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. |
You want me to explain why you misquoted the law? Curiouser and curiouser.
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.
Centralized government is not the intent of our Constitution.
With "...on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race..." removed.
Parsing misquotions.
-- 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.
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 ?? ?? ?? ??
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
Did Stanley's lawyer make any effort to establish either of the following two matters of fact:
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.
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.