dominion Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Tina Peters appeals contempt finding in iPad recording case

homesafetytechpros — Thu, 05 Dec 2024 12:35:18 +0000

Former Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters looks on during sentencing for her election interference case at the Mesa County District Court Thursday, Oct. 3, 2024, in Grand Junction, Colo. (Larry Robinson/The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel via AP).

The first election official convicted of a felony over 2020 election conspiracy theories promulgated by followers of Donald Trump is appealing an earlier contempt of court ruling in a related case.

Tina Peters, 68, is the former county clerk of Mesa County, Colorado. In August, she was convicted on seven counts of engaging in a security breach — related to unauthorized access to voting machines. In October, after a marathon hearing in which the defendant repeatedly expressed defiance and stuck to her theories, she was sentenced to nine years in state prison for those felony offenses.

While sitting in the gallery during a February 2022 hearing for one of her alleged co-conspirators, Peters allegedly used an iPad to record some of the proceedings. In May 2023, she was found guilty of contempt for that decidedly lesser charge — and fined $1,500.

In June, Peters appealed her contempt citation, with the state filing its reply brief the following month. This week, Peters’ attorney John Case appeared before a three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals.

“Treat my client as if she were some other poor person and not outspoken or a public figure,” the defense attorney pleaded with the appellate court in Denver, according to a courtroom report by Courthouse News Service.

Authorities claim Peters and her deputy clerk Belinda Knisley engaged in election equipment tampering and official misconduct by allowing an unauthorized third party to make copies of voting machine hard drives before and after a “trusted build” systems upgrade — a software update — in May 2021. Knisley is alleged to have made sure security cameras were turned off in the room where the machines were stored so photographs could be taken by the third party during the trusted build. She ultimately pleaded guilty to trespassing, first-degree official misconduct and violation of duty and was given two years of unsupervised probation, 150 hours of community service and agreed to testify against Peters.

The iPad incident occurred during one of Knisley’s hearings.

On appeal, Peters claims the prosecution failed to prove their case.

“To prove the contents of a recording, the original recording must be presented consistent with the Best Evidence Rule,” the appellate brief reads. “Because the prosecution presented no evidence that Ms. Peters’ iPad contained a recording of the February 7, 2022, hearing, the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the contempt must be vacated.”

The defendant also argued there was no lawful court order in effect that specifically made recording proceedings verboten.

“The trial court never found as a fact that Judge Barrett had entered a lawful order that prohibited recording the proceedings in his courtroom,” the appellate brief goes on. “Nor did the court find that Ms. Peters knew of the order before the District Attorney accused her of recording. Because the trial court failed to make findings as to two of the four elements of proof required by [relevant case law], the Court of Appeals must reverse and remand for a new trial.”

During the incident in question, Mesa County Judge Matthew Barrett did not sanction Peters. Instead, he warned her after a bit of back-and-forth between the court, Peters, and a prosecutor.

Peters, for her part, denied recording.

Here’s how the judge ended the interaction:

Well, the bottom line is — as I mentioned, there’s a sign on the door that says no recording, video, audio — it’s all common sense for most folks to know that. This is a recorded proceeding in any event. So, this is the one warning that the individual in the courtroom will get. If I find that someone has violated this order in the future, then I’ll take appropriate action, and it will be appropriate — no doubt in my mind about that.

During oral arguments, Case was asked if the sign on the door saying not to record the proceedings was equivalent to a court order.

“Who knows?” Peter’s attorney reportedly answered, “The only person who knows what the order is is Judge Barrett.”

When another judge asked whether lying to the judge about recording would qualify as contempt, Case answered in the affirmative — saying any lie to a judge would be a violation.

But in this case, the defense attorney said, there is simply not enough evidence that Peters lied about the recording issue.

“That was the only evidence she could show that proved her innocence and the judge wouldn’t admit it,” Case told the panel of judges.

During the state’s time at the dais, 21st Judicial District Deputy Attorney Richard Tuttle said the prosecution wanted to use iPad evidence but could not figure out the password.

“Peters’ Counsel then requested at the hearing that the iPad be released, and the trial court denied the request,” the state’s reply brief notes.

What looked like a stalemate was decided by the judge overseeing the contempt hearing — who was not the same judge from the original Knisley hearing. In fact, a second judge issued the contempt citation; a third judge altogether conducted the hearing at issue in the appeal. Barrett would eventually preside over Peters’ felony trial.

During oral arguments, at least one judge appeared skeptical of the state’s claims about the sufficiency of the alleged court order, according to Courthouse News. The prosecutor said the prohibition on recording was “apparently” part of a broader decorum order.

“Your wording is interesting, ‘The decorum order apparently prohibited recording,’” Court of Appeals Judge Stephanie Dunn told the prosecutor. “The burden is on the prosecution to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Source link

The post Tina Peters appeals contempt finding in iPad recording case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Dominion moves to oust Patrick Byrne’s ‘Kraken’ lawyer

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:25:47 +0000

Patrick Byrne (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite),Stefanie Lambert (ConservativeDaily podcast/screengrab)

After Dominion Voting Systems filed a motion to disqualify “Kraken” attorney Stefanie Lambert from representing former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne in the billion-dollar defamation lawsuit, citing “a total disregard for this Court’s orders” by “willfully” violating a protective order to leak discovery publicly, the dispute is set to spill out at a Monday hearing in a D.C. federal courtroom.

Lambert, under indictment in Michigan and hit with a bench warrant, only recently entered the case as Byrne’s lawyer, but almost as soon as that happened Byrne’s lawyer Robert Driscoll withdrew from the case.

As Law&Crime reported days ago, Driscoll informed Dominion about a discovery “breach” also by email on March 12 claiming that Lambert shared discovery with non-party Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf and filed discovery material in public as part of her bid to combat her criminal case for alleged conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to and willfully damage voting machines.

Dominion’s attorneys told U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols that Lambert herself confirmed both the discovery breach and that Byrne “directed” she violate the protective order. The motion to disqualify, which seeks sanctions and accuses Lambert of violating D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(c), shed more light on her apparent justification for the leak: reporting purported evidence in discovery of 2020 election “criminal activity” to law enforcement.

Dominion said the documents Lambert released showed no such thing. Rather, it revealed xenophobia on the part of Lambert and Byrne, the plaintiff asserted.

“When confronted with her breach, Lambert did not claim confusion about what was or was not permitted under this Court’s Order. Rather, she claimed her contempt of court was required given that—in her warped view—the documents show evidence of ‘criminal activity,”” Dominion’s motion. “Never mind that courts have repeatedly, emphatically rejected the notion that Dominion did anything other than facilitate a secure election in 2020. Or that the documents Lambert disclosed show absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any ‘criminal activity.’ (Best Dominion can tell, Byrne and Lambert’s xenophobic conclusion is that any email from non-US-based Dominion personnel is conclusive evidence of criminal activity.)”

Writing that Lambert’s “actions should shock the conscience” as a “flagrant disregard for judicial process and the Professional Rules of Conduct,” Dominion said it was left with no choice but to seek her ouster under “these incredible circumstances.”

More Law&Crime coverage: Ex-Overstock CEO who had ‘trysts’ with Maria Butina and attended heated Trump Oval Office meeting in 2020 now faces Hunter Biden defamation suit

“Dominion further requests the Court’s guidance on a process for briefing what sanctions should befall Lambert, Byrne, and any other lawyers or individuals whose conduct, following a full accounting of those acts, warrants it. Dominion does not take lightly a request to disqualify counsel,” the motion continued, emphasizing that “she [Lambert] did not feign ignorance of her duties under the Court’s order.”

The voting machine company went on to say that the discovery breach had swift consequences for Dominion employees.

“Predictably, Lambert’s actions have led to new threats to Dominion employees, including, by way of example only, a voicemail left on Saturday, March 9, accusing Dominion of ‘breaking our elections’ and stating that ‘America should just f—ing hang all you motherf—ers,’” the filing said, also pointing to a post that pined for the arrest and hanging of Dominion’s CEO John Poulos:

When Dominion raised the prospect of sanctions, it noted that Lambert is familiar with the process, since she was initially sanctioned for her involvement as local counsel in the Michigan “Kraken” lawsuit before an appellate court reversed.

“Lambert does not, and cannot, contest the requirements set forth in the Protective Order, which itself contemplates sanctions if breached. Rather, she apparently believes that she has the unilateral authority to decide whether or not she needs to comply. As a barred, licensed attorney, Lambert is well aware that court orders are not optional (and, lest she had any doubt, the disciplinary referrals, bench warrant, and sanctions entered against her by various courts have surely apprised her of that fact),” the motion said. “The only question for this Court, then, is whether her violation warrants disqualification. It does.”

The plaintiff’s attorneys said more investigation is needed before seeking sanctions against Byrne, but they nonetheless reserved the right to make that request later on as to the defendant and “any other persons” who may have violated the protective order.

Read the Dominion motion here.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Dominion moves to oust Patrick Byrne’s ‘Kraken’ lawyer appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.