Category Archives: subpoena

Obama subpoena revisited, PDF files revealing, Subpoena and WhiteHouse.gov birth certificate, Fraud and corruption revelations

Obama subpoena revisited, PDF files revealing, Subpoena and WhiteHouse.gov birth certificate, Fraud and corruption revelations

“Why were portions of the motion to subpoena Obama by the Blagojevich defense team, damning to Obama, redacted?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did the Illinois Senate Health & Human Services Committee, with Obama as chairman, create and push Bill 1332, “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act,” early in 2003, which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, just prior to rigging by Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

Two PDF documents have appeared over the past several years that reveal fraud and corruption involving Barack Obama. In both cases, characteristics of the Adobe PDF files allowed for deceptions to come to light.

On April 22, 2010 a motion was filed by the Rod Blagojevich team to subpoena Barack Obama. The motion was presented to the public in PDF format with portions redacted (blacked out). However, someone failed to tag the document to not allow copying of the text. The complete unredacted motion was soon presented.

On April 27, 2011 an image was placed on WhiteHouse.gov purported to be Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate. Simple analysis using readily available software tools soon revealed the document as a fraud. A concocted image. It has always been the position of Citizen Wells that the wording “or abstract” at the bottom of the image automatically disqualified it as proof of being a copy of an original birth certificate.

In depth analysis of the WhiteHouse.gov image was performed by the cold case posse of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Read more about that here.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/highlights-of-sheriff-joes-most-recent-press-conference/
Motion to subpoena Barack Obama.

From MSNBC April 22, 2010.

“Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich asked a federal judge on Thursday to issue a subpoena for President Barack Obama to testify as a witness at his corruption trial.”

“The motion seeking Obama’s testimony contained several paragraphs that had been blacked out. This action is usually taken when the court has put information under seal.
The defense attorney said there was a conflict between comments made by Obama at a news conference and statements to federal prosecutors made by a labor union president and a candidate for the seat.
The specifics of the statements from the union president and the candidate were blacked out in the version of the motion that was filed publicly on the court docket.
“There are two conflicting stories and the defense has the right to admit evidence that contradicts the government’s claims,” the motion said.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36716915/ns/politics/t/blagojevich-lawyers-want-obama-subpoena/#.T5AT_KsV33c

Motion to subpoena Obama redacted portions.

From Fox News April 23, 2010.

“The blacked-out portions of a subpoena request filed by lawyers for former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich — which were revealed through a simple computer trick — suggest President Obama may have played a role in finding his own Senate replacement.
On Thursday, Blagojevich’s lawyers asked a federal judge to subpoena the president to testify about questions surrounding the government’s allegation that Blagojevich was selling or trading Obama’s Senate seat after his election to the White House in November 2008.
“President Barack Obama has direct knowledge of the Senate seat allegation,” reads Blagojevich’s 11-page motion, filed with U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel.
The court erred when it posted the motion in a pdf file with redactions that could be revealed simply by copying and pasting the blacked-out portions to a plain text file.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/23/uncovered-portions-blacked-subpoena-suggest-obama-advised-blagojevich-senate/

Motion to subpoena Obama redacted portions revealed.

Here is one of the more interesting revelations in the redacted portions.
“22. However, the defense has a good faith belief that Mr. Rezko, President Obama’s former friend, fund-raiser, and neighbor told the FBI and the United States Attorneys a different story about President Obama. In a recent in camera proceeding, the government tendered a three paragraph letter indicating that Rezko “has stated in interviews with the government that he engaged in election law violations by personally contributing a large sum of cash to the campaign of a public official who is not Rod Blagojevich. … Further, the public official denies being aware of cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions. … Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action, but that the public official rejected the offer. The public official denies any such
conversation. In addition, Rezko has stated to the government that he and the
public official had certain conversations about gaming legislation and
administration, which the public official denies having had.”10″

“10 The defense has a good faith belief that this public official is Barack Obama. See, “Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake”, Dave McKinney, Chris Fusco, and Mark Brown, Chicago Sun Times, November 5, 2006. Senator Barack Obama was asked: “Did Rezko or his companies ever solicit your support on any matter involving state or federal government? Did Al Johnson, who was trying to get a casino license along with Tony Rezko, or Rezko himself ever discuss casino matters with you?” Senator Obama answered: “No, I have never been asked to do anything to advance his business interest. In 1999, when I was a State Senator, I opposed legislation to bring a casino to Rosemont and allow casino gambling at docked riverboats which news reports said Al Johnson and Tony
Rezko were interested in being part of. I never discussed a casino license with either of them. I was a vocal opponent of the legislation.” Obama’s involvement with Tony Rezko and this legislation coincides with the three paragraph summary the government has provided to the defense referenced above.”
There’s that messy “quid pro quo” phrase again. It seems to be popping up with regularity in the same sentence with Obama.

This subpoena begs further scrutiny.

Blagojevich trial, May 11, 2010, Blagojevich pleads Guilty?, Citizen Wells exclusive, Deaths Suicides Murders, Obama subpoena clues, Who will throw who under the bus

Blagojevich trial, May 11, 2010, Blagojevich pleads Guilty?

I just responded to the following comment on this blog:

“Powerful information, CW about the events prior to 2009 concerning BHO. We would not be getting this kind of background or current info re. the Chicago events from any other source that I know of. Very little re. Blago’s hearing has been covered by anyone, as far as I can ascertain.
Thanks for pulling it all together.”

My response:

“Thanks Cabby.
That is why I have spent so much time reporting on the truth about Blagojevich, BO, Rezko, Levine, et al.
There has been a conspiracy to downplay these stories.
As I posted several months ago, O’Reilly only asked Blago about the alleged senate seat selling.
This is, of course, what Blago & Obama want.”

I have been sickened and disgusted by the lack of coverage of the long time, deep corruption involvement by Rod Blagojevich and our entertainment based media playing into Blagojevich’s hands. I have performed an informal survey over the past several months of otherwise intelligent people. I asked them what their perception was of the corruption charges against Blagojevich. They all gave the same predictable response. The alleged selling of Obama’s old senate seat.

Over the past two years this blog has extensively covered Obama’s ties to Chicago and Illinois crime and corruption. I called for the indictment of Rod Blagojevich before he was arrested and indicated that Obama should be next. I also called into question the timing of waiting until after the 2008 election to arrest Blagojevich.

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?

Blagojevich trial, Obama Levine ties, Stuart Levine must testify, Rezko trial, Politician A, Politician B, Springfield IL, Illinois capital, Purple hotel, Drug parties, Obama records

Blagojevich trial, Obama Levine ties, Stuart Levine must testify

Barack Obama and Stuart Levine

 

 

 From the Citizen Wells blog, April 2, 2008.

I repeat, April 2, 2008.

“We need to know the truth about Barack Obama. We need to know where Obama was on November 4, 1999. We need to know where Obama was and what he was doing during his term in the Illinois Senate. When I first read the allegations of Larry Sinclair, I was very skeptical. I am still somewhat skeptical. However, I went to the records of the Illinois Senate for November 4, 1999 and Barack Obama was not present. Sinclair alleges that he had 2 encounters with Obama from November 3 to November 8 1999. The first encounter was allegedly in a rented limo and involved drugs and gay sex. This alone was not a red flag for me but when you couple this information with Obama’s known association with criminals, with racists and hate mongers and his failure to provide his records while in the Illinois Senate, there is a legitimate need to get straight answers from Obama.”

“Lynn Sweet, a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times states:
“Instead, since I have some reporting history here, I am noting a pattern that has emerged: This is Obama’s third ethical conversion of convenience — taking on a higher standard, but only when it appears to be politically expedient. Obama is making government transparency and ethics a centerpiece of his presidential campaign.”
 
In a Tribune interview Thursday, the Illinois Democrat said he had no intention of sharing any of the documents he might still have in his possession.”
Next are the questions asked and responses from Obama. I know that many people have read this, but it is worth repeating:
“Q: It is kind of unknown where some of the records from your time in Springfield are located. Where is that stuff, what do you have?
“We had one district director. I had one staff person, so, you know, we didn’t have some elaborate sort of system. I didn’t at my disposal millions of dollars and potentially multiple staff people to conduct an archive. Now keep in mind, it is apples and oranges. First of all, I’m not the one who has made this an issue. We saw during the debate, Senator Clinton was asked about it and the suggestion was somehow they’ve done all they could. And my simple point was, I don’t think there is some smoking gun in these archives or something, or some damning evidence.”
 

“Q: What about your stuff, though? What do you have?
“I have no idea. I mean [muffled on recording]. I really don’t. Again, I did not have at my disposal. I wasn’t preparing for the Obama state senatorial library.”
Q: You must have kept some stuff. Correspondence, calendars?
“The problem is whatever remaining documents I have are inevitably incomplete. And then the questions going to be, where’s this or where’s that. Once I start heading down that road, then it puts me in a position that could end up being misleading. I don’t want to mislead people. I don’t know the extent of the records that I have as a state senator.”””

 

“The following is from Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times on November 11, 2007:
“On Friday, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported that she had asked Obama at a news conference: “Do your state senate papers still exist? If they do, just where are they? And would you ever intend to make them public to be responsive to some requests?”
Sweet wrote that he replied: “Nobody has requested specific documents.”
But the Chicago Tribune has reported that it “requested documents from his time in Springfield and never received a response.””

Read more

 Is this one of the reasons Obama has kept hidden his IL Senate records?

From the Tony Rezko Trial

Remember, the IL State Capital is Springfield.

 “Tales of the ‘Purple Hotel’
March 31, 2008; 2:43 p.m.
Prosecutors have taken a turn from the track of the day’s testimony and are asking political fixer and prosecution star witness Stuart Levine again about his drug use, the first time they have done so since early in his testimony.
Levine has said he used a number of drugs in the 1980s and into 2004, including cocaine and crystal methamphetamine.
He said he would make cash withdrawals, give that money to five male friends and use drugs with them during hotel parties. Those parties took place in Springfield and Lincolnwood at a place Levine said he and his friends came to call “the Purple Hotel.””

“”I do not remember using drugs on that day”
April 3, 2008; 12:32 p.m.
One of defense attorney Joseph Duffy’s first stabs at tripping up star prosecution witness Stuart Levine involved an attempt to raise doubt about his state of mind the very first time he met Antoin “Tony” Rezko.
Levine had testified earlier that the two were introduced at a dinner party on Nov. 2, 2002, just days before the election that brought Gov. Rod Blagojevich to power. It was at that dinner that Levine testified he learned that Rezko had been blocking a real estate deal on which Levine had been seeking a sizeable kickback.
But Duffy produced a Levine credit card receipt showing a $761.87 transaction dated that day at a Lincolnwood hotel where Levine often went for all-day drug binges.”

“Levine explains decision to flip
April 3, 2008; 5:56 p.m.
Before Stuart Levine’s testimony ended for the day, he was walked through his decision to cooperate with prosecutors in their corruption case against Antoin “Tony” Rezko.
Rezko’s defense attorney Joseph Duffy wanted to explore Levine’s motivation and first asked about a conversation Levine had with his business partner Robert Weinstein after FBI agents had come to Levine’s home to confront him in May 2004.
Levine’s phone was still tapped, and he was recorded telling Weinstein that agents had visited him. But Levine said he did not remember telling his partner that agents had mentioned Rezko was a target of an investigation.
“The government’s looking for a big fish, and it’s Tony Rezko,” Duffy quoted Levine as saying on the tape, which was not played in court.
Duffy then took Levine through the time leading up to his eventual indictment in the Rosalind Franklin University School of Medicine and Science kickback case a year later, in May 2005.
Levine still had not agreed to cooperate, and Levine told Duffy that he did not believe the government was aware of the “secret part of his life,” meaning his drug abuse and hotel parties with male friends.” 

” Trail of receipts from the Purple Hotel
April 4, 2008; 10:55 a.m.
More tales of the Purple Hotel kicked off this morning’s session of the Antoin “Tony” Rezko corruption trial.
On Thursday, Rezko’s lawyer Joseph Duffy grilled prosecution star witness Stuart Levine about a $761 transaction on his credit card statement for Saturday, Nov. 2, 2002, at the garish purple-painted Lincolnwood hotel that at the time was part of the Radisson chain. Levine has testified that he and a regular group of “drug buddies” often went to the hotel for daylong binges of crystal meth, cocaine, animal tranquilizers and other drugs.
The significance of that date is that it was the same that Rezko and Levine first met. The occasion was a dinner party, and during the chitchat Levine has said the two men came to realize they had been on opposite sides of a shady real estate deal.
As Duffy tries to chip away at Levine’s credibility, the lawyer used the credit-card statement to suggest that Levine’s memory of that first meeting was suspect because he showed up at the party after leaving a drug binge.
Levine acknowledged that the charge on his credit card was likely legitimate, but repeatedly insisted that he did not remember being at the hotel on that day and considered it unlikely. Credit-card transactions are not always recorded on the same day a charge is actually made.
This morning, Duffy questioned Levine about more charges he incurred at the Radisson. On Saturday, Oct. 26, exactly one week before the dinner party, Levine’s credit-card statement reflected a $1,077 charge at the Radisson, and exactly a week before that there was another $1021 charge there.
Duffy appears to be trying to suggest that Levine had a regular Saturday thing at the Radisson with his drug buddies. In earlier testimony, Levine said the group would get together and party once or twice a month at the Lincolnwood hotel, and always on weekdays. Levine said he tried to hide his secret drug life from his family and wanted to be home and clear-headed on the weekends.”

Rezko Trial transcripts.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-court-story-7,0,5224754.htmlstory

 

 

Do Larry Sinclair’s allegations of a drug and sex encounter with Barack Obama in November, 1999 seem so far fetched?
 

From the Citizen Wells blog April 30, 2008.

“A comment was just posted on this blog. I recognize the poster from this blog and others I have posted on. Delenn has stated in the past that she was a chef and restaurant owner in Chicago and heard many rumors about Obama. Below is her comment about the Rezko trial, names being withheld and under reporting of the trial:

“Living in the Chicago area and being the “victim” of Chicago news media, I noticed early on in the Rezko trial that U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve quashed mention of politicians’ names except for a chosen few… so we have “Politician A,” “Poltician B,” and on and on down the alphabet. Judge St. Eve also ruled to keep jurors’ identities secret… which more than anything attests to the known potential for violence coming from those associated with Rezko, Levine, and likely from the political machines involved. And Judge St. Eve would not allow Levine to name names as to the identities of those present at the all-male parties involving drug use — parties attended by some of the city’s and state’s political powers-that-be as well as by those wanting favors. There was a “leak” months ago that Politician A is Governor Rod Blagojovich… but oddly no further identifying leaks materialized. Blagojovich has been candid in the past about his interest in running for US president — I think the “leak” was a way to shut him down, and frankly I believe that he was shut down to open the way for Obama’s candidacy, if not in 2008, then in 2012. I don’t know how coverage of this trial has been played elsewhere, but here it’s been curiously underplayed — odd indeed, considering the Chicago news media’s normal tendency to over-cover any major stories based in the area. I’ve suspected since early on in the trial that the under-coverage, and possibly even some of the court’s rulings regarding testimony, have been connected to Obama’s candidacy. Add to this that I haven’t seen a single television news story concerning the allegations of money laundering involving Robert Blackwell and Barack Obama and… well, the word “fishy” isn’t strong enough by half. The scents of coverup and collusion here in Chicagoland simply reek.””

Article

Politician A

Politician B

For the Blagojevich trial to be legitimate, for the charges in the indictment to be substantiated, Stuart Levine will take the stand, just as he did in the Tony Rezko trial. The question is, will Levine be restricted from naming politicians?

Will Obama’s name be mentioned with regularity in the Blagojevich trial, just as Blagojevich’s name was mentioned during the Rezko trial?

 

Footnote: For those really paying attention, you noticed that Larry Sinclair came out with his allegations of a drug and sex encounter with Obama months before Stuart Levine gave his testimony.

Obama trial, May 14, 2010, Dr. James David Manning, Columbia University Treason and Sedition Trial, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama did not attend Columbia University

Obama trial, May 145, 2010, Dr. James David Manning, Columbia University

In what could be a precursor to the indictment, impeachment and removal of Barack Obama from office, Dr. James David Manning is conducting a trial on May 14, 2010, empowered by the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

From The Post & Email, April 27, 2010.

“We have proof of Obama’s ineligibility”

“Today The Post & Email welcomed back Dr. James David Manning, Ph.D., to speak about the upcoming Columbia University Treason and Sedition Trial which he is conducting in Harlem, NY, from May 14-19, 2010.  Dr. Manning reports that he has documented evidence that Barack Hussein Obama II is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States, and that Obama also did not attend Columbia University from 1981-83 as Obama has claimed.

MRS. RONDEAU: In your most recent video, you stated that a highly-placed government official will be testifying at the trial.  How did you get him to agree to testify, and will he be there in person or submitting something written?

DR. MANNING: Right now, we are anticipating at least two government officials will testify.  One will be through statements that will be uttered that will be documented, and the other will be a physical presentation where he will actually take the stand.

MRS. RONDEAU: And are they in government now or were they past employees of the federal government?

DR. MANNING: One is in government now, and one is a past employee.

MRS. RONDEAU: How did you reach out to them and when?

DR. MANNING: Actually, one reached out to me and the other became a matter of my investigation discovery.

MRS. RONDEAU: How long has the investigation lasted?

DR. MANNING: I have been following the Obama ineligibility issue from 2007, quite frankly, but more emphatically since the election on November 4, 2008.  That is when I began observing the issue of ineligibility more closely.  I have been on this matter for a couple of years now.

MRS. RONDEAU: How long have you had a formal investigation going on?

DR. MANNING: Six months or so.

MRS. RONDEAU: I know that the trial will take place May 14-19.  You’ve also mentioned a march around Columbia University.  Does that coincide with those dates, or will that be at a separate time?

DR. MANNING: The two are synonymous.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have any other key witnesses coming?

DR. MANNING: I have some very interesting witnesses that I have subpoenaed such that if they show up, it will be explosive.  If they don’t show up, we’re going to have them testify based on previous statements they have made, carefully observing the rules of evidence to enter those statements into evidence.  Having said that, I have subpoenaed George Stephanopoulos, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Condolezza Rice; I have subpoenaed Michael Sovern, the President of Columbia University at the hour when the breach and the infractions took place; and I have subpoenaed Rod Blagojevich, whom I think is integral to a number of things that went on with the surrender of Barack Obama’s law license back in the spring of 2008 when Blagojevich was still governor; I want to talk to him about that.  I’ve subpoenaed all of the faculty that were a part of the Political Science program during the years that Obama would have been a student at Columbia University.

More recently, I have subpoenaed Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson mainly because they were in Chicago in an eminent way during the years that Obama was an alleged community organizer.  Jesse Jackson was running PUSH and the Rainbow Coalition, and Louis Farrakhan was eminent in  forming the Million Man March, and Obama was allegedly a community organizer during a stretch of years.  I want to know what their relationship was and why they did not know him until he rolled into the Senate seat in Illinois some years later.  More specifically, the tenor of Chicago needs to be outlined by those two leaders.

I have also subpoenaed James Cone, who is a professor and the founder of the whole idea of Black Theology.  He wrote a very explosive book in the early ’80s outlining black theology.  He was the mentor of Jeremiah Wright, who was Obama’s pastor for 20 years.  Jeremiah Wright has developed his theology out of James Cone’s Black Theology; all the tenets which Wright preaches are based on Cone’s philosophical, religious and cultural outline.  I’ve subpoenaed him for two reasons.  One is that Dr. James Cone was an eminent professor at the Union Theological Seminary, which had a very close relationship with Columbia University.  During the years that Obama would have studied at Columbia, James Cone was right across the street as the most eminent black theologian in 1979-81.  Everyone on the planet was talking about James Cone then.  I want to ask James Cone this one question:  Why is it that he and Obama never knew each other with Obama being a black person searching for his roots, and James Cone right there  with everyone wanting an interview with him.  Why didn’t Obama take any classes with him?  The Union Theological Seminary and Columbia University were connected.”

“DR. MANNING: The  Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives us the absolute, mandated right to call for a trial with a jury of we the people sanctioned by the Constitution if we discover that the courts or government officials are not executing their duties and allowing the people due process.  Thusly, the Constitution empowers our courts.  We, at times, will present evidence that crimes have taken place.  At that point, it becomes the responsibility of the officials to arrest those who have been charged with crimes in a public and duly-authorized hearing or court.  We will point out that crimes did take place.  If the court is duly authorized, then the contempt of that court is also an infraction, and you can be arrested for that as well.  So anyone who does not show up can be in contempt of a duly-authorized, Tenth Amendment, constitutionally-mandated court.  That’s the best way to answer that.”

“DR. MANNING: The trial, at present, is being structured by me, as a prosecutor, in three phases.   Phase One will demonstrate unequivocally with proof, with documentation, with statements, with a plethora of evidence that Obama is indeed not a natural born Citizen.  That would be the objective, and we will have evidence that will substantiate that at least 12 different acceptable ways.  From there, we will demonstrate that since he isn’t natural born, he violates the U.S. Constitution.  That’s No. 1.

The second stage of the trial will demonstrate that the alleged Columbia years were not spent at Columbia University and the issuance of the degree all over the place demonstrates that Obama did not attend Columbia in a traditional or non-traditional, satellite or correspondence course.  He was not enrolled in any of those courses.  We will demonstrate the type of program that Columbia had and the requirements for a political science major to complete and that Obama did not participate at that level, yet he was issued a degree.  We have the documentation at Stage 2 of the trial to demonstrate that both Columbia and Obama were in a criminal conspiracy to issue and to accept, respectively, knowing that he had not completed the required courses to have done so.”

 Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/27/dr-manning-we-have-proof-of-obamas-ineligibility/

Philip J Berg, Update, September 18, 2009, Interview, MommaE blog radio, Status of 3 cases, Berg lawsuits, Obama not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen

Philip J Berg, who filed the first lawsuit in August 2008, claiming that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president, will be interviewed on MommaE blog radio tonight, September 18, 2009 at 8:30 PM ET. Philip Berg will provide updates on his 3 cases. Attorney Berg also warned in 2008 that if we did not resolve this eligibilty issue before the general election, that we would have a constitutional crisis. That is exactly what has happened.

“Hi,
 
I just want to let you know that tonight’s guest will be Attorney Phil Berg.  Phil will be giving us updates on the status of his 3 cases that are alive and well, plus telling us the true information about a Subpoena that surfaced a few days ago with his name on it.. It should be a hot, rocking and interesting show!
 
PLEASE POST THIS ON YOUR BLOGS OR WEB SITES AND ANY OTHER BLOGS OR WEB SITES THAT YOU ARE CONNECTED WITH AND SEND TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK. 
 
I look forward to seeing you all there!  Link, time and call in number for the show is below.
 
http://blogtalkradio.com/mommaeradiorebels
 
Call In # 347-237-4870
 
5:30 PM Pacific Time
 
6:30 PM Mountain Time
 
7:30 PM Central Time
 
8:30 PM Eastern Time
 
I hope to see you all.  Please join us in the Chat room!
  
MommaE”

Obama Occidental College records, Subpoenaed records, Obama ineligible, Gary Kreep, U.S. Justice Foundation, Barry Soetero, College lawyers, Stuart W. Rudnick of Musick, Peeler & Garrett, Fredric D. Woocher, Worldnetdaily.com, February 13, 2009

More evidence that Obama is hiding his past and is not
eligible to be president. From World Net Dailly,
February 13, 2009:
“‘Sanctions’ sought in eligibility case
President’s attorneys file motion demanding birth, college records be withheld from public”

“By Bob Unruh”

“A high-powered team of Los Angeles attorneys representing President Obama in his effort to keep his birth certificate, college records and passport documents concealed from the public has suggested there should be “monetary sanctions” against a lawyer whose clients have brought a complaint alleging Obama doesn’t qualify for the Oval Office under the Constitution’s demand for a “natural born” citizen in that post.

The suggestion came in an exchange of e-mails and documents in a case brought by former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others in California. The case originally sought to have the state’s electors ordered to withhold their votes for Obama until his eligibility was established. Since his inauguration, it has been amended to seek a future requirement for a vetting process, in addition to the still-sought unveiling of Obama’s records.

 

In the case, being handled largely by Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation, he recently subpoenaed the records documenting the attendance by Obama, or possibly the student when he was known as Barry Soetero, from Occidental College.

The lawyer for the college, Stuart W. Rudnick of Musick, Peeler & Garrett, urgently contacted Fredric D. Woocher of Strumwasser & Woocher.

“This firm is counsel to Occidental College. The College is in receipt of the enclosed subpoena that seeks certain information concerning President-Elect Barack Obama,” he wrote via fax. “Inasmuch as the subpoena appears to be valid on its face, the College will have no alternative but to comply with the subpoena absent a court order instructing otherwise.”

Within hours, Woocher contacted Kreep regarding the issue, telling him, “It will likely not surprise you to hear that President-elect Obama opposes the production of the requested records.
“In order to avoid the needless expense of our bringing and litigating a Motion to Quash the subpoena, I am writing to ask whether you would be willing to agree voluntarily to cancel or withdraw the subpoena…”

Woocher warned, “Please be advised, in particular, that in the event we are forced to file a motion to quash and we prevail in that motion, we will seek the full measure of monetary sanctions provided for in the Code of Civil Procedures.” “

“”OBAMA has been inaugurated as the president of the United States. However, to properly assume such office, OBAMA must meet the qualifications specified in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution for the Office of the President of the United States, which includes that he must be a ‘natural born’ citizen,” the amended complaint states.

“OBAMA has failed to demonstrate that he is a ‘natural born’ citizen. There have been a number of legal challenges before various state and federal courts regarding aspects of non-, lost, or dual citizenship concerning OBAMA. Those challenges, in and of themselves, demonstrate Petitioners’ argument that reasonable doubt exists as to his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

“To avert a constitutional crisis which would certainly accrue after such an election through laborious legal challenges, this writ seeks to require SOS (Secretary of State) to verify the eligibility of a Presidential candidate prior to the candidate appearing on the California ballot. It is incumbent on the candidates to present the necessary documentation confirming his or her eligibility, but, to date, for this past election, OBAMA has failed to do so,” the complaint continues.

“An unprecedented and looming constitutional crisis awaits if a President elected by the popular vote and the electoral vote does not constitutionally qualify to serve in that capacity,” the case said. “In addition, if OBAMA is not a ‘natural born’ citizen and not eligible for presidency, OBAMA will be subject to the criminal provisions of the California Elections Code, stating, ‘Any person who files or submits for filing a nomination paper or declaration of candidacy knowing that it, or any part of it, has been made falsely, is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years or by both the fine and imprisonment,’” the complaint states. “

Read more here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88746

Thanks to commenter Canadian4Hillary for the heads up on this article.