Category Archives: Court of Appeals

Rod Blagojevich sentencing, December 6, 2011, Judge James B. Zagel, 10:00 AM, Courtroom 2503 (JBZ), Tapes motion denied, John Wyma Testimony?

Posted on November 29, 2011 | 108 comments

Rod Blagojevich sentencing, December 6, 2011, Judge James B. Zagel, 10:00 AM, Courtroom 2503 (JBZ), Tapes motion denied, John Wyma Testimony?

“Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

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

“Why has the Blagojevich defense team been denied access to the government wiretaps?”…Citizen Wells

Rod Blagojevich, former governor of Illinois, is scheduled for sentencing next Tuesday, December 6, 2011 in the courtroom of Judge James B Zagel.

Daily Calendar

Tuesday, December 6, 2011  (As of 11/29/11 at 05:47:57 AM 

Honorable James B. Zagel                    Courtroom 2503 (JBZ)

1:08-cr-00888   USA v. Blagojevich                     10:00   Sentencing

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

Once again the Blagojevich defense team has been denied access to over 150 wiretaps. Of course this means we have been denied access as well.

From the Chicago Tribune November 28, 2011.

“Judge denies Blagojevich request to hear new tapes”

“The federal judge who will sentence Rod Blagojevich had harsh words for the former Illinois governor’s attorneys as he denied a request Monday to play new federal wiretap tapes in court.

Blagojevich was convicted at two separate trials on 18 corruption counts, including allegations he tried to sell or trade President Barack Obama’s vacated U.S. Senate seat. Blagojevich will be sentenced next week, and his lawyers last week submitted a list of 180 secret tape recordings the FBI made of the governor and others.

Parts of some recordings were played during his trials, but Blagojevich has long argued that authorities should “play all the tapes.” He says some of the recordings hold evidence demonstrating his innocence.

But Judge James Zagel said Blagojevich’s attorneys hadn’t said what they specifically wanted to prove and what sections of the tapes they wanted to use, echoing complaints made by federal prosecutors.

“What this motion requests is my blind approval of the use of whatever excerpts it decides are relevant to `lack of ill intent’ and admissible … at sentencing,” Zagel said. “That request is denied.””

“The judge scheduled a Friday hearing on another Blagojevich request related to a government witness, John Wyma. Blagojevich’s attorneys are questioning whether Wyma helped the government “in exchange for a government benefit.” Prosecutors denied that allegation at trial.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ap-us-blagojevichtrial-,0,1987167.story

From the Chicago SunTimes November 28, 2011.

“Blago’s lawyers want hearing based on new John Wyma information”

“Rod Blagojevich’s lawyers are asking for a special hearing to discuss what they say is new information regarding a key witness at the former governor’s trial.

They are asking U.S. District Judge James Zagel for an evidentiary hearing regarding the testimony of onetime Blagojevich friend and lobbyist John Wyma, arguing they weren’t allowed to properly cross examine him at trial. It was Wyma’s cooperation in 2008 that led to FBI wiretaps against the now-convicted ex-governor.

In a weekend filing, lawyers questioned whether the government properly vetted information against Wyma that was provided by a cooperating Tony Rezko. Rezko, a onetime fund-raiser to Blagojevich convicted on 16 counts of corruption, was sentenced to 10 ½ years last week.

In filings regarding Rezko’s sentencing, Wyma’s cooperation with the government is discussed, including that Rezko told prosecutors that he tried to extract a campaign contribution through Wyma from Provena Health, whom Wyma represented as a lobbyist at the time.

Lawyers question whether bribery was involved when Provena was granted a certificate of need from an Illinois hospital board. Rezko told prosecutors in private sessions that Provena had a dispute with someone on the hospital board and resolved it by paying the board member, according to the Blagojevich defense filing. Prosecutors say the charge was unsubstantiated.

“Blagojevich did not have any knowledge about and was absolutely unaware of the Provena activities of Rezko and Wyma,” the filing says.

It says after Rezko gave the information to prosecutors, Wyma was hit with a subpoena.

“Shortly after Wyma received this grand jury subpoena, he agreed to be, and became, an informant for the government. This allowed the government to obtain a wiretap on Blagojevich’s telephones,” lawyers wrote.

After the taps were secured, Blagojevich’s lawyers said, prosecutors deemed Rezko’s information “not substantiated.”

“If the incriminating evidence against Wyma was not substantiated because it was not investigated, the government’s statement is misleading,” defense lawyers wrote.

Provena officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Blagojevich’s lawyer, Shelly Sorosky, said the new information was based on filings before Rezko’s sentencing, where both sides agree Rezko’s cooperation led the government to Wyma.”

Read more:
http://www.suntimes.com/9114418-417/blagos-lawyers-want-hearing-based-on-new-john-wyma-information.html

108 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Blagojevich, Blagojevich trial, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, corruption, Court of Appeals, Federal Court, Illinois, Judges, Judicial misconduct, Lawyers, News, Obama, Patrick Fitzgerald, Pay to play politics, Rezko, The Case Against Barack Obama, Tony Rezko, US Department of Justice

Tagged , , , , , , ,

July 25 2011 Blagojevich appeal deadline, Wiretaps sealed, 2 percent of recordings reveal Obama connections

Posted on July 22, 2011 | 57 comments

July 25 2011 Blagojevich appeal deadline, Wiretaps sealed, 2 percent of recordings reveal Obama connections

“Why was Obama in constant contact with Tony Rezko in 2004 when Rezko was conspiring with William Cellini to use TRS, Teacher Retirement Fund, assets for political gain and personal enrichment?”…Citizen Wells

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

“There is enough corruption in Illinois so that all it takes is someone who is serious about finding it to uncover it. If a U.S. attorney is not finding corruption in Illinois, they’re not seriously looking for it.”…Northwestern Law Professor James Lindgren

Rod Blagojevich has until July 25, 2011 to appeal his convictions. The denial by Judge Zagel of the defense motion to unseal the wiretap evidence may be justification enough.

From Citizen Wells July 18, 2011.

The Federal rules on discovery are crystal clear.

“Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure”

“IV. ARRAIGNMENT AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL > Rule 16.

Rule 16. Discovery and Inspection

(a) Government’s Disclosure.

(1) Information Subject to Disclosure.”

“(B) Defendant’s Written or Recorded Statement.

Upon a defendant’s request, the government must disclose to the defendant, and make available for inspection, copying, or photographing, all of the following:

(i) any relevant written or recorded statement by the defendant if:

•the statement is within the government’s possession, custody, or control; and
•the attorney for the government knows — or through due diligence could know — that the statement exists;”

Read more

Only 2 percent of the wiretaps were released. From that small amount we learn the following.

With this much information revealed about Obama in 2 percent of the wiretaps, the other 98 percent should have enough to hang him. Of course the US Justice Department and Obama’s buddy Eric Holder won’t let that happen.

57 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Blagojevich trial, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, corruption, Court of Appeals, FBI, Federal Court, Illinois, Judges, Lawyers, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Patrick Fitzgerald, Pay to play politics, Rezko, The Case Against Barack Obama, Tony Rezko, United States, US Department of Justice, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

Blagojevich appeal strategy will reveal more about setup, Protecting Obama, Crucify Blagojevich or off the hook?

Posted on July 19, 2011 | 56 comments

Blagojevich appeal strategy will reveal more about setup, Protecting Obama, Crucify Blagojevich or off the hook?

“Why was Obama in constant contact with Tony Rezko in 2004 when Rezko was conspiring with William Cellini to use TRS, Teacher Retirement Fund, assets for political gain and personal enrichment?”…Citizen Wells

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

“There is enough corruption in Illinois so that all it takes is someone who is serious about finding it to uncover it. If a U.S. attorney is not finding corruption in Illinois, they’re not seriously looking for it.”…Northwestern Law Professor James Lindgren

We await the appeal of Rod Blagojevich. He was convicted of most counts remaining after counts 1,2 and 4 were removed by the Justice Department. You know, the Justice Department headed by liar and Obama buddy Eric Holder. As reported here yesterday, denying the motion from the Blagojevich defense team to unseal recorded conversations that were wiretapped, appears to be a huge argument to support the appeal and possibly part of the setup. The question is, was Blagojevich picked as the fall guy or will he end up with a slap on the wrist?

From the defense motion.

“A Protective Order was entered on the evidence in this case on April 14, 2009. Blagojevich has made prior requests to release recordings and other evidence in this case (the most recent filing of this nature was on February 8, 2011, Pacer Document #602). The instant request is of a global nature and requests that the Protective Order be lifted in its entirety.”

“The defense is put in the disadvantaged position of having to examine all filings to be sure the Protective Order has not been violated. The defense must also carefully craft arguments in such a manner to not violate the Protective Order. This impairs counsel‟s ability to vigorously and zealously defend Blagojevich. Yet the government is not circumscribed at all by the Protective Order. It is a fundamentally unfair playing field.”

“A recent example: Blagojevich filed a Motion for Discovery to Obtain Contents of Missing Telephone Calls, which was heavily and painstakingly redacted prior to filing.”
“Indeed, the parameters for recording wiretapped conversations are such that the F.B.I. is only to record conversations that it believes are pertinent to the charges that form the basis for the wiretap authorization. With thousands of recordings, making up many hundreds of hours, one would think the government would seek to play as much as possible to meet its heavy burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the opposite is true – the government has released and played in court only fractions of a fraction (approximately 2%) of the recordings. If Blagojevich has violated the law, as the government alleges, why would the government seek to keep the evidence under lock and key?”

“If the prosecution is indeed interested in the truth, and not just seeking a notch-in-the-belt conviction, then the government should not challenge this request to lift the Protective Order.”

““The public prosecutor cannot take as a guide for the conduct of his office the standards of an attorney appearing on behalf of an individual client. The freedom elsewhere wisely granted to a partisan advocate must be severely curtailed if the prosecutor‟s duties are to be properly discharged. The public prosecutor must recall that he occupies a dual role, being obligated, on the one hand, to furnish that adversary element essential to the informed decision of any controversy, but being possessed, on the other, of important governmental power that are pledged to the accomplishment of one objective only, that of impartial justice. Where the prosecutor is recreant to the trust implicit in his office, he undermines confidence, not only in his profession, but in government and the very ideal of justice itself.””

“Moreover, the Protective Order prevents the whole truth from being heard. This not only violates the prosecution‟s ethical duties to „do justice‟ but instead leads to a vast injustice against Blagojevich.”

http://www.prnewschannel.com/pdf/Blagojevich_Protective_Order_2-17-11.pdf

Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.

We got the following from 2% of the wiretaps that were released. What damning comments are contained in the rest?

56 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Blagojevich trial, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, corruption, Court of Appeals, Crime, Defense, Election 2012, Eric Holder, FBI, Federal Court, Illinois, Judges, Justice, Lawyers, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Patrick Fitzgerald, Pay to play politics, Prosecution, Rezko, The Case Against Barack Obama, Tony Rezko, United States, US Department of Justice, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

Rahm Emanuel ineligible, Cook County Appeals Court reversal, Residency requirement, One down one to go

Posted on January 24, 2011 | 161 comments

Rahm Emanuel ineligible, Cook County Appeals Court reversal, Residency requirement, One down one to go

From the Chicago Tribune January 24, 2011.

“Rahm Emanuel should not appear on the Feb. 22 mayoral ballot, according to a ruling issued by a state appellate court today.

At a news conference, Emanuel said he would appeal the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court and ask the state’s highest court for an injunction so that his name will appear on the mayoral ballot.

“I have no doubt at the end we’ll prevail in this effort,” Emanuel said. “We’ll now go to the next level to get clarity.”

“I still own a home here, (I) look forward to moving into it one day, vote from here, pay property taxes here. I do believe the people of the city of Chicago deserve a right to make a decision about who they want to be their next mayor,” Emanuel said.

In a 2-1 ruling, the appellate panel said Emanuel does not meet the residency requirement of having lived in Chicago for a year prior to the election. The judges reversed a decision by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, which had unanimously agreed that Emanuel was eligible to run for mayor.

“We conclude that the candidate neither meets the Municipal Code’s requirement that he have ‘resided in’ Chicago for the year preceding the election in which he seeks to participate nor falls within any exception to the requirement,” the majority judges wrote. “Accordingly, we disagree with the Board’s conclusion that he is eligible to run for the office of Mayor of the City of Chicago. We reverse the circuit court’s judgment confirming the Board’s decision, set aside the Board’s decision and … order that the candidate’s name be excluded (or, if necessary, removed) from the ballot.”
The majority opinion was written by Appellate Justice Thomas E. Hoffman and concurred with by Presiding Appellate Justice Shelvin Louise Marie Hall.

Appellate Justice Bertina E. Lampkin wrote a dissenting opinion.”

Read more:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2011/01/appellate-court-says-emanuel-should-be-removed-from-ballot.html

From the court ruling:

“WALTER P. MAKSYM and THOMAS L.
McMAHON,
Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
THE BOARD OF ELECTION
COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF
CHICAGO, et al.,
(RAHM EMANUEL,
Respondent-Appellee).”
“JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion.
Presiding Justice Hall concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Justice Lampkin dissented, with opinion.”
“Subsection 3.1-10-5(a) of the Municipal Code sets forth two
qualifications for candidates: it states that a candidate must be
“a qualified elector of the municipality and [must have] resided in
the municipality at least one year next preceding the election.”
65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(a) (West 2008). These two qualifications are
stated separately and in the conjunctive.”
“As we have observed, the “reside in” requirement is stated
separately from, and in addition to, the requirement that he be a
qualified elector of Chicago in order to be a candidate for
municipal office. The fact that the two requirements are stated
separately and in the conjunctive leads to the inference that the
legislature intended that they be considered separately from, and
in addition to, each other.”
“Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that, under
subsection 3.1-10-5(a) of the Municipal Code, a candidate must meet
not only the Election Code’s voter residency standard, but also
must have actually resided within the municipality for one year
prior to the election, a qualification that the candidate
unquestionably does not satisfy. Because the candidate does not
satisfy that standard, he may be eligible for inclusion on the
ballot only if he is somehow exempt from the Municipal Code’s
“reside in” requirement.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the candidate
neither meets the Municipal Code’s requirement that he have
“resided in” Chicago for the year preceding the election in which
he seeks to participate nor falls within any exception to the
requirement. Accordingly, we disagree with the Board’s conclusion
that he is eligible to run for the office of Mayor of the City of
Chicago. We reverse the circuit court’s judgment confirming the
Board’s decision, set aside the Board’s decision, and, pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(5) (Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 366(a)(5) (eff. Feb.
1, 1994)), order that the candidate’s name be excluded (or, if
necessary, removed) from the ballot for the February 22, 2011,
Chicago mayoral election.
Reversed.”

http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/AppellateCourt/2011/1stDistrict/January/1110033.pdf

One down, one to go.

161 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Chicago, Chicago machine, Chicago Tribune, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Court of Appeals, Courts, Election, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Government, Illinois, Judges, Lawyers, News, Politics, Rahm Emanuel, United States, voters

Tagged , , ,

Hollister v. Soetoro aka Barack Obama update and history, Judge James Robertson biased or incompetent, Bias or conspiracy?

Posted on November 27, 2010 | 52 comments

Hollister v. Soetoro aka Barack Obama update and history, Judge James Robertson biased or incompetent, Bias or conspiracy?

“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

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises?  This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

Is Judge James Robertson biased, incompetent or part of a conspiracy?

Citizen Wells December 30, 2008.

“Berg today, with co-counsel Lawrence J. Joyce, Esquire, filed another lawsuit in Federal Court in the United States District for the District of Columbia on behalf of Retired Colonel Hollister against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama demanding to know Obama’s real name and if he is constitutionally qualified to be President. Plaintiff, Gregory S. Hollister, is a resident of Colorado Springs, Colorado and Hollister has “standing” and needs a decision so he knows whether or not to follow any Order of Soetoro a/k/a Obama.”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/philip-j-berg-lawrence-j-joyce-esquire-retired-colonel-hollister-lawsuit-december-30-2008-obama%e2%80%99s-lack-of-qualifications-challenged-gregory-s-hollister-hollister-has-standing-inter/

Citizen Wells February 5, 2009.

“The following Order from DC District Court Judge James Robertson was issued for Hollister v. Soetoro yesterday:

ORDER
Plaintiff’s motion to file interpleader and deposit funds with the court [#2] is frivolous and is denied. His motion to shorten time for defendants to respond to his complaint [#3] is moot and is denied. The motions of his counsel [#4, #5] for the admission pro hac vice of Philip J. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce are in abeyance until the Court has had the opportunity, in open court, to examine their credentials, their competence, their good faith, and the factual and legal bases of the complaint they have signed.
JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/hollister-v-soetoro-philip-j-berg-dc-district-court-judge-james-robertson-february-4-2009-colonel-hollister-motion-for-response-time-denied-interpleader-motion-denied-motion-for-pro-hac-vice/

Citizen Wells March 6, 2009.

“The following is from a Memorandum issued by
United States District Judge James Robertson
on March 5, 2009. The Memorandum is a response
to the Hollister vs Soetoro lawsuit.”

 
“This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve
mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is
foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to
do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the
blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do
is to bring it to an early end.”
“The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force
colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief
(because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is
tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey
orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven — to the
colonel’s satisfaction — that Mr. Obama is a native-born
American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be
President. The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised,
vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by
America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign
for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a
court.”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/hollister-vs-soetoro-us-district-judge-james-robertson-march-5-2009-philip-berg-hemenway-obama-not-eligible-col-hollister-barry-soetoro-judicial-judge-robertson-memorandum-air-force-colonel/

The following statement by Judge Robertson should be sufficient to have him impeached:

“The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised,
vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by
America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign
for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a
court.”

Obama’s citizenship may be an issue, but it is not the critical issue, which is his natural born citizen status and eligibility for the presidency per the US Constitution. Judge Robertson’s reference to the vetting of Obama on social media sites stands on it’s own for a high level of stupidity. The quote from Marbury v Madison above is the final arbiter of Judge Robertson’s guilt.

From World Net Daily November 26, 2010.

“Supremes challenged to put Constitution above Twitter”

“The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Constitution will trump Twitter on issues of national importance, including the eligibility of a president, which could determine the very future of the American form of government.

The request is being made in a petition for writ of certiori, or a request for the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower appellate court, in a case brought on behalf of Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force officer.

He is among the many who have brought court challenges to Obama’s tenure in the Oval Office based on doubts about whether Obama qualifies for the position under the U.S. Constitution’s demand that presidents be a “natural born citizen,” a qualification not imposed on other many other federal officers.

The pleadings submitted to the court, compiled by longtime attorney John D. Hemenway, cite the incredible importance of the claims that Obama, in fact, failed to qualify for the office.”

“The questions suggested by the petition are weighty:

  • “Did the district court examine the complaint, as required by the decisions of this and every other federal court, to see if it alleged facts to support its claims?”
  • “By refusing to consider the issue of defendant Obama not being a ‘natural born citizen’ as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, did the district court violate its obligations to consider the issues raised by the complaint?”
  • “In … relying on extrajudicial criteria such as an assertion that ‘the issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency’ combined with an attack on petitioner … did the district court not engage in such obvious political bias and upon extrajudicial factors as to render its opinion void?”
  • “Did the … bias engaged in lead to a decision which ignored the law as set out above and as a result place the respondent-defendant Obama above that law and the rule of law in this country generally and threaten the constitutional basis and very existence of our rule of law?”
  • “Did the courts below not completely ignore the decisions of this court and the clear language of Rule 15 of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning amendments so as to compound its biased elevation of the defendant Obama above the rule of constitutional law?”

Read more:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=233177

Thanks to commenter GORDO.

52 Comments

Posted in Americans, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil Complaint, Colonel Hollister, Commander in Chief, constitution, Court of Appeals, Courts, DC, District Court, Election, Election Law, Federal Court, Government, Hollister lawsuit, Judges, Judicial misconduct, Justice, Kerchner v Obama, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Marbury V Madison, Mario Apuzzo, Military officers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, Twitter.com, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, US District Court, US Military, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

Blagojevich trial update, Judge James Zagel refuses to throw out conviction, Citizen Wells open thread, October28, 2010

Posted on October 28, 2010 | 61 comments

Blagojevich trial update, Judge James Zagel refuses to throw out conviction

From the Chicago Tribune October 27, 2010.

“A federal judge on Wednesday refused to throw out former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s lone conviction from his trial last summer.

U.S. District Judge James Zagel rejected the defense contention that prosecutors brought an overly complicated case that confused the jury and then damaged Blagojevich’s right to defend himself by limiting his lawyers at every turn.

The jury convicted Blagojevich of a single count of lying to the FBI but deadlocked on all 23 other counts. He is set to be retried on those charges April 20.

Blagojevich’s lawyers had maintained that a “plethora of errors” at trial had led to the lone conviction. Blagojevich’s “fundamental right to defend himself through cross-examination was stomped upon by obstructionist (and continuous) objections that were sustained by the court,” the defense wrote.

But Zagel’s two-page opinion concluded that the defense tactics showed it didn’t have a legal leg to stand on.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-blagojevich-motion-denied-20101027,0,1744287.story

61 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Blagojevich, Blagojevich trial, Chicago, Chicago machine, Chicago Tribune, Citizen News, CitizenWells, corruption, Court of Appeals, Crime, Criminal Complaint, Federal Court, Illinois, Judges, Lawyers, News, Obama thugs, Pay to play politics, US Department of Justice

Tagged , , , ,

Barnett Keyes et al v Obama, Obama attorneys response, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Citizen Wells open thread, October 15, 2010

Posted on October 15, 2010 | 112 comments

Barnett Keyes et al v Obama, Obama attorneys response, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

“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

What does the above statement mean? Those in denial about Obama, his character and his past tend to dismiss such statements as fiction. I assure you that it is based on solid facts, court records. Here is one of many examples.

From the Obama attorneys response to the appeal in the Barnett/Keyes lawsuit appeal in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“PAMELA BARNETT, Captain, et al., )
Plaintiffs/Appellants,

v.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et al.,

Defendants/Appellees.”

“APPELLEES’ ANSWERING BRIEF
APPEAL FROM THE
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SANTA ANA
SA CV 09-00082 DOC
ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
United States Attorney
LEON W. WEIDMAN
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Civil Division
ROGER E. WEST
Assistant United States Attorney
First Assistant Chief, Civil Division
DAVID A. DeJUTE
Assistant United States Attorney
Room 7516 Federal Building
300 North Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-2461/2574
Facsimile: (213) 894-7819
Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees”

Yes, that’s right, three taxpayer funded government attorneys representing Obama, helping him to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and proof that he is eligible to be president.

Instead of presenting simple proof of eligibility, as John McCain and others have done, Obama has continued for over 2 years to avoid presenting proof.

Here is just a snippet of the legalese, the horsecrap, what I believe is an illegal manuever by government attorneys to aid and abet Obama in violating the law of the  land.
“Regarding the military plaintiffs, any injury which they may be suffering has
never been identified with any precision at all. Certainly, military personnel may
face risk of injury in the course of their duties, but the military plaintiffs have
pointed to no such concrete risks that they themselves presently face. Even if the Court could find standing on the basis of such injuries, however, it is even more highly speculative that any such injury would be redressed by a change in the identity of the Commander-in-Chief. The military plaintiffs, therefore, cannot meet the redressability prong on this basis.”

“Moreover, the military plaintiffs also lack standing because members of the
military cannot challenge the orders of a superior in a judicial forum. See, e.g.
Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 300, 304, 103 S.Ct 2362, 76 L.Ed.2d 586
(1984) (holding that “[c]ivilian courts must, at the very least, hesitate long before entertaining a suit which asks the court to tamper with the established relationship between enlisted military personnel and their superior officers” because “that relationship is at the heart of a necessarily unique structure of the military establishment” and noting that the “disruption of ‘[t]he peculiar and special relationship of the soldier to his superiors’ that might result if the soldier were allowed to hale his superiors into court.” (quotation omitted); United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, 682-83, 107 S.Ct 3054, 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987) (holding that members of the military cannot raise Constitutional claims against military officials for injuries incident to service because “congressionally uninvited intrusion into military affairs by the judiciary is inappropriate”).”

“It is well settled that when the United States Constitution makes a “textually
demonstrable constitutional commitment” of an issue to another branch of
government, other than the judiciary, that issue presents a non-justiciable political question.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39302812/Barnett-Keyes-et-al-v-Obama-et-al-9th-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-Appellees-Obama-Answering-Brief-10-13-10

Citizen Wells ending comment.

Aside from the fact that the attorneys helping Obama are engaging in an illegal activity, knowing full well that he has no proof of eligibility:
Congress does indeed have the right and responsibility to insure that the president is eligble. That, however, does not preclude other branches from performing their critical functions of checks and balances and highest responsibility to uphold and defend the US Constitution. Nor does any power provided by the Constitution preclude or preempt a citizen, having taken an oath to defend the Constitution or not, from adhering to the rule of law, the supreme law of the land and performing their civic duty.

112 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, Congress, constitution, Court of Appeals, Courts, DC, Federal Court, Government, Judges, Keyes lawsuit, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US Department of Justice, US District Court, US Military, Usurper, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,

Philip Berg thanks Pravda for article, Obama not natural born citizen, Thanks to Sam Sewell and PRAVDA

Posted on September 17, 2010 | 73 comments

Philip Berg thanks Pravda for article, Obama not natural born citizen, Thanks to Sam Sewell and PRAVDA

Just in from Philip J Berg, lead plaintiff in Berg v Obama, September 17, 2010.

For Immediate Release:  – 09/17/2010
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire         
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12                         
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659

philjberg@obamacrimes.com
Berg Thanks “PRAVDA” for
article about Obama “Not” Being “Natural Born”

while U.S. Press continues to Refuse
to discuss Obama

regarding Obama “Not”
“Constitutionally Eligible”
to be President
 (Lafayette Hill, PA – 09/17/10) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States stated that “WE THE PEOPLE” by and through Philip J. Berg and obamacrimes.com THANKS “PRAVDA” for an article about Obama “NOT” being “Natural Born’ while U.S. Press continues to refuse to discuss Obama regarding Obama “NOT” “Constitutionally Eligible” to be President.

Berg is sponsoring the OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE / ELIGIBILITY/ OBAMACARE Rally in Washington on Saturday, October 23, 2010 – 12 Noon to 4:00 p.m. at U.S. Capitol – West Front.
 
Philip J. Berg, Esquire has commented on the PRAVDA article on their page and sets forth the text of his comments hereinafter:

“Philip J. Berg, Esquire here – WOW !  Thanks to Sam Sewell and PRAVDA for printing what the United States National Media [Radio, TV & Newspapers] has refused, I believe on purpose, to bring forth the facts regarding Obama.

Obama knows he is an Imposter, a Fraud and a Phony and has planned and exercised the greatest “HOAX” in the history of the United States, in over 234 years !   All of this information is on our web site:  obamacrimes.com

Join with obamacrimes.com on Saturday, October 23, 2010 at the U.S. Capitol – West Front for a RALLY – regarding:  OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE / ELIGIBILITY / OBAMACARE RALLY to expose Obama – to demand he prove he is “Constitutionally Eligible” [which he cannot] and demand he resign from office.

Obama belongs in jail, along with Michelle Obama, Howard Dean [former head of the Democratic National Committee], senior campaign officials and senior administrative officials, who had to know of this conspiracy.  Yes, conspiracy by Obama !   Actually, all of them must be subjected to our criminal justice system, tried and those convicted must go to jail.  Yes, even these individuals are entitled to rights guaranteed by our U.S. Constitution !

I was the first attorney to bring the issue of Obama “not” being “Constitutionally Eligible” in a law suit I filed on August 21, 2008, BEFORE the Democratic National Convention.  I sued Obama and the Democratic National Committee.  I wrongly thought that Howard Dean, the then head of the DNC would call Obama in and demand that he prove that he is “Constitutionally Eligible”, that being “natural born”.  No, instead, collusion.  No response from the DNC until a “joint” response with Obama a month later.

The crucial piece of evidence, more important than Obama’s Birth Certificate, is the fact of Obama’s adoption and/or the fact he was “legally acknowledge” by Lolo Soetoro.

Two [2] important facts from Obama’s own books:  1. He said he found his Birth Certificate – so show us !  2. Obama states [his parents had divorced and his mother remarried] that his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, returned to Indonesia before his mother and Obama.  Obama then said when he went to Indonesia he immediately went to school.  Indonesia was in turmoil and only Indonesian citizens were allowed in school.  Well, those adopted or acknowledged by their stepfather were also considered “natural born” Indonesian citizens.  On our web site: obamacrimes.com   we have Obama’s school record from Indonesia:  Name = Barry Soetoro; Nationality = Indonesia;  Religion = Islam [which is Muslim].

FACT:  If Obama has “not” legally changed his name, his legal name is: BARRY SOETORO !    Therefore, every time Obama uses the name Barack Hussein Obama, he has committed and still commits FRAUD.  Yes, one can use an alias, but “not” for fraudulent purposes.

SIGNIFICANT CASE still pending:  In the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the case of:   Berg as Relator vs. Obama, Case No. 09-5362.  In this case, I allege that Obama/Soetoro is “not natural born” and “not naturalized”, but that, based on the following, that Obama/Soetoro is an “illegal alien” and therefore, his term as the U.S. Senator from Illinois was fraudulent and therefore, the salary & benefits Obama/Soetoro received of over $1 million dollars must be returned to the U.S. Treasury.  This type case is called “False Claims” or “Qui Tam” and are “sealed” when initially filed and are usually used in Medicaid or Medicare fraud cases.  The issue on Appeal is whether a “Conflict-of-Interest” exists with Eric Holder and/or his Offices litigating the matter against Obama.  I have stated a “Conflict-of-Interest” exists and I requested a “Special Prosecutor” be appointed.

Why “Conflict-of-Interest” ?   In this type case, the decision after a case is filed is made by the U.S. Attorney Generals Office and the U.S. Department of Justice, both who come under the Attorney General of the United States who is ERIC HOLDER.  Well, ERIC HOLDER was a Senior member of Obama’s campaign staff;  ERIC HOLDER was selected by Obama to be one of three individuals to select the Vice President – and they selected Joe Biden; ERIC HOLDER was nominated by Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be Attorney General of the U.S. who is the highest law enforcement person in the U.S. who reports and advises the President [Obama].  IF THAT IS “NOT” A “CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST”, then “CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST” must be removed from our legal system and the Code of Federal Regulations.

WE CAN ONLY HOPE THAT THE D.C. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT EN BANC [entire Court] WILL HAVE GUTS ENOUGH TO HEAR OUR APPEAL.  WE CAN ONLY HOPE !

I could go on and on, but again, thanks to Sam Sewell and PRAVDA.  Continue reading PRAVDA on what the U.S. Press has refused to discuss.  IF the U.S. Press had vetted Obama/Soetoro just a little, Obama/Soetoro would never have been nominated, yet elected.

Respectfully,

Philip J. Berg, Esquire
obamacrimes.com”

Again, Berg is sponsoring the OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE / ELIGIBILITY/ OBAMACARE Rally in Washington on Saturday, October 23, 2010 – 12 Noon to 4:00 p.m. at U.S. Capitol – West Front.

Donate today to help cover the expenses of this Rally and Defend our Constitution.

An updated flyer regarding our Rally is attached.  Please spread the word to as many people as you can and stay tuned to obamacrimes.com.”
For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
http://obamacrimes.com

73 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Court of Appeals, Courts, DC, Election 2008, Election Law, foreign press, Government, Hawaii, Kenya, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Russia, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, Usurper, Voter fraud, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

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

Posted on September 7, 2010 | 69 comments

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

From BirtherReport.com September 7, 2010.

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

69 Comments

Posted in Alan Keyes, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Court of Appeals, Courts, Election 2008, Federal Court, Judges, Keyes lawsuit, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Motion, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US District Court, Usurper, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Drake v Obama, Brief filed, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Citizen Wells open thread, August 22, 2010

Posted on August 22, 2010 | 117 comments

Drake v Obama, Brief filed, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Just in from Wiley Drake, plaintiff in Drake v Obama.

“This is the brief we filed last Thursday (8/12) in the ninth circuit.”
“STATEMENT OF THE CASE

APPELLANTS, members of the American Independent Party, bring this
appeal from the District Court’s October 29, 2010, ruling granting the defendants’
Motion to Dismiss (ER 1). APPELLANTS seek a determination by the Court as to
whether Respondent Barack Obama (hereinafter referred to as “OBAMA”) met all
the constitutional requirements for eligibility for the office of the President of the
United States.”

“STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

A. The Parties

APPELLANTS are members of the American Independent Party. Drake was
the Vice-Presidential nominee for the American Independent Party in the 2008
Presidential Election on the California Ballot. Robinson was a pledged Presidential
Elector for the American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential Election for
the California ballot and was at the time the Chairman of the American
Independent Party.

OBAMA is a former United States Senator from Illinois and currently sits as
President of the United States. Respondent Michelle Obama is the wife of Mr.
Obama. Respondent Joseph R. Biden currently sits as Vice-President of the United
States and as President of the United States Senate. Respondent Robert M. Gates is
the Secretary of Defense for the United States. Respondent Hillary R. Clinton is
the Secretary of State for the United States.”

Read more

117 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, constitution, Court of Appeals, Courts, District Court, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election, Election 2008, Election update, Federal Court, indictment, Judges, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,