Posted on 05/16/2002 6:40:18 PM PDT by LibertyRocks
Stanley Guilty
City Attorney: Constitution of U.S. and Colorado null in void in Denver since 1906
News Release - May 16, 2002
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 16, 2002 NEWS RELEASE Stanley for U.S. Senate 2002 =========================================================== Stanley Found Guilty [Denver - 3:00 pm] This morning in a Denver Courtroom, Libertarian U.S. Senate hopeful Rick Stanley was found guilty of unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon, in violation of Denver Municipal Ordinance 38-117.5(b). The charge 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. The court re-convened this morning, with Judge Robert L. Patterson entering at 8:20am. Discussion of jury instructions was commenced and Patterson proposed two forms of general verdict (guilty, and not guilty -- the standard forms), and 11 separate jury instructions taken from the Colorado rules of criminal procedure. Attorney for the defense, Paul Grant, proposed four additional jury instructions. The city attorney objected to all of Grant's proposals. The city attorney stated the standard jury instructions were good enough for him, but Grant proceeded to criticize several aspects of the instructions. He stated that the word "crime" is inaccurate and should be modified to say "offense." In law, a violation of a municipal ordinance is not a crime -- it is an offense. The language used in the jury instructions should be accurate, Grant charged. Grant next objected to the instructions which tell members of the jury that they "will" do something, or that they "shall" do something, or that they "must" do something. Grant pointed out that in a trial by jury, the jury has the last word, and that each juror's decision must be given freely, without coercion. For the court to tell someone that they "must" follow the law as the judge explains it is equal to denying the defendant's right to be tried by a jury. Patterson interjected at this point, and began to lecture Grant on various points of case law. Grant countered the judge's comments citing precedents to support point of views antagonistic to the viewpoint Patterson was adopting. At this point, according to a courtroom observer, David Bryant, "The judge grew more bombastic...he was clearly asserting his position as the "controlling legal authority" in the courtroom. Grant next presented arguments to support his additional jury instructions. One of these was an alternative to the standard instruction on the elements of an offense, the nature of reasonable doubt, and the meaning of "culpable mental state" (aka "mens rea"). The second argument dealt with the fact that Rick's act of civil disobedience was a form of political speech, and that the jury should not convict him just because they don't agree with his point of view. Grant then presented two affirmative defenses to the court in the form of jury instructions. First, that Rick's actions were an form of political speech, and the First Amendment prevents the government from punishing Rick for speech. Secondly, Grant argued, the Second Amendment and the Constitution of Colorado Article II, Section 13, both protect Rick's right to keep and bear arms. On this latter point Mr. Grant argued forcefully, citing a precedent (People vs. Ford) which is controlling in this case. In response to Grant's argument about People vs. Ford, Judge Patterson replied that precedents of the Colorado Supreme Court, and indeed the constitution of Colorado, are not applicable within the city and county of Denver, because it is a home rule city. Patterson then proceeded to reject all of Grant's motions, and declared the court to be in recess while the bailiff went to get the jury. The jury showed up in court at approximately 9:00 AM. Closing arguments were brief. The city attorney recited the facts of the case and called on the jury to convict Rick because Rick had no real need to defend himself that day in the park. Grant reminded the jury of their important role in our system of justice. He spoke briefly about the history of trial by jury, calling the jurors "defenders of liberty". Grant laid particular emphasis on the fact that the city did not meet their burden of proof on the issue of a culpable mental state, as Stanley was not present that day in the park with criminal intent. Grant stated that Stanley was there to, "assert his rights, and to defend the rights of all citizens of Colorado." The jury retired to deliberate about 9:20 AM. At this point, David Bryant, who is the current Public Information Director for the Libertarian Pary of Colorado, approached the city attorney to clarify his understanding of Judge Patterson's remarks when he ignored Grant's argument based on a state Supreme Court ruling. "As I understand it," stated Bryant, "Judge Patterson just said that because I live in Denver, the Bill of Rights, and the constitution of Colorado, Article II, do not protect any of my rights from the government of Denver. Is that your understanding, also?" Bryant asked. "Is the city government free to deny all the rights secured to me by the Constitution of the United States, and the constitution of Colorado, so long as they only do it here, in Denver?" Bryant questioned further. "Yes," said the city's attorney. "The Constitution has no force or effect in Denver, because this is a home rule city." Bryant then told him, politely, that that was an absolute abomination. He stated he pays taxes, to pay thousands of dollars each year so that this lawyer could protect his rights. "And there you are telling me I have no rights at all? I am outraged." Bryant then stated to the attorney that he would do everything in his power to alert the citizens of Denver to this travesty and he would take this issue directly to the voters. The attorney replied that that's fine with him, but until the law is changed he will enforce it as written. He stated that as things stood right now, the Constitution has no force or effect in this city, and it's been that way since 1906. The jury finally came back after deliberating for approximately one hour. Their verdict -- guilty -- was read to the court. Grant at that point requested that the jury be polled and each one of the 6 declared him guilty. At that point the judge thanked them for their service, read them the final standard instruction stating that they could discuss this case with others, if they want to. The jury was then dismissed. Grant moved for an immediate sentencing. Patterson denied that motion. After some delibertation, the sentencing hearing was set for July 25, 2002. The court was then adjourned. As of the writing of this report, Rick Stanley, Libertarian U.S. Senate hopeful has been convicted of the offense of unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon, and is free on bail until the court imposes a sentence on July 25th. 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 Press clippings of coverage in the mass media can be found online at: 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. |
Ping me if I miss it here. You can agree or not with Ricks politics, but this is over the top. I am calling Carlie Brennan tomorrow. He wrote the piece in the Rocky and swerved around this whole "home rule" issue. He needs to correct that.
Maybe I'll see you in court, eh?
Bootlickers like yourself probably think that the Lexington Minutemen were seeking "15 minutes of fame".
Stanley is standing up to tyranny just like our Founding Fathers did.
Could it be? - Is he back? Can you say it isn't so VA?
Well now hang on a minute. There's a bright side to this. If Denver seceded in 1906 and the Constitution doesn't apply there, then that's a double edged sword. I suppose the citizens of these "home rule" cities could declare all gun laws null and void, all state and federal income taxes null and void, etc. :-)
Ah,yes. This is the one thing you can count of with these dictatorial prima donnas. Who died and made these cretins God? Somebody PLEASE point out to me WHERE in the Constitution they get the legal right to jail somebody for "contempt of court". EVERY one of these SOB's think we live in a police state,and that they are the police bosses.
6:30 MDT
5:30 PDT
Of course they did. The Bill of Rights applies to and was written to protect the rights of individuals by limiting the power of government.
We have come to believe that it does because of the 14th amendment. The 14th was misinterpreted to do away with states rights.
States have many rights,but not the right to deny anyone their Constitutional protection. For instance,states don't have the right to allow slavery,deny anyone free speech,force people to testify against themselves,OR pass gun bans.
Denver can do what it has done.
Last time I checked,Denver was a city and a county,not a state. I will grant you that Denver totally dominates politics in Colorado,though.
Now here is an interesting thought. Supposed the firearm was not LOADED, would it still be a crime for him to have it on his person? What reason would LEO have to check for ammunition? Would they need a warrant to take the pistol, eject the magazine, and inspect for cartridges?
If it is illegal for Denver residents to carry a firearm with in city limits, just how does anyone buy one from a store and take it home? Could anybody actually buy and move into a new home if they owned firearms?
There has to be a lot more to this arrest than is being made known on these posts.
I've been following this case since it was first pimped here on FR. The defendant's admissions are more than enough information for me to know the jury did an excellent job.
Stanley is a grandstanding libertarian who is an inch wide and an inch deep in terms of substance. Not unlike your libertarian leader here.
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.