Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stanley Not Remorseful, Judge: 6 Months
The Stanley Scoop | 7/26/02 | Rick Stanley

Posted on 07/26/2002 5:12:23 PM PDT by christine

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 26, 2002

MEDIA RELEASE

Stanley for U.S. Senate Contact: Rick Stanley Campaign Office: 303-329-0481 E-mail: rick@stanley2002.org

======================================================================= Subject: Stanley Not Remorseful, Judge: 6 Months

Rick Stanley, U.S. Senate Candidate, Libertarian party nominee, Activist/Organizer of the National Bill of Rights Rallies, Activist/Organizer of the Million Gun March Petition, and Activist/Organizer of the Patriot Files gave the following media release:

"The Police State is here in Denver, Colorado and throughout America. My civil disobedience case in Denver proves that point. The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and yes, the entire Bill of Rights does not apply in the judicial system. The Common Law does not apply in Denver courts, only admiralty law, the type of court that your rights are, what they tell you they are."

I was found guilty of openly holstering a weapon, on December 15, 2001 at a Bill of Rights Rally, celebrating our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and then arrested by twenty thugs with weapons, employed by the City of Denver. Arrested, tried in the kangaroo court of Judge Robert L. Patterson, found guilty of exercising my 2nd Amendment right, I hurt or bothered no one in exercising this right, and was sentenced to six months in jail, a $500.00 fine, 75 hours of community service, and one year probation. I paid a $2,500.00 appeal bond, for a right to appeal this law, all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. My sentence is stayed, during the appeal process.

The judge sentenced what he did, because Stanley showed no remorse. Stanley will never be remorseful, for demanding the City and County of Denver, respect his constitutional right to peacefully exercise his 2nd Amendment right, to keep and bear arms, which the Constitution says shall not be infringed. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand? How do they lie their way through this one? When the citizens of Denver and America, revolt against this police state one day, look back to this and thousands of other issues, to understand why it will happen again in America, and it will. Our forefathers warned us, of the tyrannical nature of government, and that our vigilance was required.

The statement I made to the Court, and Judge Robert L. Patterson, is below:

May it please the court. For the record, my name is Rick Stanley, Citizen of Colorado. I hereby make the following statements of fact, which I had previously, and naively, thought to be understood.

1. That I am a sovereign Citizen of Colorado, which is a legal standing specified in Article IV, Section 2, clause 1 of the federal Constitution, ratified in 1789.

2. That I am not now, nor have I ever knowingly agreed to be, a "United States citizen subject to the jurisdiction thereof," as created by the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. I hereby dissolve, revoke and terminate any implied contracts between myself and any corporate entities, including and especially the corporate fiction that bears my name, which was created without my knowledge or permission.

3. That Article III, Section 2 of the federal Constitution grants the Supreme Court and other inferior courts the privilege of hearing cases in common law, equity, and admiralty/maritime jurisdictions. 4. That the Fifth Amendment enumerates and prohibits the government from "depriving me of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." As a sovereign state Citizen, due process includes the right of trial by jury in Common Law jurisdiction prior to any attempt at adjudication in an admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.

5. That this court is merely an administrative tribunal authorized by Article I, Section 8, clause 10 of the federal Constitution, with no legal authority over anyone except those who have volunteered to be Fourteenth Amendment federal citizens.

6. That all of the pronouncements of this court are mutable by my will, and I hereby declare this and all subsequent demands for my appearance to be a violation of my constitutionally protected rights, granted to me by my Creator.

7. That all elected officers of this court have taken an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, and by implication, have sworn to protect my inherent rights. That by allowing the fraud perpetrated by the 1933 House Joint Resolution 192 to persist to this day, and by not having the courtesy to inform me of this gross violation of my rights, this court has committed an act of perjury.

8. That, until recently, I was unaware that my action of retaining the services of a member of the Colorado Bar Association rendered me "incompetent in the eyes of the law." I have recently terminated my contractual agreement with Mr. Paul Grant, and now assume full liability for myself and the higher standing in law that this allows.

9. That these proceedings are immediately under formal appeal, and will be contested on the grounds of fraud and lack of jurisdiction. 10. The City and County of Denver Home rule does not apply based upon the Supreme Court of the United States, Case No. 80-1350. "Community Communications Co., Inc. V. City of Boulder, Colorado, et al. decided January 13, 1982 which destroys Home rule Governance. "As this Court stated long ago, all sovereign authority (within the geographical limits of the Untied States) resides either with "The government of the United States, or (with) The States of the Union." There exists within the broad domain of sovereignty but these two. There may be cities, counties, and other organized bodies with LIMITED LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS but they are all derived from or exist in, subordination to one or the other of these." UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

11. I ask that a Certified Copy of the State and U.S. Constitutions be entered into evidence, as well as a certified copy of the judge's oath of office.

12. I am reserving my rights without prejudice by UCC 1-207 and their statute court and the statute that I have violated, must have an injured party, and since there is no injured party, or complaining witness, the court has no jurisdiction under Common Law. This Statue Court made a legal determination that it has the authority under the jurisdiction that it is operating, to ignore two sections of the Uniform Commercial Code which I will call to its attention and I will put him and the court on notice that I will appeal his legal determination, and that if I am damaged by his action, I will sue him under the jurisdiction of the UCC. My recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103-6, which says: "The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law. I am instructing you now to add this to my appeal. I am making explicit reservation of my rights at 1-207, and I insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law. If this court will not allow the Constitution and the Supreme Law of the Land to guide its hand and the Jury instructions that he gave, I am forced to defend with the Statute Jurisdiction/Admiralty jurisdiction that he has forced upon me and which the UNIFORM COMNMERCIAL CODE is the overriding authority for his actions. To say that I am unhappy that I was never advised by the Court regarding this issue, is something that will be addressed in Judge Patterson's Court, and the appeal that I will file after the sentencing.

13. I relied upon a superior authority for my act of holstering a pistol on December 15, 2001, Article III-2, 1, The U.S. and Colorado Constitutions.

In propria persona Rick Stanley


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: banglist; libertarians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 last
To: BlessingInDisguise
It's either Arron Tippen or Bill of Rights. Not sure. LOL
101 posted on 07/30/2002 8:32:43 PM PDT by oldvike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: christine11
This literally almost brought tears to my eyes. A man whose very life is defined by values and principles--so rare and so brave is this man that the world's greatest athletes pale in comparison.

God's speed, Mr. Stanley.

102 posted on 07/31/2002 10:41:56 PM PDT by 1tin_soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1tin_soldier
rick was on 'the agitator hour' (on the fr radio network) last night.

if you get a chance to, go to agitator's archives and listen.

rick stanley is a true AMERICAN PATRIOT!!!

thanks for your kind words, tin. it's nice to hear from someone who appreciates what rick is doing. he gets a lot of criticism from many on this forum.

103 posted on 08/01/2002 6:51:03 AM PDT by christine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: BlessingInDisguise
Just lil ole me!
104 posted on 08/01/2002 7:52:44 PM PDT by BillofRights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: christine11
it's strange how so many are so terrified by a man armed with the constitution of the USA. People have to write him off as a kook--otherwise they'd have to stop pretending that the constitution is adhered to by our government. Rick Stanley is forcing all to answer the query, "Do we have a constitution, or not?"

1tin_soldier
105 posted on 08/03/2002 10:36:26 AM PDT by 1tin_soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: TheDon

"including and especially the corporate fiction that bears my name, which was created without my knowledge or permission. "

If you think he is nutty based on this assertion, may I suggest you pick up a magnifying glass and take a close look at the signature line on any of your personal checks issued by a Federal Reserve member bank, or even better, on your SOCIAL SECURITY card. You will notice it is NOT a line, but consists in fact of the words "Authorized Representative" written repeatedly in what can only be termed EXTREMELY fine print.

Question: If your Christian name typed in ALL CAPITALS on these legal instruments does not constitute a fictional corporation under your given name, why are you acting as an "authorized representative" of yourself every time you write a check?


106 posted on 12/11/2004 11:52:56 AM PST by CreatorPresupposedByFramers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson