Peter Boyles Show, John Sampson, October 18, 2012

Station:      KHOW, 630 AM

Show:        Peter Boyles Show

Guests:      Sampson


Date:         October 18, 2012

Topics:       Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Mike Zullo, Arizona, Indiana, Subpoena, Social Security Number, Barak Obama, Department of Homeland Security, Colorado State Senate, Candidate, Campaign, Civil Rights, Contempt of Court, Backroom Deals, Collusion, Defamation of Character, Libel, Slander, Malpractice, Birther

Click Here for Audio


DOCTOR & NOTABLE BIRTHER, ORLY TAITZ:  [speaking about the new court case in Indiana which is examining Barak Obama’s use of another person’s Social Security number and other evidence that allegedly proves his ineligibility for the presidency.]  There is one other thing your listeners can do in the state of Colorado.  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. And, so, I – his phone number is known because he is running for office in Colorado

HOST PETER BOYLES:  Yeah, but go slowly here.  We know John.

TAITZ:  Yeah.

BOYLES:  He’s been on the radio show with us many times.  And we’ve talked – you know, John is in a close election here.  And I mean, I understand that you want him to come to Indiana and, believe me, I love you both and respect you both, and –

TAITZ:  Well, he can come for one day!  Listen, I’m not asking him to be there for a month.  One day!  Nothing is going to happen to his election, trust me!

BOYLES:  Okay.  But –

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 he 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.  So, please, I’m asking all the listeners to–

BOYLES:  What about bringing in Susan Daniels?

TAITZ:  Susan Daniels is coming. But, the problem is she was never a governmental official.  He [Sampson] was a senior deportation officer –

BOYLES:  All right!  Greg [Hollenback, producer on the Peter Boyles show, aka “Shiek”] right now is trying to contact John Sampson.

TAITZ:  That would be great, because he has to be –

BOYLES:  Shiek is trying to – all right, hang on!  Before you—Shiek’s—Greg’s trying to call him.

TAITZ:  Okay.

BOYLES:    And let me put you on hold here, for a second, and see if we can find him and bring you back.  That’s Orly Taitz.  I’ve been hearing about this and we decided to bring her on the show and talk.  KHOW radio.  [Promotional spot for Xfinity].  Ah, Greg– as Greg is trying to contact John Sampson, why don’t we take a break.  Want to do that, Shiek?  Why don’t we–

[in background, a voice (presumably Greg’s Hollenback’s) says something inaudible]

BOYLES:    [responding to someone off-air] Okay.  All right.  All right.  Try—All right.  We put it all together.  Good work by Greg Hollenback.  It’s Thursday morning.  We have John Sampson on the line.  And these are both friends.  And there seems to be an issue, here.  Another one is that—is, of course, Orly Taitz.  Hey, John!  Thanks, man! Good morning! Welcome back to the show.  It’s good to hear your voice.


BOYLES:    Hey, Miss Taitz, you have John there.  What’s going on, you guys?

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.  Elections are highly [inaudible – “rigged”??]

BOYLES:    All right.  Hang on.  Stop right there.  All right.  John, it’s yours, brother.

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:  Okay, let me respond to that.  Can I respond?

BOYLES:  Yeah, but let him finish, please, Orly.  I mean, I – listen, both you guys, I have immense respect.  What John is saying, you know, I’m—

TAITZ:  No, I’ve heard what he said–

BOYLES:  I know, I know, but I–

TAITZ:  –and it’s complete nonsense!

BOYLES:  No! No, I’ll tell you – Orly!


BOYLES:  Orly!  Orly, it’s not–

TAITZ:  Yes.

BOYLES:  I mean, I’m in a circle of people that I speak to every couple of days and you know, someday, as John and I have said, the book gets written and people talk about what was going on, I think Arpaio is sitting on some really interesting stuff and– I mean, John Sampson is anything but a coward, anything but a coward.

TAITZ:  Well, you know what, Arpaio –

SAMPSON:  I’m – I’m –

TAITZ:  –he’s only poisoning this case.  Let me tell you something.  Arpaio raised seven million dollars and mostly because he promoted this issue and he promised people that he will bring it to court.  He will file a criminal complaint.  He did nothing.  He did not file a criminal complaint with the FBI, he did not file —

SAMPSON:  Can I– Can I jump in here for a moment?

TAITZ:  No!  No, let me –

BOYLES:  Orly—

TAITZ:  No.  Let me finish what I have to say.  He did not file a complaint with the District Attorney, with Attorney General.  He did nothing.  Moreover, [inaudible] filed a case against Arpaio for violation of civil rights.  Obama filed this case.  And recently, a case by the federal government was suddenly dismissed with [inaudible 23:12].  And after that happened, Arpaio went silent.  And we do have a problem.  A lot of people are now asking Arpaio to refund all the money that they donated to him for this issue, because after the election it will be too late.  We need him to act now.  I have actually filed a lawsuit in Arizona to compel his 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:  All right.  All right.  Hang on, Orly.  Orly— please!

TAITZ:  –but he is refusing to testify, he is hurting himself.

BOYLES:  All right.  John –


BOYLES:  Go ahead, if you would.

SAMPSON:  Okay.  [pause] I’ve been involved in criminal law enforcement the entire adult life that I’ve led.  You do not, under any circumstances, walk into a civil court while there is a criminal investigation going on and subject yourself –

TAITZ:  This is nonsense!

BOYLES:  [shouting] Hey, Orly!  Please! Orly, please!

TAITZ:  Okay,.

SAMPSON:  Orly!  Orly, I’ve allowed you to speak.  I would appreciate the respect and courtesy that I’ve given you that you give me.  You do not walk into a civil courtroom when there is a criminal investigation going on and put yourself in the witness chair, where you are now subject to being asked questions that you may be compelled to answer which would then–

TAITZ:  [inaudible interruption]

BOYLES:  Orly!  Orly, please.

TAITZ:  Okay.

SAMPSON:  –adversely impact the criminal investigation.  That is the way it is done.  I am not going–

TAITZ:  No!  No, this is nonsense!

SAMPSON:  Please listen

TAITZ:  This is complete nonsense.  Look you’ve got – you received —

SAMPSON:  Peter, before I hang up—

BOYLES:  Orly!  Orly!  Orly!

TAITZ:  You’ve said the same thing three times!  But the point is, you’re not asked to say something that has not been disclosed to public.

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.”

BOYLES:  [interrupting] All right.  Let me ask John.  John,–

TAITZ:  Let me finish.  And —

BOYLES:  No! Hang on! Orly, please!  [talking over Dr. Taitz] Just one minute.  Orly, please!  Orly!

TAITZ:  One sentence! One sentence!

BOYLES:  Oh, heavens.  All right.

TAITZ:  All John is asked to do is appear in court.  The judge has his affidavit.  All he has to say is, “Yes, I am John Sampson.  I signed this affidavit, and it’s true and correct.  I cannot give anymore information because of ongoing investigations.”   That’s it!  He has to be there for one minute.  That’s it!

BOYLES:  All right.  John,–  Orly!  John, I’ve known you a long time.

SAMPSON:  Go ahead.

BOYLES:  Did you cut some kind of a fat deal with Arpaio and the federal government?

SAMPSON:  Absolutely, positively—

TAITZ:  No!  Not you! Not John!

SAMPSON:  And I re—

TAITZ:  Arpaio did!

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:  All right.  Now listen to me, Orly.  I’ve known this guy, I’ve been through a really intense fight for a guy by the name of Cory Voorhis here, and I saw John Sampson stand every day with us and do all the right things.  I know this guy.  He’s a tough guy.  He was a cop–

TAITZ:  Well, he’s doing the wrong thing now! He’s doing absolutely the wrong thing.

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:  Well—

TAITZ:  And he has an opportunity to help

BOLYLES:  If you—I mean, are there other – are there other—

TAITZ:  No!  He can give something to his country!  And he needs to show up there for one minute, when I’m paying all of his expenses, and all he has to do – “Yes, the affidavit that I signed before were correct.”  That’s it!

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.

BOYLES:  All right.  Orly.

TAITZ:  Okay.  It’s now – Now it is my turn to state.  There was absolutely no defamation.  I was asked to state, “Why do you think Arpaio is not showing up?  Why do you think Arpaio is telling Sampson not to show up?” And I said, “This is my suspicion.  That is what I think.”

BOYLES:  Yeah, but he’s not doing that.

TAITZ:  Uh, now, I don’t know what is he’s doing [sic].

BOYLES:  Don’t say—

TAITZ:  However, — wait a second—I do not know why he is not coming to court for one minute–

BOYLES:  He just told you.

TAITZ:  –to tell the judge – let me finish!  You wanted me to be quiet.  Now  let me say what I have to say.  He spoke for a few minutes.  I’m going to speak.  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— [podcast cuts off]