WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS WALKED AROUND IN TINA PETERS APPEAL 🧵

The opinion issued by the Court of Appeals highlighted the clear and substantial violations of Tina Peters Constitutional First Amendment Rights by Judge Matthew Barrett when he sentenced her, quoting his own words when he said that Tina was "a danger to all of us."

The COA used Judge Barrett's sentencing violations of Tina's free speech as the only real reasoning in their decision to remand her convictions to the district court for resentencing.

Despite bringing up a number of additional issues during arguments for Tina's appeal, the court walked around rather serious ones that we well articulated in her case for appeal.

This previously unreleased video highlights one such issue: BIASED JURORS. Bear in mind this recording took place after Tina Peters was found guilty with this woman being a member of the jury. One juror told the investigator he might have voted differently if he had heard testimony that Clerk Peters had a duty to preserve election records. A second juror stated that during the first week of trial, the phone lines at her business were cut, it cost her $4,000, and she wondered throughout the trial “if I was being targeted.”

If one of the juror's stated that he may have voted differently if he had KNOWN that Tina Peters had a duty to preserve records as the Mesa County Clerk, and Judge Barrett denied the jury the right to hear that fact and prevented Tina's defense from arguing that point during her trial, how can it be that her convictions stand unquestioned?

FILED 8/11/25
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 25-cv-00425-STV
TINA M. PETERS,
Applicant,
v.
MOSES “ANDRE” STANCIL, in his official capacity Executive Director of the Colorado
Department of Corrections, and
PHILIP J. WEISER, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Colorado,
Respondents.
RESPONDENTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING JURISDICTION
🧵

*View All Tina's Case Documents here:
tinapeters.us/court-filings/ Pursuant to this Court’s Order at the oral argument on July 22, 2025, ECF No. 58,
Respondents respectfully submit this supplemental briefing regarding jurisdictional issues and in
support, more fully state: