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. |
Do you really want to know how the jury pool got fixed?
Answer: most people cannot afford to go on jury duty. Government employees continue to receive their salary while on the jury. So those working in the private sector plead "financial hardship," while the government employees don't get that excuse.
Jury pay needs to be tied to the juror's actual earnings in some fashion.
In case you hadn't noticed, our legal system did not spring from a vacuum in 1783.
And many times ignorant hayseeds from Penelope, Tx hold opinions that contain a lot more common sense than beltway prostitutes with a vested interest in amassing power.
Plenty of yellow dog, rank and file democrats with no high school education would do a better job in congress than even many of the republicans there.
These guys may be hysterical nuts, but they are hysterical nuts with a point worth real consideration.
I talked to Rick on the phone last night for about 45 minutes after the first day of the trial. He felt that he was able to get out, on direct examination by his attorney, most of what he wanted to say, in spite of the judge's orders. He acknowledeged that the judge was obviously trying to "railroad" him, but that it was so apparent, that people in the courtroom were appalled. He said that the looks on the faces of some jurors, spectators, journalists, and even police officers were ones of disbelief at the judges behavior. He thinks it may ultimately work to the judge's disadvantage. But he is a realist, and he also knows we are in a police state where the Constitution and Supreme Law of the Land are obstacles in the way of the State and its agents.
Nonethess, to quote from another, "...Thank you Rick Stanley, for sacrificing yourself to show us the awful Truth about this country!..." Rick is the most courageous person I know or have ever been around. I support him 100% and plan to follow his lead, wherever that takes me.
Not curiously, intentionally.
And you have demonstrated, in your repost of your remarks, why I avoided it.
It's bait, for an argument.
No sale.
One other purpose of a jury is to judge the merits of the law.
Ad quaestiones facti non respondent judices; ad quaestiones legis non respondent juratores.
The judges do not answer to questions of fact; the jury do not answer to questions of law.
De jure judices, de facto juratores, respondent.
The judges answer to the law, the jury to the facts.
I know. But jury nullification is still a real thing. Juries can aquit in spite of the instruction the judge gives them, and, if enough juries aquit, the law is de facto nullified. 
www.stanley2002.org
You can also visit this site to sign his "Million Gun March" Petition.
Take that attitude into a jury pool, and you'll never get to exercise it, unless you're OJ Simpson's jury.
I would wager that most libertarians who manage to get on a jury and start debating the "merits of the law," end up causing the case to go to mistrial.
You are absolutely correct about this -- and thank God for it! However, many (if not all) jurors may not know this, since the judge will not inform them of this option during his instructions. It's a rigged game where the State has all the advantages, save for hopefully an "enlightened" jury.
If it's a truly unconstitutional law, it needs to be thrown out by the appellate courts--i.e., the folks who DO decide the law--and an acquittal cannot be appealed.
The judge was exercising his prerogative under admiralty law. The question should be, why is this case being prosectuted in an admiralty court instead of a common court?
\ I wonder what the compromise was? Sounds like the courtroom was cleared as the judge wanted.
It happens, every time.
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.