Saturday, March 2, 2013

JW Forces Release of DHS Report on Illegal Alien Charged with Killing Virginia Nun in August 2010 Drunk Driving Incident
March 04, 2011 | No Comments
Print Text Size

DHS Documents

Suspect Released By Obama DHS Despite Multiple Arrests

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has received a Department of Homeland Security report detailing the agency’s investigation of an illegal alien (Carlos Martinelly-Montano) charged with killing a Virginia nun in a drunk driving accident in August 2010. Homeland Security promised a federal court it would release the report earlier this year, but then later claimed the document was in “draft” form and therefore would not be released. Judicial Watch received the edited “final” report on March 3, 2011. Confusingly, the final reported is dated November 24, 2010.

The Homeland Security report details policies and actions of the Obama administration and local governments that allowed Montano, an illegal alien who committed a series of crimes to remain on the streets despite being subject to deportation. The following is a detailed chronology of events as described in the report, obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed on December 2, 2010:

“On December 7, 2007, Montano was convicted for driving under the influence (DUI) in Prince William County, Virginia and was sentenced to serve 30 days of incarceration. The judge in Prince William County, however, suspended all 30 days of the jail sentence with the result that Montano was not jailed for his offense. Local authorities did not seek to determine Montano’s immigration status nor did they contact ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).”

“Almost one year later, on October 4, 2008, Montano was booked into jail in Prince William County and charged with another misdemeanor DUI. At the time of this arrest, the local authorities determined that Montano was an illegal alien. Thus, ICE lodged an immigration detainer against him. As a result of the immigration detainer, immigration officers took him into custody. On October 7, 2008, Prince William County officials released him from custody.”

Rather than detaining Montano, “ICE agents determined that Montano was a candidate for the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program,” which monitored his whereabouts using GPS technology. He was therefore released.

While awaiting his deportation hearing, “Montano was charged on March 5, 2009, in Fairfax County, Virginia, with misdemeanor failure to appear related to driving without a license. Local officials dismissed this charge against Montano on May 5, 2009. County officials did not contact ICE. On April 27, 2010, a Manassas Park police officer cited Montano for misdemeanor reckless driving. There is no record indicating that Montano was booked or fingerprinted or that Manassas Park officials contacted ICE. On June 1, 2010, Montano was convicted for reckless driving and fined $500. Again, ICE was not contacted following the citation or conviction.”

“On April 27, 2009, as a result of the October 2008 DUI arrest, the Circuit Court of Prince William County convicted Montano and sentenced him to serve 12 months and 3 days in jail. However, the judge in Prince William County suspended 11 months and 13 days of Montano’s sentence. As a result of the judge’s decision, Montano served less than two weeks in Prince William County for his second DUI conviction.”

“On May 7, 2009, after Montano served the portion of his sentence that had not been suspended, ICE took him into custody. Based on Montano’s compliance during his prior participation in the ATD program, ICE officers released Montano on the prior order of supervision (dating back to 2008) with the condition that he report to ICE on a regular basis.”

Decisions by the Executive Office for Immigration Review caused delays in the removal proceedings. Moreover, Montano’s immigration attorney successfully convinced an immigration judge to delay Montano’s removal hearing on two occasions. The court ultimately scheduled Montano’s hearing for August 19, 2010. However, on August 1, 2010, while under the influence of alcohol, Montano is charged with crashing his car into another vehicle, killing one nun and critically injuring two others.

With respect to the decision to release Montano, rather than detaining him, the report concludes: “In 2008, when the decision was made to release Montano, fewer beds were available in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.” The report also points to government policies that allowed immigration officials “broad discretion” about how to use detention resources. The Obama administration used this discretion to release Montano in 2009 after he served jail time for his 2008 drunken driving arrest.

In July 2010, the Obama administration announced it would not take legal action against “sanctuary cities” that prevent local law enforcement entities from freely communicating with federal immigration officials. In contrast, the Obama Justice Department also filed a lawsuit to stop the State of Arizona from enforcing SB 1070, a get-tough illegal immigration law that mandates that local law enforcement officers cooperate with federal immigration officials. The Obama administration ordered federal immigration agents to focus deportation efforts only on illegal aliens suspected of terrorist activity and those convicted of “violent” crimes.

“If this is the cleaned-up version of the Homeland Security report, I can’t imagine what bombshells were included in the original version. Even in its edited form, however, this report is an embarrassment to the Obama administration and a clear indictment of Obama’s lawless approach to illegal immigration. An innocent person lost her life because local police officers and immigration officials couldn’t be bothered to enforce and obey the law. This tragedy is a direct result of the Obama administration’s decision to undermine the enforcement of federal immigration laws,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
DHS Documents

DHS response letter - March 3, 2011
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Carlos Martinelly Montano Inquiry November 24, 2010 - March 3, 2011

Read more about DHS, illegal immigration, virginia
- See more at:

Illegal Alien Who Killed Nun Was on Obama’s Supervised Release

Illegal Alien Who Killed Nun Was on Obama’s Supervised Release
February 28, 2013 | 1 Comment
Print Text Size

The deadly results of President Obama’s “supervised release” program for illegal immigrants were exposed long ago by a Judicial Watch investigation of a Bolivian national (Carlos Martinelly-Montano) who killed a Virginia nun in a drunk-driving accident.

A Homeland Security report obtained in the course of JW’s probe details policies and actions of the Obama administration and local governments that allowed Montano, an illegal alien who committed a series of crimes, to remain on the streets despite being subject to deportation. Rather than detaining Montano, federal authorities determined that he was a candidate for the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program, which supposedly monitored his whereabouts.

On August 1, 2010, while under the influence of alcohol, Montano crashed his car into another vehicle, killing one nun and critically injuring two others. Last year he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, but the fact remains that the tragedy never should have occurred. Federal immigration authorities never should have freed Montano under Obama’s outrageous “supervised release” program.

Incredibly, the administration continues full throttle with the controversial program. Earlier this week, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released “waves” of illegal immigrants detained in facilities across the nation. The administration claims that impending budget cuts forced the move and in a statement to the media ICE said the detained aliens have been placed on “an appropriate, more cost-effective form of supervised release.”

A mainstream newspaper well known for its pro Obama reporting called the move a “highly unusual effort to save money.” Then, as if to defend the administration, the story goes on to say that the government hasn’t dropped the deportation cases against the immigrants, but rather the detainees have been freed on supervised release while their cases continue in court.

A congressman from Virginia, the state where the drunk illegal alien killed the nun, called Obama’s early release program “abhorrent.” The lawmaker, Bob Goodlatte, also chairs the House Judiciary Committee and says the administration is “needlessly endangering American lives by releasing criminals into communities.
- See more at:
Illegal Alien Who Killed Nun Was on Obama’s Supervised Release | Judicial Watch
The deadly results of President Obama’s “supervised release” program for illegal immigrants were exposed long ago by a Judicial Watch investigation

Obama conferred with Rezko, Rezko conspired with Cellini, Obama 2004 constant contact with Rezko during TRS shakedown

Saturday, June 11, 2011 23:50
Obama conferred with Rezko, Rezko conspired with Cellini, Obama 2004 constant contact with Rezko during TRS shakedown
“Why was Obama in constant contact with Tony Rezko in 2004 when Rezko was conspiring with William Cellini to use TRS, Teacher Retirement Fund, assets for political gain and personal enrichment?”…Citizen Wells
“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich
“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
What was Barack Obama up to in 2004.
Where is Tony Rezko?
From Citizen News June 11, 2011.
“From the William Cellini Indictment Press Release October 30, 2008.”
“Between February and April 2004 – at the same time Commonwealth Realty Advisors obtained allocations totaling $220 million from TRS – Cellini, Levine, Rezko, and Co-Conspirator A allegedly conspired to use their influence and Levine’s position at TRS to prevent Capri Capital from receiving a planned $220 million allocation of TRS funds unless Rosenberg and Capri agreed to raise or donate a substantial amount of funds for the benefit of Public Official A. In early May 2004, after conversations with Levine, Cellini agreed to and did tell Rosenberg that Capri was not going to receive its $220 million allocation because Rosenberg had not made a significant political contribution for the benefit of Public Official A, the indictment alleges. Once Rosenberg understood the reason Capri was not receiving funds, Cellini and Levine agreed that Cellini would direct Rosenberg to talk with Levine to arrange making the necessary contributions, the charges state.”
“As part of the conspiracy, Cellini, Rezko, and Co-Conspirator A also allegedly agreed to and did engage in secret communications with Levine, other TRS trustees and staff members, including TRS Staffer A, concerning official actions pending before TRS. Cellini was aware that Levine concealed from and failed to disclose to the TRS board the existence of these secret communications, the charges allege. In the summer of 2004, Cellini, Rezko, Co-Conspirator A, and others allegedly discussed moving TRS Staffer A from his position at TRS into another job with a different state entity in an effort to ensure that TRS Staffer A would not cooperate with the government. And, in or around the summer and fall of 2004, in an effort to conceal the conspiracy, Cellini, Rezko and others discussed the possibility of removing the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois in an effort to stop any investigation into the co-conspirators and others, the indictment alleges.”
“What was Barack Obama doing at that time?
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,“
During his March 14, 2008 interview,
“the Times told Obama, Thomas is an FBI mole and he “recently told us that he saw you coming and going from Rezko’s office a lot.”
“And three other sources told us that you and Rezko spoke on the phone daily.”””
Read more:
From Free Republic June 16, 2010.
“The name of President Obama came into play this afternoon at the political corruption trial of former governor Rod Blagojevich as an associate of political fund-raiser Tony Rezko testified that Rezko asked him to write a $10,000 check to Friends of Obama.
The Chicago Sun-Times reported in January 2008 that Glenview businessman Joseph Aramanda, who is testifying today, made the donation as part of a scheme orchestrated by Rezko.
Aramanda gave $10,000 in campaign cash to Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign on March 5, 2004, according to records. The money came from part of a finder’s fee Aramanda received, but did no work for, thanks to Rezko.
The allegation is the first time Obama has been linked to Rezko through first-hand sworn testimony at the corruption trial.”
“Aramanda, who is testifying under a grant of immunity, said in 2004 Rezko offered him a position in a finder’s fee business connected to the state’s teacher pension board.”
“Attorney Michael Gillespie even brought Barack Obama into the mix, getting Aramanda to note that when he met Blagojevich at Rezko’s mansion, Obama was also there.
Aramanda said the event was a fund-raiser for both Obama and Blagojevich. Obama and Rezko were friends when Obama was an aspiring U.S. Senator. Rezko did some fund-raising for Obama and bought property next door to the Obama’s Hyde Park home.”
Read more:

Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud

Friends and Patriots,
It’s major duct tape time ’cause you’ll need it to keep your head from exploding.
Are you ready for this?
Here we go….
There is now compelling and undeniable evidence that MAJOR vote fraud had been perpetrated in the November 2012 Election. See FOTM’s posts chronicling the extensive pervasive fraud by going to our “2012 Election” page below our FOTM masthead, and click on those post links colored dark green.
But our screaming and hollering are to no avail. No one is listening to us. Not even the Republican Party.
Here’s why….

The Republican Party made an agreement 30 years ago with the Democrat Party NOT to ensure voting integrity and NOT to pursue suspected vote fraud.

Yes. You read it correctly.
In fact, legally the GOP cannot ensure voting integrity, nor can it prevent vote fraud.
Here’s the astounding reason, which is kept from the American people.

PolitiJim writes for Gulag Bound, November 13, 2012, that during the weekly True the Vote webcast, Catherine Engelbrecht (see her photo below) related a meeting she had with Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), asking what the GOP would do about voter integrity.  The answer?
Nothing.  They aren’t legally able to.
True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht (read more about her, here)
This all goes back to a lawsuit 31 years ago, in 1981. The following is compiled from an account on The Judicial View, a legal website specializing in court decision research and alerts, and from “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615.
In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).
The lawsuit alleged that:
  • The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.
  • The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.
  • The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.
To settle the lawsuit, in 1982 — while Ronald Reagan was President (1981-1989) — the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:
[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:
(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;
(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;
(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;
(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;
(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;
(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.
The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.”
As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined “ballot security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”
Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired, Debevoise comes back yearly for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order for another year.
U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise
In 2010, the RNC unsuccessfully appealed “to vacate or modify” the Consent Decree in “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615 (C.A. 3, Mar. 8, 2012). (I paid The Judicial Review $10 for the PDF of Case No. 09-4615 and uploaded the 59-page document to FOTM’s media library. To read Case No. 09-4615, click here!)
This is a summary of the appeals judge’s ruling, filed on March 8, 2012:
In 1982, the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) and the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) entered into a consent decree (the “Decree” or “Consent Decree”), which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The RNC appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying, in part, the RNC’s Motion to Vacate or Modify the Consent Decree. Although the District Court declined to vacate the Decree, it did make modifications to the Decree. The RNC argues that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying the Decree as it did and by declining to vacate the Decree. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
Surprise! The judge who denied the RNC’s appeal to “vacate” the 1982 Consent Decree is an Obama appointee, Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Guy Benson of points out that in last Tuesday’s election, Obama only won by 406,348 votes in 4 states:
  • Florida: 73,858
  • Ohio: 103,481
  • Virginia: 115,910
  • Colorado: 113,099
Those four states, with a collective margin of 406,348 votes for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.
All four states showed Romney ahead in the days leading up to the election. But on November 6, Romney lost all four states by a substantial margin, all of which have precincts that inexplicably went 99% for Obama, had voter registrations that exceeded their population, and had experienced  problems with voting machines.
This election was stolen by the Democrats via vote fraud. Despite all the evidence of fraud, the Republican Party has been strangely silent about it.
Now you know why.

I’ll leave you with one last, even more disturbing thought:

The RNC and DNC made their Consent Decree 30 years ago, in 1982. The agreement in effect gives a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined.
The Democrat Party knew this 30 years ago, more than enough time to put a plan in place to identify and groom their “perfect candidate” — in the words of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2008, a “light-skinned” black Democrat who has “no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.”
  • Being a black Democrat, this perfect candidate would get the support of almost all black Americans (96% in 2008!) and other racial minorities (two-thirds of Hispanics in 2008).
  • Being a “light-skinned” black with “no Negro dialect”, this perfect candidate would get the support of white Americans perpetually guilt-ridden about America’s original sin of slavery.
It doesn’t matter if this “perfect candidate” has dubious Constitutional eligibility to be president. They would see to it that his original birth certificate (if there is one) would never see the light of day. The same with his other documents — his passports, school and college records, draft registration, and medical records (so we’ll never know why Obama has that very long scar running from one side of his head, over the crown, to the other side).
Now, we understand the significance of the account Tom Fife wrote during the 2008 presidential campaign. Fife, a U.S. government contractor, claims that in 1992 while he was visiting Moscow, a woman with undying allegiance to Soviet Communism (the Soviet Union had recently collapsed, on December 31, 1991) told him that a black man named Barack, born of a white American woman and an African male, was being groomed by communists to be, and would be elected, President of the United States.
Now, we finally understand the cryptic remark made in May 2010, by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan: “Obama was selected before he was elected.”
In 2008, this “perfect candidate” won the presidential election. And despite his many failures in his first term, he would be reelected in 2012 for a second term via massive vote fraud. But nothing would be done about the vote fraud, because of that Consent Decree signed by the RNC 30 years ago.
The Republican Party is dead — and with it, the U.S. two-party system as well — and the sooner we voters recognize that the better.

The question that remains is whether the American Republic is also dead.

UPDATE (Nov. 16, 2012):

Since I published this post yesterday, we’ve been asking each other: “What can I/we do about this?” Here are my suggestions:
1. If you are a registered Republican, QUIT! Switch your voter registration ID to non-partisan Independent.
2. Stop donating money, not even one penny, to the GOP. Tell them why.
3. Spread the word. Please send the URL of this post ( to:
  • EVERYONE on your email list.
  • Media people for whom you have email addresses.
  • Tea Party groups you know.
  • Post the link on your Facebook page.
  • Post the link as your comment on websites and blogs you visit.
4. Write your state’s attorney general and ask him/her to investigate vote fraud in your state. Click here!

UPDATE (Nov. 21, 2012):

5 days after I’d published this and 7 days after PolitiJim of GulagBound published his acount, someone in the conservative establishment media is writing about this — WND’s Bob Unruh. Click here for his article, “GOP Legally Barred From Fighting Vote Fraud”. But it’s still the sound of crickets from conservative talk radio, even though I’ve sent my post to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and a reader had also sent it to Mark Levin.
Just so you know: It makes no monetary difference to us how many people read this post. Fellowship of the Minds (FOTM) is an ad-free blog. We don’t make even a penny in revenue because we deliberately don’t have ads. In fact, I paid WordPress a $99 annual fee so WordPress can’t insert ads on FOTM either. All of our writers work our butts off, for no pay, as a labor of love for our country.

Extrmely important ObamaForgeryGate and associated RICO (Racketeering ) case bgainst Obama, Pelosi, “Obama for America” and others brought by Attorney Taitz to be heard by Ronald Reagan appointee in MS

Friday, August 31, 2012 12:30
Press release
U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, Ronald Reagan appointee, to rule in a case brought by CA attorney Orly Taitz. This case started in January 2012.
Each state has different election laws and statutes. MS is different from many other states, in that it requires a challenge against a candidate to be filed with the political party first. If the party rules against the challenger, the case can be brought in court. MS statutes do not require challenger to be a resident of MS.
Originally this case was filed by Attorney Taitz, later a resident of MS and several presidential candidates joined.
Taitz brought this  challenge in the Circuit Court of Hide County, Jackson MS after the Board of the Democratic Party of MS refused to respond to the challenge. Case Taitz v Democratic Party of MS and Secretary of State of MS.
Circuit Court of MS forwarded the case to the Supreme Court of MS and Supreme Court of MS appointed a retired Circuit Judge Coleman to preside over the case. Judge Coleman sat on this case, which should have been expedited, for over a month, which allowed Obama to run in the Primary in MS unchallenged. Taitz brought an amended complaint, which reflected a new status of the case, being held after the primary, as well as new parties, who joined the case and additional causes o f action, which included RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization). Taitz argued that “Obama for America” is a RICO, created with the purpose of committing massive elections fraud and treason, by allowing a foreign national, citizen of Indonesia and possibly still a citizen of Kenya to usurp the position of the U.S. President and Commander in Chief. Shortly after the primary judge Coleman stated that he is ready to hear the case, however he never signed the subpoenas for witnesses to appear at the hearing. Taitz filed a motion with the Supreme Court of MS stating that by dragging the case until after the primary and not responding to requests for subpoenas Judge Coleman showed bias and Taitz is requesting recusal of Judge Coleman. Upon the motion to the Supreme Court Judge Coleman recused himself.
While the case was pending in the Supreme Court of MS, attorneys for the Democratic party of  MS removed the case to the Federal court, which is believed to be more favorable to the Federal officials. Obama, of course, is the top federal official. Taitz filed a motion to remand to the state court, as requirement for removal is a consent of all defendants, and most of the defendants did not consent. After  the court did not act upon the motions to dismiss filed by the Democratic Party of MS and Sec of State, defendants decided to forego the motions to dismiss and filed their answers. The fact that the hurdle of the Motion to dismiss was over and answers were filed, was a good thing, as after the answer is filed, the party can do discovery. Taitz scheduled depositions, including depositions of Bill and Hilary Clinton, relating to elections fraud and manipulations by  Obama during the 2008 campaign. Additionally she was seeking to obtain any information they had in regards to murder of the  chairman of the Democratic party of Arkansas Bill Gwatney. Gwatney was murdered shortly before the 2008 Democratic National Convention and was rumored to be the Clinton supporter, who was willing to speak up about Obama’s forged identification papers during the 2008 Democratic Nominating convention. Taitz, also,  was seeking information about reported threats to Chelsea Clinton.
Shortly prior to the depositions, Democratic Party of MS, through their attorneys Sam Begley and Scott J.Tepper sought to stay the discovery. Same attorneys sought a judicial notice of Obama’s alleged birth certificate posted  by Obama on line, on Taitz opposed and sought sanctions against Tepper and Begley, noting that any garbage can be posted on line, that the fact that Obama posted, what experts believe to be a forgery, does not make is a valid document, which can be noticed by the court. Additionally sanctions against Begley and Tepper were warranted, as they had in their possession videotaped sworn testimonies attesting to forgery in the alleged birth certificate, as well as video taped press conference by Sheriff Arpaio stating that it is a forgery as well. It was an egregious violation of attorney ethics, for licensed attorneys to seek a judicial notice of a document, while having evidence that such document is a forgery. Taitz filed a complaint with the CA bar, as Tepper is a CA attorney, and bar investigator, who either pro bono or pursuant to some consideration, spent four years attacking and hounding attorney Taitz, with the purpose to covering  up forgery in Obama’s IDs. CA bar responded, stating that the issue of forgery of Obama’s birth certificate is a matter of National security and needs to be heard by the court. Taitz included this letter from the CA bar with her motion to expedite. The hearing is scheduled for September 24, 2012.
More information to be provided later.
Judgepedia  information on Judge Wingate and Wikipedia article on murder of Bill Gwatne  are attached herein.
BiBill Gwatney From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Succeeded by David Pryor[1][2]
Born August 26, 1959
Died August 13, 2008(2008-08-13)   (aged 48)
Little Rock, Arkansas
Political party Democratic
Children Christian and   Chase
Residence Jacksonville, Arkansas
Bill Gwatney (August 26, 1959[3] – August 13, 2008) was an American politician who served as the State Chair of the Democratic Party of Arkansas.[4] Prior to being State Chair, he was a State Senator for 10 years. He had also been the financial chair for Mike Beebe‘s run for Governor of Arkansas in 2006. He owned three car dealerships in Pulaski County.[3][5] Gwatney was selected as a superdelegate at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, but was murdered before serving. He was replaced by his widow Rebecca Rankin.

[edit] Death On August 13, 2008, Gwatney was fatally wounded[6] when a man, identified in news reports as Timothy Dale Johnson, 50,[7][8] entered Democratic Party headquarters in Little Rock, Arkansas and shot Gwatney three times.[9] Gwatney was taken to a hospital, but died at 3:59 pm CDT.[6]
The gunman had said he wanted to speak with Gwatney about volunteering, but sidestepped his assistant when she said he was busy.[10] After the shooting, the gunman fled the scene in his truck and led police on a 30-mile (48 km) chase out of Little Rock.[10] Johnson was fatally shot by police after a PIT maneuver forced him off the road into a field near Sheridan.[9][11] No motive was discovered, except Johnson quitting his Target job earlier that day.[1][2]
ll Gwatney – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Henry Wingate From Judgepedia Jump to: navigation, search
Henry Wingate

Current Court Information:
Seat   #4
Jackson,   MS
Appointed by:
Ronald   Reagan
10/17/1985   – Current
2003   – 2010
Preceded by:
98 Stat. 333
Personal History
Home State:
Jackson,   MS
Grinnell   College, B.A., 1969
Law School:
Yale   Law, J.D., 1972
Military service:
U.S.   Navy 1973 – 1976, Reserves 1983 – Current
Contents [hide]
Henry Travillion Wingate is an Article III federal judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. He joined the court in 1985 after being nominated by President Ronald Reagan. Wingate began serving as Chief Judge of the court in 2003.
Early life and education A Mississippi native, Wingate graduated from Grinnell College of Iowa with his Bachelor’s Degree in 1969 and later graduated from Yale Law School with his Juris Doctor Degree in 1972. [1]
Professional career
  • Law clerk, Community Legal Aid,      Jackson, Mississippi, 1972-1973
  • Private practice, Jackson,      Mississippi, 1973
  • Lieutenant, Naval Legal Services      Office, U.S. Navy, 1973-1976
  • Senior assistant defense counsel,      1973-1974
  • Trial counsel, 1974-1976
  • Adjunct instructor, Golden Gate      University, 1975-1976
  • Adjunct lecturer, Tidewater Community      College, 1976
  • Special assistant attorney general,      State of Mississippi, 1976-1980
  • Adjunct professor, Mississippi      College School of Law, 1978-1983
  • Assistant district attorney, Seventh      Circuit Court District, State of Mississippi, 1980-1984
  • U.S. Navy Reserve, 1983-
  • Assistant U.S. attorney, Southern      District of Mississippi, 1984-1985 [1]
Judicial career Southern District of Mississippi On the recommendation of Mississippi U.S. Senator Thad Cochran, Wingate was nominated to the Southern District of Mississippi by President Ronald Reagan on September 11, 1985 to a new seat created by 98 Stat. 333 which was approved by Congress. Wingate was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 16, 1985 on a Senate vote and received commission on October 17, 1985. Wingate has served as the court’s chief judge since 2003. [1]
Notable cases Criticisms of case delays Judge Wingate was criticized by a three judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 25, 2010, for failing to enter a judgment in a case in which a person won $1.3 million on a 2002 jury verdict against his former employer.
Fifth Circuit judge Grady Jolly criticized the court for being slow in resolving cases as the Mississippi court had previous complaints filed against them to the circuit’s judicial council.
Jolly also emphasized in his ruling that the court must seek the resources of the Fifth Circuit to prevent any problems they seem necessary. [2]
Obama threat case Judge Wingate is presiding in the trial of a Wisconsin man who threatened to assassinate then-President-elect Barack Obama. Steven Christopher is accused of using his website to plot an assassination attempt against the President of the United States. No trial date has been scheduled; however, the judge ruled on July 28, 2009 that Christopher was mentally competent to stand trial. [3]
See also
External links
  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Judge      Wingate’s Biography from the Federal Judicial Center.
  2.      “5th Circuit Scolds Miss. Federal Judge Over Delays”, March 26,      2010
  3.      “Clarion      Ledger” Man accused in Obama threat competent for trial, July 29,      2009

Court says Obama appointments violate constitution

Court says Obama appointments violate constitution

 Email this Story

Jan 25, 7:11 PM (ET)

(AP) Richard Cordray stands left as President Barack Obama announces in the State Dining Room of the...
Full Image

Google sponsored links
Repeal Obamacare? - Should Congress Repeal Obama's Policies? Vote Here Now.
"What Democrats Hide:" - Find out what the democrats don't want you to know. Read this now.

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, a federal appeals court ruled Friday in a far-reaching decision that could severely limit a chief executive's powers to make recess appointments.
The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit marked a victory for Republicans and business groups critical of the labor board. If it stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions over the past year, including some that make it easier for unions to organize.
When Obama filled the vacancies on Jan. 4, 2012, Congress was on an extended holiday break. But GOP lawmakers gaveled in for a few minutes every three days just to prevent Obama from making recess appointments. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions - some lasting less than a minute - were a sham.
The court rejected that argument, but went even further, finding that under the Constitution, a recess occurs only during the breaks between formal year-long sessions of Congress, not just any informal break when lawmakers leave town. It also held that presidents can bypass the Senate only when administration vacancies occur during a recess.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said the administration strongly disagrees with the decision and that the labor board would continue to conduct business as usual, despite calls by some Republicans for the board members to resign.
"The decision is novel and unprecedented," Carney said. "It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations."
Under the court's decision, 285 recess appointments made by presidents between 1867 and 2004 would be invalid.
The Justice Department hinted that the administration would ask the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, which was rendered by three conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents. "We disagree with the court's ruling and believe that the president's recess appointments are constitutionally sound," the statement said.
The court acknowledged that the ruling conflicts with what some other federal appeals courts have held about when recess appointments are valid, which only added to the likelihood of an appeal to the high court.
"I think this is a very important decision about the separation of powers," said Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at Virginia's University of Richmond. "The court's reading has limited the president's ability to counter the obstruction of appointments by a minority in the Senate that has been pretty egregious in the Obama administration."
The ruling also threw into question the legitimacy of Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray's appointment, made on the same date, has been challenged in a separate case.
Carney insisted the court's ruling affects only a single case before the labor board and would have no bearing on Cordray's appointment. Obama on Thursday renominated Cordray for the job.
The case challenging the recess appointments was brought by Noel Canning, a Washington state bottling company that claimed an NLRB decision against it was not valid because the board members were not properly appointed. The D.C. Circuit panel agreed.
Obama made the recess appointments after Senate Republicans blocked his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.
But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called pro forma sessions.
GOP lawmakers used the tactic - as Democrats had done in the past - specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power to install members to the labor board and the consumer board. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray.
The three-judge panel flatly rejected arguments from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which claimed that the president has discretion to decide that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advice and consent function.
"Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers," Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the 46-page ruling. He was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
The court ruled that during one of those pro forma sessions on Jan. 3, 2012, the Senate officially convened its second session of the 112th Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Sentelle's opinion was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith, appointed to the court by President George W. Bush, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.
"With this ruling, the D.C. Circuit has soundly rejected the Obama administration's flimsy interpretation of the law, and (it) will go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
GOP House Speaker John Boehner welcomed the ruling as "a victory for accountability in government."
If the ruling stands, it would invalidate more than 600 board decisions issued over the past year. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.
Obama used the recess appointment to install Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the labor board, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from the board last year.
All three vacancies on the labor board had been open for months before Obama acted to fill them.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa called the ruling "a radical departure from precedent" and argued that Obama had no choice but to act.
"Throughout his presidency, Republicans have employed unprecedented partisan delay tactics and filibusters to prevent confirmation of nominees to lead the NLRB, thus crippling the board's legal authority to act," Harkin said.
If Obama's recess appointment of Cordray to the newly created consumer board is eventually ruled invalid, it could nullify all the regulations the consumer board has issued, many of which affect the mortgage business.
Follow Sam Hananel on Twitter:

Google sponsored links
Mirena Lawsuit - Free Case Evaluation Suffered From Mirena IUD Use?
Public Arrest Records - 1) Enter a Name & Search for Free. 2) View Background Check Instantly.
Exercise Your Brain - Games You Didn't Know Existed to Fight Brain Decline and Aging.

Obama’s Legal Humiliation

Barack Obama speech 4 SC Obama’s Legal Humiliation
Part 2 of:Barack Obama Foreign Student –American Media Threatened into Silence
Today,there is no American news outlet factually covering the illegal actions of the sitting President of the United States in context. Nor is there one consistently exposing the laws his administration has flagrantly broken,though this corruption now demonstrably permeates every level of the federal system.
Attorneys General Tom Horne,Arizona;Pam Bondi,Florida;Sam Olens,Georgia;Bill Schuette,Michigan;Scott Pruitt,Oklahoma;Marty Jackley,South Dakota;Alan Wilson,South Carolina;Greg Abbott,Texas;and Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia produced a joint memo on March 5th,2012 detailing 21 blatant violations of law committed by the Obama administration.
By now it is unsurprising the media has by and large ignored this announcement,although AG Cuccinelli did appear in an extended segment with CSPAN (the relevant segment can be found here) on March 18th.
Fortunately,The Tea Party Tribune published the Attorney’s General memo,“A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law” in full the same day it was released. It is nothing short of a flashing legal headline story,yet cannot be found at the Washington Post or the New York Times.
“Whether it is through the EPA,NLRB,Office of Surface Mining,FCC or other entities,the Obama Administration has aggressively used administrative agencies to implement policy objectives that cannot gain congressional approval and are outside of the law.” –A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law
An abbreviated list of broken laws includes:
  • PPACA (Obamacare):Individual Mandate;To be heard by Supreme Court of the United States in March
  • FCC:Regulation of the Internet in the face of a court order from Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet
  • EPA 1:GHG (Green House Gas) lawsuit;EPA’s own Inspector General reported last September that EPA failed to comply with its own data standards;Heard in Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. in February
  • OSM:Attempting to impose regulatory requirements on the 19 states with authority for exclusive regulation of their coalmines for the first time in more than 30 years
  • DOJ:South Carolina &Voting Rights Act:Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States;DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which calls for protections against voter fraud,and used section 5 to administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by state legislatures in preclearance states including South Carolina;South Carolina voter ID law merely requires a voter to show photo identification in order to vote or to complete an affidavit at the pain of perjury if the voter does not have a photo ID
  • DOJ:Arizona &Voting Rights Act:Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States
  • DOE:Yucca Mountain;In 2009,Administration arbitrarily broke federal law and derailed the most studied energy project in American history when DOE announced intent to withdraw 8,000 page Yucca Mountain licensing application with prejudice.
- A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law
14 more violations of law are listed in the AGs’ memo. At one time or another,many of these violations have made the news,yet the full list is never presented to the public. When compiled,it is apparent even at a glance that the federal government as led by Barack Obama has no respect for the law. Clearly,the Obama government is acting as it deems fit. Much as a monarchy would. As if the States did not exist. As if the Constitution of the United States did not apply.
Indeed,when it comes to Obama and his government,the Constitution is a barrier to be removed. As Obama stated in a 2001 interview with NPR,“generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.”  Undeniably,the Constitution limits government negatively;it states what the government cannot do. From the point of view of someone attempting to expand government powers beyond that which the Constitution limits it to,it is extraordinarily (and negatively) limiting. It was designed that way. It is the keystone,the cornerstone,the foundation of a free people;one freed and protected from government tyranny.

The M-1/A-2 tank in the room
If more evidence were needed to delineate the obvious disrespect coming from the Oval Office for the Law,on Monday,April 2nd 2012,President Barack Obama attempted to erase 200 years of legal history,stating in a press conference with world leaders that the law codified in the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137) 1803 is not valid:
“Ultimately,I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress.” – Barack Obama 4-5-2012
Hundreds of bills have passed out of Congress and been found unconstitutional,overturned by the Supreme Court,since Marbury V. Madison established in 1803 the Supreme Court’s right of judicial review.
The Supreme Court has been the final arbiter of law,determining the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress for over two hundred years. There is no article or section in the Constitution which specifically bestows this power within the Court. Instead,Marbury was the court’s interpretation of the Constitution;furthermore,the legal precedent it set in that decision still stands as good law today.
This is not the first time Mr. Obama has attempted to re-write history to his liking. The difference here lay in the fact that the media is in a feeding frenzy over this one.
The day following this massive falsehood,April 2nd,Eric Holder was ordered to address Obama’s statements by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, forcing the administration to publicly acknowledge the law established in Marbury.
Attorney General Eric Holder stated in the department’s court ordered response:“The Department has not in this litigation,nor in any other litigation of which I am aware,ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.” Even the Attorney General of the United States is hanging Obama out to dry on this issue.
Marbury V. Madison is not just an elephant in the room;it’s more like M-1/A-2 tank running flat out,but not for the reasons most immediately apparent. What is missing from this conversation,so ravenously devoured by the press,is this:Marbury was decided in 1803,it’s has been cited hundreds of times. It has never been overturned. The Attorney General of the United States affirms that it is good law. There is absolutely no question it is binding law,so commonplace it wasn’t even a discussion piece outside first year law school until the president tried to undo it in a press conference.
So far,so good,but what’s missing here?
If Marbury has never been overturned and is binding law with decades of citable history behind it,what makes it different from a case decided in 1875 which has also never been overturned and has been cited to for decades?
Nothing. They are both still law.
Minor V. Happersett in 1875 decided that Ms. Virginia Minor did not have the right to vote. While originally a Women’s Suffrage (voting) case,the Court in Minor interpreted the Constitution,determining that citizenship itself did not give right to vote,unequivocally stating in the final paragraph of the decision:“Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one”Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162).
Constitutional Amendments against discrimination preventing a person from voting based on race (15th),sex (19th) and age (26th).,are taken for granted as being a constitutional rights to vote;yet in reality,there is no constitutionally protected “right” to vote (there are amendments against discrimination.)
To re-state this immeasurably important distinction,there is nothing in the Constitution which gives Americans the right to vote;instead,the Constitution eliminates circumstances such as gender and race from preventing voting. This is a legal distinction perhaps only a lawyer can properly love,yet the fact remains that the difference between the two is as great as the difference between lead and gold.
This is why the Minor Case has never been overturned;its conclusion is a statement of fact. Because it has never been overturned,the basic definitions of citizenship made in Minor still apply today because they are the independent grounds upon which the court made its decision.
To use a metaphor,‘The light bulb turned on because there is electricity. Electricity is the flow of electrons in a current which heats a wire making a light bulb glow.’ The definition of electricity is the independent ground upon which we can say the light bulb turned on.
This is not an issue of dictionary semantics or the meaning of words changing over time. The Minor court defined natural born citizenship as part of its independent ground for deciding the case,making it a part of the “holding”–for deciding the case as it did. “Citizenship does not give the right to vote. Citizens are…”These definitions were codified in law which,like those made in Marbury V. Madison,makes them inviolate.
The court in 1875 chose to define through its specific wording what natural born citizens were and still are today,just as in 1803 it decided the right of judicial review lay with the Supreme Court and nowhere else.

Illegal governments do illegal things
Why is the Minor case relevant in 2012 as it applies to the federal government breaking laws left and right?
The answer is not only insidiously dangerous,but terribly simple. The man at the head of that government is there illegally. How can this be? Because Minor V. Happersett is still law,it has not been overturned any more than Marbury V. Madison has.
“At common-law,with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves,upon their birth,citizens also. These were natives,or natural-born citizens,as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts,but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162)
The Court did not need to decide if Virginia Minor was a citizen because she was obviously a natural born citizen,born in the United States to two parents who were its citizens. The Minor case instructs clearly and concisely that those not born to two citizen parents will have doubts cast on their citizenship status,which in some circumstances,such as qualification under Article 2 Section 1 of the United States Constitution,will demand answers.
Simple logic tells us that where there is doubt about something,proofs must be offered to confirm its status. The proof offered by Barack Obama of his Natural Born Citizenship and placed by him on the White House website has been found to be a “probable forgery” by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County,Arizona,in a legitimate law enforcement action undertaken at the written insistence of the Citizens of Maricopa County and presented to them in person on March 31,2012. The Sheriff is a five time,popularly elected law enforcement official who has served 20 years in that office.
This is the M-1/A-2 tank roaring through the room. If Marbury V. Madison is still law,so too is Minor V. Happersett.
If Barack Obama was completely wrong to state:“…the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress…”,then he is equally incorrect to claim Natural Born Citizenship because he was not “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” He has offered no legitimate proof that he could be a citizen;his father was a British subject of Kenya and was never a citizen of the United States. What proof Obama has offered has been proven a forgery by law enforcement officials.
The simplest of conclusions is unavoidable:Illegal governments do illegal things. Expect nothing less.
Mrs. Cotter is a senior at American Military University,recipient of the Outstanding Student Essay of 2009,a member of Delta Epsilon Tau and Epsilon Pi Phi Academic Fraternities and on the Dean’s and President’s Lists for academic achievement. She has published at American Thinker,,Accuracy in Media,Family Security Matters,Post and Email,English Pravda,Tea Party Tribune,Patriot Action Network,and The Western Center for Journalism.
The author can be contacted at,or at