Category Archives: Motion

Alabama Obama eligibility challenge, AL election statutes Section 17-13-6, Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots, Democrat party certified Obama, Judge Roy Moore

Alabama Obama eligibility challenge, AL election statutes Section 17-13-6, Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots, Democrat party certified Obama,  Judge Roy Moore

“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

“Why do state election officials continue to ignore the US Constitution, federal election code and their own state election statutes?”…Citizen Wells

“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?”… Marbury versus Madison

From Obama Ballot Challenge October 30, 2012.

“Two Motions were filed on October 18, 2012 with the first being Alabama’s Democratic Party Motion to Intervene (MTI). Make special note of Item 5 in the Motion—The Alabama Secretary of State does not object to this motion to intervene. (See link to Motion to Intervene below)

The Alabama Democratic Committee MTI argues their nominee, Mr. Obama, is “eligible, qualified and entitled” to gain access to the taxpayer supported Alabama ballot and that Alabama’s Secretary of State “does not have a duty to independently investigate the qualifications of candidates nominated by the political parties.” Their motion wouldn’t be complete without the usual “pontification on high” that their candidate’s questionable natural born citizenship status is based on “discredited conspiracy theories and outlandish claims of fraudulent and forged birth certificates.”

Attorney General Strange filed the second motion which was a Motion to Dismiss (MTD). Strange offers the following arguments:

The Secretary of State has no legal duty to investigate the qualifications of a candidate;
In regard to candidates for President, the authority to adjudge qualifications rests with Congress;
Plaintiffs have failed to join necessary parties; and
Plaintiffs’ claim is filed too late.
According to Strange the Secretary of State aka the Chief Election Officer for the state of Alabama holds no responsibility whatsoever to ensure any and/or all presidential candidates working to gain access to Alabama’s electorate meet the necessary constitutional qualifications to be on their state ballot. (See link to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss below)

Plaintiffs’ responded to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on October 24, 2012 by reiterating their Motion for Summary Judgment filed on or about October 15, 2012 “in which Plaintiffs submitted sworn affidavits that set forth evidence demonstrating that Barack H. Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the United States.” These sworn affidavits are from Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County, Arizona and Lead Investigator Mike Zullo, Maricopa County’s Cold Case Posse unit (see link Response to Motion to Dismiss below).

Plaintiff argues that it is clearly the legal duty of Alabama’s Chief Election Officer to “verify the eligibility of those seeking office” and when eligibility of a candidate comes into question it is their responsibility to verify and remove said party from the ballot if necessary. A recent Opinion by Alabama’s Attorney General cited by the plaintiff states –

“The Secretary of state does not have an obligation to evaluate all of the Qualifications of the nominees of political parties and independent candidates for state offices prior to certifying such nominees and candidates to the probate judges pursuant to sections1 7-7-l and l7-16-40 of the Code of Alabama. If the Secretary of State has knowledge gained from an official source arising from the performance of duties prescribed by law, that a candidate has not met a certifying qualification [such as a candidate's failure to file a public statement of Economic Interest], the Secretary of State should not certify the candidate.”

Clearly the sworn affidavits from Arpaio and Zullo serve as an “official source” placing into doubt at least the certifying qualifications necessary for Mr. Obama to gain access to the Alabama general election ballot. As for the remaining presidential candidates, no such “official source” has presented itself challenging their certifying qualifications.

The Plaintiff’s conclude “It is time — finally — to ensure that the person we are entrusting the highest and most powerful office of our country is eligible to serve for that office. The issue of eligibility has become a political hot potato, in effect a sticky matter for judges and courts around the nation. But the rule of law must eventually govern, without regard to politics, and cannot and should not be sidestepped through legally convenient and politically correct court rulings which ignore the plain language of the U.S. Constitution.””

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/alabamas-goode-mcinnish-v-chapman-ballot-challenge-case-update

From Judge Roy Moore.

“Judge Roy Moore will be having his Investiture (swearing in ceremony) at the Judicial Building in Montgomery on January 11 at 1:30 PM. If you would like to come I need you to give me your name and address so I can send you the ticket and info. Feel free to message me….Thanks!”

https://www.facebook.com/JudgeRoyMoore

Will newly elected AL Chief Justice Roy Moore review this case?

Let’s review Alabama election statutes.

From above:

“According to Strange the Secretary of State aka the Chief Election Officer for the state of Alabama holds no responsibility whatsoever to ensure any and/or all presidential candidates working to gain access to Alabama’s electorate meet the necessary constitutional qualifications to be on their state ballot.”

“Section 17-13-6

Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots.
The name of no candidate shall be printed upon any official ballot used at any primary election unless such person is legally qualified to hold the office for which he or she is a candidate and unless he or she is eligible to vote in the primary election in which he or she seeks to be a candidate and possesses the political qualifications prescribed by the governing body of his or her political party.”

Legally qualified means as defined by the US Constitution, US election code and Alabama election statutes.

The Alabama Democrat Party made this certification on January 18, 2012.

“CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 17-13-5, Code of Alabama, 1975, I hereby certify that the persons whose names appear below and on the following schedules filed qualifications with me for the March 13, 2012 Democratic Primary Election as candidates for the offices indicated.
President of the United States
Barack Obama

This certification is subject to such disqualifications or corrective action as hereafter may appropriately be made.
Given under my hand and the seal ofthe State Democratic Executive Committee of Alabam

a, this the 18th day of January, 2012.

H. Mark Kennedy Chairman”

http://www.sos.state.al.us/downloads/election/2012/primary/Primary_Candidate_Certification-Democratic_Party-2012-01-18.pdf

ALprimaryCert2012

What part of “qualified” from the statutes or “This certification is subject to such disqualifications or corrective action” do they not understand.

Wiley S Drake, et al Alan Keyes v Obama appeal update, September 7, 2010, Obama motion to extend time to answer brief

Wiley S Drake, et al Alan Keyes v Obama appeal update, September 7, 2010, Obama motion to extend time to answer brief

From BirtherReport.com September 7, 2010.

“Just more proof that Obama & Gang are working hard to dismiss/quash Obama eligibility lawsuits. Well, in this case, filing an extension to drag it out a bit longer. Mr. Usurper, would it not be easier to just release the records these lawsuits seek? Not long ago you stated this; “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” …I agree 100%!!!

Text of the motion; APPELLEES’ MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWERING BRIEF

Appellee President Barack Obama and all other Appellees, through their counsel of record, the United States Attorney for the Central District of California, hereby respectfully move this Court for an order extending the time for thirty (30) days from the current due date of September 13, 2010, to and including October 13, 2010, for the Appellees to file their Answering Brief in this appeal. Undersigned counsel will be unable timely to complete the Answering Brief by its current due date of September 13, 2010. The reasons for the requested extension are set forth in the attached Declaration of Assistant United States Attorney David A. DeJute. This is the Appellees’ first request for an extension of time.

This motion is made pursuant to Rules 26(b) and 27 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 31-2.2(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and is based upon the files and records in this case and on the attached declaration of Assistant United States Attorney David A. DeJute. This request is unopposed by Appellants Wiley S. Drake, et al. but is opposed (without explanation or reason) by Appellants Pamela Barnett, Captain, et al. – DATED: September 3, 2010

Read more:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/obama-et-al-file-motion-for-extension.html

Philip J Berg v Obama update, August 9, 2010, Petition for Rehearing Court EN BANC, Berg as Relator vs. Obama

Philip J Berg v Obama update, August 9, 2010, Petition for Rehearing Court EN BANC

From Philip J Berg.

For Immediate Release:  – 08/08/2010
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire         
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12                         
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659

philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Berg Files a Petition for Rehearing Court EN BANC
in the Case of
Berg as Relator vs. Obama
* * *
No Surprise that Attorney General Holder
Will “not” Prosecute “blacks” in Voting Rights Cases
as he has Refused to Prosecute Obama
in this False Claims Act Case
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 08/08/2010) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “Constitutional qualifications” to serve as President of the United States.  The Policy of United States Attorney General Eric Holder not to prosecute “blacks” in voting rights cases should be no surprise as A.G. Holder has refused to prosecute Barack Hussein Obama in the False Claims Act [Qui Tam] case of Berg as Relator vs. Obama.

Berg said, “The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, his offices and staff, including the Department of Justice have a clear Conflict-of-Interest in any type of prosecution against Obama.”

“This type case is usually utilized in Medicaid and Medicare cases where fraud is alleged.  In the case against Obama, I set forth that Obama is not “natural born” or “naturalized” but an “illegal alien” and therefore, his term as a United States Senator from Illinois was fraud and the salary and benefits Obama received must be returned to the United States Treasury, an amount in excess of One [$1] Million Dollars.  I base my claim on the fact that Obama was adopted/acknowledged by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, in Indonesia and Obama’s legal name became “Barry Soetoro.”  At age ten [10] when he returned to Hawaii, I allege that he did not go through U.S. Immigration on a U.S. Passport, but did so on his Indonesia Passport,  therefore, an “illegal alien.”  Also, I allege that “Barry Soetoro” [former Barrack Hussein Obama] has never legally changed his name and therefore, he has committed ongoing fraud by using Barrack Hussein Obama.

“The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, reports directly to the alleged violator, Soetoro/Obama; gives opinions and legal advice to the alleged violator, Soetoro/Obama; was senior legal advisor to Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidential campaign; and served as one of three [3] members on Obama’s Vice-Presidential Selection Committee and thus a major Conflict-of-Interest existed and still exists with my, Berg’s, False Claim or Qui Tam Case.” 

Berg’s False Claims Act [Qui Tam] Case was originally filed in the United States District Court, District of Columbia at the end of 2008.  The U.S. District Court Dismissed the Qui Tam Action and failed to respond to the issue of the Conflict-of- Interest.  Berg Appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, who on June 30, 2010, upheld the District Court’s ruling and in so doing stated that Berg failed to demonstrate that the Department of Justice and the Attorney General, Eric Holder, have a Conflict-of-Interest.  This simply is not the case.

Government employees are required to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations, which clearly spell out the issue of Conflict-of-Interest.  Just to name a few, Eric Holder’s placement with Obama through Obama’s campaign are in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder reports directly to Obama, the violator, spells out a clear Conflict-of-Interest under the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder gives opinions and legal advice to the alleged violator, is a clear Conflict-of-Interest under the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder was the Senior Legal Advisor to Obama’s Presidential campaign violates the Code of Federal Regulations under Conflict-of-Interests; and the fact Eric Holder served as one of three [3] members on Obama’s Vice-Presidential Selection Committee are all clear Conflict-of-Interests in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations.

For this reason, Berg has filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  When a case is brought to the United States Appellate Court, the matter or a three-Judge panel hears matters complained of.  When you request a rehearing En Banc, you are asking for the majority of active Circuit Judges to rehear the case En Banc. 

Many Appellate Courts, who have a large number of Judges and a large caseload, will divide the Cases (Appeals) into divisions or panels for each case.  For example, three [3] judge panels usually hear United States Appeals Court cases.  There are times however, at the request of the panel, or one of the litigants, the case is later reheard by the full court, or, En Banc.  En Banc is a French word that means “the full Court”.  When a Petition for a Rehearing En Banc is filed, the party filing the Petition is asking for the Full Court to rehear the matter complained of on Appeal.

Berg said, “If a Conflict-of-Interest does not exist in this case, Berg as Relator vs. Obama, then the words ‘Conflict-of-Interest’ must be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations and from all legal and other dictionaries.”

Berg concluded, “If we are denied a rehearing En Banc, then I will take this Case to the U.S. Supreme Court as the issues presented are far too important not to address.”

For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
http://obamacrimes.com

Philip J Berg Obama lawsuit, Update, August 4, 2010, Obama should resign, Same advice as Rangel

Philip J Berg Obama lawsuit, Update, August 4, 2010, Obama should resign

From Philip J Berg August 4, 2010.

For Immediate Release:  – 08/04/2010
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire         
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12                         
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659

philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Berg Says That Obama
Should Do As He Said Regarding
Congressman Rangel
and End Your Career with Dignity
and
Wishes Obama or rather Soetoro a Happy Birthday

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 08/04/10) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States says that “Obama Should Do As He Said Regarding Congressman Charlie Rangel, D–N.Y. and End Your Career With Dignity.”

Obama’s comments were directed to Congressman Rangel who is under investigation for violating Congressional Ethics Rules with 13 violations and Obama said he hopes the 80-year-old lawmaker can end his career with dignity now.

Obama, speaking on the issue for the first time, praised Rangel for serving his New York constituents over the years, but said he found the ethics charges “very troubling.”
Obama continued, “He’s somebody who’s at the end of his career. I’m sure that what he wants is to be able to end his career with dignity. And my hope is that it happens,” Obama said in an interview that aired last Friday on “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.”

Berg said, “The charges against Obama are much more serious than Rangel’s as Obama’s actions rise to the level of treason as Obama is an Imposter; Obama is a Phony and has committed Fraud as this is the largest ‘Hoax’ against the United States in the history of our country, over 230 years !”

Berg also wishes Barry Soetoro [Barack Hussein Obama] a Happy and Hopefully Truthful 49th Birthday.

Berg has been demanding that Obama resign because he has failed to produce his long form [vault] Birth Certificate to show he is “Constitutionally eligible” being “natural born” to be President and citizenship documentation that he is even “naturalized” after being adopted/acknowledged in Indonesia with his name being changed to “Barry Soetoro” and his return to the United States at age ten [10] and evidence that he has legally changed his name back to Barack Hussein Obama. 

    I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in ‘our’ U.S.A., for ‘our’ Forefathers and for the 3.2 million men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution with our ‘Peaceful Revolution’ to prove that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President.” 

Berg continued, “I still have a case pending in the Federal Courts.  Go to obamacrimes.com to see the status of the case.”
For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
http://obamacrimes.com

Blagojevich trial prosecution opening statements, Prosecution witnesses, Patrick Fitzgerald, Children’s Memorial Hospital, Blagojevich Rezko Monk others kickbacks

Blagojevich trial prosecution opening statements, Prosecution witnesses, Patrick Fitzgerald

The prosecution side of the Blagojevich trial presented opening statements. I was pleased to see references to the earlier corruption that Blagojevich was involved in, not just the selling of the senate seat.

From the Chicago Tribune June 8, 2010.

“Hamilton ticked off a list of some of the witnesses who will testify against Blagojevich, including former chiefs of staff Lon Monk and John Harris. She did not mention fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who has been cooperating with government agents since his 2008 conviction.

Hamilton also stressed how jurors will get to hear the alleged corruption unfold for themselves on government wiretaps, including the now infamous phrase where Blagojevich describes his power to appoint a successor as senator to President Obama as “(expletive) golden.” As she spoke, those words, in their entirety, were flashed on the screen.

“He corrupted the office of the governor of the state of Illinois for his own personal benefit,” she concluded. “When you hear him say this senate seat is golden and he’s not giving it up for nothing, you are going to know, that’s how he viewed his power.”

Earlier today, Hamilton began her opening statement with the most emotionally packed of the charges against Blagojevich: the government claim that he tried to shake down the CEO of Children’s Memorial Hospital.

“On the North Side of Chicago,” she began, “there is a hospital called Children’s Memorial Hospital. It is a non-profit hospital that treats kids no matter where they are from or ability to pay…”

Hamilton then explained how Blagojevich committed to helping the hospital with millions of dollars in increased reimbursements to help pay its doctors. “But there was a catch,” she said. “Now that he decided to help the hospital, he wanted the hospital to pay him.”

Blagojevich is charged with demanding tens of thousands of dollars in fundraising help from the CEO of the hospital before he would release the increased reimbursements.

That was just one of a series of illegal shakedowns that started shortly after Blagojevich became governor in 2003 and extended into 2008, the prosecutor alleged.
“He was trying to use his power as governor to get something of personal benefit for himself,” she said.

Time and again, she continued, “when he was supposed to be asking ‘what about the people of the state of Illinois?’ he was asking, ‘what about me?’”

As Hamilton spoke, a chart was projected on a screen in the courtroom with a picture of  fundraisers Antoin “Tony” Rezko, Christopher Kelly and Alonzo “Lon” Monk, Blagojevich’s college roommate and later chief of staff who has pleaded guilty in the case and is expected to testify for prosecutors.

On the other end of the hall from the 25th-floor courtroom where the case is being heard, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald sat in a different “overflow” courtroom listening to Hamilton’s presentation on an audio hookup. He stared at the ceiling as Hamilton launched into a long laundry list of Blagojevich’s alleged misdeeds.

Proceeding in largely chronological fashion, Hamilton told jurors how Blagojevich, Rezko, Monk and others allegedly schemed to take kickbacks from investment firms seeking state business and squeeze mountains of campaign cash out of contributors in exchange for state action.

Some of the alleged kickbacks to Blagojevich, she said, were funneled to him in the form of $12,000 monthly payments from Rezko through his real estate company to Blagojevich’s wife, Patti, who did no work to earn the money. Patti Blagojevich has not been charged in the case.

Hamilton said the Rezko payments to Patti Blagojevich abruptly ended in May 2004 when another conspirator in the case, political fixer Stuart Levine, was confronted by the FBI.”

Read more:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/blagojevich-on-trial/2010/06/lawyers-begin-opening-statements.html

Hollister v Soetoro aka Barack Obama, Update, June 3, 2010, Motion for recusal of Judge Robertson, Attorney John D. Hemenway motion

Hollister v Soetoro aka Barack Obama, Update, June 3, 2010, Motion for recusal

From Attorney John D. Hemenway.

“On behalf of Colonel Gregory Hollister, et al, Attorney John D. Hemenway filed a “Motion for Recusal” in the Colonel Gregory Hollister, et al, v. Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, et al, lawsuit now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Judge in question is Judge Robertson who ruled the issue of “the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and was otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry…,” among numerous other bias statements. Atty Hemenway cites numerous cases including a SCOTUS case regarding bias and the recusal of Judges. The Motion for Recusal embedded below the snippet speaks for itself and is well worth the time to read.

This is the same Judge that ruled that Jihadists at Gitmo are entitled to the same benefits as our Troops.

Page 18: It is evident that from the outset to the end of his second opinion the lower court judge was operating with a strong bias, much of it derived from extrajudicial sources. We have previously mentioned that the late Norbert Wiener, in his seminal work “Cybernetics” in the 1950’s said presciently that what most people did not realize was that the information revolution that was then coming and which is now upon us would mean not just the decentralization of information but the decentralization of decision making itself. We now see that with the rise of the blogosphere and the springing up of countless independent websites not part of the centralized command media that arose in the initial days of nationalized broadcasting in the 1930’s and 1940’s and 1950’s. We see today meetings in which ordinary citizens know more about what is in the details of a bill than their Member of Congress or Senator does. The dissemination is instantaneous and the rise in independent decision-making about officeholders and their doings is overwhelming. One result is a never before seen, at least since the founding days themselves, interest in the Constitution and adherence to it as a basic principle of our Rule of Law.

This inevitably has an effect upon the insistence upon an objective appearance of an absence of bias which 28 U.S.C. 455 in its present form commands. In this case the court below has become widely known in the country and will go down in history as the “blogging and twittering” judge, one for whom a sort of affirmative action progressivism is more important than protecting and preserving the Constitution sufficiently to actually analyze the issues it presents. However, in the present structure of communications, Orwellian “memory holes” become very difficult to operate despite earnest efforts.

The defendant Soetoro has in a never before seen maneuver, used a State of the Union address to try and openly intimidate the Supreme Court into not carefully adhering to the Constitution, like a Cook County politico with the courts there. He has announced at a prayer breakfast that it is not “allowed” to know about his birth documentation. Mr. Justice Thomas has observed that the issues here are being avoided. So the message has been received. Politically orchestrated “unthinkability” of course, is no substitute for the application of the Rule of Law. It presents at the very least the spectacle of decisions being made on the basis of political bias. History will not be escaped. It will reveal whether this audacious and knowing attempt to get around the Constitution and one of its most specific requirements will succeed through a tactic of seeking to intimidate and control the courts to prevent them from applying a constitutional rule of law or whether its judges will take their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution as seriously as those who have sworn the oath to preserve and protect in the military such as Colonel Hollister do. In a very real sense it is our system of a constitutional rule of law that is on trial here, and that is under attack. Those who will not defend and protect as they have sworn to do should recuse themselves.

Their decision, in adopting the opinion below, should they chose to do so, without analyzing the actual issues, is a political one echoing the bias we have set out. As such it presents at least the appearance that violates 28 U.S.C. § 455 and they are, therefore, bound to recuse themselves.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/
JOHN D. HEMENWAY
Counsel for Appellants”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/32347910/Col-Hollister-v-Soetoro-Obama-Appeal-Motion-to-Recuse-Case-09-5080-5-31-2010

Blagojevich trial, May 29, 2010, Obama controls Justice Department, Blagojevich plea?, Obama is guilty of corruption, Chicago pay to play politics, Who will throw who under the bus?, Patrick Fitzgerald controlled?

Blagojevich trial, May 29, 2010, Obama controls Justice Department, Blagojevich plea?

“We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.”… “1984″ by George Orwell

 

Citizen Wells May 11, 2010
“I have given this much thought. Given the amount of evidence, the number of witnesses, the suicides and other questionable deaths of those connected to Blagojevich and ultimately Obama. Given the power Obama has over the Justice Department. Given the fact that the Blagojevich team seems desperate to delay the trial. I believe that it is highly likely that Blagojevich may cop a plea.

The question remains.

Who will throw who under the bus?”

Read more

Citizen Wells, yesterday, May 28, 2010
“Obama administration opposes Blagojevich request to delay corruption trial”

“The Obama administration says the Supreme Court should let the corruption trial of ousted Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich move forward.

Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal told the high court on Friday that he sees no reason for a delay.”

Read more

Extent of corruption and media coverup

“We have a trial, a story, about Rod Blagojevich, his numerous corrupt cronies including Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine, Barack Obama and a host of others involved in long time crime and corruption in Chicago and IL. We have a story, far bigger and more far reaching than Watergate. We have a story including businessmen, attorneys, state and local officials, the Governor of Illinois, the occupant of the White House and his long time associates, and it is barely being covered by the mainstream media. And worse than that, it is being covered up. Even our last refuge of information access, the internet, is being manipulated.”

Read more

Is this part of the setup?

“These questions beg for an answer and we deserve one.
Why wasn’t Rod Blagojevich indicted soon after the Rezko trial ended in June 2008? He was wreaking havoc on the citizens of Illinois.
Why was the arrest of Blagojevich delayed until December 2008, after the 2008 elections?
Why was prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald given this assignment by Barack Obama?
August 5, 2009
“I was preparing a new article, a more detailed version of an earlier article about Obama’s role in rigging the Illinois Health Planning Facilities Board (you know, the board mentioned in the indictments of Rezko, Levine, Weinstein, Blagojevich, et al). The events leading up to the Blagojevich trial are dragging on in typical fashion and I did not want the American public to forget about Obama’s strong ties to Chicago corruption. The Citizen Wells blog has for many months stated that Obama should be indicted next. The question was, would Patrick Fitzgerald do his duty or be controlled by the Obama camp.

Now we have the answer.”

“At the relevant time period, the Planning Board consisted of nine individuals. State law required an entity seeking to build a hospital,
medical office building, or other medical facility in Illinois to obtain a permit, known as a “Certificate of Need” (“CON”), from the Planning Board prior to beginning construction.”
Why was the above left out of the Indictment?

 
Why is this not being shouted from the rooftops?

“At the relevant time period, the Planning Board consisted of nine individuals.”

The following sentence is one of the clearest connections of Obama to the rigging of the Planning Board. Obama was chairman of the IL Senate committee that changed the number of members from 15 to 9.”

Read more

Why would the Obama administration want to get this over quickly?
Citizen Wells and many other internet sites are presenting the truth about Blagojevich and his ties to long time corruption in Chicago and IL and his ties to

Obama. This has struck a nerve. The Obama camp in cooperation with entities like Google have been trying to hide these stories.
We have a synergy coming into play.

  • Blagojevich’s cocky, overconfident attitude.
  • The Obama camp wanting this put to rest, oversimplified and not implicating Obama in the corruption.
  • The US Justice Department. Will they do their job or is the Obama Administration calling all of the shots.

I believe that Blagojevich will plead guilty. I believe that he has no choice.
If Rod Blagojevich pleads guilty and gets a light sentence, you will know that Obama has controlled this and that there is no justice. No Justice Dept.

Blagojevich trial, May 28 2010, Blagojevich mug shot released, Prosecutor response to trial delay?, Blagojevich trial delayed?

Blagojevich trial, May 28 2010, Blagojevich mug shot released

From the Chicago Tribune May 28, 2010.

“Blagojevich arrest mug shot released”

“The United States Department of Justice has released the official booking photo of Rod Blagojevich, who was arrested at his Chicago home on Dec. 9, 2008 and later impeached and removed from office.

The release came in response to a Freedom of Information Act request made by WGN-Ch. 9.

The then-governor is seen in the jogging suit he was wearing on the morning of his arrest, when federal agents picked him up in the early hours.

Blagojevich is to go to trial on June 3 on federal charges of trying to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, and leveraging the powers of his office to enrich himself and a close ring of associates.

The charges include racketeering, attempted extortion, bribery, conspiracy to commit bribery and conspiracy to commit extortion. “

Read more:
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/blagojevich-arrest-mug-shot-released.html

Note from above:

“The charges include racketeering, attempted extortion, bribery, conspiracy to commit bribery and conspiracy to commit extortion. “

Maybe we are being heard.

I am still waiting to hear if the prosecutors responded to the request to delay the trial.

Obama attorneys facts, Obama and attorneys hide Obama birth certificate, College records, Perkins Coie, Robert F Bauer, Obama not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen, Why has Obama employed a legion of private and government attorneys?

Obama attorneys facts, Obama and attorneys hide Obama birth certificate, College records

Why has Obama employed a legion of private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

 

The above is the “deer in the headlights” question.
There is no argument. There is only one conclusion. Obama is hiding his records, his past.
This position is not intended to override or dispense with other arguments related to Obama not being eligible for the presidency. It is simply a way of clarifying what Obama has done. It is a well documented fact with no rational argument against it. When you are discussing Obama’s natual born citizen status or birth certificate, this is the bottom line statement and question.

Reported at CitizenWells.com May 22, 2010.
“Enquiring minds  want to know (you know, us pesky citizen journalists). So I checked the April Quarterly expenditures for Obama For America. The Total Disbursements for that Period were $ 632,263.18.  Well over a third of that total, $ 261,206.69, was paid to the law firm of Perkins Coie.”

Read more

Let’s say you are a skeptic. You might ask. Maybe Perkins Coie did other legal work for Obama. They probably have. However, they have spent much time helping obama keep his birth certificate, college records and other records hidden. Let’s examine a legal document from the Court cases of attorney Philip J Berg challenging Obama’s eligibility for the presidency.

“Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 2 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, :
:
Plaintiff :
:
v. : Civ. Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS
:
BARACK OBAMA, et al., :”
“MOTION OF DEFENDANTS
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON DISPOSITIVE MOTION
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), defendants Democratic National Committee
and Senator Barack Obama respectfully move the Court for a protective order staying all
discovery in this action pending the Court’s decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss
the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.”
“Respectfully submitted,”
“Robert F. Bauer
General Counsel, Obama for America
PERKINS COIE
607 Fourteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2003
Telephone: (202) 628-6600
Facsimile: (202) 434-1690

RBauer@perkinscoie.com
“I. Procedural Background
In his Complaint, plaintiff Berg alleges that Senator Barack Obama, the
Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States, is not eligible to serve as
President under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution because, Mr. Berg alleges
(falsely), Senator Obama is purportedly not a natural-born citizen. Complaint ¶3. Mr.
Berg seeks a declaratory judgment that Senator Obama is ineligible to run for President;
an injunction barring Senator Obama from running for that office; and an injunction
barring the DNC from nominating him.

On September 15, 2008, plaintiff Berg served on Senator Obama’s office a
request for production of seventeen different categories of documents, including copies of
all of the Senator’s college and law school applications, requests for financial aid, college
and law school papers, and “a copy of your entire presidential file pertaining to being
vetted.” Plaintiff also served 56 requests for admission on Senator Obama. On that same
date, plaintiff served on the DNC 27 requests for admission and requests for production
of five categories of documents, including all documents in the possession of the DNC
relating to Senator Obama.1

On September 24, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, on the grounds that, as a
matter of law, plaintiff has no standing to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for
President of the U.S. and has no federal cause of action.”

“In this case, as in Weisman and Norfolk Southern Rwy., defendants’ pending
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction would dispose of the entire
action. The motion does not involve any disputed issues of fact: defendants contend that,
as a matter of law, plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the qualifications of a candidate
for President and that there is no federal cause of action that could serve as a means for
such a challenge. Thus, discovery is not needed in order to rule on the motion. In these
circumstances, a stay of discovery is warranted and appropriate.”

“For the reasons set forth above, the Court should grant the motion of defendants
DNC and Senator Barack Obama for a protective order staying discovery pending a

decision on their motion to dismiss.
Respectfully submitted,”
“Robert F. Bauer
General Counsel, Obama for America
PERKINS COIE
607 Fourteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2003
Telephone: (202) 628-6600
Facsimile: (202) 434-1690

RBauer@perkinscoie.com

 “
This document reveals that Perkins Coie was representing Obama in 2008 in an effort to keep his birth certificate, college records and other records hidden.

Perkins Coie has continued to represent Obama into 2010.
Anyone who continues to argue that Obama  has not hidden his records with the assistance of attorneys is mentally unstable, has severe reading comprehension disabilities or a clear agenda to support Obama to the detriment of this country or some combination of thereof.

Philip J Berg court documents can be found at:

http://obamacrimes.com

Blagojevich trial, Blagojevich 101, Complete Blagojevich trial coverage, Truth about Blagojevich Rezko Levine Obama

Blagojevich trial, Blagojevich 101, Complete Blagojevich trial coverage

The Rod Blagojevich trial is scheduled to begin June 3, 2010. Federal prosecutors must respond to a Supreme Court request from Justice Stevens. Justice Stevens reacted to the Petition from the Blagojevich defense team to delay the trial until the US Supreme Court has ruled on the “honest services” component of state law included in the Blagojevich Indictment.

Regardless of how this plays out, complete coverage will be provided by Citizen Wells. Blagojevich in cooperation with the mainstream media and attempted to mislead the public. It is important that the American public know the facts regarding the Blagojevich trial and corruption ties to Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine, Barack Obama and many others. CitizenWells.com now has a “one stop shopping” page to learn more about Blagojevich, et al and to stay informed about the trial. There you will find the following:

Rod Blagojevich trial timeline
Blagojevich Trial 101
December 2008 Citizen Wells articles on Obama’s ties to Blagojevich, corruption
Pre trial events and information
Blagojevich trial Citizen Wells daily coverage

http://citizenwells.com/%20blagojevich-trial-complete-coverage-from-citizen-wells