CONSTITUTIONAL & CIVIL RIGHTS / RULE-OF-LAW / REIN IN JUDICIAL IMMUNITY / JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY /

 


The
Rick Stanley Story

HELP KEEP
VICTIMS-OF-LAW
ON THE WEB

SHOP OUR ADVERTISERS

OR CONTRIBUTE NOW

DIRECTORY

HOME

ABOUT / CONTACT

TERMS / CONDITIONS

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

JUSTICE MYTHOLOGY


News & Views

ATTORNEYS & JUDGES

ATTORNEY NEWS

ATTORNEY NEWS REVIEW

JUDICIARY NEWS

BANKRUPTCY COURTS

IMMIGRATION COURTS

JUDICIARY NEWS REVIEW

JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM & INACTIVISM

PERSPECTIVES
 (Personal Observations)

U.S. SUPREME COURT

SCOTUS PG. 1

SCOTUS PG. 2

CURRENT SESSION


CRIMINAL LAW

Death Penalty

DEATH PENALTY REPORTS

Innocents In Prison

Prison Reform


DISABILITY LAW

DISABILITY LAW

DISABILITY ARCHIVES


FAMILY LAW

Children's Rights

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS PG. 2

Family INFO  (General)

family LAW (archives)

family LAW articles
 
  Courtesy lawyers weekly

Fatherhood

Fatherhood Archives

Motherhood

MOTHERHOOD ARCHIVES


PROBATE LAW

guardianship


RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

FIRST AMENDMENT:
RELIGION & EXPRESSION


SELF-REPRESENTED
(Pro Se News)

PRO SE INFORMATION


REFORMERS

LEGAL ACTIVISTS

LEGAL ACTIVISTS Pg. 2


WHISTLEBLOWER  LAW

LEGAL & COURT BUSINESS

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES


INDEXES
TO SPECIAL
SECTIONS

FEDERAL COURTS INDEX

FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

JUDGING THE JUDGES
INDEX & RESOURCES

STATE INDEXES

FLORIDA

NEW JERSEY

NEW YORK

SOUTH DAKOTA

PRO SE INDEX

REFORMERS INDEX

WHISTLEBLOWER INDEX


LEGAL RESEARCH

LEGAL RESEARCH
(FREE SITES
)

ALSO SEE INDIVIDUAL STATE INDEXES


REFORM GROUPS

DISABILITY ACTIVISTS

FAMILY LAW

CHILDREN

FATHERHOOD

MOTHERHOOD

LEGAL REFORM ACTIVISTS

MAJOR REFORM GROUPS

PRO SE (SELF-HELP)

PRISON REFORM

DEATH PENALTY

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS


MEDIA LINKS


PETITIONS

PEOPLE WHO HAVE
GONE PUBLIC

 

SEND NEWS RELEASES
VIA EMAIL


REQUEST
GROUP LISTING

Victims-of-Law
Open Discussion

Click here to join victimsoflaw_discuss
Click to join victimsoflaw_discuss

 

 

Rick Stanley's crime?
Believing the Second Amendment exists for all citizens of the United States

(Click to go to story, below Commentary)


COMMENTARY: Victims-of-Law takes the position that all persons in America should follow our 'Rule of Law,'  including Court Rules, Rules of Evidence, the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions, and all relevant statutes. However, it is a fairly well known fact that many judges do not subscribe to the "Rule of Law." As a result, some of our citizenry have turned to an earlier version of 'rule of law' -- out of total exasperation with our present system, which gives judges absolute immunity from civil liability to do whatever they want even if it's malicious or corrupt. Click to read Judicial Immunity is Absolute on our front page. Illustrating a case from 1821 and cited throughout the years, Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821), expressed his concept of judicial obligation and judicial power as:

 “It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”

See additional information in right hand column.


INTERNET NEWS RELEASE (edited)

Rick Stanley was arrested on Dec 15, 2001 at a rally where he gave a speech about Second Amendment rights in front of 250 people at Veterans Park below the State Capitol in Denver, Colorado. It was alleged that he violated a local ordinance prohibiting the carrying of any weapon locally in Denver. The weapon was a small caliber pistol, in a holster and it was loaded.

 Rick Stanley is a Denver businessman for thirty years, a liberty activist who was running for the U.S. Senate at the time. Stanley had two defenses for the actions which were not allowed to be brought up in the Denver courtroom of Judge James Patterson.

 Defense #1: 2d Amendment US Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. 

Defense #2: Article 2, Section 13 of Colorado's Constitution 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".

 The higher laws of the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitution trump any local laws, except in America, the Republic that is alleged to be under the "Rule of Law." Stanley was found guilty of this ordinance, sentenced to 6 months in jail (5 months suspended), $629.00 fine, and 75 hours of community service for "exercising his Constitutional Rights".

 Stanley was arrested again for carrying a loaded .357 pistol on his hip in Thornton, Colorado, at the Harvest Festival, in 2002 in another test case of violating their similar open carry prohibition. Stanley was found guilty of violating the open carry ordinance and sentenced to 3 months in jail and $500.00 fine.

 The Colorado legislature passed a bill called SB-25, which Colorado Governor Owens signed into law on March 18, 2003. It pre-empted all of the roughly 78 local ordinances across Colorado which prohibited or restricted open carry throughout Colorado. This law is spread out in several statutes. CRS S 29-11.7-101 states:

"(1)(b) Section 13 of Article II of the state constitution protects the fundamental right of a person to keep and bear arms and implements section 3 of article II of the state constitution; (1) (c) The general assembly recognizes a duty to protect and defend the fundamental civil rights set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection"...

CRS S 29-11.7-103 states: "A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable".

 Stanley took the law on face value and filed a pleading on October 15, 2003 with the Thornton Municipal Court and the Adams County District which had heard his appeal and turned it down. In this Notice and Order to the courts Stanley communicated to these judges the following:

1) His open carry criminal convictions violated Colorado Constitution Art. 2, Section 13;

2) SB-25, which was signed into law on March 18, 2003, affirmed Colorado Const. Art. 2, Sec 13 and preempted these ordinances;

3) He demanded that these judges overturn his convictions on constitutional grounds; and

4) He said: Failure to do so will result in a treason charge against (name of judge) for failure to uphold the oath of office to defend the Constitution that all public officials and judges must swear to as a condition of their office. This treason charge will result in a Mutual Defense Pact Militia Footnote 1 warrant for (name of judge) if the following conditions are not met:

A. Overturn the unconstitutional convictions of Rick Stanley for violation of (local ordinance) because (ordinance #) violates the constitutional rights of Rick Stanley under the guise of color of law.

B. Return the $1,500.00 bond to Rick Stanley.

C. Return Rick Stanley's property which consists of 1 each Smith and Wesson 6 shot .357 pistol and 6 each .357 bullets.

This court is notified once more, as Stanley gave Notice from the beginning of the proceeding against him, (name of court) has no jurisdiction over him in this matter. Accordingly this order is affirmed. (End)  (Signed Rick Stanley, with a certificate of mailing to the courthouse).

 Stanley knew of Colorado's citizen's arrest statute CRS S 16-3-210 which states as follows: "A person who is not a peace officer may arrest another person in the presence of the person making the arrest". Footnote 2

 Stanley knew of hundreds of Supreme Court decisions that backed up all of his assertions in the pleading that he filed with the court. He knew he had the First Amendment protected and guaranteed right to "petition the government for redress of grievances." He knew he had First Amendment guaranteed and protected rights to "free speech". He knew that the Supreme Court had decisions from the past that declared a judge was committing treason for not upholding his oath of office to defend the Constitutions.  He knew of all the case law decisions from the US Supreme Court backing those rights as well.  These case laws and issues can be seen at Stanley's website: LEGAL MEMO for Rick Stanley prepared by Attorney Peter Mancus of California.

 On October 18, 2003, Stanley was arrested by FBI agents, turned over to the Denver Police department and jailed for 102 days on the previous gun charges and was charged with two new felony charges of alleged violation of a Colorado statute that made it a felony to attempt to influence a public official to make a decision by a threat of violence, deceit, or economic reprisal (CRS S 18-8-306).

 In June of 2004, Rick Stanley was found guilty of the two felony charges of "Influencing a Public Official" and was sentenced to 6 years in state prison, 6 years of parole thereafter, $10,000.00 fine and $8,200.00 restitution for swat team protection over the weekend for the two judges "while Stanley had been incarcerated in the Denver City Jail and the Adams County Detention Center.” Stanley was released on $80,000.00 paid bond and his case is currently on appeal at the Colorado Court of appeals.

 At no time, were any of the juries instructed what the superior constitutional or statute laws were, or any Supreme Court decisions that would have exonerated  Stanley, by any of the judges, in any case he was tried for. In all the cases, the jury was only instructed by the judges to find Stanley guilty or innocent of the charges, that he was charged with, without benefit of the knowledge of the laws that would have exonerated him, with the one exception where Judge Rose had denied Stanley a jury trial in Thornton and Judge Rose made all the decisions himself, about the law and the charges.

 Rick Stanley has been saddled with 2 misdemeanors, 2 felonies, arrested many times, jailed many times, and now has 6 years of state prison hanging over his head should his appeals fail in State Courts.  Stanley has said that he will take the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary to exonerate him from the charges of "exercising Constitutional rights".  Stanley's Thornton gun case is also at the Colorado Court of Appeals in the form of a Reconsideration Appeal, even though he has already served the 90 days in jail and paid the fine.

_____________________________

Footnote 1 "Mutual Defense Pact Militia" was a group formed by Rick Stanley and appears to be defunct. Victims-of-Law does not subscribe to numerous types of militia groups that have formed in the past 20 or so years. Likewise it does not subscribe to the "Common Law" groups that openly flout our legitimate rules and laws. Here, the Stanley case is one where the judges appear to have been flouting the laws and rules thus creating legitimate grievances for all those in the legal reform communities. True Patriots work within the law to change the law. Our ability to have judges held accountable for malicious and unlawful acts is our goal.

Footnote 2 Victims-of-Law would also like to note the following:

CRS S 16-3-202 related to immunity. "(4) Private citizens, acting in good faith, shall be immune from any civil liability for reporting to any police officer or law enforcement authority the commission or suspected commission of any crime or for giving other information to aid in the prevention of any crime." -- It does not state that judges are an exception.

Colorado's Oath of Office for Judges

Taking the “Oath of Office” issue one step further, most people do not realize that many state judiciaries also publish “Directives” issued by the Supreme Court. Victims-of-Law) accessed the Colorado Directives and the one for  “Oaths of Office for Judges” (reprinted below) is “Directive 85-25”. As for “retired judges” Directive 96-04 only allows for judges in Civil Cases by agreement of all parties.

Directive 85-25

SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO

Office of the Chief Justice

OATHS OF OFFICE FOR JUDGES

1. Newly appointed judges may take an oath of office anytime between the date their appointments are announced by the Governor and the effective date of their appointments. Judges who have been retained in office for additional terms usually should take an oath of office on the first day of the new term.

2. Regardless of when an oath of office is administered, judges cannot take office until the effective date of their appointments. The reason for this policy is to make certain that new judges do not enter office or attempt to conduct judicial business while an incumbent judge is still in office or prior to the time when a new judgeship actually comes into existence.

3. All judicial oaths, except for county judges, must be filed with the Secretary of State. County judges must file their oaths with the county clerk and recorder of their respective counties, who, in turn, must send copies of the oaths to the Secretary of State.

4. New judges will not be placed on the Judicial Department payroll until they actually begin performing judicial duties.

Rick Stanley

CLICK FOR

RICK STANLEY'S
WEBSITE

 

READ
Rebellion Alone is not Patriotism

By: Jurisdictionary's
Attorney, Frederick Graves 


CLICK BELOW

TO ORDER

Second Amendment Books

Win Without a Lawyer
Step-by-step tutorials show how.
Legal self-help that works!

Written by an attorney!

Order from
Jurisdictionary today!

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is dedicated to promoting a better understanding about our Constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms. To that end, they carry on many educational and legal action programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate.

Click here to view all Right
to Keep and Bear Arms
state constitutional
protections!

 


"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government,

one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America,

but which historically has proved to be always possible."

- Senator Hubert H. Humprey (D-Minnesota) -

 

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men

with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows,

and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."

- Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878 -
 

Due to server's technical difficulties the numbering restarted on 6/19/06
Since 6/19/06 You are visitor number

Hit Counter

Inaugurated on January 15, 2005
Updated: 11/19/2009