Furthermore Griffin has a master button that turns the citizen's mike off.
And relative to the specific instance of my not being allowed to speak at an earlier meeting (that the city attorney focused on during the discussion on 15 October), I did not go to the podium under "Agenda Item rules" that time. That (rare) issue concerned the Business License of a dancer. And the dancer, who was single-handily up against a juggernaut of city officials, had specifically asked me to speak on her behalf during her hearing. That is why I was at the podium then. I had a right (and duty) to be there.
As another instance of egregious behavior, at the very beginning of the meeting I turned in a Request to Speak on Agenda item 10 (among others). I was told I would not be allowed to speak on it. Early on, Mister Griffin can be heard telling another citizen that he would be allowed to speak. You can hear my cry of outrage at this criminal activity on the video. That man was going to be allowed to speak and I was not!
Furthermore, the city attorney's false comment that I was "yelling and screaming" is another example of a lie. It is obvious from the video that I was merely speaking with a powerful voice in justified righteous
indignation in an attempt to bring some truth to the issue that I had brought up.
Furthermore, when the Reno city council convened as the Redevelopment Agency at about 3:20PM, Griffin called a citizen directly to the podium to speak on an Agenda item without the foul treatment that I had received. This is blatant favoritism and violation of the 14th Amendment.
Examples of these types of egregious violations of Nevada Laws (and my rights) abounded throughout the meetings of the last several weeks; wherein my official Request to Speak forms were denied.
On some of these Agenda occasions other people were allowed to speak (as good government demands), but I was singled out and denied free speech. Every citizen must be allowed to speak! Picking and choosing and "singling out" is fraudulent and against the Law.
These repeated violations of the Open Meeting Law are blatant and arrogant maneuvers to deny Sam Dehne his right and duty to speak the Truth. They constitute fraud. They are a crime.
The United States Constitution (1st and 14th Amendments), and the Nevada Open Meeting Law, and years and years of precedent, and just good honest American Democracy demand that citizens have a statutory right to give public testimony about their government and about critical actions they are contemplating.
Reno City Council must be ordered by the Nevada Attorney General to IMMEDIATELY start obeying the Law. It must allow all citizens to speak on all Public Meeting Agenda items.
Please keep in mind that all subsequent actions that have been taken in violation of the Nevada Open Meeting Law are void. (NRS 241.036)
Please contact Sam Dehne before believing anything you hear from Reno city hall.
It is respectfully suggested that you view portions of Sparks city or Washoe county video tapes of public meetings to get a feeling for local public meetings that are much closer to being run according to the Nevada Open Meeting Law. These meetings are conducted with dignity and with at least a semblance of an understanding of the fact that the elected officials are bound by law to listen to the words of the citizens.
They recognize that, whether or not they always like what they hear, they have a statutory duty to permit citizens to scrutinize a public body concerning topics that are within the scope and jurisdiction the public body. "The crucible of democracy is that government cannot be by the people and for the people unless it exercises its powers under the scrutiny of the people."
Signed,
Sam Dehne, a concerned citizen
297 Smithridge
Reno, Nevada 89502
*POLICE STATEMENT (COMPLAINT) #2
*SUBMITTED TO RENO, NEVADA, POLICE DEPARTMENT
*OCTOBER 2002 (Attachment Reference Sam Dehne 02-0002)
VICTIM / COMPLAINANT:
Denis "Sam" Dehne, Lt. Col., USAF (Ret.)
PERPETRATORS:
Reno City Attorney Patricia Lynch and Reno Mayor Jeff Griffin
DATE OF VIOLATION:
15 October, 2002
JUSTIFICATION CONTEXT FOR COMPLAINT:
"... the crucible of democracy is that a government cannot be by the
people and for the people unless it exercises its powers under the
scrutiny of the people."
-Frankie Sue Del Papa,
Nevada Attorney General
"[The] liberty of speaking and writing ... guards our other liberties."
-Thomas
Jefferson, Founding Father
"The people have an indisputable, unalienable, divine right to make
observations and raise questions about the characters and conduct of their
rulers."
-John
Adams, Founding Father
VIOLATIONS:
A) Wrongful exclusion of the Complainant from a public meeting by denying
his right to participate in such meeting. Denying the Complainant's right
to speak on matters of public concern equates with wrongful physical
exclusion. Wrongful exclusion of any person or persons from a meeting is a
misdemeanor. See NRS 241.040. Upon conviction, punishment may include a
jail term of up to six months, a fine not to exceed $1,000, or both.
B) Denial of Complainant's right to free expression as guaranteed in the
First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (Note: Sworn
members of the Reno Police Department have sworn to serve and defend
Complainant's rights under the Constitution.)
C) Felony perjury in not honoring the Oath of Office whereby each
perpetrator swore to serve and defend the Constitution of the United
States. (Note: Any member of the Reno Police Department who violates
his/her Oath of Office by not serving and defending the Constitution of
the United States is also guilty of perjury.)
D) Willful intent to discriminate against complainant ... A KNOWN CRITIC
OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ... in denying his right to speak on an agendized item
during an official meeting of the Reno City Council. Such discriminatory
rule/regulation was not clearly articulated on the agenda for the involved
public meeting. Such discriminatory rule/regulation defies the U.S.
Supreme Court decision known as Times v. Sullivan.
To quote from the Open Meeting Law Manual:
Reasonable rules and regulations which ensure orderly conduct of a public
meeting and ensure orderly behavior on the part of those persons attending
the meeting may be adopted by a public body, and the Office of the
Attorney General believes that reasonable restrictions, including time
limits, can be imposed on speaking. However, any rule or regulation that
limits or restricts public comment must be clearly articulated on the
agenda. See OMLO 99-08 (July 8, 1999)
To quote from Times v. Sullivan (1964) / U.S. Supreme Court:
[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.
E) Obstruction of justice by impeding, hindering, and preventing
Complainant's right to speak on matters of public business during an
official meeting of the Reno City Council. A somewhat similar case in Las
Vegas resulted in a $300,000-plus settlement in favor of Carol Ann Hawley,
who was denied her right to speak before the Las Vegas City Council
regarding improprieties she observed during the 1987 mayoral election.
F) Denial of Complainant's right to equal treatment under law as
guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States. (Note: Sworn members of the Reno Police Department have sworn to
serve and defend Complainant's rights under the Constitution.)
DETAILS OF VIOLATIONS:
15 October 2002
Reno City Hall / City Council Chamber
1. Prior to the general Public Comment period of the 15 October Reno City
Council, Complainant attempted to submit several official forms requesting
to speak on later agendized items to the City Clerk, per established procedure.
2. The City Clerk informed Complainant that, per direction from Mayor
Griffin, he would not be permitted to speak on agendized items.
3. The Council's recent changes in public participation/speaking rules
hold that the Mayor, subject to override by other Council members, may
pick and choose which requesters will be permitted to speak and which will
not. This new unconstitutional rule is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment
to the U. S. Constitution which guarantees equal treatment under law to all citizens.
And it denies citizens their statutory right to speak on issues of public concern.
4. When the City Clerk informed Complainant that Griffin had decided
that the Complainant would not be permitted to speak on agendized items,
the Council's right to override the Mayor's decision(s) was disregarded
and not mentioned by the City Attorney or the City Clerk.
5. This Complaint includes several instances of wrongful "exclusion" from a Public
Meeting. But it focuses also on the fact that, not only did Griffin wrongfully
exclude Complainant from participation in the meeting during Agenda items,
but this time Griffin exacerbated his previous crimes and ordered the police to
remove Complainant physically from the public chambers.
6. Complainant had gone to the podium for "Public Comment" and brought up issues
of public concern. As Complainant was leaving the podium, the city council and city
attorney started discussing the issues of public concern that Complainant had brought up.
7. Since these were issues of public concern that Complainant had brought up
and since they were being addressed publicly, it was Complainant's right and duty
(by precedent, practice, and logic) to participate in discussing the issues of public
concern that Complainant had brought up. This is especially poignant because the
city attorney had not been forthright about the issues of public concern that Complainant
had brought up, and her new "Reno" rule to vote on whether or not citizens can speak on
issues of public concern is grossly in violation of precedent, common practice throughout
northern Nevada, and the United States Constitution. Complainant had every right and
duty to stand at the podium. Griffin thereafter wrongfully ordered Complainant removed
from the chambers.
8. Complainant was not the person being disruptive. It was Griffin. This can be plainly
seen on the video tape.
(Note: For a specific point of perspective as to the precedent concerning addressing
citizens during Public Comment, a person who had spoken before Complainant is
powerful evidence that it is standard procedure and practice for citizens to remain at
the podium while issues that the citizen brought up are addressed. Council spent
almost 2 minutes discussing the matter of public concern that that citizen had introduced
and that citizen remained at the podium and participated throughout that discussion.
Griffin's ordering Complainant to not be allowed to participate in the city attorney's
discussion of issues that Complainant had brought up breaks from precedent
(an example of which had just taken place just 10 minutes earlier), practice,
and procedure. And is a violation of the Law.
9. To reiterate, when the Complainant addressed the Council during the general public
comment period, he had every right to be at the podium, and displayed justified righteous
indignation concerning the denial and prostitution of due process. He was justified in
doing so in keeping with Times v. Sullivan (1964).
10. Complainant was wrongfully excluded from speaking on agenda items, this
amounting to exclusion from meaningful participation in the meeting. He
was then wrongfully physically removed as the result of Mayor Griffin's
abuse of power and insistence on prostituting due process.
11. City Attorney Patricia Lynch acquiesced in Mayor Griffin's improprieties.
12. More details of this Violation should be available for viewing on the
official SNCAT video tape.
13. The Council's recent changes in public participation/speaking rules are
a distinct departure from the Council's long-standing policy of permitting
all requesters to speak on agendized items ... such policy continuing to
be the standard employed by the Sparks City Council, the Washoe County
Commission, the Reno/Tahoe International Airport Board, and the Reno-Sparks
Convention and Visitors Authority. Such recent changes should have been
articulated on the agenda in that they limit or restrict public comment.
See OMLO 99-08 (July 8, 1999). Said changes were NOT articulated on the
agenda. (NOTE: THIS IN NO WAY IS MEANT TO IMPLY THAT
THE PERVERTED NEW CHANGES ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.)
Copies of relevant documents herewith:
City council Agenda excerpt
Distribution of this Statement:
Nevada Division of Investigation
Washoe County District Attorney
Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (Opportunity to testify requested)
Click to return to The Reno Citizen