Posted on 09/21/2009 8:27:41 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
I figured that CPT Rhodes had a friend prepare this letter for her. It’s the only scenario that addressed all of the questions. At least we know the answer now.
Yea!
Ping
what happened to Office max claiming no fax had been sent at that time.
How is it solved?
Feeding attention whore trolls is not a good idea ...
Here is how Sinclair titled his update:
“Court Clerk Confirms He Spoke With “Acquaintance” not Capt Rhodes on Faxing Letter
The OfficeMax report floating around the Internet was from 9/19/09, not 9/18/09 when the fax would have been sent. Regardless of what OfficeMax says about the fax report, the court clerk confirmed that he spoke with a friend of CPT Rhodes who prepared the letter for her. The court expects to receive an original, signed letter from CPT Rhodes upon her arrival in Iraq.
Can you please change the title to the original
And what did the court do to verify this close acquaintance?
The U.S. District Court clerk spoke with the friend of CPT Rhodes who prepared and faxed the letter for her. The clerk and Judge Land were convinced they were speaking with someon who was representing Connie Rhodes. They’re expecting an original, signed letter from CPT Rhodes herself when she arrives in Iraq. Until then, they’ve accepted the facsimilie as authentic and entered it into the court records.
I suspect we’ll find out today that the fax activity report for 9/18 shows a fax sent around 13:58. What’s currently floating around the Internet is apparently the fax activity report from 9/19.
The title of this thread is misleading. We already knew the court received a fax from someone.
But who sent it and if it is authentic is still unknown.
You are interpolating alot.
That subtitle was NOT on Larry Sinclair’s page when I posted this.
“Friend”?
No. The person said “acquaintance”.
You’re putting your own feelings into Sinclair’s update.
Like the MSM does.
There was nothing calling it AUthentic or “not a forgery”
You just want to shoot the messenger because the wild, ridiculous claims of forgery and all of the heated conversation surrounding said forgery appear, at the present momemt, to be false.
None of you had any issue speculating that the document was a forgery even though it had been entered into the court records. But because it’s me who posted this thread, you automatically dismiss it.
Go ahead, dismiss it. You’ve been presented with updated, correct information. I don’t care what you do with it.
The only thing verified was that it was done by someone other than Rhodes. Sinclair figured that out on friday. And that it was accepted by the Court, which we also knew based on the stamp.
It’s not because its you who posted it. It’s because you are jumping to conclusions that the article did not make.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
