>>179952, >>179953, >>179954, >>179955, >>179956, >>179957, >>179958, >>179959, >>179960, >>179961, >>179962, >>179963, >>179964, >>179965, >>179966, >>179967, >>179968, >>179969, >>179970, >>179971, >>179972, >>179973, >>179974, >>179975, >>179976, >>179977, >>179978, >>179979, >>179980, >>179981, >>179982, >>179983, >>179984, >>179985, >>179986, >>179987, >>179988, >>179989, >>179990, >>179991, >>179992, >>179993, >>179994, >>179995, >>179996, >>179997, >>179998, >>179999, >>180000, >>180001, >>180002, >>180003, >>180004, >>180005, >>180006, >>180007, >>180008, >>180009, >>180010, >>180011, >>180012, >>180013, >>180014, >>180015, >>180016, >>180017, >>180018, >>180019, >>180020, >>180021, >>180022, >>180023, >>180024, >>180025, >>180026, >>180027, >>180028, >>180029, >>180030, >>180031, >>180032, >>180033, >>180034, >>180035, >>180036, >>180037, >>180038, >>180039, >>180040, >>180041, >>180042, >>180043, >>180044, >>180045, >>180046, >>180047, >>180048
Tina Peters Whistleblower of fallen Navy SEAL @realtinapeters - Video: 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.
https://x.com/realtinapeters/status/2039955915097727437

Tina Peters Whistleblower of fallen Navy SEAL @realtinapeters - 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?
https://x.com/realtinapeters/status/2039955917039648814

Tina Peters Whistleblower of fallen Navy SEAL @realtinapeters - The appeals court had the information, and it was brought up at the hearing.
In fact, the Colorado Court of Appeals "reversed Letecia Stauch’s convictions and granted a retrial after she was found guilty of murdering her 11-year-old stepson in 2020."
“We agree that the court committed structural error when it denied Stauch’s challenge for cause and a biased juror deliberated,” the appeals court said in its opinion.
Yes, the Colorado Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for a murder case because of a biased juror, and walked right by it in Tina's appeal.
Yet the ruling "affirmed" everything except for the blatant violations of Tina's free speech during Judge Barrett's sentencing.