Message to Rick Stanley from Barbara Hartwell, April 6, 2007
Rick,
If nothing else, know that you are greatly appreciated, supported, respected and loved by many of your fellow patriots and brothers and sisters in Christ across America for your heroic efforts in defense of LIBERTY.
God Bless You.
We the People Scoop 4/07/07
WE THE PEOPLE SCOOP - TO EXPOSE!
OPINION RELEASE: Rick's appeal
By John Klar
Rick, I am pleased to hear you are appealing this bullshit opinion. For one thing, it may be that the additional time this permits (along with a possible appeal to the U.S. Supremes if the Colorado Supremes affirm or decline to hear this appeal) will allow the collapse of this unconstitutional and corrupt government before you can be imprisoned. But also, this decision is such crap that it begs to be challenged. I realize this means more expense for you, but you have shown yourself to be strong and determined in the past, and clearly you know that God is with you.
Some comments about this appeal, from a lawyer's perspective:
Some comments about this appeal, from a lawyer's perspective:
1) It is amazing how far this court went to contrive an affirmation of the lower court's decision. Did this have anything to do with the presiding judge at your trial being a former Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court? The old boy network is alive and well - you can be fully sure that Joseph Quinn is held on a pedestal, and that the courts do not want their authority challenged: they would much prefer to violate the constitutions again and again rather than admit that they did so. This is the political backdrop of your appeals.
2) Does it strike anyone as odd that a man who threatened to shoot the president of the United States was found not to have committed a "true threat" (Watts), but that you threatening to have a judge arrested was determined by the Colorado courts to be punishable as a "true threat"? This shows just how far they stretched logic to reach this decision, and how vulnerable your conviction remains on appeal.
3) Clearly there is a subjective requirement to the Black case, even though this court did acrobatics to conclude the opposite (this is also borne out by the concurring opinion). The Black case used this specific language: "where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence.." It is obvious to a grade-schooler that what the "speaker means" refers to the subjective intent of the speaker. The court managed even to avoid this glaringly-clear language, though the concurring judge had enough intellect if not integrity to disagree. Similarly, the Black court referred to speech "with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death." If this does not envision the subjective intent of the speaker, I don't understand English.
4) The court says it must look, in determining the threat of violence, to the "plain import of the words used", and their context, and then stretches logic to breaking point by concluding that the plain meaning of arrest is to do violence, and that the context of a court case over Constitutional free speech rights provides less protection than if you had printed the same comments in the paper. These morons deserve no respect.
5) The court hangs much emphasis on the charge of treason, and that it carries a death penalty. What an astonishing stretch of logic! Thus, any time a person is charged with a felony punishable by death, they are being unlawfully threatened with death and violence before being found guilty!
Your threat of arrest. If these judges are to import U.S. law into its meaning, must therefore include a presumption of innocence, and the possibility that the Militia would only impose jail time - these would ensure that the threat was non-violent. I thought this was one of the most extraordinary perversions of the court's finding - that threatening to arrest a judge for violating one's constitutional rights constituted a "an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence" and (Black) "an intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death." No, it is a threat to arrest them and try them.. The Court side-stepped this obvious shortcoming by the conclusion that to threaten an arrest is ".an act in which the prospect of physical violence is inherent." Really? Is that how courts would describe the lawful arrest of citizens, as inherently including a threat of violence?
These men went too far in their manipulations of logic, and in their obvious disrespect of our Constitution. They should be arrested forthwith and tried for treason, and sentenced to life in a humane prison with HBO and a gym (there, now my "threat" is not so very violent - it is this fine of a line that they used to convict Rick Stanley). Bullshit! Such judges should be tarred and feathered, have their homes seized and sold for the public good, their pensions canceled, and worse.
We are living in End Times - the End of the planet, and the end of America. Rick, you must fight on, for you are on the side of right. Others will fight in due course, and with true violence. These bastards have only an illusion of power, and an illusion of control. They will ultimately be judged by One who does not contrive, connive and conspire. They will weep for the mercy and justice they denied to you and others, and they will be judged with the fairness they denied you, and they will have no appeal.
However, we are called to forgive them even as they misjudge us. It is difficult to forgive those who do not request it, but with God's grace we can still do so. This case should demonstrate to all how much of a false illusion our Constitutional protections are in America - it's as if the Constitution itself is being used to enslave us in Orwellian fashion - providing an illusion of freedom as it is ignored in practice. Like Orwell, we are enslaved while we are told how free we are.
God bless the fighters for freedom and justice. God bless you and Pam, Rick, for your commitment and sacrifice. Our numbers are few, but you are not alone.
John Klar
Disclaimer: Information shared in the Stanley Scoop is not necessarily the opinion of the editor or staff. It is shared for information purposes only and it is recommended that you come to your own conclusions.
Live Free or Die! Liberty in our Lifetime!
