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. |
Eh, what?
The 1st Amendment was incorporated to the states by SCOTUS.
The 3rd Amendment has not been incorporated because it hasn't been an issue.
The 4th Amendment was incorporated to the states by SCOTUS.
The 5th Amendment was incorporated to the states by SCOTUS.
The 6th Amendment was incorporated to the states by SCOTUS.
The 7th Amendment was incorporated to the states by SCOTUS.
The 8th Amendment was incorporated to the states by SCOTUS.
Now, kindly explain why the 2nd Amendment will/can not be incorporated to the states by SCOTUS?
Uh, when? For that matter, when did it get incorporated against the IRS?
I see four issues in this case, two dealing with factual matters being shown in bold.:
> Hi! This is David Bryant again, with a detailed description of what
> happened in Denver county courtroom 151P this morning, Thursday, May 16.
>
_____________________________________________________________________
> > Rick's trial re-commenced in Denver county court this morning.
> Judge Robert L. Patterson entered the courtroom at 8:20 am,
> and proceeded to discuss jury instructions with the attornies.
>
> Patterson proposed two forms of a general verdict (guilty,
> and not guilty, the standard forms) and 11 separate jury
> instructions (from the Colorado rules of criminal procedure).
> Paul Grant proposed four additional jury instructions for
> the defense. The city attorney objected to all of Paul's
> proposals.
>
> The city attorney stated that the standard jury instructions
> were good enough for him. Paul Grant proceeded to criticize
> several aspects of the standard jury instructions. The word
> "crime" is inaccurate, and should be modified to say
> "offense." In law, a violation of a municipal ordinance is
> not a crime -- it is an offense. The language used in the
> jury instructions should be accurate.
>
> Paul Grant next objected to several of the standard jury
> instructions which tell the members of the jury that they
> "will" do something, or that they "shall" do something, or
> that they "must" do something. He pointed out that in a
> trial by jury, the jury has the last word, and that each
> juror's decision must be given freely, without coercion.
> For the court to tell them that they "must" follow the
> law as the judge explains it to them is to deny the
> defendant's right to be tried by a jury.
>
> Patterson interjected at this point, and began to lecture
> Paul on various points of case law. Paul held his ground
> pretty well, citing precedents to support points of view
> antagonistic to the viewpoint Patterson was adopting. The
> judge grew more bombastic ... he was clearly asserting
> his position as the "controlling legal authority" in the
> courtroom.
>
> Paul next presented arguments to support his additional
> jury instructions. One of these was an alternative to the
> standard instruction on the elements of an offense, the
> nature of reasonable doubt, and the meaning of "culpable
> mental state" (aka "mens rea"). The second one dealt with
> the fact that Rick's act of civil disobedience was a form
> of political speech, and that the jury should not convict
> him just because they don't agree with his point of
> view.
>
> Paul then presented two affirmative defenses to the court,
> in the form of jury instructions. First, this was an act
> of political speech, and the First Amendment prevents
> the government from punishing Rick for speech. Second,
> the Second Amendment and the constitution of Colorado,
> Article II, Section 13, both protect Rick's right to
> keep and bear arms. On this latter point Mr. Grant argued
> forcefully, citing a precedent (People vs. Ford) which
> is controlling in this case.
>
> To Paul's argument about People vs. Ford, Patterson replied
> that precedents of the Colorado Supreme Court, and indeed
> the constitution of Colorado, are not applicable within
> the city and county of Denver, because it is a home rule
> city. Patterson then proceeded to reject all of Paul Grant's
> motions, and declared the court to be in recess while the
> bailiff went to get the jury.
>
> The jury showed up about 9:00. Closing arguments were
> brief. The city attorney recited the facts of the case
> and called on the jury to convict Rick because Rick had
> no real _need_ to defend himself that day in the park.
>
> Paul Grant reminded the jury of their important role in
> our system of justice. He spoke briefly of the history
> of trial by jury. He told them they are the defenders
> of liberty. He laid particular emphasis on the fact that
> the city did not meet their burden of proof on the issue
> of a culpable mental state. Rick was not there with any
> criminal intent. Rick was there to assert his rights,
> and to defend the rights of all the citizens of Colorado.
>
> The jury retired to deliberate about 9:20 am. During the
> recess, I asked the city attorney to clarify what Judge
> Patterson had said about the inapplicability of Supreme
> Court precedent and the Colorado constitution when he
> ignored Paul's argument based on a state Supreme Court
> decision.
>
> "As I understand it, Judge Patterson just said that
> because I live in Denver, the Bill of Rights and the
> constitution of Colorado, Article II, do not protect
> any of my rights from the government of Denver." I
> said. "Is that your understanding, also? Is the city
> government free to deny all the rights secured to me
> by the Constitution of the U.S., and the constitution
> of Colorado, so long as they only do it here, in Denver?"
>
> "Yes," he said. "The Constitution has no force or effect
> in Denver, because this is a home rule city."
>
> I told him, politely, that this is an absolute abomination.
> I am a taxpayer. I pay you thousands of dollars every year
> to protect my rights. And there you are, telling me that
> I have no rights at all. I am outraged.
>
> I will do everything I can to change that, I said. I will
> take this issue (about "home rule") directly to the voters
> of Denver. I will get your position reversed, by the people.
>
> Fine, he replied. When the law is changed, I will enforce
> the new law, as written. But as things stand right now,
> the Constitution has no force or effect in this city. And
> it's been that way since 1906.
>
> The jury finally came back in at 10:20 am. They had been
> gone about an hour. Their verdict -- guilty -- was read.
> Paul Grant asked the court to poll the half-jury. Each
> one of the six declared Rick guilty. The judge thanked
> them for their service, read them the final standard
> instruction about discussing the case with others, if
> they want to, and dismissed them.
>
> Paul Grant moved for immediate sentencing. Patterson denied
> that motion. After some deliberation, sentencing was set
> for the 25th of July, and court was adjourned.
>
> So that's where Rick's case stands now. He has been
> convicted of the offense of unlawfully carrying a deadly
> weapon, and he's free on bail until the court imposes
> a sentence on July 25th.
"Constitution doesn't apply", my ass.
"...We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights..."
But this dictator judge just nullified that clause, our entire Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, and our unalienable rights. Oh, but no problem -- Bush is president. Everything is okay!
I have always told my wife that I don't want to travel to a foreign country because we would have no Constitutional Rights. I didn't realize that we had lost ALL of them in this country. I'll bet my right ass that this would be the verdict in many, many jurisdictions across this Police State we call the United States of America. They're united alright -- in tyranny!
I agree with you that the rights outlined in the BOR (and many not enumerated) pre-existed before the U.S. Constitution - and before the State Constitutions. However, I disagree that the U.S. Constitution states that it is the Federal Government's job to monitor, limit, and restrict the State Governments to ensure they are not violating anyone's rights. The U.S. Constitution just plain doesn't give them that roll and, furthermore, it would lead to the problems we are having today wherein the states have lost all sovereignty.
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.