Latest Breaking News

I consider deterrence in sentencing that is both general and specific that the sentence I impose must deter Ms. Peters from engaging in similar conduct in the future, but it also must deter others generally from engaging in this type of conduct. I consider rehabilitation where appropriate. I consider punishment where appropriate. I also must ensure that the sentences I impose are consistent among offenders similarly situated, but I must also impose a sentence that is designed to meet Ms. Peters’s unique needs.

Here, the defense has, and Ms. Peters in particular, has remained quite defiant, which is her right, but certainly not helpful for her lot today. And in arguing why I should impose a particular sentence, she tells me about her ailments, her loss, her struggles, in life.

But in reality, for those of you who may have been here earlier this morning and seeing some of the folks who’ve occupied that chair before Ms. Peters, there could be not much in the way of a comparison in terms of the type of sympathy one would extend to Ms. Peters.

Those folks didn’t have four lawyers representing them. They didn’t have a team of assistants helping them. They’re not getting rides in private jets all over the country.

You know the people who sit in that chair struggle generally speaking, immeasurable trauma in life, struggle mightily with alcohol abuse, substance abuse, mental health struggles, family loss. They come from broken homes. The cards they were dealt were never the cards that you were dealt, Ms. Peters.

So when I hear you discuss, your husband, sadly passed away recently, your family struggles and your son who served our country admirably and made the ultimate sacrifice, I consider it.

And I note too, that he honored his oath to the country, something that is not lost on me when considering the circumstances under which you find yourself here.

Your age, limited criminal history and the like, are certainly somewhat mitigating, your ties to the community are what they are, but your reputation at this point is poor because of what you’ve done here and after.

Your lies are well documented and these convictions are serious. I’m convinced you would do it all over again if you could. You’re as defiant as a defendant as this court has ever seen.

You don’t have those histories of drug and alcohol abuse. There’s no lifetime of trauma, not even close to the type of mitigating circumstances I would see from many folks who sit in that chair, No, to the contrary, Ms. Peters, you are a privileged person.

You are as privileged as they come. And you use that privilege to obtain power, a following and fame. And to be sure, there’s no doubt in my mind that it is exactly what you wanted, and it defies all sense, of common sense, to believe when you suggested to me a few moments ago that you didn’t want this attention. No, you, you crave it, ma’am, and there is no one in this courtroom who would consider that to be anything other than the absolute truth.

But to get to the point of what it is that you did here, it’s my impression distinctly that you never took your job of clerking particularly seriously.

You didn’t complete the certification. One scandal after another followed you in your time as the clerk. And ultimately it was a belief that the echo chamber in which you live couldn’t be wrong among other things, that led you to do what you did here. This thought process unfortunately seems to consume so many in our country, regardless of race, gender, political affiliation or the like, that what it is we hear and think can’t possibly be wrong.

There are many things in my mind that are crystal clear about this case. You are no hero. You abused your position and you’re a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again. In your world, it’s all about you.

But at bottom, this case was about your corrupt conduct and how no one is above the law. No one in this country has absolute power. Your position as a clerk and recorder, a constitutional position, does not provide you with a means by which to do your own investigation, to not listen to the judiciary, to not listen to the executives higher than you, to not listen to the legislature who sets the law as it may be.

This is nonsense.

Our system of government can’t function when people in government think that somehow, some way the power they’ve been given is absolute in all respects. And that’s where you fell.

You have no respect for the checks and balances of government. You have no respect for this court. You have no respect for law enforcement, and you do not have respect for your fellow colleagues when you were a clerk and recorder who weren’t in lockstep in your beliefs.

Indeed, just weeks before trial, you were apparently doing what I mentioned earlier, that is over at the clerk and recorder’s office, where you’re not supposed to be, violating the protection order by speaking to employees of that entity with your camera crew in tow.

You have no qualms with violating the court’s orders because – you are innocent – because you didn’t do anything wrong – you were just doing your job. You have no problem trying to kick an officer.

Your explanation about what happened is preposterous. It’s on video. You have no problem lying to officers. It’s happened multiple times. They’re recorded conversations. It’s just more lies.

No objective person believes them. No, at the end of the day, you cared about the jets, the podcasts, and the people fawning over you. You abdicated your position as a servant to the constitution and you chose you over all else.

Yes, you are a charlatan and you cannot help but lie as easy as it is for you to breathe. You betrayed your oath for no one other than you.

And this is what makes Ms. Peters such a danger to our community. It’s the position she held that has provided her the pulpit from which she can preach these lies, the undermining of our democratic process, the undermining of the belief and confidence in our election systems. It’s not about questioning it. No one says you can’t question, you can’t ask. It’s completely different. And if you don’t understand that distinction, then there’s nothing I can say or do here today that will change your mind.

So the damage that is caused and continues to be caused is just as bad, if not worse, than the physical violence that this court sees on an all too regular basis. And it’s particularly damaging when those words come from someone who holds a position of influence like you.

Every effort to undermine the integrity of our elections and public’s trust in our institutions has been made by you. You’ve done it from that lectern the voting public provided you with, everything you’ve done has been done to retain control, influence. The damage is immeasurable.

And every time it gets refuted, every time it’s shown to be false, just another tale is weaved.

So I’ll begin by saying I’ve considered all of those purposes of a stay of an execution of a sentence. I’ve mentioned all of them here generally in my comments already, and I find that a stay of any sentence I impose would be wholly unwarranted.