I figured that CPT Rhodes had a friend prepare this letter for her. It’s the only scenario that addressed all of the questions. At least we know the answer now.
Yea!
Ping
what happened to Office max claiming no fax had been sent at that time.
How is it solved?
Here is how Sinclair titled his update:
“Court Clerk Confirms He Spoke With “Acquaintance” not Capt Rhodes on Faxing Letter
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!
Ping!!!
Final Update 9-21-09 @ 2:12 PM
After having spoken with Mr. Timothy Frost at the U.S. District Court Clerks office in Columbus, GA this morning I believe:
1. My original article on this matter calling attention to the signature having been “cut & pasted” onto the Capt. Connie Rhodes letter was accurate.
2. The letter was not faxed by Capt. Connie Rhodes (in fact the last paragraph of the letter referring to Capt. Rhodes being “...advised by Tim...” in itself is a fraud because according to Mr. Timothy Frost, he did not speak with Capt. Rhodes, but spoke with “an acquaintance of Capt. Rhodes.”
3. While OfficeMax of Columbus, Georgia has not acknowledged giving incorrect information, after having spoke with Mr. Frost in the Clerk’s office I do believe this letter was faxed from the Columbus, Georgia OfficeMax. However, as stated above in #1 & 2, I was absolutely correct in that this letter was NOT “written” nor signed by Capt. Connie Rhodes (as witnessed by the last paragraph of the letter and the statement of Deputy Clerk Timothy Frost that he spoke with an “acquaintance,” not Capt Rhodes as the letter implies.)
4. I have reason to believe the letter was written and the signature affixed to it by one Larry Joseph Parton who it is “alleged” by sources, is ex military, a married man who is involved in an affair with Capt. Connie Rhodes (who it is “alleged” was issue a “No Contact” order by the U.S. Army in Feb 2009 prohibiting her from having any contact with this man) and who it is “alleged” has himself a history of doctoring military documents. This whole thing is just to unreal at this point.
This ends my investigating this matter any further, as the Clerk has made it clear the Court has accepted this document as being authentic and further stated that anyone wishing to challenge its authenticity is free to do so with the Court. I guess
http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/2009/09/wrbl-tv-and-us-district-court-middle.html
