Rick Stanley loses appeal = 6 yrs in prison

[The Observer]

Are we talking terminal clueless here?

It's either a case of acute Tammy Wynette Syndrome ("Stand by your man...") or simply ignoring the inconvenient truth in the vain hope that this unhappy incident will just go away.

[buck09]

There is a large hole in the back of his shirt and a large bandage on his back from where they bean bagged him when they ambushed us yesterday.

They got bean-bagged? Nice. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

There's a stunt in the Jackass movie (first one I think) where Jonny Knoxville takes a bean bag. It looks incredibly painful for something non-lethal.

[Cobalt Shiva]

There is a large hole in the back of his shirt and a large bandage on his back from where they bean bagged him when they ambushed us yesterday.

They got bean-bagged? Nice. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

There's a stunt in the Jackass movie (first one I think) where Jonny Knoxville takes a bean bag. It looks incredibly painful for something non-lethal.

I'd call a beanbag "not-especially-lethal." If the shooter or the target are unlucky, it can kill. Not likely, but it can happen. I would never let someone shoot a beanbag at me for just that reason. Roll the dice often enough, you will get snakeyes.

[notorial dissent]

It's either a case of acute Tammy Wynette Syndrome ("Stand by your man...") or simply ignoring the inconvenient truth in the vain hope that this unhappy incident will just go away.

In this case it will, for about six years, maybe she will wise up and get on with her life with someone else, as I don't foreseee this as having a happy ending. He isn't going to wise up, and as he has gotten dumber and bolder as he has gotten older, I see this as just a foretaste of what is to come.

Pity they didn't hit him in the head with the beanbag, far less chance of doing any damage there.

[grixit]

Sounds as if the cops did a great job. They brought him in with only a few bruises and avoided getting into a standoff or a shoot/don't shoot situation.

[Demosthenes]

Sorry for the old news, but my focus has been elsewhere this week.

RELEASE: Rick Stanley Released on original bond with ankle monitoring bracelet addition today Apr 19, 2007

STANLEY NOTE: I was released from the Adams County Detention Center today at 9:00 AM, Apr 19, 2007, by judges order pending a bond revocation hearing on next Thursday at 10:00 AM at the Adams County Judicial Center in Brighton, Colorado. I was released on the existing bond with the added order of a ankle monitoring device. I was arrested Saturday morning, was in the Denver jail for 4 days and the Adams County jail for two more days. I lost eight pounds (Rick's jail house diet - really works well, don't recommend you try it). I am stiff and sore from the wound and burns received as a result of the projectile bean bag weapon fired at me illegally by the Denver Swat Team. As always, I will continue the fight for liberty. My wife, while shaken, has a renewed feeling and commitment to fight for liberty. Once again, she got a brush with the tyranny that I have been dealing with for 6 years now. The "truth" will prevail. Liberty will prevail. I just don't know how much longer it will take, or the continued cost... Whatever...

Below, is the motion filed in the Adams County District Court that was the object of the special hearing yesterday, Apr 18, 2007 at 1:30 PM, regarding quashing the wrongfully issued arrest warrant. My vehicle has been released from hold and my wife and I will be securing the vehicle this evening from the Denver Impound lot. My bond remains in place until the hearing on Thursday Apr 26, 2007. I am free to roam Colorado, with my ankle bracelet in tow... attached to my leg. "It ain't heavy, it's my ankle bracelet", sung to the tune of "He ain't heavy, he's my brother". However, life is like a bowl of cherries, sometimes you get a few pits. I get a bowlful, in dealing with the POLICE STATE OF AMERICA. I have to say, for an FYI for anyone who cares, many Denver Sheriffs and Adams County Sheriffs deputies came up to me over the six days and expressed their dismay over the treatment I continue to receive in the entire 6 year ordeal. Three years back, they were not that kindly. They are being educated, as well as us. Many have spent time at my website. One deputy was the nephew of Steve Byfield of Arvada, Colorado, who has also been charged with "Influencing a Public Official by threat" charges, as have I. He and I had may lengthy converstaions regarding liberty issues, as well as other deputies. Seems I had an answer for every issue they brought up, based upon the Constitution. Imagine that.

A federal lawsuit regarding the entire incident will be filed in federal court in the coming weeks by my attorney's Jim Bull and Bret Davies, against all the parties involved in the excess fo force used in the arrest and the attending issues surrounding the warrant. This will not continue anymore without lawful legal retribution. Each and every abuse will be responded to, with a federal lawsuit. I will be forwarding each bit of information as it comes up and is available, including filings.

God bless the fighters for freedom, liberty, and justice.

LIVE FREE or Die! LIBERTY in our Lifetime!
Rick Stanley

[Demosthenes]

I DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF ADAMS STATE OF COLORADO 1100 Judicial Center
> Drive Brighton, Colorado 80601
> Plaintiff: PEOPLE OF COLORADO v. Defendant: RICHARD E. STANLEY
> ? ?
> COURT USE ONLY
>
> James C. Bull, Reg. No. 3213 BUCHOLTZ & BULL, P.C. 5575 DTC Parkway,
> Suite 225 Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111-3016 Telephone: (303) 778-8822
> Brett J. Davies, #34175 Catharine A. Bull, #33118 Bull & Davies, P.C. 812
> Santa Fe Drive Denver, CO 80204 Phone No.: 303-996-9815
> Case Number: 03 CR 2971, 2956 Courtroom Special Appt.
> MOTION TO QUASH WRONGFULLY ISSUED ARREST WARRANT AND MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE
> RELEASE OF THE DEFENDANT PENDING HEARING ON MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF BOND
> AND MOTIION TO RELEASE IMPOUNDED VEHICLE.
>
> RICHARD EUGENE STANLEY, by and through his counsel, James C.
> Bull and Brett J. Davies, hereby moves this Honorable Court to Quash The
> Wrongfully Issued Arrest Warrant For Richard Eugene Stanley And Further
> Moves For Immediate Release Of The Defendant Pending Hearing On The Motion
> For Revocation Of Bond Filed By The District Attorney. In addition the
> Defendant moves for the release of his wrongfully impounded Suburban which
> is used in the business of Stanley Fasteners. In support, the defendant
> offers the following.
>
> 1. The Defendant objects to the jurisdiction of this court insofar as a
> currently sitting Adams County Judge hearing this matter, issued the warrant
> or imposing terms and conditions of release after the Supreme Court had
> recused all Adams County judicial officers from having anything to do with
> this Defendant.
>
> 2. Defendant has posted a cash bond, which is currently in effect, after
> he was sentenced on September 10, 2004 in the Adams County District Court.
> Former Justice Joseph R. Quinn, a retired senior judge sitting by Supreme
> Court Appointment, reinstated this bond and allowed the Defendant to be free
> pending appeal.
>
> 3. There are no allegations that the Defendant has violated any terms or
> conditions of the bond in the “Verified Application for Bench Warrant”
> filed EX PARTE, without notice to Counsel for Defendant, even though the
> Motion was sworn to on April 5, 2007, the same day as the Court of Appeals
> opinion was released. For one full week, Mr. Stanley knew of this opinion
> and did not attempt to flee the jurisdiction. Instead, he hired new counsel
> to perfect a Motion for Rehearing. This motion was filed by Mr. May, as an
> Adams County Deputy District Attorney, who was also trial counsel and
> present for all proceedings in this matter and was fully aware that all
> Judges in Adams County were recused by order of the Supreme Court. Judge
> Quinn was appointed to handle this case and presided over it because the
> alleged victims were both Adams County Judges and the Defendant requested
> that all be recused to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Judge Joseph
> Quinn first presided in the cases on November 25, 2003. Mr. May had actual
> knowledge that this Court had no jurisdiction to hear any motions in this
> case. See People ex.rel. Burke v. District Court of Third Judicial
> District, 152 P 149 (Colo. 1915).
>
> 4. Notwithstanding that ALL JUDGES OF THE COUNTY OF ADAMS were ordered
> RECUSED by the Colorado Supreme Court on or about November 19, 2003, Mr.
> May, the Deputy District Attorney sought out an, Adams County Court Judge
> who, being unfamiliar with the history of the case and the Order of the
> Supreme Court, signed an arrest warrant in gross violation of the due
> process rights of the Defendant and in violation of C.R.S. 16-4-107. This
> conduct would appear on the surface to any reasonable person to evidence a
> conscious disregard for the law of the case. More importantly, Mr. May was
> counsel for the people during the entire case and knew that no Adams County
> Judges were permitted to hear the case by ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT.
>
> 5. In addition, Mr. May’s co-counsel during the trial was then Deputy
> District Attorney Mark Warner, who is now also an Adams County Judge. Here
> again, Mr. May should have known that this fact, standing alone, would also
> likely raise the appearance of impropriety as the alleged victims were Adams
> County Judges.
>
> 6. The Verified Application for Bench Warrant was not served on Counsel
> before the arrest nor was any request for surrender made. The arrest was
> perfected by members of the Denver Police force, on a weekend after a one
> week delay following the issuance of the opinion, while the Defendant was
> doing his normal banking business on April 14, 2007. It is almost ironic
> that the Police force who arrested the Defendant who was not in the process
> of fleeing and who showed no aggressive behavior, shot the Defendant in the
> back with a fire ball in an unprovoked physical assault rendering him
> incapacitated with second or third degree burns. In addition, this same
> force, that was the agent of Mr. May in this arrest, wrongfully arrested,
> Pam Stanley, his wife and threw her to the ground in an another unprovoked
> attack on her person, after executing the illegally obtained arrest warrant
> with an “almost” gleeful use of excess force.
>
> 7. In addition, the Defendant’s vehicle was impounded and remains in
> police custody to date with no explanation as to what evidentiary value it
> has nor why it is relevant to the bond revocation proceeding, which has yet
> to take place. Its recovery is requested by this Motion. The only purpose of
> withholding this vehicle is, once again, to exercise the power of the State
> over the body and property of Mr. Stanley while he is still attempting to
> appeal his conviction.
>
> 8. The Deputy District Attorney’s disregard of the law-of-the-case
> subjected the defendant to a dangerous arrest attended by the Denver County
> Swat team with flash bang grenades and gunfire. The so-called Verified
> Application for Arrest Warrant did not specify ANY VIOLATIONS OF THE
> APPELLATE BOND, but, wrongfully, intentionally and prejudicially appealed to
> the lack of knowledge of an Adams County Judge who had been recused by Order
> of the Supreme Court, claiming that merely losing the first Appellate round
> was grounds enough for the excessively forcible and disgraceful arrest of
> the Defendant.
>
> 9. Not satisfied with the violations of the Civil Rights Act of the
> United States, the District Attorney, even after the wrongful arrest of the
> Defendant, did not serve upon any Counsel for the Defendant, the Motions
> that had been filed, EX PARTE, until James C. Bull called Sean May, at
> approximately 2.00 P.M. on April 16, 2007, after having discussed the
> matter with the Assistant Attorney General of the State of Colorado. NONE OF
> THE COUNSEL OF RECORD HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THE SO-CALLED MOTIONS CONTRARY
> TO THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
>
> 10. The Defendant has not shown any intention to flee the state. On the
> contrary , the Defendant recently retained the James C. Bull, whose almost
> 39 year career has included the handling of many Constitutional violations,
> to file a Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Certiorari. Mr. Bull has
> recently successfully received a Court of Appeals decision affirming an
> earlier Adams County jury verdict in favor of the Defendant’s business for
> over $600,000. A commercial business and real estate located in Denver,
> County, in which the Defendant has a beneficial interest, is worth hundreds
> of thousands of dollars, if not more. Mr. Stanley’s interest is not in
> fleeing this jurisdiction but to protect his property and assets and to
> continue to oppose this wrongful conviction.
>
> 11. The Defendant is a Colorado native who, not only did not violate any
> aspect of his bond. Moreover, Judge Quinn not only allowed the defendant to
> depart the State to the State of Nevada, but allowed him to leave the United
> States on a trip to the Country of Costa Rica while the case was pending
> before the trial court. By knowledge and belief neither Mr. May nor Mr.
> Warner, the deputy district attorneys, did not object.
>
> 12. At one point, the Defendant declined an offer to settle this case for
> a split plea deferred Misdemeanor, which was tendered to the Defendant
> through Mr. Brett Davies, and which plea offer belies the claims of the
> District Attorney in the so-called Verified Application for Bench Warrant.
>
> 13. The District Attorney has refused to release the Defendant knowing that
> the Order obtained was in violation of the Supreme Court ruling in this case
> and knowing that the Order for Arrest obtained in this case violated C.R.S.
> 16-4-107 -Reduction or increase of bail - change in type of bond.
>
> 14. In regard to the Res Gestae and appellate posture- Counsel states:
>
> a. The “Notice” filed by Richard E. Stanley must be taken in the
> overall context of Mr. Stanley’s view that the Constitution must be
> strictly construed, as written. As a strict constructionist, the
> assumptions, which are written into the Court’s opinion to the effect that
> Stanley intended taking the law into his own hands, without due process,
> must be rejected as they were not established in the trial court, but, on
> the contrary are wholly inconsistent with the admonition of the Defendant
> that the Constitution must be strictly enforced.
> b. As a strict constructionist, Mr. Stanley avows that a warrant can only
> be issued based on probable cause based on Article IV of the Constitution
> and an arrest by a peace officer can only take place pursuant to C.R.S.
> 16-3-102. Treason can only be tried in a federal court under the
> Constitution. Conviction of treason requires two witnesses. A citizen arrest
> is a legal practice mandated by C.R.S. 16-3-201.
> c. Neither Judge Jones nor Judge Vogt in the Opinon handed down on April
> 5, 2007, accurately characterized the “Notice,” which was a “pleading”
> filed in the Court, and which, on its face, only gave notice of the issuance
> of a warrant by The Mutual Defense Pact Militia which does not exist except
> as a concept. The “Notice” did not state that any judge would be arrested
> and it did not state who would be the arresting party. It certainly did not
> state that the Militia would be the arresting entity (whatever that was at
> the time) which is contrary to the express findings of the Court of Appeals.
> In the U.S. system of justice, the entity or party issuing an arrest
> Warrant, does not execute on the warrant. Another properly authorized party
> handles that duty.
> d. The Notice did not state, nor, did it imply, that ordinary standards
> of due process would be disregarded. On the contrary, as indicated above,
> Mr. Stanley, as a strict Constitutionalist had no choice but to contact the
> proper authority with the charge as provided by law if the intent had been
> real. C.R.S. 16-3-202 provides civil immunity for providing charge
> information to a police officer or law enforcement authority.
> e. Judge Vogt incorrectly stated on page 41 of the Opinion that the
> militia would be the arresting party. The majority also repeats this mistake
> on page 22 of the Opinion, incorrectly stating, "Rather the Notices
> expressly threatened the judges with ‘arrest’ by a Mutual defense Pact
> Militia, an act in which the prospect of physical violence is inherent.”
> (Emphasis supplied.) (Only with the Denver Police force is does this fact
> seem justified.) The Court’s statement of fact is erroneous on its face and
> the presumption of violence suggested by the court in an arrest is a
> violation of due process of law. The Court itself concedes that a
> presumption in a criminal process is such a due process violation at page 30
> of the Opinion.
> f. Judge Vogt disagreed with the majority Opinion stated in her
> concurring Opinion and it is important that this Court understand that the
> District Attorney relied on the Concurring Opinion, not the Majority Opinion
> to construct its argument for the Warrant..
> g. Judge Vogt is correct that subjective intent is required and the
> majority stated, in adopting an objective standard, that "reasonable people"
> could read the Black case as requiring such proof which the trial court did
> not require. If this is so, then, the presumption in favor of the defendant
> should require such a reading, otherwise, the Court has enforced an
> ambiguity in the law sending the defendant to jail for 6 years for merely
> saying something and not doing something.
> h. The “Notice” on its face is political speech as shown by the
> following: Article III of the U.S. Constitution specifically defines treason
> as consisting of "Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall
> consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies,
> giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless
> on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in
> open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of
> treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or
> forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."(Emphasis
> supplied.)
> i. The Majority's statement on page 22 that a charge of treason is
> essentially a threat of death misstates the law and mischaracterizes the
> pleading that was filed by Mr. Stanley.
> j. The Constitution is very specific and only Congress can prescribe the
> penalty. That penalty, which is found at 18 U.S.C. § 2381, states:
> “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or
> adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United
> States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall
> be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not
> less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the
> United States.” (Emphasis supplied.)
> k. Thus while the death sentence, after a fully configured trial
> concluded by due process, is only one option for being found guilty of
> treason (not a mandated option as the majority Opinion posits), the
> definition adopted by Congress does not come close to fitting the facts of
> this case and the claim of treason cannot be taken seriously as a matter of
> law. The crux of the defendant’s position is that his speech was protected
> as symbolic speech.
>
> 15. WHEREFORE, For these reasons and those to be presented in a
> hearing in this matter the warrant should be quashed and the defendant
> released, the vehicle of the Defendant should be returned and
> the Court should considered whether sanctions should issue against the
> Office of the District Attorney for obtaining an arrest warrant in
> violation of the Order of the Supreme Court.
>
>
>
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> BUCHOLTZ & BULL, P.C.
> BULL
> & DAVIES
>
> * Original signed document is on file at the law offices of Bull & Davies
> pursuant to C.R.C.P 121, Section 1-26
>
> By
> /*/ Brett J. Davies
>
> CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
> I hereby certify and attest that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
> MOTION TO QUASH WRONGFULLY ISSUED ARREST WARRANT AND MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE
> RELEASE OF THE DEFENDANT PENDING HEARING ON MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF BOND
> was sent to the address listed below by way of United States Mail, first
> class, postage pre-paid on the ____ day of ______, 2007.
>
> DON QUICK
> DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 17TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
> 10000 JUDICIAL CENTER DRIVE, STE 100

[grixit]

On what basis does he claim that all the judges were recused?

[Dr. Caligari]

Probably because he threatened them.

[grixit]

I'm pretty sure the Mafia has already tried that one.

[Confused]

In reference to Mr Stanley.

He claims that paying taxes is voluntary, and his proof is that:

Although he was raided by IRS in June 2004 and hasn't filed tax's since 2000, he has never had charges filed against him.



I find it amazing that IRS has allowed him to continue in business and not pay any income or withholding tax while competing with companies that pay their far share. It's almost like they are encouraging others to follow his example and not file or pay taxes.

That being said, it looks like he has a bond revocation hearing scheduled for Friday June 15th. Perhaps he will at least be punished for threatening Judges, while he continues to do business and pay no taxes. What a country

[Demosthenes]

Although he was raided by IRS in June 2004 and hasn't filed tax's since 2000, he has never had charges filed against him.

Which means nothing. Sherry Peel Jackson was raided in late July 2004 as well, and she was just indicted last month. I've seen cases where the time between raid and arrest was five years.

Besides, the IRS and/or DOJ may decide not to waste their time and resources on a criminal trial when he's already been sentenced to 6 years in prison on the judge threat case.

[ElfNinosMom]

Sherry Peel Jackson was raided in late July 2004 as well, and she was just indicted last month.

Wow, how did I miss that Sherry Peel Jackson had been indicted?

[Confused]

We the People Scoop 6/14/07

============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ======
WE THE PEOPLE SCOOP - TO EXPOSE!
** Visit the website: http://www.stanley2002.org
** OR Our NEW Offshore Site at http://www.wtpconstitutionalactivism.org
** Like the Scoop? Forward it to everyone you know!
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ======

RELEASE: Rick Stanley in Court for "another" Bond Revocation Hearing
Friday June 15, 1:30 PM in Adams County District Court

STANLEY NOTE: My fourth Bond revocation hearing in 60 days is scheduled for
this Friday, June 15, 2007 at 1:30 PM in Adams County District Court, Judge
Plank presiding. Judge Plank read my Pettiton for Re-Hearing at the Colorado
Court of Appeals and stated in court at the last bond revocation hearing, that
he felt that I had some tremendous issues that would probably reverse the
conviction at the Colorado Court of Appeals, in the Petititon. My attorney
agrees.

There were no bond violations and no bond revokable issues, however the district
attorney and the detective assigned to monitor me by the Joint Terrorist Task Force,
Neil Ash, "felt" that I was a flight risk and a danger to society, while the history
of the last three and one half years, says that I am not. They had their "feelings",
and of course, we had the fact of the matter, no bond violations, no flight from the
appeal procedure, and no new charges for anything, no dangerto society. Rick Stanley
has done nothing to harm another, in spite of the attacks upon him by the government over and over. If the
"gloves don't fit, you must acquit". They are attempting to "feel" me right into the
gloves, but they don't fit.

The Petition is below:


Rick Stanley
Constitutional Activist


An update of sorts:

Yesterday, Mr Stanley's petition was denied in the Colorado Court of Appeals.

About 2 hours ago Judge Plank Ruled that Rick Stanley is a threat to society and revoked his bond. Mr Stanley was then lead away in handcuffs, to be transported to the Colorado Department of Corrections.

It would appear that he is beginning to receive some justice.

[gezco]

Is it just me, or do we have a disproportionate number of psychotic nut jobs in Colorado?

[Demosthenes]

Is it just me, or do we have a disproportionate number of psychotic nut jobs in Colorado?

Colorado's got nothing on West Texas, Idaho, and New Hampshire.

[notorial dissent]

Isn't Michigan the home of "Chuckels the Clown" Conces?

[Brian Rookard]

Isn't Michigan the home of "Chuckels the Clown" Conces?

Don't forget Mr CTC himself, Pete Hendrickson ... and yes, there are also a lot of tax protesting nut jobs here.

[Prof]

Is it just me, or do we have a disproportionate number of psychotic nut jobs in Colorado?

Colorado's got nothing on West Texas, Idaho, and New Hampshire.

WRONG!

When you add the East Texas and Central Texas nut-jobs to the psychotics in West Texas, Texas is trumped only by California -- which you left off of the list! But, Texas is gaining fast as Californians move into Austin and San Antonio.

[Demosthenes]

California has nut jobs. Texas as psychotic nut jobs.