Replies

Larry's update does support the title I included. So, I'm not jumping to conclusions. Tim Frost, the court clerk, spoke with his boss and the acquaintance before the letter was faxed and was sufficiently convinced that the acquaintance was truly representing CPT Rhodes that he allowed the letter to be faxed and accepted it as authentic. There's no other conclusion that can be made from that report than that the faxed letter is authentic and not a forgery.

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?

"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. "

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. "