Tag Archives: March 5

Dr Robert Weinstein, Guilty plea, March 5, 2009, Chicago Tribune, Obama, IL Health Planning Facilities Board, Rezko, Levine, Obama crime connection, Vote rigging, Weinstein Indictment, Chicago Medical School

The Chicago Tribune reported on March 5, 2009 that Dr Robert
Weinstein will plead guilty in his corruption indictment.

“A Deerfield urologist caught up in the corruption probe
surrounding Antoin “Tony” Rezko and other state government
figures is scheduled to plead guilty next week, court
records show.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-weinstein-pleamar05,0,6001971.story

The article is very short and consistent with the Chicago
Tribune underreporting on the Dr. Weinstein indictment and
his connections to Rezko, Levine, Blagojevich and Obama.
Why the Tribune has mentioned very little about Dr.
Weinstein is anybody’s guess.

However, if you are left with the impression that Weinstein’s
involvement is insignificant, consider the following:

Dr. Robert Weinstein Indictment

Governor Rod Blagojevich Criminal Complaint

Citizen Wells request to Patrick Fitzgerald, Indict Obama

Anyone that followed the Tony Rezko trial,
read the indictments of Rezko, Stuart Levine, Dr. Robert
Weinstein and a host of others and compared those revelations
to the details of the Blagojevich criminal complaint knows
of Rod Blagojevich’s deep involvement in Chicago pay to play
politics.

Read more

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

Read more

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

Read more

Hollister vs Soetoro, US District Judge James Robertson, March 5, 2009, Philip Berg, Hemenway, Obama not eligible, Col Hollister, Barry Soetoro, Judicial, Judge Robertson Memorandum, Air Force colonel, Obama not natural born citizen

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”

“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 versus Madison

The following is from a Memorandum issued by
United States District Judge James Robertson
on March 5, 2009. The Memorandum is a response
to the Hollister vs Soetoro lawsuit.

GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARRY SOETORO, et al.,
Defendants.
“This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve
mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is
foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to
do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the
blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do
is to bring it to an early end.”

Judge Robertson’s opening statement sets the stage for revealing
his non objectivity and bias.

“The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force
colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief
(because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is
tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey
orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven — to the
colonel’s satisfaction — that Mr. Obama is a native-born
American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be
President. The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised,
vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by
America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign
for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a
court.”

Notice the ignorance or apathy of using words like vetted. Judge
Robertson goes on to say “plaintiff wants it resolved by a
court.” as if that is improper. Another example of those that
should be providing checks and balances passing the buck.
“The real plaintiff is probably Philip J. Berg, a lawyer
who lives in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, and who has pursued
his crusade elsewhere, see Berg v. Obama”

 

“That case was the subject of a scholarly opinion by a
judge who took Mr. Berg’s claims seriously –- and dismissed them.”
“Mr. Hollister is apparently Mr. Berg’s fallback brainstorm,
essentially a straw plaintiff, one who could tee Mr. Berg’s
native-born issue up for decision on a new theory:”

 

“Because it
appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented
for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the
interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are
not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for
extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for
establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal
requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules
11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys
fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.”

So now we have trying to uphold the US Constitution being referred
to as harassing. “Not warranted by existing law”?

Judge James Robertson. Which of the following apply to you?

Idiot
Incompetent
Biased
Anti American
Bought by Obama Camp

We would like to know.

The Citizen Wells blog demands for the removal of Judge James
Robertson from office. Please join us in this effort. Corrupt
or incompetent judges must be removed from office.

Complete Memorandum

Help Philip J Berg uphold the US Constitution

http://www.obamacrimes.info/index.html