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. |
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 just an amateur at this, and you know we're not supposed to try this at home, but I believe that the only time State matters are to be brought to the Supreme Court is for the Supreme Court to rule upon whether the existing laws were applied properly, due process was followed, and court procedures were proper. I mean, the Supreme Court does not rule upon whether a person is guilty but upon whether the State conducted the trial properly in which the person was found guilty. Right? Sometimes I have a hard time conveying my point - I hope you understand what I'm getting at here.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, as we're a Republic (Rule of Law). But that doesn't mean that everything in the Constitution applies to the states. The Constitution sets the terms and conditions for Congress to meet and be elected, but it doesn't set those terms and conditions for the State Legislatures, does it? If a State wanted a State Senator to only serve 4 years in the State Legislature, then would you say that the conditions in Article I for a 6-year term for Senators supersede the State's desires? No.
Certainly not during jury selection. Are you another dunce on this thread?
In fact, odds are you're posting from just such a facility.
Upon what do you base such an attack on Mr. Grant? Please be specific.
Raising issues irrelvant to the court proceeding. Juries make decisions of facts. They don't issue rulings of law.
You failed the class that taught the definition of 'specific', right... or do you just not know how to use a dictionary? Raising issues?? By gosh those issues, whatever they are sure does specify them -- NOT! And 'irrelevant', what was irrelevant? The issues were irrelevant is what you're saying. What issues and why do you call them irrelevant? You responded in general but tried to pass it off as being specific. Just like a politician not answering the question and weasel-wording around it.
You are the only person that I have read on this thread that seems to think Grant sought the jury to issue a ruling of law. So you base your attack in part on your own mind-spun fabrication. Not to worry, I've come to expect the worst from you.
Do you tell your kids you walked to school ten miles in the snow when you were young?
Sinkspur is a shart wit and more often than no, duels you two to the intellectual death.
I've long suspected that you just feigned the JBT image and were in reality just a young teenager whose parents are unaware of your keyboard antics.. Your above unintelligible sentence has me thinking that you not even that old but probably of elementary school age.
This is all true, however it is also the responsibility of SCOTUS to occasionally rule on whether state laws are in fact legal. Remember back two years ago when the state of Nebraska tried to pass a law banning certain types of partial birth abortion? The law was immediately brought to SCOTUS and struck down. We apparently have the inalienable right to kill babies at the moment of birth, but not to carry a gun.
LOL Even Paine understood my typo. That doesn't say much for your brain cells when he gets it and you dont. :)
typoS is more than one. You had more than one. See, you can't even do a competent edit after your errors have been pointed out to you. You are a hoot!
Not at all. I was arguing with someone who thinks he ought to be able to decide Constitutionality of a law along with the guilt or innocence of a defendant.
I don't agree with that position, which is why I told him to approach jury duty his way, I'll approach it in my way.
Yes, but these Supreme Court rulings are misapplication of the 14th Amendment. A state law can't be unconstitutional, to the U.S. Constitution, unless is violates specific language in the Constitution referring to the states. See also the 10th Amendment.
Yes, and wouldn't the denial of a defendant's Constitutional Right, and denial of arguments asserting those Rights bring into question whether or not the trial was conducted properly -- whether due process was followed? What more egregious act could a court emit than to deny a protected Right? What and whom is the U.S. Constitution protecting, then, if a state or city judge can do this?
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.