I think I may have brought this up before in another thread, but if I didn't I intended to and will now. Why, when something like this happens, can we not call another officer over, and require them to arrest the first officer for coercion?
NRS 207.190 Coercion.
1. It is unlawful for a person, with the intent to compel another to do or abstain from doing an act which the other person has a right to do or abstain from doing, to:
(a) Use violence or inflict injury upon the other person or any of the other person’s family, or upon the other person’s property, or threaten such violence or injury;
(b) Deprive the person of any tool, implement or clothing, or hinder the person in the use thereof; or
(c) Attempt to intimidate the person by threats or force.
2. A person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 shall be punished:
(a) Where physical force or the immediate threat of physical force is used, for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.
(b) Where no physical force or immediate threat of physical force is used, for a misdemeanor.
[1911 C&P § 475; RL § 6740; NCL § 10424]—(NRS A 1967, 522; 1979, 1455; 1995, 1239)
It seems to me, that the officer, with the intent to compel you to abstain from rightful entry to the building and rightful recording, did threaten violence/injury and threat of force by arrest. She, and the judges are depriving you of a tool or implement. At very least, even if you can't get the seemingly obvious connection of arrest and physical force (cuffing is a physical act and generally leaves marks) which would make it a felony to be seen, it's still a misdemeanor.
So you should be able ask another officer over, request that officer B arrest officer A under NRS 207.190 felony coercion, and that you'd like to press charges. Officer B then should be required by their duty to arrest said officer. If they don't, they're derelict of duty. Should that fail, perform an "arrest by private person" on officer A.
NRS 171.126 Arrest by private person. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in the person’s presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the person’s presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and the private person has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
(Added to NRS by 1967, 1402)
After you've announced your arrest by private person, likely a supervisor will be called to try to sort out the mess they've created, if they don't, request one be called. When the supervisor does come, reaffirm that you'd like officer A arrested, and that you'd previously requested that officer B do such arrest and that they refused to uphold the law to which they were sworn to uphold, and that for such refusal you request that officer be formally reprimanded for dereliction of duty. Continue this level of bringing in upper levels and throwing the lowers under the proverbial bus until officer A is arrested and officer B thru ... is reprimanded.
May be a possible solution to a LOT of the threat to enforce laws that don't exist. Holes in this logic?
edit: I'd like to add, that it may be best to, while recording, to get the officer to affirm your statement something like "Are you stating that if I don't (insert compliance of BS law), that I will be arrested?" For instance, in this case I would say something like "Are you stating that if I don't stop recording you, that I will be arrested?". Once they affirm, it's hard evidence. Likewise, you have a slightly looser case, though still viable, in "Are you stating that if I don't leave my recorder behind, I am refused entry to this building per the order of judges Hoeffgen and Ramsey?". When this is affirmed, you can request arrest by private person of the judges. It may even be beneficial to have a third party with none of the "prohibited" items do the arrest by private person. The arresting person doesn't necessarily need be affected, just present.