Category Archives: Judicial misconduct

Electoral college rules and governing laws explained , Elector warnings, Faithless electors to US Constitution vs states or parties, Knowingly voting for fraudulent certification

Electoral college rules and governing laws explained , Elector warnings, Faithless electors to US Constitution vs states or parties, Knowingly voting for fraudulent certification

“§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”...US Election Law

“Electoral College electors owe an allegiance first and foremost to the US Constitution over State and political party dictates.”...Citizen Wells

“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

 

Electors in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and indeed all states you are being forewarned.

Voting for a candidate as a result of a fraudulent certification is fraud.

Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

A review of the current status of the 6 states above will be forthcoming.

An injunction in those states should be filed preventing you from being in jeopardy of committing fraud.

From Citizen Wells December 13, 2020.

“Presidential Election

ELECTORAL COLLEGE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: What is the Electoral College?:

A: The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers
as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and
election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for
the electors who then vote for the President. Read more

Q: Frequently asked questions:

A: Read more here

Q: Why did the Founding Fathers create the Electoral College?:

A:  The Founding Father’s intent

Here is a quote by Alexander Hamilton who, like many of the founding
fathers, was “afraid a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come
to power.” Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made
by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station,
and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a
judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were
proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by
their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to
possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated
investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little
opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least
to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so
important an agency in the administration of the government as the
President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so
happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an
effectual security against this mischief.”

Q: What are the state laws governing Electors?:

A: List of states and restrictions on Electors

Q: What are so called “Faithless Electors”?:

A: “The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require
that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore,
political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the
parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called “faithless
electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting
an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme
Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges
and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under
the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to
vote as pledged.” Read more here

The US Supreme Court Obviously has not given Electors the option to
violate the US Constitution. Therefore, obviously, if the presidential
candidate is qualified, party pledges and state laws are permissable.

Q: What must an Elector be aware of when voting for a presidential candidate?:

 A: The following are important considerations when casting a vote. Voting
as instructed by a political party, another person, or a state law in
conflict with the US Constitution or Federal Election Laws is a serious
matter. Those not voting in accordance with higher laws are subject to
prosecution and may be guilty of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
High Crimes and Misdemeanors

UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):”

“§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”

ARE ELECTORS REQUIRED TO VOTE ACCORDING TO POPULAR VOTE?

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires
electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in
their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their
votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two
categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges
to political parties.”   (From US National Archives)

SO CALLED “FAITHLESS ELECTORS”

“It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to
vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so,
more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the
popular vote or their party. These electors are called “faithless
electors.”

In response to these faithless electors’ actions, several states
have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party
vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to
assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example,
the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless
electors.

It’s important to note, that although these states have created these
laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws
hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.”
Read more here

STATE LAW EXAMPLE: PENNSYLVANIA

Ҥ 3192. Meeting of electors; duties.
The electors chosen, as aforesaid, shall assemble at the seat
of government of this Commonwealth, at 12 o’clock noon of the
day which is, or may be, directed by the Congress of the United
States, and shall then and there perform the duties enjoined upon
them by the Constitution and laws of the United States
.”

“The mysteries of the Electoral College has enabled Pennsylvania
to play an unusually major role in determining who is President.
In 1796, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in Pennsylvania’s
popular election by only 62 votes, but the Pennsylvania electors
gave Jefferson 14 votes and Adams 1, though Adams did win the
Electoral vote, 71 to 68.” Read more here

ELECTORS HELPED SAVE THE UNION

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas,
voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Q: What happens after the Electoral College vote?:

A: Electoral College procedures

Q: What is the significance of your vote?:

A: The US Constitution clearly gives the states the power
and duties associated with electing a qualified president.
It is also clear that the states have not performed their
duties to ensure that the Electoral College votes will be
for a Qualified candidate. The Electors have a constitutional
duty to perform that supersedes any party contract or state
law. Each day that passes without verification of eligibility
of any candidate being voted for by Electors, brings us closer
to a constitutional crisis. There are pending court cases before
the US Supreme Court and state courts. Congress will meet in
January to count and certify votes and there will certainly be
challenges in Congress. If Congress or the courts shall fail to
do their duty, a Supreme Court Justice will be faced with a
decision to uphold the Constitution. The crisis will increase
in intensity.”

https://citizenwells.com/2008/12/13/2008-us-presidential-election-electoral-college-electors-us-constitution-federal-election-law-state-election-laws-state-officers-state-election-officials-judges-us-supreme-court-justices-dem/December

From Citizen Wells December 17, 2008.

“The ultimate objective of a presidential election to inaugurate a
constitutionally qualified president that as closely as possible
reflects the will of the people.
The states have been given the power and the duty to control presidential
elections by the US Constitution.

The pervasive attitudes of the state officers and election officials is
that they, incorrectly, have no power to qualify presidential candidates
and/or they depend on political parties to vet the candidates.

The political parties have evolved and changed since the creation of the
US Consitution and are given no powers. However, members of the parties,
as US Citizens have an implied duty to uphold the Constitution and party
officers typically have taken oaths as elected officials to uphold the
US Constitution.

Clearly, the intent of the US Constitution and Federal Election Law is
for an eligible candidate to move through this election process to allow
for a constitutionally valid vote by Electors.”

“Even though the manner of Electoral College voting in clearly defined by
the US Constitution and Federal Election Law, some states have included
explicit references to law in their Certificates of Voters that are
signed by Electors and state officers. Below are certificates from 2004.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004_certificates/

Alabama

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and this state, certify”

Alaska

“by authority of law vested in us”

Arizona

“by authority of law in us vested”

Arkansas

“as provided by law”

California

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and the state of california, do hereby certify”

Connecticut

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States
and in the manner provided by the laws of the state of Connecticut”

Hawaii

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Idaho

“having met agreeably to the provisions of law”

Illinois

“as provided by law”

Indiana

“as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States”

Iowa

“in accordance with law”

Kansas

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Kentucky

“In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and with sections 7-11 of Title III of the
United States Code”

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Manner of voting

§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Minnesota

“In testimony whereof, and as required by the Twelth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States we have hereunto set
our hands”

Montana

“agreeable to the provisions of law”

Nevada

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

New Jersey

“proceeded to perform the duties required of us by the Constitution
and laws of the United States.”

North Carolina

“by authority of law in us vested”

Pennsylvania

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Rhode Island

“in pursuance of law”

South Carolina

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Tennessee

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Utah

“in pursuance of the statutes of the United States and of the statutes
of the State of Utah”

Virginia

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Washington

“pursuant to the provisions of federal and state law”

Conclusion

  • The US Constitution is clear on presidential eligibility and how
    Electoral Colleges Electors are to vote.
  • Ignorance is no excuse. Everyone involved was forewarned. Voting
    party line over law will not be tolerated.
  • Electors and state officers have signed or will sign Certificates of Voters
    for the 2008 Election. As you can see from the above, they will
    certify that they are aware of the law and are abiding by the law.
  • Kentucky gets the award for the most constitutionally clear wording
    and should be applauded for doing so.
  • There are consequences for false attesting.
  • One of the consequences is that the votes of many Electors are now
    null and void.
  • Impeachment, recall, firing, criminal charges forthcoming?”

https://citizenwells.com/2008/12/17/2008-electoral-college-votes-certification-of-voters-state-laws-us-constitution-electors-signed-certification-certifications-invalid-obama-ineligible-violators-should-be-prosecuted-constitutio/

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Advertisement

General Flynn hearing instructions for listening Sept 29, 2020, Peter Strozk Attorney files letter alleging note changes

General Flynn hearing instructions for listening Sept 29, 2020, Peter Strozk Attorney files letter alleging note changes

“Instead of doing so, 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.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October

“her client was “totally set up” because he threatened to expose wrongdoing by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration.

“He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” Powell said, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan.”…Sidney Powell, Vickie McKenna Show

On Judge Sullivan: “if there was any doubt up to this point whether his conduct gives the appearance of partiality, that doubt is gone.”...Judge Rao dissenting opinion

 

The General Michael Flynn hearing begins at 11:00 today September 29, 2020.

Public audio access to Flynn hearing today:

Prior to the start time of the hearing, dial the public access teleconference number for the presiding Judge and enter the access code when prompted, followed by the pound (#) sign. Due to technical limits on the number of dial-in listeners who may be accommodated, you may wish to establish your connection at least 10 minutes early to ensure access.

Wait for the hearing to begin. You will be automatically muted and will not be heard by the Judge or participants in the hearing.

The motion hearing scheduled for September 29, 2020 at 11:00 AM shall now take place via VIDEO TELECONFERENCE (VTC). The Courtroom Deputy Clerk shall contact the parties to provide the dial-in information. The public and media may listen to the hearing by dialing in to one of the following teleconference numbers and entering the access code when prompted: 877-336-1839 (access code 5524636); 888-363-4734 (access code 6114909); 877-336-1839 (access code 1429888); 877-402-9753 (access code 2090166); 888-557-8511 (access code 4140864); 888-273-3658 (access code 1773796). Persons joining via teleconference will be automatically muted and will not be heard by the Court or participants in the hearing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/25/2020. (lcegs3)

Peter Strozk’s Attorney, Aitan Goelman has just filed a letter alleging note changes.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.258.0_3.pdf

More on the hearing here:

https://citizenwells.com/2020/09/27/michael-flynn-motion-hearing-sept-29-2020-video-teleconference-judge-emmett-sullivan-oral-argument-from-government-flynn-and-amicus-curiae/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Michael Flynn motion hearing Sept 29, 2020 video teleconference, Judge Emmett Sullivan, oral argument from  government, Flynn, and amicus curiae

Michael Flynn motion hearing Sept 29, 2020 video teleconference, Judge Emmett Sullivan, oral argument from  government, Flynn, and amicus curiae

“Instead of doing so, 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.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October

“her client was “totally set up” because he threatened to expose wrongdoing by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration.

“He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” Powell said, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan.”…Sidney Powell, Vickie McKenna Show

On Judge Sullivan: “if there was any doubt up to this point whether his conduct gives the appearance of partiality, that doubt is gone.”...Judge Rao dissenting opinion

***  Update 5:18 from the court  ***

“Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan:Motion Hearing Via VTC as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN held on 9/29/2020 re 198 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by USA. The Court Heard Oral Arguments From Government Counsel, Defense Counsel And Amicus. The Court Will Issue A Minute Order. The Court Will Take This Matter Under Advisement. Bond Status of Defendant: WAS NOT PRESENT; REMAINS ON PERSONAL RECOGNIZANCE; Court Reporter: LISA BANKINS; Defense Attorney: SIDNEY POWELL; JESSE BINNALL; US Attorney: KENNETH KOHL/ HASHIM MOOPPAN; Amicus: John Gleeson (mac)”

*********************************

Public audio access to Flynn hearing:

Prior to the start time of the hearing, dial the public access teleconference number for the presiding Judge and enter the access code when prompted, followed by the pound (#) sign. Due to technical limits on the number of dial-in listeners who may be accommodated, you may wish to establish your connection at least 10 minutes early to ensure access.

Wait for the hearing to begin. You will be automatically muted and will not be heard by the Judge or participants in the hearing.

The motion hearing scheduled for September 29, 2020 at 11:00 AM shall now take place via VIDEO TELECONFERENCE (VTC). The Courtroom Deputy Clerk shall contact the parties to provide the dial-in information. The public and media may listen to the hearing by dialing in to one of the following teleconference numbers and entering the access code when prompted: 877-336-1839 (access code 5524636); 888-363-4734 (access code 6114909); 877-336-1839 (access code 1429888); 877-402-9753 (access code 2090166); 888-557-8511 (access code 4140864); 888-273-3658 (access code 1773796). Persons joining via teleconference will be automatically muted and will not be heard by the Court or participants in the hearing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/25/2020. (lcegs3)

 

From US v Michael Flynn.

“MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. In view of the motion hearing on September 29, 2020, the Court shall hear oral argument from the government, Mr. Flynn, and the Court-appointed amicus curiae. See L. Civ. R. 7(o)(6) (“An amicus curiae may participate in oral argument only with the court’s permission.”); see also United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 737 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/23/2020. (lcegs3)”

“MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. The motion hearing scheduled for September 29, 2020 at 11:00 AM shall now take place via VIDEO TELECONFERENCE (VTC). The Courtroom Deputy Clerk shall contact the parties to provide the dial-in information. The public and media may listen to the hearing by dialing in to one of the following teleconference numbers and entering the access code when prompted: 877-336-1839 (access code 5524636); 888-363-4734 (access code 6114909); 877-336-1839 (access code 1429888); 877-402-9753 (access code 2090166); 888-557-8511 (access code 4140864); 888-273-3658 (access code 1773796). Persons joining via teleconference will be automatically muted and will not be heard by the Court or participants in the hearing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/25/2020. (lcegs3)”

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/united-states-v-flynn/?page=3

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

General Flynn opposition to amicus brief of Attorney Gleeson, Attorney Powell filed June 17, 2020, “Flynn…singled out for a baseless, politically motivated investigation and prosecution”

General Flynn opposition to amicus brief of Attorney Gleeson, Attorney Powell filed June 17, 2020, “Flynn…singled out for a baseless, politically
motivated investigation and prosecution”

“Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they call ‘The Resistance’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch.” …Attorney General Barr

“Instead of doing so, 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.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October

“Under the separation of powers established by the Constitution, criminal charges are brought by the executive branch and adjudicated by the judiciary. Thus, any actual prosecution of Flynn under federal statutes for perjury would have to be brought by the Department of Justice.”…Attorney Leslie McAdoo Gordon

 

From the

GENERAL FLYNN’S BRIEF
IN OPPOSITION TO AMICUS

Filed June 17, 2020 by Attorney Sidney Powell.

“Counsel for General Michael Flynn files this brief to comply with this court’s
order of May 19, 2020. However, we hereby preserve all objections briefed in our
Petition for Writ of Mandamus and all prior filings in this court.1 This court exceeded its authority under the Constitution to solicit amici and to appoint an amicus. That chosen amicus has now engaged in a flagrant personal and partisan assault on General Flynn, Attorney General Barr, and the President of the United States.

This court’s friend simply ignores the indisputable, newly-produced evidence
proving that it is General Flynn who was singled out for a baseless, politically
motivated investigation and prosecution. ECF No. 198. In a rarely-mentioned text message the Government has never produced to General Flynn,2 FBI Agent Strzok reveals that [Bill] Priestap “doesn’t want Clapper giving CR cuts [transcripts on Crossfire Razor, the codename for the Flynn operation] to [the Obama] WH. All political, just shows our hand and potentially makes enemies.” (emphasis added). After Lisa Page’s reminder about including it already in the “doc on fri,” Strzok revealed the ultimate problem: “should we[?], particularly to the entirety of the lame duck usic [United States intelligence community] with partisan axes to grind.” (emphasis added).

The irony and sheer duplicity of Amicus’s accusations against the Justice
Department now—which is finally exposing the truth—is stunning. Amicus’s filing is a “wrap-up smear.” It is an affront to the Rule of Law and a raging insult to the citizens of this country who see the abject corruption in this assassination by political prosecution of General Flynn. This court exuviated any appearance of neutrality when it unlawfully appointed Amicus as its own adversary to make these scurrilous arguments.”

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.228.0_1.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

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:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.203583/gov.uscourts.dcd.203583.331.0.pdf

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:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net

 

 

 

 

 

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:

https://drrichswier.com/2019/12/29/whitewashing-traitors-while-destroying-patriots/

ABOUT DR. RICH SWIER

“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:

https://drrichswier.com/about-dr-rich-swier/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Obama Rezko lot transaction bank president Mahajan FDIC lawsuit, Motion hearing, June 12, 2013, Judge Virginia M. Kendall, Rezkos sold lot to Obamas, Ghosts of Obama’s past

Obama Rezko lot transaction bank president Mahajan FDIC lawsuit, Motion hearing, June 12, 2013, Judge Virginia M. Kendall, Rezkos sold lot to Obamas, Ghosts of Obama’s past

“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

Lest we forget.

The FDIC lawsuit against Amrish Mahajan, former president of Mutual Bank, et al is scheduled for a motion hearing in the courtroom of Judge Virginia M. Kendall on June 12, 2013. Mutual Bank loaned Rita Rezko the money for the lot that was purchased by the Obama’s. It is also the bank that fired whistleblower Kenneth J. Conner after he questioned the appraisal of that lot.

Daily Calendar

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 (As of 06/12/13 at 05:47:26 AM)

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall               Courtroom 2319 (VMK)

1:11-cv-07590   Federal Deposit Insurance Corporatio   09:00   Notice of Motion

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

FDICvsMahajan130612

From Citizen Wells June 5, 2012.

The Obama camp, with the full cooperation of the mainstream media and US Justice Dept., has done their best to distance Obama from his numerous close corruption ties in Chicago and Illinois. The delayed and dragged out prosecution of Rod Blagojevich with his mutual ties to Tony Rezko, the failure to call Rezko as a witness and the dropping of counts against Blagojevich that are most damning for Obama, is one good example.

With the best attempts to divert attention away from Obama’s corrupt past, the Ghosts of Obama’s Christmas past continue to linger.

From an article written by truthteller and presented on NoQuarter USA on October 12, 2008.

“”Because I tend to rely on evidence and not on hearsay, I believe we should focus our attention on Amrish Mahajan and the Mutual Bank of Harvey, not on Giannoulias and the Broadway Bank, if we are to assign names to the financial institution about which Sneed of the Chicago Sun-Timeshas heard “rumblings.” Although Mahajan is not known to readers ofNo Quarter and to the national media, I imagine they will desire more information on the unscrupulous banker once they read the information I unpack below the fold. And yes, Obama is involved, deeply involved.”

My interest in Amrish Mahajan and the Mutual Bank of Harvey was picqued by this list of contributors in Rezko’s bundling network provided by the Chicago Sun-Times last March. View the second page of the document, and notice the following entry:

Last name First name Obama donations Rezko connection
Mahajan Amrish $2,500 Banker whose bank loaned money to Rezko companies. The bank also loaned Rezko’s wife money to buy a vacant lot next to Obama’s home.

The data available in the Sun-Times spreadsheet is corroborated by the following data, which is democratically available at the Federal Election Commission‘s website:

MAHAJAN, AMRISH
CHICAGO, IL 60607
MUTUAL BANK

OBAMA, BARACK
VIA OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC
12/20/2003 500.00 24020030170
04/14/2004 1000.00 24020461757

Not only was Mahajan a member of Rezko’s bundling network; his bank, the Mutual Bank of Harvey, granted Rita Rezko the $500,000 mortgage she neededin order to purchase the lot on which the Obama mansion in Chicago sits. As many of you may recall, the Obamas could not have purchased the mansion they could not afford unless transactions for the mansion and the lot closed on the same day. Obama needed to locate someone who would buy the lot, and he approached Rezko, the convicted slumlord with whom Obama toured the property before they mutually agreed to the following arrangement:

The home and lot sales closed on June 15, 2005. A land trust controlled by the Obamas bought the house for $1.65 million, and the Obamas secured a $1.32 million mortgage from Northern Trust to complete that purchase. That same day, Rezko’s wife, Rita Rezko, bought the side lot for $625,000. A $37,000- a-year Cook County employee, she secured a $500,000 mortgage from Mutual Bank of Harvey.

The structure of this transaction begs the following question: What bank would lend a government employee who earns $37,000 per annum a $500,000 mortgage? What bank would assume such a risk?

The Mutual Bank of Harvey, of course, for the Mutual Bank of Harvey’s President is a man who is deeply connected to the Chicago machine that backed Barack Obama. Indeed, Amrish Mahajan was one of Mayor Daley’s first political appointments in 1989, when he was named to a seat on Chicago’s Plan Commission, where he would be joined by Obama’s former boss and Rezko’s business partner Allison Davis and by Valerie Jarrett, Daley’s Chief of Staff whochaired the Commission from 1991-1995. Mahajan, in other words, worked with those who devised and profited from Daley’s failed public housing experiment in Chicago, a public housing policy Obama helped fund as state Senator and US Senator.

Rezko, according to the Boston Globe, was one of the major beneficiaries of Obama’s legislative advocacy for funding of Daley’s public housing experiment. Other major beneficiaries are Jarrett and Allison Davis. Mahajan was also a beneficiary, for his bank had made $3.4 million dollars in loans to Tony Rezko’s slum landlord business since 2002. A banker for one of the slumlords who benefitted from the Daley housing program Obama helped bankroll, Mahajan was returning a favor when he wrote a $500,000 mortgage in 2005 for the wife of one of his clients. Although Tony’s financial problems were mounting in 2005, and although Rita earned only $35,000 per annum, Mahajan underwrote the mortgage. Favors must be reciprocated, I guess, especially when one can satisfy two parties at once: the person with whom one has a complicated relationship in real estate and the politician who helped finance that complicated relationship as state Senator and US Senator.

I doubt federal investigators are interested in the Mahajans solely for their involvement in the property deal involving Obama, Mahajan and the Rezkos. The Mahajans, I believe, are the foci of their probe for many reasons.

The real estate transaction involving Rita Rezko, the Obamas and Mutual Bank of Harvey is just the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, the Mutual Bank of Harvey seems to be at the center of all the corruption in Chicago. To quote former Donald Perillo, Chicago insurance mogul and son of the lawyer for Al Capone, in the Chicago Tribune article I cite above:

Donald Parrillo said he isn’t surprised to see Mahajan mix it up with politics and business. “He got that attitude from the Parrillo family,” the former alderman said. “He wanted to get in the game.”

And Mahajan certainly is in the game. The banker of the Chicago machine, he is also the man who wrote the mortgage for Rita Rezko that facilitated Obama’s purchase the mansion he could not afford. This is why I believe prosecutors are interested in Harvey Mutual Bank. Not only did Rezko receive loans from this institution; this bank is heavily involved in problematic real estate dealings involving Blagojevich and Obama. And if I may quote Rezko in the 9 JUN letter he wrote to Judge Amy St. Eve:

Your Honor, the prosecutors have been overzealous in pursuing a crime that never happened. They are pressuring me to tell them the “wrong” things that I supposedly know aboutGovernor Blagojevich and Senator Obama. I have never been party to any wrongdoing that involved the Governor or the Senator. I will never fabricate lies about anyone else for selfish purposes. I will take what comes my way, but I will never hurt innocent people. I am not Levine, Loren, Mahru , or Winter.”

Rezko is now talking, and prosecutors are presently interested in a politically connected financial institution. I bet Obama now regrets paying Rita Rezko $104,500 for the strip of the land in the lot on which his house sits in January 2006. Acquired with the assistance of a questionable $500,000 mortgage from Amrish Mahajan’s Mutual Bank of Harvey, this lot and Obama’s desire to expand his yard by bit was the catalyst for all the investigative reports into Obama’s deep ties to Rezko. By the way, Rita’s lot is only accessible through the front gate of Obama’s home; it is not a separate property, and it was never intended to be a separate property.

“It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor,” Obama says of the real estate transactions with Rezko. I wonder if now he also believes it was a mistake for him to serve as the legislator who represented and bankrolled Richard Daley, Amrish Mahajan, Valerie Jarrett, Allison Davis and the Chicago Plan Commission. But at least he and Michelle have a house, a house the Mutual Bank of Harvey, the politically connected bank that wrote loans for Rezko, helped them procure in 2005. Too bad that house will be the end of Barack Obama.

obama-home.jpg

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/5382/about-the-financial-institution-mentioned-in-the-sun-times-obama-tony-rezko-amrish-mahajan-the-kenwood-mansion-rita-rezko/

From Citizen Wells November 1, 2011.

“Here is what we know about the purchase of a lot by Barack and Michelle Obama from Rita Rezko in 2006:

1. “In June, 2005, Mutual Bank President and CEO Amrish Mahajan and
other Mutual Bank officers approved a loan to Rita Malki Rezko (Rita
Rezko) which was guaranteed by Antonin Rezko so that Rita Rezko could
purchase a 9,090 square foot vacant parcel of real estate at 5050 S.
Greenwood Avenue, Chicago.” (Conner lawsuit)

2. “On or about January 4, 2006, Rita Rezko entered into an
agreement with Senator Barack and Michelle Obama (Obamas) to sell a
ten-foot strip of the 5050 S. Greenwood property to the Obamas.”
(Conner lawsuit)

3. “In late 2005 or early 2006, Conner performed an appraisal review
of the Adams Appraisal (Exhibit C) per the directive of Richard Barth
and James Murphy. Conner prepared a written Appraisal Review report
(ARR) opining that the Adams Appraisal overvalued the Greenwood lot by
a minimum of $ 125,000.00 and that a reasonable and fair valuation for
Mutual Banks’s underwriting purposes should be no greater than $
500,000.00 for the entire 5050 S. Greenwood parcel as originally
purchased by Rita Rezko.” (Conner lawsuit)

4. “On or about October 19, 2006, Mutual Bank received a Grand Jury
Subpoena (GJS) requiring Mutual Bank to produce the Rezko 5050
Greenwood loan file, as well as a Rita Rezko Riverside District
Development LLC checking account and loan file.” (Conner lawsuit)

5. “In October, 2007, Conner had various communications with Mutual
Bank’s Human Resources Department representative, Lana Schlabach. In
an email communication of October 15, 2007, Conner directly referenced
“Resentment over my mentioned discovery of the removal/replacement of
an appraisal review that I conducted. That appraisal review contained
substantial observations and suggestions. The transaction and parties
involved were high profile in the media.I am under the impression that
the FBI has since looked at the file.”” On October 23, 2007, eight days after Conner’s October 15, 2007 email to Schlabach attached as Exhibit J, Mutual Bank terminated Conner’s employment for pretextual reasons.” (Conner lawsuit)

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

7. The FDIC has filed a lawsuit against Mutual Bank, Amrish Mahajan, Richard Barth, et al.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/fdic-mutual-bank-lawsuit-reveals-rezko-obama-corruption-kenneth-j-conner-lawsuit-amrish-mahajan-richard-barth-where-did-rezkos-get-the-money/

From ABC News Chicago August 22, 2011.

“Anita Mahajan, a Chicago businesswoman with ties to former governor Rod Blagojevich, pleaded guilty to bilking the state of Illinois by submitting bogus bills.

“I’m sorry,” Mahajan said in court Monday while pleading guilty to felony theft for pilfering about $100,000 in taxpayer money through her drug-testing company, K.K. Bio-Science. That company is now defunct.

The 60-year-old received four years of probation, agreed to pay $200,000 in fines and perform 1,500 hours of community service.

Mahajan’s husband, Amrish, was a banker and significant fundraiser for Blagojevich. Also, Blagojevich’s wife, Patti, made more than $100,000 in commissions handling real estate deals for the Mahajans in 2006, which caused a stir in the Blagojevich re-election campaign. The following year, Mahajan was charged with cheating the state of out of $2 million for drug tests that were never performed.

“People of this state were being cheated,” Dick Devine said in 2007 when he was the state’s attorney while announcing a seven-count indictment against Mahajan. The attorney general sued to recover the state’s lost money.

Four years later, Mahajan pleaded guilty to a single, reduced charge of theft instead of the felonies that would have sent her to prison for at least six years.

“Anita Mahajan is another example of the collateral damage that’s been left in the wake of the Rod Blagojevich Tsunami,” Steve Miller, Mahajan’s attorney, said.””

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8320596&rss=rss-wls-article-8320596

From the FDIC lawsuit against Amrish Mahajan, et al.

“6. The Director Defendants also wasted corporate assets and drained the Bank’s capital by…(c) authorizing $ 495,000 in “bonuses” to pay for the criminal defense costs for the Defendant Amrish Mahajan’s wife who was indicted for Medicaid fraud”

“32. The Director and Officer Defendants failed to establish procedures that would have lessened the risks of the Bank’s improvidant lending practices. The terms of transactions were not accurately documented. Status reports were missing so that records of how an asset was progressing were not available. Terms of loans were changed at closing without board or loan committee approvals or any rcord in the file. Loan guarantees were frequently missing from the files. Appraisers were retained by brokers with an interest in seeing transactions consummated, not by the bank. Appraisals were often received after the loan was funded. Loans were typically non-recourse and dependent on guarantor abilities to repay in the event that the collateral was insufficient. Yet, little or no attention was paid to whether guarantors had sufficient liquidity to protect the Bank’s interest; the officers and the Board did little or no analysis of guarantor or borrower financial strength.”

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/26/FDIC.pdf

From the Washington Times November 4, 2008.

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

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

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

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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/04/fbi-asked-questions-on-rezko-land-deal/

Obama’s Rezko problem is not going away.

							

Florida courts corrupt biased incompetent?, Voeltz v Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen, AL VT Supreme Courts eligibility hearings, Election officials ignore laws duties

Florida courts corrupt biased incompetent?, Voeltz v Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen, AL VT Supreme Courts eligibility hearings, Election officials ignore laws duties

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why do state election officials continue to ignore the US Constitution, federal election code and their own state election statutes?”…Citizen Wells

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

I have reported on the Obama eligibility hearings in the Alabama and Vermont Supreme Courts. The reason that I have not written about an eligibility hearing in the Florida Supreme Court is because one has not been scheduled there yet.

Why?

Good question.

The answer appears to be some combination of corruption bias and incompetence.

Here are some crucial points of law and fact. More details will be forthcoming.

Let’s start at the beginning.

The states are responsible for the primaries, general election and events through the Electoral College vote.

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”

All state officials take an oath to uphold or defend the US Constitution.

In Florida they take the following oath.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of”

From page 2 of the Florida “2012 Federal Qualifying Handbook”

“PART II: PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

Qualifications

1. Must be a natural born citizen of the United States.
2. Must be at least 35 years of age.
3. Must be a resident of the United States for 14 years.”

“Must be” is not a suggestion.

Florida Election statutes

“Title IX

102.168 Contest of election.–
“(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:”

“(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

AMENDMENT X

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Many of the Secretaries of State or other election officials claim to have only a “ministerial” duty in the elections.

In the recent Vermont Supreme Court hearing with appellant H. Brooke Paige, state attorney Todd Doloz stated that the VT Secretary of State has only a ministerial duty in the elections.

Ministerial defined.

Merriam Webster.

a : being or having the characteristics of an act or duty prescribed by law as part of the duties of an administrative office
b : relating to or being an act done after ascertaining the existence of a specified state of facts in obedience to a legal order without exercise of personal judgment or discretion.

Legal dictionary.

“Ministerial describes an act or a function that conforms to an instruction or a prescribed procedure. It connotes obedience. A ministerial act or duty is a function performed without the use of judgment by the person performing the act or duty.”

Obedience is the common denominator. To a legal order or conforming “to an instruction or a prescribed procedure.”

The US Constitution makes this clear.

The Secretary of State swears an oath to the Constitution.

Florida law explicitly states the requirements for the eligibility of the president.

The attorney for Vermont, in his obfuscation efforts, raised the spectre of each Secretary of State or chief election official proactively verifying the eligibility of each candidate.

No reasonable person is requesting that.

However, there is a clear distinction between that and knowingly, after being alerted of a candidate’s eligibility deficiency, taking no action, ignoring a clear mandate from the US Constitution and allowing a candidate to remain on the ballot potentially disenfranchising thousands if not millions of voters.

This is what should have taken place in FL and all of the states:

Once alerted or challenged on a potential deficiency in eligibility of a candidate, the Secretary of State or other election official should investigate.

In the case of Obama and his natural born citizen status, if there is confusion about the definition, the state attorney general should be queried and if there is still confusion, a court ruling requested.

Passing the buck is dereliction of duty.

In Florida, the situation is much worse.

Not only did the FL Secretary of State fail in their constitutional duty, subsequent court hearings have been delayed and failed in their judicial duties.

Why has the judicial system failed the citizens in Florida?

More details to come.

Blagojevich appeal opening brief April 25, 2013, Or more delays?, Attorneys Goodman and Kaeseberg, What were Obama and Blagojevich discussing in 2008?

Blagojevich appeal opening brief April 25, 2013, Or more delays?, Attorneys Goodman and Kaeseberg, What were Obama and Blagojevich discussing in 2008?

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

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

“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

Barack Obama has been protected from the beginning of the prosecution in “Operation Board Games” involving a host of Obama Chicago corruption cronies such as Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine and of course Rod Blagojevich.

From FBI wiretaps of Blagojevich on November 12, 2008.

“this guy is more Tony’d up than I am. …. they got the Chicago media to f…ing make me wear Rezko more. To f…ing dilute it from him”

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

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

BLAGOJEVICH: Right.

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

BLAGOJEVICH: Right, right.

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

What were Obama and Blagojevich discussing just after the 2008 election?

ObamaBlagoNov2008

And…..

“Why wasn’t Rod Blagojevich, the Governor of Illinois, wiretapped at least by 2005 when it was known in 2003 that there was widespread corruption in his administration?”

From Politico March 15, 2013.

“And next up for the former governor, Goodman said, is his case on appeal in the 7th Circuit. Blagojevich’s opening brief is due April 25, Goodman noted.

“He is hopeful that his appeal will be successful and that his conviction will be overturned,” Goodman wrote.”

“Goodman, meanwhile, said he is currently busy working his way through thousands of pages of trial transcript as he works on Blagojevich’s appeal.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rod-blagojevich-jail-88904.html?hp=r6

From Chicago CBS local September 14, 2012.

“Attorneys Think Blagojevich’s Sentence Will Be Reversed On Appeal”

“Attorneys in the first trial of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich still keep in touch with him, and think his sentence will be reversed on appeal if the case ever gets there.

As WBBM Newsradio’s Alex Degman reports, the team of Sam Adam Jr. and his father, Sam Adam Sr., say the Blagojevich appeal is taking forever to get to court.

LISTEN: WBBM Newsradio’s Alex Degman reports
“We’re just waiting to get to the appeal,” Adam Jr. said. “I don’t know if you guys know this, that the appellate record has not been made yet. We still do not have the transcripts. It’s been two years since our trial, and a year since the second trial.”
Adam Sr. says there is a good chance the former governor will be freed if all the evidence is presented.

“The judge would not let him play his tapes… there had tapes in both trials that would have established his innocence. The judge wouldn’t let us play them,” he said.”

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/09/14/attorneys-think-blagojevichs-sentence-will-be-reversed-on-appeal/

Alabama Obama eligibility challenge, AL election statutes Section 17-13-6, Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots, Democrat party certified Obama, Judge Roy Moore

Alabama Obama eligibility challenge, AL election statutes Section 17-13-6, Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots, Democrat party certified Obama,  Judge Roy Moore

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why do state election officials continue to ignore the US Constitution, federal election code and their own state election statutes?”…Citizen Wells

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

From Obama Ballot Challenge October 30, 2012.

“Two Motions were filed on October 18, 2012 with the first being Alabama’s Democratic Party Motion to Intervene (MTI). Make special note of Item 5 in the Motion—The Alabama Secretary of State does not object to this motion to intervene. (See link to Motion to Intervene below)

The Alabama Democratic Committee MTI argues their nominee, Mr. Obama, is “eligible, qualified and entitled” to gain access to the taxpayer supported Alabama ballot and that Alabama’s Secretary of State “does not have a duty to independently investigate the qualifications of candidates nominated by the political parties.” Their motion wouldn’t be complete without the usual “pontification on high” that their candidate’s questionable natural born citizenship status is based on “discredited conspiracy theories and outlandish claims of fraudulent and forged birth certificates.”

Attorney General Strange filed the second motion which was a Motion to Dismiss (MTD). Strange offers the following arguments:

The Secretary of State has no legal duty to investigate the qualifications of a candidate;
In regard to candidates for President, the authority to adjudge qualifications rests with Congress;
Plaintiffs have failed to join necessary parties; and
Plaintiffs’ claim is filed too late.
According to Strange the Secretary of State aka the Chief Election Officer for the state of Alabama holds no responsibility whatsoever to ensure any and/or all presidential candidates working to gain access to Alabama’s electorate meet the necessary constitutional qualifications to be on their state ballot. (See link to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss below)

Plaintiffs’ responded to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on October 24, 2012 by reiterating their Motion for Summary Judgment filed on or about October 15, 2012 “in which Plaintiffs submitted sworn affidavits that set forth evidence demonstrating that Barack H. Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the United States.” These sworn affidavits are from Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County, Arizona and Lead Investigator Mike Zullo, Maricopa County’s Cold Case Posse unit (see link Response to Motion to Dismiss below).

Plaintiff argues that it is clearly the legal duty of Alabama’s Chief Election Officer to “verify the eligibility of those seeking office” and when eligibility of a candidate comes into question it is their responsibility to verify and remove said party from the ballot if necessary. A recent Opinion by Alabama’s Attorney General cited by the plaintiff states –

“The Secretary of state does not have an obligation to evaluate all of the Qualifications of the nominees of political parties and independent candidates for state offices prior to certifying such nominees and candidates to the probate judges pursuant to sections1 7-7-l and l7-16-40 of the Code of Alabama. If the Secretary of State has knowledge gained from an official source arising from the performance of duties prescribed by law, that a candidate has not met a certifying qualification [such as a candidate’s failure to file a public statement of Economic Interest], the Secretary of State should not certify the candidate.”

Clearly the sworn affidavits from Arpaio and Zullo serve as an “official source” placing into doubt at least the certifying qualifications necessary for Mr. Obama to gain access to the Alabama general election ballot. As for the remaining presidential candidates, no such “official source” has presented itself challenging their certifying qualifications.

The Plaintiff’s conclude “It is time — finally — to ensure that the person we are entrusting the highest and most powerful office of our country is eligible to serve for that office. The issue of eligibility has become a political hot potato, in effect a sticky matter for judges and courts around the nation. But the rule of law must eventually govern, without regard to politics, and cannot and should not be sidestepped through legally convenient and politically correct court rulings which ignore the plain language of the U.S. Constitution.””

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/alabamas-goode-mcinnish-v-chapman-ballot-challenge-case-update

From Judge Roy Moore.

“Judge Roy Moore will be having his Investiture (swearing in ceremony) at the Judicial Building in Montgomery on January 11 at 1:30 PM. If you would like to come I need you to give me your name and address so I can send you the ticket and info. Feel free to message me….Thanks!”

https://www.facebook.com/JudgeRoyMoore

Will newly elected AL Chief Justice Roy Moore review this case?

Let’s review Alabama election statutes.

From above:

“According to Strange the Secretary of State aka the Chief Election Officer for the state of Alabama holds no responsibility whatsoever to ensure any and/or all presidential candidates working to gain access to Alabama’s electorate meet the necessary constitutional qualifications to be on their state ballot.”

“Section 17-13-6

Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots.
The name of no candidate shall be printed upon any official ballot used at any primary election unless such person is legally qualified to hold the office for which he or she is a candidate and unless he or she is eligible to vote in the primary election in which he or she seeks to be a candidate and possesses the political qualifications prescribed by the governing body of his or her political party.”

Legally qualified means as defined by the US Constitution, US election code and Alabama election statutes.

The Alabama Democrat Party made this certification on January 18, 2012.

“CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 17-13-5, Code of Alabama, 1975, I hereby certify that the persons whose names appear below and on the following schedules filed qualifications with me for the March 13, 2012 Democratic Primary Election as candidates for the offices indicated.
President of the United States
Barack Obama

This certification is subject to such disqualifications or corrective action as hereafter may appropriately be made.
Given under my hand and the seal ofthe State Democratic Executive Committee of Alabam

a, this the 18th day of January, 2012.

H. Mark Kennedy Chairman”

http://www.sos.state.al.us/downloads/election/2012/primary/Primary_Candidate_Certification-Democratic_Party-2012-01-18.pdf

ALprimaryCert2012

What part of “qualified” from the statutes or “This certification is subject to such disqualifications or corrective action” do they not understand.