Category Archives: Courts

Rod Blagojevich commutation scenarios, Obama grants to silence him, Trump grants and gets Blagojevich to reveal Obama corruption, Blagojevich remains in prison and talks before silenced, Another mysterious death occurs

Rod Blagojevich commutation scenarios, Obama grants to silence him, Trump grants and gets Blagojevich to reveal Obama corruption, Blagojevich remains in prison and talks before silenced, Another mysterious death occurs

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

“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.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

I sincerely hope that Rod Blagojevich does not die of another “mysterious death” (as so many involved with the Clintons and Obama have) before he can reveal the details of Obama’s involvement in Chicago and Illinois corruption.

There is much to tell.

We are left with these questions.

Will Obama grant Blagojevich the commutation he requested?

If not, will Trump grant the commutation with the stipulation that he rat on Obama?

If not, will Blagojevich squeal in prison?

From the AP December 25, 2016.

“One of the last chances for former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to win early release from federal prison rests on a pending decision by the man whose Senate seat Blagojevich was convicted of trying to sell – President Barack Obama.

Blagojevich, 60, is in the fourth year of a 14-year prison term. He recently submitted a request to have his sentence on wide-ranging corruption convictions commuted, the U.S. Department of Justice has confirmed.

Obama has rarely mentioned his fellow Chicago Democrat since Blagojevich’s December 2008 arrest, a month after Obama won the presidency, so it’s hard to gauge if he’d give Blagojevich’s request for a reduced sentence serious thought.

A look at the commutation process and factors that could influence a decision:

WHAT IT IS

A commutation is a reduction of a sentence, while pardons amount to forgiveness of a crime that also removes restrictions on rights to run for office and vote. In federal cases, only presidents have the power to reduce a sentence.

If Obama doesn’t get around to deciding on Blagojevich’s application before his last day in office, he would leave it for someone else with a tie to the ex-governor to decide: President-elect Donald Trump.

Blagojevich was on Trump’s “Celebrity Apprentice” TV show in 2010. While Trump eventually “fired” Blagojevich as a contestant, he praised Blagojevich for how he fought his criminal case, telling him, “You have a hell of a lot of guts.”

Among the factors Obama can consider is whether Blagojevich’s punishment was disproportionate to the crime. His 14-year prison term was the longest for an Illinois politician for corruption and his lawyers argue it was too severe.”

“One connection between the politicians – an uncomfortable one for Obama – is that he and Blagojevich once shared the same fundraiser, Tony Rezko. Rezko was convicted in June 2008 of fraud, money laundering and bribery.”

Read more:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BLAGOJEVICH_COMMUTATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-12-23-20-19-33

Do you believe that Obama was less guilty than Blagojevich?

Remember, only 2 percent of the wiretaps were released during the Blagojevich trials.

And they were damning for Obama.

From Citizen Wells August 2, 2015.

Blagojevich attorney Len Goodman is requesting that the full court review the appeal that was just ruled on by 3 judges.

How does this fit in with the deal that I am certain was struck with Obama et al?

To protect Obama and keep Blagojevich from talking.

ObamaBlagoNov2008

I wrote this on July 19, 2011:

“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.”

The prosecution and reporting of Rod Blagojevich has been so watered down that it barely resembles what actually happened.

Why?

To protect Obama.

For those of you blinded by the BS from the mainstream media or not familiar with this case, Blagojevich, not Obama was the presumptive presidential candidate in 2006. Within one year it was Obama.

The Blagojevich Administration came under investigation by late 2003 and Tony Rezko was at the center of much of the corruption.

Stuart Levine carried out the orders of Rezko and Obama was closely tied to both men.

Federal investigators soon knew of Obama’s ties to the corruption but for some reason focused more on Blagojevich and chose to wait until after the 2008 elections to arrest him.

Why?

“this guy is more Tony’d up than I am. …. they got the Chicago media to f…ing make me wear Rezko more. To f…ing dilute it from him.…Rod Blagojevich wiretap November 12, 2008

“BLAGOJEVICH: You know, Axelrod and Obama’s people, you know, clearly turned, you know, got the Chicago media to make Rezko all about me. And hardly about…

HARRIS: Yeah, in other words, they focus their,they focus their attention on you. They couldn’t make it go away so the bes-, next best strategy is deflect it.

BLAGOJEVICH: Right.

HARRIS: This is somewhere where it, it’ll satisfy the, the hunger of the beast, being the media.

BLAGOJEVICH: Right, right.

HARRIS: Yeah, it makes sense. It’s not a stretch. If I’m, if I’m his message advisor, media advisor or whatever, operative, yeah I’m gonna try to feed the beast by giving ‘em something else to eat on.”…Rod Blagojevich wiretap November 12, 2008

Here is some background on the complete story from Citizen Wells March 14, 2011.

“This is the first article in a series about corruption in the US Justice Department and specifically an operation I refer to as “Protecting Obama.” Many events smelled back in 2008, but with the passage of time, the stench is corroborated. Below is the Evidentiary Proffer, a summary and timeline of the bulk of evidence that reveals how Obama was protected in the investigation and prosecution of Tony Rezko, Rod Blagojevich, et al. The time is right to present my case. There are enough well documented events to make a strong case. As I have mentioned recently, I have contacted a prominent congressman about this issue and others and this is a way to get the facts in front of the congressman, his staff and the public. The Proffer will certainly be updated from time to time. I will next present an opening statement and then go on to present the case in more detail. However, anyone who has been paying careful attention or who reads this Proffer, will come to the obvious conclusion presented here  of collusion involving the US Justice Department, Patrick Fitzgerald, Barack Obama, and probably Rod Blagojevich and Tony Rezko.

Before reading the Proffer, here is a recap of how important Rezko is to the prosecution of Blagojevich and ultimately indicting Obama.
It is understandable why the Blagojevich defense team does not want Rezko on the stand. Judge Zagel’s comment about Rezko being a bad witness reeks of conspiracy. Convicted felons of all categories are regularly used as witnesses. Stuart Levine, the key witness in the Rezko trial was not only enmeshed in corruption but was a long time drug user.

Here are the approximate number of times that “Rezko” is mentioned in US Justice Department documents.

Indictment:  87 times.
Criminal complaint:  170 times.
Evidentiary Proffer:  288 times.

Even if a strong argument is made against using Rezko as a witness, and good luck with that argument, Stuart Levine was used extensively as a witness in the Rezko trial, and his name was mentioned approx. 146 times in the Blagojevich Criminal Complaint. And remember, Blagojevich’s name was mentioned at least 30 times on one day of the Rezko trial.

 

U.S. Citizens

V.

U.S. Justice Department,

Barack Hussein Obama

Evidentiary Proffer supporting charge of Collusion in protecting Obama during the course of investigating and prosecuting Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich.

Jan. – Aug. 2003:  Obama was Chairman of the IL Senate Health and Human Service Committee.
Feb. 20, 2003: Senate Bill 1332 “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act” filed. Reduced members of IL Health Planning and Facilities Board from 15 to 9.

(Rezko Trial March 13, 2008; 3:09 p.m.)

“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.

“He said, ‘If you just don’t know which way to vote, vote the way Mr. Levine votes because that’s the way Tony would want the vote to go,” Almanaseer recalled, referring to Stuart Levine.”

Spring 2003 – Nov 2003: (Rezko trial March 11, 2008; 10:58 a.m.)

“Jennifer Thomas, a former aide to Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s patronage chief Joe Cini, continued on the stand Tuesday morning and gave a few more insights into those regular Monday morning meetings she and Cini held in 2003 with Antoin “Tony” Rezko at his office.”

“Thomas said Rezko floated the names of several people to sit on the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, which the government claims Rezko corrupted with the help of board member Stuart Levine. And Thomas said Rezko at one point made it clear that he wanted to see Levine reappointed to the panel, which was being overhauled by the governor in 2003.”
May 21, 2003: Senate Bill 1332 passed by House and Senate.
June 27, 2003: Blagojevich made this the effective date of Senate Bill 1332.
June 2003: (Rezko trial March 10, 2008; 4:16 p.m.)

“Ziegelmueller asked Hayden about a 2003 e-mail exchange with Lichtenstein, then the governor’s top lawyer, in which Wilhelm made recommendations for the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board.
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.”
June 30, 2003: Obama gets the following donations.

$5000 Ali Ata was appointed as Director at IFA
$6000 Alison Davis gets appointment on Investment Board
$15,000 Dr. Michael Malek gets appointment on Hospital Facility Board
$5000  Abdelhamid Chaib’s wife gets appointment on Employee Security Board
$10,000 Elie Maloof – Rezko used him as one of several strawmen to donate funds to certain politicians.
$1000  Phil Cacciatore (one of Auchi’s Riverside Park Investors) gets seat on Board
$1000  Velma Butler (one of Auchi’s Riverside Park Investors) was recommended for Board
$1000  Martello Pollack (Vegas Crystal Comm) received Iraqi Construction contracts
$1000 Jack Carriglio gets appointed to Board
$500  Anthony Abboud gets appointed to Board
$3000 Michael Winter, who helped Rezko in funneling kickbacks through investment firm
$1000 Talat Othman gets appointed to Board
$1000 David Gustman, $1000 from Gustman’s wife after he is appointed Board Chairman
Late 2003: Earliest documented awareness by FBI and Patrick Fitzgerald of corruption in Blagojevich admin. Pamela Meyer Davis agreed to secretly record conversations involving state health planning board with an FBI wire.
Oct. 29, 2003: Blagojevich interest in presidency (Blagojevich criminal complaint pg 14).

“During the conversation, Cari and ROD BLAGOJEVICH discussed Cari’s fundraising background and work as a national fundraiser. ROD BLAGOJEVICH discussed his interest in running for President of the United States.”
Dec 17, 2003: Former Governor George Ryan indicted.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/indict/2003/warner_ryan.pdf
Dec 31, 2003: (NY Times)

“Mr. Fitzgerald announced that he was prosecuting former Gov. George Ryan, a Republican, in a scandal that had been swirling around long before Mr. Fitzgerald got here and that many people thought would never touch the most powerful politicians in Illinois. But there Mr. Fitzgerald was, a week before Christmas, ticking off the details of a 91-page indictment against Mr. Ryan, seemingly from memory.

That, even Mr. Fitzgerald’s former opponents in the courtroom say, is classic Fitzgerald: dogged, dispassionate and endlessly prepared.”
2004 – 2005: (February 10, 2008 Sun-Times)

“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,“

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.””
March – May 2004: (Rezko trial exhibits)

FBI chart presented to the jury on April 28, 2008, shows 257 calls from Rezko’s phones to Blagojevich’s chief of staff, Lon Monk, between March 2004 and May 2004 alone.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/hot/us_v_rezko_exhibits/2008_04_28/phone_chart_07.pdf

April 3, 2004: (April 14, 2008; 12:57 p.m. Rezko trial transcripts)

“Stuart Levine, the prosecution’s star witness, said he and Obama were at a party Rezko threw at his Wilmette mansion on April 3, 2004, for Nadhmi Auchi, a controversial Iraqi-born billionaire who Rezko was trying to get to invest in a South Loop real-estate development.

Auchi, now a citizen of the United Kingdom, has faced criminal charges in Europe. He also figured in the revocation of Rezko’s bond early this year after attempting to wire him more than $3 million. Upon learning of that attempt, U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve declared Rezko a flight risk and ordered him held in a federal jail in the Loop.

The Rezko party in 2004 was designed to induce Auchi to pour money into the South Loop investment. Obama’s presence at the party was not previously known. At the time, Obama was fresh off a surprise win in the Illinois Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and was riding a crest of national publicity.”
April 8 – May 21, 2004: (Rezko Trial March 12, 2008; 11:11 a.m.)

“FBI Special Agent Daniel Cain, the primary case agent on the investigation into Levine and Rezko, is on the stand now in testimony that is laying the foundation for entering the wiretaps into evidence.

Cain said the investigation, dubbed Operation Board Games by the federal agents, began in December 2003 and was prompted by information gleaned from an informant whom he did not identify. That witness, he said, took part in meetings with two other individuals who were in contact with Levine by phone at his home.

Cain said Levine had three phone lines in his North Shore home. Federal agents recorded conversations on those lines April 8-May 21, 2004. Those dates span the time when Levine, Rezko and others allegedly were working to rig the hospital board vote on a Mercy Health System hospital proposal for Crystal Lake and other kickback schemes prosecutors claim they were engaged in.”
April 21, 2004: (Rezko Trial March 11, 2008; 5:27 p.m.)

“The former lawyer for a state board that regulates hospital expansions took the stand late in the afternoon and said she told Stuart Levine of her concern after an odd vote on the Mercy Hospital project that included Levine whispering to other board members before the project was approved.

His response was no less troubling, she said.

“He shrugged his shoulders and said, ‘Sometimes you have to be a good soldier,’” said Anne Murphy, the former lawyer for the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board.

Murphy said Levine’s remark followed a vote that saw the plan for a new hospital in Crystal Lake squeak by with the minimum of five votes in favor on the nine-member board.

With eight members present at the April 2004 meeting, Murphy said the vote was stalled with three members voting “yes,” two voting “no” and two abstentions when Chairman Thomas Beck was called to give his vote.

Beck said, “Where’re we at?” Murphy testified. He then went over to whisper with Levine off the record, she said. When that conversation ended, Murphy said, Levine got up and whispered to Imad Almanaseer.

Beck then voted yes, Murphy testified, and Almanaseer changed his vote to “yes,” giving the plan the necessary votes to pass.

“There was an audible, collective gasp across the room,” Murphy recalled of the April 2004 meeting.

Prosecutors contend the five members who voted for the hospital were a Levine-led bloc that Rezko had placed on the board and controlled. The two were charged with arranging to accept a kickback from the builder who was going to build the Mercy project in Crystal Lake.

The entire board was new as of the summer of 2003, Murphy said. She said she had given the new members memos on ethics, including conflicts of interest.”

May 18, 2004: (March 21, 2008; 12:10 p.m. Rezko trial transcripts)

“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.

June 7, 2004: Stuart Levine, member of the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, abruptly resigns. This is the first indication that the Blagojevich administration is under federal criminal investigation.

July 2, 2004: Stuart Levine resigns from the state Teachers’ Retirement System board.
July 27, 2004: Obama Democratic Convention Speech.
May 9, 2005: Stuart Levine indicted on corruption charges. Federal subpoena issued to Tony Rezko.
June 15, 2005: Obama purchases home next door to Rezko for $1.65 million, $300,000 less than the asking price.
June 15, 2005: Rita Rezko, Tony’s wife purchased plot next door for $625,000 asking price.
Sept. 15, 2005: Joseph Cari, former lawyer for the state’s teacher’s pension board pleads guilty to extortion. A high ranking public official is described in court documents only as “Public official A.”
Oct. 25, 2005: The Chicago Tribune reports about a federal grand jury investigation into the alleged political hiring practices of the Blagojevich administration.
Late 2005 early 2006: From the Kenneth J. Conner complaint against Mutual Bank filed Oct. 16, 2008. The lawsuit is still active.

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

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

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

Soon after the Blagojevich arrest, Conner was interviewed by investigators from Fitzgerald’s office.
Jan. 2006: Rita Rezko sells the Obamas one-sixth of her lot for $104,500.
Feb. 4, 2006: (Chicago Sun-Times)

“Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has always been rumored to be interested in higher office. A single entry in a campaign-finance report he filed this week could add fuel to the speculation.

Blagojevich paid $7,500 in December to one of the top Democratic political strategists in Iowa, where contacts are important for anyone with presidential aspirations.”
Feb. 19, 2006: Blagojevich began his 2006 re-election to IL Governor.
Aug. 5, 2006: The Chicago Tribune reports that Stuart Levine is cooperating with the federal investigation of state government.
Aug. 11-20 2006: Illinois State Fair. “We’ve got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois,” Obama told the crowd.
Oct. 11, 2006: Tony Rezko is indicted on federal charges he sought millions of dollars in kickbacks and campaign donations from firms seeking state business.

Oct. 22, 2006: Obama publicly states he is considering a run for the Presidency.
Oct. 27, 2006: Stuart Levine pleads guilty in a scheme to squeeze millions of dollars from firms seeking state business. Court papers contain allegations that Rezko and  Christopher Kelly were using their influence for corrupt purposes.
Nov. 7, 2006 (Chicago SunTimes)

“The Rezko story broke last week, when Obama was wrapping up a national tour serving several purposes: promote his new book, The Audacity of Hope, raise money and stump for Democrats, and lay the groundwork for a possible 2008 White House bid.”
Jan. 16, 2007:  Obama announces his intention to run for president.

“I’ve navigated some fairly difficult territory in my political career and, you know, there are some folks in Springfield who are pretty wily.

And I’ve always been able to operate effectively, but also do so in a way that’s consistent with my values and ethics. I make no claims of perfection, but I think that generally my judgment and my assessments of people have been pretty good and that’s part of how I’ve stayed out of trouble in what can be a pretty hurly burly political environment. ….. I think that the way [voters should view the Rezko relationship] is that I made a mistake in not seeing the potential conflicts of interest or appearances of impropriety. But they should see somebody who was not engaged in any wrongdoing, who did not in any way betray the public trust, who has maintained consistently high ethical standards and who they can trust.”
Feb 10, 2008: (Chicago Sun-Times)

“Sources said 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.”
March 6, 2008: Rezko trial begins.
April 22, 2008: Ali Ata pleads guilty to obstruction of justice and agrees to cooperate.
May 2, 2008: Illinois Senate narrowly defeated a measure aimed at giving voters a chance to recall Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
June 4, 2008: Rezko convicted on 16 of 24 counts.
Count 1 contains ties to Blagojevich and Obama.

The following conviction counts are related to Mercy Hospital and the rigging of the Planning Board.

1, 11, 12, 14, 15

A large portion of the testimony in the Rezko Trial was about the rigging of the Planning Board.
Aug. 20, 2008: Rezko sentencing delayed.
Oct. 9, 2008: Rezko sentencing delayed.
Oct. 30, 2008: William Cellini indicted
Nov. 4, 2008: Washington Times report.

“A former Illinois real estate specialist says FBI agents have questioned him about a Chicago property that had been bought by convicted felon Tony Rezko’s wife and later sold to the couple’s next-door neighbor, Sen. Barack Obama.

The real estate specialist, Kenneth J. Conner, said bank officials replaced an appraisal review he prepared on the property and FBI agents were investigating in late 2007 whether the Rezko-Obama deal was proper.

“Agents and I talked about payoff, bribe, kickback for a long time, though it took them only a short number of minutes of talking with me while looking at the appraisal to acknowledge what they already seemed to know: The Rezko lot was grossly overvalued,” Mr. Conner told The Washington Times Monday.

“Rezko paid the asking price on the same day Obama paid $300,000 less than the asking price to the same seller for his adjacent mansion,” he said. “This begs the question of payoff, bribe, kickback.””

Dec. 7, 2008: Criminal complaint of Blagojevich. Nine individuals is important. Obama helped passed a bill to reduce the number from 15 to 9.

“b. Corruption of the Planning Board”
“At the relevant time period, the Planning Board consisted of nine individuals.”

“Planning Board” (IL Health Facilities Planning Board) is mentioned 31 times.

“Rezko” is mentioned 170 times.

“Hospital” in context of Mercy Hospital mentioned 8 times.
Dec. 9, 2008: Blagojevich arrested

“Fitzgerald said, “We make no allegations” that Obama was aware of any alleged scheming by Blagojevich.”
Jan. 9, 2009: IL House votes 114 to 1 to impeach Blagojevich.
Jan 29, 2009: IL Senate removes Blagojevich from office.
Feb 12, 2009: “US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who brought criminal fraud charges against former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, will stay on with the Obama administration, reports Pete Williams at NBC.”
APRIL 2, 2009: Press release, Superceding Indictment. There is no mention of nine board members.

“Planning Board” (IL Health Facilities Planning Board) is mentioned 7 times

“Rezko” is mentioned 100 times.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2009/pr0402_01a.pdf
July 30,  2009: Patrick Fitzgerald, the top prosecutor in Illinois’ Northern District, has been named interim chairman of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys (AGAC).
Feb. 4, 2010: Second superceding indictment. There is no mention of nine board members.

“Planning Board” (IL Health Facilities Planning Board) is mentioned 7 times

“Rezko” is mentioned 87 times.

“Hospital” in context of Mercy Hospital mentioned 1 time.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2010/pr0204_02a.pdf
April 14, 2010: Evidentiary Proffer include 9 members statement.

“During the relevant time period, the Planning Board consisted of nine individuals.”

“Rezko was able to obtain significant influence over the affairs of the Planning Board by arranging for Blagojevich to appoint five of Rezko’s associates and/or friends, including Levine, as members of the Planning Board in 2003.”

“Rezko” is mentioned 288 times.

“Hospital” in context of Mercy Hospital mentioned 18 times.
April 22, 2010: Motion filed to subpoena Obama and redacted parts revealed.

“22. However, the defense has a good faith belief that Mr. Rezko, President Obama’s former friend, fund-raiser, and neighbor told the FBI and

the United States Attorneys

Redacted:

a different story about President Obama. In a recent in camera proceeding, the government tendered a three paragraph letter indicating that Rezko “has stated
in interviews with the government that he engaged in election law violations by personally contributing a large sum of cash to the campaign of a public official who is not Rod Blagojevich. … Further, the public official denies being aware of cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions. … Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action, but that the public official rejected the offer. The public official denies any such conversation. In addition, Rezko has stated to the government that he and the public official had certain conversations about gaming legislation and administration, which the public official denies having had.”10

10 The defense has a good faith belief that this public official is Barack Obama.”

June 29, 2010: Judge Zagel  said there was a word to describe witnesses like Rezko  who damage whatever side calls them to testify.

“generally explains why they’re not called.”

Aug. 17, 2010: Blagojevich convicted of 1 of 24 counts. Neither Rezko or Levine were called as witnesses. One juror held out from indicting on more counts. The trial was much shorter than predicted . Approx 2% of the wiretaps were presented.
Jan. 6, 2011: Rezko sentencing delayed indefinitely.
Jan. 28, 2011: Rezko sentencing set for October 21, 2011.
Feb. 24, 2011: Counts 1,2,4 in the Blagojevich Indictment are dropped. This represents approx. half of the indictment and includes numerous corruption ties to Blagojevich and Obama.

The only reference left to “Hospital” in context of Mercy Hospital was in count one.
March 9, 2011: Blagojevich files motion to be sentenced on one conviction charge.

https://citizenwells.com/2015/08/02/blagojevich-appeal-prosecution-delays-protect-obama-august-2-2015-truth-behind-blagojevich-obama-chicago-corruption-2-percent-of-wiretaps-reveal-much-is-their-deal-playing-out-or-will-blagojevich/

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Teneo Clinton Foundation emails involving Hillary Bill Huma Abedin Mills released soon, State Dept. delay motion granted and denied in part, Abedin employee of Teneo while deputy chief of staff to Clinton at State Department, Julian Assange WikiLeaks please release too

Teneo Clinton Foundation emails involving Hillary Bill Huma Abedin Mills released soon, State Dept. delay motion granted and denied in part, Abedin employee of Teneo while deputy chief of staff to Clinton at State Department, Julian Assange WikiLeaks please release too

“State Department is using taxpayer dollars to protect their candidate, Hillary Clinton,”
“The American people have a right to see these emails before the election.”…David Bossie, Citizens United

“By July 1993, the Clintons and their associates had established
a pattern of concealment with respect to the Clintons’ involvement
with Whitewater and the Madison S&L. Because of the complexity
of the allegations of misdeeds involving these institutions, documents
and files are critical to any inquiries into the matter. Yet,
at every important turn, crucial files and documents ‘‘disappeared’’
or were withheld from scrutiny whenever questions were raised.…Senate Whitewater report June 13, 1996

“My Next Leak Will Ensure Hillary’s Arrest”…Julian Assange

 

 

It appears that the emails involving Bill and Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin and  Cheryl Mills with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo may be released soon.

However, Julian Assange and Wikileaks, if you have these emails, please release them now for the good of the US and the world.

From The Daily Caller June 30, 2016.

“EXCLUSIVE: State Department Won’t Release Clinton Foundation Emails for 27 Months

If the court permits the delay, the public won’t be able to read the communications until October 2018, about 22 months into her prospective first term as President. The four senior Clinton aides involved were Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Fuchs, Ambassador-At-Large Melanne Verveer, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin.

David N. Bossie, president of Citizens United, which requested the documents under the Freedom of Information Act, called the delay “totally unacceptable” and charged that “the State Department is using taxpayer dollars to protect their candidate, Hillary Clinton.”

“The American people have a right to see these emails before the election,” Bossie told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, a President Obama-appointed judge, had previously ordered the State Department to release the requested documents by July 21. But Department of Justice lawyers informed Contreras Wednesday night that “the [State] department discovered errors in the manner in which the searches had been conducted in order to capture documents potentially responsive to plaintiff’s request.” The motion was filed by Justice Department attorney Joseph Borson on behalf of the State Department.

Borson also provided new details about how few resources the State Department has devoted to answering 106 separate Freedom of Information Act requests that are pending before it, many of them ordered by federal judges. Only 71 “part-time” retired foreign service officers are being used to review all of the pending FOIA requests.”

Read more:

EXCLUSIVE: State Department Won’t Release Clinton Foundation Emails for 27 Months

On July 25, 2016 Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled on the motion.

“For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to complete production (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the following schedule shall govern Defendant’s processing of the approximately 12,515 outstanding pages that Defendant must still process, see Status Report 1, ECF No. 17:

1. Defendant shall process 2000 pages and produce any non-exempt responsive material to Plaintiff on or before August 22, 2016;

2. Defendant shall process 3000 pages and produce any non-exempt responsive material to Plaintiff on or before September 21, 2016;

3. Defendant shall process 4000 pages and produce any non-exempt responsive material to Plaintiff on or before October 21, 2016;

4. Defendant shall process 1600 pages and produce any non-exempt responsive material to Plaintiff on or before November 4, 2016.

5. Defendant shall process 1915 pages and produce any non-exempt responsive material to Plaintiff on or before November 21, 2016.

SO ORDERED.”

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-2927-db8a-a57f-69e73b240001

Some background:

From Judicial Watch April 30, 2015.

Teneo & The Clinton Machine

“Then there is Teneo Holdings, a global consulting firm with deep Clinton connections. Teneo serves as a kind of private-enterprise satellite to Clinton Inc. Doug Band, Mr. Clinton’s right-hand man for many years, is a Teneo founder. Huma Abedin, Mrs. Clinton’s right-hand woman for many years, was a senior advisor to Teneo at the same time she held a top position as part of Mrs. Clinton’s inner circle at the State Department. Bill Clinton was both a paid adviser to Teneo and a client. Secretary of State Clinton’s former Economic Envoy to Northern Ireland, Declan Kelly, is a Teneo co-founder and CEO.

Teneo boasts of a vast reach across international arenas, partnering “exclusively with the CEOs and senior leaders of many of the world’s largest and most complex companies and organizations.” In a Clintonian claim of cosmic proportions, Teneo says the firm addresses a “range of financial, reputational and transformational challenges and opportunities by combining the disciplines of strategic communications, investor relations, investment banking, financial analytics, executive recruiting, digital analytics, corporate governance, government affairs, business intelligence, management consulting and corporate restructuring on an integrated basis.”

Got that? In fact, Teneo is rather shadowy, with only a few known corporate clients. It is best known for its relation with the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation. Journalists so far have seemed unwilling or unable to penetrate much further into Teneo. But that appears to have changed with Mrs. Clinton’s formal entry into the presidential race and the dawning realization among media types that the Clinton Foundation, Teneo and the disappearing State Dept. emails really do signal that some sort of gigantic sleazy game is afoot.

Still, the task is daunting. Where to begin? The Clinton Method of old, honed in the media wars of the 1990s, was a relentless parry of deny, deflect and defame. Today, most mainstream journalistic organizations do not have the patience or the money for the kind of sustained journalistic digging that is needed for serious investigative reporting. Advantage, Clintons.

But the wild card here, of course, is the new media. This isn’t your mama’s 1990s-style Fourth Estate. Times have changed. Today, social media can create a story tsunami in a matter of hours, even minutes. No one can control it. The legacy media still plays a critical role, but the fact is, it’s the Wild West out there, with thousands of independent operators, including serious investigative reporters, many with little more institutional support than a laptop and a website.

Reporter Ron Brynaert is one example of this new breed of investigative gunslinger. A former executive editor for Raw Story, Brynaert has been digging deep into the Teneo connection and publishing his findings at his blog, “-gate news” and on Twitter. While the media focus on former Clinton aide Doug Band as the key Teneo founder, Brynaert has explored the extensive Clinton ties of Declan Kelly, the Teneo co-founder and CEO. Based on Brynaert’s reporting, Kelly seems to be the real brains behind the operation.”

“As for Abedin, her dual roles have attracted the attention of Senator Chuck Grassley, who wrote the State Department in June 2013 requesting clarification. The State Department and Abedin did not provide Grassley with “a single document,” the senator later said, complaining that a “stone wall” had been put up. Abedin did not reply to Grassley, but wrote State Department officials that “I was not asked, nor did I undertake, any work on Teneo’s behalf before the State Department (and I should note that it is my understanding that Teneo does not conduct business with the Department of State). I also was not asked, nor did I provide, insights about the Department, my work with the Secretary, or any government information to which I may have had access.”

In her letter to State Department officials, linked by Brynaert, Abedin notes that from June 2012 to February 2013, her paying jobs included: work at the State Department as “a part-time consultant;” assisting Secretary Clinton “in her personal capacity…prepare for transition from public service;” work for the Clinton Foundation assessing programs and helping plan for Mrs. Clinton’s “post-State philanthropic activities;” and work for Teneo Holdings providing “strategic advice and consulting services.”

Thus, at the time of the December 2012 event in Belfast, Brynaert notes, Abedin was simultaneously employed by “the State Department, Teneo, the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton” in a personal capacity.

Citing possible misconduct and misrepresentation, Judicial Watch has asked a federal judge to reopen a Freedom of Information lawsuit that sought records related to Abedin’s multiple roles at the State Department and with Teneo.”

Read more:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/teneo-the-clinton-machine/

From the Free Thought Project July 1, 2016.

“Bossie asserted the “State Department is using taxpayer dollars to protect their candidate, Hillary Clinton,” and told the Caller, “The American people have a right to see these emails before the election.”

But perhaps most indicative of possible favoritism, if not outright corruption, the announcement of the delay came just two days after Bill Clinton’s already controversial private meeting with Lynch — though email hijinx might not have been the sole outcome of the rendezvous.

Bill Clinton might have been seeking some protection of his own.

Former U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenova exclusively told the Daily Caller the former President “is at least a witness in two criminal investigations, probably a subject in two criminal investigations. He is a person of interest officially to the Department of Justice.”

And as DiGenova emphasized, because both Bill and Hillary stand at the heart of several criminal and corruption probes, the private meeting with Lynch actually violates DoJ policy.

“It’s very important to realize this isn’t just a question of her judgment,” the former U.S. Attorney told the Caller. “The question is the Department of Justice policy on communicating with a side in a case.”

DiGenova explained the DoJ and Lynch have strict obligations to maintain impartiality — and Bill Clinton’s ‘legal status’ as a party to federal investigations should put him off limits for such unofficial and off-the-record meetings.
Read more:

After Bill Clinton Met With Attorney General, DOJ Delays Release of Clinton Emails — 2 Years

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

 

 

 

 

 

Blagojevich amicus brief urges supreme court to hear case, Blagojevich SCOTUS appeal update January 18, 2016, Time to file response to petition extended twice, Brief amici curiae of current and former elected officials

Blagojevich amicus brief urges supreme court to hear case, Blagojevich SCOTUS appeal update January 18, 2016, Time to file response to petition extended twice, Brief amici curiae of current and former elected officials

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

“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.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

The US Supreme Court website reveals the following status of the Rod Blagojevich appeal:

No. 15-664
Title:
Rod Blagojevich, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: November 19, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (11-3853)
  Decision Date: July 21, 2015
  Rehearing Denied: August 19, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 17 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)
Dec 16 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016.
Dec 21 2015 Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al. filed.
Jan 7 2016 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 19, 2016.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-664.htm

An amicus brief was filed on December 21, 2015 by attorney Alan R. Friedman on behalf of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al.

List of Amici Curiae:

Jan Schakowsky is an incumbent member of the
United States House of Representatives from Illinois.

Danny Davis is an incumbent member of the United
States House of Representatives from Illinois.

Mike Quigley is an incumbent member of the United
States House of Representatives from Illinois.

Bobby Rush is an incumbent member of the United
States House of Representatives from Illinois.

Bob Barr is a former United States Attorney
and a former member of the United States House of
Representatives from Georgia.

William Lipinski is a former member of the United
States House of Representatives from Illinois.

David Phelps is a former member of the United States
House of Representatives from Illinois.

Glenn Poshard is a former member of the United
States House of Representatives from Illinois and a
former President of Southern Illinois University.

Emil Jones is a former President of the Illinois
Senate and a former member of the Illinois House of
Representatives.

Carol Ronen is a former member of the Illinois Senate.
Skip Saviano, is a former member of the Illinois House
of Representatives. He is the current Village President
of Elmwood Park

Margaret Blackshere is a former President of the
Illinois AFL-CIO.

Edward M. Smith is a former Vice-President of
Laborers’ International Union of North America, Midwest
Region.

From the brief:

“Summary of Argument

Amici urge the Court to grant the writ on the first
question presented by Petitioner in order to address an
issue of national importance. Although amici take no
position on Mr. Blagojevich’s innocence or guilt on any
of the counts of conviction, they submit that this Court’s
guidance is needed to distinguish the lawful solicitation of
campaign contributions from criminal violations of federal
extortion, bribery, and fraud laws. In McCormick v. United
States, the Court acknowledged that—given the system
of private political campaign financing that has existed in
the United States since the nation’s inception—political
candidates and incumbents alike cannot realistically avoid
soliciting campaign funds from the very constituents whose
interests they may later advance through the support of
specific legislation or other official acts. 500 U.S. 257, 272
(1991). As a result, McCormick held that extortion based
on soliciting campaign contributions requires a quid pro
quo in the form of an “explicit promise or undertaking”
by a public official to perform or not perform an official
act. However, the Court’s subsequent decision in Evans v.
United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992), has blurred the relative
clarity of McCormick’s holding.

Circuit courts have since struggled to determine
whether and how Evans modified McCormick’s holding
regarding extortion under color of official right, bribery,
and fraud in the solicitation of campaign contributions.2
Confusion in the lower courts is problematic for lawabiding
politicians and donors who wish to avoid prohibited
conduct and threatens to discourage candidates and
their supporters from legitimate campaign solicitation
and donation activities. It is particularly important in
the campaign contribution context—where contributors
generally assume that the supported candidate’s election
will benefit the contributor’s interests—that brightline
standards exist to guide prosecutors and juries to
avoid selective enforcement against unpopular political
candidates or donors. In addition, the Circuit Courts are
split on whether Evans applies to campaign contributions,
and this Court’s guidance is needed to restore national
uniformity to this area of the law.

Amici respectfully submit that it is important to
the effective operation of the nation’s political system
that the Court clarify the legal standard to distinguish
between the necessary, legitimate solicitation of
campaign contributions, on the one hand, and unlawful
extortion, bribery, and fraud, on the other. The Court’s
consideration of this issue is needed to guide individual
political candidates and donors who wish to confidently
and lawfully engage in campaign financing activities.”

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Blagojevich_Amicus_Brief.pdf

Ted Cruz born in Canada Obama born on planet earth, 2 arrogant Harvard grads, What the hell is wrong with Cruz?, Eligibility challenges grow, Paige v Vermont update, Texas Cruz lawsuit, Even Washington Post challenges Ted Cruz and of course lies about Obama

Ted Cruz born in Canada Obama born on planet earth, 2 arrogant Harvard grads, What the hell is wrong with Cruz?, Eligibility challenges grow, Paige v Vermont update, Texas Cruz lawsuit, Even Washington Post challenges Ted Cruz and of course lies about Obama

“Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.”…constitutional law professor Mary Brigid McManamon

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Enough is enough!

Ted Cruz, what the hell is wrong with you!

Donald Trump is right.

Cruz will continue to be challenged on his eligibilty for the presidency as a natural born citizen and rightfully so.

We already have a narcissist in the White House. We don’t need another one.

Cruz, do your damn job and get an advisory opinion from the FEC or a court ruling. That is if you care about this country. or is that the problem?

You were born Canadian.

Here is an update from H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

“Mr. Paige informs Citizen Wells that he will be filing his “Notice of Default” with the court on Monday morning and will subsequently ask the court for an expedited hearing on the merits, a directed verdict based upon the Plaintiff’s Complaint and the issuance of an Order by the Court directing Secretary of State Jim Condos to take appropriate actions to mitigate and resolve the errors and deficiencies presented in his Complaint.

More information as this unexpected and encouraging turn of events develops.”

From Mr. Paige January 5, 2016.

“Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

“Well this was an unexpected turn of events.  As a result of their
negligence in Answering or otherwise entering an appearance in Superior
Court, a series of events are unfolding that could result in profound
changes in the Vermont Primary this March.  What those changes will be is
difficult to predict. There are structural and legal problems with Vermont
Election Laws (Title 17) which has been thrown together “piecemeal” over
the years and this case should focus attention on the shortcomings of the
current law.

Mr. Paige visited the Secretary of State’s Office today to hand deliver a
copy of the latest filings that requested a Temporary Restraining Order to
prevent the “publication and distribution” of the Presidential Primary
Ballots until the “troubles” complained in the Plaintiff’s pleadings are
resolved or an accommodation can be found that would avoid injuring or
disenfranchising the various candidates.

Sadly, the Attorney General’s office has failed to inform the Secretary of
State’s Election Office of their failure to respond in Superior Court. The
Director of Elections appeared “shell shocked” as Mr. Paige filled him in
on the case, the default and the resolution he intends to propose to the
Court relating to the Primary.  The General Election and the “natural-born
Citizen” question will require additional consideration in order to find
an equable resolution which hopefully will include defining “nbC”
precisely as part of the ruling (rather than mere dicta unrelated to the
resolution).

Mr. Paige informs that the gross negligence of the Defendants exhibited by
their failure to respond reduces the A/G opportunities to stall and
“sidetrack” the case.  The expedited resolution of the questions relating
to the Primary could produce an interesting civics lesson for Vermont
voters.

CitizenWells  will continue to follow this case and provide all the
details here as they become available !””

The complaint:

https://citizenwells.com/2015/12/30/ted-cruz-rubio-and-jindal-eligibility-challenged-in-vermont-h-brooke-paige-complaint-filed-december-9-2015-natural-born-citizen-status-requires-us-birth-and-2-citizen-parents-attorney-mario-apuzz/

Another legal action challenging Ted Cruz’s eligibility.

“Donald J. Trump predicted that the lawsuits against Senator Ted Cruz, doubting his constitutional eligibility to be president, would start trickling in as questions continued to percolate about the fact that he was born in Canada. As the Republican candidates gathered to debate in South Carolina on Thursday, one had already been filed.

An 85-year-old trial lawyer, Newton Schwartz Sr., filed the complaint in Federal Court in the Southern District of Texas, in Houston, arguing that the definition of a “natural born citizen” has never been sufficiently settled by the United States Supreme Court. The matter, he said, must be urgently addressed.

“The entire nation cannot afford such constitutional confusion and uncertainties overhanging the electorate process,” Mr. Schwartz, who lives and practices law in Mr. Cruz’s home state of Texas, wrote in the 73-page lawsuit.”

Read more:

From the Marshall Report January 7 2016.

“Cruz, Rubio Presidential Eligibility Challenged In FL, VT, and MD!”

“Well, so far complaints involving the ineligibility for Cruz, Rubio and Jindal to run for president have been filed in three states. Florida, Vermont, and MD. It appears all these people have to do is show proof of the eligibility requirements to run for president as stated in the constitution. So far none have, however Jindal has dropped out so it is moot for him. (Citizenship is not the same as the naturalization requirements for citizenship to run for President as stated in the constitution.)

 For some odd reason, Cruz has had his birth records sealed. He’ll have to answer the reason why himself. Heaven forbid if we speculate on that one. It does appear very strange especially if he has nothing to hide? He did show his Canadian Birth Certificate and his paper denouncing his Canadian citizenship, but he has not shown any consulate papers.”

Read more:

https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/cruz-rubio-presidential-eligibility-challenged-in-fl-vt-and-md/

Leave it to the Washington Post to question Cruz and sanction Obama.

From the Washington Post January 12, 2016.
“Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president”

“Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School.
Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.

The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural-born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator’s parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth. This provision has not always been available. For example, there were several decades in the 19th century when children of Americans born abroad were not given automatic naturalization.”

“Let me be clear: I am not a so-called birther. I am a legal historian. President Obama is without question eligible for the office he serves. The distinction between the president and Cruz is simple: The president was born within the United States, and the senator was born outside of it. That is a distinction with a difference.”

Read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

Let’s be clear about this.

There is zero proof of US birth for Obama.

He has never presented a certified copy of an original birth certificate.

I can prove that in court.

 

 

 

Rush Limbaugh uses citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably on Ted Cruz eligibility, Citizen Wells rectification, Obama and Cruz scenarios similar both not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibility nonsense???, Imagine John McCain right Limbaugh wrong

Rush Limbaugh uses citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably on Ted Cruz eligibility, Citizen Wells rectification, Obama and Cruz scenarios similar both not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibility nonsense???, Imagine John McCain right Limbaugh wrong

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”…US Constitution

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

I am a big fan of Rush Limbaugh and have been for well over 20 years.

I do not always get to listen to him but I caught a few minutes yesterday when he was discussing the controversy over Ted Cruz’s eligibility.

He used citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably.

Even John McCain has this right. Cruz’s eligibility is subject to scrutiny.

To Limbaugh’s credit, he did go on to read the eligibility provision from the US Constitution and state the difficiencies of the candidates and opposing thoughts on what NBC means.

I found the following offensive. It reminds me too much of John Boehner and the mainstream media:

“I’m not saying that won’t happen, but they’re not gonna succeed in going into court and have Ted Cruz told by a court, “Hey, Mr. Cruz, we’ve just discovered you’re not a citizen. Leave the country! Turn in your passport and go back to Canada.”  It isn’t gonna happen. ”

Citizenship is not the term or the question. Hell, we’ll let anybody be a citizen.

It’s natural born citizen!

From Rush Limbaugh January 7, 2016.

“Cruz Citizenship Kerfuffle Is a Distraction”

“Well, we’re getting closer to the day that actual votes are going to happen, which is why all of this kerfuffle is effervescing up and boiling over. I mean, the nonsense on whether or not Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. It’s stunning.”

“The latest to join this bandwagon suggesting that Ted Cruz may want to actually go to court and get some confirmation on the fact he’s a citizen, it could be a problem out there, John McCain. John McCain is now officially questioning Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for the presidency. It’s getting into bizarro territory here. Remember, now, McCain was born in Panama, and his presidential eligibility is the same and based on the same constitutionality as is Ted Cruz’s. It’s amazing.

Folks, I left the program yesterday, and this was the subject we were laughing about, the way Trump was talking about it and raising the issue but not opining on it. And because the Republican establishment is scared to death of either one of them winning, the gears got into full motion and people started investigating this constitutionally, intellectually. You would not believe, one website probably has 75,000 words written on this. And the 75,000 words include the learned opinions of countless other scholars on whether or not Ted Cruz is actually an American citizen.”

“Anyway, the eligibility question is an interesting political development because it is gonna be explored, it is gonna be a distraction. The Democrats are gonna milk it for all it’s worth because of what happened to Obama and the birthers. And despite the fact that there’s no similarity or commonality in the two claims, they’re still gonna rely on the low-information voters’ ignorance of this and act like, “Hey, this is fun. You know, you guys did it to Obama, we got a chance to do it to you,” so that’s why they’re gonna get in on it.”

“But it’s an opportunity for a lot of people to show their chops, demo their chops on the Constitution. I mean, here’s what this really is all about. It’s right out of the Constitution. It is very, very simple. It’s Article 2, Section 1. “No person except a natural born citizen…” I’m telling you, I went to a blog site, and there’s a 75,000-word article on “natural born citizen,” what it means. I thought, “You know what? I could print that out, I could read that whole piece, and it’d be my program today. I could take the day off; just read that piece. At the end of that you’d think I’m nuts or brilliant.”

But 75,000 words! That’s a wild guess. But it printed out to 20 pages. “No person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of it United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United States.” There’s nothing else. You can have an IQ of 20. You can be dumb, stupid. You can be poor, you can be uneducated. None of that matters. You just have to be a natural born citizen, gotta be 35 years old, and you have to have lived within the United States for 14 years.

That’s it. So when people raise the question, “‘Natural born citizen’? What’s that mean?” ‘Cause it doesn’t appear anywhere else in the Constitution. It’s not defined. The founders do not define what natural born citizen is, which means that back in the day they wrote it… It’s why original intent’s so important, folks, when you analyze the Constitution. “What did they mean? What did ‘natural born citizen’ mean at the time they wrote it?” It’s a derivative from British common law which meant natural born subject. And, I’m telling you, this… Andy McCarthy writes about this today, and he’s right.”

“It is not explained in the writings or the history of those who framed the Constitution, nor is it in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on it and probably never will. “Natural born” is not used anywhere in the Constitution. Its origins are unclear. It is assumed to be derived, as I say, from the British common stature law governing natural born subjects. And therein provides the wide opening for everybody to mad dash into and define it themselves as to their particular benefit.

There are essentially two ends of the spectrum here about which everybody agrees, in terms of the meaning of “natural born citizen.” 1. A person born in the United States to parents, both whom are United States citizens. Obviously, you’re natural born. You’re born here. Your parents are citizens. Bammo, you’re a citizen. Nobody questions it, and you’re natural born. By the way, if you Planned Parenthood aficionados are listening, it has nothing to do with artificial wombs and all that. That’s not what “natural born” means. We can rule that out right now. We’re not talking about test tubes here.

Although we might somewhere down the road. You never know. And the other end of the spectrum is a person born outside the United States to parents, neither of who is a United States citizen, is not a natural born citizen. Nobody disagrees with that. Even if citizenship is obtained through naturalization later, that is not natural born citizen. So if you’re a naturalized citizen — born somewhere else, your parents are not Americans — and if you come here and become a citizen? “Sorry, you’re not qualified. Too bad.”

Now, Rubio, Jindal, and Cruz, as did Obama, fall between these two points on the spectrum here. Rubio and Jindal born in the US to parents neither of whom was a citizen at the time that he was born here. So, bammo. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents, one of whom (his mother) was a US citizen, and as far as the best minds have worked on this, that alone qualifies Cruz. Now, Trump months ago… We had the audio sound bite yesterday. Months ago, Trump said of Cruz, “Ah, it’s not about that.”

Trump says, “Cruz is perfectly fine. It’s not a problem here. I looked into it; we have no problem with Cruz.” Now, yesterday Cruz becomes the focus point of Trump. “Weeeeell, I don’t know. I might be a little nervous. He might want to get clarification.” That’s all it took to get the media revved up and create this distraction now that is designed to distract Cruz, raise doubts, weaken support, all of these things. It’s ’cause Cruz is the front-runner now in the Hawkeye Cauci.”

Read more:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/01/07/cruz_citizenship_kerfuffle_is_a_distraction

DISTRACTION???

Come on Rush, I know that you have always claimed to be an entertainer, but it’s the Constitution.

 

Blagojevich update US Supreme Court appeal, December 19, 2015, Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016, Not denied yet significant?

Blagojevich update US Supreme Court appeal, December 19, 2015, Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016, Not denied yet significant?

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

“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.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

Rod Blagojevich attorney Len Goodman filed an appeal, petition for a writ of certiorari, with the US Supreme Court on November 17, 2015.

The SCOTUS then had a response indicated by December 21, 2015.

No. 15-664
Title:
Rod Blagojevich, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: November 19, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (11-3853)
  Decision Date: July 21, 2015
  Rehearing Denied: August 19, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 17 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)

This response has been extended to January 20, 2016.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-664.htm

The Blagojevich appeal has not been denied yet.

Is this significant?

Here are some cases that have been denied.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121415zor_8n59.pdf

 

US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution

US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution

“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be pruledassed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
“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.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

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 V Madison

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

 

Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court and courts in general have failed to do their duty.

Roberts has acted irrationally in his opinions regarding Obamacare.

Our courts have failed to do their duty in regard to clarifying what natural born citizen means and the eligibility of Barack Obama to occupy the White House.

I was however pleased to see Justice Roberts step up to the plate with his dissent on the same sex marriage ruling.

When I heard the SCOTUS opinion I thought to myself how absurd.

A marriage contract is between 2 people and the state they get married in and the federal government has no damn business meddling in this.

“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting. Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the
past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered). Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are? It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned with the wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J., dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent. Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
Petitioners and their amici base their arguments on the “right to marry” and the imperative of “marriage equality.” There is no serious dispute that, under our precedents, the Constitution protects a right to marry and requires States to apply their marriage laws equally. The real question in these cases is what constitutes “marriage,” or—more precisely—who decides what constitutes “marriage”? The majority largely ignores these questions, relegating ages of human experience with marriage to a paragraph or two. Even if history and precedent are not “the end” of these cases, ante, at 4, I would not “sweep away what has so long been settled” without showing greater respect for all that preceded us. Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 8). “

From the Center for Immigration Studies June 23, 2015.

“The Supreme Court recently issued a decision in an immigration-related case Kerry, Secretary of State, et al. v. Din. The decision reaffirms that although people have the right to marry anyone they like, if the spouse is a foreigner, he or she has no intrinsic right to enter the United States when excludable under any of the grounds laid out by law.

To people like myself, it is one of the rare victories these days in an increasingly beleaguered national immigration system under peril from open borders advocates who persistently push the boundaries of sovereignty and common sense.”

“Despite the salutary outcome, there are several disturbing things about this case that merit mentioning:

  • First, of course, is that the 9-CCA ruled as it did. One sometimes wonders whether they ought to be impeached, en banc. Perhaps they could take up residence as appellate court judges somewhere else more appropriate to their extreme views? Like Venezuela.
  • Next, is that four of the nine Supreme Court justices also held that Din’s rights had been infringed because of her husband’s visa denial, and that she was somehow entitled to additional due process review because of it. Imagine the loophole that would have been caused but for one slim vote. Terrorists, narcotraffickers, and sundry other villains would be lining up to join the marriage fraud queue so that their spouses could avail themselves of their “constitutional right” to live in the United States with them.
  • Then there is the curious case of Din herself. She came to the United States as a refugee from Afghanistan in 2000 when the Taliban was in the full glory of its power, sheltering the likes of Osama bin Laden and conducting public maimings, stonings, and executions under Sharia law at the main soccer stadium in Kabul. But where did she find her husband? In Afghanistan, where she traveled in 2006. And whom did he work for? The Taliban, from whom she presumably sought refuge. Did none of this seem curious or anomalous to the folks at USCIS — the ones who had granted her the refugee status in the first place, who were adjudicating her petition for her spouse, and who could have, who should have, taken a second look at whether her refugee application was fraudulent instead of proceeding to naturalize her? Nah, apparently not.

Kind of disturbing to think that USCIS and courts like the Ninth Circuit are the thin line protecting us from terrorists seeking benefits to live in the United States.

http://www.cis.org/cadman/supreme-court-provides-win-sovereignty-security-and-common-sense