Main Menu

Tag Archives | Reed Hayes

Continuing education: the Reed Hayes Report

After 6 years, memories can become less precise, and misunderstandings can gel into false memories. It’s useful for me to go back to sources and be sure I have things right. This morning, I woke up thinking I had a solid grasp on why the Reed Hayes report hadn’t been released.

The source we have for Hayes, a document expert from Hawaii, is what Mike Zullo said about the report Hayes produced for him, for what Zullo said, we can look to his “Alabama Affidavit” in which he quoted an anonymous document examiner that has to be Reed Hayes:

…based on my observations and findings, it is clear that Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured documented created by utilizing material from various sources.” and

“In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated.”

Because Hayes could contradict a false statement, I am assuming Zullo quoted him accurately. The context is slight, but this exact quote was enough to burst the bubble of my early morning conclusion. If I misremembered, so might someone else—so the purpose of this article is remind everyone of what Zullo said about the Reed Hayes report. That’s the “continuing education.”

Given the importance of the report, from the only credentialed document examiner to come up with a conclusion of fabrication , there must be some serious reason why Zullo has kept it under wraps, and the only reason left that makes sense to me is that Hayes has changed his mind and no longer stands behind the report or that his report is materially inconsistent with other Zullo claims.

See also this comment from ellen who talked to Hayes.

Waiting for the other shoe to drop

Things are sort of quiet on the birther front and I’m waiting for something interesting to happen. There are a couple of dropping shoes that I’m waiting for.

First is some development in the Arpaio/Montgomery story. We learned that Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been spending 6 figures on information from a notorious scammer about federal judge G. Murray Snow and US Attorney General Eric Holder. This is apparently some offshoot of the Cold Case Posse investigation of Obama’s birth certificate. I and commenters here have posted their speculations. What I’m waiting for is a public response from the Sheriff’s Office or from another media article confirming or expanding the story.

The second shoe belongs to Reed Hayes. It’s no accident that my article about Google queries featured the keyword–it came from my Google alerts. There was a strong indication a while back that Hayes was going to post something on his web site related to his examination for Mike Zullo of a second or third-generation copy1 of the Obama birth certificate. What I once, but no longer strongly suspect is that poster Joe Mannix at Birther Report is Mike Zullo and that what he said about the Reed Hayes report is authoritative:

Of course. Reed is a master at detecting forgeries, especially when people try to mimic other peoples signatures on such things such as checks or birth certificates as in this case. He detects anomalies in forged signatures the average person can’t recognize. He immediately knew something was wrong after looking at the document hence why he called Mike back within 20 minutes.

That’s about all we know, and “know” is even too strong a word. It would be great for the other shoe to drop and we learn from Hayes himself what he thinks about how his work has been characterized. We remember that Ivan Zatkovich eventually spoke out against how his work had been buried and mischaracterized by WorldNetDaily.

1I consider the White House PDF to be a digitally compressed second-generation copy. The birth certificate itself is a photocopy of the original onto security paper. Scanning to PDF and display on a computer monitor, or printer gives the second generation.  (Considerable confusion has arisen from the complex digital compression involved in the creation of the PDF). The AP press scan is from photocopy (or perhaps a photocopy of a photocopy) of the certified copy, then imaged and displayed making it the third (or fourth) generation.

The President’s document examiner

I saw something yesterday that led me to a YouTube video, a pretty crappy production allegedly recording of encounters with Randy Foreman from The Blaze with Congressmen, and editing in Congressman Bobby Rush speaking on the floor of the House.

What demonstrates the complete lack of morality (or in the alternative a complete lack of competence) on the part of the video maker is the statement that “the President’s own document examiner, Reed Hayes with Perkins Coie….” I don’t believe the video clip of Bobby Rush has anything to do with Obama’s birth certificate. Here is a similar video clip of Rush, but not the exact one.

Hayes, of course, worked on an unspecified project for an attorney who previously workede for Perkins Coie, a very large national law firm that also represents Obama for America. He is in no way the President’s document examiner.

The obvious question is: if Congress is supposed to be responding to criticisms of the President’s birth certificate based on the conclusions of Reed Hayes, why isn’t the Reed Hayes report being shown to members of Congress?

Read more about birthers correspondent and cab driver Randy Foreman.

Continue Reading →

Gallups, Taitz talk: Glass half full, or half wrong?

Orly Taitz published a fake email from Carl Gallups and that lead to a long exchange of “is it real?” among her commenters. If I read Taitz’ string of articles correctly, the same person who wrote the fake Gallups email,  one about the Court in Mississippi, and another one claiming to come from Paul Vallely (US Army retired). There appears to be an ongoing punk-jihad at the Taitz site.

Whoever writes the Carl Gallups Facebook page confirmed that the original email with his name on it was a fake, but there was a follow-up conversation between Gallups and Taitz, and Gallups wasn’t too happy about how Taitz reported it:

Half of what Orly wrote about her conversation with Carl is untrie and words twisted. Seems to be a pattern. Sad but true.

So what did Orly report? [link to Taitz site] Let me get on my boots and my rubber gloves.

I told Gallops that since I have him on the phone, I would like to ask him a couple of questions. I asked, why didn’t he report on my ongoing cases? He said that he invited me before. I responded that the last time I was on his show, was in 2009, 4 years ago. I stated that he reported repeatedly on someone else’s  case in AL, which was dismissed and on appeal, but he did not report on numerous other cases that were filed by me. He said that he did not know about them, that nobody gave him info on any of my cases.

I further asked him for the affidavit of expert Reed Hayes, so I can submit it to court. He said that it was copy-righted by Arpaio and Zullo, so it will not get into wrong hands and so that if anyone uses it, they can sue that person. I responded to Carl that he was a police officer and that he knows or should know that a sheriff cannot copyright an expert affidavit relating to a serious crime and sit on it for a year, that this is obstruction of justice. Gallops responded that he knows only what Zullo said on his show

In addition to the phone conversation, Gallups sent Taitz a letter, which according to Facebook is accurate, and to this reader, incriminating, where it says:

Mike Zullo has assured me that if you can provide him with the I.P. address of the letter that he has the ability to trace it down to determine the actual sender.

That sounds seriously unethical and probably illegal, but Zullo could just be lying again.

Invisible evidence

Characterizing invisible evidence

I made a list last July of 34 things the Cold Case Posse hasn’t released or explained and included it in my article, “Waiting for Zullo.” The most prominent item on the unreleased evidence list is of course the Reed Hayes report.

What I would like to do now is make another list of the ways Zullo has characterized the evidence he won’t show. Here are the first three. Can you think of more?

The irrefutable nature of invisible evidence

The Cold Case Posse and Joe Arpaio used to be all about releasing the results of their investigation, with no fewer than three news conferences plus other group evidentiary presentations, seminars, even a book jointly authored by Jerome Corsi and Mike Zullo. There were reports. There were videos.

How’d that work out for you Mike?

Cold Case Posse evidence fell apart under scrutiny and nobody, beyond birthers who will believe anything, saw anything persuasive in it—just the opposite. What we found was evidence of the incompetence of Zullo’s birther brand of brothers (AKA the Cold Case Posse). Folks like me enjoyed a killing field, a virtual orgy of debunking. In one case, with a fake race code table, Zullo demonstrated that he could be easily fooled by other birthers, and that he was willing to lie to try to prop it up.  News coverage, such as it was, accurately described Posse claims as “long discredited.”

One commenter aptly pointed out that so long as the Cold Case Posse doesn’t release the evidence, it cannot be refuted, and that seems to be Zullo’s more-recent strategy, substituting claims about the strength of the evidence for the evidence itself, and stringing out supporters with ever-lengthening time frames for evidence to appear—March is the last target I’ve seen given.

The risk

The risk, however, is that Cold Case Posse supporters will get tired of being strung along. That pressure is bound to increase as time goes on and Obama inches towards the end of his term of office. Still birthers are an optimistic lot, undaunted by defeat, yet some cracks are showing, such as this from a prominent commenter at Birther Report:

Zullo must be dumber than I imagined.

That same commenter, however, expresses an irrational estimation of the state of anti-Obama activism , saying:

Wow – the O-Holes are certainly worried judging their comments on the last thread. And they have plenty of reason to worry.

I’m banned at Birther Report, so the comments referenced aren’t mine, but I cannot even begin to imagine what anti-birthers could possibly be worried about. Invisible evidence? :roll:

Has Zullo shown the Reed Hayes report to anyone in Congress?

One of the many hidden mysteries surrounding Mike Zullo and the Cold Case Posse is the Reed Hayes report. Hayes, a handwriting expert, reportedly produced a report (sometimes labeled an “affidavit”) for Mike Zullo (not for the Cold Case Posse) that concludes that Obama’s birth certificate is a “100% forgery.”

The question of why the Hayes report remains a secret looms. To my way of thinking, the most likely reason is that Zullo, who seems to claim ownership of the report, is planning to include it in a book for sale. Zullo, however, is not saying that, so let’s assume for the sake of discussion that he has some motive other than financial gain, some motive that goes towards his goal of discrediting Obama’s personal story.

Given that the whole Cold Case Posse case against Obama stands or falls on the basic premise that the President’s birth certificate (White House PDF image) is a computer-generated forgery, and that premise is all but gone now that it has been found that what they call marks of forgery are artifacts of a common Xerox office machine that the White House owns, it would seem a matter of the utmost urgency that they get some new evidence out there. It hasn’t happened.

One of the big embarrassments for Mike Zullo was his presentation to Congressman Woodall. Woodall was unimpressed by the lengthy argument. The recording of that conversation, now scrubbed, did not mention anything about the Hayes Report, nor of any of the secret evidence that is supposed to be so convincing. So my question is: has Zullo shown the Reed Hayes Report to any member of Congress, and if not, why not?