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. |
Have you ever noticed how fond you are of making inflammatory and melodramatic statements?
Who was trying to tamper with the jury? I believe it was a six person jury, 5 of which were women (more likely to be anti-gun) and 5 state workers (conflict of interest).
Sometimes you are so incredible I have to wonder if you believe what you're saying or if you're just simply marching to orders.
Fascinating.
If you had read the article, you would know I was refering to the jurors who worked for the city and county.
You do not have a problem with this?
Have you ever noticed how fond I am of the truth.
Having lived in Colorado,I can assure you that there are a LOT of very good conservative people who live there. Unfortunately,few of them live in Denver. The problem is all the lefties moving in from California,Washington,and Oregon.
There are a LOT of very good conservative people who live in Oregon as well! I guess they're just the ones not moving to Colorado!
I have nothing to corroborate what the judge said or the context in which he said it, other than this posting from a libertarian web site.
If the defense attorney (as I suspect) was going to make his case, not on whether his client violated the ordinance, but on the US Constitution, then I can see where the judge might have said what he said. This was a city court, it was a city case.
The attorney was grandstanding, and the judge was not going to allow him to turn the court room into a circus.
And that's not being the thread police; it's something your mother should have taught you, but obviously didn't.
Against infringement predicated on race, color or immigration status.
Rick was convicted because of his criminal behavior.
Hello! Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment?
Sorry, I thought it was so obvious and well-known that even you would have deduced it without me having to quote it every other post.
The citizens of Colorado haven't been disarmed.
They can't carry arms, right? That's what Stanley got convicted of doing, right?
Not allowed to carry arms = disarmed. Or is there some strange definition of "disarmed" which I am not aware of?
Someone should point that out to Mr. Stanley, the convicted criminal who knowingly and deliberately acted in defiance of lawful regulation.
If a city law contradicts/defies a state or federal constitutional law, is it valid? can/should someone be convicted of violating an unconstitutional (state or federal) law?
The Second Amendment is a declaratory restriction of a limit to federal power.
If a city law contradicts/defies a state or federal constitutional law
It doesn't contradict/defy the Second Amendment.
Haven't you got even one source?
Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, (such as Denver's law prohibiting open carry of firearms) ... willfully subjects any person in any State ... to the deprivation of any rights ... protected by the Constitution (including the 2nd Amendment) ... of the United States ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both ... .
That's the law, Roscoe. NOBODY in ANY jurisdiction may limit the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms; any law to the contrary is null and void, and whoever enforces such a law is himself a criminal.
No, that was a deliberate misquotation of the law.
I can think of very few - Coloradan,Real Saxophonist,Mile Hi,M1991...I'm off the list because I just moved away from Colorado and my brains were lacking in the first place...when I see crap like this, it makes me really glad I moved...
No, in fact I can say I've never seen that demonstrated.
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.