The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights > Legal and Political

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 15, 2002, 08:28 AM   #51
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
I find Rick Stanley highly inspirational, and plan to support him in any way I can.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...hreadid=117060
publius42 is offline  
Old June 15, 2002, 09:31 AM   #52
cpileri
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2001
Location: Peoples Republik of Maryland, Sister State to Kalifornia
Posts: 619
"You line dem against dee wall and shoot dem."

Well, I've posted this before but I'm doin' it again:

My buddy's father is a Polish WW2 survivor. He's seen all the worst from both the Nazi's and the Russians. He always has a simple solution to a problem. Got a problem? Ask him. His solution to this one:
(in his thick Polish accent)

"You line dem against dee wall and shoot dem."

He's the king of one-liners.

C-
cpileri is offline  
Old June 15, 2002, 03:53 PM   #53
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,365
Is this the judge?

Robert L Patterson
5050 Newton St
Denver, CO 80221
(303) 433-9361

(google result for "Robert L. Patterson, Denver, CO")
tyme is offline  
Old June 16, 2002, 12:53 AM   #54
Crimper-D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: The Bearflag Republic
Posts: 579
Better sooner than later!

The November elections are coming up...even in the "Free Republik of Denver". Are there any Libertarians running for public office at city/county levels?
BTW: Has anyone suggested giving the Judge a saliva test?
Sounds like this 'race' was 'fixed':barf: :barf: :barf:
Crimper-D is offline  
Old June 16, 2002, 02:39 AM   #55
PATH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 1999
Location: Rockland, NY
Posts: 1,489
Did this judge swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

It is my opinion that this judge is guilty of a seditious act. The American Constitution applies to all U.S. Citizens. No city or state is exempt from its provisions.

The gauntlet has been thrown! The Constitution has been challenged. Denver has seceded from the Union. We must come to the defense of our Constitution! The Federal Government must take immediate action against this seditious act!
__________________
For sure it is an evil spite, and breaking to the heart,
For Irishmen to watch a fight and not be taking part. -Robert Service

'How MacPherson Held The Floor'
PATH is offline  
Old June 17, 2002, 06:36 AM   #56
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
"You line dem against dee wall and shoot dem."

Hah! Simple problem, simple solution, huh? It may come to that, but for now, back to reality.

tyme,

Here's Stanley's main web page for his gun case.

http://stanley2002.org/denvsconstitution.htm

Lots of info there, so you might be able to determine if that address is correct.
publius42 is offline  
Old June 18, 2002, 03:44 AM   #57
Justin Moore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2000
Location: Right Here
Posts: 854
CONSTITUTION? We don't need no STEEEEKIN Constitution here

Denver should be put up on jacks, and immediately shipped out of state, perferebly to Mars....

Or perhaps Arizona? They don't have much need for Thomas Jefferson down there either:





Request authority for a stop? You are now a terrorist. Try to hold the police accountable? Terrorist! Mention the Constituion too much? TERRORIST! Like to hang out by yourself? TERRORIST!

Its the new love system boys and girls.

"Left Wing Terrorists"? I guess this means I get to report 2/3rds of the Congress, 98 percent of the media, and Kofi Annan? OH THE JOY
Justin Moore is offline  
Old June 18, 2002, 04:24 AM   #58
Justin Moore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2000
Location: Right Here
Posts: 854
Here is Duncan Philps take on his arrest that day. Its rather interesting:

http://www.stanley2002.org/bord.htm

Quote:
The Charade
A personal account of an act of civil disobedience,
trial, and conviction under an unconstitutional ordinance.
by Duncan Philp

On May 29th, 2002, I appeared in the Denver county court of one Judge Celeste for my trial. But rather than have a fair and impartial trial, a “charade” took place.
I had been arrested on December 15th , 2001 and charged with violating a Denver city ordinance that prohibits a person from carrying a gun openly for the purposes of self- defense. Of course, this would have been my defense in court, as the Colorado State Constitution clearly says that my “right” to carry a gun openly for the purpose of self-defense “Shall not come into question.”

Denver is the only city in Colorado that has made it crime to carry a gun openly for self-defense, and of course my defense attorney Paul Grant was prevented from using this argument by Judge Celeste, and as such he was not allowed to give me a proper defense. So all that Mr. Grant and myself could do was just sit there and watch the “charade” play itself out.

As any law student can tell you there can never be two conflicting laws one must be superior to the other. And in my case, State statute and the State Constitution are in fact superior to that of any city ordinance.

The argument used by Denver county judge Patterson in Stanely’s ‘charade’ was that Denver is a “home rule” city and Colorado is a “home rule” state. This according to Judge Patterson means that Denver can create any ordinance they please. Then this would mean that Denver could legalize murder, rape, theft, assault etc., and ignore Colorado State law, according to Judge Patterson.

The city attorney claimed that I needed to prove an “immediate danger” to my life as a defense to open carry and that this is the only affirmative defense that can be used for the right to carry a gun for self defense in the city of Denver.

Only one little problem with this line of reasoning is that something like “immediate danger” is in most cases a surprise. You will never know, in most instances, when danger is imminent.

“Oh wait Mr. Bad Guy, the city of Denver prohibits me from carrying openly. Just give me a sec so that I can go home and get my gun before you rob and kill me.”

Yea this would be the scenario under the illegal city ordinance of Denver.

The “charade” continued played itself out for the day. All of Mr. Grant’s motions and arguments had been denied by Judge Celeste. And then, after denying Mr. Grant’s motions she made a closing statement, which clearly indicated that she was prejudice towards my case, “This is not the old west and we cannot have people walking around with guns strapped to their leg in Denver.”

Gee, but we can have Denver police thugs running around with guns strapped on their hips, so that they can kill innocent people like Ishmael Mena, or students of Columbine High School. I find it interesting that the judge would trust Denver police thugs, but not ordinary taxpayers to carry guns.

Shortly afterwards the jury was brought in for jury selection and the ‘charade’ continued and the jury was questioned by both lawyers. The city attorney crossed off the people he felt would find me innocent and then the list was handed to Mr. Grant who refused to participate in this aspect of the “charade”. The judge quickly dismissed the jury from the courtroom and demanded to know why Mr. Grant had refused to participate in the jury selection

Grant instructed the judge that he had a fifth amendment right not to participate. The judge read him the riot act from the book of court rules and instructed Mr. Grant to either select three jurors to be removed form the jury pool or else she would find him in contempt and have him arrested.

Mr. Grant again refused to participate in the “charade” and the judge quickly ordered the court clerk to get the deputies. The judge again demanded that Mr. Grant select three jurors “or else”. Mr. Grant asked the judge to help make the selection for him and she then became incensed.

It looked like they were going to haul my lawyer off to jail and I would have to continue on without him, but suddenly three uniformed cowboys came into the courtroom and started “walking around with guns strapped to their legs”. Yea the deputies with the GUNS on their hips were sent to intimidate my lawyer and his very life was in “immediate danger”, so he was forced to name off three jurors at GUN point.

We continued on with the ”charade” and the witness for the “persecution” was to take the witness stand. Capt. DiManna of the Denver PD was called to testify. Why, I have No idea, since he wasn’t the arresting officer. Prior to Mr. Stanely’s trial I had never met DiManna. I had only heard of him due to his infamous reputation.

DiManna lied twice on the witness stand when he claimed that I approached him at the “Bill of Rights Day” rally and asked him to arrest me. Since DiManna was in plain clothes and had no badge publicly displayed, how would I have known he was a cop and as such why then would I ask someone who appeared not to be cop to arrest me? I never asked anyone to arrest me much less DiManna.

His second lie occured when he stated that the “Bill of Rights Day” rally was nothing more than an attempt to get arrested and only a “Second Amendment” rally, yet at Mr. Stanely’s trial he said something much different and we have both lies on record. When asked by Mr. Grant if DiManna was proud of what he had done, referring to the act of arresting myself and Stanely, he said that he was indeed proud of his actions.

Yes indeed folks the cop was proud of arresting two military veterans in “veterans park” on the “Bill of Rights Day”. The cop was proud of destroying the ‘Bill of Rights”. The cop was proud of denying a person’s right to self-defense.

Now remember folks DiManna is the same cop who while at Columbine High, acting in the capacity of a Denver PD SWAT member, hid behind a fire truck while a teacher bled to death. Even though Harris and Klebold where already dead, and some of the students who fled the building even said as much to DiManna while he was hiding behind the fire truck, (DiManna is still being sued by the family members of the teacher for negligence), yes DiManna has much to be proud of.

Not only will he refuse to protect the citizens and tax payers of Columbine, but if any individual should take the initiative to do so himself, because DiManna is to much of coward. Then DiManna will pull out his gun and arrest you for exercising what is not only a God given right, but a constitutional right as well.

After DiManna’s testimony the “charade” had pretty much ended and the sheeple of the jury had of course found me guilty, as this is what the judge instructed them to do.

I was ordered by the judge to see a probation officer and come back on July 12th for sentencing. At which point Mr. Grant will of course file an appeal to Denver District court.

I am not surprised by the outcome of this case thus far and I doubt if any of you are either. If fighting for freedom was easy then we wouldn’t have to much and we all know that struggle will continue ad naseaum. Please make your checks out to Paul Grant, PO Box 2720, Parker, CO 80134
Justin Moore is offline  
Old June 18, 2002, 04:29 PM   #59
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
"Policing the police", eh?

How many of y'all have seen my website?



http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw - esp. the "Expose Project"...
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old June 18, 2002, 05:13 PM   #60
John/az2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,729
It appears that Denver is in need of a political laxitive.
John/az2 is offline  
Old June 18, 2002, 10:10 PM   #61
rellik74
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2000
Location: Trinidad, Co. , USA
Posts: 225
JUST WHEN I THOUGHT THAT DENVER COULD NOT GET ANY MORE SCREWED UP THEY PROVE ME WRONG.

Denver Sucks!!
rellik74 is offline  
Old June 27, 2002, 03:15 AM   #62
labgrade
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 29, 1999
Location: west of a small town, CO
Posts: 4,346
See Colorado Freedom Report for an update & another's take on the "proceedings."

Ari's a very stand-up guy, personal friend, etc. yada ....

Direct post exceeded the 10K limit & frankly I'm bushed tonight.
labgrade is offline  
Old June 27, 2002, 04:24 AM   #63
Justin Moore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2000
Location: Right Here
Posts: 854
lab, I got you covered:

Quote:
Do not raise the issue of the Second Amendment or the U.S. Constitution," or the Colorado Constitution, Judge Robert L. Patterson told Paul Grant, Rick Stanley's lawyer. Patterson said raising Constitutional issues is "totally improper," and "I'm not going to permit it."

"Are you clear on that, sir," Patterson said declaratively.

"Not entirely, sir," Grant responded.

"You have been warned. If you tread on that, you will be sanctioned," Patterson finally threatened.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Stanley, center, meets with his wife Pam at the Denver court house. Joe Johnson is to the right of Pam, and David Bryant is to the left of Rick. Kent McNaughton is on the far left, beside Alan Glenski.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Stanley was arrested December 15, 2001, when he carried a gun openly on his hip at a Bill of Rights rally across the street from the Capitol. He expected to be arrested and notified the police about his plan. Stanley was charged with "unlawfully carrying a weapon" under Denver ordinance and tried May 15-16. The jury found Stanley guilty. He and Grant plan to appeal.

Proceedings were set to start at 8:00 am, Wednesday morning. At 8:35, the city's attorney, Paul Puckett, was still calling roll. "It's really about wearing you down," grumbled one Libertarian. By 8:45, Puckett announced, "The city is ready to proceed," but the court heard other cases for the next two hours. Most of the cases were pled out or dismissed. "We only do one jury trial a day here," the judge noted.

Grant and Patterson started wrangling from the first exchange. "Mr. Stanley has requested a jury of 12," Grant said. "That's denied," Patterson responded. Indeed, there are only six chairs in the jury box, and by state law municipalities need only grant a jury of six.

Then, once the trial got going later in the morning, Patterson said he wanted to excuse the audience, as the jury needed the benches. Previously, Puckett told the judge Stanley's web page had encouraged people to "pack the court." Grant replied that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a public trial. Patterson said "to the extent we can accommodate" the audience, he would do so. Grant requested a larger courtroom, but his request was turned down. Grant asked the judge to note his objection. At one point, after recess had been called, the court door was locked, but then Grant and the judge continued to formally discuss the case. Grant objected to the door being locked, and it was soon opened.

Around 20 people witnessed parts of the trial. Nobody was excluded from the court room, though the benches were packed during the selection of the jury.

Jury selection began late in the morning. Twelve people were called into the pool, and more were on hand. Out of those twelve, two were dismissed by the judge and replaced, then six of the twelve were dismissed by the lawyers.

Potential jurors were asked to respond to a series of written questions. The final question was, "What do you like to read, listen to on radio and watch on television?" Puckett asked jurors if they could "apply the law the judge gives you."

One woman in the jury pool works for the Denver Police Department. Grant asked her if she was against citizens carrying guns. "I would have to be," she replied. Grant asked her if she was trained in the law, and if she took an oath to uphold the constitutions of the U.S. and Colorado. She said yes. Grant asked her if she was familiar with the Colorado constitution.

That's the point at which the judge called a sidebar, recessed, and threatened Grant with sanctions.

Thus, the jury never heard Article II, Section 13 of Colorado's Constitution, which states, "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."

At 2:30, the jurors were sworn in. The judge instructed them to "decide what the facts are," and to defer to the judge to decide the "rules of law."

Puckett and Grant agreed about the basic facts during their opening arguments. But Grant said Stanley was "expressing his political views" at a "celebration of Bill of Rights day." He said Stanley had no "criminal intent."

The first witness called was Captain Vincent J. DiManna. He said he has worked for the Denver police for over 29 years and he now works in intelligence. He said he was notified about the December 15 demonstration. He said Stanley invited him and other officers to "come join the rally." Stanley entered a circle of people, DiManna "lost sight" of Stanley, and Stanley emerged with the gun on his hip. Puckett asked if Stanley had a permit for the weapon or if DiManna perceived any direct threat to Stanley. He said no.

Grant asked DiManna if Stanley used the weapon for any criminal activity, beyond the mere infraction of the disarmament ordinance. The officer said no. Grant asked DiManna if police officers usually show up at crime scenes after the fact. DiManna said yes. So most people are "on their own until after the crime has been committed," Grant asked. "Yes, often," DiManna replied.

Do you have a "problem with self-defense?" "No, sir." "A gun can have lawful purposes." "Yes, sir." DiManna affirmed that Stanley was arrested for carrying a weapon, not for giving his speech. DiManna described Stanley's behavior as "polite and business-like," and he said Stanley cooperated fully with police.

"If Stanley was perceiving a threat, you wouldn't know that, would you?" "No." "Denver streets can be dangerous." "Yes." Do the police always arrive on time? "No, sir." Grant asked DiManna if he was on duty at Columbine high school during the shooting there. "Yes, sir."

The next witness was Steven W. Panck, who has served with the police for 25 years. He provided technical information about the gun. He said he "inscribed my initials" on the gun. He said the ammunition was stored in the magazine of the semi-automatic gun, but there was no round in the chamber.

Grant asked Panck if he was on duty at Columbine high school. "Yes." Sometimes, "police don't get there soon enough." "Yes."

At this point, Puckett objected to Grant's invocation of Columbine, and the judge sustained the objection. After the jury was sent from the room, around 3:45 pm, the judge argued that Columbine wasn't relevant. He told Grant not to "insight this jury." He said there were no allegations of the use of a weapon or of homicide (though this point seemed irrelevant).

Grant said it's "reasonable to want a weapon for self-defense." He said Columbine is an example that "people in Denver know." The "victims of Columbine were disarmed," he noted. He said the case is relevant to self-defense. The judge said the example was "inappropriate" and "totally unrelated."

The city rested. The judge told Stanley that he had a "right not to testify," and that if he testified he could be cross-examined by the city's attorney. Stanley said he didn't understand. I have a "Constitutional right" not to testify, he asked the judge? Patterson was clearly referring to the Fifth Amendment's provision that nobody can be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Why may the Fifth Amendment be invoked in city court, whereas the Second Amendment may not be? But the judge quickly changed the subject.

In his testimony, Stanley referred to Denver's ordinance as "illegal and unlawful." Stanley affirmed he carried the gun as part of the rally to celebrate the 210th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. "I'm running for the U.S. Senate; I'm the Libertarian candidate," Stanley said. We were "there to discuss gun rights, Second Amendment rights."

Did you have a "reason to believe you might be in danger?" Grant asked Stanley. Stanley said he had been threatened and one individual said he would meet him at the rally. "It's always on your mind when somebody threatens you." He added, "Our rights were being violated by the City and County of Denver." Another reference to the Second Amendment earned an objection.
Justin Moore is offline  
Old June 27, 2002, 04:25 AM   #64
Justin Moore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2000
Location: Right Here
Posts: 854
Quote:
Grant asked Stanley if he understood the difference between the defensive use and offensive use of a weapon. "Absolutely. I was in the military for 3.5 years," Stanley said. Using a gun for offense in civilian life is "inconceivable," Stanley said. Grant asked, "What is it you hoped to accomplish?" "Bring attention to a bad law" and attain standing in court. "I wanted Americans to have their God-given right, and their Second Amendment right."

After a few questions from Puckett, Grant asked Stanley if he believed his actions were unlawful. No, he was just breaking the ordinance. "You believe the ordinance is not lawful?" The judge would not allow Stanley to answer that question. The defense rested and the court adjourned around 4:45 pm.

The next morning, Grant argued with Patterson and Puckett about the jury instructions. Puckett objected to Grant's reference to an "affirmative defense" and the "right to bear arms." That's "not an enumerated affirmative defense, and I would object to those," Puckett said.

Grant argued the instructions should refer to a regulatory offense, not a "crime." He also said language stating jurors "will" do such and so should be replaced with the term, "should." "The court doesn't direct verdicts," Grant said. Grant also wanted to include language that said if any part of the charge was based on expression, it should be dismissed.

Grant argued for the affirmative defense based on self-defense from an August 15, 1977 case decided by the Colorado Supreme Court. In this case, Colorado v. Robert Glen Ford, the defendant was charged under Colorado statute pertaining to previous offenders. In that case, the trial court dismissed the felony charge because of the language of Colorado's constitution. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision; however, the Supreme Court also argued forcefully for the inclusion of Constitutional matters at trial.

The Colorado Supreme Court said, "It is axiomatic that if a statute can reasonably be construed so as to harmonize it with the Constitution, that construction should be preferred." The Court said, "[T]he right to bear arms is not absolute; the Colorado Constitution limits that right to the defense of one's home, person, and property." So if Stanley was, in part, defending his person, that should fit with the language of the Constitution.

The Court continued:

The General Assembly's power to regulate in this area, however, is subject to the clear constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms. A defendant charged under section 18-12-108 who presents competent evidence showing that his purpose in possessing weapons was the defense of his home, person, and property thereby raises an affirmative defense.
Two arguments might be made for the judge to exclude the Colorado Constitution from the jurors' instructions. First, perhaps "home-rule" cities aren't subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Clearly that argument would be bogus, because that would mean the Assembly was able to pass statutes regarding home rule not "subject to the clear constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms." Second, perhaps the sole task of city courts is to decide the facts of the case, whereas it is the task of higher courts to decide the constitutionality of the ordinances. I have heard no justification whatsoever to support that argument. And the claim seems to contradict the ruling of the Supreme Court:

We do not agree with the defendant's assertion, however, that the trial court's disposition of this issue at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing was proper. The question of the defendant's purpose in keeping the weapons is one for the fact finder to determine at trial. If the trial is to a jury, the issue is to be tried to the jury under appropriate instructions informing them of the constitutional provision... [T]he ultimate issue whether an affirmative defense applies turns solely on the fact issue of the defendant's purpose in keeping the guns. If the prosecution is entitled to a jury trial, it is entitled to have this ultimate issue submitted to a jury. We do not, however, accept the prosecution's contention that the burden is upon the defendant to prove the constitutional protection beyond a reasonable doubt. Due process requires that the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt remain with the prosecution throughout the trial.
Thus, the constitution provides an "affirmative defense" even if it is not explicitly referenced in the statute (or ordinance). Neither Puckett nor the judge provided any reason why the case of an ordinance should be handled any differently than the case of a statute. The Supreme Court said clearly that the jury is to decide matters of constitutionality.

Patterson rejected Grant's arguments and said the ordinance is constitutional.

At this point, David Bryant, who was in the room to witness the trial, told Puckett he didn't appreciate Denver's disdain for the Colorado Constitution. Bryant referred to Denver as "a little fiefdom."

At about 10:00 am, the judge told the jury, it is "my job to decide what rules of law are applied to the case," and "you must follow all the rules" given by the judge.

Puckett gave his closing speech. Stanley "violated the law" by willfully violating Denver's disarmament ordinance. Stanley wasn't really interested in self-defense, and anyway that is irrelevant to the ordinance.

Grant reminded the jury of how important their responsibility was. They "uphold the Constitutional right" to a jury trial. He said, "The verdict is yours." Jurors have the chance of "standing up for freedom, for liberty." He said Stanley was engaging in an activity that "he believed to be one of those rights." Stanley had neither a culpable mental state nor criminal intent. He broke a municipal ordinance, not a state law. And he carried his gun, in part, as a matter of self-defense. Grant reminded the jury that Stanley was speaking on the 210th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. "He thought he was expressing those rights." "You have a chance to do something for freedom," Grant concluded.

At about 10:40 am, the jury came back and convicted Stanley
Justin Moore is offline  
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2025 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.05745 seconds with 7 queries