RGJ Regurgitator Heads Further Down the Road to Perdition

Sam's Letter to RGJ Regurgitator "newspaper"

1. (RGJ says) Man Loses Lawsuit ("click")

Not!
Jeffy the Jerk Griffin and Reno city hall go berserk... and you
regurgitate their lies. Nothing new there.
You and your "bosses" at Reno city hall are the real "losers".
1a. You are so wrong in your disconjerkutigulated report about
Reno's molesting of the U.S. Constitution that it makes grown
men want to cry.
Instead of reporting the Truth about Guy Felton... who is protecting
the very essence of what allows the RGJ Regurgitator to regurgitate...
you attack him with shameless chicanery.
2. Yellow Journalism ("click"):
"... led to stories being twisted into the forms best
suited for sales by the hollering newsboy."
3. "Bastard" is NOT foul language.
As a matter of fact many considered the term to be far too
mild of a description of the Griffin Gang.
Furthermore I have seen and heard Felton use that word
at least 50 times since Reno threw him in jail... with not a
peep from anybody... including Lynch, Hoover, and other
council members. They may not like it... but they (now)
KNOW that Felton has the every right in America to
use the word.
4. Reno's decorum rules do not supercede the United States
Constitution. It is a Constitution that "commits"citizens to be
"uninhibited, robust, and wide open"... "including (making) vehement,
caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on govt and public officials".
You should know this quote from the Supreme Court's long-standing
definition of the 1st Amendment (Times v. Sullivan) like the back of
your hand.
As a matter of fact... if your RGJ Regurgitator newspaper was a
real newspaper... it would be sitting right along side Felton in this
Lawsuit... every step of the way.
5. An honest jury will take Reno to the wall... and the RGJ
Regurgitator should be there with them.
6. Forget the lies that Reno city hall forged into the "transcript"
of the meeting. Look at the official video tape of that attack
on the Constitution. That is where the Truth is.
7. Felton was totally within his rights at that Public Issue Podium... it was
HIS 3 minutes by Law. THEY interrupted Felton's 3 minutes.
THEY were the ones who caused him to enter the totally
justified mode of RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION.
All things considered... it is a compliment to Felton's dignity and
decorum that he acted as poised as his did.
Reno city hall and their pals at the RGJ Regurgitator are the losers.
All American citizens should be infinitely proud of Felton for his
courage and sophisticated tenacity.
8. You and the RGJ Regurgitator have proven once again that you
are one of "THEM".
Sam Dehne... Who Proves Himself to be THE
Encyclopedia of Reno Govt Every Week


PS
Either the RGJ, Reno, and this judge believe in the Constitition or they don't.
It is obvious they don't.
PSS
perdition
\Per*di"tion\, n. 1. Entire loss; utter destruction; ruin; esp., the utter loss of the soul,
or of final happiness in a future state; future misery or eternal death.

 

w/numerous cc's
RESPONSE TO "MAN REMOVED FROM MEETING LOSES LAWSUIT"
The RGJ ran an article about me on August 21 with a misleading headline: "Man
removed from meeting loses lawsuit." Four paragraphs into the story, the
headline is contradicted by "... Felton's lawyer appealed to a higher federal
court in San Francisco." Obviously, a lawsuit hasn't been lost when it's alive
and well within the appeals process.
Video tape of the involved incident documents the sequence of events and the
fact that Mayor Griffin abused his powers when he had me wrongfully removed
from a Reno council meeting in November 1999.
Just two weeks earlier, Griffin called a critic "a smart ass" during another
council meeting. No public official present raised an eyebrow. On that
occasion, Griffin established a precedent for strong language with the
acquiesence of all other public officials in attendance ~ including City
Attorney Patricia Lynch!
During the next council meeting, and with justification, I used strong language
against Griffin and other council members. This was only moments after Griffin
lied about tax money not having paid for a recent trip he had taken to London
on public business.
In violation of the Constitution, Griffin interrupted me to order that I not use
strong language. Infuriated by both his London lie and his strong-language
hypocrisy, I continued. Griffin then had me physically hauled out of the
council chamber.
By denying my right to free speech, Griffin disrupted the orderly flow of the
meeting. Resulting events would not have unfolded the way they did if Griffin
had not violated my right to free speech.
Police Chief Jerry Hoover subsequently ordered my arrest because he thought (he
thought!) I might otherwise return to the meeting. I was not advised of my
rights at any time during this scenario. When taken to the county jail, I was
not permitted to contact an attorney for many hours. District Attorney Gammick
later ruled that I had not broken any law. All charges against me were dropped.
Public servants who abuse their powers ~ and/or lie ~ should not be surprised
when any citizen calls them to task. Democracy is not a spectator sport. When
public officials repeatedly violate the basics of bedrock democracy ~ as
Griffin did ~ citizens have both a right and an obligation to speak out in
forceful terms.
In 1964 the U.S. Supreme Court made this venerable observation in Times v.
Sullivan: "[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."
With top-gun attorney Jeff Dickerson in my corner, I fully expect that my case
will eventually win its day in court before a jury of citizens. This jury will
be asked to deal with these questions:
Is it acceptable for an elected official to practice a double standard? Is it
acceptable for an elected official to call a critic "a smart ass" during a
public meeting ~ and then deny another critic his right to free speech? Should
any American citizen not be infuriated when his Constitutional right to free
speech is violated by a public servant? Are American citizens not obligated to
challenge abuses of power by public servants? Is Times v. Sullivan as
appropriate today as it was in 1964?
Submitted to Fred Hamilton, Publisher, Reno Gazette-Journal
23 August 2004
Guy Felton
"Click" back to The Reno Citizen