- Law Cases
by Sharon Rondeau
(Apr. 27, 2010) — Today The Post & Email welcomed back Dr. James David Manning, Ph.D., to speak about the upcoming Columbia University Treason and Sedition Trial which he is conducting in Harlem, NY, from May 14-19, 2010. Dr. Manning reports that he has documented evidence that Barack Hussein Obama II is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States, and that Obama also did not attend Columbia University from 1981-83 as Obama has claimed.
MRS. RONDEAU: In your most recent video, you stated that a highly-placed government official will be testifying at the trial. How did you get him to agree to testify, and will he be there in person or submitting something written?
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.
MRS. RONDEAU: How long has the investigation lasted?
DR. MANNING: I have been following the Obama ineligibility issue from 2007, quite frankly, but more emphatically since the election on November 4, 2008. That is when I began observing the issue of ineligibility more closely. I have been on this matter for a couple of years now.
MRS. RONDEAU: How long have you had a formal investigation going on?
DR. MANNING: Six months or so.
MRS. RONDEAU: I know that the trial will take place May 14-19. You’ve also mentioned a march around Columbia University. Does that coincide with those dates, or will that be at a separate time?
DR. MANNING: The two are synonymous.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have any other key witnesses coming?
DR. MANNING: I have some very interesting witnesses that I have subpoenaed such that if they show up, it will be explosive. If they don’t show up, we’re going to have them testify based on previous statements they have made, carefully observing the rules of evidence to enter those statements into evidence. Having said that, I have subpoenaed George Stephanopoulos, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Condolezza Rice; I have subpoenaed Michael Sovern, the President of Columbia University at the hour when the breach and the infractions took place; and I have subpoenaed Rod Blagojevich, whom I think is integral to a number of things that went on with the surrender of Barack Obama’s law license back in the spring of 2008 when Blagojevich was still governor; I want to talk to him about that. I’ve 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.
More recently, I have subpoenaed Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson mainly because they were in Chicago in an eminent way during the years that Obama was an alleged community organizer. Jesse Jackson was running PUSH and the Rainbow Coalition, and Louis Farrakhan was eminent in forming the Million Man March, and Obama was allegedly a community organizer during a stretch of years. I want to know what their relationship was and why they did not know him until he rolled into the Senate seat in Illinois some years later. More specifically, the tenor of Chicago needs to be outlined by those two leaders.
I have also subpoenaed James Cone, who is a professor and the founder of the whole idea of Black Theology. He wrote a very explosive book in the early ’80s outlining black theology. He was the mentor of Jeremiah Wright, who was Obama’s pastor for 20 years. Jeremiah Wright has developed his theology out of James Cone’s Black Theology; all the tenets which Wright preaches are based on Cone’s philosophical, religious and cultural outline. I’ve subpoenaed him for two reasons. One is that Dr. James Cone was an eminent professor at the Union Theological Seminary, which had a very close relationship with Columbia University. During the years that Obama would have studied at Columbia, James Cone was right across the street as the most eminent black theologian in 1979-81. Everyone on the planet was talking about James Cone then. I want to ask James Cone this one question: Why is it that he and Obama never knew each other with Obama being a black person searching for his roots, and James Cone right there with everyone wanting an interview with him. Why didn’t Obama take any classes with him? The Union Theological Seminary and Columbia University were connected.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think it’s significant that they apparently never met?
DR. MANNING: I think it’s telling beyond belief that if Obama was indeed, in his own words, “searching for his roots,” if James Cone was teaching in the school Obama attended, why didn’t they know each other?
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think perhaps they met or had dealings with each other and neither one will admit it?
DR. MANNING: Well, let’s find out. If they concealed the information, why? I have a hunch that they did not; in fact, I know that they didn’t, because James Cone was my professor as well during those years. Perhaps they had lunch; I doubt it, but if they did, why did they conceal it, and if they didn’t, there is no way that Obama could have been at Columbia and not have known James Cone. And also, James Cone and Cornell West were both professors from 1979 to 1985 at Union Theological Seminary, which had a close relationship with Columbia University. Both were my professors during those years. Not only do I want to know why Obama did not know James Cone; I want to know why he didn’t know Cornell West. At the time, these two men were perhaps the two most important black men on the planet, and for Obama not to have had any contact with them, or to mention them in any of his writings or speeches, leaves a big question mark, and I want to know why. I’ve subpoenaed those four men to come to testify; now whether they come or not remains to be seen.
MRS. RONDEAU: Is there a penalty if anyone does not honor your subpoena?
DR. MANNING: The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives us the absolute, mandated right to call for a trial with a jury of we the people sanctioned by the Constitution if we discover that the courts or government officials are not executing their duties and allowing the people due process. Thusly, the Constitution empowers our courts. We, at times, will present evidence that crimes have taken place. At that point, it becomes the responsibility of the officials to arrest those who have been charged with crimes in a public and duly-authorized hearing or court. We will point out that crimes did take place. If the court is duly authorized, then the contempt of that court is also an infraction, and you can be arrested for that as well. So anyone who does not show up can be in contempt of a duly-authorized, Tenth Amendment, constitutionally-mandated court. That’s the best way to answer that.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have a mechanism to enforce it?
DR. MANNING: We will present the information to the local officials.
MRS. RONDEAU: How many people do you expect to be there, not counting media?
DR. MANNING: We have several people, more than 50, who have submitted their names to serve as jurors. I suspect that number will go well past 100 before we actually begin the process of selecting 12. We have other people also who have volunteered to participate in the trial: stenographers, artists, technicians – a large number in those areas. In terms of observers and those who will march around Columbia University, the Columbia march and the trial will happen in tandem, so we will start each day with a march around the compound of Columbia University. It will have the biblical basis of the Joshua march around the city of Jericho. We will do it by that example and then come back to the courtroom, which is only seven blocks from Columbia. The trial will start each day about 11:00, because it will take us about an hour or so to do the march around the campus.
How many people participate in total is anybody’s guess…all I know is that we’re getting a flurry of activity and information and registration of people who have stated that they are going to be here. I suspect we’re going to see thousands upon thousands…I estimated at one point 30,000…I really don’t know.
MRS. RONDEAU: When will you finish selecting the jurors?
DR. MANNING: That is a matter of whether or not Columbia and/or Obama will send defense attorneys to make an attempt to represent themselves, so it’s hard to say. A jury selection process could go for a day and a half or two days, perhaps.
MRS. RONDEAU: So people might arrive there thinking that they’re going to be on the jury, and that might not be the case.
DR. MANNING: They have to be here on the morning of the 14th and they have to register well in advance. There’s a registration login at our website where jurors can log in and register. But they will have to be here on the morning of the 14th in the courtroom in order to be a part of the jury.
MRS. RONDEAU: And then you’ll start selecting jurors just as any other grand jury would?
DR. MANNING: Yes.
MRS. RONDEAU: During the trial, do you expect that evidence will come out that specifically points to Obama being ineligible for the presidency, or is your evidence focused strictly on the Columbia University issue?
DR. MANNING: The trial, at present, is being structured by me, as a prosecutor, in three phases. Phase One will demonstrate unequivocally with proof, with documentation, with statements, with a plethora of evidence that Obama is indeed not a natural born Citizen. That would be the objective, and we will have evidence that will substantiate that at least 12 different acceptable ways. From there, we will demonstrate that since he isn’t natural born, he violates the U.S. Constitution. That’s No. 1.
The second stage of the trial will demonstrate that the alleged Columbia years were not spent at Columbia University and the issuance of the degree all over the place demonstrates that Obama did not attend Columbia in a traditional or non-traditional, satellite or correspondence course. He was not enrolled in any of those courses. We will demonstrate the type of program that Columbia had and the requirements for a political science major to complete and that Obama did not participate at that level, yet he was issued a degree. We have the documentation at Stage 2 of the trial to demonstrate that both Columbia and Obama were in a criminal conspiracy to issue and to accept, respectively, knowing that he had not completed the required courses to have done so.
MRS. RONDEAU: Was Columbia paid off?
DR. MANNING: They were certainly compensated for their efforts; “paid off” might not be the appropriate term.
The third segment will be to demonstrate that if Obama was not at Columbia for two solid years, then where was he? and why was he? which would introduce how he was first approached and why Columbia was approached, and we’re going to go through all of the evidence that Obama has presented, which is scant. Columbia has produced absolutely nothing to validate any reason to give him a degree in light of all the questions that were raised about his non-attendance there. Then we’re going to move to demonstrating the CIA involvement, the Afghanistan involvement, the Patrice Lamumba School in Moscow, how that entire area works and what Obama’s and the CIA’s roles were during those years.
MRS. RONDEAU: So you will cover a lot of ground during those 5-6 days.
DR. MANNING: Yes, we plan to do it as efficiently as we possibly can; we just wonder whether we’ll have enough time, because some of this could take 3-4 days on its own.
MRS. RONDEAU: And you have paper documentation of all of this?
DR. MANNING: Yes, we do.
MRS. RONDEAU: How many private investigators did you use?
DR. MANNING: We used only three, not including myself. With me, that makes four. One of them is a trained attorney.
MRS. RONDEAU: Are you able to announce the names of the lawyers and judge who may be presiding, prosecuting or defending during the trial?
DR. MANNING: I would not want to release that information at present.
MRS. RONDEAU: If for some reason on the 19th you have not finished presenting all of the evidence, is there a mechanism to extend the trial, or does it have to be done within those six days?
DR. MANNING: We are going to approach this matter, if the attorneys for the defense show up, using reasonable and fair procedures that both the defense and the prosecution can agree upon; that’s generally how it’s done. The defense could spend four days defending one issue that I bring up, so this trial could last for a month. If it did, then of course both parties would then have to agree to let the trial run its course. If we get into a contest between the prosecution and the defense attorneys and we recognize that even with the selecting of a jury and the presentation of the prosecution’s case, we’ve exhausted the first 5-7 days, I think it would be agreeable to both the American people and the people involved to do what every other trial does: let it run its course, and when it’s complete, it’s complete. We have put the parameters of the trial based on the march around Columbia University at seven days, but that certainly is not a hard and fast rule.
MRS. RONDEAU: At this point, do you know if Obama is aware that this is going to take place?
DR. MANNING: Well, he has been served, as has Columbia University. We have talked with the officials from New York City’s police department about it, and they are in great deliberations about it as we speak. I am absolutely confident that he is aware that the trial has been set.
MRS. RONDEAU: Has there been any response from the White House or any defense attorneys for him?
DR. MANNING: None.
MRS. RONDEAU: You may have recently read that attorneys for Rod Blagojevich, the former Illinois governor whom you mentioned a few minutes ago, have subpoenaed Obama to testify at his trial which is expected to start June 3. The Post & Email just published a story on it. Do you think that what Blagojevich contends, that Obama is vital to the case because he has different information from what has been presented, is true, and that Obama could be guilty of crimes regarding the selling of the Senate seat?
DR. MANNING: I am convinced that Blagojevich knows of Obama’s crimes, and to subpoena Obama for his trial is an act which is probably as confident as my act of bringing Obama to trial. I think Rod Blagojevich may be a bit of an odd person in many ways, but I think he knows that Obama has committed crimes and that he has the leverage to use that knowledge in the appropriate way. Why he did not use it to maintain his governor’s seat could be a matter of the federal investigation and his own crimes, but I am confident that he knows Obama has committed crimes.
I did read that Blagojevich has subpoenaed Obama, but I also read that there was a mistake in the release of seven documents that were supposed to have been sealed regarding Obama and for whatever reason were mistakenly released in the process. Actually, I don’t think they were mistakenly released; I think they were leaked. I think that’s a tactic that Obama uses quite often, leaking information. I think he’s going to do the same thing now: rather than appearing for the trial, I think he’s going to try to leak his way out of it. I’ve subpoenaed Rod Blagojevich because I know that he is absolutely integral to information about Obama, and at the appropriate time, we’ll use it. I think right now, other than Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, and Tony Rezko, too, by the way, who has been shuffled around throughout the correctional system for years and has not been sentenced — that’s unheard-of. It’s absolutely incredible that this man has not yet been sentenced, obviously because he hasn’t worked out a deal with Blagojevich and Obama. I wish I could subpoena Tony Rezko, but I’m certainly going to get Blagojevich here. I think he might come. More than anybody else, I think Blagojevich might show up.
MRS. RONDEAU: Have you heard anything from him?
DR. MANNING: Not a word.
MRS. RONDEAU: Is there any evidence that gives you the idea that he might come?
DR. MANNING: No.
MRS. RONDEAU: Regarding accommodations for those who will be coming to New York, have you made package arrangements available?
DR. MANNING: We’ve listed some hotels to give people a general sense of the area as well as travel companies such as Expedia, Priceline.com, and all those places which can help people to get into a room and get comfortable.
The week prior to the trial, we will put up a pictorial of the area and a schedule of events right down to the last detail. All of that will be made available so that when people finally do arrive in New York, they will be able to go through the pictorial and won’t be lost about anything regarding the trial or the march.
MRS. RONDEAU: What will you be doing between now and the trial?
DR. MANNING: At the present time, we are structuring the flow of information and the idea of what we want to see as jurors. Our next step within the next couple of days is to begin to reach out to the Harlem community. As you know, this is happening in Harlem. We have 2000-3000 people, at the very least, expected to march through the streets of Harlem, all coming from a conservative, Anglo-Saxon background. Therefore, we want to make sure that we have done our homework in the community, first of all, by informing the community that the people will be coming and for the businesses, the restaurants, the shops, souvenir places, to be prepared to receive this extra flow of business. We want to at least offer that as an olive branch to the community. We also are taking measures to make sure that we reach out to the community leaders so that the people who are integral to the community will recognize that this is simply a matter of justice that needs to take place. That way, there will not be any disrespect for either group that will be in the community at the time.
Because we believe that a large number of people coming will be middle-aged to elderly people, we want to make sure that because they will not be able to get into the church but will be seated outside, there will be comfortable seating for everybody, refreshments, water — we’re contacting several of the major bottling companies to get involved in the process and a number of other people who will be integral to making comfortable the days during which people will be sitting and watching the trial on a big screen. I think our major efforts over the next couple of weeks will be to get the community ready to receive this, and we want the community very much involved in the process.
MRS. RONDEAU: Would you say that most of the people in your immediate community are or were Obama supporters?
DR. MANNING: I would say that for the most part, they still are, but not at the level at which they were…the kind of energy that was generated during the campaign is not there now. People were excited because of the campaign and its potential. They’ve had a year, nearly two years now, to digest Obama’s alleged and illegal presidency, and some of that energy has dissipated, and for the most part, they would never be as excitable as they were during the campaign.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think a lot of them are disappointed in Obama, or do you think they sense that something could be wrong with his legitimacy?
DR. MANNING: I think both. I think perhaps they’re willing to sweep it under the rug, and perhaps many have said, “Well, you know, if there’s something wrong with his legitimacy, he’s not the first; think about who Bush was,” and a number of other things. But it has lessened some of his support; it is not as staunch as it was, and I don’t think it will ever be again, quite frankly.
MRS. RONDEAU: Is that true of members of your church who were avid Obama supporters?
DR. MANNING: Yes, it does. The passing of time and the fact that he has not met any of those expectations as far as the black community is concerned have caused their support to wane. I think the best way to express that is that many people, even on the very liberal far left, are disappointed with Obama. They thought that he was really going to demonstrate a change that they could sink their teeth into and be proud of. He’s disappointed them. And that’s understandable and appreciable from a political point of view that is legitimate. The black people are equally disappointed, not so much because they had a clear outline of what they thought Obama would be as a black president; I’m not sure what they expected, but they’re certainly not getting it, or anything near it, and they know it in their hearts.
MRS. RONDEAU: So people are starting to understand that he didn’t follow through on what he said he would do.
DR. MANNING: Or become what they thought he would become. People are floating statements around now that there’s not much difference between Obama and Clarence Thomas or Obama and George Bush, and that is damning! People are writing that and making valid points, that Obama is continuing the Bush doctrine. That’s unheard-of, but it’s happening!
MRS. RONDEAU: After the trial, will there be a way to get the information to every single American, particularly if they don’t have internet access?
DR. MANNING: Because the courts have prevented the evidence that I will be presenting at this trial from being presented and deliberated on, they have routinely stated that those who made claims against Obama have no standing, so therefore, the information has been muted, for the most part. The psychological effect of that is when the courts made such statements regarding that and all the attorneys: Phil Berg, Orly Taitz, and the others…people who did not understand the procedure thought the courts had ruled against the information. The courts never ruled against the validity of the information; they ruled against the opportunity to bring that information to the courts that it might become public knowledge.
Our advantage here is that we can then demonstrate that a constitutionally-mandated, Tenth Amendment court hearing has taken place, the evidence has been presented in a credible way that is irrefutable, and there is documented evidence that crimes have taken place…at that point, America is going to have to step back and ask herself a question: What should we do about this? Should we disavow the right of the people to call a court, a grand jury…by the way, grand juries are not a part of the government, but yet, certainly are mandated by the Constitution, and as such, on a matter as integral, as important, as all-encompassing as the highest office of our land, are we simply going to ignore the evidence as if it never took place? I don’t think so.
The other thing is that I am convinced that, knowing the media, they know that this is going on, because the New York City Police Department is making statements such as, “We can’t handle seven days of people marching around; we don’t have the resources to do that; we can’t shut down the streets for seven days.” Now they’re going to have to do it, but the Mayor has to make the final decision on this. So the media has been informed. I guarantee you: one of the mainstream media-types is going to break this story, because they recognize that if they don’t break it, someone’s going to break it before them…trust me, by the time the gavel falls, they’ll be all over the place.
MRS. RONDEAU: So you do think that the mainstream media, television, perhaps, will report this?
DR. MANNING: I’m confident of it; they’ll have to. You can’t have white people marching through Harlem and the media not report it. I don’t care how much they love Obama.
MRS. RONDEAU: If after the trial you find Obama guilty of something and present it to law enforcement, is there any way they can tell you that you don’t have standing?
DR. MANNING: Not unless they’re willing to disavow the Constitution. If I approached a local precinct or district attorney and said, “I am a witness to a crime; I saw this man sell drugs and then stab the person he sold the drugs to, and here’s the evidence,” if the district attorney says, “You don’t have standing, and I’m not going to act upon that,” then he is negligent in his duty and can be prosecuted himself. This trial will bring forth testimony of crimes that have taken place, and at that point, somebody has to arrest somebody.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think that will be an outcome of the trial?
DR. MANNING: If it’s not, then the failure to arrest will be a bigger issue. The matter here is that the authorities are going to have to act one way or the other. The matter cannot be kept away from the press. I have likened this to an open door with Columbia University. There is no way that this matter will not become a national and international event. We have international people coming to the trial who will be reporting about it in their nations. The only way that they can stop this information from coming out is to stop the trial. It will have to be reported and acted upon unless they want to go further and state, “Because of our complicit criminal activity, we’re going to ignore the constitutional mandate allowing people to form a trial and to bring due process to the American people.”
MRS. RONDEAU: So you think this will be the catalyst to get law enforcement to act on this?
DR. MANNING: I’m very confident that it will.
MRS. RONDEAU: Is there anything else you would like to say about the trial and everything that has led up to it?
DR. MANNING: People in government at present, whom I call collectively the “2008 political class” such as John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, the Clintons, Dr. Howard Dean – all these people know of Obama’s ineligibility. There are people now in the media, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck (whose statement in particular of “Well, if it was proven that he was ineligible, it would tear the nation apart” makes him a part of the 2008 political class along with all the others), who know that Obama is not eligible and that he is an illegal alien, and they know that he cannot defend himself against such a trial as this. The excuse passed around in board rooms and situation rooms and think tanks has been that if we expose him, it would tear the nation apart; black people in particular would rise up. And the thing I’d like to say to you, having said that, is this: that’s a misnomer; it’s a red herring. First of all, it is a very condescending, patronizing and disrespectful view of black people that their only recourse is to riot. It’s disrespectful.
While I think that a number of things have remained the same or gotten worse in America, one of the things I can say as an alleged “black” pastor is that black people are not of the mindset of the 1960s when rioting was a solution to their problems. That is not the mindset of black people anymore, and they just don’t have that energy or that understanding. They have become a little more politically savvy whereby they go to the polls, or they may march, but certainly not riot. That needs to be clear. But even were they of that mindset, I don’t think now, after having observed Obama for a year and a half, that they would be willing to put all on the line to protect someone who can be demonstrated to be guilty and who has embarrassed them, and moreover, suckered them or pimped them and then given black people a black eye because here’s this man who is allegedly the first black president but has a marred, if you will, dirty, dirty background and a dirty secret. I don’t think they would defend that with riotous behavior.
Muhammed Ali, who was, in his heyday, even more popular than Obama is at present — I mean, he was just a very popular person - when his title was taken from him, there was not one riot in the street about that. When Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, there was some setting of fires and some boisterous behavior, but even Robert Kennedy himself stated in a meeting in Indianapolis that he quelled a riot there when he made the announcement and blacks went home peacefully. So to think that to use a shotgun or to hold a shotgun to the head of the American people to say, “Let this man continue in office, albeit illegally; it is the better of the two evils” is a farce. It is absolutely the worst possible thing for America and for black people, in particular. Let justice be done and let America rise up and accept justice, and America will heal itself. So I think that people using the argument that exposing Obama destroys America is absolutely criminal and the worst kind of condescension toward black people.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think that’s what McCain and the others have been doing? Is that their justification for not stepping forward and saying, “This man is not an Article II, Section I-eligible person?”
DR. MANNING: Absolutely.
MRS. RONDEAU: The Post & Email very much appreciates your time, Dr. Manning, and we wish you the very best between now and the trial.
DR. MANNING: God bless you.
Tags: Article II, Bill O'Reilly, Clarence Thomas, Columbia University, Condoleezza Rice, Cornell West, Dr. Howard Dean, Dr. James David Manning, George Bush, George Stephanopoulos, Glenn Beck, Harlem, James Cone, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, John McCain, Louis Farrakhan, Madelyn Dunham, Michael Sovern, Mike Huckabee, Muhammed Ali, natural born citizen, New York City Police Department, Obama, Obama's eligibility, Orly Taitz, Patrice Lamumba University, Phil Berg, Rod Blagojevich, Sarah Palin, Section 1, Tenth Amendment, Tony Rezko, U.S. Constitution, Union Theological Seminary, Zbigniew Brzezinski