Curiosity & Concern Meet Corruption In The Case Of Tina Peters

by Ashe in America | Oct 18, 2024 | Feature Story Bottom Left

ASHE IN AMERICA — OPINION

Judge Matthew Barrett

What happens to those who challenge corruption in Colorado government? In the case of Tina Peters, it’s nine years in prison and more than ten thousand dollars in fines. Peters was sentenced on October 3, in a dystopian circus that quickly went nationally viral.

The government — local, state, and federal — worked together to make an example of Peters, the former duly elected Clerk and Recorder of Mesa County, cobbling together alleged violations of COVID-19 emergency rules and pre-2022 office norms to send a message that government authority is tiered and absolute in the Centennial State.

Peters is currently in custody in Mesa County as she appeals the case. She has retained the Wynne Law Group for her appeal. In response to request for comment, Michael Wynne stated, “There are substantial grounds for appeal. The most glaring is the disproportionality of the sentence imposed. And that is before we even get to the merits and the defenses not presented to the jury.” They are expected to make filings related to the appeal in the near future.

During the trial, Peters was prevented by Judge Matthew Barrett from speaking about her intent; the explosive findings from the Mesa County images analysis were also prohibited from being presented for the jury’s consideration. This is because, in pretrial motions, the judge determined that why Peters did what she did was irrelevant to the jury’s consideration about the innocence or guilt of what she did.

That could, and maybe should, have been the end of the story on “election denialism,” and it certainly was as it pertains to the jury’s consideration of evidence and testimony and to their verdict. But in a stunning move at sentencing, Judge Barrett placed himself in judgement over the why — despite prohibiting a fair examination of the same.

“…you’re a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again.”

This judge — like so many others across the nation — refused to allow a hearing of the evidence about whether Peters’ curiosity, which later turned into concern, was founded. That decision may be legally sound as pertains to Peters’ trial, but Barrett reveals with this statement that he’s already determined the truth of the matter of evidence he refused to consider.

And he relied upon that out-of-court determination in her sentencing. That’s astounding. It gets worse.

“No one in this country has absolute power. Your position as a clerk and recorder, a constitutional position, does not provide you with a means by which to do your own investigation, to not listen to the judiciary, to not listen to the executives higher than you, to not listen to the legislature who sets the law as it may be. This is nonsense. Our system of government can’t function when people in government think that somehow, some way, the power they’ve been given is absolute in all respects.”

It’s hard to make the case that Peters believed she had absolute power. Peters’ only crime is being deceptive with the Secretary of State’s office. At the time, Peters — an official elected to a Constitutional position — believed that the Secretary of State’s office was about to engage in a crime. Her actions were in that context… a detail that was not allowed to be heard by the jury.

Barrett’s stated position appears to declare that Peters had no right, and certainly no recourse, to question the Secretary of State’s office. His carefully crafted statements declare, before Colorado and the nation, that government consensus is not just above the law, but above scrutiny and unable to be questioned.

In other words, public trust is officially mandated. Trust the government or face a decade in prison.

If the government cannot be questioned, corruption will thrive. Opacity, obstruction, and political persecutions are, historically, signals of corruption. All of these elements are glaringly present in modern American democracy, certainly in Colorado, and not just when it comes to questioning the election apparatus.

Consider migrant response, the tax crisis, out of control homelessness, and rising crime.

The people responsible for our current reality — the governing authorities, their public/private partnerships, the NGO infrastructure, and their media lapdogs — are working overtime to convince you that Tina Peters, and anyone else questioning their authority, are the gravest threat to “our democracy.”

That should be enough to make you question what they mean by “our democracy.”

Ashe in America is a writer and activist. Find all her work at linktree.com/ashein america.