(CO) court goes off the deep end? (re open carry in Denver)

[labgrade]

Regardless of my own take on Stanley's (uhm) motives (&/or) reasonings, appears that at least one CO judge has gone over the top (again). I'll wait 'n see (again) as to what antics are provided by each side.

From a ColoradoRKBA e-mail:

"Denver County Court Judge Patterson is right out of Alice in Wonderland. The records of this trial will go a long way to embarrass all of Colorado. If you want to comment, give this a look:
http://www.cobar.org/static/comms/et...ex.htm#contact
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver Judge Axes the Constitution
Update on Trial: Day 1
News Release - May 15, 2002
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 15, 2002

NEWS RELEASE

Stanley for U.S. Senate 2002
Website: http://www.stanley2002.org
Contact: Rick Stanley, 303.329.0481
Email: [email protected]

DENVER JUDGE AXES THE CONSTITUTION...

[Denver - 11:30 pm] Sparks flew today in a Denver Courtroom where Libertarian U.S. Senate hopeful Rick Stanley is on trial for openly carrying a firearm in violation of Denver Municipal Ordinance 38-117.5(b). The arrest 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.

After wading through the usual preliminary proceedings, Defense Attorney Paul Grant moved for a twelve-man jury. This request was denied by Judge Patterson who stated Stanley would get only 6 jurors, citing a Colorado Statute.

Judge Patterson's next move was to order everyone except the defendant and the officers of the court out of the room.

Grant immediately objected stating the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteed Rick's right to a speedy and public trial. "A trial can't be public," Grant stated, "if the public is excluded."

The judge countered that there wasn't enough room for the jury pool of 18 people and the public. After a few more minutes a compromise was reached and everyone except Mr. Stanley, his lawyer, and the court officials left the courtroom.

As observers left the court room they were met by a posse of armed guards from the Sheriff's department who ordered them to move away from the doorway.

After the jury pool came in and were seated, the observers were allowed back into the courtroom.

During the jury selection process supporters of Stanley were shocked to discover that out of a pool of 12 prospective jurors - 5 just happened to be employed by the Plaintiff, The City and County of Denver. One prospective female jury member confirmed that she indeed was a police officer employed by the Denver Police Department.

Grant objected that these jurors should be disqualified for conflict of interest issues, the Judge did not find cause to dismiss these jurors at that time.

During the selection process Defense Attorney Paul Grant posed several questions to this Police Officer.

When asked by Grant if she could really apply the laws as explained by the judge, she replied, "yes".

Then Mr. Grant asked her to confirm if she really was a police officer with the city and county of Denver. She replied, "yes".

Mr. Grant then asked her if, "...when becoming a police officer, she had taken an oath to support the Constitution of Colorado and the Constitution of the United States of America?"

"Yes, I did." the officer replied.

Grant then asked her a hypothetical question; "If the judge were to instruct you that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 13 of the Constitution of Colorado are applicable to this case, would you be able to follow that instruction?

Pandemonium erupted halfway through Grant's question with the City Prosecutor objecting at the top of his lungs to the form of the question, as the Judge pounded his gavel for attention.

At this time Judge Patterson dismissed the jurors for lunch. After they left the courtroom Judge Patterson began to lecture Mr. Grant.

"I already sent you an order in this case. The order has been mailed to your offices. You are not to mention the Constitution during this proceeding. Do you understand?"

Grant replied that he did not.

Patterson said, "Then I'll explain it again. You are not to reference the Constitution in these proceedings. You will not address it in voir dire, you will not address it in your opening remarks, you will not ask any questions about the Constitution when you summon your witnesses, and you will not talk about the Constitution when you give your closing arguments. Do you understand my instructions?", questioned Judge Patterson.

Grant again replied he did not understand, and the judge proceeded to repeat his previous orders. He also stated that Mr. Grant had already violated these orders during the voir dire process when questioning the police officer.

Grant objected to the judge's statement and replied, "Your honor I did not ask a question about the Constitution I asked a question about jury instructions."

The Judge then asserted, "You did no such thing."

Grant countered, "Yes, I did." He peered at his notes and said, "Here's the question I asked her. If the judge were to instruct you that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 13 of the Constitution of Colorado are applicable to this case, would you be able to follow that instruction?"

In the presence of numerous observers, and despite an audio recording and at least one court reporter the Judge then asserted, "That's not the question you asked."

At that point it was clear Judge Patterson was visibly upset. He began advising counsel that he was on dangerous grounds and threatened him with court sanctions. Patterson then recessed the proceedings for a lunch break.

As Judge Patterson left the courtroom one Stanley supporter, Mr. Joe Johnson stood and addressed those left in the courtroom, "Hear Ye, Hear Ye, The Constitution of the United States of America has just been repealed by a Denver County Court Judge." Two reporters from the Denver daily papers scribbled furiously and then bolted for the doors.

The court reconvened in the afternoon and the jury selection was completed. The jury consists of 6 people, 5 women and 1 man.

The court heard testimony from both sides including testimony from the arresting officers who stated they did not fear any violence from Mr. Stanley, and that he was co-operative.

When Mr. Stanley was called by defense to testify, Judge Patterson questioned whether he really wanted to testify or not. The judge mentioned the Constitutional provision that guaranteed his ability not to testify, but when Mr. Stanley asked the judge to cite the provision the judge refused.

Throughout the afternoon's proceedings lawyers, judges, and others who apparently worked within the judicial system were seen coming in and out of the courtroom for short periods of time.

Testimony was concluded in the afternoon. Judge Patterson then recessed the proceedings to reconvene in the morning for closing arguments.

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

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"

[John/az2]

This is a judge that needs to be removed from the court system with extreme prejudice , as all others like him should be removed.

I fail to see how judges can get away with instructing a court that the US Constitution does NOT apply to a case. They deny the very foundation upon which their court is instructed to run.

Anyone know where I can find the email address of this human flotsam?

[Ben Swenson]

If this is true ...

[labgrade]

Ditto, John. Amazes me to no end that ... well, suffice it to say that I'm no longer surprised, with many a thing ....

Word's out to see if we can get an address (of any form) to the Good Judge Patterson.

Post forthcoming, if anything sticks ...

[labgrade]

Cordex,

All I got to go on is what I received through the ColoradoRKBA e-mail alert-thing. Unknown who generated the "informatioon" & its accuracy. Still tying to nail the accuracy aspects myself - difficult at best, but will get back with anything one way or another. Might be best for each to go their own way to get to the truth here.

In any event, the Cado Bar Ethics page may allow for some more info/free-wheling access to information - I duno.

"Late-breaking newz!" & who am I to sift this yet? Presented "as is" & if true, it's disgusting, & if not, it's still disgusting as one of "our own" is using us for the furtherance of his own venue.

Let's check it out & jam those who need it, no?

[Pendragon]

Guys, this is a good thing.

Stanley is not going to roll over and take this.

It is good to have a judge like this - this kind of situation can have massive ripples.

If the lefties were smart, they would charge Stanley with an infraction, charge him a fine and be done with it.

Instead, their arrogance is sending them down a road that they might not come back from.

This judge is not the final authority.

[Pendragon]

You can bet that there are some powerful people that are pulling this judges strings.

I love the attorneys tactic of saying he does not understand.

The human mind has a tremendous capacity for self deception - so long as the deception is not examined too carefully. This judge must be doing mental gymnastics to keep this case where he wants it and still try and appear "reasonable". It is not really possible and he knows it.

[longeyes]

Remember, children, you are NOT, absolutely NOT, to mention the Constitution--no matter what.

This is scary.

[labgrade]

Frankly, I have no idea regards the ins & outs of this judge's "appointment" & whether he's there for life or whatever. Check's in the mail. & we'll see 'bout that.

If reported accurately (that IS the whole point behind the ColoradoRKBA "alerts," no? Should be, in any event - credibility in everything, so we can make up our own minds, based on facts ... right?) we'll get to the end of this & get back.

Scary indeed if the judge is throwing out the constitution of the USA & CO ... "Facts don't matter, boy! I'll decide what's right for you & yerz .... !"

Grant's a good'un & has taken a few other pro-rights issues pro bono.

Time'll tell on this one.

Film at 11

[nascarnhlnra]

If that fool judge doesn't believe the U.S. Constitution has a place in the courtroom and doesn't apply to a case about a mans rights stated in the Constitution than he needs to be removed from the bench PRONTO ! Where did they get this guy California ? :barf:

[Oak '58]

Here's the beginning of the RMN mid-day update
on this story. No mention (of course) of the judges
tirade against the Constitution being mentioned in
court...

Libertarian's gun case goes to jury
Senate candidate says he put loaded gun in holster during rally to make a point

By Charlie Brennan,News Staff Writer
May 16, 2002

Jurors start deliberating today in Libertarian Senate candidate Rick Stanley's trial for
openly carrying a gun in defiance of a Denver city ordinance, but they're not exactly faced with a whodunnit.

Stanley, owner of Denver's Stanley Fastener & Shop Supply, removed much of the
suspense Wednesday when he testified toward the end of
his 1 hour, 45 minute trial in Denver County Court.

Stanley admitted to the jury of five women and one man that he put a loaded
Beretta .380 caliber semiautomatic handgun in his holster during a Dec. 15 rally at a downtown Denver park.

The rally marked the 210th birthday of the Bill of Rights, and Stanley said he wanted "to bring
attention to a bad law that needs to be overturned."

Stanley also testified he wanted "to obtain standing, so that I can take it up through the court
system, if we don't get this resolved (at trial) in favor of we, the people."

Stanley says the Denver ordinance contradicts the Colorado Constitution and the Second Amendment,
which he says grant permission to openly carry a deadly weapon.



Here's a link for the rest of the article:


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...149581,00.html

[labgrade]

Any bets on if The Judge informed the jury that they do have the right to nullify the law based upon that old saw: soap, JURY, ballot, (ahem) .. box? Highly doubtful.

THE main reason we have the jury system in these fine USofAs is to nullify any bad law through the jury system - another "old dead white guy" thing that's fallen out of favor of our new & enlightened society. :barf:

I think Stanley's about 1/2 bubble off plumb, but does have some good enough stuff to say & By God! has put his money where his mouth is.

Even with a giulty verdict on this case, he'll appeal & take it on up. 'Course, worse case is (likely will be, considering the liberal bias of CO's supreme court) that it'll go "high court," tossed AND used as "legal precidence" for quite a while as (what) CO (uses as their determination of) law.

One of those "political reality" things I disdain that .... well, I shouldn't even go there ....

[SW9M]

Someone from CO should call this reporter and ask him why there is no mention of the striking of the Constitution from the court room.

[labgrade]

Not to be too snide, SW9M, but you have as much access to this as anyone else. Anything preventing you from callin' 'em up?

We'll all be interested in what you find out.

[Jim March]

THE STANLEY SCOOP - Keeping Colorado Informed
===============================================================
The official newswire of the
Stanley for U.S. Senate Campaign
===============================================================
Hi! This is David Bryant again, with a detailed description of what happened in Denver county courtroom 151P this morning, Thursday, May
16.

Rick's trial re-commenced in Denver county court this morning. Judge Robert L. Patterson entered the courtroom at 8:20 am, and proceeded to discuss jury instructions with the attornies.

Patterson proposed two forms of a general verdict (guilty, and not guilty, the standard forms) and 11 separate jury instructions (from the Colorado rules of criminal procedure). Paul Grant proposed four additional jury instructions for the defense. The city attorney objected to all of Paul's proposals.

The city attorney stated that the standard jury instructions were good enough for him. Paul Grant proceeded to criticize several aspects of the standard jury instructions. 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.

Paul Grant next objected to several of the standard jury instructions which tell the members of the jury that they "will" do something, or that they "shall" do something, or that they "must" do something. He 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 them that they "must" follow the law as the judge explains it to them is to deny the defendant's right to be tried by a jury.

Patterson interjected at this point, and began to lecture Paul on various points of case law. Paul held his ground pretty well, citing precedents to support points of view antagonistic to the viewpoint Patterson was adopting. The judge grew more bombastic ... he was clearly asserting his position as the "controlling legal authority" in the courtroom.

Paul 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 one 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.

Paul then presented two affirmative defenses to the court, in the form of jury instructions. First, this was an act of political speech, and the First Amendment prevents the government from punishing Rick for speech. Second, 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.

To Paul's argument about People vs. Ford, 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 Paul Grant's motions, and declared the court to be in recess while the bailiff went to get the jury.

The jury showed up about 9:00. 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.

Paul Grant reminded the jury of their important role in our system of justice. He spoke briefly of the history of trial by jury. He told them they are the defenders of liberty. He laid particular emphasis on the fact that the city did not meet their burden of proof on the issue of a culpable mental state. Rick was not there with any criminal intent. Rick was there to assert his rights, and to defend the rights of all the citizens of Colorado.

The jury retired to deliberate about 9:20 am. During the recess, I asked the city attorney to clarify what Judge Patterson had said about the inapplicability of Supreme Court precedent and the Colorado constitution when he ignored Paul's argument based on a state Supreme Court decision.

"As I understand it, 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." I said. "Is that your understanding, also? Is the city government free to deny all the rights secured to me by the Constitution of the U.S., and the constitution of Colorado, so long as they only do it here, in Denver?"

"Yes," he said. "The Constitution has no force or effect in Denver, because this is a home rule city."

I told him, politely, that this is an absolute abomination. I am a taxpayer. I pay you thousands of dollars every year to protect my rights. And there you are, telling me that I have no rights at all. I am outraged.

I will do everything I can to change that, I said. I will take this issue (about "home rule") directly to the voters of Denver. I will get your position reversed, by the people.

Fine, he replied. When the law is changed, I will enforce the new law, as written. But as things stand 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 in at 10:20 am. They had been gone about an hour. Their verdict -- guilty -- was read. Paul Grant asked the court to poll the half-jury. Each one of the six declared Rick guilty. The judge thanked them for their service, read them the final standard instruction about discussing the case with others, if they want to, and dismissed them.

Paul Grant moved for immediate sentencing. Patterson denied that motion. After some deliberation, sentencing was set for the 25th of July, and court was adjourned.

So that's where Rick's case stands now. He has been convicted of the offense of unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon, and he's free on bail until the court imposes a sentence on July 25th.
--
Rick Stanley, Candidate U.S. Senate
Stanley for Senate
http://www.stanley2002.org
Phone303)329-0481
Email: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------

And now Jim's comments:

Can somebody please tell me why Bush shouldn't move armed troops right into Denver? Because if this is accurate, THE WORD "SECCESSION" JUST MAYBE COMES TO MIND!?

[labgrade]

Oh hell, Jim (tongue firmly planted in cheek, but ... ) the Constitution or the Bill of Rights hasn't been enforced in this country - nowhere/nohow - for quite some time.

Quit yer pickin' on Denver, huh?

God help us all.

[Pendragon]

HOLY CRAP!

[Pendragon]

That notion of the big C not applying to Denver is wrong wrong wrong wrong.

See what would happen if:

They start conducting house to house searches.

They decline to grant bail.

They start torturing people to make them talk.

They arrest the local journalists for printing unfavorable stories about the city.

They sponsor a city religion and then arrest everyone who is not of that religion.

Sorry - does not fly.

Petty tyrants think they can push back on certain issues because it won't get a rise.

That Rick Stanley has great big giant brass ones - I am sure he expected this.


If the constitution is not in effect in Denver, then I propose we all take up arms, travel to Denver and purge that government. That is the definition of arbitrary government and the fact that those people breathe my air just chaffs my hide. Without the constitution, they have no standing or authority except what they are able to maintain by force. Think about it.

[labgrade]

Colorado Constitution

ARTICLE II

Bill of Rights (excerpts)
Section 1. Vestment of political power. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Section 6. Equality of justice. Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay. (thrown in for a little levity)

Section 13. Right to bear arms. 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, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

[labgrade]

& for Pendragon,

Section 2. People may alter or abolish form of government ­ proviso. The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

[Pendragon]

but labgrade, didn't you hear?

it does not apply to Denver!

Certainly transcripts are available of the court proceedings before the jury was brought in?

This should be public record and this judge needs to be crucified for this.

[labgrade]

I dunno, Dave, crucifixtion's a bit harsh for "first offense" - cut him some slack & just start with the tar/feathers & out of town rail-ride. See if he gets it & if it sends a message ...

I hear ya, though.

"When in the course of human events ... " comes to mind.

[Jim March]

The phrasing of the state RKBA clause explains why Rick open-carried. Under that, I can't see how that could possibly be banned.

This is fodder for revolt against the city government.

If I was a Denver resident: I'd submit a petition to the city council at the very next meeting, asking for an ordinance that establishes the city as being subservient to the state constitution. Immediately. Citing the Judge's words as reason it's necessary.

[C.R.Sam]

provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States

Key

[Don Gwinn]

Pure insanity! The only way I can think of to make that kind of "home-rule" provision legal would be if it were set up as part of the state constitution itself. Is there something in the damn constitution that sets this situation up? If not, it's secession.