In a draconian move, legislation was enacted and signed into law by Governor Lombardo – it’s known as AB 406.

So, what’s AB 406, you ask?

I’m glad you asked. The likes of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Lenin are grinning down on Nevada as I pen this.

The law has two key components: one targets election skeptics, and the other focuses on individuals deemed lobbyists.

Let’s begin with the election skeptic part. It proclaims:

“Using force, intimidation, coercion, violence, restraint, or undue influence to interfere with or retaliate against an elections official is unlawful.”

The law doesn’t define these terms, but it defines many others within this insane bill.

If we interpret these words, they might equate to “harass,” which means “annoy.” Do you grasp the implications? Merely irritating an election worker could slap you with a Class E felony and a potential 4-year prison sentence!

This could imply that activities such as:

• Asking too many questions
• Spotting discrepancies
• Uncovering law violations by workers
• Suing the ROV
• Criticizing our flawed or corrupt election system
• Sending excessive NRS requests
• Noting the involvement of out-of-state workers in our elections
• Photographing suspicious individuals or law-breakers
• Being falsely accused of harassment by a worker
• Writing this post
• You reading this post could land you directly in jail for 4 years! No warning – just straight to the slammer!

Hello, 1984…..

See why the likes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Lenin are smiling down on Nevada?

Remember, the power lies not in who you vote for but with who counts the votes.

This law aims to muzzle all critical discussions of elections. A mere tweet or post like this could be a one-way ticket to jail.

Our founding fathers warned us about such situations. This is straight from the Mao-Lenin-Stalin playbook.

They don’t want to answer us common folks, so their solution is to imprison us.

But is there a silver lining? Any good news?

This law IS unconstitutional and vague to a fault. I could draft this lawsuit in my sleep. So, where are the RNC, GOP, DNC, ACLU, and PLAN? Do I have to carry this burden too, or will those who have raked in billions in the name of election integrity step up and shield us from this assault on free speech?

People often label things as unconstitutional without substantiating them. So, for those considering legal action, I’ll provide some concrete examples in the next section.

Firstly, the court must reaffirm our constitutional liberties and prevent the undue erosion of fundamental rights under the guise of protecting the electoral process. The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 8 of Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution require laws to give people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibits. The language used in “AB 406 “use of force, intimidation, coercion, violence, restraint, or undue influence” – is broad and undefined, which leaves it open to subjective interpretation and inconsistent enforcement. It can potentially criminalize a wide array of ambiguous behavior. This vagueness violates the principle that penal statutes should provide clear guidelines to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

Secondly, the Bill’s overbreadth infringes upon protected speech and conduct under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 9 of Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution. While the aim of ensuring the integrity of elections and protecting elections officials is laudable, the wording of the Bill is so broad that it risks chilling or criminalizing legitimate and constitutionally protected activities and expression. For instance, peaceful protests, criticisms of election officials, or merely questioning the election results could be perceived as “intimidation,” “coercion,” or “undue influence,” thereby stifling free speech and curtailing the right to protest.

Thirdly, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 9 of Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution protect citizens’ rights to question governmental activities, including election results. The Bill, due to its broad wording, could be used to penalize individuals or groups who raise legitimate concerns or questions about the integrity of an election. The suppression of this right would significantly undermine the democratic values ingrained in our Constitution and violate our protected freedoms of speech and petition.

Absence of Mens Rea Requirement: Mens rea refers to the “guilty mind” element of a crime, typically one of intent or knowledge. The bill’s language, as provided, does not appear to include a requirement of intent or knowledge. Therefore, someone could potentially be penalized under this law without intending or even knowing they’re violating it. This absence of a mens rea requirement could lead to unjust outcomes and raises potential due process concerns.

Equal Protection Clause: The vagueness and overbreadth of the bill could lead to discriminatory application, potentially violating the Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 4 Section 21 of the Nevada Constitution. The lack of clear definitions could result in selective enforcement, disproportionately impacting certain groups of individuals based on their political beliefs, race, religion, or other protected attributes.

Right to Peaceable Assembly: Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 10 of Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution, citizens have the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. If peaceful protests or assemblies are perceived as “intimidation” or “coercion” under the bill’s broad language, it could infringe upon these rights.

Due Process – Notice and Hearing: This argument could be made under the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the Nevada Constitution. If the bill allows for immediate penalties or actions without giving the accused a chance to be heard or defend themselves, it may infringe upon these rights.

Separation of Powers Doctrine: If the bill allows authorities to interpret and apply the law in ways that effectively make new rules, it might violate the doctrine of separation of powers, which requires that the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive applies the laws, and the judiciary interprets the laws.

Here are some previous decisions you can site:

Several cases in Nevada have found statutes or ordinances to be void for vagueness, and in most cases, the law was either amended or repealed. Common reasons for finding a law void for vagueness include that it fails to provide fair notice of the prohibited conduct, authorizes or encourages arbitrary enforcement, or is so standardless that it invites discriminatory enforcement.

The cases I found generally fall into two categories: those that found a statute or ordinance to be void for vagueness and those that rejected such a challenge.

In the first category, City of Las Vegas v. Dist. Ct., Sheriff v. Burdg, and Scenic Nev., Inc. v. City of Reno all found statutes or ordinances to be void for vagueness. In City of Las Vegas, the court found that the statute failed to provide citizens with fair notice of the prohibited conduct and authorized and encouraged arbitrary enforcement. In Sheriff, the court found that the statute was facially vague because it infringed on constitutionally protected conduct, was incapable of any valid applications, failed to provide sufficient notice of the prohibited conduct, and encouraged arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. In Scenic Nev., the court found that two ordinances were unconstitutional and void ab initio because they were enacted within a three-year legislative moratorium.

In the second category, City of Las Vegas v. 1017 S. Main Corp., Sheriff v. Martin, Herman v. State, and Cox v. State all rejected challenges to statutes or ordinances on the grounds that they were unconstitutionally vague. In City of Las Vegas, the court found that the word “altered” conveyed a clear meaning and was not susceptible to an attack on grounds of vagueness. In Sheriff, the court found that the statute provided fair notice of the boundaries of unlawful conduct and did not authorize or encourage arbitrary enforcement. In Herman, the court found that the statute provided persons of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what conduct was forbidden and did not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. In Cox, the court found that the statute provided clear guidance as to what information or advice would not fall within the scope of the regulation.

The cases that found statutes or ordinances to be void for vagueness generally cited the same two reasons: the law failed to provide fair notice of the prohibited conduct, and it authorized or encouraged arbitrary enforcement. The cases that rejected such challenges generally found that the statute or ordinance provided sufficient notice and did not encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.

Additionally, this law is in violation of Nev. Const. Art. 2 Sec 1A § 11 rights of voters, and the Nevda Voters Bill of Rights N.R.S 293.2546.

I can go on for days, but hopefully, you get the idea. This law is unconstitutional.

Hopefully, the 15 minutes it took me to compile these facts will help entities like the RNC, GOP, DNC, ACLU, and even PLAN to sue the state.

Where’s the media in all of this? Instead of defending our First Amendment, they seem to be celebrating this oppressive wet dream. It reveals their real agenda: covering for Marxists rather than covering the issues.

So, what can we do? What can you do?

SUE!

If we don’t, we risk incarceration. They can’t address the issues or debate us, so they’ll label our complaints as harassment and lock us up, effectively trampling our voting rights.

At first glance, the bill might seem reasonable. However, existing laws already protect people from the issues this bill raises. This piece of legislation is nothing but an attempt to silence ALL dissent.

Remember the media’s national coverage of Washoe, blaming election skeptics for purportedly harassing ROV Spikula, who claimed to fear for her life. Yet, to my knowledge, no concrete evidence was ever provided. Meanwhile, under her supervision, numerous election anomalies occurred. Is it any surprise that someone might feel uneasy when they can’t adequately address the issues and constantly is caught in mistruths?

Now consider this: if she was truly afraid to work in elections, why would she then take another job directly in the Secretary of State’s office, specifically in the elections department?

Imagine if this law had been in place in 2016 for Hillary Clinton and her team. Would she finally be behind bars?

Here’s the reality: those applauding this infringement on our rights will eventually become victims of it too. What benefits them today will oppress them tomorrow. History is a harsh teacher: it gives the tests first and the lessons later.

I strongly urge you to read this six-page law. It’s insanity. The evidence we submitted to the Secretary of State, which was disregarded, would be deemed a felony under this law!

Mao, Lenin, Hitler, and Stalin are truly smiling down on Nevada.

Our founders and every person who gave their life for our country and what it is supposed to stand for have been thrown under the bus already, and this law backs up over them to finish the job.

This law is as clear as mud; it’s so easy to misconstrue and misapply against us, the people, and that’s the reason they made it. It’s a total communist takeover to steal our elections, and we can’t even say it’s illegal or wrong if this stands.

This is the death blow to our elections, as it destroys our right to redress grievances with the government. If this law stands, it will spread like wildfire to all states. There will be nowhere to go, nowhere to move, contrary to what many have suggested.

So wake up as many as you can, speak truth to power. Sue. Inform your representatives, the media, friends, and family about this madness while we still can.

It takes effect on 10/1/23……

Beadles

P.S.

Regarding the lobbyist section of the law, I urge you to read that part too. It’s ambiguously written and could label you a lobbyist for merely hosting a potluck for a representative, potentially leading to jail time for you as well! If we weren’t successful in exposing their shortcomings, and if they were blameless, there would be no need for this severe, unconstitutional legislation. Let that sink in….