Arrest Warrant Issued for Tina Peters -

Saja Hindi | Politics reporter Denver Post

A Mesa County District Court judge agreed Thursday to revoke Tina Peters’ bond and issue a warrant for her arrest after the indicted county clerk left the state without permission from the court, but her lawyer says it was an oversight.

District Attorney Dan Rubinstein filed a motion asking Judge Matthew Barrett to do away with Peters’ $25,000 cash bond after receiving a notarized letter Wednesday that Peters had sent to the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office — the notary crossed out “Colorado” on the letter and instead wrote “Nevada” and listed “Clark” as the county.

“… Ms. Peters has not knowingly violated bond conditions, and the warrant should be quashed,” Steinberg wrote, adding that bond can’t be revoked unless a defendant knowingly violates the bond conditions. He also said she’s not a flight risk because she’s an elected official with ties to Mesa County and the state of Colorado.

But Peters’ attorney, Harvey Steinberg, responded to the judge’s order, saying Peters did not purposely violate her bond conditions, and that he did not file notice of her travel because he missed the email she sent to him on July 7 alerting him to her trip. He did file notices for other travel dates in July.

Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Peters, along with her deputy clerk Belinda Knisley, were out on bond after being indicted by a grand jury on allegations related to election equipment tampering. Peters is facing 10 criminal charges.

Peters’ election manager Sandra Brown also was arrested this week in connection to the case. Brown turned herself in Monday and was released the following day on a $15,000 personal recognizance bond, according to the Mesa County Sheriff’s Office.

Peters, Knisley and Brown were barred from overseeing Mesa County’s elections following lawsuits filed by the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.

The secretary of state’s office confirmed to The Denver Post that it had received Peters’ letter Thursday morning. The letter asks for a recount of the Republican primary results for secretary of state as well as various records, including ballot dropbox records and video surveillance. The letter was dated two days prior.

Peters, the prominent election denier who ran in the GOP primary for secretary of state, came in second with 28.86% of the vote to Pam Anderson’s 43.06%, but she rejected the results of the race on June 28.

However, because the vote counts did not come within the required percentage to trigger an automatic recount, Peters would have to pay for a recount herself. Fellow election conspiracy theorist Ron Hanks, who ran in the GOP primary for U.S. Senate and lost, also sent a letter demanding a recount that he would be required to pay for himself.

Both letters allege “malfeasance” in the June 28 primary, though there has been no factual evidence to corroborate these claims.

In his motion filed Thursday asking Barrett to revoke Peters’ bond, Rubinstein wrote that his office found out Peters was in Las Vegas, speaking at a conference for the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. The notary also confirmed that Peters was with him in person when he signed her letter.

Steinberg previously had requested that Peters be allowed to travel since she was a candidate for the GOP primary for secretary of state and needed to travel quickly for campaign purposes so that the “election was uninfluenced.”

The DA’s office agreed, but now Peters is not a candidate for office, so Rubinstein said she should be treated like any other defendant and receive permission from the court if she wants to modify her bond and travel out of state.

“Additionally, she has evidenced through her travel prior to the election that she has the means to flee if she wants to,” the DA wrote.

The DA had objected Monday to Peters’ defense filing a notice for travel for the other dates in July without getting court approval after she lost the election. The judge ruled no travel would be authorized before receiving a response from the defense and then issuing a ruling. Additionally, the defense had made no request for Peters to travel on the specific dates she traveled to Las Vegas, Rubinstein said.

But Steinberg wrote in a motion filed Thursday afternoon that Peters had told her attorney and a bondsman that she was traveling out of state and that Steinberg missed her email and therefore did not file the 72-hour notice required when she had been allowed to travel prior to the new prohibition.

He also said that Peters didn’t know about the judge’s order on Monday revoking her permission to travel out of state and that Steinberg didn’t see it immediately. When he did, he wrote, it was too late.