Main Menu

Archive | Jerome Corsi

Shark sucker

When I was a kid I had the Golden Book: The Sea. I dearly loved that little book, and one of the neat things I learned about was a fish called the remora, or “shark sucker.”1 The remora attaches itself to a shark and the much larger shark carries the little fish around with it.

The remora metaphor came to mind when I heard of the most recent example of a birther trying to attach himself to a bigger story. The remora is “self-proclaimed intelligence expert” (Jerome Corsi’s words) Michael Shrimpton and the shark/big fish is Edward Snowden. Snowden was an international news sensation after leaking NSA secrets to the press. Of course what Snowden hasn’t released is a black box to the public, and a black box could contain anything, so birther Shrimpton uses it to add credibility to his own incredible story. You can read that story at WorldNetDaily in an article by Jerome Corsi. Corsi wrote:

In conversations with WND, nevertheless, Shrimpton doubled down on the claims he made in 2008 by asserting that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, as part of his negotiations to leave Hong Kong, agreed to deliver to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow the classified U.S. military intelligence file on Obama’s DNA.

How an NSA guy was able to purloin military intelligence files is a question worth asking, right after one asks how Shrimpton knows Putin’s secrets.

In all fairness to Corsi, he is not overly sympathetic to Shrimpton, writing among other things:

Government intelligence experts on both sides of the Atlantic marginalized Shrimpton as a loud-mouthed nuisance and gadfly who lacks professional credentials as an intelligence expert.

Shrimpton has his own legal problems, having been charged with making a false report to police of a terrorist plot in 2012.

When I interviewed Snowden while I was in Moscow in 2013, I asked him about any intelligence regarding Obama. Snowden told that he only had access to secrets involving NSA surveillance.2


1Remoras attach to other things besides sharks.

2Just fooling,

15

“Banned ‘Birther’ Breaks the BR Censorship Barrier, Part 2

The Cold Case Posse’s “Universe Shattering” Evidence

Opinion: By Brian Reilly To: Kevin Davidson, Dr. Conspiracy

In my last article, published on this site, through the courtesy of Dr. Conspiracy, it was necessary for me to establish the fact that I indeed came up with the idea to request Sheriff Arpaio to investigate what I believed were anomalies that I saw on the PDF copy of President Obama’s birth certificate that was posted on the White House website, April 27, 2011. It was my belief that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), reported to be the third largest in the nation, would have had the resources to give me answers regarding the authenticity of the purported Obama birth certificate document. It was also my belief that Sheriff Arpaio was among the few who would have the will to take on the project. Unfortunately, the MCSO didn’t do the investigation. On August 22, 2011, Sheriff Arpaio decided to turn the “investigation” over to Commander Mike Zullo and his all volunteer “Cold Case Posse Inc.” so that, as I was told by Arpaio, no tax payer dollars would be spent on the project. As we all know, Commander Zullo’s first trip to Hawaii incurred approximately $9,600.00 in taxpayer funded expenses. The non-profit Cold Case Posse Inc. was supposedly operating only on public donations. But as we have learned, the Cold Case Posse has filed no Form 990s with the IRS and the Sheriff when interviewed said that his office has no financial oversight of the CCP. The CCP finances remain an enigma with zero accountability to the public.

Continue Reading →

The Many Lies of Joseph Farah

by Loren Collins

I retired my blog, Barackryphal, at the end of 2013 because I was burnt out on Birtherism. After five years, it’s simply become a rehashing of the same tropes, and there’s little new to address.

However, after WorldNetDaily all but gave up on its Birther interests in the fall of 2012, WND President Joseph Farah has recently raised its spectre again, and in doing so yet again demonstrated some abject dishonesty that I felt compelled to address. Others have called him out for his supposed hypocrisy over his reactions to Barack Obama and Ted Cruz.

But I’m not here to call him a hypocrite. I’m here to document that he’s a liar. To wit, in his column of April 23, 2011, Joseph Farah wrote:

“WND never reported that Obama had spent $2 million hiding his birth certificate.”

Whereas five months earlier, on December 9, 2010, Farah said:

“Obama has spent at least $2 million fighting efforts to release his birth certificate.”

And that’s just Farah himself; he claimed that WND had never reported this, when in fact WND reporters had said this dozens of times.

On February 19, 2011, Joseph Farah wrote:

“I don’t know any thinking, rational person who questions the existence of Obama’s birth certificate.”

But what did Farah himself say two years earlier, on Chuck Crismier’s radio show on June 5, 2009?

“There’s a reason that Barack Obama will not show the American people his birth certificate. I believe he doesn’t have one.”

And who else questions the existence of Obama’s birth certificate? Why, none other than WND’s senior reporter, Jerome Corsi. Because Corsi had this to say on The Alex Jones Show on January 20, 2011, just one month before Farah claimed that no “thinking, rational person” would say such a thing:

“The key document that should be produced, if it exists and I don’t believe it does, is the long-form, hospital-generated Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Obama.”

Continue Reading →

Klayman to take another run at Esquire appeal

Joseph Farah (et al.) sued Esquire Magazine over a spoof article Esquire published online that Farah claims destroyed the salability of the book, Where’s the Birth Certificate? by Jerome Corsi. Farah lost when his case was dismissed under the DC Anti-SLAPP law  (and for other reasons). You can read about the case from my various articles on it.

The real issue in the appeal was not whether Esquire Magazine defamed Farah, but whether the case should have been dismissed rather than tried. Plaintiffs have decided to try again, requesting that the case be heard by the full circuit court, en banc.

A hearing of a case by the full circuit is discretionary (requiring a majority of the judges not recused in favor), not a right, and in the District of Columbia, certain principles apply. Hoping for a better result is not grounds for a hearing by the full circuit. Here are the sorts of things the DC Circuit considers en banc:

  1. resolving an apparent conflict  in the prior decisions of panels of the court;
  2. rejecting a prior statement of law which, although arguably dictum, warrants express rejection to avoid future confusion;
  3. overruling an old or obsolete decision which, although still technically valid as precedent, has plainly been rendered obsolete by subsequent legislation or other developments; and
  4. overruling a more recent precedent which, due to an intervening Supreme Court decision, or the combined weight of authority from other circuits, a panel  is convinced is clearly an incorrect statement of current law.

Klayman’s argument is that this case is of “exceptional importance” dealing as it does with  limits on the protection of satirical speech. He does not make any argument that existing precedent is insufficient, conflicting or outdated. Klayman’s essential argument is that the decision was wrong for various reasons, already rejected by the Circuit Court panel who denied his appeal.

I won’t get into the Lanham Act angle—interested readers can read the briefs. What I do want to mention is that part of an Anti-SLAPP dismissal involves an assessment of the likelihood that a plaintiff could prevail at trial, and I certainly consider it doubtful that Farah and Corsi could show that they were actually damaged by the Esquire article (beyond its satirical purpose that they be laughed at). Klayman argues that the Esquire article is libel per se (and damages need not be proven) because it accuses Farah and Corsi of a crime, citing Raboya v. Shrybman & Associates1; however, Klayman never explains exactly what the crime is when someone writes a book with “factual inaccuracies” (the actual words that Esquire satirically puts into Farah’s mouth). If “commercially defrauding the American Public” means putting “factual inaccuracies” in a book, then this is a crime that Farah and Corsi are arguably guilty of many times, along with a host of other authors.

From my layman’s viewpoint, the issues are clear cut and the DC Circuit will not endorse a hearing en banc. Sometimes there is a published written order with explanation when petitions for hearing en banc are decided.

The word "Doomed " in dripping font


1This is a curious case to cite in that the defendant successfully had the libel per se count dismissed. The Court took a strict view of what constituted a crime. If anything, this decision seems to hurt Klayman’s case.

You can’t put the genie back in the bottle

Obots complicit

I am not a happy camper today. I have written lots about my feelings on privacy and have tried to enforce some rules here about not associating Internet pseudonyms with real people. I also believe that there is a difference between public information scattered across obscure locations and information collated by someone and broadcast.

I myself have been the victim of such collations, some true and some not, and it has a chilling effect. I’m also empathetic and I feel for someone else who is an innocent victim of Internet research. That is why I’m unhappy and why I’m writing this.

My most recent article has been updated with a new title, “Doug Vogt’s mystery forger, revealed!” A very private person, who as far as I know has no skin in the birther/anti-birther game, was identified by Douglas Vogt as a felon—a forger of Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Vogt only made this accusation in a “sealed” court filing, but he left clues, sufficient clues for it to be readily figured out.

I am not going to name the secret forger, but by the time you finish this article you will know who it is. The name has already been published elsewhere, and you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Continue Reading →