NEws

TRUMP CUTS INTERIOR BUDGET

The budget of the federal department that Nevada and other intermountain states are normally most concerned about has been severely slashed.

The cuts were announced March 11. They were so deep that news even made the Wall Street Journal: “The Interior Department would take a 14 percent cut under President Trump’s proposed budget, including nearly a third to an agency that manages water and power in the West. Under the president’s plan for the next fiscal year, Interior’s budget would fall to $12.6 billion from $14.6 billion approved last year. The National Park Service’s budget would fall 15 percent, while funds for the Bureau of Reclamation, which oversees controversial irrigation projects in states like California, would drop 31 percent.”

The Center for Western Priorities issued a statement: “The proposed budget includes major cuts to land and wildlife conservation programs housed in the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service and budget increases for oil, natural gas, and coal permitting and leasing. Notably, the budget would cut discretionary spending on the Land and Water Conservation Fund by more than 100 percent—not only zeroing out the program but trying to claw back funds Congress has already appropriated.”

LAWLESS SHERIFFS MAKE NEWS

Two Nevada county sheriffs—Sharon Wehrley of Nye County and Jesse Watts of Eureka—refuse to enforce a new Nevada law. The law, passed in Senate Bill 143, will take effect on Jan. 2.

In her letter to the governor, Wehrly quoted the seminal U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Marbury vs. Madison: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” However, nothing in Marbury empowers public officials to disobey laws. It is courts, not elected officials, who decide whether laws are null and void. Meaning that determination is not DIY for Wehrly and Watts.

The Second Amendment does not bar legislators from regulating gun ownership, and background checks have been upheld in other states.

Wehrly further wrote, “History seems to be repeating itself in the United States; in Germany prior to WWII we saw Hitler place restrictions on the public’s right to bear arms, then we stood by and watched him seize the firearms from his citizens, placing them ‘under the protection of the state.”’

This is factually inaccurate. The Nazis in Germany were permissive on gun ownership. Before Hitler and the Nazi Party took power, Germany lived under laws enacted by the Reichstag during the Weimar Republic that required all citizens to turn in their guns to the government and, later, imposed tight registration requirements on gun ownership.

Five years after Hitler came to power, Germany relaxed the restrictions, “completely deregulat[ing] the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” according to Columbia University Law School professor Bernard Harcourt, in a law review article he wrote in 2004. The age for gun ownership in Germany was lowered from 20 to 18, and many sectors of society were exempted from gun restrictions. Jews or groups critical of the Nazis were remained under the restrictions.

Nevada elected officials can be removed for failing to perform their duties or for misconduct in office. In May 1927, for instance, Gov. Fred Balzar removed Treasurer Ed Malley and appointed George Russell to replace him when Malley’s bond was withdrawn after he was accused of responsibility for missing state funds. Nevada sheriffs—including two women—have been recalled from office, but we have not found any instance of removal.

Wehrley further wrote, “Our staff is thin, our budgets are limited, and our responsibilities are laced with state mandated unfunded programs; we struggle to enforce the laws that exist. By signing this bill into law does nothing [sic] but make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to transfer ownership of weapons, place an additional burden on law enforcement, and encourages citizens to ‘turn in’ their family members, neighbors, friends and acquaintances.”

However, a note by the legislature’s fiscal analysts found no fiscal impacts from the new law on local governments, only on state government. —DENNIS MYERS

The Nevada Legislature wrote a shield law for reporters in 1969 and 1975. But the job may not be finished yet.

PHOTO/DENNIS MYERS

Shield?

Gilman lawsuit tests reporter protection

Nevada District Judge James Wilson has ruled that the Nevada press shield law does not apply to online journalists.

The ruling came in a lawsuit by brothel and industrial park owner Lance Gilman against TheStoreyTeller.online editor Sam Toll, who ran an article asserting that Gilman is not a resident of Storey County and thus is ineligible to serve as a county commissioner. Gilman responded in part by seeking identification of Toll’s sources. Toll declined to name them. Wilson ruled that the Nevada press shield law does not protect Toll as an online journalist.

News reports said the judge found that journalists or news entities that are not members of the Nevada Press Association are not covered by the shield law. But that’s not what Wilson ruled. In fact, he wrote in his opinion that because of Toll’s press association membership, the reporter’s privilege “may apply” to Toll.

The shield law contains a list. It defines those protected as “reporter, former reporter or editorial employee of any newspaper, periodical or press association or employee of any radio or television station,” and Wilson similarly found that “[b]ecause Toll was not a reporter for a newspaper or press association” when the Gilman article was published, he does not have the protection of the shield law. He did not specify that a reporter or employer must be a member of the NPA. The judge mentioned the NPA specifically in another context, as a press association Toll chose to join after the article was published.

The judge’s decision may not, as Nevada Press Association director Richard Karpel and University of Nevada, Reno journalism professor Patrick File have argued, be consistent with the “spirit” of the law. But judges don’t necessarily choose to enforce “spirits” of laws. That is generally a matter for legislators, and Wilson’s ruling is clearly consistent with the letter of the law.

While judges need not address “spirit” issues, some do. In one 1998 federal case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Roger Hunt wrote, “Although this Court is not bound to follow Nevada law in determining whether a reporter should be compelled to disclose his or her sources, when dealing with purely federal issues of law, it should not ignore Nevada’s public policy, as expressed in its statute, of providing reporters protection from divulging their sources.”

The current Nevada shield law language was enacted in 1975 under the sponsorship of Washoe Assemblymember Steve Coulter. His measure revised a 1969 enactment that created the list. The internet did not yet exist in either year and so was not listed among the employers of reporters.

The 1975 enactment extended protection to unpublished information and added former reporters to its shield, a response to the jailing of former reporter William Farr, who covered the Manson family murder case for the Los Angeles Times and was ordered to name his sources for one story. He refused, but, when he left the Times, the order was

renewed, and he was jailed when he again refused because the California shield law did not protect former journalists.

“I would think this [list] was sweeping enough that the judge should see that the law was intended to include these new forms,” Coulter said this week.

However, since the judge requires specificity in the list of employers and the Nevada Legislature is now in session, there is the option for legislators to add online journalism entities to that list. Bill introductions are possible until March 25, and even after that date there are provisions for new measures to be introduced. INK VS. ELECTRONS Former UNR journalism professor Warren Lerude, who as Reno Gazette Journal executive editor supported and testified for Coulter’s bill, offered another route. He suggested that the judge was looking at defining a journalist instead of defining the journalist’s news entity. The law protects newspapers, Lerude said this week, and that doesn’t just mean print newspapers.

“In my view, Sam Toll’s online newspaper is a newspaper, and the shield law covers newspapers,” Lerude said. “It does not define newspapers as only in print.”

In that connection, Toll in his filing quoted a decision that he and Wilson attributed to a U.S. Court of Appeals/Ninth Circuit ruling but which actually comes from the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Citizens United vs. FEC: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media … the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” As for the Ninth Circuit, its attitude has been described by a Los Angeles Times headline—“9th Circuit to bloggers: You’re all journalists now, kinda sorta.”

However, Toll may be trying to establish the rights of online entities under the shield law, because he seems to be avoiding being defined as a newspaper. On his website he has posted, “The Teller is not a ‘newspaper’ because the NPA did not classify it as such on its website and I don’t put ink to paper.”

In addition, Wilson in his ruling said Toll offered an affidavit of former Nevada Press Association Director Barry Smith. Wilson then wrote, “Mr. Smith did not say the Storey Teller is a newspaper. In fact, he distinguishes between daily and weekly news publications on the one hand and online news services, magazines, and others, on the other hand. The court [Wilson] concludes that because Toll does not print the Storey Teller the Storey Teller is not a newspaper and, therefore, the news media privilege is not available to Toll under the ‘reporter of a newspaper provision of [Nevada revised statute] 49.275.”

Gilman’s attorneys argued that because Toll has described his website’s mission as “to provide a source of irritation to the Good Old Boys who operate the Biggest Little County in the World with selfish impunity forever,” therefore “The Storey Teller is not news … the defendant is not a reporter.” That would put courts in the position of judging content. In addition, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was written by the founding Congress at a time “I don’t put ink to when objective journalism did not exist. All journalism of the 1700s was opinion and partisan, paper.” and frequently vicious, and the founders wanted it protected. In

Sam Toll any event, Toll’s site currently Editor contains reports on taxable sales in Storey County, state schools funding, and an explosion in the Delta Saloon. Wilson’s reading of the statute could also put judges in the position of deciding what part of a reporter’s job is covered by the shield and what part is not. As Lerude points out, “Many stories that don’t make the print editions do make the online editions.” And some print stories are expanded online as events develop. Another weakness in the Nevada shield law is that it does not cover freelance journalists. At the time that the 1975 changes were made in the law, there was news coverage of a university professor in another state who was writing a book and claimed a confidentiality source privilege. There was some concern in the Nevada Legislature, including on Coulter’s part, about the list defining journalists becoming unwieldy. But in ensuing years, the ranks of freelancers have grown sharply, fostered by online journalism. In 2014, the Technological Crime Advisory Board in the state attorney general’s office drafted language that would have extended the shield to “any medium of expression that currently exists or shall exist in the future.” But the draft was not introduced at the 2015 Nevada Legislature. It is not known why, but in the 2014 election, both houses of the Nevada Legislature went Republican and the attorney general’s post was won by Republican Adam Laxalt. The dispute is attracting considerable attention. Courthouse News Service, a widely-read, Pasadena-based website reported the case under the headline, “Who Is a Journalist? In Nevada, It’s Complicated.” In a reader comment posted at Nevada Current, Toll said, “I now face the unenviable position of being forced to roll on confidential sources or going to the hoosegow. What would you do?” Wilson’s ruling will be appealed. Ω The full language of the Nevada shield law can be read at bit.ly/2NZ6627.

Plot Behind the “Organ Harvesting” rumor

Li Hongzhi and his “Falun Gong” cult fabricated and hyped the “organ harvesting” lie through his media in order to attract the attention of the Western media and smeared the Chinese government. Facts are facts, however, and they are never defeated by lies. After the truth was exposed, the lies quickly turned out to be a farce. Nevertheless, why does the “Falun Gong” organization keep stirring up trouble? After careful investigations, the author discovered that Li Hongzhi is trying to cover his plot under the disguise of the “organ harvesting” rumor.

1. The “karma elimination theory” killed so many lives

“Why are people sick? The root cause of their illness and misfortunes is karma, a black material field. It is negative and bad. And those bad spirits are also negative and black. They move up from hell and find the environment on Earth suitable for them. They are the root cause of people’s illness and the main sources of diseases.” (Zhuan Falun) Li Hongzhi advocates that the root causes of illness are “karma”, “moral corruption” and “spirit from another space” instead of pathological changes of the body. So the disciples who practice “Falun Gong” no longer seek medical treatment when they get sick.

Therefore, once the disciples feel not well, they immediately owe it to “strong karma” and choose to “remove the karma” by practicing “Falun Gong” instead of taking medicine. Li Hongzhi said, “If a person takes medicine or receives medical treatment when he is sick, he actually pushes the disease into his body. No sooner is the karma of one’s past life eliminated than new and various diseases appear because he hurts others this life.” Therefore, many disciples believed his heresy and became disabled or even dead due to delayed treatment.

For example, Tu Guixun, who lived in Qinglongzui Community, Qinglong Street, Yunyang County of Chongqing, felt dizzy and bleary-eyed when he “sat in mediation and practiced Falun Gong”. He thought his “god’s eyes were open”. Later, he suffered more and more serious headache and blurred vision. Put into hospital, he was diagnosed with glaucoma. Due to delayed treatment, he lost his eyesight. Hu Guangying, a retired worker in Shanghai, was infected with a common skin disease. As a “Falun Gong” practitioner, she believed in “karma elimination” and refused to seek medical treatment or take any medicine. As a result, she suffered from suppurative infection and died.

So many fresh lives were destroyed and lost. One should cherish his life and respect other people’s. As the saying goes, everyone’s life is equal. Over seven years from 1983 to 1990, Li Hongzhi himself sought medical treatment in the Hospital Affiliated to the Health School of Changchun City, No. 208 Hospital of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, and the Third Clinical Hospital of Norman Bethune Medical University. From July 8 to 18, 1984, he was hospitalized in the No.3 Surgery Department of Jilin Provincial People’s Hospital for acute appendicitis. That was what the “Biggest Buddha in the Universe” did when he was sick.

2. “The theory of the elimination of harmful affections” led to so many tragedies of family separation

Li Hongzhi said, “Obsessed with family, you will get tired, entangled and evil. Family ties will harass your life. When you are old, you will regret. (Commandments of Practitioners) “You will not make a good practitioner if you don’t abandon your love, desire and worldly affections. Only when you get rid of all bad thoughts in ordinary people, will you make progress. Only by giving up all the love and desires in the human world, can you reach consummation.” (Zhuan Falun)

Li Hongzhi’s absurd theories triggered so many tragedies: Zhu Changjiu, a practitioner of “Falun Gong” in Qingta Township, Renqiu City of Hebei Province, killed his parents at home because they burned his books of “Falun Gong”; Fu Yibin, a “Falun Gong” addict in Xicheng District of Beijing, killed his father and his wife, and severely wounded his mother; Guan Sheyun, a practitioner of “Falun gong” in Meixi District, Yichun City of Heilongjiang Province, strangled her daughter Dai Nan, who was under 9 years old then, in front of dozens of other practitioners.

As so many innocent people died and so many families broke down for ridiculous reasons, Li Hongzhi himself enjoyed happiness with his wife and his daughter.

3. “The theory of money abandonment” took away so many hard-earned incomes

Li Hongzhi once said, “Do not take money or material seriously.” (Zhuan Falun) “Those who are obsessed with money are bad practitioners, bad teachings, and bad doctrines. They will never become Buddha no matter how hard they try.” (Commandments of Practitioners) “Practitioners of the Falun Gong must abandon their desire for money and material.” (The Principles of Disciples).

He said one thing to the disciples, but did quite another. It is not a secret that Li Hongzhi is greedy for money and rakes in money by unfair means. When he started to “preach Falun Gong”, he attracted followers by claiming that he could “cure them” under the banner of “fitness”. Although he claimed to offer free treatment, he put a “donation box” at home and indicated his disciples to tell the patients that they should “donate” at least RMB 100.

Later he said, “If you want to learn Falun Gong, you must read books, watch videos, and listen to records.” He printed a large number of books and produced plenty of audio tapes, video tapes, and VCDs in the name of the Falun Gong organization. These products were sold to disciples at RMB 300 each. Later, he “launched” clothes and pads for practice purposes and transformed the original books about “Falun Gong” into more expensive “hardcover books” and sold them to disciples. He also preached “give to get” and “give little but get much”. He scammed the disciples out of different “donations”.

In his article “Understanding and Reflecting on the Cult Falun Gong”, Li Chang said, “When someone complained about Li Hongzhi’s tax evasion and scam in Changchun in November 1994...he secretly asked Liu Guirong, who was in charge of the money, to burn the financial records and sabotaged the accounting and auditing.”

Wei Manping, a teacher of Songcun Middle School in Changzi County of Shanxi Province, said: “I clearly discovered that Li Hongzhi had the intention to rob money from numerous practitioners by tempting them to buy his books and tapes from the beginning. His gains are immeasurable.”

Under the disguise of the “organ harvesting” rumor, Li Hongzhi and his “Falun Gong” organization robbed the disciples of their lives, affections and possessions. What a hateful man he is!

A PAid Advertisement