Category Archives: Citizen Journalism

Lakin court martial, Commander in Chief, Chain of command, Citizen Wells open thread, September 5, 2010

Lakin court martial, Commander in Chief, Chain of command

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.”…US Military officer’s oath of office
Officers in the service of the United States are
bound by this oath to disobey any order that
violates the Constitution of the United States.

From Citizen Wells August 5, 2010.

As you read the following, be aware of another important point, there is no time restriction on the president being found to be ineligible.

“Notice the emphasis placed on eligibility in the presidential line of succession.
 US Code
TITLE 3 > CHAPTER 1 > § 19
§ 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
(a)
(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.
(2) The same rule shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection.
(b) If, at the time when under subsection (a) of this section a Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties of the office of President, there is no Speaker, or the Speaker fails to qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as Senator, act as President.
(c) An individual acting as President under subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this section shall continue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, except that—
(1) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies; and
(2) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the inability of the President or Vice President, then he shall act only until the removal of the disability of one of such individuals.
(d)
(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President shall act as President: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security.
(2) An individual acting as President under this subsection shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list shall not terminate his service.
(3) The taking of the oath of office by an individual specified in the list in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be held to constitute his resignation from the office by virtue of the holding of which he qualifies to act as President.
(e) Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution. Subsection (d) of this section shall apply only to officers appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, prior to the time of the death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, of the President pro tempore, and only to officers not under impeachment by the House of Representatives at the time the powers and duties of the office of President devolve upon them.
(f) During the period that any individual acts as President under this section, his compensation shall be at the rate then provided by law in the case of the President.”

Much has been said orders being tied to the Commander in Chief and the chain of command. Here is what a US Army soldier must understand about the chain of command.

From the US Army Study Guide.

Chain of Command List

Posted Monday, July 23, 2007

Commander-in-Chief  -President George W. Bush
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff  -General Peter Pace
Army Chief of Staff
 -General George W. Casey, Jr. 
Theater Commander  –
Corps Commander  –
Division Commander  –
Brigade Commander  –
Battalion Commander  –
Company/Troop Commander  –
Platoon Leader  –
Section/Squad/Team Leader

Read more:

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/chain_of_command/chain-of-command-list.shtml

From Army Command Policy April 27, 2010
“1–5. Command
a. Privilege to command. Command is exercised by virtue of office and the special assignment of members of the
United States Armed Forces holding military grade who are eligible to exercise command. A commander is, therefore,
a commissioned or warrant officer who, by virtue of grade and assignment, exercises primary command authority over
a military organization or prescribed territorial area that under pertinent official directives is recognized as a “command.”
The privilege to command is not limited solely by branch of Service except as indicated in chapter 2. A
civilian, other than the President as Commander-in-Chief (or National Command Authority), may not exercise command.”

Read more:

http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r600_20.pdf

Terry Lakin court martial hearing, September 2, 2010, Judge denies request for Obama records

Terry Lakin court martial hearing, September 2, 2010, Judge denies request for Obama records

From ABC News 25

“A military judge in Maryland has refused to order the release of school records that could include a copy of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

The documents were sought by an Army doctor, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who is being court-martialed for disobeying a deployment order because he doubts Obama’s qualifications to serve as commander in chief.

The judge ruled Thursday that those records and any other evidence or witnesses pertaining to Obama’s birth are not relevant to the case and will not be admitted. Prosecutors have argued that Obama’s birth certificate shouldn’t be part of the case, especially since the order for Lakin to deploy to Afghanistan didn’t come directly from the president.”

Read more:

http://www.news25.us/Global/story.asp?S=13091049

Obama not natural born citizen, The Blaze, Glenn Beck, Call me, Citizen Wells open thread, September 2, 2010

Obama not natural born citizen, The Blaze, Glenn Beck, Call me, Citizen Wells

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

Glenn Beck stated that he started The Blaze, TheBlaze.com, to counteract misinformation from websites like the Huffington Post. I will not let Beck get away with insulting concerned Americans who question Obama’s eligibility. Especially three star generals.

https://citizenwells.com/2010/09/01/the-blaze-theblaze-com-lakin-court-martial-glenn-beck-v-arianna-huffington/

From the Citizen Wells archives December 28, 2008.

“Why I ask, should not the ‘injunctions and prohibitions’ addressed by
the people in the Constitution to the States and the Legislatures of
States, be enforced by the people through the proposed amendment?” 
“The oath, the most solemn compact which man can make with his Maker,
was to bind the State Legislatures, executive officers, and judges to
sacredly respect the Constitution and all the rights secured by it.”
Rep. Bingham (See Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1090 (1866))

“To understand the intent of the founding fathers in using the words
“natural born citizen”, to define presidential eligibility, one must
first examine any influential documents and opinions from those
involved in crafting the US Constitution. What is clear and indisputable
is the following:

  • A naturalized citizen is a citizen by no act of law such as naturalization.
  • A child born to US citizens on US soil is a natural born citizen.
  • The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided the following:

“the children of citizens of the United States that may
be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United
States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens””

“Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”, written in 1758, was a
valuable reference guide for the founding fathers.

“§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by
certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in
its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
country, of parents who are citizens.”

“Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice John Jay, on
July 25, 1787, wrote the following to George Washington:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide
a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration
of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the commander
in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any
but a natural born citizen.””

“The Lightfoot lawsuit in CA states the obvious:

“This letter shows that the meaning of natural born citizen, is one
without allegiance to any foreign powers, not subject to any foreign
jurisdiction at birth.””

“After the US Constitution was written, further
clarifications can be found

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign
power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the
United States.”

1866, Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of
parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the
language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.””

“Rep. Bingham on Section 1992 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

“Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the
time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be
born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to
be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more
precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign
sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance”
doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance
to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States.””

“United States v. Wong Kim Ark, March 28, 1898 Reveals the following:

“Nevertheless, Congress has persisted from 1795 in rejecting the English
rule and in requiring the alien who would become a citizen of the United
States, in taking on himself the ties binding him to our Government, to
affirmatively sever the ties that bound him to any other.”

“It is beyond dispute that the most vital constituent of the English
common law rule has always been rejected in respect of citizenship of
the United States.”

“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution,
I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen”
applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United
States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners,
happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of
royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race,
were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad,
were not.”

“Greisser was born in the State of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German
subject and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned.
After quoting the act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, Mr. Secretary
Bayard said:

Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his
birth “subject to a foreign power,” and “not subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States.” He was not, therefore, under the statute and the
Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth, and it is not
pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.”

“And it was to prevent the acquisition of citizenship by the children of
such aliens merely by birth within the geographical limits of the United
States that the words were inserted.

Two months after the statute was enacted, on June 16, 1866, the Fourteenth
Amendment was proposed, and declared ratified July 28, 1868. The first
clause of the first section reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside.

The act was passed and the amendment proposed by the same Congress, and it
is not open to reasonable doubt that the words “subject to the jurisdiction
thereof” in the amendment were used as synonymous with the words “and not
subject to any foreign power” of the act.””

“Perkins v Elg, 307 U.S. 325,328 (1939) differentiates between a US citizen
and a natural born citizen.  Ms. Elg, was born in Brooklyn, NY to an
American mother and a Swedish father was a US citizen, but not a natural
born citizen.”

The entire article can be and should be read here:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/natural-born-citizen-obama-is-not-eligible-obama-birth-certificate-us-constitution-founding-fathers-intent-lawsuits-obama-kenyan-vattel%e2%80%99s-the-law-of-nations-john-jay-berg-donofrio-k/

TheBlaze.com, Glenn Beck radio, Obama birth certificate, Legal ad, Your legal document has to stand up in court

TheBlaze.com, Glenn Beck radio, Obama birth certificate, Legal ad

“Your legal document has to stand up in court.”…Glenn Beck radio show ad for Legal Service

Yes, Glenn Beck, your legal document had better stand up in court. For example, Barack Obama presenting a legal birth certificate in court. Beck stated he started his new site, TheBlaze.com, to counteract the lies being told by sites such as the Huffington Post. Well Glenn, are you going to present the truth, the facts? For example, asking the simple, no brainer question:

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”

You know, a legal document that will stand up in court.

Glenn, I am still waiting on a call.

TheBlaze.com, The Blaze, Glenn Beck website, August 31, 2010, Huffington Post competition

TheBlaze.com, The Blaze, Glenn Beck website, August 31, 2010, Huffington Post competition

From the Washington Post August 31, 2010.

“Conservative Fox News host Glenn Beck, a frequent critic of the mainstream news media, has launched his own news site, The Blaze. The site appears to be modeled after The Huffington Post and not surprisingly, features stories with a conservative bent about some of Beck’s favorite issues, such as faith, terrorism, the imam behind the planned Islamic community center in New York City and Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday.

The site, which went live sometime Monday, features a welcome message from the man himself, timestamped just before midnight Tuesday:
If you are like me, watching the news or reading the paper can be an exercise in exasperation. It’s so hard to find a place that helps me make sense of the world I see.

Too many important stories are overlooked. And too many times we see mainstream media outlets distorting facts to fit rigid agendas. Not that you’ve ever heard me complain about the media before. Okay, maybe once or twice.

But there comes a time when you have to stop complaining and do something. And so we decided to hire some actual journalists to launch a new website — The Blaze. And we moved fast. We built the team and the site in just two months.
What was the overlooked story that Beck chose to lead with in the inaugural edition? Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s alleged encouragement of Education Department employees to attend the Rev. Al Sharpton’s Saturday counter-rally, at which Duncan spoke.”

Read more:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/glenn-beck-launches-conservati.html

I have a suggestion for Glenn Beck. How about covering Obama’s eligibility problems.

Glenn Beck, call me.

Standing in court, Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr, Berg v Obama, US Constitution, Obama eligibility, Natural born citizen

Standing in court, Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr, Berg v Obama, US Constitution, Obama eligibility, Natural born citizen

Earler today Citizen Wells presented a great interview of Margaret Hemenway conducted by Andrea Shea King. During the interview a reference was made to Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr,a legal expert, and his take on standing in court cases. Here is an article by DR. Vieira from October 29, 2008.
“America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?”
“The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [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.
This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).”

Read more:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

Margaret Hemenway Interview:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/askshow/2010/08/24/the-andrea-shea-king-show

Blagojevich retrial, Rezko and Levine must be witnesses, Leonard Cavise, DePaul University law professor, Evidentiary Proffer

Blagojevich retrial, Rezko and Levine must be witnesses, Leonard Cavise, DePaul University law professor, Evidentiary Proffer

It was clear to experts and novices alike that Tony Rezko and/or Stuart Levine had to be called as witnesses in the Rod Blagojevich trial. Tony Rezko’s name was mentioned approx. 288 times in the Evidentiary Proffer. When Judge James Zagel stated that Rezko was a bad witness, our collective jaws dropped. Stuart Levine, the key witness in the Rezko trial was not only enmeshed in corruption, he was a long time drug user.

From Citizen Wells July 29, 2010

“If I were a Blago juror …”

“If I were a juror, I’d wonder why we never heard from so many of the allegedly bad guys — Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine — mentioned by the prosecution.”
“As noted in part 5 of this series, Tony Rezko’s name was mentioned approximately 288 times in the Evidentiary Proffer. The above numbers reveal that of the evidence presented in the Proffer, 38 pages are loaded with names and corruption activities tied to Blagojevich from 2002 to mid 2008. And yet neither Tony Rezko or Stuart Levine were called as witnesses. And just as predicted and warned about here, the focus of the trial was the selling of Obama’s senate seat.”

Read more

An expert on law has commented on Rezko and Levine being called as witnesses. Leonard Cavise is a DePaul University law professor. From the DePaul website.

“Biography

Professor Cavise has a long background in litigation , both criminal and civil, including substantial pro bono litigation. In addition, he has worked in international human rights for many years, including lectures and training sessions in El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Venzuela, Italy, France and other locations throughout the world. Several projects were designed to train Latin American human rights lawyers in the art of trial advocacy. In 1999, he founded the Chiapas Human Rights Practicum and has taken law students to work in human rights offices in Chiapas every year since then. He was the Director of DePaul’s Lawyering Skills Program from 1983 until 1990.”

http://www.law.depaul.edu/faculty_staff/faculty_information.asp?id=10

From the Chicago tribune, Cavise’s comments.

“A day later, all that was clear was that Blagojevich would have another day in court. What was less certain was what changes could be made to the prosecution case next time around, who would represent the governor at his retrial and how that defense would be paid for.

Experts differed on what the government might do as it makes another attempt at proving Blagojevich tried to leverage the powers of his office — including the appointment of a U.S. senator to fill the seat once held by President Barack Obama — to enrich himself and his campaign fund.
Some predicted that prosecutors would just slightly adjust their case or possibly leave it the same, while others suggested the next go-round could be much more drawn out.

Former federal prosecutor Dean Polales said he thinks the pr
osecution’s case will only be tweaked, especially since jurors reported an 11-1 split in favor of conviction on many of the major counts in the indictment.
“You’ve got an outlier juror,” Polales said. “That’s hard (for the defense) to duplicate in a future trial.”

But Leonard Cavise, a DePaul University professor, suggested the government will need to do more at the retrial, possibly leading to a longer presentation of evidence. He said he believes the government may try to avoid another deadlocked jury by using fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko and political fixer Stuart Levine as witnesses.

Both men have agreed to cooperate, but prosecutors chose not to call them this summer in part because of the baggage both bring.
“If the prosecution insists on going forward, I have two words for them: Rezko and Levine,” Cavise said. “They know where all the bodies are buried.””

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/blagojevich/ct-met-blagojevich-retrial-20100818,0,2911219.story

Blagojevich jury holdout, Jo Ann Chiakulas, End justifies the means, Hand of God?, Citizen Wells open thread, August 19, 2010

Blagojevich jury holdout,  Jo Ann Chiakulas, End justifies the means

From ACE OF SPADES HQ.

“Here’s what Fox local news in Chicago reports:
Jurors who have been interviewed so far will not identify the juror, other than to say the juror was a female.
FOX Chicago News reported that speculation is centering on juror Jo Ann Chiakulas of Willowbrook, after a second-hand acquaintance said that she has been saying for weeks that she would find Blagojevich not guilty.

Chiakulas is a retired director from the Illinois Department of Public Health.

Contacted Tuesday night, she told FOX Chicago News she would call on Wednesday if she wished to talk about the case.

On one count at least, Chiakulas voted with her fellow jurors, agreeing to convict Blagojevich of lying to federal agents.

Note that that is not yet confirmed. It is now confirmed by CBS local news Chicago.

They actually could have reported more — because pre-trial, they had this to say about a female “retired public health director” on the jury panel:
Juror # 106, a black female believed to be in her 60s, is a retired state public health director who has ties to the Chicago Urban League. She has handed out campaign literature for a relative who ran for public office. She listens to National Public Radio and liberal talk radio shows.

Media accounts mention the campaign literature, but they don’t mention NPR and liberal talk radio. Why?

We know they read this description — why do they end their repetition of it at that point?

The media is quick to stereotype conservative-tilting Americans and attribute to them bad motives.

Think they’ll do the same here?

What were her motives for so egregiously ignoring the law to set a guilty man free that her fellow jurors had to confront her with her own oath to render a true verdict?

Ties to the Chicago Urban League?
The Chicago Urban League supports and advocates for economic, educational and social progress for African Americans through our agenda focused exclusively on economic empowerment as the key driver for social change.
The Chicago Urban League provides African Americans with the tools, the programs and the experiences to help them reach their full economic potential. We are committed to growing Chicago’s African-American workforce and business community with well-informed pursuit of the following four strategies….
So she’s sort of hooked up with… community organizers?”

Read more:

http://minx.cc/?post=304818

This information surprises none of us. For the far left, the guiding principle seems to be the end justifies the means.

This woman is no worse than the judges, election officials and others who have ignored the US Constitution to justify the end.

And furthermore, this may be a blessing in disguise. For starters, this has highlighted the weak case of the prosecution and the failure to present a smoking gun, aka, Tony Rezko. This also brings more attention to the case and thus Obama and his fellow thugs and cronies. The prosecution may actually have to step up to the plate and present evidence. And who knows, perhaps Patrick Fitzgerald will unhitch his wagon from a falling star. And of course, it presents another platform for me and others to reveal the truth about Blagojevich and Obama. 

Perhaps the hand of God touches this.

Blagojevich retrial, Protecting Obama, Patrick Fitzgerald conspirator?, Fitzgerald and Justice Dept delayed arrest of Blagojevich

Blagojevich retrial, Protecting Obama, Patrick Fitzgerald conspirator?, Fitzgerald and Justice Dept delayed arrest of Blagojevich

Patrick Fitzgerald has zero credibility with me. However, with rats jumping ship left and right, will Fitzgerald throw Obama under the bus?

From the Chicago Tribune.
“Moments after a rare setback, a chastened U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was acting nothing like the swaggering prosecutor who just 20 months earlier proclaimed he had arrested a sitting governor to stop a political crime spree.

He would not take questions from reporters about his office’s failure to convict former Gov. Rod Blagojevich on 23 counts against him, winning a guilty verdict only on a single count of lying to the FBI,  among the least serious of the charges he faced.

Instead, Fitzgerald vowed to retry the case, then quickly ending his news conference.

“So, for all practical purposes, we are in the mode of being close to jury selection for a retrial,” he said.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/defense-jubilant-prosecutors-look-to-retrial.html

From the Chicago Tribune.

“The counts on which the jury could not agree framed the heart of the government claims that Blagojevich schemed to profit from his post from his earliest days in office and in the 2008 attempted to auction off the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama.”

“Lawyers in the case are to be back in court Aug. 26, possibly to pick a retrial date. Prosecutors are expected to push for the case to be back before a jury this fall, while the defense is likely to drag its heels and promised to appeal the single count the former governor was convicted on.
While gaining a conviction of the former governor on one count, the result of the trial was a far cry from the sweeping convictions in public corruption cases that Fitzgerald and his prosecutors have grown accustomed to. In his nine years at the helm of the prosecutor’s office here, Fitzgerald has secured guilty verdicts for an array of public officials, ranging from aldermen to the patronage chief for Mayor Richard Daley to Blagojevich’s predecessor as governor, Republican George Ryan.
The government case against Blagojevich was a vivid example of how slowly the wheels of justice can grind in public corruption cases. Blagojevich was arrested just weeks after he allegedly began plotting to sell Obama’s Senate seat, but federal agents had been probing wrongdoing in the governor’s administration since at least 2004 — his second year in office — and questioned Blagojevich for the first time in 2005 during his first term.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/blagojevich-convicted-on-1-of-24-counts.html

Thanks to the Tribune for pointing out that Blagojevich was under scrutiny at least by 2004.

Now for the rest of the story.

From Citizen Wells July 15, 2010
“The question is, why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”

“The US Justice Department had plenty of evidence indicting Rod Blagojevich by 2006. Why did the US Justice Department wait until December 2008, after the election, to arrest Blagojevich?”

“From in or about 2002 to the present, in Cook County”

“Since approximately 2003, the government has been investigating allegations of illegal activity occurring in State of Illinois government as part of the administration of Governor ROD BLAGOJEVICH.”

“Timeline is revealing

Patrick Fitzgerald was aware of Blagojevich’s corruption in 2003

“Pamela Meyer Davis had been trying to win approval from a state health planning board for an expansion of Edward Hospital, the facility she runs in a Chicago suburb, but she realized that the only way to prevail was to retain a politically connected construction company and a specific investment house.

Instead of succumbing to those demands, she went to the FBI and U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald in late 2003 and agreed to secretly record conversations about the project.””

Patrick Fitzgerald and US Justice Dept. delayed Blagojevich arrest

Blagojevich jurors speak out, No smoking gun presented, Rezko for example, Citizen Wells open thread, August 18, 2010

Blagojevich jurors speak out, No smoking gun presented, Rezko for example

From the Chicago Tribune August 18, 2010.

“”They were very strong personalities,” foreman James Matsumoto said of the jurors. “They were all independent thinkers.”

He said he would have convicted Blagojevich on all counts, saying that the case slowly built, “layer upon layer.”

“You just say, ‘God, what was he doing?’ You find out here they were selling seats on boards and commissions. That to me was shocking,” Matsumoto said.

But in the end, he said, the “lack of a smoking gun” was too much of a hurdle for jurors to reach more than the one unanimous decision.

“We deliberated logically and with respect for each other’s opinions,” Matsumoto said. Still, he added, “it was very frustrating.”

Erik Sarnello, 21, of Itasca, said a female juror who was the lone holdout on convicting Blagojevich of attempting to sell the Senate seat “wanted clear-cut evidence, and not everything was clear-cut.”

Sarnello, a sophomore at College of DuPage studying criminal justice, said the main problem with the prosecution’s case was that it was all over the place.

“It confused people,” he said. “They didn’t follow a timeline. They jumped around.”

The foreman said jurors came close to convictions on a number of the 24 counts — as close as 11-1 — but remained far apart on others.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/blagojevich/ct-met-blagojevich-verdict-jury-20100818,0,1234825.story

Obviously, Tony Rezko is the biggest smoking gun.