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. |
It may not seem like the same thing to you, but actually it is. The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is clear from reading not only the Constitution, but numerous other writings that elaborate upon the intent. The fact that some people deliberately choose to ignore this is irrelevant, and doesn't make the ordinances any less unconstitutional than the old Jim Crow laws.
Stare decisis.
You got me this time.
"The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." -- US Supreme Court, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
Well, fortunately for us Americans, a bunch of farmers did just that back in the late 1700's.
I didn't say it was new.
But, it is not part of current jurisprudence for juries to make judgements on the law. They judge facts in light of the law.
This is certainly a point of contention among even those of a libertarian persuasion. Some argue that the Constituion is supposed to be applied directly to the states and cite the 2nd Amendment as an example. In their minds, any state law that somehow infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms is clearly unconstitutional. However, many of them will also turn around and argue that state laws permitting abortion should be considered constitutional, despite the fact that the 14th Amendment prohibits states from passing laws that deprive life without due process.
This would seem to be more of a First Amendment case; a person is being prohibited from referring to the Constitution. But we would then have to address the issue of whether or not the 1st Amendment was written with the states in mind. The language seems clear enough when it says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."
Many people hold the position that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights directly to the States, though I fail to see that exact language. The 14th Amendment essentially re-stated what had already been said in the 5th Amendment, but since the "ratification" of the 14th Amendment the general assumption has been that the Bill of Rights is now suddenly applicable to the states.
As I mentioned before, I am a staunch constitutionalist. I am also a firm believer in states' rights. In short, I'm not entirely 100% sure what my position is on this particular issue. And that's rare!
Yes. If I dont' agree with the law, I can't be impartial, can I?
In your mind you can only be impartial when you agree with the law. That is not impartial either. At least you made it abundantly clear that you stand with the STATE and stand against the people.
And you'd lie to do it, wouldn't you?
I doubt it. Not that this will matter to a statist like you but nonetheless, when a court process works towards seating a biased jury the court process has initiated force, so to speak. Thus, should a potential juror chose to lie about agreement with the law it is an act of defense on behalf of the defendant.
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.
If it's an agenda the agenda is to ensure that the defendant in fact does get an impartial jury. No doubt you hate that.
You are right about one thing. When it comes to honest/equal justice, I am impartial. So much so that you could be a murderer and have killed my best friend and gotten off Scott-free. As much as I would detest that, as a juror, when you're on trial for another murder and the facts prove your innocence I would vote to acquit.
The fact that the current justice process would never allow me to be a juror in that hypothetical scenario is besides the point of my commitment to honest/equal justice. For if a person is to be found guilty it should only be for a initiatory-of-force crime -- as opposed to breaking a political agenda law -- and then only for the actual initiatory-of-force crime the defendant is charged with.
Cite?
Like I said, common sense -- you don't have it.
You can donate the two bits to FR.
Lawyer Grant asked, "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?"
Aside from the fact that he is quite probably in contempt of court for putting words in the judge's mouth, he's quite obviously asking (prospective!) jurors to judge the Constitutionality of the ordinance that his client admitted violating. One would assume he'd have tried to make the same argument in trial, had he been allowed to do so.
The problem is that jurors are not empowered by the state or US Constitution to make such a judgement. That power is granted to the state and Federal judiciaries, respectively.
The judge in this case is permitted to determine whether Constitutional arguments are germane to the case at hand, just as he is permitted to sustain or overrule objections, or rule on the admissibility of evidence.
In this case Constitutional arguments are not germane to whether Stanley violated an established criminal ordinance. In a criminal trial, established ordinances must be and are assumed to be Constitutional.
A criminal trial is not supposed to determine the Constitutionality of the law under which the charges were made. That sort of legal power lies in the hands of the appelate courts.
"Usurpation" occurs when a body undertakes to exercise a power that does not properly belong to it. By stupidly attempting to turn a criminal trial into a trial of the Constitutionality of the ordinance, they were asking the court to usurp the powers of the appelate courts.
To: Zon
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.
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.
Please try to be at least half way precise. I said judges and you carry that over to mean all people. I probably did say similar of you. It's not because you disagree with me that you are deficient in moral integrity and honesty -- you did that all on your own. Perhaps if you didn't post your thoughts you wouldn't be exposing those deficiencies.
Using this argument, a state or city so inclined could prohibit freedom of religion, freedom of speech, impose cruel and unusual punishments, etc etc. It's true that the Amendments in the Bill of Rights don't contain the phrase "the United States or any state" as do the more recently passed Amendments, but to put that forth as a serious argument is little more than sophistry and word games.
I can only be impartial as to whether or not a person is guilty or not guilty of violating a law, according to the facts, if I am not also judging the law at the same time. Judging the law is entirely separate from judging the facts.
At least you made it abundantly clear that you stand with the STATE and stand against the people.
Where did I say that? Your anarchist bent causes you to ASSUME that, but, as I said before, if I disagree with a law (and thus stand against the state), I will make that abundantly clear up front. It is not for me to take that prejudice into the jury box with me.
Not that this will matter to a statist like you but nonetheless, when a court process works towards seating a biased jury the court process has initiated force, so to speak. Thus, should a potential juror chose to lie about agreement with the law it is an act of defense on behalf of the defendant.
This is the most convoluted bunch of nonsense I've read all day. Lying as self-defense, in a courtroom? HAH!
If it's an agenda the agenda is to ensure that the defendant in fact does get an impartial jury.
You're not impartial if you think the law is unconstitutional.
I've enjoyed this dialogue with you, but we're just going over the same ground. We're not going to agree, but good luck at getting on a jury. I do everything I can to avoid jury service.
Your moral arrogance knows no bounds. Perhaps if you'd just ignore my posts, we'd both be happier.
What, the State is too big to be placed in the position of appellant?
Juries were given this power very specifically as a distribution of power and a check on both the Executive (the prosecutor) and the Legislature, based on considerations of Locke's consent theory. But if a jury is given the power to consent, and by consenting condemn a man, then the State must be prepared to abide contrariwise the withholding of that same Consent, for reasons best known to the People. Vox populi, vox Dei. Jury refusal to convict on the basis of unconstitutionality (as opposed to racist scalp-counting) is part of the phenomenon of non-consent and non-cooperation which is lumped together under the con law idiom of "materiality", which we might call practical effectiveness instead, which is actually part of the validation process by which laws, in a contractual society, obtain their reach and grasp. It is, so to speak, the acid test of a law. Madison referred to noncooperation and non-validation as "clogging", as a synonym for "conditioning" or "contingent requirement":
"The best informed apprehend some clog that will amount to a condition" (referring to what eventually became the Bill of Rights). (Letter from Jas. Madison to Edmund Randolph, July 16, 1788, in The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, As Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, Together with the Journal of the Federal Convention, Luther Martin's Letter, Yate's Minutes, Congressional Opinions, Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of '98-'99, and Other Illustrations of the Constitution, ed. J. Elliot 1861).
Therefore the jury is one of the four "consensual gates" available to the People in the original Constitution, reserved by them as a check on Government. (See Elaine Scarry, "War and the Social Contract: Nuclear Policy, Distribution, and the Right to Bear Arms", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, May 1991, p. 1276. (Cite is 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1257; on Lexis/Nexis, search "Scarry, Pennsylvania")
Thus the jury, like the voting public, gives what is called "perpetual consent" to the laws and their enforcement each time it renders a judgement. "Perpetual consent", which John Locke called "tacit consent", is a somewhat misleading term in that it actually means not "permanent" but rather "continuing" -- and it opens the possibility of nonconsent at any given moment. Therefore, the jury is empowered by a premeditated distribution of power (by the People, to themselves) to operate that one, transient gateway of perpetual consent, and if they want to consider the constitutionality of an ordinance, they may, expectations of the prosecutors and judges to the contrary absolutely notwithstanding.
Verdict: Reversible error, remand for new trial with prejudicial notice to the City for trying to stack the jury.
How say you?
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.