Monthly Archives: December 2008

Illinois Electors, Electoral College votes, December 15, 2008, Cspan coverage, Chicago IL and Democrat party in IL are revolting, IL corruption

I just observed on of the most sickening spectacles of my life.
One of the great commenters on this blog, ms. helga, notified
me that the IL Electors voting was being covered live on Cspan.
The first Elector that I heard presenting her praise, Lauren Beth
Gash, nauseated me. She lavished such undue praise on Obama that
I stood their incredulous in disbelief. Another one spoke of
knowing Obama since he was from Illinois. Most Electors that I
observed said a few obligatory party line words. After about six
Electors, I could stomach no more. No wonder Chicago and Illinois
are such a cesspool of crime and corruption. Democratic Party
Politics in IL is void of integrity. Electors are putting party
politics above the US Constitution and the American People.
Is it any wonder that the Democrat Governor of IL, Rod Blagojevich,
has been arrested and urged to resign. Obama should be next.

If someone out there was able to stomach the entire debacle,
please let us know if all Electors followed the party dictate.

Perhaps there will be electors in other states that will put
country first. If not, let’s pursue some legal remedies to
begin the huge enema that needs to be given to this country.

Wrotnowski V Bysiewicz, US Supreme Court, December 15, 2008, Justices decide Cort Wrotnowski versus Connecticut Secretary of State Bysiewicz, Writ of Mandamus, Obama not eligible, Stay denied

The US Supreme Court today, Monday, December 15, 2008, the same day
that the Electoral College is meeting to vote for president and vice
president, has decided:

 

08A469

 

 

WROTNOWSKI, CORT V. BYSIEWICZ, CT SEC. OF STATE

 

 

The application for stay and/or injunction addressed

 

 

to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.

 

 

 

Most of the Electors believe, falsely, that they have an overriding
obligation to vote base on political party dictates and/or state laws
dictating they must vote based on the popular vote. The Electors owe
allegiance only to the US Constitution and the American public.

Electoral College Questions and Answers

Citizen Wells letter to Electoral College Electors

This is the opinion of Citizen Wells and I will stand by the following:

The US Supreme Court, on multiple occasions, in regard to several
lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president, have not
addressed three distinct constitutional issues that need to either
be ruled on or clarified:

  • Obama’s eligibility to be president and the relevance of natural
    born citizen.
  • Clarification of state powers and duties to ensure that Electoral
    College Electors have a qualified candidate on the ballot to vote for.
  • Applicability of oaths taken to uphold and defend the Constitution
    to the election process. Marbury V Madison is clear on oaths. Why are
    the states ignoring this?

I respect the institution of the US Supreme Court. That respect does
not automatically flow to the individual Justices. Respect must be
earned. Every citizen of this country has a duty to uphold the US
Constitution. Supreme Court Justices have the highest duty to
uphold the US Constitution. They are not above the law. We will hold
them accountable.

Unless I read something soon that encourages me to believe that the
US Supreme Court is functioning as it should, I am compelled to
believe that some or all of the Supreme Court Justices are guilty of
dereliction of duty, if not “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Here is the heart of the complaint

“HOLDING BY THE PLAINTIFF

 

Holding Regarding the Role of the State Supreme Court
 

The plaintiff asserts that Connecticut law is not explicit with respect to taking action against potential election fraud at the national level.  It neither authorizes nor prohibits.  In fact, it is silent on this important issue.  The only statutes providing direction are 9-323, and for Federal Election Disputes, sec. 10-13, 10-14, 10-15, and 10-17(a) (as found in  Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled:  Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court, pages 385-387.)

We do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government, we have Connecticut state election for electors who are pledged for a particular candidate which allows each state to determine how and in what manner they choose to project their power at the National Electoral College.

 
In the special case of individuals seeking the office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected as to represent the interests of the respective state at the Electoral College.
 

State law determines how the electors are determined and act. Since this is in actual fact a state election, our Secretary of State has prevue over certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast for the named candidate for President, but also the veracity of the system which including publishing and promoting the ballot and for certifying or decertifying challenged candidates; in this case the electors who act as proxies for the candidate.
 

The plaintiff argues that the Connecticut constitution and statutes and enforcement should be consistent with the principles of the U.S. constitution.  When Connecticut law provides no guidance, then an electoral duty ascribed at the national level applies at the state level as well.  If there are national standards for preventing fraud in an election, then there need to be similar standards at the state level.  The state Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring that that Connecticut laws follows the U.S. Constitution.  In particular, Sec. 10-17(a) sets forth how the State Supreme Court can provide remedy.

 

Holding regarding Responsibility of the Secretary of State in National Elections
 

It is argued that the lack of language in the state law does not preclude the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, from verifying national candidates for whom her constituents will vote especially so when allegations of blatant profound fraud is widely asserted.

 

She has threaded a path to inaction by her selective choice of words.  Hers is a “sin of omission” argument.  Estopple argument would say otherwise. Furthermore, without explicate legislative direction, there are still very clear “implied duties” that follow from Connecticut Statutes, Connecticut Constitution and  the U.S. Constitution that demand consideration and action from this independent branch of Government charged with action.

 

There are at least four statutes that set forth the duties of the Secretary of  State.  Plaintiff bolded passages in Sec. 9-3 for emphasis.

 

From:  Connecticut General Statutes

 

Sec. 3-77. General duties; salary. Office of Secretary full time.

…  provisions of section 11-4c. The Secretary may give certified copies of any entries in such records, files, books or other papers and of the files and records of said Superior Court and of the Supreme Court, remaining in the office, which copies shall be legal evidence. … The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of one hundred ten thousand dollars and shall devote full time to the duties of the office.

 

 Sec. 9-3. Secretary to be Commissioner of Elections. Presumption concerning rulings and opinions.

The Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise provided by state statute, the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title, except for chapter 155, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the right of appeal provided under the provisions of chapter 54.

 

 

The bolded language in Sec. 9-3  demonstrates that the legislature fully expected the Secretary of State to act independently and proactively to address situations germane to the task of executing elections consistent with all requirements of the constitutions and statutes.

 

The implied duty argument is vital for circumstances where questions about candidates remain, even up to Election Day.  She claims no such responsibility, yet the “national system” to which Secretary Bysiewicz refers to does not exist and/or has provided no remedy.  Despite popular misunderstanding, the FEC provides no verification whatsoever.  As the Chief of Elections, the Secretary of State is responsible for protecting Connecticut voters from fraud and unfair elections. Buck stops there.

 

Eligibility is a fundamental issue that strikes at the heart of fair elections.  Where the question of eligibility has become so obvious and clear, as in the case of Sen. Obama’s missing birth certificate, the Secretary of State must move to protect the voters, investigating the allegations of fraud or directing such agency as deemed proper such as the SEEC which would investigate and inform the Secretary of State of their findings.”

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Citizen Wells comment

“There is apparently more chicanery going on at the US Supreme Court. First, Leo Donofrio had an unjust encounter
with clerk Danny Bickell. Now, Cort Wrotnowski has filed an emergency stay application with the US Supreme
Court and he is receiving the same unjust treatment from clerk Danny Bickell.”
Leo Donofrio

 

“US Supreme Court stay clerk Danny Bickell is guilty of obstruction of justice for the second time. Yesterday, Cort Wrotnowski filed an emergency stay application in the case WROTNOWSKI V. BYSIEWICZ, CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE, which is coming directly from a Connecticut Supreme Court order of Chief Justic Chase Rogers.

Mr. Wrotnowski was informed by Danny Bickell that Mr. Bickell denied Cort’s motion based on Rule 23.3, the same grounds Mr. Bickell had illegally improperly relied on to obstruct Donofrio v. Wells, the same case which is now going before the entire Supreme Court for Conference of Dec. 5th and to which Donofrio has pointed out Mr. Bickell was guilty of attemping to overturn Justice Powell’s holding in McCarthy v. Briscoe 429 U.S. 1317 n.1 (1976) and Justice O’Conner in Western Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301 (1987).”

“Donofrio (me) believes Mr. Wrotnowski’s case is at least as strong as his own, if not stronger. And Donofrio warned Wrotnowski that Bickell was going to try the same tactic again.”

“Courageously, Mr. Wrotnowski refused to back down and eventually Bickell said he would, reluctantly, docket the case.”

December 2, 2008

Leo Donofrio

“Cort Wrotnowski, (SCOTUS Docket No. 08A469), a day after facing the shock of his life when told by a SCOTUS clerk that his renewed application to Justice Scalia would be held back for 7 days due to anthrax screening, hand delivered 10 copies of his renewed application to the Security booth at SCOTUS this morning at 10:30 AM.  Cort was told by the Clerk’s office that the papers would “probably” be in the Clerk’s office by 2:00 PM.   Cort’s application, according to Supreme Court Rule 22.1, should be “transmitted promptly” to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.  Keep your eyes on that Docket to see if they will follow the Rules of Court.

Obama indictment to follow Blagojevich arrest?, Patrick Fitzgerald, December 14, 2008, Rezko trial, Rezko Blagojevich and Obama involved in corruption, Health Planning Board, Pay for Play, Rezko related Blagojevich donors, US Department of Justice investigation

Why Barack Obama should be indicted

Part 4

One or more of the following events should happen:

  • Obama steps down.
  • Obama is forced to prove eligibility.
  • Obama is indicted and/or arrested.

If one of the above does not occur within a few months,
perhaps we should look to the Declaration of Independence
or Thomas Jefferson, for our next strategy.

 

I began learning about Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich early in
2008 and wrote my first article mentioning Blagojevich in April.
Why did I begin scrutinizing Rod Blagojevich? I was reading the
transcripts from the Tony Rezko trial and investigation and the
names of Rezko, Obama and Blagojevich were intertwined in a web
of corruption and deception. On December 12, 2008, the Citizen
Wells blog presented an article about corruption in the IL Health
Planning Facilities Board. The article revealed the ties to Rezko,
Levine and Weinstein in their indictments and Blagojevich in
criminal charges placed against him. The article also requests
that Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indict and/or arrest
Barack Obama for his role in rigging the board when Obama was in
the IL Senate. Article that was published and faxed to Fitzgerald

Patrick Fitzgerald and the investigators working with him have
obviously been aware of Obama’s ties to crime and corruption in
Chicago and IL for many months. They have been proceeding in a
logical and methodical manner. Sentencing of Tony Rezko was delayed
and obviously he has been talking. Anyone following this story all
year knows much about Obama’s ties to corruption and Fitzgerald
knows much more. Obama is the next logical target of indictment
and/or arrest.

Consider this article from the LA Times Top of The Ticket Blog from
April 7, 2008. Here are some exerpts from the article written by
Andrew Malcolm.

“It’s an unfolding, seemingly local political story that’s fascinating
in its revealing details about the subterranean world of business,
financial and family connections in Illinois and Chicago politics
that helped take a virtually unknown black Chicago attorney, nurtured
him politically and financially and turned him into….

the polished candidate who today thrills crowds of thousands across
the country with his eloquence.

Obama currently leads in delegates for the Democratic nomination for
president.”

“This story concerns two men, neither of whom face any legal charges
today. They are two of Illinois’ top Democratic politicians — Gov.
Blagojevich, who’s been mentioned often in court, and Sen. Obama,
who’s received only passing mentions. They’re entwined in the Rezko
saga, particularly through the bounteous campaign money he raised
for them both.

Get used to that name. Rezko’s currently in a long-running Chicago
trial on federal extortion and bribery charges. Few campaign donors
were more responsible than Rezko for the rise of Blagojevich
(Blah-goy-ah-vitch) and Obama. Both politicians came to rely on him
for political and personal advice — and lots of campaign money.”

So far, Blagojevich, reelected in 2006, is more deeply enmeshed in
the scandal than Obama, who’s not been implicated in any wrongdoing.

But all three operated in the murky world of Illinois Democratic
politics, where money, family relationships and long business
associations provide the invisible glue of the local political world.

Witnesses in Rezko’s trial have testified that Rezko recommended friends
and associates for government jobs and posts on Illinois state boards
when Blagojevich took office in 2003, and some of those friends were
generous donors to Blagojevich.

An early trial exhibit from prosecutors was a spreadsheet. Prepared by
an FBI agent , the spreadsheet identifies Rezko-related donors who
supplied $1.43 million between 2001 and 2004 to Blagojevich, who was
first elected governor in 2002.

Using Federal Election Commission and Illinois state records, The
Times’ Dan Morain compared donors on the FBI spreadsheet to Obama’s
contributors. Guess what.

Sen. Obama received $222,000 during the same 2001-2004 period from
Rezko-related Blagojevich donors.”

Read more here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/obamarezko.html
Several things are important about this article and facts that were
surfacing about Rezko, Blagojevich and Obama. Rezko had already been
indicted. It was clear that Blagojevich and Obama were heavily
involved with Rezko. Blagojevich has just recently been indicted.
The fact that Obama has not been officially implicated and charged
is meaningless. That is standard operating procedure.

Get used to this expression:

Obama trial.

Citizen Wells letter to Electors, Electoral College, Uphold US Constitution, December 15, 2008 Electors vote, Obama is not eligible, Demand proof, 2008 Election, Election laws, Political Party pledges, State laws unconstitutional

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and
the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service
of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and
thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered;
yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict,
the more glorious the triumph.” —Thomas Paine 1778

To: 2008 Presidential Election Electoral College Electors

From: Citizen Wells

Electors,
You are being put into the uncomfortable position of having to
question your vote for president of the US. In the past, this
was a much simpler decision. Party politics has always been an
issue but in the past, after the general election, the rules
were fairly simple for you. You voted based on the party pledges
and state rules without giving it much thought. The duty to vote
in the manner as directed by the US Constitution has always been
there, but you never had to be concerned about violating it.

The 2008 Election year is unique in American History. Early in
2008 questions arose about the eligibility of John McCain and
Barack Obama to be president. John McCain put to rest any doubts
by presenting to Congress a vault copy of his birth certificate.
As the year progressed and more was learned about Obama’s history
and evasive attitude, more people began questioning Obama’s
eligibility. Several attempts were made on various websites to put
the issue to rest by presenting copies of what were alleged to be
COLB, Certificate of Live Birth. A COLB is a record of birth and
is not a legal verification of location of birth and other birth
facts.

On August 21, 2008, Philip J Berg filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia
Federal Court demanding that Barack Obama provide proof of eligibility.
Mr. Berg provided many details surrounding Obama’s past such as
Obama’s probable birth in Kenya, travel forbidden to American
citizens in Pakistan and Obama’s school records and other records’
that Obama has kept hidden from scrutiny. Many lies and deception
have been initiated by the Obama camp. One of the more interesting
ones is an AP report that tried to insinuate that Hawaiian Health
Department officials stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. They
did not state that.

Many other lawsuits have developed from the Berg lawsuit including
the Alan Keyes lawsuit in CA. Obama has spents hundreds of thousands
of dollars and employed multiple law firms to avoid proving his
eligibility. Lawsuits are still alive in the US Supreme Court and
many state courts. Lawsuits place the burden of proof on the
plaintiff and require very strict legal wording.

Why are you being put in the position of questioning your vote and
complying with the US Constitution? The Constitution gives the power
and control over elections to the states through the vote of the
Electoral College. State laws vary greatly but to various degrees
define how candidates get on the ballot and other rules controlling
the election process. Some states define the method of challenging
or ensuring that a candidate is qualified. Regardless, the states
do have the power and the duty to ensure that a presidential
candidate is qualified to take office.

Why are the states not requiring that a presidential candidate is
qualified? The short answer is that they are passing the buck. The
long answer is that tradition, politics and political parties are
driving the process when in fact political parties are given no
power or authority by the US Constitution. The typical answer
given by a secretary of state or other state election official is
that they get their cue from the political party as to who gets
put on the ballot and some even state that it is the responsibility
of the party to vet the candidate. While I see no problem getting
names for ballots from the political party, that does not remove
the Constitutional duty of the states. This is a blatant violation
of duty by state officers, election officials and judges and could
fall under “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

To make matters worse, the US Supreme Court, on multiple occasions, in
regard to several lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be
president, has not addressed three distinct constitutional issues
that need to either be ruled on or clarified:

  • Obama’s eligibility to be president and the relevance of natural
    born citizen.
  • Clarification of state powers and duties to ensure that Electoral
    College Electors have a qualified candidate on the ballot to vote for.
  • Applicability of oaths taken to uphold and defend the Constitution
    to the election process. Marbury V Madison is clear on oaths. Why are
    the states ignoring this?

No one wants to take responsibility. Why? Many of the reasons are
obvious. Party politics, fear of offending someone, fear of riots,
ignorance, tradition.

Electors. You are in a unique position. We have a system of checks and
balances in this country that has served us well over the centuries.
Our Founding Fathers had witnessed the monarchies and totalitarian
regimes prevalent in much of their world. They did not want that. That
is why we have executive, legislative and judicial branches and that
is also why we have an Electoral College system of voting for president.
The Electoral College was set up by the founding fathers to achieve two
primary goals.To prevent smaller states and lower population areas from
being dominated by a few larger states with higher population densities
and to prevent a tyrant or usurper of power from deceiving an uninformed
populace.

Consider the following quotes:
Alexander Hamilton echoed the thoughts of many of the founding
fathers when he wrote in the Federalist Papers: “afraid a tyrant could
manipulate public opinion and come to power.”
“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.”
Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

Electors, you have a duty to uphold the US Constitution. As Harry Truman
said, “The buck stop here.” You can blindly follow party propaganda or
you can act as concerned Americans and do the right thing. What do other
concerned Americans expect from you? That you make certain that the
candidate that you vote for is qualified under the US Constitution,
nothing more, nothing less.

This is so simple a school child can understand it. Why would Barack
Obama spend so much money, time and resources to avoid proving his
eligibilty. The answer is obvious. Obama is not qualified. However,
all you have to do is demand that he provide legitimate, legal, proof
and you can rest easy knowing you have done your job, your duty to
this country and the US Constitution.

One person, one vote can make a difference:

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas,
voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Those Electors helped save the Union and the world.

Electoral College Questions and Answers

2008 US Presidential Election, Electoral College, Electors, US Constitution, Federal Election Law, State Election Laws, State officers, State Election Officials, Judges, US Supreme Court Justices, Democratic Disaster, Questions and answers

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”     Benjamin Franklin

Presidential Election

Electoral College Questions and Answers

Q: What is the Electoral College?:

A: The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers
as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and
election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for
the electors who then vote for the President. Read more

Q: Frequently asked questions:

A: Read more here

Q: Why did the Founding Fathers create the Electoral College?:

A:  The Founding Father’s intent

Here is a quote by Alexander Hamilton who, like many of the founding
fathers, was “afraid a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come
to power.” Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made
by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station,
and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a
judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were
proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by
their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to
possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated
investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little
opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least
to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so
important an agency in the administration of the government as the
President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so
happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an
effectual security against this mischief.”

Q: What are the state laws governing Electors?:

A: List of states and restrictions on Electors

Q: What are so called “Faithless Electors”?:

A: “The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require
that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore,
political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the
parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called “faithless
electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting
an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme
Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges
and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under
the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to
vote as pledged.” Read more here

The US Supreme Court Obviously has not given Electors the option to
violate the US Constitution. Therefore, obviously, if the presidential
candidate is qualified, party pledges and state laws are permissable.

Q: What must an Elector be aware of when voting for a presidential candidate?:

 A: The following are important considerations when casting a vote. Voting
as instructed by a political party, another person, or a state law in
conflict with the US Constitution or Federal Election Laws is a serious
matter. Those not voting in accordance with higher laws are subject to
prosecution and may be guilty of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
High Crimes and Misdemeanors

UNITED STATES 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.”

Are Electors required to vote according to Popular Vote?

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires
electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in
their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their
votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two
categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges
to political parties.”   (From US National Archives)

So called “Faithless Electors”

“It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to
vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so,
more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the
popular vote or their party. These electors are called “faithless
electors.”

In response to these faithless electors’ actions, several states
have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party
vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to
assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example,
the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless
electors.

It’s important to note, that although these states have created these
laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws
hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.”
Read more here

State Law Example: Pennsylvania

“§ 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
.”

“The mysteries of the Electoral College has enabled Pennsylvania
to play an unusually major role in determining who is President.
In 1796, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in Pennsylvania’s
popular election by only 62 votes, but the Pennsylvania electors
gave Jefferson 14 votes and Adams 1, though Adams did win the
Electoral vote, 71 to 68.” Read more here

Electors helped save the Union

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas,
voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Q: What happens after the Electoral College vote?:

A: Electoral College procedures

Q: What is the significance of your vote?:

A: The US Constitution clearly gives the states the power
and duties associated with electing a qualified president.
It is also clear that the states have not performed their
duties to ensure that the Electoral College votes will be
for a Qualified candidate. The Electors have a constitutional
duty to perform that supersedes any party contract or state
law. Each day that passes without verification of eligibility
of any candidate being voted for by Electors, brings us closer
to a constitutional crisis. There are pending court cases before
the US Supreme Court and state courts. Congress will meet in
January to count and certify votes and there will certainly be
challenges in Congress. If Congress or the courts shall fail to
do their duty, a Supreme Court Justice will be faced with a
decision to uphold the Constitution. The crisis will increase
in intensity.

If anyone has any further questions they can be asked on this
blog or go to:

http://www.democratic-disaster.com/


Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the
Citizen Wells blog. Every effort has been made to ensure the
accuracy of the content. Readers are encouraged to visit source
material such as the US Constitution, Federal Election law and
state laws.

Patrick Fitzgerald, Indict Obama, Blagojevich arrest indicts Obama, December 12, 2008, Barack Obama rigged IL Health Facilities Planning Board, Citizen Wells contacted Fitzgerald and US Justice Department, Obama arrest?

Why Barack Obama should be indicted

Part 3

One or more of the following events should happen:

  • Obama steps down.
  • Obama is forced to prove eligibility.
  • Obama is indicted and/or arrested.

If one of the above does not occur within a few months,
perhaps we should look to the Declaration of Independence
or Thomas Jefferson, for our next strategy.

 

Yesterday, Thursday, December 11, 2008 the Citizen Wells blog posted
an article that ended with:

“Since Barack Obama is attempting to sneak through the election
process with a great many legal questions clouding his past and
since the American public needs and depends on the Judicial Branch
of government to protect it from criminals and imposters, I
Citizen Wells, on behalf of the American public, ask that Mr.
Patrick Fitzgerald or any authorized employee of the US Justice
Department, present Mr. Barack H. Obama with an indictment and/or
Criminal Complaint at the earliest possible moment, with time being
of the essence. The Electoral College meets next week and it is
imperative that we do all that is in our power to prevent a
constitutional crisis in this country.”

Barack Obama’s role in rigging the IL Health Facilities Planning Board
by reducing the number of members from 15 to 9 and therefore allowing
Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine and Rod Blagojevich to control the board with
only 5 members, is examined in detail. The indictments and criminal
complaints of Rezko, Levine, Blagojevich and Weinstein reveal their
involvement in board corruption. Obama should be indicted as well.

Citizen Wells plea to Patrick Fitzgerald and US Justice Dept.

Today, Friday, December 12, 2008, Patrick Fitzgerald’s office at
the US Justice Department was notified by telephone call and fax
of the Citizen Wells article and request to indict and/or arrest
Barack H Obama. In addition to Patrick Fitzgerald, the following
USDOJ employees were listed to be copied on the fax:

Reid Schar
Carrie Hamilton
Chris Niewoehner

Obama indictment, Blagojevich arrest, Patrick Fitzgerald, December 11, 2008, Rezko trial,Obama, Rezko, Levine, Blagojevich, Health Planning Board, Pay for Play, IL Senate, Obama arrest and indictment by USDOJ, US Department of Justice, Update December 12, 2008

Yesterday, Thursday, December 11, 2008 the Citizen Wells blog posted
an article that ended with:

“Since Barack Obama is attempting to sneak through the election
process with a great many legal questions clouding his past and
since the American public needs and depends on the Judicial Branch
of government to protect it from criminals and imposters, I
Citizen Wells, on behalf of the American public, ask that Mr.
Patrick Fitzgerald or any authorized employee of the US Justice
Department, present Mr. Barack H. Obama with an indictment and/or
Criminal Complaint at the earliest possible moment, with time being
of the essence. The Electoral College meets next week and it is
imperative that we do all that is in our power to prevent a
constitutional crisis in this country.”

Citizen Wells plea to Patrick Fitzgerald and US Justice Dept.

I just got off the phone. I attempted to contact the US Department
of Justice Office of Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago, IL. I informed
the last person I was connected to that I had posted an article
yesterday on the Citizen Wells blog requesting that the USDOJ indict
and/or arrest Barack Obama. I also indicated that I would fax the
article today. Both people I talked to were a bit short with me, however,
they are getting bombarded with phone calls.

I then called the number for the press office and reached the same lady.

I will provide updates on this important story as I get them.

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewkz. Application for stay/injunction denied without comment or dissent, December 12, 2008

** Update Below **

This was just posted on this blog by Lawdawg:

Submitted on 2008/12/12 at 11:12am
#08A469 Wrotnowski v. Bysiewkz. Application for stay/injunction denied without comment or dissent.
-Lawdawg

** Update **

From Leo Donofrio’s site:

“[UPDATE]: 11:26 AM – Dec. 12 2008 :  Rumors of a decision denying Cort’s application are unequivocally false.  A SCOTUS Spokesperson just told Cort Wrotnowski there has been no decision.  She indicated there will be no decision until Monday.  The conference is sealed, no clerks are allowed in.]”

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Obama indictment, Blagojevich arrest, Patrick Fitzgerald, December 11, 2008, Rezko trial,Obama, Rezko, Levine, Blagojevich, Health Planning Board, Pay for Play, IL Senate, Obama arrest and indictment by USDOJ, US Department of Justice

Why Barack Obama should be indicted

Part 2

One or more of the following events should happen:

  • Obama steps down.
  • Obama is forced to prove eligibility.
  • Obama is indicted and/or arrested.

If one of the above does not occur within a few months,
perhaps we should look to the Declaration of Independence
or Thomas Jefferson, for our next strategy.

Legal Notice

To:

Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald
US Department of Justice
219 S. Dearborn Street, Fifth Floor
Chicago, IL 60604

The US and state governments are composed of Executive,
Legislative and Judicials branches. This is designed to
provide a system of checks and balances and protect the
American public. We now need the protection from the American
Government more than ever. We have a presidential candidate
that will soon be voted for by the Electoral College with
these issues threatening to cause a constitutional crisis:

  • Obama is not a natural born citizen and is ineligible to be
    president.
  • Obama in his official capacity as IL State Senator and US
    Senator has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors on multiple
    occasions.
  • Obama lied on his IL Bar Application.
  • Obama has a very suspect Selective Service Application.
  • Obama has been involved in illegal and corrupt dealings with
    the following indicted and/or convicted IL officials and
    businessmen:  

Tony Rezko
Stuart Levine
Dr. Robert Weinstein
Governor Rod Blagojevich

  • Obama conspired with one or more of the above named to rig
    the IL Health Facilities Planning Board.

Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department have been involved
in an investigation of crime and corruption in Chicago and IL,
sometimes referred to as “pay for play.” This investigation and
subsequent prosecutions has been methodical and well executed. The
initial focus was on Tony Rezko and his trial and conviction that
evolved out the testimony of Stuart Levine who had been wiretapped.
Multiple indictments and arrests have developed from the Rezko trial
leading up to the recent arrest of IL Governor Rod Blagojevich. All
of the people indicted or arrested  out of the investgation have one
thing in common. Connections to Barack Obama. It has been believed for
months that Rezko would talk and that Blagojevich and/or Obama was next.
It is now time to indict Barack H. Obama.

From the Petition to Impeach, expel Senator Obama

Whereas: Senator Barack Obama used the office of IL Senator to facilitate the vote rigging in Chicago as chairman of the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee. Mr. Obama pushed legislation in Senate Bill 1332 to reduce the number of members of the Health Facilities Planning Board from 15 to 9. Mr. Obama did conspire with Stuart Levine, Tony Rezko and Rod Blogojevich to rig the committee and was rewarded with campaign contributions. The new members appointed included 3 doctors who contributed to Mr. Obama. On April 21, 2004, Stuart Levine explicitly advised Dr. Robert Weinstein, who is now indicted, of Tony Rezko’s role in manipulating the Planning Board’s vote.

The following have been indicted and/or arrested

Tony Rezko

“During the same time period, the indictment alleges, Rezko and Levine also were seeking to obtain a kickback of at least $1 million from contractor Jacob Kiferbaum, whose construction company was to build a new facility for Mercy Hospital in Crystal Lake, Illinois, if that facility received approval from the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, on which Levine sat.”

Tony Rezko Indictment

Stuart Levine

“Levine used his influence with the Planning Board to ensure that Mercy Hospital received approval of its application to build the Crystal Lake hospital after hiring Kiferbaum’s company. In voting for, and influencing other Planning Board members to vote for, Mercy’s application, Levine concealed from the Planning Board his financial arrangement or contacts with Kiferbaum.”

Stuart Levine Indictment

Dr. Robert Weinstein

“The false statements count alleges that on May 24, 2004, Weinstein lied to an FBI agent when he said that Levine never told him that Rezko had influence over the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, the state board that regulates hospital construction and expansion. In fact, the indictment alleges Weinstein knew that he and Levine had discussed Rezko’s influence over the Planning Board, including in a recorded conversation on April 21, 2004, in which Levine explicitly advised Weinstein of Rezko’s role in manipulating the Planning Board’s vote earlier that day on the Certificate of Need application of Mercy Health System Corp. Hospital and other matters.”

Dr. Robert Weinstein Indictment

Governor Rod Blagojevich

“Rezko was a principal fundraiser for ROD BLAGOJEVICH. 3 His criminal trial
focused on allegations that Rezko and Stuart Levine, a member of the board of trustees of
the Teachers Retirement System and the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, engaged
in a scheme to defraud the State of Illinois of Levine’s honest services by demanding
kickbacks, as well as political contributions to the campaign of ROD BLAGOJEVICH, in
return for the exercise of Levine’s official influence. Relevant evidence presented at the
Rezko trial is summarized below.”

“According to Levine, in approximately late October 2003, after Levine was
reappointed to the Planning Board, he shared a private plane ride from New York to Chicago
with ROD BLAGOJEVICH and Kelly. Levine, ROD BLAGOJEVICH, and Kelly were the
only passengers on the flight. According to Levine, at the beginning of the flight, Levine
thanked ROD BLAGOJEVICH for reappointing him to the Planning Board. ROD BLAGOJEVICH
responded that Levine should only talk with “Tony” [Rezko] or [Kelly]
about the Planning Board, “but you stick with us and you will do very well for yourself.”
ROD BLAGOJEVICH said this in front of Kelly.”

“Levine’s criminal activities included his abuse of his position on the Planning
Board to enrich both himself and Friends of Blagojevich. The Planning Board was a
commission of the State of Illinois, established by statute, whose members were appointed
by the Governor of the State of Illinois. 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.”

“Almanaseer testified that Beck instructed him that Rezko wanted
Almanaseer to vote a particular way and that Almanaseer should follow Levine’s lead in
voting on CONs.”

“During his testimony, Levine described a plan to manipulate the Planning
Board to enrich himself and Friends of Blagojevich. The plan centered on an entity
commonly known as Mercy Hospital (“Mercy”) that was attempting to obtain a CON to build
a new hospital in Illinois.”

Governor Rod Blagojevich Criminal Complaint

Chicago Tribune Rezko Trial Transcripts

March 6, 2008; 12:29 a.m.

“Hamilton finished remarks after an hour. She did not mention the name of Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama, whose U.S. Senate campaign in 2004 allegedly was the beneficiary of $20,000 in campaign cash from intermediaries in the kickback schemes the government says were orchestrated by Rezko.”

March 10, 2008; 4:16 p.m.

“The name of Barack Obama, the Democratic front-runner for the presidential nomination, also appears in the e-mail as a member of a strategic team reviewing hospital board matters with the governor’s staff when he was a state senator. The hospital board was scheduled to be revamped in the summer of 2003.

Obama was then chairman of the Senate Committee on Health & Human Services. Other legislative leaders, including Madigan, were part of that review panel as well, according to the e-mail.”

March 13, 2008; 3:09 p.m.

“Dr. Imad Almanaseer is on the witness stand this afternoon, testifying about his links to Antoin “Tony” Rezko and his time on the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board”.
“Almanaseer was appointed to the planning board in 2003 on Rezko’s recommendation. Prosecutors contend he became part of a five-member voting bloc on the board that followed Rezko’s wishes. Almanaseer said board Chairman Thomas Beck tried to steer his voting.”

March 19, 2008; 11:21 a.m.

Prosecution witness Stuart Levine is walking jurors through the evolution of his relationship with defendant Tony Rezko. The two met at a dinner party shortly before the 2002 election in which Rezko’s close friend Rod Blagojevich was elected governor.”

“Levine said he met increasingly with Rezko in early 2003 after Blagojevich was sworn in as governor. On occasion, Levine said, Rezko described his close relationship with Blagojevich.

“He said that he had raised a great deal of money for Gov. Blagojevich and that he had great hopes and expectations that Gov. Blagojevich would run for president,” Levine recalled. “And although he knew it was a long shot, he was working toward that end.””

“”Mr. Rezko told me that he was able to have individuals appointed to state boards and was able to have individuals hired into state agencies and that he spoke very often — and in fact went over decisions — that Lon Monk would put into place,” Levine said.”

March 21, 2008; 12:10 p.m.

“Another government wiretap has been played with Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s voice on it, and this one could prove damaging to his defense. On the tape, recorded May 18, 2004, Rezko can be heard giving orders to political fixer Stuart Levine about how he wanted to manipulate the vote of one of Levine’s fellow members on the Illinois Health Facilities Planning board, Danalynn Rice.

On the call, Rezko is heard mentioning Chris Kelly, who with Rezko was one of the top fundraisers for Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Both Rezko and Kelly were key members of Blagojevich’s kitchen cabinet.

Rezko makes it clear in the phone call that Kelly, too, had been involved in trying to manipulate decisions of the hospital board, which Rezko has been charged with corrupting. Kelly apparently had called Levine earlier and told him he should be Rice’s mentor on the board, directing her to follow his lead on voting. Rice had been recently installed on the hospital panel at the insistence of a leader of the Laborers’ International Union, which had contributed more than $133,000 to Blagojevich’s campaign.”

Obama’s ties to Rezko, Blagojevich, corruption

Evelyn Pringle: Curtain Time for Obama — Part 2
Feds track Obama’s visits to Rezko

In the media, Obama always made it sound like he rarely saw Rezko, saying they met for breakfast or lunch once or twice a year. However, the FBI mole John 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,“ according to the February 10, 2008 Sun-Times.

During his March 14, 2008 interview, the Times told Obama, Thomas is an FBI mole and 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?” the reporter asked.

“No,” Obama said, “That’s not accurate.”

“I think what is true,” he said, “is that, it depends on the period of time.”

“I’ve known him for 17 years,” Obama stated. “There were stretches of time where I would see him once or twice a year.”

He told the Times, “when he was involved in finance committee for the U.S. Senate race, or the state senate races, or the U.S. Congressional race, then he was an active member.”

“During the U.S. Senate race, there’s be stretches of like a couple of weeks – for example prior to him organizing the fundraiser that he did for us – where I would probably be talking to him once a day to make sure that was going well,” he said.

“But the typical relationship was one that was fond,” he added. “We would see each other.”

“But there would be no reason for me to be seeing him that often,” he stated. This issue may be sorted out soon enough because Fitzgerald’s charts matching up Obama’s contributions, visits and calls are bound to be every bit as thorough as the ones produced to prove Rezko is guilty as charged in the first trial. They simply were not produced because they were not needed to prove the defendant guilty in the first case.

As an example of what records might be squirreled away, consider that an FBI agent presented a chart to the jury on April 28, 2008, showing 257 calls from Rezko’s phones to Blagojevich’s chief of staff, Lon Monk, between March 2004 and May 2004 alone.

He also had a list of all calls between Levine and Rezko from November 2002 to May 2004. Rezko’s attorney brought out a point that backs the assertion that just because records on Obama were not shown, does not mean they do not exist.

The attorney questioned the agent about missing calls, and specifically those to and from Christopher Kelly. The agent first said records were not available, but later admitted the government probably does have records on Kelly that were not available to him.

In addition, the contributions extorted through the Planning Board scheme were for the intended presidential candidate, Blagojevich. Obama’s US senate war chest was already funded and by the time these kickbacks were paid that campaign would be over.

But Obama did end up with $20,000 from the very first kickback paid in the pension fund scheme set up through the Board of the Teacher’s Retirement System.

Elie Maloof and Joseph Aramanda, the straw donors used to funnel the contributions to Obama, also made $1,000 contributions of their own for his failed run for Congress in 2000, on the same day March 17, 2000.

In addition, Aramanda gave $500 to Obama’s senate campaign on June 30, 2003. In the summer of 2005, Aramanda’s teenage son landed a coveted intern position in Obama’s senate office in Washington.

Obama also received contributions directly from the persons appointed to the pension board for the express purpose of rigging the votes. On June 30, 2003, appointee, Jack Carriglio contributed $1,000.

The other appointee, Anthony Abboud, donated $500 to Obama on June 30, 2003, $250 on March 5, 2004, and $1,000 on June 25, 2004.

Michael Winter, who prosecutors say agreed to serve as a funnel for kickbacks paid through an investment firm in one scheme donated $3,000 to Obama on June 30, 2003.”

Obama’s role in rigging the Health Planning Facilities Board

Evelyn Pringle, Obama Curtain Time 2

“Obama was chairman of the Senate Health & Human Services Committee in January 2003. A few articles in the media have mentioned that Obama sat on a committee that reviewed matters related to the Planning Board in conjunction with the Governor’s staff but none have discussed his integral part in getting the bill passed.

A review of senate records from January 2003 to August 2003, shows Obama played a major role as chairman of that committee, in pushing through Senate Bill 1332, that led to the “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act,” which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, making the votes much easier to rig.

Democratic Senator Susan Garrett sponsored the bill in the senate, and the chief co-sponsor was Republican Senator Dale Righter. These two senators were also on the Human Services Committee with Obama.

The bill was filed with the senate secretary on February 20, 2003, and assigned to Human Services Committee for review on February 27. Less than a month later, as chairman, Obama sent word that the bill should be passed on March 13, 2003.

On May 31, 2003, the House and Senate passed the bill and the only senator listed in the “yes” votes mentioned in the Board Games indictments is Obama.

Blagojevich made the effective date June 27, 2003, and the co-schemers already had the people lined up to stack the Board and rig the votes with full approval from Obama.

As discussed fully in >Curtain Time for Obama Part 1, the Republicans and Democrats worked together in setting up the Planning Board scheme because the Combine as a whole would profit.

During the trial, Stuart Levine testified that when he sought reappointment to the Planning Board, he told Republican co-schemer, Bill Cellini, to tell the Blagojevich administration he would vote however they wanted when approving projects.

He told the jury he had the same understanding with the two prior Republican governors, Jim Edgar, and George Ryan, who is now sitting in prison due to Fitzgerald’s successful prosecution of a corruption case against him.

A June 2003 email exchange produced in the trial shows Obama was one of eight officials who received the names of the nominees for the new Board ahead of time, from the office of David Wilhelm, who headed Blagojevich’s 2002 campaign for governor.

Tony Rezko’s name does not appear in the email. In fact, his attorney made the point to the jury that the exchange was from Blagojevich’s general counsel, Susan Lichtenstein, and Wilhelm’s office, and indicated the appointees were recommended by Wilhelm and supported by those who received the memo.

The memo said, “we worked closely over the past six months” with eight officials including three state senators.

Jennifer Thomas, a former aide in Blagojevich’s patronage office, testified that she attended regular weekly meetings at Rezko’s office between the spring of 2003 and November 2004, and Rezko floated names and specifically said Levine should be reappointed to the new Board.

The Senate bill said, the “Board shall be appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate.” But the Senate Confirmation Hearings were a joke. For instance, the Feds recorded Levine talking to co-schemer, Jon Bauman, the day Levine learned he was approved by the Senate from the executive secretary of the Board.

Levine told Bauman he ran into Jeffrey Marks, who said “congratulations on your appointment,” and Levine asked for what. Marks said, “well the Senate Confirmation Hearings on Health Facility Plan Board members.”

He told Levine Senate President, Emil Jones, only allowed 2 members to be approved and “that was you and the other person he just put in.”

“Isn’t that hysterical ’cause you know they had this big battle going on,” Levine told Bauman.

Laughing away, Levine said, “don’t you just love it.”

“I’m one of those independents and not part of the block.”

“Well, good, you know it’s good to be just a true independent civil servant,” Bauman said laughing along with Levine.

“Is, is that a good thing,” Levine replied, “I’ve never been that.”

Corrupt appointees fund Obama and Blagojevich campaigns

The corrupt new appointees were all contributors to the presidential hopeful, Blagojevich, and the US senate hopeful Obama.

The previous Act allowed the Board itself to select a “Chairman and other officers as deemed necessary.” But the new law stated: “The Governor shall designate one of the members to serve as Chairman and shall name as full-time Executive Secretary.”

The Board’s then sitting-chairman, Thomas Beck, who was originally appointed by a Republican governor, testified under a grant of immunity that he brought a $1,000 check to Rezko on July 15, 2003, to make sure Blagojevich reappointed him.

A few weeks later, Beck said, Rezko called to say he would be reappointed along with a Republican holdover Levine. Beck also testified that Rezko told him Blagojevich was set to appoint Rezko’s three doctor friends to complete the rigged voting bloc. He said he met the doctors in August 2003, at the first meeting of the new Board.

Dr Michel Malek gave Obama $10,000 a little over a month before the first meeting on June 30, 2003. He also donated $25,000 to Blagojevich three weeks later on July 25, 2003, and gave Obama another $500 in September 2003. Malek was an investor in Riverside Park.

Dr Fortunee Massuda donated $25,000 to Blagojevich on July 25, 2003, and gave a total of $2,000 to Obama on different dates. Massuda’s husband, Charles Hannon, is a co-schemer in the pension fund case and testified against Rezko in the trial.

Dr Imad Almanaseer contributed a total of $3,000 to Obama after he landed the appointment. On March 13, 2008, Almanaseer testified against Rezko and told the jury he was an investor in Rezko’s fast-food businesses.

This doctor’s son, Ahmed Almanaseer, was given a trade office intern position with the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. Ahmed is president of HireIraqis.com a bilingual human resources “site aimed at linking Iraqi job seekers with the companies engaged in the reconstruction [in Iraq] efforts,” according to Rezko Watch/RBO.”

Conclusion

 

The names of Blagojevich and Obama were mentioned regularly
during the Rezko trial. Since Blagojevich and Obama were not
on trial at the time, much information known about them was
withheld. To understand this fact simply read the Criminal
Complaint against Rod Blagojevich. It is apparent that much
more is known about Barack Obama and that he is next in line
to be indicted.

Since Barack Obama is attempting to sneak through the election
process with a great many legal questions clouding his past and
since the American public needs and depends on the Judicial Branch
of government to protect it from criminals and imposters, I
Citizen Wells, on behalf of the American public, ask that Mr.
Patrick Fitzgerald or any authorized employee of the US Justice
Department, present Mr. Barack H. Obama with an indictment and/or
Criminal Complaint at the earliest possible moment, with time being
of the essence. The Electoral College meets next week and it is
imperative that we do all that is in our power to prevent a
constitutional crisis in this country.

I do hereby swear that the information provided above is, to the
best of my knowledge, accurate.

Citizen Wells                December 11, 2008

Barack Obama talked to Rod Blagojevich, More Obama lies, Obama Blagojevich meeting November 5, 2008, Discuss US Senate replacement, Obama camp lies, Ties to Tony Rezko, FBI mole John Thomas links them, December 10, 2008 Obama news

Just yesterday, December 9, 2008, the day that Rod Blagojevich was arrested,
Obama told another lie and stated he had not talked to Blagojevich.

Obama lied about talking to Rod Blagojevich

Today more evidence has surfaced of contact between Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich:

“Ill. governor meeting with Obama today

By Carol Sowers
Wednesday, November 05, 2008 at 10:39 a.m.
CHICAGO, ILL. — Now that Barack Obama will be moving to the White House, his seat in the U.S. Senate representing Illinois will have to be filled.

That’s one of Obama’s first priorities today.

He’s meeting with Governor Rod Blagojevich this afternoon in Chicago to discuss it.

Illinois law states that the governor chooses that replacement.”
Read more here:

http://www.connecttristates.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=217582