Stanley Rules Violation Hearing Dec. 10, 2003
December 15, 2003
Stanley Scoop 12/15/03 ** Special Edition **
THE STANLEY SCOOP **
** Visit the website: http://www.stanley2002.org **
** Like the Scoop? Forward it to everyone you know! **
SPECIAL EDITION: Stanley Rules Violation Hearing Dec. 10, 2003
Subject: Rick Stanley: Adams County Detention Facility
Rules Violation Hearing of December 10, 2003.
My name is Rick Stanley. I am currently an inmate in the Adams county Detention
Facility, and I am here charged with two rules violations.
The alleged major charge is "failing to lockdown in a timely manner when
ordered." Section 2B of the ACDF Inmate Riles exonerates me of this charge
stating, "lockdown means you will go inside your room or to your means, you will
go inside your room or to your cot and remain there until told otherwise."
Nowhere in the "Inmate Lockdown Rule Section," does it detail in the rules that
an inmate lock themselves in, or even close the door. Deputy Dominguez, my
accuser, admitted in his report, that each time lockdown was called for, Stanley
was in his room (cell), each time a warning was given to him.
The alleged minor charge is "Failure to obey a direct, _"lawful"_ order of a
staff member." Deputy Dominguez details in his report that "Stanley did not
secure the door to his cell and he explained to inmate Stanley that during the
facility lockdown, Stanley must secure the door for security purposes. Deputy
Dominguez used Policy 749.91 which states "Inmates in modules shall return to
their cells during lockdown. Doors are to be secured to prevent inmate movement
during this time." The policy does not state that the inmate must lock himself
in the cell, in fact, the policy is not directed to any inmate, _"deputy
employees"_ of the facility. Indeed, the policies of this facility are not even
furnished to inmates, only the rules for inmates. So you see, _"RULES"_ are for
inmates, _"POLICIES"_ are from management, laid down for _"deputy employees"_ to
_"implement"_ as their job requires.
Deputy Dominguez _"improperly"_ insisted upon ordering an inmate, to do
something outside the scope of his authority, his authority being the rules and
the policy. There are no jails in the country where the inmate is, his own
jailer. Deputy Dominguez did not give Stanley a _"lawful"_ order to secure his
own door, as their is no _"law"_ requiring an inmate to lock himself in jail,
nor is there a rule, or a policy.
Both charges are the result of Deputy Dominguez -"exceeding his authority"_, due
to improper training regarding _"his own obligations"_ to the policy, in his own
efforts, to continue _"his own"_ lazy policy, of getting inmates to act outside
the rules, so that Deputy Dominguez does not have to do his job properly.
Deputy Dominguez said that Stanley was a terrorist and should be in the _"Max
Lockdown"_. This statement was made in the pod, in front of witnesses.
Additionally, Deputy Dominguez, told Stanley, that Stanley's assertions
regarding these issues was technically correct, when Stanley turned in a "kite"
to Sheriff Darr, protesting the harassment of Stanley by deputies regarding this
matter. Shortly thereafter, these charges by Deputy Dominguez were lodged
against Stanley, within an hour.
I submit that these charges are obviously false, based upon the _"written rules
and policy"_, and Stanley should be exonerated on both charges. it would appear
that Deputy Dominguez, has an _"unlawful agenda"_ concerning Stanley, wishing to
impose his _"own will"_ on Stanley, under the _"color of law"_, for reasons
unknown to Stanley.
I follow the rules. I have been cooperative in all "lawful orders" given to me,
and I have conducted myself in a manner of one who adheres to the rules in the
inmate handbook. While I am used to unlawful treatment from the Adams County
law enforcement and judicial branch of government, these actions are wrong, as
is my incarceration here for exercising my Constitutional right to openly carry
a weapon openly anywhere in Colorado, as well as filing a pleading with the
courts, petitioning judges for redress of grievance and free symbolic speech
rights. I am a political prisoner, denied my freedom and liberty for the crime
against the state of -"EXERCISING MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS"- . The -
"enforcers"- are just as guilty of not defending their own oath of office to
defend our state and national constitutions, as the judges.
Live Free or Die! Liberty in our Lifetime!
The Stanley Scoop
If you wish to unsubscribe, please send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
with the subject "unsubscribe" from the email address you received it at.
Email Rick Stanley at