Category Archives: US Constitution

Sharyl Attkisson US Dept. of Justice lawsuit experience echoes Attorneys Sidney Powell and Ty Clevenger discovery attempts, Corrupt USDOJ and judges, Judge Wynn dissenting opinion

Sharyl Attkisson US Dept. of Justice lawsuit experience echoes Attorneys Sidney Powell and Ty Clevenger discovery attempts, Corrupt USDOJ and judges, Judge Wynn dissenting opinion

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October 23, 2019

“Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested”…The Conservative Treehouse November 3, 2019

“The FBI clearly has records pertaining to Seth Rich, and it has withheld those
records in bad faith.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger October 11, 2019

 

From the Sharyl Attkisson appeal decision of March 21, 2019.

Judge Wynn dissenting opinion.

“In this case, the government—not unlike Dean Smith’s Tar Heels—put up the “fours” when Plaintiff-Appellant Sharyl Attkisson,3 a journalist formerly employed by CBS News, filed suit against unnamed employees and agents of the federal government (the “Doe Defendants”). Attkisson alleged that the Doe Defendants conspired to violate her constitutional and statutory rights by accessing and commandeering her home and work internet-connected devices for surveillance purposes. But Attkisson never got a meaningful opportunity to pursue her claims because the government did everything in its power to run out the clock on Attkisson’s action—it filed motions challenging venue and jurisdiction, motions challenging the sufficiency of service, motions for extension of time, motions to dismiss, and motions for protective orders.

And just as the Tar Heels had great success running the Four Corners, the government’s strategy worked. Although Attkisson diligently sought to identify the Doe Defendants for nearly four years—including by repeatedly serving discovery on the government and third-parties directed at identifying the Doe Defendants—the district court dismissed her case with prejudice against the Doe Defendants for failing to comply with a court order to identify the names of the Doe Defendants by a date certain. The district court did so even though the government’s delaying tactics deprived Attkisson of any meaningful opportunity to engage in the discovery necessary to identify the Doe Defendants.

The majority opinion affirms the district court’s dismissal of Attkisson’s claims against the Doe Defendants on grounds that the dismissal constituted a permissible exercise of the court’s discretion to oversee discovery and sanction a party for failing to comply with a court order. But this Court long has held that plaintiffs—like Attkisson—who state a plausible claim that unnamed defendants violated their constitutional or statutory rights are entitled to a meaningful opportunity to engage in discovery aimed at identifying the “true identity of an unnamed party.” Schiff v. Kennedy, 691 F.2d 196, 197–98 (4th Cir. 1982). And this Court has held that dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order is a “drastic” sanction, Hillig v. C.I.R., 916 F.2d 171, 174 (4th Cir. 1990), that courts should impose only in “extreme circumstances,” Reizakis v. Loy, 490 F.2d 1132, 1135 (4th Cir. 1974).

Because the government deprived Attkisson of a meaningful opportunity to identify the Doe Defendants and the district court never determined that the requisite “extreme circumstances” were present to warrant dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, I disagree with the majority opinion’s determination that the district court permissibly exercised its discretion in dismissing Attkisson’s claims against the Doe Defendants. Not only should we disapprove of the tactics the government used to run out the clock on Attkisson’s claims, but we should also reject the troubling “game plan” it provided for the government and private parties to prevent disclosure of—and, therefore, responsibility for—their potentially unconstitutional or illegal electronic surveillance activities. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent as to the dismissal of Attkisson’s claims against the Doe Defendants.”

Read more:

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/18-1677/18-1677-2019-03-21.pdf?ts=1553194819

Just as in the General Michael Flynn case, represented by Attorney Sidney Powell and the Seth Rich controversies involving Ed Butowsky, represented by Attorney Ty Clevenger, we have the US Justice Dept. not cooperating in discovery and withholding crucial information as well as corrupt/incompetent judges not upholding the US Constitution.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

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

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

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

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

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

From Dr. Rich Swier December 29, 2019.

“Whitewashing Traitors While Destroying Patriots

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

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

Sullivan relied heavily on the Mueller report and finds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

ABOUT DR. RICH SWIER

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

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

Read more:

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

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Prosecutorial misconduct and coercive plea bargaining, General Flynn case clear example, US Justice Dept. proven misconduct, Judge Sullivan biased and/or incompetent?

Prosecutorial misconduct and coercive plea bargaining, General Flynn case clear example, US Justice Dept. proven misconduct, Judge Sullivan biased and/or incompetent?

“The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.  It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. “…Attorney General Barr

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October 23, 2019

“The criticism in the opinion will likely deepen the unease of Flynn in having the sentencing under Judge Sullivan. However, the court said that it will proceed with precisely such a hearing on January 28, 2020.”… Jonathan Turley

 

We have the most widespread documented case of US Justice Department corruption and prosecutorial misconduct in US history.

General Michael Flynn is a victim.

We have a judge, Emmet Sullivan, who has just ruled in the corrupt prosecution’s favor. Ignoring the documented misconduct that has been revealed and persecuting Flynn’s highly competent attorney, Sidney Powell.

Prosecutorial misconduct leading to coerced plea deals is apparently common.

From The Cato Institute August 8, 2019.

“Prisons Are Packed Because Prosecutors Are Coercing Plea Deals. And, Yes, It’s Totally Legal.”

“According to a recent study from the Pew Research Center, of the roughly 80,000 federal prosecutions initiated in 2018, just two percent went to trial. More than 97 percent of federal criminal convictions are obtained through plea bargains, and the states are not far behind at 94 percent. Why are people so eager to confess their guilt instead of challenging the government to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a unanimous jury?

The answer is simple and stark: They’re being coerced.

Though physical torture remains off limits, American prosecutors are equipped with a fearsome array of tools they can use to extract confessions and discourage people from exercising their right to a jury trial. These tools include charge-stacking (charging more or more serious crimes than the conduct really merits), legislatively-ordered mandatory-minimum sentences, pretrial detention with unaffordable bail, threats to investigate and indict friends or family members, and the so-called trial penalty — what the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers calls the “substantial difference between the sentence offered prior to trial versus the sentence a defendant receives after a trial.

Of coercive plea bargaining’s many problems, two are particularly concerning.

The first is false convictions. Though it was once believed that a confession in open court — a guilty plea — was proof-positive of a person’s guilt, we now know that simply isn’t true.”

“The other big problem with coercive plea bargaining is that it helps cover up an untold amount of prosecutorial misconduct. Even in the federal system, where prosecutors are held to a relatively higher standard, there has been a surprising amount of misconduct in the handful of cases that end up going to trial.

The most notorious example is the failed 2008 prosecution of then-Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who, after refusing a one-count guilty plea to one felony charge with no jail time, was indicted on seven counts of failing to report gifts on his financial disclosure forms after allegedly paying an insufficient amount for the renovation of his house in Alaska.

After the jury voted to convict but before Stevens was sentenced, the star witness against him recanted part of his testimony in a letterand an FBI whistleblower disclosed a pattern of deliberate, systematic cheating by prosecutors that has since been documented in a 500-page document called the Schuelke Report. The Justice Department then asked the judge to dismiss the indictment. Had Stevens taken the plea, none of the prosecutorial misconduct or exculpatory evidence in his case might ever have been revealed.”

Read more:

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/prisons-are-packed-because-prosecutors-are-coercing-plea-deals-yes-its

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

General Flynn case: impact of Horowitz IG Fisa Abuse report, Attorney Sidney Powell position of prosecutorial misconduct strengthened, Judge Sullivan outrage?

General Flynn case: impact of Horowitz IG Fisa Abuse report, Attorney Sidney Powell position of prosecutorial misconduct strengthened, Judge Sullivan outrage?

“The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.  It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. “…Attorney General Barr

“While most of the misconduct identified by the Inspector General was committed in 2016 and 2017 by a small group of now-former FBI officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process.”…Attorney General Barr

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October 23, 2019

 

From The Federalist December 13, 2019.

“How The IG FISA Abuse Report Affects Michael Flynn’s Case”

Monday’s release of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 476-page tome on the Department of Justice and FBI’s misconduct in the lead up to and aftermath of the 2016 presidential election continues to make news—and rightly so. That the DOJ and FBI obtained a surveillance order from a secret court to spy on Carter Page with a series of applications riddled with errors, fabrications, and inexcusable omissions of material fact is shocking. The shocking breadth of the government’s misconduct raises an interesting corollary question: How will Judge Emmet Sullivan react to these devastating revelations?

Sullivan has been hunkered down in his chambers for the last month contemplating (or drafting) his ruling on attorney Sidney Powell’s pending motion in the criminal case against her client, Michael Flynn. Flynn had pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the FBI before Powell took over as his defense counsel. Flynn’s sentencing was postponed to allow Powell to get up to speed in the case. Soon after, Powell filed a motion to compel federal prosecutors to turn over Brady material and other evidence that had been withheld from Flynn’s previous attorneys.

In briefing the motion to compel, in addition to arguing that the government improperly withheld evidence from Flynn, Powell also claimed that “[t]he FBI had no factual or legal basis for a criminal investigation, nor did they have a valid basis for a counter-intelligence investigation against an American citizen, and they all knew it. The evidence the defense requests will eviscerate any factual basis for the plea and reveal conduct so outrageous—if there is not enough already—to mandate dismissal of this prosecution for egregious government misconduct.””

“Now that the report is out, the question is how it will affect Flynn’s case. While the IG report focused mainly on the DOJ and FBI’s conduct related to the four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications used to obtain an order to surveil Page, Horowitz’s investigation and findings raise two issues of import in the case against Flynn.

First and foremost is the extensive evidence of government misconduct and abuse the IG uncovered. The misconduct was so extensive and egregious that it can only remind Judge Sullivan of the prosecutorial misconduct he witnessed when he presided over the DOJ’s criminal case against the late Sen. Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution that Sullivan would later conclude was “permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence…”

Soon after taking over Flynn’s case, Powell had evoked the Stevens’ prosecution as a comparator, but the IG report adds gravitas to her comparison. When asked about the effect of Horowitz’s report, Powell told The Federalist, “given the stunning lies and conduct by the FBI painfully documented in the report, I would expect Judge Sullivan—at a minimum—to order the production of everything we requested. Yet again, we see the DOJ learned nothing from the Ted Stevens case. Stronger action is required to impress upon the government a rejection of its reprehensible conduct.” Powell added that “far too many in the FBI and DOJ are willing to hide evidence, falsify documents and make up crimes to achieve their objectives—regardless of their motives.”

Before the IG report, Judge Sullivan might have put Powell’s claim of egregious prosecutorial misconduct down to “zealous advocacy.” But it is impossible to contemplate the Sullivan who tossed the Stevens’ case reacting with anything less than outrage to the recent revelations of misconduct. And while the IG report may seem only tangentially related to Flynn, most of the same bad actors were involved in both the Page and Flynn investigations.”

Read more:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/13/how-the-ig-fisa-abuse-report-affects-michael-flynns-case/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Jonathan Turley attacked over impeachment testimony, “threatening messages and demands that I be fired”, “not proven abuse of power”, “we are lowering impeachment standards”

Jonathan Turley attacked over impeachment testimony, “threatening messages and demands that I be fired”, “not proven abuse of power”, “we are lowering impeachment standards”

“a judge reaffirmed that Clinton committed perjury, a crime for which thousands of other citizens have been jailed. Yet the calls for showing that “no one is above the law” went silent with Clinton.”…Jonathan Turley

“it would be ‘very dangerous’ to the balance of powers not to hold Obama accountable for assuming powers ‘very similar’ to the ‘right of the king’ to essentially stand above the law.”…Jonathan Turley

“this is not how an American president should be impeached.”… Jonathan Turley

 

From The Hill.

By Jonathan Turley.

“Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump impeachment”

“In my testimony Wednesday, I lamented that, as in the impeachment of President Clinton from 1998 to 1999, there is an intense “rancor and rage” and “stifling intolerance” that blinds people to opposing views. My call for greater civility and dialogue may have been the least successful argument I made to the committee. Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from George Washington University for arguing that, while a case for impeachment can be made, it has not been made on this record.

Some of the most heated attacks came from Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee.”

“Notably, neither Swalwell nor Nadler allowed me to respond to those or any other attacks. It was then picked up eagerly by others, despite being a demonstrably false narrative.”

“That is precisely what I have said regarding Trump. You just need to prove abuse of power. My objection is not that you cannot impeach Trump for abuse of power but that this record is comparably thin compared to past impeachments and contains conflicts, contradictions, and gaps including various witnesses not subpoenaed. I suggested that Democrats drop the arbitrary schedule of a vote by the end of December and complete their case and this record before voting on any articles of impeachment. In my view, they have not proven abuse of power in this incomplete record.”

“As I said 21 years ago, a president can still be impeached for abuse of power without a crime, and that includes Trump. But that makes it more important to complete and strengthen the record of such an offense, as well as other possible offenses. I remain concerned that we are lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. Trump will not be our last president. What we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. These “agitated passions” will not be a substitute for proof in an impeachment. We currently have too much of the former and too little of the latter.”

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Impeachment should begin for Ilhan Omar, Conviction of immigration fraud should result in loss of US citizenship and deportation, US tax fraud, MN campaign finance violation

Impeachment should begin for Ilhan Omar, Conviction of immigration fraud should result in loss of US citizenship and deportation, US tax fraud, MN campaign finance violation

“In May Ilhan Omar (D-MN) was posing as a legal scholar and citing statutes that do not exist. She implied that President Trump must turn over his tax returns because the law requires it. Now that there are questions about Rep. Omar’s taxes, she won’t turn them over.”…The Mental Recession

“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”…U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

Impeachment should begin immediately for Rep. Ilhan Omar and if she is convicted of immigration fraud, she should lose her US citizenship and be deported.

The following ethics complaint was filed against Rep. Ilhan Omar on July 22, 2019 by Judicial Watch.

“This letter serves as an official complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).

Substantial, compelling and, to date, unrefuted evidence has been uncovered that Rep. Ilhan Omar may have committed the following crimes in violation of both federal law and Minnesota state law: perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud, and federal student loan fraud.

Such violations would also breach the Code of Ethics for Government Service, to which all federal officeholders are subject, “Any person in Government service should uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.”
1 Rep. Omar actions in this suspected immigration fraud, marriage fraud, perjurious statements on her Minnesota divorce filings, and falsifications on her
tax returns, merit your immediate investigation.

In the words of investigative reporter David Steinberg: “The facts describe perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history. “2

The evidence developed against Rep. Omar was the result of a three-year long
investigation in both the United States and the United Kingdom by Mr. Steinberg and his investigative reporter colleagues Preya Samsundar and Scott Johnson. It is supported by information gathered from public records, social media postings, genealogy databases, computer forensic analysis, unaltered digital photographs, discussions between the investigative reporters
and the subjects of the investigation themselves, and information supplied by confidential sources within the Somali-American community.

Documented-based reporting by Steinberg, et al. has developed the following
information: Rep. Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, a citizen of the United States, married her biological brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, a citizen of the United Kingdom, in 2009, presumably as part of an immigration fraud scheme. The couple legally divorced in 2017. In the course of that divorce, Ms. Omar submitted an “Application for an Order for Service by Alternate Means” to the State
of Minnesota on August 2, 2017 and claimed, among other things, that she had had no contact with Ahmed Nur Said Elmi after June 2011. She also claimed that she did not know where to find him. The evidence developed by Mr. Steinberg and his colleagues demonstrates with a high degree of certainty that Ms. Omar not only had contact with Mr. Elmi, but actually met up with him in London in 2015, which is supported by photographic evidence. Ms. Omar signed the
“Application for an Order for Service by Alternate Means” under penalty of perjury. The very document that Ilham Omar signed on August 2, 2017 bears the following notation directly above her signature: “I declare under penalty of perjury that everything I have stated in this document is true and correct. Minn. Stat. § 358.116.”3

Of particular importance are archived photographs taken during a widely reported trip by Ilhan Omar to London in 2015, posted to her own Instagram account under her nickname “hameey”, in which she poses with her husband/presumed brother, Ahmed Elmi. These photographs from 2015 are documentary evidence that in fact she met up with Mr. Elmi after June 2011 and before the date she signed the divorce document in August 2017, thereby calling
into question the veracity of her claim that she had not seen Mr. Elmi since June 2011.4

Rep. Omar’s potential crimes far exceed perjurious statements made in a Minnesota court filing.

Rep. Omar’s conduct may include immigration fraud. It appears that Rep. Omar married her brother in order to assist his emigration to the United States from the United Kingdom. The same immigration fraud scheme may have aided Mr. Elmi in obtaining federally-backed student loans for his attendance at North Dakota State University. Mr. Elmi and Rep. Omar simultaneously attended North Dakota State University and may have derived illicit benefits
predicated on the immigration fraud scheme.

The State of Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board has already determined that Rep. Omar violated state campaign finance laws for improper use of campaign funds. She was forced to reimburse her campaign thousands of dollars. More significantly, the Board discovered that the federal tax returns submitted by Rep. Omar for 2014 and 2015 were filed as “joint” tax returns with a man who was not her husband, named Ahmed Hirsi, while she
was actually married to Ahmed Elmi.5

Under federal law, specifically, 26 U.S. Code§ 7206.1, “Any person who willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter … shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.”

Rep. Omar’s federal tax returns must be examined to determine whether any additional falsifications were made.”

Read more:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Omar-ethics-complaint-07-22-19-1.pdf?D=1

“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

US Supreme Court decision to uphold mandated arbitration further erodes our rights, Our day in court, “deprivation of consumers’ rights to seek redress for losses”

US Supreme Court decision to uphold mandated arbitration further erodes our rights, Our day in court, “deprivation of consumers’ rights to seek redress for losses”

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”…Karl Marx

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”…Matthew 7:15

“Our right to our day in court has been severely eroded.”…Citizen Wells

 

People around me and online may try to put me in a nice neat box such as Republican.

I do not fit.

What I am is an American who adheres to the US Constitution and rule of law.

I am not against arbitration on principle. Mutually agreed to.

I am against forced, mandated arbitration which strips away one of our basic rights.

Our day in court.

From the New York Times.

“Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts Barring Class Actions

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that companies can use arbitration clauses in employment contracts to prohibit workers from banding together to take legal action over workplace issues.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s more conservative justices in the majority. The court’s decision could affect some 25 million employment contracts.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said the court’s conclusion was dictated by a federal law favoring arbitration and the court’s precedents. If workers were allowed to band together to press their claims, he wrote, “the virtues Congress originally saw in arbitration, its speed and simplicity and inexpensiveness, would be shorn away and arbitration would wind up looking like the litigation it was meant to displace.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, a sign of profound disagreement. In her written dissent, she called the majority opinion “egregiously wrong.” In her oral statement, she said the upshot of the decision “will be huge under-enforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well being of vulnerable workers.”

Justice Ginsburg called on Congress to address the matter.

Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who studies arbitrations and class actions, said the ruling was unsurprising in light of earlier Supreme Court decisions. Justice Gorsuch, he added, “appears to have put his cards on the table as firmly in favor of allowing class actions to be stamped out through arbitration agreements.”

As a result, Professor Fitzpatrick said “it is only a matter of time until the most powerful device to hold corporations accountable for their misdeeds is lost altogether.””

“Under those contracts, Justice Ginsburg wrote, it is often not worth it and potentially dangerous to pursue small claims individually. “By joining hands in litigation, workers can spread the costs of litigation and reduce the risk of employer retaliation,” she wrote.

The contracts may also encourage misconduct, Justice Ginsburg wrote.

“Employers, aware that employees will be disinclined to pursue small-value claims when confined to proceeding one-by-one, will no doubt perceive that the cost-benefit balance of underpaying workers tips heavily in favor of skirting legal obligations,” she wrote, adding that billions of dollars in underpaid wages are at issue.

Justice Ginsburg added that requiring individual arbitrations can produce inconsistent results in similar cases, particularly because arbitrations are often confidential.”

“In a 2015 dissent, Justice Ginsburg, citing a New York Times article examining arbitration agreements, wrote that the 2011 decision and later ones “have predictably resulted in the deprivation of consumers’ rights to seek redress for losses, and, turning the coin, they have insulated powerful economic interests from liability for violations of consumer protection laws.””

Read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/business/supreme-court-upholds-workplace-arbitration-contracts.html

Having experienced the abuse of mandated arbitration first hand, I agree with Justice Ginsburg.

It may be the only time it happens, but injustice is injustice.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Walter Wagner US Supreme Court response due by May 5, 2016, Ted Cruz eligibility petition for a writ of certiorari, Cruz not natural born citizen born in Canada

Walter Wagner US Supreme Court response due by May 5, 2016, Ted Cruz eligibility petition for a writ of certiorari, Cruz not natural born citizen born in Canada

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

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

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

Utah lawyer Walter Wagner has a petition for a writ of certiorari before the US Supreme Court in his challenge that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen. The petition is on the docket and a response is indicated by May 5, 2016.

No. 15-1243
Title:
Walter L. Wagner, Petitioner
v.
Rafael Edward Cruz
Docketed: April 5, 2016
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
  Case Nos.: (16-4044)
Rule 11

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mar 29 2016 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due May 5, 2016)

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-1243.htm

 

From UPI April 9, 2016.

“A Utah lawyer has appealed a lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging Republican presidential candidate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is not a “natural born citizen” and therefore ineligible to become president.

Legal scholars say there is virtually no chance the high court will consider the appeal, partly because they do not want to encourage a wave of similar suits.

Cruz has faced questions about his eligibility to become president from his chief rival, Donald Trump. Cruz was born in Canada, though his mother is a U.S. citizen.

The U.S. Constitution sets only a few standards for presidential eligibility. Candidates must be 35, have lived at least 14 years in the country and be a “natural born citizen.”

To some, legal vagaries exist surrounding the constitutional language. Congress has never passed a law explicitly defining the term “natural born citizen” and the nation’s founding document does not specify what qualifications someone must have.

For centuries, the courts have fallen back to the British common law explanation, that a “natural born citizen” is anyone who is granted citizenship at birth and, therefore, does not have to undergo any naturalization process later in life. Traditionally, that has included anyone born on American soil and the children of American citizens born abroad.

But that definition has generally not been tested in courts because federal judges are first bound to consider whether a plaintiff has standing to bring a lawsuit. To establish standing, someone making allegations has to pass the threshold they have been personally injured in some way.”

“”Like the courts that have ruled on this question, this court holds that Mr. Wagner lacks standing to bring his claim,” Parrish said in her ruling. “It is not enough for an individual to bring a lawsuit based on his status as a ‘citizen’ or a ‘taxpayer.'”

“The harms alleged by Mr. Wagner are conjectural and hypothetical at best,” Parrish concluded.”

Read more:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/04/09/Ted-Cruz-birther-lawsuit-appealed-to-Supreme-Court/4101460240964/

Read more:

https://citizenwells.com

Einer R. Elhauge US Supreme Court Amicus brief, Ted Cruz not eligible as natural born citizen, Harvard Law Professor, Former Chairman of Obama Antitrust Advisory Committee

Einer R. Elhauge US Supreme Court Amicus brief, Ted Cruz not eligible as natural born citizen, Harvard Law Professor, Former Chairman of Obama Antitrust Advisory Committee

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

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

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

This would have been reported earlier except for problems accessing Birther Report.

Another Harvard Law Professor states in a Amicus Brief to the US Supreme Court that Ted Cruz is not eligible for the presidency as a natural born citizen.

From Birther Report March 16, 2016.

“Harvard Law Professor Files Amicus Curiae Brief
In Canadian-Born Cruz NY Ballot Access Challenge

Harvard Law Professor, Former Chairman of the Antitrust Advisory Committee to Obama’s campaign, Einer Elhauge, filed an amicus brief at the New York Supreme Court advising the court that Canadian-born Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president under the Article II natural born Citizen requirement. Elhauge also says it’s not a political question.”

“In short, the text, history, canons of interpretation, contemporaneous dictionaries, and other evidence strongly indicate that by “natural born citizen” the Constitution meant someone who was a natural born citizen at common law, meaning someone who was born either (a) in a United States territory or (b) to a U.S. official serving his country abroad. Contrary to the Cruz brief, see Cruz Brief at 33, this understanding is entirely consistent with the common understanding that John McCain was a natural born citizen because McCain actually met both of these grounds. John McCain was both (a) born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) and (b) born to parents who were both U.S. soldiers serving their nation abroad. However, the Constitutional meaning of “natural born citizen” excludes Ted Cruz because he was (a) born in Canada rather than a U.S. territory (b) to a father who was not a U.S. citizen and to a mother who was a private U.S. citizen who was not serving for the U.S. in Canada.

The Constitutional Meaning of Natural Born Citizen Has Not Been Expanded by Decisions or Statutes. Contrary to the analysis above, the Cruz brief asserts that: “Every judicial decision and virtually every constitutional authority agrees that a ‘natural born Citizen’ is anyone who was a citizen at the moment he was born—as opposed to becoming a citizen through the naturalization process at some point after his birth.” Cruz Brief at 29.

The Supreme Court’s Understanding. The Cruz Brief’s assertion that “every judicial decision” adopted this understanding of “natural born citizen” conflicts with the very first decision the brief cites in support of this claim, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1897). That Supreme Court decision expressly stated:

Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Id. at 702-03. The highlighted portion of Wong Kim Ark thus explicitly stated that persons who are born abroad and become citizens at birth only because a Congressional statute makes them so are “naturalized”, not natural born citizens.”

Read more:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/03/obama-advisor-harvard-law-professors-ny.html

 

NH voters cast vote for ineligible candidate Cruz?, New Hampshire ballot commission rejected efforts to remove Ted Cruz, Law of eligibility murky, Neither US Supreme Court nor any authority has explicitly ruled on natural born citizen

NH voters cast vote for ineligible candidate Cruz?, New Hampshire ballot commission rejected efforts to remove Ted Cruz, Law of eligibility murky, Neither US Supreme Court nor any authority has explicitly ruled on natural born citizen

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

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

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

Two state ballot entities recently ruled on Ted Cruz remaining on their ballots.

The Illinois state board of elections ruled that Ted Cruz is eligible as a natural born citizen.  IL is consistently listed as one of the most corrupt states in the US and the home of Obama, another non natural born citizen.

No surprise.

The New Hampshire ballot commission took a more honest approach.

“If there is a clear ruling on some issues that somebody clearly doesn’t meet, we would apply it. If there is a constitutional uncertainty about the meaning of something – which from my research and from all the stuff that was thrown at us at the commission there certainly is about the natural born citizen thing — we don’t undertake to make that decision,”

I was disappointed to find what I consider to be the most inaccurate article I have uncovered at American Thinker, February 5, 2016.

“Illinois and New Hampshire Agree Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen”

“Trump persists that Cruz’s citizenship is still an open question. It is not, and the election boards of two states, New Hampshire and Illinois, have now ruled, in response to complaints, that Sen. Ted Cruz is indeed, under the laws and Constitution of the United States, a “natural born citizen” fully eligible to be President of the United States. As the Washington Examiner reported:”

“A ballot commission in New Hampshire also ruled in favor of Cruz in January, but the language in Monday’s decision by the Illinois board took a stronger tone than the previous ruling, warning other skeptics, “Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary.””

“Indeed, it is unnecessary. The question of Cruz’s citizenship has been asked and answered. Is Trump saying that a baby born in Paris to a vacationing American family is not eligible to run for president and must be “naturalized” like some illegal alien from Guadalajara?

Some noted legal scholars would beg to differ from Trump’s concern that Cruz is not in fact a “natural born” citizen.

Jonathan Adler, who teaches courses in constitutional, administrative, and environmental law at Case Western University School of Law, writes in the Washington Post:

Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was a U.S. citizen. His father, a Cuban, was not. Under U.S. law, the fact that Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen mother makes him a citizen from birth. In other words, he is a “natural born citizen” (as opposed to a naturalized citizen) and is constitutionally eligible.”

“Also agreeing with Cruz’s eligibility are two constitutional scholars who have argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Washington Post reported:

Writing in the Harvard Law Review, two former top Supreme Court litigators, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, said: “All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.”

“Now two state boards of election have certified Cruz’s eligibility, which is beyond dispute, no matter how much Trump whines, pouts, and throws out groundless accusations.”

Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/illinois_and_new_hampshire_agree_cruz_is_a_natural_born_citizen.html

Aside from being wrong on the definition of natural born citizen, this article is blatantly inaccurate:

New Hampshire did not rule that Cruz is a natural born citizen.

It omitted the opinion of constitutional expert Laurence Tribe of Harvard:

“Cruz says this is all settled law, but Harvard’s Laurence Tribe disagrees.

“It clearly is not settled law,” Tribe said in recent an interview.”

“That’s because Tribe says Cruz is a constitutional “originalist,” who believes the document should be followed to the letter. Tribe says jurists who share such a view might well conclude that Cruz is not eligible to be president — because he was not born in America.

According to Tribe, this shows that Cruz is trying to have it both ways.”

http://www.wbur.org/2016/01/15/donald-trump-ted-cruz-laurence-tribe-citizenship

From The Dallas Morning News November 24, 2015.

“The New Hampshire ballot commission today rejected efforts to kick Canada-born Sen. Ted Cruz off the primary ballot based on his birth outside the United States.

That clears a key legal and political obstacle as the Texas Republican seeks the GOP nomination for president. But it’s not a clear win on the question of eligibility.

Rather, the panel found that with the law of eligibility so murky, it can’t second-guess the senator’s own claims that he passes constitutional muster. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other authority has explicitly ruled that someone like Cruz — born on foreign soil, with one American parent – can or cannot be president.

“It would be really nice if somebody would get this issue of law decided who has authority to decide constitutional issues, so every four years we don’t have this come up again,” said Manchester attorney Brad Cook, a Republican who chairs the 5-member New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission.”

Read more:

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/regardless-of-canadian-birth-ted-cruz-survives-ballot-challenge-in-new-hampshire.html/

AMERICAN THINKER OWES THE PUBLIC AN APOLOGY.