Category Archives: Supreme Court

Senator Roger F Wicker, Mississippi, US Constitution Hall of Shame, Obama not eligible, US Congress, Electoral College Votes, Obama’s eligibility must be challenged

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

US Constitution

Hall of Shame

 

A letter received from Senator Roger F Wicker regarding
Barack Obama’s eligibility issues:

“Thank you for contacting me regarding questions surrounding President
-Elect Obama’s citizenship. I am glad to have the benefit of your views
on this issue. The U.S.Constitution requires the President to be a
natural-born citizen. In August, a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court
in Philadelphia alleged that President-Elect Obama was born in Kenya, not

Hawaii. The lawyer who filed this action has also filed suits alleging
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney knew about the September 11
terrorist attacks. He also has called for Supreme Court Justices Clarence
Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and former Justice Sandra Day O’Conner to disbar
themselves for their decision in the 2001 Bush v. Gore. In October, a
federal judge dismissed the Obama suit, and on Dec 8, 2008 , the Supreme
Court declined to hear the emergency appeal without opinion. Several
similar cases have been filed in various courts across the country and are
going through the judicial process. It appears unlikely that Senate
Democratic leaders will bring up legislation related to this issue

in the 111th Congress. I hope this information is helpful. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance. With best wishes I am
Sincerely yours,

Roger F. Wicker”

Senator Roger F Wicker states the following:

“The U.S.Constitution requires the President to be a natural-born citizen.”

Apparently Mr. Wicker does not understand what this means.
Secondly, for whatever reason, he then tries to impune the character of
Mr. Berg instead of addressing the real issue, Obama’s eligibility.
He apparently has only a vague idea of the active court cases and the
reasons for some dismissals. Lastly, he refers to potential legislation
that is irrelevant to vetting Obama.
It is important for Mr. Wicker and all congressmen to remember that
Congress as well as the judicial system is part of the checks and
balances that we rely on.

Senator Wicker, if you have any questions about the US Constitution or
Barack Obama’s eligibility, I will be glad to answer them. If you have
any questions or comments, please respond.

Why Obama is not eligible

mswicker

US Constitution Hall of Shame, 2008 Election, US Congress, Senators, Representatives, Constitutional crisis, Electoral College votes, Connecticut, Secretary of State, CT Supreme Court Justice, Attorney General, Susan Bysiewicz, Chase T. Rogers, Richard Blumenthal

This is the kickoff article on a series called “Constitution Hall of Shame.”
It is clear that we already have a constitutional crisis in the country before
Barack Obama theoretically gets inaugurated. The US Constitution has been
ignored, misunderstood and trampled on during the 2008 election year. We not
only have a candidate, Obama, that is clearly ineligible, but probably is not
a US citizen, i.e, illegal alien. Barack Obama, who has sworn to uphold the
Constitution, has thumbed his nose at the rule of law and American public.
So, to add to the normal political bias and posturing and tradition based
election processes, we now have a total disregard for the US Constitution.

The US Congress will meet soon to count and authenticate the Electoral
College vote.

“January 8, 2009

Counting Electoral Votes in Congress
Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009
from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008
presidential election. The Congress meets in joint session to count the
electoral votes (Congress may pass a law to change the date). The President
of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly
submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it.
The President and Vice President must achieve a majority of electoral votes
(270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority, the House selects the
President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits
conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting
concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes
of the electors certified by the Governor of the State would be counted in
Congress.” Read more

Since the Electoral College vote can be challenged in Congress, we will focus
on senators and representatives that have made comments that clearly indicate
that they do not take their oath of office seriously. We will give them a
chance to respond and atone for their dereliction of duty. This will also
serve as a forum to educate and hold accountable their colleagues.

The first member of the Constitution Hall of Shame is not a congressman. It
is the state of Connecticut and includes the Secretary of State, Susan
Bysiewicz, State Supreme Court Justice Chase T. Rogers and State Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal. Here is the damning paragraph in a
letter received from Susan Bysiewicz:

“On November 3, 2008 Connecticut State Supreme Court Chief Justice
Chase T. Rogers dismissed the case after hearing testimony from my
attorneys and State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the
Greenwich resident who filed the action.  The plaintiff, Cort Wrotnowski,
alleged that I should not have placed Senator Obama’s name on the ballot.
The court was satisfied that officials in Hawaii have stated
that there is no doubt that the Democratic presidential candidate
was born there and that the state’s health department possesses
Senator Obama’s original birth certificate.  This is now a matter
of public record
.”


Why Obama is not eligible

What Hawaii Health Official really said

From the Alan Keyes lawsuit

“A press release was issued on October 31, 2008, by the Hawaii Department
of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Dr. Fukino said that she
had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of
Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in
accordance with state policies and procedures.” That statement failed to
resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts.
Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer
database of the department or there is an actual “vault” original.”

“Further, the report does not say whether the birth certificate in the
“record” is a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation,
including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a
Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of
Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness
and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up
to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value
as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the
allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.
The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176
allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in
Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question,
whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country. Therefore,
the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified
copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of
the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the
birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the
Live Birth.”

So, Susan Bysiewicz, Chase T. Rogers, Richard Blumenthal,
what is your excuse?

Ignorance
Apathy
Party politics
Fear

Please respond with your reasons for your behaviour.

An apology to the American public is in order.

ct3

A new page at the top of the Citizen Wells blog will be devoted to the
Constitution Hall of Shame.

Obama indictment, Obama must be arrested, Patrick Fitzgerald, Blagojevich arrest, December 20, 2008, Obama Rezko Levine Weinstein Blagojevich, Pay to play, Chicago corruption, US Dept of Justice, IL corruption, Chicago Tribune, Charlotte Observer

Why Barack Obama should be indicted

Part 11

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.

The truth about the Rod Blagojevich arrest and criminal
complaint and what it means for Barack Obama.

If you are getting your news from your local newspaper or
MSM media on TV, you probably believe that Blagojevich’s
arrest was mainly about his trying to make money off of
selling Obama’s senate seat and that Obama is innocent of
any wrongdoing. That is what the MSM and the Obama camp
want you to believe. Nothing could be further from the truth.

First of all, Obama was caught lying when he stated that he
had no contact with Blagojevich. That part is clear. Now for
the important part of this article. Patrick Fitzgerald was
not ready to indict Blagojevich, but when he discovered that
Blagojevich  was trying to sell the senate seat and the Chicago
Tribune prematurely leaked the story, he hurriedly created a
criminal complaint. The investigation of Blagojevich had been
going on for many months and the sentencing of Tony Rezko
was delayed several times to allow him to talk more.

According to FBI special agent Rob Grant:

“But we do know that something big is going on. “There is a lot
of investigation that still needs to be done,”

“There are critical interviews that we have to do and
cooperation we need to get from different people.”

Obama camp coverup of Obama lies

Exerpts from the Rod Blagojevich criminal complaint

“Count One
From in or about 2002 to the present, in Cook County, in the Northern District of Illinois, defendants did,
conspire with each other and with others to devise and participate in a scheme to defraud the State of Illinois and
the people of the State of Illinois of the honest services of ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH and JOHN HARRIS, in
furtherance of which the mails and interstate wire communications would be used, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 1341,1343, and 1346; all in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 1349.”
“12. Because this affidavit is submitted for the limited purpose of securing a
criminal complaint and corresponding arrest warrants, I have not included each and every
fact known to me concerning this investigation.”
“a. Defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH and at times defendant JOHN
HARRIS, together with others, obtained and attempted to obtain financial benefits for ROD
BLAGOJEVICH, members of the Blagojevich family, and third parties including Friends of
Blagojevich, in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions, state
employment, state contracts, and access to state funds;”
“15. The remainder of this affidavit first sets out certain information obtained prior
to the initiation of the court-authorized interceptions, relating to allegations that ROD
BLAGOJEVICH solicited and obtained campaign contributions in exchange for official
actions as Governor.”

 

III. FACTS ESTABLISHING PROBABLE CAUSE
A. Evidence Concerning the Solicitation and Receipt of Campaign
Contributions in Return for Official Acts by ROD BLAGOJEVICH Prior
to October 2008
1. Information Provided by Ali Ata
Connections to Ali Ata
“16. As described in more detail in the following paragraphs, Ali Ata testified under
oath in the spring of 2008 that Ata discussed with ROD BLAGOJEVICH a potential
appointment to a high-level position with the State of Illinois while a $25,000 donation check
to Friends of Blagojevich from Ata was sitting on a table in front of ROD BLAGOJEVICH.
Ata further testified that later, after Ata made another substantial contribution to Friends of
Blagojevich, ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Ata that he was aware of the donation, that he
understood that Ata would be joining his administration, and that Ata better get a job “where
[Ata] can make some money.””

 

“17. Ata is a businessman who, in May 2008, as part of a cooperation agreement
with the government, pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI and to tax fraud.2
Pursuant to his cooperation agreement, the government has interviewed Ata extensively
regarding a number of topics, including his knowledge of and involvement in fundraising for
ROD BLAGOJEVICH. In addition, Ata testified under oath at the criminal trial of Antoin
Rezko (the “Rezko Trial”) in May 2008.3 Portions of Ata’s testimony are directly relevant
to the current investigation. In summary, and in relevant part, Ata testified as follows during
the Rezko Trial:”

 

“21. Later that year, Rezko approached Ata for additional monetary support for
ROD BLAGOJEVICH. Ata agreed to contribute $25,000 in additional monies to the
campaign of ROD BLAGOJEVICH. Ata, subsequently and by prior arrangement with
Rezko, brought a check in this amount to Rezko’s offices on Elston Avenue in Chicago.
After he arrived at Rezko’s offices, Ata was greeted by Rezko to whom he handed the check
in an envelope. Rezko, carrying the check, ushered Ata into a conference room where he met
with Rezko and ROD BLAGOJEVICH. Rezko placed the envelope containing Ata’s
$25,000 check to ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s campaign on the conference room table between
himself and ROD BLAGOJEVICH and stated to ROD BLAGOJEVICH that Ata had been
a good supporter and a team player and that Ata would be willing to join ROD
BLAGOJEVICH’s administration. ROD BLAGOJEVICH expressed his pleasure and
acknowledged that Ata had been a good supporter and good friend. ROD BLAGOJEVICH,
in Ata’s presence, asked Rezko if he (Rezko) had talked to Ata about positions in the
administration, and Rezko responded that he had.”

Connections to Joseph Cari
“26. Cari was a significant fundraiser for Democratic causes and was previously the
national finance chair for Vice President Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign. During his
testimony, Cari described meetings that he had with ROD BLAGOJEVICH, Chris Kelly,
Rezko, and Stuart Levine7. In particular, on approximately October 29, 2003, Cari, ROD
BLAGOJEVICH, Kelly, Levine and others rode on an airplane arranged by Levine to a
fundraiser in New York being hosted by Cari on behalf of ROD BLAGOJEVICH. During
the plane ride, Cari had a conversation with ROD BLAGOJEVICH. During the
conversation, Cari and ROD BLAGOJEVICH discussed Cari’s fundraising background and
work as a national fundraiser. ROD BLAGOJEVICH discussed his interest in running for
President of the United States. During the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH informed
Cari that it was easier for governors to solicit campaign contributions because governors had
the ability to “award contracts” and give legal work, consulting work, and investment
banking work to campaign contributors. ROD BLAGOJEVICH informed Cari that Rezko
and Kelly were his point people in raising campaign contributions. Later in the conversation,
ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Cari that there were State of Illinois contracts and other State of
Illinois work that could be given to contributors who helped ROD BLAGOJEVICH, Rezko,
and Kelly. Cari testified that ROD BLAGOJEVICH ended the conversation with Cari by
informing Cari that Rezko and Kelly would follow up with Cari in relation to the discussion
that had just occurred.”

 

“28. Cari also testified about a conversation he had with Rezko at Rezko’s office.
Levine was also present for the conversation. According to Cari, Rezko informed Cari that
Rezko had a close relationship with the Blagojevich administration and Rezko had a role in
picking consultants and law firms and other entities to get State of Illinois business. Rezko
informed Cari that Rezko called ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s chief of staff, Lon Monk, and
Monk would help implement Rezko’s choices for certain State of Illinois work. Rezko
informed Cari that, in exchange for raising money for ROD BLAGOJEVICH, the
Blagojevich administration would be financially helpful to Cari’s business interests.”

Connections to Stuart Levine

 

“31. In approximately December 2003, the FBI began an investigation of allegations
that at least one member of the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board (the “Planning
Board”), Stuart Levine, was soliciting bribes in exchange for board action. At the time,
Levine was a businessman who served on two state boards: the board of trustees of TRS, and
the Planning Board. As part of the investigation, the government sought and obtained court
authorization to record phone calls on multiple phones used by Levine.”
“32. On May 4, 2005, Levine was indicted in United States v. Levine, et al. 05 CR
408 (Grady, J.) on 28 counts of mail and wire fraud, extortion, bribery, and money
laundering. On August 3, 2005, Levine was indicted in United States v. Levine, et al., 05 CR
691 (St. Eve., J.) on 13 counts of mail and wire fraud, bribery, and attempted extortion. On
October 27, 2006, Levine pleaded guilty to Counts One and Twenty-Three of a superseding
indictment in Case No. 05 CR 691. As part of Levine’s plea agreement, the government
moved, on November 15, 2006, to dismiss the pending superseding indictment and
indictment against Levine in Case No. 05 CR 408.”
“33. Pursuant to his cooperation agreement, the government has interviewed Levine
extensively regarding a number of topics, including his knowledge of and involvement in the
corruption of Illinois state government and fundraising for ROD BLAGOJEVICH. In
addition, Levine testified under oath at the Rezko Trial.8 Portions of Levine’s testimony at
the Rezko trial are directly relevant to the current investigation. The remainder of this
section sets forth, in summary, and in relevant part, Levine’s testimony at the Rezko Trial,
except as noted where information is specifically identified as having been obtained from
other sources:”

Levine’s Plane Ride with Blagojevich

“34. 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. According to Levine, Levine understood
from ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s manner of speaking and words that ROD BLAGOJEVICH
did not want Levine to talk to ROD BLAGOJEVICH directly about anything to do with the
boards, but that Levine should talk to Rezko or Kelly. Levine also understood that ROD
BLAGOJEVICH meant that Levine could make a lot of money working with ROD
BLAGOJEVICH’s administration. According to Levine, ROD BLAGOJEVICH did not
seem to expect a response from Levine, and Kelly then shifted the conversation to something
else.”

Corruption of the Planning Board

(This is the subject of the Citizen Wells plea to Fitzgerald
to indict Obama)

“35. As described more fully in the following paragraphs, Mercy Hospital, which
sought permission from the Planning Board to build a hospital in Illinois, received that
permission through Rezko’s exercise of his influence at the Planning Board after Rezko was
promised that Mercy Hospital would make a substantial campaign contribution to ROD
BLAGOJEVICH. Rezko later told a member of the Planning Board that Mercy Hospital
received the permit because ROD BLAGOJEVICH wanted the organization to receive the
permit.”

“36. 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.”

“37. Levine, as well as Planning Board members Thomas Beck and Imad
Almanaseer, testified under oath at the Rezko Trial.9 Beck testified that he asked Rezko to
reappoint him to the Planning Board and that Beck thereafter followed Rezko’s directions
regarding which CON applications Rezko wanted approved. Beck testified that it was his
job to communicate Rezko’s interest in particular CONs to other members of the Planning
Board, including Almanaseer, who were loyal to Rezko. Beck testified that he understood
that Rezko spoke for the Blagojevich administration when Rezko spoke to Beck about
particular CONs. 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. Almanaseer testified that before certain Planning Board meetings, he
received notecards from Beck indicating how to vote on certain CON applications. Beck
testified he provided these notecards to Almanaseer and certain other members of the
Planning Board to communicate Rezko’s directions about certain CON applications.”

 

“38. 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. Levine knew the contractor hired to help build the hospital. In
approximately November 2003, on behalf of the contractor, Levine checked with Rezko to
determine whether Rezko wanted Mercy to obtain its CON. Rezko informed Levine that
Mercy was not going to receive its CON. According to Levine, he asked Rezko whether it
would matter to Rezko if Mercy’s construction contractor paid a bribe to Rezko and Levine
and, in addition, made a contribution to ROD BLAGOJEVICH. Levine testified that Rezko
indicated that such an arrangement would change his view on the Mercy CON.”
“39. Levine’s testimony regarding Rezko’s actions to change the Planning Board
decision concerning Mercy’s application for a CON based on contributions for ROD
BLAGOJEVICH is confirmed by attorney Steven Loren. Loren testified at Rezko’s criminal
trial and, before that, in the grand jury.11 According to Loren, in approximately December
2003, Levine informed Loren that Rezko was against the Mercy CON. According to Loren,
Levine relayed to Loren a conversation between Rezko and Levine during which Levine
asked Rezko whether a political contribution to ROD BLAGOJEVICH would make a
difference for Mercy’s CON, and Rezko responded to Levine that such a contribution might
make a difference.”
“40. Thereafter, and confirmed by the testimony of Levine, Beck, and Almanaseer,
as well as recorded conversations, Rezko switched his directions to Beck and informed Beck
that Mercy was to receive its CON. According to Almanaseer, although he previously had
been told by Beck that Rezko did not want Mercy to receive its CON, he was later told that
there had been a change and that Rezko now wanted Mercy to receive its CON.”
“41. Mercy received its CON as a result of a controversial and irregular vote at a
public Planning Board meeting.12 The vote brought significant publicity to the Planning
Board and ultimately led to the disbanding of the Planning Board. Almanaseer testified
under oath in the grand jury that not long after the Planning Board vote on Mercy’s CON he
saw Rezko at a fundraiser. According to Almanaseer, he was still embarrassed about what
had occurred at the Planning Board vote on Mercy’s CON and Rezko’s role in the vote.
Almanaseer testified that he asked Rezko why Rezko had switched the vote on the Mercy
CON. According to Almanaseer, Rezko stated: “The Governor wanted it to pass.”
Almanaseer understood the reference to “Governor” to be a reference to ROD
BLAGOJEVICH.”

Dr. Robert Weinstein connections

“54. Numerous conversations related to the extortion were captured on the courtauthorized
wiretaps on Levine’s phones. In particular, on a recorded May 1, 2004
conversation, Levine spoke with Dr. Robert Weinstein, a co-schemer in Levine’s criminal
activities. During the call, Levine told Weinstein about his more recent meeting with Rezko
and Kelly.”

Conclusion

There is much more evidence of corruption in the complaint and
ties to Obama. The exerpts provided above reveal clear ties to
Obama and in particular his involvement in rigging the IL
Health Board.

Request to Fitzgerald to indict Obama for rigging Health Board

Citizen Wells article in April 2008 ties Obama to Rezko, Blagojevich

Citizen Wells series on why Obama should be indicted

The Chicago Tribune, in an article dated December 18, 2008
states that the following ties to Blagojevich could help to
impeach him:

“Longtime Blagojevich friend Ali Ata, in a plea bargain on charges of lying to the FBI, said that he handed $25,000 to a Blagojevich fundraiser and that the governor immediately brought up the subject of getting Ata a state job.

In another guilty plea, Joseph Cari said Blagojevich tried to enlist him as a fundraiser with the possibility of getting state contracts and legal work.”

Reasons given for Blagojevich impeachment also apply to Obama

The investigation of Rod Blagojevich has been going on for
many months. Neither Blagojevich or Obama was charged with
wrongdoing during the Rezko Trial. I have watched the methodical
well orchestrated efforts of Patrick Fitzgerald all year and it
is now obvious that Obama is next.
Remember, the Obama Camp wants you to believe that the
Blagojevich arrest was just about selling the senate seat. Obama
et al are about lies, deception and diversions. This would give
him a chance to throw another associate under the bus

Obama must be indicted

Patrick Fitzgerald rushed the criminal complaint to prevent
Blagojevich from appointing a replacement for Obama’s Senate
seat. This was prompted by the Chicago Tribune breaking the
story.

Since Fitzgerald was obligated to arrest Blagojevich early
to avoid a travesty of justice, by the same token,
a greater sense of urgency involves allowing a non eligible
candidate, Obama, with ties to corruption that equal and in
some cases exceed those of Rod Blagojevich take office.
Because of this sense of urgency and potential constitutional
crisis, Citizen Wells is urging you to contact the Dept. of
Justice and voice your concerns. Also, share this article
with as many people and websites as possible. The election
officials and courts are ignoring this crisis. Perhaps
Patrick Fitzgerald or the Dept. of Jusctice (part of the
checks and balances syetem) will save this country from
a disaster.

Hold MSM accountable
 
This article will also serve as a starting point to hold the
MSM accountable and I have decided to start with two
prominent newspapers, The Chicago Tribune and Charlotte Observer.

I am asking that the Chicago Tribune and Charlotte Observer
apologize for unprofessional, irresponsible and biased reporting.

The Charlotte Observer, in a disservice to it’s readers
and what could be considered part of a conspiracy to perpetrate
fraud, presented only articles that were favorable to
Obama and did not present articles regarding Obama’s
eligibility issues and corruption ties. Not only did the
Observer not cover Obama, they endorsed him.

The chicago Tribune presented transcripts of the Rezko trial
and even some articles critical of Obama and his ties to
corruption. However, the Tribune, despite exposing some of
Obama’s corruption ties, still endorsed him. Also, the
Tribune broke the story on Blagojevich which led to his
premature arrest. What were the reasons for the Tribune
doing this? To protect the paper or citizens from
Blagojecvich or to prevent the Obama camp from being
implicated in more corruption ties?

Readership is down for most newspapers across the country.
Younger people are not embracing outdated news delivery
and older people are fed up with biased reporting.

Attention Tribune, Observer and newspapers throughout
the country.

Apologize to your readers, the American public and
change your methodology fast or you are history.

Coming soon.

We plan to hold congressmen accountable.

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 Electoral College votes, Certification of Voters, State laws, US Constitution, Electors signed Certification, Certifications invalid, Obama ineligible, Violators should be prosecuted, Constitution violated

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

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

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

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

All officers and election officials, most judges and most Electoral
College Electors were informed prior to the general election and
particularly prior to the Electors meeting and voting, of compelling
evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president. Despite
these warnings, Electors met and voted on the basis of party loyalty or
perceived directives from the states. State or party policies dictating
how an Elector votes violate the spirit and letter of constitutional
and federal law.

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

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

Alabama

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

Alaska

“by authority of law vested in us”

Arizona

“by authority of law in us vested”

Arkansas

“as provided by law”

California

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

Connecticut

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

Hawaii

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

Idaho

“having met agreeably to the provisions of law”

Illinois

“as provided by law”

Indiana

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

Iowa

“in accordance with law”

Kansas

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Kentucky

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

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Manner of voting

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

US Constitution

Article. II.

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

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

Montana

“agreeable to the provisions of law”

Nevada

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

New Jersey

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

North Carolina

“by authority of law in us vested”

Pennsylvania

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Rhode Island

“in pursuance of law”

South Carolina

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

Tennessee

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

Utah

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

Virginia

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

Washington

“pursuant to the provisions of federal and state law”

Conclusion

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

Constitution 101 classes will begin soon.

State officers, election officials, judges and, of course,
US Supreme Court Justices will be invited. Stay tuned for a
class near you. I suppose Washington DC should be first.

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

 

Illinois Electors, Electoral College votes, December 15, 2008, Cspan coverage, Chicago IL and Democrat party in IL are revolting, IL corruption

I just observed on of the most sickening spectacles of my life.
One of the great commenters on this blog, ms. helga, notified
me that the IL Electors voting was being covered live on Cspan.
The first Elector that I heard presenting her praise, Lauren Beth
Gash, nauseated me. She lavished such undue praise on Obama that
I stood their incredulous in disbelief. Another one spoke of
knowing Obama since he was from Illinois. Most Electors that I
observed said a few obligatory party line words. After about six
Electors, I could stomach no more. No wonder Chicago and Illinois
are such a cesspool of crime and corruption. Democratic Party
Politics in IL is void of integrity. Electors are putting party
politics above the US Constitution and the American People.
Is it any wonder that the Democrat Governor of IL, Rod Blagojevich,
has been arrested and urged to resign. Obama should be next.

If someone out there was able to stomach the entire debacle,
please let us know if all Electors followed the party dictate.

Perhaps there will be electors in other states that will put
country first. If not, let’s pursue some legal remedies to
begin the huge enema that needs to be given to this country.

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.

Obama indictment to follow Blagojevich arrest?, Patrick Fitzgerald, December 14, 2008, Rezko trial, Rezko Blagojevich and Obama involved in corruption, Health Planning Board, Pay for Play, Rezko related Blagojevich donors, US Department of Justice investigation

Why Barack Obama should be indicted

Part 4

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.

 

I began learning about Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich early in
2008 and wrote my first article mentioning Blagojevich in April.
Why did I begin scrutinizing Rod Blagojevich? I was reading the
transcripts from the Tony Rezko trial and investigation and the
names of Rezko, Obama and Blagojevich were intertwined in a web
of corruption and deception. On December 12, 2008, the Citizen
Wells blog presented an article about corruption in the IL Health
Planning Facilities Board. The article revealed the ties to Rezko,
Levine and Weinstein in their indictments and Blagojevich in
criminal charges placed against him. The article also requests
that Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indict and/or arrest
Barack Obama for his role in rigging the board when Obama was in
the IL Senate. Article that was published and faxed to Fitzgerald

Patrick Fitzgerald and the investigators working with him have
obviously been aware of Obama’s ties to crime and corruption in
Chicago and IL for many months. They have been proceeding in a
logical and methodical manner. Sentencing of Tony Rezko was delayed
and obviously he has been talking. Anyone following this story all
year knows much about Obama’s ties to corruption and Fitzgerald
knows much more. Obama is the next logical target of indictment
and/or arrest.

Consider this article from the LA Times Top of The Ticket Blog from
April 7, 2008. Here are some exerpts from the article written by
Andrew Malcolm.

“It’s an unfolding, seemingly local political story that’s fascinating
in its revealing details about the subterranean world of business,
financial and family connections in Illinois and Chicago politics
that helped take a virtually unknown black Chicago attorney, nurtured
him politically and financially and turned him into….

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

Obama currently leads in delegates for the Democratic nomination for
president.”

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

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

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

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

Witnesses in Rezko’s trial have testified that Rezko recommended friends
and associates for government jobs and posts on Illinois state boards
when Blagojevich took office in 2003, and some of those friends were
generous donors to Blagojevich.

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

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

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

Read more here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/obamarezko.html
Several things are important about this article and facts that were
surfacing about Rezko, Blagojevich and Obama. Rezko had already been
indicted. It was clear that Blagojevich and Obama were heavily
involved with Rezko. Blagojevich has just recently been indicted.
The fact that Obama has not been officially implicated and charged
is meaningless. That is standard operating procedure.

Get used to this expression:

Obama trial.