It seems clear that the judge wants to stifle the case to a simple question of, "did Stanley break the law as it is written?". In other words, the law is the law and that's the end of that issue. ...Now the only question that matters is: did Stanley break the law?
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.
Grant objected that these jurors should be disqualified for conflict of interest issues, the Judge did not find cause to dismiss these jurors at that time.
Patterson said, "Then I'll explain it again. You are not to reference the Constitution in these proceedings. You will not address it in voir dire, you will not address it in your opening remarks, you will not ask any questions about the Constitution when you summon your witnesses, and you will not talk about the Constitution when you give your closing arguments. Do you understand my instructions?"
In the presence of numerous observers, and despite an audio recording and at least one court reporter the Judge then asserted, "That's not the question you asked."
The above paragraph does not depict neocheating so much as it documents judge Patterson's intentional/bald-face lying. Apparently judge Patterson thinks he can get away with that and thinks he will be permitted to so boldly lie. Let's see how many other government officials judge Patterson will drag into self-exposure traps as they use weasel-worded non sequiturs to tow the line.
How ironic is it that with one lie judge Patterson has proven and demonstrated his on-the-job incompetence and contempt for justice.
When Mr. Stanley 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.
More contempt of justice by the presiding judge Patterson.
What's really unbelievable is this ridiculous press release, which stands as further proof of Mr. Stanley's utter lack of qualification for the office of U.S. Senator.
Just a couple of examples:
Judge Patterson's next move was to order everyone except the defendant and the officers of the court out of the room.... After a few more minutes a compromise was reached and everyone except Mr. Stanley, his lawyer, and the court officials left the courtroom.
IOW, the "compromise" was that the Judge's ruling would stand: the same people would stay in the room as before, since "his lawyer" could not have been sent out in the first place.
And how about this: As observers left the court room they were met by a posse of armed guards from the Sheriff's department who ordered them to move away from the doorway.
Gasp! Armed Sheriff's deputies?!? Shocking. And those statist thugs were moving them "away from the doorway" -- as though to maintain peace and quiet in the courtroom? (A reasonable move, in light the later outburst of one Mr. Joe Johnson.) Shameful!
As to the use of Constitutional arguments in this case concerning violations of Denver Municipal Ordinance 38-117.5(b), the judge is correct. The task facing this county court is to try Stanley on allegations that he violated an existing ordinance. If Stanley wishes to appeal his conviction (if any), or to challenge the consititutionality of the ordinance a different court, he's got a right to do so. The Constitutionality of the ordinance itself is irrelevant to whether Stanley violated it. Nor is it in the jurisdiction of a county criminal court to rule on Constitutional issues.
But, as is typical of Libertarians, Stanley has picked the wrong battle, in the wrong location.
Wake me up if the LP ever becomes a serious player. Up to now, they're just standing around in noble poses.