Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Originally Posted by cayla99

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EgrTq3zqfE&videos=seM7Bz4lFjo

Cayla, I like the man. I really do believe that he is sincere and unafraid. His methods might rub some people the wrong way but his message is clear. Yes, if he is arrested it will be a big story! However, the backlash will be even bigger and a huge mistake on the part of our outlaw government.

I like Pastor David Manning a lot. He has the courage (and the voice) of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. He preaches to Harlem and denies Mr. Obama that turf.

DHS doesn't dare arrest him. I wish they would! Then he becomes a defendant in court, Constitutionally guaranteed a speedy trial by a jury of his peers. He can't be delayed; he can't be dismissed; he can't be denied. I don't know how the evidential rules differ, but I'm sure that, more so than a plaintiff, a defendant has every right to see all evidence that determines his innocence or guilt.

Then, in order to prove that Pastor Manning's free speech is slander, the plaintiff must prove that it is false (!), which means full discovery. Certainly the DoJ will try to restrict the attention of the court to the defendant's "fighting words," so-called. The U.S. Attorney will object to discovery or admission of any evidence about the "long-legged mack daddy."

Speaking as a layman, that is my humble opinion. Would you honorable barristers please correct my grievous errors and amplify on the implications of having, for the first time in this case, a defendant in court.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Originally Posted by cayla99

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EgrTq3zqfE&videos=seM7Bz4lFjo

Cayla, I like the man. I really do believe that he is sincere and unafraid. His methods might rub some people the wrong way but his message is clear. Yes, if he is arrested it will be a big story! However, the backlash will be even bigger and a huge mistake on the part of our outlaw government.

I like Pastor David Manning a lot. He has the courage (and the voice) of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. He preaches to Harlem and denies Mr. Obama that turf.

DHS doesn't dare arrest him. I wish they would! Then he becomes a defendant in court, Constitutionally guaranteed a speedy trial by a jury of his peers. He can't be delayed; he can't be dismissed; he can't be denied. I don't know how the evidential rules differ, but I'm sure that, more so than a plaintiff, a defendant has every right to see all evidence that determines his innocence or guilt.

Then, in order to prove that Pastor Manning's free speech is slander, the plaintiff must prove that it is false (!), which means full discovery. Certainly the DoJ will try to restrict the attention of the court to the defendant's "fighting words," so-called. The U.S. Attorney will object to discovery or admission of any evidence about the "long-legged mack daddy."

Speaking as a layman, that is my humble opinion. Would you honorable barristers please correct my grievous errors and amplify on the implications of having, for the first time in this case, a defendant in court.

Minuteman, agree, they wouldn't arrest Manning on a charge that would allow discovery to prove his innocence. They could drum up other charges, totally different, that would preclude the discovery of Obama's vital records. We all know that Obama DOESN'T want someone like Manning on the stand.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Originally Posted by cayla99

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EgrTq3zqfE&videos=seM7Bz4lFjo

Cayla, I like the man. I really do believe that he is sincere and unafraid. His methods might rub some people the wrong way but his message is clear. Yes, if he is arrested it will be a big story! However, the backlash will be even bigger and a huge mistake on the part of our outlaw government.

I like Pastor David Manning a lot. He has the courage (and the voice) of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. He preaches to Harlem and denies Mr. Obama that turf.

DHS doesn't dare arrest him. I wish they would! Then he becomes a defendant in court, Constitutionally guaranteed a speedy trial by a jury of his peers. He can't be delayed; he can't be dismissed; he can't be denied. I don't know how the evidential rules differ, but I'm sure that, more so than a plaintiff, a defendant has every right to see all evidence that determines his innocence or guilt.

Then, in order to prove that Pastor Manning's free speech is slander, the plaintiff must prove that it is false (!), which means full discovery. Certainly the DoJ will try to restrict the attention of the court to the defendant's "fighting words," so-called. The U.S. Attorney will object to discovery or admission of any evidence about the "long-legged mack daddy."

Speaking as a layman, that is my humble opinion. Would you honorable barristers please correct my grievous errors and amplify on the implications of having, for the first time in this case, a defendant in court.

Minuteman, agree, they wouldn't arrest Manning on a charge that would allow discovery to prove his innocence. They could drum up other charges, totally different, that would preclude the discovery of Obama's vital records. We all know that Obama DOESN'T want someone like Manning on the stand.

He anticipates being charged with "The threat against the life of a US president". I think they will forbid a defense based on the fact that he is not a legitimate president. They will not allow him to defend himself and will twist his words so they can lock him up, thereby shutting him up.

Originally Posted by cayla99

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Originally Posted by cayla99

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EgrTq3zqfE&videos=seM7Bz4lFjo

Cayla, I like the man. I really do believe that he is sincere and unafraid. His methods might rub some people the wrong way but his message is clear. Yes, if he is arrested it will be a big story! However, the backlash will be even bigger and a huge mistake on the part of our outlaw government.

I like Pastor David Manning a lot. He has the courage (and the voice) of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. He preaches to Harlem and denies Mr. Obama that turf.

DHS doesn't dare arrest him. I wish they would! Then he becomes a defendant in court, Constitutionally guaranteed a speedy trial by a jury of his peers. He can't be delayed; he can't be dismissed; he can't be denied. I don't know how the evidential rules differ, but I'm sure that, more so than a plaintiff, a defendant has every right to see all evidence that determines his innocence or guilt.

Then, in order to prove that Pastor Manning's free speech is slander, the plaintiff must prove that it is false (!), which means full discovery. Certainly the DoJ will try to restrict the attention of the court to the defendant's "fighting words," so-called. The U.S. Attorney will object to discovery or admission of any evidence about the "long-legged mack daddy."

Speaking as a layman, that is my humble opinion. Would you honorable barristers please correct my grievous errors and amplify on the implications of having, for the first time in this case, a defendant in court.

Minuteman, agree, they wouldn't arrest Manning on a charge that would allow discovery to prove his innocence. They could drum up other charges, totally different, that would preclude the discovery of Obama's vital records. We all know that Obama DOESN'T want someone like Manning on the stand.

He anticipates being charged with "The threat against the life of a US president". I think they will forbid a defense based on the fact that he is not a legitimate president. They will not allow him to defend himself and will twist his words so they can lock him up, thereby shutting him up.

If he is locked up it will still send a clear message that he was onto something. He will become a living martyr. Honestly, I think he is prepared to do this.

So does this mean that anyone could do anything that would be against the law toward the president, and they could not charge them over the fear of discovery? Because if they do arrest the pastor or anyone else they could probably be charged without discovery right.

Here is the video that may get Manning into trouble. I've heard it though and can find nothing against the law. Manning is right, we can Tea Party all day long and it still won't make a difference to get this usurper out of office. The illegitimacy issue needs to go viral and gather an unstoppable base to force a hearing to bring this nightmare to a close.

http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?p=1193

http://www.atlah.org/amnFeaturedVideos/ ... gtodie.flv

Here is a direct link to Pastor Manning's video, in case you want to download it, or in case the Atlah page doesn't play the video in your browser. If your video player won't play the .flv file, download FLV Player, or better yet, download the K-Lite video codec pack, which covers most video types.

Pastor Manning begins by telling about two Secret Service agents and two DHS law enforcement agents visiting him on Monday, 11/16/09. Their concern was with earlier events or videos, not about his remarks in this video.

Pastor Manning's statements here (from 4:31 through 5:00) would not be chargeable as "a threat against the life of a U.S. President" under normal circumstances, in the America we once knew and loved. But we're not in a Constitutional republic any more, dodo... er, Toto. A totalitarian state is taking shape, in which the Constitution no longer has the force of law. Many government executives, legislators, judges, bureaucrats, and even some military personnel, already operate according to laws and procedures which they anticipate becoming the rule some day under global governance.

Originally Posted by The U.S. Constitution, Art. III § 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Originally Posted by 18 USC 2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Do you remember how the possibility of Saddam Hussein returning to power intimidated the Iraqis, which made it difficult to try and to convict him?
__________________________________________________ ________

Pastor Manning hammered on the "birth certificate" issue. He didn't mention "Constitutional ineligibility, not being a natural born citizen," which includes Barack Obama II's status at birth as a British Protected Subject through his father, as well as the birth certificate. When we rally support, the real issue suffers from its complexity. It doesn't play well in a 30-second sound bite. The three-letter acronym, "NBC", is already taken. It lacks a five-word statement, such as:

"Taxation without representation is tyranny," or
"Christ died for our sins," or
"America - land of the free," or
"Abortion stops a beating heart," or
"Be all you can be," or
"Repent - Jesus is coming soon," or
"West Virginia is for lovers."

OK, the last one was supposed to be, "Virginia is for lovers," but that needed an extra word.

But it only takes 40 words to place ius sanguinis into public discourse.

Barack Obama was the son of a British Protected Subject, which made him also
a British Protected Subject at his birth. How can a British Protected Subject,
whose birth was governed by British law, be a natural born U.S. citizen?

I've recently come across articles by Jon Christian Ryter, a journalist who works at The Washington Times as an advertising executive, but who has written some interesting articles, including this one in January 2008, dubbed "Obama's Muslim Connection."

http://www.jonchristianryter.com/2008/080121.html

=======================

In 1991 a young Muslim Harvard Law College graduate named Barack Hussein Obama (who has denied his Islamic past and Muslim roots for as long as he has been a public figure) became a civil rights community activist working out of the Trinity United Church of Christ. Obama worked as a community organizer for Trinity in poor black neighborhoods. Trinity's senior pastor Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, a black racist who preaches radical Afrocentric theology and doesn't mind delivering profanity-spiked sermons found a congregation-builder in Obama. Because of what Wright called Obama's multiple-faith background and his Harvard education, he was a natural community-builder.

When Obama broke onto the national political scene in 2004, not only did he attempt to erase all traces his Islamic childhood, but he also tried to erase the nature of his relationship with Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ. (When your country is at war with Islamic extremists being a Muslim is not the shortest route to the White House.) Obama has told the media his reason for shielding his pastor was because "...he respected Mr. Wright's work for the poor and his fight against injustice." In reality Dr. Wright's work appears to be to denounce the United States as a white racist nation. That's not good press for an African American candidate who needs to win a majority of the white vote to win the office of President.

It would have been not only natural, but expected, for Barack Obama—when he decided to run for the presidency—to make the announcement from the pulpit of the 8,500 member Trinity United Church of Christ. Obama would later state he did not in order to shield his pastor from the spotlight of the media. Dr. Wright has never shunned positive publicity. It was obvious to the media—in particular the New York Times which noted in an April 20, 2007 article that Obama was very deliberately distancing himself from Jeremiah Wright. Instead, Obama announced his candidacy on the steps of the old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois—where Abraham Lincoln announced his candidacy—on Feb. 10, 2007. Obama sees himself as an archtype of Lincoln who will "free his people from the tyranny of the oppressor." What people are those? The inner city people of color whom Dr. Wright believes are part of the Black Value System? Or does he see himself as the man who will free the Muslim world from the Great Satan since his first action, he says, as President of the United States will be to pull all Americans troops out of the Middle East? The voters need to figure out exactly who Barack Obama's constituents really are because when I add 2 + 2 + Obama, it doesn't come out four.

When Obama's early history and his Islamic upbringing was first reported, Obama's website posted a statement dated Nov. 12, 2007 with the headline: "Barack Obama is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim." The statement reiterated that Obama was not a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian. It's time to peel back the layers of history and look at Obama's family, beginning with his atheist mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.

The rest of the seven page article is found here:
http://www.jonchristianryter.com/2008/080121.html

Jon Christian Ryter's web page is here:
http://www.jonchristianryter.com/Root/index.html

Berg & Joyce have retired from Hollister v Sortoro, and the case has been appealed. John D. Hemenway, Esq. has taken over Hollister's appeal.

==============

HOLLISTER v SOETORO - JOINT APPELLANT BRIEF, CASE # 09-5080

http://tinyurl.com/yhl5fd4

==============

These are the lower court orders that the appellant brief addresses:

http://obamacrimes.com/philjberg/Hollis ... missal.pdf

http://obamacrimes.com/philjberg/Hollis ... ctions.pdf

==============

Because I do not have a Pacer account, I was unable to access other Appeal Court docs directly (a frustration to say the least). 'Jack Ryan' does a pretty good job at keeping track of the various cases and court docs on Scribd.

But I do have a question. Now that Hollister is represented by Hemenway, a D.C. attorney, why is there no quo warranto action in the works from Hollister? Or is there?

To be "in the works" a fairly "regular" plaintiff would have to prove he'd gone to the U.S. Attorney for D.C., asked for quo warranto, had the QW declined, and THEN pursue the matter himself. (Since DOJ has now entered appearances in court cases to defend Obama's side, the DOJ has conflicted itself out of QW most likely. If a government QW is ever brought, a special prosecutor will be needed.)

A not-so-regular prospective plaintiff might be someone who has an "interested third party" interest (strong and "unique" individual injury) in the matter and could file for QW in his own right, from the very start.

People claiming wrongful job termination, provably instigated by a President whom they contend is without rightful claim to the office (ineligibility), would have that kind of "interested party" status to bring a QW. High-profile terminated people like this guy ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and- ... 0361.story

would look to be almost slam-dunkers in being found to have standing.