iVillage Member
Registered: 12-15-2009
Fri, 05-14-2010 - 8:12pm
Rev. David Manning, has been on Obama since he became aware of the serious, constitutional question of Obama/Soetoro's citizenship. Dr. Manning is chief pastor at the ATLAH World Missionary Church in NYC. Because Congress and the courts (never mind the lackey media and that includes cable networks like FAUX, CNN and MSNBC) refuse to stop the fraud of Comrade Obama occupying the White House, Dr. Manning decided to hold a trial:

"Starting Friday and for a full week, the Atlah World Missionary Church will hold in essence a citizen's court in what it bills as "the greatest trial in American history."

"The trial, which will include legal scholars and retired court officers, will examine several issues, including Obama's birth place, his citizenship status, his academic credentials and alleged ties to the Central Intelligence Agency as a student.

"The Atlah World Missionary Church, headed by Rev. James Manning, says the proceedings are not a mock trial and are permitted under the U.S. Constitution:

"A number of Americans have been gravely concerned about the eligibility issue of Barack Obama... We have been able to look at the briefs filed by several attorneys and the courts have just refused categorically to allow any access or due process on the matter... We are going to call a 10th Amendment sanctioned trial. It is not a grand jury, it's not a hearing, it's a trial and we are going to follow all the rules and practices of both federal and state jurisprudence... We are going to adjudicate this trial in such a way that it will be historically respectful and appellate proof."

The trial begins Saturday. On Friday, May 14, 2010, Rev. Manning will lead a protest march at Columbia University. The entire trial will be filmed and media will there in full force; there will be transcripts. Of course, you won't hear anything about it on ABC, NBC or CBS. Likely any mention on CNN or MSNBC will be a slam against "the birthers." Master gas bag, Bill O'Reilly, will simply label Rev. Manning a loon and move on to some sex story.

Apparently there is at least one law professor who doesn't believe Manning's effort has any clout:

"Meanwhile, a Constitution law professor at Southern University in Baton Rouge says the American Grand Jury doesn't hold the clout the Manning team espouses. This professor, who wants anonymity, and when asked about Justice Antonin Scolia’s opinion of the court in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), says he wouldn't accept anything Scalia says and despises all people on the far left and the far right. Yet, this position the professor takes goes completely against what the Supreme Court found in their decision in that 1992 case; the power is placed in the hands of the people in the American Grand Jury as the Fourth Branch of Government."

The case referred to here is: United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992)

"This Court's cases relying upon that power deal strictly with the courts' control over their own procedures, whereas the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside...."


"..Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed. Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a).

"The grand jury's functional independence from the Judicial Branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing and in the manner in which that power is exercised. "Unlike ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury `can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.'" United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc.,498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co.,338 U.S. 632, 642-643 (1950)). It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even "the precise nature of the offense" it is investigating. Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919). The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, see Hale, supra, at 59-60, 65, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. See Calandra, supra, at 343. It swears in its own witnesses, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(c), and deliberates in total secrecy, see United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 424 -425 (1983)."

Now, going back to fraud. Besides the issue of Comrade Obama using fake or multiple SSNs, there is also the issue of did Nancy Pelosi and others commit fraud when they submitted Comrade Obama's candidate certification to the 50 Secretary of State's prior to the election? I believe the answer is yes. I also obtained the "official" documents submitted here in Texas to our Secretary of State. There's no question of fraud. Now, where's law enforcement?

Obama/Soetoro has always known he was ineligible due to his father's citizenship status at the time of his birth, yet he solicited over $600 million dollars in campaign funds and is guilty of wire fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343. That's down the line, but he knows.

What can be done about this? We all remember when Ken Starr was appointed Special Counsel to investigate Marxist Bill Clinton about Whitewater, the death of former White House Counsel, Vince Foster and then lying about Monica Lewinsky servicing him in the Oval Office. At that time under the statute, a three-judge panel was charged with administering the Independent Counsel Act.

The Office of Special Counsel in the United States Department of Justice replaced the former Office of the Independent Counsel in 1999. The updated version is charged with investigating alleged misconduct in the federal government's executive branch. The Office of Special Counsel is supposed to be an independent agency; it is also charged with protecting civil service employees from unfair personnel practices. The current Special Counsel is Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed in 2003 by Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey.

Eric Holder is the Attorney General; a corrupt political animal guilty of obstruction of justice in the Michael Trentadue murder.

Could Patrick Fitzgerald in his capacity as Special Counsel open an investigation into the allegations of social security fraud and all the testimony and whatever hard evidence comes from Rev. Manning's trial taking place right now? Comey, due to a conflict of interest in the Valerie Plame affair with Ashcroft, appointed Patrick Fitzgerald under Department of Justice regulation 28 CFR Part 600.

In a second letter to Fitzgerald from Comey dated February 6, 2004, he crystallized the authority of the Special Counsel: "...further, my conferral on you of the title of 'Special Counsel' in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600."

It goes without saying that Eric Holder will never give up Obama/Soetoro, which means he will never authorize Fitzgerald to act in his capacity as Special Counsel to open an investigation into:

1. Fraud: Obama/Soetoro and social security numbers
2. Fraud by Nancy Pelosi and others to ballot qualify Obama/Soetoro for the 2008 presidential election knowing full well he was not constitutionally eligible
3. Any and all real evidence in the possession of Rev. David Manning and testimony of witnesses. According to Rev. Manning, two could blow this wide open:

DR. MANNING: "Right now, we are anticipating at least two government officials will testify. One will be through statements that will be uttered that will be documented, and the other will be a physical presentation where he will actually take the stand.

MRS. RONDEAU: "And are they in government now or were they past employees of the federal government?"

DR. MANNING: "One is in government now, and one is a past employee."

MRS. RONDEAU: "How did you reach out to them and when?"

DR. MANNING: "Actually, one reached out to me and the other became a matter of my investigation discovery."

Dr. Manning is nobody's fool and he has put his reputation and credibility on the line big time.

4. Any and all employees regardless of level of Occidental College and Columbia University who altered records to protect Obama/Soetro.

Fitzgerald is very familiar with Comrade Obama from investigations originating from his office which put Tony Rezko, big bud of Obama, in federal prison. On-going is Fitzgerald's investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. I would bet a lot that should a real investigation as Special Counsel be opened and conducted by Fitzgerald, all of the above and more would be exposed to the world.

How could this happen? I don't know because I'm not an attorney. Can Fitzgerald open a RICO without Eric Holder's permission? Can he as Special Counsel open a full investigation and convene a federal grand jury without Eric Holder's permission? The Office of Special Counsel is supposed to be an independent agency, but reading § 600.4 Jurisdiction. from 28 C.F.R. PART 600—General Powers of Special Counsel it says:

(a) Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.

Do I read the fox guarding the hen house? When you have an AG as dirty as Eric Holder, where do we the people go for justice? We the people need the advice of some good constitutional attorneys. There has to be a way to have the Special Counsel investigate fraud and other crimes even if the Attorney General doesn't want to do it to protect an individual who has usurped the office of president of these united States of America.


Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Sun, 05-16-2010 - 11:01am
Eh! This particular bunch is in NYC. I am sure they don't stick out all that much. New Yorkers are pretty tolerant of mad people running around loose, as long as they don't hurt anyone or interfere with business too much.


If you don't risk anything, you risk even more.
Erica Jong

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2009
Sun, 05-16-2010 - 11:45am

The Illuminati? Didn't Dan Brown write a book about the Illuminati?

Oh, by the by...Any mention of the Illuminati, Free Masons, etc., etc., just makes everything posted look like fiction. Dan Brown fiction, but fiction none the less.