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. |
No hablo kangaroo.
sinkspur wrote in post #68: Exactly. I don't want some hayseed from Penelope, Texas who can barely read to decide on the Constitutionality of Laws. That's the jurisdiction of courts. Zon replied: sinkspur curiously avoided this part of the post #63 he/she(?) responded to: "Up until 1893, judges routinely instructed jurors that they are to judge both the facts of the case and the law as it may or may not apply to the case. Jury nullification. Obviously you side with the parasitical elite government officials, mainstream media and many tenured professors and not with the people whom are the ultimate guardian of their laws." Emphasis added.
sinkspur curiously avoided this part of the post #63 he/she(?) responded to:
Not curiously, intentionally.
So you'll obfuscate to the point of doing all but outright satating that you are steadfast against jury nullification.
And you have demonstrated, in your repost of your remarks, why I avoided it.
So you chose to make a point via obfuscation. Pip.
It's bait, for an argument.
No sale.
There is no argument. For you have made it clear that you are steadfast against jury nullification. Or do you wish to contend that you are not, despite what you wrote? To refresh your memory you wrote:
sinkspur wrote in post #68: Exactly. I don't want some hayseed from Penelope, Texas who can barely read to decide on the Constitutionality of Laws. That's the jurisdiction of courts.
If you were in Alabama in 1950 and sat on a jury for a case in which a black man was being tried under Jim Crow would you exercise nullification or not? If you were in Alabama in 1850 and sat on jury for a case in which a black man was being tried under the Fugitive Slave Act would you exercise nullification or not?
By the way, your position on juries contradicts over 100 years of Supreme Court cases, papers written by the founding fathers, and precedents set by centuries of jury trials before that.
See below:
"Among them is Stanley's contention that Allard should be tried for treason -- and hung, if found guilty -- for voting to pass the Patriot Act in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11."
That's what I would have said ten years ago about Clowntoon.
By the way, your position on juries contradicts over 100 years of Supreme Court cases, papers written by the founding fathers, and precedents set by centuries of jury trials before that.
My position is the current position of jurisprudence in this country regarding juries and the Constitutionality of laws.
You exercise your rights as a juror, and I'll exercise mine.
If ya get time please splain how land locked Denver is being subjugated to such a court ?
Stay Safe !
I am against jury nullification. You're not.
You exercise your rights as a juror, I'll exercise mine.
Asked and answered repeatedly.
Once again:
"Among them is Stanley's contention that Allard should be tried for treason -- and hung, if found guilty -- for voting to pass the Patriot Act in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11."
I said three POLICE out of 24, which is not the same as five city workers. I don't remember how many identified themselves as city workers in that pool.
The jury is the last check the people have against oppressive government without having to resort to violence.
I have never heard it put quite that way but it does seem a high probability. Could the government actually be in support of violence since their attempt to void jury nullification could realistically result in the people rising up against the government via force rather than the courts or constitution.
From Amendment VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
An impartial jury judges the facts and the law as they pertain to the case.
Any judge that does not answer in the affirmative to that statement has proven his ignorance and/or incompetence and has thus demonstrated he or she is unqualified to be a judge. Alas, the great irony for judges is that they must answer in the negative to even be considered for the job. As the saying goes, "I was doing my job" or "I was just following orders". Yeah right, honest/equal justice be damned.
Maelstrom wasn't comparing the US to Nazi Germany. He was illustrating your position when taken to it's logical conclusion.
I'm 99-percent certain that sinkspur already knew that when he (she?) was writing their response. Considering his high use of non sequiturs it is either planed/intentional or he is actually that ignorant -- neither one bodes well.
The question is a fair analogical hypothetical since there are a slew of laws today which violate rights just as Jim Crow and others did in the past. You simply lack the moral integrity to give an honest answer because it would reveal hypocrisy on your part.
My position is the current position of jurisprudence in this country regarding juries and the Constitutionality of laws.
That does not change the incorrectness of your position. It is still wrong. Because the state says it's alright to seize somebody's property without due process does not make it right or just. But, it would seem that in your eyes it does.
I am against jury nullification. You're not.
You exercise your rights as a juror, I'll exercise mine.
That's it?! You have made the clear implication that you are void of honesty and integrity in the jurors box and would vote to send a person to prison not because they violated any person's rights or property but because they broke a political agenda law. You stand up for the law/State no matter what.
Thanks for making your stance abundantly clear.
Politicians have a vested intrerest in the proliferation of violence and pandemonium because it gives them the justification they need to further expand government.
Thanks for making your stance abundantly clear.
Um... I don't think anyone, even Sinkspur himself, has ever doubted that Sinkspur was a statist.
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.