Peter J. Mancus
Attorney at Law
Victorian Square
876 Gravenstein Ave. So., Suite 3
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Tel: (707) 829-9050
pmancus at prodigy dot net
July 15, 2004
LETTER
TO
RICK STANLEY'S SENTENCING JUDGE
Dear Judge:
Introduction
I am a 33 year member of the California State Bar [license number 52606] in good standing, a former criminal prosecutor, an ex-military brat [dad is retired U.S. Air Force], a self-made Second Amendment scholar, a person who believes that the Bill of Rights is Mankind's greatest achievement, and a person who has never met Rick Stanley nor talked to him but who is fairly well acquainted with his situation and the main facts that preceded his current predicament.
I do not know Mr. Stanley personally. I have, however, read rather extensively his writings on the Internet, and I have talked to a few people whose judgment I respect who have met him personally and who have heard his views on certain issues.
I am not associated with any group that formally supports Rick Stanley.
No one has paid me anything nor offered to pay me anything to write this on Mr. Stanley's behalf.
I write this as an installment payment that I must make for a selfish reason: My vested interest to restore Liberty under a Constitutional Rule of Law in our nation.
When the bell rings for Stanley, it rings for me, too, and for yourself, whether you realize it or not.
I communicate with you as an independent, concerned citizen who is alarmed over what has been done by civil authority against Rick Stanley in contravention of his rights that pre-existed before the creation of Society, Government, and Man-Made Law and that survive to this day despite the formation of Society, Government, and Man-Made Law.
There is a sickening, dangerous, appalling trend in our nation and, apparently, in Colorado and Denver: Too many who hold power in civil authority are intent on expanding their powers, on contracting citizens' rights, on abridging peaceful citizens' God-given rights which were declared in the July 4th Declaration and later codified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. Those three documents [Declaration, Constitution, and Bill] are the Organic Law of this Nation. They are the invisible glue that is suppose to bind us together as a nation and distinguish us from the world. They are The Tree of Liberty.
We are a nation, and a great one, not because of our technology or resources or anything else but only to the extent we remain 100% faithful to our Organic Law. That was not done in the various criminal prosecutions against Rick Stanley. Stanley was charged with violating mere twigs-dead rot twigs at that-that burden The Tree of Liberty. Those dead rot twigs are unconstitutional because they conflict with the Constitution, this nation's Supreme Law.
There is only one Supreme Law in this nation: The Constitution. Just as the mass of your car and the mass of my car cannot occupy the same space, the "laws" that your local civil authority claims Stanley violated cannot occupy the same space as the Supreme Law. By definition, those local laws are subservient to the Supreme Law, and, when they conflict, the Supreme Law, by definition, remains supreme. Nothing trumps the Supreme Law-nothing.
I write to you in the hopes that my voice and logic will help make it unnecessary that violence will have to be used to restore Liberty under a Constitutional Rule of Law.
You-and others-need to understand that should it prove necessary, for reasons independently of Rick Stanley-there is a hard core of citizens in this nation who will resort to lethal force to defeat Tyranny in all forms and disguises, to restore Liberty.
Civil authority in Denver has broken faith with the Founders' and Framers' vision. It has wiped its collective ass with the Bill of Rights at Rick Stanley's expense. In doing so, it threatens my vital interests. What it has done is insufferable. These perversions of the Organic Law shall not stand as a precedent.
The Bill was calculated to take away civil authority's discretion and to place certain matters 100% off limits and beyond the will or the power of any majority, law maker, judge, sworn peace officer, executive, etc. In Denver, however, the Bill's "glue" has let go-through no fault of Rick Stanley's. No, indeed. Those responsible for this development are his persecutors.
We are now no longer a great nation. Instead, we are a gaggle of elitists who think "freedom" is their liberty, right, and prerogative to oppress anyone like and including Rick Stanley who disagrees with them, even when the disagreement is manifested out of deep principle, conviction, the highest respect for the law, and all done so peacefully. In that sense, we are not meaningfully different from the Iraqi factions conflict, the Arab versus Jew conflict, and the Irish Protestant versus Irish Catholics conflict.
Whether you realize it or not, civil authority in Denver has egregiously abused its powers under color of law and has declared a peaceful patriot, Rick Stanley, a criminal and its own crimes Law and Justice. But, to the extent it tries to scape goat Stanley, discredit him, ruin his life, it only confirms that it [civil authority] is a mean spirited, out of control, illegitimate criminal enterprise that begs for its long overdue comeuppance.
A U.S. Supreme Court judge once opined that the life of the law is not logic but experience. True. The War Between the States from 1861 to 1865 was part of our national experience, which arose from various legal issues. The American Revolutionary War before that was part of our national experience, which also arose from various legal issues. Perpetuate the abuse inflicted against Rick Stanley and you will contribute meaningfully to increasing the odds that there will be another outbreak of sustained violence.
If you construe this candor as me attempting to improperly influence a government official, that is your problem and your misconstruction. No one will put a gag in my mouth.
Like Rick Stanley, his rights and my rights are not a matter of your-or anyone else's-grace.
If constructive candor alarms you bear in mind it is triggered by the alarming conduct civil authority has itself set into motion.
There are finite limits as to how long well informed citizens will tolerate civil authorities public serpents functioning as piranhas that increasingly bit off chunks of Liberty as if they were devouring a hapless hippo.
Piranhas should not be surprised when the hapless hippo morphs into the most awesome crocodile that devours the piranhas.
One bottom line is this: In the case of Rick Stanley, civil authority has inexplicably perverted the law and applied it illogically against Rick Stanley in a fashion that I, as a fellow citizen and a trained, licensed, legal professional, declare to be alarming, mean-spirited, oppressive, pig headed, unjustifiable, and insufferable.
I am confident that those who have persecuted Rick Stanley do so for reasons that I could easily expose to be unconstitutional and vile if they sat in a chair and submitted to a cross-examination by me. I am also confident that several lawyers I know, plus laypersons, could do the same.
I assure you that whatever message those in Denver who have persecuted Stanley think they have been sending to Mr. Stanley, me, and thousands, if not tens of thousands of others, is not the message Stanley, I, and others are receiving.
If you share the core value and political-"legal" orientation of those who have persecuted Rick Stanley to date, you would be uncomfortable with how thousands of fellow citizens through out the nation are processing the message being sent.
As a prudent, constructive suggestion, you need to find the integrity and the courage to do your sworn duty, namely, to support the United States Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The "and domestic" part includes those who have abused their powers under color of law and persecuted Stanley. Hence, you should vacate the convictions or, at an absolute minimum, release Mr. Stanley from custody pending his appeal and/or impose only a minimal, token sentence, suspended.
I encourage you, the prosecutor, the prosecutor's supervisors, the probation officer, and everyone who has piled on and persecuted Rick Stanley to read the rest of what follows.
Purpose
My purpose includes the following: 1) To express support for patriot Rick Stanley who is now a convicted, persecuted, political prisoner in what is suppose to be the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave under a Constitutional Rule of Law; 2) To express my personal and professional contempt for those prosecutors, sworn peace officers, and judges who had any material role in perverting this nation's laws contrary to Mr. Stanley's rights as enshrined in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, which is Mankind's greatest achievement; 3) To sound an alarm; 4) To try to persuade whomever will sentence Mr. Stanley to either dismiss the case with prejudice, despite the conviction, or, in the alternative, at a minimum, to grant Mr. Stanley a stay of execution of sentence pending appeal or to sentence him to the most minimal sentence or both; 5) To try to "influence a public official," as an exercise of my First Amendment rights of Free Speech and to Petition Government for Redress of a Grievance, on Mr. Stanley's behalf; and 6) To dare anyone in Colorado to try to prosecute me successfully for writing this letter, for making it public, and for forwarding it to Mr. Stanley's wife for presentation to you, the sentencing judge, for the purpose of influencing you, hopefully, to be lenient toward Rick Stanley. Facts Briefly, the material facts, as I understand them, follow: 1) Rick Stanley was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for merely carrying a loaded sidearm in a public place, openly, in Colorado, in the belief that the Second Amendment is his nation-wide open carry gun permit; 2) He peacefully, with no criminal intent, merely carried this sidearm, as a responsible exercise of his Second Amendment right; 3) After he was convicted for violating some Colorado or City of Denver ordnance that purported to make what Mr. Stanley did a crime, he represented himself on appeal from that conviction; 4) As his own attorney of record for the open carry violation conviction, he sent a formal legal pleading to two judges in Colorado who had a role in that case, and, in that pleading he claimed he was convicted pursuant to an unconstitutional law, he demanded that these judges overturn the conviction on constitutional grounds, he told them that their failure to do as he requested will trigger a charge of treason against them for their failure to remain faithful to their sworn oath of office to uphold and to defend the U.S. Constitution-which was a condition for them to become judges, and the treason charge would result in a "Mutual Defense Pact Militia warrant" being issued for their arrest if certain specified conditions were not met; 5) A complete copy of this pleading, and the rest of the story, can be found on the Internet at Mr. Stanley's Webpage at: www.stanley2002.org/ ; 6) Mr. Stanley is currently incarcerated; 7) He is scheduled to be sentenced in early September, 2004; 8) He was convicted of two felonious "improperly attempting to influence a public official"by sending them the referenced pleading that he authored and signed; and 9) He faces incarceration of a minimum of about 12 years in prison and a maximum in excess of 30 years in prison.
While I am not surprised-I have increasingly earned my cynicism arising from governments' machinations, I am appalled, disgusted, and virulently displeased with how Colorado's officials function, in my judgment, unconstitutionally. Are You Wise? By virtue of being a judge you are probably intellectually gifted. But, apart from IQ, are you wise?
Machiavelli insightfully opined in The Prince that a wise advisor who tries to advise someone who is not already wise in his own right [so that he is smart enough to recognize and to appreciate excellent advice] wastes his or her time.
I shall presume that you are wise.
I hate to think I invested many non-billable hours to write this for someone unable to appreciate the wisdom contained herein. Reasons Why the Court Should Vacate the Convictions or, At a Minimum, Sentence Stanley Leniently or Grant a Stay Pending Appeal
Reason No. 1:
Per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. citizens have a right of free speech and a right to petition government for a redress of grievances, which is binding against all levels and departments of government in this nation.
Reason No. 2:
Watt v. United States (1969) 394 U.S. 705 involved a man who was criminally prosecuted for threatening to kill President Lyndon Johnson. The United States Supreme Court in Watt held that: A) What is a real threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected free speech; B) Government has the burden of proving that a communication was a real threat; C) Mr. Watt's statement that he would refuse induction into the Armed Forces and "if they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want in my sights is L.B.J." did not amount to a threat against the life of the President of the United States.
Reason No. 3:
By analogous reasoning, Rick Stanley's formal legal pleading to two judges telling them what he told them [as represented under "Facts" above,] cannot be reasonably construed as a bonafide, real "threat" to charge the judges with treason nor to have a militia arrest them if they did not do as Stanley demanded. Bottom line: Stanley's formal legal pleadings to these two judges was not a real threat and was, and is, 100% protected by the First Amendment. He had an absolute right to communicate his opinion and to starkly remind the judges of their sworn oath of office, their duty, and the possible consequences of their failure, if any, to honor their sworn oath of office. His pleading was a formal legal document. He had a right to represent himself zealously and aggressively even if imprudently and not diplomatically.
Reason No. 4:
Rick Stanley had the right to stand on his constitutional rights, and he is entitled not to be punished for exercising any federal right. (Gallik v. Superior Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 855; Hale v. Henkel (1906) 201 U.S. 43, 74; Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 21.)
Reason No. 5:
Stanley also had the right to claim the law's protections, and one of government's first duties is to provide that protection. (Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. 137, 163). But, governments' actors, instead of protecting Rick Stanley and his rights, violated his rights, persecuted him, and mocked him for asserting his rights, which exacerbated their original violations.
Reason No. 6:
Government can never properly use the fact that a person asserted a constitutional right to discredit or convict the person who asserted it. To sanction such a tactic would destroy the value of constitutional privileges, penalize all for relying on them, and create a form of "freedom" not worth having. (Grunewald v. United States (1957) 353 U.S. 391, 425 [Black, J., concurring]; U.S. v. Prescott (9th Cir. 1978) 581 F.2d 1343, 1351.) But Rick Stanley's prosecutor persecuted and maligned him before two different juries by making appalling punitive remarks based on his peaceful exercise of his rights.
Reason No. 7:
Rick Stanley, as an ordinary citizen and as his own attorney of record, had a right to be critical of the judges to whom he sent his pleading. The United States Supreme Court in Bridges v. California (1941) 314 U.S. 252, 270-271, said:
The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges from published criticism wrongly appraises the character of American public opinion. For it is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions. And an enforced silence, however limited, solely in the name of preserving the dignity of the bench, would probably engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it would enhance respect.
Reason No. 8:
Rick Stanley has been serving a societally beneficial function: He has peacefully discharged the highest function of good citizenship. He has been peacefully telling Government that it is wrong. Consider the following language from a dissenting judge in a United States Supreme Court decision.
Progress generally begins in skepticism about accepted truths. Intellectual freedom means the right to re-examine much that has been long taken for granted. A free man must be a reasoning man, and he must dare to doubt what a legislative or electoral majority may most passionately assert. The danger that citizens will think wrongly is serious, but less dangerous than atrophy from not thinking at all. Our constitution relies on our electorate's complete ideological freedom to nourish independent and responsible intelligence and preserve our democracy from that submissiveness, timidity and herd-mindedness of the masses which would foster a tyranny of mediocrity. The priceless heritage of our society is the unrestricted constitutional right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. [Emphases added.]
--Justice Jackson, concurring and dissenting, in American Communications Ass'n, C.I.O. v. Douds (1950) 339 U.S. 382, 442-443
Civil authority in Denver has fallen seriously into error. Rick Stanley peacefully protested those errors and peacefully dared to act like an American citizen by peacefully exercising his rights enshrined in the Constitution. And what happened? Liberty Thieves, Freedom Haters, and Self Appointed Anointed in Colorado and Denver abused their legitimate powers and persecuted him, to try to break his will, to make an example out of him, to send a chilling message to all who covet Liberty under a Constitutional Rule of Law. Hence, civil authority compounds its original errors and piles on against peaceful patriot Rick Stanley. This dynamic must stop.
You should stop these egregious errors immediately. Should you fail to stop these errors at some point unknown to me, the Militia will call itself forth to marshall and to restore Liberty. I doubt if that will happen regardless of how you sentence Rick Stanley; however, sentence Rick Stanley harshly, as Pontius Pilate did Jesus Christ, and your name will be remembered similarly to Benedict Arnold's and Rick Stanley's will be revered along with Nathan Hale and Patrick Henry.
Sentence Stanley harshly and you demonstrate how small minded and weak you are. Vacate the conviction or be merciful and you will be a hero who took a major step away from the abyss.
Reason No. 9:
Ultimately, to the extent you might prove to lack the courage to finally publicly acknowledge all of the good Rick Stanley has done for his community and the nation, the Militia will have to be more courageous to remedy your wrong. If you pronounce an imprudent sentence you will inflame a dicey situation.
Reason No. 10:
Per the Second Amendment, Rick Stanley had a right to carry his loaded sidearm openly in Colorado, regardless of what anyone claims to the contrary. The Second is everyone's gun carry permit-nationwide. He did not need anyone's local permission to carry a loaded firearm in a public place for lawful self-defense, lawful defense of others, and lawful defense of the community. [To exacerbate matters, it is my understanding that the Saudi government has now authorized foreigners to carry loaded firearms in public to deter kidnaping and beheadings by terrorists. Do the Saudis have a more viable Second Amendment than Americans? If so, the Framers in their graves might just muster the strength to reach up and out and somehow thrash those in civil authority who have ruined the foundation they gave us.]
Reason No. 11:
Those who have been persecuting Rick Stanley for non-violently exercising his constitutional rights are sending the wrong message, are sapping their strength, have forfeited their legitimacy, have made Stanley a super-sized patriot and a lighting rod for much of what is wrong with an arrogant government that functions unconstitutionally, and they have ratcheted us tighter and closer to civil war.
Reason No. 12:
Another round of civil war in this nation has already started. This is not hyperbole. Growing numbers are ready to revolt and to use lethal force to restore their rights. This dynamic is fueled by what governments' actors are irresponsibly and imprudently doing against Stanley-and others--under color of law.
The American Revolutionary War did not start on July 4th. It started well before July 4th, 1776 in the hearts and minds of a minority with convictions that ran deep. That committed minority forced the issue of independence against great odds.
A prudent judicial officer who sentences Stanley would not lite the wick to the TNT he or she sits on.
None of this is hyperbole.
To promote your peace of mind, please understand that I have no knowledge of anything planned to cause immediate violence should you sentence Stanley harshly.
Reason No. 13:
Perfumed Princes and Princesses, in and out of government, never seem to realize that they-and their unconstitutional ways-reek a foul odor, which, at some point, becomes insufferable. These Perfumed Princes and Princesses are stinking up the United States. We are becoming more and more like what we profess to hate, more and more like our enemies. Too many of our Leaders are Misleaders. Too many of our trials [one is too many] have become kangaroo court trials. Rick Stanley's trials are classic examples of this.
I stress: I am a 33 year trained, licensed, legal professional, and that is my professional judgment. You cannot easily dismiss me as an uninformed, uneducated, crazed, redneck.
I further predict that someday, in more than one location, prominent statuary will be erected in honor of Rick Stanley who has risked his liberty, his name, his reputation, and his earthly fortune, to determine just how free he-and the rest of us-- really are.
Reason No. 14:
If civil authority in Denver can strip Stanley of his rights and sentence him to prison for the peaceful exercise of his rights, civil authority can do something similar to the rest of us. That is why Stanley is a test of wills, a prelude to violence, and will prove to be a pivotal turning point.
Reason No. 15:
There is a hard-core that will literally fight before this unconstitutional behavior spreads much further.
Reason No. 16:
The militia arrest warrant Stanley referenced in his pleading to two Colorado judges was, arguably, probably tactfully imprudent, but it was still protected free speech, and it was not a clear "threat". Stanley did not threaten imminent violence. He did not communicate a true threat. He attempted to make a logical, legal, communication, well rooted in this nation's core bedrock law. [I decline to attempt to discuss the First Amendment's nuances and scope, etc., here.]
Reason No. 17:
It is not a crime to communicate anything to a government official that is, arguably, imprudent, distasteful, worrisome, unflattering, disrespectful, contemptuous, illogical, defiant, firm, irreverent. The First does not protect only free speech that is flattering to government or its actors or meets with its approval.
Reason No. 18:
Depending on how this case turns out, a militia someday might still call itself out and issue the warrant referenced by Stanley in his pleading to the judges.
Reason No. 19:
To the extent the powers-to-be in Colorado continue to play unconstitutional, mean-spirited, "legal," hard-ball with Stanley, they imprudently motivate a militia to marshall [to call themselves out] and to execute their legitimate Constitutional function: To restore Liberty and to Deter and Defeat Tyranny.
Reason No. 20:
We live in increasingly dicey times. It would be prudent to render a sentence that makes them less dicey.
Reason No. 21:
Talibanism is pushing any doctrine or concept beyond its legitimate limits and perverting it to serve one's twisted, illegitimate goals and purposes. The Taliban in Afghanistan does not have a monopoly on Talibanism. There are American Talibans. It was Stanley's misfortune to have encountered some of these American Talibans who call their crimes law.
Reason No. 22:
We can never spread freedom abroad for others while we abandon it at home for ourselves.
Reason No. 23:
Rick Stanley never manifested core criminal conduct.
Reason No. 24:
Rick Stanley never manifested wrongful criminal intent. He only peacefully exercised his rights with the intent to exercise his rights. It is elementary that before a crime-any crime-may exist there must be a union of criminal act plus wrongful criminal intent. Stanley, while he committed certain acts, never committed any act that is not constitutionally protected. He never committed any act with any wrongful criminal intent. Yet, Governments' actors brazenly persecuted him. Each time, they found enough constitutionally illiterate citizens who were willing to function as the tyranny of the majority in the form of a government brain-washed jury.
Reason No. 25:
Rick Stanley is a patriot with big, bold, gold painted, balls. He is certainly no limp dick. Instead, he is a boner. His Liberty Erection is firm, straight, and vertical. Stanley is a ramrod who stood tall and stands taller despite, and because of, the multiple convictions he has racked up in his pursuit of Liberty that has exposed Tyranny. His Liberty Erection points to an inspiring way to live: LIVE FREE OR DIE!
Reason No. 26:
Rick Stanley is guilty only of conduct that offends Statist control freaks: He dared to exercise his rights non-violently. He dared to insist that government's actors take his rights seriously. He had the moxie to refuse to keep a low profile to co-exist with an out of control, corrupt, governmental enterprise.
Reason No. 27:
Rick Stanley used his brain, not brawn, and he turned to his rights in his battle with Government, not his firearms. If he cannot turn to his rights, where can he turn? His arms? Do you want to motivate others to turn to their arms to enforce his rights? Their rights?
Reason No. 28:
The Militia is the Peoples' Army. Do not underestimate the Militia. It exists. 130,000 U.S. combat troops, with about 30,000 British troops, have not yet been able to subdue approximately 20,000 Iraqi insurgents. Some military experts in the Bush Administration have declared that those 160,000 troops cannot militarily defeat those 20,000 Iraqi insurgents. How many U.S. citizens do you think are willing to function as American insurgents or Militia? My prediction: The Militia will defeat the U.S. Armed Forces with or without United Nations augmentation. My assessment: The Militia does not have to defeat the U.S. Armed Forces to have access to those perceived to be domestic enemies of the United States Constitution. This, too, is not hyperbole. This is realpolitik. This is a manifestation of what many are thinking.
Reason No. 29:
Sworn peace officers, prosecutors, and judges cannot rip the Second nor the First Amendments out of the Constitution without being held accountable. To the extent they persist, they forfeit their legitimacy and risk a reaction every sane, reasonably constituted U.S. citizen would prefer to avoid, but, ultimately should prefer to Tyranny.
Reason No. 30:
Rick Stanley did not commit a crime a violence. He did not commit a crime of theft. He did not commit a dishonest act.
Reason No. 31:
Rick Stanley did not commit any crime, period, despite the conviction(s). But for your jurisdiction's perversion of the nation's Organic Laws, Rick Stanley does not have a bonafide criminal record.
Reason No. 32:
Rick Stanley's only "crime" is he merely dared to be an American citizen and he refused to be another enabler in the further destruction of the Constitutional Rule of Law. He merely peacefully asserted three God-given, codified rights: Right to bear arms, right to free speech, and right to petition government for redress of a legitimate grievance. For daring to be an American citizen, he is punished-while we spend billions and lives allegedly trying to liberate foreigners.
Reason No. 33:
As evidenced by the persecution of Rick Stanley, there are kangaroo courts in the United States and there is scant material difference between those trials and those in communist nations and third world nations controlled by political thugs.
Reason No. 34:
Rick Stanley is a self-employed businessman who built a successful business that probably cannot survive if he is incarcerated for a long period. It is wrong to destroy his business, his employees' livelihoods, and his family because he peacefully dared to exercise his God-given, Constitutionally codified rights.
Reason No.35:
Rick Stanley never manifested any core criminal conduct.
Reason No. 36:
Rick Stanley never manifested any wrongful criminal intent. His intent was to peacefully assert his rights without harming anyone.
Reason No. 37:
Rick Stanley should be treated as a patriot who dared to be unique, who refused to yield, who dared to tell Government it was, and is, wrong. Rick Stanley is a persecuted political prisoner who still stands tall as he stands convicted and awaits sentencing.
Reason No. 38:
Civil authority has one precious, golden, finite chance to remedy its egregious wrongs against Stanley: Vacate all convictions with prejudice, forthwith, or, at a minimum, release Stanley from incarceration pending appeal or impose a token sentence with probation and no further incarceration. Civil authority should show strength, maturity, common sense, and mitigate the damage it has done by doing what I recommend.
Reason No. 39:
A civil authority that refuses to remedy its wrongs against Rick Stanley forfeits its legitimacy and risks a wrath that is imaginable.
Reason No. 40:
You should heed Cicero's insights about treason:
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.
--Marcus Tullius Cicero (42B.C)
Reason No. 41:
You should refrain from functioning as the type of judge Daniel Webster described:
If the time shall ever come (which Heaven avert), when men shall be placed in the supreme tribunal of the country, who entertain opinions hostile to the just powers of the Constitution, we shall then be visited by an evil defying all remedy. Our case will be past surgery. From that moment the Constitution is at an end. . . . If I live to see that day come, I shall despair of the country. . . . I know of no security against the possibility of this evil, but an awakened public vigilance. I know of no safety, but in that state of public opinion which shall lead it to rebuke and put down every attempt . . . to dilute the Constitution by creating a court which shall construe away its provisions. . . . Let us hope that we shall never see the time when . . . the government shall be found in opposition to the Constitution, and when the guardians of Union shall become its betrayers.
--Daniel Webster
Excerpts from a speech delivered at a public dinner in New York on March 10, 1831 [Emphases added.]
Reason No. 42:
You need to realize that many educated citizens know what is going on regarding Rick Stanley, and the following wisdom speaks to them.
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizen may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.
--Ayn Rand
The approval given today to what was done by the arresting officers in this case indicates that we are in danger of forgetting that the Bill of Rights reflects experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end.
--Justice Felix Frankfurter, Davis v. United States (1946) 328 U.S. 582, 597 [Dissenting.]
The Attorney General's zeal for the protection of society is laudable. But . . . The rights of the human person must be vindicated as part of the common good of our society.
--Barrera-Echavarria v. Rison (1994) 21 F.3d 314, 319 [Emphasis added.]
Note: Society is better off when the rights of all citizens, including Rick Stanley's, are vindicated, and society is in peril when it fails to protect the rights of its citizens.
If the sacrifice must be made, let it be so in accordance with the Constitution-not naked police fiat.
--Judge Crosby, Concurring in People v. Richard T. (1986)
185 Cal.App.3d 855, 898
But the framers of our constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it. . . . . the law of the State . . . must yield to it.
--Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) 22 U.S. 1, 210-211
The great and paramount purpose, was, to unite this mass of wealth and power, for the protection of the humblest individual; his rights, civil and political, his interests and prosperity, are the sole end; the rest are nothing but the means.
--William Johnson, Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) 22 U.S. 1, 223
If we abandon constitutional protections to combat every abhorrent crime which has captured the public's attention, we will find ourselves naked and unprotected in a hurry.
--Justice Panelli, Dissenting, People v. Banks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 926, 949
I, as much as anyone, long to see a society purged of . . . crime. Yet, I am not willing to destroy the basic concepts of our constitutional freedoms in an attempt to achieve it. . . . While we fight the "war" against these terrible societal problems, let us not cause the Bill of Rights to be one of its victims. . . . however desirable it may be to live in a society safe from [crime,] such society must not be obtained by destruction of, or even intrusion upon, those individual freedoms which make our country and society unique in the world.
--People v. Richard T. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 855, 898-899
[Judge Trotter and Judge Wallin, concurring.]
We meet in this case, as in many, the appeal to necessity. It is said that if such arrests and searches cannot be made, law enforcement will be more difficult and uncertain. But the forefathers, after consulting the lessons of history, designed our Constitution to place obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance . . . .
--United States v. Di Re 332 U.S. 581, 595
One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning.
--Griswold v. State of Conn. (1965) 381 U.S. 479
[Justices Black and Stewart, dissenting.]
Note: What Stanley's accusers and persecutors call an attempt to improperly influence a government official is, in reality, objectively, only a manifestation of classic, protected, Free Speech, and of a classic, protected, Petition For Redress Of A Grievance.
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; . . . .
--Robert J. Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 638
Reason No. 43:
Civil authority that has persecuted Rick Stanley has repeated the Crown's transgressions against the law. The Founders, at the end of the July 4th Declaration, stated their grievances against King George, III. Among these grievances were the following: 1.) "He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."; 2.) "He has obstructed the administration of justice, . . . ."; 3.) He has allowed "swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."; 4.) "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; . . . ."; 5.) He protects governments' agents via "mock" trials; 6.) He has helped to establish under color of law "an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule . . . ."; 7.) He has "tak[en] away our charters, abolish[ed] our most valuable laws, and alter[ed] fundamentally the forms of our government: . . . He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us . . . ."
Reason No. 44:
The Magna Carta of 1215 is relevant to People v. Stanley. English Barons who rebelled against an English King's arbitrary, oppressive, rule, forced that King at Runnymeade, England in 1215 A.D. to make written concessions, which are an early manifestation of rights. Our Bill of Rights has a historical lineage to the Magna Carta. Consider these concessions that the King made at sword point in 1215 and ponder how the same violations, in essence, have been committed against Rick Stanley.
38. No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall henceforth put any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses in evidence.
39. No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed-nor will we go upon or send upon him-save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
40. To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, the right or justice. . . .
45. We will not make men justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs, unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and are minded to observe it rightly. . . .
52. If any one shall have been disseized by us, or removed, without a legal sentence of his peers, from his . . . liberties or lawful right, we shall straightway restore them to him. [Rick Stanley's convictions should be vacated with prejudice.]
55. All fines imposed by us unjustly and contrary to the law of the land, . . . shall be altogether remitted . . . .
61. Inasmuch as, for the sake of God, and for the bettering of our realm, and for the more ready healing of the discord which has arisen between us and our barons, we have made all of these aforesaid concessions, wishing them to enjoy for ever entire and firm stability, . . . . [Emphases added.]
From 1215 to date, these concessions, and rights, have been confirmed, honored, violated, lost, and restored in a cycle that repeated itself in modern day Colorado. People v. Rick Stanley illustrates nothing is new in terms of civil authority's pursuit of folly, abuse of its powers, and that civil authority is disingenuous: It call its crimes Law, its violations of the law Justice, and its misleadership Leadership. Apparently, the hardest thing for civil authority to do is to admit it has abused its powers and remedy its wrongdoing.
Burning Question
How long should citizens tolerate domestic enemies of the Constitution in our midst?
Those who tolerate indefinitely Government's fecal matter give it a perpetual green light to bury all of us in a pile of more fresh fecal matter, higher and deeper. The Founders did not wait indefinitely. They forced the issue with their July 4th Declaration-which, as a nation, we celebrated anew only ten days ago as I write this.
The Founders signed that Declaration knowing that thousands of Redcoats were already embarked in ships for the colonies, to be followed by thousands more, and each was sent to "redress" the Founders' grievances at the point of a bayonet, bullet, or rope. The "gun solution" [political assassination, open rebellion, etc.] is fraught with peril, is perhaps inadequate, is morally complex, and is illegal [depending on one's level of analysis.] But, what is left-when civil authority wipes its ass with the Bill of Rights and threatens to send a fine, peaceful, productive, human being to prison for more than thirty [30] years for what Rick Stanley did?
When Rick Stanley peacefully claimed his birthrights, he was arrested, persecuted, found guilty, incarcerated, mocked, scorned, ridiculed, and rebuffed. Government, like a modern main battle tank, rolls on, crushing us as if we were anthills. Yet, Rick Stanley's wonderful, defiant, Liberty Erection remains vertical, firm, and plain, pointing the way for all to see and to admire: LIVE FREE OR DIE! And, apparently, to his credit, he means it. That inspires us to vindicate him.
Some prosecutors in Colorado are persecutors. Some judges in Colorado are carriers of a virulent bubonic plague perversion of the law. These faithless public serpents inexplicably flout the Constitutional rule of law while demanding that ordinary citizens, Louie Lunchbucket and Susie Seamstress, obey the law and turn perfectly square square corners. Worse, they beat up on anyone like, and including, Rick Stanley, who-guess what?-dares to act like an American citizen.
Since when did peacefully acting like an American citizen warrant a criminal charge?
Since when does one's liberty vanish upon the mere peaceful assertion of a right?
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent, not to redress, government's abuse of its powers and violation of our rights. Sadly, even the Bill was insufficient for Stanley to redress government's violation of its rights in a court of "law".
Rick Stanley and I apparently share at least one thing in common. We understand that rights are not self-enforcing, that it takes an air breathing human being, a Patrick Henry type, a Rick Stanley type, to breathe life into a right, to make it spring into life, to jump off a dusty law book's page, to vibrate and scream, "Hey, you! Yes! You! You, the oppressor, I am talking to you! Look at me. Take me seriously. Now!"
A right delayed is a right denied. A right delayed is not a right at all. A right delayed is a hollow sham, a cause of action for a lawsuit that will be verbally and conceptually machined gun to death in court by government lawyers, witnesses, and black robes.
Sometimes the "gun solution," despite all its limitations, is just simply quicker and easier, if only in the short run.
Apparently, sadly, the Black Robes who presided over Rick Stanley's cases, as a group, have wasted their political capital. They have had their opportunity to prove themselves as Guardians of Liberty. They failed-miserably. Instead, they proved to be Statists who ratcheted us closer to civil war. The rights Stanley stood up for are exactly that-rights, a gift from God, not a privilege which is a matter of Government's grace.
If, ultimately, this nation needs a new lesson in Trigernometry 101, Statists will discover a rule that exists behind the breastbone of all those who value Liberty and who know the ultimate purpose of private arms. That rule is loosely referred to as "Rule .308." Its corollary rules include, but are not limited to, Rule .223, Rule .243, Rule .338.
The Militia is mentioned in the Constitution. When Society's other institution's fail to preserve Liberty, the last institution left with the power to preserve or to restore Liberty is the Militia.
Militia is not a dirty word. It is a concept worthy of respect. It is a synonym for the People. The Militia is not a gang. It is the core essence of the ultimate repository of the sovereignty of the American citizenry. If necessary, the Militia will marshall and deal with governments' goons, errant persecutors, public servants, and perfumed princes and princesses. That, for better or worse, is the life of the law. That is reality.
A Society and a Government that makes a citizen who peacefully asserts a right a criminal is a Society and a Government that has no utility to me whatsoever. I loathe such a Society and Government. Each are a threat to my vital interests.
Every thinking citizen in this nation understands well what I have opined herein. That is why it is imperative that your decisions regarding Rick Stanley must manifest wisdom. You cannot hammer a square peg into a round hole. Rights remain rights. They are not a matter of Government's grace, and the peaceful exercise of a right is never a crime. A government that declares otherwise is a criminal enterprise that is illegitimate.