Denver County Court Payment And Sentence Information
DENVER COUNTY COURT
PAYMENT AND SENTENCE INFORMATION
GENERAL SESSION DIVISION ROOM 140 (720) 865-8040
DEFENDANT'S NAME: STANLEY, RICHARD E
TODAY'S DATE: 08/14/03
CASE NUMBER: 01GS606306
COURTROOM: 151P
Description Quantity Units Due Date End Date Amend Comments
PROBATION TERMS
SUPERVISED PROBATION 1 YEAR/S 7/25/03
ELECT. MONIT COND PROB. 30 DAY/S 11/21/03
JAIL TERMS
JAIL TIME IMPOSED 180 DAY/S
JAIL TIME SUSP COND. 150 DAY/S BALONIHD
COMM/SERV/WORK PROG
COMM/SERV ORDERED 75 HOUR/S 11/21/03
FINE/COSTS TOTAL
FINES/COSTS 629.00 DOLLAR/S 8/14/03
FINES/COSTS 629.00 DOLLAR/S 7/25/02
Next Court Date:
FINES AND COSTS - The fines and costs are due today unless other arrangements are made.
Failure to pay will result in a warrant for your arrest and/or an additional fee.
Please write your case number on the check or money order and make payments payable to :
DENVER COUNTY COURT
Mail payments to: DENVER COUNTY COURT
1437 BANNOCK STREET, ROOM 140
DENVER, CO 80202
ALTERNATE SENTENCING - You must report IMMEDIATELY to room 145, in the City and County Building,
1437 Bannock St., Denver, CO 80202, for your work assignment. When you comolete the required hours,
you will be issued a receipt for the hours you have worked. You must then present the receipt to
the Community Service/Work Program Dept. in room 145 for credit.
Defendant's Signature:
Clerk's Initials
Terms of Probation
DENVER COUNTY COURT
Probation Department
TERMS OF PROBATION
Defendant: RICHARD E STANLEY
Case Number: 01GS606306
DOB: 07/14/54
Courtroom: 151P
Probation Number: 281953
Probation Officer: CANDICE SANCHEZ
The defendant, having been granted probation by the Denver County Court, is directed and agrees to comply
with the following terms of probation:
FAILURE TO COMPLY IS BASIS FOR A REVOCATION HEARING
1. Obey all city, state, and federal laws. Pay all fines and costs, and/or perform all community service as ordered.
2. Report to the probation officer at a designated time and by a designated method. Notify your probation officer
no later than 24 hours after a change in address, telephone number (work and home), or employment.
3. Successfully complete any of the following Special Conditions:
Description Value Units Soe Date End Date Amend Comments
PROBATION TERMS
SUPERVISED PROBATION 1 YEAR/S 7/25/03
ELECT. MONIT. COND PROB. 30 DAY/S 11/21/03
JAIL TERMS
JAIL TIME IMPOSED 180 DAY/S
JAIL TIME SUSP COND. 150 DAY/S
COMM/SERV/WORK PROG
COMM/SERV ORDERED 75 HOUR/S 11/21/03
COMM/SERV ORDERED 75 HOUR/S 10/31/02
FINE/COSTS TOTAL
FINES/COSTS 629.00 DOLLAR/S
FINES/COSTS 629.00 DOLLAR/S
Stanley's Sentence Initiated in Denver Judge Patterson's Private Courtroom
August 14, 2003
Rick Stanley
Constitutional Activist
Phone: 303-329-0481
E-mail: rick@www.stanley2002.org
MEDIA RELEASE
Stanley Scoop 08/14/03 ** Special Edition **
=========================================================
THE STANLEY SCOOP **
** Visit the website: http://www.stanley2002.org **
** Scoop Archive: http://www.stanley2002.org/scoop **
** Like the Scoop? Forward it to everyone you know! **
=========================================================
SPECIAL EDITION:
Subject: Stanley's Sentence Initiated in Denver Judge Patterson's Private
Courtroom
Rick Stanley, Constitutional Activist, former U.S. Senate candidate, Enemy of
the State, and self avowed extremist on the order of our forefathers of America,
gave the following media release for your use:
Rick Stanley was ordered to court today at 8:30 AM in Denver County Court with a
"lawful" order this time as opposed to the previous "unlawful" order issued by
Judge Robert Patterson, to initiate sentence for a conviction in Judge
Patterson's Denver County court last year, of "openly" wearing a weapon. The
previous hearing of June 26th was quietly brushed off as a "clerical" error and
Vacated by Judge Patterson, as was the Bench Warrant he issued for Stanley, when
Stanley refused to appear on June 26, 2003. With a new mayor in Denver, Mayor
John Hickenlooper, it was interesting that Judge Patterson, decided to correct
that mistake, one working day before the Mayoral inauguration.
Many people do not realize that Municipal and County Judges are appointed in
Denver by the Mayor. The threat of a Mutual Defense Pact Militia action in
defense of Mr Stanley had also been proposed across America, potentially
turning Denver, Colorado into the "center of the universe" for judicial and
police abuse activists across the country, not to mention the media, and the
public. Over 600 armed defenders were preparing to come to Denver should
Stanley have been attacked by any unconstitutional threat to his person. The
Judge backed off, after a "practice demonstration" by the City of Denver that
included a Swat team truck, two fire ladder trucks, one ambulance, and three
police vehicles, which had descended upon Stanley's business at 6280 E. 39th
Ave in Denver at Stanley Fastener and Shop Supply , with sirens blaring and
lights blazing on July 17th at 4:45 PM. Upon arrival of the assault team, the
power was cut off to Stanley's 22,000 square foot building, and after ten
minutes of blocking traffic in front of the business, and preventing a Stanley
employee from leaving, the Denver assault team abruptly drove off in silence,
allowing the Stanley employee to leave at that time. The power was returned at
that time. The next day, Judge Patterson signed an order on July 18, 2003,
vacating the June 26 hearing that had triggered the Bench Warrant, which after
the fact triggered the armed and dangerous report on Stanley, which also
revealed Stanley has been under investigation by the FBI for unknown reasons.
Stanley speculated that the FBI was investigating and recording phone
conversations and e-mails because of his Million Gun March Petition and Mutual
Defense Pact Militia, at Stanley's Constitutional Activism website at
www.stanley2002.org. The new Mayor, John Hickenlooper was installed on the
next business day of Monday, July 21, 2003 and probably was responsible for the
cooler heads prevailing by doing the right thing by Mr Stanley. This
consequently spurred an Internal Affairs investigation for the Denver Police
Department with David Quinones, questioning Stanley regarding how Stanley came
into the possession of the Interdepartment memo, detailing the Armed and
Dangerous report and the FBI information of their investigation. Stanley
declined to comment but did say that no Denver Police employee gave him the
report, clearing several Denver Police officers from any wrongdoing. Stanley
said that he was pleased by the decision of the judge to vacate the hearing and
bench warrant as Stanley and Denver Police officers lives were needlessly put
in danger by the unlawful actions of Judge Robert Patterson and his unlawful
calling of the original hearing and subsequent unlawful bench warrant for
Stanley's arrest. In a very slanted media report in Patricia Calhouns
"Westword weekly tabloid", a Denver spokesman said that the whole event was
very "unlikely". Several witnesses to the event and the aftermath, find that
response by the Denver government to be dismissive and "unlikely" from a
government that is concerned about one of it's citizens, and the potential for
violence against him by those in the Police department.
The hearing this morning quickly changed Stanley's mind that Judge Robert
Patterson was going to do things Constitutionally or lawfully, in his private
courtroom in 151P of the Denver County courthouse. Judge Patterson ignored the
fact that the case is back on appeal at the Denver District court, and the
filing had not been acted upon by that court at the time of the hearing this
morning. Judge Robert Patterson violated the Colorado Rules of Procedure by
ignoring this filing and imposed sentence upon Stanley. In addition, Mr
Stanley had filed a VERIFIED EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN DENVER COUNTY COURT FROM
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER RULE 65 F.R.Civ.P. and an EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REMOVAL
PURSUANT TO 28 USC 1443 and COMPLAINT WITH SUPPORTING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF regarding this misdemeanor criminal action, in Federal District Court of
the United States, in Denver the day before. As of the hearing this morning,
in Judge Patterson's Courtroom, no ruling had been made by the Federal Court,
but Judge Robert Patterson proceeded anyway with the sentence being initiated
against Mr. Stanley.
Stanley had his sentence initiated by Judge Robert Patterson at that time, in
spite of Mr. Stanley's objections regarding Judge Patterson's disregard for the
law, and sentence was imposed with the following: 30 day home detention with
ankle bracelet, $629.00 fine and court costs that had to be paid by day's end
and were, 75 hours of community restitution administered through the probation
department of room 145 and Stanley was ordered to report immediately to the room
or Judge Patterson would impose the 6 months jail sentence immediately. Stanley
was followed by three sheriffs deputies at all locations in the courthouse after
his sentence initiation. Stanley was summoned back to the court for an
additional hearing by Judge Patterson within twenty minutes by sheriffs
deputies, while paying the fine and arranging for retrieval of his $2,500.00
bond, the city now owed him since he had made good his promise to come to court
for initiation of sentence. Stanley was threatened again by Judge Robert
Patterson with the 6 month jail sentence instead of the other sentence if he did
not sign a "new" form with whatever Judge Patterson decided to put on it. Judge
Patterson was very upset that his clerk had crossed off the following sentence
from the form that Stanley must agree to and sign or face 6 months in jail:
Important Notice: Having been granted probation you may be required to
participate in a "treatment" or "education" program. Any costs resulting from
that treatment are your responsibility.
Stanley then pointed out that Judge Patterson had not imposed this upon Stanley
at the sentencing hearing, nor had it been mentioned in the order for initiation
for sentencing hearing, that had preceded the new hearing. Stanley also pointed
out that he was uncomfortable with any "treatments" the city might decide to
give him, either medically or physically and would not sign away this right.
Judge Patterson said that Stanley must sign and agree to anything he puts on the
signature form or Stanley will go to jail immediately for 6 months. Stanley
says nothing for about 15 seconds, and the Judge loses control and tells the
Sheriffs to get him to sign the form or take him to jail. Stanley voluntarily
walked to the clerk, picked up the three identical forms the clerk handed him,
read the form, signed all three forms, and handed them all back to the clerk.
The clerk returned two of the forms to Stanley with instructions as to where to
go to comply with the Judges new instructions on the form. Stanley smiled at
the clerk, thanked her and wished her well, and left the courtroom and promptly
accomplished everything that was listed on the form, that had to be completed
that very day before leaving the Courthouse.
Mr Stanley, his wife Pam, and the Speakout Vail Publisher Michael Cacioppo, who
had been covering the hearing, then went to a wonderful breakfast at the Denver
Diner, served promptly by the Stanley's favorite waitress, Monica who is a
figure of historic proportions herself at the Denver Diner, and enjoyed the fact
that the form that was given to Rick Stanley by the court to sign, did not have
the offending sentences which Stanley had objected to.
Stanley will pursue all legal remedies, up to and including, the Supreme Court
in the future.
Information and application to join the Mutual Defense Pact is at Rick Stanley's
Constitutional Activism website at www.stanley2002.org. Rick's email address is
rick@www.stanley2002.org, and can be reached by phone at 303-329-0481 or by fax at
303-329-0498.
Long live the fighters.
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE! LIVE FREE OR DIE!! LIBERTY IN OUR LIFETIME!!
Luke 22, verse 36:
"But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and
one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one." Jesus
Christ.
*Prepare*Organize*Lock&Load*Defend*
=========================================================
Live Free or Die! Liberty in our Lifetime!
The Stanley Scoop
http://www.stanley2002.org
Reply to: rick@www.stanley2002.org
If you wish to unsubscribe from the Stanley Scoop, please send a message to
webmaster@www.stanley2002.org with the subject "unsubscribe" from the email
address you received it at.
Rick Files Pleadings in Denver Federal Court
August 13, 2003
Rick Stanley
Constitutional Activist
Phone: 303-329-0481
E-mail: rick@www.stanley2002.org
MEDIA RELEASE
Stanley Scoop 08/13/03 ** Special Edition **
=========================================================
THE STANLEY SCOOP **
** Visit the website: http://www.stanley2002.org **
** Scoop Archive: http://www.stanley2002.org/scoop **
** Like the Scoop? Forward it to everyone you know! **
=========================================================
SPECIAL EDITION:
Subject: Rick Files Pleadings in Denver Federal Court
Rick Stanley, Constitutional Activist, former U.S. Senate candidate, Enemy of
the State, and self avowed extremist on the order of our forefathers of America,
gives the following media release for your use.
Today, Wednesday, August 13, 2003, Rick Stanley filed pleadings in the Denver
Federal Court and presented copies to the City and County of Denver/ Judge
Robert Patterson, the City Attorney for the City and County of Denver, and Mayor
John Hickenlooper. The pleadings addressed the violation of civil rights
concerning Rick Stanley and his violated right to keep and bear arms in Denver,
Colorado, prior to March 18, 2003.
Stanley said "That a citizen would absolutely insist
upon being able to exercise a constitutional right anywhere in Denver,
apparently has government officials in Denver in a quandary. Stanley demands
his constitutional rights be upheld even though the paid lawyers in black robes
in the Denver and Colorado Courts refuse to honor their oath of office to defend
the constitutions. This matter will not go away."
*********************************************************
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
*********************************************************
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REMOVAL PURSUANT TO 28 USC 1443 and COMPLAINT with
supporting MOTION for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Criminal Action No. 03-CR-400B
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
Plaintiffs
v.
STANLEY, RICHARD DOB: 07/14/1954
Defendant
________________________________________________________________________
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REMOVAL PURSUANT TO 28 USC 1443 and COMPLAINT with
supporting MOTION for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
________________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Richard Stanley, pro se, and motions for removal of
two county court cases to this federal court, for injunction relief and
complaint against the Defendants, states as follows:
JURISDICTION
28 USC 1443(1) and (2) provide this court with jurisdiction to remove
any criminal action from a state court when the Defendant's rights are
being violated. This court has jurisdiction under the laws the United
States of America, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the U.S. Constitution, under the
2nd, 5th and 14th Amendments; and 28 USC 2201 for a declaratory
judgment for redress of the deprivation of rights under color of state
law; and 28 USC 1331 for a constitutional questions and 1343 (a)(3)and
(4) for damages incurred as a result of deprivation of rights and due
process.
VENUE
Venue is proper under 28 USC 1391(b) because all defendant parties are
entities in the State of Colorado and the United States. All acts
complained of took place in the jurisdiction of the City and County of
Denver.
NATURE OF EMERGENCY
Plaintiff Stanley is scheduled to appear in Denver County Court at 8:30
a.m. on Thursday, August 14, 2003 to begin a sentence which includes
wearing a "bracelet" for in-home detention and perhaps, even jail time.
Stanley has motioned the court repeatedly for post-conviction relief,
for a stay and for reconsideration with all such motions being denied.
The most recent attempt to secure a suspension of the sentence pending
the outcome of a related case occurred on Monday, August 11, 2003 but
the Division judge and the Duty Judge both refused to sign the Emergency
Motion for Stay. The Denver county court has demonstrated hostility
towards Plaintiff Stanley and all state remedies have been exhausted as
further described in paragraphs 1 through 3 below. Stanley will suffer
irreparable harm in that his liberty and property will be taken from him
even though there is a serious controversy as to whether or not the
conviction was lawful, as described in paragraphs 4-6 below.
FACTS
1. On May 16, 2002, Plaintiff Stanley was convicted in Denver
County Court of unlawfully carrying a weapon in violation of DRMC 38-117
(b) [openly carrying a gun].
2. Stanley appealed to the state District Court, pro se, and was
dismissed for technical errors in failing to format his appeal according
to C.A.R. 3. Stanley filed numerous pleadings in an attempt to void the
judgment and otherwise reverse the conviction. 3. Stanley
appealed to the State Supreme Court and cert was denied by the State
Supreme Court on May 19, 2003 and then he appealed to the State Court of
Appeals who dismissed the appeal in July, 2003. Stanley filed a motion
to renew his appeal and a Brief again in Denver District Court, but such
motion and brief has not been ruled upon. These procedures
effectively precluded Stanley a review on appeal, and the state courts
declined to allow Stanley deference as a pro se defendant under the
doctrine of Haines v. Kerner [court to construe pleadings liberally for
an unrepresented party].
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Equal protection under the Law - denial of equal
protection under State Law
4. In May, 2003, the State enacted two laws, Senate Bills 24 and 25
[hereafter SB 24 and SB25] which preempted and voided Denver's home rule
ordinance DRMC 38-117, that ordinance under which Stanley was convicted a year
earlier. It is now lawful to openly carry a gun within the jurisdiction of the
City and County of Denver.
5. The State legislative intent for voiding Denver's open gun carry
ordinance is recorded in the Act, to wit:
Section 1, Art. 12, Title 18, (1) (e),
"It is necessary that the state occupy the field of regulation of the bearing
of concealed handguns since the issuance of a concealed handgun permit is
based on a person's constitutional right of self-protection and there is a
prevailing state interest in ensuring that no citizen is arbitrarily denied a
concealed handgun permit and in ensuring that the laws controlling the use of
the permit are consistent through the state." Emphasis added.
The State has clarified that Denver's ordinance was unconstitutional and SB 24
and 25 was enacted to correct that violation. Denver has challenged the State's
actions and such challenge is currently under review by the District Court, 03
CV 3809. 6. Courtroom 151-Patterson is continuing the prosecution of
Stanley, and denying all Stanley's motions for reconsideration, and post-
conviction relief, willfully and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff's
Stanley's right to benefit from SB 24 and 25, as guaranteed to all Colorado
citizens by the State legislature. In that the Denver ordinance was voided by
the State as unconstitutional this year, it must be reasoned that the ordinance
was unconstitutional last year. A void law is unenforceable, Marbury v.
Madison, 5 USC 137, (1803). WHEREFORE, Stanley moves this court for judgment
against the defendants for recklessly denying him equal protection under the law
with total disregard for Stanley's rights. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of
Due Process, in violation of 5th and 14th Amendments
Paragraphs 1 through 6 incorporated herein.
7. Stanley filed a pleading to the Denver District Court entitled
"Petition" as a substitute for a properly formatted Notice of Appeal on
August 23, 2002. That pleading was dismissed for non-compliance with
the court rules. Stanley then filed an appeal with the State Supreme
Court. That cert was denied on May 19, 2003. Stanley applied for relief
to the Court of Appeals who denied it in July, 2003 for lack of
jurisdiction. Stanley then filed a renewed "Opening Brief" with the
State District Court in August, 2003 which is pending. 8. At all
times, Stanley moved the court to exercise discretion in interpreting
his acts as untrained in the law. The Denver courts refused to do so in
reckless disregard of Stanley's rights as protected by the 5th and 14th
Amendments to the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, Stanley moves
for judgment against the defendants for continually denying Stanley's
attempts to submit arguments on appeal, in violation of the 5th and 14th
Amendments. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Unlawful Seizure and Detention in
violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments 9. Paragraphs 1 through 8
incorporated herein. 10. Plaintiff Stanley was arrested and
jailed on December 15, 2001 for an act which was NOT unlawful but simply
was declared a crime by Denver ordinance. Such ordinance was void on
its face as declared by SB 24 and 25. Stanley asserted that he had a
constitutional right to openly carry a gun and Defendants willfully
disregarded such constitutionally protected rights.
WHEREFORE, Stanley moves this court for judgment and damages against
Defendants for violation of constitutionally protected rights. RELIEF
REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves this court for an Order to enjoin
the State County Court from further proceedings on this matter, to
transfer the case to the Federal Court, District of Colorado, and for
judgment against Defendants for fees and costs and for an order vacating
the conviction at issue in this case, and for such other relief as this
court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted:
Richard Stanley
6280 E. 39th Ave., Denver CO 80207
*********************************************************
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
*********************************************************
VERIFIED EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN DENVER COUNTY COURT FROM FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS UNDER RULE 65 F.R.Civ. P.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 03-CR-400B
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER Plaintiffs
v.
STANLEY, RICHARD DOB 07/14/1954 Defendant
________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN DENVER COUNTY COURT FROM FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS UNDER RULE 65 F.R.Civ. P.
________________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Richard Stanley, pro se, and motions for an order
to enjoin and transfer a Denver County Court case to this court and for
his reasons, states as follows:
JURISDICTION
28 USC 1443(1) and (2) provide this court with jurisdiction to remove
any criminal action from a state court when the Defendant's rights are
being violated. Fed. Rule Civ. Procedure 65 (b) gives this court power
to enjoin the Denver County court from further proceedings without prior
notice to the adverse party if it appears by affidavit that the
Plaintiff will suffer irreparable damage and if all attempts have been
made to the opposing party to resolve the issue.
NATURE OF EMERGENCY
Plaintiff Stanley is scheduled to appear in Denver County Court at 8:30
a.m. on Thursday, August 14, 2003 to begin a sentence which includes
wearing a "bracelet" for in-home detention and perhaps, even jail time.
Stanley has motioned the court repeatedly for post-conviction relief,
for a stay and for reconsideration with all such motions being denied.
The most recent attempt to secure a suspension of the sentence pending
the outcome of a related case occurred on Monday, August 11, 2003 but
the Division judge was not available and the Duty Judge refused to sign
the Emergency Motion for Stay. The Denver county court has
demonstrated hostility towards Plaintiff Stanley and all state remedies
have been exhausted as further described in paragraphs 1 through 3
below. Stanley will suffer irreparable harm in that his liberty and
property will be taken from him even though there is a serious
controversy as to whether or not the conviction was lawful, as described
in the arguments set forth by the City and County of Denver in their
action against the State of Colorado, et al., 03 CV 3809 in Denver
County District Court.
FACTS
1.On May 16, 2002, Plaintiff Stanley was convicted in Denver
County Court of unlawfully carrying a weapon in violation of DRMC 38-117
(b) [openly carrying a gun].
2.Stanley appealed to the state District Court, pro se, and was dismissed for
technical errors in failing to format his appeal according to C.A.R. 3. Stanley
filed numerous pleadings in an attempt to void the judgment and otherwise
reverse the conviction. Stanley attempted to get a docket entry printout for
this court (to evidence the history of the pleadings filed) from the Denver
County Court Clerk but she refused to provide the same on Monday, August 11,
2003. The case number in the Denver County Court matter is: 01 GS 606306 Ctrm
151P.
4.Stanley appealed to the state Supreme Court and cert was denied on
May 19, 2003. Stanley was dismissed from the Court of Appeals in July, 2003 for
lack of jurisdiction. These procedures effectively precluded Stanley a review
on appeal, and the state courts declined to allow Stanley deference as a pro se
defendant under the doctrine of Haines v. Kerner [court to construe pleadings
liberally for
an unrepresented party].
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Stanley moves this court for an ORDER to enjoin the
Denver County Court, Division 151P, Judge Patterson, from further
proceedings in the matter of People v. Richard Stanley, 01 GS 606306 and
for an ORDER transferring this matter to the United States District
Court, District of Colorado.
Respectfully submitted:
Richard Stanley
6280 E. 39th Ave., Denver CO 80207
VERIFICATION
State of Colorado City and County of Denver
I am your affiant, over the age of 18, and a resident of the City and
County of Denver, Colorado, Plaintiff in the above captioned matter and
defendant in People v. Richard Stanley, Denver County Court, GS 01
606306, and state and affirm that the foregoing statements are accurate,
true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief under penalties
of perjury.
Richard Stanley 6280 E. 39th Ave., Denver CO 80207
The foregoing affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before me on August
12, 2003 by Richard Stanley. Witness my hand and official seal:
Linda Saunders Notary Commission expires
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was
hand carried to the following on August 13, 2003:
City and County of Denver c/o City Attorney 201 W. Colfax Ave., #1207 Denver
CO 80202
Denver County Court Clerk CTRM 151P 1437 Bannock Rm 140
Mayor John Hickenlooper City and County Building 2nd floor 1437 Bannock St.
Denver CO 80202
TJ. Penner
Information and application to join the Pact is at Rick Stanley's Constitutional
Activism website at www.stanley2002.org. Rick's email address is
rick@www.stanley2002.org, and can be reached by phone at 303-329-0481 or by fax at
303-329-0498.
Long live the fighters.
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE! LIVE FREE OR DIE!! LIBERTY IN OUR LIFETIME!!
Luke 22, verse 36:
"But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and
one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one." Jesus
Christ.
*Prepare*Organize*Lock&Load*Defend*
=========================================================
Live Free or Die! Liberty in our Lifetime!
The Stanley Scoop
http://www.stanley2002.org
Reply to: rick@www.stanley2002.org
If you wish to unsubscribe from the Stanley Scoop, please send a message to
webmaster@www.stanley2002.org with the subject "unsubscribe" from the email
address you received it at.
Order For Summary Remand
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock
Criminal Action No. 03-CR-400-B
(Removal from County Court, Denver City and County, Colorado
The City and County of Denver v. Richard Stanley,
Case No. 01-GS-606306)
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,
Plaintiff
v.
RICHARD STANLEY
Defendant
ORDER FOR SUMMARY REMAND
Defendant Richard Stanley ahs filed with the Court a pro se document titled
"Verified Emergency Motion to Enjoin Denver County Court From Further
Proceedings Under Rile 65 F.R. Civ. P." In the body of the Motion, Mr. Stanley
states that he is removing a case from Colorado state court, because his rights
are being violated pursuant to 28 U.S. C. 1443 (1) and (2). In particular,
Mr. Stanley claims that he is scheduled to appear in Denver County Court on
August 14 to begin a sentence, which includes wearing a bracelet for in-home
detention and possible jail time. Defendant also claims that the Denver County
Court has demonstrated hostility towards him, that he has exhausted all state
remedies, and that he will suffer irreparable harm in that his liberty and
property will be taken from him, even though there is a serious controversy over
the constitutionality of the law under which he was convicted.
Mr. Stanley also claims that this Court has jurisdiction under Rule 65(b) of the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure to enjoin the Denver County Court from further
proceedings without prior notice to the adverse party.
Section 1443 provides:
Any of the following ……criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court
may Be removed by the defendant to the district court of the Untied
States for the District and division embracing the place wherein it is
pending:
(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such
State a right under any law providing for theequal civil rights of citizens of
the United States, or all persons within the jurisdiction thereof; (2) For any
act under color of authority derived from ay law providing for equal rights, or
for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such
law.
Under 1443 (1) removal petitions must meet a two-part test. Johnson v.
Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213 (1975); People of State of Colorado v. Lopez, 919 F.
2d 131, 132 (10th Cir. 1990). "First it must appear that the right allegedly
denied the removal petitioner arises under a federal law 'providing for specific
civil rights stated in terms of racial equality.'" Johnson, 421 U.S. at 219
(quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792 (1966)). Second, to remove the
prosecution a defendant must not be able to enforce the specified federal right
in a state court. 28 U.S.C. 1443.
"Second, it must appear…that the removal petitioner is 'denied or cannot
enforce' the specified federal rights 'in the courts of [the] State.'" Johnson,
421 U.S. at 219 (quoting 28 U.S.C. 1443(1)). The Supreme Court explained this
requirement as follows:
Under 1443 (1), the vindication of the defendant's federal rights is left to
the state courts except in the rare situations where it can be clearly predicted
by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law that
those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing the defendant
to trial in the state court.
City of Greenwood, Miss., v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 828 (1966). This
requirement must be supported by specific factual allegations. See generally
14A Charles Alan Wright et al.,Federal Practice & Procedure 3728 (2d ed. 1985).
Mr. Stanley has failed to provide the court with specific factual allegations
regarding his inability to enforce his constitutional rights in the state court
criminal prosecution. To the contrary, he asserts that as late as August 11,
2003, he filed a motion, in state court, to stay his sentencing pending the
resolution of his claim that the law under which he was convicted is void.
Nonetheless, mr. Stanley does not allege that he has been denied any rights
based on his race. Therefore, removal pursuant to 1443(1) is not appropriate.
Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1443(2) also is not appropriate in this action.
Section 1443(2) "confers a privilege of removal only upon federal officers or
agents and those authorized to act with or for them in affirmatively executing
duties under any federal law providing for equal civil rights." City of
Greenwood, 384 U.S. at 824. Mr. Stanley does nto allege that he is either a
federal officer or a person assisting a federal officer in the performance of
official duties providing for equal civil rights.
Therefore, removal of the state prosecution in the instant action is not
permitted under 1443.
Furthermore, if Mr. Stanley has been both convicted and sentenced and is simply
appearing on August 14, 2003, to begin his sentence, a petition in this Court
seeking criminal removal is no longer appropriate as the prosecution is no
longer pending. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Case No. 01-GS-606306 is remanded summarily to the County Corut of
Denver City and County, Colorado. It is
FURTHERED ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall mail a certified copy of
this Order to the Clerk of the County court of Denver City and County, Colorado.
It is
FURTHERED ORDERED that Mr. Stanley's Motion to enjoin the Denver County Court
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) is denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado this 14th Day of August, 2003
BY THE COURT
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Chief Judge
United States District Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Civil Case No. 03-CR-400-B
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
on August 14, 2003 by delivery to Richard Stanley 6280 E. 39th Avenue
Denver CO 80207 by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid.
|
Email Rick Stanley at |