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. |
Pretty poor thinking.
He can and he did. The productive work of others to establish protective state legislation is now tarnished because a baffoon wanted a cheap headline.
HCI should love Stanley.
If you don't have any Supreme Court decisions to support your position,
how about something from the Fourteenth Amendment's authors?
# 497 by Roscoe
******************
I have neither, Roscoe.
However, the 14th Amendment is plainly written.
"...No State shall make or enforce any law..."
is just as easy for me to understand as the
"...shall not infringe..." part of the 2nd Amendment.
"Indeed, since, by the unvarying decisions of this court, the first ten Amendments of the Federal Constitution are restrictive only of national action, there was nowhere else to look up to the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, and the state, at least until then, might give, modify, or withhold the privilege at its will. The 14th Amendment withdrew from the states powers theretofore enjoyed by them to an extent not yet fully ascertained, or rather, to speak more accurately, limited those powers and restrained their exercise. There is no doubt of the duty of this court to enforce the limitations and restraints whenever they exist, and there has been no hesitation in the performance of the duty. But, whenever a new limitation or restriction is declared, it is a matter of grave import, since, to that extent, it diminishes the authority of the state, so necessary to the perpetuity of our dual form of government, and changes its relation to its people and to the Union." -- TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)
******************
The law has no bearing on the right of self-defence.
******************
It was passive resistence, Roscoe.
Stanley is not a buffoon, he is a courageous man.
Rosa Parks, Gandi, and many others would agree.
You think that they were they kind of blowhards who would challenge Jesse Ventura to a fistfight? Or call for Senator Allard to be hung for treason?
"...the first ten Amendments of the Federal Constitution are restrictive only of national action..."
"...The 14th Amendment withdrew from the states powers theretofore enjoyed by them to an extent not yet fully ascertained, or rather, to speak more accurately, limited those powers and restrained their exercise..."
"..whenever a new limitation or restriction is declared, it is a matter of grave import, since, to that extent, it diminishes the authority of the state..."
-- TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)
******************
Here's what I get from that decision, Roscoe.
State governments are allowed to deny trial by jury, to deny self-defence, to deny free speech, to deny religious freedom, and to deny protest of any kind.
Any State may use torture on it's citizens? Any State can arrest people without cause?
I believe that decision to be flawed.
******************
He's a politician, Roscoe.
He wants to be noticed.
I'm sure he knows that a vote isn't grounds for treason.
I guarantee you he doesn't want to go against Ventura.
No, you don't get it all.
I think you're right.
******************
"...the first ten Amendments of the Federal Constitution
are restrictive only of national action..."
Please tell me what that means to you.
"After declaring that state and national citizenship co-exist in the same person, the Fourteenth Amendment forbids a state from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. As a matter of words, this leaves a state free to abridge, within the limits of the due process clause, the privileges and immunities flowing from state citizenship. This reading of the Federal Constitution has heretofore found favor with the majority of this Court as a natural and logical interpretation. It accords with the constitutional doctrine of federalism by leaving to the states the responsibility of dealing with the privileges and immunities of their citizens except those inherent in national citizenship. It is the construction placed upon the amendment by justices whose own experience had given them contemporaneous knowledge of the purposes that led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. This construction has become embedded in our federal system as a functioning element in preserving the balance between national and state power." -- United States Supreme Court, ADAMSON V. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA , 332 U.S. 46 (1947)
******************
I see what you're saying, Roscoe. I admire your scholarship, but I believe that I have just as strong a duty to interpret both the law and the Constitution as the Courts do.
My privilege as a citizen is to participate in my government. As a voter, I have a say in who will represent me. As a juror, I decide what the Constitution means, I decide what the laws mean, and I decide if a law is even fit to be enforced.
My authority as citizen is higher than the Court's authority as representatives of my government.
While the judge's instructions didn't have the ring of fairness, a county courtroom is not the place to decide the constitutionality of the anti-gun ordinance. What the heck is the purpose of this question, since the judge had already plainly said he was not going to give those instructions? Grant was yanking the judge's chain, and got exactly the response he was looking for -- and deserved. He's a showboat, and it seems Stanley is too.
This whole thing sounds like Stanley is trying to elevate his status within the LP rather than actually win a case or even start a movement. After all, what other LP candidate is getting this much ink in the mainstream press in Denver?
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.