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
However, do Libertarians believe in the sovereign citizen philosophy, as Stanley does? Do Libertarians acknowledge the jurisdiction of state and federal courts or do they want their own common law court system? Do they believe in filing leins and UCC filings on the property of public officials or anyone else that crosses them? Do Libertarians have a hidden streak of anti-semitism I haven't heard about? I'm curious as to how Stanley's sovereign citizen positions jibe with the Libertarian party. His political philosophy seems more in line with the Constitution Party, rather than Libertarians, at least those who believe in limited government.
Did you ever demand a copy of the published rules for criminal prosecution under statutory jurisdiction so that you could better defend yourself?
My interpretation? Seems like a court has already decided this.
Juries are usually made up of reasonable persons and it is the "interpretation" of these persons that decides. If I were on a jury I would not consider what he was soing to be anything other than a political statement challenging the City of Denver to prosecute him. This is not an act of personal defense. Rick has said this is so! You are not talking about someone who is actually in fear of his life with a pistol discreetly carried in his car (illegal in Denver), or someone tucking a gun in his belt while investigating a disturbing sound in his yard. So far, juries and the Colo supremes have stood behind Denvers gun ordinances.
If "We The People" preceded and created the federal government, then how can "We The People" be created by the very entity that We created. That logic seems twisted to me.
However, if you and I begin with different assumptions about who our Creator is, then we will certainly draw different conclusions about many things, based on those differing assumptions.
Also, your unsolicited advice about the selectivity of the material I read is condescending and unappreciated.
If I got to decide, he would be allowed to carry. It is the Law that decides (that means legislation, judges, juries, etc.). If you want to win, you have to deal with things the way they are, not the way you want them to be. Rick lost, and he will loose his appeals. I am not saying that there is no chance of his cause winning someday, but this approach will not work. Wasted dffort and dissipated energies.
These are the very types of anti-Constitutional RULES (not laws) that Rick Stanley is fighting -- and getting flamed for doing so.
The system is warped! The deck is stacked! And Stanley's got more balls to fight it then anyone I know. He gets my support.
So what? The jury sheeple cannot take away someone's Constitutional Right. Neither can the Colorado Supreme Court, who are appointed by the very tyrannts who are undermining the Constitution with almost every statute, rule, regulation, and code that they impose.
Jury trials are a rigged game. The judge decides what evidence is permitted or prohibited. The judge tells the jury what the law is. The judge is often appointed by the tyrant politicians. The whole game is "fixed." One can no more get justice in the courts than he/she can with the countless unConstitutional statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes, etc., etc. that are heeped upon us.
So who gets to decide? When someone feels threatened and believes he needs a gun to defend himself, should he first call a judge, a jury, the City Council, or who, to ask their permission to exercise his 2nd Amendment Right? Stanley obviously doesn't give a crap what the "City Fathers" say, or what the brainwashed sheeple think. And neither do I. The 2nd Amendment stands on its face.
No, the LAW is the Constitution -- The Supreme Law of the Land. The 2nd Amendment is clear -- "shall not infringe."
Stanley's not caving like the rest of the sheeple. However, he knows he's fighting a losing battle, but he's still fighting the tryant, just as did our Founding Fathers, who didn't accept the King's "law."
You never addressed the question. Guess you're too busy continuing to give me un-asked-for advice.
Only because they are a collection of morons. When Denver first introduced it's 'assault weapons ban' they were taken to Court. Reluctant testimony from the Sheriff and Police Chief at the time revealed that in the ten years prior to the ban being enacted, only ONE of these types of weapons had been used in a crime. ONE.
The court still upheld the statute on a rational basis test, concluding that it was rational to believe that the ordinance MIGHT reduce crime.
Rubbish. The correct standard of interpretation is strict scrutiny, but on the facts of the case, the damn statute isn't even rationally related to reducing crime. It sure as hell can't pass strict scrutiny and it damn well infringes on a fundamental right.
But that doesn't matter to these idiots.
So what is he fighting or fighting for? His 2A rights, or is he attempting to challenge the judiciary? He has a chance if he sticks with the 2A issues; attempting to work his will on the court system is another matter. In essence, by his act of civil disobedience, he's challenging both the 2A laws & ordinances and the court system? In that case, I wish him luck when he tells the appellate court that he's a sovereign citizen and doesn't have to comply with their rules, because, quite simply, they will not accept filings from him that do not comply with their rules.
From my observations, however, sovereign citizens in our courts refuse to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court over them. By challenging the law and putting himself in the position to be arrested means that he does want the courts to rule on this matter, so what he's done is contradictory--as a sovereign citizen, he doesn't acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court, but as someone who wants to challenge the laws, he's accepting the court's jurisdiction over him.
The system is warped! The deck is stacked! And Stanley's got more balls to fight it then anyone I know. He gets my support.
As well he should get your support. But as I understand it, he did receive a six month jail sentence but all but one month is suspended. Apparently, but he and Jim Traficant may well be campaigning from a jail cell, although Traficant may well be in for years, whereas Stanley will be out in less than a month, if he gets good time.
I told you plainly what's not allright with me, boy. Pasting 30,000 words into the middle of a thread is just downright rude. If you can't make your point without using that many words from someone else, then whatever point you're trying to make isn't even your own. That crap clogs a thread and anyone wanting to skip it has to scroll past for nearly a full minute. Have a little regard for others.
Agreed. Unfortunately they are a collection of morons supported by a whole lot of trigger happy firepower. In any ultimate contest of their will vs. my will they are going to win and I am going to loose. I just don't see that hill being worth dying on. Gotta have a more important hill than that!
Nice to have an authoritarian no-it-all for a pen pal.
That we are citizens of the USA is self evident, if you don't accept that, you are in denial of reality.
With the Constitution, prior to the 14th Amendment, there were no citizens of the USA. There were only citizens of the respective states in which they resided. The Consitution did not afford the federal government a way to reach in and touch a state citizen directly. However, with the 14th and 17th Amendments, that changed. The tyrannical federal government was not happy without the ability to directly control individual sovereign Citizens. So the federal government "created" juristic persons, so that they could control and regulate them.
Now, since Rick Stanley does not wish to be treated as a juristic person, he is challenging this concept, in law. He did not give his consent to be a juristic creation, because he is a freeborn, sovereign Citizen, who already has a Creator. Granted he will probably lose the challenge, since the courts are run by "system" tyrants.
debate is not productive when you are talking to a kool aid drinker.
Well you certainly are spending a substantial amount of time engaging in this unproductive debate. You see me as a kool aid drinker and I see you as a government butt-wiper.
A recipe for jail time, and possibly becoming a person prohibited from owning firearms. And then, possibly much, much more jail time.
Would you rather be right or stay out of prison? A firearm discreetly carried, all be it illegally, and used in self defense is less likely to put you away forever one used to make loudly outspoken anti-government statements.
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.