According to a report out of Denver, Colorado by ABC News7, Rick Stanley was convicted by a Colorado Court of Appeals for attempting to influence judges’ decisions by threatening to have them arrested by the Mutual Defense Pact Militia. Stanley says the threat was not serious and was only exercising his First Amendment rights. The judges did not agree.
Stanley was arrested in 2002 for carrying a loaded weapon on public property. He was ordered to serve 90 days. On appeal, the second judge upheld the decision. Both judges evidently received the “threats” from Stanley.
Here are the two questions to ask as I see it. One, did Stanley overstep his Constitutional right to free speech by issuing a serious threat as described by the two judges during the appeal?
Thornton Municipal Judge Charles Rose, who had sentenced Stanley to 90 days in jail in 2002 for carrying a loaded gun onto public property, had testified Stanley’s letter made him “afraid for his life,” the appeals panel said.
Adams County District Judge Donald Marshall Jr., who upheld the weapons conviction and sentence, testified he considered Stanley’s letter alarming and a direct personal threat.
Here’s what the three judge panel had to say about his freedom of speech.
A three-judge panel of the appeals court disagreed. “The statements at issue here threaten violence,” the panel said, noting that treason is punishable by death.
The panel said the First Amendment does not allow people to express serious intent to commit violence.
“We reject defendant’s contention that his statements necessarily contained mere `criticism’ of the judges,” the panel said.
Question two and it has to be asked. Is this a case of the fraternity of judges sticking together? In other words, had the same threat been issued let’s say, to the dog catcher, where would this case have ended up?
Tom Remington
