An important free speech case will be considered before the United States Supreme Court this Friday, March 28. The Court will decide whether to grant a writ of certiorari in the case of Rick Stanley v. State of Colorado.It's troubling that I can find nothing about this on SCOTUSblog.
Rick Stanley is in prison for six years for threatening to have two Colorado judges arrested for ignoring his Constitutional right to bear arms. He appears to be the only U.S. citizen ever to be imprisoned solely for threatening to issue an arrest warrant.
But in my opinion, informed liberty activists need to know about this case, and here's a convenient way to get the "Cliffs Notes" version. Take a few minutes and watch this video:
In case you're wondering why I'm making so much noise about recent "adventures" with Marshal Dave, it's because I know what happened to Rick and what can happen to anyone who speaks in a way the masters disapprove of. Those corrupt robed vultures in Colorado are on par with Jimm Larry Hendren.
If you haven't already seen it, please take another minute or so to read this, written almost four years ago to no avail.
12 comments:
Clearly, our government on all laevels has no use for the Constitution. We are left with one choice: slavery or war.
Thought you needed a couple witnesses in treason cases?
My guess is he rots, they wouldn't dare hear a case like that.
is there contact information for available for Mr. Klar?
Those judges obviously agreed with Mr. Stanley that they were guilty of treason. Else the mere fact of being informed of pursuit of legal remedy against them could not have possibly been perceived as a threat.
The fact that sitting judges view the prospect of a citizen availing himself of possible legal remedy as a threat really tells us all we need to know, doesn't it, Jimm Larry Hendren?
I Googled him and found this site:
http://www.christianwords.us/index.htm
I then emailed him and informed him of this post and invited him to weigh in.
@ Crotalus:
> Clearly, our government on all laevels has no use for the Constitution.
You reckoned without its use as window dressing.
Mark Odell
Sorry, but threatening a judge with arrest by a militia for the charge of treason isn't a "legal action."
That's a thinly veiled death threat.
The problem is, Justin, that's your interpretation.
Again, his intent and the context of his letters were never explored, in clear violation of SC precedent in VA vs Black AND US v Watts.
The court ruled it did not have to prove intent, even though in order to be criminalized, "subjective intent" MUST be demonstrated--that's the law, and it was ignored.
By withholding that from the jury, along with the context of a long train of government abuses he suffered--which turned out to be ILLEGAL--and by only letting the jury hear what the judges SAID they believed, and I doubt they really did, I fail to see how a credible threat could have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and a citizen thrown in the hole for 6 years.
You say it was "a thinly veiled death threat." Reasonable doubt would also have to admit the Watts ruling interpretation, that it was "obvious political hyperbole." That was not allowed.
In fact, I find it reasonable to believe the courts acted on UNREASONABLE political hyperbole in treating this as a threat with subjective intent, especially since they intentionally did not permit the jury to consider that.
What we DO know is the previous conviction he was suffering WAS illegal, and for the judge not to recognize that and reverse the ruling would be denying a citizen his rights under color of authority, in other words, a crime. The warrant mentioned would only have been issued under that circumstance, and there was no indication that it would be anything other than issuing a piece of paper with no intent to execute it.
Now I don't agree with what Rick did. I think at best it was tremendously naive to think there would not be repercussions--especially for someone who understands the depths tyranny will sink to to maintain its hold. I don't think Rick should have done what he did and think he acted imprudently, but in zeal--after all, we didn't live through the persecution he did for exercising a right that he was vindicated on. I don't recommend ever making a target of oneself, something I sometimes preach better than I practice, but I cede that he crossed a line I would not have.
But to me, saying it was proven that he made a credible threat and deserves prison is debatable--in other words, I have reasonable doubt. The sentences were intentionally excessive and vindictive, and I believe were intended by "authority" to send a message far beyond Rick Stanley.
And, to put things in perspective, many of the men who founded this republic committed far graver "offenses."
I believe his fixed trial flew in the face of precedent and made a criminal conviction a foregone conclusion.
So, let me get this straight.
David Meyers threatens you with arrest, and threatened Ryan Horsely with arrest, and Aaron Zelman too.... but, if it were to go the other way around that is a crime?
What's good for the goose I thought was good for the gander.
I do agree that the threat wasn't credible and the judges knew or the whole case would have been allowed to be presented. Further, if one must take action against someone, don't warn them.
In cases such as these which are becoming so commonplace and are all adjudicated with the fix in, perhaps it will come to pass that the only satisfaction is to dispense death to one's antagonists. If they are in power, do not forewarn them would seem to be a prudent course.
Since this is not what happened in this case, I cannot take seriously that this was a death threat.
One does have to wonder if they can ever release their victims of abused justice and ever get another good night's sleep. I hope not. I would like to see them broken in health and temperment from worry that justice will come home to them.
justin, your opinion on this is your opinion, but I would point out that a certain unman I know equated and invitation to talk face to face with a threat of violence. Now, either we cater to every coward and their fears or we act reasonably.
I prefer reason, but some like the unman I mentioned scream and run away and then talk about you. This is what was done in this case, but the unmen here had the power the fix the game.
If Stanley had been convicted after a jury actually heard the case, that might be different.
In Wayne Fincher's case the jury wasn't even allowed in the room when his defense was to speak. Same sort of deal. You can't possibly condone that.I hope.
It is a shame what these judges are pulling.And you are right it can happen to anyone that dares to exercise free speech.
I found you through the Conservative Scalawag.
I will link you on my blog.
Post a Comment