Claims

The CFTC closed Dale's complaint against Augusta in late 2019, claiming it lacked jurisdiction, yet in May 2023 the CFTC and SEC jointly sued Red Rock Secured (founded by an Augusta vice president) for $60 million for operating identically to Augusta, despite the earlier complaint having been filed years before Red Rock even existed.

Augusta Precious Metals sent Dale Whitaker a cease-and-desist letter while he was vacationing in the UK, and when he ignored it, sent a follow-up letter claiming his silence constituted an admission of guilt.

Dale filed a complaint with the California Attorney General in 2019, providing 15 gigabytes of data, received acknowledgment of receipt, but then COVID-19 hit and nothing was done.

Dale filed a complaint with the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) and SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) in January 2018 or early 2019 on behalf of Augusta's victims, backed by attorneys who took his case pro bono after a three-month independent investigation.

Judge Lewis Liman characterized Rudy Giuliani's explanations for non-compliance as 'farcical' and warned him that he will be held in contempt of court if he doesn't deliver his assets

Rudy Giuliani has been hiding and moving his assets to evade the court order, including removing a valuable signed Joe DiMaggio jersey from his New York apartment between the time it was documented hanging on his wall and October 31st when Moss and Freeman's representatives entered to collect assets

Rudy Giuliani claimed to the court that he didn't move anything from his apartment and called Moss and Freeman liars, despite documentary evidence that a valuable signed jersey disappeared from his wall

Rudy Giuliani claimed he couldn't access a storage facility on Long Island that may contain some of his assets, offering this as an explanation for his inability to comply with the asset turnover order

Civil contempt of court operates on a purge mechanism where a judge gives the contemnor the keys to their own cell—compliance with the order releases them from jail, creating a strong incentive to obey

Rudy Giuliani was ordered by federal judge Lewis Liman to turn over his assets to Georgia election workers Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman, who won a $146 million judgment against him for defamation

Contempt of court can result in monetary fines, but in Giuliani's case where he cannot pay monetary fines, the primary available remedy is incarceration until he complies with the court order

Grand jury witnesses who refuse to testify without a valid legal privilege (such as attorney-client, executive, spousal, or doctor-patient privilege) can be held in contempt and jailed until they purge the contempt by testifying

Presidential pardons do not apply to civil suits; they only apply to federal criminal prosecutions and not to state criminal prosecutions, so Trump cannot pardon Giuliani to prevent him from complying with the Moss/Freeman judgment

Rudy Giuliani's expensive possessions (like the signed Joe DiMaggio jersey) are 'measly' in comparison to the consequences of his defamation of Moss and Freeman

The Moss/Freeman defamation judgment against Giuliani resulted from his defaming them 'with zero evidence'

The judicial system has been too lenient with Rudy Giuliani by continuing to give him leeway and indulging his contemptuous behavior that violates federal court orders, when it should have held him accountable earlier

Trump's top aides, including those convicted of crimes in criminal plots, were held accountable and some imprisoned in the first Trump administration, demonstrating that there were consequences even for Trump's closest associates.

Federal judges have life tenure and can serve as a check on presidential power, with a president having no control over them, and Trump's second-term hires may be more extreme, but judges appointed in the first term remain.

Trump exploited well-known loopholes in the legal system where the rich and powerful can evade laws that bind others and receive special treatment, but he was also repeatedly blocked from abusing power through court interventions, such as courts stopping his travel ban.

Peters' claim that she did not want or crave public attention is false; her entire pattern of behavior—gathering camera crews, maintaining social media presence, running for higher office—shows she actively seeks attention and influence.

Protection orders against the defendant will remain in place during the life of the sentence, with conditions 6 and 5 being vacated.

Time served in the Department of Corrections will likely be reduced through good time and earned time credits, with prisoners able to earn earlier release through programming and good behavior.

The defendant was convicted on counts 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10, with fines imposed: $2,000 for counts 1, 2, 4, and 6; maximum fine for count 8; $1,000 for counts 9 and 10.

The defendant retained the right to appeal the sentence and convictions within 49 days of the sentencing date.

The defendant's Brady violation motion was denied because the information about the Clerk and Recorder office incident was known to the defense or could have been discovered, and any exculpatory value was minimal and would not undermine confidence in the verdict.

The prosecution requested discovery of the arrest warrant information from the police department, which was initially denied on the grounds that the investigation was ongoing, and the DA said it would be provided later when received.

In comparison to other defendants, the defendant is highly privileged: others don't have four lawyers, don't have assistant teams, don't get private jet rides across the country, and have suffered immeasurable trauma, substance abuse, mental health struggles, and family loss.

On June 25th, the defendant visited the Clerk and Records office location with at least one camera person, apparently to vote, and had conversations with election officials from the clerk and recorder's office that she was not allowed to have, violating a protection order.

The defendant's constitutional position as clerk and recorder does not provide her with the power to conduct her own investigation, ignore the judiciary, ignore executive officials, or ignore legislative law—the system of government cannot function when people think their power is absolute.

The defendant's explanation about kicking an officer is preposterous and on video, and she has lied to officers multiple times in recorded conversations, yet no objective person believes her explanations.

The defendant cared about jets, podcasts, and people fawning over her, and abdicated her position as a servant to the Constitution while choosing herself over all else.

A stay of the sentence would be wholly unwarranted because the judge has considered all sentencing purposes and made careful decisions after much internal debate, trusting they accord with applicable law.

Probation is appropriate for people with minimal criminal history and low LSI scores where rehabilitation is the focus, not punishment, but is not appropriate where punishment is necessary due to the seriousness of the crime.

Community Corrections is more stringent than probation but not prison, and is appropriate for people with higher needs like drug addicts and alcohol abusers.

Prison is appropriate where people are a danger to the community and punishment is the primary focus due to the significance of the crime committed.

The defendant has no mental health concerns and no good reason for her crimes other than active decisions she made that cost the county significantly and cost her fellow county employees greatly.

The reasons the misdemeanor sentences are consecutive is because they are directly related to the harm the defendant caused to the community and the breach of oath to the electorate in Mesa County.

The defendant's sentence will be followed by three years of parole.

The defendant's age, limited criminal history, and ties to the community are mitigating factors, but her reputation is poor because of her conduct.

The defendant's son served the country admirably and made the ultimate sacrifice, and he honored his oath to the country—something the judge notes is not lost on him in considering the defendant's circumstances.

The defendant is convinced she would do it all over again if she could, and she is as defiant a defendant as this court has ever seen.

The defendant's lies are well documented and the convictions are serious.

Exercise of the right to jury trial and challenging the prosecution cannot and should not be used to justify additional punishment for going to trial.

General deterrence requires that sentences deter others generally from engaging in similar conduct, while specific deterrence requires that the sentence deter the particular defendant from reoffending.

A stay of sentence execution is wholly unwarranted in Peters' case because the seriousness of her crimes and danger to the community outweigh any appellate reversal possibility.

Peters is entitled to credit for 2 days of pre-sentence confinement time toward her sentence.

The judge gave Peters and her counsel 'far too much leeway at times' during the trial, but all rulings were made after careful consideration, internal debate, and in accordance with applicable law.

Peters did not complete the required clerk certification during her tenure in office.

A Brady violation requires withholding of exculpatory evidence by the prosecutor; the defense must determine what is exculpatory, not the prosecutor.

The defendant used their position as clerk and recorder to abuse power and promote snake oil election fraud claims that have been proven to be junk time and time again.