Joe Arpaio's "Birther" Chief Gets Cops Called on Him During His Pursuit of 95-Year-Old Woman in a Nursing Home

Categories: Birthers (sigh)
zullo-old-lady.jpg
YouTube
Old lady-chaser Mike Zullo, pictured on the left.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "birther" chief Mike Zullo has no shame in telling his story of getting the cops called on him because he spent hours at a Hawaii nursing home in an attempt to badger a 95-year-old woman.

In fact, after being asked not to return to the nursing home again, Zullo insists someone must have scared this 95-year-old woman out of talking to him. (Our guess is that his name is Mike Zullo.)

Zullo, appearing on some sort of program called the "Tea Party Power Hour," went into great detail about how he had the cops called on him "again" for his "birther" stunts around the state of Hawaii -- which he apparently visited again.

Zullo said he went to visit 95-year-old Verna K. Lee, who worked at the Hawaiian registrar's office back in the day.

As with "normal police protocol," Zullo -- who is not a police officer -- says he went to the front desk of the "assisted-living facility," and asked to speak with her. Staff said Lee would be back in an hour, so Zullo said he'd be back then, and noted that he refused to leave a business card, because he "didn't want someone running [his] name."

"When I was sitting in the parking lot, and a half-hour, approximately, had gone by, I decided to go back inside and make sure I understood the protocol," Zullo said.

When Zullo went back inside to verify the protocol for talking to an old person, the woman at the front desk "demanded" to see his credentials again, and informed the former used-car salesman that she was going to call Honolulu police.

He had to ask twice to get his credentials back, and she told police he was from Mariposa County. Hmph. Amateur.

After dealing with a police officer, Zullo went back to trying to find out how to secure an interview with Lee. Eventually, Zullo heard that Lee agreed to speak with him later that afternoon.

Shortly after that, though, Zullo got the call back from the nursing home -- Lee changed her mind, and did not want to meet with Zullo.

"Now, that's a pretty big change from 'yes, I'll meet with you,' to the message I got," Zullo said. "So obviously, someone there had a conversation with her, and that interview never took place. That was the second time, I think, that we were asked not to come back and also had the cops called on us. You, know that's what it is, and that's the way it runs over there, you kind of learn that real quick, that's it's a very liberal place and they protect their own."

Check out the video below:




My Voice Nation Help
103 comments
david.is.farrar
david.is.farrar

The only thing Barack Obama's official, state issued birth certificate "Prove" is that a live birth occurred and that it was officially recorded . To date not one, single, solitary, independent*, corroborative piece of evidence has been put forward to support any of the claims made on Obama's two birth certificates -- not one. In other words, Obama's birth certificates have absolutely no probative value whatsoever. 

 

Moreover any impeachment prima facie evidence presented in a court of competent jurisdiction should allow for a complete examination of the Hawaiian Health Department files that lead to their live-birth decision.

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

Kathy Valentine Harris
Kathy Valentine Harris

Wow, what an ass. The birthers have nothing better to do? Get a life people...and not someone elses.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

Zullo is desperate after having been exposed for fabricating evidence in the form of a fake 1961  vital statistics instruction manual that he claimed provide internal inconsistencies in the President's birth certificate. It was pretty stupid to use a fake manual exposed by finding that it was really a 1968 record layout with codes different from 1961

 

Somehow is perhaps hoping that Lee remembers what codes they were using 51 years ago and can somehow revive his crank analysis of the certificate. It ain't gonna happen because Barack Obama was born in Hawaii,Zullo is a liar and no amount of elder abuse is going to change that.

dominatornaz_sgt
dominatornaz_sgt

Dumb ass. Meanwhile, joe the dumber, in one of his campaign TV ads said, that Tent City is helping save millions of dollars. Yeah! The savings go to his birther PI's. So, I don't see any savings at all. 

celtwytche
celtwytche

"Shortly after that, though, Zullo got the call back from the nursing home -- Lee changed her mind, and did not want to meet with Zullo. "Now, that's a pretty big change from 'yes, I'll meet with you,' to the message I got," Zullo said. "So obviously, someone there had a conversation with her, and that interview never took place."What's obvious is that someone sat that poor old lady down and explained to her that she did not need to be polite to that nutcase Zullo.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

What is really sad is that this IS the mentality and thinking of the Republican party. That everything 'they' do is right and anyone who dares to dissent must have been gotten too, since no one would 'not want' to talk to us, or because someone changed their mind about something

 

I would think the republicans would be very familiar with people changing their mind about something, our Republican law makers do it all the time, it's just called flip-flopping when they do it.

david.is.farrar
david.is.farrar

 @jimyoungbl Great work, Jim. I have sent your material to my attorney to be added to our case.

 

Here is some interesting information in return taken from the transcript of US v Wong Kim Ark – Appellant (Government) Brief to SCOTUS:

 

<blockquote>In conclusion, we feel that the prevailing ignorance relative to the law governing citizenship by birth is no excuse for the perpetuation of grievous and dangerous error; we feel that the variable, and at times empirical, views expressed by some of our public men in their diplomatic correspondence relative to the status of citizenship is to be greatly deprecated and can not be per­mitted to influence the decision of this case, the question presented being strictly judicial; we think it proper, however, to advert to the fact that <strong>when the first military draft was proposed in August, 1862, Mr. Seward informed Mr. Stuart, then in charge of the British legation at Wash­ington, that all foreign-born persons would be exempt who had not been naturalized, or who were born in the United States of foreign parents."</strong></blockquote>

 

In other words, they didn't see persons born simply within the borders of the United States of foreign parents even as US citizens, let alone Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizens.

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

jon49417
jon49417

 @david.is.farrar they have been sworn to and notarized.  that is evidence.  you on the other hand have as evidence a conspiracy you say started 50 yrs ago

HistorianDude
HistorianDude

 @david.is.farrar Perhaps you should spend some time figuring out why we invented birth certificates in the first place. They "prove" every single detail they contain, and since they are both prima facie and under the Federal Rules of Evidence they are also self authenticating, not the tiniest smidgen of corroborative evidence is necessary.That said, they could certainly be challenged were Birthers to come up with a single shred of admissible evidence that rebuts any details it contains. Sadly, after more than four years of frantic Birther activity, no such evidence has ever been found.

rakista
rakista

 @dominatornaz_sgt Phoenix has a sky high recidivism rate, there is no way tent city is doing anything but manufacturing more criminals.  

celtwytche
celtwytche

 @Flyer9753 Don't blame us Republicans for the moronic Birthers and their nutcase howler monkeys like Zullo, Arpaio, and World Nut Daily.They may claim to be "Republican" and "Conservative" but they most certainly are not.

july0006
july0006

 @david.is.farrar  @jimyoungbl

 Based on your recommendation I read the appellant brief.  I found this,

 

"The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated:  Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen."

 

Here's the thing I read the district court's ruling and Judge Morrow never uses the term natural born.

 

The US Government just assumed that when he declared Wong Kim Ark a citizen that that made him natural born citizen.  That was their understanding of birth in the US to alien parents.

david.is.farrar
david.is.farrar

 @jon49417 

 

Yes, "sworn to and notarized" prima facie evidence that can't be substantiated has absolutely no probative value. It's meaningless. Against this meaningless evidence we have prima facie evidence that Obama's authorized literary agent published the fact that Obama was born in Kenya.

 

Is it true or was it simply a misprint?  It doesn't matter...it is still prima facie evidence, taken together with Obama's meaningless Hawaiian Health Department records, should be enough to allow examination of Obama's natal records in order to establish the truth...which is all we are after.

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

david.is.farrar
david.is.farrar

 @HistorianDude 

 

Nonsense. A state issued birth certificate is prima facie evidence. It even says as much on the bottom of Obama COLB.  The only thing a state issued prima facie birth certificate proves is that a live-birth occurred and it was recorded. All the other information contained on the document must be proven the old fashion way...by the preponderance of evidence

 

My source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/54392994/Birth-Certificate-Fraud

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @celtwytche 

 

I am glad you bring this up.

 

You are right, they are not republicans.

 

The problem I have with 'real' republicans themselves saying that is that saying it, and saying it quietly, is all the real republicans are doing!

 

This is YOUR party. I will wholeheartedly agree that it was hijacked in many respects by the extremists, however I don't see the core of the Republican party denouncing them and kicking them out of YOUR party to get your party back!

 

Just the opposite in fact. The vocal silence by the majority of the republicans, towards the extremists in the Republican party are a passive acceptance and a passive support of the extremists. Allowing them to be the 'loudmouths' of the party so that when it suits you, you can use it and when it doesn't, you can distance yourselves from it.

 

It's a pretty convenient relationship isn't it?

july0006
july0006

 @david.is.farrar  @rakista  @jimyoungbl

In a sure loser, it would have been better if you had given it to charity and volunteered your time to help your fellow Americans.  Instead of wasting it on an ego trip to to see your name in the paper (that's assuming the papers even care the story). 

 

I see the Supreme Court will be to denying Welden and Judy today.  Which makes your case even that much more frivolous.

david.is.farrar
david.is.farrar

 @rakista  @july0006  @jimyoungbl 

 

The courts don't make the final decision; the people do.

 

When the people find out that according to our courts, we are all not created equal; that some can run for the President of the United States without supporting the U.S Const. they will demand change. The courts have long been aware this kind of a situation occurring under the right set of circumstances.

 

If Barack Obama wants to go down in history as the man who lied and cheated his way into the White House instead of confronting these allegations now,  if he can; than that his call.

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

david.is.farrar
david.is.farrar

 @Areallawyer  @jon49417 

 

Well, we now have a genuine question of identity concerning a one Barack H. Obama who was born in Kenya, according to his 'authorized'* literary agent and another Barack Obama who was born in Hawaii, according to Hawaiian Health Department officials.

 

In order to solve this conflict of identity, all we need do is examine the Hawaiian Health Department Index file and their predicatory natal hospital records.

 

But first we have to determine if the material in question is hearsay. I cite Federal Rules of Evidence 801 (d)(2)(D). 

 

801 DEFINITIONS THAT APPLY TO THIS ARTICLE; EXCLUSIONS FROM HEARSAY 

 

(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay

 

(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. 

 

(D)  was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

*Dystel & Goderich agency still lists Obama as one of its current clients.

Areallawyer
Areallawyer

 @david.is.farrar  @jon49417 

Yes, there are several exceptions to the hearsay rule.....but none apply to this document (and nothing for somethhing as general "written statements").

 

And I've entered  state certified documents in a court of law, thank you very much.  It really is a simple process.  The official papers of one state are recognized by all other states.

 

And you are correct...a birth certificate is not an ID card.  It does however, record a birth event.  And the one the President provided recorded that on  August 4, 1961, a male child name Barack Hussein Obama II was born to Barack Hussein Obama and Stanely Ann Dunham in the city of Honolulu in the State of Hawaii.  The State of Hawaii has officially confirmed those facts many times.  Now I suppose if you are arguing that there is another Barack Hussein Obama II, or the gentlemen currently occupying the White House is not the Barack Hussein Obama II recorded on that document, that might be one thing (to which I'd think you are a bigger loon than I currently do).   But otherwise, you are completely missing the point of the documented you "source to." 

 

 

david.is.farrar
david.is.farrar

 @Areallawyer  @jon49417 

 

I think you will find there are "exceptions" to the hearsay rule involving written statements...so you have started off your little legal lecture with a gross generalization. 

 

In addition, you seem to be blissfully unaware of how Article V specifically applies to state certified documents 

 

As I have stated and 'sourced' my statement: a state certified natal document was created to register live-birth, not to "Prove" identify. As such, a state-issued birth certificate only "PROVES" a live birth has occurred and it was recorded.

 

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

 

Areallawyer
Areallawyer

 @david.is.farrar  @jon49417 

Me thinks you don't quite understand the meaning of  "prima facie" or "evidence" for that matter. 

 

1)  The literary agent bio (I love how you throw in "authorized" in there to make it seem more than it is).  Is not evidence.  It is hearsay, and inadmissable.  In other words, it is not prima facie evidence, or evidence of any kind.

 

2).  The birth certificate is prima facie evidence of the facts that appear on it.  Meaning, it is suffient legal evidence to establish the facts contained in it, shifting the burden of persuasion on the other side (in other words, you now are required to prove he wasn't born in Hawaii).  In other words, you don't need further substantiation.  As a state issued documents, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is self authenticating, and no further athentication is required.  Under the full faith and credit clause, every state must accept the document for purposes Hawaii issues it (proof of birth info). 

 

So in other words, you are exactly 100% incorrect on both statements.  The only thing you did get right was in reference to the bio, "Is it true was it simply a misprint?  It doesn't matter."  That is correct.  It doesn't matter because it is inadmissiable hearsay.  Under the law, there is no reason to go beyond the birth certificate or the state certifications, until you can dig up some evidence that the President was born somewhere else.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @david.is.farrar  @july0006  @marinskym  @naeko 

 

Obama HAS produced the evidence as REQUIRED BY LAW!

 

He has not met YOUR requirements but he has met the LEGAL requirements.

 

This is not a country of one, get over yourself or do what is needed to change the law

david.is.farrar
david.is.farrar

 @july0006  @Flyer9753  @marinskym  @naeko 

 

But that is just my point. No one questioned his birth because it was overwhelmingly verified by mountains of independent, corroborative evidence. Obama can't produec one, NOT ONE!

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

july0006
july0006

 @david.is.farrar  @Flyer9753  @marinskym  @naeko

 Yes, Ronald Reagan.  His BC was signed by the doctor and the registrar 31 years after he was supposedly born.  What we know about his birth is what he told us.

 

BTW, when he went to Ireland, the people of Ballyporeen put up a sign welcoming him home.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @david.is.farrar  @marinskym  @naeko 

 

No it is not a singularly unique situation.

 

This is a matter of law. The law has been satisfied. Don't like it, change the law but until you do, the law stands.

 

Romney claims a lot of things, but has yet to provide proof for any of them so why should I believe him now especially when he does have a proven track record of outright lies and half-truths.

 

These are documented and verified and are a mountain in size compared to any documented and verified proof against Obama, so I would have to say much much more reason exists to call what Romney is claiming without meeting your burden of proof into question than Obama's information.

 

Nonetheless, the law is the law, he has met the requirements of the law, done.

 

Don't like that law, work to have it changed but until it is changed all you are doing is sounding like an idiot pursuing this and asking for things that no other candidate is being asked for.

david.is.farrar
david.is.farrar

 @Flyer9753  @marinskym  @naeko 

 

Oh come on now.  Have you ever heard of any previously elected President of the United States whose early childhood wasn't or couldn't be overwhelmingly verified by eye witnesses and mountain of documentary evidence within a few months of the election?

 

This is a singular unique situation we are dealing with Obama. Romney wasn't kidding when he said he could 'overwhelmingly' prove where he was born; can Obama? 

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @david.is.farrar  @marinskym  @naeko 

 

And how many other presidents have shown this or been required to show this? ZERO

 

Fact of the matter is that the legal standard has been met by Barack Obama, in accordance with the state and federal laws and the precedent that the former presidents release of information has set.

 

That is all he has to do. Why are you and the birthers not requiring this level of proof for Romney? Why was it not required for Bush? Or Carter or Reagan or any other president in the history of the United States?

 

That is the real problem here that you refuse to admit, that you are insisting on holding THIS president to a standard much much higher than any other president or even the current presidential challenger.

 

He has done all that he is able and required by law to do. Don't like it, change the laws to require more but at least be honest with the populace and yourself as to why you are really doing it and why it all of a sudden became important to you with this president.

david.is.farrar
david.is.farrar

 @Flyer9753  @marinskym  @naeko

 

" ...the president has also given all the documentation that he can give. "

 

Not true. Barack Obama has thus far denied access to his predicatory natal records, traditionally used to create state issued birth certificates. 

 

If you will remember the case of Donald Trump. He first showed his 'hospital' birth certificate and then his state issued birth certificate, one Proved" the other. Not so with Barack Obama. Nothing in his birth certificates have been verified and his birth certificates have no probative value. Until they can be verified, they are worthless as a means to prove identity -- which is all we are after by the way. .

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @david.is.farrar  @marinskym  @naeko 

 

"Please understand, we are not saying Barack Obama wasn't born where, when and by whom he and that State of Hawaii have stated; we are simply saying he hasn't proven it."

 

That is a crock of shit, that claim.

 

You are claiming/saying it, you just don't have the balls to be honest about it.

 

This is BS. The State of Hawaii has given all the documentation they are legally allowed to give, the president has also given all the documentation that he can give.

 

If you have a problem with the rules and policies of the state of Hawaii, go complain to them.

 

Barack Obama has proven this to the best of his ability and within accordance of both Federal and State laws. Period, case closed

 

david.is.farrar
david.is.farrar

 @marinskym  @naeko 

 

You are as welcome to your own delusions as I am to mine. But from what I see, Cory Booker was born of two U.S. citizen and is therefore, an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen.

 

Please understand, we are not saying Barack Obama wasn't born where, when and by whom he and that State of Hawaii have stated; we are simply saying he hasn't proven it.

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

marinskym
marinskym

 @david.is.farrar  @naeko 

Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. I hope that makes the Denialists miserable. And I hope TV cameras record Orly Taitz' complete breakdown - which she is on the verge of.

david.is.farrar
david.is.farrar

 @naeko No, naeko.

 

Preponderance of evidence could be Obama's mother hospital registration, an invoice created by Obama's birth, and its payment; OB/GYN records, the list is endless and should not pose any problem whatsoever. But a state issued birth certificate's true function is simply to register live births.

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

naeko
naeko

 @david.is.farrar  

"by the preponderance of evidence"

that  preponderance is Obama was born in Hawaii

that's why you lost your case

olsonandko
olsonandko

 @celtwytche  @Flyer9753 Celtwytche, you really "hit the nail on the head" with the observation that the GOP was "hijacked non-conservative neocons (actually young earth religious fundamentalists) who would like --- to establish a theocracy here in the USA."   Since the Republican Party is now dominated by these "primitive" types, vote out any and all Republican candidates in November.   I am a lifelong registered Republican (real Republican) of 51 years.  The current bunch calls me a RINO.  I call them religious fanatics. 

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @celtwytche btw - personally I recommend the latter of my suggestion.

 

The extremists are here to stay (unfortunately) and we need more than the 2 party system we have now.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @celtwytche 

 

You guys need to get a lot louder or acknowledge you are not going to be able to get rid of them and leave to start a new Republican party.

 

Until you do, unfortunately you are going to be guilty by association.

 

Just my humble opinion.

celtwytche
celtwytche

 @Flyer9753 I agree completely that the Republican party has been essentially hijacked by non-conservative neocons who would like nothing further than to establish a theocracy here in the USA. And yes, we real conservatives aren't doing enough to solve that problem.However, just because we've got problems is not reason to saddle us with the birther nutbags. We're just as ticked off at them as you are, and the real conservatives that are left aren't afraid to say so.

Now Trending

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

Loading...