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.

So what? The jury sheeple cannot take away someone's Constitutional Right.

From what I hear, there are about 10,000 or so people spending a long, long time in prison for basically techincal firearms violations. Care to go to them and explain that they haven't had their right taken away?

Jury trials are a rigged game. ... One can no more get justice in the courts ...

Blacks used to say that in the south back in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's. Then their attitude begin to change in the 60's. Guess what?? Ever hear of the civil rights movement? Success leaves cluse which others can use. Argue for your limitations and they are yours!

Your logic is sound! However, everyone has a "line in the sand" on some principle. It is not for us to say where Rick Stanley should draw his line. I empathize completely with Rick.

Personally, I would rather lose my life than my freedom, and I suspect Rick feels the same way. Reality is relative, in the sense that it each person pereives it and interprets it uniquely. Rick's and my perception of freedom and reality may be very different than yours.

As long as I'm giving out unsolicited advice, I would suggest that you seek competent psychiatric help. Unfortunately, I can't help you directly in that area.

You are apparently a frustrated psychiatrist wannabe, since you can't stop yourself from dispensing advice. If you're ever going to be in Austin, Texas, let me know. I'll give you the opportunity to straighten me out.

Care to go to them and explain that they haven't had their right taken away?

They did not have their Rights taken away. They only had their ability to exercise their Rights taken away. For example, the government can take my life, but it can't take my Right to life. My Rights come from my Creator, not the government, and the government cannot take them.

Rick's and my perception of freedom and reality may be very different than yours.

My view of reality: No one can stop you from doing anything you want to do.

My view of freedom: No one tries to stop you from doing anything you want to do as long as it doesn't cause actual (or probable) harm to anyone.

Freedom is self controll. Liberty is no restraint.

Sorry about so many posts. I seem to have too much time on my hands today.

It's like watching a train wreck, isn't it? You know what's going to happen, but there's not a thing you can do about it.

Don't forget, this train wreck is allegedly running for the U.S. Senate. If nothing else, this little charade has demonstrated his unworthiness for dog catcher, let alone Senator.

Nope -- nothing like a foam-at-the-mouth lunatic to make the LP look more stupid than it already does.

Beyond that, Stanley's probably done more damage to the RKBA than any Denver politician could possibly have dreamed of -- and he's dragged responsible advocates of gun rights into the sewer alongside him. Now the gun-grabbers can point to little ricky and give fence sitters a choice between "responsible gun control" and "fruitcakes like Rick Stanley."

IMHO he should have been sentenced to an additional 10 years for being a useful idiot.

The 14th Amendment, without our knowledge or permission, was instrumental in allowing the federal government to control us outside the constraints of the Constitution. That is what Rick Stanley is talking about here.

I disagree, the 14th may have been used or misinterpretted (deliberately methinks) to do those things, but originally it's purpose was to protect rights of the people, not infringe upon them, and this is how it was understood when passed. One of the chief rights, if not THE chief right, it was to protect from state and local infringement was the right to keep and bear arms. The sponsers and supporters of it said just that during debates. They allowed that it was also to protect the other rights protected by the first 8 articles of the Bill of Rights, from infringement by state and local governments. If properly understood and implemented, it would have the federal government going up against the cities of Denver and Chicago, as well as New York City and others which infringe on the peoples RKBA.

Under the system set up by the Constitution, both the federal governments and those of the states are sovereign, each in it's own realm. Since the people, the real sovereigns in both cases, are part of both levels of government, the concept of being a citizen of your own state and of the United States is not so very strange.

Activist judges have been able to twist most any part of the Constitution for the United States, and those of the several states, to mean what they wanted it to mean. In this respect the 14th is no different.

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.

So, you can't carry a gun, non-concealed, until you need one to defend yourself? When it's needed, how are you to get it from where it's stored to where it's needed, transporter maybe? You can't challenge a law until you break it, usually and especially a gun law, and if you do that, are you not "making a political statement"?

I agree about the sovereign citzen/ucc smoke and mirrors stuff though. IMHO, the government, at any level, doesn't feel the need to be that devious, nor are most in government intellectually capable of such efforts if they did.

So, you can't carry a gun, non-concealed, until you need one to defend yourself?

Only if you are a resident of Denver. If you live outside of Denver and are travelling into or through the city you can carry a gun, either openly or concealed, in you vehicle.

If you are a resident of Denver you can not legally carry a gun openly in your vehicle or on your person if you are off of your own property, but you have the out of several affirmative defenses to avoid criminal penalties if you are constitutionally compliant in reasons.

see the recent appellate court decision Trinen v. City and County of Denver, No. 00CA2126 (Colo.App. 02/14/2002).

Pay attention to the way they get around a broad application of the constitution to Denver by using affirmative defense as a constitutional out. Also study the dissenting opinion.

Understanding this decision should keep you out of serious trouble when in Denver. Most people who get in trouble have said and done the wrong thing when arrested or questioned. By your words are you justified and by your words are you condemned.

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.