Reporters covering the local fallout of the Newtown tragedy should dig into statements percolating through the media, and exemplified by comments like state Sen. Greg Brophy’s below, that Democrats are using the tragedy simply to bring down Republicans.

“And there’s a lot of–and this is going to sound terrible, but it’s the truth–there’s a lot of politicians and leftist activists who see this as an opportunity to permanently injure the Republican Party and make it more likely that Democrats will win elections,” Brophy told KFTM radio’s John Waters this morning. “And I think there’s a lot of people pushing it, especially their media allies that are pushing this notion from that perspective.”

It’s not the kind of comment that should be thrown in the pile of political-discourse-as-usual. What would Brophy have Democrats do? Be mute? Blame the media, as he does? Talk about mental health issues, as if guns had no role? Why does mentioning the word “guns” equal an attack on the GOP?

Brophy thinks the focus should be on the mentally ill, with no discussion of guns:

“And I’ve got to tell you, if the leftist activists and their allies in the media concentrate only on beating up Republicans over our principled stand on the Second Amendment, then we may not have the discussion that we need to have over all of these other issues [like treatment for mental illnesses],” he told Waters.

Brophy’s unsubstantiated accusation of Democratic politicking contrasts with another strand of thinking by local politicians, like Colorado Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman quoted below, who argue that politicians can do nothing at all.

“The real bottom line here, is there is 300 million people in this country. Someone, somewhere is planning to do harm to somebody at any given day, and all the laws in the world aren’t going to stop it,” Cadman said at a Denver-Press-Club forum, as reported by Rocky Mountain Community Radio’s Bente Berkeland. “Criminals will still do criminal acts.”

So, if he really thinks nothing can be done, does Cadman also think the Dems are all about politics too, like Brophy does?

See the entire Brophy interview here.

The Associated Press speculated Saturday that immigration legislation, which House Republicans say they’ll bring up this week, during the lame duck session, could be seen as evidence that the GOP is “serious about overhauling the nation’s dysfunctional immigration system.”

If you know nothing about immigration, then, yes, you might think the House bill, called the “STEM Jobs Act,” is serious. It would grant more visas for foreign students and help green-card-holding immigrants bring their family members here. That’s it.

Immigration reform, if it is serious, needs to deal with the estimated 12 million undocumented people currently in the U.S. The House bill affects not a one of them.

But the GOP’s window-dressing activities in Washington raise the question for reporters of what Republicans here in Colorado have to say about national immigration reform.

It’s not a story that should be left to the beltway press, just because the decision will ultimately be made there. Colorado will be disproportionately affected, and so the views of the local politicians should be heard, even if they’re ignored.

But lately, we haven’t been hearing much talk from GOP legislators here about it, even from the GOP legislators who not long ago considered introducing an Arizona-style immigration bill for Colorado.

Why isn’t there more talk here in Colorado about what national immigration should look like?

One recent murmur I found from came from Rep. Ray Scott of Grand Junction, when he was a guest on KBDI’s Studio 12 public affairs show Sept. 12:

SCOTT:  Probably one of the most impressive programs that I’ve even read about, and maybe you all have read about it as well, is called the “Red Card Solution.”

HOST TAMRA BANKS:  Yes.

SCOTT: …It’s a very thoughtful approach to how to approach immigration issues on the federal level, which obviously drift down to the state level.

Scott gets credit for appearing on Studio 12 at all to discuss immigration issues, because, as Banks told Scott on air, she “called a number of [Scott’s] colleagues who would not talk an hour live about this issue.”

Authored in 2008 by Helen Krieble, a Colorado businesswomen in need of menial labor, the Red Card Solution is basically a guest worker program. Paid for not by taxes but by fees from businesses that want workers and by foreign workers who want jobs, it’s proposed to be a market-driven, non-governmental “private sector initiative,” which would control the borders, provide labor to U.S. business owners, and incentivize job seekers to legally enter and work in the U.S.

Undocumented workers in the U.S. would presumably be required to return to their home countries with their families, in a wave of reverse immigration, and obtain workers’ permits to come back to America for employment. They’d pick up their work permits from U.S.-certified private companies operating in foreign countries.

If that sounds thin on details, it’s not my fault. It is, even though big-thinking Newt Gingrich latched onto the idea. It’s been widely criticized as unworkable.

But at least Rep. Scott had the guts to put it out there. Do his fellow Republicans agree with it? Or do they want something else that offers a path to citizenship, like many Democrats prefer, as part of comprehensive immigration reform?

As the immigration debate heats up in DC, with Republicans saying they want to be reasonable but offering little or no details to back them up, I’m hoping reporters seek out the views of local leaders on both sides of the aisle.

Who will talk about it? Who won’t? And why?

On the radio Monday, State Sen. Greg Brophy said there’s “element” of “folks who just don’t like Christians” in Colorado, and “they are well represented at the State Capital right now.”

Citing Obama’s victory, as well as the passage of a measure legalizing and taxing marijuana, Brophy said on the radio:

BROPHY: “That’s what leads me to say that we’re kind of a Libertarian/Left state. You know, and geez, I hate to say this, but it sure seems like there is an element of an anti-Christian bent in Colorado which probably does also play into that Libertarian/Left side of things…and they’re well represented at the State Capital right now.”

KFKA radio’s guest host Krista Kafer didn’t ask Brophy to reveal his list of anti-Christian folk up at the State Capitol. So I called him to find out whom he was thinking of.

Brophy referred me to an opinion piece he wrote arguing that Senate Democrats were attacking hospitals for their religious convictions. They passed a bill, which did not clear the House, that would have required hospitals to post services that they elect not to provide due to religious, not medical considerations (e.g., abortion and some contraception services), but Senate Democrats rejected an amendment requiring all hospitals to list services they don’t provide, Brophy wrote.

“If you remember,” Brophy told me, “when I was [on the radio], I said I don’t want to say this because it’s kind of a harsh thing to say, but I think it’s an accurate observation.

So it’s based on that? Or are there other things?

“That’s a very public observation that’s been out there,” Brophy said. “Other stuff is certainly more subtle. You never can tell for sure, Jason, what someone’s thinking or what motivates them. You can only tell what they do. And when I wrote that op-ed I specifically went into what they did.”

I thought it was ironic that Brophy was raising the specter of anti-Christian bigotry at the State Capitol, given his comments about gays in the same KFKA interview Monday.

Brophy said he believes civil unions are one thing, but it would go too far to require an adoption agency, for example, to award a child to a traditional couple over gay couple based on the adoption agency’s alleged religious beliefs about the morality of homosexuality.

BROPHY: “But isn’t there a happy medium here where you can also have an adoption agency that says, “All things being equal, we would prefer to have a male-female married couple work with our adopted children – all things being equal.” I mean, I think most people believe that too, and I would hope that we could find a happy medium. I suspect that we will end up settling this question at a U.S. Supreme Court level within just a couple of years, because there are some cases that are testing this. For instance, say, if you run a Bed and Breakfast and want to cater to folks who are on, you know, bible study-based family vacations, and you refuse to rent a room to somebody who isn’t married, or who is in a same-sex marriage, you can be sued for discrimination. And your– that’s a direct contradiction between the civil rights protection and the religious liberty protection.

We heard a lot about religious liberty during the election, as Republicans argued that restrictions on abortion and women’s health should be accepted as religious freedoms instead of as a war on women.

Brophy’s comments, about gays and Christian haters, leave me thinking that he’s not going to back away from the election rhetoric. He didn’t talk about Republicans working with each other or with Democrats, but instead about Republicans picking sides within their own party and fighting, building a movement of social conservatives prior to the next primary.

BROPHY: “And there’s an element, there’s a leg, or an element of the Republican Party that has always been rather embarrassed by the Christian conservative component of the Republican Party. I don’t know what to do with them. I mean, you know, we form our coalitions in U.S. politics before the primary and so, pick your side. And as for me, I’m going to be on the side that argues for fiscal restraint, and that argues for religious liberty and individual liberty, limited government and less spending by the government, but either people buy that argument or they don’t.”

If I’m a reporter, and I hear Brophy, I’d be watching to see if the election collapse had any impact at all on him and like-minded Republicans. It appears it did not.

The headline on an Associated Press story last week, juxtaposed to the GOP comments in the article, tell you all you need to know about how it’s one thing for Republicans to promise to be nicer to Hispanics, as Josh Penry and Rob Witwer did recently, and another thing for them to stop pushing policies that do nothing but alienate Hispanics from the GOP.

First, the headline of the AP story:

“Colorado Democrats Plan To Pass Tuition Aid For Immigrants”

Then, the GOP response toward the end of the story:

Arvada Republican Rep. Libby Szabo said it was too soon to tell whether her party would support the tuition legislation.

“One thing I learned in my first legislative session is that I don’t comment on anything I have not seen,” she said.

Szabo, who was elected to be her party’s assistant House minority leader Thursday, made her gender and her Latino background part of her pitch for the leadership post, saying, “I am a woman Latino, and I think it would speak big if we didn’t just talk about reaching out to them, but we said we are going to put someone in leadership who is actually one of them.”

So Szabo couldn’t even commit her own support to the state version of the Dream Act, much less the members of her party who organized opposition this summer when Metro State University dared to lower tuition rates for undocumented kids.

Instead, Szabo makes a parody of herself by saying, look at me! I’m proof positive that the GOP likes Hispanics!

So here’s the point of this blog post: Reporters shouldn’t let Republicans get away with saying they support Hispanics without asking for those ugly specifics, which go beyond good looks and leadership positions.

As The Denver Post’s Alicia Caldwell said during an excellent discussion of the election on Rocky Mountain PBS’ Colorado State of Mind Nov. 9, “You have to change policies as well as faces.”

As my colleague Michael Lund pointed out, polling shows Hispanics, to the extent you can generalize, care most about jobs and the economy, as well as education, immigration, and healthcare–and the Colorado GOP doesn’t offer them much on these fronts. Project New America polling also showed that basic concern and the poor matters.

The question is, what will Colorado Republicans offer Hispanics in any of these areas?

Will Republicans offer anything on the economy except de-regulation and tax cuts?  On healthcare, will the Colorado GOP stop trying to block implementation of Obamacare? On education, will they finally get behind the reduced tuition bill that Szabo is noncommittal about? Will they support a pathway for citizenship both for undocumented children as well their parents? Do Republicans think they need to become Democrats to win over Hispanics?

If Republicans aren’t pressed, we’ll get the kind of rhetoric Penry and Witwer offered up this weekend in The Post:

Great, a reporter should say to Penry and Witwer, but where’s the burrito?

Last week, The Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels posted an email from Rep. Ken Summers, in which he explained why he thought he lost his State Senate race against Democrat Andy Kerr.

Summers wrote Bartels that his opponents lied about him and distorted his views. He wrote, for example:

I have never been supportive of the personhood amendment, but that was the basis for saying Ken Summers is against contraception.

This sentence caught my attention because it directly contradicted Summers’ response to a 2008 Rocky Mountain News candidate questionnaire, which you can see with your own eyes here: Ken Summers’ 2008 Rocky Mountain News candidate questionnaire

In it, Summers, a Republican and former pastor, answers plainly:

Do you support Amendment 48? It would ban abortion by defining personhood as beginning at fertilization.

Summers: Yes

In the candidate’s words: A new baseline for this issue is needed. Clarifications will be needed.

In her blog post, Bartels didn’t correct Summers’ statement. Nor did she do so after a commenter spotlighted the factual error. Clearly, she should have set Summers straight for the record, because these details matter.

And of course, more could be written about Summers and personhood, even though the election seems like ages ago already, and Summers lost.

People might want to know why Summers apparently has no recollection of supporting personhood, and whether he understood that it would, in fact, ban many forms of birth control, in addition to all abortion, even in the case of rape and incest.

Would Summers, who I’ve found to be relatively reasonable, be less angry at the “nasty” mailers of his opponents, and more upset with his own self, if he were reminded of his 2008 endorsement of personhood? Perhaps he thought his extreme position on abortion was private, that he’d not gone public with it, and he simply forgot about the Rocky questionnaire.

Who knows?

But from a journalistic perspective, it proves the point that’s been proven over and over again, that nasty things usually look a lot less nasty when you report both sides and put the facts on the table.

Rep. J. Paul Brown introduced legislation last year that would have overturned a 1992 ballot initiative banning bear hunting in the spring and summer.

Brown took a lot of heat for this, from all quarters, including environmental groups and the Durango Herald, and his bill died.

But as far as I can tell, no one reported on whether Brown will introduce the bill again, if he survives a tough challenge in his House District 59 race.

That is, until the Telluride Watch’s Samantha Wright reported Oct. 18:

“I’d like to try it again,” [Brown] said of his bear legislation. “It is not my  intention to kill mommas and baby bears. But I know that we’ve got a problem and  if we don’t do something, someone is going to get killed.”

Wright reported that Brown continues to believe that the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife should be deciding how to manage bears, even though the Parks Division didn’t request his bill.

Regardless of the merits of Brown’s bill, the Telluride Watch deserves credit for letting voters know how Brown’s legislative ups and downs will play out again if he’s re-elected.

On KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado last week, Rep. Robert Ramirez complained about a mailer pointing out that Ramirez is opposed to in-vitro fertilization.

Maybe I’m a bit more personhood-obsessed than radio host Ken Clark, but I know that Ramirez, who’s running for House District 29, supports the personhood amendment.

And, as I explain below, a personhood law would effectively ban in-vitro fertilization.

Hence, for those of you who remember your transitive principle (if x=y and y=b, then x=b), Ramirez opposes in-vitro fertilization.

First, here are Ramirez’s comments about personhood to the Colorado Independent:

Ramirez said he does support the personhood amendment.

“I signed the petition, but it has been voted down.” He says if personhood was introduced in the legislature, he would vote against it, because the people have already spoken twice. “I will sign it and I will fight for it every day of the week, but I won’t bypass the voters,” he said.

Yet, on the radio, Ramirez said he has no clue why his opponents would accuse him of being opposed to in-vitro fertilization:

KLZ HOST CLARK:  Well, I’ve seen some of those fliers and I’ve got to tell you, they are appalling—some of the things they’ve tried to , you know, no so subtly accuse you of.

RAMIREZ:  Mmm-hmm.

CLARK:  I mean, give me a break!  I mean, but—

RAMIREZ:  There’s one going out now saying I’m against in-vitro fertilization. Really? I’ve never even been asked.  [laughter]

CLARK: And you make it sound like that matters, somehow.

RAMIREZ: You know, if somebody wants to get pregnant and they go to their doctor and say, “Does this work?”   That’s their business, not mine….

I wish Clark had corrected Ramirez, because it does none of us any good to allow misinformation to hit the air waves unchallenged.

Here are a few passages from a carefully written research paper, co-authored by Colorado’s own Ari Armstrong, on how a personhood law would shut down fertility clinics in Colorado. (Armstrong is an independent blogger and sometime researcher for the Independence Institute).

In a section called “Bans on Common Fertility Treatments,” Armstrong and co-author Diana Hsieh, Ph. D.write:

In the context of a “personhood” law, the basic problem with in vitro fertilization is that often not all of the embryos are transferred to the woman’s uterus. Embryos in the lab could not be allowed to perish, nor languish in cold storage, as they would be considered persons with rights, and frozen embryos remain viable only for a few years. To eliminate such practices would render in vitro fertilization not worth doing for most infertile couples. So the practical result of Amendment 62 likely would be to shut down Colorado’s seven reproductive clinics and put an end to those births.

Finally, consider how Amendment 62 would change the legal status of all the frozen embryos now in existence: they would suddenly become “persons” under the law, with all the rights of born infants. Presumably, women would be forced to implant (or donate for implantation) all their existing embryos–or face criminal charges. Moreover, if the biological parents of a frozen embryo die, presumably the embryo has full rights of inheritance, thereby reducing the share of any born children, though how the frozen embryo will grow up to collect remains a problem.

This fantastical scenario highlights the absurdity of treating an embryo as a person in the law.

Ari Armstrong is on Clark’s radio show every now and then, and I hope Clark will ask Armstrong to discuss this issue next time he has the chance, the sooner the better, to set the record straight for KLZ listeners.

You recall that Colorado State Senate candidate John Sampson got in a dispute last week on KHOW radio with Orly Taitz, who said she served Sampson with a subpoena to appear at a birther trial in Indiana, aiming to knock President Barack Obama off the election ballot there.

With KHOW radio host Peter Boyles trying to mediate, Sampson told Taitz that he’d not received her subpoena, and he had no plans to testify at her trail, as he’d done previously at a trial in Georgia.

Taitz told Sampson that Sampson would be facing contempt of court charges if he did not appear, and at one point Sampson told Boyles to “put a muzzle” on Taitz, and Sampson threatened on air to sue Taitz for defamation of character.

Now Taitz has posted a fed ex receipt on her website proving, she writes, that Sampson has been officially served with the subpoena to testify.

On her blog, Taitz explained why she posted the receipt:

On Peter Boyle (sic) show John Sampson claimed that a subpoena was defective because it was mailed to his work address. He put his address at issue. Additionally his residence address is at issue, a he is running for office in Colorado and needs to show that he resides in the district.

In response I served him yet again by FedEx and posted the receipt, showing that the subpoena was received yet again at his home address and he does not have any excuse not to show up and not to testify. He can be found in contempt of court and liable to Plaintiffs, if he does not comply with the subpoena and does not show up to testify and authenticate his own sworn affidavit.

Boyles tried to interview Sampson on-air yesterday, but Sampson didn’t come on the show because he was campaigning.

When he comes back on the show, sooner or later, Boyles should ask Sampson if he’ll continue testifying in birther trials like Taitz’s, once Sampson is finished campaigning and has cleared up the other legal hurdles that he mentioned to Boyles last week.

Or has Sampson’s intense dispute with Taitz soured him on his work showing that Obama is using the Social Security number of a man from Connecticut?

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 26^th, 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!

SAMPSON:  Fine.

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—

The Denver Post reported Tuesday that GOP House candidate Rick Enstrom “does not have an arrest record, according to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation,” even though a Grand Junction Police report states that Enstrom was, in fact, “arrested for sale of drug paraphernalia.”

How could this be? How could Enstrom have been “arrested,” according to police in Grand Junction, and have no arrest record at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation?

The Post piece, written by Lynn Bartels, gave us no explanation, so I called the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to try to figure it out.

“Finger printing is the trigger for an arrest to be uploaded in our system,” said Susan Medina, spokeswoman for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

“You have to be physically processed through a police department where finger prints are taken,” she said.

This explains why Enstrom’s arrest doesn’t appear in the Colorado Bureau of Investigation database.

Enstrom was issued a summons and “released at the scene” of his 1985 arrest, according to Grand Junction police spokesperson Kate Porras.

“Because he wasn’t booked in a jail, we didn’t take finger prints,” Porras told me, adding that, as far as the Grand Junction police are concerned, Enstrom was arrested. She called Enstrom’s arrest a “non-custodial arrest,” because he wasn’t taken to jail.

“A Colorado Bureau of Investigation background check is not an end all,” Medina told me. “Our system just tells a piece of the story. If someone were issued a summons, it may be in a local jurisdiction’s database. To get into the statewide system, you need finger prints.”