Tag Archives: June 16

Vermont Supreme Court decision in Paige natural born citizen lawsuit, June 16, 2017, H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont Secretary of State James Condos Ted Cruz Marco Rubio, 3-2 decision

Vermont Supreme Court decision in Paige natural born citizen lawsuit, June 16, 2017, H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont Secretary of State James Condos Ted Cruz Marco Rubio, 3-2 decision

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
“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

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

“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

 

From  H. Brooke Paige.

“A quick read finds that the court chose not to reach the merits and
rendered a split (3-2) decision on the issue of mootness. While not
stated, it appears that they did not find that plaintiff/appellant lacked
standing or that the court lacked jurisdiction.  The court erred in
assigning blame for procedural delays entirely on plaintiff as I did not
make requests for elongation of time in filing while the defendants did so
on five occasions.

Robinson, with Eaton concurring, took exception with the court’s failure
to find that case presented a permissible exception to mootness.”

From the decision:

“¶ 12. As to the second prong, appellant recognizes the change in the facts, acknowledging in his brief that “[w]e are beyond the primary election in Vermont.” In response, he re-directs his argument away from the fall 2016 election and toward future elections. First, he maintains that
addressing the issue of whether Senators Cruz and Rubio are constitutionally qualified to appear on future ballots not only would redress his injuries but also would be practical for the public as a whole:
The Court can give plaintiff a remedy which will redress his injuries,
that remedy being a declaration that Cruz and Rubio are not Article
II natural born citizens and that the Vermont Secretary of State is
not to place their names on the primary or general election ballot in
future presidential elections. . . . At this stage, it will not cause the
State of Vermont any inconvenience or extra expense for it to follow
a judgment of this Court as to whether the names of Cruz or Rubio
should be allowed to be printed on future election ballots.
Addressing the issue at this early stage will avoid any confusion or
interference with the rights of Vermont voters to cast their ballots
during future elections. (Emphasis added)
And later appellant directly argues that the issue is bound to come up again:
The issue of what is a natural born citizen and the state’s role in
answering that question as it applies to placing candidates for
president on the state election ballots remains even though the
election is over . . . this issue just keeps coming up but is never
resolved for one reason or another. (Emphasis added)
¶ 13. Without assessing the first prong of the test for cases that are capable of repetition but evading review, we determine that appellant is unable to satisfy the second prong—he is unable to show that there is a reasonable expectation that he “will be subjected to the same action again.”
Id. ¶ 6. Appellant’s argument here boils down to mere speculation: “Cruz and Rubio will probably be running for President again in 2020.” While it is true that the Senators may run for president during the next election, appellant must show that it is more than just “theoretically possible” that the situation he currently objects to will repeat itself; rather, he must show a “demonstrated probability” that he will become embroiled again in this same situation. In re Green Mountain
Power Corp., 148 Vt. 333, 335, 532 A.2d 582, 584 (1987). But appellant offers nothing to support his speculation—no legal filings by either Senator and no statements by either Senator to the effect that they will run for president in the future.
¶ 14. A decision by this Court regarding the meaning of the phrase “natural born
Citizen”—and, ultimately, whether the Senators may run for president in Vermont—cannot be based on mere speculation. Appellant’s case is similar to those in which we have found that the capable-of-repetition-but-evading-review exception does not apply. See In re P.S., 167 Vt. at 68,
702 A.2d at 101 (holding that appeal of revocation of nonhospitalization order of mental patient who had later been released under separate order did not meet mootness exception because court’s findings regarding first order were specific to month in which they were made and any future revocations would “be based on new fact patterns”); Dor ia, 156 Vt. at 119-20, 589 A.2d at 319
(finding that mootness exception did not apply in case in which defeated gubernatorial candidate objected to poll conducted by university professor, because candidate did not “show any reasonable expectation that he will be subjected to the same type of political poll” in future elections); see also State v. Gundlah, 160 Vt. 193, 196, 624 A.2d 368, 370 (1993) (holding that no
mootness exception applied in journalist’s appeal of contempt-of-court conviction for refusing to testify at prosecution of prison escapee who subsequently pleaded no contest, because “[a] repetition of the fact pattern presented seems highly unlikely and certainly does not rise to a
reasonable expectation.”). ”

“¶ 17. Appellant’s case is moot because it no longer involves an actual controversy, appellant no longer has a legally cognizable interest in its outcome, and it does not meet either exception to the mootness doctrine argued by appellant. At this time, any opinion issued by this Court on the issues raised by appellant would merely be advisory, and would not be within our
constitutional authority to render. See Doria, 156 Vt. at 117, 589 A.2d at 318. We therefore affirm its dismissal by the trial court.”

https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/sites/default/files/documents/op16-202.pdf

Thank you Mr. Paige for your efforts.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Obama Rezko lot purchase bank still in news, FDIC v Mutual Bank Amrish Mahajan et al, June 16, 2014, Magistrate status hearing and motion hearing, Tony Rezko corruption cronies

Obama Rezko lot purchase bank still in news, FDIC v Mutual Bank Amrish Mahajan et al, June 16, 2014, Magistrate status hearing and motion hearing, Tony Rezko corruption cronies

“Why wasn’t Rod Blagojevich, Governor of IL, prosecuted before Tony Rezko, a businessman?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Mutual Bank fire whistleblower Kenneth J Connor after he challenged the appraisal on the land purchased by Rita Rezko, just prior to the land sale to Obama?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

 

 

 

Residue from the Obama Chicago pay to play politics centering around Tony Rezko still sticks to the news.

The FDIC case against Mutual Banks officers, president Amrish Mahajan et al is still alive.

Mahajan has been barred from banking.

From the US District Court Northern District of Illinois.

The FDIC lawsuit against Amrish Mahajan, former president of Mutual Bank, et al is scheduled for a magistrate status hearing and motion hearing in the courtroom of Judge Young B. Kim  on June 16, 2014. Mutual Bank loaned Rita Rezko the money for the lot that was purchased by the Obama’s. It is also the bank that fired whistleblower Kenneth J. Conner after he questioned the appraisal of that lot.

Daily Calendar

Monday, June 16, 2014 (As of 06/16/14 at 04:46:56 AM )

Honorable Young B. Kim Courtroom 1019 (YBK)

1:11-cv-07590 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporatio 08:30 Magistrate Status Hearing

1:11-cv-07590 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporatio 08:30 Motion Hearing

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

From Citizen Wells June 5, 2012.

The Obama camp, with the full cooperation of the mainstream media and US Justice Dept., has done their best to distance Obama from his numerous close corruption ties in Chicago and Illinois. The delayed and dragged out prosecution of Rod Blagojevich with his mutual ties to Tony Rezko, the failure to call Rezko as a witness and the dropping of counts against Blagojevich that are most damning for Obama, is one good example.

With the best attempts to divert attention away from Obama’s corrupt past, the Ghosts of Obama’s Christmas past continue to linger.

From an article written by truthteller and presented on NoQuarter USA on October 12, 2008.

“”Because I tend to rely on evidence and not on hearsay, I believe we should focus our attention on Amrish Mahajan and the Mutual Bank of Harvey, not on Giannoulias and the Broadway Bank, if we are to assign names to the financial institution about which Sneed of the Chicago Sun-Timeshas heard “rumblings.” Although Mahajan is not known to readers ofNo Quarter and to the national media, I imagine they will desire more information on the unscrupulous banker once they read the information I unpack below the fold. And yes, Obama is involved, deeply involved.”

My interest in Amrish Mahajan and the Mutual Bank of Harvey was picqued by this list of contributors in Rezko’s bundling network provided by the Chicago Sun-Times last March. View the second page of the document, and notice the following entry:

Last name First name Obama donations Rezko connection
Mahajan Amrish $2,500 Banker whose bank loaned money to Rezko companies. The bank also loaned Rezko’s wife money to buy a vacant lot next to Obama’s home.

The data available in the Sun-Times spreadsheet is corroborated by the following data, which is democratically available at the Federal Election Commission‘s website:

MAHAJAN, AMRISH
CHICAGO, IL 60607
MUTUAL BANK

OBAMA, BARACK
VIA OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC
12/20/2003 500.00 24020030170
04/14/2004 1000.00 24020461757

Not only was Mahajan a member of Rezko’s bundling network; his bank, the Mutual Bank of Harvey, granted Rita Rezko the $500,000 mortgage she neededin order to purchase the lot on which the Obama mansion in Chicago sits. As many of you may recall, the Obamas could not have purchased the mansion they could not afford unless transactions for the mansion and the lot closed on the same day. Obama needed to locate someone who would buy the lot, and he approached Rezko, the convicted slumlord with whom Obama toured the property before they mutually agreed to the following arrangement:

The home and lot sales closed on June 15, 2005. A land trust controlled by the Obamas bought the house for $1.65 million, and the Obamas secured a $1.32 million mortgage from Northern Trust to complete that purchase. That same day, Rezko’s wife, Rita Rezko, bought the side lot for $625,000. A $37,000- a-year Cook County employee, she secured a $500,000 mortgage from Mutual Bank of Harvey.

The structure of this transaction begs the following question: What bank would lend a government employee who earns $37,000 per annum a $500,000 mortgage? What bank would assume such a risk?

The Mutual Bank of Harvey, of course, for the Mutual Bank of Harvey’s President is a man who is deeply connected to the Chicago machine that backed Barack Obama. Indeed, Amrish Mahajan was one of Mayor Daley’s first political appointments in 1989, when he was named to a seat on Chicago’s Plan Commission, where he would be joined by Obama’s former boss and Rezko’s business partner Allison Davis and by Valerie Jarrett, Daley’s Chief of Staff whochaired the Commission from 1991-1995. Mahajan, in other words, worked with those who devised and profited from Daley’s failed public housing experiment in Chicago, a public housing policy Obama helped fund as state Senator and US Senator.

Rezko, according to the Boston Globe, was one of the major beneficiaries of Obama’s legislative advocacy for funding of Daley’s public housing experiment. Other major beneficiaries are Jarrett and Allison Davis. Mahajan was also a beneficiary, for his bank had made $3.4 million dollars in loans to Tony Rezko’s slum landlord business since 2002. A banker for one of the slumlords who benefitted from the Daley housing program Obama helped bankroll, Mahajan was returning a favor when he wrote a $500,000 mortgage in 2005 for the wife of one of his clients. Although Tony’s financial problems were mounting in 2005, and although Rita earned only $35,000 per annum, Mahajan underwrote the mortgage. Favors must be reciprocated, I guess, especially when one can satisfy two parties at once: the person with whom one has a complicated relationship in real estate and the politician who helped finance that complicated relationship as state Senator and US Senator.

I doubt federal investigators are interested in the Mahajans solely for their involvement in the property deal involving Obama, Mahajan and the Rezkos. The Mahajans, I believe, are the foci of their probe for many reasons.

The real estate transaction involving Rita Rezko, the Obamas and Mutual Bank of Harvey is just the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, the Mutual Bank of Harvey seems to be at the center of all the corruption in Chicago. To quote former Donald Perillo, Chicago insurance mogul and son of the lawyer for Al Capone, in the Chicago Tribune article I cite above:

Donald Parrillo said he isn’t surprised to see Mahajan mix it up with politics and business. “He got that attitude from the Parrillo family,” the former alderman said. “He wanted to get in the game.”

And Mahajan certainly is in the game. The banker of the Chicago machine, he is also the man who wrote the mortgage for Rita Rezko that facilitated Obama’s purchase the mansion he could not afford. This is why I believe prosecutors are interested in Harvey Mutual Bank. Not only did Rezko receive loans from this institution; this bank is heavily involved in problematic real estate dealings involving Blagojevich and Obama. And if I may quote Rezko in the 9 JUN letter he wrote to Judge Amy St. Eve:

Your Honor, the prosecutors have been overzealous in pursuing a crime that never happened. They are pressuring me to tell them the “wrong” things that I supposedly know aboutGovernor Blagojevich and Senator Obama. I have never been party to any wrongdoing that involved the Governor or the Senator. I will never fabricate lies about anyone else for selfish purposes. I will take what comes my way, but I will never hurt innocent people. I am not Levine, Loren, Mahru , or Winter.”

Rezko is now talking, and prosecutors are presently interested in a politically connected financial institution. I bet Obama now regrets paying Rita Rezko $104,500 for the strip of the land in the lot on which his house sits in January 2006. Acquired with the assistance of a questionable $500,000 mortgage from Amrish Mahajan’s Mutual Bank of Harvey, this lot and Obama’s desire to expand his yard by bit was the catalyst for all the investigative reports into Obama’s deep ties to Rezko. By the way, Rita’s lot is only accessible through the front gate of Obama’s home; it is not a separate property, and it was never intended to be a separate property.

“It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor,” Obama says of the real estate transactions with Rezko. I wonder if now he also believes it was a mistake for him to serve as the legislator who represented and bankrolled Richard Daley, Amrish Mahajan, Valerie Jarrett, Allison Davis and the Chicago Plan Commission. But at least he and Michelle have a house, a house the Mutual Bank of Harvey, the politically connected bank that wrote loans for Rezko, helped them procure in 2005. Too bad that house will be the end of Barack Obama.

obama-home.jpg

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/5382/about-the-financial-institution-mentioned-in-the-sun-times-obama-tony-rezko-amrish-mahajan-the-kenwood-mansion-rita-rezko/

From Citizen Wells November 1, 2011.

“Here is what we know about the purchase of a lot by Barack and Michelle Obama from Rita Rezko in 2006:

1. “In June, 2005, Mutual Bank President and CEO Amrish Mahajan and
other Mutual Bank officers approved a loan to Rita Malki Rezko (Rita
Rezko) which was guaranteed by Antonin Rezko so that Rita Rezko could
purchase a 9,090 square foot vacant parcel of real estate at 5050 S.
Greenwood Avenue, Chicago.” (Conner lawsuit)

2. “On or about January 4, 2006, Rita Rezko entered into an
agreement with Senator Barack and Michelle Obama (Obamas) to sell a
ten-foot strip of the 5050 S. Greenwood property to the Obamas.”
(Conner lawsuit)

3. “In late 2005 or early 2006, Conner performed an appraisal review
of the Adams Appraisal (Exhibit C) per the directive of Richard Barth
and James Murphy. Conner prepared a written Appraisal Review report
(ARR) opining that the Adams Appraisal overvalued the Greenwood lot by
a minimum of $ 125,000.00 and that a reasonable and fair valuation for
Mutual Banks’s underwriting purposes should be no greater than $
500,000.00 for the entire 5050 S. Greenwood parcel as originally
purchased by Rita Rezko.” (Conner lawsuit)

4. “On or about October 19, 2006, Mutual Bank received a Grand Jury
Subpoena (GJS) requiring Mutual Bank to produce the Rezko 5050
Greenwood loan file, as well as a Rita Rezko Riverside District
Development LLC checking account and loan file.” (Conner lawsuit)

5. “In October, 2007, Conner had various communications with Mutual
Bank’s Human Resources Department representative, Lana Schlabach. In
an email communication of October 15, 2007, Conner directly referenced
“Resentment over my mentioned discovery of the removal/replacement of
an appraisal review that I conducted. That appraisal review contained
substantial observations and suggestions. The transaction and parties
involved were high profile in the media.I am under the impression that
the FBI has since looked at the file.”” On October 23, 2007, eight days after Conner’s October 15, 2007 email to Schlabach attached as Exhibit J, Mutual Bank terminated Conner’s employment for pretextual reasons.” (Conner lawsuit)

6. “On October 23, 2007, eight days after Conner’s October 15, 2007
email to Schlabach attached as Exhibit J, Mutual Bank terminated
Conner’s employment for pretextual reasons.” (Conner lawsuit)

7. The FDIC has filed a lawsuit against Mutual Bank, Amrish Mahajan, Richard Barth, et al.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/fdic-mutual-bank-lawsuit-reveals-rezko-obama-corruption-kenneth-j-conner-lawsuit-amrish-mahajan-richard-barth-where-did-rezkos-get-the-money/

From ABC News Chicago August 22, 2011.

“Anita Mahajan, a Chicago businesswoman with ties to former governor Rod Blagojevich, pleaded guilty to bilking the state of Illinois by submitting bogus bills.

“I’m sorry,” Mahajan said in court Monday while pleading guilty to felony theft for pilfering about $100,000 in taxpayer money through her drug-testing company, K.K. Bio-Science. That company is now defunct.

The 60-year-old received four years of probation, agreed to pay $200,000 in fines and perform 1,500 hours of community service.

Mahajan’s husband, Amrish, was a banker and significant fundraiser for Blagojevich. Also, Blagojevich’s wife, Patti, made more than $100,000 in commissions handling real estate deals for the Mahajans in 2006, which caused a stir in the Blagojevich re-election campaign. The following year, Mahajan was charged with cheating the state of out of $2 million for drug tests that were never performed.

“People of this state were being cheated,” Dick Devine said in 2007 when he was the state’s attorney while announcing a seven-count indictment against Mahajan. The attorney general sued to recover the state’s lost money.

Four years later, Mahajan pleaded guilty to a single, reduced charge of theft instead of the felonies that would have sent her to prison for at least six years.

“Anita Mahajan is another example of the collateral damage that’s been left in the wake of the Rod Blagojevich Tsunami,” Steve Miller, Mahajan’s attorney, said.””

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8320596&rss=rss-wls-article-8320596

From the FDIC lawsuit against Amrish Mahajan, et al.

“6. The Director Defendants also wasted corporate assets and drained the Bank’s capital by…(c) authorizing $ 495,000 in “bonuses” to pay for the criminal defense costs for the Defendant Amrish Mahajan’s wife who was indicted for Medicaid fraud”

“32. The Director and Officer Defendants failed to establish procedures that would have lessened the risks of the Bank’s improvidant lending practices. The terms of transactions were not accurately documented. Status reports were missing so that records of how an asset was progressing were not available. Terms of loans were changed at closing without board or loan committee approvals or any rcord in the file. Loan guarantees were frequently missing from the files. Appraisers were retained by brokers with an interest in seeing transactions consummated, not by the bank. Appraisals were often received after the loan was funded. Loans were typically non-recourse and dependent on guarantor abilities to repay in the event that the collateral was insufficient. Yet, little or no attention was paid to whether guarantors had sufficient liquidity to protect the Bank’s interest; the officers and the Board did little or no analysis of guarantor or borrower financial strength.”

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/26/FDIC.pdf

From the Washington Times November 4, 2008.

“A former Illinois real estate specialist says FBI agents have questioned him about a Chicago property that had been bought by convicted felon Tony Rezko’s wife and later sold to the couple’s next-door neighbor, Sen. Barack Obama.

The real estate specialist, Kenneth J. Conner, said bank officials replaced an appraisal review he prepared on the property and FBI agents were investigating in late 2007 whether the Rezko-Obama deal was proper.

“Agents and I talked about payoff, bribe, kickback for a long time, though it took them only a short number of minutes of talking with me while looking at the appraisal to acknowledge what they already seemed to know: The Rezko lot was grossly overvalued,” Mr. Conner told The Washington Times Monday.

“Rezko paid the asking price on the same day Obama paid $300,000 less than the asking price to the same seller for his adjacent mansion,” he said. “This begs the question of payoff, bribe, kickback.””

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/04/fbi-asked-questions-on-rezko-land-deal/

Obama’s Rezko problem is not going away.

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Tony Rezko trial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Chicago SunTimes

February 10, 2008

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

March 14, 2008 interview.

In reference to FBI mole John Thomas:

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

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

Supreme Court decision Bond v. United States, June 16, 2011, Tenth Amendment, Standing, Eligibility cases

Supreme Court decision Bond v. United States, June 16, 2011, Tenth Amendment, Standing, Eligibility cases

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”

“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?”… Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury versus Madison

The SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the United States, provided a decision in Bond v. United States on June 16, 2011. The ruling addressed standing and the Tenth Amendment.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

10th Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Before accessing the impact of the ruling, especially regarding eligibility cases, the Citizen Wells blog will revisit some articles from 2008. It was apparent to us and many legal scholars that any citizen had standing to question the eligibility of Barack Obama, especially when many states indicated they had no authority or responsibility to do so. Per the Tenth Amendment, that gave the power to citizens.

It is also important to remember that the US Supreme Court did not render a decision on any eligibility case. It was lower courts that deemed that the plaintiffs had no standing.

From Citizen Wells  November 12, 2008.

To:

Justice Souter
Justice Thomas
US Supreme Court
Federal Judges
State judges
State election officials
Electoral College Electors      
US Citizens

The US Constitution must be upheld

US citizens have the right, the power and the duty to require proof of
eligibilty of presidential candidates

What I am about to write is so inherently simple and self evident,
that it may appear on the surface to be implausible. However, the
following facts and arguments flow from the founding fathers’ wisdom
and desire to protect the American citizens from tyrrany. I have read
the US Constitution, Federal election law and numerous state election
laws. I have had dialogue with offices of a number of Secretaries of State
and Election Boards. The US Constitution gives the states power over
the general election. The states control which candidates are placed
on ballots and regardless of the methodology used for doing so, I
believe the states have the power and obligation to verify eligibility
of presidential candidates. I find no federal or state law prohibiting
states from doing so and instead a constitutional duty to ensure that
a qualified candidate becomes a ballot choice for the Electoral College
Electors. Failure to do so effectively may lead to voter disenfranchisement.
I have believed and stated for weeks that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives US citizens the power to demand that a presidential
candidate prove eligbility and certainly standing in a lawsuit. A lawsuit
should not be necessary. We already have the power, directly from the
US Constitution Bill of Rights.
Argument:

  • The US Constitution clearly defines the eligibiity requirement for president.
  • The US Constitution rules.
  • The US Constitution gives states the power to choose electors. With this power comes the obligation to uphold the Constitution and protect voter rights.
  • State laws vary but are consistent in their approach to placing
    presidential candidates on the ballot.
  • Presidential Balloting evolved from tradition.
  • The two party system evolved from tradition.
  • States place presidential candidates on ballots from instructions of
    the major political parties.
  • States should have enacted laws to require proof of eligibility.
  • States are not exercising their duty to the Constitution.
  • States have the power and obligation to ensure that only eligible candidates remain on ballots. Despite compelling evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible, and notification, the states left him on the ballot.
  • States claim no power to remove a candidate when in fact they do have power over the general election process.
  • The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the people power, including Phil J Berg, Leo C. Donofrio and others that have had their lawsuits dismissed in state courts.

By virtue of the powers given to the people in the Tenth Amendment in The BIll of Rights of the US Constitution, we do not have to file lawsuits to demand proof of eligibility or require state election officials to do so.

A US citizen filing a lawsuit demanding that a presidential candidate provide proof of eligibility has standing.

Facts and References

US Constitution

Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution;

viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The US Constitution defines presidential eligibility

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.”

The US Constitution gives powers to the states for the general election.
US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Federal Election Law: 

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):

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

State Electoral College example: Pennsylvania Law

Ҥ 3192. Meeting of electors; duties.
The electors chosen, as aforesaid, shall assemble at the seat of government of this Commonwealth, at 12 o’clock noon of the day which is, or may be, directed by the Congress of the United States, and shall then and there perform the duties enjoined upon them by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Philip J Berg lawsuit
Judge Surrick ruling exerpts:

“If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”

“…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.”

Philip J Berg response to ruling:

“an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”
“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,”  “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”

Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising:

“October 29, 2008
Who Enforces the Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen Clause?”

“So if the Framers established that courts “shall” hear cases arising under the Constitution, and failed to authorize Congress to otherwise establish who may sue to enforce the document, then where might we find conclusively that Berg has standing to sue?

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people.  Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the Natural Born Citizen Clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.”

“Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines.  Judge Surrick’s reliance on case law to dismiss Berg’s suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer’s perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty. 
His decision to “punt” the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case.  Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.”

Read more here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_enforces_the_constitutions.html

Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”

Mr. Washington wrote the following response to the Philip J Berg lawsuit and Judge Surrick ruling in a World Net Daily article dated November 8, 2008 :

“Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg’s lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama’s U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:

In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency,” but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

“Until that time,” Surrick says, “voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring.”

Judge Surrick, quoting from Hollander, concludes, “The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury.”

Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which stated, in part, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy.”

Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.

That Berg’s complaint is not “concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury” is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!

I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick’s outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn’t have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”

Read the complete article here:

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435

Leo C. Donofrio has a New Jersey lawsuit before the US Supreme Court

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here:

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

Summary

The states have power and control over the general elections. With this
power comes a duty to uphold the Constitution. The states, rather than
enact laws to uphold the constitution and protect the voting rights
of their citizens, have acted more on tradition. This traditional
approach has worked up until the 2008 election. We now have a candidate,
Barack Obama, who has refused to provide legal proof of eligibility in
the face of compelling evidence he is not qualified. When presented
with this evidence, the states had an obligation to require proof from
Obama.

The states had an obligation to enact legislation and did not. The states
have not exercised their inherent power and duty to require proof of
and eligibility. Therefore, by virtue of the powers reserved for the
people of the US in the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, US citizens have the power and obligation to demand proof of eligibility from Obama.

Citizen Wells is asking that US citizens contact state election officials
and Electoral College Electors and demand that they request proof of
eligibility from Obama. If they do not do so, initiate lawsuits and
make sure that your rights are protected and that the Constitution is
upheld. 

Citizen Wells is also issuing a caution to the US Supreme Court, Supreme
Court Justices, Federal Judges, State Judges, State Election Officials
and Electoral College Officials. You all have an overriding obligation
to uphold and defend the US Constitution. You are all accountable and
the American public is watching.

Citizen Wells open thread, June 16, 2010, Real News, Blagojevich trial, Obama eligibility, Economy

Citizen Wells open thread, June 16, 2010, Real News

For real news on the Blagojevich trial, Obama eligibility and economy.

Joseph Aramanda, with ties to Blagojevich, Rezko and Obama, on the witness stand.

https://citizenwells.com/2010/06/15/blagojevich-trial-joseph-aramanda-testimony-rezko-trial-obama-tied-to-aramanda-trs-money-teachers-retirement-system/

US Economy

https://citizenwells.com/2010/06/15/us-economy-reality-check-1-jobs-data-real-unemployment-and-jobs-data-irwin-kellner-provides-truth/

https://citizenwells.com/2010/06/15/us-economy-reality-check-2-sales-data-double-dip-recession-may-retail-sales-irwin-kellner-provides-truth/

James D Schneller, Obama lawsuit, Update, June 16, 2009, Obama Suit Scheduled For Supreme Court Conference, Acorn fraud

This was received from James D. Schneller regarding his lawsuit:

“Obama Suit Scheduled For Supreme Court Conference

Obama Fires U.S. Whistleblower Who Uncovered $$ 75 Million ACORN-type fraud !

 

Dear citizen who is horrified by events in Washington,
 
This is a news item that concerns our Supreme Court’s fourth chance to address the Obama birth certificate issue.  I wrote most of you in January, at a prior turning point.  Because you are a concerned citizen, you have to know about this, and I hope you’ll share it with your friends and family and pastor.  This is not a request for donation.
 
I have filed a supplementary brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in Case No. 08-9797 objecting to the failure of Barack Obama to file an answer, and requesting that the Supreme Court enable  newer evidence in the Obama birth issue.   The Supreme Court has set this case for a conference on June 18th.
 
I filed the appeal on April 6, 2009, asking reversal of denial of my petition for injunction filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in December of 2008.  That petition requested a delay of the tally by the Pennsylvania electoral college, because the ballots of the Pennsylvania electors had been unlawfully finalized despite the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s erroneous and fraudulent certifying of the ballot to all County officials, without any examination, nor investigation, of the eligibility and qualification of Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States. 
 
Why are all the cases in this issue filed by concerned citizens , rather than organizations ?  To my belief, many firms believe it to be futile, and most of the others have been warned against it. (see the article following this letter)  The fact that only citizens have sued does not mean that a Court, at some time or other, could decide to address this issue.
 
In my suit I am demanding that the Secretary of the Commonwealth perform his duty, as was required, by requiring Obama to prove that he is a natural born citizen.  I claim that the Secretary had ample time to demand proofs from Obama in December, before the vote was certified and delivered to the Electoral College.
 
I also am objecting that the Pennsylvania election law makes the Office of the President of the United States exempt from the requirement that candidates file an affidavit swearing that they are eligible for office.  I’ve asked the Justices to declare that this 2006 amendment is arbitrary and unconstitutional.  (Anyone so inclined – please check your state’s election law for this type of amendment and email me any findings !)
 
I raise new material in the brief in order to encourage the Supreme Court to address the gaping absence of eligibility of our head of state:  
 
  – Obama’s recent, biased, dropping of the suit against certain Philadelphia Black Panther members for voter intimidation,
  – recent ill-conceived “stimulus” awards to ACORN and efforts to make ACORN a census participant,
  – recent White House efforts to create unprecedented levels of security around common documents that are normally available to the public.
  – national celebrations and official proclamations in the Nation of Kenya, on the basis of Obama’s  birthplace being there !  
  – the fact that the United States Attorney General avoided several opportunities to investigate substantial complaints presented against ACORN during the 2008 campaign, despite ample time and manpower available,
  – the White House’s unpredicted and unconstitutional policy of doubling the national debt, nationalizing  decrepit industries, and pardoning violent terrorists, despite the public’s not being made aware of this intent during the campaign.
  – the Homeland Security boondoggle alleging that veterans and pro-life citizens are extremists.
  – I also claim that Obama was required to answer my petition because he claims to hold the highest office in the land, and must therefore be open with the people rather than clandestine.  Since he didnt answer, he has in essence admitted to all of the allegations made against him.
 
There is much more, which is why I ask the Court to allow new evidence !  Just last week outrageous news happened :

 
Obama Fired the U.S. Whistleblower Who Uncovered $$ 75 Million ACORN-type fraud !
 
The patriots who are continuing to file suits and to blog, newsletter, and report the case against Obama for his clear cut illegal acts are greater in number now, and you may want to check some of the websites at intervals.  This story about huge government fraud is a news item carried by Judicial Watch, which is a respected watchdog organization, who recently began to actively cover Obama in respect to his constant illegal behavior.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/jun/obama-fires-ig-who-exposed-supporter-s-fraud
 
Help Make Prosecution Happen

Since the Supreme Court case is up for Court Conference on Thursday, I hope you’ll be able to offer prayers or a moment of silence, and to make serious talk at work and leisure, to impress all with the hard truth of our new government.  I firmly believe in an ability granted by the Creator, for America to rise, despite great odds, above this unnatural situation, and to redirect our Republic onto a positive and moral path, rather than a descent to oblivion.”

“James D. Schneller”

Senator Joseph Biden, Attorney General Biden, Larry Sinclair arrest, Larry Sinclair persecuton, Senator Biden Bill, June 16, 2008, The Fugitive Information Networked Database (FIND) Act of 2008, (S.3136), Senator Biden involved?, Obama Vice President?, Senator Biden or Attorney General Biden, please respond

Larry Sinclair was arrested on June 18, 2008, just after his news
conference at the National Press Club. Apparently a DC warrant
was fabricated to allow Sinclair’s arrest. Almost a week later,
Sinclair was transported to Delaware and appeared before a judge.
Sinclair was released on his own recognizance.

Larry Sinclair has received 2 letters from the Social Security
Administration referring to an alleged Delaware warrant dated
February 5, 2008. That is just a few weeks after his first YouTube
video came out. The letters were dated June 16 and 17, 2008.

The Attorney General of Delaware is the son of Senator Joe Biden.

On June 16, Senator Joe Biden introduced a new Bill, The Fugitive Information Networked Database (FIND) Act of 2008 (S.3136).

The bill
“will encourage States to enter new and outstanding felony warrants into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database by authorizing grants to State and local agencies to upgrade their warrant databases. This upgrade will make their systems compatible and interoperable with the national database – allowing for seamless entry of state and local warrants into the federal database. The FIND Act will also authorize additional funds for the extradition of fugitives.”

Obviously Senator Biden and his staff have been working on this bill
for a while and someone associated with the bill must have expertise
in the area of warrants.

Read more about the bill here:

http://biden.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=EBCFC374-C454-4D01-8950-4A253DAD29D9

Here is the latest update from Larry Sinclair:
“The following shows that the Delaware matter is nothing more than a vindictive attack by the Obama Camp those in powerful places who support Barack Obama’s dirty Chicago Style Politics.

 

On June 16 and 17, 2008 two letters from the Social Security Administration were mailed to my Duluth home stating that my disability and medical benefits had been terminated for the following reasons:

 

“Our records show that the following warrant for your arrest was issued for a parole or probation violation:”

 

Issued by:  New Castle County Superior Court

                   N King Street, Ste 500

                  Wilmington, DE 19801

 

Date of Warrant:  February 5, 2008

 

Type of crime:  probation or parole violation

 

Warrant Number:  U708000607

 

Originating case number:  U708000607

 

NCIC Number:  W283822252

 

What is so telling about this is the following:

 

1.                  I am not now nor have I ever been on probation or parole from the State of Delaware.

 

2.                  I have not ever been charged with, tried nor convicted of any crime in the state of Delaware

 

3.                  The information contained in this letter does not match the case number indicated on the court documents dated June 23, 2008 from the “alleged” warrant used to arrest me by DC Metro Police on June 18, 2008.

 

I am not on any probation or any parole from any State or Jurisdiction of any kind nor have I been since my Colorado Parole was discharged on May 5, 2000.

 

It is just amazing how I am being targeted with non-stop manufactured warrants and charges which only surfaced after I began making public my claims against Barack Obama.

 

Even more interesting is Social Securities letter being dated the exact same dates that the DC Metro Police and the National Press Club security director begin organizing their plan to take me into custody on a non-existant “Fugitive from Justice” warrant.

 

 

THIS ACTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COLORADO MATTER AS PER SSA OWN PROCEDURES.  SO ANY CLAIMS BY OTHER BLOGGERS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ACTION ARE NOTHING MORE THAN THEIR TRYING TO APPEAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN THEY ARE.  THIS ACTION WAS DONE BY OFFICIALS CONNECTED TO THE OBAMA CAMP AND THE DATE OF THE SSA LETTER SUPPORTS THIS.”

Read more about Larry Sinclair here:

http://larrysinclair0926.com

 

Senator Biden, are you, your son, the Attorney General Of Delaware, or any member of your staff, responsible for any of these attacks and smears on Larry Sinclair?

Senator Biden Or Attorney General Biden,  I suggest that you
investigate what has happened to Larry Sinclair and respond on
this blog or with a public statement. No response will be
considered an admission of guilt.