Blagojevich trial, May 16, 2010, Criminal complaint, Blagojevich Superceding indictment
As many of you know, The Citizen Wells blog has presented numerous articles on Chicago corruption involving Rod Blagojevich, Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine, Barack Obama and a host of others. The first article on Blagojevich was presented in April of 2008. This blog called for the arrest and indictment of Blagojevich and Obama long before Blagojevich was arrested.
You are probably also aware of one of my biggest concerns about the Blagojevich trial. That it was being downplayed and misrepresented by Blagojevich in concert with the mainstream media and recently affected by Google manipulating search engine results. Almost every reporting of the trial portrays it as simply as Blagojevich attempting to profit from selling Obama’s old US Senate seat.
I am currently analyzing the second superseding indictment against Blagojevich and I have some concerns about it’s content and structure. This blog has several legal experts who comment frequently, other website owners and others who pay attention and certainly care about this country. I am seeking two responses from you.
1. Read the criminal complaint from December 2008. Then read the superseding indictment and then the second superseding indictment. Here are just some of my concerns.
A) Are too many of the earlier references to Blagojevich’s ties to corruption that could link him to Obama diluted in the second superseding indictment?
B) Are there too many counts associated with the senate seat selling?
C) Is count one too large and thus more difficult to convict him on? Was this deliberate? This count has most of the references to earlier corruption that can be linked to Obama.
2. Contact as many people, entities as possible. Have them read the indictment. Counteract the Orwellian attempts to misrepresent this colossal coverup.
Here is just the “Tip of the iceberg” from the Criminal Complaint.
“b. Corruption of the Planning Board
35. As described more fully in the following paragraphs, Mercy Hospital, which
sought permission from the Planning Board to build a hospital in Illinois, received that
permission through Rezko’s exercise of his influence at the Planning Board after Rezko was
promised that Mercy Hospital would make a substantial campaign contribution to ROD
BLAGOJEVICH. Rezko later told a member of the Planning Board that Mercy Hospital
received the permit because ROD BLAGOJEVICH wanted the organization to receive the
permit.
36. Levine’s criminal activities included his abuse of his position on the Planning
Board to enrich both himself and Friends of Blagojevich. The Planning Board was a
commission of the State of Illinois, established by statute, whose members were appointed
by the Governor of the State of Illinois. At the relevant time period, the Planning Board
consisted of nine individuals. State law required an entity seeking to build a hospital,
medical office building, or other medical facility in Illinois to obtain a permit, known as a
“Certificate of Need” (“CON”), from the Planning Board prior to beginning construction.
37. Levine, as well as Planning Board members Thomas Beck and Imad
Almanaseer, testified under oath at the Rezko Trial.9 Beck testified that he asked Rezko to
reappoint him to the Planning Board and that Beck thereafter followed Rezko’s directions
regarding which CON applications Rezko wanted approved. Beck testified that it was his
job to communicate Rezko’s interest in particular CONs to other members of the Planning
Board, including Almanaseer, who were loyal to Rezko. Beck testified that he understood
that Rezko spoke for the Blagojevich administration when Rezko spoke to Beck about
particular CONs. Almanaseer testified that Beck instructed him that Rezko wanted
Almanaseer to vote a particular way and that Almanaseer should follow Levine’s lead in
voting on CONs. Almanaseer testified that before certain Planning Board meetings, he
received notecards from Beck indicating how to vote on certain CON applications. Beck
testified he provided these notecards to Almanaseer and certain other members of the
Planning Board to communicate Rezko’s directions about certain CON applications.
9 Beck and Almanaseer testified pursuant to immunity orders.
38. During his testimony, Levine described a plan to manipulate the Planning
Board to enrich himself and Friends of Blagojevich. The plan centered on an entity
commonly known as Mercy Hospital (“Mercy”) that was attempting to obtain a CON to build
a new hospital in Illinois. Levine knew the contractor hired to help build the hospital. In
approximately November 2003, on behalf of the contractor, Levine checked with Rezko to
determine whether Rezko wanted Mercy to obtain its CON. Rezko informed Levine that
Mercy was not going to receive its CON. According to Levine, he asked Rezko whether it
would matter to Rezko if Mercy’s construction contractor paid a bribe to Rezko and Levine
and, in addition, made a contribution to ROD BLAGOJEVICH. Levine testified that Rezko
indicated that such an arrangement would change his view on the Mercy CON.10
39. Levine’s testimony regarding Rezko’s actions to change the Planning Board
decision concerning Mercy’s application for a CON based on contributions for ROD
BLAGOJEVICH is confirmed by attorney Steven Loren. Loren testified at Rezko’s criminal
trial and, before that, in the grand jury.11 According to Loren, in approximately December
2003, Levine informed Loren that Rezko was against the Mercy CON. According to Loren,
10 manipulated the Mercy vote based on Mercy’s
agreement to make a contribution to ROD BLAGOJEVICH, which agreement he states was
communicated to ROD BLAGOJEVICH, but denies that Levine offered a personal bribe to
Rezko as well.
11 In connection with this investigation, Steven Loren pled guilty to interfering with
the due administration of the Internal Revenue Service. In exchange for his continued and
truthful cooperation, the government has agreed to move the Court for a 5K1.1 departure and
his counsel is free to seek any sentence, including probation. Loren has no other criminal
history. Pursuant to his cooperation agreement, Loren testified at the Rezko Trial.
Levine relayed to Loren a conversation between Rezko and Levine during which Levine
asked Rezko whether a political contribution to ROD BLAGOJEVICH would make a
difference for Mercy’s CON, and Rezko responded to Levine that such a contribution might
make a difference.
40. Thereafter, and confirmed by the testimony of Levine, Beck, and Almanaseer,
as well as recorded conversations, Rezko switched his directions to Beck and informed Beck
that Mercy was to receive its CON. According to Almanaseer, although he previously had
been told by Beck that Rezko did not want Mercy to receive its CON, he was later told that
there had been a change and that Rezko now wanted Mercy to receive its CON.
41. Mercy received its CON as a result of a controversial and irregular vote at a
public Planning Board meeting.12 The vote brought significant publicity to the Planning
Board and ultimately led to the disbanding of the Planning Board. Almanaseer testified
under oath in the grand jury that not long after the Planning Board vote on Mercy’s CON he
saw Rezko at a fundraiser. According to Almanaseer, he was still embarrassed about what
had occurred at the Planning Board vote on Mercy’s CON and Rezko’s role in the vote.
Almanaseer testified that he asked Rezko why Rezko had switched the vote on the Mercy
CON. According to Almanaseer, Rezko stated: “The Governor wanted it to pass.”
12 There was extensive testimony regarding the irregularity of the vote at the Planning
Board meeting. In summary, during the vote, Levine got up from his seat and went to speak
to Beck and to Almanaseer. After these discussions, Almanaseer then changed his vote to
be in favor of Mercy receiving its CON. Beck then voted in favor as well and by a vote of
5 to 4, Mercy’s application for a CON passed.
Almanaseer understood the reference to “Governor” to be a reference to ROD
BLAGOJEVICH.”
Read more:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2008/pr1209_01a.pdf
Superceding indictment.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2009/pr0402_01a.pdf
Second superceding indictment.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2010/pr0204_02a.pdf
I know that some of you may not understand my passion for staying focused on this. However, I consider it crucial, perhaps almost as important as changing congress in the 2010 elections. This is something we can work on now. I promise you, the spectre of the general public finding out about this scares the hell out of the Obama camp. Just recently, Google has tried to hide my articles. Do not let the Orwellian Obama thugs win!
Wells
Citizen WElls 