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.
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.”
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:
- resolving an apparent conflict in the prior decisions of panels of the court;
- rejecting a prior statement of law which, although arguably dictum, warrants express rejection to avoid future confusion;
- 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
- 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.
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.
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 →
The Esquire article certainly didn’t fool me, any more than Klayman’s legal briefs fooled the judge.
– Dr. Conspiracy
– Comment at WorldNetDaily
In a satirical article, Esquire Magazine made a birther joke, that since Obama released his birth certificate, Jerome Corsi’s ill-titled book Where’s the Birth Certificate were being recalled. Joseph Farah, perhaps seeing a publicity opportunity sued. He lost under a statute designed to prevent meritless lawsuits from chilling public comment, the court ruling that Farah had no reasonable chance of convincing a jury. Farah’s attorney was the well-known litigator, Larry Klayman.
Farah appealed the decision, and lost. WorldNetDaily announced the loss in an article a few minutes ago.
“It’s dishonest,” said WND’s attorney, Larry Klayman, of the decision. “This is an issue for the jury to decide. They took it away from the jury, and that’s inappropriate.”
Klayman blames the loss on the political ambitions of the judges who ruled against him.
“These judges know that if they make an unpopular decision against the establishment that they will never be able to be promoted to the Supreme Court or any other position they might get through political patronage,” he said.
Well, the purpose of the DC anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute is to prevent the threat of litigation and its associated costs from chilling public participation. Klayman was unable to show the suit could win.
Is this one destined for the Supreme Court? Do pigs wish they could fly?
Update: This article previously stated, erroneously, and it was reported elsewhere, that there was a 2-1 spit decision by the court. This is not correct. All three judges agreed on the decision, but only two concurred on the opinion.
- WorldNetDaily sues Esquire for zillions over satire
- WND lawsuit garners media attention
- Will WND lawsuit be “slapped” down?
- The Empire SLAPPS Back
- “Update” on Farah v. Esquire Magazine
- Farah slapped down
- Hearing in birther spoof lawsuit appeal
- Courthouse News Service – Warren’s reference to Corsi as an “execrable piece of shit,” is clearly his personal opinion as it “does not appear to convey any factual assertion, but is rather ‘the sort of loose, figurative or hyperbolic language which would negate the impression’ that a factual statement was being made,” Brown wrote (emphasis in original).