Lt. Zullo Interview: Universe Shattering Evidence In Obama ID Fraud Investigation (by Arpaio's MCSO)

BirtherReport.com ^ | November 22, 2013 | Carl Gallups and Mike Zullo

[Seizethecarp]

Sheriff Joe Arpaio's lead investigator Mike Zullo called into Carl Gallups' show and provided this update...(audio)

Zullo @ 6:02: I can't tell you what this is, but the magnitude is so great that Sheriff Arpaio has allotted resources from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. He is fully invested in this and I don't think I've been home more than two days this month.

[PA-RIVER]

I just don’t see it your way.

I think this guy that was arrested must be talking, or someone else. Very odd that that woman, Pope, started talking after his close friend got arrested and Zullo starts talking about odd new turn.

The document examiner. Yes, been floating around for nine months. This new lead, just two months. Leads have to get nail down before team Obama erases them.

Zullo seems pretty straight forward. I think he’s found the link to who Obama is.

I am very good at reading body language. When Obama is on stage, talking about his parents, it’s pure bullshit.

[highball]

You may be right about O. But Arpaio’s group keeps promising, promising but never delivers. They’re snake oil salesmen like Rove or Dick Morris, selling conservatives what we waKjnt to hear, regardless of how false it is.

You can only make empty promises so long before you’re revealed as a con artist, and we’ve had enough of those preying on conservatives lately. Time to start calling them on it.

If I’m wrong, they can put it to rest. But given their history, I’m pretty confident in my appraisal.

[PA-RIVER]

Just a guess, by end of March I bet it’s done being investigated, and all he found is public knowledge.

[surrey]

Can you enlighten me on the friend who was arrested? Never heard about it and it sounds interesting.

[A CA Guy]

So what is a brief outline of the whole story?

[JohnnyP]

Obama’s friend from school, Robert Titcomb, arrested during an undercover sting for soliciting. No mention of a policewoman.

Um, he’s a flight attendant. Gaydar alerted.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2700766/posts

[Seizethecarp]

“So what is a brief outline of the whole story?”

Barry’s birth narrative is a patchwork of lies.

Arpaio’s team, led by Zullo, claims to have uncovered documentary proof (as yet unreleased) of an alternative narrative and a conspiracy to hide the true narrative. Zullo also claims to have proved that Barry’s LFBC pdf is forged. Zullo insinuates that once the true narrative is revealed, it will be obvious that the LFBC pdf of forged.

Until Zullo’s secret evidence of Barry’s true birth narrative and forged BC is released it is not possible to know whether his evidence would render Barry ineligible to be POTUS or “merely” that Barry lied or committed fraud to get elected.

Only congress can hold Barry accountable for what he has done, but only if the evidence and witnesses can be kept safe long enough for congress to act.

[highball]

Maybe. But they didn’t offer up their promised evidence last March or the March before that; why should we believe 2014 will be any different?

[noinfringers2]

I have in my files a FR report of a man with business connections in Moscow reporting on a dinner party in Moscow where the hostess went into a long diatribe how a black communist in Chicago was being groomed for POTUSA. The hostess even had his background and part of his name that included Obama’s. This was in 1998 as I recall but I can dig my files for exact info. Chicago was a hotbed of communist activity in the 1900s. My info bits carries the matter much higher and wider with a web that goes to the European banks and Saudi oil. The whole ball of international political wax starts with Pres. Wilson and European interests intent to use the USA as a power base/serfdom.

[Seizethecarp]

That report is entirely plausible but totally hearsay, IIRC, and could easily have been written after the fact.

[noinfringers2]

I have spent a great part of my 80+ years dealing with legal facts and fiction. As I mentioned I have the initial/original FR presentations by the Fresno man. It was presented as a first person experience. Putting other known info, old and recent in USA-Russian relations, together with this man’s statements in FR I believe his account to be very plausible/believable. Contrary to your beliefs on the facts I believe that given the dates and events given are not hearsay and mesh in time as would be expected as to a previous event. I recognize that people have different thoughts and opinions as to the Obama story.

[Seizethecarp]

Tom Fife’s story:

http://www.rense.com/general84/brck.htm

Tom Fife’s recollections in 2008 of what a Russian woman said to him in 1992 is, for him, a “first person experience” but legally Fife’s account is “hearsay” (he did not personally witness any of the events the woman told him) and therefore inadmissible in any court or serious inquiry.

Fife himself, being a scientist, describes his own account as “definitely anecdotal,” a scientific term meaning that his account cannot be relied on. For forensic researchers such as myself (I am a retired Certified Fraud Examiner CFE) hearsay is the correct legal term for this highly plausible story.

Hearsay accounts can lead to first-hand witnesses, such as the alleged Russian woman, whose testimony could be admissible if she could be found and deposed, but Fife obscures her identity and that of her husband with initials which serves to obstruct further investigation.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law

Hearsay is the legal term for testimony in a court proceeding where the witness does not have direct knowledge of the fact asserted, but knows it only from being told by someone. In general the witness will make a statement such as, “Sally told me Tom was in town,” as opposed to “I saw Tom in town,” which is direct evidence. Hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States, unless one of about thirty eight[1] exceptions applies to the particular statement being made.

The hearsay rule is an analytic rule of evidence that defines hearsay and provides for both exceptions and exemptions from that rule. There is no all-encompassing definition of hearsay in the United States. However, most evidentiary codes defining hearsay adopt verbatim the rule as laid out in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which generally defines hearsay as “an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” “out-of-court” is shorthand for any statement other than one made under oath and in front of the factfinder (the judge) during the same proceeding in which it is being offered in evidence. “matter asserted”means the matter asserted in the statement offered into evidence, not the matter “asserted” by party offering the evidence. Evidence typically is introduced to support not just one proposition but a series of propositions, linked together in a chain of inference. If ANY ONE of the propositions in this chain of inference is “the truth of the matter asserted” in the out-of-court statement, the evidence falls within the traditional definition of hearsay. The declarant is the person that makes the out-of-court statement aka not the person bringing the action (lawsuit).

NOTE: In HEARSAY law, “Witness” means someone who testifies under oath, from the witness stand and “Declarant” refers to someone who makes a statement of any kind, whether or not under oath,and whether in or out of court. (according the the Federal Rules of Evidence)

In EVERYDAY law, “witness” means someone who sees or observes something and “declarant” means someone who says something under oath. The distinctions in the definitions of these words is important to consider in hearsay law.

F.R.E 801- Hearsay is a statement that the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and a party offersevidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. (F.R.E. refers to the Federal Rules of Evidence)

Historically, the rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of another person’s statement, as equivalent to testimony by the witness to the fact. Unless the second person is brought to testify in court where they may be placed under oath and cross-examined.

[Ditter]

bump for later

[noinfringers2]

I have years of experience dealing with peoples stories, anecdotes in your frame of reference, in legal situations/cases. I was given this authority by federal, state, and local laws even though I did not have a law degree only expected common sense to separate fact from fiction. As such, mumble jumble talk that takes away the essence of an argument is weighed along with other presentations be such as fact or fiction. That even though Mr. Fife tells/recalls his encounter at a dinner party it holds some validity unless one takes him as liar. I do not. I would take that you have done a lot of investigation on Obama’s past that includes close contact with the very active communist affiliations in Chicago. This and Obama’s affiliation as well as Mr. Fife’s disclosure cannot be boxed as hearsay that needs court definition.

[4Zoltan]

This 1990 Los Angeles Times article outlines his birth narrative at that time.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/09/barack-obama-ha.html

[LucyT]

Tom Fife’s story

See # 192.

Thanks, Siezethecarp.

[RaceBannon]

My story isn’t hearsay, but no one cares, really.

[rodguy911]

I read that same piece two different times. Can’t recall where.If you find it please fire it my way.
Something to the effect that the hostess had to much to drink, started spilling everything she knew about zero,she hated the US and this was one of the ways they would bring us down. She also said we could not resist ozero.She was right.

[rodguy911]

Even here they admit he never went to class.What BS.

[rodguy911]

Here's a snippet from the piece:

She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly - as though all were foregone conclusions. "It's all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won't have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He's gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America."

I never forgot this and it always stays in the back of my mind.If yo pit it all together add in that he is gay it all makes sense in a sordid sort of way.