Janine Hansen for State Assembly

On September 13, 2010 the Hansen name appeared in an Associated Press article identifying people who owe money to the State of Nevada. “I ‘owe’ money to the State of Nevada in an on going battle with the Secretary of State over a ‘fine’ (civil penalty) imposed when I was a candidate in 2006. I wear this fine as a badge of honor—the price of defending liberty,” stated Janine Hansen candidate for Assembly District 33.

In the matter of this fine, the Secretary of State has violated my sacred constitutionally protected rights of liberty of conscience, stated Hansen. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence said, “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”

“In this battle with the Secretary of State, I am standing on principle and resisting tyranny. Tyranny is not often recognized because it is the subtle subjection of liberty to unreasonable, bureaucratic and unconstitutional statutes,” continued Hansen.

“Our forefathers ‘violated the law’ when they dumped tea in the harbor. Never-the-less we celebrate their courage and wisdom in their resistance to the tyranny of King George. Our battles for liberty today are just as real as they were in 1773 for the patriots who participated in the original Tea Party,” continued Hansen.

“When I ran for office in 2006, I filed my candidate reporting forms on time. The Secretary of State’s office did not notify me after the August 3, 2006 report or the October 31, 2006 report or after the January 16, 2007 report, that my reports did ‘not comport with statutory mandates.’ I was not notified until after the maximum fine could be assessed on May 1, 2007.”

“My violation according to Matt Griffin Deputy Secretary of State as reported on May 11, 2007 in the Nevada Appeal, in an article by Geoff Dornan on page A7 was, ‘But in the IAP candidate cases, they altered the campaign reporting forms, striking out the oath to report accurately under penalty of perjury.’”

“In the 2006 candidate reports, I replaced the secular affirmation ‘under penalty of perjury’ with a religious oath, which stated, ‘I do solemnly swear in the name of Jesus Christ that the foregoing is true and correct,’ and signed my name. To do otherwise would violate my religious beliefs because to swear is to call God as a witness,” continued Hansen.

On May 7, 2007 I wrote the Secretary of State asking for a waiver of the fine. “…the Nevada Constitution Article 1 Section 4, states: “Liberty of conscience. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed in this State, and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of his religious belief, but the liberty of consciene [conscience] hereby secured…”

“The Secretary of State’s decision had rendered me to be incompetent to be a witness on my own campaign report because I used a religious oath instead of a secular affirmation,” stated Hansen.

In addition the Ordinance, which is part of the Nevada Constitution, states “this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada: …That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.”

“The Nevada Constitution provides that Constitutional officers like the Secretary of State taking the oath of office may choose to swear an oath ‘so help me God’ or an affirmation ‘under penalty of perjury.’ So the Secretary of State’s own oath recognizes a difference between an oath (religious) or an affirmation (under penalty of perjury),” continued Hansen.

“This all boils down to the fact that I have been assessed a fine of $15,000 for exercising my religious beliefs. How can that be in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Unfortunately, it is the case,” continued Hansen.

“The Nevada State Senate recognized this travesty during the 2009 Legislature when upon my request they passed an amendment to the Secretary of State’s own bill allowing for a choice in taking a religious oath or secular affirmation when signing the campaign reports. AB 82 was passed by the Senate at 11:58pm on June 1, 2010 just after the Assembly had adjourned the Legislative Session Sine Die so the bill did not pass allowing the abuses of the Secretary of State to continue,” stated Hansen.

I have attached below my original request for a waiver of this $15,000 civil penalty (fine) which was denied by the Secretary of State. I will not pay a fine that is imposed by government in violation of my First Amendment right to religious liberty or in violation of the Nevada Constitution’s protections of right of conscience, whatever threats, intimidation and public humiliation which the government may pursue. I stand with Thomas Jefferson, ‘Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God,’” concluded Janine Hansen candidate for Assembly District 33.

Re: Request for Waiver for alleged failure to file 2006 and 2007 Contributions and Expenses Reports

I am requesting a waiver of the $15,000 civil penalty, which has been accessed to me for alleged failure to file for the August and October 2006 and January 2007 Contributions and Expenses Reports.

Your letter states that my request for waiver will be considered only after I file the delinquent report. My reports were not delinquent. They were, as you know, all filed on time.

Note that the Secretary of State’s office did not notify me after the August 3, 2006 report or the October 31, 2006 report or after the January 16, 2007 report that my reports “do not comport with statutory mandates.” You did not notify me until your letter dated May 1, 2007, which I did not receive until May 5, 2007.

The Secretary of State’s failure to notify me in a timely manner after any of my reports were filed has resulted in the maximum civil penalty of $15,000 being assessed. This is unconscionable. I can only assume that it is purposely done in order to persecute me as an Independent American Party candidate as has been the continuing practice of the Secretary of State’s office for years. I object to your action as assuming you stand above the common practice in law of giving fair notice and warning if my documents had errors.

The Nevada Administrative Code used to require the Secretary of State to inform candidates within 5 days if their forms were not acceptable. But, we Independent Americans used the requirement to stop harassment because the Secretary of State in the past, as usual, did not comply. So naturally, in retaliation, Dean Heller just got rid of this important and honest notice requirement. You have continued his unconscionable action.

Your contention that I did not accurately and completely file my Contributions and Expenses Reports is false. I filled my reports out accurately and completely and signed my name under oath. I received no contributions and made no expenditures as I reported on all three of my reports.

Although all three of my reports were filed in a timely manner, according to you “they do not comport with statutory mandates.” This vague undefined reference to my reports in your letter was clarified by your deputy Matt Griffin’s statements in the press.

As reported in the Nevada Appeal, on May 11, 2007 in an article by Geoff Dornan on page A7, but not stated in your official letter to me, your deputy Matt Griffin identified the real reason you accessed me $15,000. Griffin is quoted as saying, “But in the IAP candidate cases, they altered the campaign reporting forms, striking out the oath to report accurately under penalty of perjury.

As you know, I replaced the secular AFFIRMATION under penalty of perjury with a religious OATH, which stated, “I do solemnly swear in the name of Jesus Christ that the foregoing is true and correct,” and signed my name. To do otherwise would violate my religious beliefs. To swear is to call God as a witness.

It appears that your deputy in his statement to the press determined to cast dispersions on my name to further denigrate me and the Independent American Party, when he reportedly said, “The law specifies they are supposed to sign the affidavit. There’s no discretion. It’s the law.” You know very well, that I signed the affidavit/report with my very legible signature.

With regards to my oath on the Reports, you are either ignorant of the plain letter of the Constitution or in willful violation of the provisions of the Nevada Constitution Article 1 Section 4, which states: “Liberty of conscience. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed in this State, and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of his religious belief, but the liberty of consciene [conscience] hereby secured, shall not be so construed, as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace, or safety of this State.”

In addition, the Ordinance, which is part of the Nevada Constitution states, “this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada: …That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.”

The Constitution of the State of Nevada supercedes any bureaucratic regulation or statute of the State of Nevada. You have violated my constitutionally guaranteed right of Liberty of Conscience and rendered me, because of my religious oath, incompetent to be a witness on my Contributions and Expenses Reports.

In addition, you have violated my religious rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Of course, as you know, these rights are federally protected under the Civil Rights Act 42 USC 1983.

You have also failed in your constitutional responsibility as a Constitutional officer of this state who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, to provide me with a perfect toleration of my religious sentiment, as you are now attempting to molest me in person and property by placing on me a $15,000 civil penalty for exercising my religious sentiments by expressing my oath in religious instead of secular terms.

The oath required of you when you were sworn in as Secretary of State to protect the Constitution notwithstanding any ordinance, resolution or law of any state. And, interestingly enough you had the choice to swear an oath “so help me God” or an affirmation “under penalty of perjury.” So your own oath recognizes a difference between an oath (religious) or an affirmation (under penalty of perjury). (see copy below) So, although you were afforded the opportunity to swear in the name of God or to affirm under penalty of perjury, you did not afford me the same Constitutional protection. That is certainly unequal protection under the law, that your religious or non-religious sentiments would be acknowledged and afforded but mine are denied by you.

NRS 282.020 Form of official oath. Members of the Legislature and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:

I, ........................., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and 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 ................, on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury.

Your letter states that my request for a waiver must be for “good cause”. I’m sure that as you reconsider this matter—that you, will consider the fact that you have violated my constitutionally guaranteed liberty of conscience in your assessment of the civil penalty “good cause” for a waiver. In addition, in order not to violate your oath of office it would be wise to reconsider the assessed penalties.

Your letter gives six narrowly defined reasons to waive the fines for good cause in NRS 294A.420 and NAC 294A.097. But, don’t ignore again the fact that the U.S. and Nevada Constitutions supercede any ordinance, resolution, regulation, or law.

In addition, I am requesting that you review: Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee (Ohio) 459 U.S. 87, 103 S.Ct. 416, (1982) and Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, (1976), in which the US Supreme Court exempts minor parties which have been threatened, harassed and/or retaliated against for their political beliefs from having to file campaign reports.

I am requesting that the exemptions and protections for minor parties identified in these US Supreme Court decisions be acknowledged and placed in regulation by you as “good cause” for not filing campaign reports, in order to extend to Nevada’s Independent American Party, the Constitutional protections identified for minor parties by the US Supreme Court. The Secretary of State’s office has been derelict in failing to recognize and include these exceptions granted minor parties by the US Supreme Court, which is further evidence of the continued harassment by your office of the Independent American Party.

With regards to this issue, I have attached an affidavit I wrote on April 30, 2007 about just some of the threats, harassment and reprisals we have endured. I could include many more such incidences. This should be ample evidence that the Independent American Party qualifies for exemption under these Supreme Court decisions. In addition, other Independent Americans have written similar affidavits, which are available to you upon request.

In case you are still hesitant to recognize that I qualify for a waiver for good cause on Constitutional and religious grounds, I have included some references below.

I will be awaiting your timely response, as this exorbitant civil penalty of $15,000 accessed by you against me for exercising my religious beliefs has caused me great anxiety. It is very threatening to face a $15,000 civil penalty. I cannot help but feel that this is a continuation of the harassment by the Secretary of State of Independent American Party candidates. In fact, it does appear to be another reprisal against us because of our religious and political beliefs.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

“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

“All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural rights and justice are, in our law and must be in the nature of things, considered void... We are in conscience bound to disobey.” –Robin vs. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, (Va., 1772)

OATH TA \l "Bouvier's Law Dictionary, \"OATH.\" Revised Sixth Edition, 1856" \s "Bouvier's 6th, \"OATH.\"" \c 15 .\[1]/ A declaration made according to law, before a competent tribunal or officer, to tell the truth; or it is the act of one who, when lawfully required to tell the truth, takes God to witness that what he says is true. It is a religious act by which the party invokes God not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise, but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or in other words to punish his perjury if he shall be guilty of it. 10 Toull. n. 343 a 348; Puff. book, 4, c. 2, s. 4; Grot. book 2, c. 13, s. 1; Ruth Inst. book 1, ch. 14, s. 1; 1 Stark. Ev. 80; Merl. Repert. Convention; Dalloz, Dict. Serment: Dur. n. 592, 593; 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3180.
2. It is proper to distinguish two things in oaths; 1. The invocation by which the God of truth, who knows all things, is taken to witness. 2. The imprecation by which he is asked as a just and all-powerful being, to punish perjury.
3. The commencement of an oath is made by the party taking hold of the book, after being required by the officer to do so, and ends generally with the words, "so help you God," and kissing the book, when the form used is that of swearing on the Evangelists. 9 Car. & P. 137.
4. Oaths are taken in various forms; the most usual is upon the Gospel by taking the book in the hand; the words commonly used are, "You do swear that, " &c. "so help you God," and then kissing the book. The origin of this oath may be traced to the Roman law, Nov. 8, tit. 3; Nov. 74, cap. 5; Nov. 124, cap. 1; and the kissing the book is said to be an imitation of the priest's kissing the ritual as a sign of reverence, before he reads it to the people. Rees, Cycl. h. v.
5. Another form is by the witness or party promising holding up his right hand while the officer repeats to him, "You do swear by Almighty God, the searcher of hearts, that," &c., "And this as you shall answer to God at the great day."
6. In another form of attestation commonly called an affirmation, (q. v.) the officer repeats, "You do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that," &c.
7. The oath, however, may be varied in any other form, in order to conform to the religious opinions of the person who takes it. 16 Pick. 154, 156, 157; 6 Mass. 262; 2 Gallis. 346; Ry. & Mo. N. P. Cas. 77; 2 Hawks, 458.

AFFIRMATION, TA \l "Bouvier's Law Dictionary, \"AFFIRMATION.\" Revised Sixth Edition, 1856" \s "Bouvier's 6th, \"AFFIRMATION.\"" \c 15 \[2]/ practice. A solemn declaration and asseveration, which a witness makes before an officer, competent to administer an oath in a like case, to tell the truth, as if he had been sworn.
2. In the United States, generally, all witnesses who declare themselves conscientiously scrupulous against taking a corporal oath, are permitted to make a solemn affirmation, and this in all cases, as well criminal as civil.
3. In England, laws have been enacted which partially relieve persons who, have conscientious scruples against taking an oath, and authorize them to make affirmation. In France, the laws which allow freedom of religious opinion, have received the liberal construction that all persons are to be sworn or affirmed according to the dictates of their consciences; and a quaker's affirmation has been received and held of the same effect as an oath. Merl. Quest. de Droit, mot Serment, 1.
4. The form is to this effect: "You, A B, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm," &c. For the violation of the truth in such case, the witness is subject to the punishment of perjury " as if he had been sworn.
5. Affirmation also means confirming; as, an affirmative statute.

TO SWEAR. TA \l "Bouvier's Law Dictionary, \"TO SWEAR.\" Revised Sixth Edition, 1856" \s "Bouvier's 6th, \"TO SWEAR.\"" \c 15 \[3]/ To take an oath, judicially administered. Vide Affirmation; Oath.

[1] Bouvier's Law Dictionary, “OATH.” Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.

[2] Bouvier's Law Dictionary, “AFFIRMATION.” Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.

[3] Bouvier's Law Dictionary, “TO SWEAR.” Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.