Category Archives: FBI

Blagojevich impeachment trial, January 29, 2009, IL governor Blagojevich impeached, Blagojevich closing argument, Prosecutor closing statement, Chicago corruption, Pay to play, Illinois Senate, Blagojevich tapes

The Impeachment Trial of Governor Rod Blagojevich of IL
is expected to conclude on Thursday, January 29, 2009.
The senate prosecutor will provide his closing statement
and Rod Blagojevich has announced that he will provide
a closing argument. It is believed that Blagojevich will
be allowed to attend.

Listen to Blagojevich Impeachment Trial

Blagojevich impeachment trial, January 28, 2009, IL governor Blagojevich impeached, Chicago Tribune editorial, Let’s make a deal, Chicago corruption, Pay to play, Illinois Senate, Blagojevich tapes, John Johnston

** Breaking News Below **

First the good news, The Chicago Tribune provided good coverage
of the Tony Rezko trial and actually provided some articles
critical of Obama and Blagojevich.

Now for the bad news.

The Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama and like most of the MSM
participated in slobbering over the “messiah”.

Now for the latest statement from the Tribune that leaves one
in a state of jaw dropping incredulity:

“We don’t know about the members of the Illinois Senate. But
we’ve heard enough.”

Ya think!!!!

The Chicago Tribune, located in, well duh, Chicago, has been well
aware of the corruption that Blagojevich and Obama were enmeshed
in and that is the best they can come with? No wonder readership
of most newspapers is down across the country.

Chicago Tribune editorial dated January 28, 2009:

“Let’s make a deal
January 28, 2009

For several days now, Rod Blagojevich has yodeled the same tune into
every microphone in sight (as opposed to any FBI microphones that
aren’t). You’ve heard his lyrics time and again: I haven’t listened
to the tapes . . . When you hear the whole story . . . The truth will
come out . . . If only I could call witnesses-witnesses-witnesses.

Now we’ve all heard four of the tapes. We’ve heard several elements
of one subplot in this debacle—the governor’s alleged effort to obtain
a contribution in return for signing a bill that would direct a
percentage of casino revenue to the horse-racing industry. More of the
truth now has come out. And we’ve heard one unwitting, unwilling
witness, the governor of Illinois: His voice boomed through the Illinois
Senate chamber Tuesday as senators listened to the recordings.

The tapes don’t sizzle with the melodrama a screenwriter would script.
Stitch these minutes of conversation into an episode of “24” and Jack
Bauer himself would doze off.

These conversations are, though, remarkable: They tug us inside the
dealing by which a governor allegedly agrees to trade an official act
for lucre. We’ll see what the state senators now conducting the
governor’s impeachment trial make of the tapes. To our ears, the
urgency and enthusiasm in the governor’s voice are as disturbing as
his evident desire to trade quid pro quo.”

Read more here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0128edit1jan28,0,1633758.story

Listen to Blagojevich Impeachment Trial

** Breaking News **

Rod Blagojevich will appear at his impeachment trial
on Thursday, January 29, 2009 to present a closing
argument.

Rod Blagojevich impeachment trial, January 27, 2009, IL Governor impeachment, Obama ties, IL Health Planning Facilities Board, Bid rigging, Obama senate seat, Rezko, Levine, Weinstein, Criminal complaint, Blagojevich indictment, Patrick Fitzgerald

The impeachment trial of Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois
began on Monday, January 26, 2009. Governor Blagojevich was
not present at the trial Monday, instead he continued his
road show antics of pleading innocence and being the victim
of a witch hunt. Anyone that followed the Tony Rezko trial,
read the indictments of Rezko, Stuart Levine, Dr. Robert
Weinstein and a host of others and compared those revelations
to the details of the Blagojevich criminal complaint knows
of Rod Blagojevich’s deep involvement in Chicago pay to play
politics. It is also clear that the case against Blagojevich
is not simply about selling Obama’s senate seat, but about
many years of corruption that ties Blagojevich to many Chicago
corruption figures as well as Obama.

One of the more flagrant cases of corruption involving
Blagojevich and Obama was their part in rigging the IL Health
Planning Facilities Board. Obama was in the IL Senate at that
time and was instrumental in reducing the number of members
from 15 to 9. Why is that important? Because the governor, Rod
Blagojevich, had the power to appoint up to 5 members.
Blagojevich, in cahoots with Rezko and Levine, appointed
members that would follow their wishes and consequently Obama and
Blagojevich received campaign contributions from the new
members. The board was involved in bid rigging.

Obama and Blagojevich and Health Planning Board rigging

Obama, Blagojevich and IL Teachers Retirement System
reveal more Chicago and Illinois corruption ties.

Obama corruption ties in IL TRS should lead to indictment

Blagojevich investigation should lead to Obama Indictment

Listen to Blagojevich Impeachment Trial

Governor Rod Blagojevich Impeachment trial, Chicago IL, January 26, 2009, Live audio, Listen to Impeachment trial, Patrick Fitzgerald criminal complaint, Chicago corruption, Obama senate seat, Obama and blagojevich ties

The impeachment trial of Governor Rod Blagojevich began
today, January 26, 2009, without Blagojevich being present.

Listen to Blagojevich Impeachment Trial

Chicago Tribune article on Impeachment

Article by Chicago lawyer, Gerald D. Skoning on Chicago
corruption:

“Illinois needs a corruption-avoidance program
By Gerald D. Skoning
January 26, 2009”

“Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s campaign fund recently announced expenditures
totaling more than $1.3 million despite the fact that he’s not running
for anything other than his political life and possibly jail. The
recent disbursements from Blagojevich’s campaign war chest include
$705,000 to Winston & Strawn, $500,000 to his former criminal defense
lawyer Ed Genson and another $100,000 for criminal defense co-counsel
Sheldon Sorosky. At this rate, the governor’s campaign fund, which
swelled to $2.7 million in 2008, could potentially be emptied by legal
expenses.

Political campaign funding in Illinois is a scandalous mess. Antiquated
laws allow politicians to virtually use their campaign coffers as
unregulated slush funds.

When a politician raises campaign funds, those dollars should only be
used for that campaign for that office—print and broadcast media
advertising, retaining political advisers and campaign staff, phone
banks to get out the vote and Internet gurus to mass-produce blast
e-mails, and so on.”

Read more here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0126fundjan26,0,7043294.story

Federal Grand Jury, 4th branch of government, Leo Donofrio, 5th Amendment, US Constitution, Constitutional power, We the people, US Supreme Court has upheld, Creighton Law Review, American Juror, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 1946, Rule 7

From Leo Donofrio:

The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government

[I originally posted this essay at my Citizenspook blog back in 2005.]

All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power.

So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than ever.

The Constitutional power of “we the people” sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.

Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return “presentments” on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.

Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause:

UNITED STATES CITIZENS SITTING AS FEDERAL GRAND JURORS ARE THE FOURTH BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won’t take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we’ll see what went wrong and how to correct it.

HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER

I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.

“In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”

The 5th Amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”

An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :

“An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:

‘A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.’ “

Back to the Creighton Law Review:

“A ‘runaway’ grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.”

So, it’s clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a “presentment” today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won’t be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court’s attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.

Mr. Roots weighs in again:

“In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language.“[88]“

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):

“An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment…”

No mention of “presentments” can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:

“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”

The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:

“[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:

‘There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.’ “

That’s a fascinating statement: “Retention might encourage…the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation.” God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government.

And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, “runaway grand jury”, which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in “checks and balances”.

The lie couldn’t be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.

The
American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:

“Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn’t prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:

‘A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.’ [7]

What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.

By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):

‘At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or
permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.’ Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.”

Now let me add my two cents to this argument:

Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of “presentments” (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made “illegal” in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments “illegal”, although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let’s look at Note 4 again:

“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”

The key word is, “obsolete”. Obsolete means “outmoded”, or “not in use anymore”, but it does not mean “abolished” or “illegal”. And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of “we the people”, and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.

Let’s look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:

Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY INDEPENDENCE:

“Finally, federal grand juries’ subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor’s consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system.”

Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, “[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments”? The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was “obsolete”. First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for “presentments”, then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor due they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution.

Regardless, it’s irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention “presentments”. Note 4 simply states that “presentments” allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become “obsolete”, or outmoded, which is not to say that they were “eliminated”. Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know damn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be “eliminated” from the Constitution by an administrative note.

The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of “presentments” became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.

Mr. Root got it wrong in the
Creighton Law Review as well:

“Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors…”

The FRCP did not make it “illegal for all practical purposes”. That’s patently false. I don’t know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician’s assistant, but I can’t imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a damn break.

But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.

But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.

Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:

“The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by “a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).”

The Note 4 lie is smashed on the SCOTUS altar, “The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day.” Take that Note 4!

Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:

“‘[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ‘ “

I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary knew context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to “we the people”, THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and “we the people” when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, ” a constitutional fixture in its own right”. Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.

Scalia also stated, that “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside…” Id.

And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:

“In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] “

This miraculous quote says it all, “…the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.

And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.

The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the “buffer between the Government and the people.”

Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kickin’.”

Obama not president, January 20, 2009, US Constitution, 20th Amendment, Joe Biden president, Obama not qualified, Chief Justice, John Roberts, US Supreme Court, Oath of office

US Supreme Court
Chief Justice

John Roberts

and

President Elect

Barack Obama

 

According to the US Constitution, the supreme law of the
land, Barack Obama will not be President of the United
States at 12:00 noon on January 20, 2009. No Chief
Justice administering the oath of office, no oath sworn
by a “president elect” makes one president. There are 3
mandatory requirements to achieve a legal inauguration.

  • A qualified president elect.
  • Sufficient votes by the Electoral College.
  • Certification and count of Electoral College votes by
    Congress.

 

At noon on January 20, 2009, Joe Biden will be president
until a president shall be deemed qualified. This comes
direct from the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.
“or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,
then the Vice President elect shall act as President until
a President shall have qualified;”

Further reading of the 20th Amendment reveals that Congress
may also determine if the vice-president is qualified. This
is part of the scenario of a constitutional crisis that
Philip J Berg and others have warned of. The language of
the 25th amendment includes options that may further heighten
the crisis level.

Amendment XX

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall
end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators
and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January,
of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article
had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall
then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every
year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of
January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of
the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice
President elect shall become President. If a President shall not
have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his
term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then
the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the
case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect
shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President,
or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and
such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice
President shall have qualified.

 

Amendment XXV

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or
of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become
President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice
President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall
take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of
Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he
transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such
powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as
Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either
the principal officers of the executive departments or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice
President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists,
he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the
Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of
the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by
law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide
the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if
not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after
receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not
in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to
assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as
Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers
and duties of his office.

 

William Ayers turned back at Canadian border, January 19, 2009, Toronto Star, Weather Underground, Professor of education, University of Illinois, Chicago, Border guards, Canadian border

William Ayers,  Professor of education,  University of Illinois, Chicago, former Weather Underground bomber and long time associate of Barack Obama, has been refused entry into Canada. This is a good start. Now we need to deport the illegal alien Obama.

” William Ayers turned back at Canadian border”

“Jan 19, 2009 11:22 AM


Staff Reporter

An American education professor, one of the founders of a radical 1960s group known as the Weather Underground, which was responsible for a number of bombings in the United States in the early 1970s, was turned back at the Canadian border last night.

Dr. William Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago and a leader in educational reform, was scheduled to speak at the Centre for Urban Schooling at University of Toronto’s Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. But that appearance has now been temporarily cancelled.

“I don’t know why I was turned back,” Ayers said in an interview this morning from Chicago. “I got off the plane like everyone else and I was asked to come over to the other side. The border guards reviewed some stuff and said I wasn’t going to be allowed into Canada. To me it seems quite bureaucratic and not at all interesting … If it were me I would have let me in. I couldn’t possibly be a threat to Canada.””

Read more here:

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/573462

Obama inauguration, January 20, 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts, Obama not eligible, Treason, US Constitution, Natural Born Citizen, Kenya, Indonesia, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, US Supreme Court, Electoral college, FBI arrest, Citizens arrest

US Supreme Court
Chief Justice

John Roberts

and

President Elect

Barack Obama

Chief Justice Roberts:

You have been forewarned and informed of the eligibility
issues surrounding Obama. Such excuses as the people have
chosen are meritless in regard to your responsibility to
uphold the US Constitution. The Electoral College was
designed to protect the American people from just such
a constitutional crisis. You are certainly aware that
Obama has spent huge sums of money and employed an army
of attorneys to prevent being held accountable to the
US Constitution and American people.

Barack Obama is not eligible to be President of the United
States under the natural born citizen provision of the US
Constitution and until credible proof is provided, is not
even a US citizen.

Chief Justice Roberts, answer this question
for me and the American public.

If you swear in Barack Obama and Obama takes the oath,
can you explain to me and the American people why one of
the following should not occur?

  • Both you and Obama should be arrested by the FBI or the
    military for treason and High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
  • Both you and Obama should be arrested for the same offenses
    under the citizen’s arrest provision of common law and
    Washington DC statutes.
  • Both you and Obama should be Impeached for the same offenses.

We have been waiting.

We are still waiting.

** Addendum **

The following comments on this blog are so revealing of the
judicial travesty taking place and the outrage that typical
Americans are experiencing, that I was compelled to add them
to this post.

Commenter Therese:

“Let me add to this I no longer consider we have a government after
January 20,2009. I will no longer look to this government to solve
our problems since it clearly and deliberately turned its back on
the American people.

Not until every elected and appointed official on this current slate
is publicly exposed, removed. arrested, tried, and sent to jail for
misrepresentation, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and treason
will I ever again acknowledge this government.

Hence forward the nine Supreme court judges, all the Senate, all
Congress, and all judges who dismissed lawsuits against Obama on the
basis of standing are proven criminals who are getting away with more
crimes against the American people. They need to be named. Their
crimes need to belisted after their names, We need to let them know
not only will we never vote for them in another term, we will do
everything in our power to take them out of office before their term
ends.

Just what was the January 14, 2009 meeting between Justice Sh*t head
Roberts and Obama and Biden about? How to make more deals to rape the
Constitution and rip off America and get away with it?

Commenter Reese in response to above:

““Just what was the January 14, 2009 meeting between Justice Sh*t head
Roberts and Obama and Biden about? How to make more deals to rape the
Constitution and rip off America and get away with it?”

To say I was floored when I read the news item is an understatement.
A ‘ceremonial’ meeting between a president elect and justices of the
Supreme Court is somewhat traditional. HOWEVER, in this instance, it’s
flat out wrong. Chief Justice Roberts has cases on the docket where
Obama is the defendant or is the subject of the litigation. Roberts
and the other eight justices have already held two ‘Distribution for
Conferences’ on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama’s citizenship
ineligibility.

Does anyone see major conflict of interest here? How can Chief Justice
Roberts meet with Obama behind closed doors under such circumstances?
Even if they just chatted up the weather, it is highly inappropriate
in my humble opinion. Roberts should have notified Obama that under
the circumstances, he would not be able to meet with him, private or
with photogs in attendance. There must be zero appearance of any bias
or preference when it comes to judges and justices of the Supreme Court.

When a defendant in a case before the supreme court decided to fly one
of the judges, in the company jet, up for a few rounds of golf, and the
press reported it (because the judge in question was particularly hated
by the reporters), the judge was asked to “abstain” from the proceedings.
The court’s response was “get bent”. Do you remember the impeachment
proceedings held by congress? No? There weren’t any.

If a judge can take a bribe, in public, and suffer absolutely no
repercussions (not even waste a day in a congressional hearing), what
reason is there to not “take things into his office”?

If it wasnt for the huge amount of potentially ill gotten dollars obama
has been spreading around he would be a poor second for dog catcher. Now
it looks like he is buying supreme court judges, there is no way the
truth about him will surface if he has bought all parties that can shed
some truth on the fiction he is spewing.

He will be untouchable.

This is not how the system is supposed to work. I feel sorry for America
and the dim witted dolts that fell for his lies.”

Barack Obama must be indicted, Patrick Fitzgerald, January 15, 2009, Obama corruption, Rod Blagojevich, Rezko, Levine, Weinstein, Chicago corruption, Obama indictment, Obama is not eligible

Why Barack Obama should be indicted
Part 13

One or more of the following events should happen:

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

Barack Obama was not only in cahoots with corruption figures
like Rezko and other slumlord types like Valerie Jarrett, but
also corrupt figures that fraudulently used the IL Health
Planning Facilities Board and the IL TRS, Teachers Retirement
System.

What do Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich have in common with
these indicted corruption figures?
Tony Rezko
Stuart Levine
Ali Ata
Joseph Cari
William Cellini
P. Nicholas Hurtgen
Jacob Kiferbaum
Steven Loren
Edward Vrdolyak
Dr. Robert Weinstein
A host of others mentioned in indictments, complaints and
court transcripts.

The Citizen Wells blog has already urged Patrick Fitzgerald to
indict Barack Obama based on his involvement in rigging the IL
Health Planning Facilities Board Indict Obama . The focus of this
article will be Obama’s ties to corruption involving the
TRS, Teachers Retirement System.

TRS, Teachers Retirement System described.
From Rezko indictment

“The Teachers’ Retirement System of the State of Illinois (“TRS”) was a
public pension plan created by Illinois law for the purpose of providing
pension, survivor, and disability benefits for teachers and administrators
employed in Illinois public schools except in the City of Chicago. It served
approximately 325,000 members and annuitants, and had assets in excess of
approximately $30 billion. TRS was funded by annual contributions from
teachers, their employers, and the State of Illinois, as well as investment
income.”
“The activities of TRS were directed by an 11-member Board of Trustees. Certain
of those trustees were appointed by statute by the Governor of the State of
Illinois, while other trustees were elected by teachers and annuitants. Among
its other responsibilities, the Board of Trustees reviewed and voted to approve
or reject proposals by private investment management companies to manage funds
on behalf of TRS. At any given time, TRS assets were managed by numerous
different investment management companies. These companies were compensated by
TRS for their activities, typically through fees calculated as a percentage of
the TRS assets they managed.”
“In carrying out all of their duties, including reviewing and deciding whether
to approve or reject proposals by private investment management firms to manage
TRS assets, members of the TRS Board of Trustees owed a fiduciary duty to the
beneficiaries of TRS and were required to act solely for the benefit of the
beneficiaries of TRS. In order to assist members of the TRS Board of Trustees
in evaluating proposals to manage TRS assets, TRS required an investment firm to disclose, before TRS decided whether to authorize it to manage TRS assets, all
finder’s fees, placement fees, and commissions (hereafter collectively referred
to as “finder’s fees”) to be paid by that investment firm in connection with its
TRS business. Such fees at times were paid by investment firms to individuals or
entities in exchange for bringing the investment firm to the attention of TRS or
facilitating the communications between the investment firm and TRS.”

Here is a great overview of Obama and Blagojevich ties to corruption
from a April 7, 2008 article on the LA Times blog titled

“Ticket Special Report: Obama and Rezko, the early years”

Written by Andrew Malcolm “A veteran foreign and national correspondent,
Malcolm served on the Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist
in 2004.”
“The trial of Antoin “Tony” Rezko, one-time patron to Sen. Barack Obama and
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, has turned lurid.

Under cross-examination by Rezko attorney Joseph Duffy, star prosecution witness
Stuart Levine, a Chicago-area lawyer, is admitting to conspiracy, extortion,
bribery, fraud and other bad acts while he “served” at the Illinois public school
teachers pension fund board.”
“It’s an unfolding, seemingly local political story that’s fascinating in its
revealing details about the subterranean world of business, financial and family
connections in Illinois and Chicago politics that helped take a virtually unknown
black Chicago attorney, nurtured him politically and financially and
turned him into….

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

“Those Obama-Blagojevich donors include Rezko himself, along with his family members,
employees and associates of his various business enterprises. There’s also the head
of a major Chicago investment firm that received Illinois public teachers’ pension
money to invest.”

 

“Another overlapping donor is John Rogers, head of Ariel Capital, a major
Chicago-based investment firm. Rogers gave $12,500 to Blagojevich in 2004, the FBI
spreadsheet shows. Rogers has also given Obama $25,000, state and FEC records reveal.”

 

“As an Illinois state senator, Obama appeared before Illinois pension funds in 2000
and 2001 to urge that they provide more business to black-owned investment houses
including, as it happens, Ariel.

Describing his efforts to the Urban League last year, Obama said African-American-owned
firms were not getting any business from state pensions. Obama singled out Rogers’ Ariel
Capital, calling it a well-respected investment house, but one that received no business.

“We didn’t have to implement a formal program,” Obama told the Urban League, taking no
credit. “I simply said, ‘Listen to what these folks have to say,’ and in about six
months they got about a half billion dollars worth of business simply on their own
excellence.”

In 2002, the year after Obama made the pitch, the Illinois Teacher Retirement System
reported an 18% increase in assets managed by minority-owned firms. Ariel’s share grew
to $442 million by 2005.

In 2006, after the federal investigation became public, the teacher pension board severed
its relationship with Ariel, concluding that Ariel’s investment returns were insufficient.”

Evelyn Pringle is an investigative journalist and she deserves
a lot of credit for researching and writing about Obama’s ties
to crime and corruption in Chicago and Illinois. The following
exerpts from her articles will provide important insights into
these ties.
Access Evelyn Pringle’s articles

Barack Obama — Operation Board Games For Slumlords

“In Obama’s case, a whole gang of slumlords in Illinois made their “voices heard”
by writing campaign checks to fund his rise to fame. But as long as the focus
of the slumlord allegations remains solely on a crook named Rezko, the other
members of the gang will not get the credit they deserve.”
“The prosecution team is led by the US Attorney for Northern Illinois, Patrick
Fitzgerald, of Scooter Libby fame; the same guy who put the last Illinois
Governor behind bars and convicted a host of government officials from the
Daley administrations who were involved in what prosecutors called “pervasive
fraud” to rig city hiring for 12 years with persons who got out the vote for
Mayor Daley, and the candidates he endorsed, as well as numerous crooks rounded
up during the scandal involving Daley’s Hired Truck program.

The list of names in the indictment includes about eight persons referred to
as “Co-Schemers,” and reads like a “who’s who list” of major campaign donors
to Obama, Blagojevich, Daley and other powerful Illinois politicians.

Blagojevich is referred to as “Public Official A,” Obama is referred to as a
“political candidate,” and there is a list of “Individuals” from “Individual A”
all the way up to “Individual HH.””
“The case involves the corruption of two state regulatory boards. The
investigation, dubbed “Operation Board Games,” by the Feds, began in December
2003, based on information supplied by an informant. Its now obvious that Rezko
was aware of the investigation as early as 2004, because during a January 16,
2007, court hearing his attorney, Joe Duffy, told US District Judge Amy St Eve
that he was hired in 2004.”
“On Blagojevich took office, the Schemers were able to stack the TRS board with
members who would vote whichever way they were told. Once they accomplished that
feat, they demanded kickbacks from investment firms in exchange for the approval
of their proposals.

Rezko’s partner in the Rezmar development company, Daniel Mahru, is referred to
as “Individual Z” in the indictment, and according to court filings, Rezko told
Mahru that “$500 million” of TRS money was earmarked for their company. Mahru is
reportedly cooperating with federal investigators.

In addition to lining their own pockets, the money gained through the scheme was
funneled to the campaigns of Blagojevich and Obama. Prosecutors have identified
two $10,000 payments that were made to Obama’s US Senate campaign through straw
donors Joseph Aramanda and Elie Maloof, which originated from a kickback paid by
investment firm, Glencoe Capital, to secure approval for a $50 million deal.

Aramanda and Maloof also each gave Obama $1,000 for his failed run for Congress
in 2000. Once Obama became a US Senator, Aramanda’s son was granted a coveted
intern position in Obama’s Senate office in Washington during the summer of 2005,
based on a request which the Obama’s camp has admitted came from Rezko.

Levine was appointed to the TRS Board in 2000, by Republican Governor George Ryan
and was reappointed in 2003 by Blagojevich. As part of the team led by Levine to
rig the votes, Blagojevich appointed, attorney Anthony Abboud, to serve. He is
“Individual Q” in the indictment. He has been donating money to Obama’s political
career since March 2000, with a total of more than $2,800.

Blagojevich also appointed, attorney Jack Carriglio, or “Individual R.” On June
30, 2003, Carriglio donated $1,000 for Obama’s US Senate campaign.”

“But Obama’s using the lure of the pension funds to raise campaign money goes way
back. In 1999, he “was instrumental in the formation of a coalition of black
investment firm owners and legislators in Illinois to create an initiative that
would award black-owned firms with the management of some of the state’s
retirement funds,” according to a 2004 article on Black Enterprise.com.

“He’s out there fighting for us,” said John Rogers, chairman and CEO of
Chicago-based Ariel Capital Management in the article. Rogers donated $9,000 to
Obama’s US Senate campaign.”

“However, the Times pointed out that Obama’s political career had benefited many
times over from his ties to the group. “Several of the businessmen or their wives
would help clear the debts from his Congressional race,” the Times wrote, “and six
of the group’s members are now among the top fund-raisers for his presidential
campaign, according to campaign finance records.”

All totaled, the Times said, employees at more than 30 companies listed on the
group’s website and their relatives donated more than $300,000 to help Obama win
his US Senate seat in 2004 and “set fund-raising records early in the 2008
presidential race.””

“John Rogers and two other people at Ariel each bundled at least $50,000 in
donations for Obama’s presidential campaign, according to the Times.

An October 3, 2005 article in the Sun-Times, by Chris Fusco and Dave McKinney,
reported that Ariel and its top executives also contributed $117,500 to
Blagojevich’s campaign.”

Barack Obama — Subplots of Operation Board Games

“Fitzgerald further reported that, “Cari and Loren, both formerly prominent
Chicago lawyers, each pleaded guilty in the pending TRS fraud case. Kiferbaum,
a suburban construction executive, pleaded guilty in the pending Planning Board
case.”

“All three are cooperating with the government and awaiting sentencing,”
the release said.

“This basically involved a pay to play scheme on steroids,” Fitzgerald told
reporters.

Allison Davis, Obama’s boss at the law firm, is also listed in legal documents
as playing a part in setting up a major extortion attempt in the Board Games case.”
Obama’s political career was bankrolled by the same gang that planned to make
Blagojevich president. For instance, Fortunee Massuda, another participant
identified in the “pay-to-play” schemes, contributed $25,000 to Blagojevich
compared to $2,000 to Obama. Michel Malek, another participant, threw $25,000 to
Blagojevich and $10,500 to Obama.

Ali Ata, another guy listed as a co-schemer in one indictment, was made executive
director of the Illinois Finance Authority, and he contributed $25,000 to
Blagojevich and $5,000 to Obama.

Jay Wilton, identified by prosecutors as a major contributor to Blagojevich, is
the owner of Wilton Partners, a construction company in California. He donated
$50,000 to Blagojevich shortly after his firm cinched an $83 million contract
with the state to refurbish the Illinois tollway’s oasis rest stops. Wilton also
gave $5,000 to Obama.

Joe Cari donated $15,000 to Blagojevich but only gave $1,335 to Obama.

A trial exhibit produced by an FBI agent, identifies major contributors who
donated $1.43 million to Blagojevich between 2001 and 2004. The Chicago Sun-Times
compared the exhibit to government campaign records on Obama and found he
received more than $220,000 from many of the same donors between 2001 and 2004.

John Rogers, the head of Ariel Capital, an investment firm that ended up with
major money from the pension funds, is on the FBI’s summary of Blagojevich’s
top contributors. He also gave Obama $25,000.

Rogers is a member of the finance committee for Obama’s presidential campaign.
Rogers also served on the campaign finance committee for Obama’s US Senate run
with Tony and Rita Rezko, Allison Davis, and Myron “Mike” Cherry.

Mike Cherry is listed in the indictment for the pay-to-pay schemes and the FBI
shows he gave Blagojevich $25,000 in 2003.

Daniel Mahru, a major player in the Chicago slumlord racket, has reportedly
flipped in the Board Games case and is cooperating with the prosecution. He is
 the owner of Automatic Ice Company, which donated $10,000 to Blagojevich. Mahru
gave $5,000 to Obama.

Attorney, Jack Carriglio, contributed $25,000 to Blagojevich and was appointed
to the TRS Board. He also gave $1000 to Obama.”
“In a January 11, 2006, report by Better Government Association, the groups
Executive Director, Jay Stewart, stated: “Illinois is awash in scandal and
corruption.””

 

Curtain Time for Obama — Part 1

“Ata told the jury he delivered one $25,000 contribution to Blagojevich at
Rezko’s office in the latter part of 2002, and the three men discussed the
prospects of Ata getting an appointment in the administration. He said people
at the office that day included Blagojevich’s campaign chief and later chief of
staff, Lon Monk, Christopher Kelly, and state Representative Jay Hoffman.

“I learned that Mr. Hoffman was part of a select group of advisers that were
referred to as the kitchen cabinet,” Ata told the jury.

“The way Ali Ata described it, the waiting room in the North Side office of
Antoin “Tony” Rezko seemed as busy as an airport terminal,” the Tribune noted
on May 1, 2008.

Ata brought another $25,000 check to a fundraiser on July 25, 2003, and he was
appointed to lead the Finance Authority.

Ata made a $5,000 donation to Obama less than a month earlier on June 30, 2003.
Ata is also an investor in Riverside Park. Almost without fail, the people
identified in the Board Games cases as investors in Riverside Park contributed
to Obama’s US senate campaign.”

Indictments, Criminal Complaints regarding TRS

Levine, Cari, Loren Indictment

March 2004

“Beginning no later than early 2002 and continuing through
at least June 2004, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, and elsewhere, STUART LEVINE,
defendant herein, together with Joseph Cari, Steven Loren, and
others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, devised and intended to
devise, and participated in, a scheme and artifice to defraud TRS
and its beneficiaries of money, property, and the intangible right
to the honest services of defendant LEVINE, by means of materially
false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and
material omissions, and in furtherance thereof used the United
States mails and other interstate carriers, and interstate and
foreign wires, which scheme is further described below.”
“In the course of the scheme, LEVINE solicited,
demanded, and received hundreds of thousands of dollars in
undisclosed kickbacks and payments for LEVINE and his nominees and
associates from investment firms seeking to do business with TRS.”

Tony Rezko Indictment

February 2005

“STUART LEVINE and ANTOIN REZKO, also known as “Tony Rezko,”
defendants herein, together with Joseph Cari, Steven Loren, Jacob Kiferbaum,
Individual A, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, devised and
intended to devise, and participated in, a scheme and artifice to defraud the
beneficiaries of TRS and the people of the State of Illinois, of money,
property, and the intangible right to LEVINE’s honest services, by means of
materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and
material omissions, and in furtherance thereof used the United States mails
and other interstate carriers, and interstate and foreign wires, which scheme
is further described below.”
“It was part of the scheme that defendants REZKO and LEVINE, with the
assistance of Cari, Loren, Kiferbaum, Individual A, Individual B, and others,
fraudulently used and sought to use the position and influence of LEVINE and
other members of the TRS Board of Trustees and the Planning Board to obtain
financial benefits for REZKO, LEVINE, and their nominees and associates. In
the course of the scheme, REZKO and LEVINE solicited and demanded millions of
dollars in undisclosed kickbacks and payments, and received and directed
hundreds of thousands of dollars in actual undisclosed kickbacks and payments,
for the benefit of REZKO, LEVINE, and their nominees and associates, from
investment firms seeking to do business with TRS, and from Kiferbaum. Among
the defendants’ fraudulent activities in the course of the scheme were the
following:”

“REZKO used his relationship with certain State of Illinois officials, to
ensure that REZKO and LEVINE had the ability to influence the actions of TRS
and the Planning Board for the benefit of themselves and their nominees and
associates.”

William Cellini Indictment

February 2008
“Beginning no later than in and about the spring of 2003 and continuing
through in or about the summer of 2005, in the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, and elsewhere, WILLIAM F. CELLINI, SR., defendant herein,
together with Stuart Levine, Antoin “Tony” Rezko, Steven Loren, Co-Conspirator
A, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did conspire and agree with
each other to commit offenses against the United States, namely, to devise and
participate in a scheme to defraud the beneficiaries of TRS and the people of
the State of Illinois of their intangible right to Levine’s honest services,
and it was foreseeable that for the purposes of executing and attempting to
execute such scheme, one or more members of the conspiracy would use and cause
the use of the United States mails and private and commercial interstate
carriers, and the transmission of a wire communication in interstate commerce,
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 1343, and 1346.”


Defendant WILLIAM F. CELLINI, SR. (“CELLINI”) had longstanding relationships
and influence with TRS trustees, including Stuart Levine, and TRS staff members,
and was associated with a real estate asset management firm, Commonwealth Realty
Advisors, that managed hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of TRS. CELLINI
also raised significant funds for, among others, Public Official A.”
“It was further part of the conspiracy that in or around the summer and fall of
2004, in an effort to conceal the conspiracy, CELLINI, Rezko and others discussed
the possibility of removing the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of
Illinois in an effort to stop any investigation into the co-conspirators and
others.”

Governor Rod Blagojevich Criminal Complaint

December 9, 2008


“Cari testified that he eventually became involved in the attempted extortion
of JER, a real estate investment firm that was seeking an investment from the
Teachers Retirement System (“TRS”). Details regarding corruption at TRS
involving one of its board members, Stuart Levine, are set forth below. Based
on his conversations with ROD BLAGOJEVICH, Rezko, Kelly, and Levine, in which
he was informed that consultants would be inserted into State of Illinois
transactions and then solicited for campaign contributions, Cari believed that
JER needed to hire a consultant. Cari testified that he informed employees of
JER that they needed to hire a consultant and that in Illinois the “Governor
and the people around the Governor” pick the consultants to be used on
particular deals. Cari informed JER employees that if they did not hire the
consultant then JER would not receive the money it was seeking from the State
of Illinois. Ultimately, JER exposed the attempted extortion and received money
from the State of Illinois.”
“Levine originally was appointed to the TRS Board in 2000. By the summer of 2001,
Levine, working in concert with William Cellini, who had a significant interest
in a real estate asset management firm that had a long-standing business
relationship with TRS, had established effective control over the TRS board by
forming and maintaining a group of TRS trustees who consistently voted together
on matters important to Cellini and Levine.”
“Levine testified that among the steps Cellini took to ingratiate himself with
ROD BLAGOJEVICH was raising considerable money for ROD BLAGOJEVICH.”
“As set forth more fully in the following paragraphs, Levine and Cellini, in order
to keep their control over TRS, agreed to an accommodation with Rezko and Kelly
that Rezko and Kelly would use their influence with ROD BLAGOJEVICH to stop the
consolidation of TRS with other pension boards and, in exchange, Levine and Cellini
would assist investment firms named by Rezko and Kelly to receive TRS money because
those investment firms had made or would make political contributions to ROD
BLAGOJEVICH.”

Conclusion

One getting their primary information from the MSM could easily get the impression
that Rod Blagojevich is being investigated primarily for trying to sell the US
Senate seat vacated by Obama and that Obama is innocent of all wrongdoing. However,
the truth of the matter is that Blagojevich has been under investigation for many
months and that he and Obama have long time close ties to crime and corruption in
Chicago and Illinois. There is so much damaging material about Blagojevich that
Patrick Fitzgerald requested a 90 day extension to prepare an indictment. The
Citizen Wells blog predicted months ago that Blagojevich would be indicted and
that Barack Obama would be indicted shortly thereafter.

It is clear that Patrick Fitgerald has been working his way up the job title chain
and that Barack Obama is next.

US Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts, US Department
of Justice, Patrick Fitzgerald, we have a president elect
that is not eligible and should already have been indicted.
Are you going to do your job and protect this country or is
it too late.