The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 17, 2020, 12:48 PM   #26
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,858
AB, I just caught this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
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.
I confess that when I ran through the law previously, I never saw this. The 24 hour requirement in the language you quoted earlier above reads as a mandate to me.

If there really is such a loophole, it doesn't make this law better. It would mean that a petitioner alleges an imminent and serious danger, but is okie dokie with a later hearing.

Last edited by zukiphile; January 17, 2020 at 01:04 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old January 17, 2020, 01:09 PM   #27
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfruser
Sure, the LEO was notified and had representation when a regular citizen would get neither. Are any of y'all naïve enough to think it would happen otherwise?
I believe you are incorrect. Multiple articles (including one of those I linked to) have reported that in this case the petitioner (the grieving mother) elected to bypass the initial, same-day, ex parte hearing and to proceed directly to the full hearing at which the respondant/defendant was allowed to be represented.

See post #22:

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.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 17, 2020, 01:20 PM   #28
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
I confess that when I ran through the law previously, I never saw this. The 24 hour requirement in the language you quoted earlier above reads as a mandate to me.
It reads as mandatory to me, too. It uses the word "shall" multiple times. The only reference to "may" is to allow the judge discretion as to whether or not to allow the initial hearing to be conducted telephonically.

I haven't found anything that explains what "loophole" she found, but that is apparently what happened. She skipped the initial hearing and went directly to the hearing at which Morris (or his attorney) was a participant. I'm reviewing the text of the law now, and I can't find anything that tells me this is possible -- but the facts are that it happened.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 17, 2020, 02:48 PM   #29
danco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRet93 View Post
But trying to use the law for "personal retribution"..not sure that's a crime. Waste of everybody's time for sure but absent perjury, not sure that's against the law.
It is under my State's (Nevada) new Red Flag law (AB291):

Quote:
Sec.21. 1. A person shall not file a verified application for an ex parte or extended order:

(a) Which he or she knows or has reason to know is false or misleading; or

(b) With the intent to harass the adverse party.

2. A person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Of course, "misdemeanor" is basically a traffic ticket...
danco is offline  
Old January 18, 2020, 12:25 AM   #30
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,563
Quote:
Of course, "misdemeanor" is basically a traffic ticket...
yeah, a "traffic ticket" that can make you a prohibited person, essentially for life.

Sure, some misdemeanor are no worse than traffic tickets, but other, especially thanks to Sen Lautenberg make you a prohibited person, removing you legal right to own firearms. (domestic violence misdemeanor does that its Federal law and has been for many years now)
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 18, 2020, 01:08 AM   #31
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
yeah, a "traffic ticket" that can make you a prohibited person, essentially for life.

Sure, some misdemeanor are no worse than traffic tickets, but other, especially thanks to Sen Lautenberg make you a prohibited person, removing you legal right to own firearms. (domestic violence misdemeanor does that its Federal law and has been for many years now)
Yes, a conviction of misdemeanor domestic violence is a 2A disqualifier, but I don't think a conviction of misdemeanor making a false statement would be, even if the case is a domestic violence ERPO case.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 18, 2020, 08:38 AM   #32
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Multiple articles (including one of those I linked to) have reported that in this case the petitioner (the grieving mother) elected to bypass the initial, same-day, ex parte hearing and to proceed directly to the full hearing at which the respondant/defendant was allowed to be represented.
Wonder if that was because she knew she was lying about the 'common child', and hoped the judge would somehow either not notice that or not care(?)..and maybe get a favorable outcome?

Makes no sense tho as the 'defendant'(LEO) would have been present and all this would have come out..

Without taking any stand, and no comment on the RFL in general, I'm glad the truth came out, and the LEO was cleared..hope the woman gets charged with perjury...
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old January 18, 2020, 11:19 AM   #33
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,200
Conjecture on my part:

I think her sole intent was to make life difficult for Corporal Morris. She wanted to cost him time and money. Since he would not be a party to a preliminary hearing under the red flag law, and she's probably smart enough to have known that her petition would not survive the preliminary hearing, she elected to skip it and move directly to the hearing where Morris would have to appear and be represented.

As events transpired, Morris didn't appear personally and his attorneys were provided by the State of Colorado, so it didn't cost him anything but some publicity (which was overwhelmingly positive towards him) and maybe a couple of night's sleep.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 18, 2020, 11:34 AM   #34
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,600
If that can borne out in the Discovery phase of a lawsuit (where mail, email, conversations, etc, etc, come to light in evidence),
I'll wager she is liable both criminally and civilly.

Could get very interesting in setting "good faith" threshhold on this process.
mehavey is offline  
Old January 18, 2020, 12:43 PM   #35
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by mehavey
If that can borne out in the Discovery phase of a lawsuit (where mail, email, conversations, etc, etc, come to light in evidence),
I'll wager she is liable both criminally and civilly.

Could get very interesting in setting "good faith" threshhold on this process.
Never mind "good faith." The Colorado law stipulates that a petition for an ERPO is made by affidavit (which is a sworn statement) under penalty of perjury. The woman perjured herself at least twice, once by saying that she has (or had) a child in common with the LEO and again in attesting that he was an immediate threat to her.

In a video I watched on her being interviewed after the petition was denied, a reporter asked her about the perjury issue. She wasn't about to admit that she had perjured herself, so she maintained the position that she didn't think she had committed perjury but she wasn't going to say why because she wanted to preserve her strategy for when she appeals the dismissal of her petition.



Interview: https://kdvr.com/2020/01/16/womans-r...er-son-denied/

The video indicates that the state AG's office did, in fact, tell the judge that Holmes' petition was not made in good faith.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Holmes_EPRO.JPG (120.2 KB, 252 views)
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 18, 2020, 07:20 PM   #36
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,563
Quote:
Yes, a conviction of misdemeanor domestic violence is a 2A disqualifier, but I don't think a conviction of misdemeanor making a false statement would be, even if the case is a domestic violence ERPO case.
My intent was to show that a misdemeanor is not always "basically a traffic ticket" and not all are the same.

Apologies if that was misunderstood.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 18, 2020, 08:40 PM   #37
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,200
Actually a misdemeanor is never basically a traffic ticket. A traffic ticket is a civil infraction, not a criminal offense.

The reason I picked on you was the context. The misdemeanor being discussed was the misdemeanor of filing a false petition for an ERPO, to which you responded "yeah, a 'traffic ticket' that can make you a prohibited person, essentially for life." That's incorrect (I think.) Lying on a court filing is not covered by the Lautenberg amendment.

Don't mean to pick on you, but if'n we're going to talk about laws and consequences I think we need to be as precise as possible so things don't get taken out of context down the road.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 19, 2020, 03:41 PM   #38
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,563
I should have been more specific. I didn't mean THAT misdemeanor made you a prohibited person, but that A (certain) misdemeanor could, and that all misdemeanors weren't "basically a traffic ticket".

And you are right, a traffic ticket isn't even a misdemeanor, until you get too many and don't pay them... (yes, I know that will be a separate charge..)

It simply didn't occur to me that it could be understood they way you did, but now, knowing that, I can, hopefully do better.

and I don't feel picked on, either. Just woefully inadequate and misunderstood! (sarcasm intentional)

SO, what's to become of this woman and her apparent quest for vengeance??

Charges for perjury, I would hope, at the least.

I can see, if she steadfastly maintains that she was not intentionally lying and really, really, rilly does believe that her having a son who was shot and killed by someone gives them a "child in common", it could be used as a defense.

I don't think it would work, but they might try to use it. Don't think many people would accept her definition though.

If her idea holds, then I guess I have a "child in common" with my kids schoolbus driver, and everyone else they meet in their lives.

I'd like to say she's a wackjob, but until the court does, I'll hold off on that. Until then, I suppose she has the legal right to try and game the system to get what she wants, just like everyone else.
From here, it looks like she tried that, and failed.
am off to watch the playoffs...do your kids watch the playoffs? Maybe we have a "child in common" then???
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 19, 2020, 04:35 PM   #39
JERRYS.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,741
a lot of back and forth here....

has there been an official court order based on this woman's petition?

if so, has the LEO lost his right to own/carry a gun?
JERRYS. is offline  
Old January 19, 2020, 05:14 PM   #40
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by JERRYS.
has there been an official court order based on this woman's petition?

if so, has the LEO lost his right to own/carry a gun?
No and no.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 20, 2020, 08:43 AM   #41
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by JERRYS. View Post
a lot of back and forth here....

has there been an official court order based on this woman's petition?

if so, has the LEO lost his right to own/carry a gun?
No, it was thrown out by the judge..the ? is whether or not she will be prosecuted for perjury.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old January 31, 2020, 01:03 AM   #42
Colorado Redneck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2008
Location: Northeast Colorado
Posts: 1,797
There is an arrest warrent for the woman that filed a "red flag" on the policeman in Colorado.


"Perjury charge filed against woman who tried to have CSU officer’s weapons confiscated – FOX31 Denver" https://kdvr.com/2020/01/30/perjury-...nfiscated/amp/
Colorado Redneck is offline  
Old January 31, 2020, 03:19 AM   #43
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Redneck
There is an arrest warrent for the woman that filed a "red flag" on the policeman in Colorado.
It's about time.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 31, 2020, 08:20 AM   #44
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Redneck View Post
There is an arrest warrent for the woman that filed a "red flag" on the policeman in Colorado.


"Perjury charge filed against woman who tried to have CSU officer’s weapons confiscated – FOX31 Denver" https://kdvr.com/2020/01/30/perjury-...nfiscated/amp/
She's gone to ground tho..hope they find her..
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old January 31, 2020, 09:56 AM   #45
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,376
pre-passage, my wife and I discussed this option. Proponents of the law pitched that "the RF law hasn't been abused anywhere." I told my wife that it's inevitable and gonna happen.
I hate being right about bad choices.

edit: I think that I'm most curious to know "will perjury in RF laws get the same forceful response when the victim isn't LEO?"
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old January 31, 2020, 11:40 AM   #46
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by doofus47
edit: I think that I'm most curious to know "will perjury in RF laws get the same forceful response when the victim isn't LEO?"
And will a non-LEO victim have two assistant attorneys general representing him or her?
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 31, 2020, 10:20 PM   #47
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,563
Quote:
And will a non-LEO victim have two assistant attorneys general representing him or her?
If someone pays for them.

Something to keep in mind here, the person she filed false statements against was a cop. And, I think, still is. So its not just 2nd amendment civil rights she's messing with, its his JOB she's threatening, and unions take that kind of thing fairly seriously.

Not just because he's a member and being wronged, but because EVERY member is at risk from similar BS. So, yeah they're going to support him as much as he needs.

You, or I, or anyone else without a deep pockets friend or 3rd party with a compelling interest, we're pretty much on our own.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 1, 2020, 09:19 AM   #48
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by doofus47 View Post
pre-passage, my wife and I discussed this option. Proponents of the law pitched that "the RF law hasn't been abused anywhere." I told my wife that it's inevitable and gonna happen.
I hate being right about bad choices.

edit: I think that I'm most curious to know "will perjury in RF laws get the same forceful response when the victim isn't LEO?"
Laws are abused everywhere, everyday..was this RF law 'abused'? Yes, AND it was it thrown out by the judge.
Is there a warrant out for her arrest? Yes there is..

Sounds like the 'system' worked as it should.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old February 3, 2020, 04:43 PM   #49
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
Sounds like the 'system' worked as it should.
Baloney. It cost time money and effort in a feckless exercise.
Sounds like "infringed" to me and the only folks it worked for are the ones aren't the ones wanting to protect the 2nd Amendment.

Quote:
You, or I, or anyone else without a deep pockets friend or 3rd party with a compelling interest, we're pretty much on our own.
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner. Don't piss your girlfriend or a neighbor off.
davidsog is offline  
Old February 3, 2020, 06:44 PM   #50
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRet93
Sounds like the 'system' worked as it should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsog
Baloney. It cost time money and effort in a feckless exercise.
I agree with davidsog. You can say the system worked "as intended" and perhaps not be too far from the truth, but "as it should" IMHO is quite a stretch. In fact, the proponents of the law are proclaiming that this case proves the law works "as it should," but that completely ignores the facts of the case, and the unconstitutional nature of the law itself.

Remember, what the law says is that the "respondent" (the person against whom the order will be issued) is NOT notified of the petition or of the initial, ex parte hearing. In my opinion, shared by some attorneys I know, that's a constitutional problem right off the bat, because a respondent's first knowledge of the action against him/her would be when the police show up with an order to seize his/her firearms. There's no due process under these "red flag" laws until after the fact of the initial seizure.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says:

Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But, in the case under discussion, there was no initial, ex parte hearing. The petitioner, Mrs. Holmes, "found a loophole" that allowed her to skip over that initial hearing and move directly to the stage where/when the respondent had to ... respond. You could say, "Good -- then his guns weren't seized." But that also meant that the stage at which the judge would have seen that there was no basis for an order and tossed the case never happened. As a result, the officer was notified of a hearing and did have to appear in court (which he did through representation by two defense attorneys).

I have read the entire text of the Colorado law multiple times, and I have discussed it with an attorney who has read it multiple times. We cannot find any "loophole" in the law that in any way provides for the case to have proceeded as it did. So, if we are correct, the law (the "system") did NOT work as it should. It caused an innocent person to be served and to have to appear in court where "the system" should have made that unnecessary if it ("the system") had worked as it should.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10027 seconds with 11 queries