Corrupt Colorado Judge in Tina Peters Case Caught in a Lie While Claiming He’s Not Biased

 in

The corrupt and biased Judge Matthew Barrett, who sentenced Tina Peters, is caught lying in his letter to the Governor, as he sticks to his erroneous and abusive sentencing of Tina Peters. 

As the days and months go by, the sentencing judge in Tina Peters’ case doubles down on his sentencing of Tina Peters.

Here is Judge Barret during his sentencing of Tina Peters, spewing hateful, biased remarks at Tina. This is difficult for good Christian people to watch, it’s so hateful.

 

Judge Barrett sentenced Tina Peters to prison after a hateful rage in court. This was one of the worst courtroom rants in US history. The judge prevented Tina from providing evidence that supported her actions, ignored federal statutes like the Supremacy Clause as well as the actions of Federal employees like AG Garland and FBI Head Wray, who joined a conference call regarding Tina before her arrest.

Everything about this case reminds good people of Nazi/communist courts.  It is so difficult to believe that this would happen in this great country.

Yesterday, Judge Barrett filed a response in the case to Tina Peters’ attorneys, claiming he was not biased despite what the video above shows.

Judge Barrett was seething with rage when he sentenced Tina.

 

2026-0423 Peoples Response to Motion to Disqualify Judge Barrett

Judge Barrett also filed a response denying Tina’s request to be let out of prison on bond. 

2026-0423 Peoples Response to Renewed Appeal Bond Motion

Tina’s Defense filed this motion showing Judge Barrett lying about his sentencing of Tina and his obvious bias.

2026-0423 Our Response to Barrett Order re Uploading Documents 2026-0423 Peoples Response to Renewed Appeal Bond Motion 2026-0423 Peoples Response to Motion to Disqualify Judge Barrett

Judge Barrett claimed no bias:

Judge Barrett wrote to Governor Polis:

I chose a sentence in roughly the midpoint of the presumptive ranges that this state’s general assembly has set. My reasons for the punishment I chose or more specifically detailed in the remarks I made at her sentencing.

The Defense pointed out:

Judge Barrett’s assertion that he “chose a sentence in roughly the midpoint of the 2 presumptive ranges” is not true.

Judge Barrett made the sentences consecutive instead of concurrent, which is almost unheard of when multiple counts arise out of a single criminal episode. Judge Barrett imposed a sentence totaling eight years and none months, instead of 3.5 years if the sentences ran concurrently, as most judges do.

The Defense concludes:

 Instead of acknowledging that he had made a legal error in sentencing Mrs. Peters, Judge Barrett doubled down