Bristol Palin and the custody trial: Interested in confidentiality, or hypocrisy as usual? Part 2 - UPDATE

This is a follow-up to a previous post, "Bristol Palin and the custody trial: Interested in confidentiality, or hypocrisy as usual?".

Our friend Older_Wiser had a closer look at all three pdf documents of Bristol's motion for child support and noticed something curious: the documents received by Riehl and ET Online, with time stamps, were created after the document was filed at 4:03 pm on January 21, 2010.

(Date and time stamps on Riehl and ET Online documents)

The TMZ document was created at 14:49 by "chelsea" on January 21 and modified on the same date at 18:28. It has no time stamp. This information can be obtained by right clicking on the pdf and looking at the document properties.

Therefore, the pdf document that TMZ had posted was created before it was filed with the court more than one hour later on January 21!

(No time stamp on TMZ document)

How come TMZ were the only recipients of a document without a time stamp, created before the filing? Who had access to this document before it was filed? Who sent it to TMZ? There are a few possibilities.

1. Thomas Van Flein - All documents contained in the pdf: motion, letter to Rex Butler, Bristol's affidavit and the wishful thinking approval of the motion originated from Van Flein's office, they were all typed by somebody in that office.
2. The Palins - They could have received a copy for approval before the actual filing.
3. The Notary Public, Chelsea Greene - Is "chelsea", creator of the document, a random Chelsea who works for TMZ (highly unlikely) or is she Chelsea Greene, the notary public who seems to work closely together with Van Flein ? TMZ's pdf is covered in their watermark, possibly added at 18:28, when the document was altered, according to the properties of the document.
4. Rex Butler - His office did receive a copy, but it was sent by first class mail, not electronically. We don't know how long it takes for first class mail to be delivered in Anchorage. The TMZ article was posted on January 22, at 8 am (7 am in Alaska). CORRECTION: The article in TMZ was posted already on January 22 at 2.00 am, see the update below!

Two of these people don't appear to have an interest in sending the document to TMZ: Chelsea Greene, who has nothing to gain and lot to lose by doing so, unless she has a close connection to Van Flein's office? Rex Butler, who wouldn't have sent it to people who had been hostile to Levi in previous articles and doesn't appear to have had time to do it, unless Van Flein's office sent another copy by e-mail on the same day the papers were filed. Still, it wouldn't have been in his client's best interests. In addition, Rex hadn't even written a response to Van Flein's motion.

That leaves Thomas Van Flein or somebody from his office and the Palins.

+++

UPDATE:

carriesblank sent us a correction regarding the time TMZ published the document:

Just one correction. TMZ first posted these docs on Jan. 22 somewhere around 2:00 a.m. not 8:00. eastern time. I saw the post about 3:00 am and sent you and Bree the link around 3:30 a.m. The 8:00 that TMZ has on the post now is because they updated the post with Tank Jones comments.

Thank you for the clarification, carriesblank. This information and series of events clearly rules out Rex Butler as a candidate for the leak.
.

Bristol Palin and the custody trial: Interested in confidentiality, or hypocrisy as usual?

Reading the far right-wing blogs sometimes has its merits. It's not always fun to read the moronic drivel of the right-wing fringe, but sometimes there are some nuggets hidden for you.

One of my regular reads is the blog of the right-wing nutcase Dan Riehl, who once unsuccessfully in a major effort tried to smear Gryphen from Immoral Minority, publishing for example private details of Gryphen as well as the contact details of his (former) employer.

Dan Riehl considers himself to be a "supporter of Sarah Palin". Interestingly, he recently had an argument with the folks from C4P because their fanatic pro-Palin approach was even too much for Dan Riehl.

So I read Dan Riehl's recent post with the inconspicuous title "Doc Drop: Bristol Palin's Motion For Child Support" which he posted on January 22, 2010 at 02.00 PM EST. The post reads:

Doc Drop: Bristol Palin's Motion For Child Support

The link below is a pdf copy of Bristol Palin's motion for support.

Download Conformed Motion for Interim Child Support

Screenshot:



So far, so good. TMZ and ET Online had also both reported about this latest development in the custody case on January 22 and had made these new documents available for download, therefore I didn't expect to read anything new.

However, in the comments of this post, there was a surprise:

In the first comment, Dan Riehl was attacked for posting this information. A commenter wrote:

This is pathetic. What is the point? Bristol Palin is a private citizen, not a political figure.
Disgusting, Dan. Absolutely disgusting.
Posted by: Thomas Friday, January 22, 2010 at 02:10 PM

...to which Dan Riehl, who doesn't like it to be attacked, responded a few minutes later:

You people have no clue. You think I drove to Alaska for that? Hmm? Geesh. Idiots.
And btw, it isn't a private document, it's public. And it demonstrates that the $ request is in accordance with existing law. It's a formula, not some number made up out of whole cloth. If you think this is being posted to hurt Bristol, you are a fool.
Some of you see the name Palin and lose your heads.
Posted by: Dan Riehl Friday, January 22, 2010 at 02:18 PM

However, the commenter didn't let go and answered:

I didn't say it was a private document, you moron. I said Bristol is a private citizen. She's not a political figure.
Posted by: Thomas Friday, January 22, 2010 at 04:09 PM

Dan Riehl clearly doesn't like being called a "moron", and in his anger he then let something slip which is very revealing indeed - and someting he probably should have kept for himself:

And I'm saying someone wanted it posted, so you're an idiot for criticizing me.
Posted by: Dan Riehl Friday, January 22, 2010 at 04:24 PM

Screenshot:



So, Dan - "someone wanted it posted"? Was this maybe the "someone" who recently in a frantic effort tried to keep the custody proceedings confidential? And who now might give documents to the press when it suits him in order to make good publicity for Bristol Palin?

Let me rephrase this question:

Did you receive your information from this guy, who fights for Sarah Palin...



...or from this guy, who is kept busy fighting against Sarah Palin, and about whose client Levi Johnston you recently said: "Time for Levi to pay up and find out what being a parent really means, as opposed to just cashing in while abandoning your kid? Hey, he can always sell the pick up truck"?


I have seen more difficult questions before.

Because it must have been one of the two, as the time stamp on your posted documents proves - the motion was filed only on the previous day, on January 21, 2010. You posted the documents already on the next day, and as you said, you didn't even have to fly to Alaska to get them!

In addition, Dan, I couldn't see the particular time stamp which was included on YOUR documents...



...on any of the other documents that were posted online (on TMZ or ET Online).

Which means you most likely received those documents "exclusively", am I correct?

Just asking questions, Dan, just asking questions! After all, Dan, you love this game yourself, don't you?
.