It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Massive Media Blackout Underway! Obama Treason Trials Start Thursday!

page: 7
54
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
It appears this trial is a total hoax and a flakey attempt to kook up false charges to make up for constant failure at bringing down Obama. So far this trial is a fake and not real.

I am glad Obama has not done anything illegal and it makes us feel good that we voted for him.

We will vote for him again in 2012

because of fake trials like this OBAMA IS STRONGER




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


Real is relative in this instance. It is very real to the people that feel they have formed a Constitutionally allowed Grand Jury.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I am a christian so i am a real american. Its time we get this heathen out of office.

This false messiah has done nothing but brought america misery. being a republican means I trust in our founding fathers and dont spit on our way of life like obama and his cabinet does. Lets hope freedom will reign this day! we shouldnt just get rid of obama, its high time we lock up all these liberals who want a free handout. We have all these empty camps just put them in there since their not helping society anyways.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Manning has no intention of holding this in an actual courtroom according to his promo flier. This is a trial of discovery that will serve to expose many of the inconsistencies that surround Obama. Manning wants answers as does an ever growing portion of this country.

I am not a dedicated follower of Mannings and I occasionally watch his YouTube videos. Rest assured I will defend his right to speak his mind and present his information. I'll save the rest for after the "trial" to see if he presents anything new and revealing. With any luck Michelle will show up and let the cat out of the bag.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
This is BS. You can't try the President on any charges until he is impeached first.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by damwel
This is BS. You can't try the President on any charges until he is impeached first.



and Obama has not commited a high crime yet, so far nobody can show evidence he has done anything illegal. I am glad I voted for him. I support him.

not a joke but the truth

reality hurts
just deal with it



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Delphiki
 


Ok I am not sure you read the links that I supplied, so let me post some of the information about the Citizens Grand Jury.



All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power.



The Constitutional power of "we the people" sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.


Here he is explaining the why and hows a Citizens Grand Jury can convene outside the jurisdiction of any court or federal prosecutor.


Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return "presentments" on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.



"Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded."


If, in fact, certain truths have been hidden, then the idea of a Citizens Grand Jury appears to be the only hope, free of corruption or fear of persecution by resistant parties.


I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT'S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT'S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.

"In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past."


In other words, it is akin to a watchdog committee. They consider themselves the "We the People" that have the right to oversee the actions, and to bypass them as necessary, of the government.


The 5th Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."



So here they point out that the 5th Amendment allows for a criminal prosecution upon a presenment OR indictment of a Grand Jury.

So it would see that yes, a Grand Jury presenment can be for treason and high crimes and felonies.

So yes, a criminal case.


"An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury's independent action:

'A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.' "


From this text, it would appear that a presentment would have to be made before an indictment can be passed down.

According to their website, the presenments have been served. This last paragraph sums it up rather well, I think:


"A 'runaway' grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself."


So for people saying it isn't legitimate, to them it certainly is. What will it accomplish?

I think it is accomplishing what they want, attention.

ETA link cause oops I forgot i and one sentence was.. wierd lol

americangrandjury.org...

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Libertygal]

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Libertygal]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


I'm sorry, not trying to be rude, but in our exchange of posts I kind of lost the point you were trying to make. Maybe it's something I could clear up.

In re grand juries: the most action ANY grand jury could ever do is hand down an indictment. In bringing an indictment, the grand jury does not determine guilt, but only the probability that a crime has been committed, that the accused person(s) did it, and that he should be tried.

While they could subpoena people to testify and listen to arguments from a prosecutor's perspective only, handing down an indictment is the ultimate limitation of their power.

If the President was indicted, he would be tried in the Senate under impeachment (stated above).

Runaway Grand Juries acting in this fashion generally does not happen. However, even if this were the case, and the Grand Jury indicted the President -- they do not "TRY" anything. There sole purpose is to determine whether someone should be charged with a crime.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by Delphiki]

In re: to the citizens grand jury info you posted above. I do not have much information and that particular aspect of the law. I suspect because this is a common law theory which has not been used and may not apply in modern times.

However, I would like to point out that as stated above, the most they could do is hand down an indictment. If it is outside the jurisdiction of any federal or state court, then the indictment means nothing. They would have to convince a court to accept the indictment before any official action could be taken.

It would be the equivalent of me saying: I just indicted my dog for being lazy. Nothing really happened.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Delphiki]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by skunknuts
Will there be actual kangaroos in the court?

Best,
SN


Welcome to my favorites list.

This thread is ADORABLE, isn't it? It's like when my kid was 5 or 6 and didn't have a firm grasp on logic and jumped to the most ridiculous conclusions based on the tiniest bit of evidence.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
It isn't just Obama going to trial, but Joe Biden is also being charged in a separate but equally disturbing case.

Apparently back in early 2009, Biden attempted to block out the Sun with a large made made structure. The reasoning behind this and his motives were unclear and with 95% of the structure completed he mysteriously halted all construction.

When asked why he stopped building the massive and illegal structure simply dubbed the "Biden Sun Blocker", he sadly replied, "Simpsons did it."

The Birthers were excited to here of this news and with hopes of finally ousting both president and vice president in one swoop, issued the following passionate statement via live camera this afternoon:


Derpity derp, Hussein Obama derp.
Derp non-citizen derp. Derpity Muslim derp Idonisian derp!
Derpity Nigerian derp passport derpity derp derp.
Derpity freedom, derp patriotic derp social security card derp derp.


Lets face it folks, they make their most compelling argument yet.

- Lee



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Im sorry but we are talking about Manning and his mock trails right?



geewiz I wonder why the media and the population are not paying attention!


I for one will be looking out for the recording of this play trial.... with some popcorn ofcourse. 'Birthers on broadway'.... wonderful!

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Southern Guardian]


Ignoring some random idiot's rants = MEDIA BLACKOUT.




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I actually laughed out loud... Thanks for the post... These joke posts crack me up. Good one!



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Here's a proceedural question for all you Obam hatin' uber patriots!
Can I form a "Grand Jury" to indict another "Grand Jury"?
What happens then? Do we arm wrestle? Flip an Amero?
I'm a little fuzzy on made up fictional pretend law. Can you fill me in?


[edit on 14-5-2010 by OldDragger]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Delphiki
 


No need to apologize
Thanks for clearing up the issue so we both are on the same page.

I do agree with you, and I think they are convening not to try him for guilt or innocence, but for the presentmet of evidence, and to hear said evidence to see if it has any truth. I could be wrong, since I don't know what they are planning lol.

Manning claims to have previsouly unreleased evidence, as well as one current government employee that has agreed to testify.

They claim a lot of people have been summoned, but we shall see if anyone shows up.

If nothing else, it will be interesting to see if anything of substance as far as "evidence" comes of this.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Hey guys. I did a little google search and came up with this:

www.atlah.org...

this does not look legit. The "trial" is being held in a church. I'm pretty sure real trials are held in court rooms.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by Delphiki
 


No need to apologize
Thanks for clearing up the issue so we both are on the same page.

I do agree with you, and I think they are convening not to try him for guilt or innocence, but for the presentmet of evidence, and to hear said evidence to see if it has any truth. I could be wrong, since I don't know what they are planning lol.

Manning claims to have previsouly unreleased evidence, as well as one current government employee that has agreed to testify.

They claim a lot of people have been summoned, but we shall see if anyone shows up.

If nothing else, it will be interesting to see if anything of substance as far as "evidence" comes of this.



Your summary seems about right. The only problem is that, since they convene outside the jurisdiction of any federal or state courts, they have no actual authority. So they can issue a letter summoning someone to an appearance, but have no legal authority to enforce it if the 'summoned' person does not appear.

That is why subpoenas are so powerful. You are required by law to show up. My guess would be if a high level government official received a 'summons' that was not issued by a legitimate court, they would throw it in the trash without a second thought.

Interesting nonetheless. If I may speculate, it is important to have an indictment issued by a grand jury to be under the jurisdiction of a court. The Court doesn't decide anything for the grand jury. Rather, it imposes certain guide lines to ensure that the grand jury is random, impartial, and composed of US citizens. What they do past that is up to the grand jury itself.

These jurors are usually selected via jury notice.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Delphiki
 


I agree 100%.

Like I said, I dont think anything will come of it, in fact, I think I can say with some assuredness that nothing will come of this. lol

The whole point in my texts was some people can claim it is bogus, when there is indeed some Constitutional evidence to back it up. Something that is outdated is not outlawed. Is it old law? Yes, but defunct is not a meter of legitimacy.

I was "arrested" on an 80 year old law that had not been used for over 40 years where I live. They "arrested" me, nonetheless, with my hands cuffed in front of me while the police officer walked me to his car gently, apologizing all the way. He took the cuffs off in the car, and apologized again when he cuffed them in front of me at the police station for the perp walk inside.

I used "arrested" in quotes, because I was never truly arrested, mirandized, fingerprinted or booked. Someone used an archaic law to harrass me and to force the judge to "do something". Kind of like what is happening here.

Will it go anywhere? no.

But it is getting attention. I really think that's the main thing they want is attention to the matter.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
This is the most asinine stuff on ATS. Some people must live in their fantasies and delusions, for this stuff is a waste of good brain power and thinkin time.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
This "trial" is a farce, and the claims of treason are completely baseless. This guy doesn't even have his facts straight. Even if Obama was a CIA operative in Afghanistan, he wasn't supporting the Taliban. The Taliban didn't even exist at that time.

Besides, I have no problem with an ex-CIA agent as president. It's not like the President is really in control of anything anyways.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
You know if this guy did actually want to bring down President Obama, and had all of this "bombshell" information with which to do so, there's one very simple and very easy way to do it:

Step 1: Put it all in a box.

Step 2: Wrap the box in festive paper and ribbon tied with a bow.

Step 3: Put a little note next to the bow saying "Merry Early-Christmas Rodger Ailes!"

Step 4: Give the box to Rodger Ailes.

Since this or something similar has not been done, it shows that this man has much more of an interest in his own self-promotion and profit than the welfare of your nation.

Since he has also circumvented your nation's constitution in order to promote himself and profit, I would also like to assert that this man is a snake oil salesman not worth our time nor that of the media at large.

So he has "subpoenaed" several high-ranking officials to show up? We that's just lunacy, I'd like to "subpoena" Keira Knightley to come have a drink with me sometime but I don't exactly have the power of governance backing me either now do I?

What is he going to do if these officials fail to show up? What recourse does he have in his little "Constitutional Grand Jury?" Remember the last time this kind of thing was tried and all of the governors were supposed to fall in or resign? Yep how'd that one work out?

This guy isn't getting any media attention because he's a crank and a lunatic, it's as simple as that. Right now, Greece is turning into a fiscal black hole, Thailand is two inches from a civil war and there is a pipe under the Gulf Of Mexico that is belching oil right next to one of your country's most fragile ecosystems.

Sorry but my fellow journalists and myself, happen to be quite busy with real news right now.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join