Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Sharp eyed viewers may notice that in the quick shot of Sarah, the baby she is holding is NOT Tripp. I don't believe this is any kind of secret conspiracy, it is more likely sloppy editing on MSNBC's part.This story is clearly VERY slanted against Levi. This Wendy Murphy is such an obvious Palin-bot that I have to wonder what her screen name is over in the "sea of pee'ers". She does everything she can to insult Levi and attempt to illustrate that he is a bad father.
She attempts to paint Levi as a media whore, whose lust for the limelight is potentially damaging to the welfare of his child. Like ALL Palin devotees she is too hopped up from freebasing raw unfiltered Palin talking points see that her characterization is actually far more descriptive of Sarah Palin herself than it is of Levi.
By the way her contention that he has NO hope of gaining shared custody in our fair state demonstrates her complete lack of understanding when it comes to Alaska law. Unless Levi opens fire in a mall while mainlining heroin he is DEFINITELY going to get joint custody. And Van Flein can spend Palin's money by the truckload, it will change nothing
At least Steve Abudato, while clearly not a Levi Johnston supporter, does a good job of looking at the facts and making a judgement rather than arriving on the set with a preconceived agenda and trying to make the facts fit like "Little Miss Tightass".
Update: This Slate article does a good job of illustrating how wrong snotty Miss Murphy is about Levi's chances. (H/T to Kajo)
I wish Levi would go on Maddow, That would make Scarah's head explode
ReplyDeleteWendy Murphy has the same smirk on her face that I've seen on Sarah Palin's. In fact, she looks like she could be Meg Stapleton's twin sister.
ReplyDeleteShe hasn't "heard Sarah Palin say anything particularly vindictive..." Ha, ha, ha.
She said, "You balance the public's right to know against the private interests of the parties."
Or -- my interpretation of what Levi's saying to Bristol and her parents -- "Your dirty laundry is more than my dirty laundry, and you wouldn't deal privately up to now -- so let's keep it open and above-board. We'll see if you can take the heat, since you started it, Bristol (and Sarah and Todd!)."
Argh.
ReplyDeleteWell, I hope Levi has good documentation of the number of times he's attempted to visit Tripp and been rebuffed. Because so far they're getting a lot of mileage out of the "he's off on his naked tour and isn't trying to see the kid" argument.
Yes, the smirk. Yeccchhh.
ReplyDeleteComcast now owns MSNBC. Anyone know if they have conservative leanings a la Fox? Could be the reason for the pro-Palin stance on this story. Just askin'.
ReplyDeleteGryphen--correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that Alaska has a statutory presumption in favor of joint custody. If that's the case, then it takes something huge to overcome the presumption. Having a grandmother (who lives at a different residence) with a conviction, won't do it. And nothing that Levi has done that's been publicized (and it's hard to imagine anything that hasn't been publicized) won't do it. Which means--speaking as a lawyer--that this was a colossally stupid thing to do and a waste of time and money.
ReplyDeleteI could barley even watch.
ReplyDeleteTalk about low information people.
Wendy Murphy does not have a clue what she is talking about and obviously has not read up on this before she deemed to speak as some kind of expert.
I wrote to MSNBC with my disdain of this segment.
Wendy Murphy is a former prosecutor. This is an example of someone opining on an area of law in which they aren't conversant--much less in a jurisdiction in which they don't practice. The sole issue is what Alaska law says and Alaska law has a presumption in favor of joint custody.
ReplyDeleteWendy Murphy is also freebasing - not sure what she is one but it's really gone to her head.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame when the baby will be the one who suffers. The Palin-bots should all go into the mountains now and wait for their end times.
The lunacy that this woman attracts really shows who she appeals to. It would be nice if some of them were capable of a rational thought.
I've seen brighter cults.
P.S. Over at Bree Palin's blog, "B" referred us to a Slate article entitled "Why Bristol Palin Shouldn't Get Sole Custody", which blows Wendy Murphy's smirky reasons why she should right out of the water.
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell is going on with MSNBC? I have now given up almost all MSM. They are either really sloppy or have an agenda. Instead of reviewing the facts they get some little robot in. Jesus. Levi is going to have to get a lot tougher or this group is going to roll right over him.
ReplyDeleteCBS had a segment this morning that was not bias and concentrated on the welfare of the child.Now there is a fuckin' concept for ya.
ReplyDeleteWendy Murphy has been on tv a lot in the past, but not recently, I think. She is a former prosecutor and is a terrific child advocate.
ReplyDeleteShe may be looking at this case from a different perspective than most of us here. Whenever I have experienced her in the past I was most impressed and almost always agreed with what she had to say.
She's tough as nails when it comes to kids' welfare. Boston Catholic Bulldog!
Here's some biographical info on her from one of her books:
Wendy is an ex-prosecutor who specialized in child abuse and sex crimes cases. The first lawyer in the country to run a program to provide free legal services to crime victims, Wendy has been fighting for victims' rights for twenty years.
Having served as a Visiting Scholar at Harvard Law School, Wendy now represents crime victims in civil and criminal cases and teaches an advanced seminar on sexual violence at the New England School of Law in Boston. As an adjunct professor, she also manages the Sexual Violence Legal News and Judicial Language projects at her law school and consults with crime victims across the country to help them achieve justice.
Wendy writes scholarly and pop culture articles, and lectures widely on victims' rights, sex crimes, violence against women and children, media coverage of crime and the criminal justice system. Wendy has worked as a legal analyst for CBS News, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. She appears regularly on cable and network news programs to provide commentary on legal news stories. And Justice For Some is her first book.
A former NFL cheerleader, Wendy has also written three childrens' books. She lives outside Boston with her husband and five children.
The judge in this case must surely be aware of the case with Sarah's sister Molly, and her divorcing spouse, Mike Wooten. The Palins interfered and showed so much vindictiveness that the judge in that case ordered them to stop their actions; he called their backstabbing of Molly Heath McCann Wooten's former husband "child abuse" of Wooten's children. When his first order wasn't heeded, he threatened to give sole custody of the children to Trooper Wooten and to order Wooten to move to Anchorage.
ReplyDeleteIt can't get any clearer than that. I'm surprised that not even any of the blogs have brought out that history of Palin's vicious meddling. It wasn't that long ago.
Wendy is a former prosecutor!!!. (Excuse me while my head explodes.) YIKES! Nothing like seeing the law through one's prejudices. A judge would shred her for the kind of logic she's spewing in this video.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that Wendy doesn't comment on the use of twitter (by parties unknown) in a court filing. That's probably something she thinks is just peachy.
"she thinks"... I don't believe I actually used the phrase in relation to Wendy. Excuse me, I need a adult beverage.
Wendy Murphy is obviously unaware of the facts of law regarding Alaskan custody cases, which are different for each state and she is unaware that Levi does Not live at home, since she sites moving out of his durg mothers home as a sign of good parenting skills! (that cracked me up completely)
ReplyDeleteNo, it'll stay public because the judge is aware of the Palins and what they will try to do in a closed hearing.
Wasn't the Denise Richardson/Charlie Sheen case about the reality show she wanted her kids on public also?
stupid is as stupid does
Nobody up the fact that Sarah HAS a history of interfering a custody case ie: TrooperGate Sarah's sister and Trooper Wooten.
ReplyDeleteSee http://palingates.blogspot.com/2009/12/bristol-palin-vs-levi-johnston-custody.html
and A. Halcrow's post of 2008! right close to the top ..."In front of Judge Suddock, Molly testified that Wooten never hit her or never physically abused her or ever touched the children. She told the judge she was feeling pressure from her family to file the order. "
I wonder if Bristol has really thought out how dragging Levi into court, and playing the "His mom is a convict" will play out.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean all family member's run-ins with he law are fair game for the media's consumption?
Even Track's alleged misdeeds?
Do they really want all that out in the open? I mean, what's fair is fair, right? We have to think of the children, no?
diva
Ditto on the smirk.
ReplyDeleteWendy says that this kind of case brings out the worst in people (and that's one reason why it should be private).
Well . . . the worst in Levi is not even close to being as ugly as the worst in Scarah et al.
Bring it on.
Levi's team is handling this in a classy, strategically sound fashion. They can only gain ground by having dirt dragged on every carpet in snowbilly town.
What on earth is a Palinbot doing in BOSTON????? Speaking as a born'n'raised Massachusetts liberal, there are not many Palin supporters here!
ReplyDeleteWell, they sure 'stepped into it' by dragging Sherry into the picture! Now Levi should drag the whole Palin clan into it also, too - Diana with her burglaries and child endangerment, $$$arah herself with the way she does not treat Trig correctly (no glasses, no hearing aids, no pants/socks/shoes in 40* cold, etc.
ReplyDeleteGryphen, again: If people give advice for what Levi/his lawyer(s) should do, I would suggest you block it and fw it to Levi/his lawyer(s) so that the opposition does not get tipped-off to potential strategies...)
Wendy Murphy is a rabid right-winger. Check this out.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newshounds.us/2009/03/26/who_is_wendy_murphy_and_why_does_she_hate_oreilly_protestors.php
Methinks her politics are showing.
Having worked on child custody issues in Alaska for years...this woman is spouting nonsense. What is the quickest way to spot a Palin-bot?
ReplyDeleteWhen they talk nonsense - and when called on that, they think yelling will make them right.
Wendy Murphy is a former prosecutor and a terrific child advocate? She must have morphed into a fake.
ReplyDeleteSend Wendy Murphy HALF NAKED pictures of Trig in cold weather at all hours. The video of Matt Lower and his remark about Tripp, 10 minutes and Bristol could not get a twitch. Pictures of Trig with no aides and the many others that show Palin parenting standards
Wendy Murphy is a high pitched tv screamer now. Knows nothing.
oy vey, I hope Scarah never tries to bring little Tripp around her idol, Rush Limbaugh!! Remember he had a little problem with Vicodin and abuse...even lost his hearing over it!! I think Levi should make sure a Limbaugh ban is in the paperwork!!
ReplyDeleteWhat's really baffling is how she's talking about Levi using the kid.
ReplyDeleteFunny, I wasn't aware HE was the one who filled for sole custody.
Tripp is not Bristol's baby. Trig is. Try to get this straight now o.k?
ReplyDeleteLet me add that (1) Wendy J. Murphy apparently has no experience in family law or custody matters; (2) she went to New England Law School (sorry to be snobby but that is the kind of law school where people who can't get into good law schools go).
ReplyDeleteShe claims in her PR materials that she was a "Visiting Scholar" at Harvard Law School. I definitely would like to delve into that and what it entailed (did she speak once at a Harvard class). I know that Harvard doesn't hire faculty members from third tier law schools such as the one Wendy attended. Maybe she can get a job at Van Flein's law firm.
And of course, also too, Bill O'Reilly wrote the forward to Wendy Murphy's book. Enuf said.
ReplyDeleteI think Wendy's botox paralyzed her brain. She slandered Levi in that vicious, deviod-of-all-facts diatribe, I hope he sues HER!
ReplyDeletediva
Wendy is usually really good on feminist issues and abuse issues. Her feminist leanings may be making her negative toward Levi, not necessarily that she is pro-Palin politically. She is way off base on how Alaskan courts work, what our custody statutes say, and how judges have been applying them. Just like Van Flein doesn't have expertise, neither does she in family law, and especially not our courts workings. Both Levi and Bristol have their strengths and weaknesses. More than likely, joint legal custody will be awarded, and if the judge is thinking about the child's needs, a schedule favoring more time with mom in the early years, and increasing as the child reaches school age would be most appropriate.
ReplyDeleteWe need to sit back and wait for Levi to insist on a paternity test. Just maybe the suit will be dropped entirely.
ReplyDeleteWendy Murphy mentions that there is no evidence of vindictiveness on the part of Sarah Palin. Two words...Deputy Wooten.
ReplyDeleteWendy Murphy talking about Levi Johnston "parading nude" and his "naked tour" to make money is just plain nonsense.
ReplyDeleteMs. Murphy--a former NFL cheerleader--must know something about shaking her ass for compensation.
4:29 PM
ReplyDeleteLimbaugh was caught with his docs Viagra while leaving a country known for non opposite goings on with underage people. He is worshiped by the same people who love Palin.
MSBNC does NOT like Levi. that pat buchannon freak said tawd should drown him and they all giggled. And Mika B. OY, She is beautiful, but she is a nasty bitch. She rolls her lovely eyes at the mere mention of Levi and I think she has a girl crush on $'arah.
ReplyDeleteJust read at huff post Rush Limbaugh was rushed to the
ReplyDeletehospital in Hawaii with chest
pains.
It seems ill advised to bring up the transgressions of Levi's mother when the Palins have their own legal issues. Sarah's sister is still fighting the charges of burglary and endangering a minor. Track had some legal issues that should be exposed if Sherri's trangressions are included. Sarah neglected her children while she stayed at a party for 45 minutes while her 2 children were left in the unlocked, running SUV. Like may get tough when you throw rocks in your glass house!
ReplyDeleteWhoa! Limbaugh having a heart attack???
ReplyDeletehttp://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20091231/US.Limbaugh.Hospital/
Diva
anon at 4:35--
ReplyDeleteI hear ya.
what else can you tell?
I believe Palingates recently posted an Andrew Halcrow article about the influence of the Palins in the Wooten divorce, written a few years ago
ReplyDeleteI think this aspect should be pushed up front in all blogs, comments on Huffpo etc so that Levi's reasons for wanting public disclosure are better understood.
One of the things I have learned during my involvement in family law self help groups in California is that the more open the proceedings are, the more access the parties have to information, the more likely it is that good legal decisions are made regarding custody.
ReplyDeleteAll the media channels are messed up this time of year. It seems that everyone's on vacation, and the anchors are scrambling to put shows together.
ReplyDeleteThis woman was particularly repulsive in her contempt for the Johnston Family.
I found it ironic that Bristol said "Levi doesn't need protection"- well "Duh!"
The Palins can't have it both ways, and I'm glad the judge ruled to keep it open.
Murphy's remark about Levi's naked tour...you know, he's a 19 year kid and I didn't see anything showing that we all couldn't see on any beach in America. Denying custody based on that? Puh-leeze.
ReplyDeleteYou want to talk about nudity... how about a governor of Alaska who was running for Vice President of the US who pranced out of her bedroom during the campaign wearing only a towel to greet two McCain staffers? Surprise, surprise, lil' ol Sarah just didn't know they were in her suite living room. So how did they get in? No lock on the suite door? Remember that report that came to us early on by McCain staffers who were shocked and embarrassed by it? Two of them (both men) were treated to Sarah's desire to show off how gorgeous she is. On a scale of 1-10 - 10 being totally bad taste, Sarah's a 10 again.
Should be brought up every time Levi's Playgirl photos are brought up.
And they're complaining about Levi?
Wendy is a palinbot!
ReplyDeleteAttacking a 19 year old! She has that same bitch ass shrew scream as palin and micelle B.
Ugh! STFU! Bitch!!!
I thought it funny that they used Shannyn's clip w/Tank in there about a reality show...! I see Levi doing a reality show about huntin' in Alaska...! Not anything else. I see Levi getting his money from all his endeavor and having a hunting lodge and being a guide or something.
ReplyDeleteBitch palin, parades around the country using her prop "TriG" or is is Tommy? The poor kid who can't see, or hear, or can't convect with anyone! And who was on People with Trip!! Not Levi, Bristol, she went on tour with toad for candies(porn?) with Trip with him drugged out while she was on TV?
Madam bitch has not tweeted since "willow" tweeted on the 27th...is she in handcuffs or a straitjacket after the judge refused/denied her????
Ahahahahahaha! And now Rush in the hospital??? Imprecatory prayers anyone???? KARMA IS A BITCH!!!!
and, talking to a man of god while she was naked in the bathtub..oh if he only knew tee hee said Sarah in her book....
ReplyDeleteI don't care where Wendy Murphy went to law school, or whether she's a feminist, a child advocate, or whatever. She's an idiot to go on TV and rant about a case she clearly hasn't taken the trouble to learn anything about. Why bother? She's a lawyer so that makes her an expert, and Levi is an opportunist, so that means there's no way he will get even shared custody. The fact that she cites only gossip and innuendo to back up her assertions doesn't matter - she's an expert.
ReplyDeleteIt's really telling when people who know nothing about the circumstances involved, will decry Levi as a deadbeat dad, but imply that Bristol is a "good girl" who just made a mistake and has taken responsibility for it. I guess just being the daughter of a famous, now wealthy ex-Governor automatically makes you way too good for the lowly son of a drug addict. For a supposed feminist, Ms. Murphy sure seems to rely on some old fashioned stereotypes in her argument. I hope she's a bit more objective (and prepared) in her legal practice.
Umm... it's a video about a dog being attacked in San Clemente. That was... bizarre. Good capture?
ReplyDeleteMurphy was on for one reason: to give a viewpoint opposing Levi. On that matter, she did a decent job.
ReplyDeleteBut she needs to be more informed as to the actual facts of the matter. I get tired of commentators continually yapping about Levi not spending time with his son. Given that he's essentially banned from seeing his son - at least that is his claim - how is he to spend time with the kid? And now that it's known that Bristol is using the court to continue denying Levi his parental rights, Levi's words have credibility.
I wish Levi's attorney would move for a protective order forcing Bristol to allow visitation. Unsupervised, of course. And away from the Palin residence.
I love how they strained Alaska out of the conversation. I was looking forward to hearing Maia's take. They stripped her to one sentence and went back to their crossfire circus. Ratings above reality.
ReplyDeleteTo those people who are seeing a diferent video than the Levi/Bristol custody one, I don't know what to say.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like it is a problem with Internet Explorer. I also see a different video in that browser.
I have embedded the video three times now, and it works for a while in IE, but then it seems to randomly choose a different video. I don't think I have ever seen this happen before.
It still works fine in Firefox and Google Chrome.
By the way if you click the title it will take you to the MSNBC page where you can still watch the video regardless of which browser you are using.
ReplyDeleteAnon 4:35: Pls say more. I don't get it.
ReplyDeleteYea, what's with the comment about Tripp not being Bristol's but that Trig is?
ReplyDeleteAmy asked: "Anon 4:35: Pls say more. I don't get it."
ReplyDeleteWhat's so difficult about what I said Amy? Trig is Bristol's baby and she only has one of them so far. Tripp, or more correctly, the one that is being passed off as Tripp is not a Palin baby. Get it now?
OT ... but I may not be able to post tonite, but will be here reading, Happy New Year Gryphen. Thank you for all you do, and all that you are. Thanks to being there for all of 2009, I plan to be here on this blog for 2010. Namaste. Daisydem
ReplyDeleteAnon @9:44--
ReplyDeleteSo you think that Bristol is going to court for custody of a baby that she was never pregnant with (Tripp), but led Levi to believe she was? Wouldn't that be a little hard to pull off, given that Levi stayed with the Palins and was part of the scene most of the time she would have been faking a pregnancy?
Trigg is...and...Tripp is NOT????
ReplyDelete"Oh what a tangled webb we weave"
Lord have mercy...I can't keep up.
DNA DNA DNA DNA...Please
I'd like to share an article about the mother of a Down syndrome baby who's a truly loving, contributing, and selfless individual, both to her family and to society: Tracy Kachtick-Anders:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.examiner.com/x-2696-Sacramento-Arts--Entertainment-Examiner~y2009m10d14-Artist-writer-inventor-doula-Meet-Tracy-KachtickAnders-lesbian-single-mother-of-6-children
As opposed to Sarah Palin, who exemplifies malice, greed, and selfishness.
(Ms. Kachtick-Anders happens to be in the news today because of her relationship with Rosie O'Donnell. Somehow I don't think being thrust into the national limelight will have a detrimental impact on this particular lady.)
Anon @ 11:43- No, you still have it all wrong. You've followed false leads and now you are confused. Bristol is the mother of Trig and that is the baby the battle will be about. Bristol is not the mother of Tripp, or at least the baby they call Tripp in public. And don't wonder about the staged shots of Bristol and Levi with Tripp, they are all staged too.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, don't look forward to a public custody battle in court. If it's not private it won't happen. It can't obviously can it!
Anon9:44 -- No, I don't get it yet.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying Tripp is an adopted baby? That Bristol was not pregnant (except with Trig)? Or not pregnant with Tripp?
Or are you saying Tripp does not exist -- that the People cover and the Tripp who was showed off on the MSNBC interview, sleeping -- or drugged -- in Bristol's lap is a fake?
I could believe anything at this point. But I'm not understanding what you're saying.
I see your point,though, about "there will never be a public custody battle." You're the first one I've seen say that, and it makes perfect sense.
A baby exists which appears to be Tripp but isn't Tripp. So no, Tripp does not exist.
ReplyDeleteYou asked: "Are you saying Tripp is an adopted baby?"
Nope, not adopted. Loaned, as needed.
"That Bristol was not pregnant (except with Trig)?"
Yep, that's what I'm saying.
"Or not pregnant with Tripp?"
Nope, never was.
Anon4:15 -- Thx for answering! Yes, "loaned" has occurred to me.
ReplyDeleteBut how do you explain Bristol signing a legal document (the one on the web) saying Tripp has a Dec 2008 birthday. That would be perjury. Jailtime. For the lawyer, too.
If the custody trial is about Trig, are you saying the DS baby we know as Trig is really named Tripp? But the DS baby was born so much earlier than that stated Dec 2008 birthday.
Why do you think Trig is not an applicant for the PDF money?
I still don't understand anything. Help some more, please. Do you know whether Dar was involved in any way?
To: Anon 4:15 PM
ReplyDeleteWhat you have posted confirms what I have thought since Feb., 2008. There is a post I made to that effect here on Gryphen's blog.
However, it was just intuition on my part and the way certain facts added up for me. You sound like you know, for sure, what you are saying.
If so, can you tell us when Trig was born? I've always thought Bristol carried him to full term and gave birth on 4-18-08. Is this correct?
A lot of bloggers think Trig was born the end of Dec., 2007 or Jan., 2008. This confused me because Bristol was out-of-sight until the end of April.
Do you know for sure Levi is the father?
If you are for real, this information would be invaluable.
Thanks, and I'll look forward to a response!
Ginger
4-18-08 is spot on and Levi is the father. I have no way of knowing if he was full term or not. There's no reason to suspect that he was not. The legal papers have been tampered with. NO fraud charges will be laid. No public custody battle will ever take place.
ReplyDeleteOh what a tangled web they've weaved, When first they practiced to deceive!
Can you give us any way to connect what you say to a verifyable fact? Otherwise, it could just be your opinion, and we sure have enough opinions floating around.
ReplyDeleteLike why is neither baby on the PFD application list? (T2 not existing would be a good reason!) HOW do you know 4-18-08 is correct? HOW do you know Levi is the father of T1? "Legal papers tampered with" seems like a given, but how do you know that?
It just dawned on me that lying to initiate a case that one then withdraws (intended to withdraw all along) might not be a legal problem. Perjury might not apply if the case goes nowhere.
I sure would like to hear more -- if you do actually know more.
Trust your own judgement. This will not be broken open to the public because nobody cares all that much but those close enough to see the truth will witness it when Bristol comes out of hiding. They have manufactured a story that can't be kept up forever because the baby they call Tripp can't continue to be produced forever. But don't worry about Sarah Palin ever having a political career in the future. She has created too much dirty laundry for herself now.
ReplyDeleteThat's all I have to say about it. You're on your own to sleuth it out if you care that much.
Gryphen,
ReplyDeleteCan we get any comment from you on these very mysterious comments from Anon?
Well actually I have hesitated to weigh in on this, but I guess I do need to say something.
ReplyDeleteWhat has been said here is very close to the truth as I know it, but there are a few details left out.
I have received some interesting news recently. Some in complete opposition to what I have heard in the past, and some which reinforces it. I am trying now to find out who is telling the truth and who is lying. Believe me this is no mean feat.
However I will also say that I think our friend Sarah has recently put a lot of effort into throwing me off of the scent.
By the way, if ANYBODY wants to e-mail me with some real evidence, eyewitness reports, or even gossip I would be interested in hearing it. You can e-mail me at gryphen2009@yahoo.com
To: Anon 9:20 PM
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time and responding to my request!
Since I have felt so strongly that Bristol was not PG a second time, and have tried to convey this with little success, I believe what you say. For over a year, I have read, studied, searched...and have found nothing to make me believe otherwise.
Of course, you know, others will question what you say and that will be their right. We will just have to wait until the truth finally comes out.
What baffles me is how people on "Team Levi" can't see that he is as involved as the rest. On T.V., in news articles, he has been Sarah's staunchest supporter of her many lies.
And this latest fiasco of a law suit? Of course, they all want it public! Just think of the publicity and in the end...they will settle "amicably," out of court, before it ever comes to trial.
Again, thanks for sharing!
Ginger
Gryphen,
ReplyDeleteThank you for weighing in on this. Good luck on the search for truth. Be very careful, we worry about you.
Anon@1:36 -- Well I hate to say you sure are right that MANY people don't care enough for this to be solved in any easy way. Or at all. I see evidence of people not caring about it every day.
ReplyDeleteAnd I appreciate your posts. I also respect your wish to stay out of it. I would do the same if I would put my family in any jeopardy for speaking out -- as it seems people in the know do feel. And with good reason, from my view from over here, where it's safe.
If you can comment on the following in any way, I sure would appreciate it. If T2 does not exist, I am now thinking that this whole elaborate custody suit was a sham intended to "document" the existence of T2. If that is correct, the custody suit would have been initiated with the intent to let it lapse after it leaked into the press (if the confidentiality cloak had been granted), or once it hit the press when the anon request was denied. With this scenario, the fake Twitter would have been put in by design, so it would be "discovered" and reported on, for wider coverage, which further plants the idea that T2 exists. The T2 Dec 08 birth date (sworn, but a lie) doesn't matter if the case is withdrawn. Is it perjury if there's no case, the case is withdrawn? I don't know (and would love a lawyer to weigh in on this). But that all DOES serve to establish the Dec 2008 birthday of T2 in the public consciousness, and thus the idea that he exists. (Yes, Ginger, an out-of-court settlement that again suggests that T2 exists.)
Again, following the idea that there is no T2 (an idea that was discussed a lot over at Palin Deception in the months after the T2 pregnancy was announced, and certainly explains the shape-shifting "pregnancy body" of Bristol), I suppose one could say that this charade served its purpose by "proving" that Bristol could not have given birth to T1 (and thus T1 must have been SP's pregnancy, a proof that the world at large accepted [in all its illogicalness!] but that us tin-hat bloggers never did).
So having served its purpose (complete with the birth-pix-for-money brouhaha in Dec 08, fake People cover pix, and MSNBC interview with borrowed baby drugged in Bristol's lap), I suppose the only next thing is to have the nonexistent T2 "die," right? No need for the charade anymore. Closure. And everyone can pursue other interests now. As Bristol would have been doing already, while T1 is being mishandled on the book tour and T2 not existing.
But what about T1?
But that still leaves Levi wanting to co-parent somebody -- T1? (whether he is the bioDad or has just fallen in love with him) -- or does it? You said Levi's photo ops with T2 were with a borrowed baby too? So he is in on this part of the deception? Was he coerced?
I'm trying to think what Bristol might be revealing to us if we watch closely enough? The staged death of the nonexistent T2? The open acknowledgment that she is T1's bioMom? Surely not the circumstances of SP starting the hoax? That would be too big a scandal for Bristol to initiate.
Gryphen -- I bet you know about the letter over at mudflats. is that related to this? This scenario would answer why no babies as applicants for the PDF -- T2 does not exist, T1's birth cert is so tampered with that it would not stand scrutiny.
Anon: can you give us one more hint? Were the fires (Dar's, church) related to this, in your opinion?
And yes, a few details left out. Like why the hoax, exactly? Why was the teen preg seen as so shameful THEN, but not at the RNC convention?
I still don't get it.
I can't see Mercede and her mom going on TV and participating in a 'fake baby story' insofar as Tripp is concerned, complete with pics and declarations of love.
ReplyDeleteYou can't just 'borrow' a baby with the expectation that this baby will be available for the long term!
And you can't just decide one day that he 'died' either! That makes no sense.
We are talking about a HUMAN BEING here, not a fur coat or a sports car! Once he exists, he exists and making him 'un-exist' would be nearly impossible! You know, the authorities kinda want a BODY to go along with a DEATH CERTIFICATE ... Even Sarah could't manage to fake the death of someone who never existed! A body is necessary to 'fake a death' .. it's 2010 here, people.
For all we know, this Anonymous is a Palinbot, or Van Flein or a bored teenager having some fun on the internet... what he/she is saying is just too far-fatched and impossible to execute to be believed.
Even for Sarah!
I completely and fully believe the story put out here by the anonymous poster here. When I read this unfolding as Audrey was figuring it out I felt it to be the most logical and believable explanation. So it was dangerous enough to someone to threaten her - please everyone be careful. Although I too want to know why the hoax? Why was a pregancy not okay for the first baby but okay to put a young girl in front of the entire country exhibiting (literally) a lie?
ReplyDeleteI'm not buying this at all. T2 LOOKS like Bristol. Assuming they could find some palinbot or cousin who would loan them a baby periodically...what are the chances that he would look exactly like Bristol?!
ReplyDeleteThis is a smokescreen to make us look like crazy way out there bloggers.
There is no way that high profile attorneys would file a fake case (even with the intent to withdraw it) -- they could be disbarred.
NO WAY.
"the Tripp who was showed off on the MSNBC interview, sleeping -- or drugged -- in Bristol's lap is a fake?"
ReplyDeleteWHAT WAS THAT THING?
That is one mystery I want solved. A doll or a drugged baby?
The Johnston's would have noticed if a living child of theirs was in that state. I believe when they act like caring people. There is something very wrong with their no response to that dead looking baby.
PLEASE WATCH THAT WHOLE VIDEO AGAIN.
If that was your family what would you do? We don't know what all makes the Johnston's tick. If at that time they believed Tripp, T2, was theirs they should have jumped through fire to help their beloved child.
We know that did not happen. What is the story with the drugged baby or was it a fake?
I think that is an important video.
We need answers. Or a child is in desperate need of help. Is MSNBC in on the fraud/abuse or did they never see "Tripp" awake?
Amy1, lawyer weighing in to answer your question: Yes, it would still perjury to make a knowingly false sworn statement. It is not an element of the crime of perjury to obtain a certain result, and it would not matter whether or not the lawsuit/affidavit is settled or withdrawn. Perjury is an offense against the public and the administration of justice, not any private individuals involved in a lawsuit. And any attorney involved in such a knowing fraud could be disbarred and possibly prosecuted for conspiracy to commit perjury. To believe there's no Tripp born on 12/27/09 I think you'd also have to believe BP was willing to perjure herself and that her lawyer was willing not only to help her do so, but to predicate a lawsuit on statements any idiot lawyer would have to know were false.
ReplyDeleteT1 and T2 could be on the PFD application documents under their real (legal) names.
ReplyDeleteThis is what I have come to believe about SP. She is an impulsive sociopathic narcissist and will defend herself just like a grizzly will defend itself. She craves gratification of any need or desire and aggressively pursues it. She lies with abandon, about everything, even in the face of wide acknowledgement that her words are lies. Think about her repeated campaign speeches.
ReplyDeleteI am of the opinion that anything is possible with SP. She does not strategize and develop tactics to achieve a goal. She impulsively divines a way forward to get what she wants. God's grace is all she needs, and she is convinced she has that.
She will relentlessly bully any and all in her path to achieve her immediate desires. Bullying a tired and scared 17 and 18 year old can't be too hard for a pro like SP.
The consequences will be dealt with when and if they occur. If the T1 minus T2 saga is at the core of babygate, it started without any long range plan or logical consideration of its consequences. SP only looked for short term satiation of her deep desire to be the next "Mrs. America".
I actually think that this scheme, while sad and crazy, could be where we now find the family Palin and the family Johnston. Levi would have to star in a leading role. That I find sad.
Sherry may just know what she has been told. Remember, she conveniently went to jail at the time T2 was reportedly born. There is too much discussion about the circumstances leading up to her arrest and Bristol's role in that to disregard the convenience of having Granny Johnston in jail. Sherry being set up and hauled off to jail is a consequence that was effectively dealt with. See, no need to worry about things that haven't happened yet, there is always a way.
Sadie was unfriended by Bristol and her group. Sadie would only know what she was told. If she thinks T2 is her nephew, of course she would love him and miss him even if she only spent a little time with him.
What Rex and Van Flein may know about any of this is a big question and makes for a very untidy loose end at this point. I can't believe 2 lawyers would permit perjury. Begs the question of what they know.
Bad feelings about all of this. When will it all end.
I'm a little late to this discussion, because I didn't know of the Anon poster @ 4:35 PM/9:44 AM etc. until reading at BreePalin a bit ago.
ReplyDeleteIF this Anon poster is legit, then he/she just confirmed what I thought I saw in mid-October 2008 in the Sarah-Trig-and-Bristol-shopping-at-Walmart video -- that is, even though Bristol was wearing a formfitting top and cardigan, it looked to me like she was wearing the once-before-used empathy belly.
That would certainly explain the unusually small "5 months pregnant" belted stomach Bristol displayed on the tarmac at the Minneapolis airport, too.
And the other possibility that had occurred to me -- that a second baby had/has been borrowed from time to time to make the infrequent appearances Bristol has made since the RNC in fall 2008 -- is not only confirmed by Anon's assertions, but I might expand on it.
I'll bet the rest of you (who are buying into Anon's suggestions, anyway) have realized that not just ONE other baby "Tripp" has been borrowed from time to time.
The Palins, no doubt, have a veritable HARVEST of babies they can use for photo ops for "Tripp", both from their huge extended family full of fertile women, but also from friends who are like thinkers to the Palins.
A couple more thoughts/questions.
ReplyDeleteI remember some controversy about the campaign's announcement that Bristol was pregnant. Something to do with which version of the release went to the press. That is not really important.
Gryphen, do you know when Bristol and Levi found out about the "pregnancy"? Was it before or after the announcement was already made. I recall the stories of Levi being in the woods, hunting and the urgent need to get him back.
I also recall some discussion of one reason Bristol would not let Levi have his "kid" and that was because she did not want him to be photographed. That never made sense to me, since the Palins periodically released/sold photos.
Last thought, there has been discussion on various blogs following certain picture releases of Tripp questioning who that baby is, he does not look like Tripp.
When the anon poster said the borrowing of the baby was not sustainable, my thought was it meant that as babies mature they become more instantly uniquely recognizable and thus not interchangeable, even though there might be a lot of available babies.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way that T(2) could "die". If the baby were from "Natural causes" then people would scream for a coroners report and 911 tapes.
ReplyDeleteBaby is too old for CIDS, and any heart problems or other congenital defect would have been discovered already during regular baby check ups. If Bristol had not been doing those then that could lead into "unnatural causes" and neglect of a child charges.
If the baby "died" of unnatural causes, then that would mean someone had to be responsible for his death. Possible jail time.
If there were a kidnapping, a ransom paid and a baby that was "never found". There would always be "hope" and the Church could rally around Sarah and her family for support and strength. Pee-ers would be literally Peeing them selfs to PROVE it had to be a "someone who reads THOSE bloggers".
Sarah could raise fund raisers to add to the "ransom" and later to the "reward" money. Sarah would add another "feel sorry for me, but look! I can carry on and be a PATRIOT too!" feather in her hat, right next to Trig, religion, teabaggers, right to life etc feathers.
No pesky questions like "where's the body", "how and whys of death", everyone is off the hook except for some "unknown kidnapper". All questions about bristol being the mom to T(1) will stop as everyone will feel so sorry for poor Bristol, her precious son is missing...And if you DARE question Bristol about T(1) then you are just heartless...
Looks like kidnapping is the way T(2) will disappear....
Personally, I am still a believer in Bristol being the Mother pf both T1 and T2....
For the record, I'm with Archivist1000 and Leadfoot on this one. Anonymous poster is having himself or herself or themselves a big old laugh right now.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way Sherry Johnston, having been thrown in jail with the worst sentence she could get, or Mercede or Levi with their mom having been in jail, no way would they continue to perpetrate such a hoax. To what end would they do it? What possible motivation would they have to maintain such an enormous lie when the truth would serve them so much better? And all this talk of borrowed babies? Now we're asking other parents, not to mention aunts, uncles, siblings, grandparents of the borrowed babies to participate and keep quiet? And then there's Rex Butler and Van Flea and Tank. They are also willing participants and keeping quiet about a huge hoax?
Nonsense. Not buying it.
ltl
Hey KaJo, or anyone else who can point me to the link: I'm blown away by this discussion and Anon's and Gryf's input, but I somehow missed the mysterious letter on Mudflats. Can anyone help me by pointing me to the right post?
ReplyDeleteMany thanks, and I'll check back tomorrow (Sun) as it's after midnight here in SC.
Melangell Mudpuppy
Of course we all wonder if the poster anon was real or fake. But Patrick confirmed the general direction.
ReplyDeleteSo since the suit can't be private, and won't happen if public (per anon), how can the suit be about T1? How, in any case, can one switch babies in a suit, esp a baby who is as recognizable as T1?
I agree, you can't kill off a non-existent child: there has to be a death certificate. Maybe CBJ can sign it! (put happy face here.)
But if T2 does not exist, I bet Bristol esp would be tired of the charade and want out. But then I think of the v personal and sweet things she said about T2, and I can't believe he was a fiction. No, anon had to be a troll. But then what about Patrick's comments?
I still don't get it.
Borrowing babies? No way. With all of this kind of discussion on these various sites, get ready for Bristol to make an appearance with the baby they call Tripp. The idea that even Sarah Palin could be stupid enough to think they could get away with using multiple fake babies for Bristol, and then toddlers, and then children (!!??), is truly bizarre. Where is this idea coming from at this point in time? I think I have missed something.
ReplyDeleteAnon6:57 -- thx for good legal input. But let's say there is no T2, and we know they started this suit, and now if they withdraw it, who would take action to enact consequences for lying to the court?
ReplyDeleteIt's almost the same qu as If SP hoaxed a nation, who would take action to enact appropriate consequences? (So far, the answer is: no one.) Ditto for the medical letter: if it's a fake, how does that turn into something for which there are legal consequences (since so far here have been none).
I hope there are no mad cloning scientists in this theory. One of the dolls could turn into Chuckie. Sarah gave Tripp a life in hell no matter what the truth. Both parents have the responsibility to fight for the whole truth to come out. Anything else will damn any child connected to this.
ReplyDeleteGryphen, is the anonymous poster everyone is talking about someone you know or is s/he truly anonymous?
ReplyDeleteThe reason I am entertaining this bizarre "no T2" scenario is because:
ReplyDelete1. A poster suggested it. See Anon @ 4:35, 9:44, 1:36.
2. Gryphen @ 4:04 supports the general direction. That's pretty big.
3. The PFD applicant list does not show the name of Trig or Tripp Palin in 2008, nor Trig in 2007. If T2 does not exist, that would explain it. T1 having a messed up birth certificate would explain him, I guess.
4. Bizarre as this idea is, it is no less so than my first lightbulb re SP's supposed pregnancy -- that too seemed miles beyond the pale, but obviously not beyond the Palin. But none of us knew that yet.
I agree -- this is very nutty.
The thing is, if anyone ever comes forward with something important to ell us, it will be something like this, and at least we can hear the anon poster out, listen politely, think it over -- without losing a body part over it. If it turns out to be a troll playing a joke, it's not the end of the world.
ReplyDeleteNo need to label everyone a troll who is not exactly in synch with our prevailing thinking.
ltl -- re multiple people keeping quiet about a huge hoax. I thought that was unlikely, too. At first.
ReplyDeleteForget T2. Think only of SP: does anyone reading these blogs think it possible that McCain, his staff, SP's backers, the Harper-Collins staff, and MANY MSM reporters are unaware of the photos on these sites? I would bet the mortgage that they read them or hear the main points from staff or each other. It's plain as day from the flat-profile pix: SP was not pregnant with Trig, she hoaxed a nation.
This makes a LOT of people keeping quiet about a hoax. If they all can, why not believe that family members and supporters would not also be able to keep quiet, only more so.
Emperor's clothes! Where is a child when you need one! (But don't make Levi do all the heavy lifting, please.)
I didn't know that Bristol was "in hiding". It is true we haven't seen her for awhile. What teenager would pass up a trip to Hawaii?
ReplyDeleteWhen is she coming out Anon?
If any of this new info is true, that would explain why Levi didn't file for custody on his own.
I do like the thought of SP not having a political future due to "dirty laundry".
It would also explain the early release of her book.
I'm confused, I think that is what SP wants.
I'm sorry to say, but Gryphen's endorsement of any particular timeline of events isn't exactly iron-clad, in my book. Sorry, Gryphen, it just seems like you get as much conflicting information as the next guy, all your inside sources notwithstanding. Can someone remind me of what the PDF application is? Would Tripp being born out of state have any impact on this? Or, I'd even entertain the notion that Bristol faked the second pregnancy (so far-fetched, as if SP would willingly share this with the world, for no apparent reason!). So maybe this second baby was adopted from out of state? Would this have any bearing on this PDF thing? Or, rather, what if the baby they call Tripp is truly the son of Bristol, but ANOTHER father - not Levi. So they yet again have a situation where they don't want to reveal the truth about a baby's parentage or real date of birth, or at least they don't want to risk extra scrutiny, calls for DNA tests, etc. I think poor neglected oldest daughter Bristol has found comfort in a lot of places, not to mention satisfied her need (understandable) to rebel against her mother, and father.
ReplyDeleteAmy1, you asked "let's say there is no T2, and we know they started this suit, and now if they withdraw it, who would take action to enact consequences for lying to the court?" and analogized this to SP's having "hoaxed a nation" and the medical letter.
ReplyDeleteBetween criminal violations and civil wrongs there's actually a huge distinction both in who has standing to seek redress and what the potential penalties are.
Using your examples, there's no cause of action I can see see for any baby-related hoax or fraud upon the general public. There would have to be actual individualized damage to identifiable victims for them to seek redress. If the doctor's letter was fraudulent and there is or was a complaint, the upshot likely has been or will be between her and her licensing board. I can't see any crime that could have been charged against the doctor based on that letter.
I suppose the most one could say is that legions of individuals who actually gave gifts to a baby under false pretenses might have be victims of a scheme to defraud, but I don't see prosecutors rushing in to bring that kind of case.
However, if your premise is that there is no T2 and the case is withdrawn, then we are still talking about a crime for which someone could go to prison. If in fact it were proved there was no T2, the judge presiding over the case is among those who can refer the matter to prosecutors.
If within the substantial statute of limitations for bringing a perjury case it is publicly proved that there is no T2, or that the sworn birthdate was false, I think it likely that the prosecuting authorities in that jurisdiction would not need a referral for investigation from the court.
In addition, surely both parents of the child whose custody is at issue must know full well what the true birthdate is? Given that, a plaintiff who lied about the birthdate when she filed would be handing an easy knock-out punch to her adversary, and that makes no sense. Especially if someone were castigating my client's mother for being a convicted felon while her very affidavit of jurisdiction rested on easily-proven felonious perjury, I think my client would be pretty quick to support moving for sanctions, dismissal, a decree granting him enforceable visitation and at minimum joint custody, and a referral for criminal investigation of the plaintiff.
That's what makes it hard for me to believe an adult woman would perjure herself about Tripp's date of birth. So the question for me is where this all goes assuming Tripp's sworn birthdate is accurate?
Okay, I'm becoming convinced by this borrowed baby scenario for a few reasons.
ReplyDelete1. My guess is the McCain campaign didn't have a clue about the faked pregnancy. McCain looked elated after SP's acceptance speech, but after some of the dirt started flying, the guy looked bad to me---like he was going to have a stroke or something. What if McCain et al, demanded to see T1's birth certificate. Sarah can't produce it, of course. So, the next best thing is to find a way to quash the rumor and save her spot on the ticket. She manufactures the story that Bristol is pregnant without much forethought as to how it will play out. The McCain campaign goes along with it because the other scenario will surely do him in.
2. Sarah knows she is running on borrowed time (or borrowed babies), so she resigns in an effort to cash in quickly on what she has going.
2. Audrey's Palin Deception blog got shut down after she started to question Bristol's strange pregnancy progression with T2. Sarah can't let Audrey get to the truth before her book deal is inked, which leads to the haste of getting it out.
What I can't figure out is the Johnston's connection with T2. Does Levi really think the baby is his? Is that why Bristol doesn't want him taking photos of T2? In case the baby swap will be noticed?
What we need to do is start keeping track of all of the photos of Bristol and the babies and do a side-by-side comparison of T2. Also, to check out the body language of Bristol to see if she behaves more maternally toward T1 than T2.
Amy
Amy1, just to clarify my remark about prosecutors not needing any referral to get a criminal prosecution going if there were public proof there is no T2 (or the worn birthdate is false)....
ReplyDeleteIn that event all a prosecutor would have to do for a perjury indictment would be to bring appropriate keepers of records before a grand jury and ask them each one question.
For the keeper of the family court's records:
"Is this a true and accurate record of BP's affidavit of jurisdiction in Palin v. Johnston?"
For the keeper of records of live birth:
"Is this a true and accurate record of the certificate of live birth for the child (for whose custody Ms. Palin swore out a certificate of jurisdiction)?"
The fact is that BP signed that affidavit. So while there's certainly cause to believe someone else in her immediate family may not be averse to perjury (either that, or Mr. Monaghan perjured himself given directly competing factual testimony in the Troopergate inquiries), is there a basis to find it plausible that BP would commit easily-provable perjury (at very least, easily provable by the person she put in the position of having to defend this lawsuit) in seeking custody of her baby?
No Amy1, that's not right. It simply means that Bristol will eventually need to lead a normal life and her child will have to play in it's own yard, be taken to kindergarten, etc.
ReplyDeleteThere will be no dying babies and I never suggested anything so ridiculous. Be diligent of people jumping to false conclusions or perhaps adding their own obfurcations.
The lawyer is obviously correct. Now consider this: Sarah Palin was not pregnant with Trig and we all know that. If anyone doubts falsifying documents then they don't understand the magnitude of the deception which was (maybe is) coming to light on the leftist blogs.
Just want to point out that Amy1 (me) and Amy (above) are not the same person. Not that I disagree with the Amy@9:00AM post -- in fact, I agree with all but the last paragraph. I personally have no energy for that.
ReplyDeleteAnon 7:28AM. The PFD is that Alaskan Fund where everyone who is breathing, can show a birh certificate, AND who applies gets a check. The 6 Palins (and other Palins) are on the 2008 applicant list, but neither baby is -- leaving money on the table. Of course they could have secret anyonymous names. But not existing would be one reason to be off the list, and having a messed-up birth cert would be another.
ReplyDeleteJust one more odd data point.
Thx anon8:25AM. I too have concluded (without a legal education) that so long as CBJ keeps her head down, she is off the hook for the medical letter, esp if SP herself wrote it or altered something CBJ wrote. The most convincing thing (to me) our anon poster said was that if the suit can't be non-public, it won't happen. Too much potential for dirty-laundry details to emerge. No one else has made that point. But all the rest is still a huge jumble for me.
ReplyDeleteGotcha Gryphen! You'll learn how shortly, if you haven't already. But that was not my intention to begin with. You'll read all about that too.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm supposing that Bree will leave it posted but if not she will have the courtesy of informing you.
Have a nice blogging year and here's hoping that you can still keep all the people on the hook!
Love, Anon.
I completely applaud and sympathize with everyone's efforts to turn over every stone, to think outside the box and all, but I just can't believe this borrowed baby idea. I think other wild amazing stories may be possible, but I do think there are 2 babies, both connected at least to either Levi or Bristol, or both, in some way. There is just no possible way the Palin family could maintain such a ruse, for many reasons. Just my opinion, of course.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that could be possible, however: at one point or another during these past few years when the Palins needed to present the babies as being a certain age and/or size, they may have used a "borrowed" baby. But, not now, and not for the long term. I believe there are two babies, both related to at least some of the principal players in this tale.
ReplyDeleteHi! Great topic, but will this really work?
ReplyDeleteInteresting article you got here. I'd like to read something more about that theme. Thanks for posting this material.
ReplyDelete