Main Menu

Archive | Mike Zullo

Birthers’ basket case

Santilli loose on the White House lawn?

Mike Volin was on the Pete Santilli radio show a few days ago. A YouTube video has part of the show, and a discussion. From the show:

Santilli: I’m going to offer this to Mike Zullo, all right? Do you believe, based on the information you have on your web site, the investigation that Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse has investigated, do you believe that right now, that if you were to put everything into a basket, OK, or a brief case, that there is enough information, set aside “willing to” or “not willing to,” set that aside. Is there enough information right now that could get Barack Obama arrested if we apply the law, that he has broken the law and he needs to go behind bars, and of course in a court of law all this evidence needs to be presented. But is there enough evidence to throw him in jail?

Mike Volin: Absolutely, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Fox NewsSantilli: OK, here’s what I am going to offer up to you. You ready? You can do this. I could call up Mike Zullo and offer this. I’m not going to. OK? I’m going to put out a challenge to Mike Zullo and Sheriff Arpaio. With the assistance of law enforcement, if they have information right now that shows that Barack Obama has committed fraud, has perpetrated fraud upon the American people, tell him I’ll meet him in front of the White House and I will volunteer with them, with with the assistance of law enforcement and the United States Marine Corps and the Secret Service, I will jump over, with the assistance of course of law enforcement, lawful and constitutional, of the front fence of the White House and go in there and deliver that information of course they probably will just let me go. They won’t stop me, of course. But if there’s enough evidence, OK, that he’s broken the law, I would be prepared in order to bring this to the American people. I’ll live stream it, if Zullo will meet me out front. I’m not going to wait until an election. If he wants to meet me, I’ll jump on a flight, right now and I will meet him in front of the White House, on principal, on law, on Constitutionality, and with the help of law enforcement, with the military, with the Secret Service, with the Department of Justice, all of those people, I’d volunteer do that. And if they want to arrest me, I’ll bring evidence to court to show that I am justified in doing so, on behalf of the people of the United States of America. Will you get that information to Mike Zullo?

This is what I heard in all of that. Pete Santilli, unwilling to stand for election, has made himself the representative of the American people, and has offered to lead a military coup against the President of the United States. While he talks about “Constitutionality,” he totally ignores the Constitution in several ways. He ignores the fact that our Founders set up a system of checks and balances, and it is the Congress of the United States that the Constitution assigns the power to remove a President upon conviction for “high crimes.” It is not assigned to the military, the Secret Service, the Justice Department, law enforcement or some talk show host. The second major unconstitutional flaw is in the Bill of Rights (part of the Constitution):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger…

It is the opinion of prior US Attorneys General that a sitting President cannot be indicted or arrested for a crime. To allow that would impede the functioning of government and violate the separation of powers under the Constitution.

Santilli just wants to jump over the fence with his information. Of course Santilli would be arrested (assuming he wasn’t shot on sight) just like any other fruit cake who tries such a stunt. Santilli would never have the opportunity to present any of his birther “information” before the court because it is irrelevant to the crime of violating the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. Who made Pete Santilli the representative of the American people? I seem to recall that Barack Obama is the one elected President.

38

Is making a fake PDF image of a birth certificate a crime? Mike Zullo answers!

Here’s what Mike Zullo said:

Let me say something Carl. You know we have been focused on this issue and, you know, your listeners, everybody is so intently focused on the birth certificate. And I just really want to make it clear. The birth certificate as it’s, in the form that it is now, a PDF file is absolutely of no evidentiary value. It’s useless. And it doesn’t really matter to an extent other than from a conspiratorial standpoint in the commission of felonies. It doesn’t matter about all these anomalies because this thing has no evidentiary value. It is nothing. It is absolutely nothing, and the American people were shown absolutely nothing.

So, no, creating a fake PDF of a birth certificate in and of itself is not a crime.

Mike Zullo also said:

We are here looking at a fraudulent document1. This document should never have been perpetrated, should never have been proffered in the manner it does. As a matter of fact, to merely create this document is a federal offense.

So yes, creating a fake birth certificate PDF is very definitely a federal crime.

I hope that clears it up.


1Some birther apologists may argue that the “document” referred in the second quote is not the PDF (an abbreviation for “portable document format”), but that cannot be for two reasons. First Zullo and the rest of the birthers claim that there was no paper Obama birth certificate to start with, and that the PDF was assembled electronically from bits and pieces. Second, the only thing the President posted for the general public, and the only thing Zullo could possibly be “looking at,” is the PDF.

Zullo: It’s the birthers’ fault

After years of failure, missed deadlines, unkept promises and a solid public record of doing nothing, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse commander Mike Zullo turns on the ones who made him, the birthers, blaming them for his lack of progress.

Recall in the beginning that Zullo came out into the media spotlight carried on the shoulders of birthers like Mara Zebest, Garrett Papit and especially Jerome Corsi. The first Cold Case Posse reports looked like material gathered from birther web sites and Jerome Corsi’s book. Indeed Zullo has said that his original job with the Posse was to vet information from Jerome Corsi. The problem seems to be that things were not objectively vetted, and birther critics were kept out of the loop. That’s probably how Zullo got caught presenting faked evidence (the infamous fake 1961 federal race code table); he used something a birther faked without checking. Indeed Zullo earned the media’s assessment of “long debunked” because he used old birther remnants as the foundation of his case before the jury of public opinion.

The widely-disproved notion that the president was born abroad rather than in Hawaii, as state officials have repeatedly confirmed, comes up regularly in Arizona.

Fox News Latino (2012)

Zullo’s first dodge was to shift gears from law enforcement to lobbying Congress, but that was essentially left to the birthers, and notably to Mike Volin with his “Sheriff’s Kit” (now in a new edition). The Sheriff’s Kit has proved to be a 100% failure in getting any member of Congress on board.

Nowadays, Zullo has retreated back into the law enforcement tent where he can use law enforcement practices as an excuse to keep his progress secret. (Of course, Mike Zullo has never been certified as a law enforcement officer in Arizona, according to Executive Director Lyle Mann of Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training).

What is Zullo’s perspective on these events? How does he explain his abject failure? He blames it, at least in part, on the very birthers who made him. He says that their ineptitude has destroyed his credibility and limited his options. Zullo and his mouthpiece Carl Gallups were on the Peter Boyles radio show yesterday (October 3) . Here’s the entire show playable from this page.

 

On the show, which was a supposed to be a reset/recovery from what Boyles called a “dust up” previously between Lawrence Sellin and Carl Gallups, and a later segment with Brian Reilly, Boyles tries to be conciliatory, saying:

It doesn’t help our cause when we internally fight.

Still the issue of Zullo’s 3-year lack of progress, the non-appearance of any “universe-shattering” revelations, and pretty much zero from Zullo™, didn’t go away.

Zullo said:

[05:25] From that point [the 2nd press conference] forward that mandate [from Arpaio to vet Corsi’s information] stopped. The Sheriff wanted to get this to Congress. Was having difficulty. And part of the difficulty, Peter, was the fact that so many people, all over the Internet have weighed in on this, and made contact to Congress people with claims that are just unsubstantiated, and have muddied the waters. So the Sheriff changed the mandate and the he told me to take this in the direction now of a total law enforcement investigation.

What Zullo doesn’t appreciate is that he himself is one of those crazies hawking totally unsubstantiated claims. If Zullo were actually this important emissary from law enforcement that he describes himself to be, why is it that these “Congress people” didn’t see that? Why couldn’t they see that his evidence is substantiated? Zullo himself answers this question later on.

Zullo asserts his renewed investigation has “cultivated” evidence that doesn’t rely on “other people” and

[06:09]I’m hopping that in the very near future we’re going to be able to release that.

So mark the calendar—on October 4, 2014, Mike Zullo dangled the phrase “in the very near future” in front of the birthers, in reference to the “truth behind the document.” So anyone who might have gathered that Zullo had “moved on” from the birth certificate is wrong. Still Zullo wants to distance himself from the unwashed birther horde. He writes that his current mandate from Arpaio is to gather evidence to show:

[06:25] We are not birthers. We are here looking at a fraudulent document. This document should never have been perpetrated, should never have been proffered in the manner it does. As a matter of fact, to merely create this document is a federal offense. We’re concentrating on a fraudulent counterfeit1 document that was used to be proffered by Mr. Obama and his administration as proof positive that he’s an American citizen. We don’t have that evidence. We don’t have that proof of that claim. But that is what our mandate is.

No wonder Zullo can’t convince Congress: by his own words, Zullo admits that he doesn’t have evidence that proves the Obama birth certificate is fraudulent!

[07:27] This document has never been brought to trial. And if you go back on all these court cases, in a lot of these court cases, that people have burned jurisdictions on, that made it very difficult for us to proceed forward.

As best I can make out, Zullo is saying that birther lawsuits have precluded him taking some action. I’m not sure what Zullo thinks jurisdiction means. Zullo said on the Carl Gallups show back in 2013 that Orly Taitz "doesn’t understand what jurisdiction means…." None of the birther lawsuits were criminal cases, so how could they possibly impact one way or another, some putative future criminal prosecution. It is pretty well established, long before Obama came along, that a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime. Arpaio could try to get an indictment (if he ever got some evidence), but nothing any birther did before has any relevance to that.

Mike Zullo says “the evidence has to support the allegation,” yet he says that he certain that Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent, and that he doesn’t have the evidence to prove it. That seems to me to be a very weak position to be in. Zullo further states that he does not even have probable cause that Barack Obama’s social-security number is not legitimate.

My parting words for Carl Gallups: if you have to say that you are not being evasive, you probably are.


1Counterfeit: “made in exact imitation of something valuable or important with the intention to deceive or defraud.” Apparently Zullo doesn’t know what counterfeit means. Later in the interview, he describes it as a “fraudulent facsimile of an official state document.” Perhaps he doesn’t understand “facsimile” either.

Lax birth registration in Hawaii?

Where’s the evidence?

Despite Mike Zullo’s representations, citing Verna K. Lee, of a highly precise and error free operation of the Hawaii Health Bureau’s Vital Statistics division in 1961, when it suited his purposes in interpreting a race code on the President’s long form birth certificate, Zullo at the same time asserted that registration procedures were lax and that persons got birth certificates that shouldn’t have.

Larry Klayman in his recent petition to have Obama deported makes similar statements asserting the lax version of Hawaii Health Bureau operations, following in the footsteps of Mike Zullo, who stated in his “Alabama affidavit”:

…due to a loop holes in the state of Hawaii’s vital statistics reporting laws, there was the distinct evidence suggesting that Hawaii’s statutes appeared to be in conflict with federal immigration law and posed an independent threat to the national security of the United States.

Zullo later specifies what this loop hole is, citing HRS § 338-17.8 “Certificates for children born out of State” of which Zullo writes:

By statutory provision Hawaii has granted upon itself the unique power to confer citizenship to children not born in the United States, and to children not born to United States citizen parents, but to children actually born on foreign soil.

Zullo is lying. Nothing in HRS § 338-17.8 confers citizenship, and indeed no birth certificate of any kind by any state “confers” citizenship. A birth certificate is proof of the facts of birth, where, when and to whom. One need but look at any Hawaiian birth certificate to see that (1) it states where the birth occurred and (2) it says nothing about citizenship. Zullo also fails to disclose that HRS § 338-17.8 didn’t even exist when Barack Obama was born (it was passed in 1982).

Zullo goes on to assert lax procedures by citing statutes, which does not contain detailed procedures. What he does not show is the administrative procedures, regulations and policies in effect.

Klayman puts the story together in his petition, saying:

One of the main reasons that this entire topic is controversial and difficult is that Hawaii became a State on August 21, 1959, and as a very new State in the 1960’s was extremely lax in creating birth certificates for those not born in Hawaii or anywhere else in the United States of America. Hawaii not only had to work out procedure to operate as a new State but also had a culture of openness and relationship to nations throughout the Pacific Rim – recall that Kenya is a coastal nation along the Pacific Ocean / Indian Ocean – which allowed very loose concepts of Hawaii citizenship and immigration.

As a result, Hawaii routinely and by standard legal procedure issued birth certificates for children who were not born in Hawaii or anywhere in the United States. Furthermore, Hawaii allowed birth certificate to be issued based on the unverified claims of one or both parents – anyone signing for them (such as a grandparent).

People assume that the existence of a birth certificate from Hawaii proves a  birth in Hawaii, when Hawaii law at the time is explicit that a parent could lawfully request a birth certificate from Hawaii for a child born in a foreign country.

Searching over a several year period, various researchers have found repeated listings of birth to Japanese parents as being reported in the newspapers as Hawaiian births, even though the child was found to be born in Japan. In 1961, Hawaii Department of Health appears to have used local area offices outside Honolulu as reporting centers in which parents and other family members could present children born to the family as Hawaiian births, without submitting any proof that the child was actually born in Hawaii.

The problem is a so exacerbated by the more limited scope of medical care and government at the time. As a result, births outside of a hospital were not rare.

For the most part, Klayman is lying. The first lie is the suggestion that Hawaii had to scramble to put together vital records procedures when it became a state in 1959. In fact, Hawaii had been a US Territory since 1898, and the statutes for vital records in effect when President Obama was born in 1961 dated to 1955 (revised in 1959).

Klayman descends to the silly when he cites Kenya as a country of the “Pacific Rim” (see Pacific Rim map below). It may be that Klayman does not know where the Pacific Ocean is.

NotPacific Rim

Next, Klayman says: “Hawaii law at the time is explicit that a parent could lawfully request a birth certificate from Hawaii for a child born in a foreign country.” The statute for issuing out of state births was passed in 1982, not “at the time” when Barack Obama was born.

Klayman rambles on about registration procedures when a child is born, not attended by a doctor, while dishonestly failing to mention that Barack Obama was born in a Honolulu hospital with a birth certificate signed by a doctor. Klayman fails to provide any regulations or administrative procedure documentation whatever to back up his claim of lax requirements. He doesn’t know what the requirements were and just assumes there weren’t any.

Klayman mentions alleged Japanese children listed among births in Hawaiian newspapers. He cites “various researchers” studying “a several year period.” He doesn’t name the researchers, he doesn’t specify the period, and he doesn’t cite a single birth. In fact, to my knowledge, no birther has ever provided a specific instance, and no reason has been given to believe any of it. Klayman got it from Zullo, and Zullo, as we know, gets his facts from birther web sites.

One almost gets the impression that Klayman thinks Hawaii in 1961 was some kind of third world country with “limited scope of medical care,” and goes on to suggest that births outside of a hospital “were not rare.” Where did he get that notion? If Klayman had actually bothered to do minimal research he could have found that, according to the Vital Statistics of the Unites States for 1961, in the United States as a whole, 97 out of every 100 births were delivered in Hospitals (p. 1-13) and according to 1961 VSUS statistics for Hawaii, there were 17,578 births, of which 17,516 were in a hospital and attended by a physician, or more than 99 out of 100! Hawaii had a higher percentage of hospital births than the rest of the country. Indeed only 0.35% of Hawaiian births were not in a hospital attended by a physician! And this is what Klayman says is “not rare.” The guy is a first-class idiot.

If indeed vital records procedures in Hawaii were so lax, and all manner of abuses were prevalent, why is it that Klayman and his entire birther tribe have not been able to cite one single instance of vital records fraud in the history of the State of Hawaii, and only one example from the Territory of Hawaii, 110 years ago!

It’s a vicious circle. Zullo cribs from birther web sites. Klayman cribs from Zullo. The birthers then cite Zullo and Klayman as authorities.

An open letter to Pastor Carl Gallups

In response to the September 26, 2014 Freedom Friday Show

by Brian Reilly

"If I find out Zullo’s lying to me, I’ll tell the world about that."

– Carl Gallups, Freedom Friday 9/26/2014

Pastor Gallups, I have listened to you on the radio, several times over the past few years and quite frankly, the information that you present, on occasion, does not match with my experience and training as a former, volunteer Cold Case Posse member who not only worked shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Mike Zullo, but I was also recruited for the Cold Case Posse by Mr. Mike Zullo. (I became a CCP member on April 17, 2012 and I resigned,  10 weeks later on June 30, 2012, after I saw the inner workings of the Cold Case Posse.)

For example, I recall you stated on your program or read in your articles your reference to Mr. Zullo as a professional, law enforcement officer.  In one of your articles you refer to the combined 80 years of law enforcement experience that Sheriff Arpaio and Mr. Zullo have together. I’ve also heard you say or publish the titles, "Detective" and "Lieutenant" referring to Mr. Zullo’s rank within the Cold Case Posse.  Please, feel free to correct me if I’m inaccurate.

In Mike Zullo’s Alabama affidavit, he refers to himself as a "former" law enforcement officer. When my wife and I attended the March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse press conference, Mr. Zullo was asked, by the press,  about how much law enforcement experience he had.  "Five years" was his response, and that was in New Jersey, not Arizona. Zullo volunteers in an unpaid Posse position. How does the word, "professional" apply?  Sheriff Arpaio, at the time of the 80 years comment made above, I believe had 50 or 51 years of law enforcement experience.  Were you suggesting that Mr. Zullo had 29-30 years of professional law enforcement experience? And, in the Posse, we had no military rank.  Former MCSO Deputy Chief, Brian Sands, with a reported 30 years of law enforcement experience, classified the Posse title "Commander" simply as a point of contact for the Posse in his book "Arpaio, Defacto Lawman." (Available on line at Barnes & Nobles.)

In your articles, I believe that I’ve read that you have a decade of previous professional law enforcement experience. I would assume that you were paid for your service as a professional.  I would assume to become a sworn law enforcement officer, you went through a state certification process.  I would assume that you had a title such as Police Officer,  Deputy Sheriff or Corrections Officer or the like.  I would assume that you carried a law enforcement commission card, that identified you as a state certified,  sworn law enforcement officer. I assume that you carried a badge that stated your law enforcement position and your department.  I assume that you had the authority to enforce the law, inherent with the position of a certified sworn law enforcement officer.  Pastor Gallups, have you asked Mike Zullo if his experience is the same as yours?  Posse members are not sworn, state certified, law enforcement officers.

In your Sharon Rondeau / Post & Email article, you are quoted as saying that you asked Sheriff Arpaio if Mike Zullo is really a law enforcement officer. To quote your question to Sheriff Arpaio, "Tell me, tell our audience: Does Mike Zullo really have law enforcement powers?  Is he [Zullo] a bona fide law enforcement officer with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office? Does he [Zullo] have arrest authority?" Sheriff Arpaio’s response: "Yes, yes, yes, and yes.  He works for me, and he is a bona fide law enforcement officer with my authority." The key words, "with my authority."  Pastor Gallups, I would remind you that "bona fide" refers to "genuine." As Posse members we were told that we could only act if given a command by a sworn MCSO Deputy Sheriff, who was a state certified law enforcement officer.

Pastor Gallups, in your law enforcement position, could you be arrested for impersonating a law enforcement officer?  Did you know, according to our Posse training classes, we were told, never to carry our badges when not doing volunteer Posse work?  We were told to leave our badges at home so that we would not use the badges for identification, as volunteer Posse members  could be arrested for impersonating a law enforcement officer. I’m sure that you would agree, a bona fide, state certified law enforcement officer would not be arrested for showing his badge for identification.  Can you think of anytime that you would have been arrested as a real law enforcement officer for showing your badge?  I was told in our Ethics / Law & Legal training classes that Posse members have been prosecuted here in Arizona for impersonating law enforcement officers.

And finally, I communicated this week with Executive Director Lyle Mann of Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training (AZ POST).  My question to him was: "Has Michael P. Zullo EVER been AZ POST certified as a law enforcement officer?"  Director Mann’s reply:  "No he has not." lylem@azpost.gov.

Pastor Gallups, I hope that you will consider the things that I have written in this letter, and seek the truth.
 
Regards,
Brian Reilly

Zullo huffs and bluffs

This article talks about what I see as a pattern of behavior from Mike Zullo. I’ll be the first to admit that two points don’t make a pattern, but perhaps there are more points.

“Bloviate” is a word that means to talk at length and not say anything. An early use was to describe speeches by President Warren G. Harding. Mike Zullo has for over a year now talked about unspecified evidence gathered by his Cold Case Posse (if indeed there is anyone but him looking into conspiracy theories about the President’s identity documents). You can read the sorry history on RC’s MSCO Cold Case Posse Timeline. After Mike Zullo’s evidence was proven to be fake, and his experts shown to be cranks, Mike Zullo took a different tack: promise everything and deliver nothing. It was pure bluster. After failing to keep various promises, he even stopped setting time frames.

Unable to produce any real evidence, Mike Zullo substituted vacuous talk, and the recent appearance by Zullo spokesperson Carl Gallups on the Peter Boyles radio program attracted huge criticism from birthers for repeating Zullo’s themes, and talking for an hour and not saying anything.

In response, the Cold Case Posse through Gallups did finally say something that won’t blow up their face, copying their material from a reliable source (this and other opposition blogs). Loren Collins proved TWO YEARS AGO that the Joel Gilbert photos, allegedly of Obama’s mother, could not have been her. Now the Cold Case Posse announces the same thing, only attaching the technobabble phrase “digital forensic.”

Former Cold Case Posse member, now CCP critic, Brian Reilly called the Boyles show and talked at length of his perspective on the entire affair. Reilly later called into the RC Radio show, and delivered a shocker that Zullo was once promoting a loony theory about President Obama attending a human sacrifice in Kenya. Just as Zullo responded to the debacle of his failed press conferences with empty rhetoric, he responds to this new damaging information with more rhetoric, this time the veiled suggestion that he will sue Brian Reilly for defamation. Zullo’s quotes are found in an article at the Post & Email web site, reprinted at Birther Report. Did Zullo defend himself with substance? No, he bluffed. Here’s what Zullo said:

We have been monitoring him for the last eight months, and on that broadcast, Mr. Reilly gave me a gift:  we have been waiting for him to come off of an internet broadcast and finally do the slanderous hit-job that he did on public airwaves.

Brian Reilly is fueled by those who are entertained by his trashing of the investigation and his own self-fulfilling motivations. However, there are aspects of his past – facts – that, when they come to light, in my opinion, people are going to find extremely troubling.

Since when does anyone call alleged slander a “gift”? Zullo makes a veiled threat, but again says nothing. He will do nothing because he has nothing. It is Zullo who is the coward, smearing through innuendo. This is the same thing he did to me and Bill Bryan, never actually saying anything, but making vague suggestions. Pathetic.