Category Archives: US Department of Justice

Blagojevich trial jurors request Bradley Tusk testimony, August 16, 2010

Blagojevich trial jurors request Bradley Tusk testimony, August 16, 2010

From the Chicago Tribune August 16, 2010.

“On the 13th day of deliberations, jurors in the Rod Blagojevich corruption trial have made a new request of U.S. District Judge James Zagel: they want to see a transcript of the testimony of Bradley Tusk, a former deputy governor who spoke on the stand about what he perceived as an attempted shakedown of U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel.

Over the objections of a defense lawyer, Zagel said he would provide the transcript.
Tusk, who served Blagojevich from 2003 until 2006, testified that Blagojevich had promised a $2 million grant to an experimental Chicago school in Emanuel’s district, only to later hold its release hostage unless Emanuel leaned on his Hollywood talent agent brother, Ari, to hold a fundraiser for the governor. Tusk testified that he was so outraged by Blagojevich’s alleged tactic that he told Blagojevich’s general counsel, William Quinlan, to “get control of your client.””

“Jurors created a stir last week with a note to Zagel signaling they have been able to agree on only two of the 24 counts against Blagojevich and had not yet even considered 11 wire fraud counts.

Zagel told them to deliberate further and asked them to come to some decision about the wire fraud counts, even if it was only that they were split.

If they can’t agree, Zagel could accept a partial verdict and declare the jury hung on undecided charges. That could result in prosecutors retrying Blagojevich.”

Read more:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/blagojevich-on-trial/2010/08/blago-attorneys-called-in-for-a-jury-question.html

Citizen Wells open thread, August 15, 2010, Obama, Blagojevich, Eligibility, Economy, Congress

Citizen Wells open thread, August 15, 2010

As you may have guessed, I have been on the road. The next few months should be interesting. Take your pick.

Blagojevich verdict.

Obama eligibility in the forefront with LTC Terry Lakin court martial.

Economy.

Continued Globe articles on Obama.

Congressional elections.

Robert F Bauer, Patrick Fitzgerald, Elena Kagan, Obama puppets, Citizen Wells open thread, August 13, 2010

Robert F Bauer, Patrick Fitzgerald, Elena Kagan, Obama puppets

What do Robert F. Bauer, Patrick Fitzgerald and Elena Kagan have in common?

This will help jog your memory on Bauer.

“Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 2 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, :
:
Plaintiff :
:
v. : Civ. Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS
:
BARACK OBAMA, et al., :”
“MOTION OF DEFENDANTS
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON DISPOSITIVE MOTION
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), defendants Democratic National Committee
and Senator Barack Obama respectfully move the Court for a protective order staying all
discovery in this action pending the Court’s decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss
the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.”
“Respectfully submitted,”
“Robert F. Bauer
General Counsel, Obama for America
PERKINS COIE
607 Fourteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2003
Telephone: (202) 628-6600
Facsimile: (202) 434-1690

RBauer@perkinscoie.com
“I. Procedural Background
In his Complaint, plaintiff Berg alleges that Senator Barack Obama, the
Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States, is not eligible to serve as
President under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution because, Mr. Berg alleges
(falsely), Senator Obama is purportedly not a natural-born citizen. Complaint ¶3. Mr.
Berg seeks a declaratory judgment that Senator Obama is ineligible to run for President;
an injunction barring Senator Obama from running for that office; and an injunction
barring the DNC from nominating him.

On September 15, 2008, plaintiff Berg served on Senator Obama’s office a
request for production of seventeen different categories of documents, including copies of
all of the Senator’s college and law school applications, requests for financial aid, college
and law school papers, and “a copy of your entire presidential file pertaining to being
vetted.” Plaintiff also served 56 requests for admission on Senator Obama. On that same
date, plaintiff served on the DNC 27 requests for admission and requests for production
of five categories of documents, including all documents in the possession of the DNC
relating to Senator Obama.1

On September 24, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, on the grounds that, as a
matter of law, plaintiff has no standing to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for
President of the U.S. and has no federal cause of action.”

“In this case, as in Weisman and Norfolk Southern Rwy., defendants’ pending
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction would dispose of the entire
action. The motion does not involve any disputed issues of fact: defendants contend that,
as a matter of law, plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the qualifications of a candidate
for President and that there is no federal cause of action that could serve as a means for
such a challenge. Thus, discovery is not needed in order to rule on the motion. In these
circumstances, a stay of discovery is warranted and appropriate.”

“For the reasons set forth above, the Court should grant the motion of defendants
DNC and Senator Barack Obama for a protective order staying discovery pending a

decision on their motion to dismiss.
Respectfully submitted,”
Robert F. Bauer
General Counsel, Obama for America
PERKINS COIE
607 Fourteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2003
Telephone: (202) 628-6600
Facsimile: (202) 434-1690

RBauer@perkinscoie.com

Blagojevich trial verdict possible today, August 12, 2010, Citizen Wells open thread

Blagojevich trial verdict possible today, August 12, 2010

A verdict in the Rod Blagojevich trial may come today. A note sent to Judge James Zagel from the jurors indicated they may be deadlocked on some of the counts. John Kass of the Chicago Tribune, who has been openly critical of Blagojevich and Obama for some time, provides some commentary.

“Despite all the theories tossed about after the jury delivered the note Wednesday to U.S. District Judge James Zagel, here’s the thing.

Nobody knows what it means. I don’t. Rod Blagojevich doesn’t. Certainly the lawyers don’t.
“We don’t know what it means,” said Michael Ettinger, lawyer for Rod’s brother and co-defendant Robert Blagojevich. “The judge doesn’t know what it means. I assume they are hung on my client, but I don’t know.”

So nobody knows. And you don’t, either, unless you’re a juror, and if you are, then you better stop reading this right now or Judge Zagel will get medieval on you.

So after getting all high and mighty and criticizing my TV colleagues for speculating, it would be most unfair for me to engage in speculation.

Or would it?

According to my own speculations, here’s what we do know:

In the annals of human history, there have been only two times that the impish grin has been wiped completely from the face of Rod Blagojevich.

First, there was that time when the FBI called him about 6 a.m. to tell him they were coming through his bungalow door to arrest him. And he thought it was his good buddy, then state Sen. Jimmy DeLeo, D-How You Doin?, making a practical joke.

Jimmy? Is that you? Jimmy?

No, it was Rob Grant, the special agent in charge of the Chicago FBI office.

And the second time the grin was wiped off was Wednesday, when he got the call to get down to the courthouse immediately because the jury had something to say.

By the time he arrived, he had been able to force at least half the smile back on his face. Walking past reporters, he wisecracked, “Missed you guys.”

But inside, without a jury to play to, the infuriating grin was gone. Instead, he patted his head a number of times, running his fingers over the back of his prodigious mane. But nervously, not like Mr. Cool.”

“Lawyers were told to return to court at 11 a.m. Thursday. That’s going to fuel even more speculation by us gum flappers who don’t know any more than do you.

Notwithstanding the “deliberated without rancor” line from the Perry Masons on the jury, Zagel had kind words for the panel.

He told the lawyers that the jurors were “exceptionally disciplined” and that he hadn’t once heard them fighting in the jury room.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ctc-met-kass-0812-20100812,0,420740.column?page=2&track=rss

Applicable to this trial and other things to be commented on soon,

Things are not always as they seem.

Also, He who laughs last, laughs loudest.

Wells

Blagojevich trial, Day 11 of jury deliberations, Citizen Wells open thread, August 11, 2010

Blagojevich trial, Day 11 of jury deliberations

Today, August 11, 2010, is day 11 of jury deliberations in the Rod Blagojevich trial. What will the verdict be? That’s anybody’s guess. What is the real verdict? The US Justice Department is corrupt and the fix was in many months ago. Remember folks, regardless of the verdict, it can be appealed.

Philip J Berg v Obama update, August 9, 2010, Petition for Rehearing Court EN BANC, Berg as Relator vs. Obama

Philip J Berg v Obama update, August 9, 2010, Petition for Rehearing Court EN BANC

From Philip J Berg.

For Immediate Release:  – 08/08/2010
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire         
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12                         
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659

philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Berg Files a Petition for Rehearing Court EN BANC
in the Case of
Berg as Relator vs. Obama
* * *
No Surprise that Attorney General Holder
Will “not” Prosecute “blacks” in Voting Rights Cases
as he has Refused to Prosecute Obama
in this False Claims Act Case
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 08/08/2010) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “Constitutional qualifications” to serve as President of the United States.  The Policy of United States Attorney General Eric Holder not to prosecute “blacks” in voting rights cases should be no surprise as A.G. Holder has refused to prosecute Barack Hussein Obama in the False Claims Act [Qui Tam] case of Berg as Relator vs. Obama.

Berg said, “The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, his offices and staff, including the Department of Justice have a clear Conflict-of-Interest in any type of prosecution against Obama.”

“This type case is usually utilized in Medicaid and Medicare cases where fraud is alleged.  In the case against Obama, I set forth that Obama is not “natural born” or “naturalized” but an “illegal alien” and therefore, his term as a United States Senator from Illinois was fraud and the salary and benefits Obama received must be returned to the United States Treasury, an amount in excess of One [$1] Million Dollars.  I base my claim on the fact that Obama was adopted/acknowledged by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, in Indonesia and Obama’s legal name became “Barry Soetoro.”  At age ten [10] when he returned to Hawaii, I allege that he did not go through U.S. Immigration on a U.S. Passport, but did so on his Indonesia Passport,  therefore, an “illegal alien.”  Also, I allege that “Barry Soetoro” [former Barrack Hussein Obama] has never legally changed his name and therefore, he has committed ongoing fraud by using Barrack Hussein Obama.

“The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, reports directly to the alleged violator, Soetoro/Obama; gives opinions and legal advice to the alleged violator, Soetoro/Obama; was senior legal advisor to Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidential campaign; and served as one of three [3] members on Obama’s Vice-Presidential Selection Committee and thus a major Conflict-of-Interest existed and still exists with my, Berg’s, False Claim or Qui Tam Case.” 

Berg’s False Claims Act [Qui Tam] Case was originally filed in the United States District Court, District of Columbia at the end of 2008.  The U.S. District Court Dismissed the Qui Tam Action and failed to respond to the issue of the Conflict-of- Interest.  Berg Appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, who on June 30, 2010, upheld the District Court’s ruling and in so doing stated that Berg failed to demonstrate that the Department of Justice and the Attorney General, Eric Holder, have a Conflict-of-Interest.  This simply is not the case.

Government employees are required to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations, which clearly spell out the issue of Conflict-of-Interest.  Just to name a few, Eric Holder’s placement with Obama through Obama’s campaign are in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder reports directly to Obama, the violator, spells out a clear Conflict-of-Interest under the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder gives opinions and legal advice to the alleged violator, is a clear Conflict-of-Interest under the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder was the Senior Legal Advisor to Obama’s Presidential campaign violates the Code of Federal Regulations under Conflict-of-Interests; and the fact Eric Holder served as one of three [3] members on Obama’s Vice-Presidential Selection Committee are all clear Conflict-of-Interests in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations.

For this reason, Berg has filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  When a case is brought to the United States Appellate Court, the matter or a three-Judge panel hears matters complained of.  When you request a rehearing En Banc, you are asking for the majority of active Circuit Judges to rehear the case En Banc. 

Many Appellate Courts, who have a large number of Judges and a large caseload, will divide the Cases (Appeals) into divisions or panels for each case.  For example, three [3] judge panels usually hear United States Appeals Court cases.  There are times however, at the request of the panel, or one of the litigants, the case is later reheard by the full court, or, En Banc.  En Banc is a French word that means “the full Court”.  When a Petition for a Rehearing En Banc is filed, the party filing the Petition is asking for the Full Court to rehear the matter complained of on Appeal.

Berg said, “If a Conflict-of-Interest does not exist in this case, Berg as Relator vs. Obama, then the words ‘Conflict-of-Interest’ must be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations and from all legal and other dictionaries.”

Berg concluded, “If we are denied a rehearing En Banc, then I will take this Case to the U.S. Supreme Court as the issues presented are far too important not to address.”

For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
http://obamacrimes.com

Blagojevich trial verdict anticlimatic, Blagojevich fix in years ago, Citizen Wells open thread, August 1, 2010

Blagojevich trial verdict anticlimatic, Blagojevich fix in years ago

The Blagojevich trial jury has requested transcripts from the trial. Judge Zagel may provide some of them. However, no matter how this farce plays out, regardless of the outcome, it will be anticlimatic. The fix was in years ago. Some kind of deal was struck between Blagojevich, Rezko and Obama. The US Justice Department is corrupt and just as in the dismissal of the case against the New Black Panther Party, openly displays a racial bias. We also have evidence of this in the total disregard for the Constitution by federal judges when they have been confronted by overwhelming evidence against Obama’s eligibility. Will the US Supreme Court rise to the occasion to check the miscarriage of justice? Will another whistleblower come forward? 

If anyone questioned corruption in the US Justice Dept. in the past, with the dismissal of the New Black Panther Party case and the flagrant manipulation of evidence combined with delays and timing in the Blagojevich trial, all doubts must be erased.

Blagojevich trial jury requests transcripts of all testimony, July 30, 2010, Judge James Zagel

Blagojevich trial jury requests transcripts of all testimony, July 30, 2010

From the Chicago Breaking News Center July 30, 2010.

“Jurors in Rod Blagojevich’s corruption trial may be settling in for a long haul after sending a note to the judge this morning asking for a transcript of all the testimony.

“Is it permissible to obtain a transcript of the testimony?” the note signed by the jury’s foreman read. “It would be helpful.”

U.S. District Judge James Zagel said he took the note to mean the jury wanted transcripts of the testimony of all 27 witnesses in the seven-week trial.

The judge said he planned to respond by telling the jury he would consider requests for specific witnesses, which seemingly will invite the jury to list those whose testimony the panel wants the most.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/blago-jury-wants-transcripts-of-all-testimony.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChicagoBreakingNews+%28Chicago+Breaking+News%29

Blagojevich trial jury verdict, Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine, If I were a juror, Thanks Mary Schmich

Blagojevich trial jury verdict, Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine, If I were a juror

I ran across this article written by Mary Schmich of the Chicago Tribune.

“If I were a Blago juror …”

“If I were a juror, I’d wonder why we never heard from so many of the allegedly bad guys — Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine — mentioned by the prosecution.”

Read more:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-schmich-0728-20100728,0,2697214.column

Thanks to Mary Schmich. This should be front page news.

From part 6 in the series here on the Blagojevich trial, protecting Obama and US Justice Department corruption.

“Beginning with

“THE GOVERNMENT’S PROFFER REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY”

Pages 15 to 52  reveal Blagojevich’s involvement in corruption beginning in 2002 and going into the summer of 2008. Here are some of the names mentioned in this section:

Tony Rezko

Stuart Levine

Patti Blagojevich

John Harris

Christopher Kelly

Alonzo Monk

Joseph Cari

William Cellini

Robert Weinstein

Ali Ata

Joseph Aramanda

Daniel Mahru

Fortune Massuda

Imad Almanaseer

Michel Malek

Jacob Kiferbaum

Out of this 91 page document, 38 pages are loaded with names and events tied to Rod Blagojevich from 2002 to the summer of 2008. Beginning on page 52 and to page 90 are references to Blagojevich shady dealings primarily from the summer of 2008 on.”

As noted in part 5 of this series, Tony Rezko’s name was mentioned approximately 288 times in the Evidentiary Proffer. The above numbers reveal that of the evidence presented in the Proffer, 38 pages are loaded with names and corruption activities tied to Blagojevich from 2002 to mid 2008. And yet neither Tony Rezko or Stuart Levine were called as witnesses. And just as predicted and warned about here, the focus of the trial was the selling of Obama’s senate seat.”

Read more

If I were a juror, I would be shocked at the prosecution’s case, their shortening of the trial and their failure to call many key witnesses.

Blagojevich trial fixed, US Justice Department corrupt, Obama protected, Media coverage?, Citizen Wells open thread, July 28, 2010

Blagojevich trial fixed, US Justice Department corrupt, Obama protected, Media coverage?

The jury begins deliberations today, Wednesday, July 28, 2010. It is obvious to anyone paying attention that the arrest and trial of Rod Blagojevich was crafted to protect Obama. The Blagojevich attorneys are correct. The prosecution did not present a case. Is this being covered properly in the media, including Fox? If you have any evidence of media coverage, please advise.

Yesterday I presented part 6 on the Blagojevich trial, protecting Obama and US Justice Dept. corruption. What I did was not rocket science. The basis of part 6 was presenting information from the Evidentiary Proffer. A cursory examination of the the evidence there reveals that the trial was rigged.

“As noted in part 5 of this series, Tony Rezko’s name was mentioned approximately 288 times in the Evidentiary Proffer. The above numbers reveal that of the evidence presented in the Proffer, 38 pages are loaded with names and corruption activities tied to Blagojevich from 2002 to mid 2008. And yet neither Tony Rezko or Stuart Levine were called as witnesses. And just as predicted and warned about here, the focus of the trial was the selling of Obama’s senate seat.

The approximately 39 pages devoted to Blagojevich’s activities mainly from mid 2008 to his arrest reveal much about the chicanery crafted in this setup. These pages are at most a continuation of Blagojevich’s activities in the prior 6 years. They are more general in nature and in the case of the selling of the senate seat, more open to interpretation.

Compare these facts to the evidence and witnesses of the Blagojevich trial.

It is clear from the facts, from the evidence that:

Rod Blagojevich should have been arrested and indicted by 2006.

The arrest of Blagojevich was delayed until after the 2008 election to protect Obama.

The shortening of the trial was designed to protect Obama and the Democrats.

The withholding of evidence and not calling witnesses such as Tony Rezko and Stuart Levine was designed to protect Blagojevich and Obama. The theatrics playing out in court are likely to be a diversion to make it appear that the defense wanted Rezko and Levine to take the witness stand. Rezko and Levine know too much about both Blagojevich and Obama. That is why the Justice Department did not call them as witnesses. We have confirmation from this apparent scheme and other revelations that the US Justice Department is corrupt.”

Are there anymore whistleblowers in the US Justice Department? Anymore attorneys who believe in the US Constituton and rule of law?