Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
Denver Judge Axes the Constitution
Update on Trial: Day 1
News Release - May 15, 2002
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 15, 2002 NEWS RELEASE Stanley for U.S. Senate 2002 =========================================================== DENVER JUDGE AXES THE CONSTITUTION... [Denver - 11:30 pm] Sparks flew today in a Denver Courtroom where Libertarian U.S. Senate hopeful Rick Stanley is on trial for openly carrying a firearm in violation of Denver Municipal Ordinance 38-117.5(b). The arrest was the result of an intentional act of civil disobedience during a rally celebrating the 210th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 2001. After wading through the usual preliminary proceedings, Defense Attorney Paul Grant moved for a twelve-man jury. This request was denied by Judge Patterson who stated Stanley would get only 6 jurors, citing a Colorado Statute. Judge Patterson's next move was to order everyone except the defendant and the officers of the court out of the room. Grant immediately objected stating the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteed Rick's right to a speedy and public trial. "A trial can't be public," Grant stated, "if the public is excluded." The judge countered that there wasn't enough room for the jury pool of 18 people and the public. After a few more minutes a compromise was reached and everyone except Mr. Stanley, his lawyer, and the court officials left the courtroom. As observers left the court room they were met by a posse of armed guards from the Sheriff's department who ordered them to move away from the doorway. After the jury pool came in and were seated, the observers were allowed back into the courtroom. During the jury selection process supporters of Stanley were shocked to discover that out of a pool of 12 prospective jurors - 5 just happened to be employed by the Plaintiff, The City and County of Denver. One prospective female jury member confirmed that she indeed was a police officer employed by the Denver Police Department. Grant objected that these jurors should be disqualified for conflict of interest issues, the Judge did not find cause to dismiss these jurors at that time. During the selection process Defense Attorney Paul Grant posed several questions to this Police Officer. When asked by Grant if she could really apply the laws as explained by the judge, she replied, "yes". Then Mr. Grant asked her to confirm if she really was a police officer with the city and county of Denver. She replied, "yes". Mr. Grant then asked her if, "...when becoming a police officer, she had taken an oath to support the Constitution of Colorado and the Constitution of the United States of America?" "Yes, I did." the officer replied. Grant then asked her a hypothetical question; "If the judge were to instruct you that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 13 of the Constitution of Colorado are applicable to this case, would you be able to follow that instruction? Pandemonium erupted halfway through Grant's question with the City Prosecutor objecting at the top of his lungs to the form of the question, as the Judge pounded his gavel for attention. At this time Judge Patterson dismissed the jurors for lunch. After they left the courtroom Judge Patterson began to lecture Mr. Grant. "I already sent you an order in this case. The order has been mailed to your offices. You are not to mention the Constitution during this proceeding. Do you understand?" Grant replied that he did not. Patterson said, "Then I'll explain it again. You are not to reference the Constitution in these proceedings. You will not address it in voir dire, you will not address it in your opening remarks, you will not ask any questions about the Constitution when you summon your witnesses, and you will not talk about the Constitution when you give your closing arguments. Do you understand my instructions?", questioned Judge Patterson. Grant again replied he did not understand, and the judge proceeded to repeat his previous orders. He also stated that Mr. Grant had already violated these orders during the voir dire process when questioning the police officer. Grant objected to the judge's statement and replied, "Your honor I did not ask a question about the Constitution I asked a question about jury instructions." The Judge then asserted, "You did no such thing." Grant countered, "Yes, I did." He peered at his notes and said, "Here's the question I asked her. If the judge were to instruct you that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 13 of the Constitution of Colorado are applicable to this case, would you be able to follow that instruction?" In the presence of numerous observers, and despite an audio recording and at least one court reporter the Judge then asserted, "That's not the question you asked." At that point it was clear Judge Patterson was visibly upset. He began advising counsel that he was on dangerous grounds and threatened him with court sanctions. Patterson then recessed the proceedings for a lunch break. As Judge Patterson left the courtroom one Stanley supporter, Mr. Joe Johnson stood and addressed those left in the courtroom, "Hear Ye, Hear Ye, The Constitution of the United States of America has just been repealed by a Denver County Court Judge." Two reporters from the Denver daily papers scribbled furiously and then bolted for the doors. The court reconvened in the afternoon and the jury selection was completed. The jury consists of 6 people, 5 women and 1 man. The court heard testimony from both sides including testimony from the arresting officers who stated they did not fear any violence from Mr. Stanley, and that he was co-operative. When Mr. Stanley was called by defense to testify, Judge Patterson questioned whether he really wanted to testify or not. The judge mentioned the Constitutional provision that guaranteed his ability not to testify, but when Mr. Stanley asked the judge to cite the provision the judge refused. Throughout the afternoon's proceedings lawyers, judges, and others who apparently worked within the judicial system were seen coming in and out of the courtroom for short periods of time. Testimony was concluded in the afternoon. Judge Patterson then recessed the proceedings to reconvene in the morning for closing arguments. More information concerning Rick's arrest and the trial can be found online at: http://www.stanley2002.org/denvsconstitution.htm . Previous news releases about this trial can be found online at: http://www.stanley2002.org/releases.htm Rick Stanley is the CEO and owner of Stanley Fasteners and Shop Supply in Denver, and is currently seeking the Libertarian Party of Colorado's nomination as Candidate for U.S. Senate 2002. The convention will be held this weekend in Leadville, Colorado. For more information on Rick's campaign please visit his official web site at: http://www.stanley2002.org . Information about the Libertarian Party of Colorado can be found at: http://www.lpcolorado.org #30# ============================================================ Rick is available for media interviews about his grassroots campaign for U.S. Senate. For more information please call Rick at 303.329.0481. |
Put another way, if the 1st Amendment applies to the states, why can't the 2nd? (don't say "because such a ruling hasn't happened" - I'm talking about [near] future, just as the 1st at one time had not been incorporated, then was. I want to know why it cannot happen, ever.)
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams
Read that again carefully. It does not say what you think it does.
Of course our use of arms is managed by law. Nobody contends that anyone should be able to do target practice on a city street, or shoot clerks who ring up wrong bills. We are, of course, to act within the law, and to use arms outside the law will quickly destroy law & society - which is PRECISELY why gunowners are such a remarkably law-abiding bunch: they understand the power of arms.
Adams' admonition to use arms only for self-defense, or in service to a jurisdiction, presupposes personal ownership of arms: one cannot very well use a pistol for self-defense, or a rifle to protect the state, if one has neither pistol nor rifle. The only reason I can defend myself is my posession of a pistol, and the only reason I can move to the front line in defense of my state within minutes is my ownership of a rifle - and that I have trained with these very tools. By opposing personal ownership of arms, you not only prevent what Adams says one should not do, but also prevent what Adams says one _should_ do.
Our governments have taken your approach and gutted Adams' words: by banning arms (on the whole) and failing to organize & train those with arms, citizens cannot defend themselves or their state - actions which Adams noted were reasonable and expected. If you expect me to stop my would-be murderer, I must have a pistol. If you expect me to act in defense of my state, I must have an M16 and appropriate training. I will pay the costs out of my own pocket, and spend my own time preparing - but if the state forbids my ownership of arms and related training, the state cannot expect anything of me when I am called to defend the state. I cannot give that which I am not allowed to have.
John Adams never advocated that citizens be disarmed; in your quote he simply advocated that citizens obey the law while they posess arms.
Protective legislation? Who is protected if a citizen cannot protect himself?
The right to keep and bear arms is an immunity which does not flow from state citizenship, it flows from federal citizenship.
1. Establish a prospective juror's intent & ability to follow directions. Using an example involving a question which will not be asked maintains neutrality (as opposed to asking a likely question and eliciting answers before their proper time).
2. Further document the judge's refusal to permit jurors to consider relevant plain-language supreme law which would nullify city law and thus excuse the defendant; document the judge insisting that state & federal constitutions do not apply (thus setting the trial up not only for overturning the verdict on appeal, but also for impeachment and removal of the judge).
3. Antagonize a judge who is making it clear that he is the law.
Remember: Stanely KNEW he would be convicted, and needed to gather certain evidence that the court was acting with gross negligence and arrogance, so he would be prepared for appeals.
I take it that you agree the Constitution has no place in an American court of law. How interesting.
I don't know that this is what we're seeing, and if it is the Judge could be clearer.
He's certainly free to appeal on constitutional grounds to an appellate court. It appears his lawyer didn't even attempt to dispute the charges through motion work. What they were trying to do is tamper with the jury. The jury does NOT make rulings of law, it makes findings of facts. To ask otherwise would make you an enemy of the state and a shameful human being.
Possibly, that and the National Federation of Republican Assemblies. Too bad neither wield enough power to do much of anything right now.
You misunderstand. Advocates of having "crimes against the state" are who I consider the weak and envious and not those prosecuted for comitting them.
351 - Actually, what I see there is a typo and possibly an improper comma. May the person who has never done that throw the first stone.
I don't know about the comma thing but there are three typos one of which doesn't detract from the rest. But the other two were difficult to parse. VA Advogado likes to think he can jerk my chain and usually I just ignore him and his JBT attitude.
What got your panties in a bunch? Why are you "barking" orders at me? Bad hair day?
410 - That was a personal attack and was uncalled for.
You must be a newbie. I'll check.. Yep, #89243 registered on May 10, 2002
Since you have self appointed yourself the posting police here is the post you claim was personal attack. Go ahead and quote the attack since you didn't have the guts or wherewithal or inclination or desire (one or more of those is probably appropriate) to help by quoting the attack when you made your claim. If none are appropriate perhaps you'll explain to me why you didn't quote the part you consider to be a personal attack. Here it is...
BTW, is it okay with you that I don't want to run for office? Don't get your panties in a bunch because I could careless what you do or don't do so long as you don't initiate force against anyone or try to garner an agent (namely the government) to initiate force on your behalf.
Jeesh, IMO, the most clueless type of newbie is the one that becomes the self-appointed thread police. Congratulations. Is it okay for me to post my opinion?
No source, of course.
John Adams never advocated that citizens be disarmed
The citizens of Colorado haven't been disarmed.
We are, of course, to act within the law, and to use arms outside the law will quickly destroy law & society - which is PRECISELY why gunowners are such a remarkably law-abiding bunch: they understand the power of arms.
Someone should point that out to Mr. Stanley, the convicted criminal who knowingly and deliberately acted in defiance of lawful regulation.
And would you also agree that much of the remaining sections have not been similarly ruled on primarily because the question hasn't reached SCOTUS?
The 14th Amendment was ratified July 9, 1868.
"The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." -- US Supreme Court, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
I take that last comment about 410 back. What you said was just rude, but then there's been a lot of rudeness, so it is wrong for me to single you out. I apologize.
I accept. Thanks. I had to wonder how many of your other policing posts I was going to be reading as I worked my way down the thread. I thought to myself "that there's going to be on really busy poster." Did you police the first 400 threads? The rude posting started up early on so hopefully you didn't start at the beginning.
It may be best that you disregard my post #535.
Now here's a question, would sinkspur ever say
With the same broad brush, I could say that, because the libertarians want to see the death of what they presently consider to be a system that ignores the Constitution, libertarians should be culled from the jury pool. ?
sinkspur did write that in post #415. If you mean would he say that in the process of jury selection? I doubt it, unless his intention was to be dismissed.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
This section of USC clearly shows that the rights of United States citizens are protected by the the laws of the United States, not by the laws and governments of the several States as per Cruikshank.
That exceptional enough for you, Roscoe?
297 posted on 5/16/02 2:27 PM Pacific by lentulusgracchus
Stanley was convicted because of his criminal behavior, not because of his immigration status, color or race.
HCI must love him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.