Opinion by Brian Reilly
I find it fascinating that people like Sharon Rondeau, Mark Gillar, Mike Volin and Carl Gallups continue to report their news stories about Arpaio and Zullo according to what they’ve been told, or what they have read from other sources, not what they have actually witnessed. The most recent case in point, is the December 18, 2015 Tea Party Power Hour radio show with Mark Gillar interviewing Sharon Rondeau of the Post & Email internet newspaper. (1) None of the information Rondeau reported was her own eye witness account of court room events in the Melendres v. Arpaio contempt of court hearings.
While I seldom pay much attention to these people, I did listen to this particular show. I’ve attempted to publish my thoughts at Birther Report without successfully breaking their censorship barrier. I’ve attempted to pass on accurate information to the above mentioned people, also with no apparent success. I was a witness to the contempt of court hearings and I personally witnessed volunteer posse member Mike Zullo claim his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination 264 times during his testimony on the 10th and on the 12th of November. I also witnessed Mike Zullo’s reported emotional meltdown during his testimony on the 12th.
What I witnessed in court was shocking. Mike Zullo had been very subdued and professional while on the stand on the 10th, until he decided to stop claiming the Fifth on the 12th. Suddenly, he became loud, demeaning and angry. He became so loud that the court public address speakers began to distort and pop while he yelled into the microphone. He became so emotional that I thought he was on the verge of tears as his voice cracked. It was an amazing and noteworthy outburst. It was also very unprofessional. I’m very familiar with Zullo’s rapid mood swings.
During the break, I was standing in the hall outside the courtroom, speaking with former MCSO Chief Deputy Brian Sands. We were trying to assess what we had just witnessed. We both agreed that Zullo looked like he had cracked under pressure. Suddenly, Zullo burst through the courtroom double doors, and quickly walked over to me, reaching out his right hand, he grabbed my left hand and he said, “It’s alright, Bro!” He was giddy, and highly animated. Both Sands and I questioned what we had just experienced. Zullo turned to his right and then he began to pace up and down the hall. Absolutely nobody approached Zullo out in the hall. He was alone. Not even his wife, Alicia came to court to support Zullo.
Sharon Rondeau, and other Birthers have been highly and unjustly critical of the Phoenix media and the reporting done by professional journalists who have attended the Melendres v. Arpaio contempt of court hearings.
Reporter, Megan Cassidy was in attendance and reported: (2)
“…Zullo became unhinged.” “With a flushed face and, at times, wavering voice, Zullo unleashed a diatribe…”
Reporter Joe Dana was in attendance and reported: (3)
“A key operative [Zullo] for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s volunteer posse surprised the court Thursday, aggressively and loudly answering questions…”
“Arpaio posse leader [Zullo] erupts under oath” “Your honor, at some point I need to stop answering questions… It’s like I don’t know what I’m doing.”
Reporter Stephen Lemons was in attendance and reported: (4)
“Posse honcho Mike Zullo, giddy after spilling his guts on the stand.”
“Zullo continued to respond, getting louder and more animated with each gentle query by Young.”
“What is this, a star chamber?” he [Zullo] blurted out. “Don’t my rights matter?”
“I [Zullo] don’t know what I’m doing,”
“This was a brain-damaged dance I did with this guy,” Zullo said of Montgomery.
Reporter Jude Joffe-Block was in attendance and reported: (5)
“Mike Zullo, provided a dramatic conclusion to the hearing with his testimony.”
I witnessed the same events in court along with the Phoenix reporters mentioned above. Their reporting was accurate and professional and mirrored the events that I witnessed in court on the 10thand 12th of November. And for the record, Sharon Rondeau, Mark Gillar, Mike Volin and Carl Gallups were not in attendance in court on November 12th, to witness these events unfold. But despite this handicap, they continued to spin their tales of speculation to sway the opinions of the Birther faithful.
How did Mark Gillar and Sharon Rondeau attempt to sway Birther opinion on the Tea Party Power Hour? The following was transcribed from the program1: (1)
Mark Gillar:
“I know how bad the reporting is in the Phoenix area…”
Sharon Rondeau:
“Well, that is uh, very well said. And, I have found that that is absolutely true. And I’ve only recently found this I mean let’s say in the last year since I have been following this case. It is just astounding.
Ah, one of them [Megan Cassidy] described Mike Zullo’s November 12th testimony as unhinged. She used the word unhinged, she said, that’s when he became unhinged. As a journalist, you don’t use words like that, that’s an opinion, uhm, it sways public opinion. And, all of them seem to do that. To use the word such as unhinged or uhm, some of them they use different terms, like that he had an outburst, or, but they were, they were describing things, without really getting into the substance of what Mike Zullo said.
So, in other words, they put out headlines, they used words to sway public opinion, and I was very, very surprised to find out how bad the reporters are there. Phoenix is a big city, and Maricopa County has hundreds of thousands of people, maybe millions of people, I’m not even sure how many, it’s a very big jurisdictional area I know and the Sheriff’s department I think is the third largest in the country. I’ll have to check it. It’s second or third. It’s quite big. So you would think that they would have the best reporters but they do not. So, to basically confirm what you have said, I have found this out recently.”
Sharon Rondeau then went on to say: After Zullo’s November 12th testimony, “Nobody interviewed him… Nobody interviewed him. Nobody wanted to interview him… Nobody flocked to Zullo.” Ms. Rondeau never explained why she or the other Birther news outlets have never done a recorded interview with Mike Zullo after he gave his testimony. (I’m told by Mike Volin that Mike Zullo, after his court testimony, refused to do an on air interview with Volin, Gallups and Rondeau.)
If Ms. Rondeau would have been in court to witness Mike Zullo’s peculiar behavior, she would be in a better position to understand why “nobody flocked to Zullo.” His unprofessional testimony was simply not believable. Ms. Rondeau may wish to review the definition and the synonyms for the word “unhinged.” (6)
Ms. Rondeau stated in her interview with Mr. Gillar that, “The transcript cannot be the full story. There has to be more to this.” I very much agree. If Ms. Rondeau would have attended the court proceedings along with the Phoenix reporters, she would have witnessed the complete story. Mike Zullo appeared unhinged and his testimony was simply not believable.
And finally, because I attended the hearings, I witnessed firsthand, inaccuracies in Mr. Zullo’s testimony to the court, given while under oath. My expectation is that criminal referrals will be forthcoming for Sheriff Arpaio and others. Judge Snow will not allow his court to be disrespected or obstructed.
Are Birther reporters professional and accurate? Not according to my experience.
(1) http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11/15/arpaio-case-where-have-all-the-reporters-gone/
If any of these reporters want to connect, they can find me here on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=AAIAAAqKbDgBrPFn6eeFBHF87j89GuY61_5Vh7w&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile_pic
Also, is there a transcript of what was actually said by Zullo during this meltdown?
Sharon Rondeau is not a reporter or editor and her conspiracy blog site is not a newspaper, electronic or otherwise.
So…Sharon Rondeau is upset because that great big sheriff’s department doesn’t have better reporters? That great big sheriff’s department headed by the guy who testified under oath that he lies to the press?
What is the test?
Rondeau constantly refers to the Post & Email as a newspaper, yet it contains neither news nor paper. (And it looks to be running off a template for wordpress, a popular blogging program.)
Also, Post & Email‘s “staff” consists solely of the “owner/editor,” who is Rondeau.
A “blog” is commonly defined as a web site maintained by a single person. The Post & Email fits that definition. (In contrast, a reporter’s work is extensively critiqued by peers and editors; it is collaborative by nature.)
Sharin’ Roundhole isn’t reporting; she’s writing Fan Fiction.
WordPress is just a publishing framework. I wouldn’t use it to define a blog; for example, The New Yorker runs WordPress. Other WordPress sites include BBC America, Variety, MTV News and Fortune. And I wouldn’t use paper to define a newspaper either. There has never been a print edition of Salon or Slate. See the Wikipedia article on Online Newspapers.
It seems to me that if Rondeau interviews a “news maker” (e.g., Mike Zullo) and reports what he said, then that is “news.”
Its use is an indicator, but not a defining characteristic.
The results of Rondeau’s “interviews” have been extremely terse, and have not added anything to what was previously known. There’s no there there.
Again: a “blog” is commonly defined as a site with a single operator; it is Rondeau’s lack of colloboration that separates it from an actual news organization.
It would be if she did, because what she usually does is string together snippets of history from her alternate universe into a long non-prescription sleep aid, and sprinkle in a few one- or two-sentence out-of-context quotes to make it look “new”.
I think there’s a bit of a problem with terminology here: my opinion is that “news” is what “journalists” report after the raw information has been through the review process bob mentioned, and that what the birther “reporters” are doing is, at best, “commentary”. Though more often just “gossip”.
I’m curious:
Was “Publick Occurrences” (Boston – 1690) – widely held as the first newspaper in America actually a newspaper? I believe there was one ‘journalist’ (Benjamin Harris) and the printer involved. Is that ‘collaboration’ sufficient to make a ‘newspaper’?
What about the “Black Hills Weekly Pioneer” (Deadwood – 1875). Founded by A.W. Merrick and W.A. Laughlin. Laughlin came down with tuberculosis before the first edition was published (they had printed one page in Custer before moving to Deadwood). The Pioneer ran its own press, but employed a pressman. Is that a sufficient ‘collaboration’ to make a ‘newspaper’?
I don’t think a contracted printer or an employed pressman is a ‘collaboration’ – it is just an ‘old fashioned’ WordPress equivalent.
I suspect your ‘differentiator’ is a bit too arbitrary – and must be to make any distinction possible. I agree with you definition of a blog, but I don’t agree that a blog cannot be a newspaper.
I don’t want to call what Rondeau does ‘journalism’ nor what she publishes a ‘newspaper’ either; but what I want and what I can defend are sometimes too different things.
I really am interested in the “test” rather than supporting any particular position. I can’t think of the specifics, but Rondeau has done a few things IIRC that I thought was news gathering at the time, and I credited her on this blog on those few occasions.
I have a hard time defining “blog” as well. Lots of mainstream news organizations, and major corporations have “blogs” which are certainly not one person’s point of view.
In any case, I support Brian Reilly’s contention that whatever Rondeau (et al) are doing, it is neither professional nor accurate. And I think that it is wrong to write off bloggers as inconsequential because it is blogs and Twitter and Facebook that are the recruiting venues for ISIL, and they do very well.
Yes. What you said.
And I misspelt the word “two” in my post.
One such test would be whether external fact-checking indicates that he/she/they do the kind of research and internal fact-checking that produces “news you can count on”.
Finding lots of gaffes would mean “amateur” (if not worse).
As some here know I spent 30+ years in the news business and you all are discussing something we could never agree on in all the newsrooms where i worked.
First I have always felt strongly that journalism is not….repeat NOT…a profession. It is, in my experience, a trade, a craft…..just like carpentry, blacksmithing. The more houses you build, the more horses you shoe, the better you usually get at it. Some people have a gift. Most don’t.
That said then the question Doc asks is right on target…..what is news and who gets to decide?
Bottom line is we all get to decide. We certainly don’t want the government deciding for us, do we?
The simple definition I always worked with and asked my staffs to work with was: News is that which affects and/or interests the most people.
That’s why you see people consuming “news” from endless sources….The New York Times to TMZ…..Drudge to Doc’s blog.
And, yes, much of it is incredibly unprofessional but again, I ask, do you want someone deciding that Sharon Rondeau or Alex Jones or whoever aren’t “professional” enough for you?
We have freedom of speech in this country, and it’s well worth protecting. That said, the stuff that birthers write is, almost without exception, total bullsh*t.
Actually, calling it bullsh*t is a kindness. Bullsh*t actually has a valuable use, as fertilizer. What birthers write is of no use at all.
Well, I’m ready to declare that what Rondeau DOES is “journalisn’t” and what she PUBLISHES is a “noosepaper”.
I don’t necessarily think one should censor before the fact, but certainly there are (and should be) legal consequences to what gets published. Different countries draw the line at different places, but as you know, there is no such thing as 100% freedom.
Sharon Rondeau’s articles are mostly rubbish, ill-conceived, misinterpreted facts and outright lies, but I never found them veering into clear incitation of hatred and violence, which is here I would draw the line.
American Press Institute:
What is journalism?
Journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information. It is also the product of these activities.
Journalism can be distinguished from other activities and products by certain identifiable characteristics and practices. These elements not only separate journalism from other forms of communication, they are what make it indispensable to democratic societies. History reveals that the more democratic a society, the more news and information it tends to have.
What does a journalist do?
Asking who is a journalist is the wrong question, because journalism can be produced by anyone.
At the same time, merely engaging in journalistic-like activity – snapping a cell-phone picture at the scene of a fire or creating a blog site for news and comment – does not by itself produce a journalistic product. Though it can and sometimes does, there is a distinction between the act of journalism and the end result.
The journalist places the public good above all else and uses certain methods – the foundation of which is a discipline of verification – to gather and assess what he or she finds.
Looks like BirtherReport had a sad yesterday in a “NSFW” rant on a similar subject. I think he sees the writing on the wall and realizes that his crusade is coming to a disappointing conclusion.
…didn’t stop him from declaring victory though.
Apparently, should Trump win, the American News Media should be disbanded and tried on RICO.
OK, I can use that. I think that by that criterion Sharon Rondeau (and birther reporters in general) fail the journalism test.
RE: Alex Jones
I have learned more from him in the past few years than even want to know. Thanks Alex! You are awesome!
Nice article Brian. One striking thing that has emerged from the Melendres case and from your descriptions of your travels with Mike Zullo is that he comes across as someone whose behavior is often bizarre. I don’t mean just odd. I mean mentally unstable.
Finally after all this time something from you I can believe.
I agree that there are and should be limits: Yelling fire in the proverbial crowded theater, defamation, threats, etc. We have pretty clear legal standards for that sort of stuff.
What I have a problem with is who gets to decide what is rubbish and who decides what the consequences are? That’s where it gets a little sticky, in my opinion.
Judged against those criteria there are no real journalists because journalism is not a religious calling.
Except for Fox News, of course.
You’re right but the question for me has always been who do you want drawing that line for you?
If we turn journalism into a profession that means someone else gets to decide where the line is and what happens to those that cross it. If we treat it like any craft then each of us gets to decide whether we find the horseshoes worth our time and money.
I would take the API’s view as consistent with their views as an appropriate trade body. It also aims to differentiate between ‘news’ and ‘opinion’ as a work product of an actual reptile of the press as opposed to the likes of Rondeau, Alex Jones, Rush etc
You don’t have to look that far afield – Rondeau, etc – to see the problem with the Polyannaish notion that “The journalist places the public good above all else and uses certain methods – the foundation of which is a discipline of verification – to gather and assess what he or she finds.”
Check out the history of The New York Times and its current and recent reporting on our wars. Did Judith Miller (and her editors) place the “public good above all else”?
Journalists are no different than anyone else with their own foibles and weaknesses that unfortunately show up in everyone’s face when they go out of whack.
And, the API really isn’t a trade group per se…but that’s another long, sad story.
And of course I will draw my own line, and Brian drew his line.
What I want in a source is depth, accuracy and as little bias as I can get. So Fox News is mapped out on my TV channel list, and MSNBC is considered info-tainment. When I listen to news, which is not terribly often, it’s PBS, NPR or BBC America.
For the purposes of this blog, I think I have sufficient expertise to recognize biased reporting and deal with it. Doc’s Law says “Any significant article by a major media organization on the Barack Obama birth controversy will include at least one factual error.” I cannot count the number of major news organizations who get “natural born citizen” wrong in some way or another. I forget the issue now, but there were some errors reporting the Melendres trial.
I have always appreciated local reporting on birther issues, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, OC Weekly, the Phoenix New Times, AZ Central, The Brownsville Herald (if I could get just get their damned telemarketers off my tail), KJZZ and the Columbus Ledger Enquirer come immediately to mind.
I think that’s a good place to start. Collaboration helps with that — more eyes means means a better chance at arriving at the truth.
That doesn’t mean a single person can’t be good at verification; Doc by himself does an admirable job. Nor does a large organization ensure sufficient vertification; the World Weekly News (despite “news” being in its title) is the opposite of veracity. And, sometimes, even large institutions (like New York Times) fail to live up to the goal of being truthful.
Regardless, Rondeau tongue-clucking Lemons’ writing is not journalism.
Mostly I rely on sources that do verification, and then I have the commenter community as my backstop.
This still appears at P&E on the “About Us” page, under Comment Policy”:
“Because questions remain about the constitutional eligibility of Barack H. Obama to serve as President as defined by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, The Post & Email does not refer to him as the “President.” Therefore, if your submission refers to “President Obama” or “Mr. President,” the wording will be changed unless and until Obama proves that he meets the eligibility criteria. Anyone not in agreement with this policy should withhold his or her submission.”
Sorry, but that’s just a nutty conspiracy blog.
So where do they hide the comments over there?
That’s a mighty dumb policy. I reckon if I were to make a comment to that effect over there, the wording could be changed to something like “Yay for Sharon.”
I don’t know, Doc. There used to be comments. Perhaps she got tired of moderating?
There are comments–see the Recent Comments widget in the right sidebar. I just can’t read them or see where they are entered. Maybe you need some kind of login or access to comment.
That petty comment by Rondeau bugs me. Basically, she says that as long as their are questions, her readers aren’t free to express their opinion.
Did you see any indication who wrote that thing?
Well, for me, the fact that it says “Birther Report Public Statement” in the headline is an “indication” that it was written by Mr. BR his own self (though the deviation from his usual style suggests possible assistance from Messrs. Walker and/or Beam…).
For you (since you know his s3kr1t 1d3nt1ty), the big clue might be “I’m somewhat ashamed to have it (journalism) in my blood!” (Not knowing who he is, I can only guess that this does not refer to an effect of an unprotected sexual encounter with a local news anchor).
Orly Taitz published two names for BR, Thomas Washington, and Bob Nelson. I think some folks tracked down the latter to a specific person. You can read more on that at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/tag/bob-nelson/. This comes under the “generally known” exception to the outing rule.
Journalism will get you killed. Therefore, I would classify it as a profession just as you would with a cop or a soldier.
In contrast, blacksmithing and carpentry work generally will not get you murdered.
Journalism will get you murdered by cops, crooks, politicians, and disgruntled readers.
It pays very little and affords little protection or appreciation and you never get to print what you really want.
If you’re looking for an exciting career in journalism, get ready to spent most of your time writing about weddings, funerals, and baby birth’n.
If you dare to investigate, make sure your family has a hefty life insurance policy on you because there won’t be any “government” around to take care of your loved ones. Nor will they investigate or prosecute because it is clearly a conflict of interest to their drug trade.
Cuba’s Ted Cruz is adequate proof of that.
Reagan In. Castro Up.
And, above all, know how to spell the word “cummerbund.”
Well, in a country whose legislature is elected by the voters, presumably laws reflect the will of the people.
If French laws punish certain forms of hate speech, it can be argued that this is the will of the majority of the French Nation and I’m happy to let them draw the line.
(We also have checks in place to check if a law is constitutional or not in the firm of a Conseil Constitutionnel but only members of our Parliament can appeal to them.)
BR
“And finally, because I attended the hearings, I witnessed firsthand, inaccuracies in Mr. Zullo’s testimony to the court, given while under oath. My expectation is that criminal referrals will be forthcoming for Sheriff Arpaio and others. Judge Snow will not allow his court to be disrespected or obstructed.”
Reilly and every “reporter” that he quotes have one thing in common. They all claimed that Zullo lied on the stand but they don’t identify any part of his testimony (in the court transcript) that was false.
Real reporters would know that Zullo’s sudden departure from taking the 5th was consistent with the witness having just received good news that removed his need to continuing to avoid testifying.
His behavior during the break was also consistent with someone who has just received word that many years of hard work have finally paid off.
Also, if he did refuse interviews, that would also be consistent with the actions of a law enforcement officer needing to protect his case.
I can’t speak for Brian, who knows Zullo much better than any of us, having spent much time with him, been in meetings with him, and traveled with him.
I would identify the lie as best I understand the evidence and testimony as this:
In testimony Zullo emphatically stated that Judge Snow was regarded as a victim by the Seattle Operation, and that at no time did anyone connected to the MCSO try to target the judge, try to harm the judge, or investigate the judge through the Seattle Operation.
In contrast, Zullo said in a text message related to an email chain about the allegations of collusion between Judge Snow, the Melendres plaintiffs and the DoJ: “I’d wear a dress and ruby slippers for a year if we could prove this.” (quote from memory).
That text message was to Travis Anglin, and he was asked how he understood it. His reply isn’t in the available deposition text yet.
If the evidence confirms that the Seattle Operation included an attempt to “get the judge” then Zullo lied when he said it didn’t.
Hermitian,
“Reilly and every “reporter” that he quotes have one thing in common. They all claimed that Zullo lied on the stand but they don’t identify any part of his testimony (in the court transcript) that was false.”
I’ve reviewed the quotes from the various reporters mentioned above. I don’t see anything about them claiming that Zullo lied. Can you show us the articles where they reported that Zullo lied?
“His behavior during the break was also consistent with someone who has just received word that many years of hard work have finally paid off.”
There could be many reasons to explain his behavior. Has anyone asked him?
“Also, if he did refuse interviews, that would also be consistent with the actions of a law enforcement officer needing to protect his case.”
His case was blown apart many years ago. He’s done lots of interviews for birthers. But when he has the possibility of getting national news coverage, he clams up tight. Birthers are such gullible suckers.
Yes, it would. But since he had been shooting his mouth off for years, isn’t a law enforcement officer and doesn’t have a “case” it….well….isn’t.
And yet another set of errors Hermie, Zullo is most certainly NOT a LEO he has no case and this was not an ‘interview’
Want to try again..?
Up to a point, of course, and that point being the majority. A more accurate description would be that the laws reflect the will of most of the people, don’t you think?
Frankly I will tell you that my wife and I have been talking about “free speech” in America and whether we should figure out how to deal with the most egregious hate speech. I’m getting more open to the thought as I get older and see how unproductive some of it is.
Mr. C
I don’t know where you’re getting your (quote from memory). I have the Nov 12 transcript and there’s noting like your “quote” in it.
The audio snippets are not transcribed. I searched for “slippers” and “wear” and got zero hits. Maybe your source is the the plaintiff’s spin machine.
.
Come on, Hermie. You know I am more careful with my sources than that. And I said in my comment: “In contrast, Zullo said in a text message …”
It was in a text message, not in court testimony. As to where I got it, it came from the Deposition of Travis Anglin (that I mentioned) on Page 57:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/281930787/Melendres-1365-Plaintitfs-Notice-of-Supp-Auth-Depo-Excerpts
I don’t find that consistent with remarks from Zullo, when he started answering questions like. “I don’t know what I am doing” and “I have to stop.”
Zullo pled possible self incrimination. Can you cook up a scenario where he learned that things he decided to talk about were things he thought might be incriminating and suddenly became not incriminating? I can’t come up with anything.
It’s one thing to come up with a theory, but a viable theory needs a plausible narrative, an “alternate theory of the crime” so to speak.
Hermit,
To add to what others have written, here’s posse man Zullo’s Affidavit that was prepared by birther attorney Larry Klayman
“I am a former sworn law enforcement office (sic) / criminal investigator and currently appointed by the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio as the commander of his Cold Case Posse…”
Notice the words, “I am a former sworn law enforcement office(r)…” FORMER means PREVIOUS, as in, “I am a former used car salesman.”
How is it that you believe Zullo is a CURRENT sworn law enforcement officer? You obviously haven’t done your homework. Are you easily misled by others?
http://www.carlgallups.com/zullo-affidavit.pdf
Mr. C
Well you are the one who posted Reilly’s drivel on your front page. He claims to have been present in court and heard Zullo give false testimony. The least he could do is to cite from the transcript the specific testimony where Zullo lied. The transcript was available so he has no excuse for his unsupported accusation.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/wye/the-mcso-seattle-operation-testimony-mike-zullo-nov-10-2015.html
But I’m not holding my breath.
And then you cite some comment Zullo made in a text message to Anglin. Given that Snow has been harassing the entire Maricopa County Sherriff’s office for seven years, I see nothing sinister at all in Zullo’s comment.
And besides, Zullo was definitely not testifying under oath when he sent his text messgage. He actually had the expectation of privacy.
Mr. C
“Zullo pled possible self incrimination. Can you cook up a scenario where he learned that things he decided to talk about were things he thought might be incriminating and suddenly became not incriminating? I can’t come up with anything”
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Zullo didn’t know anything about the Melendres case. And probably he had heard bad things about Snow. So it’s natural, given that he was being forced to testify against his will, to be initially cautious. However, after taking the 5th over two hundred times he realized that he had nothing to fear from the plaintiff’s lawyers.
Snow later confirmed that with this comment from the bench.
“I’m not going to find anybody in
contempt for something I didn’t name them for in the original
notice of order to show cause.”
Zullo was not ordered to show cause.
You’re remarkably dense today.
The text message isn’t a lie. The sworn testimony is likely a lie because it is contrary to the text message. Expectation of privacy has nothing to do with it. I also never said what Zullo said was sinister–just that he lied.
Sorry, not credible, given that during his deposition Zullo pulled out a photocopy of a footnote of an obscure plaintiff’s filing in the case.
Christmas is over, and you’re back on the ban list. Gerbil Report, is however, not moderated.
Quite right! Actually I had meant to add “a majority of” but somehow I forgot to do it.
The lie that I described in my comment is the most material false statement I believe Zullo made. Brian reminded me of another lie that is more blatant, but less material. In testimony. Zullo testified:
Q. Now, I’m going to ask you to listen to the next recording, which is Exhibit 2977. It — actually, were you only in one meeting involving both Mr. Blixseth and Sheriff Arpaio?
A. [Zullo] Yes, sir.
[That was the meeting of October 18, 2013.]
http://tesibria.typepad.com/wye/the-mcso-seattle-operation-testimony-mike-zullo-nov-12-2015.html
In fact Zullo had been in another meeting with Tim Blixseth and Sheriff Arpaio in 2012. This is documented in the so-called “Elmer’s Report” by Mackiewicz:
“In April, 2012, Investigator Zullo, Timothy Blixseth, Michael Flynn (Timothy Blixseth Attorney), and I (Detective Brian Mackiewicz #1227) met at the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office headquarters building. T”
and
“From April 2012 through October 2013 Timothy Blixseth would contact Zullo on occasion to ask of there had been progress in regards to the “Birth Certificate” investigation.”
http://images.phoenixnewtimes.com/media/pdf/macreport.pdf
It seems implausible given the continuing relationship between Zullo and Blixseth for a year and a half following that meeting that Zullo simply forgot that he had met Blixseth before. I do not know why Zullo would perjure himself to conceal the meeting between Arpaio and Blixseth in 2012 that had already been documented by Mackiewicz–unless Zullo didn’t remember this was in the report.
Hermy not withstanding, I think that even though it is an oversimplification, that at almost any given point and any time that Zullo was talking, he was probably lying to a greater or lesser degree. I don’t think he can help himself, and I do think he is stupid enough that he can’t put things together well enough to actually factually answer a question. If I was going to commit a murder, I’d love having him being the investigating officer, for all the very obvious reasons.
Brian Reilly is an American hero. And so is Kevin Davidson.
You birthers talk about “truth,” and then when someone actually publishes it, you want to grab a rope and string them up from the nearest tree.
I’m tempted to say I wish you were here so I could spit in your eye, but since I would never actually do that, let me just say this instead:
Your ongoing commitment to portray the truth as a lie, and lies as truth, thoroughly disgusts me. I sincerely hope you will find more enlightened, honest and worthwhile pursuits in the new year.
More bad news for Hermie,
From the Elmer’s Report compiled by Detective Mackiewicz and in evidence with the U.S. District Court, Arizona for the Melendres v. Arpaio case.
“Investigator Zullo, a former law enforcement officer, was not unknown to me.” [Detective Mackiewicz]
Notice the word “former” used as in “previous.” Mike Zullo was also a former used car salesman.
Opinions in my in box vary, but I doubt that Mike Zullo will be in any trouble over his testimony in the Melendres case. Technically Judge Snow could refer Zullo to the US Attorney or he could order Zullo to show cause why he should not be held in contempt, but the case isn’t about Zullo, and I don’t think he matters at all.
I tend to agree. I don’t think Zullo matters in Melendres.
Zullo doesn’t matter in Melendres but I think he does matter in Arpaio’s apparent effort to discredit or obstruct Snow’s court. Frankly, I’ll be surprised if Zullo doesn’t get some attention from Judge Snow. It was great salesmanship putting himself on common ground by calling himself and Snow victims, but I think it made no impact on Snow. Upon reading the transcript, Zullo appeared to do a pretty good job dissing Snow. Not something that one would expect from a fellow victim or one who is supposed to look out for a victim or one who is supposed to show respect for a U.S. District judge. I think the data breach and harvesting info was just a cover story for the effort to creatie a bogus conspiracy theory to discredit the court. Opinions are like noses and we all have one.
I think that statement pretty well sums up Zullo’s life, he is of no consequence.
Mr. Zullo may be of positive consequence to his family. I hope he is, although from where I’m sitting he hasn’t presented a very good example, at least in his “work” and publicly-visible life.
But what about his community of victims that he says he worked so hard to protect? 151,000 alleged victims of bank hacking in Maricopa County (Chief Deputy Sheridan testified the number was 50,000) and 450,000 alleged hacking victims in all of Arizona. Has he been a positive consequence for any of the alleged hacking victims? Has the ridiculous Elmer’s Report been submitted to any federal law enforcement agency for review? What banks were contacted about their customer accounts being allegedly hacked? What is the Arizona Attorney General going to do with Elmer’s Report other than ignore it as an embarrassment? And where is the inconsequential Reed Hayes report that Zullo put under copyright and never revealed to the public?
You’re right. He hasn’t set a very good example. It sure looks like he got snookered when he ignored all the warning signs about his confidential informant. He made Arpaio and his department look like fools. Birthers are really good at epic fails.
> Has he been a positive consequence for any of the alleged hacking victims?
No.
> Has the ridiculous Elmer’s Report been submitted to any federal law enforcement agency for review?
No.
> What banks were contacted about their customer accounts being allegedly hacked?
None, apparently.
> What is the Arizona Attorney General going to do with Elmer’s Report other than ignore it as an embarrassment?
Laugh?
> And where is the inconsequential Reed Hayes report that Zullo put under copyright and never revealed to the public?
Buried.
In fairness to Arpaio, he vetted these allegations from Montgomery and found them to be not credible. Given that the allegations involved stolen CIA data, it sort of makes sense that Arpaio didn’t go immediately to the banks or the victims.
Did they ever go to the banks?
I see Hermie still doesn’t use the quote function.
I thought Zullo was the one who had Montgomery look up Judge Snow’s name on Google and check for him in his database?
Excerpt from 10/28/2015 Detective Brian Mackiewicz testimony.
Q. Do you recall testifying several times at your deposition that it was Mr. Zullo’s idea to find out what the name of the judge was?
A. I do.
Q. And you didn’t object to that; you told me at your deposition that you didn’t object to that search, correct?
A. I did not object to that search, no.
Q. But today you’re telling me that you’re changing your testimony about whose idea it was to look for the judge’s name?
A. No. What I’m saying is, is that it was Mike Zullo’s idea, but Dennis Montgomery is actually the one who Googled the name. That’s what I said in my deposition, and that’s what I’m standing by.
Q. Okay. And you did say also at your deposition that you didn’t recall whether Dennis Montgomery typed into his computer, into a Google search engine or something of that sort, versus Mike Zullo typing on his phone into a Google search engine. Do you recall that at your deposition?
A. Yes, I do. I originally thought that it was Mike. After I further thought about it, it was actually Dennis Montgomery.
For those diehard, gullible birthers who may want to know whether to believe Sheriff Arpaio when he tells you and his tea party fans that he’s still investigating the Obama birth certificate, you may wish to review this excerpt of MCSO Sgt. Travis Anglin’s October 9, 2015, court testimony, given while under oath during Sheriff Arpaio’s contempt of court hearing. Sgt. Anglin was in charge of the “Seattle Investigation” until taken off the case by Arpaio. At one point, Sgt. Anglin testified that Sheriff Arpaio told him back in May of 2014 that the birth certificate caper was “solved.”
Q. Tell me about the May 2014 conversation.
Note. For additional information on this conversation and fallout (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline – May 2014 and May 2014 (Part II).
A. I told the sheriff that I thought he should distance himself from Mike Zullo and Dennis Montgomery.
Q. And why is that?
A. I felt that both of them had credibility issues, and I felt [2865] that this case was going to turn into something that was going to be problematic for our office.
Q. How did Sheriff Arpaio respond?
A. He asked me who the fuck I thought I was.
Q. Are those his actual words that he used?
A. Yes, ma’am.
Forgive me, Your Honor.
Q. Did he say anything else?
A. He went on to explain to me that Mike Zullo was a good man, and that he had, in fact, solved the birth certificate case.
And I hadn’t seen the case; therefore, I had no right to be speaking about somebody like that.
Q. So Mr. Zullo was back on the case as of May 2014?
A. Yes, ma’am.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/wye/the-mcso-seattle-operation-testimony-sergeant-anglin-oct-9-2015.html
Thanks CG. I thought my recollection was accurate. This is another case of Hermie just making stuff up.
Birthers are well known for making things up to fit their agenda. Not surprised.