Category Archives: PHILIP J. BERG

Barack Obama must prove eligibility or step down, Obama not eligible, December 18, 2008, Citizen Wells request to Obama, Greatest Generation sacrifices, Obama me generation, Patrick Fitzgerald investigations, Will Obama be indicted?

Why Barack Obama should be indicted

Part 7

One or more of the following events should happen:

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

If one of the above does not occur within a few months,
perhaps we should look to the Declaration of Independence
or Thomas Jefferson, for our next strategy.

Barack Obama

Prove you are eligible

or

Step down

 

I have the utmost respect for the “Greatest Generation.” This is
the generation that weathered the Great Depression, saved the
world in World War II and set a standard of self discipline and
sacrifice that is a model for generations to come. John McCain
comes from a long history of family sacrifice for country. He
serves as a bridge from the “Greatest Generation” to the baby
boomers and subsequent generations. Contrast these models of
self sacrifice and giving to others with Barack Obama and his
core support, the “me” generation. With Obama and much of his
support, it is all about me.

I read the obituaries each morning for two reasons. One to see
if anyone I know or a family member of theirs is listed. The other
reason is to read the short accounts of servicemen in World War II.
There were two side by side this morning that caught my attention.
One had been in the Marines in the South Pacific and the other was
in the Army Infantry and fought in the Battle of the Bulge. Those
two men, who at a young age were thrust into a hell on earth,
and along with others of their generation, made it possible for us
to have an election this year. We came closer to Nazi domination
than most people realize.

Fast forward over sixty years to the 2008 election year. We have a
candidate, Barack Obama, that has consistently only looked out for
himself at the expense of others. This includes community organizing
that was just a front for political agendas. Consider these quotes
from a report to Catholic Bishops:

“To be eligible to receive CHD funds, a program must be run by the poor, benefit the poor, and change social structures that harm the poor.” However, in light of the politically oriented thrust of ACORN’s activities, it is fair to ask whether the CHD subsidies to ACORN are advisable and commensurate with the purposes of CHD.”

“This commentary does not oppose CHD funding of genuine, grassroots community organizations, run and supported by individual members of a parish or diocese. There is potential value and virtue in the collective voice. However, when the CHD funds Alinsky-style, church-based community organizations as in the best interest of the poor and supports organizations which advance other agendas, it divests the poor of their right to an authentic voice. This process tends to treat the poor as exploited units of human capital, rather than as human beings created in the dignity of God’s image.”

What Acorn and Community Organizers are really about

Think Obama has been looking out for you?

Barack Obama has taken advantage of all that this country has to
offer including education. What has he given in return? A history
of posturing himself for the presidency and association with crime
and corruption to further his career. Obama appeals to people who
are just like him, classic takers, not givers. Obama promises free
college and tax breaks for almost everyone knowing full well he can
not come through with those promises and that they are not good for
the country. Why does he promise all those things? Because it is
all about getting elected. Me me me.

The soldiers returning from World II received college educations. They
paid for their educations with blood and guts and the greatest sacrifices.

Barack Obama, the Patrick Fitzgerald investigations are closing in
on you. You will be required to prove your eligibility to be
president sooner or later.

 

Barack Obama, for once in your life, do something for the people of this
country.

Prove you are eligible to be president or step down.

 

2008 Election Certificate of Vote, Electoral College Electors, Minnesota Certificate, Secretary of State, US Constitution, Twelfth Amendment, Governor, Obama not eligible, Citizen Wells, Democratic Disaster, December 16, 2008, Al Franken, Norm Coleman controversy

“Ignorance is not bliss.”

“Knowledge is Power.”

Minnesota could soon be famous for another 2008 Election
controversy aside from the Al Franken, Norm Coleman
senate race controversy. The Certificate of Voters must
be signed and mailed to the US Senate. If Minnesota uses
the same Certificate that was used in 2004, they had better
rethink sending it in without complying with the reference
to the Twelfth Amendment to the US Constitution. There are
2 places in the Twelfth Amendment that refer to presidential
eligibility:

“as in the case of the death or other
constitutional disability of the President.”

“But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of
President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the
United States.”

Everyone involved in the presidential election has an obligation
to uphold the US Constitution. MN has taken it one step further
and explicitly included it in their certificate.

One might ask how MN Electoral College Electors would know this.
The Citizen Wells blog along with organizations like Democratic
Disaster and many other people have been notifying election
officials in all 50 states regarding the serious eligibility
issues surrounding Barack Obama and the duties of all responsible.
In addition there are many court cases in state courts as well
as before the US Supreme Court. So, ignorance of the facts or
duties will be no excuse. Check the Certificate for signatures.
Those signing the 2008 Certificate without ensuring they are
complying with the Twelfth Amendment, are most certainly
guilty of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” and certainly removal
from office.

California Certificate of Voters is questionable

Do we have any takers?

Anyone want to call the Governor or Secretary of State’s office in Minnesota?

Recall initiatives, impeachment, removal from office?

2004 MN Certificate of Vote

mncertofvote

2008 Election Certificate of Vote, Electoral College Electors, California example, Secretary of State, US Constitution, Governor, Alan Keyes, Lawsuit, Obama not eligible, Citizen Wells, Democratic Disaster, December 16, 2008

“Ignorance is not bliss.”

“Knowledge is Power.”

The Citizen Wells blog and many other citizens have been busy for months
informing state officers, election officials, Electoral College Electors
and judges of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama and reminding
those people of their duty under the US Constitution, federal and state
laws. Despite these warnings and reminders, the states have plodded along
based on tradition, ignorance and party politics. Numerous lawsuits in
state and federal courts as well as the US Supreme court should have served
as a huge warning that something was wrong. We need someone like Harry
Truman to remind everyone that “The buck stops here.”

The Electoral College met yesterday and the next step in the process is for
state officials to prepare a certificate of vote and send it to the US Senate
and other locations described below. This is a very important document and in
highest sense of the word a legal document. The format of the document is
left up to the states. Remember, all of those people involved in the election
process are sworn to uphold the US Constitution. However, some of the states
have wording in their documents as a reminder of the obligation to uphold
the various laws.

We will focus on California for multiple reasons.

The following is taken from the 2004 certificate of vote:

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

From the dictionary:

pursuant to

in conformance to or agreement with; “pursuant to our agreement”; “pursuant to the dictates of one’s conscience”  

Now consider the following:

Electoral College Questions and Answers

Citizen Wells letter to Electoral College Electors

The Alan Keyes lawsuit is still alive questioning the eligibility
of Barack Obama.

The CA Secretary of State was contacted by the Citizen Wells blog,
the Democratic Disaster organization and numerous other entities.

It is clear to even a casual observer that Barack Obama is not
eligible to be president and that Electors in CA and throughout
the nation, despite compelling evidence that Obama is not eligible,
plodded along and engaged in the worst kind of party politics, and
violated the US Constitution.

2004 CA Certificate of Vote

cacertofvote2004

Electoral College Vote and subsequent procedures:

4.   Hold the Meeting of Electors
On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 15, 2008), the electors meet in their respective States. Federal law does not permit the States to choose an alternate date for the meeting of electors – it must be held on December 15, 2008. The State legislature may designate where in the State the meeting will take place, usually in the State capital. At this meeting, the electors cast their votes for President and Vice President.

If any electors are unable to carry out their duties on the day of the Electoral College meeting, the laws of each State would govern the method for filling vacancies. Any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of electors must be decided under State law at least six days prior to the meeting of the electors.

See Title 3, Section 6 of the U.S. Code
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. Some States have such requirements.

5.   Prepare the Certificate of Vote
Federal law does not govern the general appearance of the Certificate of Vote. The format is determined under the law or custom of the submitting State. The electors must execute six Certificates of Vote. Federal law requires that the Certificates be prepared and authenticated in the following manner:
The Certificates of Vote must contain two distinct lists, one for President and one for Vice President.
The Certificates must list all persons who received electoral votes for President and the number of electors who voted for each person.
The Certificates must list all persons who received votes for Vice President and the number of electors who voted for each person.
The Certificates do not contain the names of persons who did not receive electoral votes.
Each of the six Certificates of Vote must be signed by all of the electors.

One of the six Certificates of Ascertainment provided to the electors by the Governor must be attached to each of the six Certificates of Vote.

Finally, each of the six pairs of Certificates must be sealed and certified by the electors as containing the list of electoral votes of that State for President and Vice President.
6.   Distribute the Paired Certificates of Vote and Certificates of Ascertainment
The six pairs of Certificates must be sent to the designated Federal and State officials as follows:
One is sent by registered mail to:
The Honorable Richard B. Cheney
President of the United States Senate
The Capitol
Washington, DC 20510

Two are sent by registered mail to:
Allen Weinstein
Archivist of the United States
National Archives and Records Administration
c/o Office of the Federal Register (NF)
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001

Two are sent to:

The Secretary of State of each State.

One of these is held subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate or the Archivist of the United States in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Senate or the Archivist.
The other one is to be preserved by the Secretary of State for public inspection for one year.
One is sent to:

The Chief Judge of the Federal District Court located where the electors meet.

It is held subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate or the Archivist of the United States in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Senate or the Archivist.
The statutory deadline for the designated Federal and State officials to receive the electoral votes is December 24, 2008. Because of the very short time between the meetings of the electors in the States on December 15 and the December 24 statutory deadline, followed closely by the counting of electoral votes in Congress on January 6, 2009, it is imperative that the Certificates be mailed as soon as possible.

We strongly recommend that the sealed pairs of Certificates be taken to the Post Office on December 15, or no later than the morning of December 16, to minimize delays that could occur during the holiday mail season. Some States may find it useful to alert their local Postmaster to the extraordinarily important nature of the mailing. When the paired Certificates of Vote and Certificates of Ascertainment have been delivered to the designated Federal and State officials, the States’ Electoral College duties are complete.

Prior to the election this year, the Legal Staff of the Office of the Federal Register will telephone Secretaries of State and other election officials to establish contact with the States and assure the smooth operation of the Electoral College process.

Read more here:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/state_responsibilities.html#vote

 

Wrotnowski V Bysiewicz, US Supreme Court, December 15, 2008, Justices decide Cort Wrotnowski versus Connecticut Secretary of State Bysiewicz, Writ of Mandamus, Obama not eligible, Stay denied

The US Supreme Court today, Monday, December 15, 2008, the same day
that the Electoral College is meeting to vote for president and vice
president, has decided:

 

08A469

 

 

WROTNOWSKI, CORT V. BYSIEWICZ, CT SEC. OF STATE

 

 

The application for stay and/or injunction addressed

 

 

to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.

 

 

 

Most of the Electors believe, falsely, that they have an overriding
obligation to vote base on political party dictates and/or state laws
dictating they must vote based on the popular vote. The Electors owe
allegiance only to the US Constitution and the American public.

Electoral College Questions and Answers

Citizen Wells letter to Electoral College Electors

This is the opinion of Citizen Wells and I will stand by the following:

The US Supreme Court, on multiple occasions, in regard to several
lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president, have not
addressed three distinct constitutional issues that need to either
be ruled on or clarified:

  • Obama’s eligibility to be president and the relevance of natural
    born citizen.
  • Clarification of state powers and duties to ensure that Electoral
    College Electors have a qualified candidate on the ballot to vote for.
  • Applicability of oaths taken to uphold and defend the Constitution
    to the election process. Marbury V Madison is clear on oaths. Why are
    the states ignoring this?

I respect the institution of the US Supreme Court. That respect does
not automatically flow to the individual Justices. Respect must be
earned. Every citizen of this country has a duty to uphold the US
Constitution. Supreme Court Justices have the highest duty to
uphold the US Constitution. They are not above the law. We will hold
them accountable.

Unless I read something soon that encourages me to believe that the
US Supreme Court is functioning as it should, I am compelled to
believe that some or all of the Supreme Court Justices are guilty of
dereliction of duty, if not “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Here is the heart of the complaint

“HOLDING BY THE PLAINTIFF

 

Holding Regarding the Role of the State Supreme Court
 

The plaintiff asserts that Connecticut law is not explicit with respect to taking action against potential election fraud at the national level.  It neither authorizes nor prohibits.  In fact, it is silent on this important issue.  The only statutes providing direction are 9-323, and for Federal Election Disputes, sec. 10-13, 10-14, 10-15, and 10-17(a) (as found in  Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled:  Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court, pages 385-387.)

We do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government, we have Connecticut state election for electors who are pledged for a particular candidate which allows each state to determine how and in what manner they choose to project their power at the National Electoral College.

 
In the special case of individuals seeking the office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected as to represent the interests of the respective state at the Electoral College.
 

State law determines how the electors are determined and act. Since this is in actual fact a state election, our Secretary of State has prevue over certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast for the named candidate for President, but also the veracity of the system which including publishing and promoting the ballot and for certifying or decertifying challenged candidates; in this case the electors who act as proxies for the candidate.
 

The plaintiff argues that the Connecticut constitution and statutes and enforcement should be consistent with the principles of the U.S. constitution.  When Connecticut law provides no guidance, then an electoral duty ascribed at the national level applies at the state level as well.  If there are national standards for preventing fraud in an election, then there need to be similar standards at the state level.  The state Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring that that Connecticut laws follows the U.S. Constitution.  In particular, Sec. 10-17(a) sets forth how the State Supreme Court can provide remedy.

 

Holding regarding Responsibility of the Secretary of State in National Elections
 

It is argued that the lack of language in the state law does not preclude the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, from verifying national candidates for whom her constituents will vote especially so when allegations of blatant profound fraud is widely asserted.

 

She has threaded a path to inaction by her selective choice of words.  Hers is a “sin of omission” argument.  Estopple argument would say otherwise. Furthermore, without explicate legislative direction, there are still very clear “implied duties” that follow from Connecticut Statutes, Connecticut Constitution and  the U.S. Constitution that demand consideration and action from this independent branch of Government charged with action.

 

There are at least four statutes that set forth the duties of the Secretary of  State.  Plaintiff bolded passages in Sec. 9-3 for emphasis.

 

From:  Connecticut General Statutes

 

Sec. 3-77. General duties; salary. Office of Secretary full time.

…  provisions of section 11-4c. The Secretary may give certified copies of any entries in such records, files, books or other papers and of the files and records of said Superior Court and of the Supreme Court, remaining in the office, which copies shall be legal evidence. … The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of one hundred ten thousand dollars and shall devote full time to the duties of the office.

 

 Sec. 9-3. Secretary to be Commissioner of Elections. Presumption concerning rulings and opinions.

The Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise provided by state statute, the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title, except for chapter 155, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the right of appeal provided under the provisions of chapter 54.

 

 

The bolded language in Sec. 9-3  demonstrates that the legislature fully expected the Secretary of State to act independently and proactively to address situations germane to the task of executing elections consistent with all requirements of the constitutions and statutes.

 

The implied duty argument is vital for circumstances where questions about candidates remain, even up to Election Day.  She claims no such responsibility, yet the “national system” to which Secretary Bysiewicz refers to does not exist and/or has provided no remedy.  Despite popular misunderstanding, the FEC provides no verification whatsoever.  As the Chief of Elections, the Secretary of State is responsible for protecting Connecticut voters from fraud and unfair elections. Buck stops there.

 

Eligibility is a fundamental issue that strikes at the heart of fair elections.  Where the question of eligibility has become so obvious and clear, as in the case of Sen. Obama’s missing birth certificate, the Secretary of State must move to protect the voters, investigating the allegations of fraud or directing such agency as deemed proper such as the SEEC which would investigate and inform the Secretary of State of their findings.”

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Citizen Wells comment

“There is apparently more chicanery going on at the US Supreme Court. First, Leo Donofrio had an unjust encounter
with clerk Danny Bickell. Now, Cort Wrotnowski has filed an emergency stay application with the US Supreme
Court and he is receiving the same unjust treatment from clerk Danny Bickell.”
Leo Donofrio

 

“US Supreme Court stay clerk Danny Bickell is guilty of obstruction of justice for the second time. Yesterday, Cort Wrotnowski filed an emergency stay application in the case WROTNOWSKI V. BYSIEWICZ, CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE, which is coming directly from a Connecticut Supreme Court order of Chief Justic Chase Rogers.

Mr. Wrotnowski was informed by Danny Bickell that Mr. Bickell denied Cort’s motion based on Rule 23.3, the same grounds Mr. Bickell had illegally improperly relied on to obstruct Donofrio v. Wells, the same case which is now going before the entire Supreme Court for Conference of Dec. 5th and to which Donofrio has pointed out Mr. Bickell was guilty of attemping to overturn Justice Powell’s holding in McCarthy v. Briscoe 429 U.S. 1317 n.1 (1976) and Justice O’Conner in Western Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301 (1987).”

“Donofrio (me) believes Mr. Wrotnowski’s case is at least as strong as his own, if not stronger. And Donofrio warned Wrotnowski that Bickell was going to try the same tactic again.”

“Courageously, Mr. Wrotnowski refused to back down and eventually Bickell said he would, reluctantly, docket the case.”

December 2, 2008

Leo Donofrio

“Cort Wrotnowski, (SCOTUS Docket No. 08A469), a day after facing the shock of his life when told by a SCOTUS clerk that his renewed application to Justice Scalia would be held back for 7 days due to anthrax screening, hand delivered 10 copies of his renewed application to the Security booth at SCOTUS this morning at 10:30 AM.  Cort was told by the Clerk’s office that the papers would “probably” be in the Clerk’s office by 2:00 PM.   Cort’s application, according to Supreme Court Rule 22.1, should be “transmitted promptly” to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.  Keep your eyes on that Docket to see if they will follow the Rules of Court.

Citizen Wells letter to Electors, Electoral College, Uphold US Constitution, December 15, 2008 Electors vote, Obama is not eligible, Demand proof, 2008 Election, Election laws, Political Party pledges, State laws unconstitutional

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and
the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service
of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and
thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered;
yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict,
the more glorious the triumph.” —Thomas Paine 1778

To: 2008 Presidential Election Electoral College Electors

From: Citizen Wells

Electors,
You are being put into the uncomfortable position of having to
question your vote for president of the US. In the past, this
was a much simpler decision. Party politics has always been an
issue but in the past, after the general election, the rules
were fairly simple for you. You voted based on the party pledges
and state rules without giving it much thought. The duty to vote
in the manner as directed by the US Constitution has always been
there, but you never had to be concerned about violating it.

The 2008 Election year is unique in American History. Early in
2008 questions arose about the eligibility of John McCain and
Barack Obama to be president. John McCain put to rest any doubts
by presenting to Congress a vault copy of his birth certificate.
As the year progressed and more was learned about Obama’s history
and evasive attitude, more people began questioning Obama’s
eligibility. Several attempts were made on various websites to put
the issue to rest by presenting copies of what were alleged to be
COLB, Certificate of Live Birth. A COLB is a record of birth and
is not a legal verification of location of birth and other birth
facts.

On August 21, 2008, Philip J Berg filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia
Federal Court demanding that Barack Obama provide proof of eligibility.
Mr. Berg provided many details surrounding Obama’s past such as
Obama’s probable birth in Kenya, travel forbidden to American
citizens in Pakistan and Obama’s school records and other records’
that Obama has kept hidden from scrutiny. Many lies and deception
have been initiated by the Obama camp. One of the more interesting
ones is an AP report that tried to insinuate that Hawaiian Health
Department officials stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. They
did not state that.

Many other lawsuits have developed from the Berg lawsuit including
the Alan Keyes lawsuit in CA. Obama has spents hundreds of thousands
of dollars and employed multiple law firms to avoid proving his
eligibility. Lawsuits are still alive in the US Supreme Court and
many state courts. Lawsuits place the burden of proof on the
plaintiff and require very strict legal wording.

Why are you being put in the position of questioning your vote and
complying with the US Constitution? The Constitution gives the power
and control over elections to the states through the vote of the
Electoral College. State laws vary greatly but to various degrees
define how candidates get on the ballot and other rules controlling
the election process. Some states define the method of challenging
or ensuring that a candidate is qualified. Regardless, the states
do have the power and the duty to ensure that a presidential
candidate is qualified to take office.

Why are the states not requiring that a presidential candidate is
qualified? The short answer is that they are passing the buck. The
long answer is that tradition, politics and political parties are
driving the process when in fact political parties are given no
power or authority by the US Constitution. The typical answer
given by a secretary of state or other state election official is
that they get their cue from the political party as to who gets
put on the ballot and some even state that it is the responsibility
of the party to vet the candidate. While I see no problem getting
names for ballots from the political party, that does not remove
the Constitutional duty of the states. This is a blatant violation
of duty by state officers, election officials and judges and could
fall under “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

To make matters worse, the US Supreme Court, on multiple occasions, in
regard to several lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be
president, has not addressed three distinct constitutional issues
that need to either be ruled on or clarified:

  • Obama’s eligibility to be president and the relevance of natural
    born citizen.
  • Clarification of state powers and duties to ensure that Electoral
    College Electors have a qualified candidate on the ballot to vote for.
  • Applicability of oaths taken to uphold and defend the Constitution
    to the election process. Marbury V Madison is clear on oaths. Why are
    the states ignoring this?

No one wants to take responsibility. Why? Many of the reasons are
obvious. Party politics, fear of offending someone, fear of riots,
ignorance, tradition.

Electors. You are in a unique position. We have a system of checks and
balances in this country that has served us well over the centuries.
Our Founding Fathers had witnessed the monarchies and totalitarian
regimes prevalent in much of their world. They did not want that. That
is why we have executive, legislative and judicial branches and that
is also why we have an Electoral College system of voting for president.
The Electoral College was set up by the founding fathers to achieve two
primary goals.To prevent smaller states and lower population areas from
being dominated by a few larger states with higher population densities
and to prevent a tyrant or usurper of power from deceiving an uninformed
populace.

Consider the following quotes:
Alexander Hamilton echoed the thoughts of many of the founding
fathers when he wrote in the Federalist Papers: “afraid a tyrant could
manipulate public opinion and come to power.”
“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.”
Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

Electors, you have a duty to uphold the US Constitution. As Harry Truman
said, “The buck stop here.” You can blindly follow party propaganda or
you can act as concerned Americans and do the right thing. What do other
concerned Americans expect from you? That you make certain that the
candidate that you vote for is qualified under the US Constitution,
nothing more, nothing less.

This is so simple a school child can understand it. Why would Barack
Obama spend so much money, time and resources to avoid proving his
eligibilty. The answer is obvious. Obama is not qualified. However,
all you have to do is demand that he provide legitimate, legal, proof
and you can rest easy knowing you have done your job, your duty to
this country and the US Constitution.

One person, one vote can make a difference:

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

Those Electors helped save the Union and the world.

Electoral College Questions and Answers

Patrick Fitzgerald, Indict Obama, Blagojevich arrest indicts Obama, December 12, 2008, Barack Obama rigged IL Health Facilities Planning Board, Citizen Wells contacted Fitzgerald and US Justice Department, Obama arrest?

Why Barack Obama should be indicted

Part 3

One or more of the following events should happen:

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

If one of the above does not occur within a few months,
perhaps we should look to the Declaration of Independence
or Thomas Jefferson, for our next strategy.

 

Yesterday, Thursday, December 11, 2008 the Citizen Wells blog posted
an article that ended with:

“Since Barack Obama is attempting to sneak through the election
process with a great many legal questions clouding his past and
since the American public needs and depends on the Judicial Branch
of government to protect it from criminals and imposters, I
Citizen Wells, on behalf of the American public, ask that Mr.
Patrick Fitzgerald or any authorized employee of the US Justice
Department, present Mr. Barack H. Obama with an indictment and/or
Criminal Complaint at the earliest possible moment, with time being
of the essence. The Electoral College meets next week and it is
imperative that we do all that is in our power to prevent a
constitutional crisis in this country.”

Barack Obama’s role in rigging the IL Health Facilities Planning Board
by reducing the number of members from 15 to 9 and therefore allowing
Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine and Rod Blagojevich to control the board with
only 5 members, is examined in detail. The indictments and criminal
complaints of Rezko, Levine, Blagojevich and Weinstein reveal their
involvement in board corruption. Obama should be indicted as well.

Citizen Wells plea to Patrick Fitzgerald and US Justice Dept.

Today, Friday, December 12, 2008, Patrick Fitzgerald’s office at
the US Justice Department was notified by telephone call and fax
of the Citizen Wells article and request to indict and/or arrest
Barack H Obama. In addition to Patrick Fitzgerald, the following
USDOJ employees were listed to be copied on the fax:

Reid Schar
Carrie Hamilton
Chris Niewoehner

Obama indictment, Blagojevich arrest, Patrick Fitzgerald, December 11, 2008, Rezko trial,Obama, Rezko, Levine, Blagojevich, Health Planning Board, Pay for Play, IL Senate, Obama arrest and indictment by USDOJ, US Department of Justice, Update December 12, 2008

Yesterday, Thursday, December 11, 2008 the Citizen Wells blog posted
an article that ended with:

“Since Barack Obama is attempting to sneak through the election
process with a great many legal questions clouding his past and
since the American public needs and depends on the Judicial Branch
of government to protect it from criminals and imposters, I
Citizen Wells, on behalf of the American public, ask that Mr.
Patrick Fitzgerald or any authorized employee of the US Justice
Department, present Mr. Barack H. Obama with an indictment and/or
Criminal Complaint at the earliest possible moment, with time being
of the essence. The Electoral College meets next week and it is
imperative that we do all that is in our power to prevent a
constitutional crisis in this country.”

Citizen Wells plea to Patrick Fitzgerald and US Justice Dept.

I just got off the phone. I attempted to contact the US Department
of Justice Office of Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago, IL. I informed
the last person I was connected to that I had posted an article
yesterday on the Citizen Wells blog requesting that the USDOJ indict
and/or arrest Barack Obama. I also indicated that I would fax the
article today. Both people I talked to were a bit short with me, however,
they are getting bombarded with phone calls.

I then called the number for the press office and reached the same lady.

I will provide updates on this important story as I get them.

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewkz. Application for stay/injunction denied without comment or dissent, December 12, 2008

** Update Below **

This was just posted on this blog by Lawdawg:

Submitted on 2008/12/12 at 11:12am
#08A469 Wrotnowski v. Bysiewkz. Application for stay/injunction denied without comment or dissent.
-Lawdawg

** Update **

From Leo Donofrio’s site:

“[UPDATE]: 11:26 AM – Dec. 12 2008 :  Rumors of a decision denying Cort’s application are unequivocally false.  A SCOTUS Spokesperson just told Cort Wrotnowski there has been no decision.  She indicated there will be no decision until Monday.  The conference is sealed, no clerks are allowed in.]”

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Obama indictment, Blagojevich arrest, Patrick Fitzgerald, December 11, 2008, Rezko trial,Obama, Rezko, Levine, Blagojevich, Health Planning Board, Pay for Play, IL Senate, Obama arrest and indictment by USDOJ, US Department of Justice

Why Barack Obama should be indicted

Part 2

One or more of the following events should happen:

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

If one of the above does not occur within a few months,
perhaps we should look to the Declaration of Independence
or Thomas Jefferson, for our next strategy.

Legal Notice

To:

Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald
US Department of Justice
219 S. Dearborn Street, Fifth Floor
Chicago, IL 60604

The US and state governments are composed of Executive,
Legislative and Judicials branches. This is designed to
provide a system of checks and balances and protect the
American public. We now need the protection from the American
Government more than ever. We have a presidential candidate
that will soon be voted for by the Electoral College with
these issues threatening to cause a constitutional crisis:

  • Obama is not a natural born citizen and is ineligible to be
    president.
  • Obama in his official capacity as IL State Senator and US
    Senator has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors on multiple
    occasions.
  • Obama lied on his IL Bar Application.
  • Obama has a very suspect Selective Service Application.
  • Obama has been involved in illegal and corrupt dealings with
    the following indicted and/or convicted IL officials and
    businessmen:  

Tony Rezko
Stuart Levine
Dr. Robert Weinstein
Governor Rod Blagojevich

  • Obama conspired with one or more of the above named to rig
    the IL Health Facilities Planning Board.

Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department have been involved
in an investigation of crime and corruption in Chicago and IL,
sometimes referred to as “pay for play.” This investigation and
subsequent prosecutions has been methodical and well executed. The
initial focus was on Tony Rezko and his trial and conviction that
evolved out the testimony of Stuart Levine who had been wiretapped.
Multiple indictments and arrests have developed from the Rezko trial
leading up to the recent arrest of IL Governor Rod Blagojevich. All
of the people indicted or arrested  out of the investgation have one
thing in common. Connections to Barack Obama. It has been believed for
months that Rezko would talk and that Blagojevich and/or Obama was next.
It is now time to indict Barack H. Obama.

From the Petition to Impeach, expel Senator Obama

Whereas: Senator Barack Obama used the office of IL Senator to facilitate the vote rigging in Chicago as chairman of the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee. Mr. Obama pushed legislation in Senate Bill 1332 to reduce the number of members of the Health Facilities Planning Board from 15 to 9. Mr. Obama did conspire with Stuart Levine, Tony Rezko and Rod Blogojevich to rig the committee and was rewarded with campaign contributions. The new members appointed included 3 doctors who contributed to Mr. Obama. On April 21, 2004, Stuart Levine explicitly advised Dr. Robert Weinstein, who is now indicted, of Tony Rezko’s role in manipulating the Planning Board’s vote.

The following have been indicted and/or arrested

Tony Rezko

“During the same time period, the indictment alleges, Rezko and Levine also were seeking to obtain a kickback of at least $1 million from contractor Jacob Kiferbaum, whose construction company was to build a new facility for Mercy Hospital in Crystal Lake, Illinois, if that facility received approval from the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, on which Levine sat.”

Tony Rezko Indictment

Stuart Levine

“Levine used his influence with the Planning Board to ensure that Mercy Hospital received approval of its application to build the Crystal Lake hospital after hiring Kiferbaum’s company. In voting for, and influencing other Planning Board members to vote for, Mercy’s application, Levine concealed from the Planning Board his financial arrangement or contacts with Kiferbaum.”

Stuart Levine Indictment

Dr. Robert Weinstein

“The false statements count alleges that on May 24, 2004, Weinstein lied to an FBI agent when he said that Levine never told him that Rezko had influence over the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, the state board that regulates hospital construction and expansion. In fact, the indictment alleges Weinstein knew that he and Levine had discussed Rezko’s influence over the Planning Board, including in a recorded conversation on April 21, 2004, in which Levine explicitly advised Weinstein of Rezko’s role in manipulating the Planning Board’s vote earlier that day on the Certificate of Need application of Mercy Health System Corp. Hospital and other matters.”

Dr. Robert Weinstein Indictment

Governor Rod Blagojevich

“Rezko was a principal fundraiser for ROD BLAGOJEVICH. 3 His criminal trial
focused on allegations that Rezko and Stuart Levine, a member of the board of trustees of
the Teachers Retirement System and the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, engaged
in a scheme to defraud the State of Illinois of Levine’s honest services by demanding
kickbacks, as well as political contributions to the campaign of ROD BLAGOJEVICH, in
return for the exercise of Levine’s official influence. Relevant evidence presented at the
Rezko trial is summarized below.”

“According to Levine, in approximately late October 2003, after Levine was
reappointed to the Planning Board, he shared a private plane ride from New York to Chicago
with ROD BLAGOJEVICH and Kelly. Levine, ROD BLAGOJEVICH, and Kelly were the
only passengers on the flight. According to Levine, at the beginning of the flight, Levine
thanked ROD BLAGOJEVICH for reappointing him to the Planning Board. ROD BLAGOJEVICH
responded that Levine should only talk with “Tony” [Rezko] or [Kelly]
about the Planning Board, “but you stick with us and you will do very well for yourself.”
ROD BLAGOJEVICH said this in front of Kelly.”

“Levine’s criminal activities included his abuse of his position on the Planning
Board to enrich both himself and Friends of Blagojevich. The Planning Board was a
commission of the State of Illinois, established by statute, whose members were appointed
by the Governor of the State of Illinois. At the relevant time period, the Planning Board
consisted of nine individuals. State law required an entity seeking to build a hospital,
medical office building, or other medical facility in Illinois to obtain a permit, known as a
“Certificate of Need” (“CON”), from the Planning Board prior to beginning construction.”

“Almanaseer testified that Beck instructed him that Rezko wanted
Almanaseer to vote a particular way and that Almanaseer should follow Levine’s lead in
voting on CONs.”

“During his testimony, Levine described a plan to manipulate the Planning
Board to enrich himself and Friends of Blagojevich. The plan centered on an entity
commonly known as Mercy Hospital (“Mercy”) that was attempting to obtain a CON to build
a new hospital in Illinois.”

Governor Rod Blagojevich Criminal Complaint

Chicago Tribune Rezko Trial Transcripts

March 6, 2008; 12:29 a.m.

“Hamilton finished remarks after an hour. She did not mention the name of Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama, whose U.S. Senate campaign in 2004 allegedly was the beneficiary of $20,000 in campaign cash from intermediaries in the kickback schemes the government says were orchestrated by Rezko.”

March 10, 2008; 4:16 p.m.

“The name of Barack Obama, the Democratic front-runner for the presidential nomination, also appears in the e-mail as a member of a strategic team reviewing hospital board matters with the governor’s staff when he was a state senator. The hospital board was scheduled to be revamped in the summer of 2003.

Obama was then chairman of the Senate Committee on Health & Human Services. Other legislative leaders, including Madigan, were part of that review panel as well, according to the e-mail.”

March 13, 2008; 3:09 p.m.

“Dr. Imad Almanaseer is on the witness stand this afternoon, testifying about his links to Antoin “Tony” Rezko and his time on the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board”.
“Almanaseer was appointed to the planning board in 2003 on Rezko’s recommendation. Prosecutors contend he became part of a five-member voting bloc on the board that followed Rezko’s wishes. Almanaseer said board Chairman Thomas Beck tried to steer his voting.”

March 19, 2008; 11:21 a.m.

Prosecution witness Stuart Levine is walking jurors through the evolution of his relationship with defendant Tony Rezko. The two met at a dinner party shortly before the 2002 election in which Rezko’s close friend Rod Blagojevich was elected governor.”

“Levine said he met increasingly with Rezko in early 2003 after Blagojevich was sworn in as governor. On occasion, Levine said, Rezko described his close relationship with Blagojevich.

“He said that he had raised a great deal of money for Gov. Blagojevich and that he had great hopes and expectations that Gov. Blagojevich would run for president,” Levine recalled. “And although he knew it was a long shot, he was working toward that end.””

“”Mr. Rezko told me that he was able to have individuals appointed to state boards and was able to have individuals hired into state agencies and that he spoke very often — and in fact went over decisions — that Lon Monk would put into place,” Levine said.”

March 21, 2008; 12:10 p.m.

“Another government wiretap has been played with Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s voice on it, and this one could prove damaging to his defense. On the tape, recorded May 18, 2004, Rezko can be heard giving orders to political fixer Stuart Levine about how he wanted to manipulate the vote of one of Levine’s fellow members on the Illinois Health Facilities Planning board, Danalynn Rice.

On the call, Rezko is heard mentioning Chris Kelly, who with Rezko was one of the top fundraisers for Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Both Rezko and Kelly were key members of Blagojevich’s kitchen cabinet.

Rezko makes it clear in the phone call that Kelly, too, had been involved in trying to manipulate decisions of the hospital board, which Rezko has been charged with corrupting. Kelly apparently had called Levine earlier and told him he should be Rice’s mentor on the board, directing her to follow his lead on voting. Rice had been recently installed on the hospital panel at the insistence of a leader of the Laborers’ International Union, which had contributed more than $133,000 to Blagojevich’s campaign.”

Obama’s ties to Rezko, Blagojevich, corruption

Evelyn Pringle: Curtain Time for Obama — Part 2
Feds track Obama’s visits to Rezko

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,“ according to the February 10, 2008 Sun-Times.

During his March 14, 2008 interview, the Times told Obama, Thomas is an FBI mole and he “recently told us that he saw you coming and going from Rezko’s office a lot.”

“And three other sources told us that you and Rezko spoke on the phone daily.”

“Is that true?” the reporter asked.

“No,” Obama said, “That’s not accurate.”

“I think what is true,” he said, “is that, it depends on the period of time.”

“I’ve known him for 17 years,” Obama stated. “There were stretches of time where I would see him once or twice a year.”

He told the Times, “when he was involved in finance committee for the U.S. Senate race, or the state senate races, or the U.S. Congressional race, then he was an active member.”

“During the U.S. Senate race, there’s be stretches of like a couple of weeks – for example prior to him organizing the fundraiser that he did for us – where I would probably be talking to him once a day to make sure that was going well,” he said.

“But the typical relationship was one that was fond,” he added. “We would see each other.”

“But there would be no reason for me to be seeing him that often,” he stated. This issue may be sorted out soon enough because Fitzgerald’s charts matching up Obama’s contributions, visits and calls are bound to be every bit as thorough as the ones produced to prove Rezko is guilty as charged in the first trial. They simply were not produced because they were not needed to prove the defendant guilty in the first case.

As an example of what records might be squirreled away, consider that an FBI agent presented a chart to the jury on April 28, 2008, showing 257 calls from Rezko’s phones to Blagojevich’s chief of staff, Lon Monk, between March 2004 and May 2004 alone.

He also had a list of all calls between Levine and Rezko from November 2002 to May 2004. Rezko’s attorney brought out a point that backs the assertion that just because records on Obama were not shown, does not mean they do not exist.

The attorney questioned the agent about missing calls, and specifically those to and from Christopher Kelly. The agent first said records were not available, but later admitted the government probably does have records on Kelly that were not available to him.

In addition, the contributions extorted through the Planning Board scheme were for the intended presidential candidate, Blagojevich. Obama’s US senate war chest was already funded and by the time these kickbacks were paid that campaign would be over.

But Obama did end up with $20,000 from the very first kickback paid in the pension fund scheme set up through the Board of the Teacher’s Retirement System.

Elie Maloof and Joseph Aramanda, the straw donors used to funnel the contributions to Obama, also made $1,000 contributions of their own for his failed run for Congress in 2000, on the same day March 17, 2000.

In addition, Aramanda gave $500 to Obama’s senate campaign on June 30, 2003. In the summer of 2005, Aramanda’s teenage son landed a coveted intern position in Obama’s senate office in Washington.

Obama also received contributions directly from the persons appointed to the pension board for the express purpose of rigging the votes. On June 30, 2003, appointee, Jack Carriglio contributed $1,000.

The other appointee, Anthony Abboud, donated $500 to Obama on June 30, 2003, $250 on March 5, 2004, and $1,000 on June 25, 2004.

Michael Winter, who prosecutors say agreed to serve as a funnel for kickbacks paid through an investment firm in one scheme donated $3,000 to Obama on June 30, 2003.”

Obama’s role in rigging the Health Planning Facilities Board

Evelyn Pringle, Obama Curtain Time 2

“Obama was chairman of the Senate Health & Human Services Committee in January 2003. A few articles in the media have mentioned that Obama sat on a committee that reviewed matters related to the Planning Board in conjunction with the Governor’s staff but none have discussed his integral part in getting the bill passed.

A review of senate records from January 2003 to August 2003, shows Obama played a major role as chairman of that committee, in pushing through Senate Bill 1332, that led to the “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act,” which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, making the votes much easier to rig.

Democratic Senator Susan Garrett sponsored the bill in the senate, and the chief co-sponsor was Republican Senator Dale Righter. These two senators were also on the Human Services Committee with Obama.

The bill was filed with the senate secretary on February 20, 2003, and assigned to Human Services Committee for review on February 27. Less than a month later, as chairman, Obama sent word that the bill should be passed on March 13, 2003.

On May 31, 2003, the House and Senate passed the bill and the only senator listed in the “yes” votes mentioned in the Board Games indictments is Obama.

Blagojevich made the effective date June 27, 2003, and the co-schemers already had the people lined up to stack the Board and rig the votes with full approval from Obama.

As discussed fully in >Curtain Time for Obama Part 1, the Republicans and Democrats worked together in setting up the Planning Board scheme because the Combine as a whole would profit.

During the trial, Stuart Levine testified that when he sought reappointment to the Planning Board, he told Republican co-schemer, Bill Cellini, to tell the Blagojevich administration he would vote however they wanted when approving projects.

He told the jury he had the same understanding with the two prior Republican governors, Jim Edgar, and George Ryan, who is now sitting in prison due to Fitzgerald’s successful prosecution of a corruption case against him.

A June 2003 email exchange produced in the trial shows Obama was one of eight officials who received the names of the nominees for the new Board ahead of time, from the office of David Wilhelm, who headed Blagojevich’s 2002 campaign for governor.

Tony Rezko’s name does not appear in the email. In fact, his attorney made the point to the jury that the exchange was from Blagojevich’s general counsel, Susan Lichtenstein, and Wilhelm’s office, and indicated the appointees were recommended by Wilhelm and supported by those who received the memo.

The memo said, “we worked closely over the past six months” with eight officials including three state senators.

Jennifer Thomas, a former aide in Blagojevich’s patronage office, testified that she attended regular weekly meetings at Rezko’s office between the spring of 2003 and November 2004, and Rezko floated names and specifically said Levine should be reappointed to the new Board.

The Senate bill said, the “Board shall be appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate.” But the Senate Confirmation Hearings were a joke. For instance, the Feds recorded Levine talking to co-schemer, Jon Bauman, the day Levine learned he was approved by the Senate from the executive secretary of the Board.

Levine told Bauman he ran into Jeffrey Marks, who said “congratulations on your appointment,” and Levine asked for what. Marks said, “well the Senate Confirmation Hearings on Health Facility Plan Board members.”

He told Levine Senate President, Emil Jones, only allowed 2 members to be approved and “that was you and the other person he just put in.”

“Isn’t that hysterical ’cause you know they had this big battle going on,” Levine told Bauman.

Laughing away, Levine said, “don’t you just love it.”

“I’m one of those independents and not part of the block.”

“Well, good, you know it’s good to be just a true independent civil servant,” Bauman said laughing along with Levine.

“Is, is that a good thing,” Levine replied, “I’ve never been that.”

Corrupt appointees fund Obama and Blagojevich campaigns

The corrupt new appointees were all contributors to the presidential hopeful, Blagojevich, and the US senate hopeful Obama.

The previous Act allowed the Board itself to select a “Chairman and other officers as deemed necessary.” But the new law stated: “The Governor shall designate one of the members to serve as Chairman and shall name as full-time Executive Secretary.”

The Board’s then sitting-chairman, Thomas Beck, who was originally appointed by a Republican governor, testified under a grant of immunity that he brought a $1,000 check to Rezko on July 15, 2003, to make sure Blagojevich reappointed him.

A few weeks later, Beck said, Rezko called to say he would be reappointed along with a Republican holdover Levine. Beck also testified that Rezko told him Blagojevich was set to appoint Rezko’s three doctor friends to complete the rigged voting bloc. He said he met the doctors in August 2003, at the first meeting of the new Board.

Dr Michel Malek gave Obama $10,000 a little over a month before the first meeting on June 30, 2003. He also donated $25,000 to Blagojevich three weeks later on July 25, 2003, and gave Obama another $500 in September 2003. Malek was an investor in Riverside Park.

Dr Fortunee Massuda donated $25,000 to Blagojevich on July 25, 2003, and gave a total of $2,000 to Obama on different dates. Massuda’s husband, Charles Hannon, is a co-schemer in the pension fund case and testified against Rezko in the trial.

Dr Imad Almanaseer contributed a total of $3,000 to Obama after he landed the appointment. On March 13, 2008, Almanaseer testified against Rezko and told the jury he was an investor in Rezko’s fast-food businesses.

This doctor’s son, Ahmed Almanaseer, was given a trade office intern position with the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. Ahmed is president of HireIraqis.com a bilingual human resources “site aimed at linking Iraqi job seekers with the companies engaged in the reconstruction [in Iraq] efforts,” according to Rezko Watch/RBO.”

Conclusion

 

The names of Blagojevich and Obama were mentioned regularly
during the Rezko trial. Since Blagojevich and Obama were not
on trial at the time, much information known about them was
withheld. To understand this fact simply read the Criminal
Complaint against Rod Blagojevich. It is apparent that much
more is known about Barack Obama and that he is next in line
to be indicted.

Since Barack Obama is attempting to sneak through the election
process with a great many legal questions clouding his past and
since the American public needs and depends on the Judicial Branch
of government to protect it from criminals and imposters, I
Citizen Wells, on behalf of the American public, ask that Mr.
Patrick Fitzgerald or any authorized employee of the US Justice
Department, present Mr. Barack H. Obama with an indictment and/or
Criminal Complaint at the earliest possible moment, with time being
of the essence. The Electoral College meets next week and it is
imperative that we do all that is in our power to prevent a
constitutional crisis in this country.

I do hereby swear that the information provided above is, to the
best of my knowledge, accurate.

Citizen Wells                December 11, 2008

Philip J Berg Injunction Application denied, Justice Souter denied, Pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, December 9, 2008

Philip J Berg’s  Injunction Application was denied by Justice Souter on Tuesday, December 9, 2008. Mr. Berg’s petition for a Writ of Certiorari is still pending.

The Right Side of Life website has been doing a good job of keeping track of all the lawsuits. Thanks to them.

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/

No. 08-570  
Title:
Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
  Case Nos.: (08-4340)
  Rule 11
~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by respondent Bill Anderson.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
 

 


~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~    ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:    
Philip J. Berg 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 (610) 825-3134
  Lafayette Hill, PA  19444-2531  
Party name: Philip J. Berg
Attorneys for Respondents:    
Gregory G. Garre Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
  United States Department of Justice  
  950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.  
  Washington, DC  20530-0001  
Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.
     
Lawrence J. Joyce Lawrence J. Joyce LLC (520) 584-0236
  1517 N. Wilmot Rd., #215  
  Tucson, AZ  85712  
  barmemberlj@earthlink.net
Party name: Bill Anderson