Posted on 09/21/2009 8:27:41 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
I have contacted the U.S. District Court in Columbus, Georgia and spoken with Ms. Terri and a Mr. Timothy Frost in the Clerks Office. I informed both individuals that after reviewing the Letter of Capt. Connie Rhodes filed Friday September 18, 2009 the signature on said letter appears to be "cut & pasted" onto the document.
Mr. Frost states "I spoke with an acquaintance of Capt. Rhodes on Friday before the document was faxed." Mr. Frost stated that after speaking with his boss and the acquaintance assuring the Court an original would be sent after Capt. Rhodes arrives in Iraq, the court accepted the document. I asked "would that acquaintance would be a Mr. Joe Parton," and Mr. Frost said he would not give his name, and that the Court has accepted the document as authentic. Mr. Frost also stated that "if the Court does not receive an original from Iraq then there may be a problem."
I made it clear to Ms. Terri and Mr. Frost that I have no interest in this case other than verifying that the September 18, 2009 letter of Capt. Rhodes was authentic and was not filed in an effort to make Judge Land or the Court look bad. I believe Mr. Frost has confirmed for me that the letter was in fact prepared by the "acquaintance" and not Capt. Connie Rhodes, unless Mr. Frost wants to change his statement as to having spoken with "an acquaintance of Capt. Rhodes" to having spoken with Capt. Rhodes herself, since the last paragraph of the letter states:
"I am faxing this as was advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerk's office. I will mail the original copy of this letter once I have arrived in Iraq."
I have received an email address for Capt. Rhodes and will send her an email asking if she signed the letter.
~Larry Sinclair
Yes there was.
Mr. Frost [court clerk] said he would not give "his" name, and that the Court has accepted the document as authentic.
No, I'm not "interpolating." The word "authentic" is right there in black and white.
I proposed (and posted) the theory of a friend preparing the letter for Rhodes early on Friday and presented the idea to Larry. Larry additionally received an email suggesting the same scenario, so he began investigating.
The court clerk and his boss had enough confidence in the person with whom they spoke to accept the fax on CPT Rhodes’ behalf. The court clerk, Tim, told Larry that the letter was accepted “as authentic.” That’s different from merely “accepted.”
No, I’m not jumping to conclusions. See post #21.
In the title?
You are jumping to conclusions
There WAS NOT A SUBTITLE posted on Larry’s site when I posted this article on FR. Since there wasn’t a title, I had to write one. The gist of the update at Larry Sinclair’s blog is that the court is satisfied that the faxed letter from CPT Rhodes is authentic and not a forgery.
Now you’re just mincing words to pick a fight because you don’t like the information presented.
I notice that nobody had any issue with yesterday’s article title containing the word “forgery” when there was no conclusive proof of such, only wild conjecture.
I don’t like or dislike the information. But you are jumping to conclusions in your title that Sinclair does not support.
Did the acquaintance forge the doc on Rhode’s behalf or did he just fax something Rhodes gave him? Do we know that this person is really an acquaintance following Rhode’s request? Did the court contact Rhodes to verify? I’m sure her cell phone was working on friday. Is that signature even Rhode’s? It doesn’t look like it. And even if it was, is a cut and paste even legal? Lots more questions than answers that you seem to have conjured up in your mind.
Time will tell.
BT
I notice that you post at TheRegulator
Is it fair to assume that you don’t believe a word that comes out of Larry’s mouth?
BTW
Go GMen!
I posted my first ever comment there yesterday because they referenced my name and comments at FR and at Larry’s blog.
No it is not fair to say that I don’t believe Larry Sinclair. I believe in this case that Andrea, the woman with whom he spoke at OfficeMax, misunderstood what Larry was asking for and so unintentionally mislead Larry.
On the subject of Larry’s other claims regarding Barack Obama, I believe him. He provides way too much detail for his story to be wholly dismissed.
Thank you.
Mr. Frost also stated that “if the Court does not receive an original from Iraq then there may be a problem.”
This is just plain wierd. It is obvious, and admitted that Connie Rhoades did not type this letter or sign it. It is admitted that it was done by another person, and faxed by another person, on the SAME day she was still in the United States. In fact, she could have called Orly Taitz from the base, which she did not do, she could have typed the letter from the base, signed it, and faxed it from the base, which she did not do, and did so based on a phone call, to the clerks office, which may or may not have happened, and was ACCEPTED in a US Courthouse, on what could only have been called heresay, as there is no confirmation that it is the expressed wishes of Connie Rhoades. So cannot be acted on UNTIL it is confirmed that it is indeed her wishes. You cannot just capriciously charge ahead until that time.
Secondly there is nothing in that letter that says it is being typed on behalf of Connie Rhodes, it implies forgery with a cut-n-paste signature as well. This is not a valid document, and will be cut to shreds in court should it attempt to masquerade as an actual document.
The person perpetrating the fraud, did so without the Judges permission, and the court clerk overstepped his/her authority to authorize forgery, and should be in trouble, IMO.
Did the acquaintance forge the doc on Rhode’s behalf or did he just fax something Rhodes gave him?
It's not forgery when you have verbal permission from the person whose signature you're representing. And yes, it's legal to paste an electronic signature in a document if one has permission from the person whose signature it is. It's also legal to sign someone else's name yourself if you have their permission.
Remember the court clerk spoke with this person before the fax was sent. We don't know what conversation took place, but we can deduce from the facts presented that the court was sufficiently convinced that he was representing CPT Rhodes to allow the fax.
A. We knew the court accepted the document. It had its stamp on it.
b. We suspected, and now confirmed that it was not Rhodes who sent it.
c. We still do not know who wrote it, Rhodes or the acquaintance.
d. We do not know if the acquaintance acted on Rhodes behalf or not. The clerk seems to think so. But then Judge Land does not have anything other than low regard for Taitz.
The only “new” information is that the court agreed to receive it, even though we knew they did per the stamp.
We are in the same place as friday, but you are jumping to all kinds of conclusions.
Has a clerk ever been punked before?
BTW, looks like Larry is getting out of the blogging business on Wednesday.
In addition to everything you've laid out, what leads me to believe that this is perfectly legitimate is that it's now Monday morning in Cali, and Orly hasn't yet issued any kind of denial about this development on either of her blogs. If she didn't know this was comming, she be screaming FRAUD at the top of her lungs. This is the only the she has to say about the Rhodes matter - from yesterday, September 20th...
"I am submitting tomorrow to judge Carter a response to defendant’s motion. I will be busy today and tomorrow and will not have much time for blogging. Thank you for understanding.I will respond to Judge Land’s outrageous attack and threat of sanctions. This is very similar to what I have seen in the communist dictatorship in the Soviet Union. When judges refuse to hear the cases on the merits, when they summarily dismiss the case within a couple of days while they are supposed to give the counsel 20 days to respond by their own rules, when they take away from the plaintiffs their right to trial by jury, when they stifle free speech and take away right to counsel by threatening $10,000 sanctions if the attorney ever brings Obama illegitimacy case again, that is tyranny. That is judiciary as well as the top brass in the Department of Justice and Department of Defense colluding in perpetrating massive fraud and treason on the citizens of this country and taking away their constitutional rights. What is next? They will throw me in FEMA GULAG? I hope each and every citizen of this country rises against this tyranny. I will be seeking all means of redress available to me by law. I will be seeking Rule 11 discovery to prove that Obama is indeed illegitimate, my case was not frivolous and not only I don’t owe $10,000 in sanctions, but the defendants owe costs and my reasonable attorneys fees. These fees just went up significantly. "
The courts have accepted obviously bogus documents that Orly has filed. Doing so doesn't inandofitself imply that the court accepts those documents as valid or authentic. In Larry's conversation with Tim Frost, the court clerk states that the court accepted the letter as authentic. That is indeed updated news and something we didn't know before.
c. We still do not know who wrote it, Rhodes or the acquaintance.
Correct. We don't know for sure that the aquaintenance authored the letter for Rhodes. However, we can make an educated guess that he did based on the following:
If the court clerk was sufficiently convinced that this acquaintance was representing CPT Rhodes, then he must have obtained enough details from him to become convinced.
Is it possible that he was punk'd? Certainly.
Is it likely? No, because the letter provides significant details about how CPT Rhodes discovered that the motion to stay had been filed and promises an original, signed letter to follow.
help us out here!
That is how usurper infiltrators do, likewise when Hillary’s PUMA.com girls were mad as hell when such-one “operator” was outed!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.