Educating the Confused – Orly and legal research

Orly shares her own ‘research skills

Peta Lindsey case where the court ruled that the Sec of State’s duty is to check eligibility, does not show in legal search sites

I noticed that when I disclose this type of censorship, the ruling regime makes changes and re-instates cases that were deleted from legal searches. We will see if our ruling mafia will re-insert this case.

What more often happens is that when Orly makes these claims, someone quickly points out to her, her own errors. In this case the name is Lindsay, not Lindsey and the case can be found trivially

Poor Orly. Even the more basic research is causing her much confusion. And this confusion causes her to see conspiracies where there are none.

MD – Taitz v Colvin – Second try

Orly is desperately trying again to get her doomed case back on track. After the SSA clarified that it had nothing of relevance for Orly, which Orly misinterpreted to mean that they had found Bounel’s records, the Court dismissed her case. Orly is now ‘arguing’ that the Judge should have recused herself as she is an appointee of President Obama. Good luck with that. Also, she claims that these are newly discovered facts, even though Dr Conspiracy has document that Orly knew about this in early 2014. Orly’s quixotic quest is continuing but with no hope that her case will be resurrected.

07/21/2014 43 MOTION to Reopen Case; Motion for recusal; Motion to transfer case; Second Motion for reconsideration by Orly Taitz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(jf2, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/22/2014)


Carl Gallup reports No progress

Although he repeats the unsupported claim that the Xerox Workflow has been disproven, the embarrassing facts that a simple workflow can explain most of the artifacts which had been claimed to be evidence of a forgery, remain standing with no effort on the part of anyone to debunk them.

It seems clear to me that the claim that the PDF is a 1000% forgery is built on hot air, not on scientific evidence.

The Clown Case Posse already embarrassed itself with its “reports” which somehow overlooked a simple workflow, and since their case was based on an argument from ignorance, nothing much remained.

For over a year, all we have heard is ‘silence’…

Has the Second Battle of Athens Begun?

Despite no police report or any evidence, Fitzpatrick was convicted of “aggravated perjury” and “extortion” unanimously by 12 ignorant and possibly intimidated jurors whose names are here.


Let’s set the record straight here, so that people understand the full facts. The victim, Mr Cunningham reported Walt’s behavior to the Courts and the Attorney General and preserved the evidence. The Attorney General decided to investigate the concerns and the investigator met with Cunningham, who provided him with all the evidence and the Attorney General decided to present the evidence to a Grand Jury who indicted Fitzpatrick on four counts.

In pre-trial arguments, one indictment, stalking, was dropped by the Judge and three were allowed to go to trial. At the beginning of the trial, 12 randomly selected people were chosen to be on the Jury and to claim that these people are ‘ignorant’ makes a mockery of our Fifth Amendment Right to Trial by Jury and is an insult to the people of Tennessee and McMinn County.

Worse, the accusation is that these jurors were possibly intimidated, even though there exists no evidence and no evidence has been presented to show any such intimidation. In fact, the Jury decided against the harassment charge and found Walt “not guilty’ on that count. The Jury, having seen all the evidence, and heard all the testimony, did decide to find Walt guilty on two counts, extortion and aggravated perjury.

The evidence that was introduced during the trial includes Walts submissions to the Grand Jury, his petitions for a motion for a protective order, and likely Walt’s writings sent to the Supreme Court and the Office of Professional Accountability, in which Walt appears to have asked them to disbar and/or punish Cunningham for ‘crimes’.

Mr Cunningham and others had properly informed Walt that his submissions contained elements which were at odds with the facts and therefor could open up Walt to perjury charges, and that Walt’s attempts to remove Mr Cunningham as the foreperson of the Grand Jury could be interpreted as extortion under the Tennessee Statutes. Instead of heeding the advice, Walt decided to file motions for protective orders and other complaints, all of which would have impeded the foreperson from effectively doing his job.

Walt was also advised that his true recourse was to be found in the Courts, where he could challenge the Foreperson’s decision to no longer accept Walt’s repetitive complaints, which had been more than once been rejected by the Grand Jury. Under Tennessee law such findings are final…

So before one goes off accusing juror members of being ignorant or intimidated, it may be helpful to first look at the facts and evidence and then make a case. Until then, such claims sound like those made by sore losers who, rather than argue the facts, attack the person. In common parlance this is known as the ‘ad hominem’ fallacy.


TN – Qualifications of the foreperson

Much has been made of the statement that the foreperson shall have the same qualifications as the other jurors, to suggest that the term qualifications include “not having been chosen to serve in a Jury in the last 24 months’. However, that is not a qualification.

1. Formerly, under T.C.A. § 40-1507, the grand jury foreman or forewoman had to be at least 25 years old in order to serve. This provision was repealed by Acts 1979, ch. 399, § 1, and replaced by Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(g). Under the new rule, the qualifications for foreman are the same as those for regular jurors, resulting in a minimum qualifying age of 18 years. T.C.A. § 22-1-101 (formerly T.C.A. § 22-101).

Source: STATE v. BEAL, 614 S.W.2d 77 (1981)

T.C.A. § 22-1-101

Every person eighteen (18) years of age, being a citizen of the United States, and a resident of this state, and of the county in which the person may be summoned for jury service for a period of twelve (12) months next preceding the date of the summons, is legally qualified to act as a grand or petit juror, if not otherwise incompetent under the express provisions of this title.

The continued confusion about the appointing of the Foreperson of the GJ in TN

Since at least 1980, Blackwood has participated in choosing grand jury foremen who have worked for years and sometimes decades in violation of Tennessee code.

Source: The Jaghunter

This is at odds with the known facts that in Tennessee, according to Statutes, and Rules of the Court, the foreperson is indeed appointed by the Judge for a period of two years. Said foreperson can be reappointed for consecutive periods of time.

As I have shown, the TN Statutes were amended in 1919 to separate the foreperson from the 12 jurors who were summoned through a random process. The foreperson instead was to be appointed by the Judge from the community at large and would serve for a period of two years.

The TN Public Acts 1919 Ch 37 states

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That the various Criminal Judges of the State of Tennessee, and the Circuit Judges of the State, having criminal jurisdiction in any county, are hereby authorized, empowered and required to nominate and appoint the foremen of the grand juries in the various counties of their respective jurisdictions; and said foremen of the grand juries so appointed shall hold their office and exercise their powers of such office for a term of two years from appointment, unless for good cause, in the discretion of the presiding Judge, he may be removed, relieved or excused from office at any time. Said foreman shall be a member of each grand jury organized during his term of office, having equal power and authority in all matters coming before the grand jury with the other members thereof; and Section 4015 of the Code of Tennessee, providing for the formation of grand juries, is hereby amended by striking out the word “thirteen” in the fourth line of said section and substituting in lieu thereof the word ” twelve” so as to provide that the twelve jurors whose names are first drawn shall be a grand jury for the term, in addition to the foreman appointed as provided in this Act.

This was reconfirmed in other rulings.

Under the law of Tennessee, grand juries are composed of 12 jurors selected at random from the venire, and one foreman appointed by the Judge having criminal jurisdiction in that county. Tennessee Code Annotated sec. 40-1506 (hereinafter T.C.A.). The Judge may within his discretion select the foreman from the community at large, and his selection may be completely divorced from the selection of the venire and the selection of the other jurors. T.C.A. sec. 40-1506. An indictment may not be returned by fewer than 12 votes, but the foreman is possessed of all of the powers of the other members of the jury, including the right to vote. T.C.A. sec. 40-1706 and 40-1506.

Source: HALE v. HENDERSON 349 F.Supp. 567 (1972)

TCA 40-1506 was repealed in 1979 and replaced by Rule 6(g) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Note that in TN these Rules have the same status as laws and statutes. In fact, any laws in contradiction to the Rules of the Court are invalid.

This Office opined that a grand jury foreperson has the same voting power as any other grand jury member. Op. Tenn. Att’y Gen. 77-260A (August 9, 1977). That opinion was based on the Court of Criminal Appeal’s decision in Bolen v. State, 544 S.W.2d 918, 920 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976). The Bolen decision was based on Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-1506, which has since been repealed. See Pub.Acts 1979, Ch. 399, § 1. Although the statute was repealed, it was replaced by Rule 6(g).

Source: Office of the Attorney General, Opinion No. 05-129 August 24, 2005

Chapter 399 of the Public Acts of 1979 was “AN ACT to repeal, amend or conform certain sections of Tennessee Code Annotated that are in conflict with or are substantially similar to the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure.” The Public Act’s preamble reveals that the legislature noted that the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure became effective on July 13, 1978, and that certain statutes enacted prior to that date either conflicted with the rules or stated “identically or substantially the same as the rules and are no longer necessary . . . .” The legislature found that it was “highly important and desirable to remove these inconsistent and superfluous provisions” and, therefore, repealed a multitude of statutory provisions, including Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-519. Public Acts 1979, Chapter 399, section 1.

Source: CHARLES A. HARMON, ET AL. v. JAMES J. J. JONES, ET AL. Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 95571

It is ‘argued’ that a statute which limits the summoning of jurors not the appointment of the foreperson. As was explained to Walt in a submission by Kyle Hixson in a response to Walt’s appeal in another case:

“…the foreman of the grand jury is not ‘impaneled’ from the ‘summoned’ members of the ‘jury pool.’ See Tenn Code Ann. §§ 22-2-306, -307, and -310. The foreperson is ‘appoint[ed]’ by the trial court. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 6(g)(1). As such, section 314, by its terms, does not apply to the appointment process of the grand jury foreperson.”

22-2-314.  Limitation on jury service.

“A juror who has completed a jury service term shall not be summoned to serve another jury service term in any court of this state for a period of twenty-four (24) months following the last day of such service; however, the county legislative body of any county, may, by majority vote, extend the twenty-four-month period.”

Rule 6 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure does state that the Foreperson and the 12 jurors who have been randomly selected, form the grand jury.

The foreperson and the twelve qualified jurors whose names are first drawn constitute the grand jury for the term and shall attend the court until dismissed by the judge or until the next term.

The Rules of Criminal Procedure are not only law, but they invalidate any statute in contradiction to said rules

“Rules of Civil Procedure along with the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Appellate Procedure, are “law” of this state, in full force and effect, until such time as they are superseded by legislative enactment or inconsistent rules promulgated by this court and adopted by the general assembly.”

Source: Tennessee Dep’t of Human Services v. Vaughn, 595 S.W.2d 62, 1980 Tenn. LEXIS 417 (Tenn. 1980).

Again, in TN, such rules override any laws that are in conflict with them. So, even though the statutes no longer describe how the foreperson is to be appointed, the Rules of Criminal Procedure outline the process and they have the same force of law.

Moreover, Tennessee law provides that provisions published in Tennessee Code Annotated will not supersede the Rules of Civil Procedure.   T.C.A. § 16-3-406 states that once the Rules of Civil Procedure have become effective, ‘all laws in conflict therewith shall be of no further force or effect.’   Any conflict between provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure and provisions of the Tennessee Code which cannot be harmoniously construed shall be resolved in favor of the Rules of Civil Procedure.  Mid South Pavers, Inc. v. Arnco Constr.   Inc., 771 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. Ct. App.1989).

Source: ARNOLD v. CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, Court of Appeals of Tennessee,Eastern Section, at Knoxville, 1999

The US Supreme Court also ruled on this issue in Hobby v US, 468 US 339 – Supreme Court 1984:

[4] Even if I limited my analysis to the information provided by Rule 6(c), I would still maintain that the foreman’s job is sufficiently consequential that discrimination in the means of selecting someone to perform it could actually prejudice a defendant. The very designation by the judge that one person will serve as foreman importantly differentiates that person from the other members of the venire. SeeUnited States v. Cross, 708 F. 2d, at 637 (“A foreperson has only one vote on the grand jury, but the selection by the district judge might appear to the other grand jurors as a sign of judicial favor which could endow the foreperson with enhanced persuasive influence over his or her peers”).

See also Mitchell v Rose, 570 F. 2d 129 – Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 1978

The foreman or forewoman of the grand jury [in Tennessee] is selected in an entirely different manner. In essence, they are hand-picked by the trial judge from the eligible population for a two-year appointment. § 40-1506. They are subject to the same statutory qualifications as jurors except that they must be at least twenty-five years old.

Judge Blackwood and the First Amendment

[NBC: Update - I re-read the indictment which refers to on or around March 12, 2014 as the date of perjury. This appears to be his submission to the Court petitioning for a restraining order, not his submissions to the Grand Jury.]

Sharon Rondeau, at the Post and Email has posted a somewhat confusing article titled “Should Judge Blackwood be criminally prosecuted” about Judge Blackwell.

What Sharon sees as a person petitioning the government for ‘corruption’ is seen by others as a failure to properly understand the TN statutes and laws and thus when such a person makes claims under penalty of perjury, such a person may be arrested, indicted and convicted if a Grand Jury indicts the person and a Jury convicts him. I am not sure why one should blame a judge for following the legal procedures here.

Sharon has argued this to be the end of the First Amendment because he preceded over a case which involved someone petitioning the Government for Redress of Grievances and was found guilty of aggravated perjury.

I fail to understand why one believes that petitioning the government in a manner which exposes one to perjury charges, is somehow unconstitutional or a reason to prosecute the Judge.

Contrary to what Sharon believes, petitioning the government is not punishable with doing jail time. Sharon may have failed to properly understand the charges against Walt Fitzpatrick. Aggravated Perjury refers to statements made under oath and punishable with perjury charges.

TCA 40-12-104 reads in part

(d)  Submission of an affidavit which the person knows to be false in any material regard shall be punishable as perjury. An affiant who permits submission of a false affidavit, knowing it to be false in any material regard, is guilty of perjury. Any person subsequently testifying before the grand jury as to any material fact known by the person to be false is guilty of perjury.

Yes, Walt has the right to petition the government for redress of grievances but his submissions may be held to higher legal standards. TCA 40-12-104 has been cited by Walt and others to show that one has the right to petition the grand jury in Tennessee, so I am surprised that they were not familiar with the complete text.

[NBC: Update I have not seen Walt's submission to the Judge asking for a restraining or protection order. Anyone?]

Walt in Kitsap

Walt seems to have a rich history ‘pissing off’ people. This incident around the Tracyton port has quite a story however this newspaper report captures the essence of Walt.

Outside, Fitzpatrick sidled up to Mooney as the commissioner read a note calling the meeting open and then closed for lack of a quorum.

Fitzpatrick tried to talk over him, proclaiming that Mooney was out of order.

“You need to back off,” Mooney said. “I’m going to move over there. If you follow, you’re assaulting me.”

Fitzpatrick hung back as Mooney walked across the library’s scraggly lawn.

“Circle the wagons,” a member of the public called out.

About 10 Tracyton residents, many of whom live down the hill from the library, circled around Mooney, turning their backs on Fitzpatrick.

Mooney then said that once Keenan returned, they would hold a special meeting, tentatively scheduled for Aug. 27.

“I hate to do that to someone, but he brought it on himself,” one of the residents later said of Fitzpatrick.

Walt managed to rally together citizens to oppose him

Maybe future improvements will have a plaque on it for Fitzpatrick, Mooney said, although it won’t bear his name. But it might have a statement that he’s used to conclude several e-mails on the port: “Here endeth the lesson.”


Here endeth the lesson. Did Walter never learn?

Walt – I never committed any act of extortion

I never committed any act of extortion against Jeffrey Lane Cunningham.EVER!

[NBC: And yet the Jury, having seen all the evidence, disagreed with Walt.]

Cunningham testified a number of times under oath that I never threatened Cunningham.

Cunningham testified that Cunningham felt no threat from me (in his 16 June 2014 testimony as I recall.)

[NBC: Definitions Extortion]

I attempted to advance legitimate and now proven accusations against Cunningham.

[NBC: I am not sure what Walt considers 'proven accusations'. The Jury heard about Walt's accusations in open court and after deliberations found that he met the requirements.]

In his sworn statements Cunningham confirmed that I acted legally in petitioning the Grand Jury.

Cunningham, working with Ross and Reedy, furiously and successfully obstructed me from testifying on Cunningham’s obstructions.

[NBC: After the Grand Jury had refused to hear Walt's original complaint, Cunningham claimed that Walt continued to petition to be heard on much of the same materials.

See: IN RE DEATH OF REED, 770 S.W.2d 557 (1989)

Moreover, the appellants were not entitled to present their evidence and witnesses to a grand jury. It is provided by statute that the decision of the grand jury panel is final. T.C.A. § 40-12-104(c). Having made application to present their case to the grand jury, and the panel having decided not to permit the appellant to present their case to the full grand jury, the right of the appellants to be heard by a grand jury was terminated.

If Walt wants to pursue action against Cunningham then perhaps filing a mandamus order would be the best avenue, assuming that the Foreperson of the Grand Jury has an official duty to bring all submissions to the attention of at least the panel of three jurors. Then again, Cunningham is not on trial here.]

There is no proof of extortion…

And yet…

Pass the word, furiously,


Walt Fitzpatrick

Daily Post Athenian – Fitzpatrick guilty on 2 charges

The fourth and final petition Fitzpatrick turned in came in December 2013 and Cunningham said he asked all grand jury members to stay and hear the presentation. In this petition, Fitzpatrick called for the arrest of several local public figures, including Cunningham, for various charges.

“We couldn’t please the man,” Cunningham said.

Fitzpatrick attempted to submit a couple more petitions to the grand jury this year, but Cunningham said that he didn’t allow those to go forward. When questioned by Irion about not allowing those petitions to make it to the grand jury, Cunningham said “his rights had been met.” He said that Fitzpatrick had been there four times and every time it was found that his claims were not “tryable or indictable.”

“No jurors found him credible,” Cunningham said.


Source: Daily Post Athenian


Failed reporting – Walt and Sharon…

The Post and Email writes:

During the trial hearing on Monday, Cunningham admitted to abusing the power of the foremanship and made several inconsistent statements, including that he was not actually “threatened” by Fitzpatrick.

Did he admit to abusing the power or did he state that he believed that he had the power to reject Walt’s filings? As to not being threatened, that’s perhaps why they did not find Walt guilty of the other charges? Extortion and perjury however do not require threats… Poor Sharon, totally unfamiliar with what happened hear and the relevance of the various statements. As to ‘inconsistent statements’ such do not amount to perjury necessarily. When Walt took the Grand Jury papers last year and was found guilty for that offense, the courts explained the laws of TN as they pertain to the foreperson of the Grand Jury. Some people just never learn.

Grand juries and trial juries have been tainted for decades with the appointment of the foreman by the criminal court judge, which Blackwood said is not a problem. State law mandates that a grand jury comprise 13 individuals chosen by random, “automated means.”

That is incorrect, the rules clearly state that the 12 jurors are selected at random and that the foreperson is appointed by the Judge from the community at large.

It’s this kind of ignorance that has gotten Walt in trouble the first place, one would have hoped that his friends would at least have corrected his ignorance. Alas…

Orly fails again…

No real surprises really….

Attorney General – Open Primary
22353 of 22353 Precincts Reporting – 100%
Max Winners=2
Name Party Votes Vote %
Harris, Kamala (i) Dem 1,584,800 53%
Gold, Ronald GOP 380,642 13%
Wyman, Phil GOP 344,458 12%
King, David GOP 267,409 9%
Haggerty, John GOP 246,238 8%
Taitz, Orly NPD 92,995 3%
Jaech, Jonathan Lib 70,756 2%

Educating the Confused – NY Common Law knitting club

Our favorite knitting club tries ‘arguments’ which the courts have already rejected
“Plaintiff should not be charged fees, or costs for the lawful and constitutional right to petition this court in this matter in which he is entitled to relief, as it appears that the filing fee rule was originally implemented for fictions and subjects of the State and should not be applied to the Plaintiff who is a natural individual and entitled to relief” — Hale v. Henkel (201 U.S. 43).
Note that Hale v Henkel does not provide any support for this claim, and in fact there is nothing that comes even close to the quoted text.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a natural man or woman is entitled [right] to relief for free access to its judicial tribunals and public offices in every State in the Union — 2 Black 620, see also Crandell (sic) v. Nevada, 6 Wall 35.

As I pointed out, the courts have rejected these claims:

Plaintiff’s objection to the Court’s Order requiring him to provide more detailed financial information is without merit. Plaintiff’s “response” to the Court’s order asserts that the filing fees are “unlawful.” (Dkt. 7.) Attached to Plaintiff’s response are several documents, including a “Mandatory Notice” quoting Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867) and Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) for the proposition that filing fees are unconstitutional. Neither case supports Plaintiff’s objection. Crandall considered the propriety of a tax levied upon every person leaving the state of Nevada by railroad or stagecoach, while Hale considered whether an officer of a corporation charged with a criminal violation could refuse to respond to a subpoena deuces tecum directed toward the corporation. Neither case is applicable here.

Filing fees have been consistently upheld on the grounds that reasonable costs may be imposed on persons who want to sue. Lumbert v. Ill. Dept. of Corrections, 827 F.2d 257, 259 (7th Cir. 1987). “Litigation is not a free good, and its costs are not limited to those who initiate it.” Id. See also Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding the imposition of partial filing fees on IFP plaintiffs).

Plaintiff includes also a “Public Notice” that he is a member of the Posterity of We the People, and a “nonresident” of the state of Idaho or any other state, and therefore subject only to the “universal laws of nature.” Further, Plaintiff includes an “affidavit of truth” that he is not subject to “any entity anywhere,” and additional filings asserting that he is a member of the “Citizens of Idaho” and has filed a UCC Financing Statement in California.[1]

Plaintiff appears to be relying on a “sovereign citizen” theory to challenge the Court’s filing fee, which has been unsuccessfully propounded by others. This legal theory seems to have originated in the context of tax protests, and is generally advanced to challenge state and federal laws and judgments. The theory (in all of its various forms) has been struck down consistently by the courts. See United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991) (concluding that plaintiff’s argument that he was a citizen of the state of Indiana, but not a citizen of the United States and therefore not subject to its laws was “simply wrong”); United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992) (concluding that defendant’s argument that he was a citizen of the “Republic of Idaho” and not a U.S. citizen and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the United States was “completely without merit” and “patently frivolous”); U.S. v. Delatorre, 2008 WL 312647, at *2 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (“This Court’s jurisdiction over Mr. Delatorre remains valid whether his name is written in all capital letters or a mix of capital and lower case letters, or whether he identifies himself as: a `real flesh and blood man, in his private capacity,’ a `sovereign secured party creditor;’ a debtor; the `authorized representative of the corporate fiction-entity/debtor identified, as Fernando Delatorre,’ or `third party intervenor on behalf of Defendant/Debtor Fernando Delatorre.’ Mr. Delatorre’s Uniform Commercial Code (`UCC’), copyright, and trademark filings do not change this fact.”).

Source: Rice v. CITY OF BOISE CITY, Dist. Court, D. Idaho 2013

Day 2 American Spring

I had totally forgotten about the tens of millions marching on towards the Capitol. The news has been largely non-existing and no surprise given that at best a few hundred showed up. These ‘patriots’ are confused why no-one showed up. Remember that Riley had claimed that they had already 1 million people signed up… Ah, the smell of fresh tea brewed in the morning.

Some more news:

“I’m so fed up with the tyranny I sold my jet ski,” says American Spring protestor in D.C.: 

Doug Vogt names ‘forgers’ and totally blows it.

Dr Conspiracy has responded to the hilarious claims by Doug Vogt, where he names those who he believes ‘forged’ President Obama’s birth certificate.

The “forgers” include according to Vogt

  • Miki Booth (not mentioned in the Birther Report article)
  • Johanna Ah’Nee
  • Kevin Davidson
  • Loretta Fuddy
  • Alvin Onaka

It’s fascinating how poorly supported these claims are but what is fascinating is how Vogt has to accuse Miki Booth and Johanna Ah’Nee, both of whom provided birth certificates that undermined Vogt’s claims and therefor had to be ruled to be forgeries as well.

The birthers are crawling over themselves, once again given a little bit of hope that perhaps this time they may be right, but it seems to me that this will all fall apart just like the countless other moments of ‘hope’ for birthers. Is it not funny how hateful most birthers are, while most Obots tend to resort to ridicule and sarcasm, birthers invariable seem to converge on death and rectal functions.

The timing of the release of the document may cause some concern as Mike Zullo is on the record of having stated that Vogt is wrong. Is Vogt trying to steal the limelight from Zullo? Is Zullo’s ‘universe shattering’ announcement overshadowed by other foolish claims? Are we witnessing a split amongst the birthers, with Vogt and Orly on one side and Zullo and his clown posse on the other? Yes, Orly is quick to jump on board with Vogt as her 5 pending lawsuits are not going anywhere, anytime soon and are doomed to failure.

Just when Birferstan was getting so boring…