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. |
IANAL, but in today's Star Chambers, it seems the Judge gets to control what "law" gets mentioned to the jury as "pertinent." That's why it became "illegal" long ago to inform the jury of their right to ignore the instructions of the judge and nullify. The Constitutions of the State and the USA are "law" and therefore would fall under the rubric of what can or can't be mentioned.
Politicians have a vested intrerest in the proliferation of violence and pandemonium because it gives them the justification they need to further expand government.
To further this line of thinking... of natural law, common law, common sense...
During Clinton's eight years as President 25,000 laws and regulations were created. That's three-thousand laws a year. Politicians, bureaucrats, mainstream media and much of academia would have us believe that we didn't need this years newly created 3,000 laws last year. Nor did we need those new laws the year before that or the year before, etc.
Likewise, the 3,000 newly created laws in 2003 won't be needed until that year. ...And the 3,000 new laws created in 2004? What about them? They'd have us believe that we can live without those laws for a couple of more years but we will need them come 2004.
Oh, and /BTW, we will always need those laws and this is proven by the fact that for every 3,000 newly created laws maybe a dozen old laws get repealed.
My question is, how did people and society ever manage to survive and prosper for 200 years without all those laws but somehow when it comes time to write 3,000 new laws each year we can't live without them.
Um... I don't think anyone, even Sinkspur himself, has ever doubted that Sinkspur was a statist.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Thanks. I needed that.
"If Stanley imagines he could talk the way he does in a police state, he's even more ignorant than he sounds. We extend our sympathies to the Libertarian Party." -- Rocky Mountain News, Wednesday, May 8, 2002.
What's really unbelievable is this ridiculous press release, which stands as further proof of Mr. Stanley's utter lack of qualification for the office of U.S. Senator.
Just a couple of examples:
Judge Patterson's next move was to order everyone except the defendant and the officers of the court out of the room.... After a few more minutes a compromise was reached and everyone except Mr. Stanley, his lawyer, and the court officials left the courtroom.
IOW, the "compromise" was that the Judge's ruling would stand: the same people would stay in the room as before, since "his lawyer" could not have been sent out in the first place.
And how about this: 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.
Gasp! Armed Sheriff's deputies?!? Shocking. And those statist thugs were moving them "away from the doorway" -- as though to maintain peace and quiet in the courtroom? (A reasonable move, in light the later outburst of one Mr. Joe Johnson.) Shameful!
As to the use of Constitutional arguments in this case concerning violations of Denver Municipal Ordinance 38-117.5(b), the judge is correct. The task facing this county court is to try Stanley on allegations that he violated an existing ordinance. If Stanley wishes to appeal his conviction (if any), or to challenge the consititutionality of the ordinance a different court, he's got a right to do so. The Constitutionality of the ordinance itself is irrelevant to whether Stanley violated it. Nor is it in the jurisdiction of a county criminal court to rule on Constitutional issues.
But, as is typical of Libertarians, Stanley has picked the wrong battle, in the wrong location.
Wake me up if the LP ever becomes a serious player. Up to now, they're just standing around in noble poses.
Eminent domain? You don't LIKE certain laws; I don't LIKE certain laws. Overturning them in the jury box is quite another matter.
Suppose monkeys could fly. Would that mean we wouldn't see you here as much?
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.
Um... I don't think anyone, even Sinkspur himself, has ever doubted that Sinkspur was a statist.
Nope, -- I have heard Sinkspur scream to high heaven at being called a 'statist'. He, and his supporters on this thread richly deserve that label.
BTW, -- Zon, -- WELL DONE.
Well, Arlen Specter has already tarnished the use of Scottish Law.
Or suppose Stanley was elected.
Stay Safe and keep us posted if you will.
No. I understand what the terms of my jury service require. If I believed that a particular law was unjust, I would make certain that the court, the plaintiff and defendant knew that during jury qualification, which would probably eliminate me from service.
That's moral integrity. THAT'S honesty. I wouldn't hide or lie, like you apparently would, in an effort to get on a jury so I could wave my libertarianism around to make a political statement in acquitting a defendant.
Touche'
No. I would make certain to inform an Alabama court that I believed Jim Crow laws to be unjust. That would, most likely, disqualify me from jury service.
Touché.
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.