Posted on 09/11/2004 6:23:32 PM PDT by AdamSelene235
BRIGHTON - Gun-rights activist Rick Stanley, a Denver businessman and former Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate, was sentenced to six years in prison Friday for threatening two judges.
Stanley, 49, owner of Stanley Fastener & Shop Supply in northeast Denver, was taken from Adams County District Court in handcuffs.
"When you really analyze it, this is an assault on the very system of justice in this country," said presiding Judge Joseph R. Quinn, a retired state Supreme Court justice.
Stanley's attorney, Brett Davies, said the punishment was "worse" than expected.
"They've made a monster out of him," Davies said.
In addition to prison time - three years each for the two judges - Stanley was sentenced to six years of mandatory parole and ordered to pay $10,000 in fines, plus $8,250 restitution to police who worked overtime to protect the judges. Quinn set an $80,000 bond and said Stanley must be monitored by the court until his appeal is resolved.
Unlike previous court appearances, in which hallways and doorways were crowded with police and a SWAT team and metal detectors were deployed, there was no extra security at the courthouse Friday.
Davies gave the judge 89 letters of support for Stanley "attesting to his good moral character." "Free Rick Stanley" signs dotted roadways.
Stanley was found guilty in late June of two felony counts of attempting to influence a public official. He 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 Stanley's Mutual Defense Pact 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 in 2002 in Thornton. Marshall upheld the conviction when Stanley appealed.
Stanley argued that his sentence and record should have have been voided after Gov. Bill Owens signed a law limiting local governments from regulating firearms.
Stanley also was arrested in Denver in 2001 for carrying a loaded handgun in a holster at a Bill of Rights rally. In June, Stanley's home and business were raided by the Internal Revenue Service.
"I think Rick Stanley in prison is where Rick Stanley belongs," said Adams County District Attorney Robert Grant.
Stanley spoke before the sentencing.
"I was violated by men who have no honor or integrity," Stanley said. "The only victim here is Rick Stanley, on behalf of every American."
Rose also spoke before sentencing, referring to Stanley as "the felon."
"Never have I been so personally attacked verbally or threatened with bodily harm," Rose said. Rose described Stanley as a "paranoid demagogue with delusions of grandeur."
At one point, Rose asked Stanley to "call off the dogs."
Davies said that other than the events leading up to the sentencing - and four speeding tickets - Stanley has a clean record. Davies said his client has a right to free speech.
"There have been no overt threats of violence," Davies said.
At the very most, those are fighting words not violence.
Any other examples of violence on Mr. Stanley's behalf. Perhaps you would like to add menacing looks and body odor to your definition of "violence".
So you wouldn't feel threatened if someone told you their group of private citizens was going to seize you and try you for treason in front of a kangeroo court? Good for you, but most folks would see that as a threat.
"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 Stanley's Mutual Defense Pact Militia and a trial for treason."
It is not. I would say that is where he started to go a little crazy after the judges violated their oaths of office. He committed no offense under the State and Federal Constitutions. The State voted to change the law he was charged under, I believe, just a few weeks after he was charged, no doubt in part because of the publicity he garnered by challenging its constitutionality. Yet the judges continued their vendetta against him, to make an example of someone who dared to assert their rights.
It was only after all of the above that he started to go a little crazy. He had been a law abiding productive citizen all his life up to that point.
This is the task of a government - of a proper government - its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.
A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control - i.e., under objectively defined laws.
-- Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government," The Virtue of Selfishness
I don't think they have a concept, of what Rand was stating...
Mr. Stanley's mistake was in not realizing that the judges had a kangaroo court backed up by a gang of thugs much better armed than Mr. Stanley's own gang of thugs.
The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may only resort to force only against those who start the use of force.
-- Ayn Rand, "Galt's Speech," Atlas Shrugged
In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.
-- Ayn Rand, "The Anatomy of Compromise," Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
In this case the government protected the judge (man) from the threat (promise) of force from one idiotic Libertarian.
If you don't like a law then work to change it but threatening a judge is not the way to accomplish anything.
The only idiot I can read in your posts, is, possibly, the one posting. If you think all libertarians are idiots, then you qualify...
I think the guy had the right idea, just the wrong way to implement it.
Are you a statist, or do you just play one on FR?!
Personal insults only make you look foolish. Try reading what I posted instead.
You know, you really want to stand behind these guys until they come up with something like this, and then you feel like maybe you're getting sucked into some guy's hysterical fantasy.
It was not an insult, it was an observation. The law was changed. I repeat, the law was changed... and these judges were wrong.
For the second time, are you a statist?
Personal insults only make you look foolish... -Columbine #50
You started by attacking those of us who don't agree with your statist views. You may not have realized your faux pas, but I was offended by your blanket statement. I am a Republican. I am a libertarian. They are not mutually exclusive...
The government is "by the people, FOR the people, and of the people...these judges (read -lawyers with more power) do as they please...
The law was changed? Want to point me to the new law that says it's ok to threaten a judge. THAT is what we're talking about here and not whether the original law was right or wrong.
I have no problem whatsoever with open carry for any law abiding citizen but then that doesn't describe Stanley.
When a law is wrong then you work to change the law. Threatening a judge is simply stupid.
Your repeated attempt to label me a statist is nothing but smoke. If you can't comprehend that threatening to go after that judge with a militia was idiotic there isn't much point in this conversation.
No, they are not but there is a big difference in having libertarian (small l) leanings and supporting today's Libertarian Party (capital L).
It has become a refuge for flakes. Stanley is a very visible example.
So what you are saying here is that it was ok for Stanley to threaten the judge and that I am a statist because I think threatening a judge is idiotic and not the way to challenge a bad gun law.
Pop quiz:
If you are indicted under a state statute which is repealed while your trial is pending, do you:
(A) Negotiate with the prosecutor and judge to drop the charges, or plea-bargain down to a negligible misdemeanor;
(B) Mount a defense at trial and, if convicted, appeal, arguing to the appellate court that you cannot be convicted under a repealed statute;
or (C) Make up your own silly fake legal jargon, get together a gang of similar-minded nutjobs to form a pretend-court, and send death threats to the judge, because, hey, everybody is entitled to make up their own legal system, and the Colorado judicial system probably isn't constitutional anyway, and, gee, we never thought he'd take it seriously.
If you answered (C), you may already have won a copy of Atlas Shrugged and a tin-foil hat! Congratulations!
Special bonus: if anybody can successfully explain what a "notice of order" is and why a state judge should have to obey you if you send him one, you win a free refill on your medications and a "Me and my buddies are the sole defenders of the United States Constitution" T-shirt!
Yep, you're right.
I think I can judge the appropriateness of a sentence without getting sucked into Mr. Stanley's worldview.
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.