Dr. Conspiracy

Dr. Conspiracy


3,111 comments posted · 6 followers · following 1

1 week ago @ Birther Report - Report: Sheriff Arpaio... · 0 replies · +2 points

The problem with that is that in earlier testimony there were 50,000 alleged victims of the bank hacking. Now it's 150,000. Is this an attempt to cover up the reason that Arpaio wrote "Wilcox IN 150,000.00," suggesting that the husband of one of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors who won $975,000 in settlements over Arpaio's false arrest, was a victim of the bank fraud (why write that name out of 150,000?). Could "IN" mean "income" and Arpaio was digging into someone's bank account himself?

1 week ago @ Birther Report - Report: Sheriff Arpaio... · 0 replies · +2 points

What's the quote you're misrepresenting?

1 week ago @ Birther Report - Report: Sheriff Arpaio... · 0 replies · +2 points

What does the Reed Hayes report have to do with Arpaio's Department racially profiling Latinos in Phoenix?

And I don't care how much you beg, I am not going to have sex with you.

1 week ago @ Birther Report - Report: Sheriff Arpaio... · 0 replies · +2 points

Birthers make up their own facts. It is why they never win.

1 week ago @ Birther Report - Report: Sheriff Arpaio... · 0 replies · +2 points

The greatest legal risk, IMO, from the Zullo material would occur if it demonstrated perjury on Arpaio's part. Arpaio's testimony is that he didn't direct the Seattle Operation and he didn't instigate or encourage the investigation of Judge Show. It would be really bad if Zullo and his documents showed otherwise (not to say that they will).

The greatest political risk is dragging out once more how Arpaio got conned to tune of $250,000 (and maybe much more). The Zullo emails we have public now say essentially: we keep paying you month after month after month, and you don't deliver anything. That's what con men do.

If I may rub a little salt into the wound--that's what Zullo did to you birthers for years too.

1 week ago @ Birther Report - Report: Sheriff Arpaio... · 1 reply · +2 points

I don't really see what difference it makes who represents Melendres, a legal visitor to the United States with a valid visa, detained for hours by Arpaio's Department without probable cause. It says nothing about the merits of the case. I let it sink in, and it went right into the ground and instantly dried up. Just because you can cook up a connection doesn't make it mean anything.

I mean what are you implying--that plaintiffs are out to get Arpaio because of this connection? Well duh, that's what plaintiffs do!

It is, however, true that one of the attorneys representing plaintiffs in the Melendres case does work for Convington & Burlington: Priscilla G. Dodson. Holder indeed works for that firm now, as he did before becoming attorney general.

1 week ago @ For The Record - Grand Jury Presentment... · 0 replies · +4 points

As we all know, Obama released that "simple piece of paper" in 2011, and it didn't solve anything.

1 week ago @ Birther Report - Report: Sheriff Arpaio... · 3 replies · +9 points

By the way, did you folks know that Reed Hayes now has a web page on his site about his Obama certificate investigation?

1 week ago @ Birther Report - Report: Sheriff Arpaio... · 0 replies · +10 points

The Plaintiffs are concerned with Sheriff Joe detaining people without probable cause. That is what the case is about, and not Obama's birth certificate. This round of hearings is about whether Arpaio intentionally disobeyed the court order on detaining people, and the sideshow of Dennis Montgomery is only there to establish a pattern of behavior.

Initially, the Zullo subpoena covered the time period starting December 23, 2011 (the period of the Hayes report); however Arpaio moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that it was overly broad and that it was a undue burden on Mike Zullo. He argued that the start time for the subpoena should not be earlier than when Arpaio and Montgomery started interacting. In response Plaintiffs agreed to reduce the time period to start September 1, 2013.

So actually, if Reed Hayes was a factor at all, it was Arpaio who took action to take it off the table.

It appears, based on reading comment here, that the folks here really aren't following the Melendres case, don't know the facts of the case, and don't know who did what when. It would seem to me that you are going to discuss something, you ought to know a little about it first. I know folks here think visiting my blog will cause your arms to fall off, but I do have around 40 articles on the Melendres case, and from the links there to court documents and news stories, one could find out quite a bit.

1 week ago @ Birther Report - Report: Sheriff Arpaio... · 0 replies · +8 points

I don't know why you persist in giving irrelevant examples. We're not talking about border stops. We're talking about traffic stops, where people who are not driving are asked for papers and detained, even though there is no probable cause that they have committed a crime. There is no law that allows that kind of activity. This is why Arpaio is in trouble.

Melendres, the lead Plaintiff in the case, was in the US legally with a valid visa. Arpaio's Department detained him for hours without probable cause. Now where is the accountability to the law when the Sheriff encourages such behavior? It is in the courts. The Melendres plaintiffs proved to the Court that Arpaio was guilty of racial profiling. Now years later we find that Sheriff Arpaio defied the court order to stop doing that. Arpaio has admitted in briefs filed with the Court that he had indeed not followed the court order. All that remains is whether or not it was intentional, making him criminally liable.