Rick Stanley sentenced for open carry

[Ceol Mhor]

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...288104,00.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Libertarian candidate Stanley sentenced
Senate hopeful gets 180-day jail term on weapons charge

By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
July 26, 2002

Colorado Libertarians' candidate for the U.S. Senate saw his liberty limited Thursday by a 180-day jail term for carrying a loaded weapon in a challenge to Denver law.

But it shouldn't affect his campaign to wrest the Senate seat from Republican U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, who is also facing a challenge from Democrat Tom Strickland.

Denver County Judge Robert Patterson suspended all but 30 days of Rick Stanley's sentence and ruled that those 30 days can be served through home detention any time before Oct. 31.

In addition, Patterson granted Stanley's request that the entire sentence be stayed during the time that the candidate appeals his case to the district court level.

Stanley was also assessed $629 in fines and court costs, and sentenced to 75 hours of community service.

Thursday's court appearance started with Stanley's lawyer, Paul Grant, withdrawing from the case at Stanley's request.

Then, asked if he had any remarks to offer prior to sentencing, Stanley, 47, read from a statement that challenged the court's jurisdiction and the legality of the proceedings against him.

"This court will not allow the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, to guide its hand," Stanley said.

Patterson was not impressed, and noted in handing down the jail sentence Stanley's apparent lack of remorse.

"I find in all your comments that there is no (acknowledgment of) responsibility on your part to avoid introduction of a gun into the community - a loaded gun - and that concerns me," Patterson said.

Stanley had been arrested Dec. 15 for placing a loaded Beretta .380-caliber semiautomatic handgun in his holster during a rally at a downtown Denver park celebrating the Bill of Rights.

Several Libertarian supporters attended Stanley's sentencing, including the party's candidate for governor, Ralph Shnelvar.

"Good luck," Shnelvar said before court convened.

"I don't need luck," Stanley answered. "I need a justice system that's honorable. We don't have that."

[publius42]

I find in all of Judge Patterson's remarks that there is no acknowledgement of the existence of the Colorado Constitution.

[ojibweindian]

Stanley is a man of courage and conviction. I wish he were running for office here in Alabama.

[Blackhawk]

On to the next step!

Patterson granted Stanley's request that the entire sentence be stayed during the time that the candidate appeals his case to the district court level.

Anybody know exactly what type court he's appealing to?

Seems like a CO district court would be another trial court one rung up the ladder from the county court he was tried in.

Doesn't CO have appellate courts he'd go directly to?

Trial court to trial court to CO appellate court to CO supreme court to Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to the SCOTUS seems to have one too many trial courts involved.

[paratrooper]

Looks like that since The Dukes Of Hazzard went off the air Boss Hawg found work as a judge in Colorado .

[Bob Locke]

"I don't need luck," Stanley answered. "I need a justice system that's honorable. We don't have that."

There's the entire proceeding, bolied down to couple of sentences.

Got my fingers crossed that the higher court(s) in this matter will impress upon Patterson (I refuse to use the term "judge" on this individual) the fact that ALL laws of the land are subservient to the Constitution of the United States.

[labgrade]

"Anybody know exactly what type court he's appealing to?"

Blakhawk, you've got it essentially, but as B. Locke pointed out, CO doesn't really have any "justice system," 'specially when dealing with a "gun crime" and that in Denver - our "holies of holies."

Even at our highest court level, we've had some shenanigans (gasp!) pulled .... sometimes it just doesn't matter if you're in the right.

[publius42]

I believe Blackhawk is right that there is one too many trial courts in that chain. Assuming, that is, that the reporter got it right. Of course, they don't always get it right. I've seen one report say Stanley was wearing a 9mm, another say he was wearing a .380. You can see from this picture of the "crime" that he's only wearing one gun.

[Bob Locke]

I just have this feeling inside me that Rick Stanley may one day be regarded as the Rosa Parks of the gun rights movement.

Hoping and praying, I am...

[brianidaho]

There's one thing to do-work to get this guy elected! Might get some attention of the issue, and the lack of respect for the law on the part of the judge.

[Kirk Keller]

.380 is a 9mm Kurtz and vice versa.

[NIGHTWATCH]

Rosa Parks of the gun rights movement

Yes. I agree. Like Rosa Parks, Stanley is now in the open willing to take what comes. Jail time, stones, whatever. He is willing to walk the walk. And if history serves, like all the others who sought justice in the world before him in this fashion, change will come.

[publius42]

Thanks, KM. Ya learn something new every day.

re your sig: limestone, maybe, but you'd die of old age before you got through some types of rock.

[Ceol Mhor]

According to Stanley's web site, it was a .380 Beretta.

[publius42]

Thanks, Ceol. I'm actually mildly interested in the type of gun, but I'm sure we all agree that it really doesn't matter, does it?

According to Stanley's web site, his sentencing is scheduled for 7/25/02. That's the latest news he's managed to post.

Does anyone have anything newer, other than the article at the top of this thread? I'm wondering what will be the next step in the appeals process, when it will occur, where it will occur, etc.

One would think that Rick Stanley would realize that thousands of people know his name only because of his gun case, and that realization might cause him to get a high school kid with a copy of Frontpage to at least update his web site to reflect his sentencing, if not more. It's another example of Libertarians being the politically stupid party.

[labgrade]

publius,

Try Ari Armstrong's Colorado Freedom Report for sentencing info. Bit long to post, but has the info you're looking for.

[Kirk Keller]

Anytime. 'Bout my sig, true, but the theory is sound.

It also depends upon whether you drink Corona or Old Milwaukee...

[Futo Inu]

Hope the appeals court find reversible error in the judge prohibiting mention of the Constitution in the proceedings. And shames the judge in the process.

[labgrade]

Me too, Futo, but don't hold your breath.

Should be a slam dunk, but we can't have the subjects getting uppity, now can we?

Should be interesting how this all plays out ....

[gorlitsa]

From labgrade's link:

THE STANLEY SCOOP - Keeping Colorado Informed

The official newswire of the Stanley for U.S. Senate Campaign

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

Stanley then rips Ari a new one for not adequetly defending Stanley's actions in an article about him.

[sven]

WOW.

This guy has balls.

Who is this other guy who was arrested with him, and was he carrying as well?

Grant continues to represent Duncan Philp, who was arrested along with Stanley on December 15. Hopefully Stanley will reference Grant's arguments in his appeal.

[publius42]

Thanks, labgrade.

sven,

I know next to nothing about Duncan Philips, but I can tell you from personal experience that he's irritable. He showed up on another board I frequent and posted stuff about this incident. Among the things he posted was a quotation from Rick Stanley saying something about how his libertarian lawyer had agreed to represent him pro bono, and then had changed his mind and decided to charge him. I'm one of only a couple of libertarians over there, so I tend to question anything that makes us look bad, and breaking a promise looks bad. So, I responded to the thread asking for more info about this libertarian lawyer going back on his word.

Without getting into what ensued, let's just say it's fortunate I had on my asbestos underwear at the time. It's evident from my interaction with him that Duncan likes Grant quite a bit, that Stanley sometimes runs off at the mouth, and that Duncan is, as I said, easily irritated.

[Ceol Mhor]

I agree, Duncan Philp (yes, it's an odd spelling) can be both intimidating and irritating. But he's serious enough and dedicated enough to join Stanley and get arrested (which nobody else did). I'm glad he's on our side and not an anti.

[MatthewM]

A lot of his court statement is about jurisdiction & citizenship, etc.

I didn't see anything where he is arguing that the local ordinance is an infringement on his 2nd rights. If that is not the argument he is making, then how does this help us?

ps: I once attended a meeting of some people probably affiliated with the "Montana Freemen" which sounded a lot like this guy's rant. These guys all sound irrational.