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. |
And you call Rick Stanley an idiot! Only because you are safe behind your keyboard. Rick Stanley has more courage in the bunion of his big toe than you have in your entire body, pal.
I have NEVER called anyone a name on this website that I was not willing and prepared to tell him to his face, if the invitation were extended. I say you are nothing but words and no action. A name-caller who hides behind his computer screen. Nothing more!
297 posted by lentulusgracchus
Begging the question and completely off point. Wanna try again? - roscoe
Roscoe, reduced to pointless begging.
Well done, Lentulusgracchus! - HAIL!
Are you implying that the Second Amendment was NOT a restriction on government -- that the Executive and Judicial branches could violate "the Peoples" 2nd Amendment Right? Is that what you are saying?
I can't cite the cases off the top of my head, but I remember from law school that the Supreme Court has only "selectively incorporated" the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment. Most of the BOR has been applied to the states, but the right to indictment by a grand jury (5th Amendment) has been held not to apply to the states, nor does the 7th amendment (right to jury trial in civil cases).
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.
Non sequitur.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of non sequitur. What I wrote does follow logically. A non sequitur is a statement that doesn't follow logically.
What does that have to do with impartiality?
I already told you in the post you responded to. See for yourself and especially the part in bold...
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.
I didn't write what I posted (#279). It was a "cut and paste" deal.
If that is what he is implying, it is ludicrous. Why would our Founding Fathers restrict the powers of one Branch of government, while giving Carte Blanche to the other 2 Branches to violate our Rights? That is looney on its face!
And who gives a crap what the opinion is of some appointed Supreme Court Justice -- an AGENT OF THE STATE. We can read the words of the Second Amendment ("...shall not infringe..."). If Roscoe needs a demented old fart on the Supreme Court to tell him what that means, then no wonder he gets most of his stuff wrong.
The 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights was a restriction on government - but on the Federal government only. That's why the 1st Amendment says specifically "Congress shall make no law..." and that's why official State religions existed AFTER the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. It's all part of the original plan of sovereign states and competition between the states. If your state is infringing upon your right to keep and bear arms, you wouldn't go to the Federal Government for help (as if they would help - and it isn't their jurisdiction anyway) you would either change the laws in your state, move to a different state, or overthrow the tyrannical government in your state. Unfortunately, the 14th Amendment and its misguided application has thwarted the whole original intent of our Federal form of government.
I agree with Paul Grant's defense except that I feel he should have made that defense based upon the Colorado Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. I highly respect Grant and Stanley and you - we just disagree on this one point.
Side note: Paul Grant will be defending my Brother-in-law in the near future in what may prove to be another high-profile event in the Denver area. Stay tuned.
I believe that the Founding Fathers listed the Bill of Rights as those that no state nor the federal government could infringe upon. That's why state cases get appealed to the highest court in the land -- the Supreme Court -- the entity that rules on the Supreme Law of the Land. If I'm wrong, I'm willing to listen.
I'm all ears if you want to freepmail me!
Some parts of the Constitution explicitly limit what States can do. (For example, Article I, section 10, says that no state may pass a bill of attainder or ex post facto law). In a decision in 1830, the Supreme Court court said that the Bill of Rights limited the federal government, but not the states. Later cases applied that explicitly to the 2nd Amendment. Then the 14th amendment came along, and said that states could not violate the "privileges and immunities" of their own citizens. Since the 1920s, the Supreme Court, in a long series of cases, has held that the 14th amendment requires states to comply with most, but not quite all, of the Bill of Rights. There has been no case in the Supreme Court since those decisions which has explicitly answered that question as to the 2nd Amendment.
This lawyer is not unlike you. Raising unrelated and irrelvant issues and basically making an ass out of himself. You both belong in the criminal justice system.
Raising issues irrelvant to the court proceeding. Juries make decisions of facts. They don't issue rulings of law.
Sinkspur is a shart wit and more often than no, duels you two to the intellectual death. But like brain dead vampires, you mindless, vapid pair both seem to rise again from the dead.
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.