The Post & Email » Grand Jury case goes to the Nevada Supreme Court » Print Page 1 of 7
- The Post & Email - http://www.thepostemail.com -
Grand Jury case goes to the Nevada Supreme Court
Posted By Sharon Rondeau On Monday, September 13, 2010 @ 1:01 PM In States | 2 Comments
PRO SE PLAINTIFF WILL FIGHT FOR HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A GRAND JURY HEARING
by Sharon Rondeau
(Sept. 13, 2010) — The Post & Email had previously
reported  on the case of two plaintiffs, one of whom is
U.S. Senate candidate Tim Fasano , regarding their
request for and subsequent denial of a grand jury hearing
stemming from suspected criminal conduct on the part of a
judge who had presided over a criminal case in which Mr.
Fasano and his wife were injured in their home by several
Mr. Fasano contacted us last week to inform us that his
case was placed on a 30-day schedule for hearing and
disposition at the Nevada Supreme Court, where he will
represent himself in requesting the convening of a grand
jury in Churchill County, NV . If convened, the grand
jury would examine evidence of criminal conduct against 
Judge David A. Huff, in keeping with the Fifth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution and the Nevada Revised Nevada was admitted to the Union
Statutes . by President Abraham Lincoln on
October 31, 1864
According to Mr. Fasano’s research, Churchill County has
not convened a grand jury in 35 years.
MR. FASANO: When we appealed the case to the Supreme Court, they had to assign us a new
number. Once they do that, they give us a briefing scheduled. Generally, in this state, the
briefing schedule says you have 180 days to submit your brief. Once that is done (in this case,
with a Writ of Mandamus), they have 30 days, because it is a First Amendment petition, to rule
on it. So as soon we get our number, we’re in court. We’re submitting our paperwork on Day
One. So they’re not going to have a lot of time. We believe that we have a very, very strong
argument, and we believe that they’re going to have to consider the box that they’re in. And
they are in a box; we put them in a box with our argument such that they have virtually no way
out. That’s good for us, and that’s one of the reasons I called you: to let you know that this
document is done, and I will get it to you. It’s 270 pages, although the brief itself is only 30
pages long, which is the limit.
MRS. RONDEAU: Did you write it yourself?
MR. FASANO: Yes. No attorney helped me; I did all my own legal research, all my own case
law references, statutory references, and precedent references. I don’t like to pat myself on
the back, but I think I did a pretty good job on it. It’s the culmination of two weeks’ worth of
solid work. Now that we’ll have a number today, we’ll complete the covers and probably submit
them to the Supreme Court tomorrow.
MRS. RONDEAU: After the court receives it, how long do they have to hear and decide upon it?
The Post & Email » Grand Jury case goes to the Nevada Supreme Court » Print Page 2 of 7
MR. FASANO: It has to be decided; not heard, but decided, within 30 days. It’s a bifurcated
schedule in the Supreme Court where certain issues must be heard within certain time frames.
There will be certain issues that can be set aside and say, “OK, we’re going to put this on a
180-day briefing schedule,” but it would be towards the back of it, because they have to keep
certain blocks open. According to the Supreme Court clerk, they keep certain blocks of time
open for this type of situation where something comes in which they have to address right
away. If they don’t have anything come in, then they can get caught up on their other filings.
In this case, with a 30-day limit, I have the statute where it talks about Writs of Mandamus and
extraordinary Writs such as this as requested, and it is under the First Amendment  to the
Constitution or the Ninth Amendment to the state constitution , which is the same thing:
they have to hear and decide it within 30 days.
This is good not only for us, but also for the whole situation with the grand juries. This means it
can come up to the forefront much faster; that’s why we chose to go this route with the Writ of
Mandamus and use the First Amendment petition clause.
MRS. RONDEAU: Will the Supreme Court of Nevada be deciding whether or not a grand jury
will be convened on your behalf?
MR. FASANO: Yes, we’re asking them to convene the grand jury in light of our case. We have
a good argument. If you read it, you’ll be able to see the box in which we’ve put them. There
is a requirement when you go before the Supreme Court: it must be put in book form, it must
be hard-covered, then covered again, all completely annotated, it must be spiral-bound; you
name it! It’s going to be a professional-looking product! I now have a new-found respect for
MRS. RONDEAU: And this tremendous amount of work is a result of your quest to obtain
justice in regard to a horrible crime that was committed against you.
MR. FASANO: Yes. On the last page of the brief, where I state my conclusion, according to the
rules in this state, if I prevail, the county has to reimburse me for my expenes, e.g., copying
services, printing services, and travel. I’m not really all that worried about, but what I was
concerned about was that Wes, the primary filer, and I were made to pay a filing fee in the
Third Judicial Court  for the appeal, then we were required to pay a $250 fee at the Supreme
Court, and we had to post a $500 bond. Why do we have to pay money for justice to be done?
I mentioned this in the conclusion almost exactly as I said it here: we should not have to pay
to ensure that criminal charges are brought against a person who broke the law. It’s not so
much the amount; it’s the principle. That is wrong, flat-out wrong.
Most people who have been wronged the way we have don’t know how to go through this
process to do what needs to be done, and right now, they couldn’t afford it. So how does a
person get justice if they’re wronged by the justice system?
MRS. RONDEAU: It appears that they make it prohibitive even if someone has the courage to
step forward and ask about it as evidenced by the roadblocks that have been placed in your
MR. FASANO: Yes, and when the fees were paid down in Churchill County, they wanted the
Supreme Court filing fee up front, and we told them “No, we’re not paying you. We’re taking
this directly to the Supreme Court.” Normally what happens is they collect the money, and
then they sit on it, and it doesn’t get sent to the Supreme Court, in many cases, according to
the clerk. So I said, “Well, I’ll fix that,” and she kind-of laughed when I was talking to her
about it. She said, “Well, how are you going to do that?” and I said, “I’m going to refuse to pay
it,” and the rules say that if I refuse to pay it, they still have to accept it. Now I have “x”
amount of days from the time that I filed to pay that fee to the Supreme Court. It doesn’t say
that I have to pay it to the Third Judicial District Court; it says I have to pay it to the Supreme
The Post & Email » Grand Jury case goes to the Nevada Supreme Court » Print Page 3 of 7
Court. So we’re going to pay it as soon as we file.
MRS. RONDEAU: So that gave you a little more time.
MR. FASANO: Right, but time is not even the issue. For us, we’re not going to pay the Third
Judicial District Court to have them sit on money that is rightfully supposed to go to the
Supreme Court, and then, we already know that they’re not going to want to give us our money
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think that will have an impact on how this is decided?
MR. FASANO: I don’t think it will. It’s not a lot of money. The copying fees are not that much,
because you have to go by standard rate in a commercial environment that’s located near the
court. So I don’t think there’s a big problem with that cost-wise. I think the biggest problem is
that when the judge denied it, we put him into the same box that we put the Supreme Court in,
so he had to pick the lesser of the two evils. And that was to push it onto the next higher
authority and let their hands get dirty. Now it’s before the Supreme Court, and they’re going to
have to get their hands dirty with it because I have one more step after this. The last place
they’re going to want me to take this is the U.S. Supreme Court. I’m not sure they would even
hear it, but that’s still an option.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think it’s a strong possibility?
MR. FASANO: I don’t foresee doing it because it’s cost-prohibitive and I’m not an attorney; I
cannot go and argue before the U.S. Supreme Court. The other issue is the time that would be
MRS. RONDEAU: Most people wouldn’t have the time as they try to work and earn a living.
The cost of hiring an attorney must be enormous.
MR. FASANO: It’s so prohibitive that it makes it quite difficult for the average person to do
this. I’m lucky. I have the ability; I understand the processes and the paperwork. However, it
hasn’t always been that way. Many people don’t know these processes.
The bigger picture is that once the citizens know what’s going on, they’re not going to be
pleased. There was an article that came out in the Fallon paper yesterday that is really
interesting. It’s entitled  “Panel: Reno Muni Judge Violated Campaign Rules” concerning
campaign contributions. The article was well-written and told how and when the violations had
occurred. But the last sentence says, “The ethics panel dismissed that allegation against him.”
So they clearly had a judge before them who had broken the law, and the ethics panel flat-out
When you read my brief, you’ll see that I addressed that specific situation. That article reflects
exactly what I was arguing about because it goes to the point that it’s an administrative
process. It’s not a disciplinary process; it is not an adjudicated process. So this just proves my
point even stronger: that because it’s an administrative process, a citizen has no control over
it, no input into it, and no vested interest in it. I made that point in the brief.
There’s something else that I found out. I had been under the impression that there were three
separate categories, or avenues, of punishment, or, if you will, disciplinary actions. One is
through the Commission on Judicial Discipline and is administrative; the second, according to
the constitution, says that he can be indicted under criminal charges. The third is civil. But
there’s actually a fourth, and I didn’t realize it until I started researching what the process was.
The fourth comes under requirements of what the grand jury has to do if they entertain this
idea. I present my case, and they say, “Yes, there’s an abundance of evidence to indicate that
this person has committed felonious acts,” but because he’s an elected official, they have to
present it in court just like anybody else: through a presentment or indictment in court on
The Post & Email » Grand Jury case goes to the Nevada Supreme Court » Print Page 4 of 7
information to be placed on the records of a court. But there’s a second thing they must do,
and I never picked up on it: they have to place the indictment/presentment and information on
the journals of the assembly and the senate of our state legislature, and that leads to a trial for
impeachment proceedings against that individual, and that is the fourth avenue.
MRS. RONDEAU: If you weren’t doing all this digging, the average citizen would never find it
MR. FASANO: It is so hard to get this information. I’ve asked attorney after attorney after
attorney what the processes were, and everybody says, “I don’t know.” It’s alarming to me
that our legal professionals don’t know. That’s scary. But that’s what I found out, and I think
that is probably what scares them the most: the power of that grand jury, because they’re
going to be able to wield a whole different type of power than they’ve been used to dealing with
over the last 100 years.
I don’t know if I’ve told you this, but Judge Huff presided over two, maybe three, capital cases
over the last two years. How is this going to affect the capital cases? We both know what the
Fifth Amendment says: it must be by presentment from a grand jury for capital or infamous
crimes. If he is found to be a law-breaker, according to the Doctrine of De Facto Officer ,
it’s no longer a procedural thing. Then it becomes a jurisdictional issue. If you look at it the
way my research looks at it, that jurisdictional issue goes all the way back to the time that he
committed the infraction, not the time at which he was convicted of it. So if he was a felon in
proper context, from the time he committed that felony and he ruled on capital cases afterward,
those indictments are in jeopardy of being overturned.
I believe in my heart that criminals such as that need to be incarcerated. However, it causes a
very, very precarious situation for the entire judicial system of the state.
MRS. RONDEAU: It seems similar to if Obama was never eligible to be president and he is
removed, what does that do to all the things he has signed?
MR. FASANO: Technically, they’re void.
MRS. RONDEAU: So if the judge is guilty of a crime, he never should have been making any
MR. FASANO: It is exactly the same principle. It’s called the “Doctrine of De Facto Officer.”
The Obama situation is exactly the same thing: if he’s proven to be a usurper, everything from
the time he took office until the time he is removed is null and void. That is set in precedent.
There are stark parallels between the situation with Obama and this judge because the law is
the exact same law.
MRS. RONDEAU: I noticed that in the Nevada constitution, it states that the U.S. Constitution
Editor’s Note: Article I, Section 2 of the Nevada constitution states:
Sec: 2. Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States. All political power
is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit
of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public
good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal
Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may
be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people
of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or
perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the
government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power
on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and
The Post & Email » Grand Jury case goes to the Nevada Supreme Court » Print Page 5 of 7
whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the
Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by
warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
MR. FASANO: Yes, there is a supremacy clause which confers supremacy to the U.S.
Constitution. It’s a very sticky point. How can you pick the document to which you’re going to
confer supremacy and then go against that document in continuing to write the state
constitution? It’s a conflict when it comes to presentment for criminal charges under a specific
article in the state constitution. My argument is that the supremacy of the federal constitution
is clearly delineated. There’s no wiggle room. I’ve talked to attorneys about it, and they’ve
said, “I never realized that.” And I said, “Really?”
MRS. RONDEAU: Yes, because what does that do to the Tenth Amendment  of the U.S.
Constitution? Or does the Tenth Amendment protect your state against too much federal
government power over you?
MR. FASANO: It’s kind-of a quirk on a Tenth Amendment issue. Whereas most people use the
Tenth Amendment to say, “The Constitution doesn’t say that, so therefore, we, the state, have
it under our rights.” In this case, the state conferred it to to the U.S. government.
MRS. RONDEAU: When they wrote the Nevada constitution, they probably didn’t realize how
big the federal government was going to become. What if Nevada were a border state, and the
federal government, to which your state constitution defers, did to Nevada what it has done to
Arizona ? There are now two lawsuits  against Arizona.
MR. FASANO: It boils down to “Are you there for the rule of law, or are you going to side with
the illegal aliens coming across that border?” I’ve always been under the belief that the federal
government should be siding with the state, in favor of state sovereignty and power held by the
people. This is turned upside-down here. I don’t see any way around it other than in a court of
law for each one of the states. I think there are 22 states  right now that are considering
similar laws to Arizona’s.
MRS. RONDEAU: And the state of Missouri has had a similar law since 2005, and the federal
government isn’t harassing them.
MR. FASANO: From what I’ve seen of history over the last 100 years, any time the federal
government gets a foothold into something, they don’t get out.
Update, September 13, 2010: Mr. Fasano will be meeting with a reporter from the Associated
Press today about his Nevada Supreme Court case, but he gave The Post & Email this important
news first. He has filed his brief with the Nevada Supreme Court and received a case number.
He learned that his case has been placed in a “pilot program,” although he does not know if the
“pilot program” was created specifically for his case or was in place before it was filed He said
he is going under the assumption that the program was already in place.
The Nevada Supreme Court has requested an additional application and statement from the
plaintiffs which Mr. Fasano will begin to write on Monday, September 13. Mr. Fasano also
received a telephone call from one of the law firms which donated to Judge Huff’s campaign at a
crucial time during the trial and which Mr. Fasano believes was a bribe to sway the judge to
exonerate the assailants, prompting Mr. Fasano’s his criminal complaint against the judge. The
representative of the law firm requested that Mr. Fasano and Wes McWethy, the plaintiffs, drop
their case against the judge. Mr. Fasano said he refused to do so.
He also stated that have found evidence that Judge Aberasturi, who denied  them a grand
jury hearing, might have been unduly influenced by accepting donations in the form of a bribe
from a second law firm, which would mean that two judges out of three in the district could be
compromised. Mr. Fasano stated to us: “If judges are bought off like this, there can be no
The Post & Email » Grand Jury case goes to the Nevada Supreme Court » Print Page 7 of 7