Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
We told you in September 2012 that Obama associate Daniel S. Mahru would receive a sentence of probation instead of jail time for his silence.
After delaying the inevitable for 18 months, the U.S. Department of Justice has proven IP2P right once again by sentencing Mahru to probation.
Like we said in 2012:
DoJ silences Obama associate Daniel S. Mahru with his freedom
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief, Illinois PayToPlay
Illinoispaytoplay.com (IP2P) has learned that Daniel S. Mahru, former business partner of Antoin "Tony" Rezko, made a deal with the Department of Justice (DoJ) for his silence.
IP2P is the first to report that on, October 4 2012, Daniel S. Mahru will receive probation at his sentencing hearing. IP2P has also learned that this is being done to insure Mahru will not speak of crimes, of which he has knowledge, that implicate Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Allison Davis, Tony Rezko and others. (Remember Tony recently saying he committed crimes for which Fitzgerald did not charge him.)
IP2P is also investigating the circumstances surrounding meetings that took place where Daniel T Frawley and Daniel S Mahru (both convicted felons) met with author Jerome Corsi in Chicago to discuss secret meetings between Barack Obama, Nadhmi Auchi, Tony Rezko, (now Governor) Pat Quinn, and others.
Mahru is unwilling to talk about what was discussed at those meetings. Could that have anything to do with his probation deal?
The DoJ and (now former) U.S Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald protected Eric Holder, Barack Obama and a host of other criminals that occupy high offices in our state and federal government.
Brenda J Elliot at rbo2.com recently posted an article suggesting how important Mahru’s silence is to the DoJ.
Where's that special prosecutor when you need him?
The real question is why announce Mahru's probation now?
Well, because it's time to tie up all those loose ends.
So, the only announcement left that Eric Holder's Dept. of Justice needs to make is Rod Blagojevich will be released early from prison.
In other words, it's time to complete the "deal" that will insure Blago's continued silence.
It's the Chicago way.
And remember, the Chicago way is not just "who you know". It's also "what you know about who".
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
The real reason the Blagojevich tapes won't be unsealed is because it would expose the widespread corruption at the highest levels of our government.
Like we at IP2P have been telling you for a long time, Blago will be set free. In other words, he is successfully blackmailing his way out of prison!
Here's how it will work:
A three-judge panel hearing Blago's appeal has already taken the first step by announcing that the Blagojevich tapes would remain sealed.
Next, the same three-judge panel will find that Blago did not try to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama. The court will say that Blago was just engaged in "political horse trading."
Blago's conviction for trying to sell the Senate seat will be overturned, and combined with a few other slick legal maneuvers, his sentence will be drastically reduced. Instead of spending 12 more years in federal prison, Blago will most likely be home for the holidays this year.
Time served! Which will make Dick Mell's daughter, Patti, very happy.
But more importantly for people like Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel, the court will have bought the silence of Rod and Patti Blagojevich.
As IP2P has been pointing out all along, the issue has never been whether or not the wiretap tapes would prove Blago's innocence. From the very beginning, the real issue for Blago has been leverage, and who else would go down with him if the tapes were played.
And that's why Blago never really wanted the tapes to be played. If they were, he would lose his leverage. It's that simple.
If not for the fact that Patrick Fitzgerald was protecting other guilty parties, Blago would have most certainly faced even more charges and most likely would have been found guilty of them as well.
Playing the tapes would not prove Blago's innocence or get him out of prison. It would just get him company in there.
However, not playing the tapes ensures that those who would join Blago in prison if the tapes were played will do everything in their power to get him out of prison so the tapes won't be played.
And just as we expected, there was no objection to the tapes remaining under seal from Blago and his attorneys. Even though all we've heard for years from them was "Play the tapes, play all the tapes."
There's nothing complicated about it. This is BLACKMAIL 101.
And clearly Eric Holder and the DoJ is onboard.
Much more to come ..... including how John Chase and Jeff Coen of the Chicago Tribune are complicit in this corruption cover-up. And wait until you hear Blago attorney Sheldon Sorosky's incredible explanation of why Chase was never called to testify in the Blagojevich trial.
You won't believe what Shelly had to say!
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
American Thinker's credibility is dissipating quickly.
You see, not disclosing conflicts of interest is turning out to be the norm at American Thinker.
For example: IP2P recently informed its readers of Clarice Feldman's close personal relationship with Richard Perle, whom she frequently goes on the attack for and staunchly defends. As in the case of her baseless attack on Sibel Edmonds.
Now IP2P has also learned that Feldman shares a close friendship with Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. And as is the case with Perle, she has never disclosed her conflict of interest when attacking others on their behalf.
Nor has American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson required her to do so.
Keeping American Thinker's failure to disclose in mind, let me tell you some other disturbing facts that will have you asking this question: Who is really running the show over at American Thinker?
On September 20, 2012 American Thinker posted an article by Lee Cary entitled "Obama's Chicago Arab-American network comes into focus".
Cary's article states some unflattering facts about a man named Nadhmi Auchi, aka. Saddam Hussein's bag man.
Naturally Auchi did not appreciate this article and to no one's surprise he instructed his lawyers at the London law firm Carter-Ruck to send a letter threatening legal action if said article was not taken down.
Upon receiving Auchi's letter, Lifson took the article down momentarily to verify that it was completely factual. After determining that it was correct, Lifson promptly reposted Cary's article unchanged.
That's because Lee Cary's work was solid, and contributor John A. Shaw is as honest and credible a man as you will ever find.
Taking down that article would have given the public the perception that there was something wrong with the story. And that clearly would not be fair to either Cary or Shaw.
At that time IP2P, which was also named in the letter from Auchi's law firm, posted an article praising American Thinker for doing the right thing.
Due to many factors, including Auchi's inability to legally enter the United States, the letter from his lawyers was an idle threat. And that should have been the end of the story.
Unfortunately that happy ending was not to be.
What happened next was that someone on this side of the pond told Lifson to take the article down. And he did, a second time!
We can not tell you exactly who it was at the moment, we can tell that it was not Nadhmi Auchi or his people, according to Lifson.
Could it have been one of Clarice Feldman's close friends? Perhaps Wolfowitz, Perle or Feith?
In any case, if that wasn't bad enough, Lifson then had the audacity to think that IP2P would take the article down as well. And for some peculiar reason, he would not even tell us why.
Of course Lifson received a prompt, "Hell no!"
In fact, we at IP2P still feel that Thomas Lifson owes Cary and Shaw a formal apology for removing their article a second time from American Thinker without even giving them the courtesy of an explanation.
And more importantly, due to recent revelations about American Thinker's close ties to the Washington elite, Lifson needs to publicly address his publication's controversial policy of not disclosing conflicts of interest.
Read the article that Thomas Lifson took down twice here:
Related articles by John A. Shaw
B. C. Woodstein, Guest Writer
Below, watch James B. Comey's performance at a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on May 15, 2007 concerning warrantless wiretaps, and the alleged stand-off between the Bush II administration and his Department of Justice (DOJ). Comey's performance is aided by Sen. Chuck Schumer playing the straight man in their skit. Enjoy their depiction of hospital room heroics, worthy of Saturday Night Live.
Now, when you're done laughing at Comey's Schumer-assisted performance that helped scrub clean all the top people at the Bush DOJ, who were just about to be outed by DOJ whistleblower Thomas Tamm for conducting warrantless wiretaps on American Citizens, consider this: After the hospital room "skit," Deputy Attorney General James Comey, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and FBI Director Robert Mueller all went right back to work conducting warrantless wiretaps on American citizens, just as though nothing had happened.
Today, the Hospital room comedy is touted by the regime as the main reason we should accept Comey as the next FBI Director.
If that doesn't get your attention, remember this: On December 30, 203, Comey appointed U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to be Special Counsel on what is commonly known as the Valerie Plame Case. Fitzgerald was given extraordinary powers to hunt down the source of a leak to a newspaper reporter who (1.) never wrote a story using the information while (2.) Comey, Patrick Fitzgerald, and half of Washington DC, knew who did leak the information before...yes, before...Fitzgerald was even appointed! The reporter was Judith Miller of the New York Times. The self-confessed leaker was Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State to Colin Powell.
In retrospect, the whole Plame saga was a surrogate whizzing contest between Powell and his-not-so-good friend Dick Cheney.
Now feature this: Shortly after appointing his buddy Fitzgerald to be Special Counsel in the Valerie Plame Case, Comey went to work as the top lawyer at Lockheed Martin. They do a lot of surveillance business with the feds.
Now factor in Mark Grossman. Remember him? He was the Undersecretary of State who reported to Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage. Grossman wrote the memo that started the whole Plame thing – as Gomer Pyle said, "Surprise, surprise."
Coincidently, two of Marc Grossman's colleagues at the Cohen Group (that would be Cohen as in Bill Clinton's former SecDef) – namely Vice-Chair Joseph Ralston and Senior Counselor James Loy – sit on the Board of Directors at Lockheed Martin.
You suppose Ralston and Loy were so delighted with the job that Comey and his buddy Fitz were doing keeping the Chicago/Washington/Bagdad Railroad that John Shaw exposed running, that they recommended Lockheed Martin bring Comey on board and pay him a boat load of money?
Comey's total compensation in 2009 alone was $6,113,797, which was multiple times higher than the position ordinarily paid.
Oh, and did you know that Grossman was Fitz's star witness in the Scooter Libby trial? Gee, it's a small world!
Here's a question the media never did ask: Did Grossman know Valerie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson. If so, how did he know him, and for how long? After all, Grossman and Wilson went to the same college, at the same time, and were doing the same job in neighboring countries leading up to, and during, "Operation Desert Storm." Grossman was Deputy Chief of Mission in Turkey, and Wilson was Deputy Chief of Mission in Iraq.
Think maybe they knew each other?
Do you think Chuck Schumer or any of the Senator's on the Senate Judiciary Committee will look for answers to these important questions?
Tune in to find out on the next "James B Comey Show" coming to a Senate committee hearing on your TV.
Hugo Floriani, Investigative Reporter
It's a matter of public record that Stuart Levine, who was the governments star witness in the Tony Rezko, Bill Cellini and, to some extent, Rod Blagojevich trials, often hosted sex parties where illegal drugs were consumed by attendees.
Remember, Stuart Levine became infamous for his kick-back schemes during U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's Operation Board Games.
Levine could get you an invitation to the White House Christmas party, and he was a major player in an ongoing pay-to-play scheme that placed government contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars in the hands of those he, and his criminal public official partners, deemed worthy.
Levine was the kind of man who would fly friends, like Rod Blagojevich, on a private jet to New York for fundraisers.
Now, knowing Stuart Levine, and knowing that he hosted drug and sex parties for years, ask yourself this: How many public officials do you suppose the Department of Justice can tell what to do, and what to think, because they know of their attendance at those parties?
You see, the old slogan in Chicago was: "It's not what you know; it's who you know." The new slogan is, "It's not who you know; it's what you know about who you know."
IP2P would like to know these things:
(1.) Who attended these parties with Levine?
(2.) Are any of them still holding public office where they make decisions about our future?
(3.) Is anyone being blackmailed for having been at those parties?
And lastly, (4.) "Why does the Department of Justice refuse to release any information about those parties?
Meanwhile, the Chicago media maintains its silence and refuses to ask the obvious question: "Who attended the illegal drug parties with Stuart Levine, while he was spending millions of dollars of teachers' retirement money?" Or, perhaps several key reporters know who was there, and are, for one reason or another, unwilling to report what they know.
Hey, Karen Lewis! Maybe, you should ask.
Contact: Randall Samborn, Assistant US Attorney, Public Information Officer
Direct: (312) 353-5318, Cell: (312) 613-6700
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was right when he said this about Ali Mohamed: “This is the most dangerous man I have ever met. We cannot let this man out on the street.”
However, we believe that, in hindsight, Fitzgerald proved more dangerous than Ali Mohamed.
In-fact, Patrick Fitzgerald may be remembered by history as being a danger to the American way-of-life - depending, of course, on who writes the history of this alarming era.
We hear you thinking, "Why that's nuts!" Really?
It's not nuts when you examine the chain-of-events set off by Fitzgerald's willing incompetence, and wonder what this era would have been like had he'd done the right thing.
So let's play...What if?
What if Patrick Fitzgerald had had Ali Mohammed arrested - the person he described as "...the most dangerous man I have ever met. We cannot let this man out on the street.”.
Would 9-11 have happened?
Would we have gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Would we have given up so many of our liberties under the guise of being more secure?
Would our financial institutions and the USD be eroding?
What if Patrick Fitzgerald had not been appointed U.S. Attorney of the Northern Dist. of Illinois?
Would John Chase have been instructed to call Rod Blagojevich and warn him that the feds were recording him?
Would Jesse Jackson, Jr. have been arrested for trying to buy the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barrack Obama?
Would Barrack Obama have been elected President without the help and protection of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald?
We agree with Patrick Fitzgerald's assertion that Ali Mohammed was dangerous, and should not have remained a free man. (Did we ever find out why Mohamed remained free?)
If he had been arrested, would we have children being groped at airports by TSA agents? Would we have warrantless wiretaps underway, or drones flying overhead? Would there be American citizens on the President's kill list?
We think there's a good chance all that might not have happened. And, consequently, we nominate Patrick Fitzgerald as America's "Most Dangerous Man."
To be continued.........
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Remember Rezko's friend and partner Dr. Ronald Michael? At IP2P we believe he's the only person ever to file a libel lawsuit under then alias - "John Doe."
Well, here's an update on the "good" doctor: He didn't file any kind of lawsuit against The MayReport.com, or against Tim Coffaro for publishing the accusations below.
#3: Subject: RE: An article I just published on CSUMRI and Dr. Ron Michael
Thanks for the info! I cannot confirm this, however I have heard thru the grapevine Dr. Michael overcharges insurance
Company's and ask's for kick backs from certain patients. I can't confirm (from personal experience) another issue, however I understand that Dr. M receives kick back's (he calls it consulting fees) from Spine Company's in return for him purchasing their product. HIGHLY ILLEGAL STARCK LAWS. I have I friend that he asked for approx $250,000 in return for purchasing product. My friend refused. The motto with this guy is "YOU CAN'T MAKE A GOOD DEAL WITH A BAD MAN!"
The mainstream media would have a field day with this guy!
708 751 2019
So, Dr. Michael sued the Chicago Sun Times under the alias "John Doe" for printing the factual story "Doc Banks on Government cash."
But he didn't file a lawsuit against those who publicly accused him of committing crimes, that, if true, could cost him his medical license, and perhaps his freedom. What's up with that?
Has Cook County State Attorney Anita Alvarez, or Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, investigated these serious allegations involving Michael's practice?
Or, are they merely looking the other way?
Should the medical community and state regulators in Illinois take these allegations seriously?
We think they should.
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Carolyn McNiven was the attorney-of-record in the government's case against Obama friend and fundraiser, Antoin "Tony" Rezko.
McNiven was also lead attorney in the government's case against Rezko's partner in the enterprise called Companion Security, Daniel T. Frawley. It was a venture designed to, allegedly, train, in the U.S., Iraqi security workers for the Iraqi Ministry of Electricity.
At IP2P we've also recently learned that Patrick Fitzgerald put McNiven in charge of suppressing evidence that Rezko friend and associate, Dr. Ronald Michael, committed multiple felonies.
One of those felonies was an act of fraud that involved the law firm Piper Rudnick, currently known as DLA Piper.
That's the same Piper Rudnick that:
(A) employs Obama's friend and backer, Peter Bynoe, as a senior partner;
(B) is aligned with The Cohen Group where Patrick Fitzgerald's star witness in the Valerie Plame investigation, Marc Grossman, is Vice Chairman; and
(C) was dealing with Rezko and Frawley pertaining to Companion Security's 50 million dollar Iraq security contract.
Isn't it interesting how the dots connect
Isn't it also interesting how the Chicago media serially ignores the dots?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dan Frawley<Address redacted>
To: Robert Cooley <Address redacted>
Date: Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:54 PM
Subject: ROBERT NICHOLS IS THE PIPER RUDNICK ATTY WHO WENT TO JORDAN WITH ME. HE ALSO REPPED BILL COHEN'S (COHEN GROUP) & NOUR USA HUD FAROUKI GOOGLE THEM
And, as luck would have it, the same DLA Piper/Piper Rudnick that made Carolyn McNiven a full partner when she left the U.S. Attorney's office. Imagine that.
----- Forwarded Message -----
Sent:Tue May 11, 2010
Subject: Follow up on our meeting
Let me know when you are available to finish our conversation about Dr. Ronald Michael being on the Terrorist watch list, and the circumstances that led him to send Paul Dubuque to Jordan on his behalf. Dr Michael's involvement with Tony Rezko and the contracts that came out of Iraq will need to be disclosed. It is starting to appear unlikely that your office is going to proceed to trial against Rod Blagojevich this June, making the truth of John Thomas even more important than ever. I look forward to our follow up.
The most disturbing aspect of Assitant U.S. Attorney Carolyn McNiven suppressing evidence of crimes committed.
It nearly cost someone their life.
Coming soon....Marc Grossman, The Cohen Group, DLA Piper
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
ILP2P has learned that the Cook County State Attorney's Financial Crimes Unit was not only aware of Dr. Ronald Michael before $7.2 million of government funds were deposited in Arcola Homestead Savings Bank, they were protecting Michael.
To: Anita Alvarez
Sent: 2009-02-09 13:19:53 +0000
Subject: Fwd: Public Trust
----- Forwarded Message -----
Cc: RStearn@idfpr.com, SGinsburg@idfpr.com, DLPadron@idfpr.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 1:25:58 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Public Trust
Re: Dr. Ronald Michael's purchase of the controlling interest in Arcola Homestead Savings Bank; Arcola, IL
As you know, the I.D.F.P.R. is in possession of proof of FRAUD regarding Dr. Ronald Michael's purchase of Arcola Homestead Savings Bank.
The only question remaining is, what is your agency doing about this?
CC: Robert Stearn, Steve Ginsburg, D.L. Padron
Wait, it gets better.
Even though Dr. Michael was being protected by the State’s Attorney's office, Alvarez felt free to beat her political opponent over the head with the fact that he accepted a $10K "donation" from Dr. Michael.
State's attorney candidates trade claims of tainted donors
Rob Olmstead, Daily Herald Staff
July 29, 2008
A Cook County state's attorney candidate says she's comfortable taking a small donation from an acknowledged target of an FBI investigation, saying he has never been charged with a crime.
On the flip side, her opponent says he sees nothing wrong with taking a larger donation from a man who was a friend of convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko and who was approved by state officials for bank ownership despite once having helped run a company that went bankrupt.
Welcome to the race for Cook County state's attorney.
The first donation, $500 given in June by former Chicago Alderman William Singer, was made to Democrat Anita Alvarez.
Singer was identified by federal authorities during the Rezko trial as a target of a federal investigation into a crooked land deal involving Stuart Levine and former Chicago Alderman Edward Vrdolyak.
Levine wore two recording devices to try to capture Singer on tape, but somehow both recording devices failed during his conversation with Singer, testimony showed. Defense attorneys for Rezko intimated Levine did it on purpose to protect Singer, but Levine denied that on the stand.
Singer has not been charged with any wrongdoing. A secretary at his office Monday said he was out of town and unavailable for comment.
"I think it would be highly inappropriate to keep this money," said Alvarez' opponent, Republican Tony Peraica.
But Alvarez spokeswoman Sally Daly said Alvarez does not know Singer, and in the absence of any charges thinks that an implication by Levine, an admitted liar and heavy drug user, is not enough to impugn his reputation.
"Given those circumstances, we're not uncomfortable with it," said Daly, who said Alvarez will not be returning the contribution.
Daly, in turn, criticized Peraica's acceptance in a previous campaign of over $10,000 from Dr. Ronald Michael, a friend of Rezko who contributed heavily to Gov. Rod Blagojevich and was awarded state regulatory approval to buy a bank, even though he once helped run a company that went bankrupt.
"He's [Peraica] received sizable and ongoing donations not only from people whose name came up in the Rezko trial - but people whose business practices have been scrutinized by the federal government."
She was referring to another campaign donor whose company incurred Clean Air Act violations.
"Was Mr. Michael ever under a federal investigation?" asked Peraica rhetorically. Federal officials have never publicly given any such indication.
"If you know of some (investigation), I would certainly take a look at that (returning a donation)," Peraica said.
Michael could not be reached for comment Monday.
Regarding the donor with the Clean Air violations, Peraica responded that he thinks Alvarez is "getting desperate here".
Hang on, there's still more...
At a later date, State Attorney Anita Alvarez was so bold as to attempt to set someone up for Dr. Michael. She gave the task to her best pit bull, Mr. Robert Podlasek. He just happens to be the very same attorney from the Financial Crimes Unit that is, to this day, still terrorizing Cook County political prisoner Annabel Melongo.
Alvarez's attempt in the Michael case fell short. The intended victim was familiar with "The Chicago Way" and was able to duck, so to speak. Although, that's not to say the victim escaped unharmed.
Cook County State Attorney's Office is the "Muscle" and the complicit Chicago media knows a lot more than they’re reporting. But then, what else is new?
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Chase told a source that Tony Rezko lived with the Michael family when he came to Chicago from Lebanon as a young man. Chase said that Michael was involved with Rezko in securing reconstruction contracts in Iraq. And, that Michael was trying to get Federal and Illinois state funding for a project involving property he owned in Iraq.
When pressed for details, Chase would not disclose where the monies would come from, nor for what purposes they’d be granted.
Chase was also the first to confirm that the “John Doe” filed lawsuit against the Sun Times was filed by Dr. Ronald Michael. Furthermore, Chase confirmed that Michael threatened to sue Chase and the Trib if he, Chase, outed him as Mr. Doe.
Michael's threat worked.
John Chase, who has much to tell about the mystery man who, according to Chase, gave convicted felon Tony Rezko his start in Chicago, has never told Tribune readers what he knows.
Oh, did we mention that Michael was on the Blagojevich $25,000 Donor Clout List? And that Michael’s name also appeared on a list of possible appointees to the Illinois Health Planning Board with the initials “TR” next to it?
Michael was not appointed to the Planning Board, but his friends Dr. Fortunee Massuda, Dr. Michel Malek, and Dr. Imad Almanaseer were.
Michael followed the banking route instead, and that venture will cost the FDIC over $3,000,000. (Stand by, we’ll have more on the bank thing later.)
Why would someone who purports to be a "journalist and author" leave out such relevant, interesting and important information from his articles and book?
John, you saving the good stuff for a screenplay, or what?
Meanwhile, the Valarie Plame story is falling apart. Who will have the most interesting story there - once-jailed New York Times journalist Judith Miller, or John Chase?