P.O. Box 2567, Sparks, Nevada 89432

775-284-4427

February 13, 2003

For Immediate Press:

"When seven commissioners cannot even agree on what the law is--the law is obviously void for vagueness. This is a huge victory for the Independent American Party and our 26 candidates who refused to comply to the edicts of the Ethics Commission," said Jesse Harris.

"Were glad this happened while the Legislature was in session," stated Christopher Hansen, former Independent American Party candidate for Secretary of State. "We Independent Americans look forward to assisting the Legislature in writing a constitutional law and not a law that inhibits free speech and discourages people from running for office."

"The Ethics Commission vote today was ridiculous, proving once again that they don’t know what the law is. No one can just ask a court what a law means (declaratory judgment) unless there is a case in controversy and you have to have someone to sue. The Commission did not say they would sue anyone," continued Hansen.

"There was no decision by the Commission on whether or not the Independent American Party candidates would even have to pay the questionable fines imposed previously by the Ethics Commission. The Ethics Commission almost overturned the penalties with a 3 to 4 vote, with 3 Commissioners saying that the Independent American Party candidates had complied to the statute by simply filing the form while invoking their constitutional rights against self incrimination," concluded Joel Hansen Independent American Party Counsel and Party Chairman.

For more information contact: Janine Hansen 775-284-4427, Joel Hansen 702-385-5533.

Testimony of Christopher Hansen to Ethics Commission:

First of all we thank our Heavenly Father for the liberty we have left in this State and nation and ask our Father in Heaven to send His spirit to be with us all this day and we do so in the Name of the God of this nation according to the United States Supreme Court in Church of the Holy Trinity vs The United States, Jesus Christ. We do also call Jesus Christ as a witness to our testimony this day so that this Commission shall be judged by God as they judge this day. As the maxims of law clearly state, It is punishment enough for a judge that he is responsible to God. We Independent Americans herein plead and testify before God and this committee the following.

In America Communicators Association vs Douds, 339 U. S. 382, 442 JUSTICE JACKSON said, "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."

This is why we Independent Americans are here today.

In an appropriate case concerning this hearing and its Commissioners known as ANTI-FASCIST COMMITTEE v. McGRATH, 341 U.S. 123 (1951) JUSTICE DOUGLAS said, "It is not without significance that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are procedural. It is procedure that spells much of the difference between rule by law and rule by whim or caprice."

In the minutes of the State of Nevada Commission on Ethics Thursday, August 8, 2002 is the following, "Commissioner Kosinski clarified for the record that without a specific set of standards or criteria for waiver or reduction of fees, then all actions taken by the Commission to reduce the fines are arbitrary and this is why he voted no on the motions."

In CAREY v. BROWN, 447 U.S. 455 (1980) the Court wrote, "When government regulation discriminates among speech-related activities in a public forum, the Equal Protection Clause mandates that the legislation be finely tailored to serve substantial state interests, and the justifications offered for any distinctions it draws must be carefully scrutinized."

Now let's take a look at what Vice Chairman Flangas said as recorded in the Minutes of the meeting of the State of Nevada Commission on Ethics Wednesday, October 16, in the year of our Lord 2002, "This situation has been a difficult situation for two or three years, and I think that with our new Director we’re on the road to putting together an understandable and clear cut directive to all public officers. And there is plenty I think there is plenty of blame to go around, plenty of confusion. I believe that we have considered a lot of waivers in the past couple of months. Today we’re concerned with being consistent with our past actions, but I would hope that starting next year that we adopt a zero-tolerance for these omissions and failures to report."

Does this sound like legislation finely tailored to serve state's interests that draws careful scrutiny?

On February 10 Stacey Jennings admitted that the Ethics Commission was asking the legislature to change the law because they felt it could scare off potential candidates.

In N. A. A. C. P. v. BUTTON, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) the court said,

"It is enough that a vague and broad statute lends itself to selective enforcement against unpopular causes. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that the militant Negro civil rights movement has engendered the intense resentment and opposition of the politically dominant white community of Virginia; litigation assisted by the NAACP has been bitterly fought. In such circumstances, a statute broadly curtailing group activity leading to litigation may easily become a weapon of oppression, however evenhanded its terms appear. Its mere existence could well freeze out of existence all such activity on behalf of the civil rights of Negro citizens."

There is little difference in this Commissions actions against us than those of the politically dominant white community of Virginia and I do hope history views your bigotry and deprivation of our Civil rights to date as most Americans today view the South’s actions against the Blacks and pray your actions do not freeze out of existence all such activity on behalf of the civil rights of Independent American Party Candidates.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 433, 485, 48 S.Ct. 575 (1928) made the Commission’s actions clear when he wrote:

"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law, scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."

We are here today so that the commission can "investigate and take appropriate action regarding an alleged violation" by the "commission on its own motion." And they claim jurisdiction under NRS 281.561 and NRS 281.581 yet nowhere in either of these statutes is the power to investigate us granted. The jurisdiction to "investigate" is only granted in NRS 281.465 titled Jurisdiction and is only applicable to public officers and employees. I repeat Justice Brandeis, "If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law.

In NRS 281.581 it states. If the commission waives a civil penalty pursuant to subsection 2, the commission shall Create a record which sets forth that the civil penalty has been waived and describes the circumstances that constitute the good cause shown and Ensure that the record created pursuant to paragraph (a) is available for review by the general public.

Let me repeat, the commission shall Create a record which sets forth that the civil penalty has been waived and describes the circumstances that constitute the good cause shown

Now let us read from the MINUTES of the meeting of the State of Nevada Commission on Ethics Thursday, August 8, in the year of our Lord 2002

Agenda Item 2 Requests for Waivers or Reductions of Civil Penalties Imposed Pursuant to NRS 281.581 for Untimely Filings of Calendar Year 2001 Financial Disclosure Statements. In open session, the Commission heard, deliberated and decided written requests for waivers or reductions of civil penalties imposed pursuant to NRS 281.581 for untimely filings of calendar year 2001 financial disclosure statements as follows:
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Flangas and seconded by Commissioner Hsu to reduce the penalty assessed to David Clark, Member, State Contractors Board, from $50 to $25. The motion was put to a vote and passed 5-1; Commissioner Kosinski opposed.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Flangas and seconded by Commissioner Adler to reduce the penalty assessed to Ronald Cobb, Member, Reno and Regional Planning Commissions from $225 to $50. The motion was put to a vote and failed 1-5. A second motion was made by Commissioner Sheets and seconded by Vice Chairman Flangas to reduce the penalty from $225 to $100. The second motion was put to a vote and passed 5-1; Commissioner Kosinski opposed.
A motion was made by Chairman Russell and seconded by Commissioner Sheets to reduce the penalty assessed to Mark Droege, Member, State Apprenticeship Council from $160 to $100. The motion was put to a vote and passed unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Adler and seconded by Commissioner Kosinski to reduce the penalty assessed to Irene Hobson, Member, State Apprenticeship Council from $320 to $100. The motion was put to a vote and passed unanimously.
By motion made by Chairman Russell and seconded by Commissioner Kosinski, the Commission unanimously declined to reduce the $25 penalty assessed to Nadia Jurani, Member, Nevada Equal Rights Commission.
A motion was made by Chairman Russell and seconded by Commissioner Sheets to reduce the penalty assessed to Franz Niegemann, Member, Reno Civil Service Commission from $750 to $100. The motion was put to a vote and passed 5-1; Commissioner Kosinski opposed.
By motion made by Chairman Russell and seconded by Commissioner Adler, the Commission unanimously declined to reduce the $25 penalty assessed to Dennis Shipley, Member, Nevada Equal Rights Commission.
A motion was made by Commissioner Sheets and seconded by Chairman Russell to reduce the penalty assessed to Lawrence Wong, Trustee, Las Vegas-Clark County Library District from $560 to $100. The motion was put to a vote and passed 5-1; Commissioner Kosinski opposed.


Where was good cause shown and more importantly where are the circumstances described that constitute the good cause shown?

The minutes of that meeting answer that very question and I quote, "Commissioner Kosinski clarified for the record that without a specific set of standards or criteria for waiver or reduction of fees, then all actions taken by the Commission to reduce the fines are arbitrary and this is why he voted no on the motions."

Commissioner Kosinski is the ONLY member of this Commission that even attempted to follow the law. The only one. I repeat Justice Brandeis, In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law, scrupulously. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law."

This Commission has informed us, Independent Americans, that we cannot refuse to testify against ourselves and that we must submit or this Committee will impose substantial penalties.

On October 31, Nevada Day in the year of our Lord 2002 in the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada concerning the Dzul v. State the OPINION by the Court, was written by Justice BECKER, and states:

"The Fifth Amendment has long been interpreted to mean that a defendant may refuse "to answer official questions put to him in any . . . proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." A defendant therefore retains his Fifth Amendment rights …

"A state may not impose substantial penalties on a person who decides to invoke his right against self-incrimination."

The Nevada Court was only repeating the United States Supreme Court so both High courts agree on this issue concerning testimony.

Is this Commission claiming that the questions asked are not official questions? Are you claiming you do not demand that they must be made under oath or affirmation and penalties of perjury? Are you claiming it is not a proceeding? Are you claiming it is not civil or criminal? Are you claiming they were neither formal nor informal? Are you claiming you are not attempting to impose substantial penalties on us because we have invoked our right against self-incrimination? Are you claiming the information we will give cannot be used against us in a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding? I repeat Justice Brandeis, "In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law, scrupulously."

The record is clear that this Commission does not follow the law scrupulously and almost ignores the Constitutional protections of our God given rights.

Justice Cliff Young writing for the Nevada Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Dist. Ct. December 20, 2002 wrote, "Fundamental to a democratic society is the ability to wander freely and anonymously, if we so choose, without being compelled to divulge information to the government about who we are or what we are doing. This "right to be let alone" to simply live in privacy is a right protected by the Fourth Amendment and undoubtedly sacred to us all.

Sacred to us all I guess except this Commission. We accused do find the Constitutional protections Sacred. Please note that the word sacred is a religious term.

On February 11, in the year of our Lord 2003 Beverly Amundson Administrative Assistant to the Commission wrote, "Each Independent American Party candidate who failed to file a financial disclosure pursuant to the requirements of NRS 281.561 and 281.571 received a letter from the Executive Director of the Nevada Commission on Ethics advising them of the amount of the penalty which had accrued as of the date each candidate was initially notified that they had failed to comply with the statute requiring them to timely file a financial disclosure statement."

Yet NRS 281.581 say A candidate for public office or public officer who fails to file his statement of financial disclosure in a timely manner pursuant to NRS 281.561 is subject to a civil penalty and payment of court costs and attorney’s fees. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, the amount of the civil penalty is:
(a) If the statement is filed not more than 7 days late, $25 for each day the statement is late.
(b) If the statement is filed more than 7 days late but not more than 15 days late, $175 for the first 7 days, plus $50 for each additional day the statement is late.
(c) If the statement is filed more than 15 days late, $575 for the first 15 days, plus $100 for each additional day the statement is late.
2. The commission may, for good cause shown, waive or reduce the civil penalty.

Nothing is written in the law saying the penalty would accrue, and I quote, "as of the date each candidate was initially notified that they had failed to comply with the statute." It says it will start for each day the statement is late. And yet the Civil penalty was reduced by thousands of dollars for many if not all of us when no good cause was ever shown nor was there ever any real attempt to show good cause for a reduction. So how could this Commission have authority to reduce the penalty required by the Statute? And where is the Created record which sets forth that the civil penalty has been waived or reduced and describes the circumstances that constitute the good cause shown? I repeat Justice Brandeis, "In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law, scrupulously." How did your action scrupulously follow the law?


On February 11, in the year of our Lord 2003 Beverly Amundson Administrative Assistant to the Commission wrote, "Only reasons to show good cause for failing to file a financial disclosure statement pursuant to statute. The Commission has no jurisdiction or authority to determine the constitutionality of a statute that power rests solely in the courts." And yet Commissioner Adler as recorded in the Minutes of the meeting of the State of Nevada Commission on Ethics Thursday, September 27, in the year of our Lord 2002 said, "[I] really don’t think we can do that under the Constitution. I really do believe that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Even though I really find this offensive, I just don’t see how we can do that. Because that’s the most rigid standard under the U.S. Constitution is content, and that’s exactly what we’re addressing here is content and content in terms of can a group put this out. And it would have a chilling effect on future free speech if you are to find somebody in this context. So maybe somebody else can address that. But I don’t know how we don’t suppress free speech if we were to find this in violation."

So which is it? Can this Commission decide you can, and I quote, "[D]o that under the Constitution?" or not? Does the Constitution restrict your enforcement or not? Does the restriction in the Nevada Constitution restrict you in the same manner as the First Amendment or does this Commission only recognize the National Constitution? Have any of the Commission members actually read the Nevada Constitution? If you had you may have noticed that your attempted enforcement violates Article I, Sections 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 20 of the Nevada Constitution, Article 15, Section 3 of the Nevada Constitution, Article 17, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution. And not to be left out completely it also violates Amendments I, IV, V, XIII, and XIV of the United States of America Constitution, and Article IV Section 4 of the United States of America Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence.

Chairman Russell at the same meeting said, "However, the problem we get into again is this political hyperbole where politically you go along this particular path and people come forward and say things at the last minute and you try and justify them. We are governed by NRS 281.477, and that’s one of our guiding lights. The other guiding light obviously is the First Amendment and the protection of freedom of speech."

So, Commissioners, are the Nevada Constitution and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the National Constitution also considered guiding lights to this Commission or can only the Court decide if the Constitutional protections will be guiding lights in your decisions concerning waiving penalties? Can you consider the Constitutions or only the Statue? Which one is it Commissioners? Maybe this will help. Supposedly you all swore an oath that states that you will support, protect and defend the National Constitution and the constitution of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding?

What do you think "any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding means?" What it means is exactly what Commissioner Adler said; "I just don’t see how we can do that. I really do believe that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. "

You see that is not ruling on the Constitutionality of the Statute. It is making the Constitutions, both national and State, in the words of Chairman Russell, one of the guiding lights in making your decisions just as you are required to do by your oath of office.

If a violation of the legal protection of the Constitutions are not "good cause" for waiving the penalty then what will your "guiding lights" be?

After all "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491

Is the United States Supreme Court also a guiding light?

Have any of you asked yourselves why enforcement of these statutes is attempted under civil instead of criminal statutes? If it was criminal the law would really have teeth. Right? Well the reason is because if it was criminal there would be no doubt that the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments and their clones in the Nevada Constitution would apply and then it would be impossible to even try to enforce the statues. But the United States Supreme Court saw such attempts at an end run around these protections and clarified what these strictly punitive Civil penalties are and what protections Citizens have against such actions in UNITED STATES v. WARD, in (1980)) they said,

"We are . . . clearly of opinion that proceedings instituted for the purpose of declaring the forfeiture of a man's property by reason of offenses committed by him, though they may be civil in form, are in their nature criminal.

"As, therefore, suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred by the commission of offenses against the law, are of this quasi-criminal nature, we think that they are within the reason of criminal proceedings for all the purposes of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, and of that portion of the Fifth Amendment which declares that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . ."

So the Fourth Amendment applies to this form you have demanded because the penalty is without question only punitive and is therefore quasi-criminal. What does the 4^th say?

"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."

We never received a warrant. There is no probable cause. We have the right to be secure in our papers. Is this a guiding light? If so why do you violate these protections without any restraint or concern?

You have an opportunity here today to tell the legislature to clarify your jurisdiction before you act against us you previously promised you would do before you privately changed your decision.

You have the opportunity to support the unalienable right of liberty and uphold the constitutional restriction on the government and follow the clear statements by the courts on what restrictions apply to your requests for information from private Citizens.

You have the opportunity to support and protect freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly and to assist us in petitioning our legislature for redress of grievances. Even members of this Committee have pointed out the possible problems and Constitutional violations of this law. Stacey Jennings said if we Independent Americans have a problem with the law we should take it up with the legislature. We have. We will. We are. But this committee has found such problems with this law that they too have gone to the legislature to change the law because it may intimidate candidates into not running for office. They have also consistently refused to fully enforce the statute concerning the penalties and continuously waived or reduced penalties without ANY good cause shown except your obvious belief that the penalties violated the 8^th Amendment against unusual punishments. To enforce such a law when you believe it is harming the election process and is unfair and vague is to fail to bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the Constitutions of Nevada and the USA and to place an ordinance, resolution or law above the supreme law of the land.

It also gives you the opportunity to avoid violating our civil rights and protects you from being sued in federal courts for obvious depravations of our rights.

You have an opportunity today to bear true faith an allegiance to the Constitutions and let the legislature know that they must clarify this law and strictly follow the Constitution because in the words of Brandeis, "existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law, scrupulously."

Or you can rule against us and try to penalize us for refusing to surrender our God given Unalienable rights and Constitutional protections and prove you are the Fascists we have claimed you are by placing this Fascist law above the Constitutions, the Bill of Rights and our God given Unalienable rights.

What shall be your guiding light, Fascism or liberty?

If you rule against us we shall be proud to take this issue to a jury and let our peers decide if liberty or Fascism is the guiding light in Nevada.

And remember that we Independent Americans still challenge your jurisdiction in this matter and are here only to give this testimony in a non due process public hearing in hopes you will support liberty and honor your oath of office.

This we pray in the name of our and this Nation's Lord, Jesus Christ, Amen.