rick stanley, me, billofrights, rick's wife, pam.
*this is a travesty of justice...a finer american and patriot, you'll never find than is rick stanley!!*
Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
Bump for later reading... gotta leave work now & go out for a beer with the missus.
Wrong again.
"The relevant historical materials have been canvassed by this Court and by legal scholars. These materials demonstrate conclusively that Congress and the members of the legislatures of the ratifying States did not contemplate that the Fourteenth Amendment was a short-hand incorporation of the first eight amendments making them applicable as explicit restrictions upon the States." -- U.S. Supreme Court BARTKUS v. ILLINOIS, 359 U.S. 121 (1959)
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.
--- Not at all. His intial hypothetical, -- IF -- , makes both your arguments obviously specious. - Sorry.
- He was One would assume he'd have tried to make the same argument in trial, had he been allowed to do so.
So what? Is making such an argument 'usurping the constitution?
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.
NOT true. See the quotes below from three USSC justices.
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.
-- Not true. He is preventing the defendant a legitimate defense. He can instruct the jury as to his opinion, but he cannot direct a verdict.
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.
Your assurtations are just theory, like your 'usurption' fantasy.
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.
-- Again, see below. -- Three Chief Justices disagree.
"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.
Yep, as suspected, even you can't maintain that the constitution is being 'usurped'. -- The 'powers' of the court are not either. - They must obey the constitution themselves, as Art. VI, paragraph 2 makes clear.
Thanks for your amusing efforts. They were worth the two bits, but that's about all.
The Justices quotes, thanks to the Oldfart:
"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
Cite an exception.
The Second Amendment has never been incorporated by the Supreme Court.
Gotta cite?
As I understand it, Stanley's purpose was to overturn the gun laws, so I do not understand his attorney's actions other than publicity oriented grandstanding.
I think they (the defendant and lawyer) wanted a guilty verdict so the case could be put up for appeal. As for the lawyer acting as he did, obviously with the consent of his client, was to document the unjust even undermining character of the law and courts that uphold it. IMO, job well done, so far. It's not just the law that is unjust, so are the people that passed the law and those that uphold the unjust law. And the spectators get to witness government officials championing unjust law over just law.
rick stanley, me, billofrights, rick's wife, pam.
*this is a travesty of justice...a finer american and patriot, you'll never find than is rick stanley!!*
Since nearly all the rest have, it's just a matter of time until the 2nd is. Stanley knew he would be convicted, and fully expects to appeal the case until SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd, either by his case or someone else's (before they get to his).
If other parts of the Bill Of Rights have been incorporated by SCOTUS, why won't the 2nd? Remember, there was a time when the others weren't, but now they are.
I think that all legal requirements should be based on high moral integrity, honesty and equal/honest justice being applied. Obviously you have some demented measure for what constitutes a just requirement. My measure is moral integrity, and honest ethics and principles. What's you're measure? ... A whim pulled out of thin air or political agenda?
Don't confuse your personal agenda with "moral integrity."
My personal "agenda", as YOU refer to it is as an agenda, is to support, encourage and advocate impartial juries and honest/equal justice. How about you answer the question: What's your measure?
Wrong.
How enlighteningly explanitory. The depth of your justification for your view is remarkably...shallow. Care to explain WHY? As I asked, others have - why won't the 2nd?
FELLOW AMERICANS, WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Dear Fellow (Fed-Up) American,
Below is a 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(1) Complaint for Judicial Misconduct against federal district court judge Robert J. Cindrich.
28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(1) permits any person (there is no standing requirement) to complain that a federal judge is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability. See In re Complaints of Judicial Misconduct, 9 F. 3d 1562, 1567 (U.S. Jud. Conf. 1993).
You don’t have to have "standing" nor must you pay a fee—just mail the requisite number of copies (read the instructions carefully) to the address indicated. These complaints are recorded by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, an agency monitored by Congress.
Each complaint is supposed to be given a docket number and supposed to become a permanent part of the judge’s personnel file. What usually happens, after the first few complaints are filed, is that the court clerk returns the other, identical complaints "unfiled" at the order of the Chief Judge of the Circuit, though such an action is a felony, removal of records, 18 U.S.C. § 2071.
If you don’t have the time, energy, or patience to fill out the form and copy five of them, just send a single copy to your Congressman and ask him to look into the matter.
Every federal judge in the United States goes to bed at night dreaming of singing with the Supremes in the Imperial City. No federal judge has a prayer of being nominated or appointed to the U. S. Supreme Court if he or she has a dossier containing hundreds of judicial misconduct complaints.
Ask five of your friends to do exactly what we’re doing, then ask each of those five to do the same thing in turn. In five levels we will have turned forty complaints into twenty-five thousand (25,000).
Congress will pay attention when they get hit with enough of these.
Congress never got more than 304 of these judicial misconduct complaints prior to 1997. The Chief Judge of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Joseph Hatchett, resigned after receiving 5,200 of these. This is known as the “mosquito bite theory” of judicial discipline. One bite is an annoyance, hundreds or thousands can be deadly.
Do not modify this progression by asking other people to do anything illegal, such as making threats, etc.
Read theResponse from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Fill out the form
Choose only one of the following to attach to your complaint form
Attachment to 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(1) Complaint
Attachment to 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(1) Complaint
Attachment to 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(1) Complaint
If you are unable to view the above files in PDF format, you may need to download a (free) copy of Acrobat Reader.
For more information, visit the HELP FOR PDF DOCUMENTS page.
If you prefer to download the files in PDF format, instead of viewing on-line, hold down the "Shift"
key as you click on the link above. You will need to have the Acrobat Reader in order to view the file.
This page was updated on June 13, 2001
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.