When Dan DeQuille wrote for the Territorial Enterprise of Virginia City fame, back in the 19th century, he used this depiction of a braying, angry, miner's burro. He always called it, as did most of the prospectors of the day, "A Washoe Canary." Below are some of our brayings, that is, Washoe Canary Songs.

Washoe District Attorney Comments

Sound Like 19th Century

by Johnny Gunn

In news articles published recently in northern Nevada, Washoe District Attorney Dick Gammick has been quoted as saying something to the effect, "if you have nothing to hide, why refuse to tell a cop your name?" How many times have we heard that pitiful argument over the years? "If you have nothing to hide, you would let me in your home to rummage about." "If you haven't done anything wrong, why wouldn't you let me tear your car apart looking for something?"

There are still several million Europeans who can remember being told to "Show me your papers." A demand for identification is a demand to find out information that has nothing to do with whatever the cop is supposedly investigating. Information that could very well violate the Fifth Amendment to our constitution, and force you to divulge information that might convict you or make you look guilty of something that has nothing to do with, say, a minor incident.

Former Washoe County Chief Prosecuting Attorney John Oakes, in his advertising in The Nevada Observer states plainly, "Just Say No." It's his mantra as one of Nevada's leading criminal defense lawyers.

Along with my wonderful duties as editor-in-chief of this news magazine, I'm a published poet, one who takes serious social, philosophical, and political stands with my poetry. In an anthology published in 2002 by Regent Press in California, titled "An Eye For An Eye Makes The Whole World Blind: Poets On 9/11" this poem of mine was included.

BE AFRAID

Doesn't look old enough to shave, this gun toting,

badge wearing defender of our freedoms.

ID please, he says, no smile, eyes tight, black leather

shined, polished, menacing.

No, I say, not in your purview of acceptable questions.

ID or arrest, old man, said with ferocity unknown just

a year ago. No, I repeat, the constitution forbids

your asking. If you have nothing to hide ... he says.

I won't let him finish. Let me see your ID, the one

with your home address and Social Security number

I say. No, says this armed intruder. If you have

nothing to hide, I say, and he puts the cuffs on me.

This is almost the exact scenario that faced Winnemucca rancher Larry Hiibel, and now has him in Washington, DC, pleading his case before the Supreme Court of the United States. He is basing his defense on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to our constitution. He has been quoted as saying, "In America, people have the right to remain silent. I didn't have to kowtow to the guy." He was speaking of the Humboldt County Sheriff Deputy who had demanded his "papers."

We Americans are a unique people in the world, living under laws and rules we believe to be just and fair, and the primary fairness of our system is outlined in the first ten amendments to our constitution, The Bill Of Rights. That simple document, written in 1776, has survived because of its fairness, because jurists and honest leaders have protected its very essence.

With terrorists at our door, this is not the time for timidity. This is the time to stand as tall and brave as any previous American has ever stood, and demand that our constitutional rights be honored, protected, served. We won't know for some time how Mr. Hiibel's efforts before the Supreme Court turn out, but this editor and poet stands behind him one hundred percent.

Regarding Public Employees And Public Service

by Johnny Gunn

On the surface it looks so easy. A person working for one branch of government making law in another branch just isn't right. The constitution says so. But, is it really that simplistic? What about such things as the rights of a citizen to be heard? Is this a form of discrimination?

The federal government has already put severe rules into effect dealing with government employees who have control over federal funds. They are forbidden from serving in a lawmaking capacity. The law covering that is the Hatch Act, and it's been tested in the courts, but it is designed for federal workers and other government workers who are responsible for federal money only and does not cover state or local government employees.

The Nevada constitution simply states, rather plainly, those employees of one branch of the government cannot also serve in one of the other branches. There are three, executive, legislative, and judicial. It sounds rather simple, but I think the current members of the Nevada Supreme Court will be pouring over law books and decisions for weeks before any kind of conciliation will be reached.

There are other questions that come to the surface with this problem currently facing the court. Does a member of the legislature have a bound duty to represent particular constituents only, or would a school employee for instance, not be wrong to put a school district's needs before the constituent's?

I've always wondered about another segment of the populace that often finds members in a lawmaking body. Attorneys are found in most lawmaking bodies, local, regional, state, and federal, and often find themselves later in life serving as jurists. Ethically, I would think, a judge would have a difficult time being neutral regarding a law he had previously either written or voted for.

And of course we see often people from the private sector, such as real estate developers serving in law making capacities, and they should be able to do that. They are citizens. Even used car salesmen should be able to serve.

There is a petition circulating around the state right now that would forbid any government worker from serving in the legislature. At the same time, the Supreme Court is looking at the question in a narrowed sense in that the recent Attorney General Opinion only deals with state workers. How will you respond if you're presented with that petition to sign? How will the Justices of the Supreme Court respond?

Will it end at the Nevada court level? It could go into federal court if someone used the Hatch Act as a basis to challenge Nevada law.