Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Adams jury convicts gun activist [Rick Stanley] on 2 felony counts
Rocky Mountain News ^ | June 25, 2004 | By Joe Garner And Hector Gutierrez, Rocky Mountain News

Posted on 06/25/2004 7:52:24 AM PDT by Lazamataz

BRIGHTON - Gun activist Rick Stanley was found guilty Thursday on two felony counts of attempting to influence a public official.

Stanley, 49, owner of a Denver shop-supply company, said he was prepared for the verdict in the trial, which began Monday in Adams County District Court behind double security screening - once at the door of the courthouse and again at the door of the courtroom.

The four-man, eight-woman jury deliberated Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning, before returning its decision in a fifth-floor courtroom with at least 14 uniformed sheriff's deputies cordoning off Stanley, the attorneys, judge and jury from the public benches.

"I'm never surprised when people allow the government to destroy their rights," Stanley, who remains free on bond until a Sept. 10 sentencing, said outside the Adams County Justice Center as supporters gathered around him.

Diane Szostak, who identified herself as "a militia member from Michigan," said, "It was exactly what we expected from the system because the system is corrupt and it convicts innocent people."

Stanley, organizer of the Mutual Defense Pact Militia, was accused of sending Thornton Municipal Judge Charles J. Rose and 17th Judicial District Judge Donald W. Marshall Jr. a "notice of order" demanding that they reverse his conviction for a weapons violation or face arrest by the militia and a trial for treason.

Rose had convicted Stanley and sentenced him to 90 days in jail for carrying a firearm onto public property while campaigning as a Libertarian in September 2002. Marshall upheld the conviction when Stanley appealed.

"We felt that we had proved the case, and his basic argument was that the government was picking on him, and apparently the jury didn't think that was a sufficient reason to attempt to influence a judge," District Attorney Robert Grant said.

Jury foreman Dan Dionne said the jurors were "cordial and appropriate" in their deliberations.

"Some of us had our minds made up early on, and some of us did not, but it wasn't a matter of ganging up on a holdout or anything like that," Dionne said.

The jury foreman said he asked the jurors to take several preliminary votes as they deliberated.

"There was support for Mr. Stanley, but it was a matter of better understanding what we were passing a verdict on," Dionne said.

Stanley and his lawyers tried to argue that the Thornton ordinance became invalid and his municipal conviction should have been voided after Gov. Bill Owens signed a law last year that limited the ability of local governments to regulate firearms.

Stanley's attorneys argued that one of the law's regulations spelled out that an anti-firearms ordinance that was enacted by a municipality prior to March 2003 was "void and unenforceable."

However, the district attorney said he believed the jury focused its deliberations on whether Stanley committed a crime against the judges.

"I felt that the defense was really a jury nullification defense," Grant said. "It was an attempt to get the jury to disregard the law, which in the end, after they reviewed all of the testimony and the evidence, they did not do."

Deliberations on Wednesday took a strange twist when jurors asked retired Supreme Court Justice Joseph R. Quinn, who presided, if Stanley had access to their names and addresses.

Dionne said some of the jurors were "nervous because of the negative connotations that go with 'militia' nowadays."

After the trial, Stanley said jurors have no cause for alarm.

"I know their names, and I don't care," he said. "I'm not a threat to them or anyone else; but, if attacked, I would defend myself."

Stanley said his defense attorney R. Scott Reisch would appeal Thursday's verdict. Stanley's sentence could range from probation to a maximum of 12 years in prison.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: bang; rickstanley
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-205 next last

1 posted on 06/25/2004 7:52:24 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Already Posted
2 posted on 06/25/2004 7:54:23 AM PDT by AdamSelene235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; LibertyRocks

This is the same kook who ran for Senate in 2002.


3 posted on 06/25/2004 7:57:25 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235; Billthedrill; BenLurkin; Lurking Libertarian; Kerberos; agitator; ...

Ping to concerned parties


4 posted on 06/25/2004 7:59:32 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235

Didn't turn up on search. Therefore, you must suffer. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!


5 posted on 06/25/2004 8:00:14 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba; HairOfTheDog; NJ_gent; Windsong; SedVictaCatoni; thoughtomator; cripplecreek; ...

Ping to concerned parties


6 posted on 06/25/2004 8:00:55 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Gun activist Rick Stanley was found guilty Thursday on two felony counts of attempting to influence a public official.

Shouldn't every lobbyist in the United States and anyone who has ever written their congresscritter a letter also be charged and convicted, too?

7 posted on 06/25/2004 8:03:04 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Shouldn't every lobbyist in the United States and anyone who has ever written their congresscritter a letter also be charged and convicted, too?

Oh, don't you worry. They're getting around to that.

8 posted on 06/25/2004 8:04:33 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Not unexpected. For threatening a judge, he SHOULD go to jail. For violating two different Constitutions, the judges in question SHOULD be tried for treason.

Rick and the militia are not the ones to hold that particular trial however...

9 posted on 06/25/2004 8:08:25 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Shouldn't every lobbyist in the United States and anyone who has ever written their congresscritter a letter also be charged and convicted, too?

I'm trying to find the statute, but it probably has a more narrow definition of "influence" that would exclude writing a (non-threatening) letter.

10 posted on 06/25/2004 8:10:24 AM PDT by Modernman ("I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members" -Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Stanley's a nut case.


11 posted on 06/25/2004 8:11:17 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Figures you'd show up with your usual "inciteful" commentary.


12 posted on 06/25/2004 8:15:18 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
"Shouldn't every lobbyist in the United States and anyone who has ever written their congresscritter a letter also be charged and convicted, too?"

Don't tempt me. :-)

In all seriousness, I think the name of the law brings forth a rather unfortunate ambiguity. I'm sure that the law itself requires that the attempt to influence be by some manner of force, or threats thereof. Stanley's lucky that he wasn't charged with a terrorism offense under the DoJ's guidelines for terrorism being a crime commited with the intent to influence the government.
13 posted on 06/25/2004 8:16:06 AM PDT by NJ_gent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

"...found guilty Thursday on two felony counts of attempting to influence a public official."

Let's follow the reasoning (and I use the term loosely). Voting them out would be the ultimate "influence" on what they can do. So, we're one step away from it being illegal to vote against an incumbent.
I know, I know, it's more poor phrasing (either on the reporter's part or the lawmakers') but I couldn't resist.


14 posted on 06/25/2004 8:16:21 AM PDT by jim macomber (Author: "Bargained for Exchange", "Art & Part", "A Grave Breach" http://www.jamesmacomber.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jim macomber
It certainly sets the precedent doesn't it? Unintended Consequences all over again...
15 posted on 06/25/2004 8:19:01 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Not unexpected. For threatening a judge, he SHOULD go to jail. For violating two different Constitutions, the judges in question SHOULD be tried for treason.

If we are going to hold trial, that trial must be held in the Court of Public Opinion. We must sway people to a pro-gun ideology.

You will note that Saudi Arabia has recently stated that foreigners may carry firearms to protect against terrorist threats.

We should hammer this point relentlessly, so that it becomes a public meme.

Whackos like Stanley hurt our cause. Reasoning and convincing and swaying helps our cause.

16 posted on 06/25/2004 8:19:14 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jim macomber
Let's follow the reasoning (and I use the term loosely). Voting them out would be the ultimate "influence" on what they can do. So, we're one step away from it being illegal to vote against an incumbent.

Reducto ad absurdium.

17 posted on 06/25/2004 8:19:49 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Adams jury convicts gun activist (AND CERTIFYABLE IDIOT) Rick Stanley on 2 felony counts


18 posted on 06/25/2004 8:20:02 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Kill, 'em all, now. Then they cannot kill our sons and daughters tomorrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Figures you'd show up with your usual "inciteful" commentary.

But he's right.

We are on the same side here. All we are doing is discussing tactics.

I think we can safely agree that Stanley's were flawed tactics.

19 posted on 06/25/2004 8:21:01 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Stanley's a nut case.


20 posted on 06/25/2004 8:25:41 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-205 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson