Main Menu

Gallups, Taitz talk: Glass half full, or half wrong?

Orly Taitz published a fake email from Carl Gallups and that lead to a long exchange of “is it real?” among her commenters. If I read Taitz’ string of articles correctly, the same person who wrote the fake Gallups email,  one about the Court in Mississippi, and another one claiming to come from Paul Vallely (US Army retired). There appears to be an ongoing punk-jihad at the Taitz site.

Whoever writes the Carl Gallups Facebook page confirmed that the original email with his name on it was a fake, but there was a follow-up conversation between Gallups and Taitz, and Gallups wasn’t too happy about how Taitz reported it:

Half of what Orly wrote about her conversation with Carl is untrie and words twisted. Seems to be a pattern. Sad but true.

So what did Orly report? [link to Taitz site] Let me get on my boots and my rubber gloves.

I told Gallops that since I have him on the phone, I would like to ask him a couple of questions. I asked, why didn’t he report on my ongoing cases? He said that he invited me before. I responded that the last time I was on his show, was in 2009, 4 years ago. I stated that he reported repeatedly on someone else’s  case in AL, which was dismissed and on appeal, but he did not report on numerous other cases that were filed by me. He said that he did not know about them, that nobody gave him info on any of my cases.

I further asked him for the affidavit of expert Reed Hayes, so I can submit it to court. He said that it was copy-righted by Arpaio and Zullo, so it will not get into wrong hands and so that if anyone uses it, they can sue that person. I responded to Carl that he was a police officer and that he knows or should know that a sheriff cannot copyright an expert affidavit relating to a serious crime and sit on it for a year, that this is obstruction of justice. Gallops responded that he knows only what Zullo said on his show

In addition to the phone conversation, Gallups sent Taitz a letter, which according to Facebook is accurate, and to this reader, incriminating, where it says:

Mike Zullo has assured me that if you can provide him with the I.P. address of the letter that he has the ability to trace it down to determine the actual sender.

That sounds seriously unethical and probably illegal, but Zullo could just be lying again.

, , ,

5 Responses to Gallups, Taitz talk: Glass half full, or half wrong?

  1. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 5, 2014 at 4:19 pm #

    Yes, someone – Zullo? Gallups? – is either lying or they’re both dumber than a bucket of rocks.

    Going after phone records probably involves federal law but if not it’s just like the cops running license plates to find out the name of the good looking person in the car they just drove by. That happens a lot!

  2. avatar
    RanTalbott February 5, 2014 at 4:37 pm #

    “he has the ability to trace it down to determine the actual sender”

    Of course, he doesn’t say he’ll actually do it: just that he can.

    Since the CCP got all its investigative techniques from watch CSI re-runs, maybe they got their interrogation methods from watching Lawn Order, and are just trying to trick Orly into revealing what she knows.

  3. avatar
    Dave February 5, 2014 at 4:46 pm #

    Besides “unethical” and “lying” there is another possibility, that Zullo is mistaken. Many people think they know how to turn a IP address into an identity, and we’ve seen this with commenters at Taitz’s site many time. And their method is ludicrously wrong. It’s possible this is what Zullo meant when he said he could trace it to a person.

  4. avatar
    mimi February 6, 2014 at 7:39 pm #

    True. When dealing with birthers, you must always consider the ‘just plain stupid’ explanation.

  5. avatar
    The Magic M February 7, 2014 at 5:00 am #

    Stupidity helps and might also be a result of believing their own lies, but there is no birther I know whose behaviour can *only* be attributed to stupidity.