Source: http://blog.doodooecon.com/2011/05/chicago-precedent.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 12:38:59+00:00

Document:
Barack Obama manipulated the Federal Courts by manufacturing legal precedent through Chicago corruption to conceal his Presidential ineligibility.
To simplify, let me start this story at the end. Ultimately, the fact that Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Chicago newspapers, judges, and others have been complicit proves they know that Mr. Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States of America. This is not a "birther" argument based upon where he was born. The merits of the case against Obama's eligibility are founded on four separate Supreme Court decisions and Senate Resolution 511 on John McCain's "Natural Born Citizen" status (cosponsored by Obama himself).
The only defense to the truth is a bold lie. Therefore, the Obama administration began looking at ways to subvert the legal system in order to hold onto power. They chose Standing based upon the timing of the charges against Mr. Obama as the technicality to prevent Obama's eligibility case from gaining a Decision on the Merits. The technicality of timing is unfavorable precedent to the Obama defense so favorable precedent was manufactured. Other precedent presented in defense of Obama was fictional.
If Barack Obama began an idealistic politician, he sold his soul for power prior to being elected President. The first damning fact was his failure to disclose simple documents like birth certificates, school records and the like prior to the election. Next, his campaign and media allies manufactured an atmosphere of ridicule around all who questioned him. Third, he was served in the Drake / Keyes v. Obama suit four times, but delayed response until he was sworn in, and then responded by assigning the U.S. Justice Department in an attempt to intimidate. When intimidation failed, the Obama administration conceived a cynical plan to manufacture a technical precedent in the controlled and corrupt Chicago political environment. All these actions are designed to conceal the facts.
Rahm Emanuel and William Daley swapped political positions. Rahm Emanuel was moved into a controlled political environment in order to be challenged on his Mayoral eligibility. The goal was to establish legal precedent in order to defend Barack Obama's Presidency from being ruled ineligible in Drake v. Obama (09-56827) otherwise known as Keyes v. Obama. The precedent is not on the merits of the case but the timing of the challenge.
To reinforce this precedent, the attorney who represented President Obama, David A. DeJute made a statement at 33 minutes and 55 seconds into the May 2, 2011 Drake v. Obama hearing that is factually incorrect. He told the court that Ralph Nader, an independent presidential candidate in 2008, filed lawsuits attempting to keep certain other presidential candidates (whom he did not name) off the ballot. There is no truth to this statement whatsoever.
There are no established Federal cases to guide the court in this matter, otherwise known as precedent. A sitting President has never been challenged due to eligibility requirements. The plaintiffs refer to cases involving Governors, but these are resolved in State Supreme Courts by State Constitutional guidelines. The Obama administration had no counter precedent and could only rely on the fact that the suit was not answered prior to the inauguration. In fact, Obama lost this case by default and the only remaining option was to manufacture a precedent that fit the facts of the case to be used upon appeal.
Judge Raymond Fisher of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered the precedent into the Drake v. Obama case at 33 minutes and 34 seconds into the May 2, 2011 Drake v. Obama hearing.
Emanuel did not meet eligibility requirements to run for mayor. Chicago's Municipal Code says, "A qualified elector of the municipality and [must have] resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election." He was required to be a physical resident for one year prior to the election.
Since early 2009, Mr. Emanuel had leased his house on North Hermitage Avenue and moved his family to Washington, D.C., where was he was living and working. "I vote from here, pay property taxes here. I do believe that the people of the city of Chicago deserve the right to choose who will be their next mayor," as Emanuel framed the discussion. On January 24, 2011, Rahm Emanuel was removed from the ballot by the Illinois First District Appellate Court in a 2–1 decision.
"The Chicago Way" entered full corruption mode as both Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times criticized the ruling in editorials as "startling arrogance and audaciously twisted reasoning" and "pinched interpretation of the law [that] ignores the lawmakers' obvious intent". The editorials omitted the logic that led two appellate court judges to their ruling and only expanded upon the dissenting opinion.
On January 25, 2011, the Supreme Court of Illinois issued a stay of the appellate court's ruling that Rahm Emanuel should be removed from the ballot. On January 27, 2011, the Supreme Court of Illinois, in a unanimous (7-0) decision, overturned the ruling of the Appellate Court and allowed Emanuel to stay on the ballot. The Supreme Court of Illinois preempted Chicago Municipal Code.
Rahm Emanuel's campaign fund racked up roughly $12 million dollars in the ex-White House chief of staff's quest to become Chicago's mayor. Less than half of that cash came from inside the city limits of Chicago. That includes a $50,000 donation from Donald Trump, $75,000 from Steven Spielberg, and more than $200,000 from Haim Saban, a former owner of Fox Family Channel, and his wife Cheryl. Local Chicago media made the case for lower turnout by declaring Emanuel's commanding lead in the polls and through fund raising. The election was just a formality.
The Rahm Emanuel eligibility case was a maneuver well crafted in expectation of a challenge to the residency requirement of the Chicago Municipal code. The case could have been pushed to the Supreme Court by Attorney Burt Odelson, but was not.
Precedent was established as "similar" to Obama's eligibility requirement with regard to timing of challenges to eligibility. If the Chicago maneuver failed (despite Illinois corruption), it could have been pushed to the U.S. Supreme Court where two Obama ideologues would presumably have written dissenting opinions helpful to Obama's eligibility case. It establishes a timing requirement to challenge eligibility regardless of who won the Emanuel case.
This was a simple, cynical maneuver to protect Barack Obama. It proves Chicago loyalty for Emanuel who had nothing to lose. It proves that the administration fears the issue of eligibility. It means they know Mr. Obama is ineligible and are concealing the facts as best they can.
How do I know this story is true? At 33:34 Judge Raymond Fisher, entered The Chicago Precedent into the record by asking about the timing of the Emanuel eligibility challenge. This establishes Obama's technicality defense as based on precedent manufactured in Chicago, created two years after the challenge to Obama's eligibility, by Obama's chief of staff.
Now you know the whole story. I fear that when all these measures fail to preserve the administration, they will just sink deeper. These are people of little character.
Labels: The Chicago Precedent Obama Keyes Drake Corruption President ineligibile "Natural Born Citizen"
Timing...does this mean a candidate can only challenge Obama now, before the primary, to effectively get him off the ballot?
The timing is based upon the actual election, but prior to the primary may also be a good tactic.
There are two parts to a longer answer.
1. Federal court challenges would have to be prior to the election ( possibly by someone who could argue that they may have won the election). This leaves open the argument that prior to the election, the winner is not known. Without knowledge of who the winner is, there may be no remedy.
2. Federal Court challenges after the election are ripe for judges to claim that the propery body to resolve the issue is either the Electorial College or The Congress through impeachment. Both of these possible resolutions are flawed in that neither the Electorial College or the Congress have the power to gather or evaluate evidence.
...and thank your for reading this article and your kind words!
They will instead business dispute attorneys come up with choices with regards to affordable pay out and lawful techniques. In cases where someone is encountering a divorce with little ones, these emotions are generally better, experiencing an additional enthusiasm to commitment children law master.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.