Carl Gallups Really Believes Mike Zullo is a "Law Enforcement Officer?"

(RC: This is a guest post written by Brian Reilly. Mr. Reilly was a member of the Surprise, Arizona Tea Party and was the person who convinced Sheriff Joe Arpaio to do an investigation into President Obama’s long form birth certificate in 2011. Mr. Reilly then was asked to join the Cold Case Posse and worked on the investigation along side Posse lead Mike Zullo.

Mr. Reilly has called Reality Check Radio several times to voice his opinion that the investigation led by Mike Zullo was and continues to be nothing more than a sham. Mr. Reilly expressed that opinion most recently on my show this past Wednesday evening. )


There seems to be some confusion on the part of some, whether Mike Zullo of the Cold Case Posse, non-profit corporation is a ” sworn law enforcement officer” in Arizona.  Let’s see if we can find the truth.


To Director Lyle Mann, Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training (AZPOST) regarding Posse member Michael P. Zullo.
1.) Was Michael P. Zullo,  AZ POST certified as  a law enforcement officer, anytime in the year 2012?
2.) Is Michael P. Zullo currently, AZ POST certified as a law enforcement officer?

(Arizona Amended Code, R13-4-103: Certification of Peace Officers Mandatory.

(Arizona Revised Statutes, 1-215-27:  “Peace Officers means sheriffs of counties, constables, marshals, policemen of cities and towns, commissioned personnel of the department of public safety, personnel who are employed by the state department of corrections and the department of juvenile corrections and who have received a certificate from the Arizona peace officers standards and training board,…..”     (volunteer Posse members are not included in the statute.)


From: Lyle Mann <>To: Brian Reilly reillyfam@REDACTED
Subject: RE: Is this person an AZ POST certified law enforcement officer?
“No to both questions.”

Sharon Rondeau quotes Carl Gallups, in her recent article in the Post & E-mail about the 9/23/14 Peter Boyles Show,  as saying,  “Zullo spends the first two or three pages [of his Alabama Supreme Court affidavit]  identifying his law enforcement powers and authorities.” Gallups asked Sheriff Arpaio: “Is he [Zullo] really a bona fide law enforcement officer with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office?”  Arpaio is reported to have said “Yes.”  In the Alabama Supreme Court, Michael Zullo affidavit,  in the third sentence,  of the first paragraph, on the first page, Zullo clearly states: “I am a former sworn law enforcement office (sic)/criminal investigator…..”  This affidavit is posted on Carl Gallups site at:

It is very clear that even Michael Zullo acknowledges that he is a “former sworn law enforcement office (sic).   Zullo’s statement is consistent with AZ POST Director Lyle Mann’s reply to my questions as to whether Michael P. Zullo is currently, or,  in 2012, an AZ POST certified law enforcement officer.  Director Mann’s answer is,  “No to both questions.”

Hopefully, Carl Gallups will give this article some thought and reconsider his position.


Brian Reilly

This entry was posted in Birth Certificate, Birther Radio, Birthers, Cold Case Posse, Mike Zullo and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

141 Responses to Carl Gallups Really Believes Mike Zullo is a "Law Enforcement Officer?"

  1. Our departed friend Mr. Craig thinks Tim Russert was murdered because he was ready to go all out Birther:

    ” … June 13th 2008 Tim Russert drops dead in his office on arrival back to the States from Rome

    RIP Meet the Press…..”

    I have long considered that Tim Russert went to Rome in a prayer quest for the wisdom and strength to confront the political power structure that was attempting to install a usurper.

    I believe that Russert was an intellectually honest man that KNEW the “0” was/is ineligible, in spite of the legal-loop-hole of the lack of a Federally recognized acknowledgement of the circumstances that produces a U.S. natural born Citizen.:

    … and yes, the day Tim Russert died, (was murdered), was the day the credibility of the U.S. Press died…

  2. Hektor says:

    Yup, the sinister cabal that aided President Obama from an infant to his “usurpation” has a completely omniscient capability for detecting people who are just about to break the story even though they have given no sign (and sometimes like in the case of Andrew Breitbart denounced birtherism). The cabal then conveniently murders them and makes it look like a health issue just before the universe-shattering news is broken to the sheeple. Of course, why America’s “toughest” sheriff wasn’t murdered even though he announced he was going to have a news conference about the birth certificate is a mystery left for the ages.

  3. We’re not laughing with you, Mr. Craig… we’re laughing AT you.

  4. Dave B. says:

    Steve Craig, you goofball, you’ve been quoting from the APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT in Talbot v. Jansen and calling it Chief Justice Rutledge’s opinion. The Court ruled AGAINST the appellant.

  5. Dave B.

    Great find! Craig loves to quote that case too. Do you have a link to Rutledge’s actual opinion?

  6. Dave B. says:

    Here’s Rutledge’s ENTIRE OPINION:
    “The merits of the cause are so obvious that I do not conceive there is much difficulty in pronouncing a fair and prompt decision for affirming the decree of the circuit court.

    The doctrine of expatriation is certainly of great magnitude, but it is not necessary to give an opinion upon it in the present cause, there being no proof that Captain Talbot’s admission as a citizen of the French Republic was with a view to relinquish his native country, and a man may at the same time enjoy the rights of citizenship under two governments.

    It appears upon the whole that Ballard’s vessel was illegally fitted out in the United States, and the weight of evidence satisfies my mind that Talbot’s vessel, which was originally American property, continued so at the time of the capture notwithstanding all the fraudulent attempts to give it a different complexion. The capture therefore was a violation of the law of nations and of the treaty with Holland. The Court has a clear jurisdiction of the cause upon the express authority of Pelaches’ Case, 4 Inst. And every motive of good faith and justice must induce us to concur with the circuit court, in awarding restitution.”

  7. @ Dave B,

    Thanks! Too bad Mr. Craig left. I am sure he is reading. 😉

  8. Dave B. says:

    I found another article this morning where he’d done that, and I busted him. He responded to that one– “What are you talking about …. that is CLEARLY the Opinion by Rutledge ……….but you 0’bots call up down and left right so be gone damn spot I have no use for you……..”
    Apparently the passage is a sovcit favorite.

  9. slcraignbc wasn’t much of a challenge was he? In a way I am glad the debate is off. It would not have made for interesting radio. Five minute periods of his SovCit gibberish would have been rather unbearable.

  10. Dave B. says:

    I see the fellows here already had his number on that Rutledge business. He’s tried to convince me before that the First Congress naturalized…itself.

  11. Lol Dave it’s not surprising that this isn’t the first time Mr. Craig was caught lying about something. And yet he wanted to talk to us about being Intellectually honest. Do you have a link where he was caught doing this before?

  12. Dave B. says:

    This should work:
    I’ve spent a good bit of time going through USCIS administrative decisions regarding certificates of citizenship– people tell me sometimes I need to do my research, and they have NO idea– and some time back I came across this one, a case that just plain baffled me:

    Click to access Jan242011_04E2309.pdf

    It’s a US citizen, born in Oklahoma in 1949, applying for a Certificate of Citizenship. I couldn’t figure out what the applicant was up to, other than maybe trying–TRYING– to substitute a non-expiring Certificate of Citizenship for a passport. The USCIS basically told him to go pound sand, “stating that he was born in the United States and, as such, does not need any proof of citizenship beyond his birth certificate issued by the State of Oklahoma.”
    Some time later I came across Craig’s Response to Order to Show Cause, which I can’t find anymore except by way of Leo the Parakeet’s website, where some of the text is copied (maybe even accurately):
    and all became clear. Of course it didn’t make sense. It wasn’t supposed to. It was just a birfer, birferin’.

  13. I personally know the process as my wife went through it recently. I studied citizenship law and the history of it during the process just to increase my knowledge.

    Yeah I know about Craigs insistence of bothering the courts over something that’s a settled issue.

  14. Yoda says:

    Mr. Craig–here is a simple and direct question. It is not complicated, so you should be able to answer it with just a few words and I ask you to do so:

    What is the definition of a native citizen?

  15. Yoda says:

    Second simple question. In the WKA case, didn’t the dissenting opinion state that WKA was eligible to be President based on the Majority decision? Yes or no will suffice.

  16. Yoda says:

    Another simple question Mr. Craig- In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court clearly stated that a citizen at birth is a NBC, albeit in dicta. In light of that, what is your basis for refusing to accept that simple truth?

  17. Yoda says:

    Last one for now Mr. Craig–You have agreed that there are only two paths to citizenship, birth and naturalization. If you peruse the Immigration and Naturalization Act, you will find that anyone seeking to be naturalized must go through a process and that there is no mechanism for a person to be naturalized at birth.

    In your opinion, how many different kinds if citizenship are there in the United States and what are their names?

  18. I think Mr. Craig has left the building Yoda. Being confronted with facts and law is a scary thing for a Birther who has led a sheltered life. .

  19. Yoda it doesn’t matter to Steven Craig he thinks the Wong Kim Ark case was wrongly decided and a horrible case. So even if the government and the dissenting justices knew what the majority was doing he doesn’t accept the case.

    • Yes, Mr. Craig wisely left to avoid further embarrassment. It is funny to watch Birthers step into this unprotected environment and assume we will buy their opinions as facts, their outright lies, and incorrectly drawn conclusions. It doesn’t end well for them – ever.

  20. RoadScholar says:

    “… be gone damn spot I have no use for you…” He must be talking about his dog “Spot,” because Lady Macbeth said “out, out damned spot.”

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s