HellerAccused

Independent American Party

186, Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, Nevada 89801 - 702-336-2212, www.independentamerican.org

July 17, 2006

Heller Accused of Felony

Felony charges were filed today for violations of the election laws of Nevada with the Office of the Secretary of State against Secretary of State Dean Heller. Christopher Hansen, State Chairman of the Independent American Party filed what he called, “The first of many criminal complaints for Heller’s violations of NRS 293.800.”

The violations came from Heller’s continual disregard for his duties to enforce the election laws and his harassment of Independent American Party candidates especially on April 6^th just before candidate filing. “This was totally out of line,” said Hansen who was one of the candidates falsely accused and fined “$2000.00” by Heller. Heller accused 15 Independent American Party candidates of improper filing of financial disclosure forms from May of 2004 almost 2 full years after the fact and 16 months after the 2004 election was over. The forms had been filed according to a district court judges instructions. Those instructions were later over turned by the Nevada Supreme Court but when they were filed they were 100% correct according to the judges ruling.

“For a violation to occur there must be a willful violation and Heller knew we were follow the courts instructions. He intentionally waited until just before candidate filling to intimidate our past candidates and it worked. Several of our candidates refused to run until this was taken care of. Then just after the filing window had expired Heller waived the fines for “good cause shown stating that we had filed according to the judges ruling. He knew that before he fined us and timed it perfectly to hurt the Independent American Party. The only problem for Heller is that his actions were felonious so we are hoping there is still some justice in Nevada even with all the known corruption at all levels recently coming to light,” said Christopher Hansen

“I filed the first complaint” said Hansen, “but other Nevadans will also be filing complaints in the very near future. We will no longer tolerate Heller’s blatant disregard of the enforcement statutes for his government employee buddies while, improperly and without probable cause, using the enforcement statutes to harass Independent Americans. This is to be a nation of equal enforcement not a nation were a powerful political enemy, like Heller, is allowed to intimidate voters and candidates. It has to stop and we intend to stop it.”

The complaint was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State as per NAC 293.025 but also with the Attorney General. A special prosecutor has been requested as Secretary of State Heller would have a conflict of interest investigating a crime he, himself, has been accused of committing.

Complaint Concerning Violations of Provision of Title 24 of the Nevada Revised Statutes and a Call for a Special Prosecutor

Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller
ELECTIONS DIVISION
101 North Carson Street, Suite 3
Carson City, NV. 89701

Office of the Attorney General
Nevada Department of Justice
Carson City Office
100 North Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717

The following is a written complaint concerning an alleged violation of a provision of Title 24 of the Nevada Revised Statutes as per NAC 293.025 Submission of complaint concerning violation of provision of title 24 of NRS.

NAC 293.025 Submission of complaint concerning violation of provision of title 24 of NRS. (NRS 293.124) A person who wishes to file a complaint concerning an alleged violation of any provision of title 24 of NRS must:

2. Sign the complaint. The complaint may include proof of the alleged violation.

In an article in the Las Vegas Weekly written by Kate Silver, July 3 - July 9, 2003 AD, that Dean Heller, was quoted as stating: "I favor them monitoring this office. I think it's great. In fact, I wish there would be more that did that, because the more they do my office, the more they're going to do the attorney general's office, the more they're going to monitor the governor's office, the treasurer's office, all the constitutional offices should be monitored like the IAP monitors this office. I think they do a great job."

On June 20^th, 2006 AD you, Secretary of State Heller, mailed out a waiver to a “$2000.00” civil penalty imposed on April 6^th, 2006 just 24 days before May 1^st, 2006 AD which was the opening day of candidate filing. It is obvious that Secretary Heller waited until April 6^th in the year of our Lord 2006 to send me and other Independent Americans these letters intent upon willfully performing his duty it in such a way as to hinder the objects and purposes of the election laws of this State and to impede or prevent, by duress or fraudulent contrivance, the free exercise of the franchise of voters (filing for political office), and did compel and induce or prevail upon us electors to give or refrain from giving our vote to ourselves or to other Independent Americans. Instead of assessing these civil penalties in a non-political year Secretary Heller waited until just before candidate filing.

This is just more proof that Secretary Heller is once again attempting to use the financial disclosure statutes in a manner that has had a chilling effect on constitutionally and statutorily guarantees for Independent Americans.

Secretary Heller has known about my filing of the financial statements since May of 2004 AD almost 2 years before Secretary Heller assessed these civil penalties upon me and other Independent Americans using charges Secretary Heller knew or should have known were not applicable as they could not have possibly been willful and that Secretary Heller eventually waived after we lost IAP candidates due to the delay in the waivers. Secretary Heller also knew or should have known that these civil penalties would not hold up in court since they were not willful because we were following the directions of a district court judge. Secretary Heller also knew about the Supreme Court ruling since December of 2004 AD and yet Secretary Heller waited until the IAP was recruiting candidates and preparing for our County and State conventions in 2006 AD to harass us and take up our limited and precious time in an obvious attempt to harm us politically.

Several of our candidates considered not running in 2006 AD including myself because of these civil penalties. Several potential candidates that had received threatening letters did not file. This was a crime and Secretary Heller did it intentionally or it was done with such willful neglect that it was still a crime.

It is obvious to us/me that Secretary of State Heller has violated at least two laws, and committed both a felony and a gross misdemeanor. That is the reason why I have filed this complaint. Others will follow from other Independent Americans.

NRS 293.800 Acts concerning registration of voters; violations of laws governing elections; crimes by public officers.

A person who, for himself or another person, willfully gives a false answer or answers to questions propounded to him by the registrar or field registrar of voters relating to the information called for by the application to register to vote, or who willfully falsifies his application in any particular, or who violates any of the provisions of the election laws of this State, or knowingly encourages another person to violate those laws is guilty of a category E felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

A public officer or other person, upon whom any duty is imposed by this title, who willfully neglects his duty, or willfully performs it in such a way as to hinder the objects and purposes of the election laws of this State, except where another penalty is provided, is guilty of a category E felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

It is unlawful for any person, in connection with any election or petition, whether acting himself or through another person in his behalf, to:

Use or threaten to use any force, coercion, violence, restraint or undue influence;

Inflict or threaten to inflict any physical or mental injury, damage, harm or loss upon the person or property of another;

Expose or publish or threaten to expose or publish any fact concerning another in order to induce or compel such other to vote or refrain from voting for any candidate or any question;

Impede or prevent, by abduction, duress or fraudulent contrivance, the free exercise of the franchise by any voter, or thereby to compel, induce or prevail upon any elector to give or refrain from giving his vote; or

Discharge or change the place of employment of any employee with the intent to impede or prevent the free exercise of the franchise by such employee.

Unless a greater penalty is provided by law, any violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor.

NRS 197.180 Wrongful exercise of official power. Any person who willfully takes upon himself to exercise or officiate in any office or place of another, without being lawfully authorized thereto, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

Secretary Heller has violated provisions of the election laws and knowingly encouraged other persons to violate those laws. Secretary Heller has a duty imposed by title 24 and Secretary Heller willfully neglected his duty, and/or willfully performed it in such a way as to hinder the objects and purposes of the election laws of this State.

I am personally suing Secretary Heller in federal court because Secretary Heller refused, among other things, to enforce the election laws, which is his duty, concerning petitioning rights that led to my harassment by Department of Motor Vehicles’ employees and other government employees and led to my sister and nephew being arrested. Secretary Heller never filed any charges or assessed any civil penalties against any of these government employees even when they admitted they did them and Judge Cory and the Nevada Supreme Court confirmed that they violated our statutory rights under title 24. Yet Secretary Heller had the audacity to file these civil penalties against 15 Independent American party candidates two years after the fact and knowing full well that we were following the ruling of the district court and had therefore not violated the law.

This is a personal vendetta by Secretary Heller or is such willful negligence that it is still a crime. Secretary Heller has threatened to or used coercion, restraint or undue influence inflicted and/or threatened to inflict mental injury, damage, harm and loss upon us and our property.

Secretary Heller has published facts about us in order to induce or compel us to refrain from voting for ANY candidate. Secretary Heller has impeded and/or prevented us by duress or fraudulent contrivance, from the free exercise of our full franchise as voters which includes running for office and have prevailed upon us electors to refrain from giving our vote by keeping us from filing for office out of fear of further unwarranted civil penalties.

Secretary Heller has also violated his oath of office concerning the constitutional provisions for voting requirements and have established a Voter Registration form that has no authority for it in the Nevada Constitution as required.

The Nevada Supreme Court in State ex rel. Schur v. Payne, 57 Nev. 286, 63 P.2d 921, 922 and 923, Nev. 1937 quoting State v. Findlay, 20 Nev. 198, 200, 19 P. 241, 19 Am.St.Rep. 346. stated:

“[I]t is not within the power of the Legislature to deny, abridge, extend, or change the qualifications of an elector as prescribed by the State Constitution.”

The Supreme Court also ruled in Goldman v. Bryan,106 Nev. 30, 787 P.2d 372, Nev.,1990.

“[T]he constitution constitute[s] the supreme law of the state and control over any conflicting statutory provisions cannot be subject to any serious dispute. See, e.g., Robison v. District Court, 73 Nev. 169, 313 P.2d 436 (1957) (provision in constitution respecting impeachment of state officer controls over conflicting legislative enactment providing statutory scheme for removal); see also Wren v. Dixon, 40 Nev. 170, 187, 161 P. 722, 726 (1916), citing Oakland Paving Co. v. Hilton, 69 Cal. 479, 11 P. 3 (1886) (constitution is law absolutely controlling the legislature, executive, and judicial departments and its provisions “take effect on laws already passed as well as to those to be enacted in the future”); State v. Duffy, 6 Nev. 138 (1870) (provisions of state constitution constitute supreme law of the state and must be enforced by the courts in letter and spirit).”

Section 1. Right to vote; qualifications of elector; qualifications of nonelector to vote for President and Vice President of United States. [Effective through November 24, 2008, and after that date unless the proposed amendment is agreed to and passed by the 2007 Legislature and approved and ratified by the voters at the 2008 General Election.] All citizens of the United States (not laboring under the disabilities named in this constitution) of the age of eighteen years and upwards, who shall have actually, and not constructively, resided in the state six months, and in the district or county thirty days next preceding any election, shall be entitled to vote for all officers that now or hereafter may be elected by the people, and upon all questions submitted to the electors at such election; provided, that no person who has been or may be convicted of treason or felony in any state or territory of the United States, unless restored to civil rights, and no person who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, unless restored to legal capacity, shall be entitled to the privilege of an elector. There shall be no denial of the elective franchise at any election on account of sex. The legislature may provide by law the conditions under which a citizen of the United States who does not have the status of an elector in another state and who does not meet the residence requirements of this section may vote in this state for President and Vice President of the United States.

Every citizen of the United States, 18 years of age or over, who has continuously resided in this State and in the county 30 days and in the precinct 10 days next preceding the day of the next succeeding: [election]

I swear or affirm • I am a U. S. citizen • I will be at least 18 years old by the date of the next election • I will have continuously resided in Nevada at least 30 days in my county and at least 10 days in my precinct before the next election • The present address listed herein is my sole legal place of residence and I claim no other place as my legal residence • I am not laboring under any felony conviction or other loss of civil rights that would make it unlawful for me to vote. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Please note that the STATE OF NEVADA VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATION does not comply with the requirements and restrictions of the Nevada Constitution but with the statute, which is not allowed by the Nevada Constitution as per: “[I]t is not within the power of the Legislature to deny, abridge, extend, or change the qualifications of an elector as prescribed by the State Constitution.” The Nevada Supreme Court in State ex rel. Schur v. Payne, 57 Nev. 286, 63 P.2d 921, 922 and 923, Nev. 1937 quoting State v. Findlay, 20 Nev. 198, 200, 19 P. 241, 19 Am.St.Rep. 346.

The current STATE OF NEVADA VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATION does not require a voter applicant to: “actually, and not constructively, resided in the state six months,” but instead for only “30 days.”

The Constitution does not require elector to “have continuously resided… at least 10 days in my precinct before the next election.” This could restrict otherwise authorized electors to be unable to register to vote in their precinct when no such requirement is allowed by the Nevada Constitution.

So how is it that you, Secretary of State Heller, have prescribed a standard form for applications to register to vote, which is not in compliance with either the restrictions nor the requirements as found in the Nevada Constitution at Article 2, Section 1?

Secretary Heller swore an oath to when he took office that he would “support, protect and defend … the Constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of Secretary of State…”

Why did Secretary Heller not follow that oath? Did Secretary Heller commit perjury? It appears that this question must also be eventually addressed.

Secretary Heller has failed to follow his oath. Secretary Heller has placed an “ordinance, resolution or law” above the Constitution of the State of Nevada and harmed the election process with what must hopefully be called at best willful negligence or at worst Secretary Heller is a domestic enemy of the Nevada Constitution.

I, Christopher Hansen, do hereby state that Secretary of State Dean Heller has committed a felony and possibly other crimes and needs to have criminal charges filed against him. As this document is the way established by regulations in which to file a compliant concerning a violation of title 24 of the Nevada Revised Statues if any other affidavits or official criminal complaints need to be filed I must be contacted and I will file any and all needed form to start this prosecution.

I also request that a civil penalty, as per NRS 293.840, be imposed upon Secretary of State Dean Heller as per:

In addition to any criminal penalty, a person who violates the provisions of this chapter is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $20,000 for each violation. This penalty must be recovered in a civil action brought in the name of the State of Nevada by the Attorney General or by any district attorney in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Any civil penalty collected pursuant to this section must be deposited by the collecting agency for credit to the State General Fund in the bank designated by the State Treasurer.

Since Secretary Heller is the Chief Officer of Elections and are to enforce these violation and they are directed personally at Secretary Heller and his staff I request a special prosecutor to review this complaint so that there is not a conflict of interest as no man may, in our system, sit in judgment upon himself.

NRS 293.124 Secretary of State to serve as Chief Officer of Elections; regulations.

1. The Secretary of State shall serve as the Chief Officer of Elections for this State. As Chief Officer, the Secretary of State is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the provisions of title 24 of NRS and all other provisions of state and federal law relating to elections in this State. (emphasis added)

2. The Secretary of State shall adopt such regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.

Due to the fact that the Secretary of States is the individual accused of violating “provisions of title 24 of NRS and all other provisions of state and federal law relating to elections in this State” it appears Secretary Heller should consult with the Nevada Commission on Ethics as per NRS 281.521 to determine if Secretary Heller should investigate the very violations Secretary Heller is hereby accused of committing.

NRS 281.521 Opinions of Commission may include guidance to public officer or employee; restrictions. The Commission’s opinions may include guidance to a public officer or employee on questions whether:

His official duties involve the use of discretionary judgment whose exercise in the particular matter would have a significant effect upon the disposition of the matter.

The conflict would materially affect the independence of the judgment of a reasonable person in his situation.

4. He possesses special knowledge which is an indispensable asset of his public agency and is needed by it to reach a sound decision.

5. It would be appropriate for him to withdraw or abstain from participation, disclose the nature of his conflicting personal interest or pursue some other designated course of action in the matter.

It appears to me that a Special Prosecutor or some other appropriate investigator should be called in to investigate these allegations and it appears that it would be appropriate for Secretary Heller to withdraw or abstain from participation and pursue some other designated course of action in the matter.