Stanley Not Remorseful, Judge: 6 Months

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.

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.

Remember, this statement is NOT his appeal. It was his simply his sentencing statement to the judge.

He's already been sentenced. He can either ask the judge for a new trial based on Stanley not being about to mention the Constitution & whatever issues he wants to bring up, or he can file a direct appeal on the issues--which'd include Stanley not being able to introduce the Constitution, but he did want to challenge the 2A issues involved, didn't he?

The problem is that when one files an appeal or a request for a new trial, one has court-imposed deadlines to meet. Additionally, most, if not all, courts--especially appellate courts--impose a page limit (as well as setting page margins and type faces one can use, plus double spacing, the way the appeal is suppose to look--covers or no covers--where the staples go, and how many copies). Some count the table of contents and table of cases in the page count; most don't. Realistically, there are just so many issues one can bring up in an appeal simply because of space limitations. He's going to have to decide which issues in his trial were most important to him and fit that into the page limits to his appellate briefs (he should get two: his initial brief and his reply brief to the state, and the deadlines are tight).

"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned,"

Rick does not have the Colo. constitution on his side. Openly carrying a gun in a public place, to make a political statement, hardly qualifies as defending home, person, or property or aiding civil authorities. If he had actually carried or used the gun to ward of an attack (as in a riot situation maybe) a strong argument could be made that he was defending his person. Unfortunately, he admittedly was displaying the gun to make a political statement. This is not covered by the constitution.

He is also using all kinds of soverign citizen/ucc/patriot mythology legal nonsense in his defense. The LAW is not what we want it to be, it is what is in the books. The books, in this case, are Legislation, Judicial Opinions (usually called case law), and Administrative regulationss and decisions.

Rick seems to be avoiding any argument or strategy that could actually work and following every course gauranteed to fail. If he doesn't do some actual legal research and provide some valid arguments and points of law in his favor he is doomed.

I sincerely hope I am wrong, And I really, really hate to be wrong.

Oh, you get to decide when he can "carry" and where he should be ready to defend himself? The fact is, Rick had received death threats on a number of occasions. His testimony about that is in the court transcript.

If he had actually carried or used the gun to ward of an attack (as in a riot situation maybe) a strong argument could be made that he was defending his person.

Gee, I sure hope those folks call Rick, in advance, and let him know that they are planning to attack him or start a riot, so Rick can bring his gun along, so as to be in compliance with your interpretation of the Colorado Constitution!

I gathered what Ricky was talking about, hence my calling him a little nutty. If you don't think "We the People" are citizens of our own creation, i.e. the federal gov't, I don't think anyone can use reason or logic to convince you otherwise. All I can recommend to you is to be more selective, and discerning, of the material you read. And be careful about whose opinions you adopt. Yes, including mine. :^)

He would have been more productive with a different approach as to whether the city of denver has Jurisdiction over state property at the capitol where he was arrested

That's a loser too. When municipal entities are created a police force is authorized at the same time - it is empowered with concurrent jurisdiction, i.e., it is empowered to enforce municipal and State law while in the confines of the municipality. Some are also given jurisdiction outside the city limits as well.

Not saying that is what happened here, becuase I haven't looked at the authorizing statute - but it is the norm across the country.

So, hypothetically, if the judge erred a thousand ways, the appeal can only refute the ones that fit the page limit? Is that what you're saying?

Pretty much. It's their sandbox and you have to play by their rules or you're tossed out quite unceremoniously.

Here's a link to the Citizen's guide to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Colorado may have something similar, but if they don't, Stanley had better learn how to wade through a lot of murky legalese to find out how to file an appeal.

This mullins guy is not my hero. You brought him up. It seems you're the one with an obession (and could you be a little less verbose and use your own words?). BTW, what was your original point/question anyway?

I asked you where you got your information from and you sent me to this website where ol' Eustace is featured prominently, and I recognized his name.

See, I've seen these arguments before. The Posse has been in our neck of the woods for the past 30 years. Following Mullins and other people have ended up with Posse members going to jail for a variety of reasons, including UCC filings, faux leins on the property of various public officials, and fake money orders, just like the Montana Freeman. A few of them are doing lengthy federal prison sentences for the latter. Because of their long fight with the county, state and feds over their failure to pay taxes, they've lost their homes and real estate ("Tigerton Dells," the township they wanted to set up, is now an ATV park run by the county). And that doesn't include their nastiness when it comes to blacks and Jews or anyone they don't like.

But hey, it's just a warning. You don't have to heed it. But if you're following them, just prepare yourself for a world of hurt.

You seem to think that bandwidth is free. Post a link to this kind of crap instead of dropping a ream of off subject crap like this into a thread. Contrary to what your swelled head tells you, almost nobody is interested in reading 30 or 40 thousand words you dragged in from elsewhere in lieu of making an argument in your own words.

What do you think you're proving with this wasteful crap anyway? If you have an argument to make, make it. If you want to disrupt a discussion, just admit it and stop all this underhanded garbage. Just so you know, JR has banned several people for dragging material from communist front sites onto threads here.

I am sorry for your problems and you are correct.Maybe not on the same scale as you but here in South Carolina the Supreme Court has just ruled that I dont even have the right to defend myself against a lie.
I have been accused,tried and convicted by one man and the South Carolina Press Association and the SC Broadcasters Association and never once given the chance or allowed to defend myself.

Well, you know where the abuse button is. No one's stopping you from hitting it. I also posted material from Nizkor.org, which isn't a communist site, that shows that Eustace Mullins is an anti-semite and Holocaust denier.

Odd, though--someone posts a link to a site that sells books for anti-semites and Holocaust deniers--and one of Mullins' books is prominently featured on that site--and that's okay with you? Or is it that anti-semites and Holocaust deniers are okay with you?

If you cannot refute the message, attack the messenger. You would make a great Democrat, you have the tactics down pat.

The true colors of the Republican are showing, the same color as the Democrat. Commie Red.

Rick Stanley for US Senate!

I am so glad I get to vote for him this fall. Wayne Dullard sold me out by voting for the USA Un-Patriot act. I will not waste my vote this time.

That's the great thing about the United States of America--you can vote for anyone you want.

However, I was pointing out to one of the posters who provided me with a link to the books he uses that one of the authors highly touted on the website he sent me to was a notorious anti-semite and Holocaust denier. I did not imply nor did I accuse Stanley of being an anti-semite and Holocaust denier.

However, I was pointing out to one of the posters who provided me with a link to the books he uses that one of the authors highly touted on the website he sent me to was a notorious anti-semite and Holocaust denier.

But you did not directly comment on the one book quoted. Or did I miss something? From my point of view the message was not commented upon. You simply attacked the messenger.

If I am wrong please correct me so I can admit my error.

Please understand that us Libertarians are constantly ridiculed on virtually every subject. Our message - one of limited government - is not debated. We are simply attacked as "Liberaltarians" or "dopers" when we speak out against what seems to us a government abuse of power.

Do you have "issues" with the book quoted?

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.