Massive Media Blackout Underway! Obama Treason Trials Start Thursday!

Originally posted by paronomasia
reply to post by Libertygal

 

EXACTLY!! people try to apply labels to trivialize this issue. Some people are so disillusioned they can only see things as left or right, white or black. This type of thinking is part of the problem with this country!

I'm not american so i have no axe to grind, i have reviewed all evidence given and it's clear that Obamas presidency is legitimate. Some people will never accept it and so we must ask why they don't. Hatred of the system in general, dislike of his party or plain old racism. Labels are merely words used to describe something and the idea labels trivialize anything they are applied to is ridiculous.

Not the same, Bush was hated for what he had done, Obama was hated the day he got into office.

The questions will never be anwered to the satisfaction of some people, even though proof has been clearly given they refuse to believe it and the question that has to be asked is why.

So well said, it's worth repeating!

1) Main Stream Media is doing all the can to BLACK THIS OUT!
(expected seeing they are owned by the same banks that own Obama)

2) Manning has found a Court to hear the case. (To be announced in order to protect the judges).

3) Manning’s attorneys subpoenaed many high profile politicians! Active & Retired

4) Many facts are kept secret until the hearings and are said to be EXPLOSIVE!

5) Other Key Witnesses are to be explosive as well!

6) Those that show up, are going to testify based on previous statements they have made!

7) Partial Witness List: George Stephanopoulos, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Condolezza Rice; Michael Sovern (the past President of Columbia University); Rod Blagojevich; Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, book writer James Cone, more. He also subpoenaed all of the faculty that were a part of the Political Science program during the years that Obama would have been a student at Columbia University.

Things to be skeptical about from a legal perspective:

(1) You don't file a lawsuit and go directly to trial. Courts around the nation are backlogged right now. Not to mention you have to go through a discovery process -- this includes depositions, interrogatories, and admissions. Generally for complex cases, getting a trial date within a year would be optimistic.

(2) The article states no case number. Most courts have an electronic system and all courts issue case numbers. It is the #1 way to track what's going on in a case. You could easily see if the case was ever even filed, but no case number is even provided.

Also noteworthy -
no mention of whether this is a civil case or criminal case.
No mention of whether this is a state court or federal court.
("Those that show up")...if they are served with a subpoena they have to show up.


I would say its either a hoax or very poorly presented information. If I can see a case # and the Court in which the action was filed, it would be a lot easier to determine credibility rather than speculating on it. However, the information presented thus far in the article appears bogus. I have extensive experience in the legal field, none of the information seems legit at all.

Originally posted by jibeho


Too funny! This info is straight from his own site and I am not the one trying to discredit the man. He has his masters of divinity which makes him a reverend. The PhD. ehh big deal. There are a lot of phd's floating around that carry very little weight. They just look neato on paper.

Straight from HIS site!!!!! What do you not get about that? Do you know what a "Masters of Divinity" actually is? Do you know anything about the school he got it from? Did you look into any of that? Apparently not since you are here bragging about having read and believed it to be worth something.

As far as him not being a real doctor, why would you promote is as part of his credibility and at the same time blow it off as not a big deal that he is really a fraud - thus your basis for him being credible is all but blown to pieces.

Am I interested in the truth? You're damn right I am. I'll start with this statement from Michelle Obama regarding Barack''s Mother.

His mother and his grandmother. [applause] Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single when she had him, and he saw her work hard to complete her education and try to raise he and his sister.

blog.showmeprogress.com...

This quote is taken from a transcript of a speech that Michelle gave at the University of Missouri during the 2008 campaign and is posted on a progressive website. This statement was made before the birther movement started to gain any traction. I don't doubt his citizenship I doubt the alleged facts behind the story of his mothers pregnancy and her marriage to Barack Sr. I would be willing to make a small wager on the fact that Obama was born a month or two earlier than Aug. 4.

I have posted this in several forums on several threads and no one will touch it in an effort to rationalize her statement. No slip of the tongue here from Michelle.

How should one interpret this statement when it contradicts the Obama story that we are expected to believe? My rational mind says something stinks or that someone has not been forthright with the whole truth. The truth is what I seek. This is the same notion that drives people of science to seek further and deeper and to look beyond simple face value.

So...you do not know his degrees are worthless fakes pieces of crap. You know nothing about the schools he got them from. You think he is credible because he is a doctor and you do not care that he is really a fake doctor so you go off on this quote about Michelle? I see nothing in there that lends credibility to Manning and I see even less demonstrating you have any understanding of who this man actually is and what his education is actually worth.

If you are really interested in the truth, stop promoting this man based on what he earned and do some research into what he actually did earn, how he earned it, and from where. Get back to me when you have that info. Then maybe start a thread about this off topic quote above and address that there.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Not the same, Bush was hated for what he had done, Obama was hated the day he got into office.

The questions will never be anwered to the satisfaction of some people, even though proof has been clearly given they refuse to believe it and the question that has to be asked is why.

Again, I will politely disagree with you.

As it can be witnessed in his falling poll numbers as well as evidence of "buyers remorse", the one point is clear - that people have a growing resentment for the things he has done while in office.

Why do people act like he just got elected yesterday? He has done a great deal of things that have caused resentment of him since he got into office.

This apppears worse in "birthers", because they feel it was done illegally. Hence, they have more dislike towards him.

That does not negate that fact that some people that voted for him are outright hating him, too.

Some people that didn't vote for him, but are not "birthers", are hating him too.

Just that the "birthers" had a head start in the issue.

reply to post by Delphiki


Treason would be a criminal case, no?

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by Delphiki

 

Treason would be a criminal case, no?

If it was a criminal case it would be doubly bogus. First a state or federal prosecution agency would have to file charges against the President. For example the District Attorney's office would determine they had enough evidence on the President to charge him with something.

A private individual cannot file a criminal case -- they can only lodge a complaint which the police subsequently investigate. The police then give their information to the DA who makes the call on whether or not to bring a criminal action.

The President would also have been taken into custody, and either still be in custody or released on bail.

None of these things have actually happened, hence my reasonable conclusion that this is bogus information. Normally I don't remark on these types of threads, but I thought I should clarify for anyone that the process being claimed as 'going down' is not how the law actually works.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Delphiki]

Here is some info from 2009:

www.sonorannews.com...

It looks like he lodged a complaint with the DOJ and several civil suits which have been thrown out. A complaint, as referred to above, is not in the sense of a complaint which initiates a legal proceeding (when filed with the DOJ). A complaint can be filed with a Court, however to initiate a civil suit.

Again it seems these are civil cases. In civil cases, you do not file a complaint and then go directly to trial. In all cases, espicially complex cases involving numerous parties, there is a pre-trial process that must be followed. Most of this is occupied by the discovery process, although some action does occur on the eve of trial (ex. motion in limine's).

If this case has been going on for a while, this would not be the first we heard of it. And all the famous 'eyewitness' listed would have long ago been subpoenaed for deposition. The case would have already been built substantially or thrown out. Obama would have also been deposed.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Delphiki]

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by piddles

 

I had a roommate once that actually used crystal deodorant.

Actually crystal deoderant is not using the crystal healing powers to stop perspiration.

It is smmonium chloride crystal which when applied to a wet surface leaves a coating of ammonium chloride and that coating kills the bacteria that cause odor.

Jaden

P.S. that's what I use as well. much better and doesn't just mask the smell with perfumes...

I call hoax, Obama's citizenship rights were established long ago. People who go on about this nonsense are living in a fantasy world.

Why do these threads get to the front page?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by jibeho


Too funny! This info is straight from his own site and I am not the one trying to discredit the man. He has his masters of divinity which makes him a reverend. The PhD. ehh big deal. There are a lot of phd's floating around that carry very little weight. They just look neato on paper.

Straight from HIS site!!!!! What do you not get about that? Do you know what a "Masters of Divinity" actually is? Do you know anything about the school he got it from? Did you look into any of that? Apparently not since you are here bragging about having read and believed it to be worth something.

As far as him not being a real doctor, why would you promote is as part of his credibility and at the same time blow it off as not a big deal that he is really a fraud - thus your basis for him being credible is all but blown to pieces.

Am I interested in the truth? You're damn right I am. I'll start with this statement from Michelle Obama regarding Barack''s Mother.

His mother and his grandmother. [applause] Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single when she had him, and he saw her work hard to complete her education and try to raise he and his sister.

blog.showmeprogress.com...

This quote is taken from a transcript of a speech that Michelle gave at the University of Missouri during the 2008 campaign and is posted on a progressive website. This statement was made before the birther movement started to gain any traction. I don't doubt his citizenship I doubt the alleged facts behind the story of his mothers pregnancy and her marriage to Barack Sr. I would be willing to make a small wager on the fact that Obama was born a month or two earlier than Aug. 4.

I have posted this in several forums on several threads and no one will touch it in an effort to rationalize her statement. No slip of the tongue here from Michelle.

How should one interpret this statement when it contradicts the Obama story that we are expected to believe? My rational mind says something stinks or that someone has not been forthright with the whole truth. The truth is what I seek. This is the same notion that drives people of science to seek further and deeper and to look beyond simple face value.

So...you do not know his degrees are worthless fakes pieces of crap. You know nothing about the schools he got them from. You think he is credible because he is a doctor and you do not care that he is really a fake doctor so you go off on this quote about Michelle? I see nothing in there that lends credibility to Manning and I see even less demonstrating you have any understanding of who this man actually is and what his education is actually worth.

If you are really interested in the truth, stop promoting this man based on what he earned and do some research into what he actually did earn, how he earned it, and from where. Get back to me when you have that info. Then maybe start a thread about this off topic quote above and address that there.

Your constant condescending demeanor is getting very old. As for his PHD. he earned from his own unaccredited school. He is not trying to defraud anyone. He laid it out rather plain and clear. Like I said before there are a lot of bloated PhD's floating around. It doesn't make him a fraud. I liken his degree to an honorary degree.

You really need to stop applying your own meaning to peoples statements.

As for his seminary school that you question but clearly didn't research, here it is. Founded in 1836. www.utsnyc.edu...
In your eyes its probably just a fake school.

Again your condescending attitude further harms your stance. Just to appease you, Yes, I know what a Masters of Divinity is. My younger brother is currently pursuing his BTW. Pretty neato eh?


As for my statement regarding Michelle's gaff, it's just part of the whole case against Obama's credibility and is relevant to this thread and the efforts of Rev. Manning. Care to comment on her statement?

That's what I thought.

Edit to add:
There are plenty of unaccredited colleges out there. It does not mean that these are all fraudulent or bogus schools. Perhaps it is you who doesn't get it. Manning does not claim to have an accredited school.
PROVE HE IS A FRAUD. It's your claim.

Some institutions (for example, some Bible colleges and seminaries) choose not to participate in the accreditation process because they view it as an infringement of their religious, academic, or political freedom.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 14-5-2010 by jibeho]

[edit on 14-5-2010 by jibeho]

[edit on 14-5-2010 by jibeho]

[edit on 14-5-2010 by jibeho]

I can prove this is a HOAX right now...

Article I Section 3 of the United States Constitution.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II Section 4 of the United States Constitution...

Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

FIRST a sitting president MUST be impeached before ANY trial goes forth in any case of TREASON! Obama HAS NOT BEEN IMPEACHED! First he must be impeached on those grounds, which means the Senate has to hold impeachment proceedings overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. ONLY after a sitting president is IMPEACHED can he be tried for TREASON.

You all who believe this malarkey are fools!

THIS IS A HOAX!

reply to post by Delphiki


I understand all the points you made, I am not saying I don't. They just claim to have the right to bypass the prosecuter because no one would be willing to touch it for fear of retribution. That's kind of the whole idea behind this Grand Jusry thing.

You can go to the Grand Jury website and read their history and claims regarding the Constitution and all.

americangrandjury.org...

I think they presentments are meant to replace the prosecutor or something? I don't quite follow it all.

Here is the presentments page:

americangrandjury.org...

I think it would take someone well versed Constitutional Law as well as criminal law to delve into all that mess.

Originally posted by jibeho
Your constant condescending demeanor is getting very old.

Should have thought about that before you decided to use a reply to someone else as an excuse to bash my education that you knew nothing about while lambasting someone for MOCKING YOUR EDUCATION THEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT. Pick up a bat, put on a helmet, step up the plate and I am going to keep pitching. Maybe you will eventually hit one.

As for his PHD. he earned from his own unaccredited school. He is not trying to defraud anyone. He laid it out rather plain and clear. Like I said before there are a lot of bloated PhD's floating around. It doesn't make him a fraud. I liken his degree to an honorary degree.

It sure makes him look like a fraud the way you put it.

Manning graduated from The College of New Rochelle with a Bachelor of Arts degree and continued on to Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York where he was awarded a Master of Divinity. Manning also holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the ATLAH Theological Seminary, an unaccredited educational institution.

No denying that the man is dedicated to his cause and to his fellow man by exposing the truth. I will certainly let him say what he needs to say. I already agree with his statements below especially his Witch Doctor project.

Just a little more information for the uninformed. I haven't seen any direct info on the man up until this point in the thread.

Too funny! This info is straight from his own site and I am not the one trying to discredit the man.

Am I interested in the truth? You're damn right I am.

Funny how you mentioned he was a big smart doctor and all but you failed to mention it was worthless because he gave it to himself if a made up subject. Not exactly what I would expect from someone interested in any truth.

Given your history of going back to edit posts to take out things you were called on and deny you said it, more recently to go back and credit a quote you were called out for stealing - you have time to go back and edit in that you did not really mean to imply he was credible because he was a doctor. You really meant to add that he was a fake doctor and somehow that makes him not a fraud.

You really need to stop applying your own meaning to peoples statements.

Such as?

As for his seminary school that you question but clearly didn't research, here it is. Founded in 1836. www.utsnyc.edu...
In your eyes its probably just a fake school.

Again your condescending attitude further harms your stance. Just to appease you, Yes, I know what a Masters of Divinity is. My younger brother is currently pursuing his BTW. Pretty neato eh?

Awesome, let me know when he finishes so I can hire him to represent me in court.

As for my statement regarding Michelle's gaff, it's just part of the whole case against Obama's credibility and is relevant to this thread and the efforts of Rev. Manning. Care to comment on her statement?

That's what I thought.

At least you had a thought. I guess I am just not sure how it is relevant here because it avoids the question of this man being a nutjob and redirects it to something completely different - ala evidence that would be used in this nutjob case.

Edit to add:
There are plenty of unaccredited colleges out there. It does not mean that these are fraudulent or bogus schools. Perhaps it is you who doesn't get it.
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 14-5-2010 by jibeho]

LOL. First of all, would you go to a doctor from an unaccredited school? Would you let one prescribe medicine or even operate on you? If the answer is yes, then fine. It proves you have no idea why schools remain unaccredited. Some are new and working on it. When they are accredited, it means they have proven they are actually teaching what they should be in order for the degrees they give to be worth anything to anyone anywhere.

More specifically, yes they are all over. How about this. I will start my own school and make myself a doctor of some made up crap. Will you then present my arguments in manner that would frame me as MORE credible because I had any level of degree from my own school? You presented manning as a doctor and believable when in fact he is NOT a doctor but says he is and is therefore NOT BELIEVABLE.

Let me know when that sinks in.

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by six67seven

 

Fer cryin out loud!
Citing WND for anything is like citing Mad Magazine.
WND is run by Joseph Farrah, a complete nutcase exreme right winger.
WND has run how many BS birther stories? It a pure propaganda site, nothing more.
I eagerly await the pretend results of this latest pretend trial.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by OldDragger]

Point is, its taking place. And if you want to follow the updates, go to WND.com to find it because you won't find updates on any MSM sites. I don't think anything will come of it, but running this trial per the 10th amendment is kind of a big deal these days. It wouldn't be propaganda if BHO would release his records now would it.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by six67seven]

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by Delphiki

 

I understand all the points you made, I am not saying I don't. They just claim to have the right to bypass the prosecuter because no one would be willing to touch it for fear of retribution. That's kind of the whole idea behind this Grand Jusry thing.

You can go to the Grand Jury website and read their history and claims regarding the Constitution and all.

americangrandjury.org...

I think they presentments are meant to replace the prosecutor or something? I don't quite follow it all.

Here is the presentments page:

americangrandjury.org...

I think it would take someone well versed Constitutional Law as well as criminal law to delve into all that mess.

The prosecutor is the one who presents evidence to the grand jury in hopes of getting an indictment. Once the prosecutor receives the indictment, he can go forward on his criminal complaint. (This only applies to states/actions which still use grand juries...not all states do and some criminal actions don't require the use of a grand jury).


Here is a link to one of the civil suits filed:

www.scribd.com...

For those who don't speak legalese:
A bunch of cases against Obama were consolidated into one for purposes of appeal after they were thrown out by a lower court. The appellate court agreed with the lower court that these were frivolous claims. The appellate court also agreed that the lower court did not abuse its discretion by awarding sanctions against the people who filed the frivolous claims.

Note: sanctions = monetary award. Usually you have to pay the Court a dollar amount when you break the rules of the Court.

Edit:
There is no trial going forward. However that doesn't mean that these guys can't get into court. After you file a case, you have numerous pre-trial court appearances. These are usually called "status conferences" to update the Court on the status of the case.

If any of this information is at all true - it could have been that a person filed a complaint against Obama and appeared in Court today for a court appearance. The extent of these court appearances: the judge asks both sides what's going on. He then sets another status conference between 30-120 days out. Some other common court appearances: OSC (order to show cause) for example Order to Show Cause Re: proof of service

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Delphiki]

Wow I can't believe that some people think this is real and actually going to happen. What the hell has happened to ATS?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I'm done with you Blunderson. I have gone around and around with you as constantly cherry pick quotes out of context and subsequently apply your own meaning to them.

You constantly accuse me of going back to remove content from a post that you never read to begin with until after the fact. I edit to add information or correct spelling and grammar. Prove your claim please.

Nothing else in you comments even remotely warrants further interaction from me.

Keep up the good work with your warnings. To bad it isn't a running tally.

Thought this link would Help

This pdf came off of a quick search all about the trial and details enjoy

Edit to add: i couldnt help myself to not include the quote from the link about in reference to barack obama being called the "long legged mack daddy" hahahahahahaha and these guys are serious

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Brotherman]

reply to post by Snowi


Dr. Manning, may be right, but unless the TRIAL is held in the US Senate, it has no effect on what Obama does and its just a waste of breathe and time.

As stated above, if it was a criminal case it would actually be tried by the Senate under impeachment proceedings. The trial would be going on right now -- it isn't.

However, it could easily be a civil case. Here is an link to a decision about a civil suit against Obama. It was thrown out.

www.ca3.uscourts.gov...

Some relevant excerpts:

Philip Berg, a lawyer acting pro se, filed this action
challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for and serve as
President of the United States. The District Court dismissed
Berg’s action on the grounds that he lacks standing and failed to
state a cognizable claim.

In sum, we agree with the District Court that Berg lacks
standing to bring this suit because he has suffered no injury
particularized to him. A prerequisite of standing is that the
litigant has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact that is caused
by the complained-of conduct by a defendant and that can be
redressed by the court. Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188. An “injury
in fact” is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a)
concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (internal
citations and quotations omitted). “[W]hen the asserted harm is
a ‘generalized grievance’ shared in substantially equal measure
by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does
not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S.
490, 499 (1975) (citation omitted).

As a practical matter, Berg was not directly
injured because he could always support a candidate he believed
was eligible. See Becker v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 230 F.3d
381, 390 (1st Cir. 2000) (no cognizable injury to voters when
they can still cast for preferred candidate),

Even if we assume that the placement of an ineligible
candidate on the presidential ballot harmed Berg, that injury,
including any frustration Berg felt because others refused to act
on his view of the law, was too general for the purposes of
Article III: Berg shared both his “interest in proper application
of the Constitution and laws,” and the objective uncertainty of
Obama’s possible removal, pari passu with all voters; and the
relief he sought would have “no more directly and tangibly
benefit[ed] him than . . . the public at large.”

The essence of Berg’s complaint is that the defendants,
the states, presidential candidates other than Obama, political
parties, a majority of American voters, and Congress – a list that
includes some who could have challenged, or could still
challenge, Obama’s eligibility through various means – have not
been persuaded by his claim. That grievance, too, is not one
“appropriately resolved through the judicial process.” Whitmore
v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990).

Berg asserts that the District Court erred in denying him
standing under 18 U.S.C. § 1983 because of a lack of state
action. State action is not one of the three elements of standing.
See Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188. In any event, the District Court
did not rely on a lack of state action to dismiss his case. See
App. at 23-24 n.14.

Among the litany of Berg’s claims is his argument that he
was injured when the “President of the Senate failed to call for
objections during the counting of the electoral votes from each
state . . . .” Appellant’s Br. at 28. Berg supplies no factual basis
for that assertion and we have no idea if it is true, but, assuming
it is, Berg has been no more injured by that omission than any
other United States citizen. Berg alternatively argues that he has
standing because his First Amendment rights were somehow
violated when his political representatives failed to object to the
electoral votes cast in Obama’s favor, as he wished them to.
That argument is frivolous. Berg’s final claim that the District
Court violated his due process rights by dismissing his case is
equally frivolous.

If you have any legal questions, pleas efeel free to ask.