Links to Rick Stanley case from JPFO

Mr. Stanley, for various reasons, is less than popular in some or many quarters. Fair enough.

As to "cert denied", we shall see what happens there, and if cert denied turns out to be the way this cookie crumbles, what might be the fall out from such a result.

Could turn out to be very much not to the liking of many, Mr. Stanley's personality and or problems notwithstanding. Wasn't it Emile Vola who was credited with saying something along the following lines. "I despise everything you say. I will however, defend to the death, your right to say it".

That sir might be something to think on.

Best.
 
My understanding of this case is that:

1. Mr. Stanley got his firearm confiscated by this judge for a local ordnance
2. State pre-emption was passed after his firearm was taken
3. Mr. Stanley, as a member of a private militia, issued a private warrant with no legal standing, to be executed by his private militia, for the arrest and trial of the judge who took his gun.
4. Mr. Stanley was subsequently arrested.


This is not a public warrant that Stanley issued, it was a threat on level with a Fatwah by a kook Islamofascist.

This is the text of Mr. Stanley's private warrant:
Rick Stanley demands that Judge Donald W. Marshall, Jr., overturn this conviction of Stanley on constitutional grounds. Failure to do so will result in a treason charge against Donald W. Marshall, Jr. for failure to uphold the oath of office to defend the Constitutions, which this court has on record, and Donald W. Marshall, Jr., swore to, as a "condition" of his office. This treason charge, will result in a Mutual Defense Pact Militia warrant for Donald W. Marshall, Jr.'s arrest if the following conditions are not met:
1. Overturn the unconstitutional conviction of Rick Stanley for violation of TRMC 38-237 because TRMC 38-237 violates the constitutional rights of Rick Stanley, under the guise of "color of law."
2. Return the $1,500.00 bond to Rick Stanley.
3. Return Rick Stanley's property which consists of 1 each Smith and Wesson 6 shot .357 pistol and 6 each .357 bullets.
Click to expand...
 
it was a threat on level with a Fatwah by a kook Islamofascist.
Click to expand...

I think that might be pushing it a little bit red hawk.

In my view it was a matter of political expression, albeit a poorly worded one. And the reason he was in court to begin with was pretty poor as well---he should've had the case thrown out and had his firearm returned to him. His particular method of bringing attention to the matter proved inadequate and ended up costing him a lot more pain, but I'm not gonna sit here and fault the guy for at least having a principled stance about things. Right or wrong, if more people stood up for their natural rights, we might not see our country moving in the poor direction it is today.

Thanks for the links Alan. :)
 
I think that might be pushing it a little bit red hawk.
Click to expand...

If he was interested in rolling the dice in the game of justice, he could have affected a Citizen's Arrest with the judge, or filed a report with the local PD (or state troopers), citing the Colorado Revised Statute law number that was violated by the judge.

Instead he chose to act almost identically to Muqtada Al Sadr and his Mahdi Army. He declared himself an enforcer of law (although not appointed by a city, county, state or federal entity) and issued a warrant. Then threatened to use his 700 man privately organized force to implement the warrant.

He did not:
1. Threaten to use the legislature or governor to remove a rogue judge via impeachment.
2. Threaten to push a ballot initiative to remove said rogue judge.
3. Threaten to bring criminal obstruction of justice charges against the judge.
4. Threaten to bring civil suit against the judge for wrongful use of authority, theft, or civil rights violations.

Those would all be appropriate responses.
 
He did not:
1. Threaten to use the legislature or governor to remove a rogue judge via impeachment.
2. Threaten to push a ballot initiative to remove said rogue judge.
3. Threaten to bring criminal obstruction of justice charges against the judge.
4. Threaten to bring civil suit against the judge for wrongful use of authority, theft, or civil rights violations.
Click to expand...

Yes his 'private warrant' was not a very good idea for a first recourse or last for that matter . I am however not sure he deserves to be imprisoned for six years for it though.

Why was he under surveillance by the domestic terrorism task force? Anyone know?
 
While there might well be a lot wrong with Mr. Stanley and or the approach to situations he choose to follow, the following comes to mind.

His major and possibly only offense, other than perhaps acting in questionable taste, was, is and remains offending the majesty of government, in some soverign nations it's called "insulting the government", the government being some judge or magistrate here.

If thse people are so sensitive, possibly they would be better, much better advised to stay OUT of public affairs, possibly taking up the practice of law as a private practioner, where their private busineass is and remains their private business. Having undertaken judgeship, a public office, going through such travail as was necessary to obtain that position, they have all to willingly, laid their actions open to public examination, compliment or criticism, as the case might be. Seems to mne that the judge lacks legitimate gripe.

As Harry Truman once offered, "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen".
 
Stanley???

dont know the man but. there is the POSSE COMITATIS and citizens arrest.to many jurists are activists and regard their status as god.having little knowledge of law or dont care.example the 2nd.and all the gun laws. :rolleyes:--:confused:----:D
 
Why was he under surveillance by the domestic terrorism task force? Anyone know?
Click to expand...

its pretty normal for militia's or supremacist groups and individuals to be under surveillance of some sort.
 
His major and possibly only offense, other than perhaps acting in questionable taste, was, is and remains offending the majesty of government, in some soverign nations it's called "insulting the government", the government being some judge or magistrate here.
Click to expand...

Evidently, the jury who heard the facts felt differently.

But then again, agenda driven whiners are far more credible than a jury, yes?

Let us know if cert is granted.

dont know the man but. there is the POSSE COMITATIS and citizens arrest.to many jurists are activists and regard their status as god.having little knowledge of law or dont care.example the 2nd.and all the gun laws.
Click to expand...

Utter indecipherable nonsense.

WildnowondertheantistakethehighgroundAlaska TM
 
Wild Alaska

My understanding, of this case runs as follows, and perhaps it's wrong.

Mr. Stanley was arrested for open carriage of a handgun, which at the time might have violated some legal specification or local ordinance where his action took place.

Subsequently, the state legislature changed the law, which I believed served to vacate the charges against Mr. Stanley. His property, a handgun and ammunition had been confiscated. He sought the return of this property, making statements regarding having a trial judge or magistrate arrested.

Jail time, consecutive terms amounting to 6 years I believe, to which he was sentenced strikes me as grossly excessive, though I' not learned in the law, nor do I know exactly what sort of case was presented to the jury. I also don't know about cert being granted or refused, do you?
 
ail time, consecutive terms amounting to 6 years I believe, to which he was sentenced strikes me as grossly excessive, though I' not learned in the law, nor do I know exactly what sort of case was presented to the jury.
Click to expand...

Then why are you even posting a link to this crap while calling it a "free Speech" case and making all sorts of suppositions about it? You have no facts to back up any allegations in this case at all.

As far the Courts have been concerned, this nutcase was properly convicted and got the sentence he deserved. If SCOTUS sees fit to review and reverse let me know.

Martyr on the altar of freedom this guy ain't.

Warm regards,

Wildmanu!manu!Alaska TM
 
Not knowing anything else about the man or the case, I dont see how his "statement", if it was essentially as Aredhawk44 posted, constitutes any crime at all.Doesnt seem like he made any threats of vioence, or libelous/slanderous statements against anyone, so I dont see what the crime could be.I'm curious now, and will have to look further.
 
jrfoxx said:
Not knowing anything else about the man or the case, I dont see how his "statement", if it was essentially as Aredhawk44 posted, constitutes any crime at all.
Click to expand...
It took some research, but I've found the docs needed to comment.

jrfoxx, the State of Colorado charged and convicted Stanley of violating the following Colorado statute, 18-8-306:
Any person who attempts to influence any public servant by means of deceit or by threat of violence or economic reprisal against any person or property, with the intent thereby to alter or affect the public servant's decision, vote, opinion, or action concerning any matter which is to be considered or performed by him or the agency or body of which he is a member, commits a class 4 felony.
Click to expand...
Not once, but twice, because Stanley sent to 2 Judges a letter that demanded them to reverse his convictions on other firearms charges, or face consequences of being "arrested" and "charged" with treason.

That was the threat.

I've read the petition of certiorari (in html format, here) and while this is a novel approach to Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 123 S. Ct. 1536, 155 L. Ed. 2d 535 (2003), on 1A grounds, I rather doubt that cert will be granted.

N.B: I was once a supporter of this man, until I delved into his background and his agenda. Regardless of my present distaste of his political position(s), I believe his case to be without merit.
 
Quote from Post #15:
Any person who attempts to influence any public servant by means of deceit or by threat of violence or economic reprisal against any person or property, with the intent thereby to alter or affect the public servant's decision, vote, opinion, or action concerning any matter which is to be considered or performed by him or the agency or body of which he is a member, commits a class 4 felony.

Not once, but twice, because Stanley sent to 2 Judges a letter that demanded them to reverse his convictions on other firearms charges, or face consequences of being "arrested" and "charged" with treason.

That was the threat.

There was/is a "threat", though hardly one likely to have been carried out, it seems. Additionally, as to "threeat of violence", where?

Having said that, it seems likely that Mr. Stanley might suffer from manifold problems. Others do also, so be it, however I once again am given to inquire as to where the threat of violece or for that matter, any threat that carried with it some significant possibility of being carried out. I do not see such here.

Wild Alaska: I described it as a Free Speech case because it so seemed, which is not to say that Mr. Stanley's choice of language would be my choice of language. Also, it appears that gun rights are/were involved. It also might well be that Stanley went about it the wrojng way.
 
I described it as a Free Speech case because it so seemed, which is not to say that Mr. Stanley's choice of language would be my choice of language. Also, it appears that gun rights are/were involved. It also might well be that Stanley went about it the wrojng way.
Click to expand...

I should hope you wouldn't use his choice of language. So far you haven't had the honesty to directly quote his language. Normally I have a lot of respect for the things you post, Alan, and I read your emails with enthusiasm. But your silence in regards to primary reference material in this matter is deafening.

Free speech grants me no more right to make empty threats on a judge than it grants me right to shout "fire!" in a movie theater, or "bomb!" in an airport.

His freedom of speech grants him the right to assert his authority as a citizen and lay his freedom and property on the line in the event of a citizen's arrest, or to present the information he has to any law officer to take it from there under color of law.

While "Mutual Defense Pacts" are certainly good for things like Black Helicopters, Blue Helmets and Zombies and IMO are every bit as necessary for the security of a free state and populace like a militia is.... they aren't there for the enforcement of judicial proceedings.

And for the record, I hope the rogue judge is dealt with, and Mr. Stanley gets his gun back (as long as he isn't found to be a felon in the state of Colorado for making terroristic threats to a judge).

AZRedhawkI'mnotWildAlaskabutIdidstayataMotel6lastnight44
 
azredhawk44 said:
And for the record, I hope the rogue judge is dealt with, and Mr. Stanley gets his gun back (as long as he isn't found to be a felon in the state of Colorado for making terroristic threats to a judge).
Click to expand...
He may or may not get those gun charges overturned. I don't believe he'll get the subsequent charges of, Unlawful Attempt to Influence a Public Official, dismissed. There were other means to achieve his goal than what he did.

First and foremost, he acted pro se in the original charges. He should have bit the bullet and gotten a real attorney to defend him against the gun charges.

That tactical blunder led to everything else.
 
Antipitas:

Hasn't it been offered that he who tries his own case/acts as his own attorney has poor counsel and a foolish client?

azredhawk44:

Thanks for your kind words regarding what I've written in the past. Regarding this particular case, in-so-far as I'm aware, Mr. Stanley offered that he would have one more judges arrested, I do NOT claim that the foregoing are his exact words.

It also appears to me that respecting such threats as might be construed from his exact words, they could tell another story, the liklehood of the "threat" actually being carried out should also be examined.

Earlier on, I had read quotes attributed to Stanley and comments on this matter. Unfortunately I do not recall exact words. Could you perhaps provide same, it might be helpful to all. It could be helpful to me.

I've looked at a couple of web sites, and unless I missed something there, I didn't find and particular quotes from Stanley that struck me as "threatening". One judge did note, if I read correctly, that he felt "threatened". His feelings seemed unexplained, though I guess that one could question whether he would need to exlain his feelings.

Thanks
 
alan said:
Hasn't it been offered that he who tries his own case/acts as his own attorney has poor counsel and a foolish client?
Click to expand...
I was going to put that in my last post, but felt it went without saying. I must have been correct, as you picked up on it.

There is, The Stanley Files, a collection of libertarian articles on Stanley, his campaign and other related materials. You might find them interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top