Summary (federal District Court for Colorado habeas corpus issue)

• Sept 23: Peters’ attorneys file Venezuelan witness #1 affidavit (Smartmatic insider) to prove Tina’s statements were true re: vulnerabilities of voting machines.

• Sept 30: The State moves to strike that filing as improper and irrelevant.

• Oct 1: Peters’ team files Venezuelan witness #2 (Hugo Chávez’s former security chief) for the same purpose.

• Oct 7: The State again moves to strike and files Lambert-credibility exhibits. • At this point: No ruling yet from the U.S. District Court on whether these witness statements will remain in the record.

Sept. 23, ‘25 Filing: Notice of Filing Confidential Witness Testimony Filed by: Patrick McSweeney, John Case, and Peter Ticktin (for Tina Peters) Purpose: • Introduces sworn testimony from a former Venezuelan election official, filed under confidentiality. • Witness claims to have worked under Hugo Chávez’s government, coordinating national elections through Smartmatic. • Describes Smartmatic’s internal design and ability to alter or hide election results through manipulated code and limited audit logs. • Draws a technical connection between Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems, alleging shared software origins and design vulnerabilities. Goal: to support Peters’ position that her public statements about Dominion’s potential for manipulation were true, thus protected speech, not a basis for imprisonment or bond denial.

Sept. 30, ’25 (counterargument against Tina P.) Filing: State’s Motion to Strike Testimony of Confidential Witness Filed by: Colorado Attorney General’s Office (on behalf of AG Philip J. Weiser)

Purpose: • Argues that Tina Peters’ attorneys conducted unauthorized discovery in a habeas case (took a deposition without the court’s permission). • States that the witness’s claims about Smartmatic and Dominion are irrelevant to the habeas question: whether Colorado’s bond decision violated federal law. • Cites 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(2) — part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) — which severely limits new evidence in federal habeas unless strict exceptions apply. • Claims the filing should be stricken because the habeas court can only review the record that was before the state courts when they made their decision.

Goal: to prevent Peters from turning her habeas petition into a new evidentiary trial on election systems.

Oct. 1, ‘25 Filing: Examination Under Oath (Transcript of Second Confidential Witness) Filed by: Tina Peters’ attorneys (Peter Ticktin et al.) Witness: Former Venezuelan chief of security for President Hugo Chávez (2000–2013)

Key Testimony: • He swore that he worked directly with Hugo Chávez, attending both private and official meetings. • Testified that he witnessed Smartmatic’s vote manipulation operations, including remote access and real-time result changes. • Claimed Smartmatic’s engineers later contributed to Dominion’s systems, creating shared vulnerabilities. • Asserted that the same systemic weaknesses appear in the Mesa County, Colorado Dominion servers Peters exposed.

Purpose: • Strengthen Peters’ claim that her public statements about Dominion’s security flaws were truthful and based on firsthand corroboration, not “disinformation.”

Oct. 7, ’25 (Colorado argument against Tina P.) Filing: Colorado AG Motion to Strike Testimony of Second Confidential Witness

Purpose: • Seeks to strike the October 1 Venezuelan deposition on procedural and substantive grounds. • Notes the deposition was taken in Florida, led by Attorney Stefanie Lambert with participation from Sheriff Dar Leaf (Michigan), neither of whom are counsel of record in the Colorado habeas case. • Argues that this was unauthorized discovery done without prior court permission or coordination with opposing counsel.

▪ Rule 5 of the Rules Governing §2254 Case Colorado Atty. General’s office argues Peters’ new Venezuelan depositions are outside that record — so under Rule 5, the State argues, the court cannot consider them.

▪ Rule 7 of the Rules Governing §2254 Cases a) Rule 7 allows the court to expand the record in limited circumstances — for example, by adding documents, exhibits, or affidavits. b) However, such expansion can happen only if the judge authorizes it after finding “good cause.”

Colorado argues c) Peters’ team did not request or receive permission under Rule 7 before conducting or filing these depositions —> Therefore, the depositions violate Rule 7 and should be stricken as improper expansions of the record.

AEDPA (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) = more of Colorado’s argument against Tina P.

The AEDPA is the federal law governing modern habeas petitions (codified at 28 U.S.C. §2254). Section 2254(e)(2) says a federal court cannot hold new evidentiary hearings or consider new factual evidence that was not developed in state court unless:

a) The claim relies on a fact that could not have been previously discovered through reasonable diligence + b) the new evidence shows that no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty.

Colorado argues that none of these exceptions apply (they say Tina P.’s attorneys failed to show that the claims by Venezuala insiders could have been previously discovered!!!

Colorado’s Goal: • To exclude all foreign-witness materials as: (1) Procedurally barred under Rules 5 and 7, (2) Substantively barred under AEDPA §2254(e)(2), and (3) Irrelevant because the habeas claim concerns constitutional process, not factual truth of election allegations.

In short: The State’s October 7 motion relies on procedural strictness — arguing that the federal habeas court’s job is to review what the state court already had before it, not to take new evidence from Venezuela or anywhere else.