Let’s Ex Parte!

Ah, the fad for Extreme Risk Ex Parte Protective orders. You know, I shall henceforth refer to them as EPPOs.

Supposedly, these are to get guns out the hands of “dangerous” people, but the fact is that every state already has laws — for years — that allow that. The only thing EPPOs “add” is stripping away due process, through ex parte “star chamber” proceedings with the subject not even being aware of the accusation until the cops show up to steal his property. That’s the point.

Besides ex parte proceedings stripping away human/civil rights being morally repugnant, that don’t meet the federal definition of due process, which requires a hearing with the accused before the rights-stripping. (You hear that, NRA?)

So yes, I oppose EPPOs. But allow me to make a little suggestion. This isn’t actually being offered as a compromise, just a thought experiment to see how the victim-disarmers react. Let’s modify the basic “ERPO.”


The individual applying for an EPPO shall, in addition to any court/filing fees, post a $10,000 bond.

When the ex parte hearing is held, the judge shall either issue the order or deny it.

  • If the order is denied, $5,000 of the bond will be delivered to the subject of the EPPO application, in restitution for the attempted infringement of the subject’s rights. The subject will be informed of the denied application and the identity of the accuser.
  • If the order is issued, $10,000 will be delivered to the subject when the police remove the firearms.

If the order is issued, the after-the-fact appeal better-late-than-never-due-process hearing will be heard by a judge other than the judge who issued the order, who has no conflict of interest in case.

If that judge does not uphold the original order, the first judge who issued the order will be suspended from the bench without pay and criminally charged under 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law. A civil judgement will be entered against the offending judge ordering him to pay the subject of the order $10,000.

In any case, the subject of the order keeps the original $10,000 in restitution for the rights-violation which occurred before he had a hearing. No shall the subject of the order incur any court costs, filing fees, or fines; and all of the subject’s legal expenses will be borne by the party who applied for the rights-violation.

None of the restitution paid to the subject in this process shall be construed as disallowing additional compensation awarded through other civil or criminal proceedings.


OK, victim-disarmers. Put up or shut up. Is it your goal to protect people from themselves, or to make cheap, anonymous SWATting of gun owners legal?

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

8 thoughts on “Let’s Ex Parte!”

  1. I love the sentiment, however, I would bet $10,000 that the part about another judge reviewing it with due process will never find the other judge to be inept (resulting in their removal from the bench) because it is a cabal, a brotherhood.

    They will not do this to another member of their group, so you can be assured of their crappy legal determination against the victim.

    Back off on this section a bit and it might work.

    1. “…judge reviewing it with due process will never find the other judge to be inept (resulting in their removal from the bench) because it is a cabal, a brotherhood.”

      You’ve misunderstood my point and who I am addressing. It isn’t that a judge won’t find fault with another judge. The point is that a bill such as this will never, ever even be filed — by a Dem or Rep — because it specifies consequences for violating rights. The intent of EPPOs is to legalize SWATting.

      1. I know that you are not qualified for president. The first requirement for president is a lack of a conscience. Plus, a narcissistic character is also needed. And of course, a desire to become rich is a plus. Actual financial riches are not needed, as they are provided by wealthy supporters both during and after your term ends.
        Great wealth can also be gained by writing a book, although actually writing is not needed, as they always have several ghost writers working on something, to put anyone’s name on, in order to reward good performance, ie, staying in line like a good little sheep.
        And I used to think that the hardest qualifications for president were a natural born citizen and being over 35. After Obama and his hidden background, it now seems as if the only tough one is the 35 age limit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *