A Very Brief Synopsis of the "Court's" WHITEWASH:Jury Proves Sam Right Again. Jury
Duped By "Feeblemindedness" Defense
The Reno Citizen magazine, 30 Sept, 2004
Staff Report
Rarely in the history of Law and Trials has there been a more Open and Shut case of bureaucratic corruption and arrogance. An official video tape of crimes being committed against Sam Dehne at Reno city hall on 22 June, 1999 was shown to a jury several times. Each shameless action by former Reno mayor Jeff Griffin and his city hall cronies was shown on freeze frames and thoroughly described.
Sam's attorneys slam dunked Sam's case against Reno city hall over and over and over; with the vast preponderance of the evidence plainly showing that the grotesque actions by the Reno city council against Sam were blatant violations of the Law.
And then on top of that... the (former) mayor confessed to the crimes... right on the video!
Historically these types of critters got away with their deceptions because nobody saw them. In the age of video recording, and with Sam looking over their shoulders all the time, you'd think that wouldn't happen any more. But such wasn't the case.
Instead of having the courage to recognize the Truth, that "jury" of Sam's "peers" took about an hour to WHITEWASH the mayor and city council's crimes. (Peer: equal, contemporary, counterpart. NOT!)
If the jury system in Reno is any indication of what's out there, Nevadans are a bunch of pathetic weasels. They don't deserve anything better than what they are getting - rotten government.
So then, why do we say that the jury "proves Sam right again"?
That is because Sam has stated time and again at Public Meetings that American government in Reno, Nevada is broken. The bogus "verdict" of this "jury" proved it again.
Either that or they somehow bought Griffin's "I'm too feebleminded, dopey, and stupid to be responsible for myself" defense. Because his entire defense rested on his convincing them that he was too dimwitted to remember that he had a lucrative "Kickback" Contract with his cronies at the Reno Airport.
Afterward Sam was seen shaking his attorneys' hands and giving both of them a bonus. Martin Crowley and Jeff Dickerson are 2 of the most courageous attorneys in the area.
By the way, Sam has put his name on the ballot for Reno city council. He has a very strong stomach. But he has decided it isn't THAT strong. He doesn't want you to vote for him. Sam's talents, fortitude, tenacity, and qualifications place him way too far above those of the high-ranking lowest common denominators at the current Reno city hall.
For the background details of this farce, click here.
Notwithstanding the mess described above, Sam's attorneys asked him to Appeal this court's hideous decision back to the higher court in California again. Sam yielded to their request.
The bottom line is the question of whether government bodies in Reno are going to be allowed to throw the Constitution in the trash... and run Public Meetings like the king's court... or whether citizens have rights. It's that simple.
Next comes the Reno Airport Kidnap Case (click here) that is similar in very many respects.
Note: Could it be that the Body Snatchers have struck again... and are just about finished?
After FIVE YEARS Sam Dehne finally got to face off with Jeff Griffin in federal court this past week. More than a preponderance of evidence proved Sam's case BUT the jury came back with a verdict in Griffin's favor!
On 22 June 1999 during a Reno council meeting, Griffin (presiding officer) ignored and violated a directive issued to him by the state ethics commission. This had to do with Griffin being told to avoid conflict of interest by not participating in any discussion of any issue relating to the Airport Authority of Washoe County. Griffin had been reminded of this by a related ethics commission action just 10-12 days before 22 June 1999.
When Griffin did not hesitate to participate in discussing an airport matter, Sam brought this to the attention of City Attorney Patricia Lynch who then went over to Griffin and whispered in his ear. Griffin then announced a recess ~ rather than acknowledging the problem he had created. Sam was prevented from speaking at the podium; he had earlier turned in an Official Request-to-Speak form. Sam wanted to point out Griffin's violation. Griffin, anticipating what Sam wanted to say, took a never-heard-of-before vote and denied Sam's Request to Speak... flagrantly shucking Sam's Official Form into the garbage can. Sam objected in a loud voice (not amounting to yelling or screaming). Griffin ordered Sam's removal from the meeting.
WHEN THE MEETING RESUMED AFTER THE RECESS, GRIFFIN CONFESSED THAT HE HAD FAILED TO HONOR THE ETHCOMM'S DIRECTIVE! THIS IS DOCUMENTED ON VIDEO TAPE.
If Griffin had not violated the Directive, the above scenario would not have unfolded. In context of the directive, Griffin should not have been presiding when the airport issue was discussed; he was presiding illegally ~ without Legal Empowerment to have Sam removed from the meeting.
The jury disregarded the fact that Griffin was presiding illegally and that he was not Justly Empowered to have Sam thrown out.
There were a myriad other reasons why the jury should have found Griffin guilty.
Just about the only truthful thing Griffin said during the trial... was acknowledging that if there is a TV camera around, you're likely to find Sam there.
Press Release
Reno's Trial of the Decade
To: Citizens & Media
Former Reno Mayor Griffin To Be On Trial This Tuesday
FEDERAL COURT
Sam Dehne's Reno Trial of the Decade is Scheduled
to begin on 28 Sept, 2004 at 8:30 AM in Federal Court
Note: This Trial was WHITEWASHED by the judge
and jury (see top of page)
SAM DEHNE, Lt Col, USAF, ret
(with attorneys)
versus
JEFF GRIFFIN (Former Reno Mayor)
AND THE CITY OF RENO (with
Reno staff of taxpayer-funded
city attorneys)
The Honorable Judge Hicks will be presiding. But it is a jury of (hopefully) courageous and honest citizens who are empowered to decide the outcome.
They do not have the power to throw Griffin and his accomplices in jail, even though it is a misdemeanor crime to wrongfully exclude a citizen from a Public Meeting. But they do have the power to punish them just about the only other way they can be punished... in the wallet. Here are just a few things to consider about their outlandish behavior.
BRIEF DAMAGES BACK GROUND
Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Sam Dehne is known throughout the northern Nevada community as The Government Watchdog. He attends all local Government meetings; including the Reno city council meetings which he has attended since 1995. He is not afraid to speak out and tell the truth about matters that the government bureaucrats often try to hide or gloss over with propaganda.
Dehne is a well-known critic of the Reno city council's activities and has exposed many of their mendacities. See The Reno Citizen magazine (click)
This culminated in former mayor Jeff Griffin and Reno city council's retaliation against Dehne on 22 June, 1999, when they wrongfully and ignominiously removed him from the Public Meeting. This is a misdemeanor crime under Nevada Law [NRS 241.040 (2)]
The official video tape shows this shameless crime by the government bureaucrats.
Once this Trial gets started it shouldn't take long. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we will purchase coffee for you... and all we want you to do is sit back and enjoy the Real-TV movie of the crime... the official video tape."
The Air Force trusted Sam Dehne to fly B-52 bombers that carried nuclear weapons in defense of America. He did this to protect America; so that citizens could be free to do things like attend Public Meetings without getting thrown out.
Bearing in mind that Colonel Dehne is the citizen who has made it his Crusade to "protect" the rest of Reno's citizens from corrupt Government - WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTION WORTH?
SOME ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED BY THE JURY:
Each of the Defendants is liable to Plaintiff for past and future general and special damages, including emotional distress, mental anguish, physical pain and suffering, chilling of Plaintiff's exercise of free speech, loss of enjoyment of life, violation of the aforementioned constitutional rights inter se, adverse publicity, exclusion from a public meeting and prior restraint of Plaintiff's right to speak further, attorney's fees, court costs, inconvenience, embarrassment, humiliation, grief, harm to reputation, and Punitive Damages - SO THEY (AND THOSE LIKE THEM) WILL NOT DO THIS AGAIN, all in sums to be proved at trial.
Note: One also has to wonder if a random sampling of 15 local area citizens will be able to find nobody who has ever heard of Sam?