Main Menu

Tag Archives | Zullo affidavit

Zullo irrelevant in Alabama

There are rumors swirling among the birthers that the Alabama Supreme Court will rule on the McInnish v. Chapman case this week. I don’t have any reason to think one way or the other about this prediction, but whatever the Court says, the affidavit of Mike Zullo, submitted to the court, is irrelevant. (On March 12, there was a Zullo Affidavit page on the Cold Case Posse Web site, but it was gone this morning. I don’t know if it was intentionally scrubbed or if it was lost in the recovery from a recent hacking incident.) The Zullo affidavit was submitted by the Appellants as part of a motion to strike an amicus brief from the Alabama Democratic Party because that brief contained items not part of the record of appeal. The Zullo affidavit, of course, is itself full of things not in the record of appeal.

The problem with predicting with certainty what the Alabama Supreme Court will do is that there are at least two birther sympathizers on the court, Chief Justice Roy Moore and Associate Justice Tom Parker. It’s possible there there will be a split decision and it is also possible for them to rule against McInnish, but insert birther-friendly language whining about having their hands tied by the law in an otherwise serious question about Obama. I have confidence in the ultimate victory of right over chaos and so I think the Alabama Supreme Court will look at the merits of the case and affirm the Montgomery Circuit Court’s ruling.

The sole questions to be decided by the Alabama Supreme Court are whether or not the “Jurisdiction Stripping Statute,” prevents the court from hearing this case,1  and if not whether or not the Secretary of State of Alabama had a duty in the last election to investigate President Obamas qualifications to appear on the ballot in Alabama.

The parties to the case and an amicus brief from the Alabama Democratic Party argue the issues upon which the court will rule. Several nut case amicus briefs were also submitted making wild claims about President Obama; they are not relevant to the question of law in this case. (See also my article: “Zullo’s irrelevant affidavit.”)

The first few sentences of the Zullo affidavit show that it is incompetent. Zullo swears that he has personal knowledge of things he’s heard from other people and that’s not how it works. Such testimony would not be allowed in court. One would think that anyone who was familiar with law enforcement would know what is testimony and what is not, but Zullo appears not understand this, nor apparently does he know what’s being decided in Alabama. But whatever opinion one has of the Zullo affidavit, it is irrelevant to this Alabama Supreme Court decision because it does not address the questions of law that the Court is deciding. The Alabama Democratic party references the Zullo affidavit in its response to the motion to strike thusly:

…the ADP assumes that it is unnecessary to further address whether this Court should consider the rambling screed that passes for an “affidavit” attached to the Appellants’ Motion to Strike. Virtually none of the information contained in the affidavit is admissible or credible…. The “affidavit” is inadmissible on its face and is composed of hearsay, speculation, and unsupported conclusions.

Read all of the briefs:


1The Jurisdiction Stripping Statute (Ala. Code 17-16-44) precludes Alabama courts from hearing cases regarding the “legality, conduct or results of any election except so far as authority to do so [is] specially and specifically enumerated and set down by statute.”

Zullo v. Vogt

Cheese Food Package photoI can’t stand to listen to the stuff, except in small bits, so I’m relying on Birther Report for the story.

Apparently Mike Zullo appeared on the Carl Gallups Freedom Friday show today and announced proof: “IronClad And Can Never Be Refuted.” Well, that’s refreshing, because I am getting pretty tired of their usual stuff that comes clad in a wrapper labeled “imitation pasteurized process cheese food.”

Birthers don’t play well with others

Some factionalism appears among the birthers, according to BR:

Zullo also denounced Doug Vogt’s assertions regarding the purported Obama birth certificate forger

Vogt’s identification of the “forger” in sealed court papers, and unsealed lips on talk radio abetted by unredacted web posts from Orly Taitz, is of course pure nonsense (not to be confused with imitation process nonsense).

The conflict gets more serious when Vogt and Zullo contradict each the other in affidavits filed in court. Here’s Vogt first in his Seattle affidavit:

When a birth certificate comes in from a hospital or clinic, the registrar much check that there are no cross outs, all the fields have been filled out, the mother and doctor have both signed and dated the form using black indelible ink. The registrar then stamps the certificate with a date stamp and then uses a Bates numbering machine to print the unique certificate number on the upper right hand comer of the form. Finally the registrar signs the form.

We observe that Hawaiian birth certificates are signed all through the month, usually just a few days after birth, so by implication (according to Vogt) certificates are stamped all through the month. Now contrast what Vogt avers to Zullo’s version that appears in his own affidavit filed in the case of McInnish v. Chapman now before the Alabama Supreme Court:

The serial number shown on the image of the certificate, which purports on its face to have been imposed on the form with an automated sequential numbering stamp, is 61-10641. Investigators learned at that time, batches of birth certificates were collected monthly, ordered by date and time of birth, and then sequentially number-stamped in a special room by a single clerk trained for the purpose, to minimize numbering errors.

So which is it: numbering daily in order of registration, or numbering in birth order sequence in batches at the end of the month? Vogt appeals to his reading of Hawaiian law and federal regulations. Zullo claims an investigation. Which is right? Neither of them is right. The known certificates make it clear that the main sorting of the monthly batch is alphabetic (and possibly a high-level sort on birth facility before). The latest known August 1961 certificate has the lowest certificate number (and the child’s last name begins with “A”). In order to try to make Obama’s certificate appear out of order both Vogt and Zullo make up inconsistent stories, neither of which fits the facts.

333333 44444
5555555
6666666