Plenty to criticize in Boyles’ interview with State Senate candidate

Bloggers mostly write their own headlines, and this time I had an especially hard time doing it. Here are some of the ones I was thinking of for this blog post:

Boyles fails to spotlight news, broken on his show today, that State House candidate Sampson faces a subpeona and possible contempt of court charges if he doesn’t present his birther evidence at birther trial in Indiana.

Boyles should find out whether State Senate candidate Sampson, who was a guest on Boyles show today, follows through with his threat to file a defamation-of-character lawsuit against another guest (and fellow birther)

You know Boyles had an exciting talk-radio show going when State Senate candidate Sampson tells Boyles to “put a muzzle” on the show’s other guest or Sampson will hang up!

Why didn’t Colorado’s number one birther, Peter Boyles, stop his fellow big-shot birthers from blowing each other up on his talk radio show?

If State Senate candidate Sampson won’t testify against Obama, will he lose his number-five spot on Denver Post Editorial Page Editor Curtis Hubbard’s top Colorado birthers list?

It all sounds pretty exciting, doesn’t it? It is, believe me. Read the transcript here. Better yet, listen to the audio. Or you can read the partial transcript below.

To summarize, Colorado Senate candidate John Sampson, who’s a top birther in Colorado, and big-time birther Orly Taitz were on Peter Boyles’ KHOW show this morning to dicuss their dispute over whether Sampson should testify at a birther trial in Indiana, as Sampson did at at birther trial in Georgia.

Sampson, a Republican running for Senate District 25, doesn’t want to go, which upsets Taitz to no end, as you’ll see below. And Boyles loses control of the situation.

TAITZ: In January, I had a witness, John Sampson, who is running for state senate in Colorado.  He’s a Republican.  He did appear and testify in Georgia in January and I subpoenaed him to testify now.  And he is saying that because he’s running for office he doesn’t have time, he’s not travelling anywhere until after November the sixth.  But this is extremely important, more than anything else he’s doing….

TAITZ:  But I have to tell you, a lot of people are angry now because, you know, there are 30 million people who read my website and they’re extremely angry.  Because [Sampson] provided an affidavit.  Now the judge is saying, “I need witnesses to appear and authenticate and say, ‘Yes, I’m the one who signed this affidavit.  Yes, everything is true, under the penalty of perjury.’”  If he does not do it, the judge is going to throw his affidavit in the garbage!  And this is extremely important.  He is one of the most important witnesses….

TAITZ:  Well, I need John to appear at trial on Monday.  This is extremely important.  And last time, when he appeared in Georgia, I paid for his airfare, hotel, his expenses to come to trial.  I will pay for him again.  It’s only one day!  He has to be there for only two hours. I’ll fly him there.  I’ll fly him back.  It’s extremely important.  It might be our only opportunity to remove Obama from office.  We don’t know what’s going to happen in elections….

SAMPSON:  Thank you!  A couple of things, Peter.  Number one, as you know and your listeners know, [clears throat] –excuse me – um, I’ve got my own political race I’m in the middle of.  And quite frankly, the polling data that we have showed that it is a statistical tie.  Every minute I take away from the campaign, I have more catch-up to do later on, and it adversely impacts my chances of getting elected to Colorado State Senate.  That’s item one.  Item two, is on March 26th, 2012 I was down in Phoenix, Arizona and met with Joe Arpaio and his crew.  And at that meeting, I was instructed, because there is an ongoing criminal investigation, that they would appreciate it that if I didn’t testify in any other hearings because of the information that I became privy to as a result of that meeting.  And once I get on the witness stand, Lord only knows what questions are going to be asked.  And as a result, and I’ve been in touch with Mike Zullo who is the lead investigator for this thing, and none of us are going.  And I understand where Doctor Taitz is with this, I really do.  And I applaud her efforts, but I’m in a bind right now, where I cannot honor the…

TAITZ: …I have actually filed a lawsuit in Arizona to compel [Sampson’s] appearance at trial and compel him – [inaudible:  “seem the on-trial person to subpoena”23:39]  and if need be, I will have to file something in Colorado.  And I have to tell you, if this is an even election, John’s chances will go down tremendously because people are supporting him knowing that he is supporting this issue, that he will be there testifying.  If he is just talking, and running for office–

BOYLES:  Orly!  Orly!  Orly!  Orly, it’s Peter.  Let me– Please.  Why do you – Do you think that John is not coming to Indiana because why?

TAITZ:  Because he made a deal with Arpaio.  Arpaio made a deal with the federal government where they actually dropped all the charges against Arpaio.  They withdrew a criminal complaint, a serious criminal complaint against Arpaio where he could have gone to prison for a number of years.  And I believe—

BOYLES:  You know—

TAITZ:  I really suspect, that a deal was made was made with Arpaio, that Arpaio —

BOYLES:  You’re—you’re—you’re—

TAITZ:  –would not bring any charges—

BOYLES:  You’re using—you’re using –

TAITZ:  Arpaio—let me finish! Arpaio used this case to raise a huge amount of money, seven million dollars.  He did not find anything! He only provided information that was given to him by me and a couple of other people.  And Arpaio went and did press conferences.  He [Sampson?  Or Arpaio?] issued a sworn affidavit.  All he’s asked is to appear in court and say, “Yes, I stand by this affidavit.  It’s true and correct.”  If he is asked any other questions, he can state, “I cannot provide anymore information because of ongoing investigations.”

SAMPSON:  You  know, Peter, if you can’t put a muzzle on her, I’m going to sh—I’m going to hang up!…

BOYLES:  But, Orly!  Orly!  Orly, do you think that Sampson is somehow in collusion, or in bed, or rolling over, because he won’t come to Indiana?

TAITZ:  Absolutely.  Absolutely.

SAMPSON:  You know, Orly, if I were you—

TAITZ:  Absolutely, and—

SAMPSON:  Orly, if I were you, I would go back to your office and I would pull a book entitled “Prosser  On Torts” and I would look up the words “defamation of character”, “libel”, and “slander”  –

TAITZ:  Oh, John!  Don’t threat [sic] me!  No!  No!

SAMPSON:  — because now you’ve crossed that line!

TAITZ:  No, don’t threat me!   No, I didn’t.  No, I didn’t.

SAMPSON:  And you’ve just accused me of taking a bribe—

TAITZ:  I did not!  No!  No, I did not cross—

SAMPSON:  –or a collusion with the federal government on this, on public radio!

TAITZ:  No! I did not cross the line!  You—you signed a sworn affidavit, sworn under the penalty of perjury.

SAMPSON:  [talking over Dr. Taitz] Well, why can’t you intro—Why can’t you — Why can’t you introduce that affidavit at trial?

TAITZ:  You’ve been subpoenaed!  You got a subpoena!

BOYLES:  Orly! Orly!

TAITZ:  You got a subpoena.  You have to appear in court.

SAMPSON:  The subpoena that you –

TAITZ:  Or you’re going to be in contempt of court.  Period!


TAITZ:  You are now in contempt of court because you are refusing to comply with a court-issued subpoena.

SAMPSON:  The subpoena you issued – [still speaking over Dr. Taitz]  Peter –

BOYLES:  Orly, hang on!  John.

SAMPSON:  The subpoena that you issued is defective, –

TAITZ:  Defective!  Why?

SAMPSON:  –because you have me listed on that subpoena as an employee of the Department of Homeland Security.

TAITZ:  No! No!  No!  No! No, it’s [inaudible]–

SAMPSON:  Go read the subpoena!

BOYLES:  Or—Or–Orly!   Geez.

SAMPSON:  It’s addressed to me in care of the Department of Homeland Security.

TAITZ:  No.  No, that’s not –not defective!

SAMPSON:  That subpoena was mailed to me by email.

BOYLES:  Orly!  Orly, can you not go on with your case without John?

TAITZ:  Listen, he is very important.  We will go on with the case.

BOYLES:  Okay.

TAITZ:  However, there is a high chance that the case will be dismissed….

BOYLES:  Hey, listen, I see John on Saturdays and Sundays out campaigning.  He’s campaigning for something that he wants.  I—I—I mean –

TAITZ:  Well, but what’s more important?  Something that he wants, or he owes this country?  He has—

BOYLES:  Well, it’s his country, too.

TAITZ:  Not only that, he’s obligated to be there!  The subpoena was served.

BOYLES:  All right.

TAITZ:  He will be in contempt of court if he does not show up.  And it is not a defective subpoena! The reason we have previously his prior address is because—his work address, because he was not providing the home address.

BOYLES:  I’m going to have to get—

TAITZ:  However, or if it went to his home address, the address is irrelevant.  A person can change his address.

BOYLES:   All right.  All right.  Hang on a second.  I’m going to leave—I’ve got to to give everyone a last comment, here and a pause.  John—

SAMPSON:  Yes, Peter.

BOYLES:  I mean, I like both of you. I understand both of you.  I understand your position. I understand her position.  Um—

SAMPSON:  I understand her position, as well, Peter.  The problem is, if there is a way I can get my entire sentence out without it being interrupted, I will.

BOYLES:  All right.  Go ahead.

TAITZ:  Okay, I—

BOYLES:  Orly, please! Orly, please!  John, I’ll give you, and then we’ll give Orly last comment.  John, please.

SAMPSON:  Okay.  The subpoena was received by email.  It was not personally served, number one.  Number two, the address that she has on that subpoena is so incorrect, it’s not even funny. It’s to the Department of Homeland Security, Detention and Removal Operations, 4730 Perry Street in Denver, Colorado.  ICE has not been at that address for at least two years, if not longer, because they moved to Centennial.  On top of that, the email is not, in my understanding in speaking to my attorney, does not constitute proper service.  It needs to be served, unless I am willing to waive service, which I am not, it has to be personally served on me.  This is a subpoena that is coming out of the state of Indiana.  She has already admitted on your show that she has filed suit in Arizona to compel Arpaio to come in. Now, I’m going to leave it with this.

SAMPSON:  Zullo and Arpaio have a cause of action against her for defamation of character. I have a cause of action against her for defamation of character, based upon the statements that she has just made, that allude to the – to her allegation, that I am somehow involved in some sort of a backroom deal with Arpaio and the federal government.  As a twenty-seven year veteran with the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of [inaudible “SUSA”?? 31:50] before that, I am vehemently upset about this.  It is insulting.  It is demeaning.  And it impugns my character and my credibility.  I am not , under any circumstances, involved in any backroom deal with anybody.  And to suggest that for a moment is just pure desperation on the part of an individual who doesn’t have her facts straight.  And I am going to refer this to my attorney.  And Ms. Taitz, I hope your malpractice insurance premiums are paid up because I have a very strong indication that I am going to be collecting on that. That is the end of my statement.  Peter, I have known you for a long time.  And I appreciate you standing up for me, but this goes beyond the pale….

TAITZ: He got a valid court subpoena and it was not only emailed, it was also mailed to his home address in Strasburg, Colorado. Whether he got it by mail, or whether he evaded service, it doesn’t matter.  He admitted, he just admitted on your show that he got the subpoena – that he didn’t get it by mail, but he got it by email.  He got it.  He’s under obligation to appear in court.  If he does not appear, he will be in contempt of court.  This is a matter of national security.  He is not asked to reveal anything that is secret—part of a secret investigation.  All he’s asked to do is to tell the judge that, “Yes, I am John Sampson.  This is my signature.  I signed this affidavit, and it is true and correct.”  That’s it! And he is on the stand.  He doesn’t have to say anything else.  If he is not doing this, he will be held in contempt of court.  And there might be legal action against him by six plaintiffs in this case who rely on his affidavit, relied on him to be here, based on subpoena, and [at] the last moment, he is refusing to show up and destroying an important case.  Not only for six people.  He’s destroying the case for the whole country.  This is a matter of national security.

BOYLES:  Okay.

TAITZ:  So, there is no excuse.  He has to be there on Monday at 10 am.  And you know what?  If he is not showing up, he is as good as lost this election, because a lot of people today are extremely angry. If you go on my website and see, people writing comments and things.  “What is wrong with John Sampson?  Is he a turncoat?  What is wrong with Arpaio?”

BOYLES:  I—I can tell you—Orly.  Orly, I’ve got to pause here and break it off.  I’ve got to tell you something.  I’ve known John a long time.  There’s nothing wrong with John.  I know Joe.  There’s nothing wrong with Joe. I know you.  There’s nothing wrong with you.  Um, but, everybody has to do this in their own manner.  I hope to hell that this thing doesn’t end up where I smell it’s going to end up.  It’ll be a bad day.  Both of you—


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.