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. |
You say so, we don't know so. Show me how.
The Second Amendment was a restriction on Congressional powers.
There are two cases pending now, one of which is Emerson. I read the decision of the circuit course and a precis of the Circuit Court decision; it's a 2A case, and also a 5A or 14A case, depending on which due-process clause you're quoting. I'd say that is some support for his opinion that 2A is about to be incorporated, that SCOTUS can't put the matter off any longer. We also have the opinion recently articulated by the Solicitor General.
And the States cannot deny my rights, either, under 14A: that is demonstrated by the example of the USC section I quoted.
False. It involves federal, not state, law.
Not at all.
And how would forcing all state courts to submit to your ill-defined requirement for a jury nullification instruction make juries more "impartial?"
Are you seriously contending that you're that ignorant or incompetent or both? The answer is glaringly obvious. Answer: Jurors would judge the law, not just the facts because they were informed by the judge to judge both the facts and the law in that case. In other words, a juror could think that the defendant is guilty of breaking a law but that the law is bogus in this case and should not be upheld. A juror becomes more impartial when he or she is informed that their job also entails judging the law in that case. Cut of judging the facts or cut of judging the law and impartiality is lost.
Do you understand? Or should I hazard a well reasoned guess based on reading so many of your posts on various threads that you will continue to feign ignorance and/or incompetence.
So what? If the right is incorporated at the federal level, the States can't legislate it out of existence claiming separation of powers or States' rights. State and local laws will be in the sink, no matter what the Solicitor General says.
Non sequitur.
What does that have to do with impartiality?
I understand there is a new policy at FR, outlined here by JR:
If someone asks to be taken off your ping list (or otherwise asks you not to ping, bump or reply to him) then you should comply with his wishes. That would be common courtesy. If you continue pinging the person after he asked you not to, and the person reports it via an abuse report, then, yes, you will probably hear from us.
99 posted on 5/10/02 2:04 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
My question, roscoe. -- If a group of us asked that you cease your harrassing replies to us, in your 'style' mentioned above , would you comply?
And you've provided exactly zero evidence from any source, including Emerson, that such incorporation is being considered.
Okay, you say the States have the power to truncate my enumerated rights. Let's not even talk 9A for the moment.
Your turn: Cite a modern example, or a case, in which someone's rights under the Bill of Rights were breached by a state law, and the Supreme Court signed off on it.
Sourceless, citeless, reasonless.
Define "evidence" your way. Let's see if we are speaking the same language.
Congress will pay attention when they get hit with enough of these.
I don't disagree with anything you wrote. Keep in mind that the prisoners are guarding the cellblock and that all the guards have fled the area. Good luck getting the inmates (er, I mean congress) to act honestly or rationally. What form of attention they pay may be a worse "remedy". At least that is what their past-performance/track-record indicates.
They were written in Latin and translated into English. Evidently Latin is a more precise language for legal matters.
It is because it is a dead language and can't be as easily and intentionally misconstrued.
Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
Section 6. Equality of justice. Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.
Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
You all know that I firmly believe that that Constitution and the Bill of Rights only limits Congress and the rest of the Federal Government from infringing upon our rights and does not limite (except where specifically mentioned) the several states. Therefore, your State's Constitution must include limitations upon your state and local governments to ensure they do not infringe upon your rights.
That being said, I do believe that the above cited sections of the Colorado Constitution more than sufficiently make Stanley's affirmative defense for him. Denver's laws can NOT infringe upon the rights guaranteed to Stanley in the Colorado Constitution. Too bad Mr. Grant didn't obey the Judge's inappropriate gag order on the U.S. Constitution by offering an affirmative defense based upon the Colorado Constitution. But then again, he probably knew he was going to lose this one and that the Judge was setting up the perfect grounds for appeal by precluding the U.S. Constitution.
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.