December 8, 2025 • 34 mins
When compared with the disgrace of Governor Jared Polis commuting most of the sentence for Rogel Aguilera Mederos, whose out of control semi incinerated five people on a Colorado interstate, the sentence for Tina Peters tampering with a Dominion Voting System machine seems arbitrary and capricious at eight years.
They are often lumped together by the mainstream media, but Dan and Ryan make the case why Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) is an infinitely better politician than Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), after MTG was essentially excommunicated from political life by President Trump.
They are often lumped together by the mainstream media, but Dan and Ryan make the case why Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) is an infinitely better politician than Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), after MTG was essentially excommunicated from political life by President Trump.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download, and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform. Glad you're here,
and thank you to Sheriff Riems and Ryan for covering
last week while I was in trial, and in fact,
(00:20):
closings ended about six o'clock Friday night. Really hard working
Jerry down in Colorado Springs, al Passa County District Court
came back this morning to deliberate, and our seventy.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Nine year old client.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
What a warrior she is stood up to this big
insurance company and and justice was done. So so very
grateful to everyone involved in that, including the jury above
all they worked so very hard, and everybody in the
court system and my tremendous law partners and colleagues, and
just so satisfying to see this seventy nine year old
(00:55):
woman from a small southern Colorado town take on this
insurance giant. Just relentless courage so justice prevails. Hey, a
lot to talk about today. I want to shift to
this order that just came down about four point thirty
this afternoon from a highly respected federal court and magistrate,
Judge Scott Vhollock, and the order denies Tina Peters's latest
(01:20):
request to leave prison. But that's not the end of
the story. And that's what I want to make sure.
I want to make sure you get this information and
credit to the Denver Post for including this information and
the piece that I'm going to quote for you right now,
and again you know the quick qualifier. And I feel
it's very important to say this because I do not
(01:42):
support what Tina Peters did. I'm not saying her underlying
conduct was legal. I'm not criticizing the conviction or anything
like that. I'm just saying that under all of these circumstances,
with the woman that age, with no prior criminal record,
nine years in a state where the governor steps in
(02:02):
to cut the effective sentence. In the end of a
guy who trucker who kills multiple people in our highways,
burns to death five people, Polis steps into that case
to make sure the guy probably won't do more than
five years after causing this massive death and destruction on
our highways. The jury convict them of first degree vehicular homicide.
(02:28):
He's sentenced to one hundred years. The whole court process
plays out, and Pola steps into that case to cut
his to essentially make sure he'll be out in five
after Kim Kardashian whispers in Polus's ear. No, I'm just saying,
when you got a woman Tina Peter's age under those circumstances,
no prior criminal history, nine years is way too much.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
And so Tina Peters.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
I don't know all the ins and outs of that case,
but she argued in part in federal court the wait
a second that I'm paraphrasing that she got all this time,
she got a much harsher sentence because of her protected
First Amendments speech. So that's what I want you to hear.
According to the Post story, what the judge had to
(03:12):
say about that.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Claim, and I'll put.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
It in context from the Post story, Well, Judge Verhalli
considered the request in recent weeks. Her legal team had
argued separately that the former clerk should be released because
she was too ill, because her mother was in the hospital,
and because she was being held in solitary confinement. Judge
ver Hollick wrote that quote without question. Ms Peters raises
(03:36):
important constitutional questions. The piece goes on to say about
whether she was given a harsher sentence by a Mesa
County court because of her quote protected First Amendments speech,
and then the postwrights related to her unsubstantiated claims of
election interference in twenty twenty. So all I'm saying is,
according to this Post story, you've got a federal judge
(04:01):
who found that without question. Ms Peters raises important constitutional
questions about whether she ended up with a longer sentence
because of protected speech according to this Denver Post story,
So that information should be out there. Credit to the
Post for including that part in their piece. And yeah,
(04:25):
and as soon as I get my hands on the
full order, I'll break that down and we'll deep dive
that on air together. Three O three seven one three
eight two five five The number text DN five seven
seven three nine. Dan, what do you want to bet
that many seniors get the royal chef by insurance companies
(04:46):
because the insurance companies can figure out many ways to
stall the settlement process and hopes the senior will simply
die first.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
I don't know if that's true or not, but we
have a case.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
We have a case where I hope to be able
to get the legal discovery.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
To get to the bottom of that. I do know.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
I see case after case after case where senior citizens
are treated very very unfairly, in my constitutionally protected opinion,
and that's why I've had the privilege of arguing a
lot of cases for seniors, and that's why I always
tell jurors there's no senior discount here. You know that
the pain for a senior, the agony for a senior,
(05:27):
you know, the inability to use the bathroom on their own,
or this or that, every minute of that is as
valuable to a senior as it is to a sixteen
year old. But yeah, and every single time jurors have
seen that, they've seen that from the evidence, and they've
found that they're verticts. But yeah, No, my own personal
(05:48):
opinion is that very very often seniors don't get what
they should when they've been hurt because insurance companies try
to treat them as worthless. Three out three seven, three eight,
two five five the number. Hey, we'll go to the
phone lines shortly here and again thanks to Sheriff Steve
Reims and to the great Ryan Schuling for covering while
(06:08):
I've been in trial.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
We'll start in beautiful Peblo, Colorado.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
We're privileged to be carried on CASEYSJ Down there, David,
you're on the Dan Kaplis Show.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Welcome, Good after Dan.
Speaker 4 (06:19):
I'm hearing you talk about Sina's case, and I have
a question. Yeah, howome are you with the actual trial?
Speaker 5 (06:26):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (06:27):
No, is zero, my friend.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
I've got to tell you, I know virtually nothing about
the underlying accusations, the trial anything. I've just never dialed
into that particular case.
Speaker 4 (06:43):
So he, of course got two sides of the coin.
And unfortunately one of your guests last week, Dan rogen
not you, but the show let the fox into the
in house because he didn't know enough about election. Mostly
used Phil Wiser, So I was chess. But that's a
different discussion. But that's a gentleman named Joe Altman that
(07:05):
I believe attended the hearings and it's very much of
very awareness and shared a lot. And the judge in
that case, Tina did not get to present her defense.
Whether it's what you did with right or wrong, you know,
we can argue that, but it's an unfair sentence, as
you've been saying. But these are things that I want
(07:27):
to listen to her further.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Yeah, David, appreciate the call on that. I don't want
to mislead anybody, Okay. I don't have any expectation at
this point or intention to deep dive that case and
learn it in the kind of detail I've learned a
lot of other cases in order to analyze them on air.
And it's the reason for that right out of the gate, Listen,
(07:51):
I've enjoyed my conversation. Maybe there was more than one
with Tina Peters on air. She's a gold star mom
I heart breaks for. But my impression is that her
underlying conduct was in fact criminal and that she should
have been convicted. Now my question comes with the length
of sentence, And again I don't claim to know any
(08:11):
of the particulars of that case, but I look at
nine years for somebody that age, with no prior criminal
history and a state where you know, police steps in
to make sure that the will of the jury and
the judge and sentencing this killer trucker is thwarted. So
he gets out in about five and I say, this
just doesn't seem right to me. So that's just a
(08:34):
prelude to my passing along this this news story about
the federal judge magistrate's order issued late this afternoon to NINETEENA.
Peters federal relief. At this point from her sentence, in
which the judge wrote, in part, according to the Post,
quote without question, Ms Peters raises important constitutional questions about
(09:01):
and then the Post paraphrases this part about whether she
was given a harsher sentence by a Mesa County court
because of her quote protected First Amendments speech, and then
the Post goes on to report, but those questions are
still under consideration in the Colorado Court of Appeals, which
is Wayne Peter's attempt to challenge your convictions. Judge Varhollick
(09:23):
said he couldn't intervene until that appeal was settled. So,
as I understand this Post story, this is not this
federal judge saying that she hasn't raised legitimate issues about
whether she was given a harsher sentence because of constitutionally
protected speech. According to this Post story, it's the federal
magistrate judge saying, wait, he can't address this until after
(09:50):
the state level appeal is settled. So to me, that
indicates that there is a very serious issue there about
whether Tina Peters received a harsher sentence because of constitutionally
protected speech. That doesn't mean that the underlying conduct was
not criminal.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
This all has to do with the sentence.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
And for those who may want to call and say, hey, Dan,
the underlying conduct was not criminal. And here's why I
respect that. And I'm not claiming to be an expert
in the Tina Peter's case. I'm just telling you that
from what I have seen and heard and read, sounds
to me like the underlying conduct was criminal. But nine years, yeah,
(10:34):
that's the issue here. So very very Intrigued by these
comments by the court reported by the Denver Post, Dan
says a Texter Tina Peters is also a gold star mom.
When her home was rated, they destroyed her dead son's
personal military items sent to her. Whatever happened to Chriswold
when voting machine passwords were leaked. I'm sick of people
(10:57):
like Sendenberger is thinking a nine year sentence is just
free Tina now and again, any gold star parent, My
heartbreaks for them.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
I have the utmost respect for them.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Still have to be judged, obviously by the same legal
standard in terms of conduct, But when.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
It comes to the sentence.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Yeah, and you've got a federal judge now saying that
quote without question. Ms Peters raises important constitutional questions about
whether she was given a harsher sentence. This is the
post paraphrasing because of quote her protected First Amendment speech,
and you got a federal judge saying that there needs
(11:36):
to be a real hard look taken at that. Three
All three, he said, Oh, I got carried away. Thank
you Ryan for raining me in. You're on the Dan
Caplor Show.
Speaker 5 (11:46):
And now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Did you surrender? Did Donald Trump run you out of town?
Speaker 6 (11:53):
No?
Speaker 5 (11:54):
Not at all.
Speaker 7 (11:56):
Actually, Leslie, it's more like this is I said, and
my statement, I will be no one's battered wife and
I'm in it and I won't allow the system to
abuse me anymore.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Hey, have you been an MPTG fan in the past.
Speaker 8 (12:16):
There's something about her that I just couldn't quite get behind.
Speaker 5 (12:21):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
That's a very charitable way to put it, which as
great as we approach the Christmas season, see to me,
when people try to lump Marjorie Taylor Green together with
Lauren Bobert, I tell him they're crazy because you know.
I haven't met Marjorie Taylor Green in person, but I
see what everybody else says in the media. Lauren Bobert
(12:43):
is an extraordinarily smart person. She is a warrior, she
is a tactician. There's no question in my mind that
her principles are sound and well thought out. We don't
agree on every issue, but we agree on a whole lot.
(13:04):
I understand she's made some mistakes in her personal life.
Who hasn't. I understand that she can be flamboyant, so what.
But I see Lauren Bobert as all those things. I've
never seen that in Marjorie Taylor Green. And maybe I'm
missing something. I know you have to have to have
something going to get elected to Congress. The thing is that,
(13:26):
But I did thet them is two different cases.
Speaker 5 (13:30):
On that rate.
Speaker 8 (13:30):
There, I did the entire contrast and compare. Because I
had a conversation with Lauren about this very issue, the
Epstein files, which apparently drove the fissure between Marjorie Taylor
Green and Donald Trump.
Speaker 5 (13:44):
They both did the same thing.
Speaker 8 (13:46):
Both Green and Bobert signed on to this declaration that
one of the Epstein files released.
Speaker 5 (13:52):
Bobert was called into a skiff.
Speaker 8 (13:54):
Directly by the Trump administration, the President himself, Pam Bondi,
Cash Mattel, and others. They were peppering her. She stood
her ground, she was resolute, she was not disrespectful. She
came on my show talked about it, but she didn't
draw the ire of the president. The way that Marjorie
Taylor Green is why, is that they had the exact
same stance, but Green chose to handle in a very
different way. Whereas You're exactly right, Lauren had the wherewith
(14:19):
all the smarts to navigate that standard ground but be
respectful about it to the president and did not draw
the eyr of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
My own personal theory, and I have no way to
prove this, just my theory is that Marjorie Taylor Green,
for some other reason, had decided to leave Congress, and
whether she had wanted to run for president or whatever,
she had made it a big point to go public
and take on Trump on multiple fronts, and.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
God love her for it. Hey have at it if
you'd like.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
But then all this other goofiness that goes with it,
and this whole idea that she was going to take
on Trump and run for president and whatever is some
have speculated I've just never seen her having all of
those qualities that Lauren Bobert has that I just mentioned,
And I lump those two together for analysis purposes because
(15:09):
a lot of people have done that. And obviously they're
both outspoken, you know it, kind of fresh on the scene,
dynamic female congresspeople. But one I view as a little
nutty and Marjorie Taylor Green, and the other I view
as not a little nutty at all, just just somebody
(15:31):
who's just very plain spoken and confident and fearless, and
every now and then is going to have a missed
up and then people are going to like they tried
to bury Palin, you know, claiming she was a this
and that and everything else because they were afraid of paling.
Speaker 8 (15:46):
What strikes me about Lauren, too, Dan is her relationship
with the president is so rock solid.
Speaker 5 (15:51):
It's so steady.
Speaker 8 (15:52):
She can disagree with them, She can even be disagreeable
with him in private. They are out, whatever their difference.
He calls her at odd hours of the night and morning.
She talked about that as well, and yet he respects
her in a way that it just doesn't seem like
he respects Marjorie Taylor Green. And it's not that Lauren
doesn't break with the president on something like the Epstein files,
(16:15):
but it's how she handles it. There's this level of
wisdom I think that Bolbert possesses that I just don't
see in Green.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Well, speaking of which, why did the Dems decide to
go dark on the Epstein files? Remember once, once all
of a sudden, Trump started going after like Larry Summers
went down over this and this and that. Then all
of a sudden, the Dems wanted to change the channel
in a heartbeat. And that's when they went to Benedict
Crowe and his gang, you know, trying to encourage the
(16:42):
military to defy orders, even though they couldn't point to
a single I legal order that had been issued. So
that just changed the channel completely on Epstein. Why do
you think the Dems wanted to stop the Epstein talk?
Three at three seven one three eight two five five
the number text d An five seven seven three nine Dan,
(17:04):
I told you three years ago on live radio, I
believe Bobert should be red shirted, and that was not disrespect.
I don't understand the term red shirt means redshirt. Fresh
He got an extra year or something like that. Speaking
of which, another great victory for the Broncos. This Packers
game Sunday, that's going to be a real game.
Speaker 5 (17:23):
Go Broncos. So many brons. Is a Lions fan. I
need that.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
That's going to be fun to see.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
Text here on Shador Sanders throwing down in Cleveland. Yeah,
you know, we're big fans of Shador in our house,
and so yesterday we're all just sitting there watching off
YouTube of the Browns game, and he just had a
heck of a game.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Heck of a game for the Browns. What do you have?
Speaker 1 (17:47):
I think he threw for three, ran for one, and
then he had a two point conversion to tie the game.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
He leads the Browns two touchdowns.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Late in the game, the coach takes him out of
the game and throws in some running back to run
some goofy play for the two point conversion that of
course fails, but great to see. Should do or have
that success yesterday? Three or three someone three eight two five?
When I come back. What a federal judge today said
about Tina Peters case. You're on the Dan Kapla show.
Speaker 5 (18:16):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis show podcast.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Glad you're here. I want to go celebrate. I have
nobody to celebrate with what happened. Every time we've been
blessed with one of these big wins over the years,
I celebrate with the wife and kids. Sure they're all gone,
but they go, oh, we've got It's the saddest thing.
Run I'm not free to identify very very close family
(18:39):
member who is just facing very very very serious illness
right now. So they're gone to spend that time. I
was in trial today, so I wasn't able to get
on the plane with them. But I will join them soon.
But prayers please for our family member. It's not my
wife or one of our kids, but very close family
(19:01):
member got it. It's been diagnosed with a very very
very serious condition.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
So but it's just me. It's just me.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
How do you celebrate alone? I've never celebrated alone before.
But do you have like a favorite show? You just
get out a bottle of wine. I'm not a drinker,
so yeah, but anyway, watch a show that brings a
smile to your face. There, Maybe binge it then little bit, yes,
three fingers of Glenn Livett with a dash of pepper.
Speaker 5 (19:25):
Maybe Huh.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
I'll think about that three or three three eight two
five five text d A N five seven seven three nine.
But I definitely want to celebrate because I just I'm
just giddy thinking about this amazing client of ours. Uh,
this seventy nine year old woman takes on this major
insurance company. We go to one trial and it ends
(19:50):
early because some jurors get sick and we.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
Don't have enough. We have five. And every other case I've.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
Tried over forty two years, when you get down to
five jurors because something happens with some jurors, both sides
have agreed to just finish the trial with five. But
here this big old insurance company, her insurance company said no,
we're not finishing with five. Seventy nine year old inshured
of ours, you're gonna have to come back and do
this trial again. And she is so cool, what a woman.
(20:20):
She just says, Okay, let's go, and she comes back.
We do this whole long trial, got this jury verdict
today from this so thorough, hard working jury, and justice was.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
Done and it's a beautiful thing.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
And I'm just I just love the idea of this
seventy nine year old with this badly broken neck, standing
up to her own insurance company and fighting them through
two trials. It's just to me one of the coolest
things I've seen in my career. Hey, yeah, here's what
a federal court judge, highly respected Federal Court magistrate Judge
Scott Varhollack said today.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
Now the headlines you'll see will be.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
Federal court denies Tina peters latest request to leave prison,
which is true. But to the Post story, the credit
pardon me. They included something very important in their story
that doesn't appear in a lot of other stories I've seen.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
I just want to make sure you're aware of it.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
And the Post writes var Hallick wrote that quote without question,
Ms Peters raises important constitutional questions about whether she was
given a harsher sentence by a Mesa County court because
of quote her protected First Amendment speech.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
So that's a big deal.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
When you get a federal judge saying, without question Peters
raises important constitutional questions. And then the Post paraphrases about
whether she was given a harsher sentence because of her
protected First Amendment speech.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
And I have to think that.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
Don't you think, Ryan, Almost any reasonable person just looking
at that sentence nine years a woman her age, no
prior record, gold star.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
Mom is going to have to think, whoa in.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
A state where Jared Polis is out there intervening, overriding
a jury's decision and a judge's sentencing decision to make
sure that a mass killer on her highways, that trucker
who burned to death five people on her highways is
able to get out after about five years, and she's
supposed to do nine unreal. That's the part Like, I
don't question the underlying conviction. I'm no expert on the case,
(22:26):
but from what I'm seeing, it looks like she committed
a crime and was rightly convicted.
Speaker 5 (22:30):
But what should the sentence, That's what I mean. What
should the sentence do?
Speaker 8 (22:34):
It should serve as a deterrent from somebody else doing
that crime in the future.
Speaker 5 (22:39):
I don't know that you need to do eight.
Speaker 8 (22:41):
Years plus for a teen of Peters in order to
prove that point. It should also be proportional to your point, Nan,
about does the punishment fit the crime?
Speaker 5 (22:49):
What was the crime?
Speaker 8 (22:50):
And then what would be a proper adjudication for Peters
to serve at her age that would again send that
message to the rest of the state that you know,
we're not going to tolerate this to be punished. But eight
years to me is excessive. Well yeah, and listen the
first part.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
Yeah, I understand if I'm right, and she did commit
the underlying crime and was properly convicted, and that's my belief.
If I'm right about that, then at that point, hey,
that's serious stuff, any kind of crime related to our
election system, and there does have to be a serious
penalty that sends a message. I get that part. But
(23:27):
then when you bring all these other factors in her age,
no prior criminal history, gold star mom, and you know,
for example, what Polis did with that mass murdering trucker, Yeah,
it just seems like too much to me.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
But here's the point.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
Because I don't know that case, I even studied that case,
I haven't followed that case. I'm no expert on it.
But here's the point when the federal judge, who has
been deeply involved in it, says, without question Ms Peters
raises important constitutional questions, and then the post paraphrases about
whether she was given a harsher sentence by a Mesa
County court because of quoter protected First Amendment speech.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
That's a big deal.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
That's a big deal and raises a very serious question,
as the judge says, quote without question, whether she got
a harsher sentence because of things she had a constitutional
right to say. And then the post piece goes on
to say, but those questions are still under consideration in
the Colorado Court of Appeals, which is Wayne Peter's attempt
to challenge her convictions. Judge Varholak said he could not
(24:34):
intervene until after that appeal was settled. So oh, Mark
and urra, Okay, let's go to Mark. You're on the
dan Kapla show. How you doing, my friend?
Speaker 3 (24:45):
I'm doing great. I just don't understand what Tina Piers
did so wrong. I mean, it's her authority that the elections,
you know, the county clerk and recorder, it's her authority
that elections be carried out in the county. There's nothing
she shouldn't have been able look at or or you know,
she took a copy of something, so what it didn't
(25:06):
change any votes. It should be it should be completely
transparent and wide open.
Speaker 5 (25:11):
And this far yeah, please go ahead.
Speaker 3 (25:13):
And so it seems to be way too much as well,
I mean, I had somebody to steal my pickup, I'd
rather see them do nine years in jail and Tina
Peters get three tries at robbing carrs before in ninety
days before she gets to maybe go to jail.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Yeah, and listen, you raised fair questions.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
As I said at the beginning of the conversation, I
am not an expert in that case. What I can
tell you is, at the time it was happening and
I was following it, I came away with the impression
that she did commit a crime and was properly convicted.
But what I'm focused on is the nine years, particularly
when you have a federal judge, you know, saying that
(25:49):
without question. Ms Peters raises important constitutional questions about whether
she got a hearsh I'm paraphrasing a harsher sentence because
of her First Amendment speech. And then, according to the Post,
the reason that the federal court's saying, the reason it
can't go further right now is it just needs Colorado
(26:10):
to address those issues on appeal.
Speaker 5 (26:12):
So you raise fair.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Questions, my friend, about the underlying conviction. I'm just not
qualified to answer because I don't know the case in
that kind of depth as.
Speaker 6 (26:20):
Far as the sense, I mean, is it kind of
like you see on TV they give you a harsher
sentence if you're convicted and adversarial trial as opposed if
you say no, I'm guilty, Okay, No.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
I think that is very common.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
I mean I never understood that either, but yeah, you know, yeah, I.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
Mean, well, I think that's and that's a good question.
I mean, I think that the reason we see a
lot of that. Yeah, and depending on the crime, there
are certain crimes, right and prosecutors who rightfully say, I
don't care what you're willing to plead too, you're not
getting any break on this, but you have all sorts
of other stuff where they say, okay, if you please,
then you get this kind of break or that kind
(27:01):
of break. And I think that's a matter of eight
prosecutorial resources, be the fact that if you're a prosecutor,
no case is an absolute sure thing.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
Until you actually get the conviction.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
So I think that's why that's a common part of
the processes might take on it.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
This Tina Peter.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
Tina Peter's thing, the sentencing, I would have to guess
most people looking at it, like me, who are not
experts in the case would look at it and say
that just.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
Feels too heavy. And that's why I think this.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
The statement by the Federal court today, if there's no
quest without question, Ms Peters raises importantutional questions about whether
she got a harsher sentence because of protected First Amendment speech.
That's a big deal that needs some follow up, which
I will do and we'll talk about that more tomorrow.
Much more to do this afternoon, including interesting development in
(27:55):
the US Senate race here in Colorado. I'm not ere
shaking or anything like that, but interesting in the will
it lead to something really big?
Speaker 2 (28:03):
You're on the Dan Caplas Show.
Speaker 5 (28:06):
And now back to the Dan Kaplass Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
How you have time to listen to everything?
Speaker 1 (28:13):
What? Like? You know every song out there? Who I mean,
it's a great song, but who is it? Where'd you
find it?
Speaker 5 (28:18):
Imagine dragons?
Speaker 8 (28:19):
And it's of course at the end of a movie
that I happened to like and it made me think
of capitalis Law and feeling on top.
Speaker 5 (28:25):
Of the world. After you have another victory, well, thank you.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
My friend, and this one is man so incredibly fulfilling,
and you know, credit to my law partner John Keller.
We've tried three cases together since he joined us this
year and been blessed with great success. And all three
Dylan Mkirk doing a tremendous job and Rachel Arnett are paralegal.
But the champion is our client. Seventy nine year old
woman takes on this big insurance company and goes to
(28:52):
trial a couple of times. After the first one, we
lost yourors due to illness, and she stands up and
fights him and she wins, and it was just it
was right and a very hard working, thoughtful jury.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
It's just yeah.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
To me, it's just one of the most satisfying things
on earth. Hey, this story that just popped up moments
ago in the Denver Post, could it be related to
what we were talking about before the break. We're talking
about what I consider to be a very significant statement
from a federal magistrate judge today about the Tina Peters case.
(29:25):
And the headline that you'll see, of course, will be
that the judge denied Peter's bid for federal relief to
get out of prison. But as I was quoting before
the break, according to the end of Denver Post, the
judge said, I'm.
Speaker 2 (29:38):
Paraphrasing without question.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
Peters has raised important questions about whether she got a
harsher sentence due to her First Amendment protected First Amendment speech.
I'm paraphrasing the post story and so you know that's
to me very significant. But here's the story that just
broke because we all know President Trump has been pushing
(30:02):
Colorado to release Tina Peters into federal custody, and at
that point it's expected that you know, she would be
released from prison.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
Do you think these two are related?
Speaker 5 (30:14):
Ryan?
Speaker 1 (30:14):
US Department of Justice launches investigation into Colorado prisons youth
detention centers.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
This story breaking at five forty eight Mountain time, so
about six and a half minutes ago.
Speaker 1 (30:26):
The US Department of Justice has launched an investigation and
the conditions inside Colorado's prisons and juvenile detention facilities. The
federal agency announced Monday. The pro bowl examined policies and
practices within the Colorado Department of Corrections and Division of
Youth Services to ensure that doc inmates and use in
(30:46):
the custody of dys are being afforded the rights under
the US Constitution and federal law.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
And it goes on from there. Quoting the AG's office.
Speaker 1 (30:59):
We are committed to upholding our federal civil rights so
that no one is subject to unconstititutional mistreatment when held
in state custody.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
I think that's related, Ryan, It's.
Speaker 5 (31:12):
An interesting coincidence.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
If it's not, Yeah, and listen, I A yeah, yeah,
you know, I wouldn't be surprised if it is. I mean,
you know, you look at Polis, who goes out. You
have a Colorado jury convict this mess killing trucker multiple
(31:40):
counts of vehicular homicide for this horrific taking of innocent
life up on Ice seventy, and then Noel actually that
the five were burned to death down here, that the
trucker drove recklessly knowing his breaks were we're hot, you know,
on Ice seventy through the foothills, and then he burned
to death those five people down here on I seventy
(32:02):
who went instead of dropping his truck off the right
side of the road, he decided to just drive into
the back of him. So you get a jury that
sits through a jury trial, they convict him on all counts.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
The judge does the court's work, sentences.
Speaker 1 (32:17):
Him to one hundred years, and then Kim Kardashian whispers
in the ear of Jared Polis, and all of a
sudden police steps in essentially overrides the work of the
jury and the judge, And now does this killer's on
track to get out after about five years? Yeah, I
think under those kind of circumstances, I would not be
(32:40):
surprised if President Trump now is going to wield an
awful lot of federal power to make clear how unhappy
he is with Jared Polis and Colorado in the nine
years for Tina Peters. And again, my starting point is
I'm no expert on the case, but my impression at
the time, because I did look at it at the time,
It's been a lot going on in the meantime. My
(33:02):
impression at the time was she was probably guiltiest charged
and properly convicted, but nine years for a woman that
age of no prior criminal record, gold star mom. And
now he got a federal judge, magistrate judge saying without
question there are fair questions about whether her sentence was harsher.
I'm paraphrasing because of her constitutionally protected speech. Yeah, I
(33:24):
wouldn't be at all surprised, Ryan if we see President
Trump punishing Colorado for not releasing her into federal custody.
Do you think if that's what's going on or is
about to happen, do you think that's right or wrong?
Speaker 8 (33:38):
Well, it would be Trumpian, So whether it's right or wrong,
it would fit the kind of mo that Donald Trump
sometimes goes by. But if he's going to get resistance
like apparently he feels he's getting, then you're going to
get the screws put to you.
Speaker 5 (33:51):
I mean, we saw it happen with Space Force, right.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
Oh yeah, I was just going to go there A good,
good point. Yeah, I mean Space Force should be in Colorado.
You're trying to keep Space Force. You're the governor of
the state. You're some other elected important Democrats, senators, whatever.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
Why do you pick fights with Trump that you don't need?
Speaker 1 (34:10):
I mean, hey, when you think he's wrong on something,
you have a right to say so, and it's your
obligation to say so. But picking all these unnecessary fights
with him, just to me shows so many of these
lefties really don't care about the state.
Speaker 5 (34:24):
You know, it's a Ryan.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
Great jobs always, Thank you, my friend. Hopefully I will
sound better tomorrow. We passed whatever bug has its claws
into me. But thanks your time today. Please join us
tomorrow on the Dan Kapitla Show.
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download, and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform. Glad you're here,
and thank you to Sheriff Riems and Ryan for covering
last week while I was in trial, and in fact,
(00:20):
closings ended about six o'clock Friday night. Really hard working
Jerry down in Colorado Springs, al Passa County District Court
came back this morning to deliberate, and our seventy.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Nine year old client.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
What a warrior she is stood up to this big
insurance company and and justice was done. So so very
grateful to everyone involved in that, including the jury above
all they worked so very hard, and everybody in the
court system and my tremendous law partners and colleagues, and
just so satisfying to see this seventy nine year old
(00:55):
woman from a small southern Colorado town take on this
insurance giant. Just relentless courage so justice prevails. Hey, a
lot to talk about today. I want to shift to
this order that just came down about four point thirty
this afternoon from a highly respected federal court and magistrate,
Judge Scott Vhollock, and the order denies Tina Peters's latest
(01:20):
request to leave prison. But that's not the end of
the story. And that's what I want to make sure.
I want to make sure you get this information and
credit to the Denver Post for including this information and
the piece that I'm going to quote for you right now,
and again you know the quick qualifier. And I feel
it's very important to say this because I do not
(01:42):
support what Tina Peters did. I'm not saying her underlying
conduct was legal. I'm not criticizing the conviction or anything
like that. I'm just saying that under all of these circumstances,
with the woman that age, with no prior criminal record,
nine years in a state where the governor steps in
(02:02):
to cut the effective sentence. In the end of a
guy who trucker who kills multiple people in our highways,
burns to death five people, Polis steps into that case
to make sure the guy probably won't do more than
five years after causing this massive death and destruction on
our highways. The jury convict them of first degree vehicular homicide.
(02:28):
He's sentenced to one hundred years. The whole court process
plays out, and Pola steps into that case to cut
his to essentially make sure he'll be out in five
after Kim Kardashian whispers in Polus's ear. No, I'm just saying,
when you got a woman Tina Peter's age under those circumstances,
no prior criminal history, nine years is way too much.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
And so Tina Peters.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
I don't know all the ins and outs of that case,
but she argued in part in federal court the wait
a second that I'm paraphrasing that she got all this time,
she got a much harsher sentence because of her protected
First Amendments speech. So that's what I want you to hear.
According to the Post story, what the judge had to
(03:12):
say about that.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Claim, and I'll put.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
It in context from the Post story, Well, Judge Verhalli
considered the request in recent weeks. Her legal team had
argued separately that the former clerk should be released because
she was too ill, because her mother was in the hospital,
and because she was being held in solitary confinement. Judge
ver Hollick wrote that quote without question. Ms Peters raises
(03:36):
important constitutional questions. The piece goes on to say about
whether she was given a harsher sentence by a Mesa
County court because of her quote protected First Amendments speech,
and then the postwrights related to her unsubstantiated claims of
election interference in twenty twenty. So all I'm saying is,
according to this Post story, you've got a federal judge
(04:01):
who found that without question. Ms Peters raises important constitutional
questions about whether she ended up with a longer sentence
because of protected speech according to this Denver Post story,
So that information should be out there. Credit to the
Post for including that part in their piece. And yeah,
(04:25):
and as soon as I get my hands on the
full order, I'll break that down and we'll deep dive
that on air together. Three O three seven one three
eight two five five The number text DN five seven
seven three nine. Dan, what do you want to bet
that many seniors get the royal chef by insurance companies
(04:46):
because the insurance companies can figure out many ways to
stall the settlement process and hopes the senior will simply
die first.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
I don't know if that's true or not, but we
have a case.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
We have a case where I hope to be able
to get the legal discovery.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
To get to the bottom of that. I do know.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
I see case after case after case where senior citizens
are treated very very unfairly, in my constitutionally protected opinion,
and that's why I've had the privilege of arguing a
lot of cases for seniors, and that's why I always
tell jurors there's no senior discount here. You know that
the pain for a senior, the agony for a senior,
(05:27):
you know, the inability to use the bathroom on their own,
or this or that, every minute of that is as
valuable to a senior as it is to a sixteen
year old. But yeah, and every single time jurors have
seen that, they've seen that from the evidence, and they've
found that they're verticts. But yeah, No, my own personal
(05:48):
opinion is that very very often seniors don't get what
they should when they've been hurt because insurance companies try
to treat them as worthless. Three out three seven, three eight,
two five five the number. Hey, we'll go to the
phone lines shortly here and again thanks to Sheriff Steve
Reims and to the great Ryan Schuling for covering while
(06:08):
I've been in trial.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
We'll start in beautiful Peblo, Colorado.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
We're privileged to be carried on CASEYSJ Down there, David,
you're on the Dan Kaplis Show.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Welcome, Good after Dan.
Speaker 4 (06:19):
I'm hearing you talk about Sina's case, and I have
a question. Yeah, howome are you with the actual trial?
Speaker 5 (06:26):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (06:27):
No, is zero, my friend.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
I've got to tell you, I know virtually nothing about
the underlying accusations, the trial anything. I've just never dialed
into that particular case.
Speaker 4 (06:43):
So he, of course got two sides of the coin.
And unfortunately one of your guests last week, Dan rogen
not you, but the show let the fox into the
in house because he didn't know enough about election. Mostly
used Phil Wiser, So I was chess. But that's a
different discussion. But that's a gentleman named Joe Altman that
(07:05):
I believe attended the hearings and it's very much of
very awareness and shared a lot. And the judge in
that case, Tina did not get to present her defense.
Whether it's what you did with right or wrong, you know,
we can argue that, but it's an unfair sentence, as
you've been saying. But these are things that I want
(07:27):
to listen to her further.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Yeah, David, appreciate the call on that. I don't want
to mislead anybody, Okay. I don't have any expectation at
this point or intention to deep dive that case and
learn it in the kind of detail I've learned a
lot of other cases in order to analyze them on air.
And it's the reason for that right out of the gate, Listen,
(07:51):
I've enjoyed my conversation. Maybe there was more than one
with Tina Peters on air. She's a gold star mom
I heart breaks for. But my impression is that her
underlying conduct was in fact criminal and that she should
have been convicted. Now my question comes with the length
of sentence, And again I don't claim to know any
(08:11):
of the particulars of that case, but I look at
nine years for somebody that age, with no prior criminal
history and a state where you know, police steps in
to make sure that the will of the jury and
the judge and sentencing this killer trucker is thwarted. So
he gets out in about five and I say, this
just doesn't seem right to me. So that's just a
(08:34):
prelude to my passing along this this news story about
the federal judge magistrate's order issued late this afternoon to NINETEENA.
Peters federal relief. At this point from her sentence, in
which the judge wrote, in part, according to the Post,
quote without question, Ms Peters raises important constitutional questions about
(09:01):
and then the Post paraphrases this part about whether she
was given a harsher sentence by a Mesa County court
because of her quote protected First Amendments speech, and then
the Post goes on to report, but those questions are
still under consideration in the Colorado Court of Appeals, which
is Wayne Peter's attempt to challenge your convictions. Judge Varhollick
(09:23):
said he couldn't intervene until that appeal was settled. So,
as I understand this Post story, this is not this
federal judge saying that she hasn't raised legitimate issues about
whether she was given a harsher sentence because of constitutionally
protected speech. According to this Post story, it's the federal
magistrate judge saying, wait, he can't address this until after
(09:50):
the state level appeal is settled. So to me, that
indicates that there is a very serious issue there about
whether Tina Peters received a harsher sentence because of constitutionally
protected speech. That doesn't mean that the underlying conduct was
not criminal.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
This all has to do with the sentence.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
And for those who may want to call and say, hey, Dan,
the underlying conduct was not criminal. And here's why I
respect that. And I'm not claiming to be an expert
in the Tina Peter's case. I'm just telling you that
from what I have seen and heard and read, sounds
to me like the underlying conduct was criminal. But nine years, yeah,
(10:34):
that's the issue here. So very very Intrigued by these
comments by the court reported by the Denver Post, Dan
says a Texter Tina Peters is also a gold star mom.
When her home was rated, they destroyed her dead son's
personal military items sent to her. Whatever happened to Chriswold
when voting machine passwords were leaked. I'm sick of people
(10:57):
like Sendenberger is thinking a nine year sentence is just
free Tina now and again, any gold star parent, My
heartbreaks for them.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
I have the utmost respect for them.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Still have to be judged, obviously by the same legal
standard in terms of conduct, But when.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
It comes to the sentence.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Yeah, and you've got a federal judge now saying that
quote without question. Ms Peters raises important constitutional questions about
whether she was given a harsher sentence. This is the
post paraphrasing because of quote her protected First Amendment speech,
and you got a federal judge saying that there needs
(11:36):
to be a real hard look taken at that. Three
All three, he said, Oh, I got carried away. Thank
you Ryan for raining me in. You're on the Dan
Caplor Show.
Speaker 5 (11:46):
And now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Did you surrender? Did Donald Trump run you out of town?
Speaker 6 (11:53):
No?
Speaker 5 (11:54):
Not at all.
Speaker 7 (11:56):
Actually, Leslie, it's more like this is I said, and
my statement, I will be no one's battered wife and
I'm in it and I won't allow the system to
abuse me anymore.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Hey, have you been an MPTG fan in the past.
Speaker 8 (12:16):
There's something about her that I just couldn't quite get behind.
Speaker 5 (12:21):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
That's a very charitable way to put it, which as
great as we approach the Christmas season, see to me,
when people try to lump Marjorie Taylor Green together with
Lauren Bobert, I tell him they're crazy because you know.
I haven't met Marjorie Taylor Green in person, but I
see what everybody else says in the media. Lauren Bobert
(12:43):
is an extraordinarily smart person. She is a warrior, she
is a tactician. There's no question in my mind that
her principles are sound and well thought out. We don't
agree on every issue, but we agree on a whole lot.
(13:04):
I understand she's made some mistakes in her personal life.
Who hasn't. I understand that she can be flamboyant, so what.
But I see Lauren Bobert as all those things. I've
never seen that in Marjorie Taylor Green. And maybe I'm
missing something. I know you have to have to have
something going to get elected to Congress. The thing is that,
(13:26):
But I did thet them is two different cases.
Speaker 5 (13:30):
On that rate.
Speaker 8 (13:30):
There, I did the entire contrast and compare. Because I
had a conversation with Lauren about this very issue, the
Epstein files, which apparently drove the fissure between Marjorie Taylor
Green and Donald Trump.
Speaker 5 (13:44):
They both did the same thing.
Speaker 8 (13:46):
Both Green and Bobert signed on to this declaration that
one of the Epstein files released.
Speaker 5 (13:52):
Bobert was called into a skiff.
Speaker 8 (13:54):
Directly by the Trump administration, the President himself, Pam Bondi,
Cash Mattel, and others. They were peppering her. She stood
her ground, she was resolute, she was not disrespectful. She
came on my show talked about it, but she didn't
draw the ire of the president. The way that Marjorie
Taylor Green is why, is that they had the exact
same stance, but Green chose to handle in a very
different way. Whereas You're exactly right, Lauren had the wherewith
(14:19):
all the smarts to navigate that standard ground but be
respectful about it to the president and did not draw
the eyr of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
My own personal theory, and I have no way to
prove this, just my theory is that Marjorie Taylor Green,
for some other reason, had decided to leave Congress, and
whether she had wanted to run for president or whatever,
she had made it a big point to go public
and take on Trump on multiple fronts, and.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
God love her for it. Hey have at it if
you'd like.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
But then all this other goofiness that goes with it,
and this whole idea that she was going to take
on Trump and run for president and whatever is some
have speculated I've just never seen her having all of
those qualities that Lauren Bobert has that I just mentioned,
And I lump those two together for analysis purposes because
(15:09):
a lot of people have done that. And obviously they're
both outspoken, you know it, kind of fresh on the scene,
dynamic female congresspeople. But one I view as a little
nutty and Marjorie Taylor Green, and the other I view
as not a little nutty at all, just just somebody
(15:31):
who's just very plain spoken and confident and fearless, and
every now and then is going to have a missed
up and then people are going to like they tried
to bury Palin, you know, claiming she was a this
and that and everything else because they were afraid of paling.
Speaker 8 (15:46):
What strikes me about Lauren, too, Dan is her relationship
with the president is so rock solid.
Speaker 5 (15:51):
It's so steady.
Speaker 8 (15:52):
She can disagree with them, She can even be disagreeable
with him in private. They are out, whatever their difference.
He calls her at odd hours of the night and morning.
She talked about that as well, and yet he respects
her in a way that it just doesn't seem like
he respects Marjorie Taylor Green. And it's not that Lauren
doesn't break with the president on something like the Epstein files,
(16:15):
but it's how she handles it. There's this level of
wisdom I think that Bolbert possesses that I just don't
see in Green.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Well, speaking of which, why did the Dems decide to
go dark on the Epstein files? Remember once, once all
of a sudden, Trump started going after like Larry Summers
went down over this and this and that. Then all
of a sudden, the Dems wanted to change the channel
in a heartbeat. And that's when they went to Benedict
Crowe and his gang, you know, trying to encourage the
(16:42):
military to defy orders, even though they couldn't point to
a single I legal order that had been issued. So
that just changed the channel completely on Epstein. Why do
you think the Dems wanted to stop the Epstein talk?
Three at three seven one three eight two five five
the number text d An five seven seven three nine Dan,
(17:04):
I told you three years ago on live radio, I
believe Bobert should be red shirted, and that was not disrespect.
I don't understand the term red shirt means redshirt. Fresh
He got an extra year or something like that. Speaking
of which, another great victory for the Broncos. This Packers
game Sunday, that's going to be a real game.
Speaker 5 (17:23):
Go Broncos. So many brons. Is a Lions fan. I
need that.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
That's going to be fun to see.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
Text here on Shador Sanders throwing down in Cleveland. Yeah,
you know, we're big fans of Shador in our house,
and so yesterday we're all just sitting there watching off
YouTube of the Browns game, and he just had a
heck of a game.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Heck of a game for the Browns. What do you have?
Speaker 1 (17:47):
I think he threw for three, ran for one, and
then he had a two point conversion to tie the game.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
He leads the Browns two touchdowns.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Late in the game, the coach takes him out of
the game and throws in some running back to run
some goofy play for the two point conversion that of
course fails, but great to see. Should do or have
that success yesterday? Three or three someone three eight two five?
When I come back. What a federal judge today said
about Tina Peters case. You're on the Dan Kapla show.
Speaker 5 (18:16):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis show podcast.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Glad you're here. I want to go celebrate. I have
nobody to celebrate with what happened. Every time we've been
blessed with one of these big wins over the years,
I celebrate with the wife and kids. Sure they're all gone,
but they go, oh, we've got It's the saddest thing.
Run I'm not free to identify very very close family
(18:39):
member who is just facing very very very serious illness
right now. So they're gone to spend that time. I
was in trial today, so I wasn't able to get
on the plane with them. But I will join them soon.
But prayers please for our family member. It's not my
wife or one of our kids, but very close family
(19:01):
member got it. It's been diagnosed with a very very
very serious condition.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
So but it's just me. It's just me.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
How do you celebrate alone? I've never celebrated alone before.
But do you have like a favorite show? You just
get out a bottle of wine. I'm not a drinker,
so yeah, but anyway, watch a show that brings a
smile to your face. There, Maybe binge it then little bit, yes,
three fingers of Glenn Livett with a dash of pepper.
Speaker 5 (19:25):
Maybe Huh.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
I'll think about that three or three three eight two
five five text d A N five seven seven three nine.
But I definitely want to celebrate because I just I'm
just giddy thinking about this amazing client of ours. Uh,
this seventy nine year old woman takes on this major
insurance company. We go to one trial and it ends
(19:50):
early because some jurors get sick and we.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
Don't have enough. We have five. And every other case I've.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
Tried over forty two years, when you get down to
five jurors because something happens with some jurors, both sides
have agreed to just finish the trial with five. But
here this big old insurance company, her insurance company said no,
we're not finishing with five. Seventy nine year old inshured
of ours, you're gonna have to come back and do
this trial again. And she is so cool, what a woman.
(20:20):
She just says, Okay, let's go, and she comes back.
We do this whole long trial, got this jury verdict
today from this so thorough, hard working jury, and justice was.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
Done and it's a beautiful thing.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
And I'm just I just love the idea of this
seventy nine year old with this badly broken neck, standing
up to her own insurance company and fighting them through
two trials. It's just to me one of the coolest
things I've seen in my career. Hey, yeah, here's what
a federal court judge, highly respected Federal Court magistrate Judge
Scott Varhollack said today.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
Now the headlines you'll see will be.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
Federal court denies Tina peters latest request to leave prison,
which is true. But to the Post story, the credit
pardon me. They included something very important in their story
that doesn't appear in a lot of other stories I've seen.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
I just want to make sure you're aware of it.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
And the Post writes var Hallick wrote that quote without question,
Ms Peters raises important constitutional questions about whether she was
given a harsher sentence by a Mesa County court because
of quote her protected First Amendment speech.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
So that's a big deal.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
When you get a federal judge saying, without question Peters
raises important constitutional questions. And then the Post paraphrases about
whether she was given a harsher sentence because of her
protected First Amendment speech.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
And I have to think that.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
Don't you think, Ryan, Almost any reasonable person just looking
at that sentence nine years a woman her age, no
prior record, gold star.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
Mom is going to have to think, whoa in.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
A state where Jared Polis is out there intervening, overriding
a jury's decision and a judge's sentencing decision to make
sure that a mass killer on her highways, that trucker
who burned to death five people on her highways is
able to get out after about five years, and she's
supposed to do nine unreal. That's the part Like, I
don't question the underlying conviction. I'm no expert on the case,
(22:26):
but from what I'm seeing, it looks like she committed
a crime and was rightly convicted.
Speaker 5 (22:30):
But what should the sentence, That's what I mean. What
should the sentence do?
Speaker 8 (22:34):
It should serve as a deterrent from somebody else doing
that crime in the future.
Speaker 5 (22:39):
I don't know that you need to do eight.
Speaker 8 (22:41):
Years plus for a teen of Peters in order to
prove that point. It should also be proportional to your point, Nan,
about does the punishment fit the crime?
Speaker 5 (22:49):
What was the crime?
Speaker 8 (22:50):
And then what would be a proper adjudication for Peters
to serve at her age that would again send that
message to the rest of the state that you know,
we're not going to tolerate this to be punished. But eight
years to me is excessive. Well yeah, and listen the
first part.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
Yeah, I understand if I'm right, and she did commit
the underlying crime and was properly convicted, and that's my belief.
If I'm right about that, then at that point, hey,
that's serious stuff, any kind of crime related to our
election system, and there does have to be a serious
penalty that sends a message. I get that part. But
(23:27):
then when you bring all these other factors in her age,
no prior criminal history, gold star mom, and you know,
for example, what Polis did with that mass murdering trucker, Yeah,
it just seems like too much to me.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
But here's the point.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
Because I don't know that case, I even studied that case,
I haven't followed that case. I'm no expert on it.
But here's the point when the federal judge, who has
been deeply involved in it, says, without question Ms Peters
raises important constitutional questions, and then the post paraphrases about
whether she was given a harsher sentence by a Mesa
County court because of quoter protected First Amendment speech.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
That's a big deal.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
That's a big deal and raises a very serious question,
as the judge says, quote without question, whether she got
a harsher sentence because of things she had a constitutional
right to say. And then the post piece goes on
to say, but those questions are still under consideration in
the Colorado Court of Appeals, which is Wayne Peter's attempt
to challenge her convictions. Judge Varholak said he could not
(24:34):
intervene until after that appeal was settled. So oh, Mark
and urra, Okay, let's go to Mark. You're on the
dan Kapla show. How you doing, my friend?
Speaker 3 (24:45):
I'm doing great. I just don't understand what Tina Piers
did so wrong. I mean, it's her authority that the elections,
you know, the county clerk and recorder, it's her authority
that elections be carried out in the county. There's nothing
she shouldn't have been able look at or or you know,
she took a copy of something, so what it didn't
(25:06):
change any votes. It should be it should be completely
transparent and wide open.
Speaker 5 (25:11):
And this far yeah, please go ahead.
Speaker 3 (25:13):
And so it seems to be way too much as well,
I mean, I had somebody to steal my pickup, I'd
rather see them do nine years in jail and Tina
Peters get three tries at robbing carrs before in ninety
days before she gets to maybe go to jail.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Yeah, and listen, you raised fair questions.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
As I said at the beginning of the conversation, I
am not an expert in that case. What I can
tell you is, at the time it was happening and
I was following it, I came away with the impression
that she did commit a crime and was properly convicted.
But what I'm focused on is the nine years, particularly
when you have a federal judge, you know, saying that
(25:49):
without question. Ms Peters raises important constitutional questions about whether
she got a hearsh I'm paraphrasing a harsher sentence because
of her First Amendment speech. And then, according to the Post,
the reason that the federal court's saying, the reason it
can't go further right now is it just needs Colorado
(26:10):
to address those issues on appeal.
Speaker 5 (26:12):
So you raise fair.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Questions, my friend, about the underlying conviction. I'm just not
qualified to answer because I don't know the case in
that kind of depth as.
Speaker 6 (26:20):
Far as the sense, I mean, is it kind of
like you see on TV they give you a harsher
sentence if you're convicted and adversarial trial as opposed if
you say no, I'm guilty, Okay, No.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
I think that is very common.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
I mean I never understood that either, but yeah, you know, yeah, I.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
Mean, well, I think that's and that's a good question.
I mean, I think that the reason we see a
lot of that. Yeah, and depending on the crime, there
are certain crimes, right and prosecutors who rightfully say, I
don't care what you're willing to plead too, you're not
getting any break on this, but you have all sorts
of other stuff where they say, okay, if you please,
then you get this kind of break or that kind
(27:01):
of break. And I think that's a matter of eight
prosecutorial resources, be the fact that if you're a prosecutor,
no case is an absolute sure thing.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
Until you actually get the conviction.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
So I think that's why that's a common part of
the processes might take on it.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
This Tina Peter.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
Tina Peter's thing, the sentencing, I would have to guess
most people looking at it, like me, who are not
experts in the case would look at it and say
that just.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
Feels too heavy. And that's why I think this.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
The statement by the Federal court today, if there's no
quest without question, Ms Peters raises importantutional questions about whether
she got a harsher sentence because of protected First Amendment speech.
That's a big deal that needs some follow up, which
I will do and we'll talk about that more tomorrow.
Much more to do this afternoon, including interesting development in
(27:55):
the US Senate race here in Colorado. I'm not ere
shaking or anything like that, but interesting in the will
it lead to something really big?
Speaker 2 (28:03):
You're on the Dan Caplas Show.
Speaker 5 (28:06):
And now back to the Dan Kaplass Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
How you have time to listen to everything?
Speaker 1 (28:13):
What? Like? You know every song out there? Who I mean,
it's a great song, but who is it? Where'd you
find it?
Speaker 5 (28:18):
Imagine dragons?
Speaker 8 (28:19):
And it's of course at the end of a movie
that I happened to like and it made me think
of capitalis Law and feeling on top.
Speaker 5 (28:25):
Of the world. After you have another victory, well, thank you.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
My friend, and this one is man so incredibly fulfilling,
and you know, credit to my law partner John Keller.
We've tried three cases together since he joined us this
year and been blessed with great success. And all three
Dylan Mkirk doing a tremendous job and Rachel Arnett are paralegal.
But the champion is our client. Seventy nine year old
woman takes on this big insurance company and goes to
(28:52):
trial a couple of times. After the first one, we
lost yourors due to illness, and she stands up and
fights him and she wins, and it was just it
was right and a very hard working, thoughtful jury.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
It's just yeah.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
To me, it's just one of the most satisfying things
on earth. Hey, this story that just popped up moments
ago in the Denver Post, could it be related to
what we were talking about before the break. We're talking
about what I consider to be a very significant statement
from a federal magistrate judge today about the Tina Peters case.
(29:25):
And the headline that you'll see, of course, will be
that the judge denied Peter's bid for federal relief to
get out of prison. But as I was quoting before
the break, according to the end of Denver Post, the
judge said, I'm.
Speaker 2 (29:38):
Paraphrasing without question.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
Peters has raised important questions about whether she got a
harsher sentence due to her First Amendment protected First Amendment speech.
I'm paraphrasing the post story and so you know that's
to me very significant. But here's the story that just
broke because we all know President Trump has been pushing
(30:02):
Colorado to release Tina Peters into federal custody, and at
that point it's expected that you know, she would be
released from prison.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
Do you think these two are related?
Speaker 5 (30:14):
Ryan?
Speaker 1 (30:14):
US Department of Justice launches investigation into Colorado prisons youth
detention centers.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
This story breaking at five forty eight Mountain time, so
about six and a half minutes ago.
Speaker 1 (30:26):
The US Department of Justice has launched an investigation and
the conditions inside Colorado's prisons and juvenile detention facilities. The
federal agency announced Monday. The pro bowl examined policies and
practices within the Colorado Department of Corrections and Division of
Youth Services to ensure that doc inmates and use in
(30:46):
the custody of dys are being afforded the rights under
the US Constitution and federal law.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
And it goes on from there. Quoting the AG's office.
Speaker 1 (30:59):
We are committed to upholding our federal civil rights so
that no one is subject to unconstititutional mistreatment when held
in state custody.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
I think that's related, Ryan, It's.
Speaker 5 (31:12):
An interesting coincidence.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
If it's not, Yeah, and listen, I A yeah, yeah,
you know, I wouldn't be surprised if it is. I mean,
you know, you look at Polis, who goes out. You
have a Colorado jury convict this mess killing trucker multiple
(31:40):
counts of vehicular homicide for this horrific taking of innocent
life up on Ice seventy, and then Noel actually that
the five were burned to death down here, that the
trucker drove recklessly knowing his breaks were we're hot, you know,
on Ice seventy through the foothills, and then he burned
to death those five people down here on I seventy
(32:02):
who went instead of dropping his truck off the right
side of the road, he decided to just drive into
the back of him. So you get a jury that
sits through a jury trial, they convict him on all counts.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
The judge does the court's work, sentences.
Speaker 1 (32:17):
Him to one hundred years, and then Kim Kardashian whispers
in the ear of Jared Polis, and all of a
sudden police steps in essentially overrides the work of the
jury and the judge, And now does this killer's on
track to get out after about five years? Yeah, I
think under those kind of circumstances, I would not be
(32:40):
surprised if President Trump now is going to wield an
awful lot of federal power to make clear how unhappy
he is with Jared Polis and Colorado in the nine
years for Tina Peters. And again, my starting point is
I'm no expert on the case, but my impression at
the time, because I did look at it at the time,
It's been a lot going on in the meantime. My
(33:02):
impression at the time was she was probably guiltiest charged
and properly convicted, but nine years for a woman that
age of no prior criminal record, gold star mom. And
now he got a federal judge, magistrate judge saying without
question there are fair questions about whether her sentence was harsher.
I'm paraphrasing because of her constitutionally protected speech. Yeah, I
(33:24):
wouldn't be at all surprised, Ryan if we see President
Trump punishing Colorado for not releasing her into federal custody.
Do you think if that's what's going on or is
about to happen, do you think that's right or wrong?
Speaker 8 (33:38):
Well, it would be Trumpian, So whether it's right or wrong,
it would fit the kind of mo that Donald Trump
sometimes goes by. But if he's going to get resistance
like apparently he feels he's getting, then you're going to
get the screws put to you.
Speaker 5 (33:51):
I mean, we saw it happen with Space Force, right.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
Oh yeah, I was just going to go there A good,
good point. Yeah, I mean Space Force should be in Colorado.
You're trying to keep Space Force. You're the governor of
the state. You're some other elected important Democrats, senators, whatever.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
Why do you pick fights with Trump that you don't need?
Speaker 1 (34:10):
I mean, hey, when you think he's wrong on something,
you have a right to say so, and it's your
obligation to say so. But picking all these unnecessary fights
with him, just to me shows so many of these
lefties really don't care about the state.
Speaker 5 (34:24):
You know, it's a Ryan.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
Great jobs always, Thank you, my friend. Hopefully I will
sound better tomorrow. We passed whatever bug has its claws
into me. But thanks your time today. Please join us
tomorrow on the Dan Kapitla Show.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com