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
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. |
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.