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. |
Correction: when they use arms.
Essentially what Adams is saying is that citizens should only use arms [against other people] for self-defense, or as directed by the government; they are not to act as non-governmental vigilantes. For citizens to use their arms in vigilante actions would be to undermine even a fully-legitimate government.
To be sure, John Adams fails to recognize what should have been additional non-governmental uses for weapons (e.g. hunting, practice). He also fails to recognize that use of arms against lawless government personnel may need to extend beyond individual self-defense (e.g. Battle of Athens, ca 1946 or so). Even he, however, did not come anywhere near implying that citizens shouldn't possess arms or be able to use them in their own defense.
I wouldn't want a libertarian on a jury to decide a traffic ticket. Fortunately they are statistically insignificant, based on election returns. But they're as much an enemy of the state and our country as any ACLU type.
"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)
After the undeserved bashing you gave me over the whole Christine thing, I never thought we would be in agreement on anything. I'm with you on this one. The Constitution is clearly a limitation upon Federal activities except where it explicitly mentions the states. The unfortunate and incongruous 14th Amendment and its continuing misapplication has changed that though.
Even so, the Colorado Constitution recognizes and guarantees the right to keep and bear arms - the Denver ordinance can't supersede that.
Stanley had the right, both before and after the U.S. Constitution and the Colorado Constitution, to carry his weapon anywhere he damn well pleased too. Inalienable is inalienable - the City of Denver be damned.
Eschoir was more than a bit paranoid also. -- Hard to hide basic disorders, isn't it?
Correction accepted.
The judge ordered him not to. The whole point of asking a prospective juror a hypothetical question about the state & federal constitutions was to get that prohibition repeatedly documented. He may not have literally established those two facts, but he did make it clear that he was absolutely forbidden to do so, a point which an appellate judge should shred this judge on.
Not off hand. Just got back from a paintball session and I can hardly type straight, much less find obscure legal references. I'm sure someone else has it handy; Roscoe probably knows, even if he can't comprehend it.
Who am I to argue with your experience? :)
Maybe. I've heard it argued that Denver has greater latitude to pass restrictions as a "home rule city", but I don't have enough information to make a decision on that point.
Rick deliberately chose to wrap himself in the mantle of the Second Amendment when he went down to defeat. I believe he knew he was chalking up another court loss for us when he went in, but that he really didn't care.
Shame on him, shame on his "lawyer."
More so.
No, he was just looking for a little cheap publicity.
Guilty as charged.
Basic federalism.
No, he was just looking for a little cheap publicity.
Guilty as charged.
Your opinion here is worthless, roscoe, as you are an avowed foe of the 2nd amendment RKBA. -- In your demented eyes, he is guilty of defying your beloved all powerful state. - Bizarro.
In theory. But the reality is they're so stoned or medicated, they would never be trusted in any position of power.
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.