Stanley Not Remorseful, Judge: 6 Months

Stanley for U.S. Senate Contact: Rick Stanley Campaign Office: 303-329-0481 E-mail: rick@stanley2002.org

======================================================================= Subject: Stanley Not Remorseful, Judge: 6 Months

Rick Stanley, U.S. Senate Candidate, Libertarian party nominee, Activist/Organizer of the National Bill of Rights Rallies, Activist/Organizer of the Million Gun March Petition, and Activist/Organizer of the Patriot Files gave the following media release:

"The Police State is here in Denver, Colorado and throughout America. My civil disobedience case in Denver proves that point. The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and yes, the entire Bill of Rights does not apply in the judicial system. The Common Law does not apply in Denver courts, only admiralty law, the type of court that your rights are, what they tell you they are."

I was found guilty of openly holstering a weapon, on December 15, 2001 at a Bill of Rights Rally, celebrating our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and then arrested by twenty thugs with weapons, employed by the City of Denver. Arrested, tried in the kangaroo court of Judge Robert L. Patterson, found guilty of exercising my 2nd Amendment right, I hurt or bothered no one in exercising this right, and was sentenced to six months in jail, a $500.00 fine, 75 hours of community service, and one year probation. I paid a $2,500.00 appeal bond, for a right to appeal this law, all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. My sentence is stayed, during the appeal process.

The judge sentenced what he did, because Stanley showed no remorse. Stanley will never be remorseful, for demanding the City and County of Denver, respect his constitutional right to peacefully exercise his 2nd Amendment right, to keep and bear arms, which the Constitution says shall not be infringed. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand? How do they lie their way through this one? When the citizens of Denver and America, revolt against this police state one day, look back to this and thousands of other issues, to understand why it will happen again in America, and it will. Our forefathers warned us, of the tyrannical nature of government, and that our vigilance was required.

May it please the court. For the record, my name is Rick Stanley, Citizen of Colorado. I hereby make the following statements of fact, which I had previously, and naively, thought to be understood.

1. That I am a sovereign Citizen of Colorado, which is a legal standing specified in Article IV, Section 2, clause 1 of the federal Constitution, ratified in 1789.

2. That I am not now, nor have I ever knowingly agreed to be, a "United States citizen subject to the jurisdiction thereof," as created by the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. I hereby dissolve, revoke and terminate any implied contracts between myself and any corporate entities, including and especially the corporate fiction that bears my name, which was created without my knowledge or permission.

3. That Article III, Section 2 of the federal Constitution grants the Supreme Court and other inferior courts the privilege of hearing cases in common law, equity, and admiralty/maritime jurisdictions. 4. That the Fifth Amendment enumerates and prohibits the government from "depriving me of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." As a sovereign state Citizen, due process includes the right of trial by jury in Common Law jurisdiction prior to any attempt at adjudication in an admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.

5. That this court is merely an administrative tribunal authorized by Article I, Section 8, clause 10 of the federal Constitution, with no legal authority over anyone except those who have volunteered to be Fourteenth Amendment federal citizens.

6. That all of the pronouncements of this court are mutable by my will, and I hereby declare this and all subsequent demands for my appearance to be a violation of my constitutionally protected rights, granted to me by my Creator.

7. That all elected officers of this court have taken an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, and by implication, have sworn to protect my inherent rights. That by allowing the fraud perpetrated by the 1933 House Joint Resolution 192 to persist to this day, and by not having the courtesy to inform me of this gross violation of my rights, this court has committed an act of perjury.

8. That, until recently, I was unaware that my action of retaining the services of a member of the Colorado Bar Association rendered me "incompetent in the eyes of the law." I have recently terminated my contractual agreement with Mr. Paul Grant, and now assume full liability for myself and the higher standing in law that this allows.

9. That these proceedings are immediately under formal appeal, and will be contested on the grounds of fraud and lack of jurisdiction. 10. The City and County of Denver Home rule does not apply based upon the Supreme Court of the United States, Case No. 80-1350. "Community Communications Co., Inc. V. City of Boulder, Colorado, et al. decided January 13, 1982 which destroys Home rule Governance. "As this Court stated long ago, all sovereign authority (within the geographical limits of the Untied States) resides either with "The government of the United States, or (with) The States of the Union." There exists within the broad domain of sovereignty but these two. There may be cities, counties, and other organized bodies with LIMITED LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS but they are all derived from or exist in, subordination to one or the other of these." UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

11. I ask that a Certified Copy of the State and U.S. Constitutions be entered into evidence, as well as a certified copy of the judge's oath of office.

12. I am reserving my rights without prejudice by UCC 1-207 and their statute court and the statute that I have violated, must have an injured party, and since there is no injured party, or complaining witness, the court has no jurisdiction under Common Law. This Statue Court made a legal determination that it has the authority under the jurisdiction that it is operating, to ignore two sections of the Uniform Commercial Code which I will call to its attention and I will put him and the court on notice that I will appeal his legal determination, and that if I am damaged by his action, I will sue him under the jurisdiction of the UCC. My recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103-6, which says: "The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law. I am instructing you now to add this to my appeal. I am making explicit reservation of my rights at 1-207, and I insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law. If this court will not allow the Constitution and the Supreme Law of the Land to guide its hand and the Jury instructions that he gave, I am forced to defend with the Statute Jurisdiction/Admiralty jurisdiction that he has forced upon me and which the UNIFORM COMNMERCIAL CODE is the overriding authority for his actions. To say that I am unhappy that I was never advised by the Court regarding this issue, is something that will be addressed in Judge Patterson's Court, and the appeal that I will file after the sentencing.

13. I relied upon a superior authority for my act of holstering a pistol on December 15, 2001, Article III-2, 1, The U.S. and Colorado Constitutions.

What's this stuff?

Yeah, I went to the website you suggested. I found this book prominently featured. You do know Eustace Mullins is an admirer of Hitler, don't you? And a Holocaust denier to boot.

I think your boy Stanley is far out of the mainstream, even mainstream libertarianism, if that's at all possible. He's waaay out on the fringe. Don't even think about referring me to a POS website like this.

New Release
Secrets of the Federal Reserve
by Eustace Mullins

Landmark documentary examination of the Federal Reserve System. This book, originally commissioned by author Ezra Pound, is the source of the majority of present-day information on the Federal Reserve banking system. Compiled from information obtained almost exclusively from the Library of Congress, the data contained in this book has been confirmed, validated, and verified by many authors from many different fields. Secrets of the Federal Reserve reveals the greatest financial monopoly in history, responsible for virtually all planetary ills including universal moral decay, world war, revolution, and national economic collapse. Hardbound, indexed.
185 pages. $15.00.

Eustace Mullins: US Fascist in Canada

David Lethbridge

Recently, on 6 and 7 August, US fascist Eustace Mullins, of Staunton, Virginia, spoke in Salmon Arm, BC, as the "surprise guest speaker" at a conference of the Preferred Network.

Mullins has a notorious history going back fifty years. In the early 1950s, Mullins was a member of the New York based National Renaissance Party, itself the successor of the Socialist Reich Party whose main functions involved campaigns to release Nazi war criminals, and maintaining contacts with neo-fascist parties in the USA, Canada, and elsewhere. At this time, Mullins wrote an article for the National Renaissance Bulletin, entitled "Adolf Hitler: An Appreciation."

Later in the 1950s, Mullins worked for Senator Joseph McCarthy in the campaign to demonize communists and other progressives and destroy their organizations.

In the 1980s and 90s, Mullins served as a contributing editor to the Christian Vanguard, a publication edited by the former information officer of the American Nazi Party, James K. Warner. The Vanguard is the periodical of the Christian Defense League, a Louisiana-based organization which combines elements of Nazi-fascism and the white racist Christian Identity religion. The neo-Nazi Aryan Nations has published Mullins' books, and Mullins has spoken at numerous Identity conferences, along with such notables as ex-KKK leader, David Duke. In the late 1990s, Mullins began to speak at meetings of the militia movement.

Last year, the Preferred Network's (PN) internet site was shut down when it was exposed that PN was selling numerous materials deemed to be hate propaganda by Customs and Excise Prohibited Importations Unit. Among these materials were works by Mullins. "The Curse of Canaan," a Mullins title sold by PN, asserts that Jews and people of color were forever cursed by God, and states, in open advocacy of genocide, that it is "God's command" that white people should "exterminate" them. Shortly after its closure, the PN website reappeared at a different location and continues to sell Mullins' books and videotapes.

Mullins' participation in the August PN conference was also exposed, with subsequent press coverage. A spokesperson for PN claimed in the local media that the theme of the conference was "truth and freedom," and that there had been no antisemitic content in the Mullins sessions.

However, when the spokesperson was later contacted, and it was put to her that Mullins had gone so far as to write that Jews drink human blood, she said, "What Mullins writes is damn well true!" When asked whether she believed the same thing, she said, quite forcefully, "I believe that. I know that it is a fact. I know that it is true!"

Pressed on what she thought about Mullins' denial of the Nazi Holocaust, she claimed, "The Nazis were not behind the killing of the Jews, they didn't do it. The Nazis were not responsible. It was the Jews who ran the camps and they killed their own people. But the ones who did the killing, they weren't really Jews, they were just hiding behind the name Jews. They were really Khazars." (It is a staple among many sectors of contemporary fascism that most Jews are descendants of the feudal Russo-Turkish kingdom of Khazaria, many of whose people converted to Judaism. On these spurious grounds, antisemities can then deny their antisemitism by claiming that the Jews are not Semites.)

Eustace Mullins has been writing Holocaust-denial, pro-Nazi, anti-Jewish, and racist propaganda for decades. The Preferred Network knows this, but persists in selling his materials and inviting him to their conferences.

Mullins is not new to the region. In 1989, and again in 1992, Mullins spoke in the Okanagan. In 1991, he attended a conference in Calgary, along with neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel, antisemite James Keegstra, and militia advocate Bo Gritz. In his 1992 speech at Eileen Pressler's Council on Public Affairs conference, Mullins revealed the depths of his racial hatred when he said: "The US government has been breeding negroes since the Civil War. But they have know idea what to do with them. They don't realize you're supposed to sell them."

Mullins recent appearance in central BC raises important issues for the antifascist movement. In the current ideological climate, it is frequently claimed that fascist organizing and recruiting in North America has stalled, even that it is no longer of importance. This is not true. Neo-fascism in the contemporary period is undergoing a variety of permutations, and is manifesting itself in new and different formations, often making it more difficult to combat. But it is worth considering that if such a major and important fascist as Eustace Mullins is appearing in one small town - and might easily have gone unnoticed - how many other communities, across the country, are being infected by these hatemongers, who so quickly appear and disappear, their presence all too often unreported and unknown?

October 2000

Two rules one should never forget.


   1. The law is whatever the Judges say it is.
   2. Judges stick together to support their power
      to say the law is what ever they say it is.

The Judges said the word abortion does appear in the constitution. They say it is in the part where the constitution says that abortion is legal. Since you or I can't see that part, the judges, said it was in the penumbra of the constitution. Only judges can see penumbra. According to the judges it exists. It is just that you and I have to take their word for it.

Your right to be armed is not in the constitution even though you can read the words that say you the right. You see the penumbra says you don't have any such right. A judge's penumbra always prevails over the words you see or don't see on the parchment.

When will the Libertarian fools understand that what the Supreme court ruled in 1804 has never been successfully challenged. Justise Marshall ruled in 1804 that the courts and only the courts had the right to say what was and was not in the constitution. The constitution was designed to be a self evident document. A self evident document or statement does not need interpretation. We all talk in self evident speech all the time. Self evident language is what our society depends on. "Gimme a Big Mac Extra Value Meal with a Coke" is self evident. "Congress shall make no law" is self evident. But the courts ruled in 1804 that the constituion is not self evident. Did you ever wonder how any teen ager can determine what you mean when you give them an order at McDonalds... but jugdes have to ponder and interpret what "Congress shall make no law" means.

What it means is that Justice Marshall in 1804 assumed the right to tell us what words with clear meaning meant. It is about judicial power and not the meaning or interpretation of words. Expecting judges to rule as the words clearly mean is stupid. Judges are about power to rule as they see fit, not about the meaning of words on a parchment.

The only thing that matters is who gets to be a judge. If the right people are on the court they will rule properly. The right people would rule properly even if there were no constitution. When the wrong people are on the courts they rule wrongly, no matter what the words of the constitution actualy say.

The man is going to jail. He hasn't a clue about how our nation works.

We stopped being a Constitutional Republic in 1804 when Thomas Jefferson was president. For 198 years we have been a Democracy tempered by judical fiat.

This man is asking judges to rule that they don't have power to RULE. The RULE is he goes to JAIL.

The constitution and the law are what ever the judges say they are.

That I am a sovereign Citizen of Colorado, ...

Oh boy! I tried to use the “I am a Sovereign Citizen of the State of Texas” line a couple of decades back. I also tried to use the “do you want me to identify myself, Your Honor, because you are a party to the action” line too when called in court. It didn’t work back then either, though it did manage to irritate two judges. I’m not opposed to someone trying. Just make sure you are single and have nothing better to do with your time because it WILL be occupied in the near future. Mine was, anyway.

Also, if it has to do with income taxes, (I realize this instance doesn’t) just make sure you don’t have a bank account or nice car or property that can be seized. They will get theirs – not today, but they will…

OTOH, I routinely carried a holstered pistol in Oregon. At the time they only prohibited “concealed” weapons. A holstered weapon, or a rifle in a gun rack in your pickup, was not concealed, and therefore not illegal. I never had a problem with the local LEOs or anyone else. They may have changed it since – don’t take my word for it. I also routinely carried a shotgun in the gun rack of my truck to high school in Texas too, but I’ll bet you don’t do that anymore.

I’ll admit that it is fun to watch from a distance… though the end result is sort of predictable.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.