Category Archives: Judges

Judge Amy Berman Jackson: Defendant Roger Stone Motion for Judicial Disqualification Feb 21, 2020, Jackson should be impeached

Judge Amy Berman Jackson: Defendant Roger Stone Motion for Judicial Disqualification Feb 21, 2020, Jackson should be impeached

“the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.”…Bob Herbert, NY Times February 26, 2001

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”...Ephesians 6:12

“Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointed corrupt treasonous liberal judge with an angry disposition toward Americans who think differently than Obama, continues to put her own distorted interpretation of US law ahead of the US Constitution.

Her actions with Paul Manafort alone were ample cause for her to be removed, impeached or jailed.”...Patriot or Traitor May 15, 2019


From the Defendant Roger Motion for Judicial Disqualification filed February 21, 2020.

“The issue at hand arises from the Defendant’s pending Motion for a New Trial (Dkt. # 309-2) and statements made by Judge Berman-Jackson during the Defendant’s Sentencing Hearing on February 20, 2020. Stone’s argument for a new trial rests on newly discovered information indicating that there was juror misconduct during Mr. Stone’s trial, thereby depriving him of his constitutional right to be tried by an impartial jury. Defendant’s Motion has not been ruled on, and in fact, the Defendant’s Reply to the Government’s Opposition is not yet
due, nor has a hearing been set. The Court must still consider whether any juror interviews are appropriate in light of the allegations. However, given the statements made by Judge BermanJackson during the Sentencing Hearing, recusal under 28 U.S.C § 455(a) is warranted in order to protect the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system.”

“Stone’s Motion for New Trial is directly related to the integrity of a juror. It is alleged that a juror misled the Court regarding her ability to be unbiased and fair and the juror attempted to cover up evidence that would directly contradict her false claims of impartiality.

Nevertheless, at Mr. Stone’s sentencing, the Court emphatically stated its views regarding both of the defendant and the jurors in his trial:

Everyone depends on our elected representatives to protect our
elections from foreign interference based on the facts. No one
knows where the threat is going to come from next time or whose
side they’re going to be on, and for that reason the dismay and
disgust at the defendant’s belligerence should transcend party. The
dismay and the disgust at the attempts by others to defend his
actions as just business as usual in our polarized climate should
transcend party. The dismay and the disgust with any attempts to
interfere with the efforts of prosecutors and members of the
judiciary to fulfil their duty should transcend party. Sure, the
defense is free to say: So what? Who cares? T. 87.
But, I’ll say this: Congress cared. The United States Department of
Justice and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of
Columbia that prosecuted the case and is still prosecuting the case
cared. The jurors who served with integrity under difficult
circumstances cared. The American people cared. And I care.

Recusal is required based on the entirety of the above and this statement in particular: “The jurors who served with integrity under difficult circumstances cared.” 2/20/20 Tr. 88:7-8 (emphasis added). Whether the subject juror (and perhaps others) served with “integrity” is one of the paramount questions presented in the pending Motion. The Court’s ardent conclusion of
“integrity” indicates an inability to reserve judgment on an issue which has yet been heard. Moreover, the categorical finding of integrity made before hearing the facts is likely to “lead a reasonably informed observer to question the District Judge’s impartiality. Public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary is seriously jeopardized when judges…share their thoughts about the merits of pending…cases.” Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d at 114-115 (D.C. Cir.
2001). The premature statement blessing the “integrity of the jury” undermines the appearance of impartiality and presents a strong bias for recusal.”

Read more:

Judge Amy Berman Jackson should be impeached.

However, since she was appointed by Obama and he was not eligible for the POTUS, perhaps she should simply be escorted from the courtroom.


More here:






General Flynn case, Dr. Rich Swier: “Judge Emmet Sullivan is a disgrace to the bench”, Denied all Brady evidence, Flynn victim of FBI and prosecutorial misconduct

General Flynn case, Dr. Rich Swier: “Judge Emmet Sullivan is a disgrace to the bench”, Denied all Brady evidence, Flynn victim of FBI and prosecutorial misconduct

“Take all the robes of all the good judges who have ever lived on the face of the earth, and they would not be large enough to cover the iniquity of one corrupt judge.”...Henry Ward Beecher

“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


From Dr. Rich Swier December 29, 2019.

“Whitewashing Traitors While Destroying Patriots

My personal opinion is that Judge Emmet Sullivan is a disgrace to the bench regarding General Flynn’s case. Why? Because he is denying all Brady evidence requested by defense counsel, Sidney Powell, just as he denied requests for a mistrial in the case of Senator Stevens, a conviction he later dismissed. Sullivan has tossed General Flynn’s claim that he was a victim of FBI misconduct and accused his attorneys of plagiarism, writing that they had used parts of a 2012 brief from the non-profit New York Council of Defense Lawyers without citing the verbatim borrowing. Sidney Powell a plagiarist…he must have her confused with Joe Biden!!!

The Judge has set January 28th, 2020 for General Michael Flynn’s sentencing for a process crime based on a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador on December 29, 2016, seven weeks after the presidential election.

Sullivan relied heavily on the Mueller report and finds:

the case was adequately predicated and authorized by Rod Rosenstein; the original guilty plea to Judge Contreras was appropriately informed; the government followed all appropriate notifications for Brady material; the evidence of Flynn’s guilt is accurately demonstrable to the guilty plea Mr. Flynn accepted; and there was no prosecutorial misconduct.

Sullivan trusts Mueller (read that Andrew Weissmann, Mueller’s lead prosecutor) and Rod Rosenstein? Weissman, the attorney who screwed up the entire Enron case and should have been disbarred? Rosenstein, the temporary Attorney General under Jeff Sessions, the man who offered to wear a wire while speaking with President Trump? The Department of Justice (DOJ) who has denied requested Brady materials over and over again? And like so many other cases prosecuted by the DOJ, threats against the family to secure a plea of guilt. These Deep State impresarios are trustworthy? They are in fact licensed to lie! Sullivan is obviously part and parcel of the same corrupt cadre of individuals we’ve seen in the Obama DOJ.”

“Judge Sullivan presided over the 2008 trial of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, who was convicted of seven felony ethics violations. During the trial, the judge refused requests by the defense for a mistrial to be declared, after information was revealed that the prosecution had withheld exculpatory Brady material. Eight days after the guilty verdict, Stevens narrowly lost his reelection bid, and without his vote against Obamacare, it passed. Did the judge withhold the truth in Stevens case until he lost the election?

As more evidence of prosecutorial misconduct became known in early 2009, Judge Sullivan held four prosecutors in civil contempt of court, including Andrew Weissmann. On April 1, 2009, following a Justice Department probe that found additional evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, the DOJ recommended that Stevens’ conviction be dismissed. Few people know that Robert Mueller oversaw the witch hunt against Senator Stevens.”

“And here we are again with the very same people in charge of destroying an innocent man’s life, a man who served his country with honor for 33 years, and in front of the same judge who is refusing to see the same criminal activity by the same Director of the FBI who served as Special Prosecutor in the phony Russian Collusion claim with sixteen Democratic Party operatives as investigators, including Andrew Weissmann who was held in civil contempt of court in a very similar case.”

“She was correct when she said, “The government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”

Facing certain financial destruction and a criminal proceeding that would have harmed his family, Flynn copped to a minor crime, lying to the FBI, to avoid a crucible. I only wish Sidney Powell had been his defense from the beginning of this blatant attack on one of America’s finest.”

“The stench of corruption emanates from Obama’s DOJ and those within who aspired to destroy the will of America’s people. Those who are guilty of treasonous crimes walk free, while the innocents suffer.”

Read more:


“Rich holds a Doctorate of Education from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, CA, a Master’s Degree in Management Information Systems from the George Washington University, Washington, D.C., and a Bachelor’s Degree in Fine Arts from Washington University, St. Louis, MO.

Rich is a 23-year Army veteran who retired as a Lieutenant Colonel in 1990. He was awarded the Legion of Merit for his years of service. Additionally, he was awarded two Bronze Stars with “V” for Heroism in ground combat, the Presidential Unit Citation, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry while serving with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam. He is a graduate of the Field Artillery Officers Basic and Advanced Courses, and U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.”

Read more:


More here:


Trump will debate Ted Cruz when federal judge rules him eligible, Cruz is an arrogant fool for not addressing this earlier, Trump campaign manager sent message

Trump will debate Ted Cruz when federal judge rules him eligible, Cruz is an arrogant fool for not addressing this earlier, Trump campaign manager sent message

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

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



Obama and Ted Cruz went to Harvard Law School.

That speaks volumes.

Ted Cruz should have gotten a ruling on his eligibiilty to be president as a natural born citizen many months ago.

Ted Cruz is an arrogant fool for not doing so.

From the Daily Mail January 29, 2016.

“Trump campaign manager to Ted Cruz: We’ll debate you one-on-one as soon as a judge says you’re eligible to be president!”

“Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Friday said his campaign will debate his closest rival for the party’s nomination head-to-head – but only if a federal judge says so.

Trump, the New York real estate tycoon who boycotted Thursday night’s presidential debate because of a long-running personal feud with one of the network’s reporters, signaled Friday that he would be happy to debate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. asked Trump if he was serious about resisting Cruz until a court decides on his presidential electability.

‘Well, I think you’ve got a real problem. I think Cruz has a real problem… I would do that. I would absolutely do that. But they’ve got to rule. He’s got to go for a declaratory judgment,’ Trump said aboard his private jet on the tarmac in Des Moines, Iowa.”

“Trump went on to joke that he would debate Cruz in Canada – ‘to give him home-field advantage,’ before pledging to attend next Saturday’s Republican debate in Manchester, N.H.

But already Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, had dismissed Cruz’s proposal as nothing more than a ‘publicity stunt.’

‘What we’ve said to Ted Cruz: Go into court, seek a declaratory judgment to find out if you’re even legally eligible to run for president of the United States,’ he said Thursday in a Boston radio interview.

‘That’s the first thing. Once you’ve gotten that ruling from the federal judge and you’re the last man standing in this presidential contest next to Donald Trump, we’ll be happy to have a debate with you one-on-one, anywhere you want, because that’s the way the system works,’ Lewandowski said.

‘But, as it stands right now, we don’t even know if Ted Cruz is legally eligible to run for president of the United States.'”

Read more:


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.

Chicago Tribune Why is Blago’s appeal dragging on and on?, Citizen Wells answer all about protecting Obama, Why was Blagojevich prosecution and adjudication delayed over years?, More pristine on Rezko

Chicago Tribune Why is Blago’s appeal dragging on and on?, Citizen Wells answer all about protecting Obama, Why was Blagojevich prosecution and adjudication delayed over years?, More pristine on Rezko

“An unusual court delay is keeping Rod Blagojevich’s appeal “out of sight, out of mind.””…Chicago Tribune April 10, 2015

“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 Chicago Tribune asks:  Why is Blago’s appeal dragging on and on?

A much bigger and more important question is: Why was the Blagojevich prosecution and adjudication delayed over years?

Especially since his administration came under investigation by the feds at least by late 2003.

The answer is: It is all about protecting Obama.

Recently the National Enquirer reported:

“He’s constantly muttering to himself about Obama and blames the president for him being in prison and is sure he will be released within the year,”

From the Chicago Tribune April 10, 2015.

“Commentary: Why is Blago’s appeal dragging on and on?”

“It’s been three years since former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich started his 14-year prison sentence for political corruption, including trying to sell Barack Obama’s soon to be vacated U.S. Senate seat. If his appeal is unsuccessful, the earliest he could get out of prison would be around Christmas 2024.

But wait. He appealed his conviction before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago on July 15, 2013. So, he still has a chance his conviction will be overturned and he’ll be released, resentenced or the appellate court may order a new trial on all the charges. There still is a glimmer of hope for the disgraced governor.

This appeal, however, is unique in the annals of appellate jurisprudence. The case was argued before a three-judge panel in December 2013. Normally, a decision is handed down within three to six months after oral argument before the court. In a very rare situation, the decision may not be rendered until nine months after the case was argued.

However, it’s been more than 15 months since the case was argued before the court and “taken under advisement,” more than double the normal time for deciding an appeal.
This extraordinary delay has generated extensive speculation by legal scholars and practitioners as to what is going on in the court’s deliberation over the appeal. Some say the court is really struggling with the central issue of so-called “honest services,” the fuzzy legal distinction between traditional political horse-trading and flat-out corrupt bribery. Others maintain the court is just being particularly careful in light of the national significance of the case. Still others suggest that a lengthy written majority opinion is likely, with an equally lengthy dissenting opinion, both of which likely require drafts and redrafts in an attempt to “get it right.”

Whatever the explanation, this appeal is proving to be out of the ordinary.”

Read more:





Blagojevich appeal update August 19, 2014, US court of appeals seventh circuit decision, Empress Casino Joliet Corp v John Johnston et al, Quid pro quo between racetracks and Governor Blagojevich

Blagojevich appeal update August 19, 2014, US court of appeals seventh circuit decision, Empress Casino Joliet Corp v John Johnston et al, Quid pro quo between racetracks and Governor Blagojevich

“Why wasn’t Rod Blagojevich, Governor of IL, prosecuted before Tony Rezko, a businessman?”…Citizen Wells

“Why was Tony Rezko’s sentencing delayed?”…Citizen Wells

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



We are still awaiting a decision from the US Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit on the Blagojevich appeal.

Yesterday the court of appeals presented their decision on Empress Casino Joliet Corp v John Johnston, et al.

Some of the most damning wording for Blagojevich is the following:

“The summary judgment record contains considerable evidence that, if credited, would support the allegation of a quid pro quo between the Racetracks and Governor Blagojevich. When Blagojevich did not immediately sign the ’08 Act into law, Racetracks executive Johnston stated to a colleague in an email: “We are going to have to put a stronger bit in his mouth!?!” Johnston complained to Blagojevich’s chief of staff Monk that the delays in signing the bill were costing Johnston $9,000 per day. A factfinder could conclude that Blagojevich was talking about Johnston’s commitment to pay $100,000 when he informed Monk that he would “like some separation between that and signing the bill.” After the FBI recorded Monk and Blagojevich scheming about getting Johnston to pay, Monk met with Johnston and, according to Monk, delivered the message that the bill would not be signed until he paid.”

From Chicago Law Bulletin August 18, 2014.

“Reviving a lawsuit accusing racetrack owners of offering a bribe to then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a federal appeals court has addressed when political horse-trading crosses the line “from the merely unseemly to the unlawful.”
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not rule on the merits of the claim that Blagojevich in 2008 signed legislation favored by the racetrack industry in return for the promise of a $100,000 campaign contribution.
But the court ruled there is enough evidence — if true — to support a finding of a quid pro quo exchange between Blagojevich and the industry.
And assuming such an exchange took place, the court continued, it directly harmed four riverboat casinos in northern Illinois by leading to the implementation of the Horse Racing Act.”
“The casinos do not allege that members of the Illinois General Assembly were offered or took any bribes to pass the bill, the panel wrote.
And deeming officials’ support of legislation to be illegal merely because campaign contributions were solicited and received about the time the legislation was enacted, the panel wrote, would leave the officials open to prosecution for conduct long thought legal.
Such an action, the panel continued, quoting McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991), also would lead to prosecutions for conduct “that in a very real sense is unavoidable so long as election campaigns are financed by private contributions or expenditures, as they have been from the beginning of the nation.”
It’s a different story, the panel wrote, when it comes to the 2008 renewal legislation.
Evidence that Blagojevich signed the bill in exchange for the promise of a $100,000 contribution included the criminal trial testimony of Blagojevich’s former chief of staff, Alonzo Monk, and Johnston’s admission that he offered the bribe, the panel wrote.
Johnston received immunity from prosecution, and Monk pleaded guilty to corruption charges.”
Read more:
This transaction is the only time I recall the appeals court judges stating that Blagojevich was clearly involved in a quid pro quo activity. During the initial oral arguments phase and in the lastest decision they otherwise question whether or not he was involved in traditional political activities.
This fact coupled with the earlier irregularities in the Blagojevich trials and subsequent delays in producing the transcripts leads me to believe that Blagojevich will get a reduced sentence.


FDIC v Amrish Mahajan et al update July 12, 2014, Obama Rezko lot Mutual bank loan, Mary Hakken-Phillips pleads fifth, Board minutes altered by Mahajan and Regas

FDIC v Amrish Mahajan et al update July 12, 2014, Obama Rezko lot Mutual bank loan, Mary Hakken-Phillips pleads fifth, Board minutes altered by Mahajan and Regas

“Why wasn’t Rod Blagojevich, Governor of IL, prosecuted before Tony Rezko, a businessman?”…Citizen Wells

“Why was Tony Rezko’s sentencing delayed?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Mutual Bank fire whistleblower Kenneth J Connor after he
challenged the appraisal on the land purchased by Rita Rezko, just
prior to the land sale to Obama?”…Citizen Wells



From a memorandum opinion and order by Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim July 9, 2014 we learn.

Previous opinions resolving Defendants’ motions to dismiss, see FDIC v.
Mahajan, No. 11 CV 7590, 2012 WL 3061852, at *1-3 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2012), and the FDIC’s motion to strike, see FDIC v. Mahajan, 923 F. Supp. 2d 1133, 1135-36 (N.D. Ill. 2013), describe the details of this case’s background facts and procedural history. What follows are the facts and allegations most pertinent to the questions presented in the current motion.

According to the FDIC, in November 2009, FDIC representatives interviewed
Hakken-Phillips concerning her work as the secretary of the Bank’s Board of
Directors and as the administrative assistant to Bank President Amrish Mahajan.
(R. 289, Mot. ¶ 1.) In support of its current motion the FDIC submitted an affidavit from Tina Solis, one of the FDIC’s attorneys, stating that during the interview Hakken-Phillips described preparing handwritten Board minutes which she then submitted to senior officers. (R. 289-1, Mot., Ex. A ¶¶ 4-5.) According to Attorney Solis’s affidavit, Hakken-Phillips said Defendants Mahajan and James Regas altered the minutes to remove references to “certain adverse matters,” and that she signed the final minutes “feeling that she had no choice but to do so.” (Id. ¶ 4.) The affidavit goes on to say that Hakken-Phillips discussed the Bank’s lending and credit administration practices, compiling reports on the Bank’s real estate portfolio and loan deficiencies, document shredding at the Bank, and Regas’s role in Bank operations. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.) The FDIC alleges that several weeks after the interview, Hakken-Phillips voluntarily provided the FDIC with her handwritten draft Board minutes and handwritten “diaries” describing tasks, meetings, and communications with the Bank’s senior officers. (R. 289, Mot. ¶ 3.)

On October 25, 2011, the FDIC sued Defendants, each of whom was a
director, officer, board member, or attorney for the Bank. (See R. 1, Compl.) When the FDIC deposed Hakken-Phillips on October 31, 2013, she chose to invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to every question except those asking for her name, address, and educational background. (See R. 289-7, Mot., Ex. G, Hakken-Phillips Dep.) The FDIC filed the instant motion on June 2, 2014, to compel her testimony regarding the authenticity of the draft minutes, the explication of certain passages in those minutes, and the process of preparing the Bank’s final minutes. (R. 289, Mot. ¶ 16.) Hakken-Phillips filed a response on June 19, 2014, in which she requested leave to provide the court with “additional information” regarding the basis of her Fifth Amendment privilege assertion for an in camera review. (R. 302, Opp. ¶ 2.) With the court’s leave, Hakken-Phillips submitted her “additional information” on June 24, 2014, ex parte. (R. 304.) On June 26, 2014, the FDIC filed a reply in support of the current motion. (R. 306, Reply.)”



From Citizen Wells December 27, 2013.

“The FDIC lawsuit against Amrish Mahajan, et al is still alive.

Amrish Mahajan, the former president of Mutual Bank of Harvey, the bank that loaned Rita Rezko the money to buy the lot subsequently sold to the Obamas, has been barred from banking.

From Chicago Business July 1, 2013.

“Politically connected ex-Mutual Bank president barred from banking”

“Amrish Mahajan, former president of failed Mutual Bank of Harvey and a major fundraiser for imprisoned former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, has been barred from future participation in the banking industry under a newly released regulatory order.”

Read more about the Mahajan Obama Rezko connection here.