ETERNAL VIGILANCE

July 19, 2004
LETTER
TO
RICK STANLEY'S SENTENCING JUDGE

Dear Judge,

Introduction

Who I Am

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 him express 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.

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 the creation of Society, Government, and Man-Made Law and that survive the formation of Society, Government, and Man-Made Law.

Dangerous Trend

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 rest of the world.

The Tree of Liberty

This Organic Law is this nation's The Tree of Liberty. The Natural Law concept declared in the July 4th Declaration is the Tree of Liberty's roots. The Constitution is the Tree of Liberty's main trunk. The Bill is the secondary branches off of the main trunk. The foliage is Liberty.
A citizen's daring to peacefully claim his or her rights is the water that nurtures The Tree of Liberty.

A citizen's shedding of blood to enforce his rights, and/or dying in the attempt, is the iron fertilizer that radically revitalizes The Tree of Liberty.
Everything that stunts The Tree of Liberty's growth is constitutional poison.

Every law that conflicts with The Tree of Liberty is a dry rot secondary branch, twig, or dead leaf that needs to be periodically pruned from The Tree of Liberty.

What Makes the United States a Nation and a Great One

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 and value and nurture our Tree of Liberty. That was not done in the various criminal prosecutions against Rick Stanley. Stanley was charged with violating one or more Colorado state laws and/or Denver ordnances. Those laws, however, while laws and in that sense legal, are unconstitutional because they violate the United States Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. Those laws, in that sense, are dead rot twigs that should never have been unconstitutionally grafted on The Tree of Liberty. Those dead rot twigs are unconstitutional. This is because they conflict with the Constitution, this nation's Supreme Law.

One 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.

Rick Stanley, I, and others-all armed, and all virulently intensely committed to this core concept-understand what I am communicating here and agree with this core orientation. He, I, and others know our history and where we stand on History's Time Line and the price paid in the most precious currency-human blood-for the Liberty we now enjoy, or use to enjoy but no longer can take for granted.

Irresponsible Persecutors

Those who have persecuted Rick Stanley are irresponsible, out of control, legal punks who have hijacked civil authority. They perverted the law to persecute Stanley, and they call the result Justice. I call the result an appalling, insufferable, egregious, miscarriage of justice, and that is an understatement.

Basic Goal: Make Violence Unnecessary to Remedy a Wrong
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.

Four Boxes of Freedom

There are Four Boxes of Freedom: Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box, and Cartridge Box. I am now on my Soap Box.

Understand, there are only three boxes before the Cartridge Box. I stress-only three.

In Rick Stanley's case, all three of the first three have failed him.
These Four Boxes are best used in the order in which I listed them.

Violence is the Only Remaining Remedy When All Other Remedies Fail

What are peaceful citizens suppose to do when the first three boxes yield an oppressive result? Answer: Read the July 4th Declaration of Independence, second paragraph, namely, ". . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. . . ." [Emphases added.]

The first two paragraphs of the July 4th Declaration are arguably the most significant words and concepts ever expressed in any culture in any language at any time. Why? Because they declared that Man has certain unalienable rights that are a gift from a Creator that pre-existed and survived the formation of Society and Government. As such, no Society, no Government, no judge, no lawmaker, no mere mortal can strip anyone of any of these "self-evident" "unalienable rights." And, when oppression becomes clear and insufferable, mere citizens have a right and a duty to rebel. That includes the use of lethal force to kill governments' actors who functioned as tyrant wannabees or useful idiots for same.

Rail against these ideas if you want. As a nation, however, we legally celebrate them every July 4th, and there are millions of American citizens right now who have already made the decision to rebel because they are exasperated with Governments' actors pissing on them and calling their perversions of the nation's laws rainwater.

Origins of the July 4th, 1776 Declaration

The July 4th Declaration had many origins. The core idea of the right and duty to rebel is traceable to Algernon Sidney's Discourses Concerning Government. Scholars have proven that Thomas Jefferson relied heavily upon Sidney's Discourses when he penned the Declaration. Sidney, in Section 36, "The General Revolt of a Nation Cannot be Called a Rebellion," of his Discourses, wrote:

. . . by increasing the power of their master, they add weight to their own chains. . . Rebellion . . . of itself is neither good nor evil, . . . but is just or unjust according to the cause or manner of it . . . 6 They who know the frailty of human nature, will always distrust their own; and desiring only to do what they ought, will be glad to be restrain'd from that which they ought not to do. . . . 6 it being much better that the irregularities and excesses of a prince should be restrained or suppressed, than the whole nations should perish by them, . . . . all disputes about right do naturally end in force when justice is denied (ill men never willingly submitting to any decision that is contrary to their passions and interests) the best constitutions are of no value, if there be not a power to support them. . . . [Emphases added.]

This is a most interesting excerpt. Sidney set forth a simple, persuasive, quick test for determining if one's leaders or government is good. The test is this: A citizen need simply to complain, peacefully, about X to his leader(s) and government(s) and ask same to reform and wait to see if their is prompt, meaningful reform. If there is, one is governed by good leaders who "desire to only do what they ought". If there is no reform, citizens have a right to rebel to restrain and to suppress the prince's "irregularities and excesses" so that "the whole nations should [not] perish" as a result of citizens being enablers in the further destruction of the nation by the leaders' perversions of the nation's laws.

A timeless, accurate, maxim of politics, law, and human nature is this: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Another such maxim is this: Politics abhors a void. Power will ever expand to fill all voids.

Another such maxim is this: Power can be made out of nothing if there is sufficient will, audacity, boldness, and well executed strategy.
Rick Stanley, and I, and others, understand well the dynamics of these maxims.

We also understand, accept, and agree with what is perhaps the most famous quote attributable to Algernon Sidney:

This hand, enemy to tyrants,

By the sword seeks calm peacefulness with liberty.

This nation's Framers carried that core idea forward to our shores and codified it in the Second Amendment.

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.

Bill of Rights Basic Purpose: End Arbitrary Discretion and Codify Rights

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.

United States is No Longer a Great Nation

We have come full circle. Too many of Governments' actors now wipe their ass with Mankind's greatest achievement, the Bill of Rights, which is suppose to be "a bulwark of liberty." That paper parchment, however, has proven to be inadequate as a legal barrier to keep Governments' agents from coloring outside the Constitution's bright lines.

What are citizens suppose to do when that happens? Lump it? Lay down on their rights? Go along to get along? Be another enabler in the further destruction of the Constitutional Rule of Law?

Rick Stanley says, "No!" I concur with him.

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, and the highest respect for the law. 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. In those hot spots, most everyone is fighting for the freedom to oppress the other faction.

Framers' Genius: Divide Power and Empower the Little Guy With Rights and Arms

The Framers' genius is that they knew power [the ability to obtain the desired result] could never be eliminated from Society, Government, Politics, Law, Economics, and/or Human Nature. They also knew that no Man is an angel, that Man has a potential for Good and Bad, and the best they could do to cope with the problem of power and Man's nature was this: To keep power in check by dividing it and creating pockets of countervailing power. The Framers divided power in this nation by A) Creating three separate, co-equal branches of government, with a written constitution; B) This constitution has many built-in countermajoritarian safeguards to guard against the passionate swings of a majority [the tyranny of the majority] and the ill conceived policies of leaders [e.g., staggered elections, electoral college, veto power, advise and consent requirement]; C) They codified certain rights in the Bill of Rights; D) They drew a distinction between the army [the Government's army] and the Militia [the Peoples' army]; E) They codified that the People have "a right to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed." Hence, they declared that ordinary folk who are not employed by government have a separate, independent, right to arms, the pragmatic means to hold the Prince to his promise; F) They declared that the People are the ultimate repository of all political legal power in this nation; and G) They codified certain rights of the People [as stated in the Bill and throughout the Constitution.

Rights Are Not a Matter of Governments' Grace

These rights are exactly that-rights. They are not a matter of Government's grace. They are also not a mere privilege.

Rick Stanley, I, and others understand the difference. Sadly, however, too many government actors in Colorado and Denver do not understand the difference or understand and do not care. In either case, they function as domestic enemies of the United States Constitution and, in that sense, they flirt with being arguably properly branded as traitors.

More Domestic Enemies Than Foreign Ones

This nation has more domestic enemies of the United States Constitution than it has foreign ones.

If there were no domestic enemies of the United States Constitution in Colorado and in Denver, Rick Stanley would never have been charged with a crime, would never have been persecuted, would never have been convicted, and I would not be investing my valuable non-billable time on his behalf. I write this because I perceive what has been done to him as a threat to me, and I am intensely, virulently, pissed.

Amistad Lessons

Did you ever see the movie "Amistad"? I hope you did. It is a true story. The movie is excellent. It is about the capture of Blacks in Africa, their transport to America on a slave ship, their mutiny on the ship, and what happened to them when they arrived in America and the legal battle over their fate, one that went to the United States Supreme Court. There are many gripping scenes in that movie. One scene is this: Early in the movie, a muscular Black male slave who breaks free, during a stormy night with thunder, wields a knife to kill the slave ships crew. I condone what that slave did. He was a free man torn from his nation, shackled, kidnaped, reduced to an insufferable status, abused, and was being transported in horrific conditions against his will. As a last ditch effort to regain his freedom, he used lethal force.

Much later in that movie, this same character, during a court room hearing about his fate, while dependent on lawyers to free him, stood up in the jury box and said something to this effect, "Freedom. Give me freedom."

Everytime I hear and see that scene, I compare it to the earlier scene where he made his freedom by using lethal force to regain his freedom.
My point is this: That character got it right the first time and got it wrong the second time. Because rights, freedom, and liberty are not self-enforcing, one has only those rights, freedoms, and liberty one is willing to kill for to gain or to retain, literally, if necessary. That is reality.

War

The Founders who signed the July 4th Declaration told the Crown in polite, professional, restrained, language that they declared themselves independent. They knew the Crown would not let them go-free of the Crown's rules. They knew there would be war. They knew they would have to fight. They knew that thousands of Redcoats [soldiers of one of the world's then existing superpowers] were already embarked on ships, thousands of them, en route to subjugate them and to hold them accountable as prisoners, and they knew the Crown could, and would, send thousands of more redcoats. Yet, each signed anyway, and about half of the signors were lawyers.

Deterring War

I write to you somewhat as an heir to those signors to protest what the persecution of Rick Stanley.

I am trying to reason with you and to enlighten you. I am not trying to scare you nor threaten you.

I am trying to peacefully stake out certain ideas in the hope that they will prevail so that violence will prove to be unnecessary.

Having the Guts to Act on Deep Thinking is Not Core Criminal Conduct

General George S. Patton opined that no one is thinking when everyone thinks alike. Rick Stanley thinks. I think. If our thoughts differ from yours, that does not make he or I bad, or criminals or stupid or less wise in comparison to you.

It is not a crime for me to tell you candidly what you need to know.

Is It Now Time to Revolt? Or to Say, "Seig Heil!" ?

If it is now a crime for any citizen to peacefully communicate candidly with any government official to try to peacefully redress a grievance for another citizen, then the time to revolt has arrived.

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.

It is never time to say, "Seig Heil!" Never. Never. Never.

Once Government makes it clear that it is a bad government and is hell bent on continuing a long trend of usurpations of rights and insufferable abuse, any day and every day is a mighty fine day to revolt.

The Law's Life Blood: Experience, Not Logic!

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. I am trying to reason with you, responsibly, by being logical, by citing facts, by citing law, by explaining things, by sensitizing you to possible scenarios, by trying to play a role of peacemaker here to responsibly try to influence you to be a Guardian of Liberty for Rick Stanley and, through him, for the rest of us, including yourself.

Like Rick Stanley, his rights and my rights are not a matter of your-or anyone else's-grace.

Mini Crash Course On Rights, Permission, and Duties

Rights and permission are mutually exclusive, by definition.
To permit is to control.

Control is the antithesis of Liberty.

Liberty cannot exist without rights.

Wherever there are rights, rights must be taken seriously, and someone must be brave enough to breathe life into the right to keep it from disappearing by apathy, atrophy or whatever.

Simultaneously, in order for there to be rights there must be corollary duties-duties on the part of Government and duties on the part of Citizens.

Government has the duty to take rights seriously.

Government has the duty to construe rights liberally, in favor of the Citizen.

Government has the duty to honor a citizen's peaceful, responsible exercise of a right.

When Government construes rights narrowly and its powers liberally, it contracts citizens' rights, it expands its powers unconstitutionally, it alarms alert citizens, and it fails to protect citizens rights.

Society as a whole is benefitted when Government respects of a citizen's peaceful, responsible exercise of a right-any right, even if the responsible exercise of same makes Government or any of its actors uncomfortable.
A Government that will not take rights seriously, will not protect same when peacefully asserted, that punishes one who peacefully assets a right, is a tyrannical government that alarms me, that disgusts me, that has no value to me.

What Quality of Freedom?

A "freedom" that disappears upon the peaceful exercise of a right is a quality of freedom that is not worth having.

He who defecates taxes to support a Government that treats a citizen who peacefully exercises a right supports a Government that has morphed into a criminal enterprise under color of law.

Simultaneously, all citizens have a duty to exercise their rights responsibly.

When a citizen exercise any right responsibly, they are legally immune for doing so.

Right is a form of a synonym for immunity.

A citizen has a right to exercise 100% of a right.

A citizen has no duty to exercise less than 100% of a right, to forfeit any part of a right to Government.

Limits on Governments' Lawful, Legitimate Powers

Government has no legitimate power to penalize a citizen who peacefully and responsibly exercises any right, even when they dare to exercise all 100% of a right, even if and when doing so makes one or more Government actors uncomfortable.

The Price of Constitutional Government

The price of having a Constitutional Rule of Law is this: Governments at all levels, and all of its actors, must respect citizens' rights and the Constitution's bright lines that separate the Citizens' rights from Governments' powers.

Civil authority in Rick Stanley case did not pay the price for having a Constitutional Rule of Law. Instead, it deliberately ran-or blew right through-several Constitutional red lights, without even tapping the brakes.

While Government runs Constitutional red lights, it has turned hostile against Rick Stanley for failing to turn perfectly square corners. That is an insufferable double standard, which is typical of a government that is unwilling to do what is right.

Danger Points

Civil authority has punished Rick Stanley for the peaceful exercise of vital rights: Right to Bear Arms, Right to Carry a Loaded Firearm in a Public Place for Lawful Self Defense With a Firearm, Right to Carry a Loaded Firearm in a Public Place for Lawful Defense of Others, Right to Carry a Loaded Firearm in a Public Place for Lawful Defense of Community, Right to Free Speech, Right to Petition Government for Redress of a Grievance, and Right to Represent Oneself in a Court of Law Fearlessly and Zealously, even if mistaken, even if wrong, even if annoying, even if worrisome, even if potentially threatening.

If constructive candor alarms you bear in mind it is triggered by the alarming conduct civil authority has itself set into motion.

Finite Limits for Tolerating Public Serpents

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.

Power of Cross-Examination: The Great Locomotive That Pulls the Truth

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.

Big Difference: Message Sent Versus Message Received

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.

You Should Read "the Rest of the Story"

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 you 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 or concealed 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 statute 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.

I stress one key, material fact: His pleading expressly made a Militia warrant for the judges' arrest conditional on the judges' failure to overturn the conviction on constitutional grounds. By expressly making the issuance of, and/or, the enforcement of a Militia arrest warrant conditional on the judges' failure to overturn the conviction, by definition, there was no immediate threat to have any judge arrested by anyone.

That condition, among other things, means Stanley's pleading was, and is, 100% protected by the First Amendment. [More about that later herein.]

While I am not surprised by how the judges who received that pleading [and others] reacted to it [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, areyou 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. Why? Because the threat was conditioned: It would be carried out only "if" X happened, which did not happen.

While the life of those judges is as valuable as LBJ's, Stanley did not threaten to kill any judge, nor have any judge, killed. He only peacefully, in a formal legal pleading, demanded that the conviction be vacated, declared that in his opinion any judge who refused to vacate the conviction commits treason, and, if the conviction was not vacated, a Militia warrant for the judges' arrest would be issued and enforced.
Stanley had an absolute right to express his opinion, whether legally correct or not.

Stanley had an absolute right to demand the conviction be vacated.

He had an absolute right to state that if what he wanted was not done the Militia would do what he said would be done.

What he said the Militia would do was expressly made conditional.
While many today, about 7.5 generations removed from the Founding and Framing Generation, are clueless as to the true meaning of the Militia, the truth is this: Conceptually, the Militia is mentioned, expressly, in the Constitution, it is the Peoples' Army, and when society's institutions fail to preserve Liberty, the Militia is charged with the Constitutionally legitimate function to marshall and to restore Liberty, including that of any citizen who is part of Society.

Hence, when properly understood, since society's institutions had failed Stanley, I can readily understand how he would peacefully, in a formal legal pleading, be legally creative and, in proper legal pecking order, turn to the Militia, out of desperation, to regain his Liberty, to remedy a wrong.

What we have here is the end result of a classic perversion of the law by Government. Government cannot pervert and violate its own laws, drive a peaceful citizen to desperation, and then complain and exacerbate and compound the situation more by punishing a citizen further who remains peaceful and who creatively resorts to what has become an atrophied remedy, to call for the Militia to marshall to enforce the law, peacefully, for the benefit of a wrongfully abused citizen, Government's victim of a horrible persecution.

In this limited sense, as explained above, Stanley was well within his rights. Even by mentioning the Militia as he did, he was still within his rights, even if his approach is atypical, is rarely used, is against the norm, and apparently caused the judges personal distress.

The Militia is a Constitutionally legitimate, vitally important, major societal institution, even if misunderstood, maligned, and little used today.

It is not a crime to peacefully communicate to a judge a conditional legal remedy that some mock, hold in contempt, and experience to be laughable or worrisome.

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 and even if his remedy had no legal merit and/or is held in disfavor by a majority.

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). If Government had honored Stanley's initial Second Amendment claim and peaceful exercise of that right, there would have been no occasion for him to write the formal legal pleading that he did that lead to the charge that he improperly tried to influence a government official. 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. You should function as a Guardian of Liberty for Rick Stanley, for everyone in Denver, everyone in Colorado, and everyone in America, and that includes me and even yourself. Diminish Stanley's rights and you diminish your own. The two are inseparably interlinked.

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. That is a prediction, not a threat.

I doubt if that will happen regardless of how you sentence Rick Stanley, especially not soon, but, who knows? I do not have a crystal ball. Regardless, 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.

Remedy a wrong and you show strength and integrity.

Perpetuate a wrong and you show weakness and lack of integrity. Worse, you ratchet us tighter and closer to open rebellion. Do not waste judicial capital over this. Invest it wisely.

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. Even if he had applied for a CCW permit, odds are high that it would not have been issued. No citizen has to beg or pay money or waive privacy to exercise a constitutional right peacefully and responsibly. Again, to permit is to control.

It is impossible to regulate a right without imposing a prior restraint infringement on the right, which is expressly forbidden by the Second Amendment.

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.

Since the Department of Homeland Security cannot protect us against terrorists and is warning us about such threats, Government should trust the Rick Stanley's in our midst who are willing to bear the burdens of good citizenship to protect the community and its members from violence, whether it be against common criminals or terrorists.
That, however, threatens police chiefs and sheriffs who do not trust ordinary folk with firearms and who want to protect their turf, namely, a bigger command and a bigger budget, by making citizens totally dependent on them for their protection.

Making the United States one big Liberty free zone with more and more victim disarmament laws, that set up ordinary citizens for criminal plunder, is not sound public policy.

Rick Stanley, to his credit, understands this well, and he peacefully objected.

Rick Stanley did not have a legally enforceable duty to obey governments' laws that violate the Supreme Law.

Rick Stanley did not commit a crime against the State when he violated the State's unconstitutional laws, peacefully.

Rick Stanley is not a bad guy nor a criminal because no one in civil authority has broken his will.

Rick Stanley does not have to go along to get along. He does not have to lay down on his rights.

He should never have been arrested, charged, persecuted, convicted.
The cops and the persecutors played dirty. They violated the Supreme Law. They struck foul blows, below the belt. They have perpetuated this Constitutional train wreck to the bitter end. They have now passed the buck to you.

As a Guardian of Liberty, that buck stops with you. You know the train has jumped its Constitutional tracks. It is up to you to remedy this wrong. I implore you, please do that. Please restore my faith in the Judiciary.

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.

Sentence Rick Stanley harshly and one of the messages you send will probably be far removed from that that you think you will be sending. Regardless of whatever message you intend to send, one message that will be received by thousands is this message: The Republic under a Constitutional Rule of Law is dead; the Judiciary no longer functions as a Guardian of Liberty; this is further confirmation that we have every right to rebel; the only rights we really have are those we are willing to use lethal force to enforce.

To promote your peace of mind, please understand that I have no knowledge of anything planned to cause immediate violence, or even future 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.

The fact that he was afforded due process of law, on paper, and convicted by his peers-twelve constitutional illiterates brainwashed by Government into surrendering Liberty for Security-does not make Stanley's trials any less of a farce.

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.

If I suffer from a misunderstanding of the material facts, then I reserve the right to modify my opinion.

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.
Again, I communicate with you to try to avoid violence.

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 and to object, peacefully, to the violation of 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 planted, 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! He bears the burden of the Founders' and Framers' Torch of Liberty, one that has set the world on fire-literally. Some fan that flame to keep it alive and some try to snuff that flame. Patrick Henry warned: Be jealous of all who hover around the Flame of Liberty with the intent of extinguishing it. Liberty Thieves in Denver and Colorado are, sadly, hell bent on unconstitutionally denying Rick Stanley his birthrights.

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? Think!

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, if necessary, 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. Colonial Minutemen imagined drawing a bead on redcoats. They did what was imaginable. To the extent any of government actors play the role of redcoats, there are plenty of citizens who will play the role of colonial minutemen.

Please join with me to try to avoid that scenario. Sentence Stanley in a way that will pull us back from that scenario.

Show wisdom. Show strength. Think! Please consider my input ultra carefully.

Just as the runway behind a pilot who is unable to make another approach to land is useless, you have this one precious opportunity to get it right. I implore you: Please get it right.

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. 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. 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. For daring to be an American citizen, he is punished-while we spend billions and lives allegedly trying to liberate foreigners. It is not a crime to peacefully assert a right-even if mistaken.

Reason No. 31:

Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states, "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." In other states, it is legal to open carry without a permit. Hence, it is a denial of Equal Protection of the Laws from citizens in some states to be able to do-legally-that for which Stanley was originally prosecuted for doing in Colorado.

Reason No. 32:

The Fourteenth Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to and binding on the states, including Colorado, and their sub-divisions, which includes Denver.

Space limits, and your attention span, prevent me from elaborating on this concept, with primary legal authority.

Reason No. 33:

As evidenced by the persecution of Rick Stanley, there are kangaroo courts in the United States. Sadly, 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 has already suffered enough: Unlawful arrests. Persecution. Incarceration. Strain. Huge attorney fees. Adversely impacted family life, personal life, business, income stream. No one in our society should have to suffer any of that for merely peacefully daring to exercise a birthright and for discharging a citizen's highest civic duty: Peacefully telling an errant Government and its actors, "You are wrong. Honor my rights and leave me alone!"

Reason No. 36:

Sentence Rick Stanley harshly and you will make him a martyr in the Cause of Liberty. What follows may be a bit of an exaggeration. I am a terrible sloganeer, but, something along the lines of "Remember Rick!" might go down with "Remember the Alamo!" or "Remember the Maine!"

Do not make his day of sentencing another Day of Infamy.

Sentence Rick Stanley harshly and you, arguably, drop a very real, symbolic, legal bomb right down the Constitution's smokestack and boiler room, just like some Japanese aircraft carrier pilot did on December 7th at Battleship Row.

Do you want to be construed that way? Remembered that way?

You are suppose to be a Guardian of Liberty.

Do not spread further an un-American, virulent, bubonic plague version of perverted American Law. Once that germ is set loose, it kills the community and the nation. That includes your vital interests, and all of your loved ones'. Again, none of this is hyperbole.

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. 37:

If Timothy McVeigh did what he was convicted of doing, he was wrong. He targeted and murdered innocents. However, rightly or wrongly, he apparently believed that "the system" left him no remedy other than violence. Many are receptive to that conclusion or have already formed that conclusion.

My sense is that more astute, clearer thinkers have learned a few things from what McVeigh allegedly did. At a minium, one thing they learned is: Do not attack innocents. Instead, attack those in power who abused their power, namely, the Liberty Thieves, the Freedom Haters, the Statists, the Control Freak Elitists, those who treat citizens as piss ant peasants, as fools, as no ones who need not be taken seriously.

Sentence Rick Stanley harshly and you will send a stark, sobering message to many more potential McVeighs: The System is dead. It does not work. Governments violate their own rules. Governments disrespect rights. Governments use kangaroo trials to persecute peaceful citizens. Since I/we cannot afford lawyers [or do not know how to proceed legally,] the only way left is violence.

This nation cannot afford to breed more Timothy McVeighs. Bad judges beget McVeighs.

Harsh sentencing of peaceful citizens who dared to act like an American citizen will beget violence.

I implore you: Manifest wisdom and restraint. Admit a wrong was done. Remedy that wrong. Be a Guardian of Liberty. Be Rick Stanley's Guardian.

Do that and you become a priceless national asset worth your weight in gold ten thousand fold or more. Do that, and you become a legal legend, a Champion of the Liberty Movement. Do that, and you become a Peacemaker. Do that and you could become Colorado's Governor.

Reason No. 38:

Fail to do as I recommend and you seriously risk a repeat of what Robert A. Gross documented in his Bancroft Prize winning book, The Minutemen and Their World. In that book, Mr. Gross documented how the Minutemen in a New England town functioned before and during the American Revolutionary War. Per Gross, shopkeepers, sod busters, artisans, livestock raisers, etc., did all of the following: They smeared large quantities of fresh fecal matter on the homes and places of business of the Crown's agents-including judges and other office holders; they warned the Crown's agents to stop being oppressive; they boarded up courthouses and kept judges from entering same; they put judges in the public stocks, publicly humiliated them, threw offensive items at them, drove them from town, confiscated their property, and, when such behavior failed to get the judges and other Crown agents under control, they killed them.

Now, if the English won that war, those Minutemen would have been written up as criminals and thugs. But, since the English lost that war, statuary has been erected to the Minutemen and the Air National Guard in this Nation commonly has its aircraft marked with the Minuteman statue, the RKBA [Right to Keep and Bear Arms] symbol!

If you want proof of that fact, I invite you to go to my Website, Cloud 9 Photography, www.cloud9photography.us . On the C9P Homepage, click on the Airplane Pictures Catalog button. Then click on the BICEN [Bicentennial button.] Then search for the red, white, and blue New Mexico Vought A-7D Corsair II painted in 1976 Bicentennial markings with a large RKBA Minutemen logo on its tail.

Rick Stanley was, and is, like what is painted on that airplane's tail.

Reason No. 39:

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. 40:

A civil authority that refuses to remedy its wrongs against Rick Stanley forfeits its legitimacy and risks a wrath that is imaginable.

Reason No. 41:

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. 42:

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. 43:

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. 6 . . . 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. 44:

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. 45:

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.

Reason No. 46:

It is my understanding that the Colorado state constitution has its own analog [version] of the United States Constitution's Second Amendment. Since you are a Colorado judge, you probably know about Colorado's Constitution Article 2, Section 13, which states:

Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

This Section 13 is found in Colorado's Constitution's own "Bill of Rights," with a title with that name: "Bill of Rights." Human beings, such as Rick Stanley, have rights.

Article 2, Section 3 of Colorado's Constitution is clear and absolute.
The following are stark, undisputed, objectively confirmed, facts: 1) Colorado's Constitution's contains an Article 2 titled "Bill of Rights"; 2) Section 13, under that title, uses the term "Right to bear arms." as a sub-division; 3) The text of that section contains this language, "The right of no person . . . ."; 4) Colorado's own law uses the term "right" at least three times in terms of what Rick Stanley did-open carry, which Article 2, Section 3 declared is legal; 5) Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution declares that it is the Supreme Law of the Land; 6) Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution also states ". . . the judges of in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." [Emphasis added.]; and 7) You are one of those judges duty bound, by oath and law, to obey the United States Constitution, and I presume Colorado's Constitution to the extent that it does not conflict with the Supreme Law.

Per the above facts, here, we have a situation where Rick Stanley has an unalienable right to carry a loaded firearm in public, a federal Second Amendment Supreme Law right to carry a loaded firearm in public, and a separate, independent, Colorado state right to carry a loaded firearm in public as long as it was carried openly [which Rick Stanley did].

Colorado's own law uses the term "right" three times in reference to this right.

Yet, despite the above, inexplicably Rick Stanley was persecuted, in violation of his unalienable rights, his federal Second Amendment rights, and his Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13 rights.

It does not get much clearer, per the KISS [Keep It Simple, Stupid] principle than Article II, Section 13 of Colorado's own Constitution, yet Rick Stanley was arrested, persecuted, and sentenced by sworn peace officers, professional prosecutors, and a judge, all of whom took a solemn oath to support and to defend the United States Constitution and the Colorado Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Per the above analysis, those folks stand before me, cerebrally, bare ass naked, in shame. I experience them to be disgusting, unethical, unprincipled, unprofessional, whores-American Talibans who are domestic enemies of the United States Constitution, who are guilty of treason. They, not Rick Stanley, are dangerous. They are, by their conduct, confirmed terrorists among us. What they did against Rick Stanley is unconscionable, illegal, and unconstitutional. They assaulted Rick Stanley's rights under color of law, which each others' approval.

But, they, individually and together, are not the law. They are, at most, only a dangerous gang of cerebral punks and thugs who have hijacked local government and who have abused their positions and powers to advance their own un-American agendas.

The original prosecution for open carry was no mistake by Governments' actors. To them, this has never been about rights. Instead, it has always been about power-pure, naked, unbridled, corrupt, power: Who has it? Who wants to keep it? Who is willing to pervert the law and become even more corrupt to retain and to expand their unbridled power?

Rick Stanley's persecutors were not brain dead. They were not incompetent. They were not incapable of reading and comprehending simple English.

Instead, common sense tells me they were, and are, mean-spirited, die hard, pro victim disarmament law, control freak ideologues, which no moral brake, no conscience, who are also Liberty Thieves, Freedom Haters, Anarchists, Tyrant Wannabees, or Useful Idiots for Tyrant Wannabees, who were willing to "sister up" [cover for each other] to sell out Rick Stanley, to protect their own miserable lives, jobs, and careers.

Those folks must be stopped. Hopefully, holding them up to public ridicule and pinning the labels I have pinned on them will be sufficient to stop them-and to motivate you to do your duty, namely, to be a domestic supporter of the United States Constitution and of Colorado's Constitution, which you can discharge by manifesting courage similar to Stanley's, namely, stand up for the Constitutional Rule of Law. You can do that by vacating the latest conviction against Stanley.

If you are unwilling to do that, then you should resign. That is because if you are unwilling to do that you define yourself as a Statist who refuses to function as a Guardian of Liberty.

Reason No. 47:

The following quotations penned by Thomas Jefferson are relevant.

On Citizenship:

The man who loves his country on its own account and not merely for its trappings of interest or power can never be divorced from it, can never refuse to come forward when he finds that he is engaged in dangers which he has the means of warding off.

Citizens' Right to Censor Government's Actors:

The people are the only censors of their governors.

Citizens' Right to Dissolve Government:

When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the State, and calls for an exercise of the power of dissolution.

On Irresponsible Law-Makers:

Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us.

On Treason:


Most codes do not distinguish between acts against the government and acts against the oppression of the government. The latter are virtues; yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former. [Emphasis added.]

On Truth:

Truth . . .seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known and seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men. Error indeed has often prevailed by the assistance of power or force. Truth is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error. [Emphases added.]

On Tyranny:

The time to guard against corruption and tyranny is before they have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.

On Fear:

No government can be maintained without the principle of fear as well as of duty. Good men will obey the last, but bad ones the former only.

On Rebellion:

A little rebellion now and then is a good thing.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

On the Legitimate Purpose of Government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men . . . . [Emphasis added.]

Rick Stanley's persecutors, however, illegally and unconstitutionally stripped him of his unalienable, federal and Colorado rights to open carry, peacefully.

Rick Stanley's persecutors are damn, arrogant, pompous, fools . . . and dangerous ones at that.

While these persecutors are smart enough to not grab a high voltage bare wire, they are, apparently, stupid and brazen enough to continue to persecute Rick Stanley who has become a focal point of a test of wills and powers between Evil and Good, Unconstitutional and Constituitional, Statists and Constitutionalists, Elitists and Equalitarians, Sheeple and Patriot, and, ultimately, Armed Forces and Militia.

The Rick Stanley case is big. This is because it has big repercussions, and this stand-off among the specified factions has been building. With your sentence, it comes to a head.

For lack of a better term, the American Deer Hunter and the Militia are the world's largest guerrilla force in waiting. Only a flaming idiot would deliberately risk provoking this guerrilla force. Again, none of this is hyperbole, especially when it is so obvious that Stanley has been persecuted by legal professionals who violated Colorado's own Constitution, to say nothing of the Second Amendment.

Reason No. 48:

Stanley's persecutors have excelled at sustaining their persecution of him. He did his utmost best as long as he could, within the limits of the conventional legal system, to cope with his persecutors, peacefully. He made reference to the Militia issuing an arrest warrant for two judges out of desperation-which unscrupulous legal professionals drove him to do. Stanley, to his credit, talked only in terms of the Militia making a peaceful arrest, nothing more. Even then, Stanley did not call for violence by the Militia against anyone.

Reason No. 49:

Is there no real crime in Denver? In Colorado?

Do you have to fill your jails and prisons with the bodies of peaceful citizens who are victims of Governments' actors who persecuted citizens by perverting the Constitutional Rule of Law, and who, in that sense, manufactured a bogus crime?

Reason No. 50:

Is the public treasury in Denver and Colorado overflowing with funds?
Is it better, and wiser, for tax payers to have to pay to incarcerate Rick Stanley?

Or is it better for Rick Stanley to remain free, to remain productive, to earn a living and to pay taxes and to sign employee payroll checks, etc.?

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 or legal and moral [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 many to support him and 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, or at least their perversions of it. 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?

I imagine that Stanley's loaded, open carry, firearm in a public place made some in and out of government uncomfortable. Ditto his pleading to two judges with his reference to treason and a militia arrest warrant. However, one primary purpose of the First Amendment or the Second Amendment or both is for the People to retain the pragmatic power to flex their muscle, to protect themselves, to hold the Government in abeyance, to make the Government and its actors and agents, so that they would remain faithful to the Constitution's bright lines and not cross any of those lines.

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 .234, Rule .338.

Conclusion

Rick Stanley did not commit a crime. He is a patriot who is probably misunderstood and loathed because he refuses to yield his rights and he is bold. But it is not a crime to refuse to yield a right or to be bold or both.

Government needs to understand Rick Stanley-accurately. It risks an exacerbation of the situation if it continues to disrespect him and his rights.

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. I loathe such a Society and Government. Each are a threat to my vital interests.

Every well informed, 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 with no wrongful criminal intent, even if exercised mistakenly, is never a crime. A government that declares otherwise is a criminal enterprise that is illegitimate.

For the reasons stated, I respectfully implore you to vacate the conviction or, at a minimum, be lenient.

If you are uncomfortable with this bottom line recommendation, I urge you to please go back to Reason No. 42 and reflect carefully about what Daniel Webster said about judges.

When the bell rings for Stanley, it rings for me, too, and for yourself, whether you realize it or not.

When Stanley perceived that some are driving Liberty from the Land of the Free, he peacefully acted bravely. By peacefully asserting his rights, he sounded another bell-a modern Liberty Bell, and, for that, he was punished. Civil authority, by punishing Rick Stanley, has sounded another bell-its death bell. The incongruous sounds of that cacophony of discordance [civil authority violating its own laws] is deafening. You may not hear it, but I and millions of others do.

Thank you for your consideration.

July 23, 2004


ADDENDUM
to July 19, 2004
LETTER TO
RICK STANLEY’S SENTENCING JUDGE

Dear Judge:

Since I wrote my July 19, 2004 letter to you on Rick Stanley’s behalf, I have learned more about his situation, which motivated me to supplement my letter with additional reasons for why you should vacate the conviction in the interest of justice.

My July 19th letter to you with all of its first fifty [50] reasons is incorporated here in full by this reference.

Reason No. 51:

It is my understanding that Denver, at all applicable times, is a “Home Rule City,” and, as such, the powers-that-be function as if they believe they do not have to obey the Supreme Law [the United States Constitution] or Colorado’s Constitution.

If that is how the local powers-that-be think, they are wrong. See Article VI, Section II of the United States Constitution. That is where the United States Constitution expressly declares that it is the Supreme Law and that it is also binding on all state judges.

The Bill of Rights is part of that Supreme Law.

The Bill contains the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second does not state “the right of the State/Police/National Guard/Armed Forces.”

Bottom line: Denver, even as a Home Rule City, is still subject to the Supreme Law, which includes the Second Amendment, and Rick Stanley, as one of the People, had a right to carry a loaded firearm in a public place without any damn government official’s permission required, and no Government nor Government Actor has any legitimate power to “infringe” Rick Stanley’s Second Amendment right. The Second is Rick Stanley’s nation-wide open carry or conceal carry firearm permit. And mine, too. Mess with Rick Stanley, you mess with me.

Rick Stanley had no legal duty to yield any of his Second Amendment right–none.

An overt, lethal rebellion is brewing over this exact point.

I communicate with you to try to be a peacemaker to avoid violence.

What you have already done to Rick Stanley and will do to Rick Stanley could prove to be a flash point in this dispute.

But, it gets even better for Rick Stanley and even worse for his persecutors.

It is my understanding that Denver, at all applicable times, believed that it could pass, and enforce, its own local ordnance that denied Rick Stanley, his, [and others, their] right to carry a loaded firearm in public for lawful self-defense, lawful defense of others, and lawful defense of community.

If this understanding is correct, Denver is wrong, and everyone who believes I am wrong is wrong. If that includes you, so be it. If that does include you, if you submitted to a cross-examination by me, I predict that in excess of 95% of all reasonably constituted persons with normal IQ or better, at the end of my cross-examination of you, would agree with me that I am right and you are wrong.

Denver’s local ordnance that purported to restrict Rick Stanley’s Second Amendment rights was, and is, an unconstitutional prior restraint against that right, an “infringement,” that conflicts with the United States Constitution.

As you know, Article XX, Section 6 of Colorado’s own Constitution, discusses “Home Rule” for cities and towns, such as Denver, and what kind of laws a community like, and including, Denver can and cannot make.

Significantly, Colorado’s own courts have held this: The city and county of Denver has not been freed from the constitution, but is as much subject thereto as any part of the state, and, the authority given to the city and county of Denver for its “Home Rule” to legislate for itself, locally, was, and is, confined and limited solely to local matters. Unless set aside by express words or necessary implications, Colorado’s Constitution and general laws remain as much in force in “home rule” cities as in other portions of Colorado. City and County of Denver v. Tihen (1925) 77 Color 212; Speer v. People ex rel. Rush (1912) 52 Colo. 325; Dixon v. People ex rel. Elliott (1912) 53 Colo. 527.

These cases are important. This is because Colorado’s Constitution Article 2, Section 13, states:

Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. [Emphases added.]

This Section 13 is found in Colorado’s Constitution’s own “Bill of Rights,” with a title with that name: “Bill of Rights.” Human beings, such as Rick Stanley, have rights.

Article 2, Section 3 of Colorado’s Constitution is clear and absolute: “The right of no person to keep and bear arms . . . shall be called in question . . .” But, that is exactly what Rick Stanley’s persecutors did. And, it gets worse: They not only “called in question” that right [a double right–a Second Amendment right and a Colorado Constitutional right], they also arrested, charged, incarcerated, and persecuted him for peacefully exercising a double right, one protected by the federal and the state constitutions.

Who, here, is the damn criminal? Certainly not Rick Stanley.

The criminals are Rick Stanley’s persecutors who have perverted this nation’s laws and Colorado’s laws, under color of law.

I relish exposing them for their egregious shenanigans. They disgust me.

But I would prefer that there be no shenanigans to expose.

Reason No. 52:

The Colorado Penal Code statute that Mr. Stanley was convicted of violating is unconstitutional. This is because it suffers from serious unconstitutional overbreadth, namely, it is not narrowly limited to clearly prescribed core criminal conduct; it is so broad that it purports to make criminal all communications that are not a true, unconditional threat and, instead, are legal, socially beneficial, Right to Free Speech and/or Right to Petition Government for Redress of a Grievance communications, which are 100% protected by the First Amendment. The core essence of those two rights [Free Speech] and [Petition] are to “influence government officials”. Yet, the local powers-that-be made Constitutional behavior “criminal” behavior!

What Mr. Stanley communicated in his legal pleading to the two judges was, and is, 100% protected by either of these First Amendment rights [Free Speech] and [Petition] and by both of them.

Stanley had a right to communicate a demand that the unconstitutional conviction for “open carry” be vacated on constitutional grounds. Stanley also had a right to state, conditionally, that if that demand was not honored, the judges who refused to honor his demand would be subject to a Militia arrest warrant.

Stanley had a right to make a peaceful citizen’s arrest of these judges for violating the law. Stanley also had a right to make that arrest alone or with the assistance of the Militia.

The Militia is mentioned in the United States Constitution. It enjoys Constitutional stature as much as does the press. As the press is commonly referred to as the Fourth Branch of Government the Militia may logically be dubbed the Fifth Branch of Government.

The Militia, when properly understood, is the People, wherein resides ultimate legal and political power in this nation. The Militia is also the People’s army.

When all of Society’s and Government’s other institutions and built-in checks and balances safeguards fail, as they did Stanley, the Militia has a right and duty to call itself out, to marshall, and to do what needs to be done to restore Liberty and to defeat Tyranny.

Stanley stated in his legal pleading to the judges that if X was not done [an express condition] the Militia would make an arrest. There is nothing in that conditional demand that is an overt, clear reference to violence. An arrest is not violence.

The local powers-that-be perverted the real law so badly they drove Stanley to have to resort to the Militia.

I invite you to name one local sworn peace officer who would have arrested any of Stanley’s local persecutors or trial judge who violated his rights to Equal Protection, to Due Process, to Liberty. You cannot do it.

Necessity is a law unto itself. Your broken local system drove Stanley to resort to the Militia. And that, is in the finest American core tradition. And none of that, on Stanley’s part, is a crime.

Reason No. 53:

It is my understanding that you are the judge who presided at Mr. Stanley’s “improperly influencing” trial, and that you were brought out of retirement to preside at that trial after retiring from being a justice on Colorado’s highest state appellate court. If that understanding is correct, it saddens me even more that a jurist who had attained your lofty professional position would, in my opinion, allow this perversion of the nation’s core laws to proceed as far as it has. One could reasonably assume that a jurist with your lengthy experience, background and professional accomplishments would have known better and would have, and should have, put the legal knife to the “improperly influencing” charge against Stanley at the outset or, at least when the persecution rested its case against Stanley.

It is my understanding that you [like the judge in Mr. Stanley’s earlier open carry charge trial] did not let Mr. Stanley or his attorney discuss, or introduce into evidence, the vast body of law that Mr. Stanley relied on for his core defenses, including his Constitutional arguments. I know of federal and state court decisions that hold a criminal defendant may introduce into evidence admissions by government that the defendant relied upon to justify what the defendant did and to explain and to prove that the defendant acted without any wrongful criminal intent.

Consequently, Rick Stanley is the victim of what appears to be a corrupt criminal injustice system that gave him not due process of law but a kangaroo court with a pre-ordained verdict, engineered by a biased judge.

Garbage in, garbage out.

The conviction is legal Garbage or judicial junk.

Reason No. 54:

If my understandings are correct, in my judgment, you, as trial judge in the “improperly influencing” trial, inexplicably functioned as a sub-standard evidentiary gate-keeper, you failed to screen out invalid theories for conviction, and you should have granted a motion for acquittal when the prosecution rested its case.

Since you functioned as you did [assuming my understanding is correct,] if anyone accused you of being a Domestic Enemy of the United States Constitution, a Statist, and/or a Traitor, based on my understanding of what happened, I would be hard pressed to come up with a single compelling reason why any of those labels, in reference to you, would be–and are–non-meritorious. This is because it appears, logically, that you made rulings that made you a Statist instead of a Guardian of Liberty and, that by presiding over what appears to have been a kangaroo court, you undermined the Constitutional Rule of Law. By undermining the Constitutional Rule of Law, you inexplicably gave our nation’s enemies and Tyrant Wannabees in this nation, and their Useful Idiots, immense satisfaction. You contributed to doing what foreign terrorists are hell bent on doing–ruining this nation.

I write to you because I object to anyone ruining Rick Stanley’s life or this nation.

Additionally, you have excelled at alienating citizens who radically and intensely disagree with your evidentiary rulings, etc., with good cause for so disagreeing.

If my understandings are correct, thanks to judges like you and the other one who presided over Rick Stanley’s “open carry” trial, peaceful patriots like Rick Stanley, I, and others now have to worry about rogue cops, out of control law makers, persecutors, Statist judges, and foreign terrorists. Lovely. Just lovely. Being a citizen of the Republic gets harder, daily.

Reason No. 55:

It is my understanding the jury in Mr. Stanley’s “improperly influencing” trial was composed of approximately 50% to 65% young females. If that understanding is correct, that fact, if it is a fact, suggests that Government tampered with the jury pool to stack it against Mr. Stanley with citizens who were not his peers whose data bases and life experiences made them too ill-equipped to understand the issues. The odds of a tamper free jury pool yielding such a large percentage of young females are too low for me to believe that Government did not tamper with this particular jury pool.

If Stanley’s jury was made up of so many young females, there is a logical reason to suspect that Government behind the scenes conspired against Stanley, which, I believe, is a federal crime.

Reason No. 56:

An eye witness to one of the trials said he overhead a local sworn peace officer, on duty, in uniform, state that “Someone should blow off his [Stanley’s] f'ing head.” I find it easy, and incredibly sad, to believe what this eye witness reported he heard and attributed to an on duty officer in uniform.

Such an attitude is suggestive of a local poisonous atmosphere against Rick Stanley, fueled by sworn peace officers, prosecutors, and judges who are suppose to be public servants, neutral, objective, and professional.

Assuming an officer did say what was reported, that officer is more like a blue belly brute bastard government goon, long overdue for a comeuppance.

That officer’s attitude is probably indicative of how many in your local criminal “justice” system think and operate.

That government goon’s attitude is begging for an attitude change, by force, if necessary.

Here is where it gets really serious . . . and sad: That government goon would never have dared say what he said publicly–in uniform no less--if he did not feel comfortable to say what he said, publicly. He said it because he believed it and because he thought what he said would be well received by most, including his superiors and peers, and he could get away with it.

I charge that government goon with improperly trying to influence peaceful citizens to stop daring to exercise their rights peacefully.

Vacate Stanley’s conviction. Do not lend support to this poisonous atmosphere that allows this type of egregious, un-American, unprofessional, treasonous-like, dangerous, behavior and mind set.

The powers-that-be need to realize that the United States is not Communist China, that American citizens are not on probation, that Americans have rights, that no American has to yield a right, that many American citizens are armed, that many American citizens know what is the ultimate, highest, best use and function for their privately owned firearms: To be used as Liberty’s Teeth, the Patriot’s final answer to Government Goons and Tyrant Wannabees who disrespect citizens and their rights.

Reason No. 57:

Mr. Stanley, at all times, turned to his rights, logic, and legal arguments. He did not turn to a firearm, fists, or violence. If he–or I, or you, or anyone–cannot turn to our rights, peacefully, in or out of a court of law, in this nation, to enforce our rights, what else is left? What can we turn to–our arms? Do you really want that?

Stanley’s rights, however, have so far proven to be absolutely useless and of no utility whatsoever, through no fault of his.

A courtroom is suppose to be a Citadel of Liberty under the Constitutional Rule of Law. If you were Stanley’s trial judge in the “improperly influencing” trial, you allowed Domestic Enemies of the United States Constitution to turn that courtroom into a Citadel of Unconstitutional Crap–fecal matter that is now smeared all over–guess who?–you, the persecutors, the arresting officers, the local law makers, and the political heavy weights who have jumped onto the “Let’s get Rick Stanley Persecution Wagon.”

A persuasive argument can be made that, as a group, you folks are an out of control gang who hijacked Government and who have perverted this nation’s most fundamental laws.

Reason No. 58:

The 9-11 Commission recently announced its findings. As you know, they concluded that Governments, and Governments’ Actors, failed to protect the American people, and failed to do so–miserably.

I am not surprised by the Commission’s bottom line findings.

We have had too many Diane Feinstein’s, Barbara Boxer’s, Bill Clinton’s, and others of like mind who, for too many years, have spent thousands of hours trying to disarm peaceful American citizens, trying to turn the United States into one gigantic Liberty Free Zone, one enormous Victim Disarmament Area, trying to strip Americans of their birthrights and set us all up for easy plunder by common criminals and by a rogue, oppressive, out of control, domestic government. Instead of squandering their time trying to strip peaceful citizens of their birthrights, these Perfumed Princes and Princess should have spent far more time focused on how to cope with real threats to this nation.

Government has enumerated, finite powers. Its powers stop at Citizens’ rights.

The general welfare is not promoted by stripping citizens of their rights.

Even post 9-11, the local powers that be have continued to waste finite public funds, time, and energy, persecuting Rick Stanley, instead of focusing on real criminals–ordinary ones, corrupt government officials, and foreign terrorists.

The local powers-that-be have their priorities skewed. They are First Class Misleaders who do indeed function as Domestic Enemies of the United States Constitution, and, arguably, as Traitors who have given comfort to our nation’s enemies and continue to do so.

Conclusion

Your perverted legal system has made Mr. Rick Stanley a rallying point and, in that sense, one of the most influential and powerful persons in the United States in 2004.

I have a sense that the odds are increasing that a harsh sentence by you for Rick Stanley will be construed by many as the proverbial straw.

You need to be prudent–not because of the possibility of a violent reaction but simply because you need to do what is the Constitutionally correct thing to do: Vacate the conviction.

You need to, and should, mitigate the damage done to Rick Stanley, to the Constitution, to the Judiciary, to the Public’s confidence in the Judiciary.

Do not throw away whatever remaining confidence the public has in the Judiciary by sentencing Rick Stanley harshly. That would be the most imprudent, unethical, unprofessional, dangerous, counter-productive thing you could do.

You should vacate the conviction and state your reasons for doing so. In the process, you should condemn what has been done against Rick Stanley under color of law. Do that, and you mitigate damage. Do that, and you pull us back from the abyss.

Thank you for your consideration.

With kindest regards, I remain,

Sincerely,



Peter J. Mancus


Peter J. Mancus Attorney at Law
Victorian Square
876 Gravenstein Ave. So., Suite 3
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Tel: (707) 829-9050
pmancus@prodigy.net