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. |
This wasn't federal court. States aren't even required under the Sixth Amendment to provide jury trials in all criminal prosecutions.
Stay Safe !
Or the back of a cereal box.
No, the juror is to judge facts in regards to the law. He/she is NOT to judge the law. But, then, that's where we disagree.
Still, you admit to the court via the jury selection process that you should be refused as a juror because you don't agree with the law
Yes. If I dont' agree with the law, I can't be impartial, can I?
I may chose to get on the jury to see that honest/equal justice applied and so that an innocent person doesn't become a political prisoner because he or she (the defendant) broke a political agenda law.
And you'd lie to do it, wouldn't you?
You don't "choose" to get on a jury;you're chosen. And if you lie to get on a jury, you have an agenda, and you're not impartial.
MLK's civil disobedience was built on black inequality.
Somehow Stanley walking around with a gun on his hip as a show of defiance doesn't quite seem the same thing.
Should be a good test of how irrational Colorado's LP actually is.
Attorneys can "strike" a number of jurors (I'm not sure of the number) during questioning.
Grant wanted to disqualify the jurors en masse because of some phoney "conflict of interest" claim, and preserve his strikes. Can't do that.
In doing so, however, the lawyer is attempting to ask this jury, and this county criminal court, to rule on the Constitutionality of this particular ordinance. This is a power that is reserved to the Federal judiciary.
Nope, the defendant is asking the jury to just read & consider the constitutional law as it may apply to his case. The judge is not required to 'rule'. He may give his opinion, at his option. -- And, --- the jury decision is not binding to any other case.
As such, the judge was correct to rule that issues of Constitutional law cannot be brought up as a defense in this case. To rule any other way would be a usurpation of the Constitution.
This 'usurpation' theory of yours should be good. Can you explain? -- Two bits you won't even try.
Now that Stanley has apparently been convicted, he has every right to challenge the Constitutionality of this ordinance in the proper forum. I hope he wins, too.
I wonder. -- See my Catch 22 for the odds on outcome of any 'challenge'.
This wasn't federal court. States aren't even required under the Sixth Amendment to provide jury trials in all criminal prosecutions.
Use common sense. Oh I forgot, you can't go there. Nonetheless, as you read what I wrote: for a judge to have moral integrity and honesty the judge must inform every juror that they are to judge both the facts and the law as they pertain to the case. Admit it, you are deficient in the areas of honesty and moral integrity.
Stay Safe LL !
Will do. In the meantime, consider that all gun laws (those which infringe upon rights) are treaty-based and of necessity, must be tried in a federal court (admiralty jurisdiction) and can't be tried in a common court where rights are preserved. In these cases, laws based on treaties are elevated above the constitution and become the supreme law of the land under the mis-interpretation of Article VI, para 2. (My opinion, of course, as I'm not a 'litter gator.')
You're certainly right about that, but like the rest of us, you're wrong about some other things.
The study of law is a study of the history of a civilization. The first laws are pretty simple, i.e. "Thou shalt not...," etc. As a people - a civilization - continue to interact, new problems arise that require either new laws or refinements of the old ones. Here in the United States we've gone from a single page (The Constitution) to a whole shelf of books - and that only covers Federal law.
Most modern court decisions rely heavily on earlier decisions, in part so there won't be a sudden, revolutionary new interpretation of so-called "settled" law, but mostly because the courts really don't want to go out on a limb and have to defend their decisions.
The question of jury nullification is anything but new and has been mentioned in a number of previous cases.
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court, 1789.
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts" Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1796.
"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1902.
Regarding law and what some might consider to be bad laws:
"All laws which are repugnant to The Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442.
There are other instances and you can find them yourself... if you want to. On the other hand, if you're just trolling... have a good day.
Cite?
What does this case have to do with the "Constitution of the United States"?
They weren't secret if you watched them.
That's not true, but you continue to insist that it is.
Accusing people of lacking integrity and honesty because they don't agree with you is cowardly.
You argue with all the logic and reason of a bumper sticker.
Idiocy. --- Not true at all. -- He deliberately violated the law to make a test case.
Now, one court already has, and further higher courts will; -- violate Stanleys rights in order to ignore his test case.
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.