Main Menu

Brian Reilly answers more commenter questions

The following was received in email today from Brian Reilly:

My answers to questions are underlined and in bold italics. Thank you for your very thoughtful questions.

CarlOrcas March 13, 2014 at 11:29 pm #
Mr. Reilly,
Here are the questions I mentioned to Doc. If you are inclined and have time I think we’d all find your answer enlightening. Your material is in bold italics.

The Crown Vics were owned by the Cold Case Posse, a non-profit Arizona corporation, and yes they had government plates.I presume they were purchased as surplus from the county, is that correct? I was told by Zullo the silver Crown Vic was purchased from the county for 50 cents. Do you know if the purchase was made from the MCSO before they went to the county for disposal as surplus? Unknown And do you have any idea how they retained their government plates once they were sold to a private, non-profit entity? Unknown.

How about insurance? I know you said you put the one you were assigned on your personal policy but do you know if the posse had insurance….of any kind….in its own name? Unknown.

Do you know how many cars the Cold Case Posse owned? I was aware of three vehicles, and possibly a fourth vehicle. Were they equipped with any police equipment: MCSO radio? Yes. Siren? Yes. Emergency lights? Yes.

You said something about having gas card or key. Was that a commercial gas credit card or a key to the county pumps? County pumps, county key.

4. The files were maintained by Commander Mike Zullo. It is his work product.

5. I am unaware of any MCSO DR (case) number. The non-profit CCP Inc. was doing the investigation, not the MCSO.

This really fascinates me. Having been involved with non-profits I know that the members work product belongs to the entity, not the member and especially not the officers.

It strikes me that Zullo can’t have it both ways. Did he explain to you how he felt it was “his work product”? He told me it was his work product and he did not have to release anything to Arpaio. Did he think the posse belonged to him? Unknown. Did the posse have an attorney? I was aware of one CCP member who was an attorney. If so, did he/she approve the ownership situation? I saw a letter, but I‘d prefer not to comment about the content.

As far as the “investigation” is concerned did either Zullo or Arpaio explain how a private entity was going to be able to conduct an “investigation” that one of its founders would own? No. Along the same line of thought, once I became aware of the publication of the first Zullo, Corsi e-book with an introduction by Sheriff Arpaio I was absolutely irate. As you can tell I find the whole proposition dubious, at best.

6. My expenses were paid by Commander Zullo by credit/debit card.
Do you know if it was personal card or the posse or the county? Unknown. If it was a personal card do you know if and how he was reimbursed and by whom? In theory it would have been from public donations.

You may find this very difficult to believe (as did I), but Commander Zullo informed me that the CCP was used as bar bouncers for taverns and paid less than $10 per hour per person.

This is absolutely mind boggling! Did this stop before you joined the posse? Yes, that is my understanding. A couple other questions regarding this amazing revelation, if you know the answers:

How was the posse paid ? Posse Posse members are supposed to be unpaid volunteers. I have no knowledge how they were apparently paid as bar bouncers and where the funds went.

Were members paid for their time and by whom? I was told they made a figure less than $10 per hour, per person.

If so were taxes withheld? Unknown.

Did the posse have business licenses? Unknown.

Did anyone explain to you how a non-profit charity can compete against private for-profit security companies? No. I was never involved in any CCP bar bouncer details.

The car that I was assigned was used on those details and exhibited extensive paint damage. Commander Zullo told me that the damage was from throwing people against the car during tavern details.

Leaving aside the phony bravado for the moment did Zullo explain what authority posse members had and who covered them should someone get upset about being thrown up against a car?

It was my understanding that if actions were taken by posse members that were according to policy, posse members were covered by Maricopa County Risk Management. According to MCSO policy, the unpaid volunteer posse member is considered support for law enforcement, but the posse member is not a sworn law enforcement officer. He /she may act in a law enforcement support capacity at the direction of a sworn MCSO deputy sheriff. My Sheriff’s Posse ID stated the following: KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT I, JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, SHERIFF OF MARICOPA COUNTY,STATE OF ARIZONA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT Brian Reilly IS MY LAWFUL POSSE MEMBER WHO IS EMPOWERED TO ACT AS IF I MYSELF WERE PRESENT, WHEN CALLED UPON TO ACT.” (Caps used in original text) At one point Zullo told me that Sheriff Arpaio had given us full law enforcement authority. How could that be when we were not sworn law enforcement officers? The MCSO posse system, truly is an enigma, and in the case of the Cold Case Posse, in my opinion, it appears not to be financially accountable to anyone or any entity.

That’s it for right now.
Thanks….again.
You’re very welcome.

Notorial Dissent March 14, 2014 at 6:43 am Notorial Dissent #
Mr Reilly,
Thank you for the responses, they definitely went a long ways towards filling in some of the glaring gaps in the saga of the CCP. You’re very welcome.
I am curious as to why you resigned from both Surprise Tea Party Patriots and the Tea Party, would you care to share your reasons?

At the time, I was very uncomfortable and concerned about what I considered to be unethical fund raising advertising on the STPP website allegedly seeking funds for the Cold Case Posse investigation. As a CCP member I wrote three formal letters to the STPP requesting that they cease their misleading Cold Case Posse advertising. After I wrote the letters, my wife and I chose to disassociate with the STPP and resigned from the board of the STPP. Five other board members resigned after Denise and I resigned.
(Snip)

….Again, I do want to thank you for taking the time, and not to mention the effort, to put this all down on paper, or electrons, as the case may be. I have very much enjoyed reading it, and look forward to further material.
You’re very welcome.

jtmunkus March 14, 2014 at 8:14 am jtmunkus #
Mr. Reilly:
I am impressed by your candor and your followup. Obviously you are committed to the noble truth, and for that I commend you.

Like I said on the Fogbow, I’ll forgive you your earlier birthing, and even your Tea Party leanings, that we may work together to reclaim an honest, civil, two-sided discourse and rise above all the hatred that’s been going around.
Cheers!

Thank you for your kind comments jtmunkus. I resigned from all Tea Party affiliations in June of 2012. I agree, civil two sided discourse is indeed necessary.

begansel9:
I realize that in theory, but how about reality? Do you have any clue whether that rule is being followed? (“Does the money to cover these items come from donations or is it coming out of MCSO coffers?”)

I never saw any of the financial records. I was told by Zullo that in mid 2012, donations for the Cold Case Posse were up to $80,000.00. If his statement was true, there would have been sufficient funds to follow the theory.

Thanks again to all for your comments and your kind remarks.
Regards,
Brian Reilly

,

78 Responses to Brian Reilly answers more commenter questions

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 15, 2014 at 5:33 pm #

    I am very pleased that Brian Reilly has chosen to put the $80,000 figure on the record.

  2. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 15, 2014 at 5:54 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I am very pleased that Brian Reilly has chosen to put the $80,000 figure on the record.


    Great job, Doc. Thanks to you, Reilly, and the other posters who have led to this enlightenment.

  3. avatar
    bgansel9 March 15, 2014 at 6:05 pm #

    Thank you Mr. Reilly.

  4. avatar
    bgansel9 March 15, 2014 at 6:08 pm #

    “You said something about having gas card or key. Was that a commercial gas credit card or a key to the county pumps?”

    Reilly’s response: “County pumps, county key.”

    That sounds to me as if the county pays for the gas in these vehicles. Hmmm!

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 15, 2014 at 6:16 pm #

    If the cars were used by posse members for prisoner transport, as apparently was represented to the County Board, then it only made sense for the County to pay for the gas.

    Of course, the CCP was doing something entirely different by the time Reilly joined.

    I chose the quote of the day before I got Brian’s email with the answers, but this is relevant and I will insert it here:

    Section 11-410. Use of county resources or employees to influence elections; prohibitions

    A. A county shall not use its personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or other resources for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections. Notwithstanding this section, a county may distribute informational reports on a proposed bond election as provided in § 35-454. Nothing in this section precludes a county from reporting on official actions of the county board of supervisors.

    The investigation of Barack Obama’s birth certificate IN MARICOPA COUNTY could have been nothing else but politically motivated. If the investigation had gone on privately, it might not have been political, but multiple press conferences make it political and an attempt to damage the reputation of the President at a time he was running for re-election.

    It looks like Sheriff Joe (who is an Official, not an employee) played this craftily by giving the job to volunteers instead of employees, but that gas key is a problem.

    bgansel9:
    “You said something about having gas card or key. Was that a commercial gas credit card or a key to the county pumps?”

    Reilly’s response: “County pumps, county key.”

    That sounds to me as if the county pays for the gas in these vehicles. Hmmm!

  6. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 15, 2014 at 6:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I am very pleased that Brian Reilly has chosen to put the $80,000 figure on the record.

    Yes, indeed. If the figure was $80,000 nearly two years ago it begs the question…..what is it today??

  7. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 15, 2014 at 6:38 pm #

    I wonder if the $80,000 went to paying Zullo a full time salary.

  8. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 15, 2014 at 7:46 pm #

    Mr. Reilly,

    Once again thanks for your time and candor. As you might suspect your answers have prompted more questions:

    First, as a result of your postings here have you heard from, or gotten any questions from anyone at the MCSO, the Board of Supervisors or County Administration? Do you know if they are aware of what you are doing?

    Again, your answers from the previous message are in bold and my new questions follow:

    Do you know how many cars the Cold Case Posse owned? I was aware of three vehicles, and possibly a fourth vehicle. Were they equipped with any police equipment: MCSO radio? Yes. Siren? Yes. Emergency lights? Yes.

    Do you know who those vehicles were assigned to? Were they, like yours, full time assignments? I forgot to ask but were there restrictions on when you could use the vehicle?

    As far as the police equipment is concerned: Did you have an MCSO call sign or radio ID? What did you use the radio for? Did you check on and off duty, in and out of your car? What channel did you use? Were you ever dispatched on any calls.

    What were you told about using the lights and siren? What were the rules on on-view situations? I assume you were told you couldn’t make traffic stops? How about responding to emergency calls or officer needs help calls?

    It strikes me that Zullo can’t have it both ways. Did he explain to you how he felt it was “his work product”? He told me it was his work product and he did not have to release anything to Arpaio.

    I’m speechless.

    Did the posse have an attorney? I was aware of one CCP member who was an attorney. If so, did he/she approve the ownership situation? I saw a letter, but I‘d prefer not to comment about the content.

    I understand.

    As far as the “investigation” is concerned did either Zullo or Arpaio explain how a private entity was going to be able to conduct an “investigation” that one of its founders would own? No. Along the same line of thought, once I became aware of the publication of the first Zullo, Corsi e-book with an introduction by Sheriff Arpaio I was absolutely irate.

    And what was their response?

    One last question along this line: Did any of them explain how this information could subsequently be used in a criminal prosecution….if it got that far?

    At one point Zullo told me that Sheriff Arpaio had given us full law enforcement authority. How could that be when we were not sworn law enforcement officers?

    He couldn’t. Period.

    The MCSO posse system, truly is an enigma, and in the case of the Cold Case Posse, in my opinion, it appears not to be financially accountable to anyone or any entity.

    All the other shenanigans aside this is the area that’s beginning to interest me the most. Originally I felt there couldn’t be that much money in it but once I got the financials for the other posses and saw your number for 2012 (as of 2012?) I changed my mind.

    Again……thank you for your openness and your willingness to participate in this every enlightening exercise.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 15, 2014 at 7:58 pm #

    According to Posse IRS filings and Articles of Incorporation, Zullo could not be receiving any salary. Of course, no one on the outside knows what they really do.

    It reminds me of a funny story told about Oral Roberts, an old-time TV preacher and faith healer. When asked how he decided how much of the contributions he received went to God and how much he kept for himself, Roberts replied that it was simple. He just took all the checks and threw them up into the air, and told God to keep all He wanted.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: I wonder if the $80,000 went to paying Zullo a full time salary.

  10. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 15, 2014 at 8:03 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If the cars were used by posse members for prisoner transport, as apparently was represented to the County Board, then it only made sense for the County to pay for the gas.

    Sorry but this one doesn’t make any sense either.

    Private and/or off duty security details don’t do their own prisoner transport and if they did it’s even worse than I thought.

    If you want to get into the weeds on this we can but it’s basically nonsense.

    Now…..as far as your thoughts on improper political activity are concerned I think you’re on to something but, unfortunately, Arizona history is just full of this stuff…..particularly on the part of county officials. In the smaller counties those elected officials are real kingmakers.

  11. avatar
    Commander Publius March 15, 2014 at 8:51 pm #

    No. Along the same line of thought, once I became aware of the publication of the first Zullo, Corsi e-book with an introduction by Sheriff Arpaio I was absolutely irate.

    My jaw dropped when I learned Corsi & Zullo had an ebook, launched the day BEFORE the major press conference, with the profits to be split by… Corsi and Zullo.

    It was a brazen display of impropriety and profiteering.

    And I don’t say that because I’m just anti-Zullo or anti-Corsi.

    I say it because it was a brazen display of impropriety and profiteering.

  12. avatar
    Norbrook March 15, 2014 at 8:57 pm #

    What astounds me is the lack of accountability on the part of the Maracopa Sheriff’s office and the CCP both professionally and financially. There seems to be a large amount of mixing of funds, as well as rather … fuzzy … lines of responsibility. That this is apparently “legal” in Arizona doesn’t speak well of that state’s notion of public accounting. In my state, this would have long ago triggered an audit by the state comptroller’s office and quite likely the state AG.

  13. avatar
    Rickey March 15, 2014 at 9:16 pm #

    My questions has to do with personal use of the CCP vehicles. Were posse members who were given CCP vehicles required to reimburse the CCP for personal miles? Were they allowed to bring the vehicles home?

    I know that employees who have company cars are required to reimburse their employers for personal mileage or their personal mileage is considered taxable income.

  14. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 15, 2014 at 9:55 pm #

    Norbrook: That this is apparently “legal” in Arizona doesn’t speak well of that state’s notion of public accounting. In my state, this would have long ago triggered an audit by the state comptroller’s office and quite likely the state AG.

    No…..it’s not legal in Arizona either. And that’s why I’m participating here….in hopes that someone will take notice and do something about it.

    Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

  15. avatar
    Kate March 15, 2014 at 10:31 pm #

    Thank you to Brian Reilly for having the courage to come forward and publicly admit that he now believes President Obama’s Birth Certificate is legitimate and that he was born in Hawaii on 8/4/61.

    I was hoping you could shed some light on the idea that both Arpaio and Zullo claimed that they were hoping to clear President Obama with their investigation yet the only person who Zullo spoke to for over a dozen hours was a known birther, Jerome Corsi. If you’re starting a real investigation, why would you start with such a biased source, using birthers to determine the legitimacy of the birth certificate despite their having no such training or experience? Did Zullo ever mention the fact that Corsi dismissed the opinions of actual experts whose opinion regarding the LFBC was not the same as his?

    Thanks for any answers you can provide about the above questions. I also would like to thank Doc C and RC for providing a place where adults can discuss their differences in a civil tones without fear of being banned or being unable to speak your mind. I couldn’t help but notice the difference between the times I’ve listened to RC’s radio show and Carl Gallups show. One allows others to speak their mind and the other only allows those who agree with them, obviously afraid to let anyone speak who thinks differently than them. I doubt Brian Reilly is the only one who feels like he does considering the far too frequent promises of “breaking news” from Zullo over the last 2 plus years that never come to fruition.

  16. avatar
    Arthur March 15, 2014 at 11:12 pm #

    From his comments at BirtherReport to those he has made here, Brian Reilly has been consistently straightforward and to the point. He resists making guesses or inferences, and chooses to comment only what he can personally vouch for. How he ever managed to work with Mike Zullo is beyond me.

  17. avatar
    Arthur March 15, 2014 at 11:15 pm #

    Norbrook:
    What astounds me is the lack of accountability on the part of the Maracopa Sheriff’s office and the CCP both professionally and financially.There seems to be a large amount of mixing of funds, as well as rather … fuzzy … lines of responsibility.That this is apparently “legal” in Arizona doesn’t speak well of that state’s notion of public accounting.In my state, this would have long ago triggered an audit by the state comptroller’s office and quite likely the state AG.

    I have the same reaction. After all the legal challenges to Arpaio’s tenure as Sheriff, I’m surprised more of this dubious activity wasn’t exposed.

  18. avatar
    Thinker March 15, 2014 at 11:49 pm #

    In his interview with RC, Brian hinted that one of the reasons Zullo worked closely with Gillar, Gallups, and Reilly himself before he became a Posse member was to try to get around the “political activities” restriction the Posse faced. He implied that Zullo thought that he could farm out some of the most obviously political stuff to non-Posse members and get around the restriction on political activity that 501(c)(3)s face.

    The investigation of Barack Obama’s birth certificate IN MARICOPA COUNTY could have been nothing else but politically motivated. If the investigation had gone on privately, it might not have been political, but multiple press conferences make it political and an attempt to damage the reputation of the President at a time he was running for re-election.

  19. avatar
    Commander Publius March 15, 2014 at 11:59 pm #

    Kate: Thanks for any answers you can provide about the above questions. I also would like to thank Doc C and RC for providing a place where adults can discuss their differences in a civil tones without fear of being banned or being unable to speak your mind. I couldn’t help but notice the difference between the times I’ve listened to RC’s radio show and Carl Gallups show. One allows others to speak their mind and the other only allows those who agree with them, obviously afraid to let anyone speak who thinks differently than them.

    Hear, hear!

  20. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 16, 2014 at 12:47 am #

    So, now that the CCP is “of no concern”, one is left to wonder what the birthers have left. Orly “I literally can’t find my ass with both hands!” Taitz?

  21. avatar
    jtmunkus March 16, 2014 at 12:56 am #

    CarlOrcas: No…..it’s not legal in Arizona either. And that’s why I’m participating here….in hopes that someone will take notice and do something about it.

    Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

    The Geezer Joe has either successfully combined [political] forces with, or has so fully intimidated state officials that there’s simply no one in Arizona who is courageous enough to take him on. There will never be a full accounting of his financial misdeeds in office.

    That his posse system likely has always been designed to help his top grifter buddies to enrich themselves, and that they’re able to get away with it unaccountably, is testament to the level that Arpaio’s corruption is institutionalized in Arizona.

    Brian Reilly is a clear example of the compounding disintegration of the Tea Party.

  22. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 16, 2014 at 2:06 am #

    Mr Reilly, once again thank you for taking time to answer these questions.

  23. avatar
    Kate520 March 16, 2014 at 2:15 am #

    So much about Sheriff Arpaio’s operation feels like the way they do things in small towns, like using CCP volunteers as bar bouncers. Does the Sheriff campaign with pints of moonshine like they do up in Appalachia?

  24. avatar
    Lupin March 16, 2014 at 4:49 am #

    The more truth comes out, the more suspicions that Zullo and Arpaio are both crooks become validated.

    This is a clear example of how a few unscrupulous grifters have taken advantage of a bunch gullible bigots.

    Mr. Reilly, you are to be commended for having had the guts of coming forward and spilling the beans.

  25. avatar
    ArthurWankspittle March 16, 2014 at 5:20 am #

    One wonders what Zullo has put on his tax returns over the last few years.

  26. avatar
    Norbrook March 16, 2014 at 6:23 am #

    Arthur: I have the same reaction. After all the legal challenges to Arpaio’s tenure as Sheriff, I’m surprised more of this dubious activity wasn’t exposed.

    I have a good friend who is a senior auditor for the state comptroller in this state. While he won’t talk about any active or ongoing audits and investigations, he does tell stories about past ones. I know for a fact that news items like Arpaio’s and Zullo’s activities would be gigantic red flags, screaming “We need to be audited!” No, any political “power and influence” wouldn’t stop it.

  27. avatar
    bgansel9 March 16, 2014 at 11:18 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It looks like Sheriff Joe (who is an Official, not an employee) played this craftily by giving the job to volunteers instead of employees, but that gas key is a problem.

    Yes, it is. And now that he’s going to be running for governor (so I hear, and Jan Brewer has cleared the deck for him), I expect our local media to investigate this vociferously.

  28. avatar
    bgansel9 March 16, 2014 at 11:22 am #

    CarlOrcas: No…..it’s not legal in Arizona either. And that’s why I’m participating here….in hopes that someone will take notice and do something about it.

    I recently emailed EJ Montini (reporter for the Arizona Republic, for those who don’t know). I think I will try to give him a call and let him know about the new developments.

  29. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 16, 2014 at 3:26 pm #

    bgansel9: I recently emailed EJ Montini (reporter for the Arizona Republic, for those who don’t know). I think I will try to give him a call and let him know about the new developments.

    Excellent!

  30. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 16, 2014 at 3:39 pm #

    jtmunkus: The Geezer Joe has either successfully combined [political] forces with, or has so fully intimidated state officials that there’s simply no one in Arizona who is courageous enough to take him on. There will never be a full accounting of his financial misdeeds in office.

    Actually a number of people have taken him on with varying degrees of success. On the civil side Michael Manning has lead the way with abuse cases that have cost the county, $50-million plus or minus a few dollars.

    And, of course, the federal government took him on and won their civil case against the department. I know they decided to pass on the criminal prosecution but I think they really didn’t feel they had a high degree of confidence they could convict him of criminal charges.

    The place where Arpaio has been bullet proof, so to speak, is in the voting booth but that may be changing as his approval rating has dropped like a rock in recent years. I’d put my money on him not running again for sheriff but he hasn’t asked my opinion.

    His ego might run for governor but running a statewide race is a lot different than going statewide…..even in Arizona.

    jtmunkus: That his posse system likely has always been designed to help his top grifter buddies to enrich themselves, and that they’re able to get away with it unaccountably, is testament to the level that Arpaio’s corruption is institutionalized in Arizona.

    Just for the record I’d like to defend the folks who donate their time to the posses…..again, especially search and rescue and the community posses. None of them get any money from their posse.Their records are open and transparent.

    It seems to me that it is becoming increasingly clear that Zullo, and Zullo alone, is the problem with the Cold Case Posse. That Arpaio was playing along with it is typical of his management style over the last 20 years.

  31. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 16, 2014 at 3:46 pm #

    jtmunkus: That his posse system likely has always been designed to help his top grifter buddies to enrich themselves, and that they’re able to get away with it unaccountably, is testament to the level that Arpaio’s corruption is institutionalized in Arizona.

    Sorry….my response didn’t make sense. It should have read:

    His ego might run for governor but running a county race is a lot different than going statewide…..even in Arizona.

  32. avatar
    bgansel9 March 16, 2014 at 3:59 pm #

    CarlOrcas: His ego might run for governor but running a county race is a lot different than going statewide…..even in Arizona.

    Carl, I’ll make you a bet, $10 (bet not official unless you accept, of course) says he throws his hat in the governor’s race ring… and if he doesn’t, it’s a bet I’ll be happy to lose (but I don’t think I will).

  33. avatar
    Thinker March 16, 2014 at 4:06 pm #

    RC just posted a transcript from his Brian Reilly interview.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/212730869/Reality-Check-Radio-Interview-With-Brian-Reilly-3-11-14

  34. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 16, 2014 at 4:09 pm #

    bgansel9: Carl, I’ll make you a bet, $10 (bet not official unless you accept, of course) says he throws his hat in the governor’s race ring… and if he doesn’t, it’s a bet I’ll be happy to lose (but I don’t think I will).

    I never bet against the Sheriff doing something foolish.

  35. avatar
    bgansel9 March 16, 2014 at 4:39 pm #

    CarlOrcas: I never bet against the Sheriff doing something foolish

    LMAO!

  36. avatar
    bgansel9 March 16, 2014 at 4:50 pm #

    Thinker:
    RC just posted a transcript from his Brian Reilly interview.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/212730869/Reality-Check-Radio-Interview-With-Brian-Reilly-3-11-14

    Thanks, Thinker.

    From the Transcript: “I didn’t know until I left the Cold Case Posse that Sheriff Arpaio had discussions with the Maricopa County Attorney regarding the evidence.”

    Would that be former county attorney (now disbarred) Andrew Thomas? Wow! That’s interesting.

  37. avatar
    Thinker March 16, 2014 at 5:08 pm #

    The discussion would have been late 2011 or early 2012. Thomas left office in 2010. He’s referring to Bill Montgomery.

    bgansel9: From the Transcript: “I didn’t know until I left the Cold Case Posse that Sheriff Arpaio had discussions with the Maricopa County Attorney regarding the evidence.”

    Would that be former county attorney (now disbarred) Andrew Thomas? Wow! That’s interesting.

  38. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 16, 2014 at 5:24 pm #

    Thinker: The discussion would have been late 2011 or early 2012. Thomas left office in 2010. He’s referring to Bill Montgomery.

    Didn’t Montgomery write a letter to someone about this? Can’t look right now but maybe someone else can.

  39. avatar
    bgansel9 March 16, 2014 at 5:29 pm #

    Thinker: The discussion would have been late 2011 or early 2012. Thomas left office in 2010. He’s referring to Bill Montgomery

    That’s even MORE interesting.

  40. avatar
    bgansel9 March 16, 2014 at 5:32 pm #

    I had never heard of this. I must have been involved in other things: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/10/arpaio_bill_montgomery_obama_birth_certificate_birther.php

  41. avatar
    bgansel9 March 16, 2014 at 5:33 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Didn’t Montgomery write a letter to someone about this? Can’t look right now but maybe someone else can.

    He wrote an email to Brian Reilly, according to Phoenix New Times.

  42. avatar
    Sef March 16, 2014 at 5:41 pm #

    bgansel9: Carl, I’ll make you a bet, $10 (bet not official unless you accept, of course) says he throws his hat in the governor’s race ring… and if he doesn’t, it’s a bet I’ll be happy to lose (but I don’t think I will).

    I read somewhere (I can’t be bothered to look it up) that if he ran for Governor he would have to resign as Sheriff. I can see where not resigning could be a HUGE conflict of interest. It would be good for Maricopa if a different someone were head of the Sheriff’s Dept.

  43. avatar
    Thinker March 16, 2014 at 5:54 pm #

    Why is Montgomery more interesting Thomas?

    bgansel9: That’s even MORE interesting.

  44. avatar
    bgansel9 March 16, 2014 at 5:57 pm #

    Thinker:
    Why is Montgomery more interesting Thomas?

    Because he’s currently our county attorney. He holds that office now.

    http://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/about-us/maricopa-county-attorney-bill-montgomery.html

  45. avatar
    Thinker March 16, 2014 at 7:00 pm #

    And Brian Reilly burst the birfers bubble a year and a half ago when he released that email from the current County Attorney saying there won’t be any criminal charges, something that Zullo and Arpaio had obviously been trying to keep quiet.

    bgansel9: Because he’s currently our county attorney. He holds that office now.

    http://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/about-us/maricopa-county-attorney-bill-montgomery.html

  46. avatar
    Judge Mental March 16, 2014 at 7:03 pm #

    Given Mr Reilly’s recent advices to this site regarding the chronology of his epiphany, perhaps what should be of more interest re the Reilly/Montgomery correspondence is why Mr Reilly was apparently still writing to DA Montgomery in September 2012 about criminal “charges” which might be brought against Obama and about whether Obama could be considered a ‘natural born citizen’ when, according to Mr Reilly’s recent revelations on here the May 2012 letter of verification from Hawaii had already ended Mr Reilly’s concerns as to the matter of whether Obama was eligible some 4 months before that correspondence.

    Is it his suggestion that he was only writing to Montgomery as part of an effort to try to convince others that the matter was a dead duck? Or, while wearing his Tea Party hat instead of his Posse hat, was he still actually birthing at that time?

  47. avatar
    bgansel9 March 16, 2014 at 7:13 pm #

    Thinker: And Brian Reilly burst the birfers bubble a year and a half ago when he released that email from the current County Attorney saying there won’t be any criminal charges, something that Zullo and Arpaio had obviously been trying to keep quiet.

    Yes, BUT, he did state words to the effect that if any actual evidence was uncovered (and who is to say what he would consider evidence), he would prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. It sounds like Mr. Montgomery is amenable to birtherism. I’m not stating that if the forgery were not true that he should ignore it, but, making statements like that sounds as if he is on board with the conspiracy theory that PBO is not a natural born citizen.

  48. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 16, 2014 at 7:29 pm #

    bgansel9: He wrote an email to Brian Reilly, according to Phoenix New Times.

    That’s what I was thinking of. Thanks.

  49. avatar
    bgansel9 March 16, 2014 at 7:33 pm #

    “I’m not stating that if the forgery were not true that he should ignore it, but, making statements like that sounds as if he is on board with the conspiracy theory that PBO is not a natural born citizen.”

    Poor use of grammar on my part, I meant, of course, if the forgery were true, he should not ignore it, but, a forgery verified by the state of Hawaii is impossible. What would it take for Mr. Montgomery to get involved, I wonder?

  50. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 16, 2014 at 7:39 pm #

    Judge Mental:
    Given Mr Reilly’s recent advices to this site regarding the chronology of his epiphany, perhaps what should be of more interest re the Reilly/Montgomery correspondence is why Mr Reilly was apparently still writing to DA Montgomery in September 2012 about criminal “charges” which might be brought against Obama and about whether Obama could be considered a ‘natural born citizen’ when, according to Mr Reilly’s recent revelations on here the May 2012 letter of verification from Hawaii had already ended Mr Reilly’s concerns as to the matter of whether Obama was eligible some 4 months before that correspondence.

    Is it his suggestion that he was only writing to Montgomery as part of an effort to try to convince others that the matter was a dead duck? Or, while wearing his Tea Party hat instead of his Posse hat, was he still actually birthing at that time?

    I’m not sure I’d read too much into this series of events. The e-mail in the New Times story is dated September 26, 2012 and says it is in response to a “Website Submission” with no indication of when the first message(s) were sent.

    Mr. Reilly resigned from the posse at the end of June, according to his original response here.

    Having submitted a question to Montgomery’s office via his website regarding posse member’s powers that took almost a month and a half to produce a response I can easily imagine this back and forth going on after his resignation.

  51. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 16, 2014 at 7:40 pm #

    bgansel9: es, BUT, he did state words to the effect that if any actual evidence was uncovered (and who is to say what he would consider evidence), he would prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. It sounds like Mr. Montgomery is amenable to birtherism.

    It sounds to this former, but long time resident of Arizona, that Mr. Montgomery is an elected official who is desperately trying to make all the people happy all the time.

  52. avatar
    RanTalbott March 16, 2014 at 8:10 pm #

    bgansel9: It sounds like Mr. Montgomery is amenable to birtherism.

    It sounds like he’s “amenable” to doing his job in a professional and courteous manner, politely telling people who don’t understand how the law works to leave him alone until they have some actual evidence to support their allegations. If I were in his position, with a legal and moral obligation to follow up on credible suspicions, but also to avoid using the power of my office to harrass people based on mere rumor and gossip, I’d probably say much the same thing.

    You were expecting him to scribble “FOAD, wingnuts!” across the page, and fax it back?

    bgansel9: What would it take for Mr. Montgomery to get involved, I wonder?

    Something a lot more substantial than “No understand PDF. Must be witchcraft”. Something that wouldn’t embarrass a patrol of Boy Scouts working on their Civics merit badge. I.e., actual evidence that some person had committed some specific act that was a violation of a specific chapter and section of the A.R.S.

    Nothing that the Clueless Clown Posse has, or is likely to, come up with.

  53. avatar
    bgansel9 March 16, 2014 at 8:19 pm #

    RanTalbott: You were expecting him to scribble “FOAD, wingnuts!” across the page, and fax it back?

    No, I would expect him to state that Obama was born in Hawaii and our Secretary of State has verified it.

  54. avatar
    RanTalbott March 16, 2014 at 10:31 pm #

    bgansel9: No, I would expect him to state that Obama was born in Hawaii and our Secretary of State has verified it.

    And you would be wrong: the certified copy and verification are evidence, and, contrary to the beliefs of birfers, they require actual evidence, not just claims like “Hawaii is a hotbed of corruption” or “Sun Yat-sen got one, so we can’t trust ‘em”, to rebut them. But they’re only prima facie evidence, they are rebuttable, and even when someone has been convicted of a crime “beyond a reasonable doubt”, a prosecutor is required to consider evidence (again, not mere suspicion) that a mistake was made.

    Prosecutors wield the power of the State, and are supposed to maintain a higher standard than people settling bar bets.

  55. avatar
    bgansel9 March 16, 2014 at 10:42 pm #

    RanTalbott: And you would be wrong:

    I don’t think so:

    http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf

  56. avatar
    Judge Mental March 17, 2014 at 10:34 am #

    CarlOrcas: I’m not sure I’d read too much into this series of events. The e-mail in the New Times story is dated September 26, 2012 and says it is in response to a “Website Submission” with no indication of when the first message(s) were sent.

    Mr. Reilly resigned from the posse at the end of June, according to his original response here.

    Having submitted a question to Montgomery’s office via his website regarding posse member’s powers that took almost a month and a half to produce a response I can easily imagine this back and forth going on after his resignation.

    Reilly says that the May release of the verification ended it for him. It is true that the e mail which Montgomery sent to Reilly on 26 September does not mention either the medium used or the date of the correspondence Montgomery was replying to from Reilly (it just thanks Reilly for ‘writing’).

    I don’t agree that either the wording of that Montgomery e mail or of the New Times narrative suggests that Reilly’s queries were made via a website submission.

    Seems to me that it was actually the New Times blog’s request to Montgomery’s office for copies of e mails which is what is being described as having been made via a website submission, not Reilly’s correspondence with Montgomery.

    I see no good reason to think that Montgomery’s e mail response to Reilly dated September 26 is more likely to be a response to a ‘birthing’ message sent to him by Reilly before May than after May……if anything the reverse seems more likely to me.

  57. avatar
    The Magic M March 17, 2014 at 10:55 am #

    RanTalbott: bgansel9: It sounds like Mr. Montgomery is amenable to birtherism.

    It sounds like he’s “amenable” to doing his job in a professional and courteous manner

    Exactly. I mean, I think even the most die-hard anti-birthers among us would consider *actual evidence* Obama was somehow ineligible.
    That’s how logic and reason works. You don’t go “because birthers are wrong, I’m not gonna look at anything related to eligiblity anymore”, not as a DA, not in law enforcement, not as a sane individual.
    That’s why we’re not Obots who blindly defend the President against anything.
    We don’t deal with birthers because we want to protect somebody no matter what but because they are patently wrong.

    But as the saying goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean nobody’s following you. ;)

  58. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 17, 2014 at 11:00 am #

    Judge Mental: Reilly says that the May release of the verification ended it for him. It is true that the e mail which Montgomery sent to Reilly on 26 September does not mention either the medium used or the date of the correspondence Montgomery was replying to from Reilly (it just thanks Reilly for ‘writing’).

    I don’t agree that either the wording of that Montgomery e mail or of the New Times narrative suggests that Reilly’s queries were made via a website submission.

    The subject line of Montgomery’s e-mail says “Website Submission”.

  59. avatar
    bgansel9 March 17, 2014 at 1:12 pm #

    The Magic M: Exactly. I mean, I think even the most die-hard anti-birthers among us would consider *actual evidence* Obama was somehow ineligible.

    I’m not saying he wouldn’t or shouldn’t have looked for evidence (if he was working in a capacity that allowed him to do such, considering he is/was only a county attorney and really had no actual jurisdiction from what I can see)… at the same time, was not the Verification of Birth Certification from Hawaii sent to SoS Bennett PRIOR to this date? Why would a county attorney choose not to believe the state of Hawaii? Don’t states in the U.S. have an agreement to accept documents from other states as factual when they presented and certified as such? What gives a county attorney the right to question a document certified by Hawaii officials?

  60. avatar
    Judge Mental March 17, 2014 at 3:04 pm #

    CarlOrcas: The subject line of Montgomery’s e-mail says “Website Submission”.

    Thanks, that’s true, didn’t notice that…..though still not sure if that necessarily makes it more likely that whatever Monty was replying to was submitted pre-May as opposed to post-May. Maybe I’m over-cynical but I’d take some convincing that for example even considered, upon receiving that e mail from Montgomery, firing back a reply along the lines of….”thanks for your lmuch delayed answer to my query dated several months ago but in the meantime the matter has became moot in my eyes because I saw an acceptable Hawaii verification letter 4 months ago back in May”, which is what someone totally convinced by the verification would have done.

    Indeed, as far as time lines go, one way that other comments from the New Times blogger could be interpreted are as suggesting that Reilly continued to bang on to Montgomery about other aspects of eligibility (possibility re the parentage aspects) even after that e mail in September.

    I’d certainly be prepared to countenance the notion that whatever nature and extent of eligibility questioning Reilly did or didn’t do after seeing the May verification (whether it included the subject correspondence that Montgomery was replying to or not) he would have been doing far more half-heartedly than before. However I’m not yet convinced that he did anything which amounts to stopping all expression of his eligibility concerns in all directions dead in their tracks quickly after the verification.

  61. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 17, 2014 at 3:37 pm #

    Judge Mental: Thanks, that’s true, didn’t notice that…..though still not sure if that necessarily makes it more likely that whatever Monty was replying to was submitted pre-May as opposed to post-May.

    I don’t know either. All I said was that based on a message I posted to their website the time frame seemed feasible.

    That said I’d rather deal with the present and continue the dialog with Mr. Reilly so that we can have a better understanding of how the whole thing happened.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 17, 2014 at 4:35 pm #

    I have some confirmation of the date that Reilly resigned from the CCP, June 30, 2012.

    CarlOrcas: I don’t know either. All I said was that based on a message I posted to their website the time frame seemed feasible.

  63. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 17, 2014 at 5:29 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I have some confirmation of the date that Reilly resigned from the CCP, June 30, 2012.

    Thank you!

  64. avatar
    Keith March 17, 2014 at 11:05 pm #

    bgansel9: Don’t states in the U.S. have an agreement to accept documents from other states as factual when they presented and certified as such?

    No, they don’t.

    They have a Constitutional Duty to accept documents from other states as factual when they are certified and authenticated according to law.

  65. avatar
    bgansel9 March 18, 2014 at 2:33 pm #

    Keith: They have a Constitutional Duty to accept documents from other states as factual when they are certified and authenticated according to law.

    Yes, I had heard that and had gotten it mixed up with an agreement. Thank you.

    If Hawaii certified the verification of the Birth Certificate, doesn’t Arizona have a legal obligation to accept it as factual according to Hawaii and if so then why would a county attorney be looking into it?

  66. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 18, 2014 at 3:01 pm #

    bgansel9: Yes, I had heard that and had gotten it mixed up with an agreement. Thank you.

    Here’s the wording of the Full Faith & Credit Clause:

    Article IV, Section 1:

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

    There are numerous laws and interstate compacts that implement this clause.

    bgansel9: If Hawaii certified the verification of the Birth Certificate, doesn’t Arizona have a legal obligation to accept it as factual according to Hawaii and if so then why would a county attorney be looking into it?

    The certified birth certificate – the President’s, yours or mine – is prima facie evidence of its validity.

    As far as why the county attorney was looking into it let me just mention that it’s an elected post in Arizona. Nuff said?

  67. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 18, 2014 at 3:06 pm #

    bgansel9: What gives a county attorney the right to question a document certified by Hawaii officials?

    As I said – if there was actual evidence of some kind of wrongdoing (drastic example: Alvin Onaka going public saying “we don’t have a BC, it was all lies”), then of course it would warrant doubting, if not invalidating, the certifications.

    Nobody here will claim that if there *were* such a conspiracy as the birthers have dreamt up, actual evidence of it would not matter “because Hawaii can certify whatever they want”.

    Thus I don’t see how

    he did state words to the effect that if any actual evidence was uncovered (and who is to say what he would consider evidence), he would prosecute to the fullest extent of the law

    means “questioning certification by Hawaii”.

  68. avatar
    y_p_w March 18, 2014 at 8:42 pm #

    CarlOrcasThere are numerous laws and interstate compacts that implement this clause.

    The certified birth certificate – the President’s, yours or mine – is prima facie evidence of its validity.

    As far as why the county attorney was looking into it let me just mention that it’s an elected post in Arizona. Nuff said?

    I think it’s the “interstate compacts” that would typically be how they get recognized between states. I remember tracking down a specific rule of evidence in one state, and it was nothing like the federal law that would actually utilize FF&C. It was a while back, I remember finding the exact law that compelled a state to accept a record as “proved”. It was something akin to an apostille if done by a governor or secretary of state. It could also be done by a judge.

    I found the law:

    http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section1739&num=0&edition=prelim

    §1739. State and Territorial nonjudicial records; full faith and credit

    All nonjudicial records or books kept in any public office of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or Possession by the attestation of the custodian of such records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers.

    If the certificate is given by a judge, it shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the court, who shall certify, under his hand and the seal of his office, that such judge is duly commissioned and qualified; or, if given by such Governor, secretary, chancellor, or keeper of the great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the State, Territory, or Possession in which it is made.

    Such records or books, or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court and office within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts or offices of the State, Territory, or Possession from which they are taken.

    (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 947.)

  69. avatar
    Keith March 18, 2014 at 9:38 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Article IV, Section 1:

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

    There are numerous laws and interstate compacts that implement this clause.

    I note the sentence in bold. The manner in which records are to be proved authentic are, by Constitutional mandate, Federal Law. Congress may of course specify that each State must negotiate with every other State the mechanics of the proofs, but does that really make sense? I expect that each State has a State law that says that its documents and procedures must conform to the Federal standards, but surely you aren’t saying that the States are doing this for themselves?

    y_p_w: It was a while back, I remember finding the exact law that compelled a state to accept a record as “proved”. It was something akin to an apostille if done by a governor or secretary of state. It could also be done by a judge.

    I found the law:

    http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section1739&num=0&edition=prelim

    §1739. State and Territorial nonjudicial records; full faith and credit

    Please note that this is a FEDERAL law. The Certification and State Seal on a Birth Certificate satisfy the requirements of that law.

    IANAL, but my understanding is that apostiles are for authenticating documents between international jurisdictions, not between American jurisdictions. The Constitution governs the authentication process between American jurisdictions.

    (and Mr. Wikipedia says I’m right: Apostile Convention)

  70. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 18, 2014 at 9:45 pm #

    y_p_w: I think it’s the “interstate compacts” that would typically be how they get recognized between states.

    Exactly. Everything from the Uniform Traffic Code to the Uniform Commercial Code.

  71. avatar
    y_p_w March 18, 2014 at 10:37 pm #

    Keith: I note the sentence in bold. The manner in which records are to be proved authentic are, by Constitutional mandate, Federal Law. Congress may of course specify that each State must negotiate with every other State the mechanics of the proofs, but does that really make sense? I expect that each State has a State law that says that its documents and procedures must conform to the Federal standards, but surely you aren’t saying that the States are doing this for themselves?

    Please note that this is a FEDERAL law. The Certification and State Seal on a Birth Certificate satisfy the requirements of that law.

    I’m saying that from a FF&C consideration, there are specific requirements that Congress made. I read the initial law was made in the 1800s and last revised in 1948. This is technically what’s required to invoke FF&C with regards to “nonjudicial records”. Granted – a birth certificate wasn’t really a common thing back in the 1800s, but by the middle of the 20th Century it was.

    That states might accept a birth certificate in a court proceeding as is would be another matter. From a purely constitutional perspective, I don’t believe that my going to the city/county/state clerk/health dept office, getting a certified copy of a birth certificate with a seal and registrar’s signature, and submitting it as evidence of birth is technically a case where FF&C is operative. I think in order to invoke FF&C, that BC would legally have to be submitted to a judge to authenticate the signature of the registrar, or to the governor/SoS as per 28 U.S. Code § 1739.

    I recall looking up the way Georgia accepted evidence during the little fisaco in Atlanta. Part a seems almost word for word the same as 28 U.S. Code § 1739. However, then there’s part b, which (in lieu of the full song and dance) makes it as simple as having a document “certified under the hand and seal” of whoever has custody of the record. And “original” has to be interesting when there are electronic records, or where the records are damaged and only a facsimile. Or in the case of California’s BC’s, the custody can go through up to 3 hands. It always goes to the county and state (final archive). It can go through a city in four cases. My kid was born in one of those cities. They don’t have the “original”. When we obtained a BC, that was obviously made from a database scan with obvious pixelation.

    http://law.onecle.com/georgia/24/24-7-25.html

    Georgia Code – Evidence – Title 24, Section 24-7-25

    (a)(1) All nonjudicial records or books, or copies thereof, kept in any public office of any state, territory, or possession of the United States shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in this state by the attestation of the custodian of the records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there is a seal, together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or a certificate of the governor, the secretary of state, the chancellor, or the keeper of the great seal of the state, territory, or possession that the attestation is in due form and by the proper officers.

    (2) If the certificate is given by a judge, it shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the court, who shall certify under his hand and the seal of his office that the judge is duly commissioned and qualified; or, if given by the governor, secretary of state, chancellor, or keeper of the great seal, the certificate shall be under the great seal of the state, territory, or possession in which it is made.

    (3) Such records or books, or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court and office within this state as they have by law or usage in the courts or offices of the state, territory, or possession from which they are taken.

    (b) In lieu of the above, the nonjudicial records or books, or copies thereof, kept in any public office of any state, territory, or possession of the United States may also be proved or admitted in evidence in any court, tribunal, office, or agency in this state when certified under the hand and seal, if any, by the officer or other official having custody or possession of the original thereof and shall be given the same full faith and credit as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section.

    And I looked up the apostilles and certifications that the California SoS does. They have a list of officials where they will do so. They include county clerks/recorders, superior court judges, and statewide officials. They don’t include city officials. In the case of my kid’s BC, the birth was recorded in one of the few cities in California that handles its own BCs. The signature on those copies is that of the city health director. Of course I could just use one from the county or the state (ordering a BC from the state is a PITA).

  72. avatar
    bgansel9 March 19, 2014 at 10:18 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): Thus I don’t see how

    “he did state words to the effect that if any actual evidence was uncovered (and who is to say what he would consider evidence), he would prosecute to the fullest extent of the law”

    means “questioning certification by Hawaii”.

    Would not the certification trump any such evidence of birth in any other place on any other date, to any other parents, if the certification is factual and admitted to be a true and correct copy by the state of Hawaii?

  73. avatar
    The Magic M March 19, 2014 at 12:26 pm #

    bgansel9: Would not the certification trump any such evidence of birth in any other place on any other date, to any other parents, if the certification is factual and admitted to be a true and correct copy by the state of Hawaii?

    If I play devil’s advocate and assume the birthers are correct that there’s a conspiracy to fabricate a false record, do you mean there is no amount of evidence that would convince you of it? And that Hawaii’s certification trumps any and all such evidence? That would amount to saying the actions of the hypothetical conspirators would be above the law.
    That would be silly. And I see no more or less behind the quote – that *if* there was (real, actual, sane-people-proof) evidence of such a conspiracy, he’d prosecute.
    Whether such a statement, if made in public, could be perceived as a dog whistle to lunatics (“see, I’m not saying you’re wrong”) is another matter. But to call the guy “amenable to birtherism” simply for stating the obvious is a stretch IMHO.

  74. avatar
    RanTalbott March 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm #

    bgansel9: Would not the certification trump any such evidence of birth in any other place on any other date, to any other parents

    Nope: the verifications are merely testimony, by a witness generally deemed “trustworthy”, that something almost certainly genuine is in the files. So the opposition can attack that certainty by attacking the witness (“he was bribed to say that”) or the genuineness (“Yes, he saw something he believed to be real, but it’s not”). And, even if the original is genuine, it is merely a record of “testimony” by the parent(s) and attending physician. Which could also be false.

    The BC and verifications “trump” the mere speculation that’s the foundation of the birfer “case”, but wouldn’t trump any real evidence. In a court, they would be weighed against the opposing evidence just as in any other case.

  75. avatar
    bgansel9 March 19, 2014 at 10:47 pm #

    The Magic M: If I play devil’s advocate and assume the birthers are correct

    Why? That totally doesn’t answer my question. You have to rewrite history to make your point? Wow!

  76. avatar
    bgansel9 March 19, 2014 at 10:49 pm #

    RanTalbott: The BC and verifications “trump” the mere speculation that’s the foundation of the birfer “case”, but wouldn’t trump any real evidence. In a court, they would be weighed against the opposing evidence just as in any other case.

    And what REAL evidence exists that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii? You also have to change history to make your point.

  77. avatar
    RanTalbott March 20, 2014 at 12:08 am #

    bgansel9: And what REAL evidence exists that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii?

    I have no idea, bcause YOU’RE THE ONE WHO HYPOTHESIZED IT.

    If you don’t like, or don’t understand, hypothetical answers, get someone to teach you how to avoid asking hypothetical questions.

    But don’t get in people’s faces because they gave you the information you said you wanted, in the context in which you asked for it: it’s rude and obnoxious.

  78. avatar
    The Magic M March 20, 2014 at 5:04 am #

    bgansel9: That totally doesn’t answer my question.

    What question? You made a claim (that the statement “if there’s real evidence, I’ll prosecute” was somehow birtherism or akin to it) and I was pointing out to you how it’s not true.

    Let’s try it another way: You consider the opposite statement (“I will not look into any evidence regarding the eligibility of the President, no matter how good it is”) to be something that a prosecutor should say?