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. |
Is justice done when a person is convicted under an unjust law? The intent of our courts is to ensure that justice is done. Everyone in the court - the judge, jury, and attorneys - has the overriding concern that justice is done. Sadly, that idea is lost under mounds and mounds of laws, precedent, corrupt judges and prosecutors, lazy or crooked lawyers, and we the people can no longer find justice. The juror doesn't necessarily decide the constitutionality of a law, he decides among all other things he must consider whether the law being applied is just, whether it is right, and whether justice will be done in the particular situation before him.
This is illogical on its face, but you don't see it, which is not surprising.
If I disagree with a law, it is highly unlikely I would even be on the jury, as I would make certain the court was so informed.
The Constitution protects us from the abuse of our rights perpetrated by the Federal government. State Constitutions protect us from the abuse of our rights by state and local governments. If our rights are abused, and upon appeal our State Supreme Court rules incorrectly, we appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to look at our State laws and Constitution and to correct the State Supreme Court if they ruled incorrectly or did not afford us the rights guaranteed under our State Constitution.
In cases where agents of the Federal Government, or Federal Courts have denied us our rights, then we cite the U.S. Constitution when the case appears before the Supreme Court.
That is what was intended. Of course, that isn't how it is being applied today. And that is one of the core reasons our rights are so routinely being abused. We've morphed from the intended Federal system into a National system. That surely was not the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Obviously, I disagree. This is a pre-election year stunt which Stanley knew would come to trial about now.
It's red meat for you guys.
After reading the turgid rationales of the profiteers of human misery on this thread it's not hard to understand the bloodthirstiness of the Roman mobs during the Social Wars.
The betrayal of the sacrifices made by one's ancestors to produce a just polity angers the population as nothing else can. The obvious operation of the res publica to the private advantage of the 'establishment' is odious to the general public.
Once they see it that way. And they will.
Headsonpikes' fearless prediction: The obscure Constitutional reference to 'bills of attainder' will no longer be obscure when such bills are passed to exact revenge on the socialist statists who have corrupted America and her institutions.
Guess what? Ventura declined the challenge. Just like you did. So I guess I'll just have to wait to see you call Rick Stanley, "an idiot" to his face, macho-man!
Then we all shook our heads and wondered how close to the end of time we were...pretty scary if true: "you will not mention the consitution" - IN A COURTROOM FOR CHRIST SAKE?
On the contrary, it is your intention to agree with the defendant and to invert the "impartial jury" wording to mean that a juror MUST side with the defendant instead of the law.
Wrong. The juror must be informed that he has the option of judging the law -- jury nullification. That in no way implies that the juror must side with the defendant. The wording in the constitution means to protect the defendant from the seating of a biased jury in favor of the STATE.
The logical conclusion is that you think the constitutional meaning is that the STATE must be protected from an impartial jury being seated in the defendant's favor. But more so you imply the constitutional meaning is to protect the STATE from jurors ensuring above all else that honest/equal justice is upheld.
As I said in my previous post:
Who decides what is impartial? A Bible?...The Koran?...The Constitution?
Amendment VI of the Bill Of Rights uses the impartial jury wording to mean that juries will not be compelled to side with the STATE. For more than one-hundred years judges routinely upheld the Sixth Amendment as it was meant. Since 1893 judges have regarded that wording with contempt and have foisted biased jurries on defendants since.
Your intention is to agree with the STATE and judges and invert 180-degrees the 'impartial jury' wording to mean that it is wrong for a citizen/juror to side with the defendant instead of the law.
What will you invert next? That "the people" wording of Amendment II of the Bill Of Rights means the people as a whole/collective or just a STATE militia may keep and bear arms. And that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to an individual ...And does not mean individuals right to keep and bare arms may not be infringed but rather, that the States "right" or militia rights or or the people-collective rights cannot be infringed but the individual's right can be infringed.
Eminent domain. Asset forfeiture. Choose your poison.
Jury nullification is a bulwark against such abuse.
You can vote for the people who will impeach those judges and replace them with those more in line with your beliefs. If that's too much like work for your taste, I understand.
Were you not removed from jury service then I have to conclude you would find for the state provided the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had in fact violated Jim Crow.
What would you say to the other jurors in the deliberation room? Would you voice your objection to Jim Crow or keep your mouth shut and vote guilty?
Didn't Jesus warn the Pharisees about laying a heavy burden of laws on the people and being more concerned with appearances than righteousness ?---That could be applied to our lawmakers today.
This thread has certainly illustrated who believes in statism v. constitutional republicanism.
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.