Main Menu

Tag Archives | Post & Email

Turning dark

Mike Zullo spoke to the Surprise Arizona Tea Party Patriots November 18, and according to interviewer Sharon Rondeau of the Post & Email:

Zullo “said that the investigation that they started ‘turned very dark,’ whatever ‘dark’ means,” the individual added.

Indeed, what does that mean?

Here’s a quotation from the Associated Press just today:

A detective investigating the high school shooting in Washington state that left five teens dead says in court papers that the young shooter’s texts turned dark the week before he opened fire, with references to his funeral and the message: “Bang bang I’m dead.”

Writing in the American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry (2007) we see something similar in the Columbine school shooting:

Three days after his arrest, Klebold made one of his few entries into his diary. He wrote about his love for a female student and wondered if the feelings were mutual. But the note turned dark. He talked about suicide, blowing himself up with a bomb strapped to his neck.

I certainly hope that there is not some kind of murder-suicide pact about to be acted out by the Cold Case Posse!

Barry Cooper, a former drug enforcement officer said:

In fact, governments have always turned dark and corrupt which has always led to mass suffering.

Certainly there are suspicions of corruption in the Cold Case Posse, and they have clearly lied to the public about evidence. Still, I find it unlikely that Mike Zullo would be admitting this to his Tea Party audience.

Turning dark can be a sign of illness. In a chilling true story titled “Biohazard,” author Ken Alibek discusses a case of the Marburg virus:

By the fifteenth day, the tiny bruises on Ustinov’s body had turned dark blue, and his skin was as thin as parchment. The blood pooling underneath began oozing through. It streamed from his nose, mouth, and genitals.

Enough of that. Generally “turning dark” refers to reduction in light, nightfall, or a scene being obscured by smoke. It’s also associated with the end of an activity, such as a company going out of business (turning out the lights). A blog goes dark when it disappears from the web. “Going dark” in police jargon can refer to the failure of an investigation due to lack of evidence and leads. FBI Director James B. Comey spoke last month at the Brookings Institution of the conflicts between the need for privacy and criminal investigation:

Unfortunately, the law hasn’t kept pace with technology, and this disconnect has created a significant public safety problem. We call it “Going Dark,” and what it means is this: Those charged with protecting our people aren’t always able to access the evidence we need to prosecute crime and prevent terrorism even with lawful authority. We have the legal authority to intercept and access communications and information pursuant to court order, but we often lack the technical ability to do so.

It probably makes more sense to view the comment in some kind of context, and a commenter here reminded us of this quote from Carl Gallups 22 November 2013:

…the investigation has gone “deeper and darker” than they ever imagined…

I think that what Zullo intended was that his audience assume that the Cold Case Posse had uncovered some great evil in its investigation, but in fact to say nothing. Even back to the early Cold Case Posse press conferences, Zullo proved himself a master at leaving his audience thinking he said things he didn’t actually say. So as far as I am concerned, “turned dark” coming from Mike Zullo means exactly nothing.


I want to give credit to the Tea Party member who spoke to Rondeau. He didn’t jump to any conclusion about what Mike Zullo meant. I also want to credit Rondeau who, no matter what one thinks about her slant on things, does an outstanding job of getting birther stories.

52

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.

Disturbing the birthers–priceless!

Sharon Rondeau, citizen journalist at the Post & Email web site, has interviewed Cold Case Posse commander Mike Zullo. In the interview, republished at Gerbil Report™, [cue the MAD-TV “Lowered Expectations” theme], Zullo is quoted:

The Post & Email spoke with Zullo, who told us that “there are going to be some findings that ‘birthers’ may find disturbing,” referring to those who specifically doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii, as he claims.

Since his two original disastrously-wrong but detail-filled news conferences, Mike Zullo has been very closed lipped about his investigation, giving no one anything more to evaluate or criticize. This stonewalling has been remarkably successful in taking off the heat from critics and letting birthers’ imaginations run free, and their hopes soar.

More difficult to parse is another Zullo remark from the interview:

The public doesn’t understand the type of evidence required in a law enforcement investigation. The word “evidence” is often used to describe information that cannot be supported by its own weight.  Evidence that cannot be supported or corroborated is in fact not evidence at all but often personal opinion or just mere speculation.   Real evidence is something that provides proof to ascertain the truth in a proceeding. It has to stand the test of scrutiny, cross-examination and ultimately be determined to be factual and relevant.

Zullo puts that last in the context of speculation that Frank Marshall Davis is Obama’s real father, a speculation devoid of any proof says Zullo. He goes on to suggest that birthers are making him look bad, and he clearly is trying to distance himself and his investigation from the birther movement itself, says Rondeau:

Zullo believes that this is the type of activity which has diminished the credibility of the topic.

Of course it was Zullo himself who promoted all manner of crank image analysis, fake race code tables and unsupported tales at the beginning, but I digress.

Specifically, Zullo criticizes birthers trying to make sense of his intentionally ambiguous remarks, such as those on the Cark Gallups radio program. Zullo seems to be saying that birthers are mistaken when they think he is saying anything understandable [unplug irony meters]:

There is no room for this kind of rabid speculation. This is how wild rumors get started and then are repeated enough times that information-hungry audiences start to believe it to be factually correct.

Some have speculated that Zullo is making a subtle reference to Lawrence Sellin’s interpretation of a Zullo conversation to conclude that some Obots had turned coat and are assisting in the Cold Case Posse investigation (an absurd suggestion because no Obot has anything that could assist Zullo in proving his nonsense conspiracy theories). But even this speculation would be misguided if we listen to Zullo, who taken at his word, is telling us that it’s a mistake to try get any information out of anything he says. Zullo also promised another press conference. Because Zullo was widely criticized for not meeting his previous promises about press conferences, he’s not setting a date for this next one.

Surprise! Tea Party to hear Rondeau tomorrow

imageThe Surprise Tea Party Patriots (not to be confused with the Surprise Tea Party or The Judean People’s Front), will hear Post & Email web site editor Sharon Rondeau make a presentation September 2, 2014, via Skype™ about her favorite subject, the travails of Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III. STPP describes the Post & Email:

The Post & Email is a child-friendly site which focuses on government corruption and constitutional issues.

The heavily-spun article on the STPP site is quite lengthy with a bio of Rondeau and a narrative of Fitzpatrick’s run-ins with the State of Tennessee over his attempt to force his interpretation of Tennessee grand jury statutes on the State.  One can be sure that the Arizona patriots will not hear both sides of the issue.

The Surprise Tea Party Patriots is the bunch that petitioned Sheriff Arpaio to investigate Obama’s birth certificate.

High-class judge shopping

Funny how quickly yesterday’s big story fades. I gave quite a lot of attention to an action Douglas Vogt filed in Seattle federal court, trying to force a judge to empanel a grand jury and let Vogt present his unqualified image analysis to it. It was pretty exciting with it’s sealed affidavit and bread crumbs left all over Internet radio leading to his mystery Jane Doe forger of Obama’s birth certificate. In the end, it didn’t work. The judge dismissed whatever it was.

Vogt and his “not an attorney anymore” associate Montgomery Blair Sibley (Sibley left his name in document metadata)  appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a Writ of Mandamus to force the court in Seattle to give him his grand jury. That was denied January 14, and the case closed. (Vogt filed a motion to reconsider in January 24).

Undaunted Vogt started mailing his big package-o-papers to 175 federal judges asking them for a grand jury. That’s some judge shopping list. Vogt tried to drum up excitement by publishing the heavily-redacted reply from one judge that he took to be favorable, but nothing must have come of it because…

Having failed with everything so far, Vogt is taking the ultimate step of going before the US Supreme Court (although his motion for reconsideration is still pending before the 9th Circuit), says Vogt in a letter to the Post & Email blog. In the copyrighted letter, dated today, Vogt asks for money, $800, to defray the cost of printing 40 copies and the filing fee. Is it just me, or is it weird that a successful businessman who owns a photocopier company is asking for money to make copies? OK, I expect there are special printing requirements and maybe it makes sense to let a professional in Supreme Court filings do the work, but $800 is not all that much money for big-time executives.

The Vogt Press Release says: “Douglas Vogt will be lodging with the United States Supreme Court this month the compelling forensic evidence contained in his 95 page public and 75 page sealed affidavits.” I don’t think Supreme Court Rules are going to let him submit 170 pages—not even close, but then I wonder if the Supreme Court ever got a petition like this one before.

In his begging letter Vogt mentions, but does not explain, some urgency in getting this to the Supreme Court now because 9th Circuit delays were making were going to make it too late to file with the Supreme Court. This presumably refers to his motion for reconsideration, so far still pending. There is a limited time (90 days) after denial by the circuit during which an appeal to the Supreme Court may be filed.

This all seems silly to me unless it’s a publicity stunt for Vogt’s upcoming book, “From Forgery to Treason.” Folks who donate $25 towards his expenses will get an autographed copy of the Supreme Court filing, but alas no book. Vogt has clearly gone around the bend describing the 9th Circuit as afraid of his case.

Read more:

The Post & Email Will Not Air Michael Shrimpton Interview

Heavens to Zullo1, what is going on? There I was, all set for the new Michael Shrimpton interview with The Post & Email and Birther Report as the detonating introduction to March Universe Shattering™ month, and now they say it won’t happen?

Birther Report published a string of articles about an old Shrimpton talk from 2008, uploaded to YouTube in 2012, recently discovered, forwarded to Carl Gallups, and featured at BR. Then BR reported that they had contacted Shrimpton, interviewed him, and that the audio recording would be released shortly. Frankly, I was impressed that BR was finally going to get some original content, bless their black birther hearts.

I had published the introductory article, but it was not to be. Sharon Rondeau, editor of the Post & Email wrote today:

(Mar. 9, 2014) — The Post & Email has decided not to air any portions of the interview conducted with Barrister Michael Shrimpton on Friday evening as announced on Saturday morning.

We are also confirming that no “fundraising” has been done by The Post & Email as a result of speaking or communicating with Shrimpton, nor have we benefited financially in any way from those contacts. The original story announcing the interview has been removed so that there is no question that any financial gain has been realized by The Post & Email from having conducted the interview.

Reading between the lines, I’m thinking that Shrimpton wanted money. It wouldn’t be the first time.

OR NOT

Continue Reading →