Tag Archives: August 30

Obama Rezko Chicago corruption ties news making but hidden, Mutual Bank v Mahajan update, August 30, 2012, Judge Kendall motion ruling, Obama 2005 tax return

Obama Rezko Chicago corruption ties news making but hidden, Mutual Bank v Mahajan update, August 30, 2012, Judge Kendall motion ruling, Obama 2005 tax return

“Why is news about the FDIC lawsuit, Mutual Bank v. Mahajan, the bank that loaned the Rezkos money for the Obama lot, so hard to find?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama switch to Harvey Wineberg’s firm to have his 2005 tax return prepared?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Mutual Bank fire whistleblower Kenneth J Connor after he challenged the appraisal on the land purchased by Rita Rezko, just prior to the land sale to Obama?”…Citizen Wells

There are 3 cases I have been checking on daily.

1. The status of the Blagojevich appeal.
2. The status of the Kenneth J. Conner whistleblower lawsuit.
3. The staus of the FDIC Mutual Bank lawsuit against Amrish Mahajan, et al.

All of the above reveal Obama Chicago corruption ties.

My daily activities include checking the docket for the US District Court Northern District Illinois, the courts of the Rezko and Blagojevich prosecutions and FDIC Mutual Bank lawsuit. By doing so, I discovered the following hearing.

The FDIC lawsuit against Amrish Mahajan, former president of Mutual Bank, et al is scheduled for a status hearing in the courtroom of Judge Virginia M. Kendall on July 19, 2012. Mutual Bank loaned Rita Rezko the money for the lot that was purchased by the Obama’s. It is also the bank that fired whistleblower Kenneth J. Conner after he questioned the appraisal of that lot.

Daily Calendar

Thursday, July 19, 2012 (As of 07/12/12 at 06:48:37 AM )

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall               Courtroom 2319 (VMK)

1:11-cv-07590 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporatio 09:00 Status Hearing

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/DailyCal/0.htm

After doing some more digging, I discovered that Judge Kendall had ruled on the motion to dismiss. More later on why I had to dig.

Mutual Bank v. Mahajan
Case Number: 1:11-cv-07590

“In May 2005, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulations (the “IDFPR”) conducted an examination of the Bank and delivered its report to the Board on June 10, 2005. That report warned the Board that its high concentration in hotel loans carried more risk than other properties, and that many of the loans the Bank extended were inappropriately based on
projections rather than historical data and/or had collateral consisting of distressed properties. The 2005 report also noted that many of the properties securing gas and convenience store loans were difficult for the Bank to monitor for collateral purposes as they were outside the Bank’s immediate
market area. As a result of the 2005 report, IDFPR regulators made several recommendations to manage risk, yet these recommendations were not followed by the Bank.”

“In May 2006, the FDIC investigated the Bank and delivered its report to the Board on July 29, 2006. The 2006 report again raised concerns about the Bank’s risk management, record asset growth, and lack of increase in staffing to keep pace with the increase in the loan portfolio. The 2006 report also stressed the geographic dispersion of properties subject to loans, and potential
flaws with asset quality. As with the 2005 report, the 2006 report made recommendations to enhance risk management which were again not followed by the Bank.”

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2011cv04545/257510/54/0.pdf?ts=1344338689

The Obama 2005 tax return is interesting.

From Citizen Wells August 14, 2012.

“Read the following sequence of events and decide for yourself if it looks suspicious.

Lawrence A. Horwich & Associates prepared the Obama’s 2004 tax return.

June 15, 2005: Obama purchases home next door to Rezko for $1.65 million, $300,000 less than the asking price.

June 15, 2005: Rita Rezko, Tony’s wife purchased plot next door for $625,000 asking price.

Late 2005 early 2006: From the Kenneth J. Conner complaint against Mutual Bank filed Oct. 16, 2008. The lawsuit is still active.

“11. In late 2005 or early 2006, Conner performed an appraisal review of the Adams Appraisal (Exhibit C) per the directive of Richard Barth and James Murphy. Conner prepared a written Appraisal Review report (ARR) opining that the Adams Appraisal overvalued the Greenwood lot by a minimum of $ 125,000.00″

“18. On October 23, 2007, eight days after Conner’s October 15, 2007 email to Schlabach attached as Exhibit J, Mutual Bank terminated Conner’s employment for pretextual reasons.”

Conner later told World Net daily when he initially was fired, that the bank and the Rezkos were engaged in “fraud, bribes or kickbacks, use whatever term you want,” to benefit the Obamas.

Soon after the Blagojevich arrest, Conner was interviewed by investigators from Fitzgerald’s office.
Jan. 2006: Rita Rezko sells the Obamas one-sixth of her lot for $104,500.

Harvey Wineberg’s firm prepared the Obama’s 2005 tax return.

Harvey Wineberg is on the Obama house deed.

“WND reported in December 2008 that William Miceli, the attorney for convicted political operative Tony Rezko and a fundraiser for Obama, owns the Obama home at 5046 S. Greenwood.

Miceli is a lawyer at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, which employed Obama when he did legal work for Rezko.”

“Now, a search of records shows that, in addition to Miceli, the Obama mansion is owned by Chicago Probate Judge Jane L. Stuart and Obama accountant Harvey Wineberg, both of whom are paying taxes on the property.”

http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/289501/

December 09, 2010

The President also announced his intent to appoint Harvey S. Wineberg as a Member of the President’s Advisory Council on Financial Capability.  His biography is below.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/09/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts

By the way,  Harvey Wineberg was the Treasurer of Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign and a bundler for Obama’s 2008 campaign.”

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/obama-tax-returns-for-2004-and-2005-rezko-deals-why-did-obama-have-harvey-wineberg-prepare-2005-tax-return-why-is-wineberg-on-deed-why-did-wineberg-get-administration-post/

Obama Chicago corruption ties are still news makers, they are just not making the news.

Except here.

 

Obama the hustler birth certificate defiance, Judicial misconduct, US Constitution, Citizen Wells open thread, August 30, 2010

 Obama the hustler birth certificate defiance, Judicial misconduct, US Constitution

In response to Obama, the hustler, continuing to arrogantly defy presenting a legitimate birth certificate, an article from the Citizen Wells archives dated November 12, 2008 is presented.

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

Read more:

 
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/obama-not-eligible-us-constitution-tenth-amendment-bill-of-rights-us-supreme-court-federal-judges-state-judges-state-election-officials-electoral-college-electors-philip-j-berg-lawsuit-leo-c/

Obama, lipstick on a pig, Democrat Party official website, August 30, 2008, Elizabeth Berry, Blog post, John Batchelor, Obama quoted

The reference to “lipstick on a pig” was used on the official Democratic Party website on August 30, 2008. Elizabeth Berry posted:

“Palin does not change one single thing of what the Republicans are offering which is four more years of George Bush. All that McCain did was to put lipstick on the Pig.”

Worldnetdaily has an article dated Wednesday, September 10, 2008. here are some exerpts:

“Official Democrat website: Palin pick ‘lipstick on a pig’
Posting with photograph of dolled-up swine made before Obama’s controversial remarks


Posted: September 10, 2008
10:24 am Eastern”

“The official website of the Democratic Party has a blog posting entitled, “McCain’s Selection of Palin is Lipstick on a Pig,” illustrated by an altered photograph of a pig with makeup, designer glasses and pearls.

Palin is a red herring, lipstick on the Republican pig to distract Americans from the real issue that under the leadership of the Republicans the last 8 years, our country is falling apart,” writes the blogger, Elizabeth Berry, a self-described 49-year-old “progressive” from Texas.

The posting was published 11 days ago, well before Sen. Barack Obama drew sharp criticism yesterday when he jabbed at Palin and Sen. John McCain’s idea of “change” by stating, ‘You can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.’”

Obama was speaking at a campaign event in Virginia.”

Read the rest of the article here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74870

If you are disgusted with Obama and his treatment of women, visit:

http://obamaimpeachment.org

 

By Aaron Klein