# Denver Judge Prohibits Referencing Constitution in Court; Makes Ass of Self **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 28, 2002, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308 "2002-11-28T05:55:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/1 "2002-11-28T05:55:55Z")
[“Hear Ye, Hear Ye, The Constitution of the United States of America has just been repealed by a Denver County Court Judge.”](http://www.stanley2002.org/releases/release5_15_02b.htm) :eek: :mad: This is absolutely crazy! There’s not much more to be said about this dumbfuck judge and his actions, in my opinion! ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/2 "2002-11-28T06:00:34Z")
And here’s some more! [City Attorney: Constitution of U.S. and Colorado null and void in Denver since 1906](http://www.stanley2002.org/releases/release5_16_02.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/3 "2002-11-28T06:16:18Z")
Goddamned petty martinet deserves to be disbarred and barred from setting foot in any court of any jurisdiction of the country. Is it any wonder why so many people are turning Libertarian? I mean, the other parties have _so much_ respect for the Constitution. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/4 "2002-11-28T06:31:14Z")
I don’t think this has anything to do with political parties, unless the Judge railroaded Stanley because he’s Libertarian. But man, this absolutely PISSES ME OFF. A JUDGE basically wiping his ass with the Constitution and then flushing it down the toilet. He should be removed immediately! ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/5 "2002-11-28T06:39:17Z")
Any information on this that’s not from the defendant’s website? ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/6 "2002-11-28T06:39:18Z")
I wonder if I should have put this in GD…but I don’t think ANYONE could debate that this judge isn’t an assmunch… ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/7 "2002-11-28T06:42:10Z")
Well, this was from earlier this year, but I just read about it now…I’ll try to dig up some other pages for it. I’ll also try to find out what happened to the judge between then and now. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/8 "2002-11-28T06:50:30Z")
[http://www.guncontrolvictories.com/gc\_noconstitution.html](http://www.guncontrolvictories.com/gc_noconstitution.html) [http://www.co-freedom.com/2002/06/stanleygun.html](http://www.co-freedom.com/2002/06/stanleygun.html) [http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/archive.php?aid=452](http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/archive.php?aid=452) Those are just 3 of them…if you Google “rick stanley trial, judge patterson”, you’ll get a whole mess of pages. The more I read about this, the more upset I get…I wonder why I never heard even a whisper about this until now, or see any threads here… ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/9 "2002-11-28T07:54:51Z")
Seems fairly awful to me except for one phrase in your second link, **Monster104** , and something that might provide insight into what happened here. “home rule city”. Links from Google were too heavy in legalese for me to be able to translate them into something that wouldn’t make my brain into an organic Gordian Knot… Anyone else wanna try some of the websites [here](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22home+rule+city%22) and see what they come up with? Best I can tell is that it means you can sorta kind maybe change the rules somewhat or something. Helpful, I know;) ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/10 "2002-11-28T07:57:16Z")
**Monster** you are an idiot. The Judge gave a completely proper order to council that he not grandstand and argue issues irrelevant _at that level of court proceedings_. Jurys make determinations of _fact_ NOT of law. They are neither equipped nor allowed to decide the constitutionality of laws, but rather whether or not there is sufficient proof of lawbreaking. The Judge is absolutely correct to disallow him to grandstand on the meaning of the 2nd ammendment in a Jury trial, or to attempt a jury nullification by rejecting jurors based on their 2nd ammendment views. There’s plenty of time at the appeals level to make those sorts of arguments **after** the Jury has decided what the facts in the case are. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/11 "2002-11-28T08:05:39Z")
I do have an issue with one argument he makes, here: > [@](#): > > During the jury selection process supporters of Stanley were shocked to discover that out of a pool of 12 prospective jurors - 5 just happened to be employed by the Plaintiff, The City and County of Denver. One prospective female jury member confirmed that she indeed was a police officer employed by the Denver Police Department. There are a number of problems with this paragraph. 1. To start with, there is no Plaintiff. The state is a prosecutor. Plaintiffs refer to civil matters. This is just a minor quibble though. 2. Of course there are a large percentage of people in the jury pool that “happened to be employed” by the government. The government happens to employ a lot of people. 5 out of 12 is not an unreasonable number, even on the city level of government. 3. Just because they are a government employee does not mean they should be exempt. Just because they are police officers does not mean they are biased. To assume so would decrease our potential applicants by such a substantial degree, that no trials would ever commence. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/12 "2002-11-28T08:27:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Enderw24 \* > \*\*2) Of course there are a large percentage of people in the jury pool that “happened to be employed” by the government. The government happens to employ a lot of people. 5 out of 12 is not an unreasonable number, even on the city level of government. > 3) Just because they are a government employee does not mean they should be exempt. Just because they are police officers does not mean they are biased. To assume so would decrease our potential applicants by such a substantial degree, that no trials would ever commence. \*\* Just to expand on this, jury pools always contain a certain number of county and state employees (at least here in California) because their employer pays them for an unlimited number of jury days. They have no excuse to avoid jury duty at all. (in Los Angeles, potential jurors are seperated by the number of days their employers will pay them for. Those whose employers pay for longer periods of time are put in jury pools of trials expected to run long) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/13 "2002-11-28T12:07:27Z")
Tejota wrote: > [@](#): > > Monster you are an idiot. The Judge gave a completely proper order to council that he not grandstand and argue issues irrelevant at that level of court proceedings. Monster is far from being an idiot. In fact, he is one of the best and brightest of America’s youth. He is insightful, thoughtful, and unlike you, is considerate of other points of view. The attorney did not ask the juror whether she could interpret the Constitution. He asked her whether she could follow a judge’s instruction. The notion of holding a kangaroo court outside the penumbra of the Constitution, forcing the defendant to finance an appeal before he can have justice, is Neanderthal in its conception. And if the law says otherwise, the law is an ass. Ignorance and idiocy are not the same. Certainly, you have nothing of value to offer Monster. An ignorant man can learn, but an idiot cannot teach him. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/14 "2002-11-28T14:16:38Z")
I find this entire claim of injustice highly dubious. We’ve been presented with no actual evidence the judge is “wiping his ass” with the Constitution except for the biased claims of the defendant himself, who (as has already been pointed out) doesn’t seem to really understand how the Constitution works with respect to the legal system. Not one part of any of Monster104’s links provides any evidence the judge violated the Constitution in any way that I can see, or was disrespectful of the Constitution, if you try to see through the biased gauze of Stanley’s language. It’s quite obvious from Monster104’s account that Stanley and his lawyer WERE, in fact, grandstanding in the most ridiculous fashion. If the guy doesn’t even understand how jury selection works, I’m skeptical he’d understand Constitutional law. Some of the quotes don’t even seem to make any sense: > [@](#): > > When Mr. Stanley _(the defendant)_ was called by defense to testify, Judge Patterson questioned whether he really wanted to testify or not. The judge mentioned the Constitutional provision that guaranteed his ability not to testify, but when Mr. Stanley asked the judge to cite the provision the judge refused. Huh? Is Mr. Constitution saying he CAN be compelled to testify against himself? Or is he testing the judge? Judge Patterson DID get it right; you can’t be made to testify against yourself. What’s the issue here? Then from the account of the next day: > [@](#): > > Grant then presented two affirmative defenses to the court in the form of jury instructions. First, that Rick’s actions were an form of political speech, and the First Amendment prevents the government from punishing Rick for speech. > > Secondly, Grant argued, the Second Amendment and the Constitution of Colorado Article II, Section 13, both protect Rick’s right to keep and bear arms. On this latter point Mr. Grant argued forcefully, citing a precedent (People vs. Ford) which is controlling in this case. I appreciate that Stanley and Grant may feel the right to bear arms is Constitutionally guaranteed. So appeal it. The fact that the judge refused to _add this to the jury instructions_ does not mean he’s trampling on the Constitution. Hell, the judge might even agree with them; under normal circumstances, however, this is not the job of a jury to decide. Juries decide points of fact, not law. Constitutional rights are not something you can just yank out of a hat to make a grandstanding Hollywood speech at every stage of the legal process. Note that Patterson did NOT prevent Grant from imploring the jury to consider their role as “defenders of liberty” in his closing arguments. You generally have more latitude in closing arguments that you do, in say, jury selection. So where is the EVIDENCE, folks, that this judge trampled on the Constitution? I’d like to see some actual commentary and fair reporting, not Stanley’s own biased and rather heavily partisan accounts. Furthermore, the account of the city attorney saying the Constitution doesn’t apply to Denver looks to me like sneakily worded bullshit. Depending on which part of the compound question he was responding to, he may have been referring to the constitution of COLORADO, not the USA - and for all we know, maybe the Colorado constitution does have special provisions for home rule cities. Or maybe he was saying the Constitution wasn’t an issue at the time and was relevant in appeal. Either way it’s pretty obvious the conversation, such as it was, is not being clearly reported. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/15 "2002-11-28T14:39:25Z")
The attorney was arguing his case during jury selection, and asked jurors to interpret the Constitution his way. I don’t think anyone is allowed to do that during that procediure. I am a layman, and even I can see that. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/16 "2002-11-28T14:46:11Z")
#1) Rick Stanley is insane. Really REALLY insane. He was the Libertarian candidate for Senate and the party almost pulled their endorsement of him in the middle of his campaign when he started talking about lynching government employees. (For some reason, they didn’t quite, though.) I wouldn’t trust the guy if he said the sun rose in the East. #2) This is old news. I’m from Denver it it was all the rage when it happened. There was no “cover-up”, stories about screwballs making asses of themselves in court are not national news. #3) Per the judge (who was interviewed weeks after this happened), Stanley was trying to turn the issue of whether pulling an (allegedly) loaded gun out at a pro-gun rally at the Capital violated a Denver ordinance into a constitutional case outside the perview of the court AND he (his lawyer) was doing it during Jury Selection IIRC. Keep in mind the background as well. Stanley (more or less) pulled out a handgun at a gun-rights rally and (in essence) said “I’m violating Denver’s law! Let 'em come and get me!” and has been mewling that they called his bluff ever since. I’m as pro-gun as it gets, but I have no sympathy for people committing civil disobedience who then go on to whine that there are consequences. The consequences are what civil disobedience is all _about_ Seriously **Monster** , see [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=116491&highlight=rick+and+stanley) for more about our good buddy Rick. Fenris ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/17 "2002-11-28T14:57:54Z")
So, what’s this ‘home rule’ thing? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/18 "2002-11-28T15:22:30Z")
Fen That’s a Poison Well, and you know it (or should). ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/19 "2002-11-28T15:29:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Fen > > That’s a Poison Well, and you know it (or should). \*\* “Poison Well”? I really _don’t_ recognize the phrase. Um…you mean like an ad hominim? If so, I disagree: the guy _is_ a nut. Given that, the stuff on his webpage that **Monster** was quoting _should_ be considered suspect. I don’t see anything wrong with considering the source. If that’s not what you mean, could you elaborate? Fenris ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308/20 "2002-11-28T15:43:09Z")
For you, Fen, sure. A Poison Well fallacy is the introduction of information into an argument with the intention of disparaging reputation or credibility. Example: Dr. Gish’s paper in the _Journal of Molecular Biology_ cannot be trusted because he is a member of the Institute for Creation Research. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denver-judge-prohibits-referencing-constitution-in-court-makes-ass-of-self/139308.md?page=2)