Fraud Fears In US Election ( Archived) (54)

I'm not so worried about that, I'm worried about all the absentee ballots where people have already voted. It's easy to committ fraud. I think I could easily pull that one off.

He worked on a team of lawyers that represented them in a lawsuit...and was a junior lawyer at the time Ken....

Check out U-tube

only 1 of a hundred examples.

What's that quote.....you can put lipstick on a pig.....

Home --> Politics --> Barack Obama --> The Loan Arranger

The Loan Arranger

Claim: Barack Obama filed a lawsuit to require banks to "make loans to poor people."

Status: False.

Example: [Collected via e-mail, September 2008]

In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against CitiBank, demanding that loans be made to poor people, and others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back. The basis of the lawsuit was the 14th Amendment, which requires 'fair and equal' treatment for all citizens.

The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor/indigent/unemployed people was, on it's face, a discriminatory act by lending institutions. Thousands of loans were processed, and of course many went into default, in part explaining why we're in the financial mess we're in.

Now, it's easy for some people to point the finger of blame at Pres. Geo. Bush for this crisis, because he's sitting in the hot seat.

What many people don't know is the suit was filed during the Clinton Administration.

The lawyer filing the suit was none other than:

Barak Hussein Obama.


Truth:

Origins: This item seeks to dump much of the blame for America's current economic woes on Barack Obama by claiming that as a young lawyer, Obama filed a lawsuit requiring financial institutions to lend money to "poor people" and "others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back." Although there is a (very) vague element of fact underneath this politicking, the piece quoted above is woefully wrong in all its particulars.

The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with requiring lenders to do business with people "who could not show proof that they could pay the money back." The case was a class-action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings on behalf of a black Chicago woman, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who claimed she was unfairly denied a mortgage based on her race. The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, and other business institutions refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., based solely on the geographic area in which the applicant lives (a practice that commonly excludes minorities in inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of their income or ability to pay). Specifically, the lawsuit charged that Citibank "rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories." The case was eventually settled out of court, with some class members receiving cash payments and Citibank agreeing to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages.

Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter. He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case:

Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.

"I don't recall him ever standing up and giving an impassioned speech — it was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff," said Fay Clayton, the lead lawyer on the case.

(Cont'd)....

"He was the very junior lawyer in that case," said attorney Robert Kriss. "He had just graduated from law school. I don't recall him being in court at any time I was there. I was the lead lawyer for Citibank and he was not very visible to me."

On Feb. 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client, and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. During his appearance before the judge, Obama said he would need more time to file a response to a motion, and the judge agreed. That was all Obama said during the half-hour hearing.
Last updated: 5 October 2008

The URL for this page is

Barack Obama should have run screaming at the sight of Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn. Ayers has admitted bombing the U.S. Capitol building and the Pentagon, and his wife was sent to prison for failing to cooperate in solving the robbery of a Brink's armored car in which two police were killed. Far from remorse, Ayers told The New York Times, in September 2001, that he "wished he could have done more." Ayers only avoided conviction when the evidence against him turned out to be contained in illegally obtained wiretaps by the FBI. He was, in fact, guilty as sin.

That Obama should ally himself with Ayers is almost beyond understanding. The former terrorist had not repented his views, and the education grants he got were expressly designed to further them.

So let's sum up Obama's Chicago connections. His chief financial supporter was Tony Rezko, now on his way to federal prison. His spiritual advisor and mentor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, of "God damn America" fame. And the guy who got him his only administrative job and put him in charge of doling out $50 million is Ayers, a terrorist who was a domestic Osama bin Laden in his youth.

Even apart from the details of the Obama-Ayers connection, two key points emerge:

-- Obama lied and misled the American people in his description of his relationship with Ayers as casual and arm's length; and

-- Obama was consciously guided by Ayers' radical philosophy, rooted in the teachings of leftist Saul Alinksy, in his distribution of ACA grant funds.

Since Obama is asking us to let him direct education spending by the federal government and wants us to trust his veracity, these are difficulties he will have to explain in order to get the votes to win.

Now that Obama is comfortably ahead in the polls, attention will understandably shift to him. We will want to know what kind of president he would make. The fact that, within the past 10 years he participated in a radical program of political education conceptualized by an admitted radical terrorist offers no reassurance.

Why did Obama put up with Ayers? Because he got a big job and $50 million of patronage to distribute to his friends and supporters in Chicago. Why did he hang out with Wright? Because he was new in town, having grown up in Hawaii and Indonesia and having been educated at Columbia and Harvard, and needed all the local introductions he could get to jumpstart his political career. Why was he so close to Rezko? Because he funded Obama's campaigns and helped him buy a house for $300,000 less than he otherwise would have had to pay.

Not a good recommendation for a president.

I wish that were true. Here all you need is your voter registration card and you're good to go. Some places, Ohio I think, they are letting people register and vote on the same day.

That's correct. They are registering AND voting on the same day, and many of these people are coming from homeless shelters so they cannot verify addresses so they can use more than one! Then there are the prison sweeps where they are signing inmates up with absentee ballots.