Sullivan: Ticktin’s legal maneuver revives Tina Peters’ constitutional challenge

By Jason Sullivan | Commentary, The Gateway Pundit

What was expected to be the quiet dismissal of Tina Peters’ federal habeas petition — challenging a state court ruling that denied her bond — became one of the most dramatic legal turnarounds in recent memory, as Trump attorney Peter Ticktin and his team delivered a precise, devastating First Amendment argument that stopped the court in its tracks.

The federal court in Colorado — now entertaining jurisdiction under a habeas corpus petition — has formally agreed to receive refined constitutional arguments by this Friday, July 25, focused exclusively on whether Tina Peters is being unlawfully imprisoned for her political speech — a violation of her First Amendment rights that, if confirmed, could result in her immediate release on bond.

Yesterday’s federal hearing was only possible because all remedies in state court had been exhausted, satisfying the procedural requirement for federal jurisdiction. If you weren’t among those listening in to yesterday’s hearing, you missed one of the most strategic and inspiring courtroom performances in recent political history.

Meanwhile, American hero Tina Peters remains in prison after her lawyers asked the state court judge for release while her appeal is pending — a request that was originally denied by Judge Matthew Barrett, who was the trial judge in Colorado state court. Tina Peters’ legal team then appealed that denial to the Colorado Court of Appeals, and they said no as well.

Next, her legal team turned to federal court in Denver, Colorado, seeking a writ of habeas corpus — Latin for “produce the body” — which allows federal judges to review unlawful detentions. The magistrate judge, clear and impartial, reminded all parties that federal jurisdiction requires the petitioner to first exhaust all state-level remedies. In this regard, Peter Ticktin, Tina’s lead counsel, showed the court that the argument of freedom of speech had been made to the court of appeals.

A Strategic Masterclass by Peters’ Legal Team

Yesterday’s hearing was intended to be procedural — a motion by the State of Colorado to dismiss Tina Peters’ limited habeas corpus petition without ever considering the constitutional questions involved. But Peter Ticktin and his legal team were ready.

READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT THE GATEWAY PUNDIT

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.