Corry v. Neary — Case 03 C 10897

First Judicial District — Jefferson County

County Judge Charles Hoppin
Hearing date: July 8, 2003
Matter before the bar: Request for restraining order against Ron Neary to stop harassing and threatening behavior against Christopher Corry

The animosity between Christopher Corry and Ron Neary, who were neighbors in Evergreen, began because their dogs got into fights when Neary's dog came down the hill into Corry's yard in early 2003. When Corry's Weimaraner overpowered Neary's dog, Neary threatened Corry in Corry's yard. Such incidents were repeated four or five times over several months although Corry had told Neary to stay off his property.

Apparently other neighbors were complaining about Neary's dog barking all the time and Neary blamed Corry for this as well. Barking dog complaints are one of the most common complaints police deal with.

During the third incident Neary apparently went berserk and was banging on Corry's front door with both fists and screaming insults at him, while Neary's wife (fiancée?) was trying to restrain him. Note that Colorado statutes, C.R.S. § 18-1-704.5 (1), guarantee that "...the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes." Neary was clearly intruding, or attempting to intrude into Corry's dwelling on this occasion. C.R.S. § 18-1-704.5 (2) gives Corry the right to use any degree of physical force, including deadly force, against intruders in the event of such unlawful entry with the intent to commit a crime against person or property.

Corry is a disabled (his knee has since been surgically reconstructed) veteran of the United States Marine Corps and not generally familiar with Colorado statutes. In the circumstances, Corry fell back on his discipline and training and avoided a physical confrontation with Neary, assisted by Neary's wife.

Corry did point out to Neary that he was combat trained. Corry has Marine Corps license plates and stickers on his truck, which was parked in his yard in plain view of Neary, that make it clear he is a veteran. Neary has no military service, and is physically larger than Corry, but Neary testified that he perceived Corry's Marine Corps background as a threat.

In the event, Neary continued his harassment and threatening behavior as he confirms in his testimony. In the interim Corry had been approached for a position requiring a high-level national security clearance and was advised that backyard brawls would have an adverse effect on his application. The agencies considering Corry advised him that he should obtain a restraining order against Neary, and after the fifth such incident Corry took out a temporary restraining order against Neary.

A hearing on Corry's request for a restraining order was held on July 8, 2003, and the transcript of the hearing is available here. There is the usual bickering and differences of opinion in both Corry's and Neary's testimony. But nowhere in the proceedings does Neary request the court take action against Corry.

Incredibly, after hearing the testimony, sua sponte Judge Hoppin states

Note that Corry's roommate did not appear at the hearing so references to comments by him are based solely on Neary's hearsay.

Entirely ignoring the effects a restraining order has on security clearances, employment, and other factors, Hoppin then scribbled out an order (available here) noting that the court finds grounds for a restraining Corry though Neary has not requested any such action.

The Relevant Law

How Judge Hoppin Corrupted The Law

Rule 365 - Rule governing restraining orders

Court rules clearly require that consent be obtained from the parties before a court may direct that the order be mutual against both parties. Here, Judge Hoppin simply imposed his own will and not the law.

There are three fundamental principles of liberty, justice, and freedom involved in this case. Judge Charles Hoppin egregiously and in apparent ignorance violates each.

Further, to punish or condemn a man simply and specifically because he has honorably served in the Armed Forces of our country is to attack the fundament of our nation.

Any man who undercuts the faith and ability of our Armed Forces in time of war; and who, in his official capacity, undermines the Constitution such men have sworn to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic, at cost of their lives if necessary, acts as a traitor.

By his actions herein, Charles Hoppin stands so accused.


Use browser Back button to return to Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado