2490 Calvin R. X.Dunlap, Esq. Nevada State Bar #2111 Monique Laxalt, Esq. Nevada State Bar # 1969 P.O. Box 3689, Reno, Nevada 89505 537 Ralston St., Reno,Nevada 89503 775 323-7790 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR WASHOE COUNTY JAMES ARTHUR GIBBONS, SR., Plaintiff, MOTION FOR COURT DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDER SEALING THE FILE IN THIS MATTER AND CLOSING THE HEARINGS IS VOID AND THAT, AS APPLIED TO THE PLAINTIFF, THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, NRS 125.110 AND NRS125.080 ARE FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL vs. THERESA DAWN SNELLING GIBBONS, JOHN DOES I THROUGH XX, to include Doe Individuals, corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, trusts, limited partnerships and such other individuals or entities as may exist or be formed. Defendants. ______________________________________/ 1 COMES NOW, Defendant Dawn GIBBONS, by and through her undersigned attorneys, and Moves this Honorable Court for a determination and an Order finding and declaring: 1) That the Order sealing this Court file and closing the hearings relating to this matter, entered by the Honorable William Maddox in and for the County of Carson City, is void and in violation of the Constitutional Rights of the Defendant. 2) That NRS 125.110 and NRS 125.080, respectively, violate every person’s Constitutional rights and Dawn Gibbons’ Constitutional Rights, in this case, under the First, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and are in violation of the Constitution of the State of Nevada, particularly when applied to the Public’s right to access to the affairs of top State Officials, more particularly, the Governor of the State of Nevada. 3) That those Statutes, relied upon by the Court, in granting Plaintiff’s request to seal the Court files and to close the hearings are void and are facially, in direct violation of the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of Nevada. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS At all relevant times, Defendant has been a resident of Washoe County, Nevada. Defendant’s husband, James Arthur Gibbons Jr., (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Plaintiff”) also, is, by his own admission, a resident of Washoe County. He has filed for a 2 divorce alleging that the parties are “incompatible.” Defendant has requested a Bill of Particulars and a More Definite Statement relating to the grounds for divorce. II FACTS NOT ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF After more than twenty years of marriage, the Plaintiff has deserted, abandoned, and has shunned his wife without justification for that behavior. Truth, despite his disingenuous, shallow, and transparent protestations that his relationship with another man’s wife is a mere friendship, his infatuation and involvement with the other woman is the real, concealed and undisclosed reason for his voluntary departure from the marriage and from the Mansion where he occasionally resided. By his urgent, perhaps desperate Motion to seal the Court file and to prevent his constituency, the Public, from learning the under oath truth, in the Court proceedings, he has resorted to Statutes that, although well intentioned, are defective and were never intended to protect the privacy of Public Officials, the persons whose privacy is completely or nearly completely surrendered by seeking the spotlight that comes with public service that in turn gives the Public the right to know all about their officials. Unfortunately, for the Plaintiff, and for the public, those statutes were not crafted so as to pass Constitutional muster Worse, his castaway wife, by the actions of the Plaintiff, was not even given an opportunity to be heard, on the secrecy issue, while his handlers, spinmeisters and staff wittingly, or unwittingly, as his tools, mislead the Public in vain attempts to preserve the marginal favorable Public Opinion regarding him that might still exist. This all has been at the expense of his wife’s good name and reputation. III 3 THE PRIMARY ISSUE IN THIS CASE The question to be answered by this Court, at this time, is whether or not the holder of the highest office in the State of Nevada, Governor, may make false and misleading statements to the Public he serves, regarding his activities, regarding his use of public property and resources and regarding his marital life and divorce action and then avoid exposure of those falsehoods by use of or misuse of NRS 125.110 and NRS 125.080, to conceal his deceit, which statutes, particularly when applied to him, absent a showing of very good and compelling cause are “ facially Unconstitutional. “ (Emphasis Supplied) As argued below, and as the Courts have repeatedly held, absent a showing of very good and compelling cause, “the business of the Courts”, particularly as it relates to the conduct of and litigation of Public Officials “is the property of the Public” . Any unreasonable and arbitrary closing of the Courts or their files, particularly without a hearing and findings of good cause, is per se Unconstitutional. The referenced statutes are both patently “unreasonable” and require no “showing” or determination by the court that there is any need to disregard the requirements of the respective Constitutions. (Emphasis Supplied) IV MRS. GIBBONS’ INTEREST AND THE PUBLIC’S INTEREST IN HAVING THIS MATTER OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND THE PRESS Mrs. Gibbons has been repeatedly assailed by planted innuendo, untruths and half- truths about her and her decades long marriage, while the Plaintiff, the source of the damage to her reputation cowers behind a veil of secrecy and manufactures issues attempting to embarrass her into submission with contrived issues such as the occupancy of the Mansion. 4 (Occupation of the Mansion, like occupation of any residence shared by any couple is not a matter of ownership or other entitlement, such as when a couple rents a home, but is a matter to be decided by the Family Court on the usual basis, such as maintenance of the status quo and such as the safety needs of and security of the occupants and other factors.) Plaintiff has, by his filed claim that he and his wife are “incompatible” in marriage, by other acts, statements, and innuendos, suggested that the marriage has failed due to some fault on her part and/or due to her unwillingness to work on the marriage and to save the marriage. That claim and all suggestions of that nature , are false and misleading and put her, in a false and bad light. Without open proceedings and an open file and, without the truth being told, publicly, her reputation is irreparably sullied and harmed. Aside from his incivility, and aside from his Oath of Office to protect and defend the laws of and Constitutions of the United States and of this great State, the Plaintiff has used Unconstitutional Statutes to mislead the very Public that he serves. It is so well accepted, and so well known that Judicial Notice can easily be taken of the fact that Mr. Gibbons’ wife has been his greatest asset. She has worked relentlessly and tirelessly to advance his career, and had stood by his side, at the most critical time in his quest to be elected Governor. For just one example, even when , after consuming copious amounts of alcohol, and under the cover of darkness, in a garage in Las Vegas, the Plaintiff was accused of assaulting a young woman, bearing a striking resemblance, to the “other woman” referenced, below, that woman, too, like his wife now, was trashed and the Public was, again, misled. But, she never had the opportunity of having a Public hearing with attendant cross-examination of 5 this man so the truth would be told. This event was of universal interest to the media and was widely covered by the press. Further, there has been very widespread coverage of this matter in the press. See for example the attached Elko newspaper editorial. Also, the Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the Plaintiff publicly admitted to making a false statement on the affidavit/ application for renewal of his concealed weapons permit and related documents. That statement was hastily made and was a false explanation of what had happened, designed to defuse an imminent exposure of his having made one or more false statements on his application. The reason for the Public’s interest in these and other matters is that the public expects integrity in government and in their elected officials. As demonstrated below, the Public’s right to know is Constitutionally protected in order to preserve our democracy and our way of life. This Public interest is heightened when the subject of interest is one of the most if not the most scandal ridden Governor in the history of this State. And, he has only held the office for a year and a half. Mrs. Gibbons is entitled to her day in Court, in an open court, not in a secret proceeding, but a public one that will provide her with a forum in which to be publicly exonerated, and in which she can fix blame where it belongs, on the shoulders of the woman who the has, for years, stalked the man who could give her the public persona and prestige, that, apparently, she craves, and, for which she is willing to, concurrently, abandon her husband. And, he who has succumbed to the seduction of those wiles, should not be allowed to fix the blame, for the failure of the marriage, on anyone else but on the marital intruder and on himself. Even the Plaintiff acknowledges his long-term involvement with her, but claims she is just a friend.