Rick Stanley, Colorado 2nd Amendment Case

Subject: Rick Stanley takes his case back to the Denver District Court

I am taking this case back to the Denver District Court, as some errors were made by all parties.

MOTION TO REOPEN THE APPEAL FOR MISTAKE, INADVERTENCE, OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT

DENVER COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
1437 Bannock Street
Denver, Colorado 80202

Defendant(s):
Richard (Rick) Stanley

v.

Plaintiff(s):
The City and County of Denver


Party without Attorney
Richard (Rick) Stanley
6280 E. 39th Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80207
Phone number: (303) 329-0481
Fax number: (303) 329-0498

Case Number: 01 GS 606306

02CV6187

Division: 09

MOTION TO REOPEN THE APPEAL FOR MISTAKE,
INADVERTENCE, OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT

Aggrieved Appellant, Richard Stanley, hereinafter known as Rick Stanley,
without assistance of counsel, submits this MOTION TO REOPEN THE APPEAL FOR MISTAKE, INADVERTENCE, OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT, to the
pleading standard described in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-521 (See Hall v Bellmon 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 06/03/1991) and relies on the
Court to explain any deficiency concerning Petitioner's pleadings as outlined in Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25. Additionally, pro se
litigants are to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings. Reynoldson v Shillinger 907F .2d 124, 126 (10th
Cir. 1990); See also Jaxon v Circle K. Corp. 773 F.2d 1138, 1140 (10^th Cir. 1985) (1).

1. If I knew that I had to file the Appellant's Opening Brief to prevent dismissal for failure to prosecute, I would have done that promptly.

2. I believed that the PETITION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY JUDGMENT IS NOT VOID, would be taken by the Court as an Appellant Opening Brief, and
in fact, the Petition contained the essential elements of an opening brief.

3. As a non-lawyer, pursuant to Haines v. Kerner, 404 US Supreme Court, I should not be penalized for improperly captioning my Answer
Brief as a PETITION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY JUDGMENT IS NOT VOID. I believed that I was signing an answering brief under penalty of perjury.

4. The District Court may have mistakenly relied upon apparent misrepresentations by the City Attorney for Denver/Appellant, indicating no prosecution of appeal, when docket in District Court shows no less than three (3) filings after Notice of Appeal.

5. As to defects in Notice of Appeal, Notice of Appeal referenced verbal issues on appeal at trial court sentencing, which the City
Attorney was present during and thereby City Attorney was not prejudiced by failure to re-allege issues in written Notice of Appeal.

6. I believe I never was informed of the necessity of filing an Appellant's Opening Brief by District Court, or ever having received
District Court Appeal Briefing Schedule.

7. Appellee/City Attorney failed to serve any response or reply brief to my mis-captioned APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF, styled as PETITION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY JUDGMENT IS NOT VOID.

8. It would be no prejudice to Appellee/City Attorney, to be given a short period of waiver of time, to remedy his defect for failure to file his response brief, or in the alternative, to file his certificate of non-response to APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF, mis-captioned as PETITION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY JUDGMENT IS NOT VOID.

9. Unfortunately, the trial court has apparently mistakenly relied upon misrepresentations and other allegations of City Attorney, and has set this matter for hearing on August 14, 2003, at 8:30A.M., Courtroom 151P, Judge Robert Patterson presiding, where the jail sentence may be imposed, and therefore, Appellant respectfully
requests expedited handling of this MOTION TO REOPEN THE APPEAL FOR MISTAKE, INADVERTENCE, OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT.

10. Upon information and belief, I declare the above is true under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Colorado.

11. Wherefore, Appellant/Defendant Richard Stanley requests this court to grant this Motion To Reopen The Appeal For Mistake, Inadvertence, Or Excusable Neglect.

Executed on 6 August, 2003, in the
County of Denver, State of Colorado

___________________________

Richard (Rick) Stanley


CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing MOTION TO REOPEN THE APPEAL FOR MISTAKE, INADVERTENCE, OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT, was delivered on this
______day of August 2003, by placing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to:
 
__________________________________

TJ Penner


Judge Robert Patterson
City and County of Denver Court
1437 Bannock Street Rm. 151P
Denver, Colorado 80202

Judge Robert S. Hyatt
Denver County District Court
1437 Bannock Street
Denver, Colorado 80202

Office of the District Attorney
Bill Ritter, Jr.
201 W. Colfax Avenue Dept. 801
Denver, Colorado 80202

Office of the City Attorney
J. Wallace Wortham, Jr. No. 5969 - City Attorney
James C. Thomas, No. 13583
Kristina L. Andrews, No. 31176
Assistant City Attorneys
201 W. Colfax Avenue, Dept. 12307
Denver, Colorado 80202

---------
APPELLANT OPENING BRIEF


DENVER COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
DENVER COUNTY, COLORADO
1437 Bannock Street
Denver, Colorado 80202

 

Richard Stanley
Appellant/Defendant

v.

The City and County of Denver
Appellee/Plaintiff


Party without Attorney
Richard (Rick) Stanley
6280 E. 39th Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80207
Phone number: (303) 329-0481
Fax number: (303) 329-0498

Case Number: 01 GS 606306

02CV6187

Division: 09

APPELLANT OPENING BRIEF

Aggrieved Appellant/Defendant, Richard Stanley, hereinafter known as Rick Stanley, without assistance of counsel, submits this APPELLANT
OPENING BRIEF, to the pleading standard described in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-521 (See Hall v Bellmon 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir.
06/03/1991) and relies on the Court to explain any deficiency concerning Petitioner's pleadings as outlined in Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25. Additionally, pro se litigants are to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings. Reynoldson v Shillinger 907F .2d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1990); See also Jaxon v
Circle K. Corp. 773 F.2d 1138, 1140 (10th Cir. 1985) (1).



ISSUES

1. Whether the U.S. Constitution or Colorado Constitution are subservient to a city charter.

2. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction or authority to order a $2500.00 appeal bond when the usual filing and transfer fees are $250.00.

3. Whether the police involved had jurisdiction or authority to act outside their inherent police power.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On December 15, 2001, Appellant/Defendant Richard "Rick" Stanley was arrested for wearing a weapon to a rally contrary to DRMC 38-177(b)
whereby he appeals the decision of the lower court.  Appellant/Defendant Richard Stanley hereinafter referred to as "Appellant/Defendant" is a citizen of Denver, Colorado who was
deprived of money, property and the rights associated with his property.

ARGUMENTS
POINT 1

Whether the U.S. Constitution or Colorado Constitution are subservient to a city charter.

It has long been established that people have the right to defend themselves throughout history. The need for self-defense exists
today. Under the united States Constitution, II Amendment, the right to bear arms is required to self defense and defense of the state.

Article II Section 13. Right to bear arms. " The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons." Mr. Stanley's weapon was not concealed, therefore legal to carry.

The statutes as stated are presumptuous in that there is an anticipation of something that may, could or might happen. In order for a person
to be charged with a crime there has to be a victim or an offense. There is no such listing of victim or offense found within the record.
This court had no jurisdiction to try appellant/Defendant in light of Colorado Constitution and the united States Constitution. Both Constitutions are legal entities. No city, state or federal government can bring an action cited as the "People of Colorado" or "the State of Colorado." The people of Colorado, is an aggregate denying competent witness status under Rules of Evidence 702. The People of Colorado did not witness first hand the alleged violation. Further, a city, county, or state, cannot sue or be sued. If the Constitutions are not to be addressed by court officers' oath of
office, there needs to be an explanation of whether we are under the Constitutions, or a corporate charter, having no jurisdiction over
the individual citizen. As sovereignty resides in individuals, the individual, and not the state, is the source and basis of our social
compact, and that sovereignty now resides and has always resided in the individual. Colorado Anti-Discrimination Comm'n. v. Case, 151
Colo. 235, 380 P.2d 34 (1962).

Challenging the jury panel, judicial notice of the record establishes that 60% of the jurors being associated with courts and law enforcement, were not a jury of Appellant/Defendant's peers or equals. The lower
court was a court in want of jurisdiction by both Constitutions and selection of the jury.

POINT 2
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction or authority to order a $2500.00 appeal bond, when the usual filing and transfer fees are $250.00.

The growth of constitutional liberty has abolished arbitrary power of courts to inflict punishment and penalties upon persons commenting
upon courts and judges or upon the character thereof, through contempt proceedings, and the right to make any such comment upon courts and
judges in any respect, and as fully and freely as may be desired, is a right of every person, and is a right reserved to the people without
any express reservation, as provided in this section. People ex rel. Attorney Gen. Vs.. News-Times Publishing Co., 35 Colo. 253, 84 P. 912
(1906), appeal dismissed, 205 U.S. 454, 27 S. Ct. 556, 51 L. Ed. 879 (1907). Right to comment on courts and judges. The Appeal bond
$2500.00 was not levied until after Appellant/Defendant made his opinion known of the court. Again, challenging jurisdiction is the amount of bond, the lower court was a court in want of jurisdiction, by assessing an appeal bond of $2500.00 against Appellant/Defendant.

POINT 3
Whether the police involved had the jurisdiction or authority to act outside of their inherent police power.

The court, having no jurisdiction, finds that police, under the authority of the court, did not have jurisdiction to lawfully arrest
Appellant/Defendant in light of both Constitutions being the supreme law.
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective right, and is not limited to
keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." U.S. vs. Emerson,
270 F .3d 203 (C.A.5 Tex. 2001).

SUMMARY

The actions of the Court officers, all individuals involved in this action, rise to the level of criminal activity, in conspiracy, by not allowing Appellant/Defendant to present a competent defense through his attorney. These same court officers signing and advancing written documents known to be false that others will rely on, constitutes racketeering and fraud, to deprive Appellant/Defendant of a
constitutional right. Court officers that do not follow the law are "racketeers." Persons within the scope of racketeer influenced corrupt organization Colorado Organized Crime Act (COOCA) laws who have violated COOCA laws, causing injury to property and business
interests of Appellant/Defendant. The "racketeers" either participate, or have participated in the conduct of depriving those
before them of property and rights, under pretext of law. The participation was through a pattern of racketeering activities, resulting in injury to the property and business interests of
Appellant/Defendant. The racketeers are connected and bound to the Bars' enterprise, which is a COOCA enterprise by reason of records
which demonstrate a pattern of activity in violation (COOCA). The acts which were committed, or aided and abetted, by the racketeers, were the proximate cause of Appellant/Defendant being defrauded of
his property and rights in court. The frauds committed by the racketeers were reasonably foreseeable or anticipated, to result in the loss of rights and property, as a natural consequence. The racketeers pose a threat of continued criminal activity. The racketeers', whose role was to aid and abet in predicated acts of fraud, was knowing, intentional and reckless. The racketeers committed or abetted more than two predicate acts rising to a pattern of racketeering; the racketeers directly participate in the conduct of the enterprise as
so-called "officers" of the enterprise. The enterprises' activities affect interstate commerce. The racketeers committed or abetted
frauds, which were a part of a scheme of fraud, that would have the foreseeable result of financial injury to Appellant/Defendant, his
property and business interests. The racketeer's criminal conduct was merely a footnote in a long history of activities which enable persons
like the racketeers to obtain interest in and maintain control of their enterprise. Without exception, the racketeers had actual
knowledge of the falsity of their actions and acted with intent to defraud. Even those aiding and abetting, Denver Police, shall be shown to be willfully blind to criminal acts and exhibiting a conscious, reckless disregard for Appellant'/Defendant's interests.

Wherefore, Appellant/Defendant Richard Stanley asks for relief from this court regarding this appeal to overturn Richard Stanley's conviction
of DRMC 38-117B, which has been unusually and specifically, overturned by legislation and signed by Governor Owens on March 18, 2003, and
specifically prohibits ordinances such as Denver's DRMC 38-117b, that violate the constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights of all citizens of Colorado, regarding open carry anywhere within the boundaries of the state of Colorado, including Denver. The new
legislation, only affirms the Colorado Constitution protected and guaranteed right of Appellant/Defendant Richard Stanley to openly
carry a weapon in Denver without permission from the City and County of Denver or the state.


Executed on 6 August, 2003, in the
County of Denver, State of Colorado

___________________________

Richard (Rick) Stanley


CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing APPELLANT OPENING BRIEF, was
delivered on this ______day of August 2003, by placing the same
in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to:



__________________________________
TJ Penner


Judge Robert Patterson
City and County of Denver Court
1437 Bannock Street Rm. 151P
Denver, Colorado 80202

Judge Robert S. Hyatt
Denver County District Court
1437 Bannock Street
Denver, Colorado 80202

Office of the District Attorney
Bill Ritter, Jr.
201 W. Colfax Avenue Dept. 801
Denver, Colorado 80202

Office of the City Attorney
J. Wallace Wortham, Jr. No. 5969 - City Attorney
James C. Thomas, No. 13583
Kristina L. Andrews, No. 31176
Assistant City Attorneys
201 W. Colfax Avenue, Dept. 12307
Denver, Colorado 80202

================================================
Live Free or Die! Liberty in our Lifetime!
The Stanley Scoop
http://www.stanley2002.org
Reply to: rick@stanley2002.org

If you wish to unsubscribe from the Stanley Scoop, please send a
message to webmaster@stanley2002.org with the subject "unsubscribe"
from the email address you received it at.

------- End of forwarded message -------
-- "Your Rights Are Your Security.
He Who Demands Your Rights
Aims To Take Your Security
-- vetzine01@sbcglobal.net -- http://vetzine.blogspot.com/
Speak Up For Freedom Of Speech