Tag Archives: Part 6

Obama GA ballot challenge, Circumstantial Evidence convicts Obama, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 6, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen

Obama GA ballot challenge, Circumstantial Evidence convicts Obama, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 6, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells



Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen

The devil himself could not have come up with a more devious plan.
Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be on the Georgia ballot, to run for president or to occupy the White House. The Georgia
ballot challenge to Obama continues tomorrow, January 26, 2012, with Judge Michael Malihi presiding.

Obama is not a natural born citizen regardless of his birthplace because he did not have 2 US Citizen parents. We know this from the context of the times and
language of the US Constitution and court cases. We have affirmation of this in Senate Resolution 511, that Obama signed, which declared that John McCain was
a natural born citizen and that he had 2 US Citizen parents.

Not only do we have direct evidence that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. We also have strong Circumstantial Evidence that he is ineligible and
hiding more than just his eligibility deficiencies.

Circumstantial Evidence defined:

“Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence
of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.

Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a
particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to
be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to
be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.

The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann
and that Ann then fell to the ground, John’s testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John’s testimony, then it must conclude
that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going
to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John’s testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred
that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John’s testimony is credible.

Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused’s guilt in a criminal matter,
including the accused’s resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused’s presence at the time and place of
the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused. In addition, much Scientific Evidence
is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a
jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.

Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is
incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the
jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme
Court has stated that “circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence”(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75
S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or
admissibility of evidence in trials.


From Parts 1 – 5 of this series we know:

Robert Bauer, of Perkins Coie, requested an advisory opinion from the FEC in February of 2007 to determine if Obama could keep his option to receive
presidential matching funds. Bauer and Obama both knew that Obama was not a natural born citizen.

The FEC, in March 2007, responded in the affirmative. Ellen Weintraub, a former Perkins Coie staff member was a committee member.

Obama, in late 2007, in conjuction with other Senators, blocked FEC appointee approval.

For the first half of 2008, the commission has only had two members. Republican Chairman David Mason and Democrat Ellen Weintraub.

On June 19, 2008, Obama announced that he was not accepting presidential matching funds despite being an advocate for and pledging earlier to accept them.

Ellen Weintraub is still on the commission 4 years past the end of her tenure.

Per a Citizen Wells FOIA request to the FEC in August 2008 we learn that an inquiry was made to the FEC on August 18, 2008. The inquiry has information about Obama not being a natural born citizen and requests an opinion. The request is denied. An email from David Kolker, FEC Counsel to Rebekah Harvey, assistant to Ellen Weintraub states “Victory in Berg v. Obama.” The email is dated August 22, 2008, one day after the Philip J. Berg lawsuit was filed and before the FEC was served on August 27, 2008.

On September 2, 2011 the FEC provided an advisory opinion in response to a request from presidential candidate Abdul Hassan. The FEC stated that Hassan was not eligible for presidential matching funds because he is a naturalized and not a natural born citizen. THe FEC acknowledges that although they do not have the power to keep a candidate off of ballots, they have a duty to make certain that only eligible candidates receive matching funds.

“Although the Matching Payment Act does not specifically address the citizenship requirement for serving as President, it sets forth the eligibility
requirements to receive matching funds. See 26 U.S.C. 9033; 11 CFR 9033.2. See also, e.g., Advisory Opinion 1996-07 (Browne for President) (describing the
steps a candidate must take to become eligible for matching funds). These provisions collectively reflect Congressional intent to ensure that U.S. Treasury
funds in the form of matching funds are only paid to eligible candidates. 5″”

Further reading of court cases confirms that the FEC was empowered to do so.

It is clear that Obama did not receive presidential matching funds because if he had done so, a challenge to his natural born citizen status from the FEC or
an election official would have ensued.


No court has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen nor has any case against Obama been dismissed on merits.

Robert Bauer defended Obama in lawsuits challenging Obama’s natural born citizen status in 2008 and was made general counsel by Obama in 2009.

Since occupying the White House in 2009, Obama has used a large number of US Justice Department attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to keep his birth certificate and college records hidden and to avoid proving that he is a natural born citizen.

Obama has employed numerous private attorneys in a number of states, including Georgia, to keep his name on the ballot despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen.


Blagojevich trial conspiracy, Protect Obama, US Justice Department corruption, Part 6, Trial shortened, Evidence omitted

Blagojevich trial conspiracy, Protect Obama, US Justice Department corruption, Part 6

Blagojevich trial

Protecting Obama

Part 6

Trial shortened – Evidence omitted

From the Evidentiary Proffer in the Rod Blagojevich trial.

“This proffer begins by discussing case law governing the admissibility of co-conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), and, alternatively, other provisions of Rule 801(d)(2). Next, this proffer summarizes some of the evidence supporting the admission of co-conspirator statements. In this manner, the government will establish to the Court the existence of the evidence available to complete the necessary foundation at trial, the roles of certain witnesses, and the bases for admission. The government is not detailing all of its evidence that would go to show the existence of the pertinent conspiracies, or all of the co-conspirator statements that were made in furtherance of the conspiracies charged in the indictment. Rather, this proffer highlights for the Court samples of the government’s evidence in order to establish to the Court the existence of the conspiracies described in Counts Two, Seventeen, Eighteen, Twenty-One, and Twenty-Three, and the scheme described in Counts Three through Thirteen, and the roles of the various conspirators.”

“Defendant Rod Blagojevich has been charged with conspiracy to commit racketeering acts, racketeering, mail and wire fraud, attempted extortion, conspiracy to commit extortion, bribery, and conspiracy to commit bribery, while defendant Robert Blagojevich has been charged with wire fraud, conspiracy to commit extortion, attempted extortion, and conspiracy to commit bribery. The Second Superseding indictment charges that the defendants, together with others, used and agreed to use the powers of the Office of the Governor of the State of Illinois, and of certain state boards and commissions subject to influence by the Office of the Governor, to take and cause governmental actions, including: appointments to boards and commissions; the awarding of state business, grants,
and investment fund allocations; the enactment of legislation and executive orders; and the appointment of a United States Senator; in order to obtain financial benefits for themselves and others, including campaign contributions for Rod Blagojevich, and employment for Rod Blagojevich and his wife.”

Beginning with


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.

“The above is an outline of the evidence that the government will introduce to establish that a conspiracy existed involving defendant Rod Blagojevich, Blagojevich’s wife, defendant Robert Blagojevich, Christopher Kelly, Antoin Rezko, Alonzo Monk, Stuart Levine, Sheldon Pekin, Joseph Cari, Jacob Kiferbaum, William Cellini, John Harris, Deputy Governor A, Individual I, Advisor A, and Advisor B, and that conspiracy allowed defendants Rod Blagojevich and Robert Blagojevich to commit the charged offenses. This Court should find, based upon this proffer, that coconspirators’ statements are admissible pending the introduction of evidence to support this proffer.”


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.