I'm still trying to find the article that mentioned the mother's opting not to have an initial,
ex parte hearing. Of course, it was only one article, and there an extremely remote possibility (cough, cough) that the reporter might not have gotten the facts straight. I did find this article, though:
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...killed-her-son
As do all the other articles I've found, this one reports that the judge declined to issue the order -- which means this was the initial hearing, because if this were the follow-up hearing the order would already have been issued and the hearing would have not been over issuing it, but over whether or not to leave it in place for a year. Yet this article confirms that Corporal Morris was represented by the state attorney general's office, so this was not an ex parte hearing -- and it was held a week after the petition was filed, not the same day or the next court day.
It's confusing, and I don't think it's entirely due to senility on my part.
Quote:
In court Thursday, Holmes refused to offer testimony to Judge Stephen Howard, saying she did not recognize him as a judge and that she didn’t believe she would have a fair and impartial hearing. She had asked him to be removed from the case because he was involved in an open records case of her's, but he denied her request.
She told Denver7 in an interview that she believed the law should be amended so "any Colorado citizen should be able to file an ERPO against a violent and threatening law enforcement officer." She also said in the interview that she did not feel like she committed perjury despite her claim about having a child with Morris.
But the judge denied her request for an ERPO for lack of evidence because Holmes refused to testify. She said she thought it “appalling” that the attorney general’s office, which represented Morris, was doing so and allowing him to keep his job.
|
Aside from the false claim that she had a child in common with the officer, the mother's claim was that the officer was reckless and threatening, and that he used excessive force in shooting her son.
Aha! Here's another article that mentions bypassing the initial,
ex parte hearing:
https://www.rallyforourrights.com/re...titioners-son/
Quote:
|
Susan Holmes discovered a loophole in Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO law that allowed her to bypass the initial Temporary ERPO hearing. The way it’s supposed to work is a Temp hearing would be scheduled within 24 hours of her filing, where the judge would determine based on a preponderance of evidence if the facts on the petition were true or not, and he would either approve or deny the Temp ERPO order. Had Susan Holmes gone through this Temp hearing the case would have more than likely been denied based on her claim they had a child in common (but who knows). Turns out it doesn’t matter. This law is so poorly written, if you think you will be denied at the Temp hearing because, say…you lied, you can just bypass it and go right to a full hearing forcing the person being ERPO’d to fight back or risk losing their firearm rights. It doesn’t matter how frivolous any of it is.
|