NEVADA CORRUPTION DOT INFO
Publisher: Guy P. Felton III
lAttorney General Catherine Cortez Masto deserves to be seen as the most corrupt politician in Nevada because she is in a position to protect other corrupt bastard officials from accountability ~ and she does. There are no fail-safe checks and balances in place to expose her as the low-life she is. And she can't be thrown out of office on election day because Nevada's corrupt voting machines are programmed to keep her in office.
Before becoming lieutenant governor, Brian Krolicki held the position of Nevada State Treasurer. "A legislative audit has found Krolicki broke a few laws, skirted some regulations and helped his friend and mentor [Bob Seale] cash in at the state's expense as he finished his second term administering a [$3.3-billion] college savings plan as state treasurer." Source Google "Krolicki audit"
AG Masto has, in masked effect, ignored Krolicki's law breaking. She is permitting him to escape accountability for his crimes. How many inmates in Nevada's prisons and jails would like to enjoy equal treatment? Why do we have a double standard in Nevada? Why are Krolicki ~ and other politicians ~ above the law?
Please see: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/may/02/
state-agent-quits-amid-missing-evidence-inquiry/An effective system of checks and balances to guard against corrupt politicians in Nevada would require an honest person in the position of AG. This is not what we have in Nevada. It is an unwritten rule in the Silver State that whomever sits in the AG's office in Carson City must protect the power elite and its political frontmen from accountability for their run-amok wheelings and dealings.
Not only is the state's current AG, Catherine Cortez Masto, ignoring Krolicki's crimes and the state's crooked voting machines, she, like her predecessors, makes jest of the state's open meeting law. Government of, by, and for the people is only possible when citizens are well-informed and when government issues are properly treated as the people's business. Consider these words drawn from NRS 241.010:
In enacting this chapter, the legislature finds and declares that all public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and their deliberations be conducted openly.
The open meeting law manual displays the above and goes on to state:
In interpreting a similar provision in California's open meeting law, the court of appeals delivered a humbling message when it said: "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over instruments they have created."
When these noble thoughts are ignored and violated by persons including Masto who are charged with defending them, they cease to exist for practical purposes.
~~~~~~
Consider the following open meeting law complaint which was submitted to Masto in late December 2007. It regards the fact that the Commission no longer discusses and adopts the Agenda for each meeting during the meeting so that members of the public may provide input regarding the administration of their business. Masto's fraudulent response of 7 March 2008 is then displayed followed in turn with critical comment by the webmaster.
Complaint:
The Washoe County Commission meeting of 13 November 2007 violated the Open Meeting Law (OML) and the Spirit of the OML.
1. The OML demands that meetings have an Agenda. Thus by any process of logic there must be an Approval of that Agenda before the meeting can legitimately proceed in a coherent manner.
2. Precedent for (at least) the past 12 years portrayed an Approval of the Agenda as one of the first Items on the Agenda (usually after salute to flag and roll call).
3. The OML demands that Public Bodies must create an Agenda and stick to the Agenda. They cannot possibly stick to THE Agenda unless they officially approve THE Agenda.
4. From a pragmatic viewpoint the Agenda has to be approved. Otherwise there is no official opportunity for citizens ... or even commissioners ... to request potential corrections or changes to be made to the Agenda.
5. The Washoe commissioners were alerted at the first legal chance during "Public Comment" that they were in violation of the OML. They chose to ignore the advisement.
Beyond the fact that Washoe county must be ordered to correct their abuse of the OML, it must also be remembered that action taken during meetings that are in violation of the OML are void (241.036). Thus decisions made at meetings that are conducted in violation of the OML are void. It is a fact that at least 2 or 3 viable OML Complaints could be filed at virtually every meeting of the Washoe commission.
A truly professional investigation of this Violation demands that the Washoe authorities, who suddenly decided to eliminate this critical part of the Agenda, should be asked (under oath) to explain the conversations that took place leading up to their wrongful decision.
To paraphrase what almost assuredly happened:
"We've got to figure a way to keep those pesky citizens from complaining about our Agenda. Here's how - Let's remove Approval of the Agenda from the Agenda. That'll fix 'em!"
Furthermore, when was this major policy change officially discussed and adopted? Citizens expect and demand that Washoe County obey the Law. Please contact me with any questions.
Signed,
Sam Dehne, Lt .Col., USAF (Ret.)
Reno, Nevada 89502~~~~~~
Masto's reply to Dehne (AG File No. 07-056):
This office has reviewed your complaint and the response of the Washoe County Commission. Your complaint alleges a violation of the OML because of the Commission's deletion of a long-standing agenda procedure in which [the] Commission approved the agenda prior to its consideration.
You have asserted, without any statutory authority that before the Commissioners may proceed in a coherent manner, there must be approval of the agenda. You also argue that the public must have an official opportunity to request potential corrections or changes to the agenda before the meeting. There is no support or authority in the Open Meeting Law for either assertion.
The public already has an opportunity to comment on the agenda or any other matter over which the public body has jurisdiction or authority. There is no independent right apart from public comment (NRS 241.020(2)(c)(3)) authorizing the public to request changes to the agenda. The agenda and the issues to be considered therein, is solely a matter for the public body to decide, with or without the public's input.
Review of the meeting agenda for November 13, 2007 shows that public comment is heard at the beginning of the meeting. Should the public wish to comment on any matter whether on or off the agenda, they have been given that opportunity. The Open Meeting Law does not require more than that.
The Open Meeting Law does not require any public body to approve its agenda prior to each public meeting. If the Commission eliminated approval of the agenda from its public meeting, the elimination is within its prerogative.
Sincerely,
Catherine Cortez Masto
By: George H. Taylor~~~~~~
Webmaster's Comment on Masto's Letter:
First concern >>>
has to do with Masto being an impostor. She was reportedly elected during a 2006 voting process which employed Sequoia voting machines that have been reviewed by world-class experts and found to be highly susceptible to tampering.
Announced vote counts issuing from dirty machines can only be treated as credible by charlatans and fools.Unfortunately, there are far too many charlatans and fools in Nevada with Ms. Masto numbering among the charlatans.
By her participation in a cover-up of the fact that Nevada's voting machines can be easily rigged to throw elections, Masto is guilty of defrauding the people of Nevada and permitting the perversion of elections in our state. Masto has initiated no attempt to decertify Nevada's voting machines which are exactly like voting machines decertified in California during 2007 due to their high susceptibility to tampering.
Ramifications of permitting impostors to fraudulently fill elective positions include multibillion-dollar liabilities. What value can be placed on an accused murderer being sentenced to execution by an impostor judge?
Second concern >>>
has to do with Col. Dehne's question: "... when was this major policy change officially discussed and adopted?" This refers to the Commission's decision to no longer discuss and decide each meeting's agenda in public.Masto totally ignores this question!
Fair to judge that commissioners decided, in secret, to not discuss this policy change during a public meeting due to its highly controversial nature. Commissioners are given to delivering adversarial government in order to press their agenda which serves special interests at the expense of the common good. Commissioners are given to not treating the people's business as the people's business when they think they can get away with it.
And Masto, obviously, supports them in this un-American practice.
Which commissioner suggested deletion of the Commission's long-standing agenda procedure? At what time and in what place did commissioners discuss and decide said deletion? Did all commissioners agree to the deletion?
Fair to judge that Masto employed willful intent in failing to address Dehne's question: "... when was this major policy change officially discussed and adopted?"
She is known to be an extremely bright person; she can not credibly claim that her "error" was accidental. (Smarts and ethics are different things.)
Masto employed willful intent in committing obstruction of justice. Her letter demonstrates deception by omission which is a form of fraud.
The Commission did not change its agenda adoption policy in public in a straight-forward manner. It is clear that Commission members made took this action in a non-public manner which violated the letter and spirit of the open meeting law.
Masto's letter is proof that she is derelict in her duty to enforce open government. She is letting Washoe's run-amok commissioners get away with taking a key, controversial action in a non-public manner. She is permitting Washoe's commissioners to deny the sovereignty of the people and assert that sovereignty for themselves; this is a form of treason.
Under Masto, the open meeting law is an insulting hoax!
Third concern >>>
has to do with NRS 241.010 which states: "In enacting this chapter [i.e., the open meeting law], the legislature finds and declares that all public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their ACTIONS be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly."Adopting the agenda for any Commission meeting is an ACTION as important as considering any other element of said meeting.
To suggest that a meeting's agenda is so unimportant as to permit mundane composition by staff persons is to obfuscate the reality that public business issues are not uncommonly controversial, requiring value calls which should only be made by elected officials who, at least in theory, are accountable to the sovereign people.
Each meeting of the Washoe County Commission is held to conduct the people's business by taking ACTIONS. NRS 241.020 requires an agenda. To hold that we, the sovereign people, do not have clear right to monitor the ACTIONS of our public servants when deciding the content of a meeting held to conduct our business is asinine.
Deciding an agenda's content and sequencing of issues ~ typically involving ACTIONS ~ is too important for staff persons. If an agenda was not important, it would not be required by law and it would not be given so much attention in The Nevada Open Meeting Law Manual.
Deciding any agenda is an ACTION whether handled in a highly-formal manner or in a ho-hum, mundane manner. It is just plain wrong for commissioners to take any ACTION in a non-public manner.
Clearly, the Washoe Commission took an ACTION ~ in violation of NRS 241.010 ~ when it decided in a non-public manner to no longer discuss and adopt meeting agendas during meetings to which they pertain.
Proceeding to run any meeting pursuant to its legally-required agenda is an ACTION! Again: "It is the intent of the law that [any action of a public body] be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly."
Any agenda must be decided and adopted in a public manner during the meeting to which it pertains in that its use constitutes an ACTION pursuant to NRS 241.010.
Masto's letter to Dehne is a clear, willful, sinister and ominous violation of the "intent of the law". The complicity of George Taylor in preparing her letter creates a situation which can be fairly construed as conspiracy to defraud Col. Dehne.
We, the sovereign people, can not monitor discussions bearing on decisions regarding our business held by public servants in back rooms. We can not monitor value calls made ~ even argued over ~ by public officials in back rooms.
Deciding the content of any agenda constitutes an ACTION. To claim that deciding the content and sequencing of an agenda ~ which may and often does affect the lives, finances, and welfare of thousands of Washoe citizens ~ is not an ACTION is worse than absurd; this is fraud. And Masto is guilty.
NRS 241.010 mandates that the ACTIONS of public bodies "be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly." Following an agenda ~ a plan for conducting the people's business ~ is an ACTION! Deciding the content and sequencing of that agenda is also an ACTION!
The Washoe Commission, for a number of months now, has been violating the letter and spirit of NRS 241.010. And Nevada's corrupt attorney general, Catherine Cortez Masto, is attempting to insulate these corrupt bastards from accountability!
Both Masto and Taylor lie in their letter when they state: "The agenda and the issues to be considered therein, is [sic] solely a matter for the public body to decide ..."
The people of Nevada are not well-served by public officials who are enemies of integrity, truth, justice and healthy openness. The people of Nevada are not well-served by Catherine Cortez Masto.
Fourth concern >>>
has to do with Masto's letter failing to announce that her opinions do not have force of law. Her opinions are only that ~ no more, no less. Not pointing this out amounts to another count of deception by omission. Every time she issues an OMLO without disclosing this key fact amounts to yet another count of deception by omission.Every opinion issued by Masto should clearly state: "This is only an opinion. It does not have force of law."
Charlatans and fools ~ including Washoe Commission Chair Bob Larkin ~ are given to treating AG opinions as having force of law when they most certainly do not. In Larkin's case, he even likes to treat AG opinions as trumping the United States Constitution.
-Guy Felton~~~~~~
Another matter: The following letter explains itself:
AN OPEN LETTER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL MASTO
From Guy Felton, Reno, Nevada
March 6, 2008As you must be aware, The Los Angeles Times ran a series of articles in 2006 exposing Nevada's court system as having a serious problem with crooked judges.
Please advise if you have done anything to deal with these crooked judges ~ and the flawed excuse for a system which permits them to run amok. How can numerous judges thumb their noses at integrity and justice without the state's AG becoming aware of this? Are you, Ms. Masto, and your immediate (at least) predecessors not guilty of misprision?
What checks and balances, if any, have been ignored for how many years? Is there a de facto practice in Nevada whereby corrupt judges share a percentage of their ill-begotten loot with whatever AG is in office in return for said AG's felonious role as an accomplice in extortion, gross perversion of justice, and satanic abuse of delegated public powers?
If you've done nothing of a meaningful nature to return integrity to Nevada's judiciary, please explain why.
Since the Times articles ran, have any judges in the state been disciplined and/or asked to resign? Please amplify your yes or no response. Please provide the names of judges who have been investigated ~ or who should have been investigated.
Is it, perhaps, your position that dealing with crooked judges is not your proper concern as chief legal officer of Nevada?
Do you, as a private Nevada citizen, have no concern with the problem of crooked judges abusing and denying justice?
Sincerely,
Guy Felton, Webmaster
www.MastoResign.Info
www.NevadaCorruption.Info
www.JusticeForPallas.Info~~~~~~
Masto responded by letter explaining that crooked judges are not her concern.
RETURN TO NEVADA CORRUPTION DOT INFO
RETURN TO HARVARD COLLEGE ONLINE DOT COM
~~~~~