Category Archives: Citizen

Patrick Fitzgerald protects Obama, Rezko Blagojevich prosecution orchestrated delayed, John Thomas FBI mole, Chicago Tribune

Patrick Fitzgerald protects Obama, Rezko Blagojevich prosecution orchestrated delayed, John Thomas FBI mole, Chicago Tribune

From Illinois Pay To Play September 28, 2011.

“Patrick Fitzgerald: Intrepid Crime Fighter? Or, Politically-Driven Leaker?”

“Was Bernard Barton, Jr. relocated to Chicago on a mission to help
bring down Tony Rezko and, thereby, shield a young, articulate,
African-American politician from his potentially incriminating
associations with Rezko? Too conspiratorial, you say? Maybe. Maybe
not.

Let’s review the highlights of the Silent Mole, starting with an
admission from the Complicit Newspaper.

The Chicago Tribune identified Thomas as a Mole in this May 4, 2007,
article written by David Jackson.

John Thomas bought and sold downtown office buildings and helped other
property developers secure multimillion-dollar mortgage loans.

But the high-living dealmaker had a double life.

Thomas, who was convicted of federal business fraud in New York in
2004, has been serving as an undercover government mole in Chicago for
at least a year as part of an ongoing federal investigation into fraud
in the financing of large-scale commercial real estate deals, the
Tribune has learned.

Records made public so far do not identify the targets of the federal
probe and the FBI and US Attorney’s Office declined to comment for
this article.

That same May, a concerned citizen spoke on the phone with a
well-known Chicago Tribune reporter.  The concerned citizen was trying
to chase down information as to when the Tribune learned that John
Thomas was an FBI mole while working in Rezko’s office.  “Thomas” was
Barton’s new name in Chicago after being relocated from New York,
where he faced prosecution and eventual sentencing for fraud.  (The
complete story of Burton-Thomas is well documented and won’t be
rehashed here.)

The concerned citizen asked the reporter why the Trib had sat on the
Mole’s story since, at least, 2006.  That timeframe was implicitly
provided by the Trib reporter when stating that Patrick Fitzgerald
warned the paper, a year earlier in May 2006, that outing the Mole
would cause problems for the investigation and could prove dangerous
for Burton-Thomas.

Then, in a moment of indiscretion, the reporter added that Fitzgerald
told the Trib in May 2006 that identifying the mole could also
“influence the election.””

“Back when the Mole was entangled with the Eastern District of New
York, Patrick Fitzgerald was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the
adjacent Southern District.  The two would later rendezvous in
Chicago.

So, in February 2002, shortly after Burton-Thomas was relocated to
Chicago from the Big Apple, his nefarious past was outed by a Trib
reporter, but lacked any hint of his cooperation with the feds, nor
reference to his real name.”

“Now, jump ahead to February 2008. Sun-Times staff reporter David
Roeder elaborated on the Mole’s activity:

But sources said that, for more than two years when he was giving
information to agents, Thomas provided a fly-on-the-wall look inside
Rezko’s real estate operations and his desperate attempts to keep his
projects afloat.

Sources said Thomas also logged frequent visits to Rezko from Gov.
Blagojevich and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama​ (D-Ill.).Blagojevich and Obama
were among the many politicians for whom Rezko raised campaign cash.
Neither has been charged with any wrongdoing.

Thomas had good reason to help. He hopes to get probation for his own
felony fraud conviction in a New York case. And he said he wants to
redeem himself in the eyes of business associates and his family.

Sources said Thomas helped investigators build a record of repeat
visits to the old offices of Rezko and former business partner Daniel
Mahru’s Rezmar Corp., at 853 N. Elston, by Blagojevich and Obama
during 2004 and 2005…

Sources said the government had him wear a hidden wire to record
conversations with a Chicago alderman — but that he did not record
Blagojevich or Obama.

Why no recording of Blago and Obama?  Maybe because Blago had
notoriously loose lips and might say something that implicated the
Protected One, Obama.

One month later, in March 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama
was subjected to an underhand, slow-pitch softball interview by the
editorial board of the Sun Times. The transcript of the interview (no
longer available on line) includes this exchange:

Q: In November 2006, you and your campaign exchanged with us written
interrogatories. So a lot of the quotes I will give you just come out
of those. The campaign said that you probably had lunch with Rezko
once or twice a year. You sort of added four or five times, something
like that.

John Thomas is an FBI mole. He recently told us that he saw you coming
and going from Rezko’s office a lot. And three other sources told us
that you and Rezko spoke on the phone daily. Is that true?

A: (Obama) No. That’s not accurate…
John Thomas aka Bernard Barton
Okay, maybe the Mole misremembered.  A bad memory might explain why he
was never called by the USAO as a witness in the Rezko trial. Or,
perhaps, there was another reason.

On June 21, U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo sentenced John Thomas to
three years probation. His court records are sealed. His mission
accomplished.  And the extent of his subsequent success in Chicago
commercial real estate is displayed on his face today.”

Read more:

http://illinoispaytoplay.com

As most of you know, the Citizen Wells blog has stated that Patrick Fitzgerald has been protecting Obama for some time and should have prosecuted Blagojevich much sooner.

Patrick Fitzgerald is just as guilty of corruption as those he prosecutes. I could prove this in a court of law.

Thanks to commenter Whistleblower

Obama birth certificate, WhiteHouse.gov image, Howard Coble, Congress, Judiciary committee, Image phony?

Obama birth certificate, WhiteHouse.gov image, Howard Coble, Congress, Judiciary committee, Image phony?

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

Regarding Obama’s birth certificate and the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov.

 My position has been consistent since about mid 2008 when I began receiving disturbing questions about Obama’s birthplace, birth certificate and his eligibility deficiencies per the  Natural Born Citizen provision of the US Constitution. My biggest concerns were always and still are the character of Obama, what forces and Ideologies guide him and his hidden past and associations. I report on the birth certificate controversies and corruption ties in that context.

I have questioned the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov from the onset and continue to do so. However, my strongest argument and position on the topic is the following question. The question that should be shouted from the rooftops and I believe investigated by congress.

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

I received a response from Congressman Howard Coble regarding an email I provided on the Obama eligibility issues, birth certificate and corruption ties. It was respectfully written, but reveals the need to provide more information for Mr. Coble. Here are some exerpts:

“On April 27, 2011, President Obama presented a Certificate of Live Birth, which was issued by the State of Hawaii. Before seeing this document, many were growing deeply concerned about the possibility that President Obama was not a natural born citizen.

Since the release of the long-form birth certificate, we have received no other inquiries about the legitimacy of President Obama’s citizenship. To the best of our knowledge, President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth was legitimate and is demonstrative proof that he was born in Hawaii. I know you disagree with this statement.

All this being said, your hard work and resilient determination to reveal fraudulent dealings among those who hold the public trust is critical to our nation’s future. Even when the facts have not shown brightly on our political party, we have always supported efforts to reveal and address them as quicky as possible because elected officials should be held to a higher standard.”

First I will respond to the letter. Mr. Coble, not directed at you, but pardon my legalistic parsing of words and what may appear to be over analyzing on the surface, for we live in Orwellian times where each choice of word and subsequent words are chosen to misinform and confuse.

Mr. Coble, you stated:

“On April 27, 2011, President Obama presented a Certificate of Live Birth, which was issued by the State of Hawaii.”

1. WhiteHouse.gov presented a letter written by Barack Obama requesting certified copies of his certificate of live birth.

2. Judith L. Corley of Perkins Coie, the law firm which has assisted Obama in keeping his records hidden since 2008,  assisted Obama with this request.

3. Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of Health, stated that she is making an exception to departmental policy to accomodate Obama. Is that due to the third party, Ms. Corley acting as a go between?  We know that average citizens have obtained a certified copy of their original birth certificate from Hawaii.

4. What proof do we have that the image presented on WhiteHouse.gov is that image and that it is a legitimate certified copy?

Before getting into the facts, it is necessary to state the obvious. Barack Obama has continued to lie to the American public. One of the better examples is his denial of repeated contact with Tony Rezko in 2003 to 2005. Obama has also consistently shown a disregard for the US Constitution.

My response to the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov.

1. Aside from the Orwellian language used to convince the public, the image itself looked suspicious. It did not look like other certified copies from Hawaii.

2. Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of Health, stated that the copies are computer generated. I am an expert on computer business systems and have worked with many graphics formats, software applications as well as OCR. This was an immediate red flag. Computer generated can mean many things.

3. Since this involves the presidency of the US, and they were “making an exception,” why did they not copy and certify Obama’s birth certificate as they have done for average citizens?

4. Why did Major General Paul Vallely state that 10 ex CIA agents stated that the image was fraudulent?

5. Why did Jana Winter of Fox News misrepresent or lie about what a OCR expert stated about the image? The expert, Jean Claude Tremblay, has since criticized Winter and Fox for the misrepresentation.

6. World Net Daily, in the past week, has presented 2 high level experts. One has questioned the image. The last one, Mara Zebest, calls it a forgery.

Mr. Coble, thank you for your response and attention. I believe that you care deeply about this country and have honorable intentions. It is with that belief that I will endeavor to provide compelling evidence for your attention. As a starting point, I suggest you speak with retired Major General Paul Vallely.

Respectfully,
Citizen WElls

Supreme Court decision Bond v. United States, June 16, 2011, Tenth Amendment, Standing, Eligibility cases

Supreme Court decision Bond v. United States, June 16, 2011, Tenth Amendment, Standing, Eligibility cases

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”… Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury versus Madison

The SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the United States, provided a decision in Bond v. United States on June 16, 2011. The ruling addressed standing and the Tenth Amendment.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

10th Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Before accessing the impact of the ruling, especially regarding eligibility cases, the Citizen Wells blog will revisit some articles from 2008. It was apparent to us and many legal scholars that any citizen had standing to question the eligibility of Barack Obama, especially when many states indicated they had no authority or responsibility to do so. Per the Tenth Amendment, that gave the power to citizens.

It is also important to remember that the US Supreme Court did not render a decision on any eligibility case. It was lower courts that deemed that the plaintiffs had no standing.

From Citizen Wells  November 12, 2008.

To:

Justice Souter
Justice Thomas
US Supreme Court
Federal Judges
State judges
State election officials
Electoral College Electors      
US Citizens

The US Constitution must be upheld

US citizens have the right, the power and the duty to require proof of
eligibilty of presidential candidates

What I am about to write is so inherently simple and self evident,
that it may appear on the surface to be implausible. However, the
following facts and arguments flow from the founding fathers’ wisdom
and desire to protect the American citizens from tyrrany. I have read
the US Constitution, Federal election law and numerous state election
laws. I have had dialogue with offices of a number of Secretaries of State
and Election Boards. The US Constitution gives the states power over
the general election. The states control which candidates are placed
on ballots and regardless of the methodology used for doing so, I
believe the states have the power and obligation to verify eligibility
of presidential candidates. I find no federal or state law prohibiting
states from doing so and instead a constitutional duty to ensure that
a qualified candidate becomes a ballot choice for the Electoral College
Electors. Failure to do so effectively may lead to voter disenfranchisement.
I have believed and stated for weeks that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives US citizens the power to demand that a presidential
candidate prove eligbility and certainly standing in a lawsuit. A lawsuit
should not be necessary. We already have the power, directly from the
US Constitution Bill of Rights.
Argument:

  • The US Constitution clearly defines the eligibiity requirement for president.
  • The US Constitution rules.
  • The US Constitution gives states the power to choose electors. With this power comes the obligation to uphold the Constitution and protect voter rights.
  • State laws vary but are consistent in their approach to placing
    presidential candidates on the ballot.
  • Presidential Balloting evolved from tradition.
  • The two party system evolved from tradition.
  • States place presidential candidates on ballots from instructions of
    the major political parties.
  • States should have enacted laws to require proof of eligibility.
  • States are not exercising their duty to the Constitution.
  • States have the power and obligation to ensure that only eligible candidates remain on ballots. Despite compelling evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible, and notification, the states left him on the ballot.
  • States claim no power to remove a candidate when in fact they do have power over the general election process.
  • The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the people power, including Phil J Berg, Leo C. Donofrio and others that have had their lawsuits dismissed in state courts.

By virtue of the powers given to the people in the Tenth Amendment in The BIll of Rights of the US Constitution, we do not have to file lawsuits to demand proof of eligibility or require state election officials to do so.

A US citizen filing a lawsuit demanding that a presidential candidate provide proof of eligibility has standing.

Facts and References

US Constitution

Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution;

viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The US Constitution defines presidential eligibility

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The US Constitution gives powers to the states for the general election.
US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Federal Election Law: 

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):

§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”

State Electoral College example: Pennsylvania Law

Ҥ 3192. Meeting of electors; duties.
The electors chosen, as aforesaid, shall assemble at the seat of government of this Commonwealth, at 12 o’clock noon of the day which is, or may be, directed by the Congress of the United States, and shall then and there perform the duties enjoined upon them by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Philip J Berg lawsuit
Judge Surrick ruling exerpts:

“If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”

“…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.”

Philip J Berg response to ruling:

“an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”
“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,”  “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”

Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising:

“October 29, 2008
Who Enforces the Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen Clause?”

“So if the Framers established that courts “shall” hear cases arising under the Constitution, and failed to authorize Congress to otherwise establish who may sue to enforce the document, then where might we find conclusively that Berg has standing to sue?

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people.  Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the Natural Born Citizen Clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.”

“Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines.  Judge Surrick’s reliance on case law to dismiss Berg’s suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer’s perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty. 
His decision to “punt” the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case.  Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.”

Read more here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_enforces_the_constitutions.html

Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”

Mr. Washington wrote the following response to the Philip J Berg lawsuit and Judge Surrick ruling in a World Net Daily article dated November 8, 2008 :

“Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg’s lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama’s U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:

In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency,” but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

“Until that time,” Surrick says, “voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring.”

Judge Surrick, quoting from Hollander, concludes, “The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury.”

Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which stated, in part, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy.”

Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.

That Berg’s complaint is not “concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury” is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!

I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick’s outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn’t have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”

Read the complete article here:

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435

Leo C. Donofrio has a New Jersey lawsuit before the US Supreme Court

“On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.”

“The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written “statement”, prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were “by law entitled” to be listed on ballots in New Jersey.  The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.

The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary’s oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.

The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President.  These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.” 

“Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test.  The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.”

Read more here:

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

Summary

The states have power and control over the general elections. With this
power comes a duty to uphold the Constitution. The states, rather than
enact laws to uphold the constitution and protect the voting rights
of their citizens, have acted more on tradition. This traditional
approach has worked up until the 2008 election. We now have a candidate,
Barack Obama, who has refused to provide legal proof of eligibility in
the face of compelling evidence he is not qualified. When presented
with this evidence, the states had an obligation to require proof from
Obama.

The states had an obligation to enact legislation and did not. The states
have not exercised their inherent power and duty to require proof of
and eligibility. Therefore, by virtue of the powers reserved for the
people of the US in the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, US citizens have the power and obligation to demand proof of eligibility from Obama.

Citizen Wells is asking that US citizens contact state election officials
and Electoral College Electors and demand that they request proof of
eligibility from Obama. If they do not do so, initiate lawsuits and
make sure that your rights are protected and that the Constitution is
upheld. 

Citizen Wells is also issuing a caution to the US Supreme Court, Supreme
Court Justices, Federal Judges, State Judges, State Election Officials
and Electoral College Officials. You all have an overriding obligation
to uphold and defend the US Constitution. You are all accountable and
the American public is watching.

Citizen News Mobile app, Citizen Wells Citizen News and mobile news, Citizenwells.net, News on the go

Citizen News Mobile app, Citizen Wells Citizen News and mobile news, Citizenwells.net, News on the go

“Why has the mainstream media avoided coverage of the William Cellini trial? Why are Chicago news stories being scrubbed or altered?”…Citizen Wells

Citizen News Mobile is a new way to keep up with Citizen Wells and Citizen News on the go. Feeds from the Citizen Wells blog and the Citizen News site along with news snippets posted on the mobile site are presented faster and more compactly for mobile devices. This, as most new projects, will evolve and hopefully improve over time.

Here are the first two news snippets posted there.

“A verdict in the Blagojevich trial is expected soon. However the real verdict is the continued protection of Obama by the US Justice Department and the media. The William Cellini trial is scheduled for August 2011. Tony Rezko is mentioned throughout the Cellini indictment. Will Rezko take the witness stand?”

http://citizenwells.net/2011/06/19/blagojevich-trial-june-20-2011-jury-verdict-expected-soon-protecting-obama-william-cellini-trial/

“Citizen Wells has been covering Chicago corruption involving Tony Rezko, Rod Blagojevich and Barack Obama for over three years. A lesser known tie to Obama, et al, William Cellini is scheduled for trial in August 2011. Mention of William Cellini is conspicuously absent from mainstream media coverage. Is this because of the common denominator of Tony Rezko? Or perhaps the time period that Obama had the most contact with Rezko, 2003 to 2005? More to come from Citizen Wells soon.”

http://citizenwells.net/2011/06/19/obama-cellini-frawley-rezko-ties-chicago-news-being-scrubbed-altered-citizen-wells-report-coming/

Citizen News Mobile

http://citizenwells.net

Obama camp NC voter fraud initiative, Enlist college students in Obama youth, Hitler youth, Obama camp lies

Obama camp NC voter fraud initiative, Enlist college students in Obama youth, Hitler youth, Obama camp lies

“The guilty dog barks the loudest.”…Citizen Wells Mom

“Why would anyone eligible to vote complain about providing a photo ID?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

Once again, in a move reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the Obama camp has enlisted the Obama youth to fight moves by the NC legislature to improve voting integrity. From the Greensboro News Record April 4, 2011.

“Students from area universities have been working behind the scenes to protest the proposed voter ID bill that is currently in the House. They held a forum Monday morning to discuss the bill and followed it with a press conference to voice their concerns.

“This bill makes it more difficult for me to exercise my vote and my voice,” said UNCG junior Caleb Patterson. “The voter ID bill would add one more obstacle to vote, which will discourage students from voting.”

HB 351 would require voters to show photo identification, such as a driver’s license, military ID or a voter registration card. Identification cards such as those issued to college students would not be accepted.

“We are getting involved because we as young people are fighting for our right to vote, said N.C. A&T senior Mitchell Brown. “This is an assault on our voting rights.”

The bill is called the Restore Confidence in Government Act, but state Rep. Alma Adams said it does anything but.”

“Obama has announced that he will seek re-election.”

Read more:

http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/04/04/article/area_college_students_protest_voter_id_bill

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see through the bias in this article.

According to the FEC, Obama won NC in 2008 by 14,177 votes out of a total of 4,310,789 votes cast.

From Citizen Wells November 2, 2010.

“From the Alamance County Sheriff’s Ofice, Alamance County Health Department Investigation, 2008.
(Alamance County is just east of Greensboro)

“On Monday June 23rd, 2008 the SBI initiated an
investigation into allegations that employees of the
Alamance County Health Department specifically Dr.
Kathleen Shapley-Quinn and Nurse Karen Saxer were
knowingly and willingly falsifying patient medical
records.”
“At the request of some patients, Alamance
County Health Department provided work
notes and prescriptions in alias names.

 Providing these services would assist illegal
aliens with maintaining assumed or stolen
identities, which may be a violation of state, or
federal law. (Identity Theft, Fraud, etc.)”
“The staff was divided with some believing the practice of writing
work notes (utilizing aliases) to suspected illegal aliens was wrong
and therefore they refused to do so. Subsequently they reported
feeling pressured or feared repercussions.

 Others, particularly Shapely-Quinn and Saxer believed the
guidance they had sought and received was vague at best, but
believed their actions did not violate the law and they were
providing care for their patients. Furthermore, according to
them, an illegal alien can not be refused medical care.”
“On more than one occasion Nurse Karen Saxer at the
direction of Dr. Shapley-Quinn prepared or made
health related employer work notes for patients under
alias names, knowing that the names on the documents
were in fact not the birth name or legal name of the
patient.”
“Veronica Arias, of Texas, reported on May 2nd, 2008 to
the ACSO that someone in Swepsonville, NC had
stolen her identity and was using same to be employed.

 Maria Sanchez was arrested on May 6, 2008 by
investigators of the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office
for stealing and using the identity of Veronica Arias.

 Sanchez used the name, SSN, DOB, of Veronica Arias
who is a living resident of Texas.”

Read more:

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/nc-voter-fraud-update-voting-machine-errors-nc-gop-lawsuit-status-voter-registration-issues/

From Lame Cherry October 9, 2008.

“CBS’s Harry Smith was drooling over Obama numbers in a rant fest with Michael Crowley of the New Republic.
The problem is that these two dim bulbs actually outed the Obama campaign in voter fraud as there are not enough people in North Carolina to get the “new voters” Obama claims are there.
Harry Smith apparently has not concluded that ACORN can not be registering all these “voters”. One can not just go into North Carolina and register EXACTLY 800,000 voters.
That is impossible and is a trend Obama in his election fraud is exposed by.”

“Obama’s campaign wants to tell the world they registered 800,000 blacks out of a million voter base, so that before in the election only 200,000 blacks voted in North Carolina.
That is impossible.
This is voter fraud. Perhaps Newsbusters could actually do a math check and alert the Federal Elections Commission.”

Read more:

http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-felony-crime-voter-fraud-in-north.html

U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Staff Report
U.S. House of Representatives
111th Congress
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
July 23, 2009
“A. Voter Registration Fraud
One-third of the 1.3 million voter registration cards turned in by ACORN in 2008 were invalid.3 ACORN has been investigated for voter registration fraud in Nevada, Connecticut, Missouri, Ohio and North Carolina.”

The report is no longer found at this link.

http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/media/pdfs/20090723ACORNReport.pdf

From the Union News September 20, 2008.

“Yet another state investigates the union-backed voter fraud group for Barack

A Durham (NC) official is asking state elections administrators to check approximately 80 voter registration forms for possible fraud.

Mike Ashe, Durham County’s elections director, said the forms were among about 4,000 submitted to his office over the past four to six weeks by a national left-wing group called Acorn, for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

“They will be turned over to the State Board of Elections for investigation and prosecution,” Ashe said of the questionable documents.

Most of the forms at issue bear one of six names. Ashe was not sure whether the people named existed or not.

Many of the papers are incomplete, which Ashe said is a nuisance, not a crime. But the group contains very different versions of what are purportedly the same person’s signatures.

Signing another person’s name on a voter registration form can result in up to 15 months in prison.”

Read more:

http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/09/acorn-voter-fraud-spreads-to-nc.html

Obama eligibility issue growing, Charles Rice, Law School Professor, Notre Dame, US Constitution, Natural born citizen

Obama eligibility issue growing, Charles Rice, Law School Professor, Notre Dame, US Constitution, Natural born citizen 

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

From Zach Jones, patriot, writer, veteran, legal mind and friend.

“Dear Rush, Glenn and Hannity:
I hope you will consider the following article written by Prof. Rice of Notre Dame Law School. 
 
This issue is not going away.  As a Veteran (Navy 75-80), I feel that anyone serving under Obama today is having his or her service tarnished and they don’t deserve this. 
 
Hope you will do what you can to help.
 
Respectfully, Zach Jones”
Charles E. Rice is professor emeritus at the Law School of Notre Dame University in South Bend IN. He is the author of What Happened to Notre Dame?

“Barack Obama: Is he or Isn’t he an American citizen?
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
By Charles E. Rice
 
The speculation about President Obama”s eligibility goes on and on, with no reliable access to the truth and with no end in sight. It is time for a new approach.

The Constitution provides: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Art II, Sec. 1. Neither the Constitution nor any federal law defines the term “natural born citizen.” Nor has the Supreme Court provided a definition that covers the questions presented in the Obama case.

In Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, the Supreme Court, made an incidental reference to the issue: “[N]ew citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).”

“I suggest no conclusion as to whether Obama is eligible or not. But the citizens whom the media and political pundits dismiss as “birthers” have raised legitimate questions. That legitimacy is fueled by Obama”s curious, even bizarre, refusal to consent to the release of the relevant records. Perhaps there is nothing to the issues raised. Or perhaps there is. This is potentially serious business. If it turns out that Obama knew he was ineligible when he campaigned and when he took the oath as President, it could be the biggest political fraud in the history of the world. As long as Obama refuses to disclose the records, speculation will grow and grow without any necessary relation to the truth. The first step toward resolving the issue is full discovery and disclosure of the facts.

The courts are not the only entities empowered to deal with such a question. A committee of the House of Representatives could be authorized to conduct an investigation into the eligibility issue. The classic formulation of the Congressional role is Woodrow Wilson”s, in his 1884 book Congressional Government:

It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function…[T]he only really self-governing people is that people which discusses and interrogates its administration. (p. 198)”

“The American people do not know whether the current president achieved election by misrepresenting, innocently or by fraud, his eligibility for that office. I neither know nor suggest the answer to that question. But it would be a public service for the House of Representatives to employ its authority to determine those facts and to recommend any indicated changes in the law or the Constitution.”

Read more:

 
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=49420&t=Barack+Obama%3A+Is+he+or+Isn’t+he+an+American+citizen%3F

Why did Professor Rice title his article:

“Barack Obama: Is he or Isn’t he an American citizen?”

Once again, and I am not a law professor, the constitutional issue is whether or not Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.

FEC 2008 FOIA request, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Old information viewed with 20 20 hindsight, Citizen Wells exclusive

FEC 2008 FOIA request, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Old information viewed with 20 20 hindsight, Citizen Wells exclusive

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

I was going through some old paperwork recently and reexamined a 2008 FOIA request I made to the FEC regarding any information they had about the Philip J Berg lawsuit which had just included them as a defendant. With the clarity of 20 20 hindsight, several items of interest are presented.

The Citizen Wells blog was definitely in the mix questioning many aspects of Obama’s past in 2008. This blog was one of the first entities anywhere to announce the Berg lawsuit due to the efforts of faithful followers. Here are the actual heads up that we received.

“Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Subject: About to break news”

“My name is XXXXXXX XXXXXXX of XX. I have been working with Phil Berg on
this project. Here’s the scoop.

Attorney Phil Berg of Philadephia, PA alleges that Obama is not a us
citizen nor his he “natural born” and within the next 30 minutes will
be filing a complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order
prohibiting Obama from running for Office of the President and
enjoining the DNC from naming Obama as a nominee for Democratic
Presidential election.

Go to the US District Court, Eastern District of PA, 2nd floor Clerk’s
Office on 601 Market Street in Philadelphia, PA”

“Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Subject: Update from xxxxxxx”

“I just spoke to Phil Berg. The suit is filed in Philadelphia in the
US District Court, Eastern District of PA, at 601 Market St, 2nd
floor District Clerk’s office. There will be an emergency hearing in
the morning to determine if they will issue the temporary injunction
barring him from running anymore.”

On August 21, 2008, the following was reported at Citizen Wells.

“We were given a heads up earlier that a complaint was being filed in US District Court, Eastern District of PA. The complaint is a follows: ”for an emergency temporary restraining order prohibiting Obama from running for president, and enjoining the DNC from nominating Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate.””

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/obama-citizenship-federal-court-challenging-barack-obama%e2%80%99s-qualifications-to-be-president-us-district-court-eastern-district-of-pa-philip-j-berg-complaint-filed/

From the FOIA documents sent to me.

Cover letter pg 1, 2.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49423265/FEC-2008-FOIA-request-Philip-Berg-lawsuit

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49423694/FEC0002

Within approx. 24 hours of the filing of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit, the following memo surfaced. Notice “Re: Victory in Berg v. Obama” What does this mean?

Scribd pg 3

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49423970/FEC0003

Letter to FEC referencing an email.

Scribd pg 6

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49425436/FEC0006

“August 18, 2008″

“This is a request for an opinion”

“email which I have received from a friend in Arizona”

Email received by letter author from a friend in Arizona.

Scribd pg 7

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49425908/FEC0007

“I did not find anything to confirm or refute this story. Should everyone (extra should) wait til later to see if this hits the fan?”

Scribd pg 8

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49426322/FEC0008

“Interesting! Now what? Who dropped the ball or are we all being duped? Who do you know whom you can forward this to who might be able to help answer this question?”
Response from FEC.

Scribd pg 4

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49424393/FEC0004

“You ask the Commission to consider issues arising in an email circulating on the internet. The email, which is attached to your letter, asserts that a candidate for President is not eligible to be President because the candidate may not be a U.S. natural-born citizen. You ask how the legal requirements for obtaining and maintaining U.S. citizenship would apply to the assertions made in the email.”

“The Act authorizes the Commission to issue an advisory opinion in response to a complete written request from any person about a specific transaction or activity that the requesting person plans to undertake or is presently undertaking.”
Observations.

The letter is dated 3 days before the Berg lawsuit.  

The wording above indicates to me that the person who sent the email and the person who wrote the letter are likely involved in the election process as election officials or are involved in a political party.

The following comments are particularly interesting.

“Interesting! Now what? Who dropped the ball or are we all being duped?”

“Should everyone wait til later to see if this hits the fan?”

The FEC response states “your inquiry does not qualify as an advisory opinion request.”

However, the FEC website states:

“Election Administration

The FEC’s Office of Election Administration (OEA) serves as a central exchange for information and research on issues related to the administration of federal elections on the state and local level.”

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Clarifying_Law
Who “dropped the ball”? Obviously the FEC.

Mike Huckabee Obama eligibility extraneous, US Constitution extraneous, Huckabee book interview

Mike Huckabee Obama eligibility extraneous, US Constitution extraneous, Huckabee book interview

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

Mike Huckabee was recently interviewed by George Stephanopoulos  about his book “A Simple Government.” During the interview Huckabee was asked about the controversy about Obama’s citizenship. Mike Huckabee committed 2 unforgiveable errors.

  • Instead of correcting George Stephanopoulos about using citizen interchangeably with natural born citizen, he followed the Orwellian line.
  • Huckabee then stated that the issue was extraneous, effectively stating that the natural born citizen clause and the US Constitution are extraneous.

This will not be tolerated.

I am requesting that you send this far and wide and bombard Mike Huckabee and the Republican party with our response to this unacceptable behaviour. We will no longer tolerate this disregard for the US Constitution and rule of law.

Let’s make an example out of Mike Huckabee. Perhaps the others will then take notice.

Wells

Thanks to GORDO et al.

Huck Pac contact info:

http://www.huckpac.com/?Fuseaction=ContactUs.Home

John Boehner fails Constitution 101, Meet the Press interview, Boehner natural born citizen not citizen, Obama eligibility

John Boehner fails Constitution 101, Meet the Press interview, Boehner natural born citizen not citizen, Obama eligibility

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

John Boehner has failed Constitution 101. He is still using citizen interchangeably with natural born citizen.

From the Chicago Tribune February 13, 2011.

“Speaker John Boehner said Sunday that he believed President Obama was a U.S. citizen and a Christian but that it wasn’t up to him to convince people who were skeptical of the president’s birthplace and religion.

“I believe that the president is a citizen. I believe the president is a Christian. I’ll take him at his word,” said Boehner, appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Boehner spoke after viewing a video of a Republican focus group in Iowa in which a number of people indicated that they believed Obama was a Muslim.

“As speaker of the House, as a leader, do you not think it’s your responsibility to speak out against that kind of ignorance?” asked the host, David Gregory.

 “David, it’ not my job to tell the American people what to think,” Boehner replied. “The American people have the right to think what they want to think.””

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sc-dc-boehner-obama-birth-20110213,0,861253.story

From Citizen Wells January 12, 2011.

The US Constitution was read in the House of Representatives last week. As I understand it, Constitution 101 classes will be held for congressmen. Some members of Congress, including John Boehner, may have to do some remedial work including stay after class. The same day that the Constitution was read, John Boehner used the word citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably. He also exhibited ignorance regarding proof of Obama’s birthplace.

Read more:

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/john-boehner-and-congress-natural-born-citizen-101-constitution-101-you-must-stay-after-class/

No Obama birth certificate, Obama must be arrested and removed immediately, Impeachment not necessary or applicable

No Obama birth certificate, Obama must be arrested and removed immediately, Impeachment not necessary or applicable

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

The is no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii. Obama is a usurper and is not eligible for the office of president. Impeachment is not necessary or applicable. Obama must immediately resign or immediately be arrested and removed from the White House.

The Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie has stated that there is no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii.

Tim Adams, a clerk in the Hawaii elections office in 2008 has signed an affidavit stating that there was no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii then.

I have no verification that the information in the following article is correct. However, it seems plausible.

From NewsFlavor January 25, 2011.

“After repeated attempts to obtain a followup response to our last communication, our D.C. Insider gives little more than a brief warning to back off the many questions surrounding Barack Obama’s birth and citizenship.

Author’s Note:  This brief email was the only response finally received from Insider after multiple attempts to obtain follow up responses to our last communication.  I continue to make requests for further clarification.  It should be noted that within Insider’s previous response, they made mention of increased activity and concern surrounding the myriad Obama “birther” questions.  Following that communication, there followed substantially more chatter even by more mainstream media sources regarding the subject.  After some consideration I have decided to publish this message – and continue researching the information surrounding the birth of our current president.  As Insider admits in this most recent message – “there is something there.””

“Insider:  Can’t respond much at this time.  Too busy with all of the chaos coming at us these days.  May be out of work soon! Crazy stuff.  Simply urge you to lay off the birther angle at this time.  Strongly urge.  To proceed is at your own peril.  Please take warning seriously.  This is not a small town cop shop situation here.  Let someone else try and make name on this one.”

Read more:

http://newsflavor.com/world/usa-canada/white-house-insider-proceed-at-your-own-peril/#ixzz1C7cO666s

I have been receiving death threats since early 2008. Unlike Nazi Germany, we have not surrendered our guns or given a totalitarian regime carte blanche. I have been proceeding at my own peril and will continue to do so.