Posted on 06/19/2002 10:11:18 AM PDT by Duncan Philp
THE “CHARADE”
On May 29th I appeared in the Denver county court of one Judge Celeste for my trial. But rather than have a fair and impartial trial a “charade” took place. I had been charged on December 15th , 2001 for violating a Denver city ordinance that prohibits a person from carrying a gun openly for the purposes of self- defense. And of course this would have been my defense in court as the Colorado State Constitution clearly says that my “right” to carry a gun openly for the purpose of self-defense “Shall not come into question.” Denver is the only city in Colorado that has made it crime to carry a gun openly for self-defense, and of course Grant was prevented from using this argument by Judge Celeste and as such he was not allowed to give me a proper defense. So all that Mr. Grant and myself could do was just sit there and watch the “charade” play itself out.
As any law student can tell you there can never be two conflicting laws one must be superior to the other. And in my case State statute and the State Constitution are in fact superior to that of any city ordinance. The argument used by Denver county judge Patterson in Stanely’s ‘charade’ was that Denver is a “home rule” city and Colorado is a “home rule” state. This according to Judge Patterson means that Denver can create any ordinance they please. Then this would mean that Denver could legalize murder, rape, theft, assault etc., and ignore Colorado State law, according to Judge Patterson.
The city attorney claimed that I needed to prove an “immediate danger” to my life as a defense to open carry and that this is the only affirmative defense that can be used for the right to carry a gun for self defense in the city of Denver. Only one little problem with this line of reasoning is that something like “immediate danger” is in most cases a surprise. You will never know, in most instances, when a danger could be imminent. “Oh wait Mr. Bad Guy, the city of Denver prohibits me from carrying openly. Just give me a sec so that I can go home and get my gun before you rob and kill me.” Yea this would be the scenario under the illegal city ordinance of Denver.
The “charade” continued played itself out for the day. All of Mr. Grant’s motions and arguments had been denied by Judge Celeste. And then after denying Mr. Grant’s motions she made a closing statement, which clearly indicated that she was prejudice towards my case, “This is not the old west and we cannot have people walking around with guns strapped to their leg in Denver.” Gee but we can Denver police thugs running around with guns strapped on their hips so that they can kill innocent people like Ishmael Mena and students of Columbine High School. I find it interesting that the judge would trust Denver police thugs, but not ordinary taxpayers to carry guns.
Shortly afterwards the jury was brought in for jury selection and the ‘charade’ continued and the jury was questioned by both lawyers. The city attorney crossed off the people he felt would find me innocent and then the list was handed to Mr. Grant who refused to participate in this aspect of the “charade”. The judge quickly dismissed the jury from the courtroom and demanded to know why Mr. Grant had refused to participate in the jury selection
Grant instructed the judge that he had a fifth amendment right not to participate. The judge read him the riot act from the book of court rules and instructed Mr. Grant to either select three jurors to be removed form the jury pool or else she would find him in contempt and have him arrested. Mr. Grant again refused to participate in the “charade” and the judge quickly ordered the court clerk to get the deputies. The judge again demanded that Mr. Grant select three jurors “or else”. Mr. Grant asked the judge to help make the selection for him and she then became incensed. It looked like they were going to haul my lawyer off to jail and I would have to continue on without him, but suddenly three uniformed cowboys came into the courtroom and started “walking around with guns strapped to their legs”. Yea the deputies with the GUNS on their hips were sent to intimidate my lawyer and his very life was in “immediate danger”, so he was forced to name off three jurors at GUN point.
We continued on with the ”charade” and the witness for the “persecution” was to take the witness stand. Capt. DiManna of the Denver PD was called to testify. Why I have No idea since he wasn’t the arresting officer and prior to Mr. Stanely’s trial I had never met DiManna. I had only heard of him due to his infamous reputation. DiManna lied twice on the witness stand when he claimed that I approached him at the “Bill of Rights Day” rally and asked him to arrest me. Since DiManna was in plain clothes and had no badge publicly displayed, how would I have known he was a cop and as such why then would I ask someone who appeared not to be cop to arrest me? I never asked anyone to arrest me much less DiManna.
His second lie occured when he stated that the “Bill of Rights Day” rally was nothing more than an attempt to get arrested and only a “Second Amendment” rally, yet at Mr. Stanely’s trial he said something much different and we have both lies on record. When asked by Mr. Grant if DiManna was proud of what he had done, referring to the act of arresting myself and Stanely, he said that he was indeed proud of his actions. Yes indeed folks the cop was proud of arresting two military veterans in “veterans park” on the “Bill of Rights Day”. The cop was proud of destroying the ‘Bill of Rights”. The cop was proud of denying a person’s right to self-defense.
Now remember folks DiManna is the same cop who while at Columbine High, acting in the capacity of a Denver PD SWAT member, hid behind a fire truck while a teacher bled to death. Even though Harris and Klebold where already dead, and some of the students who fled the building even said as much to DiManna while he was hiding behind the fire truck, (DiManna is still being sued by the family members of the teacher for negligence), yes DiManna has much to be proud of. Not only will he refuse to protect the citizens and tax payers of columbine, but if any individual should take the initiative to do so himself, because DiManna is to much of coward. Then DiManna will pull out his gun and arrest you for exercising what is not only a God given right, but a constitutional right as well.
After DiManna’s testimony the “charade” had pretty much ended and the shepple of the jury had of course found me guilty, as this is what the judge instructed them to do. I was ordered by the judge to see a probation officer and come back on July 12th for sentencing. At which point Mr. Grant will of course file an appeal to Denver District court.
I am not surprised by the outcome of this case thus far and I doubt if any of you are either. If fighting for freedom was easy then we wouldn’t have to much and we all know that struggle will continue ad naseaum. Please make your checks out to Paul Grant Attorney at law and send your donations for our legal fund to:
Duncan Philp 305 w. magnolia #131 Ft. Collins. Colorado 80521
On May 29th I appeared in the Denver county court of one Judge Celeste for my trial. But rather than have a fair and impartial trial a “charade” took place. I had been charged on December 15th , 2001 for violating a Denver city ordinance that prohibits a person from carrying a gun openly for the purposes of self- defense. And of course this would have been my defense in court as the Colorado State Constitution clearly says that my “right” to carry a gun openly for the purpose of self-defense “Shall not come into question.” Denver is the only city in Colorado that has made it crime to carry a gun openly for self-defense, and of course Grant was prevented from using this argument by Judge Celeste and as such he was not allowed to give me a proper defense. So all that Mr. Grant and myself could do was just sit there and watch the “charade” play itself out.
As any law student can tell you there can never be two conflicting laws one must be superior to the other. And in my case State statute and the State Constitution are in fact superior to that of any city ordinance. The argument used by Denver county judge Patterson in Stanely’s ‘charade’ was that Denver is a “home rule” city and Colorado is a “home rule” state. This according to Judge Patterson means that Denver can create any ordinance they please. Then this would mean that Denver could legalize murder, rape, theft, assault etc., and ignore Colorado State law, according to Judge Patterson.
The city attorney claimed that I needed to prove an “immediate danger” to my life as a defense to open carry and that this is the only affirmative defense that can be used for the right to carry a gun for self defense in the city of Denver. Only one little problem with this line of reasoning is that something like “immediate danger” is in most cases a surprise. You will never know, in most instances, when a danger could be imminent. “Oh wait Mr. Bad Guy, the city of Denver prohibits me from carrying openly. Just give me a sec so that I can go home and get my gun before you rob and kill me.” Yea this would be the scenario under the illegal city ordinance of Denver.
The “charade” continued played itself out for the day. All of Mr. Grant’s motions and arguments had been denied by Judge Celeste. And then after denying Mr. Grant’s motions she made a closing statement, which clearly indicated that she was prejudice towards my case, “This is not the old west and we cannot have people walking around with guns strapped to their leg in Denver.” Gee but we can Denver police thugs running around with guns strapped on their hips so that they can kill innocent people like Ishmael Mena and students of Columbine High School. I find it interesting that the judge would trust Denver police thugs, but not ordinary taxpayers to carry guns.
Shortly afterwards the jury was brought in for jury selection and the ‘charade’ continued and the jury was questioned by both lawyers. The city attorney crossed off the people he felt would find me innocent and then the list was handed to Mr. Grant who refused to participate in this aspect of the “charade”. The judge quickly dismissed the jury from the courtroom and demanded to know why Mr. Grant had refused to participate in the jury selection
Grant instructed the judge that he had a fifth amendment right not to participate. The judge read him the riot act from the book of court rules and instructed Mr. Grant to either select three jurors to be removed form the jury pool or else she would find him in contempt and have him arrested. Mr. Grant again refused to participate in the “charade” and the judge quickly ordered the court clerk to get the deputies. The judge again demanded that Mr. Grant select three jurors “or else”. Mr. Grant asked the judge to help make the selection for him and she then became incensed. It looked like they were going to haul my lawyer off to jail and I would have to continue on without him, but suddenly three uniformed cowboys came into the courtroom and started “walking around with guns strapped to their legs”. Yea the deputies with the GUNS on their hips were sent to intimidate my lawyer and his very life was in “immediate danger”, so he was forced to name off three jurors at GUN point.
We continued on with the ”charade” and the witness for the “persecution” was to take the witness stand. Capt. DiManna of the Denver PD was called to testify. Why I have No idea since he wasn’t the arresting officer and prior to Mr. Stanely’s trial I had never met DiManna. I had only heard of him due to his infamous reputation. DiManna lied twice on the witness stand when he claimed that I approached him at the “Bill of Rights Day” rally and asked him to arrest me. Since DiManna was in plain clothes and had no badge publicly displayed, how would I have known he was a cop and as such why then would I ask someone who appeared not to be cop to arrest me? I never asked anyone to arrest me much less DiManna.
His second lie occured when he stated that the “Bill of Rights Day” rally was nothing more than an attempt to get arrested and only a “Second Amendment” rally, yet at Mr. Stanely’s trial he said something much different and we have both lies on record. When asked by Mr. Grant if DiManna was proud of what he had done, referring to the act of arresting myself and Stanely, he said that he was indeed proud of his actions. Yes indeed folks the cop was proud of arresting two military veterans in “veterans park” on the “Bill of Rights Day”. The cop was proud of destroying the ‘Bill of Rights”. The cop was proud of denying a person’s right to self-defense.
Now remember folks DiManna is the same cop who while at Columbine High, acting in the capacity of a Denver PD SWAT member, hid behind a fire truck while a teacher bled to death. Even though Harris and Klebold where already dead, and some of the students who fled the building even said as much to DiManna while he was hiding behind the fire truck, (DiManna is still being sued by the family members of the teacher for negligence), yes DiManna has much to be proud of. Not only will he refuse to protect the citizens and tax payers of columbine, but if any individual should take the initiative to do so himself, because DiManna is to much of coward. Then DiManna will pull out his gun and arrest you for exercising what is not only a God given right, but a constitutional right as well.
After DiManna’s testimony the “charade” had pretty much ended and the shepple of the jury had of course found me guilty, as this is what the judge instructed them to do. I was ordered by the judge to see a probation officer and come back on July 12th for sentencing. At which point Mr. Grant will of course file an appeal to Denver District court.
I am not surprised by the outcome of this case thus far and I doubt if any of you are either. If fighting for freedom was easy then we wouldn’t have to much and we all know that struggle will continue ad naseaum. Please make your checks out to Paul Grant Attorney at law and send your donations for our legal fund to:
Duncan Philp 305 w. magnolia #131 Ft. Collins. Colorado 80521
Why did your lawyer refuse to eliminate jurors, and what did that have to do with the 5th ammendment?
Thanks
The Colorado Supreme Court cases dealing with the issue permit "reasonable regulation."
No current Freeper by that name.
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.