Guilty verdict in Obama trial: more questions than answers

Guilty verdict in Obama trial: more questions than answers

Guilty Verdict​​

Dr. James Manning's now-famous trial of Barack Obama in Harlem, New York has ended. The jury found Obama and Columbia University guilty on all charges. The trial, however, unveils many more questions than it provides answers.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 20-5-2010 by Americanist]

Obviously the event was a 'public' rather than a 'court' trial. No court sanctioned it. The legality of public trials apart from court sanction has not been established. While the Constitution does, indeed, maintain that the ultimate power of government rests with 'we, the people,' and while a case can be made that under the 10th amendment the people, acting under the auspices of local and state authorities, can engage in certain acts of self-governance apart from the sanction and control of the federal government, it has not been established that any local entity in Harlem granted state or local legal status to the trial.
In that sense the trial and the verdict have no binding legal authority.

Guilty Verdict​​
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 20-5-2010 by Americanist]

They're just playing "pretend" in every sense of the word.

Maybe they can execute their imaginary Obama, so we can stop hearing about this nonsense.

- Lee

So here is an actual working link on this...
Guilty Verdict

Dr. James Manning's now-famous trial of Barack Obama in Harlem, New York has ended. The jury found Obama and Columbia University guilty on all charges. The trial, however, unveils many more questions than it provides answers. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais). But first, a few observations are in order about the nature of this event. Obviously the event was a 'public' rather than a 'court' trial. No court sanctioned it. The legality of public trials apart from court sanction has not been established. While the Constitution does, indeed, maintain that the ultimate power of government rests with 'we, the people,' and while a case can be made that under the 10th amendment the people, acting under the auspices of local and state authorities, can engage in certain acts of self-governance apart from the sanction and control of the federal government, it has not been established that any local entity in Harlem granted state or local legal status to the trial. In that sense the trial and the verdict have no binding legal authority. However, should a legal authority, a court, a law enforcement agency, an Attorney-General either at the state or national level, decide that the evidence presented at the Manning trial is overwhelming enough to launch a full investigation, then ultimately the results of the trial could carry the full weight of legal authority.

This is seriously the stupidest thing ever. I cannot believe that people are so blinded by hate that they think a group of adults acting like three year olds is news. You know what? I just created own court called the "Pates Court of Balls" and my court just found every participant involved in this idiocy and anyone who actually has been following this guilty of mental murder and sentences them all to death. My court has just has much credibility as their court. So I suggest anyone taking this seriously needs to go into hiding.

reply to post by PatesHatriots


Don't taze me bro! (or sentence me to imaginary death)

It's odd to me that every other truth gathering mission is about "deny ignorance" unless it's about legitimate questions about Obama's citizenship which many people blame on hate - I don't get it.

If he was allegedly born at two different hospitals in Hawai'i then as an American citizen I sorta wanna know why - despite whether I like him or not.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by Thermo Klein]

I want to know why Juan McCain was seriously vetted before the nomination/election by his peers in the Senate... yet Obama gets a pass...

No one in the Senate wants to know about Obama's past.

Juan McCain was born in Panama on a military base, ergo, on American soil... As is LEGALLY declared in many documents.

Blockhead Obama has such a shady past that NO ONE can agree where this treacherous, treasonous bastard was born and he gets a pass.

Even his parents abandoned him. Shows that he's absolutely worthless.

Yes, as the article says, America is in grave danger.

And Steve Austin, when we need him most, is doing Miracle Ear commercials. :eyeroll:

(Treasonous because he knows that his dual citizenship father couldn't convey citizenship. His mother was too young (again by legal definitions.) Sure ignore it all and hold your ears and scream lalalalal.)

Only reason we really can't try & convict... He has the stinkin launch codes. He controls the military and as such, a flip of his finger he can wipe out adversaries... Seriously, if push came to shove, people will be made to 'go away.' He doesn't have the spine but his minions will.

[edit on 5·20·10 by DrMattMaddix]

Obama is a shady shady man with lots of secrets and that is bad.

Manning is a liar who made himself a fake doctor. Let's see if he can find the truth for us.



Keep fooling yourselves into believing you are looking for any kind of TRUTH!

For those interested, blogged updates of the trial, not that blogs come close to deposition or transcripts (which would interesting to read):

Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5

And to hit the highlights of those links:

Selective Service records obtained by FOIA request show inconsistencies between 2 different people that requested them. Manning points out that failure to register with Selective Service by age 26 automatically prevents a person from serving as part of the Executive Branch on the federal level. The card itself only has a two digit year stamped on it when it should be a four digit year.

manning concludes by testimony no one in Harlem recalls Obama in the area at the time of attending Columbia as part of his "proof" that Obama never physically attended and was in fact a purchased degree by the CIA. This is also collaborated by a former double agent of the KGB that was also part of the CIA. Also the address on 109th and Broadway is not in Spanish Harlem as Obama claims and he said he lived there.

The rest of the evidence is basically out of 400 interviewed students and professors, no one recalls Obama ever attending Columbia.

It is definitely strange and while based on 10th Amendment principals, the trial has no legitimacy as recognized court of law unless investigations are made based on testimony presented. At which point the trial could become accepted as legitimate, and does have legal precedence in a Supreme Court decision to back that claim up. However could does not mean that it would.




[edit on 20-5-2010 by Ahabstar]

reply to post by Ahabstar


Maybe you could be so kind as to explain to me why you put any stock in this? This "trial" was about Obama being honest about who he is, right?

The man running the trial is a walking, talking lie about who he himself is. Why do you think you will find any truth about someone lying about who they are from someone lying about who they are?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Because Manning was not the only one presenting testimony and the there is legal precedent for cases of this nature to be taken seriously, albeit a very low incidence in this particular case.

What I do find interesting is there seems to be no proof of Obama physically attending Columbia based on the testimony. That in itself is not enough to have Obama impeached, mind you, but does there are some interesting questions raised.

The stuff about Selective Service however could lead somewhere. If there was fraud there, it would be proof of a cover up attempt of some kind and could force the issue to be addressed once and for all.

Just because Manning's videos sound like the ramblings of mad man, doesn't mean that he hasn't found something valid. Conflicting FIOA reports and a 2 digit stamp on the card are indeed something to look a little closer look.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Because Manning was not the only one presenting testimony and the there is legal precedent for cases of this nature to be taken seriously, albeit a very low incidence in this particular case.

It was HIS court, was it not? He was the one bringing the charges, correct? He picked the jury, right? Starting to get my issue here? The court was being RUN, PRESIDED OVER, and PROSECUTED by a liar. No issue with that because there were other people there?

What I do find interesting is there seems to be no proof of Obama physically attending Columbia based on the testimony. That in itself is not enough to have Obama impeached, mind you, but does there are some interesting questions raised.

When I graduated from college they gave me a degree to prove I went there. I am quite certain you will find no other "physical" evidence of me having attending any of the schools I have attended after High School.

What are you expecting? Fingerprints? How do you know there is no "physical" evidence? Because a liar says so?

The stuff about Selective Service however could lead somewhere. If there was fraud there, it would be proof of a cover up attempt of some kind and could force the issue to be addressed once and for all.

What stuff about selective service? The stuff this liar said? Enlighten me.

Just because Manning's videos sound like the ramblings of mad man, doesn't mean that he hasn't found something valid. Conflicting FIOA reports and a 2 digit stamp on the card are indeed something to look a little closer look.

I never once commented on what he sounds like in his videos. He is a liar. He is a fake. He is a fraud. He makes Dr. Phil look like the Surgeon General. Here you are, telling me that Obama is questionable based on things you heard from...


...a fraud, a hoax, a liar.

If there is anything real, I would love to see it.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Okay, how about this:

Let's say I claim I attended and graduated from Kenyon College in Gambier, OH (a campus that I am familiar with but did not attend college there) and I said in a book that I lived in Hess Hall (which is a dorm on the campus of U of Tennessee in Knoxville, TN) and Manning pointed out that discrepancy. Would you believe him? Why or why not?

What if I publicly stated that I had no idea Jonathan Winters or Paul Newman attended Keynon College? (It is their two most famous alumni--you would know it if given a tour of the campus let alone attending the college.) Would you believe Manning if he pointed that out? Why or why not?

Point is, information is information. If something warrants a closer look, you can not be prejudiced of the source of that information in order to discount it. If the information is bogus, them by all means criticize it.

But if you can not look at something with an open mind, then what exactly is your point?

I respect that you support Obama. I respect that you want to defend him from baseless accusations. However, if it is found that there is indeed something to all these investigations that people are doing, will you respect that they had just cause to question what Obama has said instead of just taking it at face value?

My feelings on the whole birther issue are on the fence. Maybe there is something to it, maybe there is not. If Manning's evidence is proven wrong, so be it. But I would rather refute the evidence than the person presenting it. Because everyone is a little kooky in their own way, even Obama for knowing the origin of Superman. At least he can laugh about it.

I can remember when I was a kid and I played "court". Guess what? I won every time. It's easy to win when the argument is one-sided.

Your link isn't working.

If you need anymore ammo, I stumbled across this of late:

www.westernjournalism.com...


The Mystery of Barack Obama Continues

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Your link isn't working.

Wild... Try this:

www.examiner.com...

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Okay, how about this:

Let's say I claim I attended and graduated from Kenyon College in Gambier, OH (a campus that I am familiar with but did not attend college there) and I said in a book that I lived in Hess Hall (which is a dorm on the campus of U of Tennessee in Knoxville, TN) and Manning pointed out that discrepancy. Would you believe him? Why or why not?

No. Why should I believe him. If such a discrepancy is to be found in your book, I can look into that myself, can I not? Tell me, if I told you I was a doctor and I AM NOT and that I had some truth - would you believe me? Why or why not?

What if I publicly stated that I had no idea Jonathan Winters or Paul Newman attended Keynon College? (It is their two most famous alumni--you would know it if given a tour of the campus let alone attending the college.) Would you believe Manning if he pointed that out? Why or why not?

If you PUBLICLY STATED that, again I can look into it myself. There is no need to take the word of a liar on such things. Even that means little to me. Of the three colleges I have attended so far, each has-

-buildings I never entered.
-plaques I never read.
-Statues I never looked.

See where I am going with that? I would have to see for myself just how in your face these facts would really be during my time on campus.

So far, no need to take the word of a liar. Can you tell me exactly what your examples refer to? Can you quote from the book? Can you explain the REAL LIES instead of having to make up examples?

Point is, information is information. If something warrants a closer look, you can not be prejudiced of the source of that information in order to discount it. If the information is bogus, them by all means criticize it.

Kind of hard to do when the only information I got out of this so far was that you lied about going to college. Where is the real information that is so valid?

But if you can not look at something with an open mind, then what exactly is your point?

Look at what with an open mind? Want me to look at a man who is who he is because of LIES and then hope he can share the truth with me about someone else he calls a liar? If these "facts" exist then why should I open my mind to a fraud?

Why should you?

If you are at all interested in truth and specifically the truth about who Obama is, why are you not at all interested in the truth about the accuser? Do you pick and choose which truths matter to you?

I respect that you support Obama.

Funny, I never said that did I?

I respect that you want to defend him from baseless accusations.

I am not sure I even defended him once in this so far. I am pointing out that you are following the words of a fraud. If he was attacking Bush, I would still be pointing out he is full of crap.

However, if it is found that there is indeed something to all these investigations that people are doing, will you respect that they had just cause to question what Obama has said instead of just taking it at face value?

When is it going to be found? What is taking so long? What have you found?

My feelings on the whole birther issue are on the fence.

That says a great deal about you because the facts are out there for anyone actually interested in the TRUTH. Following a fake doctor into a church basement will not help you there.

Maybe there is something to it, maybe there is not.

There is not. If there was, one of you would have been able to show it by now.

If Manning's evidence is proven wrong, so be it.

So you have no idea what Obama said in his book then? You are defending a fraud and a liar in claims you could check out but have not bothered to?

But I would rather refute the evidence than the person presenting it.

But you are not even addressing the evidence and you are already defending the person bringing it.

Because everyone is a little kooky in their own way, even Obama for knowing the origin of Superman. At least he can laugh about it.

He is a nerd. All nerds know where Superman came from.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
When I graduated from college they gave me a degree to prove I went there. I am quite certain you will find no other "physical" evidence of me having attending any of the schools I have attended after High School.

What are you expecting? Fingerprints? How do you know there is no "physical" evidence? Because a liar says so?

You mean that we would not be able to find a single person that recalled you ever being in a class, a dorm, a game, nothing at the college you attended?

If so, then we would have to stop believing anything you said, just like obama.

Wait, that's already happening ...

Originally posted by DrMattMaddix
Even his parents abandoned him. Shows that he's absolutely worthless.

What an ignorant, ignorant thing to say. I've read alot of truly despicable crap on this website but you have sunk to a new low.

A great many people have gone on to acheive greatness after being abandoned by parents. It is no way the child's fault.

People like you are exactly the reason this country is in the crapper. What an utter moron you are.