Denver Judge Axes the Constitution - Update of Rick Stanley's 2A/Civil Disobedience Trial

The Stanley for U.S. Senate 2002 Colorado Campaign - News Release ^ | May 15, 2002 | Stanley for U.S. Senate 2002 - Colorado

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

But you are thinking in terms of today's Physics.  What if, for example, you were able to temporarily remove one of the three known spatial dimensions?  In that case, time would cease (or at least be reduced to a mimimum) to be a factor in space travel.

[Roscoe]

Come on Roscoe, show the whole context and why it was misquoted

You want me to explain why you misquoted the law? Curiouser and curiouser.

[Roscoe]

Make that ctdonath2, not Zon, deliberately misquoted.

[Roscoe]

Cutting through all the quoting this and citing that

No facts, no law, no quotes, no sources, no cites.

Stanley's apologists haven't yet come up with so much as a crumb to justify his behavior and the loss in court that resulted from it.

[Roscoe]

...all governments are (supposed to be) chained by the first law, the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.

Centralized government is not the intent of our Constitution.

[Roscoe]

--- No, that was a direct quote from the law

With "...on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race..." removed.

Parsing misquotions.

[tpaine]

Come on Roscoe, show the whole context and why it was 'misquoted'

-- You want me to explain why you misquoted the law? Curiouser and curiouser. 583
-- Make that ctdonath2, not Zon, deliberately misquoted. 584
-- Stanley's apologists haven't yet come up with so much as a crumb to justify his behavior and the loss in court that resulted from it. 585 po

Poor, silly roscoe, so confused that he's mixed up on who he deliberately accused of 'misquoting', and completely unaware that no one here is apologizing for Stanleys behavior, they are applauding his courageous stance on constitutional law.

[Roscoe]

Try looking up the word "apologist" in the dictionary.

[Alabama_Wild_Man]

Let me guess - -- - this Sitting Bull . . err . . . Judge was given that chair during the Klintoon Administration . . . correct ??

Can anyone explain to this dumm ol' Country Boy how a Judge, is this Nation, has the power to disallow the mention, if not the use, of the United States' Constitution ?? ?? ?? ??

[Roscoe]

Because it had no relevance to the particular criminal act Mr. Stanley committed.

[tpaine]

wacko: ...all governments are (supposed to be) chained by the first law, the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.

Centralized government is not the intent of our Constitution.

The supremacy clause is not intended to 'centralize government', and does not. ALL types of government, - fed, state, local, - is subject to the constitutions restraints on violations of individual liberty.

[Roscoe]

The supremacy clause is not intended to 'centralize government', and does not. ALL types of government, - fed, state, local, - is subject to the constitutions restraints on violations of individual liberty.

And the Second Amendment is a restraint on the federal government.

"The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." -- US Supreme Court, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

[tpaine]

'Parsing' nothing.

This section of USC clearly shows that the rights of United States citizens are protected by the the laws of the United States, not by the laws and governments of the several States as per Cruikshank.

[tpaine]

Pedantic.

[tpaine]

He was defying an unconstitutional law, - unconstitutional on both state & federal grounds. His defense was to be based on that fact.

[tpaine]

Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

This section of USC clearly shows that the rights of United States citizens are protected by the the laws of the United States, not by the laws and governments of the several States as per Cruikshank.

That exceptional enough for you, Roscoe?

297 posted on 5/16/02 2:27 PM Pacific by lentulusgracchus

[tpaine]

Centralized government is not the intent of our Constitution.

The supremacy clause is not intended to 'centralize government', and does not. ALL types of government, - fed, state, local, - are subject to the constitutions restraints on violations of individual liberty.
-- And your silly delusions about the 2nd amendment will not change this fact.

[BluesDuke]

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.

And I thought California judges were two avocados short of guacamole! This jurist - and I use the term loosely (liberally?) - ought to be removed from office by whatever means is granted in the circumstances, on the grounds among others that he has explicitly abrogated the very oath of office to which the Constitution zat ve vill not dishckuss binds him. The courts of this country ought never to make room for those to whom the Supreme Law of The Land is unwelcome.

[supercat]

Remember: Stanely KNEW he would be convicted, and needed to gather certain evidence that the court was acting with gross negligence and arrogance, so he would be prepared for appeals.

Did Stanley's lawyer make any effort to establish either of the following two matters of fact:

• He carried the pistol for self-defense.
• His pistol was of a type suitable for use in a well-functioning militia.

Court precedent would require establishing the former for a challenge under the Colorado Constitution and the latter for a challenge under the U.S. Constitution. Note that it doesn't matter whether he was actually allowed to present evidence in support of the above facts, but unless he tried to establish one or both his goose is cooked.

An appeal following conviction requires a demonstration not only that the trial court procedures were improper, but also that such impropriety may have changed the outcome of the case. Since Court precedent requires establishing one of the above facts in order to raise a constitutional defense, if he didn't try to do so he could not have successfully raised such a defense even had the judge not interfered.

Please note that in most cases neither of the above matters of fact should be difficult to demonstrate. The former, alas, is severely compromised by Stanley's deliberate actions in getting arrested; he carried the pistol not to defend himself, but rather to get himself arrested. His manner at that time may cost him dearly.

Still, if he made any effort to raise the above-mentioned facts he should have reasonable chances on appeal; if he attempted to assert both facts and was blocked on both, he would have grounds for appeal in federal as well as state court. Otherwise, his options may be limitted.

BTW, one argument for appeal in federal court might be found in the USC provision that all states are to provide their citizens with a republican form of government. One could argue that a republican form of government requires the state's constitution to be binding on all political entities within the state except with regard to issues where it explicitly is not. If the politicians in Denver can render Colorado's constitution irrelevant within their domain, Colorado is not providing people in Denver with a republican form of government as the U.S. Constitution demands that they must.