reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @BevHarrisWrites
@BevHarrisWrites - Bev Harris
Transcript. Political commentary marked with *** (Omitted the part about Brady motion due to length; see above post for video) Judge Matthew Barrett: All right, we're here today for sentencing in Ms. Peters' case. Before I get into my comments, I'll enter judgment of conviction consistent with the jury's verdicts as to counts, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10. As it relates to fines, fees and costs, a $2,000 fine will be ordered as to counts 1, 2, 4, 6 and as to counts 8, 9 - I'm sorry, 8 - the maximum fine will be imposed. Counts 9 and 10, $1,000, fines will be imposed. You retain the right to ask me to reconsider any sentence I impose. Under Rule 35b you have the right to appeal any sentence I impose if you want to end this judgments of conviction. If you wish to do that, you need to do it within 49 days of today's date, the protection orders will remain in place during the life of this sentence. Conditions 6 and 7 are vacated, however, you can ask your lawyer what that means. If you are ever sentenced, or today sentenced to the Department of Corrections, then I'm required to inform you that the time I actually impose, or that may be imposed, is not the amount of time you are likely to serve. It can be and very likely will be reduced by your accrual of good time and earned time credits within the department, meaning that the better you do in prison, the more programming you take advantage of, the sooner you'll be released. I want to circle back to the request from earlier today in terms of the motion for a new trial based on a Brady violation (omitted this part) The purposes of sentencing have been alluded to, particularly by the prosecution. I'm not going to repeat them all, but I say generally the same thing. That is, the purposes are statutory, and they include, but are not limited to promoting the acceptance of responsibility. That doesn't mean that a defendant has to take responsibility - to the contrary - Ms Peters has exercised her right to a jury trial. She's exercised her right to hold the people to their burden, and such cannot and will not be used by this court as a means by which or justification by which to punish her. But rather, the sentence itself is to promote the responsibility acceptance, not to ensure that someone takes responsibility however, once they've chosen to exercise their right to go to trial. I consider deterrence in sentencing that is both general and specific, that the sentence I imposed must deter Ms. Peters from engaging in similar conduct in the future, but it also must deter others, generally from engaging in this type of conduct. I consider rehabilitation where appropriate. I consider punishment where appropriate. I also must ensure that the sentences I impose are consistent among offenders similarly situated, but I must also impose a sentence that is designed to meet Ms. Peters' unique needs. Here, the defense has and Ms. Peters in particular, has remained quite defiant, which is her right, but certainly not helpful for her lot today, and in arguing why I should impose a particular sentence, she tells me about her ailments, her loss, her struggles in life. But in reality, for those of you who may have been here earlier this morning and seen some of the folks who've occupied that chair before, Ms. Peters, there could be not much in the way of a comparison in terms of the type of sympathy one would extend to Ms. Peters. Those folks didn't have four lawyers representing them. They didn't have a team of assistants helping them. They're not getting rides in private jets all over the country. No, the people who sit in that chair suffer, generally speaking, immeasurable trauma in life. Struggle mightily with alcohol abuse, substance abuse, mental health struggles, family loss. They come from broken homes. The cards they were dealt were never the cards that you were dealt. Ms. Peters. So when I hear you discuss your husband, who sadly, passed away recently, your family struggles, and your son, who served our country admirably and made the ultimate sacrifice, I consider it. And I know too that he honored his oath to the country, something that is not lost on me when considering the circumstances under which you find yourself here. Your age, limited criminal history and the like are certainly somewhat mitigating. Your ties to the community are what they are, but your reputation at this point is poor because of what you've done here and after. Your lies are well documented and these convictions are serious. I'm convinced you would do it all over again if you could. You're as defiant as a defendant as this Court has ever seen. You don't have those histories of drug and alcohol abuse. There's no lifetime of trauma, not even close to the type of mitigating circumstances I would see from many folks who sit in that chair, no to the contrary Ms. Peters, you are a privileged person. You are as privileged as they come. ***And you use that privilege to obtain power, a following and fame. *** ***And to be sure, there's no doubt in my mind that it exactly what you wanted, and it defies all sense of common sense to believe when you suggested to me a few moments ago that you didn't want this attention. No, You crave it. Ma'am, and there is no one in this courtroom who would consider that to be anything other than the absolute truth.*** But to get to the point of what it is that you did here, it's my impression distinctly, that you never took your job of clerking particularly seriously. You didn't complete the certification. ***One scandal after another followed you in your time as the clerk, and ultimately it was a belief that the echo chamber in which you live couldn't be wrong, among other things that led you to do what you did here. This thought process, unfortunately, seems to consume so many in our country, regardless of race, gender, political affiliation or the like that, what it is we hear and think can't possibly be wrong. There are many things in my mind that are crystal clear about this case. - You are no hero. - You abused your position. - ***And 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.*** In your world, it's all about you. But at bottom, this case was about your corrupt conduct and how no one is above the law. 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, and that's where you fell. You have no respect for the checks and balances of government. You have no respect for this court. You have no respect for law enforcement. And you do not have respect for your fellow colleagues when you were a clerk and recorder who weren't lockstep in your beliefs. Indeed, just weeks before trial, you were apparently doing what I mentioned earlier, that is over at the clerk and recorder's office, where you're not supposed to be violating the protection order by speaking to employees of that entity with your camera crew in tow. You have no qualms with violating the court's orders because you're innocent, because you didn't do anything wrong. You were just doing your job. You have no problem trying to kick an officer. Your explanation about what happened is preposterous. It's on video. You've no problem lying to officers. It's happened multiple times. There are recorded conversations. It's just more lies. No objective person believes them. ***No, at the end of the day, you cared about the jets, the podcasts and the people fawning over you.*** You abdicated your position as a servant to the Constitution, and you chose YOU over all else. ***Yes, you are a charlatan, and you cannot help but lie as easy it is for you to breathe. *** You betrayed your oath for no one other than you. ***And this is what makes Ms. Peters such a danger to our community. It's the position she held that has provided her the pulpit from which she can preach these lies, the undermining of our democratic process, the undermining of the belief and confidence in our election systems. *** It's not about questioning it. No one says you can't question, you can't ask. It's completely different, and if you don't understand that distinction, then there's nothing I can say or do here today that will change your mind. ***So the damage that is caused and continue to be caused is just as bad, if not worse, than the physical violence that this Court sees on an all too regular basis, and it's particularly damaging when those words come from someone who holds a position of influence, like you.*** ***Every effort to undermine the integrity of our elections and trust in our institutions has been made by you. You've done it from that lectern the voting public provided you with.*** ***Everything you've done has been done to retain control influence. The damage is immeasurable.*** And every time it gets refuted, every time it's shown to be false, just another tale is weaved. So I'll begin by saying I've considered all of those purposes of staying of an execution of a sentence. I've mentioned all of them here generally in my comments already, and I find that a stay of any sentence I impose would be wholly unwarranted. All cases have a possibility of reversal on appeal. No doubt, I'm at peace with all the decisions I've made here. If anything, I gave you and your counsel far too much leeway at times, but the rulings I made came after much consideration, incredible amounts of internal debate, and I trust, in accordance with the applicable law. I consider the sentence here in this case: What are available to me, probation; community corrections wasn't requested, but it wouldn't be an option in any event; and an incarcerated sentence to the Department of Corrections. Probation's focus is rehabilitation. That is for folks who have minimal criminal histories, low LSI scores like you Ms. Peters, but where punishment isn't really on the table. It's about putting someone back in the community who's not at risk, and giving them a chance to correct those things that brought them before me in the first place. Community Corrections, which, again, isn't available, but nevertheless, I'll mention nevertheless, I'll mention is another option that I could still order. It's much more stringent than probation, but it's not prison, and it's for folks who have even higher needs, again, drug addicts, alcohol abusers and the like. And prison is for those folks, ***where we send people who are a danger to all of us,****** whether it be by the pen or the sword or the word of the mouth, prison is where folks go, where punishment is what we're focused on, because the crime committed is so significant that anything less would unduly mitigate the seriousness of the same. I mentioned before, there are no mental health concerns. There's no good reason why you're here, Miss Peters, other than these are all the active decisions that you made that cost our county significantly, but also, more importantly, cost you greatly; Mr. Wood, all the members of the county who worked and trusted you when you asked them to do things that they did on your behalf as part of your lies. The expense, the toll, is immeasurable. So putting you on probation when you have zero needs that would be met by probation is the very definition of unduly depreciating the significance of what it is that you've done here, the harm that you've caused our community and continue to cause. Community Corrections is the same. So prison is the only place that duly meets the purposes of sentencing in this matter, and therefore, the sentence and judgment of the court is as follows: As to counts 1 and 4, the judgment and sentence of the court is three and a half years in the Department of Corrections, those sentences will be concurrent to each other. As to count 2, the judgment and sentence of the court is three and a half years consecutive counts 1 and 4, as it relates to the misdemeanor charges. Count 8 is 120 days in the Mesa County Detention Facility, concurrent to count 9 and 10, which will be six months in the Mesa County Detention Facility, consecutive to the prison sentence. ***The reason those sentences are consecutive is because those sentences are, as the prosecution stated, directly related to what it is that you did here in our community, the damage you caused this community, the breach of your oath to the electorate in Mesa County.*** Your sentence will be followed by three years of parole. You have two days of pre-sentence confinement, credit. Anything I missed, anything else we need to address Atty: Judge. I think you missed a sentencing on on count 6. Judge: Oh, I'm sorry. Count 6 is criminal impersonation. That's also consecutive, that's 15 months to the Department of Corrections. So it's eight and a half years total, plus the six months for a total of nine years of incarceration. Atty: And I think the only other thing is the cost of prosecution order. Judge: Is there an objection to the cost of prosecution? Mr. Case [?], we could set it for hearing if you need to, well, if you need to have time to respond to it, I can give you that as well. Peters' Atty Case: Yeah, we do, because we don't understand how that was calculated. Judge: Very well. I'll give you 21 days to file an objection to the cost of prosecution. You can consult that with the prosecutor. If there's an objectionable set of her hearing. Nothing else. Mr. Case, anything else? Atty: Yes, Your Honor, we have a motion previously filed for a stay, which I believe - Judge: I just denied that. Atty: Well, it's pursuant to rule 8.1 - Judge: You want her to remain, I already told you in my written order what that pertains to. You want her to she's going to remain in the MCDF for the next six months less good time and earn time already your motion, that rule you're citing to isn't a stay of the sentence, per se. It allows her to stay in the local jail for up to 60 days, and I'm happy to grant that, but she's already going to be doing it, because they're going to take her, I think they're going to take her to they're going to keep her here, and then they're going to take her to prison. Atty: Well, we filed our our consent of surety to bond on appeal Judge: Right. Atty: We're asking simply that you allow her to remain under the conditions of that bond until we can get the court of appeals to rule on whether she should have bond during the appeal. Judge: No. Atty: Thank you. Your Honor. I have one other thing, and that is, I need to file an exhibit that I did not previously provide because it's under seal from the DC court. It's an October 4 internal email from Dominion that relates to Mr. Frontera, so I wanted to advise the court that I'll be filing that under seal to complete the record. Judge: Okay Atty: And that it should be kept under seal. Thank you. Your Honor. Judge: All right, we're adjourned - I'm sorry, what? Atty 2: I think it may be the Department of Corrections that decides the order. Is the court specifically requiring that the county jail sentence occur first, or is the court permitting that to be up to the Department of Corrections? Judge: I'm sorry. I need everyone to be quiet. Do you want her to remain in the MCFD for 60 days pending the Department of Corrections transfer? That is what the the rule you cited refers to, Mr. Case, so I need to know that before we we adjourn Atty: Just a moment. Judge: Sure. They're going to take her away, so, Atty: Yes, we do. Judge: Alright, by application of that rule, she is to remain in the custody of the sheriff for a period, not to exceed 60 days, if she is not already serving her sentence to jail during that time period pending transfer to the Department of Corrections, she's remanded to the custody of the sheriff for delivery to the executive director otherwise. Thank you. Adjourned. (Part 2 of 3)
@BevHarrisWrites - Bev Harris
Forgot to thread this correctly. Part 3 of 3: Hannah Gutierrez-Reed sentencing: Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer: Thank you for your presentations. Thank the friends and family of Helena for presenting their memories and their losses of Helena. There are really three choices for sentencing before me. What the defense wants is a conditional discharge. This means straight probation, unless Miss Reed - Miss Gutierrez comes back on a probation violation, she won't have a felony conviction on her record so she can continue to possess firearms again unless she comes back on a probation violation and receives the imposition of the probated sentence. The second one has not been offered by council, but I've certainly thought of it, and it's to continue her in the Santa Fe County Detention Center. That would be for 12 months. That's all she's allowed to stay at the detention center and then put her on probation for the rest of the time. She's facing 18 months. She's got pre sentence confinement for about a month or so. In this scenario, she won't experience prison. She will be a convicted felon. She cannot carry a firearm under federal law and for a specific time under New Mexico law. And then there's prison. And the state has proposed at 85% of the time, sentenced to incarceration based on the serious violent offense statute. For all the fanfare and pundits and finger pointing that has been going on for over two years, we were able to seat a jury of her peers who confirmed that they could listen to the evidence received in court and determine the facts and apply the law. They found Ms. Gutierrez guilty of involuntary manslaughter. What were some of the poignant facts that came out during the trial? In her police interview, she proudly owned her position as armorer On October 2,1 2021, Chaos entered after the film crew walked off. Ms Hutchins and others were trying to rig, if you will, how they were going to keep filming And what was the defendant doing while waiting she was loading Alec Baldwin's gun. Did she have enough time to load the weapon safely? Plenty. Did she load the weapon? Yes, with dummies in a live round. Did she check what she was loading? No. Why? Well, in her own words, most recently, in her jailhouse calls she "didn't need to be shaking the dummies all the time." Did she check after that? No. And while you've heard her concerns about how she'll never work again as an armorer, leading up to the trial, have her concerns changed? No. Here's what she says: This whole thing "has been a character attack" on her. Just recently, in her allocution, "I'm not a monster." On the phone they talk about how much of Hannah's life they could take up, and that this is messing up her modeling career - yhis is while she's incarcerated, waiting for a sentence. And what does she say about the death of Helena? Hannah is dismissive of the judge talking about someone dying as a result of her actions Hannah says she's looking at 13 months, which is "ridiculous, over what happened." Hannah says that people have accidents and people die. It's an unfortunate part of life, but it doesn't mean she should be in jail. A conditional discharge is not appropriate, and the second option of leaving you in the detention center would be giving you a pass you do not deserve. I did not hear you take accountability in your allocution, you said you were sorry. You were sorry, but not, YOU were sorry for what you did. You were sorry for it, and hope they can find peace. It was your attorney that had to tell the court that you were remorseful. The word remorse a deep regret coming from a sense of guilt for past wrongs. That's not you. Your hereby sentenced as follow. Stand. I am sentencing you to 18 months of incarceration at a New Mexico women's correctional facility. I find that what you did constitutes a serious, violent offense. It was committed in a physically violent manner, a fatal gun shot done with your recklessness in the face of knowledge that your acts were reasonably likely to result in serious harm. You were the armorer, the one that stood between a safe weapon and a weapon that could kill someone. You alone turned a safe weapon into a lethal weapon. But for you, Miss Hutchins would be alive, a husband would have his partner, and a little boy would have his mother. Please take her. I'm going to ask the deputies to watch how the courtroom gets cleared. Please do an order of remand to the transport order to the Department of Corrections and the judgment and sentence Yes, Your Honor. We are in recess. Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SirG-1tRKyA
@BevHarrisWrites - Bev Harris
Reaction to the Tina Peters conviction: Below, I've posted the video of her sentencing. In the following two posts are: 1) transcript of Peters sentencing and 2) transcript of Hannah Gutierrez-Reed sentencing, for comparison purposes. Insights: 1. While I wrote a letter of support and continue to pray for Tina, she did make mistakes. I seem to be the only "election denier" to mention them. I do so because it doesn't help the election integrity community to skip over them. Most troubling, in order to cover up the identity of the individual brought in to take a backup of election files, Peters arranged to use the ID of a different person, turned off video surveillance cameras, and introduced the person who took the computer image under a false name. Don't do things like that. And know that there may be consequences. I've been involved in two situations where election officials brought in outsiders, without state permission, to examine their voting system. They were never deceptive. Here are the consequences they faced: The first, Ion Sancho, was hit with an attempt led by the vendor to remove him from his position. The Florida AG stepped in and started investigating the vendor. Sancho came under intense pressure but was never punished. The second, Bruce Funk, was fired from his position for allowing the inspection. The Utah Lt. Governor flew into Emery County on a Diebold jet and pressured the removal of Funk. Had Tina taken the image of her system for backup, she would have come under intense scrutiny but might not have been prosecuted had she not been involved in identity theft and cover-up (turning off surveillance cam). There will surely be controversies in the 2024 election. Keep the cleanest hands you can if you plan to investigate. 2. This leads me to the next point: Too many people, even computer experts, think they will find evidence if they can just get their hands on a system. The nature of election tampering is transitory. It can happen in seconds. Its evidence will be removed. You are certainly not going to find it in the source code. And the systems don't log election tampering events. Even if you 100% believe you know an election has been tampered with, be aware that your chances of finding proof in the computer are remote. 3. The judge in this case justified his harsh 9-year sentence by opining that damaging "confidence" to an election system is dangerous and a threat to democracy. In fact, what is dangerous is conducting elections that the public can't audit." I would characterize comments about "damaging confidence" and "threat to democracy" as political statements, and certainly not as justification for harsh sentencing. In the transcript in following post, I'll mark passages with asterisks where the judge ***strayed into political territory.*** I did a transcript of the sentencing of Hannah-Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer in the Alec Baldwin "Rust" shooting case, to illustrate the difference. While both judges pilloried defendants for lack of remorse, the judge in Tina Peters's case used three times as many words and was the only one to use political rhetoric to justify a sentence. Also note the difference in sentences: Tina Peters, 9 years for identity theft and taking a copy of the drive without permission, but mostly for "destroying confidence" in elections; vs. Gutierrez-Reed, 18 months for reckless behavior that killed talented cinematographer, wife and mother Helena Hutchins. (part 1 of 3)
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
BREAKING: Hunter Biden is suing @MarcoPolo501c3, a non-profit organization that released a comprehensive 640-page Report on the Biden Laptop. You can support Marco Polo here: https://donorbox.org/mplegalfund The Report meticulously documents 459 crimes involving the Biden family and their associates, relying on documents, emails, photos, voicemails, and texts from Hunter's laptop. In addition to the free online Report, Marco Polo has created a searchable online database containing emails, texts, and documents from the Biden Laptop. The Biden Laptop is the Rosetta Stone for uncovering political corruption, making Marco Polo's Report on the Biden Laptop essential reading for all Americans. Biden's legal action targeting Garrett Ziegler and @MarcoPolo501c3 comes the day after the launch of an impeachment inquiry against President Biden. Marco Polo has successfully exposed the Biden family's unregistered foreign lobbying, money laundering, and alleged criminal activities. Please consider purchasing a physical copy of the Report on the Biden Laptop or contributing to Marco Polo's legal defense fund via the link below. https://donorbox.org/mplegalfund Your support, reposts, and comments are greatly appreciated. 🙏♥️🇺🇸
@BevHarrisWrites - Bev Harris
@KanekoaTheGreat @MarcoPolo501c3 @hodgetwins @catturd2 @charliekirk11 @JackPosobiec @bennyjohnson @KimDotcom @Timcast @ScottAdamsSays @DonaldJTrumpJr @dbongino Lawunfare.
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
The Bidens are targeting @MarcoPolo501c3 because the Report reveals the extent to which the FBI and DOJ concealed their crimes.