[LibertyRocks]

Please forward this information to everyone you know... Whether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Liberal, Conservative, Socialist... WHATEVER!

THIS is important for everyone in the country to know about. The newspapers in Colorado are NOT reporting on the real issues at stake in this trial. There was absolutely no testimony included in the article and as you read, the trial is not boring to say the least...

The media is not reporting about how the jury pool was so obviously fixed... I mean come on... 5 people out of 18 potential jurors work for the City - the Plaintiff?? AND we had a police officer??? In a city the size of Denver -- well over half a million people I find it hard to believe that the jury pool was a random sampling of the population!

Please support Rick through this trial. He is a true Patriot who loves his country. Read for yourself, visit the website: www.stanley2002.org

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

WOW BUMPS

[Standing Wolf]

Oh, yes, it is a constitutional issue!

[nonsporting]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (U.S. Constitution, Art. VI, Para 2.)

[L.N. Smithee]

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?

While the judge's instructions didn't have the ring of fairness, a county courtroom is not the place to decide the constitutionality of the anti-gun ordinance. What the heck is the purpose of this question, since the judge had already plainly said he was not going to give those instructions? Grant was yanking the judge's chain, and got exactly the response he was looking for -- and deserved. He's a showboat, and it seems Stanley is too.

This whole thing sounds like Stanley is trying to elevate his status within the LP rather than actually win a case or even start a movement. After all, what other LP candidate is getting this much ink in the mainstream press in Denver?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

LOL, the judge is between a rock and a hard place.  He throws out parts of the constitution because of "home rule", but asserts other parts of it.  I expect his rulings to be thrown out on appeal.  It would behoove the powers that be to also throw out the judge on appeal...

[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 ?? ?? ?? ??

[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.

[ZULU]

""... You are not to mention the Constitution during this proceeding...."

The NAZIs are here, and they're not from the right!!