BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Filing in Tina Peters Case Underscores Tina Was Doing Her Job and Her Constitutional Rights Were Ignored

A filing on Monday evening in the Tina Peters case makes the claim that Tina was doing her job when according to her county contract with Dominion. 

In a filing Monday evening in Colorado in the Tina Peters case, the following items were noted.

• Federal law requires all digital election information on voting system hard drives to be preserved for 22 months. The “election projects backup” referred to in the Answer Brief preserves only some of the data. As Peters explained to the trial court in her Declaration
• The forensic images made by Peters were lawfully made for purposes of system backup, to preserve election records before SOS wiped them from the hard drive.
• Peters, as the elected Clerk and recorder of Mesa County, had a duty under §20701 to preserve records.
• …such they owe the duty under §20701 to preserve all election records for 22 months.  When Mr. Casias and SOS willfully wiped the 2020 election records from the Mesa County hard drive, they violated §20701 and became subject to its criminal penalties.
• the federal immunity at issue in this case is a function of the U.S. Constitution’s allocation of state and federal authority, OB pp. 14-15, which deprives state courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over cases like this one. Id., at 15-16.  The beneficiary of federal immunity has a constitutional right not to be tried in state court,
• Peters Is Immune from Prosecution for Acts Taken to Comply With Her Federal Statutory Duty.
• The court denied Peters due process right to present a complete defense. The court excluded evidence that Peters’ had a federal duty to preserve election records, and then refused to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of execution of a public duty.

The filing concludes after a plethora of information and masterful arguments that court should vacate the case, or dismiss the case on the ground that Peters is immune from this prosecution under the Supremacy and Privilege or Immunities Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, or alternatively, remand the case for new trial and proceedings consistent with this Court’s ruling; and order any proceedings on remand be conducted by a different judge.

Here is the filing:

2025-0817 Reply Brief.drafT.11 by Joe Ho