Category Archives: Lawsuits

Obama land deal loan president Mahajan FDIC lawsuit, Status hearing, July 19, 2012, Judge Virginia M. Kendall, Rezkos sold lot to Obamas

Obama land deal loan president Mahajan FDIC lawsuit, Status hearing, July 19, 2012, Judge Virginia M. Kendall, Rezkos sold lot to Obamas

“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

The FDIC lawsuit against Amrish Mahajan, former president of Mutual Bank, et al is scheduled for a status hearing in the courtroom of Judge Virginia M. Kendall on July 19, 2012. 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

Thursday, July 19, 2012 (As of 07/12/12 at 06:48:37 AM )

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall               Courtroom 2319 (VMK)

1:11-cv-07590 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporatio 09:00 Status Hearing

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

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/

The Kenneth J. Conner lawsuit is still active.

https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/Finddock.asp?DocketKey=CAAI0L0ABBEHA0LD

Obama corruption buddies sentencing scorecard, June 16, 2012, Ali Ata, Bill Cellini, Stuart Levine, Amrish Mahajan defendant in 2 lawsuits

Obama corruption buddies sentencing scorecard, June 16, 2012, Ali Ata, Bill Cellini, Stuart Levine, Amrish Mahajan defendant in 2 lawsuits

“Why did the Illinois Senate Health & Human Services Committee, with Obama as chairman, create and push Bill 1332, “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act,” early in 2003, which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, just prior to rigging by Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“Ata also donated $5,000 to Obama’s campaign in 2003 and Rezko asked Ata to make straw donation to Obama’s campaign for $10,000″…Tony Rezko trial

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

Stuart Levine who was heavily enmeshed in Chicago corruption with Tony Rezko, with ties to Barack Obama, and Ali Ata and Bill Cellini are all still awaiting sentencing.

Ali Ata’s sentencing has been postponed until mid July.

Bill Cellini recently had a heart attack and his sentencing has been delayed until July 2, 2012.

Stuart Levine is still scheduled to be sentenced on June 28, 2012.

From the Tony Rezko trial.

“Ata was very close with Tony Rezko, visiting Rezko’s Chicago office at least once a week to discuss business. Ata recently pleaded guilty to charges of tax fraud and lying to FBI agents about Rezko’s influence. Today Ata is testifying about his relationship with Rezko.

Born and raised in Jordan, Ata, 56, moved to the U.S. in 1970 to go to college at UIC in Chicago. Ata first became friends with Rezko after Ata was let go from his job as a chemical engineer in 2001. Ata testified that a few days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks FBI agents visited him at his work to question him. Ata shares the same last name as one of the 9/11 hijackers. Two weeks after the FBI’s visit, Ata’s employer offered him an early retirement package. Ata called it “devastating.”

As part of his plea agreement, Ata has agreed to testify against Rezko in exchange for a lighter prison sentence of 12-18 months (The maximum sentence was eight years).

Ata says in 2002 he donated $50,000 to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s campaign. In return Tony Rezko secured Ata a position as the head of the Illinois Finance Authority (IFA). Between 2003-2004 Ata says he contributed $125,000 to Blagojevich’s campaign based on requests from Rezko.
Ata also donated $5,000 to Obama’s campaign in 2003 and Rezko asked Ata to make straw donation to Obama’s campaign for $10,000, he said. The Democratic presidential candidate has donated Rezko-related contributions to charity.

Ata says Rezko was part of the “kitchen cabinet” of close advisers to the governor and had an extreme amount of political influence. At a fundraiser for Blagojevich, Ata says the governor thanked him for his support and contributions and then told him that Ata’s new state job at IFA “would be a job where I (Ata) could make some money.”

A source close to the trial says Ata’s testimony will be the “nail in the coffin” for the jury to convict Rezko on charges of fraud, money laundering and attempted extortion.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335592,00.html

From the Chicago SunTimes

February 10, 2008

“In the media, Obama always made it sound like he rarely saw Rezko, saying they met for breakfast or lunch once or twice a year. However, the FBI mole John Thomas helped investigators “build a record of repeat visits to the old offices of Rezko and former business partner Daniel Mahru’s Rezmar Corp., at 853 N. Elston, by Blagojevich and Obama during 2004 and 2005,“

March 14, 2008 interview.

In reference to FBI mole John Thomas:

“recently told us that he saw you coming and going from Rezko’s office a lot.”

And of course, Amrish Mahajan, is a defendant in 2 lawsuits involving Mutual Bank, the bank that loaned Rita Rezko the money to buy the lot that was split and sold to the Obama’s. Kenneth J. Conner, the whistleblower in that transaction is plaintiff in one and the FDIC the other.

Obama FL eligibility hearing June 18, 2012, Sheriff Joe Arpaio affidavit, Voeltz v Obama Florida ballot challenge, Judge Terry Lewis, Natural born citizen ruling

Obama FL eligibility hearing June 18, 2012, Sheriff Joe Arpaio affidavit, Voeltz v Obama Florida ballot challenge, Judge Terry Lewis, Natural born citizen ruling

“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

“I do not know where Barack Obama was born. I do know that he has used taxpayer dollars to keep his records hidden.”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

From Sam Sewell of the Steady Drip June 12, 2012.

“Attorney Larry Klayman has announced that Sheriff Joe Arpaio has authorized an affidavit by the Cold Case Posse to support allegations of Obama document fraud cited in the Voeltz v Obama FL ballot challenge case. This should undercut previous defense arguments that previous witnesses were not credible, although their qualifications and experience should be more than sufficient to establish that Obama’s alleged proof of eligibility is fraudulent.

Consider that the Arpaio Posse and other evidence is of no use to us unless used in legal or legislative proceedings, so here we go!

A hearing is scheduled at 0900 on Monday, June 18 at Leon County Courthouse.

http://ConstitutionActionFund.org

is trying to raise money to cover the attorney fees and other expenses to keep this case going.

Special thanks to the Surprise AZ, Tea Party, for requesting and supporting the Posse, Sheriff Joe for making it happen and Chief Investigator Mike Zullo and his team, along with informants, for producing investigation RESULTS!”

Read more:

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/06/flash-june-18-fl-ballot-challenge.html

From WND June 13, 2012.

“WATCH FLORIDA ELIGIBILITY HEARING LIVE
WND-TV to provide free live-stream from courtroom of Bush v. Gore judge”

“WND-TV will provide gavel-to-gavel, live video coverage of the latest challenge to Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility in a courtroom hearing that could deny him ballot access to this all-important electoral swing state in November.

Judge Terry Lewis, best known for presiding over the 2000 Bush v. Gore election dispute, will consider arguments from attorney Larry Klayman and attorneys for the Obama campaign. The hearing will focus on Obama’s claim to be a “natural born citizen,”” as required under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Lewis is credited with making crucial rulings in the contested 2000 presidential election, when ultimately a Florida vote recount was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court and George W. Bush was declared the winner.

Sign up now to get access to WND-TV’s special free, live-stream page prior to the hearing.

WND-TV has been designated by the court as the official pool TV service providing all other TV stations and networks with feeds.

Klayman’s law firm filed the challenge to Obama’s name on the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, “a registered member of the Democrat Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County, who was an eligible elector for the Florida Primary of Jan. 31, 2012.”

Klayman’s work is being supported by the Constitution Action Fund, a non-profit raising money for the legal challenge.

Klayman told WND that during a hearing last month on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that the plaintiff’s brief cited U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875 defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, while the Obama campaign’s arguments provided no citations.

The definition of the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility since before his election in 2008.

The U.S. Constitution imposes a special citizenship status requirement on occupants of the Oval Office. The “natural born citizen” requirement is not imposed on other federal officials. From the writings of the Founders, its apparent aim was to ensure that no person who had divided loyalties – to the United States and any other nation – would serve as commander in chief.

Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was not born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.

Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of the laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking.

“Obama’s briefs [said] it would be an undue burden and expense to have discovery,” Klayman said.

The judge said he wanted Obama’s representatives to cite the “authority” on which they based their argument that it isn’t necessary to have two citizen parents to be a natural-born citizen.”

“The case explains that even if Barack Hussein Obama was born within the United States, he is still not a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s because, “Barack Obama Sr. was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936. Birth in Kenya made Barack Obama Sr. a British subject, according to and governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.”

A case filing explains: “No physical, paper copy of defendant Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility. … Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered.”

The argument also cites Barack Obama Sr.’s birth in Kenya, making him a “British subject.””

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/watch-florida-eligibility-hearing-live/

Obama attorneys unholy alliance, Obama and his attorneys subvert Constitution and justice, Obama protected from lawsuits and corruption prosecution

Obama attorneys unholy alliance, Obama and his attorneys subvert Constitution and justice, Obama protected from lawsuits and corruption prosecution

“Best case scenario: A high percentage of law school graduates, new attorneys, have already sold their soul to the devil or are in the process of doing so. Any auguments?”…Citizen Wells

“Why were attorneys and law firms the largest contributing industry to the Obama campaign in 2008?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

From the FEC, the largest contributing industry to the 2008 Obama campaign was attorneys and law firms.

From Citizen Wells January 25, 2012.

“Robert Bauer, of Perkins Coie, requested an advisory opinion from the FEC in February of 2007 to determine if Obama could keep his option to receive
presidential matching funds. Bauer and Obama both knew that Obama was not a natural born citizen.

The FEC, in March 2007, responded in the affirmative. Ellen Weintraub, a former Perkins Coie staff member was a committee member.

Obama, in late 2007, in conjuction with other Senators, blocked FEC appointee approval.

For the first half of 2008, the commission has only had two members. Republican Chairman David Mason and Democrat Ellen Weintraub.

On June 19, 2008, Obama announced that he was not accepting presidential matching funds despite being an advocate for and pledging earlier to accept them.

Ellen Weintraub is still on the commission 4 years past the end of her tenure.

Per a Citizen Wells FOIA request to the FEC in August 2008 we learn that an inquiry was made to the FEC on August 18, 2008. The inquiry has information about Obama not being a natural born citizen and requests an opinion. The request is denied. An email from David Kolker, FEC Counsel to Rebekah Harvey, assistant to Ellen Weintraub states “Victory in Berg v. Obama.” The email is dated August 22, 2008, one day after the Philip J. Berg lawsuit was filed and before the FEC was served on August 27, 2008.

On September 2, 2011 the FEC provided an advisory opinion in response to a request from presidential candidate Abdul Hassan. The FEC stated that Hassan was not eligible for presidential matching funds because he is a naturalized and not a natural born citizen. THe FEC acknowledges that although they do not have the power to keep a candidate off of ballots, they have a duty to make certain that only eligible candidates receive matching funds.

“Although the Matching Payment Act does not specifically address the citizenship requirement for serving as President, it sets forth the eligibility
requirements to receive matching funds. See 26 U.S.C. 9033; 11 CFR 9033.2. See also, e.g., Advisory Opinion 1996-07 (Browne for President) (describing the
steps a candidate must take to become eligible for matching funds). These provisions collectively reflect Congressional intent to ensure that U.S. Treasury
funds in the form of matching funds are only paid to eligible candidates. 5″”

Further reading of court cases confirms that the FEC was empowered to do so.

It is clear that Obama did not receive presidential matching funds because if he had done so, a challenge to his natural born citizen status from the FEC or
an election official would have ensued.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/obama-ga-ballot-challenge-circumstantial-evidence-convicts-obama-judge-michael-malihi-why-did-obama-refuse-matching-funds-in-2008-part-6-obama-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

From Citizen Wells March 1, 2012.

“Why has Obama used taxpayer dollars and resources to assist him in keeping his birth certificate, college records and other records hidden since he took control of the White House?

AND

Why did Obama make Robert F. Bauer, an attorney with Perkins Coie, who helped Obama keep his records hidden before taking control of the White House, part of his administration as White House Counsel?

Here is a list of some of the US Justice Department attorneys who have assisted Obama in keeping his records hidden. Their representation of Obama is a matter of public record. This list does not include the support staffs.

Eric Fleisig-Greene

Elizabeth A. Pascal

Neal Kumar Katyal Acting Solicitor General

R. CraiG Lawrence

Mark B. Stern

Andre Birotte Jr.

Leon W. Weidman

David A. Dejute

Roger E. West

George S. Cardona

Tony West

Paul J. Fishman”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/joe-arpaio-news-conference-march-1-2012-cbs-article-obama-eligibility-natural-born-citizen-deficiency-obama-records-hidden-with-justice-dept-attorneys-help/

Reid Schar, former Sidley Austin law firm attorney and Rezko Blagojevich prosecutor is leaving the US Attorney’s Office and joining the law firm of Jenner & Block.

From the Chicago SunTimes June 5, 2012.

“As the lead prosecutor who won corruption convictions that sent former Gov. Rod Blagojevich to prison, Reid J. Schar asked one of the most infamous questions ever posed to a witness at Chicago’s Dirksen Federal Courthouse:

“Mr. Blagojevich, you are a convicted liar, correct?”

Schar posed the question during Blagojevich’s retrial in June of 2011, which set off a dizzying, confrontational exchange with Blagojevich, who took the witness stand in his own defense. Jurors who voted to convict the former governor on 17 of 20 charges later said that it was at that moment when the case turned for them.

Schar, 40, who’s been a federal prosecutor in Chicago for 13 years, said Monday he’s leaving the U.S. attorney’s office to go into private practice. He’s joining the law firm Jenner & Block in Chicago next month as a partner in its white-collar criminal defense and investigations practice.

Schar is just the latest high-profile prosecutor to leave Chicago’s office. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s announcement that he was leaving after more than 10 years is the biggest sign of a changing of the guard that’s been happening throughout the office over recent months.”

“Schar’s departure will no doubt be a loss to the office. He was a key player in the Operation Board Games investigation and part of the trial team that prosecuted Tony Rezko in 2008.”


http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/12968024-418/blagojevich-prosecutor-leaving-us-attorneys-office-for-law-firm.html

Sidley Austin and Jenner & Block.  What possible connection to Barack Obama could they have?

Let’s dig a little deeper.

Voeltz v Obama hearing June 18, 2012, Natural Born Citizen definition to be decided, Judge Terry Lewis, Attorney Larry Klayman, Obama eligibility

Voeltz v Obama hearing June 18, 2012, Natural Born Citizen definition to be decided, Judge Terry Lewis, Attorney Larry Klayman, Obama eligibility

“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

“I do not know where Barack Obama was born. I do know that he has used taxpayer dollars to keep his records hidden.”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

From Obama Ballot Challenge May 31, 2012.

“FLORIDA COURT SETS HEARING ON OBAMA BALLOT CHALLENGE FOR JUNE 18, 2012

Judge Terry Lewis States “Natural Born Citizen” Definition Will Be Decided
May 31, 2012, Tallahassee, FL – Activist attorney Larry Klayman announced today that Judge Terry Lewis of Leon County, FL has set a hearing on June 18th, 2012 at 9:00am to hear arguments from both sides about whether the eligibility of President Barack Hussein Obama can be determined in open court. Judge Lewis made crucial rulings in the famous Bush v. Gore case in 2000.
Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of such laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking. Plaintiff Michael Voeltz, a registered Democrat, challenged the eligibility of President Obama because he was not born to two citizen parents and thus not a “natural born citizen” as required by Article II the U.S. Constitution.
During the hearing over discovery issues, which Mr. Klayman wants to take the week of June 18, Judge Lewis noted that Mr. Klayman’s brief cited legal authority that a president, to be eligible, must have two (2) U.S. citizen parents, but President Obama and the other defendants cited no authority to the contrary. Mr. Klayman had cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Judge Lewis ordered further briefing on this issue prior to the hearing.

Klayman stressed that the eligibility is very important particularly with this president, Barack Hussein Obama. He added: “The framers were not stupid. They understood that a president with divided loyalties could present a security and other risks for our nation. Obama’s Muslim heritage, which emanates from his Kenyan father (who had to be deported from the U.S.), frankly explains why he frequently sides with and takes actions to further the interests of Muslim nations against the United States; specifically his refusal to take forceful action against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its leaders over nuclear armament and human rights violations and atrocities.”

In a CNN interview yesterday Donald Trump stated ‘Obama hates this subject’ meaning the eligibility issue. This is because he appears not to be a legitimate American president, but instead an imposter who has fooled many. Unfortunately, the American people are the victims. It’s time that Obama, despite his protestations in proving his eligibility, either put up or shut up by coming forward with real proof, not doctored, computer-generated “proof” that he is eligible. The courts should finally require this real proof as to whether he is eligible for office,” Klayman added.

Larry Klayman’s work on Voeltz v Obama is being supported by ConstitutionActionFund.org, a non-profit raising money for the legal challenge. PLEASE help.

The case is entitled Voeltz v. Obama, et. al. (No. 2012 CA 467) and is being heard in the Circuit Court Of The Second Judicial Circuit In And For Leon County, Florida. To request an interview please contact Adrienne Mazzone at (561) 750-9800.”

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/florida-court-sets-hearing-on-obama-ballot-challenge-for-june-18-2012

 

Thanks to commenter Starla.

Charlotte Observer Obama facts, Obama hides Birth certificate college and other records, Taxpayer dollars aid in Obama deception, Sheriffs Arpaio and Pendergraph question Obama

Charlotte Observer Obama facts, Obama hides Birth certificate college and other records, Taxpayer dollars aid in Obama deception, Sheriffs Arpaio and
Pendergraph question Obama

“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 is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

“Pendergraph’s long experience as a public servant, especially his 12 years as Mecklenburg County sheriff, would be an asset. He understands the value of service to constituents and responding quickly and efficiently to their cares and concerns.”…Charlotte Observer

Since the Charlotte Observer endorsed Jim Pendergraph, rescinded the endorsement when Pendergraph questioned Obama’s birthplace and attacked Jim Pendergraph and Sheriff JOe Arpaio for simply doing their job and asking simple questions, I feel it is my duty as a natural born citizen of the United States, eligible for the US Presidency and a native born citizen of North Carolina and resident of NC, to do the job that the Charlotte Observer and most members of the mainstream media have failed to do. That is, explain to you why Jim Pendergraph and Sheriff Joe Arpaio have questions and concerns about Obama’s birthplace, birth certificate, eligibility for the presidency and other records.

I am going to make this so simple that anyone can follow it.

01. First and very important. Barack Obama, unlike John McCain, has never presented a legitimate long form certified copy of his birth certificate. This
includes the numerous court challenges to Obama.

02. Various entities placed images of a COLB (Certification of Live Birth) on the internet purported to be Obama’s but never proven to have originated from
the State of Hawaii. Even if Obama had personally presented one of these in court, it would have been thrown out as conclusive proof of Hawaiian birth. There were 4 ways of getting one of these when Obama was born and one could be born abroad.

03. Numerous challenges to Obama’s eligibility have been made in court beginning in 2008. These challenges have demanded proof of Obama’s eligibility and most have requested legitimate copies of Obama’s birth certificate, college and other records. None of these challenges has been pled before higher courts
or the Supreme Court of the US.

04. Irrespective of where Obama was born, per the accepted definition of Natural Born Citizen when the US Constitution was written, Obama is not eligible
because he did not have 2 US citizen parents.

05. Obama has employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting documents and proof of eligibility.

06. In 2008 Obama employed Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie and other private attorneys to assist him in keeping his records hidden. Obama hired Robert Bauer as White House counsel in 2009.

07. Since taking the White House, Obama has used numerous US Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to assist him in keeping his records hidden.

08. Recently Obama has employed private attorneys to assist him in eligibility challenges. Remember, in 2008 when John McCain was challenged on his
eligibilty, he promptly presented a legitimate birth certificate.

09. Tim Adams, an election official who worked in the elections office in Hawaii in 2008 signed an affidavit stating that there was no birth certificate for
Barack Obama in HI in 2008.

10. The new Governor Of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, soon after taking office, stated that he could find no birth certificate for Obama.

11. In April 2011, an image purporting to be the long form birth certificate for Barack Obama was placed on WhiteHouse.com. Most experts immediately
determined that it was a clear fraud. All one has to do to dismiss this image as evidence is to read the bottom of the image:

“I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of health.” Alvin T. Onaki, Ph.D.

Abstract: “The term abstract is subject to different meanings, but in a legal sense, it refers to an abbreviated history of an official record.”

Or abstract disqualifies it.

12. Sheriff Joe Arpaio, at the request of hundreds of his constituents, assembled a cold case posse, at no cost to taxpayers and performed a professional investigation, seeking the truth about Obama’s birth certificate and other records. The image placed on WhiteHouse.gov was determined to be a forgery and Obama’s selective service application is believed to be a forgery as well. Sheriff Arpaio is currently attempting to get the Selective Service Administration to cooperate.

13. Documented and reported here, Obama lied on his Illinois Bar Application. Obama omitted his other names and his numerous parking tickets that he later paid when running for president.

The above are just the highlights, the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Any rational, concerned, believer in the US Constitution and rule of law would have doubts about Barack Obama by being aware of these facts.

How many of these facts were reported by the Charlotte Observer?

The damning information about Obama may be in his college records and Selective Service Records.

Charlotte Observer lies to protect Obama, Observer endorsed Jim Pendergraph then rescinded and attacked, Charlotte Observer gives Obama free ride and attacks Pendergraph and Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Charlotte Observer lies to protect Obama, Observer endorsed Jim Pendergraph then rescinded and attacked, Charlotte Observer gives Obama free ride and attacks Pendergraph and Sheriff Joe Arpaio

“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

“When you pick up your morning or evening newspaper and think
you are reading the news of the world, what you are reading
is a propaganda which has been selected, revised, and doctored
by some power which has a financial interest in you.”
…. Upton Sinclair
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

The Charlotte Observer, by hiding the truth about Obama and by attacking those courageous Americans attempting to bring the truth about Obama to light, has become an embarassment to the state of NC, the nation and all lovers of constitutional truth.

The Charlotte Observer endorsed Republican congressional candidate Jim Pendergraph and then after Pendergraph questioned the messiah, Obama, they rescinded their endorsement and attacked Pendergraph and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is doing his job, unlike the Obama lackeys at the Observer.

Make no mistake about it. The Charlotte Observer has written lies about Jim Pendergraph and Sheriff Joe Arpaio and insulted millions of concerned Americans who still cherish and obey the US Constitution.

April 28, 2012: The Charlotte Observer endorses Jim Pendergraph.

“Pendergraph strongest pick in 9th District

Commissioner, former sheriff is conservative and pragmatic”

“But we give our nod to Mecklenburg County commissioner Jim Pendergraph. We believe he has broad appeal and understands the district’s needs best. He speaks
with a strong conservative voice but seems pragmatic in how he would represent the district – focusing on constituent needs and getting things done.

He did sign a no-tax increases pledge and said he would focus on spending cuts. But he said he would consider taxes if “every other way possible” was tried
and failed to reduce the deficit and get the economy going.

Pendergraph gained national exposure as sheriff for his leadership in the 287(g) program, which allows local officials to enforce federal immigration laws.
He was the first sheriff east of California to use the controversial program. But his views on immigration reform are more nuanced. He favors both
enforcement and reforms that would allow the immigrant workers that the country needs to be able to work here. The issue should be dealt with in a “common-
sense” way, he says.

Pendergraph’s long experience as a public servant, especially his 12 years as Mecklenburg County sheriff, would be an asset. He understands the value of
service to constituents and responding quickly and efficiently to their cares and concerns.

This race has been marred by negative advertising, largely aimed at Pendergraph from GOP challenger Robert Pittenger, a former state lawmaker. Those ads and
the sniping back and forth at debates distracted attention from the candidates’ records and positions. The people in the 9th district deserved better. We
hope the candidates will give them better in the waning days of this primary season. If not, voters should remember that in the voting booth.”

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/04/28/3205731/pendergraph-strongest-pick-in.html

April 28, 2012: Sheriff Joe Arpaio campaigns with and endorses Pendergraph.

“With his primary campaign for Congress entering what he called the short road, Republican Jim Pendergraph on Saturday drew support from controversial yet
popular Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Arpaio spoke at a Pendergraph campaign rally that drew 100 people to Lancaster’s BBQ in Huntersville ahead of the May 8 primary.

Arpaio and Pendergraph described each other as friends.

Both men have drawn questions over the years about their views on immigration. As Mecklenburg’s former sheriff, Pendergraph launched the 287(g) program that
identifies illegal immigrants in the jail. He took a federal job to increase state and local coordination of immigration laws.

Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County near Phoenix, is known for a hard-line approach toward immigration. The U.S. Justice Department has accused him of
violating the civil rights of Latinos.

He said when Pendergraph was with the federal government, he praised the operations in Maricopa. Arpaio never forgot his help.

Pendergraph said Arpaio is “trying to protect the citizens of Arizona because the federal government won’t.” He called on the federal government to enforce
the immigration laws.

Arpaio also said he hopes Congress will “finally look at (illegal immigration) and do something about it.”

Arpaio drew questions about his investigation into the authenticity of President Barack Obama’s birth records.

He said his probe shows the documents were forged, and criticized other elected leaders and law enforcement for failing to look into the issue. Obama and
others have long refuted claims the documents are false.”

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/04/27/3205885/arizona-sheriff-arpaio-lends-support.html

May 2, 2012: Jim Pendergraph, “I have reason to be suspicious,” 

“Pendergraph ‘suspicious’ of Obama’s birthplace”

“Few people are as publicly identified with the so-called “birther” issue as Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has his own “posse” on the case.

Last weekend, Arpaio shared his skepticism about President Barack Obama’s birthplace – and his eligibility for the White House – when he was in Charlotte
campaigning for Republican congressional candidate Jim Pendergraph.

So what does Pendergraph, and for that matter other 9th District candidates, think of Obama’s legitimacy?

“I have reason to be suspicious,” he said. “But I don’t know. I haven’t seen the facts. I think there’s a lot of smoke and generally when there’s smoke
there’s got to be fire somewhere.”uth
Obama sought to put questions about his birthplace aside last year when he released a birth certificate from Hawaii. For many people, that settled the issue.

Even Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus last year declared the issue a distraction and said, “the president was born in the United
States.”

But in March, Arpaio’s group declared the birth certificate a forgery.

While Pendergraph said he’s not sure it is, he said, “I’ve been around long enough to know people can forge anything.””

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/05/02/3214498/pendergraph-suspicious-of-obamas.htm

May 03, 2012: Charlotte Observer rescinds endorsement of Pendergraph.

“What a run for Republican Jim Pendergraph. After winning the Observer’s endorsement in his bid for Congress, he has done nothing but embarrass us and
himself.

By buddying up to one of America’s more hateful egomaniacs and then joining with fringe “birthers” to question President Obama’s citizenship, Pendergraph has contradicted much of what he told the Observer’s editorial board in his endorsement interview last month. As a result, we have lost faith in him, and urge voters to consider Edwin Peacock or Ric Killian in the 9th Congressional District race.

Not infrequently, the Observer endorses candidates with whom we do not agree on all, or even most, of the issues. That is because we consider the views of
the constituents the candidate seeks to represent. We often endorsed Rep. Sue Myrick using that logic. When choosing among 10 Republicans in the 9th District race, we considered not only the extent to which we agreed with the candidate but the extent to which he represented the views of the conservative 9th District. We seek a candidate with integrity, intellect, common sense and sincerity, and whose views are not so extreme as to not reflect his district.

Pendergraph came off as a decided moderate in our endorsement process, a comportment not entirely inconsistent with his work the past year-plus as a
Mecklenburg County commissioner. He sounded reasonable on immigration, saying that illegal immigrants who are already here should be allowed to stay here. He supported comprehensive immigration reform and allowing current illegal immigrants to pay some penalty and then have a path to citizenship.

He also talked about his disdain for the polarization that plagues Washington today. He said balancing the budget would require something like the Bowles-
Simpson plan, and specifically said taxes may have to rise as part of a comprehensive plan to erase the deficit. “Let’s be honest – it’s not going to be
without pain for all of us,” he said.

How sensible.

Then he rallied in Huntersville with Maricopa County (Ariz.) Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a Melvillian character on a never-ending crusade against Latinos. The only
thing that energizes Arpaio more than stroking his ego is profiling Hispanics. The U.S. Justice Department found Arpaio led “a pervasive culture of
discriminatory bias against Latinos” and one expert in the report said Arpaio led the worst racial profiling in U.S. history.

Pendergraph pandered further this week by saying he has “reason to be suspicious” about whether President Obama was born in the United States. “… Generally when there’s smoke, there’s got to be fire somewhere,” he said, even as he acknowledged “I haven’t seen the facts.”

It all gives one the sense that Pendergraph will say whatever a given audience wants to hear, if it will help him get elected. That makes how he would act in
Congress a mystery.

Peacock, Killian strong

Republican voters have at least two better choices in Tuesday’s primary. Former Charlotte City Council member Edwin Peacock brings a thoughtful, moderate
approach to issues. He seeks to solve problems rather than be paralyzed by partisanship. And state Rep. Ric Killian brings broad experience in public office
and the military. A colonel in the Army Reserve who has spent significant time in Afghanistan, Killian understands security matters. He is earnest and
forthright and would bring a sensible conservatism to Congress.”

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/05/03/3217068/2-better-choices-in-9th-congressional.html#storylink=cpy

To the Charlotte Observer.

If you wish to respond, I will publish it.

More importantly, if you wish to compare notes or discuss these issues, I am available.

The Charlotte Observer is awarded 5 Orwells.

Natural Born Citizen must be defined by courts, US District Judge S. Thomas Anderson, Obama eligibility case, Qualification for presidency important not trivial

Natural Born Citizen must be defined by courts, US District Judge S. Thomas Anderson, Obama eligibility case, Qualification for presidency important not trivial

“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.”

“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.”…Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury Vs Madison

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“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 WND April 26, 2012.

“JUDGE WANTS DEFINITION OF ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'”

“A federal judge has determined in a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility for a state ballot that the meaning of the constitutional phrase “natural born citizen” is “important and not trivial.”

U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.”

“This specific question has been raised in numerous lawsuits filed since President Obama took office,” Anderson wrote in his opinion. “The outcome of the federal question in this case will certainly have an effect on other cases presenting the same issue about whether President Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.”

Van Irion, whose Liberty Legal Foundation brought the case, alleges the plan by Tennessee Democrats to register Obama as their nominee for president opens a case, under state law, of negligent misrepresentation and fraud or intentional misrepresentation because of doubts about Obama’s eligibility.

Irion was pleased the court recognized the significance of the claims.

“The court made several very positive statements about our case,” he noted.

He cited Anderson’s statement that the court “finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a qualification for the presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.”

“It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial,” the judge said.

Anderson said it also is “clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

Irion told supporters, “While it is certainly dangerous to read too much into such an opinion, the statements from this federal court are encouraging. The court appears to understand the most critical issues presented by our complaint.”

He told WND that the issue identified by Anderson is what virtually all of the dozens of cases challenging Obama’s eligibility have been seeking: a ruling on accusations that Obama is unqualified.

Previously, cases have been dismissed based on standing or other technicalities, not on the merits.

The decision from Anderson came in a case brought by Irion on behalf of voters and political candidates in Tennessee. The plaintiffs argue Obama’s name cannot be submitted because he is ineligible.

The defendants had moved the case from state court, where Irion wanted to argue the state issues, to federal court, where Obama virtually has batted a thousand in preventing cases from reaching the point at which the merits are assessed.

Irion had submitted a motion to have the case returned to the state courts, a request Anderson denied.

But Irion was heartened by the comments from the judge, who said that without a determination on the questions facing the court, there easily could be differing results in court jurisdictions around the nation.

“There is a risk of inconsistent adjudications on the federal issue presented,” the judge said.

Irion also had raised questions about “Obama’s dual citizenship” and allegations that his Social Security number is fraudulent.

“The court construes these allegations about President Obama … as corroboration of plaintiffs’ main allegation that President Obama is not a natural born citizen or otherwise qualified to be president,” the judge wrote.

Anderson’s opinion included a notation that the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett defined “natural born citizen” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”

“It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of president Obama’s birth, the president is a ‘natural born citizen,’ a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law,” he wrote.

The case is developing just as a new petition urges members of Congress to take the issue seriously by investigating it. The number of names on the document has surged past 40,000 and soon will be approaching 50,000.

WND reported just a day ago that members of Congress, regarding Obama’s eligibility, still are relying on statements from Hawaii officials, “vetting” by voters and his own word.

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio., for example has said. “I will continue to take the president at his word that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.”

Obama released an image of a Hawaiian long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, after years of stating that the document was not available. But at that time, the Hawaii Department of Health and governor’s office refused to confirm for WND that the image released was an accurate representation of the state’s records.

However, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s law enforcement investigators have found probable cause that the document is a forgery. Others, meanwhile, argue that the document affirms Obama is not eligible, because it lists his father as a foreigner. The Founders, they argue, understood “natural born citizen” to be the offspring of two American citizens.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/judge-wants-definition-of-natural-born-citizen/

More on Natural Born Citizen from Citizen Wells December 28, 2008.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/natural-born-citizen-obama-is-not-eligible-obama-birth-certificate-us-constitution-founding-fathers-intent-lawsuits-obama-kenyan-vattel%E2%80%99s-the-law-of-nations-john-jay-berg-donofrio-k/

Reprinted from Citizen Wells December 7, 2008.

Donofrio versus Wells is before all nine Justices of the US Supreme Court
and it is expected that they will decide by Monday morning, December 8,
2008 whether or not they will accept the case for a possible opinion or ruling.
The Leo Donofrio case is based on the natural born citizen provision of the
US Constitution and the failure of New Jersey Secretary of State, Nina Wells to ensure
that Barack Obama is qualified under that provision. Having the US Supreme
Court give serious consideration to this case and uphold the US Constitution
is of utmost importance. However, this case demands attention to other
aspects of upholding the Constitution and clarifying duties that may in the
long term have more far reaching consequences. Here are three distinct
aspects of the Donofrio case that must be addressed and clarified by the
US Supreme Court Justices:

  • The Natural Born Citizen provision of the US Constitution as applicable to the 2008 election.
  • The powers given to state officials in the election process and inherent duties to uphold the
    US Constitution and Federal Election Laws.
  • The oath of office taken by federal and state officers, election officials and judges and the
    duty to uphold the US Constitution.

Not addressed specifically in the Donofrio lawsuit and therefore
not before the US Supreme Court, but a matter of much confusion,
is the statutes in some of the states and pledges by some
political parties to dictate how Electoral College Electors must
vote. This violates the letter and spirit of constitutional law
and the intent of the founding fathers to give carefully chosen
Electors the leeway to make wise choices.

Here is the basis in fact of Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit:

“On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.”

“The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written “statement”, prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were “by law entitled” to be listed on ballots in New Jersey.  The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.

The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary’s oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.

The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President.  These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.”

“Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test.  The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.”

HERE ARE THE THREE DISTINCT ASPECTS OF DONOFRIO’S LAWSUIT THAT SHOULD BE REVIEWED AND CLARIFIED
BY THE US SUPREME COURT JUSTICES:

The Natural Born Citizen provision of the US Constitution as applicable to the 2008 election.

Leo Donofrio states:

“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.”

Read more from Leo Donofrio

The powers given to state officials in the election process and inherent duties to uphold the
US Constitution and Federal Election Laws.

There is much confusion and misunderstanding about the duties and powers of state officers and election
officials involved in presidential elections.

Read more here

The oath of office taken by federal and state officers, election officials and judges and the
duty to uphold the US Constitution.

From the opinion by Chief Justice Marshall on Marbury Vs Madison:


“The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on the subject. It is in these words, “I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States.”

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?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

For the Justices of the US Supreme Court to disregard this important
lawsuit by Leo Donofrio, I am certain that all nine Justices would
violate their oath to uphold the US Constitution and duty to review,
consider and clarify the important principles outlined above. We are
accountable not only to uphold  the US Constitution and rule of law
in regard to the 2008 election, but the future integrity of the
Constitution, our system of checks and balances and stability of our
government. I strongly urge the Supreme Court Justices to help keep
our Constitution and government intact.
“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.”

Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury Vs Madison

Obama NJ eligibility court case update, April 11, 2012, Judge Masin rules in Obama’s favor, Mario Apuzzo files exception, WhiteHouse.gov image irrelevant

Obama NJ eligibility court case update, April 11, 2012, Judge Masin rules in Obama’s favor, Mario Apuzzo files exception, WhiteHouse.gov image irrelevant

“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 is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…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

From Conservative New and Views April 10, 2012.

“OBAMA ELIGIBILITY: NJ ALJ DUCKS ISSUES”

“In the latest Obama eligibility challenge, an Administrative Law Judge cleared Obama for the New Jersey Democratic Primary today. The two men who objected to Obama’s nominating petition vowed to appeal.”

“Obama eligibility issues

Nick Purpura of Wall Township, NJ, and Ted Moran of Toms River, NJ, filed their objection Thursday with the New Jersey Board of Elections. Lawyer Mario Apuzzo of Jamesberg, NJ, delivered the brief and spoke directly to Robert Giles, Director of Elections. Apuzzo argued Purpura and Moran’s case today (Tuesday, April 10) at the Office of Administrative Law in Mercerville. The Elections Division notified the Obama campaign at once, and they sent their own lawyer, Alexandra Hill, to appear. Administrative Law Judge (and Associate Director of the OAL) Jeff Masin presided.

Purpura and Moran objected to Obama appearing on the June 5 Democratic Primary ballot on two grounds:

No one knows exactly who Barack H. Obama is, because he has had three different names in life. Furthermore, he has never furnished a true copy of his birth certificate to the Secretary of State. So no one can be sure that Obama was born in the United States.
Obama’s father was a British colonial subject. He not only was not a naturalized citizen on the alleged date of Obama’s birth, but indeed never sought naturalization. Therefore Obama could never be a natural-born citizen no matter where he was born.
Ms. Hill offered no evidence, but spent her time objecting to the entire case, to every witness whom Apuzzo called, and every document he tried to introduce. In every specific case, she said that the documents were neither originals nor certified copies. More generally, she said repeatedly that New Jersey law did not obligate Obama in any way to prove that he was eligible to the office of President. The only grounds for challenging a nominating petition, said Hill, were whether the petitions were in the proper form, all who signed were registered voters, no voter signed more than one petition, whether the campaign gathered enough signatures, etc.

Apuzzo countered that the New Jersey Constitution and at least one case on point (Strother, 6 NJ @ 565), obliged the Secretary of State to find affirmatively whether a given candidate was qualified for the office he or she sought, or not.

A surprise admission
About two-thirds of the way through the hearing, Hill admitted in open court something that no lawyer for the Obama campaign has ever admitted. Obama never furnished a true copy of his birth certificate to the New Jersey Secretary of State. Furthermore, the PDF file that the White House has served to the Internet since April 27, 2012, is not relevant to the case in any way.

Hill conceded this point after Apuzzo tried to call Brian Wilcox, an expert document analyst. He was ready to show that no one could rely on the PDF file as a substitute for a hard-copy long-form birth certificate. But Judge Masin said at once that neither he nor Secretary of State Kim Guadagno had ever seen a birth certificate, whether on paper, as a PDF file, or on the Internet. He told Apuzzo that calling Wilcox would be “premature.”

Then Masin turned to Hill and asked her directly:

Is it your legal position that the document on the Internet is irrelevant to this case?

Hill replied, “Yes.” Masin then asked:

And indeed you concede that Mr. Obama has not produced an alleged birth certificate to the Secretary of State.

Hill at first said, “It has been released nationally,” but then admitted that she did not know personally that Obama had given any such document to the Secretary of State, nor did she intend giving such a document to the court today. But she also argued, after Judge Masin asked her repeatedly, that Obama need not produce any evidence at all.

Apuzzo told CNAV during a recess in the hearing that this was the most stunning thing that any lawyer for Obama had ever admitted, in an Obama eligibility case or in any other case. When the hearing finally adjourned at 12:30 p.m., Apuzzo was confident of prevailing on this point. He observed that Hill, after objecting to everything that Apuzzo tried to introduce into evidence, offered no evidence on her own behalf and even admitted that the infamous PDF document was legally worthless.

A shocking turnabout
But the judge shocked Apuzzo when, at about 7:30 p.m., he called Apuzzo to tell him that the Obama campaign had prevailed on both points. Said the judge, according to Apuzzo:

As far as I’m concerned, Obama was born in Hawaii.

Apuzzo could not explain how Judge Masin could rule that way, after observing in open court that neither Obama nor his surrogates had shown that he was born in Hawaii.

Within two hours, according to a deadline that Masin gave him, Apuzzo filed an exception to Masin’s ruling. Apuzzo took exception to the following:

Judge Masin ruled that Obama was born in Hawaii with no evidence on record, after acknowledging that fact during the hearing.
Judge Masin ruled that Obama need not comply with statute to show that he is eligible, solely because he need not “consent” to someone circulating a nominating petition for him.
The judge suggested that Obama might have to show eligibility later. He laid no basis for such a ruling.
The judge misread the precedents and gave short shrift to the historical evidence that the Framers of the Constitution defined “natural-born citizen” as one born in-country to two citizen parents. Apuzzo devoted half of his 30-page exception to this analysis alone.

Apuzzo plans to appeal directly to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. He earlier told CNAV that he was ready to argue before the State and even United States Supreme Courts if he had to.”

http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/04/10/constitution/obama-eligibility-nj-alj-ducks-issues/

Justice Tom Parker charges of forgery of Obama birth certificates legitimate cause for concern, Alabama State Supreme Court justice, Hugh McInnish petition

Justice Tom Parker charges of forgery of Obama birth certificates legitimate cause for concern, Alabama State Supreme Court justice, Hugh McInnish petition

“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 is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”…Jesus, John 8:32

From WND, World Net Daily, March 30, 2012.

“HIGH COURT JUSTICE: OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE FISHY”

“Says evidence raises ‘serious questions about authenticity'”

“An Alabama State Supreme Court justice earlier this week agreed that findings suggesting Barack Obama presented a forged birth certificate to the nation “would raise serious questions about the [document’s] authenticity” if presented as evidence in court.

Though the Alabama court denied a a petition filed by Hugh McInnish seeking to require an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate before the sitting president would be allowed on the state’s ballot in November, Justice Tom Parker filed a special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.

Parker writes, “Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”

The “certain documentation” Parker refers to is the findings of an investigation conducted by Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

As WND reported, Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse announced there is probable cause indicating the documents released by the White House last April purported to be Obama’s original, long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration card are actually forgeries.”

“Parker, who also wrote a concurrence in another case arguing Roe v. Wade should be overturned, agreed that Arpaio’s findings were legitimate cause to question Obama’s presented documents, but nonetheless joined his fellow justices in denying McInnish’s petition.”

Read more:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/high-court-justice-obama-birth-certificate-fishy/